Monday, August 15, 2005
And life goes on...
I just can't neglect this blog, even though I've got positive feedback that I'm now posting on the more-conveniently-accessed-for-some xanga site. I'm eager to eventually get to 100 posts and have a big celebration. So if you want please let me know if you are still reading this site. If not, I'll move my operations mostly to xanga with the occasional post here when I feel like writing as if I was writing in a private journal with all the juicy sexy details omitted in case I run for political office and the oppositions googles my name and finds this.
Anyway, I wonder if people other than political junkies have heard of Cindy Sheehan. She is the mother of one of the 1800+ soldiers (some of them my age or younger) who were killed in Iraq. While our Commander-in-Chief is taking one of the longest presidential vacations in U.S. history in a time of war, Ms. Sheehan is camping out on the street leading up to Bush's Crawford ranch, hoping to meet face-to-face with President Bush and ask him basically "What was the noble cause my son died for in Iraq?" Some anti-war activists and others are joining her and it is quite a poignant demonstration.
Lots of commentary on the blogs of course, and what is surprising is how respectful both sides whether pro-war and anti-war, liberal and conservative, are at least respecting both Ms. Sheehan's grief and her right to a political opinion that is strengthened and sharpened by that grief. The policy of the Iraq war can still be debated with passion, but at least pro-war types haven't sunken so low as to attack Ms. Sheehan's humanity, to attack her as a person, and bring up all sorts of details about her personal life to some how delegitimize her and her important question. Kudos for them...
I'm kidding of course! Ms. Sheehan's fair game because her personal story is making Bush look bad! I actually would argue that Bush is making Bush look bad in this particularly situation. Here's how he responded at his ranch when asked about the pesky grieving mother"
"But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job," Bush said on the ranch. "And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say."
"But," he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."
Mr. Sensitivity right there. Mr. Bush, can't you just freakin' talk to her in private? But nothing puts a bummer on a vacation as being reminded of the job your neglecting. I've been there but I didn't make decisions on my job that resulted in death and destruction.
Anyway, who other than John from Powerline to sink to another low. I've quoted him 3 times in a row, and I think I now why. There's nothing entirely bad about being a complete party-line hack, but there are a few that are just jerks about it, and toss out extreme accusations like they don't mean anything. Anyway in a post titled "Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism: An Old Brew In a New Bottle" he cites other ultra right-wing research websites to smear Sheehan and then concludes:
Cindy Sheehan: is she a poor, benighted woman unhinged and rendered irrational by grief, or is she a calculating, vicious anti-Semite and anti-American like the extremists with whom she associates? I don't know, and I'm not sure there is any way to know. But either way, is there any reason why she should be glorified by virtually every American media outlet?
He does like nuance doesn't he? Dear readers, which characterization would you choose? You've only got two choices. Evidence for her vicious anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism? Well if you read the post she mentioned how Americans have slaughtered people in this country and she says that Palestinians are being slaughtered by Isrealis. I don't like the inflammed rhetoric on both sides on the Palestinian Israeli conflict because it simplifies an issue way too much and dismissing a spiritual relgious connection Jews and others have to that area. But her statements are no more than what a good portion of die-hard liberals say regarding their view of the world and American history. Does that make her vicious? And more importantly, does that make her demonstration on behalf of her dead son less important? Can she dismissed as a hippie anti-war freak when she has suffered so much? A lot of conservative bloggers when attacking Sheehan graciously added a clause that she has suffered a devasting loss. Some, like Powerline are done with that wussy game and are no longer offering any condolences, just depraved smears. Again, she's not attacked as a symbol of the anti-war movement, she's attacked as a person.
And it gets worse. Another one of the most popular conservative blogs is Michelle Malkin. She has just been terrible during this whole thing and there's too much to document. She recently put some sort of divorce-related papers of Cindy Sheehan up on her website. Why? Apparently to show that some of her family isn't behind her, thereby demonstrating that she shouldn't be taken seriously. I found the link to her post at a very enlightening post at This Modern World, especially to conservatives and Bushists who might be astounded that I can't respect their wholly consistent worldview.
You can read it or not. But remember smearing someone personally is not good if your a Democrat, OK if your Republican. Speaking for someone other than yourself to make a political point is BAD is you are a Democrat, OK if your Republican. And digging hard and long for personal details to prevent the perfect President from looking bad, OK if your Republican, very very bad and inexusable if you're a Democrat.
Grieving mothers who lose their sons in armed conflict are entitiled to their political views and any way they wish to express them, that is if you identify yourself as a COMPASSIONATE HUMAN BEING. Let's all agree on that, and move on to making fun of the verbal slipups of Dubbya. Of course I guess to some he speaks very eloquently, but you get my drift.
Things are going to get busy, with classes and two jobs starting next week. So enjoy the long rants while they last.
Anyway, I wonder if people other than political junkies have heard of Cindy Sheehan. She is the mother of one of the 1800+ soldiers (some of them my age or younger) who were killed in Iraq. While our Commander-in-Chief is taking one of the longest presidential vacations in U.S. history in a time of war, Ms. Sheehan is camping out on the street leading up to Bush's Crawford ranch, hoping to meet face-to-face with President Bush and ask him basically "What was the noble cause my son died for in Iraq?" Some anti-war activists and others are joining her and it is quite a poignant demonstration.
Lots of commentary on the blogs of course, and what is surprising is how respectful both sides whether pro-war and anti-war, liberal and conservative, are at least respecting both Ms. Sheehan's grief and her right to a political opinion that is strengthened and sharpened by that grief. The policy of the Iraq war can still be debated with passion, but at least pro-war types haven't sunken so low as to attack Ms. Sheehan's humanity, to attack her as a person, and bring up all sorts of details about her personal life to some how delegitimize her and her important question. Kudos for them...
I'm kidding of course! Ms. Sheehan's fair game because her personal story is making Bush look bad! I actually would argue that Bush is making Bush look bad in this particularly situation. Here's how he responded at his ranch when asked about the pesky grieving mother"
"But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job," Bush said on the ranch. "And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say."
"But," he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."
Mr. Sensitivity right there. Mr. Bush, can't you just freakin' talk to her in private? But nothing puts a bummer on a vacation as being reminded of the job your neglecting. I've been there but I didn't make decisions on my job that resulted in death and destruction.
Anyway, who other than John from Powerline to sink to another low. I've quoted him 3 times in a row, and I think I now why. There's nothing entirely bad about being a complete party-line hack, but there are a few that are just jerks about it, and toss out extreme accusations like they don't mean anything. Anyway in a post titled "Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism: An Old Brew In a New Bottle" he cites other ultra right-wing research websites to smear Sheehan and then concludes:
Cindy Sheehan: is she a poor, benighted woman unhinged and rendered irrational by grief, or is she a calculating, vicious anti-Semite and anti-American like the extremists with whom she associates? I don't know, and I'm not sure there is any way to know. But either way, is there any reason why she should be glorified by virtually every American media outlet?
He does like nuance doesn't he? Dear readers, which characterization would you choose? You've only got two choices. Evidence for her vicious anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism? Well if you read the post she mentioned how Americans have slaughtered people in this country and she says that Palestinians are being slaughtered by Isrealis. I don't like the inflammed rhetoric on both sides on the Palestinian Israeli conflict because it simplifies an issue way too much and dismissing a spiritual relgious connection Jews and others have to that area. But her statements are no more than what a good portion of die-hard liberals say regarding their view of the world and American history. Does that make her vicious? And more importantly, does that make her demonstration on behalf of her dead son less important? Can she dismissed as a hippie anti-war freak when she has suffered so much? A lot of conservative bloggers when attacking Sheehan graciously added a clause that she has suffered a devasting loss. Some, like Powerline are done with that wussy game and are no longer offering any condolences, just depraved smears. Again, she's not attacked as a symbol of the anti-war movement, she's attacked as a person.
And it gets worse. Another one of the most popular conservative blogs is Michelle Malkin. She has just been terrible during this whole thing and there's too much to document. She recently put some sort of divorce-related papers of Cindy Sheehan up on her website. Why? Apparently to show that some of her family isn't behind her, thereby demonstrating that she shouldn't be taken seriously. I found the link to her post at a very enlightening post at This Modern World, especially to conservatives and Bushists who might be astounded that I can't respect their wholly consistent worldview.
You can read it or not. But remember smearing someone personally is not good if your a Democrat, OK if your Republican. Speaking for someone other than yourself to make a political point is BAD is you are a Democrat, OK if your Republican. And digging hard and long for personal details to prevent the perfect President from looking bad, OK if your Republican, very very bad and inexusable if you're a Democrat.
Grieving mothers who lose their sons in armed conflict are entitiled to their political views and any way they wish to express them, that is if you identify yourself as a COMPASSIONATE HUMAN BEING. Let's all agree on that, and move on to making fun of the verbal slipups of Dubbya. Of course I guess to some he speaks very eloquently, but you get my drift.
Things are going to get busy, with classes and two jobs starting next week. So enjoy the long rants while they last.
Comments:
<< Home
First of all, callieischatty, is this just a random visit or do you know someone that knows me?
Thanks for your brief comment because it won't take long to address.
She is not the best the left can do, she's the anti-war element that the media is happening to pay attention to at this moment. The media did not seem to pay attention to any legitimate voices arguing intelligently for a different plan for Iraq than the one Bush conducted, both before and after the war started. Sheehan's case is prominent now because 1) her story is a personal one that can't be abstracting by a newsticker style deathcount on the nightly news and 2) all these reporters hanging out in Crawford while the President has his vacation have nothing else to report on.
I don't know if you are just dropping in (I know there's a random blog thing you can do) but if you are around, what is so damaging to the left by this woman speaking out? Are people with inconvenient political views not allowed to publicly grieve. "The left" doesn't own her tragedy. I could care less about all the protestors attaching herself to her cause. Should everyone be silent about this? What's a more effective way to bring the costs of war home to the ignorant? Have a few hundred thousand of us protest in the streets? That did a lot of good.
I don't want to attach any symbolic meaning beyond Sheehan's public protest of her personal trajedy. She has a right to do what she is doing and she doesn't damage any cause of the left unless you believe the right-wing hack spin.
Thanks for saying hi on my humble blog.
Thanks for your brief comment because it won't take long to address.
She is not the best the left can do, she's the anti-war element that the media is happening to pay attention to at this moment. The media did not seem to pay attention to any legitimate voices arguing intelligently for a different plan for Iraq than the one Bush conducted, both before and after the war started. Sheehan's case is prominent now because 1) her story is a personal one that can't be abstracting by a newsticker style deathcount on the nightly news and 2) all these reporters hanging out in Crawford while the President has his vacation have nothing else to report on.
I don't know if you are just dropping in (I know there's a random blog thing you can do) but if you are around, what is so damaging to the left by this woman speaking out? Are people with inconvenient political views not allowed to publicly grieve. "The left" doesn't own her tragedy. I could care less about all the protestors attaching herself to her cause. Should everyone be silent about this? What's a more effective way to bring the costs of war home to the ignorant? Have a few hundred thousand of us protest in the streets? That did a lot of good.
I don't want to attach any symbolic meaning beyond Sheehan's public protest of her personal trajedy. She has a right to do what she is doing and she doesn't damage any cause of the left unless you believe the right-wing hack spin.
Thanks for saying hi on my humble blog.
We're still here, Jonah.
1)I think the main reason the media covered the pre-war planning of the Bushites so exclusively is that theirs was the only plan that had any chance of being implemented. I think the media was realistic, knowing that Bush had the decision and had the approval of congress.
The Democrats had the chance to give their opinion when Congress authorized the president to go to war. For one-sided coverage of planning, I blame the Democrats for being an ineffective opposition rather than the media.
2) President Bush did meet with Sheehan soon after she lost her son, over a year ago. After that meeting I believe she told the media that she was satisfied. Now, she is clearly over her mourning period. She's calling the president a murderer and all sorts of inflammatory things. She is calling for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, something that simply will not be done. I don't see what Bush would gain by meeting with her again. A private meeting would allow Sheehan to say anything she wanted about the encounter. A public meeting would be nothing but fruitless bickering between two people who are inflexible.
3) What we really need to focus on are the problems in Iraq. We cannot simply withdraw or it will lead to civil war and decades of suffering.. We cannot continue the way things are or it will lead to civil war and decades of suffering. We need a new solution, an Iraqi solution. Instead of fighting about whether to stay or not, we should focus on supporting the Iraqis in the best way possible. That may mean building more power lines and sewage systems...Jonah, I think they need your guidance.
1)I think the main reason the media covered the pre-war planning of the Bushites so exclusively is that theirs was the only plan that had any chance of being implemented. I think the media was realistic, knowing that Bush had the decision and had the approval of congress.
The Democrats had the chance to give their opinion when Congress authorized the president to go to war. For one-sided coverage of planning, I blame the Democrats for being an ineffective opposition rather than the media.
2) President Bush did meet with Sheehan soon after she lost her son, over a year ago. After that meeting I believe she told the media that she was satisfied. Now, she is clearly over her mourning period. She's calling the president a murderer and all sorts of inflammatory things. She is calling for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, something that simply will not be done. I don't see what Bush would gain by meeting with her again. A private meeting would allow Sheehan to say anything she wanted about the encounter. A public meeting would be nothing but fruitless bickering between two people who are inflexible.
3) What we really need to focus on are the problems in Iraq. We cannot simply withdraw or it will lead to civil war and decades of suffering.. We cannot continue the way things are or it will lead to civil war and decades of suffering. We need a new solution, an Iraqi solution. Instead of fighting about whether to stay or not, we should focus on supporting the Iraqis in the best way possible. That may mean building more power lines and sewage systems...Jonah, I think they need your guidance.
# posted by 
: 7:51 AM
: 7:51 AM
I think you are misunderstanding me in a lot of ways Mark and you are repeating some dehumanizing right-wing spin points which is dissapointing.
First of all, there were voices against the war before it started. They were ignored by the media. I believe when the war just began, the media and Democrats were willing to trust Bush that if at least he is going to go to a war by choice, it will be planned and executed with a long-term role in Iraq in mind. None of the people making any of the major decisions on this war served in the arms services, so they could concoct any fantasy they wanted about how best to fight the Iraq war on a tight budget without knowing first hand what it takes to occupy a country. The Democrats were an ineffective opposition, yes, but that doesn't mean that the media was fair because they were only reporting the ideas that were brought forward. Democrats and liberals put forward a lot of ideas on how to address all sorts of domestic and foreign policy issues. They were also a lot of prominent people advocating to not go to Iraq, as well as some that wanted to finish the job in Afghanistan before moving on to other countries if necessary. Thanks to right-wing slanted media these views are marginalized or ignored.
Second, consider Cindy Sheehan as a person for a moment and not an anti-war symbol. From the account I have heard of Bush's first meeting with her (2-3 months after her son died) he was extremely insensitive, didn't refer to Casey, her son, by name, and called Ms. Sheehan "Mom". Now imagine you are Ms. Sheehan and a reporter asks you about that encounter while you are still grieving. I think at the time she was a generally nice person and didn't want to badmouth the leader of the free world. You are selectively interpreting articles about Ms. Sheehan's first encounter with Bush that have been propped up by right-wing media outlets to demonstrate Sheehan's change of heart. The thing is since a year and half ago, a lot evidence has been revealed that indicate to everyone that isn't a warmonger that this war was not conducted to take care of a grave threat to our national security, but was in fact planned before Afghanistan and before 9/11. I am ignoring all the usual protestors around Ms. Sheehan and being critical on the way she's being treated just for having an anti-Bush opinion, regardless of her sacrifice. Some family members of fallen soldiers are still Bush supporters, that's fine to. But Sheehan represents a larger chunk of the country that want answers from the administration on the way they decided and conducted this war.
Third, I don't know how this protest takes the focus off the problems of Iraq. In fact, I think if more people are aware of teh real costs of this war, they are likely to hopefully elect people who will tackle this problem as one of intelligent foreign policy rather than PR to cover up a Republican administration's mistakes. It is not a matter of whether to stay or not (I personally though would like no more people to be killed), it is about holding people accountable for the decisions they make.
Anyway, my brain is mush from work so my arguments might be weaker than expected. thanks for saying hello
First of all, there were voices against the war before it started. They were ignored by the media. I believe when the war just began, the media and Democrats were willing to trust Bush that if at least he is going to go to a war by choice, it will be planned and executed with a long-term role in Iraq in mind. None of the people making any of the major decisions on this war served in the arms services, so they could concoct any fantasy they wanted about how best to fight the Iraq war on a tight budget without knowing first hand what it takes to occupy a country. The Democrats were an ineffective opposition, yes, but that doesn't mean that the media was fair because they were only reporting the ideas that were brought forward. Democrats and liberals put forward a lot of ideas on how to address all sorts of domestic and foreign policy issues. They were also a lot of prominent people advocating to not go to Iraq, as well as some that wanted to finish the job in Afghanistan before moving on to other countries if necessary. Thanks to right-wing slanted media these views are marginalized or ignored.
Second, consider Cindy Sheehan as a person for a moment and not an anti-war symbol. From the account I have heard of Bush's first meeting with her (2-3 months after her son died) he was extremely insensitive, didn't refer to Casey, her son, by name, and called Ms. Sheehan "Mom". Now imagine you are Ms. Sheehan and a reporter asks you about that encounter while you are still grieving. I think at the time she was a generally nice person and didn't want to badmouth the leader of the free world. You are selectively interpreting articles about Ms. Sheehan's first encounter with Bush that have been propped up by right-wing media outlets to demonstrate Sheehan's change of heart. The thing is since a year and half ago, a lot evidence has been revealed that indicate to everyone that isn't a warmonger that this war was not conducted to take care of a grave threat to our national security, but was in fact planned before Afghanistan and before 9/11. I am ignoring all the usual protestors around Ms. Sheehan and being critical on the way she's being treated just for having an anti-Bush opinion, regardless of her sacrifice. Some family members of fallen soldiers are still Bush supporters, that's fine to. But Sheehan represents a larger chunk of the country that want answers from the administration on the way they decided and conducted this war.
Third, I don't know how this protest takes the focus off the problems of Iraq. In fact, I think if more people are aware of teh real costs of this war, they are likely to hopefully elect people who will tackle this problem as one of intelligent foreign policy rather than PR to cover up a Republican administration's mistakes. It is not a matter of whether to stay or not (I personally though would like no more people to be killed), it is about holding people accountable for the decisions they make.
Anyway, my brain is mush from work so my arguments might be weaker than expected. thanks for saying hello
Sorry, Jonah, you are incorrect when you say anti-war voices were ignored prior to the war. There was extensive coverage of those opposed to the war, including round-the-world anti-war protests. I remember this quite vividly, your supposition is flatly incorrect.
You may be right about the media being unfair, though. But when was it not? The New York Times has apologized for it's pre-war coverage--but when will it apologize for its post-war coverage?
You're also incorrect that no major decision makers of the Iraq war were in the military. George W. Bush served a comparable amount of time in the national guard as did Abraham Lincoln in the Illinois militia (a president, who, as you may recall, was also roundly criticized in his time for being over his head in military matters). Not to mention Colin Powell, or Richard Meyer and other members of the military, who, by definition, were members of the military.
When you say "none of the people", I assume you mean Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. But it takes more than three people to plan a war, and it takes more than three major decision makers, at that.
Ah, the planning. Here's the problem that everyone seems to be overlooking: The structure of the military is changing. The armed forces is quite a bit smaller than it used to be. During the Reagan years, the US could deploy 16 aircraft carriers. It now has only four available. The numbers to employ "overwhelming force" would have the opposite effect that you would intend. It would exhaust our military much more quickly, and make staying in Iraq long term next to impossible.
Rumsfeld is quite mindful of post-cold war realities, and the fact is, we have to fight wars with a smaller force than we used to. The war wasn't just planned with a magic eight ball.
As for the "right-wing slanted media", physician, heal thyself. As a blogger, you are now part of the media, particularly the right-wing slanted part. While you've offered vague assertions about "prominent" people who were against the war, you have given us specific condemnations of George Bush, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, etc. You say that Cindy Sheehan is not the best that liberals have to offer, so why not tell us about these mystical people, instead of going on about the mediocre Sheehan, or Powerline's apparent moral transgressions? (which, if you're so inclined to avoid future hypocrisies, you might want to check Kos for mirror transgressions, I could probably find a Kos parry for every powerline thrust, if I wanted to expend the energy). Personally, I don't think they exist, and you're not putting too much pressure on me to modify my outlook. All I can see here is evil Republicans, and mediocre liberals who have no plan. At least Bush has a plan...
And that's good enough for 3 points. 3 points being the margin for which the American public will choose the White Whale over Captain Ahab.
And that's the point. Liberals are supposed to be soppy-eyed, bleeding-heart idealists who always have hope in their soul and a glimmer in their eyes. Now they just have a chip on their shoulder and a snarky comment, and this is an untenable position for a liberal to be in. The people who held this position quite effectively were conservatives--Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, you get the drift.
And that's why Republicans like me love George Bush so much. He turned the half of the country that loathed Dick Nixon INTO Dick Nixon. And the only way ANYONE would vote for Richard Nixon would be if he was on the republican ticket. And that will be good enough for three points for the forseeable future.
So keep being angry! Keep being bitter! I can assure you the nation will be better off for it. But to make clear that I'm not a mean-spirited fellow, if I see anyone call you "Newtie", I'll cold cock them for you.
Looking forward to the next rant. Onward and Upward!
Lyon
You may be right about the media being unfair, though. But when was it not? The New York Times has apologized for it's pre-war coverage--but when will it apologize for its post-war coverage?
You're also incorrect that no major decision makers of the Iraq war were in the military. George W. Bush served a comparable amount of time in the national guard as did Abraham Lincoln in the Illinois militia (a president, who, as you may recall, was also roundly criticized in his time for being over his head in military matters). Not to mention Colin Powell, or Richard Meyer and other members of the military, who, by definition, were members of the military.
When you say "none of the people", I assume you mean Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. But it takes more than three people to plan a war, and it takes more than three major decision makers, at that.
Ah, the planning. Here's the problem that everyone seems to be overlooking: The structure of the military is changing. The armed forces is quite a bit smaller than it used to be. During the Reagan years, the US could deploy 16 aircraft carriers. It now has only four available. The numbers to employ "overwhelming force" would have the opposite effect that you would intend. It would exhaust our military much more quickly, and make staying in Iraq long term next to impossible.
Rumsfeld is quite mindful of post-cold war realities, and the fact is, we have to fight wars with a smaller force than we used to. The war wasn't just planned with a magic eight ball.
As for the "right-wing slanted media", physician, heal thyself. As a blogger, you are now part of the media, particularly the right-wing slanted part. While you've offered vague assertions about "prominent" people who were against the war, you have given us specific condemnations of George Bush, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, etc. You say that Cindy Sheehan is not the best that liberals have to offer, so why not tell us about these mystical people, instead of going on about the mediocre Sheehan, or Powerline's apparent moral transgressions? (which, if you're so inclined to avoid future hypocrisies, you might want to check Kos for mirror transgressions, I could probably find a Kos parry for every powerline thrust, if I wanted to expend the energy). Personally, I don't think they exist, and you're not putting too much pressure on me to modify my outlook. All I can see here is evil Republicans, and mediocre liberals who have no plan. At least Bush has a plan...
And that's good enough for 3 points. 3 points being the margin for which the American public will choose the White Whale over Captain Ahab.
And that's the point. Liberals are supposed to be soppy-eyed, bleeding-heart idealists who always have hope in their soul and a glimmer in their eyes. Now they just have a chip on their shoulder and a snarky comment, and this is an untenable position for a liberal to be in. The people who held this position quite effectively were conservatives--Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, you get the drift.
And that's why Republicans like me love George Bush so much. He turned the half of the country that loathed Dick Nixon INTO Dick Nixon. And the only way ANYONE would vote for Richard Nixon would be if he was on the republican ticket. And that will be good enough for three points for the forseeable future.
So keep being angry! Keep being bitter! I can assure you the nation will be better off for it. But to make clear that I'm not a mean-spirited fellow, if I see anyone call you "Newtie", I'll cold cock them for you.
Looking forward to the next rant. Onward and Upward!
Lyon
Mark, I agree with you completely, though for different reasons. So I'm not sure if that would be comforting.
Amy, if you've ever seen Prime Minister John Howard in spurs, you know Bush usually works at Crawford. He doesn't meet with Sheehan because it would produce no positive result for either of them. The only good thing that comes from this is making Bush look like he doesn't care, is stupid, etc., the usual propaganda. And that's only if you're Sheehan. At least they both seem to know how the game is played. Bush cuts his losses, Sheehan cuts across the unbeaten path and heads for more trodden territory--that of the Crawford Ranch
Callie,
Haha! I don't know where you came from, but please come again! I visited your blog and enjoyed your straightforward approach.
Jonah, we seem to agree on one thing. Why is the media covering this? Why are powerline and Michelle Malkin, CNN and MSNBC taking the time off of the news? This isn't news at all. Remember the end of the detestable Bowling for Columbine? The Cindy Sheehan approach has been done to death, a dead horse being rebeaten, more specifically, and I'm bored of the whole thing. Back to the news...
Amy, if you've ever seen Prime Minister John Howard in spurs, you know Bush usually works at Crawford. He doesn't meet with Sheehan because it would produce no positive result for either of them. The only good thing that comes from this is making Bush look like he doesn't care, is stupid, etc., the usual propaganda. And that's only if you're Sheehan. At least they both seem to know how the game is played. Bush cuts his losses, Sheehan cuts across the unbeaten path and heads for more trodden territory--that of the Crawford Ranch
Callie,
Haha! I don't know where you came from, but please come again! I visited your blog and enjoyed your straightforward approach.
Jonah, we seem to agree on one thing. Why is the media covering this? Why are powerline and Michelle Malkin, CNN and MSNBC taking the time off of the news? This isn't news at all. Remember the end of the detestable Bowling for Columbine? The Cindy Sheehan approach has been done to death, a dead horse being rebeaten, more specifically, and I'm bored of the whole thing. Back to the news...
Sorry, Jonah, you are incorrect when you say anti-war voices were ignored prior to the war. There was extensive coverage of those opposed to the war, including round-the-world anti-war protests.
Right they displayed footage of anti-war protests. Those are ignored by a bunch of people, just like putting footage of whatever Africans are starving to death this week will provoke the news consumer in equal or less terms than what J-Lo's wedding was like.
I remember this quite vividly, your supposition is flatly incorrect.
There were no individual voices, media spokespeople if you will, who were brought out to point out the obvious: picking Iraq as a military target at this time is absurd and the evidence provided to warrant the United States to invade another country is weak. I viscerally felt this war was wrong the moment I heard for the very first time that Bush was planning this thing (July 2002, during my internship in D.C., on the steps of the Supreme Court building, how's that for dramatic?)
You may be right about the media being unfair, though. But when was it not? The New York Times has apologized for it's pre-war coverage--but when will it apologize for its post-war coverage?You're also incorrect that no major decision makers of the Iraq war were in the military. George W. Bush served a comparable amount of time in the national guard as did Abraham Lincoln in the Illinois militia (a president, who, as you may recall, was also roundly criticized in his time for being over his head in military matters). Not to mention Colin Powell, or Richard Meyer and other members of the military, who, by definition, were members of the military. When you say "none of the people", I assume you mean Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
All of the prominent war planners with military combat experience, meaning you almost die and have your comrades die near you, and leave far from home where your families anxiously wait for you, were berated and their authority usurped by Bush and the "chickenhawks" (lovely liberal term that is).
But it takes more than three people to plan a war, and it takes more than three major decision makers, at that. Ah, the planning.
Yes, the calm and thoughtful negotiations among the administration that can humbly keep their egos in check and listen to those lower-ranking that them for advice. The head decision-makers did not know what it takes to be in combat so they could not feel the consequences of sending soliders into combat for their pie-in-the-sky dreams. Same with Clinton too, and he was attacked by the same Republicans for it even though very few soldiers were killed in his administration's military adventures. I'm sure the bad planning of this war is not the fault of the people who decided a war like this was possible and pushed so hard for it, but the opposition and liberal critics, who have no power in this government whatsoever. And where is the billions of dollars in taxpayer money that is unaccounted for that was supposed to keep our troops from getting killled? Haven't heard about that huh??? Must be that detestable post-Iraq war coverage that you talk so much about.
Here's the problem that everyone seems to be overlooking: The structure of the military is changing. The armed forces is quite a bit smaller than it used to be. During the Reagan years, the US could deploy 16 aircraft carriers. It now has only four available. The numbers to employ "overwhelming force" would have the opposite effect that you would intend. It would exhaust our military much more quickly, and make staying in Iraq long term next to impossible. Rumsfeld is quite mindful of post-cold war realities, and the fact is, we have to fight wars with a smaller force than we used to. The war wasn't just planned with a magic eight ball.
Did I advocate for overwhelming force? Where is this coming from? And what do you consider staying in Iraq for the long term? I'd like a measuring stick of how long we can expect the same National Guard troops to be rotated in and out before they all move to Canada. How long can we pay for this, too, if we are going to keep cutting taxes? All these statements about the changing military seem to imply that we should be careful about the military decisions we make, only commit troops and treasure if it is our vital national security interests, and by all means, not engage in nation-building!
As for the "right-wing slanted media", physician, heal thyself. As a blogger, you are now part of the media, particularly the right-wing slanted part. While you've offered vague assertions about "prominent" people who were against the war, you have given us specific condemnations of George Bush, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, etc.
Once again I open a can of worms just by berating a few annoying bloggers and Presidents. It's hard to debate policy and I'm trying to avoid saying THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS WRONG, but I guess I can't skirt around it. It's much easier and more satisfying to react to idiotic and mean statements by adults who should know better.
You say that Cindy Sheehan is not the best that liberals have to offer, so why not tell us about these mystical people, instead of going on about the mediocre Sheehan, or Powerline's apparent moral transgressions?
You're kidding right? Mystical people!?! It is very upsetting that you are ignorant about the wide range of voices that were against this war in Iraq (not so much for Afghanistan, even less for Gulf War No. 1) How about people that served in former Republican administrations? Go out and rent Fog of War, and listen to Robert McNamara, the ARCHITECT of the Vietnam War, reflect on this current struggle. How about lifetime Republican voter Richard Perle, and please don't dismiss the bone he has to pick with President Bush for firing him as an excuse to dismiss his views based on experience. There are more, many more, and believe me if this next constitutional milestone doesn't lead to our troops coming home there are going to be a lot more voices against this war that can't be dismissed as all Cindy Sheehan types.
(which, if you're so inclined to avoid future hypocrisies, you might want to check Kos for mirror transgressions, I could probably find a Kos parry for every powerline thrust, if I wanted to expend the energy).
Great, equivalency. Blog talk is overblown, that's part of it's fun. But knowing from personal experience how easy it is to dish it out in this anonymous cyberworld, I try to make sure that the statements from the Powerline jerk are not rhetoric but motivated by a value-system or party-line philosophy that I find disgusting. John Hindrocket from Powerline is the only one of the bunch who has really indicated worthy to me of my humble scorn. But I know of a few Daily Kos things that at least conservatives spin as going to far. He does use the F word, and calls noble patriot Karl Rove a traitor, which by some kooky reasoning based on law he actually is in my view. John from Powerline called former President Jimmy Carter a traitor for not being prowar, so I gues it's the same thing.
Personally, I don't think they exist, and you're not putting too much pressure on me to modify my outlook. All I can see here is evil Republicans, and mediocre liberals who have no plan.
I can't stand this "have no plan" crap. How about 1) our plan was to not get into this war in the first place or 2) we trusted you Mr. President and you and your colleagues screwed this up, take this seriously or we'll make the case to the electorate that we can. And I don't get your statement, "so Republicans are evil"? or are you mocking both the evil characterization and the liberals who have no plan characterization? I'll take one for the other I guess.
At least Bush has a plan...And that's good enough for 3 points. 3 points being the margin for which the American public will choose the White Whale over Captain Ahab. And that's the point. Liberals are supposed to be soppy-eyed, bleeding-heart idealists who always have hope in their soul and a glimmer in their eyes. Now they just have a chip on their shoulder and a snarky comment, and this is an untenable position for a liberal to be in. The people who held this position quite effectively were conservatives--Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, you get the drift. And that's why Republicans like me love George Bush so much. He turned the half of the country that loathed Dick Nixon INTO Dick Nixon. And the only way ANYONE would vote for Richard Nixon would be if he was on the republican ticket. And that will be good enough for three points for the forseeable future. So keep being angry! Keep being bitter! I can assure you the nation will be better off for it. But to make clear that I'm not a mean-spirited fellow, if I see anyone call you "Newtie", I'll cold cock them for you. Looking forward to the next rant. Onward and Upward!Lyon
Two words: WHAT PLAN? "Freedom" "Democracy" "Bring em' on!" If Bush could bring a sane person to speak for his war policy, I'd love it. But that would require 1) not being in the spotlight and provoking attacks on us and 2) levelling with the American people about the struggle we're going to be in and how it might be nice to sacrifice something in the form of signing up for duty or at least paying more taxes so our soldiers can have body and car armor. And then you get a little crazy with your metaphors and aggrandizing, so I don't know what to address. I know living in Vermont surrounded by liberals really helps you feel like you are fighting against an overwhelming tide, but having a President who turns half the country against him and barely won the first time isn't something I would revel in. I was just remembering how Bush was an incumbent President a year ago, yet you didn't see any ads about the wonderful things he accomplished in his first term, just attacks after attacks taking a Kerry quote out of context. You can be happy as a sports fan would that your team won last November, but don't think for a second that validates every reason the 50.4% of this country that voted for Bush, and the sentiments of the rest in Purple, Blue, and Red states who didn't for him don't matter. A President that supposedly turns me and others into simple-minded partisan lunatics, especially not a completely liberal one like me, is not someone to be entirely proud of unless you think it's productive to fan the flames of political hate in very troubling times for our country.
And so that's my two cents. This is exhausting. Can't I just call Powerline a jerk without repercussion?
Right they displayed footage of anti-war protests. Those are ignored by a bunch of people, just like putting footage of whatever Africans are starving to death this week will provoke the news consumer in equal or less terms than what J-Lo's wedding was like.
I remember this quite vividly, your supposition is flatly incorrect.
There were no individual voices, media spokespeople if you will, who were brought out to point out the obvious: picking Iraq as a military target at this time is absurd and the evidence provided to warrant the United States to invade another country is weak. I viscerally felt this war was wrong the moment I heard for the very first time that Bush was planning this thing (July 2002, during my internship in D.C., on the steps of the Supreme Court building, how's that for dramatic?)
You may be right about the media being unfair, though. But when was it not? The New York Times has apologized for it's pre-war coverage--but when will it apologize for its post-war coverage?You're also incorrect that no major decision makers of the Iraq war were in the military. George W. Bush served a comparable amount of time in the national guard as did Abraham Lincoln in the Illinois militia (a president, who, as you may recall, was also roundly criticized in his time for being over his head in military matters). Not to mention Colin Powell, or Richard Meyer and other members of the military, who, by definition, were members of the military. When you say "none of the people", I assume you mean Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
All of the prominent war planners with military combat experience, meaning you almost die and have your comrades die near you, and leave far from home where your families anxiously wait for you, were berated and their authority usurped by Bush and the "chickenhawks" (lovely liberal term that is).
But it takes more than three people to plan a war, and it takes more than three major decision makers, at that. Ah, the planning.
Yes, the calm and thoughtful negotiations among the administration that can humbly keep their egos in check and listen to those lower-ranking that them for advice. The head decision-makers did not know what it takes to be in combat so they could not feel the consequences of sending soliders into combat for their pie-in-the-sky dreams. Same with Clinton too, and he was attacked by the same Republicans for it even though very few soldiers were killed in his administration's military adventures. I'm sure the bad planning of this war is not the fault of the people who decided a war like this was possible and pushed so hard for it, but the opposition and liberal critics, who have no power in this government whatsoever. And where is the billions of dollars in taxpayer money that is unaccounted for that was supposed to keep our troops from getting killled? Haven't heard about that huh??? Must be that detestable post-Iraq war coverage that you talk so much about.
Here's the problem that everyone seems to be overlooking: The structure of the military is changing. The armed forces is quite a bit smaller than it used to be. During the Reagan years, the US could deploy 16 aircraft carriers. It now has only four available. The numbers to employ "overwhelming force" would have the opposite effect that you would intend. It would exhaust our military much more quickly, and make staying in Iraq long term next to impossible. Rumsfeld is quite mindful of post-cold war realities, and the fact is, we have to fight wars with a smaller force than we used to. The war wasn't just planned with a magic eight ball.
Did I advocate for overwhelming force? Where is this coming from? And what do you consider staying in Iraq for the long term? I'd like a measuring stick of how long we can expect the same National Guard troops to be rotated in and out before they all move to Canada. How long can we pay for this, too, if we are going to keep cutting taxes? All these statements about the changing military seem to imply that we should be careful about the military decisions we make, only commit troops and treasure if it is our vital national security interests, and by all means, not engage in nation-building!
As for the "right-wing slanted media", physician, heal thyself. As a blogger, you are now part of the media, particularly the right-wing slanted part. While you've offered vague assertions about "prominent" people who were against the war, you have given us specific condemnations of George Bush, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, etc.
Once again I open a can of worms just by berating a few annoying bloggers and Presidents. It's hard to debate policy and I'm trying to avoid saying THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS WRONG, but I guess I can't skirt around it. It's much easier and more satisfying to react to idiotic and mean statements by adults who should know better.
You say that Cindy Sheehan is not the best that liberals have to offer, so why not tell us about these mystical people, instead of going on about the mediocre Sheehan, or Powerline's apparent moral transgressions?
You're kidding right? Mystical people!?! It is very upsetting that you are ignorant about the wide range of voices that were against this war in Iraq (not so much for Afghanistan, even less for Gulf War No. 1) How about people that served in former Republican administrations? Go out and rent Fog of War, and listen to Robert McNamara, the ARCHITECT of the Vietnam War, reflect on this current struggle. How about lifetime Republican voter Richard Perle, and please don't dismiss the bone he has to pick with President Bush for firing him as an excuse to dismiss his views based on experience. There are more, many more, and believe me if this next constitutional milestone doesn't lead to our troops coming home there are going to be a lot more voices against this war that can't be dismissed as all Cindy Sheehan types.
(which, if you're so inclined to avoid future hypocrisies, you might want to check Kos for mirror transgressions, I could probably find a Kos parry for every powerline thrust, if I wanted to expend the energy).
Great, equivalency. Blog talk is overblown, that's part of it's fun. But knowing from personal experience how easy it is to dish it out in this anonymous cyberworld, I try to make sure that the statements from the Powerline jerk are not rhetoric but motivated by a value-system or party-line philosophy that I find disgusting. John Hindrocket from Powerline is the only one of the bunch who has really indicated worthy to me of my humble scorn. But I know of a few Daily Kos things that at least conservatives spin as going to far. He does use the F word, and calls noble patriot Karl Rove a traitor, which by some kooky reasoning based on law he actually is in my view. John from Powerline called former President Jimmy Carter a traitor for not being prowar, so I gues it's the same thing.
Personally, I don't think they exist, and you're not putting too much pressure on me to modify my outlook. All I can see here is evil Republicans, and mediocre liberals who have no plan.
I can't stand this "have no plan" crap. How about 1) our plan was to not get into this war in the first place or 2) we trusted you Mr. President and you and your colleagues screwed this up, take this seriously or we'll make the case to the electorate that we can. And I don't get your statement, "so Republicans are evil"? or are you mocking both the evil characterization and the liberals who have no plan characterization? I'll take one for the other I guess.
At least Bush has a plan...And that's good enough for 3 points. 3 points being the margin for which the American public will choose the White Whale over Captain Ahab. And that's the point. Liberals are supposed to be soppy-eyed, bleeding-heart idealists who always have hope in their soul and a glimmer in their eyes. Now they just have a chip on their shoulder and a snarky comment, and this is an untenable position for a liberal to be in. The people who held this position quite effectively were conservatives--Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, you get the drift. And that's why Republicans like me love George Bush so much. He turned the half of the country that loathed Dick Nixon INTO Dick Nixon. And the only way ANYONE would vote for Richard Nixon would be if he was on the republican ticket. And that will be good enough for three points for the forseeable future. So keep being angry! Keep being bitter! I can assure you the nation will be better off for it. But to make clear that I'm not a mean-spirited fellow, if I see anyone call you "Newtie", I'll cold cock them for you. Looking forward to the next rant. Onward and Upward!Lyon
Two words: WHAT PLAN? "Freedom" "Democracy" "Bring em' on!" If Bush could bring a sane person to speak for his war policy, I'd love it. But that would require 1) not being in the spotlight and provoking attacks on us and 2) levelling with the American people about the struggle we're going to be in and how it might be nice to sacrifice something in the form of signing up for duty or at least paying more taxes so our soldiers can have body and car armor. And then you get a little crazy with your metaphors and aggrandizing, so I don't know what to address. I know living in Vermont surrounded by liberals really helps you feel like you are fighting against an overwhelming tide, but having a President who turns half the country against him and barely won the first time isn't something I would revel in. I was just remembering how Bush was an incumbent President a year ago, yet you didn't see any ads about the wonderful things he accomplished in his first term, just attacks after attacks taking a Kerry quote out of context. You can be happy as a sports fan would that your team won last November, but don't think for a second that validates every reason the 50.4% of this country that voted for Bush, and the sentiments of the rest in Purple, Blue, and Red states who didn't for him don't matter. A President that supposedly turns me and others into simple-minded partisan lunatics, especially not a completely liberal one like me, is not someone to be entirely proud of unless you think it's productive to fan the flames of political hate in very troubling times for our country.
And so that's my two cents. This is exhausting. Can't I just call Powerline a jerk without repercussion?
Just to not look totally stupid, Fog of War might have been filmed before the Iraq War, but McNamara says some very pertinent things that can't be ignored. Charge me with the task and I will dig up more boring and non-liberal foreign policy experts that criticize this war.
Post a Comment
<< Home
