What She Said

A Small Victory (thanks to Bill for the link):

Is it really necessary to splash her divorce papers all over the internet? Is this anybody’s business? No, her personal life is NOT fair game. Her family is not fair game. And as much as it takes enormous balls of steel for Sheehan herself to pen a diary at Kos entitled Leave My Family Alone when she’s the one who brought this into the public eye, it takes a person with no semblance of common decency to start gloating over Sheehan’s divorce as this proves something, somehow. Do you know how common it is for couples who have suffered the loss of a child to separate? Do you think this is some win on your part, something to high five each other about? Woohooo, a family is falling apart, another point for our side! That’s sick. SICK.

Read the whole thing. And again, there is no reason not to stick to her statements, which provide ample fodder. Forget about the divorce, which is really none of your business. Forget all the Israel/PNAC/War For Oil stuff. This is what Cindy Sheehan said LAST NIGHT on Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.

SHEEHAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don`t think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We`re fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we`re saying. But they`re not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al Qaeda which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al Qaeda and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

Those are the deep thoughts of the new patron saint of the anti-war movement. And I say ‘anti-war,’ and not ‘peace,’ because they are not the same thing. This is the message they have, and it is silly, irresponsible, and easily refutable. And this is AFTER she has spent time with media handlers.

There is no need to go rummaging through her personal life- even if it is ‘news.’ It is mean-spirited, unfair, and should be beneath most decent people. And it is irrelevant.

And just for the sheer comic hilarity of it, this excerpt:

MATTHEWS: Are you considering running for Congress, Cindy?

SHEEHAN: No, not this time. I`m a one issue person. I know a lot about what`s going on in Iraq but I don`t know anything about anything else. And I want to focus my energy on bringing the troops home.

So back off her divorce and other family matters. If her husband comes forward and makes public statements, that is another matter. The focus should be on the message she is spreading, her public statements, and the organizations promoting/using her. And that isn’t smearing her. That is merely examining the public record of a public actor.






110 replies
  1. 1
    SomeCallMeTim says:

    Well then we should have gone after al Qaeda and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

    Wait a sec, John. You’re going to have to explain what’s silly about it. You can say that you can’t do one without the other. You can say say that the Taliban was in league with Al Qaeda to such an extent that they were in fact responsible for 9/11. But the distinction she makes is not, on its face, unreasonable. In fact, IIRC, that was our initial policy – we asked the Taliban to hand over UBL and others, and they refused. And then we went in.

  2. 2
    Brian says:

    I don’t think anyone is claiming that she’s some sort of intellectual giant. What she thinks and says is no more or less banal than what the president says: “freedom mumble mumble”. Because she operates on roughly the same level as Bush is why she’s such a thorn in his side. If she was an egghead with Deep Thoughts the republicans would spin her as an out of touch elitist. That she is so ordinary is why the republicans have to resort to this ugly personal stuff.

  3. 3
    mac Buckets says:

    I know a lot about what`s going on in Iraq but I don`t know anything about anything else.

    After her bizarre Afghanistan answer, where she complains that we are actually ousting terrorist states, I concur. Only 20% of Americans polled at the time said they were against the war in Afghanistan. She’s been manipulated into the kook left fringe now — that much is apparent.

  4. 4
    Zifnab says:

    Those are the deep thoughts of the new patron saint of the anti-war movement. And I say ‘anti-war,’ and not ‘peace,’ because they are not the same thing. This is the message they have, and it is silly, irresponsible, and easily refutable. And this is AFTER she has spent time with media handlers.

    Sorry, John. But that’s like saying “There’s a big difference between pro-choice and anti-life.” Or “I’m not anti-gay, I’m just pro-marriage.” Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Don’t try splitting suffixes to prove a point.

    If I read her correctly, Cindy Sheehan is against full scale invasions and occupations of countries and of the entire concept of ‘nation building’. To be fair, I think she’s got a solid grasp on the situation. Maybe I’m rusty on my history, but I’ve yet to see America successfully nation-build under any President of any party in any administration. The closest we came was the Marshall Plan, which pretty much shoveled money at already sovereign nations to re-build pre-existing governments.

    Vietnam, Korea, Isreal-Palestine, … All abysmal failures on our part for one reason or another.

  5. 5
    ppGaz says:

    This is the message they have, and it is silly

    As compared to …. your message? Excuse me for not having read every post on every subject in the history of this blog, because, you know, I do get my seven hours’ sleep at night and have a job and a family, and don’t have a year or two of spare time. So if this has been addressed, humor me and give me the executive overview …..

    What exactly is a war on terror, John? Describe the model for such a war. Show examples in history for such a war that can be correlated to the present circumstances. Show the “right message’s” model, and the plan for implementing that model, and the evidence for any particular expectation for the outcome of implementing that model. Show how this model embraces the extant war, and how the waging of this war, beginning in early 2003, expresses this model or any part of this model, and how the outcomes we have seen so far validate the expectations of this model.

    Explain how invading a country — any country — will abate the current tide of religious radical terrorism. Show the chain of cause and effects that will lead to the desired result.

    Show anything that is NOT based on speculation, on imagined outcomes, on wishful thinking. Anything at all. Evidence, not slogans and platitudes, please.

    Show me a timeline with the words of this administration, and actual events, which would be sufficient to convince any reasonable person that these people know what they are doing, have thought all of this through, have a plan or ever had a plan for a beneficial outcome — a plan that has shown itself to have been congruent with reality for the reason that the outcome has matched the expectation. In short, why would Ms. Sheehan, or any reasonable person, believe that the people running this show know what they are doing? Leave out the feelgood marketing bullshit, the “world better off” claims, and decorate your argument with facts and evidence only.

    After several months here, what I know about your thoughts on this subject is: NOTHING. And that is not my fault, no matter how assiduously you claim otherwise.

    Your treatment of this subject so far is pretty pathetic as far as I am concerned, and if that pisses you off, too bad.
    This is shabby work.

    Ms. Sheehan has the same or more right to express her views on this war as you do, but the difference is, she is bothering to step up and do so, which is more than I see you doing, other than to genuflect to “I support the war” on a regular basis. Which is about as meaningful as saying that your prefer Miracle Whip to mayonnaise. Whoop-tee-doo.

  6. 6
    mac Buckets says:

    In fact, IIRC, that was our initial policy – we asked the Taliban to hand over UBL and others, and they refused. And then we went in.

    Yes, THEY REFUSED, they said Osama had nothing to do with 9/11, they called for more terrorism against the US…which is why we went to war. That’s what makes them a terrorist state, and that’s what makes statements like Sheehan’s irrational. You can’t fight Al Qaeda without first taking out their state support.

    It was a stupid thing for Cindy Sheehan to suggest, but it’s a stupider thing to try and defend.

  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Really. I am laughing out loud right now at these limp defenses.

  8. 8
    Brian says:

    And why is bringing up the fact that PNAC exists and has a lot of influence prima facie evidence of nutty leftism? It’s not like they’re hiding out in the Bohemian Grove or anything. They’re remarkably open about what they’re up to.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....an_Century

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/

  9. 9
    Defense Guy says:

    Would it be wrong to state that we told the Taliban that they would escape an invasion and eradication had they simply cooperated with the war against al Quada. I suppose this fact would be inconvienant to the lunacy coming from the womans mouth.

    It is interesting to watch people try to rewrite history so shortly after it occured.

    As to the divorce issue, I still think that if we fight like hell to keep the government out of our bedrooms, we ought to extend the same animosity to the press.

  10. 10
    Steve says:

    At the end of the day, it’s true that none of this addresses the overall issues concerning Iraq, but that doesn’t mean John is wrong. The fact is, the moral question of what is “fair game” and the political question of what rebuttal of Cindy Sheehan would be most effective have the same answer.

    The Right is just butchering themselves on this situation with the vitriolic personal attacks, and they simply don’t get it. They should take a cue from the President, who understands you need to defuse this with tact and compassion (although the “get on with my life” comment was remarkably tin-eared). You can make the points John is proposing in a tactful way, but you can’t bring up the issue of whether her family agrees or disagrees without coming across badly.

    Is it unfair that she gets to attack the President viciously and you don’t get to attack her viciously right back? Sure it is. People are biased in favor of grieving mothers that way. Many regular people were horrified by the vicious attacks on Michael Schiavo and now you’re dealing with someone ten times as sympathetic. You can’t just go full-throttle as if she was Richard Clarke or Joe Wilson.

  11. 11
    ppGaz says:

    I am laughing out loud right now at these limp defenses.

    The hysterical laughter of a person who can’t sleep?

    You are descending to the level of Defense Guy … a guy who has nothing to say, but is not reluctant to throw rocks at anyone who does.

    BTW, anyone who thinks that Al Qaeda depends on “state support” has no idea what this contest is about. Al Qaeda no more depends on state support than the ants in your neighborhood depend on your garbage can. If you remove the can, the ants will go eat somewhere else. You can change their diet, but you are not going to eradicate ants that way.

  12. 12
    Defense Guy says:

    Her statements, are still fair game though. It should never be considered ‘bad form’ to take issue with what she is saying.

  13. 13

    […] What She Said […]

  14. 14
    Defense Guy says:

    You are descending to the level of Defense Guy … a guy who has nothing to say, but is not reluctant to throw rocks at anyone who does.

    Decided to be a prick right out of the gate today eh? Why am I not surprised oh keeper of the ego?

  15. 15
    Geek, Esq. says:

    The great majority of Democrats supported, and still support, the mission in Afghanistan and think the war in Iraq was a bad idea.

    Why can’t they find any of those people and put a microphone in front of them?

    Most Democrats are neither moonbats nor Bush-lite. But Jesus H. Christ on a boat trailer, you’d never know that from the Iraq debate.

    If one just addresses what comes out of Ms. Sheehan’s mouth, there’s plenty of fodder for criticism. The really puzzling thing about this personal destruction campaign against Ms. Sheehan is not that it’s so mean-spirited, but rather that it’s so goddamn counterproductive.

    Newsflash, cretino-rightwingers: Vicious personal attacks on a grieving mother only makes you look like the heartless, classless assholes you are often accused of being.

    Say you feel sorry for her and her loss, note how her policy perscriptions are a recipe for disaster, and let it go.

    Btw, am I the only person who’s noted a striking similarity between the people who talk about “Cindy” and the people who talked about “Terri?”

  16. 16
    Caroline says:

    Obviously, Cindy is not knowledgable about Afghanistan. That being said, how is that any worse than the other mother advocating blind faith in a known incompetent?

  17. 17
    Blue Neponset says:

    I will agree that Cindy Sheehan needs to learn some message discipline, but I think you guys on the Right are really missing the point of this whole thing.

    Ms. Sheehan has personified the feelings of many Americans regarding the Iraq War. I believe most Americans do not understand what great good is going to come out of Iraq, or how the War is going to make us safer.

    The more those on the Right call Ms. Sheehan a media whore, a puppet of Micheal Moore, an anti-semite, etc, etc the more the Right looks like it is afraid to answer her questions.

    To those of you who say Bush has already answered all of Ms. Sheehan’s questions. You may want to ask yourself why public opinion about the war has gone south? Either Bush hasn’t done a good job of communicating those answers or the public isn’t buying into his answers. Please let me know if there are other ways to read the declining public support.

  18. 18
    adk46er says:

    There is no need to go rummaging through her personal life- even if it is ‘news.’ It is mean-spirited, unfair, and should be beneath most decent people. And it is irrelevant.

    I agree her personal life should be off limits… Mrs. Sheehan however doesn’t have a problem going personal and in such a nice non mean-spirited way.

    Cindy at an event supporting Lynne Stewart:

    “and I want to say to the people who are here, that are still sheep {unintelligible} and following him blindly: if George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free? It doesn’t make us more free. It damages our humanity. The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls…”

  19. 19
    CaseyL says:

    Btw, am I the only person who’s noted a striking similarity between the people who talk about “Cindy” and the people who talked about “Terri?”

    I’ve heard other people say this, and I have no idea what they mean by it.

    Sheehan is not in a PVS and no one’s asking to have her feeding tube removed.

    She is not surrounded by people who make spectacles of themselves by praying until they faint, speaking in tongues, or claiming to be channeling any deity figure.

    She does not, and the others at Camp Casey do not, vilify local law enforcement (on the contrary, they’ve been very polite and thankful to the locl gendarmes). Nor do they vilify the judicial system or medical science.

    True, Sheehan has taken a personal trauma and made a political statement of it.

    But if that alone is considered illegitimate, then so were all the other personal traumas which became flashpoints for political action: the Corn Riots, the Irish Home-Rule movement, the Mothers’ March of Dimes, the Mothers of the Disappeared, the massive demonstrations after Steven Biko was murdered, the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the VVAW, the early union movement, the marches and demonstrations in the American South after civil rights workers and children were murdered, and Take Back the Night and anti-rape activism in general, to name just a few.

    So, what do you mean when you say “strikingly similar”?

  20. 20
    Mike S says:

    One of the commenters in the Malkin thread posted this this morning.

    Nigel Boag Says:

    Cindy Sheehan is a stinking little communist, and, as such, must be smashed by any means possible.

    Loathsome little bitch is not fit to shine her son’s shoes.
    August 16th, 2005 at 7:51 am

    He is a perfect example of so many in the New Republican Party.

  21. 21
    Geek, Esq. says:

    First of all, it’s a pet peeve of mine when people pretend they’re on a first name basis with a total stranger. Whenever I heard a wingnut talking about “Terri” I wanted to barf. You didn’t know her when she had a brain, you don’t know her now.

    There is a cult of Cindy on the left, just as there is a cult of Terri on the right.

    The wingnut social conservatives latched on to the tragedy of Terri Schiavo to further their own cause. Just like what’s going on with Cindy Sheehan. Of course, Sheehan is to some degree complicit in this, as were Terri Schiavo’s parents.

    The attacks on Sheehan also remind me of the attacks on Michael Schiavo.

  22. 22
    Boronx says:

    So we have a woman who doesn’t support the Afghanistan war, but doesn’t have a clear idea why we went in being criticized by a man who *supports* the Iraq war and has no idea at all why invaded.

  23. 23
    Mike S says:

    There’s also this.

    White crosses at site of anti-war demonstration run down by pickup
    LAST UPDATE: 8/16/2005 5:19:06 AM

    CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) – A pickup truck tore through rows of white crosses last night near President Bush’s ranch, where a woman has been protesting the Iraq war.

    The crosses stretched along the road at the Crawford, Texas, camp, bore the names of fallen U-S soldiers. No one was hurt.

    Lovely.

  24. 24
    Pug says:

    Those are the deep thoughts of the new patron saint of the anti-war movement

    There is no anti-war movement, John. There are a few people gathered at Bush’s Crawford ranch with TV cameras. This is basically the lone protest of one distraught woman and a few, very few, supporters. In the old days the anti-war side could put several million people on the street at once. You may remember the “Moratoriums” of the early ’70’s when over a million people showed up in both Washington and San Francisco to protest the war. The protestors also served as a foil for other side. They were dirty hippies, blah, blah …

    I, too, cringe when I listen to Cindy Sheehan. She can easily be refuted and made to look foolish by the media slicksters and, as we’re starting to see, discredited and destroyed. She’s vastly overmatched against the Michelle Malkins, Melanie Morgans and Bill O’Reillys, so much so that it makes many people uncomfortable to watch them demolish her. When Fred Barnes calls her a crackpot it makes him look bad. What, exactly, has Fred Barnes ever sacrificed for his country?

    The problem for the pro-war (and I mean Iraq war) side is that public support will rise or fall based on the success of our policy there. For all the yelling about “leftists” undermining the war effort, the Bush administration has had its way in Iraq in every respect.

    They should have to explain the changing justifications for the war, why so much of what they said has turned out to be untrue, the lack of progress in securing Iraq and the drift toward Islamism and Iran that is currently happening in Iraq. That is their job.

  25. 25
    Boronx says:

    Guess what, John, the left never wanted to make Cindy Sheehan president ( there are a handful of exceptions ). Do you know why she’s admired? Because she’s the only one that’s willing to stand out of the trenches into the hail of dirt and bullshit that you and everyone else is flinging at her and ask the question we all want answered.

  26. 26
    Defense Guy says:

    What, exactly, has Fred Barnes ever sacrificed for his country?

    Not in the interest of defending Barnes, but what does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that Mrs. Sheehan sacrificed something?

  27. 27
    Mike S says:

    Are you trying to say that Mrs. Sheehan sacrificed something?

    Could you clarify that comment?

  28. 28
    Steve says:

    I think, yes, he was trying to say exactly that.

  29. 29
    Pug says:

    Not in the interest of defending Barnes, but what does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that Mrs. Sheehan sacrificed something?

    No, she just lost her son. I guess that’s nothing.

  30. 30
    Defense Guy says:

    Could you clarify that comment?

    Absolutely, is it the intent of this comment to state that it was Mrs. Sheehan rather than her son that did the sacrificing?

  31. 31
    chadwig says:

    What do all the people know ’bout the Taliban?
    What makes their preachers different than a Wahabi Man?
    And why are all the hypocrites talking louder…now?

    The right is setting up Sheehan as a straw man they can slay to enforce their imagined hegomony on opinion.

    They will find her to be quite like Iraq in that the straw man will prove a tough opponent.

    I don’t agree with everything she says, but I don’t agree with everything my wife says either and yet I love her.

    The reason her protest is having resonance is that it is being silently embraced by the broad swath of Americans who understand instinctively the sybolism of a grieving mother voicing her outrage before the backdrop of a fake cowboy, silver spoon sucking, Richie Rich incompetent so cowardly that he has others do his bullying for him, so lazy that he needs five weeks to be “fresh” for his big decisions. Beauty and the Beast.

    Was it Michelle Malkin driving that truck that mowed down the crosses? And was O’Reilly riding shotgun? Tell me please Ann Coulter wasn’t astride the roll-bar in Daisy Dukes.

  32. 32
    Defense Guy says:

    No, she just lost her son. I guess that’s nothing.

    Yes, she did, and I do not think anyone should detract from HIS sacrifice or the pain that it is clearly causing his mother.

  33. 33
    Blue Neponset says:

    Are you trying to say that Mrs. Sheehan sacrificed something?

    Ask someone from the WWI generation if Gold Star Mothers sacfriced anything. I would love to hear my Grandfather answer that question for you.

  34. 34
    Blue Neponset says:

    make that WWII

  35. 35
    Pug says:

    Absolutely, is it the intent of this comment to state that it was Mrs. Sheehan rather than her son that did the sacrificing?

    Jeez. You are either being sarcastic or you are hopeless. If this one needs explaining to you, I guess it’s hopeless.

  36. 36
    Barbar says:

    Absolutely, is it the intent of this comment to state that it was Mrs. Sheehan rather than her son that did the sacrificing?

    More to the point, you don’t see her son complaining about the war, so why can’t she shut up about it?

  37. 37
    chadwig says:

    Defense Guy Says:

    “…is it the intent of this comment to state that it was Mrs. Sheehan rather than her son that did the sacrificing?”

    Something you may not have thought of is that they both Sacrificed something. You seem to thrive on false choices like Bill O’Reilly. You must be one of them “Compassionate Conservatives” who for political convenience would claim losing a child is no sacrifice.

    How do you sleep?

  38. 38
    Mike S says:

    Absolutely, is it the intent of this comment to state that it was Mrs. Sheehan rather than her son that did the sacrificing?

    I was hoping that wasn’t what you meant. I was hoping that it may have just been an ill formed comment. I guess I was wrong.

    Sad to know that the New Republican Party holds the mothers loss of her son as no more sacrifice than a man who does nothing but cheerlead. Sad to see that people like you don’t think the thousands of family members who have lost their loved ones bore no sacrifice.

    “Sorry Mrs. Smith. Your son was killed in action. STOP Snivling. It’s not like anything happened to you.”

  39. 39
    Defense Guy says:

    Yes, I am the hopeless one that can not understand that the sacrifice was his to make.

    The gold stars are not given because the parents sacrificed their childern, they are given because they raised children who were willing to make that sacrifice. For that, they should be lauded, which is why I have and will continue to do so in her case. But let’s be clear, she didn’t sacrifice anything.

  40. 40
    BumperStickerist says:

    If you read through Bush’s speeches,
    the wonder is that there is any wonder at all.

    March 18th, 2003

    Start of War

    Flight Suit/End of Major Combat

    It’s almost like Bush meant what he said.

    Which, I know – Bush here’s voices in his head – Rove-like voices, and such, but Bush’s speeches, taken as a whole, make the case.

    If anything – in light of current UN events – imo, the dicking around with the UN for six months did more to create the current state of affairs in Iraq than any military-related issues (which includes the Shinseki stuff)

    I know it’s damn crafty of the Wurlitzer-based Right Wing Noise Machine – now equipped with Extra-Smear! – to have the President say things in national addresses and for Bush to then carry through with the things he said.

    But, they’re crafty like that.

  41. 41
    Steve says:

    She obviously LOST something very important to her. What is the point of arguing over whether she sacrificed anything or not? Does it make her loss any less significant because it was her son’s voluntary decision?

  42. 42
    Defense Guy says:

    How do you sleep?

    I sleep fine, but then again I am not trying to take away the personal choice to stand for his country from the one that made it. I even say nice things about his mother, but that is just not enough. If I do not follow the party line right down to the insane idea that parents are sacrificing their children then I am the one to be attacked.

    I am not the one trying to take away from Casey’s choice.

  43. 43
    Pug says:

    The corollary to that is the new one you hear from conservatives now. Oh well, he volunteered. He could have made antoher career choice.

    From today’s Houston Chronicle:

    Cindy Sheehan of course has the right to express herself about her feelings. But her son Casey made the decision to join the armed forces and no one put a gun to his head to make that choice. The armed forces among other professions have a high risk.

    I salute her son’s courage in fighting for a better world and helping a nation against tyranny for freedom.

    CLAUDE G. CHUPIN Houston

    I especially like the “no one put a gun to his head” line. Very tasteful.

    This logic, of course, originated with Christopher Hitchens who compared the military to fire fighting or police work. You know, “The armed forces among other professions have a high risk”. Tsk, tsk.

  44. 44
    Defense Guy says:

    What is the point of arguing over whether she sacrificed anything or not?

    An excellent question. The question was asked about what Barnes had sacrificed.

  45. 45
    Boronx says:

    Defense Guy, after the last troops come home, you’ll still be able to go to Baghdad to get your ass blown off anytime you feel like it. Only difference is, Uncle Sam ain’t going to *make* you do it.

  46. 46
    Defense Guy says:

    Boronx

    He re-enlisted. Do you suppose that he did so because he believed his mothers tripe about it being a war for oil or Jews?

  47. 47
    Mike S says:

    I am not the one trying to take away from Casey’s choice.

    There’s straw in them thar hills.

  48. 48
    Steve says:

    Well, this thread seems determined to go off on a tangent now, since Defense Guy seems to believe it is a teaching moment where we must all learn the difference between “sacrificed” and “lost.” Again, is there really a point here?

  49. 49
    Pug says:

    If you read through Bush’s speeches…

    Surely you have better things to do.

  50. 50
    Nate says:

    It just strikes me, seeing how often John has posted threads about the Sheehan phenomenon, how absurdly threatening this poor woman is to the pro-war right. They *must* take her down (a la Wilson, Clarke, etc.) I’m amazed how *frightened* they are of the national resonance she has created even though they argue that she hasn’t created any! It’s almost as if, under all the layers of jingoism and macho posturing, these warmongers fear not only that the national will to war will crumble (as it’s doing), but that big Papa Bush will be exposed as the idiot we all said he was from the start.

  51. 51
    mac Buckets says:

    BTW, anyone who thinks that Al Qaeda depends on “state support” has no idea what this contest is about. Al Qaeda no more depends on state support than the ants in your neighborhood depend on your garbage can. If you remove the can, the ants will go eat somewhere else. You can change their diet, but you are not going to eradicate ants that way.

    Utterly ridiculous. Your use of the word “depends” creates a strawman. Ousting the Taliban had several important effects on Al Qaeda — removing their safe haven, seizing and freezing millions and millions of dollars, and scattering of the al-Qaeda command center.

    No, you can’t defeat AQ by only removing the Taliban alone, but even more certainly, you can’t fight AQ effectively without removing the Taliban.

  52. 52
    Defense Guy says:

    There’s straw in them thar hills.

    You really need to expand on your logical fallacy understanding, as strawman is only one of many. If I am asked ‘How I sleep at night’, then I am going to feel free to throw some mud back.

    Didn’t seem to have a problem with the rest of what that post contained, so I’ll just mark you down as agreed.

  53. 53
    Pug says:

    I think most folks agree going after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was completely justified.

    If you want to debate all the fine points of Cindy Sheehan’s views on foreign policy you should be able to score an easy victory.

    In her own words: “I know a lot about what`s going on in Iraq but I don`t know anything about anything else”.

    It’s too bad more people are as honest about how knowledgeable they are.

  54. 54
    Defense Guy says:

    Well, this thread seems determined to go off on a tangent now, since Defense Guy seems to believe it is a teaching moment where we must all learn the difference between “sacrificed” and “lost.” Again, is there really a point here?

    Yep, it sucks that I called the person on their intent to question Barnes even talking about the subject on the basis of his sacrifices. The intent of this was what again?

  55. 55
    Mike S says:

    Mark me down as laughing at the absurdity. I know of no one who is trying to “take away from Casey’s choice.” But it is telling that the man who would take the role as the scarecrow in the new version of the Wizard of Oz would take away from the people who have lost their loved ones, regardless of whether they support the war or not.

  56. 56
    Steve says:

    The intent, I can only assume, was to point out the spectacle of a man who has sacrificed nothing for the war taking shots at a woman who has lost her son.

  57. 57
    Mike S says:

    Yep, it sucks that I called the person on their intent to question Barnes even talking about the subject on the basis of his sacrifices.

    Obviously sitting on his ass in the studios of the GOP’s Pravda is equal to, if not greater than, the sacrifice a family gives to this country when their child is killed in the war.

  58. 58
    Defense Guy says:

    Mike S

    Keep ignoring what I said. It’s the only way you can continue to delude yourself.

  59. 59
    MisterPundit says:

    I know a lot about what`s going on in Iraq but I don`t know anything about anything else

    Pure comic gold. Her knowledge of Iraq includes such profound insightfullness as “we’re dying for Jews” (paraphrased) and other assorted asshattery. Poor woman. I’m actually starting to feel sorry for her again.

  60. 60
    Mike S says:

    Keep ignoring what I said. It’s the only way you can continue to delude yourself.

    like this?

    Are you trying to say that Mrs. Sheehan sacrificed something?
    August 16th, 2005 at 12:11 pm

    or this?

    If I do not follow the party line right down to the insane idea that parents are sacrificing their children then I am the one to be attacked.

    I am not the one trying to take away from Casey’s choice.

  61. 61
    ppGaz says:

    According to John Cole, who steadfastly avoids answering any direct questions or making any unambiguous and clear explanations of his point of view (the closest I ever personally got was a link to some post of his from eons ago in blogtime … as if nothing had changed since then) …

    according to Mr. Cole, Ms. Sheehan’s comments were “silly.”

    Where, Mr. Cole, or anyone else for that matter, would you suggest Ms. Sheehan go for “non silly” guidance on this matter? The American people are heading for about a 2:1 ratio of people who seem to think that there is a disconnect between the statements and the policy of this government, and the realities on the ground vis a vis this war. Forget the politics, the slogans, the relentless browbeating of the right, the standard defenses. The trend is toward a gut understanding that what these leaders say, and what they do, or what turns out to be true, are not the same thing.

    Expecations Revised

    Who the hell are these people to go around saying anything about anyone’s views on this subject? Under what goddamn authority do they do that?

    So where does the citizen go these days for “non-silly” views on this subject? And where do the people who have a track record of being wrong all the time get off calling anyone’s view “silly?”

  62. 62
    ppGaz says:

    The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

    The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

    “What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.”

    That’s from the MSNBC story linked in my previous post.

    Tell me, Mr. Cole, or anyone …. upon reading this blurb, what is preventing 500,000 angry people from heading to Crawford Texas and bringing this government’s bullshit to a complete standstill? Upon what record of performance do they now say anything to any citizen who speaks their mind, other than “we’re listening?”

    A citizen’s views are silly? What name shall we hang on these potatoheads and their “unreality that dominated at the beginning” … back in the days when NOBODY was allowed to speak out against this stupid policy?

  63. 63
    ppGaz says:

    The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

    The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

    “What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.”

    But a citizen’s view of this is “silly.”

  64. 64
    ppGaz says:

    Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.

    Silence, citizens. Your views are silly.

    “We set out to establish a democracy, but we’re slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic,” said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. “That process is being repeated all over.”

    “We set out to establish a democracy, but we’re slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic,” said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. “That process is being repeated all over.”

    Citizens will not speak, for their views are deemed silly.

    We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building,” said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book “Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq.”

    The views of citizens which have not been edited by the blogosphere are silly.

    Attacks on U.S. convoys by insurgents using roadside bombs have doubled over the past year, Army Brig. Gen. Yves Fontaine said Friday. Convoys ferrying food, fuel, water, arms and equipment from Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey are attacked about 30 times a week, Fontaine said.

    “There has been a realistic reassessment of what it is possible to achieve in the short term and fashion a partial exit strategy,” Yaphe said. “This change is dictated not just by events on the ground but by unrealistic expectations at the start.”

    Citizens who question the Emperor’s clothes are silly.

  65. 65
    Andrei says:

    “Those are the deep thoughts of the new patron saint of the anti-war movement.”

    Sorry John, this is also somewhat of a cheap shot (although not nearly as drastic) as many on the right’s actions as of late with regard to Sheehan’s divorce papers. Why did you feel the need to cross one of the lines? In other words, you could have stated, “Sheehan’s views and comments on the situation are unrealistic at best. She should watch what she says or lose any credibility she has with regard to her protests.”

    But you didn’t. You took a stab at her with a snark, a sarcastic, almost caustic tone about Sheehan and the “others” who don’t agree with you. You reap what you sow.

    I too look forward to a post one day where you’ll answer ppGaz’s questions about the war, why we are fighting it, and just how fighting will actually change things for the better. I simply have yet to see people talk about the war in any concrete terms, terms that could be measured for success or failure. Maybe we can just ignore the others in such a thread, and at the end of the day we’ll agree to disagree, but I too look forward ot the day to have a more intellectually honest discussion with someone from the right side of the aisle on this whole predicament.

    I think ppGaz would give you that, and we’d all be able to tone it down for that discussion. What do you say? Can we have an intellectually honest discussion about the war even if the end result is that we’ll agree to disagree?

  66. 66
    Ben says:

    If Malkin or anyone else went fishing around for news about Sheehan’s marriage, that would be sick and all the other things you have called it. But in this case, Sheehan herself brought up her marriage, and the ongoing divorce is a matter of public record. Furthermore, her husband made it an issue — Ms. Sheehan’s behavior is unhinged and her husband cites it as the reason for their split. Given that Ms. Sheehan’s wacko behavior is also what gave her this 15 minutes of fame, the divorce is very relevant.

    If John Roberts and his wife were currently divorcing, it would be legitimate news. If there were something about his kids’ adoptions that had come to light which looked fishy, that would also be legitimate news. If John Bolton, after being accused of being “abusive,” were now going through a divorce because his wife said he was abusive to her, that would be news, and very relevant news at that.

    Pull yourself together, man.

  67. 67
    Mike S says:

    Ms. Sheehan’s behavior is unhinged

    If anyone knows what “unhinged” looks like, it’s a Malkin fan.

  68. 68
    Sinbad says:

    John, your comments section has become unreadable, what with useless twats like ppGaz and Geek, Esq. fountaining their mindless horseshit all over the place.

    So, bye.

  69. 69
    Steve says:

    Ms. Sheehan’s behavior is unhinged and her husband cites it as the reason for their split

    I couldn’t help but notice that there is no cite for this out-of-the-blue proposition. I’m not aware that her husband has made any public statement at all.

  70. 70
    W.B. Reeves says:

    It appears that the right-wing camp has become completely unhinged over Cindy Sheehan. The kind of spew coming from the Right is a recipe for political suicide. Defense Guy’s meme is nowhere near the most egregious example but is a perfect illustration of how disconnected from the broad public the Right’s perspective has become. While you may argue the distinction between a “sacrifice” and a “loss” as an abstract intellectual exercise, announcing that families who have lost members in war have made no sacrifice seems likely to get you lynched in the court of public opinion.

    DG doesn’t appear to understand this anymore than he appears to understand that his comparison of Sheehan to Barnes is a false one, relying entirely on semantic distinctions rather than substance. What, exactly, has the war in Iraq cost Barnes personally? I’ve no idea and I imagine DG has none either. On the other hand, it is quite clear that it has cost Sheehan something. Whether that something is described as a “sacrifice” or a “loss” changes the reality not a whit.

    Personally, I hope that this kind of argument gets a thorough public airing. The response such arguments inspire may provide a much needed reality check to those promoting them.

    As for John’s insistence that the focus be on the issues raised by Sheehan’s public statements, I support that, though for a different set of reasons. I think John might do well to consider why so many on the Right are avoiding that debate like the plague. Or, in some instances, distorting her statements while pretending to paraphrase them.

    Recognizing the centrality of Israel to U.S. policy in the Middle East is hardly loony, although suggesting that the war is being fought at Israel’s behest strikes me as, at best, naive. However, it is no less naive to pretend that Israel and yes, oil, do not play a part in the calculations of policy makers.

  71. 71
    Stevo says:

    Maybe you are losing sleep because of the way you mistreat people like Michelle Malkin.

    Maybe if you were not such an arrogant narcissist you would actually sleep at night instead of laying there thinking about how angry Michelle made you.

    I agree with Patterico, Cindy Sheehan has brought all this attention on her self. There is nothing wrong with Michelle noting what is being reported in all the news wires. Michelle did not ‘dumpster-dive’ to originate the story. To attack her for noting the story is evidence that you have completely lost it. Is it because you are jealous of her success? I suspect you are one of those men who canot take direction from a woman. Or are you simply a racist?

  72. 72
    chadwig says:

    Defense Guy, she did sacrifice her son. It was likely Casey’s parents who taught him that putting his life on the line for his country was an acceptable course of action. They could have just as easily taught him that he shouldn’t sacrifice himself for a cause, even if he did believe in it. They might even have pulled strings which allowed him to avoid such service…

    But then he’d be George Bush, a fine physical specimen in perfect health and not at all the lost son of a grieving mother.

  73. 73
    Mike S says:

    I suspect you are one of those men who canot take direction from a woman. Or are you simply a racist?

    Too f’in funny.

  74. 74
    Defense Guy says:

    You have all made your points, sacrifice is now exactly the same as loss. That I was trying to discern why someone would try to contrast this sacrifice with Fred Barnes should be ignored by all of you, as then you might have to confront the appeal to authority, which must not be taught on the same day as strawman.

    Mrs. Holloway really should have been more careful about how she sacrificed her child Natalee.

  75. 75
    Nash says:

    Meanwhile, John’s advice to the right wing to lay off the divorce stuff is getting traction:

    I am a Right-Wing Extremist — proudly. As a great Conservative once said: “Whatever is not extremely right is not right. Whatever is not right is wrong.” I support America, Israel, and our Western civilization 100%. I hate and despise America-hating, West-hating, Israel-hating, Jew-hating, Commu-Nazi traitors like Cindy Sheehan and everybody who supports her. I admire ONLY her son Casey and every one of our brave soldiers who have given their lives or who are standing ready to give their lives for our freedom. This War Against the Muslim Terror Masters is a noble cause, a Crusade to save all that makes life worth living. We must fight to win.
    posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man’s-man-admiring myth-based egoist on 08.16.05 at 03:03 PM [permalink]

  76. 76
    chadwig says:

    “Mrs. Holloway really should have been more careful about how she sacrificed her child Natalee.”

    A bad comparison, as Natalee didn’t sacrifice herself by any free choice that she made.

    And you are wrong to assert that this arguement is about semantics alone and not the compulsion by those who believe invading Iraq was proper to tear down anything that might force them to re-think their position now that the age old lesson has been re-learned: Don’t invade other peoples countries unless they attack you first.

    Seems pretty simple to me. It’s ok to change your mind by the way…might make you feel better.

  77. 77
    RickW says:

    So how long were you in Iraq for and when, ppGaz? Let’s take your one souce with a name, Larry Diamond. His book “Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq.” I’m sure it’s a balanced and unbiased critique. And he was a Stanford University “democracy expert” (whatever the hell that means)who worked for the CPA? How much responsiblity for said bungling does he take, since he was a member of the bunglers. And when I was there I saw plenty of beardless men. With my own eyes. Anonymous sources didn’t tell me they were beardless.

  78. 78
    Mike S says:

    And he was a Stanford University “democracy expert” (whatever the hell that means)who worked for the CPA? How much responsiblity for said bungling does he take, since he was a member of the bunglers.

    It wasn’t the experts that were the problem. It was the political hacks, like the people hired through the heritage institute, that screwed up. Like the idiot reported about in the Sac Bee, sorry no link, who said there should be no judicial revue because then tha Iraqis may legalize abortion.

  79. 79
    Defense Guy says:

    chadwig

    No matter how many times I point out which area of contention I was limiting myself to, there will be some, as you are doing here, who will try to enlarge it for their own purposes. It is wrong, on every level, to act as if Mrs. Sheehan has a right to speak on Iraq and that Mr. Barnes does not. In addition, it is wrong to be painting Mrs. Sheehan as if she sacrificed something. She lost, that much is for sure, but HE sacrificed.

  80. 80
    Steve says:

    Everyone has a right to speak on Iraq. The question is whether Mr. Barnes, who has suffered no consequences from the war, can appropriately slam Mrs. Sheehan, who has lost her son. He is free to say what he wants, of course, but others may feel he comes off as a sanctimonious asshole under the circumstances.

  81. 81
    Jack says:

    So let me get this straight:

    Ms. Sheehan, who has willingly turned herself into a public spectacle, is getting a divorce (a matter of public record), but no one is allowed to mention it?

    Nice bit of censorship there. Are you by any chance from Canada?

  82. 82
    Defense Guy says:

    Steve

    So, in your estimation, who does have a right to ‘slam’ Mrs. Sheehan? Is it ok for anyone to take a counter position to what she is saying?

    For the record, it is always better to ‘attack’ the content of the speech rather than the speaker, IMO. Unless that speech is between ppGaz and myself, of course.

  83. 83
    Steve says:

    Yes, everyone has a right to argue in favor of the war, of course. If Fred Barnes can’t argue in favor of the war without calling Cindy Sheehan a “crackpot,” then maybe he isn’t just giving the appearance of being an asshole.

  84. 84
    RickW says:

    I don’t mean to bust on anyone, to be honest. I witnessed much bungling. But it isn’t like this has ever been done before. People have this tendency to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Armchair quarterbacking has always bothered me.

  85. 85
    Jack says:

    Call a spade a spade. Sheehan is a crackpot.

    Somehow, the left never has qualms about such terms being employed against the crackpots on the right (e.g., Roy Moore). It’s only their crackpots who can’t be called crackpots. Or soon-to-be divorcees.

  86. 86
    RickW says:

    By the way, Sheehan can do whatever the hell she wants as far as I’m concerned. I think she’s an embarassment to her son’s memory but she’s entitled to be that if it floats her boat.

  87. 87
    Stevo says:

    OK wack brain; I am now ready to see you treat Mr Farrah and Joe Kovacs of WorldNetDaily with the same sort of invective you used on Michelle.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n.....E_ID=45800

    Whats that? You can’t bring yourself to call these two men the same sort of things you used to describe Michelle?

    Do you have something against women? Or is it just Oriental women you have a problem with?

    Or could it just be your own ill-begotten jealousy at Michelle’s success?

    At least she is consistent in her positions where you are flighty and ‘nuanced’ as to who you are willing to curse at.

    Where is your cursing at the AP, Reuters, and the Times? Why did you only curse horribly at that nice girl and not at all those other evil newspaper men? It is very telling where you have patience and where you do not.

  88. 88
    Kimmitt says:

    Hey, wow, Ms. Sheehan was cornered into talking about something she wasn’t familiar with, and then admitted that she wasn’t particularly familiar with it. Victory for the Right!

  89. 89
    chadwig says:

    lemme re-write one sentence from my last post to indicate how germaine my point was:

    “And you are wrong to assert that this arguement is about semantics alone and not the compulsion by those (such as Barnes)who believe invading Iraq was proper to tear down anything that might force them to re-think their position now that the age old lesson has been re-learned: Don’t invade other peoples countries unless they attack you first.”

    I apoligize if I have misrepresented you as a member of pro-war, anti sacrifice crowd, but that’s who he is. That’s who’s opinion you’re defending.

    I think everyone here agrees that we are free to speak our mind on any subject whatsoever, including idiots like Barnes. And I am free to heap ridicule on his hypocrisy. Any behavioral scientist could tell you why he crosses his arms in such a cumpulsive manner when he speaks, and why he seemingly shy’s away from eye contact and looks down whenever he misrepresents the facts.

    Don’t turn away from the truth train when you’re standing on the tracks.

  90. 90
    Jack says:

    “Cornered”

    Interesting word choice. She was asked a straightforward question and chose to spew the usual brain-dead lefty piffle as a knee-jerk reaction. She only backed down and admitted she didn’t have a freaking clue about the subject at hand once that had already been made apparent.

    Oh, but that’s right: She’s a victim here, so we must not criticize her.

  91. 91
    Stevo says:

    ppGaz:

    Congress voted to authorize the liberation of Iraq. That is hardly the administration refusing to listen to the ‘people.’ Blow a little harder next time.

  92. 92
    jg says:

    A women loses her son to war and wants to know why and she gets attacked for hating america. Military loving wingnuts run over memorial headstones of fallen soldiers. Neighbors fire shotguns as warnings. Rush says we need a law where we can deport anyone who speaks out against the country.

    what.the.hell.happened.to.my.country?

  93. 93
    Kimmitt says:

    She was asked a straightforward question and chose to spew the usual brain-dead lefty piffle as a knee-jerk reaction.

    With all due respect, have you ever been interviewed? If one is not very used to the process, the psychological need to satisfy the interviewer easily trumps one’s good sense. It is very easy to end up running one’s mouth about something one really doesn’t have the background to discuss, which Ms. Sheehan later acknowledged.

  94. 94
    adk46er says:

    A women loses her son to war and wants to know why and she gets attacked for hating america

    You may not agree but people are claiming she hates America because her words seem to indicate she does…

    I take responsibility partly for my son’s death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for

    Her thoughts are a little jumbled here but the bullshit must be her opinion about America being good. Additionally she’s not just talking about Bush she’s talking in general about America.

  95. 95
    jg says:

    If that was someone who didn’t lose her son in a war whose rationale keeps changing I’d agree with you. At this point I’d say her anger might be getting the better of her thoughts.

    Pissing on her is the right thing to do?

    Additionally she’s not just talking about Bush she’s talking in general about America.

    Opinion not fact.

    Maybe its the America under Bush thats not worth dying for. You shouldn’t base your opinion of her off a paragraph. At least don’t try to put out one paragraph as proof of your opinion.

    BTW, my post wasn’t a series of points. The whole post made one point.

    A women loses her son to war and wants to know why and she gets attacked for hating america. Military loving wingnuts run over memorial headstones of fallen soldiers. Neighbors fire shotguns as warnings. Rush says we need a law where we can deport anyone who speaks out against the country.

    what.the.hell.happened.to.my.country?

    What are your thoughts on the whole thing?

  96. 96
    torridjoe says:

    Stevo: Rugs are Oriental. Women from Asia are Asian.

    And from dictionary.com:
    sacrifice–v 1: endure the loss of; “He gave his life for his children”; “I gave two sons to the war” [syn: give]

    Clear?

  97. 97
    ppGaz says:

    Congress voted to authorize the liberation of Iraq. That is hardly the administration refusing to listen to the ‘people.’ Blow a little harder next time.

    You might want to invest in a calendar. That was then, this is now. That ship has sailed, and it is not coming back. Unless this administration figures out a way to convince a lot of people to overlook the fact that it has been wrong over and over again on this subject, and believe that this time it’s going to get it right, the party is over.

    Your country is in a mess, an you’ve got wisecracks. Well, congratulations, you made a wisecrack. I can make better wisecracks than you can. So what? Wisecracks are not going to feed the bulldog.

  98. 98
    Bob says:

    Remember how those oil pipeline negotiations with the Taliban fell apart a couple of months before 9/11?

    You see, if we were going after al Qaeda, we would have, uh, gone after them. After all, they’d blown up the Cole, they’d blown up two embassies in Africa. Of course, that had been during a Democrat’s term, so maybe that didn’t matter.

    There is a little rump state of Afghanistan in Kabul. A couple of hundred feet away from the protection around President Karzai is the rest of Afghanistan. We aren’t much better at controlling it than anyone else who’s tried over the last few hundred years.

    And besides the four Number 3 guys in al Qaeda that we captured, we don’t have a whole lot to brag about shutting things down, do we?

  99. 99
    jg says:

    But the fact that we haven’t been hit since 9/11 proves Bush is doing the right thing, right?

  100. 100
    ppGaz says:

    But the fact that we haven’t been hit since 9/11 proves Bush is doing the right thing, right?

    Yes, in the same way that my having four cats keeps away the alligators.

  101. 101
    Caroline says:

    I have to wonder why all the Republicans aren’t kicking W’s lazy butt from here to Timbuktu w/r/t the War in Iraq. I found the following at Andrew Sullivan’s blog and it raises a lot of good points from a supporter of the war:

    George Bush is good at one thing and one thing only: winning elections and coasting along. Forget the maybe/maybe not criminal outing of a CIA agent—the prosecution of this war is this administration’s signature crime. My friends who admonish me for not seeing this coming the run-up to the war are right, it pains me to admit. I have no longer have any faith—none whatever—in Bush, Rummy, Condi, Dick, or the rest of the jackasses running this show. And like all liberals who supported this thing, I’m angier about George Bush’s handling of this war than any liberal who opposed it. Liberal hawks wanted to win this more desperately than anyone else. But it’s time to bring down the curtain—why? Not because war I hate Bush so much that I want to see my country lose this war—I love my country—and not because I don’t care about the Iraqi people. I’m one of those liberals who backed the war for humanitarian reasons.

    No, we should get out because, with the Bushies running the show for the next three years, we’re simply not going to win. It’s just go to drag on and on. This war, as I see it now, is either going to be nasty, brutal and short or nasty, brutal and long. I prefer nastry, brutal and short, if only because it will mean fewer Americans will die. And fewer Iraqis too, I suspect.

  102. 102
    jg says:

    Yes, in the same way that my having four cats keeps away the alligators.

    LOL

  103. 103
    ppGaz says:

    suggesting that the war is being fought at Israel’s behest strikes me as, at best, naive

    According to Ms Sheehan’s diary today, she never said, or wrote, any such thing. She also addressed the divorce question. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of her remarks here, via the blogosphere:

    My divorce was in the works way before I came out to Crawford. My husband filed the papers before this all started. It just recorded last Friday. My husband didn’t know that it would become public record, and public knowledge. He had told his lawyer not to serve me with the paperwork or even bother me while I was at Camp Casey. He was trying to do the right thing. He didn’t want me to find out. Enough about that.

    Another “big deal” today was the lie that I had said that Casey died for Israel. I never said that, I never wrote that. I had supposedly said it in a letter that I wrote to Ted Koppel’s producer in March. I wrote the letter because I was upset at the way Ted treated me when I appeared at a Nightline Town Hall meeting in January right after the inauguration. I felt that Ted had totally disrespected me. I wrote the letter to Ted Bettag and cc’d a copy to the person who gave me Ted’s address. I believe he (the person who gave me the address) changed the email and sent it out to capitalize on my new found notoriety by promoting his own agenda.

  104. 104
    ppGaz says:

    Yes, in the same way that my having four cats keeps away the alligators.

    LOL

    Laugh if you will, but since getting the cats, alligator attacks at my house have been zero.

    The more cats I get, the fewer alligators there are. Last time I looked, the nearest of the large reptiles was 3000 miles away in Florida. This proves the Iraq strategy: Fight the alligators in Florida, so that we don’t have to fight them in Arizona. And, get cats.

    QED.

  105. 105
    jg says:

    I have two cats. Never knew they were preventing alligator attacks. All they ever seemed to slay were small lizards and birds. Maybe they just can’t fit them through the dog door so I’ve never seen the kills.

  106. 106
    ppGaz says:

    I have two cats. Never knew they were preventing alligator attacks. All they ever seemed to slay were small lizards and birds. Maybe they just can’t fit them through the dog door so I’ve never seen the kills.

    They’re devious. It’s only because I will buy them Fancy Feast that mine even let me live here.

  107. 107

    […] This is, nothing new, of course, and something that Jeff Goldstein has talked about at length. For more evidence, look at the comments of this Sebastian Holsclaw post, and the comments to this post. Simply quoting Cindy Sheehan amounts to a smear, it seems. […]

  108. 108
    Xrlq says:

    I couldn’t help but notice that there is no cite for this out-of-the-blue proposition. I’m not aware that her husband has made any public statement at all.

    AFAIK, he hadn’t at the time of this comment. However, he has since.

  109. 109
    Dataminer 7 says:

    Did some digging on that quote of hers. Found scores of blogs talking about it, and one apparant gem: a transcript of the rally where she said it. I think she was saying that Iraq wasn’t worth dying for. The very next words out of her mouth after the bit that’s been circulating the blogs are “If we’re attacked, we would all go out.”

    http://www.discoverthenetwork......trally.htm

    The complete paragraph:

    I take responsibility partly for my son’s death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. {applause}

  110. 110
    Geeps says:

    Just a note about was Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Read this English version of a reporter that interviewed Ossama Ben Laden. In it Ossama admits to the attack on the WTC and what harm it caused him. It also says that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq and why they where there. Says a lot more that everyone should pay attention to.
    http://www.middle-east-online....../?id=15900

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] This is, nothing new, of course, and something that Jeff Goldstein has talked about at length. For more evidence, look at the comments of this Sebastian Holsclaw post, and the comments to this post. Simply quoting Cindy Sheehan amounts to a smear, it seems. […]

  2. […] What She Said […]

Comments are closed.