:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
From here (bolding mine - note that the glitches are as they appear on the source - it’s probably just a technical glitch):
I’m just at a loss for words…
Zev Steinhardt
I must admit, The Pentagon vs. The Bird Flu Pandemic does sound like a pretty stupid arrangement, if that’s what Bush is really thinking of doing. She’s not alone in this assessment. As has been suggested many times before, Bush is a hammer man, and everything is a nail to our Fearsome Leader. Sheehan probably goes overboard in suggesting some nefarious scheme to perpetuate the Military-Industrial Complex in Bush’s rhetoric; or, at least, she’s overly generous to suggest he’s sophisticated enough to dream it up. It really is little more than hammers and nails, I think, and the Chimp just loves to pound.
Of course, the zookeepers may have other ideas…
So do we have a name yet? The war on Flu or something?
Shenan needs to STFU though, she’s working against things now.
Well, zev, while i agree with your implicit point that Cindy Sheehan has pretty much lost it, i’m not sure that i read that paragraph the same way you so.
Your thread title suggests that you think Sheehan is accusing Bush of wanting the Avian Flu to hit America. I read it as an accusation that he is using the Avian Flu as a way of diverting attentioin from real issues, and continuing to funnel money into things like the military and corporate cronies, rather than focusing on more important issues like funding the CDC.
Furthermore, i think she’s making an argument that the Avian Flu will be used, in much the same way as “terrorism” and “the war on terror” has been used, to keep people fearful, and induce them to place their trust in the government.
I don’t really agree with her argument, and i think she’s gone silly over the past couple of months, but i’m not sure i attribute to her the malice that you seem to see in that passage.
OK, I have to fess up. I didn’t see that piece that you linked to LoopeyDude. However, even so, coming up with a contingency plan hardly equals wants it to happen.
And of course, if it struck and he didn’t have a plan for keeping order, he’d get blamed for that too…
Zev Steinhardt
That would be “…the same way you do.”
And that would be “…have been used.”
Must remember to preview.
No wonder Bush didn’t want to meet with her again. She’s a birdbrain.
Regards,
Shodan
I understand your point, mhendo, but I have to disagree with you on not seeing malice.
To quote part of her diatribe (again, emphasis mine)
I’m sorry. If you want to make the rational argument that Bush should have called the CDC, et al before the military (and who says he hasn’t?) you can certainly do so without throwing out the loaded terms she did. My reading of it is that she certainly did have a malicious intent.
Zev Steinhardt
And rightly so. “Keeping order” would certainly involve an effective public health contingency to mitigate widespread infection with a deadly pathogen, be it naturally dispersed or otherwise. “Homeland Security” isn’t just about sending in the troops, who, as other Dopers have insisted, are best suited to “killing the enemy and blowing up his stuff”.
Looking at the CNN piece, I am just at a loss for words but at you zev_steinhardt. Are you becoming another december?
The title of your piece is not what Sheehan said. If there is some reason to pit is her is for saying that the bird flu is an imaginary threat. This should be a good time to talk about universal health care, but both Bush and Cindy are only seeing the military angle.
Ah yes… war is peace, concern (even if a little off the wall) is malice.
I probably could have phrased my point better.
i agree with you that she has malicious intent. She clearly wanted to accuse Bush of being more concerned with profits and the “military industrial complex” and other Machiavellian schemes than with the health of Americans. To that extent, there was malice in her argument.
What i meant was that i don’t see the particular type of malice that you saw. That is, i don’t see in her phrasing an argument that Bush actually wants the bird flu to strike America. Rather, she’s arguing that Bush fucked-up priorities are leading to a situation where the bird flu is more likely to strike here, and where the flu itself will be used by the Administration as another way to instill fear and compliance in the opulace.
I think Bush would have been better off meeting with her and paying her some lip service. Would have taken the wind out of her sails.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Looking at the CNN piece, I am just at a loss for words but at you zev_steinhardt. Are you becoming another december?
No, I don’t think so.
She starts with a quote that states “they want us to be afraid, to hate…” She then goes on to say that “This has been one of my feelings and themes for months.”
My take on that is that they want it to happen so that people will be afraid and support the administration.
You’re entitled to your reading and, in truth, I hope you’re right and I’m wrong. But that’s how I read it.
Zev Steinhardt
I thought malice was the intent to harm another (She really must be a danger to virgin boots Bush 
), or an unjustifiable attack. But, regarding machiavelian schemes with the health of Americans, one does not have to go further than the fleecing of America the recent prescription drug plan is.
There are those who said, many weeks ago, that Sheehan had totally lost it.
This just proves the case.
So there’s no need to worry about the bird flu? It’s all just a plot by the Military-Inustrial complex to keep us afraid and enslaved? She states explicitly that the threat of Bird flu is “imaginary”. I guess I’ll stop worrying then.
Well, malice (in its regular, as opposed to legal sense) means a desire to harm or to see others suffer. It can also be defined—and is by most dictionaries—as general ill-will or spitefulness, a desire to cause distress or discomfort.
No definition of malice that i’ve seen is dependent on the truth (or otherwise) of the claims being made. One can lie and be malicious, but one can also speak the truth and be malicious.
No argument from me there.
Why does Cindy Sheehan owe anyone here any explanation of her actions or motives? Particularly people who oppose her? Say for example that Poster X decribes Ms. Sheehan as having malice. What does that mean? Malice aforethought? A criminal intent? That she views Bush as a war criminal? Well, so the heck what? She isn’t a government employee or elected official. She’s a war protester who’s son was killed in a war that Bush lied the country into. I’d imagine that she does bear the lying son of a bitch a considerable amount of ill-will. But she doesn’t answer to Poster X. And you know what? Neither does Bush. Bush has said that he doesn’t have to explain himself to anyone, people have to explain themselves to him.
Bush has spent the past several years undermining the constitution and the posse commitatus act and treating the 9/11 attacks as though they were his personal Reichstag fire, they have demonized their enemies foreign and domestic and generally treated like crap anyone who has publicly disagreed with them and their motives. The only good I see coming out of the Iraq invasion is for stockholders of contracting companies like Halliburton.
In the America I was born into, any person could hold any opinion they wanted, and if someone didn’t like it, they could whine and moan on their own. In the America I live in today, nobody who critizes the President, a publicly elected official, is allowed within a mile of his presence and we call these “free speech zones” in an unironic tribute to George Orwell and the corporations make every press outlet have the same point of view unless they are right wing like Fox News.
To heck with George Bush’s toadying and servile surrogates. If they like him so much, it is time for them to enlist and request Iraq duty. They are taking dentists up to 70 years of age and able bodied people in support roles up to the age of 50 at least. Anyone who supports George Bush’s military policies who isn’t a stinking hypocrit should enlist.
One can also lie and be batshit crazy. It seems Sheehan’s critics want to paint her as a complete lunatic, yet complain about her ravings like she ought to know better. I tend to agree that she’s teetering dangerously close to the edge between outrage and crackpottery, if she hasn’t already fallen over. For that reason, I don’t pay much attention to what she says anymore, nor do I endorse her as a speaker for any kind of movement but her own.
That said, I still think rattling sabers in response to a disease is a bit ridiculous. There must be more constructive ways to deal with a public health crisis. Or is Bush convinced the country will fall prey to the looters and other wanton chaos, as in NOLA? If so, give me a break.
And you know what else?! Michael Moore is fat! Really, really fat! And Cindy Sheehan is losing her grip! And that sure proves something about all you Bush-bashers! OK, I don’t know what it is. But it sure proves something!