I didn’t look at Moto’s links, but I have read two of her speeches. Specifically, I abhor the parts where she says America isn’t worth dying for, and where she posits some kind of secret conspiracy as being the real reason for the war. I abhor the idea that she wants to end things now and pull the troops home abandoning what so many have died to achieve.
I abhor the statements where she refers to the President in tasteless and derogatory fashion. Basically, I find her statements to be generally abhorrent and ridiculous on their face. If you think it’s necessary I’ll be glad to cull excerpts from the speeches that I find particularly odious.
Again though, I really don’t mean to attack her personally. She has the right to say what she wishes and her loss certainly excuses her behavior. I feel really really bad for her. I just don’t let that credit what she says.
I’ve heard good reasons from people who strongly disagree with the war. Not from Cindy though.
If you want to take the effort, that would be cool. I can probably search for them, though.
Personally, while Ms. Sheehan is a poignant figure, and I feel sorry for the loss of her son, I don’t think this is any more than a sideshow. IMO.
Hardball* has reported of the last few days that Ms. Sheehan stated she was planning on witholding her income taxes in the future (in protest of the war) and that Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world today. They reported this, but didn’t show the original material. If true, this suggest that she has begun to self destruct, which I kind of expected her to do. She strikes me as very passionate, but not very astute. Since you’re familiar with her speeches, can you verify either of those claims made by Harball?
Ms. Sheehan is pushing this minority view that we should exit Iraq immediately. What I don’t understand is why that particular view should get so much press attention, other than Ms. Sheehan is screaming loudly, and happens to be in the right place at the right time (Crawford in August). One wonders why she doesn’t petition her own Senators (who are mine, too)-- both Democrats and neither of whom advocates the minority position she is pushing. Perhaps she should try to convince them first, before bagging her head against the brick wall of the George W. Bush.
*Whichever host was sitting in for Matthews, not some right-wing guest
Even if characterizing a person as a “True Believer” was in any way capable of being charaterized as slander–which, as a statement of pure opinion without any objectively verifiable factual assertion, it is not–truth is an absolute defense to slander.
Twaddle. It’s been a right-wing talking point for a solid week, as even a few minutes of searching on Right Blogistan will easily reveal. Ms. Sheehan wasn’t responding to her allegedly anti-semitic former friend in that message, she was responding to right-wingers such as yourself who have decided that it is more expeditious to smear the messenger than to deal with the compelling message. See also your shameful defense of the manufatcured John Kerry/SBVFT smear last yest.
But it was not true. You were lying. Your own cite contradicted you.
Of course, but it is just a petty littly shitty dig, and you should be called on it.
Wow, nobody ever suffers from a false accusation? Really? All you have to do is be innocent and it’s an absolute?
Truly, all kidding aside, this is the biggest load of shit I’ve seen you hurl.
As you have so aptly noted, it’s not a smear if it’s true. Your point, that this was created by right wingers, is, according to Mrs. Sheehan herself, a falsehood.
I’m not a right winger. While I was still a Republican, I was moderate. Now I am no longer a Republican. I have decided that the Social agenda of the Republican party is incompatible with my ideas of freedom, liberty, and respect. I am an independant and a seeker after truth, and, by personality, a Goldwater Conservative. I don’t appreciate your deceitful attempts to characterize me, first, as “a true believer” and now as a “right winger.”
The second part of your quote is also a falsehood. I have been very careful not to smear Mrs. Sheehan. I feel she has undergone a severe loss and should not be attacked. I have no problem seperating the sympathy I feel for the person, from weighing the truth of her words. I find her words contradictory, sad, and wanting.
Which part of her message do you find compelling? Can you please give me a quote?
Is it: “The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush.”
or:
“America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent”
or:
“This country is not worth dying for”
or:
“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.”
or:
“When Congress gave George Bush the right to go to war, they abrogated their constitutional responsibilities and they basically made our constitution null and void”
or:
“We have no checks and balances in this country”
or:
"What they’re saying, too, is like, it’s okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the countries that we say it’s okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. "
Wow. We’re using nuclear weapons in Iraq now? Wow.
Are you behind this:
“But do you think George Bush will interrupt his vacation and go visit the families of those 20 marines that have died in Ohio this week? No, because he doesn’t care, he doesn’t have a heart. That’s not enough to stop his little playing cowboy’ game in Crawford for 5 weeks.”
or:
"But I don’t care, I’m goin’. And I’m gonna tell them, “You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who’s blood is on his hands, has some questions for him.”
or:
"You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don’t tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.’
Cuz, we’re not freer. You’re taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren’t freer, they’re much worse off than before you meddled in their country."
or:
“You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine”
(See a thematic similarity)
or:
"What can we do to get him out of power? And I’m gonna say the I’ word. Impeach. And we have to have everybody impeached that lied to the American public, and that’s the executive branch, and any people in congress, and we gotta go all the way down and we might have to go all the way down to the person who picks up the dogshit in Washington because
We can’t let somebody rise to the top who will pardon these war criminals. Because they need to go to prison for what they’ve done in this world. We can’t have a pardon. They need to pay for what they’ve done."
Do you support the imprisonment of the US Government as war criminals, Minty?
or:
"Another thing that I’m doing is - - my son was killed in 2004, so I’m not paying my taxes for 2004. If I get a letter from the IRS, I’m gonna say, you know what, this war is illegal; this is why this war is illegal. This war is immoral; this is why this war is immoral. You killed my son for this. I don’t owe you anything. And if I live to be a million, I won’t owe you a penny.
And I want them to come after me, because unlike what you’ve been doing with the war resistance, I want to put this frickin’ war on trial. And I want to say, “You give me my son, and I’ll pay your taxes.” "
Cause Frankly, I don’t find this stuff compelling. I find it bitter and sad.
Again, in your own words, it’s not a smear if it’s the truth. Unlike you, I read the Swiftvets’ book and John Kerry’s biography. I formed an opinion by acquainting myself with the facts.
It is stupid and false of you to bring this up, since my stated opinion many times over has been that I beleive John Kerry served honorably. Once again you insist on mischaracterizing me.
You on the other hand, simply formed an opinion and only selected facts that endorsed your opinion.
I can tell you quite categorically that I hoped to find a record that allowed me to condemn Kerry’s service. When I did not, I stated as much.
You are kindly requested to attribute my lack of response to disdain and boredom. I mean, really, do you actually expect me to read approximately 50 single-sentence “paragraphs”? Good lord, your 6th-grade English teacher would be appalled.
Because of your comments I decided to read a couple of Mrs. Sheehan’s speeches. That led to reading some of the writings by two Iraq veterans who went to prison because they refused to return and applied for conscientious objector status. Their accounts of their experience in Iraq is worth reading. I didn’t see the “America isn’t worth dying for” comment. Which speech is that? I’d like to see it in context.
While I can unerstand your objections, reading her speeches myself and the words of Iraq veterans evoked other feelings in me. You abhor the fact that she wants to bring the troops home now. Why specificly? I’ve heard the arguement that it would render meaningless all the lives lost to date. I truly understand the emotion behind that arguement but I also remember the same arguement being used in the Vietnam era. Unless we feel very certain we can accomplish some positive long lasting change in that region no amount of additional sacrifice will change what has happened. I understand the benefit of a solid democracy in Iraq. I have very serious doubts we can accomplish it. You may disagree but the truth is that Mrs’ Sheehan’s call for withdrawel may be the best choice.
You abhor it when she speaks of our president in a derogitory fashion. I stay away from that kind of language in discussion’s about the issue’s because I don’t think it’s productive to alienate others, but I understand the feeling behind the words. I concluded that our president was lying to us before the invasion of Iraq.
It’s hard for me to imagine a more heinous act of betrayal than to take the oath of office and then use it to send young men and women to die for one agenda while presenting false evidence and a different motive to the public. Do you think that the president is due some amount of respect and courtesy because of his title?That seems like saying that pedophile priests should be treated with respect because they are after all, still priests. They only fucked people’s kids, they didn’t send them to their deaths.
You describe yourself as an independent and a seeker after truth. That’s how I would describe myself as well. I lean toward liberal pacifist but I look at each issue separately and try to remain practical and realistic. I abhor the bitterness and resentment that exists between fellow citizens over this issue. I understand how emotional it is. We have to work hard to control our feelings enough to keep communication open. I look at the words of Mrs. Sheehan and think that some of them, like the excerpts you chose, only widen the gulf between people, yet I understand the source of her passion. Oddly enough it is the same passion that our president used after 9/11 to justify this war. Think about which is more abhorrent. A grieving mother who’s loss and emotion carries her too far, or a president who swore a sacred oath and then uses a national tradegy to manipulate the country into pursuing his own agenda and sending our families to die half way around the world. Not much comparison is there?
I don’t think similes to Vietnam are appropriate. The situations are very different. We have no detente to stay our hands. We are fighting with a goal, and there is no good reason why we can’t accomplish the goal. Calls for giving up are simply self-defeating.
Well, ok. What is the secret reason/agenda for the war then?
Dunno. I would be pleased at this point to have any rationale that would withstand even the most cursory inspection. From his latest radio address, we have this:
I dimly recall that the original rationale, currently inoperative, was to disarm Saddam of his “vast stockpiles” of evil mojo. With the boyish modestly so typical of his gently self-effacing nature, GeeDubya doesn’t even mention the total success of this effort: whatever he didn’t have before, he damn sure doesn’t have now!
Now, it would appear, though specifics are rather lacking, that we are engaged in Iraq so that the Islamo-fascists infiltrating across the Syrian border don’t swim across the Atlantic to raise havoc on our shores. Or something. 'Struth, I find this rationale somewhat lacking. But I am heartened by the knowledge that there will be a new! improved! rationale tomorrow.
When Ms. Sheehan says “this country is not worth dying for”, does she mean the US or Iraq? I thought I saw that in context somewhere, and the context was that she meant Iraq.
Here’s the paragraph it’s in so you can get context:
“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”
I can read it either way. The stuff leading up to the statment makes it sould like she’s talking about the US, but the stuff right after it makes it sound like she’s talking about Iraq. In either case, though, she is way overboard in her trashing of the US. She’s not just making a case for Bush = evil, she’s essentially saying the US [throughout its entire history] = evil.
Scylla is part of the right-wing smear machine? I wonder how much he gets paid.
All he’s doing is quoting some things she’s been saying, and some of those things are pretty out there. Not that I can be mad at her. Grief stricken people can act out in all sorts of ways, and no one is more grief stricken than someone who has lost their child.
Either the Iraq war was a good idea or it wasn’t. (The latter, IMO.) But Cindy Sheehan’s opinions are no more valid than anyone else’s, and niether are the opinions of parents of fallen soldiers who still support the war.
For the record, please show me where I have distorted any of her words. I have taken them directly from transcripts of her speeches. I have provided full context when asked, and identified the speeches so that a reader may view the entire speech.
In no way have I distorted.
Your suggestion otherwise is a bald-faced lie, and you are a hypocrite to accuse me of smearing. It is you who are smearing.
Your lying drive by hypocrisy is a blight on honest debate across this board.
No, he’s just parroting the talking points. As John Mace points out, it’s not a clear-cut “America is not worth protecting” denouncement as asserted earlier.