Cindy Sheehan

Great Debates
241

No. The words, as spoken are “not worth **dying for[/b.]” You accuse people taking direct quotes of “distorting,” yet you feel free to alter a quote to change it’s meaning in the most blatant way possible.

As I said before, this is pure hypocrisy.

Mrs. Sheehan’s son died. The words she uses are “not worth dying for.”

You are not qualified or in a position to put words in her mouth, or change her meaning under any circumstances. Considering her statement concerning the email on Friday where she says she stands behind the words she uses. I think that goes double.

But maybe your point is we shouldn’t listen to Mrs. Sheehan about what she thinks or says. Maybe we’re supposed to listen to you. :rolleyes:

Give it up. Nobody’s buying.

242

Moderator’s Note: Scylla and minty green, both of you calm down or take it to the Pit.

243

Here’s Ms. Sheehan herself, from her diary on The Daily Kos:

Seems to me that the woman can speak for herself pretty adequately. And that she’s got some of the people in this thread dead to rights - both left and right.

This, for those who haven’t lived through a major social movement before, is the very stuff itself. Cindy Sheehan, flaws and all, doesn’t represent a sea change in either the American political scene or the American soul (if there is such a thing). But she does represent a change in attention in America. She gives voice to a deep and growing awareness within America of just how broadly this nation has been deceived and despoiled. And just as every con game succeeds or fails in part on the vices and gullibilities of the mark, so it rises or falls on the credit given to the shuckster.

Mr. Bush’s credit is being withdrawn by a good portion of the marks. Ms. Sheehan merely represents the collection agent.

244

::bows in the general direction of xenophon41::

Perfect post.

245

/agree

246

Scylla, since she talks about the United States at the beginning of her comment and Iraq at the end of her comment, and makes the statement that this country is “not worth dying for” in the middle of the transition, it really would be unfair for either side to say that it is clear which country she is talking about.

I identify so strongly with much (not all) of what she says and believe that she has to be talking about Iraq. (Are we not there to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqis?) But I won’t claim that she makes it “clear.” I expect the same from you.

I do want to make myself clear on something. If any of our elected government officials or cabinet appointees or military officials have violated Geneva Conventions or have created what are generally considered “crimes against humanity” and are tried and convicted of such, they should be death with appropriately.

Do you disagree?

I admire her courage in refusing to pay her taxes. I’ve always felt a lot of guilt for paying my own. Henry David Thoreau would have approved.

247

Ms. Sheehan isn’t a cause, she’s an effect. She isn’t an articulate spokesman, or a canny spinmiester. And she isn’t saying or doing anything new. Several times over the past several years there have been news stories that blipped and vanished, about parents expressing anger over thier children being sacrificied in this ghastly debacle. A day, two at most, then…gone. She’s not changing any minds, the minds have already changed!

Why doesn’t GeeDub meet with her and console her, try to smarm her with platitudes? Because he can’t! A couple of years ago, it would have worked, it would have been a sterling political move, to meet with her and burble the same empty slogans. Two years ago, it would have worked. The tighty rightys would have been falling all over themselves lauding his compassion, his sensitivity.

Its not that he doesn’t want to sell it, its that nobody’s buying any. He has nothing to say! Note the story I mentioned before, about Bush going on a campaign to defend the war. Note that he drags out the same tired old crapola about fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here. Why would that work now when it didn’t work before? So why do it?

Because he doesn’t have anything else! He’s like the villain in an old Superman TV show, whos fired all six rounds on his revolver at a smirking George Reeves and finally is reduced to throwing the gun!

Not a lame duck. A dead duck.

248

Reading her comment in context is much different than pulling that one sentance out.
It seems like her reference is to America to me but perhaps not. What seems more important is this part of the paragraph.

It seems obvious that what she is saying is that this corrupt administration is untrustworthy and not worth dieing for, and the system that allowed them to get committ their moral crimes.

Certainly their are differences and similarities. I’m refering to sentiments about the war and the feelings it evokes in the public. Plenty of similarities there.
“We don’t want the deaths of those that have already made the ultimate sacrifice to be meaningless” was a repeated sentiment in the Vietnam era. I’ve been hearing it in reference to Iraq as well.

If you describe the goal as establishing a functioning self sustaining democratic government in Iraq then there are good reasons why we may not be able to accomplish it. This admin didn’t really want a democracy in Iraq unless it put US economic and military interests high on it’s priority list. The problem is that kind of government is hardly a true democracy. How can you expect that to breed anything but lingering resentment?
From the begining my thought was that Iraq could not establish and sustain any kind of democracy unless the majority of the people were willing to fight for that right. What we have now is some fighters from surrounding countries and Muslim extremists mixed with native Iraqi’s trying to expell a forgein occupying power. You may believe there is still a good chance for “success” but it is pure hope and speculation on your part. Staying the course in what may prove a futile effort is not a more realistic scenario than complete withdrawal.
We must also be realists and consider long term costs vs. benifits. Thousands of lives, billions of dollars, for what may be {if history is any indication} a shakey goverment overthrown in a few years. Is that a worthy and honorable goal?

Before the invasion of Iraq I realized that “Saddam is a threat to the US” and “We want to free the Iraqi people” were both BS. They were minor issues misrepresented by a lying administration to further an agenda.
From the Project for a New American Century ;

This statement is signed by; Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush; Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

I find the references to “American interests” particularly revealing. Which Americans do you think they’re refering to?

249

Umm, American ones? What interests? Ummm , security?

I don’t mean to be dense, but you can just spell out the secret agenda for me in simple words?

250

On the other side of the coin, it was a slow week in the news, Cindy stopped camping to take care of her mom, her message and demands were (without offense) somewhat scattered, and this whole thing is nothing more than a fart in a bathtub. I think you are engaging in wishful thinking.

I got $20 bucks that says she’s a “Coma Baby**.”
(**Sometimes also known as a “Panda Birth,” this is a brief news phenomenom that momentarily captures everybody’s interest and then fades to obscurity just as fast)
In fact, I haven’t seen her on the National news in 2 days, and she’s gone from CNN, and Fox’s website.

251

Well, you’re being very nice and trying to be reasonable, and it would be nice if we can find some middle ground, but after rereading the speech and the context, I feel with 90% plus certainty that she is referring to America when she says “this country isn’t worth dying for.” There all a whole bunch of cues that lead me to this. We can over it and deconstruct it if you like, but it’s really not that important.

If you meant “dealt with” than I agree.

I admire her courage in refusing to pay her taxes. I’ve always felt a lot of guilt for paying my own.
[/QUOTE]

I would sincerely be interested in knowing exactly what it is you and others find so compelling and what specifically she has said that you agree so strongly with.

Not paying taxes? If I don’t pay my taxes, will you like me more?

252

Yesssss, Master! Smeagol will be good. Nice Hobbitses, Nice Minty.

253

My point was that this isn’t about Cindy Sheehan. She represents a change; she isn’t the change. elucidator said it better than I did, but the story’s not dependent on slow news weeks or on Ms. Sheehan’s long face frequenting the television screen.

The questions Ms. Sheehan has been asking are public domain whether she continues to ask them (or the media continues to cover her asking them) or not. And the public, like Ms. Sheehan, is not charged with providing answers. Those so charged, and specifically the President, must now provide justifications for the continued occupation which are compelling to a more skeptical and critical public than they’ve had to face for the past four years.

It’s possible they can pull the trick of regaining the public’s confidence. But the trend is strongly against this feat.

254

Heh. Remember how some folks were certain that OBL was going to be drug through the Republican Convention in chains last year?

The R.B.D.T. (Rovian Bag o’ Dirty Tricks) may be looking kind of lean after six years of dipping into it fairly regularly; then again, it may not. :dubious:

I’ll admit that conflicting reports of the “progress” in Iraq have me alternately hopeful and depressed. There was report on NPR a week or so back about an international group of lawyers advising the Iraqi Constitutional Committee on the possible ramifications of various methods and modes, clauses and such, of their “work in progress” (at the time of the report), and these folks were impressed with the committee and their dedication.

This upsurge of insurgent and terrorist attacks could be the last dying gasp of those who want to sabotage the Iraq rebulding process now that a government format is fairly close to being agreed upon. Then again, it could just be the tip of the iceberg, a forerunner of all-out civil war between Shia, Sunni, and Kurd.

Which do you think it is more likely to become if we begin pulling out right now?

255

Ok. Rereading your post, I see that now. My mistake.

Here’s where I think your mistaken. It looks to me like a lot of people think like you, but Cindy Sheehan doesn’t really seem to be asking many questions. As far as I can tell her goals are to meet with Bush so that she (1.) can ask him what the real reason we went to war was (she is positing some kind of vague conspiracy,) (2.) Demand of him that he immediately pull all troops out of Iraq, and (3.) Give him a general chewing out.

Other than that, I don’t see her raising a lot of questions or asking very many questions. She seems to be engaged primarily in generalized hostile complaints about Bush (which is very understandable considering her loss.)

I don’t really see much substance though. I’ve asked it before, and I’ll ask it again. What exactly (a quote, please) is it in Mrs. Sheehan’s message is it that those that support her strongly agree with or endorse. I listed some quotes to see if people supported them, but their didn’t seem to be any takers.

Again, what specific questions (other than secret conspiracy one) is she asking? Can I have a quote?

I don’t really think anybody’s compelled to be providing answers unless there is actually some questions, do you?

Personally, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass. The public is flaky at times but they reelected this administration which gives them the time they need to do what they need to do, or fail miserably, as the case may be.

To me, this is not a PR game to be played with spin. There’s an old saying: “The cook was involved in dinner, the chicken was committed.”

We are committed to success in Iraq. Regardless of what we debate about the past merits of the war, we are fighting the war on terror with real terrorists in Iraq.

The terrorists are fighting a war for survival. If we and our Iraqi allies win, we’ve turned an enemy into a friend and crippled the terrorists. The terrorists are fighting a pr battle. That’s what terror is. They are trying to make us cut an run. If we do, they’ll be stronger than ever and we won’t be able to stop them. If we stay and get the job done, we’re no longer the paper tiger. We’re a tiger with teeth.

The only way they can win is if we give up and leave. Because of that, that’s the one thing we can’t do, or we’ll never be safe again. Regardless of how you guys feel about the reasons for us getting into this thing, I hope you can see that.

So, I really don’t give a shit about this week’s polls or what protest party is occuring in Texas, or any of the rest of this political bullshit.

You may see this as the beginning of some grandiose political movement. What I see is one sad and lost lady being exploited by everybody, and a situation in which we no longer have any choices.

Those that aren’t playing protest games or exploiting a tragic women’s ichoate grief and anger over loss, know the cost for failure.

Sadly, it’s a sideshow.

256

My questions wasn’t what interests are they refering to, it was what Americans are they refering to?

I don’t remember saying I supported any secret agenda theory. I will say I believe that behind all the speeches about US security and liberty and freedom and the war on terrorism there’s a lot of motives we don’t hear about and who gets the profit and who gets the power are high on the list.

What the “New American Century” project says to me is that here is a selct group of people who believe it is their responsibility to show the majority the error of our thinking. They speak of moral clarity and American principles and American values {someone explain to what the hell those are} while lying to us to so they can send our troops to die for their goals. I’m sure they have deluded themselves into thinking they really know what’s best for America and the world. You can read it in the statement of principles .

The problem is that the “our” they refer to is not all citizens nor the rights of all people. It is merely those few who agree with their vision, or can be intimidated or bought into cooperating.
In accomplishing their noble goals they have no problem violating the very principles they say they stand for. Aside form their words their real goal is to be in control and stay in control.
Them speaking of freedom, democracy,justice, and humans rights reminds me of pedophile priests and homophobic fundies speaking of the love of God. They speak of it but have no real concept of what it is.

257

I didn’t see any qualifiers on it, so I’m guessing they mean Americans in general

Ok, but if you are going to posit these things and you’d like me to consider them seriously, you need to give me an idea what they are.

I didn’t see that in there, a minority looking to change a majority, but granting that for a moment, what’s a wrong with a group of people trying to convince another group?

I would guess freedom, liberty, self-determination, security from random violence, a vote in the way things are run, y’know basic Constitution and Decalration of Independance kind of stuff.

Again, this gets a little more urgent to your theme. If you are going to tell me that there are secret goals exclusive to them, you need to elaborate and tell me what these secret goals are. That way, we can evaluate the actions they take, see if they are betraying the public trust in service to this agenda, and, if they are, lock them away forever.

But, for me to take your points seriously and actually consider them we need to go beyond positing a vague conspiracy.

I’m sure they have deluded themselves into thinking they really know what’s best for America and the world. You can read it in the statement of principles .

The problem is that the “our” they refer to is not all citizens nor the rights of all people. It is merely those few who agree with their vision, or can be intimidated or bought into cooperating.
[/quote]

Maybe you’re right, but I don’t see how you can read that into what they’ve written. I would posit that the “our” refers to Americans and freedom loving people in general.

I mean, I agree with this:

Our “fundamental interests” in this case meaning (to my ears) our basic security and freedom from wanton violence both within and without our borders. I read this as a call against another 9/11.

For example?

You do know that this is a basic fallacy, don’t you. I mean I could say that their real goal is to found a world government based on the principles of Pokemon and it would share equal rational standing with your statement.

That’s really nothing more than you saying you don’t like them, and that you associate bad feelings. Again, no offense, but it’s simply a statement of personal feeling on your behalf.

258

That’s a fair question, given your premises. Other fair questions might be “Will continued US presence in Iraq prevent such factionation, or is it inherent in the civil structure and history of that country regardless? Would an American withdrawal hasten all-out civil war? Will “staying the course” delay civil war in real terms? Is the insurgency a civil war being waged between factions funded by foreign powers already, with the US, as the largest foreign power. participating on behalf of our chosen faction? Can long term US participation decide the outcome of that civil war, or merely suspend an outcome until our eventual withdrawal, and does 20th century history shed any light on this possibility?”

Scroll up and back. We’ve both quoted quite a few questions already, with the pertinent ones contained in the diary passage I provided.

There’s another old saying about fooling all of the people all of the time. Can’t do it, according to Abe. Nine out of ten students of liberty agree.* It’s right up there with TANSTAAFL and the speed of light as a universal yardstick.

I can’t speak for that majority of Americans who no longer trust President Bush, but I’d say a high percentage of us agree with her charges that he and his executives lied us into an elective war in service of a neoconservative strategy for US hegemony in the 21st century. That’s pretty much enough right there.

*FICTIONAL STATISTIC - NO CITATION AVAILABLE OR FORTHCOMING

259

Ok. I’ll go over every question I see in the passage you quote:

“I have been known for sometime as a person who speaks the truth and speaks it strongly. I have always called a liar a liar and a hypocrite a hypocrite. Now I am urged to use softer language to appeal to a wider audience. Why do my friends at Camp Casey think they are there? Why did such a big movement occur from such a small action on August 6, 2005?”

She’s more talking about herself here and I’m guessing this question is rhetorical.

"I just read an article posted today on LewRockwell.com by artist Robert Shetterly who painted my portrait. The article reminded me of something I said at the Veteran’s for Peace Convention the night before I set out to Bush’s ranch in my probable futile quest for the truth. This is what I said:

"I got an email the other day and it said, `Cindy if you didn’t use so much profanity … there’s people on the fence that get offended.’

"And you know what I said? `You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?’

“If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out.”

Ok. Personally, I find this question offensive and more than a little bit simpleminded. I think an intelligent person indecisive about this issue, so I don’t have a problem with a fence sitter. Do you disagree?

Secondly, and more importantly, I don’t think it’s necessary that someone who thinks the war is a good idea needs to go to Iraq and fight. I think this kind of sentiment is stupid and offensive in several ways. I have a vote and my vote is worth every bit as much as somebody else’s vote. It doesn’t get more important or less important depending on whether I serve in the military. Since the security of the nation is at issue on this war it affects all of us, and we are all entitled to our say. That’s what it means to have a representative democracy. Not everyone is capable of fighting in a war, and the military would not want everyone. By this same logic nobody should suggest the government do anything or have an opinion unless they are personally willing and in a position to do that thing themselves.

While I respect Mrs. Sheehan’s right to have an opinion. I am offended and disturbed that she feels it is appropriate to restrict or place conditions on my or anybody else’s right to have an opinion or a say in this representative democracy. Do you disagree?

"“Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq?”

Ok, I guess these are more the questions you had in mind (should have read the whole thing before I started typing, but at least I’m thorough.

This question is too complex to answer in a sentence or two, but I think it’s reasonable to say that this is not particularly a new question. The debate has been going on over this question since before the fighting began. You and I have argued it ourselves, magazine articles are written about. It’s talked about on the news. She’s asking a question that is constantly being asked, and, one that the American people considered a priority (or so I hope) while voting. If that vote is an indication, the people are behind (or at least accept the President’s reasons.) He has, after all, been answering this question constantly for several years. So, I don’t see anything new or particularly compelling here that isn’t already being covered and discussed. Do you disagree?

“What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for?”

Same thing, but lest it seem like I’m dodging, “noble cause” appears to be her term, the reasons given are:

  1. Disarm Sadaam of the WMDs he didn’t have.
  2. End Saddam’s evil and dangerous regime.
  3. Free the Iraqi people.
  4. Fight the war on terror.
  5. Promote a Democracy in the Middle East to be our ally against terror.

If we insist on “Noble causes” then I guess “Freedom, Democracy, and Security” work.

(I’m not looking to debate these, but those are more less the reasons we were given, and we may beleive them or not. Was Sheehan not paying attention when this debate raged?)

“What do you hope to accomplish there?”

Seems like a different version of the above question.

"Why did you tell us there were WMD’s and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren’t? "

I beleive she is factucally mistaken here. Bush didn’t know that there weren’t WMDs there, as far as I can tell. The problem is that he didn’t know for sure that there were like he told us he did. The lie was him telling us that he knew for sure. Do you disagree?

"Why did you lie to us? " Good question. One that to my knowledge Bush has never satisfactorily addressed. I would think that it would do Bush a lot of good relative to his standing with all citizens were he to acknowledge his failure here and apologize for misleading us in this instance. Do you disagree?

“Why did you lie to the American people? Why did you lie to the world?”

Same question. I guess she repeats it for rhetorical effect.

“Why are our nation’s children still in harm’s way and dying everyday when we all know you lied?”

I don’t really see how the one has anything to do with the other. The other reasons are still valid even if this one is wrong. I think it’s a damaging fallacy for war opponents to insist that there was only a single reasons for the war. I remarked on the events leading up to Iraq and afterwards that everytime Bush attempted to sell the war WMDs were a single item on a list of many. Attempting to pretend that one represents the larger whole is a classical logical fallacy. Again, do you disagree?

“Why do you continually say we have to `complete the mission’ when you know damn well you have no idea what that mission is and you can change it at will like you change your cowboy shirts”

I look at this as an ad hominem disguised as a question. Saying Bush doesn’t know what the goals are is a simple and (to my ear) simpleminded insult directed at Bush.

Let’s put aside the argument of whether the goals have changed and how much, and let’s just assume for the purposes of argument that Sheehan is correct and the goals have changed. So what?

Cindy herself spoke complimentarily about the President after their first meeting. Her opinion has changed. I think it’s false to assume that a goal must remain fixed and constant. Things do change subject to circumstance and only fool doesn’t change with them.

The expectation that goals should be fixed and immutable is a very bad one.

Do you disagree with this?

That’s every single question. Again, I don’t really think she’s asked any good ones (with a single exception.)

I really don’t see much that’s compelling, and I am honestly surprised that so many people say how much they agree with her or think she is making fantastic points or asking great questions.

I don’t mean this as an attack against her and I’m not being rhetorical. You see, you should concede that I am something of an expert on anti-war points, rhetoric, and questions as I have spent so much time on these boards as one of the respondents to them.

Quite seriously, her stuff is simplistic bush league dismissable tripe compared to the arguments and points and questions that have been routinely made on this in debates and discussion by those that oppose the war.

I have seen good questions, good issues raised, good points made.

This ain’t it. It’s junk.

There’s another old saying about fooling all of the people all of the time. Can’t do it, according to Abe. Nine out of ten students of liberty agree.* It’s right up there with TANSTAAFL and the speed of light as a universal yardstick.
I can’t speak for that majority of Americans who no longer trust President Bush, but I’d say a high percentage of us agree with her charges that he and his executives lied us into an elective war in service of a neoconservative strategy for US hegemony in the 21st century. That’s pretty much enough right there.

*FICTIONAL STATISTIC - NO CITATION AVAILABLE OR FORTHCOMING
[/QUOTE]

260

Scylla, I’m really not offering any defense of or support for Cindy Sheehan’s arguments or statements. But I don’t think the questions “What do you hope to accomplish in Iraq?” and “Why did you lie about it?” are as easily dismissed as you seem to.

-And I really can’t provide any evidence for this beyond the public polling that seems to support a trend toward skeptical distrust of the Bush administration’s stated reasons. I wish I could support my belief that those questions will prove persistent, but I don’t think this is a venue where that argument can be played out to a conclusion. Time will either show me for a fool or vindicate those who’ve asked the questions all along.