Mom holds vigil near Bush ranch

Remove all ads!

Though I seldom agree with Bush on anything, he is doing the smart thing here (for once ). He's in a no-win situation, and the only thing he can do is wait for this woman to screw up somehow and destroy her own credibility. Normally it wouldn't have taken even this long, but she's got a good support system (the people protesting with her).

It's just a matter of who will break down first. Either Bush will get tired of the whole thing and agree to meet with her (bad idea), or she'll get tired of being a polite protester and snap at him. Noone's going to win this one; she's just betting that Bush will lose more than she does. *sigh*

 

Well, her editorial appeared in Newsweek. Whether or not you consider writers in national publications to be of "importance" is entirely your own call. The measured importance of editorial writers has many variables. I suppose that the editors of Newsweek, and other publications, may consider who she is, (daughter of Reagan) as one of those variables in their decision making process. Nevertheless, this is beside the point.

As to her being a conservative, and thusly placing greater importance on her ideology in such a light, is well.... Since I'm a liberal, and someone who is very proud to be one, conservative writers have generally LESS importance. But I do take the time to read articles by writers such as William F. Buckley and George Will. Although I don't often agree with them.

But that was Patti's larger point. We don't listen enough to each other because of the ideological gap. She frames her larger point by illustrating her own faults as a liberal, and as a result, failing to give her father the respect of listening. Take a look:

She goes on to say that it was a mistake and a "regret" in her own life that she did not take the time to listen.

It seems that Davis has grown beyond ideology, and that the way in which we treat each other as people is more important than ideology. In fact she calls it "character building." This is something that we can all improve upon. That includes liberals as well as consevatives. But she sees this as a failing of Bush's in the larger debate over the Sheehan situation. And I agree with her.

 

Wow Chandos, I am sorry, I didn't meen do offend you or slander Miss Davis, please accept my apologies.

I think in your indignation you missed the main point of my post, so as a courtesy I will repost it for you.

 

I was not offended in the least. So, while appreciated, no apologies are necessary.

It's strange I did not feel any indignation over your previous post, unless there was something there that I missed. If there is, just PM me with the details.

I think at this point we are just arguing past each other. But it appears you don't agree with the larger point that Ms Davis was making, which is fine, as that point stated, it's more important that we show each other the respect of listening...

 

Back on topic, because someone has to do it:

There certainly seems to be a lot of bashing of this woman going on here. And I'm sure most mothers who have lost a son in war deserve to be bashed. It was probably irresponsible to raise them in the first place, especially if they were Honor Students and Eagle Scouts. There's clearly some bad upbringing here, and it shows in the mother's grasping for a spotlight in which she is subjected to accusations of dubious motives, suspicious associations, and demented utterances. She'll think twice before she has another kid. As Jon Stewart said on "The Daily Show", it's time for The President to put this woman's son's death behind him [as he has so many other deaths in his political career] and get on with his life.

The death of a child is TRAGIC! I hope some of you blithe posters can grasp this simple fact. It is not an essay test. Perhaps the woman has become unhinged. Or perhaps she feels that scales have fallen from her eyes; that she has been hoodwinked & bamboozelled. I don't know her and I'm not qualified to say. But these insinuations of guilt by association--"She's talking to Michael Moore!"--are pure crap. As to her "irrational" statements: What are they? I haven't seen any of them posted here, although there is no shortage of accusations.

[ August 19, 2005, 06:56: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

There is the accusation that the President is waging nuclear war in Iraq, that the war obviously isn't a worthy cause as the President's daughters aren't over there (like any commanding officer in the military would allow them in combat, and if one of them were captured the President would be forced to resign), equating Camp Casey with Disneyland...and those are only the ones that have been mentioned here.

Have you actually watched any of the interviews with her? I am not speaking of the edited snippets that the MSM is broadcasting, but the full interviews.

She is several cards short of a full deck and for that I pity her. I admire and appreciate her son for his sacrifice. I would admire her for hers, but she is totally defaming the sacrifice her son made by her actions. She is fully within her rights, and she can choose to go down this road, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong to disagree with her or to point out that she is not fully in control of her facilities, and doing so in no way demeans the sacrifice she, Casey Sheehan, and the Sheehan family have made. If political correctness forces us to walk away from debates due to the fact that one party has had a painful experience resulting directly from the issue being debated, then we might as well just toss the 1st Amendment out the window.

 

You're right, Darkwolf, I haven't watched any of her interviews. I was upset by the general accusatory tone of some of the posts. Thanks for the quotes. The nuclear war stuff is obviously off-center, but I certainly agree about the "worthy cause". And why shouldn't Bush send over his daughters? They're probably no more incompetent than some of the troops who are already over there, or some of the soldiers I served with. And Mickey and Donald too, for morale. Let's remember a slogan from the sixties: "War is Good Business. Invest Your Son!"

Incidentally, you can find some interesting and amusing quotes on this whole business--Iraq, not Ms. Sheehan--at MoxieGrrrl.com. Remember, God may not love you, but He does love George.

 

Wrinting on that topic somehwta late, I have to say I find the case of Cindy Sheehan remarkable.

That there have been plenty of Democrats against the war, and for good reasons, is no secret. IMO their opposion was doomed to fail however, as the GOP smear squads could easily dismiss their critiques as ‘leftist’ or ‘liberal’ propaganda. That’s why it couldn’t make a difference in the last presidential elections. Howard Dean’s campaign IMO started two years too early, and fell on barren ground. Today that’s different.

What’s making the big difference now is that conservative people too are starting to ask hard questions and begin to feel and express unease about the consequences of Bush’s war: America is not safer now, Bin Laden is still at large, U.S. troops ary dying in a war that has thus far only benefited Israel and Iran, and oil prises are rising - troubling the consumer. That’s an encouraging thing to see.

It needs conservatives to end a conservative war.

The pro-war propagandists have had greater difficulties in smearing and shouting down conservative critics of the war. It doesn't mean they aren't trying hard, to the contrary. They do.

With Bush II in power and his GOP in full swing the Iraq war became a GOP war, and Bush II profited immensely from this war PR wise, just remember the carrier landing or his numerous apprearances with troops in the background.
But that Iraq was solely a GOP war isn’t entirely true. True, the war with Iraq was propagated by Bush’s neo-con wing and their claquers and mouthpieces -- but neo-cons are in both parties, Democratic Party and GOP alike. So to say: There are two wings of the ‘War Party’, represented by the leadership of both major parties in the U.S. It's no accident that Kerry ran in his campaign on making war *better* than Bush.

That’s why I find Democrats claiming they were drawn into this war by lies somewhat dishonest. For that game you need two, the liar and the dupe who believes him, or doesn’t dare to voice concerns.
Many people had their doubts already when the war began, and they were shouted down, because frankly, no one was intested in what they had to say. America as a nation, in the broadest generalisation possible, wanted to kick some arabiac butt after 9/11. It is hard to interprete the mood throughout the media in a different way. In the media anti-war views were only voiced by a small minority. Few did dare to swim against that current.

Chandos was quite right with his reference to the 'Sunshine Patriots'. Being against war when it goes bad it easy - but more credit has to go to those were antiwar when it still wasn’t cool. However late, it’s great the hard questions are being asked after all.

The problem with Iraq will repeat itself at some other place unless America starts to critically access the policies that led to war in first plance, and to change them if necessary. I think that’ll be the hardest part of them all as being against war internally is one thing -- toward the outside world factors like pride and nationalism or fear about loss of face (no worries, it can’t get worse) play an important and possibly negative factor. America’s habit of flag waving is legenadary. Plus, America’s foreign policy establishment and larger parts of the nation do regard military action as a legitimate was to conduct foreign policy. I don’t expect that to change.

If the polls are any indication Cindy Sheehan’s protest is only the most manifest expression of America’s growing war weariness. I think, and hope, it could well be that this is a beginning of a grassroots movement in America that transcends party borders. My best wishes to her.


[ August 20, 2005, 15:04: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa,

All I can say is that you aren't in America, and it is obvious in your post. Why don't you come on over and give the your post above as a speech in downtown Tulsa Ok? Oh, be sure to wear old clothes that you wouldn't mind having food and drink tossed on, and I would suggest a couple of bodyguards, because when the rednecks start to beating you up, the crowd isn’t going to be very sympathetic. I could copy your post with a link back here on a large number of US forums, and I guarantee you that Tal would have a good case against me for creating a denial of service attack on his website.

Polls are only as good as the questions asked and the quality of the sample used, and there are few if any pollsters left in the US that are independent, (e.g. not working for one side or the other), and anyone who looks at the baselines can see that pollsters are scared to not give whoever they are providing the poll to with something that will look favorable. Cindy Sheehan is having no material effect on the US attitude regarding the war. Sure there is war weariness, there is in every war which a democracy engages in that lasts any time at all, but Sheehan is not a cause or contributor to it. If you want to look at polls, go look at the polls about Cindy. Even the MSM can only gin up a 38% favorable to 39% unfavorable when skewing the polls by loading them with registered democrats. The woman said we were engaging in nuclear war in Iraq! Personally, I hope she remains the face for the anti-war movement, because she hurts it far more than she helps. However, I think that the MSM will take the opportune (for them) occurrence of her mother's stroke to displace her and replace her with someone more, how shall we say this kindly, someone a little saner. She has made the most she could of her 15 minutes of fame, and other than the occasional appearance on the usual suspects (Sunday morning “news” shows) she is done. I hope it was worth it, because she not only lost her son, but the rest of her family as well.

Finally, for every propagandist for the war there is one against it, you (IMO you are a propagandist) and your precious war protestors are not lily white in the desire to ignore progress and highlight every misstep in an effort in invalidate the war, just as the “neo-cons” want to downplay every setback and make every forward step seem monumental. It is amazing to me how people of intelligence fall for both sides.

Remember, propaganda vs. news is exactly the same a rebellion vs. revolution; it depends on which side of the issue you are on.

 

Darkwolf,
I wasn't expressing certainty, but reflecting the hope shining through some libertarian articles I read shortly before I posted. I was merely being infected with their optimism. But then, in the past a lot of that optimism has been the rallying cry to devoted followers. It could well be just that again.

I have made honest (gasp) polls myself as an interviewer for a large market researc company some time ago, and that was quite interesting in fact. I learned one thing: Polls do say something after all. If anything, they give an indication of a trend. However, they cannot prove anything as statistics cannot 'prove' anything anyway.

Want to make a point and want to find a poll, no problem, you'll find one made just for your point of view. Yes, polling is something like a black art, and often abused. And it goes the other way around:
See a poll and don't like it? Media bias, wrong questions, wrong pollster, wrong messenger - whatever. You'll find something to dismiss what you dislike and rationalise your point of view.

That is why I cannot tell you anything in defense of the U.N. - it will be a waste of time. You've made your judgement: The U.N. is evil, and I hate America, and all I say is vile propaganda.

I think that the most evident advantage of the only half-true 'liberal media bias' accusation is that it, coupled with the conservative bias, devalues all facts and reduces the discussion to an exchange of opinions. Once you're there, only perception counts. The 'liberal media bias' myth is the most devastating pre-emptive strike ever dealt out by the GOP propagandists. It's no longer important what's up, it's important how it feels. And the fallout has entered the media mainstream. The result is mainstream media credbility in the U.S. at an all time low.

I wouldn't worry that there are bad news from Iraq, I would worry that they might be true.

Americas dedicated beacon for liberal free market democracy in the Middle East, Iraq, has just decided that islamic law will be introduced. Good news? Depends on your point of view again, I guess. The more liberal Iraqis will sure miss the old times under Saddam when laws weren't as harsh and weman were safe on the streets at night. Measured on the highly optimistic pre-war plans islamic law is a very bad thing and a U.S. defeat. Considering how long it took the Iraqis to get that far in the end -- despite massive U.S. pressure -- a stunning success, and things are going well. Your pick.

Reality is arbitrary.

 

Ragusa,

I agree with part of what I think you are saying: consistent polling, even if somewhat skewed (and all polling is) can be useful in trend analysis. However I do not believe that it is possible to tell anything definitive from any poll, period.

1. I do not believe that the UN is evil: I believe it is broken.

2. I do not believe that you hate America. I do believe that you have an irrational fear of the current administration and those you dub "neo-cons".

3. I never said that your propaganda was any more vile than mine is. Please understand the definition I use for the word propaganda:

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

Propaganda is used anytime a divisive debate is entered, as we are all trying to prove our point, and there is no reason to weaken ourselves by providing any strength to the opponent, so we only chose to emphasize the ideas that fit our beliefs.

You communicate, intentionally, that those who you believe to be correct in opposing this war do not use propaganda, and that every word out of the mouth of the "neo-cons" is a lie. There are plenty of lies on both sides, and more than enough burying of heads in the sand on both sides to make discerning the truth almost impossible.

Journalists long since abandoned this principle. Some time ago, during one of the many discussions on this board regarding the MSM I decided that while I still believe that the media leans to the left, they really don't care which side of the story they slant, as long as it is sensational and gets readers/viewers. Hence I believe that the MSM has abandoned the tenant quoted above in favor reporting news in a manner that panders to emotional reaction in place of factual relevance (look at what the MSM did with a story about stains on a blue dress ) I am not sure if the MSM is responsible for the divide in American politics, or a symptom of it, but I am sure that the MSM no longer provides fair, honest and balance coverage of the news.

Lastly, you have finally linked a story that actually gives me pause for concern. One of the primary reasons I have backed this war is that it provides an opportunity for a nation to be established that sets a new paradigm in the Middle East. If you want to know something that I do feel is evil, it is the use of any religion for the baseline for testing law, especially one steeped in almost 1400 years of unprovoked violence. If the administration allows this to stand, and allows the Iraqi government to establish such a rule in their constitution, I will be in line with Howard Dean calling for the immediate recall of all troops from Iraqi soil. This is an unacceptable event, and I feel that it totally betrays the sacrifices made by the soldier who have been wounded and killed in the removal of Saddam Hussein and subsequent peacekeeping action in Iraq.

Sorry, I know I am , but this seemed a really important thing to say given where this thread has gone. I wanted this to be stated in public, especially given the sentiment that has been conveyed to me regarding tone of my post previous to this one, and I promise that I will return to topic should I post in this thread again, and will take this discussion to PM should it need to be continued.

[ August 22, 2005, 03:51: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Ragusa, I think the observations you make in your 8/20 post are shrewd and very much on-target. There are probably even people in Tulsa who would agree with you.

 

Darkwolf,
looking at what neo-con 'idealism' has brought the U.S. into I wouldn't call this fear irrational.

Their plans to simply re-do the Greater Middle East in a jolly cakewalk were deluded to begin with. And those responsible don't feel the consequences. Ken Adelman, Mr. Cakewalk himself, just got promoted to a Pentagon job after he became the most disliked U.S. Ambassador in Turkey ever and probably damaged U.S.-Turkish relations for years to come. Wolfie blew Iraq, and got lauded away to the World Bank. Mr. 'I take personal responsibility' Rumsfeld, well, hasn't done that and is still SecDef.

When the U.S. atm is more realist, I don't think that the warmongering wing is out of power. They have merely done a tactical retreat, and will use the opportunity to strike again when they get it. The next terrorist attack and the silly talk about appeasement and the cry for more 'bold action' a lá Iraq will be there. And the preferred targets are Syria and Iran. It's utterly predictable.

That's basically the simply secret behind the announcement of the nuclear contingenbcy plans toward Iran. As war with Iran is impossible for the U.S., that could still work to kill the EU3 talks, excellent. Cheney doesn't believe in talk with Iran anyway.
When Bolton repeatedly torpedoed his boss Powell when he was about to negotiate with North Koerea, on orders of his real Boss Cheney, that was for the same reason. They sure couldn't start a war, but if it kills the talks, excellent.

What I see in the neo-cons are militarists, who for high minded goals, prefer military force as the primary tool of foreign policy, as anything else doesn't work anyway to give the U.S what it wants. Other countries interests are irrelevant, it's my way or the highway. Only hard power counts. As America is so dominating militarily, the others are irrelevant. Stalin, with his talk about how many divisions the pope has, sports a very neo-con worldview.

One gets the feeling, that, wherever neo-cons go, they leave behind scorched earth, in Iraq in the quite literal sense of the word.

National interest is nice and well. The aspect that it is a national interest to be a 'reliable' and 'rational' ally for friends is in the national interest as well, is lost on them.

American militarsim isn't entirely new: It evolved over decades. As Andrew Bacevic* sais: The new American militarism made its appearance in reaction to the 1960’s and especially to Vietnam. It evolved over a period of decades, rather than being spontaneously induced by a particular event such as the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001. To point the finger at the G.W. Bush administration would give too much credit to the wanna-be Texas rancher. The evolution to the current extreme militarism grew from intellectual efforts of a long line of policy makers both in the military and in government, beginning, for example, with Woodrow Wilson.

Desert Storm proved that the use of high technology in military operations gave the U.S. a monopoly in military dominance which the Bush Administration translated directly into political domination. Never forget Madeleine Albright's telling line: “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about, if we cant’ use it?” Militarism of that line of thought transcends party borders.

To cite Bacevic* again: "To state the matter bluntly, Americans in our own time have fallen prey to militarism, manifesting itself in a romanticized view of soldiers, a tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national greatness, and outsized expectations regarding the efficacy of force. To a degree without precedent in U.S. history, Americans have come to define the nation’s strength and well-being in terms of military preparedness, military actions, and the fostering of, or nostalgia for, military ideals."

The neo-cons are merely the last and most agressive incarnation of that school of thought thought. Coupled with U.S. military superiority and the lurking idea of the easy and safe high tech war war, and 9/11, that became a critical mass.

And despite all their intellectual and ideological efforts, they are short-sighted: Their shock and awe invasion provoked four times the level of terrorism than previously existed. In face of such overwhelming high-tech U.S. military power, terrorism represents the only possible response for anyone who wants to fight but is not outright suicidal. And there we are.

The agressive war of choice against Iraq was clearly a mistake, and only one of the wars the neo-cons envision after 9/11. Iran and Syria were to be overrun, too.

I'm not a pacifist. If America would return to something like Weinbergers pragmatism, I'd welcome that. And it Ms. Sheehan is a start for that, the better. I like idealists who for a change don't blow up things.

* Bacevics book, 'The New American Militarism' is a highly recommended read.