Not being an American, I’ve followed the whole Cindy Sheehan thing from afar. I’d been noting, with growing disgust, the whole slime-and-defend operation mounted by O’Reilly, FrontPageMag, Michele Malkin and points rightwards. Now I see that Christopher Hitchens “has joined in”:http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/fr/nl/ and that his invective against Sheehan has been “endorsed by Norman Geras”:http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/08/ventriloquizing.html . I guess there are two views on this kind of thing. There’s the view that citizens, whatever their background, are fair game for personal attack as soon as they open their mouths and should be treated in the same hardball manner as any machine politican or professional pundit. And there’s the view that grieving mothers should should be shown consideration, kindness and respect. Geras and Hitchens clearly take the first of these views.
Just over a year ago “I posted”:https://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/26/katharina-blum/ about Schlondorff’s film of “The Lost Honour of Katherina Blum”:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073858/ and commented:
bq. What is different today, of course, is the way that the blogosphere serves as an Insta-echo-chamber for tabloid coverage of such stories. One imagines the “Heh”s and “Readthewholethings” that would accompany posts linking to a contemporary Die Zeitung’s online coverage of events.
[There’s good coverage of earlier episodes of the anti-Sheehan slime campaign at the Media Matters site: “here”:http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009 , “here”:http://mediamatters.org/items/200508110002 and “here”:http://mediamatters.org/items/200508120006 . ]
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 170 comments }
Uncle Kvetch 08.16.05 at 11:43 am
This is nothing, Chris…they’re just getting warmed up. Just imagine what it’ll be like in a couple of years when the “Who lost Iraq?” debate gets going in earnest. The Sheehan case is just an opportuntity for the Malkins’ & Hitchens’ to sharpen their jingoistic claws in preparation for the coming shitstorm.
Brendan 08.16.05 at 11:52 am
Perhaps the most nauseating sentence is:
‘Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority?’
Well, Chris ‘Itchens of the Keyboard Kommandos, actually I would argue that this gave you extra authority. The problem is (as the conditional tense shows) you have absolutely no intentention of letting any of your kids anywhere near a battlefield, let alone signing up (in whatever capacity) yourself. You are, however, prepared to let other young men and women die for a war you desperately wanted (other people) to fight.
The accusation of anti-semitism takes the biscuit. The post “Trahison des Clercs” didn’t go nearly far enough. In actuality, it now seems that if you question the wisdom of Bush’s war AT ALL, then you, personally, are a Nazi. Moreover, this does not seem to be the usual ad hominem attack: Hitchens, with his ‘islamofasist’ jibes, now seems to genuinely believe it.
Louis Proyect 08.16.05 at 11:58 am
We should note that Marc Cooper (www.marccooper.com) has intervened into the Cindy Sheehan controversy in his standard manner, which is to make pro forma denunciations of the war while heaping abuse on those who fight against it. Yesterday it was Naomi Klein who received abuse as an apologist for al Qaeda, today it is Cindy Sheehan for a variety of offenses. She is “crazy”. She deigned to work with moveon.org and Michael Moore, which in Cooper’s eyes is little better than working with al Qaeda. Last Tuesday Cooper mounted a defense of his pal Christopher Hitchens on the unlikely basis that he is “principled” and not a “turncoat”.
Unlike Geras, Hitchens, the Harry’s Place crew, Johaan Hari, Daniel Aronowitch and Nick Cohen, Cooper tries to position himself as a member of the “responsible” antiwar left. But most of his energy is devoted to attacking the same figures that Hitchens, Geras and company do. In the 1930s people such as Cooper were described as anti-antifascists. You can find a good discussion of them in Lilian Hellman’s “Scoundrel Time”.
abb1 08.16.05 at 11:59 am
Hitchens has a point though. Since she started talking politics mentioning things like ‘neo-con PNAC agendas’, PNAC-men are now entitled to fight back.
She should’ve stuck with ‘what is the “noble cause” my son died for?’. Oh well, too late now.
Donald Johnson 08.16.05 at 12:14 pm
What’s really ironic in Hitchens going for the antisemitism charge is that in his old days as a lefty he was vulnerable to the same style of attack–he wasn’t exactly a big fan of the neocons or of the propaganda that often passes as a defense of Israel in this country and I still remember one of his Nation columns entitled “Wiesel Words”, attacking Elie Wiesel for his repetition of the claim that the Palestinians left voluntarily in 1948. Hitchens wasn’t an antisemite, but he was sometimes accused of being one. I suppose if you align yourself with the same people you used to attack, you can use the same ammunition once fired at you and recycle it.
Uncle Kvetch 08.16.05 at 12:19 pm
She should’ve stuck with ‘what is the “noble cause†my son died for?’. Oh well, too late now.
I have to disagree. There is absolutely nothing she could have said, or refrained from saying, that would make the smear campaign any less ugly or vicious.
You know as well as I do, abb1, that these people don’t do nuance. Sheehan must be taken down, by any means necessary.
dsquared 08.16.05 at 12:29 pm
I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.
coughUniteAgainstTerror.
harry b 08.16.05 at 12:29 pm
Actually, ‘Jewish cabal’ is Hitchens’ phrase. Sheehan talks about ‘Israel’ and ‘Our foriegn policy’. I don’t believe either of them is anti-semitic. But don’t let Hitchens provoke you into thinking Sheehan talks about a Jewish cabal.
It would be nice if these people like Sheehan who get thrown into public politics by personal events in their own lives and their own determination could spontaneously come up with the absolutely right line on everything. But they don’t; they are rarely disciplined cadre unfortunately. And if they were, even that would be held against them. Kvetch is right — these guys are rattled, and they are going to fire everything they can at Sheehan and her ilk. (I think, kvetch, that abb1 might have been being a little ironic).
Artemis 08.16.05 at 12:30 pm
Where does Hitchens imply that Sheehan is an anti-Semite?
And Brendan, if you do believe that losing a child to the war gives one extra authority, why is Cindy Sheehan’s opinion the only one you seem to care about? I presume you’ll be taking Michael Ledeen a lot more seriously, for instance, since his son became a Marine?
This post seems to come dangerously close to suggesting that *any* crticism of or disagreement with Sheehan constitutes “sliming.” Thus the rules of the game seem to be that Sheehan is allowed to gain publicity for her cause by invoking her son’s sacrifice, and, at the same time, her status as grieving mother (which I certainly don’t question) is supposed to shield her from any legitimate criticism. You’re all comfortable with that?
catherine liu 08.16.05 at 12:37 pm
One can only hope that the Fox News, O’Reilly strategy will backfire. Cindy Sheehan is not after John Kerry, a mark for populist resentment if there ever was one.
Her only point of vulnerability may be that she is a Californian, but at least she is a rural Californian.
I agree that we should not be chiding Sheehan for not sticking to her talking points. Anything she says will make her fair game for Hitchens and Company.
Slocum 08.16.05 at 12:38 pm
There’s the view that citizens, whatever their background, are fair game for personal attack as soon as they open their mouths and should be treated in the same hardball manner as any machine politican or professional pundit.
Oh please. Sheehan didn’t ‘just open her mouth’–she has quickly become a high-profile, anti-war, anti-Bush activist. Why pretend otherwise? (Scratch that — I know why — because if one can pretend that she is just a grieving mother and ordinary private citizen who has just opened her mouth, then anything she says is somehow beyond criticism).
Now you can dispute whether or not the ‘My son died because of the infernal machinations of the neo-Cons working for the benefit of Israel’ line is anti-semetic or not, but it’s either crap or anti-semetic crap — in either case, I don’t see any reason why commentators who think it’s crap should give her a pass on it.
gzombie 08.16.05 at 12:49 pm
Please explain how high-profile, anti-war, anti-Bush activist and grieving mother and ordinary private citizen are mutually exclusive categories.
baa 08.16.05 at 12:50 pm
No doubt unsavory operators are rushing to smear Sheehan, but Hitchens does not seem to be one of these. First, his peice seems quite free of “personal attacks” on Sheehan.
Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive.
This statement by Hitchens may be unkind, but it isn’t a personal smear. Likewise, while Hitchens may supply the phrase “Jewish cabal,” it is Sheehan who supplies the following:
“Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11”
So yes, grieving mothers deserve all sorts of consideration, but Hitchens does not seem over the line here.
abb1 08.16.05 at 12:54 pm
No, not ironic. I think talking like a political activist erodes that ‘moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq’. She has a political agenda now, that’s a whole different paradigm.
There’s nothing wrong with it, but now she has to explain and defend her politics like everybody else. I think people understand it. Maybe she can do it brilliantly, I don’t know, but I doubt it.
dipnut 08.16.05 at 12:56 pm
The most damning things said regarding Cindy Sheehan are the things she herself has said. “We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now”; that’s just nuts. She plainly loathes America, past and present, in principle and in practice.
It would be a fine thing, despite this, to treat her with consideration, kindness, and respect. But that cuts both ways. There are families of KIA who console themselves (rightly, in my opinion) with the thought that this war is, in fact, noble and necessary. How do you suppose they enjoy this unhinged woman’s highly-amplified ranting? Do their feelings deserve consideration?
And what of self-respect? What does it say about her that she will break into hysterics, on camera, on cue? The media vultures feasting on her anguish have made the most disgusting scene since that thing in Fallujah with the bridge.
Slocum 08.16.05 at 12:58 pm
Please explain how high-profile, anti-war, anti-Bush activist and grieving mother and ordinary private citizen are mutually exclusive categories.
They’re mutually exclusive because a high-profile activist has become a public figure and is, therefore, no longer an ordinary private citizen.
harry b 08.16.05 at 1:07 pm
dipnut and slocum,
could you email Hitchens and ask him to take seriously his (in my view quite correct) taboo on ventriloquising the dead, and attack the people in power who, frequently in my hearing, tell us that anti-war activists ‘dishonour the dead’. Hitchens is being selective in his application of this bar, and he is using it against someone who at least knew the person she is ventriloquising.
I understand why it is so important to take her down — because it is so difficult. On the other hand, it is so easy to pick holes in what she says — she is clearly not a tutored slick cadre, and has been doing a lot of learning, not all of it from the sources I’d prefer (viz, CT-approved sources). Hitchens is better when he attacks people with actual power. Or rather, he was, when he did.
Cthomas 08.16.05 at 1:07 pm
I’m with slocum, at least most of the way.
Not perhaps in his condemnations of Sheehan’s argument (“crap”), but rather in disagreeing with this nonsense:
“And there’s the view that grieving mothers should should be shown consideration, kindness and respect. Geras and Hitchens clearly take the first of these views.”
I am quite sure that people who post on this blog would be quick to criticize a “gold star” mom who argued that the only way to redeem her son’s death would be to march on Iran and North Korea and finish off the Axis of Evil. Particularly if that woman began to have a popular following.
In such a case, people like O’Reilly would be saying that the left ought not to criticize this poor, grieving mother. That, of course, would be absurd (criticism of her policy arguments and manipulation of the press, that is, not criticism of her grief).
Incidentally, I’ve been listening to some O’Reilly (radio version), and the most effective argument among his listeners seems to be: If the war is so important, shouldn’t Bush be encouraging the sons and daughters of Congressmen to sign up, and even encouraging his daughters to? Wouldn’t that be an inspiring example–if this truly is the grand struggle he says it is?
O’Reilly listeners rightly don’t buy the “hands off Sheehan / grieving mom” gambit. But they seem hard-pressed, despite the host’s efforts, to ridicule the argument I’ve just mentioned.
fergal 08.16.05 at 1:11 pm
Having been anti-(the Iraq)war and being still highly anti-Bush, my sympathies were entirely with Cindy Sheehan when I first read about her campaign. That sympathy does not extend to someone spouting rhetoric of the “PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel” variety that always finds a congenial welcome chez David Duke. I was never with the Malkin-O’Reilly-FrontPage gang, but Hitchens is entirely correct in his criticism. This is not slime; it’s abhorrence at what Sheehan has become a spokeswoman for.
nick 08.16.05 at 1:11 pm
Oh, it’s good to see the ‘decent Left’ hard at work. ‘Face down in his own bullshit’, I believe, was the description of Hitch’s embraced fate.
She plainly loathes America, past and present, in principle and in practice.
Yawn. The Party members really are getting shriller by the second, aren’t they, at any criticism of Dear Leader?
nick 08.16.05 at 1:12 pm
And what of self-respect? What does it say about her that she will break into hysterics, on camera, on cue?
What does it say about dipshit that it’s prepared to spout the day’s smear memo at a second’s notice, on cue?
RIGHT-WING DISCLAIMER: ‘Support Our Troops’ does not imply supporting any actual troops.
Uncle Kvetch 08.16.05 at 1:13 pm
Likewise, while Hitchens may supply the phrase “Jewish cabal,†it is Sheehan who supplies the following:
[a sentence that does not, in fact, contain the words “Jewish cabal”]
Thanks for clearing that up, baa.
You haven’t said anything about enjoying a tall, cool glass of fresh puppy blood, but I’m going to assume you do, just because I feel like it.
abb1 08.16.05 at 1:14 pm
Here: Cindy Sheehan Denies Anti-Israel Remarks
So, some idiot wrote the PNAC thing (idiot, because 99% of the American public have no idea what PNAC is no do they care), and she signed. And now she’ll be explaining that she is not Anti-Israel in every freakin interview.
It could’ve been Karl Rove in disguise who gave her that letter to sign, as far as I am concerned.
Ted 08.16.05 at 1:22 pm
Has anyone found a good source for the line about defending Israel? I started tracking back links. Half of them lead nowhere. Some lead to OfficialWire, which is not a news service but a paid press release posting site. Some lead to Free Republic. And some lead to a Google Groups post by someone named Tony Terch, who claims to be quoting a letter from Cindy Sheehan.
She has denied saying it.
That doesn’t necessarily make it false, but it should cast some level of doubt.
If there’s a better source than a second-hand quote from Google Groups, I’d be interested to hear it.
P ONeill 08.16.05 at 1:24 pm
As Uncle Kvetch put it, this is just the warm-up for “Who lost Iraq?” Can Hitchens possibly believe that Sheehan did/will, versus the incompetent military planning to which the Administration is now willing to admit, off the record, to the Washington Post? One would think that the search for screw-ups might begin with the people who were, like, in charge of stuff.
Artemis 08.16.05 at 1:26 pm
And unless I accept the notion that she carelessly put her name to something she didn’t agree with because she is a greiving mother, I’m part of the right-wing slime machine, huh?
But I still haven’t seen anyone adequately defend the characterization of the Hitchens piece as slime.
dipnut 08.16.05 at 1:28 pm
The Party members really are getting shriller by the second, aren’t they, at any criticism of Dear Leader?
The funny thing about that is, I’ve always said Bush doesn’t measure up as a leader. But the shriller the Party members (Democrat) get, the more I like him.
Anyway, Sheehan hates America; she’s quite forthright about it. And she’s frickin’ weird, to boot. Wolfowitz and the others in their “secret hiding places”, having “orgies of carnal pleasure”? Thanks for another unwelcome image, crazy street-person wannabe.
We keep trying to tell you, stop embarrassing yourselves.
P ONeill 08.16.05 at 1:29 pm
Be sure you’re sitting down for the new VRC take on the fake Sheehan letter:
THE THING ABOUT THAT ABC LETTER… [Rich Lowry ]
…is that it is certainly the kind of thing Sheehan would write or say
dipnut 08.16.05 at 1:29 pm
What does it say about dipshit that it’s prepared to spout the day’s smear memo at a second’s notice, on cue?
Careful, Nick. I may just break down and say something uncivil.
jane adams 08.16.05 at 1:34 pm
It is fascinating to watch mobs. Common sense says this is a fight to stay out, but these people can’t help but jump in, knowing as they must thast some of the denunciations are going to become spittle flecked.
And yes it seems the woman says a number of debatable things, but does it really make sense to call the Mongolian hordes out?
There are issues of competence and judgement here.It seems to me that there are far larger and more important debates on Iraq. It also seems to me that any credible defence of war can hide from the anguish and frequent near insanity that results. But the right has chosen to focus on the emotional, not the pragmatics for success, not even an honest evaluation of facts. And it reacts with fury over any honest portrayal of real cost, it wishes these things to be abstractions.
We’ve seen this before, at some point, most likely very soon, a whole set of assumptions are just going to seem alien and repugnant, and people who fiercely held them wil deny it, will be sincerely unable to imagine themselves in that altered mind state. That the left is for the most part not quite a mirror image, but an exploitation of similar games and emotions is perhaps good news, because perhaps a saner “muddled middle” (with aspects more pragmatically radical than the noisier) will take hold.
A pox on all their houses and then welcome back our citizens who have strayed.
dipnut 08.16.05 at 1:51 pm
[The right] reacts with fury over any honest portrayal of real cost, it wishes these things to be abstractions.
You’re an abstraction, Jane. The right-wingers I know don’t need an “honest portrayal” of the real cost of war; they live with it every day.
yabonn 08.16.05 at 1:53 pm
the view that citizens, whatever their background, are fair game for personal attack as soon as they open their mouths
Even more than that, it shows that the right-wingers entrancement with all things military lasts up to the first critic.
It’s understandable they don’t want to see disturbed such an admirable division of labor : recruiters target poor bastards, rightwingers fawn on convenient, silent, heroes.
Cthomas 08.16.05 at 1:55 pm
While Jane Adams levels this charge at the right, it actually seems to better fit those who charge that a grieving mother’s arguments cannot be rebutted.
“But the right has chosen to focus on the emotional, not the pragmatics for success, not even an honest evaluation of facts. ”
I think what the “right” is saying–including Hitchens, and however shrilly–is that we should be debating the facts and the “pragmatics for success,” whatever that means, and not trying to one-up each other with sympathetic spokesmen and -women.
For has no one noticed that quite a few “grieving mothers” support the war?
Uncle Kvetch 08.16.05 at 1:56 pm
The right-wingers I know don’t need an “honest portrayal†of the real cost of war; they live with it every day.
Sore fingers from forwarding all those “Michael Moore is fat” emails, I suppose.
nick 08.16.05 at 2:01 pm
The right-wingers I know don’t need an “honest portrayal†of the real cost of war; they live with it every day.
Those yellow magnets really do put a dent in the bank balance, don’t they, dipshit?
MQ 08.16.05 at 2:13 pm
Dipnut doesn’t loathe America, he just loathes Americans. Perhaps that’s why he shows such enthusiasm for a war that kills us off for no reason and no purpose.
Here’s the full text of Cindy Sheehan’s speech where the “carnal pleasures” quote is taken from. Judge for yourself:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8502.htm
Passionate, yes, a bit over the top occasionally. Such a shame she doesn’t keep that reasonable op-ed tone at all times. Tch, tch. But the sad truth is that America would probably be better off today had Cindy Sheehan been President over the last five years rather than George Bush. And believe me, I’m pretty damn sad about that.
MQ 08.16.05 at 2:17 pm
“For has no one noticed that quite a few “grieving mothers†support the war?”
This is a very good point to make. There is of course immense social pressure on them to do so, and immense internal psychological pressure to believe their children did not die in vain. But that doesn’t make their support necessarily false. A very important thing about Cindy Sheehan is that she is vocally and publicly opening up the possibility of veterans and veterans families opposing the war, she’s creating space to do that. The most important question about her is how many people will follow her in doing so. If none do, that does say something.
fifi 08.16.05 at 2:18 pm
I’ve had the Schiavo News Network on since I got up a few hours ago and not heard word one about Sheehan. I guess that’s because Sheehan’s tragedy isn’t actually a public issue, which wars don’t tend to be, ill-conceived ones especially. But even so, Cindy’s rhetoric of the Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel variety is wrong because it is less accurate than the government’s own Middle East narrative and we should raise a great fuss about that even if CNN won’t.
Oops, spoke too soon. Coming up in the Situation Room, Backlash in Crawford.
Doctor Slack 08.16.05 at 2:32 pm
Anyway, Sheehan hates America; she’s quite forthright about it.
You think incompetence and lies are synonymous with “America”? Well, at least you’re forthright about your “anti-Americanism”…
The right-wingers I know don’t need an “honest portrayal†of the real cost of war; they live with it every day.
They suffer. They grieve. And they work tirelessly as self-appointed Thought Police to ensure that nobody else should draw mistaken political conclusions from their own suffering and grieving. It’s really very noble of them.
Meanwhile, there are reports that the wingnut pundit brigade has been particularly hard-pressed of late, suffering from a Cheeto-to-bullshit ratio so low that several of them have had to take midafternoon naps between Googlings of “Cindy Sheehan” and “anti-Semite.” One low-tier blogger may even have suffered a mild case of CTS while putting together a snarky photo essay about Camp Casey, festooned with charming little captions like “we’re running out of flags to burn.” These guys are the best of the best; they work, like, almost one-and-a-half times as hard as the old hooting “dog pound” section on The Arsenio Hall Show, and never let it be said that the world does not honour their courage. *Raises a glass to the brave men and women of the 101st — especially Mickey Malkin, who apparently can actually channel the dead.*
Alas, there’s no word yet on how many of the forty-plus American soldiers killed in Iraq so far this month are anti-Semitic, terror-enabling traitors who hate America and want it to fail, or how many of their mothers are flip-floppers with rocky marriages who might occasionally say bad things about Israel. Dipnut, I’m counting on you to keep us informed. Maybe you can give us a regular “treasonous military families” report, how about that? You up for it?
Like slocum, I disagree with the attempts to portray Sheehan as an apolitical figure. Her protest is very much political, and has certainly exposed the degree to which Bushistas imagine that “politics” means “anything goes.” It’s a useful public service that may well help to expose late movementarianism for the moral sewer it has become, and put so-called movementarian “support for the troops” in proper context. That’s to the good.
Shane 08.16.05 at 2:55 pm
Brilliant discourse, nick. See if you can work “poopy face” into your next masterpiece.
Pug 08.16.05 at 2:56 pm
One would think that the search for screw-ups might begin with the people who were, like, in charge of stuff.
Oh no. That would require accountability and admitting mistakes (maybe even on the record) and stuff like that. No, the best defense is a good offense. Always.
Cthomas 08.16.05 at 3:00 pm
I agree with this entirely. That’s why the left should be very careful that it doesn’t fall into rhetorical patterns it would never tolerate from the other side–to wit, that a speaker’s familial relation to a dead soldier makes her argument untouchable. Cuz’ the other side can pull that one, too–and they have more soldiers on their side.
“A very important thing about Cindy Sheehan is that she is vocally and publicly opening up the possibility of veterans and veterans families opposing the war, she’s creating space to do that. The most important question about her is how many people will follow her in doing so. If none do, that does say something.”
Pug 08.16.05 at 3:19 pm
Maybe you can give us a regular “treasonous military families†report, how about that? You up for it?
You know, I’ve seen several treasonous military families just lately. One was the mother of a young man killed in Iraq named Kestersen who appeared on O’Reilly and absolutely threw him for a loop.
He wanted to rip into her so bad, but even he realized that might be a mistake what with the dead son and all. Finally he asked her this brilliant question: “If you had to choose between Michael Moore or President Bush, which one would you choose?” It was the best question I’ve heard since Barbara Walter’s, “If you were a twee, what kind of twee would you be?”
Of course, last night Bill had Miss Kestersen’s ex-husband and the dead young soldier’s step-mother on to rebut.
Also saw both a mother and father of an Ohio Marine killed in Iraq, on Aaron Brown I believe, and they were not very complementary of the war or the president. There was a lot of potential for bitterness once they hit the second stage of the grieving process. If too many of these folks start to come forward and they get publicity it could be a real problem for the White House.
I presume you’ll be taking Michael Ledeen a lot more seriously, for instance, since his son became a Marine?
Mr. Ledeen and his son should be congratulated for being the rare neocons who actually are willing to fight for what they believe in, but his son is not dead (God forbid). And you are correct, I will take Michael Ledeen a lot more seriously now.
dipnut 08.16.05 at 3:27 pm
Dipnut doesn’t loathe America, he just loathes Americans.
Oh, for gosh sakes. Now, you might have reason to say such things about me if I had said something like:
One thing I only realized today, is just how foulmouthed that woman is.
dipnut 08.16.05 at 3:29 pm
…the other side can pull that one, too—and they have more soldiers on their side.
Yes, we do. And some of us have endured worse things (and endured them better) than this Sheehan person.
As I was saying to Nick: careful.
rollo 08.16.05 at 3:30 pm
The authority Sheehan has that’s unimpeachable is her authority to demand an answer to the question she began with:
Why did my son die?
Everything else follows from that.
Instead of an answer she got lies, then more lies, jingoist lies, vicious lies, constantly repeated p.r. lies, logically-correct lies founded on false premises, etc.
It shouldn’t have been too hard to provide her with a truthful answer, if there had been one.
Marc 08.16.05 at 3:30 pm
There is a dignified way for war proponents to deal with someone like Sheehan. But the typical mode, on this thread and in the echo chamber as a whole, is instead to attempt to destroy anyone who opposes them. The Israel quote is apparently false, but in fact it simply does not matter what Ms. Sheehan does or says. She opposes them and must be humiliated and wiped out at any cost.
I challenge the war supporters here to name a single prominent opponent of the war who has not been vilified. Howard Dean; Dick Durbin; Teddy Kennedy; Robert Byrd; Scott Ritter; Michael Moore; Wesley Clark; Cindy Sheehan; Juan Cole; Markos; – notice any common thread? Every one of them has been subjected to vicious personal attacks. Without exception. Your side has adopted scorched earth tactics against any criticism of your most excellent adventure. The details, of course, change; there is always something that someone says that is careless, or failing that something that can be conveniently twisted. If there isn’t you can always invoke decades-old mistakes (repeat after me: Klansman Byrd! Chappaquidick Kennedy!)
Don’t bother with the sandbox defence (he hit me first!) It doesn’t even wash in preschool playgrounds.
You are feeling well-deserved heat because it is crass to attempt to destroy a grieving mother, and you are so set in your slime-and-destroy mode that you can’t even see that what you’re doing is repulsive. You may want to pause in your mission and ask yourself if you have any sense of decency left. Because if you do, look in the mirror and see what you have become.
Vice President Dick Cheney 08.16.05 at 3:32 pm
One thing I only realized today, is just how foulmouthed that woman is.
Go fuck yourself.
Marc 08.16.05 at 3:35 pm
Wingnut(err…Dipnut): the highest form of patriotism is to attempt to change your nations policies if you believe that your nation is doing something wrong. The basest form of cowardice is to stay silent. Ms. Sheehan is exhibiting far more courage, and far more patriotism, than her anonymous internet detractors are likely to have mustered in their entire lives.
Doctor Slack 08.16.05 at 3:37 pm
One thing I only realized today, is just how foulmouthed that woman is.
Yeah, she’s really foulmouthed when you invent quotes for her, isn’t she?
Man, if the dipnuts of the world didn’t exist, the America-hating antiwar fifth-columnist anti-Semites would have to invent you. Nice work!
Daniel 08.16.05 at 3:37 pm
while we’re on the subject, I don’t know anyone who died in Iraq (although I know a few people that went there) and am not even an American citizen, but I would still like answers to roughly the same questions as Ms Sheehan and I suspect that a fair few others would too.
btw, because I am all about offering helpful advice to my political opponents when I know they won’t follow it, acting like this in the Schiavo case didn’t win you many votes.
dipnut 08.16.05 at 3:38 pm
It shouldn’t have been too hard to provide her with a truthful answer, if there had been one.
I’ll tell you why Casey Sheehan died: he was mortal.
Pug 08.16.05 at 3:44 pm
Marc left out a couple prominent names that have been assaulted by the Hannity/O’Reilly/Coulter/Malkin storm troopers:
Joe Wilson
Richard Clarke
Paul O’Neill
Doctor Slack 08.16.05 at 3:47 pm
I’ll tell you why Casey Sheehan died: he was mortal.
I would love to see Bush come out of his Crawford ranch and try that out for an answer.
Antoni Jaume 08.16.05 at 3:51 pm
The truth is that it was incredible that the USA would do something for the goodness of it. One has only to find:
“It shouldn’t have been too hard to provide her with a truthful answer, if there had been one.
I’ll tell you why Casey Sheehan died: he was mortal.”
to understand that no human life is worth anything to those that rule the USA.
DSW
Artemis 08.16.05 at 3:51 pm
I’m still looking for a plausible interpretation of the Hitchens piece as “sliming” Cindy Sheehan — one that doesn’t suggest that *any* criticism of her is beyond the pale. Anyone? Anyone?
And Marc, I challenge you to name any prominent supporter of the war who has not been villified -Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowtiz, Blair, Aznar, … heck, even Pat Tillman — notice a common thread here? All of those people have been subjected to vicious personal attacks. And I’m not playing “he hit me first!” I’m just wondering what on earth your litany demonstrates.
abb1 08.16.05 at 3:56 pm
The authority Sheehan has that’s unimpeachable is her authority to demand an answer to the question she began with:
Why did my son die?
Exactly right. And she should stick with it and leave PNAC and Halliburton to polemicists like Michael Moore and Scott Ritter.
nick 08.16.05 at 3:59 pm
One thing I only realized today, is just how foulmouthed that woman is.
‘Fuck yourself.’
‘Major league asshole.’
‘Pussy.’
Just quoting Dick Cheney and George Bush, dippy. Pull up a fainting couch, won’t you?
Ted 08.16.05 at 4:03 pm
Dipnut,
What’s the source for that quote (the one that begins “I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good…”)? I can’t find anything but DiscoverTheNetwork.com, and
I don’t trust them to fact-check a sufficiently juicy quote.
Marc 08.16.05 at 4:07 pm
Golly Artemis, I even mentioned the sandbox defence. Thanks for playing! I gave you a list to make the point that, by some strange quirk, in the eyes of the internet debating squad *every single* war proponent is a loathsome human being. What a coincidence!
Since you apparently lack the ability, Hitchens mounted a personal attack on Sheehan. A dignified response would have been along the lines of
“Losing a son in war must be incredibly painful and I sympathize with Ms. Sheehan. However, we are sometimes forced to go to war. We went to Iraq for , and we hope that will remove some of her pain and reassure her that her son did not die in vain.”
Would that be so bloody hard to do?
Marc 08.16.05 at 4:09 pm
abb1: we’ve seen evidence that the quote in question wasn’t hers. Does this even matter to you?
Kevin Donoghue 08.16.05 at 4:15 pm
I’m still looking for a plausible interpretation of the Hitchens piece as “sliming†Cindy Sheehan….
I haven’t been following the story closely, but this looks like sliming to me:
…announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? (a claim that has brought David Duke flying to Ms. Sheehan’s side.)
That insinuates that she is an anti-Semite, does it not? Obviously if she did use the term “Jewish cabal” then he isn’t sliming her.
Shuggy 08.16.05 at 4:18 pm
He perhaps personalises it where he shouldn’t, but Hitchens’ point is that the experience of personal tragedy does not mean that one’s analysis is any more accurate than anyone else’s. This is surely correct? To believe otherwise strikes me as having completely succumbed to an Oprah Winfrey view of the world.
Vice President Dick Cheney 08.16.05 at 4:18 pm
I’m still looking for a plausible interpretation of the Hitchens piece as “sliming†Cindy Sheehan
Artemis, Hitchens accused Sheehan of “announcing that [her son] was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal” when, in fact, she said no such thing. If you don’t think that kind of loose talk has real repercussions, just look upthread, where evidence abounds that “Sheehan is an anti-Semite” is one of the most popular new memes on the right.
dipnut 08.16.05 at 4:23 pm
But the typical mode, on this thread and in the echo chamber as a whole, is instead to attempt to destroy anyone who opposes them.
I dunno, that’s rather melodramatic. It’s not as though Ms. Sheehan’s been abducted or anything.
Artemis 08.16.05 at 4:23 pm
Marc, I know you mentioned the sandbox defense, but since I took it as a preemptive attempt to head off any criticism of your “point,” I ignored it. And the fact that all the people you mentioned have been the subject of “vicious personal attacks” is no more proof that the “internet debating squad” (whatever that is) considers every war opponent a loathsome human being than the fact that every person I mentioned has been the subject of “vicious personal attacks” is proof that the internet debate squad considers every war supporter a loathsome human being.
As for the Hitchens piece being a personal attack, could you please point specifically to the parts of the article that were a “personal attack”? The fact that Hitchens doesn’t demonstrate the “dignity” you describe doesn’t render his criticism a personal attack.
Doctor Slack 08.16.05 at 4:24 pm
artemis: Hitchens strays out of snide and dismissive mode and into pure slime with this:
Are we so sure that [Casey Sheehan] would have wanted to see his mother acquiring “a knack for P.R.” and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal?
Dishonest bile straight from the steaming guts of the Mighty Wurlitzer.
Mostly, though, the Hitchens piece is just pitiful, not a very spirited entry in the anti-Sheehan sweepstakes. I particularly enjoy the part where, a few paragraphs after he derides Sheehan’s mode of argumentation for its lack of subtlety, he complains that the focus on the President’s vacation is unfair… because the press is also on vacation! Yep, that’s the winningest argument old Hitch could come up with.
Artemis 08.16.05 at 4:27 pm
Sheehan said — or signed her name to — a letter that claimed the war was started by PNAC neo-cons who were attempting to benefit Israel. The entire justification for the “Hitchens slimed Sheehan” meme is that he used the word “cabal” in an otherwise accurate characterization of her claims about the role of Israel? Pretty thin gruel, people.
nick 08.16.05 at 4:28 pm
Hitchens’ point is that the experience of personal tragedy does not mean that one’s analysis is any more accurate than anyone else’s.
When you wrap your point in a turd, then people tend to focus on the turd.
Curiously, Ana Marie Cox of Wonkette made that point much more effectively:
Cox is a very smart writer who dons the persona of a lush.
dipnut 08.16.05 at 4:30 pm
I can’t find anything but DiscoverTheNetwork.com, and I don’t trust them to fact-check a sufficiently juicy quote.
DiscoverTheNetwork is where I read it, too. You don’t trust them; fair enough.
I submit, though, that the item in question is not a “quote”, but a lengthy transcript. And while it is juicy-ish, it’s not quite as full-flavored as a fabrication might be. Finally, it’s in exactly the same tone and quality as this other transcript linked by one of your readers, above.
If it’s a fabrication, it’s more subtle and of higher quality than Streisand’s Shakespeare.
Pug 08.16.05 at 4:31 pm
I’ll tell you why Casey Sheehan died: he was mortal.
Yes, this would be an excellent answer. A snide, dismissive, screw-you kind of answer would be very, very effective.
Uncle Kvetch 08.16.05 at 4:33 pm
Cox is a very smart writer who dons the persona of a lush.
Nick, did you intend for this to be a very succinct “vice-versa” slam at Hitchens, or did it just turn out that way? Either way, it’s very effective. 8^)
Artemis 08.16.05 at 4:36 pm
And the quote from Ana Marie Cox is dead on. Those who claim that critics of Sheehan need to be “dignified” in their response to her (i.e., not criticize her at all) out of deference to her grief are playing right out of the “I have more despairing mothers on my side” handbook.
The ironic thing, as others have already mentioned, is that it’s actually the war supporters who appear to have more despairing mothers on their side. Is that really how you want to play the game?
Shelby 08.16.05 at 4:43 pm
Chris Bertram:
Do you and the other Crooked Timberites put up political posts like this one because of the high quality of debate engendered in the comments, or because you have such profound insights not available in other fora? In either case, I suggest a re-focus on more academic matters would be a better use of time and electrons.
fergal 08.16.05 at 4:45 pm
PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel sounds pretty much like a Jewish “cabal” to me, and raises certain alarms. I’d be more willing to give her the benefit of the doubt if her other rhetoric wasn’t also of a kind. I don’t know why we need to be defending such over-the-top polemics when the anti-war case is being made more effectively (witness recent poll numbers) by temperate interlocutors.
Marc 08.16.05 at 4:50 pm
There is a difference between attacking a position that someone takes and a personal attack. The replies in this thread alone have made it pretty clear that there are an awful lot of war supporters who can’t see this difference. Somone could disagree with Sheehan without tossing her personal life into the fray (e.g. the usage of her separation from her husband as a debating tool, or the usage of apparently doctored quotes to discredit her and cast her as a bigot). We’ve seen this before on Crooked Timber, with war supporters like slocum unable to comprehend that people who disagree with them could have any decent motive in doing so. We see it in the persistent “Opponents of the Iraq war want the insurgents to win” hand grenades lobbed in our direction. We see it in the personal attacks on anyone who says anything negative about the Glorious Cause or the One True Party or the Dear Leader. Some of us take casual accusations of treason a bit personally, and find attacks on the mother of a dead soldier repulsive – tough to comprehend, I know, but real nonetheless.
nick 08.16.05 at 4:56 pm
PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel sounds pretty much like a Jewish “cabal†to me, and raises certain alarms.
You’d better not visit this site, then. It has all sorts of stuff that will ‘raise certain alarms’. It’s obviously just propaganda from anti-semitic types, and not reliable at all.
Artemis 08.16.05 at 4:57 pm
Marc,
So if the mother of a dead soldier comes out tomorrow and starts accusing war opponents of wanting the insurgents to win, you’ll find criticisms of her position “repulsive”?
james 08.16.05 at 4:58 pm
Here is a link to a British Anti War web page.
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39958
According to the site, Cindy Sheehan wrote a letter to Nightline which contained the following “Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. ” A google search of “Cindy Sheehan Nightline” is bring up similar matches. No idea if it is true.
Marc 08.16.05 at 5:00 pm
I’ll say exactly what I suggested that war proponents say to Ms. Sheehan: I sympathize with your tragic personal situation but disagree with you on the merits. I wouldn’t call her a media whore, talk about her divorce, or dig up quotes to paint her as a bigot.
One again: Why is it so hard to simply be decent to the bereaved? Do you actually know anyone whose kid died? Do you have even a hint of compassion?
Shelby 08.16.05 at 5:00 pm
marc,
True ’nuff, but it’s not just one side that demonizes the other. I can’t say that there’s a better quality of debate, or greater willingness to engage meritorious arguments, on the left than on the right. (Or vice versa.) That’s not a cop-out, I just mean neither side is better than the other in this regard.
This is not aimed at particular individuals; you can all think of a few (at least on the “other side”) who take the low road. But let’s leave behind the “war supporters worship Bush” or “war opponents hate America,” shall we? Unless you’re talking about specific people and specific statements, anyway?
lib 08.16.05 at 5:04 pm
“It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor.”
– Winston Churchill, 1930
dipnut 08.16.05 at 5:04 pm
Yes, this [he was mortal] would be an excellent answer. A snide, dismissive, screw-you kind of answer would be very, very effective.
Sorry you see it that way. It was the best answer I could come up with.
“Losing a son in war must be incredibly painful and I sympathize with Ms. Sheehan. However, we are sometimes forced to go to war. We went to Iraq for [blank], and we hope that will remove some of her pain and reassure her that her son did not die in vain.â€
Would that be so bloody hard to do?
Well, yes, actually it would.
The problem is, the antis have demonstrated that NOTHING will suffice to fill in that blank. I could tell you why I think the war is worthwhile; then you’d “attempt to destroy” me by calling me a liar, or a hypocrite, or an idiot. That’s all Cindy Sheehan really wants to do: ream out the President to his face.
If you’ve decided in advance that no answer will be satisfactory, then you shouldn’t pretend to demand a satisfactory answer. Besides, there’s hardly ever a “good reason” why any individual soldier is killed. I don’t know of a “good reason” in Casey Sheehan’s case.
“He was mortal” is at least a true statement everyone can agree on. It puts life and death in proper, tragic perspective. It offers no solace, so you can’t accuse me of false sympathy. It rings with whatever tone you assign to it.
Artemis 08.16.05 at 5:13 pm
Marc,
So referring to what a person has actually said (i.e, “diggin up quotes”) and criticizing it is not a means of disagreeing with a person on the merits? Why not?
Artemis 08.16.05 at 5:13 pm
Marc,
So referring to what a person has actually said (i.e, “digging up quotes”) and criticizing it is not a means of disagreeing with a person on the merits? Why not?
jane adams 08.16.05 at 5:13 pm
Most rightwingers do not recognize the consequences and costs of war. when McCain proposed that we take on policies that required some sacrifice of those beyond soldiers he was denounced.
When the chairman of the joint chiefs and others tried to describe possible costs and needs they were denounced. We refused to even have any sort of backup and preparation that might be required.
The right denounced claims 2 years ago that we needed more troops. They claimed that there was no purpose. How about at a minimum securing the hundreds of ammo dumpes that have been looted and helping seal the borders that jihadists cross? No, no need.
Caskets should not be shown, they remind people that people die.
Wholse sets of new problems are developing. Shiite theocracies in the “successful” south, murder inc, in some cases, Mr. Vincent claims hundreds of murdrs a mont in Basra. The morgue in Baghdad reports hundreds more murders, these exclude the bombings. Allawi claims we’ve entered civil war.
I’ve made it clear that I am willing to have this nation undergo continued and increased sacrifice if it can bring “success.” Like many others of this position I’ve grown increasingly frustrated because the goal of the right is not to correct problems, but to deny them, to pretend all is well.
They have made an exceedingly difficult situation (whose difficulty they denied even 2 years ago) impossible. Partisan politics have swamped all attempts at developing a coherant and possibly successful strategy.
By the standards they use this is treason, simply because they ignore the fact that southern Iraq is allying with a secondary charter of evil member does not mean that it will not happen. Simply because they ignore the fact that jihadists have engaged in the goulest atrocities to trigger civil war and that in the last few months hundreds, perhaps thousands of Sunnihave been murdered, many tortured, does not mean that a conflict that could engulf the middle east is not developing.
You can’t pretend with these things by pretending they don’t exist. The right has succeeeded in alienating those who were willing to support a difficult and costly attempt to make this thing work. Because such an attempt requires looking at the costs and the consequences.
And it requires serious attempts to find a solution.
Here is mine. The president gives a speech in which he documents serious mistakes and makes apologies. He announces the resignation of Cheney, Rumsfeld and others. This is the beginning of restoring credibility.
He announces the abandonment of the Green Zone with the statement that most contracters and their gun waving mercenaries will go, that redevelopment will be carried out by people distributed among the Iraqi people.
He announces that *all* currently availible forces will be shipped to Iraq.
A draft will be formed of all individuals over 23 (guerilla war requires maturity) that will be selective in that individuals who are needed will be grabbbed. Thus if Bill Gates based on his passions is drafted to run parts of a healtyh program, he is availible. I’m not kidding this is war.
The skills we need will be taken from the people. Those drafted into new infantry units (based on counterinsurgency) needs will be mostly college graduates with a broad mix of skills and 2 hours of Arabic (even if taught by machine) will be part of their training.
It will be pointed out that this may cost an additional hundred billion a yeatr, a $1.50 or $2.00 gas tax will be imposed. This is war.
Draft will not be just for full time troops, but can be to grab the part time services of people, whatever is needed, whoever is needed.
Redevelopment will be done by Americans moving among the people, as areas are secured by existing troops the new perhaps less combat abled, but more richly skilled will move in. We will be told we can expect thousands of deaths as we move towards Maxwell taylor’s philosophy that in guerilla war a bayonet is bsest, a rifle is ok, but never ever use artillery. I won’t say we can always do this, but if put a half million or a million people over there we have a good chance.
We will be told that thousands of tyhis people may die. That they will be our best. And we will see their coffins.
Kevin Donoghue 08.16.05 at 5:24 pm
So referring to what a person has actually said (i.e, “diggin up quotesâ€) and criticizing it is not a means of disagreeing with a person on the merits?
Distorting it certainly isn’t. “Jewish cabal” is not a fair paraphrase for “a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel” even if she did use that phrase (which has not been established AFAICT).
Shane 08.16.05 at 5:28 pm
And now we’re seeing it from the other side, directed toward anyone who agrees with Hitchens that grief does not grant the griever an inviolable suit of armor in which she can throw herself into politics without suffering the inconvenience of accountability.
This is the same “if you’re not with us you’re against us” crap all over again. What’s depressing is that, if CT is any indication, both sides are equally myopic in vilifying everyone else and equally sad in their apparent belief that they, and they alone, have the market cornered on truth and justice.
I’d switch camps if there was anywhere else to go.
Shelby 08.16.05 at 5:31 pm
lib,
Thanks for the Churchill quote. Would our current blowhards were nearly as eloquent!
BigMacAttack 08.16.05 at 5:32 pm
Here is a tip.
If you are interested in civil discourse don’t accuse your opponents of mass murder for profit.
‘Is there yet an American who can not clearly see that Dick Cheney…whether it be 1975 or 2005…will say whatever he thinks is required to ultimately cause wealth and power to move to himself and to his friends? …need I defile this holy place with words like “Haliburton” and “Kellog, Brown & Root” and “torture” and “US weapons industry”? Indeed, the Apostle Paul is correct in saying that, ultimately, the love of money leads to ruin and destruction.’
(Assuming it is an accurate quote.)
Unless your opponents are engaged in mass murder for profit. But if that is true, I would suggest that whining about their lack of civility should be low on your list of priorities.
I am not suggesting that this makes every attack on Cindy Sheehan A Ok. It doesn’t. And some of it is cleary pretty bad. But even if Hitchens was sliming Sheenan, and for once he wasn’t sliming anyone, it would help make clear that many of his critics are filled with a highly dubious sense of righteousness regarding fair play and civility.
Artemis 08.16.05 at 5:37 pm
Okay Kevin,
So if Hitchens had left the phrase “Jewish cabal” out of it, his criticism would have been legitimate? I’m trying to get at whether those accusing Sheehan’s critics of “sliming” her consider *any* criticism of her to be legitimate. What about Mohammed at Iraq the Model’s response to her? And why is Hitchens’ characterization of her position a “distortion” while her characterizations of the U.S. and of war supporters merely understandable hyperbole?
Let’s admit that there’s a fundamental problem with this tactic of using (and I don’t mean this in a rhetorically loaded way) a loved one’s death to gain publicity for one’s cause and then suggesting that the fact of that loved one’s death should shield one from legitimate criticism. It seems dishonest to me, and it puts those who have sincere and reasoned disagreements with the Iraq war in a bad light.
Again, if more despairing mothers support the war than oppose it, does that mean the pro-war side wins? Emotion and “up close and personal” journalism are rather shaky foundations for opposition to the Iraq war. If you want to embrace that tactic, don’t complain when your ideological opponents do the same thing.
dipnut 08.16.05 at 5:43 pm
I’ll say exactly what I suggested that war proponents say to Ms. Sheehan: I sympathize with your tragic personal situation but disagree with you on the merits.
That’s exactly what the President said, isn’t it?
I’ll tell you though, I’d prefer if he would meet with her. His not doing so is exactly the kind of thing that frustrates me about his so-called “leadership”. Not that the meeting would go all that well for either of them. I still say no answer could possibly satisfy her.
I wouldn’t call her a media whore, talk about her divorce, or dig up quotes to paint her as a bigot.
We wouldn’t be talking about her at all, if she wasn’t standing in the Big Meeja spotlight calling the leader of the free world a liar, a thief, a murderer. One might say those are bigoted claims. They are also weighty claims, of tremendous consequence. Anybody making such claims must expect to have his motives evaluated.
One again: Why is it so hard to simply be decent to the bereaved?
It’s not. But in Ms. Sheehan’s case, I wonder why it’s so difficult for the bereaved to be decent?
Do you actually know anyone whose kid died?
Mm-hmm. Worse than that, actually.
Do you have even a hint of compassion?
Not enough, apparently; my faculties of reason are only moderately impaired.
Marc 08.16.05 at 5:53 pm
Artemis, you haven’t acknowledged a single thing said by the other folks here. It’s just a string of attacks and debating points. I’m done with you.
I know people whose adult children have died. One of them died in Iraq in the string of attacks the week before last. This doesn’t make everything they say correct, of course. I oppose the death penalty knowing full well that many of its most ardent supporters are family members of murder victims. But basic decency dictates that personal tragedy should insulate them from certain forms of political attack. You can choose your tactics differently in a case like this. You can choose your words carefully. You can reach across the political divide and show some compassion. I’m really struck by the fact that so many posters on this thread seem to ignore this and believe that the standard discredit-the-person-I-disagree-with playbook is A-OK no matter what.
I also reject completely the false equivalence behind the “both sides do the same thing” idea.
They don’t. The current Republican party leadership and their media allies have adopted a total scorched earth approach to the opposition, and if you haven’t noticed it you haven’t been paying attention. There are angry voices on the left, to be sure, but they aren’t running the Democratic party, they aren’t running the country, and they aren’t running TV networks.
Kevin Donoghue 08.16.05 at 5:59 pm
Artemis: So if Hitchens had left the phrase “Jewish cabal†out of it, his criticism would have been legitimate?
Yes, that was the only bit of the article that struck me as unacceptable. It would have been a cheap shot regardless of who the target was. I do agree that a grieving mother has no special right to have her arguments accepted uncritically. Ideally the whole debate on the war should be conducted in a less emotional manner, but it’s a bit late to be saying that now. Remember the rage about four defiled corpes in Fallujah? It wasn’t much fun trying to convince the hawks that levelling the town might not be the optimal response.
rollo 08.16.05 at 6:02 pm
abb1-“Exactly right. And she should stick with it and leave PNAC and Halliburton to polemicists like Michael Moore and Scott Ritter.”
No, she has every right to attempt to find a reason, an answer to the question, on her own. If that leads her to see Strauss and his midgets in the background and Halliburton and its sock puppets in the foreground, then she has every right to use the public eye as a source of illumination to bring those views forward. The idea that news and information should be distributed only through licensed channels is pernicious. She’s got a big soapbox, she gets to use it as she sees fit. It’s hard to understand why anything should be “left” to anyone at a time like this – we seem to be headed through the guardrail at full throttle, as near as I can tell.
Some of the corollaries of the “cabalist” theories are that Bush would be a kind of fusible link in those nets of intrigue, discardable when his usefulness is over.
That would make the insistence on an exclusive focus – through “official” designated intermediaries – on him or Cheney or Rove et al. as primary movers maladroit, and complicitous.
Artemis 08.16.05 at 6:12 pm
Kevin Donoghue, I agree with your last comment.
Marc, is it fair to paraphrase your position as “we should all watch what we say” with regardt to Cindy Sheehan? Where have I heard that before? I have sympathy for the loss she has endured and for the grief she is experiencing. I don’t think that gives her license to be obscenely hyperbolic, uncivil, or indecent in *her* public statements. And I don’t think it gives her position greater legitimacy. Your tendency to paint with an absurdly broad brush about the tactics of those mean Rovian Republicans and those too-decent-for-their-own-good Democrats suggests that your emotional investment in this issue bankrupts your intellectual reserves, and so I leave you to your indignant tears.
Doctor Slack 08.16.05 at 6:20 pm
Sheehan said—or signed her name to—a letter that claimed the war was started by PNAC neo-cons who were attempting to benefit Israel.
Which is at least partially correct. Only the minds of the wingutosphere are the PNAC neo-cons a “Jewish cabal,” and they are so transmuted specifically to allow them to play the race card on behalf of others.
Ben Alpers 08.16.05 at 6:31 pm
I don’t think Sheehan should be above criticism (nobody should be), but I think that most of the criticism of her _is_ unreasonable, because it is _ad hominem_ and, it seems, largely inaccurate.
Reasonable criticism of Sheehan might consist of making one or both of the following two sorts of arguments.
1) Cindy Sheehan is being unreasonable. The reason we’re fighting this war in Iraq is X. This is a noble, and necessary cause, that has been made clear to the American people from the start. It is sad that such an important task requires the sacrifice of lives, but that is why we have a military. Casey Sheehan’s sacrifice was worth it. I hope Cindy Sheehan sees through her grief and comes to understand this.
and/or
2) Cindy Sheehan is being unreasonable. Presidents shouldn’t answer the questions of the bereaved parents of our military dead because of Y.
Both of these kinds of criticisms of Cindy Sheehan would be entirely appropriate, even if they are unconvincing. However, I haven’t seen either of these arguments made much, perhaps because AFAIK there is nothing one can insert for either X or Y that would make them convincing.
Artemis 08.16.05 at 6:32 pm
Doctor Slack,
Why make ridiculous and easy-to-refute statements like “only [in] the minds of the wingutosphere are the PNAC neo-cons a “Jewish cabal”? Ever see the Adbusters editorial which listed all the prominent neo-cons with asterisks next to the names of those who are Jewish? The editorial ended with the statement, “And more than half of them are Jewish.”
fifi 08.16.05 at 6:34 pm
Poor Cindy, bought WMD and al-Q and all she got was the fine print covering the company’s ass.
Ben Alpers 08.16.05 at 6:40 pm
Before we all jump aboard the “if he hadn’t said ‘Jewish cabal,’ Hitch’s piece would have been perfectly fair” express, let me call you attention to the following gem:
Less scurrilous, perhaps, suggesting that Sheehan has speculated about Jewish cabals, but this is also deeply unfair. Ramsey Clark, in particular, represents a peculiar corner of the antiwar movement that Sheehan has, to my knowledge, nothing to do with.
But as I suggest above, my deeper problem is with Hitchens’ entire approach which, like so much anti-Sheehaniana, is focused almost entirely on the messenger while avoiding the message.
BigMacAttack 08.16.05 at 8:01 pm
Ben Alpers,
‘Less scurrilous, perhaps, suggesting that Sheehan has speculated about Jewish cabals, but this is also deeply unfair. Ramsey Clark, in particular, represents a peculiar corner of the antiwar movement that Sheehan has, to my knowledge, nothing to do with.
But as I suggest above, my deeper problem is with Hitchens’ entire approach which, like so much anti-Sheehaniana, is focused almost entirely on the messenger while avoiding the message.’
Cindy’s Views
Didn’t you follow the link?
If you did you would realize you have it completely backwards. Cindy’s defenders are focused entirely on attacking her critics rather than defending her message and for good reason.
Actually, should we really believe that men who commit mass murder for profit are interested in bringing democracy to Iraq?
And if we shouldn’t isn’t the death of Cindy’s son completely justified?
MQ 08.16.05 at 8:22 pm
The central issue to me is that this war is simply not justifiable in any terms that a majority of the American people would agree with (that is why we were lied into it). So Sheehan is powerful because she is asking an unanswerable question. The death of her son is what gives her the authority to ask it, but the lack of a good answer is what keeps her in the public eye.
Whatever conspiracy theories she personally believes in about why the hell we got into this mess are secondary to the question of why we in fact are there. (The utter lack of logic behind the invasion and aftermath does lend itself to conspiracy theories; I still don’t understand why Bush did this).
Grand Moff Texan 08.16.05 at 8:42 pm
But in Ms. Sheehan’s case, I wonder why it’s so difficult for the bereaved to be decent?
What is it that’s indecent about her behavior, other than its political inconvenience?
Anything?
“Exactly right. And she should stick with it and leave PNAC and Halliburton to polemicists like Michael Moore and Scott Ritter.â€
Why? Would that make it easier for you to ignore their significance?
she can throw herself into politics without suffering the inconvenience of accountability
That this is the war supporters’ notion of “accountability,” and that Bush is not subject to accountability at all, is exactly what we need from said war supporters that they might hang themselves in public.
.
Grand Moff Texan 08.16.05 at 8:43 pm
Since she started talking politics mentioning things like ‘neo-con PNAC agendas’, PNAC-men are now entitled to fight back.
And so they attack an old woman who never had the courage to fight themselves.
Nice.
.
nick 08.16.05 at 8:43 pm
I’m reminded of dsquared’s ‘One-Minute MBA’:
Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance.
Thought experiment: imagine an Enron shareholder camped outside Ken Lay’s house.
Grand Moff Texan 08.16.05 at 8:44 pm
my deeper problem is with Hitchens’ entire approach which, like so much anti-Sheehaniana, is focused almost entirely on the messenger while avoiding the message
All of Hitchens’ writings over the last few months has been done for him. He merely cribs from Free Republic and goes back to the bar. There is nothing in any of his articles that I hadn’t seen already in the sewer before he fished it out.
.
Barbar 08.16.05 at 9:03 pm
The problem is, the antis have demonstrated that NOTHING will suffice to fill in that blank.
I have to agree with you there, and it’s pretty amazing. First, they were told about weapons of mass destruction, but NO THAT’s NOT GOOD ENOUGH. And then they were told about Iraqi democracy, BUT NO THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Bush has strengthened his case for war over and over again, providing a plethora of rationales — nuclear weapons, Iraqi freedom, the flypaper strategy, taking the fight to the terrorists, create an example for the rest of the Middle East to follow — AND THE GODDAMN ANTI-WAR TYPES REFUSE TO ACCEPT ANY OF IT. After trying so hard to come up with a reason that will be accepted by these dogmatists, Bush has simply done the reasonable thing — stop explaining, and try to get with his balanced life.
Doctor Slack 08.16.05 at 9:19 pm
If you are interested in civil discourse don’t accuse your opponents of mass murder for profit.
Indeed. The sort of people who make excuses for profit-motivated mass murder aren’t likely to blink at sliming and defaming the institutions and people they claim to “support,” as many a warflogger continues to demonstrate.
Ever see the Adbusters editorial which listed all the prominent neo-cons with asterisks next to the names of those who are Jewish?
Yes, it brought enough of a storm of protest from the supposedly “anti-Semitic” left that it’s basically the exception that proves the rule. But fair enough: only in the mind of the wingnutosphere and occasional nutjobs of various political persuasions are “PNAC” and “Jewish cabal” interchangeable. Regarding the wingnutosphere’s motivation for this, I stand by my assessment.
dipnut 08.16.05 at 10:27 pm
What is it that’s indecent about her behavior, other than its political inconvenience?
She makes a mawkish spectacle of herself. She deliberately insults everyone who believes in fighting this war (“sheep”), which includes the majority of armed services personnel and their families. Intentionally or by negligence, she has shared whatever legitimacy she enjoys with hateful Jewish-conspiracy theorists. She accuses the President of appalling crimes, on a ridiulously one-sided reading of the evidence. And, what is by far the most important, she gives hope and cheer to some of the most despicable killers on Earth.
Other than that, there’s only the disgrace to her son’s memory.
rollo 08.16.05 at 11:30 pm
Mawkish is what you wish Cindy Sheehan was.
That’s Philip Zelikow, Sep. 10, 2002. At the time he made those statements he was on the “President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president”. He was also handpicked to be Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission.
link: http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083
and http://www.witnessforpeace.org/midatlantic/Articles/Zelikow.html
And there’s your “shared…legitimacy…with hateful Jewish-conspiracy theorists”.
Your saying “Other than that, there’s only the disgrace to her son’s memory” is not only wrong, it’s ungallant to a craven degree.
It’s wrong because even if she is completely mistaken her motives are clearly honorable. Sacrifice in the name of honor, even when it’s misguided, is an honorable thing. Camping by the side of the road in the glare of the American public spotlight and exposing her heart and its genuine sorrow to the scorn and derision of such as yourself, and the more sophisticated versions of yourself in the general media, is a great sacrifice.
Your heartlessness is the cause of your lack of gallantry, and it will also be the cause of your failure to recognize that ungallantry for what it is.
a 08.16.05 at 11:31 pm
We note Mr Bertram’s refusal to engage with the arguments of Hitchens and others, and his resort to simply sliming them instead.
Doctor Slack 08.16.05 at 11:40 pm
She makes a mawkish spectacle of herself. . . the disgrace to her son’s memory.
The mawkish self-pity of the warflogging crowd, sudden self-appointed spokespeople for the memory of Casey Sheehan, is looking like the clear winner in the indecency sweepstakes from here.
She deliberately insults everyone who believes in fighting this war
No, she deliberately insults people who believe that thinking is the enemy of patriotism. To wit:
she gives hope and cheer to some of the most despicable killers on Earth
The treason-baiting game is second nature to so many warfloggers by now that they’ve long since lost all sense of how very, very much further across the line it takes them than someone who mentions “PNAC” in a speech. Like I said earlier, Sheehan’s political stand has served to shine a very bright light indeed on the maggoty, amoral heart of latter-day movementarianism. It’s no surprise that what she reveals isn’t pretty.
She accuses the President of appalling crimes, on a ridiulously one-sided reading of the evidence.
Since the evidence increasingly admits of only one reading — the kind that shows the President guilty of appalling crimes — this is hardly an example of “indecency.”
winston 08.16.05 at 11:55 pm
“Oh, man. If I had 40 Chelsea Clintons, I’d trade them for a goat. Even a broken-down old billy goat with a beard full of piss would be more fun in bed than Chelsea.” – dipshit, 07/29/2005
“… in Ms. Sheehan’s case, I wonder why it’s so difficult for the bereaved to be decent?” – dipnut, 08/16/2005
Let’s suppose artemis and dipnut are genuinely, not merely rhetorically, dismayed by Ms Sheehan’s possible mention of Israel in the same breath as “clueless neocon war on Iraq”.
What do they make then of the sentiments expressed at a place like Antiwar.com, say this piece, where I occasionally find opinions that seem more intelligent, more fair and far more plausible than those expressed by the Bush/Cheney administration or the fighting 101st loons? I’m sure it’s just appalling that people would write dirty unpatriotic stuff like that.
abb1 08.17.05 at 1:54 am
Rollo, of course she can talk about Halliburton and sign declarations about PNAC all she wants. Personally I don’t believe for a second that this war has been fought for Israel, but I understand how someone could’ve got this impression, it’s not uncommon.
But you said: The authority Sheehan has that’s unimpeachable is her authority to demand an answer to the question she began with: Why did my son die? – and I agree completely. Her campaign would’ve been so much more powerful if she didn’t try to get into specifics.
Sebastian Holsclaw 08.17.05 at 3:13 am
“It’s wrong because even if she is completely mistaken her motives are clearly honorable. Sacrifice in the name of honor, even when it’s misguided, is an honorable thing.”
Whew, the war in Iraq completely justified.
Sebastian Holsclaw 08.17.05 at 3:15 am
Btw, Sheehan believes that her son’s sacrifice would have been for a non-noble cause even if it had been in Afghanistan. cite
Artemis 08.17.05 at 3:58 am
Winston,
I’m a new commenter here. I don’t, as a rule, imply that my interlocutors are disingenuous. But perhaps you can point to the place in my comments where my dismay at Sheehan’s mention of a neo-con plan to benefit Israel seemed merely rhetorical, rather than genuine.
And why the gratuitous solicitation of my opinion of the Raimondo piece? Do I think it’s tripe? Of course. What of it?
dipnut 08.17.05 at 4:02 am
a broken-down old billy goat
Thanks for reading! Here’s the permalink.
dipnut 08.17.05 at 4:03 am
Whew, the war in Iraq completely justified.
(grin)
steve 08.17.05 at 5:35 am
Well, I finally read the Hitchens piece that was part of the motivation for this article and comment section. Utterly unobjectionable. If that piece somehow qualifies as a ‘slime campaign,’ then the left is unhinged-no longer necessary to listen to them, they have nothing to offer to the national conversation. Jeez, much ado about nothing.
Steve
winston 08.17.05 at 5:59 am
Artemis, is it your position then that Sheehan, Raimondo or anyone else who might suggest that the neocons had a plan which was driven by and in the interests of certain Israeli interests, more than for the likely good of the US, is being “obscenely hyperbolic, uncivil, or indecent in (her) public statements” for that opinion, or was it something else Sheehan said that earnt your vitriol?
For what it’s worth I agree with the majority of your opinions above.
Doctor Slack 08.17.05 at 8:26 am
Whew, the war in Iraq completely justified.
Or Japan’s war in the Pacific, for that matter!
If, that is, you believe that lightly sending other people to be sacrificed for misguided reasons (or outright lies) is also “noble.” Which is kind of the point at issue these days.
Btw, Sheehan believes that her son’s sacrifice would have been for a non-noble cause even if it had been in Afghanistan
For all that Afghanistan is supposed to have been Bush’s “good” war, it’s worth noting that it featured all the same kinds of carelessness that are sinking the Iraq venture and is also headed for the reefs of complete strategic failure. Once again, the warflogging community does itself a disservice by trying to pretend that Sheehan’s comment is somehow evidence of an unhinged fringe whacko.
Grand Moff Texan 08.17.05 at 8:31 am
We note Mr Bertram’s refusal to engage with the arguments of Hitchens and others, and his resort to simply sliming them instead.
When Hitchens has any arguments, and is not simply sliming people using other people’s slime, you let us know, OK?
We’d be very, very interested.
.
Grand Moff Texan 08.17.05 at 8:35 am
This was precisely the answer I expected, which is to say no answer at all. Characterizations raised to the level of evidence, contrary opinions lowered to the level of crime, pathetically indirect association with anti-semitism (a true act of desperation and dishonesty), and a rejection of laughably failed propaganda as “one-sided.”
You have answered my question by not answering it. I now know what I’m dealing with, here.
.
Grand Moff Texan 08.17.05 at 8:36 am
is it your position then that Sheehan, Raimondo or anyone else who might suggest that the neocons had a plan which was driven by and in the interests of certain Israeli interests, more than for the likely good of the US, is being “obscenely hyperbolic, uncivil, or indecent in (her) public statementsâ€
Woud that apply to Zelikow, too?
.
Grand Moff Texan 08.17.05 at 8:45 am
The problem is, the antis have demonstrated that NOTHING will suffice to fill in that blank.
Yes, because the Iraq invasion advocates have supplied NOTHING to fill that space. Nothing that hasn’t turned into a sick joke, anyway. This attitude you identify among the ‘antis’ is called “having intellectual standards.”
Now you know.
I could tell you why I think the war is worthwhile; then you’d “attempt to destroy†me by calling me a liar, or a hypocrite, or an idiot.
For the above reason, there is no other kind of Iraqi invasion advocate.
That’s all Cindy Sheehan really wants to do: ream out the President to his face.
And here we see the indigenous warflogger in his natural habitat, fashioning imaginary evidence out of nothing more than his own impotence and frustration. This time, at least, the warflogger is unlikely to facilitate the deaths of tens of thousands, but will instead simply sneer at the bereaved in order to avoid coming to grips with his own failings.
.
nick 08.17.05 at 9:39 am
Btw, Sheehan believes that her son’s sacrifice would have been for a non-noble cause even if it had been in Afghanistan.
Gosh, yes, he could have been killed in that firefight that resulted in the capture of Osama bin Laden.
Oops. Try again, Sebbo.
Uncle Kvetch 08.17.05 at 10:11 am
The central issue to me is that this war is simply not justifiable in any terms that a majority of the American people would agree with (that is why we were lied into it).
mq, this cuts to the heart of the matter, and it helps to explain the almost hysterical reaction to Sheehan on the right.
[Aside to dipnut et al.: You do realize that if, in fact, your worst suspicions about Sheehan are true–i.e., that she’s nothing more than a media whore–then the mobilization of the entire prowar side to knock her down has done nothing but given her the publicity she craves? How many Americans who wouldn’t have otherwise heard about Sheehan now know who she is merely because the right-wing bobbleheads on cable news can’t shut up about her? Not very astute, is it?]
Anyway, back to mq’s point: the ugly underside of the whole situation is that very many Americans continue to support the war for one reason, and one reason only: because they view it as directly connected to 9/11. And of course, the administration has done everything it can to keep this connection fresh in the public imagination.
The latest poll I saw on this was just in the last month or two, and it showed that there’s still a good 40% of the American public that believes that Saddam Hussein, was directly, personally involved in orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. And that is why we’re fighting.
The American people simply will not continue to support a massive troop presence in Iraq for another 2 or 5 or 10 or 20 years based on the reasons now being supplied (democracy, nation-building, flypaper, “we broke it, we own it,” etc.). The WMD rationale has been completely debunked…if the 9/11 “connection” really falls apart, it’s game over. This is the real threat posed by Cindy Sheehan: the danger that she might open up the substantive public debate over our casus belli that we didn’t have before the invasion, and that the prowar side needs to avoid at all costs.
Grand Moff Texan 08.17.05 at 10:15 am
The latest poll I saw on this was just in the last month or two, and it showed that there’s still a good 40% of the American public that believes that Saddam Hussein, was directly, personally involved in orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.
Actually, the percentage of self-identified Republicans who made this mistake actually increased right before the election. It’s like they had to grow an extra layer of stupid before they could vote to reelect the failure, some sort of compensatory mechanism or guilt prophylaxis.
Is there an anthropologist in the house?
.
Artemis 08.17.05 at 11:54 am
“Artemis, is it your position then that Sheehan, Raimondo or anyone else who might suggest that the neocons had a plan which was driven by and in the interests of certain Israeli interests, more than for the likely good of the US, is being “obscenely hyperbolic, uncivil, or indecent in (her) public statements†for that opinion, or was it something else Sheehan said that earnt your vitriol?”
— No, it wasn’t simply Sheehan’s suggestion about the influence of Israel, but the totality of her remarks — from various speeches — about Bush, the U.S. as a “fascist state,” “sheep,” etc. (She has today apparently admitted sending the letter to Nightline, by the way, but has suggested the online version of the letter was somehow tampered with).
Doctor Slack 08.17.05 at 12:29 pm
but the totality of her remarks—from various speeches—about Bush, the U.S. as a “fascist state,†“sheep,†etc.
So your contention is that any use of hyperbole is grounds for insinuating anti-Semitism? For what specific subset of political views is the use of figures of speech to be considered inherently evil?
Artemis 08.17.05 at 1:33 pm
Doctor Slack,
You need to read more carefully. Winston asked if it was simply Sheehan’s statements about Israel that prompted my characterization of her remarks and speeches as obscenely hyperbolic and uncivil. My opinion of her rhetorical distortions was not specifically related to anti-Semitism.
“For what specific subset of political views is the use of figures of speech to be considered inherently evil?”
— Where, exactly, did I imply that the use of figures of speech was inherently evil?
Steve Burton 08.17.05 at 6:32 pm
May I ask a very slightly – but only very slightly – off-topic question?
Is there, in fact, a serious case to be made that the American invasion of Iraq served Israeli interests?
Given that Saddam Hussein had no WMD’s, and given that (as all good anti-warriors apparently agree) “Bushco” knew that fact perfectly well ahead of time, and given that Israeli intelligence is always at least two steps ahead of American intelligence, and thus presumably would have known the same, only more so…
…well, why would they have wanted the US to invade Iraq anyway? What was supposed to be in it for them?
I’m really not trying to be contentious or offensive here. It’s just that I’ve heard over and over again the charge that the invasion of Iraq was a neo-con plot to benefit Israel at the expense of the US, but I’ve never encountered an argument for this position that goes beyond noting that a bunch of people in decision-making positions in the US were jews.
Is there any more to it than that?
Or is there not?
Artemis 08.17.05 at 6:41 pm
Very good question, Steve Burton. I would have thought that the Israeli puppet-masters would have had the U.S. go after Iran.
Artemis 08.17.05 at 6:48 pm
“Puppet-masters” was meant to be understood as in quotations in my previous comment, obviously.
John Quiggin 08.17.05 at 7:12 pm
Steve, it was the expectation of the Bush Administration that once Saddam was gone, the incoming Chalabi government would be pro-Israel. Of course, it’s a bit hard to keep track of all the different rationales, especially now Chalabi is lined up with the Sadrists, but if you Google “Chalabi + pro-Israel” you’ll find what you need.
I suspect that this kind of thinking was more prevalent in Washington than in Tel Aviv, but it was certainly part of the mix of rationales leading to war.
Barbar 08.17.05 at 7:24 pm
For all we know, Iraq was supposed to be just the first of many invasions of Middle East nations (Iran, Syria, and so on), except that it turned into such a mess that we got stuck there. For any “sensible” argument about the war you want to make, there’s no reason to have the war stop at Iraq. It’s not like the war planners thought that it would get this messy… right?
winston 08.17.05 at 7:42 pm
Up until the invasion of Iraq, Israel had always had the sympathy and the financial and military backing of the US to support it in the Middle East.
Now that it has the most powerful nation in history embroiled right alongside it, on its side, in the mother of all imbroglios – Israel has real understanding from the US for the nature of its plight in an endlessly, murderously, hostile Middle East.
It was a good question Steve.
Steve Burton 08.17.05 at 8:57 pm
artemis – thank you for sharing my uncertainty on this point. I, too, would (perhaps naively) have thought that Iran might have been a much more obvious target than Iraq, had the Israelis been calling the shots.
winston 08.17.05 at 9:20 pm
It’d be a mistake to overthink things here, artemis and Steve. Iraq was doable; it was done. Iran is not doable, and wasn’t. Beyond that there’s as much analysis to be engaged in as you like, although one further obvious detail is that the Whitehouse at the time was bleating about the terrorist threat posed by Saddam. There was never a plausible threat to the US, but there clearly was to Israel.
Steve Burton 08.17.05 at 9:29 pm
john quiggin: thank you for your suggestion.
Unfortunately, Googling Chalabi + pro-Israel has not proven entirely helpful. Mostly I get stuff like “jewwatch.com.”
Concerning which, the less said, the better.
(I mean, c’mon – did you actually try this search before suggesting it to me?)
Robin Green 08.17.05 at 9:41 pm
Steve, it was the expectation of the Bush Administration that once Saddam was gone, the incoming Chalabi government would be pro-Israel.
Presumably it was that kind of thinking that led to the abortive design for Iraq’s new flag, which looked curiously similar to Israel’s.
I mean, I’m not exactly an expert on the Middle East, but even I knew that that was never going to fly. The symbolism – the humiliation – would be just too great. It’s just this kind of jaw-dropping “we create reality”-ism which shows just how disconnected from reality some of the neo-cons in the Bush administration are. I mean, I can’t think of any way in which that would have worked to the US’ advantage.
Wait a minute. Unless, of course, the inflammatory flag design, the leaking of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the incompetence of the CPA, and all the rest of it, were all in reality part of an elaborate plot to stoke the flames of terrorism and insurgency in Iraq – and thereby give the US an excuse to occupy the country for decades, in the name of “anti-terrorism”. Which is too awful and incredible to bear thinking about.
Tom Doyle 08.17.05 at 10:00 pm
Earlier this evening (Wed., Aug. 17, 2005) I saw an item on-line which mentioned that there would be Cindy Sheehan support vigils around the USA tonight. I googled and found a site where you could enter your zip code and a distance, and it told you all the CS vigils within that distance. I was surprised to see that there was one in my town, in front of the town hall, starting in five minutes, so I went. There were about 200 people at the vigil.
That’s a lot for my my town, a small, generally republican voting town (2004 Bush-7700; Kerry-6500 (approx.) )in New England. There were 53 other vigils within a 50 mile radius. I don’t know how the turnout went elsewhere.
This isn’t analysis, just an account of my experience.
Steve Burton 08.17.05 at 10:00 pm
winston – thanks, that’s precisely my question: what serious threat did Iraq pose to Israel?
Or, more precisely: what reason do we have to believe that the Israelis *thought* that they faced a serious threat from Iraq?
Tom Doyle 08.17.05 at 10:50 pm
“the absurd notion that the mother of a slain child has absolute moral authority”
Straw man.
winston 08.17.05 at 10:51 pm
I don’t know how far I’d like to go down this path just now Steve, but would you settle for Iraq having lobbed ballistic missiles (threatened to have WMD warheads) into Israel the first chance it got back in 1991 (was it?), and that it was setting a stirring example to less committed arabs with the payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers?
MQ 08.17.05 at 10:51 pm
Oh come on, you’re asking how Israel benefits from having a large U.S. force occupying a nation right next to Iran and Syria? Have you looked at a map lately? If you’re looking for a smoking gun, check out “A Clean Break: A New Strategy For the Defense of the Realm”, done as a strategic planning document for Netanyahu and the Israeli Likud back in 1996. Written by influential neocons Doug Perle, Richard Feith, David Wurmser. It’s all laid out there. Check out this paragraph from the report:
“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.”
John Quiggin 08.18.05 at 1:36 am
Steve, you also get Jewish news, and the Baltimore Sun and Washington Times and so on.
The fact that Chalabi was viewed as pro-Israel is not a matter of controversy, and the fact that a Google search on topics related to Israel produces some distasteful links isn’t evidence of anything.
In general, Google works best if you focus on results that are likely to be useful.
abb1 08.18.05 at 2:14 am
I suspect that this kind of thinking was more prevalent in Washington than in Tel Aviv, but it was certainly part of the mix of rationales leading to war.
In Washington and in Tel Aviv too, but hardly among the people who actually order troops deployment. I just can’t imagine that Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Bush would give a damn about Netanyahu’s fantasies, they have their own fantasies.
Richard Perle and Doug Feith – sure, but these guys don’t make decisions to go to war, they are merely fellow travelers and useful idiots and I don’t think their pro-Likud agenda has much influence on the decision-makers.
Phomesy 08.18.05 at 7:51 am
It’d be a mistake to overthink things here, artemis and Steve.
Tee hee.
Doctor Slack 08.18.05 at 10:02 am
My opinion of her rhetorical distortions was not specifically related to anti-Semitism.
I know, artemis; I was needling you, because you’ve spent a great deal of time on this thread trying to imply that Hitchens’ insinuation of anti-Semitism against Sheehan was no big deal and was in some way merited by the actual content of her positions.
Where, exactly, did I imply that the use of figures of speech was inherently evil?
Actually, I asked for which subset of political beliefs were figures of speech to be considered inherently evil. And I asked because you’ve drawn such a curious rhetorical line of “decency” around Sheehan — beyond which you assume her to be straying by the use of fairly standard forms and figures of speech in North American culture — that it’s hard to identify what form of hyperbole would not be supposedly “obscene” in your eyes issuing from a different political persuasion than your own*. (And that’s assuming your characterization of the “totality” of Sheehan’s rhetoric is accurate in the first place.) And it’s rather hard to take your indignance at Sheehan’s supposed “indecency” very seriously after you’ve played the “much ado about nothing” game over Hitchens’ “Jewish cabal” distortion.
*These people, for instance, have called Sheehan “the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement.” As this comment circulates more widely, I’m sure we’ll be treated to plenty more outrage on behalf of the wronged Sister Parks about this “indecent hyperbole” and the hijacking of her memory by an “America-hater.” And I’m sure we’ll be treated to an endless round of “quotes” invented on behalf of the aggrieved parents, and casual attempts (which of course are no big deal) to imply they’re unsavoury people and maybe even anti-Semites. And none of it will be particularly impressive, because on the whole — if the pattern holds, and there’s no reason to think it won’t — the criticisms of supposedly “obscene hyperbole” will be couched in far more obscene hyperbole and indecent rhetoric.
Steve: well, why would [the Israelis] have wanted the US to invade Iraq anyway? What was supposed to be in it for them?
The neocons argued extensively that regional transformation would be to the long-term benefit of Israel’s security as an island of democratic and “American” principles in the Middle East. (Cf., for instance, this letter to Bush, which commends him for refusing to pressure Israel to negotiate at the height of the al-Aqsa Intifada, identifies Israel as a target of the “Axis of Evil” and goes to urge swift action against Iraq as a supporter of anti-Israeli terrorism which might be a prelude to “much greater horrors.”) This assumption strongly influenced the whole approach to Iraq, since the neocons were (and for the most part, are) far from outsiders in the Bush White House. There was little reason to believe it would actually work, but there’s also little reason as yet to believe that they were insincere in thinking it would work.
Whether the Israelis themselves wanted the invasion as badly as the Bush administration did is dubious. But that Israel’s security was a powerful part of the picture in terms of cementing support for the adventure in Washington there is little doubt.
Fergal 08.18.05 at 10:05 am
In case the argument is still being made that Cindy Sheehan did not send that letter containing the references to Israel (“PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel”, etc.), ABC News now confirms that she did indeed send the letter by email — and she acknowledged sending it in a further reply to them.
While I share her anger at Bush (his callousness, his incompetence, etc.), I am dismayed by her “cabalistic” rhetoric.
Kevin Donoghue 08.18.05 at 10:47 am
…ABC News now confirms that she did indeed send the letter by email….
Got a link to a trustworthy source, Fergal? Like, say, ABC News? There seems to be some dispute as to what the actual letter says. If she engages in “esoteric interpretation of the Scriptures based upon a tradition claimed to have been handed down orally from Abraham” then you are right to be dismayed by her “cabalistic” rhetoric. If not, then you would be well advised to choose your words more carefully. Hitchens is not a good model to follow.
Steve Burton 08.18.05 at 11:32 am
John Quiggin: OK, I guess the suggested Google search was just supposed to support the claim that Chalabi was perceived in Washington before the war as being pro-Israel. But I didn’t doubt that. What I doubted was how much importance the Israelis attached to removing Saddam Hussein from power.
winston: no doubt Israel would really have liked to see Saddam Hussein kicked out back when he was building his nuclear reactor or lobbing missiles at them – but that was quite a while ago, after all, and he seemed pretty well contained by 2003. No doubt the money paid to the families of suicide bombers was an irritant, but was it enough to make him a priority concern? I don’t know.
MQ – thanks, that’s the sort of thing I was looking for. It establishes that in 1996 some prominent American neo-conservatives regarded getting rid of Saddam Hussein as “an important Israeli strategic objective” – albeit a much less pressing concern than Syria. I wonder to what extent those in power in Israel in 2003 shared this view.
I also wonder (1) whether the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to Israel was the main or “real” reason why neo-conservatives supported the war, and (2) whether such neo-conservatives enjoyed decisive influence over the decision.
It seems one would have to answer “yes” to both questions to justify the belief that Ms. Sheehan’s son died for Israel and not the USA.
John Quiggin’s claim that helping Israel “was certainly part of the mix of rationales leading to war” is much weaker, of course – probably right, but not particularly alarming.
Steve Burton 08.18.05 at 11:48 am
I am finding the following tirade posted around as Cindy Sheehan’s words on “Hardball”:
“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.
“You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine
“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.
“It was the unstated threat. Iraq wasn’t going to attack America or nuke America. But Iraq was a threat — to Israel. That was the real threat and had been for fifteen years. But for the US government this was the threat that couldn’t speak its name. Europe doesn’t care much about that threat. And the US government didn’t think they should lean too much on it, because going to war to protect Israel wouldn’t be popular.
“We’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that the Secret Service killed us.
“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 bull***t 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. We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden. 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.”
Is this for real? If it is, the alleged ABC e-mail seems like rather a moot point.
dave heasman 08.18.05 at 11:50 am
” If she engages in “esoteric interpretation of the Scriptures based upon a tradition claimed to have been handed down orally from Abraham†then you are right to be dismayed by her “cabalistic†rhetoric. ”
Bloody hell, this keeps coming up. It’s like “Whack-a-Mole”.
“Cabal” is perhaps the very earliest acronym.
Its meaning is “an inner cabinet” and its derivation is from the initials of Charles I of England’s most intimate advisers in the early 17th century. It was coined contemporaneously. I was taught this at school in the 3rd form, age 14. There is no Abrahamic connotation to the term.
Steve Burton 08.18.05 at 11:53 am
Or is that just the ABC letter, misleadingly presented as part of an interview? If so, sorry.
Phomesy 08.18.05 at 12:03 pm
I’m with Bertram! Norm Geras is a facilitator of right wing smears against innocent dissenters!
That’s the REAL problem.
Doctor Slack 08.18.05 at 12:25 pm
Steve: I also wonder (1) whether the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to Israel was the main or “real†reason why neo-conservatives supported the war, and (2) whether such neo-conservatives enjoyed decisive influence over the decision.
Of the neo-conservatives’ influence there can be little doubt. Whether or not Israel was the “real” reason they promulgated their particular variant of Middle Eastern Bonapartism is something none of us can ascertain for sure, not being telepaths. However, that it was the most consistent and prominent factor in that ideology as argued — its security being virtually synonymous with the project of “democratizing” the Middle East — is an extensively-documented matter of public record. Naive and destructive though it may have been, and dishonest though the means of advancing it were, I don’t see any reason to believe that they did not actually believe it.
I am finding the following tirade posted around as Cindy Sheehan’s words on “Hardballâ€
Cindy Sheehan’s words on “Hardball” are directly accessible online. I don’t see anything remotely resembling that “tirade” in the transcript. Surprise, surprise.
Kevin Donoghue 08.18.05 at 12:27 pm
I was taught this at school in the 3rd form, age 14. There is no Abrahamic connotation to the term.
Dave, now that you have moved on from 3rd form, you can consult Webster’s:
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Cabalistic
Kevin Donoghue 08.18.05 at 12:46 pm
Steve,
That looks like the allegedly doctored ABC letter, yes. The latest I’ve seen is this:
The search for a more convincing witness continues.
Steve Burton 08.18.05 at 12:58 pm
OK, it’s apparently a compilation of alleged Sheehan remarks from various sources, including one paragraph from the ABC e-mail, attached to an exchange with Matthews which I cut. No sourcing was provided for any of it. My mistake.
abb1 08.18.05 at 1:03 pm
Of the neo-conservatives’ influence there can be little doubt.
Doctor Slack, in this piece she’s attacking a group of neocons, identified by their names, she repeats it four or five times: ‘Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney’.
I dunno, I could be wrong, but I just can’t imagine Cheney or Rumsfeld giving a damn about whatever one could interpret as specific Israeli interests. And I’m not so sure about Wolfowitz either, he sounds a lot like a genuine mentally disturbed megalomaniacal American technocrat, a-la McNamara.
Steve Burton 08.18.05 at 1:13 pm
doctor slack – the Kwiatkowski piece is well known, of course, and certainly makes Douglas Feith look bad, but it doesn’t really show anything one way or the other about how much influence the neo-conservatives ultimately exercised. I find myself in the slightly surprising position of (partly) agreeing with abb1: the real decision-makers, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell – not to mention the American electorate (which, at the time, really wanted to kick some Arab butt and wasn’t too picky about the offered rationale) – all had fish of their own to fry.
Doctor Slack 08.18.05 at 3:13 pm
Doctor Slack, in this piece she’s attacking a group of neocons, identified by their names, she repeats it four or five times: ‘Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney’.
All of whom were members of the signature neocon organization Project for the New American Century, IIRC. This is one reason why attempts to claim that the neocons weren’t ‘influential’ sound so absurd and naive to me, with all due respect to Steve.
I just can’t imagine Cheney or Rumsfeld giving a damn about whatever one could interpret as specific Israeli interests.
I can’t imagine them giving much of a damn about whatever one could interpret as facts or reality, let alone “specific interests.” But this is owing to the grand “history’s actors” indifference to real-world mechanics that has characterized the neocons more generally (and that dovetails nicely with the latter-day movementarian detachment from reality). It doesn’t indicate what they thought they were doing, the best guide to which, IMO, is what they said to each other they thought they were doing (in the form of various PNAC articles, studies and so forth).
Steve, you’re right that a large portion of the American electorate would have gone along with the war no matter what rationale was offered: we’re all familiar, after all, with the Rotating Carousel of Excuses that the rank-and-file pro-war lobby offered up prior to the war and has spent the last couple of years trying to justify. (Or, increasingly, simply blaming other people for failing to justify.)
As for “the real decision-makers,” Cheney and Rumsfeld were neocons. Bush is the kind of “real decision-maker” who used to outsource a fifth of his job on a daily basis to Karen Hughes, and frankly strikes me as a figurehead who doesn’t really know he’s a figurehead. Powell was hardly on the inside of the war-planning process, having been one of the most publicly abused and isolated Secretaries of State in recent memory (quite possibly of all time).
Steve Burton 08.18.05 at 3:27 pm
“Cheney and Rumsfeld were neocons.”
Oh, dear me. Dear, dear me.
But never mind. This thread is off the front page now and therefore dead. Another time, perhaps.
Doctor Slack 08.18.05 at 3:45 pm
Oh, dear me. Dear, dear me.
Yes, Steve, that’s actually a completely noncontroversial statement. Another time indeed.
Kevin Donoghue 08.18.05 at 5:59 pm
Fair dues to you, Dr Slack, I didn’t think that Cheney and Rumsfeld were “members of the signature neocon organization Project for the New American Century” but having looked I see their names on the Statement of Principles.
But I prefer to think of them as chancers rather than neocons.
Doctor Slack 08.18.05 at 9:13 pm
I prefer to think of them as chancers rather than neocons.
Fair enough. Though it seems to me there isn’t that much to choose between the two…
Comments on this entry are closed.