Smearing the mother of a killed soldier is not only awful, it is also counterproductive. You can look at what she says–it discredits her without anything else needed:
MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?
SHEEHAN: I don’t think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We’re fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we’re saying. But they’re not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.
MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.
SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.
MATTHEWS: But that’s where they were being harbored. That’s where they were headquartered. Shouldn’t we go after their headquarters? Doesn’t that make sense?
SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. … But I’m seeing that we’re sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn’t the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we’re looking for a select group of people in that country?
Well, that is rather easy to answer. Because we asked for Afghanistan to turn bin Laden over, and they refused (because he was very tight with the Taliban government). And if you don’t think dying in Afghanistan is dying for a noble cause it is rather obvious that no chat with Bush is going to make you think that dying in Iraq was. No need to bring in extraneous junk in criticizing Sheehan. She is part of the "we shouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan left" and merely needs to be identified as such. And if then she continues to serve as a rallying point for the left, the agenda becomes clearer.
Hat tip Balloon-Juice
Well, the pro-Bush crowd shows no signs of backing off of sliming her. Maybe you should put in some calls to convince them she isn’t worth the time…
On a serious note, do you really think that those statements of hers really make her anger at Bush less newsworthy? Is the media going to start ignoring her because she didn’t think we should have invade Afghanistan? Not one whit. Also, I don’t think it is going to lessen the impact of the media frenzy around her. THAT is why the right is being driven mad with this. She is still effective.
I mean, look at the nuttiness going on-
Driving trucks through the white crosses
Shooting off shotguns to scare protesters
Calling her names
The foaming at the mouth is part of the draw for me.
Sebastian: I do not support Cindy Sheehan’s views. (Not all of them. Some of them, of course I agree with.) But I completely support her right to ask Bush for an explanation. I am going to a vigil tomorrow night, and that’s why. Not in support of her views on the war, pulling out the troops, let alone e.g. Israel.
Similarly, I would support Rosa Parks’ right to be seated on a bus whether or not I agreed with her on anything else.
So why is the “we should invade Afghanistan” right not up in arms that almost four years on, the planners and financiers of the 9/11 attack are still free to plan more attacks?
If, as claimed, the invasion of Afghanistan was to extract and eliminate the Al Queda leadership and their Taliban cronies, why wasn’t that job finished? I think Cindy Sheehan asks a fair question: if Afghanistan is left a shambles because the warheads had a hard-on for Saddam, did her son die for anything at all? Was his sacrifice wasted?
I was going to mention this on a previous thread but got sidetracked. A number of commenters have asked why on earth Bush should bother addressing Sheehan at all — that is, her primary question of the “noble cause” — irrespective of her policy suggestions. I’d like to note the following things:
1) Support for the war in Iraq is failing, and failing fast.
2) This is a golden, tailormade opportunity, handed to Bush on a platter, to remind the American people of what’s at stake and to elucidate what, precisely, the noble cause we’re trying to accomplish is. You couldn’t ask for a better (unscripted) opportunity.
3) The Bush Administration has never previously been shy about taking such opportunities — scripted or unscripted, forced or unforced — and spinning them into photo ops and PR coups.
The fact that the Bush Administration hasn’t done so this time, then, suggests that there is something more here than the Administration is letting on: to wit, that they don’t actually have a meaningful answer to Sheehan’s question.
Food for thought, at any rate.
And if then she continues to serve as a rallying point for the left, the agenda becomes clearer.
Just as the fact that criticism of Sheehan serves as a rallying point for, among others, violent anti-free speech reactionaries who threaten to murder those Americans with whom they disagree on politics or foreign policy has clarified other agendas in recent days as well. Does the fact that you agree with those people in their criticisms of Sheehan mean that you accept their violent, lawless, extremist tactics as well, or can we assume that you can agree with them on some things without agreeing with them on others?
I mount my hobby horse once again to cry out, can we please pay some attention to Afghanistan?
Things are not very good there. Even if you discount the U.N. report, it’s pretty obvious that much of the economy is based on drugs, warlords run most of that country, and the Taliban is regrouping.
It is interesting to watch Sebastian make exactly the same error of judgement that us liberals make so often. On this one, the Bushies political judgement is more on the ball, though reprehensible. Trying to make the arguments against her based upon policy would be futile.
As a matter of policy, I even agree with Sebastian on this one, but it doesn’t matter. Cindy Sheehan’s appeal to the public at large isn’t intellectual; it’s emotional. She is the perfect weapon against Bush precisely because she has the same strengths he usually does.
I wish that the body politic made decisions based upon a rational evaluation of the issues, but they don’t. Bush has been the master of this, but is up against someone who has a better tug on the emotions this time. They have to destroy the public’s empathy for Cindy Sheehan, not best her in a policy debate. People are likely to forgive her for being wrong on the issues.
I mount my hobby horse once again to cry out, can we please pay some attention to Afghanistan?
Amen, brotha. Amen.
“They have to destroy the public’s empathy for Cindy Sheehan, not best her in a policy debate.”
This is spot on. Policy debates are not this admin’s forte and they tend to completely skip them when possible. Instead, they compete in the media world of he-said she-said.
Sebastian — this post is slimy.
Its all about why we should diss hSheehan and therefore can conveniently ignore and sweep under the rug the urgent point that she is making.
Which point you dodge just like Bush — what is the noble cause for which we are asking our soldiers to die?
Its sleazy to play dodge ball on this.
“She is part of the “we shouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan left” and merely needs to be identified as such.”
Yes, this is a rather significant identification–rather like finally identifying the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker the other month.
I mean, I keep hearing about the “we shouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan left”, but as far as I can recall, this is the first one that *has* been identified. Prior to this, I was pretty sure it was just a right-wing Yeti.
After all, the poll numbers were very clear: support for the invasion of Afghanistan was overwhelming, throughout the country, with virtually no difference by party or ideology. Yeah, there were a few people opposed to the invasion, but most of them lived in Kandahar. In America, for once, there was as close to unanimity as a democracy can (or probably should) display.
But, here she is. You have finally found a member of this rare species. Would you like to mount the head on your wall now?
“And if then she continues to serve as a rallying point for the left, the agenda becomes clearer.”
Felixrayman’s comment is on the mark here: this is nothing but a guilt-by-association slur. After all, you are “part of the criticize Sheehan right” so your “agenda becomes clear”.
Start that game, and you could win your own link in the kitten-parade.
Smearing the mother of a killed soldier is not only awful, it is also counterproductive. You can look at what she says–it discredits her without anything else needed
Fine, whatever, nobody cares about what she says. This is about how she’s been treated, by our spineless President and the rest of the right-wing goon squad.
Hey Sebastian – good news on the military recruitment front.
“Now Jake Tapper of ABC News reports that the armed forces are so eager for bodies they will flout “don’t ask, don’t tell” and hang on to gay soldiers who tell, even if they tell the press.” – Frank Rich, NYT
So, now then – WHAT IS YOUR EXCUSE?
The reaction here against this post and (in part) SH seems incommensurate to me. Seems like a standardly wrong conservative opinion to me, something to be debated, not disparaged.
Mr. Holsclaw–
perhaps this might be common ground between us:
when I consider what is in the best interest of this woman, I wish that she could get away, rest, and start rebuilding her life.
People don’t make good decisions when they are grieving, distraught, and desperate. The quality of decision-making has never been improved by the proximity of TV news cameras.
Focusing *just* on her own, private, tragedy, I wish she would take better care of herself.
I reread Sophocles’ Antigone a few weeks ago, and now I find unsettling parallels. It does not have a happy ending.
Top Ten reasons why the Right thinks it is ok to dismiss anything Cindy Sheehan might say:
10) Ms. Sheehan is getting a divorce
9) Casey Sheehan would want us to
8) Casey Sheehan’s second cousins want us to
7) Ms. Sheehan has an agenda
6) Ms. Sheehan is a media whore
5) Ms. Sheehan is anti-semitic
4) Ms. Sheehan is a tool of the Devil a.k.a. Michael Moore
3) Ms. Sheehan is a grieving mother being exploited by the Devil a.k.a. Michael Moore
2) The President has already answered her questions and he ain’t gonna answer them again for nobody
1) She is disturbing the President’s vacation
It sounds to me like the bungled war in Iraq has had the effect of turning some people retroactively against the war in Afghanistan, which was the clearest case of justifiable use of miltary force in my lifetime. If the political effect of Iraq is to increase the number of people who feel that way, that’s another cost of the war. Or, to approach it historically: “Vietnam Syndrome” refers to something real. Do we blame that syndrome on the people who ultimately reacted to Vietnam as they did, by turning against the idea of armed intervention — or do we blame it on the people who brought us the Vietnam war in the first place?
Like Hilzoy, I am going to a vigil tomorrow. I am going because Ms. Sheehan’s question needs to shoved into the face of every politician, Democrat or Republican, who still supports the initial invasion. Bush especially needs to be held accountable for providing an honest substantive answer he since conned the public into supporting the war on a fradulent salepitch, and has since given no explanation for the invasion but slogans.
With deep regret I believe we have to stay in Iraq. I continue to believe we had to invade Afganistan. Even though I live in the most liberal part of a liberal state my views are not unusual.
In his introductory post Charles acknowledged that Bush was not straightforward with the public about his reasons for wanting to invade Iraq. Now, as a result of Bush’s incompetence and his administration’s misreading of Middle Eastern politics, Iraq has become the Republic of FUBAR and we have failed at every stated and unstated goal. He doesn’t just owe Ms. Sheehan an answer . He owes an answer to all of us. I am grateful to Ms. Sheehan for for her stand.
This:
“She is part of the “we shouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan left” and merely needs to be identified as such. And if then she continues to serve as a rallying point for the left, the agenda becomes clearer.”
is one of the most contemptible things ever written by SH.
Apparently the death of her son is now irrelevant, because she holds a minority view on the Afghanistan invasion.
not content with that vile slur, SH goes on to slur everyone who supports her as having some mysterious agenda apparently linked to her anti-Afghan war views.
Well, since i support her vigil, her desire to have her question answered (the noble cause one, in case anyone had any doubts), and her willingness to honor the memory of her son in a way which leads to horrendous treatment by little punks like SH, it appears i need to make the following points clear about my own agenda:
1. invade afghanistan — good.
2. allow same to be reconquered by narco-Taliban — bad.
3. invade iraq — unclear; depends on implementation.
4. utterly mismanage occupation — really bad.
What, SH, did you mean by the word “merely”?
What agenda are you referring to?
What is becoming clearer? [certainly not your writing.]
You, SH, have become just another American-hater. Congratulations on joining Rush Limbaugh.
If you have a shred of humanity left, try this little thought experiment: Would you written an equivalent post if Rosa Parks had been a radical black nationalist? Is the measure of an act of defiance based on the character of the person?
Since you clearly believe the answer to that question is yes, I think Max Power raises a legitimate question — why haven’t you signed up for a tour of duty in the Army? You’re bright, amoral and committed to pulling victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq. You clearly have a lot to offer; in fact, you sound like officer material to me.
Given the viciousness with which you attack Ms. Sheehan, you must believe that there is nothing more important facing america today than the war in iraq. There’s plenty of squishy liberals graduating from law school who can take over for you; don’t you feel any pull of duty?
This comment is not aimed at Sebastian, who is a rational person.
In Cindy Sheehan and her inarticulate grief, George W. Bush has found his equal, his foil, and the answer to “Bring It On!”, the three most murderous, dumbass, dishonorable words ever uttered by a President of the United States.
Colin Powell should have given Bush the back of his hand, literally. Bush should have tasted a little blood in his mouth that day, the self-righteous f—. He’s eminently hateable.
And I’m not interested in any way ever hearing that Sebastian has signed on to the meat grinder in Iraq. If he does, I hope they ask and he tells and they drum him out to spare him the experience and us the grief.
“Top Ten reasons why the Right thinks it is ok to dismiss anything Cindy Sheehan might say:”
Blue,
I’m not dismissing ‘anything’ she might have to say. I’m particularly dismissive of her request to receive a justification of a ‘noble cause’ in Iraq if her belief is that Afghanistan was not a ‘noble cause’. It means her definition is ridiculous and even the best answer in the world won’t be enough for her.
“Similarly, I would support Rosa Parks’ right to be seated on a bus whether or not I agreed with her on anything else.”
Hilzoy,
Maybe, but what demand of Sheehan’s are you supporting that is separable from her demand that she get a “noble cause” explanation that is not rationally possible when her idea of noble cause excludes the possibility of invading Afghanistan? What ‘right’ are you supporting? Her right to speak? It isn’t even remotely in question. Her right to meet a second time with the president? Who precisely does that right extend to?
“Just as the fact that criticism of Sheehan serves as a rallying point for, among others, violent anti-free speech reactionaries who threaten to murder those Americans with whom they disagree on politics or foreign policy has clarified other agendas in recent days as well. Does the fact that you agree with those people in their criticisms of Sheehan mean that you accept their violent, lawless, extremist tactics as well, or can we assume that you can agree with them on some things without agreeing with them on others?”
Felixrayman, what precisely are you agreeing with? Her argument is that we should immediately withdraw the troops because it is unjust to fight, with a definition of ‘unjust’ that doesn’t allow for Afghanistan. Her policy prescription is awful and her moral argument is also awful. What precisely are you agreeing with? Is it really that hard to find a sympathetic anti-war public figure who has even remotely rational views?
She isn’t speaking out for a useful Iraq policy. Are you all so desperate for a spokesman that you will put up with this?
I am strongly pro-life on abortion. But I absolutely would not rally around clinic-bomber Eric Rudolph as a spokesman for pro-life views just because we happen to share an important understanding. Hell, I wouldn’t even give money to defend him against completely illegitimate RICO charges. And I wouldn’t defend him on any case that didn’t have class implications for all other anti-abortion protestors. His views–especially on abortion–are too tightly tied to his deeply wrong views.
Sheehan is protesting about inappropriate use of force–with a definition that wouldn’t allow clear cases like Afghanistan. You can’t just pretend that the second part doesn’t exist. She is effectively protesting as a pacifist.
If you wanted to rally around a mother who lost her son and said “I lost my son in Iraq, and Bush you need to explain to me why you are screwing up so much. Why aren’t there more troops, better battle armor, and why isn’t there better rebuilding?” I would be right there with you. But you aren’t. You are supporting a woman whose effective stance is “all war is wrong” and you are supporting her on the topic of appropriate use of force.
You are supporting her precisely where she is hopelessly and dangerously wrong. It isn’t tarring anyone to point that out. And it definitely isn’t tarring her to point that out.
And Francis, “Given the viciousness with which you attack Ms. Sheehan…” please point to the vicious attack. Is it now vicious to point out someone’s own views when they are publically expressed during a television interview?
“If you have a shred of humanity left…”
Clearly you have avoided having a shred of rationality in this discussion.
Apparently a large number of our very frequent leftish commentors think that quoting someone’s very own words on the very topic she seeks publicity is a “vicious” attack. At this level of discourse I should have banned each and every one of you for your horrific attacks on me every single day.
This comment is not aimed at Sebastian, who is a rational person.
In Cindy Sheehan and her inarticulate grief, George W. Bush has found his equal, his foil, and the answer to “Bring It On!”, the three most murderous, dumbass, dishonorable words ever uttered by a President of the United States.
Colin Powell should have given Bush the back of his hand, literally. Bush should have tasted a little blood in his mouth that day, the self-righteous f—. He’s eminently hateable.
And I’m not interested in any way ever hearing that Sebastian has signed on to the meat grinder in Iraq. If he does, I hope they ask and he tells and they drum him out to spare him the experience and us the grief.
Disregard Sebastian’s post. After all, he is just one of the “invade Iraq at all costs right” and as such his opinions carry little weight.
People. Sebastian’s decisions in re military service are his business. For the record, I should say that if I were a gay man of the right age to serve, and were already out of the closet in a publicly discoverable way, like blogging under my own name, I would probably not try no matter what my views on the war. I would think: it’s more likely than not that the net effect of this will not be my going to Iraq to join the fight, but something more like my believing this ‘let’s forget about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, which will in fact be applied intermittently and inconsistently, just long enough that my life will be well and truly screwed up when I am drummed out of the military. So I will screw up my life for no reason at all, and with no benefit to Iraq.
I have no clue whether that bears any remote resemblance to anything Seb might actually think, nor do I think it’s any of our business at all.
That said: the reason I wrote that I was going to a vigil was just this: I take it Sebastian and the other conservative commenters know that I supported the war in Afghanistan, did not support the invasion of Iraq, did support sending more troops at the outset if we had to invade at all, and am now completely torn about whether we should stay, on the grounds that it is completely unclear to me whether our presence is helpful or harmful. I agree with a recent comment of Edward’s to the effect that it’s contemptible to say that we have no responsibility for how things turn out in Iraq; my only question now is whether we have screwed things up to the point that the best thing we could do for the Iraqis is to make some sort of (orderly) withdrawal. I don’t know the answer to that question.
But: given all this, it is (I hope) clear that I do not agree with Cindy Sheehan’s views as a whole. Parts I do — e.g., I bet she agrees with me that the war in Iraq was a big mistake — and parts I don’t (Afghanistan.) But that is not, not, not why I will be at the vigil. I will be there because of what I take her to be doing — asking a question to which I think she, and the rest of us deserve an answer.
In this sense, her foreign policy views are, to me, exactly analogous to Rosa Parks’ political views. They are not relevant.
And the reason I say this is: I stand before you, a data point to use in your interpretation of support for Cindy Sheehan. In my case, at least, it’s not true that you can infer from my support of her that I support any ‘agenda’ other than Bush explaining himself.
Because, to me, this is a question any President should be able to answer. “To defeat the Japanese who attacked us, and the Nazis who threaten all Europe with inhumanity.” “To keep the union whole and undivided.” “To drive the Iraqis out of a country they invaded.” Heck, “To prevent Communism from spreading throughout Asia” was an answer, just one that referred to a set of consequences that did not, in fact, ensue. I don’t think Bush has given an adequate answer to that question, at least not one that meet the criteria I laid out in a comment here. (Feasible, and such that we actually seem to have tried to achieve it.)
So that, and not any adherence to an agenda, is what you can infer from my participation.
SH, your postulate makes absolutely no logical sense. Your rage is blinding you.
SH: crossposted, but I hope I answered your question.
Charles Winder: I think that most of the people reading this blog are of age, and thus able to decide for themselves what to disregard.
On reflection (yes bloggers can do that) the last sentence of my post was both incorrect and intemperate. Accusing people of hidden motives isn’t helpful.
But neither can I believe that supporting Sheehan is particularly helpful to getting accountability out of Bush (in the public sphere or otherwise). Her views are too extremist and the extremist views are not separable from the reason why she is a focal point.
I think that Afghanistan is better off now than when it was under control of the Taliban. I read IraqTheModel and agree with them that a country in transition where there is hope is better than a country where there is none. I think that South Korea is better off than North Korea. I observe that the Bahais have their temple in Israel, rather than in Iran, and that the Druze are free to live how they want to in Israel. I would guess that life in Panama or Grenada is better than in Cuba, especially if you are a poet or a librarian. It seems to me that the part of Germany that the (imperialistic) Americans controlled was a better place to live than East Germany.
I really do think our cause is noble. There really are bad countries with evil leaders in this world. Maybe the US has imperfect leaders, but I side with them against the Zarqawis and Husseins of this world. I dont think that the US should cede power to those types. Yet some people who consider themselves liberal, have come right and said that they want US to lose. Hilzoy doubted that those people exist, but the fact of the matter is that they are there. It is clearly demonstrated in comments on a previous post and although they may few, because of their over-representation the media, including blogs, they have more influence on the general public and may actually persuade us that Iraq is not worth it, southern Thailand is not worth it, parts of the Phillipines is not worth it, etc. Let the bad guys win and the blood will be on their hands but not on ours. I feel the other way; I think that the US and Israel have track records that clearly are better than their enemies, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. And shouldn’t the benefit of the doubt be given to Our Side, and Our Way of Life?
I think so, and I don’t think it is slimy to say so, and it don’t think it is slimy to criticize those who are against us. You are free to have your say, we people who support our country can have ours.
PS – Please consider putting IraqTheModel on the blogroll. Maybe Von could do this in his section if everybody else is opposed to adding it to the Iraq blogs.
SH: “the extremist views are not separable from the reason why she is a focal point”
I can’t see how you can assert this, as (unless I’m mistaken) her minority viewpoint on Afghanistan has only just now come to light, and as far as I know she’s a) not pushing that as a plank and b) doesn’t have other far-anything opinions. Next you’ll insist that Natalee Whatshername is a focal point for her extremist views, or Bush is.
Maybe the US has imperfect leaders, but I side with them against the Zarqawis and Husseins of this world.
The same people (literally) that run the war in Iraq today cooperated with Hussein yesterday. Did you side with them then, and was that cause noble?
DaveC: I didn’t mean to doubt that they exist — I mean, there’s Ward Churchill after all, who demonstrates, if I had had any doubt, that almost any opinion, no matter how perverse, is held by someone. I did mean to doubt that they are anything like a significant proportion of liberals.
SH: for what it’s worth, my sense is that she’s a focal point because people think the question does need an answer. I’ve been talking to other people who are going, and none of them particularly care about her political views. It’s the question. Of course, I could just be talking to an unrepresentative sample, etc., but then again, I could not.
Here’s a bet: if Bush does give an answer, laying out what the benchmarks of success are, how we intend to achieve them, and what he takes the likelihood of success to be, and if this is seen by, oh, let’s say a majority of Americans as a plausible, convincing answer, her support dries up, regardless of whether or not she personally finds it satisfactory. (And this answer should not be vague stuff like “we will stay the course, and by doing so we will win.” It should involve answers to the questions: what is winning, and how, exactly, will we get from where we are to winning.)
I think he should give this answer in any case. That’s why I’m going. If he gives it, I bet Cindy Sheehan says: that’s not good enough for me, but her support melts away.
I also bet he doesn’t do this. I further speculate that that’s because of two things: first, to him it would be weakness, though he’s deeply wrong about that, and second, he has no such answer. But I am very willing to be proved wrong. I mean: I would love to be proved wrong.
I don’t see how Bush talks to her now without appearing to have caved. A few days ago this was a golden opportunity, now time has Midasized it.
Sebastian, I’ll put it in context for you. Cindy Sheehan is only significant in that she is part of a shift in the public debate.
Up until now, the debate has been a slow waking up from the euphoria of finally having invaded and won. It’s been a debate on relatively safe terrain, whether or not the war is going as well as the President said. Just now, in mid 2005, it’s shifted an altogether different tone. Now it has become… why are we still there?
The tipping point in public opinion is that chance of winning the war is no longer seen as likely, or even possible. We’ve fought the “surprise” insurgency for two years. We raided homes. We shot on sight. We razed Fallujah. We took the gloves off in Abu Grhaib. We stayed the course. And winning got no closer. During that time, albeit with the occasional bump or shake, the prospect of victory in Iraq consistently receded.
Now we read in the Washington Post on the weekend that White House officials themselevs are “lowering expectations” for success in Iraq, and the NYT prints an Op/Ed saying that the war is over, “Someone please tell the President.”
That’s a sharp change. It’s a smell-the-coffee moment for war supporters, and war opponents. It’s a critical moment.
So, Sebastian, if you believe what you written publicly, if you believe that the war is not lost and that it must not be lost, when others start to falter, then is it not to be expected that you show the courage of your convictions, and volunteer to serve in the President’s mission?
And if you demonstrate through continued inaction that it’s not important enough to you, now of all times, now that previously lax restrictions on gays in the military are emphatically no longer operative … well, wouldn’t that be for all of us a true guide to the true depth of your convictions?
r: yeah. — I love the word ‘midasized’.
Max P: Like I said earlier, in Sebastian’s place I would not choose to serve, and what he does in his place is, I think, not our business.
hilzoy – what I lack in content, I try to make up in part by poetic packaging.
“Midasized” gets “about” 112 google hits, and I’m not now going to read them all to see if any are scoopive bon mots.
Sebastian: But neither can I believe that supporting Sheehan is particularly helpful to getting accountability out of Bush (in the public sphere or otherwise).
Well, no, of course not. The time to get accountability out of Bush was November 2004. You didn’t seem especially enthusiastic about the idea then: you wanted Bush back in power and safely unaccountable till 2009. (Quite possibly beyond accountability even then, depending who forms the next administration.) That was your choice then, and you may have changed your mind since: fair enough, but facts are facts.
Nothing, apparently, can make Bush accountable. His party controls both houses: no one will vote for an investigation of the President’s liability in lying the country into war with Iraq. The only way that could change would be (I would think) if there was a real, widespread change in public opinion that made even senior Republicans realize that Bush needs to be brought to account.
Perhaps Cindy Sheehan can help bring about that change in public opinion. But it seems that, as when Amnesty International criticized the American gulags, the right generally will swing round to attack the individual or organization who is making a sufficiently public criticism of the Bush administration to be heard.
In short, if you’ve changed your mind since November 2004 and now want Bush to be made accountable, then support people who are trying to make him accountable. But if you feel that Bush should never be made accountable, then carry on right as you’re doing.
PS I don’t think the US should have invaded Afghanistan. I don’t think that bombing a country to get your own way is a “noble cause”, when peaceful negotiation has not been given a reasonable try because the majority of the country are baying for blood. But I do think that the US invasion of Afghanistan could have become a noble cause, if the Bush administration hadn’t decided to abandon it in favor of attacking Iraq. Things could have been made better for the people of Afghanistan. It wouldn’t have been all that expensive, compared to the Iraq invasion. Instead, after the Taliban were kicked out, Afghanistan has been returned to the even-worse state it was in before the Taliban took over… and, the Taliban is regrouping.
The Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden *unconditionally*, but were offering to hand him over to a neutral country if enough incriminating material was provided.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan hesitantly. I felt that is was important to get Bin Laden and convict him for his crimes and Bush said that the US would not leave them this time, but would help build up the country, so the nett effect for the Afghani’s would be worth it IMHO.
Now we find that Bin Laden is not of interest anymore (Bush invaded A COUNTRY to get him and than decided he was not worth the trouble???) and never really was. Which undercuts my main reason to support the invasion of Afghanistan.
After the bombing Bush never allocated enough men and resources to build a better Afghanistan. Kabul is relatively well off, the other bits of the country are given to war lords, most of them with abysmall records. The women are not better of in warlord country, the criminal leaders are not brought to justice and the Taliban are regrouping.
Chances of improving the situation in Afghanistan are still present, I think, but on the current course that is not going to happen – so my second rationale for supporting the invasion in Afghanistan is crumbling fast.
Sheehan is becoming a symbol for the lack of good reasons to support the war against Iraq. She makes Bush look weak and shallow by not adressing her or her points. I feel that if he really believed that there were good enough reasons, it would not be too hard to go a grieving mother and tell her that he understood her grief, and understood that she did not support the war which must make it even harder, but that he felt it was important and it was his responsibility, not hers.
So far he has given a lot of reasons but most have been proven to be irrelevant or not true. The remaining one (liberating the Iraqi’s from an awfull regime) came up late and is so badly executed that it becomes slightly unbelievable that it really played a role. Not to mention the fact that if building democracy and spreading freedom was so important, why didn’t he do all that in Afghanistan?
You can look at what she says–it discredits her without anything else needed:
because she holds unpopular foreign policy views, Casey Sheehan’s mother is wrong to demand answers about her son’s death.
You are supporting her precisely where she is hopelessly and dangerously wrong
Cindy Sheehan isn’t a Senator or Congresswoman or a member of the Executive branch, and she doesn’t sit on any advisory board. she does not make or implement policy.
but, the people who do have been more than “dangerously” wrong, they’ve been criminally, fatally, repeatedly wrong.
Mr. Holsclaw–
I note that you have withdrawn the last line of your post. I hereby withdraw my earlier objections to your post. With the first part, I found nothing objectionable (it was, as you point out, mostly direct quotation). It was only the veiled imputation of dishonorable motives that I took objection to.
SH Wrote:
I think you guys on the Right are missing the point. Ms. Sheehan has asked a question that a good many of her fellow Americans are also asking.
The issue is now Bush’s answer to Ms. Sheehan’s questions. You (as in the collective Right “you”) keep trying to retroactively dismiss Ms. Sheehan’s original question, but no matter how many divorces she gets, how many times you invoke the name Michael Moore, it is still a valid question.
Millions of Americans want to know why Iraq has made us safer; how we are going to get out of Iraq; what Iraq will look like when we leave, why our soldiers keep dying 2 years, 5 months after the invasion; when is the Iraqi army going to be ready to defend its country, etc., etc. Bush and his cronies keep repeating the same canned answers to those questions and a lot of Americans just don’t believe them anymore.
Bush works for all Americans not just those with a little R’s by their names. He needs to act like the leader of the whole country and answer our questions.
There were some anti-Afghan war people, but mainly on the far left. I was one. I was initially against the war in Afghanistan, though I changed my mind when the residents of Kabul were clearly overjoyed at the overthrow of the Taliban, even though their liberators were the same people who had trashed the city during the 90’s. I was against the war because I thought the bombing would cause a huge famine, as the NGO’s were warning at the time. But the Taliban collapsed before winter and the famine was “small”–Jonathan Steele wrote a good piece on this in the May 20, 2002 Guardian and the best estimate for famine deaths is probably in the 10,000-20,000 range. Set against that was the fact that Taliban policies would have kept the average death rate in Afghanistan very high, and then there was all that talk of a Marshal Plan for Afghanistan and I admitted to a friend that I had argued with that I was wrong.
Most of us antiwar fanatics were always in favor of tracking down and killing Al Qaeda members, but figured that fighting terrorism was more a problem for the police and maybe some shadowy special forces missions. Bush’s incompetence proved us accidentally right on that point, given the fact that invading Afghanistan didn’t lead to the capture of bin Laden.
So I still think I was wrong to oppose the Aghan War, but not as wrong as I thought in January 2002. The cynicism I originally felt about our supposed resolution to finally help Afghanistan rebuild seems fully justified.
Cindy Sheehan’s personal views aren’t very relevant, though I probably agree with most of them. In a sensible world Bush would have been humiliated and resigned for the good of the country when Abu Ghraib came out, or when the WMD’s failed to turn up, or when the Downing Street memo came out, but he’s managed to sail on by these little revelations without any sign of discomfort If it takes Sheehan to make some people realize that Bush is a liar, it’s disheartening for what it says about the country.
Bush works for all Americans not just those with a little R’s by their names.
he should, but i don’t think he actually does.
Wow, late to the party. But Francis, Max Power, etc.? Harsh enough? Sebastian’s critique of Cindy Sheehan (which, of course, I strongly disagreed with prior to the retraction) is by far one of the more temperate critiques I’ve read. Save the bile for the nitwits who are calling her an anti-Semite without evidence, okay?
And I’m with Hilzoy: Sebastian’s decision to serve or not to serve is his own. I supported invading Afghanistan. I wanted Bin Ladin captured and put on public trial for his crimes (death would only have served to make him a martyr). But I certainly had no interest in signing up.
“After the bombing Bush never allocated enough men and resources to build a better Afghanistan.”
This could bring me to my least favorite example of the near worthlessness of (scare quotes intentional) “international support” but that would be a complete threadjack.
Sebastian: This could bring me to my least favorite example of the near worthlessness of (scare quotes intentional) “international support” but that would be a complete threadjack.
Particularly as it’s an equally good example of the complete worthlessness of the Bush administration, isn’t it?
SH: This post was unworthy of you. One might summarize its content as follows: “Smearing the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq is awful. I will now proceed to do so.”
Why should questioning the reasoning behind the war in Afghanistan be considered a discrediting remark? Is the war in Afghanistan really such a noble and successful endeavor that questioning it discredits the person asking the questions? Regardless of the merits of the war–I think they’re pretty questionable myself–it is not a holy crusade ordered by God. In the US the right to question the government’s actions is traditional, protected by law, and indeed considered a patriotic duty. You can do better than to insult someone for performing their right and duty of dissenting.
Sebastian Holsclaw tells it righteously
Sebastian Holsclaw at Obsidian Wings says to let this do the talking for Cindy Sheehan. Sebastian intimates that a “smear campaign” is being waged against Sheehan and that such a campaign is “not only awful, it is also counterproductive.”
“Particularly as it’s an equally good example of the complete worthlessness of the Bush administration, isn’t it?”
Not really. Or at least not equally. Afghanistan is the case where we allegedly have international help. That is model which we are supposed to follow. It illustrates that even when you engage the international structure, you don’t get the help that is alleged to be so important.
“In the US the right to question the government’s actions is traditional, protected by law, and indeed considered a patriotic duty. You can do better than to insult someone for performing their right and duty of dissenting.”
Her right to speech is not being challenged. The foolishness of her words is being called out, which is precisely how free speech works. There is nothing magical about mere utterances. If I say that “abortions are generally wrong” and propose policies, you don’t just say “free speech good”. She is speaking, which is not being threatened at all. She is making policy preferences known. The policies suggested are awful. She is “asking a question” about “noble cause” when her definition of “noble cause” does not include one of clearest cases for military action in decades–certainly clearer than intervening in Bosnia for instance. That is worth pointing out.
I note that you don’t just respond “Sebastian has free speech rights, good for him.” You try to engage in argument about the substance of my speech. That is precisely what I am doing with Sheehan’s speech. Criticizing the content of free speech is not a threat to free speech–it is the essence of free speech and how it operates in a free society.
Sebastian: She is “asking a question” about “noble cause” when her definition of “noble cause” does not include one of clearest cases for military action in decades–certainly clearer than intervening in Bosnia for instance.
The question is not what Cindy Sheehan’s definition of “noble cause” might be, Sebastian, and you know it.
The question Cindy Sheehan is asking, that President Bush doesn’t want to answer, is “What is the noble cause that soldiers dying in Iraq are dying for?”
The question you might want to ask yourself is not “What are Cindy Sheehan’s politics?” but “Why doesn’t Bush want to explain what the ‘noble cause’ of the Iraq war is?”
“The question is not what Cindy Sheehan’s definition of “noble cause” might be, Sebastian, and you know it.”
On the contrary, much has been made of Bush’s inability to give her a convincing answer. This has been called ‘disrespectful’ and worse. This shows that no answer would possibly be good enough for her because she does not share a generally recognizeably sense of noble cause. If I asked my company to engage in some regularly understood phrase like “best practices” but I meant “don’t ever try to make a profit, try to intentionally damage the environment and Jews are ruling the US government” I wouldn’t really be talking about “best practices” and someone would be perfectly correct to call me on it.
Sheehan is tougher and more honest than Bush….and this drives the right-wingers nuts.
The noble cause in Iraq is easily articulable and has been articulated. What you want to argue with is Bush’s follow-through on the cause or the realistic or unrealistic nature of the cause. You want to argue that Bush has committed to a noble but foolish cause. That isn’t what Sheehan is arguing at all.
If they lied about Iraq….why would they have been honest about Afghanistan…this is where many Americans are at.
There are many other Americans asking the same questions as Cindy Sheehan who do have the ability to recognize a noble cause. Why hasn’t the President tried to answer her questions for our benefit?
Sebastian: The noble cause in Iraq is easily articulable and has been articulated.
And yet, Bush is unable to say what it is.
This shows that no answer would possibly be good enough for her because she does not share a generally recognizeably sense of noble cause.
Tut-tut, Sebastian; I thought you were saying it was a mistake to slime Cindy Sheehan. So it is. Don’t try.
If you claim that there is a “noble cause” for which the US is currently fighting and killing in Iraq, which is “easily articulable and has been articulated” (by Bush, presumably) then what is it? No platitudes, please: for what noble cause did the US invade Iraq, and for what noble cause is the US still occupying Iraq?
good morning, all.
i stand by the harshness of my criticism until i see an explanation for the word “merely” contained in the penultimate sentence of the post, which has not been withdrawn.
and i stand by the question why, if our cause is so noble, our recruitment gaps growing and our defeat so perilously near, it is that smart thoughtful well-spoken conservatives who support the war, such as (but not limited to) the author of the post have not signed up.
This is NOT a chickenhawk accusation. SH has as much right to support the war as I do to oppose it.
But i’m curious why more we haven’t seen more Pat Tillmans in this neck of the woods.
Are our conservatives unfit? too old? do they believe (unlike Tillman) that their marginal contribution to the war effort by enlisting would be so minuscule as to not justify the personal sacrifice? or are their concerns that defeat in iraq could lead to WWIV overstated?
That’s just partisan rhetoric. Bush has stated numerous times what he thinks the noble cause is – that Sheehan doesnt like Bush’s answer is the whole point. Sebastian uses Sheehans own words as evidence of what kind of definition Sheehan likely would be using when listening to any explaination by Bush regarding the noble cause. Sebastian concludes (rightfully IMO) that short of embracing Sheehan’s entire position, any explaination Bush offered (again), would be totally inadequate to Sheehan.
bains,
What is the answer? I have heard the President make many claims about why we are in Iraq and I still don’t know what his answer to the ‘Noble Cause’ quesiton is.
What is the answer? I have heard the President make many claims about why we are in Iraq and I still don’t know what his answer to the ‘Noble Cause’ quesiton is.
Nor have I — but then I have a hard time listening to Bush and tend to turn off the TV not too long after he starts speaking… But I believe I have heard him and his subordinates say things like, (most recently Condi Rice was saying this yesterday) We are in Iraq to allow a democratic process to begin — but not heard anybody say specifically, It is noble and worthy that our children should die in order to allow a democratic process to begin in Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan asking Bush to articulate his reasons for sending her son into harm’s way is a proxy for the large number of Americans who do not find it worthy that American youth should die in order to allow a democratic process to begin in Iraq. That’s why her personal pacifism is besides the point — Bush answering her (as he refuses to consider doing) would be answering all Americans asking the question — some of them would find his explanation satisfactory, some would not — that’s how democratic leadership works. Bush is no leader and no democrat.
Well, there’s always the ever-popular “so that the gathering storm does not become a mushroom cloud”. Or maybe “for freedom”, which now doesn’t seem to be in the cards for Iraqi women, and perhaps not for anyone. We have only increased the power of the nearest state with serious connections to terrorism, namely Iran, while diverting attention from al Qaeda, so I guess that’s not the reason. Please, if anyone knows what the reason is, a reason which looks likely to result from the war in Iraq, and which even begins to justify the cost, let me know. I’m quite serious.
It occurs to me that might be a big part of the argument in favor of a fixed, stable rationale for a war — the leap from “X is good” to “We should send our children to die for X” is huge enough that you don’t want to have to keep making it anew every time X changes.
But I completely support her right to ask Bush for an explanation.
Judging from her increasingly lengthy body of work, Hil, seeking an explanation from Bush is pretty low on her list of priorities. Had she stuck with being a grieving mom seeking an audience with the president, she would’ve been on higher ground. Now that she’s shown herself to be a left-wing political loony, she might as well resign herself to her campsite. As I wrote at Tacitus, if the Left really wanted to support her, they’d pass around the hat and give her as much couch time as necessary with a good shrink.
Yeah, a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty…
It’s been my experience that when someone says they did X for “a bunch of reasons”, they either don’t know why they did X, or don’t want to admit to why they did X. At the moment, I think the former is more likely — I don’t think Bush ever had a coherent, articulated reason for waging this war. Lots of sales pitch, no noble purpose.
“If I say that “abortions are generally wrong” and propose policies, you don’t just say “free speech good”.”
No, I’d probably say something like “I don’t agree because of X, Y, and Z.” However, I wouldn’t say that your views on abortion discredit you or mean that you shouldn’t be taken seriously as a human being or partner in the public debate on that or any other issue. If I understood your post correctly, you feel that because Ms Sheehan does not believe that the war in Afghanistan is a “noble cause” her opinions can be disregarded. Of course, it is your right to say that if you believe it to be so, but I don’t think that the argument is up to your usual standard.
“And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we’re looking for a select group of people in that country?”
This question, voiced by Ms Sheehan, to her discredit according to SH, seems to me to be a good one. If it is ok to invade another country because it is harboring people who have committed crimes in your country and might commit further crimes if they are not stopped, doesn’t that mean that Iran would have had the right to invade the US in the 1970s? The US was harboring the Shah, who had committed a number of unpleasant crimes against various Iranis. If he hadn’t been fatally ill, he probably would have been organizing measures to destabilize the regime that followed his, possibly including terrorist acts. So, what’s the difference?
“However, I wouldn’t say that your views on abortion discredit you or mean that you shouldn’t be taken seriously as a human being or partner in the public debate on that or any other issue. If I understood your post correctly, you feel that because Ms Sheehan does not believe that the war in Afghanistan is a “noble cause” her opinions can be disregarded. Of course, it is your right to say that if you believe it to be so, but I don’t think that the argument is up to your usual standard.”
I’m not saying that she shouldn’t be taken seriously as a human being. I’m saying that she is asking a question which under her definitions is unanswerable. And that is why she won’t be getting a sufficient answer. When your definition of “noble cause” cannot allow for the invasion of Afghanistan you aren’t asking a question in the discussion sense, you are asking a question in a rhetorical sense. You are hiding behind what sounds like a normal demand, but your definition means that no answer is helpful.
And I find this whole “right to speak” issue deeply unuseful. The right to free speech is not at issue here. We all know she has the right to speak. We all know I have the right to speak. Noting that fact contributes nothing. I am not arguing that she should be silenced. I am arguing that her clear and publically expressed views ought to be revealed because they deal directly with her only topic of noteriety.
Sheesh, it isn’t like she said these things 25 years ago. She said them in an interview about why she is protesting Bush. She is protesting Bush because she believes that he doesn’t use force properly–with a definition of proper force which is not in line with the general understanding. And if pointing out her definition of “noble cause”–a phrase which is intimately tied to her protest–is a smear, discussion without smear is apparently impossible.
Wow. This thread is a nice reminder of why I don’t come here anymore
Removing the last sentence was a classy call — hat tip to you. This leaves the focus on this point.
Her views are too extremist and the extremist views are not separable from the reason why she is a focal point.
This is where you are wrong — her extremist views have nothing to do with her basic cause. Her basic cause is that of bereaved mother questioning the wisdom of the war. She resonates not because of her personal views, but because so many sympathisze with her basic question.
Attacking her views in order to sidestep her basic cause is just another version of ad hominem.
Charles Bird claims: seeking an explanation from Bush is pretty low on her list of priorities.
She’s keeping a vigil outside Crawford, where Bush is currently vacationing. Should Bush want to give her that face-to-face explanation she’s asked for – the one Sebastian claims is so easy to articulate, though he hasn’t managed to do it himself – all he has to do is head down the drive and ask her in.
I’d say she’s proven her committment to getting an explanation from Bush. Bush, however, has proved that articulating the “noble cause” that her son died for is lower on his list of priorities than having an undisturbed vacation.
Sebastian: I’m saying that she is asking a question which under her definitions is unanswerable.
And yet, you claim it’s easily articulated. But, as several others have pointed out, Bush has never yet articulated it.
You keep harking back to Afghanistan. But Cindy Sheehan asked about Iraq. You claim it’s easy to articulate the noble cause for which the US invaded/occupied Iraq. But you don’t specify what it is – just that you don’t think Cindy Sheehan would agree with it.
Try answering Cindy Sheehan’s question, Sebastian: What is the noble cause for which the US invaded/occupied Iraq?
Her basic cause is that of bereaved mother questioning the wisdom of the war.
Is she talking about war in general or a specific war?
Stan: Is she talking about war in general or a specific war?
She’s talking about the war in Iraq – you remember that? Her son was killed there. Her specific question to Bush, which he declines to answer either privately or publicly: What is the noble cause for which her son, and other soldiers, died?
(Sebastian claims there’s an easily articulated answer, but won’t say what it is.)
where Bush is currently vacationing. Should Bush want to give her that face-to-face explanation she’s asked for – the one Sebastian claims is so easy to articulate, though he hasn’t managed to do it himself – all he has to do is head down the drive and ask her in.
Did these two not meet?
Jes,
She’s talking about the war in Iraq – you remember that? Her son was killed there.
That was a rhetorical question. The point is that if a peacenik is against *all* wars then there is no point to argue with him/her about a specific one. By same measure, if she’s against the war in Afghanistan, there’s pretty much no sense in discussing the war in Iraq with her.
Bush, however, has proved that articulating the “noble cause” that her son died for is lower on his list of priorities than having an undisturbed vacation.
The nice thing about being president (or at least, about being this president), is that you don’t have to explain yourself to people — it is Ms. Sheehan who should be called on to explain herself to Bush if anything.
I wonder if everyone has seen the latest news from Ohio, with another pair of KIA parents looking for leadership from Bush.
Stan: Did these two not meet?
Is there some rule somewhere that says that commoners only get to meet their President once?
The point is that if a peacenik is against *all* wars then there is no point to argue with him/her about a specific one.
Cindy Sheehan asked a very specific question about a specific war. You can (and many right-wingers do) jeer at her politics, trash her personal beliefs, and claim she isn’t worthy of attention. But the question still stands there, unanswered, and many other people who have lost kindred or friends in Iraq also want an answer to it:
Sebastian claims he can answer it, but doesn’t: Von claims he can answer it, but all he had was generalized platitudes: you claim that because she’s a peacenik there’s no point answering it: and Bush is on vacation, and doesn’t want to be disturbed.
But the question still exists.
Jes,
What is the noble cause for which the US invaded/occupied Iraq? What noble cause are these soldiers dying for?
There’s been a million of these threads arguing for/against the war.
Stan,
If I were to read all of those threads what would I understand the noble cause to be?
It is like arguing about 9th month abortions with Peter Singer. If someone believes that infanticide could be morally defensible for infants with a difficult but treatable disease like hemophilia you don’t bother arguing with him about the morality of aborting fetuses in the 9th month. It is a waste of everyone’s time because you don’t share a close enough moral framework to make the discussion useful.
“You claim it’s easy to articulate the noble cause for which the US invaded/occupied Iraq. But you don’t specify what it is – just that you don’t think Cindy Sheehan would agree with it.”
Good heavens. You have been reading here a while right? I’m not good at pithy, but: Iraq was invaded because it is a crucial front in the war on terrorism for the following reasons– A) Saddam was the prime exemplar of the ‘fact’ that the US is unwilling to seriously fight its enemies. B) He had a long history of hiding nuclear and chemical weapons production. C) He had a long history of dealing with terrorists groups–including Al Qaeda (see the late 1990s). D) It is generally considered (though it may be incorrect) that a large part of the radicalization of Islamists occurs because of the repressive nature of Middle East regimes. E) Iraq was the repressive Middle East regime with the longest sustained fight against the UN and the US and thus appeared to be the easiest starting place for regime change. F) As a long term strategy (i.e. noble cause) the repressiveness of regimes in the Middle East (and thus the terrorism we believe is associated with them) will be best served by a long term project to decrease repression and increase democratic principles in the region. This is not solved by insta-elections, but by a long term commitment to reshaping governments. G) Despotic governments like Saddam’s rarely vanish on their own, and we can’t afford to wait 50 years to start the process (see by way of example North Korea).
The problem most of you have with this is NOT the nobility of the cause, but questions (some serious some not) about the feasability of the cause.
If I were to read all of those threads what would I understand the noble cause to be?
Hey, if you guys want yet another thread pro/con the war in Iraq, just say so. Why pretend that Sheehan is this fresh new thinker with fresh new questions?
Thank you Sebastian.
I appreciate your answer to the question.
“The point is that if a peacenik is against *all* wars then there is no point to argue with him/her about a specific one. By same measure, if she’s against the war in Afghanistan, there’s pretty much no sense in discussing the war in Iraq with her.”
So someone who is against the war in Afghanistan is automatically against all wars? I admit that supporting the war in Iraq but not the war in Afghanistan would require some fairly serious logical twisting, but I don’t see any problem with supporting, say, US intervention in WWII or the American Revolution but not supporting either of Bush’s wars.
“A) Saddam was the prime exemplar of the ‘fact’ that the US is unwilling to seriously fight its enemies.”
Kindergarten logic. We had to fight, he double dog dared us…
“B) He had a long history of hiding nuclear and chemical weapons production.”
No WMD were ever found, despite extensive efforts by the Bush administration.
“C) He had a long history of dealing with terrorists groups–including Al Qaeda (see the late 1990s).”
Again I’ve never seen any convincing evidence of this–and if any existed I would have expected Bush to publicize it VERY widely. Logically, Saddam Hussein working with al Qaeda makes as little sense as the IRA working with the Church of England, anyway. Hussein was a secular Sunni, al Qaeda made up of fundamentalist Shia.
“D) It is generally considered (though it may be incorrect) that a large part of the radicalization of Islamists occurs because of the repressive nature of Middle East regimes.”
The WTC attackers were from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and (I think) Oman. None were from Iraq.
“E) Iraq was the repressive Middle East regime with the longest sustained fight against the UN and the US and thus appeared to be the easiest starting place for regime change.”
UN inspectors left Iraq because they were ordered out by the US, not because Hussein refused to cooperate.
“F) As a long term strategy (i.e. noble cause) the repressiveness of regimes in the Middle East (and thus the terrorism we believe is associated with them) will be best served by a long term project to decrease repression and increase democratic principles in the region. This is not solved by insta-elections, but by a long term commitment to reshaping governments.”
So why aren’t we invading Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, both of which have more history as breeding and/or training grounds for terrorists? Why didn’t we invade Iraq in the 1980s when Hussein was gassing Kurds? And why aren’t we spending any money actually rebuilding Iraq or, especially, Afghanistan?
“G) Despotic governments like Saddam’s rarely vanish on their own, and we can’t afford to wait 50 years to start the process (see by way of example North Korea).”
Why not invade Saudi Arabia? For that matter, why is it any of our business what form of government another country uses? If Bush went nonlinear and became a true dictator (ie canceled elections, declared marshal law, shot anyone who objected, illegalized the Democratic party…that sort of thing) would you welcome a UN invasion to restore democracy? Would you believe in the free and fair nature of elections set up by such an invasion force?
I admit that supporting the war in Iraq but not the war in Afghanistan would require some fairly serious logical twisting,
Good. Then we are on the same page.
but I don’t see any problem with supporting, say, US intervention in WWII or the American Revolution but not supporting either of Bush’s wars.
And who’s arguing with that?
“And who’s arguing with that?”
It was my impression that SH was arguing that since Sheehan questioned the war in Afghanistan she must be a pacifist who would never support any war. Therefore, I wanted to point out that one can disapprove of both of Bush’s wars yet still approve of US involvement in other wars, ie WWII or the Revolution. My apologies if I misrepresented Sebastian’s argument.
It was my impression that SH was arguing that since Sheehan questioned the war in Afghanistan she must be a pacifist who would never support any war.
That’s not my impression, but I could be wrong. What lead to yours?
Perhaps is was Sebastian’s 1:05 AM post, when he wrote:
Sheehan is protesting about inappropriate use of force–with a definition that wouldn’t allow clear cases like Afghanistan. You can’t just pretend that the second part doesn’t exist. She is effectively protesting as a pacifist.
The “clear cases like Afghanistan” seems to me to imply “any war”.
“The point is that if a peacenik is against *all* wars then there is no point to argue with him/her about a specific one. By same measure, if she’s against the war in Afghanistan, there’s pretty much no sense in discussing the war in Iraq with her.”
This quote. Although SH does not come out and say he thinks she is a peacenik who is against all wars, he implies it. And his overall tone suggests to me that he thinks that the war in Afghanistan is so well justified that only a crazed radical pacifist could possibly be against it. For example, this quote:
“Sheehan is protesting about inappropriate use of force–with a definition that wouldn’t allow clear cases like Afghanistan. You can’t just pretend that the second part doesn’t exist. She is effectively protesting as a pacifist.”
Again, if I misrepresented Sebastian’s position I apologize.
Dainne:Kindergarten logic. We had to fight, he double dog dared us…
Actually, he defied UN resolutions. He fired at our planes. He gave money to terrorists. He applauded the destruction of the WTC.
That’s not the actions of someone in kindegarten. But your critique of SH might be considered one.
Dianne: No WMD were ever found, despite extensive efforts by the Bush administration.
Unrelated to SH’s comment. All major secret services in the world believed he was hiding WMD.
Dianne:Again I’ve never seen any convincing evidence of this–and if any existed I would have expected Bush to publicize it VERY widely. Logically, Saddam Hussein working with al Qaeda makes as little sense as the IRA working with the Church of England, anyway. Hussein was a secular Sunni, al Qaeda made up of fundamentalist Shia.
It seems you should discuss this issue with Richard Clark:
From the horses ass, sorry I mean mouth:
All major secret services in the world believed he was hiding WMD.
please name these ‘secret services’ and tell us where they got their intelligence.
“Kindergarten logic. We had to fight, he double dog dared us…”
Welcome to the logic in the Middle East. Saddam won in the First Gulf War because he faced down the US and maintained power. He fed the myth that the US didn’t have the stomach to fight when bloodied–a myth that led bin Laden to believe he could strike in New York and sit back safely in Afghanistan.
“No WMD were ever found, despite extensive efforts by the Bush administration.”
I suspect you are unaware of the little embarassment the UN inspectors had at the end of the first Gulf War? The “Saddam was maybe one year away from a nuclear bomb” one?
“Again I’ve never seen any convincing evidence of this–and if any existed I would have expected Bush to publicize it VERY widely. Logically, Saddam Hussein working with al Qaeda makes as little sense as the IRA working with the Church of England, anyway. Hussein was a secular Sunni, al Qaeda made up of fundamentalist Shia.”
I don’t know what to say about this. The 1990s contacts were well established in the Clinton years. Stalin and Churchill fought on the same side of WWII.
Your response to D is non-responsive and fails to note that Al Qaeda is a trans-national group.
“UN inspectors left Iraq because they were ordered out by the US, not because Hussein refused to cooperate.”
This is a huge misrepresentation of the facts. The UN inspectors had been confined to their hotels for months. In response to that fact, Clinton bombed Iraq and got the inspectors out of the way. They were not admitted back for years. Also it ignores the pre-Gulf War I history of evading inspections.
“So why aren’t we invading Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, both of which have more history as breeding and/or training grounds for terrorists? Why didn’t we invade Iraq in the 1980s when Hussein was gassing Kurds? And why aren’t we spending any money actually rebuilding Iraq or, especially, Afghanistan?”
There is a multi-part question.
Why not when Hussein was gassing Kurds? The UN said no to an invasion of Iraq. Genocide doesn’t really bother the UN much. Bush I listened to the UN. He thought that maintaining a coalition was more important. We learned throughout the 1990s that maintaining a paper coalition didn’t resolve any substantive goals–especially with France and Russia (and later Germany) constantly undermining sanctions.
“So why aren’t we invading Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, both of which have more history as breeding and/or training grounds for terrorists?” Because Pakistan at least tries to cooperate, and Saudi Arabia is the self-proclaimed “Defender of Mecca and Medina”–contrary to popular belief in some circles we aren’t trying to pick a fight with all Muslims.
“And why aren’t we spending any money actually rebuilding Iraq or, especially, Afghanistan?”
Any money is a bit of an exaggeration. We aren’t spending it near optimum effectiveness I’ll agree. Which is an implementation argument not a ‘noble goal’ argument. Furthermore, in Afghanistan, the minimal international contribution exposes the current worth of going to the international community for such things.
“For that matter, why is it any of our business what form of government another country uses?”
Normally it wouldn’t be (at least a matter of armed conflict), if dictators in the Middle East could control police their crazies properly. See also the hypothesis that repression breeds fanaticism.
“If Bush went nonlinear and became a true dictator (ie canceled elections, declared marshal law, shot anyone who objected, illegalized the Democratic party…that sort of thing) would you welcome a UN invasion to restore democracy? Would you believe in the free and fair nature of elections set up by such an invasion force?”
Are we unable to restore democracy ourselves? Well then sure help would be wanted.
Normally it wouldn’t be (at least a matter of armed conflict), if dictators in the Middle East could control police their crazies properly. See also the hypothesis that repression breeds fanaticism.
Is it worth pointing out that Saddam Hussein was controlling his crazies properly?
a myth that led bin Laden to believe he could strike in New York and sit back safely in Afghanistan.
Perhaps the more effective way to combat this myth would have been, not to have allowed bin Laden to sit back safely in Afghanistan, as we did. Just sayin’.
“Welcome to the logic in the Middle East.”
I’d like to be able to say that that’s ridiculous, no sane adult would act that way and even if he/she did, no one else would follow him or her. Then I think of the “freedom fries” episode and my belief that, for all our government’s failings, it is quite sane and rational compared to the governments of the Middle East. So I think I’ll have to grant you the possibility.
“…a myth that led bin Laden to believe he could strike in New York and sit back safely in Afghanistan.”
Well, he was right, wasn’t he? He hasn’t been killed or captured and indeed Bush seems to have forgotten him. A lot of other people were hurt and killed because of bin Laden, but he appears to have gotten away with it. So, if anything, I’d say the way the war has been handled has shown bin Laden that he can get away with it, rather than the reverse. The US may have the intestinal fortitude to invade another country (as long as it is a relatively helpless country), but it doesn’t have the attention span to carry out its goals if they take more than a news cycle to complete.
Jeremy,
How does a specific reference to Afghanistan (as even you quote – “clear cases like Afghanistan”) somehow convert to “any”???
StanLS, it is the word “like” that is doing all the work here, and the phrase “clear cases like” — Sebastian is using the specific case of Afghanistan to establish a class of “clear cases” which he believes Afghanistan to exemplify. Learn to read.
Jeremy,
Ah. So Afghanistan is not a clear case for you either? Got it.
Sebastian Holsclaw: Why not when Hussein was gassing Kurds? The UN said no to an invasion of Iraq. Genocide doesn’t really bother the UN much. Bush I listened to the UN. He thought that maintaining a coalition was more important. We learned throughout the 1990s that maintaining a paper coalition didn’t resolve any substantive goals–especially with France and Russia (and later Germany) constantly undermining sanctions.
What gas attack are you talking about here? The most infamous, Halabja, took place in early 1988, when George H.W. Bush was still Vice President. Are you saying he was working to get a U.N. resolution to invade Iraq around that time, or are you referring to an incident during the Gulf War, three years later? Last I checked, the U.S. tried to divert international attention from Saddam’s attacks on the Kurds by spreading the blame to Iran. The line about Saddam “gassing his own people” didn’t come about until he got on our bad side.
Many apologies, I confused the gas attacks with putting down the post Gulf-War I uprising. My bad.
Ah, I see. No sweat, it happens.
Sebastian: I was going to ask, but Gromit beat me to it. (It’s sort of etched in my memory, along with its date. I remember seeing a lot of refugees on the Turkish side of the border — a lot — and thinking: Kurds fleeing into Turkey is like Jews fleeing into Czarist Russia: it makes it really clear that something horrible is on the other side of the border. — This, of course, when what exactly was there was not clear, though there were the reports of poison gas that you’d get from people who had been attacked with, well, poison gas.)
In any case, via Paperwight, this:
Which, as far as the media goes, I think is true.
And about GHWBush’s reasons: Digby at Hullaballoo just excerpted them a few days ago, here:
and ya know, his respect for international law is one of the reasons why I have always maintained some degree of respect for Bush I.
“and ya know, his respect for international law is one of the reasons why I have always maintained some degree of respect for Bush I.”
And conversely the international community’s tolerance for gas attacks and genocide contributes to my lack of respect for it.
And conversely the international community’s tolerance for gas attacks and genocide contributes to my lack of respect for it.
Is that a fact? International law leads to tolerance of genocide? Funny. There was genocide and gas attacks before the current international order was put in place. I seem to remember something about WW1
Maybe, you know, it’s actually a lack of international law that leads to tolerance of genocide and gas attacks.
I believe you transformed “international community” into “international law”.
I think you have part of the answer here Sebastian:
Eradicating AIDS is a noble cause, but trying to do it with abstinence only education is not a feasable way to achieve it. A democratic Iraq is also a noble cause, but the policies of the Bush Administration don’t seem to be working all that well in achieving that goal.
This is the discussion the President should be having with the nation. What is he going to start doing differently in Iraq? He has had almost 2 1/2 years to prove his policies will work. When are we going to see some results? When will there be security in Iraq? When will Americans stop being killed in Iraq?
Sebastian: A) Saddam was the prime exemplar of the ‘fact’ that the US is unwilling to seriously fight its enemies.
He certainly was the prime exemplar of that in the 1980s, yes. So, Noble Cause A: it’s embarrassing for the US that President Reagan wanted the US to trade with Saddam Hussein and that Donald Rumsfeld met with him.
B) He had a long history of hiding nuclear and chemical weapons production.
Noble Cause B… the WMD lies. Yes, well. Better forget about this one.
C) He had a long history of dealing with terrorists groups–including Al Qaeda (see the late 1990s).
Noble Cause C: the money Saddam Hussein gave to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and the very minor contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein several years ago.
D) It is generally considered (though it may be incorrect) that a large part of the radicalization of Islamists occurs because of the repressive nature of Middle East regimes. E) Iraq was the repressive Middle East regime with the longest sustained fight against the UN and the US and thus appeared to be the easiest starting place for regime change.
Noble Cause D/E: a theoretical speculation that invading and occupying a country, bombing its cities and killing and torturing innocent people, is a good way to set up a democracy.
F) As a long term strategy (i.e. noble cause)
wooooooo, Sebastian – I nearly missed this. Are you seriously claiming that any “long term strategy” is a “noble cause”?
the repressiveness of regimes in the Middle East (and thus the terrorism we believe is associated with them) will be best served by a long term project to decrease repression and increase democratic principles in the region. This is not solved by insta-elections, but by a long term commitment to reshaping governments.
The US has a long-term committment to reshaping governments in South America. YUou have professed enthusiastic support in the past for Nixon’s or Reagan’s strategies of reshaping governments by assassination of elected leaders, funding terrorism against democracies, and torturing civilians. With this enthusiasm, it does not surprise me that you profess support for similiar strategies in the Middle East (with the exception of torture), but you should note that Nixon’s and Reagan’s strategies emphatically did not decrease repression and increase democratic principles: rather the reverse. What is your reason for supposing that the same strategy in Iraq, with the addition of aerial bombing of cities in Iraq, including cluster bombs to lay down instant minefields to maim and kill civilians, will have a different effect?
G) Despotic governments like Saddam’s rarely vanish on their own, and we can’t afford to wait 50 years to start the process (see by way of example North Korea).
But, unfortunately, not only has the US supported Saddam Hussein’s despotic government through the 1980s, chosen to attack the people of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein himself through the 1990s, and in the 2000s, the US is doing its best to install either a despotic replacement for Saddam Hussein – a new man for Rumsfeld to meet-and-greet: or else a theocratic government friendly to Iran. Another 50 years? Quite possibly.
Noble Causes you think Cindy Sheehan’s son died for:
A: Wiping out embarrassing recent history for Rumsfeld and for anyone still loyal to Reagan.
B: Lies about WMD.
C: Ending financial support for families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
D/E/F: Kill people until the survivors start a democracy. If they don’t, kill them some more. Don’t stop killing them until either there’s a democracy you approve of or they’re all dead.
G: End one despotic government, start a new one.
PS: Yeah, if I were Bush I wouldn’t want to face Cindy Sheehan with any of those Noble Causes either. But you did articulate them. Thanks.
“And conversely the international community’s tolerance for gas attacks and genocide contributes to my lack of respect for it.”
Was any of that tolerance on the part of the international community due to the fact that the world’s leading light and moral arbiter went real silent about its client’s use of gas?
I.e.–how strongly did the US condemn Saddam’s use of gas in Halabja? In real terms, not just in verbal slaps on the wrist.
And was there a chance of, e.g. a Security Council sanction against him for that gassing, if it was clear that the US condoned it?
I wish I could desnarkify those comments a bit, first because I *do* think the US is the world’s leading light and moral arbiter (it’s as close to a moral polity as the world has, by a *long* shot, in nations larger than, say, Ecuador), and because I also do not know the details of what transpired at the diplomatic level after Halabja.
So I’m curious: did the US take a principled stand against gas, only to have its stand thwarted by tolerance from the international community?
I believe you transformed “international community” into “international law”.
Actually, I believe you did.
Oops, that should be vice versa.
ie. “And you transformed international law into the international community.”
Ah. So Afghanistan is not a clear case for you either? Got it.
‘scuse me for violating posting rules but HOW THE HELL is that implied in anything I wrote?
Tad, my understanding is that State instructed its diplomats to push the story that Iran was responsible for Halabja. So the U.S. wasn’t quite silent about the attacks.
me: “After the bombing Bush never allocated enough men and resources to build a better Afghanistan.”
Sebastian:”This could bring me to my least favorite example of the near worthlessness of (scare quotes intentional) “international support” but that would be a complete threadjack.”
However you kept coming back with sneers towards the ‘international community’ of which I am a part. So I feel justified in responding nevertheless.
Currently there are about 15.000 US troops in Afghanistan and 10.000 from other countries (approximately 8000 from Nato en 2000 contributing to the US led operations).
At the January 2002 Tokyo meeting of the International Conference on Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan, the European Commission pledged about € 1 billion over five years in reconstruction support i.e. an average of approximately €200 million per year. Including contributions by Member States, the EU as a whole disbursed around €800 million in 2002 and over €900 million in 2003 for reconstruction and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. At the Berlin conference in spring 2004, the EU updated its reconstruction pledge, committing $ 2.2 billion for the period 2004-2006.
The EC and several EU member states are actively involved in the field of rural development which is critical for the provision of sustainable alternative livelihoods for farmers involved in opium-poppy cultivation. EC support in this area amounted to €115m in 2003-2004.
The rule of law is critical for the success of counter-narcotics efforts. Italy’s work on justice-sector reform and Germany’s efforts on the police sector are of crucial importance here. Providing €75m in 2003-4, the EC is the largest contributor to the Law and Order Trust Fund of Afghanistan (LOTFA).
I don’t know about 2004, but in 2003 the US congress had to step in to allocate 300m DOLLARS (242m euro) for Afghanistan. So the EU provided 3.7 times as much money in 2003 and 40% of the troops if we assume the ratio was more or less the same in that year as it is now.
Sebastian: “This is a huge misrepresentation of the facts. The UN inspectors had been confined to their hotels for months. In response to that fact, Clinton bombed Iraq and got the inspectors out of the way. They were not admitted back for years.”
According to Scott Ritter, who had resigned a few months earlier, the head of the inspectors deliberally provocated.
At the time the republicans protested mainly because it all happened just before the impeachment hearings would began IIRC.
According to many resourses the US used to inspections to gather intelligence about where to strike, which is why after the bombing Saddam didn’t want any AMERICAN or BRITISH inspectors, whilst the UN felt that it had the right to appoint anybody it wanted. Which is why there were years without inspections.
Sebastian: Furthermore, in Afghanistan, the minimal international contribution exposes the current worth of going to the international community for such things.
You mentioned it again, hence my somewhat long answer to your first sneer.
Sebastian: “And conversely the international community’s tolerance for gas attacks and genocide contributes to my lack of respect for it.”
You mean the gas attacks after which the US decided to established full diplomatic relations with Iraq for the first time since 1967?
Sebastian: thanks for your answer. But:
(D) – (G) are obviously reasons for trying to lessen the repression in the Middle East, not for invading any country, still less for invading Iraq. I continue to think that doing Afghanistan right would have been much more effective in this regard, and it would, moreover, have countered, rather than playing into, al Qaeda propaganda, and would not have engaged the Arab world’s deep sense of humiliation. But if we had to invade somewhere, why not Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, which are much, much more closely tied to terror?
Invasion has removed Saddam Hussein, which is a wonderful thing, but it has replaced life under a miserable dictator with living in fear of car bombs and vicious gangs and people roaming around imposing Shari’a law. It was predictable that Iraq would be a mess if we invaded it. It was not predictable by people outside the Bush administration that they would make as much of a hash of it as they did, but it was predictable by those inside it that given the sort of planning, troop levels, etc., that they were planning to provide, it would be a chaotic nightmare, and not a model for anything at all. So I don’t see that these meet my earlier criterion: being noble causes that Bush, in particular, can cite without being vulnerable to the objection: but you did not do what was plainly needed to achieve that.
(A) is, I think, more your reason than Bush’s. And I think that if you are looking for the poster child for “enemy we did not fight back against”, the obvious case — much more obvious than Saddam — is our failure to do anything after our marines were killed in Beirut, a decision I still find inexplicable, especially since, at the time, even I knew where the terrorist training camps were. (The Beka’a valley.) You might say, but that was too long ago. That’s what I’d say about going after Saddam on these grounds. Osama bin Laden was the striker-of-the-US at hand, and he’s still out there. SO I don’t see this as a response that makes sense either.
(B) WMD: Saddam was the last person on earth who might have shared any WMD he might have had with al Qaeda. Just the last. He was incredibly controlling, jealous of power, deeply suspicious, and ideologically as distant from al Qaeda as it was possible to be. He was also constantly doing this tightrope walk to see what he could get away with vis a vis the US and the international community, and handing WMD to bin Laden for a strike against the US would have been suicidal. I mean, one of the only good things you can say about him is that he was incredibly likely to do a good job of keeping his WMD to himself. Again, if for some reason we had to invade somewhere, why not go after Pakistan, which was actually a serious problem in this regard? So: this doesn’t seem to me to do it.
(C) On the contacts with al Qaeda: I’d guess that the US has had as many “contacts” with al Qaeda as Iraq, during the period 1991-2001. That is to say, not many at all. And Iraq was just about the last place that would ever have let al Qaeda operate with impunity. As with WMDs: one of the things that made Saddam such a truly horrible dictator was that he was both incredibly controlling and suspicious, and also incredibly ruthless and conscience-free. But again, just about the only good thing that one can say about that combination is: at least a guy like that probably won’t let groups like al Qaeda operate in his country, nor will he want to allow himself to be tied to them, because he can’t control them, and they are deeply destabilizing, and likely to do just about anything. And because he is ruthless, no pesky little concerns about civil liberties or the burden of proof will stand in the way of his just extirpating them if he feels like it.
Again, for terrorist contacts, if we had to invade somewhere, why not Pakistan or SA? Better yet, why not concentrate on really bringing Afghanistan once and for all into the world of normal countries where the rule of law exists and people can live a decent life, thereby denying it to al Qaeda for the long term?
I mean, I do not think that I would be satisfied by these answers, had I lost a son. And it’s not because I wouldn’t be satisfied by anything. I am quite satisfied by our reasons for invading Afghanistan, though not by our reasons for not doing a much better job there.
Does sound echo in a vacuum? I’m assuming you are saying this inside a vacuum, right?
Maybe you should go and check out this link:
http://web.sipri.org
In total dollars the US provided about 1% of arms transfered to Iraq. I’m not sure that really qualifies us for the Evil Empire award. Guess who provided about 80%? The USSR, you may have heard of them, France and China. Even Brazil sold more arms to Iraq in the 80’s than the U.S.
I guess you don’t remember the beginning of the war. “Shock and Awe” Do you really think that was targeting the people of Iraq?
DDR: note that the SIPRI tables are for the period 1970-2004. Note also that no one said we were the major suppliers of weapons to Iraq, just that we supported them, which we clearly did during the Iran/Iraq war. Iirc, we gave them not just weapons, but also classified satellite and other intelligence data.
Didn’t we also sell them dual-use equipment that wasn’t strictly identified as arms? Such as helicopters suitable for spraying chemicals on crops, among other things?
Hilzoy,
I wouldn’t argue that we supported them. But I think if you take the entire tone of that post it sounds like we were Iraqi cheerleaders independant of the Cold War and Iran. Other countries played much more significant roles. Our pictures wouldn’t have helped much with out all the weapons.
I am not trying to diminish our role. Just trying to give it a little context.
Didn’t you find Jesurgislac’s comment a little over the top and lacking context?
If you are going to call us supporters of Hussein, then you might as well call FDR a supporter of Stalin.
We did work with him, but it was against what we perceived as a greater evil at the time. It just seems like context is important for a rational discussion
“You mentioned it again, hence my somewhat long answer to your first sneer.”
Look at the absolute numbers. 10,000 troops. What does the US have committed to Iraq right now? 150,000? The entire rest of the world can’t get 50,000 troops? Your defense precisely illustrates my point.
And conversely the international community’s tolerance for gas attacks and genocide contributes to my lack of respect for it.
Would this include the fact that the “international community” (in this instance, those countries that sat on the UN Security Council, with the notable exception of the US) wanted to censure Saddam for his criminal actions against the Kurds, and that it was the threat of a US veto that prevented the motion from even coming to the floor?
You know, this isn’t something I like to admit, but I had a lot of doubts about the war in Afghanistan. I was scared of the Soviet experience–I was picturing a full scale U.S. invasion–and I was scared of destabilizing nuclear Pakistan. (Of course, I was scared of my own shadow and every airplane overhead that first month–what can I say. Don’t elect me President.) Not to the point where I opposed it, and I certainly favored sending U.S. troops after bin Laden, and given that I did not know at the time just how deeply intertwined Al Qaeda was with the Taliban government, following the policy I would have suggested would probably have amounted to the same thing in practice.
Of course, in retrospect I think I was wrong, and Sheehan doesn’t. But–one badly thought out opinion, or even a few badly thought out opinions (I don’t know exactly what she’s said about Israel–it’s sort of beside the point to me–but it certainly may qualify) does not automatically make everything someone says dismissable or disreputable. I knew, when we were talking about Iraq, that I had gotten Afghanistan wrong. But that was a reason to think it through more carefully and gather more information beforehand, not a reason to just sit quietly after I did think it through and arrived at a firm conclusion.
She is wrong about Israel and wrong about Afghanistan, but it is Iraq where her son died and Iraq that she is asking about. It is a legitimate question and it is one that has never been honestly answered. We have gotten precious few honest answers out of this administration, about anything, really, but especially about Iraq. The basic attitude is and always has been that we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about what our government is doing, because the President says it’s okay and he is a good Christian man, and by the way also infallible.
What she thinks about Afghanistan–it’s just not that relevant. There were some honest-to-God communists who got beat up pretty badly during the civil rights movement. Did the fact that they were communists really change what happened? Steven Biko supported economic policies that probably would have been disastrous for South Africa, but he was murdered, and it wasn’t for the economic policies he’s supported. I’m not saying that what she’s doing is like the march in Selma or like Biko–I don’t think that, not even a tiny bit (and anyone who explains to me how the cases are different is telling me the obvious & will be ignored.)The point is, in all three cases, the person’s views on political matters beyond the current dispute are somewhat beside the point. If you got beat up or murdered for standing against segregation or apartheid, people might just not care that much that you had some other ideas that were stupid or even immoral. If you lost a son in an unjust, dishonestly justified, incompetently executed war, guessing how you’d have reacted if your son died in another war is rather beside the point.
I don’t want to make her into some saint. I am uncomfortable with some of the things she has said, and she is undeniably politicizing her son’s death–but deaths in wars like this are the consequences of political decisions, and so I don’t think it’s inherently wrong to try to make the deaths have political consequences in turn. If you think politics is inherently immoral and dirty you don’t have much faith in democracy. Arar politicized what happened to him. The civil rights movement politicized the deaths of Goodwin, Schwerner and Chaney. The civil rights movement deliberately encouraged white students from the northeast to come to Mississippi in 1964, knowing that some of them would be probably be hurt and even killed, in part because they knew that the country would care far more about those deaths than the hundreds of deaths that were already taking place. (Again, I am trying to draw one particular, restricted analogy and not trying to make Mrs. Sheehan into Rosa Parks or John Lewis–I know there are many ways in which this is NOT analogous and no one needs to list them.) I have no idea if her son would approve of this–the evidence suggests not, but who the hell knows and it’s really REALLY not our place to judge–anyway, even if we knew exactly what he would have thought, I don’t think you are obligated to be reconciled to your child dying in this war just because he was reconciled to it.
I can’t imagine being in her place, but I doubt I would react in the same way. Chris Frosheiser’s reaction makes more sense to me in a way. And I don’t know if she’s right that we have to withdraw. I’m about where hilzoy is on that question. And I realize that there is probably not an answer that President Bush can give her, or anything a second meeting will do, that will satisfy her. But the reason her question is resonating is that he has not really ever answered it at all.
We all know that people die in wars, that over 1800 Americans and who knows how many Iraqis have died in this one. But it is possible to know these things without really understanding them or really dealing with what they mean. I’ve used this quotation before:
Cindy Sheehan is causing a lot of people to imagine it was their son or daughter, and ask whether they could have said what their child died for. I’ve not heard a single satisfactory answer to that question. “He volunteered and the troops have an obligation to obey the civilian leadership” doesn’t work; the troops’ obligation does nothing at all to reduce the civilian leadership’s obligation not to send them to kill or die unless it is necessary. “You opposed the war in Afghanistan and you’re anti-Israel” is not an answer to that question. To say nothing of running over memorials, talking about Sheehan’s divorce, lecturing her on behalf of her dead son, or calling her a traitor.
And she’s very far from the only person whose child has died or whose child’s life is at risk asking this question. I’m looking at the Google News pieces on the vigils last night and every newspaper seems to have found a few local families there who have lost a kid or whose kids are overseas. I’m sure there are many others who totally disagree, or have some doubts but aren’t sure, or who think the war was a mistake but will not protest the cause their kid is risking or gave his life for. But that’s not the point. Some of them are asking, even if a minority, and they deserve an honest answer.
Look at the absolute numbers. 10,000 troops. What does the US have committed to Iraq right now? 150,000? The entire rest of the world can’t get 50,000 troops? Your defense precisely illustrates my point.
Sebastian, you said: ” Furthermore, in Afghanistan, the minimal international contribution exposes the current worth of going to the international community for such things.”. I than showed you that AFAIK in Afghanistan 40% of the troops and almost 80% of the money (3.7 times the US contribution) was provided by the international community. If that exposes the current worth of going to the international community I wonder what WOULD be worthwile in your eyes.
In Gulfwar 1 the rest of the world had over 50.000 troops and payed 48 of the 62 billion. Probabely another exposure of the fulitily of involving the international community.
The Iraq invasion is a completely different case – which ought to be clear from reading this thread alone. I can tell you that the Netherlands is, as a country, very pro-America but we could only get involved after the UN provided a resolution and approved helping to rebuild the country – and mainly because the Iraqi population was held hostage by the American government.
Quite a number of Spanish died in Iraq, and only two days ago 17 Spanish soldiers died in Afghanistan. There mothers will be thrilled to read that their contribution was worthless and that the Spaniards are terrorist appeasers anyway (as I read on many conservative leaning blogs, I’d have to google to discover what you said at the time and it is summerholiday here – with three little boys my computer time is limited).
Once again, I want to thank Sebastain for having the cojones to answer the ‘noble cause’ question.
Having said that, I think Sebastian has shown why Bush isn’t answering Ms. Sheehan’s question. There isn’t an easy answer to her question, and no matter what Bush says he will immediately be put on the defensive. The rationale for going to war in Iraq has changed so many times it is useless for Bush to try and come up with another one or rehash those reasons he has already given.
I think Bush’s lack of political cojones is the reason we are failing in Iraq right now. He made a huge mistake by invading Iraq and the only way to fix that mistake is to own up to it and change tactics. He is too stubborn to do that.
“He is too stubborn to do that.”
correction: too cowardly.
“correction: too cowardly.”
I often wonder how the hell Bush got an MBA from Harvard. I am not sure, but I would guess that his professors didn’t tell him ignoring a problem will make it go away.
I also wonder where he went drinking in Cambridge. I can’t picture him stumbling through Harvard Square with the rest of the drunk college students on Friday nights (I mean the Fridays he wasn’t on duty with the MA national guard, j/k.)
Well, that is rather easy to answer. Because we asked for Afghanistan to turn bin Laden over, and they refused (because he was very tight with the Taliban government).
Would you like to try again, this time sticking a little closer to actual history?
The Taliban may or may or may not have had any intention of negotiating in good faith (see “Imperial Hubris”). However, neither did the US.
“The Taliban may or may or may not have had any intention of negotiating in good faith (see “Imperial Hubris”). However, neither did the US.”
My suggestion would be to quote some actual source material, if you’re actually interesting in convincing people. Cites to offline books (without even bothering with page numbers) is less convincing than such. Unless you can be specific, a general claim, supported only by an utterly general, offline, cite, is not apt to convince anyone not already of said view.
There was a link provided earlier, in this comment.
Here’s a link to the Amazon page for “Imperial Hubris”; judge for yourself.
I suspect you aren’t sufficiently attentive to the phrase “sufficient evidence”.
I don’t see what I’m supposed to get out of Imperial Hubris either.
PittR: The Taliban may or may or may not have had any intention of negotiating in good faith (see “Imperial Hubris”). However, neither did the US.
Well, no, that was obvious to anyone following the news between 11th September and 9th October 2001. The Taliban made three negotiating offers to the US – to try Osama bin Laden themselves, to hand him over if he could be tried under Shari’a law, to hand him over to a neutral country providing the US would show evidence of guilt. The first two offers deserved to be dismissed: the third was an offer that merited negotiation.
That the US was not interested in negotiation but in attacking Afghanistan – whether or not the attack on Afghanistan retrieved Osama bin Laden – was becoming increasingly obvious over the month following September 11, and I am surprised that people whom I would have assumed were also following the news, now want this proved to them.
Can only recommend they go back and re-read contemporary news reports from that period.
Jes and Phoenician- Are you serious? Negotiation? We made a naked threat that they had to hand over bin Laden or face invasion. Their “offer” was just a deniable way to tell us to piss up a rope!
The notion that they somehow didn’t have enough evidence that bin Laden was a terrorist is laughable.
btw, Sebastian: Thinking of you, I asked people at my vigil whether they knew or cared about any of Cindy Sheehan’s views other than: she wants to know why her son died. (I mean, I didn’t ask everyone, not wanting to seem like I was taking a poll or something. These were strangers to me.) Answer: no, except for a few who said: well, she’s against the war, and I agree with that.
For what it’s worth.
I have a lot of “why” questions myself, but I stopped with that nonsense when I was about five years old. “Why” is the question that just keeps on asking.
How her son died, what we’re doing there to begin with, etc; those are questions that already have been answered. If she’s unsatisfied with those answers, why is making up different ones the right thing to do?
slartibartfast–
I don’t think there is any sense in which “why” questions “keep on asking”, i.e. invite further investigation, in which “how” questions and “what” questions do not also “keep on asking”.
E.g.–“how” did you get that bruise on your forehead? Well, I walked into a door-jam. But “how” does walking into a door-jam produce a bruise on your forehead? Well, I was walking with a certain speed, my weight times that speed produced a certain momentum, the contact with the door jam decelerated my forehead with this sort of force, and that force produced a bruise on my forehead. But “how” does a force produce a bruise? Okay, the force was transmitted through the epidermis to the small blood-vessels, exceeded their elasticity, caused them to rupture, and released blood into the interstitial spaces, which on coagulation changed color. But “how” was the force transmitted, and “how” were the vessels ruptured, and “how” was the blood released, and “how” did the blood coagulate, and “how” does its coagulation cause color changes, and “how” do those changes become visible through the skin, and “how”….
There’s just no real difference here. In various contexts, and for various purposes, we take certain answers as final, whether to “why” questions, or to “how” questions. Your friends stop at one place, the doctor stops at another, the chemist stops at another, the physicists don’t look like they’re in the way of stopping at all.
Your argument is also far too powerful–you effectively argue that “why” questions are never legitimately asked, and that strikes me as implausible.
And seriously–if you think you have stopped asking “why” questions yourself, I’m pretty sure you are wrong. Even if you have managed, through an act of linguistic asceticism, to banish that phoneme from your vocabulary, I suspect you still make the question heard. (“How come…?” “What’s with…? etc.)
This is an easy question to answer. She should meet with me instead of the President if that is all she wants to know.
Her son died because he volunteered twice to join the military. He reenlisted in August of 2003 after the whole world knew WMD was not being found in Iraq. When the President called on him he faithfully fulfilled his duty and then volunteered to go back and do more.
He’s appears to be an American that we should all admire. Not a victim to be mourned, but an American who lost his life bravely and voluntarily answering the call of his country and President.
Why do you think that? Why, I ask?
Your “how” example is a little different, in that it devolves into questions that can be easily answered, if one cares to research enough. In other words, further answers can edify rather than serve as another link in the chain of why.
Really, her questions have been answered, unless one supposes that there’s some covert “why” behind the overt “why”, and one further supposes that those covert answers might be forthcoming if the question is repeated.
slartibartfast–
yeah, I was pretty sure you used the “why” word now and then.
Not so fast on those “how” questions being easy, though, or even easier than “why” questions. You’re giving too much credit to the scientists–that stuff is *hard*. And the answers always give rise to more questions–that’s what scientists say, and I believe ’em. (They’re *scientists*, after all!)
DDR: but an American who lost his life bravely and voluntarily answering the call of his country and President.
The question Cindy Sheehan wants to know the answer to is actually “What was the noble cause for which my son died?”
Sebastian has actually given a pretty good sketch of the various claims made by Bush or by the Bush administration as to why they had to invade/occupy Iraq, but you notice that Bush hasn’t actually got the cojones to take an hour out from his vacation, meet with her, and tell her. (Not least because, as Sebastian’s outline indicates, the reasons change as and when. Once it was the WMD. Once it was the “Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous dictator”. Both those reasons look faded now, so it’s now a mishmashed claim that killing lots of people in Iraq will somehow bring the ME nearer to democracy. But this may change too, and probably will, if Bush wants to pull out the troops in 2006.
As many others have already said in this thread, while it may be noble for a soldier to go without question where his President commands, the nobility lies in the soldier’s courage, not in the President’s command. The question Cindy Sheehan is asking is directed at the President: and he can’t borrow back the nobility invested in obedience to the President and claim that since it’s noble to obey him his orders are necessarily noble.
Not so. We may honor the Light Brigade for their courage in obeying a dangerous order: but that doesn’t give any honor to those who gave the order. You appear to be trying to give the President the honor that rightfully belongs to the soldiers who have gone to Iraq at his behest.
Jes- Good post. I agree. How about answering my question upthread?
Frank: The notion that they somehow didn’t have enough evidence that bin Laden was a terrorist is laughable.
It is nonetheless customary, when you want to extradite someone from a country, to provide sufficient evidence showing that you can bring them to trial. It doesn’t matter how certain the arresting authorities are of the person’s guilt: evidence, not certainty, is required.
If it is laughable to assume that there was no evidence sufficient to bring Osama bin Laden to trial, then it is evident that the US, in refusing the Taliban’s offer outright, had no intention of negotiating to avoid having to attack Afghanistan.
Over at Crooked Timber, I just read somebody quoting Coulter saying the following about Sheehan:
“She calls the U.S. government a ‘morally repugnant system’ and says, ‘This country is not worth dying for.’ ”
Coulter is suggesting that Sheehan’s reference to “this country”, i.e. the one that “is not worth dying for”, refers to the U.S.
Is that right? Strikes me as quite possible Sheehan was referring to Iraq.
A little googling gives me this:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007110
“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.”
So she is saying that if “we” were attacked (by which I assume she must mean the US, or US citizens?), then “we”, including herself, would go all out to defeat the attackers. This sounds like she is saying that the US *is* worth fighting for. (And dying for? But not dying for? Not dispositive.)
But “we were not attacked by Iraq.”
And that’s why “This country is not worth dying for”.
Look, it may just be ambiguous, and she should clear up the ambiguity. But when I read it, it looks far more plausible that she is saying that *Iraq* is not worth dying for, because they did not attack the U.S.
While googling, I noticed that this quote is all over Right Blogistan as Exhibit A in Sheehan’s trial for treason.
If she *did* say that America is not worth dying for, then I disagree with her–with at least as much vehemence, and credibility to my name, as any other stay-at-home unenlisted keyboarder. It’s not treason, but I would say it marked a great divide between her outlook and mine.
If she *didn’t* say that America is not worth dying for–if what she said is that *Iraq* is not worth dying for–then Right Blogistan should publish some corrections.
“If it is laughable to assume that there was no evidence sufficient to bring Osama bin Laden to trial, then it is evident that the US, in refusing the Taliban’s offer outright, had no intention of negotiating to avoid having to attack Afghanistan.”
Actually the problem (and this is only from memory) is that sufficient evidence in the Taliban law sense means a number of Muslim men who are willing to testify that they personally saw bin Laden engage in the act in question. So sufficient evidence in a general sense sounds reasonable, but “sufficient evidence” in the sense actually used was not reasonable.
Sebastian: So sufficient evidence in a general sense sounds reasonable, but “sufficient evidence” in the sense actually used was not reasonable.
That’s why I think that final offer should have been a negotiating point, and why the US was acting in bad faith simply to turn it down. From contemporary news reports, the Taliban made these three offers, each one offering a little more: to try bin Laden themselves, to have bin Laden tried in a neutral country under Shari’a law, to have bin Laden tried in a neutral country if the US could offer evidence.
The US made no attempt to offer any evidence – not so much as the evidence that would have been required for extradition had bin Laden been in the UK. The US simply turned down all negotiation offers, and attacked. Hence, we can say that while the Taliban may not have been negotiating in good faith, we know the US was not.
Jesurgislac,
Why do you post here? Just one reason please. If you have more than one reason it means you aren’t answering the question.
Insert reasons in place of your “claims” and viola you have your answer.
Actually, it seems it was all those reasons in the 2003 State of the Union.
First of all,
then,
and of course a little for Sheehan
and just a little more…
Actually it seems Bush made an attempt to preconsole people like Sheehan. But, sadly people like you and her didn’t seem to hear the message.
If just for a brief moment you didn’t work from the assumption that Bush is the consumate liar you might actually hear and understand his words.
Why do you post here? Just one reason please.
I don’t post here: I comment here. 😀 I post on my journal and on Liberal Street Fighter. You will see links to both in the left-hand column.
As for why: well, why do you? Indeed, this strikes me as an interesting topic for an open thread, but as a challenge from another commenter, I think it not worth answering: you have no particular right to ask it.
Dissent suppression!
:p
Preconsole?
[…]
Preconsole?
Jes- Thanks for your reply. I guess what set me off was “negotiate in good faith.” I don’t think we were negotiating at all. We delivered an ultimatum. If we were negotiating I don’t see any reason why it would not have been in good faith. If they had surrendered bin Laden we probably wouldn’t have attacked Afganistan. Since we promised we would attack if they didn’t surrender him, they didn’t surrender him, and we attacked. Looked like good faith to me.
I remember when the taliban responded to US demands on TV. They were laughing at us when the made their counter offer.
Again do you really think we should have talked with them?
No the US didn’t want to avoid war with Afganistan, nonetheless we offered a more than reasonable opportunity for them to avoid war with us.
“I have a lot of “why” questions myself, but I stopped with that nonsense when I was about five years old.”
That’s too bad. I like “why” questions myself. They lead to interesting answers. The question “Why do people get sick?” led to germ theory and antibiotics. “Why should you get my seat on the bus?” led to improvements in the civil rights of minorities. “How” is an important question too, of course, but rarely has the scope that “why” does. (Ok, I’m done with the random diversion now…Please return to your regularly scheduled spat.)
Slarti: Dissent suppression!
Frank: No the US didn’t want to avoid war with Afganistan, nonetheless we offered a more than reasonable opportunity for them to avoid war with us.
Depends. If the objective of attacking Afghanistan was to capture Osama bin Laden, then it was foolish of the US to refuse any possible opportunity of securing Osama bin Laden without attacking Afghanistan. #
If the objective of attacking Afghanistan was to make Americans feel better because something visible was being done (bombs exploding, people being killed) – then refusing to negotiate and attacking Afghanistan anyway achieved that objective.
The notion that they somehow didn’t have enough evidence that bin Laden was a terrorist is laughable.
Last time the US informally asked us to arrest someone who was supposedly a terrorist they failed to present evidence – and we had to pay Mullah Krekar 45.000 euro for wrongfull arrest.
I’m with Jes: they should have negiotiated. War is awfull and should always be a last resort because you know that many innocents will suffer.
We are talking about Bin Laden. There were UN resolutions about him. The UN had already asked Afganistan to hand him over. And I don’t think any American should have to apologize for having blood in their eyes over this.
We are talking about a period days after 9-11 when a country which had sheltered our attackers laughingly refused to hand over the individual most responsible for our grief.
Offering to just settle for bin Laden and not ask for the heads of the Taliban as well showed more forbearance than I would generally expect from Americans.
“If the objective of attacking Afghanistan was to capture Osama bin Laden, then it was foolish of the US to refuse any possible opportunity of securing Osama bin Laden without attacking Afghanistan. #
If the objective of attacking Afghanistan was to make Americans feel better because something visible was being done (bombs exploding, people being killed) – then refusing to negotiate and attacking Afghanistan anyway achieved that objective.”
I think there might be some inbetween possibilities. The US might have wanted to try to hurt Al Qaeda more than just bin Laden.
In the non-hypothetical world, the US position was that the Taliban was working with Al Qaeda. The fact that they wouldn’t turn over bin Laden was a signal to us of how closely they were working with Al Qaeda.
Jesurgislac:I think it not worth answering: you have no particular right to ask it.
I didn’t mean to offend you. My point was that you probably have a a whole host of reasons as to why you post comments on the Internet. And that is probably even more true as to why you post at different sites.
So let me ask this question to make it less personal. Is there only ONE reason that you post comments on the Internet.
The world is complex. Very seldomly is there one reason we do anything. There are usually many different motivations that cause us to act. This applies to you, me and the Bush administration.
It’s unrealistic to think that the Bush administration cited only one reason to go to war with Iraq. If they cite more than one reason that is not changing the reasons for war. The SOTU clarified his many reasons to take this country to war.
I’m reminded of a famous book-review that began:
“There are many good and original things in this book.
Unfortunately, the good things are not original, and the original things are not good.”
DDR, it would be appropriate to draw a parallel between my posting comments on the Internet and Bush lying the US into war with Iraq if they were actions of an equivalent weight. They’re really not, and trying to make out that they are trivialises a war that has killed so many people.
I don’t need to give anyone reasons for posting on the Internet because my being online makes no difference to anyone else.
Bush needs to give people an explanation – and a sound one that won’t switch and change to whatever sounds better – because his decision to invade and occupy Iraq is a decision of weight and moment. Even if you only want to count American lives, soldiers have been killed and maimed because Bush wanted to invade Iraq: their families have suffered.
The Bush administration started out lying about WMD: moved through empty claims about al-Qaeda and the dangers of Saddam Hussein: ended up theorizing that killing lots of people in Iraq would help bring Iraq to democracy. Sebastian’s given a fair summary of those shifting, sketchy “reasons”, any of which I suppose someone might identify as a “noble cause”: but the fact is, Bush and his administration have shifted from one to another at will depending what sounded better at the time.
Once WMD sounded good. Then “Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous dictator” sounded better. Now claims about democracy sound good. But none of this answers Cindy Sheehan’s question: What was the noble cause for which her son died?
Jesurgislac,
There’s just very little discussion actually taking place, huh?
You say Bush lied and people died. That seems to be your starting point for everything. But I say that is wrong. Bush didn’t lie. People have died.
The parallel is not that you posting on the Internet is the same as being president of the U.S. I thought the point of the parallel was obvious. The parallel is very few decisions are made for only ONE reason.
You keep wanting to box Bush into one reason for going to war and then another reason and then another. I cited comments from the 2003 State of the Union that expressed many justifications for going to war. You refuse to listen to the words that came out of his mouth. I certainly can’t make you listen.
That statements just not true. For example, I am staying late at work just so I can post a response. We have attempted to engage in a discussion. You think that makes no difference to anyone else? Admittedly this is really beside the point, but if you are so easily mistaken about not making a difference with your posts then maybe there are other areas you might also be mistaken.
Europeans have been accusing Americans of the being cowboys rushing in to save the day for quite a long time. This is a myth. They are still doing this and unfortunately it has spread to other countries around the world and even our own. But when you look at the facts historically, usually those dumb cowboys took awhile to rush in and then did figure out a way to help save the day. It remains to be seen in Iraq, but Bush took over a year to “rush” into war.
The comments many make about the US today is the same tripe trotted out over and over again. It was wrong in the past and most likely will be wrong in the future.
What kind of world is it that removing a ruthless dictator isn’t a noble cause? No other words need to be spoken. I could, but it isn’t necessary.
Argue poor implementation if you choose. But sadly to diminish the noble cause diminishes us all as human beings. Casey’s chosen life work is being diminished by the actions of those who refuse to admit that removing Hussein was a noble cause and it was Bush’s leadership that allowed it.
OK, no doubt it is foolish for me to intrude in this discussion, so there’s fair warning.
DDR, I already wrote that deposing Saddam is the one justification for the war that resonates with me. He certainly was a horrible tyrant. But, as many point out, that was not the main reason President Bush gave for the war. You can quote the State of the Union address all you like (watch out for the “16 words”!), but there are plenty of other quotes from President Bush calling the use of force a “last resort.”
Should we have launched a war that, in retrospect, clearly was not a last resort? A war carries heavy costs — in lives, in dollars, in opportunities lost. Even giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt for his decision at the time, can you really say this was worth the cost? Do you think the people of Iraq will agree?
I don’t always agree with Jes, but I think you are far out on a limb here. We did not just remove a ruthless dictator. We have killed many Iraqis, some innocent. We have lost some of our own forces. We have alienated allies and angered many who ought to be our allies. That’s what happens in a war. That is why it should be a last resort.
As for Cindy Sheehan, I don’t agree with all she says either. But it’s obvious she has struck a chord, and for a good reason. The kind of carelessness with lives that led us to this point upsets many people. This is not to denigrate the honor of those who serve. But it is our responsibility to seriously examine the actions of our government, weigh the evidence, and speak out as we are moved to do so.
The actions of the U.S., being the world’s sole remaining super power, have effects on citizens of other countries. It seems to me this gives them standing to be heard.
DDR: You keep wanting to box Bush into one reason for going to war and then another reason and then another.
Actually, I don’t give a damn about Bush. But he claimed there was a “noble cause” for which Cindy Sheehan’s son died – yet he can’t actually stand up and say what that noble cause is. You seem to think he shouldn’t have to.
What kind of world is it that removing a ruthless dictator isn’t a noble cause?
Saddam Hussein was captured on Dec 14, 2003. Cindy Sheehan’s son was killed in Iraq on April 4th, 2004. What kind of timeline do you live in where you can claim that he died for a “noble cause” that had been accomplished months earlier?
As Ras points out, removing Saddam Hussein from power was not how Bush originally “sold” the war anyway: and it’s not how he’s trying to “sell” the war now.
Jesurgislac,
What kind of timeline do you live in where you can claim that he died for a “noble cause” that had been accomplished months earlier?
I thought it would be obvious that once removing Iraq’s government working to restore a new government would be part of the same noble cause. Bush did. And you can see it in his speech below. I don’t think anyone thought we would just remove Hussein and then go home. Atleast not anyone I know. If someone as supposedly stupid and ignorant as Bush knew it shouldn’t everyone else?
It sounds like you keep wanting to slice up reality and then call the slice the whole pie. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
As Ras points out, removing Saddam Hussein from power was not how Bush originally “sold” the war anyway: and it’s not how he’s trying to “sell” the war now.
Regime change was official US policy. You could give credit to Clinton, but you also have to give credit to Bush for implementation.
Looks like you are again mistaken:
It looks like Bush was selling: I don’t want to go to war, but if I do there will be regime change, change for the middle East and a new government for the Iraqi people. The government should be representative of all Iraqis. If we do go in it will be dangerous and we will try to minimize the loss of life.
Sounds like a noble cause to me and it speaks to what so many say didn’t get discussed.
http://www.whitehouse.gove
I can accept that you think he is just a big liar and it is not relevant what was actually stated for that reason. But you can’t claim he didn’t atleast say the words that you accuse him of not saying.
In 2003 he was saying everything so many accuse him of not saying. You discount it because he is only a liar to you.
It sounds like you have fallen into the spin zone and you can’t get up. I hate that.
DDR: working to restore a new government would be part of the same noble cause
So you see it as a noble cause to set up a theocracy resembling Iran in Iraq? I disagree, but there you go.
Jesurgislac: So you see it as a noble cause to set up a theocracy resembling Iran in Iraq?
Yahoo theocracy!
I love theocracies!
Show me the Mullah!
Show me the Mullah!
Show me the Mullah!
That’s a stupid question and anyone who is being honest would know it.
Bush stated the Iraqi’s will choose their own government. We will do our best to encourage them to be democratic. Because we and many others believe that a democracy is the best form of government.
If it turns out the Iraqi’s want a theocracy then we really can’t stop them without setting up another dictatorship.
They have a historic opportunity. Will they take advantage of it? I don’t know. But, I hope they do. Like Bush I am betting on the Iraqi people, not against them.
They had a dictator. We removed the dictator for them and now they have the opportunity to do something by the people and for the people. Which Bush stated as a goal.
The funny thing is the US gets accused of forcing their will on the Iraqi’s and the same people will turn around and criticize us for not forcing our will on them.
Iran is a good example as you point out. Alot of things are taking place in Iran as we speak. Their country is changing. We don’t know what the future brings, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all that Iraq may experience similar growing pains as Iran.
There really isn’t many countries that have had the same form of government for longer than 200 years. I don’t know why we should hold Iraq to a standard that is so much higher than what we hold Europe, Asia, Africa or ourselves. The British and some other European countries can’t even let go of their archaic monarchies. Maybe the Iraqi’s will evolve to be a democracy but a theocracy on paper and in name. Maybe they will be a theocracy. Who knows? Atleast now they have the chance to do something other than be a dictatorship.
(Of course, if I am not mistaken the U.S. does have one of the oldest living governments on the planet. But, it did take us two times to get it right.)
DDR: Bush stated the Iraqi’s will choose their own government.
And yet, he was unwilling to let the Iraqis have elections when the country was (relatively speaking) at peace: in January 2004.
Very good. So, in your view, the noble cause for which Cindy Sheehan’s son was killed was the opportunity to set up Iran II. Why do you suppose Bush is so unwilling to meet Cindy Sheehan and tell her that face-to-face?
I can guess: because Bush & Co are aware that they will have to shift their reasons for the war depending what looks good – they have before, they will again. And they won’t want to commit themselves to any definite goal, as they are aware they will have to shift the goalposts – as they have before, so they will again. You may see this shifty attitude as “flexibility” – other people would call it dishonesty, but you don’t have a problem with a President who claims one reason for going to war, then another, then another… and declines to attach any one of them to his phrase “noble cause”.
Of course, if I am not mistaken the U.S. does have one of the oldest living governments on the planet.
Hee! You are joking, yes? The US government dates back, as I recall, to 1776, at the very very earliest: or 1789, if you count from the first President. That makes it older than some, younger than others: but certainly it has no claim to be even “one of” the oldest living governments on the planet.
Jesurgislac,
Hee! You are joking, yes?
Please cite examples of older living governments.
I’ll start off: United Kingdom
Now your turn.
Jesurgislac: Very good. So, in your view, the noble cause for which Cindy Sheehan’s son was killed was the opportunity to set up Iran II.
Now that is quite the strawman. Thank you for informing me that my view of the noble cause is setting up Iran 2. Let me “attempt” to defend that position now.
Okay, enough joking. The reality of what I said was that we have removed a ruthless dictator and are giving the Iraqi people the opportunity to setup a new government. One for the people and by the people. That is the noble cause that Bush stated upfront.
Why do you suppose Bush is so unwilling to meet Cindy Sheehan and tell her that face-to-face?
She should really meet with you for that information not Bush. Bush has clearly stated his reasons in the past. Bush has met face to face with her.
Using that earth logic you talk about it would not make sense for Bush to meet with her to inform her about your lie.
Jesurgislac:I can guess: because Bush & Co are aware that they will have to shift their reasons for the war depending what looks good – they have before, they will again. And they won’t want to commit themselves to any definite goal, as they are aware they will have to shift the goalposts – as they have before, so they will again
I just don’t see how you can make that claim. I guess you didn’t read my post at all.
Hussein has been disarmed. We are working to build a regime to take its place.
It’s not that the goal posts are being moved. You want to pretend they don’t exist. Why do you want to take a straight forward explanation and pretend it isn’t?
Please cite examples of older living governments.
Iceland. Thailand. A number of Native American tribal governments in the US – you ought to know more about that than I do. The Roman Catholic church, insofar as it constitutes a government (the Vatican is still a state in its own right). Switzerland. The Isle of Man. Sweden. Denmark. That’s just off the top of my head.
Some of these living governments are so much older than the US that a claim for the US to be “among the oldest” is just ludicrous: Iceland’s parliament recently celebrated its millennial anniversary.
Honestly, DDR, this is not a contest a country as young as the US can hope to win: nor, to be honest, do I think it a terribly important contest to win – your attempt to enter the US into this contest was what I laughed at, and I shouldn’t have: you no doubt have never had a reason to go look up the history of countries so far out of the US sphere of interest. Norway’s government is younger than Sweden’s or Denmark’s, but that seems no reason to accord it less respect.
Jesurgislac,
go look up the history of countries so far out of the US sphere of interest.
Funny, as an empire I thought the whole world was under our sphere of influence.
I’ll grant you that there are atleast 20 goverments older in the world. That still puts the US in the top 10% and even higher if we are going to include such small enitities.
In my humble opionion that makes it one of the oldest living governments. And if we added the constraint of membership in the UN. It would be even higher.
The point is only relevant because many people want to hold Iraq to such high standards: they have to vote today, they have to finish the constitution today, it has to be perfect. People act like that is the norm. It’s not the norm. Most democracies really aren’t that old. This is certainly true of Europe.
Now that I think about it… maybe we should hold the Iraqis to higher standards.
That still puts the US in the top 10%
*shrug* If it makes you feel better about your country to think about it that way, feel free. I recommend to your attention this little book, which will assist you in your creative endeavors.
DDR, I, for one, don’t disagree with your point that no one should expect a fully formed democratic society over night. Or probably even by the end of the decade. But then I’m not the one who thought this whole project was something we could really do, given the various constraints we operate under. (And given my perception of the actual capabilities of the Admin staff, including CEO).
Our electoral calendar and force structure are realities that you have to take into account when you launch a big military effort. Hence the elements of the Powell Doctrine.
The folks who thought the Powell Doctrine quaint — because they thought they could achieve complete victory before the constraints kicked in — are the ones you have your argument with, not those of us who think it entirely unrealistic to think you can transform an alien society in this way this fast.
From my perspective, the Admin and its supporters complaining about the lack of public will is like King Canute complaining about the tide. Sec. Powell, like Sec. Weinberger before him, spelled out what you need to do to use force within the country’s will limits. Build your house below the mean high water mark, and rage at the tide if you want. Don’t say you weren’t warned, by folks on your own ‘side.’
And by the way, wasn’t your guy’s leadership ability the big point in his favor all along? Why isn’t he bringing people along in what so many would agree is the principal public issue of our time (where we cannot afford to fail)?
Jesurgislac,
The question of old living governments is really beside the point. I can’t help but notice that you have not acknowledged that in 2003 Bush stated our mission in Iraq and we have stuck to it.
Our mission that he stated clearly in 2003 and still to this day is truly a noble one. I hope you and Sheehan can now recognize it.
It turns out that Bush has had a consistent message if you were willing to listen. If you assume that every word uttered is a lie, I can see how you reach your conclusion. But that would be a truly biased perspective and out of touch with reality.
DDR: The question of old living governments is really beside the point.
Certainly. You were the one who brought it up: I’m glad you finally noticed it was irrelevant.
I can’t help but notice that you have not acknowledged that in 2003 Bush stated our mission in Iraq and we have stuck to it.
I can’t help but notice that you have not acknowledged that in 2003 Bush lied about the US’s mission in Iraq: have you already forgotten the WMD claims, since they all proved false?
It turns out that Bush has had a consistent message if you were willing to listen.
Hmmm… what consistent message? You’ve been asserting that Bush’s shiftiness from message to message proves that there were multiple reasons for invading Iraq: now you’re saying that there was only ever one message?
As I said: Sebastian gave a good outline of the shifting messages Bush has been giving over the past couple of years. You’re the one who claimed that this changeability was a merit. Now you’re claiming that it’s not even true? I think you need a little more consistency in your message…
And going back to the original topic of the thread: an outline of why the Bush administration’s attempt to deal with Cindy Sheehan by sliming her didn’t work.
The point of the thread. Not the point of my comment. My point in the comment remains valid and relevant. Many want to hold the Iraqi’s to certain standards that aren’t realistic. Even though the US is one of the longest running governments in the world they didn’t get it right in the beginning.
Are you really so obtuse? Can you really not grasp the concept that one can state 10 reasons for doing something and that if I cite all of them as reasons that is not me shifting my reasons, but stating them?
I have never claimed any “shiftiness”. That’s your assertion. Bush and I both have spoken clearly. There are many reasons for invading Iraq.
I said the message has been consistent and it has.
Disarmament
Remove Dictator
Build new government
Help Iraqi people
Change Middle East
I feel the need to ask again… can you really not accept that one may have multiple reasons for doing something and that listing all the reasons does not mean that I am changing my reason?
This goes back to why I asked you about posting on the Internet. You blew it off and felt no reason to answer. I’m betting you have more than one reason you post. I bet you have a bunch of reasons. Even though we agree that you posting is not comparable to being President I was hoping that you could atleast acknowledge that one can state many reasons for doing something without shifting their reasons. But you wouldn’t. I think we both know why. And I think we both know why you took offense to the question and avoided answering it.
Jesurgislac: And going back to the original topic of the thread: an outline of why the Bush administration’s attempt to deal with Cindy Sheehan by sliming her didn’t work.
Sheehan sank her own boat swiftly when she made asinine comments like this:
“They’re not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror…The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush.”
While you probably agree with her I find her revolting and I would imagine that the kid who voluntarily said:
“And the sergeant said, ‘Sheehan, you don’t have to go,’ because my son was a mechanic.’ And Casey said, ‘Where my chief goes, I go.'”
would also be disappointed in his mom. Much like her other family members seem to be.
Even though the US is one of the longest running governments in the world
Except, as we’ve established, and I thought you’d accepted, it isn’t: and it’s a meaningless point anyway.
can you really not accept that one may have multiple reasons for doing something and that listing all the reasons does not mean that I am changing my reason?
Bush first claimed that he wanted to invade Iraq because of the WMD: then, when it became obvious that the evidence for WMD had been built up to far more than it was, that Saddam Hussein was the most terrible dictator on the planet; and then, when people started pointing at the far more dangerous regime of North Korea, or the equally appalling regimes which the US currently calls ally, the claim that the point is to establish a democracy in Iraq.
This is not “multiple reasons”: this is multiple excuses. This is like a schoolkid saying “Well, I didn’t do my homework because you didn’t tell me what it was.” The teacher points out that the schoolkid was in class when the assignment was handed out: the schoolkid says “Well, I didn’t have time last night.” The teacher points out that the homework was handed out a week ago: the schoolkid says “Well, anyway, the dog ate my book.”
Now you tell me: do you think the schoolkid is honestly coming up with multiple reasons for not doing their homework? Because that’s the excuse you’re giving George W. Bush.
And I think we both know why you took offense to the question and avoided answering it.
Yes – it sounded like you were challenging my right to comment at Obsidian Wings, and that’s why I took offense and refused to answer it the first time. Thanks for understanding that.
I’m still refusing to answer it, of course, because it’s a silly, meaningless question. Your analogy is foolish.
“Each death diminishes us as a people. I’m going to plan my evenings better so that the next time there’s a candlelight vigil to support Cindy Sheehan, I’m part of it instead of passing by. Such vigils may look quaint, literally candles in the wind, but what else is one to do?” James Wolcott, via Body and Soul.
Except, as we’ve established, and I thought you’d accepted, it isn’t: and it’s a meaningless point anyway.
That’s not accurate with respect to the point I have tried to make, but you so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. It isn’t practical to hold the Iraqi’s to the same standards as the US. The US is one of the few exceptions to the rule.
We should be more realistic because the US is one of the oldest living democracies and to expect the same of them isn’t fair. It’s a completely different environment in Iraq.
We should hold them to standards more like the Europeans. 5 or 6 republics. Turning over an new government every few years. A few meaningless institutions.
As long as they don’t attack any other countries, start any world wars, or aide others in doing so that would be a more reasonable standard which to judge success.
Jesurgislac: Bush first claimed that he wanted to invade Iraq because of the WMD:
If I wasn’t reading what you post I would swear you can’t read.
You completely ignore anything he says in his speaches. The way you so easily dismiss his speaches on the subject is impressive.
We should be more realistic because the US is one of the oldest living democracies and to expect the same of them isn’t fair. It’s a completely different environment in Iraq.
We should hold them to standards more like the Europeans. 5 or 6 republics. Turning over an new government every few years. A few meaningless institutions.
LMAO. All hail the birthplace of civility, the United States of America with her rich and long history.
As long as they don’t attack any other countries, start any world wars, or aide others in doing so that would be a more reasonable standard which to judge success.
Oh, wonderfull. Can we apply the same standards to everybody? Or is that a bit too…. eh…… radical leftwing?
Dutchmarbel: Oh, wonderfull. Can we apply the same standards to everybody?
No. I would only apply it to countries that are rebuilding after the removal of a ruthless dictator.
Jes and Phoenician- Are you serious? Negotiation? We made a naked threat that they had to hand over bin Laden or face invasion.
That’s why you need to read “Imperial Hubris” – the relationship between bin Laden, the Taliban and the rest of the Muslim world is important.
DDR: You completely ignore anything he says in his speaches.
Nope, I pay attention: I read the transcripts. You don’t want to go back and re-read SOTU 2003, DDR: you’ll find it chock-full of claims (which have since been discredited) about saving the US from Iraq’s WMD and about Saddam Hussein’s links with terrorism. (Which Bush cared so little about, he never even bothered to make sure the known stockpiled weapons were secured…)
No. I would only apply it to countries that are rebuilding after the removal of a ruthless dictator.
So, we can apply this standard to the US after January 2009?
DDR –
Take a look at this, and you will find that the 2003 SOTU you are so fond of contains 25 sentences referring to weapons, and 1 sentence referring to democracy.
If you are looking for a hypertechnical, lawyerly ground upon which to base your defense, great. There you go. Just don’t expect it to mean much beyond nit-picking pseudo-exoneration. Anyone reading that speech, and evaluating the media of the time, must agree that WMD was just not one among several reasons. WMD was the lynchpin of the public case for war, and administration officials have acknowledged that WMD was fronted as the most publicly acceptable reason (thus, yes, “selling the war”).
I don’t really agree with anyone who points to Sheehan as some kind of political savant (she loses me when she compares Afghanistan and Iraq), but I do get really sick of hearing that just because Bush coughed “democracy” into the back of his hand once before 2004, everybody has to forget that the central pillar of the case that led this country to support the war turned out to be just so much bull***t.
Phoenecian- I did read “Imperial Hubris.” You need to be a bit more explicit. Are you saying we shouldn’t have demanded Bin Laden, but instead just gotten started with the Sherman-like razing of infrastructure?
st- Its true that “WMD” was the marketing plan lynchpin, but actually that arguement didn’t have enough traction with the public to sell the war. It wasn’t until the Bush administration started claiming Saddam had “reconstituted nuclear weapons” that the public started to buy in. Using the term WMD now cuts the Republicans too much slack.
I guess none of you know what official US policy was as established by Clinton. The policy of regime change had been in place for years.
No Jesurgislac it can’t. Our President was elected. Twice.
ST: Take a look at this, and you will find that the 2003 SOTU you are so fond of contains 25 sentences referring to weapons, and 1 sentence referring to democracy
Does it matter that I have cited multiple speaches?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to actually read the speach?
This is my favorite line from the speach:
This one really tugs at me:
My other favorite line:
And also noteworthy:
The same ones who think Bush is dumb and ignorant are the same ones who dumb down Bush’s speaches, when in reality they are quite clear yet complex.
DDR:As long as they don’t attack any other countries, start any world wars, or aide others in doing so that would be a more reasonable standard which to judge success.
Dutchmarbel: Oh, wonderfull. Can we apply the same standards to everybody? Or is that a bit too…. eh…… radical leftwing?
DDR
Dutchmarbel: Oh, wonderfull. Can we apply the same standards to everybody?
No. I would only apply it to countries that are rebuilding after the removal of a ruthless dictator.
Are you referring to the Netherlands now? You quote me, but not the bit I responded too, about countries that invade other countries. I wondered wether we could apply THOSE standards to all countries.
As far as the Netherlands is concerned: we are one of those archaic monarchies you mentioned – as from 1813 actually. Before that we tried loads of things; city states, private property, colony, even republic but that didn’t work out well. For the removal of dictator I’m not sure what you are comparing it with? The US getting rid of king George to become independent? You have to look a bit further back than, 1548 might do the trick.
Ah 1568 I mean, it ended 1648
I guess none of you know what official US policy was as established by Clinton. The policy of regime change had been in place for years.
Er, you’re not exactly the first Bush sycophant to come trotting down the path busting this one out as some sort of defense of what Bush has done. Don’t get too self-congratulatory, there.
International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
Oooh, ooh, two questions, teacher!
1. Are these the same”international human rights groups” that quickly got their names added to the GOP hit list as soon as they started paying a little attention to what the U.S. was doing in prosecuting the war? And if so, why were their opinions and observations useful then but useless now?
2. If we can prove that, say, fewer than 1% of Iraq’s people fell victim to these atrocities, can we just shrug it away like you do?
By the way, barely on-topic, I just wanted to note that whatever one’s feelings about Sheehan, it’s stuff like this that makes people laugh about the so-called “liberal media”:
Patriotic Camp Counters Peace Mom Protest
CRAWFORD, Texas – A patriotic camp with a “God Bless Our President!” banner sprung up downtown Saturday, countering the anti-war demonstration started by a fallen soldier’s mother two weeks ago near President Bush’s ranch.
Hmmm . . . if this camp is “patriotic,” then by implication, the anti-war camp is ___________________ .
Dutch,
Try not to take offense. To make it more clear to you:
” I wondered wether we could apply THOSE standards to all countries”
My answer was no. But it seems fair to apply it to countries like Iraq.
Phil: Er, you’re not exactly the first Bush sycophant to come trotting down the path busting this one out as some sort of defense of what Bush has done. Don’t get too self-congratulatory, there.
I’m not sure your point. Clinton thought it was important to have that policy in place. After 9/11 Bush implemented it.
Phil: And if so, why were their opinions and observations useful then but useless now?
Did I say that anywhere? Are you talking to me? I think some of the groups have been useful in making sure we keep clean. Although some have shot themselves in the foot with their rhetoric.
Phil: If we can prove that, say, fewer than 1% of Iraq’s people fell victim to these atrocities, can we just shrug it away like you do?
Now you are just being rude. I fully support the prosection of people who break the law. Period! But, I am not going to crucify the whole system because its not perfect.
We are talking about a period days after 9-11 when a country which had sheltered our attackers laughingly refused to hand over the individual most responsible for our grief.
Offering to just settle for bin Laden and not ask for the heads of the Taliban as well showed more forbearance than I would generally expect from Americans.
What an interesting piece of special pleading. 3000 Americans die, and this justifies killing – what, 20,000 Afghanis, some of them civilians and many Taliban (who, of course, were not Al Qaeda). There’s not even the justification of “freedom” here – as far as I can tell, there was not a huge choice between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, and Afghanistan is now sliding into warlordism and the return of the Taliban.
But let’s consider that special pleading. In the face of a dreadful massacre, Americans are justified in unleashing righteous vengenence, even that which will kill the innocent.
So does this apply to, you know, brown skinned people as well as white skinned? Are Iraqis now justified in unleashing their own righteous vengeance, perhaps in the form of a nuclear bomb in Houston?
Or let us consider a faithful and righteous man who, as he sees it, sees his faith assaulted by a decadant enemy. He sees his fellows killed, his religion and culture denigrated and he sees that enemy helping a puppet regime dispossess fellow religionists from their land. Is he entitled to his own righteous vengeance, say by sponsoring the hijacking of a few jets and getting martyrs to fly them into buildings symbolic of teh enemy’s power?
When it comes down to it, what’s the difference between your special pleading and Osama bin Laden’s?
Phoenician- Special pleading… Im not sure what you mean by this. I’m not claiming we aren’t responsible for our actions, or that God won’t judge us for what we’ve done.
Inflicting 20,000+ casualties in response to an attack that caused 3,000 or so seems a normal response to me in the world of nation states so I’m still not sure where you are going with this.
Certainly if I were an Iraqi I would want vengence on the United States. Heck I would have felt that way years ago, just based on the bombing of water treatment facilities.
I think you are asking for a level of enlightened behavior from states, which however nice it would be, is unlikely anytime in the forseeable future.
Yo, Tad, here’s Cindy Sheehan’s words, speaking of her son’s decision to renlist and go to Iraq:
“…I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have.”
She’s clearly talking about the United States there.
Matt, I’ve googled on that quote and the only sources I can find for it are right-wing blogs.
Given the right-wing blogosphere’s track record on misquoting, quoting out of context, and just making stuff up, I’d rather you linked to the source material if you’re going to claim that Cindy Sheehan said something. So, do you have a direct quote on this?
DDR –
Your favorite line – “Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike” – has no meaning without the necessary condition that the tyrant has something to strike with. If Saddam had no weapons, his intention to strike, suddenly or otherwise, would be of little more than academic interest. Thanks for making my point for me.
I don’t think Bush is dumb, and I have read his speech, every word of it, and many others. Bush called the country to war against what he portrayed as a direct threat to America. That he took time along the way to further characterize Saddam’s very real evil is neither surprising nor particularly relevant to his (or my) point.
As for Afghanistan, special pleading or no, the idea that America had some obligation to accept the Taliban’s “neutral state” offer as credible or sincerely meant is just foolish. The Taliban had profited greatly by its alliance with al Quaeda, both in soldiers to fight the Northern Alliance and in substantial payoffs from bin Laden. Based on that, I believe that the offer of “negotiation” was just a stalling tactic to give bin Laden time to prepare or flee. In any event, bin Laden used his organization to fly those planes into the towers – just getting him without attacking his organization seems empty and symbolic, as if the point was to have a show trial rather than to curtail al Quaeda’s activities.
I’m curious, upon what does anybody base their opinion that the Taliban were sincere, or that seizing bin Laden alone was a sufficient objective for the U.S.?
The situation as it now stands is:
Afghanistan is back in the state it was in that made the rise of the Taliban possible. Plus several thousand people are dead.
Osama bin Laden has never been captured, and if anything creates mythic status, it’s that.
Bush’s attack on Afghanistan did nothing but make the situation for most Afghans worse than under the Taliban, and award Osama bin Laden the mythic status that comes with being an uncapturable hero. Oh, and kill a lot of people.
Any means of avoiding this result – including making association with the US more profitable than assocation with al-Qaeda – would have been better than what Bush actually did.
Are we anywhere near having a last word on Sheehan, yet?
199th post!
DDR: As long as they don’t attack any other countries, start any world wars, or aide others in doing so that would be a more reasonable standard which to judge success.
Do you realize that this very same standard makes our previous policy of containment a runaway success? And at a much smaller cost in lives and revenue, in our credibility in the international community, in our ability to wage legitimate wars of self-defense or to actually address terroristic threats, in all likelihood in the Kurds’ autonomy, in Iraqi women’s rights, in the foothold of militant Islamists in the Middle East and in Iraq in particular, and possibly even in the proliferation of chemical weapons. Need I go on?
If this is truly the best we can achieve, we have gained nothing in our Iraq endeavor, and lost much.
Gromit,
I bolded for you:
After 9/11 we couldn’t afford to take the risk that he might aide others.
Did you really trust that Hussein wouldn’t aide others and bring harm to the US? If so you have alot more faith I do. I applaad you for having so much faith in the good will of Hussein. That is true compassion. Sadly, that is not me. After all, he did try to assasinate a former US president.
DDR: Excellent failure to answer the good points Gromit made, DDR.
After 9/11 we couldn’t afford to take the risk that he might aide others.
As others have observed, Saddam Hussein was just about last on the list of ruthless dictators likely to aid al-Qaeda or any other powerful international terrorist group. The “terrorist connections” Bush referenced in SOTU 2003 amounted to: he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Regardless of anyone’s opinion of Palestinian suicide bombers, they are not considered to be a threat to the US.
After all, he did try to assasinate a former US president.
True. But is personal revenge (“After all, he tried to kill my dad!”) really a good reason for Bush to take the US to war? You notice, I hope, that Bush has never given “After all, he tried to kill my dad!” as a reason for the invasion in any speech his speechwriters got to construct for him.
If your argument is simply that any attempted assassination of a head of state justifies attack, no matter how long after the attempt, presumably you’d support any attack that Libya or Chile made on the US. They have the same justification for doing so.
DDR: Excellent failure to answer the good points Gromit made, DDR.
After 9/11 we couldn’t afford to take the risk that he might aide others.
As others have observed, Saddam Hussein was just about last on the list of ruthless dictators likely to aid al-Qaeda or any other powerful international terrorist group. The “terrorist connections” Bush referenced in SOTU 2003 amounted to: he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Regardless of anyone’s opinion of Palestinian suicide bombers, they are not considered to be a threat to the US.
After all, he did try to assasinate a former US president.
True. But is personal revenge (“After all, he tried to kill my dad!”) really a good reason for Bush to take the US to war? You notice, I hope, that Bush has never given “After all, he tried to kill my dad!” as a reason for the invasion in any speech his speechwriters got to construct for him.
If your argument is simply that any attempted assassination of a head of state justifies attack, no matter how long after the attempt, presumably you’d support any attack that Libya or Chile made on the US. They have the same justification for doing so.
DDR: Did you really trust that Hussein wouldn’t aide others and bring harm to the US? If so you have alot more faith I do. I applaad you for having so much faith in the good will of Hussein. That is true compassion. Sadly, that is not me.
We weren’t trusting Saddam to do anything. We had an active policy of containment that was working. If you disagree, please tell me when the most recent act of international terrorism sponsored by Saddam’s regime was attempted. You’ve already told me what it was:
After all, he did try to assasinate a former US president.
And when did this take place? In 1993. One month shy of a decade before that former President’s son invaded Iraq. But did we respond to the plot at the time? Yes, as a matter of fact, we retaliated two months after the plot was uncovered by attacking the Iraqi Intelligence Services headquarters.
Gromit,
We have a difference of opinion. Like Bush I did not desire to wait until the threat was upon us. I thought it better to put out the fire. You simply disagree.
DDR, what threat? Seriously?
Jesurgislac:
You mean the NYT, WaPo and the rest of the liberal media haven’t reported Cindy Sheehan’s crackpot views? You don’t say! Well, here’s one MSM article confirming the quote.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165814,00.html
If it was wrong you can bet the Sheehan Camp would’ve said so by now.
Gromit,
If you can’t understand the danger in having a man who celebrated 9/11 in charge of a country capable of producing weapons to harm us, known relationships with terrorists and who was firing on our planes then there is no reasonable point to base this discussion.
Matt: You mean the NYT, WaPo and the rest of the liberal media haven’t reported Cindy Sheehan’s crackpot views?
It is entirely possible that you could source a quote from there: but I couldn’t, because the right-wing blogosphere had gone kablooie over it.
As I thought, if you look at it in context, it’s a rather different quote:
Sounds to me like what she’s calling a “morally repugnant system” is the system that allowed Bush to take the US to war without the Constitutionally-required checks and balances.
I think it’s particularly significant that when FoxNews quoted her, they made sure to leave off before the part they quoted; “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” and of course, the part after, where she calls for checks and balances, where she talks about Congress’s constitutional responsibility.
You may think that believing that Bush ought not to have been granted the right by Congress to take the US to war without further consultation, based on lies he told about WMD, is “crackpot”, but if so, Cindy Sheehan’s in with some crackpots who used to be greatly honored in the US.
Gromit,
If you can’t understand the danger in having a man who celebrated 9/11 in charge of a country capable of producing weapons to harm us, known relationships with terrorists and who was firing on our planes then there is no reasonable point to base this discussion.
Matt,
In your initial citing of that quote, you say “She’s clearly talking about the United States there.” But in the article you link to as a source (BTW, Faux News is part of the MSM? Who knew?), the one you think is clear evidence of her anti-american bias, the full context of Sheehan’s quote is:
“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.”
It sounds to me as if she is talking about the “morally repugnant system” of the neo-cons or the Bush administration, not the US as a whole. Maybe you don’t see a whole lot of difference, but it’s pretty “clearly” not the same thing.
Damn, Jes beat me to it. I need to type faster.
DeutscheDemokratischeRepublik,
I think what Gromit is asking for is an example of a concrete threat posed by Iraq, not some nebulous “capable of producing weapons to harm us” standard of danger. By your logic, we should be gearing up to invade Pakistan ASAP.
Sounds to me like what she’s calling a “morally repugnant system” is the system that allowed Bush to take the US to war without the Constitutionally-required checks and balances.
I could have sworn John Kerry voted to authorize the use of force. Doesn’t that make it okay?
I could have sworn John Kerry voted to authorize the use of force. Doesn’t that make it okay?
It makes John Kerry culpable and part of the reason the system stinks.
LiberalAssRV,
Pakistan is a danger. And I would argue that we are fighting a covert war in that country. Maybe enabling a war to be fought is more accurate.
But, I remember Mushareff celebrating 9/11, nor praising bin Laden.
Can’t type at all today. I meant don’t remember Mushareff celebrating 9/11. Work is sometimes such a distraction.
DDR,
I’m pretty sure that’s a violation of the posting rules. Unless, of course, you’re under the impression that I’m actually a left-leaning long-eared equid rather than a human.
I’m glad you realize that Pakistan is a danger. Hey, not only are they capable of producing weapons that could harm us, they actually have them! Yes, as long as Musharraf is in power, they’re unlikely to be used against us. Long live Pervez! But as long as we’re on that topic, I’d like to point out that Saddam was not, in fact, capable of producing weapons that could harm us (other than conventional or perhaps chemical weapons), as you asserted. He may have wanted such a capability, but that’s rather beside the point when assessing whether he posed a real, substantive threat to the US which would justify an invasion. And perhaps you can point me to an instance of Saddam praising Bin Laden? That is, specifically praising Osama Bin Laden, not just expressing satisfaction at the US getting bloodied. I’m not sufficiently familiar with Saddam’s pronouncements to say definitively that he never did, but it seems unlikely.
You know, DDR, for someone capable of producing weapons to harm us, and clearly desirous of those weapons, Saddam sure didn’t have much in the way of actual weapons after over a decade of sanctions. This leads me to question the initial assumptions, at least one of which must be false. Now, is it more likely that he was capable of producing these weapons, but simply lost interest, or that he still wanted chemical/biological/nuclear weapons, but couldn’t muster the resources?
But he was happy about 9/11. Clearly, this is casus belli.
Ok, let’s please stop the handle-flames. There are posting rules, DDR and Larv, that you might want to peruse. Or, more accurately: read them. And I don’t even want to get into who broke the rules into the most pieces; just cut it out. DDR: grow some thicker skin. Larv: I think you’ve been around a little too long to be getting away with handle flames.
Slartibartfast,
My apologies. I ignored it earlier, but I admit I got tired of people making fun of the initials in my name.
Larv: That is, specifically praising Osama Bin Laden, not just expressing satisfaction at the US getting bloodied.
Technically, speaking you are right.
However, from the Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2003.
http://www.opinionjournal.com
But then again maybe he really wasn’t interested in praising bin Laden. Maybe, he was more interested in praising himself.
Of course there is always this gem:
http://www.strategypage.com
I admit I got tired of people making fun of the initials in my name.
Understandable. I figured that was where you’d got your handle from.
However, for all your quotes, you haven’t actually shown that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US.
The “system” she’s talking about is the United States and its processes that elected our current government. She’s said other things along similar lines. I’m sure you’ve read them.
This quote of hers is interesting: “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.”
Sheehan was on Chris Matthew’s show Hardball last week saying that she was opposed to the Afghanistan invasion too! She said we shouldn’t have invaded that country! Hmmm.
If FN wanted to be mean they would’ve included in that article everything she said. Trust me, the rest of it doesn’t help her. At least not in mainstream America.
By the way, the Iraq War Resolution fulfilled the Constitutional requirement of congressional consent.
Slarti,
I’m sorry, but how was that a handle flame? It was a joke, simply noting the similarity between DDR’s handle and, well, the DDR. Not funny or original, maybe, but hardly uncivil. I don’t think it can be read as insinuating that he’s a dirty commie or anything. Seriously, Slarti, what part of the posting rules am I in violation of? I see from DDR’s subsequent comment that those are his initials, so maybe he’s sensitive about the subject, in which case I apologize. He refers to “earlier”, so if someone has already been having fun with him about it and I missed it, again, sorry. Still don’t think it’s quite the same, civility-wise, as calling someone an ass. YMMV.
’nuff said. If you weren’t needling him, then we can all gift each other with stuffed animals.
It wasn’t.
Matt,
“The “system” she’s talking about is the United States and its processes that elected our current government.”
And you know this how? It doesn’t seem at all apparent from the actual quote.
She’s said other things along similar lines. I’m sure you’ve read them.
Let’s pretend I haven’t. Care to share?
Sheehan was on Chris Matthew’s show Hardball last week saying that she was opposed to the Afghanistan invasion too! She said we shouldn’t have invaded that country!
Well, then, obviously she must hate America.
If FN wanted to be mean they would’ve included in that article everything she said. Trust me, the rest of it doesn’t help her. At least not in mainstream America.
Well, of course I trust you. Why wouldn’t I? On the off-chance that I didn’t, though, it would help if you had some cites.
…then we can all gift each other with stuffed animals.
By “stuffed animals”, Slarti, do you mean teddy-bear stuffed or taxidermy stuffed? My cat just threw up on the rug again and I’m thinking I can solve two problems at once if it’s the latter.
Larv, I was responding to Jesurgislac’s comment. I should’ve made that clear. “The rest” refers to the excerpt he (she?) already posted.
Here’s a link to more of Cindy Sheehan’s crackpottery, though if you still need more evidence at this point you’re not likely to ever be convinced.
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39958
Given that my cat also threw up on my rug today, swapping stuffed animals may take care of yet another loose end.
Jesurgislac: However, for all your quotes, you haven’t actually shown that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US.
The point is we didn’t want to wait until the threat was imminent. Which Bush stated clearly.
I also can’t show that the Soviet Union was a threat against the US, but we fought wars over the belief that they were and didn’t want them to enlarge their sphere of influence.
I also can’t show that the Soviet Union was a threat against the US
Except for, you know, literally tens of thousands of both land- and sub-based MIRVs on the end of ICBMs pointed at cities in the continental United States, sure.
Iraq, meanwhile, couldn’t even manufacture fissionable material. But, sure, other than that, it’s exactly the same.
Phil, France has the bomb. So did South Africa at one time. Would that alone make them a threat similar to the Soviet Union? I think you understand DDR’s point and are being deliberately obtuse.
Matt: I think you understand DDR’s point and are being deliberately obtuse.
I think you understand Phil’s point and are being deliberately obtuse. But there you go!
Let me explain Phil’s point again: ill-will is not enough to constitute a threat.
Matt: Larv, I was responding to Jesurgislac’s comment. I should’ve made that clear.
Yes, but Larv answered the assertions you made clearly: and you evidently can’t rebut them except by calling Cindy Sheehan more names.
Not in a court of law, not anywhere else. You can show that Saddam Hussein bore ill-will towards the US. You cannot show that he was a threat to the US, or even that he should have been considered a threat to the US. From the forged Niger documents to the claims about aluminium tubes to the flat lies about knowing where the stockpiled WMD were, the Bush administratiom lied extensively about the threat Iraq posed.
I never called her a name. I characterized some of her political views as crackpottery, which they are — unless you believe we are waging nuclear war in Iraq right now.
I’ve supported my arguments with links, but now it’s time to MoveOn. I’m taking the advice I should’ve followed at the start: Never argue with an idiot, people may not be able to tell the difference.
Matt, one day you will learn that just because people don’t agree with your carefully edited and as-carefully unsourced claims doesn’t mean they’re “idiots”.
Until then, I’ll keep trying to remember the advice someone gave me about wrestling with pigs.
Phil, France has the bomb. So did South Africa at one time. Would that alone make them a threat similar to the Soviet Union?
Gosh, Matt, I dunno. Were any of them pointed at Washington, DC, New York City, and Chicago?
In fact, Matt, your comment inadvertently supports my point better than it does the one you think you were trying to make. Saddam definitely wasn’t a USSR-style or -level threat without a bomb, and wouldn’t have been one with a bomb, any more than Pakistan is.
Phil: Iraq, meanwhile, couldn’t even manufacture fissionable material. But, sure, other than that, it’s exactly the same.
The point was that we can’t judge someone as a threat soley based off of them attacking us.
Everyone here would agree that after 9/11 the threat has changed. Terrorism is the new “bomb”.
In some ways it is far more dangerous than the Soviet Union because the trigger is much more likely to be pulled and retaliation is so difficult to effectively apply.
With respect to the Soviet Union our arsenal was a counter balance to their arsenal. It would be an interesting discussion: “What is the counter balance to the threat of terrorism?”
Is it goodwill, investment, bombs and more?
I am going to postulate that there is not a clearly defined counter balance to the threat of terrorism. Until I convinced otherwise I will continue to support the policy of preemption.
The point was that we can’t judge someone as a threat soley based off of them attacking us.
The USSR never attacked us, so how did you judge them to be a threat? By whatever criteria you can come up with, Saddam Hussein didn’t even rise close to the level. Not by a long shot.
I’m still curious as to how you can claim that you couldn’t prove the USSR to be a threat when they had ICBMs targeting every major city and military installation in the country. That itself is pretty much proof.
Everyone here would agree that after 9/11 the threat has changed. Terrorism is the new “bomb”.
Um, no. To both postulates.
In some ways it is far more dangerous than the Soviet Union
Let’s see . . USSR could wipe out all or most of the US population with the push of a button. Terrorists would have to mount an effective 9/11-sized attack every day for 275 years to even come close. Nope. Try again.
I am going to postulate that there is not a clearly defined counter balance to the threat of terrorism. Until I convinced otherwise I will continue to support the policy of preemption.
There are actually several, but you don’t want to hear them. They require shedding oneself of banalities like, “They hate us for our freedom.” Nonetheless, if we’re going to pre-empt, can we do it in countries that actually, you know, have committed terrorist attacks against the United States?
Sebastian Holsclaw tells it righteously