by von
I’ve read the comments to my post on Ms. Sheehan; here are a couple quick thoughts in response:
1. Erick Erickson of RedState did not call Ms. Sheehan a "whore"; he called her a "media whore." There’s a difference, and it’s not a small one. And the insane harrassment that’s currently plaguing him reminds me why I blog (semi) anonymously.
2. That said, Ms. Sheehan is entitled to her grief and to speak to her memories of her son. Casey Sheehan’s other relatives are also entitled to speak to his memory, and even to contradict Ms. Sheehan (as they have). Everyone else should shut the fu_k up about what may honor or dishonor Casey Sheehan’s memory — and that includes the aforementioned Mr. Erickson.
3. Yet, while the fact that Sheehan lost her son in Iraq is undeniably tragic, tragedy does not make her opinions any more valid or her ideas any better.
4. And, this must be stressed, her opinions are sophomoric and her ideas are for crap. Here is her so-called "challenge" to President Bush:
"I said I want the president to explain what was the noble cause that my son died in, because that’s what he said the other day when those 14 marines were killed. He said their families can rest assured that their sons and daughters died for a noble cause. And I said, "What is that noble cause?"
5. What noble cause did your son die for? This country. Our ideas. Our persons. Casey Sheehan was your son, but he was also our soldier, our fellow citizen, and our brave protector. There are no private wars in a Republic; the cost of equal representation is equal responsibility. When the nation commits troops — rightly or wrongly, Democratic President or Republican President — those troops fight for all of us. They are our sons and daughters, our fellow citizens. When they die, they die for us.
6. P.s. That’s the rub, ain’t it? No loved-one dies for a noble cause. They just die. And you are left to grieve.
7. Yes, we should discuss "what to do next in Iraq." But we should not discuss it in the context of an emotionally-charged argument over a grieving mother or as part of an attempted game of political gotcha. Save your incisive putdowns and attack-queries; they are not as clever as you think. For we demean the importance of our discussion over Iraq — and demean our duties as free citizens — by resorting to a snarkfest. We will consider in calm, once the silly chatterers are silent and Ms. Sheehan has gone home to her grief, because that’s the smart thing to do.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
(Pericles, "The Funeral Oration")
(BTW, for those kind enough to worry that their comments will insult me, please don’t. I have very thick skin.)
UPDATE: Clarified point #2; corrected some typos.
Re noble cause: is any soldier’s death in any war for a noble cause, because he died for his country?
Rilkefan:
There are no noble causes; there are only good reasons and bad reasons to die.
Quite frankly Von, the pro-war forces have been using those tactics to promote their agenda since 9/12/2001. If they don’t like it now that the firehose has been turned back on them…well that’s too bad.
I’m all in favor of discussing the Iraq war in calm and reasoned tones, laying out the all evidence so that it can be analyzed dispassionatly and logically. When the Bush administration or the media starts doing that, you just let me know.
Oh, and by the way, using the word “whore” to refer to the mother of a fallen soldier — and yes “media whore” has the word “whore” in it — is beyond the pale.
So basically Bush was handing the country a line of bs when he used the phrase? If that were publically acknowledged by the admin, I would hope Mrs. Sheehan would consider her work done and go home.
Von claims: What noble cause did your son die for? This country. Our ideas. Our persons.
I thought Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq, in which case he didn’t die for the US, and he didn’t die for “our ideas” (well, not unless you mean “Bush’s ideas”, which is true, but not a “noble cause”), and he certainly didn’t die for “our persons”.
You may be content that American soldiers should die in Iraq for Bush’s ideas and vague platitudes, but it still doesn’t answer Cindy Sheehan’s question: what “noble cause” was Bush thinking about?
Sophmoric? Maybe. More like a grieving mother. Bush should have talked to her. He can’t talk to anyone with a script and handlers. If so those so-called “townhall meetings” would have been real. This foray into Iraq was poorly run and was a mistake from the beginning. Now ther are three groups that want to tear the country apart. We could stay there for the next 20 years and they would STILL fight each other and kill our young men and women.
“I’m all in favor of discussing the Iraq war in calm and reasoned tones, laying out the all evidence so that it can be analyzed dispassionatly and logically.”
I have been known to do that , but I see no point in doing it with the Bush administration.
Incidentally, John Cole, Reasonable Republican, says Atrios is “pimping” Sheehan, so I guess the subtle and acceptable metaphor is just becoming more popular. I don’t provide a link to such stuff.
Well, I vote for bad reason to die then, since nothing in the U.S. was essentially at risk in Iraq.
I still can’t get past the Right’s desire to parse the term ‘media whore’.
Erick at Redstate said Mrs. Sheehan is a media whore or ,in other words, she was whoring herself in order to get media attention. He later apologized for using that term.
I don’t think anyone is stupid enough to think Erick was implying Mrs. Sheehan was having sex for money (the primary definition of a whore). I think most people with three digits in their IQ, knew that Erick was suggesting Ms. Sheehan was compromising her principles for personal gain. The principle being the memory of her dead son and the personal gain being the media attention.
Stop trying to tell my fellow liberal elitists and me what the term ‘media whore’ means. It isn’t a difficult concept to understand.
P.S. I couldn’t agree with you more about the ugliness and stupidity of those who harrassed Erick yesterday.
Von, I think Ms. Sheehan’s question, “What noble cause?” is more than fair and that your answer doesn’t work because it is generic. She wants to know what noble cause THIS war is for, not a one-size-fits-all philosophical response covering all wars.
And what noble cause is this war for? Bush made a very big mistake when he sold this war on the basis of a salespitch and a slogan. Now that the salespitch is discredited and the slogan has gotten worn out, many people are wondering why we are there. That’s why support for the war is dropping. It isn’t good leadership to change the reasons for a war every month or so, while never articulating the real goals.
Her thoughts of Isreal might well be sophomoric–I don’t know because I’m not interested in her thoughts on that subject. But her question, “What noble cause?” is one hundred percent valid.
Hey I got it:
Is it ok to say, when Laura goes out to make speeches, that Mack-Daddy Bush is political ****ing his political ***** of a wife? Or would that be offensive?
Note the difference;I can’t even bring myself to type the words. This is not a small difference.
Everyone else should shut the fu_k up — and that includes the aforementioned Mr. Erickson
does it include you?
guess not
How can I put this gently? Well, I can’t, so I’ll be blunt.
She doesn’t care what your opinion on the issue is, von. You’re not the President, you didn’t pick this fight, and you didn’t order her son over there.
It’s funny, though — YOU can give her a reason, despite the fact that you had absolutely nothing to do with it. Yet Bush, the man whose word started this whole affair, cannot.
As for her sophmoric views — you know, that’s funny too. Conservatives often decry the “ivory tower” intellectual views on the right, but when faced by a mourning mother — a solid Red State mom whose son died in service to his country — all they can do is insult her and claim her concerns simply aren’t intellectually sound enough to bother with.
I don’t think it’s very seemly for anyone to castigate a grieving mother as a “media whore,” even if she is seeking media attention. I also don’t think we are obligated to accord her opinions any extra weight just because she is a grieving mother, either. The only reason anyone – on either side – is paying any attention to this story is the pathos, and/or as an excuse to score political points.
If I could answer her question as to what “noble cause” her son died for, I would say that he died for his fellow soldiers, and for the people of Iraq. I doubt that answer would satisfy any mother, but it’s the only one that anyone can give.
“And the insane harrassment that’s currently plaguing him reminds me why I blog (semi) anonymously.”
And it reminds me why I prefer to blog under my own name. I hope it keeps me honest, or closer to it. And it reminds me that I will have to stand behind my words. It reminds me that the person I am talking with may come and visit me in person some time, so I’d better be willing to say it face to face.
And it encourages me to reserve my invective for political figures, and not say really horrible things about regular American citizens.
So, yeah, if you blog under your own name, and if you say really inexcusable things, then people will hassle you.
Facing that fact, you can blog anonymously, or you can just avoid saying inexcusable things.
ThirdGorchBro: I would say that he died for his fellow soldiers, and for the people of Iraq.
The thing is, I bet under the same circumstances you’d head down the drive, offer her a cup of tea, and tell her that face-to-face.
Bush… won’t.
(I disagree with you, as you know, and Cindy Sheehan might disagree with you, but I bet you’d have the generosity and kindness and faith to speak to her, not ignore her.)
“YOU can give her a reason…yet Bush, the man whose word started this whole affair, cannot.”
Right, Morat. You’d think Bush could at least muster a “Freedom’s on the march” or one of his other feeble plattitudes for the suffering Ms. Sheehan.
Erick Erickson of RedState did not call Ms. Sheehan a “whore”; he called her a “media whore.” There’s a difference, and it’s not a small one.
Oh good, thanks for explaining that the Redstate guy wasn’t actually saying that Sheehan sells sex, but was using the word metaphorically. I had been confused.
So Erick isn’t saying she’s selling herself out, he’s saying she sells herself out for media attention – “no small difference,” you see. The specific nature of her (metaphorical!) prostitution is apparently very important to understand, the better, I suppose, to imply that Sheehan is a phony.
(That may not be your intent, Von, but that’s what you participate in with this silly parsing.)
I also don’t really have any problem with the term “media whore;” there’s that old Washington joke about how the most dangerous place to be is between X and a camera. The problem here isn’t that Sheehan is a mother, it’s that the term doesn’t apply. She’s not, one would/should assume, doing this just because she loves to be in fron of the camera, she’s doing it because she’s grieving.
But, attack the enemy at her strongest point, I guess, call the grieving mother a narcissistic whore.
p.s.–
I should make it clear that I too condemn the kind of weird threats and invective that have been leveled at Erickson and his family. I referred to being “hassled” above; that might seem too slight of a word for the kind of harrassment he has been subjected to, but I do not want to be taken to be minimizing it, much less condoning it.
All sides have an obligation to increase the level of civility in political discourse.
Yes, we should discuss “what to do next in Iraq.” But we should not discuss it in the context of an emotionally-charged argument over a grieving mother or as part of an attempted game of political gotcha.
Maybe in 2009.
Save your incisive putdowns and attack-queries; they not as clever as you think. For we demean the importance of our discussion over Iraq — and demean our duties as free citizens — by resorting to a snarkfest. We will consider in calm, once the silly chatters are silent and Ms. Sheehan has gone home to her grief, because that’s the smart thing to do.
*shrug* Von, if Bush were capable of doing the smart thing, he’d have listened to the people who had considered the Iraq invasion/occupation “in calm” back in 2003. Instead he, and his administration, and supporters of his administration, have done nothing but engage in a snarkfest about people who were right, when Bush & Co were wrong. So, there’s no real point in calling for the “silly chatters” to be silent: the silly chatters are in the White House, the Bush administration is the snarkfest, and there will be no point in “calm consideration” unless there’s an administration who’s interested in doing the smart thing.
Meantime, why not pay attention to one grieving mother who is pointing out by her actions exactly how heartless and stupid Bush is?
What noble cause did your son die for? This country. Our ideas. Our persons.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Seems like a cop out.
I think TGB’s answer is more along the lines of what Sheehan is looking for – you know, something concrete instead of platitudes.
I think Ms. Sheehan is doing us all a great service by asking her question and by making Bush accountable for answering it. No she should NOT go home.
Look: when we went into WWII everyone knew that the noble cause was to defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan, and drive them out of the countries they had invaded. Since the goals were clearly stated it was easy to measure success and failure.
What are we fighting for?
1. WMDs–not there
2. Get rid of Saddam–done
3. Fight terrorism–can’t be done through conventional combat except under unusual circumstances and certainly not by invading a country not linked to terrorism in any important way. In any case, there are more terrorists in iraq now than before the invasion.
Above is the sales pitch and the slogan. When those evaporated the noble cause changed to creating a democracy (4) That might happen. Some success has occurred. However the expectation was that it would be a liberal pro-American democracy and, instead, it it will more likely be a very conservative pro-Iranian democracy, not the exactly the noble cause any Bush supporter had in mind.
6. Spread democracy by planting one in the middle of the MIddle East. This is based on the paternalistic assuption that Middle Easterners wouldn’t want a democracy unless they saw one physically close by–Turkey is too far. Apparently they can’t learn about the idea from books or travel either. Well this noble cause isn’t working right out either, partly because it is proving so difficult in Iraq and partly because real democracy is likely to give political power to religious conservatives and fundamentalists, not the people the Bush administration would like to empower. The Middle East is very different from Eastern Europe. The fall of Saddam is not the equivelent of the fall of the Iron Curtain and will not the have the same effect.
7. Extablish bases and use them to contain or attack Iran. This noble cause won’t happen because Iraq won’t allow it.
So what is the noble cause? I don’t really know why Bush was so bent on war. I have to guess. And it looks very much like he has already failed at most of what I guess were his goals.
Von,
If you are a male attorney in a big law firm and you call a female colleague, who you really don’t know, a media whore, because she, say, was always giving TV interviews, how do you think she or your firm would react?
He called her a whore. Period. I’m sorry he was attacked but you don’t call a woman a whore, no matter what qualifiers you use. Didn’t his mother teach him better?
“media whore” is nothing. this guy thinks Mrs Sheehan outta be in the public stocks, or if not that, “at the very least bitches like this Sheehan witch should be shunned”.
yes indeed, these are the same people who claim to be doing God’s work in bringing the flowering tree of democracy to the poor oppressed Iraqis. i guess they can only muster so much sympathy at a time – sorry grieving mothers of America, you shut just STFU.
It’s nice that von thinks we should now have a calm, rational discussion of the war in Iraq.
Too bad we didn’t have one before the war started.
Or after “Mission Accomplished.”
Or after the mercenaries were killed in Fallujah.
Or after Fallujah was leveled in retaliation.
Or after the Abu Ghraib pictures were released.
Or after any one of the Big Events that were supposed to be Turning Points: the capture of Saddam, the levelling of Fallujah, the sort-of restoration of sovereignty, the Election. What’s the next one? When they finish writing the Constitution?
Or before, during, or after, the 2004 election. Maybe before, during or after the 2006 elections? How about 2008?
Or after US casualties numbered 500. Or 1000. Or 1500. Maybe when we reach the 2000 mark? How about 2500?
We’ve never had a calm, rational discussion of the war in Iraq.
If we did, there would have to be a calm, rational discussion of why the war with Iraq was so badly planned; why people like General Shinseiki were dismissed as having nothing worth saying; why soldiers were (and are) sent out to combat without the necessary equipment; why we still cannot secure one major highway, or the borders or so much as one police station.
If we did, we might even have to have a calm, rational discussion about stove-piped, cherry-picked, intelligence that was used as disinformation to the world, our allies, and to our own people.
If we did, there would have to be a calm, rational discussion of the deceit used to sell the war, the way the war is used as a political cudgel, the way the war is used to call anyone who doesn’t lavishly support it a traitor, “objectively pro-terrorist,” a media whore, or any of the other lovely terms the RW likes to toss around.
If we did, we might have to have a calm, rational discussion about the future of the US military, and what further adventures Bush has in store for us all.
Gosh, it sure would be nice to have a calm, rational discussion about the war in Iraq before, say, Bush decides to go to war against Iran.
Erick Erickson of RedState did not call Ms. Sheehan a “whore”; he called her a “media whore.”
Yes, and either makes him a piece of s—.
When the nation commits troops — rightly or wrongly, Democratic President or Republican President — [they] fight for all of us. They are our sons and daughters, our fellow citizens. They die for us.
The honor owed those troops is widely acknowledged Von.
We’re talking about the President and the Congress who decide when and where the troops will be fighting for us.
Do we let them imply that simply by committing honorable soldiers to battle, their own decisions become honorable? Do we let them obfuscate their motives and hide from judgement behind those soldiers?
No. We force them to explain to the citizenry and, more particularly, to the troops and their families, “Why there, why then, and for what non-negotiable goals?”
I find this whole sojourn offensive in that it’s boiling down to scoring political points. This has become a Terri Schiavo type affair in reverse. It’s turning a tragic, personal event into an excuse to score some political points. We’re back to trotting grieving members of the family up before the cameras or reading their letters in a repugnant “he-said” “she-said” manner. All of this being done over an issue that most people would be mortified to have dragged out for public display.
Is there anything that Bush can say that will really appease her (and not provide for additional criticism)? How would any of you feel knowing that you’d already given her some time and now she is saying, in as public and critical a manner as possible, that it wasn’t good enough and you should give her more time? I’m a big critic of this administration’s foreign policy, but this just comes across as unseemly on her part.
However, that still does not excuse the bull-headed stupidity of Bush for not giving her a few minutes of his time. I have to wonder what on earth the admin. could be thinking. This could have been defused in an instant with a token gesture on his part.
Now, to top it off, we see the right-wing blogosphere and media getting involved. You can see from the recent posts (or lack thereof) at Redstate, that many on the right are trying to ignore the Plame affair into obscurity. Yet, they choose to ignore this strategy in the one instance where it might actually be beneficial. Instead, they’ve been inflaming the situation with their unseemly attacks on Sheehan’s character. This is the opponent that keeps winning elections with their master strategy.
One last thing… regardless of the context, calling a grieving mother a whore is flat out wrong. Von, your continued defense of this does you absolutely no service.
Everyone else should shut the fu_k up — and that includes the aforementioned Mr. Erickson
does it include you?
guess not
Jeebus, Cleek, congratulations on completely missing my point. Here it is in simplier form:
Attacks on Ms. Sheehan/statements that she’s “dishonoring” the memory of her son: out of line.
Responses to the question that she herself poses? Absolutely, yes. She asked it; she gets a response, even if it may not be to her (or your) liking.
BTW, I frankly don’t care that a certain percentage of our readership doesn’t understand the (clear and uncontoversial) difference between a “whore” and a “media whore.” Your claims that I’ve been somehow “diminished” myself by reading and applying the dictionary will not keep me up at night.
I don’t think anyone is stupid enough to think Erick was implying Mrs. Sheehan was having sex for money….
Except for Atrios, Jerome Armstrong, Steve Gilliard, and legions of their easily-roused readers, you’re probably right, Blue. Actually, it was just the readers who were that stupid — I’m pretty sure the named prominent lefty bloggers are merely dishonest.
Von’s dead right on this one: way too many on the left are suddenly developing severe English comprehension problems with this one. They really don’t, as an aggregate, have a problem with the term “media whore” per se — unless I missed all the indignation over MWO — but they do see Cindy Sheehan as somehow inviolate. Erickson refused to heed that conceit, and his use of the term “media whore” is merely the handiest (albeit dumbest) tool with which to beat him for it.
So why did he apologise, Tacitus?
Simplest way to neutralize the bilious idiots. Hasn’t worked, though.
Last time I checked Yahoo hits on “Cindy Sheehan whore” were at 7950. Von added one more. I added one more. There plenty who will giggle at the count.
Nobody has tested von’s very thick skin yet to see if whatever was inside has been replaced of thinner consistency and different color? No fun here, clear posting rule bait was set, and nobody bit.
“All sides have an obligation to increase the level of civility in political discourse.”
I expected better of you than this, Brennan.
Simplest way to neutralize the bilious idiots. Hasn’t worked, though.
Soooo….you’re saying Erick wasn’t sincere in his apology? It was merely a ploy?
von: BTW, for those kind enough to worry that their comments will insult me, please don’t. I have very thick skin.
Hmmm. In this instance von, your skin appears to match your head.
If you are a male attorney in a big law firm and you call a female colleague, who you really don’t know, a media whore, because she, say, was always giving TV interviews, how do you think she or your firm would react?
GT, I’ve been accused in my practice of (a) racketeering and (b) participating in an international RICO conspiracy;* “media whore” is pretty far down on the list. If the shoe fits, I’m perfectly comfortable calling another lawyer a media whore (although why I’d say so about a fellow lawyer in my firm — and why I wouldn’t instead try to butt in on her media whoredom — completely escapes me).
von
*FWIW, on Thursday my client’s motion was granted to dismiss all of the relevant RICO claims on the pleadings & with prejudice; the Judge also (as I had requested) made a specific finding as to the rest of the claims of my client, which may very well lead to the dismissal of the rest of the case as a matter of law. It was example number 14 million in support of rule number 1 of advocacy: do not overstate your case.
Hmmm. In this instance von, your skin appears to match your head.
Ha! (Touche’)
What noble cause did your son die for? This country. Our ideas. Our persons. Casey Sheehan was your son, but he was also our soldier, our fellow citizen, and our brave protector. There are no private wars in a Republic; the cost of equal representation is equal responsibility. When the nation commits troops — rightly or wrongly, Democratic President or Republican President — the those troops fight for all of us. They are our sons and daughters, our fellow citizens. They die for us.
I’ve never heard empty platitudes more emptily expressed. Well done, von; it took some real skill to devoid your response of all context, applicability or, when you get right down to it, meaning. OTOH, since I’m fairly sure Casey Sheehan didn’t die to give you an opportunity to waft vacuous jingoism in our general direction, can I ask that you take another stab at answering the actual question?
Here, 2shoes, something shiny: I endorse the “media whore” appellation. Fire away, ye witless ones.
“There are no private wars in a Republic; the cost of equal representation is equal responsibility.”
That there are some who find this statement “vacuous jingoism” is frankly appalling. It’s a basic truth, the purveyors of the imaginary “Bush’s War” notwithstanding.
Apologize!=Retract.
That there are some who find this statement “vacuous jingoism” is frankly appalling.
It’s vacuous jingoism when the cost of this war isn’t being apportioned equally, and when the person uttering this statement has not, to the best of my knowledge, advocated measures to ensure equal apportionment. [All the more so given that the Administration seems hellbent on ensuring unequal apportionment.] And, fwiw, I find it frankly appalling that you don’t consider Cindy Sheehan, as a mother bereaved by this war, inviolate insofar as her personal character is concerned. Have you no decency?
Oh, and for the non programmers, != means does not equal.
My two cents: A grieving mother’s ideas are no more likely to be right than anyone else’s, nor are grieving mothers immune from criticism. (Imagine if a mother whose child was killed in Iraq took to running supporters of the war down with her car.) However, grieving mothers are entitled to be treated with respect. They (and grieving fathers) have lost more than most of the rest of us can even imagine, and they have suffered that loss for us.
This doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with them or criticize them. (It’s not their views or their conduct that we have to respect; it’s them.) It does mean that we should do so respectfully. This is especially true when what we’re disagreeing with them about is: the proper response to the loss of their child. I don’t think even that is exempt from criticism or disagreement (see homicidal grieving mother above. If you knew someone who had become unhinged in that way, you would, I think, owe it to her to try to talk her out of it, out of compassion not just for her potential victims but for her.) But, again, it would have to be careful and respectful criticism.
Calling someone a media whore is not the same as calling her a whore. But both are completely disrespectful, and thus wrong.
Especially since, in this case, I don’t think we have much idea whether it’s true. At all. I can imagine her doing this out of some such motive. I can imagine her doing it because it just came to her that she should. I have a somewhat easier time with the second — it’s exactly the sort of reaction I suspect grief might bring out in me, and I don’t think I’m alone in having, in some kinds of extreme emotional circumstances, the sense that someone other than me should be paying attention; that I have to make people listen, somehow.
On the other hand, my problem with imagining her doing it just for effect is not e.g. that I don’t think people do that sort of thing — of course they do — but that it is, in those terms, a pretty dumb move. Things like this sometimes catch on, as her vigil has, but much more often they don’t. I think it’s completely unpredictable which is which; but the odds are against anyone who tries. But then, the fact that if she were going for attention for its own sake, this would have been (ex ante) a dumb way of doing it obviously doesn’t rule it out: it’s not as though no one on earth is stupid.
Which is it? I have no idea. But for my own part, I think that people who completely rule out the first explanation or the second might not have tried hard enough to imagine it.
Sheehan is taking a salary for her media appearances, and sacrificing her integrity to keep those paying her salary happy? I did not know that. Thank you Tacitus for informing me.
Your assertion is that she was spouting things she doesn’t believe (and compromising her integrity), yes? Or are you saying that she just likes the media attention, and the use of the word “whore” is just gratuitous insult? This “values voter” conservatism thing never ceases to amaze.
You can duck all of that if you’d like. Those answers are less important than knowing why the President has not yet felt it necessary to explain what success in Iraq will constitute, and what demonstrable failure would look like. An explanation of that particular brand of “leadership” would be much more useful.
Here, 2shoes, something shiny: I endorse the “media whore” appellation. Fire away, ye witless ones.
Surely this is a posting violation. Surely?
Anyways, thanks to Tacitus, I will now know to approach Erick’s writings with a degree of caution.
Von,
I don’t know where you work. But where I do (major financial institution) if I used those words I would be fired immediately, and for a good reason. The lawyers I work with (in places like Sidley Austin, for example) work under the same rules.
You don’t call a woman a whore. Even if it’s just a media whore. Period.
I hope Erick has learned something from all of this, something his mother should have taught him long ago.
In the end the worst part of what Erick wrote was not that it was wrong. It’s that it was crass.
I endorse the “media whore” appellation.
I think you’re lying.
Fire away, ye witless ones.
and bored.
I don’t have much of an opinion on Sheehan’s specific actions–unless they should manage to provoke our President into clarifying what it is that would constitute victory in Iraq–but villifying her is at the very least unseemly.
More immediately, I’d like to commend conservative newcomer 3rd Gorch Bro–and ask him where he hangs out when not at ObWi.
Some people here think that shortening “media whore” to just “whore” is a self-serving equivocation. Sure it’s techinically true, and it’s sort of metaphorically true, but the connotations are clearly pretty different.
Is it not also an act of self-serving equivocation to attribute this to a comprehension-level failure in understanding? It may be self-serving spin, but to say that it is caused by “severe English comprehension problems” or that ‘a certain percentage of our readership doesn’t understand the (clear and uncontoversial) difference between a “whore” and a “media whore.”‘? Do you really believe that?
Tacitus: Here, 2shoes, something shiny: I endorse the “media whore” appellation. Fire away, ye witless ones.
Jesus Christ. Is this really necessary? What did 2shoes do to deserve being spit on like this?
Gromit, odd that you take offense to that comment, yet not to the one calling another a liar. Indignation is a funny thing.
bob mcmanus–
I wrote:
“All sides have an obligation to increase the level of civility in political discourse.”
you wrote:
“I expected better of you than this, Brennan.”
Well, I’m flattered that you have higher expectations of me, but I’m not sure in which respect I have failed to meet them.
Is it the prose-style? A bit boiler-plate, I’ll admit. Is it the sentiment? Yeah, kinda trite.
But I don’t yet see that it has major problems like, e.g., being false. Stilll strikes me as true.
But, look, write me a better line, and I’ll see if I can endorse it–I would be delighted to fire my old speech-writer.
The other thing is–some of the things that were said and written to Erickson just do strike me as over the line. Same line that he crossed in insulting Sheehan. The line of fundamental decency towards fellow citizens.
I didn’t say “all sides are equally guilty of incivility”–I don’t think all sides *are* equally guilty. I didn’t say “we need to clean up our act as much as they do”–I think that the Rove Republicans have a lot further to go.
Still, those asymmetries noted, there is an obligation on all sides etc. etc. The horrible behavior of the Rove Republicans does not suddenly excuse us from all such obligations.
But I’d be happy to hear more about the “better” you expected from me. I might like it better, too.
“What did 2shoes do to deserve being spit on like this?”
Nothing.
Obviously.
Just Tacitus showing off.
Obviously.
“BTW, I frankly don’t care that a certain percentage of our readership doesn’t understand the (clear and uncontoversial) difference between a “whore” and a “media whore.””
You might be right about there being a difference in meaning and in impact; but doesn’t that trouble you? How can “media whore” mean anything other than a person who sells his/her integrity/dignity/character for some price? How have we reached the point where it is a *minor* insult to claim that someone sells there integrity for 15 minutes on the evening news? Come-On! Snap out of it! Have we all been worn down so much by the Loathsome Talking Heads who, for their hundreds of thousand / few million dollar salaries — or for the raw power of controlling the publics opinion –, are willing to abandon all pretense of truth and honesty? And by “abandon all pretense of truth” I do not mean to shade and urge an interpretation of facts as might an advocate. I refer to those who out and out lie, who endeavor to convince the public of a set of facts that they know are not true. I do not even refer to those who do so in the name of an idea or policy that they truly believe in, but to those who do so for the raw power and glory of *winning*.
When I say “media whore” I mean someone I cannot trust, I will not listen to, who I hold in contempt.
While I appreciate the pragmatic difference between selling one’s integrity and selling one’s sexuality, in both cases, however, the issue is selling one’s dignity/integrity/character? In short, it’s a distinction without a difference; and the fact that we are tempted to claim a difference speaks ill of *our* standards and expectations, and the fact that we permit the true “media whores” to prosper.
Beats me, Aaron. He’s certainly an interlocutor unblemished past and present. Gosh.
I find it frankly appalling that you don’t consider Cindy Sheehan, as a mother bereaved by this war, inviolate insofar as her personal character is concerned.
That’s weird. So since her son died, everything about her in her public life is off-limits? Utter nonsense.
Sheehan is taking a salary for her media appearances, and sacrificing her integrity to keep those paying her salary happy?….Your assertion is that she was spouting things she doesn’t believe….yes?
If Charlotte Raven were here, and had moral integrity, her response to CMatt would contain the phrase “deeply dumb.”
Finally, xanax, I assure you that I do find Ms Sheehan to be a media whore. However, since your side regards the contrary opinion to be synonymous with virtue, I’ll take your belief in my dishonesty as a sort of compliment.
Many on this thread have decried the “scoring of political points” or words to that effect.
Of course what Cindy Sheehan is doing is political, and she is well aware of that herself. You can read her own views on this for yourself (it’s easy enough to find them).
As usual, I agree with hilzoy — we may not agree about her position, or even her way of calling attention to it, but she deserves respect. It seems to me the posting rules here at ObWi are an attempt to encourage respect among those who participate. That is a primary reason I visit here.
Alas, such respect is often missing from political discussion elsewhere, even sometimes here. We can wish for reasoned discourse and respect among participants, but we are foolish to expect it. No doubt we would disagree about who is at fault for this situation. Still, we have to deal with things as they are, not as we would wish them to be.
As to whether Cindy Sheehan’s political statement is valid, or appropriate, or justified, or serves a good purpose — well, I think it is and it does. Perhaps her policy ideas are not the best ones. Isn’t the decision about making war, committing troops to fight, kill, and die a political decision, one to which we must all give sincere and careful thought? It’s about time we did.
Attacks on Ms. Sheehan/statements that she’s “dishonoring” the memory of her son: out of line.
And, this must be stressed, her opinions are sophomoric and her ideas are for crap.
you’ve got that hair split mighty fine.
What noble cause did your son die for? This country. Our ideas. Our persons.
BllSht.
this country would be just fine if Saddam was still there, our ideas wouldn’t suffer a bit. our persons ? thousands of them would still be alive, many thousands more would not be permanently disabled. tens of thousands of Iraqis would not be dead at our hands.
all Bush can do is repeat his finely crafted platitudes. all his supporters can do is parrot them. neither of them make a lick of sense. and now you’re trying to redefine “noble”.
disgusting.
[Oh, the “her” in paragraph 3, above, is of course Cindy Sheehan, not hilzoy. Darn pronouns!]
Actually, I’m perfectly happy to take Tac at his word. His belief that Ms Sheehan is not driven by her grief over her dead son but but by her desire for the media spotlight seems right in line with his writings to date.
I’m merely surprised that he didn’t go whole hog and call her “objectively pro-terror” or “on the other side”. Half measures sir? I’m dissapointed.
Just Tacitus showing off.
I’m not sure “showing” is the verb you’re looking for.
If Charlotte Raven were here, and had moral integrity, her response to CMatt would contain the phrase “deeply dumb.”
Charlotte Raven (apparently a journalist, who also apparently has never used the words “media whore” in a column – see my url) is not here. And I could give a fig how you’d like to Karnak the woman’s response to questions I directed at you.
Thank you for not explaining why you feel the phrase “media whore” is appropriate to a private citizen currently seeking media attention. Thank you also for not addressing the rest of my post. Or pretty much anyone else’s. Your “…I’ll take your belief in my dishonesty as a sort of compliment” is noted, and extremely impressive. Troll on.
That’s weird. So since her son died, everything about her in her public life is off-limits? Utter nonsense.
He didn’t say “public life”. He said “personal character”.
“But I’d be happy to hear more about the “better” you expected from me. I might like it better, too.”
Do not take me so seriously, please. It was a joke, not entirely at your expense but directed at the foul comity seekers and filthy civil discussers who would take all the snap and snazzle out of politics.
Reasoned discussions are for….I don’t know who they would be for…sophomores?
Schiavo and Sheehan are how politics are actually done, by the pros. They want to win, not look pretty and have lots of friends.
His belief that Ms Sheehan is not driven by her grief over her dead son….
No need for Miss Raven to do it: I’ll be the one to call this deeply dumb. This ain’t hard, folks. Reading, I mean.
On which point, CMatt, you’re Googling the wrong phrase, Cochise.
Ah, bob m., I thought of you as I was writing. Like I said, I’m glad Cindy Sheehan is there.
I’m no political strategist, and sometimes I get the feeling what you post is a little over the top, but I agree in principle that civility for its own sake is useless, even harmful. We’re playing for keeps.
You know what ain’t hard, Tac? Actually saying what you mean. Why don’t you try it some time? It would make a nice change.
As your first assignment, perhaps you’ll be so good as to explain to the class what it is you mean when you call Ms. Sheehan a media whore.
Media Whore definitions
Jesurgislac,
Bush just won another election. He represents the U.S. That’s much more than just Bush.
“if Bush were capable of doing the smart thing, he’d have listened to the people who had considered the Iraq invasion/occupation “in calm” back in 2003.”
Bush did do the smart thing. He ignored didn’t let crtics like you stop him from doing the right thing. He didn’t bow down and let the terrorist and dictators walk over innocent people.
Tac (‘witless’), xanax (‘lying’): posting rules.
everyone else: it’s not worth it.
So…let’s get this straight, WonderWhy. If the President of The United States of America met with the grieving mother of a fallen soldier, then he’d be bowing down and letting the terrorists and dictators walk all over innocent people. Thanks for clearing that up.
And Hilzoy, with respect, it is worth it. Tacitus waltzes in here and defends something odious that’s posted in his sandbox by playing Humpty Dumpty with the word “whore”. I think he deserves a few metaphorical kicks in the teeth before he scurries back to RedState.
This just in: Cindy Sheehan has parlayed her media notariety into an invitation to be a contestant on the new series “American Idol: Moms of Dead Marines!”
Wow. You were right all along, Tac.
Sheesh.
DougM: Thanks. I was not aware that the definition had become quite so expansive.
People seeking fame for the sake of fame, people who use their access to media to promote a particular commercial or ideological message, and
In the area of news reporting, the term is used to describe ideologues who lie and obfuscate for themselves, others, or their cause out of sincere devotion to their beliefs, and mercenaries who engage in the same conduct as services rendered in exchange for money or favors.
What a boon to civil discourse though.
Every CEO and company spokesman, advertisers, every political activist (of any scale, if using the media) not to mention wannabe stars, actual hired guns, hatchetmen, etc.
Whores, the lot of ’em.
Using that definition, I’d have to concede Tacitus’ labeling of Cindy Sheehan to be accurate. Unless I’m mistaken, however, it would be equally applicable to him at least once in the past. And would be again if he appeared in a media forum to discuss any topic even tangentially related to politics or commerce.
The definition seems entirely too broad to be useful, save for begging someone to take offense.
Tacitus, Cochise (why?), if you are using this definition, you could have noted it as quickly and easily as DougM did. And had time left to address what success in Iraq will constitute, and what demonstrable failure would look like..
Cindy Sheehan has parlayed her media notariety into an invitation to be a contestant on the new series “American Idol: Moms of Dead Marines!”
what fantastic luck! that whole dead son thing is really paying off for her.
And had time left to address what success in Iraq will constitute
I don’t think they really know.
That’s weird. So since her son died, everything about her in her public life is off-limits? Utter nonsense.
“This ain’t hard, folks. Reading, I mean.”
Actually, it appears that Ms. Sheehan’s son died to help in the establishment of an Islamic Republic:
Somehow I doubt that she’ll find that comforting.
rilkefan: Re noble cause: is any soldier’s death in any war for a noble cause, because he died for his country?
I thought of this originally but decided to leave it out of my post. Upon reflection, though, a large part of what angered me about von’s “empty platitudes” is that, when the fine language is stripped away, they reduce to: dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. And I’d like to think we’ve evolved somewhat in our attitudes over the past two millenia, or even the last century pace Wilfred Owen.
that whole dead son thing is really paying off for her.
AND… the lucky girl has three more kids.
I guess she won’t be needing no stinking social security.
Anarch,
My thinking exactly and more’s the pity that we haven’t. Here’s a link to Owen’s poem, written by someone who actually experienced warfare with WMD’s.
Von? Tactitus? Your conflation of the general principle that soldiers fight for their nation and the specific political decision to send troops to Iraq is, wait, how did Von put it? Ah, right: “sophomoric.”
You are quite right, equal represenation entails equal responsibility, and that means being angered when a politician asks soldiers to die frivolously. A politican who can’t be bothered to argue convincingly for the justness of a war he decided to fight to the mother of a soldier who died in that war is not a leader. A banal statement of general principles that are true of all soldiers in all wars, just or unjust, is no substitute for a deeply felt and clearly argued explanation of why a leader sent his soldiers to fight and die.
I should add that I do acknowledge that the point of whether or not Bush has offered such an argument in general is debatable. However, it seems clear that, confronted with Sheehan, Pres. Bush failed to rise to the occasion.
“Isn’t the decision about making war, committing troops to fight, kill, and die a political decision, one to which we must all give sincere and careful thought? It’s about time we did.”
Do you realize that this statement comes right after your appeal to respect other people’s opinions? It isn’t exactly as if we haven’t debated the Iraq war for more than two years here. The fact is that people disagree about the political decision. But that doesn’t mean that those who disagree with you don’t give the problem sincere and careful thought.
“If the President of The United States of America met with the grieving mother of a fallen soldier, then he’d be bowing down and letting the terrorists and dictators walk all over innocent people. Thanks for clearing that up.”
Bush has already met with her. How many times do you believe that it is necessary to meet with her? Until she agree with him?
The point I want to make about this manufactured media game is that her son was not some naive fool who got tricked into things. He wasn’t a teenager, he was in his mid twenties. He had re-enlisted knowing full well about Iraq and the fact that he would be sent there. He even volunteered for the mission when he died, though he could have easily gotten out of it and was fully aware that it was dangerous. I can’t claim to the past minds of the dead, but two things are clear.
He was not tricked into doing what he saw as his duty.
The anti-war push of his mother is not in line with the actions he took in his life nor the military choices he made with it.
Sebastian, have I touched a nerve? Good.
Manufactured media game
Heh.
“Spending time outside Washington gives the president a fresh perspective of what’s on the minds of the American people,” press secretary Scott McClellan exclaimed earlier this month. “It’s a time, really, for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what’s on their minds.”
The mind-reading abilities around here never cease to amaze me. If I hang out here long enough, will I gain the magical ability to discern the innermost thoughts and feelings of a dead man? One I never met in life?
Or do only Republicans get that? It’s a pretty nice perk. I might switch parties over it.
The mind-reading abilities around here never cease to amaze me.
No no no…in this case it’s not “mind-reading”. It’s “communing with the dead”.
It doesn’t matter that much other than one has a dental plan.
“Bush has already met with her. How many times do you believe that it is necessary to meet with her?”
In my case, I just want to see a sincere demonstration that Bush respects her disagreement and a well-thought out statement to her of why he believes that her son’s death was meaningful. It doesn’t have, and probably shouldn’t be a meeting with Sheehan, just with a mother who lost her son in the war and who opposes it.
I realize that that’s somewhat nebulous, since a hack can always argue that his explanation wasn’t heartfult or well-thought out enough. However, if Bush has really thought about why he went to war, about the criticisms of that decision, and he still believes that he is doing the right thing, he should be able to convince someone that sincerely believes that their son died for a good cause, and that the decision to make that sacrifice was one he lost sleep over. I really don’t think you can lead in war if you can’t make the sort of connection people that convinces them that you’ve thought through every option and that you see no satisfactory alternative, and I think the current bitterness over Iraq is in part a symptom of that failure of leadership on Bush’s part.
dougm: Gromit, odd that you take offense to that comment, yet not to the one calling another a liar. Indignation is a funny thing.
Lets not be coy. Just what insight into my character did you gain from this single data point?
Tacitus: Beats me, Aaron. He’s certainly an interlocutor unblemished past and present. Gosh.
That’s not an answer. Would you prefer that I just speculate on your motives, rather than ask you up front?
It isn’t mindreading to note that Casey voluntarily reenlisted while well aware of the war in Iraq. Despite Democratic rumors to the contrary, there isn’t a draft.
It also doesn’t take much to note that Ms. Sheehan’s suggestion that we immediately withdraw from the Middle East (and support for Israel) and leave them all to rot is a really bad suggestion.
Which leads to: ” I just want to see a sincere demonstration that Bush respects her disagreement”
I don’t respect her disagreement in a substantive way. I think her policy suggestions are atrocious and would lead to disaster. So I’m certainly not going to ask Bush to respect her arguments. And if you want procedural respect of the “everyone is entitled to their opinion in these here United States” variety, that has already been given. Her son was killed by insurgents fighting for Iraqi autocracy. She met with the President. He unsurprising didn’t agree that we should immediately withdraw all the troops. She is pissed about it. So what?
“She met with the President. He unsurprising didn’t agree that we should immediately withdraw all the troops.”
Her account of her meeting with him indicates that he was barely paying attention and did not know her name or who had lost, not that they had talked about Iraq and he had simply disagreed with her. Her account may not be accurate. I don’t know. What will suffice for me is a demonstration that the president can treat a person in her position with repect.
There is a substantial difference to holding to a principle that “everyone is entitled to their opinion” and actually respecting disagreement. Simply holding that one is entitled to an opinion doesn’t involve engagement with that opinion or respect for another person, but rather it allows one to simply dismiss another person’s opinion as soon as one finds some convenient excuse to. Respecting disagreement in the manner I have in mind involves understanding that the core argument for freedom of speech is that criticism, arguement, and disagreement are a means by which we come closer to the truth by confronting positions and incorporating criticism into our understanding of situations in order to refine that understanding.
From what I’ve seen of her thoughts, even in Pres. Bush were to approach her from this position, she wouldn’t be particularily receptive at this point, which is why I would be satisfied with another family which opposed the war and lost a child.
Gromit sez: Lets not be coy. Just what insight into my character did you gain from this single data point?
Where did I ever make such a statement? Did I mention your character? Indeed, lets not be coy, lets try to stick with what is said instead.
dougm: Where did I ever make such a statement? Did I mention your character? Indeed, lets not be coy, lets try to stick with what is said instead.
Therein lies the problem. You didn’t explicitly say anything at all:
“Gromit, odd that you take offense to that comment, yet not to the one calling another a liar. Indignation is a funny thing.”
Why is it odd? Why is indignation a funny thing? If you don’t want me to draw inferences from your comments, then come out and say what you actually mean rather than relying on innuendo.
Gromit sez: If you don’t want me to draw inferences from your comments, then come out and say what you actually mean rather than relying on innuendo.
I came out and said exactly what I meant. That (a) it was odd that you took offense to that comment, yet not to one calling someone a liar, and (b) that indignation -is- a funny thing, it often leads one to make strange statements, which is quite evident on your last two comments. I once again hope you will read what is said, and if you feel it neccessary to respond, respond to that. Not some ghost in the shadows.
Her account at the time was
Now this is not wholly inconsistent with her current account, but there are some discrepencies.
“But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act.”
There is also the fact that at first Mrs. Sheehan thought the letter was impersonal, but later:
This seemingly indicates that the lack of respect which so many are charging Bush with was NOT evident in their meeting.
As for the ‘respect her opinions’ topic:
Frankly her opinions about foreign policy are quite dismissible. You are correct about how good disagreement should work, but it really doesn’t apply here because not all arguments are worth engaging at length. Good questions provoke the response you want. Probing questions do that. Part of my frustration with the discussion on the left is that it is not about “confronting positions and incorporating criticism into our understanding of situations in order to refine that understanding” when the topic is the Iraq war. It isn’t about trying to make things work. It is about attacking Bush.
Her foreign policy views beyond “My son died and I’m in pain” as expressed thusfar are actively bad. It simply would not be a good idea to just pull out all the troops right now and let Iraq collapse or be taken over by Iranian puppets. I’m sorry but that isn’t a good idea, and it doesn’t take yet another personal meeting to show that it isn’t a good idea.
Chuchundra: Hilzoy’s right: responding to a newbie troll isn’t worth it.
Dougm: Given the context, I find it quite understandable that Gromit didn’t take offense at one person calling another a liar. When an uncle says at the dinner table “All [offensive epithet]’s are [repellent comment]!” it is perfectly correct to glare at the uncle in shocked fashion and say “What a terrible thing to say! Uncle, I KNOW you don’t mean that!”
Sebastian: Part of my frustration with the discussion on the left is that it is not about “confronting positions and incorporating criticism into our understanding of situations in order to refine that understanding” when the topic is the Iraq war. It isn’t about trying to make things work. It is about attacking Bush.
Well, yes. That’s because Bush started this war, and Bush & Co made all the bad decisions that turned the Iraq war/occupation into a catastrophic and expensive failure. It is impossible to criticize the Iraq war without attacking Bush, and it is impossible to discuss how things might be turned around in the future without attacking Bush, since Bush’s refusal to acknowledge that his previous policies and decisions were catastrophic and need to be reversed is part of the ongoing problem.
Unfortunately, often people on the right aren’t interested in discussing the Iraq war/occupation: they want to defend Bush against attack.
Why? I mean, given the principle that the last thing that the extreme right wing wanted was a Democratic president, I can actually see (if not forgive) why so many on the right so fervently supported Bush and so irrationally attacked Kerry last year. But, Bush won: admittedly by .5%, but he won. So now you have Bush for the next four years, and no matter what, he can’t another election. So why bother defending him? He’s a terrible President, and you now have nothing to lose by admitting it and moving on to discuss, in detail, his catastrophic mistakes.
There are no private wars in a Republic; the cost of equal representation is equal responsibility. When the nation commits troops — rightly or wrongly, Democratic President or Republican President — the those troops fight for all of us. They are our sons and daughters, our fellow citizens. They die for us.
If this is not the essence of fascist ideology, then I don’t know what is.
Hmm. I agree, on the whole it appears that her reports of the meeting vary widely, and while it is possible that her current account is simply a reevaluation of the meeting in retrospect, we can’t firmly come to the conclusion that the President was disrepectful based on her accounts alone.
I’m still not entirely unconvinced that a meeting with another family with questions similar to those which Sheehan suggests she would ask might not be valuable, so long as we could somehow be assured that the family chosen here would be willing to display the same respect for Bush as a President as I would like to see Bush display for them as a grieving family. This is probably a pipe dream, I admit, since actually arranging such a meeting would probably turn into another poltical circus in which the original purpose of the meeting would be quickly lost.
There is a great deal of animus towards Bush on the left, and I won’t pretend that all of it is strictly rational. I’m not sure that this isn’t a product of the state of political discussion in the nation- perhaps thw world- as a whole, or perhaps even the nature of poltical discussion in actual practice. I don’t think you need to be on the left to see that the right also produced a great deal of partly-irrational bile toward Clinton, Gore, and Kerry as well. That doesn’t dismiss the problem that a good deal of the left simply isn’t interested in making things work (and at this point, I don’t think we have any choice but to make things work, and I really think we passed the point were were could have just left things alone as far back as the decision to impose a sanctions regime after the first war) and would rather attack Bush than propose reasonable solutions. But the frustration is shared by people on both sides of the political spectrum who are interested in finding actual solutions to poltical problems.
Of course, there really isn’t a clear division between people with an irrational dislike of opposing politicians and those who are rational. This comes out on the left, for example, when a genuine frustration with the Bush administration for a failure to admit that the initial stated reason for entering Iraq- weapons of mass destruction- has turned out to have been based on incorrect information and a legitimate desire to establish whether or not the administration undertook an adequate assesment of the relevent data turns into snide comments about the “reality based community” and a desire to attack any reason other than WMD to have entered Iraq, legitimate or not. In turn, part of this frustration derives, on the left, from people who are just as eager to defend Bush at all costs as many of the left are to attack him, and are willing to call legitimate criticism treason in order to do so.
The point that I’m getting at is that we really can’t expect the other side of a debate to suddenly become paragons of rationality, but a core part of the problem is that both sides engage in “actively bad” arguments which seek to blindly attack the other side. However, I think that we need to, at least occasionally, attempt to engage “actively bad” arguments without dismissing them as simply irrational or attacking them as being too exteme to be legitimate, because these “actively bad” arguements are part of what lead us to become so frustrated with those who disagree with us. Many such arguments actively invite counterattack or outright dismissal because the worst arguments tend to contain the strongest elements of attack. If we just dismiss them, though, they simply fester in echo chambers and add fuel to the arguments of those on both sides who claim that the other is simply a collection of irrational and self-interested idiots. If we attack back, the debate just goes downhill. However, occasionally, one can make some headway by ignoring the blind hatred and explaning, with as much respect as one can muster, the flaws in the substance of a poor argument without adding the tempting element of derision one feels.
That doesn’t mean that Bush should meet with Sheehan, but I think is illustrates the potential value of him taking her arguments seriously and making a show of respect by answering the questions of a family similar to Sheehan’s. What I’m really looking for, I suppose, is for someone in a position of leadership to take the first step in inviting more rational discussion, and this seems like an opportunity to do so. It probably is a pipe dream, though, because many people seem to be simply too far gone, and even places of relatively rational debate are full of bile.
abb1, there’s a large distinction betweem the state being the responsibility of individuals and individuals being the responsibility of the state.
Hodgepodge: That doesn’t dismiss the problem that a good deal of the left simply isn’t interested in making things work
You have that the wrong way round. The problem fundamentally is that the Bush administration simply never was interested in making things work in Iraq. Trying to blame the left (who are not in a position to make things work in Iraq) for pointing this out is adopting the right-wing ideology that says those problems in Iraq are created by people insisting on bringing them into the public gaze.
and would rather attack Bush than propose reasonable solutions
Reasonable solutions have been proposed from the left to the right for years. Bush has chosen to ignore all reasonable solutions. A large number of those on the right have chosen to defend Bush – even to the point of electing him President for a second term – rather than acknowledge the primary problem is Bush, and no reasonable solution is possible until this intransigant and disaster-area President is out of office.
Reasonable solutions have been proposed from the left to the right for years.
This was badly phrased. What I meant to say was: “Reasonable solutions have been proposed from all parts of the political spectrum, from left to right, for years”. (The State department, which calmly considered and proposed means of dealing with the occupation of Iraq in 2003, is not, after all, a bastion of the left. Bush chose to ignore State’s reasonable solutions.)
Er, Hodgepodge, could you elaborate, please. Are you saying this is not a typical fascist statement: When the nation commits troops — rightly or wrongly, Democratic President or Republican President — the those troops fight for all of us?
What are you saying?
Thanks.
“You have that the wrong way round. The problem fundamentally is that the Bush administration simply never was interested in making things work in Iraq.”
I’m not really enthralled with the Bush administration’s policies or their handling of criticism and alternate solutions to problems. You are, of course, correct to point out that any failure in Iraq is fundamentally a failure of the policies and strategies of the people who have the authority to impliment their policy preferences- that being the Bush administration- and not those whose authority is limited to the proposal of alternative stratgies and policies. Criticism is simply something which has to be dealt with if one wishes to produce one’s favoured policy outcomes in democracies, and if a democratic leader cannot win a war simply because of vocal disagreement with his policies, he should either reconsider the war or reconsider his suitability for leadership.
However, I’m much more concered with the state of political discussion as a whole than I am with placing blame for successes and failure in Iraq. As it stands, people who disagree poltically on the issue of Iraq have a great deal of trouble even discussing the matter rationally with each other, and if one wishes to discuss matters rationally, attempting to establish responsibility for the current sorry state of political discussion is actually counter-productive. Even if the endevour succeeded, all it would do is allow one side to feel superior to the other, which isn’t conducive to an atmosphere of productive discussion.
The Bush administration should be held accountable for their failure to address legitimate alternatives to their policies, but using this an excuse to dismiss the arguments of those who support those policies is a mistake. As you have pointed out, it is the Bush administration, not those outside of it. That includes those who happen to agree with any number of his policies or aspects of those policies. Unlike the Bush administration, many of those people are available and willing to debate policy. Though they are in a sense resposible for Bush’s policies in that they elected him, it does not follow that they support every aspect of his policies and will refuse to consider alteratives.
abb1,
Not all warlike rhetoric is fascist. Let’s look at what Von actually says:
Suppose for the sake of argument that our troops wage a blatantly unjust war. (I don’t propose to consider whether the Iraq war is such.) They wage it, says Von, for all of us. In what sense? Von can hardly mean that they serve all our interests. Nor are we all equally culpable; in fact those who have done their utmost to prevent the war are not culpable at all.
I really don’t know what Von means. It reads a bit like “my country, right or wrong.” That’s not an admirable sentiment but it’s not peculiar to fascism.
“Er, Hodgepodge, could you elaborate, please. Are you saying this is not a typical fascist statement: When the nation commits troops — rightly or wrongly, Democratic President or Republican President — the those troops fight for all of us?
What are you saying?”
This is only fascist statement in the sense that it is a typically nationalist statement, and fascism is a variation on nationalism. The statement has two elements: that soldiers fight for the entirety of a nation, and that they do so whether or not the decision to do so was correct or not. The first is an expression of the idea that the nation can make collective political decisions, including that to go to war, but this is a tenant of nationalism in general, not just of fascism. The second changes its meaning in the context of specific understandings of nationalism.
In the context of a fascist speech, the second part of the statement would indicate that the troops fight for the nation, which is understood as an organic whole of which individuals, including soldiers, are a mere part which must obey the will of their leader, who acts as the sole authority in intpreting the will of the nation.
In the context of a Republic in which individuals are understood as responsible citizens who are repesented by leaders to who they give authority, it indicates the principle of civillian control of the military, by which soldier recognize that the authority to use force is held by the individuals who comprise the nation as a whole and is delegated to their representatives.
Kevin, I think “my country, right or wrong” is indeed typical of fascism; the essence of it, in fact: my country is above all. Here’s the money quote again:
Hodgepodge, I think saying that when a leader commits troops wrongly they are still dying for all of us is a bit more than just nationalism.
Not at all, since the fundamental princple of nationalism is that a group of people can collectively comprise a “nation” which somehow represents that group’s collective interests and shared identity. The idea of a nation is incoherent except as one potential expression of how we define “all of us.”
Chu,
Phew! Glad we can finally move on past this. He already has met with her
All right, fair enough. I guess I was wrong, then. Sorry, Von.
Hodgepodge: attempting to establish responsibility for the current sorry state of political discussion is actually counter-productive.
So, why were you doing just that? No, scrub question: I am delighted to see you acknowledge that saying things like “That doesn’t dismiss the problem that a good deal of the left simply isn’t interested in making things work” is actually counterproductive. Kudos to you.
The Bush administration should be held accountable for their failure to address legitimate alternatives to their policies, but using this an excuse to dismiss the arguments of those who support those policies is a mistake.
Unfortunately, as you’ll have noticed (I assume) we have a situation where intelligent people who want Bush for President often refuse to discuss Bush’s policies, and instead focus on attacking people who are criticising Bush and his policies.
This is understandable, because it’s difficult to intelligently defend the policy of allowing US soldiers (and civilian contractors) who tortured civilians to go unpunished: the policy of ignoring General Shinseki’s cogent advice about the number of troops needed: the policy of ignoring the State department’s advice: the policy of refusing to hire Iraqi companies to carry out Iraqi reconstruction: the policy of sending the inadequate number of troops to war inadequately equipped: and so forth.
I would say that one reason for the current sorry state of political discussion is that the smart people who want to defend Bush (for whatever reason) cannot do so by pointing out his accomplishments as President and saying “look at the good things he’s done”.
Indeed, as intelligent and well-informed people, they’re aware that the things he and his administration have done have wrecked the possible success of the war that they wanted to support. Nevertheless, they want to continue to support Bush. Their solution appears to be to attack those who criticise Bush.
Phew! Glad we can finally move on past this. He already has met with her
Yeah, and everyone knows that the last time they met the President called no tap-backs. Doesn’t she know the rules?
Hmm… Quick googling demonstrates, though, that Patrick J. Buchanan, who I thought was a poster child for American nationalism, wrote this:
He doesn’t seem to accept that the US troops are dying for ‘all of us’.
So, if this ‘dying for all of us’ business is neither fascism nor nationalism, what could it be? Political hackery, maybe?
“What noble cause did your son die for? This country. Our ideas. Our persons.”
von, I’m glad you said that we shouldn’t worry about hurting your feelings, because I have to say that this comment is a remarkable piece of complete, unadulterated BS. Troops aren’t dying in Iraq for our country, ideas, or persons, they are dying for Bush’s political capital and his desire to be more macho than his father. Iraq has never invaded or threatened the US. The Iraqi government had no ties to terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein undoubtedly had bad will towards the US after the first invasion (although in the 1980s, during the time he was gassing Kurds, he was considered a friend or at least a colleague by the Reagan administration–a distinction he shared with Pol Pot), but he had neither the means nor, apparently, the inclination to do more than think evil thoughts about the US. Nearly 2000 US-Americans and tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (not to mention the occasional Brit, Italian, Dane, etc) are dead because of the invasion. Iraq has become a fertile recruiting and training ground for terrorism. Our persons and country are less secure and our ideas are a joke, thanks to Bush’s ego and desire for power. Sheehan and other troops who died died for the foolish acts of their country’s leader, not for their country’s benefit.
Re the word sophmoric: The Bush administration and its Congressional poodles talk about “bad guys” whom they say should “bring it on”, rename french fries “freedom fries” in a snit because the French won’t do everything they want, and compare torture to fraternity initiation. Given this background how can you say that Cindy Sheehan’s simple and obvious question about why her son died is “sophmoric”? This must be some new definition of “sophmoric” of which I was previously unaware.
What are the rules? That anyone who’s lost a kid in combat has completely unrestricted access to the President? I must have missed that one.
Personally, I think that Bush ought to go talk to her. Conditional on that it’s off-camera, of course, this being a private matter and all.
It’s called a protest, Slartibartfast. Sheehan is engaged in a protest. I could camp out at Crawford too, and demand to meet the President over the price of potato chip, and if my message had resonance with the general public, the President might be wise politically to meet with me. He’s not required too, but it would be politically savvy.
And I think that’s what’s got the Right so upset. Sheehan’s message has that general resonance with the public.
Hodgepodge, I respect your good will and concern with meaningful progress. I guess for me the sticking point is a thing my parents taught us: when you have willfully refused good advice and gotten bad results and now need help, you earn help partly by honestly admitting where you decided to ignore the wisdom you already had. This doesn’t have to mean groveling or abasement, and endeed chest-beating is often a substitute for honest admission of anything. But when I broke a water pipe while digging in the back yard in a place Dad told me not to, I did have to say “I’m sorry, you told me not to dig there and I did anyway, and yes, I know that you’ll be spanking me after we get it fixed.”
Well, Bush needs to do that. Not in a big way, but in a clear way. The situation in Iraq right now didn’t just happen. He made it happen by giving his approval to those who deliberately disregarded others’ advice. Help is still available, just as it was for me from my parents, but the price is the admission that they need the rest of us because of what they chose. It isn’t bad luck they’re suffering from, but folly, and when they show signs of wanting to be wise, I’m willing to help. But not until then.
This is more important to me the worse things get. If the corrections that could save the day were minor and wouldn’t necessarily redrawing plans from the ground up, then I’d let it slide, regarding present improvement as worth having anyway. That’s part of etiquette, after all – getting to a pleasant outcome with as little fuss as may be. But here we’ve got a growing calamity that in some ways simply can’t now be fixed at all, and salvaging anything good from it is going to take more and more effort, and the people who chose this course have to own it. It’s theirs. It’s not ours, in the sense of everyone in the US – we didn’t all break it. They did. Let them acknowledge that and then we can see where to go from there.
“Kevin, I think “my country, right or wrong” is indeed typical of fascism; the essence of it, in fact: my country is above all.”
As I periodically point out, this is not, in fact, in any way, at all, what the phrase means.
Personally, I think that Bush ought to go talk to her. Conditional on that it’s off-camera, of course, this being a private matter and all.
FTR, Bush did talk to her. At issue is a second meeting.
Von: FTR, Bush did talk to her. At issue is a second meeting.
Yes. Indeed, since Cindy Sheehan has publicly made the point that she’s unhappy with Bush’s disrespect and rudeness the first time he met with her, I don’t see how anyone can be unaware that it would be a second meeting. But, if Donald Rumsfeld can meet twice with Saddam Hussein, why can’t Cindy Sheehan meet twice with George W. Bush?
And hopefully, if Bush agreed to meet with her, he’d remember this time to call her “Mrs Sheehan” and not “Mom”.
Bruce: …when you have willfully refused good advice and gotten bad results and now need help, you earn help partly by honestly admitting where you decided to ignore the wisdom you already had.
This plays back into my personal hobbyhorse, which is that part of the problem with the Bush Administration, with Iraq, with American foreign policy… with pretty much everything, really, is that we as a nation are horrifically bad making this kind of acknowledgement. As a result, we never go to the next phase of the learning process which is to incorporate the wisdom gained by making the mistake into our decision-making, thereby preventing that kind of mistake from being made again in the future. Instead, we cleave to false notions of “resoluteness” and infallability, thereby digging ourselves in deeper and deeper… and the Bush Administration is practically the incarnation of this trait.* Which may explain their popularity, come to think of it, though it doesn’t excuse it.
* I originally used “apotheosis” instead of “incarnation”, but that had overtones that were disquietening even to me…
Gary: As I periodically point out, this is not, in fact, in any way, at all, what the phrase means.
Though I hate to say it, that should probably read “what the phrase meant.”
And hopefully, if Bush agreed to meet with her, he’d remember this time to call her “Mrs Sheehan” and not “Mom”.
Which reminds of Great Moments In Simpsons History:
“Though I hate to say it, that should probably read ‘what the phrase meant.'”
How about if people want to quote what Stephen Decatur said, they quote the whole sentence, not just an out-of-context phrase that changes the meaning of what he said to something more to their liking? (To be sure, my assumption is that very few people deliberately do so, but instead simply speak/write out of ignorance.) Anyway, this would be my finicky desire and suggestion, which should, of course, rule the world, but possibly won’t.
If I’m ever going to bother to say anything about the woman of this week’s obsession, it would be that I find the whole thing an interesting psycho-political drama insofar as a situation that seemingly has essentially no substance whatever itself but that can nonetheless raise itself to such a level of “debate” on a nearly purely symbolic level; beyond that, I find it curious that people seem to see a substantive issue, but that may simply be me missing an aspect.
So, Bush is obliged, by the rules, to come out and chat with anyone who protests? Curious.
Yeah, I know. As I indicated in the post that you responded to, it appears that the rule in question deals with unrestricted right to meeting.
Sebastian: Part of my frustration with the discussion on the left is that it is not about “confronting positions and incorporating criticism into our understanding of situations in order to refine that understanding” when the topic is the Iraq war. It isn’t about trying to make things work. It is about attacking Bush.
Part of my frustration with the discussion on the right is that in discussing the Iraq War, it isn’t about trying to make things work. Its all about protecting Bush no matter how screwed up his policies and positions have been.
Oh, and deflecting every criticism of Bush policy as some sort of trivial personal attack on Bush.
Hodgepodge, well-put on the concept of nationalism and how it plays out here. Vicarious responsibility for the actions of a Republic is not an easy concept to grasp. (I confess, however, that I’m not certain whether you agree with my formulation or are setting yourself up for a sophistocated critique of it.)
Jes, what purpose would another meeting with Cindy Sheehan have?
As for the question of what to do in Iraq: From the very beginning of the war — a war that I ultimately supported only with some reluctance — I have consistently favored an overwhelming military response. I have consistently registered my disastisfaction with Rumsfeld’s and General Frank’s policies and war plan. It is now clear that they never understood the potential difficulty of this war,* and I find their lack of understanding almostly criminally negligent: I’m just a guy in the blogosphere with a half-assed understanding of military history; yet, even I could tell that our force commitment to Iraq was laughably inadequate. (And it is no surprise to me that Rumsfeld, who never really committed to winning this war in the first place, now wants to withdraw.)
Our leadership has screwed up the Iraq war, and quite possibly there is now no chance to repair our mistakes. But, though we’re on the verge of a loss, we have not yet lost. And, because a loss in Iraq will be an enormous setback for our country, we must stay the course; fight on; try, maybe now against the odds, to win.
von
*At times in the past, I deferred to their assumed superior knowledge and understanding; I see no point to continue that deference, given their obvious failings.
And, because a loss in Iraq will be an enormous setback for our country, we must stay the course;
Must we? Aren’t you making a rather unwarranted assumption there?
Here is her so-called “challenge” to President Bush:
“I said I want the president to explain what was the noble cause that my son died in, because that’s what he said the other day when those 14 marines were killed. He said their families can rest assured that their sons and daughters died for a noble cause. And I said, “What is that noble cause?”
5. What noble cause did your son die for? This country. Our ideas. Our persons.
I can see you reached deep into your soul to contemplate a serious non-sophmoric answer to this “sophmoric” question.
Just so I understand your logic, any US soldier sent to war dies for a “noble cause” no matter how stupid, heinous or misguided the war. All wars are self-justifying and a noble cause — why would anyone dare ask whether the war has a proper purpose? Why would anyone dare ask whether or not soldiers are being sent to die in vain? To even pose such as question is “sophmoric” and “crap”?
Try again to answer the question, seriously. And try to understand that answering this question — what is the noble cause for which we are sending our brethern to their death — is not sophmoric or crap, but is the most important question to answer in connection with any war.
And that if you cannot treat this issue seriously, then nothing you say about this war can be taken seriously.
Yeah, as Anarch said, whatever the origine of it is, these days “my country, right or wrong” is an expression of crude jingoism and nothing else. The anecdote is curious but irrelevant.
Von: what purpose would another meeting with Cindy Sheehan have?
It would serve two purposes, at least:
1. If Bush had agreed to meet with Cindy Sheehan a few days ago, it would have made him look good. I put this first because it seems most obvious and because I presume to Bush supporters, it’s the most important.
Even now, he could at least defuse the situation by agreeing to meet with her. He’s on vacation, after all. How important is an hour of his vacation time?
2. As DMbeaster points out, it would give Bush the opportunity to explicitly say what the war in Iraq is for. If Bush has a noble cause in mind, he could say what it is. (If he doesn’t, this is perhaps the moment to ask his speechwriters to find him one that won’t wear out by next week.)
3. Why shouldn’t he? I presume he had no intention of offending Cindy Sheehan when he first met with her, and that forgetting her son’s name and forgetting her name was just one of those things that can happen. (Obviously, a good politician who knows he has a lousy memory for names ought to have someone whose job it is to unobtrusively remind him of the names of people he’s meeting with, and I presume that Bush normally does have such a person at his right hand.)
Nevertheless, if Mrs Sheehan is describing the first meeting accurately, he was (however unintentionally) offensive. He forgot her son’s name: he didn’t address her politely. (He could, after all, have apologized for forgetting and asked her name when they met.) That being so, it would have been courteous of him to send her an apology: and since she’s outside his ranch and wanting to see him, besides the first two purposes being addressed, there’s a third purpose: he could see her to apologize for his discourtesy the first time they met.
So: He could meet with Cindy Sheehan in private, off-camera, to apologize for his impoliteness the first time and to allow her to speak her mind to him. He could then make a public statement answering the excellent question she asked: “What is that noble cause?”
Purposes accomplished: courtesy, defusing a bad PR problem, and answering an important question that Americans who are fighting and dying in Iraq, and their friends and family, deserve an answer to.
“It’s called a protest, Slartibartfast. Sheehan is engaged in a protest. I could camp out at Crawford too, and demand to meet the President over the price of potato chip, and if my message had resonance with the general public, the President might be wise politically to meet with me.”
Ah, its a protest. All this talk about Bush not showing her sufficient respect, and demanding a meeting that has already happened was a smokescreen? God, I can’t think why Bush doesn’t meet with all the people who protest against him.
Dmbeaster, you write:
And would you say that a ‘protest’ in which the protestor’s policy reccomendation is that we immediately leave Iraq and immediately withdraw all support from Israel is more of a legitimate attempt to make things work, or an attack on Bush?
Was it Mencken who said that ‘My country right or wrong’ followed the same logic as ‘My mother, drunk or sober’?
von:
Our leadership has screwed up the Iraq war, and quite possibly there is now no chance to repair our mistakes. But, though we’re on the verge of a loss, we have not yet lost. And, because a loss in Iraq will be an enormous setback for our country, we must stay the course; fight on; try, maybe now against the odds, to win.
Strong, bold and candid words — my compliments. To discuss this further, we need to define what a “win” is, and then whether or not there is any action that can realistically achieve those goals.
“Stay the course” unfortunately means nothing. When our President speaks it, it almost certainly means more of what you candidly acknowledge constitute serious mistakes, and little prospect of addressing those mistakes since he seems incapable of even acknowledging that any have been made. It means a policy shaped by those responsible for the past mistakes, and devoted to covering up their error prone ways. It is the way of Robert McNamara in the Viet Nam war (at least he admitted error — but 30 years too late).
And Bush’s “stay the course” guarantees failure. It means not doing what may be necessary now because that would involve some acknowledgement of past failings.
By the way — we have already suffered the enormous setback that you fear. Much like the engineer on the Titanic a few minutes after assessing the extent of the hull damage, he knew his ship was doomed even though outwardly it would appear fine and seaworthy. It was simply a matter of time for the full effect of the calamity to be felt.
To the extent that there are things salvagable from the current mess, it would take someone other than current morons in charge to realize it.
Jesurgislac’s plan for Bush’s response to this is so sensible.
Smart people work for the president; why haven’t they pursued that plan, or something like it?
—————
*Please, in your answers, refrain from swatting at the hanging curveball.
God, I can’t think why Bush doesn’t meet with all the people who protest against him.
I already mentioned why.
And would you say that a ‘protest’ in which the protestor’s policy reccomendation is that we immediately leave Iraq and immediately withdraw all support from Israel is more of a legitimate attempt to make things work, or an attack on Bush?
Um…can this President be criticized at all?
I would like to join in the general call for von to try to answer why Casey Sheehan died. What, exactly, is the cause for which he died?
Take it as a given that we understand that soldiers need to be willing to fight and to die when their country sends them into battle. Yes, even liberals understand that much. Honestly. We’re not that dumb.
But say the president had ordered American soldiers into … I don’t know, the stupidest, most pathetic excuse for a reason for war imaginable. I’ll have to get creative here.
Say an alien lands tomorrow on top of Mount Everest. The alien is no threat to anyone. It speaks perfect English (and all other languages) and lets the world know that it means us no harm. It is merely taking the time to sit on Mount Everest to rest and repair its interstellar engines. It poses us no danger whatever. It is not in our way. However, it does have advanced hyper-weaponry and defenses that are thousands of years ahead of anything humans have developed. Anyone attacking the alien while it rests on the mountain will die instantly.
And let us say the President of the United States — let’s call him Bill Clinton, just to make it balanced — sends American troops to attack that alien. Just, you know, because he can’t bear the thought that anybody or anything on this earth can have more powerful weapons than he has.
And thousands of American soldiers die.
Now, von, please tell us why those soldiers died. What was the “noble cause”?
“What noble cause did your son die for? This country. Our ideas. Our persons. Casey Sheehan was your son, but he was also our soldier, our fellow citizen, and our brave protector. There are no private wars in a Republic; the cost of equal representation is equal responsibility. When the nation commits troops — rightly or wrongly, Democratic President or Republican President — those troops fight for all of us. They are our sons and daughters, our fellow citizens. When they die, they die for us.”
Can you understand that that paragraph does not answer the grieving mother’s question in the case of the alien?
Then please understand, it does not answer the grieving mother’s question in the case of Iraq, either.
We need an answer that relates to this particular conflict.
Let’s try again, one more time.
What. Is. The. Noble. Cause. For. Which. Our. Soldiers. Died?
We honestly do not know the answer to this. Cindy Sheehan is asking, and I don’t know the answer. I don’t think George Bush does either.
“Our leadership has screwed up the Iraq war, and quite possibly there is now no chance to repair our mistakes. But, though we’re on the verge of a loss, we have not yet lost. And, because a loss in Iraq will be an enormous setback for our country, we must stay the course; fight on; try, maybe now against the odds, to win.”
von, please explain how a leadership that has, indeed, screwed up the Iraq war to the point that there is quite possibly no chance to repair our mistakes should be entrusted, encouraged, or even allowed to stay the course?
If you go in for major surgery, and the surgeon screws up so badly that you’re worse off than you were, do you go back to the same surgeon to fix things? Particularly if the surgeon denies there was a screw-up in the first place? Or, better still, blames you for the screw-up?
This is one of the things that just boggles my mind about even Bush’s sane supporters.
They acknowledge that Bush and Rumsfeld made mistakes; some have even gotten to the point where they acknowledge the mistakes were non-trivial and undermine the whole mission.
Yet they don’t seem able to make the logical leap that the people who screwed up should be held accountable for it even though the people who screwed up have not themselves acknowledged the screw-up and, indeed, keep giving us the false fine-fine.
And they don’t seem able to make the logical leap that “staying the course” with the same leadership using the same strategy that led to the current screw-up only means perpetuating the screw-up.
During the run-up to war, opponents of the war were told that our patriotic duty was to keep our mouths shut and follow the Leader.
During the 2004 election, opponents of the war were told that the war was too important to be debated in the context of a political campaign, and far too important to change leadership, and that our patriotic duty was to keep our mouths shut.
Now – now that failure is staring us in the face; now that ever criticism of the war that was made before the war and since the war started has turned out to be valid; now that even many of the war’s supporters are saying “Our leadership has screwed up the Iraq war, and quite possibly there is now no chance to repair our mistakes” – the war’s supporters still don’t actually want to talk about it, still want to stay the course, and still want the rest of us to shut up.
When on earth are we supposed to talk about it?
When are we supposed to hold the Bush Administration accountable?
“Yeah, as Anarch said, whatever the origine of it is, these days ‘my country, right or wrong’ is an expression of crude jingoism and nothing else. The anecdote is curious but irrelevant.”
Also, Peace Is War, and Freedom Is Slavery. Minitrue triumphs. Yes, when quoting someone, what they actually said clearly is irrelevant. Ignorance is, indeed, Strength.
Slart:
As I recall, one of the rules is something about petitioning for a redress of grievances. If this isn’t that then I don’t know what the the hell is. You don’t think it’s dignified? Fine. Call her a media whore. All the kewl kidz are doing it, and apparently you can retain the moral high ground while doing so.
Another rule I recall is that you’re not supposed to lie to congress. Remember that one? How about the one where you’re not supposed to reapportion funds?
Either there are rules or there aren’t Slart. And you can tell a lot about a person by observing which rules they want to enforce anally down to the last particular and which ones they don’t particularly care about.
And Sebastian, in what possible sense does feeling disrespected function as a “smokescreen”? Are you suggesting that that component of the protest is some sort of sly secret and not a fundamental basis. I mean what would the fscking point of the protest be, and why would all these people be getting behind it, if she and they did not all feel that dubya was disresepecting them and their loved ones? It’s not some kind of secret agenda, Sebastian. And it’s not unreasonable for the mother of a fallen soldier to protest if she feels that the president is being dishonest or disrespectful towards the troops or towards her. And it’s not just her!
This man is the fricking Commander in Chief, Sebastian. There are some responsibilities that go with that, as well as privileges, and there are a lot of people who feel that he isn’t living up to those responsibilities and that he is abusing the privileges. You don’t like that? Fine. Call half the country lefty media whores and get it over with. But respect is one of those things that is very clearly not in evidence from this CinC and no “smokescreen” is required for someone to camp out by the side of his vacation home and make a fuss about that or about anything else.
Jeebus. Isn’t anything these crooks do ever going to embarass you?
When are we supposed to hold the Bush Administration accountable?
they’ll let you know when it’s OK. until then, turn that frown upside down, there’s a war on !
Sebastian:
And would you say that a ‘protest’ in which the protestor’s policy reccomendation is that we immediately leave Iraq and immediately withdraw all support from Israel is more of a legitimate attempt to make things work, or an attack on Bush?
It is neither, and if her protest was about “withdraw now” or “stop supporting Israel” or “Bush is a poopyhead”, then she would get and deserve zero attention.
So maybe you should focus on what is her primary message, rather than this deflecting nonsense. And that is, what is the noble cause for which Bush asks that mother’s sons to continue to die?
I don’t expect Sheehan to have much wisdom about what should be done, nor is her lack of policy wisdom relevant in any way. But as a mother of a dead soldier, she is absolutely entitled to require the President to articulate the noble cause that makes these deaths justifiable.
Her protest has traction because the President is unable to give a credible answer, and her presence highlights his avoidance of a meaningful response to this question.
He could respond with a speech that begins Cindy Sheehan has asked an important question that it is the duty of every President to answer… and then answer it. He does not literally need to meet with her — he needs to engage the issue that she brings to the table.
And you need to keep your eye on the ball concerning the real issue, rather than joining with the Sheehan hecklers.
Von, I have a question that I worry will sound snarky, but I mean it seriously – in part because I know that there are all sorts of things I don’t think of when I’m angry or upset, so this is a chance to remind me of ones I knew and educate me about ones I’ve forgotten.
When does “staying the course” ever work, without a thorough change of the people in power responsible for the previous screw-ups?
I’ll gladly take examples from business, science, religion, just about any field in which there are people with the authority to make decisions who make willfully foolish ones and then get their act together and make better ones. Particularly when it happens without a public reckoning for the earlier folly. Likewise for replacing the foolish ones with wiser people who stick to the earlier policy but make it work because, well, they’re wiser.
My gut sense is that it’s a thing we hope for, when we’re attached to the visionary possibilities, but taht in real life it doesn’t work. But I know I’m biased here.
Just came to this, so forgive me if these thoughts have been beaten to death in the thread (who can be expected to read all 140 comments?).
There are other less insulting ways to describe the actions we attribute to “media whores.” As Sheehan is primarily discussed in the context of being a mother, the term “whore,” qualified or not (and yes there’s a difference, but it’s not a big enough difference), is in unforgivably poor taste.
On the other hand, I’d have much more respect for her efforts if she were doing it on her own. The circus like atmosphere i’ts taken on through the chorus of supporters with their myriad flavored causes, eventually leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I think Sheehan could and possibly should emerge as a strong anti-war activist, but the folks around her should not be taking cover under her personal loss.
Now that the spurious justifications for the invasion of Iraq have all been exposed (WMD’s, al-Qaeda link, 9/11 association), there are two that remain: freeing the people of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and remaking the Middle East.
I find this ironic, because the first of those reasons is the one that almost led me to support the war. And, when I heard Paul Wolfowitz speak on the second topic (to the Commonwealth Club, I think), I believed him to be sincere. One might even say these two ideas are noble causes. But there are some problems with them.
For the second, remaking the Middle East, it is of course an idea imbued with hubris. Why do we believe we will succeed? Isn’t there the possibility we will make things worse? How can we call this “use of force as a last resort”?
The first has always had the most appeal to me. Saddam’s tyranny was horrible. I hope that after this is all over, the people of Iraq will feel that the benefit was worth the cost. Based on how the war has unfolded, I fear that they may not. And, they might well ask us, what right did the United States have to make this choice for them?
This is all with the benefit of hindsight, but there were voices saying these things before the war. They were derided at the time. This war was sold based on fear. Fear is not a good basis for rational decision making.
I agree with von and others, we are now in a deep hole. I do not pretend to have a good answer, but just “keep digging” seems pretty clearly wrong to me.
P.S., Sebastian, sorry I snapped at you last night.
….Cindy Sheehan has publicly made the point that she’s unhappy with Bush’s disrespect and rudeness the first time he met with her….
Funny she didn’t notice it till well after that meeting.
….yes there’s a difference, but it’s not a big enough difference….
To you. Talk about a manufactured pretext for indignation.
But Gary, when people say ‘my country, right or wrong’ they are not quoting anyone. They use this phrase to identify a certain view, that’s all.
Suppose I want to say that someone is more Catholic than the pope. Should I research this phrase to find out who used it first and what exactly he/she meant? Come on, this is absurd.
To you.
uh, yeah.
I’m the only one I purport to speak for.
Funny she didn’t notice it till well after that meeting.
Why did we go to Iraq, Tacitus?
Edward: On the other hand, I’d have much more respect for her efforts if she were doing it on her own.
In a sense, I see what you mean: I have an almost painful respect for Claudette Colvin, because she endured what she did without the support of the mainstream black civil rights movement – a respect so high that while I feel considerable respect for Rosa Parks, I admit that I feel more respect for Claudette Colvin.
Cindy Sheehan may be Rosa Parks rather than Claudette Colvin. But I wouldn’t run down Rosa Parks just because I think that what Claudette Colvin did was a degree more courageous.
I think Sheehan could and possibly should emerge as a strong anti-war activist, but the folks around her should not be taking cover under her personal loss.
You would probably have disapproved of the Montgomery bus boycott, too.
Tacitus: Funny she didn’t notice it till well after that meeting.
Funny how you’re so sure she didn’t.
Talk about a manufactured pretext for indignation.
More like a reason for showing a grieving mother some compassion after others have responded with vitriol and cynicism
“But Gary, when people say ‘my country, right or wrong’ they are not quoting anyone. They use this phrase to identify a certain view, that’s all.”
You’re saying most people don’t think they are quoting a famous quote when they quote the phrase? What is it your suggestion they think they are instead quoting?
“They use this phrase to identify a certain view, that’s all.”
Yes, they misunderstand what the quote means, since it does not, in fact, represent that view. The problem is that the misquote rests for its meaning and import on the (false) notion that it is providing a mindless and absolute of anything one’s country does. That is, it is suggesting a lie: that that’s what the famous toast declared. As such, it’s an attempt to stack the deck, to beg the question, to assume the absurdity of patriotism, and slide without acknowledgement into the conversation the assumption that “patriotism” is identical with “jingoism.”
That’s not a fair or accurate argument; it’s a dishonest use of words to make a dishonest argument, if it’s done knowingly. If it’s simply done out of ignorance, as it commonly is, it’s simply a mistake, a misquote or misleading quote, that still fails to be useful, because it is not, in fact, a case of a famous American standing up and declaring for jingoism, and being famously applauded in America for his popular jingoism, and can’t therefore be cited as such. And if an attempt isn’t being used to twist the quotation into such a a citation, what point is being attempted to use it to make? (I suggest the answer is: none.)
“Suppose I want to say that someone is more Catholic than the pope. Should I research this phrase to find out who used it first and what exactly he/she meant? Come on, this is absurd.”
This would be analogical were there a famous quote to that effect that would need to be researched. However, there isn’t.
If you wish to argue that knowing what phrases mean, and what sources of famous quotes are, is “absurd” and “irrelevant,” and that quotes are best misunderstood and repeated with misunderstanding, to suggest history that is, in fact, false, while attempts to be factual are best dismissed and objected to, okay, that’s one way to go. Another could be “gee, I didn’t know that; interesting,” but it’s all a matter of choice.
Gary, do you not think that the meaning of this quote may have been muddied by another,
Quotations and catch phrases can substitute sloganeering for argument. Yet, they also carry context and associations. This may or may not illuminate a subject, but I think the way to probe that is to ask.
Gary, I don’t think most people who say “my country, right or wrong” to agree or disagree with the clear and simple meaning of those words think they’re quoting anything. They’re talking about the idea. I think that’s true of a lot of things, too – people mean “this concept here”.
There is no innate meaning to the phonemes or letters that make up “my country, right or wrong”, and they didn’t suddenly take on a meaning that can never change once Decatur made his toast. Ripples form in a pond when you toss in a rock, but they keep going, and run into other things, and change direction, and after a while what’s moving on the surface of the pond has very little to do with the stone at all. Language is like that too. “My country, right or wrong” succinctly sums up an important way of thinking about one’s country and puts it out for people to look at, measure, argue about, and like that.
The history of Decatur’s toast is interesting to me, but it’s really irrelevant to the thing people mean when they say those words.
Gary: as a data point, possibly not a particularly interesting one, I didn’t know there was a quote attached to ‘my country right or wrong’ until this thread. I heard people say it, of course, but generally in contexts like: ‘X tends to think, My country right or wrong’ — which made it clear that this was (so to speak) a known phrase, but did not make it clear that it was a quote.
(I remember the first time I heard it: I was passing out anti-war flyers at the age of 9, on Moratorium Day, and offered one to a somewhat elderly man who glared at me and said: I fought in Korea, young lady, and I believe in my country, right or wrong! — It made an impression on me, since I had never previously heard an adult say anything truly stupid, but this was, I thought, one of the stupidest things I had ever heard. I remember thinking: but that’s what the Nazis must have thought! I very much hope that I kept these thoughts to myself.)
Anyways, the point is: you can’t search out the quote if you don’t know there is one.
And I should say, for the record: passing out the flyers was my idea, not my parents’.
Funny she didn’t notice it till well after that meeting.
It is not uncommon for people, particularly in the midst of grief or shock, to have a delayed reaction to a situation or revise their impressions of it after much reflection and thought. If you cannot grasp this, my apologies; it does explain your line of attack on Sheehan, and it is a fundamental piece of human nature of which you should be aware. It would surprise me, though, as you’re far too intelligent to be unaware of this human trait.
Alternatively, if you’re willfully ignoring that possibility for the sake of attacking her, then that’s simply contemptible. Given the way you’ve waded into this and nearly every other ObWi thread with the seemingly sole purpose of flinging poo, that would not surprise me at all.
Fair enough, Gary. I’ll try to remember that ‘my country right or wrong’ is a quote. Even though I am not really agree with your benign interpretation of that speech.
Funny she didn’t notice it till well after that meeting
if she had a change of heart, that’s her prerogative – unless you’d like to give reasons why a person must never change their mind about anything. or maybe there’s a certain set of things people are not allowed to change their minds about? do you have the list and can you defend it?
i remember a certain persidential candidate who ran on a platform of No Nation Building. he was elected and promptly changed his mind. certainly that’s a more consequential change – one that ended up killing tens of thousands of people, in fact. you defend that man.
Hilzoy: as a data point, possibly not a particularly interesting one, I didn’t know there was a quote attached to ‘my country right or wrong’ until this thread.
It is interesting (sufficiently interesting for an open thread?) the quotations that people no longer recognise as quotations because they have become so ingrained in the language. As it happens, I did know that G. K. Chesterton said “My country, right or wrong,” is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, “My mother, drunk or sober.” but I think I probably knew the aphorism “My country, right or wrong” before I knew its source.
I remember reading Twelfth Night before going to see it for the first time, and discovering that “She sat like Patience on a monument” actually had a context.
As George Orwell pointed out in his essay on Rudyard Kipling, “The phrases and neologisms which we take over and use without remembering their origin do not always come from writers we admire.”
Jes: did you know that ‘trip the light fantastic’ comes from Milton’s L’Allegro? (“Come, and trip it, as you go/ On the light fantastic toe”)
I remember thinking: but that’s what the Nazis must have thought!
And now that you’ve grown up, I would presume that you’d say ‘that’s what Germans who were not supporters of the Nazi party must have thought.’ And you’d be right.
A great many of the native Iraqi insurgents say the same thing, I’d bet, as do many of the folks not greeting our soldiers as liberators.
What I think is really funny about this line, though, is the frequency with which it comes out of the mouthes of people who will say, in the next breath, that our country is going to hell in a handbasket, what with leniency towards crime, a culture that is an open sewer, yada yada yada. Which is it, folks: (a) love or leave it, or (b) when wrong to be put right. Can’t have both.
On mind-changing:
Sheehan has claimed that information contained in the various government reports, leaked memos and etc released post June 2004, hardened her already inclined-to-be-skeptical-of-the-president position.
She makes the claim here, in this transcript from from Olberman’s show, for example.
CharleyCarp: well, yes. — I still remember that moment, though: it just took my breath away. (I mean: it’s really true that until that moment, no adult had ever said anything deeply stupid in my presence. Some things I didn’t understand, but that seemed, to me, perfectly natural. I was a very lucky child. But that’s why it was so striking.)
You know, this whole debate over whether “media whore” is substantially less offensive than just “whore” (used in the metaphorical sense, as in “Jack Abramoff is an unrepentant whore”) reminds me of the conversation in David O. Russel’s “Three Kings” in which soldiers debate why “raghead” is a more acceptable epithet than “sand nigger”.
I think that it is worth pointing out that there is a difference between the two terms, but if you come to the conclusion that one of the two is, in fact, unoffensive, I’m afraid you’re off in uncharted terrain, from a moral and civil standpoint. Perhaps I misunderstand the current discussion, and the intention of those championing the latter slur is to offend, but less so than by simply calling Ms. Sheehan a metaphorical “whore”. If so, clarification is most welcome on this point.
But make no mistake, this is in no way analogous to the relationship between “dog” and “hot dog”. Given proper health code enforcement, a “hot dog” is not a canine, period. A “media whore” is one who metaphorically whores himself out for or through the media. The epithet is not in any way idiomatic — the original meaning of “whore” is vital to the construction. It is more like the relationship between “assassin” and “character assassin”, or “coward” and “moral coward”.
So those who said Erick called her a “whore” are wrong, and should make corrections. And Erick was, in fact, right to apologize for calling her a “media whore” in the first place.
And, of course, the nutjobs who threatened Erick should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows. On that I think we all can agree.
….if you come to the conclusion that one of the two is, in fact, unoffensive….
Who is? Certainly I mean it as a pejorative.
Still, I do applaud the online left for turning decisively against a term they played the major part in injecting into blogospheric discourse.
Funny how you’re so sure she didn’t.
Oh, I take the woman’s word for it, Jesurgislac. I believe she means what she says when she says it: she is a media whore, not a liar. This is not the same as “truthful.” I believe she found Bush’s behavior appropriate when they met; found it inappropriate as her self-politicization progressed; and now sincerely believes the Jewish/PNAC conspiracy the root of AmeriKKKan evil.
“Just came to this, so forgive me if these thoughts have been beaten to death in the thread (who can be expected to read all 140 comments?).”
I can, on most threads, even the older ones. When I arrive at a blog, I usually start at the bottom of a thread, and work my way up til I hit a comment I remember. It is kinda silly, but I do find comments of substance or style or silliness that entertain me. There is no way I can collate(?) the information to make a fresh response.
For instance Farber’s claims of strong originalism or textualism deserve a better critique. Not every individual in my era of the late 60s using the “quote” “my country, right or wrong” either affirmatively or perjoratively, were using it in a full understandin of its history or context. This does not mean it therefore had no meaning or an “inaccurate” meaning by those who were using it. Usage rules.
I even try to do this on unfogged, but following those threads in a reverse order is kinda surrealistic.
and now sincerely believes the Jewish/PNAC conspiracy the root of AmeriKKKan evil.
I thought she said American imperialism in the Middle East and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas?
Ok that is too much. I am a soldier, my money is where my mouth is. No soldier unfortunate enough to die in Iraq has died fighting “for us, for our freedom, for our ideas”, etc. Iraq was not ever a threat to anything that makes the USA the USA. It was not ever a danger to our ideas, our freedoms, our democracy.
A soldier dying in combat or by terrorist is NOT automatically a “hero who died fighting for our freedom”. Only if a solider is actually fighting for our freedom and gets killed during said fight can he/she be said to have died for our freedom. This fact doesn’t denegrate any brave, good soldier in Iraq who is unfortunate enough to die there. The soldier himself/herself is acting on the most noble of intentions and they may need to believe that they are fighting for our freedom and way of life, but that doesn’t make it factually so. Objective fact is that every single soldier in Iraq is being repeatedly abused by their civilian (and even military) authority. They have been falsely placed in harms way NOT to fight for our freedom and way of life, but rather, are being abused and misused to fight for virtually everything BUT what they should be fighting for.
Don’t give me that cock-and-bull shit about Sheehan having died for “us”. That was his intention, which enobles HIM but when you try to paint the Iraq illegality with that broad brush you taint the soldiers rather than bolster them. Iraq has had NOTHING to do with our freedom, our way of life, our security. It has ended up working against everything that individual soldiers feel they are fighting for.
The Iraq war has been used to call those with the foresight and intelligence to see it as groundless and indefensible from day one as traitors. Oh yes, tar any dissenting voice as traitorous. Is THAT what you mean by them fighting for the USA? The Iraq war has damaged our way of life. It has lost us billions and billions of dollars – all down a black hole. Money that we will never see again and that COULD have been used to bolster the American way of life by funding healthcare for those without it, improving education (and opportunity), used for scientific research and medical research, used to clean up toxic sites in our country. Instead, it has done REAL harm to us from which we will not likely recover for a long time, if at all given the juxtaposition of massive money wasting in Iraq and the approach of peak oil. Iraq has also harmed our security. It has drained away military resources better used in Afghanistan and against OBL and his Pakistani babysitters. It has so weakened us militarily for a good long time that any enemies we had before Iraq can now become emboldened knowing that we are virtually incapable of responding to ANYTHING anywhere else in the world.
Every soldier in Iraq, exactly like those in Vietnam a generation ago, are noble men and women who believed they were doing the right thing, but instead, they were (and are) being misused for misguided and ignoble ends. The SOLDIERS have an inherent grace but their government has tainted their actions and wasted their lives by making them fight and die FOR NOTHING AT ALL.
Don’t you DARE try and paint Iraq up as a noble fight by soldiers for Mom, Dad, and Apple Pie. BULLSHIT!
Jes: interesting that Gary Farber’s comments reminded you of Orwell’s essay on Kipling. I was reminded of this bit, in particular:
Given that America has most of the power these days, Recessional ought to be required reading in American schools.
Von,
Vicarious responsibility for the actions of a Republic is not an easy concept to grasp.
Does it mean then that we all are responsible for everything our government is doing and thus the phrase ‘innocent civilians’ is meaningless if applied to citizens of a state with elected representative government (aka ‘democratic republic’)? Are you with the terrorists on this one?
What noble cause did your son die for? This country. Our ideas. Our persons.
Um, this is a platitude, not an answer. To be more specific: Sheehan is asking for a rationale for the war that took her son’s life. Do you have that rationale, von? Because in the last couple years of reading this blog, I’ve completely lost track of any sign that you’ve got one, and if you don’t have a concrete justification for this war, then it’s frankly pretty damn dishonest of you to imply that you’ve got one tucked behind a couple grand phrases.
You know…Sheehan apparently wrote a letter that was read on Nightline that mentions the “PNAC cabal”. But so far, the only instances I can find of this letter are on sites like FreeRepublic and Liberty Forum, which do not link directly to the letter.
It’s not on ABC’s site as far as I can see, and it’s not on http://www.gsfp.org.
Just saying.
And just for the record, there is a group called Project of a New American Century, and many who signed its Statement of Principlesare senior officials in the Administration. There’s nothing tinfoil hat about it.
I am a soldier, my money is where my mouth is.
As an ex-soldier, I’m pretty comfortable saying that this confers a unique immunity to critique of public statement comparable to that conferred by having a KIA son. Which is to say, none at all.
As for your ex-soldier status, Praedor, as a former airman in the active-duty Air Force until 1992, and a subsequent member of the IRR, you know full well how subtly misleading your own claim of soldierhood is. Shame. By the way, after violating the UCMJ, do I take it you pulled a Baldwin and failed to carry through on your if-Bush-gets-reelected threat?
Here, 2shoes, something shiny: I endorse the “media whore” appellation. Fire away, ye witless ones.
Ah, the pot calling the apple black – twice. In general I find most Trevino-on-ObWi comments can be infinitely improved by imagining the author as a Winston Churchill lookalike in a toga gravely intoning the words “Neener qua neener.”
hey, tacitus, just answer the Q: what was the noble cause that Casey Sheehan died in pursuit thereof?
“I fought in Korea, young lady, and I believe in my country, right or wrong!”
I, too, believe the United States of America exists.
Of course, what the above statement and variations is intended to say is something else, something elided.
Possibly “I believe my country is right, whether it is or isn’t!” But most people wouldn’t characterize their own belief that way. So possibly it’s “I believe in standing by my country, whether it is right or wrong!” But the variations of possible meaning are really quite numerous, and variable, and I won’t bore by listing more (I shall bore another way!).
This is the sort of (common) usage that engrained in me as a child my “annoying” quality of wanting things, as a rule, said as clearly as possible, even at the expense of length or prolixity, rather than leaving concise ambiguity, confusion, and cross-talking (or endlessly long pointless arguments).
It’s also part of why I get fussy when people use phrases, or quotes, without understanding their meaning, origin, or derivation, not that any of us can possibly Know It All, of course. But when we don’t, often confusion arises, and isn’t helpful. So, no (or is it “yes”?), I don’t think lacking such knowledge of any specific is anything other than innocent ignorance, which we all have a great deal of hither or yon; I merely wouldn’t defend such innocent ignorance as a jolly good thing that should be preserved and by which someone, anyone, is well-served. That’s all.
“My country, right or wrong,” doesn’t actually convey any given, specific, unambiguous meaning, on its own; quite the opposite, alas. But that’s hardly uncommon with isolated phrases, out of all context, that aren’t even a sentence.
At least I know, or think I have a fair idea, what Stephen Decatur meant (and it’s a perfectly anodyne sentiment). Indeed, my mother, drunk or sober, is my mother. Regardless of whether or not she is right or wrong, and regardless of any other sentiment I might hold. And my country, right or wrong, is my country, until I renounce it or it renounces me. (But if it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and regardless, I’ve not yet said anything about my thoughts, feelings, or intentions about that.)
I’m still pretty baffled by why people are arguing about the woman named in the header. It looks as if it’s simply an excuse to demand that people who hold a different view from one’s self on either the recent history of the U.S. in Iraq, or of President Bush, admit that they were wrong, and perhaps apologize, and nothing whatever else (save, of course, everything they feel should follow from that, as regards policy and personnel).
I understand people holding such emotions perfectly well. What I don’t understand is what anyone thinks they’re going to accomplish by using this woman as a surrogate for such demands. Is anyone likely to suddenly say “gosh, I’m going to entirely reconsider my views now that this woman is a substitute for arguing about the actual views!”? No? Then what on earth is anyone trying to say to anyone else?
Keep in mind that I’m very slow about many things. Really.
Tacitus,
I agree there isn’t any blanket immunity from critique granted to people’s public statements simply because of their past experience. I could maybe let you say this isn’t a strawman argument by arguing that it was somehow implied.
And yet… something about your responses still doesn’t seem right. Oh yeah, the part where you actually critique anyone’s argument instead of attacking them personally. You planning to get around to that part before ’09?
Gary, she is the face symbolizing these views now, she is a celebrity. Why do shoemakers employ celebrities as their spokesmen?
Ah, yes, this Tacitus guy is just a troll. The first time I commented on his blog he immediately checked the IP and attacked me for commenting from Europe. Just a hateful nasty troll.
Gary, I agree with you completely. Rationally speaking, it shouldn’t matter that one woman who lost her son is suddenly speaking up when (1) this issue’s been around for a long time, (2) tens thousands of others have lost friends and family to this war, and (3) over half the country opposes it. A single face shouldn’t make a difference.
People are caring about Sheehan, though, because she’s a spokesman now, and there really has been no mainstream spokesman for the anti-war movement all this time. The Democratic leadership is either mute or downright hawkish on this issue (Hillary Clinton appears to be under the delusion that we can summon up 80,000 more troops to send over there – through cloning? genie lamps? clapping real hard? who knows?), and other anti-war figures are too far out on the fringes to make credible figures to rally behind. In other words, most Americans are fed up with this war and want someone to express that frustration for them, and Sheehan is someone who can do that.
This isn’t to say I think this phenomenon is swell – I don’t, it’s a variation of the same phenomenon that leads us to unduly lionize presidents and distort them beyond all recognition – but just to explain why she’s the obsession of the moment.
Remind me again why ObWi is a better place for Tacitus having been unbanned?
What I don’t understand is what anyone thinks they’re going to accomplish by using this woman as a surrogate for such demands. Is anyone likely to suddenly say “gosh, I’m going to entirely reconsider my views now that this woman is a substitute for arguing about the actual views!”? No?
What I think is going on here is this. People have been listening to Bush waffling about the GWOT and whatnot for a long time. They think he ought to explain honestly, without the usual platitudes, why Iraq was invaded. Facing an interviewer, or Congress, or the UN, he will just dish out the usual tripe. What right do they have to expect anything better? He doesn’t owe them a thing.
Now, it is true to say that, in law, Ms Sheehan isn’t entitled to anything better either. But if you were in his shoes, could you walk up to her and make the usual windy speech?
But if you were in his shoes, could you walk up to her and make the usual windy speech?
In his shoes, I wouldn’t have CIA agents kidnap people and send them to other countries to be tortured, or have the Pentagon and the CIA cover up their own acts of torture. Hell, I wouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place, so I wouldn’t put it past him to lay some fairly standard tripe about Giving Your All For The Glory Of The Republic on a grieving mother, either.
“Why do shoemakers employ celebrities as their spokesmen?”
If you’ll allow me to switch that to “sneaker-makers,” I’d say it was to sell sneakers. If shoemakers did it, it would be to sell shoes.
Regardless of the merits of the items offered for sale. Indeed, to distract from said issue.
Insofar as the woman of the week is serving as a metonym for the war and/or the Administration, she doesn’t seem to me to be helping anyone think more clearly in the faintest degree. But this is simply a subjective judgment by me, of course.
“People are caring about Sheehan, though, because she’s a spokesman now, and there really has been no mainstream spokesman for the anti-war movement all this time.”
Insofar as I’d say anything at all about this metonym of the week, I’d advise the anti-war movement to look for a more disambiguating, better-qualified, spokesperson. Which is not to mandate that the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But, regardless, whether the living metonym is God’s Appointed Messenger and Daughter on Earth, or a foul creature of Satan, offering nothing but lies and deceit, arguing about her still changes nothing whatever about the virtues or demerits of either the war or the Administration; whatever conclusion anyone comes to, if one cares about those actual issues, one will simply be forced to return to the the actual issues to convince anyone else of said virtues or demerits, having first expended however much energy, time, and breath, on the completely irrelevant question of the virtues or demerits of the spokesmodel.
But, hey, I play computer games, like some comics and cartoons, and spend much of my life engaged in pursuits I wouldn’t disagree are anything other than vain, trivial, and ultimately of little point, so it’s not like I’m condemning anyone here. We all have our own odd ways of amusing ourselves. There’s naught as queer as folk.
Please don’t frighten the horses.
Gary, this perfectly expresses what I think about the whole thing.
I’d advise the anti-war movement to look for a more disambiguating, better-qualified, spokesperson.
I’ve got no argument with you there. Unfortunately, (1) the ideal spokesperson would be a visible elected representative, and (2) ’tis the season for Democrats to position themselves as “reasonable centrists,” and thus we get people like Biden and Clinton calling for more troops in Iraq at a time when most Americans want some or all troops to be removed.
whatever conclusion anyone comes to, if one cares about those actual issues, one will simply be forced to return to the the actual issues to convince anyone else of said virtues or demerits
But this is kind of the whole point of the spokesperson, yes? The spokesperson draws attention to the issue. In a media environment in which the war has to compete with daily news developments, the Roberts appointment, petty political jostling, hurricanes, the celebrity trial du jour, Missing White Chicks and god knows what else, it’s easy for a country with a volunteer army to forget that the war is out there. Again, if people were rational they’d be as aware of the tragedy of war whether there was a grieving mother with a name out there wanting to see George Bush or not. But people aren’t. And so Cindy Sheehan attracts their attention to the fact that yes, the war is still out there, and yes, it’s still killing people, even when the president isn’t talking about it.
“But this is kind of the whole point of the spokesperson, yes? The spokesperson draws attention to the issue.”
Hmm, rarely does it work as just that. When a spokesperson draws attention to an issue an offers to begin a useful dialouge something good can happen. When a spokesperson draws attention to an issue as a tirade, it is less likely to help. (And yes, I have been known to tirade. Ever noticed it doesn’t usually help? 🙂 )
Slooowly the thread turns toward a Tacitus-centric topic. Don’t let that happen, Catsy. Nor abb1 — although, since there is no user by your name at tacitus.org, you’ll forgive me for suspecting you of being, shall we say, loose with the truth.
….the part where you actually critique anyone’s argument instead of attacking them personally.
Well, that’s your stricture, CMatt, not mine. I certainly have no problem with discrediting Sheehan as a public figure. Given the nonsense she’s taken to uttering — viz., Bush’s war of terror on the world — it seems just. Spare me the inevitable riposte from you or others that this is something the collective you would never do yourselves.
And yes, I have been known to tirade. Ever noticed it doesn’t usually help?
Depends how it is done. Like Jes, I like to quote George Orwell now and then, but even more I like to quote Edmund Burke:
This is the point which I think the Democrats have tended to miss. They have too many refined, fastidious losers. If the Republicans had Michael Moore, he would be the star of Fox News and they would take enormous pleasure in watching him stick it to the libruls.
NB for hrc: The cause for which Casey Sheehan died — defeating Islamist insurgents in Iraq, bringing democracy there, and securing American interests in the region — is self-evidently noble for Americans left or right. Or one assumes. That the execution has been wretched from the beginning is a different matter entirely. I wouldn’t confuse the two.
I just got done reading this thread. At least twice Bush or war supporters have been directly asked,”What is the noble cause we are fighting for?” No one has answered.
Gary: “What I don’t understand is what anyone thinks they’re going to accomplish by using this woman as a surrogate for such demands.” and “I’d advise the anti-war movement to look for a more disambiguating, better-qualified, spokesperson.”
I don’t think anyone appointed her spokesperson, so I don’t think anyone is in a position to appoint a better one. I think she just showed up with a question that (a) seemed like it deserved an answer, and (b) wasn’t getting answered, and that that, combined with the fact that this has been what CNN seems to consider a ‘slow news week’ (I mean, Iran broke the seals on its nuclear program, soldiers are dying right and left, the Iraqis are trying to finish the constitution, and the Isrealis are about to start pulling out of Gaza, but missing white women seem to be in short supply, and at least Cindy Sheehan is a white woman where she’s not supposed to be), explain why this caught on.
I mean: things like this usually don’t catch on at all. And this one would have vanished had Bush met with her. It would also, imho, not have caught on had he gone to Ohio the week before, to the town where all those soldiers who were killed were from. And it would not have caught on if it were clear why we were fighting. (I mean, it wouldn’t have worked, I think, in WW2, for instance.) It worked this time, against all the odds, I think because of what Kevin D. said above: “People have been listening to Bush waffling about the GWOT and whatnot for a long time. They think he ought to explain honestly, without the usual platitudes, why Iraq was invaded.”
Now: you have pointed out that we have (here) been arguing about this topic for ages, which is true. But I think that the question why the war was or was not a good thing, or why you might have invaded, is different from the question, why Bush invaded Iraq. And I think there are several problems with the latter question.
The first is just that the stated rationales have shifted. That’s the obvious one. The second is that it is, now, completely unclear what would count as success in Iraq: what the point is at which we say: right, that’s it, we’ve succeeded. (More exactly, what goal that is not completely unrealistic constitutes success. We could all agree, probably, that if Iraq became a flourishing and stable democracy politically indistinguishable from, say, Canada, that would count as success. But I hope that’s not the goal the President is currently working with.)
The third is this. If you purport to have some goal, I can question whether you are really trying to achieve it by noting that you just haven’t done the things you’d need to do if you were really trying. If, for instance, you claim to be trying to live a healthy life, but you also smoke three packs a day, never get of the couch, drink like a fish, and are addicted to crystal meth, and are not making any visible effort to change these things, then I’d question whether you are really trying to live a healthy life.
To my mind, the President has not stated any goals for our invasion of Iraq that aren’t vulnerable to this sort of challenge. Did he want to rid Iraq of WMDs? Leaving aside the fact that Iraq seems not to have had any, why didn’t he bother to ensure that the known sites were secured? Did he want to create a functioning democracy? Why didn’t he start by going in with enough troops to ensure order, and then use them to do things like confront armed militias (not the insurgents, but e.g. the Badr brigade) and secure a monopoly on the use of force for the country? Did he just want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, without any regard for what happened next? Then why not find someone to turn the country over to ASAP, and/or hold elections in 2003, instead of spending ages and ages trying to ensure Iraq had e.g. a flat tax?
This is (on my interpretation) the source of a persistent difference of opinion between Jes and me: I am (I think) willing to attribute to people a lot more sheer incoherence than she is, and thus I am less likely to feel impelled to find some other motive, as opposed to saying: Bush didn’t mean anything coherent at all. It’s because of the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a coherent story to tell about why we went in, one that explains our conduct, plus the fact that there really doesn’t seem to be a coherent story about what we’re doing there now, that (I think) explains why Cindy Sheehan’s question had resonance.
I have actually tried not to talk about her (as opposed to the people who are smearing her, where ‘smear’ does not equal ‘criticize’), but end up doing it because there are threads like this one. So that’s my story 😉
To be more specific: Sheehan is asking for a rationale for the war that took her son’s life.
I don’t think so. She could have written a lettter to the president, or started a nice little blog, or write some harmless letters to the editor of her local paper, or, gosh, just hold a bake sale. (That was sarcasm, sorry.)
Her chosen form of protest is essentially a gamble – that Bush will try to wait her out until his vacation is over, and that he’ll look increasingly ridiculous doing so. And as Bush shuttles to and from his fundraisers, it seems to be working. The most powerful politician on Earth, caught in a PR bind by an ex-housewife! Who gets the kind of round-the-clock attention politicians only dream of, simply by having a campout!
As for Sheehan being a (whore/media whore/liar), well…Rosa Parks wasn’t really trying to get bus ride, and it didn’t hurt her much, did it?
What I don’t understand is what anyone thinks they’re going to accomplish by using this woman as a surrogate for such demands. Is anyone likely to suddenly say “gosh, I’m going to entirely reconsider my views now that this woman is a substitute for arguing about the actual views!”?
At this point, anything that involves the war’s long-term goals and Bush is going to get…touchy. A 9/11 widow blows through $5 million of gifts and compensation? Meh, whatever. A woman whose son was killed in Iraq decides to personally embarrass the President? Why…that media whore!
(Commence food fight.)
(Incidentally, this all reminded me of another lone protestor that I had completely forgotten about until now. But anyway…)
defeating Islamist insurgents in Iraq, bringing democracy there, and securing American interests in the region
Josh, can you honestly assert that any of these three goals are being furthered in Iraq at this point? At worst, Iraq is heading towards civil war; at best, towards an Iran-like Shiite theocracy. How does this further American interests? How does this bring anything remotely resembling democracy there? And even if the US manages to defeat the Sunni insurgency – which isn’t looking like the case right now – what point does it serve to defeat Sunni insurgents if they’re merely replaced by the kind of Shiite thugs currently running Basra?
In the end, this is not the war we were sold.
….can you honestly assert that any of these three goals are being furthered in Iraq at this point?
It doesn’t really seem that way, no. That’s the short answer; there’s lots of qualifiers to add — but that’s also a different discussion.
Qua discussion, as you say.
The cause for which Casey Sheehan died — defeating Islamist insurgents in Iraq, bringing democracy there, and securing American interests in the region — is self-evidently noble for Americans left or right.
Well there’s the rub.
With the exception of defeating Islamic insurgents in Iraq, which is a) an effect of the invasion and; b) an incomplete description of the insurgency (ie, what of non-Islamic-fascist Sunnis engaged in the fight?); c) something we now must face as our responsibility, there seem to be many who are determined to cling to the fantasy that invasion is a preferred tool for spreading democracy and securing American interests in the region. So they are forced to insist that the tool is not at fault for the present calamity, placing the blame instead with those who wielded invasion so poorly.
This position is remarkably similar to that of those who stubbornly cling to the fantasy of Communism. Despite a century and a half of grim failures, we continue to hear from some quarters, “yeah but actual Communism hasn’t been tried anywhere.”
The proof is in the pudding, my friend. Unless there is dramatic improvement in Iraq, invasion as a tool to spread democracy and secure American interests has been sullied, as have those who chose to employ it.
Both stains are not unearned. Neither can be easily washed away.
NB for hrc: The cause for which Casey Sheehan died — defeating Islamist insurgents in Iraq, bringing democracy there, and securing American interests in the region — is self-evidently noble for Americans left or right. Or one assumes. That the execution has been wretched from the beginning is a different matter entirely.
No, it isn’t. Stripped of its implementation, “cause” is little more than a synonym for “pipe dream”.
Are faith healers self-evidently noble, if they truly believe in their powers?
The cause for which Casey Sheehan died — defeating Islamist insurgents in Iraq, bringing democracy there, and securing American interests in the region — is self-evidently noble for Americans left or right. by sitting on my duff and eating Cheetoes”; this is not a plan in any meaningful sense of the word. By a similar token, in order for us to talk about “the noble cause for which Casey Sheehan died”, one cannot simply invoke a cause and declare his death thereby validated. There has to be a meaningful sense in which his death advanced that cause. This, to me, is the crux of the matter; it’s why I called von’s remarks “empty platitudes” and “vacuous jingoism” (which comments I stand by); and it’s the question that Bush appears either unwilling or unable to answer.
Are you sure that’s the cause for which Casey Sheehan died? I know that’s a cause we’d like to believe he died for, but that’s not at all the same thing.
To be clearer, although you correctly note that the execution of a plan and the goals of the plan are separate, they are not inextricable as hilzoy noted above. At some point — and apparently that point is now — if your actions don’t accord with your stated goals, people are rightfully going to question whether you’ve been entirely honest about your stated goals or, perhaps, whether your agenda was more… complex than it was previously portrayed.
This is the source of Bush’s bind, IMO, which is essentially the current incarnation of Reagan’s Dilemma: either he’s a colossal incompetent or he’s been lying about his goals in Iraq all along. [Myself, I think a little from column A and a little from column B, but YMMV.] A better man than Bush would doubtless be able to get out of this bind by, well, confronting the question Cindy Sheehan has posed head-on and articulating what, precisely, Casey Sheehan died for and specifically how Casey Sheehan’s death furthered that goal.* Not what we would have liked for him to die for — that’s manifestly evident, and about as relevant as wishing for a pony — but rather what he actually died for. Bush’s inability to do so speaks volumes about his character as a man, his stature as a president, and his failures as a leader.
Although, as someone just noted above, the really surprising thing is that this issue is sticking at all. Generally when evidence of Bush’s mendacity/incompetence has been unearthed, the media spins itself into Operation: Ignore and the issue sinks without a trace. Why Cindy Sheehan has turned out to be such a focal point is, I think, a very interesting question — certainly to both Gary and Sebastian, and to others as well, I think — but ultimately irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is Bush’s inability to deal with the issues Mrs Sheehan has raised.
* This relates to a rather heated point I keep trying to make that, alas, never sticks: a set of actions that you claim are going to achieve a given goal can only be said to be a plan to attain that goal if there’s a reasonable chance to expect that those actions will actually effect that outcome. The oft-cited example runs something like “My goal is to win the heart of
Anarch: the example I usually use,when teaching Kant, is doing jumping jacks in order to bring about world peace. This, to make the point that it does not follow from “I can do X” that “I can do X in order to Y”. The students are sometimes amused. (I do the jumping jacks. I look around, baffled. Etc., etc.)
Before I started teaching I had no idea at all that I had an inner ham. I would have said I was about the last person in whom one might be found. Surprise, surprise.
As someone who once threatened his students with an interpretative dance of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, I completely understand.
somehow, Tacitus, I keep getting the feeling that Bush and by extension you, as a defender of Bush, keep moving the goalposts as to what the reasons were that we were/are in Iraq.
As such, the noble causes keep morphing and consequently rather like the Cheshire Cat, there’s nothing there to trust but a faint and fading grin.
Well, this (via Atrios) isn’t going to help Bush much:
“President Bush, noting that lots of people want to talk to the president and “it’s also important for me to go on with my life,” on Saturday defended his decision not to meet with the grieving mom of a soldier killed in Iraq.
Bush said he is aware of the anti-war sentiments of Cindy Sheehan and others who have joined her protest near the Bush ranch.
“But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there’s somebody who has got something to say to the president, that’s part of the job,” Bush said on the ranch. “And I think it’s important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say.”
“But,” he added, “I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life.” ”
Anarch, from what I’ve seen, I’m going with incompetence, or optimism, depending on your point of view. Same outcome in either case.
hrc, I don’t blame anyone for not knowing my history, but I do think you shouldn’t make the assumptions you do.
I’m glad I previewed, I’ll mostly just point to Hilzoy’s response.
That’s what is missing: “This will constitute failure”. Then we can decide if that is a noble goal, worth invading. And judge our progress, and by extension the actions of officials along the way.
Instead it’s “trust me”. Wonderful.
Failure is always an option. Not defining it does nothing to prevent it (except maybe in the “we create reality” spin-zone sense), it actually makes it more likely. And here we are.
Anarch: that I’d love to see. Actually, I’d love just to be able successfully to imagine it.
Anarch, from what I’ve seen, I’m going with incompetence, or optimism, depending on your point of view. Same outcome in either case.
So what cause did Casey Sheehan’s death actually promote? For what did he actually die?
pssst–I’ve heard that Anarch’s dance is *so* naughty, his Epsilon barely covers his Delta!
The reason that failure has not been defined, and is not an option, is that it is impossible. No matter what the result, it will be proclaimed a victory.
WRT Ms. Sheehan, I’m reminded of remarks of the late J. Garcia to the effect that ‘we postulated a Grateful Dead, and people showed that they wanted a Grateful Dead — so there was one, and we were it.’ Although my views on her individual quest are not unlike those of Messrs Farber and Holsclaw, what I find most telling is that The Moment seems to have arrived for an almost mainstream anti-warism. The Pres is probably right — in his political system — to ignore her, as she’ll be gone from view soon enough. (Although if anti-warism actually gets mainstream, it’s going to be ugly from here on out).
I think his predecessor would have found a way to make something positive from her protest.
I don’t have to, now that you’ve done it for me.
Glazed, or unglazed? Baked beans, or green?
Even I have my limits.
Casey Sheehan couldn’t possibly have died to defeat Islamic insurgents in Iraq, as asserted upthread, because there were no Islamic insurgents until we invaded. Presumably we had a noble cause BEFORE we invaded, not after. There might be people in the Bush administration who actually believed in bringing democracy to Iraq, but, judging by their decisions after the invasion, it appears more likely that they wanted to bring a pro-American strongman to Iraq and that the Iraqis, led by Sistani and others defeated this effort. Now we are, in fact, defending a democracy but that was not a reason for the initial invasion. Promoting American interests in the region is a vague platitude. Every foreign policy by every President has been to promote American interests in various regions. It isn’t a noble cause: just a generality applicable to every administration, and covering up, I suspect, the poster’s ignorance of the specifics of neocon thinking.
Here’s an honest answer to Ms. Sheehan’s question, from a senior Bush administration official to Robin Wright, as posted on Calpundit:
“What we expected to achieve (in Iraq) was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground. We are in the process of absorbing the facts of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.”
So he died for a crackpot theory, now rejected by its former adherents, ie a fuck up. That’s the noble cause.
I’m sorry about the profanity. There really doesn’t seem to be any better way to put it.
“As someone who once threatened his students with an interpretative dance of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, I completely understand.
Even I have my limits.”
But are they asymptotically approached?
Ah yes, that’s another reason I hang around here — for the math jokes.
Sigh.
So he died for a crackpot theory
This is why Casey Sheehan died.
And here’s why what she’s doing has actually struck a chord:
“Ruth Carlson of Aliquippa, a Navy veteran, voted for Bush in 2000. So did her husband, an Air Force veteran. But neither voted for Bush in 2004. “We usually vote Republican,” Carlson said. “Come around this time, we couldn’t vote for [Bush]. . . . If they came after my son, I’d have to get him out of the country. We don’t want our child going over there and dying for nothing.”
Vern Derryberry helps his daughter with a dusty antique shop in Beaver Falls when he’s not working at a warehouse in Cranberry Township. “I was all for Afghanistan,” he said. “But they went in looking for bin Laden, and they never finished that. Then they started the war in Iraq. Everybody said it would turn into a quagmire, and it’s turned into what everybody said.”
The death toll has started to wear even on those who maintain the war was not a mistake.
“It’s hard to sit and watch the boys come home in body bags,” says Rod Vingle, a banker in Cranberry Township. “I originally supported [the war] and have wavered back and forth.”
Across the country, it’s the absence of the threat that Iraq was supposed to pose that most troubles Dale Blake, 42, a Los Angeles construction worker.
“When it all started, we were hearing about nuclear weapons, gas, biological weapons, all sorts of stuff,” Blake says. “Of course I thought we should get rid of stuff like that. But now we know that was all bull, and so I now believe I was wrong. But maybe wrong because I was lied to from the start. How are we going to get out? That’s what I want to know.” ”
Erick of Redstate seems confused again. After retracting calling her a media whore, he suddenly calls her an anti-Semite, based on something David Duke said.
The left might take it as a sign that a stopped clock is right twice a day. The rest of us will just see it as another sign that Cindy Sheehan is a crackpot, at best. Yes, David Duke agrees with Cindy and they both hate the Jews.
I would like to take this opportunity to publically thank Tacitus once again for warning us nothing Erick says is sincere.
Sorry for the bad formatting…but you get the idea.
Interpretative dance in teaching? Hell yeah! Maybe grammar lends itself better to dance than math does.
Charleycarp, your comment that perhaps the time is ripe for mainstream antiwarism just depresses me. It’s okay to wonder about this war now?
There seems to have been a tipping-point recently, though, and I can’t quite figure out what it was. (Reading blogs regularly will tend to obscure the ebbs and flows of normal-people conversations.)
I am not a member of the IRR. I WAS for a while before I came back into the Reserves. I am a traditional Reservist now and have been since 1994. I have not (yet) resigned my commission. I struggled VERY mightily with the idea of quitting after Bush got re-elected. I find it very troubling that I could be called on to serve in Iraq, a completely immoral war, even totally illegal war, in order to fight for nothing at all.
My money is still where my mouth is. I DO serve today, though that fact is provisional and gets re-evaluated all the time. Just about the only thing that actually keeps me in is sense of duty to my fellow soldiers. THEY matter. The leadership is shit and doesn’t matter. I don’t give a flying f*ck about their NeoCon fantasies of empire. I don’t fight for empire or for corporate profits. Not a single soldier in Iraq has died for our freedom. Not a single soldier in Iraq has died trying to keep our country safe from other terrorist attacks. Not a single soldier in Iraq has died defending our way of life. They THOUGHT they were (they HOPED they were fighting for all that) but they were lied to. It is quite simple. They are being abused for nothing. All their time and sacrifice will come to nothing and that is a crime as well as a tragedy. It didn’t have to be this way.
Where’s Tac to explain to us all how Erick saying that Sheehan “hates the Jews” doesn’t mean that he’s calling her an anti-semite.
Of course, it doesn’t suprise me at all that the posters at Red State are very familiar with David Duke’s web site.
NB for hrc: The cause for which Casey Sheehan died — defeating Islamist insurgents in Iraq, bringing democracy there, and securing American interests in the region — is self-evidently noble for Americans left or right.
Not so fast. By “American interests” I guess you mean attempting to gain control of oil fields that do not belong to us, yes? As for the first two reasons…the first didn’t exist until AFTER we invaded. There were no Islamic extremist of any note in Iraq. Iraq was supremely secular. NOW it’s loaded with Islamic extremists. So it is a good thing to start wars to fight enemies that don’t exist until AFTER we start the war to create the enemy? As for the whole “democracy” thing…funny. That wasn’t a reason until the other reasons didn’t pan out, then it became the primary cause. It’s working out well too isn’t it? Yeah, I’m impressed with the democracy being created in Iraq. By the time the whole debacle is finished perhaps our own USA will be a similarly model “democracy”?
In the end, it is the outcome that matters, not the intent. So, Sheehan died so that an Islamic Republic with close ties to Iran could be created. Sheehan died so that we wont even get an illegitimate hold on oil in Iraq. Sheehan died so that we wont even get a centrally located set of bases in the region (only for the purposes of securing other people’s oil fields for our personal use). Sheehan died so that Iran could get stronger. Sheehan died so that hundreds of billions of dollars could be spent in Irag with absolutely NOTHING to show for it.
Yeah, quite a list of noble goals to fight and die for. I cannot begin to imagine why the military is unable to meet recruiting goals. What could kids these days be thinking? There’s a noble death awaiting them in Iraq.
Where’s Tac to explain to us all how Erick saying that Sheehan “hates the Jews” doesn’t mean that he’s calling her an anti-semite.
He’s busy doing it here.
Belle at Crooked Timber:
“Hugh,
I think that we’ve got a buyer for Unfit To Grieve: The Real Cindy Sheehan. Regnery is already covering their bases with a quickie by Michelle Malkin- In Defense of Public Stocks. I guess that Crown Forum is cashing in by retitling Michael J. Totten’s pop-up book (sorry, “3-D photo-Fisking with interactive elements”- whatever!) “LOOK, BAD SOLDIER MOMMY”.
But Joanne at Sentinel HC is very, very interested. If you can have an outline by Monday afternoon, and a manuscript by Sunday, they can send it to print before the end of August. (Jonah says he can guest-host your show next week, if you need him.) I know I don’t have to tell you this, but make sure to spellcheck thoroughly before you send it on- they don’t check sh*t there. …”
It goes on. It’s great. Even the signature.
Looks like you misspelled “Ted”, hilzoy.
Spelling flame!
Oops… damn phonetics.
People are really focused on the substance of Sheehan’s protest,which is fine, but this whole fiasco has unfortunately soured me forever on Von’s posts. When I was growing up (15 years ago or in what I think of as the age of decency), it was simply unacceptable to do the following
1. Call a grieving mother a whore of any kind. And I actually think media whore is worse than the actual kind since it implies she doesn’t really care about her son’s death and only wants attention for herself
2. Slur or make light of a wounded veteran’s service (see–Swifties, attacks on McCain)
3. Advocate torture (that’s what the other guys do, not us)
And yet, and yet I have seen these things done by people who claim to be decent. this is impossible. Not only would decent people not advocate these positions, they would not tolerate those who do. While von has only (ONLY?!) done the first, illustrating that his sensitivity extends only to those who agree with him (that he cannot imagine what it would be like to lose a child or how that might make a person do dramatic things, even things he may not agree with, but still that that loss does not ensure Sheehan his agreement but it should guarantee that she be treated with respect), this does mean that I can no longer pay attention to what he says because he is without basic human decency. He is unable to treat a grieving mother with respect. How hard is that? Pretty hard, looking at the blogosphere.
No, and I think von would also disagree.
Miranda: I don’t want to speak for von, but I think he was saying that there’s a difference between calling someone a whore and calling her a media whore, not saying that either was acceptable. See his point 2. And speaking not for but about him: in my experience, he is a decent guy. Your mileage may vary, of course.
No, and I think von would also disagree.
Interesting. That’s certainly the impression I got of how “media whore” was being used – to dismiss Cindy Sheehan in a insulting manner by asserting that she isn’t doing this for her son but because she wants media attention.
This is a long thread, and I haven’t checked every one of Von’s comments, but his only use of “media whore” was to explain that there was a difference between “whore” and “media whore”: one may read it as Von defending Erick’s insult of Mrs Sheehan, or simply that Von was explaining which of two insults Erick was using.
So it’s not really relevant (unless Von was endorsing Erick’s insult) what Von might mean by “media whore”: the issue is what Erick meant. As he has apologized for the insult, I suppose it would be wrong to ask for a further explanation of what exactly he meant by it.
Actually, all I was saying was that wanting attention and not caring for her son aren’t BOTH implied by anything von said.
“That’s certainly the impression I got of how “media whore” was being used – to dismiss Cindy Sheehan in a insulting manner by asserting that she isn’t doing this for her son but because she wants media attention.”
I know this is dangerous territory, but ever on I guess. (And please note, I am not trying to be dismissive by assertion and am not using “media whore”). But we can certainly agree that
a) she wants media attention
b) she wants media attention for her views on the war
c) it is not at all clear that her views on the war are similar to her son’s views on the war (in fact the admitedly small amount of evidence available on Casey’s views seems to be to the the contrary).
Therefore it is not crazy to contest the idea that she is attempting to get media attention “for her son” in the sense that she is acting as a proxy for him or his opinion. She should not be seen as speaking for him (though interestingly to sci-fi geeks, you could argue that she is trying to be a “Speaker for the Dead” in the sense of trying to write a narrative about his death and life).
She is attempting to air her foreign policy views, as triggered or reinforced by her son’s death. She is using her son’s death and her grief about it as a tool to air those views because she would likely be ignored by the media if she didn’t present an emotional story. This is both because her actual foreign policy views appear to be rather weak and because the news media likes emotional stories.
That is all pretty much accurate right?
Sebastian, none of that explains why Erick used an insulting and dismissive term like “media whore”. We may analyse why people who support the war feel that Cindy Sheehan has no right to media attention, and we could also analyse why the media are willing to pay attention to a white, middle-aged, respectable woman when they might well not pay the same attention to Lori Ann Piestewa’s mother.
What we can agree, and I trust most people here would agree, is that Cindy Sheehan deserves respect, not insults.
Sebastian: I think I agree with you except for two parts: first, (b): I think she wants an answer, myself. Possibly in the sense that people who sat in at segregated lunchcounters wanted a sandwich: e.g., they would have been quite happy to be served, but expected not to be, and since they thought that it was wrong that they not be served, thought that if they weren’t, attention should be drawn to that fact. I really don’t think the point is just that she’s against the war.
Second, and similarly, I don’t think she’s “attempting to air her foreign policy views”; she’s attempting to get an answer to the question, why her son died, or (if no such explanation is forthcoming) to draw attention to that fact. Because I think this, I don’t see her son’s death and his grief as tools: they are (I think) inextricable from what she’s actually doing.
All speculation of course.
Meanwhile, MoveOn is organizing support vigils for Cindy Sherman. Anyone who’s interested can find one nearby by going here.
hilzoy–
“vigils for Cindy Sherman”
Is Cindy Sheehan marching to Georgia now?
“I don’t think she’s “attempting to air her foreign policy views”; she’s attempting to get an answer to the question, why her son died, or (if no such explanation is forthcoming) to draw attention to that fact.”
This can’t really be accurate. The answer is simple. “The war in Iraq.” Is that good enough? Of course not.
But, the debate about Iraq has been going on non-stop for almost three years. So much so in fact that it regularly distracts attention from what we ought to be doing in Iraq now.
In fact Bush’s answer to “what noble cause did my son die for” could probably most accurately (though not feasible politically) be answered from Bush’s perspective in “The cause I want him to have died for is long term security, peace and freedom in the Middle East. Why do you insist on making that harder with your ridiculous ideas about immediate troop removal and leaving Israel to the wolves?”
That is why her foreign policy views can’t be divorced from her question. The reason that “Iraq” is not a sufficient answer to her question flows directly from her foreign policy views. The fact is that with her foreign policy views she is not going to find anything remotely realistic acceptable.
“Iraq” might not be sufficient for you because you want to raise questions like “Why didn’t you plan for the aftermath better?” or “What are you going to do now?”. But that is because your foreign policy views are non-ridiculous.
BTW this reminds me of my answer to rilkefan’s first question at the top of the thread. (I came late to this one, sorry).
The “noble cause” soldiers die for can really only be judged in retrospective. We typcially give them the benefit of the doubt on “noble cause” while they are actually dying. That is why I phrased Bush’s theoretical response the way I did.
Also, “noble” and “unsuccessful” are not inherently contradictory.
Mr. Holsclaw–
“The “noble cause” soldiers die for can really only be judged in retrospective.”
Would you care to elaborate, with examples?
I should have thought that Washington could have answered a soldier’s mother with great ease: the cause is, will be, and always was the independence of the Colonies from Great Britain.
Ditto for FDR: the cause is the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies.
Now, I will grant you that in this war, we need to keep wondering what the cause might be until the Rove/Bush/DeLay gang tells us the game of Musical Rationales has stopped. Then maybe we will get a fixed rationale, for once.
But isn’t that rather anomalous in American history? Haven’t we usually identified *one* cause, beforehand, and stuck with that cause throughout?
Rather than, say, insisting at first that the cause was WMD and connections to al Qaeda, and then later suggesting the cause is ME democracy, and then later “lowering expectations” to merely preserving our national reputation, and so on?
Could Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, etc. really have been unable to specify the noble cause, except in *retrospect*? I am surprised.
regarding Tacitus’s “self-evident” truths:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
So, as usual, I disagree with just about everything Tacitus says. The self-evident truths, for americans, are about LIBERTY, not democracy. Our democratic state flows from our commitment to liberty, not vice versa.
So Tacitus sez: “defeating Islamist insurgents in Iraq, bringing democracy there, and securing American interests in the region”
Oddly enough, no one has pointed out that these three points are internally inconsistent. While “securing American interests” may align with “defeating Islamist insurgents”, the American interest goal does not align with the democracy goal. We are seeing the proof of this today, as we see the various drafts of the new Iraqi constitution.
It’s not like American foreign policy in the Middle East was managed by morons over the last 50 years. There was a good reason to back non-democratic states; they supported us.
Various idiots have pointed to the incredible success of Eastern European states in throwing off the mantle of Communism as a model for what could happen in the Middle East. But the opposition groups in Poland, for example, saw the US as providing a model alternative to their repressive government.
What do opposition parties in the Middle East see in the US? A supporter of Israel, an arms merchant supporting corrupt governments, a crusader.
How can pro-war/pro-democracy conservatives possibly be so screamingly naive as to believe that Middle East democratic states would be pro-West? For g-d’s sake, look at Iran!
As Brad DeLong has asked a hundred times recently, where are the grownup conservatives?
“It’s not like American foreign policy in the Middle East was managed by morons over the last 50 years. There was a good reason to back non-democratic states; they supported us.”
We need to pay attention to context. There was a good reason to back non-democratic states; they supported us in the fight against the global spread of one of Communism–one of the most effective and murderous ideologies in history (I judge that on a number of people murdered per year basis). All evidence suggests that they do not particularly support us against militant Islamism. Many of them either actively or passively support militant Islamism.
The failure to reevaluate Cold War alliances in light of the problem of militant Islamism is a serious failure (yes of the Bush administration and others).
Tad – re unitary causes/rationales, the Civil War/Lincoln is probably a counterexample to your claim.
“Haven’t we usually identified *one* cause, beforehand, and stuck with that cause throughout?”
Actually no. The run-up to WWII before Pearl Harbor exhibited a huge number of rationales being thrown around. WWI involvement had even more. The Declaration of Independence has a huge number of things going on in it. The Civil War had a couple of things going on too–so much so that some people still try to pretend it had little to do with slavery.
Often the public rationales have been largely personality driven–King George, Hitler, Tojo.
Sebastian- I just have to comment on this: “c) it is not at all clear that her views on the war are similar to her son’s views on the war (in fact the admitedly small amount of evidence available on Casey’s views seems to be to the the contrary). ”
She has said that Casey was opposed to the war, but felt it was his duty to go.
What reason do you have for doubting her word about her son? (Ok thats really a rhetorical question, she is simply on the wrong side for you not to simply assume that she is a liar.) Convenient for you, but I think a wide application of this practice might render political discussion with you pointless, so just forget I said anything.
Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother, and she should be given a modicum of respect. No matter her desire to place herself before cameras and journalists, those calling her a media whore made inappropriate and counterproductive statements, no matter how much her actions fit the definition. By the same token, Sheehan and her supporters shouldn’t use her son’s death to shield her from her controversial words.
Sheehan is exploiting her son’s death to promote her own personal agenda to get American troops out of Iraq immediately. She is using dKos, crackpot Moore and other outlets every bit as much as the Leftist Brigades are using her. Because she has made her cause so public and so political, she is subject to just as much scrutiny and criticism as any other dKos/Moore denizen, and there is plenty of moonbattery to criticize her about.
As with Michael Berg and his loony tune outbursts, there comes a time to stop averting the eyes, face her words square on and challenge them when they cross into the realm of loopy left-wing rhetoric.
The best way to honor Casey Sheehan’s life is to deliver a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic to the Iraqi people. Too bad that Mrs. Sheehan’s “solution” means that Casey will have died for nothing, or worse.
Can we throw in universal peace and prosperity and a few readable villanelles and a cure for caries to honor Casey? Or we can continute to ignore the first rule of holes.
“She has said that Casey was opposed to the war, but felt it was his duty to go.”
It is quite clear that Casey did not oppose the war in the same sense as his mother did or he would not have re-enlisted.
rilkefan–
you have in mind the prominence or centrality of Emancipation, I assume. Yes, I agree that adds some complications to the picture, but not too many.
The connection between the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery was tangled, on both sides (it is “somehow involved”, as he says in the Second Inaugural). It seems to me that Lincoln was sincere and honest in his desire to see slavery ended, but that he was also consistent in his stance that the war itself was started, prosecuted, and completed, in order to preserve the Union. If faced with a grieving mother, his answer would have been the same at any date: “that the nation… shall not perish from the earth.”
Brad DeLong recently posted a link to an astounding speech by a leading Confederate, speaking in 1861 and asserting that the war is all about the preservation of Slavery. But his description of what he is fighting for does not control what Lincoln fought for.
CB: “deliver a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic to the Iraqi people.”
Yeah, man! Call Dominos. They’ll do it in 30 minutes or less and throw in an order of CinnaStix!
I’m with Francis: “where are the grownup conservatives?”
“…those calling her a media whore made inappropriate and counterproductive statements, no matter how much her actions fit the definition. ”
Thank you, Mr. Bird, for expressing such a forthright and unequivocal condemnation.
It is quite clear that Casey did not oppose the war in the same sense as his mother did or he would not have re-enlisted.
That’s not at all clear. My father continued to re-up in the Army despite being repeatedly sent back to Vietnam, a war he was not at all eager to fight. These things are complicated.
Charles: Don’t you think that perhaps Mrs. Sheehan, whatever her politics, is in a better position to decide how best her son’s life should be honored than you or I are?
Tad – right, good comment from CB.
But “vanish from the earth”? More like, shed its nether half for disinterest in “of the people”.
xanax – like the Dominoes suggestion, though readers of _Snow Crash_ might have a different organization in mind.
“a war he was not at all eager to fight”
That is rather different than Ms. Sheehan’s ‘pull out now’.
Sebastian, she has made it quite clear that Casey reenlisted out of loyalty to his fellow soldiers. That is completely consistent with a desire to bring the troops home.
Maybe it is bad policy (I honestly don’t know at this point, whereas prior to the 2004 election I though we had a shot at cleaning up W’s mess, given a change in leadership), and maybe she is incorrect in her understanding of Casey’s stance toward the war, but there is nothing the least bit inconsistent about it.
The best way to honor Casey Sheehan’s life is to deliver a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic to the Iraqi people.
And, of course, a pony. If Ms Sheehan’s protest can accomplish anything, it is to elicit a serious answer to the question: what can the US actually accomplish in Iraq? If Iraqis are free then they can vote for theocrats. Given the beliefs they actually hold, that is what they will do. Indeed, that is what they have already done. The debate about the constitution centres on the precise form which theocracy will take. SCIRI wants to wield power at regional level. Sistani’s followers fear that would lead to the breakup of the country. Both want a legal system which treats Islam as the supreme law. If they can agree a compromise it will look a lot more like Iran’s system than Turkey’s. Iraq is not going to be both free and secular in the sense that we understand those terms. As for being peaceful, that will require a constitutional setup which is acceptable to Kurds, who want a loose federation, and Sunni Arabs, who want a highly centralised government.
US troops cannot resolve these contradictions. They can play a limited part, for a limited time. They can discourage the use of terror by the more obstinate factions. They can provide a modicum of security while the Iraqis are rebuilding their army. But they can’t stick around for very long. Recruitment is down and it won’t pick up until an end to this operation is in sight.
A sensible response to Ms Sheehan would be to face these facts and present a realistic plan for extricating the military while salvaging whatever can be salvaged in terms of relations with the Iraqis. In 2003 a Pentagon analyst, speaking off the record I think, gave his definition of success: “It will be a success if we can get out without them hating us.” If Ms Sheehan can get an answer as honest as that she will have done America and the world some service.
Can we throw in universal peace and prosperity and a few readable villanelles and a cure for caries to honor Casey?
And a pony!
Methinks a few people missed Tad’s sarcasm. Either that, or my meter is miscalibrated due to the irony content of the average CB paragraph.
“The best way to honor Casey Sheehan’s life is to deliver a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic to the Iraqi people.”
Excellent sentiments, BD; and certainly aims which I (and others, I am sure) can agree with; and which might go at least some way towards framing (a la Tacitus) the war on Iraq as a “noble cause” in truth, not just in rhetoric.
Unfortunately, in the 28 months since the initial invasion of Iraq, I have not seen the slightest bit of evidence that the Bush Adminstration has, or has ever had, any intention of taking concrete steps towards creating the Mesopotamian Utopia you envision, or even that they have (or ever had) the comptetance or political will to do so. Nor do I, at this point in time, see any but the most wishful-thinking. rose-colored-glasses, clap-your-hands-or-Tinkerbell-will-die chance that this type of government has, or will have, ANY possibility of coming into existence given the current state of the country. Said state, of course, being a direct result of Bush Adminstration foulups – but hey, that’s only “reality”: after all, this Administration makes its own.
Actually, a pony would be rather easy to deliver.
Ah, but how do we know a pony is what Casey Sheehan would have wanted?
That is rather different than Ms. Sheehan’s ‘pull out now’.
last time i checked, Cindy Sheehan wasn’t authorized to control the deployment of the US military. why do Bushistas insist on talking about her as if she is ?
Actually, a pony would be rather easy to deliver
it’d be even easier for W to send a car down to the gate to pick Mrs Sheehan up so they could have their little conversation.
maybe when W is done with his wellness regimen.
The government has no interest in protecting the people they only wish to consolidate their power by use fear and hate which will lead to more death. They are making men and women of the military fight for the government’s hold on power. Extremist ideas of fear and hate can not be fought with weapons, violence only strengthens the extremist hold on people’s minds. Regular people will start to believe them. The extremism becomes acceptable and getting out of it only becomes more difficult. The argument for reason must be spread to counter the fear and hate, and their opposites must replace them.
Never listen to the words of those with authority and power, just look at what they have done.
Noted, that the lefties in this thread and in my most recent post think Iraq is a lost cause. In my view, it’s only lost if we lose our political will to prevail. That should’ve been a prime lesson learned from Vietnam. Sadly, it looks like that lesson didn’t take here. Iraq is a central front in the War Against Militant Islamists. If we lose in Iraq by not bringing about a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic, then the consequences will indeed be dire.
Noted, that the lefties in this thread and in my most recent post think Iraq is a lost cause.
Other than naive optimism, could you please give precise, specific tangible reasons why you believe Iraq is not a lost cause? In case the plethora of adjectives weren’t clear enough, answers like “Because we’re Americans and we never give up!” or “Because if we stick the course, everything will turn out all right in the end!” are not acceptable; I’m looking for something more concrete than mere faith.
In my view, it’s only lost if we lose our political will to prevail. That should’ve been a prime lesson learned from Vietnam. Sadly, it looks like that lesson didn’t take here.
May I suggest you read this comment, by an actual historian of Southeast Asia, before you so blithely instruct us as to “a prime lesson learned from Vietnam”?
“If we lose in Iraq by not bringing about a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic, then the consequences will indeed be dire.”
Just to be clear, the likely after-effect of an Islamist win in Iraq is far more catastrophic for the world than the loss in Vietnam–and I’m counting the Cambodian genocide in my calculus.
If we lose in Iraq by not bringing about a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic, then the consequences will indeed be dire.
The point at which I knew Iraq was lost was when, by .5%, the US declined to sack the President/administration who was responsible for the utter catastrophe that is Iraq, and to let him continue to mismanage the war for another four years. By 2009, the earliest we can hope for anything better, I doubt if anything will be recoverable. Since you appeared to feel, in 2004, that the President/administration responsible for the utter catastrophe that is Iraq ought to be allowed/encouraged to continue on their merry way, one may presume that you care less about success in Iraq that you do about whatever reasons you have for supporting Bush.
I for one, CB, would appreciate you not telling me what I think.
To make the record clear, I think it’s extremely unlikely that there is any outcome which would (ex ante) have justified the expense in blood and treasure.
I think, as I did at the beginning of the war, that Bush pere was correct: invading Iraq successfully would take a commitment that the US was unwilling to make.
I think that the administration has no coherent idea how to get from where we are to a “free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic” except to hope that one comes about spontaneously. Hope, as they said in high school s e x ed class, is not a method.
I’m not sure what you mean by a lost cause. Do you mean that the thecrats are going to win? They’ve already won once at the ballot box, and are likely to do so again. What little political news comes out of Iraq these days suggests that there is virtually no support for a strong central and secular govt.
I’d be thrilled to be proved wrong; I just like my chances more than yours.
I’m with Anarch, Charles: reasons, please?
Also, my somewhat vague sense of your age leaves me unclear as to whether or not you would have been following the war in Vietnam at the time. But I was, and have been thinking about it since, and I have always found the idea that it was defeatism that did us in absurd. It’s a complete rewriting of history, as far as I’m concerned.
Charles,
We are still in Iraq and it doesn’t look like we will be leaving soon. Your party has control of the executive and the legislative brances of government.
What does your party have to do to save Iraq from the lefties who are eroding the political will of our country?
How much more power do the Republicans need in order to turn things around in Iraq? A filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Is that the last thing stopping the Republicans from saving the day in Iraq?
I thought President Bush didn’t govern based on polls? If that is the case why should the will of the American people matter?
“But I was, and have been thinking about it since, and I have always found the idea that it was defeatism that did us in absurd. It’s a complete rewriting of history, as far as I’m concerned.”
Hmm. This is way to complicated a topic for today, but I suspect the answer to that question depends upon what time frame you want to analyze. The small measured-response method of war-making was a stupid way of going about things–it tends to make wars last longer. Longer drawn-out wars end up seeming more unacceptable than short vicious wars. Which was one of my key problems with the Bush response to the initial insurgency. Far better to say ‘all is not yet well, we are still at war’ and be brutal about it for a short time than pretend that we should go into rebuilding mode as if everything was fine which ends up prolonging everything and letting people become radicalized over long periods of time. And for those who want to revisit my personal history, that is especially why I detested Kerry’s version of foreign policy because it was even less willing to do the actual fighting.
Sebastian: than pretend that we should go into rebuilding mode as if everything was fine
Ah, if only Bush & Co had gone into rebuilding mode. Unfortunately, they went into pillage mode.
Things might have been very different if Bush & Co really had been determined to rebuild Iraq successfully, hiring Iraqi firms, using Iraqi workers, from the very beginning. It was, as I’m sure you’re well aware, one of their major mistakes that they decided instead to award fat contracts to US firms… who then didn’t start rebuilding.
Noted, that the lefties in this thread and in my most recent post think Iraq is a lost cause. In my view, it’s only lost if we lose our political will to prevail. That should’ve been a prime lesson learned from Vietnam. Sadly, it looks like that lesson didn’t take here. Iraq is a central front in the War Against Militant Islamists. If we lose in Iraq by not bringing about a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic, then the consequences will indeed be dire.
This is nonsense. Whether or not something is a lost cause depends on objective facts on the ground — not your musings and yearnings. You cannot make success simply by wishing and trying real hard.
As for the Viet Nam war, it was lost because even Republicans were not willing to advocate what was necessary to win; i.e., invade the North and defeat its military at the source. Please remember who ran the policy from 1969 to the end of the war. If you want to know why that war was lost, examine the reasoning of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger as to why they did not advocate doing what it would take to win. It had nothing to do with a lack of political will, but a cold-blooded calculation that such an effort was not in US interests.
As for Iraq’s future, the people of Iraq for the most part want a barely democratic Islamic Republic – far more like Iran than anything you wish for. No Iraqi faction of note supports your utopian vision of success in Iraq. So it makes absolutely no sense to define succes as something that cannot occur because none of the locals want it.
Maintaining political will in the US to pursue utopian nonsense does not improve the prospects of achieving it.
As Donoghue said in his comment:
In 2003 a Pentagon analyst, speaking off the record I think, gave his definition of success: “It will be a success if we can get out without them hating us.”
Even that is no longer attainable, and one of the catastrophically bad consequences of the Iraq nonsense is that the US standing in the entire Middle East is now at an all time low, and will probably not recover in our lifetimes.
Just to be clear, the likely after-effect of an Islamist win in Iraq is far more catastrophic for the world than the loss in Vietnam–and I’m counting the Cambodian genocide in my calculus.
If you mean a situation where there is a President Zarqawi, I suppose I see where you are going. There is, however, no chance at all of a President Zarqawi ruling over Iraq.
If you’re saying, though that a Mayor Zarqawi of Falluja (or, more properly, Mayor Zarqawi’s friend — a citizen of Iraq) is ‘defeat’ — then you should be pretty upset with the execution, because this is where our policy has been going since day one. Saddam was the bulwark against Islamism. You only get the same benefit when you replace him with Saddam-lite. Allowed to vote, many provinces are going to elect theocrats of either stripe. Some provincial governments are going to be more tolerant of religious extremism than others. (On the grander geopolitical scale, Iraq will either be aligned with Iran, or will be developing a substantial WMD capability to deter Iran from invading. Those are the choices).
Anbar may never get to the state of pre-10/6/01 Afghanistan, but one should expect it to be like Pakistan is today, at best. Because that’s what its people will choose for themselves.
Would you consider a state that is as democratic as Pakistan, but also as tolerant of extremism as Pakistan, to be a victory or a defeat?
The answer is easy for the Pres and his unquestioning supporters: it’s a victory, because it’s important that the Pres not be ‘a loser.’ For the rest of us — and I consider SH is that set — it’s not so simple.
Wishing the problem away, though, won’t make it go away.
Whether or not something is a lost cause depends on objective facts on the ground
Indeed, the revisionists want to push the dolchstosslegende about Vietnam, but the “facts on the ground” in Vietnam in 1974 looked like this:
DMZ: owned by the NVA, both sides of it.
Khe Sanh: NVA.
A Shau valley: NVA, with a nice new NVA-built road down the middle.
Dak To: NVA.
Ia Drang, Plei Me: NVA.
Cambodian Border: NVA.
Iron Triangle: NVA.
NVA owned nearly every battlefield where they had been “defeated”. Granted, the VC were largely finished by 1974, but objectively, things were a lot worse for the GVN vis-a-vis the PAVN in 1974 than 1964. This was the reality the bipartisan dove contingent saw 1973-74. We could have provisioned the RVNAF better (we did leave them in the lurch by cutting their aid to the bone apparently), but by 1974 the “will” was gone for good reason.
Jesurgislac–
Thanks for the link to the Naomi Klein piece. I had not read that before. Is the article credible? Have its claims been confirmed?
I ask in part because it ratifies many of my informal impressions derived from other sources, i.e. that the reconstruction diverged completely from the success after WWII, because that was run by New Dealers and this was run by neo-cons and Chicago school fanatics.
But the very fact that it ratifies my own impressions gives me greater reason to ask whether it is credible.
Tad, I rarely cite that Naomi Klein piece for the same reason: it ratifies my own impressions of what’s going on, but I have seen little formal confirmation. What I have seen is much anecdotal evidence, from Iraqi bloggers, from journalists who venture outside the Green Zone (and given the risks of doing so, from both insurgents and US soldiers, fewer and fewer do) that they have seen little sign of any major construction, neither directly nor indirectly: and you can find a host of anecdotes from people who were involved in 2003 all over the place about the inexperienced staffers with a neocon agenda – Hilzoy did a post about one of them, not long ago, who didn’t want judges in Iraq to have the right to make new common law, because that might mean decisions like Roe vs. Wade.
The idea of selling off Iraqi industries to the highest bidder was mooted in 2003: I remember reading it in contemporary news accounts, and the conclusion that this was unlawful. The sale failed, partly because of the growing insurrection, and partly because the biggest corporations had evidently consulted their lawyers, worked out that they might well be forced to hand back what they had bought in Bush’s firesale a few years down the line, and prudently didn’t play. That Iraqis on the ground were aware of Bush’s plans to sell off their nationalized industries to non-Iraqis is a common-sense conclusion: what’s available in public media is available to anyone with an Internet connection. That this would have made them furious and afraid for their livelihoods is a deduction, on my part, but I think a reasonable one.
“In my view, it’s only lost if we lose our political will to prevail. That should’ve been a prime lesson learned from Vietnam. Sadly, it looks like that lesson didn’t take here. Iraq is a central front in the War Against Militant Islamists. If we lose in Iraq by not bringing about a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic, then the consequences will indeed be dire.”
Murple. This may not be the best post you’ve ever written. I do hope the consequences are at least as well as those of Vietnam.
What was that “prime lesson,” though? Not fighting a land war in Asia? Not deluding ourselves that a war had more consequences to lose than it did? Not viewing things over decades of perspective rather than through the passions of the day? Or those we were instructed in at the time? Communism will conquer the world soon! Red China will conquer India! Europe will fall to Communism?
Those sorts of things? Dire, indeed. Realistic? Not so much.
Oh, yeah, we only lost the Vietnam War because of back-stabbers on our side. We tied our own hands. We didn’t nuke Russia and China like we shoulda. If only we had nuked Hanoi, we woulda won.
Were you around for the war, and if not, who is your main source of info on it, Charles?
“Hilzoy did a post about one of them, not long ago, who didn’t want judges in Iraq to have the right to make new common law, because that might mean decisions like Roe vs. Wade.”
Don’t you think it is a wee bit more likely that we are worried they will try to enact sharia law?
Sebastian: well, I think that is a much more serious concern. However, from this article, which I cited in this post:
Thanks, Hilzoy. I should have searched back and found the post myself, of course: sorry that my laziness confused you, Sebastian.
Other than naive optimism, could you please give precise, specific tangible reasons why you believe Iraq is not a lost cause?
“Naive optimism”? Hooey, Anarch. Read the McCaffrey report for starters. I’ve always said that post-war Iraq would be a difficult slog, and our poor execution and goal-lowering is not helping. The Eeyore-like left-leaning media–which overcovers bombings and killings and undercovers everything else–is also not helping, and neither are loser-defeatists like Frank Rich and Joan Walsh: “Even as Sheehan’s public relations victories give people reason to be optimistic about the administration’s unraveling in Iraq, liberals and war opponents have to be careful not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” Why would any American want to feel optimism for our unraveling? Why would Walsh consider an unraveling a liberal “victory”? What kind of anti-American downtalking is that?
Like it or not, this is America’s war–approved overwhelming by the legislative branch and upheld by the courts–not just Bush’s. It is in every American’s best interests, not just Republicans, to achieve victory as quickly and efficiently as possible. The real disaster would be leaving prematurely, allowing terrorists and Sunni/Baathist troublemakers an upper hand and not securing an environment for the establishment of a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic. The fact remains that we are the most powerful country in human history, and our main opposition are groups of paramilitary thugs and mostly non-Iraqi terrorists. They will lose, provided we have the sticktuitiveness to overcome. It’s only a lost cause if enough people like you believe it is.
Charles: It is in every American’s best interests, not just Republicans, to achieve victory as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Certainly Republicans do not perceive it in their best interests to achieve victory in Iraq as quickly and efficiently as possible: after all, it was Republicans who selected Bush for the 2004 election, well after it was clear that Bush & Co were a disaster area in Iraq.
In other news, I note that you really don’t want to answer Anarch’s question: “could you please give precise, specific tangible reasons why you believe Iraq is not a lost cause?”
Do you have any precise, specific tangible reasons why you believe Iraq is not a lost cause?
“They will lose, provided we have the sticktuitiveness to overcome. It’s only a lost cause if enough people like you believe it is.”
Mr. Bird–
This is the line of thought that I simply can’t fathom. What do the beliefs of “people like” Anarch have to do with whether it is safe to drive a car from the Baghdad Airport to the Green Zone?
This is a war, not a popularity contest. The US Army is not Tinkerbell–at least *I* certainly don’t think so. There are objectives to be met, and we need to figure out means to meet them.
It just baffles me. The two things that I thought I could count on from Bush supporters were unflinching self-reliance, and haughty contempt for the polls.
Remember? That’s your boy–he doesn’t read the polls, he just does what’s *right*. So, that’s fine, just keep doing what’s *right*. And, by the way, give us some inkling of how this *right* course of action has any *conceivable* connection to a realistic plan for bringing about victory. But that aside, just go ahead and do it–what people like Anarch might think isn’t going to stop Bush–not even what whole polls worth of them think, because he doesn’t lead by the polls.
And he doesn’t need any help, either–he doesn’t need the French, or the Germans, or the UN, or Democratic Senators, either. He has the entire US army, navy, and air force at his disposal, as well as the Senate, House, WH, and media. He’s going to lead with 51% of the country, and that’s enough to pass any legislation he wants, write any executive orders he wants, send soldiers anywhere, do anything the might of the US can do.
So why all of a sudden is the whole thing vulnerable to what a couple of liberals might or might not think? Why all of a sudden is it an incredibly fragile project that might crumble if liberals don’t clap loud enough?
Look–your gang has all the sticktuitiveness we need. There is no effective Democratic party. There is no effective anti-war opposition. You’ve got all the resources, and all the time in the world.
So go to it! Just, when you get a chance, give us the bare *outline* of a plan, could you?
. . . the establishment of a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic . . .
You know, when the Iraqis actually vote for Islamist theocrats — because that’s who they want in the government — I believe your head might actually just implode.
The fact remains that we are the most powerful country in human history, and our main opposition are groups of paramilitary thugs and mostly non-Iraqi terrorists. They will lose, provided we have the sticktuitiveness to overcome. It’s only a lost cause if enough people like you believe it is.
Well, that’s a steaming load of crap. Would you mind actually answering the question I posed instead of the question I explicitly said I wasn’t asking?
ONE MUST DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEATH AND
THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE DEATH OCCURS.
SOME MILITARY OPERATIONS HAVE LESS THAN NOBLE GOALS. DYING FOR ONE’S COUNTRY AND OTHER SACRIFICES ON BEHALF OF OTHERS HAVE A FAIR CLAIM TO HONOR, BUT IF THE DEATH OCCURS VIA PARTICIPATION IN A MILITARY OPERATION WITH THE GOAL, SAY, OF MAKING UZBEKISTAN SAFE FOR BURGER KING– OR BRUTALLY SECURING OIL SUPPLIES UNDER THE PRETEXT OF BRINGING REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, WELL, THOSE ARE NOT NOBLE CAUSES FROM MY POINT OF VIEW AND ARE IGNOBLE USES OF A SOLDIER’S HONORABLE WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE. WE ARE RIGHT TO HONOR THE SACRIFICE AND EQUALLY RIGHT TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT THE CAUSE IS JUST AND WORTH THAT SACRIFICE, AND IF IT IS NOT— IT IS OUR DUTY AS CITIZENS TO DECLARE THAT IT IS NOT.