Hitchens: Sheehan case "sentimental nonsense"

Hitchens: Sheehan case "sentimental nonsense"

Christopher Hitchens, in a cold denunciation of Maureen Dowd's philosophical bestowal of "absolute moral authority" upon Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier, says that he distrusts "anyone who claims to speak for the fallen."

While I agree with that opinion when it comes to political groups or individuals who do not have loved ones who have served in the military, I vehemently disagree that a mother does not have moral authority to speak out after losing her son to an American cause. It was her sacrifice, too.

"...and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them," says Christopher Hitchens.

No one is asking for Mr. Hitchens' trust, it seems. If anyone out there is opining about Mrs. Sheehan, they are either voicing their moral support for the woman as the mother of a fallen soldier, or they are smearing her with every ridiculous excuse they can find.

I don't trust Christopher Hitchens here, which falls right in line with his own philosophy, curiously. So I suppose he would have no argument with me.

He begins his column with one of the angriest anti-neocon statements he could dig up on Mrs. Sheehan.

What is "dreary sentimental nonsense" to the matter-of-fact intellectual Christpher Hitchens is pure Apple Pie to most Americans. What he neatly categorizes away as the military and its relatives having no extra claim on the chief executive's ear is about as accurate as saying that those who serve in the military get no special respect in America, when in reality they are held on a pedestal when they fight our wars. (Just look at all the yellow ribbon magnets - which Hitchens will probably say is "sentimental nonsense" and a "waste of space" as well).

A mother's love for her child is fierce. Mr. Hitchens should know better. It's not about the head - it's about the heart. The maternal instict is traditionally American and universally accepted. Motherhood does not end at a child's death.

Mr. Hitchens asks:

"Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal?

The question, rephrased, is: Are we so sure he WOULDN'T?"

Voila! None of us has the answer.

You are still free to decide if a mother has special moral authority to speak for her fallen young man - a boy she raised to love his nation enough to serve it as a loyal soldier.

"Sentimental nonsense" indeed.

__________

About Cindy Sheehan's words to President Bush, Butler Shaffer writes:

"This is powerful language, not just because it comes from a mother whose son was killed as a result of an act of unprovoked aggression by the United States against Iraq; but because her words are a clear challenge to the collective mindset upon which every mob depends for its power. Cindy’s stance is reminiscent of that of Wang Wei-lin, the young man who confronted the row of Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989. When the human spirit stands up to the cold, faceless, dehumanizing, destructive machinery of the state, there is a release of emotional energy whose force transcends material calculation."

How Pat Roberts helped fix pre-war intelligence

How Pat Roberts helped fix pre-war intelligence

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!
Did I tell you or not?

Raw Story has received limited access to intelligence documents which reveal how Senator Pat Roberts and a handful of other strategically-placed Washington players stymied all questions into pre-war intelligence on Iraq and post-invasion cover-ups, including the outing of a CIA covert agent, by using targeted leaks and artfully deflecting blame from the White House

From Raw Story:

"....what was said to be an effort to protect the United States became a tool by which the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) ensured there was no serious investigation into how the administration fixed the intelligence that took the United States to war in Iraq or the fabricated documents used as evidence to do so."

Kudos to Muriel Kane and Larisa Alexandrovna.
Here are links:

Page One of Robert's activities: Senate Intelligence chairman quietly 'fixed' intelligence, and diverted blame from White House over Iraq

Page Two of Roberts' activities: Through leaks and smears, Senate chairman protects White House to blame CIA, Democrats

Presidential directive [pdf]


I would still like to see hack journalist Jeff Gannon/Talon News' part in this. Was Roberts leaking the INR memo information to the fake journalist as part of a plan to smear Joseph Wilson? The CIA was extremely pissed off at whoever did.

Is Powerline Slandering Mother of Fallen Soldier?

slander: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
defame: charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone

Is Powerline Slandering Mother of Fallen Soldier?
You decide.

John Hinderaker is clearly desperate - accusing mother of fallen soldier Cindy Sheehan of "anti-Semitism" because an organization called the Crawford Peace House, has provided her with moral and financial support.

This is forwarding a false notion (some may call it slander) that Mrs. Sheehan is far more involved in the politics of Israel than she has ever been.

I've seen no material indication whatsoever that Israel has ever been a pointed concern of Ms. Sheehan's, other than the discomfort she feels with the neocon/Israeli connection and the Bush administration's foreign policy on Iraq. Recent U.S. indictments against the Pentagon's Lawrence Franklin would reasonably support this kind of suspicion. One doesn't have to be an anti-Semite or anti-American to be concerned about the outing of a CIA agent, the smearing of Joseph Wilson, the 16 words in the President's 2003 SOTU speech, the Downing Street memo leaks, the likelihood of the abuse of intelligence by war planners, and the abuse of the public trust in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

We know one thing clearly:

America and support of its troops is the grieving mother's overt cause.

Excerpt from Powerline:

Cindy Sheehan: is she a poor, benighted woman unhinged and rendered irrational by grief, or is she a calculating, vicious anti-Semite and anti-American like the extremists with whom she associates?

Slanderous!

The woman is no more irrational than is she an anti-American OR an anti-Semite.
She is very clear in her mission.
She's had an anguished year to pay close attention to President Bush's words about the Iraq cause.
She wants clarity, honesty, truth. She wants an end to slogans and spin.
Most Americans are fed up with the slogans and the spin.

What's anti-American to ask for truth, transparency, and honesty?

A mistake the radical right often makes is to portray themselves as Israel's only friends, and it's laughable.

I fully support the people of Israel and their democracy. Most liberal Jews support the people of Israel. It doesn't mean every last thing the Israeli government does is something all must agree with or they are automatically official anti-Semites.

Poppycock!

I can't speak for Cindy Sheehan's opinion on Israel, except that it seems to only revolve around the palpable anguish she feels over the loss of her heroic son, the fallen American soldier fighting for America's cause.

Here's something Cindy has actually said about Israel:

"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neocon PNAC agenda after 9/11.

I guess the booming majority of Americans who put stock in this same opinion, after reviewing all the facts that have been laid out for media consumption, are all anti-Semites. (NOT!).

The Israel/Palestine problem isn't the reason Cindy Sheehan's in Crawford, regardless of who's deciding to offer their support.

In the case of activism regarding Israel's politics, Crawford House is fair game.

Have at Eugene Bird; have at Ward Churchill.

Just don't expect anyone with half a brain to think Mrs. Sheehan's in lockstep-league with Eugene Bird and Ward Churchill.

Cindy Sheehan is not fair game. She's in this cause because of her son Casey, a boy she helped along to become an Eagle Scout. Nothing she has done implies that she is an "anti-Semite" as Powerline is falsely accusing her of.

If Hinderaker and the Little Green Footballs crowd want to go for a political target, I would expect them to get tough on Crawford House, but to imply that Cindy Sheehan is a wild-eyed Jew hater is so ridiculous that if Powerline wasn't such a visible sight, I would laugh it off.

By the way, if you don't agree with every move the Israeli government makes, it doesn't make you an anti-Semite, you pea-brained f**king fools - just as criticizing our government is our democratic responsibility and is not anti-American.

_ _ _

Note - If you want a real whiff of what anti-Semitism is about, see William Donahue, the leader of the radical Catholic League, who recently said "Jews who hate Jesus control Hollywood."

____________


UPDATE -

I have been categorized as "heaping on apologetics" for Cindy Sheehan by a fellow blogger because of an e-mail he dug up on a search. Here's what I said, in response:

I do try not to practice hyperbole, so I must say that I don't think your categorization of my "heaping on apologetics" was a fair one at all.

I do think that Powerline was coming very close to slandering Mrs. Sheehan, I stand by that, and Mrs. Sheehan has said this herself:

"Another "big deal" today was the lie that I had said that Casey died for Israel. I never said that, I never wrote that. I had supposedly said it in a letter that I wrote to Ted Koppel's producer in March. I wrote the letter because I was upset at the way Ted treated me when I appeared at a Nightline Town Hall meeting in January right after the inauguration. I felt that Ted had totally disrespected me. I wrote the letter to Ted Bettag and cc'd a copy to the person who gave me Ted's address. I believe he (the person who gave me the address) changed the email and sent it out to capitalize on my new found notoriety by promoting his own agenda. Enough about that."

In addition, I wish to comment that, when we call people out as anti-Semites, the accusation means a lot more, in its connotation, than saying you think someone is angry with Neoconservatives and governments. It is an accusation with overtones of hatred for an entire race. It is ludicrous to accuse Ms. Sheehan of such hatred.

Bottom line, I prefer to give Mrs. Sheehan the benefit of the doubt, based upon her own words. If I'm wrong, I'm still no apologist. I'm simply somone who chose to take the word of a distraught mother of fallen soldier over right wing partisans at Powerline who will go to any length to discredit her. No apologies.

Israel - -My heart lies with you today

Israel -My heart lies with you today

My hope for Israel is peace.

That's what I want to say today, at this difficult time for those who have been living in the Gaza Strip and now must leave.

My heart aches for them. I'd like to hug each one of them and tell them that their dreams won't end, because they will always have their determination and the freedom their democratic nation affords them - even if it means making a life in a new place.

I hope their nation will afford them every available opportunity for a comfortable new life.

My heart yearns for peace for this nation, filled with so many good and hopeful people from all corners of the earth who share a dream.

My prayer is that they do not lose hope - and that this move will be a positive one for the state of Israel. This is a dramatic act of good will and good faith toward Israel's Palestinian neighbors.

May it succeed, because the pain it's causing is profound.

Goalposts moved on Constitution - WaPo Positive Headline finds popularity at a time of Doubt

Goalposts moved on Constitution - WaPo Positive Headline finds popularity at a time of Doubt

I couldn't help but notice that one particular article is getting a lot of blog attention today. The headline is intriguing - Iraqi Sunnis Battle To Defend Shiites - it sounds so bold, so new, a mark of success. Curiously, it's at a time of a lot of confusion in Iraq. The goalposts have been arbitrarily moved on the deadline for the Iraq constitution, which is not in accordance with Iraq's original Transitional Administrative law.

Here's an excerpt from the WaPo article:

Washington and the U.S.-backed Iraqi transitional government have worked to split mainstream Iraqi Sunnis from the radical foreign fighters, hoping to draw them away from the insurgency and into the political process that many rejected after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated government in 2003.
[WaPo]

I have serious questions about the accuracy and tone of this particular statement.
The writers, who are both excellent writers, in my opinion, lead us to believe there are mainstream Sunnis, and there are radical foreign fighters.

And nothing in between.

They also seem to ask us to believe that Washington has consistently worked to win the hearts and minds of Sunni-Arabs, yet I have seen actions (political and military) that scream something different. One example - Operation Lightning, where Shi'ites and Kurds were employed to fight Sunni Arabs - an opening salvo to civil war if I've ever seen one.

Iraq's Sunni Arabs believe things have never been worse. As recently as two months ago, Sunni Arabs accused Shiite militiamen of killing their clerics and hounding them out of government jobs to make way for supporters of ruling coalition parties. These are not foreign fighters we're talking about here, people.

Approximately 15 percent of the population who are Sunni Arabs, primarily of the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam, subscribe to a broad spectrum of ideologies and affiliations, many of which have little to do with religion. Their ethnic identity is more of a force for either social unity or discord than their religious identity. Iraq's Sunni Arabs inhabit the valleys of the Euphrates above Baghdad, and of the Tigris between Baghdad and Mosul. Ar Ramadi is about 75 miles West of Baghdad, on the road to Damascus via Rutba. It's the capital of Al Anbar province.

The story about Sunni neighbors helping to protect Shi'ite neighbors is a positive one, and there are close ties of friendship, marriage and compassion which bind Shiites and Sunnis in Ar Ramadi. (as quoted from the WaPo article).

I am not surprised that most of these people do not want their city to be turned to rubble, as they saw happen to al Fallujah. I do not blame them for fighting back on their own. I would imagine any of us decent souls would do the same thing.

Now let's get back to the big picture.

The Sunni Arabs-Shia division has been, mostly a political and socioeconomic struggle over the allocation and distribution of wealth and political power, with "radical foreign fighters" as a minority (albeit a powerful minority).

As columnist Jim Hoagland said back in 2003, democracy has been a code word for U.S. domination to Sunni Arabs, and even many in the Shiite majority. We have never seemed to have developed a successful strategy that has convinced Sunni Arabs that a new Constitution would adequately protect their interests. We have not yet succeeded in splitting the Sunni Arab population from the killers based among them.

If we had succeeded, there would be a Consitution today, with Sunni Arabs ready and willing at the table. Instead, I've heard talk that they may have to be excluded from the Constitutional process altogether in order to meet the deadline.

It sounds as if Iraqi neighbors helped their neighbors today in Ar Ramadi. That's a good thing. I happen to believe that the Iraqi people are not unlike you or me - we have compassion for our neighbors. I'd imagine this is not an isolated incident, although it has been brought into the spotlight by the White House at a most necessary time - and for a political purpose.

The story as told by the Washington Post today, especially the misleading headline, seems frighteningly reminiscent of the old pre-war Iraq adherence to the White House-style "happy talk" without a nod to the larger reality on the ground.

Perhaps I'm just feeling defensive of hard truth after seeing the public led down a garden path in Iraq. I am confident that Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer are both wonderful writers.

It's just that today, of all days, I understand that the struggle cannot ever be "won" without winning the Sunni Arabs, and we are hearing this one bit of positive news on the day when the Iraq Constitution has failed to meet the deadline.

Is this more of the mainstream media editors creating "happy talk" headlines without the journalists properly educating the reading public about the realities? Isn't it their job to be particularly clear in thsi time when teh public is scrutinizing what they read in the press? I'm not sure who the orininal leads were for the journalists' story, so I'm not presuming to know - I'm just wondering.

Iraq remains the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist, yet even the New York Times is being pressured to talk "happy talk."

Why Ashcroft recused himself; appointed Special Counsel

Why Ashcroft recused himself; appointed Special Counsel

Murray Waas [Village Voice] is all over this Plamegate story. His latest clarifies the importance of the naming of Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and shed light on then-Attorney General Ashcroft's self-recusal. Basically, John Ashcroft appointed the special prosecutor because the FBI had questioned his Rove connections:

"...new disclosures as to why Ashcroft recused himself from the Plame case and why a special prosecutor was named are important for a number of reasons:

First, they show that from the very earliest days of the criminal probe, federal investigators had a strong belief and body of evidence that Rove and perhaps other officials might be misleading them.

Second, the new information underscores that career Justice Department staffers had concerns that the continued role of Ashcroft and other political aides might tarnish the investigation.

Finally, the new information once again highlights the importance of the testimony of journalists in uncovering whether anyone might have broken the law by disclosing classified information regarding Plame. That is because both Rove and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney—who are at the center of the Plame investigation—have said that they did not learn of Plame's employment with the CIA from classified government information, but rather journalists; without the testimony of journalists, prosecutors have been unable to get to the bottom of the matter."

Judith Miller is still sitting in jail, refusing to talk.

Blog Mockery About a Serious Subject

Blog Mockery About a Serious Subject

It genuinely pains me to see Americans mocking military families - especially when those families have lost a son or daughter to a cause in which America is engaged - in a war that many of the mockers support.

I want to share some comments I made to a person at a blogpost that I believe is particularly in poor taste, and has obviously been inspired by some major Right pundits.

The post featured a photoshopped iamge of Cindy Sheehan as a marionette, strings attached, cameras focused on her. Curiously, it asks you to "pity" Cindy Sheehan, not because she lost her boy Casey in the war and has initiated a pilgrimage to Crawford to seek a face-to-face with her President once again, but because the blogger wished to forward a political attack upon the mother's moral supporters.

Who's using who?

I had commented that I thought the posting was in poor taste, and was immediately categorized as "a moonbat," rather than being seen as an individual with individual ideas.

One reader commented:

I just believe that some things are worth fighting for and although Hrubec (another reader) in his fake indignation can't see it, this war is changing the middle east and sowing the seeds of democracy and freedom.

My reply:

You see, I can find agreement in your words.
I regret coming here and being referred to in deragotary words such as "moonbat" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Some things are, indeed, worth fighting for. Who can doubt that any one of those military families wants to believe their loved one died for a successful cause?

The problem is, this war, at least the way we've approached it to date, may have changed the Middle East for the worse. Iraq is a breeding pit for violence and terrorism today - and is already suffering the consequences of civil war, whether or not we citizens choose to see it as such.

The U.S. is resorting to 'Iraqification' - using Shi'ites and Kurds to fight Sunnis - and it's a sign that we know we have lost the original vision we may have had about "winning" the Iraq war.

What "Iraqification" actually means is sectarian fever translated into civil war. "Operation Lightning" - the highly publicized counter-insurgency fought with 40,000 mostly Shi'ite troops rounding up Sunni Arabs - can be read as an early salvo of civil war in Iraq. (see: El Salvador, 1980s)

It has been an unwinnable war all along, and President Bush was not up-front with the American public about that fact. (Just as he was not up-front while leading the American masses toward war).

If we can realize our mistakes and come up with a better, successful plan for the fragile burgeoning democracy in Iraq, I'd love to see it.

I don't want to think any of those men and women died in vain - and their families don't, either. We need to stop attacking the military families - and one another - and ask our leaders for a real plan for success which does not include employing Kurds and Shi'ites against their Iraqi brethren. Otherwise, Iraq will fall apart - and we don't want that, believe me.

If any of these sentiments and opinions are once again called Moonbat ravings, I'll consider this blog a non-productive partisan venue and will remove it from my list of blogs to check.

We deserve to give one another far more respect, and we should use more care in how we talk to one another about such serious issues.

This isn't grade school. People are dying.

Our sights have been lowered in Iraq. How will that translate to a just and noble cause? It remains to be seen. The heavy hand of reality is just now meeting with activity within the Bush administration that, to me, has bordered upon a flight of neocon fancy. How this will turn out is unclear. The new and ever-changing rationales dished out by the Bush administration are going to lead us to slow success with greatly lowered expectations - or sure failure with an unstable Middle East. The buck stops with the Commander in Chief.

I am a Democrat - and I Support Cindy Sheehan

I am a Democrat - and I Support Cindy Sheehan

I heard Fox News Sunday pundit Bill Kristol intimidate Democrats yesterday on the show. Speaking about Cindy Sheehan and the Gold Star Families for Peace (a coalition of military families whose loved ones have died in war), Kristol said "Is this the message Democrats are identifying with?"

Kristol was trying to say that supporting Casey's mother would be a "disaster" for the Democrats because of an implied "anti-war" theme. The truth is that many military families who have also lost loved ones have rushed to Mrs. Sheehan's side in search of answers to questions which they have deemed as important to their peace of mind.

Think about that for a moment. Kristol would like you to believe the Democrats who support Cindy do so because they are using her for an "anti-war" cause.

I see this as a cheap and all-too-easy "slam-dunk" for Right-minded partisans to use against the Democratic party, but the problem is actually a moral one.

When the political smoke is cleared away, and should the end of August come and Cindy Sheehan has packed in her gear and goes home alone without her President having looked her in the eye, President Bush will have had a gaping moral hole exposed for all to see.

The Right can scream all they want about military families' "anti-war" causes, but no one can remove the truth - the sons and daughters of these families have died for America's cause and what they seem to want is clarity. These families have strong moral authority.

Rather than this being an "anti-war" cause, a "successful plan" cause is closer to the truth of what these military families are calling for.

Every one of us is smart enough to know we cannot "cut and run". Our President got our country into this and we are a decent people. We need to have a plan to get them out while taking care to shore up a plan for Iraqi peace. I don't think anyone with a heart wants to see the Iraqis' burgeoning democracy fall into a void of further violence.

President Bush needs to learn a lot about the word "humility," which is one of the greatest virtues a leader could possess. He (and his administration) need to come up with a better plan for success in Iraq.

I've yet to see it.

I've been blogging about this for well over two years. During that time, I've publically pleaded with the President to act humbly, with strength, and to convince the world that he has a plan that would summon the angels of their better nature -regardless of what respective nation they live in - whether it's France, Iraq, Germany, Iran, England, Morocco, Israel, Spain, Indonesia, or Timbuktu.

But here's what Kristol, O'Reilly, Drudge, Michelle Malkin, and many others on the Right are doing, and it pains me to see them doing it: They are saying that families of fallen soldiers are "the enemy."

SC Senator Jim DeMint [jimdemint.com] was heard saying it outright. [dailykos.com]

It pains me because we are all Americans and it does not show support of our troops when we call soldiers' moms and dads "the enemy".

How could it all have come to such a sad state of civic affairs in our nation - where Republican leaders call troops' families "the enemy"?

When it comes to asking the President for clarity, truth, and honest talk, the most effective spokespeople for civic leadership are the mothers, fathers and family members of soldiers killed in Iraq, who are demanding to know why President Bush sent their sons, daughters, husbands and wives off to this war in Iraq. They're the ones with the real moral authority.

And yes, count me as one. THIS Democrat identifies with Cindy Sheehan and the Gold Star Familes. Proudly.

You may wish to see my BlogCritics.org political column [blogcritics.org]. It has garnered a lot of responses and discussion.

A particularly interesting comment (among many by vets and active duty soldiers on the comments) is #242.
Excerpt:

I am a US Paratrooper and I am curious as to how Mr. Bush would treat my mom and what all of you people would say about me and my mother if I was killed as was Casey and if my mom wanted answers as does Miss Sheehan. I am SHOCKED and ASHAMED at what I am hearing..

Articles:

The Grief of Cindy Sheehan [The Nation]

Cindy's Victory - [William Rivers Pitt - Truthout]

Someone Tell the President the War Is Over [NY Times - Frank Rich]

Doesn’t the disastrous outcome of this venture entitle Cindy Sheehan to ask a few uncomplicated questions about Judith Miller’s war? [Media Monitors Network]

Iraq: A Soldier speaks his mind, values truth

Iraq: A Soldier speaks his mind, values truth

I've pulled this directly from the page filled with almost 350 comments at my BlogCritics.org column from August 9 about Cindy Sheehan. It's easy for discussions, such as these, to get "lost in the crowd."

The following is a conversation between a reader named 'rebel' and an active duty soldier who simply refers to himself as 'wil'.

I wonder just how many American soldiers are thinking this way? In the age of internet technology, the free flow of information and the free exchange of ideas is connecting the troops to the world - and this opens a new adjustment of which war planners will have to make when plotting a strategy. (Providing that we citizens are to remain free - even at times of possibly endless war with no time-parameters or end games).

Transparence of purpose must be paramount in shipping soldiers off to battle, because they are going to hear and participate in an open discussion, even while the battle rages.

This soldier seems to have serious doubts that anyone at the top ever really cared about "democratizing Iraq." It seems that he sees the "democratizing" reason for war as an afterthought, after all other rationales for war slipped away, unsupported by truth.

Read it and decide for yourself:

__________________

Comment from a reader called 'rebel':

"As a "Proud F*ckin' Civilian", i think the mind set of those who have volunteered to protect the freedoms of my loved ones and myself are of paramount importance. You are protecting our freedoms, right?"

Wil:

The last time I checked...


Comment from 'rebel':

"I understand you’re a little disgruntled over having been lied to and being asked to accomplish a definitive action against an ideology but nobody said it would be easy."

Wil:

Nor did I expect it would be, but thank you for acknowleding that yes, indeed, I as well as every soldier, sailor and Marine has been lied to.

Look...if Mr. Bush had been honest from the start and said, "We're going into Iraq to remove Saddam from power and secure the oil fields" I wouldn't have a problem with it.

In fact, I'm all for it. We need oil, oil is important to our national interests (as well as our economic survival) and if it means we gotta swipe it from someone like Saddam so I don't go into the poor house topping off the tank on my SUV, so be it.

But do not, under any circumstances, bullshit me.

Don't tell me that there is a threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons where none exists.

Don't tell me that the country I'm about to invade is directly responsible for the tragedy of 9/11 when it wasn't.

And when those reasons are shown for the bullshit they really are, don't tell me that we're going to liberate and bring democracy to their people, especially when nobody ever gave a shit about democratizing them at all.

Comment from "rebel":

"I only hope that if (Goodness Forbid) you are ever tasked to actually DEFEND your homeland, you won't let this little episode sour your enthusiasm. Again, i thank you."

Wil:

I am actually defending the homeland, 'rebel'.

I'm currently over here in South Korea, facing north toward the real threat, the one we should have been focusing on from the start. I'm patiently waiting for the missiles to start flying and for two million North Korean soldiers to spill over the border at any moment
who would like nothing better than to have "One Korea, under communism."

As I look out the window, I see North Korean soldiers glaring back at me.

Yes, I'm *that* close.

Please don't presume to lecture me about "actually" defending my country, or being asked to accomplish a definitive action against an ideology. As you can plainly see, I'm all too intimate with the concept.

- wil


[Blogcritics Comment 98]

Iraq Constitution? Trouble.

Iraq Constitution? Trouble.

Juan Cole, a trusted and well-informed source for information on what's happening with the progress of a new Iraq constitution, holds out little hope for a reaching of the August 15th deadline. He comments that the approval of a constitution would not have halted the guerrilla war, "because the guerrillas reject what they see as a colonially imposed government."

"..now even the facade of progress is peeling away. Thirty more bodies of police or police recruits were found in Baghdad Sunday; most of these are probably Shiites killed by Sunni Arab guerillas in an unconventional civil war already begun.

So this is the time Bush chooses, as he is mired in an intractable conflict in Iraq in which its Shiites are moving close to Iran, to intimate that he could take military action against Iran over its nuclear program -- in an interview broadcast from Israel (which rejected the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and made hundreds of atomic bombs with British help). The Rove theory of looking active and carrying the fight to the enemy isn't working as well in the Middle East as it did against poor John Kerry."

- Juan Cole

SEARCH GOOOGLE FOR UPDATES

Looking back at a Colonel's mission in Iraq

Colonel Dana Pittard - a loyal American

Looking back at a Colonel's mission in Iraq

Colonel Pittard has a confusing mission, and my heart goes out to him for his loyalty to our country

This is a reprint from May 5, 2004 - well over a year ago. You can see how Iraq has deteriorated since then - and how I was so right in saying that it was bound to happen. It's not the fault of our American soldiers. It's the fault of the war-planners. Why - and how could we have risked so much in blood and treasure while going headlong into certain chaos?


*An update on Colonel Pittard can be seen at this post and this post.
It's no wonder that military families, especially mothers, are concerned and confused.

_________________

May 5, 2004:

Allow me to begin by saying I do not know Colonel Dana Pittard. From what I do know of the Colonel, I believe he is a loyal and good American. I've read a lot about him, he's captured my attention and my heart in many ways. I want to make some comments in his support and in the support of all the men and women in the U.S. armed services in Iraq today.

Compare the two following stories/statements from/about Colonel Pittard.

The first is from just a month ago (April 2004):

"The support of the population is key to everything we do. From the commander down to the squad leader, we must touch, engage the Iraqis,'' says Pittard, who commands the 1st Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade, which arrived in the country less than a month ago.
..The unit's predecessor in the province, the 4th Infantry Division, focused on fighting, which has claimed the lives of 34 U.S. soldiers and left nearly 200 others wounded. There have been a few accidental killings of Iraqis and frequent detentions of civilians. Now, while still trying to kill or capture as many insurgents as possible, the brigade is getting involved with everything from attempting dialogue with Islamic college radicals to combating an insect plague ruining date palm plantations.

And now....(this was from May 2004):

"My intent is to destroy Sadr's militia, absolutely destroy it," said Col. Dana Pittard, commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Infantry Division, which is leading the operation dubbed Operation Duke Fortitude. "And then to capture or kill Sadr. That is our mission. We're just waiting to be unleashed."
...Acknowledging that invading Najaf could offend Muslims worldwide, he added: "It's that sensitive. If we do this wrong, it will be felt from Morocco to Indonesia."

Colonel Pittard has been placed, by this Pentagon, in a completely confusing position. They want him to be a social worker one day and a trained soldier with a fighting mission (which is what he trains for) the next.

This is where the mission falls apart. It's not up to Colonel Pittard to pretend to care about the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. His mission is to destroy anything that gets in the way of his nation's goal.

Pentagon/Rumsfeld/Bush--you'd best shit or get off the pot. Get a new U.N. resolution. Get your social workers from the U.N. if you need them. Let Colonel Pittard do his job. Give General Abizaid an exit strategy. Get our troops home where they're loved, appreciated, and needed. I'm so ashamed of this administration's pie-in-the-sky lunacy about today's military. They've tried to be some kind of heroes, and they've wound up revealing themselves to be megalomaniacs endangering American security at home and throughout the world. Our President, I fear, is a theo-megalomaniac who, in his public relations, creates a crusade-style mission attitude. This bodes terribly for our armed forces' mission.

I'm speaking out for those in our military who, because of the rules, cannot speak for themselves. I say to the Bush administration: Get on the stick. You're using our military carelessly. General Sanchez is doing his best with the most chillingly horrendous Commander-in-Chief in American history. Colonel Pittard and General Sanchez cannot and would not tell you this. I can...and I will.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At Defenselink, Lt. John R. Vines is quoted to have said that mastering information operations will go a long way toward influencing people "to lay down their weapons and quit fighting and rebuild their country." But for now, he said, "We don't do that nearly as well as we could."

It's crystal-clear we aren't doing it well. It's an opportunity-area the size of an elephant, yet the Bush administration continues to stubbornly insist pro-American P.R. in Iraq is working. It's not working.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice."

--George Will [LINK]

______________________

Since this writing, al Sadr is in the mainstream again - being accepted and invited into the fold of Iraqi politics. After we destroyed Sadr city. How things have changed.

Since this writing, General Sanchez is the highest-ranking scapegoat to date in the Abu Graib scandal, while the war planners and Bush administration attorneys who approved forms of torture go on with no consequence. Some have even been rewarded.

So many mistakes have been made. No one will be accounatble for them. The buck stops no where. The President doesn't believe in the buck - unless it's the bucks he can shell out to Big Oil while we pay $2.60 per gallon at the pumps.

And the President drives right by a grieving mother begging to have him look her in the eye.

Long Train's Journey

Long Train's Journey



Martisco Station
by Jude Nagurney Camwell

"Train travel gives one time to think without the stress of making plane connections, weather and equipment delays.."

-Frank Romano, professor-emeritus of Rochester Institute of Technology

_________________________________



Long Train's Journey into Night

"Journeys are the midwives of thought"

-Alain de Botton

The India Times' Bachi Karkaria writes a personally erotic accounting of a communal experience.

Want an experience both intensely erotic and serenely impersonal? Tantrics, Sufi mystics and the incorrigibly enlightened can find their own paths to such bliss. Those still in the lowly shunt-yard of the Superconscious will have to settle for a night train.

- Bachi Karkaria

______________________________________


Food for thought:

"If only we could apply a travelling mind-set to our own locales, we might find these places becoming no less interesting than, say, the high mountain passes and butterfly-filled jungles of [Alexander von] Humboldt's South America."

-Alain de Botton

One can leave the self through the senses. It is through the senses (though not exclusively) that one perceives what is outside the self--and then these perceptions confirm something within the self, of which one was previously unaware. This confirmation is mysterious--it's one of the sources of the human sense of mystery. The whole world is mysteriously within us."

-John Berger

A US Paratrooper Is Disgusted w/Right Smears of Sheehan

A US Paratrooper Is Disgusted w/Right Smears of Sheehan

This comment appeared on my recent BlogCritics.org column, and I hope you will take a moment to see how this soldier feels about the smearing of Cindy Sheehan: (Some of the people he mentions are other Commenters at the link.)

You know, I'm not so much of a blogger but I was interested in hearing public opinion regarding this case because as I stated earlier, I am a US Paratrooper and I am curious as to how Mr. Bush would treat my mom and what all of you people would say about me and my mother if I was killed as was Casey and if my mom wanted answers as does Miss Sheehan.

I am SHOCKED and ASHAMED at what I am hearing here, What the HELL is wrong with you people, suggesting that Casey was a deserter and not even Killed? How DARE you even type such words? I have read through all of this and although I do not agree with some of what Dave Nalle suggests, he at least seems to be honest in his desire for the best interest of the American people even if he doesn't seem to have his priorities straight.

I can respect a difference of opinion if presented in a respectful manor however when people bring this Bullsh*t Partisan hackery into the mix, Are we all AMERICANS here or Not Dammit?

This suggestion that those of us who want and DESERVE a Logical explanation are somehow Anti-American or simply bush Haters is ABSURD.

Here's the real crux for all you arm chair warriors out there, How do WE, The actual foot soldiers on the ground set our minds to complete a task when we read some of you people calling US and our Mothers Traitors because we ask why we are dying. I am ALL ABOUT defending America as necessary But I do NOT believe in No Win Scenarios. This situation in Iraq is a NO WIN SCENARIO. I don't think I will continue reading blogs like this one so much because the disrespect shown here by the chicken-hawk right makes me want to lock and load all right...

Do you think we are STUPID, do you think we don't read your suggestion that our mothers are Anti-American, do you think we don't read your suggestion that an AMERICAN HERO like CASEY SHEEHAN was a deserter? Listen to me John H, you had better watch what you type when you type it. I do Not care WHAT your agenda is and I do NOT care how much you love mr. bush and are willing to wear out a keyboard for him. You had better remember one thing John H, we are YOU, we are your fathers and brothers and neighbors, and Cindy Sheehan is MY MOTHER A**hole!!

Maybe you are just writing inflammatory statements to get a rise out of the "other side" well I got news for you man, I seriously doubt there are Any MUSLIMS OR IRAQI'S posting here. Your disrespect for MCH and rebelyell and other American Service members posting on this blog is starting to really get under my skin.

I am going to post my E-mail Address and I EXPECT you to write me and explain to me why you have chosen to write such lies about Cindy and Casey Sheehan. It would be much better if you were to write it publicly here but if you want to go private we can. I will NOT Tolerate ONE MORE WORD of disrespect for this fallen hero or his poor mother. Your tax dollars have trained me to be a dangerous man, you have made enemies of EVERYONE else in the world you don't want disrespect my fellows or my family and turn your very last friend on you....

Think before you type!!

-Effendi (screen name)

Cindy Sheehan's Vacation

The vacation-destination of Crawford, TX was probably the farthest from Cindy Sheehan's mind - until this summer.

Cindy Sheehan's Vacation

"For seven days, Cindy Sheehan has been camped down the road from George Bush's Crawford ranch where the President is on a five-week vacation. Cindy says she will never enjoy a vacation again."

- One of the most effective opening lines I've seen in a long time. By Marjorie Cohn, contributing editor to Truthout

_ _ _ _

Lew Rockwell says,

"...if she can be continues to be the catalyst for the peace movement, she may signal his political Waterloo. God bless her for that."

Yesterday, President Bush said he'd heard Cindy Sheehan's alleged "Get out of Iraq" agenda "from others". At the Huffington Post, Bob Cesca has some sharp satire about President Bush, including:

...thank goodness he finally addressed Sheehan's chief concern: the "get out of Iraq" talking point she's been beating to death all this time. Off the record, you'd think she'd instead want the president to address the false and purely political justifications for the war which ultimately aborted her son in the 96th trimester. But hey, bully-bully to her for not putting the memory of her child first.

Karen Kwiatkowsi has an observation in a piece called "The Rise of the Stupid":

"..The meta-insulation is peeling off as Republicans realize this Bush is even more toxic for the GOP than his father was. Even the sweet favors of Diebold won’t be enough next time, and they know it."

Greg Mitchell has written a column for Editor and Publisher, in which he begins:

Reading some of the ample coverage of the Cindy Sheehan protest at the Bush ranch this week, I was shocked to discover that a man I know, who also lost a son in Iraq, had flown to her side. But that wasn't the only surprise.

In the meantime, the wounded soldiers are talking about the reality of this war in Iraq.

- - - -

"By the time Cindy Sheehan leaves her station at the pig farm, Bush will know that he was wrong. He will know, because "Mother" is not just half a word, as Bush and his Texas buddies, his Skull and Bones cohorts, his PNAC perps were raised to believe. "Mother" is an invincible, protective force that, if awakened and sufficiently outraged, will sweep the entire murderous bunch from their seats of evil power. Ultimately, "Mother" will bring our troops home."

- Lew Rockwell

Plamegate Update

Plamegate Update

Armando [Daily Kos] points us to Walter Pincus' most recent Plamegate article [WaPo] and believes that no other conclusion can be drawn other than this: Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby's information on Valerie Plame came from the now-infamous State department memo that was passed around Air Force One in July of 2003.

Swopa agrees.

Mahablog, who has some great coverage of the story today, has this astute quote :

Think of it as finding pollution in a river and tracing it back to its source. In this case, according to Pincus, all the tributaries can be traced back to one source-- the June 10 State Department memo.

Mahablog also comments on speculation that the State Dept memo was possibly written specifically for the leak to take place. Laura Rozen wrote, in July, 2005:

About this classified State INR memo, we note not just its timing being written in the days after apparently Cheney's office became focused on Wilson's contention via Kristof's column that his office should have known about the findings of Wilson's Niger trip, and that its information about Wilson's wife's role in his trip is apparently fraudulent, but that it was apparently circulated or summarized to conservative news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal and Talon News' Jeff Gannon, in the days and weeks after the Justice Department announced its investigation into who leaked Plame's identity. Check out this WSJ article on the classified memo on how Wilson got the trip -- and how closely it seems to track with what Gannon was told too.

David Corn has talked about an NSC staffer (and CIA veteran) named David Shedd who had worked with Valerie (Plame) Wilson at the CIA. Since Shedd would have had the inside scoop on Plame, Corn wonders: Did he tell?

Think Progess has a list of the 21 with known connections to the Plamegate scandal.

Drudge gets down & dirty - airs Sheehan family sorrow

"Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets. He called them...and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him."
- the Gospel of Matthew 4:21-22

Drudge gets down & dirty - airs Sheehan family sorrow

Cindy Sheehan and her huband have separated as a result of the stress over Casey's death. Cindy's passionate conviction has carried her to where she stands today - and the stress of it all broke a family in two.

Instead of the empathy and sorrow one might have for a family in crisis over the death of their soldier-son, Matt Drudgehas decided to take a family-squabble letter, and go for the jugular by putting Grandmother and Grandfather and all the cousins' pain up for us to see. (They are her in-laws, I'll wager. Although we don't know yet. We know it's not Casey's maternal grandparents.) [edited]


Leave it to Drudge to get the dirty scoop.

A word or two about Cindy's husband from David Pastor/May 2005:

Cindy's husband, Patrick Sheehan, supports his wife in her activism, he participates in some events and drives with Cindy when he is not working as a sales representative. He spoke about the toll this work is taking in the family. “If she is not away traveling or speaking, she is home with her laptop, watching news, or talking on the phone…This is important, we try to continue to support her.”

But he also understands that it is hard for her to be around the memories all the time. “Some times I am not sure if it is helping [the grief process] It might be delaying some of her grief, but it’s also a very good reason to get out of bed, get up and get moving.”

There was a change between May and the present, as Cindy says, in this interview:

"I have lost almost every friend that I had before Casey died. My husband and I are separated, because he doesn't support my activities, although he knows the war is a lie."

Sometimes passion for a righteous cause will take you far from your friends and family. If you're a Christian, you've been told that yourself, I can gurantee it. Get between a mother and a cause that involves her child, and one thing I could NOT guarantee would be your safety in trashing her passion - and having someone believe you.

Lew Rockwell brings faith into the picture as well, in his criticism of O'Reilly (among others):

O’Reilly, who claims to be Catholic, should know that people have changes of heart, going from confusion to clarity. Perhaps someone should remind him of St. Paul of Tarsus, or my favorite, St. Augustine of Hippo, both of which were on the wrong path, but ultimately became two of the Church’s most venerated saints.

Meanwhile, a mother in Crawford, TX is still asking questions. She still waits for President Bush, whose administration thinks it's a better idea to create a divide mothers of America who have lost their children and trash Cindy Sheehan than it is to have a straightforward meeting with the woman.

So much for "family values."

President Bush - when on earth will you do the right thing?

Denounce this madness and meet with her.

______________

Update: These were in-laws, as I suspected, and they hardly knew Cindy or Casey.
Cindy Sheehan says:

"...my in-laws sent out a press statement disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey. We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the election when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey's death. The thing that matters to me is that our family -- Casey's dad and my other 3 kids are on the same side of the fence that I am.

November 2, 2004 was not George Bush's accountability moment: today is. We are finished allowing him to get away with deceiving the American public and abusing his power.

We are mad as hell and we're not taking it anymore."[Huffington Post]

Headlines

Headlines

Barbara O'Brien has a summary surrounding the "fiction that Joe Wilson's Niger trip was arranged by his wife." [Mahablog]

The discussion continues about Cindy Sheehan. See my Blogcritics opinion column from August 9.

Why is Jodie Evans in Crawford, TX?

Why is Celeste Zappala in Crawford, TX?

It's getting really dirty and the Right is looking like some of the lowest lifeforms on the face of planet Earth. A Right blogger calls Cindy Sheehan a whore for publicity and points his finger toward another group of Moms. A disgusting and divisive abuse of mothers and their emotions. The blogger known as "Desert Rat" claims that one group of mothers are "there to shower them with love when they come home again. Their thoughts are with them every day, no matter where they are." Cindy Sheehan's son is not coming home again - and she doesn't want more mothers to suffer the loss she has suffered without clarity of purpose.

The Sheehan situation is garnering more and more attention by the day, despite the odd cable news media blackout of the story.

When it comes to plain and simple human emotion and cut and dried decency, in the court of public opinion, Cindy Sheehan's case is a winner, hands down. A quote:

Reading [Robin] Cook’s obituaries and final comments it is hard not to think of Cindy Sheehan, camped outside Bush’s ranch Prairie Chapel in the blistering August heat, awaiting the chance to talk to the President about her opposition to the Iraq war. Her son was killed there last year and she has become a dedicated anti-war activist. Cook’s final words echo in my ears and I’m sure they would in hers if she has heard them: “ It is dire. I mean, frankly, it is worse than my greatest fears…..Those that advocated the war on the basis that Iraq would be a blow against terrorism have made an immense blunder for which we will be paying the price for a long time to come.”

I hope President Bush will honor the lives of Casey Sheehan and Robin Cook by taking a few minutes out of his vacation to explain his thinking to one suffering mother.

[Jane Wells: Reflections on Robin Cook and Cindy Sheehan ]

The Common Ills features a statement on the quality of NPR coverage of the Cindy Sheehan situation, where a mention of the threatened arrest of Sheehan was omitted from Morning Edition coverage. 'Ruth's morning report' says: "In another time, when NPR was braver and less structured, Ms. Sheehan would be profiled each day because her vigil is news and this is a story that speaks to NPR listeners." [Common Ills]

This headline has Michael Ledeen and visions of 'Iraq redux' written all over it.

The Republican Party has quietly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide private defense lawyers for a former Bush campaign official (James Tobin) charged with conspiring to keep Democrats from voting in New Hampshire. *hat tip to Buzzflash See my prior posting here. [Yahoo news]

Josh Marshall comments on the Tobin case: "Tobin's defense doesn't seem to rest on his being innocent of the deeds in questions but rather on claims that no laws cover what he did." [Talking Points Memo]

38 members of Congress have written to President Bush, asking him to meet with Cindy Sheehan. I wonder why it's always the same brave Congresspeople. Where are the rest of our Representatives? Sen. George Allen of the GOP was bold and empathetic enough to urge the President to see the lady. I'd like to see more of this. [See Buzzflash for pdf link]

Bill O'Reilly Goes Off Deep End to Harm Sheehan supporters

Bill O'Reilly Goes Off Deep End to Harm Sheehan supporters

"I think Cindy Sheehan is being used by far left elements who object to our way of life."

Bill O'Reilly said this on national television.

My mouth dropped open when I read that he'd said it.
I'm as American as apple pie.
I agree 100% with the mom of Casey Sheehan.
Cindy's son Casey died for "our way of life."
Bill O'Reilly is an ignorant jackass.

That may sound harsh, yet I can't find any other appropriate word for anyone who would use his popular media show as a vehicle for leading others to believe that anyone like me or the millions who support Cindy Sheehan are "controlling" her.

Au contraire.

Cindy Sheehan's the one who's driving us.

Her sorrow is palpable. Her questions are reasonable.

Cindy says, "Maybe I'm using them." [Hear her say it by clicking the link]

_____________

The message from Sheehan and her supporters is not that our country is a bad and evil country, as O'Reilly tries to convince his audience that it is. (Why is O'Reilly purposefully dividing America into two divisions when we are all individuals with our own minds? Isn't this anti-Declaration of Independence?) We're saying: "This is our country. Let's make it better. We aren't evil people. Our government is of the people, for the people, and by the people. The people of America are heartful and caring people who value honesty and truth. We wish our representatives to represent the values we hold as sacred."

Anyone who would lie or mislead a nation into war is "bad" - at least in my eyes, it's bad. Really bad. I, like Cindy Sheehan and her many supporters, believe just the opposite - that America's people are good and decent - and the Representatives who act in our democratic interests- especially our President - should not have misled us into this war.

She's only asking, "What's it all about, Alfie?"



"Where's the nobility in the cause?"

"Look me in the eye, " Cindy begs of the President. "Tell me so that I may fully understand."

Last year the defenders of the radical right tried to tell us that we were trying to win an election by criticizing the Iraq war. Here we are - many months into President Bush's first term, and we're still asking why we were misled. We're still asking why American mothers' sons and daughters are shedding their blood.

We're tired of slogans. We're especially tired of being accused of "bashing" the administration. We're amazed, even after all we know about many of the President's unwise and dishonest decisions, to see him doing nothing about Karl Rove, when he promised to fire anyone who would have involved themselves in leaks which harm national security.

O'Reilly asked a guest "If you had to choose, would you go with President Bush or Michael Moore?"

Did he mean "go" as in "go out on a date"? What?

Michael Moore is an American citizen, an Eagle Scout who will tell you that the GOP really knows how to get out the vote - and he tries to inspire everyone else to care and organize to effectively compete. President Bush is a guy who seems to have dropped off the radar screen during Vietnam when his country called upon him - his administration outs CIA agents for political vengeance - and he misleads soldiers to a war in Iraq which none of us understands with clarity, to this day.

President Bush, above all, is the President. Michael Moore is not. Michael Moore is not bound by the Constitution to make any decisions about leading the nation to war. Michael Moore is not bound to give us official explanations.



Why is this Bill O'Reilly's big choice du jour? He could have picked anyone -
Would you go with President Bush or Michael Jackson? Would you go with President Bush or the Elephant Man? Would you go with President Bush or Helen Thomas? Would you go with President Bush or Kevin Federline?


"Who ya gonna go with?
Bachelor No 1, 2 or 3?"


I happen to believe that Bill O'Reilly is a small, small man who uses his seething anger about anyone who disses him and brings that anger with him on to his show - slathering it into the nightly agenda. He's really bad for civic American life. It makes little sense to me. It's less sophisticated than any middle school political debate I have ever seen. Our own American children are much smarter - and more mature - than this.

Cindy Sheehan said it best:

"Bill O'Reilly is an "Obscenity to Humanity"

You go, girl.


Update: O'Reilly says, with a straight face, that he and Michelle Malkin were "respectful" to Sheehan, the day after all this trash I just mentioned was aired on his show, including calling Cindy Sheehan's plea "borderlibe treason". You can see the video at Media Matters. Be prepared to stop yourself from spitting at the screen - it could damage your computer.

President Bush - Call Off the dogs on Cindy Sheehan

President Bush - Call Off the dogs on Cindy Sheehan

Raw Story is talking about the article from 2004 which Matt Drudge is employing, with a Right attack-dog-wind beneath his wings [he got the report archive from Freepers]. The mission to attack is on - the objective is to discredit the mother of a fallen Iraqi soldier.

A mother of a dead child pays close attention to the cause for which her boy dies. She looks, with open eyes, for the higher cause - something she can hold in her heart as a solid reason for never seeing her loving son on the face of this earth again.

Cindy Sheehan is horrified by what she is seeing. And she has been told that she will be arrested if she remains in Crawford, begging to see the President and have him look her in the eye, once again - only this time she has the courage that conviction has brought to her. She isn't in shock any longer. She cannot remain silent. Her conscience will not allow her to do so.

Her mourning has turned to questions. It was good of the President to have consoled her in mourning. It is wrong of the President to ignore her very public concerns.

Sheehan says that, during the Republican National Convention, she saw President Bush exploiting the meeting he'd had with her family to "justify what he was doing." She continued, "It's now clear to me that what I had feared is true: Bush lied us into war, and Casey, more than 1,800 other Americans and thousands and thousands of Iraqis are dead because of what he did."

Michelle Malkin says this might be politically-motivated, and to that I would say 'No kidding'. Sheehan said herself, in the quote I just used above, that her perception of the President's political misuse of her son's brave death and the family meeting that followed for re-election purposes - and all that has happened in Iraq since Casey's death - has caused her initial fears to come true. I am especially bothered by Ms. Malkin insinuating that Cindy Sheehan "has lost sight of the fact that her 24-year-old son, Casey, proudly and willingly served." Cindy Sheehan has never led anyone to believe that. I am disappointed to see Michelle being little more than an echo chamber for Matt Drudge. As a highly visible Conservative blogger, I expect more intellectual and emotional honesty from her. Michelle also imagines she has a telepathic connection to the fallen soldier when she speaks for him:

I can't imagine Army Spc. Casey Sheehan would stand for a bunch of strangers glomming onto his mother's crusade and using him to undermine the war effort as they shouted "W killed her son" in front of countless TV cameras.

How can anyone purport to know what Casey would have thought? How he would have reacted? Casey is dead. He's not coming back to confirm or deny this little chestnut.

Accusing a woman of crocodile tears over the death of a child and concern about the cause for which he died is about as low as it goes. It doesn't get much lower, folks. (Hear that bottom-of- the-barrel scraping sound?)


Support the troops - unless they die and their Moms start asking too many questions about "why."

Taking a fallen soldier's Mama away in handcuffs is not going to do wonders for the President's already ebbing popularity. (Maybe they can stick a Yellow-Ribbon magnet on the handcuffs to make it acceptable to the extremists of the Right who think the president can do no wrong).

To President Bush, I would say: I'm a mom. My own boy just saw you last week at Fort A.P. Hill. I've raised him to respect the office of the President and to be a responsible American citizen. He's a good boy. Casey Sheehan was a good boy, too. There's millions and millions of moms out here in America. Our children are our treasure. We're watching you, President George W. Bush. You say you are a man of compassion. Do the right thing - denounce Sheehan's ugly rightwing attack-squad and give her the meeting she desires. Look her in the eye - talk to her. We'll think a lot more of you for having done so. Thank you.



Crossposted at Blogcritics

UPDATE: Cindy Sheehan can be heard responding to Michelle Malkin's decidedly inappropriate comments about her son, Casey. [Think Progress]

Congress Needs to Lean on Bush to Change Course/Policy on Iraq

"And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it."

- E.L. Doctorow

Congress Needs to Lean on Bush to Change Course/Policy on Iraq
Americans are watching President Bush's stubborn determination with understandable confusion. It's becoming clear that his depth of heart comes nowhere near his hardball political ambition. George W. Bush seems to see himself as "big radical daddy" who wants to change everything we "children" have been raised to believe about the traditional values we've shared. Through his policies, he seems to want to take away the traditionally American (Bible-based) compassion for our fellow man and replace it with "selfy-based" policy (while calling it "faith-based"). We used to know how to translate our Christian hearts into good and decent governmental policies. One unnecessary war and 1800 dead Americans later, citizens are paying close attention to the man at the bully pulpit.

E.L. Doctorow writes:

On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it....To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing...He wanted to go to war and he did...

..He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel.

I realize that E.L. Doctorow's words are blunt and harsh. Perhaps they are overly judgemental - and yet my own intuition has led me to think the same thoughts about Mr. Bush.

I took note of Doctorow's words for a few reasons. First, my own grandfather died, in 1975, of Black Lung disease. We knew poverty in my family, and we were able to work and climb our way out of it, thanks to our work ethic, commitment to education, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's policies. Second, I believe Dwight D. Eisenhower was one of America's greatest presidents. He knew, all too well, the cost of war and would not lead our boys into war without good reason. Third, actions speak louder than words, and the domestic policies of the current President hold no solace or promise for those living in poverty, but instead pay lip service while, by his policies, paying off special contributors who are living off the backs of the middle class in America. I see the effects of Bush's indifference to the poor in the attitude of his journalist-minions such as Mark Steyn.

It's become fashionable to laugh at the poor - surely not an encouraging example of where we appear to be going in this country.

"The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses."

I thank God, each day, that we have a two-term limit for the office of President. I wonder what has happened to the Republican party of old - the one that gave us Abe Lincoln, who taught us the hard lesson of the value of a united nation and the value of central government - - I look for the party that gave us the great heart of Dwight D. Eisenhower. It's become an empty money-worshipping shell.

I pray, too. I pray that we have all learned a lesson after all of this. I pray for a man (or woman) with a true heart and a keen mind to come to lead our nation. Does that sound like a wish from a gothic fairy tale - a Lord of the Rings or Superman -inspired dream? Perhaps - - but aren't you having the same hopes?

_____________________________________________

We must look at where we stand in Iraq before we can plot a respectful and successful guide for safekeeping their burgeoning democracy

Is there any man or woman out there today who can look us in the eye and tell us they have a plan to rectify the many mistakes that the Bush administration has made in Iraq?

The only way to preserve America's reputation is for all of Congress to lean upon President Bush to admit his huge mistakes and to bring our warrior-troops home and to make a humble appeal to our international allies for material support in a peace-keeping mission in Iraq. Republicans in Congress need to leave their clinging partisanship at the door and do what is right for America. It only makes sense that we cannot leave Iraqi troops to fend for themselves, because it will not preserve the fragile democracy blooming in Iraq. It's also clear we can no longer occupy the nation - even those who THANK us for freeing them from Saddam Hussein are asking us to leave. Where are the sensible ideas? Are they being squelched because of the President's pointless determination to follow a failing course?

There would be no question that every lost life was worth the cost if only Congress would put their partisanship aside and work in America's best interests, applying political pressure to get Iraq right, for once and for all. No further American troops should be committed until they are committed for a peace-keeping effort with meaningful international cooperation. It is only through an American healing and uniting, with a full dose of humility from the Bush administration, that Iraq can be placed on the best course for success.

If only we could go back to the day before 9/11. Since we can't, let's get back to the spirit of the days following 9/11, when every good soul around the world was an American, if only for that moment. I am an optimist who believes that true civility in mankind can overcome extremism. The atmosphere of American politics that have entered the picture since 9/11 have not tapped into the spirit required to show the world our best intent. I would ask all people serving in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives to recommit themselves to the spirit of a united nation. You have strayed too far from the Promise.