Jonah Goldberg, on Cindy Sheehan, the chickenhawk meme, and identity politics. From “Playing Chickenhawk”:
“Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Casey Sheehan, an American soldier who was killed in Iraq . . . “
That’s the sentence Cindy Sheehan and her increasingly lugubrious p.r. machine want every news story about her to begin with. Nobody likes the idea of criticizing a woman who’s lost her son in such circumstances. The hope has been that the high wall of Mrs. Sheehan’s “moral authority” will allow her to say whatever she pleases and that nobody will say boo about it for fear of seeming insensitive to what must be unimaginable anguish. Still, even some of her supporters must realize that her anguish has caused her to find meaning in a wildly partisan, orchestrated publicity stunt.
What’s interesting, to me at least, is that Mrs Sheehan represents simply the latest installment in a long, nasty, desperate ideological campaign  and one that demonstrates the logical limits of identity politics.
Anybody who’s been on the receiving end of the “chickenhawk” epithet knows what I’m getting at. Various definitions of chickenhawk are out there, but the gist  as if you didn’t know  is “coward” or “unpatriotic hypocrite.” The accusation is less an argument than an insult.
It’s also a form of bullying. The intent is to say, “You have no right to support the war since you haven’t served or signed up.” It’s a way to get supporters of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, or the president simply to shut up.
But there’s a benefit of a doubt to be given. There are many people  I know because I’ve argued with lots of them  who don’t believe the “chickenhawk” thing is intellectually unserious.
Obsessed with “authenticity” and the evil of hypocrisy  as they see it  they think the message and the messenger are inextricably linked. Two plus two is four only if the right person says so. We hear this logic most often from adherents of identity politics, who give more weight to the statements of women, blacks, Jews, and others for the sole reason that they were uttered by people born female, black, Jewish or whatever. People who grew up poor are supposed to have a more “authentic” perspective on economic policy than people who didn’t, and so on.
Don’t get me wrong  experience is important and useful, including the experiences that come from being black or gay or otherwise a member of the Coalition of the Oppressed. But valuable experience confers knowledge; it doesn’t beatify. And identity isn’t an iron cage: It is not insurmountable. And, at the end of the day, arguments must stand on their own merits, regardless of who delivers them.
Ironically, it is that last—the charge that we address Cindy Sheehan’s arguments rather than “smearing” her person—that is the ascendant trope among Sheehan boosters, who are now self-consciously (and cleverly) shoring up the rather bald appeal to identity politics that Goldberg points out underpins Ms. Sheehan’s rhetorical force in favor of a thinly-veiled tu quoque that demands “wingnuts” address the substance of Sheehan’s positions.
But the trick being used here, as I’ve tried to point out, is to conflate arguments against Ms Sheehan’s positions with attacks on her person, then to condemn as attacks on her person those arguments made against her positions. The next move, then, is to follow with an outraged insistence that those who’ve just gotten through engaging Ms Sheehan’s positions engage Ms Sheehan’s positions, in a kind of infinite deferral of the argument intended solely to keep the “argument” itself foregrounded.
That is, the progressivists driving this story claims to want answers to the same grandstanding questions Ms Sheehan claims to want answers to—namely, why are we in Iraq; for what noble cause did Casey Sheehan die; if the war is so righteous, why hasn’t the President sent his daughters?—questions that any honest observer will recognize are powerful only so long as they remain unanswered. After all, it is the posing of the questions that carry the rhetorical force, given that the answers have been offered and repeated ad naseum.
In short, the last thing the Cindyphiles want are answers, because answers foreclose the debate and attenuate the emotional force Cindy Sheehan, as a grieving Mom, brings to bear on war supporters. Or, put another way, the “answers” they want to hear rightwingers give, from the President on down, are answers that many in the anti-war crowd have already reached—a rather unreasonable demand, given that it is precisely our refusal to answer in those ways that defines our political position, but a demand that nevertheless proves valuable (from the anti-war perspective) for its ability to extend the controversy.
And this whole piece of political theater is about nothing more than crass emotional manipulation—a carefully orchestrated, deliberately timed bit of protest that is about nothing more than trying to weaken our resolve to finish the mission in Iraq.
****
update: NRO’s Media Blog, “ABC Confirms: Sheehan Wrote the Letter”
And then there’s this, from an open thread on Poorman:
that is funny – funny because it’s true! “…then to condemn as attacks on her person those arguments made against her positions.†That she’s a divorcing Jew-hating crazy media whore who’s perverting her grief for her dead son is totally an argument aginst her positions!
Well, I woudn’t put it like that—instead, I prefer to point out that she’s politicized her grief by turning it into a public spectacle and by making policy demands on the President of the United States that grow out of her professed beliefs that Bush lied, that we went to war for oil and Israel (which, if you want to stop terror, let’s do away with that shitty little country), and that she doesn’t, in fact, actually hold any positions beyond those, and so therefore would prefer we not really answer her questions, just listen to her pose them repeatedly —but then, I lack a certain nuance.
SMEAR MERCHANT!
****
update 2: MyDD on the impact of the Sheehan protests.
****
update 3: More, from Ilyka Damen and The Therapist (a self-admitted SMEAR MASTER)
****
update 4: Seems Cindy Sheehan—who, as we all know, is simply voicing the thoughts most of the rest of the country feels (the polls, they tell us so)—wouldn’t have gone into Afghanistan either.
I bet Ted Rall has a poster of her on his wall.
“Cindy Sheehan has the same moral authority that all of us do, and her loss has no bearing on whether the war was just or not. What’s going on here is akin to what went on with the Million Mom March; the MSM is floating the absurd notion that motherhood grants some kind of moral authority that trumps everything else. It doesn’t.”
(Bill Ramey)
That is entirely correct, although not correctly entire. In point of fact, she isn’t a “mother” anymore. What she is trying to claim was lost to her on the day that her son decided—on his very own natural authority—to commit his life as an instrument of national policy.
Her grief is understandable.
Her refusal to acknowledge her son’s moral authority is contemptible, and borders insanity.
FROM: http://www.two–four.net/weblog.php?id=P1806
Cindy: “Why did you murder my son, Chimpy?!!”
W: “Murder? You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
Cindy: “Hater.”
EXACTLY. They think that they have the only answers worth hearing and the only correct ones, and that is all that they are interested in hearing. If they don’t hear it, then the questions aren’t being answered.
After all, they are the [self-]anointed, who know so much better than the rest of us rubes what is really good for us.
To borrow a phrase from Kos “Screw them.”
Amen, brother.
Jeff:
And something else that’s probably on the tip of your tongue:
The attempt by Cindy to “ventriloquize” (Hitchen’s term) her deceased son is, in a sense, the manifestation of a desire to arrest his development at a point where he isn’t responsible for his own choice, and to convince the larger society that this perverse “adult-child” sentiment is just and appropriate.
And this whole piece of political theater is about nothing more than crass emotional manipulationâ€â€a carefully orchestrated, deliberately timed bit of protest that is about nothing more than trying to weaken our resolve to finish the mission in Iraq.
The emotional manipulation I’ll give you. But then you commit the same error you (correctly) accuse the pro-“CINDY” crowd of making when you say “[the Cindy Sheehan affair] is about nothing more than trying to weaken our resolve to finish the mission in Iraq.”
Arguing that the anti-war crowd’s actions are designed to undermine the mission in Iraq assumes that the anti-war crowd accepts the premise that there is a “mission” to be completed. Rhetorically at least, they don’t. If you want to question intentions, and argue that their claim to not believe any such mission exists is disingenuous, then you’d probably be on firmer ground, though I’d still disagree with you in many cases. But as often as war supporters have articulated the reasons for going to war, the “anti-war” crowd (as distinguished from opponents of this particular war) has also made clear that they do not consider even the geopolitical basis of those reasons to be legitimate.
Honestly, this is where I really diverge sharply from my anti-war friends. For the most part, they can’t seem to get beyond their (justified, in my view) mistrust of Bush and large portions of his Republican base to actually analyze the strategic issues involved. I believe this is precisely the case with Cindy Sheehan herself, and therefore accusing her or her primary supporters of consciously attempting to sabotage the mission – <objective consequence of their actions</i> – both misses the point and gives them, in my view, far too much credit for objective analysis.
You did say one thing the other day that, on reflection, I wholeheartedly agreed with: the anti-war crowd is behaving exactly analogously to the religious right in the Terry Schiavo case, and I’m getting sick of it. They are certainly, in my view, allowing emotion to overwhelm reason. All I ask you to consider is that there’s a rather significant difference between that and actively seeking to undermine a positive national security goal. Though I admit, for certain members of the Cindy camp, that difference appears smaller and smaller even to me as time goes on.
Demosophist: You are describing Slave Morality. The Left is selling Slave Morality to the public. It’s that simple.
Ummm, the part between dashes in the second-to-last paragraph should read:
<objective consequence of their actions</i>
Fortunately the Left didn’t think to have Cindy plant a ”Casey Memorial Garden” on the road outside Bush’s ranch. The pictures would be phenomenal:
Cindy tilling the soil.
Cindy putting in the seeds or plants …maybe even shrub.
Other families joining Cindy to honor their children killed in combat. A living testimony to their dead kids. It’d have the power of the Vietnam Memorial
Cindy breaking off from a media appearance saying “I have to go check on the flowers, the flowers I planted in memory of Casey.”
A little spot of beauty amidst the HATE
For those technically inclined: Irrigation could be handled by a 2000 gallon cistern well back from the road and a water delivery truck could resupply it every couple of days.
Or the young siblings of the fallen could scoop out ladles of water and carry them to individual plants in the hot sun if CNN crews are around.
Plus a garden would give the Press a perfect place to stand every.freaking.time. they report from Crawford. “reporting from the ‘Gardens of the Fallen’ outside the Bush ranch in Crawford Texas, I’m David Gregory.”
total cost to the Left: $2000 for the cistern and irrigation stuff and a couple of thousand more per year for the water delivery.
What’s Bush going to do, have Karl Rove run over the Gardens of the Fallen with a Caterpillar D9? {insert gratuituous Rachel Corrie reference}.
I’m thankful that the Left doesn’t know how to grow anything – clues or plants.
Whoa… what’s going on?
“even if you believe that is the objective consequence of their actions”, in italics, is what I was going for.
Jeff,
The Sheehan spectacle isn’t “theatre” any more than it’s rhetoric.
It’s propaganda.
I highly recommend Huxley’s essays appended to Brave New World (collectively Brave New World Revisited) on modern propaganda. Prescient, considering they were written before the age of television.
It’s not so much “answers” Sheehan wants as it is “confessions”.
This is a manual trackback.
… they want to hear rightwingers give, from the President on down, answers that many in the anti-war crowd have already reached…
I knew this Cindy debate sounded like a yin and yang conceptual post.
turing word “hell”
Yes. Goldberg is exactly right as you have been this whole time, Jeff. This whole thing perfectly illustrates the growing trends of moral certainty, viewing emotion as support for an argument, cherry-picking convenient facts and ignoring inconvenient facts, circular reasoning, and treating criticism as a personal attack. That type of sloppy thought process has become commonplace on the left and seems to be getting there on the right.
Anyone who takes the effort to see what Sheehan has actually said should be able see that she’s ignorant and ill-informed, but emotional appeal now seems to trump reason in our society to the point of stifling debate. That seems damn dangerous to me in a democratic republic. That’s what bothers me about Sheehan and on the right it’s the same thing that bothered me so much about Schiavo.
By the way, NOTBECK, I could not disagree more with the idea that she ceased to be a mother when her son died.
CJ:
We assume they’re adults with functioning cerebra as well. We also assume they can recognize the difference between a small and a great evil and that they’re capable of recognizing that sometimes humans must choose a lesser, even when that lesser involves the deaths of a great many people. Absent such grounding, they’re just children… or childish adults.
The alternative is to simply treat them like children, forbidding certain actions to them that are reserved for adult mentalities.
What Jeff has done an excellent job of detailing here is a problem that’s bigger than just Sheehan in regards to the anti-war defeatists.
They say “Bush Lied!”, and when you ask what he lied about and show that he was saying basically what every other intelligence agency in the world was saying, they ignore you.
They say “Saddam had nothing to do with Islamic terrorists!!” and you show them the specific links that unquestionably show otherwise, they ignore you again.
At this point there is no possible way to even have a debate with someone from that side of the fence. It’s like arguing with a two year old.
These are not “sloppy thought processes.”
They are classic propaganda tools.
Propaganda tools appeal to sloppy thought processes, and take advantage of them. But the people promoting the “story” are perfectly aware of what they are doing, and are doing it with a well-defined, coldly calculated purpose in mind.
Great points, Jeff.
Sounds like Goldberg is on the same wavelength as Ben Shapiro (at Townhall.com) who also wrote about the “chickenhawks can’t comment!” argument. I blogged about it this a.m.
Betsy Newmark tackled the “Why shouldn’t Jenna and Barbara enlist” argument quite well too … it’s about time we see some pushing back on this “chickenhawks aren’t allowed to comment on foreign policy issues” bogus rhetoric. I agree with Goldberg that all it is is an attempt from the anti-war types to stifle the opinions of those who disagree with them.
Cindy owned Casey. He was her property and Chimpy stole him from her. This is the Leftist line, too bad they let is slip that they really do support slavery.
“In short, the last thing the Cindyphiles want are answers, because answers foreclose the debate and attenuate the emotional force Cindy Sheehan, as a grieving Mom, brings to bear on war supporters.”
That’s the crux of it, right there. As we’ve all seen in comment threads, blogs, etc. here and elsewhere, even if you do manage to achieve a level of communication where people stop talking past each other, there’s very rarely any common ground where you can agree where one issue ends and another starts. Instead, it’s the debate that matters, not the answering of questions or the changing of minds. When all you want to do is make noise, it becomes easy to conflate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the war in Iraq using the tired “neo-con agenda” meme, or parrot the accusation of war profiteering as the real reason for regime change in the Middle East.
I’d speculate that what Cindy Sheehan really wants is her son back; failing that, an end to anguish. She’s not going to get either anytime soon. But the answers she and her disciples claim to want aren’t answers. What they want is impeachment hearings, lynchings of Cabinet members, unearned respect, equality for the right people, etc. What they’re getting is a lot of media attention in a slow news month. They’re getting their debate, such as it is.
By the way, Jeff, you’re past being on fire lately. You’re at plasma levels. Keep it up!
I agree, Phinn, but I was talking about the left in general not the promoters. I’m talking about Joe Blow in the blogosphere not Sheehan and her handlers just like when I say the right has been showing more and more of this type of thing I’m talking about average folks not propagandists like Frist or Lee Terry. I’m not concerned that we have propagandists because we always have and always will. What concerns me is that great gobs of people seem to be uncritically accepting propaganda and treating any debate as an attack on their moral position. I’m concerned that this is shutting down and poisoning discourse.
> We assume they’re adults with functioning cerebra as well.
I’m not sure this is a reasonable assumption. The more I hear from some, many, most of the anti-war types of my generation (Boomers), the more I percieve a simple inability to acknowledge, much less accept reality.
I think it is interesting that Orwell, in spite of his dislike for Churchill and the Tories, was able to prioritize the dangers of his time.
Word is serious, like, as if…
I think that most Cindyphiles, as has been noted above, are spoiled children not to be taken seriously by adults. Hence the silly costumes, narcissistic acting out, silly jibber jabber. Unfortunately, since the 60s, some have taken this nonsense seriously, and thus, reinforced it.
Phinn, though, is right that there is certainly evidence of cynical propagandists at work–the moveon crowd, etc. It’s interesting to note, though, that they are incredibly poor at their craft. The idiotarian left has been unable to win an election for years. They certainly can energize their deranged fellow travellers, but the vast majority of Americans see them for what they are–ridiculous.
I suppose that the same might be argued about the fringe right, but I’d make a distinction. The respectable right has been able to offer substantive and serious policy–agree or disagree. Yes, the country is fairly narrowly divided, but the slow move right is undeniable.
Cindy Sheehan has become the poster child for why–the left cannot be taken seriously by most adults.
Brilliant, Jeff.
Cindy Sheehan has become the poster child for why–the left cannot be taken seriously by most adults.
You’re right, Old Dad, but while we laugh, their antics are broadcast on Al Jazeera, encourage the jihadists, and kill more of our guys. Therein is our problem; these clowns kill.
The far right also doesn’t get a positive light from the moderate right or the media.
Embracing the chickenhawk meme should be an instant sign that whoever you are debating with is too… well, let’s just say “incapable of the mental dexterity to be a respectable judge of policy.” Cindy proved herself that LONG before she used the word chickenhawk.
Coincidentally, I’m 96% certain she is being directly coached by Moore or the Far Left groups she is associating with. Read her writings, and they’ll clearly tell you the woman is dealing with her grief in an unhealthy way and is being encouraged to continue doing so.
Let’s give this a shot, wish me luck.
Ahem…
Turing Word: “told” as in “We’ve all already told her the answers.”
The intent [of the chickenhawk meme] is to say, “You have no right to support the war since you haven’t served or signed up.â€Â
Using the same (il)logic, one could say that no one has the right to support Mother Sheehan or her mission who hasn’t quit their job, abandoned their family, and camped out in a hot dusty ditch in Crawford (or forced one or more of their children to do so).
ChickenCindys all.
That process not only began, but actually ended at least 30 years ago.
It’s really very simple—television.
Television exists for one purpose: entertainment. When used for “news” it is merely a propaganda instrument. It has no other function.
It is incapable of promoting or even contributing to rational discourse. On the contrary, it actively promotes and fosters the sloppy thought processes described above—emotion instead of genuine argument, cherry-picking convenient facts and ignoring inconvenient facts, circular reasoning, personal attacks.
The medium is the message. Cindy Sheehan is a television phenomenon.
Jeff’s anti-spam system ate a fairly long and somewhat funny rant I went on over the shite I read over at the Huffington Post on St. Cindy. Huh.
So.
What’s for dinner?
Chickenhawke.
It’s a little gamy and full of hypocrisy. Or so I’ve been told.
Turing word: many, as in, too many chickenhawkes posting on this forum.
/mother sheehan
After all, it is the posing of the questions that carry the rhetorical force, given that the answers have been offered and repeated ad naseum [sic].</i>
Seriously, then, all rhetorical force aside, what are the answers? I have searched and searched, spent literally hours on the media and reading blogs, and I can honestly say that (1) I do not know why we invaded Iraq (all of the answers so far have been lies), (2) I do not know how anyone can justify the fact that George Bush’s daughters are not volunteering to join the armed services and do their duty in this “noble” cause, and (3) I can plainly understand the arguments for staying in Iraq until some kind of order can be reimposed on that sad country, but believe that there are rational and persuasive arguments to the contrary. Given the history of this fiasco, I believe that, in questions of judgement, those who oppposed this pathetically misbegotten war should be given the benefit of the doubt. The other side’s judgement has already been shown to be laughably poor.
Notwithstanding all this, one guy above has it right though when he says that what Cindy Sheehan really wants is a confession–that’s what I want, too. And believe me, this country will never be whole again unless the crime of taking us into an illegal war of aggression on the basis of lies has been atoned for.
Where did you stand on our bombing the crap out of Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia, FITMK?
” fear is the mind killer”
Understand that ignorence is the true mind killer.
1) http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml
2) http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200508170759.asp
3)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601181.html
You have 1-3 answered, but keep waving your protest signs you slave-morality-pushing turd.
Careful with that word “lie.” The case where the message of the worldwide intelligence community was “Ennh… yeah, we’re pretty dang sure that there are WMDs in Iraq.” makes the word “lie” difficult to stick.
Oh jeez, don’t mangle an entertaining book like Frank Herbert’s Dune by appending a tired reference to it in your screed above, Mind-Killer.
Fear,
Re: Your Question #2
The President cannot compel his daughters to, ahem, “volunteer.”
One might conclude, based on the fact that the twins have not volunteered that they are unpatriotic trollopes. That would be stupid, but one might conclude it anyway. How does that in any way reflect on the President’s Iraq policy? That’s right, it doesn’t.
Fear’s question #2 shows he has the same position as St. Cindy: That ADULT children are slaves (property) of their parents.
Fear and Cindy advocate SLAVERY, which isn’t surprising (because leftism is slave-morality).
Volunteer army, by the way. Playing the chickenhawk card on Bush’s daughters only makes you look stupid.
Turing word: work, as in “When will they realize that chickenhawk doesn’t work as an argument?”
Seriously, then, all rhetorical force aside, what are the answers? I have searched and searched, spent literally hours on the media and reading blogs, and I can honestly say that (1) I do not know why we invaded Iraq (all of the answers so far have been lies),
See, this is a classic case of what (as I interpret it) Jeff is talking about.
In order to assert that all the reasons given by the Administration for military action in Iraq are lies, you obviously think you already know The Truth. And if you already know The Truth, then you’re not really looking for answers, nu?
If you start with the unshakeable belief that, e.g., we’re in Iraq only in order to steal their oil to enrich Bush’s friends, then of course any reason offered to you other than that will, ipso facto, seem to you to be a lie.
Chris L.—“The Truth” you describe is probabaly the same thing Thomas Sowell describes as the “Vision of the Annointed.”
See, The Annointed don’t need facts or reason. Their self-congratulation on being a “good person” is all the faith they ever need to claim “The Truth.” Never mind reality.
“War, Bush, US, etc is Evil” – this is all that needs to be asserted to “be good.” It is the same as the Slave Morality that Nietzsche theorized about.
Mr. fear, in regards to 1): A. Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Iraq was pursuing their WMD program mostly because Saddam’s government did everything in their power to give that impression.
B. Saddam was harboring and aiding terrorists including al Qaeda affiliates that had recently fled Afghanistan and in the case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had just murdered our ambassador to Jordan. The terror arguments were put forth before the war repeatedly. A good example can be found here and there is not a single lie contained.
The juxtaposition of A and B may not be enough to have convinced you personally that war was necessary, but it’s foolish to imply that no Americans were honest in believing Iraq was a post-9/11 threat and it’s either a naked lie or abysmally ignorant to say that the war was illegal.
If you start with the unshakeable belief that, e.g., we’re in Iraq only in order to steal their oil to enrich Bush’s friends, then of course any reason offered to you other than that will, ipso facto, seem to you to be a lie.
That’s just it, I do not have that unshakeable belief. It doesn’t entirely make sense. Let me illustrate: when the war drums started pounding, back in the summer of ‘02, I thought that these guys are just trying to scare Saddam out. But, then, very, very quickly, people started getting excited, quickly calling anyone who wished to delay the rush to war an islamofascist loving traitor, etc. That, taken alone, is clear evidence to me that a con was being run on the country. (I won’t explain that here. Let me just say that I have good instincts in detecting con games and that those instincts have proven themselves objectively again and again.)
But what con? Was it that these oil men wanted to lay claim to the Iraqi oil? Were they pissed off that Saddam repeatedly was able to scam the oil futures markets by rattling his sword whenever he took a long position in oil futures? Alternatively, did they have some kind of secret knowledge of Saddam’s involvement in 9/11? Did they really have some kind of new intelligence of Saddam’s possession of WMDs? Did they really believe that we would not wind up in a quagmire if we invaded? Were they so afraid of what Saddam might be able to do to Israel? You see, I was fairly certain that they were running a con on the country. (From the questions I list above, however, you can see that I retained some doubt–maybe they knew something I didn’t?) I just couldn’t tell then, and nor can I tell now, the reason for the con. Two and a half years later, it is clear beyond any doubt that they were running a con. But “why”? What did they hope to gain? I honestly can not say. So, like Cindy Sheehan, I would like a god damn confession.
“War, Bush, US, etc is Evil†– this is all that needs to be asserted to “be good.†It is the same as the Slave Morality that Nietzsche theorized about.
Mr. X, I studied Nietszche in some depth over 20 years ago, and believe me, you don’t understand Nietzsche.
<i>Mr. fear, in regards to 1): A. Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Iraq was pursuing their WMD program mostly because Saddam’s government did everything in their power to give that impression.
B. Saddam was harboring and aiding terrorists including al Qaeda affiliates that had recently fled Afghanistan and in the case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had just murdered our ambassador to Jordan. The terror arguments were put forth before the war repeatedly. A good example can be found here and there is not a single lie contained.</i.
We obviously have a different understanding of the facts. It is fruitless for me to argue with you about them this evening, so let me just say that you have been watching too much Fox News.
…and the central premise of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself!”
Fear,
You’re kidding right? Right?
Your infallible instincts for rooting out “cons” has produced objective proof that is “clear beyond any doubt.”
Perhaps, the reason that your analysis “doesn’t entirely make sense” is that you start from a false premise.
Try Occam’s razor.
Looks like Fear got there before we did.
Unquestionably.
FITMK said: “That, taken alone, is clear evidence to me that a con was being run on the country. (I won’t explain that here. Let me just say that I have good instincts in detecting con games and that those instincts have proven themselves objectively again and again.)”
You trust your own instincts as evidence. Well, that’s nice, but please don’t be offended (or surprised) if others want something a bit more substantive as evidence that “a con was being run on the country.”
“Two and a half years later, it is clear beyond any doubt that they were running a con.”
Yes, clear beyond any doubt, based on… your instinct. Your arguments are unassailable! Case closed! I’m off to join Mother Sheehan and the Bush-Must-Confess crowd.
(Jeff: Something is screwy with your comments form… using any tags screws up the comment.)
If anything justifies an Inigo Montoya reprise in the same thread, it’s the use of the word “lies” in Fear’s first comment.
And again we are challenged to answer the same question that we’ve been dealing with for over three years, and again all of the answers are pre-emptively dismissed as lies.
And we’re supposed to engage this line of questioning … why?
Two and a half years later, it is clear beyond any doubt that they were running a con.
Well, there you go. You believe The Truth to be that “they were running a con.” Unless someone in the Administration says “we were running a con, and here’s why…” you consider it a lie.
By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
FITMK must be Tom Hilton’s adolescent brother.
How come there aren’t any Iraq war hunger strikes going on? It worked for Randall Robinson when he wanted Clinton to change the policy on Haitian refugee imigration. Basically, he single-handedly changed an aspect of American foreign policy. Also, self-immolation seemed to get a lot of attention during Vietnam.
If one Gold Star Mother took a month off from gnoshing or lit herself on fire we might not leave Iraq but I bet she’d at least get a Q/A session with the President (well, if she survives). But they won’t, they’re a bunch of chickenhungerstrikers.
My instincts tell me that a Greyhound full of bikini-clad supermodels are on their way to my house with a check for 1 billion dollars and tickets for all of us to Hawaii for 3 months. It must be true, my instincts have never failed me!
Turing word: “mans” As in, this man’s in for a good time!
I don’t want to pass FITMK off as a moonbat, as he is eloquent and… well, respectful to those in the debate, as opposed to the usual filth we have to argue with.
But, dangit man…
[digression]About here, I grumble about using too many ellipses thingies with my quoting, because, well, frankly, I find myself too witty in pointing out that attacks on logic are possibile like this one:
I digress. No attack meant on President Clinton, just lighthearted fun poking at ellipses thingies, now back to your regularly scheduled post.[/digression]
I’d like to thoughtfully debate this fellow in a way that should seem possible, but, to coin a phrase, “It’s no good. I can’t do it!” Dangit, you’re SO CLOSE to being really reasonable.
Am I the only analyst out there that tends to shy away from any political theories that involve “conspiracies” simply because the popularity/facts ratios for such things are so pathetic?
Note that I am aware that your definition of “con” also allows for the possibility of there being unspoken military reasons rather than greed or the usual “EEEVIL REPUBLIKKKANS” type thing, and, again, for that, I acknowledge that you’re SO CLOSE to being reasonable.
By the way, “analyst” is an unfair word to describe me. Let’s try “person.” Apologies for the word choice.
OK, then.
Let me leave you with this. (If you don’t answer, I won’t be surprised! But if you don’t, please go back and read all of the comments criticizing those who would ask the question, on the grounds that “the question has already been answered.”)
Why did we invade Iraq, contrary to the will of much of the rest of the world and given the absence of any evidence of threat–no, the growing evidence at the time of the absence of any threat? What about that cause could legitimately be described as “noble”?
Perhaps… I don’t know… BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAS!
I suppose the fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator who most certainly did not divorce himself from terrorists, defied UN resolutions, and had been a professed enemy of the US doesn’t count.
Then again, I guess mentioning that the nations that opposed us were largely profiting from Saddam (See Food, Oil For) would be considered ATTACKING THE NATIONS RATHER THAN THEIR ARGUMENTS! (Whereas Sheehan makes no arguments worth reading other than to realize that she is a disturbed woman deserving pity rather than scorn.)
The question has been most dutifully answered by the aforementioned postings, anyway.
Nice try, that crap doesn’t fly here. No cigar for you, friend.
By the way, cite for me please proof that at the time we knew that Saddam was not developing WMDs.
McGehee:
WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF THE DIALOGUE, CHICKENHAWK? WHY IS IT YOU CANNOT CONFRONT THE HARD QUESTIONS, PREFERRING TO REMAIN WITHIN THE WARM AND SAFE CONFINES OF YOUR “FAUX NEWS” WORLDVIEW?
HUH??
WHY IS THAT, INCIPIENT, FASCIST, WARMONGERER?!
Whew. Don’t know what came over me. Where am I? Why is Jeff’s underwear in a bunch in the corner? Why am I wearing a filthy sun dress? What kind of funky money is this? Turkey? Lira? Why is there a DVD of Sin City stuck in my butt crack?
My money is on a gross misunderstanding of what a DVD player is and how it works.
But that’s just a theory.
I wonder how many of the anti-war leftists who scream “chickenhawk” all the time voted for Bill Clinton in 1996.
Jeff
Excellant post.
Just a general observation, when a post makes strong, thought provoking arguments, the moonbats go all rabid and come out in some sort of zombie force.
In response:
The will of much the rest of the world is irrelevant to the formulation of US security policy and the only bearing it has on the execution of US policy is in how it helps or hinders that policy. I believe I already supplied enough that, even if you disagree, you should at least be able to see that many people were concerned about terrorism in Iraq. My support for the war in Iraq was based on concerns about Iraq’s harboring of terrorists and the possibility that Saddam might provide them with chemical or biological weapons. My opinion then and now was that Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists and the Baath regime in and of itself were unacceptable risks to the US. Nothing in the past two years has caused me to change that opinion. You may disagree with me on this, but I fail to see how anyone can claim that neither the administration nor I could honestly hold that opinion. This point of the war being unjustified is the point that makes you seem to me to be begging the question. It seems willfully blind to me to be unable to even imagine the idea that others may have perceived a threat where you did not. If you could manage to credit the administration with acting in what they believe to be our best interest I’d imagine that you might be able to see some shade of nobility in it, but really, since when must a war be noble?
That last sentence is just what I was thinking, Sean. Isn’t necessity enough to justify a war?
Nice buzz language about ‘tropes’ and ‘identity politics’ but I have yet to see any actual refutation of Ms Sheehan’s position. I still see the same attempts to belittle and trivialize her and her loss (witness the ‘she’s no longer a mother because her son is dead’ obscenity).
You can’t engage her directly because the fact is she is 100% correct. Bush did lie in order to start a war that has no moral justification whatsoever.
Approval ratings? Popularity contests?
I don’t think W can run again, can he?…
And please, folks, lend moral credence to the words of Grampa Simpson above, because as a child he was spanked by Grover Cleveland on two non-consecutive occasions.
Okay, so far we’ve got Dune and The Simpsons – who’s next in the moonbat popular culture sweepstakes here? Will we have reached some singularity point if Rider Haggard is invoked?
Or maybe the singularity occurs when someone signs a post “Solomon Kane.”
Grampa: Perhaps if you could ,y’know, elucidate MotherSheehan®’s “positions”, you’d have more success at having somebody “refute” them. If that really is your intent.
What are they? Enlighten me, please.
(Pretty much “missionary”, if I’m any judge – and I am.)
She’s a billboard: all image and no content.
Grampa Simpson fails at life. Oops, I just attacked the person again, didn’t I?
Turing word: problem, as in “GS has a definite problem with reality.”
“fear is the mind-killer”?
Dune is kind passe, isn’t it? Shouldn’t you be using a catch-phrase from the latest Star Bores?
SB: real
keepin’ it…
What is the moral justification for us to pull completely out of the Middle East, plunging Irag and Afghanistan into anarchy and in all probability starting an invasion of Israel that goes nuclear?
Because near as I can tell that is what Cindy’s dreams and aspirations for the region are.
Your ass is ours.
OK, to sum up:
Brother Tom Hilton (yesterday): The ideas and statements of Cindy Sheehan are irrelevant because:
Young FITMK: Cindy Sheehan deserves a confession from President Bush, because FITMK’s instincts tell him that the Iraq war was a con game.
Grandpa Simpson: It is impossible to argue with Cindy Sheehan because she is 100% correct.
Umm, could the Left please send in their A team? Thanks.
Ilyka schooled FITMK. Check Update 3.
“Fear…” we do not have different understandings of the facts. Rather, you are inventing “facts” that simply are false.
Okay, okay, I did add you to my blogroll. Excellent post, excellent discussion.
BTW, what does “fear is the mind killer” mean. Sounds pretty meaningless to me. How about, “Broccoli is the mind killer”? It makes just as much sense.
Umm, could the Left please send in their A team? Thanks.
That IS the “A-Team”.
Ugh. It’s sad to see the left still spouting the can’t/won’t/don’t negativity that’s lost them so many elections. “Stop this…” “Pull out of that…” Quit. Abandon. Retreat. Give up.
Cindy is just the latest face of the “We suck and we’re sorry!” brigade. Never been a winning platform and it’s not likely to start any time soon.
Too bad. The Right needs a decent adversary to stay on its toes; this current crop of Mooreon.org/Air anti-America self-loathers, quitters, and terrorist useful idiots is doing nobody any good. Least of all themselves.
I blame Oprah.
Damn. And here I thought I was having a migraine.
Turing word: better. As in, better arguments, please.
“Mr. X, I studied Nietszche in some depth over 20 years ago, and believe me, you don’t understand Nietzsche.”
And your proof for this assertion is………????
Waaaiiiit a minute. So now Cindy Sheehan says I wasted a whole freakin’ year of my life in Afghanistan? But I was quite diligent in my search for proper pipeline avenues for Haliburton…oops, did I type that out loud? Uh..
I WANT ANSWERS MR. BUSH! ISRAEL OUT OF MIDEAST! US OFF THE EARTH!! (does that help?)
His instincts, of course.
Major John (I know you know this), the pipeline wasn’t about Halliburton, it was Unocal who was attempting to get natural gas out of Turkmenistan via a pipeline across Afghanistan. (But, I know, why ruin a good story?)
The lame left and their “it’s all about oil” argument falls apart every time they spout about Halliburton, who is in the construction and services business, and actual oil & gas companies, that are, yes, in the oil & gas business.
’Nice buzz language about ‘tropes’ and ‘identity politics’ but I have yet to see any actual refutation of Ms Sheehan’s position.’
Her position that the US is repugnant and not worth dying for? Or her position that Bush killed her son not terrorists? Her position that the US is in Iraq to protest Israel? Her position that Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist? Her position that Bush lied to get us to go to Iraq? Sorry but both you and Ms. Sheehan are moral cretins who can’t or won’t distinguish between the US expending it’s blood and resources to insure freedom and terrorists who want to turn the world into a medieval caliphate.
I absolutely love the fact that various Leftists pontificate on as to Sheehan and her “unique” moral authority.
What kind of moral vacuum does one have to call home in order that you perceive reverence and integrity in the actions of a parent exploiting her dead son. With the ultimate aim of bringing about a situation in Iraq that will mean her son died for nothing.
She not only exploits his memory but is fully willing to make his death meaningless.
(And she wants to ask Bush about why her son died..what meaning it had?)
This is the kind of person the left would make a saint.
(Not only are they, the Left, not fit to govern. But it appears that simply distinguishing between wrong and right might soon be completely beyond their ability as well.)
Maybe Bush should meet with the Sheehan nut case.. right out in front of that circus she’s part of. And when she asks why her son is dead, Bush should say something like; “If we see the mission through to its conclusion – he died liberating not just a people, but an entire region. On the other hand… If,as you insist, we bring the troops home now – Then, He died for nothing.”
And then he should ask her something along the lines of;
“So. Tell me Madame. Why is it you would have your son die for nothing?”
M
Hi SeanH,
I think you have an extremely important point. If you see that your complaints are incipient on the right, then you see farther than I. Maybe it is just that you get around the blogosphere more than I do.
I do not see it at all, but I rarely frequent any but the top blogs on the right. To borrow from the Ace of Spades (and why would you not 
), any loose shit on the conservative side should be reprimanded. I think that does happen. I have even done some of that myself! 
It seems to be done constantly with good humor and synergy. I used to go to good schools, and I could talk to smart people all the time. I do not any more, except on the internet occasionally (and I have a brother who is first-tier intelligent). Ace is obviously smarter than he admits to–no really! 
. I do think that you have nailed most of the left. Alan Dershowitz is an example of a lefty whom I admire. He argues rationally, and he obviously has an impressive intellect. The lefties that I meet are not that bright, and immediately get that look. You know the look (examining a pod person or worse! 
). It is obvious to them that you are pure evil and stupid, regardless of the fact that they often know that you are manifestly not stupid (at least compared to them! 
). You can’t talk to them any more. The Bushitler mindset seems OK to them. If you do not buy into that, then it is game over. It is sad.
I am very curious about your take on the Shiavo case, although I suspect that we do not agree. I personally think that Sheehan is a media thing which means nothing really. It is just a passing thing. Shiavo was an important case. I probably lost my best friend over that one.
Mike
Some of you don’t understand the Left and seek to claim them all as moonbats or moore-ons… There’s a lot more there…
They have opposed anything that reversed, postponed, or even slowed the spread of their religion, Socialism, since Marx and Engels were poisoning young minds with their misbegotten crapulence back in the Nineteenth Century.
You can scoff if you want to; but look at how well organized these parasites have been. To spur on your thinking, I will point to only a few recent examples. The rest of the research you can do, starting with You Can Trust The Communists (To Be Communists) by Schwartz.
Let’s look at Fidel Castro of Cuba, opposed by those who love Democracy, praised by the Left. Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua (former communist leader), the same. Chavez of Venezuela, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Kim Jong Il of North Korea, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq… all Socialists… all enemies of what we enjoy in the Land of the Free… And ALL have one thing that Dubya doesn’t have–fans on the Left…
The Late, Former Senator McCarthy was a loud-mouthed, ham-handed jerk; but the use of improper methods does not mean his information about infiltration was wrong. Sadly, his investigations “poisoned the well” for future attempts to clean up our government.
They’re not moonbats, not all of them. They’re well-organized. They work together far better than our beloved Republicans ever have. And they handle the Press far better than those on the Right.
Until the Bloggers arrived.
Looking at the poll numbers (and the behavior they drive), who controls the schools (shaping the minds of the young, or at least the dullest 80%), and the legacy media (shaping the minds of the old – you know, the ones who vote), and more importantly, how they go about controlling it – intimidation, marginalisation, demonization – sure looks more like the master mentality than the slave.
A-team or no, they’re winning, and winning dirty.
Databases can provide you with a wealth of sources to examine, and some of them are even keyword searchable. ,