Earlier today, Red State’s Erick Erickson wrote a piece in which he referred to professional grieving Mom Cindy Sheehan as a “media whore”—a rather common designation for someone who appears to be using her “access to [media] outlets to promote a particular commercial or ideological message” (not one I’m inclined to use as yet, but not one I find paricularly offensive, either).
Predictably, faux-outrage over Erickson’s comments from many of the left’s marquee players has since reached fever pitch—culminating with this post from Atrios, which highlights just exactly how unserious he has become as a thinker, particularly when intentionally misleading polemics are so much easier to affect:
Um, has Michelle Malkin talked to Cindy Sheehan’s son? Has Bill O’Reilly? Has Erick Erickson, who called Cindy Sheehan a whore over at redstate.org? If they haven’t talked to him, they should shut up, leave her alone, and defend their incoherent position on the Iraq war without hiding behind Cindy Sheehan’s dead son [my emphasis]
Leaving aside the fact that Atrios is so certain his readers will forgive him for failing to distinguish between “whore” (a person will get in your car and blow you at a stoplight for $50) and “media whore” (which once gave its name to a popular leftwing media watchdog site—a site to which Atrios himself occasionally contributed) that he hardly gives it a second thought, what is truly amazing about this piece of self-righteous, mock-wounded puffery is the suggestion that Erickson, et al, should defend their positions on Iraq “without hiding behind Cindy Sheehan’s dead son”—even as Atrios, his readers, and a vast army of scandal-mongers hide behind the grief of that dead son’s mother.
But perhaps I’m being too indelicate here. Perhaps all that Atrios and his ilk wish to do is give voice to the mother of an Iraqi soldier—to allow her her share her experiences with the world. And what could be wrong with that?—provided, of course, that the soldier in question is dead, and that the mother hates the President, thinks the US is a fascist state with imperialist intent, and that the 2004 elections were “stolen”…
And really, aren’t those the only kind worth listening to?
****
More, from Josh Trevino and TMan in Tennessee; and here’s Steve Gilliard getting his virtue glands in a bother over the same phantom offense that brought Atrios to a lather—specifically, that Erickson called Ms Sheehan a “whore.” Gilliard then goes on to prove his intellectual dishonesty by trotting out the chickenhawk argument against Erickson, doing so from his computer keyboard—and not, as one might expect, from some mountain pass in Afghanistan, where he is engaged in helping to bring bin Laden to justice, and in compensating, with his presence, for the horrific diversion of resources into Iraq Chimpy McHilterburton and his merry band of oil bandits have wrought.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
****
h/t Cole, who also points me to the Chief Brody Slap:
The Chief Brody Slap (CBS) is a chief staple in an any liberal diet: a fiery mix of outrage, self-rightious indignation and condemnation delivered from a moral highground so lofty it gives you a nosebleed. The Brody Slap is predicated on the idea that you don’t need a solution, only blame. Who needs a real alternative when you’re already outraged? It’s easy!
Exactly. Bush to the world: “We’re gonna need a bigger war!”
****
update: Excellent post from John Cole:
I haven’t written about Cindy Sheehan because it is just a tragedy. She has lost her kid, is grief-stricken, so I figure it best to just leave her alone. Fair enough.
However, it is understandable that her new-found activism, along with her aligning herself with the radical anti-war left and staging media events with no purpose other than to attack the President, should be seen as opening herself up to criticisms of her political positions. It is also fair to state that many on the left have chosen her as a symbol to bludgeon anyone who still supports this war. The prevailing opinion from the left appears to be that Sheehan is the perfect weapon, someone whose viewpoints are simply not allowed to be challenged, someone who can be used at will to not only galvanize support for the anti-war movement, but to attack the President, the President’s policies, and anyone who chooses to continue to support the mission in Iraq. And no one is allowed to say anything to counter that- the President and those who still support themission are supposed to just sit there and take it, lest they be accused of attacking a grieving mother.
And what a weapon she has turned out to be! As I write this, there are 2,560 current media stories about Cindy Sheehan listed by google news. Technorati coughs up another 4967 blog posts. Google, when asked, coughs and sputters and reveals 729,000 archived stories. By comparison, Todd Beamer, of “Let’s Roll†fame offers up 69,000 hits.
With that alone, a reasonable person might feel safe in stating that Cindy Sheehan is at the very least approaching becoming a public figure. Throw in the MSNBC, FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS coverage, her blogging for Michael Moore and the Huffington Post,and it is beyond safe to come to the conclusion that she has eclipsed ‘grieving mother’ status and has moved on to anti-war celebrity status. I would even venture to say that she is a political figure, as well as the perfect political weapon.
Read the whole thing.
See also, ITM’s “A Message to Cindy Sheehan”
Re: Chickenhawk
I’m sure the Left would support an ammendment to the constitution that would only allow those with military service to serve in the Executive Branch?
Feh. Best just to outlaw war and make the question moot.
Atrios has always been, well, Atrios, but he’s really seemed to be on a crazy ‘roid rage lately.
I’m going to contact Ben Affleck to see if he’s interested in the script I’m working on: A Blog To Go Nuts For: The Duncan Black Story
Atrios the slime complaining about other people’s rhetoric is like Stalin whining about police brutality.
Um, has Michelle Malkin talked to Cindy Sheehan’s son? Has Bill O’Reilly? Has Erick Erickson…? If they haven’t talked to him, they should shut up…etc.
What, is Atrios demanding that they perform a seance now? Or perhaps some sort of right-wing sleepover where they break out the ol’ Ouija board?
Thanks Jeff.
Malkin already performed the seance
If you don’t want to read through her hate-mail, here’s the quote: I can’t imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior, conduct, and rhetoric.
The fact that Casey Sheehan re-enlisted in August 2003 tells me everything I need to know.
Whore can only be applied to those who ally themselves with whatever administration is currently in power. “Media-whore” is a specific term, copyrighted by the perpetually indignant and, thusly, useable only by them. To TF6S: It gladdens me to see that Heinlein is still being read. To Jeff, “affect” can be interchanged with “effect” to give a view of the hopes of this creature. To Ms. Sheehan, your own son re-enlisted and volunteered for dangerous duty. He most likely thought that fighting for freedom was a noble cause. I am ashamed of you.
Mohammed at ITM has a wonderful message for Cindy Sheehan.
<a href=”http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/” target=”_blank”>
Okay….
a message for Cindy
The permalink to that post.
For posterity, and whatnot.
I had to giggle a little when I found out my own Sheehan post, complete with a pic of her in 60’s retro peacenik attire, became a small feature on the demoncratic underground and a contingent of cliche ridden fringies invaded my comments.
WOW, the way they swarm you’d have thought it was Tom Cruise and a flotilla of scientologists!
i wrote this satire for dr. rusty, on the Fountains of Wayne song, Stacy’s Mom.
i should rent a karaoke and record it, but i can’t sing.
Casey’s Mom
but i think it is appropriate. Stacy’s Mom cares more obout her own goals and ambitions than her child’s, just like Casey’s Mom.
Because he has hemorrhoids, or he is one?
Well, what’s kind of cool is that Sheehan wouldn’t be what she is today without all your help. Every single drop of poison y’all are spittin seems to be doing nothing but making her ever more famous and effective as a political weapon.
Jeff’s well written glimpses inside his angry, angry soul do nothing but buttress her question: Why did her son die. Every bit of tar you throw on her makes her plight that much more sympathetic to the rest of the non-wingnut population of the US.
So keep it up guys n’ dolls. I would have never guessed that this would have been a tremendously effective strategy at piercing the veil.
But nothing seems to tug on the heart strings than to see a bunch of scared people running around smearing a woman who’s child died in Iraq.
And it’s even better that you simply cannot stop smearing her. You just keep ratcheting it up and don’t have the simple sense to understand when you should just shut up and let it go.
Priceless.
Thanks Hal. Your permission was the one thing we were missing. Now we can really cut loose.
Knucklehead.
It seems to me she has something like a variant of Munchhausen Syndrome By Proxy. She fits the definition closely enough. She is using her sons death to feel special or heroic to stimulate attention from people. She beams every time she gets an opportunity to talk on television or to a group. And she takes every opportunity.
Be my guest. I always love it when the amateur psychologist start spouting off.
She’s just another moon-bat leftist celebrity moron to me. I mean, granted, she got there by trading on the fact that her patriotic son gave his life in the service of keeping us all safe and that makes her even a little more odious, but still. It’s just more of the same retread 60’s bullshit from where I’m sitting.
Been there, done that. Got the hundreds of thousands of boat people and decades of communist brutality in Southeast Asia to show for it, too. No need for a repeat, no matter what issues Cindy and her ilk have.
”Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. Give in to your anger!”
*Yawn*
Not right now, OK, Sidious? I’m a little worn out from tracking that goddamn armadillo all night.
Man. You folks are so reluctant to whip out your lightsabers these days–I–I just don’t even know why I come to this blog anymore.
Jeff’s well written glimpses inside his angry, angry soul do nothing but buttress her question: Why did her son die.
Her question has already been answered, just not to her satisfaction. He died protecting 25 million Iraqis from 2 million terrorists and their supporters. He felt so strongly about this that he not only VOLUNTEERED to reenlist and return to Iraq, he also VOLUNTEERED to go out on a patrol, one as a mechanic he wasn’t required to go out on, where he would die.
Ah, so it’s a reverse transitive backflip with a double gainer. Because after we created this fucking mess, someone has to die Got it.
Are you talking to me?
If so, you didn’t manage to address the point.
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought I did. You’re saying that he died compensating for incompetent occupation planning and execution for a war which didn’t have any reason in the first place. That he did so is a great tribute to his sense of honor and duty.
Why he was put in this position in the first place, however, is the actual question. Your answer doesn’t even begin to explain that.
You mocked someone earlier about being an “amateur psychologist”, yet now you seem to know enough about this man that you know that he didn’t reenlist out of duty or patriotism, not a sense of doing the right thing for Iraqis. Instead you are sure he went back, then volunteered for a dangerous task, “compensating for incompetent occupation planning and execution for a war”.
You don’t have any evidence for that, do you?
Also, you characterize the situation in Iraq as “this fucking mess”. Can you give me an example of a military situation in history that does NOT fit your definition of a “fucking mess”?
well, maybe you should reveiw the congressional reasons for it.
Um, gee. The only motive I was subscribing to Casey was his admirable sense of duty, patriotism and raw courage. I was only pointing out that the only reason he had to do so was because of the manifestly incompetent occupation planning and execution. And then there’s the fact that no one can give any reason for why the war had to happen in the first place. A question that still remains unanswered despite all the energy y’all have put into smearing Cindy Sheehan.
As to your second question, I’m not even sure what you’re trying to prove here. What? That I’m just a liberal who’s against every war and that I’m just intrinsically anti-military and that explains my position?
. I was only pointing out that the only reason he had to do so was because of the manifestly incompetent occupation planning and execution.
The “only” reason? How about the terrorists? Do they figure into you reasoning? Could you give some examples of “manifestly incompetent planning”? AND what you would have done differently?
As to your second question, I’m not even sure what you’re trying to prove here. What? That I’m just a liberal who’s against every war and that I’m just intrinsically anti-military and that explains my position?
It should be a simple question to answer. You say this war is a “fucking mess”. Since you are obviously a student of history, you MUST have another situation that was not a mess to compare this one to. Otherwise, you characterization is meaningless.
Um, would those be the terrorists that didn’t exist until after the occupation? Or would those be the new terrorists created in the new Terrorist U we just created? No doubt they’re there now – not going to dispute that.
As to what I’d do differently, the first is to have an actual plan. I don’t have to offer an alternative to observe that there was no plan. That’s frikin’ obvious to anyone looking – especially the experts.
But I guess their characterization is meaningless as well, right? They didn’t offer up any historic comparisons, so they must be whacked on Tiffin like me.
Hal seems to be one of the ilk like the flying monkeys that are on my site attacking my daughter because of MY opinions on the poor Cindy Sheehan and the public spectacle she is making of herself.
Nice tactics the Left pulls out as they dig ever lower.
Um, would those be the terrorists that didn’t exist until after the occupation?
I guess those guys in the airliners on 9-11 were just lost?
But you continue to aviod the question. You said the situation in Iraq was a “fucking mess”. Obviously there must be some way to compare this “fucking mess” with other military involements throughout history that weren’t “fucking messes”. You see, if you cannot give any historical perspective to your conclusions, I am forced to believe that you are basing your opinions on Iraq only on your hatred of Bush.
Incidentally, since we are creating so many more terrorists that previously, why hasn’t there been a terrorist attack on the US or it’s interests outside a war zone since 9-11?
and abu nidal was just misunderstood.
Well, I certainly know they weren’t Iraqi.
Nice to see y’all are still pushing this linkage. A linkage that is unbelievably transparent to all but the wingnut mind.
Oh, and Mags…. Abu Nidal is a teetering old toothless 70 year old man.
Quite the feather in the cap he was, and well worth 1800+ american lives.
Oh wait a minute. Abu was shot by the Iraqis before the war. Again, the reverse transitive backflip justification with a triple gainer. 10 points!
hal, he’s an example of “terrorists that didn’t exist” in iraq. he is not, by any stretch of the imagination the only one. you can find more examples in <a href=”http://www.nexusjournal.org/separate pdf/Volume9/ShafiroffArticle.pdf” target=”_blank”>this</a> article. seems i’m almost as lazy as you are when it comes to research. ;D
Well, I certainly know they weren’t Iraqi.
You said that terrorists did not exist before the invasion, not Iraqis. Get your arguments straight.
Nice to see y’all are still pushing this linkage. A linkage that is unbelievably transparent to all but the wingnut mind.
Able Danger anyone?
And you STILL refuse to answer the other point. Considering you are so sure this is a “fucking mess”, you should be able to explain your reasoning in a historically significant way.
Or are you just parroting the left’s talking points?
Actually, Hal, it is you who remains so close-minded that he refuses to let anything new enter through the transom—or who is willing to take such careful wording as no “proof” of “operational ties” between Iraq and al Qaeda (meaning, there was signed contract that anyone can turn up, though meetings between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden are confirmed) as proof that Iraq and al Qaeda shared no common interest in attacking the US.
For all your talk about my angry soul, you sure do spend a lot of time trying to paper over the willful intransigence in your own.
Ah, the booming voice of authority. Well, it’s your Popsicle stand. Still, if the only research you can drag up is Capn’ crunch and the media “whores” hanging out at the corner, then I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than that. Lord. It’s like me expecting you to take a post by Ted Rall as evidence.
We’ll see how this turns out. You’d think it’d be in the Administration’s interest to make sure this got out, and considering they own the 9/11 commission anyway, you just have to wonder why on earth it didn’t get out. CURSE THOSE ALL POWERFUL DEMOCRATS!
I’m sure it’s going to break across the MSM any day now.
TomB: Nice debate tactic. I did not say terrorists didn’t exist before the occupation. I said they didn’t exist in Iraq before the occupation. Something Mags understood, but apparently not you.
Hal: “WHY DO YOU ATTACK CINDY? HOW DARE YOU QUESTION HER MOTIVES! WHY NOT ANSWER HER ARGUMENTS?”
Hal: “HOW DARE YOU OFFER ME ARGUMENTS FROM CAPN’ CRUNCH AND THE MEDIA WHORES WHO WORK FOR THAT RIGHTWING RAG, NATIONAL REVIEW! THEY HAVE AN AGENDA AND SO ARE THEREFORE NOT TO BE LISTENED TO!”
I simply don’t understand how one human can be so consistently, persistently tone deaf.
Hal continues to ignore the questions he cannot answer, for the simple reason that he doesn’t know. All he’s been told by the moonbats that he goes to for talking points is that “Iraq is a fucking mess”, therefore, it is so.
He can’t give a historical example of a better “mess” than Iraq for the simple reason that none exists. Never before in the history of the world have TWO countries been liberated at the cost of so few. But since it hasn’t been wrapped up in Hal’s 30 minute sitcom attention span, it qualifies as a “fucking mess”.
What credentials have you to make and support this judgement?
It’s been explained many times. That you don’t like the explanation does not mean that there has been none.
Organizations funded, sheltered and/or trained by Saddam Hussein:
Abu Nidal Organization, Ansar al-Islam, Arab Liberation Front, Kurdistan Worker’s party, Mujahedin-e-Khalq, Plaestine Liberation Front.
At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying “bonuses” of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. “President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,†Tariq Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.
Saddam Hussein’s government provided diplomatic help to Islamic extremists. Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front. He masterminded the October 7-9, 1985 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship whose name, sadly, is now synonymous with terrorism. The Achille Lauro was on a voyage across the Mediterranean when four Palestinian terrorists seized it on the high seas. They held some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours. Abbas, was captured but was allowed to leave custody on a plane to Iraq. Bettino Craxi, at that time, Italy’s prime minister. As Craxi explained in an October 14, 1985 UPI story: “Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.†Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein’s guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003. This time, he did not get away. He died last March 9, in American custody, reportedly of natural causes.
The Philippine government expelled Hisham al Hussein, the former second secretary at Iraq’s embassy in Manila, on February 13, 2003, just five weeks before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Cell phone records indicate he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda’s de facto franchise for the Philippines. The timing was particularly suspicious, as he had been in contact with the Abu Sayyaf terrorists just before and after they conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf’s nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and one American.
Abu Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.†Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization  a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people. If there is any justice here, perhaps it is the fact that Abu Nidal died in August 2002. Saddam Hussein’s government claimed that he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head  four times.
This Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York. This was an al-Qaeda operation. Perhaps not a link between Iraq and 11 September, but certainly between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
This Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York. Soon after the smoke cleared, Yasin returned to Iraq. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.
Abu Musab al Zarqawi, after running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination Lawrence Foley, a U.S. diplomat in Amman, Jordan who worked on international development projects.
The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. With a little looking you can find a satellite photo on the net that shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert. Sabah Khodada is a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. On October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program “Frontline,†stating, “This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.â€Â
Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir  an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing “a foreign government service,” page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, “Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra’ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee” in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur’s airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi subsequently spent the morning of September 11, 2001 flying American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 people. Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and “Operation Bojinka,†al-Qaeda’s 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific. Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir’s name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein’s prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen.
Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. He was Consul and Second Secretary at Iraq’s Czech embassy between March 1999 and April 22, 2001. He long has been suspected of meeting with September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, most likely on April 8, 2001. Perhaps at other times, too. While skeptics dismiss this encounter, Czech intelligence found Al-Ani’s appointment calendar in Iraq’s Prague embassy, presumably after Saddam Hussein’s defeat. Al-Ani’s diary lists an April 8, 2001, meeting with “Hamburg student.” This meeting, we were told by the 9/11 Commission was not possible according to the timeline they developed. That timeline was the reason cited (once they admited to having had the information) for discouting the Able Danger information. If the Commission was wrong and Able Danger was right, there was time for this meeting. A meeting theat Czech intelligence still insists happened.
No, I didn’t say they shouldn’t be listened to. I said we’ll see how this plays out. And the “whores” bit was just a dig at Cole’s piece which you lovingly linked. Man, talk about tone deaf.
As to moral authority, I don’t see anyone over at the corner with any skin in Iraq. And considering how often they’ve cried wolf wrt WMDs and the great threat from pre-war Iraq, I think it’s wise to require proof before making a rush to judgment about a wild claim that was last seen buttressed by a napkin and a leaked memo that was an embarrassment to even hard core neo cons.
I mean, you’re batting 0 for 1000000000 so far.
And, again, keep it coming wrt Cindy Sheehan. Like I said, nothing helps the cause than your well written rants.
Well, I guess that settles it. One must obviously be an expert in, say, computer software before one can say that the software program is a complete disaster. One must obviously have an MBA before one can say that a business plan has been a complete disaster.
Credentials indeed.
And thanks for the long screed. That yours or is that from somewhere else on the web?
Hal,
Ever heard of Operation Viking Hammer?
“Army Special Forces soldiers faced down 13 Iraqi divisions and attacked a camp believed to be harboring al Qaeda terrorists and other foreign jihadists” This was in Northern Iraq.
That’s right. During our initial invasion into Iraq Army Special Forces attacked and killed terrorists that had foreign passports on them.
So yeah. They did exist before our occupation.
Put that in your peacepipe and smoke it.
Hal: “No, I didn’t say they shouldn’t be listened to.”
Hal: “Still, if the only research you can drag up is Capn’ crunch and the media “whores†hanging out at the corner, then I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than that. Lord. It’s like me expecting you to take a post by Ted Rall as evidence.”
Hal: “Well, I guess that settles it. One must obviously be an expert in, say, computer software before one can say that the software program is a complete disaster. One must obviously have an MBA before one can say that a business plan has been a complete disaster.
Hal: “As to moral authority, I don’t see anyone over at the corner with any skin in Iraq. “
Interestingly, that last is a variation on the chickenhawk meme, whereas RTO’s was simply asking for evidence and qualifications for making what amount to assured foreign policy and military criticism.
But be that as it may: I’ll ask you the same question I asked another commenter in another thread: Will you agree to back a Constitutional Amendment making military service mandatory for any one who directs foreign policy, votes on foreign policy issues and or related legislation, or rules on issues that impact foreign policy. That would successfully insure that all three branches of government are completely “militarized,†which is what you seem to want (structurally speaking).
Because obviously we should be holding those MAKING the decisions to the same standards as we hold those who presume to report and comment on the decisions and their aftermaths.
The other option is to suggest that we simply pass a law outlawing war, disassemble our military, and make the question moot.
****
As to your suggestion that we “keep it coming wrt Cindy Sheehan”, you can bet we will. And I hope Cindy Sheehan left more of her pronouncements in public view, so that her attempts at becoming an anti-war martyr are frustrated by her own radical, hardcore leftist views—be they on Israel, or the US motives for going to war, etc.
If you haven’t used the software or patronized the business you still don’t have a basis for criticism. Indeed, credentials.
I’ll be happy to tell you all about where the information is from after you address it.
So, Jeff. Do you just stop reading at select points and ignore the rest of the comments?
Geez, louis.
WRT moral authority, I’m just saying that you’re comparing apples and oranges. Kind of a cute variation of the chewbacca defense. Your challenge is patently silly because it certainly seems like TomB and RTO trainer are the ones claiming I can’t speak to anything without military credentials – not me.
And I really liked the false dilemma you always seem to throw in at the end there. Kind of like a Goldstein Service Mark(SM).
Great to hear about Cindy. I’m sure that’ll work out well for you all. But just remember. You’re not doing this to be popular. You’re not doing this based on polls. You’re doing this because it’s right and you believe in the truth.
Just keep repeating that.
Right…… See Jeff? I suppose RTO is behind your constitutional suggestion 100%. I can’t possibly critisize Iraq because I’m not in the millitary and don’t support the war.
Re-read, this time for meaning. I don’t say anything of the kind.
The software user is not a programmer, and the business patron is not an MBA. They do, however have experience that allows them to comment intelligently about the respective topics.
So, Jeff. Do you just stop reading at select points and ignore the rest of the comments?
Holy cow! Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.
There’s a whole thread of stuff you’ve conveniently ignored because you can’t answer it.
If you’re going to make the arguments, Hal, stick to them. Saying “we’ll see how it comes out” in no way mitigates the fact that you questioned the value of Captain Ed and the entirety of the Corner crew as information sources. You attacked the messenger, even after you’ve spent days criticizing others for doing so—even when those others, myself included, are doing no such thing. Or rather, in Ms Sheehan’s case, the messenger IS the message.
And no, RTO is not behind my Constitutional suggestion, I don’t think, because he presumes that members of Congress, or the President, or Supreme Court justices would educate themselves before they make decisions. Whereas what he asked YOU was, “What credentials have you to make and support this judgement?”—a specific question based on YOUR pronouncement about what you called “the manifestly incompetent occupation planning and execution” of the Iraq war.
He’s asking you—as others upthread did, and you ignored them—to supply some context, and give reasons for your certainty that the planning of this war was “manifestly” incompetent, etc. Put another way, you KNOW (this is an epistemological question, whereas the odious chickenhawk charge is ontological) all this HOW? What are your sources? What is your area of expertise?
TomB, I can’t answer it because I can’t put together anything you’ve said coherent enough to even speak against.
RTO: So, tell me, tell me do. What is the analogy of patronizing the business of Iraq? What is the analogy of using the software of the occupation? What, pray tell, do I need to do before I’m qualified in your eyes to begin critisizing?
Color me curious.
TomB, I can’t answer it because I can’t put together anything you’ve said coherent enough to even speak against.
At least you admit your lack of coherence.
Let me restate. You’ve made the assertion that Iraq is a “fucking mess”. Please give us your evidence as to what makes it such, and please give us some historical examples of comparable situations that were handled better.
Well Hal, at least admit you were wrong about terrorists not being in Iraq before our occupation.
Well, of course I attacked the messenger. Just as you would if the only evidence I produced was a post by Ted Rall and Michael Moore. And after ridiculing the scrawled napkin with a crude stick figure, I said “we’ll see”, which – contrary to your claims – indicates that I haven’t dismissed the whole issue just because I dismissed your “evidence”.
As to sources, how about this, <a href=””>this</a>, this , <a href=””>this</a>, this, this, this, <a href=””>this</a>, this, and <a href=””>this</a>, this?
I particularly like the Larry Diamond one as he’s certainly no liberal weenie and actually knows what the hell he’s talking about. One of my absolute all time favorites of his is this.
I know it doesn’t rise to the level of Cap’n crunch and rumors at the corner, but hey… What can you do these days.
Are you being patronizing?
It’s your analogy:
You’ve latched onto Iraq now and can’t let go? There is not Iraq in your anlogy, just general cases. I did not go from general to specific, why do you, and in such a ludicrous way?
Would an example help? I feel comfortable and competent discussing a range of topics, among them ground combat forces and tactics, radios, electronics and troubleshooting, US and World history, physics, pragmatics, classical philosophy, the English language, terrorism, organized crime, the US Intelligence Community, professional football, auto parts service and tires, Disney trivia, Marvel and DC Comics history…. Similarly, there are a number of topics that I am not comfortable or especially competent to discuss such as pharmacology, biological chemistry, English Cricket, College Football outside the Big 12, Air and Naval forces and tactics, sub-Saharan African history, Hinduism, oceanography…the list is substantially longer than the first and neither is exhaustive.
Had anyone a desire to know why I know so much about car and truck tires, I could tell them.
What I don’t understand is why this question in regard to the planning and tactics in Iraq is so difficult for you.
Rightwingsparkle: Yes, you’re right.
Tortured analogies, link dumps that reference old articles as an answer to a charge that he doesn’t allow anything new to penetrate his narrative, attacking the messenger (which he defends by comparing Ted Rall to, say, Cliff May or Rich Lowry), avoiding the questions, etc…Hal is here just to argue with some wingnuts.
And not very well.
Keep going if you’d like. But this is not a discussion. It’s seeing how long he can deflect and obfuscate and ignore until we all tire and he can declare victory.
It’s boring. It’s useless. And I’m through with it.
RTO: okay, for the last time. It doesn’t take an expert to see that something is a piece of crap. In fact, when experts in the field tell you it’s a piece of crap, I tend to listen to them. And when a CPA adviser tells you it’s a complete disaster, I tend to believe him as well.
So, can we stop this bullshit about how I have to understand military planning? I just have to listen to someone who – you know – actually is an expert, former cheerleader and CPA adviser. You know. Listen. I just have to look at the observables being tracked by the Brookings Institution.
You don’t need any special expertise for this.
Or do I? Pray tell, what do I need to interpret Larry Diamond, or Iraq security or electricity production, or the daily occurrence of 64 attacks and ever escalating numbers of dead Iraqi police, civilians?
Just tell me what frickin’ expertise I need which I don’t have by simply having two eyes and 43 years on this planet.
Man, Jeff. You demand something and then strike the “too cool for school” pose when presented with it.
You still need a background to understand what you are being told and are reading.
Even experts and people who shoud know better get conclusions wrong. (Sometimes deliberately)
I can provide you, one for one, sources that contradict yours. Without a basis for evaluating these, you aren’t being informed, you are simply succumbing to bias.
And the Diamond article that you like so much does not support your contentions at all. This brings into question even your ability to select sources on bias.
cause that makes it sound like it wasn’t worth the effort.
Yes, the subtleties are easy to misinterpret
And the Larry Diamond article is even more opaque to us poor ol’ ignoramuses
And the Larry Diamond’s Foreign Policy article is likewise impossible to parse without your advanced knowledge
And I know it takes a rocket science to interpret the tracking data from the Brookings Institution. Man, all that stuff about giga watts is so hard! Time series! Oh my.
Mags, I’ll see that and raise you
You are being deliberaly obtuse. You also again gloss over those parts of my comments you do not wish to address to focus on that which you can obfuscate.
Diamond makes no allegations of “manifestly incompetent occupation planning and execution,” you’re the only one who has and you have yet to back it up.
Consumate professionals make mistakes, this is not incompetence.
Any cahnce you might get around to addressing my “screed?”
but, hal, he’s still making an effort to fix things is he not? i don’t see where he says, “well, let’s go home, nothing to do here!” and to bring tomB back into this, when has there ever been a war that didn’t have some misteps?
Army Historian Cites Lack of Postwar Plan
This is incompetence. This is not “a mistake”. This is not “consummate professionals”. The military – before the war – said it was lunacy to do this without a plan. They – the consummate professionals – were silenced by the incompetents.
Mags: yes, he’s not saying “leave”. And I’m not even saying that. Myself, I think we should bring back the draft, kick out the fools running things so far, and finish this job right.
It’s not missteps. Missteps I understand. Lack of planning, refusal to listen to those screaming that you need one – well, that’s unforgivable.
The military made the plans. You can show no evidence to the contrary.
I will admit that Phase IV is a traditional American weakness. Erros in planning comes from lack of experience in this area.
A draft is a practical impossibility. It’s barely worth discussing let alone proposing.
Well, considering my entire point has been the “manifestly incompetent planning and execution of the occupation”….
But, are you purposefully misreading this article?
But I guess you know stuff he doesn’t, right. So, in black and white, he says
This isn’t an error in planning. This is a lack of planning. It’s not a “whoops” we didn’t see that coming but we tried.
But hey, what expertise does Wilson have?
A lack of Phase IV planning. Phase IV is tricky as it requires detailed knowledge of conditions in the AO. In today’s “hyper-war” operations it cannot be conducted, except in the most general of terms, prior to intiation of Phase III.
You know what Phase IV is, right?
Recommended Reading: The Art of Maneuver : Maneuver Warfare Theory and Airland Battle by Robert Leonhard
Airland Battle has become dated, but the general concepts remain relevant.
To further expand on what Hal is trying to point out to you morons. Here are some more quotes:
The attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared.
And:
Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments. Government failures were attributed in part to public apathy. The predictions of a coming crisis are predicated upon three points:
1) The failure to start training a civilian corps of administrators to take over.
2) The failure of the Government to set up an expert advisory group, such as that which existed in the Foreign Economic Administration’s Enemy Branch to back up the American administrators with informed advice and provide a focal point in Washington for policy-making.
3) The failure of the Allies to decide together, or the United States for itself, the crucial economic question raised; namely what level of economic activity is desired over the long term?
Also:
An exhaustive compilation of opinions to the United States occupation of their country was released this afternoon from the confidential status under which it was submitted to officials of the United States Forces
recently.
Bitter resentment and deep disappointment was voiced over the Americans’ first six months of occupation, though there was some praise for the improvements in transportation, health conditions, book publishing and entertainment.
Oooops! Sorry folks, I got my sources screwed up. Those quotes are from the NY Times in 1946 talking about the US occupation of GERMANY.
But the point still stands. After all, we know what kind of debacle Germany became.
Right?
CHICKENHAWK! YOU JUST HATE CINDY!
Yea, how many US soldiers died in that occupation of Germany? How many bombings a day?
Just wondering, seeing as how we’re traipsing through history.
Damn. If only we can go back in time and give those occupied Germans still loyal to the Reich C4, open borders to Syria and Iran, a 24-cable news cycle to exploit, a persistently hostile US press to aid them, and a postmodern mindset that helps problematize the concepts of good and evil—and then force ourselves to use precision smart munitions and apologize for any civilian casualties (because those are war crimes)—maybe the Nazis coulda held out until we lost our will.
U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq
Bet that’s going to leave a mark.
That leaves a mark on our country, Hal. On our country’s reputation.
It shows bin Laden that he was right: the US—even under an idealistic President—doesn’t have the stones to finish what it starts. Kill a few, leave a few grieving widows, a few protesting Moms, and the press and the left will howl and actively undermine the President and the military and lobby for a pullout and de facto defeat until those in charge fear the US electorate will turn on them and start trying to cut corners to salvage the mission.
Why do you sound gleeful about that? Because it puts us all in danger. Including my little boy.
If we had the political will to depose Saddam, but we don’t have the political will to insist on certain provisions in the Iraqi Constitution—which will be a real shame, and a terrible mistake—then history will judge those responsible and find them wanting. Luckily, we so far only have the word of your hero Larry Diamond and a bunch of unnamed administration officials. So we’ll see, I guess.
But if it turns in your favor, congrats, Hal! And congrats on having officially become a terrorist sympathizer.
Hope it doesn’t leave a mark.
Holy Odin’s beard, Jeff. You’re going to get that silly little mouth of yours slapped some day if you keep accusing people with serious charges.
But of course! It’s all my fault. I’m a sympathizer because I find the lack of planning for the occupation criminal. I’ve only been arguing this for the length of this entire thread. I’m the one who’s responsible for installing a theocracy in one of the largest remaining gas tanks on the planet. I’m the brilliant propagandist who’s been consistently bitch slapping people who’ve been crying out for accountability. I’m the one focused on Cindy Sheehan and how I can smear her while our troops are in a losing battle because of incompetent planning and execution at the very top.
Yea, Jeff. I’m the sympathizer.
You’re the enabler.
Wow, editing comments. Isn’t there some blogger ethics panel about that or something?
You don’t find the lack of “planning” a problem, Hal. You find whatever problems you can, isolate them from their context, fixate on them, use them as a cudgel to help your “side,” and pretend you are a serious person.
You’re not.
Let’s have it your way, Hal, and go back to the Halcyon days when the US was backing tyrannical regimes for purposes of stability, and people like you were pounding your chests and decrying the evils of American greed and hegemony—shrieking about how Amerikkka under Nixon and Ford and Bush I and Reagan was keeping the third world under the iron heel of oppression.
Which is just awful, up until the time when somebody actually tries to do anything about it. Then you are against that, too—and you find your inner isolationist. And that, too, is an unserious pose.
That’s what you are, Hal. You’re a hyper-partisan. You stand for whatever the other side stands against.
You’re a fraud.
The fact that you would even suggest I’m focused on smearing Cindy Sheehan shows that you have not an honest bone in your body. You aren’t for accountability, Hal. You’re for standing up against the Man.
You’re a 43-year old who’s never grown up. And you will one day reap what you’ve sown.
I edit my comments once I’ve seen them posted. I have a hard time editing in these little comments boxes.
Don’t like it? Go someplace else.
Incidentally, in successive comments you’ve suggested somebody strike me and you’ve questioned my ethics. This is on top of questioning my soul and my motivations vis-a-vis a woman who lost her son. One wonders why you even hang around evil folks like me.
I’ve been very hospitable to you up until now. But you are beginning to try my patience.
Wow, you sound pretty desperate there, Jeff. I think you’ve just popped a cog. I’m a proponent of “opposition to the withdrawal of state support or recognition from an established church, especially the Anglican Church in 19th-century England”?
My lord.
It’s quite amazing how you blame everything on me and “my kind”. No responsibility. No accountability. It’s all my fault and we’re to blame. We suck the political will out of the country – taking it’s purity of essence, I suppose.
Yep, we “antis” are so frikin’ powerful we can single handedly – after all, we’re just a tiny minority, right – snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
If only we had our come uppance! Where is our come uppance!
Geez Jeff. “reap what you have sown”?
I guess this time it’s biblical.
Go have that Guinness and calm down.
Wow, touchy. I mean, you only accused me of treason. What do you expect?
Go have a beer and enjoy some time with your wonderful son.
And why does this have to be a parallel as well? Do you mean to imply that if the latter is not equivalent, this invalidates the former? This is a Fallacy of Distraction.
I’d discuss the differences with you, but you’d need to know what Phase IV is.
You mean this
Or more commonly referred to as the occupation and transition to civillian authority.
What’s the technical point, RTO? What am I missing?
See, if you’d stop refreshing like a fanatic, I’d get my comments fixed and corrected and all would be fine. I was going to use the metaphor of establising an official church (the more general meaning of antidisestablishmentarianism) to suggest that you are a committed partisan, bound to the Church of Whatever it Takes to Get into Power, but it was too unwieldy, so I scrapped it and just went with the more direct approach.
I’ve been saying all along that the rhetoric the left is using is dangerous and can undermine the will of the country, especially when it’s framed as being the neutral position by a compliant MSM. You keep insisting that I’m overreacting every time I write one of those posts.
Then, when such a steady stream of rhetoric is beginning to do exactly what I’ve been saying it’s going to do—what it did in Vietnam, weakening the will of the American polity—you turn around and accuse me of taking your position.
And don’t you dare lecture me on a willingness to take responsibility. I’ve been fighting people like you who since day one have wanted nothing more than to see this war fail. And if the Administration begins taking shortcuts, I’ll be critical of them, as well.
I continue to link to those IN IRAQ who say that the mood over there is completely different than the mood here. But do you ever respond to that? No. Because it doesn’t fit with your narrative. And your narrative is not one you use to frame your knowledge; it is one you use to push your agenda.
You are a fraud, Hal. And I won’t calm down, because people like you put everybody in danger. And then you blame everybody else, because all you’re doing is speaking Truth to Power.
Bullshit.
Your sickening little schadenfreude over that WaPo piece shows you up for what you are.
You want to make snarky comments wrt my choice of phrase? Fine, knock yourself out. Don’t like “reap what you’ve sown”? Howsabout “catch a piece of twisted subway door in your spine when the bombs start going off here in the US.”
Fageddaboudit, Jeff – Hal’s only programmed as a mouth-stuffer. He shoves his words into your mouth and then declares you spoke them.
Annoying, ain’t it?
That’s the point, I think. I’m no shrink.
Actually, I’m a registered independent. I voted for Reagan and then for that idiot Libertarian in ‘84. I’m hardly a partisan.
But still, project all you want. It’s stunning what you ascribe to poor little ol’ me. Aren’t I the impotent member of a dying political ideology? Oh wait, we’re the all powerful fifth column sucking the essence of our body politic, sapping the will to defeat the enemy.
Fighting people like me? What? With a keyboard clenched between your teeth? With a witty phrase and an plush armadillo clenched tightly under your arm?
My lord, you have a rather inflated view of me. Such power that I have.
Isn’t there a specific class of hairy little mythical beasts what likes to hang out underneath bridges that we’ve all been cautioned not to feed?
That scratches the surface. Not nearly the complete answer.
Without the context, you won’t understand the explanation.
Yea, doesn’t it define someone who doesn’t add anything to the conversation? Look back on the comments, sonny. I’ve been engaging without being mean. And I’ve been on topic.
RTO: well, don’t be a tease. Pray tell. Provide links, some commentary – something. This mysterious “you are not worthy” dance of the seven veils is tiresome.
And so high school.
Hal’s next pose—the fiercely independent freethinker dedicated to facts, fighting the partisans on both sides!
Uh huh.
Like I said, you’re a fraud.
And I’m not giving you, by yourself, power. I’m giving language power. I’m saying controlling the discourse is a powerful weapon. And I’ve been saying that since I started this blog. In fact, others recognize that it’s a running theme here.
The ideology of the left (particularly on social issues) is dying, but it still wields considerable power, especially where it’s able to control the terms of the discourse. And this Cindy Sheehan story is a perfect example: no matter how germane my points, you continue to insist I’m “smearing” her simply for questioning what she’s saying and doing. Which is an outright falsehood. But that’s precisely the way discourse control works in the academy (most noticeably in the humanities). It’s how it works in the MSM. And its affects are even felt in the courts from time to time.
If you want to try to diminish that argument, or suggest I’ve said otherwise, or suggest there’s some inherent disconnect between a moribund ideology and its stubborn and concerted use of what power it still wields, go for it. Par for the course with you.
What does that mean? Should I be staging sit-ins? Writing letters from Alabama jail cells? What do I need to do to assert my bona fides.
In the sixties, people like you would have called what I was doing here political activism. But today, because I’m not on the right side (or rather, because I’m on the “right” side), I’m just a fighting keyboardist—a cheap joke to sneering little anklebiters like you.
Fraud.
But you’re not up on the latest cant from Cindy Central Command, old bean – it’s now de rigeur to use the construction ”Mother Sheehan” when referring to the new Patron Saint of Moonbats…
I recommended an excellent source. You want more?
On Strategy by COL Harry Summers
The Face of Battle by John keegan
Braking the Phalanx by Douglas MacGregor
Leonhard will give you the best understanding of Phase IV though.
Hal, do you have any intention of responding to any of the Iraq/Terror information?
that’s not what his wife says, or so i’ve heard.
No Jeff. It’s just a matter of the past and actual political records.
You sound an awful lot like the wackier D&D buds I used to game with. You’re kind of like the gamers on Reno 911.
You continuously spout nothing but assertions without even the slightest shred of connection to reality. We’ve had a few conversations, but in these you’ve attributed to me a zillion things I’ve never ever done or said. You just project all your paranoid delusions of the left wing on me and declare that’s what I am. I mean, I’m kind of flattered. I’m apparently this all powerful crypto liberal single handedly taking down the all powerful symbols of righteousness. But really Jeff, you don’t even bother to read anything I’ve ever written (really, I don’t expect you too) and you don’t even have a clue of who I actually am.
You just decree. You just declare.
Now, you are a smart guy, and you’re pretty darn talented, but really. You’ve already made a zillion mistakes attributing ideas, beliefs and even actions to me which I really don’t have anything to do with.
It’s cute. It’s effective. And it plays well to the crowd here that simply adores you. But it simply ain’t real, Jeff. It’s just the Tiffin whispering in your ear.
Like I said. Go have a beer, grab your wife, and go watch your sleeping son and wonder at the amazing irony of life and the miracle of life.
And then lay into me when you’re refreshed in the morning. By then the puppies of war will be on the case and worming all over themselves in self congratulation. Tonight will seem like a distant dream.