COMMENTS: 69
Attacking Cindy Sheehan
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.
Horowitz, the former left-wing zealot who is now a right-wing zealot, described the woman who has camped out near Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch as "hateful," accused her of dishonoring the memory of her son and promised that if Sheehan and other anti-war activists succeed in bringing an end to the occupation of Iraq then "rivers of blood" will flow in the streets of America. It was a remarkable performance, so much so that even Horowitz admitted that he was "emotional" about the subject.
Of course, Horowitz is wrong, on every point. But it is difficult to get angry with him, or even to take his ranting seriously. When Reagan asked me if I wanted to "dignify" Horowitz's comments with a response, I declined, except to express a measure of sympathy for Horowitz and other true believers who have become so frenzied in their need to defend the Iraq imbroglio that they feel they must attack a grieving mother who wants to make sure that no more parents will have to bury their sons and daughters as a result of the Bush administration's arrogance.
The rapidly dwindling minority of Americans who continue to search for some rationale for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq has been driven to the brink of breakdown by the success of Sheehan's protest. Go to the website of William F. Buckley's National Review magazine and you will find Sheehan described in headlines as "nutty," dismissed by columnists as "the mouthpiece... of howling-at-the-moon, bile-spewing Bush haters" and accused of "sucking up intellectual air" that, presumably, would be better utilized by Condoleezza Rice explaining once more that it would be wrong to read too much into the August 6, 2001, briefing document that declared: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." Human Events, the conservative weekly newspaper, dismisses Sheehan as a "professional griever" who "can claim to be in perpetual mourning for her fallen son" -- as if there is some time limit on maternal sorrow over the death of a child.
Fox News Channel spinner-in-chief Bill O'Reilly accuses Sheehan of being "in bed with the radical left," including -- horrors! -- "9-11 families" that are still seeking answers about whether, in the first months of 2001, the Bush administration was more focused on finding excuses to attack Iraq than on protecting Americans from terrorism. And Rush Limbaugh was on the radio the other day ranting about how, "(Sheehan's) story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real..." (Just to clarify for Limbaugh listeners: Cindy Sheehan's 24-year-old son Casey really did die in Iraq, and his mother really would like to talk with President Bush about all those claims regarding WMDs and al-Qaida ties that the administration used to peddle the "case" for war.)
The pro-war pundits who continue to defend the occupation of Iraq are freaked out by the fact that a grieving mother is calling into question their claim that the only way to "support the troops" is by keeping them in the frontlines of George W. Bush's failed experiment. Bush backers are horrified that Sheehan's sincere and patriotic anti-war voice has captured the nation's attention.
What the pro-war crowd does not understand is that Cindy Sheehan is not inspiring opposition to the occupation. She is merely putting a face on the mainstream sentiments of a country that has stopped believing the president's promises with regard to Iraq. According to the latest Newsweek poll, 61 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's handing of the war, while just 26 percent support the president's argument that large numbers of U.S. military personnel should remain in Iraq for as long as it takes to achieve the administration's goals there.
The supporters of this war have run out of convincing lies and effective emotional appeals. Now, they are reduced to attacking the grieving mothers of dead soldiers. Samuel Johnson suggested that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. But, with their attacks on Cindy Sheehan, the apologists for George Bush's infamy have found a new and darker refuge.
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Wacre on Aug 18, 2005 11:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This appears to be the Conservative plan for Cindy Sheehan, namely create enough distraction, namely the Iraq Truth Tour, that Mrs. Sheehan is drowned out.
Hopefully people will see echoes of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and tune out the circus of distraction.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Circus of Distraction
Posted by: Gma1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ertr on Aug 18, 2005 11:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lie.
http://www.journalhome.com/mediadoesntmatter/8500/
Stop the distortion!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So what was Limbaugh saying?
Posted by: bizby27
» RE: Limbaughs words taken out of context.
Posted by: Fade
» RE: Rash Limpblah still on Oxycontin
Posted by: velvetfish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JamesUSA on Aug 18, 2005 11:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having read transcripts of her speeches, I can see why many people feel she's filled with hateful, strong feelings.
As an example of Cindy's strong, almost viscious speech toward the President - which some unfairly say deserves his polite response - see her August 8th speech at the Veterans for Peace Conference (see below URL) at which she said:
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ convention05/sheehan_transcript.htm
*"George Bush is a lying bastard."
*"George Bush is an evil maniac."
*"George Bush is a filth spewer and warmonger."
*President Bush has no heart.
*President Bush doesn't care about soldiers killed.
*If Bush even starts to mention "freedom and democracy" I will say "bullshit."
*If you think I won't say bullshit to the President, I say move on, cuz I'll say what's on my mind.
*George Bush belongs in prison for what he has done.
*America's leaders are all maniacs with no authority over us....
*"I can't start (fully expressing her outrage to Bush in person) because I know how dangerous that would be .... if I start hitting something I wouldn't stop until it is dead."
She's a strong Mom who hates President Bush to the point of needing to restrain her fullest expression of outrage lest she "hit something till it's dead.
Isn't there good reason to say she seems hateful?
This is not a woman who we often see crying, subdued with grief, vulnerable. This is a woman filled with the determination of overwhelming outrage.
She doesn't really want to meet Bush to hear and consider his thoughts. She really just wants to shame him into meeting with her so she can publicly scream at him, and make a show of disregarding his thoughts and offer of dialogue. In that speech she wrote that the second he begins to respond to her question, she will say "bullshit"...... cut him off. So really, what is the real point of a meeting like that?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: eader
Posted by: Maryanne
» RE: eader
Posted by: dogstar
» RE: eader
Posted by: Habaro
» RE: eader
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: eader
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: eader
Posted by: paigerone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dsm45dsmi on Aug 18, 2005 12:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your son decides he wants to help protect these freedoms. I don't know what the case would be in Ms. Sheehan's situation, but for me it would be that while I didn't agree with him and would want to keep him away from the military, he has a right to live his life and believe as he does. So anyway, he goes off to war and he dies. Yes, he dies.
Suddenly, I have a feeling all those other freedoms don't much matter anymore and for some people, revenge is what they seek. Some do that in a foolish, emotional and child-like manner-eye for an eye. Some do it in an intellectual, rational and adult manner-ask questions and seek answers.
Kudos to Sheehan for being an adult. If only our president had been an adult about getting revenge for Sept. 11. He took revenge on a country that wasn't even involved.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: dsm45dsmi
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: dogstar
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: Royaras
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: Royaras
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: Royaras
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: kennyg315
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: funnyfarm12
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Chris420 on Aug 18, 2005 12:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: Chris420
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: Gma1
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: davidt
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: JamesUSA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nakis on Aug 18, 2005 12:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You really can't get it clearer than that. The house of cards they call a castle has no foundation. It is required that they attack like this to keep themselves convinced.
How long can they keep this up when the wind is blowing on their house of cards?
Cindy has every right to be angry and to ask the questions our media refuses to ask.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wendigo on Aug 18, 2005 3:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in fact, it's stupid in any setting where the stakes are as high as the truth of the matter
and the simple truth is that Sheehan isn't any of the things of which Horowitz directly accused her, or about which he made grand assertions full of implication.
a morally higher road, or a road of ethical rectitude, is NOT conveyed by silence.
it is conveyed by setting the record straight on the facts, not attacking Horowitz in kind, but offering the truth about each of his assertions but in the context of explaining just who is Sheehan.
one would think that the faux-intellectual's canard of silence=high road would have at least got killed at an associate editor's desk at The Nation., but alas such isn't the case.
the silence of the limpwristed liberal is one of the primary reasons why so many voted for Dubya Dodo... the other is the convoluted geekspeak of the lifelong bureaucrat (John Kerry)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ssantee on Aug 18, 2005 5:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But does anyone remember anything that went on more than five minutes ago? "WMD" was not the only justification for invading Iraq. Iraq has a long history of being bad in general, in a way that threatened all of the countries around it. Now I'm not one for wasting resources to defend backwards societies, but we have to do business with these folks. We need the oil; just look at how everyone is up in arms about gas prices. What would have happened if Iraq was never interfered with and they were the dominant power in the mid-east? Would they finally defeat Iran and be the un-contested controller of all of those resources? Would all of you people that are screaming for Bush blood now be screaming for the blood of whatever politician was in office at that point for allowing it to happen? Yes, you would.
On another note; have any of you ever been responsible for something really important? Something like the security of 280 million people? If you had a hard call to make would you err on the side of safety?
Why is it all The Presidents fault? Have any of you checked out the positions of high level members of the previous administration regarding Iraq? They were afraid of Saddams potential also.
Why isn't anyone angry with the congress that authorized war? Why does The President take all the heat?
Why do all peoples political positions have to fed to them by this organization or that? Why not think for yourselves for a moment??
Who started this stuff about the conspiracy to get more oil? It's pretty apparent that we need oil. Our economy is very suceptible to variations in supply. It is only reasonable that we would protect the markets that sell us the oil from monopoly by one dictator. Given, the market is currently controlled by only a handful of tyrants, but we just do business with them, what else can we do short of invading the whole mid-east and forcefully democratizing. This is not to say that this was even a consideration, because I don't know. But if it was, it is not practically(maybe idealistically) reproachable.
Anyway, have some perspective folks.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: Royaras
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: noelahg
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: cyclone
» Backwards American
Posted by: saffron
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: bpvn#1
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: Gma1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Wildspirit on Aug 21, 2005 8:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is Bush's propaganda machine at work. Doesn't it remind you of the work of Nazi Germany's propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels?
Cindy wants the truth--so do I. So do you. I see Bush's war as a personal one intended to control the world's oil region and prices (see the sweetheart deal between Saudi Arabia and Bush yet? How much do you pay for gasoline right now?) and prepare the world for his coming as leader of the New World Order.
When were we sidetracked to go after Iraq instead of Osama Bin Laden? Is he being protected, with Bush's blessing? If captured, would Bush have basis for continuing in Iraq? I think Osama is right in his home in Saudi Arabia.
The Three most despicable people on the planet, imho: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld...Sixty years ago it was Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler...
I expect the worst from Crawford's Creeps.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Demonization Of Grieving Mother
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Demonization Of Grieving Mother
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Demonization Of Grieving Mother
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Demonization Of Grieving Mother
Posted by: bpvn#1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Aug 25, 2005 3:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be nice if David Horowitz and his ilk could become a woman, give birth and understand what it's like to bring a human being into this world and the next stage have it taken away.
But since Horowitz is incapable of grieving he has to hurl verbal missives at Sheehan, calling her names and deriding the anti-war movement.
A few years ago we had a Million Mom March to end the cycle of gun violence and a mother-Sheehan-wants nearly the same thing: Let's not send our children to die for a lie.
If the United States ever were to change its violent ways it will be up to mothers. Go Cindy Sheehan!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Horowitz can't grieve
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Horowitz can't grieve
Posted by: bpvn#1
» RE: Horowitz can't grieve
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Horowitz can't grieve
Posted by: NDnative
Comments are closed-
Posted by: paigerone on Aug 27, 2005 5:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read through these posts, I think of all the hours we spend responding to each other when we could be organizing a boycott of all the sponsors of all the propaganda shows masquerading as "news" and "analysis". Follow the money, cut it off, and the propaganda monster withers and dies. Come on, people. Preaching to the choir and debating right-wing nuts accomplishes nothing. Our real power resides in our numbers and our ability to refuse to be complicit in the co-opting of the truth.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Bottom Line
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: The Bottom Line
Posted by: NDnative
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Wacre on Aug 18, 2005 11:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This appears to be the Conservative plan for Cindy Sheehan, namely create enough distraction, namely the Iraq Truth Tour, that Mrs. Sheehan is drowned out.
Hopefully people will see echoes of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and tune out the circus of distraction.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Circus of Distraction
Posted by: Gma1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ertr on Aug 18, 2005 11:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lie.
http://www.journalhome.com/mediadoesntmatter/8500/
Stop the distortion!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So what was Limbaugh saying?
Posted by: bizby27
» RE: Limbaughs words taken out of context.
Posted by: Fade
» RE: Rash Limpblah still on Oxycontin
Posted by: velvetfish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JamesUSA on Aug 18, 2005 11:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having read transcripts of her speeches, I can see why many people feel she's filled with hateful, strong feelings.
As an example of Cindy's strong, almost viscious speech toward the President - which some unfairly say deserves his polite response - see her August 8th speech at the Veterans for Peace Conference (see below URL) at which she said:
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ convention05/sheehan_transcript.htm
*"George Bush is a lying bastard."
*"George Bush is an evil maniac."
*"George Bush is a filth spewer and warmonger."
*President Bush has no heart.
*President Bush doesn't care about soldiers killed.
*If Bush even starts to mention "freedom and democracy" I will say "bullshit."
*If you think I won't say bullshit to the President, I say move on, cuz I'll say what's on my mind.
*George Bush belongs in prison for what he has done.
*America's leaders are all maniacs with no authority over us....
*"I can't start (fully expressing her outrage to Bush in person) because I know how dangerous that would be .... if I start hitting something I wouldn't stop until it is dead."
She's a strong Mom who hates President Bush to the point of needing to restrain her fullest expression of outrage lest she "hit something till it's dead.
Isn't there good reason to say she seems hateful?
This is not a woman who we often see crying, subdued with grief, vulnerable. This is a woman filled with the determination of overwhelming outrage.
She doesn't really want to meet Bush to hear and consider his thoughts. She really just wants to shame him into meeting with her so she can publicly scream at him, and make a show of disregarding his thoughts and offer of dialogue. In that speech she wrote that the second he begins to respond to her question, she will say "bullshit"...... cut him off. So really, what is the real point of a meeting like that?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: eader
Posted by: Maryanne
» RE: eader
Posted by: dogstar
» RE: eader
Posted by: Habaro
» RE: eader
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: eader
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: eader
Posted by: paigerone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dsm45dsmi on Aug 18, 2005 12:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your son decides he wants to help protect these freedoms. I don't know what the case would be in Ms. Sheehan's situation, but for me it would be that while I didn't agree with him and would want to keep him away from the military, he has a right to live his life and believe as he does. So anyway, he goes off to war and he dies. Yes, he dies.
Suddenly, I have a feeling all those other freedoms don't much matter anymore and for some people, revenge is what they seek. Some do that in a foolish, emotional and child-like manner-eye for an eye. Some do it in an intellectual, rational and adult manner-ask questions and seek answers.
Kudos to Sheehan for being an adult. If only our president had been an adult about getting revenge for Sept. 11. He took revenge on a country that wasn't even involved.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: dsm45dsmi
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: dogstar
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: Royaras
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: Royaras
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: Royaras
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: kennyg315
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: funnyfarm12
» RE: Ok, have we forgotten ... SHE LOST HER SON
Posted by: JamesUSA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Chris420 on Aug 18, 2005 12:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: Chris420
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: Gma1
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: davidt
» RE: Have you noticed...
Posted by: JamesUSA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nakis on Aug 18, 2005 12:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You really can't get it clearer than that. The house of cards they call a castle has no foundation. It is required that they attack like this to keep themselves convinced.
How long can they keep this up when the wind is blowing on their house of cards?
Cindy has every right to be angry and to ask the questions our media refuses to ask.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wendigo on Aug 18, 2005 3:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in fact, it's stupid in any setting where the stakes are as high as the truth of the matter
and the simple truth is that Sheehan isn't any of the things of which Horowitz directly accused her, or about which he made grand assertions full of implication.
a morally higher road, or a road of ethical rectitude, is NOT conveyed by silence.
it is conveyed by setting the record straight on the facts, not attacking Horowitz in kind, but offering the truth about each of his assertions but in the context of explaining just who is Sheehan.
one would think that the faux-intellectual's canard of silence=high road would have at least got killed at an associate editor's desk at The Nation., but alas such isn't the case.
the silence of the limpwristed liberal is one of the primary reasons why so many voted for Dubya Dodo... the other is the convoluted geekspeak of the lifelong bureaucrat (John Kerry)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ssantee on Aug 18, 2005 5:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But does anyone remember anything that went on more than five minutes ago? "WMD" was not the only justification for invading Iraq. Iraq has a long history of being bad in general, in a way that threatened all of the countries around it. Now I'm not one for wasting resources to defend backwards societies, but we have to do business with these folks. We need the oil; just look at how everyone is up in arms about gas prices. What would have happened if Iraq was never interfered with and they were the dominant power in the mid-east? Would they finally defeat Iran and be the un-contested controller of all of those resources? Would all of you people that are screaming for Bush blood now be screaming for the blood of whatever politician was in office at that point for allowing it to happen? Yes, you would.
On another note; have any of you ever been responsible for something really important? Something like the security of 280 million people? If you had a hard call to make would you err on the side of safety?
Why is it all The Presidents fault? Have any of you checked out the positions of high level members of the previous administration regarding Iraq? They were afraid of Saddams potential also.
Why isn't anyone angry with the congress that authorized war? Why does The President take all the heat?
Why do all peoples political positions have to fed to them by this organization or that? Why not think for yourselves for a moment??
Who started this stuff about the conspiracy to get more oil? It's pretty apparent that we need oil. Our economy is very suceptible to variations in supply. It is only reasonable that we would protect the markets that sell us the oil from monopoly by one dictator. Given, the market is currently controlled by only a handful of tyrants, but we just do business with them, what else can we do short of invading the whole mid-east and forcefully democratizing. This is not to say that this was even a consideration, because I don't know. But if it was, it is not practically(maybe idealistically) reproachable.
Anyway, have some perspective folks.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: Royaras
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: noelahg
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: cyclone
» Backwards American
Posted by: saffron
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: bpvn#1
» RE: Congratulations
Posted by: Gma1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Wildspirit on Aug 21, 2005 8:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is Bush's propaganda machine at work. Doesn't it remind you of the work of Nazi Germany's propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels?
Cindy wants the truth--so do I. So do you. I see Bush's war as a personal one intended to control the world's oil region and prices (see the sweetheart deal between Saudi Arabia and Bush yet? How much do you pay for gasoline right now?) and prepare the world for his coming as leader of the New World Order.
When were we sidetracked to go after Iraq instead of Osama Bin Laden? Is he being protected, with Bush's blessing? If captured, would Bush have basis for continuing in Iraq? I think Osama is right in his home in Saudi Arabia.
The Three most despicable people on the planet, imho: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld...Sixty years ago it was Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler...
I expect the worst from Crawford's Creeps.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Demonization Of Grieving Mother
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Demonization Of Grieving Mother
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Demonization Of Grieving Mother
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Demonization Of Grieving Mother
Posted by: bpvn#1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Aug 25, 2005 3:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be nice if David Horowitz and his ilk could become a woman, give birth and understand what it's like to bring a human being into this world and the next stage have it taken away.
But since Horowitz is incapable of grieving he has to hurl verbal missives at Sheehan, calling her names and deriding the anti-war movement.
A few years ago we had a Million Mom March to end the cycle of gun violence and a mother-Sheehan-wants nearly the same thing: Let's not send our children to die for a lie.
If the United States ever were to change its violent ways it will be up to mothers. Go Cindy Sheehan!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Horowitz can't grieve
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Horowitz can't grieve
Posted by: bpvn#1
» RE: Horowitz can't grieve
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: Horowitz can't grieve
Posted by: NDnative
Comments are closed-
Posted by: paigerone on Aug 27, 2005 5:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read through these posts, I think of all the hours we spend responding to each other when we could be organizing a boycott of all the sponsors of all the propaganda shows masquerading as "news" and "analysis". Follow the money, cut it off, and the propaganda monster withers and dies. Come on, people. Preaching to the choir and debating right-wing nuts accomplishes nothing. Our real power resides in our numbers and our ability to refuse to be complicit in the co-opting of the truth.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Bottom Line
Posted by: JamesUSA
» RE: The Bottom Line
Posted by: NDnative
Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
Can Obama and Dems Overcome the Right's Talk Radio Monopoly?
Why We're Addicted to Disaster Porn




