I Wonder Who Sheehan Thinks Perpetrated 9/11
Anyone who isn't either a) a moron or b) well, a moron knows that Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attack. Of course, there are many who believe that it was some CIA/Haliburton/Jewish conspiracy, but I think that alternatives a and b take care of those people.
So, what is Cindy Sheehan's excuse?
I don't have much of an opinion about her and her life of protest. She seems like a fairly harmless Leftist flake who was galvinized by the death of her son in Iraq. Whatever. But she had the following to say on Hardball the other night;
Who are "they?" Given that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, then she must think...well, I don't know what she is thinking. But, how can anyone find common cause with someone who doesn't think that the Al Qaeda carried out 9/11 (which is the only conclusion one can draw from her statement). I realize the enemies of America, both within (the MoveOn crowd) and without, find her image - grieving mother of a fallen soldier who hates Bush - appealing. But, do her less loathsome supporters really have suspicions about who conducted 9/11, even if they disagree with our military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Sheehan is obviously in the same crowd as those who fantasize about the war being fought to enrich some consulting firms or at the behest of the Israelis; a silly nut, who has found people who will readily exploit her for their own ends.
For a whole lot more on Sheehan - assuming you are that interested - check out Michelle Malkin.
So, what is Cindy Sheehan's excuse?
I don't have much of an opinion about her and her life of protest. She seems like a fairly harmless Leftist flake who was galvinized by the death of her son in Iraq. Whatever. But she had the following to say on Hardball the other night;
MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.
SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.
MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?
SHEEHAN: So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.
Who are "they?" Given that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, then she must think...well, I don't know what she is thinking. But, how can anyone find common cause with someone who doesn't think that the Al Qaeda carried out 9/11 (which is the only conclusion one can draw from her statement). I realize the enemies of America, both within (the MoveOn crowd) and without, find her image - grieving mother of a fallen soldier who hates Bush - appealing. But, do her less loathsome supporters really have suspicions about who conducted 9/11, even if they disagree with our military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Sheehan is obviously in the same crowd as those who fantasize about the war being fought to enrich some consulting firms or at the behest of the Israelis; a silly nut, who has found people who will readily exploit her for their own ends.
For a whole lot more on Sheehan - assuming you are that interested - check out Michelle Malkin.
posted by Jeff at 8/18/2005 01:52:00 PM
2 Comments:
Huh? Where'd you get this, Jeff? It reads like typical GOP talking points where the rhetoric doesn't match the reality.
It seems pretty clear to me that she's a pacifist, and while I don't agree with pacifists in general, they're harmless by definition. I don't see anything disingenuous or ill-informed in the quotes here, but the commentary that follows doesn't seem to directly relate to her words at all. That's why I ask if what you wrote here came from a talking points memo, because the ones I've seen from GOP sources seem to follow that same template (i.e. feigned outrage at a desperately erected straw man, mingled with misdirection).
I'm really kind of stupefied by the Right's response to Cindy Sheehan. Agree with her or don't, but her activities are American through and through. We have a rich history of protest and protesters in this country, from Tom Paine to John Brown to Eugene V. Debs to Rosa Parks, and that is one of the key things that separates us from the Third World banana republics. Protesters make people think (at least, those of us inclined to do so) and challenge the status quo. Even prominent Republicans are starting to realize that we have a status quo that richly deserves to be challenged.
And make no mistake, the Leftist groups are being led by Sheehan, not the other way around, because she has mastered the tactic that got George W. Bush elected twice (and that the Democrats couldn't find with a map and a flashlight). She has framed the discussion in simple terms that resonate with the common man. For what noble cause did her son die?
She's asking the right question because it begs an explanation of the mission creep that has taken place.
The president's only answer thus far to her request for a face-to-face opportunity to pose the question, which would be at a minimum disingenuous were it not being spoken about a woman with a dead son, has been (and I may not have the precise quote here, but close enough): "I have to get on with my life." Usually I find irony funny. That one just turns my stomach when I think about someone uttering it in my presence were my soldier-son dead.
But to call names and ridicule a common citizen who has no media savvy -- but who no less than Pat Buchanan says has an unassailable moral authority -- is just kinda cheap and really desperate.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the post attacks left wingers, like moveon.org, then directs those with interest to Michelle Malkin? Can I come back with a, "well you should look at Democratic Underground, or Daily Kos, or Rude Pundit (my winner of the 2005 Sperling award for ingenious swearing), to hear the 'truth?'" Let’s face it, they are all shills.
Unfortunately, the talking heads of both sides are missing the rather simple point of the protest. Why are we there, what are our goals, and how do we get out? To quote W, “Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” I think the difficulty that some have with this woman is basic and directly related to how the war began.
I have come to the conclusion that when we were being sold this war, two distinct groups formed. The majority of the country (I hope) listened for a reason; why should we commit troops. The second group consisted of the chicken....hawks who sought a rationale, something to justify their longing to send others to fight and die for their hegemonic world view. The former group looked back at 9/11 and heard WMD, mushroom cloud, slam dunk, and we know for certain. Some believed it; some didn't. Now many in this group, not just Cindy Sheehan, are asking, "what is this noble cause." Like Karen Hughes said, "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." As more understand that Iraq posed no threat, and that no association with 9/11 existed, they ask why we went to war. More people ask how did we get here, and more documents, like those regarding inadequate planning just released to the GWU archives, emerge. This is why W's approvals are in the crapper, and remember one recent poll still had 30% believing there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. As that brilliant third diminishes, the questions only increase and enthusiasm erodes.
I believe that most Americans thought security, not new world order. Most Americans, IMHO, want the military used as a last resort, to defend our nation rather than as substitute for responsible foreign policy. When the president speaks, in particular about national security, we want to believe him. When American troops are deployed, we want to support the troops and the cause. As it becomes clear that the civilian leadership betrayed the public by marketing as an imminent threat a hubristic war of opportunity, less people trust that leadership. I think more and more people find themselves in agreement with Tom Delay, “You can support the troops but not the president.”
The point behind the quotes is to show that partisanship obfuscates the matter at hand. Namely, there are nearly 140k American troops in Iraq, we are rapidly approaching 2,000 American casualties and the country is learning that the reasons used to initiate the conflict were, at best, embellished and the means of extraction are, at best, elusive. We’ll stay as long as it takes. What is that? We won’t embolden the enemy by setting a scale down schedule because they can just wait one day more. Didn’t we play that in the school yard? “Oh yeah, well I say one billion quadrillion! Oh yeah, well that plus one! Oh yeah, well infinity! Oh yeah, well infinity plus one…” This thought process directs the strongest military force on the planet?
Post a Comment
<< Home