What Ariana thinks

[billydkid]

I'm assuming many of you in here are progressives of one sort or another. Though I am libertarian I am also progressive, I like to think. I simply think the way to achieve the kind of justice most of us seek is through genuine economic and social freedom. I also assume many of you think highly of Adrian Huffington, but maybe not. I admire her, but disagree with her fundamentally in regard to the standard liberal agenda. I am antistate while many liberals think the state just needs to exercise its power more compassionately. I think that is really a non-starter or a non-sequitor or something - states are finally only sources of force. Anyway, this is Ariana's take on Cindy Sheehan along with a number of well known progressives on this site. It is amazing to me how so many people can have such contempt for such a courageous and principled person. My belief is these are the same people who would have had contempt for Rosa Parks back in the day or for Daniel Berigan.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0813-22.htm

 

[Dan Beaird]

Well personally I won't assume that Arianna speaks for anybody but herself. While I'm sure there's many who share her views, it's for them to say they agree rather than for you to say that they do.

I'm not even going to preface this with the usual "I feel sorry for her loss and thank her and her son for their sacrifice". That's all trite dribble and nonsense at this point said merely to try and disarm the inevitable backlash of "How can you dare to criticize a grieving mother" accusations. Well, I can criticize a grieving mother. It's easy, watch me.

First off, I believe that Sheehan is handled by an expert team of spindoctors who have her speaking only the things already outlined in the propoganda playbook. While maybe she agrees with the things she says, they are no more her opinions than the opinions of Hamlet were those of Laurence Olivier. She is part of a well orchestrated attack on the administration by a special interest group who leverage the death of her son as a means of stifling honest debate on the topic. She is not only letting these people use her, which is bad enough, she is letting them use her dead son which is despicable. Her actions are neither courageous nor principled in my opinion, but merely the actions of a money-grubbing, publicity whore who obviously thinks much less of her son and his memory than anything we could possibly accuse of dubya.

I expect I'm going to catch hell for this one.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's one of the better criticisms of the whole Sheehan circus, from the very progressive Christopher Hitchens:

http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/

Some choice quotes:

"Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive."
(my comments: other than her stature as the mother of a fallen soldier, has she added ANYTHING to the debate? No, she has not.)

"Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?"

"Then there is the question of civilian control over the military, which is an authority that one could indeed say should be absolute. The military and its relatives have no extra claim on the chief executive's ear. Indeed, it might be said that they have less claim than the rest of us, since they have voluntarily sworn an oath to obey and carry out orders."

"I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them."

These aren't really personal attacks against Sheehan, and Arianna has no answer to these arguments in her column.

 

[Jocko]

Well personally I won't assume that Arianna speaks for anybody but herself. While I'm sure there's many who share her views, it's for them to say they agree rather than for you to say that they do.

I'm not even going to preface this with the usual "I feel sorry for her loss and thank her and her son for their sacrifice". That's all trite dribble and nonsense at this point said merely to try and disarm the inevitable backlash of "How can you dare to criticize a grieving mother" accusations. Well, I can criticize a grieving mother. It's easy, watch me.

First off, I believe that Sheehan is handled by an expert team of spindoctors who have her speaking only the things already outlined in the propoganda playbook. While maybe she agrees with the things she says, they are no more her opinions than the opinions of Hamlet were those of Laurence Olivier. She is part of a well orchestrated attack on the administration by a special interest group who leverage the death of her son as a means of stifling honest debate on the topic. She is not only letting these people use her, which is bad enough, she is letting them use her dead son which is despicable. Her actions are neither courageous nor principled in my opinion, but merely the actions of a money-grubbing, publicity whore who obviously thinks much less of her son and his memory than anything we could possibly accuse of dubya.

I expect I'm going to catch hell for this one.

To my way of seeing things, the conclusions you reach are undeniable. It really seems like it's just a matter of everyone getting their fill of Sheehan's spiel... I was slower than some, faster than others. I wish to God it wasn't true. It's heart-wrenchingly painful to see it happen, though I had suspicions about 10 days ago after hearing bits of a radio interview.

Going forward, I imagine she will continue to grow more shrill, pack in more extraneous issues, and demand more and more camera time. It will all end in a massive media about-face the likes of which we haven't seen since Dean's famous Iowa scream. She will be ground under the wheels of the press, and find no family to help her... they have deserted her already.

So foolish. So unnecessary. For someone supposedly so torn up over the tragedy of her son's death, she sure seems hell-bent on manufacturing an even bigger tragedy and dragging the whole worrld into it.

 

[billydkid]

The tragedy

To my way of seeing things, the conclusions you reach are undeniable. It really seems like it's just a matter of everyone getting their fill of Sheehan's spiel... I was slower than some, faster than others. I wish to God it wasn't true. It's heart-wrenchingly painful to see it happen, though I had suspicions about 10 days ago after hearing bits of a radio interview.

Going forward, I imagine she will continue to grow more shrill, pack in more extraneous issues, and demand more and more camera time. It will all end in a massive media about-face the likes of which we haven't seen since Dean's famous Iowa scream. She will be ground under the wheels of the press, and find no family to help her... they have deserted her already.

So foolish. So unnecessary. For someone supposedly so torn up over the tragedy of her son's death, she sure seems hell-bent on manufacturing an even bigger tragedy and dragging the whole worrld into it.

Isn't the real tragedy that thousands have died in a pointless war which the country was bamboozled into starting?

 

[Tony]

First off, I believe that Sheehan is handled by an expert team of spindoctors who have her speaking only the things already outlined in the propoganda playbook. While maybe she agrees with the things she says, they are no more her opinions than the opinions of Hamlet were those of Laurence Olivier. She is part of a well orchestrated attack on the administration by a special interest group who leverage the death of her son as a means of stifling honest debate on the topic. She is not only letting these people use her, which is bad enough, she is letting them use her dead son which is despicable. Her actions are neither courageous nor principled in my opinion, but merely the actions of a money-grubbing, publicity whore who obviously thinks much less of her son and his memory than anything we could possibly accuse of dubya.

Ahh, so you think she's part of a conspiracy to dis-credit the president. You must be a true believer.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: The tragedy

Isn't the real tragedy that thousands have died in a pointless war which the country was bamboozled into starting?

This question makes no sense if you don't think the war was pointless. Nice try at asserting your opinion as fact, though.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: The tragedy

This question makes no sense if you don't think the war was pointless.

Ok, so you don't think it's a tragedy that thousands of innocent Americans (and Iraqis) have died in a war we were bamboozled in fighting. We know where your true loyalties lie.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: The tragedy

Ok, so you don't think it's a tragedy that thousands of innocent Americans (and Iraqis) have died in a war we were bamboozled in fighting. We know where your true loyalties lie.

Oh, grow up. And don't be coy either: you want to accuse me of having nefarious loyalties, come out and say exactly what you're accusing me of being loyal to, coward.

The deaths of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis are indeed tragic. That has never been something I denied. Rather, it seems that you and billy want to deny that that cost could have purchased something valuable indeed, the chance for 25 million people to cast off the yoke of tyranny. You don't think that's worth it? Fine, that's billy's opinion and that seems to be your opinion. But that's all it is, an opinion, and it is not shared by me.

 

[Tony]

Here's one of the better criticisms of the whole Sheehan circus, from the very progressive Christopher Hitchens:

Yeah, I read that article when it was first posted. It's pretty lame.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/

Some choice quotes:

"Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive."

So? This is a red herring. It's unlikely that she is going to persuade the true believers (like Hitchens) anyway.

What's interesting is the "support the troops" and the "support families" crowd is demonizing this woman because she dares to break the mold of what they envision as the ideal. Ignorant people (in this case "conservatives") tend to be like that.

"Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority?

When has she aske for extra authority?

The military and its relatives have no extra claim on the chief executive's ear.

Perhaps.

Indeed, it might be said that they have less claim than the rest of us, since they have voluntarily sworn an oath to obey and carry out orders.

The "he volunteered and swore an oath" argument is the lamest since the "we were following orders" argument used by Germans after WW2 and, coincidentally, it's the same type of white trash using it.

Hitchens is smarter than to parrot BS like this.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The tragedy

Oh, grow up. And don't be coy either: you want to accuse me of having nefarious loyalties, come out and say exactly what you're accusing me of being loyal to, coward.

You're loyal to this president and not the country, people or constitution he claims to care about.

Rather, it seems that you and billy want to deny that that cost could have purchased something valuable indeed, the chance for 25 million people to cast off the yoke of tyranny. You don't think that's worth it?

LOL Yeah right. You're one of the dumbest people if you still believe this. Bush isn't interested in helping people cast off tyranny. If he were, that would have been his primary reason for going to war and he wouldn't support other tyrannical governments or policies. And the jury is still out on whether Iraq will emerge from this ordeal any freer than before. Nice try asserting your propaganda as fact though.

 

[Ziggurat]

When has she aske for extra authority?

By demanding to see the president and expecting any response other than to be ignored. I sure as hell don't get to do that.

The "he volunteered and swore an oath" argument is the lamest since the "we were following orders" argument used by Germans after WW2 and, coincidentally, it's the same type of white trash using it.

Hardly. We're not talking about illegal actions (unless you want to start calling Sheehan's son a war criminal - is that really the argument you want to make?), we're talking about political decisions. Soldiers who swear an oath of service do not have the option of political dissent. Political decisions are not for them to decide - that's the whole bloody point of civilian control of the military, and I would think that's a principle you'd feel strongly about maintaining. The fact that they are still allowed, and in fact obligated, to refuse illegal orders is quite beside the point, and so the comparison you make is meaningless. And you're claiming Hitchen's argument is weak? Yours doesn't even have ANY logical connection.

 

[Grammatron]

So? This is a red herring. It's unlikely that she is going to persuade the true believers (like Hitchens) anyway.

She could start with facts, that might work

What's interesting is the "support the troops" and the "support families" crowd is demonizing this woman because she dares to break the mold of what they envision as the ideal. Ignorant people (in this case "conservatives") tend to be like that.

If by demonizing you mean responding, then sure.

When has she aske for extra authority?

Demanding President meets with her would be just that.

Perhaps.

The "he volunteered and swore an oath" argument is the lamest since the "we were following orders" argument used by Germans after WW2 and, coincidentally, it's the same type of white trash using it.

Hitchens is smarter than to parrot BS like this.

Oh yeah, just like Germans, yep.

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tragedy

You're loyal to this president and not the country, people or constitution he claims to care about.



LOL Yeah right. You're one of the dumbest people if you still believe this. Bush isn't interested in helping people cast off tyranny. If he were, that would have been his primary reason for going to war and he wouldn't support other tyrannical governments or policies. And the jury is still out on whether Iraq will emerge from this ordeal any freer than before. Nice try asserting your propaganda as fact though.

Bad news Tony, Bush has time-traveled into the past and put just that as one of the primary reasons for going to war in a state of the union address. Damn that evil Bush and his time machine.

 

[Tony]

By demanding to see the president and expecting any response other than to be ignored. I sure as hell don't get to do that.

That's called access, not authority.

Hardly. We're not talking about illegal actions, we're talking about political decisions.

It's not a dichotomy. Many political decisions have also been illegal actions. And besides, we're not talking about a political decision, we're talking about a mom whose son was killed.

Soldiers who swear an oath of service do not have the option of political dissent.

So "I was following orders" is a valid defense.

Political decisions are not for them to decide - that's the whole bloody point of civilian control of the military, and I would think that's a principle you'd feel strongly about maintaining.

It would be, if civilians controlled the military. They don't, the government does.

The fact that they are still allowed, and in fact obligated, to refuse illegal orders is quite beside the point, and so the comparison you make is meaningless.

So they do have the option of political dissent?

 

[Tony]

Bad news Tony, Bush has time-traveled into the past and put just that as one of the primary reasons for going to war in a state of the union address. Damn that evil Bush and his time machine.

Read my words again, I said: "that would have been his primary reason for going to war".

See that? I said: "that would have been his primary reason for going to war".

Your reading comprehension is off today, let me tell you again: "that would have been his primary reason for going to war".


Note, I didn't say "one of".

and

Like his other primary reasons, it has failed. Like almost everything else in Bush's life, this is a failure.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tragedy

You're loyal to this president and not the country, people or constitution he claims to care about.

Nice try. Come again when you actually know what the hell you're talking about, because you clearly don't.

LOL Yeah right. You're one of the dumbest people if you still believe this. Bush isn't interested in helping people cast off tyranny.

And we're back to the motives game. I DON'T CARE what Bush's motives are.

Let me repeat that, and I'll say it slowly so you can understand.

I.
DON'T.
CARE.

One more time (since they say repetition helps overcome learning impairments): I don't care what Bush's motives are.

Got it yet? Good.

I am in favor of helping people cast off tyranny. This motivates ME to support the liberation of Iraq from Ba'athist tyranny. I will support people who work to accomplish this goal. I do not care if that person shares my motives, I only care if their ACTIONS are in accord with MY motives. All your accusations about Bush's motives are, therefore. completely irrelevant to me and my position.

But this obsession with motives is a very convenient way to dismiss someone without having to actually, you know, THINK about the issues. Who cares about consequences when we can ascribe nefarious motives to our opponents and benevolent ones to ourselves? You could try the same trick with accusations of loyalties - yeah, try that one! Oh, never mind, you already did. So did Sheehan.

Nice try asserting your propaganda as fact though.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at covering your tracks. It is a FACT that my OPINION is that the war was worth it. Are you trying to tell me that you know my opinions better than I do? Because that's the only sense in which I asserted anything as a fact, and I think I can reasonably be considered the world expert on that little subject. It was Billy that tried to assert HIS opinion as a fact, not me. I just called him on it, but for some reason that got your knickers in a twist.

 

[Manny]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tragedy

Bush has time-traveled into the past and put just that as one of the primary reasons for going to war in a state of the union address.

Man, that Karl Rove guy is sneaky!

 

[Grammatron]

Read my words again, I said: "that would have been his primary reason for going to war".

See that? I said: "that would have been his primary reason for going to war".

Your reading comprehension is off today, let me tell you again: "that would have been his primary reason for going to war".


Note, I didn't say "one of".

and

Like his other primary reasons, it has failed. Like almost everything else in Bush's life, this is a failure.

I think you have trouble comprehanding the fact there was more than one reason for the war in Iraq.

As for Bush, I wish I could fail like he did.

 

[Ziggurat]

So "I was following orders" is a valid defense.

Defense against what? How stupid are you? We're not talking about Sheehan's son following illegal orders, we're talking about him following orders that he might politically oppose.

The point about taking an oath and having to follow orders is that they cannot refuse based on their political opinions. That's the way it is. Do you honestly want it any other way?

It would be, if civilians controlled the military. They don't, the government does.

Someone needs to look at a dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=civilian&x=0&y=0
Relevant definition for "civilian":
"one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting force"
Bush is a civilian. Senators and congressmen are civilians. Your postman is a civilian. Most government employees are civilians.

The military is controlled by civilians.

So they do have the option of political dissent?

Refusing illegal orders is not political dissent. It is a legal obligation.

Protesting tax increases is political dissent. Not paying your taxes is breaking the law.

Get the difference yet? Or is your comprehension of the term as bad as your understanding of the definition of "civilian"?