What Ariana thinks

[Freakshow]

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

What does "progressive" mean? What does "justice most of us seek" mean? What does "genuine economic and social freedom" mean?

Only after you answer those will I be able to tell you if I fall inline with those descriptions.

I know that isn't necessarily the primary intention of your post, but it is a lot more intersting than ANYTHING Ariana thinks/does/says. I couldn't care less about her, or anyone else in the media, actually.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: The tragedy

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

Nope, the real tragedy is that people still call the war pointless after so many have died. There's some real bamboozling for you.

 

[Dan Beaird]

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

Nope, that's not what I said. Conspiracy is a crime, I've never accused her or the people who tell her what to say of any crimes. The nation is founded on the right of free speech after all. I guess that still applies even if you talk for the highest bidder.

 

[Dan Beaird]

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

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.

He managed to hide the evidence and kill all the witnesses of the rigged 2004 election while he was there. We really need to have James Bond invade his secret base sometime and put an end to his nefarious schemes.

 

[Tony]

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

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

I just answered your question.

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.

So my initial estimation was right. You don't think it's a tragedy that thousands of innocent Americans have died in a war we were bamboozled into fighting. You're completely willing to let the president escape accountability because he claims to be working towards something you support (even though the results have been disastrous).

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.

No, you're spouting propaganda as fact:

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.

The whole "25 million people to cast off the yoke of tyranny" is pure BS. It's just BS you happen to agree with.

 

[Tony]

Nope, that's not what I said.

Yes it is.

Conspiracy is a crime

No it's not.

I've never accused her or the people who tell her what to say of any crimes.

No, you've just asserted that there is a conspiracy. What evidence do you have that there are people who tell her what to say? AKA a conspiracy.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: The tragedy

Nope, the real tragedy is that people still call the war pointless after so many have died.

It's a tragedy if you're stupid enough to believe this. Since when is the point of a war predicated on how many people die fighting it?

 

[Tony]

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

You obviously have trouble comprehending anything.

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

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Grammatron]

Tony, you can do better than "I know you are..." responses.

Please, be more specific.

 

[Jocko]

Re: The tragedy

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

Well, if you want to play that game, don't you consider it a tragedy that hundreds of thousands died under the heel of a tyrant?

 

[Jocko]

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.

Being loyal to anyone or anything is a nefarious thing, to an anarchist. Even those that pretend not to enjoy the fruits of others' loyalties every single day of their angst-ridden lives.

 

[Tony]

Defense against what? How stupid are you?

Obviously not as stupid as you. Atleast I can follow something that was said two posts ago

The point about taking an oath and having to follow orders is that they cannot refuse based on their political opinions.

You can't even keep your message consistent, let alone follow the thread. Is "I was following orders" a valid defense? No? Well, then why can’t they refuse orders based on politics? The legality of an order is irrelevant. Killing Jews in Nazi Germany was legal. What if killing protesters was a legal act for the military. Does the soldier all of sudden loose the right to refuse those orders?

That's the way it is. Do you honestly want it any other way?

Yes, I do. If the president gives the order to bomb Houston, I damn well hope there is a soldier that will refuse out of political reasons.

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.

Ok, I stand corrected. They're civilians, in government, that control the military.

Refusing illegal orders is not political dissent.

It can be and if you disagree with illegal orders out of a political principle, it is.

It is a legal obligation.

You're trying to construct a false dichotomy.

Protesting tax increases is political dissent. Not paying your taxes is breaking the law.[/quiote]

This is false. Breaking the law is often political dissent. What about countries where engaging in political dissent is illegal? Is it no longer political dissent because it’s illegal?

Get the difference yet?

I get that you respect that such a difference exists.

 

[Tony]

Tony, you can do better than "I know you are..." responses.

And you can do better than dwell on insipid nit-picks.

Please, be more specific.

Can you be more specific about what you'd like me to be more specific about?

 

[corplinx]

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

You don't think it's a tragedy that thousands of innocent Americans have died in a war we were bamboozled into fighting.

Were you bamboozled? I wasn't. Cindy Sheehan wasn't (she didnt support the war at all). Who is the person who was bamboozled?

 

[daredelvis]

And you can do better than dwell on insipid nit-picks.

Give it up; the swift boaters are on this.

Did you know?

-That one (ONE) member of her husband’s family (an aunt) wrote Drudge a letter speaking for all of the family (only her word for that), requesting that Cindy knock it off.
Swift Boat interpretation: Her family and her son’s whole family is against her actions.

-She split from her husband shortly after her son’s death and the divorce papers are going through now.
Swift Boat interpretation: She is bat s*it crazy.

-David Duke is against the war for a whole set of reasons, some that overlap hers, and has a posting on his website saying so.
Swift Boat interpretation: She is sleeping with David Duke and wants him to be the next president of the United States.

She has made conflicting statements in public such as, “I am a one issue person. I'm only going to concentrate on this. I don't know anything about anything else...” and "I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."
Swift Boat interpretation: She is a liar!!!! (Note: only those in disagreement with the administration are held to this standard)

-She had a son.
Swift Boat interpretation: (and this is my favorite) Her son would not her to be doing what she is doing (they did not know him, but they know him better then his own mother).

These people take their marching orders from Drudge and O’Rielly (insist on a source and you will hear crickets). They will accuse HER of being controlled by the “spin doctors”. They have made up their minds.

I have to ask all of the people here who willingly participate in the smear of this woman: Can any person oppose / protest the war? Dose patriotism require blind faith in our leaders. Do you not see where these people (war protesters) are coming from?

Many people in our armed service joined in the aftermath of September 11th. They thought they would be defending our country against foreign threats and getting back at the people who did it to us. I believe that what is going on in Iraq is in no way associated with these noble goals. I believe that we have a mess in Afghanistan that is more pressing, and that the rush to war in Iraq with fudged data and lies (I use that term in light of the bar being lowered for Mrs. Sheehan above) has made the world a less safe place. I firmly believe that those who think that the unilateral invasion (bilateral if you want to include the U.K.) made us safer are the ones that must show how it has.

Last night a truck dragging chains (wonder where they got them in Texas) drove through makeshift memorial of crosses. I am sure that is was someone willing to make the sacrifice on the home front for the war effort by putting one of those yellow ribbon magnets on the back of their truck.

I have to run. I have never attended a candle light vigil in my whole life (generally I think they are hokey and somewhat pointless). But the smear campaign against has inspired me. This is disgusting!

Daredelvis

 

[daredelvis]

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

Were you bamboozled? I wasn't. Cindy Sheehan wasn't (she didnt support the war at all). Who is the person who was bamboozled?

I would say that anyone who joined up before it became clear that the whole buildup to the war was predicated on lies and misinformation has a strong argument.

Daredelvis

 

[hgc]

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

Were you bamboozled? I wasn't. Cindy Sheehan wasn't (she didnt support the war at all). Who is the person who was bamboozled?

I was bamboozled. I thought, based on claims of this administration, that Iraq presented a nuclear weapons threat.

How about you? Did you not think that? Do you actually now think that Bushco made an honest mistake about that? If so, you continue to be bamboozled.

Someone further upthread said that it was worth fighting this war to throw off the yoke of tyranny from 25 million people. Did Bushco claim up front that this was the reason for war? Seems to me that to disarm Saddam of WMD, something that at least plausibly falls within vital US interests, was the reason for a "last resort" to force. If you think freeing the Iraqi people was the stated reason for this war, then you continue to be bamboozled.

If Bush had come to the nation and said he wanted to invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people from tyranny, would you have supported it at the time?

 

[SezMe]

I was ambivalent about Sheehan at first but have grown increasing distrustful, even disinterested as time goes on. I wish the anti-war movement would refocus on its core issues and not be diverted by the Sheehan sideshow (and I don't mean that in a derrogatory manner - I mean Sheehan's demand to see the President is NOT a significant issue).

That said, I have a lot of trouble with this.

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.

Who is this "special interest group?" Give it a name and give evidence that they have enough leverage over her to get her to spout their line.

Name some of the "expert team of spindoctors" who have control over her words. Name the names and give evidence that this control exists.

How have her efforts had the effect of "stifling honest debate?" How in the world could Sheehan do this.

Please provide evidence that her actions are "money-grubbing." How is she making a lot of money off this?

The rest of your last sentence is gibberish.

In other words, you have lobbed some very powerful accusations at Sheehan. I think you should be able to substantiate these assertions given how strong and charged they are.

 

[demon]

SezMe:
"Who is this "special interest group?" Give it a name and give evidence that they have enough leverage over her to get her to spout their line.

Name some of the "expert team of spindoctors" who have control over her words. Name the names and give evidence that this control exists."


About time someone asked that question...I`ve been hearing these accusations a lot without any back up.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can't even keep your message consistent, let alone follow the thread. Is "I was following orders" a valid defense? No? Well, then why can’t they refuse orders based on politics? The legality of an order is irrelevant. Killing Jews in Nazi Germany was legal.

But not by the laws of the victors. Neurenberg was victor's justice. I recognize that quite completely, but I also have no qualms about it.

What if killing protesters was a legal act for the military.

What if Saddam was a saint. Then we'd be living in a different world. I'd like to keep this conversation grounded in reality, if you please.

Yes, I do. If the president gives the order to bomb Houston, I damn well hope there is a soldier that will refuse out of political reasons.

In other words, you hope that soldiers would refuse illegal orders (bombing Houston would be illegal). Welcome to the club.

It can be and if you disagree with illegal orders out of a political principle, it is.

Irrelevant. Soldiers are obligated to refuse illegal orders BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. Political principle has nothing to do with that obligation. If they are politically opposed to the order they refuse, that's convenient. If they are politically in FAVOR of it, they are still obliged to refuse (I wouldn't want a soldier opposed to abortions following an order to attack an abortion clinic, for example). This knife cuts both ways, though: if the order is legal, they must obey. That's the whole bloody point about taking the oath of service: you obey orders which are legal, regardless of your personal feelings. Remove that, and you don't have an army, you have a gang of armed men.