Disservice to a Son

» ArthurRuger - Re: Re: Re: Re: Disservice to a Son=Swift-bloat Veterans against

In response to Re: Re: Re: Disservice to a Son=Swift-bloat Veterans against Mom posted by Frank_Monaldo:

So you spoke again to my first post.
I'm assuming you agree with the second post's premise or you would have argued it.

Which then points to a criticism of this current president.

Oh, and labelling Sheehan's legitimate questioning of Mr. President as anti-American comes back around to the second post's premise which you did not dispute ... yet.

This leaves you as appearing to be part of the swift-boat-against-criticizing-the-president crowd as attacking messengers rather than messages.

A suggestion for enhanced credibility:

Speak ... and speak legitimately ... to the issue of the administration's series of evolving lies to get to Iraq. I see lots of messenger-attacking but no denial or acknowledgement of the lies. Until the lies are acknowledged and addressed continued editorial aspertions on the character or motive of anti-war critics bounces off as partisan politics.

Gut feelings are what you're trying to overcome - not the presence of traitorous anti-American thought.

I live and work in a small, thinly populated and economically depressed county on the Washington Coast. Rural as any rural country can be, we are not so removed in the tules to be ignorant of manipulative broadcasting and politicial disingenuity. Despite it's similarity to rural red-state America which includes a respectable number of churches, the county is solidly blue.

We're the folks you need to impress first before attempting to convince us that the emperor and his party's new clothes are real.

We're connected to national reality even if it must be thru satellite dishes and dial-up. We can read everything blown or regurgitated our way. We can think. We can ask questions and wear bullshit protectors on our eyes and ears.

This below in my morning email from just one website where speaking out is considered patriotic:

From the ONLINE JOURNAL

August 23, 2005—On the MoveOn.org website, I accessed an interactive map showing participation by American citizens in the national vigil called for by Cindy Sheehan on 17 August 2005. The most touching thing about this exercise was clicking on counties and viewing this count: one person in a county in Maine, two in a county in Texas, one person in a county in Colorado. It must take guts to do that—to show up with a candle, alone.
These are the people whom you can trust to stand up in a room full of polite, scared, or obedient people to say, "No, I will not go along. It is
wrong."

In praise of disobedience Luciana Bohne
***
August 23, 2005—Every year, right around the anniversary of 9/11 the Bush administration spins the public about the reasons 1,864 American soldiers have died fighting for a lie in Iraq. And every year, it's just as crucial that the media tell the public the truth about the reasons the war was started.

Bush knows the true reasons he started a war in Iraq, but he's not going to tell
By Jason Leopold
***
August 23, 2005—Living in America these days is akin to riding in the back seat of a car being driven by a learner who is attempting to convince
the passengers that he knows what he is doing, and knows where he is going.

Do you know where we are going, America?
By Nolan K. Anderson
***

August 26, 2005—On Wednesday, August 17, I rode from Austin to Crawford, Texas, with two beautiful women who happen to share my belief that George W.
Bush is a deceitful and treacherous jackass who deserves to be run out of office as soon as possible because he has betrayed the trust of the
American people.

Standing with Cindy Sheehan (and learning why Jesus wept)
By Duncan Burch
***

August 26, 2005—Cindy Sheehan is exactly what we needed. Following the 2004 elections the antiwar movement was left in shambles, unable to recover
from the malfunctions of the Democratic Party. MoveOn.org had capitulated its antiwar position by supporting John pro-war Kerry. United for Peace and Justice did not organize a single rally against the Iraq occupation.
Indeed, the "Anybody but Bush" epidemic had crushed whatever movement there was to begin with.

The Democrats and Cindy Sheehan
By Joshua Frank

-- posted by ArthurRuger

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» ArthurRuger - Abstract Reasoning versus real people

Academics writing out checks that real human beings - not they - will have to cash.

I went to Google, typed "Neocon assumptions" and hit enter. Found a readable commentary by Emile El-Hokayem, a researcher in Middle East security issues at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington think tank. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR. December 8, 2004.

It's a good commentary and referred me to other readings including Samuel Huntington and "Clashes of Civilizations" (not a Microsoft combat game) which also included links to reviews and criticisms of Mr. Huntington. All very interesting and readable.

I guess going to college was helpful for me.

But ...

The combined writings and most combined writings coming from think tanks, university professors and talking heads have value almost entirely restricted to that ivory tower context where professional thinkers are paid to think important thoughts, then write those thoughts out complete with footnotes, quotes and references to other thinkers, think tanks and towers.

Tragically, these are not the words used in foreign policy discussions that occur in most living rooms in America where the primary national human assets are found - children bred for a theoretical future as:

human combatants,

human consumers,

human labor,

human tax-payers,

humans with needs that will always be reflected in the theoretical considerations so abstractedly discussed by hired mind-slingers,

human assets for thinkers whose numbers who will probably never amount to much of a percentage of those who fight, consume, labor, pay the largest prorated shares of taxes out of the family budget and who worry the most about how to obtain and finance medical care.

I'm trying to imagine the mind-slingers bringing a Town-Hall type meeting to a real small-town American meeting with people like Senator Allen, Tom Delay (for spiritual spice purposes), Richard Perle, William Kristol, Schmitt, Krauthammer and crew to sit on a stage in front of an audience full of small-towners - maybe with Prez Press Secretary McLellan to attempt to moderate despite having to face real questions and no planted political "loose Gannons."

First question: "Why is the Coalition of the Willing shrinking?"

One of them on stage refers to Robert Kagan's "seminal examination of the growing distance between the strategic perspectives of America and Europe."

Those in the audience turn and look at each other.

"Who the hell is Kagan and why can't that guy up there talk guy talk?"

Herman Logroller turns to me and asks with a snicker,

"At what point does an examination get 'seminal?'. That sounds like fun in the doctor's office!"

Bubbles Clawtubber, whose son gets calls from military recruiters every night stands up and asks,

"Are we going to declare war on Iran?"

One of the think tankers begins to expound on the "universalist values of the neocon school" and "the inevitability and universality of democracy and free markets."

However, Unlike an MSM reporter, Bubbles sticks with it and follows up,

"I'll ask you again, Are we going to declare war on Iran?"

The mind-slinger decides to put her in her place by talking of the "inevitable collapse of all rival political ideologies."

Sam Sixshot, as county deputy, the only law in town, stands up with Bubbles, looks right in the eye of the inevitable collapser and says,

"That's what the Commies used to insist would happen to the capitalists and look what happened ta them. You sure you ain't staking too much on yer theories? Too much capitalism, too much being in love with military technology and not enough common sense?"

Delay stands up and starts shouting about how God has "consecrated the American economic and political system and that Americans have a God-mandated responsibility to spread and protect democracy and freedom as given and defined by God's mouthpiece, George W. Bush."

McLellan won't interrupt Delay and nobody else can get a word in edgewise until Tom Bumbbouncer, who owns the local tavern, walks onto the stage and lifts Delay by the back of his collar and drags him offstage.

Someone next to McLellan breaks the ensuing silence with an attempt to explain that "cultural features distinguish societies one from another" and that "individualist pursuits supersede identity."

But Rushford O'Flanity, our local DJ who fancies himself somewhat a talk-jock, yanks the mike from Bubbles and in his best Ed Shultz imitation says,

"Are you kidding me? We're hurting here in every sense of life, jobs, health, retirement worries and most of all, watching our young ones join up and never come home.

Who gives a rats ass about identity and individualist pursuits?Just answer the lady's question!"

Someone else up there in the ivory crowd says that America's victory in the Cold War authorizes "a mission to spread universal values" because "the U.S., as the world's most advanced state, can get away with promoting interventionist foreign policies as democratic imperialists."

Herman got up and left, muttering about shit for brains.

Delay is back, shouting that Huntington was right. "Religion is the ultimate fault line that divides humanity."

Father Valentin Marcionus Catharis quietly takes the mike and says,

"That's only true, Brother Delay, if we make it a 'civilizational clash' and insist on a 'disengagement from the world' after 'alienating other civilizations with imported values.' "

The democratic imperialist jumps back in,

"We also believe in the 'morality of force and see military action as a viable means of inducing reform.' We neocons know that 'morality of intention supplants other considerations linked to the use of force.'"

Farley Smoothlips, who teaches Civics at the local high school, worries about the recruiters at the school and the desperation of the Pentagon for more and more young people.

To which there is a reply from the stage that there is a risk of "U.S. overstretch and the costs of forward policies."

To which Farley asks,

"And if there is overstretch, will each of you convince all of your young relatives to enlist?"

At that point they all stand in unison and shout, "Many foreign policy practitioners and analysts respect the neoconservatives' intellectual brilliance and political perseverance. For us, America has the power to shape or determine the face of the world."

Sam Sixshot gets the last word,

"Your intellectual brilliance ain't no damned Stratego game where you wear yourselves out patting each other on the back. You ain't gonna shape or determine the face of the world for long if you think we'll keep producing war babies for your killing machines just because you can string together big words and think we don't know what the hell you're talkin about!

We might be a little slow on the uptake and distracted by American Idol, Survivor and the car races. But we'll wake up. And when we do, y'all better buy yourselves the best armored Humvee you can afford. You'll need it if your intellectual brilliance hasn't changed its mind."

-- posted by ArthurRuger

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Frank_Monaldo - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disservice to a Son=Swift-bloat Veterans aga

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Disservice to a Son=Swift-bloat Veterans against posted by ArthurRuger:

Dear Author,

You again mis-characterize what I said, perhaps because it is easier to refute a straw man argument. You said, "Sheehan's legitimate questioning of Mr. President as anti-American comes back around to the second post's premise which you did not dispute."

I never said the questioning the President is anti-American in fact I repeated said in this thread just the opposite. Please follow the thread.

However, calling American institutions "morally repugnant", charging that we are waging a "nuclear" war, and saying that America is not worth dying for are anti-American statements.

If someone says the president's policy is wrong and does not meet American ideals, that criticism would not be anti-American. Alas that is not what Sheehan has said.

It is always the message I have criticized, not the messenger. Indeed, it is the Left's angry anti-Bush rhetoric that is personal. Isn't Sheehan pejoratively referring to Bush's daughters as "party girls" personal? It seems a little contradictory to complain about personal attacks I never made against Sheehan and then wink an eye when she calls the president a "terrorist."

I am accused by other's on this thread of somehow following the Karl Rove line, while the best you all can do is cite MoveOn.org. We can also cite particular people who agree with us. The are many parents of people in Iraq who disagree with Sheehan and believe her statements endanger their children. However, overall, parents with children in Iraq support the War more than the general population. Moreover, the enlistment rate of those who have served is Iraq is exceeding high. What do they know that you and I do not?

-- posted by Frank_Monaldo

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» ArthurRuger - Who said what and why

In response to posted by :

Parents with children in Iraq support the war more than the general population because they have skin in the game, as do we. We are not yet qualified to be members of Cindy's Gold Star Families, nor do we ever want to qualify. It takes the loss of a family member to qualify.

Have you seen "overall" a survey of attitudes of families who've lost loved ones about that loss?

I think that when a parent loses a child to war or a spouse loses a mate, or someone loses a sibling the immediate and often most enduring reaction in addition to the shocked grieving is an anger that will express itself either at the reason for the loss or any suggestion that the loss was not justified.

Long before Mrs. Sheehan we've seen nationally instances of grieving mothers and fathers driven to confront BushCO at their conventions, speaking engagements and directly to the White House. The typifying example is the mom in Fahrenheit 9/11 who started out so proud of her family's military heritage and ended in horrible agony outside the White House.

The poorest method for how NOT to deal with a relative's grief -with one exception in this year's State of the Union Address - has been repeatedly modeled by the President, his administration and politcal advisors. This both in terms of relatives angry at Bush as well as relatives in support.

However, to be fair, every relative whose soldier pays the ultimate price for our country deserves exactly the same kind of acknowledgment and consolation - something impossible to achieve and something Bushco knows it should have been doing in some form from the start.

We've also seen what happens when that anger is aimed at anything that questions the value of a soldier's death in war. Outspoken grieving realtives seem to subconsiously ache to tell SOMEBODY to shut the f*** up, to give SOMEBODY their comeuppance and to make SOMEBODY account for the loss. In a context of compassion these not only are best left alone and given individual respect, regard and space for their circumstance of agony. They are too locked into an outrage that needs focus in some specific direction.

But the context of death and loss of course is not normal and when those bereaved speak out indict a president his supporters are wont to scream "foul" regardless of the fact that grieving relatives have no political mandate to keep quiet. Nor should they.

Angry relatives have the right of free expression which corresponds with our own. From our point of view we work to avoid the same kind of agony for any other soldier's families, avoid needless loss of life, that - as we see it - does not happen for a just and noble reason.

Which puts us immediately at risk of being perceived as diminishing the value of a soldier's life. It is an issue of semantics and context, academic concepts that are useful but pale in comparison with the emotion and passion of family love, unity and sense of patriotic community with all citizens of the nation.

Yet, getting a verbal handle on the actuality of the war, of death and destruction and of the reasons for it are at the heart of the matter. At this time the flamingng passion of those opposing is on the rise and BushCo seems to have only gasoline to pour on it.

-- posted by ArthurRuger

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» ArthurRuger - Who said what and why

(BTW I've always had trouble with "condensed versions." Maybe I should go into politics,eh?))

From my perspective, grieving relatives are one volatile aspect of the risks in public activism that cannot be avoided. They may lash out for you or against you. If they lash out against you (verbally), I suppose they are entitled to do so. But we must also grant that same entitlement when they lash out against the government.

However, as is going on in Cindy's case, no one has a right to tell anyone else that one family's loss is more significant to the country than the losses of other familyl's nor the future losses, the future agonies and the future second-guessing that will go on around the lives of those future casualties of war and their individual nobility.
That's why what is going on now is not about Casey Sheehan and one single family's grief.

The "Rovian" aspect of crticizing Sheehan by pointing at those who've rallied around her and injected themselves politically into the equation with the suggestion that she had a plot or plan from the start remains disingenuous.

But then, if her plot or plan was to raise public awareness she has succeeded beyond her wildest expectations. And there is absolutely nothing wroing with an aroused public awareness. That is democracy in action.

To justify your criticism of Cindy by quoting Sheehan's statements while ignoring equally stupid statements such as "bring em on", "our enemies are doing everything in their power to destroy America and so are we," "they are thugs who hate America," and these thugs are "in the last throes" also remains disingenuous.

So does ignoring the lies that got us to this quagmire.

It appears that you insist that your reasoning, rationale, logic and conclusions are valid while mine and others are not. Yet there is no basis for that insistance and in fact the truth invalidates it.

Which circles back to what I asked of you earlier. You and I can debate, quote sources and talk of party politics and it remains abstract.

The perception that you apparently want to avoid acknowledging the lies, dealing with them and the reasons behind them remains stuck in place. Until those of your political bent even make the attempt your choir will keep shrinking.

The political party and "new" conservative wisdom that topped the mountain last November with a pretended mandate is now careening on a dangerously curved downhill track and the brakes are out.

-- posted by ArthurRuger

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Frank_Monaldo - Re: Who said what and why

In response to Who said what and why posted by ArthurRuger:

Dear Author,

Thank your for your response. However, I have a few responses.

(1) Although grieving parents certainly have something important to say, it is difficult to know how much weight to give it. I certainly give it a lot of respect, but if parents had the way, they would have none of their children in dangerous occupations. We may all believe that policing and firefighting represent noble, important, and necessary occurpations. However, for a parent the loss of a child certainly outweighs the marginal increase in safety for many.

(2) I am not sure you can dimiss the support of families of those serving of the president's policy. They have a lot to potentially loose if the family member get killed, but only have a small personal risk of terror if Iraq decends into lawlessness. Afterall, the chance of being one of the 3000 killed out of 300 million Americans is smaller than the chance of one of the about 2000 American losses of the several hundred thousand who have served in Iraq.

(3) According to reporting by Evan Thomas of Newsweek, by-and-large, the families of those who have lost loved one have impressed upon Bush the importance of winning.

(4) Sheehan, herself, does not seem to have quite the respect for other parents who have lost children and still support Bush. She speculates that perhaps they are
"brainwashed." The fuller quote is:

"I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support [President Bush] and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves..."

"How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don't understand it..."

"I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, [Emphasis added] but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these 'continue the murder and mayhem' moms to see the light."

In other words, agree with me or you are probably "brainwashed." This is by the way the mental state she ascribed to her son Casey.

Again, does it do more honor to Casey to say he died out of uncommon valor or to say he died because he was brainwashed?

-- posted by Frank_Monaldo

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» ArthurRuger - Re: Re: Who said what and why

In response to Re: Who said what and why posted by Frank_Monaldo:

I'll give yout this, your article started on the same page you remain on.

The page I'm on, the one that validates Cindy's challenge of the integrity of a sitting American President, is spelled out very clearly by David Corn:

"Bush never depicted his endeavor in Iraq as a crusade for democracy that would cost much in lives and dollars and that could require a decade or more of effort. In fact, his aides routinely suggested the war would not demand much sacrifice. Now that public has grown impatient and worried about the ongoing trouble in Iraq , Bush has no one to blame but the man at the top—and I don't mean Dick Cheney.

It's a page you apparently are not going to discuss.

-- posted by ArthurRuger

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Frank_Monaldo - Re: Re: Re: Who said what and why

In response to Re: Re: Who said what and why posted by ArthurRuger:

Dear Arthur,

Part of the reason, I have remained on the same page is because no one has effectively dealt with my thesis.

I suppose from your quotation, you are asserting that Bush lacked candor and integrity. Unfortunately, you should have cited someone other than David Corn. He does not quite have history of accurate description of Bush's statements. Please see here for detatils.

We can parse your citation to see what I mean. Corn says, "Bush never depicted his endeavor in Iraq as a crusade for democracy that would cost much in lives and dollars and that could require a decade or more of effort." Quite contrary, Bush has always efforts would occur over a long time.

However, on September 20, 2001 as to the war terror in general Bush said, "This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat." From the very beginning, Bush did not underestimate the difficulties involved.

With respect to Iraq specifically, best pe-war estimates as to casualties were on the order of 1000, with a a couple of hundred being an extremely low estimate and a 10,000 at the top end. As it turned out, the capture of Iraq was wildly successful, with deaths, both military and civilian, far less than expected.

By contrast, reconstruction after the war was much more difficult than anticipated. However, anticipation in such cases is darn near impossible. I know from the very begining, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has studiously refused to predict how long reconstruction would take. We are still in Bosnia 10 years later, far longer than in originally predicted and Rumsfeld said that the duration in Iraq was essentially unknowable.

In some ways, the implementation of a new currency and government instutituions things have progress faster than say in the aftermath of WWII. However, security is far worse.

No war or its aftermath goes as predicted. In his second inaugural address, Lincoln explained of the US Civil War that, "Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained." If you judge presidential integrity as to whether war anticipations are exactly as predicted you are creating an unrealistic standard that Lincoln himself would have failed.

-- posted by Frank_Monaldo

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» plox - The title of your essay, "Disservice to a Son" caught my attenti

The title of your essay, "Disservice to a Son" caught my attention... again.
That the mother of a slain soldier is publicly against the ignoble war in which he was killed is no more odd than that the mothers of sons slain in car wrecks are against drunk driving.

Would you say members of MADD are doing a disservice to their lost sons? No?

IF advocating drunkenness as a patriotic activity was part of the platform of your chosen political party, would you then question the patriotism of those MADD mothers?
I expect you would, if deluged with the same kind of propaganda used about Iraq.

-- posted by plox

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Frank_Monaldo - Re: The title of your essay, "Disservice to a Son" caught my att

In response to The title of your essay, "Disservice to a Son" caught my attenti posted by plox:

Dea Plox,

The disservice Cindy Sheehan did to her son was not protesting the war, but in suggesting that her son was brainwashed and her convorting with some vile characters in the process.

As you complain about my essay, millions of Iraqis are voting - right secured for them by Sheehan son and his comrades.

-- posted by Frank_Monaldo

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions