Tuesday, August 16, 2005

The Universe Works In Mysterious Ways
I've stayed off the Sheehan thing because I think other people are doing a better job than I could hope to. This new development, however, really sticks in my craw.

The Sheehan camp is moving closer to Bush's ranch, offered a spot on the property of one of the President's neighbors—in fact, a relative of the guy who fired shots into the air the other day.

So what does Ms. Sheehan have to say about this? Simple:

This just shows me that the universe is blessing our efforts out here at Camp Casey.
Really? The universe is behind you because someone who supports your efforts happens to live nearby? So what was the universe trying to tell you when his relative fired his gun into the air and put up multiple "no parking" and "no trespassing" signs along his property? He was acting contrary to the desires of the universe, right?

The woman is entitled to her views, as are the people who are manipulating her. But to claim that the universe is behind them (aside from sounding an awful lot like hippy bullshit—and remarkably similar to the rhetoric of the Bible-thumping bigots that the Michael Moores of the world hate so much) is simply absurd.


Richard said...

There you go again. Christian-bashing.

Face it. You are irritated because the adventure in Iraq has failed, yet there is no way for Bush to pull out and save face. Then Bush took another of his extended vacations in Crawford. Cindy Sheehan has simply put a face the media can publicize on the utter failure of the Bush administration in Iraq. It is hard to do a typical Republican smear-job on the mother of a dead soldier.

What you are feeling is frustration more than irritation.

RFTR said...

I hand-wrote a 2.5 page response to this inane comment.

Unfortunately, I have a very busy day at work today, so I will not have a chance to type it up until later this evening. Please check back then—it will be posted as an update, rather than a comment.

For now, I challenge you, Richard, to identify one other time that I have engaged in a "typical Republican smear-job." I also challenge you to define what the Left is doing to Roberts as anything other than a "typical Democrat smear-job."

NYgirl said...

Great post. While she is free to excercise her rights, she & her supporters should respect the rights of others too.

Richard said...

Brian, the first line is intended as humor. Something of a steal from Reagan.

My comment on the typical Republican smear-job is directed at the administration, and if I phrased it so poorly that you read it as directed at you, I apologize. But the smear job against Cindy Sheehan is clearly coming thick and fast. The problem is, it isn't sticking with the public.

Cindy Sheehan is not a politician and not an activist. She is a mother who lost her son in a war that has never been honestly explained and isn't worth the death of a single American soldier.

None of the explanations and justifications for the war presented so far since the collapse of the WMD lies has been satisfactory. I offer my best guess regarding the real reason for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq at Politics Plus Stuff.

If you really buy the idea that a bunch of right-wing hardliners led by Cheney invaded Iraq to bring democracy to a single middle east nation then I will offer you some excellent investments as soon as I get the stock certificates printed up and the ink dries. Guaranteed high return investments. I promise. You can trust me.

The invasion of Iraq was a realpolitik action that was attempted on the cheap, based on the assumption that America is the only remaining super power and that no nation can stand before our military might. It was also based, I think, on the assumption that the only forces which could be a danger to the U.S. had to be based in a territorial state. This assumes that organizations like the Baader-Meinhoff gang and the Italian Red Brigade could not mount operations that dealt real damage to America. Somewhere along the line that assumption appars to have become "non-operative."

There is alos the fact that Rumsfeld is a navy pilot, and suffers the same over-estimations of the effectiveness of long-distance application of force that American military aviators have suffered since WW II. An Air Force Brigader (Benjamin O. Davis - first Black Air Force General Officer) from the Korean War wrote the first such fantasy that I am familiar with, claiming that we didn't need ground troops in Korea. We could (He wrote) have stopped the North Koreans with nothing more than a high level of tactical air. I read that in the late 50's at the same time Rumsfeld was most active as a naval aviator. It was a common aviation misconception in those days. Kosovo brought it back to the fore. It is still wrong.

Then when Jay Garner wasn't willing to disband the Iraqi military that he knew we would have to have to succeed in controlling Iraq, he was fired and replaced by the micro-managing non-military Jerry Bremer and a bunch of civilian ideologues who threw money at the problems and did nothing except lose the money. The occupation of Iraq is a failure of the first order. If you look at it, that is a fact that cannot be avoided.

Cindy Sheehan has every reason to ask why George Bush got her son killed for no good reason, and she is completely correct to try to make his answer for his failures. Bush is DIRECTLY responsible for the death of Casey Sheehan! He needs to answer for it.

For my credentials, I wish to remind you that I am not a peacenik. I am retired military, and am as ready to risk my life for my country as anyone else who wears or wore the green clothes. Perhaps because of that I find the waste of American life in Iraq more disgusting than you do.

So far I see over 1800 of my brothers-in-arms killed for no good reason, and little progress on the separate efforts to stop or prevent terrorism.

I see Cindy Sheehan attempting to force George Bush to take responsibility for what he has done, and I see GWB ducking the responsiblity as hard as he did his National Guard committment. I see no reasonable excuse presented for the invasion of Iraq, and I see the invasion as causing all the disasters predicted by Bush's father when he presented an explanation why he did not go on to Baghdad in the Persian Gulf War (a decision I originally did not like.)

I see the right wing smear machine that went after Joe Wilson attempting to do the same to Cindy Sheehan. In each case, the smears are a direct reaction to the feeling that the right is being threatened politically by someone they might be able to force to shut up so their failures can be hidden.

So when you get to typing your rebuttal, do me a favor. Type a rebuttal of what I meant, not what you read into a quick attempt at marginal humor, OK?

RFTR said...

I appreciate the clarification. I will skip my original response, excerpting only the elements that remain appropriate.

You've also given me more to which I feel the need to respond, so I will do so.

You can expect the post at or around 2200 Eastern.

Richard said...

Just so you know, I feel that I have the right to tease you a bit. That was the function of the modified reagan statement re: Christian-bashing.

I await your defense of your right-wing idiocy, OK?