Antiwar.com Blog

I think Michael sums up what Cindy Sheehan is doing for the antiwar movement well: As Cindy Sheehan is reminding us, we don’t especially need policy debate right now. What we need, very badly need, are stories: and story is just what the theater of Camp Casey is giving us. The right-wing talking point—that Cindy Sheehan doesn’t really want to engage in dialogue with George Bush, that her demand for the dialogue he won’t give her (and wouldn’t, even if he were improbably to meet with her) is a sort of playacting—is accurate, but beside the point. The relations of power are difficult to conceptualize, and can be even for people trained to do that sort of thing. There is nothing difficult, on the other hand, about the mother of a dead soldier standing ignored at the end of the man’s driveway who sent her son to be killed, waiting stoically in the Texas sun for an answer she knows will never come. Nor is there anything about it that doesn’t speak volumes of truth to the ugly situation in which we find our country, five years on in the Rove/Cheney regime.

Here’s an absolute jewel (scroll to page 74 of the .pdf):

The only way to understand the motivations of an opponent is by having a real understanding of the historical and religious framework that has molded his culture. It is clear that Americans who waged the war and who have attempted to mold the aftermath have had no clear idea of the framework that has molded the personalities and attitudes of Iraqis. Finally, it might help if Americans and their leaders were to show less arrogance and more understanding of themselves and their place in history. Perhaps more than any other people, Americans display a consistent amnesia concerning their own past, as well as the history of those around them.

There’s a beautifully understated exasperation to those last two sentences that does my heart good. Too bad (a) it took the Pentagon to say it, and (b) the commander-in-chief will never read it.

Via Justin Logan.

Justin, “ghouls” is right. Here’s chief moonbat David Horowitz the day after former ABC news anchor Peter Jennings died of cancer:

Peter Jennings is dead. May he rest in peace. Lest we forget, however, while he was alive, Peter Jennings did considerable damage to the cause of civilization and human decency by his sympathy for Jew-hating terrorists and their supporters.

Now, I’m not of the school of thought that death makes one above criticism, and I have no opinion on Jennings one way or the other. But here’s what National Review‘s David Frum had to say about the man:

[J]ennings was a man of consideration and gentlemanliness so exquisite it was almost shocking. …

Jennings scattered kindnesses, large and small over the landscape. …

Nobody was better on set. Nobody was more delightful off. In a trade full of egotists, he was a man of grace.

Nothing about destroying civilization, supporting terrorism, or hating Jews, and I seriously doubt Frum would have overlooked such crimes.

The FrontPagers’ habit of spitting on graves and deathbeds is as revealing as it is repulsive. Here’s Horowitz’s response to a criticism of his Jennings post:

I’m certain my political opponents won’t wait five seconds to dance on my grave.

No, Horowitz, this opponent won’t dance on your grave, out of simple decency – and a fear of contracting whatever hateful spirits might seep through that unholy ground.

Creepy, ugly, kooky, nasty — these are words that come to mind as we contemplate this post on David Horowitz’s “Moonbat Central” blog, announcing the departure of Cindy Sheehan from Crawford, Texas, on account of her mother’s recent stroke. Yeah, they don’t call it “Moonbat Central” for nothing, as it attracts various right-wing ghouls who post their comments. Here’s one:

“Ah, divine justice“!

Horowitz and his crew — this particular post is authored by someone who goes by the name of “Rocco di Pippo” — are real winners, alright. Here’s another example of their “hate Cindy” campaign: “Cindy Sheehan: American Nazi Idol”! I’m not even going to provide a link to this drivel, authored by Ben “Chickenhawk” Johnson, who works for Horowitz. Ben is a young lad of military age who has better things to do than fight a war he so passionately believes in, preferring instead that people like Casey Sheehan give their lives so that he can stay at home and libel the families of the fallen.

For the Cliffs Notes version, Jim Henley:

DO NOT BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT WHEN IT TELLS YOU THINGS!

For those of you who need some historical context, Arthur Silber unearths this quotation from a similar episode in the U.S.: “Burning to death was too good for them. They’d like a slower method.” Clue: a Democrat said it.

The error many people who should have known better made immediately after the de Menezes killing was to offer analysis based on the official narrative — instead of analyzing that narrative. Cue this guy:

No one asked, but here’s my opinion of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes – he brought it on himself. First off, when police told him to stop, he ran. Right there they’re justified in shooting him. Secondly, if Mark Whitby is a reliable witness, Menezes was wearing a jacket. In July.

Unless police and witnesses are lying about the situation, there’s no fault with police here.

Oh, I know, I know, there are caveats — “if Mark Whitby is a reliable witness,” “Unless police and witnesses are lying about the situation…” Yet it still boggles my mind. Unless the lynching party and terrified witnesses are lying about the situation, there’s no fault with the Ku Klux Klan here. I mean, come on, the victim did whistle at a Caucasian woman, and he did run from the nice men in hoods. If you find that analogy over the top, read this account of London police brutality over the last three decades. I guarantee you they’ve effectively lynched more people than the KKK has during the same period.

But the racial particulars of this case aside, why proceed in any situation from “unless the state is lying”? The state may occasionally tell the truth, of course, but what thinking person in the post-Powell era assumes that it will???

For a few days early this week, I had the honor of playing host to my friend Mike (in Tokyo) Rogers, who flew all the way from Japan to Texas to show support for Cindy Sheehan and the other families in Crawford who are demanding a direct answer to the question: “What noble cause?” We went to Crawford on Monday and Tuesday.

The president maintains that he needs to “go on with his life,” and so he still will not meet with her.

As many already know, after having their memorial temporarily ruined by some wacko from Waco, and having some of the lovely people of Crawford rally behind a court petition to ban parking on the public right of ways – an injunction which would have virtually made Camp Casey illegal – a local property owner has invited Cindy Sheehan to move the camp to his property, which is much closer to Bush’s place. Ain’t that America?

While at Camp Casey on Monday and Tuesday, Mike and I were only able to spend a short amount of time with Cindy, who of course, is being questioned from all sides at all times, but she was very kind and quite down to earth, contrary to the impression the War Party is trying to give about her. At Monday’s press conference, she emphasized that with all the people flooding in, and media flying around, the core of her story has been a bit diluted, and that she wanted to get back to it.

My best understanding of the core is simply this: Bush told her that her son died for a noble cause, and now she would like a specific explanation as to what exactly that cause was. Secondly, knowing that there is no honest answer to that question, she wants the war to end immediately and for the rest of the soldiers to be brought home.

While in Crawford, I got to meet many interesting people, including a Master Sergeant from Ft. Hood who was drawing up specific tactical plans for the full scale invasion of Iraq beginning immediately after Bush took office in 2001.

“Go back and see how many generals retired during that time – during the run up to war,” he said. I mean to.

I also met Tim Goodrich from Iraq Veterans Against the War, who told me that he had specific firsthand knowledge of the early start of the air war in 2002, as referred to in this article in The Nation.

I was also able to hear the stories of many other military and gold-star families who are there in support of Cindy and her mission. Although many of them have stories as compelling as Cindy’s, their stories are mostly ignored by the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, Mike took all our audio back to Japan with him, so better descriptions of these stories will have to wait.

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was there showing support. It was my first opportunity to meet him in person, and I found him to be a very kind man and a very critical opponent of the warfare state, though our conversation was not an interview.

The worst part of the time I spent in Crawford, besides listening to family members tearfully describe the deaths of their sons, brothers and nephews, was hearing so many stories from people whose families have been torn apart over differing views on the war. People have so much invested in their positions, that they let relationships with parents, children, grandchildren, brothers, and sisters be destroyed over it. It doesn’t seem that the pro-war side is any more bull-headed about this than those in opposition. I suppose that this type of thing can be expected when arguing over such matters as life and death, though folks could be a bit more grown up.

It is easy to see why the military culture (though definitely not all soldiers) frowns on dissent about policy from military families. This is a result of at least two major factors. The first is the legal requirement of obedience to ranking officers, but in a larger context this reflects the tradition and constitutional requirement of civilian superiority over military power – tradition and law that are meant to restrain the temptations of military leaders. In this case, however, the generals seem much more restrained than the “intellectual” crazies in the pentagon and Vice President’s office.

It is also easy to understand how no one would want to hear that their loved one had died for a pack of lies, and some military family members have complained that Sheehan is dishonoring their relative’s sacrifice. On Monday, Sheehan said that she understands their grief, and is glad that those people believe whatever they need to believe to “get through the day.” She means them no ill will at all, it’s just that she cannot pretend to believe that the war her son died in was an honorable cause when she knows better. Instead she is standing up for her son and for the sons of others who she wants brought home safely from the disaster they call Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Anyone who can take a couple of days to drive to Texas and lend support for Cindy Sheehan and her vigil should do so.

Mike Rogers came all the way from Tokyo because resisting the warfare state is the most honorable thing a patriot could do. Consider taking part in any small way you can.