Camping on the Second White House's Lawn
I dunno how to feel about Cindy Sheehan.
I never understood her motivations. She decides to act arguably like a crazy person and camp in front of Bush's Crawford ranch while he's on vacation until he agrees to meet with her (At least I think that's the story. There's so many versions of it I can't keep 'em straight.)
I say crazy, because she is but one of thousands of Americans who have lost loved ones, yet she was the only one who actually went to such an extreme. However, she may not be crazy at all; she may be a genius.
She's garnered amazing amounts of support and media attention. The major news outlets are reporting on her activities every single day. Followers are flocking to Crawford to rally by her side (as are opponents). It's really become quite an amazing show.
I was worried at first that she was going to make those of us that were against the war look like emotional, illogical nightmares, but theres an amazing logic in her actions. She started off as a woman on a mission, andn ow she's leading a following of people determined to get America out of Iraq (what I think about that is another topic entirely). And she's garnered nothing but sympathy. All she originally wanted was a meeting, fifteen minutes of the President's time, and now she is arguably the most powerful anti-war force in the US.
In addition, her rhetoric has become increasingly abrasive. Originally, she just wanted an explanation. Now she's saying everything that we all wish we could say into a microphone and blast it to millions of news watchers across the world. Even today she said what I've been dancing around for years: "George W. Bush is the number one terrorist in the world."
Sheehan is exemplifying true passion. She's showing the world just how divided we are in the US. Did anyone camp out front of the White House over the Whitewater or Lewinski "scandals"? Or Iraq 1? This is Viet Nam level vitriol. Half of this country hates George W. Bush. They absolutely despise him and think the world would be a better place without him. Did the number of people who hated Clinton or Bush 1 or Reagan or Carter...all the way back to Nixon hate their President as much as Bush 2 is hated?
Not even close.
Regardless of whether you like him or hate him, you have to admit that the level of hatred is far greater than any other president in recent history. Sheehan's demonstrations just add the proverbial exclamation point to the irrefutable fact that George W. Bush and his allies in the executive branch, congress, and constitutents are single-handedly tearing this country apart.
"Uniter not a divider" my ass.
I never understood her motivations. She decides to act arguably like a crazy person and camp in front of Bush's Crawford ranch while he's on vacation until he agrees to meet with her (At least I think that's the story. There's so many versions of it I can't keep 'em straight.)
I say crazy, because she is but one of thousands of Americans who have lost loved ones, yet she was the only one who actually went to such an extreme. However, she may not be crazy at all; she may be a genius.
She's garnered amazing amounts of support and media attention. The major news outlets are reporting on her activities every single day. Followers are flocking to Crawford to rally by her side (as are opponents). It's really become quite an amazing show.
I was worried at first that she was going to make those of us that were against the war look like emotional, illogical nightmares, but theres an amazing logic in her actions. She started off as a woman on a mission, andn ow she's leading a following of people determined to get America out of Iraq (what I think about that is another topic entirely). And she's garnered nothing but sympathy. All she originally wanted was a meeting, fifteen minutes of the President's time, and now she is arguably the most powerful anti-war force in the US.
In addition, her rhetoric has become increasingly abrasive. Originally, she just wanted an explanation. Now she's saying everything that we all wish we could say into a microphone and blast it to millions of news watchers across the world. Even today she said what I've been dancing around for years: "George W. Bush is the number one terrorist in the world."
Sheehan is exemplifying true passion. She's showing the world just how divided we are in the US. Did anyone camp out front of the White House over the Whitewater or Lewinski "scandals"? Or Iraq 1? This is Viet Nam level vitriol. Half of this country hates George W. Bush. They absolutely despise him and think the world would be a better place without him. Did the number of people who hated Clinton or Bush 1 or Reagan or Carter...all the way back to Nixon hate their President as much as Bush 2 is hated?
Not even close.
Regardless of whether you like him or hate him, you have to admit that the level of hatred is far greater than any other president in recent history. Sheehan's demonstrations just add the proverbial exclamation point to the irrefutable fact that George W. Bush and his allies in the executive branch, congress, and constitutents are single-handedly tearing this country apart.
"Uniter not a divider" my ass.
posted by Jon Fish at 9:09 PM
8 Comments:
I support Cindy Sheehan, not because she supports a particular party, ideology, etc., but because she refuses to let government corruption go unnoticed.
That said, you are correct about two things: no one was out protesting the Lewinsky Scandal, and Bush is probably more disliked than any recent U.S. President.
But what I want to know is this: where was everyone when Bill Clinton was bombing Iraq, the Sudan, Serbia, etc., etc.? Was it because he was a Democrat that "peace loving" folks in the U.S. looked the other way when he meddled in foreign affairs, or was it because they believed that violence wass justified if perpetrated in the name of something that they believed in?
Just a question...
Well, I'd have to say that it was very likely because Clinton didn't send US troops to die by the thousands and didn't lie to us about the reasons we were going there. He bombed them, he didn't get us involved in a long protracted war costing tens of thousands of lives.
That's right, I forgot. Unlike Bush, Clinton told us the indisputable truth about Iraq:
"[Iraq] will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us....If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
This is straight out of Clinton's Speech on February 17, 1998. I realize that there is a difference between bombing raids and a full-scale war (like I said, I oppose the war utterly and unequivocally), but to assert that Bill Clinton never lied to justify military action seems a bit far-fetched.
Politicians lie. Clitnon did it, and Bush does it now. It's time people started going after ALL of them, rather than giving the slip to their favorites.
Heh, I would be the last to assert that Clinton didn't lie. The assertion I made was that he didn't get us involved in a protracted war with thousands of deaths and lie about the reasons for said war, and he sure didn't lie about what the outcome of such a war would entail. It's one thing to lie about an afair in your private life. Its another to lie about the reasons for sending Americans to kill and to die.
Clinton's response that he refers to in that quote was to force negoitations, inspections, and cooperation with the international community, something Bush was unwilling to do, likely because of the profits that could be reaped from controlling Iraqs oil, as well as the money to be made in the ever-expanding war industry. I'm not trying to defend Clinton, but at the same time to say that anything he did even remotely compares to the horror that is George W. Bush is absoutely ludicrous.
Why, if Saddam Hussein was as impotent as everyone now claims he was (myself included), did Clinton need to, as you say, "force negoitations, inspections, and cooperation with the international community?" Was Iraq not a sovreign nation, and therefore able to decide for itself how much access to its weapons faciltiies the "international community" deserved? What right did Clinton have to then bomb them, just because they refused to cooperate with the UN? Did Saddam pose a clear and present danger to the United States?
Where do we draw the line? How many deaths are acceptable when the "international community" decides to force compliance? Is UN approval the benchmark of guilt-free war? Would you have supported the war in Iraq if the UN had agreed to go along with it?
Anyway, thanks for indulging my opinions and questions. This has certainly been an interesting conversation.
Well, the UN is far from corrupt, so I don't think UN approval is exactly the rubber stap for war. But I do believe that if a war is in the least justified, it would be apparent to more than two major countries.
Would I support this war if the UN supported it? Not a chance. If he UN supported it I would lose even more faith in them because a just cause for this was was never established.
I woldn't say that Clinton's actions were justified, I'm merely arguing that it's blaatantly obvious the Bush's are not. Clinton's attacks don't even register on the instrumentation necessary to measure the atrocity that is Bush's war.
I concede that there is a grey area here, you are right. Was Clinton justified in his moves? Probably not. But the fundamental difference is the effect on the world.
The problem is that we cannot be police officers for the world. Bush is now claiming that we are in Iraq to liberate an oppressed people. Well, if thats the case, why aren't we in East Timor? Why aren't we "liberating" Syria's oppressed masses? And for the love of god why is Saudi Arabia still allowed to exist?
The answer is two-fold: 1) None of them have oil, save Saudi Arabia who, despite being the largest funder of terrorism in the world, has the elites of our country in a financial stranglehold so much so that nobody with any financial power would ever even consider overthrowing them, despite the fact heir peole are publicly executed for nothing more than political dissent.
2) It is impossible for the US to overthrow every despotic regime on the planet. Look how thinly stretched our military and economy are trying to hold two relatively small middle-eastern nations. We need to persue a diplomatic policy along with our allies (now much fewer than was in the last decade) to overthrow these governments via economic and government sanctions against them.
Wow that was alot longer than I intended. Oh well.
Well, as my last post, allow me to say that I agree with pretty much everything you just said. The UN is not, nor should it ever be, a rubber stamp for war. Furthermore, there is a vast chasm between Clinton's policies and those of Bush. And I think you are 100% correct about why the U.S. picks and chooses its fights.
I'm also glad to know that you would have opposed the war regardless. As someone who reluctantly supported it at the outset (yes, sad to say, but I did), and has since turned a complete 180 degrees, I wish I could say the same.
Well, thanks for the debate. I enjoy reading your blog!
Thank you as well, and please come back.
Post a Comment
<< Home