"For the ideological architects of the war, the 3700 dead Americans are collateral damage in pursuit of a grand idea." I like that sentence. It's a nice way of phrasing the rebuttal to the tired "support or troops" or "don't let them die in vain" line. It feels on a gut level less like a rhetorical trick than the valid reply that we can support our troops by bringing them home. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

M.J. Rosenberg,

I wish you would address the real scandal here.

The fact that Kristol Meth is still celebrated by the MSM.

Turn on the TV. Read the op-ed pages. Read Time magazine. Everwhere you look there is Kristol Meth. It is not just the Murdoch organs.

Why is this? Is there any pundit more discredited by Kristol Meth? He just got a column with Time magazine.

It seems to me there is nothing a neocon pundit can do or say that will get make them unemployable in the MSM. Outing a CIA agent, advocating violence against liberals, being proven wrong over and over again..................You will be invited on all the TV shows, treated with respect.

So true. The right gets a free ride from the MSM. I think it is because, in virtually every country, the Right somehow gets to own the flag and everyone is intimidated by them. Liberals, almost by definition, are not thugs while that is all the Right consists of.

I believe that Daniel Larison said it best:

When you want to say, “Bow before the President,” you say, “Support the troops.”  We can tell this is the case because the phrase is quite often invoked at those moments when critics say something against the President.

It is the people who want to keep sending troops to be maimed and killed in a war that cannot possibly be won that are against the troops.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME!

Sheehan became a paradox. One one hand, a mother who lost a child at war and on the other, seen as an extremist who could be used to represent, and dismiss, the entire antiwar movement.

But, times have changed since Sheehan. Anti-war has now been a solid centrist position. Most of the country wants out.

The thing is, she helped get the country to that point. So, while I understand your ire please remember that she's not an extremist, she helped moved the country towards our current consensus.

As for her being backed by a group that you're not comfortable with... it happens. I'm not comfortable with a lot of opinion groups but they do back people, it's just what they do. I think it's often best to separate the backing groups from the people they back. Not always, certainly. But in this case, Sheehan was broadly correct about the war. She also swayed a lot of people towards her point of view. The reason this debate is so different now than it was 3 years ago is that it's now a debate between mainstream opinion, which is antiwar, and the White House. If Sheehan had to work from the extremes a few years ago, well... is that a criticism of her or a criticism of the American mainstream that has now realized what she had said?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

You raise many key points, some of which may be unpopular here. Going back at least to William Randolph Hearst, a MSM principle has been "if it bleeds, it leads." This extends to quite a range of political protest on the farther ends of the spectrum.

There is a difference in both the media attention and public perception, which has changed over time, between quiet nonviolent witness and what I may lump as guerilla theater. The former had a significant effect in civil rights in the US and elsewhere, but no longer draws media attention. The latter attracts the camera's eyes, and indeed may energize the true believers in that particular cause and particular approach to it.

In this example, as well as the Plame hearings, I'm sadly impressed with the lack of understanding both of the political process and the realities of power. Pelosi may have her warts, but the power of a Speaker, at least somewhat responsive to liberal goals, is immense. It's one thing, I suppose, for Sheehan to contend against Pelosi in a primary. If Sheehan ran against Pelosi in a general election, given the district, Sheehan might be a spoiler for a Republican.

I cannot agree more strongly your comment those of us with very real anguish about this war were completely overlooked because we weren't getting arrested at the Capitol.... Similarly, when the Waxman committee was taking Plame's testimony, I saw that as a step in building a solid foundation for impeachment or resignation. It took many hearings before there was a wide consensus not just disapproving of Nixon, but that he had to go. Given the Nixon experience, what did Midge Potter of Code Pink think she was doing at the back of the hearing room, cavorting with a T-shirt emblazoned "Impeach Bush"? Was there anything, at that time, that could contribute more to a potential impeachment, from a mainstream perspective, than exactly the sort of thing Waxman was doing? Why distract from it and, as you suggest, give the Republicans ammunition to dismiss protests? Given media style, would the cameras have stayed on Plame as much if Plame were a fat bald man, and not wandered even more to the more attention-getting stunt?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

If it wasn't Cindy Sheehan being attacked it would have been someone else. The right is fond of saying "We hope Hillary is the candidate." Then talking heads give that crap credence by predicting how Hillary will bring out the right wing base, blah, blah, blah.

All this bullshit suggests that some other Democrat candidate will be treated less harsh than Hillary. Look to Kerry for how foolish that is.

The right wing and the RNC leads the MSM around by the nose, look no farther than the Edwards haircut crap.

Cindy Sheehan stood up to Bush, good for her
She was against the war when many of today weren't; she brought out the worst of the right wing and rational people got to see what they are. Maybe Cindy Sheehan played a part in the Democrat takeover of the Congress.

This war is going to end either in the next few months or immediately after January 20, 2009. What I am worried about is avoiding the "stab in the back" theory. There was a good article about this in Harpers a while back. It argued that the stab in the back won't work with Iraq, but it seems like the Repubs are doing everything they can to set it up.

What's the response to those arguments? How do we kill that thought?

It's not a war; it's an occupation.  And it's not going to end any time soon -- meaning 2009.  It's just going to change its stripes.

Bill Kristol points out that people like Cindy Sheehan don't care about the troops in Iraq, even if they have family members serving. The people who do care are people like Kristol who come from families where no one serves.

I read Kristol's piece and I had to respond. I'm sorry ... I wasn't very diplomatic. Mea culpa. Mea culpa.

Now, I'm going to go ride my mountain bike ....

Morgan

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
-- William Lloyd Garrison (1805 - 1879)

only if we elect clinton. she's the only one who really wants to keep a force of american troops there.

The war isn't going to end; it's just going to fade gradually into insignificance.

Reminds me of the show I saw this morning on msnbc which featured a "fresh" look at wealth in america. They interviewed a fellow who had written a book about nouveau riche. He had nothing but good things to say about these poor creatures. Of course, I thought... he thinks he needs to be overly nice to them to keep writing about them from the inside.

One would think that giving people enough rope to hang themselves would work.. it does sometimes... but in the case of a [crystal], I think we're right... celebrity is more persuasive than what the celebrities have to say. Ungooglem 'em... send em to the depths of obscurity. (unfortunately... it is easier to hit the ignore button while on the internet than it is in the mainstream media, which is probably affecting perception a great deal more than blogs, etc.)

Our narrative should be that we oppose sending any MORE troops to Iraq and the only way you can accomplish that is to bring the troops that are in Iraq now home. I don't know how people feel inside think tanks, but in my neck of the woods, nobody is thrilled about sending any MORE National Guard units to Iraq.

Brad, take your man crush on MJ elsewhere. Your obsession with him is tiresome.

I am so sick of having to listen to Bush make the claim that the US will not be "bullied into leaving Iraq" by terrorists or al qaeda because he's got it totally backwards.

The US is being bullied into "staying" in Iraq by terrorists and al qaeda who need us there close enough to keep killing us...to keep us bogged down and entangled in a civil war and to keep us draining our treasure. Al qaeda in Iraq uses McCain, and Lieberman and Graham to keep us bullied into staying by shooting those they came in contact with during their market place visits after they leave, so they will call for more troops to keep Iraqis secure or by calling for more troops to train Iraqis to protect themselves.

The "terrorists and al qaeda have bullied the US into staying in Iraq by making us too afraid to leave for fear of the consequences. They have bullied the US into destroying our personal freedoms and bullied us into using torture and rape thereby sinking to the level of Sadam.

They have bullied us into becoming terrorists ourselves by killing innocent women and children in all the confusion surrounding the civil war while we call it collateral damage.

Bush is wrong. The terrorists are not trying to bully us into 'leaving' Iraq, the terrorists and minority al qaeda in Iraq have succeeded in bullying us into STAYING, by trying to make us too afraid to leave for fear of the consequences. Bush and the neocons are stupidly easy to manipulate, just like General George Custer.

Hey, the Dow just hit 14,000, what's the prob-lem?

It's the American people who have been bullied and manipulated, no one else, in a calculated effort to make money and increase power. Your "terrorists and al-Qaeda" are actually the Iraqi people who are contesting the brutal US military occupation which shows no signs of abating, despite the political bleating going on. So the violence doesn't keep the US military in Iraq, but the reverse.

The scene may someday shift to Iran or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Darfur or god knows where but the hungry military/industrial/media complex must be fed.

I have nothing but disdain for the two Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that served in this Bush administration during this Iraq war. Four Star Air Force General Richard Meyers was nothing but Rummy's sock puppet. His replacement, Marine General Peter Pace was not much different. When one thinks of how badly Iraq has gone, one wonders why they were not the subject of controversy
over disagreements they could have had with this Administration.

And before anyone declares a General Petraeus National Holiday
I suggest you read how Bush friendly Petraeus is. The story is covered by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com

Although I was pretty young during the Vietnam era and don't remember it too well, it seems there is a world of difference as to how anti-war people relate to the US military then and now.

Nice to see someone who was precocious. :-)

When Jane Fonda climbed on the barrel of a gun in Hanoi, she was not expressing the sentiments of those of some of us who had served in Vietnam before JFK made a war on the commies in Vietnam a stirring campaign issue. We saw a dreadful disaster coming and had few voices that spoke the truth.

Senators Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening were lone voices in the whole of Congress to vote against that damnable war and were thus consigned to history.

I feel badly for the lady who thinks Cindy Sheehan is an extremist bringing ridicule on the anti-war movement. I most politely but vociferously disagree.

Imagine if the anti-war movement today had supported Saddam Hussein and now gloried in the massacres in Iraq. That was the kind of folk who supposedly spoke for us.

Best, Terry

Although I was pretty young during the Vietnam era and don't remember it too well, it seems there is a world of difference as to how anti-war people relate to the US military then and now. At that time, soldiers who served in Vietnam were stigmatized as "baby-killers" and commanders as blood-thirsty fascists (Dan Rowan's "General Bull Wright" from the immortal show "Laugh-In").

Were soldiers who served in Vietnam really stigmatized as 'baby-killers' by the anti-war people? I suspect that while antipathy to the war was high, not much of it attached to soldiers in general. You will recall that this was an era of the draft. Many of the soldiers who were called up to serve did so unwillingly and under compulsion of the law.

At least some of the antagonism was outright mythical. There doesn't actually seem to be a documented case of an anti-war activist or hippy spitting on a vet. Those stories didn't even circulate until long years after the war.

At the same time, it's important to remember that as vile as the Vietcong and NVA were, and as ferocious and evil some of their tactics the actual conduct of the war was pretty questionable. These included command decisions like secretly bombing and invading neighboring countries, the use of napalm, the use of chemical weapons like agent orange, bombing of civilian targets etc. But they also included acts and atrocities carried on by American troops, such as Lieutenant Calley's happy band. The war was controversial on many levels and for good reasons.

The politics of the American military command were sometimes questionable, and in fact, it was more than reasonable both then and now to question runaway militarism. This was a period when General Curtis Le May was still around. Le May was the parodied in Kubrick's Doctor Strangelove and frankly, he had it coming.

"My solution to the problem would be to tell them frankly that they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age."

Still, given that the dissension over the Vietnam War destroyed both Nixon and Johnson's Presidencies, its hard to argue that criticism was not going to those who made the policies.

As a separate question, I wonder what those in Congress and other places of influence think will happen in Iraq when the US finally does pull out, assuming that "the surge" doesn't succeed, and what will the foreign-policy fallout be for the US?

I think that half that question can be answered easily enough. The "surge" has failed, the "surge" failed by just about every measurable criteria. And the failure of the "surge" was easily predicted by just about everyone who looked at it, including those who originally advocated it who deemed far greater numbers as essential to success.

The "surge" was nothing more than a public relations ploy for domestic consumption, by an administration which considers war as public relations by other means.

As for the 'fallout', well, that's already happening, and it will continue.

"But her methods played right into the hands of those who wished to dismiss ANY war protest as the act of desperate crazies and not representative of the very real concerns, not just of many in this country, but many from active military families."

That, alas, is the usual result when those who are politically unsophisticated don't realize they are politically unsophisticated; or know anything, really, about the political spectrum and its gradations.

I was so far to the left during the Veitnam era tht I was off the political spectrum entirely -- "the problems caused by means of politics cannot be solved by means of politics -- and yet was active against US involvement in Viet Nam. Even then, though, I could see the counter-productive on the so-called "Left," in particular the one-note activism of Abbie Hoffamn and Jerry Rubin -- and I knew both personally (and disagreed with them precisely on this point). The "Chicago '68" "street theater" was exciting, and did stir the blood. But when they did the same in Boston, prior to Chicago, they invariably alienated those we most needed to reach against, turning them into even more staunch supporters of Nixon/that US involvement.

Perhaps such political theater has a constructive use, even if only in bringing issues to the attention of the somnolent. However, it more often alienates those one claims to want to reach, and is invariably exploited against all who hold the same view, but not the extremist rhetoric and actions.
I, at the time, had no problem with Jane Fonda's actions; and still don't. But even today she is used as evasion and (intended as) discrediting smear, which gives one pause as to the politics or appearance and cooptation.

I feel with Sheehan, and credit her with essentially singlehandedly "bringing the war back home". But her spouting of extremist left-wing conspirabunk and the like sounds embarrassingly foolish to those who've been at this for decades, and distracts, and is ripe for exploitation by those who would discredit.

You are priceless: we need all the help we can get to predict the unknowable future.

Good to know, too, that all the others who are speaking in equivalent terms are lying.

Those being the "facts," we should throw away our vote on a third party candidate. Who do you recommend? -- pro-John Birch Society Ron Paul?

"On July 21, 2007 - 3:11pm bar_kochba132 said:

"Although I was pretty young during the Vietnam era and don't remember it too well, it seems there is a world of difference as to how anti-war people relate to the US military then and now."

IT is clear you were extremely young, and remember not the facts but the accusations against those of us who were opposed to US involvement in Viet Nam --

"At that time, soldiers who served in Vietnam were stigmatized as "baby-killers" . . . ."

By very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very few.

". . . and commanders as blood-thirsty fascists (Dan Rowan's "General Bull Wright" from the immortal show "Laugh-In")."

Actually not. Nor does "General Bull Wright" contain the word "fascist". It is, ratehr, a metaphor for, "My country, right or wrong."

"Today, at least in the coverage I see, the soldiers serving in Iraq seem to be highly respected and seen as highly courageous, . . . ."

By the chickenshit. As with Vietnam, I don't buy that "I was just following orders" is a legitimate excuse. Those who assist in advancing an illegal war are at least morally complicit in the illegality. Neither gung-ho wannabe killers, nor dupes, are respectworthy. (Yet the only criticism I've heard of the troops is of the fact that many joined for the money for a college education. They didn't stop to think that they might be called on to do that which militaries actually do!?)

". . . and the commanders are seen as highly respected people trying to make the best of a terrible situation."

That's why "Petraeus" was almost immediately renamed "Betrayus"? Not only are not all commanders seen with respect, many of them are not to be seen with respect -- beginning with such as Gen. Myers, sent in to "Gitmoize" Iraq.

"I am glad to see that the criticism has shifted to those who deserve it...those who make the policy."

That is only a part of the truth. The military is under legal obligation not to obey illegal orders. Those who obeyed Bushit's illegal orders are at minimum not to be respected. The same goes for troops who either relish the opportunity to kill "legally," or who are sufficiently lazy, intellectually, to allow themselves to be dupes. The policy is the foremost issue; but those who carry it out -- implement it -- are also subject to criticism to whatever degree they earn.

"As a separate question, I wonder what those in Congress and other places of influence think will happen in Iraq when the US finally does pull out, assuming that "the surge" doesn't succeed, and what will the foreign-policy fallout be for the US?"

You mean, of course, who will be blamed for the negative consequences -- not of withdrawing, but of going in illegally in the first place, and thus ineluctably ensuring those negative consequences. You can be certain that those who opposed the war, including those who opposed it from first mention of it, will be blamed by those who were for it, as effort by them to avoid accepting responsibility for their roles and complicities in it.

It's very funny but I don't see a difference between MJ and MP from TNR.
They are both totally unreasonable jerks that would twist the facts and who are intelectually dishonest.

"When Jane Fonda climbed on the barrel of a gun in Hanoi, she was not expressing the sentiments of those of some of us who had served in Vietnam before JFK made a war on the commies in Vietnam a stirring campaign issue. We saw a dreadful disaster coming and had few voices that spoke the truth."

1. The US supported the French in Indochina (Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos) from the end of WW II -- under Truman -- with cash and weaponry.

2. Eisenhower was the first to send in Americans.

3. Jane Fonda did not "climb on the barrel of a gun". Nor was she representing North Vietnam or "Commies," or any such thing, with her protest. She was among many who saw first hand -- look up Telford Taylor and his filming of US war crimes in the North -- the results of US bombings of civilian targets, including hospitals in North Vietnam. She was representing the civilians and innocents who were being slaughtered as result of US involvement in Vietnam.

As for the myth -- false view -- that Fonda was "attacking" or "opposed to" US troops, and had no support by US troops, see "Sir! No Sir!" Those who attack her are the same scum who attack/ed Kerry: assholes who choose to believe the nonsense that the US "coulda won," because they can't admit that they were wrong in the first instance.

There are those who have done that. Problem is, it takes cvourage to face and accept the costs. It's always easier to voluntarily go along to get along.

"Imagine if the anti-war movement today had supported Saddam Hussein and now gloried in the massacres in Iraq. That was the kind of folk who supposedly spoke for us."

Utter and absolute bullshit, asshole. We who opposed US involvement in Vietnam (also) had fathers and brothers, sons and cousins, friends stationed in Viet Nam. I personally lost two friends to Vietnam, one a month after we were graduated from high school.

The difference was that, unlike most of my peers, I read books (and was regularly mocked and challenged for doing so). During the last two years of high school I read nothing else but everything I could get my hands on by Mark Twain -- a somewhat serendipitous discovery. He crystalized my pacifism, and by the time I was graduated, I was already vocal against US involvement in Viet Nam for two years, because it had nothing whatever to do with "freedom" and "democracy"; it was about resources, resources, and resources. The US subjugation of the Phillipines -- about which Twain wrote extensively -- was the exact duplicate of US intents in Viet Nam.

The vast majority of any population is "moderate". The vast majority of those who opposed US involvement in Viet Nam were "moderate". The most "extreme" with which I could identify -- and I was so far to the left I was off the political spectrum altogether -- were the Berrigan brothers; and even then I had problems with their willingness to commit property crimes -- "destruction" -- in pursuit of their anti-war efforts.

I've dealt with any number of Viet Nam vets over the decades who make the same false allegations against the anti-war movement as do you. And in most instances it's turned out that they aren't veterans; or were awarded purple hearts for paper cuts suffered while file clerks stationed in Germany.

Most offensive is their "more patriotic than thou" sanctimony; their moronic, false view that there's only one way to serve the country: being in the military; and their attitude that, because they "fought for [my] rights," they therefore have the superior "right" to tell me whether I can exercise my right of free speech based upon the content of that speech.

War is the problem. Killing is the problem. Jane Fonda opposed the war, and killed no one.

A black and white world? No, thanks. That would be a world in which there was only the bright noonday sun on a summer day or a moonless night in the middle of winter. Both are beautiful, but one burns and the other keeps you in the dark.

Give me shades of gray, long beautiful gray ...

(Sing that last line to the theme song in "Hair" and you'll understand what I'm trying to say.)

Otherwise, Howard, that was a profound comment. Someday I hope I get to sit around a campfire with you under a field of stars.

Morgan

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
-- William Lloyd Garrison (1805 - 1879)

Let us pray: "O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle--be Thou near them! With them --in spirit--we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it--for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."
--The War Prayer by Mark Twain

1. The US supported the French in Indochina (Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos) from the end of WW II -- under Truman -- with cash and weaponry.

2. Eisenhower was the first to send in Americans.

You are half-right almost for a change. That's a vast improvement.

Eisenhower did not send in troops. He sent in advisers as there were in many countries around the world.

Actually Truman sent the first "troops" - a contingent of sergeants.

Eisenhower refused to escalate with combat troops despite the pleading of Nixon and John Foster Dulles.

JFK made a commitment during his hawkish campaign and - unfortunately - kept it.

Jane Fonda did not "climb on the barrel of a gun".

I don't know what you were on those years when you were protesting but Jane Fonda was indeed a fan of the North Vietnamese government and has belatedly apologized - very belatedly. I believe there are pictures of her climbing on the barrel of a gun when she visited Hanoi in support of that fine bunch. All lies you think? Now that you are a winger, maybe you have repressed memory syndrome.

Those who attack her are the same scum who attack/ed Kerry

Is Kerry one of those scum you think? Kerry distanced himself from your valiant lady. Perhaps he too didn't like being killed a baby killer by your ilk.

Now you and Hillary are the baby killers. Feel good?

Best, Terry

Apropos of Hair, you are insightful to know how mine needs to be cut. Nevertheless, while my hair was never black, it jumped from brown to white without intermediate gray -- it is either brown or white.

Whether it is George Bush or Abimael Guzman (Shining Path) or Osama bin Laden or Baruch Goldstein, it must be nice to know you are always right. Of course, there is the special category of a Dick Cheney, who probably knows the difference between right and wrong but doesn't care.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

SeeDee

Deanie Mills:

Sincere respect for your contribution to what has now been proven to be an imperialistic military adventure plotted by Bush/Cheney oil buddies and AIPAC/PNAC Likudniks.

I must say, however, that if you and every other mother (including my daughter,,,who did back Sheehan, BTW) who have son(s)/daughter(s) entrapped in this Iraq debacle would have vocally supported Sheehan back in 2004, we might have already forced a change in the Bush Middle-East policies.

Sheehan was sabotaged by the MSM, and, given her from-the-grass-roots-inexperience, mounted a commendable campaign to expose the ineptitude and cowardice of the present C-I-C.

'Tis a bit late now, but I'd wager there is considerably MORE support for Sheehan's views on the war at this date than three years ago.

SeeDee
Per Howard: "Just because an administration commits idiocy does not mean that militaries can and should be dismissed."

OK, maybe if we just dismissed sixty percent or so of all militaries...perhaps even a somewhat larger percentage of the 'brass' and, oh, yes, those who OK the bribery-generated 'defense contracts...maybe at least ninety-five percent of them should be dismissed.

Make that (overture) 1812.

What! You're forgetting Pancho Villa?