I don’t get it. William Anderson, posting on the Lew Rockwell.com blog, seems to have decided that it’s necessary to state that “While I agree with Cindy Sheehan’s antiwar stance, I also say that she does not speak for me.”
Doesn’t speak for you about what, Bill? Isn’t opposition to the war Cindy Sheehan’s one and only message?
Even after my repeated attempts to keep the focus of my protest on the war, the Drudge Report and others continue to try to make the issue about me. But I am not the issue. The issue is a disastrous war that’s killing our sons and daughters and making our country less secure. They attack me because they can no longer defend this war.
I’ve come to Crawford to bring to the president’s doorstep the harsh realities of a war he’s been trying so hard to avoid. But no matter what they say or how many shotguns they fire or how many crosses they destroy, they’re not going to stop me from speaking out about a war that needlessly killed my son….Cindy Sheehan, 8/18/05
What’s more, we need to build the antiwar demonstrations being held Sept. 24-26: what’s needed is a massive mobilization that includes not only the usual suspects but also antiwar conservatives, military folks and their families, libertarians, and just plain ordinary people who don’t necessarily want to sign on to a whole laundry list of leftist causes. Tell the ideologues to leave their hobby horses at home: it’s time to get serious about ending this war before it escalates beyond the power of anyone to rein it in.
But this next bit is too much. Anderson continues, “However, I do not see Sheehan as a heroine. I have read too many of her comments and seen quotes from her speeches and the like, and have come to conclude that she is using her son’s death for purposes that ultimately will help expand the Leviathan State even more. She may be anti-war, but she is no libertarian.”
By those standards, I think it’s a legitimate question to ask Anderson why, when he wrote an article titled “Some of My Heroes”this woman was one of them:
Marianne Jennings on war:
Reticence in acknowledging a Republican victory for world order, peace and human rights in [sic] understandable. Dove Nancy Pelosi grouses about cost, a new defense to being absolutely wrong. Sen. Evan Bayh (D. Ind) did admit the error of Democrats’ ways on the war, but that such was a "one-time mistake." A one-time mistake is a vice president misspelling "potato" as "potatoe."
Sheltering tyrants through misguided diplomacy, ignoring intelligence warnings about WMD, and missing plutonium directly beneath the feet of the U.N. inspectors are not one-time mistakes.
These folks grapple with mounds of truth via a dogged pattern of its disregard along political lines. Those of us who stood firm on the war because of terrorist threats and a pressing need for liberation now stare in disbelief as everyone from Hollywood starlets to the New York Times hands us the old Cochran. There is a collective liberal, "What? So?" as we point to their gargantuan errors.
Their dismissive stance allows them to advance new bogus theories. Christine Onomatopoeia (whatever her name is –CNN’s chief correspondent in the Middle East) suggested that the "orgy" of looting in Iraq was the result of deposed Hussein order. Tyrants do have a way with cattle prods, dismemberment, and people.
Implicit in the notion of mistake is misunderstanding of fact. Liberals did not make a mistake; they acted in deliberate defiance of truth. Apologies cannot compensate for obstructionist behaviors that aided and abetted a despot. Liberals’ continued Cochranesque residence in denial land means they go on to give aid and comfort to Castro and other favored troglodytes, taking along their national security experts: Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, and the Dixie Chicks.
Marianne Jennings on the Abu Ghraib torture atrocities:
This past week we learned that renegade U.S. soldiers taunted some of the Iraqi radicals taken prisoner and, like all morons, snapped Kodak moments of themselves engaged in cruel acts. The liberals, the U.N., and terrorists with CNN all demanded an apology. Can the trial lawyers be far from the Iraqi prison? When the Rev. Jesse Jackson rolls in, reparations will flow.
Consumed with guilt, Mr. Bush, the leader of the free world, groveled before Jordan and even tried to woo Al-Jazeerah TV. He promised investigations and discipline and took Rummy to the woodshed. If he’d released photos of that . . .Beautiful!
The hyperbole surrounding these isolated acts is comical.
I hope that despite being one of Bill Anderson’s heroes, Marianne Jennings doesn’t “speak for him.” Anderson writes, “I’m just stating my own opinion, and many of you know that to me, being against the Iraq war does not a libertarian make. It is only one part of the equation.”
Puzzlingly, being a vocal cheerleader for the War Party, an apologist for torture and practically a parody of statist Republican Bush worship doesn’t disqualify Marianne Jennings from being William Anderson’s heroine. And, since when did Anderson’s candidates for hero status have to be libertarian?
Marianne Jennings, “I have grown accustomed to minority status as a conservative in a world bursting at the seams with liberals, socialists, Marxists, and an occasional libertarian. Academic libertarians are not principled. They miss the 60s, Woodstock,and being high. Libertarians are their carpool to legalized drugs.”
Apparently they don’t even have to know what a libertarian is, much less have any respect for one.
Whatever, Bill. I think you’re being just a bit inconsistent.
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.