Note to Cindy Sheehan: Stay Away from Michael Moore
Cindy Sheehan needs to stick to making the case about the Iraq War.
Her commentary on Michael Moore's Web site, in which she makes some observations from a recent trip to Covington, Louisiana, doesn't do any favors for the anti-war movement:
"One thing that truly troubled me about my visit to Louisiana was the level of the military presence there. I imagined before that if the military had to be used in a CONUS (Continental US) operations that they would be there to help the citizens: Clothe them, feed them, shelter them, and protect them. But what I saw was a city that is occupied. I saw soldiers walking around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. I wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me. Sand bags were removed from private property to make machine gun nests.
[...]
"If George Bush truly listened to God and read the words of the Christ, Iraq and the devastation in New Orleans would have never happened.
[...]
"George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power..."
We're no fans of Dumbya, but blaming him for the creation of a deadly hurricane seems a bit, um, well, crazy. And the military in New Orleans is a bad thing? Hell, the military has proven itself to be about the only entity truly prepared for the monumental relief efforts underway in the Crescent City. The bottom line problem with the White House response is that the military wasn't sent in earlier.
We can surely sympathize with Cindy Sheehan's grief over the death of a child, and we certainly sympathize with her desire to end the War in Iraq. But contorting Hurricane Katrina to fit the dynamics of the Iraq debate does nothing but sully both the tragedy of the war and the tragedy in the Gulf Coast.
posted by Chase McInerney @ 12:01 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I agree with you on that count, Scribe. And yes, you're correct that, as far as I know, Moore hasn't made any such assertions. But as much as I agreed with Moore on a number of issues, I think he can be the liberal cause's own worst enemy. I find him too quick to take a fair argument into the realm of demagoguery, and I don't think that helps persuade anyone but the diehard.
Chase has it right (or left, as the case may be).
Sheehan and Moore should be pushed aside...despite having valid points once in awhile, their shrill rhetoric hurts the left as much as assasination-loving pat robertson hurts the right. just like recent presidents, the parties are fighting for the sliver of murky middle. sometimes i think it's much more than a sliver (since i often find my tsnongas-loving ass in it...unhappy with crazy christian right and loony peacenik right...)but most people are apparently somewhat satisfied or we would see a legit third party rise. I initially criticized the White House for not sending Bushie out on day one to hug Sheehan and move on... But in the end, I think the White House will be seen as making the right decision...because Sheehan has stuck her foot in the Texas dung again and again and again.
Many of the anti-war groups that support Sheehan aren't doing any favors for legitimate critics of the war either.
In June -- in Istanbul no less, the nexus where Western civilization nearly fell to Islamic invaders more than half a millennia ago -- a confab of anti-war groups convened for "The World Tribunal on Iraq."
Among the many participants/endorsers were:
-CODEPINK: Women for Peace
-Campus Antiwar Network
-United for Peace and Justice
-Veterans for Peace
-US Peace Council
-The Green Party USA
-Project Censored
-Greenpeace
-International ANSWER
-The "Not in Our Name" Project
-Moveon.org was smart enough not to be listed specifically among the "World Tribunal's" endorsers, but in the crazy quilt of
these various organizations, they're a member organization of "United for Peace and Justice."
Why am I mentioning all of this?
Because among the World Tribunal's findings, there was this very important one:
"There is widespread opposition to the occupation. Political, social, and civil resistance through peaceful means is subjected to repression by the occupying forces. It is the occupation and its brutality that has provoked a
strong armed resistance and certain acts of desperation. By the principles embodied in the UN Charter and in international law, the popular national resistance to the occupation is legitimate and justified. It deserves the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom."
http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=91
Think about all of the kidnappings, beheadings, car bombings and other acts of horrific mayhem committed by the jihadists in Iraq, and then read that finding from the "World Tribunal" again -- carefully.
They "deserve the support" of anti-war protestors? Would you describe the jihadists' bloody campaign as "certain acts of desperation"? This "popular national resistance" is legitimate and justified?
I can't believe that most Americans who say they opposed to the war in Iraq possiblly agree with the sentiments put forward by these groups -- and therein lies the problem.
Supporters of the decision to invade Iraq, like myself, fully understand that things are an unmitigated mess over there right now. Postwar planning has been abysmal. Of course, as Chase and I discussed before the invasion, I expected Iraq to be a bloody place after we succeeded in toppling Saddam.
But here's the bottom line: legitimate war critics cannot let the Sheehans of the world -- or the radical leftist groups supporting her -- speak for them.
Legitimate war critics should loudly and often condemn the way that Moveon, Michael Moore and other radical organizations have twisted this debate.
So let me get this straight...If GWB had read the bible, he could've avoided the hurricane?
;)
Post a Comment
<< Home