1:57 PM
Maria, I can only conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse. What Ms. Sheehan said was a signal to anti-semite isolationists everywhere, no matter their leftie or rightie status, about exactly what she meant.
That's why she was so precise, in both writing and speaking the words. You don't find it odd that her language almost mirrors the words of well-known anti-semites. I, for one, give her the respect of treating her words, in the context their uttered for the people she represents, for what they are.
David Duke, for one, is nearly word-for-word with her on his website. And was before she said them.
Don't become her apologist because, when you do, you apologize for the language of hate she embraces.
This hate has a long, ugly history in this country. That's why when she says what she says, the way she says it, it carries meaning beyond your linking to some webpage. These words don't arrive in a vacuum. There's a context two centuries in the making, and it's now embraced by the moonbat left and the Jew-hating right.
This is as true at Moveon and Counterpunch as it is in Gibson's snuff film.
These aren't just right-wing talking points. Jewish academics, bloggers, columnists, theologians, et al, have been agog since her words hit the press. They know exactly what she's saying, even if you pretend she doesn't.
In other forums, she has accused Bush of going to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles at Israel; because Hussein supported Abu Nidal, a terrorist who killed American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking; because he paid for suicide bombings in Israel.
She doesn't talk so much about imperialism or oil (although she certainly would agree with you there). She's transfixed by Israel and the "neo-con" cabal in America that "supports" the Sharonist administration, a strategy she calls the "cancer of Pax Americana."
Why doesn't she just blurt out, "Jews lied, my son died" and get it over with?
Hell, she appears on stage with Eugene Bird of the Council for the National Interest! She's sat there while he blamed Israel and the "neo-cons" for the abuses at Abu Ghraid and never stopped him!
Hell, even Chris Hitchens picked up on her tone immediately.
You also might note that nothing in the PNAC's preamble is there even a MENTION OF ISRAEL. That had to be added, for a reason, by a Jew-blamer, which is Cindy Sheehan.
Your point is that, well, some of Bush's friends aren't Jews. One could be arch about the contortions you're making to create a Sheehan she doesn't even want you to create, but so be it. Maybe you're right and all of her supporters in Texas -- such as Crawford Peach House and ANSWER -- are wrong.
I doubt it. This is the current problem with the left's foreign policy (and by left, I claim myself as a member). It's been hijacked by the Michael Moores, Ramsey Clarks and the Counterpunches of the world.
It must be wrestled back to reality by the Clintons, Liebermans and Bidens of the party or we're lost.
I apologize ahead of time for Lieberman's religion, Marie. We know that's REALLY why he's such a strong supporter of an aggressive American counter-terrorism policy.
Iraq isn't about "empire." That you say so and find Cindy Sheehan's heavily-phrased language so innocuous points only to what's gone wrong with Democratic planning.
When a social historian writes the final book on why decent, loyal Americans who happened to be Jewish bolted from the Democratic party, s/he should footnote "Cindy Sheehan."
2:53 PM
"Your point is that, well, some of Bush's friends aren't Jews."
Who's being "intentionally obtuse"? My point is that numerous members of PNAC/Neo-cons are not Jews. Yet if someone on the Left says "PNAC" they get pounced on for being an anti-Semite. Jerry Bowyer did that to me before the war started.
There used to be a call-in show on current events on WPXI or maybe PCNC after the 6:00 PM news. It was usually hosted by anchor David Johnson, but on this day it was hosted by Bob Bruce. Bowyer was a guest. The topic was the, then, upcoming war in Iraq. I spoke about Bush's dangerous and illegal preemptive war policy. At the end of my call I mentioned PNAC, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. I did not mention or allude to "Israel" or "Jews."
When my call ended, Bruce turned to Bowyer and asked what is PNAC? Bowyer said, "It's something that people who are anti-Semitic bring up."
"I apologize ahead of time for Lieberman's religion, Marie. We know that's REALLY why he's such a strong supporter of an aggressive American counter-terrorism policy."
Don't know who "MariE" is -- or who you are for that matter -- you aren't Bowyer, are you? Because your "apology" smacks of his debate "style" as in now I'm an anti-Semite.
Gee, is everyone who agrees with "aggressive American counter-terrorism policy" anti-Semite?
And, would that be the same "aggressive American counter-terrorism policy" that called for us to let the job of capturing bin Laden in Tora Bora to the War Lords who bin Laden paid off?
Would that be the same "aggressive American counter-terrorism policy" that had us pull out many of our troops in Afghanistan to put them into Iraq -- ensuring that the Taliban would resurface there?
Would that be the same "aggressive American counter-terrorism policy" that by going into Iraq created, according to the CIA, a "training ground for terrorists"?
Would that be the same "aggressive American counter-terrorism policy" that is right now creating a de facto Islamic theocracy in Iraq?
4:56 PM
Maria,
I don't think you're anti-semitic. I think you're likely somewhat young and you haven't been exposed to the language or context of Sheehan's words.
These aren't simply GOP talking points about ol' Cindy. She is using her language very carefully, trafficking in words that have a long, ugly history in this country. She is associating with people who are far less circumspect about Jew hatred than she is, and aping their rhetoric for a purpose.
You are surprised that when people hear you using similar language, they jump to a conclusion. Well, Maria, there's a reason they do that, and it's not to simply shut you up. It's because certain people use that highly specific, coded language to make points that would be unseemly to utter at other times. The longer you're around politics -- either right or left -- the more you'll hear it.
Similarly, African-Americans are particularly well tuned to hearing similar gab about "welfare queens" and "entitlements." Yes, you can have a genuine policy dispute that invokes the issues without the language.
Trust me when I say there are a great many lefties who can attack Israeli and American foreign policy very well indeed without resorting to that tired tripe about a cabal running American foreign policy. Pick up a copy of Ha'aretz sometime. Or the NY Times. Or Dissent.
But when you mention PNAC and Israel in the same sentence, you are making a very specific charge, one that trades in the religious identities of the most prominent PNAC members.
If you, like Sheehan, really believe the senior policymakers, many of whom are Jewish, prodded the White House to invade and occupy Iraq to protect Israel, then you might have some issues about bigotry to work out.
If you believe the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan or Iraq for oil, or empire, under a pre-text of national security stemming from 9/11, then you're just wrong.
For those keeping score at home, Jewish participation in the all-volunteer U.S. military is proportionately higher than their numbers in the general population.
I'm sure they're not in uniform to protect Israel. They're there to protect America, which is more than Sheehan's moonbat foreign policy would ever do.
And to deflate the chickenhawk argument right now, yes I did serve in uniform during wartime. Yes, I am Jewish. Yes, I am a Democrat of some standing. Yes, I'm returning to Iraq next month. And no, I don't typically support Sharonist policy.
I'm not alone in this:
6:02 PM
"I don't think you're anti-semitic. I think you're likely somewhat young and you haven't been exposed to the language or context of Sheehan's words."
[snip]
"Pick up a copy of Ha'aretz sometime. Or the NY Times. Or Dissent."
I think you're definitely completely dismissive and condescending to those who disagree with you.
"You are surprised that when people hear you using similar language, they jump to