.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Christopher Hitchens has done it again

Since we are on the topic of Cindy Sheehan- sorry O, ain't leaving it alone- I might as well point to the excellent article by Christopher Hitchens on what Cindy wants, and what would happen if she actually gets it. Moneyshot: Then there is the question of humanitarian or pacifist emotion. Some have perhaps been drawn to "Camp Casey" out of reverence for life. Their demand, however, is an immediate coalition withdrawal from Iraq. Have they seriously asked themselves how humane the consequences of that would be? The news of a pullout would put a wolfish grin on the faces of the "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia" brigade, as Mr. Zarqawi's force has named itself in order to resolve all doubt. Every effort would be made to detonate every available car-bomb and mine, so as to claim the withdrawal of coalition forces as a military victory for jihad. I can quite understand Ms. Sheehan's misery at the thought of her son being killed on some desolate road. But will she be on hand to console the parents whose sons are shot in the back while being ordered to surrender and withdraw? I hope I don't insult the intelligent readers of this magazine if I point out what the consequences of such a capitulation would be for the people of Iraq. Paint your own mental picture of a country that was already almost beyond rescue in 2003, as it is handed back to an alliance of homicidal Baathists and Bin-Ladenists. Comfort yourself, if that's the way you think, with the idea that such people are only nasty because Bush made them so. Intone the Sheehan mantra—repeated this very week—that terrorism is no problem because after all Bush is the leading terrorist in the world. See if that cheers you up. Try it on your friends. Live with it, if you are ready to live with the consequences of what you desire. Word. Make sure to also check out the article for proof that she is a little nutty in the head and a liar. Fun lady!


At 8/21/2005 03:01:00 AM, Blogger Orientalism said...

Wow SM is like our own Orielly!(or chernakof more accuratly) And ofcoarse Hitchens is soo right wing he has wet dreams about ann coulter.

Guys, before we all get on the "lets bash Cindy" bandwagon lets put this in prespective: The woman lost a son? Why cant she speak out and ask some questions? Whats expectant of her? To take the folded flag and shut up?

She is really getting attacked for one reason: The powers to be dont want any sort of vietnam like dissent, while the war is already unpopular at home(which hasnt distrubed Dubya's vacation, hell, nothing will). Even if people continue to demonize her as we see on the news and various blogs, she already atracted alot of attention for the anti-war movement in the U.S, where it goes from here is anyones guess. So lay off the woman people!!

At 8/21/2005 04:06:00 AM, Blogger The Sandmonkey said...

Dear O,

First of all , Hitchens is right wing? Hitchens is the most leftist person ever, he is only "right-wing" about Iraq, probably because he wants it to succeed after all that happend. Whether or not he has wet dreams of ann coulter, that's another thing all together (she is a little boney for my taste).

Now, since we are on the "let's bash cindy bandwagon" let's answer your questions:

The woman lost a son?
Yes, the woman lost a son, who not only volunteered for the armed service, he re-enlisted to go to Iraq, i.e. he went there on his own volition, by his own choice, based on his own judgment. He believed in the war and he joined up knowing the consequences. That was his decision and his decision alone. Let me repeat that: Mama cindy had nothing to do with it when he is alive,nobody forced him, He went on his own for something he believed in and he died for it. Now, do you get why people say she is "dishonering her son and his mission"?

Why cant she speak out and ask some questions?
Well, because she already met with Bush before and asked him questions. She did, and as the news stroy showed, she was very happy and content with it. She said that she believed him to wanting to bring democracy for the iraqis and all of that. Now, why the role reversal? Who knows? Maybe she misses her son too much and she wants to blame somebody? Maybe she has gone crazy? Maybe this new role gives her something to do after getting fired and her husband asked for a divorce? Maybe the democrats don't like the fact that they lost the 2004 election- which was a refrendum on the War by the way- and they urged her to do what she is doing since it's easier than winning? Who knows why people do what they do, but one thing is clear, she had her chnace to ask him all the questions she wanted and she walked away satisfied before. But whatever...

Now, what are the new questions that she going to ask him? what are the questions that he wasn't asked a million times before? We all know the answers, whether or not they satisfy our world view, our persepctive or "version of reality", that's another story. Plus, honestly do you think she wants to ask him some questions? Like do you really care if he meets her or not? Or are you just happy that someone is giving Bush shit? Be honest!

Whats expectant of her? To take the folded flag and shut up?

No, I am not going to answer that question O. It would be mighty persumptious of me to claim to know what losing a child would feel like for a parent, let alone how to deal with their grief. Now, some people in Cindy's position would focus on her other 3 kids who are also grieving and who are no doubtedly very distressed by all the shit that they are going through (lost brother, parents divorce) and could probably use her help, instead of having mommy abandoning them to become a media-whore. Other people who may be angry as her for their son's death and they chose to blame Bush for it could join the democrats efforts and help them organize to get their candidates to win the next election. They would donate money, distribute flyers, do small fundraisers. Something productive. Did cindy do any of that? Nope. She went and brought a couple of White crosses, wrote her son's name on them and dod Photo-Ops in front of the Bush Crawford Ranch, conducting interviews where she claims her son died thanks to the zionist conspiracy and Oil companies and that Bush is the world's greatest terrorist. And you blame him for not wanting to meet her again? Why would he? Is it because she is in pain and griefing? So we should let do what she wants because her son died more than a year ago and she can't go on with her life? Her son, like any self-respecting armed forces servicemen, would abhor what she is doing, especially for something he volunteered for, fought for and died for.

And that's the reason, my friend, she is getting attacked.

At 8/21/2005 04:40:00 AM, Blogger Orientalism said...

Dear SM

First of all, regardless of his socialist new left review days, Hitchens is now officially right wing. Tariq ali, once his long time "comrade" for 30 years writes: "On 11th September 2001, a small group of terrorists crashed the planes they had hijacked into the Twin Towers of New York. Among the casualties, although unreported that week, was a middle-aged Nation columnist called Christopher Hitchens. He was never seen again," Ali writes. "The vile replica currently on offer is a double."

Secondly, I agree with you that Cindy's protests are political in nature and can be seen as a democrat versus republican thing, but personally I couldn’t care less about that, to me, seeing a grieving mother attacked so viciously makes me sick. You never know, this woman might be viewed as a hero someday down the road.

At 8/21/2005 05:09:00 AM, Blogger The Sandmonkey said...

"but personally I couldn’t care less about that, to me, seeing a grieving mother attacked so viciously makes me sick."

Was that woman attacked for grieving in her living room? Nope. Was that woman attacked for grieving next to her son's grave? Nope. Was that woman attacked for politicizing the death of her son (who, and i repeat cause u keep ignoring it, volunteered for the servive and renlisted for iraq)and saying and doing things that merit such an attack? HELL YEAH!

If she wants to grieve, she can grieve all she wants ya beih. No one is stopping her, but what she is doing is not grieving. It's emotional exploitation of the dirtiest kind, so dirty that none of her family members is supporting her and some even came out attacking what she is doing. The fact that her son died is terrible, but that doesn't shield her from critcism of what she is doing. What if another grieving mother started a movemnet demanding nuking all of Iraq because her son died there, would you be ok with that? Would you defend her right to say what she wants and what she advocates, because her son died there? Would be asking people who are attacking her to lay off of her because she is a grieving mother?

And don;t tell me that the analogy i am making is an unfair one: in the context of what's going on in Iraq, if the US withdraws now, it would almost be equal to a nuclear attack in it's devestation of Iraq's future, let alone the whole region. If the US withdraws Iraq will fall under authoritarian regime again- and that's the rosy scenario- or under the rule of authoritarian theotratic taliban like regime and that's not the rosy scenario. Either way the Iraqis would be screwed and the death toll that's bothering you so much would at least quadrouple. Is that what you want? Cause that's what she is asking for buddy.

And hey, even if you don't want to support that war for whatever reason, let me give you a good personal selfish reason why you should do it: It is estimated right now that there are 2000 egyptians doing "Jihad" in Iraq as we speak. Let's say the war ends tommorow with the US withdrawing and Iraq descending into chaos, where do you think those boys will go next? Damn right, back to Egypt, to start the fight against the evil infidel Pro-us Kafir regime of Mubarak down by conducting such attacks like they did in Iraq. What, you think they will go back to look for regular jobs and smoking shishas 3alah el a2wah? They tasted Jihad and know how victory over the infidels feel, and they will want for egypt to follow in the glorious footsteps of Iraq. And you know what that mean: The Sharm attacks every day baby! Would you like that? Would that make you happy? Cause that's what will happen if she gets what you want and she wants.

Yeah, maybe she will be viewed as a hero is some distnat future, but something tells me that that future won't be one I would wanna live in, based on the consequences of her getting what she wants.

At 8/21/2005 07:14:00 AM, Anonymous Moderate American said...

Greetings SM -
I read your blog regularly but this is the first time I have posted. I agree that Mrs. (soon to be Ms.) Sheehan has lost the moral high ground with her shameless tirades about Bush and U.S. foreign policy. Her point of view is skewed to say the least.

Also, I am dismayed at the calls from the left to leave Iraq now. Here we are at a point where the Iraqis are going to produce a constitution (hopefully a reasonable one), have a referendum on it in October and ratification of it in December. Why the hell would we leave now? This is the most important event of the whole Iraq endeavor! Leaving now would most certainly stick it to the Iraqis in a way that the U.S. would never be able to forgive itself for.

At 8/21/2005 08:57:00 AM, Blogger thewiz said...

SM, great debate with O; if we leave Iraq now the ME would be in all out war within a year. The Kurds would declare independence and the Turks would not allow it, startig a war in the north. Syrai would soon be involved to stop the Turks from expanding. The Iranians would take control of the souhtern areas. Would the Suadis and/or the Kuwaitis stand by and let that happen?? I think not.

Additionally, the emboldened AQ wannabes around the world would go on a crazy jihad, possibly causing this low-level world war to go high-level pronto.

What angers nme most about the Mrs Sheehan story is the way the MSM just loves her. Every American alive knows her name, who she is, and her positions even if they dissagree with her.

But can anyone name one greiving mother of a dead soldier that supports the war effort?? Very few can. And I'll bet that 75% of those Gold Star mothers are in support of the war. The way the MSM has distorted her message is what really angers me.

At 8/21/2005 10:51:00 AM, Blogger programmer craig said...

O, those aren't "democrats" that support Cindy Sheehan. Those are crazy people. Those are the same people who protest both the Democratic National Convention & the Rupublican National Convention, who protest UN organizations at every opportunity, who protest international agencies at every opportunity, who protest the Boy Scouts, who protest... well, you get the picture. They are professional protesters. We call em "anarchists" in America, not democrats. They don't like rules, they don't like laws, they don't like politics and they don't like governments. They are the rabid spawn of the hippies, but unlike the hippies, they don't have any ideals, they just want to tear down social structures wherever they possibly can. Because, you know, they're anarchists, and that's what anarchists do.

Though, to be fair, the democrats have wasted no time trying to gain politically from this circus. But they do it from the sidelines. How many democrats from the Congress and the Senate have you seen down there supporting her? Yep. They know public support of this cause will cost them votes. Obviously.

At 8/21/2005 06:57:00 PM, Blogger gatorbait said...

I think Cindy drops acid.Have you tried to sit through her speaking? Bad enough she mouths a loon's script and then sounds like every stoner you've ever know.

She could give a shit less about her son. She is having her own version of Un American Idle. (yes, I spelled it that way on purpose)

At 8/22/2005 04:53:00 AM, Blogger Orientalism said...

"Damn right, back to Egypt, to start the fight against the evil infidel Pro-us Kafir regime of Mubarak down by conducting such attacks like they did in Iraq"

I respectufully disagree with you, the longer this occupation drags on, the more radicalised people will get, if you say there is now 2000 egyptians engaged in "jihad " in iraq(where did you get that number by the way?), then next year there will be 4000, and so on. The simplistic arguement that" we cant leave now or else there will be civil war" is propugated by pro war facists who have seen thier arguments blown to shit: people we not waiting with flowers to greet the "librators"-there was no WMD- and world (and U.S) opinion is turning on this war.

I was reading an article today about this vietnam vet descibing the war in Iraq as "vietnam on crack" in the way its begining to f--- up bigtime and fast. Anybody who thinks that after they ok the constitition everything will be rosy, is hugely mistaken.

We can debate this all day me you,SM and craig and all of you, but ultimatly wheather you support the war or reject it is a matter of personal politics. But my money is on that one day, Sheehan will be regarded as a hero, and as the first sobering wake up call.Mark my words: the tide is turning against this war, and this is just the begining.

At 8/22/2005 09:02:00 AM, Blogger thewiz said...

The tide has turned because the Bush admin has dropped the ball and allowed the anti-war crowd to comntrol the media since the elections in Iraq. But it will turn again as the referendum on the constitution is held, new elections are held, people see elections in Afghanistan, elections in Egypt, and elsewhere. They will see that demovracy has started its inevitable march through the ME.

And as people in the ME see this, less will travel to Iraq to become jihadis. The elections will demonstrate that the the US invasion/occupation/imperialism/colonialism is realy about allowing for democracy and self-determination. So instead of 2000 Egyptians making the trip it wil trickle down as the new Iraqi government takes shape.

At 8/22/2005 09:35:00 AM, Blogger JohnL said...

Orientalism, you are so wrong about this whole affair. Sheehan's already largely discredited herself and her cause through her own statements.

And SM is right; Hitchens is no neocon.

At 8/22/2005 10:47:00 AM, Blogger programmer craig said...

O, you mean like Jane Fonda is remembered as a hero?

In case you don't know, she's one of the most hated people in America! Her reps deny that, of course, but a the VFW (largest vets group in the US) conducted a poll of their members and 98% of them said they think she should have been charged with treason!

What do you think Cindy Sheehan's numbers would be, if the troops in Iraq were polled right now? What's that you say? The troops in Iraq don't matter, it's the opinion of the left wing that matters? I thought Cindy was doing all this out of concern for the troops!

Sorry, O. You're on the wrong side on this one. And, just out of curiosity, was there ever a time that you supported the war in Iraq? Because, really, an opinion that things are getting "more" fucked up now is only valid coming from a person that believes things weren't fucked up in the past. Otherwise, it's just an "I told you so!" kinda thing. Pretty worthless. That's like when my boss gives me a programming assignment and I think it's a bad idea, so I don't do a very good job, and then I tell him "Yeah. I thought that might happen" :p

At 8/22/2005 07:04:00 PM, Blogger Orientalism said...

"They will see that demovracy has started its inevitable march through the ME. And as people in the ME see this, less will travel to Iraq to become jihadis. The elections will demonstrate that thetheUSinvasion/occupation/imperialism/colonialism is realy about allowing for democracy and self-determination."

Wow,did I miss somthing hear? are we talking about the same occupation? are we talking about the same flattened towns bombarded with depleted uranium shells? Are we talking about unarmed people shot in the head on the floor of mosques on live t.v? Are we talking about the same insurgency that shows no signs of stopping? Mr.Wiz, I think we live on diffrent planets or somthing, or the spin machine your side of the world is really effecient. As for elections in Egypt wiz, you just wait and see next month how it will go, then I think you will refrain from making such statments about the ME, and about Egypt.

Johnl, I never said he was a neocon, but hitchens "left" days are truly behind him, there is a pre and post 9/11 hitchens, you just have to compare some of the articles and check out his own admissions in several interviews.Do some more research I suggest.

Programmer craig, to answer your question, I never really supported the war, as most people on this planet didnt. Your right jane fonda is not viewed as a hero now, but the conflict she was protesting was a total f--- up and she was proven right in the long run, and that sir, is my point. I also appreciate you taking the time to make an analogy about your job, but it really doesnt fit much here.

I hate to crash your party here, but how long are you guys going to be in denial? Remember step one in AA:

We admitted we were powerless over "war" - that our lives had become unmanageable.

cheers guys:)

At 8/22/2005 11:48:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...

O, maybe you need to go back to AA yourself, no? You seem to be very involved with trying to change other peoples behavior, attitudes and opinions. Lets say the serenity prayer together and we'll both feel much better :)

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

There! Feels good to let go of things you can't fix, doesn't it?

At 8/23/2005 01:39:00 AM, Blogger Orientalism said...

Thanks craig, I fee much better now. Maybe we should go to a meeting together or somthing:) Couldnt fix it doesnt negate how I feel(as most people around this globe feel) about this war. Check out the link that SM posted about today on his blog, winning the hearts and minds all the way dude.

At 8/23/2005 10:34:00 AM, Blogger programmer craig said...

O, I get that we don't agree about anything. You really need to stop trying to prove yourself right, and me wrong. People don't react well to that. Sometimes, you just have to accept that other people don't share your views.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home