Redstate

He debunks the smarmy "how dare you question a grieving mother who buried her son" non-starter and gets to the cold, hard truth of the matter.

Disagree with him when he discredits "let them not die in vain" I think that is a most appropriate sentiment. As in "If we leave now, it will all fall apart and our troopers will have died in vain"

 In fact, I cannot see a problem with that logic.

The main problem with that argument is that's it's only a piece of a larger, more persuasive argument: if we leave now, not only will soldiers have died in vain, but the whole country and probably the entire Middle East will spiral down into chaos and anarchy.

with that argument, but I also agree we shouldn't use the memory of fallen soldiers as a justification for continuing the war.  The fact that soldiers have died is not, in and of itself, a justification for OR against war.  For instance, if we did think that the war has become unwinnable do you think that we should continue to fight just so that others would not have died for a losing cause?  

the meat of this story.

"Died in vain" ought not to be the formulation for our policy.

We need policy to further national objectives. There is IMHO a compelling argument for the National Interest being served by NOT handing over Iraq (with all it's oil wealth) and Afghanistan (if we withdraw from Iraq we must from Afghanistan) to bin Laden.

Certainly a withdrawal from either/both those countries will prove bin Laden right and only encourage more jihad here at home, since bin Laden's main claim is that we will crumble with only a few thousand casualties. Leave now and we prove bin Laden right and give the appropriate number. Bin Laden in his own words said that 9/11 was based on the experience of the run-away strategy of Bill Clinton once America was "terrorized" by the sight of 18 dead Rangers dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

This reality however has little to do with "died in vain." We don't have Oiuja Boards and don't know what the dead would have wanted. We do know what our over-riding goal is (stop terrorist attacks with WMDs at home) and the horrible danger to us in that area if we just up and run away and give the Iraqis over to bin Laden as Sheehan demands.

Hear!  Hear!

I hate Christopher Hitchens. That being said, you have no idea how much it pains me to admit that he is right.

Hitchens spares little inappropriate sentiment for death. See his earlier take downs of the aftermath of Mother Theresa and President Reagan. That said, his views of the GWOT fit neatly into the "culture of life" vs. the "culture of death" spectrum, but his is a very expansive view of the "culture of life" - i.e. more libertarian and less of the American "pro-life" movement variety.

I was surprised the article failed to mention the Kurds, of whom he is a great friend and champion. I suspect he wanted to avoid a calculus of death, but a takeaway line from MoDo's pronouncement, "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute", is to surely highlight and overshadow it with the suffering of the Kurds, let alone venturing into the Assyrian genocide of recent vintage.

He's on far stronger grounds critiquing the MSM/24-7-365 visual coverage imperatives, and absence of policy analysis alongside the moral confusion wrought.

And, of course, the Jews, oil, and Karl Rove.

Just because we incurred losses doesn't mean we are committed to an action.

This just confirms it once again. He may be wrong on a lot of things, but he is spot on regarding Iraq and all its collateral issues. The fact that those on the Left are quick to call him a "conservative" because he happens to support the war just shows again that they don't get it. His support, I might add, is completely consistent with his regard for human rights in all its forms. Ever wonder why the Left thinks the U.S. is obliged because of its power and wealth to fight malnutrition around the world, but that same obligation does not extend to torture and other humans rights violations?

And, if I might point out a seemingly irrelevant fact, he's a great writer. His point is eloquently made, not a word wasted.

The "died in vain" slogan has started to wear thin.  It may be halfway true, if we take a path that results in the failure of the mission.  But, so what?  Either way, the dead are still dead.  That won't change with either our failure or our success.   I agree it would be a shame to fail to carry out the full strategy, but honoring their memory isn't what should drive our policy.  So I think you nailed it.

To just add one thing:  Even if the worst happened tomorrow, these people would not really have died in vain, because they died for a just cause; some died to save their comrades, and they all died to save the Iraqis and Afghanis from tyranny, and to protect us, here, from the terrorists who would have been trained in Taliban or Iraqi protected camps.

Ms. Sheehan doesn't believe the cause was just, so for her, they've already "died in vain."

No ... it's not a main justification for staying in ... you do not throw good money after bad.

However, it is one of the tangential, emotional points about staying in that's I think is fair to point out. A fringe benefit to the main policy, I guess.

 

I gave up reading her years ago.

I see from the Hitchens piece that she has now claimed that the mother of a dead soldier has "absolute moral authority". so if Mrs. Sheehan has absolute moral authority, how does that square with the many hundreds of equally grieving parents who accept and understand the choices of their adult children, and the reasons they chose to be patriots?

Do these parents have the authority to support the President?

Or is it that yet once again a NYT's writer ahs come up with yet another bit empty fluff to find a way to demoralize the US troops and to promote the interests of the enemy?

As Mrs. Sheehan shows, scratch the surface of a committed leftist and find underneath yet another anti-American, anti-semitic bigot. There is no doubt about Maureen's perspective. No wonder she is enamored with Mrs. Sheehan.

This is your brain on drugs.  Any questions?

C17wife and I aren't in the twilight zone.  Some troll just disappeared and left a small void (very, very, very small).  

That's where he disappeared.  Fast work, I must say. ;>)

It's an interesting tactic to always mention Michael Moore when trying to discredit someone. I see that alot here, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore mentioned in the same sentence. See, even I just did it.

I just wanted to weigh in and say, "hey, just so you know, i tune people out when then try to make a point using Michael Moore's name."

That you're tuning out Cindy Sheehan.

Given that she has written the featured column at Michael Moore's website for ten days in a row, and furthermore been almost the only item on the front page.

There are lots of people for whom its an unfair tactic to tie them to Michael Moore.

Cindy Sheehan ain't one of them.

we compare what she says to Krusty the Clown? Would that make you feel better.

Seriously, it has fallen to my lot to read everything you've posted since you registered. Do you think anyone on this site really cares how you go about tuning things out?

I wasn't saying it was unfair. I was just noting that it was interesting.

And you know what, I have tuned out Cindy Sheehan. I think the attention she has gotten in the corporate media is understandable. It was an interesting story. Mother loses son, can't manage the grief, needs some answers and makes a stand. I think the attention she has gotten here, however, is remarkable, and often in bad taste.

Also, I didn't even know Michael Moore has a website that had space for political columns. Now that I do know, I'm still not going to read it. I don't typically turn to filmakers for political information.

I was simply trying to say that because this Hitchens character invokes Michael Moore in order to discredit Sheehan his message is lost on me.

I really did think someone would care. I guess you are saying that for me to assume someone might be interested in how their message is received is unreasonable. Maybe you are right.

that we consider the messenger. And with a lot of messengers we don't loose a lot of sleep over how they perceive the message.

This is probably going to shock you as we state it in our mission statement, but this is a honest-to-gosh Republican site. Our messages are for Republicans. We know how to interpret the secret code words. You are welcome to participate so long as you contribute something but the short answer is, no, we don't much care about how you perceive things.

but I have a fifth of Laphoraig to ease the pain.

Sorry to say I am not shocked.

But I am confused about the secret code words. You are talking about your code words, right?

Also, I do want to participate.

This probably does not come as a shock to you, but you do not understand the people on the left of the political spectrum. Their thinking, the facts they work from, the way they see the world. And they do not understand you. They really don't get some of the ideas that come out of your heads. It's almost that they are incapable of understanding. Their worldviews don't allow it. On the left it isn't uncommon to hear the belief that those on the right are just simply irrational beings, and I'm sure the opposite is true, too. But that is neither here nor there, and this isn't the thread for that conversation, so i'll apologize and stop.

Finally, I see your point, and you are exactly right. If you did care how your message was received by me then you would be at some other website testing that out. Not here. So I was wrong to assume someone should or would care. What I will do, if you don't mind, is continue to ask questions, allow myself and my worldview to be challenged, and ease up on offering the opinions, and the "advice".

Thanks streiff.

at all.

All we ask is that you remember you are a guest in our house and our larger conversation is not directed towards you. Question away. Comment away. Just don't be surprised when we balk at taking advice.

A person is associated with scamming and lying and propaganda, and is famous for it for years, are you suggesting that it is not instructive to see what that person promotes and supports as an indicator of how those issues may weigh out?

Not to boil down 1857 tragedies into economics, but the losses of our soldiers thus far are a sunk cost.  We can't do anything about them.  We can do something about the soldiers yet to die in Iraq, however, and make sure they don't die in vain.

What MoDo is claiming, naturally, is that any response or criticism of Sheehan's views is out of bounds.  It'd be amazing if it wasn't so old - where Sheehan (and the rest of her ilk, really) are concerned, MoDo and the rest of the Left believes that any criticism is illegitimate and violates their rights to speak.  

That their critics are exercising THEIR right of free speech is irrelevant.

But as I said, it really isn't anything new - they've been claiming 'victim' status since 9/11 whenever anyone takes on the idiocy they've been spewing.

Ahhh...the two ARE related.  Moore stands in support of MoveOn Org. who in turn has exploited this woman and her tragedy.   Go to their site and see for yourself!  Perhaps there is a "Vigil for Cindy" tonight near you.  It is my opinion that this behavior and  media coverage are the real culprits responsible for the deaths of our soldiers.  All are free to say what they want...but they seem to forget why.  

God bless America!

What bothers me now is the same thing I witnessed

when I came through LAX from Vietnam.  Demonstrations against the war effort have started with the on-slaught of MoveOn.org and the liberal coercion of Ms. Sheehan.  She's a pawn in their war against Conservatives.  Hopefully, the liberals will not reduce themselves to the human fodder that was tossed at me as I waited on a taxi.