From the blog of David Duke, America’s best-known racist and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan:
Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War, is determined to prevent other mothers and fathers from experiencing the same loss.
Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and other’s sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America.
Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel.
Read the whole thing.
The conclusion to draw from this is not that being against the war is racist or anything like that. The conclusion to draw is that Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war views or so off-the-wall nutty that rabid anti-semitic kooks like David Duke agree with her.
This speaks to the validity of Cindy Sheehan’s reasons for opposing the war, which seem to have more to do a vague distates for Israel than a lot of the leftist demagogues trumpeting her cause would like to admit.
By Rob Port of Say Anything.
RE: Shannon’s post (August 15, 2005 07:30 PM)
Why did we go to war? Why are we still there? What will be accomplished and how will it be accomplished?
The U.S. went to war for multiple reasons, every one of which has been debated ad nauseum. There is nothing new that Mrs. Sheehan has presented to advance any argument. I doubt that her concern is with Iraq only… but what if it is? What of soldiers in Bosnia? Or Afghanistan? Or South Korea? Or any number of places around the globe? Has she mentioned the withdrawal of any of those troops who stand in harm’s way to defend the ideals that allow her to picket the President at his home without fear of retribution? Those troops have been placed into danger zones just as was Casey Sheehan, yet all of them seem to be where they are justifibly. That’s pretty damned convenient. Does she logically desire the withdrawal of all American troops wherever their port of call? If not, why not? They might actually need to engage and end up getting dead. What of those other families who would lose their sons, daughters, wives, husbands, fathers, and mothers?
I submit to you that Mrs. Sheehan is not the least bit interested at this point in an honest debate with the President. Her accumulating verbal and column-inch record should be testament to that. At this juncture, I’m just wondering to what ultimate end she is parlying her story to achieve.
We went to war to protect American interests. There were many ancillary benefits, but they were secondary. No apologies needed though I’m glad for those “less consequential” (my quotes) benefits too.
We are still there because American interests have not been secured. And if you think I’m referring to oil (and I know some will), then you’re a fool. A preemptive remark and perhaps unfair, but this has been debated many times and it always crops up.
This administration hopes to create a less hostile and more stable region in a very unstable part of the world. That would help stabilize the globe of which we are a member. I’m keeping this particularly brief because my response could go on for days – I’m sure you won’t want to read it and I sure don’t want to repeat it.
It will be accomplished in a manner appropriate for a dynamic situation. Times change and so will the U.S. responses to them. To think that a fixed solution exists and that diverging is unacceptable is foolishly naive. Defining it one afternoon for Saint Cindy will not etch any plan in stone.
Lastly, about the apocalyptic nexus bit… I don’t buy that as a policy motivator for a second. I think our support is one of advancing the ideals of democracy in a part of the world historically lacking them. Further, it is the strengthening of an alliance, another thing historically limited to us on that part of the globe. This promotion of Zion because of the Rapture is as specious an argument as is the idea that Christian Republicans have such one-dimensional motives. Utter crap, to put it bluntly… or should I say horse-hockey?
Oops. “Justifiably” in ¶1. Parleying in ¶2. Wording in last sentence of ¶2 stinks. Sheesh. I hope you get my meaning.
There is so much spin going on around her that is ridiculous.
“This administration hopes to create a less hostile and more stable region in a very unstable part of the world. That would help stabilize the globe of which we are a member.”
Wrong answer. Is Venezuela more stable than Iraq? Afghanistan? Former Soviet blocs? Bosnia? Africa? Most of those mentioned are failed states. Was Iraq a failed state? a
The politically correct answer:strategic geo-politics. Not only the Suez + canal shipping (where we get all the oil from that region to ours), but to protect US oil interests. If the Middle East had no oil, would we have gone in? The US has no friends nor allies, per se. We have interests. No country hostile to the US will be allowed to dominate or control the majority of our imported oil. Had Iraq seized Kuwait’s wells in 1991, they would have had control of 70 % of the oil in the Middle East–an intolerable situation for us.
The politically incorrect answer: it was inevitable that iraq would try to acquire nuclear material for the purpose of making bombs, and if so, at that point, israel would ahve to retaliate (self-defense?). If that happened the price per barrel would skyrocket over $100 per barrel, minimum, and it would hit our economy like no tomorrow. people would stop driving as much, thus curtail their already over-extended spending, and having the effect of a nationwide recession. You want to see the US go into a recession? Have a moratorium on spending for about 3 days. Want to see a depression? Stop spending for a week.
Iraq had little to do with the war on terror. little. it is in a volatile region, but saddam ironically was despised by radical islamists. in fact, he hated radical islam–thinking it a challenge to his regime.
there is little doubt in my mind that we went to war, in the short run, to send a strong signal to other middle eastern antagonists that we are heavily invested in middle east security (egypt = 3 billion per year, aid; israel around that number as well). and that we will fight to the death to protect israel–only because she is a useful ally in pursueing our domestic interests.
liberals cant understand WHY we need stability in that region in the world and the reason is oil. you increase that price per barrel 3 or 4 fold, and watch our domestic economy go through the floor.
and one more thing: paradoxically, the more idiot bush promotes “Democracy” in the middle east, the more he will come to realize how much they hate us, and how most are dying to elect their own to throw us out. notice how many protests arose in that region prior to the war? none, and if any (like in turkey), greatly controlled.
wolfowitz is wrong. buchanan is right.