Skip to comments.Another Dishonorable Chicken-hawk
Posted on 09/05/2007 7:36:38 AM PDT by upchuck
[Poster's note: I'm on ANSWER's email list, a dubious distinction at best :) Usually I just trash the garbage they send me. But occasionally they out do themselves.]
Another Dishonorable Chicken-hawk by Cindy Sheehan
I know just a little bit about Mr. William Kristol:
He is the son of one of the founders of the "neo-conservative" movement, Irving Kristol.
He is a commentator on Fox News.
He was Chief of Staff for one of the political "geniuses" of our time: VP Dan Quayle.
He is editor of another Rupert Murdoch war-propaganda rag, "The Weekly Standard."
He is a member, and signer, of the Project for the New American Century, which is a game plan for US global hegemony based on military strength and one of its goals and objectives was the over-throw of the Hussein Regime in Iraq with a next stop in Iran and Syria (because the PNAC plan is going so well, so far).
By all accounts, Mr. Kristol is a brilliant man, who like his father before him, uses his brilliance for destruction. He is a shameless supporter of a failed, murderous, and miserable strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan and one of the "mushroom cloud" crowd.
One thing Mr. William Kristol is not, is a combat vet.
Although he was born in 1952, he never served during Vietnam. I am sure while at Harvard he was a staunch supporter of the American effort to enrich the war profiteers while ostensibly stopping that war's "enemy" communism from spreading across Asia. Secure in his studies during that quagmire, Kristol joins a long line of neo-con chicken-hawks who are drenched in other people's blood and love to send other people's children to die for their lies.
I don't know anything, or care to know anything about Mr. Kristol's private life. I don't care if he is another closeted gay Republican or is a happily married hetero with children. I do suspect, however, that if Mr. Kristol is married, his children are not serving in Iraq, being misused by the very same incompetent and cowardly Commander in Chief (who also did not serve in Vietnam) that Mr. Kristol shamelessly supports while the entire administration and Republican hypocrites are crumbling from corruption and scandal.
I do know one thing for sure about Mr. Kristol, he does not like to be bothered with those pesky little things called facts. On February 20, 2003, Mr. Kristol incredibly gushed: "If we free the people of Iraq, we will be respected in the Arab world." This statement shows an amazing lack of knowledge of the Arab world or any kind of foreign policy sophistication (but does show a great use of Rovian-Foxian expolitation of emotion). No one in the Arab world (except maybe, Israel, which is geographically located in the "Arab world") was calling for the US to "free" Iraqis. No one from Iraq except "Curveball" or the slimy and profit-motivated, Ahmad Chalabi, both Iraqis who weren't even living in the country at the time of the invasion were calling on the USA to liberate them. In fact, after many years of murderous sanctions against Iraq, a fierce nationalism arose in opposition to the US-UN led sanctions. According to National Intelligence Estimates, since the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, Islamic Jihadism has increased. Mr. Kristol is also incredibly ignorant of human nature and human history. No peoples like to be occupied. No child, brother or sister, or mother or father, who sees a loved one blown away by American or insurgent's bombs will love the oppressor. In fact, violence only creates more violence and more life-long enemies.
Now Mr. Kristol is safe behind his desk and computer calling for another attack against Iran. I think he hears the non-existent cries of the Iranian people to be liberated from their regime. The Iranian people are directly next-door to Iraq and they see what US "liberation" brings. It comes with the awful price of high civilian casualties; hospitals bombed, Doctors killed; no electricity or clean water; and eternal occupation.
In a recent op-ed for The Weekly Standard, Mr. Kristol makes many more tactical and fundamental errors. The ANSWER coalition is calling for mass mobilizations begining the week (Sept. 15) that the White House authored Petraeus report on the surge is due. Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), who are leading the September 15th march, are calling for a "die-in" to end the march and begin the rally. The vets, unlike the chicken-hawk neocons, have actually served in war, particularly the one that Mr. Kristol imagines is such a success. IVAW is asking activists to represent a killed service-member and at an appropriate time lie down. Taps will be played and also a simulated 21-gun salute. It sounds respectful to me, being the mom of one of the soldiers, and I will proudly, yet sorrowfully, be lying down for my son that day. Many of the march/rally participants will be "dying" to represent the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed for Mr. Kristol's deceptions.
Mr. Kristol calls on the "honorable" members of the anti-war movement to denounce the die-in and lumps MoveOn.org with other organizers of the die-in. MoveOn is not associated with the die-in as they do not support non-violent, direct civil disobedience. What I find so amusing is that Mr. PNAC-Fox News-Chicken-hawk has made himself the judge of what is honorable.
Mr. Kristol has a problem with the anti-war movement using the names of the fallen without the permission of the families. No one got my permission when my sons portrait was used in the pro-war memorial at Arlington Cemetery. Casey's name and likeness has been used by pro-war people all over the nation without my permission. Why is that okay, Mr. Kristol? I know for a fact such memorials as Arlington West, Eyes Wide Open and our memorial at Camp Casey would remove names of soldiers at the next of kin's request. If any family member so requests, I am sure IVAW will do the same thing---but a word of caution:
Even though the members of IVAW (all my adopted sons and daughters) have a big problem with the occupation of Iraq and with the Bush crime family, they served their country honorably (unlike Mr. Kristol) and they all fought side-by-side with the fallen. They love their brothers and sisters and they would themselves have died to take the place of any one of them. Do not, never, ever, claim that we families, or the Iraq Vets are dishonoring our sons and daughters killed by the lies of The Weekly Standard, Fox News, BushCo., et al. That is the biggest lie of all, or maybe it's this one that Mr. Kristol told on March 1, 2003:
"Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president."
I would laugh if I weren't crying so hard.
If Mr. Kristol gets his PNAC way, by this time next year, we will need a lot more people at a die-in.
So someone like Shehan who also never served would be a chicken-chicken?
She is a very sick and disturbed person. Her mental instability is getting noticably worse.
Momma Sheehan’s always been a crackpot. Whats going to be fun is watching as the Democratic Party portrays her as such, as The Weekly Standard (and NRO) both predicted quite accurately last year.
And Momma Whacko wonders why her own flesh and blood won’t speak with her.....
Pass thanks. I'll leave it for folks like you with stronger stomachs than mine to check it out and report back.
This one caught the last train to toonerville. This woman has become a laughing stock and she’s too stupid to even see it.
“I know just a little”
Cindy Sheehan never served during the Viet Nam war, in fact she never served at all, ergo by her rules she has no right to question the service or non service of any else one at all.
Her son never questioned the reason for this war, in fact he volunteered to fight it.
She condemns her son’s stance on this war every time she opens her mouth.
He was born in 1952 and never served in Vietnam? Why he should have been one of the first to go in 1964. I had a nut say the same to me, as I was born in 1957 and yet did not serve in Vietnam! Don’t give me any of this “I was 12 years old crap”.
I was born in 1953 and I didn't serve in Vietnam, either. My draft lottery number was 203. I think they only went up to 50 that year. Does that make me a chicken hawk? She just doesn't think things through.
I've met several guys who were born in the sixties that claim to have served in Vietnam. One claimed to have been a pilot during the war.
The draft ended in 1973 making Mr. Kristol 20 or 21. As he was in College he was probably never called. B.J. Clinton was called and refused. Did any liberal ever call him a Chicken-Hawk. NO! They commended his strength of conviction. LOL!
A pilot, during the war? Over Macho Grande?
And this is the heart of her problem...she cannot get over the fact that her son made an informed decision to join the Army and the War on Terrorism against her wishes and, having given his life to that pursuit, she now views him as a victim of “George Bush’s War”...it’s the only frame of reference she will allow herself to believe. She needs a good shrink.
Yep. It's a lot like watching water spiral down a drain.
“She is a very sick and disturbed person. Her mental instability is getting noticably worse.”
So it would seem. Her web site is a complete mess.
Having steeled myself with Tums, Maxox and a Prilosec, I ventured forth to Ms. Sheehan’s web site.
It is only one page. I suspect she’s not planning on receiving any donations as there’s no way to donate.
The page is filled with more of her nonsensical ravings. But she really outdoes herself with this piece of irony:
“Last of all, I dedicate my candidacy to my hero, Casey who always stood up for what he believed in, even if it wasn’t popular. He is my role model and I always strive to make him proud.”
I suspect Casey is profoundly embarrassed by his Mom.
It’s easy enough if you can get it through their thick heads that just because you wore a uniform, picked up a weapon, stood in line forever, marched, sweated and got shot at occasionally, etc. does not mean that you know anymore about politics or diplomacy. It’s not necessary for all people who are elected, or who make policy to have served. It is not the way our country works.
Yes, I served.
I have 10 years on you and didn't serve in Vietnam. Why? Because that's not where they sent me. But she uses the term during. So she's vilifying anyone who didn't serve at all at that time. But why do I get the feeling I'd receive the same treatment from her, notwithstanding?
Grrrrrr. Why do I torture myself by reading her pathetic tripe.