Actual quote from Sheehan's site:"I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats."
"Are" the party of slavery? Even if she had used the word "were," this is a stupid misreading of history. The parties of today are not the parties of the 19th century.
Ask this nation's black citizens, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic, if they feel they are voting for slavery. Apparently, Cindy Sheehan thinks black people are stupid.
The oft-heard canard that the Democrats started World Wars I and II is a lie begun by Bundists and maintained by Birchers. The main culprit in World War I was the Kaiser. World War II was started by Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo -- and anyone who tells you otherwise is a fascist or the dupe of a post-war fascist propagandist. Many powerful Republicans of that era -- Hearst, McCormick and a fella named Prescott Bush, to name three -- were appeasers and Nazi collaborators. Wealthy Republicans even plotted to overthrow FDR in a coup intended to install General Douglas MacArthur in the White House. Their goal was to have America aid Hitler's war of annihilation against Russia.
Also helpful to the Nazi cause were such noted FDR opponents as Burton Wheeler, a representative of that era's "progressive purist" wing. As always, the progressive purists ultimately served an objectively pro-fascist agenda.
Would Sheehan have preferred a Hitler victory? Apparently so!
Ike initiated our involvement in Vietnam. JFK told his closest associates that he was going to pull out; he was shot by a conspiracy of right-wingers who considered him soft on Communism. The worst Democrat in living memory then took over the job; at least he knew when to quit. (Corrupt bastard that he was, LBJ also did a lot of good things on the domestic front.) JFK's brother hoped to end the war; he too was shot by a conspiracy of right-wingers.
What happened in the wake of Bobby's murder? The Cindy Sheehans of 1968 -- the progressive purists -- took to the streets and shouted "Sirhan Power!" America's revulsion at the antics of the anti-war protestors led to the election of Nixon, the prolongation of the war, and, ultimately, to the ascendance of conservatism and the religious right. The self-defeating loudmouths in the streets of Chicago had no idea that they were igniting the Reagan counter-revolution (although many of them would later support Reagan). The whole world was watching, and half the country started retching.
Sheehan's movement will no doubt bring similar results. Mark my words.
Back to Sheehan's statement:
"The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes..."
The federal income tax, whether you like it or hate it, is perfectly constitutional. In my response to Aaron Russo's lie-filled film America: From Freedom to Fascism, I have already exposed, at great length, the false "historiness" at work in statements such as these. (See here and here.)
Woodrow Wilson, despite the fake quotes attributed to him, always felt that the Federal Reserve was an improvement over the system in place before. And he was right; the system did stem the recurrent bank panics that destroyed so many livelihoods before the establishment of a central bank. The Great Depression -- the system's most important failure -- happened 75 years ago. Would you prefer the previous system, in which massive bank failures occurred every decade?
If you follow the footnote trail and research the history of anti-Fed propaganda, you'll find that much of it originates with such Nazi sympathizers as Lindbergh, Pound and Mullens. In later times, much of the propaganda came from Milton Friedman, who may not have been a fascist, but who did function as an adviser to Pinochet.
Sheehan has had a large audience for quite a while now. She cannot claim to be a naif, and she should not be allowed to get away with spewing ill-researched pseudo-historical bullshit. Obviously, she has acquired her "facts" from right-wing conspiracy-mongers of the Alex Jones/Jim Marrs type. Sheehan is perfectly capable of using Google and the public library to double-check the dubious assertions she picks up from such sources. She has no excuses.
Nobody today defends Manzanar. That said -- and you may hate me for making this point -- the citizens of Japan were not innocent. They fanatically supported a fascist government that had looted much of Asia, a government that had militarily attacked us. The Japanese empire brought tyranny and mass murder to China, Korea and the Philippines. They deserved far worse punishment than they received at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Read about the rape of Nanking and you will feel fury at Truman for not dropping the bomb on Tokyo.
Like it or not, any powerful dictatorship launching an airstrike against one of our bases today would meet with a nuclear response. The bombs would be bigger and more numerous than they were in 1945 -- and they would arrive an hour or so later, not three-and-a-half years later.
Sheehan, like too many other so-called progressives, has bought into the arguments of post-war fascist apologists. I suggest that she (and my readers) read up on the neo-Nazi "Third Position" movement in Europe.
This is why the impeachment movement -- which I fervently supported as recently as a few days ago -- is now repugnant to me. Bush and Cheney have gained no charm in my eyes; I still want to see them go. More than that, I want them tried and jailed. But Cindy Sheehan and her movement have become profoundly reactionary, as is proven by her mangling of history. She has spewed the kind of horsecrap I would have expected to hear from a militia maniac circa 1995.
I'll maintain faith in the instincts of a John Conyers because he represents my party and has earned my trust over the course of many years. I have no confidence in an ill-read dimwit like Sheehan.
I was for the impeachment movement when it set itself against the Republican party. I am against it now that it has targeted the Democratic party.
Like it or not, you cannot achieve practical results in this country unless you work within a major party. Many have tried to do otherwise, and many have failed.
What did Ralph Nader accomplish in 2000?
I look at Sheehan and I see the face of Ralph Nader.
If Nader had not run, Gore would be President and Sheehan's son would be alive. She is now repeating the same mistake that led to the death of her child. What a disgusting woman!
24 comments:
"The self-defeating loudmouths in the streets of Chicago had no idea that they were igniting the Reagan counter-revolution (although many of them would later support Reagan)."
Source please?
Until recently I was against impeachment (not enough time, get on with the business of the country, don't perpetuate tit for tat impeachment of each other's president with the Republicans, etc., etc) but now I am for it. What changed my mind was the argument made on Bill Moyers Now last week in which the guests pointed out that if we fail to rein in the over-reaching by the executive branch now the extended powers they have claimed will become institutionalized and part of sucessive presidencies - Democratic as well as Republican. I, too, am a loyal Democrat - but I don't trust our candidates not to hold on to every iota of power they can get their hands on - and even if I did so, I think it is the responsibility of the citizenry as much as anyone in government to watch over the health of the Constitution and the balance of powers. Calling for the impeachment of this President for abuse of power, among other offenses, is a duty.
That said, I take seriously what you have revealed about Cindy Sheehan and her ilk. You are doing a serivce by providing this information. I am, however, puzzled by your priorities - it seems more important to you not to be associated with any cause, however just, that such extremists support than the cause itself. Is this then your highest value: not to touch anything that the left-wing extremists touch? Why not just keep providing information about their dangerous excesses and keep supporting impeachment?
I tip my hat to you good sir. Well said.
Joseph, I wish you would curb your
tendency to judge an entire
movement by the faction that annoys
you.
You let a few 9/11 lunatics turn
you against a movement you mostly
(9/11: Press for Truth) endorse.
And now you're repudiating another
movement you support because of the
antics of a few headline addicts.
Are you going to give up sex
because you don't like Mark Foley?
anon 6:27 -- I can support an impeachment movement that works within the Democratic party. The "Impeachbots" as some call them have become an anti-Democratic (large D) force. They thus have made me their opponent.
ferry fey, there are like, what, a hundred books -- and millions of memories -- which indicate that the "silent majority" was not a figment of Nixon's imagination. It was real, and they really were pissed off by the rioting in the streets. Do you think what happened in Chicago in 68 made a GOOD impression on Middle America? Why do you think Nixon was elected -- and RE-elected? Those were the years when the neocons first gained their muscles, when they set up their media infrastructure. Reaganism was their great victory.
pdb, the lunatics have taken over the entire subject of 911. You cannot pretend that theirs is a minority voice. Most bloggers avoid all mention of the topic because they know that doing so will open the gates to the "men from Marrs."
Joseph,
This article has me re-thinking my position on most of the issues it addresses, and that isn't something that happens everyday. I still favor impeachment, but thanks for making me think more deeply on subjects I thought I had already settled in my mind.
bigevilgrin
So, if I understand you correctly, you were *for* impeachment before you were *against* it?
/bigevilgrin
Jim
who actually thinks that the spectre of Bush/Cheney at the helm may be the best thing for the Dems in '08.
Joseph, you can *not* blame Nixon's election on the anti-war movement. His "silent majority" was far more a product of racial issues -- ranging from the shift to the Republican Party in the South to the impact of school busing in the North -- than of any sort of revulsion against the counterculture. Race has always been the unacknowledged joker in US elections, far more so than the actions of a bunch of white, middle-class loudmouths.
Disillusionment with the Democratic Party may have turned off some potential Humphrey voters, but it certainly did not transform them into passionate Nixon-lovers.
If Chicago was a pivotal event, it was not because of its influence on the American working class but rather because it so terrified men like Scaife and Coors that they were inspired to pour their money into creating the massive apparatus of right-wing think-tanks and legal foundations that has been the backbone of the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions ever since.
Are you advising that the progressive left keep its head down for fear of further antagonizing the fascist right?
I also wonder at your scorn of "progressive purists," which seems like a convenient label for you to denigrate anyone you think might interfere with politics as usual. Rather than invoking the memory of Burton K. Wheeler -- a veteran of Wilson-era progressivism gone sour -- you might consider those figures of the 30's and 40's, such as Norman Thomas, who usefully put pressure on Roosevelt from the left, covering his flank when it came to some of his more ambitious reforms.
The Republican Party today has its pet right-wing crazies who make even its more extreme proposals look centrist by comparison. But the Democrats have been so eager to cut off and disavow anybody to the left of its own center (a habit that goes back to the anti-communist witchhunts fo the 50's), that even moderate Democratic positions today regularly get tarred as "extremist."
I'll agree with what you say to the extent that "purism" can be the enemy of the political arts of compromise and coalition-building. But creating this clunky phrase "progressive purists" does a great disservice to progressivism in general and to any hope we may have of progressive reforms in particular.
Cannon wrote: "Nobody today defends Manzanar. That said -- and you may hate me for making this point -- the citizens of Japan were not innocent. They fanatically supported a fascist government that had looted much of Asia, a government that had militarily attacked us. The Japanese empire brought tyranny and mass murder to China, Korea and the Philippines. They deserved far worse punishment than they received at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Read about the rape of Nanking and you will feel fury at Truman for not dropping the bomb on Tokyo."
Sir, before you advocate collective punishment for citizens of aberrant dictatorships, I strongly suggest you check the historical record. The Japanese (like the German) left were the first targets--and victims--of the fascist scourge that launched WWII. The first concentration camps in Germany were opened to incarcerate German communists and anarchists. Condemning entire nations to nuclear annihilation for the crimes of their leaders is a despicable exercise in self-delusion. I suppose you've already lined-up on the side of your precious "progressive" Democrats when they recently endorsed the nuclear annihilation of the "mullahocracy" in Tehran.
starroute, even though you disagree, I love your comment because it is historically informed. I agree that the phrase "progressive purist" is clunky, but I have a weakness for alliteration. Besides, I can't think of any other short phrase that conveys the idea.
I have nothing against Norman Thomas, aside from his period with the America Firsters, which I understand he later regretted. I would be more likely to focus on someone like Tom Watson, who made the full segue from progressivism to something approaching fascism. I saw a lot of less-famous people trod the "Watson road" in the 1990s. Maybe that's because I knew people on the "conspiracy" fringe.
I'm not saying that all PPs make that segue. Others just remain mired in petulant snipings at anything that reeked of the Democratic party.
Look, I used to believe that stuff. I used to read the Nation and Z Magazine. And then, after a while, I realized that -- objectively speaking -- these people and their incessant criticisms of Carter and Clinton were never going to accomplish anything beyond the strengthening of the Republicans.
One of these days -- maybe later this week -- I'll tell my Gore Vidal story, which helped to crystallize my thinking on these issues.
I would argue that Chicago '68 did nothing to hasten the war's end and much to insure the election of Nixon.
You are right that race remains the great factor in Nixon's ascent. But I still maintain that most Americans had became alienated from the anti-war left. That's hardly an uncommon viewpoint.
And yes, Dems do get scared of being associated with the far left, and for damned good reason. The right's propaganda campaign in the McCarthy years really had managed to convince millions of people, in a short space of time, that the New Dealers were commies. And look at the triumphs of the religious right, of the conservative movement, of Coulterism. The people really are ready and willing to believe that stuff.
Don't let the idiots get you down, Joseph. You are a spot of sanity in a crazy world.
I'm not sure what goals you want to achieve with your insults against the fringe "impeachment" movement like calling Sheehan a bitch or an attention seeking right winger whore. Is she worse than Ann Coulter ? It's not for me to judge your strategies and I'm not sure it will matter to you, but it's not your insults to "trannies" that made me change my mind on CD theories, but the information you provided. You rarely change the mind of people by insulting them, it's like bringing people freedom by dropping 1000 pounds smart bombs on their head. But hey, it's part of your charm I guess :)
"incessant criticisms of Carter and Clinton were never going to accomplish anything beyond the strengthening of the Republicans."
I don't see how the far right criticisms of Bush on "illegal aliens", not attacking Iran quickly enough or for not being Nazi enough in general is helping the Democrats. I'm not sure that the "conservative purist" movement is really hurting the Republican party. Any party, movement or ideology in general have in their spectrum their purist fringe movements. But It's what the leaders of a movement really do that counts, not what the fringe says.
Sure, enemies of that movement / ideology will usually use what the fringe says to discredit the whole movement, but it's simple demagoguery and it often backfires. It's quite similar to people who take the discourse of the fringe fanatic Muslim groups (i.e. kill all infidels) and try to paint all Muslims with it, it might work with people who WANT to be convinced, but a lot of people on this planet are skeptical.
Who's ready to bet with me that a big terrorism event would happen the day after a real impeachment process starts ?
"That said -- and you may hate me for making this point -- the citizens of Japan were not innocent."
But the people placed in Manzanar and the other camps were American citizens, for the most part.
"They deserved far worse punishment than they received at Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Now you endorse the concept of collective guilt, too. Who were the "they" who were killed at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the fire bombings of other Japanese cities? Women, children, old people and the few remaining adult men who were not physically capable of being used in the waning days of the war as conscripts.
Japanese women weren't given the right to vote until 1946, so they can't be held responsible for supporting the actions of the Japanese goverment during the war. But they were incinerated anyway.
You attack Cindy Sheehan for being historically illitrate and going off the deep end, then you do it yourself.
"the rape of Nanking", Wow, this one is a keeper Joseph, you are not as smart as i thought. What exactly do you mean by read the "rape of
of Nanking", and i truly hope you are not talking about that Iris Chang's forgery, that pseudo historical piece of garbage which has been debunked, for using fabricated photographs and inflated stories.
Believe it or not, I've deleted the stupidest comments.
Helio, you're an idiot. Don't come here again. The rape of Nanking is an established fact. Was taught in schools in my day. Do they teach ANYTHING in school now...?
Hyperman: SHeehan is worse than Coulter in the sense that nobody on "my side" really listens to Coulter.
Your comments about "conservative purists" were genuinely interesting. Food for thought. I'm not sure how to react, at the moment.
winkler, Iran has never attacked anyone. The Japanese went marching into other people's countries, killing and looting mercilessly. The doctrine of collective guilt may seem harsh, but nothing less than collective punishment could have stopped them on their rampage. As I see it, they got off EXTREMELY easy -- basically, many of the same wartime crooks were placed back into power, and some say they were even able to rebuild their economy using the loot of Asia.
The idea that the average Japanese did not support Tojo is ridiculous.
Time out Joe...as a person who lived amongst the Japanese for over six years, able to read, write, and speak quite well, I have to take issue with your characterizations of the Japanese 60-70 years ago.
Japan, like North Korea now, was a closed society, until Admiral Perry arrived and forced it to open a little. People there did what people anywhere in a closed society would do...they believed things the way the government wanted them to believe, and basically acted like the government wanted them to act. There was no TV, no internet, no powerful outside forces to lead them to believe otherwise.
And so they believed what they were expected to believe. They believed that Hiro Hito was a god, not just an emperor, because those who used Hiro Hito for their own purposes ran the joint, and wanted them to believe it.
And they supported the war because they knew nothing to lead them to think otherwise. You cannot blame them for this, and I won't stand for someone blaming them for their beliefs and thinking back then, when they had no capability to believe otherwise.
The war changed Japan, and today folks believe what they choose to believe, and are just normal people like here. Yes, there are still forces that try to mold certain concepts, but those forces are actually much weaker than they are here, and the "typical" young Japanese of today is a helluva lot smarter, wiser, yada yada yada, of reality, than here.
Which is not to say that Japan still doesn't have a ways to go as a nation. Although nowhere near as closed to gaijins (foreigners) as 40-50 years ago, it still can be challenging to be truly accepted as one of them when you're not...but then, if you're not, you're not! Those who decide to become citizens do end up with quasi-equal protections under the law, and are readily accepted by the young as equals...but of course, folks are expected to be certain ways in certain situations, above and beyond American's expectations of how "to be," and those expectations do continue to help determine how far along in life/status a typical Japanese can climb/achieve, and so there will always be situations where even the youth of today cannot treat a foreigner-turned-citizen as just another friend/person.
Fortunately, those situations are becoming less and less, and non-native citizens are becoming quite skilled at handling them, playing the role they are expected to play, etc...which further improves the playing field. Ultimately, role playing is still a key component of life in Japan, but as one who experienced it completely, it's actually pretty simple to deal with, once you get the hang of it.
Wow, sorry I went on and on.
Any chance Cindy Sheehan is a willing "false flag" anti-war stooge designed to paint the anti-war crowd in a negative light? Would seem to be a reasonable Rovian tactic. I mean, what other reason did she have to go visit Hugo Chavez? That was just totally out of left field. And now some of the idiotica she is spewing on her web site seems to be strangely at odds with what one might expect.
Just something worth considering, perhaps. Stranger things have happened. And it kind of fits with some of the crazy theories about 9/11...many of which may have been purposely thrown out there in order to discredit any/all 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Hmmmmm.
Joseph says,"basically, many of the same wartime crooks were placed back into power, (by the American Fascists) and some say they were even able to rebuild their economy using the loot of Asia." (and MacCarthers Fascist loyalties..like Nazi Germany's intelligence apparatus being repopulated with the Nazi infratructure redux, and like the United States today, with the Nazi Syymps, with the assistance of the nazis we shuck into our fragile democracy. finally achieving ultimate powers again)
I sure am glad the name calling stopped. We seem to have these storms here in "Cannonland" every so often, but I always learn a thing or two or three....from even the storms here. That's why I like this blog (sort of my favorite, even though I think twice or five times before I open my mouth and preface everything with "I am not a conspiracy buff" and at the end wonder if I am going to catch Joseph's wrath anyway..LOL).
I still am behind the "I" thing for reasons mentioned by others but I am much more aware of what may be going on behind the scenes and of miscalculations that may occur (by all).
At the risk of inviting Joseph's wrath again, I would like to know what everyone and Joe thinks of the breaking story about GWB grandfather's role in an attempt to steer this country to back Hitler. I have heard things about him doing business with Nazi Germany before (and during) WWII, but how credible is this story? And why is it being promoted now and by whom?
I have to say I can't think of anything more stupid than running against Nancy Pelosi in her hometown of San Francisco.
Cindy is really off her rocker regarding her allegations about the Dems.
there are now 15 co-sponsors for Conyers' impeachment bill.
just forget about sheehan's antics.
ferry fey, there are like, what, a hundred books -- and millions of memories -- which indicate that the "silent majority" was not a figment of Nixon's imagination. It was real, and they really were pissed off by the rioting in the streets.
I asked you where you got the notion that "many" of those in the streets of Chicago turned Republican. You don't give me numbers, sources, and how they turned to support Reagan. I know few lefties from those days who turned conservative, and far more conservatives that went leftward.
And when we're inside history in the making (which is all the time), none of us -- you , me or anybody else -- knows how the story will end.
DrewL--that's an interesting question about Sheehan...sort of. I confess, the thought never crossed my mind. Which is strange; I'm suspicious of everyone these days.
My take on Cindy is that she is a fantastically depressed and exhausted woman who has been driven mad by grief and guilt. Some of her followers on the other hand...I think she's been easily manipulated by a lot of people and groups, many of whom obviously want to turn what began as her anti-war crusade into an anti-Democrat/anti-American campaign. Some of them could plausibly be from Camp Rove.
Anyway, I can't support what she's doing, of course. I've never been a huge supporter of Sheehan, primarily because I think anyone who takes it upon herself to claim she is in any sense an effective leader of a cause needs to be objectively sane, or striving to reach that state (kinda hard to effectively lead people in accomplishing large social objectives if you can't keep your mental and emotional faculties together). I've been questioning Sheehan's sanity for quite some time. Also, I've been increasingly uncomfortable with her attacks on name Democrats, and the siege against Conyers is the last straw. She isn't being rational. There's no credibility left there in my eyes.
And I confess--I'm not so gung-ho about impeachment anymore. 'Cause I don't think it can be accomplished. And if the effort flopped, Republicans and mainstream media would trumpet the "Democrats' failed attempt to impeach Bush" from now until '08 (and probably longer). I'd like to be able to say I'd like to see my party do it anyway, as a principle of the thing thing, but...I still think '08 is winnable if we don't give the Republicans/mass media anymore amunition than we have to which could allow them to impugn the legitimacy of the next Dem presidential victory. To me, a Dem-driven impeachment push is simply too strategically risky. And I won't even go into the other risks Dems would be taking (as Americans) by sponsoring impeachment, because even on this blog, I don't feel entirely comfortable "going there" right now.
Re: Cindy Sheehan is a right-winger
Don't try to pawn her off on us!...
"Actual quote from Sheehan's site ..."
Could you provide a link? I couldn't find that information anywhere associated with Sheehan.
Post a Comment