To the editor:
Many of the plans and ideas of conservatives are so repugnant that to garner any kind of acceptance, their supporters have to distort and mislead. We get proposals to turn public forests over to slash-and-burn corporations, with titles like "Healthy Forests Initiative."
The Bush administration has to have a new excuse every few months for why we invaded Iraq, grasping for the one that will gain some acceptance (beyond the 38 percent who have latched onto one of the excuses and think it was a good idea).
I want to clarify a distortion from the right-wing media echo chamber which has landed on the Journal-World editorial page. It's a little thing, but it shows how they work; it's a lie and should be corrected.
Tuesday's published letter from a Kevin Groenhagen quotes Gold Star Mothers for Peace founder Cindy Sheehan as saying "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for."
Mr. Groenhagen, like the shrill right-wing media voices he emulates, clearly intends for us to think Ms. Sheehan said, "American is not worth dying for." She did not. Anyone who has seen or heard Ms. Sheehan's remarks in their original context would know that she was talking about Iraq, not the United States.
Anyone who removes that context to use Ms. Sheehan's personal grief to stir up anger and hostility is trying to sell a viewpoint that cannot stand in the sunlight of truth.
Art Hadley,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Well Armininius what do you say for yourself and are you leaving Lawrence to replace Karl Rove?
merrill (anonymous) says…
It looks as though she implied Iraq is not worth dying for...
Further into the statement she implies the USA is worth defending even with a rolling pin.
She is correct in that we were not attacked by Iraq.
Perhaps a link to this quote would be good.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Kevin what he was saying to you was that you misconstrued her statements to your liking aka spin.
This country was not attacked by Iraq. We attacked Iraq for no apparent reason. This country was attacked by an extreme organization so far as we know...all of the attackers on the scene were killed in the crashes.
The letter reveals she felt Bush lied about WMD's and Iraq and had she known perhaps her son might be in Canada today. The war on terror was supposedly located in Afghanistan and Cindy has stated no objection to the war on terror.
While were doing babble who do you think gave the stand down order that prevented the scramble of fighter jets to proceed with interception which might have prevented 9/11
as we know it? This a legitimate question which was posed elsewhere that made me think. You cannot blame Pres. Clinton because he was no longer elgible for reelection.
Art (anonymous) says…
Mr. Groenhagen:
I did not mean to clearly label you a liar. If you feel that was the clear meaning of my statement, then I offer you my apology. I did not mean to say, "You, sir are a liar."
However, I get my news from many sources, print, broadcast and online. Some are profoundly liberal (like, for instance, Democratic Underground) and some are extremist conservative, or viciously neo-conservative (like NewsMax). Most are somewhere in the middle. I read 'em all, and dig for the verified facts which are sometimes hidden or disguised.
The day before I found your letter in the Journal World, I had seen not one, but three "Cindy Sheehan said this" posts or articles on the web, which used the "this country is not worth dying for" line right after the earlier "America" statement, with no ellipsis, an obvious attempt to link the phrases to suggest that she said "America is not worth dying for."
I'm sure there are thousands, maybe millions, of Americans who are mad as hell because she said that. Since she didn't, anyone propagating such disinformation, such as you did, is an active agent of dissemination of false information, or worse, a spreader of false information designed to malign a grieving mother and to stir anger and hatred against her. I'd think you'd be
ashamed.
So the only question, then, becomes, "Are you a liar, or did you simply not know your quote created false context?" If the answer is the latter, then please accept my apology for suggesting you're a liar.
A much clearer context is made by simply putting the edits in a different place, as shown by this example copied and pasted from the very text you sent me:
" This country is not worth dying for. If we're attacked, we would all go out... But we were not attacked by Iraq."
The toxic atmosphere created in America by the Karl Rove playbook, using character assassination against anyone who disagrees, needs to be stopped.
By joining the right-wing drumbeat with Rush and Cal and O'Reilly and Michelle and Ann, trying to make her look unpatriotic and unAmerican, you become one of the perpetrators. You can speak your mind in the newspaper, on TV or anywhere else and I'll defend your right to do so. But whenever I see obvious BS in the paper, especially propaganda BS carefully scripted for widespread distribution (from any side), I'll continue to speak up.
You worry that I may be "one of these irrational Bush-haters who cannot be reasoned with." There's nothing irrational about the feelings I have for Bush; they're all rooted in fact. Are yours?
My guess is you're one of the 34 percent of Americans who think Bush is doing a fine job in Iraq. Are you one of those irrational Bush-lovers who cannot be reasoned with?
gconfo (anonymous) says…
Arminius,
Once again, I suggest you read your own links before using them to back up your own misleading statements.
Arminius' quote: "Sheehan told Hardball last week that it was wrong to invade Afghanistan."
Hardball transcript: Sheehan: Well then we should have gone after al Qaeda and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.
matthews: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?
sheehan: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. And I believe that you don't send in-and I'm not a strategist. I'm not a military strategist. But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troop in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?
Sheehan NEVER says that it was wrong to invade Aghanistan. She DOES question whether it was the right course of action, after admitting that she is not a military strategist. So Merrill's statement is not "plain wrong", at least as far as the Hardball transcript is concerned, nor as far as Cindy's non-objections to fighting terrorism.
Arminius' quote: "She also said Afghanistan was the same as Itaq, and claim that we haven't accomplished anything in Afghanistan."
Hardball transcript: sheehan: i don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing....So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.
Sheehan does call for our troops to be brought home from both locations, but says that Afghanistan is ALMOST the same thing. She goes on to say that we are not having any success in Afghanistan, mentioning the search for Osama Bin Laden in the same sentence. Saying that we are not having any success (and it seems fairly obvious that she equates success to finding Osama) is not the same as saying that we have not accomplished anything. Sure, we've disrupted Al Quaeda's activities, but we have not apprehended their top leadership.
(cont.)
gconfo (anonymous) says…
(cont.)
Arminius' quote: Sheehan clearly said the American system was no worth defending and that she wish she had taken her son to Canada to avoid defending our system. You're kidding yourslef if you believe she meant Iraq was not worth dying for.
Sheehan's quote: "This country is not worth dying for. If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant.
Is she referring to America or Iraq? It's not possible to discern that from her above quote, so who's kidding whom?
Does Sheehan mean the "American way of life", as I believe Arminius is implying, or the present government administration? Though I don't claim to be privy to her thoughts, all of her statements admonishing Bush and the neo-cons would lead one to believe the latter.
These may seem to be minor differences, but in the world of spin, they make all of the difference in the world. I think Arminius realizes this, as he is trying to be a poor man's Karl Rove.
merrill (anonymous) says…
In fact Afghanistan did not attack the USA. An extreme group did and if you believe the news this group has locations all over the world.
Yes we have effectively killed many innocent afghani people yet the culprit we are supposedly chasing is still alive somewhere.
The Bush approach was a lot about fanfare and very little element of suprise. The fact of the matter is that none of what has been done was very well organized due to the fanfare and it was rushed. Sending troops off to war without
proper equipment was stupid. The military advisors did not want to to go after Iraq.
A secret covert plan that included our allies and their intelligence with little fanfare seems like what you do when
going after a group of terrorists. No country declared war on the USA...it was a band of terrorists. Now we cannot successfully conduct a covert operation on terrorists because of Iraq. The war for oil control has screwed things up.
Rummy declaring Chavez country as a threat to the USA is another load of nonsense.
Still I find it hard to understand why the Bush administration gave a stand down order??
meggers (anonymous) says…
It's pretty obvious that the right-wing attack machine is trying to do a little bit of damage-control by trying to discredit Sheehan.
I wonder what they are going to do about the other parents at Camp Casey and all across the United States, who are asking the same questions. As much as the Rovian spin-masters would like for people to believe that she is a lone voice out there, nothing could be further from the truth.
No matter what her broad spectrum of beliefs are (I would probably find many, if not most of the political beliefs of those who are attacking Sheehan to be morally repugnant- that doesn't mean they can't have a valid point about some things), that doesn't address the issue that brought her to Crawford. Her dead son and the war that got him killed.
gconfo (anonymous) says…
Arminius,
I did not fail to read Sheehan's full comment. Yes, she mentions America prominently in her statement. But, she also mentions Iraq, "But we were not attacked by Iraq." Now, perhaps you are a mind reader, and can extrapolate exact meaning from somewhat ambiguous statements, but I am not. Besides, how is she not correct in saying that America has been killing people since we stepped foot on the contininent (America or Asia, I'm not sure which she meant)? We have, whether for legitimate reasons or not.
As far as her being un American because of her associations- You are talking about a grieving mother who is probably seeking every available forum to get her message heard. While I am not familiar with the supposed "radical groups" that sponsored this forum, I am familiar with her right as an American to exercise free speech. Perhaps you would advocate a return to McCarthyism to rid our country of such a terrible menace. If so, I suggest you give Ann Coulter a call.
Art (anonymous) says…
Dude, not much you say makes any sense.
You say "ILO's web site advocates the overthrow of our government."
Who is this ILO? Is that this International Socialist Organization you mentioned? If so, where does it say on their web site that they advocate "overthrow of our government?"
Here's what it does say on the ISO web site:
"the international socialist organization is dedicated to fighting for a world free of all exploitation, racism and sexual oppression- a society whose productive resources are democratically owned and controlled by the working-class majority, and where human need replaces capitalist greed."
I don't know who these folks are, but I don't see any evidence they advocate government overthrow. Can you send me a link to that page?
gconfo (anonymous) says…
Arminius,
You accuse me of spin? I find that hilarious.
Yes, I did not include several lines of her statement. That was done for brevity's sake. However, I did allude to it, as you did. Once again, she mentioned Iraq in the same statement. How anyone could conclude exactly which country she was referring to is beyond me. Besides, I think I have made my point abundantly clear that I believe she is dissatisfied with the administration, not the country as a whole. This is my view, and I make no claims (as I have previously stated, no less) that I am not privy to her thoughts. I was simply pointing out that your spin on things is just that-spin, and nothing more.
I love how you characterize Dean as Howlin Mad, and Kerry as effete, etc. Shall I call Bush a dumb a$$? Will that effectively deflect any criticism of my position?
Do Americans view her as a "left wing loon"? Only time will tell. This is, however, another lovely example of your never ending command of witticisms.
As far as addressing her "Atticus Finch" comment, I'm not sure if she simply meant Stewart was her "defender" or what. And as I'd love to visit the ILO's website, alas, I am at work, and that would probably not be advisable.
You are correct in one assumption, however. I am a Bush hater, and damn proud of it.
gconfo (anonymous) says…
"perhaps you'll agree that Art Hadley should not call others liars when they read that statement..."
I think Mr. Hadley has already apologized for his statement, so I see no need to address it.
And yes, she calls our system morally repugnant. Does that mean she despises our administration or our actual country, or the way we place obscene monetary gain above all else at times? I don't know. Maybe you should take a trip to Crawford and ask her. Or maybe not, since you are so sure already.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Cindy new found fame could make it difficult for her to speak with the clarity she would prefer. It's somewhat understandable that the character assassination christian coalition neo-con unrepublican party vultures would be out to misconstrue any statement possible. I seriously doubt she has been trained so of course was not prepared. Hopefully she has learned a bit more since. I am able to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Under the new Iraq democracy women may not fare so well:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.p...
gconfo (anonymous) says…
Arminius,
Arguing with you is like banging one's head against the wall.
You may think (are you capable of such?) that I deliberately deleted sentences to spin my point. I couldn't care less.
I already said (wow, I'm saying that to you alot. Brush up on your reading comprehension pal) that I wasn't sure if she was referring to Iraq or America. Regardless of either, she is correct in stating that we have been killing persons since we set foot upon the continent. Once again, i do not know which continent she was referring to, nor does it matter. either statement is correct, for legitimate or illegitimate reasons (which, once again, i already stated).
So, you've "pressed" Sheehan? Really? In what way? Was she a guest on your radio/tv show? Did she reply to an email? I'm not sure I'll take this statement at face value since I have no idea of your occupation, nor would I likely believe you one way or another, given your propensity for spin.
Visual evidence that Dean is "Howlin' Mad", eh? Because the man was psyched up and trying to yell over a loud crowd? Who cares? And Kerry is "effete" because ordered a cheese steak with swiss cheese? Oh my God, how utterly horrible. Let's crucify the man. I know you can come with better faults for Kerry than that.
And if you think a measure of Bush's intelligence are his campaign victories, well, you can thank his brain trust for his rise. That, and a fairly ignorant American populace.
I'm not going to delve into Stewart's guilt or lack thereof; perhaps she did collaborate with the sheik. Regardless, in our country you are guaranteed the right to a defense attorney. Unless, of course, you are on an army base in Cuba; or you are an American citizen deemed an "enemy combatant"; or unless... oh, never mind.
You are superb at redirecting a debate, I'll give you that. But it's time for you to put your funny hat back on and flip the burgers.
Art (anonymous) says…
From Arminius:
"I suspect Groenhagen provided the J-W with that full context"
Oh, come on, Groenhagen. You "suspect" that you provided the J-W with the full context? Well, let us know if you ever find out for sure whether you did or not.
Jeez. Is there an honest thought in any of this blather you've strewn today?
Apology withdrawn.
Art (anonymous) says…
Oh, and one more thing. We ALL know, thanks to Mr. Groenhagen providing the full excerpt, no matter how we interpret Ms. Sheehan's comments, that she did not speak those two sentences back to back. Therefore, any web site containing the exact phrase:
"America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for."
HAS to be part of an organized attempt to deliberately spread misinformation. My Google search for that wording turns up over 700 sites.
Copy and paste the phrase, do the search. It's that Right-Wing echo chamber, and you can see all those sites lined up, one after another.
Like I said, this is how they work.
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
I have just read over this entire string of commentary, and it hits me that no one has ever discussed the actual root behind Sheehan's statement. "This country is not worth dying for," has, at it's basis, the idea that someone (her son) died for a country. Which country did he die for?
If, good or bad, the US armed forces are in Iraq fighting for Iraq's freedom, independence, or whatever we're calling it, then Sheehan's son died for Iraq. I can't quote, but I believe I've heard Bush say that the reason we're in Iraq still is to help the country get on it's feet, with a fully- or mostly-trained protective force of its own. I KNOW that Bush has said "as Iraq stands up, we will stand down." That would also lead me to believe that we are fighting for (or, on behalf of, I guess) Iraq.
If, good or bad, we are in Iraq fighting for America, then Sheehan's son died for America. But, why would we be in Iraq fighting for America? Iraq didn't attack the WTC on 9-11. Osama did (probably), and the dudes he recruited did, and all the people who work for Al Quaeda (ooh, not really sure on the spelling...) did, indeed, attack America. Actually, they attacked all the countries who had nationals working in the WTC, which, I'm sure, is a longer list. I know that we originally went to Iraq under the premise of ridding it of Saddam and the WMD. Saddam is gone, and the WMD are too, whether they were there to begin with or not. Now, I think, the Administration says we're fighting for Iraq's freedom and independence, and probably have been since Sheehan's son was sent over.
So, I guess, before we can determine with certainty WHICH country she was referring to when she said "this country isn't worth dying for," we need to decide which country WAS died for. You can probably guess where I stand on that issue (and without any discussion of whether it is right or wrong that we're fighting, because that's not the point of my comment).
Art (anonymous) says…
Boy, Arminimus, you have very little contact with reality, huh? Let's review:
> You were caught in a lie today.
No evidence has shown this to be true.
> you denied calling Groenhagen a "liar."
I never said "Groenhagen is a liar." And what is with this goofball game of pretending you're someone else supporting him? Yesterday you sent Sheehan's comment to the J-W, then wrote here that you "suspect" Groenhagen may have sent that to JW. Sounds like something a liar would say
> What's the definition for "liar."
I'd say one good definition is "someone who knowingly distributes false information." I didn't call you one, but you were smart enough to figure out that this definition actually proves you are one.
> I strongly suggest that your next letter to the editor be in the form of an apology.
Why? I've done nothing to offend the editor.
> A man of 54 should have enough maturity to admit that he was wrong. But, then again, a man of 54 usually is not so immature to be such a hater.
Wow, you managed to find out how old I am. Why don't you say it a couple more times to make sure I get it? You must have some research staff! So I guess maybe, when you hit 54, you'll finally stop hating Clinton? And trying to prove everything wrong in America is his fault?
> The J-W says your e-mail didn't include a source.
So F what? I pressed right up against the word limit. You didn't need the context, you already had it. You had the full context of Ms. Sheehan's remarks right in front of you, and yet, YOU posted the inaccurate, misleading, edited quote, to deliberately stir up hatred and anger as over 700 of your right-wing friends have done on the web in the last few days. What more context could you
possibly want from me?
> I provided the full context above, and it is clear Sheehan was referring to America, and not Iraq, when she said, "This country is not worth dying for."
Not to anybody grounded in reality, it ain't.
> Now that we have established that you were incorrect
"We have established" nothing of the sort. The only thing we've established is that you hope to grow up to be one of the shrill, lying, screamers of right-wing propaganda who whore themselves on right-wing TV every day. Sorry, your doing this on a small-time basis in a small town in Kansas really isn't a very big splash. Don't look for Fox news to be calling any time soon.
> perhaps we should turn to another lie in your letter: "The Bush administration has to have a new excuse every few months for why we invaded Iraq, grasping for the one that will gain some acceptance."
> Give us an example of a new excuse.
Heavens, dude! You can't possibly be that ignorant and out of the loop, can you? Go look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate you, and you've pretty well proven you're not going to let that happen under any circumstances. Why bother?
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
Arminius:
"Our system" and "our country" are not necessarily the same thing. It is well within Ms. Sheehan's right, or anyone else's, for that matter, to disagree with our system, and to think that, in its current state, it is not worth defending. To me (and others may disagree with me on this), "our system" encompasses a lot of things, including the current political landscape, the current Administration's policies, and any number of things that are not permanently tied to "our country." "Our country" does not change as quickly as "our system" does. Our country is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Our country is a place where people are free to believe what they will, and practice their religion, and receive a public education, and own property, and all of the things the FF espoused in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, even the Federalist Papers, and probably a lot of other documents that don't come to mind at 4:15 on a Friday afternoon. Our country is a democratic, federal nation, though our system can lean to the dems or the GOP depending on who's in the White House and the Capitol Building.
In my mind, and probably the minds of many other people who have posted to this string, or read/heard Sheehan's comments, one can believe that our current system is not worth dying for, but also that our country is worth dying for (or fighting/killing for--rolling pin) at the same time.
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
Ok, defending (the system), not dying for it. Actually, that's further proof that the two cannot be equated to each other. She's not willing to defend our current system. If she felt the same way about our system as you claim she feels about the country, there would have been no need for two statements. Additionally, there would have been no need for her to specify our "current" system, which I believe was part of her statement. (If it wasn't, I'm misremembering and I'm sorry.) Our country is a timeless thing, an intangible concept swept over tangible land. There is no "current", "former", or "future" United States of America. If it changes significantly from the democratic ideals upon which it was created, and upon which it is still based (I hope...), it would cease to be the same thing and cease to exist as we know it.
In my opinion, she doesn't think our current system is worth defending. She also doesn't think Iraq is worth dying for. Her son was not defending our system or our country in Iraq, because we all know that Iraq didn't attack us. He is in Iraq imposing our system...with which she doesn't agree.
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
Oops. I was wrong. She said "this system we have." So, I guess you can ignore the part from "Additionally, there would have been no need..." to "cease to exist as we know it."
I still think she is referring to two different things (see comment above about no need for two statements).
Art (anonymous) says…
Arminimus:
I'm so flattered you've read up on me so much. Sorry, no, I've never had a convertible. I'm sure you wish I was some sort of easily categorized stereotype, but you really don't have a clue, do you?
And come on, give up the Clinton thing. You come off sounding desperate when you keep trying to blame Bush trashing the country on Clinton. What was it about 8 years of peace and prosperity that bothers you so? Get over it.
As you've requested, I'll be glad to educate you a little, and give you at least a half dozen reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq. I'll even help you sort it all out by listing them in chronological order. I can't imagine why you didn't see them all in the first place. They've been in the paper, and on TV.
I'll send 'em just as soon as you answer the questions I posed earlier. I'll even recap the questions here to remind you:
1) Exactly when did you sign up to serve our country in the military?
2) How long did you serve? Where? What unit?
3) Since you so adamantly support this war, why aren't you fighting it now?
4) Do you have kids? Have they enlisted? If they're too young, when will you be signing them up?
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
Art:
Arminius actually answers you in the string after "Not so Noble." You should read the post--it follows his usual style.
Yours,
avhjmlk
mermily (anonymous) says…
well, i'm going down in a ball of fire for this one i'm pretty sure, but here it is:
"i don't think america is worth dying for!"
let there be no question about which country i'm talking about. it's america. but guess what, i'm one of those crazies that doesn't think ANY country is worth dying for. i think principles, family members, friends, loved ones in general, ideas, freedoms, etc; are though. i very much believe that. this country happens to home to some of those people most precious to me and embodies (although we've taken some hits recently) some of the values i hold most dear, but it isn't for the land or the political boundary that i would fight for.
so, without playing word games, i believe that was the essence of her comment; that the misrepresentations she felt were made, didn't justify dying b/c the above named values weren't actually at risk in her opinion.
now, i'm off to go change my identity so i'm not hunted down when my quote is made into something other than a statement that i am not terribly into the dirt on which america was founded, but the values she espouses and the people i love that are here.
Art (anonymous) says…
And, the reason you're not there now fighting this war you want so badly is?