July 23, 2007

Sheehan: Libertarian?

Just in case the Democrats weren't entirely upset with Cindy Sheehan for failing to walk the party line, she decided to write this in the San Francisco Chronicle:


I was a lifelong 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 income taxes, not one but two World Wars, Japanese concentration camps, and not one but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan -- all brought to us via the Democrats.

The emphasis is mine. As Don Luskin asks, "Is she some kind of libertarian? In this, she's sounding a lot like Ron Paul."

Congress Posted by Harrison Bergeron at July 23, 2007 10:32 PM

EEEK!

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at July 24, 2007 9:54 AM

Maybe she is. We never got to hear her thoughts on fiscal or monetary policy at Camp Casey.

I watched her deliver the same line to a reporter on Brit Hume's show last night. I did not catch that she said "the other Bush debacle," if that is what she said.

Like my Department of Peace seeking sister-in-law, she will not admit that -- on occasion -- "War is the answer!" Claiming that President Bush pere was unjustified in liberating Kuwait with an international coalition and a UN mandate is like claiming Roosevelt was unjustified in fighting Hitler and Hirohito. Which, of course, she does.

I don't think she's going to do a lot for the Libertarian Brand.

Posted by: jk at July 24, 2007 10:35 AM

I'm not sure what the hell Sheehan is smoking. She had some good points, especially about the Fed and permanent income taxes. I have to wonder if she's trying to broaden her appeal with a Hillaryesque "say anything" strategy, or if she sincerely believes this. Maybe.

Now, being half Filipino, don't get me started on that wench's claim of "innocent Japanese civilians."

I remember my father saying in 1990 that Bush 41 was showing more backbone than any president since Kennedy. In hindsight, he clearly forgot Reagan, and actually, Bush did little more than beg the UN for permission to do this and that. Never mind that we didn't keep going to Baghdad to finish the job. We didn't even make Saddam disband his army. It's all we could expect from him, really, since he was a diplomat.

Just about everybody forgets that Saddam had kidnapped American civilians. What would Sheehan have done to secure their release? Pure diplomacy that never *once* worked with Saddam? Use spitballs? The proper response, one that required more balls than Bush 41 ever had, would have been to ask Congress for a declaration of war. If the government of one country sends its military to kidnap some civilians of another, or otherwise authorizes/assists/facilitates such seizure, what else can that be but an act of war? And if the One World Government socialists object because we didn't say "General Secretary, may I," then we can give them a far overdue eviction notice from east Manhattan.

Am I the only person in the world who still remembers Saddam's photo-op with the British boy among the hostages? "Have you been getting your milk, Stuart?" The poor kid couldn't have been more than 10. Meanwhile, Saddam was clutching, clutching HARD, that little boy's arm.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 24, 2007 1:09 PM

My Mother-in-law grew up in the Philippines under Japanese occupation. I think of her whenever somebody drones on about the "futility of war."

I really do hate to pile on a mother of a fallen US soldier, but I suspect that she picks up catch phrases from the fever-left blogs and parrots them. She was interviewed by Larry Kudlow, this would have given a "real" libertarian a great opportunity to discuss the vicissitudes of the Fed. I cannot believe there is any there there.

Posted by: jk at July 24, 2007 1:35 PM

That's the thing: that her son died while serving in the military is still no reason for her to have any more authority or credibility in her actions and words, or sanctuary from criticism. Her son died in Iraq? Big ******* deal, as far as I'm concerned. I don't even have sympathy for her anymore. It's sad her son died, but he chose to *re-enlist* after the invasion began, and by trying to twist his death, the woman squandered any pity or well-wishing I had for *her*.

You can "consider the source" when questioning whether something is true, but in matters of opinion, ultimately it is the argument itself that matters, not the person. As much as I hate to admit it, Sheehan said a couple of nice things in her piece, and the Democrats sometimes have points about the wiretapping and Gonzales.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 24, 2007 8:19 PM | What do you think? [5]