You are herecontent / Another Right Winger for Peace (Sort of)

Another Right Winger for Peace (Sort of)


Cindy Sheehan: Anti-war catalyst
By Patrick Buchanan

When he flew off to San Clemente, Calif., in the summer of 1969 for his August vacation, Richard Nixon was riding a wave of popularity.

He had announced the first troop withdrawal from Vietnam. He had met the Apollo 11 crew of Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins on touchdown in the Pacific. He had become the first president to visit a captive nation with a triumphal tour of Bucharest. And he had just proposed a sweeping reform of welfare praised by both parties.

But when Nixon returned in September, a storm had broken. Wrote David Broder: "It is becoming more obvious with each passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969.

"The likelihood is great that they will succeed again."

They did not succeed in breaking Nixon's presidency. He broke them. The crucial moment was his "Great Silent Majority" speech of Nov. 3, 1969, which rallied Middle America behind his war policy.

George W. Bush is approaching a similar moment of truth. And Cindy Sheehan may be the catalyst of crisis for the Bush presidency.

As a Gold Star mother of a soldier son slain in Iraq, Sheehan has authenticity and moral authority. Wedded to the passion of her protest, these make her a magnet for a bored White House press corps camped in Crawford for August. Cindy and the president are the only stories in town. And as a source of daily derogatory commentary on the president, Sheehan is using the media, and the media are using her, for the same end: to bedevil George W. Bush.

They are succeeding. When one considers the non-stop cable TV coverage given the mother of Natalie Holloway, the Alabama teen missing in Aruba, Cindy Sheehan will soon be a household name. The more media she attracts, the more people she draws to Crawford. The more people who join Cindy in Crawford, the more media coverage they will attract. It is hard to see what breaks this cycle before Labor Day and the president's return.

The purity of Sheehan's protest has lately been diluted by her association with the far Left, the extravagance of her language and the arrival of political operatives to manipulate and manage her. But in a slow news month, Cindy Sheehan has helped turn the focus of national debate back to the war, at a moment of special vulnerability for the president.

According to Newsweek, support for Bush's handling of the war has fallen for the first time below 40 percent – to 34 percent, with 61 percent now disapproving of his war leadership. Compare these numbers to the 68 percent support Nixon commanded on Vietnam after that Nov. 3 address, and the gravity of Bush's condition becomes evident.

Put bluntly, the bottom is falling out of support for the commander in chief. What is remarkable is that no Democrat has stepped forward, as Gene McCarthy did, to lead an anti-war crusade and call for a date certain for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Cindy Sheehan is filling that vacuum.

As the White House seems to be losing control of the debate, our war leaders no longer seem to be singing from the same song sheet. When the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Casey, spoke of "substantial" withdrawals of U.S. forces by spring, with Rumsfeld beside him, he was contradicted by Bush who dismissed this as "speculation" and reportedly rebuked.

To most Americans, it seems apparent that the United States and its allies do not have the boots on the ground to grind down and defeat this Sunni-jihadist insurgency. Yet, no one is talking about sending more U.S. combat brigades. How, then, do you win the war?

"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" is President Bush's exit strategy. But how can the Iraqis the U.S. Army is training defeat an enemy the U.S. Army has itself been unable to defeat in two years?

Americans do not want an endless no-win war, but they also do not want to cut and run, or walk away and leave a debacle, when they believe that 1,850 Americans have died and 13,000 have been wounded in a noble cause. If President Bush cannot describe "victory" in terms convincing enough to Americans willing to spend blood indefinitely, he will have to persuade them to stay the course by describing what a disaster defeat will mean for Iraq and for America's position in the world.

But to do that would raise a question: Why, then, in heaven's name, did America take such a risk, when Iraq was never a threat?

September could see the coalescing of an anti-war movement that both bedevils the White House and divides a Democratic Party that seeks to benefit from a losing war, without having to offer a plan to win it or end it, without being held accountable for having supported it, or responsible for undercutting it.

Our politics appear likely to become even more poisoned when the president returns from his troubled vacation.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45815

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Pat has never read the Downing Street Minutes I guess. Somebody needs to send him a copy.

Apparently Patrick Buchanan doesn't realize that the White House had everybody believing their lies including the democratic party.So instead of offering a plan which no doubt the White Hose would take credit for it,with that , leave Mr.Bush wallow in his on crap.

Pat's book gives a good history of Islam and he's always been against the Iraq war, but try as he may, he's just too authoritarian and obedient to criticize the president. He may change his mind as more memos and witnesses come forward.

Pat may not have read the DSM, but he was onto Bush and the Neocons long before this past May. Read this from early 2004: http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=1952.

Don't dismiss Pat Buchanan so readily. Most of the awful things you think you know about him are lies put out by the very same Neocon scumbags who lied us into war in the first place. Pat and other REAL conservatives were antiwar when antiwar wasn't cool. I.e. since the first Gulf War. Love him or hate him, the antiwar movement could benefit from adopting some of his populist, pro-America rhetoric.

Speaking of Pat Buchanan, anyone think Cindy Sheehan might help to resurrect anti-interventionism as a matter of policy and principle?

Or would the Neocons just call us a bunch of Nazi sympathizers?

America First!

Read this http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts101.html from Paul Craig Roberts, an economist who worked for Reagan.

I hope that this isn't the first time folks on this site have noticed that there are antiwar conservatives (and libertarians). Calling them "right wingers", though, sort of reinforces the left-right dichotomy that the Republicans have exploited so ruthlessly and effectively. Surely Afterdowningstreet isn't made up of "left wingers"?

What Cindy Sheehan, Pat Buchanan and George Galloway demonstrate is that being antiwar has nothing to do with petty left-right politics. (all three happen to be devout Catholics, hmmm....) Galloway, for instance, has said that Blair and Bush will "burn in the fires of hell" for their war-crimes. The antiwar movement must start using pro-American and orthodox Christian rhetoric to its certain advantage. Even the Pope spoke out against this war - two popes!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.