« gaps | Main | minimalist asian-translation-mocking entry of the day »
truer than true
August 16, 2005
there are few things as powerful as war to expose how much humanity an individual or an entire society is willing to give up to survive, or just to win. sadly it's not the only thing that demonstrates that.
one of the things bugging me the most is our seemingly increasing willingness as a society to compromise or completely abandon truth, rationalizing it as necessary in whatever struggle we're engaged in.
while there are certainly plenty of examples of this to single out, the morass du jour is focused on crawford, texas, at cindy sheehan's vigil outside bush's ranch.
sadly, i lack the omniscience and clairovyance of the pundits and mass media outlets. i don't know for sure whether ms. sheehan, who arrived in crawford on a bus with a sign saying "the impeachment tour," is just a political pawn or a skillful manipulator. i certainly do not question the depth and genuineness of her grief, and her anger, and no one should. i don't know whether the distortions and half-truths begin with her, or if they're created down the line. i suspect it's the latter.
the story has raised the usual firestorm of information, misinformation, and disinformation that we've all come to largely ignore. i'm sure there's a lot of accurate accounts out there, but i don't think my own experience with the story is unusual.
on august 10, i got an email moveon.org sent to its membership titled "Mom vs. Bush: Sign onto our ad." it briefly gave the background of the death of ms. sheehan's son in iraq, and about her vigil.
what it fails to mention, like many of the early stories i saw about this, is that the president already met with ms. sheehan. she was a member of one of many bereaved families bush has met with.
this certainly doesn't invalidate her protest of the war. but it weakens the credibility of a situation that is being cast as president refuses to meet with mother of fallen soldier.
one thing i've always loved about moveon.org is that it always offers citations to support its assertions. maybe i should have been paying more attention all along.
this particular email only contained a link to make a contribution, a link to a petition stating "I support Cindy Sheehan's vigil for a meeting with President Bush so he can tell her why her son died in Iraq," a link to a very moving video testimonial by ms. sheehan, and a link to an article - no, wait, i'm sorry, an editorial - in the new york times. in the name of credibility and fairness, i grudgingly paid my $3.95 to view the editorial, and sure enough, it was straight-up about the fact that she and the president had already met:
Ms. Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Baghdad. She says she and her family met privately with Mr. Bush two months later, and she is sharply critical of how the president acted. He did not know her son's name, she says, acted as if the meeting was a party and called her ''Mom'' throughout, which she considered disrespectful.
wow. so she already met with bush. ok. that throws a wrench into things. but wait, that reveals not only that she met with him, but that apparently, he was an uncaring ass about it. clearly stated, irrefutable proof that he doesn't care! aha! now we're getting somewhere! again.
except we're not.
good friend heather, who truly fights a valiant struggle to seek the truth despite her adamant beliefs, sent me a link to a report by mediamatters.org, what seems to be a credible and responsible watchdog group that has the self-admitted mission of debunking conservative spin.
the report looks at allegations made by the drudge report that ms. sheehan changed her account of her meeting with bush. those allegations have been passed around the conservative bloggers, which, of course, was good enough for fox news to report as actual "hard news."
according to drudge, ms. sheehan first told the vacaville reporter positive things last year about her meeting with the president, but later changed her story when in a cnn interview this year. mediamatters.org attempts to show there was no such turnaround. here's the progression of their argument:
1. they accurately report drudge's accurate quoting of what is presumed to be the reporter's accurate quoting of ms. sheehan, when she said "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis... I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
2. however, they also accurately report drudge's accurate quoting of what is presumed to be the reporter's accurate quoting of ms. sheehan, when she said "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."
3. they claim that drudge failed to quote her misgivings about the war. tru dat.
4. they also claim that he took her second, about the president's gift to them, out of context, saying,
She was actually referring to the trip to Seattle, as Reporter staff writer Tom Hall noted in an August 9 article responding to Drudge: "Sheehan also said the trip to Seattle helped connect her family to others that had lost a son or daughter in Iraq. Sheehan said sharing their story with those families was rewarding, as was the time she got to spend with her own family. 'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' she said in the story. Drudge included that quote in his Monday morning report, but didn't explain that it referred to sharing time with her family, not the president."
despite so many layers of quotes that i no longer know what to do with quotation marks, they never contradict her first quote that said positive things about the president. the debunking of the debunking is... debunked.
what began with the president and cindy sheehan has given birth to a web of lies, distortions, and evasive truthtelling. drudge, mediamatters.org, fox, the new york times, moveon.org - the voices that conservatives and liberals each look to, are, well, full of it.
somewhere in there, cindy sheehan, her son, and her family, and even the president, are lost. most importantly, the truth is lost, replaced by fuel that we all are soaking in to continue a fire that is capable, is already, destroying everything that matters about this country and humanity itself.
incidentally, i feel cheated by the new york times. i paid $3.95 for half-truths and apparently, lies. hell, i can watch fox news for free if i want that. can i sue under the deceptive trade practices act and get $11.85 back in treble damages?
we hate what bill clinton has called one of the greatest spin machines ever, but like one team that's consistently beaten by a clearly superior team, we enviously admire the skill. the danger is in aspiring to be so good at a wicked game, seeking to match and exceed what we despise - trying to fight fire with fire, it's too easy to fight lies with more lies.
it is all making truth increasingly pliable. fact are made almost completely flexible, even before they can be analyzed by their recipient.
even ideologies born out of a desire for truth, equity, and compassion, take on a momentum and life of their own that the armies, the rhetoric, and movements spawned
and we all buy it out of arrogance and cowardice. we come by our beliefs in so many ways - through tradition, upbringing, study, thought, experience, faith and belief, conviction, desperation, altruism, self-interest.
regardless of how we come to our beliefs, we want ownership of our position as if it were territory, and we defend it vehemently against trespass of any kind. we pick a side, and soon, we're hating the visiting team, booing any call, right or wrong, that the referees might make against our side.
our fears of losing, of change, of being wrong, of giving up any ground in our ideological battles, too easily become more powerful than our commitment to fairness, truth and compassion.
we demonize people, because then it's easier to hate them and justify our own behavior. there is a right and wrong, and there are certainly extremists on either side of an issue who are just wrong, but it's easier to lump an entire side all together. liberals, conservatives, black, white, pro-life, pro-choice.
talking about this issue has already irked a lot of my friends, because clearly, if i question our methods, then i'm not down with the cause. kinda like the conservatives saying that if you question the war or the president, then you don't care about our troops or our country. oh, wait, the difference is those guys are wrong, right?
i'm not trying to preach some sort of moral relativism, here. i feel the same way about moral relativism that frank booth felt about heineken. there is a right and wrong. if you know me, then you what i believe to be the truth about this war and this administration. but that isn't what matters here. this is about fighting the right way. this is about truth and integrity in the way we act, report the news, debate, make change, and yes, fight when we have to fight.
this war will end. these political parties will someday cease to be. some questions will continue to be argued. power will change hands countless times here and abroad. i'm less interested in what country or party comes out on top than i am in whether our best values will survive those changes.
i don't just want to be on the side that wins or defeats evil, if it does so with tactics that are no better. i don't want to defeat hatred and tolerance with hatred and intolerance. such victories would be meaningless and shortlived, and the victors would hold no moral superiority. they would not deserve to be recognized as vanguards of truth or justice or humanity, but merely as another in a chain of sad failures, where we each and collectively chose weakness, arrogance, and cowardice over truth, fairness, compassion, and over humanity itself.
the august 10 moveon.org email -
Dear MoveOn member,
On April 4th last year, 24-year-old Army Specialist Casey Sheehan died in Iraq. This week, while President Bush vacations in Texas, Casey's mother, Cindy Sheehan, sits vigil outside the president's ranch. Cindy says that she won't leave until President Bush meets with her to discuss the war—even if it means spending all of August there.
Cindy Sheehan was not an anti-war activist, but the loss of her son and the mounting evidence of deception by the Bush administration pushed her to speak out. While Cindy camps roadside in Texas, dozens of other military moms are flying to Texas to join her. Her story is starting to grab national attention, but Cindy needs our support. We're asking moms (and dads, siblings, spouses and kids) from all across America to help send a message by signing our letter of support to Cindy. Will you sign?
http://political.moveon.org/meetwithcindy/?id=5886-3559603-BakDmlFEVXRxJPlIWJj6cg&t=3
To add to the pressure on President Bush, we'll publish the number of signers and the best comments in a full two-page spread in the newspaper nearest to Crawford. We want to be able to print that at least 200,000 people signed the letter to Cindy before the Friday print deadline.
Cindy simply wants to meet with the president to ask him to tell the truth about why her son died—and to stop using Casey's and other soldiers' deaths to justify continuing the war. But Cindy's reflections on the war are also a reminder to all of us about the importance of getting involved:
I shamefully and regretfully admit that before Casey was killed in Iraq I didn't publicly speak out against the war. I didn't shout out and say, "Stop. Stop this insane rush to an invasion that has no basis in reality. Don't invade a country based on cherry-picked intelligence and despicable scare tactics. You don't use our country's precious lifeblood unless its absolutely necessary to defend America." If I had broken the bonds of my slavery to silence sooner, would Casey still be alive? I don't know.
Cindy's story is starting to grab national and international attention, creating a public relations problem for the White House. If we can help Cindy capture the focus of the country for even a couple of days we will sear into the memory of the public the image of the grieving mother—a morally pure reminder of the ultimate reason to end the war: the lost sons and daughters of moms everywhere.
Cindy has appeared on ABC, CNN, and FOX, and yesterday the lead editorial in The New York Times entitled "One Mother in Crawford" noted that "many Americans are with her, at least figuratively, at that dusty roadside in Crawford, expecting better answers." With the White House press corps camped just a short distance away at Bush's ranch, our newspaper ad will help prod them to pay attention to her.
The more of us who sign on, the more impact we'll have. Please sign on now at:
http://political.moveon.org/meetwithcindy/?id=5886-3559603-BakDmlFEVXRxJPlIWJj6cg&t=4
In her grief and bravery, Cindy has become a symbol for millions of Americans who demand better answers about the Iraq war. Though right-wing pundits have attacked her personally, her honesty is unimpeachable. Now more and more mothers (and fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, sons and daughters) are standing up with Cindy. Please join us, and together, we'll make sure that President Bush can't escape the reality of this war—even in Crawford, Texas.
Thanks for all you do.
–Tom, MoveOn moms Carrie, Marika, and Joan, and the entire MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Wednesday, August 10th, 2005
P.S. Help defray the cost of the print ads in Waco by making a contribution.
https://political.moveon.org/donate/meetwithcindy.html?id=5886-3559603-BakDmlFEVXRxJPlIWJj6cg&t=5
"One Mother in Crawford" Editorial, The New York Times, August 9, 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/opinion/09tue1.html
Video Testimonial by Cindy Sheehan from our friends at TrueMajority.
http://www.truemajority.org/GoldStar_web.mov
P.P.S. After you add your name to the letter to Cindy the next most important thing you can do is to tell Cindy's story to other people. Please let your friends, family and colleagues know about one mother's brave stand in Texas by forwarding this e-mail.
Posted by Rob at August 16, 2005 01:10 PM
Comments
While I agree with you that lying to counter lies is not the path to enlightenment, I guess I don't really understand the big cover-up in this case. I can honestly say that I think Bush is sincere in his desire that the Iraqis be "free" (whatever that means), that he is sorry for the death the war is causing, that he is a man of faith AND that he lied to justify the war, wants to to control oil, and can and does act like an insensitive ass. I guess it doesn't seem inconsistant to me that she would have said all of those things and that they all were all true when she said them. That Fox News and Drudge could not imagine a person capable of complex and conflicting emotions and would choose to portray that as "flip-flopping" does seem consistant.
I have heard numerous reports (from the liberal media, no less) on this protest and all have mentioned that she met with Bush after her son died and has since changed her views on the war in light of the reports that the intelligence justifying the war was faked. I thought that was why everyone found her so compelling. She was a patriotic, support the troops mom who lost her son and has since become outraged that his death was meaningless because the justifications for invading Iraq were all falsifed. I don't know why moveon.org didn't mention that she had met Bush before but it really seems pretty irrelevant because her views on the war are different than they were when she met Bush the first time which is precisely why she wants to talk to him now, right? Or have I just been sucked into to the web of lies?
Posted by: hb at August 17, 2005 01:34 PM
Nice post Rob. Keep'em coming.
Posted by: Morgan at August 17, 2005 01:48 PM
no, of course i don't think you've been sucked into the web of lies. my only issue is that for a cause that granted, i believe in, people are being misled, even if it's only a little. i'm not worried about people who get more information. i'm worried about the large mass of people that get a limited amount of information to form their view of the truth, and therefore their opinions on.
this is marketing. it's "the impeachment tour." the pitch, the sell is that there's a bereaved mother who is standing out there until the president will grant her a face-to-face. it's brilliant in that .
on the one hand, he made the decisions, he has to be accountable, not the least to people like ms. sheehan. but at the same time, where does it end? let's be honest that this is not about cindy sheehan getting an audience with the despot, it's a set-up. he met with her once on his initiative. if he doesn't meet with her on her demand, he's an ass. you'd think the smart thing for him to do would be to meet with her. but if he does, he'll gain nothing other than opening the door to more of these lose-lose situations. if he meets with her, what are the chances that it'll become the new tool for moveon and other organizations, to inundate the administration with similar vigils and demands?
here's the deal - i think that would be a good thing. people need to be demanding that he tell the truth and be held accountable. there are thousands of people out there that have lost family and friends in the war (and that's just on our side). let them inundate the administration. there's just no need to be so slick and disingenuous about it.
all that said, this is a subject that's bugged me forever. this isn't the best example, it's just the one that unfortunately got me to write about it. the harm in this case is minor, but it's still indicative of the larger problem.
Posted by: rob at August 17, 2005 02:01 PM
thanks, morgan - incidentally, i know you left me a message last weekend wanting to see about getting together later this week. i will be outside your house, say, friday night, until you and amanda agree to hang out with me.
Posted by: rob at August 17, 2005 02:03 PM
p.s. - since i'm soapboxing, i'd like to add a comment about that guy that ran his truck (dragging a pipe) over 500 crosses and 40 american flags that symbolized dead soldiers...
what an ass. not even an "ass clown," as felipe might say, but a true "ass captain." the moron provided us a great example of irony - it's like a conservative burning the flag because he saw a liberal waving one.
and, of course, it's obscene. yes, they're being used as part of a protest. but they are still crosses (despite anyone's opinion on religion, they deserve respect) that symbolize fallen troops that we're supposed to be supporting... especially according to... people like him. i see some of those guys looking down going - "ok, dude, what the hell did I do to you?"
in summation, larry northern of waco - you are a true piece of shit that needs to be strung up by your balls.
ahh, i do love balanced, civilized rhetoric and debate...
Posted by: rob at August 17, 2005 02:11 PM
Ass captain... I like that.
Posted by: hb at August 17, 2005 06:21 PM