Norman Soloman writes about Cindy Sheehan’s Moral Alternative to Bush and Dean:
In , after many years of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg wrote: “In that time, I have seen it first as a problem; then as a stalemate; then as a crime.”
…the US war effort in Iraq is not a quagmire. It is what Daniel Ellsberg came to realize the Vietnam War was: “a crime.”
Cindy Sheehan — and many other people who have joined her outside the presidential gates in Crawford, and millions of other Americans — understand that. And they’re willing to say so. They have rejected not only the rabid militarism of the Bush administration but also the hollowed-out pseudo-strategic abdication of moral responsibility so well articulated by Howard Dean.
…Bush got his scripted syntax inverted when he made the mistake of saying something that rang true: “Obviously, the conditions on the ground depend upon our capacity to bring troops home.”
While Bush sees the war as a problem and Dean bemoans it as a stalemate, Sheehan refuses to evade the truth that it is a crime. And the analysis that came from Daniel Ellsberg in , while the Vietnam War continued, offers vital clarity today: “Each of these perspectives called for a different mode of personal commitment: a problem, to help solve it; a stalemate, to help extricate ourselves with grace; a crime, to expose and resist it, to try to stop it immediately, to seek moral and political change.”
Meanwhile, the right-wing is blowing its top. Rush Limbaugh:
And the hawk attack blogs are making a big deal about Sheehan’s tax resistance vow (Cindy Sheehan Confesses to Being a Tax Cheat!) while the peacenik world is more-or-less ignoring it.
Although the Sheehan vigil is the top story on SmirkingChimp.com, a blog that collects articles from the anti-Dubya press, I checked through the eleven front-page articles on the subject and not a one mentioned Ms Sheehan’s declaration of tax resistance. I have yet to see any suggestions or musings that maybe her supporters might want to sign on to that protest.
I’ve got to suspect that this is a case of “we support you Cindy — as long as we can do it without having to do more than express our opinion!”