Sheehan ‘n Sean

Cindy Sheehan appeared on Sean Hannity’s show today, and made mincemeat of him.
Cindy has now gone public with her suspicion that the Great 9-11 was done with complicity of neo-con forces.
Sean indignantly asked her for evidence.
So Cindy gave him evidence: the “coincidental” standing down of Norad.
So then Sean repeats his question, but with a twist: “do you have proof? No you don’t have proof.”
Sean, not all evidence constitutes, by itself, proof; that doesn’t mean it is not evidence.
Sean is the master equivocator and sleight-of-hand distractor.
+++++++++++++++++++++
A guy called in and when Sean saw who he was, bumped him to the front of the line, cutting someone else off. So it must have been someone important in Sean’s eyes.
The fellow’s point? that Cindy didn’t really “stay in a tent” at some demonstration in Crawford, Texas. Cindy denied the charge and I believe her.
But more important: as if that’s important, fellow!
A real cad.
Others called in and spouted the old cliché, that yes a world without war would be wonderful, but that’s not our world.
True, but that’s another distraction. Why are we killing Iraqis in this war?
+++++++++++++++++++++
Sean needs to share the blame with Rush for several things.
Redefining conservatism as knee-jerk pro-war.
Indeed, that being pro-war is the only non-negotiable to count as a conservative.
The loss of belief in reason and law in justifying their position. Rhetorical tricks are fine if done in service to the neo-con war machine. The Right is becoming vulgar, unthinking, and party-spirited under the tutelage of Rush and Sean.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Though Cindy was quite magnificent, something needs to be said in criticism of her stated position as well.
She said we have no business waging this unjust war when people are starving in our own land.
Forget the minor premise (”there are starving people in America”). That’s not the issue here.
The major premise (”if people are starving then we have no business waging an unjust war”) opens up the possibility that waging an unjust war might be an option, provided no one is going hungry.
Of course she doesn’t mean that. But pushing an enthymeme whose major premise won’t stand up under scrutiny will weaken our position in the long run, even if it scores short-term points.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Why is Sean submitting to putting someone on that, overall, makes so much sense compared to him? when usually the “opponent” is just there to be an easily-bullied patsy?
I would worry a bit, if I were Cindy, that she is now experiencing the “good cop” handling. The neo-cons would rather lure the restive colts back into the pen — get them to scamper in voluntarily –, rather than, right off the bat, putting bullets into their heads