No, I do not note that at all. Sophomoric, perhaps. But then I’ve seen people accuse Ben Partin of being “crazy” simply because he used facts, chemistry and basic common sense to thoroughly debunk the wildly popular (and official) notion that a low-brissive ANFO explosion could take down 1/3 of a building in Oklahoma City in direct violation of the laws of physics. So I admit I may respond to that sort of differently than most.

The point is that I can entertain the notion that Reynolds is probably wrong while avoiding the urge to label him “crazy” since, to my knowledge, he hasn’t exhibited any *pattern* in this regard. Sheehan is a completely different story.

Either way, “tongue-in-cheeck” or not, labeling Reynolds “crazy” doesn’t square with your reaction to an *identical* comment by RevDubya, which you labeled “ad hominem” and which started this exchange. I’m glad you acknowledge that much.

I submit–again, in the interest of improved communication–that as long as you keep insisting that I’m making a medical diagnosis of Sheehan herself, as opposed to what I’ve actually done, which is to observe and note her wildly irrational *behavior* and the manner in which it’s been exploited by the media, you will succeed in evading my point. That’s not an agreement to disagree, that’s just you arguing against a strawman in place of dealing with the real issue.

I observe that Sheehan *acts* insane. You claim I’m not qualified to make a diagnosis. Impasse. Why? You’re arguing something unrelated to my observation by “attacking” me. How? By noting my lack of formal qualifications to diagnose. But you ignore the fact that I am not making a medical *diagnosis*. I am making layman’s observations and characterizing in the same way you observed and characterized Reynolds–except I’m using Sheehan’s *pattern* of behavior, facts, logic and a fairly extensive layman’s background in psychology, whereas you zeroed in on one single statement.

In closing on this I’ll just mention that there are myriad forms and even varying degrees of insanity, and not all of those are necessarily the result of a “chemical imbalance” (and no, I’m not a Scientologist). Psychiatrists and Psychologists even disagree on this notion. Psychiatrists–medical doctors–see everything in terms of the chemical/physiological; psychologists not so much. And even psychiatrists are rarely honest in this regard. On numerous occasions I have seen, first-hand, a psychiatrist prescribe benzodiazepines and SSRIs like Xanax, Paxil and Effexor with nothing to go on other than second-hand information and a 15 minute superficial consultation with the patient. Exactly zero blood tests were performed in any of these cases–ever–to verify a “chemical imbalance” or to verify that the prescribed drug had any effect on same. This is the rule, not the exception.

There is a range of afflictions that can be caused by serotonin, hormonal and other chemical imbalances. However, other aberrant behavior that is triggered by violent trauma (e.g., the grief at the loss of a parent or a child) and brought on by shock that results in an irrational retreat from reality, is rooted in psychological, not chemical, causes–even though it may be accompanied by chemical changes and “treated” (though not cured) with Xanax and the like. An example of this is Sheehan’s demonstrably insane *behavior* which I have observed and noted here.

Thanks for the discussion.

I’ve found GOY’s posts to be fantastically logical, cogent, pertinent, and far more patient that I could be.

DEBSAY, not that Justin accurately said people “feel misled.” That doesn’t mean they actually were, which in fact they weren’t. But as Swift noted: “it’s pointless to reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into in the first place.”

As far a Sheehan goes, I’ll echo here what Hitch said (since he does it more eloquently that I ever could): she’s a flake and a fraud. While we can sypathize with her loss, she’s not consequential.

But that never stopped the media from making hay before…

However, that doesn’t make your assertions true. It just make my assertions false. But I still think Morgan shows a clear lack of common sense and is out of touch with reality if he thinks that the Twin Towers were an inside job.

As far as me throwing ad hominems at you, well, I’m giving you my opinion about your ability to determine whether or not you can reasonably say that somebody is actually insane. I think certain credentials come along with that ability, and to my knowledge, you don’t have them. If you think that’s an ad hominem, then we’ll again have to agree to disagree.

And by the way, I have addressed some of your points about Sheehan, and I think they show a woman who is terribly conflicted and not being consistent. But insane? Hardly. I’ve heard and seen worse from people who were simply angry with Bush.

As for Sheehan’s behavior, I have yet to see anyone present any information indicating that she’s conducted herself rationally or presented a cogent case that merits any serious following whatsoever. In fact, what we’ve seen is the extreme opposite. We just haven’t seen it reflected in the media fanfare designed to turn her into a martyr.

I completely agree, and if you go back and read my post, you’ll see that I said something similar to what you’re saying now.

But again, that doesn’t make her insane. It just makes her ignornant. The two things can oftentimes be confused, but while one is simply caused by bad decisions and misinformation, the other is due to a chemical imbalance. I’m saying that you can not tell that she has that chemical imbalance without being her medical doctor. Is this an unreasonable assertion? Is that really an ad hominem?

Please, have your say after this, but I’m not going to answer it because I feel we’ve tried to make our points to the best of our abilities. Let’s move on to another topic.

You’re jumping the gun here on the “prove somebody is insane” item. Maybe it’s just that you don’t have the time to read things thoroughly, but at most I have asserted that Sheehan’s behavior is *demonstrably* insane, and cited numerous, documented instances–not opinion–upon which that assertion is based. That’s a far cry from the clinical diagnosis strawman you’re arguing against here. You claim I am not qualified to make an observation. That is a perfect ad hominem, and not worthy of your efforts here.

You keep avoiding this, but you had far less to go on when you labeled Morgan Reynolds “crazy”, my friend, yet the appellation of “crazy” is precisely what you labeled “ad hominem” in *this* scenario. That is a perfect Double Standard, and not worthy of your efforts here.

As for Sheehan’s behavior, I have yet to see anyone present any information indicating that she’s conducted herself rationally or presented a cogent case that merits any serious following whatsoever. In fact, what we’ve seen is the extreme opposite. We just haven’t seen it reflected in the media fanfare designed to turn her into a martyr.

If you truly think you can prove somebody is insane by reading some transcripts and watching some media clips, I can’t refute that. I obviously strongly, strongly disagree.

I’ll just leave it up to the court of public opinion now, who has probably left this conversation long ago for more interesting and important matters.

And yes, I’m qualified. Or are you saying that no one is allowed to observe someone else’s behavior and characterize it based on what they see? If that’s what you’re asserting, well then I guess we’re back to the question of Morgan Reynolds, aren’t we. ;-)

- In your world, you can determine somebody’s sanity by what anti-war rhetoric they say or seem to agree with.
Absolutely not. Read that again please: Absolutely not. You missed the point entirely, aside from the fact that you seem to be zeroing in on only one of the elements I listed (which sounds vaguely familiar).

If you review what I wrote, you will find that I did *not* take issue with Sheehan’s anti-war *rhetoric*–flawed, incendiary, wholly irrational, polarizing and fallacious though it may be.

What I observed, among numerous other examples, was that AFTER she publicly spewed this endless stream of unhinged, paranoid vitriol aimed directly at the President, and then arrived at his home in a bus marked “Impeachment Tour”, she publicly demanded a second meeting with him, ostensibly to ask him why he killed her son. Come on! That behavior is almost as wildly irrational as threatening to run one’s own son over with a car to keep him from being hurt, and Sheehan has exhibited BOTH!

Ultimately, that aberrant behavior is exactly what’s been mischaracterized as “normative” and “justifiable” by those who are trying to transform her from the sad, traumatized, babbling, grief-stricken soul she is into the anti-war crusader they desperately need.

Frist off, there was Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger concerning the yellow cake, which numerous other reports put out after the fact essentially agree with, but now that the story has been tarred and feathered by the right-wing, I don’t think this will hold any water with you.

However, let me point to some commissioned reports that do deal with pre-war intelligence, and how numerious people were openly questioning it. This is a report from the president’s commission on intelligence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100474.html

Moreover, a close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president’s commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel, shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein’s alleged weapons programs.

These included claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa for its nuclear program, had mobile labs for producing biological weapons, ran an active chemical weapons program and possessed unmanned aircraft that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. All these claims were made by Bush or then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in public addresses even though, the reports made clear, they had yet to be verified by U.S. intelligence agencies.

For instance, Bush said in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address that Hussein was working to obtain “significant quantities” of uranium from Africa, a conclusion the president attributed to British intelligence and made a key part of his assertion that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program.

More than a year later, the White House retracted the statement after its veracity was questioned. But the Senate report makes it clear that even in January 2003, just before the president’s speech, analysts at the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center were still investigating the reliability of the uranium information.

Similarly, the president’s intelligence commission, chaired by former appellate judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), disclosed that senior intelligence officials had serious questions about “Curveball,” the code name for an Iraqi informant who provided the key information on Hussein’s alleged mobile biological facilities.

The CIA clandestine service’s European division chief had met in 2002 with a German intelligence officer whose service was handling Curveball. The German said his service “was not sure whether Curveball was actually telling the truth,” according to the commission report. When it appeared that Curveball’s material would be in Bush’s State of the Union speech, the CIA Berlin station chief was asked to get the Germans to allow him to question Curveball directly.

On the day before the president’s speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball’s information on the mobile biological units in Bush’s speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball “problematical” and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters give “serious consideration” before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.

The next day, Bush told the world: “We know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile weapons labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors.” He attributed that information to “three Iraqi defectors.”

And then reports like the following seem point the finger at the intelligence community as the responsible party. Still, there was open debate within the community, and that’s important.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39864-2004Jul9.html

In a 440-page report that came to 117 conclusions, the committee said the intelligence community correctly determined that “there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.” The panel also concurred with the CIA’s conclusion that “there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al Qaeda attack,” including the Sept. 11, 2001, strikes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The committee also concluded that the CIA overstated what it knew about Iraq’s attempts to procure uranium in the African nation of Niger, and that it delayed for months examining documents that would prove to be forgeries, resulting in reports to policymakers that were “inconsistent and at times contradictory.” No one at the CIA told the National Security Council of concerns about the credibility of the Niger intelligence as President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech was drafted, contrary to officials’ previous assertions, the report said.

In evaluating the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the committee blamed intelligence leaders who “did not encourage analysts to challenge their assumptions, fully consider alternative arguments, accurately characterize the intelligence reporting, or counsel analysts who lost their objectivity.”

Senate aides, who conducted hundreds of interviews with intelligence officials throughout the government as well as with United Nations weapons inspectors and others, said they found no evidence that junior or senior officials knowingly distorted or withheld information to make a particular case. Nor did they find evidence of undue political pressure by policymakers. But they did conclude that contradictory information was often ignored or dismissed.

Then there’s also the Downing Street Memo, which I personally don’t think is a big deal, but I can certainly see that given it was written in July of 2002 some can see passages like the following and surmise that Bush wasn’t even interested in backing up the WMD claim.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

Will we ever know if Bush truly misled us or not? No, and I’ve advocated we move on. Personally, I don’t think he did. I think he was blinded by his ideology and his duty to protect the American people. However, there is enough circumstancial evidence surrounding this issue that the public has surmised that Bush wasn’t being truthful with them. In fact, in a Gallup poll conducted last month, 51% of the American public feels that they were “deliberately” misled into war, not just misled.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-26-poll-us-not-winning-iraq_x.htm

For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction â€â€? the reason Bush emphasized in making the case for invading. The administration’s credibility on the issue has been steadily eroding since 2003.

That’s strinking, and frankly it surprised me. But my above post spoke of a TREND. Whether or not these feelings are valid is up for debate, but the public has more than a few reasons to feel this way, and I think I’ve pointed to enough sources now for you to understand why this could be happening.

Link??? Link to investigative articles covering this would be appreciated… How much evidence did we have that Saddam didn’t have any weapons (before the war) of mass destruction??? When did we obtain it? How reliable was it and where did it come from?

Decisions aren’t made in a vacuum, the information builds on itself, you sift it and see which pile was bigger, which is more credible, etc. EVERYTHING I had heard prior to the war was that Saddam didn’t provide proof of destroying his WMDs, constantly played games with the inspectors, etc. which would lead a reasonable person to believe that he still had them. (We are finding more of his old stock) All I ask is that people deal in reality.

Sure there is Justin. It’s simple. Just present some evidence to the contrary.

You not a medical doctor who has sat down with Cindy and taken an assesment of her mental health. There, that’s my evidence. You aren’t qualified to make such judgements, so you’re immediately disqualified from throwing such salvos around. That’s the point.

What I am saying is that those who are cheering her are either (a) doing so based on a perception that reflects the media’s gross mischaracterization of her behavior as rational, which a clear analysis of all the facts shows that she is decidedly not, or (b) simply exploiting her and her son’s death for partisan purposes.

I’m sorry goy, but she basically said that Bush was the biggest terrorist of them all. In your world, you can determine somebody’s sanity by what anti-war rhetoric they say or seem to agree with. I’m using your methodology, not mine. One can imagine that the same people who would cheer that on are the same who would agree with other statements of hers. This is the slippery slope you’ve created. I’m just sliding down it with you.

Sure there is Justin. It’s simple. Just present some evidence to the contrary. But don’t just try to change the subject. We’re not talking about Frist here. In Sheehan’s case we’re talking about a clear, consistent *pattern* of wildly irrational behavior that the list above only samples, and which runs as far back as her threat to RUN HER SON OVER WITH A CAR to keep him from going to Iraq!! If Frist displayed the same clear *pattern* of irrational behavior, exacerbated by a traumatic experience like losing a child, then he would qualify for the same assessment. But given the facts as they currently stand, your comparison is apples to nuts and has no relevance to this discussion.

- by saying that she’s insane for saying such things, you’re also saying that everybody cheering her is essential insane.

No. Not at all. And I’m shocked you would jump to such an unfounded conclusion after lecturing me about guessing your state of mind to defend a point. What I am saying is that those who are cheering her are either (a) doing so based on a perception that reflects the media’s gross mischaracterization of her behavior as rational, which a clear analysis of all the facts shows that she is decidedly not, or (b) simply exploiting her and her son’s death for partisan purposes. It is my opinion that the latter far outweigh the former, and that this is what any “movement” is really all about.

Here’s the point: if you can label Morgan Reynolds “crazy” for questioning the official engineering assessment of the WTC collapse, then Cindy Sheehan MORE than qualifies for that same classification.

And on a side note, did you think this guy was “crazy” also: http://tinyurl.com/cm7fz ?

I think I’ve made that point pretty clear, supported it with numerous facts and, so far, have yet to see any cogent refutation.

My point is that you CAN’T prove her state of mind and therefore there is no way to cogentially refute your assertion. And to be frank, I went back and read those posts again just to make sure, and there’s a lot of idiocy there, but nowhere in there is anything which you could use to demonstrate that a person is insane. It’s like Bill Frist looking at the videotape of Terri Schiavo and saying that she could come out of it. Your methodology is inherently flawed starting right out of the gate.

Also, by saying that she’s insane for saying such things, you’re also saying that everybody cheering her is essential insane. Misguided? Yes. Wrong? Yes. Insane? Neither you or I can say, so again, quit trying to diagnose psychological conditions on this blog. It is WRONG.

- please don’t guess MY state of mind to defend your point.
Well, since you’re not specific here it’s tough to divine your reference, but I’ll try. You wrote that you don’t use the term “insane” lightly, and for specific reasons. I also don’t use the term lightly, and for the same reasons: i.e., I empathize. That’s not a guess. It was based on your own statement.

- Make valid arguments without attacking people or don’t make them.
I’ve already done that, and I haven’t attacked anyone. It’s possible you believe observing and assessing someone’s behavior is an “attack”. And there is certainly a context in which that might be true. This, however, isn’t it, as I’m happy to explain.

If I were arguing with Sheehan’s *position* on an issue, it would be incumbent upon me to make that argument based on facts and not on some ad hominem mischaracterization of her, personally. But the fact is that I am *not* arguing against anything she’s asserted (and BTW, neither was RevDubya). I’m addressing the issue on which you originally posted.

Sheehan’s utterly irrational behavior, and the manner in which that behavior has been mischaracterized, glorified and exploited by the media, are the heart of the point at issue here. They are vitally significant when considering the question of whether or not *she* has started a movement. She hasn’t. She and her son’s death have simply been used to give non-stop voice to the shrill, anti-war rhetoric that couldn’t get any real news coverage without a grieving, Bush-hating mother to parade in front of the American public. I think I’ve made that point pretty clear, supported it with numerous facts and, so far, have yet to see any cogent refutation.

If you honestly believe that’s “polarizing”, I’m just not sure how to respond unless you can describe, specifically, what you mean by that label.

And debsay, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Saddam didn’t have the capabilities to produce the weapons, and that his program had been pretty much inactive since weapons inspectors were last there. However, there was also evidence to the contrary, so Bush and company decided to pay attention to that instead and build a case for war. I understand WHY they did it, but when the administration seeds a reporter like Judith Milller with a story about saddam’s nukes, makes sure to have themselves be an “anonymous” source, and then has Cheney go on national tv and point to that NY Times article as more proof that Saddam has WMDs? Well, that doesn’t pass my smell test, debsay.

Is it any wonder, then, that a growing number of people felt that they were misled? Obviously you don’t, but the trend is there. You can either continue to ignore it and accuse Dems of being Unamerican or you can address it and try to understand why it’s happening. Because it certainly isn’t because of Cindy Sheehan.

Justin,

Is there any evidence that Bush had intelligence that said that Saddam didn’t have WMD??? Did some big piece of evidence come in between the time that Clinton claimed WMD’s and when Bush claimed the same thing???? If so, I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere, is there a link to it???? If not, then once again I have to wonder at Democrats thinking that we want to vote them into power when they obviously identifiy with being a Democrat first and an American second….

It’s either very naïve or intellectually dishonest to defend Sheehan’s behavior while at the same time labeling as “ad hominem” an observation that accurately describes her utterly irrational behavior. And this is especially true in the context of pretending she’s started some sort of movement.

The only “movement” here is the effort to perpetuate the “Bush lied/Israel is Satan/Terrorists are Justified” myth by playing the utterly fallacious Appeal to Emotion card.

Perhaps it wasn’t obvious, but that’s exactly what I was doing when I wrote: “In the final analysis, this entire affair points up the sad, deceitful desperation of the Bush-bashing exempt media, the BDS-stricken, moonbat left and the unhinged, peace-at-any-cost anti-war zealots (and their collective apologists) who have stooped to the level of exploiting a woman who has arguably been driven demonstrably insane by grief, all in the pursuit of their destructive, anti-American, anti-democratic political agenda.”

As for the ‘crazy mom’ comment, it’s fairly common knowledge that Sheehan herself claimed she’d run over her son with the car to keep him out of the war – long before anyone knew who she was. *THAT* qualifies as crazy.

Again, if you want to keep defending stuff like this, I can’t stop you, but it certainly seems like an exercise in futility.

Goy, please, let’s focus on the broader issues and trends (which this post was about) instead of debating whether or not somebody is sane.