Why is Anderberg slandering Sheehan?
Steven Black
Having read endless diatribes by Kirsten Anderberg published on Portland IMC and having seen my attempt to comment on them removed and/or deleted for no reason other than opposing Kirsten Anderberg's views, I have decided to publish this reply elsewhere in the hope that my concerns about Anderberg's free reign on various IMC's can be denounced. The final straw is an article Anderberg has written denouncing Cindy Sheehan and defaming Cindy Sheehan's son: How Many Kids Did Cindy Sheehan's Kid Murder?
Let me begin by making my own position on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq clear. I oppose these wars vigorously. I consider these wars to represent the height of American stupidity, malice, and criminality. I believe that everyone from President Bush down to his commanders on the front lines should be arrested and put on trial for war crimes. Now that it is clear that war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not support anyone who chooses to fight on the American side in these wars. With that said, I will now point out the ethical depravity represented in the position promulgated by Kirsten Anderberg in her article.
Kirsten Anderberg's Libeling of Cindy Sheehan's Son
Kirsten Anderberg makes the following statements about Cindy Sheehan's son:
While it is self evident that Iraqis have been terrorized by American soldiers, I have seen no evidence that Cindy Sheehan's son has terrorized Iraqis. A relative of my own has been sent to Iraq in a medical role. Will Kirsten Anderberg one day write that he has terrorized Iraqis? I am aware of absolutely zero information that has been published which indicates that or supports the position that Cindy Sheehan's son has terrorized Iraqis, nor do I find it reasonable to infer that he has. What would motivate one "activist" to smear the son of another activist in this way? I will provide several possible answers to this question later in this article.
The next charge is that Cindy Sheehan's son has murdered. Murder is the unlawful taking of another person's life. From a legal point of view, the war in Iraq is an illegal war. Murder is defined to be "the unlawful taking of a human life." Bush has ordered Americans into Iraq to fight an illegal war. At the time of deployment, most Americans believed that the war was a legal war. They believed this not because it is true but because they were lied to by their government and their government's lies were supported by the media. Those of us, myself included, who opposed the war from the start were tuned into alternative sources of information, aware of American history, and had a realistic understanding of why the government's position should be rejected and why the corporate media should be ignored. However, we were in a very small minority. The majority of Americans who supported the war around the time Cindy Sheehan's son was sent to Iraq were working under false assumptions which were foisted upon them unethically. Under such circumstances, given the plight of a soldier on the battlefield who has been lied to about his reasons for being sent to combat, it is not at all clear that these soldiers were committing murder. Yes, their President who sent them and lied to them about the reasons for the war is guilty of murder, but the soldiers who merely fought on false premises are not murderers. Unless Kirsten Anderberg can demonstrate that Cindy Sheehan's son killed someone while knowing that the war was based on false premises for any reason other than self defense, her charges are libelous.
Kirsten Anderberg levels the charge that Cindy Sheehan's son has plundered in Iraq. This charge I find to be the most unsupportable of all. She is accusing Cindy Sheehan's son of stealing items from Iraq and taking personal possession of them. There is not only absolutely no evidence supporting this position, but there is no reason to even fantasize that this was the case. Yes, some American soldiers plundered (enough of them did so to get caught), but this in no way is reasonable cause to believe that any particular soldier plundered.
The final charge leveled against Cindy Sheehan's son is that he was a "paid terrorist." Given that we have already dismissed the charge that he was a terrorist, this accusation becomes voided.
In addition to libeling Cindy Sheehan's son, Kirsten Anderberg goes on to libel Cindy Sheehan. Anderberg makes the following heartless charges against Cindy Sheehan:
Anderberg claims:
Let us address these one at a time.
Anderberg claims that Cindy Sheehan said nothing to her son about torturing, terrorizing or murdering Iraqis in an illegal war. I ask you, how does Anderberg know what Cindy Sheehan discussed or did not discuss with her son? How could she possibly know? Clearly, she doesn't know. Nevertheless, despite the fact that she does not know she strongly and boldly makes this claim as if she is omniscient (which she clearly isn't). A kind interpretation of Anderberg's libel would be that she is delusional. However, I do not believe that she is delusional. More on that later.
Anderberg charges Cindy Sheehan with being completely self-centered. This flies in the face of the evidence. Cindy Sheehan has sacrificed a large amount of her own time standing up against war criminal Bush and demanding an end to an illegal war. Cindy Sheehan is sacrificing her own safely, her own comfort and her own time to help end the murder of Iraqis. I cannot imagine how an objective person would come to the conclusion that Cindy Sheehan is being completely self-centered. Where does this come from?
Anderberg asserts that Cindy Sheehan is capitalizing on her son's death in order to pursue a new career path. Um, what career path would that be, Ms. Anderberg? Would it be the career path of a political activist? They make a lot of money don't they? How would this amount to "capitalizing." I detect some darker motivation behind Anderberg's accusations. After all, Anderberg's own website is a frequent forum for her solicitation of funds from readers for Anderberg's most important cause: herself.
Making things worse, Anderberg charges Cindy Sheehan with causing the deaths of Iraqis. How exactly did Cindy Sheehan cause the deaths of Iraqis? Did she cause these deaths by giving birth to her son? Should all women just cross their legs and not bear children lest they accidentally kill someone by giving birth? Before I read this, I did not think Anderberg capable of such low blows, but now I stand corrected.
Finally, Anderberg charges that Cindy Sheehan raised a paid murderer and terrorist. Well, Ms. Anderberg, my mother raise several sons. One is a US Army officer and another is an anarchist. Could you please explain to me how it is that my mother is responsible for one son becoming a soldier and the other becoming an anarchist? Perhaps it will shed some light on your non-logic.
Why is Anderberg publishing such trash?
Understanding Kirsten Anderberg takes years of reading her materials. Several very clear patterns emerge upon inspecting her writings. Anderberg is a misandrist. Her writings are full of vindictive flung against men. As well, they are full of false accusations against individuals (always male), and outright false statements about society that are easily refuted (the refutations of which are religiously deleted by Portland IndyMedia). She makes grand anti-male generalizations and then applies them to individual men, sometimes by name, without any evidence. We see this once again, only this time directed at the son of Cindy Sheehan. Anderberg's comments directed against Sheehan's son are her false attributions based on nothing more than her hatred for men. Notice, Anderberg does not mention the fact that women are deployed in Iraq as well and that these women are murdering alongside men. She also mentions Iraqi mothers as victims of the war while not mentioning Iraqi fathers. For Anderberg, all that matters is that women are a priori victims and that men are a priori criminals. This is an unbalanced and untrue view of the world.
On another level, Anderberg is attacking Sheehan because she views Sheehan as a successful activist and views herself as an unsuccessful activist. She believes that since she writes and has written for some time, she deserves the fame, attention, and respect that Sheehan is receiving. Her jealously of Sheehan provokes her to libel Sheehan for no reason other than making a name for herself. Personally, I find this disgusting.
Anderberg's diatribe against Sheehan forwards the goals of one and only one party: the party that wishes to silence opposition to the war. It is a backhanded way of doing it. Frankly, with "friends" like Anderberg, we don't need enemies.