For the last few days, I’ve been getting more and more pissed off at the right’s efforts to smear Cindy Sheehan, the mom who’s camped out at Crawford against Bush. But this morning, I realize that I’ve been taking the wrong approach to the whole matter – instead of being angry at Bill O’Reilly and Matt Drudge and the other Bush-apologizing idiots, I should be encouraging them to keep it up.
After all, what better way is there to reveal the hypocrisy, fraud, and venom in these folks’ hearts than to see them turn their steamrollers against the mother of an Iraq war fatality? A majority of Americans already agree that this war is a misguided nest of lies; the harder the right-wing nutjobs slam Mrs. Sheeham, the faster they will sink into irrelevance.
So keep it up, right-wing smear machine! Keep showing us how “tough” you are by beating up on Cindy from your air-conditioned studios! Tell us how you “support the troops” by pissing over the grieving parents back home! Let’s see exactly what kind of “values” you really have here! Keep digging your own graves – it’s lots of fun from where I’m sitting…
And unfortunately I no longer have the belief in the American intellect as a whole to see the subtlety you describe. I certainly do, and so will others here, but there’s a reason the fight against ignorance is taking longer than we thought.
She’s gonna get creamed as a grieving woman who has lost her mind and is to be pitied, but not heard.
Would it kill Bush to give Ms. Sheehan an hour of his oh-so-precious time?
I heard him on “All Things Considered” yesterday, and he made her sound as if she were protesting his economic plan, not mourning the death of her son. Volunteer or not, her son is dead and she’d like some answers. I don’t see the harm in giving her any, except that there may be no answers, just rationalizations and excuses.
Probably. If he meets with her, individually, then he is faced with being called out to meet with any other protesting survivor. If 25% of the parents or spouses of fatalities want an audience, he’s looking at 450 more news events highlighting dissension. Even if the remaing 75% of survivors support him, they will never get the same sort of coverage, (not even on Faux News).
From a pragmatic perspective, this is a door that he is probably better off not opening.
Now, that is no reason to libel or slander this lady, or even patronizingly dismiss her, but he has a strong motive to never meet her.
Well, that and the fact that he would never put himself into a position where he actually had to answer real questions from real people who don’t already march in lockstep with him.
I have great sympathy for this woman’s grief. However, she chose to engage in a publis political statement. When I have seen her interviewed, she pretty much just repeated a request for the President to give her “a reason” why her son died. Well, I find it hard to imagine that she has not been exposed to any one of the numerous political speeches given by the President outlining his reasons for invading Iraq. Now, I can fully understand a person not finding those reasons sufficient, but I have a very hard time seeing her current activities as an honest attempt to seek understanding.
she has suffered a great loss and has chosen to use the emotional power and media attention surrounding that loss to make a political statement. I have no problem with that whatsoever. But she did volunteer to place herself into a millieu in which personal attacks are an expected response. I will refrain from cheering the “smeer machine”, but I will likewise refrain from considering Mrs Sheehan a martyr or a tragic figure for any reason other than the loss of her son (which tragedy enough for any parent to suffer).
He volunteered is the stupidest argument. They may be volunteers, but there is implicit in that vulnteering that the Presidnet won’t send you off on some ego-aggrandizing clusterfuck.
Hasn’t he already met with her once? I thought they’d already talked in the past but that she was unsatisfied with that encounter. Plus, he’s recently stated something to the effect of how we must continue our efforts there to honor those that have perished in the fight and that’s really got her upset all over again.
Regardless of anyone’s politics though, trashing Mrs. Sheehan is just shameful. Commentators are actually doing this?
I don’t recall any fine print to that effect when I took the oath of service. It is not, and should not, be a condition of service that a soldier agrees with the strategic decisions of his Commander-in-Chief.
They’ve already met. And she had nothing but nice things to say about the president then: ‘I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,’ Cindy said after their meeting. ‘I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.’
That was before the Michael Morons got ahold of her, though. The Left’s shameless explotation of this woman is sickening. She’s simply another Cause for them. That’s it. She’s an excuse for the Move-On idiots and the Michael Moore dopes to camp out and chant “Bush sucks” all night long. She doesn’t even seem to be aware that she’s being used like a puppet by these hateful people.
Besides, what does she think this meeting would accomplish? Her: “Bring the troops home.” The president: “No.”
What are we gonna do? Let hysterical women dictate US foreign policy now? Would ANY mother choose to sacrifice her son at, say, the beaches of Normandy? Gettysburg? Give me a break. She should’ve stopped her son from joining the military in the first place, as far as I’m concerned. What’s that? He was an adult and was free to do whatever he wanted? Oh. Well, I guess that’s it then.
I think Cindy Sheehan should enjoy her moment in the spotlight for the next week or so. Have fun being the center of attention, I suppose. She’s siding herself with Michael Moore’s army of idiots. I’m sure that’s exactly what her son and his brothers-in-arms would’ve wanted.
By the way, Bush should let the crowd at Camp Crawford get just a little bit bigger…and then give the announcement: “Release the hounds.”
She said in an interview last night that if people would read the rest of the article that the above quote came from, they’d see that she was not pleased even then, not thorougly satisfied, and that her position has not changed but merely clarified itself, compared to being in shock yet 9 weeks after her son was killed.
That being said, she did already meet Bush. I don’t see why she’s so special that she apparently deserves another private meeting with him, and that meeting with two of his top aides since then doesn’t suffice.
She also said this after her meeting with President Bush: “That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,” Cindy said. That’s quite a bit of ‘clarification’ she’s asking us to swallow.
By the way, it seems that Sheehan’s own family agrees that she’s being used by less-than-honorable individuals. They issued a statement that read in part: “We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son’s good name and reputation.”
Of course he is worried! His personal “economic plan” will be affected.
The only way to see movement towards a true independent and free Iraq is to allow Iraqis to control the economy (oil an contracts) ASAP. Not just any Iraqis, Iraqis that can face accountability. It cannot be just a monumental coincidence that the longer you remain in Iraq the bigger the profit for the contractors and the robbers over there. I posted before that Bush and cronies found a way to make the presidency their piggy bank, there is a pot of gold for members of this administration at the end of the presidency, from the corporations and the Iraq robber barons that profited and will continue to profit from this “enterprise”.
)