Yes, but are they putting her up to it, or otherwise enabling her? Or just jumping on a PR goldmine?
I’d say the latter, myself. What say you?
They are jumping on the PR band-wagon (gee, who ever thought that a protest would actually generate publicity?) Now, if one want’s to speculate on what those groups motives are, I wouldn’t necessarily call bullshit on the argument that those groups are somehow trying to “cash in” on the publicity that Ms. Sheehan is generating. Mind you, I might not agree with it, but I think (to me) it’s a more reasonable assumption to make.
The only real distress I’m showing is about your lie regarding my postings in this threads, and your failure to retract your statement and apologize to me.
The right is really much more frightened of Mrs. Sheehan than it lets on. Of course, if they think she’s being exploited for political purposes, they need only look in the mirror for the same behavior. From the 2005 State of the Union address
You can’t have it both ways. Either grieving parents are ripe for political exploitation or they aren’t.
I don’t care if Mrs. Sheehan or anyone else is making money of this anti-war fight. Anything they make would be a drop in the ocean compared to the shameless profiteering of Haliburton. I’m not interested in her marital status or the opinions of her soon to be ex-in-laws. I’m not even terribly concerned if Casey Sheehan went over with unbridled enthusiasm or was dragged off kicking and screaming. The only thing that I would measure Mrs. Sheehan about is this: Is she right or not?
Forget whether the war was started over bad intelligence or bad intentions. The pertinent question to ask ourselves now is whether or not continued American military presence makes sense. As each day passes and the insurgents who were supposedly in their death throes six months ago keep up their killings unabated, you have to wonder how long can this effort make sense? At some point, we have to let go of this notion of a model Jeffersonian democracy springing up in Baghdad. It just isn’t going to happen. There is a growing groundswell of public opinion against this war. Mrs. Sheehan may well be the spark that ignites the opposition, but the fuel for this fire was building for a long time without her help.
Good post, BobLibDem.
Good point about political exploitation, with an excellent cite to back it up.
Take a deep breath, dude. It’s pretty obvious what he meant: he said “speculate” when he should have said “discussed” or “talked about” or some such, and he has backed off of it.
You need an engraved latter saying “I’m sorry” to mount on your trophy shelf?
I haven’t said one word about her “financial situation.” Kindly retract your bearing of false witness.
I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
It’s even more obvious what he said, which was a lie. I would like to see him come clean and apologize, that’s all. It’s not that much to ask, IMO.
Which in no way addressed the fact that I haven’t said a damn thing about Mrs. Sheehan’s “financial position.” Not. One. Word.
Stop lying about my record.
I am sorry. I mistakenly added you to this list.
Please understand that it wasn’t done maliciously. It was a simple error wholly on my part.
Duly noted and accepted. Thank you very much.
You really can’t see the difference between the two? In your cited case, you have a parent who recognized and accepted her grown son’s commitment to the service he joined and the uniform he wore, and who publicly honered that son’s adult choices, even as they tore him away from her. Janet Norwood was proud of her son for having been a man of convictions, and principles, for which he was unafraid to die.
Cindy Sheehan rejects any notion that her son was a grown man, and responsible for his own destiny. The fact that he reenlisted to go back to Iraq speaks volumne about that young soldier, and the people manipulating Cindy Sheehan are disrespecting Specialist Sheehan’s memory, service, and death.
The Norwoods certainly are as entitled to their opinion as Mrs. Sheehan is. I don’t think Mrs. Sheehan is any less proud of her son than any other grieving parent. The differences I see are that the Norwoods’ opinions got them a mention in the State of the Union address, while Mrs. Sheehan’s opinions are getting her ridicule from the right. The Norwoods believed in the war and used their appearance to promote it. At the time, I thought it was exploitation and I still do.
At some point, perhaps even the Norwoods will lose their faith in the cause. If they do, they’re free to join Sheehan and her followers. But if they do, will you then think they are dishonoring their son? If the war took my son, and I thought it was an unjustified war, I’d do what I could to end it so that other families would not experience the same pain as I did. Is that so dishonorable?
So if your son gets killed in Iraq and you support the President’s policies, then it’s okay to let yourself be used as a symbol of those policies.
But if your son gets killed in Iraq and you oppose the President’s policies, then you’d better shut up because you’re disrespecting his memory, service, and death.
IOKIYAR.
The POINT was actually about useing personal tradegy for political gain. Sheehan, MoveOn and Moore have been heavily criticized for doing so. Turns out that GWB and company are also participants in such a heinous act.
Can you see that even though the son was a grown man and went in knowingly that doesn’t change her grief or her right to believe that she and her son were lied to about why he was there. You’re right. Her son chose to serve honerably for something he felt was meaningful. Now try to imagine the anger that arises when you come to the realization that the cause that was presented to you by the leaders you trusted was bullshit. You may not agree about that cause but you should be able to imagine the anger that such a belief might bring up.
You assume that people who are against Bush and this war are manipulating her rather than just agreeing with her cause which is to stop this war and prevent more unnessecary American deaths. They feel Bush manipulated a nation into an unnessecary and no win type of war. Even if you don’t agree there is evidence that makes their viewpoint a pretty dam valid one.
The Norwoods didn’t appear because they believed, but because their son Sgt. Byron Norwood, USMC, believed. Just as Specialist Casey Sheehan believed.
Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and MoveOn are using the memory of a grown man who believed in something they don’t to promote their cause.
That’s the difference. Not what the parents believed, not what the politicos believed, not what the pundits and commentators believed, but what the deceased believed.
? :dubious:
What the deceased believed is irrelevant. They are dead. If they believed, great. If not, great. But what matters is what should be done now, not what the dead believed in.
This argument makes no sense. Dying doesn’t sanctify your opinion or make you right. Just because Casey believed in what he was doing doesn’t make him right. Cindy Sheehan has the right to claim her loss and the right to demand an explanation for her loss when she believes it was unnecessary. Yes, Casey chose to serve. That doesn’t mean Bush was right in sending him to his death. Casey’s beliefs are irrelevant here. The question is between Bush, Cindy Sheehan, the living public, and calling our goverment to account for its dishonesty and incompetence.