Redstate

Cindy Sheehan chose to go public, she chose to protest the war, and she chose to drag her son into it.  All the Left did was to chose to declare her above criticism - in spite of the fact she chose to enter the fray.

Given her comments, and the fatc she made the choice to enter the fray, I do not think it is beyond the pale to call her moonbatty actions and comments what they are.

So here's my point, and it's two-fold: Cindy Sheehan has no more right to argue against the Iraq War than I have to argue against legalized abortion.

She also has no LESS a right to argue against the Iraq War than you do to argue against legalized abortion.

The loss of her son doesn't give her any rights.  However it gives her relevance, particularly in the media and political climate of today.

lots of people lose children.  One of my good friends lost her 17 month old to meningitis.  A friend of my mom lost her daughter to cancer.  Both experienced great grief.  But neither of them had a convienient scapegoat to put all their anger on.

Ms. Sheehan does have the scapegoat, and she also has tons of barking moonbats to help her continue to blame the scapegoat.  

Let me just make one other point about the tactic that the left is currently using with Cindy Sheehan which is just an extension what liberals usually do when they are losing on the facts (which is most always). They dredge up someone who is More Qualified to deal with the facts due to some Personal Circumstance in their life than "conservative person X" has. It's despicable.

Notice that when their guy Clinton was running for office against two legitimate World War II heroes (one partially disabled from war injuries), war service wasn't such an important Personal Circumstance. Now that they've lost their case with the American public at the polls, they're trying to trot out everyone they can find with Personal Circumstances that just demand (demand!) that they be listened to, regardless of the validity or insanity of their arguments.

In this case, it is doubly shameful, because the Personal Circumstance they are using is the death of a loved one - and they are attempting to pimp this woman's grief as a reason why they are More Qualified to speak on the legitimacy of the war.

We all have difficult things that happen to us in life, and I'll freely admit that I've never had anything as difficult as the death of a child to deal with in my life. But I've had other issues with Personal Circumstances that I won't get into at this point, and that doesn't make me More Qualified to spin facts than it does anyone else.

It all comes down to the classic liberal techniques. When they are losing on the merits of the case, they will attempt to persuade through rank emotionalism, and their exploitation of this situation (with Ms. Sheehan's full co-operation) is indicative to me that their idea tank is on E.

To fully grasp all of the implications of this story.

we see a women incoherent in the resolution of her son's death.  If she truly wants us out of Iraq; she will need to involve some of the democrats who voted for the war and continue to support it.  Hanging out in front of the President's house is a cheap political stunt that makes the option of pulling out of Iraq look like a fringe choice.  Her son went into the military voluntarily.  The media is giving her coverage, but her reputation as a spokesperson for a legitimate cause is not there - it's a mother who avoids her grief by seeking media attention - very much like terri schiavo's mother.

I agree with you that she doesn't have any MORE of a right to criticize or SUPPORT this war.  But she does have relevance, just like a mother who supports this war and has a dead soldier son has relevance.

I don't agree with how some wish to shield her from criticism because she lost her son.  As I said said elsewhere she voided her right to such protection.  But to suggest that she has no right or place to criticize this war is silly.  

Apparently dismissive ad hominem is the only thing you will respond with so obviously there is little point in trying to have a discussion with you.

If your penultimate comment is what you think I was trying to say, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension, as no one else has thought that, and no reasonable reader would.

Is being a "media whore" better or worse than being a "blog whore?" ;)

I think we'd all like to influence, if not capture, the media cycle for a day.  Cindy Sheehan was, somehow, the accidental person that the media spotlight shone on for one moment and it turned out that she was uniquely equipped -- by her circumstance, not by any special power -- to set off some pretty spectacular vibrations through the public discourse, generally.

At this point, it seems almost tangential to critics what Mrs. Sheehan has to say.  "How she is saying it" is the most important part of this story to them.  Beyond all of that, there is this pressing concern of whether or not "she has the right to speak out."

Your remark about "media whore" seems to indicate that you think she has exceeded the limit of where speech is appropriate or permitted.

First, I'm very sorry for your loss. The desire to have children among our species is very strong, and I certainly hope you're able to have, or already have, more.

But I don't quite see the parallel you are trying to draw. You apparently suffered your loss through an accident and/or a miscarriage. Cindy Sheehan lost hers through what she deems to be, rightly or wrongly, an unnecessary, correctable process. Now she wants to keep other parents and their children from having to go through the same thing. No one forced an abortion on your family...and you certainly didn't CHOOSE to have one given your comments. Were this China, and an abortion were forced on you, I would be very surprised if you did NOT use your personal loss to highlight your side of the issue. It would be the only way to ensure that the loss of your child was not in vain.

Another thing that puzzles me is that in your link to Sheehan's diary, you blame the "left," or try to imply that Sheehan blames the left, for her family problems. This is clearly not the case. "Ghoulish" is Matt Drudge posting a fake e-mail from her family, not the left supporting Sheehan's cause.

Ghoulish is the media <person who sells her dignity to get what she wants> Cindy Sheehan virtually dragging her son's body around, and metaphorically standing on him to use as a soapbox while she spews her vile lies and overall message of hate.

I keep hearing people refer to the lefts message of hate.  Since when was is it logical to characaterize an anti-war, pro peace message, as a message of hate. You may disagree with the message, but you certainly can not believe it's a message of hate.

that was my initial comment, not my penultimate comment.

We could also talk about your use of the nefarious and nebulous term The Left.  Who is The Left?  

Sheehan made a choice.  The media found it newsworthy.  Nothing terribly shocking here.  Some people are going to use that for their political purposes.  Others are going to dismiss the story for their political purposes.  

Is this any different than the President wheeling out the children born from frozen embryos to further his agenda?  

"I keep hearing people refer to the lefts message of hate.  Since when was is it logical to characaterize an anti-war, pro peace message, as a message of hate. You may disagree with the message, but you certainly can not believe it's a message of hate."

Let's see...

Comparing Bush and others to Hitler (unfavorably).

That great message of non-hate: "We support the troops when they shoot their officers."

Et cetera, et cetera, and so on, and so forth...

. . . pretty thoroughly here

that the notions of communism and islamism are merely excuses we have concocted to build bombs and use them to kill people; in other words, the belief that we got what we deserved on 9/11, and are to blame for every evil thing that the islamists have done to us.

Liberals, please correct me if I am mis-stating ...

Liberals seem to attach a sense of moral authority to the notion of "authenticity", and seem to believe that authenticity is best demonstrated by emotional agitation.  Thus the person who is most outraged, or upset, or angry, or grief-stricken is defined as the most authentic, and hence carries the greatest moral authority.  QED.

This explains the liberals' fondness for organized "protests". It provides an outlet for mass demonstration of emotional (and thus moral) credentials. It also explains their attachment to violent extremist organizations like the Black Panthers and, today, ELF/ALF. Anybody that upset must be genuine.  

It also explains why Maureen Dowd can give voice to the liberal consensus that nobody has as much moral authority as a mother who has lost a son incombat.

The irritation most conservatives have with Cindy Sheehan is not that she seems to have a beef wth the President, it is this ridiculous notion that she is somehow imbued with a special moral authority by virtue of having lost her son.

Liberals treat her as if she should be above criticism as a result. This piece puts it very well. Cindy Sheehan has no more moral authority on the Iraq War, or anything else, than any other person in America. She is a sad and pathetic figure.  And the Left's embrace of her as a "prophet of the cause" is a very sad spectacle.        

I can only imagine the depths of your loss, and Sheehan's for that matter (there but for the grace of God go I, and I don't forget it).  She is certainly being exploited by the left, but plenty of private grief has been exploited by politicians and activists of every political stripe.  Culture-of-lifers didn't find it unseemly when Hannity broadcasted from outside a hospice, or when Santorum visited Sciavo as part of a fund-raising trip, they saw a machinery willing to exemplify its points through some very sympathetic human beings -- Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.  We can no more blame Sheehan herself for taking advantage of the Left's machine than we can blame the Schindler's for taking advantage of the conservative machine.  Heck, I'd do the same for my kids now, not to mention how berserk I'd be if I ever lost one of them.

But this does not excuse the behavior of a media/politics machine that exploits the grief of others.  I (as most of those here) take great offense at the feet of the Left's machine for supplying Sheehan with outrageous talking points, publicizing her campout beyond proportion, and pushing her to make political demands.  But I also feel similar disgust when it happens in the conservative sphere, even if I agree with the cause more -- maybe even more because it's for a cause I don't want to see cheapened.

and she was not randomly chosen by the media to have their spotlight shone on. She went public with her grief. The media shone on her because she looked like a promising story to help boost ratings.  The main argument IS "how she is saying it", which is by blurring the line between her war protesting and grievances over her son's death.

They're seperate. One can grieve without rallying against Bush, just as one can rally against Bush without having to drag a dead person to justify her argument. No one said she overstepped any rights. She has the right to do as she wishes, and everyone else has the right to criticize her actions as they see fit. We aren't preventing her from making any statements.

... why it was in his plan to take your child early, wouldn't you?

If you were willing to literally die in order that the child could live, then wouldn't you want to ask those who could have prevented it why it was necessary?

But I'll be damned before I drag a child over whom I still cry sometimes into a political mudfight.

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

Cindy Sheehan has no more right to argue against the Iraq War than I have to argue against legalized abortion.

Isn't the nature of our nation supposed to be about our right to argue against things? Furthermore, your loss has nothing to do with abortion. Your loss is completely irrelevent to abortion. Her loss has everything to do with the war.

Without abortion, you would have still experienced your loss, as tragic as it is (unless there is something that I'm missing). Without the war, she would not have lost her son. It is dishonorable to the service of that man to compare them.

just as one can rally against Bush without having to drag a dead person to justify her argument.

Then why does the current administration drag out the dead from 9/11 everytime they need to justify their arguments for a war in a country that they admit has no ties to that attack?

Why is the DOD dragging out the dead for the Freedom March to whip up support for the war?

I think you are right in saying that she was deliberately chosen by the media in order to boost ratings, circulation, etc.

It's weird ...

At this point, I don't think that anyone can deny the extraordinary efficacy of her actions, as far as gaining public visibility for her cause.  By contrast, anti-war protests in 2003 numbering over 100,000 people warranted only the briefest of mentions on the news.

I think it's natural for the left to be crowing over Mrs. Sheehan's media success.  It's also natural for the right to feel outraged.

But there is a whole other level of this story that I have yet to figure out.

Comparing Zarqawi's thugs to the minutemen...

At this point, I don't think that anyone can deny the extraordinary efficacy of her actions, as far as gaining public visibility for her cause.  By contrast, anti-war protests in 2003 numbering over 100,000 people warranted only the briefest of mentions on the news.

This is no different from the hundreds if not thousands of kidnappings and missing children each day that go unreported, yet the nation will be entranced for weeks by certain ones that the media latches onto.

Or the scores of families who have to decide every day whether to remove their loved one from life support, yet the nation was flooded with Terri Schiavo news.

This is how the media works. Only a few news stories make it through, and they pick the ones that will generate the most "hits".

There shouldn't be any suprise here. She is camping near on Bush's ranch. That is news enough on it's own and is unique enough to draw ratings... compared to an anti-war protest that most people will already think "heard it... not interested... tell me something new and interesting".

I've seen a lot of bogus comparisons between these two women, and I'd like to note the following: all the pictures you saw on TV and elsewhere of Terri Schiavo were from (approx.) 2000 or before.  She hadn't had any new pictures taken of her in years, thanks to the wishes of her husband.  One of the original goals in publicizing her case was to get that restriction lifted, but it never was.

the death of your unborn child with the death of Sheehan's 24 year old child.  And according to you there's nothing special about losing a child you've birthed and nurtured for 24 years. Nothing special at all. It's merely the same as losing an unborn child.

This disconnect with reality appears prevalent in Bushie circles.

Really? Compared Bush to Hitler?

...you mentioned "the left."

Nice try to deflect.

But if you want to discuss Sheehan specifically...

How about her statement that the "neo-cons" sent her son to die for Israel, not for America? Is the blood libel not hate speech?

Did a scapegoat pursue war in Iraq?

Did a scapegoat assert our military fighting in Iraq would keep us safe?

Did a scapegoat declare there were no 9/11 terrorists in Iraq 6 months after the war began?

Where can we find this scapegoat who made these declarations and assertions??

"It's merely the same as losing an unborn child.

This disconnect with reality appears prevalent in Bushie circles."

Uh-huh...

Enjoy your (most likely brief) sojourn here.

I am pregnant and I have two born children, and I love the baby in my womb as much as the two babies out of it.

Your disconnect - the whole Dkurse, moonbat disconnect - with the fact than an unborn child is an actual human person is why your slide into electoral irrelevance will continue.

she has no idea what loss is.

I've known those who lost children to miscarriage; the pain both father and mother go through is a palpable, real thing.

and I don't like that they do it, either. As far as I'm concerned, at this point in time dragging out 9/11 again would be akin to saying "We're cutting off trade relations with Japan because of the thousands killed at Pearl Harbor".

More people die each year from cigarettes than died in 9/11. Doesn't change the nature of the attacks, and merely mentioning 9/11 is different than mentioning it and bringing up how thousands of innocent lives died (which they did, I'm not denying that). They seem to do both interchangably, and I don't like it when they try to amaze me with number of dead.

So, across the board, I'm not fond of using dead people

FDR murdered about 400,000 Americans.

Presidents send troops to war. Sometimes, as an unfortunate consequence, those troops die. FDR sent drafted troops into Europe/Asia, so he had even less excuse.

Enjoy your One Bite™.

Your complete inability to grasp what he's saying is so profound one wonders how you learned to boot up a computer.

That's fair for you as an individual, and good to hear.

The only followup I would have on that then is that often the only way to successfully go head to head with your opposition in the real world involves adopting similar tactics.

Since the Bush adminstration is keen to do just that, then it's hard for me to not understand the need for someone who disagrees to learn how to play the same ballgame... since it's the only way to reach the audience of your opposition.

But in regards to your reaction specifically, fair enough.

Well, it's not like I have other, born children against which to compare this. Or do I? Let's wonder.

I doubt she nurtured him for 24 years.

I love how the Left became morally cretinous and decided to abandon the defense of the weak (formally, for the world to see). Thanks for making our job easier.

This is the point, isn't it?  You (along with the media) seem to think that Cindy Sheehan has more rights/authority because her son was killed in war. Nobody on the conservative side of this is saying that she has fewer rights. We just find this assumption of moral authority very annoying, and Cindy herself very lefty/loopy, and the whole "camping out" spectacle very bad street theater.

There may be a difference.

But to suggest that she has no right or place to criticize this war is silly.

That was in your then-penultimate comment. I suggested nothing of the sort.

Every day I am reminded in a rather forceful way that the moral compass for some people does, in fact, point due south.

While the trivialization of the loss of unborn children might fly with great hilarity in other quarters, it falls like a rock here. Welcome to The Pile™.

... of one of the things that is really wrong with America in the beginning of the 21st Century. We have become conditioned to "instant" results, "instant" solutions", "painless" cures, "someone else's fault" reasoning.

Despite our best efforts we have not managed to turn a country with two generations of repression and fear, parked smack in the middle of one of the most backward parts of the world, into Switzerland overnight; so we should give up. Bush hasn't solved the problem of the Middle East in 5 whole years --- he must certainly be an idiot. But it was all for oil anyway.

Perhaps if we taught our children actual history instead of the revisionist nonsense that they get (that is when they actually some academics that doesn't interfere with sensitivity training, and all of the other politically correct indoctrination cr*p that goes on in our schools.)

... she started out this way. The death of her son has simply given her a stage on which to play out her views. And the left and the press are more than happy to accomodate her.

Does his choice to participate in the war count for nothing? I think Thomas was rightly alluding to this.

... on how much you value life. That you can draw such a distinction says it all.

"Now she wants to keep other parents and their children from having to go through the same thing."

Let's see.....She has no more right to "keep" other parents' children from enlisting to serve their country than she would have in attempting to prevent her own son from deciding to serve.  He was an adult who was capable of making his own decision.

"...you blame the "left," or try to imply that Sheehan blames the left, for her family problems. This is clearly not the case. "

Again, let's see.....She has stated she wants Israel out of "Palestine", and has shown a clear anti-Israel agenda.  Where is the connection with the loss of her son in Iraq?  The left is always telling us that the Iraq War has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.  It's quite clear the left is controlling her.

For years the left has used "the right" as a pejorative term.  The tide has turned and your ilk doesn't like it.

Thomas -- I've walked this road that you are talking about and even reading what you said has brought tears to my eyes again, even though it has been seven years.

As for the left -- The left will use anything, anybody, anyone at anytime.

On the other hand, with regards to Terry Schaivo, I disagreed with what the GOP did on all levels (and I've donated time and money to the GOP over the years).  I do see at least a bit of a parellel.  In the same way that soldiers and babies die and in the same way that its a gut wrenching issue that should be worked out in private, hundreds of people face the question of when to remove life support every year.  And the laws are clear (which is why the GOP lost in court every time).  The spouse is the one who gets to make those decisions, not the state.  I'm still not quite sure why the GOP got involved with Schaivo and I'm quite sure that were some (though not all by any means) who cared much more about making a point than about Terry herself.

Frankly, I don't like anything about either situation and the way that politics was used.

Again, my heart goes out for your loss and I appreciate you sharing it here to provide some context.

Oz

Why I couldn't bring my stuffed dog to school.

Your point is facile. She had a chance to ask. Now she wants to do it in front of the cameras, for effect.

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

No, what I did was to say this shouldn't be a political fight at all, and illustrate why. Pay attention.

Isn't the nature of our nation supposed to be about our right to argue against things? Furthermore, your loss has nothing to do with abortion. Your loss is completely irrelevent to abortion. Her loss has everything to do with the war.

My loss has everything to do with dead children. And I never said she couldn't argue about things. Pay attention.

Without abortion, you would have still experienced your loss, as tragic as it is (unless there is something that I'm missing). Without the war, she would not have lost her son. It is dishonorable to the service of that man to compare them.

I did not choose to lose my child. She did not choose to lose hers. Mine died through no choice of her own. Hers died through his adult choice. If anything, it profoundly dishonors his conscious sacrifice to pretend that he was dragged to the slaughter.

can disagree with this war, as is his right.  However, this woman is doing so in the name of her son:  Her hero son, who gave his life for a cause in which he obviously believed.  Whether one agrees with that cause or not, his sacrifice is deserving of the utmost respect.  She has traded it for a few cheap headlines.

I am very sorry for your loss, Sir.  I have a son myself and don't think I would be nearly as composed as you were I in your shoes.

I personally have never suggested she has more or less rights at all.

The article here presents a conundrum: I'm assuming the author has argued for or against abortion. I'm assuming that given the chance to be heard on their stance by a wide audience, they would do so. It goes on to say that Cindy does not have anymore right than the author does to argue about abortion.

Well, if the author has every right to argue about abortion, then Cindy of course has every right to argue about the war. If we've established that she has every right to argue about it, then I'm missing what the whole hoopla is about in the first place unless it's to suggest she shouldn't be speaking out against the war?

Disagree with her message, sure... but why even BRING UP the subject of her right to speak out about it?

On the basis the more your moral perversity is exposed to the world, the more your cause will suffer. Cheers.

Saying that A is not greater than B does not imply that A is less than B, or that A = 0.

You're trying to say or at least imply that it does.  Perhaps you need to take a course in logic.

"...wouldn't you want to ask those who could have prevented it why it was necessary?"

Glad to see that you will join an effort to send Ms. Sheehan over to see Osama Bin Laden and Zarqawi about the death of her son...

"without the war, she would not have lost her son..."

It seems to me she already lost her son, when he re-enlisted.  Unless she is new to this anti-war thing, she surely must have attempted to discourage her son from remaining with our armed forces, understanding what the consequences might be.  He re-enlisted anyway.  Furthermore, no one can say with any certainty that our military, or Ms. Sheehan's son in particular, would not have been needed/deployed for anything else, if Iraq had not happened.  He could have been severely injured and/or killed just in his training, though obviously he would be less likely to be injured in training than in a war.

I have no problem with her histrionics.  The only people she is likely to sway are those who are inclined to be anti-war and anti-Bush to begin with.  The rest will see her hyperbole for what it is, and simply shake their heads at such self deceived indulgence.  

This comparison "dishonorable" to Casey?  I shake my head at such self deceived indulgence.

That's what leaders are supposed to do, explain why they do what they do and prepare a nation for the sacrafice needed to accomplish the goal. I don't think the administration expected or planned for a long war. They sure didn't try to prepare the American people for one.

Here's part of the thing, here.

The press corps has to hang around Crawford, Texas, in blistering heat without nary a Starbucks latte for 50 miles around for comfort.

They're bored silly ... of COURSE, "Mother" Sheehan's gonna make the news.

If you look closely at some of the photo's from last week ... you'll see that the cameras and reporters outnumber the protestors.

Go look up Bush's major speeches (State of the Union and others) and look for every occurence of the word 'long'.  I guarantee you you'll find several references to how the war on terror is going to be a long fight, etc.

Don't confuse people not listening to the President or not remembering (or purposefully misremembering) with the President not saying as such.

Now she wants to do it in front of the cameras, for effect.

A tactic that has been put to use by war supporters as much as war detractors. I don't understand this disconnect. Why is it a problem to use the cameras to further a movement? If it is a problem, then how can anyone support either side since they both use it to great effect?

No, what I did was to say this shouldn't be a political fight at all, and illustrate why. Pay attention.

I'm paying attention to the fact that you brought your unborn child into what was already a political fight and will never be anything BUT a political fight. Never. This war is political. Abortion is political. This page is political. Your post was political.

My loss has everything to do with dead children. And I never said she couldn't argue about things. Pay attention.

Your loss has nothing to do with abortion though, and I know you are trying to imply that it doesn't matter how the child dies, it's all the same. That's simplification beyond reason and logic.

Well it's not. If a child dies from drunk driving, you don't go after abortion. If a child dies from parental abuse, you don't go after abortion. If a child dies from an accidental fall, you don't go after abortion. If a child dies of cancer, you don't go after abortion.

You go after drunk driving, abuse, safety measures, and cures for cancer.

If a child dies from a war you feel is unjust, you go after the war and the people in a position to do something about it.

Thanks for reconfirming my own prejudices about the left, miss.

the comparison is not between Sheehan and Mr. and Mrs. Schindler personally (very different circumstances, both sympathetic and both heartbreaking for any parent).  It is between the reaction to the Left-wing media/political machine pushing the Sheehan story (disgust, and rightfully so) and the Right-wing media/political machine pushing the Schindler's story (which was roundly championed by many).  I think it is a legitimate comparison to note that those who think the left-wing machine should be ashamed for trying to capitalize on, and pervert, one woman's grief for political purposes should also condemn the right-wing machine when it does something similar.

A tactic that has been put to use by war supporters as much as war detractors. I don't understand this disconnect. Why is it a problem to use the cameras to further a movement? If it is a problem, then how can anyone support either side since they both use it to great effect?

Because she's being dishonest about it, in her grief.

I'm not repeating those points again.

I'm paying attention to the fact that you brought your unborn child into what was already a political fight and will never be anything BUT a political fight. Never. This war is political. Abortion is political. This page is political. Your post was political.

Arguably, so is your continued breathing. However, just maybe, one can counsel to take something out of the political realm without being political. Ponder that.

If a child dies from a war you feel is unjust, you go after the war and the people in a position to do something about it.

If they're brought into that war against their will. But wait! That's not what we're looking at here.

But she lost a kid. And she hurts. And she shouldn't be anyone's pawn sacrifice.

And your inability to grasp why the abortion thing might be relevant is terribly telling.

I do not think the administration did as good a job as it could have to prepare the nation for a long, protracted war --- and not just the Iraq portion of it.

Listening to the various views several months post 9/11 it seems to me that perhaps the administration misunderstood the depth of anti-American feeling in the left and the press. I think perhaps they thought that the simple logic of "we've been attacked by a truly malevolent force" would resonate. While it did on the right, they misunderstood that large parts of the left does not see America in the same positive light as those of us the right.

This is parhps the most difficult kind of conflict. It is a fairly low intensity, long duration affair. As a result there may not be a real way to "put the nation on a war footing" as was done in WW II. This kind of war does not require all of America's manufacturing capability for war materiel. It does not require all of America's young men and women.

It requires perseverance on the part of all Americans; and unfortunately that is something that we may have "bred out" of large parts of America.

Casey Sheehan re-enlisted. He knew what he was getting himself into. He promised to uphold the constitution, and he gave his life.

What has she said of his sacrifice .. publically:

1. America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for..."
   
2. We have no Constitution. We're the only country with no checks and balances.."
   
3. She offered to either send him to Canada or run over him with a car to keep him from going to Iraq.

...and, ohyah ... "Mother Sheehan" agreed with Jan Schakowski (D-IL) who said if anyone wonders what noble cause Casey Sheehan died for, the noble cause was to help Cindy Sheehan "end this war."

Her very first VeteransForPeace event was when Casey had been his grave less than a MONTH. She found the energy in her grief stricken state to star in an anti-Bush TV commercial last summer, funded by Soros.

This is showing respect?

I did not choose to lose my child. She did not choose to lose hers. Mine died through no choice of her own. Hers died through his adult choice. If anything, it profoundly dishonors his conscious sacrifice to pretend that he was dragged to the slaughter.

Again, you can skirt the issue... but your comparison is lacking. Your loss has nothing to do with abortion. If abortion had never existed, you would have still lost your child. If the war in Iraq had never existed, her son very well might be around.

I do not deny that he made the choice to serve in the war and knowingly put himself in harms way. What I deny is your attempt to drag your own child combined with the hot button of abortion into it.... and then pretend like you aren't doing the same thing as her.

You have an audience, what you say reaches the audience, and therefore you are bringing your loss forward to further your position.

Don't do this here.  

I hope you didn't intend to imply that losing an unborn child is nothing.  Or nothing special.  But I don't know how else to read this.  Talk about a "disconnect with reality."

There are about 15 ways to make the point I think you might have been going for without being patently offensive.  People might still disagree that the loss of an adult child is potentially more devastating than the loss of an unborn one, but you could have avoided disgusting folks with this callous display.

Identity politics are everything to today's left.

"A bunch of white men shouldn't be deciding abortion."

"I will appoint a cabinet that looks like America."

"President Bush should have appointed a woman to replace Justice O'Connor."

"As an African-American..."

It's why they shriek like moonbats at "hypocrisy."  When identity politics are your most reliable constant, someone who appears to be "untrue to himself" is committing the worst (only?) possible sin.

But there is a whole other level of this story that I have yet to figure out.

It's that she's a Damsel in Distress. This is one of our strongest cultural memes. Cindy Sheehan is the political version of the Runaway Bride or Aruba Girl. So was Terri Schiavo.

People ask: out of all the people opposed to the war, why does this woman get all the attention? Why, of all the people lying in hospices, did Terri Schiavo spark cultural warfare? Why does Lori Piestewa get a mountain named after her when no one even remembers that there were men who died in that same attack? People run to the aid of Damsels in Distress, that's why.

What makes Cindy Sheehan the perfect foil for a leftist media will also be her undoing. The culture tires of its Damsels in Distress and demands that the media find new ones constantly. Cindy's fate is to be swept off the stage by the next pretty blonde who vanishes mysteriously.

The entire debate exists for one and only one reason: Cindy Sheehan is being afforded status by the left generally and the media in particular as having special relevance and moral authority due to the fact that her son was killed in Iraq. Absent that she's just another left wing kook.

The writer's point in his piece was that she does not in fact have any special standing. I agree wholeheartedly.  She is in fact just another left wing kook, albeit one whose views have apparently been altered by her personal grief.

From your comments, I assume you are also in concurrence. Huzza! Off to retire for a drink!  

My understanding is that the reason for banning trolls and those who come in to regurgitate Known Facts is that they tend to drag down the site and waste bandwidth.  Unless that rationale has trained, I would strongly implore you to toss them on The Pile and be done with it rather than letting them linger even if they do more to discredit their cause.

(a) I do agree with you that losing a 20-year old child is different, and harder, than losing an unborn child. I do this as someone who's experienced neither, so take my secondary-sourced opinions with a grain of salt. I think when you expectedly lose both the potential of the person and the friendship/comraderie of that person it's bound to be more crushing.

(b) You picked a horrid way to say that. Deaths shouldn't be classified as to how much the survivors can grieve or be hurt. Families of miscarried children, KIA soldiers, executed murderers, leukemia victims, etc. all can grieve without qualifications like "merely" before the cause of their loved ones death. Grief is judged by the context of the family not the context of the society, so society or it's rules have no real business ordering or ranking griefs relative to one another.

(c) If your name isn't really "Anne Frank" I hope you'll consider dropping this e-sobriquet and adopting a new one. Though, come to think of it, "Addison" is getting pretty stale, so maybe I'll just go ahead and switch to "Medgar4Evers" or "MattShepard666" soon. (Really, though, that username is inappropriate).

"..his sacrifice is deserving of the utmost respect.  She has traded it for a few cheap headlines."

people from enlisting, as you purport. She wants to keep the enlisted from dying a vain death. But thanks for attempting to twist my meaning.

<div class="blockquote">It's quite clear the left is controlling her.</div&gt

I think you give "the left" far too much credit for their organizational skills. I also don't see it as a perjorative term, and the way the term is used by the right these days pertains to over half the country.

....is misinformed. I also think that it's a side issue. There is also no consensus on the "left" regarding Israel and Palestine.

To put the loss of children in a little different perspective, more children under 13 have been killed in motor vehicle accidents (1600+ per year) since March 2003 than US military members have been killed overseas in the War on Terror. The difference is, the ones under 13 killed by motor vehicles, couldn't fully understand the risks of getting in Mom's car, or crossing the intersection on their bicycle. People in the military do know the dangers.

Sheesh, talk about misinformation.  Crawford is a tiny suburb of Waco, Tx (although you rarely hear the two towns mentioned in the same breath),  If one is into the Starbucks thing you can get to the nearest one in 20 minutes from the ranch.

Or they can just swing by the Starbucks when they're heading out to the Prez's ranch while they're staying at one of the hotels in waco, because God knows there's no hotels/motels in Crawford.

But you're probably on to something, with all those reporters around, there's not much that I'd classify as news worthy going on around the ranch, and Sheehan's a breath of fresh air... kinda like that road kill skunk that they passed on the way to the ranch.

Her point is not simply that she lost a child.  Her point is that she lost a child for no good reason.

I don't think the left is "using" Cindy.  Cindy is motivated to do what she's doing because she lost her child for something she thinks wasn't worth losing a child for.

Because she's being dishonest about it, in her grief.

Aside from the questionable aspect of your ability to see and know the inside of this woman... you are dodging the question.

How is this any different from the Schiavo case? How is it any different from any Christian using the media to speak out against abortion? They grieve for every baby lost in an abortion and use the media to speak out against it.

Arguably, so is your continued breathing. However, just maybe, one can counsel to take something out of the political realm without being political. Ponder that.

That is one of the biggest non-responses I've ever seen in my life.

If they're brought into that war against their will. But wait! That's not what we're looking at here.

So people can only speak out against actions where the people weren't willing participants? If the soldiers are willing to go, then the nation shouldn't speak out against them going? What about the soldiers who weren't willing to go but went because they faced jail and dishonor if they didn't, and they died? Can she speak only out in their favor instead? If she did that would everyone stop fretting over her?

And your inability to grasp why the abortion thing might be relevant is terribly telling.

Your attempt to use abortion is telling.

Doug, you really need to get out more. The term "Left" as used by the average conservative is used to denote specifically the left wing of the Democratic Party, as well as those too radical to fit into the Democratic Party. It is socialists and communists and radical environmentalists and radical feminists and queer theorists and anti-American antiglobalists. I would guess it is about 10% of the American electorate, if that.

The Democratic party used to be a very large tent. It is getting smaller every year as those concerned about traditional values issues run screaming from the party. The left is getting to represent a larger proportion of the Democratic Party, but only bcause th eparty itself represents a smaller proportion of all Americans.

Let's call this what it is -- exploitation, even perversion, of something we can all relate to, the grief of a parent.  Sheehan's loss shouldn't be exploited any more than Thomas' (would that she shared his sentiment But I'll be damned before I drag a child over whom I still cry sometimes into a political mudfight, but that is her choice).

But let's call it when it happens in the name of something we support, too.  

"The press corps has to hang around Crawford, Texas, in blistering heat without nary a Starbucks latte for 50 miles around for comfort.  

They're bored silly ..."

That's one reason why I wish Bush would not stay away from the White House for such an extended period of time -- every year, we have have to hear this b.s. about a 5-week long vacaction, etc.  If they were in DC, Sheehan would just be one of a group of nuts that everyone would be ignoring.

Glad to see that you will join an effort to send Ms. Sheehan over to see Osama Bin Laden and Zarqawi about the death of her son...

If they could be safely detained and there was no threat to her life, then why not? I know a lot of people who would love the chance to "talk" to them about the deaths of their sons and daughters. She's doing the only thing that might make a difference in something she feels is important.

The author of this article was willing to die in order to make a difference to allow his child to live.

Who wouldn't want to ask "Why?"

It seems to me she already lost her son, when he re-enlisted.  Unless she is new to this anti-war thing, she surely must have attempted to discourage her son from remaining with our armed forces, understanding what the consequences might be.  He re-enlisted anyway.

Why does the fact that her son disagreed have to lower her grief and desire to see the war end? How many parents disagree with the choices their children make in life? Does this lessen their ability to grieve when they lose their children?

Furthermore, no one can say with any certainty that our military, or Ms. Sheehan's son in particular, would not have been needed/deployed for anything else, if Iraq had not happened.

Thank you for that beautiful straw man. No one can say with certainty that if he had gone driving 5 minutes later one night he wouldn't have been killed in a car accident. It's a pointless argument to attempt.

The only people she is likely to sway are those who are inclined to be anti-war and anti-Bush to begin with.

Which is the majority now if one were to believe the polls that the Bush supporters were very quick to use when they were still in his favor.

If that's her "point," her point is idiotic. And her grief doesn't insulate her from criticism, once she's willingly put herself on the world media stage like she has. When you sit in front of the President's home, call him a premeditated mass murderer, and then demand a private meeting with him, you obviously aren't interested in your privacy any more. I think using your dead son as cheap political capital is disgusting.

I don't know what to make of all of this, I'm supportive of Sheehan for some reasons, very wary of the whole thing for others, I don't want to get into that right now. But I do know I'm tired of certain evasions and elisions going on that aren't even necessary for Sheehan's protest. I want to see if they can be cleared up. Correct me if I'm wrong: Sheehan already met with the president. She wants to meet with him (again) to ask him what his "noble cause" is. The president's well-known stance is the noble cause is Iraqi Democracy.

Now, you and I may disagree or agree on the likelihood that Iraqi Democracy will flourish, whether or not Bush actually cares about real liberty and real democracy (or cared about it when the war was started ~2 1/2 years ago), and whether or not the US military is the best way to accomplish that goal.

Sheehan says she wants the president to give her an answer as to what the "noble cause" her son died for was. This is confusing to me since I know what his stated cause is and I haven't met with him ONCE.

Like I said I'm conflicted about the whole thing, though less and less so as the protest becomes carnivalesque, grotesque, populated, and multi-issued -- for efficiency's sake let's go with the simple correlation: "as similarity to ANSWER rally increases, my sympathy decreases" -- but I certainly can't understand why certain delusions are labored under when they aren't even material to many of the core complaints.

I don't get the connection to identity politics, although maybe my objections should have been more clear.  Specifically, Leon's assertion that "rank emotionalism" and exploitation are somehow "classic liberal tactic[s]".

It seems a good example of taking everything that's despicable about American politics in general, and attributing them to the other side.  I see the exact same thing on dKos, about how dressing up in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier to deliver a "mission accomplished" speech is such a cheap "conservative" trick.  How DeLay's alleged corruption is a great example of how dirty all Republican politicians are.  How Dem's only lose because they don't sink down to the level of Rove's slimy tricks.

Unfortunately, there's nothing inherently liberal or conservative about exploiting people for political gain.

Leon H: '[Liberals] dredge up someone who is More Qualified to deal with the facts due to some Personal Circumstance in their life than "conservative person X" has.'

Telling of Thomas' fairly consistent valuation of human life.

Versus, well, yours.

I stand corrected!

Only 20 minutes from the nearest Starbucks!

Quite simply, money.

She's well funded; some of the groups supporting her, like Code Pink, and Moveon.org are prettty well funded. Also, the commercial running in Crawford this weekend is made by Fenton, Inc ... of Moveon.org and Soros fame.

Look, this lady is unemployed and separated from her husband. Who's paying for her to take all those trips across the country to Bash Bush? Who sent her to England for the DowningStreetMemo stuff? Who's funding that red, white and blue tour bus?

For that matter, her daughters are supposed to be in Europe right now. Who's paying for that?

To be fair,  she has said that she uses her son's life insurance for travel expenses. But ... the daughters' European vacation ... ?

"Mother" Sheehan is probably a great fundraising asset for various left wing groups.

Not to be cynical ... but ...

I even read some of the comments.  The most striking thing about Ms. Sheehan's essay was her statement,

'The Christ said: "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

If everyone followed Jesus's advice, the world would be a much better place.'

It seems to me that she should have heeded her own advice.

That and her title, "Leave My Family Alone."  By using her special relationship with a fallen hero to publicly criticise President Bush and demand a second meeting with him, she's made it fair game to ask the other members of her family where they stand on the issue.  If their positions agreed with her, I don't think she'd be saying to leave them alone.

... this is different from the well funded Christian Right movements because....???

Ok, so if I am to use the consistent valuation of human life as the author then... as he said at the end of the article I should "Let it go" in regards to:

Those killed by drunk drivers

Those killed by abusive relatives

Those killed by drug overdoses

Those killed by poor safety requirements on the job

Those killed by defective equipment

Those killed by abortion

Those killed by serial murderers

Those killed by ...

There is no reason to take actions to stop these when they affect you personally because "there is nothing special about losing a child."

Thank you but no.

they haven't used the mothers of fallen heroes to attack Democrats.  At least not done it while pretending it was the mothers' idea.  Nor have they tried to set a precedent that the mother of a dead soldier can demand to meet with the President whenever she feels like it.

Hardly...

Cindy just needs to go home.  But it's too late for her husband, he doesn't want her there anymore.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html

Cindy, no matter how much you knew what your son would have wanted, it's safe to say he would not have wanted this.  It's over, go home before you lose more of your family.

When she first met with him...Her point is that she now has a lot more information to confront him with and that his rationale has shifted dramatically over the two years plus we've been in Iraq.

And there is undeniably a serious problem with President Bush not wanting to see or hear from critics.  As you probably know, demonstrators are confined to so-called "free speech" zones, out of eye and earshot so the president won't have to look upon his critics and as you also probably know, attendees for his rallies, on Social Security for example, often must sign loyalty oaths.

I think he should be willing to talk with his critics and answer their questions, no matter how many times you feel he's already done it.  He is president of all of us, not just some of us and as such, he has a responsibility to all of us, in my humble opinion.

it's not only that.  She's made a demand that can't be met, and it proves the disingenuousness of her position.  It also means she'll stay outside the ranch and in the news.

It is impossible for the President to meet with her now, after all the hubbub, or at least it's very imprudent.  If he meets with her, he'll  encourage every anti-Bush nut in the country to do the same thing next year, to get publicity for their causes.

On the other hand, if she really just wanted to meet with him again, I'll bet that it could have been arranged quietly by her Congressman, either in DC or at the ranch.  I could be wrong, but my take on Bush is that he'd have been willing to give an extra 10 minutes to her in the White House, before all the publicity.  Now, no way.

It is idiotic to think that a child who has served in the military, and re-enlisted(so we know he knew the job was dangerous), died for folly.  The life of a soldier is subject to many risks, which he has knowingly subjected himself.  The USArmy is not a civil service with a dress code.  They do dangerous things during peace and war.  Perhaps it is more obvious that a soldier who dies by throwing himself on a live grenade thus saving his squadmates from certain death has not died in folly, but every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine serves in the effort to place the one soldier who matters at where he matters when the one moment that matters comes.  Because it does take 9-10 supporting soldiers to field one combat soldier in theatre, even the soldiers who change the reel-to-reel tapes in basement are serving the mission to liberate the slaves of Saddam Hussein and his evil minions.

The war in Iraq has already saved thousands of Iraqi lives.  Whether that is worth the death of US soldiers and marines can be debated, but it cannot be called "folly" to save lives.

a point of argument is crass. Perhaps understandable, but hardly worthwhile as an argument and not at all complimentary of the one so arguing. This is rather akin to claiming the last piece of cake because the dearly departed "would have wanted it that way." Doing it on national television in a media spectacle? This whole affair is beyond crass; it has bounded past any hint of good taste or discretion.

What she has had to say seems almost universally tripe, and worse than tripe. Her status as a grieving mother lends no weight to these arguments except in the realm where one's passion matters more than one's reasoning.

What she is saying is of no consequence on its own and how she has said it only accentuates how totally bankrupt the whole affair is of even the most basic decency. That she has continued in this farce does not reflect well upon her. That she seems to revel in the attention bestowed upon her by the cameras and microphones makes her look a ghoul, whatever may be the truth of the matter.

And here you are, confusing the question of civil propriety and the question of legal rights. Balderdash! The problem is not that one is upset that she is exercising her rights. The problem is that this ghoulish, disgusting exercise cheapens public discourse and it cheapens her. The refusal or inability by some parties to recognise this is  distressing, and reflects upon them equally poorly.

Turn the cameras off, and at least leave the woman some measure of her dignity.

answered the idiotic "Bush is a murderer" meme?  By your definition any president that sends troops into harms way is a murderer.

Why don't the moonbats hold accountable the people who are guilty?  It was insurgents out to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy that killed her son, why doesn't she start a crusade against them instead of Israel and the US?  That would make a heck of a lot more sense.