She writes: Lay Off Cindy Sheehan
I make it my business NOT to tell bloggers how and what to blog, but I’m embarrassed by what I’ve been reading on the conservative side and the way bloggers have castigated Cindy Sheehan.
Of course, losing a child in a conflict does not make you any sort of military, political or diplomatic expert. But if if the death of a son does not entitle someone to have their say, I don’t know what would.
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Jonathan Moore 08.15.05 at 10:56 pm
Richard,
I have close friends in the military that are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have sympathy for mothers, fathers and friends, such as Cindy Sheehan, who have lost someone, in the war of Terrorism. However, a large number of Americans believe that it was terrorists in Iraq, not President Bush that Cindy Sheehan seems to suggest.
Lee 08.15.05 at 11:45 pm
She had her say 2 weeks ago. Now it’s nothing but a political thing. She has dishonored her brave son and herself, too.
Richard 08.16.05 at 12:16 am
If you believe that your son has been killed in an unjust war and you take that up publically, of course it is political. How could it be otherwise? I think Ms Sheehan is in a better position to judge than anyone else what is dishonouring to her son’s memory. But even if you think she is profoundly wrong, she surely doesn’t deserve the opprobium that has been heaped on her.
I do think it is ironic that in Sunday’s gospel reading (Matt 15: 21-28), an anguished mother who refused to be silenced was the means by which a new understanding of God’s kingdom was shared. The disciples tried desperately to have her removed because she was disturbing them. Maybe there’s a parallel here. I wish i’d thought of that while I was doing my sermon prep…
Lee 08.16.05 at 2:32 am
The story you cite has nothing to do with Sheehan. I feel for her loss. But that’s no excuse to use to keep people from analyzing your lunatic fringe political ravings. She is now allowing herself to be used by the “hate Bush” crowd to promote their screwball anti-America beliefs. I’m not beating up on her, I’m analyzing her words and deeds (or fruit if you will).
Richard 08.16.05 at 7:37 am
Nice
Bene Diction 08.16.05 at 10:36 am
Lee:
I take it you are in the US.
So, why not find some time, head to Texas and sit down with this mother and the other families grieving that have joined her?
And the usual assortment of people that show up?
Just talk, sit quietly beside, listen, since you feel for gold star mothers.
Since you aren’t beating anyone up and all.
John 08.16.05 at 1:43 pm
Cindy Sheehan can and should be a grieving mother, mourning the tragic loss of her son. We shall mourn with her.
But if she chooses to go off repeatedly into full-blown moonbat rants, blaming the Jews for her son’s death and asserting that Bush is fascist dictator, then she must expect that her ideas will be held in contempt.
There is a price to making a fool of yourself in public, and Sheehan is paying it now.
Joel 08.16.05 at 5:28 pm
John,
I’d want to read quotes where Cindy said “she blamed Jews” for her son’s death. She has put forth Israel as the number one promoter of war with Iraq and that is merely historical fact. I also believe that it is not anti-Semitic to allege that Israel has undue influence on U.S. foreign policy because I think that too, is fact.
I would not be happy about much of her rhetoric, but nor am I thrilled about the numerous blatant lies the Bush administration told about Iraq, including a clear attempt to link Saddam to 9/11 when the evidence didn’t support such claims.
Lee 08.16.05 at 7:56 pm
“Bush lied! It’s the Jooooos!.”
(http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11271597.html) Read the truth for once!
Just keep chanting the nosense maybe you all will make it come true. Riiight.
*shakes head”
*shaking the dust off my feet*
Richard 08.16.05 at 8:18 pm
That’s fine, Lee. Thanks for stopping by.
howard 08.16.05 at 10:44 pm
Richard,
I don’t know if you’re completely adjusted to the viciousness of people reactions on issues like this here in the U.S., but I assume you’re at least familiar.
There are many of us on both sides who, unfortunately, can’t be bothered to lend a sympathetic ear to those with whom we disagree.
I (at least originally) supported the war in Iraq. I still disagree with Mrs. Sheehan’s viewpoint, but I can’t help but think that the most dishonorable activity that’s been happening recently is the negative attacks thrown the way of a grieving mother, and I highly doubt that most of the people expressing such hateful ideas toward Cindy Sheehan have actually walked in her shoes.
And whatever Casey Sheehan’s viewpoint on the war (and I say this as a son who’s had many disagreements with his own mother), I’m only pretty sure if he had his wrath to cast on anyone from where he is now, the target of his anger would not be his mother, but rather those who are smearing her publicly.
And if you’re going to thank me for stopping by, well, you’re welcome.
Richard 08.16.05 at 11:42 pm
“I don’t know if you’re completely adjusted to the viciousness of people reactions on issues like this here in the U.S.”
I think it is fair to say I’ve had a little experience of it in my years of blogging.
And of course I want to thank you, and indeed all three of my readers, for stopping by. You’re welcome indeed.
John 08.17.05 at 2:33 am
Joel wrote:
I’d want to read quotes where Cindy said “she blamed Jews†for her son’s death.
Can do. Let’s have a look:
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel.
Those pesky Elders of Zion! Controlling everything behind the scenes! Look, under your bed — a Jew! There, behind the curtain — a Jew!
John 08.17.05 at 2:35 am
Richard wrote:
That’s fine, Lee. Thanks for stopping by.
I would like to offer a moment of praise for Richard, who never, ever gets nasty.
Joel 08.17.05 at 7:23 am
John,
That’s a huge, huge stretch to jump from blaming Israel to “blaming Jews”. I myself am firmly of the belief that Israel holds far too much sway in how world foreign affairs are handled, and I believe that it helped to lead the way in misrepresenting the situation in Iraq. Also, the term neo-cons was not some term invented by anti-Semitic liberals to bash Jews. Most neo-cons are not Jewish and it has often been conservatives who have used the term neo-con in a derisive way. Too many people now want to claim that any time someone uses the term “neo-con” it is code for “hate the Jews.” That’s just really unfair.
In Texas, I worked on Democratic political campaigns and learned of the bully tactics of AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobbying group. Cross them on any issue and they would try to destroy the opposition candidate. So great was their desire for influence that they even gave priority to a Texas Railroad Commission seat. Now the Texas Railroad Commission regulates, among other things, the Texas oil industry. Why would AIPAC be interested in such a race? Because of business matters that might affect Israel? Hardly or barely, just mostly to try to keep American politicians in line at all levels of government.
I blame Israel for much of the marginalization of Palestinians. But I also consider myself a Zionist as the term was originally used and meant, that is I support the right of Jewish return to their homeland and an independent and secure Jewish state, albeit it one that protects the rights of its minority citizens. In fact, Israel is the only country I know of in which I make exception to basically allow for a religious state.
Joel 08.17.05 at 7:48 am
John,
And by way of further illustration, consider that American Jews opposed the invasion of Iraq by substantial margins. A great many of the American Jewish politicians who opposed invasion were very critical of the neocons - a term that goes back to foreign policies supported by such non-Jews as the late Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson. I’m not aware that Jeanne Kirkpatrick was Jewish, but she was one of the premier neocons.
I have no doubt that some who invoke the term “neocon’ are anti-Semitic. But I fail to see the anit-Semitic tone to Sheehan’s comments. If you’ve got other quotes, I’ll certainly consider them.
Richard 08.17.05 at 8:22 am
John said: I would like to offer a moment of praise for Richard, who never, ever gets nasty
I wish that were true. Ask my kids!
John 08.17.05 at 7:26 pm
I think that Sheehan’s comment speaks for itself. You might have your own definition of ‘neo-con’ and their agenda, but it is clear that Sheehan paints them as a conspiratorial cabal that exists only to benefit Israel.
Or do you agree with Sheehan that the primary reason that the US went to war was to benefit Israel?
Joel 08.17.05 at 8:07 pm
John,
Without Israel’s prodding, we would not have gone to war with Iraq, IMO. Their Washington lobbying effort is massive and effective most of the time, except when they want their spies released, where we tend to draw the line.
John 08.18.05 at 2:42 pm
Joel, do you have any evidence to this effect?
Michael 08.21.05 at 3:45 am
I published my thoughts about Mrs. Sheehan on my own blog, but I wanted to offer my comments here as well. Mrs. Sheehan is grieving. Her entire being is running on emotion. There is no rationality or sense of reason in her drive to be heard. If she has political motive - and she may well have - then she is no different from so many others who will use whatever means at their disposal not to simply disagree but to destroy whomever along the way.
She has since packed up to go see to her sick mother, but I noticed a blurb in the paper a few days ago in which her husband has filed for divorce. She didn’t seem too concerned to go see to that. However, lacking any kind of knowledge of what that was all about, it would be unfair for me to say exactly what she hopes to achieve.
Good post. Thank you.
DH 08.22.05 at 5:20 pm
John everything you said in these response I’m in agreement with. How about all of the many, many parents who supported the war and don’t want their child dying in the war to be in vain. When they here Cindy and all those who agree with her, you must realize the care that must take place because when they do hear her and the like they feel attacked because they get the impression that they want their deaths to be in vain. I feel that they weren’t in vain because a free Iraq is emerging. This war had nothing to do with Israel but everything to do with Saddam and the toruting of his people. I will gladly take our current situation over what would have been the case if nothing were done.
Many who didn’t support the war recognize the benefits of the current sitiuation in Iraq. A majority say they shouldn’t leave not now because it doesn’t put the troops in a position of success and also they know that it would let the Iraqi people down. However, they still don’t support the war.
That is the true perspective from people as compared to Cindy and her supporters.
Joel Thomas 08.23.05 at 6:40 am
DH,
Even some Republicans have different outlooks on Iraq. U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska says the results in Iraq have been a disaster and that things are worse than Vietnam.
Plenty of pro-war supporters exploit people. I’ve been at concerts or church services where service and/or ex-mailitary people are invited to stand, patriotic music is sung and then anti-war folks are villified. I’ve gotten to where I will often remain seated now because I’m tired of being used in such a manipulative way.
Saddam was torturing people when we were sending him arms and patting him on the back and in other ways kissing up to him. Ronald Reagan, in fact, looked the other way with respect to Saddam’s conduct. Most of the people Saddam killed he killed while we were helping to supply him with arms.
The Bush the Elder administration worked hard to thwart Congressional investigation in to how money laundering and illicit supply of arms to Iraq was aided by the U.S. government. Ever hear of the BNL scandal the Bush administration spent so much effort in trying to cover up or divert attention from?