For anyone who thought Cindy Sheehan's mother's stroke might have meant the end of her protest:
Contrary to what the main stream media thinks, I did not just fall off a pumpkin truck in Crawford, Tx. on that scorchingly hot day two weeks ago. I have been writing, speaking, testifying in front of Congressional committees, lobbying Congress, and doing interviews for over a year now. I have been pretty well known in the progressive, peace community and I had many, many supporters before I left even left California. The people who supported me did so because they know that I uncompromisingly tell the truth about this war. I have stood up and said: "My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it." I have never said "pretty please" or "thank you." I have never said anything wishy-washy like he uses "Patriotic Rhetoric." I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING. The Downing Street Memos dated 23 July, 2002 prove that he knew that Saddam didn't have WMD's or any ties to Al Qaeda. I believe that George lied and he knew he was lying. He didn't use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made us afraid of ghosts that weren't there. Now he is using patriotic rhetoric to keep the U.S. military presence in Iraq: Patriotic rhetoric that is based on greed and nothing else.Courtesy of Buzzflash.
Now I am being vilified and dragged through the mud by the righties and so-called "fair and balanced" main stream media who are afraid of the truth and can't face someone who tells it ...
THIS is George Bush's accountability moment and he is failing miserably. George Bush and his advisers seriously "misunderestimated" me when they thought they could intimidate me into leaving before I had the answers, or before the end of August. I can take anything they throw at me, or Camp Casey. If it shortens the war by a minute or saves one life, it is worth it. I think they seriously "misunderestimated" all mothers. I wonder if any of them had authentic mother-child relationships and if they are surprised that there are so many mothers in this country who are bear-like when it comes to wanting the truth and who want to make meaning of their child's needless and seemingly meaningless deaths?
The Camp Casey movement will not die until we have a genuine accounting of the truth and until our troops are brought home. Get used to it George, we are not going away.
15 comments:
I wonder if any of them had authentic mother-child relationships and if they are surprised that there are so many mothers in this country who are bear-like when it comes to wanting the truth and who want to make meaning of their child's needless and seemingly meaningless deaths?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
||||||||||||||||||
What a powerful thing to ask?
This woman will eat Bush alive in a one-on-one. He's doing the right thing staying away.
I wonder why Cindy Sheehan's opinion counts for more than any of the other mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives husbands, children or friends who have all lost loved ones as well.
Many of them have publically espoused a view 10 degrees from Ms. Sheehan, and they've gotten no play.
What about their "absolute moral authority"? Is it hard then to understand why one might view this a little cynically, or argue that we are merely seeing a mirror image of the lunatic right's mantra that if you don't support the President 100%, then you're a traitor?
I see both of these arguments as different sides of the same lunatic fringe coin. Let's see... if I criticize the President one iota, I'm a traitor. If I point out one flaw in Ms. Sheehan's logic or rhetoric, I'm a heartless prick impugning the "absolute moral supremacy" a grieving mother.
Wow, seems like an awful narrow channel for discussion, if we play by the rules of the lunatic fringe on both sides.
Let's not.
180 degrees from Ms. Sheehan, I meant, not 10 degrees. It's Monday, ok?
Mack does have a point, but only to a very limited extent. And I'm not sure there's much point discussing it.
The Cindy Sheehan story is a case where the sensationalized, celebrity-based, on-message orchestrated hysteria tactics of the right are (to some extent anyway) being used against them.
On the other hand, Sheehan's story is news because it resonates with the mood of the press and over 60% of the US public. It's the same as the right wingers asking:
"why does the press cover the DEATHS in Iraq, but not the "good news" scraped together by people like Chrenkoff."
Where's the real story?
For wingnuts to scream "Not fair!" now is pure hypocrisy. Like I said at PW, they can dish it up but they can't take it. Hypocrites.
Well, I think that Cindy Sheehan's voice counts more than any other Gold Star Mother's because it does. Gandhi himself puts it best, and I agree with him when he says that her story is news because it resonates with the mood of the press and some percentage of the population that opposes the war (although I question the 60% figure). If I asked you to name ten other mothers without Googling, could you do it? And to be honest, I for one don't believe for a second that all she wants is to meet with the President and ask him a question. From all she's said openly in the media, it seems like she's do more telling than asking. Do you honestly believe that any answer he could give that would satisfy her?
Look, she's had her time with the President, as he's done with many other families of the fallen soldier, saliors and airmen. I'm sorry it didn't go the way she now plays it in her head, but why is she now entitled to a second meeting over any other family? Should all families get multiple meetings with the President on demand, or just her? She's one of millions of Americans, and one of many, many Gold Star Mothers. Again, what makes her count for more than any other Gold Star Mother, or American for that matter? Is it that she speaks for and gives voice to many others like her, and many others that agree with her stance? My question is then, don't those people have elected officials? Isn't that the point of the voting thing - to have a voice in government?
Yes, the Cindy Sheehan story is precisely a case which has been defined by sensationalized, celebrity-based, on-message orchestrated hysteria tactics. It's performace art, theater conceived to deliver an anti-war message.
All of us agree that a mother's grief is sacred, an expression of her physical, emotional and spiritual loss of a child. I can't even concieve of that loss, and my children have been on this earth a fraction of the time that her son has been. But it's the use of that grief to achieve temporal ends, the deliberate use of her grief as a medium of dissent and as political currency that in my mind removes it from the realm of the sacred and into the secular realm of protest politics. In the secular realm, political statements are fair game for decontruction and argument, and motives are subject to scrutiny and commentary.
This is my argument, that it can't be both ways - once she stepped into the secular realm of politics, it is only logical that people would weigh her arguments and question her expertise on foreign policy, for example. I don't think that this should be out of bounds.
Hey, but what do I know? I'm just an aging, balding, rotund former paratrooper in a previous life...
Mack
I for one don't believe for a second that all she wants is to meet with the President and ask him a question.
Well, again there is some truth in that, but surely the point is that Sheehan is demanding DIALOGUE with Bush. So if he wants to come out and discuss things with her, maybe he can convince her that his "complete the mission" strategy is right.
Of course, neither Cindy Sheehan nor the millions who support her believe that he can successfully present such an argument.
So she is calling his bluff, in a most public and humiliating (for Bush-lovers) way.
And sure, she leaves herself open to criticism by bringing her son's death into the "secular realm of politics", but from her point of view (and mine) that is exactly the reason why he is dead now: secular, immoral, profit-based politics.
That's where the real war is being waged, and Cindy Sheehan is bringing it on. Good luck to her!
As for Sheehan unfairly having two chances to talk to the Big Prez - if it was YOUR son, what would YOU do? Cop it sweet?
I'd like to believe I'd behave more like SFC Randy Shugart's dad when he recieved Randy's posthomous Congressional Medal of Honor. He steadfastly refused to shake President Clinton's hand, and told him point blank that he was unfit to be Commander in Chief. Was it disrespectful? Is it what SFC Shugart would have wanted done? Yes, and who knows? But we do know that Mr. Shugart certainly went on record, and press coverage was practically zero for that grieving parent.
I'll let it go, but again, who is Cindy Sheehan to demand a dialogue? She's a private citizen like all us other mopes. Why is President Bush required to meet with her again? Because the press says so? Because you and millions of others say so? On this we'll never agree.
She wants a meeting with the President, I want a pony for my son and a Hummer for me (you'd understand better why I'd want a Hummer if you were married a while).
As my grandfather used to say, piss in one hand, and want in the other. See which one gets full faster.
Look, she's had her time with the President, as he's done with many other families of the fallen soldier, saliors and airmen. I'm sorry it didn't go the way she now plays it in her head, but why is she now entitled to a second meeting over any other family?
-
With respect Mack this one is a joke pushed by those who would discredit Sheenan's character. Since she met him the first time new information has come to light - like official acceptance that there were no WMD, and all those commissions, etc. So now she feels ripped-off (cheated) and that her son died for a lie. She wanted another face-to-face to address these issues. If Bush feels in his heart he did not lie he would be able to front her.
I must admit - from an Australian's point of view, Bush is looking quite the coward and this fits with his record of 'action' in Nam. Ie. just a big no-show.
Nice in theory, except that she was anti-war from the get-go. She was already engaged before her son was KIA. She and her husband debated whether or not they should confront the President, and made the decision not to. Here's an article from her hometown newspaper:
http://www.thereporter.com/sheehanopinions/ci_2925934
Great coverage in this paper from both sides.
Don't be a rube - of course Bush looks like a coward in the international media. That's what the story is supposed to do, that's what the story has been engineered to do.
Oh, and you have your presidents confused. Clinton was the no-show to Vietnam. Bush served in the Texas National Guard.
Wadard - BTW, I didn't mean to imply that you were or are a rube. It's the way I talk.
Mack
Link didn't paste:
http://www.thereporter.com/
sheehanopinions/ci_2925934
Mack,
OK you don't like the woman, obviously.
But you have to respect her right to protest peacefully - as SHE sees fit. That's Democracy, the old-fashioned way.
The people taking pot-shots at Sheehan are only shooting themselves in the foot.
Gandhi, thanks for your patience, and I'll shut up now.
Mack
Post a Comment