Weblogsky: Cindy Sheehan, War, and Denial

« Avian Flu Pandemic | Main | Randy "Biscuit" Turner »

Cindy Sheehan, War, and Denial

Politicos and activists working overtime were unsuccessful in penetrating national denial about the nature and causes of the war in Iraq, but a single determined mother, driven by grief and a growing sense that something's not right, seems to be having an effect, despite attempts by (I'll say this tactfully) her critics to undermine her credibility. What Christopher Hitchens refers to as dreary sentimental nonsense is interpreted differently by Sheehan's many supporters, perhaps as an awakening of American conscience. Almost 1500 Americans have died in combat since the war begin in March 2003. The war was actually an American invasion of another country, which should have been shocking in itself, and it was justified by a lie (Sadaam's weapons of mass destruction), which definitely should have been shocking... and some were indeed shocked, a few asked hard questions about the war, but it seemed to fade into the background noise behind more compelling issues... whether Scott Peterson killed his wife Laci, whether Michael Jackson molested children at Neverland Ranch, whether athletes were pumping steroids, whether Brad left Jennifer for Angelina.... The war was over, after all, after Bush declared victory on that aircraft carrier, Saddam Hussein was dragged out of his hole, and the soldiers who opposed us were tucked safely away in prisons (subjected to a playful bit of demeaning torture, which almost shocked us, but not quite). As this War in Iraq has shriveled American morality and commitment to principle (no offensive wars, no torture by Americans, frank and honest democratic dialogue guiding our efforts), world opinion of the USA has grown dark and ugly. Meanwhile the Administration is fighting its own war - to cloak its own darker side (Karl Rove's machinations) and corruption within its party (Tom DeLay). We're riding down a slippery slope and we haven't quite hit bottom... meanwhile a grieving American mother, recovering from shock over her son's death and beginning to question why he was sent to war, feeling she's not getting answers that ring true, decides to camp out on the doorstep of the President's vacation home (a great spot, considering the long duration of his many vacations) and insist that he give her an answer that makes sense. And people start listening... after all, the Jackson and Peterson trials are done, and this seems like a pretty good, newsworthy show, so she's getting coverage. And bloggers have posted thousands of items. Other people – many others – are beginning to ask the same questions Cindy's asking, and perhaps sensing a buried truth – could it be that an American president has placed his interests, and his friends' intersests, above the interests of the American people?

Note: The war will have to end sooner or later as it's diminishing our resources. Retired General Barry McCaffery on NPR: "We probably have enough troops to regain control of the national capitol and the lines of communication. But at this point there are no more troops essentially to send....8 of 10 army divisions are in movement into the theater or out right now. Essentially 70% of our combat power has been deployed. We've called up--from this deployment 40% of that deployment is national guard or reserve. We're down to 3 to 5 brigades of the army and marine corps strategic reserves, and we are at and beyond our elastic breaking point."

jon posted this at 7:31 AM
Share on Facebook| email to a friend

Comments

Is this chick Cindy like, the only SANE person left in America???

We've even heard about her here on Australian TV (and it takes a lot to get thru the corporate filtering).

Has it just become too scary to protest over there now? Is she the only one doing it 'cos she's got nothing left to lose?

Posted by: Bird of the Phoenix Movement | August 17, 2005 9:52 AM

Helluva post, Jon. Really nothing more to say than that.

Posted by: Kyle Johnson | August 17, 2005 4:31 PM

Cindy Sheehan has accused President Cliton of killing her 24-year old son, Casey, who was a casualty in Iraq. It was reported recently that she is gaining support for the stand that she has taken. It is certainly regrettable that this young man died in the service of his country, but in my opinion, it is absolutely ridiculous for her to claim that the president killed her son. Personally, I feel that her position is unwarranted. This is like blaming a football coach for a player's injury if a youngster is hurt during a game.

Since there have been no draftees for many years, her son must have been a volunteer. Anyone who volunteers must realize that even though the U.S. may not have been at war at the time of his enlistment, there always would be the chance that he just may find himself in harm's way. If the volunteer was under eighteen years of age, then a parent would have had to consent to his enlistment. Although he may not have volunteered to be sent to Iraq, this your man apparently joined because it was what he wanted to do, and the Army was where he wanted to be. During WWII, I enlisted with my father�s consent immediately after my high school graduation, and I was sworn into Navy two days before my eighteenth birthday.

Posted by: Jim Ingram | August 20, 2005 1:00 AM

I see a great contrast between her first comments about her meeting with Bush in her interview on June 24, 2004, that was just several months after her son was killed, and the latest comments she is making about that same meeting with Bush. Cindy Sheehan first said after her meeting with Bush, that she " now knows that Bush is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqi's." Then she went on to say and I quote, " I know he's sorry and feels pain for our loss." She used two descriptions to describe her impressions of Bush after,Bush's meeting with her, "Sincere" and " He's sorry and feels pain for our loss." Now its quite the opposite description of Bush, if you were to listen to her new interpretation of that same meeting with Bush, you would think it was two seperate meetings. Cindy Sheehan now says about that meeting with Bush that " Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject,and he acted like it was a party." That statement indicates just the opposite of what she originally said about Bush, in that she even used the word "sincere" in describing Bush's demeanor. So I'm to take it that she felt that "acting like it was a party" was sincere, and sincere was as she described Bush in her first interview? The question that now remains concerning her two completely different versions of that meeting with Bush, is, which one is the true story and which one is the lie? In her first interview with David Henson she stated that Bush felt "sorry" about the loss of her son,then Cindy Sheehan turns around and says just the opposite in her interview with Blitzer and I quote " Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died." Excuse me but "sorry" and "happy" are not synonyms Mrs.Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan's versions of that meeting with President Bush just don't match, they are not remotely similar.

Posted by: William Leatherwood | August 21, 2005 4:08 AM

In fact the reports of her "first comments about her meeting with Bush" have been quoted incorrectly and out of context. Suggest you read the analysis of this at Media Matters.

Posted by: Jon Lebkowsky | August 21, 2005 2:00 PM

Cindy should just respect her sons decision to join the service. I'm sure he knew there was a chance (even if it was a 1 in a million) that he'd go to war, yet he joined.

Posted by: A | August 29, 2005 1:21 PM