No moral authority
Cindy Sheehan is a Gold Star Mother. Her sacrifice to this horrible Iraq war was her 24 year old son, Casey. And she is currently in Crawford, Texas, standing at the end of the lane near George Bush’s ranch asking him to talk to her. She would like him to answer a simple question—why did my son die in Iraq? That’s all.
Cindy Sheehan is angry. Grief is a terrible burden and anger is a part of the grieving process. Especially for a mother who was opposed to the war from the beginning. It only makes her grief and pain worse. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of the war’s justification, she still has a legitimate question. How difficult would it be for the president to take a half an hour out of his day to get it over with? I’m sure he could muster the sympathy and compassion if he tried. While he couldn’t answer her question to her satisfaction, he would at least look like a compassionate man. And, sometimes, appearances matter. Unfortunately, the president chooses to ignore her and, instead, chooses to speak about how he needs to get on with his life. At least he has a life to get on with. Casey lost his in service to his Commander-in-Chief, who treats his mother with supreme disregard.
What is the answer to Cindy’s question? Because there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. There is no security in Iraq. There are terrorists where there were no terrorists before. There is a civil war growing. There is no democracy and, in fact, the Constitution couldn’t be delivered by deadline. No one can agree on even the most fundamental issues. Even our government officials have stated, on record, that they are significantly lowering their sights on what can be achieved in Iraq.
They no longer expect a model democracy, but, instead, an Islamic Republic. They no longer expect to see a self-supporting oil industry, or security or economic well-being for the people. In short, they now realize that their goals were not realistic. The place has dissolved into anarchy and chaos. So exactly how does the president explain why someone’s child had to die in Iraq?
The vigil on that dusty lane in Texas has now attracted a lot of people. Other Gold Star Mothers have joined Cindy. Other supporters, too. And there are those who dislike what Cindy Sheehan is doing. To them she’s a traitor, an opportunist, a bad person. They’ve arrived to protest against her. She is being roundly vilified by portions of the media and in many of the influential right-wing blogs. While it sounds as if many protesters have actually been well behaved, there are the inevitable clods who show up.
The man on the right is carrying the sign below.
This is Casey.
I’d like to ask this man what his sacrifice has been in this war that gives him the moral authority to stand in front of this Gold Star Mother with a photograph of her son that says “Freedom Isn’t Free.” What kind of person can be so cold and cruel? What has happened to people that allows them to put compassion and humanity behind political belief?
Disagree with Cindy Sheehan all you wish, but do not dishonor her son by using him as a weapon against her. What kind of vileness is that? She has paid for her right to question. She has paid with a terrible anguish and loss. What price has he paid for the right to disrespect both her son and the Gold Star Mother status that we have always honored and protected?
(photos from dkos diary)
Great post. Excellent questions. I doubt we’ll get satisfactory answers to any of them.
Regarding Dave’s comments:
I’m sorry for her loss, but this is not about her loss. This is political use of her loss, and I would be mortified if any of my family members behaved in this way.
Actually, it is about her loss. How could it be otherwise. If by political use you mean that she’s making an effort to spare other mothers the unspeakable grief she’s enduring, then yes, it’s political.
I’m not sure what you mean by “we” when you say we left Afghanistan in ‘89 ergo the Taliban ergo Al Qaeda. I’m not following the logic at all. Finally, if you read the article that the post links to, you will see that our leaders’ expectation now is that we’ll have an Islamic government in Iraq. Oil will not produce wealth there, so I predict it will be hostile to the U.S. So prolonging our stay there helps the Iraqis exactly how?
Posted by
I haven’t said much about this vigil because I’m not sure what I think of it, either. Which I find odd considering how much I despise this president. On the one hand, I think that any person who has experienced a loss like this for reasons that don’t hold together has a duty to fight it. For their own peace of mind and, potentially, to preserve others from facing the same loss. That to me is a worthy use of her grief.
But making a media event out of it also has the potential to dilute her efforts. I think she was more powerful when she was a lone figure in the road. But it’s America where people have the right to make their protests known and this protest has captured the attention of the media and many like minded people. For once.
If I was in her position, I really have no idea what I’d do. But I know I’d be so angry that it would eat away at me unless I did *something*.
I agree that anything the president says to Cindy isn’t going to help. But this has become a world media and public relations event. It would defuse the situation—for him— to a large degree, if he’d speak with her. Privately, preferrably. This is doing him no good. I don’t personally care. The deeper he gets into it, the better I like it, frankly. But, I also don’t think we need more bad publicity internationally.
From a public relations perspective, he has the power to stop it. Right now. Maybe he doesn’t want to. Maybe this works for him. Who knows. But the man is on vacation. Five weeks of vacation. He’s had the time to stand around yakking to the press about his physical fitness and give interviews to television media. He’s had the time to ride his bike on two hour rides all over the place. And take his naps and go to a fund raiser and attend a Little League baseball game, which, I might point out, was also a public relations event. Yes, he could give up a half an hour of his time for something that, at the very least, is doing him no good public relations wise. He has the power to change the outcome positively, at least in the public’s perception. So, why he won’t is his business. And like I said, it doesn’t bother me a bit that his stubbornness is hurting him. But, I’m just saying. You always find the time to do what’s important to you.
That’s the message that his lack of action is screaming. I’m kind of fascinated that his handlers don’t see that or know how to deal with it.
"I’m kind of fascinated that his handlers don’t see that or know how to deal with it.”
Precisely what I said at my place, and I’m getting an argument from a long-time blog acquaintance. It seems perfectly clear to me that the way to get her off the front pages and the TV shows is to meet with her. That would defuse the whole thing. Instead you’ve got this guy in the midst of his five-week vacation (what is he, French?) looking like a petulant little kid instead of the President of the United States.
That’s a good question, dk. How is our staying going to help the Iraqis (or us) if they hate our guts and the country descends even further into a civil war?
I listened to John McCain, this morning, waxing on inelegantly in an interview with Imus. It was a lonnnng interview and the man was completely incapable of forming an opinion. He is a fence sitter and, I thought, at some point he is going to have to jump off the fence on one side or the other. He must know that we’ve lost the war and the country. When does the pain of denying it become too great a political liability? It drives me crazy to hear these politicians mealy-mouthing their way around it when they need to be talking about what we do next.
In the run up to the war, I had a different blog and talked about the reasons for this war. Or asked what others thought, anyway. There were as many different answers as posters. No one really knew. Not sure anyone still knows, except for the ones who started it.
But it was my opinion then, after printing out and reading and marking and flagging and rereading the PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century that the main goal in Iraq was installing what they called forward bases. It seemed like a hard argument to make, but it was right there in black and white. The neo-con dream.
And that was while the issue of Peak Oil was still under the radar. Yet, look how many of the top level of the administration are oil men/women. It was also before China was making alliances and oil deals all over the globe. Yet reading the PNAC document again, it appears they saw that handwriting on the wall, too.
I was reminded of this when I happened on to a post by Digby yesterday. The discussion in the comments are very interesting and pick up that thread in detail.
So what was this war about? Strategically located bases with the intent to protect oil supplies and flow. That’s my belief. The rest of the reasons and arguments were window dressing and propaganda.
Once upon a time, there were undoubtedly other forward looking alternatives to achieving the same ends. But this administration has wrecked our relations with just about every one in the world.
If they felt that protecting oil supplies (making them safe for us) was important enough to start a war, what happened that they didn’t feel it was important enough to plan for the aftermath of the war. They believed their own rosy propaganda? Were they really that ignorant of the country’s factionalism and that Saddam’s heavy handedness is what kept it in check? He did what we can’t. And it doesn’t look as though our tactics have been any better.
So now the place is a disaster. We are hated. The new government, such as it is, will want us out. They will probably have their Islamic Republic and a close alliance with Iran. They’ll have to work through their factional differences before they can even think of democracy...not something you can force at the end of a gun. They have to want it enough to work for it. And we’re left with...nothing. They fouled it up so badly that they’ve made our future that much more dangerous and unstable.
What we need is a new president with a fairly informed reading of the region’s history. And a desire to make amends and alliances and work with other nations to solve the looming energy problems. In an effort to prevent the need for future oil wars. This president is not the one to do it. Nor are any of his partners in this massive mess.
Having had to put up with G.W. Bush as governor for six years down here in TX, I can tell you this much: since he’s already said he’s not going to meet with Cindy Sheehan, he’s not going to change his mind. Period. That’s just the way he is. Of course, it’s this resoluteness that so many Republicans love him for, but it’s also a boneheadedness that gets us into things like, oh, say, an unnecessary war in Iraq and a standoff with North Korea over nuclear weapons and trivial things like that. It drives most of us insane, but minds like Bush’s don’t work like ours.
I forget that you guys got the 6 year preview to these past 5 years. That must be like a double whammy.
Resolute boneheadedness?
His advisors might have needed his 5 week vacation more than he did. Tuck him away and take some deep breaths. I mean, how much trouble can the dude get into on his ranch in Texas? Guess they know the answer to that now.
Next entry: His real name is officially defunct
Previous entry: They're off
So much to say…
First off, if I ever came across those two dudes, I’d give them each a good hard slap. They’re out of their depth of understanding. Let the woman grieve for crying out loud.
Having said that, I must say I disagree completely with Cindy’s protest. I only disagree slightly with her position, but totally with her choice of protest. The fact that she has already met privately with the president (or a least as privately as you can get) speaks quite a bit to me. Like him or not, and I don’t, he’s a man with more demands on his time than there is time to make demands. To ask for a second meeting, solely for the purpose of starting an argument, is grandstanding and selfish. I’m sorry for her loss, but this is not about her loss. This is political use of her loss, and I would be mortified if any of my family members behaved in this way. (Yes, I’ve experienced my own loss, and no I’m not going to discuss it here.)
Now, I’m just as upset as everyone else that we went into Iraq in the first place, and I don’t care for how the situation is being handled now. But pulling out any time in the next few years would be signing Iraq’s death warrant, as well as being political suicide for us. We walked away from Afghanistan in the 1989, and the result was Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, and 9/11. Let’s not make that same mistake again, and let’s not just leave Iraq to the insurgents. Now that we’ve regrettably started the job, we need to finish it, not just for our sakes, but for theirs. Asking President Bush to pull out now shows a lack of regard for the Iraqi people, and I can’t agree with that at all.
Captcha word is ‘maybe’. How appropriate.