Cindy Sheehan
Sheehan, who met Bush in 2004, now says "… her meeting with Bush occurred two months after son Casey was killed in Sadr City on April 4, 2004. Since then, she said, reports have disputed claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- a main justification for the war."
Does this mean had WMD been found, or if the US stumbles upon a cache of WMD tomorrow, that Ms. Sheehan is okay with sacrificing her son to war? As a mother who knows the loss of a son years ago, and with sons rotating through Iraq, I've spent more than a few nights wondering if one of mine might not make it home. But I'm reluctant to support those who had no anti-war voice until after the chickens come home to roost.
If her son Casey Sheehan had died in Afghanistan, would that have made a difference? A lot of folks knew the decision to initiate war in Afghanistan was an omen of what was to come from BushCo.
The WTC attack took place September 11, 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom commenced on October 7, 2001 when Bush announced that the U.S. military has launched strikes against al-Qaida terrorist camps and Taliban military installations in Afghanistan. Within 3 weeks of the WTC attack we were at war. The American public and the UN played percussion for BushCo's Get OBL & TWAT Song, and we're still paying the piper in Kabul, with the Taliban around and OBL somewhere and the war against terror marching on.
Many folks, especially those who had read PNAC, knew Afghanistan was only the beginning. With a messy situation in Afghanistan, with BushCo's almost immediate loss of interest in OBL, we proceed within months to send troops to Kuwait in preparation of Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL). (My oldest had orders for Kuwait in Sept '02.)
Sheehan says: "We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled. The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached." Again I ask, if the war were handled differently or WMD found, would they be okay with war?
Sheehan's 15 minutes reminds me of Jessica Lynch which reminded me of Shoshana Johnson. "Shot through both legs and held prisoner in Iraq for 22 days, Shoshana Johnson returned home to a difficult convalescence that lacked the media fury and official hype that attended her friend and comrade in arms Jessica Lynch." There was no movie, money, or free college for Shoshana and the only in depth interview I saw of her was in the magazine Essence. The hyperbole is played for an audience of white sacrifice.
The democrats find Sheehan attractive, literate, and anti-Bush. She's a useful tool for the left to create a "problem for Bush now."
Sheehan says the "war was not worth my son's sacrifice." Some folks know wars of agression are never worth any sons or daughters sacrificed. What I feel is a stark contrast between people such as myself, who once would have supported Sheehan, but today see the obvious politicization of one death which will do nothing to end the US policy of war for profit. Wars simply need to be "handled better" when bought by the white American consumer. Where others see a useful spokesperson, perhaps a martyr, I see hypocrisy, dishonesty, and a woman taking a moral stand when it's personally relevant and convenient. This isn't a nation divided; it's a nation of Left, Right, and a few of us disgusted with both.
10 comments:
nicely put.
I agree with you 100%, Kate/A.
Remember the ending of the movie "3 days of the condor," when Cliff Robertson is making his speech to Redford, who plays a naiive CIA analyist/lover/hero/good guy? "They'll just want us to go and get it (the oil) for them." Americans know which side our bread is oiled on. Anyway....
One could almost feel sorry for Bush, just doing his masters' bidding and catching most of the flak that they should be taking.
Almost -- if he wasn't such an a--hole.
Meanwhile, you're right, "the left" mostly continues to wage their partisan battles, apparently acting out a role in a stage show.
And the beating goes on.....
Condor a classic. Recall the ending hinted "they" also controlled the press.
Such a circus these days.
Where others see a useful spokesperson, perhaps a martyr, I see hypocrisy, dishonesty, and a woman taking a moral stand when it's personally relevant and convenient.
A little harsh perhaps... I think most of us decide to take a moral stand when, and only when, an issue becomes "personally relevant" to us. Maybe not the ideal approach to life, but very very human.
(as an aside, if you find yourself getting pissed at a woman trying to come to terms w/ the death of her son just because it's getting national airtime, it's time to turn off the goddamn TV)
Actually, I haven't seen Ms. Sheehan on TV as I seldom have time to watch the tube. Nor am I pissed at Sheehan's "national air time." Subtle accusations of jealousy seem a common ploy in politics these days.
Sheehan's grief is being used by Democrats for political mileage. Her "Impeachment Tour" as it is being played today will not change the basic problems in the American political system. If her tour was to confront the system that gives us wars and corrupted politicians, I would consider joining her. A million moms march on Washington I would join her in.
I saw a blogger yesterday compare Sheehan to MLK which was silly. MLK marched against a system, not one man or party. King didn't hold a sit-in on LBJ's ranch. None of the organizations behind Sheehan have called for a national boycott of the corporate backers of men like Bush, nor a general strike, or any action that politicians of both parties would be uncomfortable with, to say the least. One hope is Sheehan has started something, which could lead to such tactics. But I'm not counting on the public to sacrifice their lifestyles to that extent or that long-term. I hope the public proves me wrong.
Sheehan is confronting one man, not the system that gives us men like Bush. Crawford Coward aka Prairie Chapel is Bush's private property. Her "tour" should be at the house we all own in D.C. on Pennsylvania Avenue. The Democrats don't want a massive march on Washington anymore than the Republicans do.
It is not "very, very human" in my book to take a moral stand when it hurts personally; perhaps very American though. And perhaps why we find ourselves in a culture that grows more corrupt and self-absorbed with each generation. Thanks for your input.
Nope, hinting at jealousy wasn't my intent. I do understand your point of view a little better...
If her tour was to confront the system that gives us wars and corrupted politicians, I would consider joining her.
Point taken and understood! But then you finish with
It is not "very, very human" in my book to take a moral stand when it hurts personally; perhaps very American though. And perhaps why we find ourselves in a culture that grows more corrupt and self-absorbed with each generation. Thanks for your input.
and I can't help but wonder how you conclude that my generation, the latest and greatest, is worse that all others. From MY point of view the corrupt generation is YOURS. The racist generation is YOURS. The generation that refuses to get off the couch today because they "gave at the office in the 60s"? Yours again. You folks left us with an expanding mountain of shit to deal with, and it's certainly not the people who will be dead in 20 years that I see busting their asses trying to dig us out.
From my perspective it looks like society is getting less corrupt and self-absorbed with each generation. How do you account for the discrepancy? Where do you get the information that informs your worldview? (not rhetorical questions, btw)
(Pls note that I don't intend this as a personal attack, Kate/A, just a broadside at previous generations and the all too common "back in my day" mentality)
My world view is formed by my travels, age, experiences, risks, choices,education, etc., probably as you formed yours.
But it's unlikely of any matter to one so certain society has improved and if not it's the previous generation's fault.
I see it as each generation becoming less and less responsible for their government, giving politicians license to corrupt absolutely, and brazenly now.
Racism is also alive and well, contrary to popular belief. I plan to be around at least another 20, maybe more as I come from a long line of 100 year old folks, so I am and will be dealing with that same mountain of shit you speak of, as will my children and grandchildren.
Maybe we can talk again in 20 years.
But it's unlikely of any matter to one so certain society has improved and if not it's the previous generation's fault.
Wow. I was asking because I was truly curious, not to piss you off, Kate. Yes yes, we formulate our worldview based on travel, experiences, loves lost etc etc... but where do you get your impression of the latest generation? Do you teach school? Do you volunteer at a skate park? Are you active w/in your church's sunday school? It was an honest question.
Anyhow... yes. As far as I'm concerned it is your generation's fault. Did the current state of affairs happen on it's own? Were we, unborn at the time, somehow able to infect you folks with our lack of values, morals and decency?
Admit it. You have failed your children. Racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty... why are these still around? You say that you fought the good fight lo these many years ago? Great, then there is no shame in admitting that you were not equal to such a monstrous challenge. Few would be, and it remains to be seen if my generation can truly put an end to such things.
We do have a few points working to our advantage that you did not....
1) More and more of us are truly post-racial. What do you call someone who is part nat/am, part black on their dad's side, and irish, italian and dutch on their mothers? Your generation would have called them "Colored" (right? It's so hard to keep that crap straight). Ours calls them friggin hot, Keanu Reeves style.
2) We have a fantastically cool form of anonymous interpersonal communication, one that not only allows you to dictate how others "see" you, but allows you to control how much of the picture they are able to view. In a nutshell, you only know what a person chooses to tell you, and you are forced to take that at face value. Racism and sexism begin to melt away when race and sex become not only optional, but changeable at whim.
3) We have learned from your mistakes. While we may participate in marches and rallies to blow off steam, that's not where we expect change to come from. Trite as it sounds, we realize that change can only come from within. You might see this introspection as being self-absorbed, sure, but we take to heart the saying "think globally, act locally". We know that fighting "the system" (that is, a handfull of assholes) head on gets you nowhere, so we take a more oblique approach. We form co-ops that are fiscally responsible, eliminating the dependance on giant corporations. We get our information on the state of the world's affairs from disparate sources like Prof. Juan Cole's blog Informed Comment (and if you have children currently in the military but have not read his take on the situation in the middle east, SHAME ON YOU), rather than trusting a giant company to give us the straight dope.
And finally, and perhaps most importantly...
4) We're fucking pissed off in a way you never had the guts to be (in the interest of fairness, the authorities wouldn't dare sic dogs on us like they did you... we're armed to the teeth and we don't value our lives nearly as much as you do yours). Do you remember the names of the kids at the 60's Olympics who gave the black power salute instead of putting their hands on their hearts during the national anthem? I can guarantee that if someone did that today (and in the same spirit) they'd be immortal in the eyes of this country's youth, and not relegated to a footnote in some book. We are sad, angry, and we've learned the uselessness of peaceful protest.
Stand back, you old bigots and unwitting tools. Gavin Newsom, Barak Obama, Linus Torvalds and thousands of other unsung ppl toiling away in their local communities are destroying your world. Your misery will be our happiness.
(again, Kate/A, pls dont see this as a personal attack. I'm sure that by now you realize the frustration that someone of my generation feels when dealing w/ someone from your generation. Pls take this as it's intended, a venting of frustration at a generation that has failed it's children, no matter how noble their intentions.)
From what I've read, Cindy was vocally opposed to her son's military service for a long time. So I don't think Casey's death changed that, it just strengthened it to outrage.
I'm not sure what is wrong with her being 'politicized.' The great thing about Cindy's story is that she has put a face (maybe a white face) to anti-war sentiment. She has attracted media attention to her 'cause' and I believe this is a good thing as there is so little dissent about the war that is covered. She has asked the hard questions to the president the media is too sheepish to ask.
She clearly states that her 'cause' has nothing to do with democrats/republicans, but with ending a war. And I think that is fair. While anti-war sentiment tends to be associated with liberals, it is not necessarily associated with a particular party (as the democrats also supported the Iraq resolution).
The bottom line is though that Cindy is basically being consistent in her message: end the war. Whatever spin either side has put on that, is bound to happen. But there's something so grand about her exercising her free speech and demanding justification for a war that we are BORROWING billions of dollars to fight as well as losing lives.
While I agree war must end I just don't feel Sheehan and those behind her have the momentum to do it. In truth I think the republicans couldn't have made a better choice for a nemesis as she doesn't have the fire and charisma an anti-war activist needs.
But aside from that I don't feel the "left" understands what their movement must have to succeed, and since there's insufficient space to write that here, this link may help clarify what I am trying to say. I know some on the left disagree with the statements of this letter, but I believe they're wrong and question why they disagree. Dear Sisters and Brothers in the anti-war movement.
Post a Comment