Some of you have been asking why I haven’t posted anything about Cindy Sheehan. After all, everybody else is doing it - don’t I wanna be cool and fit in? Come on, you say, try it just once. One time won’t kill you…
Oh, okay. Just once. I’ll at least explain why I’ve been holding my tongue (which is a practice that I wouldn’t recommend for obvious sanitary reasons). To me, it’s a little too complicated for a screed that can be summed up in a sentence (like Ann Coulter’s touching “Hey I Lose Sons In Poorly Planned Wars All The Time But You Don’t Catch Me Whining About It Because I Love My Counrty And Liberals Don’t.” It’s really a must-read, featuring one of the goofiest straw men since Ray Bolger). The whole thing has made idiots out of most of our politicians and fourth estate. Let me explain why everyone besides me is dead wrong on Sheehan:
The Liberals. The left isn’t terrific at finding living representatives of Just Causes who tug at the heartstrings of America. It’s a booming industry in the conservative world, which seems to find a Terri Schiavo or a Noble Judge or an Evil Judge every time they need to hold a fundraiser. But liberals just don’t find such cases all that often, which is why there’s been a massive bandwagon that has attached itself to Sheehan. The bandwagon has done a lot of steering too, shouting directions from the back seat. That’s why supporters of Sheehan and her cause find themselves in the uncomfortable position of not only having to equate President Bush with Hitler, but having to join Hamas and clamor for the distribution of free Mumia for all. There are so few parades in the liberal world, so everyone’s marching in this one. Part of the problem here is that Sheehan herself is a somewhat imperfect messenger who attracts lots of questionable support, not unlike Terri Schiavo’s family and their menagerie of quacks and loonies.
The Conservatives. For the first time in recent memory, the conservative attack machine seems a little creaky here. The rush to discredit any liberal whose statements make the front section of the paper is usually pretty effective, but finding Contradictions and Hypocrisies isn’t as effective a ploy when your target is a bereaved mom. Sheehan wasn’t a public figure until a few weeks ago, so her voting record doesn’t really apply. Complaining that she’s changed her tune since her son’s head was freshly blown off seems a mite… ungenerous. Further hampering our friends to the right is a fact that has aided them countless time and now returns to bite them on the ass: Americans don’t look too deeply into things. Cindy’s son was killed, and she’s mad. That’s the story, thanks for telling us, now please excuse us, we’re gonna drive down to BJ’s and buy a sixty-year supply of Beefaroni at a great discount.
Cindy. We went to war with Iraq under false pretenses, there was no real al Qaeda connection, and the planning was extremely poor. That’s a message. Regrettably, Mrs. Sheehan’s message now includes calling the President a terrorist, clamoring to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and lecturing about the evils of the entire history of the United States of America. That’s a bit of a challenge for those of us who want to say, “Hey, that Iraq thing was a mistake, you idiots. Can we get back to fighting actual Terror?” Also, Sheehan’s complaints about our bloody past ignore the maxim that most serious scholars employ when examining all of world history: “Given the chance, people tend to really, really suck.” America’s got a few black eyes, to be sure, but so does… everyone. Those black eyes are the reason for another serious scholarly maxim - “Historically, nations resemble raccoons.”
President Bush. Yeah, saying that he’s got to “get on with his life” and going for a bike ride was a pretty tone-deaf maneuver, because there’s reason to believe that there may be a couple hundred thousand Americans in Iraq who’d like to get on with their lives as well. But it’s worse than that. Bush is taking a fresh approach. He’s not going to make the mistakes of Vietnam, oh no, not him. To ensure this, the President avoids funerals, protestors, and specific projections. His administration keeps the video cameras away from the wounded and dead so that the evening news doesn’t turn the tide again. The irony here is that all this is making him repeat the worst mistake of both Nixon and Johnson - he seems out of touch. It’s a fresh, new kind of Out Of Touch, though, because the world was mercifully spared too many images of Nixon on a bicycle.
So that’s why I’m somewhat mum on Sheehan and her movement. We need an anti-war movement, if only to make it clear that lying to us at the outset of a major war that kills thousands of people is sort of “not okay.” Sadly, this controversy has become yet another excuse for “liberals” and “conservatives” to line up on opposite sides and whack each other for fun and profit. That gets tiresome for me, particularly since I have all this Beefaroni to make my way through.
Fanny Roborat
35 comments
Mike Z
August 20, 2005 at 8:02 pm
1Alas, poor Cindy seems more and more like just a figure head for the Cindy Sheehan Movement.
According to the polls, the scales tipped against the pres. over a month or so ago, even without Sheehan. The media then calculated that it would be useful (i.e. profitable) to finally latch onto one of these people. After all, it’s not like she’s the first one to think of protesting the Iraq war from the moral high ground.
cooper
August 20, 2005 at 8:04 pm
2Here’s my thought on Cindy Sheehan - at least someone has gotten the ball rolling on standing up to the Bush administration’s war in Iraq. Obviously during her meeting with the president, she was somewhat star-struck by the honor of being invited to the White House. In retrospect, she realized how inappropriate Bush’s behavior was - calling her “Mom” (couldn’t be bothered with learning her name) and acting jovial and upbeat during the meeting - I’d be pissed, too. And as far as Cindy being an imperfect messenger, well, I’d say the entire human race resembles raccoons.
I have not exactly been slack-jawed in front of the TV, following all the ins and outs of this story, so maybe I’m missing something here. Still, the little bit I’ve read about it, it sure seems the boys in the big hats are really stepping all over their, um,… tongues here. Refusing to meet with her and then hopping on his bike and saying he “had to get on with his life” certainly was stupid. I’m sure Cindy’s son and all the other casualties would like to do the same. Somehow, when a grieving mother finally gets in front of a network news camera and calls the president liar, it seems to carry more weight than when Al Franken or Micheal Moore does it.
And in conclusion, Ann Coulter’s a bitch.
John Ward
August 20, 2005 at 8:16 pm
3Adam,
First time we disagree. Sheehan has given voice to millions of Americans’ thoughts. She is an average Joe, just trying to do her best to wake up America. If you, Mike Z or anyone else can do better, give it a whirl. We’re all on the same side here so why knock someone who got a triple with the bases loaded for not getting a homer? And someone who’s never played the political game before at that.
My hat’s off to Cindy Sheehan.
A vet
Mike Z
August 20, 2005 at 9:32 pm
4John - I didn’t mean to imply that Cindy herself is wrong or insincere. Rather, my point is this: Sheehan may be expressing what many Americans feel, but she is not really the first or the best or, perhaps, even the most morally unassailable. It’s just that she’s getting way more *media attention* than other, similar protesters. And I’m suggesting that this is because the marketing landscape finally favors such a shift in the media’s strategy.
America was, apparently, already in the process of waking up before the media latched onto Sheehan. Let’s hope it isn’t just rolling over to hit the snooze button.
cooper
August 20, 2005 at 9:49 pm
5John, - Well said! Mike Z - Yes, let’s hope.
dee
August 20, 2005 at 10:07 pm
6You galvanize the movement with the symbol you have, not the symbol you wish you had.
Cyclone
August 20, 2005 at 11:05 pm
7Adam,
My sentiments lie with John Ward… Send your beeforoni to Camp Casey and make it count. Remember Adam, that people with gifts like you should use them to move others towards something good. Sheehan is on the way to becoming republican kryptonite. You are right to suggest that she is a polarizing figure and to infer that there isn’t much beyond that. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Just enough push in the “left” direction could give us all what we really want. A good old fashioned Texas Bar-B-Que at the “Prarie Chapel”. See how that works; give up the beefaroni now to make some good republican kryptonite, corner and corral truckloads of republicans to skewer at the Bar-B-Que. I am sure that we’ll have more than enough left overs to make lifetime supplies of Beefaroni. Liberals, Progressives, lets get on that horse and lets ride out. I for one am getting awful hungry.
tess
August 20, 2005 at 11:49 pm
8Adam,
You’ve summed up my own fears concerning the anti-war groups use of Sheehan for their own purposes. The whole campaign made me nervous, but I keep reminding myself that in part, Sheehan wanted at least the publicity to highlight her own grief and search for answers, and in all probability, no one ever has a purely selfless reason for their actions.
Though on the flipside, I wouldn’t mind sending all those pundits who spend endless posts disparaging her as being only a “tool” of the left off to Iraq, or sending their precious sons or daughters to fight their war. I’m just tired that those pundits who support the war the loudest usually have no personal investment in it.
Smokin Jay
August 21, 2005 at 2:24 am
9The problem for Cindy Sheehan and anyone else who has a legitimate gripe against our current administration is that, according the the right-wing and neo-christian pundits, they are all unamerican and traitors to boot. I admire the woman for standing up publicly for what she believes is right, and her right. However, I fear that it’s only a matter of time before the republican 6th grade strategy of “I know you are, but what am I?” ends up working and forces her to fade slowly into the background along with all of her “rights”. As we all know, the only people in Amerika with rights are the ones who agree with Mr Bush.
SmokinJay
Adam Felber
August 21, 2005 at 2:47 am
10Cyclone and John -
Yeah, I knew I was going to be somewhat out on a limb here, but that’s the way I feel. I love Cindy Sheehan’s courage, her methods, and the fact that she’s touched off a long-overdue movement. But I can’t pretend I’m not saddened by some of the things she’s saying and the adjacent causes. In my perfect world, this would be about the grievous, selfish, and destructive mistake that was the invasion of Iraq. Given the fate of Casey Sheehan, that would be appropriate as well.
It’s a little bit of wishful thinking, of course, but there it is. This is a unique moment wherein the whole country can be awoken to the reality of that horrifying mistake. But having to hear someone say, “America has been killing people on this continent since it started. This country is not worth dying for,” is a pretty steep admission price for a lot of Americans. I wish she hadn’t said it, and I wish she hadn’t come to be surrounded by people who approve of that as a message. I wish her vigil had been a silent one, because the mere fact of it is more eloquent than anything she could say.
Once again - it’s just a wish, and the reality is heroic enough. But I can’t pretend to be overjoyed by the recent turn. I don’t want this to be “republican kryptonite.” I want this to be kryptonite only for the Bush administration, and to have everyone else on the other side joining together to realize that this is beyond political philosophy and red/state/blue state dynamics. This is about a unique and somewhat apolitical betrayal by a small group of individuals who’ve bullied our country into a wrongheaded war.
Anyway, that’s my take on it. but I certainly see your points and respect the movement that we actually have. It’s a lot better than nothing, which is pretty much where we’d been.
Ken the Llama
August 21, 2005 at 12:25 pm
11I checked out the Ann Coulter article, and I have a few thoughts about it:
1. Taking pot shots at Maureen Dowd’s overstatements is as easy as taking shots at Ann Coulter herself.
2. “America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years” — huh? I remember two attacks (or a few more if you count 9/11 as several separate attacks). What part of relentless have I forgotten? (I’ll warrant there have been a few failed attacks too, but “relentless”?)
3. I notice that all the comments on that particular entry are vehemently anti-Coulter. Thanks to the miracles of syndication, the liberals get to comment in peace while the conservatives will go off to their own syndicated site and comment where we won’t reply to their comments. Isn’t it great how the Internet facilitates a global conversation? I do also note that no one gets to reply on Coulter’s site. (Adam, have I mentioned lately that it’s cool to be able to reply to your posts and talk to each other?)
Emmarie
August 21, 2005 at 2:09 pm
12I appreciate this post because it’s not the ridiculous for-or-against that party politics has to play all the time (one example being in the matter of judges). Usually, there are flaws with everybody, so you might as well say that.
I feel sort of sorry about the fact that Sheehan is espousing other causes. It seems, from my all-knowing perspective, that she’s realized that for once people are actually listening to her thoughts, so she wants to use that chance as much as possible. And since in her view, all of these causes are just, there’s no problem with her saying anything. Who knows, in the same situation, any of us might do the same.
Allison
August 21, 2005 at 6:31 pm
13Adam, you spoke my thoughts eloquently, and Emmarie, you beat me to the comment I was already mentally composing. I wish that this protest would focus on the issue of the lies behind our entry into (creation of, actually) the Iraqi war.
Whatever anyone’s opinions of the “side” issues, it’s a psychological given that a single statement is much more effective than a series of statements. When in doubt, say as little as necessary/possible.
Pete IVDL
August 21, 2005 at 7:05 pm
14Hmmm. The Protest against The War started off with a bang, all those crosses, all that hopefulism… Then Karl greased up his “puppet fist” and next time Cindy bent to straighten a cross… OK, not true.
I find it interesting that the conservative machine gunners have taken a while to range the target. They’re still missing, but all the NeoCons are murmuring “that was close! Hoooeee, we’re gettin’ better now!”. Maybe they were all on a 5-week vacation too? You know, they were sitting at home, skinning puppies with their kids, when all of a sudden the BushBell started ringing. “Oh, crap,” they probably said, “which foot has he put into his gob this time? Sorry, kids, dad’s gotta go save his country again. Rub some salt on those puppies for later…”
I find it even more interesting that pundits seem to be concentrating on the fact that Cindy has already had her Moment With THe President, and most people seem to be thinking that two bites at the pie is a bit much. They don’t seem to be concentrating on how Bush treated Cindy during the first Pie Bite, naturally. “Yeah, I met the President. It only took the death of my son. And the President looked like he might have said my name, or my son’s name, but shucks, he was busy doing something else at the time.”
Personally? I’d punch the guy in the nuts if he treated me the way he treated Cindy. (Yeah, that means I’d actually be punching Karl Rove in the face).
Murray
August 21, 2005 at 7:05 pm
15Cindy may be diluting her own message; I’m not familiar enough with every thing coming out of Crawford to know. But a good deal of this could be nothing more than how the press works.
Henry Kissinger once said something to the effect, “I could give the greatest speech ever given but if for a second my finger hit my face, the headline and picture would be me picking my nose”.
If Cindy spends 99% of her time talking about Casey and the problems of this war, then in response to a weird question she veers off, guess what makes the news. Two weeks worth of sound bites of her saying the same thing are not what make compelling TV infotainment. They have to have her say something, but it needs to be different. Bush may be good at staying on message (his handlers are the best), the rest of us would not find it so easy.
My own experience with the media (TV, radio, and print around 20 times) is that the reporter has a story he wants to give and you are a prop to support what he has to say. Several times what was reported had little resemblance to what I had relayed.
If Cindy’s message changes every day, there may be more reason than just her.
dee
August 21, 2005 at 7:23 pm
16Good point, Murray. Of course, the only reason Bush stays on message is because the little brain can only juggle one ball at a time.
When someone is suddenly thrown into the spotlight (yes, by her own volition but I doubt she knew how big it would get), he or she will say what’s on his or her mind. And then the PR folks will step in and the buffers will go up.
I’m more concerned when someone who HAS been schooled in the nuances of speaking for attribution, such as former CIA Middle East specialist Reuel Marc Gerecht, says this on Meet the Press this morning:
I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women’s social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there’s no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it’s important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we’d all be thrilled. I mean, women’s social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they’re there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective
Now that’s an observation we need to be jumping on someone for.
Hanna
August 21, 2005 at 10:42 pm
17Look at it this way, better to have Cindy Sheehan saying what she believes than me, cause I would be saying shit that would make her sound like a reasonable, rational person. (Which I truly believe she is. She’s also really fucking pissed off. So, I think a lot of regular folks will be willing to cut her some slack.)
Love,
Hanna
(Your new “Buy Hash for Cash” thingie won’t let me comment if I use my not-very-family-friendly website URL, so I’m using my family-friendly one. In hopes that that works.)
Hanna
August 21, 2005 at 10:44 pm
18Well, never mind.
Apparently, if I leave the page open for a day and then try to comment it won’t work. But if I re-load it, then it works fine and I look like a moron.
Hugs and kisses,
Hanna
Ulwan
August 21, 2005 at 10:56 pm
19I have to come down with Adam on this one. I am pleased as punch that Ms. Sheehan has helped to break the cognitive log jamb that seems to have existed in the minds of so many Americans since we started this deceitful war, and for that I am grateful.
For whatever reason, Ms. Sheehan does seem to have gotten off topic of late and in so doing, weakened her primary message. I regret this not because I don’t think she is entitled to have opinions on American history, but rather because I very selfishly want her message to be as broadly effective as possible.
There are a whole heap of people out there who really believed that Iraq played some role in the 9/11 attacks and/or that Iraq really did pose some kind of dire threat to our national security. It seems that finally the fog in their brains is clearing a little thanks in part to Ms. Sheehan.
My fear is that her most recent statements have changed her status as a target for the “conservative machine gunners” from “nimble footed field mouse” to “broad side of a barn.” They won’t have any trouble ranging on her now. She has painted a big red bull’s-eye across her backside and you can be sure nobody on the right will have to squint to draw a bead on her now.
The sad thing is, once the conservative pundits start chanting, “America isn’t worth dying for” in unison, the smoke will quietly drift back into the minds of the easily led and little is changed.
Lily
August 22, 2005 at 10:18 am
20Since Adam posted, a fellow named Qualls (whose son also died in Iraq) has started a movement against the demonstrators. According to AP 8/21, “Qualls’ frustration with the anti-war demonstrators erupted last week when he removed a cross bearing his son’s name that was among hundreds the group had put up along the road to Bush’s ranch. Qualls called the protesters’ views disrespectful to soldiers, and said he had to yank out two more crosses after protesters kept replacing them. ”
That last sentence disturbs me greatly. I have to wonder about the motives of protesters who would keep replacing the son’s cross when the family obviously didn’t want it there…in other words, they didn’t want their son in an anti-war protest and for all we know, he wouldn’t have wanted to be there either.
People who would keep replacing a cross in that situation seem - to me at least- to be more interested in winning on some petty point than in finding a peaceful resolution…and isn’t that sort of arrogant attitude exactly what got us into this whole mess in the first place? At the very least, why create this alternate “war dad” symbol for the hawks to rally round?
Die hard liberal though I may be, the older I get, things like this make me wonder if the only real difference between having liberals or conservatives in charge is the difference between whose ox is getting gored.
Steve
August 22, 2005 at 1:53 pm
21Cindy Sheehan is the Left’s Terri Schiavo and will probably serve their (our) cause as well as the late Ms Schiavo served the Right’s, that is, not at all. Great for direct mail campaign donations but not all that helpful in creating any sort of meaningful dialog or resolution to our rather obvious problems.
Josh
August 22, 2005 at 2:39 pm
22I like Ann Cloutier… she’s a great satirist, even if she doesn’t realize it. If you read what she writes as satire, it’s brilliant stuff… the only problem is that she’s actually trying to be serious.
But I say again, if you don’t take her seriously (and no one with a brain should), then she’s a barrel of laughs
ice weasel
August 22, 2005 at 3:11 pm
23Ouch Adam, kind of tenuous limb to be out on.
I’m odd, in that I consciously avoid almost all of the MSM. So papers, most radio and nearly every bit of television mean nothing to me. I get most of my reading (news wise) done on the net at numerous sources. So my views of things tend to be very different from most. And don’t get me wrong, this reclusiveness to popular culture doesn’t make me better, just different (and it gives me more time to devote to other things).
So, my view of Sheehan, brilliant. While I think there is much truth to MSM grasping not necessarily the “best” icon, but the one available when it senses it needs one, Sheehan is pretty good. And remarks from her on the middle east aside, she’s been pretty focused. It’s not really her fault that other groups, hoping to feast on the scraps of coverage, have “joined in”.
As for Cindy, I left work early on Wednesday, joined about 300 other people deep in the heart of one of the most conservative counties in Pennsylvania for a beautiful silent vigil. Curiously enough, the people who drove by were either silent or respectful. I heard moe than a few comments that expressed surprise there wasn’t some drive-by hecking.
So, even though the focus has softened a bit, keep in mind, she got more than 100,000 people in more than 1600 locations to stand in public with her. That’s pretty impressive.
All this said, I think your revised post is very well spoken. I mostly agree with it. I hope all of that as well.
Adam Felber
August 22, 2005 at 5:24 pm
24Thanks, ice weasel. Though I didn’t revise the post (unless your referring to my comment above).
As I said, I’m thrilled about Sheehan’s stance, angry about the fate of her son, and thankful that she’s touched off a movement. I’m glad the rallies and vigils are happening. But my other feelings about her, well, I stand by those too.
One more thing: We (and by this I mean the people who thought the Iraq War was a big mistake) need Sheehan. But I’m not sure she needs us. Hearing her and seeing her makes me realize that she’s in incredible amounts of pain (obviously), and that she probably needs help and time to deal with it. I suppose leading this movement might be cathartic, but it might not be. All this “love” and “support” has exactly nothing to do with who Casey Sheehan was, and that might take its toll over time.
I hope I’m wrong about that one. But it did strike me as I was watching her.
It’s weird. We’re really a culture of grief, revenge and victimhood right now. I doubt that anyone standing up for themselves would make the news anymore (like Rosa Parks or MLK). The word “hero” has been so abused that now it applies to almost any victim. I don’t know why I’m bringing it up except to say that the forces of reason and peace need an MLK, and Cindy Sheehan isn’t it. Perhaps that’s why I’m somewhat ambivalent about her.
ice weasel
August 22, 2005 at 6:18 pm
25My mistake. I had no intention of implying you revised your post, rather, you clarified in the second post.
hedera
August 22, 2005 at 11:27 pm
26Adam - “Grief, revenge, and victimhood.” Wow! How exactly what we have turned into. How unlike what my parents taught me as I grew up. How do we get back to where we take responsibility for what we do, accept the bad breaks, and go on?
This isn’t really related to Cindy Sheehan except that she got the worst possible bad break and is having major trouble accepting it, and wants someone to blame it on - I guess that’s the “grief and revenge” part.
I had missed the “America isn’t worth dying for”. I’m with you there, too, Adam - I don’t buy that. I’m reminded of Churchill’s remark about democracy, that it was the worst form of government one could imagine - except for all the others.
Tiger
August 23, 2005 at 10:20 am
27The real virtue of Sheehan’s campaign, it seems to me, is her expectation that the president might actually have to talk with someone who disagrees with him. One of my biggest frustrations with this administration–along with all the others–is that the president is never confronted in public with opposing viewpoints. All public events are scripted to focus on supporting pre-conceived policies–viz., the Social Security “town meetings”, much of the campaign, etc. Any protest is patronizingly met with “it’s nice they have the right to protest” rather than an honest attempt to respond to the protest’s content. Once the election happens, it seems, your opportunity to change policy is over–unless you’re a donor. Otherwise, shut up and hold on.
So, whatever we might think of Sheehan’s statements, at least she is demanding some–gasp–accountability.
Mary
August 23, 2005 at 11:05 am
28I agree with Adam that what we need is a focused movement. One that demands accountability. Why is it hat this administration believes that personal responsibility must be applied to everyone but them?
Shrub, I double dog dare you to meet with Cindy and actually listen to someone who diesagrees with you!!!!!! What a wuss.
Scott McClellan
August 23, 2005 at 2:05 pm
29Mmmmm. Beefaroni.
ice weasel
August 23, 2005 at 3:03 pm
30“excuse me mr. mccellan, did you say ‘jeff ganon’?”
Emily
August 23, 2005 at 3:54 pm
31Ms. Sheehan touches another sensitive spot with me. Frankly, she’s doing a fine job breaking the ice of the frigid anti-war movement, and I’m happy to sail my protest ship behind her. But another issue that’s been on my mind lately is the Beatification of the American Mother. The Right has spent a lot of time lately ballyhooing the sanctity of motherhood - to the point where I, who will never be a mother, feel like a second-class citizen among second-class citizens. So, while I understand using rhetoric the enemy identifies with, it makes me nervous to see my own side playing up the motherhood angle.
David
August 23, 2005 at 6:28 pm
32I’m not so sure we need a leader. We aren’t followers. I would rather see repeated acts of individual courage, such as provided by the mayor of Salt Lake City. We either achieve a shift in consciousness through unrelenting pursuit of truth, or else we stumble along in subservience to whatever machine and its leader holds sway.
MLK,Jr., wasn’t looking for followers. He was looking for a shift in American consciousness. It happened in relation to civil rights, but the big prize he sought, a shift in consciousness regarding American foreign (and domestic) policy, never occurred, and the assassinations of JFK, MLK,Jr., and RFK collectively guaranteed it would not happen in the 20th century.
We started the 21st century with the most retrograde administration imaginable, and now we find ourselves deep in the worst aspects of pre-JFK, MLK,Jr., RFK America (it is worth remembering that RFK had to experience a profound shift in consciousness to get to where he was in the last years of his life).
Cindy Sheehan represents a single act of personal courage, nothing more, nothing less. And anyone looking for an audience has to go where the cameras are. I do think the list of people willing to go to Crawford and speak their minds, including the state senator from Minnesota and the mothers from Georgia who were accompanied by Rev. Lowery, as well as the others who have gone there to speak their minds, are actually a pretty impressive group of individuals.
I think it is wiser to think of Cindy Sheehan as a catalyst than as a leader of a movement.
The right can villify individuals and it can villify movements, but it cannot successfully villify shifts in consciousness. When it attempts that, it villifies itself in ways the left could never do.
Pete IVDL
August 23, 2005 at 8:47 pm
33David, you’re on the right track. Unfortunately, to be more than a lost voice in the cacophony of lost voices, these catalysts needed (and still need) to bring other voices in, other voices to work with - and so the cycle may repeat itself. Cindy’s “core message” will reach “critical mass” and someone will start taking real physical potshots at her (maybe from the scrubby verge) to prove that it is worth dying for America. (I wonder what the neocons did to the farmer who shot his mouth, then his gun off - probably took him behind the barn and showed him pictures of Howard Dean…)
Mary, I double-dare Shrub to actually listen to anyone outside his circle of handlers (and of course his Spoken Word tape collection).
william leatherwood
August 24, 2005 at 1:26 am
34Cindy Sheehan has responded to President Bush’s comments concerning meeting her and has posted her response in The huffington Post. The first statement Cindy Sheehan makes that comes off as anti-democratic is this one and I quote Cindy Sheehan- ” Does anyone else know what “democratic” means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one.” Cindy Sheehen in that particular statement actually attacks 51 % majority rule as a bad form of government and if you can read anything else into that, defending that statement, please make your comment at the end of this post. I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan that 50 plus one is much better then Saddam’s 1 % plus brutal totalitarian rule in which the 1% Saddam, rules 99 % of the entire population. Maybe Sheehan has met with some socialist organizations that oppose democratic forms of government. I did notice that a socialist website called ‘Socialist Worker Online’ is running a rather large article advocating Sheehans position. Cindy Sheehan actually gave an interview to the Socialist Worker Online, she spoke to Socialist Worker’s ERIC RUDER which is mentioned at the beginning of the article. In her interview with the Socialist Worker Online she says and I quote ” Some people may think that we’re fighting terrorism over there. But when is that job ever going to be complete? Terrorism is just a new “ism.” It was “communism” when I was growing up.” Here Cindy Sheehan is discounting the validity of the threat of communism in the past as just a made up ” ism.” I believe history taught us that communism brutally oppressed and killed millions of innocent people and is still somewhat of a threat today in places like North Korea where millions have died from starvation due to KimYong II, brutal rule. Cindy Sheehan later went on to say and I quote ” I DEFINITELY think that we should support war resisters in the military”. I will leave that statement up to the readers interpretation, but it sounds to me to border on subversion and treason. Here is Cindy Sheehan’s interview with the Socialist Workers Online in its entirety http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/549/549_06_CindySheehan.shtml .
The next statement Cindy Sheehan makes is both inaccurate and untruthful and I quote
“This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn’t ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for.” Actually Cindy Sheehen didn’t ask Bush, she demanded that he “bring the troops home now”, here is a quote from her statement made on August 18 2005 and carried by ABC News “”If George Bush comes out here today or if we leave here at the end of August, this is only the beginning, and we’re not going to stop until our troops are brought home”, I would suggest that means a withdrawal what would you think it means? Also in this ABC article written by Eric Noe it is stated ” In addition to requesting a meeting with Bush, Sheehan is now calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. She promised to send a similar message if the president agrees to meet with her.” Here is the complete article you be the judge http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1045556&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 . Is ABC lying, did they just make that up? I have myself watched Cindy Sheehan on national television say time and time again “bring our troops home now” but she has stated that she has never intended to ask Bush that question. I smell another lie. Whats really strange is in Cindys own article she just released today she says this and I quote ” Then bring our troops home. The status quo in Iraq is awful”, if you ask me she cant even get through one article without contradicting herself. She goes on to imply that America is spreading “imperialism ” by what she says is 14 permanent bases being set up in Iraq the size of Sacramento, California. I dont know if there is any United States military bases on the entire planet Earth the size of a large U.S. city,if there is please let me know ok. By the way the interview Cindy Sheehan gave to the Socialist Worker is the same Socialist worker who ran this article entitled ” The Meaning of Marxism” in which they praise Marxism to no end. Here is the link to that garbage http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml
David
August 25, 2005 at 1:41 pm
35Pete IVDL,
Good point. Biggest problem at this point, aside from spinelessness on the part of a lot of people who should be speaking up, might be a fourth estate more interested, as Murray said, in Cindy as a prop for whatever story they want to tell than in the larger story that needs to emerge.
I was amused by MSNBC’s adoption of the phrase “anti-war extremists” to describe the folks at Camp Casey. And the interviewer who used this phrase fancies herself a journalist.
Critical mass is the only thing they can’t spin out of existence, so I am really with you on that point.