< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://davejustus.com/" >

Friday, August 12, 2005

Cindy Sheehan

Varifrank has great post up on Cindy Sheehan and her protest. This is yet another issue I haven't commented on, I am loathe to criticize the way a woman deals with greif over the loss of her son. However, I think I will criticize those who are supporting and encouraging her. They cannot take the line that they are grieving so it is ok. They cannot use grief as an excuse and we can, and should, evaluate their truthfulness and morals. Simply put, they are using a woman's grief to advance their cause. They are lying and distorting the truth in pursuit of this cause and they are dishonoring the choices of a noble soldier who heroically served his country. Cindy Sheehan is probably distraught and I do not hold her personally responsible for her actions in this matter. Those who have used her distraught grief for their own purposes though are morally repugnant. (via The Anchoress)


Blogger Patrick said...

While I agree that people are jumping on the bandwagon, I wouldn't necessarily say that Cindy hasn't encouraged them to. Nor would I say that she is being used. Far from it: looking at her blog on the Huffington Report, it is pretty clear she is willing to be more than just a prop and wants to speak out on the issues. In addition to the Huffington Report, she also published an article trough truthout.

It seems that because those who don't agree with her politics can't publicly tell her to screw herself, she is being discounted as "distressed" and "used". As far as I can tell, she is very much in control and is staying on a very clear message, sending it through many outlets (blogs, newsletters, and news channels).

8/12/2005 02:04:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Justus said...

She certainly wishes to speak out.

I am not saying that she is irrational exactly, or unable to put together a clear message.

I feel very strongly though, that she is doing a disservice to her son, and the most charitable conclusion I can come to is that she is unbalanced by grief. There are other alternative explanations, but I choose to pick the most charitable, at least in my opinion.

8/12/2005 02:24:00 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Well, I think it is a bit disingenuous to presume anything about what her son would want or what would serve his memory best. His mother and father both support what is happening now, and that is really all we can ever know. It is pointless to speculate.

I can certainly see that you might feel she is doing a disservice to our country, but that is very different.

For the second time in recent memory, very blatant out-of-context quotes have been used against opponents of this administration. O'Reilly and Malkin either have no shame or a crappy journalists.

While I'm not sure if her efforts should make a top news story (I'm much more interested to hear about plans to fix our energy problem, or about potential criminals still in the White House), the efforts to smear Cindy have been pretty sick up to this point. Can't everyone else just say what Bush did: that he simply doesn't agree?

8/12/2005 06:41:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Justus said...

She has painted her son as a foolish victim of unscrupulous recruiters, which diminished his choices and his sacrifices. Casey Sheehan was 24 years old and on his second enlistment.

He wasn't a young kid fooled into going into the army, he certainly knew what he was doing and he made his choices. The choices he made were honorable ones, and to try and turn that into him being 'tricked' diminishes him.

I don't know whether Casey Sheehan was against the war or not. I certainly don't trust his mother, who seems willing to distort anything, to honestly relate to us his views.

As for things being taken out of context, I read you post and the linked article and I am not sure what exactly you are referring to as being in error.

Bush has met with Sheehan, she did not at that time claim he was distant or aloof and seemed comforted and appreciative of the meeting. Even if she had at that time felt that he was aloof or unwilling to properly relate to her greif, he still has met with her. He is the President not her grief councellor and him meeting with her once seems sufficient to me.

8/15/2005 07:56:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home