CollegePundit

If I'm linked, I'm awesome!

Friday, August 26, 2005

The Magical Hysteria Tour

So now Cindy Sheehan is going to be taking up a bus tour on September 1st, all around the country (h/t Wuzzadem), finally ending in a 24-hour "peace vigil" in Washington, DC. She will be taking along all those lovely supporters of hers along for the ride, I'm sure.

The sound you hear is the sound of me pounding my head against my desk.

Frankly, I've given up. I honestly can't defend Cindy Sheehan after I read about her taking part in this garbage. I can't defend her surrounding herself with the very vultures I criticized in my first post on this subject any more - she seems to be thriving under their very wings. This stuff is just simply vile and indefensible, and I kick myself for even trying to rationalize it. I spent the better part of today thinking about Cindy Sheehan's situation, and I started getting angry. Not just at the rest of the anti-war / pro-terror crowd (that much is a given), but at the way she is treating her son's selfless actions and the causes for which he has fought.

I am, officially, angry at Cindy Sheehan.

Why the turn-around? The turnaround has happened in a way that I honestly never would have thought would happen - I realized that Cindy Sheehan does not appreciate anything her son has done. Nothing, to date, has shown this to be true.

Close your e-mail and bear with me a second, here.

Think of it this way - what has Cindy Sheehan said that has been respectful of her son's choice or, for that matter, her freedom to say whatever she pleases? Mrs. Sheehan has stated, categorically, that the Constitution doesn't exist as a basis of law in this country any more. She has stated that there are no checks and balances, no mechanism for balance in this country.

Were that to be true, she would be quite dead by now. Along with, most likely, the rest of the anti-war activists in this country. Why? 'Cuz there's no law in these here parts.

But the converse of that last statement is true - she is very much alive, and very much protected in what she can say publicly and in private, whether one likes it or not.

So now she has gone and just spat upon the ideals her son enlisted to defend. What a wonderful way to treat your son. The same son she had no qualms in waving his bloody shirt while she bellows from the rooftops about how George W. Bush is a murderer, Israel should get out of Palestine, and how the entire political and social schemata of the United States is a complete and utter fraud. She may have thought, at some point, that you were in a cause for justice - now she finds that she is in the company of fools and hypocrites. Her right to say what she wants does not appear in a vacuum - someone had to die for it, fighting against hostile enemies at home and abroad, in order to preserve it for another day.

What will happen when some force tries to invade our shores? Do you really expect to be able to say what you want about them then, as you face occupation? Or are you going to go groveling back to the very government you hate to plead for your safety, only to stab them in the back again once that safety is assured? Would you really do that to the rest of the men and women who have and had taken up the same cause that you son had done? Would you really be that cruel to your own son's memory and cause? Would you really want to admit that, yes, I want to stifle the cause my son has fought for, even if it puts this country in great peril?

I wouldn't really blame you for being that selfish - no mother ever enjoys seeing her son go off to war - but there is a point where you just have to let go and cut the proverbial apron strings. But "sacrifice" has to come at something that you willingly gave up - something that you have not done. It is completely inaccurate to say that Casey Sheehan was "sacrificed" for this war - Cindy Sheehan would have had to agree with it in the first place to do such a thing (and that's assuming Casey did everything he was told by her). Casey Sheehan, not Cindy, sacrificed his own life for a cause he believed in - Cindy apparently does not share these same views.

That last line usually draws the most ire from the anti-war activists and the Cindyphiles - you don't care, you don't care at all! The question is, do you really care if Cindy gets her "closure" with her meeting with the President? I sincerely doubt you would, since your (and I'm not going to mince words, here) fucked-up-love-in would then have to end. The very questions you have about the justifications for war, you have already answered in your own mind - you just want this parade to go on forever because the "answers" (which have been given time and again for the last five years) that have an actual bearing on reality are ones you don't want to hear. Instead you cup your hands over your ears and shout "LA LA LA I can't hear you! Abu Ghraaaaaaib!" and loudly proclaim that everyone who criticizes the garbage that comes out of your mouth is using "hate speech". That "hate speech" rule goes flying out the window when it comes time for the next chorus of "Bush is Hitler!" and "No Blood for Oil! Israel out of Palestine!" and then carousing with Neo-Nazis and terrorist sympathizers.

You want the war to end? Then let it end - support the troops in their efforts to get the job done and get home. You don't have to agree with the reasons - you obviously don't - but don't piss on their leg and tell them it's raining.
|

Sunday, August 21, 2005

The Cindy Sheehan Story

By now, everyone and their pet dog has heard of the "plight" of Cindy Sheehan, the aggrieved mother who lost a son in President Bush's war for oil. She had been camping outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas for several weeks now, demanding another meeting with him and calling for a stop to the "war for oil".

Only thing is, her son Casey would argue that it was a war for the freedom of the Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddam Hussein, not a war to enrich oil cronies of the Bush Administration.

Mrs. Sheehan's supporters would have you believe otherwise - they've been saying so for years.

I must admit that I honestly believed that the press coverage of this matter would go on for, say, three days and essentially dry up. I am frequently reminded of how badly I underestimate the media's ability to flood the zone with wall-to-wall coverage of this story. I had honestly thought "Gee, would the media really go so far as to jam a camera in the face of an aggrieved woman, day after day, even if it were to fit an agenda of their own?" I had seriously thought they wouldn't spotlight it for this long - it would be like a video of a man getting hit by a bus, over and over again - visually and emotionally unpleasant.

Boy, was I ever wrong.

To the contrary, Mrs. Sheehan seemed to thrive on the attention and coddling the press gave her. She's had several thoughts on everything - from the war on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, you name it! Naturally, liberals swarm to her like bees to honey - she's walking the walk and talking the talking points, as far as they're concerned, and they're looking to encourage that by feeding her statements on those subjects. What they're not concerned with is not looking like goddamn vultures, swirling around a juicy bit of meat.

If I seem angry about this, it's because I am. I am disgusted, beyond compare, that this has been turned into a three-ring circus, just because it fits the anti-war agenda. I am appalled because the anti-war left somehow has no qualm with using this woman's (misdirected, in my honest opinion) grief for their own gain. I mean, if my grandmother were to die tomorrow from lung cancer, would I be OK in using my grief over her death to blame cigarette companies and doctors, suing them left and right with the help of the anti-smoking lunatic organizations?

No, I wouldn't, and do you know why? Because people make choices. Cindy Sheehan's son made a choice to serve in the armed forces - nobody stole him from his bed, gave him a lobotomy, and told him to goose-step to George W. Bush's orders. Those people can choke on their God-forsaken Starbucks coffee if they think like that. Casey Sheehan recognized a calling, a calling to serve this country in a purpose higher than something the Congress, Judiciary, or the Presidency could accomplish by themselves. He fought for the ideals this country was founded upon (and similarly fought for), and believed that democracy should not be kept up in domain of the few. He died in the service of this country, and democracy.

Make no mistake, I have enormous sympathy for Mrs. Sheehan's loss. I understand, to a point, he reasons for wanting to blame the President for her son's death - grief can do a lot more talking than rational thought. What infuriates me is the anti-war left using her as their "cause celebre", and then using her as a puppet for the promotion of their agenda.

How sick do you have to be to put aside morals, principles, and general sense to do such a thing to a grieving woman? Moreover, how can anyone with common decency defend what they are doing? This has turned into a 24/7 GriefWatch! You know what happens when the public interest, invariably, moves onto something else? The tent folds up, the stakes are pulled up from the ground, and the circus moves to a new town.

Only, this time, they're going to leave a woman even more broken and disillusioned than before, and that's the real tragedy here.

If Cindy Sheehan really wants to confront the reason her son had died, Laurence Simon has an on-point assessment as to with whom she needs to speak.

I'll give you a hint, it's not George W. Bush.
|