Thursday, August 11, 2005

More thoughts on the right's response to Cindy Sheehan

The more I think about this, the more I just don't get how anyone can have a problem with what this woman is doing, and particularly those who attack her personally or have the gall to try to pretend they know what her son might have wanted. But the other thing that bothers me is the weak ass objections they raise. Frankly, if I was a conservative, I would still be calling attention to the idiots who can't seem to leave this woman alone, or at the very least, this would be an issue I would just shut up about. There's no good argument to be made that a mother who lost her son has no right to feel however she feels, whether it makes her think we have to kill every last Iraqi, or whether it makes her think maybe we shouldn't be over there in the first place, or anywhere in between. Also, there's no good argument to be made against her voicing her opinion, whatever it may be, this is America after all, and her son died protecting her freedom to do so, or at least that's what we're told.

So anyway, reading some of the arguments against this woman have made me wonder just what the people on the right are smoking. First it was the flip-flopper argument. They went right to that one ot of the box since they've seen it work before. Unfortunately, she didn't flip-flop on anything and she was able to make that clear pretty quickly. Also, even if she did change her mind (which is what those of us in the real world call it), that doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyway since a lot of time has passed, and there is a lot of new information available, as well as time for her to think about her loss. Its pretty easy to see how someone in those circumstancescould come to change her mind, but it's moot anyway, since she never did actually change her mind.

Anyway, another ofthe arguments I've seen against the poor woman (which I talked about in a post below) is that she was anti-war even before her son was killed. Not only does this completely contradict the original flip-flopper theory, it also doesn't do anything to discredit her. I'm anti-war right now, and I imagine if someone I love gets killed in the war, I'll be even more anti-war after,and probably more pissed off about it as well.

Another argument I've seen is that she is dishonoring her son's memory. And for anyone actually arguing this crap, all I can say is Fuck You! How on Earth does anyone think that they have a right to tell anyone else how to honor the memory of their dead son? Its just insulting.

Another thing I've seen is that she is simply a puppet of varioous ant-war groups. This one also makes no sense, since her only motivation to allow herself to be their puppet would be if she agrees with their position in the first place which means she isn't just a puppet.

Finally, the argument that I've seen that seems to make the most sense and is the least offensive is that Bush has already met with this woman, and that he can't meet with every family of every fallen soldier or he wouldn't have time for anything else. Of couse this is always followed by some comparison to Vietnam or World War II and how many dead troops those wars produced and what a logistical nightmare it would be to try to meet with all of them. Now, like I said, this one makes the most sense. However, the problem with it is that there aren't families of all 1800 or so Americans killed in this war standing on Bush's doorstep, there is just one. Meeting with this one would do a lot to make him at least look like he gave a shit and wouldn't really require much effort on his part. Now, if after meeting with her there was some flood of families wanting to suddenly meet the President to demand answers for what happened to their loved ones, then I could see making the logistical argument, but if that was the case, then maybe it would be time to reconsider what you're getting these people killed for in the first place.

The bottom line is that I can't see any good reason to argue that there is anything wrong with what this woman is doing, and even if you disagree with it, then I still don't see any reason to attack her personally. And the fact that so many people are doing it anyway really worries me. Not just because it makes it look like there are a lot more assholes in the world than I thought, but because it seems more people are loyal to George Bush than they are to America. And that sucks.

Posted by

19 comments:

Robert Bayn said...

Some are saying Bush dosent need too, because he already did and he praised him for the war. Their other argument was this is just some ploy by liberals because Michael Moore is now involved. It seems to me those on the right seem to think, kids can die for whatever cause a GOP president wants, and he never has to answer to it, and its bull shit.

maurinsky said...

because it seems more people are loyal to George Bush than they are to America. And that sucks.


Man, you hit that nail square on the head, John.

Always Sourced, Never Disputed said...

Assuming that he did meet with her once already, then in fairness would he not have to meet with all the other families twice? How about all the wounded?

Better yet should he not meet with the families of all of those killed in WTC 2001 and the USS Cole and so on?

Perhaps he would then have a better understanding of the situation.

STP said...

Nothing need be added to your post, John. You have said it all perfectly.

Anonymous said...

the kid cash his paycheck! we did not hear anyone complain then. only to have the book rights his mother will get to write this bullshit stunt.

Anonymous said...

she hit on a intertnet gold mine..send her cash now!! you go girl.

Me4Prez said...

I am just talking out of my ass here, but I am willing to bet that her son would have liked to still be alive.

somewaterytart said...

I've heard that "the opinions of anti-war people don't count" argument a lot too, and I think it's creepy. Yet more 'stop yer whining' from the right. I mean, I probably throw around the term 'fascist' a bit too often, but really, people!

TheGreenKnight said...

What I find weird is just this: if Clinton (or Reagan, for that matter) had been in Bush's position, either one of those Presidents would have invited her inside in a shot. There would have been a photo-op, some sympathy, and boom, publicity disaster over.

This really shows what a bubble Bush is living in, if he can't pull off the first trick every politician learns: how to have a sympathetic meeting with an opposition citizen.

Anonymous said...

No, they have no grounds for attacking her personally... It's just that ad hominem arguments have always worked so well for them in the past. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, Rove and all the others have nothing else in their arsenal that's nearly as effective. Are you expecting them to use reason? That will never happen because if they did, their drones might actually learn how to think for themselves. You can see it with that couple of anti-Sheehan trolls that posted earlier in this comment thread: no reason, no logic; they head straight for the personal attack even though if it were true, it would still do nothing to discredit Cindy Sheehan.

The world is full of stupid people, and our 'leaders' prefer that the ones in our country stay that way.

Rob the Dirty Liberal said...

I think the Republicans are just mad that she isn't in the kitchen where all women belong. Why isn't that bitch making her husband a sandwich?!?!

Missouri Mule said...

rob the dirty liberal, BINGO!!!

Steve said...

This is a well thought out post and captures my feelings on it.

I do believe this is the lowest i have ever seen the Right sink. In fairness, there are people who don't agree with Malkin and O'Reilly, but they need to speak out more forcefully.

If there is a hell, O'Reilly and that Bitch are going to go there.

Lolaphilologist said...

Well, this is a new low for the anon commenters who want to say that Cindy Sheehan is motivated by greed. I'd have to be anonymous to say that too. Perhaps they had time to log in to the internet before going to a puppy-roasting barbeque, or a kick-the-baby contest.

Always Sourced, Never Disputed said...

"This really shows what a bubble Bush is living in, if he can't pull off the first trick every politician learns: how to have a sympathetic meeting with an opposition citizen."

It was my understanding that he already did have that meeting. The question is should he meet with her again and again and again.

John Howard said...

He did already met with her, and didn't know her son's name, was disrepctful to her,and acted like he was at a party. And whether or not any of that is completely accurate, he could fix it by just talking to her for five minutes.

maurinsky said...

But he won't be able to answer her question, at least not honestly.

What is the noble cause her son died for?

I don't think you can spin preemptive war against someone who posed no threat to us as a noble cause. (not honestly, anyway)

John Howard said...

Doing things honestly doesn't seem to be anything he's too worried about anyway.

Grace said...

Interesting to realize that thousands upon thousands of protesters in NYC during the Republican Convention did not elicit the right-wing rage that this one middle-aged woman has simply by standing at the side of a hot Texas road and asking, Why? The rage is as much, or more, for the question -- because there is no decent answer -- as for the woman who has the audacity to question, question. And the anger is that much more virulent to overcompensate for their own growing doubts.