BOTW discusses the political activism of Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan. Ms. Sheehan's Army son, Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq. Now the mom is calling for President Bush to bring the troops home from Iraq right away, and said in a speech Monday that her son died so that President Bush's friends could get richer, he died for oil, and "to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East."
Ms. Sheehan is being lauded by some commentators and bloggers, Town Meeting, for example - and then there's Maureen Dowd, who wrote that, "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."
Why?
In what way are the parents of killed service men or women more morally authoritative than before? I can only presume that since Ms. Dowd was never able to makle the "chickenhawk" argument stick, so she's trying a different tack.
Losing a son or daughter is the worst pain a parent can feel, to be sure, and I certainly don't make light of Ms. Sheehan's loss or her grief. But I wonder why Maureen Dowd thinks that the loss suddenly transforms a mother into a person suddenly wiser and more moral than she was before.
I can certainly understand why losing a child in the war may lead parents to ponder more carefully what they believe about the war, and why. But the loss alone doesn't make them smarter, wiser, or gifted with greater strategic insight than before. If a Gold Star mother or father is to be heeded regarding national-policy decisions, it must be on a basis other than their loss.
Are parents of those killed as crime victims somehow vested with superior wisdom or morality regarding law enforcement? Are parents of teens killed in auto accidents somehow morally authoritative regarding traffic laws than before? No, I think not, and if someone disagrees I'm open to being educated why.
Cindy Sheehan's loss was severe and painful, let no one doubt. But it doesn't in itself make her worth listening to more than before on the topic of national policy.
Endnote: My eldest son is a US Marine lance corporal who will deploy to Iraq in a month.
REV Sensing:
The problem with assuming that those parents who have lost a child are somehow endowed with greater wisdom lies in the fact that the parents themselves do not agree.
Does Cindy Sheehan speak for all parents who have lost children in Iraq? If so, then indeed she should be heeded. But she does not, any more so than we should believe that Herbert Shughart spoke for all parents of lost servicemen (and women) when he refused to shake Bill Clinton's hand and told him he was unfit for command. Indeed, to suggest that she does is to ignore the feelings of many parents who have suffered just as devastating a loss, but who support the war. Or, for that matter, people such as yourself, whose children are in the line of fire, but who have not (and we hope will not) lost their children.
The reality is that there are many parents who have lost children in Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere). While they have made one of the sacrifices for our nation, and we should be grateful for that gift (no less a gift for the fact that their children volunteered to join the military), as you say, it does not, in fact, endow them with greater authority or voice.
I am reminded somewhat of the influence the 9-11 survivor groups had on the subsequent investigations & reconstruction plans, even though to my knowledge they had no particular expertise in intelligence operations or architecture.
The problem comes down to politicians not wanting to say "no" to an individual or group that has public sympathy, lest it backfire on them.
"the cancer of Pax Americana"??
May that particular cancer spread far and wide, then.
Cindy Sheehan unplugged:
-- all above Cindy Sheehan quotes.
OK. So we fought the Iraq War to make Israel safe. Presumably from evil mindcontrol rays by Ariel Sharon.
OK, so Iraq didn't have any WMDs. Except they DID, which is why we fought the Iraq War to make Israel safe from them.
OK, so the Secret Service is going to kill Cindy Sheehan.
Conclusions? The woman is sadly unhinged. Pathetic. Moonbats/Dems should not take advantage of the woman who is obviously suffering. Nothing she says makes the least bit of sense here.
She's not even internally logically consistent. Everything is the fault of the ... Jews again. Sigh.
The larger issue is that this anti-semitism is so widespread it's a huge problem for the Democratic Party. Yes it has to be acknowledged.
On another site, this take on the story was noted. I think it's a good one.
My take on it is, Mrs. Sheehan’s a grieving mother. Her son was a hero. She and her husband did a good job, raising a boy who could make honorable, ethical decisions even if his parents disagreed with them. She deserves our sympathy, prayers, patience, and a glass of cold tea and a seat in she shade if she wants to make her protest in Texas in August.
But I'm peeved at the media -- yes, I'm one of them. I just scrolled our newswire with a “most recent 200 stories” search. That searches every story on the AP, New York Times, Knight-Ridder, McClatchy, Cox, and a couple other news wires. I mean every story: lottery numbers, golf scores, stories about the 9-11 NYFD transcripts, advice columns, the whole nine yard. And seventy of the 200 stores are about Cindy Sheehan.
I know it’s a slow news day. But that’s an awful lot of coverage.
The AP slugs its stories on Mrs. Sheehan “Bush-Peace-Mom.” That’s a bit disingenuous. She’s not asking for peace. She’s asking for all the American troops to be brought home — which is sure to unleash a whole lot of non-peace on Iraq and beyond. If she has an argument that bringing the troops home now will pacify Iraq, I haven’t read it in her words.
Neither does she claim she was against the war if it had been fought for the reasons she insists Bush put forth in 2002, but lied about.
Like the rest of you, it seems, I wonder since when did being a victim confer instant moral authority? She was saying the same things before Casey was killed. She wasn’t in 70 of 200 news stories on April 3, 2004.
And I wonder, if this one mother, because of what happened to her son, becomes, in the media’s vision, the sole occupant of the high ground in the debate over what ought to be done in Iraq, what about the thousand-some other American mothers who have not gone to where the cameras are?
Despite her best intentions, Ms Sheehan insults those who serve, have served and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Her position on the President's motives implies that Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors are either stupid or under some mass delusion. Should Mr Bush give in to her demands, he would destroy our credibility, our military's reputation and our morale.
I'm heading for Iraq in the very near future. I've informed my family that if something unfortunate happens and they even consider doing something this stupid (i.e. using their grief to attempt to invalidate my sacrifice) I will be back to haunt them. Ah, gallows humor... Anyway, thanks for the engaging discussions.
Memo to Maureen Dowd: If having buried children who died in Iraq is the ticket to moral authority, then you ought to talk to a lot of Iraqi mothers before choosing the high ground.
As Mohammed at Iraq the Model put it:Cindy Sheehan sees her son not as her son, but as a pawn for her to push her own twisted agenda. This is exploitation of her son's death and she deserves to be called on it.
I think Mohammad said it all. I hope she gets a chance to read this.
Its called "poisoning the well."
Ms. Sheehan has as much as said the President is responsible for her son's death. And there is a chain of physical events linking a President with any soldier's death, although not necessarily one of moral culpability. For the POTW to walk into that debate is to face the dillemma of denying culpability or admitting moral transgression. Either way, the public's mind would be poisoned against him as either irresponsible or immoral.
As this site points out, poisoning the well is a type of ad hominem:
Of historical interest: