As I predicted, this sad ‘circus’ is about to get a whole lot uglier:
David Clemons seethes when he sees Cindy Sheehan on television, standing among small white crosses in an antiwar encampment named for her dead son.
To Mr. Clemons, her protest is a crushing insult to his own son, who was also killed while fighting in Iraq.
“The lady is not honoring her son’s sacrifice, because we don’t have a draft, and he went and signed his name on the dotted line,” said Mr. Clemons, of Winchester, Tenn., whose son, Nathan, 20, was killed by a roadside bomb on June 14. “She’d better not be presenting herself as the voice of all the fallen.”
Andre Lieurance, a retired naval officer whose son, Victoir, 34, was killed by a bomb just last week, said he found Ms. Sheehan so stirring that he might join her vigil at Camp Casey.
“I just want some answers about why we’re over there,” said Mr. Lieurance, of Knoxville, Tenn. “I don’t even see the purpose anymore. It’s frustrating, and I’m angry.”
Though Ms. Sheehan has so far failed to persuade President Bush to meet with her in Texas, she is being closely watched by a small group of Americans who can relate to her pain, regardless of whether they agree with her. Even Mr. Bush was forced to react to her campaign when he said last week that she “doesn’t represent the view of a lot of the families” of soldiers that he had met and that withdrawing from Iraq, as Ms. Sheehan has demanded, would weaken the United States.
The competing messages have raised debate among parents of the war dead, who appear as divided as the rest of the nation in their opinions of Ms. Sheehan and her quest. In interviews last week with several dozen parents of troops killed in Iraq, some said she had moved them to speak out, whether for the war or against it, while others said that her vivid protest had dashed what little peace they had found since their children died.
But hey- it might hurt Bush in the polls, so this is a good thing, right? At any rate, here is a caustic piece by Noemie Emery about the whole affair.
Bob
If the consequences of his Administrations actions hurts Bush in the polls, so it is.
The question is why you feel the need to fend off Bush’s critics. They stand or fall on their criticisms. The reason why Cindy Sheehan is so effective is that Bush’s excuses for waging the war have all been exposed as lies (untruths, for the delicate). The death of her son doesn’t give her any greater insight, just the standing to ask the question.
The attacks from the Right have tried and failed to destroy her standing to ask the question.
Why are we in Iraq?
capelza
Honestly, John Cole…Bush is tanking all by himself in the polls. The whole thing is becoming a he said, she said thing, though isn’t it? But that said, I don’t think it is neccessarliy about getting Bush, but changing the whole discussion about the war.
Over at DKos, there is this whopping big spat about “hippies”. First off, I am one (back to the earth, alternate energy, husband’s got the ponytail, yada, yada..) and I was just a young tyke (12) when I snuck out of the house to walk in the Moratorium in 1969. But for all the glamour (bad word to use but it’s early) and memories of being part of the “movement” (blech) it wasn’t until the regular folks started looking at the costs to them, of the war, that things really changed. It’s not a popular opinion to take in some circles over there. :P
All this is what reminds me of Vietnam (the era) more than anything that is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve heard ALL of this before, down to the American Legion issuing their anti-protest statement…
The thing that has really changed is the smear campaigns. I do look back longingly to the days when the President having an enemies list was considered bad form…
Bruce From Missouri
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever John… So only BUSH gets to use dead americans for political gain. “We must sacrifice more so that their sacrifice isn’t wasted” or whatever it was that he said.
Not to mention the constant litany of “9/11,terra, terra, 9/11” that we hear from these idiots.
Boo frickin’ hoo.
Bruce
kl
Yeah! Surrender, John Cole!
Zifnab
To date, it seems that the driving force in dividing the nation has been the administration. The home front of the War on Terror seemed to make targets of every Muslim inside the boarders with all the talk about bringing back Racial Profiling. Gays were put in the crossfire by Protection of Marriage laws and amendments. The media was told to piss off through the entry part of the war when anyone asked a tough question, and that was before the White House started fabricating their own media. And then the Senate and the House became a Republican-only zone where you had to spend half your time as a Democrate apologizing for pushing the issues of your constituancy.
Finally we have someone who’s polarizing a segment of the population that it seemed Republicans had firmly tucked away. No one expects every soldier’s family to come running to Sheehan’s support, but she’s vocalized a portion of the population that people can’t ignore. It’s easy to brush off “hippies” and “peaceniks”, “left-wing extremists” and “those damn liberals”. Much more difficult to dismiss military moms and sons. And its good that she’s out there because even if she was supporting Bush, she’d be supporting him AS a war mom, not as some floating head or beltway pundit. At the end of the day their opinions come from a political agenda, while her’s come from a sense of family duty. Let Bush line up all the pro-war moms he can find. By all means, get them in the debate. If we’re going to talk about sacrifice, it’s nice to know the people in the middle of the debate are the ones sacrificing the most.
jobiuspublius
What I find interesting is that Mr. Clemons, the civilian, seethes while Mr. Lieurance, a retired naval officer, asks. When miitary personel, retired or active, have to start questioning ….
Emory is just smearing, mind reading, and smoke screening.
Bush: blah blah blah noble cause yadda yadda yadda
Sheehan: blah blah blah What noble cause? yadda yadda yadda
All the rest is meh, including this stuff about her having standing because she lost a son in Iraq. I’m an American, therefore, I have “standing” 24x7x365.
Davebo
Noemie Emery seems very tired. I mean really tired.
Stormy70
Sheehan is an anti-semitic, unhinged far-left radical. She’ll be off the front pages, anyway, because that bitch Katrina is headed for one of our greatest cities. It will be Katrina all the way now on all the cable shows. Plus, the media will not want to cover the thousands of pro-Bush protesters who have converged on Crawford. They sure as hell don’t want to cover the Neo-nazis who consider Sheehan their greatest spokesperson. She has become a farce.
jaime
“Plus, the media will not want to cover the thousands of pro-Bush protesters who have converged on Crawford.”
I’d like to sample some of the crack you’re smoking Stormy. The press can’t cover what doesn’t exist. Jesus could turn water into wine, but even he’d have trouble turning a few dozen flunkies recruited by a PR firm into “thousands” of protestors. Maybe through the miracles of CGI…
Stormy70
Here’s the local coverage. Missed that in the MSM, did you? I wonder why.
Leave the War on Drugs out of this.
Vladi G
Dear Mr. Clemmons,
She’s not, and she never has been.
Biff
Here’s the local coverage. Missed that in the MSM, did you?
Because a local news station is somehow not part of the MSM. BTW, the counter-protests are covered by the evil MSM here, here, and here, among other places. Don’t let that stop you from making your inane “media bias” rants, though.
Stormy70
The media is biased, or it would mention all the far left anti-semitic ramblings of their anti-war darling. Why isn’t the headline that Cindy Sheehan thinks the terrorists who killed her son are freedom fighters? If this was someone on the right, it would be trumpeted to the mountain tops, a la Pat (the moron) Robertson’s assasination quip. Instead Cindy’s unhinged rants do not get covered. Why does the media ignore Cindy’s disapproval ratings, that are higher than her approval ratings. Bush’s poll numbers are in most articles, but Cindy’s are ignored? Ok, no bias here. Please. This is just the typical August story to beat Bush over the head with, as in all the past years of his Presidency. It will fail, like all the rest.
linda
the dignity of chimpy’s base is covered here.:
Arrests, rhetoric highlight protests
By Thaddeus DeJesus and J.B. Smith Tribune-Herald staff writers
Sunday, August 28, 2005
CRAWFORD -– With five days left until the end of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan’s vigil near President Bush’s ranch, Crawford became protest central Saturday as supporters and opponents of the Iraq war rallied, marched and simmered in 101-degree heat.
A handful also got themselves arrested, including a protester whose anti-Sheehan sign was deemed unnecessarily offensive by organizers of a large pro-Bush rally. The man carrying the sign became violent when he was asked to put it down.
Ken Robinson, of Richardson, Texas, who described himself as a Vietnam veteran, was carrying a sign at a “You Don’t Speak for Me, Cindy!” rally. The sign read, “How to wreck your family in 30 days by ‘b**** in the ditch’ Cindy Sheehan.”
Kristinn Taylor, an event organizer with FreeRepublic.com, heard about the sign and rushed up to Robinson.
“This is our rally and you can’t do that here,” he said, only for Robinson to insist he was within his rights.
Camera crews rushed in and Taylor turned to face them.
“To all the media here, this sign is not representative of the crowd here today,” Taylor announced. Some of the crowd around Robinson came forward to shake his hand, while others chanted, “Idiot, go home.”
The two men then squared off and raised their voices.
“Just get outta here!” Robinson yelled, and aimed a kick at Taylor’s midsection. Taylor called for security, and a young Woodway policeman quickly showed up.
“I have the right to freedom of speech,” Robinson said.
Robinson continued to protest loudly as police handcuffed him and led him away.
Much of the media focus Saturday was on Sheehan’s two peace camps just beyond Crawford -– one on the side of Prairie Chapel Road, the other in a field temporarily donated by a local landowner – and yet other anti-war protesters at the Crawford Peace House in town.
In addition, however, there was a pro-Bush camp that sprouted alongside a souvenir shop specializing in President Bush dolls, T-shirts and coffee cups; a West Coast caravan dubbed “You Don’t Speak for Me, Cindy!” that took over the football stadium Saturday afternoon to rally on behalf of U.S. troops; and Operation Iraqi Hope, made up of family members who have lost loved ones in Iraq but still support the war.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/08/28/20050828wacarrests.html
capelza
Stormy70…the disapproval ratings of the President of the United States have a lot more to do with the rest of the country than anything Cindy Sheehan does or doesn’t do. (btw, that 38% disapproval rating? That means 62% either are nuetral or do approve). It’s pretty sad when all you got is a 38% disapproval rating for her when the POTUS has what?…a 56% disapproval rating..I think he still “wins” in the disapproval “wars”.
So you think Cindy Sheehan is unhinged and anti-semetic…apparantly 56% of the country thinks Bush has his head up his butt.
capelza
And I have to tip my hat to Kristinn Taylor. I know of him and while I think Free Republic is the home nest of much of the wacked out right, for him to object to that sign says something good about him.
Ken Mehlman RNC
Stormy, Nice work. Your on site reporting on the true Cindy Sheehan is impeccable. It reminds me of those glorious days of ’91 when Aurthur Kent was gettin those scoops on the scuds.
Keep up the good fight. Ken
jobiuspublius
The media is owned by Dear Leaders supporters. Glad someone finally recognized the bias as it is, thx Stormy70.
As for unhinged rants and Cindy, face it, she’s normal. If you mock her you mock a silent majority. That’ll stir up the rabble and bring disharmony to the ownership society. Dear Leader doesn’t want that. He has brush to cut, bikes to crash, cops to run over, pretzels to choke on, and a life to get on with.
Ancient Purple
Yes, Mr. Cole, Cindy Sheehan is only in this to drive President Bush’s poll numbers down.
Forget the fact that his numbers were heading south long before Ms. Sheehan showed up in Crawford.
But you seem to know what is really going on in the mind of Ms. Sheehan. Does Michelle Malkin know you are intruding on her stint as a mind reader?
jobiuspublius
linda, that is priceless, eternal thx. :)
Birkel
A whole lot of folks on the Left insist that Mrs. Sheehan’s banter will stop President Bush from passing his agenda. Well, as a conservative let me offer a retort:
SCOREBOARD
1 Republican President
1 Republican Majority in the Senate
1 Republican Majority in the House
A Majority of Republican Governors (including most of the big states)
A Majority of Republicans in State Legislatures
*****************************************
Dear LLL’s,
Try focusing on strategy instead of tactics. You’re losing all the wars.
One party control of the powers of federal government (which you helped expand when you thought your power would endure but now looks scary when you realize your folly) is a bad idea. Please try harder.
Thanks.
Biff
The media is biased, or it would mention all the far left anti-semitic ramblings of their anti-war darling.
There were no “anti-Semitic ramblings”, Stormy. She said she thinks Israel should withdraw from Palestine, that this would reduce terrorism. Agree or disagree, but there’s nothing “anti-Semitic” about that.
You pro-war folks are jumping on (and distorting) things like her supposed anti-Semitism, opposition to the Afghan war, etc., but these are just excuses. If she had said none of these things, you would still vilify her. The bottom line is that you don’t like to hear criticism of the war or Bush.
Biff
Shorter Birkel: “We’re in control, neener neener NEEEENER!”
Birkel
Biff,
Who is the ‘we’ of which you speak.
My argument was the exact opposite. Liberals are out of power and have continued to pursue failed tactics in lieu of changing strategies.
Your version, while shorter, has the disadvantage of being a bad misrepresentation of what I wrote.
jobiuspublius
Birkel, is there anything that liberals can do that you would approve of?
Stormy70
Gee, it’s not just the pro-war people distorting her views, then. Looks like the neo-nazis have found their new hero. I wonder why the white supremesists (es?) are in love with Mother Sheehan? I also like her brave support of the terrorist loving Lynn Stewart. She’s a real peach.
If you think the silent majority is anti-war, then why didn’t your guy win the election? By all means, though, make your anti-war views the platform for 2006. It will continue to reap electoral benefits for you. {snark}
capelza
Stormy…I have to ask you this and sit back for a minute and think about it. Do you think if that election were held TODAY, with the mood of the “silent majority” which you might not really know as well as you think, do you believe that the 3% that turned the election (whatever 3% that might be, lots of oxen have been gored by Bush since November 2004) would still vote for Bush? Honestly, now.
Also, how long are you folks going to use the election as a test of the modd of the country..as it fades into the distance. I do think it’s yelling that Republicans are distancing themselves, the ones who want to win in 2006, that is.
capelza
Good lord, I can’t type..that should be “telling”, not “yelling”…or maybe not, come to think of it.
Biff
Shorter Stormy: “I’m ignoring what you said and I’ll keep smearing Sheehan! Also, we won the election! Neener, neener, neener!”
Thanks for the intelligent discourse.
Stormy70
Iraq was the story all last summer, and yet Bush was elected. I don’t see the Democrats putting up credible opponents in 2006, who will be accepted by the far left Dem base, and trusted on National Security issues. Bush is no longer running for anything, but bashing him will still be the platform for the far left Dems. Unless the Dems get serious and start by coming up with an actual long-term strategic plan to combat terrorism, then I don’t think 2006 will be the year of the Democrats regaining a majority. Ideas will win elections. Lets see the Democrats ideas. If they are good, then people will listen to them and debate them. A realistic and healthy debate will be beneficial to both parties, in my opinion. Instead we get “why are we in Iraq?”, when the question is what is the alternatives the left are offering? Of course, someone will be along to say they don’t have to have a plan, until the right answers their questions, but that just trivializes the debate.
Birkel
jobiuspublius,
There are things the Left could offer that I would love to hear. The Left could adopt the rhetoric of John F. Kennedy (couldn’t type JFK for fear you’d think of your recent erstwhile candidate) or FDR and voice pride in the United States of America and its ideals. Along with that the Left could tout a strong national defense designed to “…pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty” both here and abroad.
The Left could realize that the choices America has made regarding the welfare state have proven much better–measureably better–than those of Europe and Canada. The Left could stop yelling that the sky is falling and that Bush is the new Hitler bent on destroying the very fabric of our society through his fascist religiosity.
And the Left could start trying to gauge where the so-called average voter in America is by recognizing that they’re losing elections because that average voter has gauged where the Dems are.
Or the Left can keep losing elections, which, so long as the views of the Left remain unchanged, will be fine by me.
ppGaz
The policies of the United States, in the 40+ years since that speech, have not been consistent with that glib and jingoistic point of view …. nor should they have been.
Instead, the history of US policy is clearly and obviously this:
“Take any position, and support any government, in order to assure the advancement of the interests of the United States or its allies.”
That has nothing to do with “right” or “left”, it’s just what is.
You, on the other hand, think everything is in terms of “right” and “left.” That’s why you are a boring ass.
Zifnab
If he’s that boring an ass, don’t respond to his posts.
jobiuspublius
When life gives you lemons …..
goonie bird
Why dont he hire the ACLU and file a lawsuit which is what most of the liberal atheists nit wits do or tell this ding-bat to quit using his sons name for her own rotten purpouses
jobiuspublius
Well said goonie!
ppGaz
I think you’ve mistaken this blog for your abused family.
kl
Whereas you’ve mistaken this blog for your toilet.
Shygetz
goonie bird Says:
Why dont he hire the ACLU and file a lawsuit which is what most of the liberal atheists nit wits do or tell this ding-bat to quit using his sons name for her own rotten purpouses
goonie bird: Eloquent, as always. I assume that you are saying that Sheehan is using Clemons’ son’s name; if so, cite any report where she did. Hell, cite one report where she said she spoke for all families of the dead in Iraq. Can’t do it, can you? Smear attacks are bad enough–they ignore the facts of an argument and appeal to our basest instincts. Smear attacks that are based on lies and distortions are beyond the pale, and the people who employ them should be ashamed.
Just make one good, supportable argument as to why we went to Iraq and why we should stay there, and maybe you can change someone’s mind.
Birkel
ppGaz,
Brilliant analysis yet again. Sadly your retort seems to fall on deaf ears when your preferred party addresses voters. Perhaps that should concern you; alas, it doesn’t.