First some background. Like everyone else in the military, Casey Sheehan volunteered. He also reenlisted in August, 2003. When his unit was sent to Iraq he insisted on going along even though, as a HumVee mechanic, he did not have to go. He was killed April 4, 2004, around six weeks before his 25th birthday.
In June of 2004, Cindy met with President Bush along with other parents of soldiers killed in Iraq. The Reporter described it this way:
The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.
For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.
"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."
The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.
"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.
Her happiness didn't last long. She now describes the meeting this way:
Instead of a kind gesture or a warm handshake, Sheehan said she immediately got a taste of Bush arrogance when he entered the room and "in a condescending tone and with a disgusting loud Texas accent," said: "Who we’all honorin’ here today?"
"His mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all. This is a human being totally disconnected from humanity and reality. His eyes were empty, hollow shells and he was acting like I should be proud to just be in his presence when it was my son who died for his illegal war! It was one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it," said Sheehan in a telephone conversation from Washington D.C. where she was attending a July 4th anti-war rally.
Sheehan said the June 2004 private meeting with the President went from bad to worse to a nightmare when Bush acted like he didn’t even want to know her name. She said Bush kept referring to her as ‘Ma’ or ‘Mom’ while he "put on a phony act," saying things like ‘Mom, I can’t even imagine losing a loved one, a mother or a father or a sister or a brother.’
"The whole meeting was simply bizarre and disgusting, designed to intimidate instead of providing compassion. He didn’t even know our names," said Sheehan. "Finally I got so upset I just looked him in the eye, saying ‘I think you can imagine losing someone. You have two daughters. Imagine losing them?’ After I said that he just looked at me, looked at me with no feeling or caring in his eyes at all."
Dispite her dissatisfaction with her first meeting, Sheehan still wants a second meeting. This is being covered in the news as a reasonable request. After reading her open letter to George Bush published in a Not In Our Name newsletter in December, 2004 and her email about Nightline, we get a different picture of Cindy.
In the letter to Bush she starts out:
It has been two days since your dishonest campaign stole another election…but you all were way more subtle this time than in 2000, weren’t you? You hardly had to get the Supreme Court of the United States involved at all this week.She also refers to her (nearly 2 year old son) as her "brave and honorable man-child".
When talking about Nightline she complains about them using parents who support he war and about the treatment that she got when she was on. It seems that Ted Koppel felt that she was emotional.
She goes on to say:
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse.(note: PNAC the Project for a New American Century.)
After examining Cindy's own words it is obvious that 1) She is obbsessed with her son's tragic death; 2) She believes and repeats every conspiracy theory advanced by the far left; 3) She has no desire to have Bush explain anything - she simply wants a chance to yell at him; and 4) This would not satisfy her nor would anything less than Bush being forced out of office and arrested.
At the heart of it is an unhealthy fixation on her son's death. This woman needs to talk with a grief councilor, not the President. That's not the real problem here. The problem is that the left is egging her on. Michael Moore posts her column on his web site. She testified at John Conyers "impeachment hearing". I already mentoned the Huffington Post. Most of the left is reacting the same way.
And why not? She believes what they do but she manages to project a moderate image. None of them are going to suggest counciling as long as she advances their adgenda.
The thing is, if Cindy wins then we all lose. Iraq will be much more of a war zone than ever. Al Qaeda will have further proof that Americans do not have the heart for a protracted struggle. The end results will be disasterous.
And the death of Cindy's heroic man-child will have hurt the US for decades to come.
It is understandable that Cindy Sheehan cannot take the long view but the rest of us have to.
A couple of final points:
1) Great suffering does not impart great wisdom. Sheehan is subscribing to conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. The biggest one - that the war in Iraq is being fought for Israel instead of the US - fails to explain exactly why Iraq was a bigger threat to Israel than Iran or Syria.
2) The anti-war protests started in 2001. Not In Our Name, which Sheehan is affiliated with, was protesting as far back as October, 2001 - almost before the dust settled from the first bombs dropped on the Taliban. Sheehan is simply part of a pre-existing movement. Comparing her to Rosa Parks who was a civil rights pioneer is rediculous.
No comments:
Post a Comment