Lincoln and Sheehan

[Adrian II]

Before it lost focus and was locked, Del Arroyo wrote the following in another thread:

To AdrianII-- Redleg has a point. There is a big difference between expressing grief and EXPLOITING grief. Sheehan is exploiting grief. She probably enjoys the attention and is seduced by the idea that she is doing something important. But she has compromised her integrity. And, having read a bit about the civil war, I can concur that Sheehan's protest would have fallen under the definition of "aiding and comforting" the enemy in the minds of Union men at the time.

We seem to have different views on both Lincoln and Sheehan.

Lincoln was a tough character (witness the 'writ' and many other instances) and then again he was a gentleman and a Christian (witness his leniency toward court-martialled soldiers or the war widow I mentioned).

Sheehan is no more exploitative than Bush, who often refers to the death of American soldiers in Iraq as a justification for the continued U.S. presence in that country. He says their sacrifice should not be in vain, Sheehan says is has been in vain because the war was unjustified and unwise. Sheehan's son is dead. Bush doesn't have a dead son, he has a pr problem. And it is growing. That's sour grapes, but it should not be an excuse to call Sheehan a 'whore' or a 'traitor'.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Bush doesn't have a dead son, he has a pr problem. And it is growing. That's sour grapes, but it should not be an excuse to call Sheehan a 'whore' or a 'traitor'.

Bush has never reffered to her as that. In fact he has gone out of his way to say she has the perfect right to do what shes doing. The facts are that she is not concerened with her son but with herself. Do you think her son would approve of her actions. Shes nothing more than a person seeking fame. If Linclon had met with her and then a year later she started this crap with him I have no doubt she would be arrested. They had very different ideas of freedom of speech back then. I think he would have seen it as sedition.

[Adrian II]

Do you think her son would approve of her actions.

Nobody knows. But she lost him, and she has the right to ask why, to protest the reasoning behind that war and to question the lack of accountability of a President who is vacationing while the country is losing its sons and daughters in a war that 60% of the population thinks is going nowhere.

[Proletariat]

Sour grapes? When the Fox couldn't get the grapes and said, 'Screw it. They're probably sour anyway.'?

Sorry to nitpick... I think you're using the expression wrong, though.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nobody knows. But she lost him, and she has the right to ask why,

Sure she does. But what makes her so special as to deserve two meetings with the president? Besides that its pretty obvious why she lost him. Can you imagine Linclon or FDR trying to meet with the mother of every dead soldier who had a bone to pick with them? Nevermind twice.

to protest the reasoning behind that war and to question the lack of accountability of a President who is vacationing while the country is losing its sons and daughters in a war that 60% of the population thinks is going nowhere.

Oh please. Saying hes vactioning is desingenous. The whole congress is on vaction right now. Also he can run the vountry just as well if not better from Crawford as from Washington. The president doesnt get any days off. Also 60% of the population dont think the wars going no where just not as well as they would like. With the bias reporting coming from there its amazing the figures are so low.

[Redleg]

Before it lost focus and was locked, Del Arroyo wrote the following in another thread:

We seem to have different views on both Lincoln and Sheehan.

Lincoln was a tough character (witness the 'writ' and many other instances) and then again he was a gentleman and a Christian (witness his leniency toward court-martialled soldiers or the war widow I mentioned).

Sheehan is no more exploitative than Bush, who often refers to the death of American soldiers in Iraq as a justification for the continued U.S. presence in that country. He says their sacrifice should not be in vain, Sheehan says is has been in vain because the war was unjustified and unwise. Sheehan's son is dead. Bush doesn't have a dead son, he has a pr problem. And it is growing. That's sour grapes, but it should not be an excuse to call Sheehan a 'whore' or a 'traitor'.

And as I said in the same thread - I don't believe Sheehan is a "whore" or a "traitor." That some individuals would call her that - well is just an attempt to demonize someone because they do not agree with her postion. Sheehan is entitled to protest the government's actions and the President in particlur because that is the right granted by the United States Constitution and the 1st Amendment states it as a right speficially. (SP).

However by her method of protesting - and that she is placing herself in the limelight of descension (SP) toward government policy - she has placed herself under the lens of public opinion. I of course question her motives given her statements. Just as she is questioning the President.

To deny constructive criticism of the opposition - is against the principle of freedom of speech. Both sides of the issue must allow for healthy criticism of the action of the other.

One can not state that President Bush is attempting to demonize Mrs. Sheehan - and allow Mrs. Sheehan to do the same thing. Notice the language that both sides use. For examble from Mrs. Sheehan's own words.

Here is a good examble of protesting the actions of the government by Mrs. Sheehan - its nothing to demonize her about because she is expressing her opinion about the government's action. If she just stuck to such words and opinion as this - I would be more empathic to her cause.

“And the other thing I want him to tell me is ‘just what was the noble cause Casey died for?’ Was it freedom and democracy? Bullsh*t! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We’re not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism,” she exclaimed.

However she also makes statements like this.

1) We want our loved ones' sacrifices to be honored by bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from the travesty that is Iraq IMMEDIATELY, since this war is based on horrendous lies and deceptions. Just because our children are dead, why would we want any more families to suffer the same pain and devastation that we are?

2) We would like for him to explain this "noble cause" to us and ask him why Jenna and Barbara are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble.

3) If George is not ready to send the twins, then he should bring our troops home immediately. We will demand a speedy withdrawal.

Now the first statement is in line with protesting the actions of the government. Which is within her rights as a citizen. However she is doing something else in paragraphes 2 and 3. Her son volunteered for the services - however it seems she is demanding that the President force his children to enlist. Statements like these are fallacies - and have no bearing on her protest against the government's actions.

Now I really like this statement from here - it leads one to question her motives and makes one realize that she is indeed exploiting her grief for political purposes. And makes me question wether she is doing his for herself or is she being manilupated by the Anti-War groups. Its really a well written speech - makes me wonder if she actuall researched and wrote the thing herself.

http://www.angelabode.com/cindyletter.html

Our country has been overtaken by murderous thugs....gangsters who lust after fortunes and power; never caring that their addictions are at the expense of our loved ones, and the blood of innocent people near and far. We've watched these thugs parade themselves before the whole world as if they are courageous advocates for Christian moral values....and for the spread of democracy. Yet we all know that they are now putting in place, all across this country, a system of voting that provides no way to validate the accuracy of the counting of the votes. Our loved ones have been buried in early graves even as these arrogant thugs parade themselves before the entire world, insisting that democracy is worth dying for, killing for, and destroying entire cities for, all the while they are busy here at home overseeing the emplacement of an electronic voting system that invites fraud at every turn, an electronic vote-counting system that provides no way to validate the votes cast, and that, by it's very design, prohibits recounting the votes.

For these men to not see to it that our own system of voting and vote-counting is accurate, understandable and verifiable...all the while sending our loved ones to kill and to die so as to establish a democracy in some far away place......this is just one more staggering piece of evidence that the US government is now ruled by murderous hypocrites...criminals who should be arrested, charged appropriately, confined behind bars, and then tried in a court of law...not only here in our own country, but also in all the other countries which have suffered their incomprehensible greed. In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants.

Then when she seems to be a little more vemonate when speaking from the cuff:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/1226

.......Then we have this lying bastard, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war. You know what? I’m never going to get to enjoy another vacation, because of him.......

and then here is this

I got an email the other day and it said, “Cindy, if you didn’t use so much profanity… there’s people ‘on the fence’ that get offended…‿
And you know what I said? “You know what? You know what, god-damn-it? How, in the world is anybody still ‘sitting on that fence’?‿
“If you fall on the side that is pro-George, and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out.‿
But whatever side you fall on, quit being on the fence.

Now don't get me wrong - she is entitled to use her grief to spread her message - but just looking at the two speeches shows a difference in how she presents herself. The fact that she is using professional handlers and media personal - shows another factor. Do I question her right to protest the government - not at all. Do I question her using the lose of her son to help spread her message - not at all. Do I question her motives because of her actions - I sure do.

[Adrian II]

Sheehan is entitled to protest the government's actions and the President in particlur because that is the right granted by the United States Constitution and the 1st Amendment states it as a right specifically. However by her method of protesting - and that she is placing herself in the limelight of descension (SP) toward government policy - she has placed herself under the lens of public opinion. I of course question her motives given her statements. Just as she is questioning the President.

I get your point and I agree she has an unfortunate way of putting things. On the other hand that is what grief and frustration do to people: make them less coherent than they would normally be. I am sure her feelings have changed over time, and so have her views. She may have come away more or less comforted and contented from her first meeting with the President, andyet felt betrayed and belittled afterwards when all that had happened had begun to sink in.

And then there is the major difference between her and the President: the difference in power between them. It always strikes me as a flaw of American democracy that the President, the person holding the main executive job in the country, can not be forced to account publicly for his deeds or omissions by the chosen legislative power, the Congress. There is a lot of debate and negotiating between POTUS and Congress going on behind the scene, but the President is never grilled in public by the peoples' representatives. The President is protected and represented by 'handlers' all the time, and in my view -- and I suppose in Sheehan's view -- he has failed until now to give a satisfactory account for all his flipflops on Iraq, all the intelligence 'failures' (others would say 'lies') and for his failure to recognise that the occupation of post-war Iraq has been desastrous, at least compared to what might or could have been if Bush and his staff had shown better judgment.

It is a tough act to remain balanced when you are angry about the death of your kid as a result of such failures on the one hand, and eager to remain reasonable and convince as many people as possible on the other hand.

Anyway, let's see how this plays out. What is important is that Sheehan is not the only one voicing these concerns.

[Redleg]

I get your point and I agree she has an unfortunate way of putting things. On the other hand that is what grief and frustration do to people: make them less coherent than they would normally be. I am sure her feelings have changed over time, and so have her views. She may have come away more or less comforted and contented from her first meeting with the President, andyet felt betrayed and belittled afterwards when all that had happened had begun to sink in.

Yes indeed that is why I would not deny her the right to speak out about the government or the death of her son. Nor would I call her names because of what she is doing. People change their attitudes and idealog values all the time. She is entitled to express her grief any way she so choses.

And then there is the major difference between her and the President: the difference in power between them. It always strikes me as a flaw of American democracy that the President, the person holding the main executive job in the country, can not be forced to account publicly for his deeds or omissions by the chosen legislative power, the Congress. There is a lot of debate and negotiating between POTUS and Congress going on behind the scene, but the President is never grilled in public by the peoples' representatives. The President is protected and represented by 'handlers' all the time, and in my view -- and I suppose in Sheehan's view -- he has failed until now to give a satisfactory account for all his flipflops on Iraq, all the intelligence 'failures' (others would say 'lies') and for his failure to recognise that the occupation of post-war Iraq has been desastrous, at least compared to what might or could have been if Bush and his staff had shown better judgment.

The one major flaw in the American system. I sometimes wish the President had to appear in front of Congress more often - much like the British system. To answer questions and be grilled on his actions as the President.
If such things were done in the American System of government - it would be easier to hold Presidents and yes Congressmen responsible for their poor decisions.

It is a tough act to remain balanced when you are angry about the death of your kid as a result of such failures on the one hand, and eager to remain reasonable and convince as many people as possible on the other hand.

Anyway, let's see how this plays out. What is important is that Sheehan is not the only one voicing these concerns.

Yes indeed its a tough act to remain balanced - however she has placed herself into a political spotlight - and that makes it important for her to balance herself to present her case to the public. Passion is easy to present - reason is harder but makes it also harder for the opposition to preform such tactics as the far right has done in demonizing her.

[Red Harvest]

Have to agree with you Adrian about the lack of accountability before the public. Much of this has come from the press in the past, but this Admin acts as if they were all a bunch of hitmen out to get him. His fanboys cheer him on as he gives half the country the finger.