Redstate

Cindy Sheehan chose to go public, she chose to protest the war, and she chose to drag her son into it.  All the Left did was to chose to declare her above criticism - in spite of the fact she chose to enter the fray.

Given her comments, and the fatc she made the choice to enter the fray, I do not think it is beyond the pale to call her moonbatty actions and comments what they are.

So here's my point, and it's two-fold: Cindy Sheehan has no more right to argue against the Iraq War than I have to argue against legalized abortion.

She also has no LESS a right to argue against the Iraq War than you do to argue against legalized abortion.

The loss of her son doesn't give her any rights.  However it gives her relevance, particularly in the media and political climate of today.

lots of people lose children.  One of my good friends lost her 17 month old to meningitis.  A friend of my mom lost her daughter to cancer.  Both experienced great grief.  But neither of them had a convienient scapegoat to put all their anger on.

Ms. Sheehan does have the scapegoat, and she also has tons of barking moonbats to help her continue to blame the scapegoat.  

Let me just make one other point about the tactic that the left is currently using with Cindy Sheehan which is just an extension what liberals usually do when they are losing on the facts (which is most always). They dredge up someone who is More Qualified to deal with the facts due to some Personal Circumstance in their life than "conservative person X" has. It's despicable.

Notice that when their guy Clinton was running for office against two legitimate World War II heroes (one partially disabled from war injuries), war service wasn't such an important Personal Circumstance. Now that they've lost their case with the American public at the polls, they're trying to trot out everyone they can find with Personal Circumstances that just demand (demand!) that they be listened to, regardless of the validity or insanity of their arguments.

In this case, it is doubly shameful, because the Personal Circumstance they are using is the death of a loved one - and they are attempting to pimp this woman's grief as a reason why they are More Qualified to speak on the legitimacy of the war.

We all have difficult things that happen to us in life, and I'll freely admit that I've never had anything as difficult as the death of a child to deal with in my life. But I've had other issues with Personal Circumstances that I won't get into at this point, and that doesn't make me More Qualified to spin facts than it does anyone else.

It all comes down to the classic liberal techniques. When they are losing on the merits of the case, they will attempt to persuade through rank emotionalism, and their exploitation of this situation (with Ms. Sheehan's full co-operation) is indicative to me that their idea tank is on E.

To fully grasp all of the implications of this story.

we see a women incoherent in the resolution of her son's death.  If she truly wants us out of Iraq; she will need to involve some of the democrats who voted for the war and continue to support it.  Hanging out in front of the President's house is a cheap political stunt that makes the option of pulling out of Iraq look like a fringe choice.  Her son went into the military voluntarily.  The media is giving her coverage, but her reputation as a spokesperson for a legitimate cause is not there - it's a mother who avoids her grief by seeking media attention - very much like terri schiavo's mother.

I agree with you that she doesn't have any MORE of a right to criticize or SUPPORT this war.  But she does have relevance, just like a mother who supports this war and has a dead soldier son has relevance.

I don't agree with how some wish to shield her from criticism because she lost her son.  As I said said elsewhere she voided her right to such protection.  But to suggest that she has no right or place to criticize this war is silly.  

Apparently dismissive ad hominem is the only thing you will respond with so obviously there is little point in trying to have a discussion with you.

If your penultimate comment is what you think I was trying to say, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension, as no one else has thought that, and no reasonable reader would.

Is being a "media whore" better or worse than being a "blog whore?" ;)

I think we'd all like to influence, if not capture, the media cycle for a day.  Cindy Sheehan was, somehow, the accidental person that the media spotlight shone on for one moment and it turned out that she was uniquely equipped -- by her circumstance, not by any special power -- to set off some pretty spectacular vibrations through the public discourse, generally.

At this point, it seems almost tangential to critics what Mrs. Sheehan has to say.  "How she is saying it" is the most important part of this story to them.  Beyond all of that, there is this pressing concern of whether or not "she has the right to speak out."

Your remark about "media whore" seems to indicate that you think she has exceeded the limit of where speech is appropriate or permitted.

First, I'm very sorry for your loss. The desire to have children among our species is very strong, and I certainly hope you're able to have, or already have, more.

But I don't quite see the parallel you are trying to draw. You apparently suffered your loss through an accident and/or a miscarriage. Cindy Sheehan lost hers through what she deems to be, rightly or wrongly, an unnecessary, correctable process. Now she wants to keep other parents and their children from having to go through the same thing. No one forced an abortion on your family...and you certainly didn't CHOOSE to have one given your comments. Were this China, and an abortion were forced on you, I would be very surprised if you did NOT use your personal loss to highlight your side of the issue. It would be the only way to ensure that the loss of your child was not in vain.

Another thing that puzzles me is that in your link to Sheehan's diary, you blame the "left," or try to imply that Sheehan blames the left, for her family problems. This is clearly not the case. "Ghoulish" is Matt Drudge posting a fake e-mail from her family, not the left supporting Sheehan's cause.

Ghoulish is the media <person who sells her dignity to get what she wants> Cindy Sheehan virtually dragging her son's body around, and metaphorically standing on him to use as a soapbox while she spews her vile lies and overall message of hate.

I keep hearing people refer to the lefts message of hate.  Since when was is it logical to characaterize an anti-war, pro peace message, as a message of hate. You may disagree with the message, but you certainly can not believe it's a message of hate.

that was my initial comment, not my penultimate comment.

We could also talk about your use of the nefarious and nebulous term The Left.  Who is The Left?  

Sheehan made a choice.  The media found it newsworthy.  Nothing terribly shocking here.  Some people are going to use that for their political purposes.  Others are going to dismiss the story for their political purposes.  

Is this any different than the President wheeling out the children born from frozen embryos to further his agenda?  

"I keep hearing people refer to the lefts message of hate.  Since when was is it logical to characaterize an anti-war, pro peace message, as a message of hate. You may disagree with the message, but you certainly can not believe it's a message of hate."

Let's see...

Comparing Bush and others to Hitler (unfavorably).

That great message of non-hate: "We support the troops when they shoot their officers."

Et cetera, et cetera, and so on, and so forth...

. . . pretty thoroughly here

that the notions of communism and islamism are merely excuses we have concocted to build bombs and use them to kill people; in other words, the belief that we got what we deserved on 9/11, and are to blame for every evil thing that the islamists have done to us.

Liberals, please correct me if I am mis-stating ...

Liberals seem to attach a sense of moral authority to the notion of "authenticity", and seem to believe that authenticity is best demonstrated by emotional agitation.  Thus the person who is most outraged, or upset, or angry, or grief-stricken is defined as the most authentic, and hence carries the greatest moral authority.  QED.

This explains the liberals' fondness for organized "protests". It provides an outlet for mass demonstration of emotional (and thus moral) credentials. It also explains their attachment to violent extremist organizations like the Black Panthers and, today, ELF/ALF. Anybody that upset must be genuine.  

It also explains why Maureen Dowd can give voice to the liberal consensus that nobody has as much moral authority as a mother who has lost a son incombat.

The irritation most conservatives have with Cindy Sheehan is not that she seems to have a beef wth the President, it is this ridiculous notion that she is somehow imbued with a special moral authority by virtue of having lost her son.

Liberals treat her as if she should be above criticism as a result. This piece puts it very well. Cindy Sheehan has no more moral authority on the Iraq War, or anything else, than any other person in America. She is a sad and pathetic figure.  And the Left's embrace of her as a "prophet of the cause" is a very sad spectacle.        

I can only imagine the depths of your loss, and Sheehan's for that matter (there but for the grace of God go I, and I don't forget it).  She is certainly being exploited by the left, but plenty of private grief has been exploited by politicians and activists of every political stripe.  Culture-of-lifers didn't find it unseemly when Hannity broadcasted from outside a hospice, or when Santorum visited Sciavo as part of a fund-raising trip, they saw a machinery willing to exemplify its points through some very sympathetic human beings -- Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.  We can no more blame Sheehan herself for taking advantage of the Left's machine than we can blame the Schindler's for taking advantage of the conservative machine.  Heck, I'd do the same for my kids now, not to mention how berserk I'd be if I ever lost one of them.

But this does not excuse the behavior of a media/politics machine that exploits the grief of others.  I (as most of those here) take great offense at the feet of the Left's machine for supplying Sheehan with outrageous talking points, publicizing her campout beyond proportion, and pushing her to make political demands.  But I also feel similar disgust when it happens in the conservative sphere, even if I agree with the cause more -- maybe even more because it's for a cause I don't want to see cheapened.

and she was not randomly chosen by the media to have their spotlight shone on. She went public with her grief. The media shone on her because she looked like a promising story to help boost ratings.  The main argument IS "how she is saying it", which is by blurring the line between her war protesting and grievances over her son's death.

They're seperate. One can grieve without rallying against Bush, just as one can rally against Bush without having to drag a dead person to justify her argument. No one said she overstepped any rights. She has the right to do as she wishes, and everyone else has the right to criticize her actions as they see fit. We aren't preventing her from making any statements.

... why it was in his plan to take your child early, wouldn't you?

If you were willing to literally die in order that the child could live, then wouldn't you want to ask those who could have prevented it why it was necessary?

But I'll be damned before I drag a child over whom I still cry sometimes into a political mudfight.

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

Cindy Sheehan has no more right to argue against the Iraq War than I have to argue against legalized abortion.

Isn't the nature of our nation supposed to be about our right to argue against things? Furthermore, your loss has nothing to do with abortion. Your loss is completely irrelevent to abortion. Her loss has everything to do with the war.

Without abortion, you would have still experienced your loss, as tragic as it is (unless there is something that I'm missing). Without the war, she would not have lost her son. It is dishonorable to the service of that man to compare them.

just as one can rally against Bush without having to drag a dead person to justify her argument.

Then why does the current administration drag out the dead from 9/11 everytime they need to justify their arguments for a war in a country that they admit has no ties to that attack?

Why is the DOD dragging out the dead for the Freedom March to whip up support for the war?

I think you are right in saying that she was deliberately chosen by the media in order to boost ratings, circulation, etc.

It's weird ...

At this point, I don't think that anyone can deny the extraordinary efficacy of her actions, as far as gaining public visibility for her cause.  By contrast, anti-war protests in 2003 numbering over 100,000 people warranted only the briefest of mentions on the news.

I think it's natural for the left to be crowing over Mrs. Sheehan's media success.  It's also natural for the right to feel outraged.

But there is a whole other level of this story that I have yet to figure out.

Comparing Zarqawi's thugs to the minutemen...

At this point, I don't think that anyone can deny the extraordinary efficacy of her actions, as far as gaining public visibility for her cause.  By contrast, anti-war protests in 2003 numbering over 100,000 people warranted only the briefest of mentions on the news.

This is no different from the hundreds if not thousands of kidnappings and missing children each day that go unreported, yet the nation will be entranced for weeks by certain ones that the media latches onto.

Or the scores of families who have to decide every day whether to remove their loved one from life support, yet the nation was flooded with Terri Schiavo news.

This is how the media works. Only a few news stories make it through, and they pick the ones that will generate the most "hits".

There shouldn't be any suprise here. She is camping near on Bush's ranch. That is news enough on it's own and is unique enough to draw ratings... compared to an anti-war protest that most people will already think "heard it... not interested... tell me something new and interesting".

I've seen a lot of bogus comparisons between these two women, and I'd like to note the following: all the pictures you saw on TV and elsewhere of Terri Schiavo were from (approx.) 2000 or before.  She hadn't had any new pictures taken of her in years, thanks to the wishes of her husband.  One of the original goals in publicizing her case was to get that restriction lifted, but it never was.

the death of your unborn child with the death of Sheehan's 24 year old child.  And according to you there's nothing special about losing a child you've birthed and nurtured for 24 years. Nothing special at all. It's merely the same as losing an unborn child.

This disconnect with reality appears prevalent in Bushie circles.

Really? Compared Bush to Hitler?

...you mentioned "the left."

Nice try to deflect.

But if you want to discuss Sheehan specifically...

How about her statement that the "neo-cons" sent her son to die for Israel, not for America? Is the blood libel not hate speech?

Did a scapegoat pursue war in Iraq?

Did a scapegoat assert our military fighting in Iraq would keep us safe?

Did a scapegoat declare there were no 9/11 terrorists in Iraq 6 months after the war began?

Where can we find this scapegoat who made these declarations and assertions??

"It's merely the same as losing an unborn child.

This disconnect with reality appears prevalent in Bushie circles."

Uh-huh...

Enjoy your (most likely brief) sojourn here.

I am pregnant and I have two born children, and I love the baby in my womb as much as the two babies out of it.

Your disconnect - the whole Dkurse, moonbat disconnect - with the fact than an unborn child is an actual human person is why your slide into electoral irrelevance will continue.

she has no idea what loss is.

I've known those who lost children to miscarriage; the pain both father and mother go through is a palpable, real thing.

and I don't like that they do it, either. As far as I'm concerned, at this point in time dragging out 9/11 again would be akin to saying "We're cutting off trade relations with Japan because of the thousands killed at Pearl Harbor".

More people die each year from cigarettes than died in 9/11. Doesn't change the nature of the attacks, and merely mentioning 9/11 is different than mentioning it and bringing up how thousands of innocent lives died (which they did, I'm not denying that). They seem to do both interchangably, and I don't like it when they try to amaze me with number of dead.

So, across the board, I'm not fond of using dead people

FDR murdered about 400,000 Americans.

Presidents send troops to war. Sometimes, as an unfortunate consequence, those troops die. FDR sent drafted troops into Europe/Asia, so he had even less excuse.

Enjoy your One Bite™.

Your complete inability to grasp what he's saying is so profound one wonders how you learned to boot up a computer.

That's fair for you as an individual, and good to hear.

The only followup I would have on that then is that often the only way to successfully go head to head with your opposition in the real world involves adopting similar tactics.

Since the Bush adminstration is keen to do just that, then it's hard for me to not understand the need for someone who disagrees to learn how to play the same ballgame... since it's the only way to reach the audience of your opposition.

But in regards to your reaction specifically, fair enough.

Well, it's not like I have other, born children against which to compare this. Or do I? Let's wonder.

I doubt she nurtured him for 24 years.

I love how the Left became morally cretinous and decided to abandon the defense of the weak (formally, for the world to see). Thanks for making our job easier.

This is the point, isn't it?  You (along with the media) seem to think that Cindy Sheehan has more rights/authority because her son was killed in war. Nobody on the conservative side of this is saying that she has fewer rights. We just find this assumption of moral authority very annoying, and Cindy herself very lefty/loopy, and the whole "camping out" spectacle very bad street theater.

There may be a difference.

But to suggest that she has no right or place to criticize this war is silly.

That was in your then-penultimate comment. I suggested nothing of the sort.

Every day I am reminded in a rather forceful way that the moral compass for some people does, in fact, point due south.

While the trivialization of the loss of unborn children might fly with great hilarity in other quarters, it falls like a rock here. Welcome to The Pile™.

... of one of the things that is really wrong with America in the beginning of the 21st Century. We have become conditioned to "instant" results, "instant" solutions", "painless" cures, "someone else's fault" reasoning.

Despite our best efforts we have not managed to turn a country with two generations of repression and fear, parked smack in the middle of one of the most backward parts of the world, into Switzerland overnight; so we should give up. Bush hasn't solved the problem of the Middle East in 5 whole years --- he must certainly be an idiot. But it was all for oil anyway.

Perhaps if we taught our children actual history instead of the revisionist nonsense that they get (that is when they actually some academics that doesn't interfere with sensitivity training, and all of the other politically correct indoctrination cr*p that goes on in our schools.)

... she started out this way. The death of her son has simply given her a stage on which to play out her views. And the left and the press are more than happy to accomodate her.

Does his choice to participate in the war count for nothing? I think Thomas was rightly alluding to this.

... on how much you value life. That you can draw such a distinction says it all.

"Now she wants to keep other parents and their children from having to go through the same thing."

Let's see.....She has no more right to "keep" other parents' children from enlisting to serve their country than she would have in attempting to prevent her own son from deciding to serve.  He was an adult who was capable of making his own decision.

"...you blame the "left," or try to imply that Sheehan blames the left, for her family problems. This is clearly not the case. "

Again, let's see.....She has stated she wants Israel out of "Palestine", and has shown a clear anti-Israel agenda.  Where is the connection with the loss of her son in Iraq?  The left is always telling us that the Iraq War has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.  It's quite clear the left is controlling her.

For years the left has used "the right" as a pejorative term.  The tide has turned and your ilk doesn't like it.

Thomas -- I've walked this road that you are talking about and even reading what you said has brought tears to my eyes again, even though it has been seven years.

As for the left -- The left will use anything, anybody, anyone at anytime.

On the other hand, with regards to Terry Schaivo, I disagreed with what the GOP did on all levels (and I've donated time and money to the GOP over the years).  I do see at least a bit of a parellel.  In the same way that soldiers and babies die and in the same way that its a gut wrenching issue that should be worked out in private, hundreds of people face the question of when to remove life support every year.  And the laws are clear (which is why the GOP lost in court every time).  The spouse is the one who gets to make those decisions, not the state.  I'm still not quite sure why the GOP got involved with Schaivo and I'm quite sure that were some (though not all by any means) who cared much more about making a point than about Terry herself.

Frankly, I don't like anything about either situation and the way that politics was used.

Again, my heart goes out for your loss and I appreciate you sharing it here to provide some context.

Oz

Why I couldn't bring my stuffed dog to school.

Your point is facile. She had a chance to ask. Now she wants to do it in front of the cameras, for effect.

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

No, what I did was to say this shouldn't be a political fight at all, and illustrate why. Pay attention.

Isn't the nature of our nation supposed to be about our right to argue against things? Furthermore, your loss has nothing to do with abortion. Your loss is completely irrelevent to abortion. Her loss has everything to do with the war.

My loss has everything to do with dead children. And I never said she couldn't argue about things. Pay attention.

Without abortion, you would have still experienced your loss, as tragic as it is (unless there is something that I'm missing). Without the war, she would not have lost her son. It is dishonorable to the service of that man to compare them.

I did not choose to lose my child. She did not choose to lose hers. Mine died through no choice of her own. Hers died through his adult choice. If anything, it profoundly dishonors his conscious sacrifice to pretend that he was dragged to the slaughter.

can disagree with this war, as is his right.  However, this woman is doing so in the name of her son:  Her hero son, who gave his life for a cause in which he obviously believed.  Whether one agrees with that cause or not, his sacrifice is deserving of the utmost respect.  She has traded it for a few cheap headlines.

I am very sorry for your loss, Sir.  I have a son myself and don't think I would be nearly as composed as you were I in your shoes.

I personally have never suggested she has more or less rights at all.

The article here presents a conundrum: I'm assuming the author has argued for or against abortion. I'm assuming that given the chance to be heard on their stance by a wide audience, they would do so. It goes on to say that Cindy does not have anymore right than the author does to argue about abortion.

Well, if the author has every right to argue about abortion, then Cindy of course has every right to argue about the war. If we've established that she has every right to argue about it, then I'm missing what the whole hoopla is about in the first place unless it's to suggest she shouldn't be speaking out against the war?

Disagree with her message, sure... but why even BRING UP the subject of her right to speak out about it?

On the basis the more your moral perversity is exposed to the world, the more your cause will suffer. Cheers.

Saying that A is not greater than B does not imply that A is less than B, or that A = 0.

You're trying to say or at least imply that it does.  Perhaps you need to take a course in logic.

"...wouldn't you want to ask those who could have prevented it why it was necessary?"

Glad to see that you will join an effort to send Ms. Sheehan over to see Osama Bin Laden and Zarqawi about the death of her son...

"without the war, she would not have lost her son..."

It seems to me she already lost her son, when he re-enlisted.  Unless she is new to this anti-war thing, she surely must have attempted to discourage her son from remaining with our armed forces, understanding what the consequences might be.  He re-enlisted anyway.  Furthermore, no one can say with any certainty that our military, or Ms. Sheehan's son in particular, would not have been needed/deployed for anything else, if Iraq had not happened.  He could have been severely injured and/or killed just in his training, though obviously he would be less likely to be injured in training than in a war.

I have no problem with her histrionics.  The only people she is likely to sway are those who are inclined to be anti-war and anti-Bush to begin with.  The rest will see her hyperbole for what it is, and simply shake their heads at such self deceived indulgence.  

This comparison "dishonorable" to Casey?  I shake my head at such self deceived indulgence.

That's what leaders are supposed to do, explain why they do what they do and prepare a nation for the sacrafice needed to accomplish the goal. I don't think the administration expected or planned for a long war. They sure didn't try to prepare the American people for one.

Here's part of the thing, here.

The press corps has to hang around Crawford, Texas, in blistering heat without nary a Starbucks latte for 50 miles around for comfort.

They're bored silly ... of COURSE, "Mother" Sheehan's gonna make the news.

If you look closely at some of the photo's from last week ... you'll see that the cameras and reporters outnumber the protestors.

Go look up Bush's major speeches (State of the Union and others) and look for every occurence of the word 'long'.  I guarantee you you'll find several references to how the war on terror is going to be a long fight, etc.

Don't confuse people not listening to the President or not remembering (or purposefully misremembering) with the President not saying as such.

Now she wants to do it in front of the cameras, for effect.

A tactic that has been put to use by war supporters as much as war detractors. I don't understand this disconnect. Why is it a problem to use the cameras to further a movement? If it is a problem, then how can anyone support either side since they both use it to great effect?

No, what I did was to say this shouldn't be a political fight at all, and illustrate why. Pay attention.

I'm paying attention to the fact that you brought your unborn child into what was already a political fight and will never be anything BUT a political fight. Never. This war is political. Abortion is political. This page is political. Your post was political.

My loss has everything to do with dead children. And I never said she couldn't argue about things. Pay attention.

Your loss has nothing to do with abortion though, and I know you are trying to imply that it doesn't matter how the child dies, it's all the same. That's simplification beyond reason and logic.

Well it's not. If a child dies from drunk driving, you don't go after abortion. If a child dies from parental abuse, you don't go after abortion. If a child dies from an accidental fall, you don't go after abortion. If a child dies of cancer, you don't go after abortion.

You go after drunk driving, abuse, safety measures, and cures for cancer.

If a child dies from a war you feel is unjust, you go after the war and the people in a position to do something about it.

Thanks for reconfirming my own prejudices about the left, miss.

the comparison is not between Sheehan and Mr. and Mrs. Schindler personally (very different circumstances, both sympathetic and both heartbreaking for any parent).  It is between the reaction to the Left-wing media/political machine pushing the Sheehan story (disgust, and rightfully so) and the Right-wing media/political machine pushing the Schindler's story (which was roundly championed by many).  I think it is a legitimate comparison to note that those who think the left-wing machine should be ashamed for trying to capitalize on, and pervert, one woman's grief for political purposes should also condemn the right-wing machine when it does something similar.

A tactic that has been put to use by war supporters as much as war detractors. I don't understand this disconnect. Why is it a problem to use the cameras to further a movement? If it is a problem, then how can anyone support either side since they both use it to great effect?

Because she's being dishonest about it, in her grief.

I'm not repeating those points again.

I'm paying attention to the fact that you brought your unborn child into what was already a political fight and will never be anything BUT a political fight. Never. This war is political. Abortion is political. This page is political. Your post was political.

Arguably, so is your continued breathing. However, just maybe, one can counsel to take something out of the political realm without being political. Ponder that.

If a child dies from a war you feel is unjust, you go after the war and the people in a position to do something about it.

If they're brought into that war against their will. But wait! That's not what we're looking at here.

But she lost a kid. And she hurts. And she shouldn't be anyone's pawn sacrifice.

And your inability to grasp why the abortion thing might be relevant is terribly telling.

I do not think the administration did as good a job as it could have to prepare the nation for a long, protracted war --- and not just the Iraq portion of it.

Listening to the various views several months post 9/11 it seems to me that perhaps the administration misunderstood the depth of anti-American feeling in the left and the press. I think perhaps they thought that the simple logic of "we've been attacked by a truly malevolent force" would resonate. While it did on the right, they misunderstood that large parts of the left does not see America in the same positive light as those of us the right.

This is parhps the most difficult kind of conflict. It is a fairly low intensity, long duration affair. As a result there may not be a real way to "put the nation on a war footing" as was done in WW II. This kind of war does not require all of America's manufacturing capability for war materiel. It does not require all of America's young men and women.

It requires perseverance on the part of all Americans; and unfortunately that is something that we may have "bred out" of large parts of America.

Casey Sheehan re-enlisted. He knew what he was getting himself into. He promised to uphold the constitution, and he gave his life.

What has she said of his sacrifice .. publically:

1. America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for..."
   
2. We have no Constitution. We're the only country with no checks and balances.."
   
3. She offered to either send him to Canada or run over him with a car to keep him from going to Iraq.

...and, ohyah ... "Mother Sheehan" agreed with Jan Schakowski (D-IL) who said if anyone wonders what noble cause Casey Sheehan died for, the noble cause was to help Cindy Sheehan "end this war."

Her very first VeteransForPeace event was when Casey had been his grave less than a MONTH. She found the energy in her grief stricken state to star in an anti-Bush TV commercial last summer, funded by Soros.

This is showing respect?

I did not choose to lose my child. She did not choose to lose hers. Mine died through no choice of her own. Hers died through his adult choice. If anything, it profoundly dishonors his conscious sacrifice to pretend that he was dragged to the slaughter.

Again, you can skirt the issue... but your comparison is lacking. Your loss has nothing to do with abortion. If abortion had never existed, you would have still lost your child. If the war in Iraq had never existed, her son very well might be around.

I do not deny that he made the choice to serve in the war and knowingly put himself in harms way. What I deny is your attempt to drag your own child combined with the hot button of abortion into it.... and then pretend like you aren't doing the same thing as her.

You have an audience, what you say reaches the audience, and therefore you are bringing your loss forward to further your position.

Don't do this here.  

I hope you didn't intend to imply that losing an unborn child is nothing.  Or nothing special.  But I don't know how else to read this.  Talk about a "disconnect with reality."

There are about 15 ways to make the point I think you might have been going for without being patently offensive.  People might still disagree that the loss of an adult child is potentially more devastating than the loss of an unborn one, but you could have avoided disgusting folks with this callous display.

Identity politics are everything to today's left.

"A bunch of white men shouldn't be deciding abortion."

"I will appoint a cabinet that looks like America."

"President Bush should have appointed a woman to replace Justice O'Connor."

"As an African-American..."

It's why they shriek like moonbats at "hypocrisy."  When identity politics are your most reliable constant, someone who appears to be "untrue to himself" is committing the worst (only?) possible sin.

But there is a whole other level of this story that I have yet to figure out.

It's that she's a Damsel in Distress. This is one of our strongest cultural memes. Cindy Sheehan is the political version of the Runaway Bride or Aruba Girl. So was Terri Schiavo.

People ask: out of all the people opposed to the war, why does this woman get all the attention? Why, of all the people lying in hospices, did Terri Schiavo spark cultural warfare? Why does Lori Piestewa get a mountain named after her when no one even remembers that there were men who died in that same attack? People run to the aid of Damsels in Distress, that's why.

What makes Cindy Sheehan the perfect foil for a leftist media will also be her undoing. The culture tires of its Damsels in Distress and demands that the media find new ones constantly. Cindy's fate is to be swept off the stage by the next pretty blonde who vanishes mysteriously.

The entire debate exists for one and only one reason: Cindy Sheehan is being afforded status by the left generally and the media in particular as having special relevance and moral authority due to the fact that her son was killed in Iraq. Absent that she's just another left wing kook.

The writer's point in his piece was that she does not in fact have any special standing. I agree wholeheartedly.  She is in fact just another left wing kook, albeit one whose views have apparently been altered by her personal grief.

From your comments, I assume you are also in concurrence. Huzza! Off to retire for a drink!  

My understanding is that the reason for banning trolls and those who come in to regurgitate Known Facts is that they tend to drag down the site and waste bandwidth.  Unless that rationale has trained, I would strongly implore you to toss them on The Pile and be done with it rather than letting them linger even if they do more to discredit their cause.

(a) I do agree with you that losing a 20-year old child is different, and harder, than losing an unborn child. I do this as someone who's experienced neither, so take my secondary-sourced opinions with a grain of salt. I think when you expectedly lose both the potential of the person and the friendship/comraderie of that person it's bound to be more crushing.

(b) You picked a horrid way to say that. Deaths shouldn't be classified as to how much the survivors can grieve or be hurt. Families of miscarried children, KIA soldiers, executed murderers, leukemia victims, etc. all can grieve without qualifications like "merely" before the cause of their loved ones death. Grief is judged by the context of the family not the context of the society, so society or it's rules have no real business ordering or ranking griefs relative to one another.

(c) If your name isn't really "Anne Frank" I hope you'll consider dropping this e-sobriquet and adopting a new one. Though, come to think of it, "Addison" is getting pretty stale, so maybe I'll just go ahead and switch to "Medgar4Evers" or "MattShepard666" soon. (Really, though, that username is inappropriate).

"..his sacrifice is deserving of the utmost respect.  She has traded it for a few cheap headlines."

people from enlisting, as you purport. She wants to keep the enlisted from dying a vain death. But thanks for attempting to twist my meaning.

<div class="blockquote">It's quite clear the left is controlling her.</div&gt

I think you give "the left" far too much credit for their organizational skills. I also don't see it as a perjorative term, and the way the term is used by the right these days pertains to over half the country.

....is misinformed. I also think that it's a side issue. There is also no consensus on the "left" regarding Israel and Palestine.

To put the loss of children in a little different perspective, more children under 13 have been killed in motor vehicle accidents (1600+ per year) since March 2003 than US military members have been killed overseas in the War on Terror. The difference is, the ones under 13 killed by motor vehicles, couldn't fully understand the risks of getting in Mom's car, or crossing the intersection on their bicycle. People in the military do know the dangers.

Sheesh, talk about misinformation.  Crawford is a tiny suburb of Waco, Tx (although you rarely hear the two towns mentioned in the same breath),  If one is into the Starbucks thing you can get to the nearest one in 20 minutes from the ranch.

Or they can just swing by the Starbucks when they're heading out to the Prez's ranch while they're staying at one of the hotels in waco, because God knows there's no hotels/motels in Crawford.

But you're probably on to something, with all those reporters around, there's not much that I'd classify as news worthy going on around the ranch, and Sheehan's a breath of fresh air... kinda like that road kill skunk that they passed on the way to the ranch.

Her point is not simply that she lost a child.  Her point is that she lost a child for no good reason.

I don't think the left is "using" Cindy.  Cindy is motivated to do what she's doing because she lost her child for something she thinks wasn't worth losing a child for.

Because she's being dishonest about it, in her grief.

Aside from the questionable aspect of your ability to see and know the inside of this woman... you are dodging the question.

How is this any different from the Schiavo case? How is it any different from any Christian using the media to speak out against abortion? They grieve for every baby lost in an abortion and use the media to speak out against it.

Arguably, so is your continued breathing. However, just maybe, one can counsel to take something out of the political realm without being political. Ponder that.

That is one of the biggest non-responses I've ever seen in my life.

If they're brought into that war against their will. But wait! That's not what we're looking at here.

So people can only speak out against actions where the people weren't willing participants? If the soldiers are willing to go, then the nation shouldn't speak out against them going? What about the soldiers who weren't willing to go but went because they faced jail and dishonor if they didn't, and they died? Can she speak only out in their favor instead? If she did that would everyone stop fretting over her?

And your inability to grasp why the abortion thing might be relevant is terribly telling.

Your attempt to use abortion is telling.

Doug, you really need to get out more. The term "Left" as used by the average conservative is used to denote specifically the left wing of the Democratic Party, as well as those too radical to fit into the Democratic Party. It is socialists and communists and radical environmentalists and radical feminists and queer theorists and anti-American antiglobalists. I would guess it is about 10% of the American electorate, if that.

The Democratic party used to be a very large tent. It is getting smaller every year as those concerned about traditional values issues run screaming from the party. The left is getting to represent a larger proportion of the Democratic Party, but only bcause th eparty itself represents a smaller proportion of all Americans.

Let's call this what it is -- exploitation, even perversion, of something we can all relate to, the grief of a parent.  Sheehan's loss shouldn't be exploited any more than Thomas' (would that she shared his sentiment But I'll be damned before I drag a child over whom I still cry sometimes into a political mudfight, but that is her choice).

But let's call it when it happens in the name of something we support, too.  

"The press corps has to hang around Crawford, Texas, in blistering heat without nary a Starbucks latte for 50 miles around for comfort.  

They're bored silly ..."

That's one reason why I wish Bush would not stay away from the White House for such an extended period of time -- every year, we have have to hear this b.s. about a 5-week long vacaction, etc.  If they were in DC, Sheehan would just be one of a group of nuts that everyone would be ignoring.

Glad to see that you will join an effort to send Ms. Sheehan over to see Osama Bin Laden and Zarqawi about the death of her son...

If they could be safely detained and there was no threat to her life, then why not? I know a lot of people who would love the chance to "talk" to them about the deaths of their sons and daughters. She's doing the only thing that might make a difference in something she feels is important.

The author of this article was willing to die in order to make a difference to allow his child to live.

Who wouldn't want to ask "Why?"

It seems to me she already lost her son, when he re-enlisted.  Unless she is new to this anti-war thing, she surely must have attempted to discourage her son from remaining with our armed forces, understanding what the consequences might be.  He re-enlisted anyway.

Why does the fact that her son disagreed have to lower her grief and desire to see the war end? How many parents disagree with the choices their children make in life? Does this lessen their ability to grieve when they lose their children?

Furthermore, no one can say with any certainty that our military, or Ms. Sheehan's son in particular, would not have been needed/deployed for anything else, if Iraq had not happened.

Thank you for that beautiful straw man. No one can say with certainty that if he had gone driving 5 minutes later one night he wouldn't have been killed in a car accident. It's a pointless argument to attempt.

The only people she is likely to sway are those who are inclined to be anti-war and anti-Bush to begin with.

Which is the majority now if one were to believe the polls that the Bush supporters were very quick to use when they were still in his favor.

If that's her "point," her point is idiotic. And her grief doesn't insulate her from criticism, once she's willingly put herself on the world media stage like she has. When you sit in front of the President's home, call him a premeditated mass murderer, and then demand a private meeting with him, you obviously aren't interested in your privacy any more. I think using your dead son as cheap political capital is disgusting.

I don't know what to make of all of this, I'm supportive of Sheehan for some reasons, very wary of the whole thing for others, I don't want to get into that right now. But I do know I'm tired of certain evasions and elisions going on that aren't even necessary for Sheehan's protest. I want to see if they can be cleared up. Correct me if I'm wrong: Sheehan already met with the president. She wants to meet with him (again) to ask him what his "noble cause" is. The president's well-known stance is the noble cause is Iraqi Democracy.

Now, you and I may disagree or agree on the likelihood that Iraqi Democracy will flourish, whether or not Bush actually cares about real liberty and real democracy (or cared about it when the war was started ~2 1/2 years ago), and whether or not the US military is the best way to accomplish that goal.

Sheehan says she wants the president to give her an answer as to what the "noble cause" her son died for was. This is confusing to me since I know what his stated cause is and I haven't met with him ONCE.

Like I said I'm conflicted about the whole thing, though less and less so as the protest becomes carnivalesque, grotesque, populated, and multi-issued -- for efficiency's sake let's go with the simple correlation: "as similarity to ANSWER rally increases, my sympathy decreases" -- but I certainly can't understand why certain delusions are labored under when they aren't even material to many of the core complaints.

I don't get the connection to identity politics, although maybe my objections should have been more clear.  Specifically, Leon's assertion that "rank emotionalism" and exploitation are somehow "classic liberal tactic[s]".

It seems a good example of taking everything that's despicable about American politics in general, and attributing them to the other side.  I see the exact same thing on dKos, about how dressing up in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier to deliver a "mission accomplished" speech is such a cheap "conservative" trick.  How DeLay's alleged corruption is a great example of how dirty all Republican politicians are.  How Dem's only lose because they don't sink down to the level of Rove's slimy tricks.

Unfortunately, there's nothing inherently liberal or conservative about exploiting people for political gain.

Leon H: '[Liberals] dredge up someone who is More Qualified to deal with the facts due to some Personal Circumstance in their life than "conservative person X" has.'

Telling of Thomas' fairly consistent valuation of human life.

Versus, well, yours.

I stand corrected!

Only 20 minutes from the nearest Starbucks!

Quite simply, money.

She's well funded; some of the groups supporting her, like Code Pink, and Moveon.org are prettty well funded. Also, the commercial running in Crawford this weekend is made by Fenton, Inc ... of Moveon.org and Soros fame.

Look, this lady is unemployed and separated from her husband. Who's paying for her to take all those trips across the country to Bash Bush? Who sent her to England for the DowningStreetMemo stuff? Who's funding that red, white and blue tour bus?

For that matter, her daughters are supposed to be in Europe right now. Who's paying for that?

To be fair,  she has said that she uses her son's life insurance for travel expenses. But ... the daughters' European vacation ... ?

"Mother" Sheehan is probably a great fundraising asset for various left wing groups.

Not to be cynical ... but ...

I even read some of the comments.  The most striking thing about Ms. Sheehan's essay was her statement,

'The Christ said: "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

If everyone followed Jesus's advice, the world would be a much better place.'

It seems to me that she should have heeded her own advice.

That and her title, "Leave My Family Alone."  By using her special relationship with a fallen hero to publicly criticise President Bush and demand a second meeting with him, she's made it fair game to ask the other members of her family where they stand on the issue.  If their positions agreed with her, I don't think she'd be saying to leave them alone.

... this is different from the well funded Christian Right movements because....???

Ok, so if I am to use the consistent valuation of human life as the author then... as he said at the end of the article I should "Let it go" in regards to:

Those killed by drunk drivers

Those killed by abusive relatives

Those killed by drug overdoses

Those killed by poor safety requirements on the job

Those killed by defective equipment

Those killed by abortion

Those killed by serial murderers

Those killed by ...

There is no reason to take actions to stop these when they affect you personally because "there is nothing special about losing a child."

Thank you but no.

they haven't used the mothers of fallen heroes to attack Democrats.  At least not done it while pretending it was the mothers' idea.  Nor have they tried to set a precedent that the mother of a dead soldier can demand to meet with the President whenever she feels like it.

Hardly...

Cindy just needs to go home.  But it's too late for her husband, he doesn't want her there anymore.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html

Cindy, no matter how much you knew what your son would have wanted, it's safe to say he would not have wanted this.  It's over, go home before you lose more of your family.

When she first met with him...Her point is that she now has a lot more information to confront him with and that his rationale has shifted dramatically over the two years plus we've been in Iraq.

And there is undeniably a serious problem with President Bush not wanting to see or hear from critics.  As you probably know, demonstrators are confined to so-called "free speech" zones, out of eye and earshot so the president won't have to look upon his critics and as you also probably know, attendees for his rallies, on Social Security for example, often must sign loyalty oaths.

I think he should be willing to talk with his critics and answer their questions, no matter how many times you feel he's already done it.  He is president of all of us, not just some of us and as such, he has a responsibility to all of us, in my humble opinion.

it's not only that.  She's made a demand that can't be met, and it proves the disingenuousness of her position.  It also means she'll stay outside the ranch and in the news.

It is impossible for the President to meet with her now, after all the hubbub, or at least it's very imprudent.  If he meets with her, he'll  encourage every anti-Bush nut in the country to do the same thing next year, to get publicity for their causes.

On the other hand, if she really just wanted to meet with him again, I'll bet that it could have been arranged quietly by her Congressman, either in DC or at the ranch.  I could be wrong, but my take on Bush is that he'd have been willing to give an extra 10 minutes to her in the White House, before all the publicity.  Now, no way.

It is idiotic to think that a child who has served in the military, and re-enlisted(so we know he knew the job was dangerous), died for folly.  The life of a soldier is subject to many risks, which he has knowingly subjected himself.  The USArmy is not a civil service with a dress code.  They do dangerous things during peace and war.  Perhaps it is more obvious that a soldier who dies by throwing himself on a live grenade thus saving his squadmates from certain death has not died in folly, but every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine serves in the effort to place the one soldier who matters at where he matters when the one moment that matters comes.  Because it does take 9-10 supporting soldiers to field one combat soldier in theatre, even the soldiers who change the reel-to-reel tapes in basement are serving the mission to liberate the slaves of Saddam Hussein and his evil minions.

The war in Iraq has already saved thousands of Iraqi lives.  Whether that is worth the death of US soldiers and marines can be debated, but it cannot be called "folly" to save lives.

a point of argument is crass. Perhaps understandable, but hardly worthwhile as an argument and not at all complimentary of the one so arguing. This is rather akin to claiming the last piece of cake because the dearly departed "would have wanted it that way." Doing it on national television in a media spectacle? This whole affair is beyond crass; it has bounded past any hint of good taste or discretion.

What she has had to say seems almost universally tripe, and worse than tripe. Her status as a grieving mother lends no weight to these arguments except in the realm where one's passion matters more than one's reasoning.

What she is saying is of no consequence on its own and how she has said it only accentuates how totally bankrupt the whole affair is of even the most basic decency. That she has continued in this farce does not reflect well upon her. That she seems to revel in the attention bestowed upon her by the cameras and microphones makes her look a ghoul, whatever may be the truth of the matter.

And here you are, confusing the question of civil propriety and the question of legal rights. Balderdash! The problem is not that one is upset that she is exercising her rights. The problem is that this ghoulish, disgusting exercise cheapens public discourse and it cheapens her. The refusal or inability by some parties to recognise this is  distressing, and reflects upon them equally poorly.

Turn the cameras off, and at least leave the woman some measure of her dignity.

answered the idiotic "Bush is a murderer" meme?  By your definition any president that sends troops into harms way is a murderer.

Why don't the moonbats hold accountable the people who are guilty?  It was insurgents out to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy that killed her son, why doesn't she start a crusade against them instead of Israel and the US?  That would make a heck of a lot more sense.

I think Amercians definitely have been conditioned to expect everything in an instant, we also become bored and disenchanted quickly.

I sometimes wonder what the press about WWII would have looked like in 1943 or 1944?  Our guys were dying by the thousands-shoot we lost almost 1000 men in a training accident.  

In a lot of ways I think the success of the first Gulf War made us expect quick results and easy solutions.  We somtimes forget that it took 10 years to get Japan and Germany stable after WWII, why do we think Iraq should be a stable government after a couple of years?  War isn't McDonald's.

Liberals often make their case by arguing that people who don't fit the "identity" don't have a right to a position (unless said position is supportive of their cause)-think along the lines of the chickenhawk meme-this fits along that direction-ie Ms. Sheehan has more "authority" to speak, since she lost a son than somebody who didn't lose a son, therefore she is above criticism since those of us who didn't lose a child don't know what it is like blah blah blah.

the US doesn't have a draft, her son was an adult who understood the risks (and if he didn't when he enlisted, he sure enough did when he reenlisted) and was willing to assume it.

She says she tried to persuade him against joining up, and to persuade him to not reenlist, but he still did it.  So, in reality the only person who really forced the loss on her, was her own son, since nobody made him volunteer and nobody made him reup.

Her loss is a tragedy, but she isn't the only woman who lost a child in war, and she isn't the only woman who lost a child.  

I think her grief has caused her to lose her sense of reality-to some degree tha is understandable, I also think the fact that she is highly involved with the various anti war groups makes reinforces this.  I am sorry, but when you get into arguing that the war in Iraq is a war for Israel, and that enlisting in the US army and going to Iraq means you are fighting for Israel, you are getting into serious barking moonbat territory and have lost some grip on reality.

Zarqawi and his little minutemen out there fighting for freedom from uh freedom?  Makes lots of sense to me-NOT.

There are two options here as to what's happening with you.

1.  You don't understand Thomas' meaning.
   
   
2.  You are purposefully misconstruing Thomas' meaning.

So, dull-witted or dishonest: I don't care which, although the former would at least have the virtue of sincerity.

between:

(a) Letting your grief animate your advocacy; and either

(b) Claiming or insinuating that your grief entitles you to superior moral authority, or

(c) Wallowing in your grief as a publicity stunt.

When you grasp that distinction, you will have a greater likelihood of grokking Thomas' post.

US history-where she basically said the US came here 200 years ago and has been killing people ever since (granted her timing is a bit off, since the US was born 200 years ago, but Europeans have been on the continent for about 400).

I think that is pretty wacked, and definitely goes into the "blame America first" catagory.  

is or isn't a "vane" death?  Who put her in charge, and given the fact that she has decided we are currently fighting for Israel, I think to give her that bully pulpit to decide US foreign policy is a bit screwed up don't you think?

weighted to the amount of time a child lived.

That is insane-grief is grief-whether it is for a baby in the womb, a toddler or an adult.

Like I said in an earlier post a good friend of mine lost her very young child to meningitis.  He didn't even live long enough to start talking yet.  She grieves him everyday-the things she grieves for may be different from what a mother of an adult grieves for, but the grief is still real.  My friend grieves on his birthday-she grieves when she sees kids his age at the park, because she thinks of the "what might have beens"  Don't assume that grief over an infant is somehow lesser to that of a child-that is overly assuming much.

just seem off.  She seems to be demanding an answer that can easily be found with a google search, which leads me to believe this is more a way for her to vent her grief than anything else.

as similarity to ANSWER rally increases, my sympathy decreases

This is an excellent one.

Yes, her husband has wised up.

....immensely sorry for her.  Moreso than ever before.

... moonbats don't behave.  That's been demonstrated time and time again.

in the grieving proccess at the anger point.

It is not uncommon for marriages to fall apart, after losing a loved one.

I am generally loath to recommend psycological counseling over the net, but what I really think Ms Sheehan needs more than a camp outside of Crawford and support from the various anti war groups, is a quiet place and a good counselor to help her sensibly work through her grief.  At the rate she is going, she is going to turn into a very bitter woman.

This has all the makings of another Terri Schaivo political moment.  Welcome to politics with no shame all over again.  My advice to the right, quit calling her names and walk away.  Learn from mistakes made last Easter.  If the left wants to make a national spectacle of family tragedy, leave them to it.

Straight out disagreement with his meaning... and more importantly, his method of portraying it.

By making this post, on a political page, which has a significant readership, about a political topic... he has politicized his own loss in order to further his goal of denouncing Cindy.

He has tried to make two seperate deaths one and the same, when they aren't... because life and death and the reasons/circumstance/fallout around it isn't that simple. He never should have mentioned his child as it does not actually have any relevence to the topic at hand.

I have no illusions that you or avid followers will be convinced. That's not why I started posting here. But I also am not so biased wrapped up in myself or my opinions to think for a minute that the reason you disagree with me is because you are dull-witted or dishonest.

I understand the meaning of debate, I understand the meaning of differing opinons, and I've treated each argument presented to me with the assumption that the person is both intelligent and rational. Even if what it felt like I was being responded to was rheteroic with no actual meat or meaning to it.

you classifying the message as hate, because it draws analogies and criticisms that make you uncomfortable.  But real hate speech takes on more of the following form.

"Kill Bush" or "(explative) jew"

or vial phrases of that nature.

your suggesting the war doesnt require more resources...but actually how do you know that?

how do you know if say we tripled or quadrupled the resources into this war that it wouldnt end in a couple months?

....because disagreement implies prior comprehension.  Viz.:

....he has politicized his own loss in order to further his goal of denouncing Cindy.

Politicization, of course, implies a policy objective.  Thomas has none here -- and no, sad disapproval of Sheehan is not a policy stance -- whereas Sheehan does with regard to her invocation of her own son.

"you classifying the message as hate, because it draws analogies and criticisms that make you uncomfortable.  But real hate speech takes on more of the following form.

"Kill Bush" or "(explative) jew" or vial phrases of that nature."

"Vial phrases" are those associated with test tubes full of blood (c8

But as for the rest of your effort to evade the truth, if "We support the troops when they shoot their officers" doesn't fit the definition of a "vile phrase," then what, pray tell, DOES meet that burden?

A) Grief animated our advocacy of going to war in the first place. Why is going out and killing the people who attacked us ok as a response, but staging a peaceful protest against a person you feel is responsible for placing your son, and many other people in an unecessarily dangerous position?

Disagree with her message? Ok. But you guys keep giving double messages. On one hand you say you don't sugggest she has any less right, but then you go on and on to keep trying to suggest why she's not in the right frame of mind to do it. Do you think she has every right to do what she is doing? If so, then stop attacking her methods and history and attack her message.

B) She has never suggested her opinion is superior morally to anyone. She is stating her opinion and trying to be heard. She has never tried to prevent another person from stating theirs, she has never tried to suggest she is better because of it. She simply says "This is why I feel this way... this is what I feel and think".

C) Is raising money for charity a publicity stunt?

Yes... yes it is. However it's also good and helpful. Is the Republican National Convention a publicity stunt? Yes, yes it is. She is not gaining monetarily, and she is not running for office. You can put forth the argument that she's gaining publicity for the left, but at that point both sides are just as guilty of latching onto key people and issues and we're all pigs in the mud. So what? She's trying to get her message heard and the best method is through the media. What other method would you propose she be heard in?

Or do you think she should just shut up and go home and be quiet and keep her opinions to herself?

I didn't know that Sheehan was separated from her husband when I wrote my comments in Leon H.'s "Vile Hypocrisy" thread.  And now I can't help but agree with Thomas and with Trevino.  You talk about taking someone in an advanced state of compound grief, at a time of profound vulnerability, and manipulating them for political purposes.  I hope the people behind this rot in hell.

Politicization, of course, implies a policy objective.  Thomas has none here -- and no, sad disapproval of Sheehan is not a policy stance -- whereas Sheehan does with regard to her invocation of her own son.

This is not reality.

I have seen RedState.org beat it's chest when it has gotten noticed by the MSM outlets, has managed to affect opinions on subject matters, and is clearly structured to address political issues.

The page can not sit here and be entirely about political issues and then suggest it has no political motivations.

I suggest you read the Mission of RedState.org

RedState.org is focused on politics, and seeks the construction of a Republican majority in the United States.

Through Redstate, the political blogging of the Right can gain the critical mass it needs for the battle ahead.

We aim to provide an arena for serious thought and a force for influence in Republican politics and policy.

This is a political blog, the message is political, and any entry on the front page is political. No amount of word dancing will change that, and you and the author can deny it, but it does not change what the mission of this page is and what the meaning of a post on the front page includes.

I agree that statement is hatefull, then again I've never heard any liberal I know say that.  And i do know alot of liberals. and i do listen to alot of liberal talk radio.

is based on the nature of the war, not just the Iraq campaign by the way, the whole war on terrorism.

Mobilizing GM and Ford to build tanks and airplanes and drafting two million men and women is not going to solve this problem. Most of what we are doing is low intensity warfare, there is no large, monolithic force such as the Wehrmacht arrayed against us so it would be pointless to assemble a WW II military to combat it. Much of the war on terrorism is ideally suited to special operations --- specialized, small unit forces.

Iraq is a larger component but even there I doubt that doubling the ground forces in Iraq would do much more than provide the bad guys with twice as many opportunities to attack us. There are a number of things I wish we would do. For example notifying Syria of a 10 mile wide "no-go" zone on their side of the border. If they don't notify us in advance of Syrian milirary operations in the "no-go" zone we will simply "kill" whatever moves. I believe it is long past time to play hardball with Syria.

I agree that building tanks and airplanes will not

make much difference in protecting our homeland from terror.  But there are other ways we could put resources into protecting our homeland, such as better monitoring of our ports.  Or cellular phone networks in underground subways, so ppl can make phone calls if they see something suspicious.

As with the war in Iraqm if we had more infantry and more people rebuilding the infrastructure, than Iraqis might believe we actually are trying to help them, and if they believe we are on there side a good deal of the resistance will go away.  Remember theres a difference between the muslims who want to commit holy war on us, and the iraqis who are just mad as heck we turned their country into a warzone.

Yes, she should go home, shut-up and try to regain some emotional stability. She is making a spectacle of herself, embarrassing her family, dishonoring her son's decision to be a soldier and his death in fulfillment of that committment, beng taken advantage of by the left and will be disgarded by all but the most extreme left as she continues her anti-semetic rants. At that point she will have no husband, no life and little chance of regaining contact with reality.

Yes, the people behind this are human garbage.  But Cindy is right in there as one of them.  She is allowing herself to be used by them.  She could ask every last one of them to leave and return to her primary reason for being there, a grieving mother.  But she can't.  She hates Bush too much.  She is just as low as the rest of those who are so blinded by hate, they see nothing else.

I'm not really certain what your point is, anymore, so let me try and simplify this for you.

• Letting the grief of your bereavement move you to some sort of advocacy? Normal.
• Explicitly using your dead child as a prop in a publicity campaign for your political views? Contemptible.
• Claiming superior moral authority because of your status as bereaved? Odious.

Now, to be fair, Sheehan hasn't (that I know of) herself tried to claim the moral high ground: other pundits have been happy to do it on her behalf, and she's simply basked in the afterglow. So perhaps we can raise that last ranking from odious to merely shabby.

Yes, this is a good point:

"And here you are, confusing the question of civil propriety and the question of legal rights."

Thanks for the correction ...

I was actually surprised to learn today on the news that her trip to Crawford was under-written financially by groups in the "peace movement."  I believe that a group called True Majority is footing a substantial part of the bill.  It's interesting to watch the left learn how this game is played:  A well-funded, well-orchestrated media action is the way to get noticed in the world today.

You can't just be loud anymore.

Well, I live right here in the Bible Belt. I rub elbows with Right Wing Christians every day of the week.

I have yet to hear one of them say "This country isn't worth dying for, but I really, really support the troops."

So, what's your point here? Are you trying to equate Move0n.org and George Soros with The Praise the Lord Club and Jerry Falwell?

I'd think that both right and left wing groups get to use their funding as they wish. That's not an issue. But ... since these left wing groups have chosen to exploit someone's grief for their political message ... I certainly have the right to express my revulsion at the hypocrisy.

...

...the iraqis who are just mad as heck we turned their country into a warzone.

Given the lack of real coverage of Iraq I'm not sure that it is possible for the general public to know how large this component actually is.

This  is an interesting piece on the lack of complete coverage and the beginnings of perhaps a generalized reaction.

afford to be perpetual protesters.

I don't even have the time or the cash to be a one day protester for anything, much less travel around and campout for several weeks.

there is a link where she claims to be the "sacrificial lamb" of the peace movement.

I would say that gives her a bit of a superiority complex.

Let's try a thought experiment here.

Suppose I said, I'm driving to California tomorrow. I live in Florida.

Suppose I left tomorrow morning on I-75, hit I-10 West, then stopped for lunch in Tally.

I eat lunch. And I visit some friends there.

I am not then driving to California.

However, it is undeniable that I will get back on the road and start driving again.

Now, does the fact that I stopped working at my desired and announced goal for a little while mean that I am not moving toward my goal? Does the goal mean that everything I do is necessarily aimed at that goal?

In light of that:

This is a political blog, the message is political, and any entry on the front page is political. No amount of word dancing will change that, and you and the author can deny it, but it does not change what the mission of this page is and what the meaning of a post on the front page includes.

Think. Hard. Carefully. Try.

Then explain the political meaning of this.

Good luck.

To compare a Merry Christmas wish... to that of a post addressing a current political hot topic. Not just any hot topic, but the one that has you guys wound up the most right now.

Thank you, this conversation has come full circle. This is why I love you guys. Really. :)

I'm gonna get back to lurking again and get out of everyone's hair.

But the perfect symetry of your followup compared to my primary reaction to your original article gave me a little something extra to smile about for the day. Nothing could top it.

Cheers.

Glad to know we could amuse each other.

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/8/13/74620/4379

Diaries are your space to post your thoughts, etc., on politics;

Had to share that.

Thanks for the lively discussion! :)

Be pleased to know that I'll use you as an illustrative example of many things for a long time.

I believe that Thomas meant to say that "she has no more AUTHORITY to argue against the Iraq war..."

My opinion is based on the context of the sentence within the essay.  Otherwise, your use of the word "less" would have been a better construction, but I don't think that's what Thomas meant to say.

It needs to be repeated every time that canard is brought up.

This is a political blog, the message is political, and any entry on the front page is political.

Thanks, but as a site founder, I'll adhere to my own opinions as to what the site is and is not.

Free clue, chief: Thomas wrote a Diary, which are not always political.  Look through mine, for example.  I promoted it, and you are free to ask why.  But had he wanted to make a political point, rest assured he probably wouldn't have done it in Diaries.  And he probably wouldn't have done it with his deceased child.  And certainly wouldn't have done it with the intention of wrangling with tedious folks such as yourself.

Actually, no mother of any soldier, dead or alive, nor does any soldier, have any greater relevance than any voter. The electorate elects a Congress to declare or fund war. It also elects a Commander-in-Chief to propose and prosecute war. Soldiers are recruited or legally drafted to execute the war. While we can deeply appreciate the sacfifices made by all, those sacfifices do not afffect the degree of relevancy of an individual opinion in excess of that provided by a ballot.

'Another thing that puzzles me is that in your link to Sheehan's diary, you blame the "left," or try to imply that Sheehan blames the left, for her family problems. This is clearly not the case.'

That last sentence is right.  But Thomas isn't claiming that Ms. Sheehan is blaming the left.  The left is HIS target, and her family problems are an example.  He does say that because the Deranged Left has used her, or allowed her to let herself be used, to become a spectacle against Bush, that they are ultimately to blame for her family problems. Reading her blog, it sounds like that might be jumping to the wrong conclusion.

I felt I was very firm but polite in my responses to yourself, others, and the author, and don't understand the necessity in resorting to school yard name calling.

If this place is merely here to provide a positive feedback loop for like minded people to tell each other how great they are, then I will never step foot in a discussion again to avoid further tediousness. Please let me know. I understand that it's a page to further a Republican agenda and for Republicans to gather to discuss those agendas... but part of learning and growing is having those agendas and ideals tested.

I feel it's very important to thouroughly explore one's thoughts and beliefs against others, especially against those who hold the opposite opinions. Furthermore, you have no idea who I am or what I truly believe. You don't when I will take this exact same discussion and turn it around and argue it from the opposite direction later against supporters of Cindy, or whether I've already done it. It is careless and dangerous to assume you know someone enough to call them dim-witted or dishonest based on a dozen posts in a single thread.

I felt a discussion with the readers here this time was worthwhile instead of just lurking around. I didn't think it would require dropping to the level of patronizing and 2nd grade name calling.

Again, if clean and honest debate is not desired here then by all means you will never hear from me again. I'm not interested in reminders of how much I agree with someone. I don't grow and learn that way. It's nice to agree with people, but that's the surest way to stunted intellectual growth.

The fact that the author himself said Diaries are the place to talk about personal politics is... well... I guess now you'll tell me he didn't really mean it like that.

"You don't understand" option.  

This addresses only one issue in your discussion.  You claim that Thomas has indeed used the death of his child for political purposes.  But you are wrong.

All you have to do is reread his diary, where he says,

"I do not bring up my loss when discussing abortion or embryonic stem cell research because, simply, it seems ghoulish beyond compare to drag one's lost little ones into your personal war."

Read this slowly.  

His personal war is against abortion.  

Cindy Sheehan's personal war is against President Bush.

He (Thomas) has not dragged HIS child into HIS war, but indeed she has dragged HER child into HER war.

He mentioned his personal loss ONLY AS AN EXAMPLE to show his disagreement with the practice Ms. Sheehan, not he, is engaging in.  He did not mention it to use it as justification for his position against abortion, nor to claim that it gave him some exceptional moral authority to speak against abortion, or even as you seem to imply, about the loss of a child for any reason.  

Ms. Sheehan, on the other hand, IS using the death of her son for the very purpose of assuming a mantle of moral authority.

There is no reason that Thomas should be prohibited from talking about his personal situation when he explains why he doesn't believe in using the facts of that situation in a political debate.  In fact, there's no way he CAN explain it without mentioning it.

If you don't understand this explanation, then I have to go with Option #2 from Post #110.

comparison between the two, other than a media frenzy.  You might as well throw in the Natalie Holloway frenzy as well.

My reading is that annefrank is just restating what she "thinks" Thomas meant.  Again, as with wieder, the two options come into play.

   1.  AF doesn't understand Thomas' meaning.

   2.  AF is purposefully misconstruing Thomas' meaning.

But the "merely" is her editorial comment about what she claims to think Thomas meant.  I don't think she meant there was anything "mere" about Thomas's loss.

I second the motion.  We have here, Exhibit 1 of a rude, uncomprehending, obtrusive, pathetic, hateful, sanctimonious troll.  If you need Exhibits 2, 3, 4, etc. see other comments of same.

I have several things I would like to discuss with him, and as he is MY president, he should have to make room in his schedule for me, in your humble opinion.

I'm free next Saturday, I'll let you know how our meeting goes.

but here's a short one.

Let's assume you're the mayor of a small town.  One of your constituents has a serious difference with one of your policies (let's say the rules controlling police chases) and that his son was killed as a result of a police chase either being conducted, or because it was called off.

You've met with the father already, and discussed the death with him.  You haven't characterized your meeting in any way, but he has said publicly that he believed your "good intentions" or something like that.

Some time has passed; he's thrown his lot in with your local political opponents, and they have paid his expenses while he sits outside your home and bad-mouths you to the press.  He demands that you ask him in and talk with him again.

If you do, what will be the consequences?

1.  After the meeting, he will continue to bad-mouth, claiming that you are even worse than he thought.  (No matter what transpires in the meeting.)
   
2.  You won't be able to respond, because your enemies, who control the local newspaper and TV stations, would then accuse you of trying to "steamroll" the little guy.
   
3.  His success will encourage every other political enemy with an ax to grind to follow his example.
   
4.  You'll never be able to step out of your house again without finding some protester and a flotilla of reporters waiting to accost you.

What is the upside to any scenario that includes meeting with the man?  None exists.  The best that could happen is the father would be satisfied and say so to the press.  But the other wackos wouldn't be deterred.

What's the likelihood that he'd be satisfied?  Hardly any.  If there were, he'd have made a normal, private request for a second, private meeting.

So the question of what brought about the situation is essentially one of motivation:  Does the petitioner want a meeting, or does (s)he want to create a confrontation that will stay in the news a long time?

Even if Bush wanted to meet with Ms. Sheehan again, he couldn't, because of the consequences of the follow-up wackos.

And BTW, President Bush can hear from his critics every day, just by reading his local newspaper.

A good rest, time to get back in your hair.

All you have to do is reread his diary, where he says,

"I do not bring up my loss when discussing abortion or embryonic stem cell research because, simply, it seems ghoulish beyond compare to drag one's lost little ones into your personal war."

Read this slowly.

I did... I read it slowly the first time. Now you should take a moment to read me slowly.

The author could not, even if he wanted to, bring up his loss when discussing abortion or embryonic stem cell reasearch... not because it's ghoulish... but because it has NOTHING to do with it.

If I said "I don't bring up my loss of my brother to cancer when discussing drunk driving"... any sane person would go "why would you?"

The author's mere attempt to bring his loss up is a non sequitur. The conclusion he comes to can not be derived from the premise.

He mentioned his personal loss ONLY AS AN EXAMPLE to show his disagreement with the practice Ms. Sheehan, not he, is engaging in.

NO! He used it to present a reason why he is morally superior to Cindy Sheehan, and why Cindy Sheehan, and her entire movement, is morally lacking.

It breaks down to "I don't do it, so she shouldn't either". There is no other possible reason to bring it up other than to try and suggest why she shouldn't.

It is a position and an argument created to pull at the heart strings of those who can't see past the horror of abortion, and won't take the time to understand that even if he wanted to use it in discussions of abortion... he couldn't. Ever.

There was no reason to bring it up other than to try and bring perceptions of Cindy down. None. The author has not provided an appropriate starting point. A starting point that would work is: "I lost a child from an abortion I didn't agree with... but you don't see me using it in my discussions of abortion". Then he could claim the moral high ground against her and it would at least match closely to Cindy's position.

But his position does not. Therefore the mere act of bringing it up is logically and conceptually incorrect... and more importantly... careless.

That's as razor-sharp and fine-honed an argument as we are likely to see concerning why we should all listen to some whacked-out broad tug on our heartstrings while she rants on the subject of Foreign Policy And The Jooz.

Doesn't your head explode when you try to do that?

"I agree that statement is hatefull, then again I've never heard any liberal I know say that."

You've never heard a leftist (NOTE: I DID NOT SAY "LIBERAL") say that?

You need to get out more. You also need remedial reading lessons.

Free advice: if you're going to read penumbras and emanations of my posts, instead of my actual words, please do not reply; it wastes my time, and probably yours.

That's as razor-sharp and fine-honed an argument as we are likely to see concerning why we should all listen to some whacked-out broad tug on our heartstrings while she rants on the subject of Foreign Policy And The Jooz.

Have I once said you should listen to her?

My entire period here has been to discuss the article itself and the arguments and methods the author used to present his position.

Ignore her? Sure. Attack what she's saying? Go for it! But attack her credibility by trying to drag the author's own unborn child and an illogical and irrational connection to abortion into it? Sorry, that needs to be pointed out for what it is.

I could care less if you agree with her. I don't even agree with her.

However, I also think there are rational and intelligent ways to go after what is happening around her and this article is pretty far from that goal.

I also think there are rational and intelligent ways to go after what is happening around her

That is true. However, as we all know, such measures are useless against the behavior of a Drama Queen. And this one is high on media steroids to boot.

Defeating such a monster will require stealth, cunning, and expertly-crafted emotional manipulation. A mere male like Thomas has no chance. We can leave it at that.

Defeating such a monster will require stealth, cunning, and expertly-crafted emotional manipulation. A mere male like Thomas has no chance. We can leave it at that.

Hah. :) Fair enough for now... and I like that response.

You have got to be joking.  All I will say is, if your gonna make such a distinction between "liberals" and "leftists", then give me examples of people you call "leftists" and people you call "liberals".  Also give me examples of "leftists" who have said "I support out troops if they shoot there officers".

not leftists, and maybe you're too busy to look it up for yourself.

The people carrying the banner certainly weren't PNAC staffers.

Yeah that banner is offensive, but does one or two nutcases characterize the whole left, or even a large segment of the left? I dont think it does, since none of the people I know on the left, and none of the public personas on the left that I follow would ever support such a slogan.

I didn't see the photo of the others turning on those holding the banner in rage.

Sadly, I really believe it now... and has for decades... represented the mainstream of the left (which I do distinguish from run-of-the-mill liberals).

You can't have been around the Nuclear Freeze movement, CISPES, or a lot of other left wing causes and not have seen exactly the same sentiment expressed.

....that does make more sense. She hasn't admitted that, and many couples break up after the death of their child or children anyway. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on that one until her husband speaks up.

I have trouble even believing the people with that banner were true members of the anti-war movement.  Because that banner is no way consistent with the message of peace.

right?

I mean my first thought when I saw that banner is that it is so inconsistent with wanting peace and such bad public-relations, that the paranoid part of my brain thinks its just crazies trying to make the anti-war movement look bad.   But thats just the conspiracy nut in the back of my head talking.  Im sure its most likely some liberals whose hate for George Bush has grown so big, that they let it blind them from the issues they believe in.

"I have trouble even believing the people with that banner were true members of the anti-war movement.  Because that banner is no way consistent with the message of peace."

But I'm sure you believe that James Kopp is a "true member" of the pro-life movement.

signs are very funny.

These are the people who vandalize recruiting stations... and try to keep recruiters out of schools.

A lot of these people also support causes associated with violence: Animal Liberation Front, Earth First, Earth Liberation Front, anti-globalization, etc. Not to say the anti-war movement is all whackos, I'm certain there are one or two who arent. But if you drew a Venn diagram of these groups I'd be willing to bet that the violence prone leftwing/anarchist groups fall solidly in the anti-war movement.

I dont even know who James Kopp is?

please do tell me about this man.

that both sides use messages of hate, especially if you look at fringe groups. Hitler is tossed around like a football - by both sides. The use of nuclear war is tossed around by the fringe of the right, and the fringe on the left tosses around the shooting of commanders.

What is the point? Hate is something that we should overcome as a civil society. It is based in fear. Anytime you hear some hatefull statement, ask what it is that the person fears to make such a statement.

We can do better.

killer of abortionist Bernard Slepian

well then of course I don't think he is a true member of the pro-life movement.

It is your right, just like all the people who talk with an elected official. The President isn't a god, he is a human. It is difficult to get to see him, but you can try.

If you can show that your represent a larger group of people, the chances get higher that he will meet with you.

And really, if you do represent a large group of people, it is your leader's job to meet with you. We have representatives who usually do this, but our system is flexible and allows you to do these types of things if you feel you are not being represented.

It is your right. Use it as you will.

I do not bring up my loss when discussing abortion or embryonic stem cell research because, simply, it seems ghoulish beyond compare to drag one's lost little ones into your personal war. Does it animate my arguments? Take a guess. Frankly, what motivates me isn't anyone else's concern. But I'll be damned before I drag a child over whom I still cry sometimes into a political mudfight.

You say you would never drag your child into a political mudfight, right after you drug your child into a political mudfight - and you did it all in the same work.

You ask us to stare at your grief, in all it's hellishness, then tell us it is right to turn off our God given empathy, and turn away from the grief of another.

I find it all a shade of hypocracy.

Perhaps your message is: Sometimes you need to dress the part of the Ghoul, to reveal the hellish thing that others have not experienced, so they may see a part of the nature of the thing - because without that glimpse they cannot truly see what is actually happening.

However, I don't see how your message differs from Sheehan's, you both say: "Please listen to me, I have been there, and it is a hell".

But if you don't understand some things should not be dragged into politics, and here's why with illustrative examples, and understand the difference between that and engaging in a political mudfight, well, I'd like to say it surprises me, but I'd be lying, and I try hard not to do that.

While we're at it:

You ask us to stare at your grief, in all it's hellishness, then tell us it is right to turn off our God given empathy, and turn away from the grief of another.

Yes. That's precisely what I was saying. Bravo. Again, I wish I could feign surprise here.

Well, not really.

However, I don't see how your message differs from Sheehan's, you both say: "Please listen to me, I have been there, and it is a hell".

It has truly been a day of unsurprises for me.

When I wrote "Read this slowly," I guess I should have added a colon (:) to indicate I was referring to what was to follow.

Go back and try again.

If you want to argue that his logic would be flawed if he used his loss to support his position about abortion, fine.  But since he DOESN'T use it in that fight, your response is the non sequitur.

He's a certifiable moron.  Any word with more than two syllables gets lost in translation.  Please ban him.  For the love of God, please ban him.

in your favor.

It is possible to misunderstand Thomas's statement to mean what you said, '"I don't do it, so she shouldn't either."'

But what it really means is, "I don't do it because it adds nothing to the authority of my position, it adds nothing logically to support my position, it's not relevant, and it's a personal matter not to be paraded before my opponents.  She should have made the same decison.  Since she didn't, that's too bad for her, but she shouldn't expect special consideration or special authority to be accorded to her because of her personal situation."

If you consider the situation for a few minutes, you should recognize three realities.

1. Cindy Sheehan could hold all the same positions regarding national defense and military policy that she espouses today, even if Casey Sheehan had not been killed, even if he hadn't joined the military in the first place, even if he'd never existed.  Millions of people would join her in those positions.
   
2. The only reason Cindy Sheehan is receiving so much news coverage is because she's THERE, with an emotional, not a logical, story line.  It's not a news story, it's a public interest story, and it's a handy one.
   
3. Without the tag line, "Casey Sheehan's mother," there would be no story; therefore it's inescapable that she's using her dead son to grab her fifteen minutes of fame.

The juxtaposition of those three metaphysical facts leads me to believe that Thomas (as interpreted above) is absolutely correct.

Furthermore, you have unknowingly (apparently) reinforced Thomas's position on the matter, when you say "even if he wanted to use it in discussions of abortion... he couldn't."  That's his position, too.  His emotions sort of overwhelm his logic in the sentences that follow, but the reasoned thesis of his essay is there:  His personal loss is not relevant to his position regarding his oppositon to abortion.  Likewise, the death of Cindy's son isn't relevant to any position she may have regarding US military policy or the actions or intentions of President Bush, beyond the emotional decision she's made to blame President Bush for Casey' death.

The usage is the difference between:

"I lost my son to cancer, so I'm doing what I can to prevent further drunk driving accidents." (What theoretically would be the author's position)

versus...

"I lost my son to a drunk driver, so I'm doing what I can to prevent further drunk driving accidents." (Cindy's position)

I can not possible make it more straight forward than than that.

Cindy herself has never said her position grants her authority. What it grants her is even more personal reason to be that much more involved. Nothing more. Just as a person who loses a loved one to drunk driving might become more involved in the fight against drunk driving.

... for more information on the non-sequiter.

I followed up the rest of your point with the simple fact that he has dragged his unborn child into his attack on Cindy.

You can not on one hand suggest that Cindy should have taken her position against the war without mentioning the son she lost in the war... and then sit there and agree with the author for bringing his own unborn child into a discussion that has nothing to do with said child.

To use your own stance on Cindy:

1. The author could hold all the same positions regarding Cindy's movement and her usage of her son, even if he had never lost his child, or had a child in the first place. Hundreds of readers would join him in this position.
   
2. The only reason the author is receiving so much attention is he brought an emotional, not a logical, stance to the story. Without the tie to his own personal loss, it would just be another "She's doing it for the wrong reasons" post and been of much less interest.
   
3. Without the tagged on "My own loss", there would be no article; therefore it's inescapable that he's using his own dead child to grab the attention of the reader.

QED

You have actually outlined the exact reason why I felt inclined to react to this article:

In your own words:

   1. The author could hold all the same positions regarding Cindy's movement and her usage of her son, even if he had never lost his child, or had a child in the first place. Hundreds of readers would join him in this position.

   2. The only reason the author is receiving so much attention is he brought an emotional, not a logical, stance to the story. Without the tie to his own personal loss, it would just be another "She's doing it for the wrong reasons" post and been of much less interest.

   3. Without the tagged on "My own loss", there would be no article; therefore it's inescapable that he's using his own dead child to grab the attention of the reader.

You can not on one hand suggest that Cindy should have taken her position against the war without mentioning the son she lost in the war... and then sit there and agree with the author for bringing his own unborn child into a discussion that has nothing to do with said child.

I might have seen someone miss the entire point of a post more badly than you just have, but I can't remember when it was. And I don't want to have to sit back and filter through a bunch of flyerhawk's posts to find it, so I'll let yours stand as the prime example.

The whole point of his post is that he's been around fighting the pro-life cause for a long, long time (if you manage to survive the day, and even a month, you'll come to appreciate that fact), and he has not once before now dragged his child into that fight. And even now he does not. This post is not about abortion. It is to illustrate that the usage of one's children for political causes (certainly without their consent) is cheap and deplorable political theater.

... you miss the point of my response.

The whole point of his post is that he's been around fighting the pro-life cause for a long, long time and he has not once before now dragged his child into that fight.

Nope... instead he drags it into a fight about... of all things... the Iraq war and an anti-war protestor.

And even now he does not. This post is not about abortion.

It doesn't have to be about abortion for it to be dragged out into the public forum. That's where the biggest disconnect is happening. You deplore Cindy for bringing out her son to protest the war.  I feel the author has done the same thing by bringing out his unborn child to protest Cindy Sheehan, and felt it necessary to call him on it.

It is to illustrate that the usage of one's children for political causes (certainly without their consent) is cheap and deplorable political theater.

And you can't fathom the oddness in using his child, without the consent of the child, to attack another person who is using their child? He's using his loss with his child, and how he has handled it, to gain a moral authority on the position that what Cindy is doing is wrong.

I consider this a conflicting method of illustration and stance to take.

Please read post #190 to understand where I was coming from when I made the post with the 3 numbered points in #192.

Better than anything else you've written (admittedly not the highest bar in the world) illustrates how little you understand what I said. I call special attention to the second clause of each sentence in that paragraph.

I'd argue with you, but I have a solid policy of not trying to get walls, lamp posts, and deranged trolls to agree with my positions.

... for you guys to have a discussion without dropping to personal insults or attacks on your perception of their intelligence? Isn't that in the Posting Rules?

I'm sorry if you feel I'm attempting to be disruptive or, strangely enough to me, trolling.

I've been a reader for a while, and I felt that the method used in this article was problematic with the message and brought it up.

If you do not wish to learn why and feel you are 100% correct in your method, then that's fine. I will never harp on a point beyond when a person no longer wants to discuss it.

But repeatedly calling me a liar, or at least intellectually dishonest, is not the right way to get me to say, Golly, you have a point there.

For full clarification, I was not attacking Ms. Sheehan. Quite the contrary. I could go on at length, but you apparently feel differently.

Many of us here have commented regularly on the tactic that Markos Moulitsas frequently uses when he has no good response to someone who supports the war. He says, "I used to be in the military. You didn't. So that makes me automatically right." (Enter Armando with some gentle chiding - I know that I'm oversimplifying, but YOU know that's the basic gist).

So, if one of our ex-military editors (you may not know who they are as they don't put it on the front page at every convenient opportunity) were to do a post and say, "I think it's deplorable how Markos thinks his military service gives him automatic moral authority over the political opinions of those who have no military service. I served in the military, and I don't do that," you'd come along behind them and say, "it's shameless how you're trumpeting your military service that way!"

I hope that solves your puzzlement.

She has stolen and dishonored the name of yet another soldier to sustain her campaign of lies attacking the President:

http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/112307.php

She may not be a media whore, but she is certainly not above a little name theft in her campaign.

you'd come along behind them and say,

No I would not say that. In the example you listed above the two men would be in similar positions and the arguments would be related, therefore it would be justified for one man to compare himself and his position to the other.

I pointed out in post #191 why I felt that doesn't apply to this article.

I specified the circumstances that I felt the author would have been justified, if he were to use Cindy Sheehan's stance in a discussion about abortion, in bringing up his own loss in post #162. But since the author does not even feel it should be used in a discussion where it is directly relevent to the author's personal stake in the matter... it should not be relevent for the author to use it in a matter as losely related as this one.

I hope that solves some puzzlement somewhere.

Cindy SHeehan: "I'm qualified to speak on politics because I lost a son."

Thomas: "I lost a child, too, and that doesn't make me any more qualified to speak on politics."

Please show where I've said you were a liar or dishonest?

I feel that you have made an (honest?) mistake in the way you wrote the article. I feel that you are (unintentionally) using the exact same tactic that you are attempting to deplore.

I don't feel it necessary for you to say I have a good point. I just think it is strange for the leaders of this place to resort to name calling, especially when it is outlined in the Posting Rules.

And although yes, the main thrust of your article was to complain about the people who are aligning themselves with her to further their agenda... that requires the assumption that she is not cognizant of her own actions and fully enthusiastic about the support. If she is, then your attack of their support of the situation is also a direct attack on her.

If I vote for an ideal, and you attack that ideal, you are attacking me by proxy.

I've seen nothing to indicate she doesn't fully encourage and support the people that are aligning themselves with her and are trying to spread the story further to pursue the agenda she has, therefore by suggesting what you have, you are attacking.

Not maliciously... so the use of the word attack isn't very good... but by that point we'd just be arguing semantics, and that's never useful.

To where she said that she is qualified because she lost a son?

Where has she said that losing a son qualifies her, and thus the implication she would have to be making is you can't speak on politics until you've lost a son?

A reason for doing something is not the same thing as a qualification for doing something.

One more time: When one grieves for one's child, one is willing to go to all sorts of extremes. This is understandable. It is not logical, but there it is. It does not give one special credence in an argument, which is (1) why it's a bad idea to bring it up and (2) part of why it's self destructive to do so, as you tie your memory of the child to the war you fight, and any loss is a strike on your child's memory.

However, those who exploit those who have lost children and grievingly, willingly, bring their child into the argument, and thereby enable otherwise unhealthy behavior, are bad.

I cannot make this any simpler. I presume you'll read something different in what I've written. I'm done.

Please show where I've said you were a liar or dishonest?

You know what, I've been around internet conversations long enough to know better than to ask this question.  My apologies for even bringing it up.

If you feel that I'm suggesting you are a liar or dishonest... then it is what it is. It's not my intent, but I understand that when someone comes from out of nowhere and starts challenging everything you've just said... it will come off that way to the person being challenged.

Like I said, I do not think you are lying or being dishonest. I personally disagree with you... but as adults it should be understood that that doesn't instantly imply thoughts of dishonesty or intentional maliciousness towards the thoughts of the person being disagreed with.

I'm done.

Fair enough, I won't take it any further and will leave my response to your last post in the void so that you may have the last point in our discussion.

Bis später!

The media love to latch onto mad moonbats even when Bush is not at Crawford. (i.e. Micheal Moore and Howard Dean)

to read #190.

It makes sense.  You don't.  

I had written a rather long and snarky put-down to you here, but I reconsidered.  Better to take the high road.

Option #1 is my final answer.  Except you not only don't understand Thomas's meaning, you apparently also don't have any ability to follow a logical explanation, even when it's laid out step by step for you.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him understand that he has to stick his mouth and nose into it if he wants to get a drink.  He has to have some initiative of his own.

You have defeated me.  I've never admitted that to anyone before.  Not jjayson.  Not TheJeff.  Just you.  Not that I admit you're right, I'm just tired of butting my head against yours.  Yours is much more solid, and the result is painful to me.

... as Thomas. I'll never take things any farther than the person I'm discussing with wants to, and I will leave my thoughts on your last comments in the void.

Bis später!

------

"Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate."

"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress."

"He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that."