This woman is driving me nuts. Don't get me wrong. My heart goes out to her. As a new father I can only imagine how unbearable the loss of a child must be. But to stand on top of your dead childs memory and betray that childs beliefs to promote your own, that just sickens me. In this case, it is a fact that Sheehan's son was a 24 year old educated adult who chose to not only enlist, but specifically go to Iraq. Whether Miss Sheehan is right or wrong, which is certainly open to debate, the fact that she disgraces the honor of her son seems to be lost on many Americans.
12 comments:
Well... I wouldn't equate someone who had a spouse or child who unknowingly went to their deaths at the hands of terrorists with the wife or mother of a combat soldier who openly supported the war effort. But if I did, I would take into account at least the 9/11 victims views on terrorism, or what his or her views might have been, before I paraded around behind their name to prop up my own agenda.
i haven't been following the sheehan story...but are we sure that this soldier supported the war effort? as you know the army is full of every stripe of person, including bush-lovers who hate the war, bush-haters who love the war, etc. etc.
let me ask you: are you just as sickened by nancy reagan? or dana reeve (widow of chris reeve)? because they're standing on top of someone's memory to promote their political views. not sure why you find that so sickening.
It sickens me simply because yes, it is a fact that Sheehan's son was not only a supporter of the war, this was his third tour of duty there. In the other examples you have cited, the deceased all shared their views with the people they left behind. Sheehan's son couldn't have had more opposite views with his mom. She's the one who calls the terrorists (the media calls them insurgents) "freedom fighters." I don't think her son would have gone along with that.
i disagree that ronald reagan would have supported federal funding of stem-cell research; in fact he spent much of his presidency cutting federal funds to medical research programs.
but you said that standing on top of your dead childs [i'm extrapolating child = loved one] memory to promote your own political views sickens you. thus eleanor roosevelt, yoko ono, mary bono, the mother of ryan white, and a whole lot of other people must sicken you. i'm not sure why.
seems like you changed your views a bit on this thread -- at first it was about the sickening use of a dead loved one, then it became about using them for something they would have disagreed with -- e.g. rita marley using bob marley to sell coffee mugs. i see your point on the second one but it still doesn't bother me when nancy reagan or courtney love or cindy sheehan does it.
-dsr
Fair enough. I did say that, but I should have been more clear that I specifically am sickened when a dead loved one is BETRAYED, as Sheehan's son has been. Don't believe me? Ask Sheehan's husband. Again, the other examples you have cited don't contradict my main point at all, which I have clarified for you here.
There ya go, I clarified the post as well. Peace!
hey - i don't think it contradicts my examples to say "the other examples you have cited don't contradict my main point at all" but that's okay. better to explain why nancy ain't betrayin' ronnie than to say "no."
but anyway my larger question, especially in light of your edit, is: is there ANY situation where someone in cindy sheehan's position could say of a soldier, "why did he have to die?" i mean, what if she were the mother of the soldier dragged through the streets of somalia, and she were confronting clinton? what if she were ron kovic or john kerry talking about vietnam? what if she was british and confronting thatcher about a son who died in the falklands? i'm just asking...is what she's saying NECESSARILY dishonoring a soldier in ANY circumstance?
She dishoners her son by not respecting his views. It's fine to question Bush, question the war, question everything; but to do it in his name - when he clearly would disagree with her...that is what makes this situation different. You've said you haven't followed the story, that's pretty obvious by your singleminded line of reasoning. Read what she is saying, the words she is putting in her sons mouth, and then tell me what she's doing isn't wrong. Regardless of how you feel about the war, that isn't the issue or the point of my post.
you haven't addressed my analogy at all (e.g. ron-nancy, kurt-courtney). perhaps you think it's irrelevant. well please humor me anyway and tell me if these people are dishonoring the dead they claim to speak for by advocating something they (the dead) wouldn't.
but there is a more direct way to say that what she's doing isn't wrong. she's speaking to her own loss. not his values. by your logic someone whose son was an unrepentant murderer and being given a lethal injection would have no right to ask the state "why are you killing my son?" i don't agree with that - if her son was money, she would have the very legal right to ask why it was taken, and her son is worth more than money.
-dsr
I have addressed your analagy, and I will again. I believe it is a fallacy. It is a blanket statement, which I have not made, that every relative of a dead person must never express views contrary to the departed. I have never said anything remotely like this.
What I have said, is that if a spouse or child of mine passed away, I would not use their death to position myself politically by completely betraying who they were.
What Cindy Sheehan is doing is speaking to her sons loss, not her own. By propping his dead body up and stomping on not just his beliefs, but his core values, all so she can stick her head in the sand and wish the problem away by abandoning the people of Iraq.
She has the right to ask any and all questions she wants of our President. My dismay comes not from the fact that she is allowed to speak, but that anyone could give her so much credence after learning about her son.
He fought and died for me, for you, for all of us. And now I have to turn on the news and see her spitting in his face. No thanks.
sorry dude i love you but you're not addressing it. nancy reagan is doing exactly what you criticize sheehan for doing -- "using their death to position herself politically by completely betraying who they were." all you have to do to actually address it is tell me specifically how nancy reagan differs from sheehan -- nothing could be less "blanket statement."
i am not calling cindy sheehan any kind of hero; as you can see i remain mostly ignorant of her. (when i read the news i focus more on john roberts or congress or int'l stuff -- i tend not to watch TV news.)
so from what you're saying, if sheehan's son had merely entered the army for college money or whatever, and gone to war reluctantly (as did, say, norman mailer or oliver stone), then everything sheehan is saying and doing would be fine. is that what you really believe?
when you say these things about heads in the sand and spitting in his face and dying for all of us, i'm sorry but these are, well, blanket statements that VERY strongly suggest that no one could ever second-guess a cause of death of an american soldier. if you can provide ONE example of a case where a loved one could introduce such a grievance -- "why did my beloved soldier have to die?" -- WITHOUT being accused of political positioning, WITHOUT being wrong or sickening, then i will hereby admit that i am 100% full of shit and that you are 100% correct and on the money.
-dsr
I love you too dude, but I think our difference in opinion on the Iraq war is getting in the way of us listening to each other.
I hear that you are saying the Sheehan situation is analagous to Nancy Reagan stumping for stem cell research. I believe that to be absurd and not in any way shape or form related. I have stated this over and over, and it doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
Just because something may sort of vaguely be related, doesn't mean it's an appropriate analagy. I'll go even farther to say that the use of analagy in arguments is done far too often, and usually (as in this case) has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
A more fair question you have put to me is would the situation be any different if Sheehan's son had been reluctant to go. Short answer, yes, it would be different of course. I still would disagree with her, but at least she would have a leg to stand on with her crusade.
As for my "blanket statements", they are just my opinion, though I believe in my heart what I am saying is the truth. And this is what we are really arguing about.
If you question that our soldiers are fighting for our freedom or if you really think that leaving Iraq now (sticking the proverbial head in the sand) is going to make things better, then we are at a pretty big difference of opinion.
I plan to post my explicit views on the Iraq war on my blog very soon; then it will become more clear to you, I hope, why Sheehan bugs me so.
Post a Comment