The Sheehan thing

This had started as quick response to a commenter in yesterday’s post, but I accidentally lost it all and decided to rewrite it as its own post. I plan on this being the last post on this subject.

First of all, I don’t think this is as big of a deal as some are trying to make it. I don’t think that really means a whole lot in the larger picture, regardless of how much news coverage is devoted to it. Like the Aruba case and many other “topic of the week”s, this is newsworthy, deserves some coverage, and is worth keeping in mind. That being said, there are far bigger things going on in the country and in the world, and I just plain don’t see how this story trumps them all.

Secondly, I’m very hesitant to criticize Mrs. Sheehan on her grief, which I believe is truthful, heartfelt, and agonizing. I have not lost a child, and I truly hope with all of my being that I never learn what such loss must feel like. I cannot begin to imagine, and unless you have suffered it yourself, I don’t imagine you can, either. To be honest, pretty much anything she says gets a pass from me. I may not agree with what she says, but who am I to tell her she’s wrong? This, you may have noticed, is exactly what I said about the families of 3-25 Marines after the unit suffered big losses near the Syrian border.

Finally, I do personally believe that Mrs. Sheehan is due a fair criticism for her very loud and very public demonstrations given the fact that she was saying something far, far different previously about her meeting with the President. That simple fact, as I understand it, leaves her wide open to a boatload of criticism. And if you’re going to talk to the media and make a spectacle out of yourself, you had better be ready to get blasted by the opposition. That’s simply common sense. She may not be trying to make a larger political point (though I wonder), but to take something to this scale is inviting conflict. If nothing else, the media has transformed the bitter bereavement of a soldier’s mother into a major political statement.

I don’t know how fair that is, or how much of it she wanted. But that’s where we are. I think it’s a major story created out of thin air on top of a smaller story, and the rhetoric (on both sides) keeps inflating it.

UPDATE: No sooner do I finish writing this post (off the top of my head without links or references) than I see that Mrs. Sheehan has published a column in the Huffington Post calling this “George Bush’s accountability moment”. (I would have thought that was last November, to be honest, but what do I know?)

Everything that has happened and everything that will happen on Bush’s watch apparently comes down to this standoff, according to Mrs. Sheehan. Sorry, but I’m not buying it one bit.

I seem to have overestimated her, perhaps. I felt like commenting line by line on her column, but there just doesn’t seem to be any point. Not that I blame her, but she seems to be a very confused person. I will continue to support her right to say anything she damn well wants in her grief, but I gotta’ say this is looking more and more stunt-like. And less and less important.

Comments

  1. How could such a self-centered, leftist-agitprop-addled pointless twit of a women (who by the way called Bush the world’s worst terrorist, apparently missing that whole 9/11 thingee – yet has the temerity to demand a second meeting with him) have spawned such a hero in Casey Sheehan… Casey must have got the good genes from the other side of the family. And btw, how come nobody has gone up to her and said … ‘Look, Al-Sadr’s goons killed your son, not the President. So, if you want answers, get your ass over to Iraq and camp outside al-Sadr’s house for a month demanding explanations for why he decided to make his thugs attack Americans. … and if your head doesnt come back in a wicker basket, then you can tell CNN how it went.’

  2. I find it a little strange that none of the media has said a word about the fact that Cindy Shehaan’s husband has dumped her…serving her with divorce papers while she was in Texas having filed for divorce on August 2, 2005. She’s gone back to take care of her mother that suffered a stroke? I’m not so sure…could it be because her husband is divorcing her? It’s probably very easy for her to show pain and tears right now and it probaly isn’t all due to her son’s death…could it be D-I-V-O-R-C-E? I think she is an addled twit, to say the least! She is a disgrace to the U.S., that I’m sure of! Do you suppose George Soros might be the big backer of this movement and these people are to ignorant to know who is building up, and feeding the frenzy? Remember he supported and backed Dean and when Dean didn’t get the nomination he backed Kerry. He vowed to get Got out of America and to destroy Bush. Hope more people will do more research into these issues.