A commenter took issue with my passing reference to Cindy Sheehan in a previous post. My point was she does not represent the views of the vast majority of Americans, nor does she speak for all mothers who have lost a “child” in the war on terror. Of course, our soldiers are not children, they are adult volunteers. In the case of Casey Sheehan, after his first tour in Iraq he re-enlisted. He also volunteered for the rescue mission in which he lost his life. He was brave. He was a hero. He was where he wanted to be doing what he wanted to do. He represents all that makes America great. I do not believe his mother speaks for him either.
Anyway, Mark Steyn’s column in the Chicago Sun Times pretty much captures my views on this issue.
Sheehan’s views may not reflect the specific views of the American majority, but they do sit alongside a string of polls that show a growing public distrust of Bush and a disdain for the war. I think most Americans, however – including myself – take a view of resignation: we shouldn’t just pull out now and leave that mess to the Iraqis.
In the end, I think some of Sheehan’s critics are dismissing her too quickly. Is her vision clouded? Absolutely. But she brought the war home in a far more personal way than any other event I can remember.
I agree that her son was in Iraq as a volunteer and, as such, knew of the risks. A grieving mother, however, is prime media fodder and from a PR standpoint, Sheehan’s critics – including Bush and his “get on with my life” comments – make asses of themselves when they gnash their teeth at her.
Well put Aaron. By the way the manner in which the word “children” is being used has nothing to do with age, it means offspring. Whether or not Casey Sheehan would agree with his mother, I bet he wouldn’t want to see her trashed in the media/bogsphere for actions clearly attributable to grief.
interesting thoughts
nice site dude
please check
nice indeed