With so much smearing, it looks like an impressionist painting
So, now (1) questioning the actions of your country (2) petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is "Stalinist":
To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.
I like this one, too:
We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11.
Back that train up! Cindy Sheehan's son died in Iraq, and as far as I know -- although information may have changed -- Iraq didn't attack us on September 11. Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda attacked us. But, of course, somehow the words "Iraq" and "9/11" became mixed up to the point where 21 percent of the country believed that Iraq was directly involved with September 11. Or is Ann Coulter trying to perpetuate the myth that September 11 = Osama bin Laden = al Qaeda = terrorism = Saddam Hussein? Throw "Saudi Arabia" in there and the equation might start to make sense.
And, by the way, Coulter commits the "guilt by association" fallacy by lumping Cindy Sheehan in the same pot with Michael Moore, suggesting that her opinions are invalid and baseless only because his opinions are invalid and baseless.
The only method that the Spin Machine has discovered to discredit Cindy Sheehan is to suggest that she's not in control of her message, that somehow Michael Moore and George Soros are operating her like a puppet. Need we remind them that Cindy Sheehan started out in front of the ranch with her and her sister? She never asked anyone to come join her. She was there first. George Soros and MoveOn.org joined her because their messages are congruent. But the Spin Machine continues to try and discredit and smear dissenters. If anyone -- anyone -- gets it into his head that he knows better about what's good for the country than the President of the United States, or dares to question the sacred authority of the president, then he must be destroyed in the media. Here's Rush Limbaugh saying that Cindy Sheehan ... well, I don't even know what he's saying. That she made this all up?
I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.
So is Rush's suggestion that Cindy Sheehan didn't lose a son in Iraq and that she's lying about it? If so, it's Rush that's incorrect, because we certainly have documented evidence that she did.
Why does the Spin Machine go to such great lengths to destroy reputations in order to prevent the American public from believing anyone who suggests that America's current policies are wrong? To suggest that dissent and the questioning of one's government is treasonous is, in itself, treasonous. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "eternal vigilance" was the price of freedom, and yet the Bush Administration would like you to be eternally ignorant and just let them handle the situation, please. Surrender your vigilance and we'll protect you from the gays.
Comments
This is a bum deal . Every time someone criticizes Cindy Sheehan we are told, "she has a right to free speech." Then when they clarify that they are not challenging her right to dissent, but rather her authority as a geo-political analyst, Sheehan's ilk says, "How dare you question the mother of a dead solider." Which side is really trying to restrict speech here?
Posted by: Ned Weinberger | August 19, 2005 9:17 AM
Ned's not so cute when he's cuddling up with the Prez. How can you support RUSH when he's saying that this woman is lying about her story. Mark is always repeating this quote to me, "Either fix it or get used to it." Whereas everyone else says to their friends that they don't like Bush and they are angry soldiers are dieing in Iraq, Sheehan didn't hesitate to make a statement to the point of, "I have a problem with the fact that my son was killed in Iraq, therefore I will confront the person who is in power in my country and who made the decision to send troops there." It really pisses me off that people like Ann Coulter have the audacity to suggest that her move to stand outside the president's ranch was an attempt to cheer herself up, and it was a strange way of grieving. Hmm ... let's look at the work here for the formula mom + deceased son = angry/sad
-son goes to war in iraq, a war that was and is not supported by a substantial majority of the American people.
- son is killed while in iraq
Now, generally, if there was someone responsible for your loved one's death, the natural human reaction to that is to seek revenge and/or justice. She feels her son didn't deserve to die, that her son shouldn't have died while in Iraq. I bet if a man murdered your son, you'd be like, "Hey, it bothers me that you killed my son." You wouldn't just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, it happens." You'd see to it that this man was put behind bars, that he couldn't do the same thing to someone else's son.
Sheehan is making this statement. She doesn't stand outside the ranch to cheer herself up, though I am sure people go and protest outside his house all the time, just because it's a good ol' time and everyone is full of joy. People go on strike because it's fun to stand outside and walk in circles. Everyone should protest! It makes you so happy, you'll be giggling all day!
So seeking justice for your deceased son seems to be a pretty common form of grieving. It would be strange if she wasn't upset or angry at the news of her son's death. You can't call the police to cart the president away for sending your son to iraq, because he's the president. You can't get the satisfaction of seeing him behind bars where he can't harm anyone else. So how do you make sure he knows you are full of grief, anger, sadness, etc.? I think protesting outside his house is a clear indicator. Sending him an e-mail - not as convincing as sitting outside his house. She's not waiting for justice - she's demanding it.
So if liberals need to be taught how to mourn, how to conservatives mourn? They give each other a pat on the back and say, "Well, it happens," and go on with their lives? They forget about horrific event as if Big Brother changed history? Wait a minute ... so Ann Coulter is who George Orwell was warning us about! War isn't peace, silly Ann Coulter!
Her standing outside his house is not stalinisitc, but merely a prime example of the kind of government we have, where we have to freedom to openly let our leader know when we are not in agreement with his decisions. I wonder if Stalin would have let people angry with his policies stand out the Kremlim - I mean, he was a nice enough guy ... probably would have brought him lemonade.
I think I'll post this on www.sedhe.net/sandwich because it's long.
Posted by: Bud-dy | August 19, 2005 10:05 AM
Lets go back to Coulter's argument for a second. What gives Sheehan so much authority? What if there is an equally hysterical mom who had two children die, and she supports the war? Does her personal tragedy trump Sheehan's?
I think this situation might speak to the notion (false) in society that "experience" necessarily places a person in a position of high authority, e.g., only the poor can speak for the poor, the lame for the lame, etc.
Posted by: Ned Weinberger | August 19, 2005 12:53 PM