The Summer of Cindy

Cindy Sheehan has nothing to contribute to the national debate on Iraq.

Or, let me say, nothing more than any other citizen.

She lost a son in Iraq. This does not make her a hero. This probably makes her son a hero, but, last time I checked, the law does not permit for the transfer of heroic status by will.

She can tell us what it is like to lose a son in Iraq. She can even tell the President. Certainly there is some need to have the consequences of war explained and, yes, even dramatized. Trouble is -- she has told us. And she's told the President, personally. She has contributed what she can on that front.

But apparently she wants to keep telling us. Forever.

It's her right to continue trying to tell us. But we have no obligation to listen. And the media, ever accomodating to symbols of leftist positions, have no obligation to give her a platform... although of course they will.

Cindy Sheehan does not want to tell us about her son. Again, she has done so. Nor does she want to "ask Bush questions;" she wants to make assertions with a lot of television cameras around:

Would he or George Bush send their children to be killed, or maimed for life, for a series of lies, mistakes and miscalculations? Now that every lie has been exposed to the light for the invasion and occupation of Iraq – why are our sons and daughters still there? NOT ONE MORE DROP OF BLOOD SHOULD BE SPILLED FOR THIS PACK OF LIES.

This war was sold to the American people by a slimy leadership with a maniacal zeal and phony sincerity that would have impressed snake oil salesmen a century ago. The average American needs to hear from people who have been devastated by the arrogance and ignorance of an administration that doesn't even have the decency or compassion to sign our "death" letters.

That doesn't seem to me like someone still searching for answers. She, like all other media-savvy pacifist lefties, use the words "raise questions" to mean "make ludicrous claims without being criticized for the foolishness of our statements because, hey, we're just 'raising questions.'"

Maureen Dowd said the woman had "absolute moral authority." Presumably, then, those who lost sons and daughters but are pro-war also have "absolute moral authority" on this issue; how, praytell, do we decide between these two contradictory claims of "absolute moral authority"?

Dowd, the Doyenne of Ditz, doesn't explain or provide an answer. In Dowdworld, of course, one doesn't explain provide answers; of course one "raises questions."

It's actually quite a questionable proposition that anyone with a heavy emotional response to a policy issue should have undue influence on that policy. If the mothers of people killed by drunk drivers were allowed to set policy, DUI would be presumed at 0.01 BAC and you'd spend five to ten years in prison for your first offense.

If the families of cops killed in the line of duty set policy, their murderers would get the death penalty presumtively, as a matter of routine. And maybe I'd agree with that, but I'd understand if the rest of the country didn't want to subcontract such criminal justice decisions to such a small and emotionally-involved group.

And, of course, if our response to 9/11 was determined by a plebescite of only the victims of the attack and their families, there might be three or four fewer habitable cities on the face of the earth.

All of this is, of course, quite obvious to anyone who thinks about the situation for five minutes. But the MSM has been frustrated by the public's stubborn refusal to follow their chickenshit, hinting lead at opposing military action in the war on terror, and they're happy to finally have the sort of "storytelling" symbol to dramatize the issue (and, more importantly, their collective take on the issue).

Like we saw in the Summer of Sharks before 9/11, the media will continue reporting on such trivia at the expense of the public-service hard news international non-sexy reportage they claim is their noble calling.

posted by Ace at 12:16 PM

| Access Comments