RSS/XML |
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
BOTW discusses the political activism of Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan. Ms. Sheehan’s Army son, Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq. Now the mom is calling for President Bush to bring the troops home from Iraq right away, and said in a speech Monday that her son died so that President Bush’s friends could get richer, he died for oil, and “to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East.”
Ms. Sheehan is being lauded by some commentators and bloggers, Town Meeting, for example - and then there’s Maureen Dowd, who wrote that, “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”
Why?
In what way are the parents of killed service men or women more morally authoritative than before? I can only presume that since Ms. Dowd was never able to makle the “chickenhawk” argument stick, so she’s trying a different tack.
Losing a son or daughter is the worst pain a parent can feel, to be sure, and I certainly don’t make light of Ms. Sheehan’s loss or her grief. But I wonder why Maureen Dowd thinks that the loss suddenly transforms a mother into a person suddenly wiser and more moral than she was before.
I can certainly understand why losing a child in the war may lead parents to ponder more carefully what they believe about the war, and why. But the loss alone doesn’t make them smarter, wiser, or gifted with greater strategic insight than before. If a Gold Star mother or father is to be heeded regarding national-policy decisions, it must be on a basis other than their loss.
Are parents of those killed as crime victims somehow vested with superior wisdom or morality regarding law enforcement? Are parents of teens killed in auto accidents somehow morally authoritative regarding traffic laws than before? No, I think not, and if someone disagrees I’m open to being educated why.
Cindy Sheehan’s loss was severe and painful, let no one doubt. But it doesn’t in itself make her worth listening to more than before.
Endnote: My eldest son is a US Marine lance corporal who will deploy to Iraq in a month.
Comments policy
16 queries. 0.860 seconds
August 12th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
[…] seriousness about such a serious subject would clearly be too much to expect. Update: Donald Sensing with similar thoughts. posted by: Th […]
August 12th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
I’m afraid you are wrong about others with similar loses not being “vested with superior wisdom”. Here in Minnesota we have the mother of a missing child (I honestly don’t know if he was ever found) running for public office basically on the idea she knows what to do about crime. Then you have MADD using their lose to make them authorities on the subject of drunk driving. Unfortunately it happens all the time and seems to be the most important thing today.
August 13th, 2005 at 2:40 am
If one is a crackpot, and experiences a devastating personal loss, he or she is still a crackpot. Their loss should always be treated respectfully, but I’m afraid that “imperative” does not extend to everything they say or do afterward. Cindy Sheehan has the same right as anyone to free speech (one of the freedoms her son, and many other sons and daughters, defended). But there is no bubble of immunity from criticism granted even to those who lose a loved one. That’s the thing about this that Dowd, and so many others, just don’t get.
August 13th, 2005 at 9:07 am
I don’t think there would be anyone who wouldn’t feel sorry for the loss of Cindy Sheehan’s son Casey. That some people/groups are encouraging her to run for office is troubling. I worry that she is in for a bigger fall later.
A message to Cindy Sheehan
This story was written by an Iraqi who sees the pain in Sheehan’s eyes and tells her what her son’s sacrifice means.
August 13th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Yes, we all feel for Mrs Sheehan and for all who have lost loved ones in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other place where our troops are. But for her to demand that the President meet with her is ludicrous for several reasons. For one thing, President Bush did not force her son to join the Army; there were no secret police in lackboots at her door to haul him off to boot camp. He joined the Army on his own and knew what he was getting into, so he owes her no explanation. For another, if he meets with Mrs Sheehan, he has to meet with the parents of every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, Coast Guardsman, civilian, and contractor who has died providing any kind of support to the war effort. There’s a lot going on in the world and he can’t afford to do that. Perhaps Mrs Sheehan should seek a meeting with SPC Sheehan’s commander when he returns from Iraq. The media must get more into the good happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, not only the bombings and the protests.
August 13th, 2005 at 9:58 am
Doug,
He did meeet with her. And her tune after that meeting, as reported in her hometown newspaper, was very different from the one she’s singing now. I can’t imagine the pain of losing a child, and even though I deplore what she’s doing, if it’s her way of dealing with that pain, I wouldn’t begrudge her any peace she finds. But it’s hard to escape the conclusion that’s she’s working toward a specific political goal rather than a personal one.
August 13th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
There are many mothers who have lost a child in Iraq who continue to support the war (can’t find any references off the top of my head, but they do exist). I’m sure Ms. Dowd has never said that they too have absolute moral authority. Cindy Sheehan’s absolute moral authority for Ms. Dowd comes from the fact that she has a) lost a son in Iraq; and b) agrees with Dowd about the war; and therefore, c) is a useful stick with which to beat the President.
How heartless Maureen Dowd is. Using a grieving mother like that is contemptible.
August 14th, 2005 at 5:29 am
Ms Sheehan is lying about her first meeting with the President. It is a blatantly political lie, aimed for maximum political impact.
This dishonesty of Ms. Sheehan automatically disqualifies her from another meeting with the President. Her dishonesty exposes her as either an unwitting pawn of political forces beyond her control, or as herself a cynical political operative, willing to use the unfortunate death of her son to propel herself to a national political stage.
August 14th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Mona said, “one of the freedoms her son, and many other sons and daughters, defended.” Unfortunately, while defending our freedoms is a noble goal of our military, our freedoms were not under attack from Iraq. G. K. Chesterton said “the only defensible war is a war of defense.” It’s real stretch to call this a war of defense…
August 15th, 2005 at 9:05 am
If it is wrong, as it is, to exploit the war dead to oppose a war, it is equally wrong for parents of war dead to promote the war based on the deaths of their children, as those parents also have no special knowledge as to whether or not a war is just.
August 15th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Joel,
You are the only person who raised the question of “wrong” in relatives of war dead supporting or opposing the war. Everyone else has criticized her specific message or her honesty, or commented how she is being used by the anti-war left.
Want to try again without the straw man?
August 15th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
I thought Donald’s point was that a parent of someone killed in battle has no special knowlege or authority to oppose war. It’s not a straw man to demonstrate that the same applies to war supporters. My point is that the pro-war right is just as capable of using grieving mothers to promote an unjust or moronic war, taking for example Southerners fighting in defense of slavery. I don’t doubt that many a Southern mother wailed over her son and urged others to go fight on the side of evil and darkness and on behalf of Satan, that being the cause of slavery, simply because the mother was grieving, not because she knew anything about justice. I’ve seen preachers try to manipulate their congregations with sentimental renditions of “God Bless the USA” as if love of country equates with rational thought on the wisdom or folly of a particular war.
August 15th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
My point is that being the parent of a KIA in Iraq, while an appalling personal tragedy, does not give one special insight into national-security affairs. My post is more a rebuttal of Dowd’s foolishness than Sheehan’s protests. Certainly Sheehan has every right to pontificate, but her Gold Star status does not bring with it a special obligation to be heard regarding national policy.
Joel seems to grasp that I was making this point, but bringing up the American Civil War and slavery into the argument is simply ludicrous. (But never pass up a chance to slam the South, eh, Joel?) Furthermore, Joel, please cite any Gold Star mother or father who has been exploited by the media or Iraq-war supporters even a fraction of how the Left has already exploited Sheehan. Please name the grieving mother who was used by the “pro-war right … to promote” the war. Either you can provide names, news articles and event and dates, or you’re simply telling untruths.
Further - isn’t Sheehan a free agent, and if she chooses to use her son’s death to vilify the administration, isn’t she free to do so in America, Joel? Regardless of how reprehesnible I may think exploitng one’s son’s death may be for cheap political stunts - and that’s what C. Sheehan’s protests are - she can do it if she wants.
If a Gold Star mother went around stumping on behalf of the administration, I would not protest her activities as long as neither she nor anyone else claimed that her loss gave her a special qualification to be heeded. But that’s exactly what Dowd did regarding Cindy Sheehan. But I years ago realized Dowd is, frankly, of limited abilities.
August 16th, 2005 at 11:55 am
Donald,
Condemning slavery is slamming the South? My point is that in all wars relatives of the war dead tend to use the relatives’ deaths to advance their support or opposition to war. I was going to use the example of Vietnam, but that just results in me getting e-mails about being “fonda Jane.”
I’m much kinder toward the South than you are toward United Methodism. Is there any opportunity you have ever taken to do anything other than bash UM bishops? You seem to rush with glee to print the negative stories about UM trials and such.
August 17th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
My analysis of MS. Sheehan’s current grief driven irrationality is as follows:
1. She cannot forgive her son for enlisting in the Army. No doubt against her fervent advice, as she has a history of Left Wing activism.
2. Further, she cannot forgive him for re-enlisting.
3. She cannot forgive him for not accepting her offer to go to Canada, after he received orders to go to Iraq.
4. And most of all, she cannot forgive him for volunteering to go on the Emergency Rescue Force mission, in which he lost his life.
Until she can forgive him for making his own adult decisions, instead of infantilizing him as “her baby boy,” she will not be able to come to terms with her grief, and move out of her irrationality.
August 26th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
My response to Cgeib:
Have you had a close member of your family die or commit suicide? I have and it hurts even when it seemed to be a natural death. You have to be in my shoes or Cindy’s.
Cgeib, if you start realizing that: 1. The war was not properly prepared from the beginning, 2. Downing Street Memos, 3. No weaponds found, 4. No answers from the WH regarding why did they not bring in the CIA to question ” Curve Ball” the informant of mobile WMD ( whom had a history of lying) anddid not tell Colin Powell, 5. any why did they not go after Bin Laden first?
If this information begins to become credible, which it is, and it resulted with the death of your son, daughter, a reasonable person will take a stand and demand questions. The death of a close person can make you batty some times Mr. Cgeib, but a human being was lost, for what reason? She has all the right to demand answers. ” Bringem’ on” per the presidents words.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
[…] waiting for the NYT’s Maureen Dowd to proclaim Raymond Plouhar an an exemplar, since she wrote plainly that, “the moral authority of pa […]