Art of the Protest

This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network

The Cindy Sheehan brouhaha has alarmingly similar elements to the Terry Schiavo fiasco. At first I didn’t want to talk about either one. I figure if the media is going to beat a story to death there’s a good bet that there’s real news elsewhere if you look hard enough for it. What happened with Schiavo that made me bother to pay attention is when is “jumped the shark” sort of speak and became this ridiculous political issue that it didn’t have to be. When congress is convening emergency sessions to pass a law over one woman and yet can’t get a comprehensive energy or border policy together, I feel compelled to throw my two cents in. It would appear that something equally stupid has occurred in the non-news story of the grieving mother, Mrs. Cindy Sheehan.

First, anyone who has lost a loved one in the Iraq War or any other military intervention has my most heartfelt sympathy and condolences. The untimely death of a family member, especially ones child, is especially sad, no matter what the circumstances are. With respect to her son’s passing in combat, I understand where her grief and anger are coming from and if that were the extent of it, I wouldn’t be writing this column.

However, this whole episode where she’s decided to confront President Bush, again, over her sons death stopped being about her grief almost from the moment of it’s inception. Granted, I’m no mind reader but I believe the following exchange from MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olberman” on August 13th, is very telling of this woman’s true intent to date:

OLBERMANN: The nature of the media coverage you're getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that, from the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn't it really better if President Bush doesn't meet with you?

SHEEHAN: I would think so, yes. I think it's great. And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don't want to give them any hints. And I think that's something they've probably already thought about.

But, you know, but we're here. We're committed. We're staying the whole month of August, and then we're moving to Washington, D.C. And we're going to have a 24-hour vigil on his front lawn to keep the pressure on. The pressure is there. Sixty-two percent of Americans want our troops home. And this is giving them a voice to stand up and be counted and say, You know, we want our country back, and we want our troops home.

Wouldn’t it be better if Bush didn’t meet with you? If her purpose was to go down there and confront him to try and put some closure on a terribly tragic event then her answer is absolutely inconsistent with her stated intent. At the beginning of the interview she states, “I don't want the President's sympathy. You know, I want to talk to him, and I want answers to my questions. And I want him to tell me the noble cause that my son died for. And I want him to stop using my son's name and the name of the other lost loved ones and Gold Star Families for Peace. We want him to stop using our children's name to justify the continued killing.”

No, apparently you don’t really want that madam. It would appear that she is using the circumstances of her son’s death to make a political statement. It’s kind of macabre for her to play to the part of a grieving mother and then hide behind that character in order for her to have bullet proof cover while make statements like this from her August 8, 2005, address to the Veterans For Peace Convention, “Then we have this lying bastard, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war. You know what? I'm never going to get to enjoy another vacation, because of him… But do you think George Bush will interrupt his vacation and go visit the families of those 20 marines that have died in Ohio this week? No, because he doesn't care, he doesn't have a heart. That's not enough to stop his little playing cowboy' game in Crawford for 5 weeks… So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, he said a couple things that outraged me,” and it goes on and on like that.

This reminds of me of someone saying nasty things over the Internet in an AOL chat-room because they know the target of their written wrath can’t really harm them. Look at how this debate has already broken down. All of the leftwing press and talking heads fixate on this poor grieving mother without providing any other context besides that she’s a grieving mother and therefore due some special treatment by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. When someone from the right criticizes her, it’s automatically a smear. In my opinion, that not only makes her fraud, it makes her coward as well.

If she were being honest she would be in Crawford stating forthright that she is there to protest the war, despite her sons death, not because of it. She’d have all my respect in the world if she were honest enough to say that this is solely about her hatred of Bush and the Iraq War and that her son’s part in it was circumstantial. Instead she’s hiding behind a well-crafted grieving mask.

Protest is a fine thing. I’ve been to a few myself in my younger days. What I’ve learned is that making a loud statement is good but in the end you want people to take you seriously so that they’ll actually implement the changes you are suggesting. That begins with intellectual honesty. Don’t tell me you are here for one thing and then demand something else. Sheehan says in one breath that she just wants answers about why we’re in Iraq and then in the next goes on about demanding the troops come home now. That’s inconsistency at it’s best, in my opinion.

My one wish is that the left in this country would learn that punk-attitude isn’t enough to make significant change in the world. Being a snot-nosed, obnoxious protester doesn’t garner interest from any important people. It just looks nice on TV. Instead, if you insist on throwing tantrums, like the one in Crawford or the equally absurd WTO/Anti-Globalization protests, then you’ve just given the audience whom you are trying to convince permission to just dismiss you like the children you are (or behaving like).

Again, I’m sorry for Mrs. Sheehan but I cannot take her seriously when she cannot remain consistent in her own universe.