Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Dear Lady, We Get Your Point, Go Home (to me)

Let me preface this blog by saying I am not a heartless, soulless bastard. OK, I am a bastard, but I have a heart and soul. Moving on.

Cindy Sheehan needs to go home. I sympahtize with her plight, I can't imagine what kind of crazy stuff I would do if one of my children (future) was killed in war. However, she's a little past the initial crazy, lunatic phase and she's moving into the annoying self-fulfilling phase.

The other protesters, they don't cary about ole' Cindy, they're just using her as a billboard for their politics. That is very disgusting, but we'll let it slide, I'm here to talk about Cindy.

Many of the residents of Crawford, Texas are becomming more and more upset with the antics of Sheehan and her supporters. Crawford is a ranching community used to a peaceful and easy (so Eagles, sorry) way of life. The protest party has changed this, to the point that some residents of Crawford have asked for them to leave. Some have even shot guns up in the air as metaphorical "warning shots." However, now the protest group has decided to move closer to Bush's ranch.

The group cites their First Amendment rights whenever their presence in Crawford is challenged. I agree with them here, after all, America gained it's independence due to one wicked protest. But let me exercise my constitutionally protected right as well: Collectively, you are the dumbest group of people I've ever read about (this includes Kentucky and Granville).

First, what the hell are you actually trying to accomplish? Mrs. Sheehan has stated that she is doing this because she wants an audience with President Bush to air her grievences. One, she already had an audience, but after she left, she decided that she felt unsatisfied, so now she's demanding another meeting by sitting outside Bush's front lawn. Hopefully none of my ex-girlfriends decide to employ this tactic. Two, Mrs. Sheehan's stated goals are to ask why we're in Iraq and then to press for the immediate removal of troops. Does she really think Bush will give her a straight answer on the first issue? He's been hounded by reporters since the start of this thing, but he'd end up caving to Mrs. Sheehan? Talk about liberal elitism (I do not know Mrs. Sheehan's political orientation). Furthermore, as much as you may hate Bush, I think we all can agree he's not just making decisions on a whim, he is surrounded by very distinguished military advisors. Who has the best idea of when to pull out of Iraq, 4-star generals or mothers of the bourgeoisie? I guess it's really 6 one way half a dozen the other.

If Bush listens to Mrs. Sheehan, a civil war erupts in Iraq and many, many more will die, but they won't be white, so maybe that is what will satiate Mrs. Sheehan's political activism: No more dead white people. I completly understand the rhetoric of people that question the war in the first place. However, now that we're there, you can't just pull out halfway through. If you are a student of recent history, you'd know this from our first experience in the gulf. I don't think this war was carefully planned out or orchestrated, however, at this point we're engaged in a conflict with international ramifications, whether we like it or not.

Finally, Mrs. Sheehan has taken her crusade to the doorstep of President Bush's life. I guess you can say that when Bush ran for office, he should have expected some inquiry into his personal life. As such, when Mrs. Sheehan put herself in the public eye, she should expect some invasion into her personal life. I propose a protest on Mrs. Sheehan's front lawn wherever she may live in America. I suggest we stay there until Mrs. Sheehan decides to leave Crawford. We will block traffic, set up portable toilets, and annoy the neighbors, just like Mrs. Sheehan. Stupid, you say? I agree, but then again, we won't look that much more dumb than the people camping out in Texas.

9 comments:

Trotskey said...

Actually, the dumbest people on Earth were the ones protesting outside Terry Schiavo's hospice.

BlogginOut said...

The bigger part of the story is the fact that "Dubya" has now spent more time away from the White House than any other President. I think he's aiming to spend as many days on vacation as soldiers are killed in Iraq.

Dubya: "Let's see, looks like I get 2 more days of vacation today."


How can you make comments somewhat praising the Crawford citizens who are firing warning shots? These hicks are the dumbest people on Earth.

I guess freedom of speech only exists in this country when you support a pre-emptory disaster that is going to kill more and more US soldiers. Well, at least the war has a good cause. Wait a minute, what is that cause?

Tre! said...

Trotskey - I agree, it seems like the common theme is that most protests now-a-days are staged by morons.

Blogginout - I guess you didn't score too well on reading comprehension tests in grade school.

I agree that the cause for the war is somewhat shady. You could legitimately argue the point that: the US went in because there was a government leader acting as the main proponent for what amounts to genocide. However, we said there were WMDs. Also, we haven't touched any of these situations in Africa. Anyone with half a brain can understand why we're still there now, getting there is the hard part.

My argument with Mrs. Sheehan is the fact that she asks for troops to be withdrawn immediately. At this point, that's impossible. The violence in Iraq would rise exponentially.

Also, her manner of exercising her free speech illustrates her intentions to be more self-serving than acting on behalf of a cause. Then the anti-war posse jumps on the bandwagon and uses her to push their agenda. Her self-aggrandizing methods and base self-promotion sicken me. Her son died in Iraq serving our country. He didn't do this in the hopes that someday his mother would protest his death. The same sort of thing, albeit in a more positive manner, happened with Pat Tillman.

Even if her protest succeeds and she gets an audience with Bush, do you really think he'll listen to her? Dubya: "Mrs. Sheehan, that's a novel insight, you're right, let's get these troops out of Iraq."

Freedom of speech is a fundamental tenet of our society. However, it's something that still must be used responsibly.

TheTruth07 said...

1) Mrs. Sheehan was in Crawford well before the cameras and press got there. She is not doing this for self-aggrandizement as you and many of the right wing pundits would like to claim. (O'Reilly went so far as to call her treasonous.)

Most likely, Mrs. Sheehan is doing this, because she is grieving. Her son paid the ultimate price, and she wants a fuller explanation from the President who put him in Iraq. Unfortunately, it is the press that has turned this into such a political issue.

2) I agree that we can't withdraw right away. We're stuck in a non-win situation. If we stay, we lose more lives. If we leave, we create a hub for terrorists. So, it looks like more casualties. Great idea Mr. Bush.

3) Of course, Bush won't listen to Mrs. Sheehan. He didn't even listen to Colin Powell, his Secretary of State and only administration member to actually fight a war. Powell told Bush to avoid Iraq, but Bush ignored him. Bush makes his decisions more on belief than information, much like you.

4) Maybe you can shed more light on how one can use freedom of speech. I didn't know the founding fathers only gave us the right to freedom of speech "when used responsibly."

TheTruth07 said...

In conclusion, until one actually loses a son or daughter to war, I don't think they are in a place to judge Mrs. Sheehan. What makes me sick is all of the people who know no one in the war and have nothing to lose for it, but still feel the need to criticize a grieving mother.

I, personally, don't want to criticize her for the protests.

Tre, please stick to the humorous insights and stories of what it is like to be a law student.

Nye! said...

OK, I feel the need to weigh in here real quick. The trouble with this woman is that she protested, she got her audience, and then she kept on protesting. In other words, her protest accomplished its goal, but she didn't stop. That's what makes her annoying.

Whether you agree or disagree with her protest isn't the point, I think. It's whether she seems to understand the point of protesting in general.

EK said...

Truth,

It /is/ possible to recognize free speech rights and still condemn the speech. So far as I know, Tre is saying that the protestors should leave, not that they should be forcibly removed. In that, he's just exercising /his/ first amendment rights as much as Sheehan & co

Luke Thomas said...

That any of you actually think Sheehan believes in her own mind that the President will eventually lend his ear is a testament to your ingrained bias and goalpost-shifting strategy to justify what is quite literally the embodiment of the most outrageous moral, political and military tragedy of our generation: Iraq.

One either has to be an ostrich or incredibly naive to actually believe Sheehan thinks the President will succumb to pressure. He won't and she knows it. That, of course, is not the point.

The point is to draw whatever attention she can to what she views is a real tragedy: the loss of her son and many other Americans and the futility at this juncture of continuing on in a mission that has virtually no chance of success in part because the administration a)refuses to lay out the parameters of what would constitute success and b) how on earth they plan to achieve them. Goals without means are illusions. You are witnessing nothing more than illusions.

I don't personally support Mrs. Sheehan. I also don't generally have the stomach for staged protests. And, true to criticism, Sheehan has opened herself such that those with totally partisan agendas have attached themselves to her cause and not because they grieve for Casey Sheehan. But then again, every shark has a lamprey.

As for Iraq, you can move the goal posts of success all you want. It will do you no good. I'll toot my own horn here for minute and remind those who knew me when the war started that virtually everything I predicted has come true. It doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out. The evidence lays before your very eyes. And it wasn't as if supporters of the war and the administration didn't hear the warnings. They simply chose to ignore them (and they also were dumb enough not to envision the possibility of an insurgency; a MONUMENTAL military planning failure).

Sheehan, for all her faults, is probably not wrong about Iraq. Sure, we can stay in Iraq and lie to ourselves about how eventually we'll turn things around. In other words, we can do the exact same thing we've done for 2.5 years with not an ounce of improvement. Or we can recognize that while it may turn our stomachs to up and leave Iraq, we can do so before we needlessly lose any more Americans.

p.s. Treleven, charges of racism - it only matters when white people are killed in Iraq to Mrs. Sheehan - are downright ludicrous. It's baseless on your part since there is no evidence to suggest it and Sheehan herself has made mention of the humanitarian toll at large that this war is causing.

As Frank Rich said yesterday, not only can the Bush adminstration do positively nothing about the insurgency in Iraq (2.5 years down the road and not ONE STICH of progress in controlling the borders), they can do nothing about the homegrown "insurgency" to end the war here at home. Now that, my friends, is real incompetence.

Tre! said...

Luke,

I'm not shifting any goalposts. I'm not saying this war will ever by successful, I'm saying if we leave now it will be abysmal.

My disdain for Sheehan basically stems from our shared view of organized protests.

However, this is your grieving mother: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_us/peace_mom_34;_ylt=AvnfZwOWBEveleb7wlSxu3jQ2wwi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

She looks like she's near death in that picture. My point is she isn't grieving anymore, she's just doing this for attention, which trivializes her son's death.