In the last year and a half, the rhetoric of the right in response to liberal criticism about our war conduct has changed.
* “Why do you hate America?” (when they wanted everyone to just be quiet)
* “I support my President” (when it started getting grim and bodybags started coming home)
* “Freedom is on the march” (when the WMDs disappeared and the war rationale evaporated)
And now? What is the right-wing war response?
“You’re undermining the troops.”
That’s what they’re saying about Cindy Sheehan, and what they’ll be saying soon about all of us who oppose the war. It’s also what they said when it became clear that Vietnam was a bad war that was leading our troops to their deaths.
Since Oliver seems to be so fond of polls, I would suggest that he and his bosses over at Media Matters commission a poll of active duty personnel, parents of active duty military personnel, and Cindy’s family, to see what the actual public sentiment is in regards to her current positions.
Forgive me, but why? The only thing I can think of is that you think they would overwhelmingly vote to support the president and his war. If they do, which I won’t yet grant, the point should be made that Vietnam was popular among the troops initially as well. Go read David Hackworth’s About Face for an example.
Joshua, it matters because Oliver and the rest of the left have been screaming “chickenhawk”, because according to them, only people who serve are allowed to have an opinon.
It would therefore be instructive to poll those who serve to see exactly what that opinion is and whether the Left would then accept the results.
Uh, no, we scream “chickenhawk” because you bang the drums for war, so that others can go and fight in it. The troops are fighting so that you can have an opinion on it, but your opinion has little value because you are unwilling to back it with actions.
You’re just like a little brother who taunts a bully, knowing that your big brother will end up having to take the punches.
Then if that’s the measure, isn’t your opinion just as invalid? After all, you’re not willing to back it with actions.
neo – what about those of us who have already served, and have family members there now? Are we allowed to discuss military matters?
Then in a similar manner, all of those who support Cindy are being hypocritical unless they quit their jobs, leave their families, and go immediately to Crawford, TX. to join her protest.
Well, I donate to the VA, not to mention the credit I get for having my family members serve.
I guess that means my opinion is valid again, huh?
Funny, I thought Libs were for free speech. Why are you denying people the right to speak?
Anyone is “allowed” to discuss miltary matters. It’s just the matter of how much their opinion is weighted. Someone in the military, or with family in the service, understands the sacrifices made (namely the life and death situation).
Someone who is unwilling to make the sacrifices, their opinion isn’t as valued because they won’t suffer any consequences if they are wrong. Is it really hard to figure out?
I can disagree with someone in the military about the validity of the war, and I do, but I respect their opinion, as they are trusting their life to their view.
A chickenhawk who thinks war is great, unless they are asked to sacrifice (war taxes, battle, etc.) for what they want isn’t someone to take seriously.
I’m not calling chickenhawks hypocrites, I’m dismissing their opinion because they aren’t willing to make any sacrifice. It’s all just a board game for them.
I’m making a sacrifice for Cindy Sheehan- I donated to the Crawford Peace House and have donated to other anti-war organizations. At the same time, Cindy Sheehan has made a much bigger sacrifice for peace than I. I would listen and respect her. You don’t have to agree with her, but you do have to respect her. Publicizing her divorce and calling her a traitor isn’t respect.
For an adminstration that has used PR brilliantly to obsfucate reality, this incident is a sign that Bush and Rove are out of ideas and more worried about appeasing their allies rather than neutralizing their enemies.l
Sheehan has made it clear that she changed her mind about how she views the war based on information that came out since Casey’s death–specifically things like the Downing Street memo and the WMDs which were never there.
What the hell kind of world do you live in where people aren’t allowed to change their mind with new information?
Thanks for moving the goalposts!
The failure of the adminstration to deal with Cindy Sheehan and other mothers of dead soldiers is the problem, not Sheehan.
This disaster is evidence that the adminstration is incapable of accepting any blame for the failure of its people or policy and Bush is seen as uncaring about grieving families.
If Bush had gone to Sheehan the first day and offered personal condolences, invited her in for coffee, this entire fiasco would be over and Bush would have received a great boost in his poll numbers. Instead, he is hunkered down in denial.
The ad hominem arguments are brilliant…’how dare the mother of a dead soldier question the president?’ Heartless, selfish, disengaged…that is the perception of the Bush adminstration today.
The Sheehan problem is of his own creation.
Noone is saying you can’t speak, I’m only saying your speech is idiotic. I never said your opinion isn’t “valid”, whatever that means, I said that it is moronic.
You’re still a chickenhawk, though. Donating to the VA (which I doubt) doesn’t make you “Pro-troops” if you’re the one putting them in the hospital through your vote anyway. Your “Support the Troops” ribbon doesn’t keep them safe from insurgents, either.
But Bush did meet with her and did offer his condolences. She wants him to meet with her again after changing her story as to their original meeting.
From a PR standpoint I agree that they should have opened the gates to the ranch and let her in (and only her), as I doubt she would be nearly as vitriolic in a face-to-face with the President as she is in public and it would have ended ths issue (of her, not Iraq), she did get a meeting with the National Security Adviser which goes hardly noticed.
Maybe calling Bush the “biggest terrorist in the world” isn’t the best way to request a meeting.
Casey re-enlisted in August 2003, after the “Where are the WMDs?” questions were being raised. August 2003 is also after Joe Wilson’s Op-Ed. So to say things have changed drastically is not so true.
EXACTLY. He’s gotten lost in all this quest for attention by his mom.
Cindy is trying to use her son’s death to promote an agenda, despite evidence that he, at least on some level, disagreed with it. Where are all the “Bush is exploiting 9/11″ crowd when it comes to Cindy Sheehan?
I thought the latest meme was not that Cindy flip-flopped, but that she was a lifelong leftist activist and her son enlisted to spite her.
That’s Casey. His mother has the right to change her mind. His mother has the right to feel that her son was badly used.
Hedley wasn’t talking about Casey, Hedley was saying that Cindy was “changing her story.”
Really, this all falls back on the idiotic “flip-flop” meme. There’s a difference between changing one’s mind based on new information and simple waffling, but that not-so-subtle difference got lost amid the rhetoric of the last election, and it’s never quite made its way back.
God, that’s so typical. When the administration decides to hold a concert on the anniversary of 9/11, it’s good and noble and honor-ific. When Cindy Sheehan tries to hold a protest vigil because she lost her son, it’s “attention-mongering.” Did it ever occur to you that she might have a legitimate complaint, or are only those mothers who stay quiet when their sons die in war “good Americans”?
And what’s this evidence that he disagreed with his mother? Because he re-enlisted? Plenty of soldiers have re-enlisted not because they agree with the war, but because they feel it’s their duty. Plenty of soldiers have written home with stories of malaise and discontent, but they stay and fight and die because they feel it’s their duty. There’s a line between obligation and desire that you don’t seem to be grasping.
She is certainly entitled to change her position with respect to the war, I am not disputing that. However, she “changed her position” as to the details of her meeting with the president and that is what I was referring to.
Grow up, kids! No one is entitled to a meting with the President, except maybe a CMOH winner…
He was nice enough to go see her once, and now she’s not satisfied? Too bad!
When I was in the Army, my mother tried (unsuccessfully) to appeal my assignment to Viet Nam: I was disabled (said the Army), and she was blind due to Multiple Sclerosis… The closest she got to the President? A Major from the Pentagon, who told her why I had to go…
Yes, I went: I guess that means I can tell these anti – war jerks to go screw themselves, eh?