Sheehan Won’t Be Satisfied By Meeting With Bush

Cindy Sheehan has gone to great lengths to portray herself as a mother of a son who was killed in Iraq who just wants to meet with President Bush. “I want one answer: What is the ‘noble cause’ MY son died for,” she wrote earlier this week. Later in the same blog post, she wrote: “I didn’t ask (President Bush) to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for.”

However, a Reuters story following her press conference today reads:

“I’m just so honored that the universe chose me to be the spark that has set of … a raging inferno” of anti-war sentiment, Sheehan said. “It’s not going to end. If George Bush came out and spoke with me today and we went home, this wouldn’t end.”

I have avoided joining the chorus of angry conservatives seeking to demonize Sheehan, and I’m not going to change now. My heart goes out to her for the loss of her son, and she has every right to protest and can call Bush a liar all she wants. But at the same time, I don’t think President Bush should be expected to meet with her (again). As her statement today demonstrates, that will not satisfy her. Sheehan does not see herself as just any grieving mother, but the anointed leader of a growing anti-war movement.

One thought on “Sheehan Won’t Be Satisfied By Meeting With Bush”

  1. What the soldiers died for in Iraq could be for a noble cause, if Americans and others still opposed to the war quit advocating withdrawal and asking for a surrender to insurgents. Instead, maybe they should try to determine the best way to develop Iraq, which certainly will be possible without the insurgents.

    Because we’re consistently suffering casualties (the # of casualties is pale compared to most major wars in history), that does not necessarily mean we should pull out nor should we cease the pursuit of a liberalist dream that has apparently worked for the better in, for example, East Asia, which the West thought to be so uncivilized decades ago.

    Of course, criticisms should be placed on certain American leaders — civilian and military alike — who prepared quite poorly for the war, despite their vision. In particular, what I hear from U.S. soldiers and military experts is that many U.S. soldiers are not well-trained for peacekeeping missions (which is what they’re basically doing now), which require significant amount of discipline when under fire or in threatening situations. Unfortunately, that would be difficult to find in and unreasonable to expect from reserves who just stepped out of their full-time work at a law firm or a JC Penney.

    Ms. Sheehan should be proud of what her son was a part of. And that will be made possible if most people show some maturity and work towards an improved Iraq, or else, contributions made by those like Ms. Sheehan’s son may turn out to be unappreciated in the end.

    If I went back to 2003, I most likely would have opposed the war, since it is sucking up American military resources that should be in the Pacific and Indian oceans. However, the war has happened, and there’s no turning back. People should make best of the developing situation.

    It would simply be wrong for us to pull out and cause greater chaos in Iraq, because we’ve lost 1,800 soldiers, equivalent to two months’ worth of loss during the Korean and Vietnam wars.

    We also need to earn back what we spent on this war. We should do what we can to profit from this war somewhere down the road. That is only possibly by establishing an Iraqi free market economy, not to mention access to oil, both of which could very well benefit the Iraqis’ long-term future.

    Wars aren’t free, and it is the responsibility of our leaders never to forget that.

Comments are closed.