May she find peace there.
In case you have not been following the secular news, Cindy Sheehan is the mother of a gentleman named Casey Sheehan, who enlisted in the Army at the age of 21 in the year 2000 and became a specialist. After the September 11th Attacks, and the ensuing War on Terror, he re-enlisted for a second hitch. Assigned to fight in Iraq, he volunteered to go on a rescue mission in Sadr City in 2004.
On this mission he was killed. God rest his soul and honor his sacrifice.
Subsequent to this, Specialist Sheehan was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart.
President Bush met personally with Specialist Sheehan’s parents, Pat and Cindy, to honor their son. This was a rare symbolic event, as a president cannot meet with the grieving parents of most soldiers who have died in a war.
According to the Sheehans’ hometown newspaper:
"We haven’t been happy
with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has
changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven
false or an objective reached."The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have
given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some
of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as
whether Casey’s sacrifice would make the world a safer place.But in the end, the family decided against such talk,
deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In
addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn’t stumping for votes or trying to
gain a political edge for the upcoming election."We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and
I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have
to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died,
Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
"I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,"
Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he’s sorry and feels some pain
for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.""That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said
That was then.
Since their meeting with Pres. Bush, Mrs. Sheehan became a shrill political activist, camping out in front of the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, giving interviews to various members of the national media, and demanding a second meeting with Pres. Bush so that she may obtain from him the answers to questions she failed to put to him the first time.
Here are some samples of what she has said. These are taken from a speech she gave August 8 to a group of veterans opposed to the Iraq war:
- Then we have this lying <expletive>, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war.
- . . . but I’m either gonna be in jail or in a tent in Crawford, waiting until that jerk comes out and tells me why my son died.
- So what really gets me is these chickenhawks, who sent our kids to die, without ever serving in a war themselves. They don’t know what it’s all about.
- 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 I know I don’t look like I’m outraged, I’m always so calm and everything, that’s because if I started hitting something, I wouldn’t stop til it was dead.
- And I’m gonna tell them, "You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who’s blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."
- And I’m gonna say, "And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for." And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy’ I’m gonna say, <expletive>.
- You’re taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren’t freer, they’re much worse off than before you meddled in their country.
- You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine
- And if you think I won’t say <expletive> to the President, I say move on, cuz I’ll say what’s on my mind.
- What can we do to get him out of power? And I’m gonna say the āIā word. Impeach. And we have to have everybody impeached that lied to the American public, and that’s the executive branch, and any people in congress, and we gotta go all the way down and we might have to go all the way down to the person who picks up the dog<expletive> in Washington because
- We can’t let somebody rise to the top who will pardon these war criminals. Because they need to go to prison for what they’ve done in this world. We can’t have a pardon. They need to pay for what they’ve done.
- And I want them to come after me, because unlike what you’ve been doing with the war resistance, I want to put this frickin’ war on trial. And I want to say, "You give me my son, and I’ll pay your taxes."
- It’s up to us, the people, to break immoral laws, and resist. As soon as the leaders of a country lie to you, they have no authority over you. These maniacs have no authority over us. And they might be able to put our bodies in prison, but they can’t put our spirits in prison.
The most charitable interpretation that one can put on this is that Mrs. Sheehan is so enraged with grief that she is no longer rational when it comes to the subject of a meeting with President Bush. One can put other readings on it, but these would involve charging Mrs. Sheehan with some degree of disingenuity and thus would be less charitable.
Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the current war in Iraq, it simply is not rational to propose in all seriousness that you and the president of the United States have the kind of meeting described in this speech.
If Mrs. Sheehan is not proposing this meeting in all seriousness then she is in some measure disingenuous. If she is proposing it in all seriousness then she is not rational.
Proceeding on the assumption that Mrs. Sheehan is a mother so grief-stricken by the death of her son that she has lost rationality in regard to this subject, what is the charitable response?
The answer, of course, depends on who you are–what relationship you have with Mrs. Sheehan. However, common to all responses should be the idea of doing NOTHING to feed Mrs. Sheehan’s rage and grief or to expose her to the human degradation of having her lapse of reason exposed in public.
To the best of one’s ability, one should encourage Mrs. Sheehan to retire to private life, in which she could best come to terms with her loss, find healing, and get on with life, efforts that would be best assisted by professional counselling.
Viewed from this perspective, it was utterly despicable for various anti-war protestors, politicians, and the news media to EXPLOIT her and her situation by egging her on and shoving cameras and microphones into her face. This cynical, exploitative response merely fed Mrs. Sheehan’s frenzy and exposed a grieving mother to further public degradation through the making of irrational demands.
One of Mrs. Sheehan’s children reportedly did appeal to her to come home to California and be with her family. (Most likely, other family members did so as well, but I have only heard one report.) This was the charitable and compassionate response and seeks to protect and preserve as much dignity as possible for Mrs. Sheehan in her grief.
Mrs. Sheehan’s tragedy was further compounded by the disintegration of her marriage (her husband filed for divorce) and her mother suffering a stroke. Following the latter, Mrs. Sheehan did return home, though she promised to return to her protest.
I hope for her own sake that she doesn’t, at least until such time as she has regained the rationality needed to make reasoned arguments for her point of view and correspondingly reasonable requests. I suspect, though, that the psychological pressures of participating in protest activities are such that, given all that has happened to her thus far, she will find the most healing if she remains in private life.
I hope those around her will be able to embrace her and love her and help her heal in the midst of a now multi-faceted human tragedy of enormous proportions.
I encourage everyone to pray for her and for those around her, that they will be able to help her get through this superhumanly difficult time.
Utah Station Rejects Anti-War Ad
With President Bush scheduled to speak at a veterans’ convention in Salt Lake City Monday, a local T
Yes, we should pray her for her. And someone should write her up as a textbook example of just how bizzare greiving behavoirs can be.
Thanks for posting on this, Jimmy. I feel the same about Cindy Sheehan as I do about watching the so-called reality TV shows; the blood-sucking MSM types profit from the personal pain, confusion and humiliation of others. I will not watch these programs.
God bless her. I hope she gets herself sorted out in the end.
Bravo, Mr.Aikins!
I had not really read the full story on this until now. With the perspective Jimmy has put on it, I am not so upset with her as I was when I first read the straight facts in the newspaper. However, both then and now I still have the same wish: that the parents of every person whom died on 9/11 would ask her to have a meeting with them so that they may discuss how they feel about what she has been doing. No doubt not all of them are in favor of the war, though from reports it seems most are, but in any case I believe that the spirit of her words (though not necessarily her heart) is far beyond the simple concept of intellectual disagreement to the point where no positive outcome of the war whatsoever would warrant a positive word. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the war, it is clear that those whom have sought to undertake it have done so with the purpose in mind of saving lives that none may be lost as on 9/11. There are several very good basis to believe that even if Al Qaeda was not involved with Iraq that the war will do this, and there are several good basis to believe that even if it was involved the war will only cost more lives. Whatever belief one holds, the words of Mrs. Sheehan fail to acknowledge the good intentions, and as previously stated in fact seem to leave no room for positive outcomes. This bothers me greatly. In some way it bothers me that Mrs. Sheehan says such things, however in a greater sense it bothers me that there are those whom have no trauma to excuse them whom state such things much more strongly. I would urge that they be prayed for as well.
Last night I viewed a documentary on ‘9/11’. It seems to me that many have forgotten these events.
We need to review this tragedy to remind ourselves why we are, where we are, today.
My prayer are with all those who have given there lives for us.
God Bless our troops and their families.
tim robles
Very well said, Mr. Aiken. I have been following the story of Mrs. Sheehan and have continued to be appalled at the media circus. (well, there’s a surprise!)
Thank you for taking a very compassionate approach.
I do wish to reiterate that Mrs. Sheehan’s son, Casey, was an adult and enlisted by his own volition. Perhaps Mrs. Sheehan will in the future realize that she is not honoring her son, or his decision to fight, by her actions.
We can’t agree with our adult children all the time. Mrs. Sheehan obviously disagreed with Casey about the war, but perhaps when more time has passed, she will be able to acknowledge her son as the true hero he was.
I will pray for Mrs. Sheehan and her family, and for the soul of her son.
And yes, Mr. Peters, grieving behaviors can be very bizarre.
“And we have to have everybody impeached that lied to the American public,”
Would that include Michael Moore?
Hmm. That’s very odd. Very odd indeed. The changes of her recolection, for instance. First she respects Bush, then…
Hmm. I would definetely agree with Mr. Akins proposed solution (okay, kinda heartless and not quite what I wanted to say, but its close enough.)
I do think, however, that the media, as has been said above, tends to manipulate or…well, I think Charlotte said it best, calling it the ‘media circus’ is despicable. I do not watch TV. I watch movies.
~Kosh
I do not watch TV. I watch movies.
Then how’d you get your pseudonym? š
Mrs. Sheehan may be many things, but an opportunist is not one of them. She was protesting the war long before her son got involved. That she is vilified as a stark raving maniac does no justice to her claims. Here’s Cindy Sheehan in her own words:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/220805hypocritesandliars.htm
I just read the link to Cindy Sheehan in her own words, and she does sound like Jimmy’s straight on. Over-the-top rhetoric, and saying ‘I was taken out of context’ without trying to show what the context really was isn’t a way to get your point across.
She admits what she’s trying to do – use emotion instead of rationality to get people mad instead of thinking.
There is a lot of harsh words coming from Mrs. Sheehan, but I think the problem is that there is no “loyal opposition” to the war in Iraq. Lightening must go somewhere even if she is not a very good lightening rod.
But let me also point out that the world is not this neat rational sphere, nor are its visible inhabitants generally able to ignore their emotions, or even shut them off, nor from my reading of what it means to be human that it would be a good thing.
We ought not to advocate promiscuity, but I’ve seen nothing saying marriage and its act should be emotionally sterile but not physically so. Apologetics often in the name of decorum tends toward a practical monotone which becomes heartless. I don’t know any feast days for the sacred brain of Jesus or the immaculate brain of Mary.
So where are the apologists for peace? Sheehan is a very bad and incompetent spokeswoman against the war, but where are the good and competent? Over at some of the libertarian sites (lewrockwell.com) there are a few traditional Catholics who occasionally comment against the war, but I doubt they are read by readers here. Maybe if someone read a crosspost at antiwar.com. The democrats seem to be avoiding the subject. The republicans want to be “team players”. Even those like Pat Buchanan seem to say we are stuck with the war so should continue it anyway.
But a more fundamental problem is that Sheehan is asking exactly the right question which is avoided by almost everyone commenting on her style (I will except the post since it was purely a comment on style – but there is still this elephant in the living room that everyone is averting their attention on…).
Her son is dead. Yes he enlisted so was put in harms way. It was not in some stateside accident but in the actual war zone where he was sent on a mission. But what exactly was bought at the price of his blood?
Not whether some greater good can come from this evil. The originally advertised reasons have proven to be exaggerations to the point of falsehood. There were no WMDs which threatened the US. No Al Queda support and thus no terrorist threat from this angle. And we are building a new sharia theocracy if reports are right which was predicted before the war was started.
It is perfectly reasonable and not even cruel to tell this grieving mother that her son died for no good purpose. But if that is the truth, why are people afraid to state it? Conversely, if he died accomplishing some magnum opus, exactly what was it? Perhaps it failed and the failure was apparent only after his death, but I remember many prophetic articles about the course of the war.
Go ahead and be completely rational, but the answer, the real unvarnished perfectly clear truth might be far more unpleasant than the emotion and counter-emotion of anger and resentment building on both sides. Better the fog of leftist anti-war vitriolic protest and rightist hyperpatriotism which labels any question as treason than to really ask what is going on. The devil can hide in such a fog.
And it may not be reasonable to expect the president to meet with a housewife, but one of the programs on CA is “From the heart”. When someone is suffering, it probably does more harm than good to quote Aquinas, or to say “offer it up” before passing on the other side of the road, or accuse Divine Providence. Most apologists I would think would attempt to defend the doctrine of redemptive suffering from a sympathetic and empathetic direction. Attempts to analyze it rationally are usually just pathetic.
Yet I think this is why Sheehan is important. Those who cannot credibly defend the war or give a purpose to her son’s death – but express faith in some abstract presidential prudential judgment may feel a pang of conscience. Something is wrong. The head has its reasons, but I think it was Augustine who said the heart has its reasons, and it may be heart speaking to heart.
But hearts can hurt, so instead of words which might actually comfort (instead of the disingenious suggestions of understanding or “I feel your pain” paraphrased), she must be portrayed as irrational and wrong and referred for “counseling”. Do we refer people in horrible pain dying of cancer to “counseling”, or is their pain and reaction to it reasonable? Or do we try to address such things as best we can – to wipe away tears and comfort the afflicted? Or blame them for smoking or eating wrong or try to find some cause or excuse for our uncharity?
Yet this is all madness. While this thread has been in existence, thousands of innocents have died in abortion clinics. We can do no more to comfort Rachel’s weeping than Cindy’s. So we don’t want to think about the genocide in our midst. Why? We don’t seem to want to talk about a war which is a small thing by comparison. Are we now all Stalin where a million deaths are just a statistic but warranting a tract around election time?
Maybe America, including conservative Catholic America has lost any sense of pity. Yet it would mean we would be the ones who should be pitied.
If one wished to defend the war rationally it would be very easy to do so. (Similarly, if one wished to protest the war rationally it would be easy to do so.) The best answer, if you want reason, is this (which comes from an ex-CIA operative who knows how people think over in the White House):
Most nations in the ME have been harboring terroists for years. The US has been telling them to cut it out, but they won’t listen. It would be very difficult for the US to go over there and do to every one of these nations what it did to Afghanistan. Also, it had become exceedingly apparent since 1992 years that the US (and the rest of the world) was all bark and no bite when it came to Iraq. This is partly why the nations harboring terrorists continued to do so: they had no reason to fear. Iraq was invaded therefore for the purpose of providing a large example, not only to show what the US could do to a powerful nation (relative to the area), but also to show that the past decade of pacifism was over. The intent was to scare thew other countries into compliance. You’d never know it from watching NBC or reading the NYT, but in fact it’s worked resoundingly well (while there is still a long ways to go). It is also the goal of the US to fight the bigger war that must be won if we are to survive: the war of ideas. In creating a democratic nation smack in the middle of the ME, the leadership hopes to accomplish 4 things: 1) create an example of the prosperity a ME nation can earn by embracing democracy so as that others may follow suit, 2) create a democratic Muslim nation which will teach tolerance and peace, hoping that this ideology will spread through the Muslim world (on the wings of democracy of course), 3) create an ally of a Muslim nation to showcase to the Muslim world that the US does not have problems with Islam, and 4) create an ally right in the middle of the pack to make others think twice before going after the country. These goals are truly the ones which will save us in the end.
It isn’t my goal to preach, and of course there are other very reasonable “defenses” for the war. My only intention is to show that rationality can be a friend of the Bush administration, contrary to popular belief.
Personally, I think the Iraq War is another *classic example* where Catholic traditionalists have been proven right once again.
If you want more on Catholic traditionalists and conservatives who rightfully rejected Bush’s war, you can go here:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_08_29/article.html
BTW, tz, I read Lew Rockwell all the time. Great stuff.
– El Generalissimo
Mrs. Sheehan may be many things, but an opportunist is not one of them. She was protesting the war long before her son got involved.
That’s exactly what inspires the charges of opportunism. For one thing, she didn’t admit that. She claimed to be solely a grieving mother. It is not her opposing the war that is called opportunistic, but her using her son’s death as she is.
For some time a popular cliche of the peacenicks has been “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”
A fair response might be “What if they gave a war and only one side showed up?”… and the answer is… 9-11!
What many on the left fail miserably to realize is that we have been at war with the Islamofascists since the seventies, only we didn’t show up most of the time. You may be interested in peace, but your enemies (and they ARE your enemies as much as anyone’s) are not. They are hell-bent on either enslaving you or killing you and enslaving your children. I am not talking about all Muslims, but the smaller number of fascists among them. The problem is not Islam, but (once again) fascism.
Anyone who doesn’t see that is whistling in the dark, IMHO.
And since when is it “supporting the troops” to denigrate everything they are fighting for? I think I would rather be shot at than be demoralized by my own countrymen(-women).
So often we fight the last war. In trying to defend the honor of soldiers that have died in this war against the backdrop of our treatment of soldiers returning home from Vietnam, is it necessary for us to denigrate a grieving mother who lost a soldier in this war and yet does not support this war? She has sacrificed her own flesh and blood. This is not some abstraction. This is real loss for a cause that those who condemn her support. Instead of making her a political football, be it the left for its purposes or the right for thiers, she should be honored like every other person that has lost a loved one. The wall in D.C. has countless men whose mothers and relatives probably didn’t support that war. But we don’t decide to honor people for their political views, we honor them for their sacrifice. We recognize that more often than not that strangers bear the burdens for policies, rightly or wrongly. War is not something that bears on everyone equally, but on a select few gravely.
Man, why are so many ppl here in favor of the Iraq war? Both JPII and BXVI spoke so well against it.
is it necessary for us to denigrate a grieving mother who lost a soldier in this war and yet does not support this war? She has sacrificed her own flesh and blood.
Does it entitle her to lacerate the feelings of those who also sacrificed their own flesh and blood?
Mary, absolutely, completely, and totally, right on.
Why so much focus on the behavior of this one woman? Yes, she’s annoying, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Iraq war was still wrong and against Catholic teaching.
Instead of making her a political football,
I’m sorry, but Mrs. Sheehan has made *herself* a political football. She has planted herself on the 50 yard line and attached a note to herself that says “Punt me.”
She either did this out of irrational grief or out of cynical calculation or some mixture of both.
(And if it’s cynical calculation then she is a *monster* of a mother for exploiting her son’s death in this fashion, contrary to his own wishes as a supporter of the War on Terror who re-enlisted and volunteered for the mission on which he was killed.)
I am recommending that we take the charitable interpretation (i.e., that she is irrational with grief) and *refuse* to treat her as a political football, despite her clear desire that we do so.
I am glad that she is off the field at the moment, and I hope that she stays off the field for her own sake.
It is inconsistent with human dignity to treat grieving parents as political footballs, no matter how much they may want us to.
And, assuming she’s irrational, we should consider what she would feel about her own actions if she regained her balance.
Mary: Again, *exactly* right.
The situation is like that of Noah’s sons when they found him drunk and naked. One gossipped about it (or worse) and thus exploited the situation. The other two put a blanket over their father without looking at him.
When Noah became rational again, it was clear which sons he felt honored his dignity when he was not in his right mind: the ones who sought to preserve their father’s dignity even when he himself was not trying to.
I whole-heartedly agree with you Jimmy. She has invited criticism by her words. Human compassion necessitates restraint. BTW, if I had a stong disagreement with your rendering, I would have posted long ago. To your credit, you are very deliberate and nuanced in what you say.
Mary
Does it entitle her to lacerate the feelings of those who also sacrificed their own flesh and blood?
Entitlement, no. We are supposed to grant wide lattitude to those grieving though. Her arguments are hardly unique, and a grieving mother doesn’t seem like the best opponent to argue. It shows an utter lack of concern for the bereaved. I’m not claiming you have to agree with her. Sometimes nothing said is the best thing said though.
The problem is, that we can not “say nothing” because those who want the immediate pull-out have no shame about exploiting this hoorah and actively encouraging her to grow less rational.
(Benedict XVI observed that the question of whether the war was just is moot. It’s like regarding as the most important thing about a baby, the question of whether the baby’s legitimate. His analogy.)
Furthermore, one may give latitude to the grieving, but one also tries to restrain them from doing things they regret. And the “Cindy Sheenan doesn’t speak for me” people are also entitled to latitude.
If I were to die at the hands of some overzealous security guard while protesting at an abortion mill, then I would hope that people would use my martyrdom as a rallying point against abortion.
If I were to die fighting a war that I enlisted to fight, I would hope that no one would be so dishonorable as to use my martyrdom as a rallying point against what I set out to die for in the first place because that would dishonor my memory, my honor, and my sacrifice.
You can disagree about the war all you want but one aspect in which this is not at all similar to Vietnam is that soldiers are not leaving to the military to join the ranks of the peace protesters. They are tired and they gripe (that whole thing about war being Hell) but the vast majority of the war fighters I have met involved in this operation agree that something good is being accomplished over there.
The only point where they differ is whether or not the Iraqi people deserve or will appreciate the good won by their sacrifice in the end. This is hardly a condemnation of the achievements won thus far.
You want to see a brighter side to the war? Read magazines like Soldier of Fortune which show Iraqi citizens enjoying their democracy and prints true personal accounts of soldiers in love with the people and their culture. Then read the numerous letters to the editor from dumbfounded soldiers who cannot understand why the mainstream media refuses to print the whole story.
How can the same liberal Catholics who stand by the “right” of “Catholic” politicians to refuse to take a stance against abortion (despite the fact that it is objectively evil) demand that a Protestant president obey, to the letter, SENTIMENTS of popes who have not invoked papal infallibility? If it were any other matter of concern to the Church (ie, abortion, chastity, etc), the same people would go nuts at the thought of the president playing the part of the obedient Catholic.
The popes may not have whole-heartedly endorsed the war, but they have not ventured so far as to label it objectively evil. They have, however, come out very strongly against terrorism.
Add to this the fact that some of the best, most devout, and most orthodox Catholics I have ever met were soldiers in this conflict and you get a less “monotone” view of this conflict. I wish I could amount to half the man of those who, despite their personal reservations, obeyed their commander to fight in a war for our freedom and safety.
There are those who, by the nature of their faith, can only condemn war. Followers of pacifist religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Quakers enjoy a freedom of religion purchased by the blood of the meek. At best, they can claim to love the warrior but hate the war. In the end, though, this rings false because were it not for the conflicts won over the centuries they would have no such luxury.
So they sneer at the ones caught in the muck of blood, fire, and anger as simpleton cavemen incapable of “elevating” themselves to the level of the exalted pacifist. This is the exploitation of the humble by those too proud to fight. In my book, it ranks up there with the exploitation of the weak by imperialist governments, heartless corporations, or slave owners.
It is easy to explain what it is like to fight for Americans. It is like those Marvel mutant superheroes who, upon vanquishing the villain, are immediately set upon by a fearful and ungrateful mass of self-righteous “normal” people. Yeah, it is exactly like that.
Just remember, your freedom to criticize is won by everyday by their continual sacrifice. War is Hell. War for the sake of people like Inquisitor General is even worse.
“Just remember, your freedom to criticize is won by everyday by their continual sacrifice. War is Hell. War for the sake of people like Inquisitor General is even worse.”
That comment is entirely unjustified. I’m no liberal pacifist, and I have absolutely *nothing* against American soldiers. And you won’t find a single word from me indicating otherwise.