Anti-War Mom Cindy Sheehan Gives Up Her Protest

11 Responses to “Anti-War Mom Cindy Sheehan Gives Up Her Protest”

1. Andrew Brehm on May 29th, 2007 11:07 am

   “I feel bad for her. She’s been through a lot.”

   No, she hasn’t. Her son has. He died for Iraq’s freedom. She was too busy to destroy what her son was fighting for to “be through a lot”.

   She never acknowledged that Saddam’s victims also had mothers and that many many mothers lost their sons in Iraq before the invasion, at a much higher rate than now that Saddam’s thugs and their allies are much weaker.

   She thought that her pain is more important than her son’s, greater than the Iraqis’, and more worthy of airtime on television networks than the history of the Kurds under Saddam.

   She lost her son, but she also didn’t care for what he fought for, and what he died for. She invested much time and effort into making it clear that she thought that Iraqi lives are not worth American lives. And she made the lives of other fallen soldiers’ mothers so much harder in doing so.

   She neglected her family in their time of greatest need, she made a human tragedy into a media spectacle, and she kept pretending, even though it was possible for to know otherwise, that Iraq was perfectly fine until the invasion, like most left-wingers did and do.

   I have no sympathy for her. She made a conscious decision to destroy what he son believed in. That is the worst thing a mother can do for her dead son. She abandoned her son, his memory, and his father. She failed as a mother and a wife.

   I feel sorry for her son’s father. He went through a lot. I am thankful to her son, because I grew up in a country that was also liberated by Americans willing to risk their lives for other people’s freedom. I never met the soldiers who died for me, and I never met Sheehan’s son. But if I had, I would have thanked him for his great effort; but I wouldn’t have thanked her. If people like her had been as powerful in the 1940s as they are now, my family, like millions, would not exist any more, most likely.

   And the same applies to many Shi’ites and Kurds in Iraq today. We have Sheehan’s son to thank for the fact that Iraq is now safe enough for journalists to survive telling us the bad things.

   If the mass media had given as much airtime to survivors of the Ba’ath Holocaust against Shi’ites and Kurds, the American public would have been much clearer in their support for the army, and the terrorists would know that they don’t have a chance.

   But the media spectacle was worth so much more than Iraqi lives. Cindy Sheehan gave hope to the terrorists, to the murderers and supporters of the old regime that killed hundreds of thousands of people (who had mothers).

   Nobody can look at pictures of the mass graves in Iraq and the torture labs in Kurdistan and thank Cindy Sheehan for her efforts to “stop the war” that removed the man responsible for it. Nobody. At least I hope so.

2. Andrew Brehm on May 29th, 2007 11:13 am

   There is also nothing “anti-war” about choosing sides between America and the terrorists.

   Sunni and Shia extremists have been fighting each other before and after Saddam and even more so under Saddam. The war will not end with an American withdrawal. It will just go back to its old glory and produce more mass graves and greater chaos, and perhaps a few million dead Iranians again.

   If anything giving the terrorists hope that they can win will extend the war. Cindy’s position is most notably “pro-war”. She pursued a strategy that will make the war longer and more brutal. There is nothing “anti-war” about it.

   You might say that she _wanted_ to be “anti-war”, but then few people are “pro-war”. George Bush would love to see the war end. In fact the invasion was supposed to end the threat of a greater war. The only people who profit from a longer and more violent war are the terrorists and left-wing professional protesters.

3. Roman Kalik on May 29th, 2007 12:13 pm

   I may feel sympathy to her due to her loss, but her way of handling it was ego-driven. It wasn’t about her son, it was about her, her, her.

   What sypathy I have for her due to the painful period she went through is swiftly balanced out by her sensationalism, and her empty slogans. She blames politicians not for not caring, but for not doing things her way.

4. Drima on May 30th, 2007 2:15 am

   Andrew, I understand what you have said but I still feel bad for her. I feel that way due to the loss of her son. As for the way she reacted, she went way overboard. It wasn’t a normal reaction. And to say that her son died for nothing is appalling. That’s where the need for some serious psychotherapy comes in.

5. Not Your Mama on May 30th, 2007 3:58 am

   I was lucky, my children came home but even if they had not I would not have done what Sheehan did because she was naive. A very good-hearted, well-meaning person but extremely idealistic and naive and the “movement” used her to further their own agenda. Causes & crusades don’t care anything about individuals. If that makes her a target for some people’s ire it says more about them than it does about her.

   She really believed she could help stop the course we were on and she put everything she had into doing it. I wouldn’t because I think at least half of humans are fools and I have no intention of sacrificing my all in a futile attempt to save fools from themselves. I’m not even overly concerned about our troops at this point because guess what….at this point in time just about everyone who was opposed to this action is already out of the military. The ones in there now are pretty much the hard-core believers or ex-cons who got a chance to clear their records if they signed up.

   The only people I’m sorry for now are the Iraqis who’ve cooperated with us who will be left behind and those who do not have the means to get out.

6. Andrew Brehm on May 30th, 2007 8:23 am

   “The only people I’m sorry for now are the Iraqis who’ve cooperated with us who will be left behind and those who do not have the means to get out.”

   Don’t feel sorry for them, help them.

   America should stay. Let the terrorists go away.

7. The Raccoon on May 30th, 2007 9:30 am

   I am not sure whether she’s a monster or a moron. I presume the latter, given her psychotic, media attention-grabbing histrionics.

   Either way, it’s a good thing that she’ll stop publicly supporting dictators, terrorists and other monsters… and vilifying those who oppose them.

   And absolutely OT… a few days ago or so, you had a post about blogs you found and liked, Drima. One of them was by a guy name Field Negro (or something like that). I claimed he’s a racist, of the ilk of Stormfront; you disagreed.

   Well, I thought about it and came up with what I think is a good example of the man’s blatant racism. Let’s take this post, for instance. And now translate it into a white racist terminology rather than black racist terminology:

   “So I am walking around and suddenly hear some Prussian Blue tunes. And guess what - I look and it’s a goddamn NIGGER playing them! And the motherfucking porch monkey looks at me like we have something together, as if by listening to OUR music he stops being a fucking coon! Well, fuck him, I though - no matter what he listens to, he’s still just an upstart cotton-picking nigger slave who doesn’t know his place”.

   If it was written like this, I have no doubt it would have been dubbed “racist” without anyone objecting to the definition. Especially if he had, say, a side column dubbed “nigger lovers”.

   What do you think?

8. The Raccoon on May 30th, 2007 10:03 am

   Did the long post I just wrote got deleted or what?

9. Roman Kalik on May 31st, 2007 5:12 am

   Having read the post Raccoon linked to, I have to agree with him. The post is racist. Field Negro basically said that Whitey pollutes Pure Black Music by listening to it, and that he shouldn’t that listening to said music will stop him being anything more than just a Whitey.

   Oh, and in the middle he bashed record companies for selling to Whitey, though to a lesser degree.

10. Drima on May 31st, 2007 2:19 pm

    Thanks for going off-topic Raccoon.

    Frankly speaking it took me a while to think about your comment and respond to it.

    When I went through the guy’s blog, I didn’t get the impression he was a racist. But I did think he displayed the victimhood mentality.

    While reading, I mainly focused on this post (Lookism), because I liked how he was conveying his thoughts, and not the one you linked to above. I didn’t like that one, not because I thought it was racist but because it seemed like he was excusing the bullshit aspects of gangsta hip hop culture and at the same time pointing his finger at the wrong direction instead of the rappers themselves.

    To simply call him racist based on the post you linked to would be simplistic. It’s more complicated than that. Allow me to tell you a short story to make my point. Consider it a “black perspective” from me on the issue.

    A few months ago I was at an Akon concert here. After it finished, the crowd started shouting “we want more”. It was cool. Then a group of Indian guys dressed up in hop hop clothing started shouting “NIGGA we want more”. Suddenly it wasn’t so cool. I felt quite uncomfortable and so did the few other Africans standing nearby. Then I took a deep breath and after a short moment, I was fine with it. After all I can’t be mad at them for being confused.

    I won’t blame them for using the term “nigga”. I blame rappers who have popularized it and who use it freely without realizing the consequences. The same hypocrite rappers who love it when money flows in from all the purchases people (including white ones) make. Ironically they don’t mind money flowing in from those white customers but they do mind it when those same people sing along with their songs and utter the “N” word.

    I’ve been in situations where strangers, Chinese, Malay or Indian hip hop fanatics come up to me in a shopping mall and say “what’s up my nigger?” thinking it’s “cool”. It’s as if they can’t believe they just met a black guy and are so happily excited (this used to be a few years ago when very few Africans were around here). My initial reaction is to explode but I never got mad at them. I just kept my cool and explained to them that the term “nigger” is an insult and what they meant to say was “nigga”. They understood.

    Then I’d explain to them that only black people could say “nigga” to each other and that if a non-black person said “nigga” to a black person it would be insulting as it would be deemed racist. They didn’t understand and they asked why only blacks could say it to each other. I didn’t know how to explain it properly and just told them that it’s just like that.

    Truth is, I seriously despise the bullshit state of not all but *much* of today’s mainstream hip hop music since it’s mostly nothing but garbage about hoes, bitches with big titties, money, cars, getting high, being a gangsta, guns, cars and of course the term nigga being used a lot.

    I don’t like it when rappers use the term “nigga” and rap about all those dumb things when they could be rapping about something constructive instead of reinforcing negative aspects and degrading women as if they’re toys. The thing however is that I’ve learnt to filter out the lyrics and listen to the beats. I admit I LOVE the beats. But overall I’m not an avid hip hop listener (Akon’s ticket was free, his beats are cool and my friends bugged me to go with them). I listen more to rock, house, electro and blues. The only hip hop I truly love is that with actual intellectual content. There’s lots of it around but it’s sadly not really in the mainstream. K-OS, Common and Lupe Fiasco are some of the good rappers out there. As for ones like Snoop Dogg and 50cent, I
    despise what they stand for and the ignorant bullshit they help spread with most of their filthy lyics. As I said I like the beats but not necessarily the lyrics that accompany them.

    Anyways… when Sudanese or African hip hop fanatics use the term “nigga” in their conversation with me, I’m patient with it initially. If they continue and it becomes too much, I just tell them straight up not to address me with it. I find it annoying and it also continues adding to the confusion of well-meaning but ignorant non-blacks who hear it and then use it without knowing the so called “rules” behind using it.

    If non-blacks addressed me with the term “nigga” and I know their intentions are sincere then I’m also patient and simply request that they don’t address me with it. If I suspect their intentions not to be sincere then I’m usually a lot less patient and I make sure they damn well know immediately not to address me with the term.

    I rambled too much so let me conclude. All in all, I think Field Negro’s post displays a mixture of racism, hypocrisy and victimhood. I didn’t notice the racism element until you rephrased the paragraph the way you did. But I still don’t think his post is purely racist. To me, the latter 2 elements stick out bigger.

    Raccoon, this isn’t really about racism as much as it is about the complexity surrounding the use of the term “nigga”.

    I wonder how he would have reacted if a Mexican or dark skinned Indian kid was listening to it.

11. Roman Kalik on May 31st, 2007 3:40 pm

    Then I’d explain to them that only black people could say “nigga” to each other and that if a non-black person said “nigga” to a black person it would be insulting as it would be deemed racist. They didn’t understand and they asked why only blacks could say it to each other. I didn’t know how to explain it properly and just told them that it’s just like that.

    It would have been simpler to explain it if it was a matter of self-humor. Unfortunately, “nigga” means, from my personal deductions, something along the lines of “brother in victimhood”. Now that’s not easy to explain, because… well… it’s not sensible.

Leave a Reply