A slight detour from my usual ramblings...I couldn't shake the story of Cindy Sheehan, the woman who has posted herself outside the president's vacation home, demanding that he meet with her to explain why her 24-year-old son, Casey, had to die in Iraq. She's not going to move from that searing heat until she tells the president, face-to-face, why the troops must come home now. I clipped the story and have reread it several times.
It's not just what the article tells us about the pain she and thousands of other parents must feel, American and Iraqi, because of this insane war. Parents, it is often said, should never have to bury their children.
It's the amazing story she tells of how Bush behaves with families of soldiers killed in Iraq. In 2004, Sheehan and her family met Bush at For Lewis. According to The New York Times, the president "acted as if he were at a party and behaved disrespectfully toward her by referring to her as 'Mom' thoughout the meeting." Bush didn't even know her son's name.
Sheehen suggested that Bush think about what it would be like to send his two daughters to war. The Times' report recounts this exchange: "I said, 'Trust me, you don't want to go there,' Ms. Sheehan said, recounting her exchange with the president. "He said, 'You're right, I don't.' I said, 'Well, thanks for putting me there."
Of course, Bush doesn't want to go there. It's easy to run a war from far away, make bellicose statements and send people to die if you don't have to feel the pain personally. And not only not feel the pain but preside over an economic party for your friends--tax cuts for the rich in a time of war. Hide the coffins of the dead coming home...and no one feels the pain...except those families who have to bury the dead.
And we should also remember the names of those who have been killed. Here's the official list of those killed in the war.
I'm not surprised by the behavior--underneath the imagery put out by his political machine, I always smell a snide frat boy which comes creeping through that smirk in those uncontrolled moments--but what was amazing is that the story broke through into the mainstream media.
So, my suggestion is this: keep the story alive by suggesting that, if this war is so noble a cause and worth the sacrifice of the lives of so many young people in the "war against terror," the president should send his twins, Jenna and Barbara, to the frontlines. And maybe they can be accompanied by other children and grandchildren of the other "chicken hawks", starting with the relatives of the vice-president (who had "other priorities" when he was eligible for military service).
Here's an interview with Sheehen.
On top of the lies, half truths and out and out bullshit excuses for us being in Iraq, there is one statement this little weasle should never be allowed to forget...anyone guess what it was?
If i were a parent of a soldier who was killed or wounded over there after the crap dribbled from his lips, i'd be wanting to give him more than a piece of my mind.
Bush should be thanking God for the ability to hide behind the mantle of patriotism. It is the one thing keeping the families from wanting justice for what he has wrought on them.
Posted by: Bill Pearson | August 09, 2005 at 09:46 AM
We should all be supporting Chuck Rangel's (D-NY)idea to reinstate the draft. Think we would have gone to Iraq without questioning the plans and motives if the congresspeople's children were in the armed services?
Posted by: Ray | August 09, 2005 at 10:03 AM
Ray, I would think that Congresspeople and other officials in the Administration (and this includes Democrats and Republicans) would certainly find a way to keep their kids at home with deferments and other avenues available to the rich and powerful. The draft certainly is not the answer to the problem. I don't know the answer to how to prevent wars, but certainly don't think the draft would make any politician think twice about voting in favor of going to war.
Posted by: Kevin F Droste | August 09, 2005 at 11:11 AM
Anti-war activists need to focus on organizing among soldiers, veterans and their families. There are many, many potential Cindy Sheehans out there, and one of her is worth 10,000 marchers at an anti-war rally.
Posted by: jw mason | August 09, 2005 at 11:22 AM
Rangel's proposal, while starting down the right path, does little to address the disproportionate number of poor that die to wage the wars of the rich. As the original post says, Cheney was able to avoid Vietnam through several deferments. Those same deferments exist in Rangel's bill.
If I could propose a bill I would make it law that when a president declares war he himself must commit hara-kiri. It'd make these bastards think twice before sending our sons and daughters to die. Of course, this would just mean we'd fight more covert wars and have more "police actions".
Posted by: Carson Evans | August 09, 2005 at 11:25 AM
Draft Young Republicans! Check out Operation Yellow Elephant!
http://www.operationyellowelephant.com/
-
Posted by: Karl Olson | August 09, 2005 at 06:03 PM
Jonathan,
This "send the twins" meme is one of the cruelest, most illogical ideas the left has produced, while other arguments exposing the thin and blurry rationales for the war, and its disastrous effects, gather dust on the shelves. So please consider: President Bush is the parent of two adult daughters; he cannot "send" them against their will unless he institutes a draft that would apply to everyone else as well. Further, the war is not their fault, and the disregard of their lives implied by this line of attack is disgraceful. Cindy Sheehan and others in her cohort have every right to keep their lost family members' memory and courage alive and to publicize their loss and anger, but that's a separate point. Finally, some powerful conservatives, including Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, have (or have had) one or more children fighting in Iraq. Does this fact make the war any less wrong, any less violent, any less counterproductive?
Posted by: Jim | August 10, 2005 at 04:12 PM
It's important for the left to have a little sense of humor and understand irony. But, I would point out that the fighting is being done almost entirely by those not of the priveleged class.
Posted by: Tasini | August 10, 2005 at 04:45 PM
Jim, of course Bush cannot "send" the twins against their will. Nobody is literally telling him to do that. But has he asked them to go, as he has asked others' sons and daughters to go? I'm guessing he hasn't, but I would like to see the question put to him. On TV, preferably.
Did he raise his daughters to put their country above themselves and volunteer in its time of need? Apparently not. Either that or they don't believe in the war themselves. They are adults and they did campaign for him, so they are fair game.
As to the draft, Kevin, to say that it would be full of deferments is no argument against it. Like Ray, you are creating a flaw in order to attack the proposal.
If we need more troops, then we should have a draft with extremely limited deferments for health, conscientious objection and perhaps sole support. If things proceed the way they are, that may become a more viable proposition than a draft full of deferments. Bitterness about this aspect of Vietnam is still fairly widespread.
Posted by: Rich | August 12, 2005 at 06:36 PM
I disagree with you COMPLETELY that if we need more troops that we should have a draft. Why should anyone be forced to kill someone else? I think this is really where we differ in theory. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO BE PART OF THE MILITARY IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE!!! If the powers that be can give a viable reason for a war, you won't need a draft, people will be flocking to the MEPS for a chance to get involved. The problem with this war is that no one can give enough people a valid reason for why we are doing it. I know that if a draft is instituted for this war, I'll be moving to my house in another country because I have no dog in this fight.
Posted by: Kevin F Droste | August 13, 2005 at 11:34 AM
Why wait? Move now and do us all a favor.
Posted by: Mike | August 27, 2005 at 12:16 AM
So if the Prez "asked" his daughters to go it would make everything all right? Just like Clinton "asked" Chelsea to man a M-1 Abrams into Somalia?
Posted by: rtl | August 29, 2005 at 10:50 AM
Jenna and her sister - did not voluntarily sign up for the military. This is the cheesiest argument ever, and its flagrantly disingenuous. Its like saying, why didnt Chelsea Clinton enlist in the Marines when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia ? I guess Bosnia was an unjust war as well ?
What is this nonsense that a war is only legitimate if the president sends his sons and daughters to fight ? When did this become the standard for military legitimacy ? Was our involvement in WWII illegitimate because the president didnt send his dog ?
So stupid, so sickening. Its obvious that youd rather see Iraq turned into Afghanistan Part II, and have millions of Iraqis slaughtered after we leave prematurely, than to give Bush the credit he deserves - and have to admit he was right all along.
BTW - Who made you the self - appointed voice for the military ? You dont speak for them - by and large, they *want* to finish the job.
Who are you to tell them they have to come home ?
Posted by: TS | December 20, 2005 at 05:40 PM