It's like Mardi Gras meets the bombing of Dresden...
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
A Navy Seal weighs in on Cindy Sheehan
While randomly going from bloglink to bloglink starting here, I ended up at froggyruminations- a blog authored by a navy seal (I think). Apparently, he takes a break from ripping terrorists' faces off every once in a while to write something like this. I'll quote extensively-
"Although military recruiting has clearly suffered over the past year as a result of the unrelenting propaganda campaign against the Iraq War by the MSM, reenlistments by deployed troops have never been so robust. I don't think that Selective Reenlistment Bonus’ can explain this “phenomenon” since most of the troops that are re-upping are not eligible for them. I do not know what Casey Sheehan’s reason was for reenlisting, but since he was certain that he would be deploying to Iraq it seems reasonable to assume that the instinct to fight for his Nation was something that Casey felt deeply. That he answered his Nation’s call to service with the sacrifice of his life indicates to me that he is worthy of honor and gratitude from his fellow citizens and especially his family.

For that reason, I believe that his mother’s very public effort to steal his honor is one of the most despicable acts that can be perpetrated by a family member of the fallen. Nothing would bring me greater shame than to know that my own mother was using the willful sacrifice of my very life as an opportunity to garner public attention for the belief that my life was wasted. I am utterly disgusted by a woman, her loss notwithstanding that would allow her son’s enemies and those of the Nation he died to defend to profit from his death. Her self centered actions have created what amounts to a pack of hungry hyenas fighting over the corpse of her fallen son. The honor and respect that Casey is entitled to is being torn apart by the likes of Moveon.org, Michael Moore, Code Pink, the Kossacks, and the MSM anti-war establishment for the whole world to see.

Casey, as a brother warrior, I bid you rest and pray that you have not seen what your mother has wrought. RIP."
Since the left has postured Cindy Sheehan's views as especially relevant because of her position as the mother of a fallen soldier- "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." (Maureen Dowd)- clearly showing their willingness to exploit the military for political gain. I don't want this to seem like I'm playing the "dems hate the military card" but I think it is valid in this case. How else could you ignore the "moral authority" of those who give their life for a cause they believe in?

10 Comments:

Blogger CharlesPeirce said...

First of all, "giving your life for a cause you believe in" BY ITSELF is meaningless. We don't honor Nazis who gave their lives struggling against the Jews, so unless the CAUSE is noble, the intention by itself is relatively meaningless. Right? The trick is when the cause (like Iraq) gets murky.

Thus, giving your life to fight in Iraq is NOT (as only a few wing-nuts think) like being a Nazi. I don't know what it's like. If you go to Iraq to kill Arabs, and are killed, that's not noble; if you go to Iraq to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, and are killed, then that's noble. So it's a little bit more complicated than everyone makes it out to be, and the nobility of the sacrifice depends on your intentions.

The problem I have is that the soldiers in Iraq, whatever they're doing, are not dying to defend us from Iraqis, EVEN IF they're dying to defend us from terrorists (which I don't think is the case but am willing to grant for the sake of the argument.)

It's cute that this SEAL portrays himself as the rebel freedom fighter against the so-called "anti-war establishment," but we have hawks in the White House, hawks in the Senate and hawks in the mass media. There's nothing radical or rebellious about him. The "establishment" went to war with my tax dollars and without my consent.

As for Mrs. Sheehan, I have no idea what she's doing. The media's not playing up the story to make some sort of anti-war statement--the media is playing up the story because IT'S NEWS. Does anyone get that?

Now, read my blog...

http://pragmaticism.blogspot.com

...to see me rip apart Maureen Dowd's column from the left.

12:30 PM  
Blogger Justin said...

Cindy Sheehan isn't news. What she says is political grandstanding, I'll quote- "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial." It's total, non-sensical gibberish, which in no way should qualify as news.

It's obvious Bush didn't kill her son directly, furthermore, her son RE-ENLISTED to go back to Iraq, which absolutely destroys her entire position.

This entire thing is obviously staged or supported by a dedicated group of anti-war, anti-Bush individuals. Just look at her demands -"I just want to meet Bush face to face"- does she have anything to say to Bush that he isn't already aware of or anything that will change his position? The fact that she is squatting in his ditch with a bunch of hippies demonstrates what she wants to say pretty clearly. Plus- she already met with Bush back in 2004 and didn't mention any of this.

CharlesPierce- I read your blog. I know you don't agree with the Maureen Dowd's of the left. I know you don't believe our being in Iraq is justified. (I do) I know you think the MSM is perfectly objective. I don't. I think the complete lack of reporting that mentions any of the positive aspects found in a majority of the blogs from people based in Iraq, soldiers, or Iraqis is revealing of the motives of the MSM regarding the war. For example, it seems like every interview with a soldier in Iraq contains some permutation of "I think it's hard for Americans to get up every day and turn on the news and see the horrible things that are going on here, because there's no focus on the good things that go on. What they see is another car bomb went off." (Army Capt. Christopher Vick)

My point, however, isn't any of those- it's that I thought the opinion of genuine soldier was probably closer to the opinion of her son and that his answer is indicitative of the opinion of the majority of those who fight.

1:22 PM  
Blogger Justin said...

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/guests/s_363156.html
and
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007113

1:30 PM  
Blogger E.A.P said...

Hey, Jackscolon, I've been keeping up occasionally with your blog through Pragmaticism and redhurt machine. I found something that might add to the discussion here.

I occasionally hit up Wonkette for some interesting comments and gossipy tidbits about politicians and the DC area. I think the author has a more liberal political stance than I and (though I'm not a huge fan of Bush) she has can be very cutting with respect to him. Still, I agree with what she had to say a couple of days ago about this whole issue:

"Over at The Corner, Kate O'Beirne finally suggests what we suppose is inevitable, that anti-war grieving mother Cindy Sheehan should be countered with pro-war grieving mothers: 'Surely a fair number of such family members are in Texas? Let's hear from them. . .'

"Is that what the debate has come to? Which side can corral the saddest crop of widows, parents, and orphans? Call it a harms race. Better: an ache-off. We hope the grimly absurd image of two competing camps of mourners illustrates why it is we've been somewhat reluctant to weigh in on Sheehan's cause: Grief can pull a person in any direction, and whatever 'moral authority' it imbues, we can't claim that Sheehan has it and those mothers who still support the war don't. The Bush administration knows all about exploiting tragedy for its own causes, including re-election. Whatever arguments there are against the war in Iraq, let's not make 'I have more despairing mothers on my side' one of them. The only way to win a grief contest is for more people to die."

That line about not being able to say Sheehan has moral authority and her opposing side doesn't - that's what did it for me. Your thoughts, lads?

1:51 PM  
Blogger CharlesPeirce said...

A couple things.

jackscolon:

"You think the MSM is perfectly objective."

I've never said that, and that's absolutely false. They're not objective--it's a cacophony of axes being ground. The MSM is banal, trite, hackneyed, corporate, splashy, and sensational.

What I HAVE said is that the MSM as a WHOLE lacks a liberal bias. Lacking a liberal bias does not make you objective. I've also said that there are plenty of people in the MSM who have liberal biases and who should get rid of them and write something with substance. But that still doesn't mean the MSM itself is liberally biased.

So that's all for that.

"I thought the opinion of a genuine soldier was probably closer to the opinion of her son and that his answer is indicitative of the opinion of the majority of those who fight."

That's absolutely true, and a good point. You could say that whatever Ms. Sheehan is doing, her son might not agree with her. I'm fine with that.

"Cindy Sheehan isn't news."

By virtue of the fact that she's on the news all the time, she's news. Face it. You're blogging about her and she's not news?

"This entire thing is obviously staged or supported by a dedicated group of anti-war, anti-Bush individuals."

That's certainly possible--you'll note that most of my comment didn't deal with the mother or her protest.

Here's my question for you. If for some reason we KNEW for certain the war was bogus, what then would you have us do? You once said that you didn't think the US ever undertook an unjustified military action. What if they did? What would you have us do--roll over and accept it like spineless weasel Democratic politicians?

eap: thanks for your thoughts. Again, I don't know that I have any specific answers about this issue. The moral authority line (with which I do not agree) originally came from Maureen Dowd (with whom I do not agree.)

2:48 PM  
Blogger CharlesPeirce said...

You know, one of the reasons I blog is to be in the fray--to find out what other people think and why they draw the conclusions they do. I'm seriously torn about this war. I want the Iraqi people to rise up and be free and I don't want any more American soldiers to die. But I'm convinced that Bush and the war machine shoved this down our throats, and I will not be lied to by the president. So I am totally open to suggestions. You tell me how I can support the soldiers, ignore the useless MSM, question the president, take the good with the bad from Iraq, and pressure Democrats to actually have consistent and viable views on things. It's difficult being a liberal these days.

2:59 PM  
Blogger CharlesPeirce said...

BTW, who is danmerica industries and how is he worthy to be linked to in the same place as pragmaticism and the redhurtmachine?

3:38 PM  
Blogger Justin said...

CharlesPierce- Sorry for misunderstanding your opinion on the MSM.

I think you know what I meant in that she isn't "news". Besides, very few of the posts on my blog are focused on anything newsworthy...

Now your question:
"If for some reason we KNEW for certain the war was bogus, what then would you have us do? You once said that you didn't think the US ever undertook an unjustified military action. What if they did? What would you have us do--roll over and accept it like spineless weasel Democratic politicians?"

All I know is that in this specific case- whether or not the war is just- we need to stay until we accomplish our goal. I don't think past mistakes should necessitate the deaths of a bunch of freedom loving Iraqis at the hands of the enemy. We already screwed a bunch of them in the first Gulf War when they revolted and we didn't support them, and we can't make that mistake again.

Now if the circumstances of the hypothetical, unjustified war permit us to bail without leaving our indigenous allies to death and destruction- then maybe we do...

3:49 PM  
Blogger Justin said...

He is one of buddies from high school. I pressured him into starting a blog, but at the time I thought he would take the time to write actual sentences.

3:52 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

If you want ways to help the soldiers then you can donate money to the United Warrior Survivor's Fund or give money or adopt a soldier from Soldier's Angels. Both programs skip right over politics and directly give the soldiers what they need and want. Both are linked in the "Links" section of my blog:

standingoutinthecold.blogspot.com

Charles -- indignant about Pragmaticism and RedhurtMachine being in the same place as Danmercia but not StandingOutInTheCold? I'm hurt ;)

3:41 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home