A Message to Mrs. Sheehan from a liberal

Robert Jamieson is no lover of George W. Bush, and he is against the war in Iraq.

But his thoughts on Mrs. Sheehan are very like my own, and like Varifrank’s and Mohammed’s – there is an aura of theatrics, sly dishonesty-by-omission and more than a little manipulation and ugly exploitation going on in her vigil.

Mr. Jamieson writes civilly, very respectfully, about both Mrs. Sheehan and President Bush, and he cannot be construed as some “right wing nutjob.” I don’t know if that will make a difference, though, to the people surrounding and promoting this “media event,” who are not about being reasonable or respectful, but about something else.

Still, his words are worth reading:

Trouble is Sheehan is not sincerely interested in meeting Bush for a private, heartfelt chat about her understandable anguish and lingering questions.

She wants to make a public splash by allowing critics of the unjustified war in Iraq to use her as a human bazooka against Bush, who got us into this war mess.

That Sheehan would allow her private grief to be plied for a public stunt seems unfathomable even if her underlying message about unnecessary blood being shed by American soldiers hits the mark.

Sheehan already got face time with the president, right here in Western Washington last year — a fact that folks tend to ignore as Sheehan morphs into the celebrity du jour.

It was in June 2004….The mom said at the time that Bush seemed sincere about desiring freedom for the Iraqis and appeared to feel the pain of lost American lives. Sheehan said meeting Bush and hearing his condolences made her family feel better.

Now Sheehan is sounding a different tune.
…
I agree with Sheehan’s statement in principle. I do not agree with her form of political protest, which she has the right to do. Her effort just seems like a misguided spectacle.

Sheehan admits that she just wants to lay a question on Bush: Why did you kill my son?

Her accusatory tone suggests that she wants to flog the president with blame and vitriol and not have a meaningful, respectful dialogue.

At the very least, she gets her name all over the news as the mom who tried to stick it to Bush.

If Sheehan wants sober war policy answers, I have a one-word suggestion for her: Google.

She can read up on Bush’s shifting justifications for the Iraq debacle. She won’t get solid answers, but she will read a lot about a Bush administration that misrepresents facts and lies as a matter of habit.

She also will come across accounts of our “heartless” president crying with families of dead soldiers.

Sheehan’s Texas tantrum wittingly or unwittingly abets left-leaning forces that are happy to use her to get at the president. If the anemic antiwar movement needs a mourning mom to lead the charge against this unjust war, then the movement is in dire straits.
…
There are hundreds of soldiers’ families — several in the Seattle area — in as much grief as Sheehan is over the death of her son, Casey, last year in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

They haven’t found the need to shack up near the president’s vacation pad to shame him into a confrontation under the guise of seeking sincere dialogue.

Some of these families believe the war is wrong, too.

They just choose to deal with their feelings in a way that doesn’t cheapen the memory of their loved ones or turn a grave matter into a media circus standoff that generates more heat than light.

Ah…civility! A man gets to say what he wants, expressing his own disagreement with the president, but manages to see clearly through the mists of media spin and emotional manipulation to give sensible commentary. Thank you, Mr. Jamieson!

Kathleen Parker has a thoughtful and civil piece as well, and LGF brings us some folks on the left brainstorming on how to present “Mother Sheehan” and her son “who should not be named.” But if you mention that this woman is being exploited and manipulated, well…you’re just mean, right? Yuck.