Cindy Sheehan Has No Moral Authority

[Boris Godunov]

And I think Ted dealt with that quite nicely.

It's one thing to have a kid die for their country, it's quite another to have a kid die in a war that was sold to us on lies, half-truths and innuendo.

Cindy did the right thing by supporting her son when she believed the war was being fought for the right reasons. When she learned it wasn't, she was horrified that her son died for a lie and she decided to say something about it. Don't like what she says? Fine. But the smearing of her and her intentions is outrageous.

I've no doubt if you believed your kid was killed over a false premise you'd be outraged. At least, if the president were a Democrat, I'm sure you would be.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I don't see where Sheehan has ever claimed her opinion matters more than others. On the contrary, it's the wingnuts who have been claiming her opinion doesn't matter.

I was responding more to the people on this and other forums who have acted as if her opinion was much more significant or "correct" because her son was killed in Iraq.

OTOH, if said person is not signficiant, why does the right seem to be so desperate to take her down, by hook or by crook?

I do not consider myself part of those desperate to take her down by hook or by crook, but I would wager it has to do with the Karl Rove-esque heavyhanders whose gameplan consists of total war with anyone dissenting with the White House.

Because it is very easy to talk about how the war is just or not just when you haven't paid the price. The opinion pf people here who have served in Iraq, or who have lost a family member, carry more weight than the rest of us. Does that mean that we must agree with them? No. Should we treat their opinion with respect? Yes.

Of course we should treat her opinion with respect, the same respect all should be granted in a democracy. You say her son's death gives her opinion more weight than yours, mine, and others. I disagree. All it does is make her far more emotional about it, limiting her view and perspective to that of a grieving mother. I would say my opinion is far more objective than hers, as I am not burdened with the emotional baggage of having a relative KIA. Nor am I the pawn of anti-war groups using her as a figurehead, willing or no, for their own agenda (which may or may not be one and the same).

This is obviously open to much debate and disagreement, but there you have it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Boris Ted

Very good work guys. Sheehan has been dragged through the mud throughout all of this and she hasn't said that she is representing anyone else, just herself, just her own opinions. Remember when she went down to Crawford, she was all alone. There were no left wing groups with her. As people began to take notice they came to see her, symphatizing her view. Are some left wing groups trying to score political points off her? No doubt. But she herself is there because she personally feels distraught.

[Sava]

The opinion pf people here who have served in Iraq, or who have lost a family member, carry more weight than the rest of us.

absolutely wrong...

this is a (representative) democracy...

one person, one vote...

that's why I don't give a **** what Cindy Sheehan says, despite the fact I may agree with her about the war being wrong...

[GePap]

I am with Sava. I don't care what Cindy Sheeha says, anymore than I care about what ANY military family says. Ours is a democracy, and what I expect is truths from the government, and accountability for negligence and outright incompetence.

Iraq was handled negligenty and the actions and policy taken by this administration have been utterly incompetent. For that, and not because of what any grieving individual says, this admin. need to answer.

The press focusing on this woman and making it personal is what alows the rightwingers to then waste everyone's time by shamelessly attacking her.

[Sava]

Gepap is smart.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
I wonder why her particular story has garnered so much press. And who has moral authority to speak about this war? What does "moral authority" even mean, and is it worth a damn?

Post of the thread.

Interesting article

[GePap]

Jesus, praise from Sava and DD both?

[Mr. Harley]

Ted Stryker and Boris.

[Ted Striker]

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by GePap
The press focusing on this woman and making it personal is what alows the rightwingers to then waste everyone's time by shamelessly attacking her.

[Berzerker]

Kaak

You guys are having a lot of trouble seeing the true causality of the situation. Bush did not kill her son. Her son signed a quid pro quo agreement; he would serve as he was instructed in exchange for money, training and other benefits. When a person signs up for the military, there is no clause in the agreement saying anything similar to "you are guarenteed that you will think all wars are just and approve of the actions taken by the military of the United States." It really pisses me off that before this war people though joining the military was a free ride. The purpose of a military is to fight. Fighting can cause you to die. Sheehan knew her son was signing up, and did not stop him. She is as much to blame as anyone else.

Fraud negates that contract, morally if not legally. No one signed up to invade other countries on false pretenses. Bush would be impeached if Congress had any balls and credibility.

Also, she has proven through her statements that her position is one of mindless hate, not logical opposition. The loss of her son has clearly caused her a great deal of emotional duress, and she is lashing out.

Umm...what is logical about giving political leaders a pass when they lie us into a war? She is not giving them a pass and that makes her mindless?

The people who know her best, her family, have refused to support her, her husband has filed for divorce, and i'm sure she views these as betrayals caused by bush as well.

The family opposing her are mainly in-laws from what I understand. In-laws aint usually considered family if you know what I mean.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Fraud negates that contract, morally if not legally. No one signed up to invade other countries on false pretenses. Bush would be impeached if Congress had any balls and credibility.

[Az]

Fraud negates that contract, morally if not legally. No one signed up to invade other countries on false pretenses. Bush would be impeached if Congress had any balls and credibility.

This is a really silly argument. Noone signed up to die in battle, either, but you wouldn't call it "fraud" now, would you?

People, debate the validity of the war, was it right, should you've done it - all you're having are sidetrack arguments.

[Mr. Harley]

Az - Nationalist versus Libetarian premise. IMHO - note opinion, I agree with Berz, I see it as an implied contract and the US military is not founded on interventionist policies, and in fact has been presented throughout almost all of it's history (almost for nitpickers) as a defensive force.

A Nationalist - my country right or wrong, etc. would totally disagree with us. That attitude is much more common in Israel, and you know how I feel about the results it has achieved there. Sadly, in the US instead of a continuum over that we seem to have developed a very nasty dichotomy - actually that's redundant, that kind of dichotomy when it gets into politics is almost always nasty as there is no center to calm things down so to speak.