... above the cacophony that is the Cindy Sheehan story. Will their words carry the moral authority the MSM attempts to grant to Sheehan?
I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.
I grieve with Mrs. Sheehan, for all too well I know the full measure of the agony she is forever going to endure. I honor her son for his service and sacrifice. However, I abhor all that she represents and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers.
The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.
...
Although we all walk the same sad road of sorrow and agony, we walk it as individuals with all the refreshing uniqueness of our own thoughts shaped in large measure by the life and death of our own fallen hero. Over the past few days I have reached out to other parents and loved ones of fallen heroes in an attempt to find out their reactions to all the attention Mrs. Sheehan has attracted. What emerges from those conversations is an empathy for Mrs. Sheehan's suffering but a fundamental disagreement with her politics.
Ann and Dale Hampton lost their only child, Capt. Kimberly Hampton, on Jan. 2, 2004, while she was flying her Kiowa helicopter. She was a member of the 82nd Airborne and the company commander. She had already served in Afghanistan before being deployed to Iraq. Ann Hampton wrote, "My grief sometimes seems unbearable, but I cannot add the additional baggage of anger. Mrs. Sheehan has every right to protest . . . but I cannot do that. I would be protesting the very thing that Kimberly believed in and died for."
Marine Capt. Benjamin Sammis was Stacey Sammis's husband. Ben died on April 4, 2003, while flying his Super Cobra helicopter. Listen to Stacey and she will tell you that she is just beginning to understand the enormousness of the character of soldiers who knowingly put their lives at risk to defend our country. She will tell you that one of her deepest regrets is that the world did not have the honor of experiencing for a much longer time this outstanding Marine she so deeply loved.
Speak to Joan Curtin, whose son, Cpl. Michael Curtin, was an infantryman with the 2-7th 3rd ID, and her words are passionately ambivalent. She says she has no room for bitterness. She has a life to lead and a family to nurture. She spoke of that part of her that never heals, for that is where Michael resides. She can go on, always knowing there will be that pain.
Karen Long is the mother of Spc. Zachariah Long, who died with my son Kyle on May 30, 2003. Zack and Kyle were inseparable friends as only soldiers can be, and Karen and I have become inseparable friends since their deaths. Karen's view is that what Mrs. Sheehan is doing she has every right to do, but she is dishonoring all soldiers, including Karen's son, Zack. Karen cannot comprehend why Mrs. Sheehan cannot seem to come to grips with the idea that her own son, Casey, was a soldier like Zack who had a mission to complete. Karen will tell you over and over again that Zack is not here and no one, but no one will dishonor her son.
Don't miss the conclusion of this must read editorial.
Props to Danny Carlton over at JackLewis.net for the heads up.
It's great that these other families are exercising their voice to support Bush. I happen to agree with Cindy Sheehan, though I'm pretty dubious about her motives and am in no rush to mount her on the hood of my car as the symbol of anti-war America. I wonder why the right, particularly christians, are getting all worked up about Sheehan? Dissent is unqiuely American. Dissent movements that survive throughout history always (I'm using that word deliberately) have some truth in them that should be heard. It seems to me that christians who supposedly are all about truth would be interested in that instead of listening to horse hockey from Rush (let's be tough on drug use unless it's mine) Limbaugh, who lies about Sheehan, then lies about the fact that he lied.
As an aside, please explain how christians can fawn all over a man who has been married and divorced 3 times (Rush), a man who paid millions to hush his dirty phone conversations (O'Reilly), a Congressman who is embroilled in an ethics scandal that has judicially touched some of his closest associates (DeLay), people who certainly aren't remotely evangelical (Cheney, Rummy, etc.), and on and on? Why do these people get a free pass because they oppose abortion and homosexual marriage? Clinton is pro-abortion, and everything he does gets scrutinized. Bush is publicly pro-life, so he gets a free pass for signing a bill in Texas that allowed a Houston hospital to pull the plug on a baby against her mother's wishes precisely at the same time Bush was making such a fuss about pulling Terri Schiavo's plug. It's just ridiculous.
Posted by: Zossima | Friday, August 19, 2005 at 11:41 AM
Zossima, I get worked up over the fact that many media outlets are purposely not reporting the fact that Sheehan has already met with the President once and had positive things to say after that meeting. No one here is questioning her right to dissent and in some ways I can sympathize with her on an emotional level but I think far too many are intentionally leaving out pertinent facts about this woman's history with Bush and far more are leaving out what organizations are now exploiting her, including those that have clearly sided with those who killed her son.
And what in hell does Rush Limbaugh have to do with this especially in the context of my post? I haven't listened to Limbaugh for any appreciable length of time in a couple of weeks (was on the road) and so I'm not sure what he's been saying. He does have an explanation for what you're calling a lie here and it seems credible enough to me. Then again, you seem to continue to say that Bush has lied when there's no evidence to support it so can we be surprised when you want to call Limbaugh a liar (and besmirch him personally) when there's no reasonable evidence to support it?
What is ridiculous is your attempt to change the subject and rant on about that which is hardly relevant here on this blog. Find for me where I've gone on and on about abortion or homosexuality or Rush Limbaugh. Find for me where I've gone on and on about O'Reilly (I personally don't care for the man much and have said so here). And find for me where I've embraced Delay. You won't find anything. Not a damned thing.
You Zossima have mistaken me for one of your made up stereotypes, a figment of an irrelevant imagination so that you can go on one of your typical rants. I don't have a problem with that much but you do have your own blog where you can fight your windmills.
But here you're going to be challenged when you go off on tangents. And brother, you've veered here in a dramatic way.
Posted by: Rick | Friday, August 19, 2005 at 05:27 PM