I haven’t written about Cindy Sheehan lately, so I suppose she is due.  Since her lecture circuit has brought her to Seattle, I suppose now is a good time to see whats new in her camp. 

It is strangely appropriate for her to come here on her crusade, as this is, in a sense, where it all began, where she first took her personal drama public and began her overextended 15 minutes of fame:

Speaking at Town Hall, Sheehan’s visit is part of a series of anti-war demonstrations planned around Mother’s Day, including a protest at a Central Area recruitment station and a parade through Columbia City this weekend. The events are organized by Mothers Day Original Movement Against the War and CODEPINK, a group opposed to the Iraq war.**

This is the second time Sheehan has been in Seattle. The first was two years ago, when she traveled to Fort Lewis to meet with Bush, who held a closed-door gathering with military families.**

Though an opponent of the war at the time, Sheehan initially described the president as "a man of faith." She later became involved in the fledgling peace movement and gained national attention last August when she kept a vigil outside Bush’s Texas ranch.**

She wasted no time of course in hitting her first and favorite target:  George Bush.

Before an enthusiastic Seattle audience, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan ripped into President Bush, describing him as a "maniac," "the biggest recruiter for al-Qaida ever" and a "bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden ever thought he would be."**

She urged those in the crowd to do more than just voice their opposition to the war, saying, "Shame on me for supporting George Bush and his murder."*

I note she continues to call the President a murderer, one of her favorite and most tiring labels.

She of course was kind enough to mention the oil companies in her continuing effort to blame the US for all aspects of the conflict with terrorism:

In a 40-minute address, Sheehan lambasted Bush, defense contractors and oil companies, saying profit and hubris are driving U.S. policy in Iraq.*

It is "arrogant and racist" to think that an American military presence is necessary for lasting democracy in Iraq, she said.*

"We are the problem. When we leave — problem solved. Put an Arab face on peacekeeping, without guns. Killing to solve problems is barbaric."*

Her position on Iraq is unequivocal: The U.S. should withdraw troops immediately, close all bases in Iraq and turn peacekeeping over to an unarmed Arab force. "We are the problem. When we leave, problem solved," she said.**

I find the complaints about the oil companies wanting the war for cheap oil the funniest.  I’m still waiting for it to start.  Blaming us has been a constant theme, so nothing new there.

She wasn’t just a liberal shill however. S he is continuing her slightly newer pattern of attack against liberals, and had harsh words for a few Democrats:

While Sheehan lauded Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle — she attended a fundraising dinner for him Sunday — she said there wasn’t much difference between the major parties.**

Now there is a complete shock, an alignment between Mother Sheehan and Baghdad Jim.  I am sure they raised a toast to the freedom fighters in Iraq.

"We all want Democrats to take the House back in November, but I’m just thinking I don’t know how much difference that will make. If it looks like a Republican, smells like a Republican, votes like a Republican, call yourself a Republican for God’s sake," Sheehan said.**

Her Co-Speaker, anti-war author Anthony Arnove of New York City, concurred:

The Democrats "run from their own shadow," Arnove said. He elicited hisses from the crowd when he noted that such Democratic stalwarts as Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Delaware advocate for more troops in Iraq.*

Personally I find the infighting within the liberal camp to be the best news for conservatives. She is awfully good at biting the hand that feeds her.

Her fan base was typically appreciative, but she did not come without her own detractors.

Three woman — dressed in red, white and blue, respectively — held signs and flags outside Town Hall on Monday night, protesting the appearance of Cindy Sheehan, the peace activist who equates President Bush with terrorism.*

"You do not speak for my 3 grandsons," read the sign carried by Nadine Gulit, of Issaquah, whose loved ones are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.*

She even took somne time to recognize them:

As she took the lectern Monday, Sheehan noted that she saw a handful of people carrying signs that read "Cindy Shame on You" and "Cindy Lies, Our Troops Die."**

But she then proceeded to dismiss them as some kind of aberration, and claimed her position was the majority one:

In her speech an hour later, Sheehan said that shrinking public support for the Iraq war has turned the tables on Bush backers.*

"We are not the fringe anymore," she said to a crowd of several hundred people inside the hall. "We are not the lunatics; they are. We are mainstream America."*

Her protesters however were not limited to the outside:

During a question-and-answer session with audience members, Sheehan engaged in a testy exchange with a man who said he disagreed with her and asked whether she considered the insurgents in Iraq to be freedom fighters.

This is a good echo of her previous comments.  Her response was typical:

"The people in Iraq have a right to resist an occupation," she said to applause. "I wish they didn’t, otherwise my son wouldn’t be dead."

So again, by her logic, we are aggressors and the occupiers, and the Iraqis are justified in killing us. So by her own logic, her son deserved to die because he volunteered to be there, volunteered to serve, chose to be one of the occupiers and even volunteered to go on the rescue mission that claimed his life.  How nice that she continues to try to stop the war in the name of her son whom she characterizes as one of the war criminals.

It is not a wonder she faced this comment:

Sheehan said she received a letter from a military mom who called her a "disgrace" to the United States and her late son. The woman said her son asked her to sign an agreement stipulating that, if he were killed, she would "not do what Cindy Sheehan is doing."*

Her response however proves she continues to not understand:

Sheehan said such an agreement strips away an individual’s "rights as an American, rights as a human being."*

"This is America," she said. "This is a free-speech zone."*

No matter what critics say, Sheehan vowed, "I’m not going to shut up."*

The point was that in doing this in her son’s name, she ought to represent, or at least recognize his values.  He supported the war and service to his country, as evidenced by his actions  He reenlisted knowing full well it would mean deployment to Iraq..  He believed in what he was doing, and gave his life to that belief.

Had she received a letter like the one she mentioned, I do not doubt she would disregard it.

I will state for the record that she is correct:  She has the right to speak her feelings and beliefs.  But I think it only fair she do so in honesty, and not make her son out to be an unwitting victim and dupe of the evil oil barons in one breath, and an evil occupier in the next.

She continues to evoke emotional images to support her cause:

When recently examining the Vietnam War-era body armor of her soldier son, Casey, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, Sheehan said she thought to look for bloodstains, and the experience brought her more anguish.

I would note that this is the first accusation I have heard her make that her son had only a flak vest and not full body armor.  I also don’t know enough to say whether his wounds would have been prevented if he had, so this could be a valid complaint.

But her point is lost in using it for its emotional appeal.  She cares more for the bloodstain image whether the lack of adequate armor would have saved him.

There is a sad sense of futility to her speeches.  She continues to cling to what many feel is an unhealthy reverence of her son.  Why unhealthy?   Because she apparently cannot accept that her son was an adult who made his own choices, and believed in something.  That something is anathema to her own anti-war beliefs, and as such she cannot accept or respect his choices.  When those choices led him to make an act of sacrifice, an act most of us find heroic in spirit, she sees only his being a victim of lies and deceptions. She loves her son, and cannot blame him for the consequence of his own choices for that would reduce her image of him, so she lashes out on anyone whom she can blame.  Oil Companies.  Neo Cons.  Israel.  Defense Contractors.  She would blame the Boy Scouts and the clerk at 7-11 if she could make the connection stick.

So she redirects her anger to those who can be safely blamed, and calls them murderers.  She has found her focal point to transfer her rage, and she will not be stopped.

And in the end, she will not change that many minds.  Her rhetoric and exaggeration diminish her message, and reduces her to a cheerleader and totem for the anti-war movement, the rebirth of the Vietnam era protests.  Those who support her for the most part already were against war in general anyway.  She is an attractive and emotional rallying point, but nothing more tangible then that.

Those who gather to protest against her understand this futility better then she does.  They know they will not change her mind.  They don’t care.  They have a different goal in mind:

Out on the sidewalk, Donna Watts of Auburn didn’t think she and the others who protested the speech would change the minds of Sheehan’s fans. "But hopefully," she said, "people will get the idea that there are actually people in Seattle who do support our troops."*

And that is where I draw my line.  I hate war as much as anyone, this one or any other one.  A friend was in Iraq for a year, and made it home safely.  He now faces the possibility of another tour in the next year or so, and if he does we, his wife, family and friends will be left to worry and pray for his safe return again.

But we also respect his choices and his service, as we do for all those who continue to volunteer to serve today.

We support the troops.  And Mother Sheehan is not our totem.

My previous blogs regarding Cindy Sheehan:

• What’s a mother to do?
• A final word (I hope) on Cindy Sheehan and some scattered thoughts
• The Oath his mother cannot understand
• What’s next in Crawford?
• Well, she said it.
• Ok, that’s going overboard
• The other side of the story.
• Backlash! War moms attack Cindy Sheehan
• Look out Crawford, here they come!
• Sheehan: Terrorists are Freedom Fighters
• Who supports the grieving mother?
• She just won’t quit
• I think I owe Ms Sheehan an apology.
• Ed Koch rocks
• Talk about typecasting

All quotes were taken from the following sources:
*=Seattle Post Intelligencer
**=Seattle Times