2006-01-25
Cindy Sheehan: Beyond Criticism
Cindy long ago entered extreme political agitation. That's fine. But why does David Letterman insist that nobody treat her as an equal in the debating forums?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Cindy Sheehan an equal in political debate LOL? Paul you made me laugh. Trust me on this one, I'am no fan of Letterman. Not only is he an ultra liberal, he's a non talented ultra liberal. Cindy Sheehan never debated anyone. See was told what to say and how to say it. In other words. I still haven't figure out how can a person go from standing in a ditch to inking a book deal? Only in America $$$$$
Repo Bro:
1) I heartily disagree with you about Letterman. I hail him as a comic genius, and I think he's very funny.
2) As a former hard-charging leftist, I am 100% certain that nobody has told Cindy what to say. There are millions of Americans who honestly embrace her views, and who would behave pretty much as she had after confabbing with comrades and then encountering a platoon of cameras and mics.
3) My comments refer to a recent Letterman appearance by Bill O'Reilly, an opponent of the Bush war, but who also opposes many of Cindy Shehan's comments. I thought that my comic hero Letterman behaved abhorently (see earlier post on this matter). One of his ludicrous declarations is that since Cindy Shehan had lost a son in war, Bill O'Reilly should not challanger her comments.
4) I agree with you that Cindy would make a poor debater, unlike quick-witted leftists such as Al Sharpton. My comment referred to my belief that she has entered the realm of public debate, and thus desearves to have her claims strutinized.
All Cindy did was ask George Bush to explain why her son died. He doesn't have an answer for her.
People like O'Reilly would like to silence her voice in the debate about the war because mothers are the conscience of any nation. But this is still a democracy. She has a right to speak her mind. And our mothers have more of a right to speak about what happens to their children.
But debate her. Go ahead. Just remember that the president whose policies you are defending was too chickenshit to speak with her at all.
You believe in his policies more than he does.
Nadir: Cindy has done far more than ask for Bush to explain why her son died. She thrust herself into the war debate, and into an expanding assortment of issues. And not a single person has questioned her right to speak her mind. Her critics, like O'Reilly, are merely responding to her growing list of proclamations on various topics, and offering assessments of her that match the assessments that she is offering of various other public figures.
On the one hand, I think Bush should have re-met with Cindy and had a conversation with her. However, his advisors may have been so brilliant (and callous and cynical) as to have predicted that if he refused, she would become a media specticle who looked rediculous -- and made the anti-war population look rediculous -- to a large fraction of swing voters. They maybe would have even been genious enough to have predicted that she would use the power of this situation to get herself to Venuzuala and affiliate herself with another celebrity calling Bush a terrorist, and a foriegn president alligning himself with Castro... and Martin Sheen! I don't think that Bush's refusal could have worked out better for either of them.
As for mothers being the conscience of a nation: (1) plenty of US mothers, including those of dead US troops in Iraq, support Bush and the war. (2) Plenty of white mothers in the confederacy and during Jim Crow and Nazi Germany, etc., have vehemently supported the absolute worst conduct of human history. Find me abhorant conduct, and I will find you mothers who support, and even perpetuate, it! I disagree with any assertion than any sort of people (rich v. poor, female v. male, black v. white, parent v. childless, straight v. gay, etc.) has any more inherent capacity than anybody else for conduct that you or I approve! Please rethink this view.
Post a Comment