In an excellent piece, Michael Barone asks, “How much coverage would the press have given a World War II-era Cindy Sheehan who camped outside Hyde Park or Warm Springs demanding to meet with President Roosevelt?”
After offering some anecdotes of that Democratic president’s meeting with wounded soldiers during World War II, Barone turns to an erstwhile opponent of the president, John McCain, to describe how our current president handles similar meetings:
Look, I’ve been with the president of the United States when he has met with the families of those brave young men and women who have sacrificed. I have seen his compassion, I have seen his love, I have seen his concern. So any charge of insensitivity or uncaring on the part of this president, is absolutely false. He cares and he grieves. . . . I have seen him, I have seen his care, and I have seen him grieve. And I’m sure he wouldn’t like to hear me say this, but I saw him afterwards. He was very, very grieved. And that’s the job of the president of the United States. He fully appreciates the tragedy of the loss of these brave young Americans.
So, why then, I wonder, is the media giving so much attention to antics of one angry relative and so little attention to the reality of the president’s visits with relatives of our fallen heroes?
Hat tip: Polipundit‘s Lorie Byrd. And be sure to read Barone’s post as well as the Anchoress’ post on the president’s meetings with the grieving families.
“How much coverage would the press have given a World War II-era Cindy Sheehan who camped outside Hyde Park or Warm Springs demanding to meet with President Roosevelt?”
I wonder how much social acceptiablity would be exteded to those avoiding military service during WWII.
WW2 draft dodgers were shunned, and rigthly so. After all, it was a world war and we were fighting for our survival. They received little, if any, press coverage for their “efforts.”
Now we’re in another world war, this time against militant Islam. We’ve got an all-volunteer military, no draft to dodge, and many in the press corps who often seem like they want us to lose. We’re fighting for our survival again, and if anyone doubts that, remember that Muslim militants throw gay people off cliffs, brutally repress women, stuff like that.
I appreciate what Casey Sheehan did to help the Iraqis. RIP, brave young man.
No draft dodgers in this war — but there are a few deserters of various stripes.
While they aren’t actually praised, the news orgs. have gone out of their way not to condemn them either. For example, here the AP gives the convict and his defense attorney the first and last word, giving the brief explanation of why deserting in wartime is bad to his C.O. in a paragraph buried in the last half.
Nah.
The liberals idolize deserters who go back on their word that they gave. They’re considered heroes to the left. Just goes to show Bush couldn’t have been AWOL and he’s definitely not a Nazi because the liberals would love him for it.
I believe the point above was not to say those who should be fighting and aren’t, but those who talk a lot about how important the war is but dont’ sign up to go fight it themselves. I’m not saying I agree, but I felt that was the point made in Comment #1. And frankly, in WWII, many men who weren’t part of the military already, signed up to go fight against Hitler. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, there was no doubt the war was justifiable and the threat undeniable. So yes, I would imagine the coverage would be FAR different in WWII than it is today. How many people have run to join the armed services to fight militant Islam compared to Hitler? To me that says a lot about just how much of a threat militant islam is perceived to be.
Don’t try to compare World War 2 with this war…..in World War Two we never invaded a country which had not already committed acts of aggression against us directly. Iraq had not…..the claims about WMD’s and threat to us were stupid in the first place, and proven wrong with time. Obviously the administration has shifted the reason for invasion from defense to spread of democracy…..so one of the two has to be a lie. I served in Iraq during the invasion, and obviously us Marines were gung ho about why we were doing what we were doing…..inevitably that led to disillusionment about why we were there…..because we didn’t see anything that Bush said we would see or do. If we had to invade, it should have been with double the numbers that we had…..and crushed the insurgency from the get go. My company commander prophetically pointed this out a week before our first combat mission. Trying to attack the grieving mother of a dead soldier is both immoral and down right vicious. Let her grieve. If Bush wants to solve this problem, all he has to do is take a 3 minute drive and have a 20 minute talk with her privately. I honestly don’t see why it is such a big deal for him not to meet with her again.
No, Jim, the president did not make the claims Ms. Sheehan alleges he made when he articulated the reasons for going to war in Iraq. And if you bothered to read his actual words before the war instead of his critics’ misrepresentations of those words, you would see that he did not call Hussein’s Iraq an imminent threat.
Moreover, he had brought up the spread of democracy long before our troops crossed the border into Iraq. In his September 12, 2002 speech to the United Nations, the president said:
You, like so many on the left, claim that the Administration lied, yet have yet to provide one shred of evidence that the president (and/or his advisors) knew (before the liberation of Iraq) that Iraq did not have WMD. In short, none of those claiming the president has lied has provided any evidence to buttress that claim.
Furthermore, no one is saying that we shouldn’t let Ms. Sheehan grieve. Had she not been making a public spectacle of herself, then I would see no reason to take issue with her actions. But, neither I nor most conservatives taking issue with her are attacking her. We are merely faulting her statements.
It seems that by saying that it is “both immoral and down right vicious” to attack a grieving mother you suggest that because she has lost a child her words are beyond reproach. That’s ridiculous. She has suffered a terrible loss which I know must be hard on her, but once she enters the arena of public debate, she opens her words up to criticism just as anyone else who so speaks out. That’s what free speech is all about. To call us immoral and vicious for attacking her seems to be saying that because she is a widow, her ideas are beyond reproach. And any criticism of then is by its nature wrong.
But, if her ideas are beyond reproach because she is a grieving mother, by your very argument, the ideas of those grieving parents who support the president’s policy would also be beyond reproach.
Just as Ms. Sheehan has the right to speak publicly out and protest, so do her critics have the right to criticize her speech and her protest. Given her rhetoric, it would accomplish little for the president to meet with her. Calling a man a “lying bastard” and a “maniac” is not the way to get a meeting with the president of the United States.
There’s not problem here as you claim. Indeed, there wouldn’t even be an issue if the media did not delight in reporting on anti-Bush protests. Without the media attention, I highly doubt Ms. Sheehan or her many supporters would be camped out near the president’s ranch.
Jim:
You’re right, but (clearly) don’t know why. This is different from WWII.
The huge difference between WWII and our current WWIII is that the enemy we face now has no compunction about attacking our innocent citizens. Whereas the Japanese at least had the decency of deliniating between the Arizona and downtown Honolulu, the Islamo-facists see no difference between yourself and someone who has signed up voluntarily to fight in this war.
In that sense, yes there are draft-dogers in this war…those who in a past war would be seen as merely pacifists who opposed war are now actually in the way of their fellow citizens (military and civilian) who realize that we’re all under attack this time.
“If Bush wants to solve this problem, all he has to do is take a 3 minute drive and have a 20 minute talk with her privately. I honestly don’t see why it is such a big deal for him not to meet with her again. ”
You make her sound like a reasonable person.
She is a grief-crazed mother who is projecting her feelings of guilt and remorse (“Why didn’t I stop him?”) onto Bush, and in the process is being exploited by the left as a means of promoting everything for which they stand which cannot garner public support any other way.
I think that Bush is letting her take what is the most sensible course of action. If she wants to throw a tantrum outside the gates of his ranch for a month because she’s not getting what she wants, let her. She’s been able to use her excuse of “My son died in the war” to get what she wants — public affirmation and accolades that it wasn’t her fault — and it needs to come to a stop. She needs to realize that it wasn’t ANYONE’S fault that her son was killed, not the least of which hers — but as long as she’s allowed to get what she wants by blaming other people, it’s just perpetuating the problem of her not coming to grips with her grief.
Nice post GPWest.
To answer your rhetorical question: “So, why then, I wonder, is the media giving so much attention to antics of one angry relative and so little attention to the reality of the president’s visits with relatives of our fallen heroes?”
Three reasons likely: 1) the MSM covering this story generally agree with Mrs Sheehan’s political views; 2) the pornography of grief is a time-worn, much abused, well served vehicle for selling print/air/blog; and 3) the LibLeft is working overtime to pressure their darlings in the MSM to cover THIS story since, as the LibLeft argues, the MSM didn’t cover the truth in the Downing Street Memo, or Bush’s war record, or the Ohio-2004 controversy…
Fair enuff assessment?
Jim – Since the “Gay Patriots” apparently won’t recognize it, I will. Thank you very much for your service, and welcome home.
The family of another Marine killed in the line of duty came out to today to criticize Bush. They said that we should either send more troops or pull out. Either fight the war for real or leave. Sound familiar? How soon before this family gets attacked by the GOP sentinel dogs?
Why does the GOP require that every person who disagrees with the President is a traitor? In one moment they go from praising brave mothers and fathers of fallen troops to treating them as if they were child molesters. I don’t think even President Bush thinks this way, so why all the rabid partisan demonizing on the part of the GOP? Or is it done simply to serve the needs of the Party to make sure no one ever questions their judgment? It’s disgusting and immoral.
And the analogy about Japan and Pearl Harbor is false. Japan didn’t attack Honolulu because that would not have achieved it’s military goals. Ask the people of China about the rape of the city of Nan-King and you will see how much they “respected” civilians. Not to mention the torture and beheading of thousands of American POW’s and civilians. One of whom incidentally, was a relative of mine.
Patrick:
Good point about Japan. You’re right. We never should have fought against them either.
Oh, and by the way, we were probably wrong to ever fight against the Nazis since, you’ll note, they never attacked (or even posed a threat, let alone and “imminent” threat to) us either.
Wow. Talk about hutzpuh. I guess all we need now is for joe to call Jim a fraud and liar.
In fact Germany did declare war on the United States – stupidly – after Pearl Harbor. I think that counts as an imminent threat.
Then, as now, we are facing an enemy that wants our total destruction. In that sense the comparison with WW2 is entirely appropriate. It seems the murder of some 3,000 innocent men, women, and children on September 11 isn’t enough to convince some people that we are in a fight for our survival. Imagine what the Islamo-Fascists who pulled off 9/11 would do if they ever got their hands on a nuke.
I don’t presume to know what it is like to lose a child, nor to know what Casey Sheehan would think about his mother’s actions. I do know that we’re in a war that we cannot lose if we value our lives and our freedom.
Spreading democracy in the Middle East to promote stability and to enhance our security isn’t based on a lie; it’s based on common sense. Saddam aided and abetted terrorists on a regular basis, and he did his level best to destabilize the entire region. I’m glad we took him out. It will be interesting to see the constitution that the Iraqis are drafting for their fledgeling nation. They certainly deserve better than Saddam.
Patrick, it’s only the critics of the Republican Party who claim that the GOP requires that “that every person who disagrees with the President is a traitor.” I never called Ms. Sheehan a traitor nor have the great majority of conservatives who have criticized her.
While you wonder if Republicans have accused Administration critics as traitors to “make sure no one questions their judgment,” it is really Jim who, by calling our criticism of Ms. Sheehan’s words and ideas “both immoral and down right vicious,” wants no one to question the judgment of someone whose ideas he supports.
Neither I nor the great majority of critics of Ms. Sheehan question her right to speak out and protest. But, just because she is a grieving widow doesn’t make her views off-limits for criticism. We may question her views, but we are not questioning her right to say them.
She has changed her story about her meeting with President Bush, has spouted radical rhetoric and called the president names. We certainly have the right to take issue with her for that. As to the family of the other marine who has come forward, I highly doubt that all but the most partisan Republicans will pay much attention to them. They have spoken out–and from what I read in an AP article–did so in a civil manner. Even as they have praised Ms. Sheehan, they have spectacles of themselves as she has.
I do wonder at how much attention the media has given her. That was one of the reasons I wrote this post. The focus on her has served to create a false image of the president and his attitude toward our fallen heroes. Indeed, I think Matt-Michigan nails it when he says that the media has touted her protest because they “generally agree with” her “political views.”
Actually, I’m for the Iraq war, I just don’t like Bush and the current leaders of the GOP. And I’m simply tired of the GOP and their allies trying to portray anyone who disagrees with them as the very devil himself. The Democrats do the same thing, but whats in front of my nose right now is the GOP smearing the mother of a fallen soldier in the name of political maneuvering. Maybe you don’t have a problem with that, but I certainly do. And there are a lot of soldiers as well who don’t think the country is headed in the right direction either. Think they will still be honored for their service and sacrifices at the next GOP fundraiser?
And my point about Japan was simply that it’s a fallacy to say that they weren’t committing acts of barbarism comparable to Al Quaeda today. They certainly were, and it was a systemic and Japanese government-endorsed activity, rather than a few “bad apples” or terrorists.
So njz, go ahead and continue your stupid ranting. It’s always amusing to see people make jackasses of themselves.
Another difference between WWII and the war in Iraq/WOT is that at least during WWII, those who thought the threat was immediate and undeniable left work, their families and went to war rather than sit back reading blogs and complaining about those who actually don’t believe the threat from Iraq was immediate or undeniable.
Patrick–I just don’t see the GOP portraying anyone who disagrees with the Administration as the very devil themselves. Ms. Sheehan has allied herself with the most radical of anti-war group and has spouted rhetoric that seems borrowed from the most hateful Bush-haters, like Michael Moore. I don’t see the GOP smearing her, but merely see conservatives taking issue with her views. And noting who her allies are.
That said, I have seen some commentary which, I believe, goes over the line. But, haven’t seen it coming from the GOP leadership, the best conservative blogs or the White House.
[A]ll he has to do is take a 3 minute drive and have a 20 minute talk with her privately. I honestly don’t see why it is such a big deal for him not to meet with her again.
Jim, with all due respect and appreciation for your combat service in Iraq, I have to disagree. Members of the armed services (and their families) aren’t allowed to make demands of the president in his capacity as commander in chief; rather, he makes demands of them. The worst precedent this president could set is to meet with a woman – even a bereaved mother who lost her son – whose public statements have been partisan, anti-Semitic, intemperate, and even profane.
I wish Cindy Sheehan well, and I’m saddened by her loss, but I do not believe she has the right to make public demands of the president in this way. Bush is right to go about his business, without complaint, as the press howls about his “vacation” and his refusal to meet with her.
And I’m simply tired of the GOP and their allies trying to portray anyone who disagrees with them as the very devil himself
Someone’s projecting here. I see very few on the right referring to their opponents as evil (although the very extreme left is sometimes called traitorous), but it seems universal on the left to label that anyone who supports the war or conservative values is evil, greedy, ignorant, racist… you name it.
It’s interesting how you refute the notion that the right makes inaccurate accusations about the left, but in the same breath you accuse the left of doing just that to the right. Maybe you’re the one projecting.
Britton-
How many quotes would you like from the chairman of the DNC expressing hatred for all Republicans and explicitly calling them evil?
Seen anything resembling that from the GOP leadership?
Nope, don’t see any resemblence at all between the leadership of the GOP and that of the Democrat Party. While you’re “leadership” preaches hate and division, ours is getting on with the adult business of leading the free world.
Oh, and by the way, “our” leadership is also “your” leadership, Britton. You may not have voted for President Bush and VP Cheney, but a majority of American voters did and, therefore, they are YOUR leaders, too. Unfortunately for you, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Skeletor, er, I mean Harry Reid, can’t say the same thing. If your side wanted to be in power, you should’ve tried harder to win. Maybe in 2008…or 2012…or 2016…or maybe not ever during your lifetime.
Apparently you weren’t watching “Justice Sunday II” then.
Well, I never thought I’d hear a member of the GOP confirm the stupid charges of “Fascism” that some on the left make but I guess there are a few surprises left in the world.
In case you weren’t paying attention in social studies class Glisteny, we here in America don’t have “leaders”, we have Representatives. Yes, even the President is no more than this. He is not “our “leader”, it is the citizens of this country, you know, “We the people”, that are HIS leader, rather than the other way around.
If you want to go find your man on horseback to lead you by the nose and solve all your problems for you, try Cuba, I hear they go in for that sort of thing down there. Up here, we still think that personal liberty and responsibility are a good idea.
22. No, I specifically refuted the assertion that the “GOP and their allies” protrays “anyyone who disagrees with them” as evil. I also was careful to state that while it was not unheard of for some conservatives to refer to some lefties as evil, it is not the practice of the broad conservative mainstream to do so. If you can find evidence that everyone on the right paints “anyone who disagrees with them” as evil, do present it.
A quick visit to DUMB, Kos, Atrios, or most any left wing weblog will be enough to demonstrate that the left routinely smears all Republicans and conservatives as greedy, racist, evil, ignorant and so forth. In fact, certain individiuals who formerly posted in this forum (DL, Ridor) and some who still do (Reader) frequently attribute those qualities to those who have a different point fo view then their own.
The same reason why we focus on one damn girl lost in Aruba.
Patrick,
Since the Gay Patriots apparently won’t recognize it, I will.
You’re a sick, lying sonofabitch.
the claims about WMD’s and threat to us were stupid in the first place, and proven wrong with time.
comment by Jim
How about the threat that Hussein ordered the assassination of U.S. diplomats? How about his order to their embassies to commit suicide bomber-type attacks on U.S. interests? Was that stupid and proven wrong?
The same reason why we focus on one damn girl lost in Aruba.
There was no girl in Aruba. We searched all over Aruba and didn’t find her. Therefore (using moonbat logic) she never existed and tt was all a neo-con lie. Now, Greta Van Susteren is stuck in the Aruba quagmire, with no exit strategy.
Patrick:
By the way, I am a military member, “jackass”.
And Britton:
You seem to see the difference without understanding it: We are all “over there” this time. You were drafted whether you are now wearing a uniform or not. Those who don’t choose to recognize it are this war’s version of draft-dogers. Not that they’re evil or bad people, just that they’re not serious (enough) about the actual sacrifices necessary.
And besides, there was a HUGE contingent of people who never thought that Germany was any threat to us and that we were wrong to go against them. It was only after Japan attacked us that folks started to come along. Oddly even after we’ve been attacked in this war, some still don’t get it.
LOL. Then I also thank you for your service. But then you also have no excuse for not having a better understanding and grasp of WWII history. Unless you are secretly Ben Affleck.
Patrick,
Since the Gay Patriots apparently won’t recognize it, I will.
You’re a sick, lying sonofabitch.
You are wrong, ThatGayConservative. Gryph is neither sick, a liar, or a sonofabitch. He is a fair individual with a great deal of insight who happens to disagree with you a lot. He does the same for me, but I see him for what he truly is.
I strongly request that you not call him that in my presence or anywhere else and that you tone back your language.
#5 – “So yes, I would imagine the coverage would be FAR different in WWII than it is today.”
Wow, Britton. I can’t believe you finally conceded that!!!!!!!!
“How many people have run to join the armed services to fight militant Islam compared to Hitler?”
Quite a few. The MSM doesn’t publicize it, therefore you (Britton) haven’t heard it, I know. We’ve been talking about one of them, though – Casey Sheehan.
‘To me that says a lot about just how much of a threat militant islam is perceived to be.”
To me, Bush’s re-election says more. But you’re partly right. People woke up to the threat after 9-11. Now that we seem to be a little bit safer – now that we’ve improved domestic security procedures some, and al Qaeda has been engaged or cleared out of Afghanistan, and a good chunk of the remainder is being engaged in Iraq – many people are falling asleep again. The 2 gay teenagers who were recently executed in Iran (showing what militant Islam does with gays) got hardly any press coverage.
#6 – “…..in World War Two we never invaded a country which had not already committed acts of aggression against us directly.”
Bullshit!!!!!!!! Jim, I am working my way through the comments only slowly; man I hope someone called you on that whopper! (Ever heard of Germany? Hint: They were never at Pearl Harbor!)
“Don’t try to compare World War 2 with this war..”
I hereby compare World War 2 with this war. The Iraq war is as noble as World War 2. I know you don’t accept that and I would be happy to argue it out with you.
“Obviously the administration has shifted the reason for invasion from defense to spread of democracy…..so one of the two has to be a lie.”
Bullshit again. There is no contradiction between them, and the Administration always asserted both. Let’s argue from Bush’s speeches, if you’d like.
“I served in Iraq during the invasion…[Marines now disillusioned]…”
If that’s true, you must be part of the famous 10% who aren’t in the know, or whatever that expression is. Marines on milblogs have different testimony.
“I honestly don’t see why it is such a big deal for him not to meet with her again.”
Because hundreds of other mothers have not even met with the President once. Cindy Sheehan, by her contemptible actions, does not deserve two meetings until all the other mothers have been attended to first.
#17 – “…whats in front of my nose right now is the GOP smearing the mother of a fallen soldier in the name of political maneuvering.”
Patrick – wake up – She smeared herself. Nobody’s doing it to her. They’re just pointing out – rightly – what she herself has said and done.
Patrick:
I appreciate your dedication to the true history of WWII. Perhaps you could share it with “Don’t try to compare World War 2 with this war…..in World War Two we never invaded a country which had not already committed acts of aggression against us directly” Jim, with whom I was arguing such history. Unless of course you also believe this.
Thanks NDT! But I will admit to be a bitch at times. Especially if I’m blogging on no sleep and low blood-sugar. 😉 But you keep me in line.