I came across this interesting piece by the Canton Repository columnist this morning before breakfast. I think it raises a good point, but also needs a response because of a number of assumptions the writer makes.

ItÂ’s disturbing, this gang-tackling of anyone who dares to question the handling of the war in Iraq.

In recent weeks, Cindy Sheehan has been called “the scum of the earth,” a traitor, and other choice epithets that only a gangsta rapper could love.

SheehanÂ’s protest in Crawford, Texas, has been equated with her dancing on the grave of her dead soldier son. A few folks have even expressed glee upon hearing that SheehanÂ’s husband recently filed for divorce.

ItÂ’s only a matter of time before sheÂ’s blamed for her motherÂ’s recent stroke.

Now hold on, Ms. Goshay. Is it your contention that Cindy SheehanÂ’s right to free speech is so sacrosanct that no one has the right to criticize her words or question her actions? You object to name-calling, but give Sheehan a pass on calling the president a murderer, a terrorist, a war criminal, and a member of a crime family. As far as her motherÂ’s stroke goes, the closest IÂ’ve seen to such an accusation against Sheehan is that her actions may have increased her motherÂ’s stress. On the other hand, IÂ’ve seen any number of Sheehan supporters suggest that George W. Bush and Karl Rove used the CIA to poison the stricken woman. I guess that is acceptable, though.

And let’s be honest here – there is something unsavory about a mother using her dead son as a prop to make a political point. Especially when doing so puts her on the same side as those who really killed her son.

It’s being argued that Sheehan’s actions are hurting our troops because it provides just the spark needed by the insurgents. Doubtful. It should be clear by now that roadside bombings in Baghdad are not incumbent upon how Americans feel about the war. Terrorists don’t give a damn what we think, and they certainly don’t need an anti-war protest 6,000 miles away to feel “emboldened.”

They would kill Cindy Sheehan as quickly as they did her son, because sheÂ’s an American.

I’ll agree with your assessment that the terrorists would kill Sheehan as quickly as they killed her son (or nearly 3000 innocents on 9/11), which should be reason enough to discount the woman’s rantings. But one of the lessons of Vietnam is that a war abroad that is being won on the field of battle can be lost in the streets of America if the enemy can manage to “wait out” the resolve of the American people. If you don’t believe that, check out General Giap’s memoirs.

But criticism of Sheehan is no longer about the rightness or wrongness of her protest.

ItÂ’s about her.

Half true – it is about her credibility. To the degree that questioning he credibility is “about her”, then I agree. So what? Discerning individuals are supposed to consider the credibility of a source when evaluating an argument. Especially when that source is claiming to have an indisputable and unquestionable moral authority.

Syndicated columnists have been on the front lines of the smear offensive, questioning not only SheehanÂ’s loyalty, but her very sanity.

They argue that her protest is no longer about her dead son. They’re right — just as Terri Schiavo’s situation evolved from a private family issue to a national discourse on the right to life.

People who want Cindy Sheehan to shut up and go away forget their history. History may love Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford now, but both admired Adolf Hitler and were vocal critics of AmericaÂ’s foray into World War II.

Bowing under public pressure, Woodrow Wilson won re-election in 1916 by vowing to keep America out of Europe’s war — a promise he couldn’t keep.
Before it was over and done, some Vietnam veterans protested against their own war.

Fine. WhatÂ’s your point? Protest is fine, as is opposition to war. But there is a question of time and manner. Once the war begins, the method of opposition needs to be muted in order to not give aid and comfort to the enemy.

As for questioning Sheehan’s sanity – most of us who have done so have done so respectfully, suggesting that she is still so overwhelmed by her grief that she may not be thinking straight. A fuller examination of her words and activities have led me to conclude that she is not crazy or overwrought – rather, her associations with convicted terrorist mouthpiece Lynn Stewart and a host of anti-American groups lead me to draw the conclusion that it is not simply the war she opposes, but the United States.

Among those leading the charge are Bill O’Reilly, who labeled Sheehan’s behavior “treasonous,” and Michelle Malkin, who once suggested that John Kerry may have earned his Purple Hearts by wounding himself.

HereÂ’s a theory: Perhaps Kerry and Sen. Chuck Hagen shot each another.
Columnist David Horowitz said Sheehan has joined an “unholy alliance” that is threatening to undermine the mission, which has become “an epic battle for freedom.”

If itÂ’s so epic, why are we and the British practically the only ones fighting it?

Why arenÂ’t other Middle Eastern countries who claim to love freedom throwing in with us?

How can we dog the French when Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia wonÂ’t help rescue a neighbor from the clutches of terror and despotism?

How many sheiks and princes were fighting alongside Casey Sheehan on the day he was killed?

Malkin did not accuse Kerry of intentionally shooting himself – she argued (as did one of those present when the wound occurred) that one of Kerry’s wounds was caused by blowback from his own weapon, not the enemy. Since you are so concerned about the accuracy and honesty of statements made by partisan columnists, you might want to engage in in a bit of accuracy and honesty yourself.

The rest of the argument isn’t worth dignifying – after all, most of us were taught at a very young age that one should do the right thing, even if everybody else is doing something else. I’m sorry your family, church, and school failed to pass that bit of wisdom on to you.

The central question is not whether Cindy Sheehan is right or wrong, or even if the war is right or wrong; the central question is, does she have a right to free speech, or not?

Even Bush, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the object of SheehanÂ’s increasingly caustic wrath, defends her right to have an opinion.

Cindy Sheehan is being lambasted as anti-American, but whatÂ’s more American than speaking your mind?

Sure, Charita, Cindy Sheehan has a right to speak. But freedom to speak is not freedom from criticism. Making one’s opinion known does not exempt you or it from criticism, not even from harsh criticism. You should know that – for your column is nothing but criticism of Sheehan’s critics.
And as for your final question, I’d like to ask you in return – do you think that a Klan rally is the height of Americanism? Or do you think that the message and the messengers deserve scorn?

Posted by: Greg at 01:21 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1225 words, total size 8 kb.