The Declarer (Floyd McWilliams' Blog)

Friday, August 12, 2005

What story did the San Jose Mercury News choose for its front page on Friday? That's a trick question, because there was no story -- just another press release on behalf of the sedition wing of the Democratic party:

Mother's vigil against war


By Ron Hutcheson

Knight Ridder

CRAWFORD, Texas - By Thursday, President Bush could no longer ignore the grieving, angry mother from Northern California camped outside his ranch.

I imagine what president could no longer ignore was the synthetic outrage manufactured by the anti-Bush media.

Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville set up her tent beside the road leading to Bush's 1,600-acre spread last week, demanding to talk to the president about her son's death in Iraq. She has endured blistering heat, an earthshaking thunderstorm and an army of fire ants. She has also set off a storm of her own.

If the mother of a casualty from the 1998 anti-Serbia campaign had followed Bill Clinton around, throwing a passive-aggressive snivelling fit for the benefit of the Slick-Willy-had-fifty-people-murdered-and-ran-cocaine-out-of-a-CIA-airstrip crowd, is it really conceivable she would get such simpering treatment from a large newspaper?

New Declarer favorite Greg Gutfeld puts Sheehan into perspective:

... the Huffpo will want Cindy Sheehan to talk to the President about her son in the same way Michael Moore wanted to talk to Roger Smith about Michigan poverty....not because something constructive will come out of the encounter, but because it will feel good making somebody else look evil.

And then, of course, haul off and whack the commander in chief so hard that even Roy Scheider feels it (in the Hamptons).


So while the Huff-posters pretend to feel sympathy for the mother, who no doubt deserves it, it's an act. They are using her, and that makes them stink of tripe. And not the good kind you can use to make haggis.

I will add that Sheehan's bogus quest for "answers" plays to a character flaw of the liberal psyche: No matter blatantly obvious a fact or deduction, you can find a left-winger capable of furrowing his brow and treating the problem as if he were examining the output of a particle accelerator. Even if you grant the worst interpretation of Bush's policymaking, what is Bush supposed to say other that "I started a war, your son was a soldier, he got killed"? It's not as if Bush refused to give reasons for attacking Iraq in the spring of 2003.

This quest to have the obvious explained probably stems from when the budding liberal was ten years old, and couldn't argue his parent out of being forced to clean his room.



The veneration of this poor woman is a brilliant tactical decision on the part of the anti-war crowd - you have to give them that. It's the ultimate cover. Any contrary opinion can be immediately shouted-down as a vicious attack against a grieving mother. Just brilliant!

By Blogger Richard, at 12:56 PM  

I can't know what Sheehan's son's views about his role as a soldier in this war were, but I don't have any sympathy for the mother at all. It's obvious that she is being used (willingly or not) by the anti-war loons. However, the real tragedy is that she is using her son to further some wingnut propaganda, making his death an empty, senseless event regardless of the dignity he rightly deserves.

How interesting it is to me that at least other nutjob lefty parents, like those of Rachel Corrie, at least support the memory of their lost child, even if the circumstances and causes were much less dignified.

Paul Hepburn
Campbell, CA

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:57 PM  

Post a Comment