Friday, August 12, 2005
The Truth About Cindy Sheehan
What do we know about Cindy Sheehan? (1) She is opposed to the war in Iraq. (2) Her son died fighting that war. And (3) she is a left wing media whore.
But are there any open questions? Yes, there are. And thanks for asking. One question that we hear from many of our readers is, "Oh, Andromeda, you are so wise and pleasant-smelling, please tell us if Cindy Sheehan has the right to say such things as 'The President was wrong about weapons of mass destruction.'"
The answer to your question, surprisingly, is yes, she is allowed to say that. Her error is in saying it publicly. Or aloud. Such statements destroy our troops' morale. In fact, they were really happy about being away from home in the blasting heat of the desert, with the under-armored Humvees, and the newest IEDs from Iran, and all of that, until Cindy Sheehan made her anti-war statements. Now, they just want to come home. Hearing such public dissent makes them think its become a democracy here while they were gone, and they long to see what that's like.
Many readers also ask, "But can she say that stuff about Bush sending his own children to fight in the war if he believes in it so much?" Here, the answer is no. She is not allowed to say that. The Bush girls would survive perhaps one week in Iraq and therefore suggesting they go there is, legally, the same thing as a direct threat against them.
Some readers have posed the more challenging question, "But is it okay for her to dishonor the memory of her son and all the other soldiers who've died or been injured by implying they died in vain?" To answer this question, readers, we ask you to consider this hypothetical example. Suppose there really were a war which was brought on false pretenses and which was actually making things worse the more it was fought. (This is purely a hypothetical question, clearly.) Should Americans then point out the futility of the war? Or should they instead allow the war to continue, telling the soldiers repeatedly the war is right, so the soldiers will feel their sacrifice was worthwhile? The answer should be obvious: lots and lots of happy, deceived, dead soldiers is better than there being just a few dead soldiers, who knew the truth and were resentful.
All of the questions about Cindy Sheehan we have received come down to this: is it okay for people to protest a war? The answer is yes, but never by referencing any personal experiences. And also not publicly. Or aloud.
But are there any open questions? Yes, there are. And thanks for asking. One question that we hear from many of our readers is, "Oh, Andromeda, you are so wise and pleasant-smelling, please tell us if Cindy Sheehan has the right to say such things as 'The President was wrong about weapons of mass destruction.'"
The answer to your question, surprisingly, is yes, she is allowed to say that. Her error is in saying it publicly. Or aloud. Such statements destroy our troops' morale. In fact, they were really happy about being away from home in the blasting heat of the desert, with the under-armored Humvees, and the newest IEDs from Iran, and all of that, until Cindy Sheehan made her anti-war statements. Now, they just want to come home. Hearing such public dissent makes them think its become a democracy here while they were gone, and they long to see what that's like.
Many readers also ask, "But can she say that stuff about Bush sending his own children to fight in the war if he believes in it so much?" Here, the answer is no. She is not allowed to say that. The Bush girls would survive perhaps one week in Iraq and therefore suggesting they go there is, legally, the same thing as a direct threat against them.
Some readers have posed the more challenging question, "But is it okay for her to dishonor the memory of her son and all the other soldiers who've died or been injured by implying they died in vain?" To answer this question, readers, we ask you to consider this hypothetical example. Suppose there really were a war which was brought on false pretenses and which was actually making things worse the more it was fought. (This is purely a hypothetical question, clearly.) Should Americans then point out the futility of the war? Or should they instead allow the war to continue, telling the soldiers repeatedly the war is right, so the soldiers will feel their sacrifice was worthwhile? The answer should be obvious: lots and lots of happy, deceived, dead soldiers is better than there being just a few dead soldiers, who knew the truth and were resentful.
All of the questions about Cindy Sheehan we have received come down to this: is it okay for people to protest a war? The answer is yes, but never by referencing any personal experiences. And also not publicly. Or aloud.
