“No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.”
- Ronald Reagan
One would think that Reagan’s remarks left little room for a mother to tolerate the death of her son in a “war of choice”. Furthermore, based upon his words, one would think that he would wholeheartedly support the inquiries and protest of the mother of a soldier who died in a war based on malleable and questionable rationales.
One would think so… that is, if one chose to think.
For Reagan’s alleged “conservative” disciples, the opposite seems to be true. Because Cindy Sheehan has not accepted an illusory WMD threat, Bin Laden links, spreading freedom and an emancipation of women (Islamic fundamentalist style on both), or any of the other multiple reasons given her, and the country, for her son’s death in Iraq, they seem to feel that she has forfeited her right to speak and/or protest on the matter. It seems to be a clash of values between the “neo- cons” (new cons) and the old cons.
In support of their position, today’s “conservatives”, among other things, have said that she is/has:
“… hurting our troops and endangering our troops; an anti-Semite; hateful; in bed with the radical left; aligned herself with people who hate this country, hate this government; shamed her son by her comments; trying to pull a little bit of a swindle and been totally co-opted by the whole Michael Moore leftist mentality; exploiting death; engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush’s Crawford ranch; supported by hysterical paranoid ideologist[s] who have turned the “Camp Casey” protest into “Camp Fruitbat and Nutbag.”
And, as one of FOX’s Sans-A-Belt(way) Boys said, she’s “a crackpot”.
Such are the comments and “keen insight” offered by the most well-known and visible members of modern conservatism who believe in, among other things, “family values”, Christianity, Intelligent Design, Pat Robertson, the flag, prayer in schools, privatization of Social Security, Abu Ghraib style “hazing”, a $223 million “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska funded by the Transportation Bill, Supplemental (offline- therefore not counted in the budget) spending for an ongoing war, and are against, among other things, the obscenity that is a peek at Janet Jackson’s breast, the immorality of “Will and Grace”, and the “Communism/Socialism/Liberalism” of those that want to implement a living wage and Universal Health Care.
It seems, according to the media and highly paid pundits who know a thing or two about war (having successfully evaded it in their youth), that she’s the only mother truly questioning the war. Since they insist that her opinion has been proven worthless through the widely accepted methods of demonizing, guilt by association, and rumor, all of which were subsequently verified by relentless repetition, perhaps one should turn to the one mother painted with the “conservative” brush of all that is good about America- Barbara Bush.
She has not only raised one son who occupies the Oval Office, she is married to a man who once occupied the Oval Office himself. She also has another son who is Governor of a large state that helped get her son George into the position he currently occupies and from which the Iraq war was started. Just a “typical” mom. As such, surely her opinion on casualties is worth taking note of when discussing the war her son started and Cindy Sheehan’s son died in:
“But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it’s gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it’s, it’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?”
- Barbara Bush, Good Morning America – March 18, 2003
So it’s the opinion of a “beautiful mind” that it should not be wasted on thoughts about body bags and deaths against the opinion of a tortured mind that answers are required for the body bags and deaths. “What… me worry?” versus “What is the reason?”
Since Cindy Sheehan’s voice is in direct competition with a phalanx of paid for professional barkers attempting to drown her out and consign her to irrelevancy, in the interests of fairness, one ahould take a look at what the sons say about the war and its casualties. George Bush’s own words on the subject are:
“…I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life… I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy… and part of my being is to be outside exercising.”
- George Bush, vacationing in Crawford, Texas – August 13, 2005
Unfortunately, Casey Sheehan could not be reached for comment.
So it’s exercise and “getting on with life” against no exercise possible as there is no more life. “What.. me worry?” versus deathly silence.
The Bushes. Caring. Compassionate. “Real” Americans. Just “down home folks” (be it in Crawford, Kennebunkport, Camp David, or some Saudi King’s or Prince’s grand estate). The type of people worth having a beer with – after undergoing a thorough backgound check and subject to Secret Service approval.
As to the assault on Cindy Sheenan and her right to voice her opinion in any non-violent manner she chooses, the Administration and its backers seem to be attempting to prevail using their tired WWF-like verbal “smackdowns” in order to silence opposition and/or manufacture consent.
It is highly doubtful that either Casey Sheehan or the “Gipper” would stand for the silencing of anyone’s right to voice their opposition to this war. Especially the voice of a mother.
About the Author
A moderate to progressive look at politics in these radically regressive times.