« Meet with Cindy, indeed | Main | What a time for an Internet meltdown »

August 11, 2005



Common Sense blog on Cindy Sheehan

Jim McCulloch

Good post. Informative. An interesting thing you mentioned was the fact that she's angry. A lot of conservatives seem to want to use that as a reproach. "Anger equals hatred and liberals profess to dislike hatred, ergo angry liberals are hypocrites," seems to be the reasoning.
But a mother whose son has been killed in a very dubious war indeed seems to me to be able to turn this rhetorical tactic back around--I think people realize she has a good reason to be angry.

damn yankee

Great post Nate. My heart breaks for Cindy and the other parents of fallen soldiers. I haven't seen much coverage of this on the news. Maybe I'm not tuning in at the right times. Any info on this I get is from you. Do you see a "large scale" anti-war movement brewing?? Thanks again for the info....


If by large-scale you mean thousands of people across the country becoming pissed off at the way Cindy is being ignored, then yes.

In my conversation with her, Cindy said that people are rallying because they believe something is changing. Maybe it is the messenger, maybe it is the people listening to the message. I don't know.

But hundreds of people are in Crawford because of her, and maybe millions more on the Internet.

Jonathan Blundell

If the President grants the request of Cindy to meet with him (after he met with her once already - but she was apparently too distraught to think clearly), does that not set a presidence that anyone who protests about anything gets to meet with the President. My sister died in March, at the age of 24, after a very quick bout with cancer. Does that mean that my family should be able to protest for a week and demand (and get) an audience with the President because he let doctors work in hospitals that weren't correctly educated on kidney tumors?
Or should I get an audience with the President by protesting that I think NASA should spend more money on sending men to the sun?
Protestors have the right to protest anything anywhere, but I don't think the President should be subject to meet with anyone who has a sign and a cause.


Your argument has many flaws. One, no one has said the president is legally required to meet her. It is up to him whether or not she gets another meeting. I would point out that she met him in a group 4 months after her son died in combat, so I'm sure she was too distraught to ask the questions she is asking now.

I'm ver sorry for the loss of your sister, but she didn't die due to orders of the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. There cause is directly related to his decision to send troops into Iraq.

To make an analogy, the stem cell debate is also related to his decsion in 2001 to limit the federal funding to the existing stem cell lines. Those protesting the lack of advancement in that field would protest that particular decision on his part.

They have a genuine grievance with a decision made by President Bush, with which you can agree or disagree. Sending men to the sun is just a silly straw man argument that has no real bearing on what they are doing there and a possible "precedent" just make no sense.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Visit Common Sense

  • Visit the all-new home of Common Sense by simply clicking here. Seriously, what are you still doing here? We've moved. Come visit us at the new location.