Not Alone
Cindy Sheehan is unalone today, as vigils stretch across the country in parallel with hers. But more so, she is unalone in need and ideology. With much less media fury, a group of 17 British families of killed soldiers files for an inquiry into the legality of the war in Iraq which killed their family members.
Undoubtedly, the British families lack the drama of Camp Casey- a seemingly spontaneous event that has risen at the vacation home of the symbolic head of the war; but they are equally important. They represent a legal proceeding to mine the history of the decision to go to war, and on what pretenses those decisions were made.
Much scrutiny has been placed on Sheehan's shoulders, as though the onus is on her to prove her worth in protest. It is an interesting position: should the onus not, simply, be on the justifiers of the invasion to justify it? And have they, very simply, not done so? Have they not continuously misled, fluctuated, and manipulated their way into this war? Have they not provided a clear and reasonable exit strategy; have they not failed to rebuild the nation because of very poor after-invasion planning?
As Orchinus astutely points out, the criticism of Sheehan based on her change in position is also misplaced. She currently has repeatedly stated that the President's lies to get into the war directly resulted in her son's death, and she wants an explanation. The righties pounce on this as though she has fluctuated position, when in fact her meeting with the President, and the revelations that followed, are essentially what solidified her position.
While the timing of the war decisions have always been suspicious, Sheehan's interaction with The Administration are important to understand. She met the President once, in June of 2004. In September, the Duelfer Report was released which stated with clarity that Iraq never came close to reconstituting its WMD programs; thus rendereing The Administration's justifications as being false. How hard is this to see? Sheehan met the President, then found out with certainty that he had lied us into the war.
Orchinus' title for his piece on Sheehan? "It's About Accountability." That's what it's all about.
This movement is not Sheehan alone. A parallel movement is occuring in Britain, and both need to be understood. They're not about agendizing the trauma of their sons being taken from them. They are about understanding why their sons were killed. Why we're in the war. Whether we have any legal right to be.
As Pat Buchanan notes: Sheehan may have inadvertantly forged herself as a vital catalyst to crisis for The Administration. Of course it's too early to say, and nobody really wants Sheehan to endure that; particularly not alone. But this transition will be vital. When Sheehan's actions lead the public to realize how darkly we've been led astray, and how vehemently the arrogance of The Administration affects their wish to dodge accountability in all fronts, the Administration will find themselves steeped in a pit of PR quicksand.
Things aren't looking good for them, anyway.
Undoubtedly, the British families lack the drama of Camp Casey- a seemingly spontaneous event that has risen at the vacation home of the symbolic head of the war; but they are equally important. They represent a legal proceeding to mine the history of the decision to go to war, and on what pretenses those decisions were made.
Much scrutiny has been placed on Sheehan's shoulders, as though the onus is on her to prove her worth in protest. It is an interesting position: should the onus not, simply, be on the justifiers of the invasion to justify it? And have they, very simply, not done so? Have they not continuously misled, fluctuated, and manipulated their way into this war? Have they not provided a clear and reasonable exit strategy; have they not failed to rebuild the nation because of very poor after-invasion planning?
As Orchinus astutely points out, the criticism of Sheehan based on her change in position is also misplaced. She currently has repeatedly stated that the President's lies to get into the war directly resulted in her son's death, and she wants an explanation. The righties pounce on this as though she has fluctuated position, when in fact her meeting with the President, and the revelations that followed, are essentially what solidified her position.
While the timing of the war decisions have always been suspicious, Sheehan's interaction with The Administration are important to understand. She met the President once, in June of 2004. In September, the Duelfer Report was released which stated with clarity that Iraq never came close to reconstituting its WMD programs; thus rendereing The Administration's justifications as being false. How hard is this to see? Sheehan met the President, then found out with certainty that he had lied us into the war.
Orchinus' title for his piece on Sheehan? "It's About Accountability." That's what it's all about.
This movement is not Sheehan alone. A parallel movement is occuring in Britain, and both need to be understood. They're not about agendizing the trauma of their sons being taken from them. They are about understanding why their sons were killed. Why we're in the war. Whether we have any legal right to be.
As Pat Buchanan notes: Sheehan may have inadvertantly forged herself as a vital catalyst to crisis for The Administration. Of course it's too early to say, and nobody really wants Sheehan to endure that; particularly not alone. But this transition will be vital. When Sheehan's actions lead the public to realize how darkly we've been led astray, and how vehemently the arrogance of The Administration affects their wish to dodge accountability in all fronts, the Administration will find themselves steeped in a pit of PR quicksand.
Things aren't looking good for them, anyway.
posted by General Stan at 6:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home