Grieving Mother of Fallen Soldier Pulling Media Stunt at Bush Ranch (Free Republic mentioned!)

The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who started a quiet roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch last weekend is drawing supporters from across the nation.

Dozens of people have joined her, and others have sent flowers and food. One activist called her "the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement."

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., says she was surprised at the response.

"Before my son was killed, I used to think that one person could not make a difference," she said Wednesday under a tent where she has slept since Saturday. "But one person that is surrounded and supported by millions of people can be heard."

But Kristinn Taylor, co-leader of the Washington, D.C., chapter of FreeRepublic.com, which has held pro-troop rallies, said Sheehan's actions are misguided and hurt troop morale.

"She has a political agenda that goes way beyond her son's death in combat," Taylor said.

Although a few residents have complained about the protesters, no one has been arrested because the group has been on the public right-of-way, said Capt. Kenneth Vanek of the McLennan County Sheriff's Office.

On Saturday, two high-level Bush administration officials, the national security adviser and deputy White House chief of staff, talked to Sheehan for about 20 minutes.

Sheehan called the brief meeting "pointless" and still wants to talk to the president.

Her 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Sadr City, Iraq, in April 2004 just five days after he arrived. Two months later, Sheehan was among grieving military family members who met with Bush at Fort Lewis, near Seattle, Wash.

Since then, she said, various government and independent commission reports have disputed the Bush administration's claims that Saddam Hussein had mass-killing chemical and biological weapons - a main justification for the March 2003 invasion.

On Wednesday, a coalition of anti-war groups in Washington called on Bush to speak with Sheehan, who they say has helped to unify the peace movement.

"Cindy Sheehan has become the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement," said Rev. Lennox Yearwood, leader of the Hip Hop Caucus, an activist group. "She's tired, fed up and she's not going to take it anymore, and so now we stand with her."

At her makeshift camp in muddy ditches off the two-lane, winding road leading to Bush's ranch, Sheehan has spent the past several days talking to reporters, hugging fellow protesters and taking brief breaks to eat sandwiches and fruit brought by supporters. Her vigil has also become a hot topic on the Internet and blogs.

Although she doesn't expect Bush to meet with her in Crawford, she says if he did she would ask him whether he has encouraged his twin daughters to enlist.

"I want him to quit using my son's death to justify more killing," she said. "The only way he can honor my son's death is to bring the troops home."

Sheehan, a former Roman Catholic youth minister, formed a group called Gold Star Families For Peace earlier this year and has spoken out against the war across the nation and overseas.

Judith Young, national president of similarly named The American Gold Star Mothers of America, Inc., said she is concerned that the public will mistake her 76-year-old Washington, D.C., nonprofit organization with Sheehan's group.

Young's group, commonly known as Gold Star Moms, arranges for mothers whose children died in the line of duty to volunteer in veterans' hospitals and programs. Members don't do advocacy work, Young said.

Here's another one for Mrs. Sheehan to ponder as she makes a mockery of her son's service and sacrifice for his country. How very sad for Casey's bravery!

January 19, 2004, 9:49 a.m.
Wesley’s Clark’s Pro-War Manifesto
He didn’t just support the war — he thought it was great.

"I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer. I was against it in the fall. I was against it in the winter. I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."
Retired General Wesley Clark, in a candidates' debate, October 26, 2003.

This isn't really a test — after all, the answer is in the title of this article. But just for the exercise, please ask yourself the following questions:

Who said, in April of 2003, "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back"?

Who said, at the same time: "Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, eases lingering doubt and reinforces bold action. Already the scent of victory is in the air"?

Who said: "The operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don't look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are 'next' if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns"?

Who said: "If there is a single overriding lesson [from the campaign in Iraq], it must be this: American military power...is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact"?

Who said: "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt"?

Who said: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats"?

If you answered Wesley Clark to all the questions, you are correct. The quotes are from two op-eds Clark wrote last April for the Times of London. Taken together, they suggest that Clark's approval of the war was even deeper and more far-ranging than originally thought.

To be fair, Clark expressed some reservations in the articles. He cautioned that more work needs to be done in Iraq, "before we take our triumph." There was still resistance to be dealt with, by "armed persuasion." Looting had to be stopped, order restored, and humanitarian aid begun. And weapons of mass destruction had not been found.

Clark also wrote that the war had left the U.S. and Britain diplomatically isolated. Still, he said, "the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment": "The scent of victory, if not the end of the operation, is certainly in the air."

Last week, Clark's supporters rushed to his defense over Republican accusations that Clark had supported the war in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in September 2002. A fair reading of Clark's testimony shows that he made statements that could be interpreted as supporting the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq, and he also made statements that could be interpreted as questioning the need for such a resolution. Clark was, in short, playing both sides of the fence.

If the president went forward with war and all was a great success, Clark could say he was on board from the very beginning. If the president did not go to war, relying instead on extended diplomatic efforts that ultimately proved successful, Clark could say he was on board with that, too. And if either path ended in failure or political unpopularity, Clark could say he opposed the plan from the start.

Seven months later, in April 2003, with U.S. troops in control in Iraq, Clark made his choice. Liberation, "the powerful balm that justifies sacrifice," was at hand, and the U.S. had won a great victory. Clark was on board. It was only later, when the Iraqi insurgency proved more violent than expected and Clark decided to run for the Democratic nomination for president, that his position changed yet again.

"I want him to quit using my son's death to justify more killing," she said. "The only way he can honor my son's death is to bring the troops home."

So, if we bring the troops home precipitously, so that Iraqis feel abandoned, their internal and external enemies emboldened, and Iraq's fledgling democracy collapse into disarray, and the mass graves once again begin to fill... this will "honor" your son?

Don't forget Vietnam, folks. The same types, doing the same things, said the same things then. They just "wanted to bring the troops home." But AFTER the troops were home, and the peace treaty signed in Paris, they hounded the congress to slash aid to South Vietnam again and again, they fought any attempt to enforce the peace treaty. The only logical interpretation of their actions was that they wanted America's allies to be defeated because they thought America was "wrong".

Given the opportunity they will do the same thing again. Even if Iraq manages to write and pass a constitution, hold a constitutional election, take hold of their security situation and fully relieve the coalition forces; these "bring the troops home" types will still be doing everything in their power (a power they MUST be denied) to undermine, sabotage and erase these successes. They will not willingly let any success stand that is a result of a (supposedly) "evil" American policy. America's "arrogant" and evil policy must result in defeat and failure, and if that means that a new democracy must be plunged back into despotism (and it does) the "bring the troops home" crowd won't give a damn.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.