Cindy Sheehan, Liberal Media Delight -- Activist grief… news at eleven…

The liberal media is delighted with Cindy Sheehan. This is the woman who lost a son in Iraq and has camped outside President Bush's Crawford Ranch, intending to stay until the President speaks with her or returns to Washington. For the reporters waiting around in the dusty heat of West Texas, Ms. Sheehan is a godsend, a dramatic, heart-wrenching story that gives the media both a telegenic drama and another opportunity for indulging their dislike of Bush and the war in Iraq.

No one should trivialize Ms. Sheehan's grief, nor fail to understand why she is angry and wants to hold someone accountable. The worst thing a parent can experience is to lose a child, and those of us blessed enough not to have had that experience cannot judge the reaction of those who have. Yet the media's eagerness to publicize and exploit a grieving mother's anger and sorrow can be criticized, for it points to a larger pathology in our culture––the privileging of the suffering victim as someone who possesses superior insight and so must be heeded and catered to.

This elevation of the victim into a combination sage and secular martyr reflects conditions peculiar to the modern world. Most important is the simple fact that compared to the vast majority of humans who've ever lived, we in the West today have been freed from the everyday suffering and misery that earlier generations accepted as part of human existence. For them, as the Greek playwright Euripides put it, “Suffering is necessity for mortals.” Daily physical pain, early death, famine, malnutrition, chronic disease, violence from fellow humans and nature––all were simply non-negotiable realities of life that had to be endured. Suffering didn't make you special; it just made you human, like everybody else...

I guess Mrs. Sheehan is one of these people. It's from 2003, but it ties in nicely with the sad spectacle going on in Texas::

Will Dems 'bug out' of Iraq?
By MORTON KONDRACKE
Thursday, Oct. 16, 2003 United Feature Syndicate

By every standard except the short-term political, Democratic presidential candidates Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., and former Vermont governor Howard Dean have made a catastrophic decision in saying that they oppose President Bush's $87 billion aid package for Iraq.

Another candidate, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. - who claims to be a national security expert - has said that he's leaning toward the same politically suicidal and unconscionable position taken by Dean and Edwards.

Face it: Voting against the $87 billion means voting not to support U.S. troops now fighting for their lives and voting against the reconstruction of Iraq, where people's desperation will make life more dangerous for U.S. troops.

Such a vote is a vote to bug out of Iraq and leave it to the tender mercies of Saddam Hussein, his followers and international terrorists who will kill everyone who associated themselves with the United States and the goal of democratization.

If this were to be U.S. policy, it would destroy this country's standing in the world and fulfill the calculation of Osama bin Laden (and maybe Hussein, too): that the United States is a country of "weakness, frailty and cowardice" easily chased away when inflicted with even modest casualties.

Among the other leading Democratic candidates, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., have forthrightly declared that America has to spend the money.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark put out the lame statement, "I'm running for president, not for Congress." But this is a presidential decision if there ever was one.

Even Kerry's hesitation about supporting the money is an indication that he is what Lieberman described him as months ago: an "uncertain trumpet" on issues of war and peace. And if a majority of Democrats in either the House or the Senate ends up voting against the military supplemental spending bill, it will put a fatal brand on the Democratic Party as the bug-out party.

The only way to explain the Edwards-Dean stance is as a massive pander to anti-Bush, anti-war sentiment raging in the Democratic Party and a response to polls indicating that the public at large opposes the $87 billion aid package.

It's true that a poll conducted by Republican Bill McInturff and Democrat Stan Greenberg last week for National Public Radio showed that, by 55 percent to 42 percent, likely voters oppose the $87 billion. But that's a feeble political reed on which to hang such a momentous decision as the abandonment of U.S. forces in the field and a people who have become America's responsibility.

In what might have been seen as low-blow politics, Republicans probably were going to accuse a Democratic nominee who criticized Bush's Iraq policy of somehow aiding Hussein and international terrorism.

But now, if the nominee is Dean or Edwards - or Kerry, if he sides with them - Bush can make that charge openly. And, it won't be a low blow. It will be totally true.

On a less important level, Dean can be accused of flip-flopping on the post-war finance issue. And Edwards can be accused of absolute incoherence.

Dean, though he opposed the war, said in CNBC's Sept. 25 Democratic debate in New York that America has "no choice" but to approve the $87 billion.

Now, he's changed his view on the grounds that Bush refuses to pay for U.S. action in Iraq with increased taxes. Democrats make a legitimate point that taxes should be raised to pay for the war, but to deny U.S. troops and Iraqis vital money on these grounds puts budgetary considerations ahead of national security - and America's moral duty.

Edwards, who voted to authorize the war in October 2002, argued insensibly, "I believe we have a responsibility to support our troops in Iraq. I believe we have a responsibility to help rebuild Iraq," but then said that he opposes the money to achieve these aims.

He even said that "ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do and I stand by my vote." But he announced that he will vote not to finish the job he helped start.

Why? Because, he said, Bush has not laid out a "credible plan" for reconstruction, because Bush has "not engaged our allies in a meaningful way" and because "Bush's friends" may be getting "sweetheart deals" in reconstruction.

However, Bush is undercutting one of those premises by trying to win United Nations backing for the post-war effort - which, if it's not followed by aid and troop contributions from so-called "allies," will be their fault, not his.

And, what's a "credible plan"? The administration has said pretty precisely what it wants to spend $20 billion in reconstruction money on. It's eager to turn over more authority to the Iraqi Governing Council and hold elections as soon as they are feasible. And, it's trying to recruit Iraqis to be responsible for their own security.

As to "sweetheart deals," it's perfectly appropriate for Democrats to question construction contracts - and cry "scandal" if there is one. It's indefensible not to let construction go forward, however.

It's conceivable that Dean, Edwards or Kerry might declare that they knew Congress would approve Bush's request and that they were merely casting "protest votes." That's indefensible. Presidents and wannabe presidents don't cast protest votes. They lead.

The crowning rebuke to Democrats who oppose the supplemental is the evidence of what Iraqis want, as recorded in a new Gallup poll.

Only 26 percent of Baghdad's citizens want U.S. troops to leave "immediately" or "in the next few months." Seventy-two percent want them to stay longer. And these Democrats want to abandon them? It's a shameful position.

Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.

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.