Replies

Jim, my friend,

Please pass the following message along to the folks who are organizing this effort:

There were 262,000 American military fatalities in WW II. That was mostly drafted personnel, not volunteers. So there HAD to have been a higher ratio of "Cindy Sheehans" then, than there are now. If we assume equality and 1% of the "Sheehan" moms are anti-war, that would be 18 such people today.

Apply the same standard of 1% to WW II. There would have been 2,620 "Sheehan" moms then. How did the New York Times, Time magazine, NBC Radio News, and the other press outlets that existed then, cover the "Sheehan" moms from WW II?

At any press conference, any reporter for any newspaper, magazine or radio station which existed at the time of WW II should be challenged by name to go into its own records and report the truth about how it handled this very situation then, as opposed to now. And they should be challenged to explain in editorial form why these differences existed between then and now.

Those few who are capable of both logic and introspection should be influenced to make what they say and report, more honest as a result. I do not expect this to have a particle's influence on what Sheehan and her enablers change their behavior in any way. But it could improve the press coverage just slightly, if not more.

Hope this is useful.

John / Billybob

You are most correct. Here is a WWII comic to show that this anti-war sentiment was just as prevelant in that time, as it was now. Shoot, the players don't even change the words, just the names! The media seems to want the public to think that all other wars, with the exception of Vietnam, were "popular"...anyone who actually cracks a history book knows that WWI and WWII were also protested--and the Presidents at the time blamed. The only difference was that the media did not exalt those who did the protesting.

I'm not sure I agree with your premise.
I would argue that during WWII there were concomitant variables that were inversely related to the 'Cindy Sheehan' syndrome, i.e., quaint notions like nationalism, patriotism and loyalty.

That said, we all know about the the Times' agenda-driven reportage, the most notorious of which its shameful failure re the Holocaust, A lot of good the Times' ex post facto admission did for the six million dead.

Shortly after 9/11, Times publisher, 'Pinch' Sulzberger similarly offered another ex post facto admission of another shameful Times failure. He sheepishly ( ;)) told Brian Lamb (C-SPAN, Washington Journal, 11.30.01) that the Times' endorsement of clinton was based on clinton "policies, not achievements."

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?