Posted on 02/01/2006 2:08:03 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Since I saluted her last summer when she took a stand in Crawford, Texas, it seems only fair that I make another public gesture now that Cindy Sheehan has removed one of her "Camp Casey" hiking shoes and stuck her foot firmly in her mouth.
That gesture is to raise a hand and cover up my wincing eyes.
It's not the first time this celebrated and denigrated mother of a fallen soldier has spouted off a bit incautiously. But I cut her a break before. After all, her beloved son Casey died in Iraq while mine is alive and kicking.
Besides, she doesn't have the benefit of a platoon of speech writers and spin artists. And, even with those helpers at his ear, our president has been known to touch his toes to his tongue more than once.
But then, last weekend, Sheehan had her Jane Fonda moment -- one that, like Jane's hey ho to Hanoi, may untie the good she laced together outside Mr. Bush's ranch.
In Caracas, arm in arm with Venezuelan President and "Down with the U.S. empire!" radio show host Hugo Chavez, Sheehan said she agreed with a previous statement made on that show by singer-activist Harry Belafonte. She agreed, she said, that George W. Bush is the greatest terrorist in the world.
Far more interesting than my reaction had to be the reactions of those in Seattle who have worked so hard for so long to legitimately question Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq and the resulting loss of both civilians and soldiers like 24-year-old Casey Sheehan.
What did they think, I wondered?
Lietta Ruger was careful and thoughtful before weighing in. A military mom and member of Military Families Speak Out, Ruger flew from the Seattle area to Crawford last summer to camp with and support Sheehan. And she says she still believes strongly in Sheehan's original message -- her insistence on an explanation for this war. "That was a question, not a statement," she said. "And we're still looking for an answer."
Ruger believes that Sheehan's stand at Camp Casey nudged much of the nation out of its oblivion over this ill-begotten venture. And she doesn't think Sheehan's radio comment takes anything away from that accomplishment. "But I'm trying to concentrate locally, on the families at Fort Lewis." Ruger said. "And I wouldn't want her (Sheehan) to go there and deliver that message. (The one calling the president the world's greatest terrorist)."
"Military culture says that, while we respect our leaders, we may also question them. But calling them terrorists moves the line," she said.
To his credit, Mike Dedrick didn't mince words where others in the peace movement demurred. A member of Veterans for Peace and a counselor with the GI Rights Hotline, he said a lot of people agree with Sheehan and Belafonte. On Web sites and blogs, lots of people think the president is spreading, not fighting terrorism and are calling for Bush's impeachment.
"Her (Sheehan) comments don't change the fact that we were lied to by George Bush," Dedrick said. "She's entitled to her opinion."
Former Green Party candidate Kara Ceriello admits she was surprised by the "pretty extreme" Belafonte comment seconded by Sheehan. She still loves and admires Sheehan for her Texas stand and believes, full-bore in free speech. But, like Ruger, she thinks better, more careful words sway more people than incendiary name-calling bombs.
"It's important to speak your mind but it's also important to effect change," she said.
Finally, former peace activist and military mom Vicky Monk said that, like me, she winced when she saw the words Sheehan used from her international platform.
Monk has separated herself from Military Families Speak Out since her son came home from Iraq. She's concentrating on his needs now.
She said she was troubled by being pressured to make more radical statements than she was comfortable with when she did travel to speak against the war to Japan and elsewhere. While her politics are conservative, "I have some criticisms about Bush and more important, questions about this war," Monk said. "When my son was there (in Iraq) I was asking the questions he had but couldn't ask. But some of the things people say really disturb me. When they talk in terms of extremes they're really losing people in that greater middle."
I don't know how many still straddle the middle when it comes to Iraq. Dedrick of Veterans for Peace says people were already about as polarized as they could get over the war long before Sheehan spoke on the radio.
But I heard a little tremor when she blasted the already overdeployed T-word at the president last weekend. It was the sound of Cindy Sheehan -- but hopefully not the cause for peace -- losing ground.
Must give thanks to the Jesuits.
Boy, your net really has a financial death wish, doesn't it?
The effect of the rainstorm affected my plans to paint the window trim.
Wow, am I glad that you posted that article!!!!!
This little tidbit struck me. In the face. "Her attitudes on war were shaped in high school, when she thumbed through a Life magazine and opened to a spread on the My Lai massacre in Vietnam."
Why, you ask? (OK, you didn't, but I'm going to tell you anyway ; )
It struck me because I was shaped by the very same experience. I opened the Life Magazine myself. I wasn't in high school, though, I was 12.
I remember the evening very, very, vividly. Because I could not, nor could my mother, quell my tears or anger.
How, then, did I end up adamantly on the other side of the fence from this woman?
Perhaps, it was because I was guided to develop some critical thinking skills an using a little logic on the way to Oz, got a brain.
bump for later read
I don't know how many still straddle the middle when it comes to Iraq
Here is the American middle on the war in Iraq.
Take the percentage of America that supported the war and president Bush about one to two weeks into the ground war.
Many of those people still fully support this effort to protect America. All the remainder are those who can be won back ONCE a way is found to overcome the misinformation spread by the mainstream media.
Cindy Sheehan is being supported by what group or individual? Does she have to file any type of statement with the IRS for her group? She has to be carrying the water for someone. How do we find out her money trail?
You got that right. It's even the shortest month, but lasts forever.
FMCDH(BITS)
That.....and when he got home and found out what she was doing, he tore her a new one!
I do believe that Mother Sheehan has "jumped the shark".
It really is time to put her back into her padded cell and remove all nearby sharp objects.
Nope.
Won't work for her.
Didn't work for Rachel Corrie, either.
Like Rachel Corrie, the Paleo-stinians would LOVE Cindy, because she HATEs America.
They would be sure to do their head-sawing and summary executions where she couldn't see them.
(she winced when she saw the words Sheehan used from her international platform.)
ROTFL, international platform! Try consorting with the enemies of America. Makes them slightly uncomfortable doesn't it? Go Cindy go! I hope we next see her doing a joint conference with Zarqawi denouncing Bush!
I think the GOP has dropped the ball.
We should be tying Sheehan's comments around their necks. And the picture of Dean holding a Code Pink t-shirt should be on every Republican's commercial while the announcer lists all of the nasty things they do to soldiers.
But as usual, the Republicans insist on fighting "fair".... whatever that means.
They used to be plainly different . . . but some special uses have blurred the lines between the two.
Generally speaking, you are correct -- "affect" is the verb, while "effect" is the noun. "Affect" is to act upon something to produce an "effect." However, there are exceptions.
The shrinks have a term of art "affect", a noun, meaning the demeanor of a patient . . . usually seen in the descriptive term "flat affect" - one of those blank-looking people.
And "effect" is used as a verb in the phrase "effect change" - it doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "affect" in this context, though, because "affect" denotes a partial or tangential force operating upon something, while "effect" in this context is causative. So the usage in this article is an exception to the general rule, but correct.
Clear as mud?
The patient displayed flat Affect.
I thought the t-word was theater.
Then I saw that the article was by Susan Paytner.
I got to stand up for Paytner: 9 or 10 years ago I wrote her a very long and angry letter about a topic she covered off and on for several months. I'd written her basically to get something off my chest and honestly never expected anything to come of it but she asked my permission to use the letter and she printed it in its entirety. She did it because she felt I was in the right, that my point of view needed to be heard and that I explained my position very well.
I believe I got more column space than she'd ever had.
She also followed-up with me personally later on, and let me know some information that she secretly become privy to.
I've always respected her from our interactions even though she's center-left on most subjects.
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.