May
29th 2007
Posted under Iraq
See the full story here.
I found this statement interesting.
When Sheehan first took on Bush, she was a darling of the liberal left. “However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the ‘left’ started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used,” she wrote in the diary.
She said she sacrificed a 29-year marriage and endured threats to put all her energy into stopping the war. What she found, she wrote, was a movement “that often puts personal egos above peace and human life.”
She is right. To often it is all about party and not about doing what is right. That is true for Democrats and Republicans.
csason on 29 May 2007 at 4:44 pm #
She certainly knows about putting her ego in front of things..
I personally despise her for dishonoring her son.
Conservative Times » More on Cindy Sheehan on 29 May 2007 at 4:48 pm #
[...] Here she is quiting the anti-war movement that I reference below. [...]
Filmer on 29 May 2007 at 4:59 pm #
“I personally despise her for dishonoring her son.”
How is it dishonoring to him to not want other people’s sons and daughters (shamefully) to die as well?
I admit she is a bit of a grandstander.
Bede on 29 May 2007 at 5:47 pm #
No, she would not help. She’s a liability. Even anti-war leftists have distanced themselves from her.
Paleoconservatives suffer a popular misconception. They need to be able to inform people that they are non-interventionists, but not pacifists. (I think that about 80% of the population conflates the two.) If the U.S. were attacked or about to be attacked, paleos would support retaliation. This is classical just-war theory. But intervention in Yugoslavia, Iraq or Darfur is not.
Filmer on 29 May 2007 at 7:34 pm #
I have long been skeptical of a true left-right coalition against the War. It does mix our message in the minds of those who don’t attempt to (or can’t) grasp nuance. But I honestly don’t think there are really that many true pacifists outside certain small denominations such as the Quakers. Who would not support self defense if we were honestly invaded? Almost no one.
The problem is that many so-called conservatives seem to glory in and relish war. They see it as a tool for good instead of a rare grim necessity. I find this sentiment profoundly disturbing. Especially among evangelical Christian supporters of the War and Bush.
That war is something that is to be avoided if possible and when engaged in done so only when necessary and just is something that some on the anti-war left seem to understand more than so-called conservatives. This is not an embrace of the anti-war left. It is an indictment of the pro-war “right.”