War and Peace
Wednesday, at about noon, I became an "extern-widower." Despite my loneliness, I promise to endeavor to keep my readers entertained, amused, angered, depressed, and bemused with all of my postings. *grin*
It's now well into Smirk's five-week vacation; for all his blustering about "evil" France, he's certainly taking a siesta that outshines the vacations the French take. I always thought Ronald Reagan was a fairly relaxed guy, but Smirk makes vacationing look like an extreme sport. If he isn't careful, his "Presidency" is going to be a vacation reality show rather than anything resembling "The West Wing."
Meanwhile, Cindy Sheehan has set up camp just outside the "ranch" (what ranch? Five head of cattle? *please*) in the (vain) hopes that Smirk will meet with her and she can ask something quite a few of us have wanted to know for some time now: what the hell is this war all about? Why are so many people dying, and for what "noble cause"?
So far Smirk has had time for fundraisers, planned bike trips with Lance Armstrong, and the like, but no time to meet with Sheehan. I hope he saw Sheehan's sign: "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?" Whatever you may think of Sheehan, certainly she makes a good point: why is it the rich have access, but the average citizen doesn't? That's not to say that our leaders can and should meet with every single person that wanted to meet them; that would be impossible and would leave no time for governing. But it certainly would behoove Smirk to at least meet with Sheehan, and perhaps other mothers-- after all, it is their children's lives he's putting on the line, their children's lives that are being sacrificed, and he can't stop to explain?
Even if you wanted to be totally supportive of Smirk, totally selfish about this war, and righteously contemptuous of Sheehan, just from a PR viewpoint, wouldn't it have been best for Smirk to have met her right away? A leader like Clinton, for all his faults, would have waded out into the crowd immediately, met with Sheehan and the others encamped there, and regardless of the outcome, made it clear that he had done his part in meeting the bereaved mothers. Perhaps it wouldn't change a thing, and the whole war would continue, but at least it would have nipped in the bud a PR headache. For all his vaunted skills, Rove is failing Smirk on this one: instead, in the middle of the dog days, when the docile but bored press is cooped up in the middle of Texas, Sheehan's narrative is gaining legs. Now each day that passes is a day when Bush certainly comes across as unfeeling and uncaring, regardless of how you actually think he feels (I think he *is* unfeeling and uncaring-- others reading this may think the opposite)-- as I've said earlier, image really is everything.
Sheehan by herself is a totally sympathetic figure, and I do agree with a lot of the pundits, both online and off, that she's galvanized the anti-war movement a little bit; but by the same token, her outspokeness does make her a target, and gives some ammunition to those that are trying to accuse her of being a tool of anti-war groups. Still, I think she does put a human face on the consequences of the war, and that can only be a good thing. I think too many people have thought about this war in a rather abstract manner, not really taking the time to consider what's really happening in Iraq: the lives being lost and destroyed, the people being maimed and killed, and the total unnecessariness of it all.
One thing I do find interesting is that Sheehan's "Camp Casey" is attracting counter-protesters and other forms of opposition. The ironic thing is that it's the pro-war forces that are demonstrating rudeness and insensitivity, not Sheehan, her supporters or allies. Case in point: the jerk who attached a chain to the back of his vehicle and mowed down all the crosses. These crosses carry the names of slain soldiers; regardless of where you stand in this conflict, disrespecting the dead and their sacrifice is extremely insulting. An Iraq vet also found this offensive. Here's what he had to say.
The "violence" thus far isn't coming from the anti-war crowd; it's coming from those who insist on "respect" for their views. Rather ironic, that. For a country that insists that it's all about tolerance and freedom, mowing down a bunch of crosses is rather intolerant.
It's now well into Smirk's five-week vacation; for all his blustering about "evil" France, he's certainly taking a siesta that outshines the vacations the French take. I always thought Ronald Reagan was a fairly relaxed guy, but Smirk makes vacationing look like an extreme sport. If he isn't careful, his "Presidency" is going to be a vacation reality show rather than anything resembling "The West Wing."
Meanwhile, Cindy Sheehan has set up camp just outside the "ranch" (what ranch? Five head of cattle? *please*) in the (vain) hopes that Smirk will meet with her and she can ask something quite a few of us have wanted to know for some time now: what the hell is this war all about? Why are so many people dying, and for what "noble cause"?
So far Smirk has had time for fundraisers, planned bike trips with Lance Armstrong, and the like, but no time to meet with Sheehan. I hope he saw Sheehan's sign: "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?" Whatever you may think of Sheehan, certainly she makes a good point: why is it the rich have access, but the average citizen doesn't? That's not to say that our leaders can and should meet with every single person that wanted to meet them; that would be impossible and would leave no time for governing. But it certainly would behoove Smirk to at least meet with Sheehan, and perhaps other mothers-- after all, it is their children's lives he's putting on the line, their children's lives that are being sacrificed, and he can't stop to explain?
Even if you wanted to be totally supportive of Smirk, totally selfish about this war, and righteously contemptuous of Sheehan, just from a PR viewpoint, wouldn't it have been best for Smirk to have met her right away? A leader like Clinton, for all his faults, would have waded out into the crowd immediately, met with Sheehan and the others encamped there, and regardless of the outcome, made it clear that he had done his part in meeting the bereaved mothers. Perhaps it wouldn't change a thing, and the whole war would continue, but at least it would have nipped in the bud a PR headache. For all his vaunted skills, Rove is failing Smirk on this one: instead, in the middle of the dog days, when the docile but bored press is cooped up in the middle of Texas, Sheehan's narrative is gaining legs. Now each day that passes is a day when Bush certainly comes across as unfeeling and uncaring, regardless of how you actually think he feels (I think he *is* unfeeling and uncaring-- others reading this may think the opposite)-- as I've said earlier, image really is everything.
Sheehan by herself is a totally sympathetic figure, and I do agree with a lot of the pundits, both online and off, that she's galvanized the anti-war movement a little bit; but by the same token, her outspokeness does make her a target, and gives some ammunition to those that are trying to accuse her of being a tool of anti-war groups. Still, I think she does put a human face on the consequences of the war, and that can only be a good thing. I think too many people have thought about this war in a rather abstract manner, not really taking the time to consider what's really happening in Iraq: the lives being lost and destroyed, the people being maimed and killed, and the total unnecessariness of it all.
One thing I do find interesting is that Sheehan's "Camp Casey" is attracting counter-protesters and other forms of opposition. The ironic thing is that it's the pro-war forces that are demonstrating rudeness and insensitivity, not Sheehan, her supporters or allies. Case in point: the jerk who attached a chain to the back of his vehicle and mowed down all the crosses. These crosses carry the names of slain soldiers; regardless of where you stand in this conflict, disrespecting the dead and their sacrifice is extremely insulting. An Iraq vet also found this offensive. Here's what he had to say.
The "violence" thus far isn't coming from the anti-war crowd; it's coming from those who insist on "respect" for their views. Rather ironic, that. For a country that insists that it's all about tolerance and freedom, mowing down a bunch of crosses is rather intolerant.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 10:07 PM
<< Home