The Talking Lion

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Fucking Liberal Hippie Anti-War Protestors...

They don't know anything about what it means to be a true American. There are United States military out there on the ground doing the best they can and these treasonous elitist liberal bastards try to do everything in their power to make their lives difficult and put them in more danger. They don't even support the troops that are fighting the war, how can anybody take their pleas seriously?

Yeah. Not really.

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of a fallen American soldier. Cindy Sheehan wants some answers from the president. Cindy Sheehan doesn't plan to leave Crawford, TX until she gets to speak with the commander-in-chief. Her protest has helped ignite a struggling anti-war movement, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Still, that hasn't stopped some "patriotic" Texans from being disrespectful and obnoxious. And I quote,

More than 150 flag-waving marchers made their way toward Sheehan's camp to show their support for the war. Also, a lone demonstrator drove a pickup blaring country music with a large American flag flying from its bed. A sign on his door read: "Texas Is Bush Country."

That's just great. The mother of a man who gave his life for his country is getting harrassed by some redneck in a truck. I love this country.

But I mean, I guess I can't blame the guy. It must be hard for people like him to wrap their head around the idea that military members and their family would oppose the war. It actually complicates the issue of who is truly "patriotic" and contradicts the talking points that the Bush adminsitration has been throwing out since the reelection campaign. And nobody wants to live in a complicated world. It's easier just to ignore things that conflict your simplisitic worldview.

This article, publsihed Monday in the Philadelphia Inquirer, details wo the protestors are, why they are there, and what they hope to accomplish. Basically,

We have now in Crawford an invaluable collection of ordinary Americans who can speak a plain and irrefutable truth about the reality of the Iraq War. If the President, and the rest of America, had the patience for these stories, we might find the capacity to stop this unending tragedy.


Patience. Is that too much to ask? I sure hope not.

7 Comments:

  • you want some "contradiction" and "complication" into your "simplistic worldview"

    what of the veracity of begrieved family members who support the war?

    should your claims be evaluated on the number of grieving widows who support you?

    also, when she took to protesting in public, i believe she becomes something other than a grieving widow - though maybe im entirely wrong and infact this tragedy has created inside this once humble and happy lady the superpower of super-insight and super-analysis and thus her demi-god spouted rhetoric should instead be bowed to or quietly internalized, for she hath seen someone killed in combat, and will be forever wise in all things.


    also,

    patience? what does that even mean? are you asking for a virtue? or are you asking for an action? thatd be a blog post id like to see.

    is it like Kerry's "prudence"? his promise to search every ocean liner? his stalwart commitment to reducing terrorism to a "nuisance"?

    shit i guess i cant criticize you because this widow is crying and you and her agree on some stuff. my bad

    By Blogger deeds not fap, at Tuesday, 16 August, 2005  

  • I'm well aware of the fact that there are plenty of "begrieved family members who support the war." My point is that this is not an issue of military vs. liberal elitists. The situation is much more complicated and there are plenty of men and women in the military and their families who do not support the war.

    Just because Cindy Sheehan is protesting in public, doesn't change the fact that she indeed is a grieving mother. She's not just a grieving mother, she is also a protestor. Because she's a grieing mother. And because she's recognized that this mess Bush has gotten us into in Iraq is just getting worse and worse. She certainly has a lot of courage for doing what she does.

    What I believe the Zappala's mean when they ask for patience from the president and the American people is the willingness to listen to the pleas of people like Sheehan and consider that they might have some worthwhile things to say.

    Just because this widow is crying doesn't mean you can't disagree with what she has to say. I think at the very least, however, she deserves to be heard.

    By Blogger Sean, at Tuesday, 16 August, 2005  

  • yeah some data on the "plenty of men and women in the military and their families who do not support the war" would be useful. also, a term less ambiguous than "plenty" would be more helpful.

    wait, so is she a protestor. AND a grieving mother. are you certain of this? are you sure you want to go out on a limb like that? :-/

    willingness to listen? is that a policy objective? everyone has heard from this woman because she's become the anti-war/media tool/darling of the moment.

    regardless of what you "think", the 1st amendment means she "deserves" to be heard anyways.

    furthermore, i dont know how much more "consideration" is needed of what she is saying, unless you just think that her sadness gives her some "moral authority", (which is a great idea in and of itself btw) and that all those ignorant men and women in uniform that support the war, and all their ignoramus families in ignorant low IQ red states should just defer to yours and cindy's muddled pathos for some more prudent Clintonite direction in our affairs.

    By Blogger deeds not fap, at Wednesday, 17 August, 2005  

  • There are several grassroots organizations out there made up of military members and families who are against the war. Here is one of them:

    http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

    It's not just a couple of people. That's all I'm saying. There is clearly at least a sizeable minority of military members and their families who are against the war for one reason or another. It's obviously a hard thing to quantify, but unlike the rhetoric of the Bush adminsitration, supporting the troops does not mean blindly advocating Bush's agenda for Iraq. That's all I'm saying.

    I think she has a compelling story, and I think what she is doing takes a lot of courage. The fact that she is willing to do something like this should at least pique our curiosity enough to listen to what she is saying. But maybe that's just me...

    By Blogger Sean, at Wednesday, 17 August, 2005  

  • i think "supporting the troops" is not an end in itself. And the nature of such support is not how you would, for instance, support a family or a child, which implies a sort of protection. When one supports our troops, you are supporting the rough men willing to do violence (to paraphrase orwell) so that we can sleep easily and never have to see or otherwise truly know the horrors that would do violence upon us without them. And the nature of needed support is not manifest in "bringing them home now", but rather giving them what they need to get the job done; Our soldiers are incredibly capable and we will only know the full power and meddle of these ambitious operations in the coming decades. I would say support our troops by learning about what they do, what they need and what they want from us on the homefront. A good place for you to start would be

    http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/


    they've changed the strategic picture that faced us after 9/11, and set the stage for hopefully the next pounce on pakistan/central asia that will likely look much different than our bout in the ME (provided those in office now and after '08 have the leadership). we need our troops "over there" fighting abroad and i would not so easily stomach the, at the least, implied return (which such groups advocate) to solipsistic delusion when gutted embassys, gutted US warships and gutted iraqi sovereignty (via no fly zones etc) really meant everything was A-ok and we should just worry about our cutesy economy and just let terrorism be sometihng TIME magazine mentioned a few times when it had put jesus on the cover too much.

    By Blogger teh cwazy!, at Thursday, 18 August, 2005  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Kevin, at Saturday, 20 August, 2005  

  • Sean and Kinch,

    No one deserves to be heard. The First Amendment does not entitle someone to be heard, it only enables it.

    She doesn't deserve to be heard as if its a moral absolute. She is being heard because the media wishes it, regardless of her relevance to our lives or the issue. The fact that the media has anointed her does not make her worth our attention. The only reason you think so, Sean, is because she is a good pawn in the left's game to end the war. Facts are meaningless these days, so her opinion, her uninformed, selfish, emotionally driven opinion is being substituted for academic facts.

    What a great country has been ruined by this line of thinking!

    By Blogger Kevin, at Saturday, 20 August, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home