I was a staunch supporter of the anti-war movement you started with Camp Casey. I mourned for your son at a local MoveOn.org-sponsored vigil last August. Your dedication inspired many, myself included, as the protests moved from Crawford to Washington. Many of us were outraged at your treatment during the State of the Union address. Sadly, even after all the good you've done, I find that I can no longer consider myself a major supporter of yours.
Before I start, I want to inform you that this diary is based on an extended sequence of comments from Ms. Sheehan's diary from last Friday, regarding her protest and subsequent arrest in New York. Almost all I have to say will either be quoted or in response to a quotation from that thread since many of the arguments have already been made, often more eloquently than I can put them. If you haven't had the opportunity to read the above diary yet, I recommend you do so, if only to obtain the proper frame of reference.
The comment that started it all:
You were targeted for abuse because you ask for it (1.42 / 113)
While I appreciate everything you've done for the progressive cause and I sympathize with all you've gone through the last few years, the fact is that you are no longer really helping.
You keep going places with the intention of causing a scene, getting arrested and then complain about it. It's not solving a thing.
You did a job and you did it well--you brought the disaster that is this administration's policies in Iraq to the front of the American discourse. Now, please stop with your rhetoric before any credibility you have left is lost.
By now, we are all aware of the issues and, as you can see daily here, we are analyzing them and plotting strategies to implement them. Protests are for bringing an issue to the forefront of politics but the key issues are already there. That time is over.
Clearly, the Bush administration is unwilling to listen, so now is the time for political action. Nothing is going to change until November; do yourself a favor and stay out of jail until then.
by dennisl on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 05:29:03 PM EST
I can understand why many of you found the title inflammatory and I won't deny that was, at least, partially the purpose of the title.
So, let's examine the situation further. The
video of the event and subsequent arrest ended with the police carrying Ms. Sheehan away. This leads us to consider two scenarios:
1.) The injuries she sustained were those inflicted by the officers carrying her away. Then:
We don't have a blanket right to assemble
I have NO problem with her protesting in a place like the UN, and I have no problem with her being arrested to make a point and to bring attention to an issue she wanted to publicize. I DO have a problem with an assertion that she was an innocent victim, who was not resisting arrest by refusing to walk away from the protest site and by curling up into the fetal position, almost certainly in contradiction to a lawful order by a cop. She is not an innocent victim.
by slouise217 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 03:54:12 AM EST
2.) The injuries she sustained did not appear on the video.
In this case, since the police were already carrying her away, I have to assume that there was some additional intervening incident. Since she failed to document the initial confrontation and arrest, there is little chance of us learning the truth about any such intervening event.
While "asking for abuse" may have been the wrong phrasing, my fundamental mistake was trying to discuss the issue on her terms by even calling it abuse. In either case:
...She was not an innocent victim of an authoritarian government. She got the same treatment many others have gotten when they have protested this same way. She violated laws that are on the books. She was charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest. She did not submit to being arrested - she demanded that she be arrested, but did not submit to it in a way that would have guaranteed that she would not get a few bruises...
by slouise217 on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 05:52:54 AM EST
Her injuries, while unfortunate, are what can happen when you violate the law and resist arrest. Many of you commented on whether this incident deserved arrest. To quote one poster:
Horse hockey and poppycock (4.00 / 29)
Dense verbiage is no sign of intelligence. A peace activist by definition poses no threat to authorities, and when they are heavy handed, in a possible attempt to intimidate the activist into silent submission, the authorities deserve to be called out. That's not complaining, that's testifying. One day it could be you or me. Telling someone, even a peace protestor, they were asking to be abused at the hands of police gorillas is highly counterproductive.
by mrblifil on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 06:08:57 PM EST
Fortunately or not, depending on your perspective, posing a threat to authorities or others isn't the sole factor in actions being deemed criminal. While I will refrain from taking a position on this issue, here is a link to the legal definition of
criminal trespass in New York state.
I appreciate Ms. Sheehan's enthusiasm in speaking out against the Iraq war. As another poster stated:
Good Question (4.00 / 2)
Get some perspective here. She was at one time a mum getting pissed off in the Walmart line and hoping her kid could call her once in a while if he was late home for dinner. Now some clusterfuck is elected to government, sends her son to war and kills him.
Well, if that happened to me, my politics would be narrowed down to two things.
1. Why my son is dead?
2. Who killed him?
She is not running for office.
She is pissing on someone's parade - George W. Bush's.
by Sleeps in Trees on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 11:51:39 PM EST
Had she limited her politics to the Iraq war, I'd still be fully behind her. Unfortunately, she feels the need to branch out into things marginally related or unnecessarily extremist. For example:
AS sincere as Ms Sheehan might be regarding her feelings about the war, which I and others have shared SINCE THE BIGINNING, in my opinion she lost all credibility regarding the klilling of innocents on the day that she stood up and shared a platform with Hugo Chavez, who is responsible for the killing of hundreds of innocents in his own country. This is a man who iS OBVIOUSLY AND BLATENTLY turning his country into a police state and the fact that he hates Bush does not excuse it. Apparantly Ms Sheehan only hates those criminals whose political philosophy does not agree with hers.
by the OTHER rasmussen on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 07:39:47 PM EST
While I don't wish to start a debate on Chavez's politics, this is one prime example of what I was trying to discuss. To expand on this a little more:
Well (2.63 / 11)
I didn't think you should have been troll-rated. Although I don't necessarily agree that Cindy Sheehan "should step aside", I do agree that she is no longer helping the cause that she cares about. When she threatened Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, when she appeared with Hugo Chavez, when she started talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, she stopped being the "grieving mother who lost her son in Iraq".
Frankly, and I know this isn't a popular opinion here, Sheehan has become a political opportunist. At some point the attention went to her head. She seems to have allowed her "fifteen minutes of fame" to go to her head. It seems to be more about Cindy Sheehan than her son.
by jiacinto on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 07:17:32 PM EST
While I don't think she's yet reached the level of being an opportunist, I believe she often gives the appearance of being one, especially when she engages in speech like that described by the above poster. More fundamentally, to quote myself:
Sorry if reality interferes with your idealism (1.68 / 45)
...I respect her for standing up for what she believes, but I think that, at this point, it's not helping. Some of her actions are really being hammered as a right-wing talking point about the "loony left" and, while I acknowledge her right to do as she chooses, I believe it is hurting both the party in general as well as our chances to convince "mainstream America," whatever that is now.
by dennisl on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 05:47:14 PM EST
Ms. Sheehan did an amazing job at bringing the discussion about the Iraq war to the forefront by demonstrating how it affects real Americans--a perspective that, sadly, has been otherwise missing. Unfortunately, she undermines her own credibility, her public image and our entire cause by appearing publicly with Chavez. Regardless of your opinions on Chavez, appearing publicly with a man who says
"Down with the U.S. empire!" is not good for our cause.
While she is certainly entitled to her opinion, my concern isn't even so much what the right thinks of her as it is what such actions are going to do to the progressive movement as I believe in it. To put this slightly more eloquently:
...I think dennisl is less concerned about being called "the loony left" than about his political movement actually becoming "the loony left". The Republicans can call us all they want, but Ms. Sheehan is tangible evidence.
by Cecrops Tangaroa on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 06:20:49 PM EST
Unfortunately, I often let reality get in the way of my idealism, leading me to agree with comments like the following:
Cindy Sheehan isn't hated by conservatives (none / 1)
On the contrary! They hope she'll do her thing for years to come.
The RNC ought to send Ms. Sheehan a generous check for her invaluable service to the Republican Party.
by Sargon on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 10:53:25 PM EST
As I tried to say in my original comment, Cindy Sheehan
succeeded in bringing the issue most important to her--the war in Iraq--to the front of the American discourse. As several people pointed out, this is a significant reason as to why the Bush administration remains unpopular. However, repeatedly causing scenes around the country, coupled with her odd stances on certain unrelated issues, aren't going to do anything but hurt our political chances. As one person opined:
If we took your advice we would never win anything (3.67 / 43)
Aside from being insensitive and disrespectful, your comment demonstrates ignorance of how political, culture, and social, movements are won.
It takes persistence, repetition, and committment. The message must be reaffirmed at every opportunity. Cindy is serving that purpose and I hope she continues to.
by KingOneEye on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 05:40:28 PM EST
Some other posters expanded that argument, trying to compare Ms. Sheehan to Ghandi and Martin Luther King. However, these examples are blatantly different; as one commenter tried to point out sarcastically:
ummm Dude (4.00 / 14)
Unless you missed the last polls we are mainstream America.
by Sleeps in Trees on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 06:08:22 PM EST
Practically, that is the difference between the prior movements and the current one; a majority of the country thinks negatively about the Iraq war and they want some sort of exit strategy. Protesting for the purpose of getting arrested is no longer necessary as the country is
on our side. What we need now is to make a political statement--organize candidates who are willing to stand up and
do something.
So, for those of you who accuse me of heckling, I hope you now understand that I didn't completely elaborate because, after 5 pages, I'm still nowhere close to being finished. I appreciate those of you who at least tried to engage in a substantive debate on the topics instead of being obsessed with a rhetorical device perceived as an allegory to rape victims. I will freely admit that I don't have all the solutions; my original posts advocate nothing more than preemptive damage control.
I hope many of you recognize the irony, though, that follows when you claim I have no credibility because I don't suggest ideas of my own, especially as the Democratic party fights the meme of being the "party of no ideas". As you may have noticed, the Democratic Party is itself divided on how to handle the Iraq war at this point, even though they largely agree it's not moving in the right direction. However, I will always stand by the claim that no ideas are better than bad ideas; so, please, pick up where I left off and start generating a strategy.