Dangerous Dan Thoughts and musings on the world



Filed under: Media,Politics,World — Dangerous Dan @ 12:55 am

I don't really care that much about the Cindy Sheehan story, but I’ll post about it anyway. She's the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who is now protesting outside of Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX. Drudge has highlighted an article from last year that quoted Sheehan as not being nearly as anti-Bush as she currently is. Now, sure, perhaps she's gotten angrier and more bitter in the past year. That is, her interpretation of Bush has changed. That's fine. What's troubling is that her portrayal of actual events has changed as well. Last year, she described her meeting with Bush in very positive terms. Now she says that Bush essentially brushed her off. This latter portrayal also contrasts with how most family members of fallen soldiers have described meeting Bush. I think this is a case of grief combining with bitterness, moonbattery, and those who wish to exploit her. I imagine if you took a poll, most mothers of those killed in actions would disagree with Sheehan. But those mothers aren't interesting. This one mother is coming out against Bush and so she is garnering inordinate and unwarranted attention and the fact that she is being so vocal has led the anti-war movement to rally around her as if she is the very mouthpiece of all military families. She is being used.

This is similar to the phenomenon surrounding the 9-11 families. A small minority of families who lost loved ones on 9-11 were vocal opponents of Bush. Suddenly, they were being portrayed as speaking for all or at least most 9-11 families.

One last thing to point out about this is the reaction of Stephen Elliot on Huff-Po. He thinks the doubts raised about Sheehan's credibility amount to a smear campaign, similar to that of the Swift Boat Vets’ (which wasn't one either), that was launched by the Bush administration. First, it's hardly smearing when one merely presents past public quotes by the question in question. That's valid. All she need do is explain the discrepancy between her two portrayals. Second, as Michelle Malkin noted, this did not come from the administration, it came from freepers and all they did was dig up a not very old news story. Third, I think it's telling when some people think the administration or some political cabal is behind stories against folks like Sheehan or Dan Rather. I tend to believe they think that because that's what they would do were they in the position to do so.

1 Comment »

  1. […] Yesterday, I noted Stephen Elliot’s silly accusation that there’s a smear campaign against Cindy Sheehan merely because people brought up something she publicly said in the past. Well, now we can see a real smear campaign at work. Pro-abortion group NARAL has released an ad against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts that is blatantly deceptive. It accuses Roberts of defending violence against abortion clinics, up to and including bombing, on the basis that he once filed a brief contending that certain federal anti-discrimination laws did not apply to anti-abortion protestors, even though he agreed that the blockades in question were still illegal (trespassing). Only the brief was seven years before the Birmingham clinic featured in the ad was bombed. Several memos from his work in the Reagan administration also clearly show his profound opposition to violence against clinics and their employees. You can read the details on non-partisan factcheck.org and you can view the ad itself here. The ad is trying to associate Roberts with the bombing and making it seem that Roberts’s brief was in defense of clinic bombers, which wasn’t the case at all. He wasn’t even the attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, he merely submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of the government which disagreed with the interpretation of the law being abused. […]

    Pingback by Dangerous Dan » A Real Smear Campaign — 8/10/2005 @ 1:01 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress