Dangerous Dan

I both pity and dislike Cindy Sheehan. I think she is taking the grief from her loss and converting it to rage at who she thinks is responsible. When she met with President Bush last year, this was already somewhat evident. As she's had more time to dwell on her grief, that rage has only increased and now she knows of no other way to cope with her son's death than to lash out at Bush. This isn't entirely unusual, but I don't find it very constructive.

Furthermore, she's demanding a meeting with Bush, but I fail to see why she deserves one. She met the President once last year when she opted not to ask the questions she currently has and seemingly had then. Even given that she's a gold star mom, that doesn't give her or any other similar mother a right to the President's time. Nevertheless, Bush has privately met with over 900 family members of 270 war dead. This is something that neither he nor his staff publicizes and they’re reportedly very emotional affairs. Cindy Sheehan was one of those people that Bush took the time to meet though he did not have to and he does not have to now. Leaving George W. Bush aside, the office of the President of the United States is not to be treated so lightly that anybody may demand a meeting with its holder, even in Sheehan's situation. She had one private time with the President to which she had no right. To now demand another in order to ask questions she herself admits to voluntary eschewing the first time around is almost arrogant.

It goes even further than this, however. Cindy Sheehan, either through her own machinations and/or those of others, has morphed into a political figure. She's no longer the grief-stricken mother who showed up on Bush's ranch doorstep in hopes of a parley. She's now an anti-war crusader around which a variety of lefty groups have coalesced. She doesn't just speak of Iraq, she also talks of Israel and Palestine, thus clouding and confusing her purported message. She breaks bread with the Crawford Peace House, the homepage of which, until recently, mentioned Iraq once and Israel 17 times. Some talk of how to frame her cause, a publicist has been hired to handle her PR image, she spends a large chunk of her day handling media interviews. She is now a political figure and as such, the President should treat her politically. And politically-speaking, he should not cave to the demands of an opposition figure who is, despite her stated desire to ask questions, clearly more interested in ranting than listening.

One last point (for this post at least) is that I find her current portrayal of her meeting with President Bush intolerable. While I think she was never fond of his policies, even if she were, she has a right to change her mind. Her accounts of the meeting, though, are drastically different. Last year, she described it as a very positive experience. She said Bush was sincere, truly felt pain for her loss, and gave her and her family “the gift of happiness.” Now, however, she says Bush was distant, uncomfortable, and inappropriately celebratory. After reading this Newsweek piece, though, describing such meetings Bush has had with dead soldiers’ family members, I think her latter portrayal of the meeting is simply false. The article describes Bush as heartfelt, genuine, and frequently crying with families. He’s a man who feels the burden of his office and his role as Commander-in-Chief. That Sheehan now sees the meeting as something wholly different from how she originally described it and also from how other families have described their meetings, shows to me that her rage and her politics have fundamentally altered her thinking and memories. In her own mind, she has demonized the man.

So, yes, I pity her, but not for the reasons she might like. I also dislike her, the farce she is committing, and the hangers-on who seek to exploit her son's death.