Conservative Media Smearing Cindy Sheehanby
Russell Moore
As the casualties continue to escalate in Iraq, (approaching 1900) and the public's support for the debacle erodes, we shouldn’t be surprised to see the pro-Bush media pull out all the stops to protect their Duce. After all, it’s only because Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin are sycophants that they have become so well known. But it appears that even I – who know how despicable neo-cons are – underestimated precisely how low and despicable O’Reilly and Malkin truly are. The man who likes to make dirty phone calls to his staff inferiors, apparently thinks it’s morally repulsive for the heroic Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a dead US army specialist to ask the president why he got her son killed. In my opinion, this moron lost his moral authority when he paid his former staff member millions of dollars to not sue him. O’Reilly feels that because Sheehan has aligned herself with peace advocate Michael Moore, she cannot be taken seriously. "She has aligned herself with people who hate this country, hate this government," stated O’Reilly on The Factor. In typical fascist fashion, O’Reilly implies that a person cannot hate his government and love his country. It’s as if the country and the government were one in the same thing. It would also be interesting to know who taught O’Reilly logic, because I think he has grounds to sue that man. O’Reilly should know better than to make an ad hominem attack. Instead of attacking her argument, he attacks her for who she is currently associating with. Also, he should know better than to deal in absolutes. I personally do not agree with Michael Moore on taxation, gun control, and a slew of other issues. I do agree with him on his anti-war stance. Do I lose my credibility because I happen to agree with an "extremist" on one single issue? I think not. Just because someone is on the far left, doesn’t make them wrong on every issue. No party has a monopoly on truth. In another attempt to discredit her and her peace efforts, Malkin and O’Reilly cited the fact that she appears to have contradicted herself after her first meeting with Bush after he got her son killed. Apparently, a newspaper quoted has as saying positive things about Bush. In their opinion, Sheehan’s peace efforts, and her questioning of Bush cannot be taken seriously, because reportedly, she has changed her tune. If only these two warmongering neo-conservatives would hold the president up to the same scrutiny they hold Sheehan to. Yet back in 2003 when Bush sought a sought a resolution to Congress giving him the power to wage war on Iraq, his two main justifications were weapons of mass destruction, and a terrorist link to Al Qaeda. When it became clear as day that there were no WMD’s or terrorist links in Iraq, Bush changed his reasoning for war. I can’t understand why is it wrong for Sheehan to change her opinion, but perfectly fine for Bush to change his reasoning starting a war midstream. Why is the mother of a slain soldier held to a higher standard than the president of the United States? If the reports are true, and Sheehan did speak favorably of Bush in the past, she can surely be forgiven. O’Reilly, who claims to be Catholic, should know that people have changes of heart, going from confusion to clarity. Perhaps someone should remind him of St. Paul of Tarsus, or my favorite, St. Augustine of Hippo, both of which were on the wrong path, but ultimately became two of the Church’s most venerated saints. In Sheehan’s defense, maybe she changed her mind when it became apparent that there are no WMD’s in Iraq? Or, perhaps while reading the Downing Street memo, she came to the realization that Bush is a warmonger? Those are just a few guesses. I, unlike O’Reilly, took the time to listen to Sheehan speak a few weeks ago. When she speaks, there is sincerity in her voice. There is no left wing extremist agenda when she speaks, only a peace agenda. Instead of requesting her as a guest on his show so he can browbeat her, O’Reilly should sit at one of her talks, and listen to the sobs of the mothers who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq. Then, just maybe he’d think twice before he talks about how elections and constitutions in Iraq are such great and important accomplishments for Americans. We need to remember what George H. W Bush said when asked why he never invaded Baghdad. "With whose son’s blood," asked the elder Bush. Sheehan is to be commended as a heroine, for being the spark plug to the peace movement. She has taken a movement that was once as small as W.’s IQ, and is transforming it into a legit movement. Personally, I don’t blame President Bush for being too scared to talk to Cindy Sheehan. Given the circumstances, I’d be scared too. I wouldn’t want to have to answer to the mother of a dead soldier whose life I was responsible for prematurely ending. Neither does that coward Bush. What’s more, if she can be continues to be the catalyst for the peace movement, she may signal his political Waterloo. God bless her for that. August 12, 2005 Russell Moore [send him mail] is a recent graduate of Providence College in Rhode Island. |