Cindy Sheehan’s unanswered questions

As of right this minute, Cindy Sheehan, who’s 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Baghdad, is still in Crawford, three miles up the road from the president’s ranch. As you’ve probably heard, she has a few questions for Bush.

President Bush draws antiwar protesters just about wherever he goes, but few generate the kind of attention that Cindy Sheehan has since she drove down the winding road toward his ranch here this weekend and sought to tell him face to face that he must pull all Americans troops out of Iraq now.

Ms. Sheehan’s son, Casey, was killed last year in Iraq, after which she became an antiwar activist. She says she and her family met with the president two months later at Fort Lewis in Washington State.

But when she was blocked by the police a few miles from Mr. Bush’s 1,600-acre spread on Saturday, the 48-year-old Ms. Sheehan of Vacaville, Calif., was transformed into a news media phenomenon, the new face of opposition to the Iraq conflict at a moment when public opinion is in flux and the politics of the war have grown more complicated for the president and the Republican Party.

Ms. Sheehan has vowed to camp out on the spot until Mr. Bush agrees to meet with her, even if it means spending all of August under a broiling sun by the dusty road.

That seems increasingly unlikely, not because Sheehan is unwilling to stick it out, but because authorities are reportedly prepared to arrest her today, apparently because her solitary protest is now considered a threat to national security. That, or Bush’s poll numbers, it’s not entirely clear.

Truth be told, Sheehan is actually requesting a second meeting with the president. The first one, which occurred over a year ago, didn’t go very well.

In Ms. Sheehan’s telling, though, Mr. Bush did not know her son’s name when she and her family met with him in June 2004 at Fort Lewis. Mr. Bush, she said, acted as if he were at a party and behaved disrespectfully toward her by referring to her as “Mom” throughout the meeting.

By Ms. Sheehan’s account, Mr. Bush said to her that he could not imagine losing a loved one like an aunt or uncle or cousin. Ms. Sheehan said she broke in and told Mr. Bush that Casey was her son, and that she thought he could imagine what it would be like since he has two daughters and that he should think about what it would be like sending them off to war.

“I said, ‘Trust me, you don’t want to go there’,” Ms. Sheehan said, recounting her exchange with the president. “He said, ‘You’re right, I don’t.’ I said, ‘Well, thanks for putting me there.’ “

Fortunately, a confluence of circumstances is generating media interest in Sheehan’s plight. There are a team of reporters near the ranch with nothing to do, in mid-August, when very little political news is being generated. All of a sudden, an articulate and sympathetic woman, with a powerful story to tell, shows up at Bush’s — and the reporters’ — doorstep. A boring assignment for hungry reporters isn’t quite so dreary anymore.

Media strategies aside, Sheehan wants what a lot of people want: some explanation for Bush’s costly failures in Iraq. In that sense, Sheehan may be a lone protestor in Crawford, but she has a lot of company.

If you wanted to hear more from Sheehan directly, C&L has feeds for a radio interview and CNN segment. For more updates, Sheehan has friends posting developments on a Kos diary.

This calls for the reading of a couple of passages from Franklin’s Rules for Reducing a Great Empire to a Small One”…

(All are very slightly paraphrased)

“To confirm these impressions, and strike them deeper, whenever the injured come to the capital (or Crawford, TX) with complaints of maladministration, oppression, or injustice, punish such suitors with long delay, enormous expense, and a final judgment in favor of the oppressor. This will have an admirable effect in every way. The trouble of future complaints will be prevented and governors and judges will be encouraged to farther acts of oppression and injustice; and thence the people may become more disaffected, and at length desperate.”

And…
“They will petition for redress. Let the President flout their claims, reject their petitions, refuse even to suffer the reading of them, and treat the petitioners with the utmost contempt. Nothing can have a better effect in producing the alienation proposed; for, though many can forgive injuries, none ever forgave contempt.”

  • behaved disrespectfully toward her by referring to her as “Mom” throughout the meeting

    I continue to notice symptoms of brain damage in Bush. One explanation of his constant use of nicknames for people could be that it’s a form of putdown common for his social class. I’m not really sure the Bush Crime Family regards the rest of us as people, in the usual sense of having minimum rights (like, respect or honesty).

    But Fratboy in particular seems to have a fondness for nicknames no matter who he’s dealing with. Perhaps the abuse he gave his brain has made it overly difficult to remember names at all. “Mom” is a universal substitute. “Pootie-poot” is easier for him to say, certainly, than “Vladimir”. And “Turdblossom” gets the job done.

  • I just had another thought (triggered by Fribble’s). Even during the Civil War, anyone who wanted to visit with President Lincoln had but to drop by the White House on Thursday mornings to walk directly into his office. It’s a long, long way from Lincoln to BubbleBoy

  • I see the “Turdblossom” and “Mom” as coming from separate places.

    “Turdblossom,” Pootie-Poot,” and the other cute nicknames he gives people that he deals with regularly are supposed to appear to be affectionate, familiar gestures, but in reality it’s more of a name-it-and-claim-it power move. If he’s assigning the nicknames, he’s doing the defining and making himself the alpha dog. Notice that he assigned himself his own nickname.

    The “Mom” thing is something different– if I recall the account correctly, he had several bereaved families to “console,” and the families were placed in separate rooms. Pres. Bush breezed in and asked Ms. Sheehan’s room something like, “Who’re we mournin’?” He had a lot of families to “comfort,” and he couldn’t be bothered learning their names if he’s never going to see them again. It makes me think of a minister who doing a wedding rehearsal with an unfamiliar family– “Now, Mom, your seat is right here up front …”

  • The New York Times has a good editorial
    this morning.

    Cindy Sheehan’s account of the first
    meeting is frightening. This man does
    not act like a human being. Everything
    about him is off. It’s like he’s a Stepford
    president.

  • Hhmmm…I think I’m onto something here. Stick with me for a minute.

    Like most here at this great site, I seek to understand with rational answers the behavior of those who illogically “love” and support Bush despite his bizarre behavior. Everyone seems familiar with Bush’s apparently “misguided youth” and his “conversion to the Lord” at age 40. “Bush on the Couch” analyzes him as a “dry drunk” that still exhibits his addictive behavior. Worse, many have speculated that his childhood delight in blowing up frogs with firecrackers which morphed, with the cold-hearted nurturing of his creul and vengeful mother, into all of the alpha male leadership qualities of a dark-hearted sociopath.

    Whatever explanation or hypothesis one uses to explain BUSH’s odd and perplexing behavior, MY curiosity is directed at how it is that such a large minority of Americans can still have seemingly rock-solid support his his public actions. I suspect that at least some of you here have devoted at least a few moments to this conundrum, too. Well, I have the answer for you, and it came to me a “startburst of revelation” as I was watching the Columbia safely land this morning.

    THE ANSWER: Think of the Dudley Moore character in the movie “Arthur” — just the first half of the movie. Arthur was a lovable lug, someone who was always amusing but not quite competent. He had lots of money, and people loved spending time with him. He had a latent yet never displayed talent (piano virtuoso), was kind-hearted, and he could never hold down a real job.

    Still, Arthur had a following, because people could see “the real person” inside him. And doggone if they weren’t right — the second half of the movie shows Arthur’s true nature, the bog-hearted and compassionate but sensitive man everyone “just knew” was there — and everyone lived happily ever after. So, the cognitive dissonance in the first half of “Arthur” pays off warmly and completely in the second half.

    Of course, my analogy has more than a few flaws: (A) Bush has demonstrated no socially-redeeming talent; (B) he has not displayed the existence, even an intimation, of having a soft or warm heart; (C) he is far from universally loved; (D) we have seen NO signs that the second half of this movie called “BushWorld” will start any time soon — indeed, it is becoming more clear every day that there IS no second half; and (E) not many of us are going to live “happily ever after” — if we are alive at all — once “BushWorld ends (if it does).

    So, there it is: G. W. Bush = Dudley Moore/Arthur. great, huh?

    Makes perfect sense to me, now, why those who love Bush do so — they live in a fantasy world. Those of us who hate him/his policies live in the real world. Oh yeah…reality-based community…Oh shit, we all knew that already, didn’t we? Damn! I thought I had experienced a remarkable revelation this morning; guess it was just a brain fart instead…

    P.S. Any confusion of G. W. Bush in the title role of the movie “Arthur” and the royal role of King Arthur in the story/movie called “Camelot” is purely unintentional and/or accidental, and of course absurd — get over it!!

  • Hark is right. This is why Bush’s handlers keep his contacts with people to a mimimum. With bereaved families, with anyone else. If he started meeting regular people on an ongoing basis, it wouldn’t be long before everyone realized something is very wrong.

  • All of a sudden, an articulate and sympathetic woman, with a powerful story to tell, shows up at Bush’s — and the reporters’ — doorstep.

    So, how soon before we hear about how she is Satan’s spawn? Or something similar. I’m guessing tonight, tomorrow at the latest.

    Ex-boyfriends from high school, aggrieved neighbors, other PTA moms…

  • So, how soon before we hear about how she is Satan’s spawn? Or something similar. I’m guessing tonight, tomorrow at the latest.

    Comment by Edo
    Close Edo, it was this afternoon.

    You can always count on Matt Drudge to trot out the White House talking points.

  • Well, she will have to explain it, won’t she?

    If I can believe the Drudge Report, there
    are some inconsistencies. Doesn’t
    mean she’s lying today. Probably, she
    was overwhelmed by the experience of
    meeting the president. Who wouldn’t
    be?

    Then, after she woke up and gained perspective,
    she came to an entirely different conclusion.

    Still, I’d like to hear her explain it.

    I could tell stories of the corporate world,
    in which distressed employees sought
    out their bosses, got an audience, were
    almost worshipful about their encounters
    right after, and then slowly came to their
    senses that they had been sold a bill of
    goods.

    Human nature. We have to understand
    how complex it is. But the Repigs don’t –
    they just use it, twist it.

  • Bush is a coddled, pampered, short-circuited nothing. His strength is his blankness. Folks that see through him are appalled and those that don’t turn him into whatever they want him to be.

    What other person of his standing would go out to meet people at fake “townhall” meetings for 60+ days to recite the same lies over and over without getting sick of himself and his own complete uselessness?

    How else could basically functional citizens listen to his concocted crap delivered in a cocoon and not be outraged?

    He’s K. Rove’s own personal Rainman, (apologies to Dustin Hoffman). Instead of reciting phone books, Bush regurgitates talking points and cliches while the Mayberry Machiavelli’s scurry around behind his fog and dismantle the country.

    Seafoam has more substance than what’s between Georgie’s ears. A praying mantis has more scruples.

  • As I flipped through the McPaper (USAToday) at a hotel earlier this week I noticed there was a photo, buried in the front section, of a grieving war mother.

    Even this is a huge step from the warmongering they did during the last two years. The Pretzeldent’s days of hiding from the maternal anger he has wrought may be beginning to come to an end.

  • Comments are closed.