Star Tribune + Cindy Sheehan = LUV

Surprise, surprise, the Star Tribune Editorial writers think Cindy is the greatest thing ever. They provide the typical liberal attitude towards Sheehan, the war in Iraq, and protestors. I'll let them speak for themselves...

Thirty-five years ago, the antiwar movement was typified by a long-haired, scruffy young male of draftable age, burning his draft card. A new antiwar movement is being born this summer on a Texas roadside. It presents a much different face -- feminine, older, wiser, and filled with grief and righteous indignation.

Hmm... older? wiser? By god I think these may be the same people, just 30 years older! Sacre bleu! But I digress...

The face is that of mothers who lost sons and daughters in Iraq, first Cindy Sheehan of California, and now more, including Minnesota state Sen. Becky Lourey. The moral authority of the blossoming movement's face is undeniable and, despite concerted conservative efforts to discredit it, unassailable.

Unassailable?!? Surely this is true of the grief they must have experienced in losing sons, but no one has questioned any heartfelt grief by either woman. However the Star Tribune and pretty much liberals everywhere seem to think that grief is equivalent to "moral authority". As if being sad was somehow an argument within itself. No amount of grief gives credence to Sheehan’s assertions that a secret cabal of Jews started the war, George Bush killed her son, or that Afghanistan was perfectly peaceful and safe before we arrived. Cindy's arguments are certainly 'assailable'.

I shall also dare to assail Cindy's motives. Her son died 14 months ago. She met with Bush shortly after and spoke glowingly of their meeting saying that Bush brought back a small amount of joy to her family's life. In the ensuing time, she got caught up with the Michael Moore/Moveon.org crowd. 14 months later she shows up in Crawford and demands a second meeting with Bush to accuse him of killing her son. Is this simply a woman driven by grief to extreme and hysterical action? Or dare I say it, is this the cold calculation of a neo-lefty to further her new cause and embarrass the president? Hmm... once again Cindy has been assailed.

Even those who disagree with the antiwar encampment's contention that the war in Iraq is delivering none of its promised gains for this country are obliged to concede that Sheehan and other Gold Star mothers have the right to express their sorrow and anger as they see fit.

It is this contention that you hear most on TV - "Cindy has a right to protest!" Well certainly, but so what? No one is challenging her 'rights' to publicly protest or grieve. Not a single person has suggested that she be locked up for DARING to show dissent. However, a lot of people have argued that her ideas and desires are wrong and destructive. The left has no answer for those arguments, so they pretend they are protecting her 'rights' from imaginary buggaboos.

To these mothers' credit, they see fit to grieve in silence no longer. Their witness is that stubborn adherence to a failed policy is not patriotism, and that the sacrifice of fallen sons and daughters is not dishonored by an admission that their assignment was flawed, and needs revision.

Okay, very good. Liberals think the Iraq war is flawed and needs revision. Let's forget the specifics of the flaws for a moment, you can find those written pretty much everywhere else. What, pray tell great oracle of leftism, shall we DO instead? Hmm?

And there's the rub. The left offers NOTHING beyond flaws and demands for ethereal revisions. Now to be fair, there is a small segment of lefties calling for a complete pullout and disengagement from the Middle East, but this sentiment is not yet mainstream and not yet stated by the Star Tribune.

Lourey, who spent three days at the protest site dubbed Camp Casey outside President Bush's ranch, offers the antiwar movement a powerful voice -- one capable of attracting national attention if this summer's grass-roots combustion in Crawford catches lasting fire. Both personally and politically, the DFL state senator from Kerrick commands respect. Lourey, 62, is an indefatigable 15-year legislator admired for her warmth, passion and lawmaking skill. She and her husband raised 12 children, eight of them adopted, while establishing a successful family business. She is as riveting a speaker as exists in Minnesota's liberal camp.

The praise for Lourey's speaking ability says more about the DFL's paucity of talent. As for her other gifts, only those of shared values would describe her that way. A more detached analyst would describe Lourey as reliably liberal, outspoken on liberal topics, and rarely offers compromise.

Lourey fell silent in the weeks after her Army pilot son Matt was shot down and killed near Baghdad in June. Her grief's quiet phase appears to have ended. We expect that she now has much to say that, in coming weeks, Americans should hear.

Becky Lourey has this to say, "We shouldn't be in Iraq". Thank goodness we have one more liberal politician saying Bush is wrong.

The Minnesota contingent at Camp Casey also included DFL Second District congressional candidate Coleen Rowley, the former FBI agent and whistleblower on the agency's inept handling of tips about the terror plot that became 9/11. Rowley's participation drew out U.S. Rep. John Kline, the Second District incumbent whom Rowley is challenging. Kline faulted Lourey, Rowley and other war protesters. Their action "is harmful to the morale of the soldiers, and it encourages the enemy," he said on a visit to the Star Tribune.

To Americans past a certain age, the accusation is familiar. It echoes the rhetoric that hawks used to try to stifle the antiwar movement that burgeoned during the Vietnam War, especially after the Tet offensive in 1968, when Americans came together in large numbers to change this nation's policy in Southeast Asia.

First, this isn't Vietnam. There is no draft. Young people are not being forced to fight a war they dislike. The fighters are volunteers. The left lacks the moral authority of fighting the draft. Second, no one has attempted to "stifle" dissent. There have been no riots or Chicago 1968 type scenes. Protestors go unmolested and fully covered by the media. Third, Kline's words were clearly in the form of political argument with a direct political opponent. They were not in the form of a government edict with the force of law behind them.

As for Kline's specific claims, let's take a closer look. Do Sheehan's protests deter the morale of the troops? I've heard anecdotal evidence that the troops don't appreciate the protests and are particularly sour about the media's coverage of their efforts. On the whole, I think it's a bit of a stretch to make this claim. Do Sheehan's protests encourage the enemy? The protests end up on Al-Jazeera and are referenced in Al-Queda propaganda. The protests are used to justify Osama's assertion after Mogadishu that American's are weak and will cut and run at the first sign of distress. The protests most certainly help Al-Queada recruit more insurgents and give them hope that if they just kill a few more Americans, we'll give up and they'll win. These protests certainly help the enemy.

Some might describe such support for our enemies to be treasonous. I disagree with that sentiment. Misguided? Yes. Foolish? Yes. Patriotic? No.

Suggesting that protesters have insufficient concern for American troops was an easy charge to level against draft-dodging youth, and it probably is to be expected as congressional campaign season gets underway. But it does not ring true when aimed at parents who raised children so patriotic that they volunteered for military service. Such parents understand what support for those sons and daughters requires. They know that it does not require blind loyalty to bad policy.

Honestly I agree. However with a caveat. In Vietnam it was easy to call hippies anti-troops, not because they burned draft cards, but because they literally spat on troops as they returned and greeted them with epithets such as 'baby killer'. That is NOT happening today and that is good. I think most of today’s liberals are at least not anti-troops. I do hear Hannity trying to make the argument that you can only support the troops if you support their mission. As in many things Hannity, I find that asinine.

As for blind loyalty, that's not being asked. Bush has argued that the lost troops have lost their lives for a worthy cause. A cause that will bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. As a result, these newly freed people will be far less inclined to launch attacks against America, provide safe havens for terrorist camps, or develop weapons that could be devastating if delivered by terrorists. It is a long-term process to change a whole region. We had to run Japan (famous for the Nanjing Massacre and Batan Death March) for 10 years after WWII, and we've never left Germany (of holocaust fame). More recently, American troops are still based in Bosnia 9 years later. This is not a fight that will be won in the next news cycle. It is a fight for a generation, and it is one worth having. It beats the alternative of waiting for terrorists to organize and strike at will.