Spreading the Grief
Using his tried-and-true method of exploiting the tragedy of others to push an agenda, Dave hides behind a group of families who have lost loved ones in Iraq in his recent column to cheerlead for the continuation of the war. In so doing, Dave actually makes an effective argument to end the war in Iraq, and immediately bring the troops home.
George Will printed a recent column in the Washington Post (which was actually printed in the same Sunday Oregonian's commentary section) concerning the results of a new survey that states that conservatives, as a whole, are happier people than liberals. His commentary can be whittled down to three simple words: ignorance is bliss. By no means am I calling the Rogers, Kesterson and Plumondore families- and other families- ignorant, as I refuse to cheapen the loss of their loved ones. Rather, my beef is with Reinhard, who simply must be cluelessly ignorant to write a column arguing to keep out troops in Iraq- ostensibly to defend these families' losse- after a week when extraordinary sectarian violence broke out, and the civil war us Bush critics have warned about arrived. When William Buckley Jr. speaks poorly of our effort in Iraq, then ignorant is the only word that can be used to describe Reinhard.
By continuing to encourage American military presence in Iraq, Dave ensures that the grief felt by these families will only be spread to other families. In that context, it doesn't make sense, really, to hide behind these families' pain. Oh, I mean I understand why he does- to provide a counterweight versus the Cindy Sheehan and the "Gold Star Families for Peace" stance. Only problem, though, is that Cindy Sheehan's fifteen minutes and effectiveness ran out the moment she left Bush's Crawford ranch. As a solitary figure standing and waiting for an audience with the President, Sheehan cast an almost folkloric figure. But then she started traveling around and muddying her message with anti-Israel and anti-corporate rhetoric. Although these are messages I agree with, they detracted from Sheehan's effectivness. None of these directly had to do with her son Casey's death in Iraq. In short, she made a joke out of herself, with liberals passing on and a colletive "Who cares?" being sighed when she was arrested for wearing a provacative t-shirt at the President's State of the Union address. (You mean she wasn't expecting to get arrested for wearing that shirt?)
So for Dave to bring up Cindy Sheehan in a column extolling the "flip" side of Gold Star families, in a week of the worst outbreak of violence yet in Iraq, is pretty ridiculous. If these families are the anti-Sheehan, does that make their contigent the "Gold Star Families for War?" And if so, as I stated earlier, doesn't that mean they're just spreading their grief to other potential families? I mean, more war would simply create more dead soldiers, right? Dave seems to imply that the grief these families feel is so fervent, so patriotical, that it shouldn't be kept with just a small number of families. Rather, it must be spread! To honor their loss, more families should lose loved ones, and then they'd have the chance to feel the grief these families do!
Look, I would have to be naive to not acknowledge that, like Dave, Cindy Sheehan is using grief to push an agenda. (I don't feel the families profiled by Dave have an agenda to push besides remembering their loved ones. They must share some political leanings with Dave to have their loved ones' memory preserved at the pen of a third-rate hack.) However, when you look at the agenda being pushed by Dave and Sheehan, I find it interesting that although they start from the same source, they veer towards different conclusions. Cindy Sheehan wants others to avoid feeling the pain and grief caused by the loss of her child.
David Reinhard doesn't. Of course, I don't think he, or anyone in his close circle, has lost a child to this war. That is why I state that he his hiding behind the tragedy of others to push an agenda.
There is nothing in Dave's column that convinces me that Adam Plumendore, David Johnson, and John Banks Ogburn- all brave, patriotic Americans- shouldn't be alive and over here on our shores, defending our country from real threats. These men deserve better than to die in Bush's illbegotten wars, built on a campaign of lies....
George Will printed a recent column in the Washington Post (which was actually printed in the same Sunday Oregonian's commentary section) concerning the results of a new survey that states that conservatives, as a whole, are happier people than liberals. His commentary can be whittled down to three simple words: ignorance is bliss. By no means am I calling the Rogers, Kesterson and Plumondore families- and other families- ignorant, as I refuse to cheapen the loss of their loved ones. Rather, my beef is with Reinhard, who simply must be cluelessly ignorant to write a column arguing to keep out troops in Iraq- ostensibly to defend these families' losse- after a week when extraordinary sectarian violence broke out, and the civil war us Bush critics have warned about arrived. When William Buckley Jr. speaks poorly of our effort in Iraq, then ignorant is the only word that can be used to describe Reinhard.
By continuing to encourage American military presence in Iraq, Dave ensures that the grief felt by these families will only be spread to other families. In that context, it doesn't make sense, really, to hide behind these families' pain. Oh, I mean I understand why he does- to provide a counterweight versus the Cindy Sheehan and the "Gold Star Families for Peace" stance. Only problem, though, is that Cindy Sheehan's fifteen minutes and effectiveness ran out the moment she left Bush's Crawford ranch. As a solitary figure standing and waiting for an audience with the President, Sheehan cast an almost folkloric figure. But then she started traveling around and muddying her message with anti-Israel and anti-corporate rhetoric. Although these are messages I agree with, they detracted from Sheehan's effectivness. None of these directly had to do with her son Casey's death in Iraq. In short, she made a joke out of herself, with liberals passing on and a colletive "Who cares?" being sighed when she was arrested for wearing a provacative t-shirt at the President's State of the Union address. (You mean she wasn't expecting to get arrested for wearing that shirt?)
So for Dave to bring up Cindy Sheehan in a column extolling the "flip" side of Gold Star families, in a week of the worst outbreak of violence yet in Iraq, is pretty ridiculous. If these families are the anti-Sheehan, does that make their contigent the "Gold Star Families for War?" And if so, as I stated earlier, doesn't that mean they're just spreading their grief to other potential families? I mean, more war would simply create more dead soldiers, right? Dave seems to imply that the grief these families feel is so fervent, so patriotical, that it shouldn't be kept with just a small number of families. Rather, it must be spread! To honor their loss, more families should lose loved ones, and then they'd have the chance to feel the grief these families do!
Look, I would have to be naive to not acknowledge that, like Dave, Cindy Sheehan is using grief to push an agenda. (I don't feel the families profiled by Dave have an agenda to push besides remembering their loved ones. They must share some political leanings with Dave to have their loved ones' memory preserved at the pen of a third-rate hack.) However, when you look at the agenda being pushed by Dave and Sheehan, I find it interesting that although they start from the same source, they veer towards different conclusions. Cindy Sheehan wants others to avoid feeling the pain and grief caused by the loss of her child.
David Reinhard doesn't. Of course, I don't think he, or anyone in his close circle, has lost a child to this war. That is why I state that he his hiding behind the tragedy of others to push an agenda.
There is nothing in Dave's column that convinces me that Adam Plumendore, David Johnson, and John Banks Ogburn- all brave, patriotic Americans- shouldn't be alive and over here on our shores, defending our country from real threats. These men deserve better than to die in Bush's illbegotten wars, built on a campaign of lies....
posted by true_slicky at 8:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home