My Thoughts on the War Inspired by Sheehan

I came across a 'guest editorial' on a site called truthout which I have every reason to believe was really written by Cindy Sheehan and expresses what is in her mind. Not only does this tell me what she is about, it drives home to me that I'm ready to cut the media out of the equation all together. Why can't everyone making news just blog and we can go read the stuff right from the horses' mouths...

Here are a couple quotes from Cindy which really struck me as important:

Where are the pro-war people?...I still challenge them to go to Iraq and let another soldier come home. Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game.

and

I have stood up and said: "My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it."...I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING.

But towards the end of her piece, she says:

I think they seriously "misunderestimated" all mothers. I wonder if any of them had authentic mother-child relationships and if they are surprised that there are so many mothers in this country who are bear-like when it comes to wanting the truth and who want to make meaning of their child's needless and seemingly meaningless deaths?

This last bit seems a bit harsh and nasty. I've been wondering about much of the rhetoric and even contemporary dramatic dialogue -- it seems so angry and mean-spirited -- have we really devolved into a society of perpetually angry people who, lacking a real and worthy focus for such anger, seem to direct it towards any and everyone who crosses our path? Now granted, Sheehan has plenty of reason to be angry and in a way I admire that there is only this one little swipe but, more than anything, her statement seems a product of our times.

It is easy to see how anyone could be distracted by such a statement and then drift off into complaining about it rather than facing up to her real message. After all, her real message is painful and reminds us of our relative powerlessness to change what is currently happening in Washington and Iraq while further making those who fell for Bush's bull shit line feel that much smaller. It is much easier to focus on a relatively crazy statement like "Bush's real problem is that he didn't have a good relationship with his mother" rather than dealing with the results of admitting that one bought Bush's pack of lies.

The thing though that troubles me more than anything is that as a nation, we put so much energy into President Clinton lying about his cigar hiding techniques which finally culminated in impeachment and trial before Congress BUT our current President lies, goes to war, and kills thousands of Americans and that's perfectly okay. Talk about screwed priorities! The American people are getting exactly what they deserve: they didn't say "NO WAR!" and they were dumb enough to re-elect the bastard. It's hard to have any pity for them but for the fact that clearly no more than roughly 50% of people voted for this man.

But that's the result in a winner-takes-all democracy and again, you get what you pay for. I have virtually no doubt that if an election happened today the result would be the same. The same voters would re-elect the same horrible president and nothing would change. The only thing that might bode poorly for the current administration is rising gasoline prices -- could Americans be so insane to vote against a man who is killing their children only because of the rise in the price of crude?

Of course they could be! And that is the ultimate irony in this morass -- the war was always about oil. To believe otherwise is at best naive and at worst a bold faced lie. While the voters might be happy to react at the polls on the issue of gas prices, how would they have reacted if Bush had said:

Listen folks, here's the bottom line. We need to secure a better source of foreign oil.

Saudi Arabia is becoming increasingly risky and unstable -- who knows how long that gravy train will roll. Nigeria is again on the edge of civil war and then those crazy Venezuelans think that everyone should benefit from the country's relative wealth. Europe has first dibs on the North Sea and who knows what is going to happen in Russia and the Caspian.

Additionally, those crazy Chinese and Indians, well, now they think they have a right to the world's oil too and between them, that's almost 50% of the world's population! Can you imagine if each of those foreigners were to use 10% of what an American uses each day?!? Demand would go through the ceiling and you know what that would do to prices -- see, it's all about supply and demand.

So look, we can get rid of this idiot in Baghdad -- he's relatively week (weaker than the Iranians) -- and install a government that will be friendly to us so that we can secure our position in the Iraqi oilfields. That should help reduce the upward pressure on oil prices for the next couple of years...

How many mother's would have tossed their children into the minivan, headed for the recruiting station, and sent them off for cheaper oil?

But no, Bush taps into 9/11 paranoia and says "Sadam's behind it all AND he's got a nuclear bomb aimed at American cities" and everyone's gung ho. Yeah, big difference and so now people are watching the dead chickens coming home to roost and they are upset? Fine time.