Via the BBC: US anti-war mother ends protest
Cindy Sheehan, the bereaved mother who became a figurehead for the US anti-war movement, is abandoning her fight after growing disenchanted with the campaign.She has camped outside President Bush’s ranch since 2005, demanding a meeting over the death of her son in Iraq.
But announcing the end of her campaign, she also hit out at Democrats and anti-war campaigners who put “personal egos above peace and human life”.
She said she had sacrificed her health, her marriage and her finances.
In a letter on the Daily Kos website titled Good Riddance Attention Whore - a reference to the abuse she says she has suffered, Ms Sheehan said: “I am going to take whatever I have left and go home.
The blog entry in question is here: “Good Riddance Attention Whore”.
The whole thing ends up being very sad, especially with statements like this:
I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings.
And, there is, of course, the death of Casey Sheehan in Iraq that started the whole situation.
The thing about this situation that I find especially tragic is that Ms. Sheehan not only lost a son, but seems to have damaged the rest of her family as well as a result. She had every right to do what she did, but I have long wondered about the choices that she made in the pursuit of her goals. Without getting into all the specifics of her time spent as a activist, let’s face facts: camping out in front of the President’s ranch was not an especially good use of her time or resources–even if she had managed to get a meeting with the President, what good would it have done in terms of her goals? It is possible to be a peace activist without sacrificing one’s marriage, one’s finances and time with one’s living children.
Her bitterness is understandable, but I can’t help but notice she did make her own choices. Like I said: a very sad situation.
Sphere: Related Content
May 29th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I would say it was an illogical emotional response to an extreme loss. Such situations will make people do extreme things. And you are right, it is very sad.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:58 am
This is certainly true.
Although at some point one has to stop and take responsibility for what one is doing. Years and years of a behavior moves beyond emotion to clear choice.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:44 am
[...] UPDATE: Steven Taylor writes, The thing about this situation that I find especially tragic is that Ms. Sheehan not only lost a son, but seems to have damaged the rest of her family as well as a result. She had every right to do what she did, but I have long wondered about the choices that she made in the pursuit of her goals. [...]
May 29th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Sad, but a good example of what happens when you deal with grief through the wrong channels: you destroy not only yourself, but the people around you.
One who is grieving does better to seek help from family and, if necessary, psychiatric medicine than to seek solace in such a vitriolic and politically charged place as an anti-war movement.
Not exactly a warm and fuzzy place to go and heal.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
[...] Other bloggers weigh in on the original article — hand-picked, in part, from MemeOrandum’s fantastic blogger roundup - all sides of the political spectrum represented: The Moderate Voice; Crooks and Liars; Huffington Post; The Impolitic; My Left Wing (Adult language warning); Don Surber (Right); Liberty Street; Corrente Wire; Talk Left; Blogs Of War (Right); Drudge Retort (Red Meat For Yellow Dogs); PoliBlog™ Technorati Tags: anti war, Big Oil, Bush, Cindy Sheehan, Corporatism, Corruption, Current Events, Fascism, Headline News, Headlines, Impeach Bush, Iraq, memorial day, Middle East, Military, Nation Building, News, News and Politics, Oligarchy, Politics, Rants [...]
May 29th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
The Left chewed her up and after her usefulness was over spit her out, with health bills and all. At least some big wig could pay them for her.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Oh, I agree that she should take responsibility for her actions and I realize that after a point it was a clear choice. And I’m sure the media attention that she received was a major factor in her continuing in her crusade. I’ve never been an apologist for Sheehan and don’t intend to start now.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Jan: “I would say it was an illogical emotional response to an extreme loss. Such situations will make people do extreme things. And you are right, it is very sad. ”
What would the *logical* response have been? Sunk cost - I lost a son, and should maximize my utility assuming that?
Dr. Steven Taylor:
“This is certainly true.
Although at some point one has to stop and take responsibility for what one is doing. Years and years of a behavior moves beyond emotion to clear choice. ”
I agree; Bush and the pro-war people should be held accountable.
Oh, sorry.
Dr. Taylor, she lost her son for Bush’s power and profits, and to soothe the ego’s of GOP voters. What would you have done if this happened to you?
She stood up when d*mned few were, and used that status to point out what Bush was doing. When she was through, a lot of people had come to agree with her (not just through her actions, of course).
She burned herself out, true. That’s the most likely fate of those few who lead a movement. Dr. Taylor, what was the fate of most anti-war or civil rights *leaders* in the 1960’s?
May 30th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Barry,
What I am referring to is a variety of choices that she made, not the fact that she protested or grieved in public.
For one thing: it is tragic that in the light of her son’s death that she allowed her 29 year marriage to be destroyed and seemingly ignored her other living children. She also seems to have bankrupted herself. One can protest the war, Bush and any number of other things without doing that.
Further, in terms of strategy, buying a ranch in Crawford, Texas of shaming Bush into a meeting that would have resulted in no change in policy was not smart.
As such, you miss my point.
And really, I don’t think that she every was a a true “leader” of anything–she was more a sideshow, quite honestly.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I recommend Cindy Sheehan’s interview of a few days ago with Amy Goodman. She takes responsibility for her choices, she reflects honestly on what’s gone on, and she’s quite open about her relationship with her children.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/30/1343232
She’s a person, not a sideshow. She played an important part in making 2005 a turning point for the American publi and the war — from growing but passive disenchantment to active (even if so far only partly effective) opposition.