Cindy Sheehan had to leave her vigil to care for her mom, but recently received some support from someone else who lost a son, Elizabeth Edwards (wife of John):
Cindy wants Casey's death to have meant as much as his life - lived fully - might have meant. I know this, as does every mother who has ever stood where we stand. And the President says he knows enough, doesn't need to hear from Casey's mother, doesn't need to assure her that Casey's is not one small death in a long and seemingly never-ending drip of deaths, that there is a plan here that will bring our sons and daughters home. He doesn't need to hear from her, he says. He claims he understands how some people feel about the deaths in Iraq.
The President is wrong.
Whether you agree or disagree with every part, or any part, of what Cindy wants to say, you know it is better that the President hear different opinions, particularly from those with such a deep and personal interest in the decisions of our government. Today, another voice would be helpful.
Two things. I always felt that Elizabeth Edwards seemed like a strong asset, a firm voice that also appeared on some level to be an ordinary mom. She is sort of an anti-Hillary in some respects though as strong of a voice on many levels. Elizabeth is a great asset to have, and I hope her health problems are truly conquered.
Second, though I still wonder if her appeal is totally appropriate, I do not wish to imply that Ms. (Mrs.? Mom?) Sheehan's efforts are not useful. They are eminently so, giving a personal face to the case against the war as well as those just against how the administration (and many more) fucked it up. She asks for a meeting and explanation why the war was worth it, but surely, on some basic level her appeal is symbolic.
[Powerfully so, given the assholes defaming her. Will a key Republican voice say strongly and publicly, "lay off"?]
It is a rhetorical appeal, especially given who is being asked. And, since this country needs the right "face" before being able to grasp certain points, the person asking the question matters a lot. On that, we have a lot to be grateful for. The singular focus on the ultimate person to blame is justified as well. One might suggest this should be applied across the board, including re Plame:
No one outside the White House knows for certain the extent of President Bush's involvement. But one thing is clear: The press's assumption of ignorance is misguided, especially in light of George W.'s long history as a political operative. Allan Lichtman, a noted presidential historian, says the "presumption in presidential politics" should be "that the president always knows." It's not too late for responsible reporters to ask the right questions.
The article basically notes Bush's history as a political operative/s.o.b.; times have not changed, just his pay scale and how much damage he can do with other people's money.