Ok, that's not totally true -- making people mad is not my motivation. Let me set this up first.
I was going to write something about patriotism. What it is (if it can be pinned down at all), if it's good or bad, etc. This was partially fueled by the whole Cindy Sheehan thing. I may still write on that soon (and I imagine less people who read this will disagree with what I have to say there).
The thing is, as I've heard and read more and more about that situation, the more angry I'm getting at the whole thing. People on both sides are saying inflammatory things and pushing untenable positions.
Read/watch this interview with Sheehan by Chris Matthews. Pay close attention to her answer to his question about Afghanistan.
At first, I thought what she wanted was something specific -- she want an accounting for exactly why we're in Iraq, and whether or not our presence and action there is ethical and/or legal. But then she says that she'd be doing the same thing had her son died in Afghanistan.
Different people fall into different camps on all this, but I know I felt our military action in Afghanistan to be legitimate. In fact, one of my objections to invading Iraq was that we hadn't finished what we'd started in Afghanistan. So what Sheehan's beliefs are starting to look like is pure anti-war.
Now don't get me wrong. I have no particular issue with that. I'm not anti-war (though I'd hardly call myself pro-war either). I also have no issue with the protests she's leading, or her expressed desire to meet with the president.
But I also have no problem with his refusal to meet with her.
Think about it. What is going on here? People who are opposed to the president are making a big stink about this. Why? Because they win either way. If the Bush refuses to meet with her, he gets cast as an arrogant, uncaring leader. Now imagine if he actually did meet with her. With the cameras rolling. The berating he'd get would certainly make a lot of people happy (and to be honest, I might enjoy it a bit too). It'd be humiliating.
Can you blame him?
Of course, one might argue that it's irrelevant whether he is comfortable with getting chewed out by a grieving mother. He deserves it, so he should own up to it. There is some weight to this, but remember that every action a US president takes directly impacts the lives of a whole lot of people. Sometimes there are no right or wrong choices, or those choices are incredibly gray (no matter how the current president likes to frame things). So, for example, our invasion of Afghanistan certainly had good and bad impacts. Some were very good, some very bad. Even when a president makes good choices, someone will be harmed. If a president got into the business of sitting down with and apologizing to (or being berated by) everyone harmed by his decisions, he'd never have time to wipe his own ass.
More importantly, though, is the question of whether it is fair to demand remorse from someone for whom, by virtue of the constitutionally legal position he holds, it is virtually a logical impossibility to avoid inflicting harm on someone with every decision he/she makes.
That's not to say that people shouldn't apologize for being in the wrong. That's the distinction. However, I imagine the president is pretty secure in his belief that invading Iraq was not the wrong decision. So, while I might disagree with him, I can certainly see why he would not subject himself to a talking to from the mother of a killed soldier.
Now, to briefly criticize the right, they ought to be ashamed of themselves for the condescending way in which they talk about Cindy Sheehan. I wish they'd keep their predictable mouths shut for 5 seconds.
All right... who's pissed? :)|||112431287598451852|||Here comes trouble...
|||http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200508190815.asp