The Anti-war Hypocrisy
Democrats Exploit Anti-war Activists
By Daniel Muniz
The so-called “peace mom” Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in Iraq, did the job that Democrats wanted. She devoted a summer to bashing the President which resulted in her becoming a media darling. The constant press saturation from her demonstrations also helped tank Bush’s approval ratings.
The Democrats loved it because Sheehan could endlessly trash the President without the party getting sullied in the process.
The anti-war movement also got the media star it always wanted, especially a melodramatic one that was outside of the world of spoiled Hollywood celebrities. And the press loved it too because she always cooperated in providing inflammatory sound bites and incendiary interviews on a daily basis about the war.
Overall, everybody on the Left got to benefit of a win-win situation from this media circus.
However, Cindy Sheehan then did something that the Democrats did not expect at all. As an anti-war activist, Sheehan “actually” remained steadfast to her beliefs about Iraq. After bashing Republicans, she then turned her sights on Democrats, especially on the biggest prize of all, New York Senator Hillary Clinton. After all, if Democrats hate this war as much as they hate Bush, why not come out full throttle against it, especially if they already think that it was such a bad idea after all?
One would reason that the Left would have no problem jumping on the “peace mom’s” bandwagon especially since they “publicly” claim that the Iraqi war is a boondoggle. But that has yet to happen. Upon meeting with Senator Clinton, Sheehan was greatly disappointed and rather disillusioned with what she had to say about the war. About the encounter with Clinton, she wrote:
“I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys,” … “I would love to support Hillary for president if she would come out against the travesty in Iraq. But I don’t think she can speak out against the occupation, because she supports it. I will not make the mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again: As I won’t support a pro-war Republican.”
There it is! And it is as blunt and as stark as possible. Democrats are willing to talk the talk about the war but they aren’t willing to walk the walk in actually opposing it, especially if they are thinking about running for president or at the very least, recapturing the majorities in the house and senate.
And perhaps America is not as divided as they portray it is.
But it is simple politics in its most raw form. Republicans have had no problem in sticking by their beliefs since they actually believe that the war in Iraq was a just cause. And most of the Right sees the occupation as a legitimate part of the global plan to rid the world of terrorism by establishing fledging democracies in places where freedom did not exist.
Meanwhile, Democrats have no problem exploiting their allies in the anti-war movement while still trying to project a moderate “love your country” image to the rest of the nation. With a cooperative press, they can easily play both sides of the fence while never having to worry about someone asking the obvious question that Cindy Sheehan asked.
And since the Left had already disemboweled the Green party, there are really no consequences involved because who else are anti-war people going to vote for?
After the expulsion of Ralph Nader, most high profile Greens have already stated that they would support a Democrat instead of one of their own in a tight race. The so-called “safe state strategy” implemented by the “yellow” Greens ensures that another future “Ralph Nader” won’t spoil any Democrat’s chances of victory in the ballot box, as shown in 2004.
But Cindy Sheehan doesn’t care about Democratic politics as evidenced by her decision to stand behind her beliefs. Instead of being the poster child to the Left, she remains an anti-war activist who was used by the Democrats and by the media. In fact, the press has now greatly downplayed her Clinton criticisms. The media had no problems in broadcasting the non-stop coverage of Sheehan bashing Bush, yet they are strangely silent about her trashing Hillary Clinton.
In comparing Democrats to Republicans, Sheehan has said:
“That sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me… That doesn’t sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me. What Sen. Clinton said after our meeting sounds exactly like the Republican Party talking points I heard from Senators Dole and McCain.”
This is now a real turning point for the anti-war movement. Do they continue to allow themselves to be exploited by Democrats or do they stick to their beliefs and oppose both parties for their support of the war?
It will definitely be interesting to see what happens in the future, especially when it comes to a presidential election year.