David McReynolds' comment on: Cindy Sheehan statements

(and attack by David Friedman and response to that by McReynolds)

12:28 AM 5/30/07
Art Lipow sent this on to me and I hadn't read it before now. Art had asked why the quarrel with the Democratic Party wasn't discussed on the radio by Amy Goodman and I can't answer that.

However leaders of a movement do not quit, do not petulantly moan that the movement is difficult, or there are egos (what else is new). Cindy Sheehan is absolutely entitled to go back home, to shift her life. But the letters leave me feeling she is under great stress. In any case, she can speak for herself but she can't speak for the movement, nor does this letter from her help anything.

Fraternally,
David McReynolds

"I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican party," she wrote. "However, when I started to hold the Democratic party to the same standards that I held the Republican party, support for my cause started to erode, and the 'left' started labelling me with the same slurs that the right used."

On Saturday, in an open letter to Democratic members of Congress, she announced that she was leaving the party because she felt its leaders had failed to change the country's course in Iraq.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong."

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don't find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don't see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person's heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it.

It's up to you now.

Letter to Democratic Congress
By Cindy Sheehan
t r u t h o u t | Letter
Tuesday 29 May 2007

May 26, 2007
Dublin, Ireland

Dear Democratic Congress,

Hello, my name is Cindy Sheehan and my son Casey Sheehan was killed on April 04, 2004 in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq. He was killed when the Republicans still were in control of Congress. Naively, I set off on my tireless campaign calling on Congress to rescind George's authority to wage his war of terror while asking him "for what noble cause" did Casey and thousands of other have to die. Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, I have lost my optimistic naiveté and have become cynically pessimistic as I see you all caving into as one Daily Kos poster called: "Mr. 28%"

There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage. You think giving him more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands.

Ms. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, said after George signed the new weak as a newborn baby funding authorization bill: "Now, I think the president's policy will begin to unravel." Begin to unravel? How many more of our children will have to be killed and how much more of Iraq will have to be demolished before you all think enough unraveling has occurred? How many more crimes will BushCo be allowed to commit while their poll numbers are crumbling before you all gain the political "courage" to hold them accountable. If Iraq hasn't unraveled in Ms. Pelosi's mind, what will it take? With almost 700,000 Iraqis dead and four million refugees (which the US refuses to admit) how could it get worse? Well, it is getting worse and it can get much worse thanks to your complicity.

Being cynically pessimistic, it seems to me that this new vote to extend the war until the end of September, (and let's face it, on October 1st, you will give him more money after some more theatrics, which you think are fooling the anti-war faction of your party) will feed right into the presidential primary season and you believe that if you just hang on until then, the Democrats will be able to re-take the White House. Didn't you see how "well" that worked for John Kerry in 2004 when he played the politics of careful fence sitting and pandering? The American electorate are getting disgusted with weaklings who blow where the wind takes them while frittering away our precious lifeblood and borrowing money from our new owners, the Chinese.

I knew having a Democratic Congress would make no difference in grassroots action. That's why we went to DC when you all were sworn in to tell you that we wanted the troops back from Iraq and BushCo held accountable while you pushed for ethics reform which is quite a hoot ... don't' you think? We all know that it is affordable for you all to play this game of political mayhem because you have no children in harm's way...let me tell you what it is like:

You watch your reluctant soldier march off to a war that neither you nor he agrees with. Once your soldier leaves the country all you can do is worry. You lie awake at night staring at the moon wondering if today will be the day that you get that dreaded knock on your door. You can't concentrate, you can't eat, and your entire life becomes consumed with apprehension while you are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Then, when your worst fears are realized, you begin a life of constant pain, regret, and longing. Everyday is hard, but then you come up on "special" days ... like upcoming Memorial Day. Memorial Day holds double pain for me because, not only are we supposed to honor our fallen troops, but Casey was born on Memorial Day in 1979. It used to be a day of celebration for us and now it is a day of despair. Our needlessly killed soldiers of this war and the past conflict in Vietnam have all left an unnecessary trail of sorrow and deep holes of absence that will never be filled.

So, Democratic Congress, with the current daily death toll of 3.72 troops per day, you have condemned 473 more to these early graves. 473 more lives wasted for your political greed: Thousands of broken hearts because of your cowardice and avarice. How can you even go to sleep at night or look at yourselves in a mirror? How do you put behind you the screaming mothers on both sides of the conflict? How does the agony you have created escape you? It will never escape me ... I can't run far enough or hide well enough to get away from it.

By the end of September, we will be about 80 troops short of another bloody milestone: 4000, and MoveOn.org will hold nationwide candlelight vigils and you all will be busy passing legislation that will snuff the lights out of thousands more human beings.

Congratulations Congress, you have bought yourself a few more months of an illegal and immoral bloodbath. And you know you mean to continue it indefinitely so "other presidents" can solve the horrid problem BushCo forced our world into.

It used to be George Bush's war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo.

The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling all citizens who are as disgusted as we are with you all to join us in Philadelphia on July 4th to try and figure a way out of this "two" party system that is bought and paid for by the war machine which has a stranglehold on every aspect of our lives. As for myself, I am leaving the Democratic Party. You have completely failed those who put you in power to change the direction our country is heading. We did not elect you to help sink our ship of state but to guide it to safe harbor.

We do not condone our government's violent meddling in sovereign countries and we condemn the continued murderous occupation of Iraq.

We gave you a chance, you betrayed us.

Sincerely,
Cindy Sheehan
Founder and President of Gold Star Families for Peace.
Founder and Director of The Camp Casey Peace Institute
Eternally grieving mother of Casey Sheehan



From: David Friedman
To: David Mcreynolds
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:50 AM
Subject: McReynolds' comment on: Cindy Sheehan statements

David McReynolds chooses to focus on the personal aspects of Cindy Sheehan's statements, and he concludes that "she can't speak for the movement, nor does this letter from her help anything."

On the contrary. Sheehan's statements also have a political analysis that is sorely needed in this time of betrayal by the Democratic Party and its leadership. I suggest that people reread her "Letter to the Democratic Congress" . . . which provoked an outpouring of hostility toward Sheehan from Democratic Party loyalists. McReynolds would serve the movement better if he responded (publicly) to Sheehan's analysis rather than the personal side of her statements.

Notwithstanding McReynolds' dismissal, Sheehan does speak for many in the movement who feel betrayed by the Democratic Party, and her letter helps a great deal by clarifying the fact that it is the morally and politically corrupt two-party system, not just Bush and the Republicans, that is perpetuating both the Iraq war and the larger militarism that is drowning our democracy.

I would also direct readers to a statement along the same lines by the historian Andrew Bacevich (author of "American Empire" and "The New American Militarism") that appeared in the May 27th Washington Post.

-- Dave Friedman


Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:30 AM

Dear David Friedman,

It is impossible for me not to focus on the personal aspects of Cindy Sheehan's statements.

The political aspects are real enough, but in the context of this letter they are secondary. She stresses that she was slandered, lied about, called a "media whore", and attacked for being a tool of the Democratic Party. (What else, please, did she expect when she came out against the war? Applause on Fox News?) It is only recently that she withdrew from the Democratic Party - and who can blame her? But was she expecting Nancy Pelosi to greet that news with applause?

She stresses her own sacrifices and I do not doubt them. I have never met Cindy, I do not now, nor have I ever, questioned her depth of conviction. I do not doubt the pain of the loss of her son. But I do question whether her divorce can be blamed entirely on her actions in the past two years. I am simply not moved when she says she has had her life threatened many times and been called "dispicable names". Who hasn't? And yes, this is a strain. (And I know it is - I just recently went through a small bout of being called a racist on one list serve because I expressed doubts about the handling of the Don Imus event, and because I raised questions about how qualified Al Sharpton was to be the conscience of America - of course this hurts).

But Cindy Sheehan has had massive support from many many women (and a lot of men) and could hardly be called isolated.

That she is frustrated - I don't doubt it. But would Martin Luther King Jr. have been justified if after the murder of the four Sunday school kids in Alabama he threw up his hands?

She has certainly had advisers, though I think this time they failed her. Her frustration and her bitterness is what shines out in the letter, not her political analysis.

Is the Democratic Party a problem? Yes!! My hunch is that the vast majority of the anti-war movement and of those close to Cindy Sheehan would have agreed with her - did agree with her - even if they might still, because the elections are coming up, and getting caught up in the electoral frenzy is almost impossible to avoid, find themselves hoping for something from the Democrats.

Had Cindy Sheehan said simply "I'm tired, I've given this my all, and I need to take a break", we would have said "You have earned it". If she added that in her view the Democratic Party wasn't the tool needed to change US policy, many would have said "you are right" and many would have said "we don't know what else to do - but your attack on the Democrats can't be dismissed".

Her letter - to put it gently - is very much more about Cindy Sheehan than it is about the problems of the movement. I think of the men and women in the Vietnam Peace Movement who put their lives on hold for ten years, who never gave up, who did as much as Cindy has done, and who did not write off the American people which, in my view, is what she has done.

I am not interested in attacking someone who has sat in the hot sun when most of us were sitting in the shade in air conditioned offices or apartments. I have no children, so have no idea of the pain of losing a son in a war which never made sense except in terms of raw economics and raw power politics. If her loss and her struggle have driven her to make a bad decision, I am not interested in being critical of that decision.

My point is not what should Cindy Sheehan have done - she has done it. The question is what do we do. Not about Cindy Sheehan, but about the war in Iraq, about a government which belongs on trial at the Hague.

Do I wish we had a genuine opposition party? Of course. Do I yet, however, understand the fears of the Democrats who see themselves being labeled as "soft on terrorism"? Yes, I do - but I still ask them to take a chance, to take the example of John Murtha (who is not and never was a wooly headed anti-war pacifist leaning politician). Shame on the Democrats - and having said that, what do we do now?

I'm for a renewal of civil disobedience as well as any and every other peaceful means at our disposal. I am sorry for Cindy Sheehan's despair, but it is not my guide to what needs to be done.

Peace,
David McReynolds
NYC