a serious moment
I was really struck by this photo , which graced the cover of Tuesday's New York Times, showing Ariel Sharon, Condoleeza Rice and James Baker attending a memorial of the late Yitzhak Rabin in Israel. There's something in that picture...in Rice's face, jaw set, eyes hidden behind rockstar sunglasses...and how she is flanked on either side by two men who've played hard-ball power politics for decades: Ariel Sharon, peering beneath his furrowed brow and, always conscious he is being observed, gesturing and thinking...and James Baker, completely hidden behind a permanent dimplomatic mask, an impenetrable sphinx. Of course, that photo sends a powerful message to the world. Rice was in Israel to do serious business . The fact that she brought Baker with her meant that the full weight of the U.S. military-industrial complex... the old guard ...was with her. That trip to Israel was important; and I would guess that U.S. plans and actions regarding Syria were part of that
Comments
I'm hoping Sheehan soon declares Crawford an unfriendly place and commences to walking (or otherwise traveling slowly and publicly--with a growing army of supporters, I would expect) back to Washington in time to meet Bush at the White House (or Walter Reed, or Dover AFB, etc.) when he's finished screwing around.
Sheehan writes: "As a mother, why would I want any other mother (American or Iraqi) to go through the same pain as I am suffering through? My son, Casey was an honorable man filled with an integrity rarely seen these days. I am sure that he would be appalled that George uses his death to justify continued killing."
What's so striking to me about this is that on top of focusing on how American soldiers are facing death and injury, Sheehan is insisting that even if they weren't in harm's way the troops are being forced *to kill other people who don't need to die.*
Not just that her son's death is being used to justify the continued deaths of other American sons and daughters, but, simultaneously, that it is being used -- in a way that obviously makes her both sick and sad -- to justify, and continue, and halt any criticism of, policies that she finds wrong (and, finally, murderous) in the first place.
This is the *stronger* of two possible anti-war positions. It's one very, very rarely heard, or even suggested, by any mainstream politician. It's amazing to hear it being given voice by this ordinary woman.
It's not just that Cindy Sheehan decided to take this action, and is forthright about going through with it.
It's also her ability to speak the truth, boldly and in a plain-spoken manner, that is so powerful.
Reading her diary and comments leading up to her protest, it is almost as if Bush's speech valorizing those lost in Iraq....and using their deaths to cement his commitment to further occupation...was what put her over the top, and forced her to take an action that might not have been fully planned before that point.
Ie. Bush's words created the consequence of Sheehan's actions...and, now the consequence of Ms. Sheehan's clear and public questions for the President echoing his words back at him.