<p>Our disagreements should end at the water. Sheehan’s visit to Chavez just confirms her anti-Americanism and confirms the anti-Semitism she’s expressed but denied earlier. Here’s Chavez’s latest on Jews and Iran (courtesy of Wall Street Journal but available elsewhere:</p>
<p>[Three months later, in a Christmas Eve TV broadcast, Ch</p>
<p>So becuase Ms. Sheehan met with someone who is not a nice person, we should dismiss her</p>
<p>Well, um, Bush met with Abramoff, and Robertson, and others
We were to IGNORE that Alito was a member of a group that disliked having women and minorities at their college and he is to be a supreme court justice</p>
<p>That’s a pretty nonsensical criticism, BigGreen. Cindy Sheehan met Chavez to promote a (strongly worded) anti-war message, not in agreement with his anti-Semitism or whatever.</p>
<p>Hate Cindy Sheehan because she is insincere.</p>
<p>How about a little empathy for a mother in terrible pain? </p>
<p>I don’t disagree that she’s a little extreme-- but who would want to walk in her shoes? My parents both went somewhat nuts after my brother died. Be tolerant of people consumed by grief.</p>
<p>Credit where credit is due how many grieving mothers have the necessary sense of self to leverage their childs tragedy and catapult themselves into a photo-op with a South American Strong Man who feels your pain </p>
<p>Fidel really dropped the ball on this one. </p>
<p>Talk about jump starting a Democratic Senate run in California…Bay area might be a lock.</p>
<p>My empathy for Cindy Sheehan and her grief stops when she starts cavorting with enemies of America. In addition to Chavez’s own anti-Semitic comments and activities, he has become a close ally of President Ahmadenijad of Iran. </p>
<p>Some of us on this board have sons and daughters serving in the military - Cindy Sheehan is now aiding and abetting those who would harm our children. Even worse is Congressman William Delahunt and Joe Kennedy who went to Venezuela to do an oil deal with Chavez. </p>
<p>Citgo, by the way, is controlled by the Venezuelan government.</p>
<p>I don’t see what is so wrong with Chavez. He has been democratically elected and clearly has the support of the large majority of his people. He is trying to use the oil wealth to help the majority. Interesting how conservatives tend to see this as pandering. I think this is what leaders should do in a democracy even if the wealthy few don’t like it.</p>
<p>Is Chavez a milk toast guy like John Kerry who turns the other cheek when savagely attacked? No, but if he was, he would probably not have been able to withstand the US backed coup and the democratic will of his people would have been thwarted.</p>
<p>It should be noted that Chavez has yet to invade or threaten to attack other countries as the US frequently does. On that important aspect alone he is less of a threat to the world than our own president.</p>
<p>I think it is perfectly appropriate for Cindy to go overseas to explore the type of knee jerk “we are good, they are evil” mentality that guides so many conservatives and even stampedes moderates into the type of fruitless war that killed Cindy’s son for no good cause.</p>
<p>As far as the anti-semitism card, it is often played inappropriately.</p>
Too true.
However, I would have a hard time imaging even the most jaded of them using their dead child, or any loved one, as a prop, either for emotional succor or career advancement. Takes a special person maybe Al Gore, but no one else comes to mind.</p>
<p>Cindy is not using her son as a prop any more than the Mothers Against Drunk Driving use their dead kids as profs. Or Catholics agains pedophilia are using their kids as props in their attemtps to end the silence in the Catholic Church.</p>
<p>That assumes that the will of the people was exercized when Chavez was elected. Many will point to significant voting irregularities in the past thus leading to last month’s voting boycott where only 25% of the eligible voters turned out. When that many people protest an election, it sure makes it look like something fishy is going on.</p>
<p>For a long time it did –> Candy Lightner. She founded MADD back in the early 80s out of outrage and grief over the death of her daughter who was killed by a drunk driver. For many years Candy was the face and voice of MADD. She eventually moved on to other things as others took over the leadership.</p>
<a href=“http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1119636699.html[/url]”>http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1119636699.html</a>
also:
<a href=“http://www.wic.org/bio/lightner.htm[/url]”>http://www.wic.org/bio/lightner.htm</a>
Moreover, I doubt Ms Lightners Daughter, while alive, was a proponent of drunk-driving, obliging her to continue her daughters mission when her young life was cut tragically short, as Ms Sheehan has done with her sons legacy. As I understand he was a loyal member of the United States military and its mission in Iraq.
Furthermore, as I understand, Ms Lightner did not believe that her daughters tragedy qualified her to grandstand on the Israel/Palestine crisis, or US foreign or domestic policy.
It is a disservice to Ms Lightner to draw a comparison between her and Cindy Sheehan.
Its a question of taste and decency; absent in Sheehan and present in Ms Lightner and others.
</p>
<p>Cindy Sheehan is the voice and face of Cindy Sheehan; no suprise there.</p>
<p>I think Cindy Sheehan’s son was needed in her protest. And, I don’t think her son was used as a prop or anything like that. Maybe it’s just my intuition, but even in a political world that consumes its own flesh, I think a mother would still grieve foremost for her son. </p>
<p>Meeting with Chavez, I feel, was not a bad idea. Most world leaders have dirt under their nails, but often, meeting with them helps. For example, Gandhi and some of his supporers actually contacted some members of the Nazi party for aid in defeating Britain (other Indian nationalistic heroes, such as Subash Chandra Bose, took this to extreme levels). Gandhi himself condemned the Holocaust, but at the same time, he was so desperate to help his own nation (get liberated from the UK) that he felt necessary to contact their enemies.</p>
<p>Even in the case of Chavez, I think it’s ironic that he would lash out against the Jewish community. Perhaps there are deeper political reasons behind this. Chavez hasn’t historically been anti-semitic. Pat Robertson–the same Pat Robertson who said that Ariel Sharon “deserved” his stroke–called for the assassination of Chavez.</p>