Lileks on Sheehan

James Lileks tackles the Sheehan kerfuffle:

Just for the record, then: She has the right to her opinions, she certainly has the right to her grief, and she has the right to say provocative things. She even has the right to ask for a second conference with the president in order to accuse him of killing her son. This is not about that. No one is suggesting she be stripped of the First Amendment and forced to sing patriotic Irving Berlin tunes.

Now that the preambles are done, a question: Is anything she says subject to criticism at all?

Your first response might be a wince and a shrug: Who are we to judge, the woman's clearly in pain, best to leave it be, please change the channel. But if she wants to be a spokesman for the anti-war cause, is it beyond the pale to examine her remarks? If she blames the war on, say, Zionist fiends, ought not one wonder why the anti-war crowd seems deaf or indifferent to the loathsome underpinnings of her remarks? Perhaps they agree with her when she says this is a war for Israel. David Duke certainly does.

I feel for Mrs. Sheehan, I really do. This woman will never hug her son again.

That said, he joined the military of his own free will, he was not drafted. He joined for the reasons that so many others have, the responsibility he felt was his to defend freedom and fight tyranny. That's why I joined and that's why 90% of the others who served took that oath.

No one held a gun to my head and made swear allegiance and promise to protect against all enemies. Perhaps Mrs. Sheehan should take a step back and realize that she's a pawn in a sick political game. She is being manipulated in a way that would probably cause her son to feel embarrassment. I know I would if it were my mother.