Yet more Sheehanigans

According to the Baltimore Sun, Cindy Sheehan is airing a TV ad accusing President Bush of lying about Iraq. In these ads, she claims that Bush was wrong about WMDs being in Iraq, and about their being a link between Iraq and al-Queda. She then goes on to outright accuse him of lying, and says that because of his lies, her son died.

Now, it's probably no great surprise that I have the utmost of sympathy for Mrs. Sheehan. Honestly, I have sympathy for anyone who looses a child. Regardless of why the war is being fought, regardless of anyone's political beliefs, it's ultimately tragic for a parent to bury their child. Cause of death doesn't effect my sympathy; it's simply all the more tragic when it's preventable.

I don't, however, think it's a good idea for Sheehan to be publicly accusing Bush of lying. That makes it personal, and adds fuel to your opponents counter-attacks. This is not, in any way, my saying that I don't think Bush was lying. However, I think that Sheehan's cause would get a lot more support from middle-of-the-road folk if she just stopped at "Bush was wrong", rather than continuing on to "Bush intentionally lied to us."

According to the Sun, a VP at one of the stations that refuses to air her add said: "She claims the president lied about, among other things, the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is no proof that we are aware of regarding the truthfulness of her claim. We require proof of claims such as this. Until that is provided, our station will not carry this ad."

This, I don't get. Does he think that, if Bush had found solid, conclusive evidence of WMDs - in essence, proof that he was right - he wouldn't have revealed at least something to the public? I understand, of course, that there may have been some security concerns, but still! It's a hugely controversial action he's taking, and if he finds evidence that his claims were right, he's not going to say anything? I think not. I think that this is a case where his silence can be construed as a distinct lack of evidence.

The article continues on to say that Bush has expressed sympathy for Sheehan. True, maybe, to a very, very small degree. However: Sheehan eventually changed her plea not for him to sit down and talk to her, but to sit down and pray with her. Bush's whole image is that of the good, southern, Christian guy - a sort of everyman who (allegedly) most people can relate to. The type of guy who goes to church all the time and lets religion play a part in his life. Bush refused to pray with her. I fail to understand why. He's never been afraid of prayer or public dipslays f religion seeming 'inappropriate' in the past - he's expressed support for teaching intelligent design in schools, for crying out loud. But yet, he can't take five minutes out of his immensely-busy five week vacation to pray with a mother who lost her child? A mother who's child died to "protect and uphold the Constitution"?

Which, by the way, I'd like to point out, is the oath that every police officer, every member of the armed forces, and every government official takes when they begin their duties. They pledge to protect and uphold the Constitution. There's nothing about protecting the government, the administration, or even this country. It's the Constitution, and last time I checked, there was nothing in the Constitution saying that other countries can't have nuclear weapons, real or imagined.