Do the Benghazi families have absolute moral authority?
A commenter on my recent piece regarding Hillary Clinton’s calling the Benghazi families liars raised a very valid point when he asked whether or not the mothers of the fallen warriors at Benghazi had the same absolute moral authority the media bestowed on Cindy Sheehan.
Remember that woman’s fifteen minutes of fame a decade ago? Shrieking Cindy Sheehan, the Gold Star mother, whom I accused at the time of using her fallen soldier son’s coffin as a podium from which she attacked George W. Bush and his administration, was the darling of the mainstream media. Cindy was a California housewife whose son, Casey, was killed in combat in Iraq in 2004. His death drove his distraught mother into such a state that she left behind and eventually divorced her husband of almost three decades to take to the barricades of peace activism. The leftist antiwar movement quickly elevated her to celebrity spokesperson status because her son’s death, conferring on her a special cachet to speak with moral authority to the government conducting the war in which her son died.
It was Maureen Dowd, writing about Sheehan’s campaign against Bush in the New York Times on August 10th, 2005, who enhanced Sheehan’s already elevated moral authority (emphasis mine):
Selectively humane, Mr. Bush justified his Iraq war by stressing the 9/11 losses. He emphasized the humanity of the Iraqis who desire freedom when his W.M.D. rationale vaporized.
But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.
The rest of the Bush-bashing media immediately seized upon Dowd’s framing of this unquestioned right to speak and be believed without challenge bestowed upon parents of fallen sons. The antiwar movement quickly molded this moral authority into a club with which they and a compliant mainstream media beat down any Bush supporters who dared question Sheehan’s ear-piercing screeches. Bush himself was to dutifully accept Sheehan’s shrieking protests without objection, giving total deference to her absolute moral authority.
That was then…this is now. Can we rightfully expect the media to accord this same absolute moral authority to the Benghazi families who claim that Hillary Clinton lied to them at the ceremony where their son’s coffins were being unloaded from the military aircraft that brought their bodies home? Now that the boot of moral authority is on the right foot rather than the left, will the media be professionally consistent and march in lockstep with the Benghazi parents, as they did a decade ago with Sheehan and her movement? And, most importantly, will the mainstream media insist that their much-favored choice for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton, conduct herself in the same manner as they expected of the Bush administration, and allow the assertions of these Benghazi parents to go unchallenged? Will they ask her to renounce her charge that these aggrieved parents are liars?
I believe we all know the answers to those questions.
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Politics
I think the circumstances are somewhat different.
Sheehan used her gold star status to make a moral issue out of prosecuting a war and all wars in general.
The Benghazi families are simply stating that they were told by Clinton, Rice, Panetta, Obama and others that the rational for the attack was a video. The issue is not the moral position on wars but rather the facts, lies and the liars who tell them.
I see this as two different arguments and positions.
I supposed you can make the case they are not the same; the Ditch Witch made the case that her son died in a war perpetuated on lies while the Benghazi families are asserting that their loved ones died and then the administration lied about the circumstances and actions taken during the attack. However, one cannot cheer poor Cindy as she claims the Bush White House lied and not at least give the victims of Benghazi the same consideration.
I would never support Sheehan in anything, Claymore.
I guess I just see the difference as being Sheehan using the death of her son making her some sort of “moral authority” on what wars are just and what wars are not.
The Benghazi families simply seem to be saying that their son / husbands / brothers died and we want to know why.
I guess to me it is the difference between demanding a platform to lecture people (Sheehan) and being told the truth.
Certainly the Benghazi families deserve to know the truth and to have any misrepresentations made to them acknowledged and apologized for.
And there is, in my opinion, moral authority in demanding the truth.
Carver, the only difference is in the order of the events:
Sheehan said that her government lied and her son died in combat;
The Benghazi families say that their sons died in combat and their government lied.
However, the premise of my piece is to point out the media hypocrisy. The media itself conferred the “absolute” moral authority on Sheehan and used it as a club on the Bush government. By media reasoning, it was the death of her son in combat that lent Sheehan her special status.
It is only fair (but exceedingly foolish) to ask if the media will anoint the Benghazi families, whose sons also died in combat, with that same mantle of moral authority.
If I remember correctly, as soon as Obama was elected and did not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, Sheehan continued to protest against him and his policies as well and suddenly she was no longer in the news, no longer in print, she was persona-non-grata as far as the lamestream media were concerned because she dared call out their liberal savior.
If I remember right, Cindy Sheehan was another two bit phony….she had not been around that son for most of his life, don’t remember whether she left him, got a divorce from his dad or what….she was a ph-cking nutcase! These Benghazi mothers have every right to take the hilldabitch out and hang IMHO!
I totally agree
Yes, the circumstances are different, but the pathology is identical.
I’m not sure there is ‘moral authority’ to be had, in either case. The minute war is declared, we’ve just condemned some of our young people to death. That’s a fact. Foreign service is always risky — being attacked and murdered is an occupational hazard. That’s also a fact.
Screeching from either left or right is still screeching. If Cindy Sheehan had a problem with her son going into harm’s way, it was her son she needed to pontificate to. What the parents of the fallen of Benghazi have to say is irrelevant; if Clinton, as SoS, made fatal judgments in that scenario that cost lives, then those facts will stand on their own merit. Rightfully distraught parents, though tragic, have no place swaying the argument with their tears and heartfelt pleas of anguish.
“the facts will stand on their own merit”
That is true, they WOULD, but with this administration lying the way it does, is keeping those facts from getting out. This where the problem begins and the liberal media only pours gas on the fire by catering to their ilk (Shehan) to further their agenda. My opinion is that the families of those killed in Libya are entitled to answers. Shehan’s son was a Soldier killed in combat. The men killed in Benghazi were working for the government and abandoned after calling for help. I see a difference.
Cindy Sheehan offered herself up on the altar of “Bush lied, people died”, an offer that the left and code pink were happy to accept. As soon as she outlasted her usefulness, Cindy went under the bus. The families of the Bhengazi fallen will never be accepted by the msm because they’re questioning the chosen, Barrack and Hillary must be followed, never questioned!
If the Hildabeast gets elected and the world doesn’t end that very night, does she get to blame Bush for everything wrong?
She’ll blame everything and everyone else. It will never be her fault, ever.
The press in America has long since trashed it’s reputation as any kind of an objective disseminator of information.
The fact that they continue to support the lies, any lies for the left is indicative of the moral standing of the individuals that perpetrate such crimes against the truth.
Little by little conservative media has formed a strong and unabashed presence in this country. As long as outfits like Breitbart continue to speak the truth, no matter who is peddling it the reputation and fortunes of such organizations will continue to grow.
Of all of the crap that this entire political movement of the left wing has pulled, the Benghazi debacle stands as one of the worst.
It simply fills my craw every time I see something about it and how they are attempting to portray the families as morally bankrupt when in all reality it is the entire left wing that has gone completely bankrupt of all moral judgement.
I doubt they will pay any price for their political sins while here on this planet, the best I can hope for is a stronger judgement in the next, if there is one, and I believe there is, plane of existence…
Those parents had “absolute moral authority” so long as they advanced the cause of the left, like Cindy Shehan. Someone like Gary Reese Sr., who respected his son’s sacrifice and who continued to support the war effort (full disclosure: I had the honor to serve with Gary Reese Jr, in 2/278th ACR) were ignored.
Link-http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2006/04/tennessee-welcomes-its-soldiers-home.php
The biggest mistake made on both sides is assuming anyone has any actual absolute “moral” authority at any time to speak on a topic. No one has more of a right or less of right to speak. Sheehan’s kid died, his choice to join knowing the potential outcome. So what she’s now the ordained voice of reason? Kids die in war all the time, it’s not great it just is. Civilians die too, do they have an even more supreme moral authority because they are noncombatants caught up in this mess? Of course not, Sheehan was nothing more than sideshow hyperbole, the same as the Benghazi families. Both are/were used to make political points by people who don’t give a flying fuck about the dead. We had no “moral” authority to attack Iraq, we just had national interests. Even in WW2 we had no “moral” authority we just fought back against those who foolishly attacked us. We didn’t enter that war to stop the rape of the Chinese or free the Jews we entered because the Japs dared to sink some ships and kill some sailors. They killed less US citizens than our own citizens were killing at the time, and less than we continue to kill to this day. So moral authority? Nah, that’s a pretty concept that makes for interesting speeches but it’s ridiculous to imagine that any of us as nation/states are righteous or moral. We are not. What was the “moral authority” for slaughtering the native population of the US and imprisoning that population in a few sparsely populated sates west of the Missouri? What was the moral authority to keep black pilots from eating in a diner where POWs were eating? Or years later from drinking at the same fountain as their white neighbors or riding in the front of a bus? Moral authority is the ultimate deceit, people are told they must be moral and righteous based on some bullshit written by some liars long since dead who sought to control the population through religion. On this day we would do well to remember… Read more »
I would argue with only one part of what you said, VOV. The very fact that we are capable of distinguishing between morality and immorality means we are capable of being morale. The only way we will ever achieve that state, however, is to take responsibility for our actions, and stop giving credit/blame for them to a god.
“…being MORAL…” Sorry.
We are capable of being incredibly moral and selfless, we examples of that every day.
The issue is as governments we tend to be much less so.
The US is as selfless and generous a nation as you will ever find, the data backs that up and I am proud of that reality. But our history shows just how immoral and selfish we can be when it suits us.
The reality is that those who rule us enjoy that power and position as though they deserve it. Our shame as a people ought to be that we keep choosing those stinking liar and immoral miscreants as our representatives for fear of accidentally letting the other side “win”.
Human nature enjoys tribal identity. Religion and politics exploit that reality for their own nefarious benefits.
Yet even the nation is divided as to who is to be anointed with moral authority. The best example of that is who Democrats typically choose to revere as war heroes, John Kerry and Bowe Bergdahl, come to mind; yet the remainder of the people see those Democrat heroes as traitorous scoundrels, bereft of any moral worth.
Moral authority, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, as history has shown us, often tragically, time and again.
As usual Poe we can find some common ground and agree on your comments, the dems seem lately to find some serious shitbags to idolize…
For me the republicans choose a lesser evil but that doesn’t mean they’ve chosen a good, just a lesser evil.
My votes these days tend to float around who might screw me over the least rather than upon whom can I endow my trust and support with enthusiasm.
Nations/States may not have a moral authority and I agree, for the most part they don’t, But the families of Americans working in foreign service, that were lied to by the government that they worked for in order to cover up wrong doing, do have a right to the truth and justice. AND seeing that they were the lied to instead of the liars, I say that the morals are on their side. Luckily for this government, the media is 100% on their side. Even when they are so obviously caught in lies
HRC stood in the aircraft hanger close to the flag draped coffins and told a grieving mother that she would get the people that made the video. Now it’s clear HRC knew at the time it was not a video, but chose to lie.
Is this the lie we are talking about?
You asked an unanswerable question, Poetrooper.
shrillary and moral used in the same sentence create an incongruity. Shrillary has no morals and doesn’t care who gets hurt as long as she gets her way. She will lie, cheat and steal to get what she wants. We all know that. We see it repeatedly.
Frankly, I have issues with the term ‘moral authority’. It implies that one side is right and the other is wrong, but which one, and from whose viewpoint? That depends on the geographic location of the viewer, doesn’t it?
If you dig back into history, warfare is just another from of predator behavior, expressed in mass numbers instead of individually. Were the Greeks justified in attacking Troy over Helen’s running off to Ilium, or was it just an excuse to acquire new territory? Was Julius Caesar engaging in moral turpitude when he invaded Britannia, mostly to acquire a source of tin for bronze weaponry? Or was he just a thug feeding his inflated ego at the head of the Roman Army? And what about the way he went after Pompey?
Humans are omnivorous predators. We haven’t ever come to terms with that in ourselves, no matter how much we pretend otherwise.
Sensationalism is what sells in the news today, especially the print media. They will hawk what stirs the public, regardless of any point of view. Cindy Sheehan was a bit rowdy and not really one to gain large group support; just not polished enough to make a point. That was my take on her actions, and I don’t mean to disrespect her in any shape or form. Her views regarding perceived war mongers was basically her attempt to change the world where all would feel her pain and stop wars of any kind, size, and reason. Conversely, the Benghazi matter was predicated on a lying, scheming politician trying to cover her incompetence and inadequacies in a position she had no reason to be a part of. Blaming the outcome of that one night on a video presented by someone from California was just your typical shitbag politician’s M. O., NOTHING else. No idea where Sheehan believed she had the right to assign moral authority, and blame the then Prez. Nor do I know where those who lost family members and loved ones in Benghazi earn a right to personal moral authority. War is war, always has been, and always will be. As long as there is life on this planet there will be wars. The “One World Government” notion by self-serving politicians will never change the greed and power sought by those starting wars. HRC is just another lying, stinking, no good POS that will always talk out of both sides of her mouth. F__k that lying bitch and the horse she rides on. It was HER stupidity and indifference that brought us the unforgettable Benghazi night. To the day I die, I will NEVER understand how on earth this bych has a chance in hell of being elected. Mainstream media will NEVER attack HRC UNLESS by some freak chance someone with the balls stands up and says “Enough!” and I don’t see any signs of that happening. If the public’s mood changes and does not elect her, that might be a different story. Then HRC would be great news… Read more »
If you try to make the argument that a government has the “moral authority” to make a war, other than self defense, you’re pissing in the wind. We’ve had a handful only of defensive wars in our history. The rest aren’t “morally superior.” Wow, it’s getting deep, idn’t it.
Maybe the question is whether or not our country has a moral obligation to look after it’s citizens, whether when being sent to war (support me and get me back home-dead or alive), or even when surrounded by “protestors” in a foreign land.
No individual has more of a moral authority than another, but I think our country should have a moral obligation to those who do things in it’s name.
The mantle of absolute moral authority does not sit well on kings, priests, or politicians, much less half-wits, and Dowd knew that when she wrote it.
People who disagreed with Cindy Sheehan exercised self-restraint out of pity, not because she was right, or had any authority whatsoever. I was pleased and grateful to see it, because it made room for bit of kindness in our public discourse.
That said, our country recognizes a certain narrow and close to absolute right on the part of the families of those who died in the service of our country, namely the right to a true accounting for the lives of their loved ones. They have a right to the truth.
This is an issue that has come up over and over again. We seek out and return the bones of our dead from past wars. We made a list of every person we lost in the Vietnam War, and carved it in stone. We investigate and correct comforting lies, such when we find that one of our own was killed by friendly fire.
I believe Mrs. Clinton’s action falls under the last example.