Angry in the Great White North

Should Bill Mitchell be alllowed to speak? The bottom line is what the risk is that he will be a distraction, unable to resist the partisanship that the organizers want to avoid. We have some evidence that Bill Mitchell will act to draw attention to himself and make a point:

Former Air Force veteran Tim Goodrich, who served in the Middle East under Ret. General Tommy Franks, also addressed the crowd. Tim was introduced with a U.S. Tour of Duty news video that captured a dramatic confrontation he had with Franks after the general spoke to elementary school students in Los Angles. Tim was outraged that his former commander in chief was apparently seducing such young children with a sugarcoated image of the military, and that the school assembly had taken place without the knowledge or consent of parents. Tim, who is the co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War, was denied access to the event, just as his previous attempts to meet with members of the Bush administration have been rejected or ignored. In a classic example of civil disobedience, Tim waited outside the school (along with Gold Star dad Bill Mitchell) and put his body in front of Franks' vehicle as the general was being driven away.

He has been a true believer even before his son's death:

after cindy, bill mitchell spoke. he lost his only son, the baby of the family, on the same day as cindy's son, in the same battle. cindy's son had only been in iraq 5 days when he was killed. bill's son, michael, was scheduled to return home just a few days later. bill said he had been against the war in the beginning and had protested on the first anniversary, carrying a sign saying bring our boys home now.

We don't know why Michael Mitchell enlisted if Bill Mitchell was against the war -- another family split along generational lines? Like Casey, Michael re-enlisted, knowing he would be deployed to Iraq. He believed in the mission.

Bill Mitchell idolizes Cindy Sheehan, not surprisingly:

Mitchell, of Atascadero, Calif., said he admires Sheehan for her dedication. While some deal with grief by becoming absent and withdrawn, others like Sheehan become active and involved, he said. "Cindy is the ultimate," Mitchell said. "Cindy is my hero. I can't do what Cindy's doing. I do lots of interviews, I do lots of speaking, but I check out every so often."

I guess he'd like to check back in for the Berkeley event.

On the other hand, Bill Mitchell is focused on the subject of the war, and not on other issues that have clustered around the Cindy Sheehan parade:

Nearby, Bill Mitchell is trying to get some shade and downtime, but he's being harrangued by a lefty on revolution overdrive who want a petition signed pertaining to some issue that apparently needs lots of explanation. "I'm here," says Mitchell finally, "because my son was killed in Iraq." That seems to startle the lefty somewhat, but I don't hang around long enough to learn whether it shuts him up.

So should he be allowed to talk? In the end, the question depends a lot on what he has not said:

It is coming together with other families of the slain that empowers Bill.

"I met Cindy shortly after our sons' deaths," he said. "We did some military speak-out events together. I realized there was a power in her speaking and in her stories."

But then Cindy Sheehan says things like this:

Cindy challenges Bush to level with her: "You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy."

Is this the power of which he speaks? Does Bill Mitchell see the problem with the Iraq War in particular, or does he believe, as Cindy does, that the US is a "cancer"?

He has never distanced himself from those sort of statements that Cindy Sheehan is famous for. Indeed, in the one published letter by Bill Mitchell I could find in public sources (the GSFP letters archive), Bill Mitchell shows himself to be capable of the same sort of angry language Cindy Sheehan uses:

Now as far as your letter goes, let me respond to it now. I really do not believe that ALL of the employees at the Department of Defense know about the death of my son so how could they possibly be deeply saddened, have him in their thoughts and prayers, or be proud and grateful for his service. Another comment here; many, many good people were praying for Mike when he was alive and doing your dirty work in Iraq. You and your employees' prayers at this time give me little or no relief from this tragedy. As his father, a Vietnam era veteran, and an anti-war protester; I am also very proud of him.

My son died with dignity in an undignified war. I hope to become a thorn in your side as well as the others who are responsible for this war and the death of my son.

That was written in May 2004, with his son's death only one month in the past. One wonders if the intensity of the feeling could be maintained. In a subsequent letter, written an unspecified number of months later, it is clear those feelings remain:

I had not read that letter in months but I could clearly touch again upon the anger and hostility that I felt so strongly then. It has now been 9 ½ months since my only son's death and although the anger has subsided, the sadness and pain that I feel are always present.

On the balance, I'd say Bill Mitchell is not likely to resist te urge to be that "thorn" he so desired to be. Moreover, his hero worship of Cindy Sheehan and his recurring episodes of depression ("checking out every so often"; see also the Rumsfeld letter) makes me think he can't be trusted even if he promised to keep his appearance politically neutral.

As harsh as it seems, I'd say some of those Berkeley organizers were right to hold the line against including Bill Mitchell. It's too bad committee as a whole not simply find the strength to hold the event without Bill Mitchell, and stand up to the criticism for excluding him. To cancel the event altogether handed Cindy Sheehan, Bill Mitchell, and their sort a victory of sorts, and that's a shame.

One wonders if either Casey or Michael would be disappointed to know that politics being practised in their name has resulted in veterans not being honoured.

[California Conservative looks at bit closer at recent protests.]