What is most interesting is that the media gives Cindy and her group of followers so much media time to protest the Iraq war. They do this without discussing Cindy’s very interesting background. Could this be a case of more media bias?

It has been pointed out by just a couple of media outlets that Cindy divorced her first husband and left her son with him to be raised while she became a political activist. She had very little to do with her son in his growing years. Eventually both parents married new mates and the original father raised the son with his new wife. They miss their son and mourn the loss of his life. They have stated that they are very proud of their son and that they agree with the stance of America in Iraq and on terror. They said that their son was eager to serve and to go fight the terrorists in Iraq. He volunteered. Be honest now, did you see, hear or read their interview in any of the media?

So the son dies in Iraq and Cindy shows up to make a stink. She gets an audience with Bush. That was not enough. She goes to Crawford, TX and demands another audience. How many news media carried the ongoing saga of Cindy? Practically all of
them. How much did Cindy care about her son? She let another woman raise him. Cindy doesn’t care about the other soldiers in Iraq either. She seems only to care about her liberal, feminist agenda and about using the death of her son to lobby against Bush and the war. Why is the press supporting her?

Now it looks like her 2nd husband is fed up with Cindy too. Two days ago, he filed for divorce. Cindy sounds like a feminist opportunist who not only abandoned the responsibility to raise her own son, but neglected both of her marriages as well. We middle Americans should be fed up with Cindy also. The public should be fed up with the media. They manipulate us into their “group think” and into the responses that they want on their polls.

=H. A. Brown