Excerpted from A.J. Delgado‘s piece in Mediaite: Remember Cindy Sheehan? Sheehan lost her son, Army Specialist Casey Sheehan, in the Iraq War in 2004, became a staunch anti-war activist, and an overnight celebrity. Where Sheehan went, cameras, microphones, and fawning praise followed, breathlessly capturing her every thought on President Bush and the war. The makeshift camp she set up outside of Bush’s Crawford ranch attracted scores of (other) celebrities, journalists, and even Congressmen. Sheehan’s message was not only devoutly covered but even flattering monikers were bestowed (“the Rosa Parks of the peace movement!”) and accolades were endless.
Sheehan was given any and every platform, with the media tripping over itself, for years, to report her words.
The espoused rationale for the intense coverage was, purportedly, that this grieving mother deserved an ‘explanation’ for her son’s death. This despite the fact that, as tragic as her loss was, Sheehan’s quest was not one seeking answers, nor were there any unaddressed questions or mysteries about her son’s death – her mission was a general, common one: that of an anti-war protestor.
That same media, however, who believed Sheehan was owed an explanation, is curiously dismissive of Pat Smith. Pat Smith lost her son, Information Officer Sean Smith, in the Benghazi attack last autumn. But apart from a few scattered interviews, the mainstream media has, for months, turned its back on Smith, seemingly echoing Hillary Clinton’s “What difference does it make?!” sentiment. Far from receiving praise and encouragement, Smith, in an interview with Sean Hannity on his radio program last week, emotionally noted the efforts to silence her.
But both are grieving mothers who lost a son while he served his country abroad during a controversial event. So why the difference in treatment? Why was one mother inundated with media while the other is shunned?
Quite simply, Cindy Sheehan — slamming the “illegal and immoral” war for “oil” and comparing Bush to Hitler — was Christmas morning, every morning, for the Left.
Pat Smith, on the other hand, seeks answers surrounding the Benghazi attack. She is therefore no Christmas present – rather, she is an inconvenience that must be brushed under the rug. Unlike Sheehan, who was used as a pawn to further the Left’s narrative, Smith’s quest presents a danger to the Obama Administration’s record and image.
Make no mistake: had Benghazi occurred under a Republican administration, the media would fawn over Smith with even greater adoration than that bestowed upon Sheehan. No network, no microphone, and no camera would be closed to her. But, as Benghazi is a horrific failure on the part of President Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton, the media has gladly employed its role as guardian of the administration (who needs the Praetorian Guard of yesteryear when we have MSNBC?), ignoring the story, ignoring Smith, even ignoring its own instinctive draw and duty to explore a story where, in stark contrast to Sheehan’s, enormous mysteries and questions loom.