Update (8/16): Please see Sheehan Redux.
——————————————————————-
Cindy Sheehan is a woman whose son was killed in the war, and she and her family met with George Bush shortly after. Apparently there were some discrepancies between what she told a newspaper reporter about the meeting and what she told Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
Last week Drudge reported that Sheehan praised Bush in one story, but later accused him of indifference. She’s also said that Bush “killed” her son. What she actually said and how she said it has never been of interest to me, but I’d like to comment now.
Last week one of my black liberal readers (Cobra), someone I hardly ever agree with, and vice versa, wrote the following in a comment thread:
As an African American liberal, I SUPPORT people like LaShawn Barber, even though we rarely agree, and here’s why. I know that LaShawn will call things as she sees it, based upon her strong principles, and she does occasionally rebuke Republicans and conservatives when she feels they’re out of line (albeit, not as frequently as I would like her to.) That’s more than I can say for the boiler-plate, peroxide blonde, aryan-cheerleader types that infest conservative radio and cable news lately.
In other words, if LaShawn turns on a right winger, you best believe her words will carry a lot more weight.
Let’s see how “heavy” these words are. I’m appalled by the blog swarm surrounding Sheehan. The left is using her plight to espouse more anti-Bush rhetoric, and the right is demonizing a woman grieving over the loss of her child. Her grief doesn’t excuse slander, if that’s case, but it does explain her ambivalence about her meeting with Bush and opposition to the war in Iraq.
Mostly all the top political bloggers on both sides of the aisle have blogged about Sheehan. Search Technorati to find out who and where. I make it my business NOT to tell bloggers how and what to blog, but I’m embarrassed by what I’ve been reading on the conservative side and the way bloggers have castigated Cindy Sheehan.
That’s my comment on the Sheehan “scandal.”
Update (10:45 a.m.): I know my position on this is unpopular with conservatives the same way my position was on Tom Tancredo (who, thankfully, refuses to apologize). I don’t march in lockstep behind anyone. For those who think I’m “excusing” Sheehan for whatever she’s done wrong, get your head out of the sand, put on your glasses, and read the post again. If she’s slandering people, her grief doesn’t excuse it, and I’m inclined to delete comments that claim I said otherwise.
The whole Sheehan controversy is overblown, even if leftists are using her to their advantage. The right wing uses people and circumstances the same way. If you don’t agree, fine. That’s the point of this post. I don’t agree with you, either.
By the way, I realize how popular this topic is, but you might be interested in today’s posts about Tamika Huston and JFK.
Update II (12:50 p.m.): This post generated over 100 comments in four hours. Thanks for your participation.
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 99 comments }
I am sorry Lashawn, but I must break ranks with you on this topic. As a combat veteran myself, I am appalled at the behavior of this woman. Just as the 9/11 families went beyond their grief and exploited that incident for their own monetary gain and forwarding of personal agendas, so has this dishonorable mother.
Cindy Sheehan has more than transformed from grieving
mother. She is now the epitome of the bile left-wing America
has offered our brave troops. She has dishonored herself,
her family, certainly her dead son, the Marine Corp
and her country.
She is now nothing more than an emotional
caricature whom I am sure her son is quite ashamed of. She needs medication, not any more “understanding.”
In her vulnerable state (Satan likes that), she has let the evil Democrat-Liberal left put their
hands up her backside and puppet her out like the
media harlot she has become.
I have ZERO RESPECT for this woman and if the leftist
media took a real and accurate poll, they would know
that most of America doesn’t see her in a very good
light.
Proudly served:
3rd Battalion/75th Ranger Regiment, Ft.
Benning, GA
Delta C. 1/18th INF, Ft. Benning, GA
CIB: Operation Desert Storm
#2. “Monday Morning Quaterbacks” are Americans too are they not? Cindy’s son was a a grown man who made a man’s decision and paid a manly price. She should honor him by respecting that even though her heart aches. Her son’s sacrifice is why America is great and not France.
This woman acts as if her family is the only one ever affected by war and that she has some special right to the president’s ear. Shame on her. Her son was special. She is not.
She did not give her son to the Marine Corps nor the Nation. God gave him to all of us and the Free Will God gave him allowed him to serve us proudly.
I honor his memory and pray that his mother wisens up, shuts up and goes home to grieve properly. Her sadness is duly noted.
i feel for the lady over her brave son,but the way she talks about jews is horrible. her own family is tired of her. she should go home because they all just look ridiculous out there.
Whatever Cindy’s motivations, one thing is certain. Her actions will be used as propaganda (not just by the left in this country), and more of our young men and women will die as a direct result. (Actually, more of everyone will die, including Iraqis.)
That is why many groups use propaganda.
Cindy Sheehan is aiding and abetting the enemy (whether she meant that or not), and as a “loving mother”, she ought to consider what her actions will fuel, and who will die because of her.
Grieving and/or selfishness are not excuses for bad behavior.
By the way, I heard (read) a statement from the Sheehan family that also “denounces” Cindy. That should not be ignored.
As the wife of an active duty US Army officer, Cindy Sheehan absolutely disgusts and saddens me.
Her son was an adult who volunteered for the armed service. He volunteered for the rescue mission that killed him. He was a brave, honorable young man whose efforts should be praised.
The fact that the people with whom she is associating don’t have the slightest bit of respect for the military, her son, or his sacrifices — and the fact that her anti-semitic, anti-American words are now being used and praised by the very people who murdered her son on “insurgent” websites *and* David Duke — should show her that she made a very wrong turn somewhere.
I pray for her family and for some sort of sanity to return to her life.
LaShawn, I love your column and your down-to-earth common sense (it’s one of my first-reads every morning), but on this topic, I have to agree with Raymond. Cindy Sheehan once had my sympathy but no more. She has lied about the circumstances of her son’s death, and she now spews out left-wing propaganda as it is fed to her. Casey Sheehan voluntarily re-joined the military at the age of 24 and was assigned a non-combat position. He volunteered to go into a combat zone, where he met his death. He died a hero and was awarded the bronze star. Cindy Sheehan is not the first mother to lose her son, and I’m sorry to say, she won’t be the last, whether it be in combat or behind the wheel of a speeding car that misses a turn on a U.S. highway. It is time she went back home and went on with her life. I pray that God brings peace to her tormented soul.
La Shawn,
Could you provide links to the right-leaning blogs you believe have gone over the line?
Consider this. At ‘Camp Sheehan’ there are parents who lost a child, yet still support freedom for Iraqis and making America safer.
It is indicative of the bias of the MSM that EVERYONE knows Cindy Sheehan’s name but no one can name the parents who support the president and the American people.
Once Cindy allowed herself to be used by the anti-American left, she lost grieving mother status and became open to criticism.
It was her choice. To denounce criticism of her actions now while granting her the right to criticize is morally bankrupt.
I’m going to differ with you on this one La Shawn. Like the other comments suggest I’m more than willing to cut a grieving Mother some slack. But Ms. Sheehan has crossed the line between devistated Mom to -(willing or not)- rabbid anti-American! I’ll ignore all her talk of the war in Iraq. Let her have her view. But now she’s onto “Israel out of Palestine” and she’s announced that she won’t be payying taxes anymore. It’s gone way beyond anything to do with the loss of her son. I have to pay taxes. I “disliked” Billary for eight years and never even considered witholding payment of my taxes! Yes, they’re too high by about 90 % or so but if the 50 % of us that actually PAY income tax all decided to make it contingent upon whether or not we agree with government policy on all things we’d REALLY be in an economic pickle!
Ms. Sheehan has become a tool of our enemies! We must be strong enough to recognize that when you do the work of the enemy- you ARE the enemy. As soon as you decided to use the media to spew your hate of our Country you lost all the goodwill you so rightly once had!
#10. Pajamzon is correct. History is rife with once noble men who crossed over to the dark side to become traitors. Many Americans, since public schools don’t teach history anymore did not know that Benedict Arnold was a decorated battle hero. Is he considered a hero now?
Neither is Cindy Sheehan.
I also have to disagree w/you here, La Shawn. Some con pundits may have crossed the line and/or shown poor taste (Fred Barnes used the word “kook” to describe Sheehan, for example), but most I’ve seen have remarked on Sheehan’s discrepancies on her views on Bush, and/or how the Left has co-opted the woman. And, as matthew said, her views on Israel and Jews.
One article I read said that August is a very slow news month, and this is why Sheehan is getting so much attention.
Sadly, it appears that LaShawn’s words aren’t that “heavy”, based on the comments so far.
I’m a pretty smart guy, but I don’t understand the viewpoint that Sheehan is “exploiting” her son’s untimely death in order to further an agenda. Hyperbole aside, she obviously is reacting to events that caused the death of her son.
But SO WHAT? How is it any different from, say, a mother forming an organization known as “Mothers Against Drunk Driving” in response to her child getting killed? Or a bunch of sick veterans forming a group opposing agent orange, and staging a rally?
Would anyone here claim those examples are examples of “bad behavior”?
And before you gripe that Sheehan herself is being used for propaganda purposes (by leftist organizations, etc.), please reflect back a few months ago to Terri Schiavo, and the organizations that flocked to “her” side. Were you outraged then?
LaShawn is correct — Sheehan has the right to speak her views. And even if you disagree with *her politics*, putting the spotlight on *her* (her motivations, etc.) only bolsters the argument that lefties make — i.e., when confronted with substantive issues, conservatives resort to smear.
I’m glad to see that LaShawn isn’t joining the chorus of bloggers who don’t know the proper way to debate the serious issues of our day.
I absolutely agree with the sentiments thus far expressed. Cindy Sheehan’s loss of her son does not bestow on her immunity from telling the truth, or elevate her to some higher plane from which we mere mortals who have not lost a loved one cannot criticize her.
She has repeatedly lied about her son’s choices, and her meeting with the President. Casey Sheehan reenlisted after his first hitch, and actually volunteered for the mission that killed him, even though informed by his commanding officer that he did not need to do so.
Cindy Sheehan is spewing incoherent bile, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. is that excusable, La Shawn, even by a grief-stricken mother? Are you saying we should ignore it?
Ken. Please show us the proper way oh one who is wiser than us lowly stupid minions of thine.
14. Yes, Cindy Sheehan could be the next Rosa Parks…..a fake, a convenient pawn used to further an agenda.
#12. Fred Barnes was on point with that comment based on her actions.
When Keith Olberman was interviewing Sheehan, he looked around at all of the reporters who were now camped out at Crawford, and said that maybe she was better off if Bush did not meet with her. She smiled and said something like “I know. Isn’t it great? I actually hope he doesn’t meet with me, because that would stop my momentum. But, I don’t want to give away the secret!.” I was so stunned, as she said this in a baby voice just two minutes after wailing to another reporter that all she had come here for was to meet with her president and ask him some questions. She also said that she had been forced to cut off all contact with any family member who had voted for Bush (and one can assume that their grief is intense as well), because she finds that anyone who supports this war and Bush is anti-Christ….even grieving family members. What I think is that acknowledging a woman’s grief does not mean that one has to suspend acknowledgement of truth.
US Marines live by a Code of Honor. Cindy has none and obviously did not respect the fact that her son lived and died based on that Code.
He obviously didn’t learn the concept from her. What a sad way to honor your dead son. She may as well had spit on his grave.
La Shawn, if there are “conservative” (or whatever flavor) bloggers who are slandering Cindy Sheehan or being nasty in their comments about her, then I agree with you that they should not be. I have not read any such comments myself because I try to avoid raving loonies of either left or right (just as I would never deliberately tune my radio to listen to, for example, the vile ravings of Michael Savage).
I do not think Cindy Sheehan is an evil person, although I think she may be someone who was unbalanced by her grief and anguish and has let heself fall under the sway of some of the more bitter anti-American left. Are they putting words in her mouth or has she absorbed their world view? I don’t know. I do know that this whole flap demonstrates two things about the state of the news media: it has sunk to the level of trivia of the supermarket tabloids and the fashionable leftish bias is more pervasive than ever.
Come to the “Dark Side of the Force Cindy Skywalker”…
Really, you guys sound like you are reading off a Star Wars script. I am 50/50 on this one. Yes, I think if she does disagree with the war (which doesn’t automatically make her a leftist) and that this was punctuated by the very close and personal death of her child, she should do whatever it takes to end the war. I would do the same thing.
All she is doing is using the media, the same way everyone else with power and a particular view does, to get that view out there and minimize her pain, or represent her son.
Now do I agree with what she is saying? Not really. I am confused at how Iraq turns into Palestine etc. and how she wants to avoid taxes for the death of her adult son (I could see giving his family tax relief if he had wife and kids).
But LaShawn is right, the venom spewed from those who oppose her is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. It is one thing to criticize, but quiet another to be mean spirited and ruthless. The woman has lost her child, how many of you have had the same experience?
“…grieving over the loss of her child” my patooty!
I prefer Instapunk’s take here: http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=599
and here: http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=600
He was a man, not a child. And Sheehan is turning out to be a rabid anti-semite as well!
I think that Cindy Sheehan expressing her grief and opinions publicly is one thing — her right as an American; bad mouthing the war effort and her country, Israel– and lying about her son’s exercise of adult volition (he conciously re-enlisted)– is another. On balance, the right side blogswarm has not seemed unnecessarily mean spirited to me (Of course, there is always exceptions) . She chose to jump onto the political hayride; and she knows that her cause is not to speak with the president ( as she claims) but to get attention to her cause (her interview with Keith Olberman on MSNBC made that clear). However, the real garbage in this whole scenario has been the MSM’s biased coverage — the positive framing of Sheehan’s protest and the negative framing of the President’s response. Fortunately, with Newsweeks recent article, this has started to change. Just because you are grieving does not give you carte blanche license for bad behavior such as lying and media manipulation.
Dell, “50/50″ Fence-walking again? John McCain is that you? Take a stand man. Geesh.
“And before you gripe that Sheehan herself is being used for propaganda purposes (by leftist organizations, etc.), please reflect back a few months ago to Terri Schiavo, and the organizations that flocked to “her†side. Were you outraged then?”
Yeah. Yeah, I was. I’m outraged by any political vultures who seize on death and grief to further their own ends under the cloak of “absolute moral authority” (tm Maureen Dowd). It makes rational debate of the issues impossible, giving one side a “free hit” that the other cannot respond to without hitting the human shield- Terri Schiavo, or Cindy Sheehan. It’s completely repulsive.
You are wrong on this one, La Shawn. Now that she is poking her nose in the Israel/Palestine conflict (see http://drudgereport.com/flash3cs.htm), she has exposed herself as just another left wing hack.
I will pray for her son and others like him. I will pray for peace for her soul. But I will never pray for anyone to bow down to leftist propaganda — never.
Did Sheehan really think there wouldn’t be any push-back on her overheated rhetoric, the she could accuse “that lying bastard” Bush of killing her son, of openly lying, of being a terrorist, etc. without anyone saying boo about it? Or that she might snuggle with such luminaries as the Free Mumia herd and the terrorist-abetting lawyer Lynn Stewart, no one saying a word about it?
Sorry, folks, when you get down into the ring to land blows on your political opponent, don’t expect him and those in his corner to just cringe in a fetal ball. This ain’t bean bag.
Cindy Sheehan has long since used up any moral authority she may have garnered at the expense of a son that pretty clearly did not share her views of the mission he believed in. No one need pull a punch.
I love your blog, and I almost always agree with you, but please see:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011354.php
in which Ms Sheehan trashes America and praises convicted terrorist enabler Lynne Stewart.
I had sympathy for her at first, but it has finally become obvious to me that she is a vile anti-semite, as well as an agent of the extreme fringe of the America-hating, terrorist-excusing left.
#25 Ali Differences:
Terry Schiavo: Dead, inactive participation and encouragement of circus
Cindy Sheehan: Alive, active participation and encouragement of circus
Any sympathy for the 9/11 families went away when they unfairly stole money from the American tax payer.
Cindy isn’t stealing money yet, but she is stealing air time from real issues. He “grieving” status is not different than any other grieving PERSON. She needs to get some medication, take a trip to Sanibel/Captiva and just chill for a while.
Who ACTUALLY killed her son?
A) President Bush
B) muslim terrorists
C) Donald Duck
D) Chris Matthews
E) Courtney Love
Running on the sum of reports on Mrs Sheehan, she was not the most stable military parent to begin with (as seen by her background antisemetic processes – and worse still, linking it too to her son’s former situation – she’s now vicariously blaming the Jews for his death). The death of her son has pushed her over the edge with grief and for that I feel for her. However there are many on the “other side” who have no problem whatsoever with exploiting her to the nines. It’s worse than shoving a beer bong down an alcoholic’s throat and pouring down vodka. If this continues and the Anti-War fanatics continue to push her further and further, she may never come back to reality.
But, it’s not the pro-war people who have backed her up against the wall, but the anti-war fanatics which are giving her no where else to go, and now by pushing her to voice antisemetic views they are closing the door to pity from war veterans and hawks who felt compassion towards her loss. I feel that the next step for her is to be driven truely and clinically mad, and there is nothing much we can do about it without the family being permitted to intervene. And I can bet you dollars that the anti-war crowd will not let them get near what is becoming their cash cow.
So by all means come down hard on the hawkish dogpile against her (as so you should), but don’t forgive for a second the malicious bastards who will be all too happy to drive her to an institution just so they can prove their point to a very supportive media.
And see also this fine post from Arthur Chrenkoff:
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/08/other-ways-to-grieve.html
[snippet]
“As I wrote yesterday, “The only thing exceptional about Cindy Sheehan is how exceptional she is. I’ve been following the Iraq-related news coverage for quite some time now, and – not surprisingly – in an overwhelming majority of cases the parents and families of the servicemen and women who died in Iraq (and Afghanistan) choose to grieve in private. Of those who make any sort of political comments, most are proud of their son’s or daughter’s service and the enterprise they were part of.”
Cindy Sheehan is a media whore. She is diminishing her son’s sacrifice because she’s in love with the spotlight. I know you’ll probably delete this, but the bottom line is that’s how she is coming across to conservative pundits.
Her comments will get more and more outrageous to maintain the media attention she’s come to love.
As long as you don’t call ME a whore… – Admin
LB, yet another point of agreement.
The only reason this woman is getting so much press, good or bad, is because of the slow August news cycle. Wait for someone to blow something up (in September?!) and no one will be talking about Sheehan anymore.
Some of you seem to be placing the blame on others. WRONG! Cindy is a grown woman with Free Will. She is 100% responsible for her comments and the circus around her. Stop passing the buck. She chose to be a nut and the media is obliging her.
LaShawn says, “The right wing uses people and circumstances the same way.” Really? Could we have an example LaShawn? And please don’t mention Schiavo. We’re talking about the war in Iraq here.
Thanks,
Kyle
You ask me a question and then tell me how to answer it. Nice. – Admin
Sorry Lashawn, but this thought didn’t run with the last one.
Cindy Sheehan is doing what she is doing because like Natalee Holloway’s mom, she is getting the attention. Both look stupid now. Someone close to them should reign them in. They are hurting their families’ image.
I was like you, feeling sorry for her but then I found out SHE SPOKE AT A MEETING CALLED ‘SHOULD WE SUPPORT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE?’
Anybody who supports the enemies trying to kill our soldiers deserves nothing but hatred.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011354.php
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17915
This is summer and it’s very hot and miserable in Crawford, Texas. Most media people would rather be at the cool places President Clinton used to vacation. At least this gives them some “news” every day and they can get back at President Bush for vacationing in Crawford.
Raymond (#16) writes: “Ken. Please show us the proper way [to debate] oh one who is wiser than us lowly stupid minions of thine.”
How about addressing what Sheehan says, rather than her motivations for saying it?
Killing the messenger doesn’t kill the message. Roughly half of the country holds similar views to those of Ms. Sheehan, viz-a-viz the Iraq War. For some reason, many of you think that ad hominem attacks on Sheehan’s motivation or sympathy-factor passes for reasoned debate.
She has asked for Bush to identify the “noble cause” for which her son died. I *know* you must have a good answer to that question — something other than the drumbeat of “she is shaming her son’s memory and becoming an unsympathetic tool of the terrorist-loving lefties who blah blah blah”.
Right?
I just found a speech (via Lucianne.com) that Ms. Sheehan gave at Veterans for Peace. Thought it might shed some light on her motives or at least what her thought process is.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/convention05/sheehan_transcript.htm
Interesting, yes?
Question for all of you who would bash Ms. Sheehan:
Do you believe that we (the people of the United States) have, at any time, been given a clear explanation of why we are in Iraq?
What she wants to do, is call the President to task, and ask him to answer to her face, a simple question: What exactly IS the noble cause you speak of when you say that our mission in Iraq is a “noble cause”? I for one, wholly support her effort to get this unaccountable, dodge-ball playing president to answer that question.
But, we all know that his handlers will never let him.
Raymond writes: “Cindy Sheehan is doing what she is doing because like Natalee Holloway’s mom, she is getting the attention. Both look stupid now. Someone close to them should reign them in. They are hurting their families’ image.”
LaShawn’s point, if I understand it correctly, was that attacking Sheehan (e.g., she “looks stupid”) is hurting the right’s image.
And I think you are proving LaShawn’s point.
Correct – Admin
“What she wants to do, is call the President to task, and ask him to answer to her face, a simple question: What exactly IS the noble cause you speak of when you say that our mission in Iraq is a “noble causeâ€? I for one, wholly support her effort to get this unaccountable, dodge-ball playing president to answer that question.
But, we all know that his handlers will never let him.”
Zorro, Mrs. Sheehan doesn’t want Pres. Bush to come out and answer her question. She said this in an interview with Keith Olbermann… see comment #17.
I’m afraid I must disagree with La Shawn that Sheehan is immune from criticism. Her words and actions trump her, “grieving mother,” status.
However, I do agree that it’s time to stop talking about her, as it is only giving her the, “attention,” she craves. Her fifteen minutes are up, and it’s time to let her fade into oblivion.
Ken Ashford, you obviously already have an answer to that question, as does Sheehan, so why you are even pointing to that as relevant is quite disingenuous.
I could not disagree with you more. My son is a Marine who just returned from Iraq.
He joined soon after 9/11, so his four years will be up shortly. He will be extending for a year, since his company (Part of 1/1) will be going to Fallujah in March and he does not want them to go without him.
My son says that Cindy Sheehan’s son is certainly turning over in his grave. To quote my Marine son, “I hope that the ghost of Cindy Sheehan’s son haunts her for what she is doing to him and to his memory”.
Active duty Marines and their families are disgusted by her. She deserves no consideration of any type.
As an aside, one of my son’s closest Marine friends died in the line of duty on Mother’s Day this year. He has other friends who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. None of their parents would ever do what this woman is doing.
Her extended family does NOT agree with her extremism. They have asked her repeatedly to stop and in public.
Her Husband has asked her to not DISRESPECT their son and now Divorce papers are filled.
Her actions DISHONOR her son, his service, and his life. He volunteered to serve, he volunteered for a second term, and he volunteered for this specific mission. He was doing what HE thought was best for himself, his family, his fellow soldiers, and his country.
She should respect her son and his choices. She should not only think about herself and her political agenda.
She has meet with the President. Records, photos, and other witnesses are available to counter her false claims.
Like dead fish and company visiting, after three days they start to stink. It is time for her to move on.
Cindy Sheehan ceased being a grieving mother when the MoveOn train pulled in and she climbed on.
The fact that she lost her son is a red herring. If she supported the war previously, but pulled it only atfer her son died, then she would be a freeloader- “War is OK so long as everyone else but my son dies.” Not exactly a principled position.
By all lights she opposed the war from the start, so losing her son to it obviosuly isn’t going to turn her into a Rumsfeld fan. Duh. On this side her views have no more or less moral authority than a German college student protesting the war.
To the extent that this is about focusing attention on the grief of loved ones, that’s fair game, but fairness then dictates that we also pay attention to the (by all indications larger) group of family members who support the war. Their views do have unique moral authority, because they know the price.
Common decency requires that we observe a seven-day waiting period during which we uncritically allow the ganshing of teeth and the rending of garments. Having passed that point, if you continue to stand at the bully pulpit, expect tomatoes.
-cwk.
The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Galatians 5:14-15
I am giving this scripture to Lashawn and all those who blog here.
The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”
Galatians 5:14-15
I am giving this scripture to Lashawn and all that blog here
Once again, Cindy Sheehan has stated in an interview, that she really hopes that she doesn’t meet with Bush, as she wishes to keep her anti-war momentum going. HER WORDS! Let’s at least keep it real, and quit pretending that she wants some answers.
By the way, all you rabid right wingers….don’t you know that exercising your first amendment rights to express your response to Cindy Sheehan exercising HER first amendment rights is the same as attacking her! When will you learn that all first amendment rights are not equal?……..
And, by the way, I have a question. When I had a child brutally raped by an illegal immigrant, would I have gotten a pass for any rabid,ugly, lying, anti-immigrant words and actions I exercised out of deference to my grief, as I watched my child in the hospital, and then struggle with a disease afterward? I think not.
ali:
“I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?” Sheehan told reporters. “He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is.”
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/07/mom.protest/
“Even though two of the President’s aides later agreed to deliver her message to him, Sheehan said that she would remain in Crawford for the whole month, if need be, until she is granted a private audience with the commander-in-chief to ask him for what “noble cause†did her son die overseas.”
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/2005/31-40/32news01.htm
“She gained national attention in early August 2005 when she traveled with about 50 people to the Prairie Chapel Ranch belonging to President George W. Bush just outside Crawford, Texas during the President’s vacation there, to demand a meeting and an explanation of the “noble cause” for which her son died.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan
”I was just fed up. When the 14 Marines were killed, and when George Bush said again that they died for a noble cause, and he said we have to complete the mission by honoring the sacrifices of the fallen heroes, that was it. I just was so enraged,” Sheehan said.
”If it’s such a noble cause, why aren’t his daughters over there?”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/15/antiwar_camp_losing_appeal_with_bush_neighbor/
LaShawn, how unfortunate that you felt the need to clarify your position in an update. That’s just a sign of how charged this particular topic is right now.
People are always going to disagree on things like this, and the fact that you don’t “march in lockstep” speaks to your integrity as a writer/blogger. I personally disagree with you on this, but that’s no big deal. You make your point, it is perfectly sound, and I respect it.
I asked a question up there, that nobody has taken a stab at:
“Do you believe that we (the people of the United States) have, at any time, been given a clear explanation of why we are in Iraq?”
I repost it after reading an article in the Washington Post just now (key graf):
“The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html
How is it any different from, say, a mother forming an organization known as “Mothers Against Drunk Driving†in response to her child getting killed? Or a bunch of sick veterans forming a group opposing agent orange, and staging a rally?
Ken, the point is that the people who do those things have to stand in line with the rest of the lobbyists and take criticism with the rest of the lobbyists. They can’t keep shouting “Grieving mother!” and claim some super-human status.
If Sheehan had showed up at the White House without an entourage, media and press releases, I’d encourage Bush to make a reasonable effort to meet with her. But at this point, she’s simply part of the Soros/MoveOn machine and I see no reason to insist she be treated with special reverence.
And I think your analogy to the Schiavo case (both sides) is apt.
JannyMae (#47) writes: “Ken Ashford, you obviously already have an answer to that question, as does Sheehan, so why you are even pointing to that as relevant is quite disingenuous.”
Due respect, but I think the reason why we are in Iraq *is* a highly relevant question, regardless of how any particular person answers it, pro or con.
On the other hand, Ms. Sheehan’s motivations for standing in the Texas sun (“media whore”, etc.) are irrelevant and counterproductive to the discussion of the larger issues.
Dear Ms. Barber:
Her grieving does not explain her opposition to the war in Iraq. It is explained by her extreme left-wing politics, which pre-date the death of her son and are well documented on the web, though not in the mainstream media, where she is portrayed as sympathetically as possible. Check out my recent post on her for just one example of how the media is intentionally softening the image of this extreme left-wing radical.
Someone who intentionally enters the public arena as ostentatiously as Sheehan did, in order to influence public policy, has no right to expect that all of her fellow citizens will “lay off” her.
#28, Stace, thank you for that link exposing this demented woman.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011354.php
Fred Barnes was actually too kind in calling her a “kook.”
LaS, I admire and respect your opinion, mostly because it is your own. Much too often these days people on all sides just repeat other opinions without bothering to take the time and research the facts for themselves.
1. A lot of cons like to say how Sheehan’s son was an adult who made his own decisions and that essentially if he wanted to risk his life for his country, no one else can be blamed for it. But just as people in the service have an obligation to do their duty, the leaders who send them into conflict also have a duty to only send them to war if absolutely necessary and to take all safeguards to make sure that their lives are treated as if they were the sons and daughters of the president himself.
2. Sheehan did not suddenly change her mind. Like a lot of us, her anger toward the president and the war has changed over the past year. With the utter lack of planning (we went from being there for years to possibly starting a withdrawal in 06?) and the revelations about the early decisions for war (downing st memo), it’s obvious what the administration was saying to the public and what they were thinking were two different things. What’s the reason for Iraq now, and what was the reason given to us when we went in?
3. Sheehan did not say anything anti-semitic. From the outrage of republicans, I thought she went on some tirade against the jews, but all she said was Israel is occupying Palestine. Well, maybe that isn’t entirely true, you can argue who it actually belongs to, but hey a military takeover is what it is.
What I don’t get is all this anger towards her. And where is this “liberal” media elite, whatever the hell that is. The cons should know better than anyone that the actions of the media are based on greed, don’t forget that the O’Reilly Factory is owned by the same network that created The Swan.
Unfortunately, I think this is case of the left calling “smear” one time too often.
It’s not a smear to look behind someone’s remarks and observe the inconsistencies — even if the speaker is a grieving mother, if she has chosen to become a public figure.
Indiscriminately calling people names (babykiller, war criminal), without providing any evidence to back up the charges — or worse, faking the evidence — THAT’S smearing.
And the left seems to have no problem with that when THEY’RE the ones doing it.
Now she is asking for the impeachment of President Bush. Why now? Because the media need a new angle? Because he didn’t meet with her? She is a grieving mother who is losing her credibility.
Since italic tags apparently don’t work, the below is a quote:
“I asked a question up there, that nobody has taken a stab at:
“Do you believe that we (the people of the United States) have, at any time, been given a clear explanation of why we are in Iraq?—
We’re in Iraq because the Bush team convinced themselves that Iraq had WMD, just like pretty much everyone thought. They didn’t, but now we have an obligation to stay and straighten things out. Tony Blair has explicitly stated that and I wish Bush would, also.
That said, Zorro, do you think there’s the slightest possibility that Cindy Sheehan, upon being provided that explanation, will say “Gee, I guess it’s not the Jews, then!” That any of the people using her as a prop are sincerely looking for an alternative to their conspiracy theories?
Italic tags are replaced by emphasis tags (em) – Admin
I’m sorry, but Ms. Sheehan has done nothing but ASK FOR commentary by all since this began. That is her purpose in being in Crawford in the first place, to GET ATTENTION. She should be treated fairly and with compassion, but that does NOT equate to “laying off.”
Now that I’ve learned about her anti-semitic, impeach-the-president attitude and whack-job past, I truly believe the left will rue the day the chose her as their anti-war “champion.” If that is all americans see of the left (along with NARAL, and raving lunatics like Pelosi, Durbin, Boxer, etc.), the democratic party is doomed — plain and simple.
Ken: “Attacking” Sheehan is simply YOUR opinion of how she is being handled. That is all.
Wow, I think I am going to take a moment and comment on the length and passion of this comment thread. I think it is indicative that a tiny group (in Crawford) with a loud enough voice, can in many ways, command the attention of the nation.
Her Husband has asked her to not DISRESPECT their son and now Divorce papers are filled.
Jesus… if this and the rest is true (I knew of the milder request from the elder family members), then indeed, the bridges have been burned with the family and she’s effectively in the hand of the anti-war version of co-alcoholics. There may not be much left for her to turn to when the MoveOn/Anti-War crowd use her up and throw her away.
On the other hand, Ms. Sheehan’s motivations for standing in the Texas sun (â€media whoreâ€, etc.) are irrelevant and counterproductive to the discussion of the larger issues.
Is it? It would seem that the question is why are people are down in the Texas sun facilitating and pushing forward what could be a downward spiral from what seems to be long-entrenched Bush Derangement Syndrome into pure madness. They want a scalp for domestic consumption rather than discuss the broader implication of letting a fledgling and struggling Baathist-free Iraq go south, and she’ll do for their purposes.
Cindy Sheehan is entitled to her opinion, although though I disagree with it. She’s entitled to believe that she and the American people deserve a clear explanation of why we’re involved in the war that took her son — i.e., why we’re in Iraq — and to believe that we haven’t gotten it yet.
The thing is, we’re all all entitled to our opinions on those matters. I’m entitled to disagree with her positions, and for the most part I do. Yet the media hasn’t come around and asked me for my opinions, and if I were to camp outside the Crawford ranch I’d probably get about 30 seconds of media attention.
The difference between me and Cindy is that she lost her son. Like “the snob” (Comment #50), I don’t think that gives her special moral authority, or makes her views particularly newsworthy or insightful. (If it does then, as other commenters have said, the views of pro-war parents in the same position are equally newsworthy, and should be given equal coverage.) But the death of her son is what she and her anti-American backers are claiming as the source of her special authority on the war, and they know that a largely anti-war media won’t question that claim. In that sense they truly are using his death. I find it pretty despicable, and worthy of criticism. However, I don’t believe Mrs. Sheehan should bear the brunt of most of the criticism; as LaShawn points out, she’s grieving and, frankly, some of the quotes from her that I’ve read don’t convince me that she’s completely rational. I’m not saying she’s not responsible for her actions, but I’m much more disgusted by those who are disingenuously using her tragedy for their own ends — the anti-Americans and the leftist media — than I am by Mrs. Sheehan herself.
Ken Ashford and Zorro,
The fact that you think half the population does not support the war in Iraq is irrelevant. The public schools and the media have created a populace that is so selfish, stupid, or outright delusional it’s amazing we’ve lasted this long! Halfway through a tough fight is not the time to ask to go to war. Ask at the beginning and then kindly shut-up. Just what was the outcome of the congressional authorization vote? We are at war. Our military is fighting and dying by obeying orders. ANYTHING less than support should be shelved for the time being for the good of those fighting!
LaShawn said : “The whole Sheehan controversy is overblown”
No kidding. Here’s an example :
LaShawn said : “the right is demonizing a woman grieving over the loss of her child”
Perhaps if you posted an example of this demonization people will have a better understanding of where you’re coming from.
#53 JB
GREAT POINT!
Nothing could ever reach a level of disgust as a mother who dumps on the honor of her dead son.
Nothing.
Otter: “If Sheehan had showed up at the White House without an entourage, media and press releases, I’d encourage Bush to make a reasonable effort to meet with her.”
But then, without the media, etc., you wouldn’t even know about it.
I guess I don’t understand, Otter, why Bush should act any differently in the absence of high publicity than he would in the present situation. If meeting with her is the right thing to do, he should do it, period, regardless of how much media attention this thing has garnered. Morality shouldn’t change when the spotlight is on/off us.
Of course, I think we *all* tacitly understand that Sheehan had no reasonable expectation of actually meeting with Bush. She *counted* on him not meeting with her (and he unwittingly complied), thus creating the “drama” that would draw in the media and give her the stage to discuss the larger issues. You can disagree with her politics, but you have to admire her media saavy.
If Bush wanted to diffuse this, he should have had the meeting early on. It would have gone poorly of course, and she would have had her time on the soapbox. But it would have been a two-day story, at most.
Instead, we have people talking about, and openly questioning, our continued presence in Iraq (see, e.g., Armstrong Williams in today’s Townhall.com: “Time To Get Out of Iraq”). And, in my view, that’s a good thing.
Now that she’s openly revealed an anti-Israeli position, she’s demonstrating that she’s not much more than an empty mouthpiece for the agendas of others.
She needs to get out of the spotlight and into therapy. Shame on the Left for exploiting a mentally ill woman.
‘Otter: “If Sheehan had showed up at the White House without an entourage, media and press releases, I’d encourage Bush to make a reasonable effort to meet with her.â€
But then, without the media, etc., you wouldn’t even know about it.’
Bingo, Ken, even if you didn’t mean for it, you nailed her problem right on the head. She is, as Christ said, standing on the corner like a hypocrite that she may be seen of men (Matthew, 6:5) (Disclaimer, I’m a [high-church] atheist). As her madness grows, this is not about her grief. This is about her.
My son is a recently retired US Marine. His Btn was in the Triangle last year and took 32 KIA’s. I know some of those parents and many of the parents of still serving 2/4 Marines.
The opinion of ALL the famlies I know is that Cindy is a moonbat who is publicly pi**ng on the memory of her brave and wonderful son. And on the service and sacrifice of our sons as well. The woman regularly posts on Michael Moore’s website and has turned her “protest” into a forum for anti-semetic wackos – including David Duke – and apparently for tax evasion.
Cindy Sheehan is, and apparently was before her son’s death, a leftist wacko. She is now using her son’s honorable sacrifice as a soap box from which to support the people who killed him. She’s getting her 15 minutes of fame.
She is a disgraceful human being and a disgraceful excuse for a mother.
#56–Yes, I received a clear explanation for our presence in Iraq. Now I can see where you might disagree, but that doesn’t mean there was not an explanation–several related explanations,in fact. One reason was expressed in several UN resolutions over many years. Others were clearly stated many times. Google “war on terror”. And citing anonomous sources in one of the Wash Post’s signature front page “newsatorials” doesn’t advance your argument.
I feel sorry for Ms. Sheehan who exhibits all the classic earmarks of a cult victim.
But I cannot even feel pity for her without being viciously attacked by those who eagerly use her as a puppet to bash the ChimpyMcHitlerHalliburtonZionist Administration.
And Sheehan is parroting the judanhass of the anti-Semitic Crawford “Peace” House which believes the state of Israel should not exist has not a durned thing to do with the Iraq war except for the usual “It’s all a Jew Conspiracy!”-mongerers like the now-Cindy-enthusiastic David Duke.
The tragic death of her son, Casey, does not make her public political views inviolable.
And a few commenters who keep quoting “Mother” Sheehan’s “give me a noble cause” schtick fail to quote her whole line which runs she does NOT accept (now) GW’s reasons on short/long term moral and practical goals (ie stopping Saddam and laying the groundwork for democracy).
When she first met with GW she stated she DID find his belief in Iraqi freedom sincere.
GW has but fullfilled what Clinton signed into law in 1998 about regime change and freedom in Iraq. Go ahead and don’t accept the reasons for the war, but will you anti-war types please stop lying there was none?
And puhleeze, let’s stop fetishizing the pitiful spectacle of “Mother” Sheehan. Someone cut her marionette strings and send her home via a psychiatrist’s office.
Cindy Sheehan is grieved. I don’t doubt it. Cindy Sheehan has a great urge to let her grief and anger be known. I don’t doubt it. Cindy Sheehan has been adopted by propaganda experts and blown out of proportion like a Goodyear blimp. I don’t doubt it.
The villiany in all of this goes directly to those in the press and on the blogs who focus on Cindy Sheehan and her antics.
In bygone days, you could get tours of mental institutions to watch the inmates act out with their inner demons.
Cindy Sheehan has suffered a great pain, but now she is being fed, aided and abetted in making her fight with her inner demons public. Some may enjoy publicly stoning her. I prefer not to look. And I pray that those who are pulling her strings will sober to the harm they are doing to her.
Here’s a viewpoint that no one’s going to like, but I suggest you listen. I grew up in a house where my father, a very good man, died young, and left my mother with my sister and brother and me, aged from 8-12. It was hard for her and she was overwhelmed by grief.
She was, understandably and correctly, given a lot of slack by everyone. My siblings and I became completely acquiescent to her desires (nobody cut us any slack, something we didn’t grasp for many years). Somehow, in a matter of a few years, conscious sympathy transformed into unthinking deference, while my formerly loving, though headstrong and emotional mother, became a tyrannical emotional blackmailer. Deviance from her will became equated with treachery to our dead father and cruelty to her grief. At first, as I said, in a conscious and deliberate way, but then as a Pavlovian response. My brother especially suffered (as the oldest child and only male, he turned into her emotional punching bag), but all of us did.
Any normal person feels sympathy and sadness for Ms. Sheehan’s loss, but the situation has become ridiculous. She has been granted an unspoken “Most suffering person in America” designation and allowed to make the most vicious and slanderous accusations against the anyone who disagrees with her as well as to make a mockery of the sacrifices and convictions of our military.
Worst of all, the fear and shame of aggravating her misery by holding her responsible for her actions has become a carte blanche for her to inflict enormous pain upon the others who have lost their loved ones in Iraq. Sheehan dismisses these people’s own beliefs about the war, mocks the loss of their loved ones as a pointless waste, and demeans the memory of brave soldiers into that of dimwitted victims. Sheehan’s suffering is so great, we are given to understand, that the combined suffering of all these untold thousands is as a teardrop compared to her ocean of grief.
Emptiness and sadness over Casey’s death will become a permanent part of the life of his parents and siblings, but if now the level of moral authority is to be granted based on the suffering one has to endure, it should be known that there are millions of people in our country who would be grateful to trade places with Mrs. Sheehan: those whose children will know nothing but suffering throughout their lives because of mental and/or physical handicaps; those whose children died after suffering a nightmare of torture and rape; those whose children have vanished, perhaps murdered long ago or perhaps suffering who knows what and who knows where; those whose children began normally and then suffered an injury or illness that has left them permanently disabled, either or mentally or physically; and, this I am depressed to say, is just a start.
Wait! I reconsider. Let’s embrace the Sheehan dynamic. We’ll start by sending the parents of those whose children were murdered at the hands of released criminals to camp out at the houses of ACLU officers who resist any policy other than that of jailing criminals for life; the families of 9/11 victims can take up residence outside of Jamie Gorelick’s house for creating the “wall†that prevented the “Able Danger†group from informing the FBI about Mohammed Atta; women who had abortions, but have now come to believe that they murdered their own children, can head over to Planned Parenthood; and so forth. I’m sure there are other ideas. I’ll be sure to keep my eye on the news to watch them put into practice.
Somehow, in our society, it has become accepted that certain people who have suffered injustice are given a pass to inflict it on others. No, no, no, and again, no. Suffering evil is not the process whereby one is given a license to inflict it.
La Shawn, I normally agree with you, but as I have looked into this, I found a couple interesting things which I posted on my blog (bottom of the post). Ms. Sheehan knows just exactly which buttons to push and which strings to pull in creating the media sensation which is surrounding her right now. And she is using the death of her patriot son to exploit her leftist message to the very fullest. A search on Yahoo . . . reveals about 50,000 pages with links to interviews, emails, comments, etc. from Cindy Sheehan. At this point, Ms. Sheehan is nothing more than a political pawn of Moveon.org, Michael Moore and the other leftists whose rhetoric she is now embracing. Evidence that this is JUST a media ploy is that her blog runs on the website “Sacramento for Democracy” … which has been up since June 2004, has only about 6300 links off Yahoo, and, when linked with her name only comes up with 16 links. Kinda makes you wonder if she’s trying to distance her political stance from that of her “grieving mother” character.
The sanctity of life must be respected. Every mother on this earth has a right to question the motives of actions that could take or took the life of a child they carried in their wombs for nine months. The most horrible feeling is to have doubts of the cause for which a life is sacrificed. I am apalled at the “Sparta logic”.Ancient Greek history talks about a city-state called Sparta in which every citizen had to think and act like a soldier(Orders is orders).My ancient history tells me that the doctrine of that state didn’t ensure it’s existence forever. Cindy has the right to question the president’s motives as a taxpayer of this land. It is part of the “checks and balances” that a few individuals believe should not exist anymore.
On the other hand,it is not right for her to set camp at anybody’s doorsteps. It will not reverse time nor will it push people to make rash sudden decisions. To stop our operations in Iraq would be the mistake of a lifetime. The USA has too much at stake to mess this up.
She has been ignorant of the fact that there is the unseen part of the contract for signing up as a soldier. Such a person could die on any given day to protect the policies of the government of the day.
I appreciate the fact that based on modern day events the true meaning of the army is now going to sink into the minds of the populace. You are payed to fight in the army and even die if need be. I think a few people thought that this is no more the case.
As for using this Lady for the rightist or Leftist argument.I think that this country is polarized enough as it is.
For all that I remember,the most horrendous crimes and collapses in civilization begins when party affiliations get out of hand and replace morals and common sense.
Pajamazon: “Halfway through a tough fight is not the time to ask to go to war. Ask at the beginning and then kindly shut-up.”
When you drive to a place you’ve never been before, and you discover that you took a wrong turn several miles ago, do you stop and reassess the situation? Or do you just keep driving, hoping that you will eventually reach your destination?
I know why we got into the war. I didn’t believe the rationale then, but my “side” lost that debate. That’s history.
And for a while, I became one of those “we’re in there, so we have to stay in there” types.
But when young Americans are risking their lives, I think the least — the *absolute* least — we can do in return to support them is to continue to ask why they are doing so.
So where are we now? There were no WMDs. Saddam is in a jail. Iraq does not pose a threat to this country. And the Iraqis have autonomy; they’ve voted. So what’s the noble cause NOW?
Yes, Iraq is a mess, but one has to ask if our presence there is — now — like throwing oil on the fire. One has to ask why the Iraqi hotspot is more demanding of our time, money, and lives then any one of the dozens of hotspots on the planet where there is ethnic strife.
Isn’t the best way to support our troops to make sure that what they’re dying for TODAY is, on the whole, worthwhile?
And I’m not saying that war supporters don’t have genuine arguments to make in support of why we are STILL in Iraq. But mostly, what I hear is simply left-bashing name-calling and/or grandiose (but substanceless) flagwaving rhetoric. And that just convinces me of the soundness of my position. And Sheehan’s.
It is true that she is grieving for the loss of her son, and if she was there by herself, I would encourage GWB to have a second meeting with her. But she has embraced, and been embraced by, groups that I have no respect for whatsoever. I think they are using her, and that she would be even more upset if she knew some of the things they have said about soldiers like her son.
[em]We’re in Iraq because the Bush team convinced themselves that Iraq had WMD, just like pretty much everyone thought. They didn’t, but now we have an obligation to stay and straighten things out. Tony Blair has explicitly stated that and I wish Bush would, also.[/em]
John W. Dean has done a fine job of outlining the presidents lies about WMD, and asks “Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?”:
“Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn’t. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.
Bush’s statements, in chronological order, were:
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
United Nations address, September 12, 2002
“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.”
“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”
Radio address, October 5, 2002
“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
“We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”
“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.”
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
Address to the nation, March 17, 2003″
Joe Hoeffel (D-PA) has the gagarandos to say it straight: “I voted for the war because I was convinced we needed to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. I am now convinced we were lied to.”
After the WMD gambit played out, it was that Saddam is a brutal dictator (which he was…) BUT, removing him because he was oppressive WAS NOT one of the reasons given to congress…later on there were other reasons given such as the “we have to fight the terrorists on their home turf, so that we don’t fight them in New York” ploy…
As far as I’m concerned the American people have never been told the truth, which is pretty clearly outlined here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
La Shawn, have you seen this? http://www.gmroper.com/archives/2005/08/reflections_on.htm
I’ve not read anyone demonizing Ms. Sheehan. Criticizing her? Absolutely! But I don’t know of any “demonizing” examples. Who will provide them?
Darleen, *ding, ding, ding* She has met with President Bush. There was even a story about it in a major paper (I’m thinking L.A. Times, but I could be wrong). She’s changed her tune, and that is what so many conservative bloggers have a problem with.
Zorry, OMG. Seriously. The whole world (including the MSM’s beloved former Pres. Clinton) believed that. Wow. Let’s talk about blinders, shall we?
LaShawn,
As a veteran and a democrat, i think Cindy is doing nothing more than pi**ing on her son’s memory and grave. For all I care, she can rot in that ditch in Crawford, Texas.
Cindy is backed by some of the biggest anti-American groups known in the US. Cindy is an anti-semite.
She is nothing more than a partisan hack who lost a brave, noble and wonderful son and soldier. I bet Casey is rolling over in his grave right now.
God Bless you, Casey. Maybe someday, your mother will let you rest in peace and not use your untimely death as a soap box to further her hatred of Bush and Jews.
Ken like Sheehan apparently has an agenda and surprise…it is not the dead Marine! This horse is taking some blows and I think the consensus is that she was a kook, is a kook and continues to behave like a kook.
She does not pass the “smell test.” She is no more a grieving mom than the lady down the street whose sone was executed for murder. Her cause is not just and her actions are actually killing other soldiers let the truth be told. Oh how I would love to be President in situations like this.
Ken Ashford :
“But when young Americans are risking their lives, I think the least — the *absolute* least — we can do in return to support them is to continue to ask why they are doing so.”
The least you can then do when that question is answered, over and over and over and over again, is to listen to the answer. If you don’t agree with the answer, that’s fine. But to say that the question is not being answered is a lie.
Bill writes: “As her madness grows, this is not about her grief. This is about her.”
It’s about her? That’s like saying Rosa Parks sat on the back of the bus to get attention. And yes, that’s true, but not attention for HERSELF, but attention to the injustice of her time.
And while I think comparisons between Ms. Parks and Ms. Sheehan are exaggerated and inapproprate, the principle is the same. You need to do something dramatic to call attention to the issue. Whether it is pro-life people taping their mouths closed and marching down the street, or Sheehan camping outside the Bush ranch, this is how it is done.
Anyway, it seems that some of you are confusing her method with her message. Or perhaps, avoiding her message.
All one has to do is read Ms. Sheehan’s writings on LewRockwell.com to see that she was the first to degrade the tone of the dialog about this matter.
Rather than making her case against Bush, she just assumes she is right and uses that as a springboard to launch into vituperative attacks on him and anyone within 200 feet of him.
If Sheehan is mean or indecent she says she has a right to be because of her pain. If someone is hard on her she says, “How can you be so mean to a woman who has lost her son??”
Give me a break.
Sheehan has stated that she has a right to say things just about any old way she wants because her son died. Well, she should not be suprised when there is a backlash.
That doesn’t excuse meaness on the right, but it does justify strongly responding to her twisted political views.
Michelle Malkin has a post about Iraq veteran families that support the war. The point is she is exploiting her sons death for her own political purpose. What did her son think or want with regards to the war. What is her agenda. We can all ask these questions. The media has made her a hero. So we can go look for the real story. Look on frontpagemag and wikipedia and left wing websites for her postings and background. There is an Iraq veteran mom who supports the war in a counter protest in Crawford. Sheehan already met with Bush. The counter protestor has not. Why should Cindy get two meetings. Her son was a man who volunteered for military service. He was not tricked and did not have to go. He volunteered to go into combat when he was a mechanic. I think that his wishes ought to be honored here. Not her feelings.
From James Taranto’s “Best of the Web”"
Time magazine reports that Cindy Sheehan’s family is “imploding”:
Sheehan lost her job at Napa County [Calif.] Health and Human Services because of all her absences, she says. Husband Pat, 52, couldn’t bear having [fallen son] Casey’s things at home and put most of them in storage. “We grieved in totally different ways,” Cindy says. “He wanted to grieve by distracting himself. I wanted to immerse myself.” . . . The couple separated in June.
Daughter Carly, 24, wrote a poem that begins, “Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?” Surviving son Andy, 21, supports his mother in principle but recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her “to come home because you need to support us at home,” he says.
The New York Times reports that Mrs. Sheehan’s politics were the cause of her marital collapse:
She said she and her husband separated a few months ago as a result of the war, and of her activism. Although she and her estranged husband are both Democrats, she said she is more liberal than he is, and now, more radicalized.
The Times doesn’t elaborate on Mrs. Sheehan’s description of herself as “radicalized.” Through her own words, unreported by either Time or the Times, she makes clear that she has embraced a grotesque ideology that goes far beyond garden-variety Angry Left paranoia–though it includes plenty of that, as National Review’s Byron York reported last week:
“This is something that can’t be ignored,” Sheehan said during a conference call with bloggers representing sites like democrats.com, codepink4peace.org, and crooksandliars.com. “They can’t ignore us, and they can’t put us down. Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn’t know anything, and we would already be a fascist state.”
“Our government is run by one party, every level,” Sheehan continued, “and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government.” Sheehan also called the 2004 presidential election “the election, quote-unquote, that happened in November.”
Sheehan spoke at an April San Francisco State University rally in support of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in February of providing material aid to terrorists. Here’s an excerpt:
I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people . . . since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for.” If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. . . .
What they’re saying, too, is like, it’s okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the countries that we say it’s okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It’s okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can’t have them. It’s okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it’s–yeah–and it’s okay for Iraq to occupy–I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it’s not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon.
Earlier in April, at a speech before the United Methodist Church in Venice, Calif., Sheehan likened Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to “Hitler and Stalin” and was particularly lurid in describing her hatred of Rumsfeld’s then-deputy:
As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country whose skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks?
She concluded: “In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God’s devoted servants.”
The mainstream media have largely ignored Sheehan’s crackpot views, and not only–perhaps not even primarily–for ideological reasons. Members of the White House press corps find the annual sojourn to Crawford deathly dull. They need something to do; they want bylines–and “heartbroken everymom” makes for a much more compelling story than “extremist hatemonger.”
The journalists will soon move on, and her political allies may do so as well. For them she is a mere instrument. The White House press corps will discard her as soon as they return to Washington where there’s real news going on. Serious opponents of the war in Iraq will cast her aside if her foul statements make her an embarrassment. When that happens, we can only hope that someone still cares about Cindy Sheehan–not as a story or a symbol, but as a human being.
Ken, Rosa Parks sat down on that bus because she was tired. For no other reason. You know who said that? She did. Rosa is only the face of the movement. She is not the heroine you think she is unless of course you went to a public school and were forced to read the revisionist version of her story.
I suggest you go look up the story of Claudette Colvin and the 100s of others who did what Rosa did long before she “did it.”
I’m afraid Cindy Sheehan is being used and taken advantage of by democrats and liberals for political purposes.
I hope other parents who supported the war against terror and the liberation of Iraq and have sons and daughters who went to iraq or afghanistan will come forward and also do a “Cindy Sheehan” — but this time, in defense of the reconstruction effort in Iraq and criticize those around Sheehan who are exploiting her to damage our fight against Islamic Terrorism and play dirty politics.
Isn’t what Cindy Sheehan doing the reason her son lost his life? Didn’t her son WILLING risk his life for others be able to live and speak freely without fear of loss of life?
Has Cindy Sheehan been kidnapped, tortured, beaten, due to her outspokeness? Has she been raped? Critized yes.
I can’t fanthom the grief in which this woman feels. However, her son made a definitive and valient choice about his life. He made the decision to serve his nation. He made the decision to put his life on the line for his country and to build a democracy in the part of the world which has only known fear and tirany.
Cindy Sheehan can and will continue to express herself in whatever way she chooses because brave men and women like her son know and understand the supreme sacrifices deemed necessary to ensure a cohesive and enduring democracy.
“Isn’t the best way to support our troops to make sure that what they’re dying for TODAY is, on the whole, worthwhile?”
Absolutely. At this stage, our troops are attempting to protect the fledgling government until their own police forces are strong and well-trained enough to prevent Islamofascist elements from destroying the work America did over these past couple years… eliminating the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, helping to establish a democratic government, etc. I consider this to be a worthwhile effort, but if you don’t, what *would* make our presence in Iraq worthwhile to you? Or do you call for an unequivocal pull-out?
I agree that there are other hotspots in the world. However, we should take responsibility for making sure Iraq can stand on its own feet before we leave, simply because we were the ones to remove their old government. Additionally, we are more concerned about them than other nations with ethnic strife because takeover by Islamofascist elements is a danger there, and Islamofascist elements are our primary concern in combating terrorism at this point in history.
See James Taranto’s “Best of the Web” today:
[snippet]
“Through her own words, unreported by either Time or the Times, she makes clear that she has embraced a grotesque ideology that goes far beyond garden-variety Angry Left paranoia–though it includes plenty of that…”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007110
KA
Lack of a positive does NOT prove a negative. You are factually wrong to say “there were no WMDs.” Large stockpiles weren’t found. But numerous individual weapons WERE. And to “believe” there were none is, once again irrelevant. You suggest that when saddam DID USE WMDs in the past he exhausted the entire production run? Absurd! And of course I can’t forget that it was the glorious UN that failed to find any in a timely way. The same UN whos Security Council was bribed by saddam himself.
So where is your cut and run in the middle of a fight position without the “Incorrect facts?” I don’t know you personally but I’m glad you don’t have my back in a fight.
“…the boiler-plate, peroxide blonde, aryan-cheerleader types that infest conservative radio and cable news lately.”
Nice. We’ve gotten to the point where no one bothers to comment on “liberal” rhetoric like that used to tee up the discussion.
Sheehan is most likely a mentally unbalanced woman (or just a liar) whose brave adult son gave his life for his country. There are thousands of such people walking the streets but we are hearing all about Sheehan only because it is a story that will make another few bucks for the “liberal” media conglomerates that “liberals” otherwise disdain. This whole non-event will be forgotten by Labor Day.
#98 Have you ever lost someone you loved? Then you can “fathom” what Cindy is feeling. Loss is loss and grief is grief.
You either are able to deal with it appropriately or you are not.
Comments on this entry are closed.