http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/16/peace.mom.ap/index.html

Her son died soon after getting to Iraq and she's been camped out in Crawford, TX for the past few weeks and she'll remain there until President Bush meets with her.

Now her husband is sick of it and is filing for divorce.

My opinion... there are better ways of doing things like this. Go home and fix your family and then fix the nation.

...

My opinion... there are better ways of doing things like this. Go home and fix your family and then fix the nation.

I agree. I think she would be better off worrying about her family that is living first and foremost, while still remembering her son.

I believe grief of this magnitude can make people do some wild things. :(

I believe grief of this magnitude can make people do some wild things. :(
What he said. I have no opinion on her political activism or her personal issues. It's not really much of an issue to me.

At any rate, can we agree he didn't pick the best time to do it?

At any rate, can we agree he didn't pick the best time to do it?

Meh. Newt's still got him beat.

I've never been one to hold back my opinions (have you noticed?), and i'm certainly not going to do it now. This woman, in the grief of losing her son - has lost her mind. Along with it, she's not lost her family as well.

When she got to meet with Bush when he son died (which by the way, is not a "mandatory" thing. Bush met with her because he wanted to) she was very grateful and saying good things about the meeting with him. Now, of course, after slipping into depression over the death of her son she now says the meeting was more a less a joke and she wants another one.. just because. She blames Bush for killing her son, but as we all know in a volunteer army - Bush didn't force her kid to join up. Her husband has filed for divorce, and the rest of her family put out a statement saying she's gone off the deep end and they do NOT support her and what she's doing.

She wants Bush to come out and talk to her and her "supporters" about his impeachment :lol: Oh, and I love this Gem “You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism.”. Yeah there was no terrorism before we went into Iraq, that's for sure. I guess 9/11 didn't happen. And before Israel went into Palestine there was complete peace there! Didn't you know that?

So, my take on it is that this woman has nothing left. She can keep up her little vigil and Bush will have nothing to do with her and she will eventually melt away into obscurity. Meanwhile the press loves her because she is pushing their message, but even they will eventually realize she's a loon.

At any rate, can we agree he didn't pick the best time to do it?

The loss of a child often leads to the breakup of a marriage. My guess is due to the grief, and the lack of communication between the couple about the pain. This guy lost a kid, and is now basically alone because his wife is off living outside the president's vacation home. Add that she makes the death the absolute center of her life, and it's perfectly reasonable that the husband just can't deal with it anymore. She's basically abandoned him.

At any rate, can we agree he didn't pick the best time to do it?

Yeah. Because taking down the President is waaaay more important than your family back home :up:

I'm wondering when would have been a good time for divorce? :hscratch:

Yeah. Because taking down the President is waaaay more important than your family back home :up:


I think she'll have more luck saving her marriage than "taking down the President" though...

Why is it news that a crazy person is anti-Bush?

Oh noes! The woman is sacrificing her personal relationships to stand up for a cause she believes in strongly! She must be crazy!

At any rate, can we agree he didn't pick the best time to do it?

From his POV it could be the perfect time to do it. I don't know his opinion on her protest or her activism, but if he saw her behavior as 'using' his son's death, then perhaps his goal was to try to undermined her. Or perhaps there was no malice involved but just seeing her on the TV every day forced the issue in his mind.

How would handle the death of your child? Do you really know?I assume you changed your mind about your other suggestions, but they wouldn't look so good either.

I wonder if the husband told her not to do what she's doing, she did it, and he followed through.

I assume you changed your mind about your other suggestions, but they wouldn't look so good either.

Exactly what suggestions are those? That her family admit her to a hospital or referring to some of these posts as being as sensitive as a turd in a punch bowl?

I would love to know how some of these people who are so critical of this woman would react in the same situation. :)

Why is it news that a crazy person is anti-Bush?
:lol:

I would love to know how some of these people who are so critical of this woman would react in the same situation. :)
I can guarantee you that if my kid decided to join the service and got killed, I wouldn't go set up a camp outside where the president is vacationing and demand that he come out and talk to me about his impeachment.. And while I'm at it I wouldn't demand we withdraw all troops from Iraq and Isreal from Palestine.

If this woman's son was a cop and got killed in the line of duty, I wonder if she would be camping in front of the police commisioners house demanding he resign and the police department should withdraw completely from dangerous areas. Give me a break.

Frankly, I don't give a shit what you think :)You will be taking a vacation from here if you continue posting in this manner.

Daily Show: Headlines - Texas Scold 'Em
If it's August and the world is falling apart, it's time for our president to go on vacation.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=17164

I can guarantee you that if my kid decided to joint he service and got killed, I wouldn't go set up a camp outside where the president is vacationing and demand that he come out and talk to me about his impeachment.. And while I'm add it I wouldn't demand we withdraw all troops from Iraq and Isreal from Palestine.

If this woman's son was a cop and got killed in the line of duty, I wonder if she would be camping in front of the police commisioners house demanding he resign and the police department should withdraw completely from dangerous areas. Give me a break.

You can guarantee 100% that in your grief you would not be looking for a scapegoat or any thread no matter how small to hang the blame on? I guess I'll just have to take your word on it. The woman is obviously deeply disturbed and needs help.

You can guarantee 100% that in your grief you would not be looking for a scapegoat or any thread no matter how small to hang the blame on? I guess I'll just have to take your word on it. The woman is obviously deeply disturbed and needs help.
Well I certainly agree with your last statement. My son just broke his foot while riding his motorcycle. Believe it or not i'm not going to sue the motorcycle manufacturer, the manufacturer of his boots, or god for making the ground so hard. He chose to go riding, just like this kid chose to join the military. He knew the risks. I accept that sometimes things don't work out so well. That's life - and she needs to get on with hers.

Well I certainly agree with your last statement. My son just broke his foot while riding his motorcycle. Believe it or not i'm not going to sue the motorcycle manufacturer, the manufacturer of his boots, or god for making the ground so hard. He chose to go riding, just like this kid chose to join the military. He knew the risks. I accept that sometimes things don't work out so well. That's life - and she needs to get on with hers.

I agree with you on that. She really does need to. I have a feeling that perhaps she can't and that is why she needs help. I feel sorry for her. Hopefully, a family member will step in and get her out of there and into treatment.

Speaking of lawsuits: I work in a law office and see so many frivolous suits that it would make your head spin!! :eek:

You will be taking a vacation from here if you continue posting in this manner.

You are right. I'm sorry for my post. When I start being riled up and posting in a knee-jerk fashion, I know it's time for a break. So, I'm taking one for a while.

Peace.

LS

I agree with you on that. She really does need to. I have a feeling that perhaps she can't and that is why she needs help. I feel sorry for her. Hopefully, a family member will step in and get her out of there and into treatment.

Speaking of lawsuits: I work in a law office and see so many frivolous suits that it would make your head spin!! :eek:
If one day you could start a thread with some of more outrageous ones that would be fun. I love hearing about them, especially the ones the get won somehow!

Back to Cindy.. Obviously her husband doesn't support her (well, i'm assuming by his timing of this filing that he doesn't), and this is a statement from her family:


The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

She's the new media darling.

You can guarantee 100% that in your grief you would not be looking for a scapegoat or any thread no matter how small to hang the blame on? I guess I'll just have to take your word on it. The woman is obviously deeply disturbed and needs help.

I believe it, because I feel the same way. The world is too quick to place blame or find a scape goat. Personal responsibility...

Casey joined fully aware of the consequences. I'm sure he didn't ask his mother's permission; he was a grown man.

I agree she needs help. Now, why again is the media covering her? :hscratch:

Now, why again is the media covering her?

Because it's just another way for the media to highlight how often Bush is on vacation ;) Some what serious of a comment. I'm really not sure how much coverage this would be getting if she was camped out in front of the WH.

If one day you could start a thread with some of more outrageous ones that would be fun. I love hearing about them, especially the ones the get won somehow!
sign up for the newsletter here: http://www.stellaawards.com/

I heard she's refusing to pay her federal taxes
if I was him I'd leave too before the IRS shows up

With the crowd this woman is running with, she deserves whatever she gets. I bet the guy that ran down the crosses last night in his pickup truck is pissed that he didn't run this woman over too. Hell, I'm pissed that he didn't run her down.

Christopher Hitchens has a great column about this loon:

Cindy Sheehan's Sinister Piffle
What's wrong with her Crawford protest.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Aug. 15, 2005, at 11:50 AM PT

Here is an unambivalent statement: "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

And, now, here's another:

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.

The first statement comes from Maureen Dowd, in her New York Times column of Aug. 10. The second statement comes from Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq last year. It was sent to the editors of ABC's Nightline on March 15. In her article, Dowd was arguing that Sheehan's moral authority was absolute.

I am at a complete loss to see how these two positions can be made compatible. Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive. I dare say that her "moral authority" to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my "moral" right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?

Sheehan has met the president before and has favored us with two accounts of the meeting, one fairly warm and the other distinctly cold. I have no means of knowing which mood reflected her real state of mind, but she now thinks she is owed another session with him, presumably in order to tell him what she asserted to the Nightline team. In pursuit of this, she has set up camp near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and announced that she will not leave until she gets some more face-time with our chief executive. This qualifies her to be described by Dowd as "a 48-year-old Californian with a knack for P.R." Well, I think I have to concede that if Dowd says you have a knack for PR, you have acquired one even if you didn't have one before. (I am not entirely certain, for example, that the above letter to ABC News would count as a delicate illustration of the said "knack.")

The president has compromised by sending his national-security adviser, Stephen Hadley, down that Crawford road to meet the PR-knackish Cindy. Not good enough, exclaims Dowd. Hadley was pro-war and has even been described as a neocon! Clearly, then, the Sheehan demand is liable to expand the more it is met. President Bush must either find a senior staff member who opposes the war and then send him or her down the track to see if that will do. Or else he must, like the Emperor Henry of old, stage his own Canossa and attend on her himself, abject apologies at the ready. After all, we mustn't forget that we are dealing—as was that emperor in his dispute with Pope Gregory—with "an absolute moral authority."

What dreary sentimental nonsense this all is, and how much space has been wasted on it. Most irritating is the snide idea that the president is "on vacation" and thus idly ignoring his suffering subjects, when the truth is that the members of the media—not known for their immunity to the charm of Martha's Vineyard or Cape Cod in the month of August—are themselves lazing away the season with a soft-centered nonstory that practically, as we like to say in the trade, "writes itself." Anyway, Sheehan now says that if need be she will "follow" the president "to Washington," so I don't think the holiday sneer has much life left in it.

There are, in fact, some principles involved here. Any citizen has the right to petition the president for redress of grievance, or for that matter to insult him to his face. But the potential number of such people is very large, and you don't have the right to cut in line by having so much free time that you can set up camp near his drive. Then there is the question of civilian control over the military, which is an authority that one could indeed say should be absolute. The military and its relatives have no extra claim on the chief executive's ear. Indeed, it might be said that they have less claim than the rest of us, since they have voluntarily sworn an oath to obey and carry out orders. Most presidents in time of war have made an exception in the case of the bereaved—Lincoln's letter to the mother of two dead Union soldiers (at the time, it was thought that she had lost five sons) is a famous instance—but the job there is one of comfort and reassurance, and this has already been discharged in the Sheehan case. If that stricken mother had been given an audience and had risen up to say that Lincoln had broken his past election pledges and sought a wider and more violent war with the Confederacy, his aides would have been quite right to show her the door and to tell her that she was out of order.

Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? (a claim that has brought David Duke flying to Ms. Sheehan's side.) This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead "must not have died in vain." I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.

Link (http://www.slate.com/id/2124500?nav=nw)

With the crowd this woman is running with, she deserves whatever she gets. I bet the guy that ran down the crosses last night in his pickup truck is pissed that he didn't run this woman over too. Hell, I'm pissed that he didn't run her down.
Well I don't want any harm to come to her. The great thing about this country is that you can protest and complain all you want and you are legally protected to do so. What you're not protected from is people thinking you are foolish.

I've never been one to hold back my opinions (have you noticed?), and i'm certainly not going to do it now. This woman, in the grief of losing her son - has lost her mind. Along with it, she's not lost her family as well.

When she got to meet with Bush when he son died (which by the way, is not a "mandatory" thing. Bush met with her because he wanted to) she was very grateful and saying good things about the meeting with him. Now, of course, after slipping into depression over the death of her son she now says the meeting was more a less a joke and she wants another one.. just because. She blames Bush for killing her son, but as we all know in a volunteer army - Bush didn't force her kid to join up. Her husband has filed for divorce, and the rest of her family put out a statement saying she's gone off the deep end and they do NOT support her and what she's doing.

She wants Bush to come out and talk to her and her "supporters" about his impeachment :lol: Oh, and I love this Gem . Yeah there was no terrorism before we went into Iraq, that's for sure. I guess 9/11 didn't happen. And before Israel went into Palestine there was complete peace there! Didn't you know that?

So, my take on it is that this woman has nothing left. She can keep up her little vigil and Bush will have nothing to do with her and she will eventually melt away into obscurity. Meanwhile the press loves her because she is pushing their message, but even they will eventually realize she's a loon.

1) The press will cover whatever will get the viewer's attention. Liberal or Conservative news outlets. Sensationalism has no political bounds.

2) This woman's son died. I don't have kids, but I'd imagine I would probably go a little insane too.

3) There was significantly LESS terrorism in Iraq than there is now. A dog chasing its own tail comes to mind.

4) It is certainly a volunteer army. But does that give our government the excuse to send our men and women into battle for a cause that has been proven to not correlate with terrorism? Now that we've created a terrorist situation ourselves over the last few years, I guess we do have a correlation now. And now that we do have a correlation, the Bush Administration is pulling out as of Spring 2006. That doesn't sound like fighting terrorism. That sounds like a confused administration who can't seem to achieve its goals.

5) The mother will certainly melt away into obscurity, just like the 1,850 US Troops deaths will melt away into obscurity.

the Bush Administration is pulling out as of Spring 2006.

Is that official now? Last I heard the official stance was still "stay the course" and not setting a time table.

1) The press will cover whatever will get the viewer's attention. Liberal or Conservative news outlets. Sensationalism has no political bounds.

2) This woman's son died. I don't have kids, but I'd imagine I would probably go a little insane too.

3) There was significantly LESS terrorism in Iraq than there is now. A dog chasing its own tail comes to mind.

4) It is certainly a volunteer army. But does that give our government the excuse to send our men and women into battle for a cause that has been proven to not correlate with terrorism? Now that we've created a terrorist situation ourselves over the last few years, I guess we do have a correlation now. And now that we do have a correlation, the Bush Administration is pulling out as of Spring 2006. That doesn't sound like fighting terrorism. That sounds like a confused administration who can't seem to achieve its goals.

5) The mother will certainly melt away into obscurity, just like the 1,850 US Troops deaths will melt away into obscurity.

Well said.

1) The press will cover whatever will get the viewer's attention. Liberal or Conservative news outlets. Sensationalism has no political bounds.
Agreed.

2) This woman's son died. I don't have kids, but I'd imagine I would probably go a little insane too.
Your kid joined the military and got killed. You knew the risks when he joined, and he knew the risks when joining. You got to personally meet and talk with the president of the United States when it happened. If you want to go nuts after all that, that's your problem. Don't expect everyone to feel sorry for you because you couldn't pull yourself up and continue on like everyone else who loses someone important to them under conditions they don't understand.

3) There was significantly LESS terrorism in Iraq than there is now. A dog chasing its own tail comes to mind.
I've no idea what you're talking about here. We've been getting shot up and shot at since the day we rolled in. It's comes with taking over a whole country.

4) It is certainly a volunteer army. But does that give our government the excuse to send our men and women into battle for a cause that has been proven to not correlate with terrorism? Now that we've created a terrorist situation ourselves over the last few years, I guess we do have a correlation now. And now that we do have a correlation, the Bush Administration is pulling out as of Spring 2006. That doesn't sound like fighting terrorism. That sounds like a confused administration who can't seem to achieve its goals.
I hadn't heard anything official about the 2006 thing and even if it does turn out to be true it's a troop reduction not a complete withdrawl. Huge difference. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with why we are there makes no difference. This kid swore to follow the orders of his superiors and he did. Like the rest of his family said, he died with respect. His mom is trying to take that away to promote her own agenda. Sort of reminds me of Terri Schiavo's parents.

5) The mother will certainly melt away into obscurity, just like the 1,850 US Troops deaths will melt away into obscurity.
That's an unfortunate part of war, but at least they left with respect serving their country. Even if you disagree with why they are there, we know they were doing what they were asked to do and everyone can respect that.

What a nutcase. Congrats to the husband for making the right decision.

The woman seems like she was a loon all through life. I wonder why he waited so long. Well, I guess her dragging her son's tragedy through the political spotlight would be the breaking point for me.

I haven't been following this story, but I do know that just by looking at the videotape of Cindy Sheehan I can tell that she's not in a persistent vegitative state.

I bet the guy that ran down the crosses last night in his pickup truck is pissed that he didn't run this woman over too. Hell, I'm pissed that he didn't run her down.What a lovely sentiment. Do you often wish death on those with whom whose actions you disagree?

How is she crazy or a loon or whatever the accusation is? Because she is committing herself to a cause with which you disagree? The counteroffensive to Mrs. Sheehan's protest has been extremely illuminating: rather than respond to her criticisms by attempting to justifying the war and the righteousness of her son's death, the administration's defenders have instead decided to impugn her right to criticize (her protest is "borderline treasonous," according to Bill O'Reilly). Certainly she has no right -- by which I mean legally -- to the President's audience, and I seriously doubt that she expects it. Instead this vigil is about asking the administration and all Americans, really, to acknowledge that there are extraordinary sacrifices being made every single day by our younger generations, and that these deserve more respect than bumper stickers and empty sloganeering. Some might call it "supporting the troops," but to Sheehan, myself, and, now, the majority of this country, "supporting the troops" would have been to never invade Iraq to begin with. And as the administration has had to face the flesh and blood of its calamitous decision, the heads get stuck further into the sand, while thousands of Americans and Iraqis needlessly die in it.

The counteroffensive to Mrs. Sheehan's protest has been extremely illuminating: rather than respond to her criticisms by attempting to justifying the war and the righteousness of her son's death, the administration's defenders have instead decided to impugn her right to criticize (her protest is "borderline treasonous," according to Bill O'Reilly).

I agree some of the accusations are a bit out of (but expected from the opposing side, and would be of the same nature if the sides were reversed). I'm curious though, at this point what do you think can be said about justification for the war that hasn't already been said? Her accusations are nothing new so there is really nothing new to address IMHO. At this point if you don't believe the war was justified chances are you are never going to believe so no matter what arguments are presented.

how many past presidents that sent troops to war met with every family member of a fallen serviceman to discuss why their son or husband died? All servicemen are adults who make decisions to join the military and risk their lives.

If she wants to protest the war that is OK. It's going over the line to expect any sitting president to explain foreign policy to every family member with a preconceived political view.

I agree some of the accusations are a bit out of (but expected from the opposing side, and would be of the same nature if the sides were reversed). I'm curious though, at this point what do you think can be said about justification for the war that hasn't already been said? Her accusations are nothing new so there is really nothing new to address IMHO. At this point if you don't believe the war was justified chances are you are never going to believe so no matter what arguments are presented.

Well obviously no one can convince her that the death was justified. Because of her beliefs or the simple shock of her son's loss, that clearly will not be the case. But from a simple political standpoint, this seems an easy opportunity for Republican leaders, administration spokespersons, etc., to stand up and say, "The loss of Cindy Sheehan's son in combat was a tremendous one. It's a sacrifice that many other families have made. But make no mistake: their deaths are not in vain. In Iraq we set out to BLAH BLAH BLAH and have accomplished BLAH BLAH BLAH." That sort of thing. Which I certainly wouldn't buy, but at least would provide some political daylight. Instead no stone has been left unturned in an effort to discredit EVEN HER RIGHT TO GRIEVE. I mean, it's insane the things that are being said by politicians, pundits and plebes alike. Are we this callous? I know that we are uncomfortable with thinking about death -- strangely, still a taboo in American culture -- but are we as a society really content with going this far to avoid the subject?

And al_bundy, I agree that a President does not need to explain himself to each family. But I do believe that a President has an obligation to explain himself in times like these. Things in Iraq certainly do not seem to be going well, and yet the administration is determined to leave on those rose-tinted glasses and pretend that those welcoming committees are just around the corner. Past presidents during wartime agonized over their decisions, obsessed over the deaths that eminated from their actions. From all reports, Bush does not feel this way. Instead, in response to the current cries, he has said that he "needs to get on with [his] life." Are you kidding me??

While I understand her intentions and believe she has every right to express them, it just seems like her 'cause' has been hijacked by a number of anti-war/bush action groups that make her seem like a puppet. I believe she has also expressed this view, but it's far too late to go back.

But from a simple political standpoint, this seems an easy opportunity for Republican leaders, administration spokespersons, etc., to stand up and say, "The loss of Cindy Sheehan's son in combat was a tremendous one. It's a sacrifice that many other families have made. But make no mistake: their deaths are not in vain. In Iraq we set out to BLAH BLAH BLAH and have accomplished BLAH BLAH BLAH." That sort of thing. Which I certainly wouldn't buy, but at least would provide some political daylight. Instead no stone has been left unturned in an effort to discredit EVEN HER RIGHT TO GRIEVE.

Are you sure you aren't confusing the admin and official policy w/ the talking heads/pundits out there? Even after meeting w/ her previously Bush sent some high level officials to talk w/ her again, she rejected them. Bush has said frequently the type of things you mention above and as far as I know (maybe I missed something though) noone in the admin has tried to discredit her. It may come as a shock to you but Fox News, O'Reilly, Rush, etc are NOT part of the administration and the rhetoric they spew is not official policy.

Well obviously no one can convince her that the death was justified. Because of her beliefs or the simple shock of her son's loss, that clearly will not be the case. But from a simple political standpoint, this seems an easy opportunity for Republican leaders, administration spokespersons, etc., to stand up and say, "The loss of Cindy Sheehan's son in combat was a tremendous one. It's a sacrifice that many other families have made. But make no mistake: their deaths are not in vain. In Iraq we set out to BLAH BLAH BLAH and have accomplished BLAH BLAH BLAH." That sort of thing. Which I certainly wouldn't buy, but at least would provide some political daylight. Instead no stone has been left unturned in an effort to discredit EVEN HER RIGHT TO GRIEVE. I mean, it's insane the things that are being said by politicians, pundits and plebes alike. Are we this callous? I know that we are uncomfortable with thinking about death -- strangely, still a taboo in American culture -- but are we as a society really content with going this far to avoid the subject?

And al_bundy, I agree that a President does not need to explain himself to each family. But I do believe that a President has an obligation to explain himself in times like these. Things in Iraq certainly do not seem to be going well, and yet the administration is determined to leave on those rose-tinted glasses and pretend that those welcoming committees are just around the corner. Past presidents during wartime agonized over their decisions, obsessed over the deaths that eminated from their actions. From all reports, Bush does not feel this way. Instead, in response to the current cries, he has said that he "needs to get on with [his] life." Are you kidding me??


iraq is a lot better than it was 2 years ago and getting better everyday

if i remember right when the USA was being formed there was a lot of debate as well as to how to organize the government and the torries weren't treated very well after the revolution was over. in this case the sunni minority along with foreign fighters are trying to scuttle the process. Afghanistan is a lot better 4 years after the war and I don't think it's fair to expect iraq to be utopia 2 years after the major combat was over.

But from a simple political standpoint, this seems an easy opportunity for Republican leaders, administration spokespersons, etc., to stand up and say, "The loss of Cindy Sheehan's son in combat was a tremendous one. It's a sacrifice that many other families have made. But make no mistake: their deaths are not in vain. In Iraq we set out to BLAH BLAH BLAH and have accomplished BLAH BLAH BLAH." That sort of thing.

From a speech by President Bush on June 28 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050628-7.html):


The work in Iraq is difficult and it is dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why.

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime who want to restore the old order. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty, as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.


A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goals in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend -- a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government. We would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005. We would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy. We would encourage more international support for Iraq's democratic transition, and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.

In the past year, we have made significant progress. One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people. In January 2005, more than 8 million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair, and took time on -- and took place on time. We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven, but progress is being made.

We're improving roads and schools and health clinics. We're working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we'll help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing non-military assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about $34 billion in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. More than 80 countries and international organizations recently came together in Brussels to coordinate their efforts to help Iraqis provide for their security and rebuild their country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to support Iraqi reconstruction.


Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi security forces. We made gains in both the number and quality of those forces. Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions.


Look, I'm certainly not going to claim that the Bush administration has always done an outstanding job of communications wrt Iraq policy. But I think the rationale has been put out there on many occasions, and I don't think they are somehow squandering a golden opportunity to restate those positions. I do think they are avoiding getting sucked into yet another ultimately meaningless media feeding frenzy, which I think will largely dissipate once the Washington press corps leaves Crawford and gets back into their usual Beltway echo chamber.

There is nothing to gain by the president meeting with her again. She's not reasonable, she's angry. Nothing he says will bring back her son, and therefore nothing he says will be good enough for her.

Don't forget in her mind, it's not Muslim Extremists that killed her son.. no no.. it's George Bush! George Bush personally decided that her son must die. That's her take on it. That's stupid and looney enough, but now she drags Israel and Palestinians into the whole thing and what you've got left is a fool that doesn't understand what goes on in the world - only what happened to her. I don't play down to those types of people, and neither should the president. Her family apparently doesn't support her either. The only ones supporting her twisted views are those that feel sorry for her and throw reality aside.

...Which I certainly wouldn't buy, but at least would provide some political daylight. Instead no stone has been left unturned in an effort to discredit EVEN HER RIGHT TO GRIEVE. I mean, it's insane the things that are being said by politicians, pundits and plebes alike. Are we this callous?
How much time has passed since her son was killed? APRIL 24, 2004 What has she been doing since then? NOTHING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO HERSELF. So what has changed?

Her timing is very suspect to me. This is going on while Israelis are withdrawing from Gaza... and this Sheehan declares that if Israel would simply cease to exist, then the terrorists would be leave us alone. (She said, "leave Palistine" but that is in effect all of Israel).

How much time has passed since her son was killed? APRIL 24, 2004 What has she been doing since then? NOTHING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO HERSELF. So what has changed?

Her timing is very suspect to me. This is going on while Israelis are withdrawing from Gaza... and this Sheehan declares that if Israel would simply cease to exist, then the terrorists would be leave us alone. (She said, "leave Palistine" but that is in effect all of Israel).
If she hasn't said it yet, i'm sure it's coming that "The Jews killed my son". And people will still attempt to support her position. If you move this over and here and ignore this and that person talked to that person and this person didn't do this then she is right!!! Omg!1!!

Daily Show: Stewart - Cindy Sheehan Saga
Who in their right mind raises an altar boy/Eagle Scout/honor student/marine?

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=17185

Her timing is very suspect to me. This is going on while Israelis are withdrawing from Gaza... and this Sheehan declares that if Israel would simply cease to exist, then the terrorists would be leave us alone. (She said, "leave Palistine" but that is in effect all of Israel).

Meh - I suspect the main reason for scheduling her protest now is that it is August and no other domestic political story is in the way with all of Washington on vacation (she got lucky that the Roberts nomination story became a non-issue). Let's face it - after the media got their usual "Bush takes too much vacation" stories out of the way, there ain't much else to cover in Crawford. :)

This lady is an attention whore who can eat my taint. I hope that the ghost of her dead son haunts her and lets her know exactly what sort of scumbag that she has become.

Seems she denies the Israel comments.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Still, she said some of the statements attributed to her are distortions. Contrary to a letter attributed to her that is circulating widely on the Internet, she asserts that she has never said that the United States is waging the war in Iraq to protect Israel.

"I have said a lot of strong things, and I'll stand by everything I said," Sheehan said, adding that she thought the document had been altered. "But I didn't say that."

...

Sheehan acknowledges that some of her views are becoming a distraction. Also, she said, some groups that have aided her protest have agendas -- including conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and some vaguely anti-Semitic theories about the cause of the war -- that she says she does not share.

Consequently, she has asked that her campsite near Bush's ranch be restricted only to organizations of military families, or those who have lost loved ones in the war.


I don't support or condemn her chosen method of protest, but I do think the corresponding smear campaign is inappropriately personal.

Seems she denies the Israel comments.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html



I don't support or condemn her chosen method of protest, but I do think the corresponding smear campaign is inappropriately personal.
I agree. She should not be smearing others when her son made a knowing and voluntary decision.

I don't support or condemn her chosen method of protest, but I do think the corresponding smear campaign is inappropriately personal.

Cindy Sheehan:

Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Rumsfeld is a liar...that he, as with Hitler and Stalin....will say anything so long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking?

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?
I agree with most of GWOT, except that Casey was killed in the Global War Of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal.
So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, he said a couple things that outraged me.
Then we have this lying bastard, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war.
He's in a grave in Baccaville, and I know who put him there: George Bush, and the rest of the arrogant and ignorant Neo-cons who murdered my son and tens of thousands of other innocent people.

Sure glad no one's making things personal in this debate.

I heard one of her anti-Israel remarks on my morning drive in the other morning, how does she go about denying something there is audio of her saying? (No I don't have a link, I heard it on the radio). I think it's pretty safe to say she has no idea what she's saying.

Cindy Sheehan:


Sure glad no one's making things personal in this debate.

With those quotes it sounds like she is just about ready to have her own show on Air America Radio. Although if she uses the word neo-con too many times Garofolo may accuse her of stealing her show.

He's in a grave in Baccaville, and I know who put him there: George Bush, and the rest of the arrogant and ignorant Neo-cons who murdered my son and tens of thousands of other innocent people. Baccaville? Shouldn't that be Vacaville?

Let's see what the Vacaville Reporter has to say about her. Are these stories true? Is she worth listening to? Do you agree? Comments?

Sheehan supporters stage rally in Benicia
By Greg Moberly/Times-Herald, Vallejo

Anti-war protesters in Benicia said Thursday they are buoyed by a Vacaville mother's demand to ask President Bush personally why soldiers like her son had to die in Iraq.

The protesters, holding a vigil at City Park, said they hope Cindy Sheehan's persistence will galvanize the peace movement enough to convince the Bush administration to bring the troops home.

Bush, speaking to reporters earlier Thursday, mentioned Sheehan by name and anti-war protesters in general.

The president said he understands and respects the views of Sheehan and others, but he repeated past statements that it would be a mistake to withdraw troops from Iraq now.

Sheehan has been camped along a road near Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch since Saturday, asking to speak with Bush about her son, Casey, who was killed in combat in Iraq in April 2004.

She vows to remain at her post until Bush's Texas vacation ends later this month.

Pat Kneisler, a participant in the vigil, said "I hear there are droves of people heading to Crawford."

Kneisler tallies U.S. fatalities in the Iraq War at 1,845 as of Thursday evening on her Web site, www.icasualties.org.

She said she keeps in contact with Sheehan who previously participated in Benicia anti-war demonstrations.

Former Benicia Mayor Jerry Hayes, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the protesters, said Sheehan "may be able to get the smattering of protests into a nationwide movement."

Hayes was critical of President Bush, saying he didn't think Bush is capable of comforting Sheehan over her son's death.

Benicia protester Dona Rose said she and a friend are considering a trip to Crawford to offer support.

Those at the vigil said they didn't want President Bush to leave Crawford without meeting with Sheehan.

U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Solano, in a prepared statement, said, "All Cindy Sheehan wants to know is why her son had to die in Iraq. President Bush told the country that we were sending young men and women into harm's way because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a grave threat to our national security. That turned out not to be true. The president owes Cindy Sheehan and all Americans an explanation."

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2936044 Mother already met Bush
Catherine Moy

Cindy Sheehan's incessant Bush-hating landed her on the Web site of Al-Jazeera, a propaganda arm for Muslim terrorists, and splintered her family, who mourn the loss of her son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who died last year in Iraq. Mrs. Sheehan is now a tool of America-haters. She has joined the family of radical Democrats in defiance of her son's blood relations.

Her family has had enough. Cherie Quarterolo, Casey's godmother and aunt, wrote a letter to KSFO saying the family broke its silence because "our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy." The note read in part:

"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan family supports the troops, our country, and our president, silently, with prayer and respect."

The Sheehan family has exposed itself to the scorn of leftists. Anti-war activists hope Cindy Sheehan's status as a grieving parent will protect her from criticism.

I wrote a column last year relaying my sorrow over her loss. In an e-mail, she told me to stop writing about her son. She did not want media attention.

So, what changed? The anti-Bush crowd now handles Mrs. Sheehan, answering her phone and prepping her for the media, according to Sheehan's online diary.

She still doesn't like critical media attention or when the media ignore her.

"I conservatively got three to five phone calls a minute. I did about 25 phone interviews and several TV interviews," Mrs. Sheehan wrote in the diary. "I was supposed to do: 'The Today Show,' MSNBC live interview, 'Connected Coast to Coast' and 'Hardball,' both on MSNBC. 'The Today Show' just never showed up and the other three MSNBC shows cancelled for no reason. Could it be because NBC is owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor?"

President Bush already heard her last year when taxpayers paid her way to visit him. Later, she told The Reporter that she knew Bush is "sorry and feels some pain for our loss." On Sunday, she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Bush's deputy chief of staff met with her in Texas and told her "the president really cares." And I said, "You can't tell me that because I've met with him and I know that he doesn't care."

Mrs. Sheehan has had her turn with the president and changed her statements about their meeting. President Bush shouldn't waste more time on her.

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2936053 ...

Baccaville? Shouldn't that be Vacaville?


Probably; I took that quote from this report (http://www.iraqoccupationfocus.org.uk/newsletter/09042005.htm). The same typo appears on a few other web pages.

What a lovely sentiment. Do you often wish death on those with whom whose actions you disagree?

Yeah...but I always wuss out. :(

I think by refering to the neo-con cabal she has helped give herself credibility. :up:

How is she crazy or a loon or whatever the accusation is? Because she is committing herself to a cause with which you disagree? The counteroffensive to Mrs. Sheehan's protest has been extremely illuminating: rather than respond to her criticisms by attempting to justifying the war and the righteousness of her son's death, the administration's defenders have instead decided to impugn her right to criticize (her protest is "borderline treasonous," according to Bill O'Reilly)..


just a quick note, Bill has said no such thing. In fact 2 news papers printed that and had to retract the story

Here is the text of the Times' retraction:

An article on Saturday about Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar protester whose son died in Iraq and who is camped out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex., quoted incorrectly from remarks about her by Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News television host. Mr. O'Reilly did not call Ms. Sheehan treasonous. His comment, during his program on Tuesday, referring to applause for her cause on an antiwar Web site, was, "I think Ms. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this, and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous." And on Wednesday he added, "I said some families who also lost loved ones in Iraq believe what she's doing borders on treason."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20050817/cm_ucac/cindysheehancommanderingrief;_ylt=AlbYCgkEOJJUNP_hpRiWfNI7vTYC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF By Ann Coulter
Wed Aug 17, 6:21 PM ET



To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.
Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks.

Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast.

These arguments didn't persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn't persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn't persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush's tenure as the nation's commander in chief last November.

But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief.

On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.

Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her.

Ann comes out with both barrels blasting. :thumbsup:

Coulter is too over-the-top for me, but I actually think she pegs this one perfectly :up:

Coulter is too over-the-top for me, but I actually think she pegs this one perfectly :up:

Sure. In the first paragraph, she manages to accuse Sheehan of being a Stalinist (I guess I missed the mass executions at her protest site -- damned liberal media must not have covered them) and blasts her for not conforming to proper Coulter-approved expressions of grief.

Coulter remains, as always, a total waste of human flesh.

By the way, I agree that Sheehan shouldn't be setting policy, and that President Bush should make his decisions based on what's bets for the American people as a whole, not what's best for one particular mother, or even all of the mothers of all of the servicemen. Frankly, I think Sheehan is wrong. But I think it's disgusting the way everyone has rushed to attack her on a personal level.

:lol: So let me get this straight... Coulter is a "total waste of human flesh" because you don't agree w/ her POV and yet in the same post you criticize people launching personal attacks on someone they don't agree w/ as "disgusting" :scratch2:

:lol: So let me get this straight... Coulter is a "total waste of human flesh" because you don't agree w/ her POV and yet in the same post you criticize people launching personal attacks on someone they don't agree w/ as "disgusting" :scratch2:

The difference is that I have many good qualities apart from my personal attack on Ms. Coulter. :)

The difference is that I have many good qualities apart from my personal attack on Ms. Coulter.

Aka my hypocrisy isn't nearly as bad as their hypocrisy ;) gotcha :up:

-ptth-

With the crowd this woman is running with, she deserves whatever she gets. I bet the guy that ran down the crosses last night in his pickup truck is pissed that he didn't run this woman over too. Hell, I'm pissed that he didn't run her down.

Yep, that's the answer! Violence. You are so gung-ho, you ought to be serving over in Iraq.

As a matter of fact, all of the pro war folks should be serving in Iraq. That is if they believe so strongly in what they are saying. If they are not ready to make the same sacrifice that their opinions are condeming others to, then who really cares what they think? Too logical? Yeah, I know.

Too logical?

No, too simplistic.

No, too simplistic.

Really? Care to explain?

Not everyone has the opportunity to serve in the military. I know for myself I got caught up in the "peace dividend" and the prime time for me to go into the service would have been the time they were looking to downsize and finding any excuse to keep people out (like digging up childhood medical problems). I'm sure I'm not the only one in a situation similar to this. Additionally just as in any war there are more ways to serve than to be on the front lines. It all depends upon what your talents are and where they can best serve the overall effort. Now in that regard I could probably look for a job w/ the Fed Gov't (and have considered it) but that's not as simple as that sounds either.

To get back to the main point though to say someone can only be "pro-war" if they serve is too simplistic of an outlook. Opinions pro/anti war can be formed by educating oneself about the situation and drawing conclusions. It's great if/when people do so and choose to serve, but just because they don't it doesn't discredit their position any more than someone who calls themselves "anti-war" and yet never goes to a rally or does anything more than talk about it here.

Really? Care to explain?
I'll field this one.

It's simplistic to assert that you can't hold an opinion on an issue unless you are directly involved in the issue. It's a way of shutting out opposing viewpoints. To say you cannot have an opinion on the war without serving in it is ridiculous. It's something that affects our country. You can have your opinion of it (for or against) just as I can have mine and Mrs. Sheehan can have hers. Service in the military is not a prerequiste to voicing an opinion, and the same goes for other political topics.

I'll field this one.

It's simplistic to assert that you can't hold an opinion on an issue unless you are directly involved in the issue. It's a way of shutting out opposing viewpoints.

We here at DVDTalk like to refer to it as "The Classicman". :)

Aka my hypocrisy isn't nearly as bad as their hypocrisy ;) gotcha :up:

-ptth-

I didn't say Coulter was a hypocrite; I said she was an obscene haridan.

Nor did I call anyone attacking Ms. Sheehan a hypocrite; I simply find the attacks disgusting.

As for my own hypocicy, I'm going to take the Walt Whitman defense: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."

:up: :lol:

As a matter of fact, all of the pro war folks should be serving in Iraq. That is if they believe so strongly in what they are saying. If they are not ready to make the same sacrifice that their opinions are condeming others to, then who really cares what they think? Too logical? Yeah, I know.
I could just as easily turn this around and say that those that aren't in the military should just let them do their job and shut the hell up. If you are not ready to defend the country and not ready to make the sacrafice they are then who really cares about your opinion condeming them? Too logical? Yeah, I know.

See? The whole "You can't have an opinion if you're not involved" thing never works.

JasonF - You are correct, I really should have pointed out that I agreed with Ann minus the name calling. I agree with the overall points she was making. The name calling.. well I'm just used to that from her.

As for my own hypocicy, I'm going to take the Walt Whitman defense: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."

Translated:

"Seemingly, but within that basic framework there are many subtle variations only discernible to an acute observer that reflect the many moods, the many shades, the many sides of JasonF."

;)

Looks like Karl Rove got to her mother...

Looks like Karl Rove got to her mother...
Indeed. I'm sure the conspiracy folks are already hard at work on this..
--

The grieving woman who started an anti-war demonstration near President Bush's ranch nearly two weeks ago said Thursday she was leaving because her mother had a stroke.

Cindy Sheehan told reporters she had just received the phone call and was leaving immediately to be with her 74-year-old mother at a Los Angeles hospital.

"I'll be back as soon as possible if it's possible," she said. After hugging some of her supporters, Sheehan and her sister, Deedee Miller, got in a van and left for the Waco airport about 20 miles away.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son Casey died in Iraq, said the makeshift campsite off the road leading to Bush's ranch would continue. The camp has grown to more than 100 people, including many relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq.

Sheehan had vowed to remain there until Bush met with her or until his month-long vacation ended. Her protest inspired candlelight vigils across the country Wednesday night.

Bush has said he sympathizes with Sheehan. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said earlier Thursday that the president said Sheehan had a right to protest but that he did not plan to change his schedule and meet with her.

Two top Bush administration officials talked to Sheehan the day she started her camp, and she and other families met with Bush shortly after her son's death and before she became a vocal opponent of the war.

Michelle Mulkey, a spokewoman for Sheehan, who lives in Vacaville, Calif., said Sheehan hoped to be back in Texas within 24 to 48 hours. Mulkey said Sheehan's mother, Shirley Miller, was in a hospital emergency room and Sheehan didn't yet know how serious her condition was.

that her husband is going for spousal support? After all, she's just a simple housewife, right?


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan2.html

See section 7.f.

Spousal support payable to (earnings assignment will be issued ==> petitioner

He also marked the box asking them to terminate her right to ask for spousal support from him.

Also states he is unaware of total assets and debts.

Wonder what is the reasoning behind all that?

Since she's free to travel, doing whatever she feels like and evidently has some wealthy supporters he may want her sources of income to be revealed so he doesn't end up having to pay for her new lifestyle.

Yep. -popcorn-

I wonder too how much Soros and Moore are paying her afterall...

I guess she's going back to Texas (or she's already there). I heard an interesting sound bit on the way home on the radio though. Apparently Cindy was being interviewed by CBS's Mark Knoller and she said during the interview that the terrorists coming across the border to fight the coalition are "freedom fighters". Apparently, Mark decided this wasn't work mentioning (insert liberal media jab here), but one of her supporters was filming the interview on his camcorder and has decided to release the tape. So not only did George Bush kill her son, the Jews are to blame, but terrorists that are blowing up innocent people are "Freedom fighters". She's gone from crazy to just pathetically ignorant and stupid and has crossed the line into un-American. I started off feeling sorry for her, but now she can take a 1 way ticket to hell - i'll see her when I get there and then it's only going to get worse.

I kept catching the tail ends of the news on TV about her saying odd things, so I figured I'd check here and you guys would have all the dirt. I didn't see anything yesterday, or earlier today, and I wasn't going to make my first post in Politics be some sort of rabble rousing.

Anyone have anymore of the comments? She may lose support pretty quickly if they're too nutty.

Strange...

http://www.fusionproductions.com/portfolio/images/heehaw-Logo_2.jpg <IMG SRC="http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20050823/capt.sge.bkj90.230805231535.photo00.photo.default-277x380.jpg?x=251&y=345&sig=5m_VXOLYDRhmoGi5dku6qA--" WIDTH=109 HEIGHT=150>

I kept catching the tail ends of the news on TV about her saying odd things, so I figured I'd check here and you guys would have all the dirt. I didn't see anything yesterday, or earlier today, and I wasn't going to make my first post in Politics be some sort of rabble rousing.

Anyone have anymore of the comments? She may lose support pretty quickly if they're too nutty.
Depends what news your watching. If your watching CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN and she says something nutty you will never know about it because they will only focus on how terrific she is and how bad Bush is. Meanwhile she announces she's going back to Texas and it's covered by all the major networks, but when she says terrorists are freedom fighters - nobody says a word. Wonderful. The media loves her and will continue to protect her.

Anyone have anymore of the comments? She may lose support pretty quickly if they're too nutty.

This is allegedly part of a letter (http://groups.google.com/group/bullyard/msg/7f523b1a73be1a36?hl=en) she sent to Nightline after she perceived Koppel dismissing her for being "emotional".
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.
However, I think I read a report last week she denied those statments, or at least her spokesman did.

Here's a link to the "freedom fighters" video (http://www.jeffgannon.com/Imported%20articles/cindyonbus.mov) (70MB, 6:00 minutes in). She is talking about the invasion creating more terrorism and says "Now that we have decimated the country the boarders are open. Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in. And they have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, um, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country."Honestly, it sounds to me more like slip of the tongue. These 'freedom fighters' killed her son after all. But then again she says it was Bush who murdered her son, so perhaps she has shifted the entire blame on him.

Thanks, wmansir. I couldn't find that video to link it anywhere. Why, do you think, that everytime she burps it's headline news but when she calls terrorists who are over there not only attack our soldiers, but the iraqi police and innocent women and children "freedom fighters" it's completely ignored? Anyone?

She may lose support pretty quickly if they're too nutty.

I think she is doing that anyway. Here is her rocker.....
<img src=http://www.rockingchairs.net/KatsRocker.jpg>
notice that it is empty.

I think she is doing that anyway. Here is her rocker.....
<img src=http://www.rockingchairs.net/KatsRocker.jpg>
notice that it is empty.
rotfl

<img src="http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/9361/maschera7ee.jpg" height=170> <IMG SRC="http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20050823/capt.sge.bkj90.230805231535.photo00.photo.default-277x380.jpg?x=251&y=345&sig=5m_VXOLYDRhmoGi5dku6qA--" WIDTH=109 HEIGHT=150>

I think she's really James Cromwell in drag. :)

<img src="http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/9361/maschera7ee.jpg" height=170> <IMG SRC="http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20050823/capt.sge.bkj90.230805231535.photo00.photo.default-277x380.jpg?x=251&y=345&sig=5m_VXOLYDRhmoGi5dku6qA--" WIDTH=109 HEIGHT=150>

I think she's really James Cromwell in drag. :)

:lol:
I did say a while back that she looks like a man

OK, thanks all. Here's another bit I missed somehow, "neo-con". What's that supposed to be?

<img src="http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/9361/maschera7ee.jpg" height=170> <IMG SRC="http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20050823/capt.sge.bkj90.230805231535.photo00.photo.default-277x380.jpg?x=251&y=345&sig=5m_VXOLYDRhmoGi5dku6qA--" WIDTH=109 HEIGHT=150> http://www.newsreview.com/issues/reno/2003-08-14/hotcasino2-1.jpg

I think she's really James Cromwell in drag. :)

I say there's some Sammy Hagar there.

OK, thanks all. Here's another bit I missed somehow, "neo-con". What's that supposed to be?

To get the above quote re:Israel I googled "Cindy Sheehan Israel" and found it in the forth result, which was a page supporting Cindy. According to that page (http://judicial-inc.biz/cindy_sheehan_Israel.htm) "Neo-Cons Are An Elite Group of Zionist Jewish String-Pullers".

It's basically the lefts attempt to create a pejorative word like "liberal" to describe conservatives. It originally started in the 60's as a term to describe former democrats who voted republican because of foreign policy matters. Later it came to describe those foreign policy stances (strong intervention to protect US interests). The definition is in dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)#Neoconservative_viewpoint) today because the term changes to fit whoever the left wants to smear with it.

These 'freedom fighters' killed her son after all. But then again she says it was Bush who murdered her son, so perhaps she has shifted the entire blame on him.
Maybe Pat Robertson has some advice on how we should deal with her.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17217_Neo-Nazis_Dig_Mother_Sheehan&only

Makes sense to me. Her anti-semitism fits right in with them.

I'm sure Islamic terrorists are big fans of hers as well.

When will this woman's 15 minutes expire.

We don’t want leftist Johnny-come-latelys who are misleadingly protesting this war as if the war is about oil (not true), or as if it’s right-wing patriots who launched this war (not true) to hijack the issue from us.

We want to challenge these leftists with the fact that their leftist leaders, like Hillary Clinton, are on the same War for Israel team as the cowardly Republicans who have been bought and paid for in the Senate, House, White House, and Media by the Jewish Neocon political machine.


You know, whenever I want to escape the mindless arguing of Libs and Reps, I can always find much better entertainment at the local White Supremacist rally. :)

This is a fine example of what is called "burying the lead":
Poll: Many Back Right to Protest Iraq War (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/26/AR2005082600126.html)

By WILL LESTER
The Associated Press
Friday, August 26, 2005; 2:52 AM

WASHINGTON -- An overwhelming number of people say critics of the Iraq war should be free to voice their objections _ a rare example of widespread agreement about a conflict that has divided the nation along partisan lines.

Nearly three weeks after a grieving California mother named Cindy Sheehan started her anti-war protest near President Bush's Texas ranch, nine of 10 people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll say it's OK for war opponents to publicly share their concerns about the conflict.


"Part of the Constitution is the First Amendment," said Mike Malone, a salesman from Odessa, Fla. "We have the right to disagree with the government."

With the U.S. death toll in Iraq climbing past 1,870 with an especially bloody August, the public's opinion of the Bush administration's handling of the war has been eroding over the past two years.

Overall attitudes about the war _ while negative _ haven't changed dramatically through the summer and a solid majority, 60 percent, want U.S. troops to stick it out until Iraq is stable.

.....


While the media have been spotlighting Sheehan, suggesting a growing movement to bring the troops home, the polls continue to say otherwise. The headline they decided to run with is just ridiculously un-newsworthy. Obviously the paper is trying to dissuade critics of Sheehan's protest by selecting to highlight such obvious poll results. A better question would be "Does Cindy Sheehan continue to warrant the level of media attention she receives?", which I think is the main problem most war supporters have with the entire situation.

"Does Cindy Sheehan continue to warrant the level of media attention she receives?"

We'll see what happens, but once the recess is over and the Roberts confirmation hearings start I suspect CS's 15 mins are up.

I'm sure Islamic terrorists are big fans of hers as well.

Of course. Generating useful idiots has been wildly successful for them.

"Does Cindy Sheehan continue to warrant the level of media attention she receives?"

August has traditionally been a slow news month...thus, all the attention she has gotten.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17228_Mother_Moonbat_Channels_Son&only

anyone see her response to the question regarding "what about the Iraqis who say they want US troops to stay and help them?"?

anyone see her response to the question regarding "what about the Iraqis who say they want US troops to stay and help them?"?
"Who cares? George Bush killed my son!" ?

"Who cares? George Bush killed my son!" ?
Wrong.

He murderered her son.

Wrong.

He murderered her son.

Wrong.

He <i>tricked</i> her son into being in the military, then he Murdered him.

Wrong.

He <i>tricked</i> her son into being in the military, then he Murdered him.

For his own pleasure, of course.

NEVER pass up a kick assed photo op...... http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17266_How_Phony_Can_They_Get&only

NEVER pass up a kick assed photo op...... http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17266_How_Phony_Can_They_Get&only :lol:

There. She finally got her audience with the POTUS. :up:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4159/capttxlm11308290135bushcrazymo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

It's really amazing/disgusting to see what kind of attention whores have made their way down to Crawford, Texas to be seen w/ the soon-to-be-single Cindy Sheehan.

Anybody else think Martin Sheen looks evil in that picture?

Anybody else think Martin Sheen looks evil in that picture?Somebody call Chris Walken. He'll know what to do.

Daily Show: Headlines - He Said, Sheehan Said
Its clear Bush has developed a sophisticated exit strategy... for getting out of questions about the war.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=17536

When will this woman's 15 minutes expire.

Well, Sharpton's 14:45 alarm sounded (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-25-sharpton-sheehan_x.htm?csp=34) as expected, and then Sharpton got pulled over doing 110 in a 65 (http://www.nbc5i.com/news/4910044/detail.html) in a classic case of CWB.

Chauffeured While Black

It's really amazing/disgusting to see what kind of attention whores have made their way down to Crawford, Texas to be seen w/ the soon-to-be-single Cindy Sheehan.

Why don't Republicans use it for their whorish attention too?

She doesn't appear to be all that sensitive to the parents of other fallen soldiers.... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46010

She doesn't appear to be all that sensitive to the parents of other fallen soldiers.... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46010

The mainstream media won't pick up on this, just like the "freedom fighters" comment. She is their darling and, with the Hurricane as a diversion, they won't come back to her until they are done beating that to death.

The mainstream media won't pick up on this, just like the "freedom fighters" comment. She is their darling and, with the Hurricane as a diversion, they won't come back to her until they are done beating that to death.

I would hope the mainstream media won't pick up on ridiculous stories from World Nut Dully.

I would hope the mainstream media won't pick up on ridiculous stories from World Nut Dully.


Enlighten me....where should one get their news?

Enlighten me....where should one get their news?
Only from places that he agrees with, obviously.

I would hope the mainstream media won't pick up on ridiculous stories from World Nut Dully.


Shouldn't the real issue be whether or not she said it not what source reported it first?

Why don't Republicans use it for their whorish attention too?
Maybe they are out of practice? Either way, they need to mobilize...

...and somebody better bring the damn beer.

Shouldn't the real issue be whether or not she said it not what source reported it first?

Hey now....don't you go and confuse me with the facts....I've already made up my mind.;)

I would hope the mainstream media won't pick up on ridiculous stories from World Nut Dully.
Shouldn't the real issue be whether or not she said it not what source reported it first?

Nope. It's much easier to discount the article this way (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html).

Nope. It's much easier to discount the article this way (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html).And if you then still don't understand what the ad hominem attack is, check this thread for some great examples. ;)

:lol:

It's really amazing/disgusting to see what kind of attention whores have made their way down to Crawford, Texas to be seen w/ the soon-to-be-single Cindy Sheehan.

Like all the attention whores who made their way down to Florida to "save" Terri.

Now Sheehan is going to go protest the Blue Angels.

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3781629

Now Sheehan is going to go protest the Blue Angels.

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3781629

How sad.

Like all the attention whores who made their way down to Florida to "save" Terri.

Wow, that's comparing apples and bullshit.

Wow, that's comparing apples and bullshit.

No. It's comparing bullshit to bullshit. Terri= extremist right-wing nuts coming out of the woodwork. Sheehan= extremist left-wing nuts coming out of the woodwork. Same thing. Are you *that* blinded by the partisan bullshit? Hmm. I used "bullshit" three times. :)

Wrong. Cindy can speak for herself and has idiot asshats that think that 9/11 was a conspiracy where the airplanes were flown by remote control (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7581585) support her. She could ask them to leave if she didn't want the attention or didn't want to be tainted by fucktards. Terri couldn't speak for herself, and couldn't tell idiots to stay or go, and had words rightly or wrongly put into her mouth.

Wrong. Cindy can speak for herself and has idiot asshats that think that 9/11 was a conspiracy where the airplanes were flown by remote control (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7581585) support her. She could ask them to leave if she didn't want the attention or didn't want to be tainted by fucktards. Terri couldn't speak for herself, and couldn't tell idiots to stay or go, and had words rightly or wrongly put into her mouth.

In my original post, I was referring to the media whores who are ready to latch on to *anyone* in the media spotlight to further their agenda. Of course, these two women's situations are different....but the media frenzy and leeches are just the same.

Aaah, I see. You meant "media attention whores" instead of the other vanilla attention whores that are there just to be seen by the MAWs like Sharpton and Sheen.

Aaah, I see. You meant "media attention whores" instead of the other vanilla attention whores that are there just to be seen by the MAWs like Sharpton and Sheen.

That's it. :)

The situations are kind of similar if you replace the Schindlers in for Terri: parents grieving for a lost child, opportunists leeching on and goading the parents on .....all along for the ride to further their agenda in the media.

What has better ratings, parents vs husband over killing/allowing to die (fuck semantics) the woman or a mother of a fallen vs POTUS?

Evidently the answer is C, a 7.5/10 cutish party girl who made an oopsie when away from mommie and daddy.

What has better ratings, parents vs husband over killing/allowing to die (fuck semantics) the woman or a mother of a fallen vs POTUS?

Evidently the answer is C, a 7.5/10 cutish party girl who made an oopsie when away from mommie and daddy.

It makes you wonder who will be next.........perhaps Michael Moore and Ann Coulter will have a love child! :eek:

Its amazing what could happen if you just give up on watching the entertainment show that the news has become...the only reason I know who Cindy Shean is is her uncanny resembelence to Opie from Opie and Anthony