No announcement yet.

More Cindy Sheehan

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More Cindy Sheehan

    I'm starting to really feel sorry for this lady. What seemed to start out as a heart-felt tribute of a mother to her son has turned into a media frenzy where Mrs. Sheehan is being used by various anti-war groups. Now she claims that the Afghan war is wrong.

    Their statements echoed the words of Cindy Sheehan herself, who on Monday was asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews, "If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?" Sheehan answered, "I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing."

    "But Afghanistan was harboring the Taliban, was harboring al Qaeda, which is the group that attacked us on 9/11," Matthews said.

    "Well, then we should have gone after al Qaeda and maybe not the country of Afghanistan," Sheehan said.
    "You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

    Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

    "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

  • #2
    Originally posted by FAR52@Aug 18 2005, 07:38 AM
    I'm starting to really feel sorry for this lady. What seemed to start out as a heart-felt tribute of a mother to her son has turned into a media frenzy where Mrs. Sheehan is being used by various anti-war groups. Now she claims that the Afghan war is wrong.
    I'm starting to feel really sorry for people who assume a grief-stricken mother is being "used". Or, rather, I have no respect for such a condescending attitude. Disagree with her if you will, as I would disagree with her over Afghanistan, but show a little more respect.
    Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

    "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011


    • #3
      She raises a good point about killing Afghan citizens in retaliation to what was an attack by mostly Saudi Al-Qaeda terrorists.

      I was just about to give this its own thread, but it fits here ...

      Published on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 by The Nation 
      Cindy Sheehan's Tragic Critics 
      by John Nichols
      While debating conservative pundit David Horowitz on Ron Reagan's MSNBC show the other night, I was struck by the desperation with which supporters of the war have turned their fury on Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq who has been trying to get an audience with President Bush.

      Horowitz, the former left-wing zealot who is now a right-wing zealot, described the woman who has camped out near Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch as "hateful," accused her of dishonoring the memory of her son and promised that if Sheehan and other anti-war activists succeed in bringing an end to the occupation of Iraq then "rivers of blood" will flow in the streets of America. It was a remarkable performance, so much so that even Horowitz admitted that he was "emotional" about the subject.

      Of course, Horowitz is wrong, on every point. But it is difficult to get angry with him, or even to take his ranting seriously. When Reagan asked me if I wanted to "dignify" Horowitz's comments with a response, I declined, except to express a measure of sympathy for Horowitz and other true believers who have become so frenzied in their need to defend the Iraq imbroglio that they feel they must attack a grieving mother who wants to make sure that no more parents will have to bury their sons and daughters as a result of the Bush administration's arrogance.

      The rapidly dwindling minority of Americans who continue to search for some rationale for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq has been driven to the brink of breakdown by the success of Sheehan's protest. Go to the website of William F. Buckley's National Review magazine and you will find Sheehan described in headlines as "nutty," dismissed by columnists as "the mouthpiece... of howling-at-the-moon, bile-spewing Bush haters" and accused of "sucking up intellectual air" that, presumably, would be better utilized by Condoleezza Rice explaining once more that it would be wrong to read too much into the August 6, 2001, briefing document that declared: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." Human Events, the conservative weekly newspaper, dismisses Sheehan as a "professional griever" who "can claim to be in perpetual mourning for her fallen son" -- as if there is some time limit on maternal sorrow over the death of a child.

      Fox News Channel spinner-in-chief Bill O'Reilly accuses Sheehan of being "in bed with the radical left," including -- horrors! -- "9-11 families" that are still seeking answers about whether, in the first months of 2001, the Bush administration was more focused on finding excuses to attack Iraq than on protecting Americans from terrorism. And Rush Limbaugh was on the radio the other day ranting about how, "(Sheehan's) story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real..." (Just to clarify for Limbaugh listeners: Cindy Sheehan's 24-year-old son Casey really did die in Iraq, and his mother really would like to talk with President Bush about all those claims regarding WMDs and al-Qaida ties that the administration used to peddle the "case" for war.)

      The pro-war pundits who continue to defend the occupation of Iraq are freaked out by the fact that a grieving mother is calling into question their claim that the only way to "support the troops" is by keeping them in the frontlines of George W. Bush's failed experiment. Bush backers are horrified that Sheehan's sincere and patriotic anti-war voice has captured the nation's attention.

      What the pro-war crowd does not understand is that Cindy Sheehan is not inspiring opposition to the occupation. She is merely putting a face on the mainstream sentiments of a country that has stopped believing the president's promises with regard to Iraq. According to the latest Newsweek poll, 61 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's handing of the war, while just 26 percent support the president's argument that large numbers of U.S. military personnel should remain in Iraq for as long as it takes to achieve the administration's goals there.

      The supporters of this war have run out of convincing lies and effective emotional appeals. Now, they are reduced to attacking the grieving mothers of dead soldiers. Samuel Johnson suggested that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. But, with their attacks on Cindy Sheehan, the apologists for George Bush's infamy have found a new and darker refuge.

      © 2005 The Nation

      Damn these electric sex pants!

      26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

      Bring back the death penalty for corporations!


      • #4
        Originally posted by kah+Aug 18 2005, 08:46 AM-->
        QUOTE(kah @ Aug 18 2005, 08:46 AM)

      • #5
        Originally posted by FAR52+Aug 18 2005, 08:53 AM-->
        QUOTE(FAR52 @ Aug 18 2005, 08:53 AM)
        Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 08:46 AM

      • #6
        Originally posted by FAR52@Aug 18 2005, 07:53 AM
        Now, she claims to be an expert on middle east affairs
        There's no need to lie, FAR.

        The vast majority of her quotes sound like a talking points memo from MoveOn.
        Whatever. Cindy Sheehan is a middle-class mother from Vacaville, California who is very angry that her son is dead. She is a person, not an organization.

        Like it or not, she is being used
        Again, bullshit. Simply bullshit.

        Because she is beginning to look like a fool -- which does nothing to honor her fallen son.
        You are free to think so. I, OTOH, have tremendous admiration for Ms. Sheehan. The Rosa Parks of the peace movement, perhaps. It must be discomfiting for you and for other pro-war people and Bush supporters to see public opinion swing so heavily against your president and the war he started. But Cindy Sheehan is not alone. There are millions of Americans, a solid majority now, who agree with her. Too late to kick Dubya's ass to the curb, unfortunately, but true nonetheless.
        Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

        "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011


        • #7
          Kah, this is just the usual attack the messenger stuff.

          same ol, same ol
          Damn these electric sex pants!

          26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

          Bring back the death penalty for corporations!


          • #8
            Politics as Theater

            By Jim Hoagland

            Thursday, August 18, 2005; Page A21

            As metaphor, Cindy Sheehan's peaceful siege of George W. Bush's Texas ranch is pitch perfect. Like Iraq, the ranch was easy to go into. But the president pays a price either for staying or exiting while Sheehan and television cameras perch on the road outside.

            Once at the ranch, Bush can hide, but he can't run.

            Unfortunately, Sheehan's personal tragedy is degenerating into farce or worse. She has become a celebrity whose divorce proceedings hit the wires this week to reverberate in the great national echo chamber. That "news" was quickly topped by a barbarian driving a pickup truck through a makeshift memorial of white crosses honoring fallen soldiers in Iraq.

            Sheehan may have anticipated that her family's quarrels over the meaning of her son's death in Iraq, her angry statements blaming Israel for pushing the United States into Iraq and her vituperative Web postings would become grist for the celebrity mills. If she didn't, we should feel her pain even more.

            But her vigil risks becoming political theater disconnected from its larger purpose. This is an increasingly unsettling phenomenon in the Internet age, as political parties, lobby groups, the media and other institutions concentrate on spin more often than substance in politics.

            Sheehan says she wants to see the president again to demand answers -- answers that she says he did not provide in their previous meeting and that she suggests, in advance, that she knows he does not have.

            On that she is right: If Bush had answers on Iraq, he would shower her with them. The insufficient or partial statements he would make at this point would certainly not satisfy a woman who has already said that Bush is "spewing . . . lying filth" about Iraq to cover up a strategy of personal enrichment.

            It is not so disturbing that the national political discourse has become detached from civility. That has been true, and not fatal, at other periods in American history. Moreover, this case involves a grieving mom who is entitled to vent, to petition her president publicly for redress or both.

            What is disturbing is that the national political discourse is increasingly detached from reality. The emotionalism and character assassination practiced by both sides -- the clamor in the echo chamber around Sheehan is only one example -- is mistaken for "politics."

            Instead of turning out more engineers or scientists, American society seems at times more geared to forming consumers, producers and critics of a particularly bombastic kind of political theater, which comes in entertainment and information flows that are increasingly hard to distinguish.

            Historians will credit the New York Times with both influencing and reflecting this trend by assigning its dominant weekend political opinion space to Frank Rich, its former theater critic. If political theater's the thing, as Shakespeare might have said, who better to cast a lively if withering eye to answer the question, "How is this playing?"

            Too often we now get more of our information from stories or broadcast clips about television ads on issues than stories or clips about those issues themselves. Think of John Kerry's war record, or Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts's opinions and papers. They are then followed by news stories and columns that spin the spin -- that hash out how effective, or not, the presentational values were.

            Bush neither needs nor deserves defending on this score. He, too, has contributed to the national political discourse becoming more superficial, more coarse, and more driven by images and drama. That he is now hoist -- in opinion polls at least -- by the conditions he helped create at home also seems a metaphor for his dilemma in Iraq.

            There the president gropes his way uncertainly through a nightmarish period in which he is necessarily a seeker rather than a provider of the answers that, in reality, only Iraqis will be able to provide for their country.

            The shock-and-awe tactics of the speedy battlefield victory in Iraq created changed conditions there that the Bush team failed to perceive and to master in time. It is possible to see a parallel in his uncompromising approach to political campaigns and legislative fights at home and the plunge his standing has taken in the polls.

            A vigil by a war victim's mother should be an act of devotion that transcends political theater. Bush owes Sheehan the respect of the meeting she seeks -- if she demonstrates that she will show him the respect any elected president deserves.

            [email protected]
            June 9, 1973 - The day athletic perfection was defined.



            • #9
              I think she should have another press conference to tell us what she's doing today....

              "Can't buy what I want because it's free...
              Can't buy what I want because it's free..."
              -- Pearl Jam, from the single Corduroy


              • #10
                Originally posted by kah+Aug 18 2005, 08:58 AM-->
                QUOTE(kah @ Aug 18 2005, 08:58 AM)

              • #11
                Originally posted by kah+Aug 18 2005, 09:46 AM-->
                QUOTE(kah @ Aug 18 2005, 09:46 AM)

              • #12
                Hey FAR, does Michelle Malkin mail you guys a royalty fee for this stuff, or is pro-bono work for you?
                I like cheese.


                • #13
                  Originally posted by *007*+Aug 18 2005, 11:46 AM-->
                  QUOTE(*007* @ Aug 18 2005, 11:46 AM)
                  Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 09:46 AM