Apparently, any “wingnut” who dares analyze the political or cultural effects of Cindy Sheehan’s protests—whether his interest lies with how those protests are being covered in the media, or the possible political and personal motivations behind those protests, or the makeup of the attendant support and supporters of said protests, etc.—is an angry, black-souled, moronic, evil, vile hater who, in the words of one passionate Cindyphile in the comments here, “should slit [his] own throat.”
In other words, “How dare you! Cindy lost her son!” has, in short order, become the new “RACIST” or “HOMOPHOBE” of progressive poltico speak—a loaded signifier whose power rests in its refusal to allow for any but a single signification, a way for leftwing ideologues to strangle debate in the crib and to prevent any discussion on the practical affects of Sheehan’s carefully-orchestrated and increasingly-well funded anti-war media blitz by turning those very questions into an indictment of the questioner.
In short: any but a particular politically-sanctioned use of Cindy Sheehan’s narrative has become, in effect, hate speech.
Couple that with the creepy insistence on the part of many of Ms. Sheehan’s boosters (and this includes just about every writer at Huffington Post, which has become a sort of makeshift shrine to Sheehan’s cause) to refer to her only by “Cindy” (and here I’m reminded of a similar ploy practiced by the most committed Terri Schiavo supporters), and you have precisely what I described the other day in reacting to Christine Lahti’s embarrassing, emotionally manipulative post—an object of fetish.
And to some, I believe Cindy Sheehan has become just that. To others, however, she has become a convenient and attractive (to their minds) spokesperson for their cause, and so their defense of her against any who might pressure the operable force of her protests—namely, that the “questions” she wants to ask the President come from her grief—will be swift, coordinated, and vicious.
The fact is, though, her “questions” (“Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for? If the cause is so noble, why don’t you send your twins?”) have already been answered, repeatedly¹—and so her entire protest, as any honest observer left or right will admit, is not so much about looking for explanations as it is about posing loaded questions.
Bottom line: Cindy Sheehan has taken her personal grief and turned it into a public crusade, complete with TV commercials. Which means she’s taken her personal grief and politicized it—at which point, because she is now using it to try to affect policy, it would be anti-democratic to suggest that those who disagree with the political changes she desires are somehow not allowed to speak up, or to shrink from pointing out that the force of her particular policy prescriptions come not from some special knowledge she possesses of foreign policy or Arab culture, but rather from the emotional sympathy we have for the death of her son.
Not that I expect this argument to make a dent in the cynical rhetorical front progressivist, anti-war apologists are offering up; because I long ago realized that these folks have traded in honest evaluation for an ends-justifies-the-means political worldview—one in which emotional talismans like Cindy Sheehan are used (in this case, voluntarily and actively) in lieu of argument to ward off the evils of Bush’s America.
¹Bush didn’t kill her son. A terrorist attack on his convoy did; I’ll let a Sunni Iraqi answer the second query; and finally, Bush can no more “send” his daughters to Iraq than Ms Sheehan could prevent Casey from re-enlisting, or for volunteering for the assignment that ended in his death. Those choices were the choices of an adult, one whose actions suggest that he believed in what he was doing.
****
update: Flashback: Michael Berg and Sue Niederer.
****
update 2: Is Cindy Sheehan’s protest political? A commenter at TalkLeft has this to say:
The war is finished.
You can mark your calendars boys and girls. This war is finished. Not over yet, but finished.
Sorry, we lost. Get over it.
The intelligentsia wasn’t able to end it. Too bad, Michael Moore. There are more Bubbas than intellectuals.
The mothers will end it. It really is that simple. They won’t go away. From now on, wherever Bush goes he will be trailed by MOTHERS.
The American people will be happy to give money to democratize Iraq, or weapons, or other forms of support. They will not give their children. Fact.
From now on, its all downhill. You can start marking the days until the US withdraws from Iraq a la Saigon in 1973. I suppose there will even be a helicopter on the roof of the old US embassy in Baghadad.
The situation will be worse? Yes, and that’s why a country shouldn’t make mistakes like that.
Perhaps Mr. Bush can learn to spell “catastrophe”…
Once again, I recall for you General Abizaid’s words: “The mood of how this war is going in Baghdad and Arab capitals is better than in Washington and London”*
****
update 3: A year ago at the Crawford Ranch…
Next year, if we’re still engaged in Iraq, the anti-war left will no doubt bring a towheaded little boy to the ranch who “just wants to ask” the President if his dead solder father “will be home for my Birthday.”
****
update 4: For those of you who don’t read Kos, here’s a conservative outraged by rightwing “smears” on Cindy! (a woman whose own antiwar, anti-Israel, anti-US rhetoric you’d think would make her suspect in the eyes of any conservative not interested in basking in the glow of his own self-styled sanctimony) to whom the Kossacks link approvingly.
Read the comments, too, where this “lifelong conservative with a strong independent streak” is lovingly adopted by Cindyphiles who immediately recognize his usefulness in their fight to control the discourse. But of course, that love is just temporary. Soon, when all this blows over, they’ll forget he ever existed. Kinda like Cindy Sheehan.
I know, I know: SMEAR MERCHANT!
Imagine what would happen if the President were to meet with Mrs. Sheehan a second time on the stipulation that there would be no media in the meeting? Any hemming or hawing on her part would nail the door shut on whether she is sincere or simply a media whore.
Gotta put the emphasis on given the dustup over that term.
She is untouchable, don’t you know? The venom that is being spewed – she is allowed to say anything, and any response outside of “I feel her pain” is verbotten. I got screamed at for merely posting Mohammed’s words yesterday .
spam word -“they” as in “they have lost their minds.”
Geez Jeff, doesn’t the open letter make it even more apparent that all Cindy! is seeking is an honest discussion, and is hoping for an explanation and some answers? A rapprochement?
And what has happened to our country’s longstanding tradition of the president granting one-on-one meetings to allow citizens to call him a lying asshole? My great-grandfather was actually granted a free train ticket to D.C. to meet Woodrow Wilson and spit tobacco juice on his shoe. But then, Wilson wasn’t afraid of opposing views.
Remember, it’s all about the conversation.
You’re welcome to disagree with Mrs. Sheehan. If you’ve got a reason to stay in Iraq, then come out and say it. But when you begin the character assassination, then yes you are engaging in hatespeech. Calling someone a media whore, labeling her as a political pawn, and telling her to sit down, shut up, and grieve where no one else can see you does nothing to further the debate over the war.
And even if its true that if anyone has a right to be angry about a war, it’s a dead soldier’s mother/spouse/child, FOX News has proven that she’s hardly untouchable. I don’t see how anyone can question her character, tag her as ultra-liberal, and then complain that they’re not aloud to critisize her.
The real complaint is that no one is buying it.
Hubris
Cindy doesn’t want a private meeting. And GW spent time with her that she actually appreciated—until the cults got hold of her.
Are you honestly pretending that arguments for staying in Iraq haven’t been made, Zifnab? And that I haven’t made them here on hundreds of occasions?
Sorry, that’s a dodge—and not a particularly effective one, either. Because the question here—in this post, about this issue—is not about how or why we are in Iraq; it’s about Ms. Sheehan as a political player in determining Iraq strategy. As Austin Bay observes, the only way we can “lose” Iraq is if we lose our will to fight it. And as Ms Sheehan’s crusade has become just that—a call for retreat, an emotional ploy to weaken the collective will—it is BY ITSELF a political argument to be countered.
Darleen,
I was being sarcastic.
And I’ll admit, that story about Wilson–total lie.
Oops… sorry Hubris. Guess with all the brickbats I’ve been receiving my sarcasm-spideysense is not functioning all that well.
Gee whiz Jeff, I know you’ve been fighting the good fight for the 101st keyboarders this entire time and that we all should know of you.
Perhaps though, Ms. Sheehan cares nothing about YOU, and would like to have a conversation, not just a speech, from the commander in chief.
The question is about Ms. Sheehan as a political player in determining Iraq strategy? I think you’re ascribing too much power to her.
That “101st keyboarders” thing never gets old, does it?
Hey, question: okay for me to call you a stateside al Qaeda “insurgent”? Or do you prefer “Minuteman”?
Yes, Cindy Sheehan has become an object of fetish to some: to those on the right who feel it necessary to smear and defame all whom they perceive as the enemy. Fucking cowards all.
Thanks for proving my point, “nobody”: analyzing the political fallout of Sheehan’s crusade = “smear and defame.”
RACIST!
If you didn’t exist, I’d be forced to invent you.
I’m guessing recognition of irony isn’t your strong suit.
You would know analysis if if bit you on the ass.
By the way, what’s your excuse for not signing up to fight your boy Bush’s war that you love so much?
HATER!!! SMEAR MERCHANT!!! FETISHIST!!!
Ah yes! The weak ad hominem jab, followed by the wild chickenhawk right hand.
FIGHT THE POWER, NOBODY!
Er, that last one was addressed to Jeff.
Ms. Schiavo was brain dead and her interviews were rare. Many people have spoken directly with Ms. Sheehan and so have been able to determine for themselves what her views are, what evidence she brings to the table, and how she wants to be identified.
In other words, it was presumptuous to call Ms. Schiavo, Terri, but it is not necessarily so to call Ms. Sheehan, Cindy.
Idiot.
Mother Sheehan is our only Left hope for destroying that evil BushCo Industrial Military Complex.
Christine Lahti said as much and I must believe her, she has true emotions and that’s all that matters. And Viggo Mortenson, him too!
I think I’ve spelt the names right?
Anyway, Mother Sheehan is our only hope for destroying that evil BushCo industrial….oh, I already ready said that.
In that case, fuck evil imperializing fascist America! And Fuck Bush too!
By the way, where’s my cheap gas MAN I got lots of ChimpMcBushilterHalioilburtonMcNaziKKKAmerica hate fests to get to!!!!
In other words, it was presumptuous to call Ms. Schiavo, Terri, but it is not necessarily so to call Ms. Sheehan, Cindy.
Thank Gawd Emily Post dropped in for that little ettiquette lesson!
DID CINDY AUTHORIZE YOUR CALLING ME IDIOT, JERRY?
You should learn not to be so hostile to people you don’t know—especially while you are arguing that rightwingers shouldn’t be so hostile to people they don’t know.
WHAT WOULD CINDY DO?
Anybody who takes up the enemy’s cause deserves to be treated as the enemy.
It was as serious question. How about answering it? George needs the cannon fodder.
No, it wasn’t a serious question, “nobody.” It was just another attempt to shut down debate.
Tell you what: I’ll answer your question seriously if you agree that you will back a Constitutional Amendment making military service mandatory for any one who directs foreign policy, votes on foreign policy issues and or related legislation, or rules on issues that impact foreign policy. That would successfully insure that all three branches of government are completely “militarized,” which is what you seem to want (structurally speaking).
The other option is to suggest that we simply pass a law outlawing war, disassemble our military, and make the question moot.
Let me know.
Cindy Sheehan is a traitor to her son and to the country in which he so honorably served.
CINDYOPHOBE!!!
Thanks, susan, for putting it all so succinctly.
I rest my case.
Time to just post the leftyrant(TM). If anything, it’s more amusing.
I wonder how many children “nobody” has lost in this war. She seems to feel strongly in her support of Ms. Sheehan’s chosen method of grief. I would not want to presume too much, but it has occurred to me that if “nobody” hasn’t had a child of hers die in Iraq or Afghanistan as a result of George Bush’s policies, one might consider whether the term “chickengriever” would accurately describe her.
Matt30: What? Who’s “she”?
Sorry “nobody.” There I go, presuming too much. I thought you were female.
Jeff,
You say you’ve “published several works of fiction.” Funny, I can’t find any of your stuff on Amazon. Or do you publish under another name?
Matt,
That post was not intended to state agreement with susan, but to draw attention to its Malkinesque vileness.
I’m glad “nobody” continues to steer clear of smearing, which is the business of “fucking cowards.”
Hubris, give nobs some credit.
S/he noticed something on a website.
Thought – ”hmmmm, where can I investigate that?’
found a site that is a decent first choice
and posted his findings.
If that trend continues, in two or three years he/she’ll finally be on the dexter side of the blogosphere.
Well, you see, “nobody,” not every piece of published fiction is sold on Amazon—particularly short stories that appear in journals published by universities. These do, however, appear in many libraries.
Of course, to bitter little lefties like “nobody,” every rightwinger is guilty until proven innocent, and every terrorist-enabler is a freethinking “dissenter” whose motives are beyond question.
Well, shit. And here I thought the right didn’t understand sarcasm. You learn something every day.
Well, good luck with the war fetish, y’all! I’m gonna empty my browser cache and take a shower. Bye now! And keep up the great work!
Don’t forget: Cindy disapproves of you touching yourself!
Oh, I’m sure I got the intent of your post, “nobody.” I should apologize to you again though. I saw Jerry’s comment above about the 101st keyboarders, then S_H asked why Jeff hadn’t signed up. You said a bunch of stuff, and my error is, I tend to lump all you people together after a while. Now I cannot find anywhere in this thread where you explicitly called anyone a chickenhawk, even though you did accuse us of being “f**king cowards.” So my suggestion that you might be a chickengriever could possibly be inappropriate, as was my assumption that you were female. I hope you can forgive me.
I respectfully disagree, he deserves to pay special attention to the naughty bits. He was extra baaadaaasss today.
Get your dissent on!
Let’s go easy on “nobody”. Dealing with the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome on a daily basis can’t be easy for him.
Has anybody pointed out to the Supporters of Cindy that while the Bush Twins might *want* to enlist and go serve in Iraq, their Secret Service Detail might cause some operational difficulties for their units.
nobody
Vile is watching CodePink.org, UnitedforPeaceandJustice, along with the Crawford Peace House, all of which are clearly anti-semitic, anti-capitalist, anti-American forces using the cause of war and this woman’s grief as a means to capitalize upon and influence American foreign and public policy. These groups care not for Cindy Sheehan, they care only for the Cause for which they fight.
Vile is hearing ad nauseum the “peace” movements unfounded, emotionally driven, factually vacuous talking points clearly meant to drive a stake into the heart of America. How many more years will the public have to endure what the “peace” movement has already stated a thousand times over? Since the public has not completely jumped on the “peace” movement bandwagon they are now using a grieving mother. Even if Cindy Sheehan was against the war for whatever reason, shame on the “peace” movement for capitalizing upon her grief.
Vile is knowing that Cindy Sheehan is simply another figure head with which the “peace” movement can use to hijack public emotion in order to sway public option.
I’m not buying. Unfortunately, Cindy Sheehan did.
The next time the mother of a murder victim demands the death sentence for the killer, you think she will get the same attention from the left?
I am mystified by the “Cindy” crowd. Truly mystified. I wonder if parents of those sailors killed by terrorists of the USS Cole would have been cheered on in attempting to meet President Clinton with claims that he “killed” their children?
One death in combat is too many (And yes, peacetards, I am a veteran so leave the silly–“Why aren’t you there?” questions at the door–you can recycle them later, and you know you will.). However, Cindy Sheehan is no more entitled to grief than other parents of those killed in combat. The President is under no obligation to meet with anyone whose sole intent is a media spectacle.
The entire episode is another example of why American voters get uneasy with the left about foreign policy issues. A serious person could not possibly believe that the best course of action is to drop everything and witdraw from Iraq. I do not believe anyone could envision the truly horrific consequences that would follow. Yes, those horrors would exponentially outstrip anything we have seen in the past two years.
If I had an electronic version of exasperation, I’d post it here. I’m done.
Yep, this was the point I tried to make as well. Sheehan has passed the line from grieving private citizen into the arena of public anti-war activist, and is using her son’s death as some type of shield of invincibility from criticism. Of course, she can’t really be called on it, since her handlers will only grant interviews to those they are certain will be sympathetic to the cause. Did Ms. Sheehan request a private audience with Bush after her change of heart, only to be rebuffed and being forced to take this most public and confrontational road. Or, did she bypass any attmept to seek a private second meeting, realizing that would have zero PR value.
And it’s wonderful how she’s co-opted the “gold star” brand, organizations that have always been apolitical support based groups, to try to give the impression that they support her anti-war stance.
Ya know, I thank my God every day for people like Cindy and “nobody” cause that means that so far people like Cindy’s son and thousands of others like him have been successful in their mission and that means FREEDOM!
God bless the USA.
Support the troops, trash their mothers.
Tundra Kat,
Ridiculous turn of phrase. You use mothers in the plural. Can we ask what your opinion is of mothers of soldiers, sailors, and airdales (yes, plural) who support the war effort?
No one here says Cindy Sheehan doesn’t have the right to do what whe is doing, but that does not mean we have to accept it. How about putting in another lane in your thinking?
Now Jeff, did you have to bash Country Joe too?
Jerry:
Ms. Schiavo was brain dead and her interviews were rare.
As opposed to Sheehan who is also brain dead, but gives frequent interviews anyway.
It was the damdest thing I tell ya. Some group of lower class rabble waving all these placards at my moto-cade. Uncle Dick said they was trying to fan me cuz it was so hot out. I didn’t have the heart to tell the peasants that my limo has AC. But it’s good to know all the people still love me.
Hard to follow you, W. You’re an elitist, but also a dumb hayseed because of your accent? So you hate the rabble, but you’re also part of the ignorant rabble?
Please be consistent. For Cindy!, if for no other reason.
That comment (from TalkLeft) makes me want to hand in my “mom” card. If I lost a son in war, and did what this woman is now doing – my husband would divorce me (he’s retired military- and his brother is in Baghdad right now.) He would put up with her nonsense (for nonsense it is) for about- 2 weeks. TOPS.
Jeralyn: the only way my analysis can be seen as “bashing” Cindy Sheehan is if any analysis that goes beyond blind adulation is ipso facto a “bash.”
Country Joe…well, that’s just guilt by association, in this instance
Tundra
No one has “trashed” Ms. Sheehan except herself..and even at that, I hold her less responsible than the Leftist cult members who are exploiting her for all its worth.
Sheehan does NOT speak for all moms… and PROOF that she is just their marionette can be seen at Koss Kiddies
The list goes on with such obvious exploitation.
And the irony of Ms. Sheehan as the face of the supporters of Michael Moore’s “freedom fighters”—the ones who actually killed her son—is as deep as the Left’s concern for her dead son is shallow.
As usual, Jeff, you hit the nail on the head. Thank you.
It’s “Mother Sheehan” guys- the Left’s talking points.
Damn, Darleen beat me by 3 minutes.
carin, don’t make me go there, please. my blood pressure is high enough already. and i’ve already showered today.
Hey, question: okay for me to call you a stateside al Qaeda “insurgent� Or do you prefer “Minuteman�
Minuteman is his wife’s pet name for him.
Sheehan does NOT speak for all moms… and PROOF that she is just their marionette can be seen at Koss Kiddies . . .
This is disgusting
Maggie gets a pass.
Important fact here kiddies. Call someone who pisses on the grave of her son for some camera time a ‘media whore’ and it’s hatespeech.
Call the POTUS a lying sack of texas worm shit who sold shares in the war to buddies at CITGO (Halliburton was a ruse!) and that the only difference between him and Hitler is the funny list mustache and that’s just fact.
The thoughtpolice will arrive shortly for your reeducation.
Anybody else notice the Cindy! threads get all the trolls, and they completely aviod the Able Danger threads?
I wonder why?
hmmmmmmm
Cause they are trolls and lack all pretense to having a rational thought to contribute.
i liked that song.
Well, I’ll certainly be glad when poor, bereaved Cindy’s 15 minutes are up and she gets tossed aside by the touchie-feely leftoid freakshow for the next symbol-du-jour.
Really. I will. I don’t feel bad about it or anything.
SB: progress
excelsior!
Truer words have never been spoken. They ARE the enemy, and that includes Mother Theresa-Cindy.
And yeah, it IS funny how these threads are troll magnets. I haven’t seen this kind of hysterical trolling since the Terri Schiavo days. Funny how they’re all pro-moms NOW.
Good thing Bush hasn’t met with Mother Theresa-Cindy yet; you know the minute he does, it’s all over–we’ll be cutting and running out of Iraq once he hears her pearls of wisdom! I’m so glad he hasn’t any idea what she has to say, because that might end all the fighting! And you know how much we “chickenhawks” LOOOVE war!
I think I’ll go shoot me some little brown kids with my rapid-fire keyboard now! And hide from that scaaaary intifada going on at the DUh/Kos/etc….
Turing: Showed, as in WOW, you leftard trolls sure SHOWED us!
I still like the song.
So, if some grieving mother of a military person killed in Iraq demands that we nuke Iran or Syria because she is convinced that they’re behind the insurgency, will your lefty trolls push for that, too? I’m guessing not.
I saw the old bat (I refuse to dignify her with a name) on the news, and she didn’t look to me like she was grieving, she looked like she was eating up the attention with a spoon.
My favorite aunt lost her oldes son more than 20 years ago (she’s now about 80) and she still grieves, and looks it, every day. She’s not stricken, but she’s grieving. The Old Bat looks looks toward the cameras the way a sunflower faces the sun.
Turing: away—Lord, how I wish the Old Bat would just go away.
MEGADITTOS!!!
muahahahhahahaaa (I love to watch them squirm at that word.)
Let’s see. My “first born” was “murdered” “to benefit Israel”.
Where have I heard that story before? I have no sympathy for this fascist whatsoever.
“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.”
– Cindy Sheehan
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/bullyard/msg/7f523b1a73be1a36?hl=en
Bush should just meet with her, and repeat his usual BS. Then he can say Look I met with Mrs Sheehan, waht more does she want. By ignoring her, he just drags it out and the hoopla grows.
“Cindy Sheehan is a traitor to her son and to the country in which he so honorably served.”
Well of course. Anybody who thinks the war in Iraq was a bad idea is obviously a traitor. Liberals are all traitiors too. This I know, ‘cuz Ann Coulter tells me so. And she is definitely not bat-shit crazy or a fringe kook.
Well, “Mother Sheehan” is just siding with the “minutemen” and the “revolutionaries” who so bravely killed her son, so she’s obviously in the right.
This I know, because Michael Moore (on whose website she’s posted) tells me so. And it’s not like he’s a fat, lying sack of shit or a fringe kook–people like that don’t tend to get to sit next to ex-Presidents at the National Conventions of major political parties, do they?
Let me try to put this into perspective for my liberal friends so they “get it.”
Imagine it’s 1999 or 2000 and a US soldier or airman is killed in Yugoslavia.
Imagine his mother decides to camp outside Martha’s Vineyard while President Clinton is vacationing there and demanded to meet with him to answer why her son was killed in a war that President Clinton started so he could cover up the following:
He ran drugs from the Mena, Arkansas airport while he was governor there.
He had Ron Brown and Vince Foster killed to keep them quiet about his wrongdoing.
He has had people roughed up and or killed to keep the above quiet.
Now, imagine also Ann Coulter, R. Emmet Tyrell, Free Republic and other similar worthies took up this woman’s cause.
Now, imagining this, can you see why when someone demands to see President Bush so he can explain why her son was killed so he could enrich his oil buddies, those on the other side are a bit dubious??
Oh, and she’s also associated with a group (The Crawford Peace Council, or whatever the hell it’s called that has “Palestine” on it’s maps where Israel is at) that is pretty cleary, well, let’s say, not really pro-Jew, or with an anti-American pig like Michael Moore that we’re a bit skeptical?
I have no problem denouncing anyone who personally attacks Cindy Sheehan or who calls her a traitor or other similar slanders. But can’t you at least see the problem here?
Just wondering.
bob, you forgot distracting from monica. or is that one just too obvious?
The next time the mother of a murder victim demands the death sentence for the killer, you think she will get the same attention from the left?
No, she won’t. The leftwing moral compass swings wildly in any direction to satisfy the needs of “the cause”. Their love for grieving mothers are limited to those who are useful to them.
Reading through some of the comments above I see the left’s favourite straw man of the moment is that the right is attacking Sheehan “personally”. Thankfully, this must mean they have given up on trying to smear Sheehan’s critics for simply criticising what she has to say.
But, when you read what she actually said, it is clear that what she is saying is pretty damn disgusting. This is no longer a mother who wants questions about her son. It’s a mother with disturbing anti-semetic tendencies. No wonder her family are running away from her. If my mother turned into a Jew hater, I’d be running too.
Threads like this remind me of why I’m so fond of Heinlein.
Conversely, you’ve reminded me of when I was 15 and learning how to drive a standard transmission car. My mother would sit in the back seat and glibly sing The Fixin’ To Die Rag while my dad would white-knuckle the arm rest and offer helpful suggestions like, “NO THE BREAK NOT THE CLUTCH!”
Mrs. Sheehan is lying, she knows and those who have put her up to this know it. She is betraying her son. He was an adult who volunteered and re-enlisted to fight this war. He was not a child drafted from her bosom, nor was he shanghaied and trapped into service. He was an adult and patriot, and mature enough to know what he was doing.
Too bad Mrs. Sheehan is not all of the above.
Mrs. Sheehan has lied about her meeting with the President. She has lied about what he said, and lied about what she said about the meeting.
To make such a bold faced lie would be news if we had real news organiztions, but instead we have MSM that gives not a fig for truth.
Those who have enabled her lie work hard for American defeat in this war, and don’t give a fig for Mrs. Sheehan or her son. She is an object to be used to thelp them achieve their goal of the triumph of terrorists in the Middle East.
Summing her role up as ‘media whore’ is in a way a gentle thing to call a woman who betrays her own son while simultaneously helping those who work to support those who killed him.
I’d get that one bronzed, but I think its humor quotient will fade right after the fascination with Ms. Sheehan does. That was good for a loud laugh, Jeff.
I’m a little confused, friends. Why does the phrase “Sheehan is using her son as a weapon to attack President Bush” count as EEEEEEEVIL Republikkkan “character assassination?”
Are the anti-war leftists so desperate that their “debate the issues she is raising” meme is there because they cannot be taken seriously when their left talking points are spewed by anyone else? Or are they unable to Google search for answers to their arguments that have ALREADY BEEN MADE.
Question, is Mrs. Sheehan featured regularly on the “big 3” on the nightly news casts? I’m asking honestly b/c I never watch them.
I’m in the process of moving so between that and work I have no idea the level of actual coverage she is getting, though I can imagine how sympathetic it is…
While I disagree strongly with what she is doing and her silly “questions”, at this point I actually feel sorry for her. Not only for her loss, but because she is being used and is probably being blind to it. However, in the end, nothing of substance will come from this and she may end up without a husband, son, and maybe even more hurt inside.
Unfortunately sindy brought all the OPFORS ammo for them when she came to this firefight.
If she wanted a private 1 on 1, she wouldn’t need the 7×24 moonbat cavalcade/entourage…
So her son wasn’t man enough to be a solider and make his own choices? He volunteered and did a man’s job.
She should just complete this traiterous publicity stunt by pissing on his grave, just like she has done to her son’s memory and valor.
By pulling Israel in, I’m betting that she will bring her 15 minutes to an abrupt end.
Grieving war Mom works (and is legit IMO). Showing herself to be the speaker for the whole hard left will send the networks fleeing.
Just think, if Cindy’s son came back from the dead, he would actually want to kick the shit out of his commie old lady! Too cool huh? She disgraces his name every day she rolls around in the mud down in Texas as the whore of the liberals….revenge from heaven will be his….pity what strikes this woman in the future.
I prefer to leave Mrs. Sheehan alone. Grief affects people differently.
Now that said some of the material on DailyKos where it is discussed how best to USE her and her son’s death, that is fair game and IMO disgusting.
I posted about it on my blog the few details I found the most sordid were:
“4. We should not use the name of her son” No best not mention Casey Sheehan the man who voluteered for the Army, who re-enlisted who did not want to go AWOL to Canada because it would be betraying his buddies
7. If there are any persons who are theatre professionals at the Sheenan vigil, they should arrange things much more theatrically
“I don’t think that needs an extra comment” he says is disgust.
Oh and the best part? You think those who object to Mrs. Sheehans message are the only ones who want to make sure she stops speaking?
8. If I was there, I would not let Mother Sheehan talk to the press, but I would have her talk only through a spokesperson
All of these bright thoughts I found in something called.
Framing Cindy Sheehan – we are making errors
I put the whole thing here
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1065163
and HERE I put the Story of Sheldon Hawk Eagle’s family and how THEY reacted to HIS death in Iraq
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1065634
To me, one of the most telling points is that Sheehan prefers to depict her son as an infant rather than the adult he was when he died. As seen above, the picture of Baby Casey is seemingly always front and center whenever the cameras are pointed her way.
An infant did not join the US military and go to Iraq. It was a man, an adult of an age to make all decisions regarded his life for himself. Mothers are not being asked to send their children to war. It doesn’t work that way. No matter how much she infantilizes her son the decision to enlist was that of a man not subject to her wishes.
Many teenagers feel at risk of terrible embarrassment whenever they must be seen in public with their parents. They typically grow out of it as they become adults and understand their parents’ perspective better. But sometimes that anxiety is justified. Casey Sheehan is helpless to defend his choices as an adult citizen against the infantilizing treatment by his mother. One can only hope he is also not able to perceive what his mother has done to his memory, making a grown man subject to a teenage nightmare for eternity.
Oh of course, anyone who disagrees with the idea of an unprovoked invasion of a country in a painfully obvious quest for oil riches must be “one o’ them there commie traitors!”. Yes, Amerikkka is all about “freedom” unless you disagree with the official bullshit propaganda line, then you’re labelled a “traitor” and a “terrorist sympathizer”. She should have known better than to go to a Red state, where the people (and I use the term loosely) all have two brain cells apiece and both brain cells would still like George Bush if he shit in their hand because they’re that fucking retarded. Since you chickenhawks have such a hard-on for killing darker-complexioned people with no justifiable reason, then why don’t you take your raisin-sized testicles and go to Iraq to hide in a shellhole and call for air support at the first sign of trouble like the “brave” Amerikkkan “military” does??? If you do, be sure to breathe deeply, because guess what? “Gulf War syndrome”, afflicting over 200,000 vets of the first Gulf War, their spouses and even their children is caused by depleted uranium poisoning. You see, the “military” claims it’s harmless and uses it now more than ever, in Abrams tank armor, in tank gun shells, in ammunition fired from A-10 ‘Warthogs’… It is floating around in the air all over Iraq, and a single particle lodged in your respiratory system is cancer-causing. Expect a second round of “Gulf War syndrome” after this debacle in Iraq ends in its inevitable humiliating Amerikkkan withdrawl. So be sure to breathe deeply, chickenhawks, and when you have a baby that’s born with stumps for arms you can look at your stumpy baby with PRIDE and say, “Thank you George W. Bush!”
This post says nothing of the sort. If you simply want to show up and drop boilerplate, please use the link on the righthand side of the page entitled “Instant Leftist Boilerplate”:
Saves bandwidth, it being so much more comprehensive than your feeble attempts and all…
So while the post says nothing of the sort, it seems that quite a few of the people who’ve commented did.
It really is impressive how good so many people here have gotten at dismissing comments and avoiding arguments for little to no reason.
The comments are an open forum on the post and what the post says. If individual commenters want to address one another, that’s fine. Be specific about who you’re addressing.
And no one dismissed or avoided any arguments. In fact, my post is an example of an argument. What I dismiss is a long string of invective and boilerplate—the points in which, such as they are, have been addressed elsewhere, in the proper context.
Make an argument and I’ll debate it if I think it’s worth debating.
Those were all clearly dismissals via low-grade sarcasm, classification, or putting words in somebody’s mouth.
I’ve noticed that what people often think isn’t “worth debating” is what’s least convenient for them to debate.
Oh, is that what they “clearly” were?
Actually, “Me,” the “chickenhawk right hand” quip contains a link to a long answer concerning the chickenhawk charge. And it was offered in response to a mean little comment I note you don’t excerpt here. Why? Because it doesn’t fit your little narrative.
Maybe if you spent more paying attention and less time accusing people of avoiding questions, you wouldn’t come across as such a tedious little anklebiter who likes to pull quotes out of context to make some ridiculous charge that it is we who wingnuts who are avoiding the issues.
For instance, this post deals with the political fallout from the Sheehan protests. In answer to that, somebody chose to suggest I was a chickenhawk, as if such has anything to do with the points made in the post.
Similarly, I “debated” the Lahti post and other posts from Huffington’s site in other entries—which are linked to in the main post here.
I mean, have you bothered reading anything before launching into this little game of yours?
Do you know how blogs work?
Ooh, now the name-calling begins. Stop it, you’re turning me on.
I didn’t quote that comment because it wasn’t a response to anything in particular. Would’ve thought that was clear.
And that comment wasn’t in direct response to your post, it was more of an aside out of either curiosity or spite (which you didn’t answer for whatever reason, although it really doesn’t matter). Besides, threads tends to evolve and new topics come up along the way. Half the comments on here from either side have nothing to do with your original post.
That Lahti comment wasn’t yours. If you’re going to attempt to take someone to task for not reading, perhaps you should do a bit more yourself.
You seem to be trying very hard to be angry and irritable.
So your answer is that you have nothing to debate. Okay. Well, if you get around to saying something substantive, I’ll be here.
UPDATE OH My GOD! Mrs Sheehan’s handlers have NO Idea what is heading towards them or how it is going to hit them
Just read this at Michelle Malkin
Meanwhile, Move America Forward has a new spot from the head of Marine Moms of America. They are also organizing a caravan of military families that will head to Crawford, Tx., to counter the anti-war circus.
No corporate jets for these grass-roots activists.
FYI, that Me isn’t me. Only I am me.
“Something to debate” and “something substantive” are two different things. What I originally said was the latter, and you got all pissy about it for whatever reason (probably habit).