Get a load of this from over on NRO’s “The Corner”:

Cindy Sheehan in Crawford - Byron York

This woman is much more than pathetic.

Left by CedarFever on August 9th, 2005 at 9:32 pm

I don’t think that this entry belongs in “The Unhinged Left” category… Cindy Sheehan’s work has appeared at conservative and libertarian websites as well. What is her political philosophy and background?

Even if she is on the Left, I don’t think she is unhinged. (And I say this as a staunch conservative and Republican.)

Left by Aakash on August 9th, 2005 at 11:49 pm

That’s a valid observation, Aakash.

But the reason that it’s in the Unhinged Left category is that Cindy Sheehan is a tool for some large, very-unhinged lefty orgs. Thus the designation.

Left by Robbie on August 10th, 2005 at 12:23 am

“But the reason that it’s in the Unhinged Left category is that Cindy Sheehan is a tool for some large, very-unhinged lefty orgs. Thus the designation. “

She is in the “unhinged left” because you believe that she belongs there. This is wrong and in poor taste -aka morally deficient. The love a mother has for her son rarely if ever has the slightest to do with “Left” or “Right”. Mrs. Sheehan has strong feelings and opinions. And she is the one who has personally payed a price for Bush’s decision to go war, even if it was the right decision. So her thoughts and feelings on the matter are to be respected, not ridiculed or used as fodder by either Left or by the Right, (as Malkin is doing). Disagree with her but give her respect. It’s disgusting how the Left will use a grieving widow or mother to push their agenda. It’s just as disgusting when the Right abandons and ridicules her once she no longer toes the party line. If she agrees with Bush then she is canonized as the pure example of American sacrifice and honor. But if she disagrees with Bush she gets called “beyond pathetic”. It reminds me of a another kind of charge that I’ve often seen bandied about . So the next time you want to go spouting off to someone about “moral relativism”, take a good long look in the mirror first.

Left by Patrick (Gryph) on August 10th, 2005 at 4:10 pm

Patrick…either your reading comprehension skills are zilch or you just simply have no clue what the hell you’re talking about.

I’m inclined to believe it’s a little bit of both.

The bottom line: Cindy Sheehan is using her son’s death to further her political agenda. That’s not what’s so sick and distubring. What’s so fucked up is that Cindy’s political agenda flies directly in the face of what her son, Spc. Casey, believed in and lived and died for. Had her son been anti-war, then using his death to further the anti-war movement would be expected. But he wasn’t. He was a proud, willing, and heroic soldier.

If his mom want’s to be anti-war…fine. Let her have it. But she needs to leave her dead son out of it and quit using his name for the increased exposure.

Left by Robbie on August 10th, 2005 at 5:49 pm

[...] In Cindy Sheehan: Dishonoring a Son, I wote how I would feel if it were my mom: (if) my own mother started acting this way—negating everything he (my US Army brother) stood for and believed in, I would have been humiliated for her and would have let the world know that she was out of her mind. [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Sheehan Family Responds on August 11th, 2005 at 2:20 pm

Thanks for this article. I know that my husband, who was killed in Iraq, would be mortified if his mother did this. He believed what he was doing would make Iraq a better place. I am sick and tired of hearing about his woman’s “cause”!

Left by Heidi on August 11th, 2005 at 4:50 pm

Ms Sheehan has a far better knowledge of what her son believed than do those here who claim to know. She has commented on this topic, for those who are willing to read before they write.

Left by John West on August 11th, 2005 at 11:05 pm

Actually, Spc. Sheehan’s life…his actions…more than anything his mom might say, illustrate what he believed concerning his life’s work as a soldier.

Ask the men and women who served with Casey. Ask his platoon sergeant. Ask his bunker buddy. I’ll bet my pay check against your’s that they’d tell you that Spc. Sheeha the soldier would be embarrassed— if not outraged—by his mother’s actions. As a former soldier who felt the same way Casey did about serving his country, I know in this instance I would argue that his mother doesn’t know him best.

Left by Robbie on August 11th, 2005 at 11:19 pm

Recently, as reported on Drudge and other locations, the Sheehan family has called for Cindy Sheehan to stop her crusade.

There is a copy here

Left by B on August 11th, 2005 at 11:26 pm

People do not all think alike. You embarrass yourself with your assumptions and lack of knowledge about those you discuss. Read, then post. Or is this not something you do?

Left by John West on August 11th, 2005 at 11:27 pm

[...] I haven’t exactly been tip-toeing around the subject of how I feel about Cindy Sheehan’s disgusting use of her dead son to further her own political agenda—an agenda, I remind you, that is in stark contrast to the actual life that her son lived. [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Not Everyone is Tip-Toeing Around the Cindy Sheehan Story on August 11th, 2005 at 11:43 pm

Really? How well did you know Spc. Casey Sheehan, John West?

Were you in his platoon? Did you go to basic training with him? Here’s another assumption: you’ve never served in the military, have you?

Left by Robbie on August 11th, 2005 at 11:48 pm

He believed in his President, and he believed—as more than 99% of all soldiers do—that the mission he was fighting is noble, necessary, and just.

If the cause is so noble, why is Bush afraid to defend it in public with Sheehan? Why is he afraid of an unscripted encounter with someone who has questions to ask?

Why is he afraid of Cindy Sheehan?

Left by Phoenician in a time of Romans on August 12th, 2005 at 12:35 am

Disgraceful is listening to a “patriot” defend the lies that cannot hide. How do you defend Dick Cheney’s gluttonous dividend checks from Halliburton; Bush’s uncle, brothers & friend’s extended corporate contracts in Iraq; Bush’s 5-week vacation while soldiers defend his “mission” as the casualty list, we know of, reaches 2,000? How honorable was Bush JOKING about missing WMD’s at an exclusive, $2,000.00 per plate media fundraising dinner, showing a video of himself looking under his desk in 2003– after 100’s of your army brother’s selflessly died looking for them? Why the permanent bases in Iraq- Freedom? Blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism.

Left by Maira on August 12th, 2005 at 2:57 am

If the cause is so noble, why is Bush afraid to defend it in public with Sheehan? Why is he afraid of an unscripted encounter with someone who has questions to ask?

Why is he afraid of Cindy Sheehan?

Bush has done nothing but defend his position on this war in a very public way. And Ms. Sheehan has already had the honor of meeting with President Bush re: her son. And she has distorted and lied about that visit.

Also, she is asking…nay, demanding…answers to questions that Bush has already answered numerous times. And she is not here for answers—she’s here serving her own self-serving interest and fueling her and the organizations she has become the face of’s Bush Hatred Syndrom.

Bush is not afraid of Ms. Sheehan. If I were in his boots, I wouldn’t meet again with the woman who has already betrayed the nature of our first visit.

And finally, the President of the United States cannot “meet” with every single person who “demands” to meet with him. That’s not the way it works.

It’s hard to believe how obtuse Bush Hatred Syndrom can make a person.

Left by Robbie on August 12th, 2005 at 7:58 am

Maria,

You keep mentioning “lies”, yet in your entire little rant, you do not specifically say what lies President Bush told re: this war. I’d like to hear them—and your evidence of course. Oh, and any fake memos from CBS, opinion pieces from the NY Times, or fictional “mockumentaries” from Michael Moore are not “evidence”.

My faith in my President is, I assure you, not based in blindness. In fact, my pro-war, pro-military arguments have nothing to do with who’s in the White House. I didn’t go all “anti-military” when President Clinton was in office…

Left by Robbie on August 12th, 2005 at 8:02 am

I did something you did not do, Robbie. I read what Ms. Sheehan had to say on the subject, before I read what Urbangrounds had to say. One of them knew the dead youth better than the other did. I figured out which.

Slandering war vets with missing limbs.
Slandering POW’s.
Slandering war vets with Purple Hearts.
Slandering Gold Star mothers.

I wonder if the folks doing this have any mirrors in their houses? I’m not sure how they could.

But in any event, there are more folks who have lost family members over in Iraq who are showing up in that roadside ditch in Crawford, so it looks like it’s time for the slander mill to be cranked up all the way. Go ahead, crank it up. I’ll watch, and I’ll think, and I’ll read.

Left by John West on August 12th, 2005 at 8:04 am

There’s obviously one man who can’t speak here, but who’s actions said much more than anyone’s words—even those of his mother— ever could. Such is the tragic reality of war.

I’ll go by his actions. His mother’s words are little more than talking points being fed to her by MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, and the other moonbat orgs that she has aligned herself with.

As an asides though, John, do you negate the condemnation of Cindy Sheehan’s actions by her own family? Don’t you think they knew Casey pretty well too…and that they fully understand what Cindy is up to and why she has chosen to further her own agenda—even if it is at the sake of her dead son’s life?

Left by Robbie on August 12th, 2005 at 9:00 am

I’m not so sure it is Mrs. Sheehan diminishing her son’s duty so much as the various political groups using her as their puppet. One of these is Peace House, which appears to be an anti-semitic group labeling itself as a peace group and using her to advance her cause. Mrs. Sheehan’s grief appears to have taken over her life to the point that she is an easy target for these groups.

Left by Elkanah on August 12th, 2005 at 10:12 am

Bush has done nothing but defend his position on this war in a very public way.

Whatever happened to those WMD the location of which the Administration swore they knew? There’s been 23 seperate reasons given for the war… — of those 23 resolutions, only 9 pertained to WMD. Do you not want to address the other 14 irrefutable reasons that we took Saddam out?

And Ms. Sheehan has already had the honor of meeting with President Bush re: her son. And she has distorted and lied about that visit.

So Bush claims - just like he claimed Saddam had WMD. — No, Bush hasn’t made that claim. Ms. Sheehan’s own words—widely published words and accounts of her prior meeting with President Bush—have made that claim. It’s Ms. Sheehan who is changing her story, right before our very eyes.

From the Washington Post: After the meeting, [Cindy Sheehan] was quoted by the newspaper in her hometown of Vacaville, Calif., as saying that the president seemed sympathetic. Subsequently, she has said that Bush treated her callously during the meeting.. Hmmm…sounds like she’s changing her story to me.

Also, she is asking…nay, demanding…answers to questions that Bush has already answered numerous times. And she is not here for answers—she’s here serving her own self-serving interest and fueling her and the organizations she has become the face of’s Bush Hatred Syndrom.

She lost a son. She has one simple question - what was the noble cause for which my son died? — Her question has been answered. Time-and-time again.

Doesn’t Bush owe it to her, to every Gold Star mother, to each and every soldier to explain exactly what that noble cause is? — And he has done exactly that. He met with her, and explained it then. He has explained innumerable times since. Just because you don’t like his answers, doesn’t mean that he hasn’t answered.

Bush is not afraid of Ms. Sheehan.

Of course he is. If she distorted their first meeting, then he would jump at the chance to meet her again in public and use the occasion to explain to America exactly why their young men and women are dying in Iraq.

She didn’t, and he won’t. He’s too scared. — She did, he already did once. No,he’s not.

And finally, the President of the United States cannot “meet” with every single person who “demands” to meet with him. That’s not the way it works.

If you pay $25,000 you can talk to the President. If you spend $100,000, you can have a private audience with him. — if your son dies in the war, you can talk to the President. As evidenced by their earlier meeting.

If you lose your son, dead in a war started by the President, you can’t get any answers. — Sigh. Again. She’s been answered. The answers not changing.

I guess that shows exactly where Bush’s priorities lie. — You’re right though (finally). It does show where President Bush’s priorities lie: in staying the course and continue to fight and destroy those who would attack and destroy us.

And he’s too afraid to face Cindy Sheehan. — No, he’s not too afraid to face her again. Meeting with Cindy Sheehan again would be about as productive as meeting directly with George Soros and Michael Moore to “answer” their questions.

(Robbie’s responses in red)

Left by Phoenician in a time of Romans on August 13th, 2005 at 7:02 am

Phoeny,

Every thing you just spouted off about has been thouroughly debunked. Especially the entire WMD issue—there is no debate as to whether Saddam Hussein has ever had WMD. Just ask the surviving relatives of the 5000 Kurds he gassed in Halabja in 1988.

And we had every reason to believe that Saddam still had WMDs, or at the very least, the the capacity and will to manufacture and use them again.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

But really, seeing how you live in fucking New Zealand, I could give two shits about how you think the United States should defend herself from the likes of Saddam Hussein.

Left by Robbie on August 13th, 2005 at 10:56 am

I have developed a new website that is opposed to Cindy Sheehan as well as her supporters.

I developed this site to see how many people are supporting the war in Iraq as well as the President.

I invite all who read this to check it out and tell your friends. Who knows it could be a hit.

If it is a hit we will have a good idea how many people are standing by our country and it’s ongoing work in Iraq!

Left by webmaster on August 13th, 2005 at 3:31 pm

of those 23 resolutions, only 9 pertained to WMD. Do you not want to address the other 14 irrefutable reasons that we took Saddam out?

If you had just “taken Saddam out”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Unfortunately, you also killed scores of thousands of Iraqis, about 1800 Americans - and counting - , occupied a country with no real plan for controlling it or extracting yourselves from it, set the US up as a magnet for Islamic resentment - which made Osama bin Laden look like a hero to Muslims in general -, wiped out your budget less than a decade before a demographic timebomb hits your finances, and exposed the US as a country that tortures and murders prisoners.

And you missed the point that the reasons given change - they continue to trot out excuse after excuse as the last is shown to be false.

Or it sounds like, as she stated, she was in grief when she first met Bush and made those remarks. She had, after all, just lost a son in a useless war.

And she is not here for answers—she’s here serving her own self-serving interest and fueling her and the organizations she has become the face of’s Bush Hatred Syndrom.

“Self-serving”? She lost a son in this war. What exactly have you sacrificed?

In her own words:

“People have asked what it is I want to say to President Bush. Well, my message is a simple one. He’s said that my son — and the other children we’ve lost — died for a noble cause. I want to find out what that noble cause is. And I want to ask him: “If it’s such a noble cause, have you asked your daughters to enlist? Have you encouraged them to go take the place of soldiers who are on their third tour of duty?” I also want him to stop using my son’s name to justify the war. The idea that we have to “complete the mission” in Iraq to honor Casey’s sacrifice is, to me, a sacrilege to my son’s name. Besides, does the president any longer even know what “the mission” really is over there?”

Her question has been answered. Time-and-time again.

I notice, however, that you’re not able to state what it is, at least with a straight face. WMD? Don’t exist. “Fighting terrorism”? Al Qaeda is more powerful because of the invasion of Iraq. “Freedom and democracy”? Iraqis want you out of there.

It does show where President Bush’s priorities lie: in staying the course and continue to fight and destroy those who would attack and destroy us.

And how exactly were the Iraqis going to do that? No WMD, remember?

Meeting with Cindy Sheehan again would be about as productive as meeting directly with George Soros and Michael Moore to “answer” their questions.

George Soros hasn’t lost a son in this war. Michael Moore hasn’t lost a son in this war. George Bush hasn’t lost a daughter in this war.

Cindy Sheehan has. What America sees is a woman who lost a son sitting in the Texas sun waiting for answers.

And President Bush too scared to meet with her.

Left by Phoenician in a time of Romans on August 13th, 2005 at 5:53 pm

No, Bush hasn’t made that claim. Ms. Sheehan’s own words—widely published words and accounts of her prior meeting with President Bush—have made that claim. It’s Ms. Sheehan who is changing her story, right before our very eyes.

From the Washington Post: After the meeting, [Cindy Sheehan] was quoted by the newspaper in her hometown of Vacaville, Calif., as saying that the president seemed sympathetic. Subsequently, she has said that Bush treated her callously during the meeting.. Hmmm…sounds like she’s changing her story to me.

Ah, here we go.

“On August 8, Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted an item on his website, the Drudge Report, in which he falsely claimed that Sheehan “dramatically changed her account” of a meeting she had with Bush in June 2004; Drudge attempted to back up his false assertion by reproducing Sheehan quotes from a 2004 newspaper article without providing their context.” [...]

“Drudge, however, took Sheehan’s quotes from The Reporter out of context in falsely claiming a shift in her position. [...] Moreover, Sheehan was not referring to her meeting with Bush as “the gift the president gave us.” She was actually referring to the trip to Seattle, [...] Drudge included that quote in his Monday morning report, but didn’t explain that it referred to sharing time with her family, not the president.”"

“Reporter editor Diane Barney also responded to Drudge in an August 9 column, in which she said that Sheehan’s positions on Bush and the war have not changed since June 2004. ”

So, now that you know that this particular talking point is untrue, will you be apologising for using it?

Left by Phoenician in a time of Romans on August 13th, 2005 at 6:36 pm

If you truly believe that what Cindy Sheehan is doing is wrong, please read the following:

I have developed a website

http://www.stopcindysheehan.org

I know that I am going out on a limb here and have already dealt with plenty of Cindy advocates, but here goes nothing:

If everyone who is opposed to the Cindy Sheehan movement were to visit this website as well as tell others, We will have non-media based statistics to prove who the majority is!

Please join us in the fight to support our President, Troops, and Country!

Left by webmaster on August 13th, 2005 at 10:06 pm

Cindy Sheehan is doing nothing more than dishonering her son and his memory. I understand her grief, but to betray her son’s memory and his personal honor for her own satisfaction is beyond belief. She wants a perfect idealistic world that can never happen as long as there are different people. My guess is her son was moved by the actions of 9/11 and wanted to be part of hunting down these terrorist and bringing them to justice. Unfortunately Iraq was a terrorist country whose people were opressed by a cruel sadistic dictator. If we in this country are ever in that position, I would hope that somewhere in this world another country would care enough to come to our aid.

Left by Ghostrider on August 14th, 2005 at 4:55 pm

My son (82nd Airborne) called me yesterday and brought up Cindy Sheehan first thing. He let me know that, where I to react in the same way, he would consider it to be depreciating not only his sacrifice, but the sacrifice made by all our soldiers.

I can certainly understand her grief, but the rest of it–no way.

Left by P. Campbell on August 14th, 2005 at 5:44 pm

And in case you missed it, Ms. Sheehan doesn’t really want the president to come out and talk with her. I’ve lost the link to the radio transcript, but I’m sure someone else can provide it.

Left by P. Campbell on August 14th, 2005 at 5:53 pm

Edited By Robbie:

Phoenician in a time of Romans you are a pathetic troll, and thus you are not welcome to post on my blog anymore. And you’re anti-American vitriol is not welcome here, nor will I allow you to use my bandwidth to perpetuate your kind of insane hatred.

Left by Phoenician in a time of Romans on August 14th, 2005 at 7:48 pm

Jeesh! I miss all the good stuff!

Left by 2 on August 14th, 2005 at 11:36 pm

All this would of gone unnoticed if the far right Conservatives would of just left it alone.

Mrs. Sheehan lost her son she is hurt, angry, and wants an answer, the trouble is there is no answer that will satisfy her.

But the far right conservatives had to insult her, call her names say she has no real right to mourn.

But no one wants to ask the far right conservatives were they stand, they voted Bush in on the hard stand on the war after 2,059 killed u.s. troops to date and over14, 000 U.S. wounded troops, you see no rally in America.

The far right conservatives have not pushed open the enlistment doors they have really hide in school, college etc.

It’s true we may have an all volunteer service but you can’t expect the same people to over-and-over again put there life on the line, they need a rest and to come home.

But insulting a mother of a soldier is the best the far right conservatives can do?.
” go out and enlist replace a soldier” before he to has a mother to grieve

Left by GRANDPAPETE on August 15th, 2005 at 9:47 am

financial support is flowing in so she can continue her vigil? Her attempts have made international news. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4144532.stm There are also some blogs and opinions that feel Sheehan is dishonoring her son. http://urbangrounds.com/2005/08/09/camp-casey/ That particular blog says: “Spc. Casey Sheehan was a solider. He volunteered once and then reenlisted when that first commitment was served. He believed in his President, and he believed, as more than 99% of all soldiers do, that the mission he

Left by thought alarm on August 18th, 2005 at 1:59 am

We should vigil at her house. A friend at a title company gave me her address. [address removed by Robbie], Ca. See you there!!

Left by American on August 18th, 2005 at 8:50 am

You support the war so much Robbie. You go over to that hell hole.

Left by Dave P on August 19th, 2005 at 3:49 pm

Davey, that’s a pretty fucking lame arguement.

Do you support gay rights? Do you support unrestricted access to abortion? Sure you do. You’re a liberal.

Are you gay? Have you ever had an abortion? No! Then you’re not qualified to talk about nor support either one of those issues. Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? Well, that’s because it is.

Oh, but just in case you don’t think it sounds stupid: I’ve pulled my tour, moron. And if I wasn’t a disabled Vet from my first tour, I’d be over there today in a heart beat (my brother is an active duty Army recruiter, and we’ve tried every avenue we can to see if I could be listed as deployable again…but to no avail).

Oh, the moral dichotomy you must be facing right now…you so want to pretend that you support the troops…but at the same time your heart is just so filled with hate for the actual soldiers (you know, guys just like me)…

Yeah, I’m just another chickenhawk who can’t serve often enough for you Liberal fucks.

Left by Robbie on August 19th, 2005 at 4:21 pm

I see a great contrast between her first comments about her meeting with Bush in her interview on June 24, 2004, that was just several months after her son was killed, and the latest comments she is making about that same meeting with Bush. Cindy Sheehan first said after her meeting with Bush, that she ” now knows that Bush is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqi’s.” Then she went on to say and I quote, ” I know he’s sorry and feels pain for our loss.” She used two descriptions to describe her impressions of Bush after,Bush’s meeting with her, “Sincere” and ” He’s sorry and feels pain for our loss.” Now its quite the opposite description of Bush, if you were to listen to her new interpretation of that same meeting with Bush, you would think it was two seperate meetings. Cindy Sheehan now says about that meeting with Bush that ” Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject,and he acted like it was a party.” That statement indicates just the opposite of what she originally said about Bush, in that she even used the word “sincere” in describing Bush’s demeanor. So I’m to take it that she felt that “acting like it was a party” was sincere, and sincere was as she described Bush in her first interview? The question that now remains concerning her two completely different versions of that meeting with Bush, is, which one is the true story and which one is the lie? In her first interview with David Henson she stated that Bush felt “sorry” about the loss of her son,then Cindy Sheehan turns around and says just the opposite in her interview with Blitzer and I quote ” Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died.” Excuse me but “sorry” and “happy” are not synonyms Mrs.Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan’s versions of that meeting with President Bush just don’t match, they are not remotely similar.

Left by William Leatherwood on August 21st, 2005 at 3:47 am

Cindy Sheehan is not dishonoring her son by raising questions. She wants some answers - some direct answers. Not a televised speech where the President repeats himself with references to 9/11 and “staying the course.” Which yes, I personally do agree that pulling out at this time would not be a smart move. That is only my view, and I am in no way an expert or a strategist. Her son did die willing and it must have had something to do with his beliefs. The surviving mother is raising questions out of her own beliefs, even though it has made her unpopular among many to include the servicemembers that are there now, that she is so worried about! Many other mothers and surviving family members for this area (WA state) have been on the news from their servicemembers memorial service or funeral saying that they do not support the war.

She knows he would not likely allow his daughters to be in a combat zone. A bunch of republicans tried to vote females out of combat zones altogether to include support companies! With the military as tight as it is for deployments, all this talk about a draft - taking women out of a combat zone would put an even more noticeable strain on deployments and combat readiness. If one of them happened to join, and be sent overseas and get killed somehow - would he be able to stand up and tell us all that he is very sad, but we must “stay the course.” ?

Why should she go home? really? So everyone can blog and write newspaper editorials about how she stood up for her own beliefs for a few days, got ignored and decided to turn her back on what she started to do in the first place? I bet somewhere in those editorials will be references that she is a liberal, and ” liberals don’t get things done.” Or a war protestor when she is more wanting some answers!

When is this all going to end?

Left by Jen on August 22nd, 2005 at 5:11 am

Cindy Sheehan is dishonoring her son Casey in several ways. One way she dishonors him is by omitting what his own views on the Iraq war were and synthesizing her own personal views with his. I find it strange that she says her son was against the war in Iraq, but yet Casey Sheehen reenlisted in the army of his own volition, that just doesn’t comport with Cindy Sheehan’s statements.

This is a 100 % volunteer military; there is no conscription and that begs the question as to why Casey Sheehan reenlisted in a war he opposed, if that is even true. If perhaps Casey Sheehan disagreed with certain aspects of the war in Iraq e.g…he felt maybe we needed more troops in Iraq, or more armor on humvees, or better food for the troops, etc., then that should be explained by Cindy Sheehan without the partisan hyperbole. A person can complain about particular conditions in Iraq without opposing the entire war in Iraq you know.

During another interview on national television Cindy Sheehan stated that her son was killed by friendly fire, when she was pressed about that statement she then said ” well I have speculative evidence that he was killed by friendly fire.” It’s amazing that anyone could use the words speculative and evidence in the same sentence side-by-side and keep a straight face. Evidence substantiates an allegation, speculation is just the opposite: it requires no evidence at all. To use speculative and evidence together is a perfect example of an oxymoron.

The truth of Casey Sheehan’s death is that he was killed by hostile fire in Sadr City. This was the consistent report of his death since day one; medical reports and reports from fellow soldiers who were present at his death confirm the same fact.

Casey Sheehan was a real hero of the first order: when a convoy of soldiers from his unit was attacked in Sadr City he volunteered to join a rescue force to get them out, even after his commanding Sergeant told him he didn’t have to go because he was a mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was reported telling his officer, “I go where my chief goes.”

Thats not a man who didn’t believe in his cause or his duty; thats a hero. Casey Sheehan’s family has released this statement and I quote: “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.”

Left by William Leatherwood on August 22nd, 2005 at 2:24 pm

I notice the “sheehanites” love to repeat Cindy Sheehan’s redundant and what they consider to be “revelational” question , “What noble cause did Casey Sheehan die for?” Now I guess we have to return back to the elementary class of Saddam 101 to answer that question.

1. Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace in the Middle East. His aggression was only held in check by constant monitoring and economic sanctions that he then used as an excuse to starve and brutalize the people of his own country , all the while, building himself more and more elaborate and gaudy palaces. Was it “Noble” and should have Saddam been removed from power? Ask the Kurds, the Shiites, the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, the Iranians, and the marsh Arabs. I think they’d all say yes.

2. Saddam brutally tortured and killed hundreds of thousands maybe even millions of innocent people. In my opinion, that alone was sufficient for getting rid of him. “Nobly sufficient”

3. Saddam Hussein supported terrorism in the Middle East and around the world. It has been well-documented that Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel . Just eliminating that incentive to kill innocent Israeli woman and children is “noble” reason alone to remove Saddam. I know Cindy Sheehan is cringing about that one.

4. Terror groups associated with Al Qaeda were operating within Iraq in terrorist training camps such as Salman Pak before the war, and had been funded, at least in part, by the Iraqi government. There is no direct link, other then sheltering the terrorist, between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, 2001, but there is no doubt that Saddam was part of the larger problem of terrorism.

5. Saddam Hussein disregarded numerous United Nations resolutions, 17 in all, dealing with disarmament and inspections. His military fired anti-aircraft weapons at U.S. and U.K. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones on a daily bases, so he never lived up even to the initial cease-fire agreement that ended hostilities at the end of the first Gulf War, let alone any of other numerous resolutions by the U.N. Security Council. Any one of those violations would provide legal justification for the war.

6. The “domino effect” theory for moving the Middle East towards democracy and away from terrorism has a good chance of working, and yes that alone is a NOBLE reason to be in Iraq. Witness Libya’s recent renouncement of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Iraq itself is moving inexorably toward democratic self-rule, despite the efforts of terrorists and “dead-enders” and the “anti-war defeatest at home” to sabotage the process. If our government stays the course, we will win in Iraq and that victory is for all Iraqi’s.

7. Removing Saddam Hussein, in my view, was a major part of the larger strategy for the Middle East to move the entire region away from Islamic fundamentalism, theocracy and brutal dictatorship, which give rise to terrorism, and towards representative governments, ruled by law and respectful of individual rights, which will bring peace and stability to the whole region. Yes that is a NOBLE reason and cause to be in Iraq. The insurgents want to keep the blood flowing long enough to distract from that goal, and also so in America dissent will rise against the war in Iraq resulting in a withdrawal.

Left by William Leatherwood on August 22nd, 2005 at 4:17 pm

Cindy Sheehan has responded to President Bush’s comments concerning meeting her and has posted her response in The Huffington Post.

The first statement Cindy makes that comes off as anti-democratic is this one and I quote Cindy Sheehan, “Does anyone else know what “democratic” means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one.”

Cindy—in that particular statement—actually attacks 51 % majority rule as a bad form of government. And if you can read anything else into that, defending that statement, please make your comment at the end of this post.

I would like to say to Cindy, that 50 + 1 is much better then Saddam’s 1 % + brutal totalitarian rule in which the 1% Saddam rules 99 % of the entire population. Maybe Cindy has met with some socialist organizations that oppose democratic forms of government. I did notice that a socialist website called ‘Socialist Worker Online’ is running a rather large article advocating Cindy’s positions. She actually gave an interview to the Socialist Worker Online; she spoke to Socialist Worker’s ERIC RUDER, which is mentioned at the beginning of the article. In her interview with the Socialist Worker Online she says, “Some people may think that we’re fighting terrorism over there. But when is that job ever going to be complete? Terrorism is just a new “ism.” It was “communism” when I was growing up.”

Here Cindy is discounting the validity of the threat of communism in the past as just a made up ” ism.” I believe history taught us that communism brutally oppressed and killed millions of innocent people and is still somewhat of a threat today in places like North Korea where millions have died from starvation due to KimYong II’s brutal rule.

Cindy later went on to say, “I DEFINITELY think that we should support war resisters in the military”. I will leave that statement up to the readers interpretation, but it sounds to me to border on subversion and treason.

Here is Cindy’s interview with the Socialist Workers Online in its entirety.

The next statement Cindy Sheehan makes is both inaccurate and untruthful: “This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn’t ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for.”

Actually Cindy didn’t ask Bush; she demanded that he “bring the troops home now”. Here is a quote from her statement made on August 18 2005 and carried by ABC News, “If George Bush comes out here today or if we leave here at the end of August, this is only the beginning, and we’re not going to stop until our troops are brought home”.

I would suggest that means a withdrawal. What do you think it means?

In this ABC article written by Eric Noe it is stated “In addition to requesting a meeting with Bush, Sheehan is now calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. She promised to send a similar message if the president agrees to meet with her.”

Here is the complete article—you be the judge. Is ABC lying; did they just make that up?

I have myself watched Cindy on national television say time-and-time again “bring our troops home now”, but now she has states that she has never intended to ask Bush that question. I smell another lie. Whats really strange is in Cindy’s own article she just released today, she says this, “Then bring our troops home. The status quo in Iraq is awful”.

If you ask me, she can’t even get through one article without contradicting herself. She goes on to imply that America is spreading “imperialism” by what she claims are 14 permanent bases being set up in Iraq the size of Sacramento, California.

I dont know if there is any United States military bases on the entire planet the size of a large U.S. city, if there is please let me know.

By the way, the interview Cindy gave to the Socialist Worker is the same Socialist worker who ran this article The Meaning of Marxism, in which they praise Marxism to no end.

Left by William Leatherwood on August 24th, 2005 at 8:00 pm