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.

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.

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.”

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?

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.