Cindy Sheehan, One Tough Mother
Soldier's mom digs in near Bush ranch
Senator sees 'echoes of Vietnam' in vigil to meet president
A mother whose son was killed in Iraq says she is prepared to continue her protest outside President Bush's ranch through August until she is granted an opportunity to speak with him...
"I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?" Sheehan told reporters. "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is."
Sheehan said hers was one of a group of about 15 families who each met separately with the president one day last June.
"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name," she told CNN Sunday. "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject."
Of course, right-wingers are poised to take her down however they can, as Drudge leads the way.
by MG at 11:44 AM
18 Comments:
An article by Matt Drudge quoting anti-war mother Cindy Sheehan whose son was killed in Iraq grossly took Sheehan out of context, RAW STORY has learned.
see Raw Story for the full poop!
CP
Of course he did.
www.rawstory.com
Drudge attacks Cindy Sheehan.
C&L exposes Drudge...
It seems Matt Drudge has "a penchant for fully clothed sex in the shower and a bizarre egg fetish -- he began to spread them himself....
"He likes to have sex with eggs. He likes them smeared all over naked male bodies."
"It's all very well sourced,"... "If he offers you a bite of his omelet, take a pass."
Says John at C&L "I wasn't going to bring this up, but when he attacks a mom that lost her son in battle, I'd say it's time for Drudge to answer a few questions of his own.."
To hell with drudge - In a comment on another blog posting about this couragous woman I insist that if W had any testicles left, he would meet with this woman, poste haste. Instead, Shrub proves he is not concerned about the American people and his balls shrivled inside his well protected cacoon.
This woman is a red blooded American Heroine and deserves the ear of the president who should be serving her, not the other way around....but I forgot, W is the one with God on his side, not the other way around.
Thanks Mox for the article - but (like you) sometimes I can't contain myself...and this is one of those times I just can't be all nice-nice.
Okay, so people in mourning act irrationally - you folks didn't know that?
I feel for the woman - just like I felt for the folks who lost loved ones in the Towers and in the Pentagon. She wants to speak to the President? Hey, get in line...and get ready for some reality, cuz he has LOTS on his plate.
News Flash: War is hell (I know cuz I've been there) and this is an ALL VOLUNTEER force. Anyone who whines that they were spoofed into joining "for the college money" is a moron.
It is UNQUESTIONABLY TOUGH on folks, reservists and regular forces. But most of us did it willingly - for whatever set of reasons.
Also, I gotta wonder how this poor Mom (and I mean that) might be perceived by her brave son, who fell for this country in its great battle against terror. No doubt he would love her still, but I can imagine him shaking his head (looking down on her while she marches on the Bush Ranch) shaking his head "Ma...you just don't understand").
"Shrub" (as some of you call him) is busy trying to keep about 300 million of us safe and prosperous - maybe even protect civilization itself (a few billion folks in that group). You don't like him? Well, get off yer ass and get folks to vote next time. Get rid of your Idiots (Moore, Dean, Kennedy) and try a positive message for once.
For now, like it or not, SHRUB-MAN is your President. Try to deal with it!
Have a nice day...
Try a positive message? You mean, lie? Because Shrubby's been spewing bullshit and that only appears to work for so long (as evidenced by his falling numbers).
And wow, it takes balls to make assumptions about what a dead son would think of his mother's actions from the afterlife. I'll have to mull that one over a bit.
Timmer,
Most of your comments would normally stand up to argument: People in mourning can act irrationally. Those who signed up for a voluntary army do have to accept the horror of war when faced with it. And so on.
However, you seem to forget a rather significant point here that changes everything.
Bush LIED to his congress and the whole of the american public in order to start an illegal war. Shrub is not busy trying to keep 300 million safe. He is busy running a war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. He is still busy trying to convince the american public that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the USA, something that is so blatantly false that it would be laughable if it weren't so catastrophically tragic for so many people stuck in the middle of this disaster.
Bush quite clearly does NOT have 'LOTS on his plate'. He has been taking more vacation days during his 2 terms than that holiday specialist Reagan did during his!
And as for possibly protecting civilization itself? Get a grip on reality. The Bush administration is funded by the biggest war machine this world has EVER seen. And this war machine is causing untold misery and hardship for a population that had NOTHING to do with 9/11! Their leader didn't have the WMDs we were instructed to believe in and the country never posed a direct threat to the United States. If I remember correctly, war is supposed to be a last resort. That means a country can only legitimately decide to go to war when it's clear that it is under a CLEAR and PRESENT danger, like the countries surrounding Germany during the 1930's. Please don't tell us you believe that the USA was under direct threat from Saddam, especially after having read about the Downing Street Memo.
Bush's war in Iraq is not a great battle against terror. It is doing precisely the OPPOSITE. It is creating even more terrorists as a direct result of the hate that the USA is spreading in the world by launching illegal wars and consequently killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians.
Don't confuse your patriotism to this great country with unquestioning loyalty to a president that has shown a breathtaking disregard for human life, prosperity, freedom of speach and respect for the constitution of the USA.
windspike said...
... I insist that if W had any testicles left, he would meet with this woman, poste haste....
Let's remember that shrub lives in a coccoon. He doesn't read or watch the news in any form. This is what makes Bush such a shitty president. He doesn't know that he is not doing well in the polls.
He doesn't know that there is Cindy Sheehan or anyone protesting him. That's why they are keeping her 5 miles away in a ditch.
He didn't know that his townhall social security reform pep rallies are filtered for supporters only. Bush lives in a Rove controlled la la land.
He had no idea that there were documents not turned over for bolton. He believes it was just a bunch of Democrats stalling. He lives by what Rove decides he needs to know, and they only tell him how great he is doing.
Baffled - couldn't have said it better myself.
Peace to all. I remember the 1st reported American service member death reported in the Wash. DC area,(MAY HAVE BEEN THE 1ST KIA OF ALL TROOPS) during the ground advance into Iraq. The father (a black man) who had lost his son looked into the camera and with a grief filled face said "Mr. Bush you killed my son." The loss to that father has been felt by many more parents. The lies that were used to generate the War have been repeated and repeated by the Bush cabal.The loss of beloved sons and daughters have been repeated and repeated. Anybody who continues to believe the lies needs to pull their head out of their patriotic bowels and breathe the fresh air of reality.
your fellow Human
anybody going to Texas to support her?
small group starting here
I am in New Jersey with no vacation time and no rich family to fund such adventures :(
Good luck everyone who goes!
Wow - where to begin...
No, I can't read the minds of the dead - but I think it is a safe bet that I know more about the military and their attitudes toward this war than you and most of your liberal readers. Not a boast...just a detail. And for the record, I did not make an assumption - please read my comment again to see that.
Bush's vacations? Y'all are giving me a headache... Do you honestly believe that a vacation for a President is actually a "vacation" like you and I might enjoy? Hell, I don't even take my cell-phone sometimes...do you suppose it's like that for him? If so, you are "baffled."
Bush lied, Bush lied BUSH LIIIIIED! Sheesh...A MIGRAINE with the talking points and dead-end rants. Fact is (as if you didn't know this already) EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMDs. Everyone. Everywhere. Go back and do some reading - John Kerry, Bill Clinton, the Intel Services of EVERY MAJOR WORLD POWER, etc.
And guess what folks? Just because they were never found DOES NOT mean they were never there. Lots of desert out there (trust me), and just an intellectual exercise for ye: Did Saddam strike you as the kind of guy who would have destroyed these stockpiles...just cuz we told him to?
The war is NOT illegal, not by any standard of law. It was approved by Congress, and supported by U.N. resolutions - including (most importantly) the last one against Saddam that delineated "Serious Consequences" if he did not adhere to all demands. He didn't. Not even close.
Bush killed "Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis?" Okay, where is your proof of this? If you recall, unlike the levelling of whole cities in WWII (and others), this war was conducted in the most humane and careful manner recorded in all of history. There are ALWAYS collateral deaths in war, which of course is tragic. That was the price for freeing 25 million people (most of whom, regardless of what Stuart Smiley says, are happy that we did).
The "Downing Street Memo?" Thoroughly debunked as nonsensical and out-of-context - especially since this supposed "predetermined war" conversation took place nine months before the conflict - after which Saddam was given even more chances to avoid war.
The assertion of "Clear and Present Danger" needed as a precursor to war is completely untrue (but made for a good book and movie ;-). Did North Korea pose this to us? Vietnam? Somalia? (bad wars to be sure, but the point is still valid).
The post 9-11 Bush Doctrine not only called for the right of "preemption" in the case of WMDs, but also stated that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". It is well-documented that Iraq harbored and supported terrorists, but had paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
Baffled Simian wrote: "Don't confuse your patriotism to this great country with unquestioning loyalty to a president that has shown a breathtaking disregard for human life, prosperity, freedom of speach and respect for the constitution of the USA."
Puh-LEASE! You wouldn't accuse me of "unquestioned loyalty" if you read my blog. But I try to call 'em as I see 'em, and your rant here is just more lefty BS. I would love to see your documented examples of Bush's disregard for all of these things - I guarantee you I can come up with countless examples to the contrary.
Listen, Bush isn't going ANYWHERE until 2008 (and doesn't give a crap about the polls) - and to suddenly pull out of Iraq now would be MIND-NUMBINGLY STUPID...even most Democrats would agree with that.
This IS a war on terror - it has been coming at us for 30 years or more now, and we didn't do anything to stop it. Now, the rubber meets the road and lots of folks are finding ways to explain away all of what has been rammed down our throats. We are "MAKING more terrorists?" Good thing I wasn't sipping my KOOL AID when I read that. Wake the hell up already!
Well, that's covers most of rantings. Back to the ORIGINAL POINT of this article.
I heard Mrs. Sheehan on C-SPAN today. She sounded rather lost and is obviously still grieving. But she is in fact unwittingly hurting her son's comrades and our cause by trying to derail this war and this President. I don't wish her kind of pain on anyone....and for the record, I don't doubt anyone's patriotism solely based on their political leanings....but I do like the debate.
BLOG ON!
Timmer,
I don’t want to drag this thread on for much longer as these things have a habit of doing just that so this might be my last post here but I had to reply to some of the points you mention.
‘Bush lied’ is not a migraine or a dead-end rant. It’s how he sold this damned war to his congress and people. Or maybe you don’t remember their subtle attempts at associating Saddam with 9/11. Why did 70% of Americans believe that Saddam was behind 9/11? Because the administration told them so. It was because Cheney and Bush made strategic speeches in the run up to war designed to make people believe this. It’s all very simple: they never said outright that he was behind it but their speeches were full of certain strategic sentences placed next to each other. The first one talking about Saddam, the second one about 9/11. If you repeat these speeches ad nauseum then people start to think the 2 are linked. That’s how most of the US came to believe that it was OK to invade Iraq.
We all know that Saddam had WMD. How do we know? Because we sold them to him in the first place in the 1980s! Does that mean it’s OK to plunge his country into war? No of course not.
‘The war is NOT illegal’ because it was approved by congress you say. Well I have news for you: congress was LIED to. That’s why they felt it was OK to launch the war.
Where’s the proof linking tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens to Bush? Well, where do I begin? Let’s try to put this simply. Bush launched a war on Iraq in March 2003. Since then we know that a few civilians have died as a result of this war. Hell, we’ve seen them being shot to death on enough videos coming from that country.
For further information check out http://www.iraqbodycount.net/.
‘...unlike the leveling of whole cities in WWII (and others), this war was conducted in the most humane and careful manner recorded in all of history’. 2 points about this: 1. if Bush was being humane about this war, why did he send 4 bunker buster bombs (you know, the ones that do REAL damage) into a RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT to try and get Saddam (who wasn’t there) during the beginning of the campaign when he knew there would be many civilians in the area? I don’t call that very humane do you?
2. Fallujah. Nothing more to say about this destroyed city.
"The "Downing Street Memo?" Thoroughly debunked as nonsensical and out-of-context - especially since this supposed "predetermined war" conversation took place nine months before the conflict - after which Saddam was given even more chances to avoid war." That’s precisely the point! Before the conflict had started, it was reported that the Bush administration had already decided to go to war and was fixing the intelligence around this decision. Hardly supportive of Bush’s statement that war was his last resort.
Your point about clear and present danger not being necessary to launch a war is strange. Even stranger is your use of Vietnam to support this point of view. If I understand you correctly, the disaster that was the Vietnam war, including the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of citizens who died as a result, is proof that it’s justified to launch a war against another country that doesn’t pose a direct threat to you. That implies that Vietnam was a success. No, Vietnam is precisely the opposite: an unmitigated military and humanitarian disaster that destroys your ‘clear and present danger is not necessary to launch a war’ theory.
Bush’s disregard for most of the world around him has been adequately exposed on internet and in the international press. It’s just a shame that the 6 large media corporations that control the mass media in the States don’t want you to see Bush for what he really is: a warmonger of limited intellect who blindly follows the instructions of his dangerous extreme right wing neo-fascist controllers. Nevertheless, if you look carefully, you can still see his disregard for the truth and for the victims of his wars. Example of lying: his famous 16-word lie during his 2003 state of the union address. Another example of lying: he has repeatedly said in press conferences that Saddam did not allow the inspectors into his facilities and so they had to attack Iraq. If you remember, Saddam WAS giving the inspectors access to all facilities in 2002/2003. This is just another Orwellian attempt at convincing the public that facts are irrelevant when trying to justify the reasons for going to war. Another example of his disregard for the people of his country: His remark to the enemy in Iraq to ‘bring it on’ when confronted with a question about the insurgency. I can imagine an adrenaline-pumped officer on the field saying stuff like that but for a head of state to publicly encourage the enemy to intensify their attacks against HIS OWN ARMY is truly beyond lunacy. (Come on Timmer, you were a soldier too. You’ve gotta agree with THAT one at least ;-)
We musn’t forget it’s the media that’s largely responsible here. For example, in the UK, on the BBC, we’ve seen members of a talk-show audience calling Blair a fraud and a liar and reprimanding him in front of millions of viewers for what he did in Iraq. (It was truly wonderful to watch!) The white house and its media whores would NEVER let you see such criticism on TV. But then again, that’s not surprising when you know who the owners are of the US media outlets. Check out who owns NBC for example. I’m sure you’ll notice that the owners are one of the biggest contractors for the Pentagon war machine. Remember, you need to get impartial news before you can make sense of what’s going on in the world. Try to look outside of the mainstream media channels in order to get a better perspective on the administration. Those 6 corporations will never tell it like it is. They have too much at stake.
And for the record, I’m not a lefty or a liberal and I wouldn’t vote for Kerry if I could. I don’t trust him anymore than I do Bush.
And regarding my statement that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists. It wasn’t me who said it. It was (put down your Kool Aid first….) the CIA! Check it out here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html
All I can say is - check your facts and your sources again...then re-read my original post(s). "Expand those horizons" and you may some day get off the deaf, dumb and blind liberal "hate Bush no matter what" train. You might find it, well, "liberating."
I have checked my sources. That's why I gave you the washington post article in my last comment to show where the 'more terrorist' theory comes from.
As for the Downing Street Memo, the source is the office of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. If you remember correctly, it was his office that confirmed the authenticity of the memo.
Most of the people who hate Bush don't hate him 'no matter what'. They hate him because of what he is doing to the USA, its constitution (through his patriot act), its middle class (through his tax-cuts-for-the-rich), and its reputation around the world. My point above about dropping bunker buster bombs into residential districts is simply one example of this.
Will someone turn up the dimmer on timmer?
Hi Moxiegrrrl. I think you may already know of this http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/072505EC.shtml
A friend of the Earth has left us. Read story below the Mexican logging story. Talk about Moxie! Women. What would we do without them? Probably eat each other alive.
your fellow Human
Post a Comment
<< Home