Forum Discussion

maybe it would help if all she did was grieve, instead of trying to exploit her sons death

Cindy Sheehan is an insult to grieving people.

Maybe she should stop blaming Bush and start grieving

>Maybe you should stop insulting grieving people.

Not veryoen wants to grieve by supporting the death of even more soldiers. Some would like those soldier, well, alive and at home.

kinda defeats the purpous of them bieng soldiers, doesnt it

What them being home an alive instead of fighting a war based on a lie?

And now with her book signing going so badly, she's not able to exploit her Munchausen's By Proxy syndrome much longer, she'll end up living on welfare after the liberals find she's not such a media draw.

Thats right!!! Lets all insult military families who lost family members.

//Lets all insult military families who lost family members. //

No just the ones who exploit the deaths of their dead family members.

Lets all insult military families who lost family members.

//Lets all insult military families who lost family members.//

No just the ones who exploit the deaths of their dead...HEY!! I think there's an echo in here!!! Hello! Hello!! Howard Dean is a jackass!

Howard Dean is a jackass....

Cindy Sheehan is a media prostitute with Munchausen's by proxy!

Cindy Sheehan is a media prostitute with Munchausen's by proxy.....

Wow it works!

Wow it works....

Wooohooo!!! It lovely to see the other side of the debate being respectful to grieving people. I am sure Jesus would love that.

Jesus: So, what good did you do on earth?
TJ: I insulted a grieving mother who lost a son a war
Jesus: Did not I tell you to respect thy neighbor?
Tj: I did not think it applied to people who disagreed with me.

//I did not think it applied to people who disagreed with me.//

Heh. Nice. Of course, that's always been the case. "Thou shalt not kill" went conveniently out of the way when the Vatican declared the first crusade, for example. But I digress. I'd bet a year's pay that if Cindy Sheehan had instead gone on a campaign trumpeting her son's sacrifice for a noble cause or somesuch, spending just as much time in the national media, the folks on this forum wouldn't be accusing her of hogging attention, but would laud her crusade against the evil liberals. It's only exploitation if it's in favor of a cause you disagree with, right folks?

That's a bet you'll never get to place because the national media would never spend as much time on someone honoring her son's sacrifice. Just look at how much attention they give Rep. Murtha for breaking ranks with... nobody... to oppose the war. Then look at the near-zero attention Sen. Lieberman got when he defended the war.

The simple fact is that Casey was a war hero. He believed in the war that he sacrificed himselt for (he *re-enlisted* to go back to Iraq), and Cindy didn't. She used his death to promote her leftist, Bush-hating views (and to sell some book).

She and the liberals in this forum are using her status as "grieving" mom to suggest that she is unassailable. We have to listen her call terrorists "freedom fighters", and keep our mouths shut.

And either more obnoxious is Good Will (mis)quoting Jesus to reinforce the notion that Cindy Sheehan cannot be criticized... Even though Cindy and Good can criticize Bush, TJ, and any conservative to their heart's content.

Criticism is one thing. Blind partisan mud throwing is something different. You could say that she strongly believes that the war is wrong, and then go on to say why you think it is right. But no, it's SO much easier to pretend that she did what she did just to get attention. Because otherwise you might have to acknowledge that somebody truly believes differently than you, and is just doing the best they can to try to reach people about it.

//Wooohooo!!! It lovely to see the other side of the debate being respectful to grieving people. I am sure Jesus would love that.

Jesus: So, what good did you do on earth?
TJ: I insulted a grieving mother who lost a son a war
Jesus: Did not I tell you to respect thy neighbor?
Tj: I did not think it applied to people who disagreed with me.//

Glad to see you have sucy a direct insight on Jesus's mind, Goot Will, but Jesus actually said "LOVE thy neighbor" and I do, I love you guys all so much I only try to correct you for your best interests. Poor Cindy and her Munchausen's by Proxy, I'll pray that she GETS OVER IT, okay?

No one is having difficulty acknowledging that other people have differing opinions. The evidence is there that she exploited her son's death to get out her anti-war message. Her son believed in the war, and he voluntarily re-enlisted to go back to Iraq. In order to make her case for her beliefs, she had to trash Casey's as illegitimate.

//Her son believed in the war, and he voluntarily re-enlisted to go back to Iraq.//

The whole argument is that the country, including Casey Sheehan, were convinced that the war was neccessary under false pretenses. If Casey decided that he was willing to fight to overthrow an evil dictator, that is laudable, and in no way trashed by his mother's contention that the war was started, not to eliminate a despot, but to find WMDs that never materialized.

// the country, including Casey Sheehan, were convinced that the war was neccessary //

This includes the Clinton AND the Bush administration, AND the Congress. That "Downing Street memo" was the only dissenter of all the other agencies that said Saddam had access or was trying to access WMD's and while we waited around for the UN to take action Mr. Hussein had plenty of time to ship his stash to eager scumbags in Iran, Syria, and Jordan. Casey did NOT die for a lie, he died because the UN and the Clinton adminstration ignored the facts and went wagging their dogs on more useless pursuits...whatever made money for THEM, kind of like what Cindy's been doing.

How, exactly, did the Clinton administration cause Casey's death when it ended three years before the war began?

First of all, we have found WMDs (sarin, and mustard gas, back in 2004). Not in huge stockpiles, but if I gave you a year of advance warning, I bet you could sneak them out or bury them or whatever, like TJ noted.

Not speaking for TJ, but it's pretty clear that he (?) didn't say that Clinton caused Casey's death. An ambush by terrorists/insurgents caused his death. Clinton, Bush, Congress, England, and so on had believed from the intelligence that the WMDs were out there. (I, for one, still do. It has not been proven that they don't exist, and we've seen the evidence that they did.)

Third of all, Iraq's connection to terrorism was also well established and verified. Now it's just a matter of learning how extensively. That was the danger of letting Saddam stay in power. Couple his terrorist ties with his active efforts to develop nukes and WMDs, he had to be removed.

Well, first:

// Casey did NOT die for a lie, he died because the UN and the Clinton adminstration ignored the facts//

I was asking for a clarification of that. Admittedly, Saddam would have had time to move the actual weapons out of the country, but I'm concerned by the fact that there has been virtually no trace of any FACILITIES found. We know Saddam was interested in WMDs, but after the complete destruction of his military in 1991, followed by trade sanctions, I don't think he was a terribly credible threat in that arena. Intelligience reports about "yellow-cake" proved to be laughably inaccurate, but more importantly they were QUALIFIED as potentially wrong when Bush recieved them, but he didn't mention that part in any speeches. Yes, Saddam was a threat in that he harbored terrorist training camps, but that's not why Bush said we should go to war. It was a continuous chant about WMDs that I think was deliberately misleading, because it's easier to get the American people behind a war by threatening them with mushroom clouds than saying "Hey, this guy is a tyrant, he should be stopped." I'm not against the war in Iraq, I'm against the way it was started, and the way it is being handled.

>Glad to see you have sucy a direct insight on Jesus's mind, Goot
>Will, but Jesus actually said "LOVE thy neighbor" and I do, I love
>you guys all so much I only try to correct you for your best
>interests.

So what does "love" mean in your mind? some abstract concept where you say it but still quite viciously attack and insult them? Or does love in your mind not include respect? Sorta like when Catholic church burned people at stakes because they wanted them to accept Jesus?

Tell ya what! Had the current right wingers practiced what they preached people at least would have respect for them.

Please!!! Please!!! Please!!! Save us from the well meaning!!!

>She and the liberals in this forum are using her status as "grieving"
>mom to suggest that she is unassailable.

Jim: you can argue against her points. Just show so respect. Calling her a media prostitute like TJ does is quite disrespectful.

GW -
Sorry, but she has made herself a public figure, and has disrespected her son by using his death as vehicle to oppose something he believed in. Poor Casey must be turning in his grave.

TJ's words are unkind, but they are meaningful in this case. All TJ is saying is that she will do any for media attention. I already established that Cindy was incredibly disrespectful to her son. And she also called President Bush a terrorist. Does that qualify as respectful?

This discussion thread is not about her points. We are simply criticizing her exploitation of her son's death. That is not being disrespectful to Cindy, that is being respectful to Casey.

So, her son was taken from her, and what, she was supposed to remain silent? If she honestly believes that her son's death was unneccessary, wouldn't it be more disrespectful to hold her tongue? To claim that she is disrespecting her son is like claiming that a mother campaigning against street violence because her son was murdered is disrespecting him. Mothers have a long history of vocally disagreeing with their sons when they are alive, so does her right to disagree disappear along with her right to speak?

There is no similarity to a mother campaigning against street violence. Casey risked and sacrificed his life and his mom uses his death to undermine the very effort he gave his life for.

If he died at an anti-war protest, then it would be respectful of her to use his death to oppose the war.

>Poor Casey must be turning in his grave.
Who told you he believed that? He was in the Army so he went to fight when told.

>We are simply criticizing her exploitation of her son's death. That is not being disrespectful to Cindy, that is being respectful to Casey.
As I said, who told you Casey was on your side?

//If he died at an anti-war protest, then it would be respectful of her to use his death to oppose the war.//

Could you clarify that? I'm really not sure what you are getting at.

And with the street violence analogy: A gang member could be "fighting for what he believes in," so would that mean his mother couldn't speak out against gang violence without "disrespecting" her son?

//As I said, who told you Casey was on your side? //

Well gee, Goot, when you join the military you take an oath (that means "promise" in smart speak) to uphold and defend the constitution and all it stands for, so Casey must have agreed to that some way or another, and since we(those of us who are not liberals) believe in the same thing, I guess we are theorizing Casey was on our side, especially since he was on his SECOND tour. You have to volunteer to do that again.

//A gang member could be "fighting for what he believes in," so would that mean his mother couldn't speak out against gang violence without "disrespecting" her son? // If she did that he and his gangbangers would probably "bust a cap in her a--". Such is the difference between scumbag street thugs and defenders of America.

He re-enlisted knowing that his unit would be sent to Iraq.

I don't remember where I originally learned it, but you can see it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Sheehan

And the operation he was killed during, he volunteered for.

> He re-enlisted knowing that his unit would be sent to Iraq.
Ok. So this is proof he supported the war? or supported his platoon and his buddies?
In fact Paul Hackett a guy who is running for Senate in Ohio now did not support the war and still volunteered:

http://www.hackettforohio.com/about_paul
...snip....
Following a serious discussion with his wife, Suzi, Paul volunteered to serve in Iraq as a Major with the 4th Civil Affairs Group, 1st Marine Division. Despite his strong opposition to the war from the very beginning, Paul�s sense of responsibility and commitment to his brothers and sisters in the Corps outweighed his personal political views.
...snip...

So you see, reenlisting does not mean he supported the war.

//So you see, reenlisting does not mean he supported the war.//

Neither does that article say anything about Casey's views. ALL Casey's other relatives...you know, the ones that disowned Cindy, say that Casey was a patriot who served because he believed in the war effort. I'd count what they say more than one woman with Munchausen's by Proxy trying to get her name in the history books.

>other relatives vs. his own Momma.
I do not know about you, but my mom knows me better then "other relatives". I have no reason to believe that Casey was not the same. So the point remains that you guys just think he was for the war.

//So the point remains that you guys just think he was for the war. //

That point sort of goes both ways, Goot, though we who believe that he was for the war are basing that off a lot more solid evidence than his psycho mama's view and your unrelated article of someone else's opinion.

As far as your relationship with YOUR, mama, Goot, we really don't wanna know, except to say we probably understand you better NOW. Poor kid.

>his psycho mama's
See this is the disrespect I am talking about. When can not argue on merit, villify, villify, villify, villify, villify, villify!!!!! Whats with being the Villification Party?

No reason to think his mom would lie.

>unrelated article of someone else's opinion.
the article just goes to show that you can volunteer for the war and still think its wrong.

//If she did that he and his gangbangers would probably "bust a cap in her a--". Such is the difference between scumbag street thugs and defenders of America.//

The reactions may be different, but you have yet to convince me that the cases are fundementally different. Would not the gang-banger's mother be disrespecting her son for citing his death in her battle against street violence?

No one DIED when Clinton Lied!!!

I still can't find where Bush lied. You guys are seeing things.

See, the fundamental thing here is that Cindy Sheehan is not only saying that the war was wrong (an understandable reaction to the loss of a son). She's glorifying the insurgents and saying that *American soldiers* (of which her "beloved" son was one) are the villains in this war. Tell me how that shows even a modicum of respect for her son?

Also, someone (don't feel like looking up who) posted something about it being hard to find parents of dead soldiers who actually still supported the war... I apologize for not being able to provide a link or exact citation, but there was a 3-page spread in the paper (a normal local paper, not a partisan or special-interest publication) of *many* parents in Massachusetts alone who said basically, "I wish my son hadn't died, but he willingly gave his life for a noble cause. We're so proud of his heroism, and we fully support the war because we want to see the cause he died for realized." Now, you can say (and I'm sure you will), "Oh, they're just deceived by the evil Republicans into *thinking* it was a noble and heroic cause." However, before you do so, read this:

http://sgthook.com/2005/11/17/taste-of-freedom/

> I still can't find where Bush lied. You guys are seeing things.
Oooohhh let me see...
"Every time you hear about a wiretap...it requires a warrant" - Bush.

Anthony: Lets insult some more mothers of dead soldiers, why stop and Cindy?

Show me a single line where I insulted her. I criticized her actions and views in no uncertain terms, but I didn't make one single ad hominem remark. If you're trying to imply that it is insulting for me to criticize her at all... well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're too smart to make that argument.

> Show me a single line where I insulted her.

>of which her "beloved" son was one) are the villains in this war. Tell me how that shows even a modicum of respect for her son?
Why is beloved in quotes?

Only because most women I know don't express love for their sons by glorifying the people who killed them, and villifying them and their compatriots. It was an expression of puzzlement over her inconsistencies, not a direct insult. It only becomes an insult if *she* makes it one by being unable to clarify these inconsistencies (and in that case, she'd lose "grieving mother" status anyway).

I do not really know what you are saying...

clarify these inconsistencies?

The inconsistency of claiming to be doing this *for* her son, rather than as an excuse for a political soapbox, and then villifying American soldiers (of which he was one) and glorifying the people who killed him. If that's not inconsistent, I don't know what is.

"clarify these inconsistencies?"

Will's using his "SEE NO TRUTH OR FACTS" glasses when he reads, Anthony, and since they are stapled to his little piggy head he'll never get it.

Heya Will!! Cindy Sheehan is saying the people who killed her son are the "GOOD GUYS". She's saying "They're the Victims" and that Casey and his buddies were the evil invading *ssholes, she's attempting to VILIFY her son's brother soldiers, but of course she sucks at it because nothing she says about them is true. Did that spell it out better for you...Dumbass?

Basically, I was trying to be polite about it, but that's pretty much what I meant (the second paragraph).

As for the first part, don't worry, I've figured out Good Will, and he's quite willing to debate real facts if you just make your point clear and rational enough.

I disagree.

In my opinion, Cindy was in fact devistated as a mother when her son died. As my own mother always said:
"Look, you spend decades raising the child, feeding him/her, educating him.her, putting you heart and your life into him/her. And then boomm...and nothing."

Now I understand it was Caseys choice to join the army. But please do not tell me that joining the army or even reupping automatically means you support the war. Look at the statement of Paul Hackett I quoted in of the comments above on January 17, 2006 8:48 AM.

He went to Iraq for his buddies and he is against the war.

Let me say it this way:
She believe that the war is wrong. She thinks that Casey is dead for nothing. Mr. Bush did in fact ignore her (I mean no offense but if it was me, I would have had a second private audience with her, just for the sake of trying once more to talk to her). She is trying to bring attention to her cause. "Surprizingly ;)", the media in this country have the methods of spreading information. If Mr. Bush can call a press conference to make his point why can not any other person in this country try to rally support for their cause. Her cause is the death of her son, and how it was unnecessary and wrong. You may judge her on that, you may not like her methods, but do not insult her on such personal level.

No, no, that's not what I'm getting after her for. I said specifically (or meant to if I didn't) that if she was just using her soapbox to say that we should bring the troops home, or even a Kerry-style "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" thing, then I'd disagree, but I'd respect her for it. The part I can't respect is when she demonizes our own troops (which, whether she explicitly intends it or not, includes demonizing her son) and glorifies the enemy insurgents as "freedom fighters" and basically says that *they* are the good guys, and *we* (the soldiers who fought alongside Casey) are the bad guys.

It's not even an issue of whether Casey was for or against the war. I agree, maybe he didn't want to be there and did it for his buddies (I don't think that's the case, but maybe). However, there is a massive difference between being against the war, and demonizing our troops. I have a friend who's against the war, and I greatly respect him even though I disagree... but if he demonized the troops, I'd knock him on his ass (and I'd do the same to Cindy except I've been raised never to hit a woman).

Let's assume all your premises: Casey was against the war, Cindy has no ulterior motive, and the war was wrong to begin with. This still does not allow for making our troops into the villains of the piece, nor making the terrorists/insurgents into noble heroes. *That* is what I have against Cindy Sheehan.

//Her cause is the death of her son, and how it was unnecessary and wrong.//
Maybe it started out that way, but when she started slandering our troops, she lost all credibility, especially since she can't (nor did she even attempt to) draw a line and say "All the troops are murderers *except* my son Casey, God rest his soul, who was a sweet little boy." Anything she says about the troops tars Casey with the same brush, and once she calls her son a villain, she loses "grieving mother" status.

I must say though, I'm glad that you at least didn't go the way of one of those politicians (can't remember who) and say that as the mother of a dead soldier, her opinions are... I forget the word, but it was something like "unassailable". That's just plain ridiculous.

noone is unassailable. Though probably its good form at leadt in teh first several month of a grief to leave the person alone. Still once you are on political arena you made a choice and you will be confronted. Its the (here is that word again) "vilifications" that bother me.

>Maybe it started out that way, but when she started slandering our troops, she lost all credibility, especially since she can't (nor did she even attempt to) draw a line and say "All the troops are murderers *except* my son Casey, God rest his soul, who was a sweet little boy."

I am gonna need actual quotes to respond to this. Ya have any you can throw my way?

I'm a bit busy tonight, but give me a bit of time and I'll get some for you. However, I freely admit that I've engaged in a bit of (I think) reasonable interpretation - I don't think she explicitly *called* the troops "murderers" or else the media would have abandoned her a lot sooner.

> I'm a bit busy tonight, but give me a bit of time and I'll get some for you.
No prob. ;-)