NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you who don't know, Cindy Sheehan is the woman who is so distraught over losing her prestigous status as a mother of an Iraq war vet that she has now completly turned against the liberation of Iraq, and the President himself. Part of her tale is glorified here (http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1124011285247770.xml&coll=2) in the press of that bastion of liberal propaganda Birmingham, Alabama.

She maintains a blog in order to seduce people, through her pathos, to join her and the other peaceniks who have set up their hippy singalong camp outside Bush's ranch where he maintains the land so that he can return to productive life as a farmer after he has finished serving his country as president.

Not content to merely discredit his sterling reputation, she now wishes to take away some of what little free time he has. She is calling for the president to meet with her for an hour during his 5 week vacation. His vacation is to last a mere eight hundred and forty hours, and he is supposed to spend one of them playing grief counseler to such and ingrate of an expatriot? The president has already stated publicly that he uses these vacations to keep balance in his life to help make good decisions. This woman is activly working against the security of our nation by working to impair the ability of our president to do his job.

For those of you who think that it doesn't seem quite so bad to demand one hour of his time out of eight hundred and forty, consider that now she is calling for him to make this housecall during his daily two hour bike ride. At two hours a day, of which he has a mere 70 hours during his vacation. It was not enough that she take well over a tenth of a percent of his total vacation time, now she wants to take away almost 2% of his exercise time.

You can read her mad anti-war ravings here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/14/235352/351).

She freely admits to upseting the people of Crawford, who have taken to peacefully discharging firearms to voice their discontent. It is understandable that they would be so upset. The president uses these vacations as a chance to reconnect with the American public and to remind himself of what they really care about so that he doesn't become too hardened by the politics of Washington and forget the people he is representing. How is he supposed to do that when there's a woman in a tent outside his door asking to talk to him?

What can be done to remove this threat to our democracy?
How can we help restore to the president his right to connect with the people he chooses without being corrupted by those who don't agree with him?
How can we convince the American people to see past their pity for this woman, and the apparant patriotic cachet that she claims her position gives her, and to see her for what she is, a vile threat to our national security and the emotional stability of our Commander in Chief?

To think, Bush could defuse the whole thing just by going out and talking to her. The bunker mentality this administration has adopted since the election is very disturbing.

To think, Bush could defuse the whole thing just by going out and talking to her. The bunker mentality this administration has adopted since the election is very disturbing.

Ya. It's pretty funny, if you just look at this from the Bush side. If he'd just gone and talked to her, she'd have gone home. Maybe she'd have kept trying to make her son into a martyr, but noone would have listned. It wouldn't have been a story. Honestly, would any paper have bothered to run the story "Deceased Iraq Vet's Mom Sad?" The human cost of this war is indeed worth noting, but it's hardly news that the loved ones of the deceased are sad about it.

Instead, Bush has turned this single grieving mother into a movement. Bush has his own little Hooverville now, and he has only himself to blame. Proof, if ever any was needed, that Bush is an idiot.

I think all of us wants to at least see the President use training wheels. :D

How is this woman a "vile threat to our national security?" Because she wants an hour of the President's time? I suppose that makes Laura Bush the greatest threat to America since, I dunno, a pretzel.

You know by focusing on her like this you're empowering her?

I'd hardly call Bush's record "sterling".
I'd hardly call a 840 hour vacation "mere".
I'd hardly call discharging firearms "peaceful".
And I'd hardly call Cindy Sheehan a "threat to democracy".

Thank you...

Poor Bush I mean does no one think of him? What if he takes this hour and becomes just another obese American that the Europeans will pokes at? Then we'll all be a bunch of commies or something is that what this woman wants?

I thought this thread was being extremely sarcastic! Did I miss something?

You know by focusing on her like this you're empowering her?
Seriously. I didn't consider this woman as anyone more than another protester. Now that Republicans and conservatives are attacking her she's more than another protester.

SB, I'm pretty sure the original poster is a wind-up. The line about Birmingham, Alabama was just too much.

SB, I'm pretty sure the original poster is a wind-up. The line about Birmingham, Alabama was just too much.

Well, these days it's hard to tell the difference between mind-numbing stupidity and satire about mind-numbing stupidity.

SB, I'm pretty sure the original poster is a wind-up. The line about Birmingham, Alabama was just too much.
Which is why I'm not taking this topic seriously.

You're right this probably is satire. It's hard to read satire nowadays on this forum.

Tell me Guerraheim, are you a fan of Jon Stewart?

Jon Stewart?
President Jon Stewart. ;)

President Jon Stewart. ;)

Ah, yes...if only...

Dave Barry for President.

Maybe she'd have kept trying to make her son into a martyr, but noone would have listned.
Her son is a martyr, just like all the other young men and women sent to die for political reasons that to this day remain unclear and of highly dubious import.
Just like all the unfortunates sent to die by countless scores of grubbing old men in suits with vested interests in profiteering from the all-too familiar human tragedy that is war.

This is sad. Why is there no one around to defend those statements? :(

I'd hardly call Bush's record "sterling".
I'd hardly call a 840 hour vacation "mere".
I'd hardly call discharging firearms "peaceful".
And I'd hardly call Cindy Sheehan a "threat to democracy".

Thank you...

you apparantly missed all the sarcasm

For those of you who don't know, Cindy Sheehan is the woman who is so distraught over losing her prestigous status as a mother of an Iraq war vet...
-SNIP-

Way too much propaganda there buddy. You're sounding like a writer for Pravda.

:eek: Uhoh *runs for it with KGB on heels*

This is sad. Why is there no one around to defend those statements? :(
Okay okay I'll try.

*puts on conservative gear*

Okay. This bitch needs to be put to sleep like a mad dog. 'nuff said.

*takes off gear*

No Conservative Colodia, that is evil!

*puts on gear again*

What's evil is this woman!

*takes off gear again*

Screw you, Colodia!

To think, Bush could defuse the whole thing just by going out and talking to her. The bunker mentality this administration has adopted since the election is very disturbing.

He did that last year. Now she's a tool of the democratic party.

*tumbleweed*

you apparantly missed all the sarcasm

I'll be honest with you, for a second I did. I was all too willing to accept the fact that we had another extreme right-winger.

But, I saw it now, so it's all good!

Bush's ranch where he maintains the land so that he can return to productive life as a farmer after he has finished serving his country as president.

I have to say that the above statement is the single funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time. You, sir, get the coveted Keruvalia Thumbs Up for Excellence in Sarcasm. :D

Just to play devil's advocate....

Even if Bush met with her, she would only chew him out or yell at him, and he'd only respond with what he's been saying to the media, though he'd probably say it nicer to her in person. She's not going to change his mind by protesting or meeting with him, and if she'd listen to his clips on the news she'd realize that.

[/end devil's advocate]

"...return to productive life... after serving our country as President." Far too beautiful a subtle point to not be applauded.
*applauds*

Well, these days it's hard to tell the difference between mind-numbing stupidity and satire about mind-numbing stupidity.

Quite so. It's a sad fact of modern life that some people are so stupid, no attempt to make fun of their views could possibly be more ridiculous than those views themselves.

This poster, however, is deserving of some serious props for an excellent "Skapedroe of the Right" routine.

Okay okay I'll try.

*puts on conservative gear*

Okay. This bitch needs to be put to sleep like a mad dog. 'nuff said.

*takes off gear*

No Conservative Colodia, that is evil!

*puts on gear again*

What's evil is this woman!

*takes off gear again*

Screw you, Colodia!


Ahahhahah, awesome post! Seems like that is what things are becoming more and more, though without the schziophrenic(sp) person doing it all.



Oh, and if this thread was intended for sarcasm, nevermind my post above.

"...return to productive life... after serving our country as President." Far too beautiful a subtle point to not be applauded.
*applauds*

Ooh, very good. I didn't catch that one.

dp

He did that last year. Now she's a tool of the democratic party.

Of course she's a tool of the Democrats. Nevertheless, if he made a sincere attempt to speak with her (from everything I've heard and read, last year's was anything but), she'd have little choice but to fade into obscurity.

Too much sarcasm in the first post.

I think she's waiting for this:

"No we didn't have any real reason to go to war but back in 2002 while Cheeny was smacking me around in the oval office during our daily 'session' he told me that we must get the oil in Iraq... We were high then."

(I think it's funny to think it was possible that Bush and Cheeny would have a dirty peverted homosexual relationship)

I think all of us wants to at least see the President use training wheels. :Dnot me...I want him to try to ride a bike...again and again...
I also send him Pretzels every x-mas :D

http://ol.the650.org/image/bush_segway_idiotproof.jpg

Just to play devil's advocate....

Even if Bush met with her, she would only chew him out or yell at him, and he'd only respond with what he's been saying to the media, though he'd probably say it nicer to her in person. She's not going to change his mind by protesting or meeting with him, and if she'd listen to his clips on the news she'd realize that.

[/end devil's advocate]

She has a right to protest, so she's protesting. I think she's an idiot for it, but I've no desire to take her right to be an idiot away. She got her one-on-one with the President. He gave her face time. Her son was a real hero. He volunteered to serve. He volunteered (4 times) to go to Iraq. He volunteered to leave his job as a mechanic and enter the combat zone to help pull out fellow soldiers. This guy was a true hero. She is a grieving mother (although he died over a year and a half ago and i really believe grieving has given way to spotlight addiction). No good will come from Bush meeting with her AGAIN. She'll rail on him, call him names, cry, blubber, and then demand things he can't and won't give her. Then she'll take those unmet demands and hand them over to Michael Moore and his entourage of idiot celebrities and create new/improved propoganda to use on Bush. What's the point?

What's the point?
That when one assumes control of a nation divided, it's best for all concerned to not play favourites and further polarize your electorate?

How can we convince the American people to see past their pity for this woman, and the apparant patriotic cachet that she claims her position gives her, and to see her for what she is, a vile threat to our national security and the emotional stability of our Commander in Chief?
She dishonors the name of her son and renders his death meaningless by her actions.

Of course she's a tool of the Democrats. Nevertheless, if he made a sincere attempt to speak with her (from everything I've heard and read, last year's was anything but), she'd have little choice but to fade into obscurity.


and what have you heard? What I heard about their meeting was she left feeling very good about everything (all things considered). That she was telling everyone how nice and sincere Bush was.

She dishonors the name of her son and renders his death meaningless by her actions.
She does nothing of the sort. He was her son before he was a soldier.

Shame on you, war-monger.

That when one assumes control of a nation divided, it's best for all concerned to not play favourites and further polarize your electorate?

play favorites and further polarize ... eh what? How is he playing favorites? he's talked to this woman. She's already gotten her chance to say what she wanted to say. A very small percentage of people ever get a chance to speak with this or any president. Now she should get a second chance?

http://billmon.org/archives/002082.html

Read it.

She does nothing of the sort. He was her son before he was a soldier.

Shame on you, war-monger.

The man died doing what he believed was right. Now she tells everyone it was for nothing. Sounds like dishonoring to me. How do you get war-monger out of that statement?

How is he playing favorites?
By pursuing a rabidly right-wing agenda with no checks and balances on the slimmest of electoral mandates.

That's how he's playing favourites and further polarizing an already divided nation. Cindy Sheehan is a flashpoint for his record of absurdly poor governance and a deliberate lack of transparency.

The man died doing what he believed was right. Now she tells everyone it was for nothing. Sounds like dishonoring to me. How do you get war-monger out of that statement?
Her son did die for nothing. Nothing whatsoever. The dishonour is Mr. Bush's, for sending her son to die for nothing.

I get 'war-moger' from that statement because Eutrusca would seek to invalidate a mother's love for her son in light of the supposed superiority of her son's relationship with the military and the besuited war-hawks who were complicit in her son's utterly pointless and meaningless death.

She dishonors the name of her son and renders his death meaningless by her actions.

Absolutely. She not only goes against the wishes of her family, but against those of her son who wanted to do what he thought was right. She is using this death as an excuse to push her agenda. The sad thing is, nobody outside of the family will remember her son's death, only her protesting.

Could somebody please explain what "Israel out of Palestine" has to do with her son's sacrifice?

Her son did die for nothing. Nothing whatsoever. The dishonour is Mr. Bush's, for sending her son to die for nothing.

Wait, what? Died for nothing?

That's not true. He died so they could create an Islamic Republic that is even less free than under Saddam.

Duh!

and what have you heard? What I heard about their meeting was she left feeling very good about everything (all things considered). That she was telling everyone how nice and sincere Bush was.

According to this article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/07/mom.protest/) (for example), she "found little comfort in his comments," a sentiment I've seen reflected in every other article I read. It makes sense -- if she'd really been satisfied with his sincerity the first time, she wouldn't be doing this.

Wait, what? Died for nothing?

That's not true. He died so they could create an Islamic Republic that is even less free than under Saddam.

Duh!
Yes, quite right. How foolish of me, I stand corrected.

ANOTHER GREAT DAY FOR DEMOCRACY.

http://billmon.org/archives/002082.html

Read it.

oh puh-lease! :rolleyes:

I mean, what could be more preposterous than the sight of the mighty GOP propaganda war machine -- built up with such effort and at such great cost -- aiming all its guns at one bereaved, 48-year-old mother camped by the side of the road in Crawford, Texas?

Like the GOP brought all this up. If this isn't a case of the democrats exploiting a grieving mother I don't know what is. Nobody is villinizing this woman, not even the GOP. Everyone has sympathy for her but that doesn't mean everyone must bow down to her either. She believes she has the answers to solve all of the world problems and she believes she can persuade the president to listen, learn, and fix everything using her strategic plans. She should have gone home, but instead the media, Michael Moore, and the democrats are feeding her grief and coaxing her to stay and keep this nonsense up. The propoganda here belongs to the democrats, NOT the GOP. Not this time anyway.

According to this article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/07/mom.protest/) (for example), she "found little comfort in his comments," a sentiment I've seen reflected in every other article I read. It makes sense -- if she'd really been satisfied with his sincerity the first time, she wouldn't be doing this.

don't read the articles written last week about how she felt last year. Read the articles from last year about how she felt last year.

If this isn't a case of the democrats exploiting a grieving mother I don't know what is. Nobody is vilinize this woman, not even the GOP

Bill O'Reilly called her behavior bordering on traitorous. Nobody's villainizing her?

Give me one example of where Democrats have "exploited" her. If by exploited you mean "supported her original message", then I guess Republicans exploit James Dobson every single day.

don't read the articles written last week about how she felt last year. Read the articles from last year about how she felt last year.

You know, there was doubt expressed even then... but you know what? It isn't June 2004. It's August 2005.

Care to tell me how that could actually mean something? Well, intelligent people use evidence to come up with their conclusions. Since then, there's been the Downing Street Memos, the 9/11 commission, hundreds more dead, and two more government reports documenting Iraq as having no weapons of mass destruction prior to the war.

So people aren't allowed to change their opinions, ever, anymore? Even if they're right?

What Bush is doing is shameful. Now, before you oil up your guns and hunt me down, let me 'splain:)
Bush is the lord of the land. Sorta, as in, he commands the military and is the central head of government. As the commander of her son, he has an obligation to face her and speak with her. When a man feigns from a woman, he shows his true nature. Therefore, he is a coward, since cowardice is nothing more than having a discriminating mind.

She does nothing of the sort. He was her son before he was a soldier.

Shame on you, war-monger.
So she refuses to let him become an adult and make his own decisions, even after he's dead? Interesting.

What Bush is doing is shameful. Now, before you oil up your guns and hunt me down, let me 'splain:)
Bush is the lord of the land. Sorta, as in, he commands the military and is the central head of government. As the commander of her son, he has an obligation to face her and speak with her. When a man feigns from a woman, he shows his true nature. Therefore, he is a coward, since cowardice is nothing more than having a discriminating mind.
Do you have any idea WTF you are trying to say???

Bill O'Reilly called her behavior bordering on traitorous. Nobody's villainizing her?

Give me one example of where Democrats have "exploited" her. If by exploited you mean "supported her original message", then I guess Republicans exploit James Dobson every single day.

how? By feeding her ego and encouraging her to sit outside in the Texas heat for a month, reliving the pain of her loss for the media while serving no purpose except to give THEM ammunition to use against him.

What Bush is doing is shameful. Now, before you oil up your guns and hunt me down, let me 'splain:)
Bush is the lord of the land. Sorta, as in, he commands the military and is the central head of government. As the commander of her son, he has an obligation to face her and speak with her. When a man feigns from a woman, he shows his true nature. Therefore, he is a coward, since cowardice is nothing more than having a discriminating mind.

he DID face her and speak with her. Is he now obligated to be at her beckoned call whenever she thinks up new questions or angry tirades for the remainder of his term in office?

Seeing how well Bush rides bikes, I'd favor him doing so more often. Taking away his safety helmet would do the trick, not the bike :D

how? By feeding her ego and encouraging her to sit outside in the Texas heat for a month, reliving the pain of her loss for the media while serving no purpose except to give THEM ammunition to use against him.

Again: show me where Democrats are exploiting her. I'm assuming you're referring to politicians, right? Or are you angry because people who support her views are supporting her? :(

She went out there by herself and drew press coverage by herself (hell, White House press corps have nothing else to do while they're covering Crawford).

She dishonors the name of her son and renders his death meaningless by her actions.

No, that would be Bush who's doing that.

Let me spell it out for you: The Iraq war was a mistake. Her son died for Bush's mistake. She's trying to prevent anyone else from dying for Bush's mistake.

Continuing to support Bush's mistake out of misguided patriotism is stupid. Calling a mistake a mistake is not unpatriotic and does not dishonor the men and women who have died for it. It is a condemnation of Bush's lies, misjudgement, and inability to lead, period.

Like the GOP brought all this up. If this isn't a case of the democrats exploiting a grieving mother I don't know what is. Nobody is villinizing this woman, not even the GOP. Everyone has sympathy for her but that doesn't mean everyone must bow down to her either. She believes she has the answers to solve all of the world problems and she believes she can persuade the president to listen, learn, and fix everything using her strategic plans. She should have gone home, but instead the media, Michael Moore, and the democrats are feeding her grief and coaxing her to stay and keep this nonsense up. The propoganda here belongs to the democrats, NOT the GOP. Not this time anyway.

This reminds me of once when Powerline demonized Democrats for wanting Bush to talk with them when choosing a Supreme Court Nominee. It's a reasonable request for a party representing half of America to want to have input on who the nominee is. But Powerline painted them in the most unreasonable and extreme light, taking that meager request and turning it into "The Dems want Bush to endorse their nominee."

Which brings us to this stupid post. Take a reasonable concern, and assume every extreme. Then, attack those assumed extremes which you invented.

For example:
She believes she has the answers to solve all of the world problems and she believes she can persuade the president to listen, learn, and fix everything using her strategic plans.
Why the hell should anyone take that seriously?

Or for that matter:
If this isn't a case of the democrats exploiting a grieving mother I don't know what is.
As if there is nothing more to the story. As if she were tricked. As if the fact there is a mother, and she is sad, and endured a tragedy, makes it exploitation, regardless.

You offer us nothing useful.

No, that would be Bush who's doing that.

Let me spell it out for you: The Iraq war was a mistake. Her son died for Bush's mistake. She's trying to prevent anyone else from dying for Bush's mistake.

Continuing to support Bush's mistake out of misguided patriotism is stupid. Calling a mistake a mistake is not unpatriotic and does not dishonor the men and women who have died for it. It is a condemnation of Bush's lies, misjudgement, and inability to lead, period.

No, she's protesting to push an agenda. She's violating the wishes of her family and denigrating the cause that her son felt was right.

Again, what does "Israel out of Palestine" have to do with her son's death or even the Iraq war?

don't read the articles written last week about how she felt last year. Read the articles from last year about how she felt last year.

The only article from last year was this one (http://www.thereporter.com/republished/ci_2923921) from The Reporter (Sheehan's hometown paper). I also found this page (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009), which critiques the accuracy and completeness of the article. It's hardly an unbiased site, but the things it says make sense.

You can ask pretty much any poster in this thread, and they'll tell you I'm no liberal. I'm just looking for the explanation that best fits the facts, and I can't for the life of my imagine what would prompt Sheehan to change her story if she was satisfied with her first meeting.

What Bush is doing is shameful. Now, before you oil up your guns and hunt me down, let me 'splain:)
Bush is the lord of the land. Sorta, as in, he commands the military and is the central head of government. As the commander of her son, he has an obligation to face her and speak with her. When a man feigns from a woman, he shows his true nature. Therefore, he is a coward, since cowardice is nothing more than having a discriminating mind.

Cowardice is allowing fear to prevent one from undertaking the wisest or most proper course of action.

It would be wise of Bush to meet with Cindy Sheehan and take the wind out of this movement that's building up around her. So it's cowardly of him to avoid meeting with her for fear of what she might say.

It would have been proper for him to allow the weapons inspectors to finish their work in Iraq, it was cowardly of him not to allow it for fear of their coming out with the news that Saddam had no WMD's.

It would be cowardly for a Vietnam supporter to run to Canada and seek conscientious objector status. It would be cowardly for one who opposed the Vietnam war to join the military for fear of how it would look not to. It would be especially cowardly to join the military for fear of reprisals, but join a part of it that would not be sent to combat for fear of seeing any.

Bush has been a coward all his life.

Cindy Sheehan disgusts me. I can't believe someone would use the death of their son for political purposes. Bush is no coward. He's met with this lady before. He has no obligation to meet her. I find her views so repulsive. She's been totally hijacked by extreme leftist organizations and if I was Bush, I'd just ignore her. I'm totally disgusted how she could use her son like that. And now her husband is filing for divorce:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html

There are just a few hundred radicals out there.. I don't call that big. Plenty of Bush supporters where Bush is.. that's Bush country. I hope they do something stupid. Like invade that guy's property again.

Nobody's answered my question:

What does "Israel out of Palestine" have to do with her son's death in Iraq?

Cindy Sheehan disgusts me. I can't believe someone would use the death of their son for political purposes. Bush is no coward. He's met with this lady before. He has no obligation to meet her. I find her views so repulsive. She's been totally hijacked by extreme leftist organizations and if I was Bush, I'd just ignore her. I'm totally disgusted how she could use her son like that. And now her husband is filing for divorce:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html
I'm not surprised. If my ex had attempted to dishonor the memory of a dead son for some bogus political ends, I would divorce her ass too! :mad:

This reminds me of once when Powerline demonized Democrats for wanting Bush to talk with them when choosing a Supreme Court Nominee. It's a reasonable request for a party representing half of America to want to have input on who the nominee is. But Powerline painted them in the most unreasonable and extreme light, taking that meager request and turning it into "The Dems want Bush to endorse their nominee."

And the funny thing is, that's pretty much what happened with Clinton.

He consulted Orrin Hatch and it was he who recommended Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Recently the right has been trying to paint her as being the embodiment of the far "loony left" as if any such thing existed in this country, when she's actually one of the more conservative justices on the bench. Conservative of the old guard mind you, which is pretty much communist in the eyes of this bunch on the "moony right."

Nobody's answered my question:

What does "Israel out of Palestine" have to do with her son's death in Iraq?


Nothing. Her protest has now just become a place for people of all movements to go to get air time, just as they do when there are G-8, WHO or World Bank meetings. Which sickens me some, since people are protesting there for stuff that has nothing to do with what she's protesting.

Nothing. Her protest has now just become a place for people of all movements to go to get air time, just as they do when there are G-8, WHO or World Bank meetings. Which sickens me some, since people are protesting there for stuff that has nothing to do with what she's protesting.

She's nothing more than a selfish activist who is using her son to push a radical agenda. She's always been an activist, and this provided her the opportunity to push it while sympathy runs high; she's an opportunist at her own son's death, and that sickens me.

Nobody's answered my question:

What does "Israel out of Palestine" have to do with her son's death in Iraq?

Nothing. The left has no unity. The right is run military style. People who have no governing moral compass other than loyalty to the leaders do as they're told and reinterpret the facts in accordance with the spin. It's like they're trying to navigate a ship by compass while some idiot is running around the decks with an electromagnet. That's why the invasion of Iraq has been painted as a good thing sequentioally because of avenging 9/11, no, stopping the spread of WMD's, no, setting the people of Iraq free, no, ending the rape rooms, oops, spreading democracy, how's that one flying?

OTH, the left are guided by personal ideals and seek out allies wherever they can find them in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," style of political alliance. Start a protest opposing an unjust war, and if it get's big enough you'll see a sign that says "save the whales."

OTH, the left are guided by personal ideals and seek out allies wherever they can find them in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," style of political alliance. Start a protest opposing an unjust war, and if it get's big enough you'll see a sign that says "save the whales."

Unjust war? Wrong. It was very right and very just. People should protest the left wing in this country and protest their political nonsense.... especially with regards with Cindy Sheehan.

Nobody's answered my question:

What does "Israel out of Palestine" have to do with her son's death in Iraq?

Probably the fact that that conflict is a driving force for Muslim anti-West sentiment which has spurred on the conflict in that part of the world, which her son lost his life to.

Probably the fact that that conflict is a driving force for Muslim anti-West sentiment which has spurred on the conflict in that part of the world, which her son lost his life to.

No. Anti-west sentiment has been around for decades. And the Israel/Palestinian conflict has been around for decades. Wars between Israel and the Arab world have been numerous, and that has fueled anti-west sentiment. With or without the Iraq war, things would be the same.

I'm not surprised. If my ex had attempted to dishonor the memory of a dead son for some bogus political ends, I would divorce her ass too! :mad:

That's a joke right? You're no longer with her and you would have divorced her?

I know you're a Bush supporter, and a war supporter. And on this topic of talking to the people vs. Bush's exercise vis a vis bike rides you're appearantly an athletic supporter.

You're an older gentleman, so I feel it fair to ask:
Do you even have kids?

Honestly, I don't know how you could see the world in such devotedly Republican terms that you would assume that to oppose the war it's more likely that this woman's motherly love is subordinated to an unrelated political agenda.

If you don't have kids then I can tell you that things like political ideology, favored candidates, and current events all become trivial when compared to the love you have for your child, and I would assume the grief you feel at their loss (I have a child, but I've never lost one, thank goodness).

If you do have kids, I feel really sorry for them.

Probably the fact that that conflict is a driving force for Muslim anti-West sentiment which has spurred on the conflict in that part of the world, which her son lost his life to.

No, it has nothing to do with the Iraq war, because that situation has been going on before Iraq was even a plan in the Pentagon. She is using her limelight to push that ideology even though it has nothing to do with her son's death.

Honestly, I don't know how you could see the world in such devotedly Republican terms that you would assume that to oppose the war it's more likely that this woman's motherly love is subordinated to an unrelated political agenda.

We all know that's false and this is all about politics. Obviously her husband knows it is about politics.. and now is filing for divorce.



If you do have kids, I feel really sorry for them.

Because of the political views he holds?

Unjust war? Wrong. It was very right and very just. People should protest the left wing in this country and protest their political nonsense.... especially with regards with Cindy Sheehan.

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
- George Orwell

Unjust war? Wrong. It was very right and very just. People should protest the left wing in this country and protest their political nonsense.... especially with regards with Cindy Sheehan.

I agree completly with the second half of that post. There should be far more protesting of Cindy Shehan, because the more the so-called "Pro-family" people denegrate the love of a mother for her lost son, and the patriotism of a woman whose son gave his life for this country, the more people will see how insane the right wing has gotten.

Like when the Freedom Riders were just "aggitators and malcontents" until authorities started beating them to death. Then the civil rights movement kicked in.

Maybe this will be what leads people to realize that "Vietnam Syndrome" is not a disease, but a beneficial adaptation of an Imperial body seeking to immunize itself against pathalogical behaviors such as wars of choice being fought for material gain.

I even agree with part of the first half of your post. It was a very right wing war, but it is just a right wing occupation now.

Congrats on quoting orwell. Congrats on being totally irrelevant.

Yup. Because the more the so-called "Pro-family" people denegrate the love of a mother for her lost son, and the patriotism of a woman whose son gave his life for this country the more people will see how insane the right wing has gotten.

She has no patriotism because she uses her son for political purposes in order to push an agenda. I find that disgusting. I'm surprised you don't. That's really sick in the head for her to do that. I'm guessing if her son saw this he would be really angry. He fought for his country and she is using him for her own sick political agenda.

Yup. Because the more the so-called "Pro-family" people denegrate the love of a mother for her lost son, and the patriotism of a woman whose son gave his life for this country the more people will see how insane the right wing has gotten.

Maybe this will be what leads people to realize that "Vietnam Syndrome" is not a disease, but a beneficial adaptation of an Imperial body seeking to immunize itself against pathalogical behaviors such as very unjust wars fought for material gain.

So patriotism is pushing your agenda by using your son's death, and doing this against the wishes of the rest of the family? Or is it using that death to push causes totally unrelated to the death of her son? I support her freedom of speech, but I can also us my freedom of speech to show how wrong her actions are.

Yes, calling those soliders "babykillers" and spitting, throwing garbage, attacking, denigrating, and humiliating them was something to be proud of. Or how about telling them their cause was unjust and thei deaths worthless? The Vietnam Syndrome was one of America's most shameful times.

No. Anti-west sentiment has been around for decades. And the Israel/Palestinian conflict has been around for decades. Wars between Israel and the Arab world have been numerous, and that has fueled anti-west sentiment. With or without the Iraq war, things would be the same.

I think you have my point backwards. Yes, it is agreed that with or without the Iraq war the Isreali/Palestinian conflict would be the same. But that doesn't work the other way around. That conflict influences, and makes worse, the situation in the Iraq war.

I think its circular. The hatred produces a conflict, which inflames the hatred, which produces conflicts. That general unrest makes possible the insurgency in Iraq, which killed her son.

TO:
Mesatecala & Eutrusca and all the other supporters of Bush's policy on this issue...

I ask of you to stand back for a minute, and picture this.

Someone extremely dear to you; someone you love has decided that they are going to show their utmost loyalty to their country. They are then sent off to an unjustifiable war (in the sense that the public was misled and lied to -- and yes, there was no terrorism there before, but now their is).

You then receive word of their death.

Now unless you're some heartless SOB/bitch, you're going to grieve and you're going to grieve hard because you didn't think that this death or any of the others should've happen. You don't think that anyone else who has loved ones overseas in a foreign nation, should lose them to a war that was launched on lies and deceit.

Or...even if you did support the war, you probably feel hurt/betrayed because you were told that it would be a nice easy operation, but the deaths are mounting and one of the deaths now includes a love ones.

That loved one is either a brother, sister, husband, wife, cousin, aunt, uncle, mother, father, or some other relation, or even a dear friend. But, in any case, this person died. And others who died, probably meant something to someone else, even if that person meant nothing to you because they are just another citizen, and they have no immediate affect on your life.

Yes, those who have survived their own wars should really stop to think long and hard.

What if...what if instead of coming home from your tour of duty in the manner you did, what if you came home in a bodybag? Would your family not have grieved for you? They would've wanted your memory honoured but for other families not to lose someone close like they have.

Yes, there are the cases of parents and relatives and enemies telling you they hate you, et cetera, but they don't matter. They don't matter because there is someone who was fighting at home for you to be safe.

Yes, war is hell, but it's even more dangerous when led on a pack of lies.

WWII was different; there was a real threat: JAPAN. They bombed Pearl Harbor. They invited a massive retaliation.

But Vietnam...it wasn't even an American war! It was a French one.

The Gulf War was justified. Kuwait was invaded and help was needed.

But the new one? There is a lot of evidence that points to zero justifiability of the war itself.

Before you start dismissing Sheehan and others, consider that they aren't seeking to dishonour the actions and memories of those who served, but rather help others not lose their loved ones.

There is enough hatred and war in the world.

Someone extremely dear to you; someone you love has decided that they are going to show their utmost loyalty to their country. They are then sent off to an unjustifiable war (in the sense that the public was misled and lied to -- and yes, there was no terrorism there before, but now their is).

Two relatives of mine are in the Iraq, and this war is justifiable. I just completely disagree with you. So please don't try to paint me as ignorant or insensitive.


Now unless you're some heartless SOB/bitch, you're going to grieve and you're going to grieve hard because you didn't think that this death or any of the others should've happen. You don't think that anyone else who has loved ones overseas in a foreign nation, should lose them to a war that was launched on lies and deceit.

I would grieve, but I would not change my beliefs. Instead rather I would keep politics out of it. She on the other hand brought in politics and is now using her son as a political tool for her own agenda. Now that's heartless. This war was justified and right. Your rhetoric is not going to change my position.

Or...even if you did support the war, you probably feel hurt/betrayed because you were told that it would be a nice easy operation, but the deaths are mounting and one of the deaths now includes a love ones.

I knew that it was not going to be easy. And I knew we would have to stay until the job gets done.


What if...what if instead of coming home from your tour of duty in the manner you did, what if you came home in a bodybag? Would your family not have grieved for you? They would've wanted your memory honoured but for other families not to lose someone close like they have.

My family has an extensive past in the military, so please don't try to minimize my own perspective on the matter. This lady is not honoring her memory and is using him as a political tool. That sickens me and that is why her husband is now leaving her.

Yes, war is hell, but it's even more dangerous when led on a pack of lies.

Oh give me a damn break and cut out the damn rhetoric. It undermines your own credibility.

But the new one? There is a lot of evidence that points to zero justifiability of the war itself.

Before you start dismissing Sheehan and others, consider that they aren't seeking to dishonour the actions and memories of those who served, but rather help others not lose their loved ones.

Oh please. You don't know what you're saying and to whom. Let me say this to you: I believe in this war because I wanted Saddam gone. This was for humanitarian reasons. So they can have a chance at a good working constitution and government. The constitiution is being decided on right now. It isn't going to be easy, but it is going to get done. I'm happy they are going to vote on a constitution and then a government.

Two relatives of mine are in the Iraq, and this war is justifiable. I just completely disagree with you. So please don't try to paint me as ignorant or insensitive.

Uh...exactly how is saying that the "public was misled" painting you as ignorant or insensitive? It's saying that the public was given a hefty helping from the GOP propoganda feeding trough.

I wasn't insulting you or even calling you any of those things. But, you can't deny that the government misled the public when they spewed feces-laden lies about fantatiscal WMD.

Yes, Iraq may have once had such capabilities. But, if they had them at the time of the invasion (and hence, justification at the time), wouldn't they have made full use of them to push back the invading American forces?


I would grieve, but I would not change my beliefs. Instead rather I would keep politics out of it. She on the other hand brought in politics and is now using her son as a political tool for her own agenda. Now that's heartless. This war was justified and right. Your rhetoric is not going to change my position.

It's no more heartless than the GOP use of Mrs. Terri Shiavo.

Exactly what is her agenda? Pushing for an exit strategy to bring home the troops and get them out of that quagmire called "Iraq" - or as it should be renamed for its current state of pseudo-anarchy "A-wreck".

Actually, I'm not trying to change your mind. I was attempting to get you to try and see through the eyes of your enemy for a moment so that you can better understand where they are coming from.

I know where you and your fellow supporters are coming from: you believe and feel that this war is right because you sincerely believe that you're giving the Iraqi people a sacred gift - democracy, even if it comes at the cost of thousands of Iraqi, American and other lives. After all, democracy didn't come about without bloodshed. (Though history oughtn't have to repeat itself)

I knew that it was not going to be easy. And I knew we would have to stay until the job gets done.

This I agree with, but for different reasons.

My family has an extensive past in the military, so please don't try to minimize my own perspective on the matter. This lady is not honoring her memory and is using him as a political tool. That sickens me and that is why her husband is now leaving her.

My family has a bit of a military past as well.

Oh and not to nitpick, but should it be '...honouring his memory...' (you input her and not his)

You know, if she is using her son as a 'political tool', then in the past, many people have done the same thing when they've lobbied for reformation to the system.

Oh give me a damn break and cut out the damn rhetoric. It undermines your own credibility.

Oh, now freedom of speech is being limited when one doesn't like the word choice of another?

Oh please. You don't know what you're saying and to whom. Let me say this to you: I believe in this war because I wanted Saddam gone. This was for humanitarian reasons. So they can have a chance at a good working constitution and government. The constitiution is being decided on right now. It isn't going to be easy, but it is going to get done. I'm happy they are going to vote on a constitution and then a government.

Democracy can't be used as a 'one-size fits all' type of solution because different cultures have different ideas.

While the humanitarian reasons have pure intentions (and is a very good reason. After all, who can disagree with humanitarian reasons?), I can't say I agree because of the massive loss of lives.

You're right this probably is satire. It's hard to read satire nowadays on this forum.

Tell me Guerraheim, are you a fan of Jon Stewart?

Yes, but the name Guerraheim is reserved for Ironic far right wing propaganda. Eventually, rather than explain myself, I'll just direct people to look up my other posts and draw their own conclusions.

I'm a huge Jon Stewart fan.

Well, I'm a fairly moderatly sized Jon Stewart fan, but pound for pound I'm disproportionatly fond of his comedy.

Uh...exactly how is saying that the "public was misled" painting you as ignorant or insensitive? It's saying that the public was given a hefty helping from the GOP propoganda feeding trough.

I don't agree at all. In fact I never will agree with. I'm very committed to my own beliefs and the fact that this war was proper and correct.


It's no more heartless than the GOP use of Mrs. Terri Shiavo.

I didn't agree with what they did there..

Exactly what is her agenda? Pushing for an exit strategy to bring home the troops and get them out of that quagmire called "Iraq" - or as it should be renamed for its current state of pseudo-anarchy "A-wreck".

It isn't a quagmire. And furthermore, troops are not going to come out of Iraq right now. We need to help them get elections on track. You are speaking falsely.


Actually, I'm not trying to change your mind. I was attempting to get you to try and see through the eyes of your enemy for a moment so that you can better understand where they are coming from.

I don't understand them and I find them disgusting.

even if it comes at the cost of thousands of Iraqi, American and other lives. After all, democracy didn't come about without bloodshed. (Though history oughtn't have to repeat itself)

American democracy came with a heavy price and a huge civil war. Democracy isn't without sacrifice.


Oh and not to nitpick, but should it be '...honouring his memory...' (you input her and not his)

Correction noted.

You know, if she is using her son as a 'political tool', then in the past, many people have done the same thing when they've lobbied for reformation to the system.

I think she is doing that. I don't feel the system needs any reforming. It is fine the way it is.


Oh, now freedom of speech is being limited when one doesn't like the word choice of another?

Did I say that? I have repeatably said people can be free to express their incorrect (in my eyes) views all they want.

Democracy can't be used as a 'one-size fits all' type of solution because different cultures have different ideas.

That's why they are talking about how they can make a constitution work according to their own culture.


I can't say I agree because of the massive loss of lives.

Massive loss of lives? I don't think there has been a massive loss of lives.

I believe in this war because I wanted Saddam gone. This was for humanitarian reasons.

I don't know how you can continue to beleive this. First you have to get over the fact that we were lied to and that it is about oil interests, and that there were plans, in Project for a New American Century documents, for Iraq before Bush even became president.

Remember WMD's?
Remember the terrorism connection?
Ever hear about the $100+ million that the U.S. spent to get its favored expatriate Iraqi's in power in the new government?
Remember exploiting 9/11 to get us in Iraq? (you, who's concerned with Sheehan's 'exploiting'!)
Downing St. Memo?
Changing rationales?
Saddam "Has sought mass quantities of Uranium"???

Even if you can get over all of those, you still have how out of priority this humanitarian project is compared to other humanitarian crises, other dictators (which we to this day actively support), other countries that ACTUALLY have WMD's.

I'm sorry, but if you are going to say it's a just war, you are going to hear why it isn't.

I don't know how you can continue to beleive this. First you have to get over the fact that we were lied to and that it is about oil interests, and that there were plans, in Project for a New American Century documents, for Iraq before Bush even became president.

I don't give a fuck if you can't respect my views on this war and how I can support this war. I don't care for anything else you say, as it is irrelevant and politically driven. You have to cut out with this blood for oil crap and these so called lies.


I'm sorry, but if you are going to say it's a just war, you are going to hear why it isn't.

It was very just and very correct. You need to get the facts. Saddam was a brutal dictator who has murdered hundreds of thousands, and he had to go.

Remember WMD's?

What WMD's? Oh yeah...Waffles of Mass Deliciousness! ;)

Remember the terrorism connection?

Well, now there is. Look at all those insurgents... far as the eye can see!

Ever hear about the $100+ million that the U.S. spent to get its favored expatriate Iraqi's in power in the new government?

We weren't supposed to know about that! Shhh...

Remember exploiting 9/11 to get us in Iraq? (you, who's concerned with Sheehan's 'exploiting'!)

No, they aren't exploiting...they're uh...they're uh...trying to uh... BAH! Screw it! Call it what it is!

Downing St. Memo?

Oh! I remember! Isn't that a memo Churchill got about Hitler's plans to dance around in a pink tutu? :D

Changing rationales?

What? Can't a person change their mind? :eek:

Saddam "Has sought mass quantities of Uranium"???

Uh yeah... he was seeking to make a new sex toy out of them!

I'm going to say this: I agree to disagree. I'm sorry for using foul language, but I'm really tired of people trying to ruin my beliefs in this war. I'm a stubborn person. Anyways, I'm going out for lunch and I'm also withdrawing from this thread because people have tolerance issues.

I'm going to say this: I agree to disagree. I'm sorry for using foul language, but I'm really tired of people trying to ruin my beliefs in this war. I'm a stubborn person. Anyways, I'm going out for lunch and I'm also withdrawing from this thread because people have tolerance issues.
I tolerate your beliefs - I just don't agree.

Have a good lunch.

I'm going to say this: I agree to disagree. I'm sorry for using foul language, but I'm really tired of people trying to ruin my beliefs in this war. I'm a stubborn person. Anyways, I'm going out for lunch and I'm also withdrawing from this thread because people have tolerance issues.
if it wasn't so damnably tragic, I'd be laughing myself hoarse.

Screw the psychopathic bitch.

Screw the psychopathic bitch.
Spoken like a gentleman.

That's a joke right? You're no longer with her and you would have divorced her?

I know you're a Bush supporter, and a war supporter. And on this topic of talking to the people vs. Bush's exercise vis a vis bike rides you're appearantly an athletic supporter.

You're an older gentleman, so I feel it fair to ask:
Do you even have kids?

Honestly, I don't know how you could see the world in such devotedly Republican terms that you would assume that to oppose the war it's more likely that this woman's motherly love is subordinated to an unrelated political agenda.

If you don't have kids then I can tell you that things like political ideology, favored candidates, and current events all become trivial when compared to the love you have for your child, and I would assume the grief you feel at their loss (I have a child, but I've never lost one, thank goodness).

If you do have kids, I feel really sorry for them.
There's no need to feel sorry for my five grown children ( or, for that matter my seven grandchildren ). I raised my children to love each other, love their family, love their community, and love their Country. They make their own decisions about what each of those things mean in the particular, and I have always supported their decisions whatever they may be.

This ... person ... has dishonored the memory of her son who volunteered to serve in his Country's armed forces. And yes, if this had happened in my own family ( which it never could! ) I would have divorced my son's mother for being a friggin' idiot and for dishonoring our son's memory.

Call me a "war supporter" and a "bush supporter" and an "athletic supporter" again and I'll report your vindictive ass for flaming.

Call me a "war supporter" and a "bush supporter" and an "athletic supporter" again and I'll report your vindictive ass for flaming.
Only the last of those could be considered a flame, the first two would be an accurate assesment of your position based on the posts that you have made here.

One could sign up for the military thinking that is the best way to serve and then have that sacrafice dishonored by a Commander in Chief who uses them for personal vendettas or agendas that have little to do with the security of the nation. A mother can hold that Commander in Chief repsonsable for that waste of her sons sacrafice because she feels that the President did not honor it.

To say we shouldn't question it is to go against the very thing the military is supposed to defend, which does a far greater disservice to her son and every one else who has served.

Call me a "war supporter" and a "bush supporter" and an "athletic supporter" again and I'll report your vindictive ass for flaming.


:tweaks Eut's nose: war-supporter....

but is that such a bad thing? i support the war. Still can't wait till we get out of it tho (iran is next i'm sure :P)

Call me a "war supporter" and a "bush supporter" and an "athletic supporter" again and I'll report your vindictive ass for flaming.
So you feel supporting the war is offensive? And Bush, too? You must be some kinda liberal hippy traitor, then. Unless you're simply being unclear. Which is it, Eut?

Cindy Sheehan disgusts me. I can't believe someone would use the death of their son for political purposes. --snip--

I am stunned. How can you call out a grieving mother for wanting answers, and yet be completely blind to the fact that Bush and his administration clearly and inarguably used 9/11 to further their political agendas? Whether you agree with their political agenda or not, you have to admit that they used the imagery and deaths of 9/11 to push for the Iraq war and for Bush's re-election.

In your view, they used 9/11 to push the correct course of action. What can't be argued by a reasonable person is is that they didn't use 9/11.

Just wanted to point out that blind spot.

I was curious about some of the right-wing material posted here earlier, so I decided to go out and do some of my own research and I came across two articles I'm going to share.

The first is from my favourite source - WIKIPEDIA!

Cindy Sheehan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan)

It has a nice description as well as numerous links that support both the right and the left.

The second is from MediaMatters.

Cindy Sheehan "changed her story on Bush"? Tracking a lie through the conservative media (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009)

Call me a "war supporter" and a "bush supporter" and an "athletic supporter" again and I'll report your vindictive ass for flaming.
You know, if you go to mdos about this, they'll probably laugh at you because there is nothing inflammatory about those statements. One or two may be inaccurate, but they aren't even mild insults.

Interesting to not that her family have denounced her actions and claim that they are opposed to her son's views. It is also interesting to note that her husband filed for divorce today. Just interesting.

*cough*media whore*cough*

What was this about a "bunker mentality" again..?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8941525/site/newsweek/

Privately, Bush has met with about 900 family members of some 270 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The conversations are closed to the press, and Bush does not like to talk about what goes on in these grieving sessions, though there have been hints. An hour after he met with the families at Fort Bragg in June, he gave a hard-line speech on national TV.

The second is from MediaMatters.

Cindy Sheehan "changed her story on Bush"? Tracking a lie through the conservative media (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009)

Quote A "'I now know [Bush is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith,'

Quote B
ANGLE: Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq last year, who's now camped outside President Bush's Crawford ranch demanding to see him, said yesterday on CNN that a private meeting with President Bush last year was offensive, insisting, quote, "He acted like it was a party. He came in very jovial, like we should be happy with that. Our son died for the president's misguided policies."

Now, it would seem to me that the quote B is indeed a reversal from quote A. Just a tad. Whether or not she disagreed with the war is not the issue. Her opinion of the president is. Either she was lying then, is lying now, or in her grief has gone just a little crazy and twisted the interview around in her mind to it's current incarnation.



Also, really funny quote from the Wiki article.

Sheehan rejected this criticism in an interview with Salon.com [46], "They didn't even know Casey. They didn't spend any time with him in his life, and now they're using his death for political reasons, I think". Sheehan also claimed the support of "my immediate family, Casey's dad and my three children and my sister, we're all on the same page. And I really think that some of my husband's siblings are with us too." Substantial doubt was cast on this claim with the news that Patrick Sheehan, Casey's father and Cindy's husband of 28 years, filed for divorce from Mrs. Sheehan on August 12th, 2005.

Now, who's using his death for political reasons again? Who's the one posting on mikeys website?

Interesting to not that her family have denounced her actions and claim that they are opposed to her son's views. It is also interesting to note that her husband filed for divorce today. Just interesting.
Filing for a divorce can happen at any point following separation.

They had been separated in June.

Call me a "war supporter" and a "bush supporter" and an "athletic supporter" again and I'll report your vindictive ass for flaming.*sees the challenge...starts answering the call....

*pauses...
*damn its Eutrusca...hmmm damn what shall I do..what shall I do...do I stabb him or not???
*screw him...Its his fault..he deserves it...
*Damn what was he thinking :confused:
*
*
*Nah... I gotta give him a break this time...after all we almost got married once :D

The woman is an idiot. Shes fine till her son dies then goes on a mad anti-war rave? What a hypocrite. May all the snakes in Texas bite her. MULTIPLE TIMES.

I am dead serious. I'm a right wing extremist and proud of it.

I'd hardly call Bush's record "sterling".
I'd hardly call a 840 hour vacation "mere".
I'd hardly call discharging firearms "peaceful".
And I'd hardly call Cindy Sheehan a "threat to democracy".

Thank you...
Please adjust your sarcasm detector. Thank you.

For those of you who don't know, Cindy Sheehan is the woman who is so distraught over losing her prestigous status as a mother of an Iraq war vet that she has now completly turned against the liberation of Iraq, and the President himself. Part of her tale is glorified here (http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1124011285247770.xml&coll=2) in the press of that bastion of liberal propaganda Birmingham, Alabama.

She maintains a blog in order to seduce people, through her pathos, to join her and the other peaceniks who have set up their hippy singalong camp outside Bush's ranch where he maintains the land so that he can return to productive life as a farmer after he has finished serving his country as president.

Not content to merely discredit his sterling reputation, she now wishes to take away some of what little free time he has. She is calling for the president to meet with her for an hour during his 5 week vacation. His vacation is to last a mere eight hundred and forty hours, and he is supposed to spend one of them playing grief counseler to such and ingrate of an expatriot? The president has already stated publicly that he uses these vacations to keep balance in his life to help make good decisions. This woman is activly working against the security of our nation by working to impair the ability of our president to do his job.

For those of you who think that it doesn't seem quite so bad to demand one hour of his time out of eight hundred and forty, consider that now she is calling for him to make this housecall during his daily two hour bike ride. At two hours a day, of which he has a mere 70 hours during his vacation. It was not enough that she take well over a tenth of a percent of his total vacation time, now she wants to take away almost 2% of his exercise time.

You can read her mad anti-war ravings here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/14/235352/351).

She freely admits to upseting the people of Crawford, who have taken to peacefully discharging firearms to voice their discontent. It is understandable that they would be so upset. The president uses these vacations as a chance to reconnect with the American public and to remind himself of what they really care about so that he doesn't become too hardened by the politics of Washington and forget the people he is representing. How is he supposed to do that when there's a woman in a tent outside his door asking to talk to him?

What can be done to remove this threat to our democracy?
How can we help restore to the president his right to connect with the people he chooses without being corrupted by those who don't agree with him?
How can we convince the American people to see past their pity for this woman, and the apparant patriotic cachet that she claims her position gives her, and to see her for what she is, a vile threat to our national security and the emotional stability of our Commander in Chief?

So, have you ever served in the armed forces? Ever seen combat?

Wikipedia is not a source. Why?

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66210,00.html

It isn't credible either. Anybody can publish articles for it.

The woman is an idiot. Shes fine till her son dies then goes on a mad anti-war rave? What a hypocrite. May all the snakes in Texas bite her. MULTIPLE TIMES.

I am dead serious. I'm a right wing extremist and proud of it.

Please define how, exactly, this is a case of hypocrisy. Also, please cite where she was fine with the war prior to her son's demise.

She dishonors the name of her son and renders his death meaningless by her actions.

Well Captain. Isn't that rather harsh coming from a gentleman?

Is not her freedom of expression the very thing you signed up to defend?

Please define how, exactly, this is a case of hypocrisy. Also, please cite where she was fine with the war prior to her son's demise.

Well the sick thing is not whether she supported the war before her son's death or not.. the sick thing is.. well.. she is using her son for political games. That's just sick in the head. I don't even see how you guys on the left could support her.

The woman is an idiot. Shes fine till her son dies then goes on a mad anti-war rave? What a hypocrite. May all the snakes in Texas bite her. MULTIPLE TIMES.

I am dead serious. I'm a right wing extremist and proud of it.

So when are going to sign up and fight?

My goodness who the the sides have traded places.

Back in the Schiavo affair people were basically calling her parents media whores and how dare the right to lifers use this tragic event for political gain.

The apologists of course were outraged by such claims.

Can we not simply listen to the woman's anguish and give her the pity she deserves?

No parent should have to bury their child.

Also, why are people speaking for the intentions of the soldier? Was he interviewed before he went? Did he tell a bunch of people he was all for the war?

There are soldiers who think this fight is BS, but they do their job as a they are professionals.

Keep in mind right wingers, the more you get nasty about her; the more you get people to her cause.

I don't even see how you guys on the left could support her.
Which is presumably at least part of the reason why you're on the right.

Can we not simply listen to the woman's anguish and give her the pity she deserves?


No. And neither could her husband. She was using her dead son for political goals and that's just plain sick.

Can we not simply listen to the woman's anguish and give her the pity she deserves?

There's a big difference between anguish and milking a situation for all it's worth. When she goes so far as to use that FSW mikey moore's website for publicity she has crossed a major line. I also noted her indescrepancies in my previous post.

Absolutely. She not only goes against the wishes of her family, but against those of her son who wanted to do what he thought was right. She is using this death as an excuse to push her agenda. The sad thing is, nobody outside of the family will remember her son's death, only her protesting.

Could somebody please explain what "Israel out of Palestine" has to do with her son's sacrifice?

let me preface this by stating..i cant stand bush(gw that is)

i am 50/50 about the war,but we are there and cant abandon the iraqi's now or there will be a civil war bloodbath.

that said,i think that women is just a tool for the leftist fringe nuts(who i despise as much as the neo cons)and is just at best being exploited,and i do think she is dishonoring her son,he re upped and did what he thought was right.it is despicable for her and the string pullers to use his death to further there political agenda.she has the right too,but it still seems wrong to me.
no doubt i smell mike moore in the wings,about to do his usual fair and balanced report..he's as bad as fox news.

PROTESTING SOLDIER MOM CHANGED STORY ON BUSH
Mon Aug 08 2005 10:11:07 ET

The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

CINDY 2004

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

CINDY 2005

Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.

She vowed on Sunday to continue her protest until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son?"

In an interview on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him last year.

"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'

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.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...

SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...

END

On her current media tour, Sheehan has not been asked to explain her twist on Bush; from praise to damnation!

Developing... :gundge:

I'll sign up as soon as I'm done with college, only 2 more semesters to go and off to the marines I go.

Stupid pole smoking hippies.

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

Yeah, because someone is acting like a metaphorical Wormtongue and they've gotten inside her head. She sounds like Michael Moore's parrot.

I'll sign up as soon as I'm done with college, only 2 more semesters to go and off to the marines I go.

Stupid pole smoking hippies.

Ha ha ha... off to Quantico for OCS? Marine OCS is no cake walk, even though a couple real idiots sneak through. If that is what you are doing.

I'll sign up as soon as I'm done with college, only 2 more semesters to go and off to the marines I go.

I've got four more semesters, and then hopefully I get into the PLC-Law program so I can be involved with the military legal system. Good luck on your end.

Yeah, because someone is acting like a metaphorical Wormtongue and they've gotten inside her head. She sounds like Michael Moore's parrot.

Think bed buddy.

:eek:

Think bed buddy.

Ewww.. that's just gross... that man is 350 pounds. Maybe that's why her husband is getting the divorce.

Ewww.. that's just gross... that man is 350 pounds. Maybe that's why her husband is getting the divorce.

How do they get the mustard stains out of the sheets? Oxi-Clean? :confused:

:eek:



Ewww.. that's just gross... that man is 350 pounds. Maybe that's why her husband is getting the divorce.

I know. A lot like liberalism in general and much of the "pacifist thinking" you hear in the world today. Animals, the lot of them. They turn of the lights and tell you it's GOOD but it's actually A FAT HAIRY MORBIDLY OBESE MAN THAT REEKS OF FASTFOOD.

I know. A lot like liberalism in general and much of the "pacifist thinking" you hear in the world today. Animals, the lot of them. They turn of the lights and tell you it's GOOD but it's actually A FAT HAIRY MORBIDLY OBESE MAN THAT REEKS OF FASTFOOD.

You know Michael Moore tells us how we should eat, even though he's not following his own advice. He probably eats twenty hamburgers a day.

I've got four more semesters, and then hopefully I get into the PLC-Law program so I can be involved with the military legal system. Good luck on your end.

Thanks. I'm signed up for a 2 year Criminal justice program however, I'm also thinking of enrolling later in a 2 year history program...to broaden my horizons so to speak.

You know Michael Moore tells us how we should eat, even though he's not following his own advice. He probably eats twenty hamburgers a day.

For all you Christianity bashers I'm about to say something religious, look away.

















You have been warned
















Preach! Preach!

(As my Pastor always says)

I'll sign up as soon as I'm done with college, only 2 more semesters to go and off to the marines I go. I've got four more semesters, and then hopefully I get into the PLC-Law program so I can be involved with the military legal system. Good luck on your end.
You guys want to wait one year...or more?

why don't you go now?...you can always finish college when the war is over. You are not real Patriots.
ever heard of Tillman? he is a true Patriot he gave up much more than college...he did not have any excuses to wait for another year...or more.

I'm signed up for a 2 year Criminal justice program however, I'm also thinking of enrolling later in a 2 year history program...to broaden my horizons so to speak.

That's cool. The more you can throw on a resume, the better. Just don't get too riled up when your professors try to "broaden" your horizons for you. :p It's subtle indoctrination at best. They were trying to make Reagan sound like Hitler in my poli sci classes.

why don't you go now?...you can always finish college when the war is over. You are not a Patriot.
ever heard of Tillman? he is a true Patriot he gave up much more than college...he did not have any excuses to wait one more year.

Even Pat Tillman went to college. By going to college, he may learn special skills to enhance his contribution to the military. Isn't that a good thing?

You know Michael Moore tells us how we should eat, even though he's not following his own advice. He probably eats twenty hamburgers a day.

And Limbaugh told us drug abuse was bad, what's your point?

For all you Christianity bashers I'm about to say something religious, look away.

You have been warned

Preach! Preach!

(As my Pastor always says)

Eh.. if you look at my signature you would realize I'm very moderate heh.

Well the sick thing is not whether she supported the war before her son's death or not.. the sick thing is.. well.. she is using her son for political games. That's just sick in the head. I don't even see how you guys on the left could support her.

Are you going to sit there and tell me Bush didn't use 9/11 for political gain?

Even Pat Tillman went to college. By going to college, he may learn special skills to enhance his contribution to the military. Isn't that a good thing?He went to College before the War...
When the War started...he stopped whatever he was doing and enlisted.

He was a Patriot...no year long excuses.

Are you going to sit there and tell me Bush didn't use 9/11 for political gain?

I'm not talking about Bush at the moment. I'm talking about Cindy.

Are you going to sit there and tell me Bush didn't use 9/11 for political gain?of course he did...and the Bushites always use the "Support the Troops" motto to silence the War Critics...and the Bush Critics.

I'm not talking about Bush at the moment. I'm talking about Cindy.

But lets be honest here. You are Bush supporter - Bush used a major tragedy for political gain. yet you bash Cindy for doing the same, right? Why don't you hold Bush in contempt as well?

I think it's a valid question that has been posed to you.

I'm not talking about Bush at the moment. I'm talking about Cindy.

you are talking about using death as a tool of political gain. You are defending Bush but smearing a grieving mother.

Double standard?

But lets be honest here. You are Bush supporter - Bush used a major tragedy for political gain. yet you bash Cindy for doing the same, right? Why don't you hold Bush in contempt as well?

I think it's a valid question that has been posed to you.

I don't think Bush used a major tragedy for political gain at all. I think he just struck back in an offensive manner.

Cindy is using her son's death for politics.

I don't think Bush used a major tragedy for political gain at all. I think he just struck back in an offensive manner. .

What do you mean? Struck back in an offensive manner?

You are actually telling me that you don't believed Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq? You are telling me he didn't repeatedly say 9/11 over and over and over in many speeches as he talked about the reasons to go to war with Iraq? i just want to see if you have any intellectual honesty, so please answer... I can't wait to hear it

What do you mean? Struck back in an offensive manner?

You are actually telling me that you don't believed Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq? You are telling me he didn't repeatedly say 9/11 over and over and over in many speeches as he talked about the reasons to go to war with Iraq? i just want to see if you have any intellectual honesty, so please answer... I can't wait to hear it

Erhm, Afghanistan.

Erhm, Afghanistan.

What about my other questions?

you are talking about using death as a tool of political gain. You are defending Bush but smearing a "grieving" mother who is using her son's death as a political tool.

Double standard?

Nope. I drove by Cindy Sheehan the other day when I went past President Bush's ranch on my way to a friend's house. I won't repeat the words I screamed to that ungrateful witch, but I can safely say she deserved it.

Nope. I drove by Cindy Sheehan the other day when I went past President Bush's ranch on my way to a friend's house. I won't repeat the words I screamed to that ungrateful witch, but I can safely say she deserved it.


But you are completely Ok with Bush using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq?

But you are completely Ok with Bush using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq?

Bush didn't. In fact the government repeatably said 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

I don't think Bush used a major tragedy for political gain at all. I think he just struck back in an offensive manner.

Cindy is using her son's death for politics.

Dude, did you see the same Republican convention I did? He and his cohorts milked 9/11 like it was a cow that excreted gold from it's teat.

Bush didn't. In fact the government repeatably said 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

(jaw drops to ground)

In the 2004 campaign I saw ads with firemen...in a way to remind us of 9-11...
he also has used troops clip in his campaign...

Bush has politically exploited 9-11...and the troops...and War-on-terror.

Nope. I drove by Cindy Sheehan the other day when I went past President Bush's ranch on my way to a friend's house. I won't repeat the words I screamed to that ungrateful witch, but I can safely say she deserved it.

[long string of censored words]

In the 2004 campaign I saw ads with firemen...in a way to remind us of 9-11...
he also has used troops clip in his campaign...

Bush has politically exploited 9-11 and the War-on-terror.

He'd better use it to further the cause of democracy and to make the world safer for us. I'd be pretty ticked off if he wasn't.

[long string of censored words]

Sounds about what I said. Close enough.

I wrote a paragraph on this last wednesday, and it was picked up by the washington post. I removed the quote that they stole from me, but this is what it says:

Cindy Sheehan is an insult to Americans everywhere. First off, she is protesting outside GW's home while he is taking a vacation. What a great way too piss someone off. I am sorry that her son died, but it sounds like she doesn't understand that he was part of a VOLUNTEER ARMY. He received the finest training in the world, and was paid for what he did. Upon joining the Army he knew that he was putting his country before his life, he knew that death was a possibility. He even re-enlisted a month after the Iraq war started. Her claims that he was somehow duped into going to war or signed up with no expectation of seeing combat are as reprehensible as they are necessary to her current publicity stunt.

"He didn't even know Casey's name," Cindy said on Sunday. Wow, that is incredible. Our president doesn't know the names of each and every soldier serving him. What a disgrace
"I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?" Cindy told reporters. "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is." She's right, how could George specifically send her son out to certain death. I mean, he might as well have put a gun in his mouth. Freeing a country from a (I personally believe) evil dictator is not noble at all. What we should be doing is installing more dictators, not removing them. It's not as if the majority of Iraqis don't support what our troops are doing there anyway.

I also think I should say that I fully plan on joining the military as soon as possible. If my mother went around publicly criticizing a war I died in, I would feel ashamed of her. Cindy Sheehan has absolutely no respect for her dead son.

It is at http://spaces.msn.com/members/aiamor/PersonalSpace.aspx

He'd better use it to further the cause of democracy.Bush is using it(9-11) to further the cause of the NeoCons.

I wrote a paragraph on this last wednesday, and it was picked up by the washington post. I removed the quote that they stole from me, but this is what it says:

Cindy Sheehan is an insult to Americans everywhere. First off, she is protesting outside GW's home while he is taking a vacation. What a great way too piss someone off. I am sorry that her son died, but it sounds like she doesn't understand that he was part of a VOLUNTEER ARMY. He received the finest training in the world, and was paid for what he did. Upon joining the Army he knew that he was putting his country before his life, he knew that death was a possibility. He even re-enlisted a month after the Iraq war started. Her claims that he was somehow duped into going to war or signed up with no expectation of seeing combat are as reprehensible as they are necessary to her current publicity stunt.

"He didn't even know Casey's name," Cindy said on Sunday. Wow, that is incredible. Our president doesn't know the names of each and every soldier serving him. What a disgrace
"I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?" Cindy told reporters. "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is." She's right, how could George specifically send her son out to certain death. I mean, he might as well have put a gun in his mouth. Freeing a country from a (I personally believe) evil dictator is not noble at all. What we should be doing is installing more dictators, not removing them. It's not as if the majority of Iraqis don't support what our troops are doing there anyway.

I also think I should say that I fully plan on joining the military as soon as possible. If my mother went around publicly criticizing a war I died in, I would feel ashamed of her. Cindy Sheehan has absolutely no respect for her dead son.

It is at http://spaces.msn.com/members/aiamor/PersonalSpace.aspx

Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Thank you, there are plenty of liberal rage sites out there that don't exactly think so though.

Bush is using it(9-11) to further the cause of the NeoCons.


To them, what you said is the equivalent of a hi5

I'm sorry, but this board is filled with a bunch of idiots.

:fluffle:

I'm sorry, but this board is filled with a bunch of idiots.

:fluffle:


well at least you said you're sorry first.

To them, what you said is the equivalent of a hi5

Yep. I don't know what a "neo-con" is however, could you enlighten me?

Yep. I don't know what a "neo-con" is however, could you enlighten me?
Neo conservative.

Yep. I don't know what a "neo-con" is however, could you enlighten me?

Well, once upon a time conservatives believed in small government for the sake of increased personal liberty, and low taxes for the sake of personal wealth. They also believed that the government should not spend much money because it is wasteful to do so and requires raising taxes. The primary justifiable reason for taxes was argued to be military spending for the sake of national defense.

Old school conservatives still believe that, and neo-cons claim to. A neo-con is distinguished from a conservative however in that while it still believes in low taxes and weak government it is for different reasons. Other things are proported to be believed in, but are not.

Neo-cons believe decreasing the power of personal government, because they themselves are powerful enough to challenge a weak government's authority. They see themselves as a sort of David trying to beat Goliath not by bravely confronting him with a small weapon, but by destroying the local farms that he plunders for his food until he dies of starvation, along with the farmers.

The believe in low taxes, because they are the afore mentioned farms that Goliath plunders. They call it "starving the beast." They also believe in a regresive tax system. They claim that they simply oppose progressive taxes, but they believe in hidden regressive measures, such as abolishing the taxes on capital gains (money you make for simply having a lot of money rather than by working for it) while favoring the abolition of tax brakets.

They don't have a problem with social spending, but they do oppose social spending that helps people. Remember, conservatives oppose social spending because it costs the government money. Neo-cons don't oppose the government loosing money. They oppose the government having money. So liberals give money to the poor and working class so that they have a chance to improve their standard of living. Conservatives don't give money to anyone believing that those who deserve it will get it. Neo-cons give money to the rich because they believe that people who've never had any money don't know what to do with it. For this reason they enact social spending that gives money to tobacco companies, oil companies, and airlines.

They do believe in high military spending, but not for the sake of a strong national defense. It's part and parcel of increased social spending and decreased taxes. Military spending enacted by a neo-con will consist of buying rediculously expensive and useless gadgets, many of which won't work, and some of which aren't even expected to work, such as Star Wars missle shields, or a recent plan to buy retrofitted Boeing jets that were refitted as cargo planes, but were inferior in every particular to real cargo planes, and much more expensive. The purpose, as I've said, is not to improve national security, but rather to funnel tax dollars into the pockets of the people who own those companies, so that when their executives quit and run for office, the current neo-con politicians can take their places in the private sector and benifit from similar money laundering schemes.

All clear now?

Well the sick thing is not whether she supported the war before her son's death or not.. the sick thing is.. well.. she is using her son for political games. That's just sick in the head. I don't even see how you guys on the left could support her.

And how do you know this exactly?

Do you know the woman?
Do you have children that you might perhaps know what the pain of a parent who has lost a child feels like?
Do you have your head removed from your asshole?

There are probably close to 1800 mothers out there who were very close to doing exactly what she did but had other children to look after, or houses to maintain, or other circumstances that kept them from doing this, or something very much like it. Only a raving sociopath would sit around thinking "how am I going to bring this bastard down?" and then leap from her seat and proclaim "Eureeka, I'll use the name of my dead son!"

If she were the latter then she'd have a long history of mental illness, which I'm sure would have been all over the news considering the lengths the right wing media are going to in order to trash her.

Statisticly, she almost has to be the former. You know, exactly what she appears to be.

Your appraisal of her as "using her son for political games" rather than as someone who is using politics to help keep other mothers from feeling the pain she feels.

Most people here who complain about "dishonoring the troops" aren't really worried about the honor of the troops. They're worried that their view of the world may turn out to be completly wrong. If you're a Bush supporter then you are entierly justified in that fear. Grieving family members who worry about "dishonoring the truth" are in fact worried about the possibility that their loved one's death may have had no meaning.

Cindy Sheehan has more courage than any right winger on this board. She's faced the fact that her son died a meaningless death. She faced the pain that that realization brings, and she's turned it into the energy to give her son's death some meaning.

Too much politics in this thread and not enough talk about taking Bush's bike away.

Seriously he needs to quit riding, it's embarassing for us serious cyclists. To start with he rides a mountain bike and he has no low speed bike control. Even with out toe clips or clipless pedals he keeps falling off. I mean really, there not even boast worthy crashes and he has no cool scars to show from them. Why even bother.

Get off the bike George, you're not helping.

Seriously he needs to quit riding, it's embarassing for us serious cyclists.
Amen, comrade!

Call me a "war supporter" and a "bush supporter" and an "athletic supporter" again and I'll report your vindictive ass for flaming.

Only the last of those could be considered a flame, the first two would be an accurate assesment of your position based on the posts that you have made here.

I don't know about that. I'd be furious if anyone called me either of the first two. In that context however I'd take the last as a lighthearted pun that simply rounds out the rhythm of the sentence nicely. Or maybe I'd simply take the whole thing as an innocent misinterpretation. Afterall, I do just laugh when people take my Guerraheim posts seriously.

But I stand by the sentiment that if you're going to feel insulted by being called any of those things then "athletic supporter" ought to be the least of them. That can be dismissed as good natured ribbing. If I had to be called a Bush supporter, I could always make it clear that I only support him in the sense of applauding at the Special Olympics. But I don't think there is anything you can call a human being that is more insulting, more degrading, or more just plain dehumanizing than "pro-war."

BTW, can anyone tell me how to go about reporting someone? I've never been so thin skinned to think that I had to get someone to stop people from telling me mean things or things I disagree with so I never looked into it before. But I was looking around to report myself for accurately guaging someone else's political orientation and cracking cheap jokes so that I could find out if that was actually a no-no here, and I couldn't see anything to the effect of "click here to tattle and whine."

Too much politics in this thread and not enough talk about taking Bush's bike away.

Seriously he needs to quit riding, it's embarassing for us serious cyclists. To start with he rides a mountain bike and he has no low speed bike control. Even with out toe clips or clipless pedals he keeps falling off. I mean really, there not even boast worthy crashes and he has no cool scars to show from them. Why even bother.

Get off the bike George, you're not helping.

Amen. This was supposed to be a fun thread, and I get all these people claiming that a grieving mother ought to die, or get bitten by snakes, or is somehow evil just because she's trying to give some meaning to her son's death.

People, when people tell you to have a sense of humor, they're not talking about bile and phlegm. (Hippocratic pun. If rat's ass is given, please google "Four Humors")

Please define how, exactly, this is a case of hypocrisy. Also, please cite where she was fine with the war prior to her son's demise.

It appears I've been beaten to the punch on the compilation of a conservative dictionary, (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5928Ji0CCb&isbn=0975251740&itm=1) but I would wager that it contains an entry along the lines of the following.

Hypocrite. n. Conservative. The ultimate insult in the liberal lexicon. Used to indicate a position that a liberal would be unwilling to entertain even in the event of being willing to entertain other conservative positions. Apparently derived from hypo meaning below and criticize. Indicating that liberals employ this explitive only when criticizing their superiors as no use of this word can be verified prior to the 1960's when liberals last held power. No, NONE! NO IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE BIBLE

My goodness who the the sides have traded places.

Back in the Schiavo affair people were basically calling her parents media whores and how dare the right to lifers use this tragic event for political gain.

The apologists of course were outraged by such claims.

Can we not simply listen to the woman's anguish and give her the pity she deserves?

No parent should have to bury their child.

Also, why are people speaking for the intentions of the soldier? Was he interviewed before he went? Did he tell a bunch of people he was all for the war?

There are soldiers who think this fight is BS, but they do their job as a they are professionals.

Keep in mind right wingers, the more you get nasty about her; the more you get people to her cause.

I don't think the lefties were particularly critical of the parents. For the most part people who sided with the husband didn't really address the parents. I for one thought it was perfectly natural for the parents to had a hard time letting go, and if I had the story brought to my attention earlier would certainly have favored their right to exhaust their legal options.

Where most of us lefties drew the line was Congress stepping in and creating new legal options, new laws, specifically for one person in Florida and using lies to justify it, such as a cardiologist supposedly diagnosing neuralogical health via videotape. Also, we opposed the character defamation that the husband suffered at the hands of the right wing media. Congress was essentially tearing that man's life apart for political gain, because there was no good purpose to be served. Anyone who actually looked at the woman knew that she was as good as dead, and those who didn't had no right to an opinion on the matter.

Also, I was particularly offended by Bush claiming that "every life was precious," thought he was the Texas governor that signed the "Futile Care Law," which not only permits euthanasia, but actualy mandates it in certain circumstances. Just like now I'm offended by his claim that he is aware that the families of fallen troops "deserve sympathy," but he "has to go on with his life."

In both cases I see it as Republicans making much ado about nothing. He could have just invited her in and talked to her, and then if she kept on complaining people would have dismissed her as a crazy old bat, the more they keep this up, the more they're going to see her, as well as her son, as a martyr. Some Reverend somewhere has already called her "this century's first Rosa Parks."