Some argue that you’re either with Cindy or against the idea of America…
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Here’s a “progressive” idea: one can sympathize with Sheehan’s loss, and still criticize her for her ridiculous statements, accusations, and suspect motives. One need not be “against her” to hold her ideas in contempt. Show me one example of anyone trying to silence her.
The problem is that people like yourself ignore those positions of hers that you disagree with, because you share the common cause of Bush hatred.
Oh, and maybe you can respond to my message this time, instead of just deleting it. Or, perhaps you’re “against” me.
I’m proud of Cindy Sheehan.
I’m ashamed of George Bush. I have nothing but contempt for Bush for his ridiculous statements, outrageous lies and suspect motives.
His legacy has been written and its brutally destructive to the concept of democracy.
How about she is a mother who lost a son who volunteered for duty and deserves no more or less respect or attention than any other parent who has lost a son or daughter. The coincidence of her and her husband’s loss in no way imparts special judgement or intelligence regarding strategic foreign policy issues, the war on terror, the Mideast, or American domestic politics. In fact, the likelihood is that a person who has undergone emotional stress is less likely to think rationally and with clarity than otherwise. I’ll say it again: more military are Republicans and, statistically, one would guess that the number of supporters of the Pres among war widows is greater than the number of opponents. So why should mother Sheehan get more respect attention and sympathy than all hose other mothers? Let me answer for you: because you like Sheehan’s let wing politics.
Dugger, Helping Progressives Sort it Out
Note how Dugger implies Ms Sheehan is somehow mentally impaired.
In reality, her loss does impart special judgement; most chickenhawks–like Dugger–believe the military is so much fodder for AWOL George’s political agenda. That is, no sacrifice is too much so long as it helps AWOL George and especially when supporting this war have no personal stake in it.
more military are Republicans
A highly debatable point. Certainly, in my experience, many career officers tend GOP. But, in the enlisted ranks–those who join up for a hitch or two–very much trend toward Dems. And in Iraq, guess which demographic is more likely in harm’s way.
Shorter Jadegold: I wish what Dugger said was not true. And you KNOW I’m not a chickenhawk Jade. I gave you a chance to win money on the premise that I did not serve. Remember. You backed down. And lets see your data on first and second termers. I frankly doubt you have any. A very large proportion of the military is enlisted. It would statistically be very hard for the majority of enlisted to be Dems, yet the overall military Republican. Not enough officers for that to be true IMO.
Dugger, Wore the Blue Suit
Bush’s recalcitrance in meeting with Cindy Sheehan has split the country, divided the country… he’s shown he’s a divider and so has broken his 2000 campaign promise.
Oh, I’m sorry… that’s so pre-September the 11th.
OK post FM, but you forgot the “a second time”. Bush’s recalcitrance etc in meeting with Cindy Sheehan “a second time”. I suppose if he met with her a second time, the left would start screaming for a third time. Then a fourth. How many does she want IYO?
Dugger
I don’t know that you’re not a chickenhawk, Dugger. After all, you did come out with some very foolish statements recently concerning classified documents which strongly suggests you’ve never served.
You keep asserting the military is overwhelmingly GOP; that’s unsupported. My own anecdotal experience is that the military is fairly split. You have GOPers, you have Dems, you have those who don’t care about politics.
Actually, I’d be willing to let Bush off the hook for physically meeting with Cindy “a second time”, if he would only answer Cindy’s question live in front of the TV cameras: “what is the noble cause?”. And this time not bloviate about 9/11, WMD’s, and bringing democracy (by setting up a clone of Iran? WTF?). Those reasons have long been discredited. Give us the real reason, or Cindy should and must remain camped on his doorstep. As should everyone with a working brain.
Dugger… we’ve told you a million times, “Don’t exaggerate!”
;-P
Seriously though, you meet with whomever, however many times is necessary… Oh? Is that hard work? Tough.
Dugger in one breath>>deserves no more or less respect
Dugger is leading us up to..”In fact, the likelihood is that a person who has undergone emotional stress is less likely to think rationally and with clarity than otherwise.”
Hint…psst….Dugger hints that Cindy Sheehan is a fruitcake suffering from mental distress.
Dugger, ever had someone very close to you, someone you love die? I am sure you have, but I can tell you that I certainly have.
Sometime, we discover hidden strengths during these very painful and stressful times.
If you want to question her politics, fine. Just keep the psychobabble out of it, nitwit.
JK
You know… I made a blog about this over at Loaded Mouth, so I won’t repeat myself.
Ahhhh Cindy! Someone America *should* be proud of!
phile: “criticize her for her ridiculous statements, accusations, and suspect motives.”
Prove categorically that she has made any rediculous statements, and prove these ’suspect motives’ you speak of! Put up, or shut the hell up!
If any of you have the nerve, read my blog…
“You keep asserting the military is overwhelmingly GOP; that s unsupported.”
Only when you have your head stuck up your ass.
Which in your case, Jadey, is every single fucking day.
Only when you have your head stuck up your ass.
Which in your case, Jadey, is every single fucking day.
Says the one who links to Malkin, Ingraham, and the MRC.
So says Brandon, who has spent exactly zero time in the military.
But he is a KISS groupie. An Honest-to-God, dress up like Ace Frehley , KISS groupie.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Yes, it’s a safe assumption that military personnel are, at least, non-liberal, since so many liberals are a) anti – military; and 2) anti – American military involvement anywhere for any reason. Also, their children are more likely to be swayed in that same direction. It would be stupid to think otherwise — but whoever said a liberal couldn’t be stupid, besides other liberals?
The real point is that Cindy Sheehan may or may not be representative of soldiers’ Moms who have varying opinions about the war: Afghanistan, searching for bin Laden; Iraq; being involved in the Middle East, and the other pieces of the Middle East involvement. Cindy Sheehan appears to have become (knowingly or unknowingly, consciously or unconsciously) a radical. Anyone would be hard – pressed to demonstrate that all mothers of soldiers, even those whose children have died in the Middle east, are as radicalized as she is.
Finally, does anyone consider her to be “un-American”? Let’s dispense with the “she has First Amendment rights” cliché, and get to the point: (I quote from Scrappleface):
Wow, quoting Scrappleface?
How can we possibly argue with that?
As to your “safe assumption,” it’s just so much chickenhawk blather. The military, like any large organization, spans the political spectrum. You’ve got the fringes, right and left; you have the middle which might go either way. And to pretend the military only vote WRT military issues is just goofy. They vote on issues like schools, the environment, civil rights, etc.—just because one is in the military doesn’t mean one isn’t affected by these issues.
It doesn’t matter if the military leans more right or more left. No One in the military thinks their ass should be on the line for a Bush Admin lie!
But, that’s the kind of respect Bushco has for our service men and women.
That last phrase should have read:
Sadly, Kryten42, I have a feeling the above remarks from Sheehan only serve to endear her more to you.
Krysten42,
Let s take a look at some of the examples of Mrs. Sheehan s very public, and very embarrassing, nervous breakdown.
Here, she portrays the men her son died trying to protect as the terrorists, while the people that drive explosive laden trucks into groups of children are freedom fighters, in her eyes:
Here, she channels her son and ascribes to him a bad case of BDS, an illness for which he suffered none of the symptoms, while he was living:
Here, she returns all the kinds words of sympathy that the mom’s who support the war have sent her:
Here, she falls back on a popular canard – Israel is our puppet-master:
Note: Israel would have rather we invaded Iran. We really should be more obedient puppets.
Here, she reveals her knowledge of top-secret Army tactics in Iraq:
Here, she reveals her deep love for her country a country that has shed more blood than any other, bringing freedom to others:
Here, she runs circles around us dumb warmongers, with her brilliant logic:
Note: We should have asked the equally evil Taliban to just hand-over bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cronies, or risk being deposed. Hm& Didn t we do that?
Here, she sticks-up for you know who:
Here, she praises a hero of hers: Lynne Stewart. Who s Lynne Stewart? She was Sheik Omar s lawyer, who was convicted on five counts of defrauding the government, conspiracy, and providing support for terrorism when she aided the “Blind Sheik” by illegally passing messages from him to his terror cells. Sheik Omar was directly involved in the first WTC attacks in 94.
Note: FREE MUMIA!!!
Here, she channels George Galloway:
Sadly, Kryten42, I have a feeling the above remarks from Sheehan only serve to endear you more to her.
Let’s employ Phile’s rhetorical dishonesty to Phile’s own post.
Here’s Phile, pretending he is a doctor and providing a long-distance diagnosis of Ms. Sheehan ala Bill Frist:
Not content with playing doctor on the internet(s), Phile then decides it best to pretend Ms. Sheehan said something she did not:
Oooops, spoke too soon. Phile puts on his Hasbro smock and stethoscope, for some more diagnoses–this time of a dead servicemen whom he never met:
It goes on and on. Chickenhawks have no shame.
Completely off topic:
I just saw the latest on the hurricane headed to New Orleans. Category 5, 175 MPH.
This has to have the worst potential to devastate in my recent memory. So, if any of our friends in here are from that area, get the hell out and be safe.
God bless.
JK
Jadegold, that your respose is nothing but ad-hominem betrays your inability to actually respond to Sheehan’s own words. You know you can’t defend her so you accuse me falsely interpreting what is clearly obvious to any fool with half a brain.
Who exactly was Sheehan referring to as “freedom fighters”, Jadegold?
Show me a single fragment of evidence that Casey Sheehan didn’t support his mission, of his president.
Furthermore, the chickenhawk argument is nothing more than a desperate attempt to invalidate supporters of the military who don’t serve – in other words civilians. If I’m a chickenhawk, that makes you simply a chicken. Do you support policing criminals in your neighborhood? If so, I would like to know whether you wear the uniform.
Now, how about you try actually addressing the substance of an argument.
Brandon,
“Only when you have your head stuck up your ass.”
Which apparently you do, since you’ve made an unsubstaniated statement, by providing absolutely NO proof. Next.
Dugger,
I suppose if he met with her a second time, the left would start screaming for a third time. Then a fourth. How many does she want IYO?
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves there champ. If you want to quantify it, let’s just say she deserves to meet with Bush as many times as the Norwood Family (a Pro-War, Pro-Bush family) has…which is TWICE. Fair, eh?
So why should mother Sheehan get more respect attention and sympathy than all hose other mothers? Let me answer for you: because you like Sheehan s let wing politics.
No one has said she deserves *more* respect, attention and sympathy than “all those other mothers”, it’s just you saying that. It can be argued that she has a higher moral authority, nay, a higher moral imperative to question our leaders, than a family who *hasn’t* lost a son or daughter in Iraq, and it can *definitely* be argued that she has a higher moral authority than George W. Bush, because she lost a son as a direct result of his failed policies and wrong-headed war.
Anyway, let’s cut to the case here…Why do you feel the need to brush her off and/or argue against her request for a second meeting? Let *me* answer for *you*: because you disagree with Sheehan’s left-wing politics. You are upset that she is galvanizing support, and you despise the fact that, as a mother of a lost soldier, she’s embued with a certain level of unassailability – even though that hasn’t stopped the professional smear-merchants on your side from trashing her (”Bitch in the Ditch”, “Terrorist Sympathizer”, etc).
Stop acting so holier-than-thou, Dugger. I’m sure she angers you because she represents the cold, hard reality that the progressive left now has the wind at it’s back in regards to the debacle in Iraq. The majority of the country has come to understand George’s folly…and it’s only a matter of time before he has to pay the piper for it.
You do yourself, and your party, a great disservice by continuing to defend these ignorant cowards currently in power.
That was not ad-hominem. It was a reasonable conclusion based on her totally ridiculous public behavior, like her daily photo ops grieving at her son s makeshift grave in Crawform. It s disgusting that she is pimping her own grief for political purposes.
It’s fucking ad-hominem dude. You then go on to accuse her of “pimping her own grief”…you’ve thrown out all pretense of logical discourse a long time ago. It is NOT a reasonable conclusion based on ANYTHING other than your twisted opinion.
To deny my original argument is to willfully distort Sheehan s own words.
It’s pointless arguing with you. Do you not SEE the absolute absurdity of what you’ve just said above?
ie: “To deny my original (twisting of Sheehan’s words) is to willfully distort Sheehan’s own words”? How in THE HELL does that make any sense at all? You are presupposing that your interpretation of Sheehan’s statements are correct. Which they are not.
mr.curmudgeon,
I have a challenge for you. Read this:
Now, who are these freedom fighters, Sheehan is talking about?
I challenge you to illustrate how my original conclusion is a distortion. Please, explain to me how Sheehan did not refer to the killers of her son as freedom fighters.
Furthermore, if Cindy Sheehan had never existed, and some war supporting mom posed at her son’s grave, every day, for the photographers, in order to remind the american people of the heavy price that often comes with liberty, people like yourself would, indeed, label that as media whoring.
mr. curmudgeon, you seem to share Jadegold’s style of vehemently disagreeing with me, attacking me, all without ever rebutting a single thing I say.
That was not ad-hominem. It was a reasonable conclusion based on her totally ridiculous public behavior, like her daily photo ops grieving at her son’s makeshift grave in Crawform. It’s disgusting that she is pimping her own grief for political purposes.
And, Jadegold, read her words again. She clearly refers to the so-called insurgents as “freedom fighters”. The very same “insurgents” that killed her son. To deny my original argument is to willfully distort Sheehan’s own words.
mr.curmudgeon,
Moqtada Sadr and his Mehdi army are notoriously sadistic, and have been responsible for countless attacks and atrocities, committed against civilians and against the Iraqi police forces that work for the sovereign government of Iraq. They share common cause with the foreign terrorists that flood in to Iraq, for the sole objective of murdering.
Anyone who calls these scum of earth “freedom fighters” deserves any scorn he/she receives. The true freedom fighters are those fighting and dying in order to free Iraq from tyranny, not re-establish it.
Shorter Phile: It’s only an ad hominem when others disagree with me. My smears are ‘logical conclusions.’
And, Jadegold, read her words again. She clearly refers to the so-called insurgents as freedom fighters . The very same insurgents that killed her son.
So WTF is your point? So she refers to some of the fighters in Iraq as “freedom fighters”…her son was killed by loyalist to Mutada Al-Sadir, not foreign nationals. It can be interpretted that they were fighting for autonomy against perceived western imperialism…anyhow, that’s all BESIDES THE POINT: Does this somehow prevent Sheehan from being angry that her son was put in harm’s way – whether against “freedom fighters”, “insurgents”, “dead-enders”, “evil-doers”, “terrorists”, or whatever the hell “nomenclature of the week”? Does she somehow not warrant a demand of accountability from this administration because she refers to the killers in less than “administration-friendly” terms?
Your argument is absurd.
Uh oh.
By Phile’s ‘logic,’ US Marines deserve scorn:
Mujahedeen means “holy warrior”, not freedom fighter. These terrorists are holy warriors, no kidding! That doesn’t make their objectives moral. As for the term being used out of respect: respecting your enemy is to take him seriously, and does not imply any degree of praise.
Keep digging, Jadegold.
Mujahedeen means holy warrior , not freedom fighter.
Distinction sans difference.
BTW, Ronald Reagan once referred to the mujahadeen as “the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.”
Please, explain to me how Sheehan did not refer to the killers of her son as freedom fighters.
Your whole argument contains two gaping flaws:
One: It based on the presupposition that she somehow isn’t angry at the men who killed her son. Which I haven’t heard her speak too. Does that negate her cause, logically: no, for the wingnut: yes.
Two: Sheehan’s main goal now is to spare other mother’s the loss she suffered by “saving Casey’s buddies” (ie: bringing the troops home). It is NOT simply to avenge her son. Her objective will best be reached by holding Bush accountable for failed foreign policy in Iraq, NOT by seeking vengence against “Mujahedeen” or “Freedom Fighters.” It doesn’t matter WHAT see refers to them as, she’s effective, efficient, and she’s a huge thorn in Bush’s ass. Your whole argument seems to be based on the notion that she is somehow “misdirecting” her anger, which only works if her sole purpose was to avenge her son…which it isn’t. It’s to change POLICY, preventing MORE needless death!
mr. curmudgeon, you seem to share Jadegold s style of vehemently disagreeing with me, attacking me, all without ever rebutting a single thing I say.
There is no need to rebutt your “Freedom Fighter” issue, because it is entirely irrelevant. You’re looking for an easy way out, so you don’thave to directly confront the changing rationale behind this most aggregious miscalculation on Bush’s part. You seem to have found it in symantecs (ie: “Freedom Fighters”)…Best of luck with that.
Jadegold,
What a sad example of moral equivalence. Are you seriously arguing that American soldiers see their enemy as freedom fighters? If not, I have no idea what your point is.
So, by this incredible feat of moral equivalence, are you suggesting that Bush’s mission in Iraq is identical to that Of the Soviets in Afghanistan?
Jadegold, it’s my sense that you are more interested in winning an argument than presenting whatever positions you genuinely hold.