• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A family turns to Cindy

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Link below; my emphasis.

"Both his parents said their son's death makes their once-wavering opinions about the war in Iraq much more clear.

Andre Lieurance referred to Cindy Sheehan, the California mother of a slain soldier, who recently camped out in front of President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in opposition to the war.

"She didn't speak for me. Now she does," the father told The Knoxville News Sentinel on Tuesday. "I'm with her. I believe we were lied to. (My son) did what he was supposed to. Bush didn't."

http://www.southernstandard.net/news.ez?viewStory=20000
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
652
Reaction score
0
Location
Southeastern Colorado
As a veteran of the military, brother of a Korean war era Veteran, son of a World War I veteran, father of a career Marine officer and father-in-law
of a Navy Reservice Officer who was activated for the Iraqi war, I understand the loss that Cindy Sheehan has suffered.

Her son was a volunteer in the military and accepted the risks comensurate with such duty. He died like over a million others have in our history and deserves the respect and admiration of all Americans.

Let me tell you what is hard to take:

1. About a month ago, a 4 year old boy was riding on an ATV and drove into the river and drowned. His body was found 4 miles downstrean.

2. A couple of years ago, a family was hiking in the mountains near here. A small boy, about 4 was in one group and ran ahead of them to catch the other group a few hundred feet ahead. He disappeared completely. A year or so later, his clothes were found along with evidence that he had been attacked and eaten by a mountain lion.

3. A teen age boy was using a stack wagon to stack baled hay. The bales were a bit too long and caught in one of the tables. He attempted of free the machine, the table fell and crushed him to death. They were trying to make the bales longer than recommended to same time and cost.

At least Cindy Sheehan has George Bush to blame rather than herself. Imagine the grief these families endured. ( I was a member of one of them.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I knew Aaron Holleyman- He attended the local school and played sports with my son..His mother was my daughters' volleyball and basketball coach- His dad, who was a local minister, was an assistant football coach. His sister attended prom with my son and his friend on a double date... A very nice family.....Aaron made his choice to be in the army when he was still in high school and was always very proud of it..

Area parents of fallen soldiers take issue with war protesters
By LINDA HALSTEAD-ACHARYA
Of The Gazette Staff

Judy Childers of Powell, Wyo., had her fill of the new media two years ago when her son Shane was killed in Iraq. She and her husband, Joe, granted dozens of interviews - to local media, The New York Times and major television stations.

She thought that was all behind her until Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey also died in the war, spawned a camp of war protesters outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Sheehan has vowed to remain there until Bush meets with her.

"As sick as I am of talking to the media, I said the other day I wish one of them would call," Childers said, when contacted by The Gazette.


Childers wants to let the nation know that not all mothers of fallen soldiers side with Sheehan.

"There needs to be another voice," she said. "The media has put the spotlight on her."

Childers is not alone. In fact, her words are echoed - sometimes even verbatim - by other area mothers who have lost their sons to war.

Of the seven Montana soldiers and six Wyoming soldiers who have died in the conflict, five have ties to the Eastern Montana/Northern Wyoming region.

Many of the parents spoke about a cause greater than their own personal loss.

To describe their feelings about Sheehan, they use words like disgust, disgrace, dishonor and sadness, yet they all support her right to protest.

"I feel she is disgracing her son's memory," Childers said.

The protest became too personal for Childers when she learned that her own son's photograph and a cross bearing his name was part of a display at Camp Casey near Crawford. At her request, son-in-law Richard Brown, stationed with the Army at Fort Hood, drove up to Crawford to remove the "mementos." He retrieved the cross and was told that the photo would be taken down or covered up. When he returned a day later, nothing had changed, Childers said.

"I really don't care what she (Sheehan) does with her son's memory, but it really burns me that she uses that picture and (Shane's) name for her cause, because that's not what he stood for," she said. "I felt she should have asked us for our permission."

When Childers remembers Shane, she remembers the boy who, since the age of 5, wanted to be a Marine.

"He loved the Marine Corps. That was his life," she said.

Shane was 30 years old when he became the first ground casualty in Iraq. He died of gunshot wounds to the stomach after his platoon took enemy fire. The war was less than 24 hours old.

Joe Childers is also upset by the protest.

"One of the first things when Shane was killed was we hoped there wouldn't be any more or many more," he said. "They (protesters) seem to think they're saving lives by withdrawing the troops. I think if that would happen, it would be further from the truth."


* * * *

David and Karen Witt of Sand Springs lost their son Owen on May 24, 2004, when his armored vehicle rolled in a ditch in Ad Dwar, Iraq. He was the second soldier from Montana to die in the war. They'd like him to be remembered for his way of making people laugh.

The Witts, too, support President Bush and the war in Iraq. Like Sheehan, Karen said she would like to meet with the president, but she'd have a different message to offer.

"I'd tell him I'd pray for him a lot and I'd give him a big hug," she said. "I'd tell him I didn't hold it against him that my son was killed."

When Karen thinks about Sheehan, she wonders if she will be remembered something like Jane Fonda, who was disparaged for visiting North Vietnam during the Vietnam WAr.

"I don't want to be remembered like that myself," she said.

Instead of marching in the streets, Karen would like to see protesters direct their efforts to visiting veterans, writing members of Congress or even doing "some hard praying."

"The media feeds on it (protest)," she said. "It makes everyone upset and doesn't accomplish anything."

The evolving headlines - reports questioning the president and the lead-up to war - also haven't changed Karen's resolve. If a person listens to enough conspiracy theories, she said, he or she could believe anything.

Instead, Karen turns her thoughts to the wounded.

"They'll have a lot tougher time than those who haven't come back," she said.

David Witt said the protesters are not only making it more dangerous for soldiers in Iraq, they're endangering people at home.

"(They're) just showing the terrorists we have a weakness here, the same as in Vietnam," he said. "People made fools of themselves then and they're still doing it."


* * * *

Ross and Glenda Holleyman's son Aaron died a year ago when his vehicle struck an explosive in Khutayiah. The Holleymans now live in Carthage, Miss., but Aaron graduated from high school in Glasgow, where they lived in the mid-1990s.

Glenda cherishes hearing from those who were touched by Aaron in Iraq.

"When they would interrogate prisoners, they asked for Aaron," Glenda said, quoting a friend of his. "He treated them like human beings."

Glenda describes herself as "not a vocal person," but the past few weeks have made her reconsider. She's given thought to writing a letter to Fox News to speak her mind.

"I got fired up about this stuff in Texas and the men in politics saying we shouldn't be over there in (Iraq)," she said.

At first, Glenda paid little attention to Sheehan's protest, allowing it as an expression of a mother's grief. But, as the days wore on and Camp Casey swelled, her frustration grew.

"I feel bad for her. I know she's grieving, but it got drug out," she said. "I got frustrated because there were so many people jumping on the bandwagon."

Holleyman believes Sheehan is doing her son and her country a disservice.

"Sometimes we may have an opinion, but that doesn't mean we have to express it," she said. "But if you say it, say it and be done with it."

Glenda questions why Sheehan has made such an issue of speaking face-to-face with Bush, especially since Sheehan has already spoken with him once. Glenda herself has not spoken to the president, but she's confident he is aware of her loss.

"I know he knows. He doesn't know Aaron by name or me by name, but every time a soldier gets killed, he knows and he grieves," she said. "I believe he does that every time we lose a soldier."

Ross has weighed their loss from every angle. He said he becomes wary when someone's personal loss changes their convictions. That's a sign someone is thinking with their emotions, he said, and that's a narrow perspective he'd rather avoid.

"If the cost of your investment is so great that it makes you change your mind about what it has cost you, you were making the wrong decision in the beginning," he said.


* * * *

Robbie McNary's mother did not live to hear about her son's death in Iraq. But McNary's widow, Annette, shares her grief with their three children and Robbie's father. They remember Robbie as a man with a sense of humor who was a friend to all.

"In his eyes, nobody was a stranger," she said in a interview soon after his death in a combat-related accident on March 31, 2005. "They were just somebody he didn't know yet and he would get to know them."

Since Robbie's death, his Lewistown family has not wavered in its support of the war. If anything, their convictions are stronger. That's why Sheehan's actions trouble them.

"It embarrasses me that she would do that," Annette said. "She's making a mockery of everything her son was working for - and my husband. It's almost like making the reason he died not a reason anymore."

McNary's older son, Ryan, is stationed in Kansas. He doesn't expect to be sent to Iraq, but he tells his mother that he'd rather be doing his part there than sitting in Kansas. Annette doesn't share his sentiment.

"But I'd rather us be over there helping them than them being over here playing in our backyard," she said.


* * * *

The anguish is still so raw for Debbie and Al Bloem of Belgrade that Debbie hasn't followed Sheehan's story in detail. Their son Nicholas, 20, died Aug. 3, just about the time Sheehan set up camp. He, along with 13 fellow Marines, was killed when the amphibious assault vehicle they were riding in was struck by a roadside bomb south of Haditha. He was days away from coming home and planned to enroll at Montana State University in Bozeman.

The Bloems question why the words of grieving parents should be given so much import.

"There's nothing special about us," Al said. "We gave all - that's what sets us apart."

Debbie says Sheehan is entitled to say whatever she wants, but she wonders about the wisdom of following a grieving mother.

"In my grief, I could say anything," she said. "Just because of my grief, maybe people should be careful about following me."

Al does not understand how withdrawing American troops from Iraq would change things for the better.

"That's where I break company with Cindy and those who rally around her," he said. "I think she's terribly mistaken and dangerously mistaken in her position."

The way he sees it, the enemy brought the fight to America and the nation should not wait for another attack.

Debbie believes the protesters send confusing messages to the men and women fighting in Iraq, messages that could sap their courage. She urges people to weigh the war in terms of principle instead of personal loss.

Earlier this week, she felt compelled to write a letter to her local newspaper.

"I do not ask that we continue this fight so that my son's death will not be in vain," she wrote. "But for the sake of our maturity and integrity as a country, for the sake of the innocents of Iraq, for the sake of the hope of democracy in the Arab world and I believe the resulting deflation of the threat of terrorism, take courage and continue the fight. Please, you who read this, stand with those of us with so much more to lose."


* * * *

The other three Montana soldiers who have died in Iraq are Edward Saltz, Bigfork; Dean Pratt, Stevensville; and Raleigh Smith, Troy.

 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,896
Reaction score
223
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
I got word yesterday that one of my cousins in Iraq was injured in a mine incident. It killed one of his squadron. He took shratnel in the face and it blew him 13' feet off a building. His comrades thought he was dead, there was blood everywhere. He wound up with 73 stitches on his face, they aren't sure of the damage to his left eye because of the swelling. They want to send him back to the states. You know what he wants?

He w ants to go back in and fight, because he has a job to finish!

Cindy Sheean is spitting on her son's grave!
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
FH - Thank God for these young men. If everyone thought like disagreeable and Cindy Sheehan, we'd all be speaking German - those of us that survived after the two world wars anyway. It's interesting to note that the Germans didn't attack America in either conflict, but we fought them to the finish because it was, and is, unthinkable to let monsters like Hitler and Saddam continue to inhabit the same planet with the families of their victims.

We'll keep your cousin and his squadron in our prayers. Bless them.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Talk about staged! Check this out.
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/ts/081005sheehanvigil/im:/050828/480/txlm10408281805
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
This photo sums up pretty much everything that bothers people about the Cindy Sheehan debacle.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Liberty Belle said:
FH - Thank God for these young men. If everyone thought like disagreeable and Cindy Sheehan, we'd all be speaking German - those of us that survived after the two world wars anyway. It's interesting to note that the Germans didn't attack America in either conflict.....


Your ignorance is neverending, LB. Germany, Japan and Italy had signed a pact. When we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us and Italy came along for the ride. (Link below for others who don't have a clue about WWII)

Bush seems to have dropped 9-11 from his speeches and is desperately trying to compare his Iraqi war with WWII and other wars Americans supported. But it's not working; his poll numbers are still falling, though at this point they're not likely to fall much further. There are probably 30% of the country like you that will never, ever he was wrong. But more and more are starting to ask questions and acknowledge what I've been saying all along. I can't wait to see what our Congressmen and Senators have learned from the voters while they were on recess.

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html

"On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States."
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Disagreeable:
Your ignorance is neverending, LB. Germany, Japan and Italy had signed a pact. When we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us and Italy came along for the ride.

You, disagreeable, are not only displaying your ignorance, but your almost total lack of reading comprehension.

I said, “It's interesting to note that the Germans didn't attack America in either conflict.”

Can you give me one, just one, example of an attack by either Germany or Italy on the United States?

I didn’t think so…
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Liberty Belle said:
Disagreeable:
Your ignorance is neverending, LB. Germany, Japan and Italy had signed a pact. When we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us and Italy came along for the ride.

You, disagreeable, are not only displaying your ignorance, but your almost total lack of reading comprehension.

I said, “It's interesting to note that the Germans didn't attack America in either conflict.”

Can you give me one, just one, example of an attack by either Germany or Italy on the United States?

I didn’t think so…

:lol: Yes, I can give you an example and do below. But first I wanted to get you to admit that you're spinning when you compare WWII with Iraqi war. You did that. Thanks :D :D And, yes, US waters are part of the US. There are also reports of U Boat attacks on the West Coast, but I'm not going to take time to search for them. These alone shows your ignorance.

"After crossing the Atlantic Ocean, the German U-boats began their assault on American shipping on Jan 12, 1942, when Captain Hardegan and his crew of the U-123 sunk the "Cyclops" off Nova Scotia, and the war entered New York waters on Jan 14, 1942, when the U- 123 sunk the"Norness" 60 miles off Montauk Point, Long Island.

A few German U-boats were responsible for the sinking of a total of 397 ships in the first six months of 1942. There were 171 ships sunk off the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Florida, 62 sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, and 141 in the Caribbean. A total of 2,403 persons were killed and 1,178 were wounded.

According to Samuel Eliot Morison's book "The Battle of the Atlantic", The German submarine U-608 laid 10 mines in the NY Harbor on November 10, 1942. The first mine was discovered by a sweeper and the NY Harbor was closed for a period of two days, the only time the harbor was ever closed during the entire war. This corresponds to data from the War Diary of the Eastern Sea Frontier dated November 13, 1942
.

http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/uboats.html


"The coastal waters of Louisiana were fertile hunting ground for the Germans because most Allied ships passed near the mouth of the Mississippi River. And the merchant seamen aboard freighters and tankers were well aware of this danger as they left the safe confines of the Mississippi River for the deeper, unprotected shipping lanes of the gulf. Peterson would spend a few hours aboard these ships, guiding them out of Southwest Pass. "Most of them were fearful, naturally, but they were a determined bunch. To go out there with no protection other than a revolver or something like that. They really deserve more credit than what anybody has given them."

http://www.cdnn.info/news/article/a000327.html
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Liberty Belle, I believe the phrase is "What say you"?
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Disagreeable: Yes, I can give you an example and do below. But first I wanted to get you to admit that you're spinning when you compare WWII with Iraqi war. You did that. Thanks And, yes, US waters are part of the US. There are also reports of U Boat attacks on the West Coast, but I'm not going to take time to search for them. These alone shows your ignorance.

Dis – you are so out of touch with reality it’s scary. Admit I was spinning? In your dreams!! How could I “admit” to doing something I didn’t do?

The “example” you posted was not an attack on the United States before the war. Every event you mentioned happened after Germany declared war on the United States. I may have missed something, but I couldn’t find any reference to any attack on our mainland even AFTER we were at war when it would not have been surprising. If the Clinton administration had been half as vigilant about our national security as FDR was, the World Trade Center would not have been attached twice.

LB: It's interesting to note that the Germans didn't attack America in either conflict, but we fought them to the finish because it was, and is, unthinkable to let monsters like Hitler and Saddam continue to inhabit the same planet with the families of their victims.

One has to be so careful when discussing serious subjects with an idiot. You whine that we should not have gone to war with Iraq because they didn’t directly attack us first. I simply pointed out that neither Germany nor Italy attacked us before we were at war with them. Hitler and Saddam would both still be in power if foreign policy were left to lefties like you, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. Go crawl back to them.

You have inspired me to write this little bit of doggerel. I so hope you enjoy it.

Rub-a-dub-dub, three reds in a tub,
And who do you think they be?
Cindy Sheehan, he/she/it, the movie mogul,
Turn them out, knaves all three.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
I'm posting a couple letters to the editor of today's Rapid City Journal the tie in with the subject we have been "discussing".

Dis - we'd love to read your comments on either letter. I thought they were rather informative. What say you?

Head in the sand

Reference Terry Painter's letter, Aug. 29: President Bush did not start the war on terror. Terrorists (not insurgents or freedom fighters as Cindy Sheehan calls them) did before 9/11.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked the U.S., Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost.

Truman finished that war and started a police action in Korea. North Korea never attacked the U.S. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost.

JFK started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked the U.S. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost.

Clinton began an undeclared war in Bosnia without U.N. or French consent. Bosnia never attacked the U.S.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head three times by Sudan and did nothing. Over 2,900 lives were lost on 9/11.

In the three years-plus since terrorists attacked the U.S., President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, is crippling al-Qaida, captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. The U.S. has lost 1,800-plus soldiers since March 2003, an average of slightly over 700 a year.

Bush did all this while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Whose head is in the sand?

ERNEST FOSS Jr.

Black Hawk

The connection

I don't know if Saddam Hussein's Iraq had any connection to the events of 9/11, but Iraq and Al Qaeda certainly had connections.

Why did Ramsey Yusef, the chemist from the '93 bombing of the Trade Center flee to Iraq after the event? Why did Al Zarqawi flee to Iraq after being injured fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan? What about the 1999 ABC news report, reported by Sheila McVicar, detailing the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda and what about the 1998 indictment written by Patrick Fitzgerald for the Clinton Justice Department linking Iraq to Al Qaeda.

So those of you that say there was no connection, you need to pull your head out of the sand!

CAROL SCHEVECK

Rapid City
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Liberty Belle said:
Dis – you are so out of touch with reality it’s scary. Admit I was spinning? In your dreams!! How could I “admit” to doing something I didn’t do?

The “example” you posted was not an attack on the United States before the war. Every event you mentioned happened after Germany declared war on the United States. I may have missed something, but I couldn’t find any reference to any attack on our mainland even AFTER we were at war when it would not have been surprising. If the Clinton administration had been half as vigilant about our national security as FDR was, the World Trade Center would not have been attached twice.

You never said BEFORE the war. You said, “It's interesting to note that the Germans didn't attack America in either conflict.”

Can you give me one, just one, example of an attack by either Germany or Italy on the United States?

I didn’t think so…"
---If you like I can post a link to this quote---

I did that. Can you show me anywhere in this quote that you mention "mainland" or "before the war." No. So now you twist and spin and claim to say something that you didn't. Everyone noticed, LB. You're looking like a fool again.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with either attack on the World Trade Center. You can keep on repeating that claim all you want, but it is not true and sensible Americans know that now. I see that Bush has even stopped using it in his "support the Iraqi war" speeches, though Condi Rice used it yesterday. I guess she's feeling some heat for attending broadway plays and shopping for shoes while the Gulf Coast was blasted, so she turns to the old tried and true "9-11."


LB: It's interesting to note that the Germans didn't attack America in either conflict, but we fought them to the finish because it was, and is, unthinkable to let monsters like Hitler and Saddam continue to inhabit the same planet with the families of their victims.

Germany declared war on this country. Saddam was being held well in check by UN sanctions. He never declared war on us. He posted no threat to this country. President Bush didn't take us to war in Iraq because Saddam was a monster. He took us to war because he had proof Saddam had WMDs that he could give to terrorists to attack the US. When both his hand picked weapons inspectors said that wasn't true, then it became a humanitarian mission, when Americans didn't support that, it became a war on terror. But the terror in New Orleans is staring to make many members of Congress, Republicans as well as Dems, question spending billions of dollars in Iraq.

One has to be so careful when discussing serious subjects with an idiot. You whine that we should not have gone to war with Iraq because they didn’t directly attack us first. I simply pointed out that neither Germany nor Italy attacked us before we were at war with them. Hitler and Saddam would both still be in power if foreign policy were left to lefties like you, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. Go crawl back to them.

You certainly should be careful discussing "serious subjects" since you know so little about them, or at least this one. You know, of course, that calling names shows that you're out of ammunition to defend your stand? But that's par for you. All you can say is 9-11, 9-11, 9-11. But there's no connection between Saddam and 9-11. George W. Bush has said so.


You have inspired me to write this little bit of doggerel. I so hope you enjoy it.

Rub-a-dub-dub, three reds in a tub,
And who do you think they be?
Cindy Sheehan, he/she/it, the movie mogul,
Turn them out, knaves all three.

Oh, I enjoy it very much. It again proves that you ain't got anything to defend your stand on the Iraqi war. Insults from someone like you are like water off a duck's back. :lol:
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Dis - here's another good one for you:

Exploiting Cindy: standard operating procedure

If conservatives have one common failing among them, it is their lack of sufficient cynicism to properly assess the nature of their liberal opponents. Their reaction to the ongoing antics of Cindy Sheehan stands as inarguable proof. Long before her son’s death, she was an anti-war liberal. Nothing has changed.

Yet, on occasions to numerous to count, conservatives have voiced their sympathies for Sheehan, presuming that, as a loving mother who lost her son in the ongoing Iraq war, she is crying out from emotional pain. Thus they overwhelmingly give her a pass for the hypocrisy, venom, and outright deceit with which she maintains her place in the limelight. But with each new outlandish outburst, evidence mounts of something far less noble that motivates her.

A more realistic prospect is that, having become drunk with constant media attention, her persona has mutated into a grotesque caricature of a grief stricken parent, and is now consumed with her highly inflated perception of importance to the national debate.

So enthralled has Cindy Sheehan become with this situation, she now fancies herself a profound orator and foreign policy expert, offering advice on how to diplomatically alleviate the terrorist threat.
Evidently, her son was merely an avenue to the “bully pulpit.” Sadly it is not mean-spirited to assume that those on the left can sink to such depths. It has been done before.

During the 1996 Democrat Convention, Vice-President Al Gore gave a speech that dripped with the self-absorbed pretense of virtue that we now see from Sheehan. Gore spoke of his sister, who had died some years prior, from lung cancer. In a transparent attempt to make the speech piercing and meaningful (though, being Al Gore, he only succeeded at making it very tedious), he gratuitously drew out the account of the final moments of her life and its supposedly profound effect on him.

“All I could do was to say back to her with all the gentleness in my heart, ‘I love you.’ And then I knelt by her bed and held her hand. And in a very short time her breathing became labored and then she breathed her last breath. And that is why, until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking.”

Touchy stuff to be sure, and no doubt many among his emotionally-driven audience were moved. Yet, during the intervening years between his sister’s death and his dramatic recounting of it, an incident had been recorded on videotape that proved to be highly inconvenient to Gore’s credibility.

Standing in a field of tobacco, Gore was on record in front of a bunch of farmers enthusiastically proclaiming his solidarity with the words, “I've hoed it, I've succored it, and I've harvested it” Thus, the real truth to be gleaned from Gore’s convention speech is that to people of his ideology, no situation is too tragic or personal to be shamelessly exploited for political gain. In light of this precedent, it is worthwhile to consider the long-term pattern emerging from among Sheehan and her cohorts on that roadside in Texas.

By her behavior, she completely dispels the myth that somebody can, in such a manner, “support the troops while opposing the war.”
Yes, it is possible to question the legitimacy of present policy in Iraq without undermining the ongoing efforts there, if such is indeed the intention of those doing the questioning. But Sheehan’s words do no less than denigrate America’s entire effort, and therefore inspire the enemy to kill more American soldiers.

Thus, she ensures that many other American mothers are similarly aggrieved as she claims to be. Worse yet, she does not grant those mothers such latitude for their own grief as many have granted her, Instead, she cruelly demeans them as “brainwashed” for remaining supportive of the War and the President. Still worse, those who killed her son, and who by her words are further motivated to kill more Americans are, according to Sheehan, “Freedom Fighters.”

The liberal media is having a great time encouraging Cindy Sheehan to become ever more of a spectacle with each passing day. But, in the final analysis, they are ultimately not to be blamed. She has shown herself willing to stand on the grave of her own heroic son and sully it, not from a broken heart, but in service to the liberal agenda.

Christopher G. Adamo
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Looky, dis! Another bed partner for you... and this one is at least better looking than either Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan, although she is just as much an enemy of America as they are.

The Madness of the Left

A cynic might speculate that the tide must be turning against the monsters – the jihadist murderers and other assorted thugs – as Jane Fonda has announced that she’s rolling up her sleeves and hitting the road ( with the odious George Galloway in tow) to work for – surprise! – an immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Fonda, her ageless beauty disfigured and her resplendent talent tarnished by a lifelong advocacy of evil causes, lusts so passionately for America’s defeat that she is even willing to make a mockery of her iconic feminism to aid barbarians who view women as chattel. She is afflicted by a form of madness: the Madness of the Left.

The grieving mother Cindy Sheehan camps outside the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas and demands an audience with him. She has already had one, but to the crowd that draws strength from the prospect of America’s humiliation, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, her strident denunciations of George Bush and Israel provide galvanizing theater. Self-righteous and uncurious, they never pause to contemplate the wellspring of the freedoms that protect them as their dissent verges on disloyalty. Their ingratitude, born of historical ignorance, toward the vibrant, creative, and benevolent nation that affords them the leisure to protest reflects the madness.

Atop her harpy’s nest at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd proclaims Sheehan’s “absolute moral authority.” This is what can happen when quite unintelligent writers are permitted to make unrestricted use of abstract terms. Sheehan’s moral authority (Dowd hasn’t the faintest idea of what that phrase might mean) can’t possibly derive from the tragic death of her son, or bereaved mothers who support our actions in Iraq would share in it. No, the moral authority that Dowd reserves for leftist mothers who hate George Bush is the tautological outgrowth of their hatred of George Bush. “Absolute” is a poor modifier for anything that is less than, well, absolute. The type of moral authority posited by Dowd is absolute only insofar as she approves of it. In the final analysis, what Cindy Sheehan has is neither absolute, nor moral, nor a form of authority. For persuading the rest of us that we must slink away from the Middle East with our tails between our legs, the Anointed assume that such a Potemkin village of virtue is good enough.

Always be suspicious of people who proclaim their love of peace (try finding someone who admits to liking war). Back in the most self-congratulatory period in our history, voices from the left clamored for peace, peace, peace at any cost. Yet, Jane Fonda’s personal struggle was the struggle of the communists to conquer the nation to the south. When she posed astride that antiaircraft gun, she was symbolically urging the North Vietnamese gunners to down American planes and exact a heavy toll in blood and suffering from the imperialists. The cost of a peace settlement that left South Vietnam free she would have reckoned as too high. One simple, even simplistic, question is guaranteed to throw a room filled with sanctimonious, oh-so-principled relics of the anti-war movement into an uproar: If North Vietnam had called off its invasion, why wouldn’t the ineluctable consequence have been peace? Feel free to ask it, but expect angry glares, followed by the old heave-ho.

A symptom common to those seized by the Madness of the Left is the tendency to bizarre utterance, the compulsion to say things that the speaker cannot possibly believe. At the Democratic National Convention last summer, John Edwards contrasted the battlefield heroism of his running mate with George Bush’s craven evasion of his duty. While Bush sought refuge in the National Guard (incidentally, learning to fly fighter jets isn’t everyone’s notion of how a rich boy ducks the draft), John Kerry was defending his country. Excuse me. Can we stop right there? If that is what John Kerry was doing, then isn’t the long debate finally over, and didn’t conservatives win?

Surely no one present at that convention took Edwards seriously (this was not, after all, the Republican convention), that the men who had fought in Vietnam were defending their country. John Kerry had entered the national consciousness by branding those men war criminals and likening them to the hordes of Genghis (remember to pronounce it as a “J”) Khan. Imagine (some straining might be necessary) a reporter forgetting that his job requires sensitivity to the needs of the Democratic Party above all, and having the temerity to eschew the soft lob in favor of a hard slider: Senator Kerry, you talk constantly of your own bravery and express enormous pride in the exploits of your “Band of Brothers.” If the war was immoral, and you participated in actions that violated the Geneva Convention, burning villages and all that – if, in fact, you could be considered a war criminal – can you tell us what, exactly, you are proud of?

Oh, yes, that could happen. It could happen on the planet where Dan Rather spearheads an investigation into Hugh Rodham’s refusal to return the four hundred grand he charged to obtain presidential pardons from his Bubba-in-law.

The distinction between liberals and leftists has been noted. Liberals generally display milder forms of the madness, usually managing to avoid the sort of traps that leftists construct for themselves. Conspiracy buffs will recall with amusement how determined the loony-left sites were to prove Bush’s complicity in the attacks of September 11. What dark forces ordered the Strategic Air Command to stand down? Why weren’t those civilian jetliners shot down (over heavily-populated areas, with tons of flaming debris causing massive casualties)? Really, inquiring progressive minds want to know.
No self-respecting leftist can believe that protocols for intercepting American passenger jets were not in place. Those planes should have been destroyed as soon as they strayed off course, the cry went up, although the people demanding to know why Bush failed to order it done would have screamed the loudest for his impeachment had he taken their counsel. (Leftists are afraid to stop screaming. They might be forced to think.) Terrorists had never before commandeered large aircraft for the purpose of flying them into buildings. It is not much of a stretch to picture Michael Moore arguing that the poor darlings were merely making a statement and intended to land the planes in Cuba (all anti-American freedom fighters must be Marxists).

Liberals steer clear of such egregious stuff. They enthusiastically join the hard-left, however, in embracing an implausible theory and ritualistically chanting its mantra: Bush Lied! Every six months or so, I will point out, purely as a public service, that every Democrat mouthing his daily talking points, every post-modern, multi-culti, eco-sensitive academic inveighing against the decadent West, every barking moonbat airing his irrational prejudices on the net – everyone who claims that George Bush lied or misled us into war with Iraq IS A LIAR…every single one. They all know that they’re lying. Understand that they are contending that the fruitless search for WMDs did not cause anger or frustration in the White House; that furniture did not get kicked over. No, they insist that Bush and his inner circle were rubbing their hands with glee and cackling over each new slippage in the polls (The plan is working: soon we’ll have blown this election!). Sorry, water doesn’t run uphill and politicians don’t try to lose. Only the Madness of the Left could lead anyone to suggest otherwise.

Ronald Wieck
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Liberty Belle said:
Dis - here's another good one for you:

Exploiting Cindy: standard operating procedure

If conservatives have one common failing among them, it is their lack of sufficient cynicism to properly assess the nature of their liberal opponents. Their reaction to the ongoing antics of Cindy Sheehan stands as inarguable proof. Long before her son’s death, she was an anti-war liberal. Nothing has changed.

Yet, on occasions to numerous to count, conservatives have voiced their sympathies for Sheehan, presuming that, as a loving mother who lost her son in the ongoing Iraq war, she is crying out from emotional pain. Thus they overwhelmingly give her a pass for the hypocrisy, venom, and outright deceit with which she maintains her place in the limelight. But with each new outlandish outburst, evidence mounts of something far less noble that motivates her.

A more realistic prospect is that, having become drunk with constant media attention, her persona has mutated into a grotesque caricature of a grief stricken parent, and is now consumed with her highly inflated perception of importance to the national debate.

So enthralled has Cindy Sheehan become with this situation, she now fancies herself a profound orator and foreign policy expert, offering advice on how to diplomatically alleviate the terrorist threat.
Evidently, her son was merely an avenue to the “bully pulpit.” Sadly it is not mean-spirited to assume that those on the left can sink to such depths. It has been done before.

During the 1996 Democrat Convention, Vice-President Al Gore gave a speech that dripped with the self-absorbed pretense of virtue that we now see from Sheehan. Gore spoke of his sister, who had died some years prior, from lung cancer. In a transparent attempt to make the speech piercing and meaningful (though, being Al Gore, he only succeeded at making it very tedious), he gratuitously drew out the account of the final moments of her life and its supposedly profound effect on him.

“All I could do was to say back to her with all the gentleness in my heart, ‘I love you.’ And then I knelt by her bed and held her hand. And in a very short time her breathing became labored and then she breathed her last breath. And that is why, until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking.”

Touchy stuff to be sure, and no doubt many among his emotionally-driven audience were moved. Yet, during the intervening years between his sister’s death and his dramatic recounting of it, an incident had been recorded on videotape that proved to be highly inconvenient to Gore’s credibility.

Standing in a field of tobacco, Gore was on record in front of a bunch of farmers enthusiastically proclaiming his solidarity with the words, “I've hoed it, I've succored it, and I've harvested it” Thus, the real truth to be gleaned from Gore’s convention speech is that to people of his ideology, no situation is too tragic or personal to be shamelessly exploited for political gain. In light of this precedent, it is worthwhile to consider the long-term pattern emerging from among Sheehan and her cohorts on that roadside in Texas.

By her behavior, she completely dispels the myth that somebody can, in such a manner, “support the troops while opposing the war.”
Yes, it is possible to question the legitimacy of present policy in Iraq without undermining the ongoing efforts there, if such is indeed the intention of those doing the questioning. But Sheehan’s words do no less than denigrate America’s entire effort, and therefore inspire the enemy to kill more American soldiers.

Thus, she ensures that many other American mothers are similarly aggrieved as she claims to be. Worse yet, she does not grant those mothers such latitude for their own grief as many have granted her, Instead, she cruelly demeans them as “brainwashed” for remaining supportive of the War and the President. Still worse, those who killed her son, and who by her words are further motivated to kill more Americans are, according to Sheehan, “Freedom Fighters.”

The liberal media is having a great time encouraging Cindy Sheehan to become ever more of a spectacle with each passing day. But, in the final analysis, they are ultimately not to be blamed. She has shown herself willing to stand on the grave of her own heroic son and sully it, not from a broken heart, but in service to the liberal agenda.

Christopher G. Adamo

That you and your ilk continue to attack a grieving mother says more about you than it does about Cindy Sheehan.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Every six months or so, I will point out, purely as a public service, ... everyone who claims that George Bush lied or misled us into war with Iraq IS A LIAR…every single one.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

George Bush's State of the Union Speech is online. I've posted links and excerpts. He claimed that Saddam was buying uranium from Niger, EVEN THOUGH THE CIA HAD TOLD HIM IT WASN'T TRUE. HE LIED.

This guy can post every six months because he thinks some people will forget. But I'll continue to post it here on this site much more often that that.
 

CJ

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Disagreeable said:
That you and your ilk continue to attack a grieving mother says more about you than it does about Cindy Sheehan.
How about this ilk, Dis. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122
 

Latest posts

Top