I think we don't have too much to say about her because she is obviously insane. We'd all feel guilty mocking a mentally unstable person. I hope she gets the help she needs. And the attention she is so desperately seeking. Maybe a book deal or Lifetime Original Movie will get her back on the track to sanity.

I feel bad for her too she must have lost her sanity when her son died so now she wants somone to blame and along the way get a lot of attention because that is what she wants.

Eh, honestly I don't have too much feelings on the matter. Well, okay maybe a few feelings, but it doesn't stir my blood up near as much as some other stuff occurring. So here's a few random thoughts, followed by a column in my local paper:

1. Cindy's actual message is a good one - why did my son die in Iraq? What was he fighting for? Was he really fighting for a change of regime to one of fundamentalist Shia Muslim, one that completely pisses on women's rights, one that continues to have total chaos around it on the brink of civil war? Oh sure, I'm fucking happy as a fucking clam that a school here and there is being built, but what exactly was our fucking purpose there, why were we there in the first place, and how close are we really to our actual goals? It's the ultimate question that our darn "liberal" media refuses to ask, but what is truly on many folks' minds. She has every right to ask it and it does not in any way "dishonor" her son for asking it. How could a grieving parent who lost their son in a war be dishonoring her son when she feels that the rationale for sending him in the first place was grossly distorted to begin with?

The true dishonor comes from fucks in the WSJ editorials who jack off every time Grover Norquist speaks while sucking long and hard on Bush's cock. It's both funny and disgusting. The true dishonor is the blatant handwave of the WSJ ed. board and the rest of the mainstream media for not putting this Administration's supposed original "rationale" for going to war in the spotlight. Slap the fucking word "bitch" on every fucking reporter's forehead and throw their pansy asses in Bush's whorehouse. Having access to the Pimp is always more important than actually getting off your limp dick asses and trying to do a little investigative journalism on your own.

I've said it before and it continues to ring true - investigative journalism is long dead.

2. With all that being said, I don't necessarily agree with other leftist/antiwar groups coming down to promote their own ideas along with Cindy's. This cheapens her original message, IMO. Sure they have a right to protest just like she does, but the focus goes away from her message of a grieving mother looking for answers to the interests of these other groups. Unavoidable, perhaps.

3. Anyone else find it a bit strange just how much vacation time Bush has taken? Anyone else find it strange just how long his current vacation is during a war? How serious is he about this war? Yeah I know, he's got his cabinet members flying down there, and he's got himself a fancy fax machine and email, I guess.

But how much time has he really spent in the White House? His vacation time doesn't even cover the time he spent going to Camp David, or those long months he spent on his re-election campaign, or the recent months campaigning his bogus SS privatization scheme, or his 2hr./day working out. Christ, I'm busy as fuck and I could never possibly fit in 2hr./day working out. What the fuck is the most powerful man on earth doing with his fucking time?


4. Anyone remember Karl Rove? Damnit Cindy!

Okay, that's all for my random thoughts. Here's an article that I put emphasis in pertaining to Cindy:

quote:

Issues none dare to debate By Robert Steinback - Knight Ridder Newspapers Friday, August 19, 2005 For more than two years, many Americans have wondered what noble cause our soldiers are fighting for in Iraq. But to dare to ask the question brought certain denunciation from the neo-conservative political power grid: Only a traitorous, subversive, unpatriotic, flag-burning, communist America-hater would question the virtue of a U.S. military venture. The intimidated media shied away from asking the question. A decorated Vietnam veteran presidential candidate waffled over posing it. The opposition party caved in rather than mount a challenge about it. And so it went largely unasked, except by a few harmless pundits on the Left. Meanwhile, the stinking morass of Iraq deepened, claiming military and civilian lives, depleting the U.S. treasury and eviscerating U.S. global prestige. It took the mother of an American soldier slain in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan, camping outside President Bush’s Texas ranch, to ask for an explanation of the noble cause her son died for — and thereby expose the president’s utter lack of a persuasive answer. Sheehan embodies the power grid’s worst nightmare: A citizen whose authority to pose the question is close to unassailable (though they’ve tried) — and whose personal loss makes her impervious to intimidation. Sheehan’s stand got me thinking about what other legitimate debates have been turned into sacred but dubious axioms. I came up with what I’m calling the Seven Blasphemies None Dare Debate — concepts neo-conservative Bush loyalists feel must not, should not and cannot be questioned. Political blasphemies aren’t synonymous with conventional wisdom, which are ideas no one bothered to question for so long that they gradually became broadly accepted — even if inaccurate. Rather, political blasphemies are highly debatable, complex issues that have been deliberately reduced to simplistic maxims specifically to squelch debate — which then work to the clear advantage of one side in that debate. Partisans need only express shock that anyone would dare question what everyone knows to be true, and voila! Debate closed. Herewith, my nominations for the Seven Political Blasphemies of contemporary America, starting with the one Sheehan has challenged. • Not every deployment of U.S. troops is, by definition, a noble exercise. Premise: Commanders in chief make mistakes (and, sometimes, mislead). “Support the troops” is not, as clever neo-con partisans imply, the equivalent of “don’t question the president.” • It is overly simplistic to dismiss all those who resist the American presence in Iraq as “terrorists.” Premise: As long as the militants targeting U.S. troops and allied Iraqis are lumped together as “terrorists” — a step or two below “roaches” — there is nothing to debate; they must be crushed. But doing so closes off discussion of their true motivations (which would help us understand what we’re up against), as well as the possibility that the U.S. presence in Iraq is provoking the resistance. • It can be argued that the world is not better off without Saddam Hussein. Premise: Nobody likes a dictator, but sometimes, there is a short-term geopolitical benefit in the presence of a tyrant who keeps rival factions from colliding — Tito in the old Yugoslavia, for example. This doesn’t have to undermine the long-run goal of eliminating all despots. • Not every society is ready for American-style capitalism and democracy. Premise: Such transitions need time, planning and patience to work. Moving too quickly can create a politically volatile mess, such as in the old Soviet Union. • The word of God is what one chooses to believe, not a universal truth that unerringly applies to all people. Premise: Your belief in your particular version of God is not sufficient justification for you to impose your will on others. • The American social model may not be every reasonable person’s idea of a perfect society. Premise: Other cultures are not necessarily inferior to ours simply because they are different. We, as Americans, should proudly promote our values, but our aim should be to persuade, not compel, others to embrace them. • Criticizing the U.S. government is not synonymous with criticizing America. Premise: Nonviolent dissent can be both patriotic and healthy for the nation. I’m only a harmless pundit on the Left. Still, I find myself hoping more Cindy Sheehans will acquire the courage to demand answers to the questions none dare ask. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/a...ate/?syndicated

One last thing - Cindy's mother just had a stroke. Despite what side you are on, let's all hope she's okay. Certainly either woman has had quite a lot to deal with.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Dear Mrs. Sheehan, You are in a firestorm of grief and what must be a disorienting swirl of world attention. For that reason, I will be as brief in my remarks as I hope to be compassionate. I will not insult you by presuming to know your sorrow. The loss of a son in armed conflict abroad must be among the most soul-wrenching experiences possible. You are surely right to rage against the horrors of war, right to demand answers and right to reach for those of like mind. I fear, though, that what began as a mourning mother’s righteous cry for meaning is becoming something that threatens to dishonor Casey’s heroism. Though I mean no disrespect, it is clear you are becoming swept up in a cynical drama that is far afield from the meaning of the war and your son’s sacrifice. From your daily blogging on Michael Moore’s web site to the pronouncements you feel obligated to make on Israel’s pullout from the Gaza Strip, you risk abandoning the moral high ground of a grieving mother and are in danger of becoming just another fleeting voice on the American pop culture landscape. The central issue here is not whether George W. Bush meets with you for a second time or whether your self-styled “peaceful occupation” of Crawford, Texas ever wins the explanations you seek. The central issue is that when your son volunteered for military service, he placed himself upon an altar of sacrifice. Sadly, the ultimate sacrifice was indeed required. Yet he gave himself willingly, as all our soldiers do in this generation, and his death is therefore the noble death of a hero and not the needlessly tragic death of one accidentally or foolishly taken. What we must understand is that a pledge to military service is a surrender of rights, a surrender of comforts and, potentially, a surrender of life if the nation calls. What leaves us so stunned at the death of a soldier, beyond our grief for a life snuffed out and our personal loss, is often our failure to understand the noble calling of the profession of arms and the warrior code that gives this calling meaning. When your son, and the thousands like him serving today, pledged himself to military service, he did not just “join the army.” He offered himself to his God and his nation in an act of devotion that has been repeated for centuries. He entered the fellowship of those who offer their lives willingly in service to others. His death, though a horror, was a horror with meaning, willingly engaged. I cannot know your sorrow. I can urge you, though, not to taint your son’s offering on what Lincoln called “the altar of freedom” by tethering it to the passing parade of trendy causes. I can also urge you to live now in the knowledge that your son’s passing ennobles our nation, just as I trust it will now ennoble you. With deepest sympathies for your loss, Stephen Mansfield

Well if her son was drafted in the military, I would be completely on her side. But he knew what he was getting into and went there voluntarily, so there's no reason to blaim Bush or the government.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well if her son was drafted in the military, I would be completely on her side. But he knew what he was getting into and went there voluntarily, so there's no reason to blaim Bush or the government.

But, for her, it's not so much about apportioning blame as it is about uncovering the rationale behind the Bush government's decision to lead her son (and all the other American troops) into harms way. It's fairly obvious that she's solely motivated by her own sense of grief and this is severely affecting her judgement and her ability to make a cogent argument, but, ultimately, I think the question "What, exactly, are American troops dying for in Iraq?" is a valid one.

This aside, the arguments being made to discredit her seem to miss the point and border on being little more than blinkered, manipulative drivel.

For instance, from those articles:

quote:

Those who lost their lives believed in the mission. To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too.

It is not the role of the soldier to "believe in" the missions they are assigned, it is merely their duty to carry them out. In any case, the nature of the mission these soldiers "believe" they are carrying out is precisely the subject of Sheehan's inquiry to begin with. If it is taken as gospel that soldiers need to "believe" in the mission that they are performing, then what is the harm in questioning the nature of the mission and the rationale behind it? Surely this sort of critical inquiry will only serve to assist the soldiers, by defining more precisely the scope of mission they are supposed to "believe" in and what those in charge of the mission hope it will eventually acheive? How can a soldier possibly accept the legitimacy of a mission if he's not even sure what the mission is?

Secondly, the assertion that we must blindly accept the stated nature of the mission (whatever it is) in order to "honour the memory" of the soldiers carrying it out is complete hogwash. If someone close to me died in combat, I would consider it my right (if not my duty) to clarify what, exactly, they were supposed to have died in the name of protecting. Claiming that we have no right to question the rationale behind the decision to send our own countrymen to war is only going to increase the chances of the military being misused again in the future. If the mothers of those who die in senseless wars won't stand up and question the rationale behind those in charge, who will?

These men were sent over there, in the words of the administration, to protect freedom and democracy. I can think of no better way to honour the fallen than to exercise the same rights and liberties that their deaths have supposedly granted to us, by openly and democratically questioning the motives of the Bush government.

quote:

We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us. Instead, we ask you to learn the individual stories. They are glorious. Honor their memories.

There was a great opinion piece that I read in one of the Melbourne newspapers a couple of months ago, dealing with the manner in which governments everywhere deal with the deaths of members of their own military. The argument was that it is in the government's best interests to portray every military death as glorious and heroic, as though there could be no higher honour than to die in the name of ones own country. Now, I will admit, there is an undeniable - if obscenely tragic - glory in the image of an individual dying, gun in hand, protecting his own country from an invading force. There is also a moral glory in sacrificing ones own life - say, by casting oneself onto an exploding grenade - to ensure the survival and wellbeing of others. If there is a glory to be found in warfare, then this is where it is to be found. I am, however, struggling to see anything glorious in being killed in the name of a questionable, unnecessary, illdefined cause, the aims of which are slipping further and further from our grasp as each day passes.

This, I think, may form part of the basis for Sheehan's outrage. Where is the glory, she may quite rightly ask, in dying for such a meaningless cause? What, exactly, is this cause that her son gave his life for for? The implication that a soldier's death is necessarily glorious only denies them their humanity. Every solider who dies is, afterall, a human being first and a soldier second, so to suggest that there is something inherently "glorious" about being killed in the fields of combat only defiles the nature of the human lives cut short by the misguided decisions of the American, British and Australian governments. The intimation that it is necessarily "glorious" to die in the name of the ambitions of these governments belies a seriously misguided perspective on the conflict and a clear instance of the dangers of blind patriotism. If we truly support those fighting, we will question what they are fighting for. To do otherwise is to dance on the graves of those "gloriously" forsaken.

quote:

Honor their service. Never dishonor them by giving in. They never did.

"Giving in" to what exactly? For all her grief-stricken insanity, I would argue that it is Sheehan's unwillingness to "give in" to this contrary pressure in her search for an explanation for her son's death that makes her actions, in the words of this author, "honourable". I'm not arguing the fact that she's probably been going about it in the wrong way or that she may be doing her cause more harm than good by propogating it in the manner that she has, but, ultimately, her relentless push for an official justification of this conflict does more service to the memories of the fallen than a thousand of these unquestioning counter-editorials ever will.

As for the other article:

quote:

Though I mean no disrespect, it is clear you are becoming swept up in a cynical drama that is far afield from the meaning of the war and your son’s sacrifice.

But it is the very "meaning of the war and [her] son’s sacrifice" that she is questioning. Far from being "far afield" from these concepts, it is these very concepts that form the central basis of her crusade.

quote:

The central issue is that when your son volunteered for military service, he placed himself upon an altar of sacrifice. Sadly, the ultimate sacrifice was indeed required.

Did he really place "himself upon an altar of sacrifice" by joining up for the military, though? Surely, in joining up for the military, you do so under the assumption that those in command will not, unnecessarily, put you in harms way? Can we suggest that all the troops in Iraq right now have been granted this "luxury" by the administration in their idealistic zealotry for warfare? And this "sacrifice" was "required" for what ends exactly?

These are precisely the questions that Sheehan is asking. Why was her son's life "sacrificed" and why was it deemed to be "required"?

quote:

his death is therefore the noble death of a hero and not the needlessly tragic death of one accidentally or foolishly taken.

Bullshit. It was the very fact that his death was "needlessly tragic" and "foolishly taken" that makes the questions asked by Sheehan necessary and worth pursuing.

quote:

I cannot know your sorrow. I can urge you, though, not to taint your son’s offering on what Lincoln called “the altar of freedom” by tethering it to the passing parade of trendy causes. I can also urge you to live now in the knowledge that your son’s passing ennobles our nation, just as I trust it will now ennoble you.

Again, condescending bullshit. Questioning the motives of those who led her son to his death is the exact opposite of "tainting" his "offering". To ascertain what cause this "offering" was made in the name of is precisely what makes the "offering" meaningful in the first place. If the "offering" had a worthwhile meaning, then she has the right to seek out its nature. If she is being given no adequate explanation as to what this "offering" is meant to mean, then that is the fault of the administration for rushing so hastily towards an unnecessary war, it is not her own.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

I agree that lot of the opponents of the woman are right-wing conservatives whose arguments don't really hold water. But fact of the matter is that he agreed with serving in the military, and by that indirectly agreed with the government policy. Regarldess of whether the cause was just or not, if he wasn't willing to sacrifice for whatever reasons the government deemed necessarry, he did not have to join.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I agree that lot of the opponents of the woman are right-wing conservatives whose arguments don't really hold water. But fact of the matter is that he agreed with serving in the military, and by that indirectly agreed with the government policy. Regarldess of whether the cause was just or not, if he wasn't willing to sacrifice for whatever reasons the government deemed necessarry, he did not have to join.

Yeah, but the issue isn't whether or not the government has the right to send willing troops into harms way for whatever cause it deems necessary (because, ostensibly, it does) it's whether or not the government is using that right responsibly. As I said, when he joined the miltary, he undoubtedly did so willingly, but also under the presumption that those at the top would do what they could to ensure that he wouldn't be unnecessarily sacrificed. Do you believe that the US government fulfilled its own set of military obligations in sending Sheehan's son and 150,000 others into combat for a questionable cause in Iraq? In other words, do you believe he was "sacrificed" on the basis of pragmatic necessity or on the basis of unjustifiable, ideological idiocy?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

For those who are saying that the anti-war Left is exploiting the death of Sheehan's son for political gain, I got 2 words for you (and they dont start with a F and a Y):

Pat Tillman.

The right side of the blogsphere are following this quite closely actually...

Here's a little snipit from one...

quote:

Does suffering make us exploitable? Filed under: Why can't weeee be friends UPDATE: I’ve written more on this troubling story here. Drudge has a story up that I find terribly distressing. I’m a little slow to come to the story. Apparently this woman, Cindy Sheehan, who quite tragically lost a son in Iraq, has been garnering some media attention (and I am certain it has been positive media attention) for keeping vigil in Crawford, Texas while President Bush vacations there. Her stated purpose is to make President Bush come out and talk to her - apparently before cameras and a jeering crowd - about her son’s death. A vacationing president being called-out by a grieving mother, while operatives from Code Pink and other leftist organizations surround her with signs detailing their agendas. It is a Bush-Haters wet dream. The Fourth Estate’s, too...

>>Source<<

and another from an ex-Marine

quote:

This kind of story never fails to make my blood boil. I realize that this woman has suffered a terrible, horrific loss... I most definitely realize that. I am a retired United States Marine who served his country for two decades in a number of ways and places, including Desert Storm... and my son is currently on active duty in the Marine Corps and just recently returned from duty in Iraq. First and foremost, this woman is spitting on the memory of her own son. He was in the service because he wanted to be- and I can assure you that he was proud of being a military man and proud of his mission. His death only becomes meaningless when we back home choose to NOT honor his mission and his sacrifice. If it mattered to him, then it damn well should matter to all of us back here in Protected Land. Lashing out in grief is an understandable response for anyone who goes through something as awful as losing a child. It is almost to be expected. This woman's son, though, was killed almost a year and a half ago. I think the initial shock should have worn off by now. She is saying some very, very moonbatty things now... consider the question she wants to personally ask the President: "Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?"

>>Source<<

I tend to agree with what they're saying about Cindy however.
It's been a 1.5yrs since her son died and all of a sudden she's done a complete 180 and has become a moonbat's beacon.
What (or more likely 'who') changed her attitude is the big question...there's big bucks behind her too apparently...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

There are rumours that she didn't even raise her son, his dad did...

The more I read about her, the more discredited she becomes...

quote:

What Cindy Sheehan Really Wants Now imagine if she gets it. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Friday, Aug. 19, 2005, at 1:44 PM PT Caught in a lie? Caught in a lie? When are the bureau chiefs of our newspapers and networks going to snap out of their own vacation-induced trances and send some grown-up correspondents down to Crawford, Texas? For weeks now, Cindy Sheehan has not been asked a single question that is any tougher than "How does it feel?" The media have been acting as her megaphone. After Slate published her real opinions on politics (a weird confection of pacifism with paranoid anti-Zionism) last Monday, she was eventually asked about her statement that her son Casey had been killed in a war for Israel, and she denied ever having made it. So, we must now say that, as well as being a vulgar producer of her own spectacle, and an embarrassment to her family, Cindy Sheehan is at best a shifty fantasist. After Slate published an extract from a letter that she wrote last March to ABC Nightline, Anderson Cooper of CNN asked her about the anti-Israel remarks the letter contained. She denied making them and proceeded in her blog to assert that someone had gotten hold of her original letter and somehow doctored it. This dark and murky allegation—evincing further paranoia on her part—has been easily and convincingly refuted, as can be seen in this sidebar. Cindy Sheehan, not content with echoing the Bin-Ladenist line that the president is the real "terrorist" and that he is the tool of a Jewish cabal, has dug a pit of falsehood around her own wild story. This week, before family matters called her away from Crawford, she mutated her demand—that the president lower himself into that pit and join her down there—into the shameless request that he join her for Friday prayers. The nerve! We all know how much the MoveOn.org forces believe in the power of prayer, and in the president's sincere religious convictions (their contempt for this is the only thing on which I agree with them). But, hey, try anything once for a tear-jerker or a bit of moral blackmail—what Maureen Dowd has so laughably called "absolute moral authority." What do these people imagine that they are demanding? Would they like a referendum to be held, among the relatives of the fallen in Iraq, to determine the future conduct of the war? I think I can promise them that they would heavily lose such a vote. But what if the right wing were also to demand such a vote and the "absolute moral authority" that supposedly goes with it? One of three things could then happen. The ultra-right anti-Zionist forces of David Duke and Patrick J. Buchanan, both of whom approvingly speak of Ms. Sheehan's popular groundswell, would still lose the vote. So would the media fools who semi-automatically identify Sheehan and her LaRouche-like drivel with the "left" or "progressive" forces. This would leave us with a random pseudo-majority, made up of veterans and their relatives. Who wants this to be the group that decides? One might as well live in a populist, jingoist banana republic. Never mind the Constitution, or even the War Powers Act. Only victims and martyrs can decide! Get ready to gather under the balcony of a leader who speaks rotundly of such glory. Then there is the question of humanitarian or pacifist emotion. Some have perhaps been drawn to "Camp Casey" out of reverence for life. Their demand, however, is an immediate coalition withdrawal from Iraq. Have they seriously asked themselves how humane the consequences of that would be? The news of a pullout would put a wolfish grin on the faces of the "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia" brigade, as Mr. Zarqawi's force has named itself in order to resolve all doubt. Every effort would be made to detonate every available car-bomb and mine, so as to claim the withdrawal of coalition forces as a military victory for jihad. I can quite understand Ms. Sheehan's misery at the thought of her son being killed on some desolate road. But will she be on hand to console the parents whose sons are shot in the back while being ordered to surrender and withdraw? I hope I don't insult the intelligent readers of this magazine if I point out what the consequences of such a capitulation would be for the people of Iraq. Paint your own mental picture of a country that was already almost beyond rescue in 2003, as it is handed back to an alliance of homicidal Baathists and Bin-Ladenists. Comfort yourself, if that's the way you think, with the idea that such people are only nasty because Bush made them so. Intone the Sheehan mantra—repeated this very week—that terrorism is no problem because after all Bush is the leading terrorist in the world. See if that cheers you up. Try it on your friends. Live with it, if you are ready to live with the consequences of what you desire. This is an argument, about a real war, that deserves moral seriousness on all sides. Flippancy and light-mindedness have no place. Cindy Sheehan's cheerleader Michael Moore has compared the "insurgents" in Iraq to the American minutemen and Founding Fathers. Do I taunt him for not volunteering to fight himself in such a noble cause? Of course I do not. That would be a low and sly blow. Do I say that he is spouting fascistic nonsense? Of course I do. Is Cindy Sheehan exempt from any verdict on her wacko opinions because of her bereavement? I would say that she is not. Has she been led into a false position by eager cynics who have sacrificed nothing and who would happily surrender unconditionally to the worst enemy that currently faces civilization? That's for her to clarify. While she ponders, she should forgo prayer, stay in California, and end her protest. Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. —Additional reporting by Blake Wilson Photograph of Cindy Sheehan by Mandel Ngan/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."