The Respect That I Had Is Gone.
There was a brief moment where I had a glimmer of respect for Cindy Sheehan. I respect the fact she’s upset over the loss of her son. However, this is not a protest she’s waging in Crawford. This is a media driven circus. I cited last week the group that is assisting her. That’s the Crawford Peace House; a group that has solid connections to the antiwar group Code Pink. And, ironically, both are anti-Semitic, as well.
But now, Sheehan is stepping up the rhetoric.
Cindy Sheehan vaulted into national consciousness this month on the power of her story as the grieving mother of a fallen soldier.
But what began as a solitary campaign to force a meeting with President Bush by setting up camp along the road to his ranch has quickly taken on the full trappings of a political campaign. Sheehan is working with a political consultant and a team of public relations professionals, and now she is featured in a television ad.
Sheehan began her protest here last Saturday after crisscrossing the country for more than a year demanding answers on why Bush continues to wage what she calls an unjust war in Iraq. After her son Casey Sheehan, 24, was killed in Baghdad last year, she founded Gold Star Families for Peace, an antiwar organization that labored largely in obscurity -- until now.
In part, Sheehan's case has echoed as her grievances merged with what polls show is growing dissatisfaction with the war. But her cause has also been aided by political organizers who swiftly mobilized around her -- recognizing an opportunity to cause acute discomfort for a vacationing president and put a powerful emotional frame around the antiwar movement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR2005081201816.html
I note that the Post, which is where the above originated from, states the president is vacationing. But the man has been working through the entire vacation, so it isn’t like the port-side pundits have been characterizing. He’s not out lounging around the house. And this woman doesn’t really give a rip about whether or not she meets with him. She’s got her fifteen minutes of fame, and she’s not giving up.
Trouble is Sheehan is not sincerely interested in meeting Bush for a private, heartfelt chat about her understandable anguish and lingering questions.
She wants to make a public splash by allowing critics of the unjustified war in Iraq to use her as a human bazooka against Bush, who got us into this war mess.
That Sheehan would allow her private grief to be plied for a public stunt seems unfathomable even if her underlying message about unnecessary blood being shed by American soldiers hits the mark.
Sheehan already got face time with the president, right here in Western Washington last year -- a fact that folks tend to ignore as Sheehan morphs into the celebrity du jour.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003245.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/236483_robert13.html
But, this has now gone beyond having a beef with the president. This woman hasn’t morphed into any sort of celebrity, unless you count the moonbats over at MoveOn.org. No, she has joined the looney Left.
Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!
"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cs.htm
I’m so glad that Sheehan has an opinion on what to do in combating terrorism, but I prefer to defer to the experts on this. I prefer to use my own mind, look at the facts, and make a determination. And my determinations are based on those facts. They’re based on what is good for this nation. They’re based on what we should be doing against our enemy in this war. Hers are based on emotion and talking points. I would pay cash money to see her go up against any one of the starboard-side pundits, who will give her no quarter. Not because they dislike her or her argument, but because some questions need to be answered, and she isn’t doing that. She’s getting a pass by the media. The first question should be: "Why did you change your story from a year ago?"
I’m not being impersonal. I feel sorry for her that she lost her son. But he volunteered. He knew he was going into harm’s way. And it’s telling that the family released the following statement last week. And they note the agenda she’s pushing; an agenda the MSM refuses to even note.
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving.
We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
http://www.sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/5895/
Sheehan fired back that their opinion is noted, and they’re entitled to it, but they’re wrong. They "didn’t know Casey." Well, obviously neither did she because her son volunteered to go and defend this nation. And her protest is a spit in the face of every soldier serving, and has given their life for the security of this nation. But, as I said, she has upped the ante.
"They're not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror," she said. "The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush." ... "We have no Constitution. We're the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17915
And this just goes to show how nuts she really is. I shouldn’t have to refute this, but as the Left is going to latch onto this rhetoric, it’s important to do this now.
We do have a Constitution, and it does have checks and balances. It was signed in 1781. To impeach a sitting federal officer, you need a charge, and the House gets to do the impeachment. It is the Senate that removes him. The idea of Pres. Bush and his administration going to Iraq to fight the war themselves is vaguely reminiscent of the challenge that bin-Laden stated; about meeting him for a mano y mano match. Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons to keep it’s enemies at bay, and we have NOT used nuclear weapons in Iraq. The entire country is not contaminated. And Syria invaded Lebanon. Israel didn’t invade "Palestine." From a historical point of view, Palestine died the day the British handed the country over to the Jews under the 1948 UN mandate, and the day the Roman Empire fell.
Her rant is incoherent, and blatantly anti-Israeli, which reflects the antiwar groups that are supporting her in this little escapade. The media is simply focusing on this woman to give the president a black eye. "Why hasn’t he met with her?" "Why is he avoiding her?" "She has a right to speak her mind directly to the president." Those come the port-side pundits and commentators on the MSM’s woefully inadequate talking heads shows. In their rush to find a new "savior" (the ratings haven’t gone up for them, folks) they failed to do the proper checks to see just how nutty this woman was.
And speaking of the nuttiness and incoherence, it is interesting that her husband back in California filed for divorce last Friday. The two have been separated since June 1st of this year, and he has cited "irreconcilable differences" as the reason for the divorce. I can’t point to her little crusade as the driving force behind this move by her husband, but I’m sure it contributed to his decision.
Either she’s unaware he’s filed for divorce, or she doesn’t care. Regardless, this is a statement from her today: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial." First of all, ma’am, you can’t have your son back. Talk to God about that. And your threat is noted, but you haven’t got any legs to stand on.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cs.htm
Legally speaking, thus far—and Congress has confirmed this—that no serious crime has been perpetuated by the US in the GWOT. The best that the port-side can come up with is Abu Ghraib. While I disagree, completely, about how bad Abu Ghraib was, the JAG Corps has found that several soldiers did violate the UCMJ. Fine. They’re being punished. But what is she going to bring up in a trial—a criminal trial, mind you—where she is the one on trial for tax evasion? Anything she brings up in the court regarding the war will be ruled as irrelevant and inadmissible. Even an attorney would agree that to even think of bringing up the war in such a court case would be foolish, at best.
Hopefully, this is the last time we at the Asylum have to address this moonbat, who parades around with a sign in the shape of a white chicken, with phony blood splattered on it. (Um, Ms. Sheehan, yellow is generally used to signify cowards. We had cowards in the White House previous to Pres. Bush’s first inauguration. THEY opted to ignore the terrorists, not engage them.) Frankly, I’m sick of hearing about her on the radio, reading about her in the papers, and running across the TV set. It’s time for her to pipe down, and go home; that, BTW, is exactly the request that her surviving son, Andy, has sent to her via e-mail. He asked her to stop this protest, and come home to support the family.
Needless to say, she isn’t listening. Isn’t that another telling sign?
Publius II
There was a brief moment where I had a glimmer of respect for Cindy Sheehan. I respect the fact she’s upset over the loss of her son. However, this is not a protest she’s waging in Crawford. This is a media driven circus. I cited last week the group that is assisting her. That’s the Crawford Peace House; a group that has solid connections to the antiwar group Code Pink. And, ironically, both are anti-Semitic, as well.
But now, Sheehan is stepping up the rhetoric.
Cindy Sheehan vaulted into national consciousness this month on the power of her story as the grieving mother of a fallen soldier.
But what began as a solitary campaign to force a meeting with President Bush by setting up camp along the road to his ranch has quickly taken on the full trappings of a political campaign. Sheehan is working with a political consultant and a team of public relations professionals, and now she is featured in a television ad.
Sheehan began her protest here last Saturday after crisscrossing the country for more than a year demanding answers on why Bush continues to wage what she calls an unjust war in Iraq. After her son Casey Sheehan, 24, was killed in Baghdad last year, she founded Gold Star Families for Peace, an antiwar organization that labored largely in obscurity -- until now.
In part, Sheehan's case has echoed as her grievances merged with what polls show is growing dissatisfaction with the war. But her cause has also been aided by political organizers who swiftly mobilized around her -- recognizing an opportunity to cause acute discomfort for a vacationing president and put a powerful emotional frame around the antiwar movement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR2005081201816.html
I note that the Post, which is where the above originated from, states the president is vacationing. But the man has been working through the entire vacation, so it isn’t like the port-side pundits have been characterizing. He’s not out lounging around the house. And this woman doesn’t really give a rip about whether or not she meets with him. She’s got her fifteen minutes of fame, and she’s not giving up.
Trouble is Sheehan is not sincerely interested in meeting Bush for a private, heartfelt chat about her understandable anguish and lingering questions.
She wants to make a public splash by allowing critics of the unjustified war in Iraq to use her as a human bazooka against Bush, who got us into this war mess.
That Sheehan would allow her private grief to be plied for a public stunt seems unfathomable even if her underlying message about unnecessary blood being shed by American soldiers hits the mark.
Sheehan already got face time with the president, right here in Western Washington last year -- a fact that folks tend to ignore as Sheehan morphs into the celebrity du jour.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003245.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/236483_robert13.html
But, this has now gone beyond having a beef with the president. This woman hasn’t morphed into any sort of celebrity, unless you count the moonbats over at MoveOn.org. No, she has joined the looney Left.
Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!
"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cs.htm
I’m so glad that Sheehan has an opinion on what to do in combating terrorism, but I prefer to defer to the experts on this. I prefer to use my own mind, look at the facts, and make a determination. And my determinations are based on those facts. They’re based on what is good for this nation. They’re based on what we should be doing against our enemy in this war. Hers are based on emotion and talking points. I would pay cash money to see her go up against any one of the starboard-side pundits, who will give her no quarter. Not because they dislike her or her argument, but because some questions need to be answered, and she isn’t doing that. She’s getting a pass by the media. The first question should be: "Why did you change your story from a year ago?"
I’m not being impersonal. I feel sorry for her that she lost her son. But he volunteered. He knew he was going into harm’s way. And it’s telling that the family released the following statement last week. And they note the agenda she’s pushing; an agenda the MSM refuses to even note.
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving.
We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
http://www.sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/5895/
Sheehan fired back that their opinion is noted, and they’re entitled to it, but they’re wrong. They "didn’t know Casey." Well, obviously neither did she because her son volunteered to go and defend this nation. And her protest is a spit in the face of every soldier serving, and has given their life for the security of this nation. But, as I said, she has upped the ante.
"They're not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror," she said. "The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush." ... "We have no Constitution. We're the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17915
And this just goes to show how nuts she really is. I shouldn’t have to refute this, but as the Left is going to latch onto this rhetoric, it’s important to do this now.
We do have a Constitution, and it does have checks and balances. It was signed in 1781. To impeach a sitting federal officer, you need a charge, and the House gets to do the impeachment. It is the Senate that removes him. The idea of Pres. Bush and his administration going to Iraq to fight the war themselves is vaguely reminiscent of the challenge that bin-Laden stated; about meeting him for a mano y mano match. Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons to keep it’s enemies at bay, and we have NOT used nuclear weapons in Iraq. The entire country is not contaminated. And Syria invaded Lebanon. Israel didn’t invade "Palestine." From a historical point of view, Palestine died the day the British handed the country over to the Jews under the 1948 UN mandate, and the day the Roman Empire fell.
Her rant is incoherent, and blatantly anti-Israeli, which reflects the antiwar groups that are supporting her in this little escapade. The media is simply focusing on this woman to give the president a black eye. "Why hasn’t he met with her?" "Why is he avoiding her?" "She has a right to speak her mind directly to the president." Those come the port-side pundits and commentators on the MSM’s woefully inadequate talking heads shows. In their rush to find a new "savior" (the ratings haven’t gone up for them, folks) they failed to do the proper checks to see just how nutty this woman was.
And speaking of the nuttiness and incoherence, it is interesting that her husband back in California filed for divorce last Friday. The two have been separated since June 1st of this year, and he has cited "irreconcilable differences" as the reason for the divorce. I can’t point to her little crusade as the driving force behind this move by her husband, but I’m sure it contributed to his decision.
Either she’s unaware he’s filed for divorce, or she doesn’t care. Regardless, this is a statement from her today: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial." First of all, ma’am, you can’t have your son back. Talk to God about that. And your threat is noted, but you haven’t got any legs to stand on.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cs.htm
Legally speaking, thus far—and Congress has confirmed this—that no serious crime has been perpetuated by the US in the GWOT. The best that the port-side can come up with is Abu Ghraib. While I disagree, completely, about how bad Abu Ghraib was, the JAG Corps has found that several soldiers did violate the UCMJ. Fine. They’re being punished. But what is she going to bring up in a trial—a criminal trial, mind you—where she is the one on trial for tax evasion? Anything she brings up in the court regarding the war will be ruled as irrelevant and inadmissible. Even an attorney would agree that to even think of bringing up the war in such a court case would be foolish, at best.
Hopefully, this is the last time we at the Asylum have to address this moonbat, who parades around with a sign in the shape of a white chicken, with phony blood splattered on it. (Um, Ms. Sheehan, yellow is generally used to signify cowards. We had cowards in the White House previous to Pres. Bush’s first inauguration. THEY opted to ignore the terrorists, not engage them.) Frankly, I’m sick of hearing about her on the radio, reading about her in the papers, and running across the TV set. It’s time for her to pipe down, and go home; that, BTW, is exactly the request that her surviving son, Andy, has sent to her via e-mail. He asked her to stop this protest, and come home to support the family.
Needless to say, she isn’t listening. Isn’t that another telling sign?
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home