SHE'S COMING BACK-K-K-K-K!
Hurray! Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan is coming back to Crawford - so she threatens on her blog.
As she puts it;
I'm coming back to Crawford for my son. As long as the president, who sent him to die in a senseless war, is in Crawford, that is where I belong. I came here two and a half weeks ago for one reason, to try and see the president and get an answer to a very simple question: What is the noble cause that he says my son died for?
What a wack case. I believe she has been driven mad by media-attention and is now turned into a kind of anorexic Michael Moore, but with even more stupid lines. If she doesn't why her son was fighting in Iraq, she is either a very ill-informed mother or worse, some one who cares nothing for the liberties she currently enjoys. Either way, Mrs Sheehan is todays winner of the "Useful Fool" award.
It gest pretty hot in Waco this time of year. She better not drink the water from the area, it seems to cause lunacy.
Posted by: Ultonian Scottis American | August 24, 2005 at 05:20 PM
She's starting to bore me.
Posted by: "Alice" | August 24, 2005 at 05:57 PM
Alice: LOL
Clint Eastwood character Marine Gunnery Sergeant Ridgeway in "Heartbreak Ridge":
"You can beat me, you can kill me, just don't bore me."
and
"With all due respect, sir, you're beginning to bore me."
Posted by: Ultonian Scottis American | August 24, 2005 at 06:13 PM
She reminds me so much of someone I knew, it makes me very uneasy.
Posted by: Aileen | August 24, 2005 at 06:20 PM
Aileen:
Why?
Merely ecause the similiarity is so keen, or that the other person seems mentally unbalanced?
I understand that Cindy Sheehan is a distraught bereaved mother of a fallen patriot, but this doesn't excuse any and all behaviour on her part.
Posted by: Ultonian Scottis American | August 24, 2005 at 06:38 PM
Look, I think that thats enough about this woman, its all beginning to get a bit nasty. Shes a victim and she lost a family member - lets not go on being so bitchy and scathing about her, please?
Posted by: Jo | August 24, 2005 at 06:50 PM
Ale
The similarity is so keen!
Re your second point. I would cut her a wee bit of slack and it may excuse some of her behaviour and those that are encouraging her are perhaps more culpable, but apart from that I agree and have posted tp that effect on the ONE MAN'S TERRORIST thread )or at least that is part of what I was trying to say)
Posted by: Aileen | August 24, 2005 at 06:53 PM
Jo, I would have sympathy for her IF what she is whinging about were true. But it's not. This whole pile of cow paddies started because of her bitching over the fact that Mr. Bush would not meet with her. He HAS met with her and her family. He comforted her and those are her words, not mine. Her son, not only re-upped, so he had no intentions of getting out of the Army, but he loved what he was doing. He loved serving his country, he was proud of his career. It breaks my heart that he was killed, as I am sure that it broke his mother's heart that he was killed. I would have had respect for Ms. Cindy if she had turned her energies towards something positive, such as helping and/or visiting wounded soldiers; perhaps writing letters to other soldiers to give encouragement to them; or even organizing care-packages to those still in Iraq and Afganistan. But no, she has decided to focus it all on herself. For that, I think she is a self-centered cow. And a dangerous one at that. She has managed in her self-serving way to give comfort to the very same people who killed her son, and want to kill others just like him.
So if some of us are a bit nasty, tough shit. That woman needs a good kick in the ass, and I really wish I was the one chosen to administer the action.
Posted by: "Alice" | August 24, 2005 at 07:40 PM
Im sorry I am made of different stuff from you Alice, I couldnt say "It breaks my heart that he was killed, as I am sure that it broke his mother's heart that he was killed." and then say " I think she is a self-centered cow. And a dangerous one at that.tough shit. That woman needs a good kick in the ass"
Youll forgive me if I think thats quite a despicable insensitive crass way for one woman to talk about another.
Posted by: Jo | August 24, 2005 at 07:57 PM
I can't hit a woman myself, but Alice go right ahead. Floor this Cindy bitch.
Sheehan has so far crossed the line that she can't see the line. The line is a dot to her!
Someome has to stop her shitting on her son's grave. Ironically if she spoke to Bush (a second time) he would probably calm her down and maybe even make her see his point of view.
Posted by: Poosh | August 24, 2005 at 08:40 PM
Is there really a different standard for how a woman should talk to a man and how she should talk to another woman? (beyond banter or flirting). I would hope that I would talk of and to a man who had lost his son following the same rules as a mother who'd lost hers.
Posted by: Aileen | August 24, 2005 at 08:40 PM
I have nothing more to say on this subject - the attitude to her loss and bereavement, no matter how much you dislike the woman, is utterly sickening.
Posted by: Jo | August 24, 2005 at 08:59 PM
Jo
fair enough - its a free country but my question was actually not a comment about her at all. I was trying to explore the basis of the difference between your response to a man and to a woman, whether it was on the assumption of different needs and whether you consider the gender of the commenter is relevant.
Posted by: Aileen | August 24, 2005 at 09:26 PM
"Floor this Cindy bitch."
Poosh, you're the one who's across the line.
Posted by: Peter | August 24, 2005 at 09:55 PM
Hey,
Even Joan Baez showed up in Crawford to protest. She was undoubtedly looking for Nixon
or someone of that ilk to listen to her sing.
Posted by: McKiernan | August 24, 2005 at 10:19 PM
"Cindy Sheehan, the so-called Peace Mom seeking a second meeting with President Bush in connection with the Iraq War death of her son, says terrorists killing Americans are "freedom fighters."
She made the remark during her trek earlier this month to Crawford, Texas; but her equating the enemy with freedom fighters has not been highlighted by the mainstream media, despite her telling it directly to a reporter for CBS News."
These freedom fighters killed her son and she is supporting THEM in her pathetic desire to get at Bush. Were it Clinton would she be doing all this? Of course not!
Posted by: Dave t | August 24, 2005 at 10:34 PM
Once you put yourself in the public eye and DEMAND that you're in the public eye it's a different ball game. I'm not gonna be told I can't pick apart her arguments and then call her a f*cking idiot for having such idiotic opinions. If she voiced herself in private - FINE. She's not though, is she? A letter sent to the President would be dignified just as the some of the family members of British soldiers killed in Iraq sent a dignified letter to no 10. They have my respect even if I disagree with them.
And - sigh - I don't actually think someone should hurt her.
So yes, she's a bitch. She threw the first insult at Bush. If you can't take it - DON'T DEAL IT. I don't care if her whole family (who are somewhat ashamed of her so I hear) just died. I respect her for raising a good son - nothing more. I'm not gonna give her immunity or a free pass on account of her personal life.
Go ahead and think we’re all heartless warmongers or whatever pathetic delusions you lefties and liberals keep telling yourselves about us nasty conservatives – so long as you feel better about yourselves. You wouldn’t be lefties if you weren’t smug with self-satisfaction and real self-righteous glee.
Posted by: Poosh | August 24, 2005 at 10:38 PM
- Disclaimer: Damn, that sounded really mean. I apologise! There are leftists and liberals all around the world who are decent people and not as I characterised above. -
Posted by: Poosh | August 24, 2005 at 10:43 PM
Poosh
you spoiled it! I was going to have a go about the lefties comment, but you got your discaimer in on time. damn!
Although I wouldn't feel comfortable expresssing myself in the tone that you use to the lady, I absolutely agree that being bereaved does not give you a free pass, beyond commenting on its personnal impact.
It would really help if poster would indicate who their comments are directed to if they are not just general comments. I feel that I am getting caught in the crossfire
Posted by: Aileen | August 24, 2005 at 10:51 PM
"Go ahead and think we’re all heartless warmongers or whatever pathetic delusions you lefties and liberals keep telling yourselves about us nasty conservatives.."
Poosh, I supported the Iraq war. I don't support the right-wing hate campaign against a woman who has lost her son and decided to exercise her democratic right to protest.
In the UK, there's been a guy camped outside the Houses of Parliament for the past four(?) years. For similar reasons.
It's called democracy, what we're supposed to be bringing to Iraq. Get used to it!
Posted by: Peter | August 24, 2005 at 10:53 PM
There is no right-wing hate campaign against her. I mean the insults directed against her, they are exactly what I think of her - I wouldn't insult her to that extent in public but this is a mere blog (a good one mind).
I read one American article claiming such a thing and all the evidence of a "hate campaign" was a list of logical attacks on Cindy's "argument". Reporting the fallacies she seems to be vomiting every week.
There are no smears being directed against her. She has a right to protest, sure. Her words give comfort and aid to the terrorists - sure - I can live with that. But likewise she and those who defend her should not start crying when citizens or subjects start dropping insults at her in "private" (the internet, I know that's not private, but, bah, you know what I mean!). She has said pretty much the worst lies and insults one could craft adn directed them at Bush.
Posted by: Poosh | August 24, 2005 at 11:06 PM
Like somebody noted above, this subject is getting tiresome. I'm sorry this woman lost her son. However, for all of the criticism I've come across directed at her, that's all it's been - criticism. I've yet to read one person comment that she should not have the right to protest. There's a big difference between the two and I really wish people would stop with the lectures about democracy and the like.
Posted by: Emily | August 25, 2005 at 12:03 AM
Poosh: "Reporting the fallacies she seems to be vomiting every week."
Poosh, do you still say this is not a hate campaign? The language you use suggests otherwise.
Emily: "I've yet to read one person comment that she should not have the right to protest. There's a big difference between the two and I really wish people would stop with the lectures about democracy and the like."
Emily, Poosh called for this woman to be assaulted: "I can't hit a woman myself, but Alice go right ahead. Floor this Cindy bitch."
Is that supporting her right to protest?
Posted by: Peter | August 25, 2005 at 12:15 AM
No, I thought that remark was disgusting. But s/he didn't say she had no right to be there. As far as I can tell, their objections are not that she's protesting, but rather the manner in which she is conducting herself as she does so.
Posted by: Emily | August 25, 2005 at 12:22 AM
No, I think their basic position is that anyone who opposes the Iraq war is a traitor, encouraging the enemy. Read the posts above and the other Cindi thread a few days ago and you will see this clearly.
It's the classic right wing position - "my country right or wrong". He / she who is not with us is against us. No room for dissent.
Posted by: Peter | August 25, 2005 at 12:27 AM