Cindy Sheehan shows her true colors

Parent Cafe
61

<p>You can sign up here…</p>

<p><a href=“http://cindyforsenate.blogspot.com/[/url]”>http://cindyforsenate.blogspot.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

62

<p>I would like to know more about Sheehan’s qualifications to serve as senator. Grieving mom isn’t enough for me.</p>

63

<p>I love this part of the blog:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Easily satisfied bunch, me thinks!</p>

64

<p>I think the rising tide of support for Cindy Sheehan’s Senate campaign is largely based on her incisive political commentary/philosophy. The following really gets her acolytes and well-wishers all up in a lather:</p>

<p>Strong views on Israel (undoubtedly endeared her to Chavez):

On the American experiment:

</p>

<p>On the constitution:

On our elected officials:

</p>

<p>Clearly, Cindy speaks for many. Her appeal is endless…moreover, she’s a grieving mother; a true rarity in America and an obvious political entitlement (it is, apparently, believed by many here that children do not die, and mothers never grieve…unlike Cindy—this will be an awkward possibility to contemplate for a lot of mothers who have lost their children and have grieved…it certainly is to the one I know).</p>

<p>.</p>

65

<p>

yeah, that will do it, let’s just organize a big campfire and we can make smores and sing kumbaya. I’m sure we could have used that same philosphy with Hitler. Just in case you haven’t noticed, the radical Islamists attack not just the US, not just Europe, not just non-Islamic nations, but even Islamic nations like Bangladesh because they aren’t “Islamic enough”. I don’t think a few choruses of “I’d like to Teach the World to Sing” will make much of an impact.</p>

66

<p>Up With People!:)</p>

67

<p>Sheehan is quite obviously a fool. Grieving mother or not, she doesn’t deserve the attention she’s getting. You know what, laura, SBmom, et al? Why don’t you talk to the grieving mothers of Saddam’s victims, or of the victims of palestinian suicide bombers? I’m not trying to make a connection between those occurences and our actions in Iraq, but it’s almost unreasonable to not see those deaths as more unexpected and undeserved than Casey Sheehan’s. Being gassed by an autocrat in your home in northern Iraq is not fair; being blown apart by a suicide bomber as you eat pizza at a sbarro is not fair; yet, dying in the field of battle as a member of a volunteer army is, at worst, a terrible, yet very possible, outcome. Again, I’m not trying to make a connection in this post between genocidal and terroristic murder and the Hussein administration (that’s a whole 'nother can of worms - please do not open, k?)</p>

<p>I have a feeling that the libs on this board strongly feel that Sheehan’s assertions are “right,” that it is Bush who is the dictator who lied in order to murder minorities and christians to enrich his oil buddies, etc. That is the ONLY way that they could be defending her with such tenacity…that they would overlook the many thousands of more senseless deaths that go on in the world to put Sheehan behind bullet-proof glass on an ivory pedestal…</p>

68

<p>For anyone who wants to make a difference, instead of just bellyaching about the president:

<a href=“http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060131-121506-1253r[/url]”>http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060131-121506-1253r&lt;/a&gt;
(registration required, now.)</p>

69

<p>It’s good to see that libs really celebrate free speech. It reminds me of the time Michelle Malkin spoke at Berkeley:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.zombietime.com/malkin/[/url]”>http://www.zombietime.com/malkin/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Although, it should be noted that such “disruptions” aren’t exactly uncommon when conservatives are speaking…</p>

70

<p>Cavalier302, I couldn’t have said it better.</p>

<hr>

<p>Sheehan is quite obviously a fool. Grieving mother or not, she doesn’t deserve the attention she’s getting. You know what, laura, SBmom, et al? Why don’t you talk to the grieving mothers of Saddam’s victims, or of the victims of palestinian suicide bombers? I’m not trying to make a connection between those occurences and our actions in Iraq, but it’s almost unreasonable to not see those deaths as more unexpected and undeserved than Casey Sheehan’s. Being gassed by an autocrat in your home in northern Iraq is not fair; being blown apart by a suicide bomber as you eat pizza at a sbarro is not fair; yet, dying in the field of battle as a member of a volunteer army is, at worst, a terrible, yet very possible, outcome. Again, I’m not trying to make a connection in this post between genocidal and terroristic murder and the Hussein administration (that’s a whole 'nother can of worms - please do not open, k?)</p>

<p>I have a feeling that the libs on this board strongly feel that Sheehan’s assertions are “right,” that it is Bush who is the dictator who lied in order to murder minorities and christians to enrich his oil buddies, etc. That is the ONLY way that they could be defending her with such tenacity…that they would overlook the many thousands of more senseless deaths that go on in the world to put Sheehan behind bullet-proof glass on an ivory pedestal…</p>

71

<p>Fountain Siren, Laura’s criticism in post #51 is dead on. </p>

<p>When you overstate the arguments of others or when you can’t concede any valid points in an opposing view, your argument is made weaker, not stronger.</p>

<p>For example, the Ghandi comment was not equating Sheehan with Ghandi, it was saying ‘EVEN a great man like GHANDI…’ Your parsing of the opinions of others on CC gives me no great hope for insightful literary criticism on any work with which you disagree.</p>

<p>Let’s take an example from last week’s Sunday NY Times Magazine. Did anyone else read the article on missionaries in Africa?</p>

<p>Okay, I am fundamentally opposed to trying to convert Africans from their native religions. I fundamentally do not approve of evangelizing. I would say that is a ‘political’ POV for me. </p>

<p>HOWEVER, reading the article, it is clear that this tribal culture has some pretty horrific practices (clitorectomy) and many human needs (clean water, medical care, etc). Further, I can recognize that if a person genuinely believes the non-saved will burn in hell, it would be a moral obligation for him to try to spread the Word. </p>

<p>So there are shades of gray to this story. Despite my stubborn political aversion to evangelizing, I can concurrently recognize that missionaries are, at great personal sacrifice, trying to help a needy people. They want to expose a tribe to modernity and to improve the lot of women. Finally, I can see they are ‘walking their talk’ of Christ’s love. And I have respect for all of that. </p>

<p>I am still against evangelizing, because I see it as exchanging one mythology for another that is less pertinent, with less history and richness for the human beings involved. OTOH, I can’t really condemn these missionaries nor work up nail-spitting ire… the introduction of Jesus might indeed lead to the abandonment of practices that are abusive to young women.</p>

<p>Most questions, issues, and problems that are worth discussing AT ALL resist the easy ‘black & white’ pronouncement.</p>

<p>The Sheehan case, too, is gray. </p>

<p>I concede she is nutty, hysterical. I see a very logical link to the nuttiness, that it is born of bereavement. Others see a nut, maybe a dangerous nut. Two reads.</p>

<p>Some see her son’s death as “his”; I also see it as “hers.” So to me her efforts are 100% consistent with Lightner & Walsh; all three tried to publicize and platform off their own personal tragedies in order to spread a message, preventing further tragedies. (Obviously a mother with a different political belief might take a very different path.) </p>

<p>I believe Sheehan’s actions are “done out of an overwhelming love, respect and compassion for the life of the child [she] bore and loved.” Others see it as grandstanding, unseemly, direspectful. Again, two reads.</p>

<p>There are legitimate points to be made on both sides and an interesting discussion can be had. Yes, she’s an extremist and maybe a little unhinged. Yes, we were misled into war. Yes, her son believed in his military mission (and he might still believe in it, were he alive today.) Yes, people have an obligation to live according to their consciences and their moral compasses-- which differ. Yes, if we pull out now we leave a vacuum. Yes, if we wait more will die and we’ll probably still leave a vacuum. Yes, people finding themselves in extremely complex situations can choose A,B,C, or D and have good reasons to do any of them.</p>

<p>There are volumes of writing about political events like Harper’s Ferry because (no pun intended) these are just not black and white discussions. </p>

<p>I pick this analogy not because I equate Cindy Sheehan with John Brown; I pick it to illustrate the complexity of determining a facile summary of right & wrong, even in that EXTREME example where the person was WAY MORE unhinged and actually murdered. There is still much to discuss about the questions he raised and the long-term influences his criminal act may have had on our history.</p>

<p>Let’s try to have political debates where intriguing points are added, or debated without exaggerating or dismissing the comments of others. Otherwise all these threads are wind up the same and nobody learns anything.</p>

72

<p>Impressive, SBmom. You make an ad hominem attack on FountainSiren because she doesn’t concede the validity of any of your points? You doubt her ability as a competent literary critic because she, in her thought-out and well-supported posts, doesn’t agree with you? Ok.</p>

<p>So. In your last post, you compare Cindy Sheehan to Candy Lightner, John Walsh, and John Brown. Let’s take a brief look at each of these people:</p>

<p>Candy Lightner: a woman whose 13-year-old daughter was hit and killed by a drunk driver as she walked down the street.</p>

<p>John Walsh: a man whose 6-year-old son was abducted and beheaded.</p>

<p>John Brown: which one were you talking about? The abolitionist?</p>

<p>I don’t see a strong connection between Lightner, Walsh, Brown and Sheehan. Lightner and Walsh lost young children in a senseless, undeserved, and unexpected manner. Brown fought against the profound moral abomination of slavery. Sheehan’s adult son made the adult decision to enlist in the military, and, in the process, succumbed to the mortal risk that such service presents.</p>

<p>ps: it was the abolitionist John Brown you were talking about, right?</p>

73

<p>Well,</p>

<p>As to open mind, I opposed the war. If you can dig back far enough you will find not a few posts where I argued against the war. I have restated, repeatedly, that I now hope for the best and have high hopes for a better outcome, now that America is there—I don’t hope for disaster just to say I told you so. I was wrong then, I could be wrong now.</p>

<p>But really, I find it quite bizarre that we actually need to debate whether or not Cindy Sheehan deserves our respect–given her public statements-- because her son was killed while fighting for the cause she condemns. Killed by our enemy and his enemy. An enemy which Cindy has embraced and apologized for. </p>

<p>Moreover, SBmom, would any of your “grey” arguments apply to a few other celebs like Dick Cheny? George Bush? Condolleza Rice? or did they all straight-faced “lie” to get us into the war? Are there any shades of grey here? If I were to look back through your posts will I find this discerning reasonableness you profess for Ms Sheehan, a self-described anti-American, anti-semite and on and on? Would we, or you, be as forgiving of the Honorable Louis Farrakhan? An anti-Semite who holds similar views on both Israel and America. For all I know he has lost a son and grieved without making it a cause celeb.</p>

<p>I know that in the beginning, Cindy Sheehan seem all-good to the anti-Bush crowd. I even felt some initial sympathy for her vigil; it was startling and out of the blue. Then she went south. Became a hater. A woman over her head and obsessed with her surprising and ephemeral celebrity. She has since cranked up her rhetoric…exposed her dead son’s memory to even more hyped up claims to sustain and ennoble it. Sucks face with Chavez…and I assume Fidel and someone from Hamas will not be far behind. </p>

<p>So, I cut my loses some time ago…others tenaciously hang on. It’s a shame, pathetic really.</p>

<p>By the way, thanks for the reasonable and ‘grey’ advice on my literary reviews. Where would I be without all the sage and disinterested advice on cc?</p>

74

<p>I agree completely that Sheehan started out with more dignity (and power) & has veered onto a hysterical path. I just think her love for her son and her zeal to end the war are sincere. (Like Brown was sincere…) As someone who is opposed to the war, I am sorry she has ceded her initial moral high-ground by wigging out like this. </p>

<p>FS, Go ahead and write however you want, I just think sobriety works better for you than snideness; otherwise your audience will only be those who already agree. I suspect you’d rather win converts than preach to the choir, but I could be wrong. (Intentional use of conversion analogy. ;))</p>

<p>CAV, I intended to jerk FS’ chain a bit, but what I said is a far cry from an ‘ad hominem attack.’ </p>

<p>As for FS’s question about whether or not I can see beyond black and white with Cheny et al, I AM REALLY TRYING… :wink: </p>

<p>I will give Cheney big accolades for how he handles having a gay daughter in his political position. That has impressed me.</p>

<p>I have quite a few friends with Bush/Cheney stickers on their bumpers (believe it or not) and I know they are good, kind, smart, thoughtful people. To me it is the fascinating problem of our time how utterly we (Americans) are divided into two ideological camps, so threatened by and so fearful of one another. I despair of decisions that are actually GOOD getting made in this climate of ideological division we have now.</p>

75

<p>

</p>

<p>SBmom,</p>

<p>How many people do you believe you have won over with your mellifluous arguments on cc? Seriously.</p>

<p>I’ll estimate my numbers first.</p>

<p>Fountainsiren: 0
SBmom: _______</p>

<p>(I think we are tied, who knows, but I do appreciate your concern)</p>

76

<p>I may possibly have won over a few kids who originally didn’t think they needed safeties. Possibly.</p>

77

<p>Why was she arrested? Did anyone hear what she did tonight?</p>

78

<p>She only unfurled a simple anti war banner. I bet she’s been wire tapped lately. And so it starts again. They always can argue that if you disagree you are an enemy and linked to the enemy so need to be watched. Simple free speech can get you arrested now. Welcome to the police state.</p>

79

<p>Yes, she was arrested for attempting to disrupt the speech. Here’s the link:
<a href=“2006 World Cup scandal inquiry to cost 3.5 mn euros - Breitbart”>2006 World Cup scandal inquiry to cost 3.5 mn euros - Breitbart;

<p>here’s a picture of the arrest:
<a href=“http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060201/i/r845958745.jpg?x=380&y=269&sig=QzQs_awRg_OP5LLIznTGfw--[/url]”>http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060201/i/r845958745.jpg?x=380&y=269&sig=QzQs_awRg_OP5LLIznTGfw--&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>She truly is a classy lady, eh?</p>

80

<p>Scuse me, but when did wearing a tee shirt that is anti war come to be cconsidered disrupting the speech. It didn’t say should would scream out anything, it was a quiet way to say what she wanted. It was before the speech, so she hadn’t disrupted anything. Wearing a tee shirt does not seem to me to be against any law and no matter what it says, it seems that would be included in the right to Free speech. Now are we giving up our rights to free speech…if others don’t agree with it? How far we have come.</p>