Posted on 08/15/2005 6:39:54 PM PDT by WillMalven
I was planning to let the Cindy issue stand and move on to other issues. The problem is that she remains the “darling” of the Leftist American press, left-over hippies from the ‘60s who never got over Nixon and Vietnam, and young hippie wannabes in pursuit of an identity chasing the “flavor of the month” cause. Having listened to and read her latest words, I no longer believe that this woman is an innocent, being used by the left. I believe that she is entirely complicit in this whole campaign and feel compelled to continue to comment in defense of the troops and the President.
She is not a woman distraught at losing a child; she is a hatemonger using the death of her son to bash the President and the United States. Her own words convict her. She is more reminiscent of a stalker than a mourner. Her obsessive hatred is far beyond any which might be explained in the pain from loss. She is not deluded by some Machiavellian plot of extreme Left-wing activist “kooks,” she is an extreme Left-wing activist kook. She had this Leftist anti-war stance well before her son was killed. She is not mourning his loss, she is not turning her efforts towards helping her own family or other families who have lost loved ones, cope with their losses, instead she is picking at the scab of their healing wounds, delaying the healing process and prolonging their pain. This is not a nice woman; this is not a caring woman; this is a hateful, destructive, selfish, woman who is more interested in her own political agenda than in healing the damage she has done to her own family in pursuing this wrongly directed vendetta.
Mrs. Sheehan’s son died a hero’s death trying to rescue his fellow soldiers from an ambush in Sadr City. He deserves to be remembered for that sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, he made in a selfless act of courage. Thanks to Cindy, he will be remembered as sacrificial lamb dragged through the streets of America to prop up her anti-America, anti-Bush, campaign against the war in Iraq. She attempts to garner sympathy with her sad tale of a mother in grief, rebuffed by an uncaring, cold hearted, war mongering president, in her time of greatest need. A mother who lost her son, seduced into serving by lies, to a war which was started by a lying administration bent on enriching its friends and top contributors. Unfortunately for Cindy, she is wiping the tears from her eyes with a tissue of lies. There have been incorrect assertions from this administration, but the term “lies” conveys the intent to deceive and there is no corroborative evidence, direct or indirect, that this administration ever made assertions regarding this war which were intended to deceive the American people.
When WMD were cited as a reason for attacking Saddam, it was universally believed by all intelligence organizations that they existed in Iraq. When Iraq’s attempt to buy high grade uranium ore from Africa was mentioned, there was and still is substantial evidence for that attempt. In spite of the fact that the Bush administration has backed away from that assertion, the British have not. They continue to maintain the veracity of their intelligence. When the Saddam-al Qaeda connection was discussed, it was and has been proven to have been extensive and real. Even the faulty 9-11 Commission Report confirmed the numerous links of al Qaeda to Saddam’s Iraq. Since its publication, evidence has only grown that those links were extensive. Of course those on the Left will insist that the 9-11 report says there were no links between al Qaeda and Iraq, but they are not fully reading the report and are quoting William Clarke’s testimony out of context, not the report of the commission itself.
Another of the lies coming out of the Sheehan camp is that President Bush has been changing the reason for the war as each one has proven false (of course only the WMD assumption has proven so). The fact is that President Bush has never wavered from his original statement as to why we were going to Iraq except for the admission that we have found no WMD and that contrary to intelligence gathered by the CIA, MI6, the French DRM, and the Russian SVR, apparently there were none when we entered Iraq. Certainly the emphasis has changed as the situation has changed, but the president included WMD, al Qaeda links to Iraq, freeing the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator, fighting terrorism in Iraq so that we don’t have to fight it here, and establishing a stable democracy in his speeches leading up to the war.
The most recent and biggest lie to come out of the Left is the lie that Bush never wanted a peaceful end to the Iraq situation, that according to the Downing Street Memo, Bush planned on fighting a war from the start. Beyond the obvious argument that the famous line “the intelligence was being fixed around” going to war means that the efforts at obtaining intelligence was being concentrated on that possibility, it would have been insane to expect anything else given Saddam’s record. Saddam had never, repeat that NEVER, been an honest dealer with the UN or with the USA. To have expected him to suddenly be cooperative would have been naïve at the very least (something Liberals are very good at). Going to war with Iraq was virtually inevitable once it was decided to confront him on the WMD issue.
Personally I would have been astounded had the Bush Administration not been making war plans with Iraq. I would expect there to have been half a dozen possible scenarios fully worked up prior to our going in. When one is talking about the possibility of going to war, he wants to be prepared for any eventuality. I would have had every available intelligence officer working on the move into Iraq once I had decided that it was possible. I would certainly not have waited until the deadline ran out before I made my plans and started gathering intelligence. What the anti-war, anti-Bush people are suggesting President Bush should have done, not plan early, falls into a category I reserve for the pacifists of the Left, stupid, naïve, and DUMB. Had President Bush done that, then there truly would be grounds for impeachment. To suggest that the President didn’t try to get Saddam to give up peaceably is a base lie. Having sought and obtained a UN resolution, the President made one last effort on March 16th, 2003 to get Saddam to comply, meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Azores, Portugal. Following that meeting, the President then gave Saddam Hussein a forty-eight hour ultimatum to leave Iraq. Quoting the President from his speech on March 17, 2003: Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger [my emphasis], but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.
The President never sought this war; he came to it in the genuine belief that Iraq posed a very real and growing danger to its neighbors and, with its connections to al Qaeda, the United States. He gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid it. But Saddam chose to rely upon assurances from his French allies that they could subvert any move toward war by the UN. They were right, they were able to subvert America’s efforts in the Security Council, but what they didn’t count on is an American President whose resolve and determination were not to be ruled by the UN. What they didn’t expect was a President who, unlike Clinton or Gore, was an American first. Now those who oppose this war have every right to quibble and complain that it was unnecessary and that we should end it. They cross the line when they say that President Bush “lied to get us into the war.” That is simply a fantasy derived from their own opinion, founded on Chimerical assumptions.
The Left wingers have great contempt for those of us who support the President in this war, describing us variously as being “dumb,” “brainwashed,” “hicks,” “evil,” “mean spirited,” “war mongers,” and a host of other more “colorful” names which you can find in the “comments” sections of this and other conservative blogs. That is alright with me as I have at least as much contempt for them. Their penchant for name calling and insult throwing fails to impress me as cogent arguments for their cause. Quite the opposite. It leads me to think of them as inarticulate, slavish followers of anti-American, opportunistic, socialist, hate-mongers such as Mikhail Mooresky, Alexi Frankenov, Susansky Sarandonova and her pet Tiny Tim.
Now as to Cindy. We know for sure that she lies. We have her own words on it. She has given us two different accounts of her meeting with President Bush following her son’s death in April of 2004. We have her assertion that her now estranged husband [link] supported her, an assertion we now know to be false. She asserted that she was not a political activist prior to her sons death (an assertion to which I alluded in one of my editorials on Cindy[link]). We now know that she was a political activist against the war before her son was killed. She has claimed that she only wanted to talk to President Bush in order to ask him what the “noble cause” was for which her son died. Yet she arrived in Crawford riding in a red, white, and blue, bus emblazoned with “Impeachment Tour.” If all she was seeking was a meeting with the President, wouldn’t it have made more sense for her to avoid the publicity and caravan of anti-war protesters and seek the meeting in private? She would have been much more likely to have achieved her stated goal that way. Of course, the answer is she doesn’t want to meet with the President; she wants to generate a side show for the MSM. Her worst lie of all though is that Casey died for no good reason. Casey obviously didn’t believe that, he was the first to volunteer for the rescue mission. Cindy Sheehan is a publicity seeker looking to get all the attention she can for her Liberal agenda. Hardly the sympathetic figure the MSM is portraying. For those on the Left who feel it is indecent to invade her private life and difficulties, I can only say that it is of her own volition that she has become such a public figure, inviting such scrutiny and it is she that is invading the President’s privacy by harassing him while he is trying to get some time to himself from working at the most stressful and difficult job on the planet. Cindy go home, your family needs you more than we do.
Evil wins hearts with the face of innocence, poisons minds with the voice of need, and destroys goodness by seducing its kindness. It never appears in its own diseased skin.
...and that is that her activities are a complete sham.
Although it is clear from her own words that she was anti-Bush and anti-war before the death of her son, after his death and after a compassionate meeting with our President, she was trained for several months by a far left PR firm. She is being supported and egged on by the most virulent anti-Ameircan and anti-Bush groups. After all of this, she comes out with her hate-filled story against the President, spouting all of the far left taking points, and using her grief as a tool of the far-left, anti-American crowd. It is a perversion and desecration of grief that should outrage all Americans.
This is a contrived, made for MSM, event, that the far left and their MSM abettors feel is unassailable because of the grieving mother image. Well, hainvg lost my own father last year, and a brother last year too (not in the war), and having lost an only uncle on my Mom's side (my grandparents only boy) in WW II...I can empathize with her grief...but when that grief is turned to hate America and a tool for those who wish to destroy our nation and life style...I will not, I cannot be quiet about it or buy-into that Cindy Sheehan is somehow unassailable while she spouts this hate and garbage.
It is despicable what is happening and it needs to be stood up four-square to.
This lady has admitted to wanting to defy US law and drive her enlisted son to Canada to escape his orders. She has admitted to offering to drive over is legs with her automobile to help him avoid service. Her patriotic son refused both of her dish and voluntarily re-upped with the military to go to Iraq, then while there, volunteered for a dangerous combat mission to help his comrades. He was killed on that mission and is a hero. Pardon the expression, but she is tinkling on his grave and trying to tell us that the moisture are her tears. She says our President killed her son, that the war is only about oil, that it only about defending Israel, that our nation is not worth dieing for, that the US and our President are the terrorists for heaven's sake!
No, I will not be quiet and will call this exactly what I see that it is...a sham and a disgusting spectacle.
Sorry...I am very worked up about this.
Here's my open letter to Cindy Sheehan.
Very well stated, sir.
Glenn Beck today called her a "tragedy slut". Couple leftist moonbats called him up about that.
She strapped on the vest, got in front of the cameras...and figuratively blew herself up.
Now, the left hopes her blood splatters on the President. But, by the time all the body parts fall back to earth, they'll have turned and walked away -- anxious to start the next fundraiser.
As far as I am concerned WMD have been found.That they did`nt have printed on them "Acme weapon of mass destruction to be used against the USA" to satisfy the MSM is of no relevancy to me.
I don't recall that assertion ever being made by W or his administration.
it is of her own volition that she has become such a public figure, inviting such scrutiny
Excellent........just excellent!
You are correct.
She is not a woman distraught at losing a child; she is a hatemonger using the death of her son to bash the President and the United States. Her own words convict her. She is more reminiscent of a stalker than a mourner. Her obsessive hatred is far beyond any which might be explained in the pain from loss. She is not deluded by some Machiavellian plot of extreme Left-wing activist “kooks,” she is an extreme Left-wing activist kook.
Pardon me while I post this part just to savor later.
Evil wins hearts with the face of innocence, poisons minds with the voice of need, and destroys goodness by seducing its kindness. It never appears in its own diseased skin.
>Mrs. Sheehan’s son died a hero’s death trying to rescue his fellow soldiers from an ambush in Sadr City. He deserves to be remembered for that sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, he made in a selfless act of courage. Thanks to Cindy, he will be remembered as sacrificial lamb dragged through the streets of America to prop up her anti-America, anti-Bush, campaign against the war in Iraq.<
I am capable of remembering U.S. Army specialist Casey Sheehan in more than one way and I think others are also.
>Certainly the emphasis has changed as the situation has changed, but the president included WMD, al Qaeda links to Iraq, freeing the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator,<
I was watching The O'Reilly Factor tonight and Bill lost a bit more respect with me on a couple of points - He keeps referring to Mrs. Sheehan as a "liar". [no spin?]. His guest was John Kerry's campaign manager -a most calm and exact man. He [can't remember his name] drove home the point that the circumstances of going to war in Iraq had changed in numerous ways. [quote above from this post's article] Bill O'Reilly at one point interupted his guest with a loud remark "I couldn't care less about the war in Iraq". [no spin?] The guest pointed out that the whole Sheehan debate had to do with the war in Iraq.
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
!
Casey Sheehan was representative of the best of us. His mother is the exact opposite. Without her blather I might not have known as much about this man as I do now. What a great guy and what a great American. You can be your own person, no matter who or what your parents are. Casey is proof of that. God will bless him and I will pray for the repose of his soul with thanks and praise.
sheehan has openly and repeatedly declared her refusal to pay her taxes in 2004, and I, for one, am curious to know if there is some way to find out exactly how much it cost the tax payers for the sheehan's little jaunt to Ft Lewis, Washington to meet with President Bush (at his request, mind you).
excellent posts gentlemen...to bad we don't own a TV station or a newspaper
You are not alone. Lots of company. Darrell Ankarlo is right. We won't, can't, let Viet Nam happen again. It's so hard. We have elected representatives with nothing but their careers on their radar screens. Who cares about this country? I guess it's us.
Excellent
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I doubt that you are capable of remembering much of anything, since you got just about everything damned dead wrong, about O'Reilly's interview with Joe Trippi.
Well done. Thank you for your fourth on Cindy. Casey Sheehan was a hero and his mother's actions and words only make me realize he indeed was a strong and driven patriot.
>I doubt that you are capable of remembering much of anything, since you got just about everything damned dead wrong, about O'Reilly's interview with Joe Trippi.<
Could you please elaborate on how your recollection of the O'Reilly factor differed from what I stated. I do think I got it right- It wasn't that long ago or very complicated.
To All the FReepers who wish they could have been in Crawford
to support President Bush and the Troops.
You do not have to be in Texas to show support for the Troops.
Visit your local military base today and at least once a week.
Or a military or veteran hospital.
Learn to play offense, not defense,
and quit giving free publicity to those who mock our troops.
Spineless US Senate would rather protect Hanoi Kerry
than deal with the anti war crowd.
Anyone who thinks Hanoi Kerry isn't behind the anti war crowd needs to get a clue.
It's time to support our troops and ignore the jelly fish in the US Senate!
There is no need to impeach Hanoi Kerry from the US Senate
He is there illegally!
WAKEUP AMERICA!
For those who "forgot" what Hanoi Kerry
did in the past read on and learn the truth.
Hanoi Kerry was still a USNR officer while he:
gave false hearsay testimony to Congress
negotiated with the enemy
helped the US lose a war
abetted in the deaths of millions
created a hostile environment for all servicemen
Why is Kerry still in the US Senate?
This is in violation of
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 3
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
And the FBI has proof of his treason.
Hanoi Kerry Timeline of a traitor
includes FBI files
May 1970
Kerry and Julia traveled to Paris, France and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), the political wing of the Vietcong, and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a "fact-finding" mission.
(U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.)
http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html
a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war,
or with any offense punishable by death,
may be tried at any time without limitation.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#*%20843.%20ART.%2043.%20STATUTE%20OF%20LIMITATIONS
Distribute these url's!
Links to Anti Kerry sites
212 LINKS
News reports,
Viper's Vietnam Veterans Page
http://members.aol.com/ga1449ga/links/links.html
EXPOSE HANOI KERRY!
MUST SEE WEBSITE!!!!
http://www.kerrystreason.com/index.html
Full details on these url's!
http://stophanoikerry.150m.com
There is a backup site
if the 1st url is unavailable.
http://tonkin.spymac.net/hanoikerry1.html
Did you see this...?
(The 'Kerry's Promise Counter')
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=6628
Polipundit even tells you how to install it on your own page!
You complained that Bill O'Reilly called Cindy a liar; well, she IS a liar and he quoted her own words to prove it.
No, it wasn't aired all that long ago, yet you had NO idea whom he was interviewing and, as a matter of fact,lauded the malicious Joe Trippi in your post. You, YOU called Trippi "calm" and complained that Bill was "spinning", when in fact, Trippi was spinning so fast, that I'm surprised that he also wasn't projectile vomiting green goo.
A couple of days ago, there was posted to FR, a transcription of a conference call ( it's okay, it was tapped for the sole purpose of the damned lefties being able to us it on their web sites ) amongst Trippi and Cindy and others, which was a planning session of what everyone should say and how to handle certain things, as well as gushing, idolatrous mewlings made to Cindy, by her cretinous FANS from all over the world. But obviously, you don't know about that, what part Trippi is playing in the CINDY CIRCUS, who he has also worked for, nor what is a lie and what isn't.
You slammed O'Resilly for NO factual reason. Cindy had slammed O'Reilly, LYING about him and he lit into Trippi for that and Trippi LIED and spun.
Shall I continue, or have you had enough refutation/facts crammed down your throat ?
Good post with great opinions and facts. We can use this info on campus.
This is a great group of posts and replies. Imagine finding a place where you can exchange retoric and reasoning like other people trade baseball cards! I will contribute three letters to the editor which at least got enough traction to show up in the Register Guard published in the Peoples Republic of Eugene, Oregon.
Pretending the United States was the aggressor against Iraq demeans Memorial Day commemorations. Resumption in 2003 of war against Saddam Hussein begins in 1990 with UN resolution 678 saying member nations are to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area. For Korea in 1950 the resolution directed member nations to furnish necessary assistance to South Korea to restore international peace and security in the area. After Inchon the UN confirmed the phrase meant moving into North Korea, so the precedent is obvious.
Next came Resolution 687 in 1991 ordering a unilateral cease fire, provided Hussein acquiesced to his treaty obligations regarding WMD’s, renounced support for international terrorism, and offered UN inspectors all information and unlimited physical access to prove WMD programs were gone. The inspection program envisioned was never demanded as Bush #1, the UN and Clinton caved to hostility towards, evasion of, and finally expulsion in 1998 of the inspectors.
In 2002 Resolution 1441 finally brought accountability by holding Hussein responsible for a further “material breach”. Nowhere in three Congressional resolutions and three UN resolutions was possession of WMD’s a reason for confronting Hussein with military action, though the media would have us believe otherwise. Threats, evasion, intimidation and past use were always the keys. Every word was parsed by politicians and diplomats to ensure verbs and not nouns were the operative words. The war was resumed as it was suspended by 687, and completed as contemplated by 678.
A response to my letter mentions the Secret Downing Street Memo, which demonstrates that by 2002 responsible discussion of Iraq foreign policy mandated inclusion of a primary focus on military action. Resolution 678 in 1990 contained that rare language from in the Korean War resolution, which directed U.N. forces to cross an international boundary to enforce its policy. Resolution 687 in 1991 unilaterally suspended military action conditioned on Hussein’s cooperation, which never occurred. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 established as U.S. policy removal of Hussein’s regime and promotion of democratic government in its place, and took note of the law signed by Clinton declaring the Government of Iraq to be in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations.
The memo presents a pessimistic view that Hussein would respond to other methods available along the diplomatic continuum. You would hope for this frank exchange of preliminary ideas with such a trusted ally as Great Britain. Evidently, Great Britain’s opinion prevailed regarding a final ultimatum, though language in resolution 687 and the law signed by Clinton provided a sound foundation for military action. The ultimatum was resolution 1441 which recalled and reaffirmed a total of 19 other formal last chances over 12 years, all of which Hussein ignored. Finally, Bush and Blair brought the U.N. into a moment of historic relevance concerning Article 1 of its charter, enjoining the institution to maintain international peace and security through collective measures to remove threats and suppress aggression.
How incredulous to consider abandoning the war on terror when prosecuting only the third campaign of a generational conflict. We became a gullible, obsequious victim by not defending the sovereignty of our Iranian embassy in 1979. We remained compliant and apathetic through 15 significant terror attacks under four presidents. Now we confront catastrophes, which have historically consumed 1% or more of a population whether the nation won, lost or acquiesced. Now we must atone for 25 years of appeasement from seeking serenity in exit strategies and muti-lateralism, and debating away vital interests.
We are fortunate the war against the Wahhabi jihadism heresy currently allows the luxury of identifying and mourning each death. As these terrorists earn graduate degrees in physical/biological sciences, they will abandon the little bombs of London to anticipate the incalculable deaths available in a world where chemicals and medical supplies can duplicate Hiroshima, where the diseases that decimated Europe remain one step away in the food chain, and where subtle adjustments can produce deadly toxins from innocuous chemicals.
Persevering with Iraqis building a representative government is vital to our national welfare. As 2,000 Sunni Leaders join the political process in Iraq, leaders of Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Palestine, and Hezbollah in Lebanon abandon terror to join emerging peaceful political processes. Ultimate victory emerges with freedom allowing 1 billion Muslims to choose courageously the Islamic faith, which brought forth extraordinary science and literature, and reject the murderous heresy directing their young people into hate and suicide.
Trippi has just said that Cindy is "not a member of the far left", that "he doesn't believe that that is an accurate description", that "citizens are allowed to flip-flop on anything", and when Bill read Cindy's exact words Joe spun and spun and spun and SPUN, talking about the Downing Street Memo, which had NOTHING at all to do with what Bill was quoting!
And Bill did NOT say that he "couldn't care less about the war in Iraq", as you claim; he said "I couldn't care less about the war in Iraq, in connection with this discussion. It has NOTHING to do with Mrs. Sheehan's saying that the president was kind and compassionate when he met with her and her words about that meeting now."
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw, this isn't complicated at all...you're a troll!
Excellent.
>You slammed O'Resilly for NO factual reason. Cindy had slammed O'Reilly, LYING about him and he lit into Trippi for that and Trippi LIED and spun.<
O'Reilly "slams" himself with his rude treatment of his "guest".
>Shall I continue, or have you had enough refutation/facts crammed down your throat ?<
As far as your style--I'll let each consider the merits as they will. Thanks for your time.
The war in Iraq was all about the UN Resolutions. End of story. Anyone who doesn't understand that, wasn't paying attention. IMO.
Two words........"bull pucky".
Great piece, Will.
I, OTOH have been here for seven years, people know the accuracy of my posts, know that I'll shred O'Reilly when he deserves it, but always post facts, and that I have no hidden agenda. So yes, absolutely, let's let the people reading our posts decide for themselves which ones are of value and factual and which ones aren't. :-)
I completely concur with your take on the O'Reilly broadcast from earlier today.
The other person on this thread appears to be egging-on, moreorless forcing political points.
Thank you for posting this.
And I thank the author for finally holding this woman accountable for her outrageous behavior.
This woman is driven more by hatred than grief, and I, for one, am so thankful someone has finally stated this.
I have not commented any on this situation but I was so outraged today by comments by Ellis Henican (sp.) and Shepherd Smith insinuating that we must all feel sympathy for this woman, and their sanctimonious condemnation of ones who dare to speak ill of her really got my ire up. How dare them say I have to feel sorry for her.
I, for one, had sympathy for this woman in the beginning, but when she used the heartfelt sympathy that I and so many others felt for her to give her a soapbox to aid and abet the enemy, she lost any sympathy I felt for her. She exploited, bastardized and used my sympathy to aid and abet the enemy, thereby endangering our brave troops, and for that, I only feel contempt for her. She no longer has my sympathy. She has joined the enemy and I for one no longer feel anything but contempt for "Mommy Dearest." And I hold her totally accountable for what she is doing as I feel she is acting out of hatred more than out of grief.
But I do admit that I pray for her. I pray that God touches her heart and makes her realize what she is doing, how she is dishonoring her son and aiding the enemy and endangering our brave troops. Casey was an honorable man who answered his life's calling and was a true hero. Cindy is dishonoring her son and the choices he made in his life, and it is totally despicable for her to do that.
My grandmother was a Gold Star mother who lost a 22-year-old son in WWII - his death was a suicide. No one has to tell me what the death of a loved one in a war means to a family. No one has to tell me about mental health issues as I could write a book. No one has more compassion and sympathy than me for the military families who have lost loved ones in the line of duty. I have seen up close and personal what such a loss can do to a family, how it can tear at the very heart and soul of a family. Sadly and tragically, my family seldom spoke of my uncle and his death - I think it was just too painful to share the grief, the heartache, the anger, the confusion that tore at the lives of my family members. I have only recently learned of the circumstances of my uncle's death and come to understand the extent of the heartache and pain my family members dealt with for years and how it impacted their lives, and in some cases, I believe, destroyed their lives.
My grandmother would have never danced on her son's grave and exploited his death for her own self-aggrandizement and political agenda - she would have never dishonored him or the cause he died for - she would have never demonized the President or the war effort. And she never met with FDR. She suffered in silence, turning to her faith and suffering not only the loss of a son in a war, but the loss of two other children in her lifetime. She was a Gold Star mother and I wish I had known while she was alive all the pain and grief that she carried in her heart. But she never shared it. However, I remember the sadness, the far away look I often saw in her eyes, the look that often told me she was in another time, another place - I know now those times were when she was with her lost son. My grandmother has been a great inspiration to me, and even more so now knowing the pain and heartache she endured during her life and how bravely she dealt with it. She was as much a hero to me as her son who died in the war - her son who after flying 19 missions over occupied Europe as a left-waist gunner on a B-17 in the Eighth Air Force, was overcome by forces in his life that he could not control - forces that eventually cost him his life.
I admit, a part of me still wants to feel sorry for Cindy, still wants to comfort her as it is my natural inclination to support our mililtary families. But I just cannot support Cindy and extend my sympathy to her as long as she exploits the sympathy she is receiving in order to aid and abet the enemy.
May God bless all our military personnel and their families. I honor them all, and my deepest heartfelt sympathy goes to all military families - including the other members of Casey Sheehan's family - who have lost loved ones in war and in the line of duty. God bless you all.
And may God bless all our troops who are in harm's way at this moment and may He grant peace to all their family members. I extend to all of them my support, my gratitude - and my prayers.
Not me.
Thank-you all for your kind words. I endeavor do all I can for the "good guys" here in "Freeper Land" and elsewhere. I think most here would agree with the stuff I write at The Tin Ear Times (I know you can't please everyone all the time so just take what you like and ignore the rest).
It is great to come here to hear some kind words as I receive a great many hostile words when I publish at MensNewsDaily. Apparently Liberals go there for fodder to get POed over.
Once again Thanks.
Great column, Will. Very insightful and educational. Thanks for writing.
At times like this, I wish I was a good artist. I would draw a cartoon of Cindy Sheehan standing on top of a flag-draped casket and preaching her junk about taxes and the Palestinians -- pausing and smiling for cameras all the while. She is politicizing -- EXPLOITING -- her son's death for her own political gain. Little does she realize she'll become a hot potato before too long.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
