Crazy Cindy getting her ass hauled
Posted on 02/01/2006 9:53:25 PM PST by smoothsailing
Woolsey-Eyed Democrats
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 2/2/2006 12:08:54 AM
WASHINGTON -- In the months after our invasion of Iraq -- our liberation of Iraq -- there was a neat little peace movement. It was composed of the likes of linguist Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, and various lesser patheticos who all looked like they belonged on the streets of Berkeley, California, some with begging pots in their hands.
That this forlorn band did not grow for many months was no surprise to me. America had suffered 3,000 casualties at home, not one of whom had been engaged in warfare against anyone. The tyrant we took down had taunted us, boasted of his danger to us, and hosted terrorists in his capital. There was no debate about this. The United States had attacked a modern-day Hitler who was not as clever as the original and was encouraging enemies of our country. The brute Saddam was actually sending rewards to the families of terrorists. What kind of zanies would join a peace movement against this military effort to do about what Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill did in the early 1940s?
President Roosevelt did what he did despite the Neutrality Acts against military assistance to foreign powers, even foreign powers defending themselves against the Nazis. Very boldly Roosevelt broke the law and he did so repeatedly. Since then he has been held up as an international hero. He conquered the fascists, the Nazis, and the Japanese militarists. He enshrined in oratory and in statutes high-minded notions of international human rights. He was the driving force behind the United Nations. George W. Bush and his associates were only making good on Roosevelt's promises. And they did so despite a melancholy fact, to wit: FDR's dearly envisioned United Nations is as corrupt as any Third-World oligarchy. President Bush attended to its empty protocols and then took action. The subsequent complaint was that the president did not do more at the United Nations. I suppose he could have bought Kofi Annan's colleagues off.
Now we have a rather larger peace movement in the United States, and it is being treated with grave respect by the bien pensants. Still, this peace movement is pretty much confined to the zanies. The other night as the President was giving his State of the Union speech they gathered in Washington around the statue to General U.S. Grant on the Capitol grounds singing "All You Need Is Love," "Give Peace a Chance," and, who knows, maybe that song about the yellow submarine or "One Hundred Bottles of Beer on the Wall"?
Their Gandhi is Cindy Sheehan, who is either a lunatic or one of the many self-promoters who with little talent and no demonstrated knowledge of international relations become media stars on behalf of peace. Ms. Sheehan was given a ticket to the State of the Union speech by a member of Congress. Would you care to guess which party that member represents? The member's name is Lynn C. Woolsey and she insists, "I didn't see this as a political act at all." One of the Democrats' complaints about the President is that he is a liar. What is the Hon. Woolsey?
Once in the gallery Ms. Sheehan began demonstrating, though there are those in the media who doubt this. She undid her jacket revealing a T-shirt with an anti-war message. She began drawing attention to herself. She was arrested. Now there are people in the press who doubt the Capitol Police's claim that she acted inappropriately. The police claim she was "boisterous." There is a law against demonstrating in the House gallery. Now on the talk shows the great debate begins: Was Ms. Sheehan boisterous or not? Was she demonstrating?
Ms. Sheehan has spent all of her brief public life demonstrating, but apparently despite the involvement of this Democratic congresswoman and despite her anti-war T-shirt persons in press want to argue that she was not demonstrating. This is an infantile debate. In fact, the whole peace movement is an infantile movement. There is to this day no one to negotiate "peace" with in Iraq.
There is no alternative to our police action. The vast majority of Iraqis wants peace, and most recognize that the only hope for peace resides with the American army or what some persist in calling the Coalition forces. That so many of the supposedly civilized nations of the world have not contributed to those forces is the shame of this war. That so many of the Democrats have not stood by this president the way Republicans stood by FDR is another shame. And Ms. Sheehan, button up that jacket and quiet down.
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun, and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His latest book is Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Regnery Publishing).
This is a rather subdued article (to my surprise). Also a specific one to a point (names some names). I think it's just a matter of days before photos and quotes appear in the media that verify what Sheehan did, specifically, as to these offensive behaviors that some today are attempting to say didn't occur.
From the mere video of Sheehan I saw last night, she was making a big deal out of keeping her jacket on and her head covered which in itself should (and did) draw the attention of ANY even remotely observant security detail, particularly at that meeting of last evening (most the Cabinet was there, certainly President Bush was, all or just about all of Congress, for starters). Keeping that hood up covering her head while she was in doors (after being called out of her seating) was the most odd.
But, I'm hoping someone has photos of the "unfurling" of her banner/sign...anyone doing that in Congress seems already more than a problem on a behavioral basis and people trying to force this as an issue as to "free speech" (or not) are avoiding the issue and problem...and that is, erratic behavior such as this suggests an erratic personality. Given the proximity of that to who (President, et. al), there's a potential for a lot of harm and should have been removed for even basic security concerns.
Woolsey is a problem, too. This is reckless and even offensive behavior by her as a member of Congress and it seems to suggest her as erratic, also, for providing access to Sheehan, already obviously an erratic, unpredictable personality who has threatened the President and many more. Woolsey should be held accountable.
Some of the connections between Woolsey,Sheehan,the American Communist Party and every virulent anti-American subversive outfit you can think of, is mindboggling.There is an organised effort afoot to destroy our President and bring our country to it's knees and some Democrats are right in the middle of it.
Sheehan is a patsy for something bigger.The whole stinking mess has to be exposed.
I'd say the article is more of an intellectual look at the whole peace/war in Iraq protest movement. It's not meant to be an angry article.
How was class?Did you remember to give an apple to the teacher.Hehe
Many of the elected Democrats in Congress are active enemies of the USA. It's time we started enforcing some of our laws against treason. They are actively working for the defeat of the USA. kennedy. kerry. clinton. pilosey. reid. woolsey.
Crazy Cindy getting her ass hauled
Class was fine. But this guy is as exciting as watching paint dry. Quite frankly, I'm tired of class, but that's to be expected in the home stretch. I'd rather be writing something.
I COMPLETELY agree with all that you write. And am familiar with AMERICAN SPECTATOR...but even for that site, the article seem subdued. I give them and the writer credit for BEING subdued, is my point, given the convolution of issues and "bigger" problems/issues, you are right.
Right, I understand that. My comments as to the article being subdued IS NOT A CRITICISM. Rather, a compliment.
Now we have a rather larger peace movement in the United States.. ??
--
Do we?
..or is that what the media and the orgs it seeks to aid and abet towards that end thru deception etc only report it as such?
This is an infantile debate. In fact, the whole peace movement is an infantile movement. There is to this day no one to negotiate "peace" with in Iraq.It's not a peace movement. It's a pro-terrorist movement. They want the terrorists to win in Iraq because it will make Bush look bad. It will lead to the immediate death of thousands --- and the possible subsequent death of millions, as do all "peace movement victories" --- but that's ok. As long as it makes Bush look bad.
In all seriousness, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is a writer I've been following for years.He's quite good.
The democraps are trying to pull the woolsey over everyone's eyes. It won't work.
Even as long ago as 1972, the late author Robt Heinlein postulated the necessity of 'abandoned areas', in which 'law' did not apply, due to the impossibility of applying the 'law' and such areas, and for the convenience generally of the political class.
Much too polite for this POS. She should be arrested and locked up for seditious acts.
Woolsey should be censured by the Congress. At the very least.
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.