Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cindy Sheehan: "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."
Cindy's Usenet Posts ^ | Various | Cindy Sheehan

Posted on 08/10/2005 1:47:20 PM PDT by Sam Hill

From: SCINDY...@aol.com
  To: ter...@mweb.co.th ; bullyard@googlegroups.com
 

  Cc: skee...@ksc.th.com ; jwa...@cox.net ; h...@bfranklin.edu ; steppenwo...@msn.com ; Kurn...@netscape.net ; m...@loxinfo.co.th ; TQMN...@aol.com ; zpbr...@cox.net ; sharinpa...@hotmail.com ; v...@netium.com.br
  Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:41 AM
  Subject: Re: Fw: Nightline Tonight Mon., March 14, 2005
 

  That was my son's unit. He was killed on that day 04/04/04. Here is a letter that I wrote to NightLine about the broadcast:
  Love
 

  Cindy Sheehan
 

  March 15, 2005
 

  To Whom it May Concern:
 

  Imagine my distress when I turned Night Line on last night and I was confronted with the gory details of my son's murder in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq on 04/04/04. Imagine, also, my sorrow and rage at the side of the story that you presented to the American public.

[SNIP]

  I was on the Night Line Townhall Meeting in Washington, DC on 01/27/05. After I spoke (which I think was a fluke), Ted Koppel dismissed me as being "emotional." First of all, how can I approach this discussion without emotions, MY SON WAS KILLED, AND KILLED FOR LIES? Second of all, that show was not fair and balanced and I think the conclusion "Should we stay" was foregone.
 

  The show last night was also not fair and balanced. To see all the wives being interviewed who had not lost their husbands and to hear what "hard work" it is to be left behind when their husbands are at war. How hard to you think it is to have a child killed in an illegal and immoral war? In this "wonderful" group of families left behind, we had exactly ONE of the wives call us..she is Diane Rose who was my son's Colonel, Frank Rose's wife. The last time we heard from Diane was in October and we feel we have been left behind by anyone connected to the 2-5 Cavalry. Is support only given if your loved one stays alive? One wife was quoted as saying that Sundays were the hardest for the families left behind. My son was killed on Palm Sunday last year..how does anybody think Sundays are for my family?
 

  Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse.
 

  It would be so amazing if your show would put me, or another parent who lost their child on who disagrees with the war and this administration: to have just an entire show..without presenting the false side of the debate. That would take a lot of courage and integrity. I hope your program will exhibit these qualities.
 

  I also think that Mr. Koppel owes me an apology for the rude way I was treated on his show. After I expressed myself about the war being based on lies and that the troops should be brought home immediately because the war was based on lies, I was not thanked for my comments, or my son's sacrifice. He just said to keep the discussion away from emotions. Then, the wife of a soldier who was killed was allowed to speak and she praised the policies of this deplorable and despicable administration, and she was thanked and praised by the panel.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiisrael; antisemite; antisemitewhome; antisemitiscm; antisemitism; antizionist; cindybuchanan; cindyonhercross; cindysheehan; communism; communist; dramaqueen; driveninsanebygrief; jewhater; jewhatingmoonbat; kookaid; koolaid; leftwingantisemite; leftwingracist; liberalantisemitism; liberalfascism; liberalkoolaid; moonbat; mothersheehan; sheehan; troll
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 981-1,000 next last
To: MamaB

I don't care what happened to you. You don't get to this level of irrational overnight.

This takes years and years of indoctrination.


241 posted on 08/10/2005 2:57:55 PM PDT by nuffsenuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: MamaB

Got it.


242 posted on 08/10/2005 2:58:10 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Remembering our Heroes today and every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

BIATCH


243 posted on 08/10/2005 2:58:35 PM PDT by rang1995 (They will love us when we win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberty2004
She is an insane B*tch. The world would be better off if she would STFU and die.

Thats not very nice of you.

244 posted on 08/10/2005 2:58:42 PM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: samantha
She has admitted thAt her Husband left her because he does not agree with her on this subject.

If she's a Democrat wife of a dyed in the wool Pubbie, she sure as hell ain't the first one.

That don't make bad ... OR, necessarily wrong.

245 posted on 08/10/2005 2:58:47 PM PDT by iconoclast (Wastin' away again in hearts-and-minds'ville.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Cautor

Amen!


246 posted on 08/10/2005 2:58:48 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (fiat voluntas Tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: liberty2004

That's a bit over the top...


247 posted on 08/10/2005 2:59:23 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.


For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 2, 2002

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

###


Isreal not mentioned at all and what in there is a lie?

248 posted on 08/10/2005 3:00:42 PM PDT by michigander (The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast

Did someone hijack your account, or have you always been allowed on here to talk like this?


249 posted on 08/10/2005 3:00:48 PM PDT by G32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: samantha

Sounds like a typical liberal.


250 posted on 08/10/2005 3:01:00 PM PDT by nuffsenuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: doc

In my view, saying we went to Iraq for Israel is not legitimate criticism.


251 posted on 08/10/2005 3:01:09 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Cautor
Is there any connection to the man mentioned below?

Safa Hadi Jawad was the Iraqi Oil Minister in the 1990s. The agitator who is carrying water for Sheehan is "Hadi Jawad" (sans Safa). And yet his email address at the Dallas Peace Center includes an "s" (short for Safa?): shadijawa@aol.com.

Raises a small red flag, doesn't it?

252 posted on 08/10/2005 3:01:31 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: liberty2004
most Jews seem to suffer for cognitive dissonance

should be : most Jews seem to suffer for cognitive dissonance when it comes to politics.

253 posted on 08/10/2005 3:01:54 PM PDT by liberty2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
Not true, but Jewish has become a code word for "not-to-be-crticized", in any way, shape, or form. Don't even come close or you will be ostracized! Banned and shunned, preferably!

Sorry, but you are wrong, the leftists usually do mean Jews when they say neo-con.

And you should feel free to criticize Israel if you have legitimate problems with any of her policies. As for criticizing Jews in general, just what would you like to say? If you are a jew hater (and I am not saying you are, just that you are demonstrating a curious hostility), you should expect censure for that hate, since there are a sizable number of us conservative Jews now at FR.

254 posted on 08/10/2005 3:01:59 PM PDT by ariamne (reformed liberal--Shieldmaiden of the Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: nuffsenuff
This takes years and years of indoctrination.

YEP! Before long, don't be surprised to see images of her son on T Shirts, next to Che and other "martyrs". This is classic Leftist exploitation!

255 posted on 08/10/2005 3:02:00 PM PDT by LRS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
From this link:

Cindy Sheehan phoned me from Texas a few minutes ago to say that she's been informed that beginning Thursday, she and her companions will be considered a threat to national security and will be arrested. Coincidentally, Thursday is the day that Rice and Rumsfeld visit the ranch, and Friday is a fundraiser event for the haves and the have mores. Cindy said that she and others plan to be arrested.

A threat to national security?! I think Ms. Sheehan is suffering from delusions of grandeur.

256 posted on 08/10/2005 3:02:04 PM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: G32

Always. :(


257 posted on 08/10/2005 3:02:31 PM PDT by beandog (Bean the Real Dog - 10/3/90-6/13/05 - Doggie Heaven is Lucky to have you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: ariamne
...instead of saying "the Israelis" are doing this and that horrible thing to those poor poor Palestinians, they will end up with an anti-jew rant.

In my experience, this is 100% correct. They'll start out talking about Israel, having been triggered by the sight of an Israeli flag or news of a demonstration, and pretty soon it's "the Jews this, the Jews that."

258 posted on 08/10/2005 3:02:47 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Remembering our Heroes today and every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: MamaB

This is not surprising and it is probably the reason that her family is in shambles instead of growing closer in their grief. Hopefully when she hits bottom she will seek mental help, and then maybe she will cherish the memory of her dear son, instead of trashing the cause that he gave his all for.


259 posted on 08/10/2005 3:03:19 PM PDT by samantha (Cheer up, the adults are in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Cautor
Is there any connection

No.

260 posted on 08/10/2005 3:03:42 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 981-1,000 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson