Grieving Mother of Fallen Soldier Pulling Media Stunt at Bush Ranch (Free Republic mentioned!)

NewsMax ^ | 8/11/05

[MizSterious]

Oh, they didn't really need to hog the attention--Jay Leno is doing a fine job of portraying the President as a slacker for taking a "vacation." (The President is working harder at his "vacation" than many people do at their regular jobs!)

[LRS]

**Whenever I think the left cant possibly get dumber, they surprise me again.**

SURPRISE! ;>)

______________________________________________
Representative Jan Schakowski (D-IL) was on the call and sent Sheehan her love and support. Schakowski said if anyone wonders what noble cause Casey Sheehan died for, the noble cause was to help Cindy Sheehan "end this war."

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/08/10/cindy_sheehan_says_bill_oreilly_is_an_obscenity_to_humanity.php
_____________________________________________

[G.Mason]

"The anti-Semetic Rosa Parks?"

Yeah ... that one. Just an older and female vesion of a Jesse "The Con" Jackson, Al "Presidental Timber" Sharpton and "Calypso" Louis Farrakhan, who is best known for riding buses.

[sarasota]

Thanks for the ping. Think this has been distributed to the media?

[april15Bendovr]

I agree but we need to make sure any mothers of our hero's don't fall victim to the funeral hearse chasing hate America first liberals and the MSM.

[Zacs Mom]

I don't know - hopefully it has been ~ not that the MSM would air it. It was apparently read on an SF radio station this morning.

[hgro]

The poor woman is beyond pity. To be used by Michael Moore and his ilk is a good indication of how far into the depths she has slipped.

[hgro]

The poor woman is beyond pity. To be used by Michael Moore and his ilk is a good indication of how far into the depths she has slipped.

[MizSterious]

There's such a thing as "personal responsibility." If she'd had good character, she'd have done the right thing, instead of what she's doing now. My grandmother lost a son in WWII (and two more were seriously wounded), and she never took up with the enemy.

This Sheehan creature has no excuse whatever. Many mothers have lost their sons in this war, and many mothers lost sons and daughters on 9/11. Mrs. Sheehan's son fought to prevent that from happening again. He is a hero. His mother has no honor.

[Squantos]

She keeps loitering in that Texas sun she'll be the rosa parks of the skin cancer movement.....

All said and done if I died in combat trying to set a country free and defeat the terrorists I'd hope my brothers in arms and their families and friends would continue the fight to win vs cut and run and my life wasted.....as this pinko cunning runt suggests GW do.

His Momma's actions and opinion show's she has little honor and respect for her sons sacrifice for her liberty and freedom to be a dumbass.

Well I'll say thanks for her son's ultimate sacrifice for freedom in the world to her anyway.....

[Pagey]

BUMP!

[DJ MacWoW]

DU is calling you home.

[MizSterious]

Looks like another one who heard "Let's roll!" and thought they heard "Let's troll!"

[conservativecorner]

Here's another one for Mrs. Sheehan to ponder as she makes a mockery of her son's service and sacrifice for his country. How very sad for Casey's bravery!


January 19, 2004, 9:49 a.m.
Wesley’s Clark’s Pro-War Manifesto
He didn’t just support the war — he thought it was great.



"I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer. I was against it in the fall. I was against it in the winter. I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."
Retired General Wesley Clark, in a candidates' debate, October 26, 2003.


This isn't really a test — after all, the answer is in the title of this article. But just for the exercise, please ask yourself the following questions:




Who said, in April of 2003, "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back"?

Who said, at the same time: "Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, eases lingering doubt and reinforces bold action. Already the scent of victory is in the air"?

Who said: "The operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don't look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are 'next' if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns"?

Who said: "If there is a single overriding lesson [from the campaign in Iraq], it must be this: American military power...is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact"?

Who said: "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt"?

Who said: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats"?

If you answered Wesley Clark to all the questions, you are correct. The quotes are from two op-eds Clark wrote last April for the Times of London. Taken together, they suggest that Clark's approval of the war was even deeper and more far-ranging than originally thought.

To be fair, Clark expressed some reservations in the articles. He cautioned that more work needs to be done in Iraq, "before we take our triumph." There was still resistance to be dealt with, by "armed persuasion." Looting had to be stopped, order restored, and humanitarian aid begun. And weapons of mass destruction had not been found.

Clark also wrote that the war had left the U.S. and Britain diplomatically isolated. Still, he said, "the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment": "The scent of victory, if not the end of the operation, is certainly in the air."

Last week, Clark's supporters rushed to his defense over Republican accusations that Clark had supported the war in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in September 2002. A fair reading of Clark's testimony shows that he made statements that could be interpreted as supporting the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq, and he also made statements that could be interpreted as questioning the need for such a resolution. Clark was, in short, playing both sides of the fence.

If the president went forward with war and all was a great success, Clark could say he was on board from the very beginning. If the president did not go to war, relying instead on extended diplomatic efforts that ultimately proved successful, Clark could say he was on board with that, too. And if either path ended in failure or political unpopularity, Clark could say he opposed the plan from the start.

Seven months later, in April 2003, with U.S. troops in control in Iraq, Clark made his choice. Liberation, "the powerful balm that justifies sacrifice," was at hand, and the U.S. had won a great victory. Clark was on board. It was only later, when the Iraqi insurgency proved more violent than expected and Clark decided to run for the Democratic nomination for president, that his position changed yet again.

[Darksheare]

Lol, yup!
I didn't see what he said, but I am told it was the same old tired "Boooooosh lyed peeepool dyed" screed.
Can't they come up with anything new?

[massgopguy]

She didn't mention that there was another one. Intentional ommission on her part. Incompitence on Diamonds.

[MizSterious]

To come up with something new would require actual working brain cells. ;)

[Stultis]

"I want him to quit using my son's death to justify more killing," she said. "The only way he can honor my son's death is to bring the troops home."

So, if we bring the troops home precipitously, so that Iraqis feel abandoned, their internal and external enemies emboldened, and Iraq's fledgling democracy collapse into disarray, and the mass graves once again begin to fill... this will "honor" your son?

Don't forget Vietnam, folks. The same types, doing the same things, said the same things then. They just "wanted to bring the troops home." But AFTER the troops were home, and the peace treaty signed in Paris, they hounded the congress to slash aid to South Vietnam again and again, they fought any attempt to enforce the peace treaty. The only logical interpretation of their actions was that they wanted America's allies to be defeated because they thought America was "wrong".

Given the opportunity they will do the same thing again. Even if Iraq manages to write and pass a constitution, hold a constitutional election, take hold of their security situation and fully relieve the coalition forces; these "bring the troops home" types will still be doing everything in their power (a power they MUST be denied) to undermine, sabotage and erase these successes. They will not willingly let any success stand that is a result of a (supposedly) "evil" American policy. America's "arrogant" and evil policy must result in defeat and failure, and if that means that a new democracy must be plunged back into despotism (and it does) the "bring the troops home" crowd won't give a damn.