Skip to comments.Rethinkin Sympathy: Cindy Sheehan's Lies
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. Sheehans son died a heros 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 Iraqs 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 Saddams 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 Clarkes 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 dont 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 Saddams 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 didnt 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 Americas efforts in the Security Council, but what they didnt count on is an American President whose resolve and determination were not to be ruled by the UN. What they didnt 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.
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.
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 sons 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, wouldnt 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 doesnt 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 didnt 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 Presidents 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
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. Sheehans son died a heros 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.
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.