Or should I say ZOT!
Posted on 08/17/2005 4:23:15 PM PDT by Sam Hill
To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.
Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.
We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!
Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."
I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.
The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?
Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks.
Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast.
These arguments didn't persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn't persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn't persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush's tenure as the nation's commander in chief last November.
But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief.
On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.
Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her.
I'm so sorry that you're liberal and stupid. Does it hurt?
This is the point that keeps getting missed by the MSM. Casey was 24, I believe, and I think on his 2nd tour. He wasn't a child!!! When libs say "We are killing our children", they aren't talking abortion. They are talking about grown men and women that make their own decisions, some for many years by the time of their death.When I was 24, I had been married for 5 years, in and out of the Army, and on top pay at the job I would have for the next 30 years. I hadn't asked my mother for permission for anything since I was 17.
When people call Marines "children", it like fingernails on a blackboard for me. She is degrading the choices her son made willingly. Everyone volunteers to serve now under whatever president happens to hold office. There is no draft.
I'm 54 now, and I am still my mothers baby boy, but she and I don't agree on everything so I make my own choices and live with the consequences. I don't ask permission or her opinion about anything I do, and I don't think she would presume to know what I want. If I gave my life for what I believed, I would be devastated to think she would belittle my sacrifice.
BTW, Where's the dad in all this? I think he was the DNA donor in this arrangement. Casey doesn't sound anything like Cindy to me. He must want to honor his son so the MSM won't interview him.
Let us say an arrogant spoiled brat, who seems unable to understand that 2+2 = 4 keeps demanding an explanation for it.
First I explain by taking two toy cars and adding two more toy cars and count the total, four.
He doesn't get it.
Then I explain by taking two toy ducks and adding two more toy ducks and count the total, four.
He doesn't get it.
Four years later, I am trying to use ring and group theory...and he doesn't get it.
The boy is then quite proud of himself for demanding answers, and is more convinced then ever that 2+2 can't possibly be 4 because I kept changing my story.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel for Ann. Liberals have shut down half their brain in order to hang on to their brainwashed idocy. How else could you believe what they do in the world we live in today?
You can't figure it out troll? Probably because you are so stupid. If you don't understand national defense then you can't understand anything. Just read up on Able Danger and maybe it will sink in. Liberals like you with your sorts of brain dead reasoning got 3000 of us slaughtered ON OUR OWN SOIL and if not taken out of power would have gotten thousands more killed no doubt. Sadam Hussein was paying for suicide bombers and training terrorists. But then that's reality. I don't expect YOU to get it.
LOL!
She's "dead." :-)
You would know. ;) I bet her morbid curiosity has her reading her obit anyway though.
You think so? You want to talk about her some more? :-)
Or should I say ZOT!
Oh really? If your reason no. 3 (liberating Iraq) wasn't stated before we went into Iraq, why was the war dubbed "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?
The answer, of course, is that the President repeatedly cited several reasons which justified invading Iraq, including WMD.
Your position is extremely dishonest. The media and leftists such as yourself like to throw around the notion that the WMD we went after never existed, and they base it on Kay's report.
The problem you have with that, of course, is that the "no WMD" line was taken out of context of the Kay report, which also stated there was evidence the WMD was transported to Syria just before we invaded.
The Kay report also said Saddam was more dangerous that we even thought.
Kay also reported the underground prison at which Saddam was using prisoners as guinea pigs to test biological weapons. And of course, there were the vials of botulinum toxin, brucea, and congo fever which were discovered in the bathroom of one of Saddam's scientists.
Your side's solution to the Saddam problem was to "contain" him by sending UN inspectors to "find the WMD." Saddam's plan, again as stated in Kay's report, was to wait until he got the all clear from the UN inspectors and then go into production of more WMD in earnest. Thank God your side lost that argument.
As to possible connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, they've been established. In the '90s that connection was reported by the mainstream media extensively and the 9/11 commission is on record agreeing with Cheney's statement that while the evidence of a direct connection between hte 9/11 attacks themselves and Saddam is not credible evidence (note it was stated as not credible evidence as opposed to no evidence at all), there was credible evidence of a link between Saddam and the group Al Qaeda.
I may get flamed for this but here goes. I am one of the 61 million plus who voted for President Bush. My only disagreement and disgust with what is going on in Iraq right now is I get the feeling we are fighting with one hand tied behind our back. Being retired Navy and seeing first hand the excellence of those in all four branches of service, it would be awesome and terrifying at the same time to see our military totaly unleashed. I think the majority of Americans who say they have doubts or whatever, just want us to kick arse! I am sorry that we pussyfooted around and Saddam hid/transported the WMDs somewhere (yes - I still believe he had them. I cannot accept the fact multiple intel sources were all wrong!). If there were found we would have the moral authority to swing into Syria or Iran. I still think we need to put three or four carrier groups over there and start practice runs on Iran.
My, she is good with a pun.
Same here.... At first I felt sorry for her, but not anymore. She's gone too far and her anti-American drum beat is disgraceful and hurting our troops. Her "cause" has flip flopped into a MoveOn.org mouthpiece.
WOW! That's a tape measure shot!
That pen must have been smokin'.
Why hurt an innocent snake? Snakes eat vermin and Cindy is verminm.
BUMP!
I wonder if Cindy ever really grieved or was all that sorry about Casey's death. After all, she viewed his mission and service as an abomination, something equivalent to making a living through home invasion, rape, and murder. Thus, by the way of thinking of leftists, he simply got what he deserved when he was killed. Cindy's grief was probably attenuated by that very type of thought and by the $500,000 of death benefits she received from the government.
What better thing for a vile traitor like her to to then than pervert Casey's memory into support for the very Islamofascist subhumans he died defending America from and, in the process, fraudulently claim the mantle of a "grieving mother" who "grieves" loudly and lugubriously every time a TV camera is pointed at her, just like Bill Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral.
So true. It also often ends up in the parents being either subtly or loudly rejected, but rejected in either situation.
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.