> Her whole cause was based upon a single lie, that lie was her son died for NOTHING.
You and I would agree that her son died for something much more precious than *nothing*. And we would struggle to see her rationale: because we are “normal”, well-adjusted folk with a sense of values.
There is nothing “normal” about Cindy Sheehan. That she sees “nothing” in his sacrifice indicates to me that she is far from well.
> That is why she is beneath contempt and will always be.
Might as well hold in contempt somebody with brain damage. I’m not defending her actions — they were reprehensible — but I really struggle to see the value that can be obtained from holding in contempt somebody whose grief has made her lose all sense of proportion and made her go unglued. I say again, I think she is in need of professional help: lots of it.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is now well-recognized as being something soldiers get when under fire. It used to be in WW-I they’d shoot soldiers with what would now be diagnosed as PTSD.
Who’s to say Cindy Sheehan isn’t suffering something similar? I’d say she probably is: one look at her tells me she is probably as mad as a meat-ax. She needs prayers and help and sympathy: you know, the finer sentiments that make our Civilization just a bit more liveable than the Taliban’s.
She held the same views she has today before her son enlisted in the Army, she has said so.
So I don’t buy the wounded mother routine, but you go right ahead.