Cindy Sheehan: "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."

Cindy's Usenet Posts ^ | Various | Cindy Sheehan

[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.

[JCEccles]

If you ask me, she's a great Mom

By publicly and noisily comforting and encouraging the terrorist savages who killed her son, this "great Mom" is putting other great moms' sons in Iraq at increased risk.

[rockrr]

52

[Frank_Discussion]

"Iconoclast: One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions."

I would say the above fits the dear boy to a T. If things aren't to your liking, find something others like or agree with and tear it down. If you oppose something positive or admired in the world, that makes you avante garde and quite trendy-smart. Right? /sarc

Iconoclast has a strange inability to see how his remarks so closely parallel the early antisemitism of pre-Reich Germany of the thirties.

In the media, and in "polite" discussion, it was merely enough to suggest that the Jews (not yet openly "dirty Jews") were in control of EVERYTHING, all production, farming, the arts, you name it. This became generally accepted, and later it went from that to "they must have deceived us, tricked us, and taken those means of control FROM us!" in short order. It mattered not that they busted their a$$es and built what they had, it only mattered that the Germans (superior and all) had been foolish enough to let it happen... but those Aryans, uh, Germans knew that could be changed...

The anti-semites of today speak of "Neo-cons" and the Jews running the world stage as a cabal. The Muslims in particular, as GOOD Muslims, should be the rulers (superior and all) and to be denied such power must have been victims of theft from the devious Jews... Does this sound at all familiar to you? Any of you?

Iconoclast, sadly, is of the same ilk as the Nazi sympathizers of the 1930's and 1940's, and would throw in with today's fascists if they sought real control here, on this soil.

His flawed opinions about why we are in Iraq, or extremely off-the-mark comments about giving up on OBL (psst... we're still in Afghanistan) notwithstanding, he couldn't get it right if he tried. And he's not trying - He'd rather be wrong. While your admonitions regarding labels are taken well by me, and I generally agree, the above is the reason this label fits him rather well.

[Alexander Rubin]

a) A biological weapon would be just as effective.

b) Some chemical weapons would still be effective.

c) There would still be critical areas that could be targetted by an area effect weapon to great effect

d) Nukes are great if the enemy wants to utterly destroy you. Scorched earth, fallout, cancer, nuclear winter and all that.

e) Your solution effectively boils down to, if I may glibly put it so, "run and hide"

Wow. What progress. Yes, let's all retreat to the woods and live like bark-eating neo-nazis and the Unabomber. Sounds like a plan. After you, sirrah.

[Indy Pendance]

Please explain that to my daughter. She didn't have to join, she wanted to. She could have finished college, she could have had a civilian life, she could have had a lot of things, instead, she's protecting you and giving you the freedom to sit at your comfy desk, posting inane comments on a web site, while she and her buddies are in a humvee, in the desert, in 120° temps.

[TAquinas]

"That is just not good enough"

What's not good enough?

[Sam Hill]

"I had to serve. No all-volunteer army back in '72."

LOL There was no draft in 1972. Nobody got called up.

"In any event, Edwards' lottery number didn't even matter, because nobody in the 1972 lottery was ever called up. The war was winding down and draft resistance had become an enormous headache for the Pentagon."

The Post-Vietnam Candidate - Slate.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5387495/

[Dave Olson]

Saddam Hussein was a militant secularist and a socialist. He wanted to Westernize Iraq. He wanted women to be emancipated. He was an enemy of Islamists (even if at the end he tried to appease them in order to survive).

I'm not sure I buy that. These Islamists have shown no qualms about attacking other Muslim countries like Turkey, Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, if these countries appeared to be getting too close to the West. But Iraq, and Saddam Hussein, they always left alone. If he really was their enemy, why would they refuse to try to overthrow him themselves, as they've tried with other leaders elsewhere? Plus, the fact that they are fighting so hard to defeat the force that untimately did overthrew him, tells me that although he was a secularist, his connection to them was much tighter than just appeasement.

[Indy Pendance]

You got that right. I remember my brother watching the TV for his lottery number, no one in 1972 got called. It was mostly over by then.

[nopardons]

You need help!

Lots of people live in cities because THEY LIKE IT THERE.

Nobody was ever "forced" to live in a city by "industrialist".

The more your post, the more of your Marxist views are on display.

You really should read the true history, of what living in a preindustrial America was like. Believe me, it was NOT all beer and skittles and people, for the most part, were absolutely miserable! Their lives were lonely, hard, harsh, and uncomfortable. You wouldn't last a week!

And since you are so desirous of "avoiding the tyranny of multiculturalism and diversity mumbo-jumbo", I suggest that you ho join some crazy white supremacist group, where you'll fit right in.

[Wild_Bill_8881]

Yep

[Glenmerle]

. . . my first born was murdered. . . . he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel.

Any last shred of sympathy I had for this woman is gone. The mere fact that she has suffered does not mean she's free to spew her evil venom -- certainly not without serious, hard-hitting criticism.

[Alexander Rubin]

First of all, the country won't save you from multiculturalism and diversity if everyone moves out to the country. Secondly, the country has disadvantages. It's hard to run a modern society with a rural based population. Thirdly, we could get rid of the liberal tyranny problem by agreeing on a list of demands, then putting in legislators who enact them.

When you say wherewithal, I assume you mean money. Since you said you would be 'more than happy' to, let's assume that money is the only problem. Country living is relatively cheap. I know a place that's selling (or it was fairly recently), 100+ acres, a nice farmhouse (probably 2500 square feet;beautiful Edwardian style) and a barn, for about 99k Canadian and change. You can go for a smaller property or even more wild and pay even less.

I've seen small houses in the Canadian country for as low as 8k, and decent places for as low as 30k. So money shouldn't be the issue if you really want to do it.

I love the country myself. But I don't think that moving to the country is some sort of fantastic utopian solution. It has its own advantages, and its own problems, just like cities.

Also, people were never FORCED into cities in the industrial revolution (as far as I know) . They chose to go there, for many reasons. The industrial revolution was a product of circumstance, not design. Urbanization was a consequence, not a policy.

[Alexander Rubin]

We sleep in this hole over here. The King sleeps in that hole over there. ;)

[nopardons]

You and Cindy are disputing it utterly.

Go read what she's said; it's posted all over this and many other threads on FR! Obviously, you have NO idea what the barking moonbat of a mother has been saying; elsewise, you couldn't post as you have been.

And as for you, you newbie troll, you have also smeared our military, claiming that the only reason our troops signed the dotted line and were "hooked" ( YOUR WORD ! ), was because a "carrot was dangled in front of them." You and your vile posts are an utter disgrace !

[Alexander Rubin]

Yeah, that about sums it up.

[TAquinas]

OK.

Thanks.

[Wild_Bill_8881]

HELP !!!! I'm being repressed !!!

[Sam Hill]

SFSU Hosts a Terrorist
By Lee Kaplan
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 2, 2005

“George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son,” she said tearing up a bit. “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.”

Cindy Sheehan

“They’re not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror,” she said. “The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush.”

Sheehan continued, “9/11 was Pearl Harbor for the neo-conservatives’ agenda” and declared the U.S. government a “morally repugnant system.” Then she raged:

We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington!

[nopardons]

Your moronic post, wherein you said that you didn't need to post no stinking sources, you were the source and that that is good enough. It is NOT "good enough". And nobody, not a single member of FR thinks that whatever you pull out of your arse, posted as "fact", is a "good enough" source.