« 'Mother' Marionette and anti-Semitism | Main | Question for the anti-death penality advocates »

August 18, 2005

Another parent's view

While 'Mother' Marionette and her Saddamites prance for the cameras, here's another voice that is just as authentic

I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.
Read the whole thing.

Posted by Darleen at August 18, 2005 07:17 AM

Comments

I read the whole thing. She says, "honor their memories."

How can we do that when the Pentagon, until recently, refused to allow any photos of returning coffins? When those coffins are returned in the dead of night? When the Right condemns Ted Koppel from a live reading a list of the names of dead GIs on Memorial Day?

When Bush refuses to attend a single funeral?

Posted by: Brad at August 18, 2005 09:13 AM

CINDY SHEEHAN HAS BECOME THE "BITCH" OF DEAD SOLDIERS.

Posted by: RICK ANDERSON at August 18, 2005 11:58 AM

- Tell you what Brad. I will back your requests 120% just as soon as the NYTrash agrees to run pictures of all the dead bodies of innocent Iraqi men , women, and children that die every day at the hands of the sweet jahidist peace loving freedon fighters. Deal?

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at August 18, 2005 01:14 PM

Brad

GW "refuses" to attend a single funeral?

WTF? If he attended ONE the usual suspects of MoveOn/Kennedy/Dean/Kucinich ILK would be screaming to high heaven about it.

HE HAS done something unprecedented..he has met PRIVATELY with ALL the families who have wanted a meeting.

JUST AS GW's "party animals" have been quietly and unheralded doing charity work.

good God, the Left is in a hole and just keeps digging.

Posted by: Darleen at August 19, 2005 09:29 AM

Yeah Darleen, but you know, he refuses to meet with the only one that matters. You know, Saint Cindy. Oh wait...

Posted by: Ellie Dee at August 20, 2005 08:41 AM

“In a nut shell, ABC now says it talked to Sheehan and she said she did in fact write the letter in question after all and she did receive an e-mail from ABC confirming that ABC had received it. But she thinks the version on the web has been tampered with.” So let me get this straight, Cindy Sheehan first said a “former friend ” doctored the email and even said this persons gender by saying “he”.

Here is what Cindy sheehan originally stated and I quote ” A former friend who is anti-Israel and wants to use the spotlight on me to push his anti-Semitism is telling everyone who is listening that I believe that Casey died for Israel and has gone so far as to apparently doctor an email from me. People have to know that he doesn’t speak for me. ABC Nightline can’t confirm his email is real and therefore any reporting on it is irresponsible.”

Now that it has been confirmed that she herself sent the email she totally changes her story once again. Now instead of asserting that ABC can’t confirm this mystery persons email and therefore its irresponsible to even report on this particular email, she now says she did send it, but she “thinks” it was tampered with. Im just curious how she could have written it and not really know if its been tampered with , she says now she thinks the web version was tampered with. There is absolutely no evidence what-so- ever that anyone tampered with her email, sent to ABC Nightline in the first place, and how would anyone even know she was sending it? And what is meant by she thinks the web version was tampered with , she doesnt know what she herself wrote and sent? She did the same type of distortion once before when she stated that there was evidence that her son was killed by friendly fire. Later she said and I quote “I have some speculative evidence that he was actually killed by friendly fire.” I just wonder what she means by speculative evidence? I would bet there is no evidence at all that her son died by friendly fire, but it does create that distrust for the military and government that she sets out to accomplish, that is if your very gullible. I dont understand why reporters don’t challenge her on these off the wall statements she makes.

Posted by: Sharlene Morgan at August 20, 2005 04:11 PM

And still ANOTHER mother: nother mother who has journeyed to Crawford, Celeste Zappala, wrote last Sunday in New York's Daily News of how her son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, was also killed in April 2004 - in Baghdad, where he was providing security for the Iraq Survey Group, which was charged with looking for W.M.D.'s "well beyond the admission by David Kay that they didn't exist."

As Ms. Zappala noted with rage, her son's death came only a few weeks after Mr. Bush regaled the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association banquet in Washington with a scripted comedy routine featuring photos of him pretending to look for W.M.D.'s in the Oval Office. "We'd like to know if he still finds humor in the fabrications that justified the war that killed my son," Ms. Zappala wrote.

You might want to try and stretch your horizons by reading Frank Rich's column, The Swiftboating of Cindy Sheehan . This slander campaign really just follows in the noble Bush tradition of taking those who have made true sacrifices (in contrast to their priviliged elitist selfish lives) and annihilating them with slander, using their well oiled propaganda media wing. Rich notes that this time it hasn't worked, that they have not been able to confuse the issue. Sheehan is a political naif, and has made her share of faux pas, but she is also the genuine article - an American mother who raised a near perfect son and saw him sacrificed on an altar of lies. And outside of your little bubble here, the effectiveness of swiftboat slander has passed its peak here in this increasingly disgusted nation. Rush is losing audience, as is Sean Vanity. Your time is passing, thank God.

What bothers me though ,as another average American mother, is that there are so much bestiality in this country, that utterly disinterested parties like Darleen feel compelled to use their blogs to pile on the disgusting swiftboating of one of their own. They will do any nasty corporate bidding needed to protect their mediocrity of a president. What are they really protecting deep down? Their need to see themselves as members of a dominant culture, to feel superior, to align themselves with the powerful, no matter how unAmerican that is, to protect their lords and masters from accountability. It's like watching dogs, the same servile willingness to behave repulsively for the approval of their master. Have some respect for yourselves for gods sake. Our forefathers didn't create this great country so you could all behave like sycophants to corrupt power.

Posted by: Hrubec at August 21, 2005 04:24 AM

I think it's important to remember also, that our young Americans are NOT dying to protect the approx. 60% of Iraqis who are female. In the words of a neocon punidt this morning, former PNAC, now AEI, conservative elitist creep Reuel Marc Gerecht : I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then.  In 1900, women did not have the right to vote.  If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.  I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy.

So there you have it, all you conservatives who like to pretend we went into Iraq for humanitarian purposes. Just not the kind of humans that are female. Via Wolcott "Women's rights aren't at the center of the War on Terror, nowhere near the center. They're a flimsy, detachable rationale that neoconservatives won't hesitate to discard if inconvenient to their goals. " Bring on the backtracking! Roll out the apologias! I'd love to hear naive little sparkle's take on this. Should be classic.

But isn't it time - SOON? - to admit it wasn't about WMDs or Saddam or helping the people or spreading the democracy. It's about the power and glory of the warped and morphed Repub party, and using the cultural bigotry of yahoos to enable a power grab for the wealthy and powerful. That's why having American kids kill and die to create an Islamic state, sending Iraqi women reeling back to the middle ages is A-OK. Because there are no core values, only party loyalty.

Posted by: Hrubec at August 21, 2005 05:17 PM

Hrudork - for the life of me I don't understand how you can spew such garbage without choking on your own words. "Swiftboating" someone. Oh. You're reffering to that little incident where one pravaracating lying Senator told the "truth seered into his mind" about how he spent a christmas in an area he couldn't have been in, thinking about a president doing things that wasn't president yet. You mean the Senator who blasted himself in the ass, not once but twice, with granade launchers and then re-staged the non-events, filming the whole thing with a movie camera he just happened to take with him to Nam. The same Senator who wrote his own action reports and envagled officers that weren't even there to sign off on them. The Senator that has such a checkered and secretive past concerning his illegal trips to France to meet with the Viet Cong leadership, a clear act of treason, that he refuses to acknowlege his anti-American past. The one who just can't seem to find the strength of character to release His dishonorable records to this day. Oh right. He told the truth about so many of the aforementioned events and 236 honorable, properly and honestly decorated men, lied. Of course. Its all clear. Tell you what Hrubec. Talk to your hero sKerry and tell him that O'neille would love him to follow through on all his phony threats and lies and sue the Swiftboat people. Its never going to happen because then KerryKlown would have to produce all the paper he's sitting on in court. So tell me again. Just who was smearing who. yeh. right. dork.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at August 21, 2005 10:11 PM

Big Bang, it isn't me who uses the term "swiftboating". Wake up and stick your nose out of your bizarre little world of hatred and bigotry. I'm guessing you live in some little town where every last person you meet thinks like you and every place you visit on the internet tells you that is the only way to think. Earth to Big Bang: There's a huge world out here, and you don't run it.

The word "swiftboating" has entered the American lexicon. It is used all the time and has come to represent a Republican technique that the American public is now wise to. Instead of combatting any opponent on the merits, 'swiftboating' is when you resort instead, like a coward, to personal attacks to confuse the issue. You dig into a person's past - a person who because they have engaged themselves in this life, has created a record of both proud and less proud moments - and you attempt to humiliate them by dragging out all kinds of things about their pasts that can be used to influence smallminded people who don't bother to get full information. The right wing media is always sitting there like a trained rabid dog to hop on whatever nasty slander-mongering the RNC wants done.

For example, if Bush were running against a Republican in any of the last elections, they would have made front page headlines out of the fact that Laura Bush killed an ex boyfriend by running a red light in her home town at age 18, and never faced any charges, despite persistent rumors she was drunk at the time. Is this relevant? Hell,no. But the Repubs would have had that headline blaring 24/7. Because it would hurt very much, and the pain it caused would have thrown the Bush campaign off message and taken the heat off of any issues being discussed.

John Kerry was not the first person to be swiftboated. Before him the pigs swiftboated McCain, Max Cleland, and others. Then came Joe Wilson (don't debate him on the merits, try and hurt him through his wife), most recently Paul Hackett, an Iraqi vet running for Congress against an elititst machine Repub (slimed by Limbaugh as a "staff puke", and by his opponent as not being in true combat - only community cleanup after combat, over 85 men so servng have died in action) and now Sheehan.

What makes swiftboating so disgusting - aside from the fact that they take on actual honorable people - war vets, prisoners of war, distinguished ambassadors, people doing their country's HARD work - is that they are sponsored by people like Cheney, rove & bush - who refused to fight for their country and who have never given anything to this country without ensuring obscene financial windfalls for themselves. The Sheehan thing stands out because now they show they are even willing to slime a private citizen - if she exercises her Constitutional right to dissent. And in this they are aided and abetted in their dirty un American work, nazi germany style, by slavering power worshippers like you and like Darleen - people who don't even have a dog in the fight, but who just like to pile on and attack those who legitimately challenge their infallible lords and masters.

Get it now? I doubt it. The only thing you appear to have learned about politics is how to make fun of your opponents' screen name. But they need all the bestiality they can find in the American people, so I'm sure your "efforts" are appreciated.

Posted by: Hrubec at August 22, 2005 03:06 AM

- As usual you're guessing wrong asshole. I've seen more of the world than you'll ever hope to. Thats clear from your brand of text book, cum polysci prof lefty polemic. More to the point you evade as usual. Not feeling capable of resonding to a single item I called you out on, you flee to defining a typical leftist "lie label", and project the exact game plan of the left as a conservative invention. Clever. But not clever enough by half. If you have an attention span/ focus problem when you try to repond to comprehensive posts by adults, perhaps you could benefit from the applicable meds. In the means time sKerry is a proven lier and got his ass handed to him by the electorate. All your foaming and fuming, and BS in the world will never erase that fact.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at August 24, 2005 11:26 AM