« Cindy Sheehan -- classic cult victim | Main | Battlestar Galactica - The Farm »

August 12, 2005

'Message to Cindy Sheehan'

While some of the cultists are babbling talking points in the comments in the previous post (and I blame them, not Cindy, for her psychic break), Patterico points to a poignant piece addressed to Cindy from Mohammed at Iraq the Model

know how you feel Cindy, I lived among the same pains for 35 years but worse than that was the fear from losing our loved ones at any moment. Even while I'm writing these words to you there are feelings of fear, stress, and sadness that interrupt our lives all the time but in spite of all that I'm sticking hard to hope which if I didn't have I would have died years ago.

Ma'am, we asked for your nation's help and we asked you to stand with us in our war and your nation's act was (and still is) an act of ultimate courage and unmatched sense of humanity.
Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families.
Your face doesn't look strange to me at all; I see it everyday on endless numbers of Iraqi women who were struck by losses like yours.

Our fellow country men and women were buried alive, cut to pieces and thrown in acid pools and some were fed to the wild dogs while those who were lucky enough ran away to live like strangers and the Iraqi mother was left to grieve one son buried in an unfound grave and another one living far away who she might not get to see again.

We did nothing to deserve all that suffering, well except for a dream we had; a dream of living like normal people do.

We cried out of joy the day your son and his comrades freed us from the hands of the devil and we went to the streets not believing that the nightmare is over.
We practiced our freedom first by kicking and burning the statues and portraits of the hateful idol who stole 35 years from the life of a nation.
For the first time air smelled that beautiful, that was the smell of freedom.

The mothers went to break the bars of cells looking for the ones they lost 5, 12 or 20 years ago and other women went to dig the land with their bare hand searching for a few bones they can hold in their arms after they couldn't hold them when they belonged to a living person. ...

Your son sacrificed his life for a very noble cause…No, he sacrificed himself for the most precious value in this existence; that is freedom.

Do go read the rest.

Posted by Darleen at August 12, 2005 08:03 PM

Comments

You know, I feel bad for this woman and all. The media, however has turned this into a circus, and that is what makes me sick.

Posted by: Jay at August 13, 2005 07:02 AM

When was the last time that you sacrificed something Darlene? After all, I notice that you've put a link on your blog to raise money to send what I presume to be your daughter to college.

Couldn't she avail herself of the many educational opportunities and signing bonuses from one of the fine arms of our military branches?

Posted by: Cathy Plant at August 13, 2005 08:45 AM

Dear Darleen:

Your blog is excellent, and your comments in Classical Values are excellent and I always love to see them. You are a true patriot. You are too generous to these trolls, these Communist traitors like this Cathy Plant here. Myself, I would delete their comments and ban them or not allow comments at all. Thank you.

Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson at August 13, 2005 09:21 AM

Yeah, Darleen, everybody who disagrees with you is a communist traitor, as proven by my page full of spurious dichotomies: http://tinyurl.com/c4ekx

Posted by: Lo Ping Wong at August 13, 2005 09:27 AM

Communists??

ROTFLMAO!

Here's a hint dude. Your boogeyman has been out of commission for 15 years.

Time to seek out another one.

Posted by: davebo at August 13, 2005 09:35 AM

I once saw a really terrible porn movie starring someone named Sioban. Any relation?

Posted by: anon at August 13, 2005 09:37 AM

Interesting as well that you link to Mohamed.

Perhaps Mrs. Sheehan wasn't any more interested in Mohamed's freedom than he was? Ask Mohamed where he was during the January election in Iraq.

Posted by: davebo at August 13, 2005 09:44 AM

I already have family members in the military. Even one right now in Iraq. He's 17 years Navy - medic attached with the Marines out of Camp Pendleton. He was in Iraq during the first Gulf War and this is his second tour of Iraq during this phase.

Not to mention I have posted before of my daughters' close friends who have willingly joined the military -- people who joined out of a sense of honor and duty to their country. I honor them all. I honor Casey Sheehan's service and pray that his family, especially Cindy, may find peace in their hearts and pride in their son's own choice.

Posted by: Darleen at August 13, 2005 11:57 AM

Yes, because having relatives, honouring and praying are certainly a lot harder than making real sacrifices, aren't they Dar?

Posted by: Loura at August 13, 2005 12:24 PM

well at least this flock of moonbats are honest enough to admit they are contemptuous of those who serve the nation. they are so pathetic and small minded. their hero is not the soldier who died serving the nation. no that would be toooo much of a stretch. or any of the many other mothers who have grief and pride. just this one, only this one is worthy of praise, because she's trashing bush.

Posted by: Jane at August 13, 2005 01:43 PM

When was the last time that you sacrificed something Darlene? After all, I notice that you've put a link on your blog to raise money to send what I presume to be your daughter to college.
Couldn't she avail herself of the many educational opportunities and signing bonuses from one of the fine arms of our military branches?


Posted by: Casey at August 14, 2005 09:52 AM

You will notice many wingnuts have relatives in the military. How convenient tht there are so many relatives and friends wiling to do their dying for them, and though they rarely speak for themselves, are lucky enough to have rightwing extremists tell us all exactly what they feel and think.

Apparently these innumerable friends and relatives are delighted to be serving under an incompetent blueblood elitist draft dodging mediocrity who took us into a war of choice without planning for ...well, anything. For the sectarian tensions. For the lack of democratic traditions. For the Islamic fundamentalism just beneath the surface. For the hatred of the West. For disbanding the army. For protecting the oilfields. For safeguarding even our own discarded weapons. For sealing borders. For providing water and electricity. For ANYTHING.

Now we have created the coziest hothouse for terrorism the world has ever known. We can't leave without condemning the innocent citizens to even greater chaos. But guess what? We WILL leave. When? Just in time for the midterm elections. And what will all the bush sycophants say then? They'll forget all that 'stay the course' nonsense in a jiffy and praise the dear leader for changing his mind.

In America today, we are seeing the results of a tv hypnotized culture, where southern and midwestern Americans, starved for political power, will suck up to any political mediocrity that makes them feel like winners. And they do not care about the consequences on the world or on our own democracy. They are hypocrites and sycophants of the highest order. That they mock the courage of a true American who is taking a bold stand to make a difference is only further evidence of their moral vacuuousness.

Posted by: Hrubec at August 14, 2005 04:42 PM

I see a great contrast between her first comments about her meeting with Bush in her interview on June 24, 2004, that was just several months after her son was killed, and the latest comments she is making about that same meeting with Bush. Cindy Sheehan first said after her meeting with Bush, that she " now knows that Bush is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqi's." Then she went on to say and I quote, " I know he's sorry and feels pain for our loss." She used two descriptions to describe her impressions of Bush after,Bush's meeting with her, "Sincere" and " He's sorry and feels pain for our loss." Now its quite the opposite description of Bush, if you were to listen to her new interpretation of that same meeting with Bush, you would think it was two seperate meetings. Cindy Sheehan now says about that meeting with Bush that " Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject,and he acted like it was a party." That statement indicates just the opposite of what she originally said about Bush, in that she even used the word "sincere" in describing Bush's demeanor. So I'm to take it that she felt that "acting like it was a party" was sincere, and sincere was as she described Bush in her first interview? The question that now remains concerning her two completely different versions of that meeting with Bush, is, which one is the true story and which one is the lie? In her first interview with David Henson she stated that Bush felt "sorry" about the loss of her son,then Cindy Sheehan turns around and says just the opposite in her interview with Blitzer and I quote " Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died." Excuse me but "sorry" and "happy" are not synonyms Mrs.Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan's versions of that meeting with President Bush just don't match, they are not remotely similar.

Posted by: Sharlene Morgan at August 19, 2005 01:53 AM

her meeting with Bush in her interview on June 24, 2004, that was just several months after her son was killed, and the latest comments she is making about that same meeting with Bush.Cindy Sheehan first said after her meeting with Bush, that she " now knows that Bush is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqi's." Then she went on to say and I quote, " I know he's sorry and feels pain for our loss." She used two descriptions to describe her impressions of Bush after,Bush's meeting with her, "Sincere" and " He's sorry and feels pain for our loss." Now its quite the opposite description of Bush, if you were to listen to her new interpretation of that same meeting with Bush, you would think it was two seperate meetings. Cindy Sheehan now says about that meeting with Bush that " Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject,and he acted like it was a party." That statement indicates just the opposite of what she originally said about Bush, in that she even used the word "sincere" in describing Bush's demeanor.

Posted by: Sharlene Morgan at August 19, 2005 01:55 AM

I notice that ‘The Huffington Post’ has adopted Cindy Sheehan’s rantings and are carrying all her messages and letters. I remember Huffington, and wasn’t she the person who ran anti-SUV ads that suggested that people who bought sports utility vehicles were supporting terrorist? Isn’t that the same Arianna Huffington who drives around in limo’s and has private jets at her disposal? I wonder exactly what would be the ratio of gas consumption between a SUV and a private jet or a limo as far as that goes. Getting back to the subject of Cindy Sheehan, I just read an article she wrote for ‘The Huffington Post’ in which she defends some of her comments about Israel, by blaming them on a former friend. Here is a quote from that article, Cindy Sheehan– ” 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.” I was watching the news and heard myself Cindy Sheehan say that her son didn’t join the military to protect Israel and it wasnt just my imagination. Maybe deposing Saddam did protect Israel to some degree, after all Saddam launched dozens of scud missiles at Israel as I recall. I believe also Saddam offered reward money for the families of suicide bombers who killed innocent Israeli women and children. So if in the process of removing Saddam,those actions were beneficial to Israel’s security, so be it, and Im glad that’s the case.

Posted by: Sharlene Morgan at August 19, 2005 06:06 PM

The URL in which Cindy Sheehan says a former friend doctored an email is at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/camp-casey-day-12_b_5830.html

This specter who is according to her, a “former friend” and just happens to be anti-Israel, is of course never named. I am under the impression that this person is none other than Cindy Sheehan herself. Also if you will notice David Dukes is supporting her all the way. Dukes just wrote an article entitled ” Why Cindy Sheehan is Right” its full of the usual anti-semitic invective that he has perfected over the years. Here are some quotes fron David Dukes article.

David Dukes– ” Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel.”

David Dukes–” In truth, Cindy Sheehan is absolutely right. Her son signed up in the military to defend America, not Israel.”

David Dukes wrote in his August 14 article that Cindy Sheehan was right in saying that her son didn’t join the military to protect Israel. Since August 14th Cindy Sheehan says that email to Nightline was “doctored by a former friend”. Why doesnt a reporter just ask Cindy Sheehan who this mystery person is who she calls her former friend and who framed her? Also why would anyone need to frame Cindy Sheehan with anti-semitic remarks when she freely does a great job at that all on her own?

Posted by: Sharlene Morgan at August 20, 2005 02:49 PM

No matter what invective the "sheehanites" desire to throw at me "ad hominem",it doesn't really counter Cindy Sheehan's contradictory statements, erroneous assertions and down right lies. The fact remains that in her first interview with David Henson she stated that Bush was "sincere" and "felt sorry for their loss." Her husband or should I say "ex-husband" Patrick Sheehan followed up her praise of Bush by saying yes he agreed that Bush was sincere in their meeting. Later Cindy Sheehan made a complete 180 degree turn in the opposite direction and not only was Bush, in her second version of that same meeting, not sincere, but according to her he "acted like it was a party." My reasonable question is which version is the truth and which is the distortion? During another interview on national television Cindy Sheehan stated that her son was killed by friendly fire, when she was pressed about that statement she then said " well I have speculative evidence that he was killed by friendly fire." It amazing that anyone could use the words speculative and evidence in the same sentence side by side and keep a straight face. Evidence substantiates an allegation, speculation is just the opposite it requires no evidence at all,to use "speculative evidence" together is a perfect example of an oxymoron. I also notice Cindy Sheehan refuses to elaborate on what reasons would led her to believe that her son Casey Sheehan was killed by friendly fire. The real truth of Casey Sheehan's death is he was killed by hostile fire in Sadr City, this was the consistent report of his death since day one, medical reports and the reports from fellow soldiers confirm the same conclusion. There has never been one verifiable hint that Casey Sheehan was killed by friendly fire so you have to ask yourself whats Cindy Sheehans real objective in asserting a lie. Cindy Sheehan says she speaks for her son but Im seeing just the opposite, she is really only speaking for herself. Cindy Sheehan says her son Casey was against the war in Iraq, but Caseys actions prove just the opposite. If Casey Sheehan vehemently opposed the war in Iraq, like Cindy Sheehan contends, why would Casey reenlist in the first place to serve in a war he didnt believe in ? Casey Sheehan was a real hero of the first order, when a convoy of soldiers from his unit was attacked in Sadr City he volunteered to join a rescue force to get them out, even after his commanding Sergeant told him he didn't have to go because he was mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was reported telling his officer " I go where my chief goes." Thats not a man who didn't believe in his cause or his duty, thats a hero. Cindy Sheehan is stating that her son was offered a "non-combat" position as a Chaplain's assistant. Any soldier knows that Chaplain's assistants are infantrymen assigned to protecting the Chaplain and Casey Sheehan was not a chaplain's assistent in the first place. Cindy Sheehan also stated that she didn't send the email to ABC's Nightline that stated that "her son was not in Iraq to protect Israel." First she said that a "former friend " who just happened to be anti-Israel doctored the email . Here is what she said and I quote her. Cindy-- "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." This specter who is according to her, a “former friend” and just happens to be anti-Israel, is of course never named. I am under the impression that this person is none other than Cindy Sheehan herself. 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.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. I for one would like to hear testimonny from Casey Sheehans fellow soldiers in Iraq ,I bet they have a completly different version as to how Casey felt about the war then what is being presented by Cindy Sheehan. You know if Cindy Sheehan personally is against the war in Iraq, she has every right to voice her opinion, but to distort her sons mission and purpose and his own perspective on Iraq is just not right

Posted by: Sharlene Morgan at August 21, 2005 02:13 PM

Some people have ask me what groups exactly has Cindy Sheehan allied herself with, well here’s the list. Now Cindy Sheehan will tell you they followed her, but as you notice she never has attempted to seperate herself from any of these groups. Instead she has allowed them to set up booths to sell their merchandise as long as the money goes to her cause. The ISO was ask to leave camp crazy, but not because they were Marxist rather because Cindy Sheehan had made a deal with the organization ‘Code Pink’ and others to contribute their profits to the overall effort’s of Cindy Sheehan. The International Socialist Organization was attempting to pocket the profits they were making by selling their Howard Zinn books and not contribute to Sheehan’s cause, so they were ask to leave. Actually Cindy Sheehen gave an interview to ‘The Socialist Worker Online’ just several weeks earlier in which she stated and I quote, ” I DEFINITELY think that we should support war resisters in the military.” Anyway here’s the list of organizations Cindy Sheehan has allied herself with.

1. Al-Awda (San Francisco) – A Palestinian organization dedicated to the “right of return,” that Israel will absorb some five million Arabs into its midst. Its members endorse the Hamas statement, “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.”

• American Friends Service Committee – A putatively Quaker organization with a long history of support for Communist causes, foreign and domestic, its membership often overlapped with that of the Communist Party USA. AFSC refrained from criticizing the Soviet Union and called reports of Pol Pot’s killing fields a “misinformation campaign.” More recently, the Soros-funded organization encouraged city councils to oppose the Patriot Act and joined with other leftist radicals to oppose the liberation of Iraq.

• International ANSWER (Bay Area) – A front for the Workers World Party’s International Action Center headed by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark (who recently volunteered to serve as Saddam’s lawyer), International ANSWER has supported such madmen as Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and Kim Jong-il. ANSWER was also the prime sponsor of the large “antiwar” rallies before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

• Code Pink – A far-Left group of faux housewives established by omnipresent pro-Castro activist Medea Benjamin, the founders met while agitating on behalf of Nicaragua’s communist Sandanista government. Benjamin, with Communist Party USA member Leslie Cagan, founded the International Occupation Watch in Baghdad, an organization dedicated to getting U.S. GIs to declare themselves conscientious objectors and get themselves sent home. Code Pink spokesperson “Sand” Brim flew a surgeon into El Salvador to operate on Marxist guerrilla leader Nidia Diaz’s hand shortly after guerrillas under her command murdered American troops. Co-founder Jodie Evans is a Democratic Party fundraiser with ties to eco-terrorists. Late last year, the group traveled to Iraq to donate $600,000 in cash and supplies to the terrorist stronghold of Fallujah. They made headlines this year by bursting into John Bolton’s confirmation hearings. Furthering the Left’s incestuous relationship, Medea Benjamin’s Code Pink is also a member of Leslie Cagan’s United for Peace and Justice, which became the “mainstream” voice of the anti-American Left opposed to the War on Terror.

• Free Palestine Alliance – A leftist Palestinian organization demanding “an immediate end to all U.S. aid to Israel,” it seems to exist only as a member of International ANSWER’s “steering committee.” (Its contact information is the same as the IAC.)

• Global Exchange – Another organization founded by Medea Benjamin, which takes credulous left-wingers on trips to Potemkin villages around the world, to demonstrate the glories of socialism (in places like Cuba) or the evils of U.S. foreign policy (in locales such as Iraq and Afghanistan).

• Green Party – Ralph Nader’s political vehicle in 2000, this Red-Green alliance supports radicalization of the U.S. economy under the guise of preserving the environment. Meanwhile, its foreign policy would have kept Saddam Hussein in power and catered to Kim Jong-il. Their candidate in 2000 for California’s U.S. Senate seat was none other than the ubiquitous Medea Benjamin.

• International Socialist Organization – Despite supporting Trotskyite Communism, the ISO supports (or supported) the USSR, Communist China, Cuba, and North Korea (Stalinist or Maoist nations all), because of those nation’s united opposition to the world’s real enemies: the United States and capitalism. Also a member of UFPJ.

• Not in Our Name (NION) – Founded by Maoiost radical C. Clark Kissinger of the Revolutionary Communist Party – an organization considered extremist and violent even by fellow Maoists – this “antiwar” coalition produced a “Statement of Conscience,” signed by thousands of leftists, condemning America’s “openly imperial policy towards the world.

• Party for Socialism and Liberation – A party that proudly proclaims, “we aim for revolution in the United States.” The most recent issue of their magazine hails the Iraqi terrorists’ “determination and ability to resist.” And they explicitly wish to play a role in our defeat in the region: “The experience of the Vietnam War proved that the anti-war movement in the United States can gain confidence from the resistance of the oppressed peoples standing up to and defeating the largest military power in the world.”

Posted by: william leatherwood at August 24, 2005 12:07 PM