Cindy Sheehan now clames to be channeling Casey. She need help and prayers.

[gnjsdad]

Lizzie:

Isn’t that what Presidents do?

Of course. They all do it. So why is it OK when presidents do it and not OK when Mrs Sheehan does it?

 

[Cathlicrat]

I am sorry but your info is utterly incorrect. She was speaking about Iraq… Read her entire statement and you will see.

 

[Lizzie]

gnjsdad:

Of course. They all do it. So why is it OK when presidents do it and not OK when Mrs Sheehan does it?

That question has been answered over and over again.:tsktsk:

 

[Jeffrey]

How can something good come out of all the evil that is backing her?

Cathlicrat:

I am amazed that people think a citizen of America cannot use tragedy and grief of a loved one killed as a springboard for political activism. This is an important element to the fabric of our Society.

Lets see: Would we have Americas Most Wanted if John Walsh didnt have his son kidnapped and killed?

Would we have MADD (Mothers against drunk driving) if a mom didnt lose her child to a drunk driver?

The list is seemingly endless for people who have used: disease, death, tragedy etc…as springboards to bring GOOD out of Evil; including bringing an end to unjust wars.

The problem is that people think those who begin these movements should be and remain infallible, cause God forbid if they are then somehow shown as human with human errors and flaws then everything they stood for or created gets tainted? Thats absurd.

Cindy Sheehan is the inspiration to get out of Iraq and finally a microscope being placed on this Presidents actions; and has sparked people to ask out loud why such mismanagement is and has been occuring causing further danger to our troops.

I encourage my fellow Catholics and Christians to seriously reflect on this.

 

[Jeffrey]

Well now… don’t let logic get in the way.

Lizzie:

Isn’t that what Presidents do?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cathlicrat:

Cindy has never spoken against America.

Yes she has.

Cathlicrat:

If someone says she has, they are either lying or twisting her words.

Are you suggesting that I am lying? There is no need to twist her words. Her words are a matter of public record. She said: “This country is not worth dying for.” (Source: Ann Coulter, “CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF”, August 17, 2004)

Cathlicrat:

I have heard the woman on TV and on radio say she loves her country.

She has said all sorts of self-contradictory things. One day she loves Bush. The next day she says things so defamatory and profane, that I can’t quote them here. One day she says her family doesn’t support her. The next day she says they do. One minute she is crying crocodile tears (when the cameras are on her) and the next minute she is beaming with joy and chatting cheerily about how much money she is making in her new career badmouthing Bush, while blaming him for her unemployment.

Cathlicrat:

Exactly WHEN then is one to speak out against Govt? When things go well? That would be kind of dumb now wouldnt it?

You just seem bound and determined to avoid addressing the central problem with Sheehan’s rhetoric.

Cathlicrat:

So that means one protests and speaks out when things go BAD…but Jingoists fail to see that…

Namecalling is against the rules. Please refrain.

Cathlicrat:

they are people who think one should never speak bad about their leaders or Govt… please go back and read what our past leaders have to say about that very issue and reflect :crying:

Please first demonstrate that you have read what we have to say and that you have read the links that we have given. You can demonstrate this by actually addressing the points raised instead of evading them, building strawmen arguments, and impugning our characters.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gnjsdad:

Please clear this up for me. Is there a link or quote you can provide that indicates just how Casey Sheehan felt about his service? Did he really believe in the mission? If so, that would vindicate your argument.

There is no need to give you a link. He re-enlisted.

gnjsdad:

I have seen plenty of posts here touting the high re-enlistment rates of the armed services as proof of high morale and faith in the mission.

OK. I’ve seen them too so I don’t need you to provide links to those.

gnjsdad:

I have seen other reports of extraordinary pressure put on soldiers to re-up - that includes being threatened with stop loss and the consequent loss of all post service benefits.

I have never seen these claims. This is something I do need you to provide a link for.

gnjsdad:

Now, can we honestly say that all of these re-enlisted troops really believe in the mission?

Pending your link.

gnjsdad:

I always thought it was a mistake to say she won’t pay taxes. Rest assured, the IRS is watching. They will punish any criminal activity.

I gather she is taking notes from Joan Baez.

gnjsdad:

So she’s inconsistent (unlike all the rest of us who NEVER are).

This thread is not about our claims. It is about Sheehan’s claims. And you concede that they are inconsistent.

gnjsdad:

I’m not nearly as worried about the inconsistencies of one unfortunate woman with no power than I am about those of a man with life and death power over thousands of people.

Well you seemed pretty worried about it before I actually answered your question about why I thought her behaviour to be devious.

gnjsdad:

You said: Originally Posted by Ani Ibi
I’ve already answered this question. The woman has taken her son’s name and used it for her own cause, a cause which her son clearly did not stand for. Not only that, she and her cohorts have taken the names of many other war dead and, without even a glance in the direction of the survivors, have inscribed their names on crosses and used the whole deal to promote their own cause without asking permission. That is false witness. I have said this before too.

I pointed out that George W Bush does the same thing all the time when he purports to speak for “the American people”.

George Bush does speak for the American people. You gave him that right when you elected him. In any case, this is a red herring. You are attempting to draw notice away from my claims that Sheehan has misrepresented the good name of her son, Casey, for the purposes of furthering he own agenda, an agenda which opposes what he stood for.

gnjsdad:

How is that subverting what you said? I just took your logic and applied it to a different situation.

There is no need for you to apply it to a different situation. By attempting to apply it to a different situation you are subverting what I said. My claim was about Mrs Sheehan’s wrongdoing.

gnjsdad:

It’s obvious you don’t like Mrs Sheehan. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. But you seem to have a double standard going. You condemn her for doing things in the name of a cause you disdain while you’d praise someone else for doing the same thing in a cause you believe in.

Huh? You are going to have to set out this line of thinking in more detail. As it stands, it is a bald accusation without the benefit of support.

In one breath you say that my opinion of Sheehan is fine. In the next breath you say that I have a double standard. Well, if I have a double standard (and I am not saying that I do), then logically my opinion of Sheehan is not fine. Which is it?

The fact of the matter is that I would not have nearly as much intense objection to Mrs Sheehan’s position if the following conditions were met:

1. that she not misrepresent and therefore wrongfully exploit what her son, Casey, stood for and
2. that she not misrepresent her compromised position vis a vis her income (and the taxes involved).

In other words, I do not believe that Sheehan’s behaviour flows from grief; I believe that her behaviour is devious. That is what I have said all along. Moreover, I believe the reliance on the pretext of grief is an utter disgrace and an insult to those others dealing with their grief.

Am I OK with her protesting the war? Yes. That is her right. Am I OK with her behaving in a devious manner in protesting the war? No. That is not her right.

 

[Lizzie]

Cindy and her backers support the dissenters. They provide aid and encouragement for those who are killing Iraqis and Americans. This is dragging out the conflict.

Cindy reaps in much money as she leads the effort to bring back the 60s ‘fun’ crowd.

 

[Jersey_Jeepster]

gnjsdad:

Of course. They all do it. So why is it OK when presidents do it and not OK when Mrs Sheehan does it?

Very simple answer to this. Presidents are elected by the people of this country to speak for the country as a whole. Cindy Sheehan was not elected by anyone, unless, of course, you want to count the universe that chose her to be a spokesperson (her words, not mine) and the angels who are acting as liasons between her and her deceased son (also her words).

This is a mentally unstable woman who needs psychiatric help. Shame on the people who are joining her sideshow and egging her on to speak for them They don’t have the courage of conviction to speak for themsleves.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Please be courteous to each other and the newsmaker you are discussing.

 

[Cathlicrat]

Wow…one day she loves Bush the next she dont?

I invite anyone to provide a direct statement from Cindy that supports this. Even her original interview in the Roccaville paper doesnt support a love for Bush. And please…thinking Ann Coulter or other such writers who deal in inflammatory verbiage as credible secondary sources as telling the truth?

Is this why the disconnect is so great?

 

[Jay74]

I intended this thread to be about prayers for Cindy – from those who agree and disagree alike – because she appears to be increasely slipping into greater depression. Regardless of your opinion about the situation, prayers can’t hurt her or us.

I never intended this to become a pro-Bush or anti-Bush thread. We have plenty of those.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cathlicrat:

Wow…one day she loves Bush the next she dont?

I invite anyone to provide a direct statement from Cindy that supports this. Even her original interview in the Roccaville paper doesnt support a love for Bush. And please…thinking Ann Coulter or other such writers who deal in inflammatory verbiage as credible secondary sources as telling the truth?

Is this why the disconnect is so great?

This is disingenuous, Cathlicrat. Get a grip on yourself. I have already provided you with the link and the full quote of Cindy lavishing praise on Bush after her meeting with him. Evading our replies to you does not further discussion. I have spoken to you about this before.

Now as for your claims, Cathlicrat: how patient do you expect us to be? Very few of the sideswipes you have taken at us have links after them. You are overdue to start providing some evidence for your claims and to start actually reading the replies we give you and the links attached to them as well as responding to the points we raise instead of evading them. Otherwise it is not a discussion; it is just you lecturing us. :tsktsk:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Jay74:

I intended this thread to be about prayers for Cindy – from those who agree and disagree alike – because she appears to be increasely slipping into greater depression. Regardless of your opinion about the situation, prayers can’t hurt her or us.

I never intended this to become a pro-Bush or anti-Bush thread. We have plenty of those.

Well, Jay, where are your prayers? If you want prayers, then post them. That way, people will follow your lead. Maybe at this point in this thread it would be good to start a new Rosary thread and ask the moderator to make it into a sticky.

 

[Jay74]

Ani Ibi:

Well, Jay, where are your prayers? If you want prayers, then post them. That way, people will follow your lead. Maybe at this point in this thread it would be good to start a new Rosary thread and ask the moderator to make it into a sticky.

I’ve been praying for her, as I said in the first post to this thread: *“I’ll be praying for her. I ask you to do the same.” *
Reading your posts, you and I agree on almost everything. But this particular post of your wasn’t necessary.

Anyways, i’m withdrawing from this thread. Go ahead and enjoy the arguing.

 

[st.jerome]

Ani Ibi:

She has said all sorts of self-contradictory things. One day she loves Bush. The next day she says things so defamatory and profane, that I can’t quote them here. One day she says her family doesn’t support her. The next day she says they do. One minute she is crying crocodile tears (when the cameras are on her) and the next minute she is beaming with joy and chatting cheerily about how much money she is making in her new career badmouthing Bush, while blaming him for her unemployment.

You are an intelligent person so I’m sure you’d allow that people are contradictory and act according to the different situations they are in. Its easy to do a blow by blow approach to someone’s actions but it doesn’t amount to much unless you can claim that she’s changed her message. She’s still claiming the same basic anti-war message and that’s why she came into the public eye in the first place. You have to respect that whether you like her or not. She’s a private citizen venturing out into the public eye despite her own shortcomings. That takes guts.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st.jerome:

That takes guts.

It does indeed take guts to be out in the public eye. One’s integrity is constantly being challenged. An ethical response to this challenge is to debrief well and often and make amends where warranted. In the case of Sheehan, we have not seen this willingness to self-examine. Nor have we seen a willingness to tolerate disagreement with her opinions. Nor have we seen a willingness to dialogue in good faith. It has basically been her way or the highway.

And frankly, st jerome, people in the public eye need to learn very quickly to refrain from relying as heavily on profanity as Sheehan has and to refrain from relying as heavily on statements which are potentially libellous – as Sheehan has. A good 99% of what she has said I can’t quote here because it is profane and potentially libellous.

Now which is it? Is she in the public eye and therefore accountable for the way she speaks? Or is she still a private citizen struggling by? I seriously question if she is the latter, Sir; she has the full brunt of professional public relations experts, spin doctors, make-up artists, and strategists in her camp. She is fully in the public eye. Her intent is to be in the public eye. That’s why she is at Camp Casey.

st.jerome:

You are an intelligent person so I’m sure you’d allow that people are contradictory and act according to the different situations they are in.

Whether or not I am intelligent is not the point and has no bearing on whether or not I agree with you as regards moral relativism.

st.jerome:

Its easy to do a blow by blow approach to someone’s actions but it doesn’t amount to much unless you can claim that she’s changed her message.

Well neither have I changed my message yet no one has yet addressed what I have been actually saying about Sheehan. Instead they have avoided my replies, ignored my links, overlooked my quotes, and opted to build strawmen arguments, false analogies, and red herrings. These are not friendly gestures, Sir, and do not further discussion.

st.jerome:

She’s still claiming the same basic anti-war message and that’s why she came into the public eye in the first place. You have to respect that whether you like her or not.

Strawman argument. I have not spoken against her right to dissent. In fact I have very very very very clearly stated that she has the right to dissent.

My disagreement with her has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I like her. That is another strawman argument and not a friendly gesture.

st.jerome:

She’s a private citizen venturing out into the public eye despite her own shortcomings.

And the particular shortcomings to which I have drawn attention are the moral shortcoming of false witness and the possible legal shortcomings which some of us are still in the process of investigating.

So:

1. Are you suggesting that false witness is OK?
2. Are you suggesting that breaking the law is OK?

 

[st.jerome]

Ani Ibi:

And frankly, st jerome, people in the public eye need to learn very quickly to refrain from relying as heavily on profanity as Sheehan has and to refrain from relying as heavily on statements which are potentially libellous – as Sheehan has. A good 99% of what she has said I can’t quote here because it is profane and potentially libellous.

Between Joan Biaz and Ann Coulter, I think mud is slung in all directions. Its to the point where it disappears off most peoples radar.
Ani Ibi:

Now which is it? Is she in the public eye and therefore accountable for the way she speaks? Or is she still a private citizen struggling by? .

Well, the simple fact is she set out to do this with no support. The support came after the fact and that’s legitimate.
Ani Ibi:

Whether or not I am intelligent is not the point and has no bearing on whether or not I agree with you as regards moral relativism.

I think your intelligence is manifested by the compelling way you form your arguments
Ani Ibi:

1. Are you suggesting that false witness is OK?
2. Are you suggesting that breaking the law is OK?

1. Well do I need to suggest such a thing to argue against your argument? Considering the “pending” nature of such accusations, I’m not sure we really have a strong discussion there just yet.
2. Even if the law were broken, I’d relate this to Thoreau’s time in jail. Emerson asked him what he’s doing in there. Thoreau returns the question of what he’s doing out there.

 

[gnjsdad]

Ani Ibi:

There is no need to give you a link. He re-enlisted.

OK. You couldn’t find one. I can accept that.

The point is that we don’t really know why he reenlisted. Was it because he believed in the mission? Was it because he was promised the carrot of money for college education? Or was it the stick of losing benefits? Maybe he was a guy who wanted to be where his buddies were. Or, maybe he wanted to be away from the turmoil surrounding his parents and their marital problems.
Ani Ibi:

This thread is not about our claims. It is about Sheehan’s claims.

My claim was about Mrs Sheehan’s wrongdoing.

Ani Ibi:

Huh? You are going to have to set out this line of thinking in more detail. As it stands, it is a bald accusation without the benefit of support.

In one breath you say that my opinion of Sheehan is fine. In the next breath you say that I have a double standard. Well, if I have a double standard (and I am not saying that I do), then logically my opinion of Sheehan is not fine. Which is it?

Your double standard is this. You claim that Mrs Sheehan discredits the memory of her son. You also say that she’s being “devious” in that she’s using her son’s name in a cause he clearly did not stand for (your words). Well, it’s obvious that it’s NOT clear what he stood for. Your assumption is that he was gung-ho in support of the mission, whereas I pointed out that people may have a variety of reasons for reenlisting. This makes your claim that Mrs Sheehan is being “devious” an unfounded, unsubstantiated claim. BTW, that is quite a mean thing to say about a mother who lost a son and I think was in a better position to know his mind than you were.

I pointed out that when George W Bush speaks for “the American people” and appropriates the names and memory of soldiers killed in the war as “dying for freedom” or “defending liberty” without, I’m sure, consulting their families, that you would not object to that as “devious”. You do this, IMHO, because you want to believe the best about George Bush and you want to believe the worst about Mrs. Sheehan.

 

[aimee]

gnjsdad:

OK. You couldn’t find one. I can accept that.

The point is that we don’t really know why he reenlisted. Was it because he believed in the mission? Was it because he was promised the carrot of money for college education? Or was it the stick of losing benefits? Maybe he was a guy who wanted to be where his buddies were. Or, maybe he wanted to be away from the turmoil surrounding his parents and their marital problems.

Your double standard is this. You claim that Mrs Sheehan discredits the memory of her son. You also say that she’s being “devious” in that she’s using her son’s name in a cause he clearly did not stand for (your words). Well, it’s obvious that it’s NOT clear what he stood for. Your assumption is that he was gung-ho in support of the mission, whereas I pointed out that people may have a variety of reasons for reenlisting. This makes your claim that Mrs Sheehan is being “devious” an unfounded, unsubstantiated claim. BTW, that is quite a mean thing to say about a mother who lost a son and I think was in a better position to know his mind than you were.

I pointed out that when George W Bush speaks for “the American people” and appropriates the names and memory of soldiers killed in the war as “dying for freedom” or “defending liberty” without, I’m sure, consulting their families, that you would not object to that as “devious”. You do this, IMHO, because you want to believe the best about George Bush and you want to believe the worst about Mrs. Sheehan.

Madame Sheehan has become unhinged for more reasons than we all might know…