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

[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.

Are you an american?

 

[gnjsdad]

aimee:

Are you an american?

as motherhood and apple pie :yup:

 

[gilliam]

Probably best if we don’t ask each other personal questions on the threads…

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

Probably best if we don’t ask each other personal questions on the threads…

Agreed, but I didn’t mind answering that one

 

[aimee]

gilliam:

Probably best if we don’t ask each other personal questions on the threads…

You are right…I feel myself…breaking out in French…so…

 

[Lizzie]

It has been reported that Fenton Communications will no longer allow ‘individual’ interviews with Cindy Sheehan. That will put an end to the revealing Sheehanisms.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gnjsdad:

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

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I did not say I could not find a link. I said there is no need to find one until such time as you and others start reading the links we do post.

gnjsdad:

The point is that we don’t really know why he reenlisted.

Wrong. We know exactly why he re-enlisted. He re-enlisted because he accepted the terms for re-enlistment.

gnjsdad:

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.

It’s obvious he re-enlisted.

gnjsdad:

Your assumption is that he was gung-ho in support of the mission

You are putting words in my mouth. And that is an unfriendly gesture. Show me where I said Casey was gung-ho.

gnjsdad:

whereas I pointed out that people may have a variety of reasons for reenlisting.

None of which are relevant.

gnjsdad:

This makes your claim that Mrs Sheehan is being “devious” an unfounded, unsubstantiated claim.

I’m afraid you have failed to make your case.

gnjsdad:

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.

So we are talking about being mean, are we? This is the level to which your replies have stooped? Rules are for other people, are they?

gnjsdad:

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”.

And I responded that Dubya was elected to speak for the American people. That is his job.

gnjsdad:

You do this, IMHO, because you want to believe the best about George Bush and you want to believe the worst about Mrs. Sheehan.

You are way out of line attributing motives to me. You have no proof that I ‘want’ to do anything.

 

[gnjsdad]

Ani Ibi:

Wrong. We know exactly why he re-enlisted. He re-enlisted because he accepted the terms for re-enlistment.

This is not very helpful in terms of this discussion. He reenlisted because he decided to reenlist?
Ani Ibi:

Show me where I said Casey was gung-ho.

From your post #21 (sections in **bold **mine)
Ani Ibi:

But I do not support subverting what those who have died stood for; I** do not support subverting that in order to further one’s own cause – a cause which is separate, different, distinct, and radically opposed to the cause of those who have died**.

From your post #23
Ani Ibi:

And Cindy Sheehan misrepresents what her son stood for.

From your post #35 (sections in bold mine)

In doing so she has deliberately, consciously subverted what he stood for and is trying to make out that he supports her agenda. This is devious. And it is false witness. She can quite legitimately be against the War. But she cannot legitimately use her own son’s good name to support that position. He was not against the War.

Now, I know you never said “Casey was gung-ho for the war”. But it is possible to make logical inferences from what you have posted, and what you have posted certainly would lead to the conclusion that Casey was a firm believer in the mission.
Ani Ibi:

So we are talking about being mean, are we? This is the level to which your replies have stooped? Rules are for other people, are they?

Just an observation…
Ani Ibi:

You are way out of line attributing motives to me. You have no proof that I ‘want’ to do anything.

You’ve spent quite a bit of time doing just that to Mrs Sheehan. I wonder what she would think after reading your posts? Or am I being way out of line again?

 

[bones_IV]

Lizzie, I really feel that you shouldn’t be saying such things about Sheehan. Why is she such a bad person? Some people of course have hinted that she’s a communist, which I find to be disrespectful. She’s someone who’s lost her son. You don’t know what she’s been through. Just because she is against the war, doesn’t mean she’s a communist.

 

[Marie]

I am deeply disturbed at the terrible exploitation of the grief of Cindy Sheehan. While saddened at her loss, the shameful use of her grief is even more saddening.

The hundreds of thousands of Gold Star mothers of World War II, Korea and Vietnam would have sympathized with her grief, but would have been amazed and feel betrayed to hear her quoted as saying that this country is not worth dying for.

My families dead did not die in vain and Sheehan has NO right to attack their sacrifice. She can spit on her own kid’s grave if she wish’s…that’s her right. She cannot dishonor our fallen heros…and expect me to pat her on the back.

 

[Marie]

bones_IV:

Lizzie, I really feel that you shouldn’t be saying such things about Sheehan. Why is she such a bad person? Some people of course have hinted that she’s a communist, which I find to be disrespectful. She’s someone who’s lost her son. You don’t know what she’s been through. Just because she is against the war, doesn’t mean she’s a communist.

Let’s see if I understand Cindy’s position.

All our soldiers are hapless victims of Bush and his agenda. HMM! Does this mean we all raised a bunch of little victims or just an incredibly stupid batch of young people. I mean lets get real.

Bush did not give birth to Casey, who his Mom in essence thinks is a victim. Bush did not demand Casey enlist nor that he re-enlist. Even Casey’s Chief, did not ask Casey to volunteer for the mission in which he died.

I can only conclude from this that Cindy did a really bad job of raising Casey.

Let’s call a spade a spade. The kid was incorrigible, out of control and a thug just asking for trouble. He was a complete mess and Mommy did her best but Bush should have done a better job raising her kid for her. And of course all of our dead are also idiots and thugs…according to Cindy. Yes, I get it. Let us all hang our head in shame for the death of our little thugs…cause Cindy say’s they were idiots.

Well, she can smear her own kid if she wants…She cannot smear ours.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gnjsdad:

This is not very helpful in terms of this discussion. He reenlisted because he decided to reenlist?

Did I say that? No. I said this:
Ani Ibi:

We know exactly why he re-enlisted. He re-enlisted because he accepted the terms for re-enlistment.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth and relanguaging what I say to mean what you want to say.

 

[Marie]

Ani Ibi:

Did I say that? No. I said this:

We know exactly why he re-enlisted. He re-enlisted because he accepted the terms for re-enlistment.

WOW! There is no way that could come out the way gnjsdad posted it. For a minute there Ani, I thought your mastery of the English language had slipped. Scared me to death!

But now I am wondering how in the world it got so twisted by gnjsdad.

gnjsdad:

This is not very helpful in terms of this discussion. He reenlisted because he decided to reenlist?

Is that even English?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gnjsdad:

Now, I know you never said “Casey was gung-ho for the war”. But it is possible to make logical inferences from what you have posted, and what you have posted certainly would lead to the conclusion that Casey was a firm believer in the mission.

You can attempt to infer til the cows come home. What you infer incorrectly from what I have said and what I have actually said are two separate things. ‘Inference’ is a euphemism for subverting and distorting what I have said so that it says what you want me to have said.

What I have said is that Casey re-enlisted. That tells us that he accepted the terms for re-enlistment. It tells us nothing about whether or not he was ‘gung-ho.’ (‘Gung-ho’ is somewhat harsh, pejorative, and inappropriate terminology I might add.)

gnjsdad:

Just an observation…

Attributing the quality of meanness to someone’s posts is more than an observation. It is discourteous, unfriendly, and does not forward the discussion. I would say that it is uncharitable and not offered in the spirit of good faith. A simple apology would have sufficed.

gnjsdad:

You’ve spent quite a bit of time doing just that to Mrs Sheehan. I wonder what she would think after reading your posts? Or am I being way out of line again?

I have addressed Sheehan’s behaviour not Sheehan herself. Sheehan has voluntarily stepped out into the public eye. She is now a public figure, not a private figure. Her behaviour is subject to scrutiny and fair comment.

In this case, I believe Sheehan to have violated some personal boundaries vis a vis fallen soldiers and their parents and potentially some legal boundaries concerning her taxes and what appears to be profane and libellous language.

My comments about her behaviour fall under the purvey of fair comment.

Now as for **your **behavior in attributing ‘meanness’ to my point of view: This forum is a different forum from the one that Sheehan finds herself in. Attributing meanness to someone’s posts is uncharitable and discourteous, not behavioral qualities which have generally been found suitable on this forum.

It is also unwarranted – as I have pointed out – because you are not in a position to infer my motivation in criticizing Sheehan’s behaviour. Therefore it is my opinion that your behaviour is out of line, particularly since you have chosen to dig your heels in and decline to apologize for attributing ‘meanness’ to my point of view.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Marie:

She can spit on her own kid’s grave if she wish’s…that’s her right.

Well, Marie, with all due respect I do not believe Sheehan has a right to ‘spit on her own kid’s grave.’

Casey was an adult. He exercised his freedom of choice and made the ultimate sacrifice for what he believed in. He was wholly within his rights to do that. Moroever, I am not aware of any direct malice toward or injury to Sheehan on the part of Casey.

Sheehan does not have a right to subvert and distort what Casey stood for in order to further her own agenda. Neither does Sheehan and her cohorts have the right to subvert and distort what the other fallen soldiers stood for, particularly in the absence of consultation with their own grieving parents.

Writing the names of the fallen on crosses and then claiming that those names and crosses supported her agenda was a violation of personal boundaries and – as we have discussed – may prove to be actionable under the law.

But then subjecting Bush to profane and libellous namecalling was also a violation of personal boundaries and certainly is actionable under the law. I doubt seriously if Bush will follow up, however. It would only give Sheehan a forum for more negative attention-seeking behaviour.

 

[Marie]

Ani Ibi:

Well, Marie, with all due respect I do not believe Sheehan has a right to ‘spit on her own kid’s grave.’

I don’t think she does either…I am just demonstrating how twisted the reasoning gets when it comes to Sheehan. Every Tom, Dick and peacenic, thinks she has a right to scream fowl, and trash everyone elses kid…BECAUSE SHE is grieving? Yeah, right. Like no one elses Mother grieves.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Originally Posted by gnjsdad
This is not very helpful in terms of this discussion. He reenlisted because he decided to reenlist?

Marie:

Is that even English?

It is English. It is just not logic and it is just not contributed in good faith.

What it is is a doomed attempt on the part of gnjsdad to relanguage my plain-English statement arbitrarily to mean something different from what I said; something which he wanted me to say; something which would be circular reasoning, an error in logic. Not a friendly gesture.

 

[Marie]

Ani Ibi:

Originally Posted by gnjsdad
This is not very helpful in terms of this discussion. He reenlisted because he decided to reenlist?

It is English. It is just not logic and it is just not contributed in good faith.

What it is is a doomed attempt on the part of gnjsdad to relanguage my plain-English statement arbitrarily to mean something different from what I said; something which he wanted me to say; something which would be circular reasoning, an error in logic. Not a friendly gesture.

And bound to make you and everyone else dizzy!

 

[bekalc]

If Casey reenlisted to fight in the war. It suggests at the very least he wasn’t against what was happening. The point is her son joined (his choice.). Now, this doesn’t mean at times our soldiers can’t be forced to be part of a unjust war, without any choice on their part. But, that is in a way what they signed up for.

I don’t agree with the war in Iraq, at all. But, I know some people there. I also know that my little brother believes in the war; and he joined the Air Force. Thankfully right now he has a job in Germany which keeps him from Iraq. (Although he wants to go to Iraq, but that could change.) If my brother died, I wouldn’t be doing what Cindy’s doing. Yes, I may try my best to speak out in the war. But, I won’t blame the President for my brother’s death because he signed up for it. My baby brother’s wouldn’t be an innnocent victim.

I do feel bad for Cindy, and I understand why she wants to fight this war. But war does kill soldiers, and they know this. The President cannot back out of a war because soldiers died.

 

[gnjsdad]

Ani Ibi:

‘Inference’ is a euphemism for subverting and distorting what I have said so that it says what you want me to have said.

Inference

The act or process of inferring by deduction or induction.

That which inferred; a truth or proposition drawn from another which is admitted or supposed to be true; a conclusion; a deduction.
Ani Ibi:

What I have said is that Casey re-enlisted. That tells us that he accepted the terms for re-enlistment. It tells us nothing about whether or not he was ‘gung-ho.’ (‘Gung-ho’ is somewhat harsh, pejorative, and inappropriate terminology I might add.)

Casey Sheehan’s state of mind, and whether it can be known, is crucial to evaluating the validity of your criticism of his mother as “devious”. *He reenlisted *tells us nothing about his motivation, and if we know his motivation, we can better judge his mother’s behavior. And I still maintain that she is in a better position to explain his motives than you are.
Ani Ibi:

Attributing the quality of meanness to someone’s posts is more than an observation. It is discourteous, unfriendly, and does not forward the discussion. I would say that it is uncharitable and not offered in the spirit of good faith.

Is this the first time anyone here called you a name? Sounds like it. Compared to what’s been said about me and others who oppose the war here, I’d say I’ve been quite decent with you.
Ani Ibi:

Now as for **your **behavior in attributing ‘meanness’ to my point of view: This forum is a different forum from the one that Sheehan finds herself in. Attributing meanness to someone’s posts is uncharitable and discourteous, not behavioral qualities which have generally been found suitable on this forum.

This is tiresome and frankly not worth continuing. If it’s an apology you want, fine. I apologize for calling you mean. It’s obvious you are someone who does not take criticism well, even constructive criticism such as I have offered.