Cindy Sheehan

[Edwin1961]

Parents Of Killed Soldier Support Troops, Not War
ue Aug 16, 8:54 PM ET
Cleveland, Ohio

Local parents mourning their son are angry with President George W. Bush.

Since Lance Cpl. Edward Schroeder, 23, was killed fighting in Iraq on Aug. 3, 30 more Marines and soldiers have been killed in combat.

Paul Schroeder and Rosemary Palmer are vowing to keep their son’s spirit alive by helping to protect the troops still in Iraq.

“Either send more troops to get the job done right, or send them home,” Paul Schroeder said. “(They) can’t keep doing what they’re doing.”

Schroeder’s parents are lending their support to Cindy Sheehan, the mother who’s protesting outside of Bush’s Texas ranch. And they want others who support the troops but oppose the war to speak out.

“We applaud the efforts of Cindy Sheehan in Texas,” Palmer said. “We consider her the Rosa Parks of the new movement opposing the Iraq war.”

 

[Edwin1961]

Right now, this seems to be ‘a fad’. The media is trying to do the Same Thing with theis war as in Vietnam 35 years ago.
Now whose resolve will be weakened?
President Bush says we ‘stay the course’.

 

[Richardols]

Edwin1961:

Right now, this seems to be ‘a fad’.

Sure. No conservative can believe that anyone who doesn’t support the President in everything can possibly be genuine or sincere.

Now whose resolve will be weakened?
President Bush says we ‘stay the course’.

Right. No matter how many dead American soldiers it takes.

 

[norbert]

I also wish these stupid parents would stop their grieving and stay loyal to the US of A!! If they’re not with us, they’re with the terrorists!

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Richardols:

Sure. No conservative can believe that anyone who doesn’t support the President in everything can possibly be genuine or sincere.

I would like to think you are much better than this comment. As a conservative, I believe one can be genuine and sincere in their non-support of the President. Please rise to occasion and offer a retraction.

Scott

 

[Richardols]

Scott Waddell:

As a conservative, I believe one can be genuine and sincere in their non-support of the President.

I’m sure that you believe that. You might, however, explain that to Edwin who considers it no more than a fad or to EstesBob who considers Mrs. Sheehan disloyal to our country or to other conservatives who believe that such actions as these parent groups are doing are akin to buying bullets for Insurgency rifles.

 

[aimee]

Richardols:

Sure. No conservative can believe that anyone who doesn’t support the President in everything can possibly be genuine or sincere.

Right. No matter how many dead American soldiers it takes.

oh Rich,
You know generalizations are suspect. In the above statement you made ’ No conservative can believe that anyone who doesn’t support the President in everything can possibly be genuine or sincere.’ well…I see it as you don’t support him in anything…no matter what…the evidence shows.

But I do think you are sincere…wrong but sincere.

 

[Richardols]

aimee:

I see it as you don’t support him in anything…no matter what.

Au contraire. I support, among other things, his immigration policy. I believe his proposals are excellent in that regard. I support his intent to relieve the debt of poor nations. There are those in his own party who aren’t with him on that, but I am on his side.

 

[estesbob]

I think there is something we can all agree on. Lets us ask the Lord to provide comfort for Cindy Sheehan in her time grief,and that she is able to reconcile with both her husband and her family.

 

[aimee]

Fitz:

I agree with the writer that it is surprising that there are not 1800 other parents or spouses of our brave fallen soldiers to join Ms. Sheehan. Even her family has separated themselves from her. She will need all of our prayers. She is grieving in a public way and perhaps not the most healing way. Some are taking advantage of her and pushing their cause. I wonder if they will be there for her when she crashes.

I agree with what you said…sad in the loss of her son and in the end I don’t think they will be there for her when she crashes…

 

[ShroudMan]

O but for the grace of God Cindy Sheehan is the spark that is igniting HUNDREDS if not 1800 families to speak out regarding the deaths of their children due to this Presidents illegal and immoral war.

May her spark cause our young to rethink entering that door to the recruiting office…

May her spark cause parents to teach their young to love their country but always question their government…

May her spark cause parents to convince their older kids to not enlist in this particular war.

May the Rosary prayers of families cause the scales to fall from the eyes of those deluded by this president…and the poll numbers are showing those who are praying for this are having their prayers answered!

Thank you Eternal Father and Blessed Mother for Cindy Sheehan… grass roots always start at the bottom… one voice… one spark… AMEN to the most high.

 

[Edwin1961]

What I am trying to say is that these parents who have had their sons and daughters die in combat think that it’s an unfair war. The media however eants to exploit these suffereing and grieving parents. The media will go only ‘so far’ before they find another grieving parent to exploit for the cause to spread lies that the war is a failure. It is not.

Sure these parents HAVE A RIGHT to grieve, but not to the point where it distracts the purpose of what is really happening. Freedom.

 

[estesbob]

Richardols:

I’m sure that you believe that. You might, however, explain that to Edwin who considers it no more than a fad or to EstesBob who considers Mrs. Sheehan disloyal to our country or to other conservatives who believe that such actions as these parent groups are doing are akin to buying bullets for Insurgency rifles.

The problem is you believe because she lost a son in the war she is above reproach. I believe she is a left wing moonbat enjoying her 15 minutes of fame . Her soon to be ex-husband and her family seem to agree with me. I never said she was disloyal to her country-in fact I have said she has every right to say what she says .

As the days passed and her comments became nuttier an nuttier I began to feel very sad for Cindy Sheehan. She has been egged on by people who could not care less about her. A year from now she wont be able to buy her way into a interview with the MM, Michael Moore, et al will have abandoned her and she will realize that her son is still dead, her marriage still ended , she will probabably still be out a job her family will still be estranged from her and George Bush will still be president.

 

[gnjsdad]

Justin Raimondo weighs in on the latest attacks on Cindy Sheehan.

One of the latest smears comes from Christopher Hitchens,maligner of Mother Teresa, disparager of organized religion and, not incidentally, IMO, Iraq war proponent.

It seems that Mrs. Sheehan has support from, of all people, the racist David Duke. This is supposed to discredit what Mrs Sheehan is doing, according to Hitchens.

I particularly like this excerpt…

David Duke** defends Cindy Sheehan. What more does anyone need to know? If Duke were to point out the rather bluish color of the sky, anyone who followed suit, in Hitchens’ book, ought to be charged with a “hate crime.”**

No doubt some prominent Satanists support the war – not that there’s anything wrong with that – such as Peter H. Gilmore, high priest of the Church of Satan. Asked “which side is the Church [sic!] rooting for?”, His Evilness answers:
"Most Church of Satan members would support victory for the United States, since its secular form of government, as well as its culture, promotes individualism and freedom. This secularism is seen as ‘Satanic’ by fanatical Muslims and rightly so – from their perspective. The architects of the U.S. Government were Freemasons and they held many Satanic values, so we feel that Americans should embrace the role they give to us as ‘The Great Satan.’"

The point is that Hitchens’ invocation of Duke tells us nothing about Sheehan – and speaks volumes about Hitchens, whose viciousness is surpassed only by his intellectual dishonesty.

The entire article…

 

[estesbob]

gnjsdad:

The point is that Hitchens’ invocation of Duke tells us nothing about Sheehan – and speaks volumes about Hitchens, whose viciousness is surpassed only by his intellectual dishonesty.

As the Old saying goes “when you sleep with dogs you catch fleas.” Ms Sheehan has made several anti-semetic remarks-why would it suprise you that that garnered her the suport of an anit semetic like David Duke.?

Hitchens, BTW, is an equal opportuniy basher, his latest book is a vile attack on Mother Theresa. To be honest he is also a gifted writer.

 

[otm]

TPJCatholic:

So, what exactly is wrong with a citizen trying to hold their elected President accountable for his decisions? There are valid reasons for Sheehan to be upset–why is it wrong for her to demand satisfaction from the President regarding a situation that he personally put us in?

Sorry, but Bush is hiding from the realities of what has happened in Iraq and there is nothing morally wrong with people calling him on that truth.

Citizens everywhere had an opportunity to hold the President accountable for his actions; it was called the last election. My recollection is that he won the election.

And as to the President personally putting us in this situation - my, how quick we are to absolve Congress, the same
Congress that had essentially the same positions during the Clinton administration.

Is it Bush who is hiding the realities of what is happening in Iraq, or the press which manages to report only the news they feel worthy; where is the press in reporting about the infrastructure that has been rebuilt, in many instances well beyond what existed under Saddam? Oh, that’s right, that isn’t newsworthy; the only thing newsworthy is the body count.

 

[Adonis33]

So far, Mrs. Sheehan has said:

-) The death of Casey was premeditated murder committed by Pres. Bush

-) She will not pay her taxes

-) and more recently that Pres. Bush is the “biggest terrorist in the world”.

Soon she well be calling Pres. Bush a “war criminal” and say he needs to be impeached.

Aren’t her 15 minutes up yet?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

In post #170, Gilliam has recommended a column by Michael Graham (August 17 issue of Jewish World Review). Graham, while expressing sympathy for Mrs. Sheehan because of her grievous loss, states the following:

***“And speaking of Israel, some right-wingers have suggested that there might be a hint of anti-Semitism in Ms. Sheehan’s obsession with ‘neo-conservatives’ (liberal for ‘Jews’) at the Project for a New American Century. They sense bigotry in her repeated references to ‘George Bush and his cabal of neocons’ and her demands that the president ‘get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine.’

“But I’m not going to call Cindy Sheehan an anti-Semite, even if (as the New York Sun * reports) the webpage supporting her mission, Crawford Peace House, includes a photo depicting the entire state of Israel as ‘Palestine.’”

Only God can read Graham’s heart and soul. Nevertheless, *if * Graham, resorting to the ancient rhetorical technique called *praeteritio * (“omission”), is insinuating that Cindy Sheehan is indulging in hatred of, and injustice toward, Jews (which is what the Church at Vatican II meant when she condemned anti-Semitism), then he is breaking the eighth commandment and committing slander. (*Praeteritio * is the device whereby a speaker or writer says exactly what he or she professes to be unwilling to say. Example: “I’m not going to say that Mayor Smith is stealing from the taxpayers or taking bribes, but he and Mrs. Smith are living far beyond the mayor’s salary.”)

Whatever Graham’s intentions are, it would be the sin of calumny for anyone falsely to accuse Mrs. Sheehan of hatred of, and injustice toward, Jews, even those Jews who are ardent Zionists. She is merely noting a fact: one of the reasons for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is the U.S. government’s military alliance with the Israeli government.

The actual playing out of the Israeli connection in the run-up to the U.S. government’s invasion of Iraq certainly involved “neoconservatives.” On this other fact, I recommend an essay entitled “Whose War?” by that well-known lefty, Pat Buchanan (in the March 24, 2003, issue of The American Conservative):

amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Another point: Graham makes this exceptionally offensive–and startlingly cruel–comment about the memory of Casey Sheehan:

“. . .] and yes, she’s doing to her own son’s memory what the terrorist insurgents did to his body, yes, yes, yes.”

Please read Pat Buchanan’s essay.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Adonis33]

Steve O'Brien:

In post #170, Gilliam has recommended a column by Michael Graham (August 17 issue of Jewish World Review). Graham, while expressing sympathy for Mrs. Sheehan because of her grievous loss, states the following:

***“And speaking of Israel, some right-wingers have suggested that there might be a hint of anti-Semitism in Ms. Sheehan’s obsession with ‘neo-conservatives’ (liberal for ‘Jews’) at the Project for a New American Century. They sense bigotry in her repeated references to ‘George Bush and his cabal of neocons’ and her demands that the president ‘get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine.’

“But I’m not going to call Cindy Sheehan an anti-Semite, even if (as the **New York Sun * reports) the webpage supporting her mission, Crawford Peace House, includes a photo depicting the entire state of Israel as ‘Palestine.’”

Only God can read Graham’s heart and soul. Nevertheless, *if * Graham, resorting to the ancient rhetorical technique called *praeteritio * (“omission”), is insinuating that Cindy Sheehan is indulging in hatred of, and injustice toward, Jews (which is what the Church at Vatican II meant when she condemned anti-Semitism), then he is breaking the eighth commandment and committing slander. (*Praeteritio * is the device whereby a speaker or writer says exactly what he or she professes to be unwilling to say. Example: “I’m not going to say that Mayor Smith is stealing from the taxpayers or taking bribes, but he and Mrs. Smith are living far beyond the mayor’s salary.”)

Whatever Graham’s intentions are, it would be the sin of calumny for anyone falsely to accuse Mrs. Sheehan of hatred of, and injustice toward, Jews, even those Jews who are ardent Zionists. She is merely noting a fact: one of the reasons for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is the U.S. government’s military alliance with the Israeli government.

The actual playing out of the Israeli connection in the run-up to the U.S. government’s invasion of Iraq certainly involved “neoconservatives.” On this other fact, I recommend an essay entitled “Whose War?” by that well-known lefty, Pat Buchanan (in the March 24, 2003, issue of The American Conservative):

amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Another point: Graham makes this exceptionally offensive–and startlingly cruel–comment about the memory of Casey Sheehan:

“. . .] and yes, she’s doing to her own son’s memory what the terrorist insurgents did to his body, yes, yes, yes.”

Please read Pat Buchanan’s essay.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Hardly a fact, she is stating her opinion, which is a ridiculous one at that.

 

[gnjsdad]

estesbob:

As the Old saying goes “when you sleep with dogs you catch fleas.” Ms Sheehan has made several anti-semetic remarks-why would it suprise you that that garnered her the suport of an anit semetic like David Duke.?

To my knowledge, Mrs Sheehan has not sought out David Duke just as I’m sure no administration official has sought the Satanists’ endorsement. I don’t think your old saying goes here. In fact, the point of my post was to refute that notion.

As far as ‘anti-Semitic’ remarks, how is saying that Israel should get out of Palestine ‘anti-semitic’? Do you have other examples of what she said?