M
MikeWM
Guest
Yes, very much so
I want to do a bit of research into this. If I come up with anything interesting, I’ll post in a new thread.
Mike
- Status
I want to do a bit of research into this. If I come up with anything interesting, I’ll post in a new thread.
Mike
A
Adonis33
Guest
The fact that she lost her son does not make her above critisizm.
I hope Mrs. Sheehan’s mother is okay.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
She is dishonoring her sons memory period. Wether you think its rude or not.
Bella3502:
S
shockerfan
Guest
Are you saying that she is allowed to say whatever she wants without being challenged?
I’m sorry she lost her son, but that does not make her opinions sacred.
F
fix
Guest
I am absolutely against this idea that anyone who has ever experienced any sorrow in their life has some type of infallibility about any issue on which they pontificate.
I have seen this with this lady and with people who claim their were sexually abused. Any utterance is given special care and no one is allowed to question their words. It is absurd.
S
Snicker
Guest
What is absurd is how low people will go to trash anyone who speaks out against the evil that is the Iraq war.
F
fix
Guest
Your opinion, but not a fact. The post I commented on was not accurate. The poster was mischaracterizing the quote from another poster. No one is in favor of trashing anyone, but neither should we be in favor of trashing the truth.
S
SusanL
Guest
How many of us have lost loved ones due to war, drunken drivers, murder, etc? It is not an act of love to let people speak irresponsibly without correction just because they have suffered trauma in their lives. We all have suffered trauma. I know that I have and so have others. Her son (by reports of family members) did not agree with his mother’s views. Just going by his past views and actions (remember, he re-enlisted for a reason), what would he have thought about his mother fighting against what he believed in and what he was willing to risk his life for???
S
Snicker
Guest
How many of us have lost loved ones due to war, drunken drivers, murder, etc? It is not an act of love to let people speak irresponsibly without correction just because they have suffered trauma in their lives. We all have suffered trauma. I know that I have and so have others. Her son (by reports of family members) did not agree with his mother’s views. Just going by his past views and actions (remember, he re-enlisted for a reason), what would he have thought about his mother fighting against what he believed in and what he was willing to risk his life for???
[/quote]
This mother is not speking out irresponsibly. What she has said about the Iraq war is true. Fortunately, more and more Americans are starting to realize that.
[/quote]
This mother is not speking out irresponsibly. What she has said about the Iraq war is true. Fortunately, more and more Americans are starting to realize that.
S
SusanL
Guest
Snicker, it is hard to take you seriously. You say in your profile that your hobby is to “terrorize conservatives.” And I am supposed to answer this??
Due to Mrs. Sheehan’s “unleashing,” more and more Americans are starting to view her as unstable and using her son’s death for her agenda. Now this includes her family and other **Gold Star Moms (who seem to have had enough of her diatribe). **
If it wasn’t for the media misrepresenting all that goes on in Iraq, she wouldn’t have all of this attention. I feel bad for the rest of Casey’s family. I don’t believe that they are very proud of her.
J
Jay74
Guest
True. The Just War Doctrine does very clearly state that the decision to go to war is to be made by the government, since they have much more information than the general public.
So the decision for this war was made by President Bush, with the support of senators such as John F. Kerry.
M
MikeWM
Guest
But that can’t work like that, surely. The decision to go to war against Poland was made by Adolf Hitler and the German government, but I seriously doubt we are going to define that as a ‘Just War’. Simply the fact that the government makes the decision can’t be the key factor in deciding if it is Just or not.
I’m still thinking about this. I’m far too busy to fully formulate my thoughts on it coherently today though
Mike
S
shockerfan
Guest
Snicker,
Here are some of the comments that Cindy Sheehan has made, that you call “truth” and consider “responsible”:
drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
People like me call them her “opinions”. People on this forum are not “trashing” Cindy Sheehan…Unless of course you subscribe to the the liberal line of “If you refute my opinion, you are trashing me”. Cindy Sheehan has the right of free speech, she does not have freedom from rebuttal.
M
Marie
Guest
Cindy has her opinion…and THAT is all it is. Not to mention it is a rather Fowl mouthed one.
Many of us who have ACTUALLY ALSO lost loved one’s in war, manage to keep our brains and civility in tack. Cindy is a headcase…hardly a representative of the American people. So let us not say she represent’s me or mine or the other families who have lost loved ones in this war. I assure you she does not. We just buried one a couple weeks ago, Tim Bell, and his family cringes at the garbage MS. Sheehan is spouting. Obviously her family (many now X family) do not agree with her either. I suppose they are irresponsible according to you, as they no longer want any part of her crazy diatribe either. And they KNOW her.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
What she said about the war is false. Unfortunately more and more Americans are believing lies like she is.
Snicker:
L
Lucania
Guest
G
gilliam
Guest
Instapundit has this to say:
JAMES TARANTO:
The whole [Cindy Sheehan] kerfuffle was, however, informative in some ways. For one, it reveals that very few people on the antiwar left have any compunction at all about making common cause with someone who espouses virulent anti-American and anti-Semitic views. For another, it showed something we’ve long suspected: that some on the left–and not just the America-hating fringe–want America to lose this war.
I wish this weren’t true, but I think it is.
UPDATE: Blowback: “I actually felt myself become a republican today.”
JAMES TARANTO:
The whole [Cindy Sheehan] kerfuffle was, however, informative in some ways. For one, it reveals that very few people on the antiwar left have any compunction at all about making common cause with someone who espouses virulent anti-American and anti-Semitic views. For another, it showed something we’ve long suspected: that some on the left–and not just the America-hating fringe–want America to lose this war.
I wish this weren’t true, but I think it is.
UPDATE: Blowback: “I actually felt myself become a republican today.”
A
aimee
Guest
townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Crouse20050819.shtml
Exploiting Cindy Sheehan’s Emotional Crackup
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.
The media frenzy surrounding Cindy Sheehan, the woman who lost a son in Iraq, is a prime example of what has gone wrong with 24-hour “news” coverage.
The woman is clearly unhinged, and while we need to respect her grief at losing her son, it is now abundantly evident that her campaign has moved beyond her personal loss to her political ideology.
It is embarrassing and inhumane for the media to expose this poor women’s unbalanced behavior. Somebody needs to step in to provide her with a quiet place to rest and, one would hope, regain her rationality and emotional balance. It is terribly sad to see the press ¬¬–– bored from a slow-news August and the forced inactivity in Crawford, Texas –– exploit someone who has become a crackpot.
Cindy Sheehan’s campaign long ago lost any pretense of being a mother’s grief-stricken reaction to her son’s tragic death. When Sheehan’s 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Baghdad last year, she founded an antiwar organization called Gold Star Families. Now, she has combined Madison Avenue and K Street by hiring a political consultant, public relations advisors, and establishing a website in an organized effort to keep the cameras on her and her cause.
All that high-powered activity is being funded by three major-league, Far Left sponsors –– Moveon.org (notorious for Michael Moore’s efforts to keep the President from being re-elected), TrueMajority (established by the liberal Ben and Jerry’s ice cream dynasty) and Democracy for America –– and seems to be linked to an orchestrated effort to harass and embarrass President Bush.
Exploiting Cindy Sheehan’s Emotional Crackup
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.
The media frenzy surrounding Cindy Sheehan, the woman who lost a son in Iraq, is a prime example of what has gone wrong with 24-hour “news” coverage.
The woman is clearly unhinged, and while we need to respect her grief at losing her son, it is now abundantly evident that her campaign has moved beyond her personal loss to her political ideology.
It is embarrassing and inhumane for the media to expose this poor women’s unbalanced behavior. Somebody needs to step in to provide her with a quiet place to rest and, one would hope, regain her rationality and emotional balance. It is terribly sad to see the press ¬¬–– bored from a slow-news August and the forced inactivity in Crawford, Texas –– exploit someone who has become a crackpot.
Cindy Sheehan’s campaign long ago lost any pretense of being a mother’s grief-stricken reaction to her son’s tragic death. When Sheehan’s 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Baghdad last year, she founded an antiwar organization called Gold Star Families. Now, she has combined Madison Avenue and K Street by hiring a political consultant, public relations advisors, and establishing a website in an organized effort to keep the cameras on her and her cause.
All that high-powered activity is being funded by three major-league, Far Left sponsors –– Moveon.org (notorious for Michael Moore’s efforts to keep the President from being re-elected), TrueMajority (established by the liberal Ben and Jerry’s ice cream dynasty) and Democracy for America –– and seems to be linked to an orchestrated effort to harass and embarrass President Bush.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
When was the last time an “unhinged” woman became the object of such vitriol? :ehh:
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
The new catechism’s recognition of the fact that a morally justifiable decision in favor of a war must emanate from a legitimate government does *not * cancel a Catholic’s obligation to oppose an unjust war. Here’s why: the catechism itself also recognizes the duty to adhere to one’s conscience, even in defiance of a government’s authority. Please see these sections: 1782, 1790, 2242, and 2311.
The *possibility * that *about five pounds * of Iraqi yellowcake uranium (*not * a nuclear bomb) may have been found in *Rotterdam * does not render the U.S. invasion of Iraq morally justified, especially since the real motives for the war had nothing to do with the notorious (but never produced) weapons of mass destruction.
Korea has nuclear weapons and is unfriendly toward the U.S. government, but our government has not ordered an invasion of that country, nor has it even declared that Korea poses a threat on a par with the threat allegedly posed by the régime of Saddam Hussein.
Please read the decidedly non-terrifying details of the Rotterdam yellowcake account:
usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-16-netherlands_x.htm
Furthermore, the accusation of 500,000 corpses in Iraqi mass graves, like all atrocity reports, must be evaluated with caution before a decision is made to rely on the figure. There are reasons to wonder about this total. Of course, even a substantially reduced figure for unjust executions would represent a horrific reality. Still, the number of executions that occurred under Saddam Hussein (who, let’s remember, used to be the U.S. government’s buddy) also had nothing to do with the actual reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
In 1994, according to the BBC, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were murdered in genocidal massacres, but our government failed to send troops to Rwanda to save those people from death.
On the reasons for caution in connection with the number of bodies in Iraqi mass graves, please see this article:
lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski11.html
Keep and spread the Faith.
- Status