home

Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Aug 11, 2005 at 06:07:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's Cindy Sheehan day over at Huffington Post, with entries by Cindy herself, Arianna, Norman Lear, Gary Hart, Christine Lahti, Andy Stern, Sarah Jones, Rep. Jim McDermott, Tom Hayden and Jodie Evans.

Crooks and Liars has video of Cindy on Olbermann tonight.

Joe Trippi has an audio of a conference call with Cindy. And Attytood casts doubt on the e-mail critical of Cindy one of her family members reportedly sent to Drudge. [Via Atrios.]

< DEA Pulls Out of Golf Tournament | Jonesboro School Shooter to be Released >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil | 49 comments (49 topical)
    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    Apparently John O'Sullivan of The National Interest magazine didn't hold much back on Fox today about this issue. Im not making this quote up, he said:
    some of the groups who are "coming in on Mrs. Sheehan's side are people who support the insurgents. In other words, support the people who murdered, killed!, her son."
    The Newshounds were quick to pick this one up!

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    Viggo Mortensen stopped by today. Maybe he could do something for Mr. O'Sullivan.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    O'Sullivan has been around for a long time and has been the Chief editor for most of the major wire services. He now writes for himself and isn't afraid to call a spade a spade. Mortensson is an OK actor, crummy poet and passable street musician (in certain places anyway), Although compared to O'Sullivan he's not really someone I would go to for my political opinion options. Well maybe I'd take political opinion about Middle Earth from Vigo but not the Middle East. Who knows maybe Katy Holmes and her beau will stop by and visit this heart-sick mom's peace vigil.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    Bush killed her son. With a big assist from a$$holes like John O'Sullivan They won't say why, though.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#5)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    "Viggo Mortensen stopped by today. Maybe he could do something for Mr. O'Sullivan." You thought this a serious comment? Hmmm.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#6)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    I just can't understand why Bush doesn't meet privately with the families of those killed in Iraq. I can't understand why he doesn't attend the funerals of those killed in Iraq. For most Presidents, such as Lincoln (remember Gettysburg) this was an obligation. This was their war and meeting privately with the mothers, widows, and children was part of the obligation that these Presidents felt they owed to those who fought and died. They shared the pain the family felt. In the photographs of these Presidents you see how rapidly these men aged as if bearing the weight of every casualty in the war. When I look at George Bush I see someone who has no clue how offensive it was to the families that lost loved ones in Iraq to do a skit making fun of the reason he gave for going to war, the search for WMDs. I see someone who can't take time out from working on his tan to meet privately with a mother of a soldier killed in his war.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#7)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    GregZ - Yep, that sums it up. John H - Lincoln was making a speech, not meeting with parents of the dead soldiers. Big difference.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    The thread is about Cindy Sheehan, not honest Abe, (who did meet with many families, North and South, of the Civil War survivors.) Name one group that supports this grieving widow that supports the insurgents.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#9)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    sailor - You can ask John H about Honest Abe and how he applies to Sheehan. I just pointed out to John H that it didn't. I guess this means we are in agreement. ;-) And I repeat my comment re the terrorists drawing support from Mrs. Sheehan's, and those who use her, actions. Note that I didn't say any group was knowingly supporting the terrorists.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#10)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    The WSWS writes:
    Cindy Sheehan is to be commended for having the guts and backbone to reject the media’s sanitizing effort in regard to George W. Bush. She refuses to be awed by the office of the presidency, exposing him instead as the cowardly and morally stunted person he is. ... The frankness and courage displayed by Sheehan in her public challenge to the Bush administration stands in sharp contrast to the doubletalk and cowardice of the Democratic Party leaderhip. While making some criticism of Bush’s military policy, they advocate tougher policies to “win the war” in Iraq and have called for building up troop numbers.
    Mother of fallen soldier camps outside Bush ranch: “Why did you kill my son?” By Kate Randall, 11 August 2005

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Ms. Sheehan is a grieving mother and a patriot. She, of all people, deserves a personal answer as to why her son died.Those who say she gives support to terrorists are lying. Besides, if bush thought that she would be in gitmo or under arrest because giving support to terrorists, knowingly or not, is illegal (read the Patriot Act.)

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Our Pet Chimp should have met her when she was alone and gotten it over with. Keep you head up your a** monkey boy...sorry, President monkey boy.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Che, please don't disassemble;-)

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#14)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Jim, when preznit Bush makes a speech at Fallujah, I will accept your apologetic remark at face value. Lincoln (gods, I hate that president)actually taveled to a battlefield, one of, if not THE, bloodiest battlefields Americans have ever known, and actually gave a comprehensive speech. That is 2 up on your boy Bush. You can apologize for him all you want, but he has yet to show his respect in public for any of the young men and women who have died for him... This is wrong Jim. And you are wrong for backing him up on this.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#15)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Che: Your president monkey boy statement has changed my mind and view on Bush. Thanks for the reasoned argument! It is too bad Mrs. Sheehan will realize too late that she is just a pawn in alot of groups agendas. She will be forgotten by them in six months.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#16)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    PPJ re: "the only thing that would come out of such public meetings would be negative press and much hand wringing..." There is nothing that prevents Bush from meeting with Mrs. Sheehan privately. Other Presidents have met with the parents, widows, and children of those who died in battle and so can Bush.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Jim I respected alot more before your last post. If you actually believe the people that have showed up to support this women also support the 'insurgents' your just plain nuts. This isn't Vietnam and many of the people that have showed up there have lost loved ones. Shame on you.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#18)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    GregZ - And shame on you for, I guess, being unable to read my comment to Sailor at 11:42AM.
    And I repeat my comment re the terrorists drawing support from Mrs. Sheehan's, and those who use her, actions. Note that I didn't say any group was knowingly supporting the terrorists.
    As I have noted before, Mrs. Sheehan's anger is misdirected, and she is being used by these people for political purposes. i.e. To attack Bush, not to support the terrorist. The fact that the terrorists see this as an opportunity for them to wait for a political upheaval is just a fact. It has nothing to do with the intent of these people. John H - Bush has met with some family members in private. I suspect that he recognizes that in her case nothing can be done that will appease her and that if he gives an inch, his enemies will take a mile. Johnny writes:
    I will accept your apologetic remark at face value.
    If you thing that I have apologized you are mistaken. The strategic prosecution of the WOT is certainly something we could discuss, but it is, as sailor will undoubtedly point out, off topic. Perhaps TL will provide a thread. BTW – Lincoln was commemorating a cemetery. Perhaps those who are in opposition to the war should read and understand what he said:
    The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#19)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    GregZ - Actually I don't want anyone to think Che said that. ;-) The quote was from my 10:05PM comment. Heaven knows how we added 97 minutes.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    "It is too bad Mrs. Sheehan will realize too late that she is just a pawn in alot of groups agendas. She will be forgotten by them in six months."
    Which groups? Mrs. Sheehan decided on her own, on the 'spur of the moment' as she describes it to go to Crawford. Cindy Sheehan is not a pawn in anyone's 'game.' By indicating she is a pawn as you say is meant to devalue her contribution and a vain attempt to lessen the impact of her message. It insinuates that she cannot think for herself and she surely can.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#21)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother: Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks, Cherie In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement: The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect. Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.


    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#22)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Drudge? You can't read Drudge. Ten to one that e-mail will prove to be phoney-baloney.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Wow...Drudge, now there's a reliable source. Does he have any tips on where the Iraqi WMD might be?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#24)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    And, pigwiggle? Drudge? They sent this letter to Drudge? Who has an agenda? Cindy Sheehan was a guest on Keith Olbermann's show & she addresses 'the letter.'

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Actually Bush has met with Ms Sheehan soon after her son's death but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. Just listen to her talking points and look at her handlers and it is easy to see that this distraught woman is being used by the certain members of the Left for thier own PR purposes. And it has worked in that her presence at Crawford, Texas during the press's silly season has made all the MSM usual venues. Of course they almost all omit the fact that Bush met with her before and she spoke to the press at the time in a much more positive light. But if you want to use this poor woman who lost her son for your own purposes that's your business but it seems rather pathetic to me.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    to see that this distraught woman is being used by the certain members of the Left for thier own PR purposes.
    Yes, she is a victim of the Left. They killed her son for their agenda and by God, they would kill him again if they had the chance. Those certain members of the Left, why they are no better than the terrorists. In fact, they are terrorists. How dare they want to interfere in the profit making of the War President. Ship them off to Gitmo and let them rot, I say. We will all be safer once those Certian Members of the Left are no longer a threat to Freedom. Down with the CMOTL and up with the WOT! Harummph.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#27)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Actually Bush has met with Ms Sheehan soon after her son's death but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
    SO WHAT? She talks about that; it was nine weeks (2 months) after her son's death. Bush can't meet with her again?! He's the president of the United States. He is an employee of the United States. He works for US. All of those jacka**es are employees. We have the right as citizens to speak to them. It IS as simple as that.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    She will be forgotten by them in six months.
    I doubt it, but even if true six months is better than the zero concern or respect shown by the pres. to this woman who has sacrificed more than Bush ever will for his war.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#29)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    But if you want to use this poor woman who lost her son for your own purposes that's your business but it seems rather pathetic to me. You worded that clumsily, pigwiggle - although I understand what you meant. However, WHO used Casey Sheehan for their 'own purposes.' Me? You? The president? Who?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#30)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    “And, pigwiggle? Drudge? They sent this letter to Drudge? Who has an agenda?”
    Clearly they have an agenda; it’s stated plainly by the email. I understand maybe you don’t read Drudge but these folks do, and so do I. I read a lot of disparate news (conglomeration) sources left and right as well as the raw wires. And speaking of news wires, I’ll give Drudge this much, it is the only conglomeration site I read with a link to the Islamic Republic Wire. It is a good thing to read sites like this.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#31)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    I don’t know Casey Sheehan, just like all the ideologs here trying to bend the story to their own purpose. However, I do know a family in a situation that could become very similar. I have in-laws that are split down the right and left. The mother and father are moderate, the mother in-law and wife are conservative, the sister is far left and the son is far right. The son, whom I spent a few days with last month, is now back in Iraq to finish his tour on the ground. His past year in Iraq has been spent, among other places, routing insurgents in Fallujah. If he were to be killed I could easily see his sister and perhaps his parents talking Cindy’s position while the mother and wife take the position the extended Sheehans have. From my conversations with this marine I am certain he would be horrified at his family making a spectacle similar to Cindy’s. The point; the sacrifice was Casey’s to make. If Cindy is honestly looking for answers and not trying to make political hay, the person with those answers died in Iraq. But I think it is clear from the Olbermann interview she is making hay.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Ernesto... Bush killed her son. NO.. some islamic crazy did that! John Horse.... I see someone who can't take time out from working on his tan to meet privately with a mother of a soldier killed in his war. He already met with her once. How much time does he need to spend with this one woman to appease all you guys? Che.... Our Pet Chimp should have met her when she was alone and gotten it over with.. (See answer above) Kitt... SO WHAT?..... it was nine weeks (2 months) after her son's death.... Bush can't meet with her again?! Sure...he should meet with everyone 2 or 3 times! Then you can all complain that he isn't doing anything else... LOL.. you all are a trip!

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    NO.. some islamic crazy did that!
    I'm sorry...would it have been a better fate to be killed by a Christian crazy? Fact is, he was sent on a mission by Bush whose reason for that mission keeps changing. The only thing consistent about the reason given is that it has always been bullsh--. She wants to know the real reason why. Don't you think she has the right not only to ask the question...but to get an honest answer?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    From Sheehan:
    Still putting out the O'Reilly fires of me being a traitor and using Casey's name dishonorably, my in-laws sent out a press statement disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey. We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the election when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey's death. The thing that matters to me is that our family -- Casey's dad and my other 3 kids are on the same side of the fence that I am.
    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    pigwiggle---- I understand exactly where you are coming from when you say a family is torn down the middle. I am a democrat my husband a republican in the military. I don't think we need to be there, but he does. He has been in Iraq and was forunate enough to come home. But... If he didn't make it home I truely support him enough that I wouldn't blame anyone. He believed and still believes in what he did and does for the United States Army.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    He believed and still believes in what he did and does for the United States Army.
    Which is?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    Ernesto... She wants to know the real reason why. Don't you think she has the right not only to ask the question...but to get an honest answer? Again...please answer my question. How many times does he need to meet with her to appease you?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#38)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    Kitt - Bush is a contract employee. It lasts for about 29 more months. You can, however, help select his successor. QIB writes:
    She lost her son --- and she'd like to know why. Nobody can explain to her -- or to any of us..
    Actually any number of people can explain it to her. But neither she, nor the Left, is interested in facts. BTW – The information that Bush has met with her takes most of the wind out of her sails. She goes from being someone who was being ignored to someone who has received attention, but continues to complain. That is a huge, huge difference. Ernesto writes:
    NO.. some islamic crazy did that! (from BB) I'm sorry...would it have been a better fate to be killed by a Christian crazy? Fact is, he was sent on a mission by Bush whose reason for that mission keeps changing
    Fact is, he would not have been on that mission if it hadn’t been for islamic crazies attacking the US. Ernesto. Why do you keep defending the terrorists? BTW – The answer to your question to MWF is: He is defending the country.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    To Ernesto Del Mundo.... Put it this way, he supports the military 100% and if he were to die while serving he would expect me and everyone else to understand that he voluntarily joined the military and kwew what could and can happen when at war with another country. Yes, I know that Bush declared the War over, but in my eyes it never ended.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#40)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    “whose reason for that mission keeps changing …. She wants to know the real reason ”
    The reason has never changed, and in fact can’t; the reason was presented before the invasion and remains inert, stuck back in the autumn of 2002. The reason for the invasion was Iraq’s material breach of previous UNSCR related to noncompliance with the terms of UNSCR687, summed neatly in UNSCR1441. We now know that the hysteria that led to UNSCR1441 was unfounded, leaving a lot of folks looking for a justification for the invasion. In 2002 the justification was securing Saddam’s (nonexistent) WMDs and now we are stuck with the new justification of deposing Saddam and facilitating an Iraqi democracy. The latter is certainly a noble effort (not that it should be a national goal) and has been the policy of the US since President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act; which incidentally provided for a limited use of the US military placed at the presidents discretion. Really though, UN Security Council Resolutions do not authorize the president to wage war, congress does; and here we have the Use of Force Act signed by almost everyone in congress allowing the President to invade Iraq. But honestly, we have been at war with Iraq for many, many years. It was a war of attrition waged against the most vulnerable in Iraq, backed and coordinated by a corrupt arm of the United Nations. You ‘sanctions are working’ folks don’t have any less blood on your hands than the warmongers (maybe a bit less American blood). I know, I know; the president lied. That’s a lot of lying to pass UNSC Resolutions and a congressional consent for war. Presumably the intelligence community would be involved to snow the senate intelligence committee; key executives would necessarily be involved. With all of this lying and conspiring I think indictable evidence would be close at hand (spare me the tinfoil hat links). I think it’s quite telling that the boldest accusations from Kennedy, Pelosi, etc. are claims of exaggeration or overstatement. So, the answer is US arrogance in foreign policy. It isn’t that the republicrats can’t agree on where to mess, it’s just the minutia; methods and such.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#41)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    (is it just Firefox that handles typekey poorly?) Jim, I knew you were not apologizing to anyone, least of all me. But you do apologize for the preznit. Over and over and over again. I am still waiting for you to prove that I am somehow helping the terrorists by protesting. Spare me the regurgitated wrong wing talking points please, I can tune in all over the MSM for that.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    BB:
    Again...please answer my question. How many times does he need to meet with her to appease you?
    When he gives a straight answer, I will be appeased. So don't hold your breath... PPJ:
    BTW – The answer to your question to MWF is: He is defending the country.
    What country? From who? If it's the terrorists then why is Bush not sending more troops? Why is he talking about cutting troop levels? And most of all, why aren't you volunteering to go over there? You are supporting the terrorists by not going over there and fighting them. Why are you giving aid and comfort to the terrorists, Jim? MWF:
    Put it this way, he supports the military 100%...
    That's not necessarily the same as supporting the mission. I support the troops, but I don't support the mission they have been sent on. This is because I don't think the motives of those sending them are on the up and up. There's an important distinction to be made there.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#44)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    “I support the troops, but I don't support the mission they have been sent on.”
    This is cliché and makes no sense. At best your saying that the troops are dying for a wrongheaded mission, and at worst (something I’ve heard others say here) they are dying for an evil mission. I don’t think it especially supportive for these folks know they are dying in vain or the tools of a war criminal. So exactly how do you ‘support the troops’? I think I did a bit more than most here, that is, more than b!tching on a blog. I voted for a presidential candidate that promised to bring the troops home his first day in office, did you? Or did you support that creep Kerry who sent them over there in the first place?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    So exactly how do you ‘support the troops’?
    Quite simply, I support them by trying to stop them from being killed. What the hell can't you understand about that?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#46)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    Ernesto-
    Quite simply, I support them by trying to stop them from being killed. What the hell can't you understand about that?
    I don't understand exactly what you do. You know, other than saying “I support the troops”, which seems to be progressive vogue. Look, I made two points; you could start by addressing those. First, all this rhetoric of a wrongheaded mission or painting the president as a war criminal; you are essentially telling these folks they are risking their lives and dying for a fools errand, or worse, the tools of a war criminal. Second, nearly all the progressives here (likely you as well) voted for a man who was instrumental in giving the president permission to invade Iraq, for the only office that has the unilateral power to immediately end troop deployment. A man who campaigned for that office promising not to bring them home. All the yellow ribbons and bake sales in Ohio aren’t going to make up for this nonsense.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    Look, I was in the military and I was lucky enough to go in after Reagan's fool errands in Lebanon and Grenada and before Bush the Elder's Kuwait Royal Family rescue mission. If I had been sent on those I would have HOPED LIKE HELL that the great majority of my countrymen would be supporting me by protesting and voting out those who sent me there. If I was in Iraq right now you better believe it would be against my will and I would be hoping that you would be supporting me by putting the violent gang of Neocon monkeys that sent me on trial. As for Kerry/Bush I am with Andreas on that one. But Bush is worse than Kerry and we have the problem of the Evil of Two Lessers. So one has to be either pragmatic or suicidal when contemplating Democracy in America.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    Oh I forgot to mention Bush the Elder's take down of the drug dealer in Panama that double crossed him. And the firebombing of civilian neighborhoods. Uncle Sam's version of urban renewal, Latin American-style. Yes my old unit was sent down there for that one a few months after I got out.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#49)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    “… by protesting and voting out those who sent me there. … But Bush is worse than Kerry and we have the problem of the Evil of Two Lessers.”
    Both of these folks are responsible for the invasion of Iraq so I can’t imagine how voting for either of these two makes any sense, given your position on the war. There were five other candidates on my ballot; none of them were complicit in the federal machinations prerequisite to the invasion. Of those five there was a good representation from the far right to the far left and between. Lesser of two evils is nonsense; what are you going to do when you can’t tell them apart anymore? I had the balls to vote for the candidate I wanted to be president, and I’m enjoying a guilt free conscience knowing I didn’t vote for either of the two candidates that are responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
    “Look, I was in the military and I was lucky enough to go in after Reagan's fool errands in Lebanon”
    You joined voluntarily; an employee.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    You joined voluntarily; an employee
    What's that have to do with me believing in a mission that I know is BS? Like i said, I would go...against my will. And I would hope that you would get out in the streets and do everything you could to throw the lying bastards out that sent me. As for your anti-Kerry rant...I have it on good authority from many Republicans that Kerry is a flip-flopper. So that leads me to believe he would have brought all the troops home as soon as he could. :)

    Cindy Sheehan Continues Her Vigil | 49 comments (49 topical)