Just in case you still harbored delusions that Cindy Sheehan wasn’t bat-shit crazy here’s some more evidence.
Wearing a sweatshirt advertising the website for United for Peace and Justice, Sheehan was interviewed outside just before the meeting by an ABC-TV news reporter. Sheehan said then that military recruiters should not be allowed on college campuses, maintaining they trick naïve 18-year-olds with offers of money and scholarships. Tragically, Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey who was in the Army and was killed two weeks after arriving in Iraq. She claimed he was promised a job as a chaplain’s assistant although once in the service was placed in a combat role and killed, certainly a moving story – one she exploits to promote venomous anti-Americanism. “George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son,” she said tearing up a bit. “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.”
That’s what Sheehan had to say while speaking at a function that also featured terror criminal Lynn Stewart, who was convicted for helping jailed terrorists communicate with their followers on the outside.
As though all of that weren’t bad enough, here’s a flyer that was handed out to advertise the event:
]]>< 
That’s right. Cindy Sheehan spoke at and supported an event where the attendees discussed whether or not to support the people who killed her son.
This woman disgusts me.
(via GOP Bloggers)
By Rob Port of Say Anything.
Shark,
Yes, our troops are brave adults. They were sent to war by sutpid children who never fought in a war themselves, who never learned in Kindergarten that lying is not ok.
Are you and your Wing Nut buddies here posting from the Green Zone? Or, do you lack the balls to sign up for the war you so vehemently support.? Hey, I don’t think age is any object here. Last I checked, the military was having a bit of trouble meeting its recruitment goals. They’d take you, and besides, it wouldn’t hurt to ask. Sign up. And give some kid who knows he was lied to the chance to come home to his family in one piece.
RE: Marc Callan’s post (August 23, 2005 11:24 PM)
Your Screen Name is obviously aptly chosen.
Your observational skills and perspective of my nom de plume are as keen and insightful as your political analyses and as sound as your platform. Keep up the good work. (The compassionate conservative says: watch out for those termites.)
But about responding to your rambling, no thanks. I obviously cannot handle such a worthy and high-minded list. It’s just so unique, so original, so new… I’m overwhelmed. It’s a cathartic moment. I just hope I can continue. Woe is me. Why, I feel Liberal already.
Seems like you Wingers are all about the bluster and blow-hardiness as long as everyone agrees with you. As soon as someone actually challenges you, however, you have the staying power of a hamster’s erection.
Again with the phallacies. What is it with the trolls? Anyway, yes. You’ve stumped the band. I cannot stand a challenge. I have never stood a challenge. I will not stand a challenge. I am Democrat. Hear me roar!
RE: Marc Callan post (August 23, 2005 11:42 PM)
Are you and your Wing Nut buddies here posting from the Green Zone? Or, do you lack the balls to sign up for the war you so vehemently support.? Hey, I don’t think age is any object here. Last I checked, the military was having a bit of trouble meeting its recruitment goals. They’d take you, and besides, it wouldn’t hurt to ask. Sign up. And give some kid who knows he was lied to the chance to come home to his family in one piece.
More unique insight from the fountain of knowledge and pristine thought.
bawk*bawk**chickenhawk**bawk*bawk
Man. You guys need to mix up point one of the circulating anti-war memos. You know, shift the order around a bit so it stays “fresh”.
Damnit, that link doesn’t work.
I think Cindy is great. Now I wish more, many more, of the thousands of women and men who have lost their babies in Irag and Afghanistan would join in her wonderful crusade for the truth
Okay, let’s try it again:
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/18868/#comments
That oughta do it. Damn, but I wish I knew how to cut and paste.
Hey, Marc Callan, how do YOU know how much staying power a hamster’s erection has? You been hanging With Richard Gere?
Uh, so, I’m waiting . . . tapping my foot . . .
do any of you have a real argument for this war that doesn’t involve the harebrained notion that Iraq was connected with 9/11?
Or is it something from your childhood?
Oh, and while you’re at it, why is it that a high level Bush official might tell the Washington Post that we can no longer expect the following in Iraq . . .
–a stable, self sufficient democracy
–a reconstruction paid for by Iraqi oil revenues
did we really expend this much blood and money to simply create another Islamist ally for Iran?
Boy, that was worth it! Oh, wait, I forgot! None of you actually fought in this war.
Oh, and you all still got your tax cut. Yay Rah!
it’s simple, really . . .
Where are the WMD’S?
When did Iraq actually attack the United States?
If freedom is truly “on the march”, why can’t the Iraqis meet the first two deadlines on their constitution. Why does the insurgency become more violent and more sophisiticated with each passing week/month?
Remember Bin Laden? The guy who actually masterminded the attacks on this country? Hey, forgive me for asking, but where is he these over 1000 days after the President promised us he would get OBL “dead or alive”.
You know, what really pissed Novak off was when Carvelle said, “you have to talk tough to these Right Wingers, or they’ll just like to you.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Not hiding behind anonymity like Drivel,
Marc D. Callan
RE: Marc Callan’s post (August 24, 2005 12:24 AM)
Not hiding behind anonymity like Drivel,
Marc D. Callan
That’s MR/MRS/MISS/SEñOR(ITA)/DR/SIR/MADAM AnonymousDrivel to you, if you don’t mind.
CORRECTION:
As it was late in the evening, I mistyped James Carvelle’s statement. It should read:
“You have to talk tough to these Right Wingers, or they’ll just lie to you.”
Apologies to Mr. Carvelle.
It also seems that Right Wingers are either prone to lying or to trivializing matters of life or death when they can’t answer for themselves without lying.
Somewhere, there is a room full of chimps typing madly on Underwoods trying to produce a Shakespearean Masterpiece…the rejects get signed ‘marc callan’ and end up here…
I wonder if any of you have ever seen a war site. Human bodies blown to bits. Dogs running down the road with pieces of human flesh (not to mention the stench) or have you ever helped out in a make shift morgue where you had to carry burned and charred bodies of young people who were totally innocent but just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It brings you to your knees and one thing is for sure you would never want another innocent person to be killed ever especially not one you love like your child. So how many innocent people are being killed daily on both sides? How many enemies are we creating daily as a result? How many of these families who have lost innocent loved ones are now willing to give their lives for another suicide mission? And if we want to talk about democracy and if they ever have it in Iraq they will all be voting in a fanatic Muslim government because that is what the majority want. There must be a better way to go after terrorists then to do what they do (blow up innocent people) in the name of a just cause (which is what the terrorists also claim to be fighting for). Instead of picking and fighting left against right and all this egotistical “we are right we are the greatest bulshit” – why not find some real solutions. Explore the idea we all create our own realities (as individuals as well as a society) and when we have enemies maybe we had something to do with creating them if your really smart you’ll at least contemplate and explore that idea. Wake up! Some body has to or we will all be domed.
Please, continue to prove my point that there is no sound argument for your position.
Oh, and by the way, Shark, if the right wing is so supportive of the troops, why do they cut veterans’ benefits at the same time they cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, whose sons and daughters are not fighting this war? Why do they pass an energy bill that susidizes an oil industry that is making record profits? If the Right Wing chicken hawks won’t fight this war, they could at least have the decency to put money behind our troops and not into the pockets of Dick Cheney’s Haliburton.
Which leads me to another lie . . . Wolfowitz testified before Congress that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction. Obviously, that is not happening.
See, you think that the left wing is your enemy. Honestly, the people you really need to worry about are the people you trust the most, the Neo-Cons who stoke up fear for their own political gain.
The President would love for you to believe that it is only a small radical left wing constituency that criticizes this war. Last time I saw Chuuck Hegel on CNN, there was a capital R after his name.
One more thing, I stand corrected on Secretary Rumsfeld. He did serve in the Navy Reserves, although the Defense Department website makes no mention of his ever having served in combat, despite the fact that he was active throughout the Vietnam War.
However, the basic thrust of my assertion still stands. None of the top-level officials I named have ever put their lives on the line for this country. My suspicion is that few, if any, of the commenters here have done so either.
RE: Jamie post (August 24, 2005 11:12 AM)
…So how many innocent people are being killed daily on both sides? How many enemies are we creating daily as a result? How many of these families who have lost innocent loved ones are now willing to give their lives for another suicide mission? And if we want to talk about democracy and if they ever have it in Iraq they will all be voting in a fanatic Muslim government because that is what the majority want…
Hmm. How many innocents? I don’t know since hard numbers are difficult to come by and most are guestimations, but there’s an inference that I detect from that question that coalition forces are equally responsible for those deaths of innocents. Is there that callously but accurately used “collateral damage”? Of course, and that is tragic. But coalition forces are trying their darndest to minimize that collateral to the point of developing and using exhorbitantly expensive smart weapons. Likewise, they often put themselves at risk via strict rules of engagement to save the civies. The same cannot be said of the terrorists whose goal it is to punish soft-targets as part of the bloodletting to change public opinion. HUGE difference. Incomparable. Further, what do you figure the plight of these saved souls will be if coalition troops concede the mission and relegate the field to those terrorists? There will not be peace if they stand down though there may be an armistice. Cambodia and Vietnam should ring a bell here… and the “victors” by default will not stop at their borders to limit their influence. Suffice it to say, I don’t want them anywhere near mine or the borders of other peaceful nations.
How many new enemies? I don’t know. How many friends will be created once these oppressed peoples breath the air of freedom, walk the street and can vocalize dissent, or just plain go to market without fear of getting picked up by a death squad? Why is there an assumption that all people whose family members are killed during terrorist assaults and concomitant response will mutate into bloodthirsty homicide bombers? Don’t you think they can recognize sincere efforts to defend their land and not the hijacking of it by fanatics who would just as well hijack their religion?
I share your concern about a radical theocracy taking hold, but there are signs that this will not happen. A radical, Sharia based “democracy” would be considered a conditional failure to me. Mind you, the removal of Hussein and his more immediate threat were important and meritous and does not tarnish the entire mission; however, a fanatical Islam would be a legitimate blemish. Time will tell to what degree each goal is achieved.
We cannot hope to infuse wholly 21st century Jeffersonian democracy in that land, but we can inject a dose of it. Hopefully, in a couple of hundred years of practice, they’ll figure out what we already know… that democracy, despite occasional messiness, is infinitely more satisfying, empowering, peaceful, and fruitful. The coalition and steadfast supporters believe such a vision is worthy and possible. The Cindy Sheehans of the world should not, by default, get “absolute moral authority” [M. Dowd – NYT] to derail or undermine such noble pursuits.
Uh, so, I’m waiting . . . tapping my foot . . .
Try holding your breath.
Funny how you liberal hypocrites have a problem with Republican politicians military histories when you consider the fact that you all voted for draft dodging Bill Clinton twice. TSK TSK….
Its not about Sheehan,the war or any other lame excuse you can come up with (Eddy, Marc)Its about our President and you know it. The bottom line is you lost and we WON, and your not man enough to admit it. So get a job and lets get on with our lives.
Military families think they should be worshipped. That’s why they join and encourage their children to join.
“I can do no harm. I am an American soldier. We don’t abuse the other side. We have more ethics because we are Americans.”
Yeah right. Live in that fantasy world that American wars are kosher and nobody innocent gets hurt or molested or raped. The smart bombs weren’t so smart and they hit the wrong buildings.
Firefighters. Cops. We treat them like idols. Why are their jobs more noble than teachers or social workers or journalists? Basically, you have to carry a gun or badge or flag and you’re allowed this after-life diplomatic immunity that nobody deserves.
Let’s all carry the flag to work to tug at everyone’s heartstrings. I am a martyr because I value life less than a mother but more than a barbaric Iraqi.
When I die, I want guns to go off. It’s so romantic. It’s so poetic. It’s so sadistic.
Question: Why can’t GEORGE BUSH have any more CHILDREN?
Answer: Because his BALLS are in BAGHDAD.
“Funny how you liberal hypocrites have a problem with Republican politicians military histories when you consider the fact that you all voted for draft dodging Bill Clinton twice. TSK TSK….” —RedState
Republicant politician George Bush’s so called “military history” consists of going AWOL from a cushy stateside job Daddy Bush got him. That’s much worse than draft dodging.
“Somewhere, there is a room full of chimps typing madly on Underwoods trying to produce a Shakespearean Masterpiece…the rejects get signed ‘marc callan’ and end up here… Posted by: moseby at August 24, 2005 10:08 AM”
Eurika, Moseby! I found the room! It’s behind your eyeballs and between your ears.
A Bush belongs not in the White House, but in an aroboretum.
typical liberal bullshit reich…correct me if i’m wrong but wasn’t it the loony left who kept screaming “at least kerry served” this past election
well if we’re going to compare bush to clinton…. “at least bush served”
what was clinton doign during nam?
oh yeah that’s right……… a president’s military service or lack thereof is allowed allowed to be discussed when it doesn’t cast a negative light on a liberal democrat
clinton dodged the draft and you voted for him twice reiich
Again………YOU ARE A FUCKING HYPOCRITE!
Red State,
Two things . . .
1. My dad always said “Profanity is a strong expression of a weak mind.”
2. During the 2000 Campaign, George W. Bush repeatedly said that he was opposed to “nation building.” When this has been pointed out to him or his supporters since the invasion of Iraq, the change in position is justified by saying that 9/11 required a change in US Foreign Policy.
Well, 9/11 did change everything, and the Bush Administration’s ill-conceived response has changed things even more drastically. Unlike the years when Clinton was President, we now find ourselves entrenched in a war, and, yes, given the fact that we are at war, it makes more sense to have a Commander-in-Chief who actually served in combat.
Furthermore, the hypocrisy of which you accuse Reich cuts both ways. During Clinton’s entire presidency, the right wing attacked him as a “draft dodger,” however, you get all yippy when progressives point out the fact that Cheney didn’t serve at all, and the Bush failed to report for a year of his guard duty.
It is true that President Clinton served no more time in the military than Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, or Condoleeza Rice. It is also true that President Clinton’s combat military service equals that of President George W. Bush.
And truthfully, none of this matters a bit. What matters is sound policy. What matters is intelligent planning, and when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current administration is sorely lacking in these areas.
Look, let’s face it. The President is just not a very bright man. During the 2000 campaign, he referred to the citizens of Greece as “grecians.” He had no idea who the leader of Pakistan was, except to say that he thought the guy was a general. His answer to everything Iraq is “stay the course,” even when it’s clear to nearly 70 percent of Americans that the war plan is just not working, that the situation on the ground is horrible.
Did you vote for President Bush so that he could continue to sacrifice our soldiers to give Osama Bin Laden EXACTLY what he wants–an Islamic state in Iraq?
Or did the President say enough of the right “trigger words” for you to believe that . . .
a. He means what he says.
b. He’s a good Christian.
c. He’s got the situation under control.
d. He has a clear plan to fight the “War on Terror”
Honestly, if you bought all of the above, than you can consider yourself a true member of the “Bush base.” You were marketted to. The whole message was tested, tweaked, and massaged for you. All they needed to do was stoke up a few fears–terrorism, abortion, gay marriage, social security (while COMPLETELY ignoring the more imminent disaster in Medicare). Fear is a powerful thing. It’ll make an otherwise sensible person do very strange things–like voting against their own best interest.
It’s not that I actually expect you to read this entire post, Red State. Nor do I expect you to respond in anything that resembles reason and logic.
Reich, stay out there.
“How many new enemies? I don’t know. How many friends will be created once these oppressed peoples breath the air of freedom, walk the street and can vocalize dissent, or just plain go to market without fear of getting picked up by a death squad?”–Anonymous Drivel
Our invasion and continued presence in Iraq has made this situation worse. We created a power vacuum and our inability to provide security has provided for foreign fighters, terrorists, suicide bombers . . . .
This is not necessarily an “anti-war” statement, and it is certainly not a slight on the men and women who are on the ground fighting this war. It’s an indictment of the decision-makers–Rumsfeld, Cheney, and ultimately, the Commander-in chief, himself.
The Bush Administration has stubbornly ignored the good advices of career military officers who knew what would be required in Iraq. They ignored General Shinseki. They ignored the “Powell Doctrine,” and the hawks in the administration worked very hard to render the Secretary of State irrelevant. They silenced Larry Lindsey’s estimated cost of the war before the invasion in favor of far smaller dollar amount. Although Lindsey resigned, it turned out his estimate for the first year’s cost of the war was right, nearly to the dollar.
In case you haven’t been paying attention, there are actually two progressive anti-Bush trains of thought on the war in Iraq. Many advocate the “pull out now,” philosophy, but others (and Kerry was one of these) insist that we need to fight this war to win it by getting more troops on the ground. That doesn’t necessarily mean more American troops, and if Bush had an ounce of political capital left in the international community and with the United Nations or NATO he might actually be able to build a larger “coalition of the willing,” rather than watching our international (and domestic) support for this war go down the drain.
There is absolutely no point in conservatives and progressives arguing over whether we should have gone into Iraq. We went and we’re there. I do think it’s high time, however, that we start dropping our partisanship and start a national dialogue on an exit strategy because the Bush Administration has none. Cindy Sheehan is part of that national dialogue, and you will find Senator Chuck Hegel and Congressman Walter Jones standing much closer to Mrs. Sheehan ideologically than they stand to the President (who is of their own party).
As a lifelong Democrat and intense Bush skeptic, I still supported the war in Afghanistan in the weeks after September 11, but I saw absolutely no reason at all to rush into war with Iraq while we still had unfinished business in Afghanistan.
However, we went in and we’re still there.
So, what are our goals?
What’s the best plan to achieve them?
How do we end this thing as effectively and efficiently as possible so that we can bring our troops home and the Iraqis can have their country back?
Can we stop the political pissing contests and actually talk about solutions?
You know, there are both Republicans and Democrats on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, putting their lives on the line, and they all bleed and die exactly the same.
Wow, did I really kill this discussion?
I guess so . . .
Wow, I’ve never actually managed to get the last word with a room full of Republicans
COWARDS!
All of you WING NUTS are COWARDS!
“Oh, but Marc Callan is crazy. So is Cindy Sheehan nuts!”
“The president is a Compassionate Conservative!”
Bull.
Tell that to the woman in New Orleans who gave birth to a still-born baby last night. Tell that to the mother of a two-year old who was trampled to death.
While New Orleans was drowning, Bush played golf. While New Orleans was drowning, the Vice-President was still on vacation. While New Orleans was dying, Condoleeza Rice was hitting tennis balls and shopping for shoes on Fifth Avenue.
Awfully telling that Bill Clinton hit the ground in the area a full day before our Commander in Thief.
It’s not surprising, however. George W. Bush’s base doesn’t include poor white trash and niggers. Such folk don’t matter much to him.