SilverNRed Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 Right, because before Cindy came along, they had no idea that killing Americans kind of gets our attention. In fact, I think a strong argument can be made that terrorism itself was invented in response to Cindy Sheehan. Why, if it weren't for her, there would be no war and no terrorists. Is this kind of thinking a prelude to blaming setbacks in the war on protesters? From here on in are we going to see posts after every roadside bomb killing in Iraq claiming that it is all Cindy Sheehan's fault? Makes sense. 409483[/snapback] Uh huh, I like how you pretend to misinterpret what I'm saying with every post. Very effective argument tactics there. Seriously, if I had to resort to that to make my point, it'd be pretty obvious to me that it wasn't worth making.
SilverNRed Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 Thank you Doctor. 409477[/snapback] Right on. In the meantime, here are some more quotes from what you think is a mentally well person. Link MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question. SHEEHAN: Yes. MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling? SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America. MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11. SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan. All together now - WHAT? Iraq had no terrorism, except for that giant list of things that AD periodically posts on this message board. And I don't even know what she was saying about not "attacking the country of Afghanistan." The woman brings incoherence to a new level and yet every media outlet wants to know what she has to say. Nope, no bias there.
billfan63 Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 Nope...just happen to pay attention. Try it, and maybe you to will gain amazing insight. She is a nut...plain and simple. He was a soldier (by all accounts a good one) plain and simple. Her husband has filed for divorce, plain and simple. her family disagrees with her stance, plain and simple. With all those plain and simples....why is it so difficult for you to comprehend??? 409484[/snapback] I do comprehend that you are plain and simple.,,,,, nut ,divorce, family disagrees. shot her!
RkFast Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 She's a nut, a whacko all that stuff...and add anti-semite to the list. http://www.rjchq.org/News.asp?Formmode=Detail&ID=918 Is "Blame Israel First" the Democrats' Message? Contact: Matthew Brooks Monday, August 15, 2005 “You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism.” -- Cindy Sheehan, anti-war protestor in Crawford. The front page of just about every newspaper this weekend noted the anti-war protest of Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq. The Democrats have jumped on board Ms. Sheehan’s protest – casting her and her message as heroic examples for the rest of the nation. She has been heralded by Democrats such as Joe Trippi, campaign manager for Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s campaign for President, Michael Moore, and organizations such as Democrats.com, MoveOn.org, True Majority, and Democracy for America. While Democrats are busy making Cindy Sheehan their spokesman and avatar of their views, we see her as yet another example of how critics of Israel within the Democratic Party have taken control of the party's agenda. If Cindy Sheehan’s ideas are what the Democrats have to offer, then more and more American Jews will continue to see that there is no place for them in the Democratic Party. Take another look at the quote at the top of this letter. If only it were an aberration. Unfortunately, it represents only a tip of the iceberg of Ms. Sheehan’s world-view. In a letter to Nightline, Ms. Sheehan wrote that the entire Iraq War was part of a neo-conservative plot to benefit Israel: "Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Cindy Sheehan's letter And Ms. Sheehan, the voice of Democrat opposition to the war, reported what she would tell the President if she were to meet him (again): "You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana[italics mine], imperialism in the Middle East." www.truthout.org Is that where the Democrats are on the War in Iraq – and on US policy in the Middle East? The elimination of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule is a victory for the oil companies and for American imperialism? You know, as well as I, that Saddam Hussein launched scud missiles at Israel. You know that he operated rape rooms and torture chambers. You know that he launched chemical weapons at his own people. You know that he housed terrorists as his guests in Iraq – terrorists such as Abu Nidal, who murdered Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro cruise ship. You know that Saddam paid a bounty of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. You know that he was a threat to the stability of the entire region. You also know that there were strong links between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Qaeda (for a new comprehensive summary of the latest evidence, check out www.HusseinAndTerror.com ).
Mickey Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 Uh huh, I like how you pretend to misinterpret what I'm saying with every post. Very effective argument tactics there. Seriously, if I had to resort to that to make my point, it'd be pretty obvious to me that it wasn't worth making. 409510[/snapback] Pretty much exactly what you said: "This isn't accomplishing ANYTHING (except possibly telling the terrorists that killing Americans gets you a lot of press back in the U.S. if they happen to have insane family members)..." Clearly, the terrorists were aware that killing Americans gets our attention long before Cindy Sheehan came along so what is it that her actions are "telling" the terrorists that they didn't know already? What exactly is your point here, that she is helping terrorists? Please explain.
SilverNRed Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 Pretty much exactly what you said: "This isn't accomplishing ANYTHING (except possibly telling the terrorists that killing Americans gets you a lot of press back in the U.S. if they happen to have insane family members)..." Clearly, the terrorists were aware that killing Americans gets our attention long before Cindy Sheehan came along so what is it that her actions are "telling" the terrorists that they didn't know already? What exactly is your point here, that she is helping terrorists? Please explain. 409578[/snapback] Yes, my point is that this is NOT helping our forces fighting the GWOT and that this is exactly what the terrorists want. They know they can't defeat us militarily, but if they kill enough Americans, they can turn public opinion against the war and eventually get what they want. She didn't raise their awareness of how helpful it is for them to kill us, she is just confirming their suspicions.
Wacka Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 New Sheehan looney tune: 'We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now'... Train left the station a loooong time ago.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 New Sheehan looney tune: 'We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now'... Train left the station a loooong time ago. 410514[/snapback] Standard anti-DU spiel. Ignorant, but not necessarily looney.
boomerjamhead Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 What are the odds that this chick is paraded up on stage during the Dem's '08 convention? I'd say they are pretty daggum good.
erynthered Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 What are the odds that this chick is paraded up on stage during the Dem's '08 convention? I'd say they are pretty daggum good. 410544[/snapback] I'll take that bet, good point Boom. Just imagine, her, Kennedy, Michelle Moore, Natzi Pollisi, Dean, all on stage, breathtaking...........
billfan63 Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 What are the odds that this chick is paraded up on stage during the Dem's '08 convention? I'd say they are pretty daggum good. 410544[/snapback] You know your over the top when you refer to a dead soldiers mother who doesn't agree with you as a "chick"?
Wacka Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 Then how about wacko, psycho, nutjob, moonbat? I agree, calling her a chick is slurring the chicks out there.
Reuben Gant Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 New Sheehan looney tune: 'We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now'... Train left the station a loooong time ago. 410514[/snapback] I believe she said this in the context of DU.
Reuben Gant Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 Linky I thought Global Security's take on her was interesting: Part of the essay: The incompetence of the prosecution of the war has been at times bewildering. The incompetence of the anti-war effort remains surpassingly bewildering. The two are not unrelated. If Bush had faced a more effective antiware movement in 2002, the Administration would have been forced to do a better job of developing and articulating a rationale for the war. Possibly it would have concluded that war was not such a good idea after all, but certainly it would have made a better case that would have withstood the test of battle and time. And faced with a sustained critiqe of the prosecution of the war since, perhaps the Administration would have been more attentive to the little things, like getting the electricity on and the oil flowing, that have rendered this war FUBAR
RkFast Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 Taken from Ann Coulter's latest column: On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check. Gee, what a "patriot" that Sheehan is. How could those who disagree with her THINK that her and her ilk dont love their country? So lets review....she hates the President, hates this country, thinks it aint worth a damn..but HEY!....she "supports the troops." What a peach.
boomerjamhead Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 I'll take that bet, good point Boom. Just imagine, her, Kennedy, Michelle Moore, Natzi Pollisi, Dean, all on stage, breathtaking........... 410552[/snapback] Oh, and no doubt her book deal is in the works right now: Thirty Days at Camp Casey. One Woman's Stance Against an Evil Empire.
SilverNRed Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.411263[/snapback] Ha! I hadn't thought of that. Cindy Sheehan uses her dead son as an excuse to tell us what many fringe leftists "really" think and it's predictably horrific and brainless.
erynthered Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 Oh, and no doubt her book deal is in the works right now: Thirty Days at Camp Casey. One Woman's Stance Against an Evil Empire. 411406[/snapback] I dont think this is funny but.......I heard this on the radio today. They called her "The B word in the Ditch "
Mickey Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 Taken from Ann Coulter's latest column: On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check. Gee, what a "patriot" that Sheehan is. How could those who disagree with her THINK that her and her ilk dont love their country? So lets review....she hates the President, hates this country, thinks it aint worth a damn..but HEY!....she "supports the troops." What a peach. 411263[/snapback] RK, if you find yourself quoting Ann Coulter you need to step back man, seriously. The claim of being balanced and a non-hypocrite you made in that thread started by Dr. K can't survive this Coulter quoting. I won't begrudge you your opinions on Cindy Sheehan but really, Ann Coulter?
Mickey Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 I dont think this is funny but.......I heard this on the radio today. They called her "The B word in the Ditch " 411460[/snapback] I don't understand why are you sharing this with us. Do you think that is a bit out of bounds? I don't really have an opinion on what she is doing apart from she ought to be able to have her protest and fade into black without being personally attacked like this. For example, what would be behind the thinking that leads one (not you) to be enraged that she called the President a rotten so-and-so but applaud her being called or treated like a "B word in the Ditch"? I think the leader of the free world is probably able to take a nasty jibe from a nobody like little Cindy Sheehan a little better than Cindy Sheehan will be able to handle mericless attacks from media superstar zillionaires from Limbaugh to Coulter. Why don't hey pick on someone their own size? What is behind this massive mobilization of the republican attack machine against this woman? Why is it so important to shred her to pieces? "She's crazy, she's mean, she is a liar, she's nuts, she hates Bush, she is a tool of the left, she is a B word in a ditch." Twenty-four seven. People who will excuse a President who took us to war with thousands dead based on WMD's that never existed have their panties in a bunch over an old woman in a tent. Even if she is the biggest kook in Crawford, isn't this just a bit unseemly?
Recommended Posts