"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."And now she's saying he was callous to her during their meeting.
What, exactly, is she trying to prove here? And why is she using her son's death to do it?
No wonder her husband filed for divorce...
14 comments:
Are you a Christian? If you claim to be, you may want to leave your opinions about others at the door.
Nope, I'm agnostic.
Heather, please don't take this in a bad or personal way, because I really do like you and your blog (and friends can disagree) but I think it's a little distasteful for you to say "No wonder her husband is filing for divorce." There are a million reasons people divorce, and I don't think it's up to an outsider to decide what someone's reasons are.
I can understand that point of view. I find a lot of what you post on your blog pretty distasteful, too.
Friends can disagree, though, as you said.
hahahahahahahahahaha! excellent comeback and point very well taken!!!!
Mr(s). Anonymous needs to grow some balls and post their name.
Ah, but how beautiful it is to see how this situation is playing out. Mrs. Sheehan is being counselled by MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, and a host of other liberals vying to use her "purpose" to serve their own. Her husband, who if you look at the divorce papers, has been separated from her since June, which, to my knowledge, is before she started her campout, is leaving her.
One could wonder, is she doing this because she's lost everything? Her husband, her son, and now she's got nothing of her own and must strike out because without the attack she is nothing.
In any regard, it's been "clarified" by her that the family of hers that's embarrassed by her is a complete bunch of religious, conservative assholes that have never liked her politics.
I think Mrs. Sheehan had a reason for going down there. I think it was a reason based on her own personal struggles that somehow turned her mind against the man she'd praised a year before. I think that the situation with her family and her husband has made things worse - if she leaves the front of his ranch, where does she go? She's got nothing left behind her.
I think that she came there with an idea of what she was trying to do, and I think that the influence of the Liberal Wonders has now taken her cause completely from her and turned it into the best political weapon they can manage.
For those that still think Bush should suck it up and talk to her, I just want to know one thing. Tell me this, Em. Tell me this, no-balls of the anonymous. What in the fuck is the point of meeting with someone that basically just wants to tell Bush that because of her he should end the war, bring the troops home, stop lying to the people, stop giving tax breaks to the rich, never drill for oil on our own turf, kill SUVs and rid the rest of the world of poverty, namely that outside of America with American tax dollars, so and so on. Tell me. What is the point? What could be achieved? She's already told the world exactly what she'd tell him. So he already knows, I'm sure.
The liberals will take it as a win. Where's the win? I figure they're winning better just by being able to sit there and stay in the news.
The lady's in a bad spot. Her marriage is fucked, and no one can really speculate why. Her son died serving our country, voluntarily I might add. She's got nowhere to go if she leaves. Nothing to come back to.
But it doesn't end there. Now she's making claims that don't look that good. This whole "y rny bush daughters over there if it honorable war huih huh huh" bullshit is just sad. It's a volunteer army. And just like the other soldiers that are serving, her son volunteered.
There have been numerous liberals throughout this process rising up to cry IT IS GOING 2 B DRAFT TIME SOON OH NO THE REPUIBLICANS WANT 2 TAKE UR SOCIAL SECURIY WAY, but I still think it's important to close your damn mouths sometimes and look around. There is no draft. It's a volunteer army. THERE IS NO DRAFT IT IS A VOLUNTEER ARMY The Bush daughters didn't volunteer. Sheehan's son did. He died there serving us - the people. He died there for all of us. There is no more honorable way to go. I don't think there's a good person anywhere in this country that doesn't, by now at least, feel sorrow for her son.
Feel for her or not, the way things are changing - and I attribute it all to Michael Moore and the rest of the Liberals out there "helping" her - she's no longer a concerned mother, but a spokesman for a mindset, for a cause, for something bigger than she is. She's losing who she is, why she is there - she may well be losing the last thing she could actually claim to have.
I feel for her in that regard. She's going to lose it all when it's over, and it's not because of Bush, it's because of those that hate him. No family left to take, but now they're going to take "her". And when the dust settles, she's going to have to find out, all over again, what in the hell she is.
But meantime, feel sorry for her all you want, but do not let that outweigh the fact that one grieving mother has been turned into a spearhead leading yet another Anti-Bush battle. Feel for the soul, but not for the person. She is no longer herself. The things she says now should not be weighed against her grief in hope to find reason.
Michael Moore and MoveOn.org are pissed off people. They're mad. And that's how they work. And their methods make other people mad. And if you're writing a fucking post inspired by this mess that Michael Moore and MoveOn.org are helping to spread around, and you're mad, and you want to say "No wonder her husband filed for divorce" then say it. People say much more hateful things all the time. Fuck, to even sit there and tell my sister that she's out of line is so fucking hypocritical compared to the things you've thought about Bush or about Christians or about your damn boss or about that girl that stole your man or whatever else. Pompous and arrogant, even more so when you consider the forum of which Heather expressed her opinions. If you can't get away with the occasional rude quip in a fucking JOURNAL then where can you? Where does it stop? Can we not think badly of people? Must we bottle up anything that bothers, hurts, or angers us? Get off your high horses and think. It's really funny how much Liberals tout free speech until someone says something bad about one of them(or in this case, some fucking offhanded mention, probably stated just so she could throw the fucking link up somewhere in the post).
And in closing, Cindy Sheehan, no matter what else is said of her, by me or anyone else, is a victim here. But I think you might be looking at the wrong side of the aisle as to who's guilty of victimising her.
The statements about the first meeting were taken out of context, she was also critical of him at the time, although not as critical as she is now. Unfortunately Drudge started out this whole story by misleading everyone. But anyway, even if she used to love Bush and support him completely (which she didn't) what's wrong with someone changing their mind? Especially with all the new information that has come out since then about how we got into this war in the first place.
As for what she's trying to prove, I htink that's pretty obvious. There is no reason for us to be in Iraq, every reason we have been give has turned out to be a lie, and she doesn't appreciate that since it cost her son his life. She's using her son's death to do it because he is dead for no reason, and she probably doesn't want other mothers to have the same terrible feelings she does.
Well, my point wasn't that she is suddenly changing her tune, but that she had the chance to talk to Bush about her opinions, and she chose not to use it. Asking him for more time now is rude. He's the President of the United States of America. He has plenty of other things to do. In my mind, Bush gave her time to grieve with him, she took it, and that settles it. He's under no obligation to speak with grieving families at all, but he chooses to do so. Why should this one mourner get extra time?
Here's a good article over on Slate on the subject.
As far as the war on Iraq being based on "a lie", I still don't think that's the case. I think it was pretty obvious to everyone that the WMDs weren't the real reason for going.
It is true that the war hasn't gone as the administration had hoped. But what will happen if we pull out now? 1) We will be sending a message to the terrorists that their tactics are effective in cowing us. 2) We will be abandoning the people we sought to free to what will surely become another dictatorship.
Bush takes a hard line stance, and that's why he won't give in to the terrorists in Iraq. That's also why he won't see Cindy Sheehan, no matter what she might say about him or how long she might sit around outside his ranch.
Her opinions now have probably been largely shaped by the events that have happened since the first meeting, so I don't see why it's rude. Also, I'm not sure when your son is dead you are (or should be) all that concerned about being polite. As for him having other things to do, that's why she chose his vacation to do this, I think, because it's pretty clear that he doesn't have other things to do.
He's under no obligation to speak to people, but when your policies put people in danger, you should have to answer for that. If he doesn't want to talk to her personally, he should at least say something of substance about how he's conducting this war.
As for whether or not Weapons of Mass Destruction was the real reason or not, or whether it was obvious, it was the reason that we (and Congress) were given, and if it was known to be false, that's a lie.
I don't think you can predict what exactly will happen if we leave now, and I'm not sure we should leave completely or right away, but the argument you're making assumes that we are making things better, and I'm not sure that's the case.
Bush is stubborn to a fault, even if the war in Iraq was a good idea, it has been handled poorly, and the only way we could possibly fix it is to recognize that and do things differently. His "stay the course" attitude and being unwilling to admint to any mistakes is just going to get more people killed.
It's a working vacation. Some people work better at home, in a comfortable environment. I'm tired of people claiming that Bush is sitting around his ranch doing nothing for five weeks. That's ridiculous.
he should at least say something of substance about how he's conducting this war
What do you mean? That he should explain his goals and methods so the terrorists will have a better chance of foiling them?
You imply that Bush is just doing the same thing over and over and wondering why it's still not working (or refusing to believe that it won't work eventually). I have a hard time believing that's the case, but I'm open to the possibility. Do you (or any other readers) have some resources I could use to evaluate, step by step, our actions in Iraq? I'm not looking for emotional stuff, like "Well 2000 soldiers are dead!", but policies, battles, goals, implementations, etc., and the results of same. I have a hard time believing that we're not constantly changing tactics in Iraq, trying to figure out what will work. If it can be proved that this is not the case, that we are just spinning our wheels, I'd really like to know it.
It's a working vacation, but if he has time to take all these bike rides, he could probably squeeze in a few minutes to make a big problem go away.
I think it's pretty clear that spinning our wheels in Iraq is exactly what we're doing, I don't know how you could possibly think otherwise. Bush refuses to admit that he has ever made a mistake, so why would he change anything? Anyway, it's clearly not working. Unless you think that Iraq is just too much for the United States to handle. As for giving away information to the enemy, that's ridiculous, you can have clear goals without benefitting the enemy. Anyway, it's clear his position on exit strategies changes to suit his political needs, go read what he had to say about Clinton's handling of Kosovo and you'll see that he used to think an exit strategy was very important.
You keep saying it's "clear", but you're not citing any events or sources other than one example of Bush changing his mind. Draw me a roadmap, don't just tell me your opinion as if your conclusions are obvious.
It's clear because the United States with the biggest and best military in the world cannot contain an insurgency after over two years of fighting it. That means that it isn't being handled correctly. And the fact that anytime he is asked about it, the President will not recognize that any mistakes have been made shows that he is either lying or does not know what is going on, either of which mean he's not up to the job.
Anyway, I think the conclusions are obvious, painfully obvious. I don't see how any other conclusion could be reached. If we're doing so well, why does the ratinale for why we're there keep changing? Why is there no end in sight. They keep telling us that things are getting better, or that corners have been turned, but then you look up and the violence and killing escalate instead of decreasing.
That's pretty simplistic thinking. Just because we have the best military in the world doesn't mean we will automatically be able to shut down insurgents as sophisticated as these.
It's not like there's a capital city of Insurgent-dom that we can go bomb. They're nested within the population. It's like fighting cancer.
I don't find the argument "Bush's leadership is bad because we haven't won yet" compelling. That smacks to me of nothing more than the MTV ADD generation--anything that lasts longer than a week is either amazing or a collosal failure, or both.
Post a Comment