« Only 12% Feel That Terrorism Will Stop If We Pull Out Of Iraq | Main | Review: The FairTax Book »

Yet Another Dose Of Sheehan Lunacy

Political Teen has video up of Cindy Sheehan being interviewed on Bill Maher's show.

Here's an interesting quote from her statement:

Bill this isn't for me, it's in honor of our children who have already been killed. But there's millions of people in harm's way in Iraq and we need to get our military out of there. We need to secure the country and you know I was only the sparks that started off this fire as the peace movement and if I wanted to call it off today, I couldn't even do it. It's just a momentum and a life of it's own. It's organic, and it's living, and like I said earlier, we are going to stop this war.

How do we secure the country and pull our troops out? Or does she think the country will be secured when the terrorists win after we pull out?

She did make a point that's hard to argue with, however. She said that if the President had met with her two weeks ago a lot of this anti-war publicity would have ended. Its kind of a hard point to take, though. After all, accosting the President at his private residence and calling him a "murderer" is typically not the best way to get an audience with him.

But even if the President had met with Sheehan I'm not convinced that the media circus would have gone away. The anti-war movement has, for better or worse, found its most effective mouthpiece, if only because the media refuses to illuminate some of Sheehan's nastier comments about the President and her Jewish conspiracy theories.

Either way, its water under the bridge now. The fact of the matter, emotional diatribes aside, is that pulling out now will likely undo all that we've been fighting for over in Iraq. We will leave Iraq not as a new democratic ally in the turbulent middle east but rather a rogue state once again, just under different leadership.

Sheehan also made one other interesting comment. She said that the President doesn't really believe that the war in Iraq is a war on terrorism. She states that the Downing Street Memo proves that war in Iraq was imminent even before 9/11 and that there were no terrorists in Iraq. Which is a handy bit of lunacy that meshes right in with Michael Moore's idea of Iraq as a kite-flying utopia prior to the invasion. Which is total crap, of course, and I'm sure one Mr. Abu Zarqawi would have a few words to say about the idea that there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to invasion.

After this Sheehan again falls into the "the war was for greed and power" and "my son died for nothing" with overtones of the idea that Iraq is not capable of democracy. In other words, the same crap we've heard from the anti-war left from day one. Which just makes me wonder, if this rhetoric hasn't gained traction with the American people before is it really all that more convincing now that its being pushed by a grieving mother?

Its the same product, just a different packaging.

By Rob Port of Say Anything.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Yet Another Dose Of Sheehan Lunacy:

» Angry in the Great White North linked with Cindy Sheehan: Casey Sheehan and the UCMJ

» The Larsonian linked with Cindy is Ready For Her Close-up, Mr. DeMille

» Random Numbers linked with Cindy Sheehan: Moses in Reverse

Comments (25)

Hey Rob, I do believe that ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Hey Rob, I do believe that Cindy is referring to the US when she mentions securing the country in her statement.

As you know, one of the leftist talking points is about stretching our army thin and not being able to protect the homeland should something happen.

Just a thought. I know she is moonbat crazy, I just think you may have taken that statement the wrong way.

Either way, its water un... (Below threshold)

Either way, its water under the bridge now. The fact of the matter, emotional diatribes aside, is that pulling out now will likely undo all that we've been fighting for over in Iraq.

Undo all that we have been fighting for? What exactly are we there for Rob? I thought we were told we were going to rid Saddam of all his weapons of mass destruction. IS that what we are fighting for?

Correct me if I'm wrong but if that is not what we are fighting for than why are we still there?

"The Bastard," appropriate ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

"The Bastard," appropriate name BTW. "I thought we were told we were going to rid Saddam of all his weapons of mass destruction. IS that what we are fighting for?

Are you that disconnected from reality? Have you not read the Joint Resolution that cantains a double digit list of reasons? Have you not read or heard the Presidents speech before the UN Secrurity Council that did the same?

Or are you just a political hack taking the easiest route to bash the President? Or... just plain ignorant.

www.thisdividedstate.com</p... (Below threshold)

www.thisdividedstate.com

Mike is right. The hair on ... (Below threshold)

Mike is right. The hair on my neck went up when I read that quote. If the left took that tack ie, 'bring 'em home and put 'em on the borders' ... man o man ... I do believe thay'd get some traction from it.

The only counter to it is 'What? And wait till they have ICBMs'?

I don't like the sounds of that line of poli-speak one bit ... I hope Karl is on it 'cause it is a powerful message/image and will have great resonance.

I don't agree with everythi... (Below threshold)
Main Street:

I don't agree with everything Cindy Sheehan says, but how often do you come across someone with whom you agree 100%? I'm not sure whether Cindy was referring to the need to secure Iraq or the US, but personally I believe we are obligated -- somehow -- to help the Iraqis restore peace.

Cindy has become an icon because she speaks for so many people. I saw her speak last November and I sobbed through her whole speach. There are not very many people who can speak so movingly -- Cindy can do it, so Cindy's got the job.

So you can find fault with her, and that makes her a moonbeam, right? Or because she's emotional. Is that mature? And is it mature to call Michael Moore fat all the time? I wonder how many people reading this are fat? Do you have any fat friends? Is your mom or dad or spouse fat? I wish the right would raise the level of the debate. I really do.

Before the war in Iraq started, I believed that the Bush administration was lying to us about the threat that Iraq posed to us. Now we have official documentation that supports our belief. Neither the Bush administration nor the Blair administration is even disputing the accuracy of that documentation. How can you expect us to keep silent? And why don't you care?

Main Street, CIndy is a moo... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Main Street, CIndy is a moonbat. Ever heard her talk about Israel getting out of Palestine? Why wont the MSM run those clips on TV....Because everyone will see she is a raving lunatic. Anyone who claims that Israel is the cause of terrorism is as looney as they can be. But then one would just have to notice that this one person was able to bring white supremicists and Al Sharpton together.

Main Street,No one i... (Below threshold)
rayabacus:

Main Street,
No one is attacking Cindy, we are just disputing what she says, that is called debate. When she makes what I consider irrational foreign policy statements I HAVE A DUTY to refute them. And contrary to what MoDo says, she has no more "moral authority" than I.

Bush NEVER lied to anybody. If you can pull me a quote that PROVES that he lied, I'll eat those words. Just because we did not find WMD (in any quantity) in Iraq does not prove that he lied. That is a tired worn out Leftist canard. If you choose to believe that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the US in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, then so be it. I believe that he was a threat; so did Bill Clinton; so did John Kerry; so did John Edwards; so did Richard Clarke; so did Sandy Berger, et al.

If you can recall what a few ounces of anthrax did to the economy; even shutting down the Congress, just imagine what a few gallons would do in someplace like NYC, LA, CHI or any other metropolitan city. Saddam had over 2,000 tons of the stuff that he could not or would not account for.

You need to go do some research and apply a little reasoning and logic to your view of the War on Terror instead of relying on your emotions for all of your factual data.

I was only the sparks th... (Below threshold)

I was only the sparks that started off this fire as the peace movement

I find that offensive - it is a flat out lie. Cindy Sheehan was just a sympathetic figure that the MSM and the rest of the anti-war movement clowns could glom onto to advance their cause. They are a group of anti-American, Communist deconstructionists. Our security is the last thing they really want.

I have to agree. If Presid... (Below threshold)
sue:

I have to agree. If President Bush had seen her 2 weeks ago it wouldn't have stopped the anti war moonbats.

It would have been lies about the meeting and calling for another meeting. Or, "Cindy Sheehan didn't get the results she wanted. So we are going to stay here and protest until he gives us what we want." Or it would have been another anti war mother whining for a meeting. Or some other reason.

This has been too well planned and has too many big name liberal groups paying for it to believe that it is entirely spontaneous I think they have been gearing up for this for quite a while. And even if they haven't, I don't think that President Bush talking to Cindy Sheehan would have been the end of it.

I think President Bush meet... (Below threshold)

I think President Bush meeting again with Cindy would've made things worse than they are now. It would be a sign of weakness in that if you protest enough, Bush will give in. Not good.

"I saw her speak last Novem... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"I saw her speak last November and I sobbed through her whole speach. There are not very many people who can speak so movingly -- Cindy can do it, so Cindy's got the job.

So you can find fault with her, and that makes her a moonbeam, right? Or because she's emotional. Is that mature?"

No, as a matter of fact formulating foreign policy based on emotion is not mature, nor is sobbing through entire speeches.

Either get a grip or let rational people make the important decisions.

Wasn't it this very blog th... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Wasn't it this very blog that had the discussion that conservatives think and liberals feel? Here it is for all to see.

1. Calling people who disag... (Below threshold)
Main Street:

1. Calling people who disagree with you "moonbats" is attacking them.

2. Cindy was speaking about losing her son in a war to which she is opposed. I have a son who will be going to fight in Iraq. If you don't think that is an emotional subject, then you don't have emotions. That is not a good thing.

3. The argument that it is okay to kill innocent Iraqi children who have loving families but not okay to kill an eight-week-old fetus who is totally unknown to this world is not a "thinking" argument. It isn't even supported by the Bible. And, by the way, the beleif that the Bible is the word of God has nothing to do with thinking either. It's about blind faith.

4. We have evidence that Bush lied about the intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. I didn't say we have proof, but we have strong evidence. People on the right do not want to investigate this. This isn't about thinking. This is about blind faith.

5. I had a Jewish Anthropology professor in college who grew up in Isreal. She told the class one day that when she finally learned about how the Israelis terrorized the Palestinians into leaving their homes, she was devastated. She does not support the actions of Israel. Is she anti-semitic? For whatever reason, I don't know why, about half of my closest friends have always been Jewish. My brother married into a Jewish family and we have always been close wih them. I think it is a crime that Israel robbed the Palestinians of their territory. Am I an anti-semite? (By the way, Arabs are also Semites. From Merriam-Webster for "Semite" 1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language)

6. I do agree that lefties have more feelings for the dispossesed and downtrodden. But I thought that was supposed to be a Christian thing.

RE: Main Street's post (Aug... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Main Street's post (August 28, 2005 01:08 PM)
6. I do agree that lefties have more feelings for the dispossesed and downtrodden. But I thought that was supposed to be a Christian thing.

Without addressing points 1-5 for brevity, I found the last one particularly curious. How do you feel about those tortured, abused, mangled, raped, orphaned, terrorized, and/or murdered Iraqis under Hussein's boot? Where's all that high-falutin' feeling for them? I thought empathy was supposed to be a humanitarian thing. Concern for the "dispossesed and downtrodden"? Leftist piffle.

Yes, let's right the wrong, apologize to the world for our aggression, pull out of this "illegal/criminal" war based on a "lie", and reinstate Mr. Hussein and the Ba'athists. We should wait until Hussein and Al Qaeda tag-team and do something really nasty... and then we'll send a team of lawyers.

I just can't believe this merry-go-round of debate that we entertain ad nauseum. It boggles the mind.

I only wish we could debate... (Below threshold)
Main Street:

I only wish we could debate respectfully. I did not make the arguments you attributed to me -- or at least the left -- and I've never heard anyone make those arguments. Some people want an immediate withdrawl, but I don't think we can do that. Even though my own son will be there in a matter of months.

What's done is done and we have to make the best of it, but that does not mean that the Bush administration should not face consequences for lying their way into this war.

You seem to say that Hussein was bad therefore what we did was right. Or, if you disagree with the war you must support what Hussein was doing -- or you must want to put him back in power. The fact is that we had other options that would not have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children.

In any other situation, conservatives would be the first to agree that we cannot solve all of the world's problems. But with Iraq, we were duty bound to solve their problems.

I'm sure you know that lefties like me would love to solve all the world's problems. The question is, how do you do it? If we thought we could do it without slaughtering ten thousand innocent Iraqis and spending billions and billions of dollars, we would have been the first ones up to the plate. I think you know that.

At the time, this was not the argument that Bush was making, as you will recall. He was making the argument that Hussein was a threat to the US. You are right, even Democrats thought he had weapons of mass destruction -- even MoveOn.org was working under the assumption that he had weapons of mass destruction. MoveOn's plea, which I fully supported, was to let the inspections work. Now that we have killed ten thousand Iraqi civilians, and civil war is breaking out in Iraq, I think you can see the wisdom of their plea.

Even though many Democrats thought Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, most did not think he posed a threat to the US. That was where the lying came in. Bush intentionally inflated the threat that Hussein posed to us. It wasn't until after we all realized that there were no WMD that the conservatives started making the argument that we needed to rid Iraq of Hussein for the sake of the Iraqis. That is not a typical conservative argument.

It is immoral to fix the facts in an effort to gain support for going to war. The Downing Street minutes provide strong evidence that the Bush administration did exactly that. I don't understand why you don't care.

There is a differenc... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


There is a difference between feeling emotions and feeling sympathy for the downtrodden and using these feelings to make rational decisions, or wrapping yourself in the downtrodden and bellowing and sobbing your own self-rightousness.

You are upset by the hostility on the left, then stop telling us we don't care if we don't put on your hairshirt and march around wailing and self-flaggelating ourselves.

I walked by an animal shelter the other day and they had a bunch of kittens and puppies that needed homes. It tore at my heart, emotionally I wanted to take them all and give them a good home. Rationally I knew the cat I have is all I can responsibly care for, so I made a donation and walked on past. Not because I don't care, because that was what I deemed the most rational thing to do.

"The fact is that we had other options that would not have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children."

Like what? I would love to hear a positive suggestion from just one of you guys.


I don't know how many donat... (Below threshold)
Main Street:

I don't know how many donations I made to air commercials publicizing our positive suggestion: Let the Inspections Work.

Your talk about "bellowing and sobbing your own self-rightousness" is pretty out there. As is your talk about "march[ing] around wailing and self-flaggelating ourselves."

It's this kind of disrespectful, off-topic discourse that is polarizing this nation. It's not just sad, it's infuriating -- which, of course, makes me part of the "angry left." I love this country and I hate what is happening to it.

Nobody here wants to tell me why you are not interested in knowing the truth about the Bush administration's use of bogus intelligence. You would rather just hurl rotten tomatoes.

I have only met a handful of conservatives on line who would stay on topic and debate respectfully -- well, I met one -- he was a Libertarian, and he debated honestly. And yet you like to call yourselves the logical thinkers. I have seen no evidence of that at all. Anywhere.

I'm done here.

...I did not make the ar... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

...I did not make the arguments you attributed to me -- or at least the left -- and I've never heard anyone make those arguments. Some people want an immediate withdrawl, but I don't think we can do that. Even though my own son will be there in a matter of months.

What's done is done and we have to make the best of it, but that does not mean that the Bush administration should not face consequences for lying their way into this war.

The response I posited was the natural result of inaction whether you explicitly declare such a position or not. I'm sorry that it puts you and others on the Left in such an uncomfortable and, well, indefensible position, but there you have it. Invade and stop the murderous regime from killing its own or delay temporarily or in perpetuity and permit the Hussein family to persist. What other logical progression is there?

You repeat the "strong evidence" of lying and I don't buy it for a second. When the entire planet agrees that Hussein was dangerous to his citizens, his neighbors, and civilized peoples, there is no need to lie. When the universally agreed evidence (and fact) was that he used WMDs, had infrastructure to quickly resurrect WMD, and may still have depots of precursors or finished product yet undiscovered in Iraq's vastness, there is no need to lie. When the administration's colleagues on all sides of the aisle agreed with the security assessments and the vast majority supported intervention, there is no need to lie. Bush declared many reasons for our action and had a bushelfull of U.N. resolutions dating back over the past decade to support the coalition's behavior. Hussein had violated the treaty terminating the Gulf War. There is no need to lie. Pick any or all of a number of reasons to terminate that regime and that intervention would be justified.

The lie is that Bush lied.

Let me ask you a question. If Bush had said the U.S. would terminate the Hussein regime for any of the other reasons except WMD, would you have endorsed that?

Let the inspections ... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


Let the inspections work? ROFL!

Jesus do I feel like an idiot, all this time I thought you were fucking serious!

Main Street wrote:<b... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Main Street wrote:
You seem to say that Hussein was bad therefore what we did was right. Or, if you disagree with the war you must support what Hussein was doing -- or you must want to put him back in power. The fact is that we had other options that would not have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children.

No, we didn't.

If we would have left the Hussein regime alone (with or without sanctions,) thousands of children would have needlessly died each year. The regime would also have been allowed to continue rebuilding its military and terror capabilities, two things that after 9/11 were wholly unacceptable.

The option that we took, invasion, caused many thousands of children to die needlessly. But not because our soldiers are heartless cruel killing machines. More likely because the Islamic terrorists are using "unconventional tactics."

The last option, attempting to destroy the Hussein regime by adhering strictly to bombing campaigns to save our own soldiers' skins, would have caused many more thousands of children to needlessly died than the other two options. And considering the bunkers and defenses that Saddam had built, it is highly improbable he would have ever been touched, much less hurt or killed.

As for Cindy Sheehan: Cindy has requested that President Bush speak with her about why her son had to die.

Cindy, I know of another mother who lost her son in Iraq. Her name is Aweda. She would probably like to ask you some questions, like why white affluent Americans like yourself didn't care when her son was killed by Saddam's death squads for wanting a better life, and why you would deny other Iraqi mothers the chance to see their sons grow up and make better lives for themselves and their families.

Pardon my typos, researchin... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Pardon my typos, researching while composing and editing makes my grammar FUBAR.

I notice that Main Street d... (Below threshold)
Shaun:

I notice that Main Street decided to bail without answering this question posed:

"The fact is that we had other options that would not have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children."

Like what? I would love to hear a positive suggestion from just one of you guys.

Hey Shaun, as for your requ... (Below threshold)
Impeach the bastards:

Hey Shaun, as for your request for a positive alternative to attacking a country that was not in any way provoking the U.S., here you go:

How about if Bush let the weapons inspectors do their jobs and stay in the country making the world's most intrusive campaign of weapons inspections ever like they were doing for 5 weeks? They looked for five weeks and BUSH told them to get out of Iraq, not Saddam, because "he knew better" and invaded. And who was right? Bush and Cheney who said Iraq had WMDs or the weapons inspectors who said they were finding none? Bush also said Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and was behind 9/11. We see that was also bullshit. Then they trot out the ridiculous notion that the country that had for over ten years killed over a million of Iraq's weakest citizens with its sanctions program suddenly "cares" about the Iraqi people and so we're invading Iraq to "free" the Iraqi people. We're still told that bald-faced lie, but the Republinazis are so effing stupid that they usually follow it up with a statement like "we're fighting the 'terrorists' in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here, 'cause now Iraq is a magnet for terrorists". Hmmm... So we "care" so much about the Iraqi people that we decided to turn their country into a battlefield taht draws 'terrorists' from all over?? Anyone else see the incompatability of those two statements or is thinking just a leftist thing?

Bush said: "If Sadd... (Below threshold)
Impeach the bastards:

Bush said:
"If Saddam doesn't let the weapons inspectors in, then we'll invade Iraq". So Saddam let them in.

Bush said:
"Well, if Saddam doesn't let them roam around and do their jobs then we'll invade". So Saddam let them roam around and do their jobs.

Bush said:
"Weeeell, if Saddam soesn't let us interview Iraqi scientists, then we'll invade." So Saddam let them interview Iraqi scientists who told them that, yes, Iraq has no WMDs.

Bush said:
"Weeeeeeeeell, if Saddam doesn't let us fly U-2 spyplanes over the part of Iraq that isn't under a no-fly zone, then we'll invade". So Saddam grudgingly let them have their U-2 overflight rights.

So that's FOUR HOOPS the Iraqi government jumped through trying to avoid a war. This is a threat to the U.S.??? The only hoop they wouldn't jump through is when Bush said "Saddam, take your sons and leave your country in 48 hours or we'll invade", which is a hoop that NO country's leader will jump through. So at that, Bush smugly said, "See, he's being defiant" and that was good enough for the brainless Red state sheeple. Hey asshole, who wanted the war, Saddam or Bush???




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy