Can we call this lady a piece of garbage yet?
“We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We?re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!”
So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at at San Francisco State University.
Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: “We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.”
Sheehan unleashed a foul-mouth tirade on April 27, 2005:
“They?re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up…” Sheehan said of the Bush administration.
“If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?”
“The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it?s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war.”
“We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people.”
How about this recent interview with that tough questioner Chris Matthews (laugh):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.
CINDY 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.
MATTHEWS: But that’s where they were being harbored. That’s where they were headquartered. Shouldn’t we go after their headquarters? Doesn’t that make sense?
SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. But I’m seeing that we’re sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn’t the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we’re looking for a select group of people in that country?
At least Ann Coulter isn’t going along with the rest of the dimwits saying “oooh, but she lost her son”. Give me a effin break.
Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn’t have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on “Entertainment Tonight,” you’re no longer a grieving mom; you’re a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.
We’re sorry about Ms. Sheehan’s son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn’t about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It’s not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!
Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week’s sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it’s “inhumane” for Bush not “to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”
I’m not sure what “moral authority” is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America’s foreign policy, then no, it is not “absolute.” It’s not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.
The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she’s pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there’s a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?
Dowd’s “absolute” moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don’t understand like “absolute” and “moral.” It seems that the inspiration for Dowd’s column was also absolute. On the rocks.
Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven’t heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It’s a neocon war; we’re fighting for Israel; it’s a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC’s “Hardball” and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it’s not even the original cast.
These arguments didn’t persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn’t persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn’t persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush’s tenure as the nation’s commander in chief last November.
But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief.
At first most everyone was hand’s off on this lady due to her loss but as time goes on and her statements get more and more nuttier our patience is wearing thin. Actually mine has run out.