Anti-War Puppet?

August 12, 2005

I have always respected the right to free speech of all Americans. I especially feel those in the position of Cindy Sheehan have even more of a right to make their political positions known as they have contributed so much.

Cindy Sheehan has been recieving much help from groups with ties to Howard Dean and Micheal Moore. Well, I didn't think much of that when I heard the reports as I would suspect she would get help from such groups as they have a common cause. However with this most recent report on the Drudge Report it makes me wonder.

There has to be more to the story. At this time of such distress, I would think her family would be supportive. And yet they released this press statement <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Let's see if any other news outlets pick this up.

August 12, 2005

[]http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/08/11/leunig1208_gallery__550x383.jpg[/]

August 12, 2005

Shane,

Since you opened this up, I feel it only fair to share the other side of the story, that is, the one that you have left out.

Below is from the website of Cindy Sheehan.

http://www.meetwithcindy.org/

Quote:

Our mission is to persuade President Bush to meet with Cindy Sheehan and answer her questions about why the war that took her son's life was started and why it is being continued.

Oh, and Shane, to call someone a "puppet" is to say that they are controled by someone else. Cindy is doing this of her own volition. To smear someone like that is to be a bit ...um....well, less than gracious in your 'fair reporting' of her.

Here is some other 'tabloid' reading, since you are into tabloid reporting...

Oh, and BTW, do a google search before you bring up a subject and research it out a bit better...After all, if you truely desire to report the truth, best to get as many sides to a story as you can so that you can let us DECIDE where we would like to fall on the issues...

Quote:

O'Reilly Smears Grieving Mother as Flip-flopping Tool of the Left

Bill O'Reilly Tuesday (August 9, 2005) tried to make Cindy Sheehan look like an unwitting tool of leftist extremists who has unaccountably changed her views of President Bush. All it took was a Google search to reveal that O'Reilly was repeating false information that the far right has been spreading about Sheehan all week.

Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq last year, has been protesting outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch while the president vacations. She is demanding that Bush explain his conduct of the war in Iraq.

O'Reilly claimed that Sheehan has changed her feelings toward Bush since she met with the president a year ago. He said that in an inteview with a California newspaper shortly after that visit, Sheehan said, "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss." He also quoted her as saying, "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."

Both O'Reilly and his guest, far-right pundit Michelle Malkin, criticized news outlets such as The New York Times for failing to report the flip-flop in Sheehan's feelings.

But O'Reilly left out a little crucial information himself. For starters, O'Reilly never mentioned that he was merely repeating a story from Monday's Drudge Report, another cog in the right-wing noise machine.

Drudge headlined his story, "Protesting Soldier Mom Changed Story on Bush." Except that she didn't.

The Reporter, from Vacaville, California, interviewed Sheehan after her family's meeting with Bush in June 2004. The article, "Bush, Sheehans share moments," makes clear that Sheehan and her husband Patrick wanted to confront Bush then about his policy on Iraq.

The Reporter's article said:

"'We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled,' Cindy said. 'The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached.'

"The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

"But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. It addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

"'We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us,' Pat said.

"Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture."

The Vacaville newspaper Tuesday dredged up its original story on the Sheehans and noted how the Drudge Report misused it. Referring to Sheehan's quote about the "gift of happiness" Bush gave them, Tuesday's story

in The Reporter said that, "Drudge included that quote in his Monday morning report, but didn't explain that it referred to sharing time with her family, not the president."

O'Reilly repeated the misrepresentation.

After setting the stage with quotes taken out of context, O'Reilly and Malkin went on to smear Sheehan. Malkin said Sheehan "has turned her private, personal pain into a public circus" with her demonstration. In other words, grieving mothers like Sheehan should stay home, suck it up, and leave policy-making on things like war to Bush and members of Congress who have no children in Iraq and can make these decisions with clear-headed logic unclouded by silly sentimentalism for dead sons.

August 13, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

to call someone a "puppet" is to say...

I have raised the question. I have concluded nothing.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

since you are into tabloid reporting...

Please, please, please try to avoid inflamatory, emotionially charged language. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Now let's get back on topic. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I completely understand this woman's feelings - even if they did change from what they originally were.

However I understand the President's position too. He has already met with her once. I don't know if LBJ or Nixon met with the families of all the soldiers that died in Vietnaum but President Bush has met with all the families of those that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now should he meet with her again? Well if he does what will that mean for the families of the others that died in Iraq and Afghanistan? Will they all get a second meeting with the President? If he meets with her, how will that help her heal? If she just wants to tell him what she says she does it doesn't seem like such a meeting would be beneficial for either of them.

So I understand both of the parties. I understand how Cindy is greif-stricken and lashing out at someone she thinks to be responsible. I also understand the President that has already met with her and wants to be fair to all the families of our fallen heros.

What really confuses me is why Cindy's own family would turn on her. Regardless if she is justified or not, I am amazed her family isn't giving her their full emotional support. I suspect that it is actually her in-laws but do not know that for sure. However even they shouldn't be publically criticising her. If my wife was doing something like this, I would be quite upset if my parents and siblings publically criticised her.

August 13, 2005

Shane, Don't believe everything you hear on Fox News.

Cindy Sheehan is overwhelmingly supported by the people of this country.

August 13, 2005

Just a quick note on her change of heart. Sure, her son's death was a huge influence on that, but the other one was the fact that the grounds on which the war was fought have been shown to be erroneus (please note I didn't say false or fabricated - there are factually no WMD, but I'm saying nothing about what the administration new beforehand). It's gotta hurt so much more to lose your son to a casue that you now know is flawed.

August 13, 2005

The US invaded Iraq in March 2003 and Casey Sheehan died in April 2004. By the time Specialist Sheehan died it was well known there were no WMDs in Iraq.

August 13, 2005

Bush gets first look at anti-war protest near ranch

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Cindy Sheehan, whose son was one of the nearly 1,850 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, held up a sign that said: "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?"

Ahhhhhhh, I think the President has already made time for her. Fund-raising, like it or not, is part of his job. Every President is expected to raise funds for their party. President Clinton was one of the best.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Sheehan's son, Casey, was killed in combat in Iraq in April 2004 and she met with Bush in June 2004

So the President has met with her.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"Listen, I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan," Bush told reporters. "She feels strongly about her position. And she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America."

He said he has thought "long and hard" about her demand to "get out of Iraq now" and strongly disagreed, saying a premature withdrawal would betray the Iraqis just as they are being trained to defend themselves and allow for a U.S. pullout.

So there we have it. The President addresses the issue.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"Mr. President, I want to tell you face to face how much this hurts. I love my country, but how many more of our loved ones need to die in this senseless war? How many more soldiers have to die before we say enough?"

No wonder President Bush won't meet with her. He can't answer her questions. She needs to find Osamma bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or Aymen al-Zawahiri and ask them those questions. Of course I doubt they would answer any such questions from a woman.

August 14, 2005

IRAQ THE MODEL

Friday, August 12, 2005

A message to Cindy Sheehan

I realize how tragic your loss is and I know how much pain there is crushing your heart and I know the darkness that suddenly came to wrap your life and wipe away your dreams and I do feel the heat of your tears that won't dry until you find the answers to your question; why you lost your loved one?

I have heard your story and I understand that you have the full right to ask people to stand by your side and support your cause. At the beginning I told myself, this is yet another woman who lost a piece of her heart and the questions of war, peace and why are killing her everyday. To be frank to you the first thing I thought of was like "why should I listen or care to answer when there are thousands of other women in America, Iraq and Afghanistan who lost a son or a husband or a brother…”

But today I was looking at your picture and I saw in your eyes a persistence, a great pain and a torturing question; why?

I know how you feel Cindy, I lived among the same pains for 35 years but worse than that was the fear from losing our loved ones at any moment. Even while I'm writing these words to you there are feelings of fear, stress, and sadness that interrupt our lives all the time but in spite of all that I'm sticking hard to hope which if I didn't have I would have died years ago.

Ma'am, we asked for your nation's help and we asked you to stand with us in our war and your nation's act was (and still is) an act of ultimate courage and unmatched sense of humanity.

Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families.

Your face doesn't look strange to me at all; I see it everyday on endless numbers of Iraqi women who were struck by losses like yours.

Our fellow country men and women were buried alive, cut to pieces and thrown in acid pools and some were fed to the wild dogs while those who were lucky enough ran away to live like strangers and the Iraqi mother was left to grieve one son buried in an unfound grave and another one living far away who she might not get to see again.

We did nothing to deserve all that suffering, well except for a dream we had; a dream of living like normal people do.

We cried out of joy the day your son and his comrades freed us from the hands of the devil and we went to the streets not believing that the nightmare is over.

We practiced our freedom first by kicking and burning the statues and portraits of the hateful idol who stole 35 years from the life of a nation.

For the first time air smelled that beautiful, that was the smell of freedom.

The mothers went to break the bars of cells looking for the ones they lost 5, 12 or 20 years ago and other women went to dig the land with their bare hand searching for a few bones they can hold in their arms after they couldn't hold them when they belonged to a living person.

I recall seeing a woman on TV two years ago, she was digging through the dirt with her hands. There was no definite grave in there as the whole place was one large grave but she seemed willing to dig the whole place looking for her two brothers who disappeared from earth 24 years ago when they were dragged from their colleges to a chamber of hell.

Her tears mixed with the dirt of the grave and there were journalists asking her about what her brothers did wrong and she was screaming "I don't know, I don't know. They were only college students. They didn't murder anyone, they didn't steal, and they didn't hurt anyone in their lives. All I want to know is the place of their grave".

Why was this woman chosen to lose her dear ones? Why you? Why did a million women have to go through the same pain?

We did not choose war for the sake of war itself and we didn't sacrifice a million lives for fun! We could've accepted our jailor and kept living in our chains for the rest of our lives but it's freedom ma'am.

Freedom is not an American thing and it's not an Iraqi thing, it's what unites us as human beings. We refuse all kinds of restrictions and that's why we fought and still fighting everyday in spite of the swords in the hands of the cavemen who want us dead or slaves for their evil masters.

You are free to go and leave us alone but what am I going to tell your million sisters in Iraq? Should I ask them to leave Iraq too? Should I leave too? And what about the eight millions who walked through bombs to practice their freedom and vote? Should they leave this land too?

Is it a cursed land that no one should live in? Why is it that we were chosen to live in all this pain, why me, why my people, why you?

But I am not leaving this land because the bad guys are not going to leave us or you to live in peace. They are the same ones who flew the planes to kill your people in New York.

I ask you in the name of God or whatever you believe in; do not waste your son's blood.

We here have decided to avenge humanity, you and all the women who lost their loved ones.

Take a look at our enemy Cindy, look closely at the hooded man holding the sword and if you think he's right then I will back off and support your call.

We live in pain and grief everyday, every hour, every minute; all the horrors of the powers of darkness have been directed at us and I don't know exactly when am I going to feel safe again, maybe in a year, maybe two or even ten; I frankly don't know but I don't want to lose hope and faith.

We are in need for every hand that can offer some help. Please pray for us, I know that God listens to mothers' prayers and I call all the women on earth to pray with you for peace in this world.

Your son sacrificed his life for a very noble cause…No, he sacrificed himself for the most precious value in this existence; that is freedom.

His blood didn't go in vain; your son and our brethren are drawing a great example of selflessness.

God bless his free soul and God bless the souls of his comrades who are fighting evil.

God bless the souls of Iraqis who suffered and died for the sake of freedom.

God bless all the freedom lovers on earth.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/message-to-cindy-sheehan.html

August 14, 2005

from the Gloucester County (N.J.) Times:

Marine Cpl. Marc T. Ryan, of Gloucester City, was killed in an explosion in Ramadi, Iraq in November.

"I would tell Cindy Sheehan that, as one mother to another, I do realize your loss is your loss and there's nothing you can do to heal from it," said the corporal's mother, Linda Ryan.

"George Bush didn't kill her son, it's the evildoers who have no value of life who killed her son.

Her son made a decision to join the Armed Forces and defend our country, knowing that, at any time, war could come about," Ryan said. . . .

"George Bush was my son's commander-in-chief. My son, Marc, totally believed in what he was doing," she said.

Sheehan, she believes, is doing what she's doing because of the agony over losing her son.

"She's going about this not realizing how many people she's hurting. When she refers to anyone killed in Iraq, she's referring to my son. She doesn't have anything to say about what happened to my son," said Ryan.

Losing a child is probably the saddest thing that can happen to anyone. Unlike the death of a parent or a spouse, it is not part of the ordinary course of life. Yet somehow the vast majority of parents who suffer such a loss are able to maintain some perspective while coping with the experience.

That Cindy Sheehan has been unable to do so makes her story all the sadder. But it does not validate the hateful views she is espousing, nor does it make her pain more important than that of Linda Ryan or the thousands of others who have lost a child but maintained their dignity.

August 14, 2005

Cindy Sheehan may be undertaking her mission in a different way than I might have chosen.

But she's doing it honestly. She honestly is bringing attention to the refusal of this administration to get our people out of a losing war effort.

She's a heroine.

August 14, 2005

Vacaville, Calif., reported in June 2004. At the time, although she clearly held antiwar views, she pronounced herself pleased with the meeting:

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

"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." . . .

The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.

Was she honest then, or now?

The real pity is, as the letter from almost all the rest of Casey's family demonstrates, she has stolen that "gift of happiness, of beign together," away through her selfish and petulant actions.

August 15, 2005

From Media Matters....

[:"blue"] Cindy Sheehan "changed her story on Bush"? Tracking a lie through the conservative media

Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, has drawn significant media attention for staging an anti-war protest outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where she is demanding to meet with the president. On August 8, Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted an item on his website, the Drudge Report, in which he falsely claimed that Sheehan "dramatically changed her account" of a meeting she had with Bush in June 2004; Drudge attempted to back up his false assertion by reproducing Sheehan quotes from a 2004 newspaper article without providing their context. After the story appeared on the Drudge Report, it gained momentum among conservative weblogs and eventually reached Fox News, where it was presented as hard news and in commentaries. Media Matters for America will examine how one false story on an Internet gossip site ended up the focus of prime-time cable news coverage.

Drudge's August 8 item claiming that Sheehan had changed her story used quotes from a June 24, 2004, article in The Reporter of Vacaville, California, where Sheehan lives. The Reporter article described a meeting that Sheehan and 16 other families of soldiers killed in Iraq had with Bush in Fort Lewis, Washington, earlier that month. Sheehan's son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq in April 2004.

Drudge quoted Sheehan seemingly speaking glowingly of Bush: "'I now know [bush is] 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, "For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again. 'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said." Drudge contrasted these quotes to Sheehan's statements on the August 7 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, in which she said, of the 2004 meeting with Bush: "We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

Drudge, however, took Sheehan's quotes from The Reporter out of context in falsely claiming a shift in her position. The June 24, 2004, Reporter article also quoted Sheehan expressing her misgivings about Bush and the Iraq war:

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

Moreover, Sheehan was not referring to her meeting with Bush as "the gift the president gave us." She was actually referring to the trip to Seattle, as Reporter staff writer Tom Hall noted in an August 9 article responding to Drudge: "Sheehan also said the trip to Seattle helped connect her family to others that had lost a son or daughter in Iraq. Sheehan said sharing their story with those families was rewarding, as was the time she got to spend with her own family. 'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' she said in the story. Drudge included that quote in his Monday morning report, but didn't explain that it referred to sharing time with her family, not the president."

Reporter editor Diane Barney also responded to Drudge in an August 9 column, in which she said that Sheehan's positions on Bush and the war have not changed since June 2004. "We don't think there has been a dramatic turnaround. Clearly, Cindy Sheehan's outrage was festering even then," Barney wrote. "In ensuing months, she has grown more focused, more determined, more aggressive. ... We invite readers to revisit the story -- in context -- on our Web site and decide for themselves." An August 8 Editor & Publisher article quoted Barney further clarifying the paper's position: "It's important that readers see the full context of the story, instead of just selected portions. We stand by the story as an accurate reflection of the Sheehan's take on the meeting at the time it was published."

Throughout the day on August 8, Drudge's false story needed little time to spread to conservative weblogs:

* Drudge posted the Sheehan item on August 8 at 10:11 am ET.

* Right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin posted the item on her weblog one hour later, at 11:22 am ET.

* At 12:40 pm ET, the Drudge story appeared on C-Log, the weblog of the conservative news and commentary website Townhall.com.

* At 2:33 pm ET, MooreWatch.com posted the story.

* At 3:23 pm ET, William Quick of DailyPundit.com posted the story.

Fox News then picked up Drudge's distortion of Sheehan's quote. On the "Political Grapevine" segment of the August 8 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume, guest anchor and Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle highlighted Sheehan's supposed contradiction:

ANGLE: Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq last year, who's now camped outside President Bush's Crawford ranch demanding to see him, said yesterday on CNN that a private meeting with President Bush last year was offensive, insisting, quote, "He acted like it was a party. He came in very jovial, like we should be happy with that. Our son died for the president's misguided policies."

But just after that 2004 meeting, she gave a very different account, telling her local paper, the Vacaville Reporter, quote, "I now know the president is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." She added that President Bush, quote, "gave us the gift of happiness of being together."

By August 9, various journalists and progressive bloggers revealed Drudge's distortion. On Salon.com, journalist Eric Boehlert noted on August 9: "Put in full context, Drudge's claim of a flip-flop is easily dismissed." RawStory.com, a progressive news website, noted that Drudge "grossly took Sheehan out of context."

Nevertheless, Drudge's distortion again popped up on Fox News -- this time on the August 9 edition of The O'Reilly Factor. Host Bill O'Reilly made Sheehan's nonexistent contradictions the focus of his "Talking Points Memo" segment:

O'REILLY: The fascinating saga of Cindy Sheehan. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Mrs. Sheehan is protesting in Crawford, Texas, trying to convince Americans the Iraq war is wrong and the president should be impeached. She is doing so because her son Casey, an Army specialist, was killed last year in Iraq. No one has the right to intrude on Mrs. Sheehan's grief. That's number one. She's entitled to her opinion on a situation that has deeply affected her. And she's angry at the White House.

[...]

Well, here's something very strange. Two months after her son died, Cindy and her husband Patrick did meet with President Bush, as she said. After that meeting, Cindy was quoted by a California newspaper as saying, "I now know [President Bush] is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss." So Mrs. Sheehan has apparently changed her mind about the president.

[...]

In an editorial today in The New York Times, it says, "Mr. Bush obviously failed to comfort Ms. Sheehan when he met with her and her family. More important, he has not helped the nation give fallen soldiers like Casey Sheehan the honor they deserve." Well, let's go back to the California article. Cindy Sheehan was quoted as saying, "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together." It sounds like comfort to me. What say you, New York Times?

O'Reilly then introduced his guest to comment on Sheehan -- Michelle Malkin, who proclaimed that Sheehan's "story hasn't checked out," to which O'Reilly readily agreed:

MALKIN: I mean, the New York Times editorial board is all too eager to prop her up as some sort of martyr and to buy her line when, clearly, her story hasn't checked out.

O'REILLY: Yes, her story hasn't [sic] changed.

MALKIN: And so I think -- and I think that angle you're emphasizing is absolutely right here, which is the mainstream media just lapping this up and perpetuating myths and inaccuracies when they know it's not the truth.

O'REILLY: Yup. They don't identify -- in the New York Times editorial today, it was obvious they did not say her story has been inconsistent. And they did not pinpoint that she is in bed with the radical left.

On the August 10 edition of his syndicated radio program, The Radio Factor, O'Reilly continued to assert that Sheehan had contradicted herself, stating, "In her first meeting with the president, she was happy with him, and we read you the article that the Vacaville paper -- where she's from in California -- printed."

[/]

August 15, 2005

It doesn't even matter to me if she changed her mind or not. I understand where Cindy Sheehan is coming from. Apparently she has never supported the war, probbally wasn't happy when her son joined the Army and her worst fears came true when he was killed. She is angry and bitter. If I had her same background and was in her position, I may well be doing the same thing.

Yet, as I have said, I also understand the President. He has already met with her once which was more than he is obligated to do. He doesn't see anything productive for her or the nation from meeting with her again. She is just going to vent her anger on him and ask questions that only the terrorists can answer.

What I don't understand is why her family is not emotionally supporting her. Even if they disagree with her politically, she is family and she is still alive. She needs their support, not Casey.

August 15, 2005

What a waste of time, Neil. Instead of wasting time spinning conspiracy theories, just, you know, check the original source.

http://thereporter.com/news/ci_2923921

Quote:

Since learning in April that their son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had been killed in Iraq, life has been everything but normal for the Sheehan family of Vacaville.

Casey's parents, Cindy and Patrick, as well as their three children, have attended event after event honoring the soldier both locally and abroad, received countless letters of support and fielded questions from reporters across the country.

"That's the way our whole lives have been since April 4," Patrick said. "It's been surreal."

But none of that prepared the family for the message left on their answering machine last week, inviting them to have a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle.

Surreal soon seemed like an understatement, as the Sheehans - one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush - were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military. But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief.

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

"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."

The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.

For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.

"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."

The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.

She's an interesting case of moral inversion.

Don't blame the disease, blame the Doctor who tries to cure it. Sad.

August 15, 2005

OK, I've been ignoring all this stuff, Ed, but 'moral inversion'? Give me a freakin' break! She is sincerely living up to her convictions. They may not be your convictions, but show some respect!

August 15, 2005

She's the one failing to show respect. Respect for her son's choices, respect for his convictions, respect for the truth. We know he had convictions, because he was willing to sacrifice for them.

Her desire to blame someone for her loss hardly qualifies as a conviction. And sincerity? well, were her words about Bush's gift to her family sincere, or are her scatalogical comments now? IS she sincerely schizoid? As many an evangelist has said, sincerity is a much overrated quality.

And yes, moral inversion. Only in the last oh, 75 years or so would anyone taking her position be taken seriously. Shakespeare settled this in Henry V.

If a man sends his son on a business trip, and the plane crashes, killing the son, the father is not responsible for the son's death. As Henry puts it, "he does not will his death when he wills his services." The same is true of the King and his soldiers. The King does not will the death of any soldier when he wills their services.

In any sane age, her position is morally indefensible. The fact that the rot has gone so deep into my church is something that saddens me.

It is, perhaps, possible, that every Christian pacifist is correct, and such individuals as C.S. Lewis are wrong, but the likelihood is prohibitive. The moral reasoning of the left today is inverted.

Ever since they gave their fealty to Stalin, the left -- perhaps personified by Jimmy Carter-- has had an unusual affection for dictators and tyrants. We are now treated to paeans about the wonderful life in Cuba, and even Sadaam's paradise in Iraq.

Sadaam and the U.N. divert billions of dollars designated for food and medicine, and the U.S. gets blamed for starving Iraqi children. It would be comic, if it weren't so serious. It's moral inversion that infests our life here.

Innocents, babes still in the womb and helpless people on life support, are to be terminated willy-nilly, and murderers are to be "understood." Moral inversion.

As far as respect goes, this is not an age that understands respect, nor do they value it.

Instead, they substitute the repugnant pseudo-virtue of "tolerance." Oscar Wilde said that "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue." Well, that's pretty close to what tolerance is, it's the tribute the morally lazy pay to real respect.

I respect Mrs. Sheehan more than she respects herself. I would have her act like a mature adult, with an understanding of morality, ethics, and simple decency. And I respect her enough to tell her so.

In a respectful world, she would be as embarrassed by her behavior as the rest of her family is.

August 16, 2005

Now her husband is divorcing her. Makes me think of Kenny Roger's song, "You Picked A Fine Time To Leave Me, Lucille"

Sheehan's Husband Seeks Divorce

August 16, 2005

I see that you are into tabloid news, Shane.

Now, before you go off and chew me out for making accusations, let me ask this question....

What does this article have to do with Cindy's protesting Bush? It is the husband who is making this move and does not have anything to do with the Cindy/Bush protests...At least, not directly, right?

August 17, 2005

If you go back to the original post that started the thread, I was raising the question about Cindy Sheenan and the possibility (not conclusion) of her being a puppet for anti-war groups.

My basis for thinking she might be is that her family is not supporting her protest. I asked myself why someone would do such a protest when their family is so against it (the protest). I don't know the answer.

However I think I have made myself clear that it is a sad story and her family should have stood by her regardless of their own political views. I think it is terrible timing for her husband to divorce her. Truely a sad story.

BTW: Is Court TV now part of the tabliods <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Sorry, I didn't know that. I don't have cable.

August 17, 2005

I'm guessing her family are Republicans...

August 17, 2005

Is everything donkeies and elephants to you? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

August 17, 2005

Heh, no, and that definitely wasn't meant as a jibe either. It just smelled to me as though they were seeing it purely from that perspective... I reserve the right to be wrong...

August 18, 2005

I was just teasing. That is why I did the " <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> " I don't know what the deal is with her family. As many here know, I support the President but if my wife went of the deep end like that there is no way I would not support her. My marriage and family come before politics. I think there is some serious disfunction in that family.

August 19, 2005

I disagree, Shane. It is not genuine love that would lead you to side with someone whom you know is in the wrong, even if it be your children or your spouse. Our first loyalty is to what is right and good. If those are not first, then love has no foundation, and becomes itself an excuse for evil.

Notice what 1 Corinthians 13:6 tells us is one of the characteristics of true love: "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth." Failing to oppose evil because a loved one sides with it, is a betrayal of love as well as a betrayal of righteousness.

Now, perhaps you would say this is not a matter of good vs. evil, per se, it is just a matter of partisan politics. But what about truth and honesty and fairness? What about the fact that this woman has already met and talked with the president, and has apparently to a large extent changed her tune since then? Is she buying into the mindless evil that leads some people to vilify and hate the president blindly? In this case, politics has crossed the line into actual evil. You have had a lot to say about this in the past.

Sign In

Anti-War Puppet?

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

aldona

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jeannieb43

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jeannieb43

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ron Lambert