Moms make war look bad.

[SuperJerk 0]

This woman has gone on record making anti-semetic statements...although she is now trying to claim she has not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're totally missing the point of what she said.

 

She's asking why is it okay for some countries to have nukes, and not others. Nothing about what she said is anti-semetic in any way.

 

 

This woman claims that all she really cares about is her husband and her other kids...the same husband who just filed for divorce.

 

Totally irrelevant.

 

 

I am sure she is motivated by her grief...but the fact remains that in the media, she is trying to blame President Bush and Isreal for her son's death

 

She doesn't blame Israel for her son's death, she's saying Bush has a double standard that unfairly benefits Israel.

[NoCalMike 0]

This woman has gone on record making anti-semetic statements...although she is now trying to claim she has not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're totally missing the point of what she said.

 

She's asking why is it okay for some countries to have nukes, and not others. Nothing about what she said is anti-semetic in any way.

 

 

This woman claims that all she really cares about is her husband and her other kids...the same husband who just filed for divorce.

 

Totally irrelevant.

 

 

I am sure she is motivated by her grief...but the fact remains that in the media, she is trying to blame President Bush and Isreal for her son's death

 

She doesn't blame Israel for her son's death, she's saying Bush has a double standard that unfairly benefits Israel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, someone besides me gets it.

 

And who wants to bet that once we have all of our teeth sunk into Iraq, they will magically be allowed to have nukes.

[Boon 0]

This woman has gone on record making anti-semetic statements...although she is now trying to claim she has not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're totally missing the point of what she said.

 

She's asking why is it okay for some countries to have nukes, and not others. Nothing about what she said is anti-semetic in any way.

 

 

This woman claims that all she really cares about is her husband and her other kids...the same husband who just filed for divorce.

 

Totally irrelevant.

 

 

I am sure she is motivated by her grief...but the fact remains that in the media, she is trying to blame President Bush and Isreal for her son's death

 

She doesn't blame Israel for her son's death, she's saying Bush has a double standard that unfairly benefits Israel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Meh- I don't know if I buy that she is anti-semitic just yet, but it is interesting that she's funded by these guys.

 

Her divorce is quite relevant, actually. For someone who's supposed to be her life partner, her sidekick, the person who stands by her especially in matters of their children, to bail out now speaks volumes about some personal issues, undoubtedly one of which being this whole situation. It may not be all about their son and this issue, but it's some awfully convenient timing.

 

Mike- any luck finding any of those quotes you've been looking for?

[Justice 0]

I agree completely with Boon. I'm not too sure if she's an anti-semite (Frankly, it doesn't really seem so). But an idiot who is trying to strike it big off her son's death, and thusly alienating EVERYONE around her, yeah, I can completely see it, especially with her husband now divorcing her.

 

Yeah, NoCal, show us the 'quotes', and I'll trust you. Otherwise, information leads me to believe the opposite is true.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

She's a media whore.

 

Did anyone else see the clip of her kneeling in front of that little memorial with the white cross and flowers? She was praying and crossing herself, all the while being completely surrounded by cameras and photographers. It made me sick.

 

Plus, she was already saying anti-Bush stuff back in April, saying how he should be impeached and stuff. It's pretty damned disgusting how she's using her son's death to advance her own political agenda against Bush. Her whole family is against what she's doing (they've come out and said that publicly), and now her husband has filed for divorce against her.

 

What a horrible cunt of a woman.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

So lets see here. Her son dies as a result of a war for which the reasons turn out to be false. So she isn't supposed to hold the president accountable? She is supposed to what just forgive and forget? I know that lots of people do some pretty far out stuff while in panic or grief, but holding a (so far) peaceful protest isn't something the right should be bitching about. It isn't even a real threat other than it might continue the downward swing in apporval ratings and so what! The jack-off will still be president tomorrow and the day after.

 

In fact the mere fact that this fucking asshole of a president is on VACATION during a war negates any and all critiques any might make towards the left. Remember the right wingers have insisted that we not protest or even be critical of the president during war time. So a vacation? You wanna talk about fucking insults to the troops? Then again maybe even his heart really isn't into "the cause" either. He has no standards.

[Boon 0]

So lets see here. Her son dies as a result of a war for which the reasons turn out to be false. So she isn't supposed to hold the president accountable? She is supposed to what just forgive and forget? [Yes, she should hold the President accountable, because he initiated the draft and hand-picked Sheehan's son to go.  That, and I think I saw him kicking a puppy the other day, too.  I know that lots of people do some pretty far out stuff while in panic or grief, but holding a (so far) peaceful protest isn't something the right should be bitching about. Peaceful protesting isn't the issue- it's how she's using her son's death to push a political agenda.  It isn't even a real threat other than it might continue the downward swing in apporval ratings and so what! The jack-off will still be president tomorrow and the day after.

 

In fact the mere fact that this fucking asshole of a president is on VACATION during a war negates any and all critiques any might make towards the left. While I didn't see it relevant at the time, I point to Vampiro's previoust post.  That, coupled with mine, is still how I feel.  Remember the right wingers have insisted that we not protest or even be critical of the president during war time. I never said don't be critical of him.  I said don't be a fucking retard. So a vacation? You wanna talk about fucking insults to the troops? Then again maybe even his heart really isn't into "the cause" either. He has no standards.Wow, sad really.  You're reaching so hard, it's not even funny.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Also:

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

So lets see here. Her son dies as a result of a war for which the reasons turn out to be false. So she isn't supposed to hold the president accountable? She is supposed to what just forgive and forget? [Yes, she should hold the President accountable, because he initiated the draft and hand-picked Sheehan's son to go.  That, and I think I saw him kicking a puppy the other day, too.  I know that lots of people do some pretty far out stuff while in panic or grief, but holding a (so far) peaceful protest isn't something the right should be bitching about. Peaceful protesting isn't the issue- it's how she's using her son's death to push a political agenda.  It isn't even a real threat other than it might continue the downward swing in apporval ratings and so what! The jack-off will still be president tomorrow and the day after.

 

In fact the mere fact that this fucking asshole of a president is on VACATION during a war negates any and all critiques any might make towards the left. While I didn't see it relevant at the time, I point to Vampiro's previoust post.  That, coupled with mine, is still how I feel.  Remember the right wingers have insisted that we not protest or even be critical of the president during war time. I never said don't be critical of him.  I said don't be a fucking retard. So a vacation? You wanna talk about fucking insults to the troops? Then again maybe even his heart really isn't into "the cause" either. He has no standards.Wow, sad really.  You're reaching so hard, it's not even funny.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Also:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Oh no no! The REAL problem is its stuff like this makes approval ratings go down. And if they down any more it makes any who support the war look like assholes. BIG assholes. Plus, words like "liberal" won't be used as quite the curse word it used to. And where would conservative philosphy be without that? You think these people who have argued so forcefully supporting Bush ever want to face the guy they most likely assaulted with words like "anti-american" and "traitor" knowing he now knows he is and was wrong?

 

When Bush is finally out of office, by that time this country will know him for what he is... a colossal fuck up. A fuck up who made a CHOICE that sent 2000 American Soldiers to their deaths for something that has not made us safer. For something that has NOT eliminated any threat real or imagined. For something that is not going to even help the poor Iraqis. When we leave (which we will by the 06 election) the Sunnis and the Kurds and the whole lot of them are going to tear each other apart until Iran steps in and makes them the B-Team. Because at that point they (and every other muslim in the world for that matter) will all be so sick of the bullshit that perhaps THEN maybe we might have a united Islam to war against... and then we can finally be rid of them. These stupid fucks have their noses so far up their own asses they can smell their own teeth. But hey, if this ilk wants to turn it all into a glass parking lot then so be it. At least it'll show that one mothers grief isn't so crazy afterall.

 

Trying to explain something like this IS reaching pretty far when there are so many who flat out refuse to listen. And no, it is not funny.

[The Thread Killer 0]

You wanna talk about fucking insults to the troops? Then again maybe even his heart really isn't into "the cause" either. He has no standards.

 

I'm not going to continue to debate the issue of her motives...I feel that she has an agenda which involves Israel...and that negates some of her sincerity in my opinion. I am not denying her right to protest, nor am I complaining that she is doing it. I am questioning some of the things she has gone on record saying. I am pointing out the fact that her son volunteered for his second hitch, and even for the mission where he was killed. This woman is not being forthright about that fact. If that fact were wider known, it would give the public a much better picture of the entire protest.

 

You obviously disagree, although I feel your argument is lacking logic and is instead rife with hyperbole, and profane insults. These do not support your position; they only serve to obfuscate whatever point you do have. If you really want people to consider your opinions, you might want to consider toning down the rhetoric and concentrate on facts instead to support your argument.

 

How is anybody in any position to decide how history will see GWB? In his time, Ronald Reagan was almost as hated...and now he is being voted as a Great American and being given the credit for helping to end the Cold War.

 

Furthermore, your claim that Bush does not support the troops is without merit. The president went to Iraq himself during the first Thanksgiving of the war, which was an incredibly dangerous move for a President to make during wartime.

[SuperJerk 0]

Motives do not invalidate someone's argument. Questioning someone's motives is a short-cut for people when they lack convincing counter-arguments.

 

Boon is counter-arguing. You are simply polluting the thread with irrelevant slander. However, even with Boon's ability to counter-argue, he still cannot logically defend your position thast her divorce has any relevance to her protest.

 

Her divorce is quite relevant, actually.  For someone who's supposed to be her life partner, her sidekick, the person who stands by her especially in matters of their children, to bail out now speaks volumes about some personal issues, undoubtedly one of which being this whole situation.  It may not be all about their son and this issue, but it's some awfully convenient timing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You seem to have forgotten an important fact: HE is the one divorcing HER.

 

Therefore, it is HIM that shows the lack of committment, not her. You are attacking her for something he did. You guy's can't attack her for not really caring about her family when she's not the one seeking the divorce.

 

Because he is the one divorcing her, this has no relevance on her caring about her family, because she has not done anything to show she does not care about her family.

 

Thus, it is irrelevant. Bringing it up is nothing more than trivial mud-slinging.

[Vampiro69 0]

Yeah the divorce is not an important issue. It is just ironic is all.

[Boon 0]

Committment to the family would be letting her son rest in peace and working on her family at home, not spending all of her time attacking the President.

 

I'm too tired- I'll play more tomorrow.

[NoCalMike 0]

She's a media whore.

 

Did anyone else see the clip of her kneeling in front of that little memorial with the white cross and flowers? She was praying and crossing herself, all the while being completely surrounded by cameras and photographers. It made me sick.

 

Plus, she was already saying anti-Bush stuff back in April, saying how he should be impeached and stuff. It's pretty damned disgusting how she's using her son's death to advance her own political agenda against Bush. Her whole family is against what she's doing (they've come out and said that publicly), and now her husband has filed for divorce against her.

 

What a horrible cunt of a woman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what does that make the man who manipulated a country in fear, and used misleading information to send a nation to war?

 

In case people don't realize something here, this issue is a lot bigger then Cindy Sheehan, if you want to blame someone for her getting all the attention, blame the motherfucking media for acting like she is the ONLY grieving mother that wants a goddamn explanation from the President. The Media is the one turning this issue into a "one woman's crusade against the President"

 

In case you guys didn't realize it, 60% of Americans believe this war was a mistake, and that it wasn't worth the loss, even if Iraq "becomes free"

 

There are a lot of Cindy Sheehan's out there, but it is the media that chooses to cover this like she is the only one.

 

I for one, think the media is almost trivializing the entire issue regarding America's turn against the war by covering Sheehan like she is in the minority.

 

Oh and then you have the class of the right wing coming out this morning on the radio saying she went home to take care of her mom(who just had a stroke) to gain sympathy....UMM WTF? These Rotten Bastards who have experienced JACK SHIT worth of sacrifice for this war, want to tell Sheehan and others how they are supposed to Grieve? Fuck them and mindless drivel.

[The Thread Killer 0]

Motives do not invalidate someone's argument. Questioning someone's motives is a short-cut for people when they lack convincing counter-arguments.

 

I disagree. Cindy Sheehan is arguing that her son died for nothing. She has used her unfortunate situation as not just a platform to attack the President, but also to attack Israel. If you cannot trust somebody's motives, can you give full credence to their arguments?

 

Boon is counter-arguing. You are simply polluting the thread with irrelevant slander. However, even with Boon's ability to counter-argue, he still cannot logically defend your position thast her divorce has any relevance to her protest.

 

Ah I see. I don’t agree with you, so I’m “polluting the thread.”

 

Look at her statements. She claims that the fact that some of her family doesn’t support her is offset by the fact that her husband does. Her husband refuses to comment publicly, and files for divorce. I’m sure this could all be a huge coincidence…but at best it once again brings the validity of her statements into question. If you look at Cindy Sheehan you can at least see a pattern of questionable truth behind her crusade.

 

Oh and then you have the class of the right wing coming out this morning on the radio saying she went home to take care of her mom(who just had a stroke) to gain sympathy....UMM WTF? These Rotten Bastards who have experienced JACK SHIT worth of sacrifice for this war, want to tell Sheehan and others how they are supposed to Grieve? Fuck them and mindless drivel.

 

"The right wing" has one unified spokesperson now? I never heard anything like that said by anybody prior to you reporting it. Whoever "these rotten bastards" are, they need to get better coverage. If that was said, I can assure you that the entire "right wing" doesn't think that...and it also smacks of some of the dreaded irrelevance that Y2KJerk is so horrified by.

[NoCalMike 0]

Motives do not invalidate someone's argument. Questioning someone's motives is a short-cut for people when they lack convincing counter-arguments.

 

I disagree. Cindy Sheehan is arguing that her son died for nothing. She has used her unfortunate situation as not just a platform to attack the President, but also to attack Israel. If you cannot trust somebody's motives, can you give full credence to their arguments?

 

Boon is counter-arguing. You are simply polluting the thread with irrelevant slander. However, even with Boon's ability to counter-argue, he still cannot logically defend your position thast her divorce has any relevance to her protest.

 

Ah I see. I don’t agree with you, so I’m “polluting the thread.”

 

Look at her statements. She claims that the fact that some of her family doesn’t support her is offset by the fact that her husband does. Her husband refuses to comment publicly, and files for divorce. I’m sure this could all be a huge coincidence…but at best it once again brings the validity of her statements into question. If you look at Cindy Sheehan you can at least see a pattern of questionable truth behind her crusade.

 

Oh and then you have the class of the right wing coming out this morning on the radio saying she went home to take care of her mom(who just had a stroke) to gain sympathy....UMM WTF? These Rotten Bastards who have experienced JACK SHIT worth of sacrifice for this war, want to tell Sheehan and others how they are supposed to Grieve? Fuck them and mindless drivel.

 

"The right wing" has one unified spokesperson now? I never heard anything like that said by anybody prior to you reporting it. Whoever "these rotten bastards" are, they need to get better coverage. If that was said, I can assure you that the entire "right wing" doesn't think that...and it also smacks of some of the dreaded irrelevance that Y2KJerk is so horrified by.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When you have an audience on talk radio of almost 40 million, then you aren't irrelevent, even if you happen not to be real news, and just an "entertainment show"

 

I mean seriously, you ARE listening to the right wing pundits on a daily basis right? The things they are saying, once again it just shows that once you become an inconvenience to the pro-war sentiment, it is open season and nothing is out of bounds.

[Justice 0]

I mean seriously, you ARE listening to the right wing pundits on a daily basis right?

 

"And that is why you fail."

 

Listening to ANY pundit daily is a dumb thing to do. How about stopping it so you don't get gross generalizations that are often vastly different than the people you are arguing with? Don't we all know that listening to extremists on a consistant basis is a dumb thing? Why do you continue to do it?

 

The things they are saying, once again it just shows that once you become an inconvenience to the pro-war sentiment, it is open season and nothing is out of bounds.

 

Oh boo-hoo. How about shutting the fuck up already. How about trying to get pictures of coffins with flags drapped over them? Could we perhaps dig up a few corpses for you to parade around in someone's face?

 

Please, do not try to act like the left is innocent in this entire thing. No one is. This is what happens when you try to 'put a face' on something that had a face, has always had a face, and always will have a face. Trying to parade around the fact like it's something enlightening only leads to the cheapening of the dead by both sides.

 

Perhaps you and everyone else should realize we should let the dead rest, rather than continually trying to dress up their corpse for whatever cause we want to promote.

 

And that goes for everyone.

[NoCalMike 0]

I mean seriously, you ARE listening to the right wing pundits on a daily basis right?

 

"And that is why you fail."

 

Listening to ANY pundit daily is a dumb thing to do. How about stopping it so you don't get gross generalizations that are often vastly different than the people you are arguing with? Don't we all know that listening to extremists on a consistant basis is a dumb thing? Why do you continue to do it?

 

The things they are saying, once again it just shows that once you become an inconvenience to the pro-war sentiment, it is open season and nothing is out of bounds.

 

Oh boo-hoo. How about shutting the fuck up already. How about trying to get pictures of coffins with flags drapped over them? Could we perhaps dig up a few corpses for you to parade around in someone's face?

 

Please, do not try to act like the left is innocent in this entire thing. No one is. This is what happens when you try to 'put a face' on something that had a face, has always had a face, and always will have a face. Trying to parade around the fact like it's something enlightening only leads to the cheapening of the dead by both sides.

 

Perhaps you and everyone else should realize we should let the dead rest, rather than continually trying to dress up their corpse for whatever cause we want to promote.

 

And that goes for everyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am not trying to put a face on anything, I already stated it is the media's foolishness for creating this mess, Sheehan was fine and dandy by herself without the big groups of people, michael moore, moveon.org etc...decided to join in on the fray, for a long while before even a single tv camera showed up, but now that they finally have "she is all about fame"

[Dobbs 3K 0]

A lot of the media is being VERY biased in their coverage of this story, calling her a "peace mom", etc, and ignoring some big facts about Cindy Sheehan and many of her supporters. She's being supported by a bunch of far left wing groups. In fact, some of the protesters with her have apparently gone on record supporting North Korea, etc. This isn't just a bunch of peace loving moms and dads who want their children home. It's a group of hardcore left-wing liberals who already hate the president.

[SuperJerk 0]

Committment to the family would be letting her son rest in peace and working on her family at home, not spending all of her time attacking the President.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Translation: "A real wife and mother would be home baking cookies instead of trying to bring about world peace."

 

You guys are so fucking narrow minded.

 

Ah I see. I don’t agree with you, so I’m “polluting the thread.”

 

Look at her statements. She claims that the fact that some of her family doesn’t support her is offset by the fact that her husband does. Her husband refuses to comment publicly, and files for divorce. I’m sure this could all be a huge coincidence…but at best it once again brings the validity of her statements into question. If you look at Cindy Sheehan you can at least see a pattern of questionable truth behind her crusade.

 

No, you're polluting the thread because you're bringing up irrelevant shit like her husband filing for divorce and trying to claim that SOMEHOW invalidates whatever point it is she's trying to make. Especially when you have NO IDEA why the man's divorcing her.

 

I'll say this again: The husband filing for divorce has absolutely nothing to do with any arguments the rightness or wrongness of the war in Iraq.

[Justice 0]

Translation: "A real wife and mother would be home baking cookies instead of trying to bring about world peace."

 

You guys are so fucking narrow minded

 

Uh, I think he was trying to say she should probably concentrate on the family she still has rather than posting her dead son up to get air time.

 

And come on... world peace? You've got to be joking on that one, man.

 

Y2Jerk, I don't think we are arguing the validation of Iraq. I think we are arguing more the honesty of her motives than anything else. Why you are making a point does come into question, just like it would with Bush. Just like if Bush had an energy plan that favored oil companies, you'd call into question the reason why, it should still be done here.

 

This isn't just her debating Iraq. This is her using her dead son's memory to get time to debate Iraq. If her husband is filing for divorce, then there's some relevance in that.

 

And divorce isn't always filed by those who lack committment. A man divorcing his wife for cheating on her, a wife divorcing a husband beating her... those are betrayals which are understandable and not the fault of the filing person. Do they lack committment? I think we could include "Using your dead son to power your public image" as one of those reasons.

 

Your reasons saying 'the divorce doesn't matter!' are fairly weak, man. Motive matters when making a statement, because it shows either just conviction or selfish ambition. The 'why', not the 'what'.

[SuperJerk 0]

Translation: "A real wife and mother would be home baking cookies instead of trying to bring about world peace."

 

You guys are so fucking narrow minded

 

Uh, I think he was trying to say she should probably concentrate on the family she still has rather than posting her dead son up to get air time.

 

And I'm saying that if she wants to use her son's death as a way to rally public support against a war which will kill thousands of ohter people sons before it is over, then more power to her.

 

Y2Jerk, I don't think we are arguing the validation of Iraq.

 

People ARE arguing that her impending divorce invalidates her criticism of the Iraq War. I'm saying it does not.

 

And divorce isn't always filed by those who lack committment. A man divorcing his wife for cheating on her, a wife divorcing a husband beating her... those are betrayals which are understandable and not the fault of the filing person. Do they lack committment? I think we could include "Using your dead son to power your public image" as one of those reasons.

 

When NONE OF US knows why the divorce is occuring, then using it as a sign that SHE lacks a committment to her family is irrational.

 

Your reasons saying 'the divorce doesn't matter!' are fairly weak, man.

 

Whether you think they are weak are not, they are true. Her impending divorce has nothing to do with the validity of her protest. Your collective arguments otherwise are unconvincing because they are based on the premise that she is the one responsible for the divorce occurring, which has not been proven.

 

 

What's sad is that I really don't even agree with her reasoning, but your collective counter-reasoining (except for some of the stuff that Boon said) is so flawed I refuse to join you in attacking her.

[Justice 0]

What 'certain points' of Boon's argument, because as it seems, you don't support any of Boon's placed argument.

 

Her motives are in quesiton, and they should be. There's little proof that her son would support such an action, especially his voluntary re-enlistment.

I only brought up the 'committment thing' because you brought up an incredibly weak counter-argument to it. As far as I'm concerned, the divorce is still very suspicious, and can't be immediately dismissed with weak counter-arguments. It's nothing definitive, but it's really coincidental if it doesn't somehow relate to this entire incident.

 

It's perfectly fine to invalidate someone who doesn't have honest motives. Remember the Bush interns flown into Florida to storm the Miami-Dade elections off chanting 'stop the Recount'? Because they were flown in and paid to do it, I'd say that invalidates their opinions. Just like if this mom were simply using her son to get her 15 minutes would invalidate her.

 

Yes, the impending divorce should be something to consider when talking about her argument. It's not an 'end all be all', but it is something that should be considered, along with her son's voluntary enlistment. Motive counts when it comes to an argument. Right now, she said her husband supported her, and now he's divorcing her. She says her son support the war, yet he voluntarily re-enlisted. Trying to dismiss that out of hand doesn't make sense.

[SuperJerk 0]

What 'certain points' of Boon's argument, because as it seems, you don't support any of Boon's placed argument.

 

He made a good point when he said that her soon had done his duty voluntarily.

 

Her motives are in quesiton, and they should be. There's little proof that her son would support such an action, especially his voluntary re-enlistment.

 

The second sentence has nothing to do with the first.

 

I only brought up the 'committment thing' because you brought up an incredibly weak counter-argument to it.

You saying my argument is weak doesn't make it weak. Try using a real reason next time.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the divorce is still very suspicious, and can't be immediately dismissed with weak counter-arguments.

You saying its weak over and over doesn't prove anything either.

 

It's perfectly fine to invalidate someone who doesn't have honest motives. Remember the Bush interns flown into Florida to storm the Miami-Dade elections off chanting 'stop the Recount'? Because they were flown in and paid to do it, I'd say that invalidates their opinions. Just like if this mom were simply using her son to get her 15 minutes would invalidate her.

 

Unless you can can show she's an employee of the DNC, your analogy is invalid.

 

Yes, the impending divorce should be something to consider when talking about her argument. It's not an 'end all be all', but it is something that should be considered, along with her son's voluntary enlistment.

Why should it be considered? Because it shows she's woman who doesn't know her place is by her man's side?

 

Motive counts when it comes to an argument. Right now, she said her husband supported her, and now he's divorcing her.

But you don't know why he's divorcing her!

 

She says her son support the war, yet he voluntarily re-enlisted. Trying to dismiss that out of hand doesn't make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh?

[Justice 0]

Sorry. "Didn't support". Oops.

 

It's weak because simply saying 'he's the one with a lack of commitment because he's the one filing the divorce' IS weak in the extreme. I thought you'd remembered your own argument, but I guess I have to bring it up again. I gave a few good reasons as to why someone would divorce without their committment being in question, and I would hope you'd understand that.

 

Again, I'm not saying the divorce is an 'end-all be-all' argument maker. But it is incredibly suspicious as to why he'd divorce her now. It's odd for her to say he didn't want to be there when he voluntarily re-enlisted as well.

 

And if it counts, she's been drawing on MoveOn.org for support.

 

I don't think she's doing what 'her son' would have wanted, and she's just using his death to get air time. But whatever. If you think she's honest, believe her. I really don't see her as being this incredible martyr she's being made out to be.

 

Edit: Irreconcibile differences is what is listed. A disagreement on using her son for her own personal crusade just might fall into that category. Maybe.

Edited August 20, 2005 by Justice

[Boon 0]

And I'm saying that if she wants to use her son's death as a way to rally public support against a war which will kill thousands of ohter people sons before it is over, then more power to her.

#1 I take real issue with your analysis of what I said- that seriously upsets me. Justice's interpretation is what I was going for. There's a difference between Nancy Homemaker, baking pies for her husband, and dealing with the loss of a family member by ignoring her family and using his death to push a political agenda.

 

#2 Maybe we just have different morals- if my son were to die, I wouldn't use his sacrifice as a fucking rallying point to draw the spotlight to my inherent political agenda. And don't feed me that noise about "she was fine by herself, it's the media's fault." While the media is not innocent in this at all, she could have easily gone home if she didn't like all the attention she was getting. Just like the author who wrote the book about Bush's personal life- he didn't like what was happening, so he removed himself from the spotlight. She could easily do the same.

 

To maybe end this divorce talk, according to the AP:

Cindy Sheehan has said the stress of the death led to the separation of the couple, who were high school sweethearts.

"The death of a child is a huge strain on any marriage. Having one's spouse politicize that tragedy to garner attention for a bizarre political agenda cannot be helpful."

 

I do agree with Y2Jerk here though:

Her impending divorce has nothing to do with the validity of her protest.

You're right. Her divorce does, however, have much to do with the support that she claims she has from those other family members closest to her son, namely his father. For me, this goes back to using his death as a stepping stone to push her agenda- that just bothers the hell out of me.

 

Edit: I just re-read the last part of this post, and it sounds contradictory to itself. While I agree that her divorce SHOULD not have anything to do with her protest, the validity of her claims of support are called into question by this divorce. Her argument really should be more about why we went to war and not involve her family. Granted, she wouldn't be getting the media attention she is w/o using Casey, but why would we ever want to respect those soldiers who gave their lives?

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't see a single thing wrong with Cindy Sheehan using her son's death to provoke conversation about the Iraqi War.

 

If I truly believed the war was wrong, and my son came home in a body-bag, I sure as hell would be pissed and want some answers, and since I probably wouldn't get those answers, the next best thing I could do is try to organize rallies to get other young-adults out of Iraq as soon as possible.

[Boon 0]

I don't see a single thing wrong with Cindy Sheehan using her son's death to provoke conversation about the Iraqi War. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the difference between you and I, then.

 

If I truly believed the war was wrong, and my son came home in a body-bag, I sure as hell would be pissed and want some answers, and since I probably wouldn't get those answers, the next best thing I could do is try to organize rallies to get other young-adults out of Iraq as soon as possible.

There is nothing that she has said that hasn't been said a thousand times before she came into the spotlight. She has made no progress for her causes, she has done nothing that has brought more troops home, and frankly, she's doing more harm then good by her actions. Her husband saw it, the grieving mothers who left her side saw it, and I hope that the rest of you see it, too.

 

She can be pissed all she wants, and she can demand answers all she wants, but I've already said it a thousand times: he went VOLUNTARILY. She should have convinced him not to go, if it meant so much to her. But he was a grown man, and he made a decision that was his choice.

 

I said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't have a problem with her wanting to push her agenda. I don't have a problem with her wanting to bring the troops back home. Hell- we all want them to come home safe and sound as soon as we can. But DO NOT turn your son's sacrifice into a media firestorm b/c you hate the President.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't see a single thing wrong with Cindy Sheehan using her son's death to provoke conversation about the Iraqi War. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the difference between you and I, then.

 

And we can agree to disagree, that isfine, but what I won't tolerate is her being called treasonous and a traitor to the country.

[Boon 0]

Not that I ever did, but that seems fair.

 

Let's all kiss and make up.

[SuperJerk 0]

It's weak because simply saying 'he's the one with a lack of commitment because he's the one filing the divorce' IS weak in the extreme. I thought you'd remembered your own argument, but I guess I have to bring it up again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It makes more sense to blame the person seeking the divorce for seeking than the divorce than it does to attack her for his seeking of the divorce.

 

All it took was one person using the divorce as evidence she doesn't care about her family, and everyone else jumped on the "divorce must be her fault" bandwagon.

 

I was merely pointing out an alternative possibility.

 

It is wrong for you guys to both use this divorce as:

a) a sign she lacks a committment to her family, and

b) evidence that her anti-war argument is invalid.

 

For some reason, you guys keep doing it anyways.