Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

August 18, 2005

Commentaries: Cindy Sheehan


Ann Coulter
Cindy Sheehan: Commander in Grief

To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

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.


Steve Yuhas
Cindy Sheehan: The Media’s Desperate Search for an anti-war Movement that Is Not There

It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, black or white or soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine: the feeling is still the same each day that you wake up knowing that you are serving the American people and are the front line of the defense against terrorism. While you serve you are also protecting the rights of Americans of all political persuasions and their rights to have idiot opinions and obtuse protests. So convinced was Casey Sheehan in his decision to join the military that he re-enlisted before he was killed in Iraq.

The media covers the siege in Crawford with almost as much vigor as the war itself or if thousands of people were standing in solidarity with Cindy Sheehan instead of maybe a hundred. Nobody makes any effort to find out if the people being counted are there to protest Cindy Sheehan and the radicals that came to support her (there have been many arguments caught by cameras and radio stations) or if they are part of a counter protest. The only coverage that matters is Cindy Sheehan and her waiting game for divorce papers to be served and, perhaps, tea with President Bush.


James Lileks
The Exploits and Exploitation of Cindy Sheehan

See Byron York's National Review account, at [The National Review]: "Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state," Sheehan said. "Our government is run by one party, every level, and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government."

It seems churlish to point out that the mainstream media -- you know, the papers and networks that relentlessly hype Iraqi progress and downplay casualties -- have helped make her a celebrity. It would be obvious to note that we went to war to depose an actual fascist state.

But she is right about one thing: The Internet is helpful. Thanks to the Web, we know that Sheehan spoke at a rally at San Francisco State University in April. It wasn't a Mothers Against Pre-emptive War With Ambivalent U.N. Approval meeting. It was a rally for a lawyer convicted of aiding Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist connected with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. There's a transcript at [The Discover Network].

"The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush," Sheehan began. After calling for Bush's impeachment and making a demand that Bush send his "two little party-animal girls" to war, she makes this nuanced assessment:

"What they're saying, too, is like, it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. ... It's OK for Israel to occupy Palestine, ... for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. They're a bunch of (expletive) hypocrites."

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 18, 2005 09:10 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1892

Comments

Danny,

Also the beauty of the internet is one can see how you mislead in your premise, you start off by saying that the rally was to "aid" Rahman ,, the terrorist who ,,, etc,, So did you mean to leave the impression that Stewart aided in the bombing? if not, then go fix your sentence ,, NOW,,, Second,, did we go to war to "depose an actual fascist state" ,, so ,, GWB stood up in front of the American people and said ,, we need to invade Iraq because it's a fascist state,, If that is our rational for going to war ,, should I send you a list of other "actual fascist states",
Don't even feed intelligent people that horse dung, just stop Danny ,, you really aren't that smart or persuasive

Posted by: Jay at August 18, 2005 11:48 PM

First of all, Jay, These are excerpts from opinion pieces written by other people. I didn't write them. That would be the reason for the OTHER PERSON'S NAME being at the top of the quote, just above the title of each peace.

Only a moron would think that Lileks was trying imply that Stewart aided in the bombing; his piece clearly says no such thing. But then, morons also use the internet.

Our stated reason for going to war in Iraq was to end the regime of a murderous tyrant, who was posing a threat to us as well as his own people. I know that the idea of defending yourself is alien to some people, let alone the idea of actually helping someone else, but it's what we are doing, it's a good cause in the end the world will be a better place for what we are doing.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 19, 2005 04:49 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.