cindy sheehan gives up on the democrats

It’s over. It’s all over.  Cindy Sheehan is frustrated with the Democrats over their inability to stop the war, and that’s certainly understandable if you believe that the best way to conclude the Iraq project is to leave now and not worry about the consequences. She should have expected this. The Democrats are far more pragmatic about Iraq in their actions than they are in their rhetoric, and there’s no way that they could have done what Sheehan wanted them to do. There was some hope of it when Democrats won the majority back, but now it’s clear to the anti-war left that they will be disappointed with the Democrats (at least for now).
Here’s part of what she said:

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too…which makes the property even more valuable.

This is my resignation letter as the “face” of the American anti-war movement. This is not my “Checkers” moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Good-bye America …you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

The Austin-American Statemen sums up the Sheehan legacy here:

Sheehan is right when she says more Americans seem to care about who becomes the next American Idol than how many troops will die this week in Iraq. But her intemperate resignation missive is emblematic of why the peace movement she represented hasn’t gained purchase in a nation that opposes the war in Iraq, is dismayed with Congress and disapproves of President Bush.

Unlike some other movement leaders, Sheehan expected Americans to agree with her because she cared so deeply. To agree with her because she sacrificed so much and worked so hard. She may have expected a sprint but she found herself in a marathon. In American life, big victories seldom come quickly or easily.

In the end, Sheehan was undone not by her enemies but by her most radical supporters.

What started out as a quest by a heartbroken mother to find answers for her son Casey’s death in Iraq turned into something else entirely. While many Americans could sympathize with Sheehan and the pain she was feeling, her association with radical leftists such as Code Pink and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez damaged her credibility as a spokesperson for the anti-war movement.  She’s trying to paint herself as some kind of sacrificial lamb for the anti-war cause, and it’s just not an accurate description of the way Sheehan handled the platform that she was given. She enjoyed the spotlight a little too much. She said crazy things that the media actually repeated in print or on television.

With responsibility comes accountability, and Cindy Sheehan refused to accept either for her role in derailing the anti-war bandwagon and making the debate all about her.  Americans can oppose the war in Iraq while still believing that America is a positive force in the world, but this isn’t what Sheehan believes.  She believes most of the trouble in the world is caused by the United States. That’s my main problem with her, and that’s also not a popular message with most Americans. I hope that Cindy Sheehan finds peace in her life, even though we disagree on the war and her choice of friends, but I have a feeling that this won’t be the last we hear from her.

Tags: , ,


yesterday was a great day. july 4th is worth celebrating. there’s something totally right with the way america celebrates independence day. we eat food that wouldn’t be the first choice of any legitimate medical professional, we recognize the outstanding job our military men and women have done and are doing now, and we shoot off big, noisy, pretty explosives. some of us are even lucky enough to watch some live baseball games. 🙂 what’s not to love about that? if you want to be cynical and adopt the predictable connection the left would make with the fireworks, and the explosives going off in iraq right now, go ahead. however, i believe that the left’s opposition to the way we celebrate july 4th is about more than just being against the war in iraq. it is about seeing patriotism as blind support of everything our country does and says. that’s not what patriotism means.

why is that it has suddenly become popular to oppose patriotism? is it such a crime to believe that the united states is the best country in which to live and that it is a country that gives its citizens the best opportunity for happiness and prosperity? is it so terrible to show respect to the men and women of our military, whether or not we agree with their mission? that’s what i would consider patriotism. we can have an overall positive view of the united states without whitewashing the flaws we do have as a country. there can be dissent. there’s nothing wrong with objecting to the policies of the bush administration on various subjects. many of us do. the problem is that what may have started out as honest, principled disagreement has turned into america-bashing.

here’s the difference between dissent and america-bashing. dissent says, “i disagree with this policy for reasons x, y, and z. here’s what we should do instead.” america-bashing is something that has now become chic for the elite enlightened leftists. the message generally expressed is less of a constructive criticism and it is primarily designed to make an emotional appeal to the conspiracy theorists.

here’s a good example of what i’m talking about, from our favorite pro-peace advocate, cindy sheehan.

The star-spangled banner, which I can now see whipping in the wind outside of an airport terminal where I am writing this from does not fill me with pride: it fills me with shame and that flag symbolizes sorrow and corruption to me right now. The flag represents so much lying, fixed elections, profiting by the war machine, high gas prices, spying on Americans, rapid erosion of our freedoms while BushCo literally gets away with murder, torture and extreme rendition, contaminating the world with depleted uranium, and illegal and immoral wars that are responsible for killing so many. A symbol which used to represent hope to so many around the world now fills so many with disgust.

i am probably going to catch a little flak for writing this, but I sincerely believe that there are some on the left who are rooting for america to fail in iraq. they keep bringing up vietnam as an example for how we should handle iraq. we lost in vietnam. do we really want to adopt a strategy based on a war that we lost? it’s one thing to say that we need to look at whether we have made enough progress in iraq at this point, or whether we need to re-adjust our strategy to deal with the current status on the ground. the goal should be to finish the job. the strategy should focus on the best way to do that.

you can disagree with the bush administration on iraq. you can be violently opposed to some other policy decisions he’s made. the freedom to speak out against any of these bush policies is a freedom that was bought and paid for with the lives of the united states military. that’s why we need to respect their sacrifice, regardless of our feelings about their current mission. we need to make sure they have the resources they require to finish the job in iraq. once that happens, both sides will get what they want – the troops will start coming home.

Technorati Tags: , ,

what she meant to say

if you were looking for a diplomat, she wouldn’t be the first person on your list. if miss manners was out sick one day, you woudn’t ask this woman to ghostwrite her column. she is often abrasive and doesn’t really care too much about the feelings of her critics on the right and on the left. she gets paid handsomely for saying and writing outrageous things. that doesn’t mean ann coulter can’t possibly be right.

i totally disagree with the way ann coulter has framed this question of whether a victim should be immune from criticism just because of their status as victims. i certainly wouldn’t say exactly what she said about the jersey girls. i think it’s a low blow to say those kinds of things about anyone who has suffered a loss like those women have. i’ve never been in their shoes, and i can’t identify with their loss. that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the right to criticize what they say and what they do just because they lost their husbands on 9/11.

being a victim doesn’t make you immune from criticism. this means you, cindy sheehan and michael berg. we can feel sorry for their losses, but this doesn’t automatically make them experts on foreign policy. it also doesn’t give their statements and arguments any more weight than they would have otherwise.

that’s what i think coulter was trying to say, and if that’s what she meant, then i agree with her.

the new enemies list

the inspiration for this post came from p.j. o’rourke, the unofficial muse of this blog. he had the original idea behind bernie goldberg’s 100 people who are screwing up america. i have a few names/groups that i would like to add. they may or may not be original additions. feel free to add names to this list. i only ask that you stick to people you don’t know personally.

louis farrakan– conspiracy theorist and race agitator. if he really wants to help african-americans and other minorities, he needs to ditch the tin-foil hat, and encourage less dependence on government checks and government programs.

cindy sheehan– she has become the story. any reasonable, rational debate over the war in iraq becomes lost in sheehan’s irrational, unhinged rhetoric, and that of her supporters.

the ACLU– they started out as defenders of freedom and individual rights, and have become a haven for child molestors and those who wish to totally remove faith and religion from public life.

air america radio:

  • for giving springer and randi rhodes 3 hours each and rachel maddow/kent jones only 1 hour

bill belichick:
for ditching former browns QB bernie kosar for vinny testaverde.

  • for suddenly becoming a genius when he got to new england.
  • for being a total jerk as the browns’ head coach.
art modell:
for ditching cleveland and taking the good browns players we had left just to line his own pocket.vinny testaverde–for replacing bernie kosar and for throwing the ball to the opposing team. (it’s amazing the guy still has a job in pro football)

the sports talking heads who anoint head coaches/managers as geniuses after only 1 world championship win. just stop it.

any other suggestions?

Technorati : , , , ,

monday’s food for thought

in today’s edition: abortion, MSM negativity, and the million more march.

Miers Nomination: The Future for Abortion –an intelligent, thoughtful look at abortion from the cognoscenti.

all the news that’s fit to spin — a post on the MSM’s negative iraq/terrorism slant from thinking right

Million Moron March: kook nuts–not that it should need to be said, but louis farrakan is to the african-american community as cindy sheehan is to the anti-war crowd. They are demagogues whose only overarching desire is to promote themselves. This is no way to advance intelligent debate on race relations. the smart move would be for the black community to file for divorce from farrakan, jesse jackson, and any rhetoric similar to theirs. name-calling and conspiracy theories only end up hurting the cause. (credit: Cao’s Blog)

more later. maybe.

Technorati : , ,

the anti-war demonstrations

michelle malkin has some great pics of the anti-war protest in d.c. this just demonstrates how extreme these people really are. california conservative has even more moonbat signs from the anti-war rally in san francisco. we shouldn’t really be surprised at the vitriolic dialogue from these misguided people. view at your own risk. for your entertainment and amusement… take a look at the tips on protesting from the daily kos. there’s something wrong about the fact that this blog is popular.

the reasonable, rational ones who are opposed to the war in iraq should take back the debate from cindy sheehan, codepink, and A.N.S.W.E.R. i know there are some out there. i have read their opinion pieces and watched them on tv. let’s have an honest debate about this. by this, i mean no name-calling and personal attacks. those opposed to the war would be more credible and more persuasive if they argued the theory instead of attacking bush, cheney and halliburton. raging against the machine only works for a short period of time. after that, it’s considered whining.

so, tell me, oh daily kos and other liberal founts of irrational wisdom…are you just blowing hot air or do you have an alternative to the current strategy in iraq? if you do, let’s hear it. i’m tired of your noise and i’m sure i’m not the only one. despite what sheehan and her willing accomplices believe, bush does not want to stay in iraq a second longer than he has to. his plan from the beginning was to allow iraq to run itself. that is the goal we are moving toward in iraq. i happen to believe that we are making progress in iraq. it may be not as fast as we would like, but we would do the iraqis a disservice if we left their country in chaos. it’s ok to disagree with this theory. just make your case without the heated rhetoric and provide a reasonable alternative. it’s more intellectually honest that way.

Technorati : , , , ,

cindy sheehan — head moonbat

the moonbats in codepink had a busy weekend, according to little green footballs. i’m tired of reading about cindy sheehan and her small band of agitators, but i have to address some things she wrote at huffington post.

cindy sheehan is still recruiting political support for her own little war. i don’t know what she hopes to achieve by continuing this campaign. bush is not going to resign or pull the troops out of iraq. his poll numbers continue to plummet, but it can’t get much worse for him than it is now. some peripheral administration flunkies may be thrown under the bus because of katrina. in fact, the aftermath of hurricane katrina may end up doing more damage to bush than sheehan’s anti-war rants could have. bush isn’t going anywhere.

sheehan doesn’t seem to know what she’s talking about when it comes to iraq. as far as the iraqi constitution is concerned, she recycles the same drivel the MSM is trying to sell. i have previously posted on this. the iraqi constitution includes rights for a number of groups, including women, at least according to the draft i read. having a different set of rules than they had under saddam will make the country more stable, not less.

to the argument that iraq needs leadership, she says that the existing leadership is a puppet government with the neo-cons pulling the strings. her point about chalabi may be valid. however, to say this would strongly imply that the election was a fraud, that all the people with the purple fingers participated in this conspiracy. if the neo-cons could pull strings, they could force agreement on the iraqi constitution and have a administration lackey whispering in the PM’s ear. that’s not what we have. like it or not, iraq is going to run itself. that’s our plan.

she goes on to make other points that i don’t have any definite opinion about either way. her solution to all of this is wrong, though.

enough about sheehan… take a break and check this out. it’s really cool… an different version of rock, paper, scissors

Technorati : , , ,

i’ve had just about enough of cindy sheehan.

latest news: other things happened not related to katrina. chief justice william rehnquist died saturday, losing a tough battle with thyroid cancer. read about it here .

like everyone else, i was willing to give cindy sheehan a pass on almost all the crazy, messed up things she has said. she lost a son in iraq who’s not coming back. it must be absolutely devastating to lose a loved one. i can’t relate to that. i really don’t know the way the grieving process works in cases like this. i sympathize with her loss and wish only the best for the remaining family members.

that said, the fact that cindy sheehan is using hurricane katrina to get herself and her personal vendetta against the president more airtime is beyond inexcusable. it’s just wrong. like i’ve said and fellow conservatives have mentioned in their blogs, mistakes were probably made here. cindy sheehan hates president bush. we get it. for heaven’s sake, let’s hear all the information and get all of the facts before we put any heads on a pike!

read what she said on huffington post and marvel at the insanity of it. i applaud the fact that sheehan has been involved in the recovery efforts in new orleans. good for her. however, i cannot excuse her blatant attempt to politicize this tragedy for her own benefit. i disagree with those who say cindy sheehan has been swayed in her beliefs by moveon, michael moore, air america, et al. she believes everything she says without any external persuasion from any group out there.

Here’s a few choice comments.

“950 people in Iraq and how many thousands in the Gulf States died while the emperor strummed a guitar and knocked a golf ball around? ”

“…I really believe that George and his band of incompetent and dangerous thugs need to resign. It would be the only honorable and competent thing to do.”

cindy, please stop this nonsense. you’re hurting your cause and ticking off a lot of people who would normally support you. your efforts to help the good people of new orleans suggest that you are capable of looking at the big picture involved here. keep going in that direction, and don’t let your personal feelings about the president interfere with that process.

some may slam me for piling on cindy sheehan. i’m comfortable with that. i absolutely disagree with the venom in her comments and refuse to make any more excuses for her.

Technorati : , , ,

random thoughts on current events

here’s an unlikely pair teaming up in iowa — gov. vilsack of iowa and newt gingrich . gee…what’s newt doing in iowa? is he all of a sudden a fan of state fairs? 🙂

shocking news from the world of entertainment — deuce bigalow sequel fails to impress critics. here’s roger ebert’s scathing review . if you really value roger ebert’s view of all movies, read all the reviews here .

just wondering — when will america get over its fascination with bad movies and bad actors? i admit the application of the term is subjective. but we know them when we see them. speaking of bad actors…who missed pauly shore? anybody? even though he had a brief shining moment in encino man, his previous and future work should be fondly forgotten.

msnbc’s attractive and witty bow-tied pundit (otherwise known as tucker carlson) is taking some vicious licks from greenpeace , internet pollsters , and news wonks. rather unfair, if you ask me. i am, of course, totally objective and unbiased.

our favorite anti-war protester cindy sheehan plays hardball with chris matthews . draw your own conclusions.

do the republicans actually have any strong candidates to put up against the alleged democratic front-runner from new york? more on that later.

Technorati : , , ,