Now hear from the family...

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]
The family's letter is a shameful and hypocritical attack on a grieving mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering it's on Drudge, what makes you think it's even from the family?

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just find these things incredibly sad, the womans son is dead, she is grieving her loss. Getting involved in politics at this time should probably be classed as an understandable mistake. She will need the support of her family now, releasing those comments was callous in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes. She's "grieving" in the form of calling America an "immoral nation with immoral laws." She's "grieving" by comparing the administration to Nazis and saying the whole thing was done to line their pockets. She's "grieving" by saying America "isn't worth dying for." As we all know, these sentiments are a natural part of the "grieving" process that every relative of a fallen soldier expresses in as public a manner as possible.

Grieving my ass. She's now a hardcore, radical leftist (and perhaps always was) who deserves to be slapped and little more than that. The death of her son does not give her license to do and say whatever she pleases without fear of criticism. It does not make her a Saint and it does not remove her from reproach.

[/ QUOTE ]

'she deserves to be slapped, and little more than that.'

Yeah, right. Who is gonna slap her, you?

I don't understand this ridiculous line of argument that protesting a war that your son was killed fighting in is 'politicizing' his death. War is the most political action a government can engage in. And the Bush administration started a 'preemptive' war, the justification for which has been shown to be a chimera.

Frank

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
how weak and pathetic. "The family" -- her husband (Casey's father and siblings) are behing Cindy 100%. Her in-laws decide to join the right-wing scum attacking her, and you post it as "hear from the family" in a lame attempt to imply that some close relations are involved.

For shame. A new low, even for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed a new low for shame

BGC

"Now even her family is tired of her unethical explotation of her son's death for political activism purposes"

"Do you think the family as a whole needs support, and her actions were callous to the whole family and the memory of a son who volunteered for service?"

"but only one person is out there campaigning politically with little respect for a fallen family member"

"her disrespect for the choice Casey made "

FishHooks:

"obviously its political she should be grieving during this time, not making a statement."

"She is using her dead son as leverage for a political stand, now that is wrong."

TomCollins:

"and the latest (Cindy was manipulated) by the Democratic machine."

"The lady is a loon, and this has nothing to do with what she believes. She is irrational, and needs someone to blame for her pain"

EricOF:

"Cindy Sheehan is full of [censored]."

"who deserves to be slapped and little more than that"



How dare these guys say these things to a grieving mother?


If you want to keep advancing your love for the Iraq War agenda, I think you could find better spots and maybe in the way a little class.

[BCPVP]

http://www.thereporter.com/republished/ci_2923921

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
So much for that...

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

[/ QUOTE ]
and that...

[ QUOTE ]
"I now know [President 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."

[/ QUOTE ]
and that...

And then there's this:
[ QUOTE ]
But what began as a solitary campaign to force a meeting with President Bush by setting up camp along the road to his ranch has quickly taken on the full trappings of a political campaign. Sheehan is working with a political consultant and a team of public relations professionals, and now she is featured in a television ad.

[/ QUOTE ]
WaPo

Sheehan is becoming more and more (or is it Moore and Moore? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) a stooge of the far-left.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
She's now a hardcore, radical leftist (and perhaps always was) who deserves to be slapped and little more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, now in your America there is now no tolerance for dissent.

I would defend your right to say the drivel that you put into this post. But then I am a true believer in American values.

Perhaps you need a lesson in civics.

[ACPlayer]

And if you understood America you would realize that saying [censored] is not incompatible with true patriotism.

But then all you want is to be agreed with.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
How dare these guys say these things to a grieving mother?


If you want to keep advancing your love for the Iraq War agenda, I think you could find better spots and maybe in the way a little class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, short of that, they could just go enlist and fight it themselves.

But they don't...curious.

[FishHooks]

Eveyone on the left keeps trying to bring in reason for the Iraq war, and things that dont belong here. We are debating if she should be doing what she's doing, stay on topic.

Facts:

1. She allready met with Bush
2. She appreciated meeting with him the first time and said good things
3. Her son volunteered for the army
4. Michael Moore is involved now.
5. Free speach is in the consitiution.

Obviously she has the right to do this, but what is the doing to help her and her son? Her son is dead, and she feels she has to attack the administration, instead of geiving? If I was her family I would be ashamed, just like her current family is. She is making a fool out of herself. All you guys are asking for Bush to meet with her a second time. There are some 1700 people who have died in this war, he doesn't have time to meet with them all, TWICE. I dont know how you can't see this as politicising! She should be doing something more constructive, making a charity in her sons name or something along those lines, that would be a good cause. But no she has to act on Michael Moore's side. With all this said this doesn't hurt Bush one bit, it's clear she is a radical, and these things are actually good for him. Anytime extremeists do things against Bush it helps him, especially Moore, he is our PR friend. So if you libs are thinking your making a stand with this woman, too bad its not hurting republicans one bit by having a crazy woman protest, it just shows your lack of class. But hey, we have known about your lack of class for a while now, so its' nothing new.

[TomCollins]

First, you don't even know what my thoughts on the war are. It's pretty rediculous for you to make such assumptions. My position is not even an issue.

Apparently, no one is allowed to be critiqued if they lost a child. I never claimed she was a bad person, or had bad intentions. I simply stated, the trauma of losing a son has made her irrational. She is running on emotions at this point. And that's to be expected.

She is being paraded around simply to promote a cause and to try to make a fool out of Bush. She's meant to tug on the heartstrings of every parent out there. She is appealing to irrational and emotional sides, rather than using reason and a debate.

The use of emotions to influence a debate might work against mindless morons, but not me. The same goes for other issues. If you oppose the war based on reasons, USE THE REASONS. Don't make it all about "well, someone died, therefore its bad". If that's your argument, every war in the history of the world is bad. (Srio might agree with this statement, though). There's no point in debating then, as we have different axioms. But if you are going to debate whether this war is just or right, use your damn head, and not try to manipulate people with emotions. The same crap is used by Bush all the time with 9/11. Both sides do it, and its crap every time.

[sirio11]

I understand your general point, and I agree with it. But you said:

"and the latest (Cindy was manipulated) by the Democratic machine."

"The lady is a loon, and this has nothing to do with what she believes. She is irrational, and needs someone to blame for her pain"

"I simply stated, the trauma of losing a son has made her irrational"

as in she is , right now, in the present, How do you know that? Are you claiming that all the mothers that lost a son act irrationaly?

You have a point when you state if a mother lost a son, she could act irrational; but wait, you didn't say that; you said this mother lost a son and she is acting irrational, so you don't have a point. The fact that you don't like her actions don't make them irrational; it's funny you said:

"The use of emotions to influence a debate might work against mindless morons, but not me"
"USE THE REASONS"

because I don't see any reason at all to justify your statement about her irrationality or about the manipulation by the democratic machine.

So, you still need to give us REASONS, why her acts are irrational, losing a son is not, you need to prove first that the things she is doing now are irrational, and then, just then, you could say something about how losing a son could cause that. I, for one, find her actions very rational.


You have some interesting pieces of advise in your post, hopefully you follow them some day.