I'm extremely sympathetic to any parent who loses a child in the armed forces. I know the protective feeling that any parent has for their children, and the gaping hole that is left in a parent's heart when their child is taken from them.
Unfortunately, I think it's finally become apparent that the war-protesting mother of soldier Casey Sheehan is no longer acting based on those feeling of loss, and is instead acting as a puppet for radical liberal factions.
There will almost certainly be people who are appalled that I would say such a thing, because to some people, to point out negative facts about any grieving parent — no matter how obvious the facts — is strictly taboo. Normally I would agree with that sentiment, but here we have a situation where normalcy does not apply.
This woman has crossed the line from grieving parent to political activist. These are not the actions of a distraught mother, but rather the motivations of an opportunist.
I have been "fine" with the fact that she disagrees with the president about the war. She has every right to have a dissenting viewpoint and to express it, especially given the fact that her child was killed in the very war that she disagrees with.
I have also been "fine" with the fact that she requested another meeting with the president. The president, of course, should not make a precedent of caving into every protester that changes their mind, as she did, but I think he's missing an opportunity to deftly turn this situation on its head by quickly meeting with her. After do so, he could then go in front of the nation and use that meeting to take on the liberal factions head-on, and once and for all shut down all their illogical arguments, through a description of facts and a dose of reality.
To me, being "fine" with these things means that all this woman's actions to that point seemed to remain within the bounds of true intentions and civilized behavior.
Now several new things have come to light which casts serious doubts on the woman's integrity, and illustrates that there is much more at work here than the grievings of a sorrowful parent.
Cindy Sheehan has become the puppet of Michael Moore. Featured on his web site as the latest way to slam the Bush administration (while spreading his liberal filth), Michael Moore is not only using this woman, but seems to have developed some kind of strange partnership with her.
I guess she feels like a rock star now that her picture is getting plastered all over his web site, but she naively is being used to sell more Michael Moore videos and increase his own visibility. He's using her to keep in the public eye, by creating things like "Day 7 of the campout in Crawford" and online petitions.
There seems to be an entire circus created with the sole intention of getting a meeting with the president, so now any possibility of a civil meeting with the president is ruined. It would turn into nothing more than a liberal activist rant, thanks to the kind-hearted Michael Moore and his ilk.
There is even a new "meetwithcindy.org" web site, in which the radical liberals try to equate the meeting with the Saudi head of state to meeting with this liberal woman. ("If Bush met with the Saudi, why not meet with her?")
Well, for one thing, Bush DID meet with her, so the whole foundation of that argument is ridiculous. Not to mention that the hypocritical liberals are basically using a racially-dividing tactic of slamming an Arab leader to try to turn people against the president.
Not Paying Taxes
Here's a new one: now Sheehan says she's no longer going to pay taxes, and she has implied that if the IRS comes after her, she will use it as a propaganda opportunity.
She says, "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."
To me, that doesn't sound like a grieving parent. It sounds like the worst case of a sleazy opportunist.
She wants to put the "war on trial"? How about talking about her son for a change, and not political things like paying taxes and "putting the war on trial"?
Here we go again, another cut on the Israelis — the one country that has suffered the most terrorist attacks of any nation on Earth.
Sheehan said, "You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."
First of all, I'm curious about this new country (Palestine) that she invented. Where exactly is it on the map? I wonder how the Israelis could get out of it, if they're not sure where it is.
Secondly, I guess she's saying that because Israel was in "Palestine", we got attacked on 9/11. It certainly wasn't because we were in Iraq, because we weren't at the time. Why did those terrorists attack us?
Is she really that stupid to believe that if we just left Iraq, that the terrorism would stop?
If you follow all these idiotic liberal arguments to their logical conclusions, you'll find they all lead to the fact that this country is evil, and we try to spread our evil through the world. (We're also evil "at home", because we're run by evil corporations who do stuff like taking forests away from poor owls, and taking rivers away from poor helpless frogs.)
The latest liberal garbage is to throw around the word "impeachment". Sounds like they still haven't gotten over the fact that Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury. (He should have been impeached for a lot more than that, but that's a different Blog entry.)
Sheehan said, "Now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."
Is she truly insane? Or just temporarily wacky?
I'm sure this tale will go on and on, thanks to a liberal media that is always looking for a different negative angle on our president.
Thank God we have a president who has the fortitude to fight all of America's enemies — those who are abroad, as well as those who live within its citizenry. Because right now both types of enemies are conducting their "warfare" against us in a united method that emboldens the other.