Backlash! War moms attack Cindy Sheehan!

Parents of American fighters in Iraq say protester doesn't speak for them
Posted: August 17, 2005
11:45 p.m. Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


The continued focus by the nation's media on Cindy Sheehan, the so-called "Peace Mom" who's demanding a second meeting with President Bush in the wake of her son's death, is sparking a backlash from parents of other American servicemen and women in Iraq.

One Texas family of a fallen Marine became so enraged with Sheehan's use of their son's name on a protest cross, they drove from the town of Spicewood to Crawford to remove it.

LINK


"I would never dishonor his actions by doing what this woman is doing," she tearfully said, referring to Cindy Sheehan. "What she's doing is not only dishonoring her son, she's dishonoring mine. ... [Casey Sheehan] didn't die for nothing, he died in the United States Armed Forces.There's nothing more honorable than that. These kids volunteered, they were not yanked from their cradle by an evil government to send them someplace they didn't want to go ... My son knew what was in store for him, and my son stepped up to the plate."





Its about time, I mean we all knew this was comming didnt we?


Oh and this is a Neocon plant too right?





[edit on 17-8-2005 by edsinger]

Yep.

Its pretty sad, I mean, they volunteered, so this means they knew what they were signing up for?

How can you know the horrors of war before you are there?

Hmmm.

I mean, yeah, both kids THOUGHT they wanted to join the Army, but they would still be around now wouldn't they if they knew what they wanted to do, you know,in THIS life.

But rather, they decided their lives were expendable,and so, it became their reality.

Thanks, Ed!

The Matulas sound like they would be ideal for Cal Thomas' idea for a public meeting with Mrs. Sheehan and hangers-on.

Here's the reason he should meet with her, but not alone. Other relatives of dead and wounded soldiers and some of the soldiers, themselves, should be included. He might also invite a few Iraqis who support the effort to free a people long held in bondage by Saddam Hussein and who face new bondage under the totalitarian dictatorship of Islamofacism if this effort fails.

The president should hold the meeting in a public place. Let the criticism flow, but let Iraqi women tell their stories about rape and torture at the hands of Saddam's now-dead sons. Allow Iraqi men to tell about life under Saddam and how grateful they are that he is gone. Wounded soldiers and families of the dead would speak in support of the war effort. Members of Sheehan's own family could come. They posted a letter on the Drudge Web site in support of the president.

I like Cal's idea. I'm sure the anti-war media would twist it to their own ends, but it would be a good chance to get the message out that there is support, no matter what the media would have us believe.

Over the past few days I have been toleratn of Sheehan even when she made her Israeli outburst, but now, this is where I draw the line. I have no respect for this woman anymore. I truly do hope she doesn't pay her Fed and winds up in jail for a very long time.

Yeah, and notice the pictures of Sheehan down in Texas? Most of them show her smiling and having a good old time.

The death of her son has made Sheehan famous and she's milking it for all it's worth.

WTF?

Are you all war moms too?

If you support the war, maybe go over there for a while?

It's called a tour of DUTY for a reason. They'll let you back to your job, 'cept with a hero's welcome!

Free flights to Iraq!

You guys keep running away from the real issue. Bush lied to force us into war, her son died as a result of these lies. If Bush didn't lie we would not be in Iraq at the moment so her son and the other dead soldier would still be alive. That my sheepish brainwashed friends is the issue.

You might think faking a reason to kill people is cool but i don't.

Point is if you volunteer for army, you know you may go to a war and may DIE, it's an occupational hazard. If you don't like the risks DON'T JOIN THE ARMY ffs.

It's a different story with a conscript army... or after a draft... but if you volunteer into the army of the "world police" you should understand that it "might" be dangerous.

If you wan't to keep policing the world and telling other nations what to do, don't cry because of bodybags, you asked for it. (and You have asked for it since WW1)

Mothers campaign about all sorts of things to protect their children - even after death. Mothers against drunk driving (MADD) for example, mothers who continue to fight for their child's 'freedom' after said child has been wrongly of a crime and executed.

Regardless of the decision of a soldier's life to enlist and to die for their country (I doubt very much few know what that really means) I think a mother does NOT lose her rights because her child commits a stupid mistake, like getting drunk or fighting a stupid war.

If she wants to protest the war and call Bush a liar, more power to her. She has every right. She bore that child and raised him, none of you did. Yes, his right to enlist was respected as the wishes and the rights of a consenting adult - They were also respected when he died not as a boy, but as a man.

But she, the mother also retains the right to grieve, protest and possibly prevent other deaths. IN other words, she can disagree with what he did and still love and respect him.

When your children die at war you can come here and argue about it and let others defend or go against your actions. That is if you are sane enough to do it and not wracked up with grief.

And please - critiques becuase she was smiling? What are you... the grief police?

Until the point when you lose your own son (not friend or cousin) you have no right to tell this woman how to grieve for her own son's death or how to protest if she wants.

If other mothers are saying they are pro-war that too is THEIR right and they can be proud if they want.

Geesh what is this world coming to when a parent can't even behave like a parent anymore!!??




[edit on 18-8-2005 by nikelbee]

I think this whole situation is completely pathetique. It was bad enough that one grieving woman was exploited mercilessly by the press, now, we have more. Shame on all of us for allowing this to go on and on.

edsinger,
As I mentioned last night:

If she is galvanizing the anti-war movement, be assured that she is also galvanizing the pro-war movement. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The problem with this is that the mainstream media is only reporting her side. Quite self-evident as to why, huh?

Op/Ed: The Face of American Grief




seekerof

I need to watch whatever channel is pissing you guys off so bad, 'cause it sounds great!

So there's constant anti-war, pro-Sheehan coverage somewhere I'm missing?

Granted I catch bits and pieces, but I don't go looking for it like some people...

Originally posted by edsinger
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

But what I catch in mainstream media is hardly the in-your-face public wailing wall of coverage of those that wanted to "save Terri" from her husband. Or as remotely unbalanced as I found that. At least on CNN, Sheehan is presented as an openly controversial and questionable single character against a war, with growing support and opposition to her cause. That as opposed to a "heart felt movement" against Michael Schiavo that to even question offends someone's "faith."

I certainly questioned the sanity of the Schindler's and motives behind organizations using them like Priests For Life. But all I saw on "liberal" media was balanced compassion and devil's advocacy. Honestly, to the point it pissed me off. Stop being compassionate to crazy people! I'd say. Oddly enough with compassion and a bit crazed.

But if you think as I did, in a case with gathering throngs outside a woman's hospice room, that it's a little much to manufacture a national debate out of that or for the Senate to call emergency hearings or the President to cut a vacation short in the middle of the night (given the overwhelming poll numbers against Schiavo intervention), how can you possibly look at public opinion against this war, a woman (crazy or not) camped outside the President's house for the duration of his 5 week vacation and the swirling manufactured poopstorm surrounding her epitomized by this kind of constant WorldNetDaily, etc. outrage-of-the-day coverage, and not think hmmmm, I guess there is a story here worth covering.

Without conflict, there's no coverage. I'm against the Iraq war (not all war), but I honestly can't get motivated to care about Sheehan. And the "liberal" media isn't helping me to do so one way or the other. It would take work on my part (as it must any hawk's) to even be bothered to be bothered by this, or pretend about half the nation (regardless of what they think of her) weren't already against this war long before she ever came along.

This war debate was here before Sheehan. It's not about her. It's not manufactured for her. If you want it to be about her, since it probably is easier to be anti-Sheehan than pro-war these days, fine. The shortcomings of your position are acknowledged. But there's your perspective. I'm not taking the bait.

Still against the Iraq War, and still don't give a hoot about Sheehan.

Hey RANT, remember that great post/topic you once made on political divide and how the media is manipulating the people in further creating that divide? That was a great read, on the mark, and precise.

Interesting that when you take into account what I mentioned last night, this topic by edsinger, and contrast it with your response above, seems that the divide is solidifying and growing, eh?

Cindy Sheehan is doing an exceptional job, with the blessings and nudgings of MoveOn.org, CodePink, The Crawford House of Peace, Michael Moore, George Soros, etc.

Interesting that your not seeing this....or are you?






seekerof

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Interesting that your not seeing this....or are you?

My prior post was on the media creating fake divides pitting the fringe against the majority in manufactured "balance."

What's interesting to me is you not seeing half of Americans (not MoveOn, not Mike Moore, not Sheehan supporters, not whatever else goads your ire), but half of Americans are against the Iraq war and have been for some time... just as half are pro-war.

That's a real divide. There's a real difference.

I don't know how media manipulation could solidify, grow or overrepresent a 50/50 split. But I do know that half this nation has been sorely unrepresented in the coverage of the debate for years. I'm sorry but the "Democratic minute" following the weekly post-election, still campaigning Bush tour stop, the Pentagon briefings, the White House briefings, Generals on parade and everything else catering all the attention to framing the "official" story doesn't cut it.

If it took covering a crazy lady shadowing National Lampoon's Bush on Vacation to finally get fair & balanced, I'm just glad the media finally found it's ass with both hands.

I was wondering what attack did the Moms do on Cindy Sheehan? I se no evidence of any attack on the big screen here, or are you speaking of some kind of verbal thing..?

DALLAS

Originally posted by RANT
What's interesting to me is you not seeing half of Americans (not MoveOn, not Mike Moore, not Sheehan supporters, not whatever else goads your ire), but half of Americans are against the Iraq war and have been for some time... just as half are pro-war.

Far from failing to see it, RANT, be assured.
Kind of hard not to see it anyhow, using ATS as an example, when as along as I have been a member of this board, the vast majority of people are anti-war and anti-Bush.
Nah, definately not that I am failing to see it.

I don't know how media manipulation could solidify, grow or overrepresent a 50/50 split. But I do know that half this nation has been sorely unrepresented in the coverage of the debate for years. I'm sorry but the "Democratic minute" following the weekly post-election, still campaigning Bush tour stop, the Pentagon briefings, the White House briefings, Generals on parade and everything else catering all the attention to framing the "official" story doesn't cut it.

You must be kidding me?
The mainstream media has been against this war since virtually the beginning, and if not, definately since the first casualty rolled in.
Nothing but a repeat of Vietnam and how the mainstream media played out its agenda then. In the case of the media covering the Cindy Sheehan, the media is hoping to create the same anti-war fever they created during Vietnam. The sad part is is that its not working, despite your poll numbers, RANT.

If it took covering a crazy lady shadowing National Lampoon's Bush on Vacation to finally get fair & balanced, I'm just glad the media finally found it's ass with both hands.

Again, not sure where you have been, but if your so indulged as to think that the mainstream media has been fair and balanced [kind of like the Washington Post, eh], is not vastly anti-war, covering only the negative and the bad that happens in Iraq and elsewhere around that region, then become un-indulged. Your assertion that the media has finally come around to covering the anti-war side and perspective in this country, exemplified by this Cindy Sheehan adhoc event, as fair and balanced is dubious and highly ludicrous.





seekerof

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Seekerof]

If you guys have been reading all the Sheehan threads, you will know that this is exactly what Moveon.org said Rove's strategy was. To start a grass roots smear campaign against this woman.

Heck, it always works

Originally posted by akilles
Yep.

Its pretty sad, I mean, they volunteered, so this means they knew what they were signing up for?

They signed up for the war of terror not the war in Iraq. Please dont get the two con-fused fore they are two diffrent things.

Originally posted by nikelbee
Mothers campaign about all sorts of things to protect their children - even after death. Mothers against drunk driving (MADD) for example

Let's leave MADD out of this. MADD has been nothing but a political corporation for years now. The only thing that mothers have to do with MADD is being figureheads for the pity and guilt that keeps the cash coming in.
Get MADD

Originally posted by northwolf
Point is if you volunteer for army, you know you may go to a war and may DIE, it's an occupational hazard. If you don't like the risks DON'T JOIN THE ARMY ffs.

It's a different story with a conscript army... or after a draft... but if you volunteer into the army of the "world police" you should understand that it "might" be dangerous.

That is it in a nutshell. Military duty is hazardous even in times of peace. No one forced anyone to join the military, it was their own choice. If there was a draft and people were forced to serve, like during Vietnam then I could understand the resentment. The military is NOT a welfare program although it has been used as one. It is an ARMED service. I feel for Mrs. Sheehan's loss and understand her grief, but her son was an adult and knew the risks when he enlisted. No one subverted him. (Yes I am a veteran)

Originally posted by northwolf
If you guys have been reading all the Sheehan threads, you will know that this is exactly what Moveon.org said Rove's strategy was. To start a grass roots smear campaign against this woman.

I have got to meet Karl Rove. If he is as omnipotent as he is being given credit for he would be a good friend to have. I can't understand why he isn't ruling the world. I am no great fan of the Bush Administration right now but I like the Democrats even less and don't even get me started about Moveon.org. It is just a cheap attempt to get around the campaign finance laws.

Poor Schizo Bushies...

Have you noticed the protesstors have not done one thing violent but the schizo bushies have fired a shotgun into the air near the Crawford Protest and plowed over all the crosses with a truck.
www.google.com...

www.google.com...

Now who are the dangerous ones again?