Sheehan Arrested at Whitehouse

IdahoMom said:
Statement by some Sheehan family members

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8ddNTrfxd9QJ:www.drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm+family+of+cindy+Sheehan&hl=en

~snip~
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.


~snip~
Well, that says it all, doesn't it?
 
Jeana (DP) said:
OHMYGOD~!!!!! SHE LOOKS TRAUMATIZED!!!!!!!!!!! Here's a picture of her being arrested . . . like these cops have NOTHING BETTER TO DO????

http://www.drudgereport.com/
Actually THIS says it better than the family's press release. The woman's a narcissist. Perhaps some variant on Muchausen By Proxy. But whatever she is at that particular moment, it's neither grieving nor unhappy.
 
First of all the family has my sympathy in the loss of their family member, as do all the people who have lost loved ones in this war. But I do not support with Cindy Sheehan is doing, I personally feel she is disgracing her son's choice to serve his country.

My heart also cries for those families in Iraq who have lived a life of hell due to their former leadership. We hear every day of the bombings and murders by terrorists, but we don't hear the good things happening. People gaining their freedom, women and children being allowed to attend school.

But honestly, IMO, this war in Iraq should have been done and over with 10 years ago. My husband and son were both involved in the Gulf War, and it was hell being here and worrying about them, but I never could grasp why Saddam Hussein wasn't targeted then.

Yes, Cindy made the front page again, with a big grin on her face..whoo-hoo. :twocents: :rolleyes:
 
Jeana (DP) said:
Done. . . do you consider my opinion "heaping ridicule"???
I don't think I was addressing any poster or post specifically...just expressing my opinion on 2 points of contention that are being expressed about Ms. Sheehan and my thoughts about those who use those "arguments". Obviously, if no one lowers themselves to that level...they've taken the high ground as you apparently have done and are to be commended.

And just as obvious, everyone is entitled to express their own opinion, even if it's far-fetched; i.e. someone diagnosing Ms Sheehan's mental state without benefit of extended interviews or access to medical records. The attempt to demonize the protagonist in that instance is self revealing and quite absurd in re a legitimate discussion of any topic from my POV.

I have no dog in the Sheehan hunt, other than my offering my sympathy for her tremendous loss...just made my observation about a strategy often employed in these sorts of discussion threads.
 
GonzoReiter said:
I don't think I was addressing any poster or post specifically...just expressing my opinion on 2 points of contention that are being expressed about Ms. Sheehan and my thoughts about those who use those "arguments". Obviously, if no one lowers themselves to that level...they've taken the high ground as you apparently have done and are to be commended.

And just as obvious, everyone is entitled to express their own opinion, even if it's far-fetched; i.e. someone diagnosing Ms Sheehan's mental state without benefit of extended interviews or access to medical records. The attempt to demonize the protagonist in that instance is self revealing and quite absurd in re a legitimate discussion of any topic from my POV.

I have no dog in the Sheehan hunt, other than my offering my sympathy for her tremendous loss...just made my observation about a strategy often employed in these sorts of discussion threads.
Well, I'm sure a lot of people said the same about no one having access to Susan Smith's medical & psychiatric records when she was on television pleading for her sons' return, and kept setting off absolute strangers' "Soemthing Ain't Right Here" monitors. It's inappropriate body language and facial expressions. If someone is trying to come across as upset, grief stricken, etc. and the corners of their mouths keep turning up, and you can catch them actively turning them down--it's a warning sign that they have to remind themselves to look upset. It means you don't really believe what you're saying, or have any emotional investment in it. I saw it with Susan Smith, Scott Peterson, any number of politicans over the years, and now Cindy Sheehan. At first I gave the woman the benfit of the doubt, but the more exposure I've gotten to her, the less credible she has become. Turn the sound off and watch her. It's eye opening.
 
Well, it's interesting how much discourse Ms. Sheehan has prompted even on this website today.

Even if the military is voluntary, that does not justify going into a war unless it is shown it is absolutely necessary and every other option is explored.

Saddam was not a threat yet to us, since he had no weapons of mass destruction; probably not as much as North Korea and Iran are today.

It might not have been such a bad idea to take him out quickly; but indeed we did not do the job "right"; we fumbled it. As far as "protecting" Iraqis, we are protecting them as much from their own people - will the Sunni's kills the Shiites, or will the Shiites dominate the Sunni's? The foreign terrorists have just joined in "mix". The likelihood of a civil war still looms high.

As far as time to pull out - we have alot invested now and their army cannot fight adequately. We don't know now if the Constituation will even be adopted, but we have to at least see if it is and try to keep training the troops. Middle East stability may be threatened even more if there is a Civil War.

On the other hand we could pull out eventually and just let the factions fight it out. I don't think anyone really knows what to do.

Yes, I remember Lyndon Johnson. His administration and his goals were overshadowed by the war. Deja vu. At least he didn't have hurricanes too.
 
Marthatex said:
Well, it's interesting how much discourse Ms. Sheehan has prompted even on this website today.

Even if the military is voluntary, that does not justify going into a war unless it is shown it is absolutely necessary and every other option is explored.


I agree insofar as the "government" itself is concerned. However, once one signs up to "fight for their country," they don't get to choose which war they fight.
 
Jeana (DP) said:
I agree insofar as the "government" itself is concerned. However, once one signs up to "fight for their country," they don't get to choose which war they fight.

No one said they did. But it was being argued that since they volunteered they shouldn't protest an illegitimate war.

Since our legislators and President are stewards of our precious young people, we depend on them to make the right decisions about whether to risk their lives or not; an especially to give them the best equipment and planning possible.
 
Really? That's where we disagree of course. Never question authority? That can be dangerous.
 
Pat Tillman was mentioned earlier
SFChronicle Story in Full
Throughout the controversy, the Tillman family has been reluctant to cause a media stir. Mary noted that Pat shunned publicity, refusing all public comment when he enlisted and asking the Army to reject all media requests for interviews while he was in service. Pat’s widow, Marie, and his brother Kevin have not become publicly involved in the case, and they declined to comment for this article.

Yet other Tillman family members are less reluctant to show Tillman’s unique character, which was more complex than the public image of a gung-ho patriotic warrior. He started keeping a journal at 16 and continued the practice on the battlefield, writing in it regularly. (His journal was lost immediately after his death.) Mary Tillman said a friend of Pat’s even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan — a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, “Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.”

Baer, who served with Tillman for more than a year in Iraq and Afghanistan, told one anecdote that took place during the March 2003 invasion as the Rangers moved up through southern Iraq.

“I can see it like a movie screen,” Baer said. “We were outside of (a city in southern Iraq) watching as bombs were dropping on the town. We were at an old air base, me, Kevin and Pat, we weren’t in the fight right then. We were talking. And Pat said, ‘You know, this war is so f— illegal.’ And we all said, ‘Yeah.’ That’s who he was. He totally was against Bush.”

Another soldier in the platoon, who asked not to be identified, said Pat urged him to vote for Bush’s Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry.

Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephen White — a Navy SEAL who served with Pat and Kevin for four months in Iraq and was the only military member to speak at Tillman’s memorial — said Pat “wasn’t very fired up about being in Iraq” and instead wanted to go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He said both Pat and Kevin (who has a degree in philosophy) “were amazingly well-read individuals … very firm in some of their beliefs, their political and religious or not so religious beliefs.”

For reasons obvious to anyone who knows me, I've followed this story closely for more than 3 years. It's a story worth keeping an eye on...not necessarily because of this thread topic.
 
It's kind of ironic that he was for Kerry, but the Bush administration capitalized upon his death to rabble-rouse for the Iraq war. That's very sad but even sadder was the way they weren't honest with his family about his death.
 
Marthatex said:
Really? That's where we disagree of course. Never question authority? That can be dangerous.


What I said was that once a soldier signs up for the military, they do what they're told. Certainly, if they feel they can't shoot somone once they get into battle, they can be assigned a different job, if the military agrees. However, they don't get to "not go" because they object to the reason we're there.
 
I was referring to protesting the war, or disagreeing with it. Of course they have to go fight whatever war, once they have signed up.

But we depend on the higher-ups to make wise decisions regarding the huge expenditure and human cost of a war.
 
It burns me up whevever I think of how our troops were manipulated. True, we have a volunteer army. It is also true that a lot of our kids signed up after September 11th, to go after the terrorists who attacked us. But, that is not what happened. We attacked Iraq, based on a lie told to us by George Bush. He said that there were WMDs in Iraq - which were a threat to us. There were no WMDs and, he didn't care whether there were or not. He just wanted to get Saddam. We were supposed to be going after Osama. What we are doing in Iraq has nothing to do with the destruction that was done to us.
 
When I met with Cindy in Crawford, she was wanting to get arrested. From what one of her Camp Casey friends said, it was something that would make people get off the fence and make a stand.

I really liked her. In fact, I liked everyone I met at Camp Casey. I've got a son in the Air Force. He was supposed to go to Iraq in a few weeks but ended up being diverted to help rebuild New Orleans. But I went a long time thinking he was going to Bagdad. When I was in Crawford, I spoke to a ton of other mothers who had sons going or already there. From a mother's standpoint I can totally understand Cindy's grief.

Beyond that, the lady asks some pretty darn good questions.

And please know that I would never diminish the grief of the counter protesters that lost their children too. My heart goes out to everyone in that position.
 
tybee204 said:
Many parents that lost Sons in Vietnam came to protest the the Vietnam War. They were labled grief stricken, unstable and unpatriotic as well.

When parents encourage and support their children volunteering for Military Service they put faith and trust in the Government to not play politics with the lives of Americans. This war has been shown repeatedly to have begun under false pretenses, false information and false claims to both the the American citizens and the World.
Right on. I am sure this is a very big factor in Mrs. Sheehan's inability to let go and move on - the sheer senselessness of the war her son was fighting. Losing a son could never be easy, but perhaps she could accept it if she at least felt that he died for a righteous cause.

I feel very sorry for her. Although her protests seem to have gone over the top, I feel she has been abandoned by all her friends and family, when she needs them the most. I think that she is throwing herself into protesting this war and in doing so, is avoiding facing up to the reality of her son's death. If she gives up the fight, she will have to grieve. I think she'd rather fight fiercely than face up to that. I wish she had some family or friends on her side to gently support her and guide her away from her angry war on Bush instead of washing their hands of her.

IMHO
 
Hi Sandra,

When I met her, she was with her sister so she's got some family sticking with her. As for her friends, I don't know who her old friends were, but she's got a ton of loyal friends with her now.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
4,252
Total visitors
4,412

Forum statistics

Threads
592,572
Messages
17,971,197
Members
228,820
Latest member
BBrown
Back
Top