Say Anything Blog

Classy post Seth.

Thanks!  but I sense you were not being sincere…

I’m not sure what Sheehan’s marital status has to do with the story but I’m sure it has relevance somehow.

Really???  You can’t see the irony of a woman destroying the fabric of her family while allegedly protesting the death of her son?  Tell me you can see the relevance now, please?

I felt that the interest in Judge Roberts’ children was equally sleazy but it’s good to know that commentary appropriate to the National Enquirer is not exclusive to the Left.

Did I discuss Cindy’s other children?  Did I talk about Cindy’s speeding tickets?  Or anything else that is ‘not relevant’?  Please tell me how Robert’s adopted children MIGHT somehow be analogous to Cindy’s divorce. 

I point out how Cindy’s becoming unhinged and her Husband is divorcing her because of this, which lends itself to describe Cindy’s credibility…

Roberts adopts some children, but WHAT does that have to do with being a justice????

Classy post Seth. I’m not sure what Sheehan’s marital status has to do with the story but I’m sure it has relevance somehow. I felt that the interest in Judge Roberts’ children was equally sleazy but it’s good to know that commentary appropriate to the National Enquirer is not exclusive to the Left.

Don, I think the God you don’t believe in just sent you a present. The woman of your dreams is single!

Don’t just stand there, go get her!

I felt that the interest in Judge Roberts’ children was equally sleazy but it’s good to know that commentary appropriate to the National Enquirer is not exclusive to the Left.

John Robert’s children = not political.  Cindy Sheehan’s separation = political.  You know why?  Because she has said that the stress of her son’s death lead to the divorce.  She blames George Bush for her son’s death.  Hence, political!

I’m always here to spoon feed ya if you need it.

John Robert’s children = not political. Cindy Sheehan’s separation = political. You know why? Because she has said that the stress of her son’s death lead to the divorce. She blames George Bush for her son’s death. Hence, political!

Maybe you’ve had too much puppy blood today so I’ll cut you some slack but that argument does not make sense. If I follow your logic then Sheehan should be blaming Barbra Bush for giving birth to the President who sent Sheehan’s son to war which killed him which caused stress in her marriage which caused the divorce. Kind of like the Old Lady Who Swallowed the Fly...and I’ll feed myself thanks.

Ryan,

I know Cindy Sheehan didn’t know her son as well as, say, Michell Malkin or you or most of the right-wing bloggers…

Do you suppose his DAD knew him?  His father wants nothing to do with Cindy… MAYBE THAT’S WHY I POSTED THIS?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Why is it so hard to get through to you people??!?!?!?!

Uh… we can’t question Cindy… she’s grieving… She lost her Son…

So did his father!

Ryan said, Casey Sheehan did not re-enlist because he supported the war.

According to whom?  His mother?  The one who said that Bush “murdered” her son and the one who is hanging around a bunch of people who think his death was justified?

Okay…

Really??? You can’t see the irony of a woman destroying the fabric of her family while allegedly protesting the death of her son? Tell me you can see the relevance now, please?

I see a sad situation. I think gloating about it is sleazy.

I point out how Cindy’s becoming unhinged and her Husband is divorcing her because of this, which lends itself to describe Cindy’s credibility…

Does this mean that because you blog I can assess your credibility by digging into your personal affairs? What if something in your private life affects what you say publicly on this site? Fair game? Maybe in the Internet Age but still sleazy in my books.

MikeAdamson said, Maybe you’ve had too much puppy blood today so I’ll cut you some slack but that argument does not make sense.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?  Something you do in your town or something?

If I follow your logic then Sheehan should be blaming Barbra Bush for giving birth to the President who sent Sheehan’s son to war which killed him which caused stress in her marriage which caused the divorce. Kind of like the Old Lady Who Swallowed the Fly...

No..that’s not where my logic takes one. But whatever.

…and I’ll feed myself thanks.

You must be starving!

Casey Sheehan did not re-enlist because he supported the war.

And as evidence, Ryan presents us this:

BuzzFlash: Casey, as I understand it, technically did not have to go to Iraq since he was a field mechanic. Is that correct?

Cindy Sheehan: He was a Humvee mechanic. He re-enlisted in August of 2003 because he didn’t want his buddies to do the job by themselves. It’s all about what they’re doing now — our soldiers are trying to keep themselves alive and trying to keep each other alive at this point right now.

Hmm, I don’t see any quote from specifically saying that he was against the war. Nevermind that while Cindy is his mother, she has done little in the past week to prove that her opinions on what her son’s reasons for re-enlisting are objective enough to be believed.

It could be because she’s still in a state of grief or because of her left-wing, anti-war tendencies, or she could be telling the truth. We don’t really know.

likwidshoe,

I know Cindy Sheehan didn’t know her son as well as, say, Michell Malkin or you or most of the right-wing bloggers, but can we give her a little benefit of the doubt and assume she knew why her own son would re-enlist in the military?

I point out how Cindy’s becoming unhinged and her Husband is divorcing her because of this, which lends itself to describe Cindy’s credibility…

Does this mean that because you blog I can assess your credibility by digging into your personal affairs? What if something in your private life affects what you say publicly on this site? Fair game? Maybe in the Internet Age but still sleazy in my books.

If you want to look up my past and show how statements I make are hypocritical, then yeah, go for it.  I have done several things in my life that I am not proud of.  I lived with a woman out of wedlock.  She had two kids.  I helped to diminish their chances for a positive life by committing to them, then reneging on my promise.  Today, I do not condone living in “sin” because of the effects it has on children.  (This is probably the worst thing I have done, but there are more instances of “learning” in my life...)

If I were to go out there an accuse a public official of a crime, then my past SHOULD be scrutinized.  Blogging is a bit different from calling the president a murderer… but whatever.  Bring it on!

Ryan said, I know Cindy Sheehan didn’t know her son as well as, say, Michell Malkin or you or most of the right-wing bloggers...

Whoa..back up.  I’m not claiming to know Sheehan’s son better than she does.  I’m questioning Sheehan’s credibility based upon what has already come out of the woman’s mouth.  Understand now?

...but can we give her a little benefit of the doubt and assume she knew why her own son would re-enlist in the military?

She lost that benefit of the doubt when she opened her mouth and said the things that she has been saying.

Casey Sheehan did not re-enlist because he supported the war.

From Buzzflash:

BuzzFlash: Casey, as I understand it, technically did not have to go to Iraq since he was a field mechanic. Is that correct?

Cindy Sheehan: He was a Humvee mechanic. He re-enlisted in August of 2003 because he didn’t want his buddies to do the job by themselves. It’s all about what they’re doing now—our soldiers are trying to keep themselves alive and trying to keep each other alive at this point right now.

I know it’s a soft interview, but it’s the first direct quote I could find on Sheehan’s reasons for re-enlisting.

Yeah I do not thin she became a whack job over night, she has been off her meds for awhile.

Brandon and likwidshoe,

There’s no real way to know if Cindy Sheehan is lying about her son’s motives or not.  Personally, I tend to believe her because I know people in the armed forces and it makes sense.  If you choose not to believe her because she’s said things you don’t agree with, that’s fine too.

Seth,

The article you posted simply says that Cindy Sheehan’s husband filed for divorce.  Part of the article that you didn’t quote says:

The couple, who were high school sweethearts, had been separated.

Implying they were seperated for a longer period of time than since Cindy’s stint in Crawford began.  You may be assuming too much claiming that Cindy’s crusade in Crawford caused the divorce and not their previous seperation or Casey’s death.

Personally, until her husband releases a statement, I’ll just reserve judgement on their marriage and the nature of its breakdown.  Not that her marriage is any of my business anyways, though it’s interesting.

Only a few hours till dark over there, yeah?

Astutely observed, Ryan. Her marriage was on the rocks before her crusade, and doesn’t really have anything to do with the matter at hand.  She blamed the stress of their son’s death on their divorce.  Back when she was grieving, instead of raging.  You can’t attribute her separation to anything that she’s said recently as she’s begun her one-man crusade.

C’mon now.  I think she’s doing a disservice to her son’s honorable (and voluntary) sacrifice, but let’s not release the hounds outright on all aspects of her personal life in order to make her look bad.  Just let her keep spewing her ridiculous illogical racist filth and she’ll continue to discredit herself.

Mark J. did you mean she blamed the divorce on the stress of their son’s death?

Yes.  Yes I did.  Definitely time to get some sleep.

Doh… My mistake, wrong Mark..  Sorry.

Her marriage was on the rocks before her crusade, and doesn’t really have anything to do with the matter at hand.

Judging by her testimony about her first meeting with Bush, I’d say the marriage was on the rocks then…

She blamed the stress of their son’s death on their divorce.

Mark J. did you mean she blamed the divorce on the stress of their son’s death?

Ryan, I don’t pretend to know what’s going on inside this woman’s head.  But I know that she’s said some outrageous things, and I know that Casey had two parents.  The father, who has been rational, obviously knew his son too.  He now, wants to end his marriage after a VERY LONG time together.  This, to me, is telling of HER sanity.  I will put FAR more faith in what the father has to say than what Cindy opines.

We also know that Casey was in the military for 10 years.  I have to think that he knew what he was doing. 

Don’t get me wrong though… If you Join the military PRIOR to some military action, I think you are fully within your rights to oppose action if you think it unjust.  I don’t want the military to fully support a commander and chief that acts without reason or justification. 

I believe that we had both for Iraq, before everyone comes unglued.

Nah, I’ve just been on the night shift.  Woke up at around 6pm last evening and have been up until now (doing some blog maintenence for LaShawn Barber, for a good hunk of the time.) And now it is time for me to crash.

We don’t know for a fact that the divorce was caused by Cindy’s public behavior, but the timing certainly is suspicious.  You don’t think it crossed the mind of her soon-to-be ex-husband that his filing for divorce would be regarded as a condemnation of Cindy’s public behavior?  There is no reason, after all, for him to have chosen this moment to file divorce papers

I’m not saying it’s impossible that its unrelated, but frankly it doesn’t speak well towards his attitude of Cindy or her political posturing.  Nor do I blame Seth for feeling a twinge of shaudenfreuden over her discomfiture on this… especially after all of the generally nasty things that have come out of her mouth recently.

It also seems to me unlikely that Casey would have reenlisted for something that he did not believe in, regardless of how many of his buddies reenlisted to start with.  Now you can think otherwise if you like, but please don’t use Cindy Sheehan as a primary source---regardless of her marital status---if you want to retain a shred of credibility. 

To me, the timing of the filing for divorce was clearly meant to send a signal, just as her son reenlisting has sent a clear message of his commitment to a process.  This young man gave his last full measure of devotion to his country, and it is a mystery to me that you want to sanctify his moonbat mother while trying to minimizing the significance of his sacrifice.  She lost her son, but he gave his life.

I don’t happen to think that the divorce per se is my business, but since Cindy’s ex has not communicated his attitude towards her loopy self, this will have to do in a pinch as his attitude towards his ex-wife and the public circus she has created around her son’s death.

The creepy spectacle of the hordes of antiwar protesters who are trying to ride the Cindy Sheehan story to further their ambitions is certainly one of the more bizarre twists of the entire Iraq conflict.  They have done nothing to raise their level of credibility with the general public, and likely have hurt themselves far more than the publicity has helped them.

I don’t think it is necessary for the right-wing blogs to “go after Cindy” on this one, after all she is doing quite a good job of discrediting her own bizarre little self.  On the other hand, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with them giving her speeches and her generally moonbat behavior a proper and thorough fisking.  It’s a free country, thanks to heroes like Casey.

Seth,

They were seperated.  Don’t know how long, don’t care.  You take this as a sign that he believes she is insane.  Whatever.  Analyze it all you want - you don’t know him and you can only guess.  He hasn’t made any public statements - so how can you put your faith in what he says?

Besides, it wouldn’t discredit Sheehan or what she says.  She got a divorce - so what?  Are the hundreds of thousands of divorced women in America all insane because their husbands obviously couldn’t put up with their “ridiculous illogical racist filth,” as Mark put it?

Please.  As Balloon Juice put it, ”Cindy Sheehan’s marital status, her relationship with her husband- none of that is your damned business. Even if you think it ‘proves’ a point. If it proves anything, it proves that losing a son in war fucks up families. Thanks for the deep insight.”

Amen Brother Carrick… As always, Lucid.

Ryan,

I really did get off of my original intent.  Cindy has been getting lots and lots of positive media attention with all of the negative things she has said about our president. 

I think her statements need to be anaylized and (where necessary) criticised.  She has been getting a free pass from too many because of her grieving. 

I don’t respect her.  I do respect her son!  VERY MUCH SO!

This woman has been given a very large audience and a great deal of public attention for no other reason than she says incorrect and vile things about the President of the US.  How much of the time that the media gave to Mrs. Sheehan could have been used to inform the populace of things going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, or here at home? 

She has the forum and the attention… WHY? 

Is what she’s saying true?  I don’t think so, but unless we fact check and analyse, how are we to know?

The family produced a press release (on Drudge).  The Husband was not included in the signatory list.

He may have been pressured into the divorce by his family, or for some other reason.  As you point out, we don’t yet know. 

My original intent was to show that Cindy’s actions are hurting her family.  She can’t get Casey back, ever… Maybe she’ll be able to get the rest of her family back, but it’s not looking good.

Why is it so hard to get through to you people??!?!?!?!

Uh… we can’t question Cindy… she’s grieving… She lost her Son…

Question her all you want but question her thoughts and words on the War, on Bush, on Israel...she’s said enough wingbat things that you should have fodder for oodles of column space.

Ryan quotes balloon-juice:

“Cindy Sheehan’s marital status, her relationship with her husband- none of that is your damned busines

Actually the filing for divorce is public record.  Had Cindy been an ordinary private citizen, there would have been no relevance to the information, but the very fact a divorce is part of the public record disproves your quoted assertion about it being “nobody’s damned business”.

Fair or not, remember Jack Ryan and the kerfuffle over his sealed divorce record?  The fact that somebody has gotten divorced is a very common item that gets brought up during campaigns, conformation hearings etc.

Mike:

Question her all you want but question her thoughts and words on the War, on Bush, on Israel…she’s said enough wingbat things that you should have fodder for oodles of column space.

Had Cindy been a private figure, quietly dealing with the grief of her loss, I would agree with you 100%.  In this case, she has become a very public spokesperson for the antiwar movement, and the timing of the divorce filing is probative in and of itself.  I don’t see how anybody can realistically argue otherwise.

Carrick… Had Cindy been a private figure, quietly dealing with the grief of her loss, then I doubt that we’d have any idea what her views were. I realise that I’m in the minority on this here but I question the validity of including one’s personal details as having “probitive value” when refuting someone’s public pronouncements about public policy. I just don’t see the connection between Sheehan’s views on Bush and the War and her marital status...fun gossip maybe but none of it refutes her message.

Talk of Sheehan’s personal life is designed to direct attention away from what she is saying. The funny thing is that it doesn’t seem to be working this time.

Carrick,

Your comment is full of fine analysis, but none of it can be backed up.  Because you refuse to believe anything Sheehan says, you have to rely on assumptions to prove what you say.  Using an assumption of someone’s attitude towards a soon-to-be-ex wife, for example, does not “work in a pinch” when all you’re trying to do is degrade somebody.

That’s some tasty credibility, right there…

Maybe it’s not a matter of cynically using a dead soldier to further ambitious and selfish personal goals.  Maybe she’s not a kook and she’s not racist and she’s not a commie and she’s not whatever else the right-wingers can think of to call her… maybe she’s just a mom who wants some questions answered.

But no… Cindy Sheehan is obviously a cunning, psychologically manipulative hag who is taking the death of her son and using it for her own personal gain.  She’s obviously too cold-hearted, mean, selfish, and just plain awful to care about her own child and the reasons behind his death.

It’s a good thing we have conservatives willing to courageously change the subject from why Casey Sheehan died to why his mother is a complete nutjob for wondering why Casey Sheehan died.

Mike:

Talk of Sheehan’s personal life is designed to direct attention away from what she is saying. The funny thing is that it doesn’t seem to be working this time.

This makes no sense at all. Who on the right would want to take attention away from what Cindy is saying?  If I were a right-winger, that’s exactly where I would want to focus attention.  Is it not the left who is reacting in dismay every time anybody says a negative thing about Cindy---as if she were some saint---as a lame tactic to draw attention away from Cindy’s own self-discrediting statements?

Anyway, you appear to be boxing what is in fact a main stream media report into an attack by the right.  The only point you have made with real validity is that we should not take pleasure in the dissolution of her marriage.

Ryan:

Because you refuse to believe anything Sheehan says, you have to rely on assumptions to prove what you say.

It’s worse than refuse.  I actively laugh at the stupid shit coming from her mouth.  She has discredited herself as a viable witness, if no other reason, by the partisan nature of her comments.  But there are plenty of other reasons.  Perhaps you should dig up the speech she gave at SFSU. Here’s an excerpt:

We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!

“We have no Constitution”???  “We’re the only country with no checks and balances”??? What trite nonsense!  You want to defend the credibility of Cindy and her ability to objectively attribute the motives of her son for reenlisting?  Go ahead.

Ryan:

Maybe she’s not a kook and she’s not racist and she’s not a commie and she’s not whatever else the right-wingers can think of to call her…

I’d agree with the kook, and I suspect she is anti-semetic (which is different from being a racist by the way).  I have no idea whether she is a communist or not, nor do I care.

Ryan goes on:

But no… Cindy Sheehan is obviously a cunning, psychologically manipulative hag who is taking the death of her son and using it for her own personal gain. She’s obviously too cold-hearted, mean, selfish, and just plain awful to care about her own child and the reasons behind his death.

The funny thing is that I never said anything of the sort.  That’s one big turd-ball strawman you just built there, Ryan.  Hope you had fun.

Ryan:

It’s a good thing we have conservatives willing to courageously change the subject from why Casey Sheehan died to why his mother is a complete nutjob for wondering why Casey Sheehan died.

Utter bullshit.  Bush already explained why her son died.  Like Jeff Goldstein says, she just doens’t like the reasons he gave.  Here is a partial quote:

[The left begins] from the premise that the war was frivolous and fought for no reason, then demand answers based on those premises.  But of course, not everyone agrees with those foundational assumptions, and from those who don’t, you, Cindy, et al, will never get the answers you want.

For somebody who started out with “Your comment is full of fine analysis, but none of it

I disagree with your thesis statment any case, my analysis can be backed up by reason.  If you disagree, show me where I am being unreasoning and stop with the lame appeals to emotion.

Damn it.  Truncated sentence.  Should read:

For somebody who started out with “Your comment is full of fine analysis, but none of it can be backed up,” you haven’t done a very good job of showing how that it is true than none of my “fine analysis can be backed up.”

I had thought of posting about Sheehan’s divorce a couple of days ago, but thought better of it.  There is enough evidence to reasonably conclude that the divorce is the result of Cindy’s views on her son’s death and subsequent injection of herself into the spotlight.  But do I really care about that?  Not really.  And it seems over the top to me to bring it out.

The way Cindy has dishonored her son’s sacrifice and the Jewish conspiracy theories she’s engaged in are enough to totally discredit her in my mind.  There’s no need to bring in the divorce, plus it opens the can of worms we’re seeing here.  The left wants us to take Sheehan and all her moonbat nonsense seriously.  Bringing the divorce in allows them to screech about how “cruel” everybody is being to Cindy and garner sympathy for her.  She opened herself up to scrutiny when she entered the public arena.  Everybody does.  That still doesn’t make the divorce relevant.

Anyway, anybody who is sticking with Cindy Sheehan after her speeches about the “Jooooos!” needs their head examined.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

This post is in severe poor taste…

What a LOOSER this woman is!

Why take the low road and rail on her for martial problems?  A marriage disolving is a terrible, terrible thing no matter who it happens to.  It has no relevence to her loonacy or her politics, so it should simply be left alone.

Additionally, there’s way too much looney stuff to pick apart coming from Crawford right now.  Why divert attention away with this garbage?

Read Thank You Ms. Maupin to see how MIA Matt Maupin’s mother is handling her son’s situation with dignity and grace.

That is devotion. We will add her to our roll of honor alongside Sgt Maupin. This is the first time I have seen her quoted since May of last year, dignity and class. She is a triple threat to the left.

The word is loser.

Why take the low road and rail on her for martial problems? A marriage dissolving is a terrible, terrible thing no matter who it happens to. It has no relevance to her lunacy or her politics, so it should simply be left alone.

Sorry, but I think she’s a looser!  She’s wrecking her marriage for the sake of what… resurrecting her son?

In my eyes it has relevance.  Anyone who is willing to rail the president on groundless fabrications rather than try to save what is left of her family deserves all sorts of scorn.

To clear this up a little, I am not “railing” her because of her marital problems.  I am railing her because of her over-interest in railing the president.

If I were a right-winger, that’s exactly where I would want to focus attention.

Then why aren’t her views the focus of the Right rather than her value as a mother, her marriage, etc? You know why I think many commentators would rather talk about anything other than what she’s saying. My larger point is that everyone seems entitled to judge anyone they feel like. I think that privacy and decency are underrated while pruriance and nosiness are the method du jour for political conversation. I’m as guilty as the next guy, I don’t like it in myself and sometimes I just need to get it off my chest.

Nothing personal against Seth or Rob’s site particularly but I didn’t care for the post.

MikeAdamson said, You know why I think many commentators would rather talk about anything other than what she’s saying.

Are you kidding me? People everywhere are discussing and breaking down what this woman is saying.

2H9 said

dignity and class

Quite true!  I very much wish for Matt’s safe return!  I hope, at very least, that the Maupin’s are able to find some closure to this… preferably, as if I need to say it, for the better!

Then why aren’t her views the focus of the Right rather than her value as a mother, her marriage, etc?

Her views have been focused on.  We’ve discussed them at length in other posts.  I haven’t said anything about her value as a mother.  She’s obviously devoted to her son’s memory… At least whatever memory she has in her head.  If she’s really unstable, that memory could be a creation as that is a fairly common psychosis.

Thanks for the spelling correction.

This is Rob’s site… My post.  Rob didn’t “approve” the post prior to its release, in fact, he, probably, first saw it when he first posted.  I’m not sorry that I posted what I did.  If it detracted from the, uh, debate and you think I was taking a petty stab at a woman who is down, then you are wrong!!!!!!!!  She’s unglued, in my eyes, and has her priorities screwed up. 

You want to discuss what she’s been saying?  Fine… What has she said that is even CLOSE to factual?

“The president lied”:  As has been documented here for the last 4 years, No he didn’t.

“The president murdered my son”: Really???  How do you respond to this seriously?  Bush DID NOT kill her son.  Terrorists in Iraq did.  He was in Iraq because he re-enlisted for his second tour.  He was a trained soldier, who I respect and admire for his service and his life.

“This war is about oil”:  Oil is one component in the war, but not the reason… as we have discussed at length here.

“There were no WMD in Iraq”: Not true… again, we have discussed this at length.

“We should withdraw from Iraq immediately”:  Can anyone with a shred of intelligence agree with this statement?  Pulling out now would leave Iraq ripe for the plunder.  The Iraqi people would suffer a fate most foul should the US leave today.

”We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!”

Wow… How do we discuss this?  I suppose we could say that she’s unhinged…

Mike:

I yield.

Me too.  So, how about those 250 MPG hybrids, eh?

Mike:

Then why aren’t her views the focus of the Right rather than her value as a mother, her marriage, etc?

I would rather focus on that myself, though I find the story of why the left finds her appealing to be more interesting than Cindy herself.

Why do they drag politicians and other public figures through the mud in general? If the public official has made his private business public, e.g., by breaking the law (example, sexual harassment), then I suppose it’s fair game.  But whether or not the official is gay or straight, etc is none of my business, except when it exposes glaring character weaknesses.

However, what I think about it is irrelevant.  The fact is that public figures are put under a high degree of scrutiny, and once Cindy made herself a public figure with her high-profile “protest”, she came under the same scrutiny… by the main stream media. You don’t like this story going public?  Write the MSM.  Dumpster diving is a tradition in that industry.

There are some unusual circumstances about this case.  Cindy has made a number of claims about the support of her family.  The fact that she brought it up makes it fair game to the MSM.  Here’s Cindy’s comment on this matter:

Yes, my husband has filed for divorce, and yes he filed before I left for the VFP Convention and this trip to Crawford and YES IT IS BETWEEN MY HUSBAND AND I.

What is interesting about it is the date of filing was August 12.  Cindy has been in Crawford TX since August 5, so I expect another round of media reports.

I yield.

Carrick: that’s more than a little bit cool. You should submit a post!

What’s the differnce between Cindy Sheehan and Terri Schiavo’s parents?

Carrick,

Re the “stupid shit coming out of her mouth”: “There is no Consitution” is not anywhere in that link you posted.  It wasn’t “We’re the only country without checks and balances.” The “We have no checks and balances in this country” comment is just rhetorical – it’s hyperbole, a literary device designed to enhance the point of the comment being made through embellishment.  She uses it several times throughout.

Full quotes from the speech:

When Congress gave George Bush the right to go to war, they abrogated their constitutional responsibilities and they basically made our constitution null and void. We have no checks and balances in this country. We have no recourse. If they’re going to what they did to Lynne, they don’t have backs they call names, what we need to be is, we the people, we’re their checks and balances. We’re the only checks and balances. We have to stand up and say, Not only is this our school, this is our country. We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people. Our country needs to {unintelligible} we need to start over again.

What they’re saying, too, is like, it’s okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the countries that we say it’s okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It’s okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can’t have them. It’s okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it’s – yeah – and it’s okay for Iraq to occupy – I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it’s not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon. They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up. We need a revolution and make it be peaceful and make it be loving and let’s just show them all the love we have for humanity because we want to stop the inhumane slaughter.

Now, if you want to call her anti-Jewish because she doesn’t approve of the administration’s policies towards Israel, whatever.  I guess I’m anti-Darfur because I thought maybe the administration should have tried to stop the genocide, and I disagreed with the policy of not doing anything.  Etc, etc, etc.  Yes, this is a silly, stupid argument, but so is calling her a Jewish-conspiracy nut.

Re Cindy as a psychologically manipulative hag: What else am I supposed to conjecture you think of her?  She’s an anti-Semite, a looney, she’s “hurting her family” (you said that one), she’s saying terrible, awkward things, her husband is divorcing her (put that laundry up on the front page!)…

Everything I’ve read suggests you believe she has ulterior motives – you said, in another comments thread – that you were questioning her motives.

Re Cindy’s crusade is bullshit:
You’re right.  Sheehan should just shut up, read the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, as Goldstein suggested, take everything Bush has ever said as true without questioning him whatsoever, and then go home.  That will answer all her questions about why her son died.

Of course, any lingering questions about the neo-cons’ strategy for worldwide influence or the evidence that Bush was planning to invade Iraq since day 1 and used 9/11 to justify his actions are “utter bullshit,” right?

Her son died because he volunteered, not just once. 10 years US Army, that means he volunteered at least 3 times, knowing full well what that entailed. She has decided to dishonor his believes and what he died for. And she expects everyone to give her a pass on that. Wrong. Ain’t going to happen. She has made herself a high profile public image, and she now will accept what is heaped upon her. When she crys about that she negates her own position. Her familial problems are of her own making, her and her husband. She, by her own statements and actions have made these matters public. Otherwise no one would care.

2Hotel9,

Thanks for telling us what Casey Sheehan believed.  So, how long did you know him?

His actions speak for his believes. How long did you know him or his family?

Ryan,

Carrick,

Re the “stupid shit coming out of her mouth”: “There is no Consitution” is not anywhere in that link you posted. It wasn’t “We’re the only country without checks and balances.” The “We have no checks and balances in this country” comment is just rhetorical – it’s hyperbole, a literary device designed to enhance the point of the comment being made through embellishment. She uses it several times throughout.

Were you referring to my link? http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17915

Hi, I’m Seth Yantiss.  My name is clearly at the bottom of each post and RE: “We have no Constitution” is most certainly at the link I posted.  3/4 of the way down the page under the heading “Cindy Sheehan” (no direct link to the section, sorry). 

This same page (here… I’ll cut and paste it again)

We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!

So this counts as hyperbole???  Interesting notion, but I’m not buying it.

Re Cindy’s crusade is bullshit:
You’re right. Sheehan should just shut up, read the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, as Goldstein suggested, take everything Bush has ever said as true without questioning him whatsoever, and then go home. That will answer all her questions about why her son died.

Are you old enough to drink???  If so, lay off of it.  No one has EVER suggested that questioning the actions of the President is out of line.  But when you get an answer (even an answer you don’t like) it’s time to lay off asking.  If she has proof to back up ANY of her claims… let her provide it, otherwise, she should hit the road.

Of course, any lingering questions about the neo-cons’ strategy for worldwide influence or the evidence that Bush was planning to invade Iraq since day 1 and used 9/11 to justify his actions are “utter bullshit,” right?

I couldn’t care less if he was planning on invading Iraq when he was 6 years old.  As for worldwide influence… care to elaborate?  Personally, I think the US should have world wide influence… but, I don’t stop there.  Every “democracy” should have world-wide influence.  I put quotes around democracy because no country should be a true democracy… We aren’t, and should not be.  Just so I am clear here, we are a representative republic or constitutional republic.  Democracy means that every person has a say in every decision.  This is impossible to manage and makes it too easy to ignore the rule of law.

Seth,

Sorry about the mis-appropriation of your post to Carrick.  My bad - wasn’t being careful there.

Regarding her comments… I’m pretty sure she and her supporters do not actually believe there is no such thing as a Constitution in the United States.  Etc, etc.  So yes, it was probably hyperbole.

But when you get an answer (even an answer you don’t like) it’s time to lay off asking.

So when I ask a question and I think the person is being disengenuous and I want to find out the real answer… I shouldn’t, because I got an answer, and that ought to be good enough?

I couldn’t care less if he was planning on invading Iraq when he was 6 years old.

I’m sorry to hear that.

As for worldwide influence… care to elaborate?

I’ll point you to the Wikipedia article instead of relaying it all here. 

His actions speak for his believes. That is not"turning it around” on you. The “actions”, enlisting in the service, renlisting in the service, volunteering to remain with a unit deploying when he could have remained in the states. These"actions" demonstrate his believes. That he willingly gave 10 years of his life, and ultimaely giving said life, demonstrates his believes. Cindy Sheehan’s statements and actions demonstrate her believes, which are 180% opposed to those clearly demonstrated to be held by Casey Sheehan, her son. Who she is now, willingly, dishonoring. And let me cut you off at the pass, Cindy Sheehan has made the assertion that her son could have avoided going, and went anyway because he did not want to let down his troops. These are the actions of a dedicated NonCommisioned Officer who I am proud and honored to call Brother. And I, and my family, will honor him and all other soldiers lost in defense of OUR nation.

2Hotel9,

I don’t know the Sheehans, never have, and never will, which is why I don’t presume to know what any of them think - or try to assume what they think by judging their actions out of context.

Don’t try turning it around back on me. I base what I know of Casey Sheehan and Cindy Sheehan off what Sheehan says - unlike you, I’m not putting words in their mouths in order to degrade a grieving mother.

(Of course, there are those who would rather not believe anything Sheehan says, and that’s fine too - just don’t expect me to treat you seriously when you pull a Malkin.)

2Hotel9,

Jesus, my eyes!  I think I need to take a shower after reading that garbage.  Self-righteous and sanctimonious BS, pure and simple.

Get off your high horse - nobody is claiming Casey Sheehan wasn’t a good and dedicated soldier or anything like that at all.

This is what Cindy Sheehan is talking about (from http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/07/mom.protest/):

The president—who is spending a nearly five-week-long working vacation at his Texas ranch—said in a speech Wednesday that the sacrifices of U.S. troops were “made in a noble cause.” (Full story)

Sheehan said she found little comfort in his comments.

“I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?” Sheehan told reporters. “He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is.”

Sheehan said hers was one of a group of about 15 families who each met separately with the president one day last June.

“He wouldn’t look at the pictures of Casey. He didn’t even know Casey’s name,” she told CNN Sunday. “Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject.”

Sheehan wants Bush to justify her son’s death in Iraq. By doing that, she’s honoring his memory much better than you are with your holier-than-thou spiel.

His mother is. She is portraying him as a pitiful, lied to child. The President has allready done that. She is focusing her mental anquish against the wrong people. Why is she not in Iraq demanding these same answers from al Zargawi. Why is she not in Mecca demanding these same answers from the leading Mullahs of Islam. Because they would cut off her hands and stone her to death, because they are responsible for her sons death. Run along and put your head back in the sand, there are plenty of people to protect you in your bed, even though you call them fools and dupes and laugh at them for doing so. And I am now finished with you.

2Hotel9,

Because they would cut off her hands and stone her to death, because they are responsible for her sons death.

WTF?

Also,

Run along and put your head back in the sand, there are plenty of people to protect you in your bed, even though you call them fools and dupes and laugh at them for doing so. And I am now finished with you.

Are you accusing me of not supporting the troops?

His mother is. She is portraying him as a pitiful, lied to child. The President has allready done that.

The president portrayed him as a pitiful, lied-to child?

She is focusing her mental anquish against the wrong people. Why is she not in Iraq demanding these same answers from al Zargawi. Why is she not in Mecca demanding these same answers from the leading Mullahs of Islam.

Most major Islamic centers of religion do not approve of Muslims killing people, just as most Christian centers of religion do not approve of Christians killing people.

Carrick,

Maybe the President could do better than this:

“He wouldn’t look at the pictures of Casey. He didn’t even know Casey’s name,” she told CNN Sunday. “Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject.”

Ryan:

The “We have no checks and balances in this country” comment is just rhetorical – it’s hyperbole, a literary device designed to enhance the point of the comment being made through embellishment. She uses it several times throughout

“Hyperbole” is not a literary device, it is a rhetorical device intended to deceive and to erect strawman arguments.  It is completely and utterly intellectually bankrupt at its core, and this is really what I object to about Cindy.  So yes, in the end it really is “shit coming out of her mouth”.

And in case you missed it, the full transcript of the SFSU meeting is located here.

Ryan continues with the histrionics:

Sheehan wants Bush to justify her son’s death in Iraq

Ok Ryan.  Tell us how he is supposed to do that beyond what he has already done.

Maybe the President could do better than this:

Maybe he did do better than that Ryan. Why are you so quick to unquestioningly believe what comes out of Sheehan’s mouth?  You know what is amazing Ryan? When Sheehan says something that you can’t defend, it’s “hyperbole”, yet when she says something that you want to believe, you just believe it.

I kinda like it when we disagree… fosters great debate

Ryan:

“He wouldn’t look at the pictures of Casey. He didn’t even know Casey’s name,” she told CNN Sunday. “Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject.”

Ryan… I’m tired of doing your homework for you.  Here’s an assignment:  Find Cindy’s original characterization of her meeting with President Bush, then contrast and compare with her statements post “radicalization”.  Then come back with a explanation of what Bush should or could do differently.

Seth, just for the record...I don’t mind that you posted this.  I disagree that its relevant to the debate over what she’s saying, but I didn’t start this site to give a forum to people who only agree with everything I have to say.

In fact, I’m still waiting for some of the left-of-center commenters here to take me up on the submitting posts thing.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Thanks for that Rob.  I wasn’t all that worried that I might lose my posting privileges.

But, that said, I highly respect each of you (in our small group, You know who you are) and am a little disappointed when we strongly/passionately/[what’s-the-word?] disagree.

Rob wrote:

In fact, I’m still waiting for some of the left-of-center commenters here to take me up on the submitting posts thing.

I’ve submitted one.

Seth:

Carrick: that’s more than a little bit cool. You should submit a post!

I’ve thought about it.  Paul over on Wizbang and his commentators have done a fairly good job of raising lots of good questions in the guise of debunking the media reports.  In spite of their complaints, the idea of a “plug-in hybrid” makes for good energy policy, and there are lots of problems with the objections that have been raise.  The fact is that with a plug-in hybrid you can get gas usage on the order of 250 miles per gallon consumed when used as a commuting vehicle, so that is not hyperbole.  The hyperbole is in the media coverage not in the technology development. 

To make it clear and to be completely fair to Paul, in an apples-to-apples comparison, plug-in hybrids don’t get any better mileage than a conventional hybrid.  I think this is the gist of Paul’s original post. Plugin hybrids save you gas and money by allowing you to recharge the vehicle from the grid.  Note that a typical car battery has a capacity of round 100 W-Hours x 12 V = 1.2 kV-Hours.  Recharging a single battery from full discharge will take about 25 cents, so in principle you could recharge a hybrid for under a dollar.

A proper post would require putting together numbers, looking at current hybrid designs, possibly contacting some of the “hybrid tinkerers”, etc.  Right now, I’m not sure I have the time to basically develop a research paper then distill it to the length of a readable not-overly technical blog entry.

Here are Paul’s posts: The 500mpg Carburetor and the 250mpg Hybrid, Paul Derangement Syndrome and Good News! The 1000mpg Hybrid Car Has Arrived!

I note that in the last entry, the point is raised that it shouldn’t be called a plug-in hybrid.  Since we are talking about a hybrid electric-gas powered vehicle than can be “plugged in” to the grid for recharge, I wonder what name they would prefer.

Hmm...never saw it Dave.

I’ve emailed Likwid and Spaghetti to see if they maybe saw it and didn’t accept it.

This whole post-submission thing is kind of new for us, we’re still working out how to communicate on all of them.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Neither I not Likwid saw it either… Must have been an error of some kind.  You should retry Dave, I’d like to see someone of your worldview post a bit…

I posted the story about John Roberts’ work in that gay rights case that came out a few weeks ago.

Ah, so you did… I had assumed you meant you posted one that didn’t get through.  My bad.

Hey folks - no matter what you think of the war, the lady lost her child.  Just stop and think about that.  You lose a son or daughter.War is war, people are going to get hurt, we have to ensure we do not fall back to what our servicemembers faced during the Vietnam war.  We need to support our troops - but it does not mean that we give a blank check to the governement to waste our children.

Hey Ryan:

Have you ever served in the military?

Doug Mahoney said, Hey folks - no matter what you think of the war, the lady lost her child. Just stop and think about that.

Yeah we know. It is used by her and her supporters as the trump card as if the fact that she lost her child means we can’t question or criticize what comes out of her mouth.

[...] rant against Michelle Malkin defends the indefensible. He should know better.” For details, see the 8/16 Blogometer. More Patterico: “Cole thinks the divorce isn’t news. Malkin disagrees, and so does theAP. ... But Cole has come completely unhinged on the topic, excusing nasty leftists’ personal and juvenile attacks on Malkin and her appearance.” Reading said pontification, Balloon Juice’s Cole decides to apologize: “I want it made clear that I in no way think the racist crap that is heaped upon Malkin is in any way fair, or justified, or deserved.” He adds that he still disagrees about Sheehan’s divorce records, but adds: “there will be a time for that later, and I don’t want this turning into a typical Washington non-apology apology.” Damnum Absque Injuria: “I’m all for quaint concepts like privacy and all that fun stuff, but then again, divorces are public records, Sheehan has made herself into a public figure, and news is news, particular when it goes to a person’s credibility.” [Update, 9/6: It appears as though we missed the overall intent of that post.] Say Anything: “Line up guys! The woman of your dreams is about to be single again!” [...]