A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters

She - being, I think, a none too bright or sophisticated woman - kind of opens herself to this kind of sniping because she sort of claims sometimes to speak for her son and such.

She has as much right to speak out as any grieving parent - I don't think the snipers would be complaining if she were extolling the nobility of the cause in which the poor damn young fella died.

Ok Tico let's go with this for a try-on. let's say Cindy is very sincere in her thoughts and feelings as a mother and let's also say that there are some on the other side of the road as sincere. Let's also say that the "troops" encamped on both sides are quite simply, parasites postioning themselves in the political games of media oneupmanship with. their own agendas. If you agree to that then I would concede the door swings both ways.

Nope.

Because you people are not attacking the message.

You are sliming her with accusations of racism and such on pathetic wisps of evidence.

You slime, I will call you on it if I happen to see it.

If you want to debate reasonably, I will debate back.

I hafta agree.

Lol - and, as far as I know, the US isn't a race.

dlowan wrote:

I hafta agree.

Lol - and, as far as I know, the US isn't a race.

To the contrary mz rabbit the US is a race.

Lol - and, as far as I know, the US isn't a race.

Kopel: Sheehan's radical views little noted

Despite heavy coverage, nation's press strangely reluctant to report all she says

August 27, 2005

Cindy Sheehan claims the media are "a propaganda tool for the government." A New York Post editorial (Aug. 16) argued that Sheehan's statement was self-evidently false, given the overwhelming and almost exclusively positive media attention paid to her in the last several weeks. But in a broader sense, Sheehan has a point: Almost all the news stories and columns in Denver dailies, like the vast majority of the rest of the mainstream media, have failed to inform their readers about what Sheehan really thinks.

The night before Sheehan began her Crawford, Texas, vigil, she spoke at the convention of Veterans for Peace (transcript at www.veteransforpeace.org).She told the crowd about a sympathetic e-mailer who warned that her profanity offended "people on the fence."

In reply, she argued that anyone who supports the war should "get your a-- over to Iraq." Everyone against the war should "stand up and speak out. But whatever side you fall on, quit being on the fence . . . we have to get this country off their butts."

In other words, Sheehan's use of inflammatory rhetoric is an important part of her communication strategy. Yet even as the mainstream media has fawned over her campout, it has neutered her message, refusing to print her statements which are intended to get people off the fence.

For example, on Aug. 16, Sheehan held a media conference call during which she declared "The person who killed my son, I have no animosity for that person at all." Yet her statement was reported only in the National Review Online weblog. In an interview with Mark Knoller of CBS News, she explained that the foreigners who have to come to Iraq to battle the U.S. military are "freedom fighters." (Video at the anti-war Web site dc.indymedia. org/usermedia/video/2/cindyon bus.mov). Conversely, she described last January's vote in Iraq as a "sham election," in her Tuesday entry on her weblog on Michael Moore's Web site (http:// michaelmoore.com/mustread/ index.php?id=465).

Sheehan hopes that her strong words will get people off the fence, yet the mainstream media fails to report them. And until Friday's profile in the Rocky Mountain News, the only Denver daily articles to quote Sheehan's provocative words at even modest length were editorial page columns in the News - two by Mike Rosen and one by George Will, for a grand total of four paragraphs' worth of quotes. The Denver Post continues to shield its readers almost completely from Sheehan's fiery language and radical policy beliefs, as did a 25-paragraph profile of Sheehan in Friday's News.

In an Aug. 16 interview with Chris Matthews on Hardball, Sheehan explained that the invasion of Afghanistan was just as wrong as the invasion of Iraq, and she would be equally angry if her son had died in Afghanistan: "Why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?" Yet the news stories in the Denver papers never mention her belief about the immorality of the Afghanistan war.

Sheehan has explained that the real global terrorist problem is the United States. Speaking at San Francisco State University on April 27, she announced, "The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush." Rebuking people (such as the Post editors who created the "Portraits of Valor" series) who claim that serving in the military is patriotic, she stated: "I'm going all over this country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for.' " She denounced the idea that soldiers should "defend this morally repugnant system we have." (Transcript at www.discoverthenet work.org/Articles/Stewartrally. htm.)

At the Veterans for Peace rally, Sheehan called George Bush a "lying bastard" and a "maniac." She showed her path to peace: "You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism." (The Crawford "Peace" House, which Sheehan has used to coordinate her protest, has a photo on its Web site depicting "Palestine" as including the entire state of Israel. That Sheehan urges the extermination of the Jewish state does not necessarily mean that she is anti-Semitic; there are some extreme-left Jews who agree with her position.)

In an Aug. 11 blog conference call, Sheehan stated, "Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state." Even if one does not entirely agree, the last several weeks do show that that the mainstream media sometimes mislead the public by refusing to print statements that sharply challenge the status quo.

Sheena's personal views are really not important to the whole purpose of her visit to Crawford.

Why can't those that hold an opposite view simply state their views without smearing the other side?

Yes I do because it is not the issue. Everyone says stuff if they talk a lot. All the people that showed up at the Crawford ranch in support of Cindy were not endorsing every single word she has ever said. They were merely there to say that they are against this war.

Witless? This coming from people who think they are patriotic because they want the US to lose the Iraq war?

I think the anti-war demonstrators are hindering the war effort. In particular to me, it's anti-US to say the things Sheehan has said. That may just be my opinion to which you don't agree ... so be it. But her anti-Israel statements can't be denied. She is, therefore, anti-Jew in my estimation. And she doesn't just oppose the policies of the current administration of Israel. She insists Israel should withdraw from "the land of Palestine."

dlowan wrote:

Lol - and, as far as I know, the US isn't a race.

Did anyone say it was?

[Racism? She's anti-US and anti-Israel ... that's part of her message. And its that part that's being highlighted by the right.

Ticomaya wrote:

Witless? This coming from people who think they are patriotic because they want the US to lose the Iraq war?

I think the anti-war demonstrators are hindering the war effort. In particular to me, it's anti-US to say the things Sheehan has said. That may just be my opinion to which you don't agree ... so be it. But her anti-Israel statements can't be denied. She is, therefore, anti-Jew in my estimation. And she doesn't just oppose the policies of the current administration of Israel. She insists Israel should withdraw from "the land of Palestine."

dlowan wrote:

Lol - and, as far as I know, the US isn't a race.

Did anyone say it was?

Yes, you did.

Ticomaya wrote:

[Racism? She's anti-US and anti-Israel ... that's part of her message. And its that part that's being highlighted by the right.

There is a huge anti-occupation movement within Israel itself. It's a bit of a head-twister trying to argue that these Israelis are therefore racist anti-semites.

And obviously, it makes no more sense to argue that someone outside of Israel (jew or non jew) holding that same opinion re the occupation must be anti-semitic or anti-Israel.