Mom holds vigil near Bush ranch

Remove all ads!

Who cares if Bush was going to a fund raiser? Would ABC say anything about a fund raiser if Kerry had won? They certainly never found anything wrong with Clinton's or Gore's constant fund raising.

 

A "loon?" How so? But she is holding a peaceful protest - a time honored American tradition. Maybe that qualifies her for entry into the "Loonies."

Gee, do you think she might be trying to get attention for what she believes? Maybe. She is camped out in front of the Ponderosa - or whatever it's called these days. But I would have never guessed she was trying to get attention. I'm glad that we have the comments of those "family members" to let us now that.

Yes, that does not sound like any kind of agenda to me...I would never guess that that was a political statement...nor does it sound like they are trying to get any kind of publicity by releasing a "public" statement. Well, pardon me, but someone's "public agenda" is showing...

 

The family releases one statement, compared to this mother who has yet to pass on a single interview from anyone, and they are the ones in it for the publicity. They don't use any individual names, but they are all about publicity?

Sorry Chandos, but it looks to me like they are embarrassed by her actions, and don't want the public to think that they support her.

Have any of you actually watched the interviews with this woman? She is a nut case! Maybe losing her child drove her to it, but she needs serious psychological help.

Oh, and someone please toss her a bra, because that is gross!

 

DW - Well, yes. That they support the president and the war effort is quite clear. Thusly, this would appear to be largely a political statement rather than just a family act of quietly trying to get the family "Loon" some help. Sorry, I can't comment on the family's credibility, but since their comments are political, they are fair game.

[ August 13, 2005, 03:28: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

That's entirely possible. Do you want to tell her, or should I?

 

No problem, do you have her number? I will be happy to tell her.

[ August 13, 2005, 03:54: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Nah, I was thinking one of us should fly out. Maybe bring a shrink along.

 

I find it sicking that a woman can loose her son in War, and instead of finding support from her family, they are more concerned about showing support for Bush and his war, and then her husband finally files for divorce:

http://www.wpxi.com/news/4855558/detail.html

 

Her family would probably support her if it wasn't for the fact that she is using, and abusing, the sacrifice made by her son for political and personal purposes. In other words, she has become a tool, and the family is separating themselves from the woman and her obvious ploy.

Do you think her family doesn't miss their loved one as well? It is really amusing that the obvious players here are all attacking the family for their political motivations when the rest of the family are not the ones sticking their faces in front of every camera they can find, while the “poor” mom is acting insane and making irrational statements in front of every microphone she can find is just a morning woman supposedly is not politically motivated at all.

I guess it is a matter of perspective.

 

The sacrifice was also hers. That appears to be a point you overlook in your lastest attack on her. And it's odd that you consider a peaceful protest to be "abuse." Thus, it appears we will have to agree on some basics here. You may want to pick up a copy of the Constitution and take a look at the Bill of Rights, since it includes the right of ALL Americans to petition the government with their grievances, which is exactly what she is doing.

It also seems odd that someone who is a leader in the protest against the war is somehow a "tool." Yet, at the same time she is in it for "her own gain" and that she has "abused" the sacrifice of her son. So thus far you have accused her of being a loon, grossly unattractive, an abuser, motivatied by personal gain, and a "tool" by persons not named. That's quite a list of personal attacks against someone who wishes to engage in the rights given to her by the Constitution.

 

Right. I do not see what is so terrible about what she is doing. After all, she is just exercising her right to peaceful protest. And people might agree or not with her ideeas, but she still has the right to express them (unless you subscribe to the notion that not suporting Bush on the war is treason).

As about her family: from the article it seems that the stress produced by the death of their son has led to a break-up between Cindy and her husband (and presumably the others members of the family). So this predates her engagement in activism. Which in my opinion shows exactly what kind of catastrophic effect the death of her son has, and puts shame to the notion that this is just a ploy for publicity.

 

The part that disgusts me about the entire thing is that I take death very seriously and personally. I recently followed a link to her blog and it horrified me. Here is a supposedly grieving mother who seems to be thriving in the spotlight. The blog is full of pictures of her with the typical Bush Bashers that are jumping on the bandwagon. The site is asking for donations, but I can't help but feel that the money may not be going to the cause people want it to because of all of the issues that are linked and supporting the site. The site has videos of her commercials. Anyone who doesn't think she is being used by other people with deeper pockets is fooling themselves. Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, but I don't think I would take mine at the expense of my son's life. I figure we are about six months from seeing her get/be on a t.v. show.

 

Perhaps you mean the big oil companies here - or drug big companies. I'm not quite sure to whom you are referring here with "deep pockets." Help us out a bit with some concrete evidence, please.

 

According to a recent BBC news report, Cindy and her husband are fighting over the compensation they recieved from her son's death. Disgusting behaviour from the entire family.

 

*shudder*

This is one of those situations where maybe it would be better if you could just arbitrarily give up your life for another person. I imagine that when she got the news, one of her first thoughts was "take me instead". If only she had been allowed to take the bullet that was meant for her son, none of this crap would have happened, and a brave fighting man might still be alive today.

As for her political agenda, I think she only joined them to have more firepower in her fight against The Bush. She (only somewhat rightly) blames Bush for her son's death, and will likely devote the next several years to his defamation. Grieving takes many forms, including revenge. She'll eventually get over it, but unless she's allowed to express her feelings legally, she may turn to...other avenues to get revenge. And frankly, I don't think Bush is even close to being deserving enough to get assassinated. Some of you may flame me for saying this, but I hope he lives a long and unhappy life in disgrace for his many misdeeds.

 

@Chandos

All the proof I need is here. . This isn't a website put together by a grieving mother. I have no idea who they really are, but this is a big time organization that is using her for its own goals. To me they are prolonging her agony for their benefit of publicity and political agenda. That disgusts me.

 

When have I ever said that she doesn't have the right to protest Chandos? Just as she has the right to protest, I have the right to criticize her actions. It may be you who needs to pick up a copy of the Bill of Rights.

I do think it is ridiculous that the MSM is making her out to be a hero, but then, we have already had the discussion about the agenda of the MSM, so I will let that go.

You missed one, a hypocrite. She already met with the President, and he even went so far as to literally hug and kiss her, yep, sounds pretty cold and distant to me. As far as who she is a tool for, I figured that was pretty obvious, and I have implied it, but since you seem to need me to spell it out, how about the Democratic Party? Finally, I don't need you in my mouth to speak for me. I never stated that she was unattractive, I stated that I she needs to wear a bra. It is part of common decency, and it certainly would help keep her from looking like a 60's hippie drop out.

A leader? Well, I guess if you consider a hundred or so beatniks and fringe elements a meaningful group, I guess that would make her a "leader". There are many who are protesting the war that have many more followers than her insignificant group.

She has made herself a public figure, and I haven't said one thing that wasn't true. Again, she can protest all she wants, and I will support her right to do so, but just because an individual is using their Constitutional rights doesn't mean that their grievances are legitimate, in fact, I would venture to say that the majority of protestors are well off from what the majority of society deems right, correct, or proper.

Why, the majority of Americans voted for him, and he has done exactly what he said he would. You are venting your frustration upon the mechanism rather than the creator of the mechanism. If you should wish ill on anyone it should start with those who voted for him, so feel free to start with me.

 

He's done maybe half the s*** he promised to, not to mention a couple things he promised he wouldn't. Even though that's par for the course as president, it still ain't right. As for venting: you're damn straight I'm venting! There's nothing I can actually do about it, so I might as well spout off. It's a time-honored tradition to whine about the stuff you can't change (not to mention people in high positions), and I'm proud to be a part of it. I have no doubt you've done the same under different circumstances.

And I'm not about to make myself look like a fool by following your ridiculous suggestion of venting on the 'creator of the mechanism' (e.g. Bush Sr. should be neutered, or some-such other nonsense ). I'm also not about to wish ill on anyone who was deluded enough to vote for Bush. Such people should be pitied, not scorned.

 

The Great Snook: the website you linked to is that of TruthOut. How did you come to the conclusion that this is 'her' website? (or put together by her). She just post there. Her blog might be hosted there. I fail to see how that invalidates her opinions.

As for the fact that they use her... yeah, sure. She happens to agree with their point of view, and her unfortunate backgroung makes her a compelling public figure. Or you would argue that the only people which are allowed to protest the war are those who do not have any personal stake in it and have not lost anything?

Actually, I think this is the reason why the right is so mad at Cindy Sheehan. Not only because she speaks against the war, plenty of people on the left do, and they are ignored. But because of her personal loss in connection with it. This makes her harder to ignore. Hence, the smears and name calling.

Darkwolf: you say she has the right to protest, but she doing so makes you call her insane, and a tool. Well...

And about Bush doing "exactly what he said he would" ... ROTFLMAO

 

Wow, I wonder what the majority of the major posters here would think of your opinion that I should be pitied.

It is a time honored tradition among those who never rise to greatness, it is not a habit of effective people.

Buy the way, the creators of the mechanism are the 62,040,606 people who voted for him. To state otherwise is to avoid personal responsibility. If Kerry had won, then those responsible for his actions (for good or bad) would be those who voted for him.

I know Lincoln said you can fool some of the people all of the time, but damn, 62 million people after 4 years in office, that is amazing!

What major positions has Bush not done exactly what he said he would? No judgement things here like "restore honesty and integrity". I am talking about actual policy statements.