As I have stated before, Cindy Sheehan has absolutely every right to say what she wants. And so does Tony Moschetti.

Tony even gets a Counterpoint Column. Way to go Tony!

I totally disagree with the above letter on pirnciple. Tony is merely going along with the Right Wing talking points- which are trying to paint Mrs. Sheehan as a flip-flopper. And, it's not working. Tony, in the Vacaville Reporter story, which is here Cindy also expresses her opinion about the war. I don't see that anything has changed. Just because she said Bush is a man of faith, or that he is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis does not translate to supporting him. I think you want it to, but it does not. Also, the 'gift' was the family's ability to spend the day together touring Seattle.

Now, On to the family part. What the rest of his family think or say is their opinion. Though I know what you are doing here, you are trying to make this woman out to be crazy. You and your cohorts on the right are shameless. We on the left use free speech to right wrongs. You on the right use free speech to try to damage the reputation of a grieving mother. But, we all know this is because your argument doesn't hold water.

I support Cindy Sheehan. I also think that your attempt to twist facts to besmirch her reputation is reprehensible.

I do not agree with everything that is being attributed to Mrs. Sheehan. I think she is being exploited on some level by other interests, via her grief. But there is a rather simple explanation for why she might possibly have changed her attitude toward Bush between the last time and this time...

Last time she was a grieving mother who wanted to desperately believe that her son didn't die in vain. I imagine a lot of parents of soldiers who have died in Iraq are feeling this way. They direly need to know for themselves that their sons and daughters perished for some greater purpose.

This time Sheehan understands that there was no purpose, and that her son died for no reason whatsoever. That his life was utterly wasted when it could have borne so much fruit had he not been sent into a war with no aim, by a man who never had the desire to risk his own life in combat. Having come to terms with that, she seems resolved to do something constructive about it.

If only this war's supporters could argue with some semblance of passion that this war is indeed worth fighting, instead of seemingly only being able to attack those who are already showing they are adeptly capable of denouncing it. It seems so simple a thing to do, yet they fail to do so...

My first reaction is to say "Way to go Tony". You wrote a letter without calling anyone an idiot and one that passes as reasonable, with only a few snide remarks. There's hope for all of us.

Of course you beat the left/right dead horse to death (is that contradictory) but it is a letter to the editor.

You use Sheehans words against her saying Bush met with her and she had a different take right after her sons death. Perhaps Tony, grieving is a process and she doesn't feel the same about it as she did when when it was fresh and she was probably still in shock.

The "facts" that you quote have been broadly covered by the MSM indeed by our very own N&R. I dare say you didn't have to dig through a labyrinth of right winged sources to discover these nuggets though they're given heavier weight by those folks.

It has been alleged that Cindy is a has been used as a tool of anti-war anti-Bush people. Very true, just as her relatives are being used as tools of pro-war pro-Bush people. I've read plenty about their "silent" grieving.

They have all paid a heavy price and they have the right to be used by any one they choose. None of them are unwitting tools.

If Bush had a backbone he would meet with this woman (yes again), but he hasn't shown that he has the cahones to face opposition. He hasn't shown that he can explain why we have spent the billions and caused 10s of thousands of deaths in order to, according to the latest analysys, will probably produce an Islamic Republic, ala Iran.

Wow. It looks as though Jim, Christopher, and Marshall pretty much covered the bases on counterpoints for this one.

Isn't it funny how the "right" in this country will smear anyone who speaks out against it? McCain, Kerry, and Max Cleland all come to mind- all served nobly, but had their service denigrated and made the butt of jokes or awful accusations.

And now the smear machine has gone after a woman who's lost her Marine son. How low can you go?

It's deplorable and disgusting, but just watch, the apologists will be in here soon to make fun of a mother who raised an Ealge Scout Christian Marine.

Tony, good letter. So long as Sheehan stays on the front page the left's hands are tied in bringing on another Bush "smear de jour"; However,when the Crawford circus has run it's course the DNC and it's supporters will jump the Sheehan boat faster than Slick on an intern.

Good letter Tony. The libs like the "she just changed her mind" explanation. I would have also added that she is not just a grieving mom, rather an anti-war activist aligned with America hating groups like moveon.org and that slimebag Micheal Moore.

I heard there are some pro-Bush military families going to Crawford for a few weeks to camp out near Cindy. Let's just see how much attention the media give them.

It really doesn't matter what the "rest of the family" says about their "grieving" process. Not a one of them carried Casey in their belly for nine months before giving birth to him. As Casey's closest blood relative, his mother has the right to say anything she wishes on his behalf. Everyone else needs to butt out. That includes the Tony Moschetti's of this world.

When Tony, hugh and others, who can't resist ripping into Ms. Sheehan, have lost a child in this war and want to speak out in support of this war, I'll say they have earned the right. Until then, attacking this womam just makes you look like heartless, thoughtless men.

Sorry Yvonne, but motherhood isn't instant sainthood and isn't an immunity from critisism or observation, no matter how strong your emotions on the subject.

'The libs like the "she just changed her mind" explanation.'

Gosh Dan,

I'm glad you can see into her heart. I can see this subject is going to make a lot of folks look small today.

What is a "liberal"?

What is a "conservative" for that matter?

Honestly, some people cannot live a happy life without going about it actively looking to HATE someone else, for the most ridiculous and inane of reasons.

Does the "no more than one letter every thirty days" rule not apply to counterpoint columns?

Mr. Moschetti has further muddy the waters with his response to Cindy Sheehan’s request to speak to President Bush. He wants people to believe that Mrs. Sheehan’s first meeting with the president wasn’t reported. Every news report I read or heard included that fact and she has said so herself in numerous interviews.

As for Mrs. Sheehan having a change of heart a year after meeting with Bush, Mr. Moschetti may find that dishonest but I find it much more dishonest that our president has changed his reasons for why we are fighting this war in Iraq. First he said we needed to get the weapons of mass destruction, then we needed to oust Sadaam, then we needed to fight terrorism and now we are promoting democracy in a country that hasn’t used that method of governing for thousands of years. Mrs. Sheehan wants to know which of these makes this war a “noble cause.”

The truth is Mrs. Sheehan is being raked over the coals for speaking out against Bush. The truth is Mrs. Sheehan is aware that freedom of speech is vital to America. The truth is Americans continue to die in Iraq and families grieve and sometimes that grief drives family members to say, “No more.”

News outlets spin the facts to meet their needs. It is shameful that Fox, Rush Limbaugh and others could not simply report that this grieving mom is protesting this war. Following the lead of the Bush Administration, they choose to tear down her reputation instead.

Well we've heard from Tony, Hugh, and Dan next will be Yard Dog, and truth. Dan has ajump on the rest but they will spend 2 or 3 days trying to outdo each other in insulting Mrs. Sheehan.

Go to it boys - show us your worst - don't forget to log on to Rush's site to get today's script. Show everyone how compassionate you conservatives are.

Oh and don't be to hard on Mochetti - sometimes the medicine works and sometimes it doesn't - get well soon Tony.

left wing this and right wing that...how about this from the guy who has to get up and go to work in the morning...if she wants to sit outside of the bush ranch wait for a meeting, let her. i hope her bills are paid up. instead of working on her marriage, she'd rather go camping. she's pissing off the neighbors there and the rest of the bandwagon has also setup camp complete with a stage for anti-war neo-hippy music...does anyone go to work anymore? what the hell kind of support system do these people have? I dont want Bush to meet with her because that would give a green light to every other crazy person to camp outside of his ranch for a meeting. Just for fun, I wish Bush would spend the last couple of weeks in hawaii and then to florida just to see if the Sheehan Convoy would follow.

"Oh and don't be to hard on Mochetti - sometimes the medicine works and sometimes it doesn't - get well soon Tony."

Ya see, this here is exactly what I mean. That wasn't nice, yellowdog. Not nice at all.

And earlier we saw Dan refer to "that slimebag Micheal Moore."

It's one thing to disagree with someone else. It's entirely another to outright despise and belittle them so over it.

Be careful when dishing out the hatred, laddies... that way lies madness.

No, hugh, motherhood does not elevate one to sainthood nor does it protect one from criticism. I never implied it did. What I was trying to say, in a polite way is, none of you men who are so unchivarously hacking Sheehan, can ever know what it's like to carry a child inside your belly for nine months, give birth to that child and nurture it throughout childhood. Then have that child killed, for what?

None of you, Tony, Dan or hugh, know what is in Cindy Sheehan's mind or heart. Therefore, to speculate as to motives and agendas is most presumptuous. Try walking a mile in her shoes, then bring some hard, concrete facts back to the table to discuss. It really does nothing to boost your image or win any talking points when you post such hateful things about someone you don't agree with, IMHO.

Mr. Moschetti, get your facts straight. Conspiracy theories are tiresome.

"Sheehan met the president in June 2004." -- CNN, August 12, 2005

(28 more articles from CNN published in August that include the fact that Bush previously met with Sheehan)

"'Listen, I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan,' said Mr. Bush, who met Ms. Sheehan once
before in a group of grieving relatives..." -- New York Times, August 12, 2005

(8 more articles published in August in the NY Times that include the fact Bush previously met with Sheehan.)

"Sheehan was among grieving military families who met with Bush in June 2004 at
Fort Lewis, near Seattle, Wash." -- CBS News, August 7, 2005

(27 other stories from CBS News in August that include the fact that that Bush previously met with Sheehan.)

Who is, to use your words, "vastly uninformed or being blatantly dishonest" Mr. Moschetti?

Good letter Tony....actually I have heard a couple of reports of Sheehan's previous meeting with Bush, but it is downplayed.

What is not reported is her interview with CNN in which she admitted that if the Pres did indeed meet with her, it might take the wind out of the sails of her protest. Also, she implicitly acknowledged she has had a long-standing political axe to grind with Bush and Republicans in general "my in-laws (who have spoken out openly in opposition to her publicity stunt using her son's death as a bludgeon to beat Bush) and I have been at opposite poles on the politics of this for a long time".....what she did not acknowledge was that she has in the past been very active in espousing her political views.

The left cannot take the truth, so you may dis-regard all those nay-sayers from posts above. Keep up the good work, even the Daily Worker (aka The GSO News and Record) will occasionally print dissenting views.

Mike Crouch
MIKROUCH@aol.com

Without commenting on the merits, or lack thereof, of what Cindy Sheehan is doing, I'd like to point out a few relevant facts.

In the same 6/24/2004 article in the Vacaville Reporter that Mr. Moschetti refers to, it is made clear that even at the time, Cindy Sheehan was questioning the wisdom of our involvement in Iraq but said nothing to the president then because she thought it was what her son would have wanted.

Moreover, the "gift" Sheehan refers to is not the meeting with Bush but the trip to Seattle to meet with other families of war dead. So the truth is that Cindy Sheehan, at least, has been raising questions about our involvement in Iraq for quite a while and is no recent convert to the anti-war position. In that light, Moschetti's claim that no "liberal" news outlet has reported the "pertinent facts" is exposed as false.

Moschetti also claims that mainstream news outlets haven't reported on the letter from Sheehan's in-laws supporting Bush. A few quick site searches for "Cherie Quartarolo" (who signed the letter) shows that the letter was in fact reported by, among others, Robin Miller of MediaNews Group (parent company of the Denver Post, LA Daily News and other newspapers), ABCNews.com, CNN.com and The Washington Post. I stopped checking at that point.

There's a saying in newsrooms: "There's always a faster gun." That's shorthand for the fact that statements involving absolutes -- "first," "always," "only," "never" and, yes, "fastest" -- almost always need to be either double-checked or qualified. This column is an example of what happens when a writer doesn't follow that advice.

Ms. Sheehan's feelings have been coopted by the left wing in yet another attempt to attack the President and his policies.
The left wing will grasp at any straw to try and destroy their enemies: the majority of Americans who disagree with them and don't want them in positions of power.
Sheehan is just another unfortunate stooge, handled and directed by the left.

Hummm.... changed her mind now. Watch for her book.

Good counterpoint Tony. You are right on about the anti-Bush press. They ask the unhinged pawn of movon.org no questions. They just turn over the the microphone and let her rant on absurdly and unchallenged. The writer for Slate and Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens has exposed Sheehan's duplicity. Casey's father has dumped his loony wife. What does this tell you Yvonne ?

"Ms. Sheehan's feelings have been coopted by the left wing in yet another attempt to attack the President and his policies."

Ten years ago it could very well have been "Paula Jones' feelings have been coopted by the right wing in yet another attempt to attack the President and his policies."

Come to think of it, it was a lot along those lines.

It was right to scrutinize Clinton then, just as it's proper to scrutinize Bush now. Although it must be said that a 2+years long war with nearing 2,000 dead and nothing to show for it does lend itself to being a policy worthy of attacking for something at least...

This should not even be the story it is.

If George W. could look Ms. Sheehan in the eye, face to face, and defend his war, it would have been over a long time ago.

Problem is, he can't.

Sheehan was politically active on the impeach Bush and anti-war front before she discovered the "talk to me Mr. Bush, my son is dead" sympathy angle.

In early May Sheehan spoke at an anti-war rally hosted by Lynne Stewart, a political activist attorney who was recently "convicted of conspiracy and for passing along fatwas (Islamic religious edicts) from Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman to his terrorist followers in Egypt’s Islamic Group. Rahman is the blind sheikh responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 that left six Americans dead and more than 1,000 people injured.

Her trial lasted seven months, and the jury deliberated 13 days before convicting her and two co-conspirators, one of whom (Ahmed Abdhel Sattar) was wiretapped making calls to al-Qaeda while the other (Mohammed Yousry) translated messages to be sent to a terrorist leader overseas. "

Article here:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17915

Sheehan also participated in a mock "impeachment hearing" hosted by the most left of center congress members and Senators at DC in June. photo here Please note that Sheehan is seated next to the self proclaimed "non partiasn" Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, husband of Valarie Plame involved in the now infamous failed smear of Rove. (Remember that one?)

Article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html

Sheehan also protested the Downing Street Memos (remember that smear de jour?) back in June also., Photo's here and here.And in a continuation of her political activisim she arrived in Crawford aboard the "Impeachment Tour Bus"

Sheehans political activism isn't what bothers me. The real dishonor here is the way she is capitalizing on her son's death to further her political activism adgenda and the left's capitalzation of her "protected status" as a "greiving" mother being the sole reason she is in the media spotlight.

The despicable action of using her son's death to further the cause of the leftist organizations that support her is beyond shame, IMO.

Arnold R., that is the basis summation of the whole situation. For Bush to give a basic AND valid defense for spending billions upon billions of taxpayer money and costing 1,800+ American lives, the issue would be a "non-issue" now.

President Bush has already met with Ms. Sheehan.
Don't you even read the news you're so bound and determined to mis-comment on?

I do believe Arnold R. and Darryl have nailed this one.

Gregory I suggest that you throughly read the story(stories) about Ms. Sheehan's meeting with George Bush, as I have, before you feel so compelled to attack someone based solely on your love for the president.

Marion, The way you chose to word your question to me tells me more about you than it does about Mr. Sheehan. I have read they have separated and he is not making a statement about his wife to the media. No where have I read he "dumped his loony wife" so I am assuming that's your own phrase.

Does that make you feel better? Does that make it true? Does it win any talking points? You must be right proud to assume so much about someone else's marriage.

But since you asked, the fact that they have separated since the death of their son, says to me the marriage wasn't strong enough to withstand that much pressure. It says this was a private decision that some are now trying to capitalize on. The fact Mr. Sheehan is not making derrogatory comments tells me he is a respectful person and hasn't been corrupted yet.

Is there no line too shallow or too petty for some of you to cross?

". . . has dumped his looney wife."

Ahh, compassionate conservatism at its finest. I've just been reminded why I go months without reading this blog.

Ick.

Sheehan's agenda in her own words:

�9/11 was Pearl Harbor for the neo-conservatives� agenda� and declared the U.S. government a �morally repugnant system".

"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!"

IMPO Cindy Sheehan is a deranged crackpot.

Cindy by all means , don't pay your taxes and I'll be there to happily slap on the cuffs and give you the perp walk for your friends at CNN and their cameras. Stalker !

I think it is interesting that some of the folks here have a problem with Republicans saying something about Ms. Sheehan because this is a 'personal matter'.

If it is so personal, why is this lady clamoring for every bit of media attention she can get. When she does that, she opens herself up to all kinds of scrutiny.

It seems it is okay as long as left-wing liberals are using her for their agenda, but the second somebody from the other side wants to comment, they get blasted with "oh, the poor grieving mother. how dare you say anything. you can't know how she feels. blah, blah, blah."

Personally, I think everyone should stay out of it and Ms. Sheehan should get some real help. Bush doesn't have any answers that will satisfy her. Professional counseling helps many people and may be of help to her.

As far as the comments about Ms. Sheehan's saintdom go. Just because this woman carried her son in her womb for 9 months and is his mother gives her no right to smear his name all over the press. Her son volunteered and gave his life for the US of A. I find it very doubtful that he would want his mom to be out in front of the liberal army trying to embarrass his Commander in Chief

Biscuit, You really do not know anymore about what her son would or would not want any more than I do. That is the reason I don't presume to know and do not speculate.

My comment about it being a personal issue was in reference to her marriage falling apart, not about what she is or is not doing to protest. But how like some of the right to take things out of context and twist it to suit their agendas.

And please note, Ms. Sheehan has as much right to express her disapproval of this administration as you do to express otherwise. In fact, unless you have lost a child in this war, you have less of a right.

This has already been pretty well covered above, but I can personally attest to the fact that CNN has mentioned the June 2004 visit with Bush on two or three occasions in just the last week.

Warmest regards,
Tony

"As Casey's closest blood relative, his mother has the right to say anything she wishes on his behalf."

Actually she has the right to speak her opinions. At the same time so to do the people who disagree with her. More to the point how you can say this was on his behalf? His father (but I guess according to you means nothing since he only donated the sperm) said that "in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act." So you say she is speaking on his behalf. This was her son who REENLISTED AND VOLUNTEERED to go on the mission to save his buddies and you really believe this is what he would have wanted? Not to mention to you really believe that he would want his mom to forsake her family (not just her husband, but other kids as well), "Unfortunately, I [Cindy Sheehan] am not able to help them [my children] that much because of my pain, and because I feel so compelled to fight the injustice and bring the troops home." Here her son is asking her to come home: "supports his mother in principle but recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her "to come home because you need to support us at home," he says."

"Until then, attacking this womam just makes you look like heartless, thoughtless men."
Let's us look back and see what a thoughtful and compassionate woman thought about a different mother losing her daughter: "We will never know what Terri really wanted, we only know what the Schindlers wanted." "not produce the media circus this one did is none of those families were into grandstanding the way the Schindlers were.Their actions were indicative of people who thought they could change the law of the land simply because they would not accept their parental rights stopped when their child reached adulthood." "The Schlindlers and other extremeists" "They want to incite the public to react as they are." Wow so different from "his mother has the right to say anything she wishes on his behalf." Why the double standard?

Christopher, Micheal Moore is a slimebag, just stating the truth.

"Christopher, Micheal Moore is a slimebag, just stating the truth."

Of course if he were doing the same thing but for "your" side he would instead be a saint, no doubt.

"That is the reason I don't presume to know and do not speculate."
I'm confused. If you don't presume or speculate, what was your meaning with this sentence: "his mother has the right to say anything she wishes on his behalf."

"unless you have lost a child in this war, you have less of a right."
Really and why is that? I was under the impression that as Americans we were all entitled to this right.

What makes Cindy Sheehan so special? She didn't join the military, she didn't die in a war, to be quite blunt, Cindy Sheenan did not do anything special. Her son Casey did. He was the one that reenlisted. He was the one that died in the service of this county, he was an adult who made an adult decision. The sad fact of the matter is Ms. Sheehan has that away from her son and put the spotlight on herself and if nothing else that is a pretty selfish thing to do.
Why should the President speak with her? What makes her so special over everyone else? Heck why don't we just let her get on the floor of Congress and ask them why they authorized the war.

Come one Chris, you're better than to speculate and create ficticious "what if's". :-)

"He was the one that died in the service of this country..."

Casey Sheehan volunteered to serve his country. He did NOT volunteer to serve whoever happened to have political power over his country.

Not Sheehan, or anybody else, was supposed to be expendable fodder in Bush's personal cadre, to be used for whatever vendetta or mad plot crosses his mind. This is the great unsaid truth of most of the war supporters' claims: that because Sheehan "volunteered" to be in the army, that he DID volunteer to be at Bush's utmost whim.

I thought that Christians are supposed to put a much higher value on human life than that.

Christopher you seem to forget that he REENLISTED while Bush was President and at the same time knowing that his unit was going to Iraq. So your arguement doesn't quite hold water. Also when someone signs on the dotted line to join the military they know good and well that they are going to serve who happens to be in power hence why the President is called "the Commander-n-Chief" of the armed services. To say otherwise is basically saying those who serve are stupid.

This is forgetting that the President serves us. We do not serve him.Which is why what Cindy Sheehan is doing, despite whatever else she's said (and I do have a problem with some of the things she's said), she is trying to hold this government accountable to the people. That's what we're supposed to be doing all the time anyway.

Christopher, the government is held accountable, every 4 years which the majority of people re-elected Bush this past election. Not to mention the fact that if Cindy was holding the "government" accountable, she would also include Congress in here little "media stunt". Yet I haven't heard her question any member as to why they voted to give the President authorization. That is why she is not "holding the government accountable to the people". You know Christopher when David Duke crawls out from under his rock and supports your position and when Al Jezeer runs your story over and over again, I would think that would be a big warning that maybe I have went a little overboard, but yet she keeps going. I mean really David Duke!

Arnold R., it is a FACT that President Bush has met with Ms. Sheehan before.
Well documented, admitted by Sheehan, and reported by the major media.
Are you suggesting I made this up??
What's your point?

Christopher Knight: here is a direct quote from Michael Moore and he is referring to ALL Americans (not just Yallerdawg): "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet".

If you like the guy, says alot about you. Nuff said.

First it was Schi-avo.

Now, it is Shee-han.

IMO, it's all a bunch of Shee-it designed to take our focus off real issues.

"Christopher, Micheal Moore is a slimebag, just stating the truth."

Dan it's getting plenty slippery around here too, just stating the truth.

Cindy Sheehans son died in the war in our name. Does that put us in her debt? I think so. At the very least turn down the hate machine & let her have her say. It would be a good time to show that there really is some compassion on the conservative tribe or at least a little class. I've seen very little of either on this board.

IMO Bush looks like a coward for not meeting with her (yes again Gregory) and more to the point he looks like an idiot for he could have defused the whole situation in a few minutes.

Didn't want to dissapoint ole'yallerstreak.
"Bush could have defused this whole thing in just a few minutes"? Do you really believe that if Bush talked to Sheehan for an hour that she and her little party would just melt onto the woodwork? PLEASE! IMO,the last thing this lady wants is to talk to Bush and put an end to this charade.
They want to milk this for all it's worth. When this little party is over you will see Michael Moore and Stuart Smalley move on to the next "victim of the week" to bash Bush and leave Ms.Sheehan out in the cold.

Marshall, Have you noticed most of the right who post here have absolutely NO tolerance for disagreement with their views? If you post a disagreement you are a marked target to be obliterated.

Asking them to put away the rifles only serves to make them adjust the scope for a better shot. I truly hope their souls will be washed clean of this hatred before it's too late.

"Christopher, the government is held accountable, every 4 years which the majority of people re-elected Bush this past election."

Wrong. It is held accountable all the time. An election is not a blank check for four years of God-knows-what.

This is more assuming that because Bush won an election, he is therefore "king" somehow.

"'They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet".'"

Not that I like the guy but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If not "dumbest", we are certainly the most decadent of any nation in history. When are we going to start facing up to that?

What I find funny is that all of these republicans who are attacking Cindy Sheehan as a crazy loon, were all so supportive of Terri Shiavo's parents. They were just grieving and having a hard time letting go. According to republicans who supported their grief, it was completely resonable that they use the media for thier cause. Now, with this mother, they say she is crazy and horrible to use the media. Double standard? Yes. In both cases I see parents who do not want to deal with the reality of what has happened to thier children. Attacking Sheehan is unfair and petty. She lost her son and wants some answers. I disagreed with Shiavo's parents, but didnt feel it was neccessary to attack them. I understand why they fought for what they thought was right. Sheehan is doing the same. Sheehan isnt crazy, she is a mother who lost her child, leave her be.

"Cindy Sheehans son died in the war in our name. Does that put us in her debt? I think so."

That is where you are wrong Marshall. You owe Casy Sheehan a debt, not his mother. Again please tell me why she is so special. Her son was an adult, who made a decision. He was not drafted. What did Cindy do for us that I owe her a debt?

Secondly, in my opinion I think Cindy is feeling guilty and that is why she has to strike out at someone. Her son re-enlisted, probably against her wishes and I think that when he left strong words were probably spoken and since he died so soon after arriving, she probably didn't get a chance to put that right. Again, just my speculating from things she has said. But that is either here nor there, again Cindy didn't do anything for me however Casey did and again I say it is pretty sad that his mom feels the need to spotlight herself and not her son.

"It would be a good time to show that there really is some compassion on the conservative tribe or at least a little class."

I ask you Marshall where was the compassion for Terry and her mom? Where was the class? Because I reviewed these blogs and this is what the other side had to say about that tragedy: "Here's a little quote from the Christian Fascist ghoul who glommed onto the parents of Terry Schiavo to promote his theocratic vision on the world" "But unfortunately it sounds like you're buying in to the rhetoric of the Christian Fascist lunatics who glommed onto the Terry Schiavo case to promote their very real political goals." "It was such incredible bad taste and a lack of class that her parents would hold press conferences every day outside her hospice. Right-thinking people grieve for a lost loved one in private, not in front of television cameras." (unless of course you are Cindy Sheehan) "Why can't you and others who keep expressing the same views put this to rest?" "Let's not forget who helped initiate the presence of the press and the politicians-the Schindlers." Such class and compassion the leftist have huh?

Yvonne- I have to point out your hypocricy. The people representing the 'right' are not spewing hate, to Marshall or you on this blog. They are quoting- in context- people who are hateful.

On one hand we disagree with your views, and respectfully argue with you. Yet when you are faced with the sad and deplorable facts about Sheehan and those who have exploited her, you insult us for disagreeing with you.

Sorry K- your comparison has to many holes. Sheehan is using her son's death to propagate a political agenda. Shiavo's parents used the media to try and save their daughter's life.

Yvonne,

Not sure if your above post was directed at me, but I feel I have to answer you. I'm sorry that you feel you are above everyone else and no one has the right to question you. This is a public forum and if you post something I have everything right to question your opinion, you have the right to ignore me.

I find it a tad hypocritical that you can accuse people of posting mean and hateful stuff, take to task anyone who doesn't agree with you (to the point of "pointing your gun" yes go back and check your response to biscuit) you accuse people of whining yet as soon as someone questions you it's "If you post a disagreement you are a marked target to be obliterated."

Have you ever taken a second to stop and read the questions someone has put to you. I asked why the double standard. Why is it that "Tony, hugh and others, look like heartless, thoughtless men" who "post such hateful things" yet when I post your quotes (and yes go back and check every one of those quotes were from you concerning the Schindlers) and ask why the double standard suddenly some (which I assume to be me since you didn't answer my questions to you) has "NO tolerance for disagreement with their views"? This from the same person who said: "Why can't you and others who keep expressing the same views put this to rest?" That sounded really tolerant.

I don't hate,I just have questions so maybe I can better understand your point or position. I thought that was what these blogs were about. Too bad you think you are above all of that.

"You owe Casy Sheehan a debt, not his mother."

You honestly think she hasn't suffered a loss. Do you think the one that died is the only one that paid a price? That's sad. You don't have to hate others to love Bush. This cult of personal destruction must end.

Goodnight.

Sorry Christopher but you are wrong in saying:
Casey Sheehan volunteered to serve his country. He did NOT volunteer to serve whoever happened to have political power over his country.
This young man took the oath of enlistment just as I and many others have done. I don't believe the oath say's anything about choosing who's orders you will obey. NOTE: IT SAYS .....OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Marshall, I never said she didn't suffer a loss and just to set the record straight I have compassion for anyone who has lost a love one (whether it is in a war, volience, cancer etc.). However for you to say I owe her a debt is wrong. She didn't join, reenlist, volunteer to go on a mission and lose her life, her son did and for you to raise her up above those soliders who have died is sad.

Who do I hate Marshall? I don't hate anyone and have never said I did. I do however think that if a radical like David Duke came out and supported my cause, I would have to take a step back and wonder if maybe I have fallen off the deep end.

"'They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet".'"

Not that I like the guy but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If not "dumbest", we are certainly the most decadent of any nation in history. When are we going to start facing up to that?

Come on Chris, I'm sure you like the guy since you keep defending him. His website keeps an hourly update on Cindy Sheehan.

Look at todays Wall Street Journal page A10 for some other families who lost loved ones in Iraq who do not agree with Cindy Sheehan. They deserve to have their voices heard as well.

I tend to agree with you on the most decadent society, that is due to fanatical liberalism. We can start facing up to that by continuing to defeat slimebags like Michael Moore and the slimebags who espouse his beliefs.

...Cindy is leaving Crawford......her 15 minutes of left wing manipulated fame are up......

May Casey Sheehan rest in the arms of a loving Creator God.

Shalom

It is noted in an above post that Cindy Sheehan is has packed up and leaving the protest area.

While I do not know if that person knew the reason, Cindy Sheehan left to be with her 74-year old mother who has suffered a stroke.

So, prayers are appropriately in order for this situation, regardless of one's political beliefs (religious beliefs aside).

AMEN

Tony Moschetti,
Everything has changed since the Downing Street memo revealed to the world what I have always suspected that Bush lied about why he attacked Iraq. When Cindy first met with Bush she did not have that information. She said then she thought he was a man of faith. Now she knows this man of faith sent her son to die for a lie. Andy are you too immoral or too rascist to care that 7000 to 9000 Americans have died and over 100,000 Iraqi have been murdered by our troops for this very evil man? Do you care that Exxon profits for the 1st quarter was 8 billion dollars? It appears that those who are profitting from this war are closely associated with Bush and Cheney. Cindy's son died for big oil and the military industrial complex. Are those noble causes to die for? I say no and Cindy wants to know just what Bush think tnose noble causes are.

Mrproduce,
soldiers also have the right and responsibility not to follow illegal orders. Bush's illegal premptive war on Iraq was illegal and he and his generals should be tried as war criminals

Charles, the memo has no legs. None. There is no conspiracy. The war is not only legal, it is moral. The murderers are being hunted down and destroyed by our soldiers. Its not about Exxon or profits, its about fighting evil.

christspeak, I have not made the wide sweeping statement re ALL the right. If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it. Call my statement what you like, it doesn't make you right. It just means you have an opinion like everyone else on this thread.

Chip A,

If the Downing Street Memo has no legs, then why did Tony Blair confirm that it was indeed legit?

And if you believe the war is legal, moral, and all about fighting evil, then why don't you go enlist yourself?

....ummmm, Sarah H........you DO know the "Downing St. Memos" are fakes, don't you?

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004746.php

.....and please, use some other sound-bite line other than the tired old saw, "And if you believe the war is legal, moral, and all about fighting evil, then why don't you go enlist yourself?"

.....you risk boring your readers with that.....

Dan - Michael Moore is a movie maker - why do you have such a problem with him - if you don't like his movies don't go see them - problem solved. That is how America works Dan - we don't shoot the messenger and we don't limit political speech.

Dan you should live in China, or Cuba , or Saudi Arabia, Iran - they would stop someone who tells the truth about the government from speaking in public or making a movie. Does that sound good to you Dan? Well bon voyage.

CHARLES, could you please provide me with the article in the UCMJ which states that soldiers may choose which orders they will or will not obey. After many years of service and taking the oath many times and being very familiar with the Code, I have not been able to find such.
When you can point those out perhaps then you will have a l leg to stand on. Until then, Charles I suggest you follow the words of my granddaddy. "Speak of what you know and know of what you speak, the rest of the time shut up, you might learn something."

christspeak- and I guess Shiavo's parents weren't playing the media card when they fought to get her husband investigated or slam him publically after her death? Yes they were trying to "save her life",initially, but they too were used to further the right-wing right-to life and anti-euthanaisia causes. You are naive if you think otherwise. Sheehan, admist her grief, feels she has good cause to fight as well, just as the Shiavos did. Do I agree with either of these families methods? No, but since I do not know the pain of losing a child, I will not stand here and degrade them or make any of these parents out to be anything other than misguided. Cindy and the Shiavos were both made pawns by both the right and the left to help further their agendas, I just find it funny that people like bubbanear do not see that. Just because you may have sided with the Shiavo's, or dislike liberals doesnt make the media hoopla in their case correct and Sheehans wrong. Personally, I think both are cases of grieving parents who should be ignored and left alone by the media. But as long as there are political pundits and activists that take on their cause (Frist, Jeb Bush, Moore etc) we will continue to see hoopla surrounding them.

Comparing a brain dead woman to an active, vibrant soldier is comparing apples to oranges. But anything goes with some of the right. ANYTHING to try to make a point. That's desperation at its finest.

Yvonne...My favorite liberal yahoo! You go Trish!

Yvonne seems to think that because Ms Cindy carried Casey around 9 months in her womb, we owe her some special consideration. No one owes her anything. It is she, who owes her son...respect!

It is Mom's job to carry him around and not to charge him for the trip, or speak for him after he is 18 years old. He made his choice when he volunteered. He also took an oath.

His Mother has the right and duty to love him and support him.Her other opinions are not worth any more than anyone else's. Apparently, oaths do not mean much to her, judging from her marriage!

I know common-sense does not mean much to most liberals...just yak-yak-yak, no rhime, no reason, just like rap hip-hop so-called music.

The beauty of music has been distroyed by a few uneducated, no talented people who's claim to fame is shown by gang hand signal and grabbing their favorite spot.

Tony and the rest of you conservatives, I hope you can feel my clenched fist coming up like Tiger Woods in agreement with you!!! Don't let these "liberals" cause you any concern!

While they have a right to say all the mean things they want, they can't change "the truth" that is understood by 53% + of the American People.

And my Casey Sheehan be found resting in the loving embrace of his God/god.

"Come on Chris, I'm sure you like the guy since you keep defending him. His website keeps an hourly update on Cindy Sheehan."

I haven't "defended" Moore once. Where are you getting this falsehood from?

"This young man took the oath of enlistment just as I and many others have done. I don't believe the oath say's anything about choosing who's orders you will obey. NOTE: IT SAYS .....OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES"

Sheehan took an oath to serve and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Practically the very same oath that the President and the members of Congress take.

Guess which one got killed for trying to fulfill that oath to the best of his ability.

You are still not seeing the issue here: Sheehan's oath - and your own - did NOT put you totally and unwaveringly within the power of whoever it is who is President at the time. The President is bound by the Constitution the same as anyone else. His authority does NOT supersede the Constitution.

That is why I think a lot of Bush supporters are hating Cindy Sheehan right now: she's calling Bush into accountability, when he has enjoyed not being held accountable for most of his life.

"Comparing a brain dead woman to an active, vibrant soldier is comparing apples to oranges."

I never compared Terri to Casey. I compared how you treated two mothers who lost a child because according to you "mother has the right to say anything she wishes on his behalf". To make it easier for you why should Cindy get a pass, nobody is to disagree with her because she lost a son, yet for Terri's mom it was quite different. You attacked Terri's parents and that was fine but for some reason you tell us Cindy is off limits. Why? You say that Cindy has a right to say whatever she wants because she lost a son but you do not think that Terri's mom had the same right, my question is why? So comparing how you treat one mother different from another is not comparing apples to oranges.

Just for the record, Tony's letter was about the press and the way it is handling this story he didn't attack Cindy Sheehan, Hugh's response didn't attack Cindy either he was talking about the "left". For you to say that either of them were ripping, attacking or hacking Cindy Sheehan or that they posted mean, hateful things about her or that they were heartless or thoughtless is just plain wrong and you owe them both an apology. So instead of giving the "right" a lecture on no tolerance for differences of opinions or being mean and hateful look in the mirror and fix your own house first.

Billy, That USED to be 53% of the people. Not so anymore. Read any paper you like except some right wing rag which only tells you folks what you want to hear. Bush is not THE MAN these days. People are finally beginning to realize the truth does not lie in the gospel according to St. George.

Hate to be the one to break it to you but someone has to. Have a blessed day.

trish-when did yvonne ever attack the schiavos parents? No one ever called them crazy or put them down personally-just what they were trying to do. People are attacking Cindy personally however, not just viewpoints, and that is unfair and desperate.

"trish-when did yvonne ever attack the schiavos parents?"

k,
Here is just a couple of quotes pulled from the archives where Yvonne attacked the Schlindlers. (Not picking on her personally but she is the one that said a mother has the right (and even more right) to say what they think):

"The Schlindlers and other extremeists want you to think she suffered horribly and died a terrible death. They are promoting this image to advance their own agendas." Posted by: Yvonne at April 21, 2005 10:06 AM

You tell me isn't she calling them extremists? Same as what people are calling Cindy? Not only that but they are also lying to people about her suffering and they are promoting an image to advance their agenda, same thing people here are saying about Cindy. Although I haven't seen where anyone has called Cindy a liar.

"Why can't you and others who keep expressing the same views put this to rest?"
Posted by: Yvonne at April 14, 2005 07:39 AM

Does this sound like one tolerant of other views? The same person who lectured everyone here and said: "Have you noticed most of the right who post here have absolutely NO tolerance for disagreement with their views?" A bit hypocritical don't you think?

"Let's not forget who helped initiate the presence of the press and the politicians-the Schindlers. One of the reasons those others cases Ms. Roberts eluded to did not produce the media circus this one did is none of those families were into grandstanding the way the Schindlers were. Their actions were indicative of people who thought they could change the law of the land simply because they would not accept their parental rights stopped when their child reached adulthood." Posted by: Yvonne at April 10, 2005 06:29 AM

Another attack on the Schindlers, how dare they call the press. Same thing people have said about Cindy and her grandstanding.

"Her parents have helped make this into the media circus it is today just as they would never tell you she is not suffering. They want to incite the public to react as they are." Posted by: Yvonne at March 28, 2005 11:44 AM

Same thing people have said about Cindy. Yet Yvonne called them mean, heartless, thoughtless and said they were attacking, hacking and ripping into Cindy. Now do you not call that a double standard?

Also about people calling her crazy, when Yvonne attacked Tony and Hugh, which I might add neither one every used those terms. As I already explained, Tony's letter was about the press and Hugh was talking about the "left". Nowhere before her post did they attack Cindy, has Yvonne stated they did. She owes both of them an apology.

"People are attacking Cindy personally however, not just viewpoints, and that is unfair and desperate."

k,
As far as attacking Cindy personally, yes some have called her crazy, most however are attacking the left and press not her. However, I'll say it myself. The woman is either very selfish or has fallen off the deep end. Selfish because she has taken the spotlight off her son and put it on herself, also selfish because she has other children who have begged her to come home and help them through their grief and yet she said she wouldn’t. Sorry but as a mother I could never forsake my live children and she has. A very selfish thing to do. Gone of the deep end because quite frankly when you have David Duke endorse you and your cause it's time to take a step back and ask yourself if maybe you have fallen off the deep end. I can assure you right now that if this was a conservative and David Duke endorsed them, that they would be drug through the mud as having a supporter like him, yet everyone here goes on there merry way as if nothing is wrong with that. Nobody even stops to ask themselves why a loon like Duke would endorse her views. Amazing.

Also have you heard some of the stuff she has said? Here is just a couple of her quotes:

"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!"

Now be honest that doesn't sound like someone who has fallen off the deep end or is a radical?

Trish, I usually scroll past any post you make for I know it is going to be in a negative vein. You seem to have so much anger in your heart. I started avoiding your posts early on because I did not care to read such expressed anger and constant negativism.

But I read others posts so when I saw k's post I wanted to see if your posts were any more positive. Much to my disappointment you are still spewing the same anger and resentment.

You have perfected the art of taking a sentence out of context from someone's post, putting your own little spin on it, then presenting it as the person's expressed views. You create strawmen then argue against them. You analyze what you think a person means and attack what you think they mean.

I invite you to go back and read Tony's letter again. If you can honestly say he did not attack Ms. Sheehan then you must be reading a different letter than I am. That or you only take from it what suits your own agenda.

If this is the reputation you want to present to this forum, keep on arguing aganist ghosts or figments of your imagination. The lenghts you will go to to argue only enhances your desperation. And you are hurting no one but yourself. As I've already stated, I normally scroll past your posts anyway. Those who have not already figured out your game will soon enough.

"I did not care to read such expressed anger and constant negativism."
I ask questions so I can better understand someone’s point of view. If you find that negative and angry then there is nothing I can do or say to change that. I will leave it to the readers to decide.

"you are still spewing the same anger and resentment."
Anger and resentment for asking you about your double standard? I find it a bit ironic this coming from you, after the way you spoke to Hugh,Tony and every man here. I invite you to prove it and back it up. Show me my anger.

"You create strawmen then argue against them." No I cut and pasted your statements and they came back to bite you in the butt, nothing more nothing less. You just don't like the fact that someone pointed it out.
You avoid the question and accuse people of using strawmen. I saw you do the same thing to Paul. I asked you a simple question,I get a lecture about how mean and evil I am but no answer to the question. Difference between you and I is I answer any question put to me.

"I invite you to go back and read Tony's letter again."
I invite you to go back read the letter and copy me one sentence where Tony attacked Cindy Sheehan. Just one sentence. Prove me wrong and show me the sentence. Also it would be nice if you could show me where Hugh ripped into Cindy since I still don't see an apology to him. A simple challenge easy to prove, if you are right and I am wrong.

"The lenghts you will go to to argue only enhances your desperation."
And the lengths you go to avoid a simple question only proves my point.

You have accused people here of being closed minded, yet you are the biggest one. You are so closed minded that you cannot even lower yourself to answer a simple question. Obviously your opinions and your positions are not worth much since you will not even take the time to defend or explain them.

From the text:

"Simply look at the protagonists pushing this, who say, "Why won't the president meet with this poor woman, and answer her questions." Not a single, supposedly reputable news organization (except for Fox, of course), during their endless hand-wringing, has mentioned the previous meeting or Sheehan's words afterward."

1. Is this to imply that FOX is a reputable news organization? I laugh.

2. I've heard this very statement a thousand times or more on radio, TV. and in newspapers so how can it be true that the "media" isn't reporting it? Perhaps the writer should listen to someone other than FOX news.

3. Why are those on the right so scared of Cindy Sheehan? What could one grieving mother do that would bring every "right" thinking CHICKENHAWK out from under their rocks in protest of what she has to say, and if they're not scared to death of what she represents then why are they crying fowl? The kicked dog howls loudest, right?

4. As proof that the "right" is out of touch, Bush's approval rating is sinking faster than the Iraqi navy, and American support for the war effort is now below 40%. Unless Bush manages to very quickly capture Osama, (Imagine Osama as Bush's savior, I laugh) he'll be going down with the ship that is the Republican Party. As additional proof: Notice the many top ranking Republican leaders who are working hard to distance themselves from the Bush Administration.

The silent majority will speak loudly in the next election and their words will lean left. The "right" had it's chance but they pinned their hopes on fools.

Trish, This is my last post to you. As I said, I do not like involving myself in such negativity and I won't.

Your statement that I called you "mean and evil" is a perfect example of what I was trying to say in my last post. I never said that, never even thought it, but you decided I did and started defending yourself aganist something I DIDN'T SAY OR MEAN. It is apparent to me it really does not matter what one says, it's what YOU think they said.

Another example of you assuming only the negative and putting words in my mouth (creating strawmen) is your statement that I called Tony and Hugh thoughtless and heartless. MY actual statement, for all the world to read, said attacking Cindy Sheehan made them "LOOK LIKE heartless and thoughtless men".

You seem determined to try to destroy anything I say and make it suit your agenda. A perfect example was some of the quotes you took out of context, put your own spin on them and then tried to put your words in my mouth.

Example 1) "The Schlindlers and other extremeists want you to think she suffered horribly and died a terrible death. They are promoting this image to advance their own agendas." The autopsy proved what I said in that quote. There was no way Terri could have been feeling pain, trying to form words (as the Schlinders insisted she was) or having any thought process at all. Her brain was mush, dead. They were lying to the public to get sympathy so that Jeb, George, Tom and Bill would do what they did-stick their collective noses into a personal family matter (Terri's and Michael's). If you call that kind of behavior normal and rational that is your choice. I call it extreme and irrational.

Example #2: "Why can't you and the others who keep expressing the same views put this to rest?" This was a sincere question to the people who continued to beat a dead horse long after Terri was dead. I did not/do not understand what purpose continuing to harp on the issue served so I was asking. But you decided I was showing intolerance for people who thought differently. You never asked me what I meant, you just decided for me. Well, as in most of the cases involving your disection and interpretation of my posts, you are wrong.

I could go on to disect your interpretations of my posts but I sincerely doubt it would serve any purpose so I won't waste my time. Just as I could copy and paste what I considered were attacks on Ms. Sheehan. However, I am sure you would not accept it because you have already stated Tony and Hugh did not attack her. Your mind is closed to any different interpretation so why waste my time and energy?

I do not think you are evil, Trish. I think you are a know-it-all, are disrespectful, always have to be right, will twist facts to make yourself appear right and, at times, mean-spirited.

I also think you are an intelligent, self-sufficient woman. I think you are a good mother to your two girls and probably, most of the time, set a good example for them. I think you are probably a good worker and reliable. I think you are loyal and have strong beliefs.

With age comes wisdom, the wisdom to accept you don't have to be right about everything, you don't have to enter every "pissing" contest, you don't have to make others look bad to make yourself look good. Right now, I think you have not arrived at that stage of maturity and wisdom.

I hope you do get there, Trish. You have the potential of being one totally awesome woman.

Good luck to you and may your journey have few stumbling blocks.