I believe in court cases, this is considered to be "opening the door": you can't pry into protected rights unless the person being questioned opens the door his/herself. When the person does that, it is their decision that allows others to follow through on his/her actions.

If she didn't want people to question whether or not her family supports her, she shouldn't have brought that into the equation. As it is, she wanted people to believe her family supported her and when people went to find out whether that was true or not, they found out it wasn't.

I feel sorry for this woman. All the crap that she has brought down on herself could have easily been avoided by not being so rabid in her pursuit of a meeting with the President (which I believe she has already had the pleasure of once before - something few can brag of having).

Posted by: Surecure at August 15, 2005 11:12 PM

---

And can we be blamed for questioning the integrity of a woman who has apparently emotionally abandoned her surviving 3 children? By making herself a part of the public eye, doesn't she give up that right to privacy? Hell, the other day some network morning show did a survey on the streets of NYC and people couldn't come up with the name of the Bill of Rights but everyone seemed to know who Brad Pitt was dating. Why is is Ms. Sheehan supposed to be immune from such attention?

Posted by: at August 15, 2005 11:21 PM

---

I can't even be bothered reading it. Waste of time.

Posted by: John Crittenden at August 15, 2005 11:40 PM

---

And yet John, you seem to find the time to comment... how curious...

Posted by: Richard Evans at August 16, 2005 12:00 AM

---

Who gives a flying f*** what you right wing idiots think. Talk about self-serving. You people are wasting your time attacking Cindy Sheehan. If fact the more you attack the more publicity she gets. How stupid are you. Actually I should say go on attacking her. Because while you are wasting your time us 50 million libs will be quietly preparing for George Bush's Impeachment. Maybe all of you who suuport George Bush's should volunteer to go to Irag and fight in his "noble cause". We will "stay the course" until George Bush and his cronies are out.

Left-wing-hippie-potsmoking (did I leave any out) hippie

Posted by: keyman12 at August 16, 2005 01:25 AM

---

"Actually I should say go on attacking her. Because while you are wasting your time us 50 million libs will be quietly preparing for George Bush's Impeachment."

Omigosh, they're going to impeach the president; we'd better lay off Cindy!

Heheh. Empty threats from empty heads.

Posted by: Brainster at August 16, 2005 01:51 AM

---

Yes Keyman you did:
I belieeeeeve you left out moron

Too bad the wheels are falling off your bandwagon over in Sheehanistan

Posted by: safebet at August 16, 2005 01:55 AM

---

Yo keyman-Please explain how repeating what Cindy Sheehan has said and noting that she has lied is an attack. Seems like merely an act of good jounalism to me.And I'm quite happy to see her get publicity-the more the American people find out about her the better.Don't hold you're breath on that impeachment-never gonna happen;) I'm the son of a potsmoking hippie-by the way-but I learned better and pried my head out of my ass-unlike you.

Posted by: Xennady at August 16, 2005 02:07 AM

---

Hey Keyman12,
i guess you "50 million libs" have already forgotten that you LOST the election, which is why President Bush is in office again it seems that there are more of US than you, guess what, the silent majority will put our guy,(who ever that may be) in the White House in 2008 and we will continue to stay the course. perhaps you and your 50 million libs should go live in the caves with Bin Laden since you seem to prefer a life under a Taliban style, oh by the way,
the Taliban don't allow smoking pot.

Posted by: kelly at August 16, 2005 02:20 AM

---

Yep, 50 million; I am quite sure the Dems can muster that, because it would mean they have lost 9 million votes over this whole Sheehan debacle. Too bad that Bush carried the election with 62 million - a clear majority that even Clinton couldn't muster.

As for Sheehan being in the public eye...all I can say is she is the one throwing the adolescent tantrum on the president's doorstep. If she can't handle life in the adult world, she should go back to mommy and daddy. What did she THINK was going to happen?

Posted by: J-P at August 16, 2005 02:38 AM

---

What is this "yet another lie" nonsense?

The DATE on the damn CERTIFICATE is August 12, that doesn't mean that he FILED on August 12. Do you honestly believe that municipal, state, federal, or ANY government worker is going to be sitting there just waiting to put in on the parchment?

GIVE ME A BREAK.

At least Cole has the capacity to recognize bullshit smearing when he sees it...

Posted by: Dave at August 16, 2005 07:53 AM

---

Keyman12: Cindy Sheehan could not persuade her own son to give up his patriotism, his desire to serve and he was killed while on the way to rescue brother soldiers. Cindy Sheehan could not persuade her relatives, who've asked her to stop and to come home. Cindy Sheehan could not persuade her husband, who's had enough and has filed for divorce.

If Cindy Sheehan has had such an effect on those who know her best and are most concerned about her, why would you think she'd be able to persuade 300 million Americans, who don't know her? Just looking at the logic of human nature, you'd have to predict that Cindy Sheehan's effect on people, who don't know her, would be at least that of people who do know her. IMHO, Cindy Sheehan will be the latest in a long series of flops by the Left.

Tell me how I'm wrong. Use logic and not emotion. Thank you.

Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at August 16, 2005 08:07 AM

---

Dave wrote: "The DATE on the damn CERTIFICATE is August 12, that doesn't mean that he FILED on August 12. Do you honestly believe that municipal, state, federal, or ANY government worker is going to be sitting there just waiting to put in on the parchment?"

A friend is a legal document assistant, I've gone with him to country courthouses to file divorce papers. And yes, there are government bureaucrats sitting there waiting to take the parchment. You pay your fee, they date and time stamp your forms and it is filed ON THAT DAY.

Clear on that, Dave?

Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at August 16, 2005 08:20 AM

---

This woman is mentally ill and the angry left wants to make her their poster child. Go for it! When she loses her will or finally implodes, they will be scratching their butts wondering where to go next, or shocked that they lost yet another election.

I posted on Huffington Post the other day that Cindy is being used sickly by the left and it didn't even make it through the day. Arianna only wants kudos and bravos for Cindy.

I used to think McCarthy was wrong, but boy, he really did see the slinking, stinking, think cancer that was Hollywood and the liberal left.

Posted by: Gail at August 16, 2005 08:27 AM

---

Thanks Jabba. I was checking the procedures for Solano County, and I don't see any provision for mailing it in. You see the clerk in person with the papers, and they stamp them in front of you.

http://www.solanocourts.com/pdf/crt_family_dwn1.pdf

Posted by: Angry in T.O. at August 16, 2005 08:59 AM

---

Patrick Sheehan signed the petition (at the end) on August 8th. Why did Cindy lie about when it was filed? Why did she lie about her first meeting with President Bush. Now she's proved herself to just be a liar.

Posted by: Reader at August 16, 2005 09:10 AM

---

You're all missing the most crucial aspect of this - it's "between my husband and me", not "between my husband and I".

Sheesh.

Posted by: Grammar Guy at August 16, 2005 09:15 AM

---

Such a lot of huffing and puffing. The war in Iraq must be right because Cindy Sheehan was wrong about the exact time her husband filed for divorce. Wow.

Having been through one of these endless paper exercises, let me simply note that, when the two people are living apart, and both are experiencing high personal stress, exact dates are the furthest from one's mind. My ex knew I was filing for divorce when she received an obligatory notice to that effect, and even with the paper in hand, she still managed to misremember the date--she was off by ten days, in fact.

Obviously Mr. Sheehan let Mrs. Sheehan know that a petition was in the offing. When he actually marched down to the courthouse to get his date-stamp was hardly the point--it was when he announced his intention to her that she remembers.

And all of this is so friggin' relevant to the Iraq discussion, isn't it? These endless posts have become just a kind of masturbatory trolling. I'll be back when Angry gets his centre back.

Yuck.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at August 16, 2005 09:31 AM

---

"The war in Iraq must be right because Cindy Sheehan was wrong about the exact time her husband filed for divorce. Wow."

I'm sorry Dawg, but do you even realize how much of a whiny idiot you sound like saying something like this? Does it not even register how childish this kind of statement is?

Please, if you want to be taken seriously, don't make yourself look like a complete moron by putting something this pathetic out there.

Posted by: Surecure at August 16, 2005 09:48 AM

---

Seems clear to me that Cindy Sheehan is a bold faced liar. She lied about the legitimacy of her son's enlistment, lied about meeting the President, and lied about her family's solidarity for her cause. This is a kodak moment in her life and where is her family? Her daughter's fled overseas, lone surviving son is a thousand miles away and her husband made the obvious decision to get away from his wife's histrionics.

Posted by: takbodan at August 16, 2005 09:51 AM

---

On behalf of George, Dick and Karl I want to thank all you righties for taking up the freedom torch and marching off to the Cindy wars. Together we can use the deceptions and lies of the Sheehan divorce scandal to keep the publics eyes away from the minor failures....setbacks really, that are eroding the peoples confidence in King George and his magnificent team of gooddoers.

Posted by: steve at August 16, 2005 10:37 AM

---

Angry,

I think you are making too much of a technicality. There's the date of legal filing, and there's the date she was aware it was happening or going to happen.

For a supposed bold lie, its significance is lost on me.

As with all of what you've been posting on the Shehan matter. Spin and irrelevancies.

If bold face lies cause you to lose confidence in people, I have no idea how you can support Geroge W. Bush in any way whatsoever.

Posted by: Mark [Section 15] at August 16, 2005 11:18 AM

---

"I think you are making too much of a technicality."

Perhaps. But Cindy Sheehan has a history of saying how her family is behind her, just to have revealed shortly after that this family member or that is clearly not.

In this case, after the fact, she states clearly and unambiguously that the filing happened before she left for Dallas. She was making a big point about this.

She did not say they decided to divorce when she left for Dallas or some other vague wording. The statement was a clear timeline, designed to make it a point of fact that the decision was made before she left, with the filing dated before she left being the supporting evidence.

Problem is, the filing does not support her timeline at all. In fact, it contradicts it. Her statement is precise and detailed, and completely false. A person lies in order to avoid a truth. If she lied about the paperwork being filed before she had left suggests to me that she is trying to hide the fact that the paperwork was done only after she left. That suggests that Patrick took it upon himself to divorce her, and waited until she was out of state to file in order to...what? Avoid a confrontation? Take belongings? Change the locks?

We don't know. But what we do know is that we won't understand what is happening by listening to Cindy Sheehan. She was the one who said her husband supported her. Her lies are not just misstatements of the facts. This analysis of her lie strongly implies that her basic assertion, that her husband supports her, is also wrong.

Posted by: Angry in T.O. at August 16, 2005 11:31 AM

---

Gee willikers ... the libs will have no problem at all geting the necessary votes to impeach the POTUS. All they have to do is repeat their usual tactic of browsing through cemetaries and death certificates. Easy peazy!

It's vaguely amusing how a party based on lies, untruths, & distortions is the first to accuse others with lying solely because they don't like the message.

Howard Dean for President in 2008 - Cindy Sheehan for VP! What could be better! Two liars with a very tenuous grasp on reality!

Posted by: Bruce at August 16, 2005 12:22 PM

---

eat me

Posted by: at August 16, 2005 12:56 PM

---

how big of a wall do we need now..i'm sure texas will have the money...ohio sure doesn't!! god bless the men and women of the our services they deserve better

Posted by: jerry at August 16, 2005 01:04 PM

---

As it does so often, the right attacks the messenger, but never the mesage. Does it really matter what day her husband filed for divorce? What in God's name does that have to do with the point she is making? Why no omments bout the wr posted here?

Posted by: Bob at August 16, 2005 01:09 PM

---

It matters for the reasons outlined. It goes to her credibility, and to her sense of priorities. It goes to show that she is willing to sacrifice her living family for her dead son, or more accurately, for the political gains that she thinks she can make.

Posted by: Angry in T.O. at August 16, 2005 01:12 PM

---

Again, does this change the realities of Iraq? Cindy Sheehan's husband is divorcing her, so everything she has said about Iraq, her son etc. is wrong? You people need to get a life. I guess what she's been saying is total fabrication since this hot news story has been broken. What does Drudge say?

Posted by: Bob at August 16, 2005 01:19 PM

---

"Seems like merely an act of good jounalism to me."

Wow! Thanks!

Posted by: Angry in T.O. at August 16, 2005 01:51 PM

---

What does that mean? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the substance of Cindy Sheehan's protest, not her personal life.

Posted by: Bob at August 16, 2005 02:02 PM

---

Bob;

No, it doesn't change the realities of Iraq. The US is winning. They've had elections. Their developing their constitution. The US now has perminent bases in the region with which to deal with others that support terrorisim. Iraq has been freed. The actions taken by the US were/are just. There is NO draft in the US. All of the solders are volunteers. They made a decision to be there.

Your friend Cindy is being shown for the crack-pot she is. This fact negates any argument she puts forward. If you want to talk about the war Bob, I would suggest that you use a spokesperson who can articulate a logical position based on reason as opposed to emotion. As Angry noted, your friend Cindy has no credibility left.

Posted by: Richard Evans at August 16, 2005 02:12 PM

---

I think the saddest thing is that she is not remembering her son for the good he was doing. She chooses to focus on the president and not what her son was trying to accomplish. Now she has dedicated so much time and effort to this one thing that she has lost the rest of her family. She has, in essence, abandoned her kids and forsaken her family.

Posted by: currentlyserving at August 16, 2005 03:07 PM

---

Cindy Sheehan's behavior is a disgrace. She is not sincere about her loss of her son, otherwise she would not stoop the the low levels that she has. Her son WANTED to be part of those serving their country on all of our behalves. Cindy is dishonoring her son's memory. How dare she accuse the President of being a liar, when it is in fact she who has problems with reality. Shame on the left wingers for exploiting this pitiful human being!

Posted by: greg swofford at August 16, 2005 03:34 PM

---

AH...going to "hang" it all on the "filing date"....lol, could very well be she and hubby discussed and decided to FILE on the earlier date but actually court filing NOT done untill days later....lol, too reasonable to "give" such a leeway obviously for preferr to figure it but the worst...imagine a lie over what day/date is so very much more important than assigning the :IE tag to the way we ALL were sold the instigation of war on Iraq that has cost us ALL more than ANY should have EVER had to bear....what a sad state the american mindset in in these days...preferring to continue the blunders and bungles by this present helmsmen rather than acknowlege they got snookered bigtime preferring to tell themselves this all is for a greater common cause when it is a major NOT!!!! Think we have a nation of chickenhawks who prefer to remain blindeyed and loyal even when and as the factuals and actuals have proven such sovery , very wrong. Won't bother needlessly changing party registration, but will not be voting GOP as long as it remains gripped by the myopically inclined !!!!

Posted by: Bozley at August 16, 2005 03:39 PM

---

The problem with her growing number of lies is that she can not be taken seriously. Here's a woman using her dead son's insurance money to promote herself. Now with her increasingly shrill diatribes against Israel and America she has won the support of klansman David Duke. Worrisome indeed.

Posted by: Dan at August 16, 2005 03:43 PM

---

Cindy is 100% right to express her thoughts and feelings. I know, The Neo-Cons would eliminate free speech if they could, but with people like Cindy....They can't. As a WWII B17 Pilot, and a career USAF Officer, I question all these idiots that don't ask the question of "Why in the hell are we in Iraq in the first place ??" They have to know that it was because of the lies that allowed the Congress and the people to even think of backing such a plot.
I am for the troops, but against Bush's war for oil, and they can call me names if they wish, but if they think that this is such a good thing...then they should enlist in the Marines...they are NOT too old.!!

Posted by: George M Kesselring at August 16, 2005 03:44 PM

---

George for a WWII veteran one would think you learned some lessons. How about Cindy Sheehan's repeated anti-Semitism regarding Neocons, Israel etc? Also her association with peace groups that are anti-Semetic? You witnessed the horrors of Nazi concentration camps, but can't seem to say a word about her wild assertions or comprehend why a despot like SH in Iraq had to be taken out.

Posted by: Dan at August 16, 2005 03:55 PM

---

I have trouble believing that any WW2 vet would condone Cindy's actions and words... Nope, not buying it at all...

Posted by: Richard Evans at August 16, 2005 04:04 PM

---

I saw Cindy on Donny Dutsch yesterday. She is totally delusional. She was talking about things the President supposedly said to her after her son had died.

She said that her sons favorite saying was "its a good life" she CLAIMS that President Bush asked her "how did he know it was going to be a good life?"

I agree with you about how she lies.

I do understand her grief over loosing her only child. However other people have also lost their children and you dont she them trying to get a PAY OFF!

I dont blame her husband for getting rid of her!

Posted by: Tam at August 16, 2005 04:43 PM

---

how big of a wall do we need now..i'm sure texas will have the money...ohio sure doesn't!!

Is that "wall" as in "Vietnam War Memorial" wall? That memorial in Washington measures 2529.19 square feet, and holds 58,195 names. It's 246.75 feet long on either side, and 10.25 feet high in the middle. Using the same ratio, the current "wall" for the Iraq war would be 92.35 square feet. Nine by ten feet would do it - I wouldn't think that would break the bank, even in Ohio. Comparing it to the Vietnam War would be like comparing Spinal Tap's dwarf-sized Stonehenge prop to the real thing - it's terrible when soldiers die, but maybe it's been so long since people experienced a real savage killing war, they've forgotten just how bad things can be.

Posted by: Wanda at August 16, 2005 05:08 PM

---

Sorry she Lost her son. But If I pass when I served and one of MY parents did this I would be turning in my grave. Once again people have not remembered 911. If another attack happened you ACLU liberals would do two things 1) Blame George - MY President - for not keeping you save. and 2) yell louder than all others why wasn't anything do to protect us.

It's real easy, you go find them that want to do you harm first and fight them over on their land. This was the whole basis for keeping troops in Europe, and the cold war. It's the whole basis for troops overseas now.

What you ACLU Liberals don't get is if we leave, or if we had not gone overseas, we still would be at WAR. On President Clinton watch we attacked numberous times, and no one but a asprin factory paid the price. This war is for our way of life, and if we happen to free people along the way that's great, hey LIBS "They Don't Like you Either" it's your freedom and ideas they don't like. Learn some history and maybe you won't be labeled taitors when this is written about years from now.

Posted by: Greg at August 16, 2005 05:09 PM

---

If you look at the second page of the papers filed, they were signed by her husband on the 8th. Not that this makes a whole lot of difference, but maybe we should read everything before we rant and rave about it.

Posted by: jennifer at August 16, 2005 05:18 PM

---

CINDY SHEEHAN IS RIGHT UP THERE WITH "HANOI JANE " AT THIS POINT, AND REALLY FORGETTING ABOUT THE GUYS STILL OVER HAVING TO WATCH THIS CRAP WHILE THEY ARE TRYING TO STAY ALIVE . WAR IS NOT A PRETTY THING TO BEGIN WITH AND SHE SHOULD GO HOME AND DEAL WITH REALITY. I HAVE HAD FAMILY AND FRIENDS LOSE THEIR LIVES AND OUR GUYS OVER THERE NEED THIS AS MUCH AS OUR TROOPS FROM THE VIETNAM WAR NEEDED THE CRAP THEY HAD TO PUT UP WITH WHEN THEY CAME HOME. THEY WERE TREATED LIKE S---. DOES ANYBODY GET IT YET?

Posted by: DEE at August 16, 2005 06:15 PM

---

I can't beleive you are attacking Cindy Sheehan, when it was her husband that filed for the divorce. She had said they were separated, and maybe for her that meant divorce. Maybe as when George Bush said that Iraq is where the terrorists were, and that Iraq was a threat with all these weapons of mass destruction, that was her logic on that point. It still does not let George Bush off the hook, her son gave the ultimate sacrifice, George Bush should able to sacrifice 1 hour of his vacation, he is after all "public servant". Why won't he? The media circus would be over if he would respectfully speak to this grieving mother.

Posted by: Nina at August 16, 2005 07:05 PM

---

I THINK ALL OF YOU POLITICAL POPTARTS CRYING OVER SHEEHANS DOCUMENTATION GOT TOO MUCH DAMN TIME ON YOUR HANDS DO SOME THING LIKE YOUR O GREAT ONE WANNA BE PRZ KERRY. I 'D BET SINCE KEEHAN IS FROM VACAVILLE SHE IS PROBABLY ONE OF CHARLIES ANGELS

Posted by: B. YOUNG at August 16, 2005 07:18 PM

---

Nina,

Write this down so you will remember and I will use small words to help you along

He already did speak to her!

Posted by: safebet at August 16, 2005 07:25 PM

---

This is from Hardball last night. Her song and dance just keeps getting better.

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem.

Posted by: safebet at August 16, 2005 07:34 PM

---

Are all republicans cowards? Or just the ones in Washington and posting here?

Posted by: SBonazzola at August 16, 2005 08:38 PM

---

A bit panicked on this sight, aren't we? Why all the hysteria?
Careful, or you'll go into melt-down before you know it.
What's it to you if Sheehan gets a divorce? How many hours are you going to spend dissecting the court records to determine when/what/where/how/why?
If you can't help yourself you better find an atomic clock so you can really pin Cindy down to your requisite specifics.

Posted by: rita dean at August 16, 2005 09:11 PM

---

I think you are all discusting. You have no shame. You try to slime anyone who disagrees with you. Your lust for power is the only thing you care about. Go ahead and try to slime her, I do beleive that people have your number now.

Posted by: D Harper at August 16, 2005 09:16 PM

---

Sheehan is a nutcase.

Posted by: TCC at August 16, 2005 09:44 PM

---

Our president has already spoke to the lady camped out in the ditch. What more do you want?

She is acting like the "crazy aunt at the family picnic". It would be wise if everyone just stayed away from her. She is about ready to blow!

Posted by: safebet at August 16, 2005 09:59 PM

---

BUSHITES OF AMERICA MOVE OVER CINDY IS HERE AND PRESIDENT BUSH IS AFRAID OF HER.
THE MOVEMENT IS BIGGER THAN HER NOW AND OIL WAR 2 HAS TO COME TO AN END .....SO SORRY.

Posted by: DIANE BUCKMAN at August 16, 2005 10:44 PM

---

Kudos to Cindy! Why couldn't GW Bush take a few moments to just express his sympathy and all of this wouldn't be happening. Now Clear Channel has been forced to give airtime to the ANTI WAR MOVEMENT..$3 for a gallon of gas!! Stop the madness in Iraq and try helping the people of Dafur, Sudan..has this world I live in gone completely insane?

Posted by: tampal3 at August 16, 2005 10:59 PM

---

Cindy talks about casting the first stone what does she think she is doing now? She also forgets that her son wanted to join the military. She should be ashamed of herself for disgracing his memory.He is the real hero not her.

Posted by: at August 16, 2005 11:10 PM

---

Does anyone remember Vietnam War and The United States during the years (1966-1974) give or take. How many men & boys died? Like 80,000???

What did we, as a country or as part of the planet Earth accomplish by participating in this conflict? Could the USA have done it another way? Did protest help facilitate the USA leaving an untenable war or did it make the warhawks dig deeper- leaving us with those humiliating pictures of rooftop departures.

Are the intentions for war really that different? The USA did hear that communism was "Out to bury you". Would communism have died on its own- did it require our military intervention?

Do any on these historical reflections apply to us now?

Posted by: Rita at August 16, 2005 11:52 PM

---

I disagree with what Cindy is doing! Our country was built by the blood of hero`s, and that is what her son is. Cindy is in mourning, I feel for her pain. No one should out live their children! Cindy go home, get your mind set right. Would he of wanted you to act like this? He did what he felt was right, he is an American hero! Let him rest in peace!

Posted by: Cindy Hainline at August 17, 2005 12:00 AM

---

First 58,000 American's died in Vietnam. It's estimated that over 1 million died after we left due to re-Education by the Commies.

SBonazzola Republican aren't cowards, about 75 % of them are in the Military, only 25 % are Democratics in the Military. The fringe groups now have a spokewoman name Cindy. She has so many views now she is starting to forget what she has previosly said.

The Democrats will not win an election until the fringe groups under their wing get a clue and stop tearing down this great country. Behind every event there are men in BLACK SUITS, cover-ups, etc, etc.

Sometimes when your speeding and you get pulled over, then get a ticket for speeding, IT'S NOT A CONSPIRCY, YOU WERE SPEEDING.

The Terrorists attacked us here at home, the terrorist killed her son over there. He as I was was a volunteer. She has met with the Commander IN Chief, she has now become unhinged. So far Pres. Bush has kept the war away from our shores, how many attacks since 9/11 have hit our soil? None yet.

Posted by: Greg at August 17, 2005 12:28 AM

---

Poster Child for Surrender
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
Washington Times | August 16, 2005

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of a fallen soldier, Casey Sheehan, a man who volunteered to serve his country and gave his life so that people in Iraq might have a government that did not threaten them, and us. As such, she is entitled to our sympathy and gratitude.

Unfortunately, she has lately become something else: the poster child for surrender. With her decision to camp out near President Bush's home in Crawford, Texas, to demand immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Ms. Sheehan has morphed into a pawn in the hands of partisans who are indifferent whether the United States is defeated on the central front in this global war -- as long as Mr. Bush, his administration and party are laid low.

The media circus that has surrounded and amplified all of Ms. Sheehan's increasingly strident rhetorical outbursts (she says she won't pay taxes until she gets her son back and wants the president impeached for war crimes) may, by so doing, have filled a void in their August doldrums programming. Their 24 hour per day, seven days a week coverage of Casey Sheehan's mom has done something else, however: Together with polls showing flagging support for the president, it has further encouraged the conviction of our Islamofascist enemies that, as they expected, an indolent and self-indulgent United States cannot stand up to determined, ruthless foes.

That perception can have but one effect: It puts an even bigger premium on the lives of every one of Casey's comrades in Iraq and elsewhere, and to foreclose the outcomes for which he and the other fallen gave their lives. Even before his mom became a spectacle, the Islamists hoped -- as in Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1994 -- killing enough American troops would make the rest withdraw ignominiously. Handing the U.S. such defeats enhances the claims to leadership and power of those responsible for driving them out, effectively eliminating alternatives that may have been more sympathetic to Western values and interests.

A test case is under way at this writing. Israel is forcibly removing settlers from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank that will be turned over to Palestinian control. Already, the Islamofascists of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and factions of Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement are claiming their terrorism forced the Israelis to "disengage."

The perpetrators of such terror are sure to dominate the emerging Palestinian state, even while insisting they will continue their violent intifada until achieving "occupation" of the rest of "Palestine" by Israel's complete destruction.

Does anyone really believe that, having rewarded the terrorists, Israel will see less terror against Israel in the future? Common sense tells us that, as the Palestinians obtain billions in financing from the West, arms (at U.S. insistence) from Israel, unimpeded and unmonitored use of a seaport, airport and land border with Egypt, the ability of Israel's enemies to increase the number and lethality of attacks on the Jewish State from behind internationally recognized boundaries will only grow.

It is inconceivable we would fare better if the United States and its coalition partners in Iraq yielded to the demands of the Surrender-Now crowd. Iraq would become at best a new safe-haven for terrorism against the West, at worst, a renewed state-sponsor of such terror. The promise of an Iraqi partner in this war would be squandered, the best hope of encouraging emergence in the Mideast of moderate, peaceable and prosperous states foreclosed, America's enemies emboldened and her friends forced to reconsider their allegiance to us.

Worst, at least from the perspective of their loved ones, the sacrifice made by people like Casey Sheehan would be for naught. Yet his mom insists, "You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."

Ms. Sheehan is entitled to her pain and anger. She is, of course, entitled to express them appropriately, as well. But her loss of a son does not give her particular standing with respect to analyzing the nature of this conflict or the consequences of abandoning the fight.

The foes who wield terror against us are not animated by grievances, real or perceived, as much by a totalitarian political ideology. Its stated goal is a global caliphate under a Taliban-like religious code. Withdrawal under fire -- surrender by any other name -- will not "stop the terror." It will ensure there is more of it here, en route to subjecting the U.S. and every other nation to the Islamofascists' dominance and Shari'a.

One hundred and forty-three years ago next month, the single bloodiest battle of the Civil War was fought at Antietam, Md. From the perspective of the more than 20,000 mothers who lost their sons that day, their sacrifice must have been no less wrenching or hard to justify than was Ms. Sheehan's. Had Abraham Lincoln given up at that point, the nation would have been divided, slavery perpetuated and prospects for freedom in the world darkened. Now, as then, we must stay the course.

Posted by: safebet at August 17, 2005 12:32 AM

---

Well said Safebet.

Posted by: Greg at August 17, 2005 01:40 AM

---

Get a life.

Posted by: at August 17, 2005 10:35 AM

---

For those that suppot this war I have a question: have you either enlisted yourself or have you encouraged your children and loved ones to volunteer? If not, why not? And if you have, how do you feel about the president and his friends not doing the same?
Those that support this war are being used to support something unnessary. I detest the things the terrorists do and I would love to take actions so that they never kill or hurt another human being. I also detest those that cause war when there are alternatives. War is not a small thing. War is a horrible thing. War is needed when there is a clear and present danger and is not to be engaged in for any other reason.
The issue here is not Cindy Sheehan's divorce, the issue is why are people dying? Killing is wrong, and if we are to stop killing we have to be among those that have the courage to say it is wrong.
I say Cindy Sheehan is a courageous woman, more courageous than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield and the entire Bush administratation combined together.

Posted by: john at August 17, 2005 12:54 PM

---

John,

You are hopeless. I served in the military and would support my children when they are of age to join. Yes the elites don't send their children to war in the same percentage as most Americans. Is that new? It was the same in the Civil War. Islamists began this fight more than 15 years ago, but President Clinton refused to nip it in the bud. There is no way to negotiate with Islamists. Sheehan is ahero. Casey yes, Cindy no. Cindy is using her son's blood money to further her own looney ambitions.

Posted by: LInus at August 17, 2005 04:19 PM

---

DRUDGE REPORT

CINDY UNLEASHED: 'THE BIGGEST TERRORIST IN THE WORLD IS GEORGE W. BUSH'
Wed Aug 17 2005 21:51:56 ET

"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"

So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at at San Francisco State University.

Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

Sheehan unleashed a foul-mouth tirade on April 27, 2005:

"They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up..." Sheehan said of the Bush administration.

"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?"

"The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war."

END

Posted by: KG at August 17, 2005 10:26 PM

---

What most people don’t understand is why Sheehan is being eaten up inside. The fact is she had a terrible argument with her son, Casey, and didn’t speak to him again before he died. The poor woman is grief stricken to the point of being mentally ill, and the left wing is taking advantage of it.

Posted by: JT at August 18, 2005 10:42 AM

---

Thanks to the Web, we know that Sheehan spoke at a rally at San Francisco State University in April. It wasn't a Mothers Against Pre-emptive War With Ambivalent U.N. Approval meeting. It was a rally for a lawyer convicted of aiding Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist connected with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. There's a transcript at http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm.

"The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush," Sheehan began. After calling for Bush's impeachment and making a demand that Bush send his "two little party-animal girls" to war, she makes this nuanced assessment:

"What they're saying, too, is like, it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. ... It's OK for Israel to occupy Palestine, ... for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. They're a bunch of (expletive) hypocrites."

The hard left in America needs to realize a bald, cruel fact: Anyone who sees no moral distinction between Israel and the mullahs of Iran, or sees the U.S. attempt to set up a constitutional republic in Iraq as equivalent to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, suffers from incurable moral cretinism. The more the fervent anti-war base embraces these ideas, the more they ensure that no one will trust the left with national security. Ever.

Will they learn the lesson? Even money says Sheehan will be sitting in the Michael Moore seat next to Jimmy Carter at the '08 Democratic convention.

Aug. 17, 2005

Posted by: KG at August 19, 2005 03:46 PM

---

The above article was written by

JAMES LILEKS
Newhouse News Service

Posted by: KG at August 19, 2005 03:59 PM

---