# Cindy Sheehan **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2005, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262 "2005-08-16T13:48:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/141 "2005-08-18T02:03:04Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Appalling? Reprehensibile? And why/how is this so? Because I’m not joining in the lock-step, slobbering adoration being heaped on this woman by liberals? No, because you are being a bit of a jerk in this thread. Because you seem to think women should shut up and be good little housewives, regardless of the strength of their views on a given subject. Because (now that I’ve a bit of a look around the right-wing blogs where you apparently have obtained what you claim to be your independent thinking about Mrs. Sheehan) you seem have rather misstated the strength and nature of the objections to her protest by certain members of her family. Because you are employing the old Soviet tactic of characterizing someone expressing dissent as being insane. Personally, I don’t necessarily agree with Mrs. Sheehan’s chosen form of protest (who am I in lockstep with, then, **Clothahump**?), but, as a peaceful and by all appearances heartfelt expression of dissent, I’ve got no particular problem with it. Your repeated assertions, however, that this somehow makes her insane, or that she is purely some sort of liberal shill, without supplying any factual basis for making them, are deserving of little but scorn and derision. Hope this clears up any confusion on your part. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/142 "2005-08-18T02:16:48Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Quite correct, which just goes to show what a dumbass Bush was for refusing to meet with her before this blew up into a potent symbol of his dumbassery and detachment. Ummm…she met with Bush already. > [@](#): > > Sheehan’s son, Casey, was an army specialist in the 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, and was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004. Sheehan met with the president shortly after Casey’s death but she now claims that Bush treated her coldly on that occasion. [Cite](http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=16959) Yeah, real cold. [As shown here](http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45800) ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/143 "2005-08-18T02:30:44Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > No, because you are being a bit of a jerk in this thread. Because you seem to think women should shut up and be good little housewives, regardless of the strength of their views on a given subject. Because (now that I’ve a bit of a look around the right-wing blogs where you apparently have obtained what you claim to be your independent thinking about Mrs. Sheehan) you seem have rather misstated the strength and nature of the objections to her protest by certain members of her family. Because you are employing the old Soviet tactic of characterizing someone expressing dissent as being insane. > > Personally, I don’t necessarily agree with Mrs. Sheehan’s chosen form of protest (who am I in lockstep with, then, **Clothahump**?), but, as a peaceful and by all appearances heartfelt expression of dissent, I’ve got no particular problem with it. Your repeated assertions, however, that this somehow makes her insane, or that she is purely some sort of liberal shill, without supplying any factual basis for making them, are deserving of little but scorn and derision. > > Hope this clears up any confusion on your part. Yep. You have proven you know how to shovel it out. > [@](#): > > you seem have rather misstated the strength and nature of the objections to her protest by certain members of her family. Really? Her husband is divorcing her. Her family has made a public statement denouncing her actions.: > [@](#): > > In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement: > > The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect. > > Sincerely, > > Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. Short of them showing up out there and hitting her in the face with a pie, I don’t think they could have made it any plainer. I didn’t misstate in the slightest. You also said: > [@](#): > > Because you are employing the old Soviet tactic of characterizing someone expressing dissent as being insane. If you have noticed, I’ve changed my viewpoint. I started out thinking that she had just gone around the bend from grief and was being manipulated. I don’t think that any more. I think she is exploiting her son’s death for publicity and future profit. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/144 "2005-08-18T03:16:41Z")
I’ve come back to withdraw the ‘jerk’ comment and apologize for that, as that goes overboard for this forum, but I’ll stand by the rest. ---
**Author:** ![shelbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/145 "2005-08-18T05:17:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > We may. It’s a judgement call when we think we’re at that point. I don’t think we’re there yet. > > [snip, snip] > > A democratic Iraq, even if just quasi-democratic that is able to police itself and that stays united as one country. Whether or not that’s “worth it” is a matter of opinion. But again, I’m not focused on exactly how successful Iraq is as a democracy. They don’t have to be all that great to be orders of magnitude better than what the situation would be if we left now. > > In my mind, this isn’t about building a model society in Iraq. It’s about preventing small brush fire from turning into a raging wildfire. I agree with your idea of what would be a quasi-“win” at this point (which is, by the way, still a far cry from the domino theory of freedom for the greater MENA region that the neo-con hand book predicted). I don’t agree that it is acheivable. We’ve screwed the pooch, and the best we can hope for is an Islamic republic that doesn’t burn the US Flag each year on 9/11. Which, by the way, is arguably much worse than the situation that existed before we went in. For 350 Billion Dollars, 1000 plus American dead, 14,000 American wounded, uncounted Iraqi civilians dead, the creation of the ultimate terrorist training ground, with 20/20 hindsight, would you admit that this whole fucked up imperial campaign was a mistake? If we can devise a way to get out now, without allowing Iraq to devolve into an IslamIST republic, that allies with Iran and puts women into bhurkas, I think we should do it. If we can’t devise a way, then we need to stay in, and contain as much as possible. I still think that a marked INCREASE in troop presence is (and was from the beginning) the way to go. Lock down the trouble spots. But at this point, with the way this conflict has affected our armed forces, with Russia and China holding joint war games, with Iran and North Korea developing nukes and thumbing their noses at us, I doubt we could do so. And I’m furious, and scared, about that. Hell, if you’re going in, WMD, world opinion and the rest be damned, at least listen to the guys that have been there! Colin Powell, Gen. Shinseki, everyone that knew anything about invading a country called for 100,000 more troops than were brought. That’s a lot of ammo dumps that can be secured, a lot of patrols that can be on watch, a lot of area denied the enemy. Sorry for the hijack, but the way this developed is ludicrous. FUBAR in the worst way, by people who should fucking know better. ---
**Author:** ![stochastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@stochastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stochastic)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/146 "2005-08-18T05:56:43Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > :rolleyes: Uhm, no, it’s not. As the chief executive of this nation, the POTUS is answerable to Congress, the elected representatives of the People in this Republic. Mrs. Sheehan has no more right than you or I to expect a direct answer from the President on matters of policy. > > Pres. Bush is, IMO, taking a prudent course in NOT talking to Mrs. Sheehan, by NOT opening the door to every single aggrieved citizen who wants to short-circuit government and yammer in the President’s ear. Bear with me here, I’m trying to unravel Ms. Sheehan’s motives: Ms. Sheehan seems to represent the growing number of ordinary folks that feel that the powers that be (on both sides of the aisle) in the federal government haven’t the slightest shred of genuine concern for their opinions, whether it be the war in Iraq or domestic issues. Given this seemingly hostile environment, it’s understandable that she might feel that the only way to force some serious discussion of her minority opinion is to short-circuit the normal process (i.e. via her representatives), and engage in some dramatic public ear-yammering. The death of her child has prompted her to make public her political agenda. AFAIK, she wasn’t publically vocal about the war before her son’s death (someone correct me if that’s wrong). Is a mother wanting other mothers to avoid experiencing the grief of losing a child a “bad” political agenda? Can one say that a grieving mother doesn’t have the right to be very upset about losing their child? Does her public expression of this grief really equate to her “using” the death for some less-than-noble purpose? I can see her rationalizing that if her demands are met, then perhaps she can carry on believing that her son did not die in vain, and that her “using” his passing served a greater good. I am very skeptical that she’s in this for any kind or personal or monetary gain. Granted, what she’s asking for, the complete pull-out of troops from Iraq, is nonsensical at this stage. But from the perspective of a grieving mother, it seems like a completely reasonable thing for her to demand. Also, if it helps her accomplish her goal, is it not rational for her to accept help from others when offered? Why does that diminsh her message or her sincerity? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/147 "2005-08-18T06:28:21Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Follow the money. Who’s paying her to be there? Who’s going to benefit from this? Like I said earlier, there will books written and TV movies made and she’s going to get a cut from them. > > How could she have foreseen what? Her son’s death? She couldn’t unless she’s got the world’s only working crystal ball. But once it happened, I think she started seeing dollar signs and publicity. And I think she’s so fixated on them that she is willing to destroy her marriage and her family. > > Follow the money. **Clothahump** , I keep asking you for a cite for your statement about the books, movies, TV deals that Mrs. Sheehan is going to make money from… your post #64 in this thread. I see that you have yet to give me a cite for your information, or to withdraw it as talking out your ass. Which is it? Waiting patiently for more than a day now, and you’ve posted several times… ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/148 "2005-08-18T10:33:03Z")
> [@stochastic](#): > > Bear with me here, I’m trying to unravel Ms. Sheehan’s motives: > > Ms. Sheehan seems to represent the growing number of ordinary folks that feel that the powers that be (on both sides of the aisle) in the federal government haven’t the slightest shred of genuine concern for their opinions, whether it be the war in Iraq or domestic issues. Given this seemingly hostile environment, it’s understandable that she might feel that the only way to force some serious discussion of her minority opinion is to short-circuit the normal process (i.e. via her representatives), and engage in some dramatic public ear-yammering. And _if_ that’s her’s and other’s motivation, I completely understand it. But it still doesn’t give any one citizen the right to make unrealistic demands upon the POTUS. Or perhaps I would better say that anyone has the right to _ask_, but no one reasonably has a right to a direct, face-to-face answer for the policies and executive decisions of the POTUS. Of course, the voters also have the right to vote for someone in a _different_ party come Election Day, too; a fact that I’m sure the Pres. is aware of, if not for himself, then at least for his party. But scoring cheap-shot points really isn’t going to win the opposition any of the “undecided” votes _they_ need to take control and change to course of American domestic and foreign policy, either. > [@stochastic](#): > > The death of her child has prompted her to make public her political agenda. AFAIK, she wasn’t publically vocal about the war before her son’s death (someone correct me if that’s wrong). Is a mother wanting other mothers to avoid experiencing the grief of losing a child a “bad” political agenda? Can one say that a grieving mother doesn’t have the right to be very upset about losing their child? Does her public expression of this grief really equate to her “using” the death for some less-than-noble purpose? I can see her rationalizing that if her demands are met, then perhaps she can carry on believing that her son did not die in vain, and that her “using” his passing served a greater good. I am very skeptical that she’s in this for any kind or personal or monetary gain. Let’s pop this pimple once-and-for-all, right here and now. :mad: Cindy Sheehan did NOT lose a “child.” She lost a _son_. A son who was a grown man, who not only _voluntarily_ enlisted in the military as an adult, but who also _re_enlisted _in the middle of a war when he could have called it quits and safely went home_. No one marched “her little boy” off to war against his will. She wants to know why Casey Sheehan died? [This](http://groktheidiom.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-casey-sheehan-died.html) is why he died. Additionally, I never brought up the money angle, so I’m curious why you’re addressing that comment to my post? 😕 > [@stochastic](#): > > Granted, what she’s asking for, the complete pull-out of troops from Iraq, is nonsensical at this stage. But from the perspective of a grieving mother, it seems like a completely reasonable thing for her to demand. No, it isn’t reasonable. If we run from Iraq, we simply prove to the hate-filled Islamofacists that we _are_ weak cowards, who don’t have the courage of our convictions to follow through with what we started out to do; right or wrong, we’re asshole deep in the shit, and running will only drag it along with us back to our own shores again. We would be inviting every crack-pot mullah to arm and equip hundreds of suicide bombers to walk down Mainstreet, AnyTown, USA, knowing that any action we take to try to stamp out their medieval, repressive theocracy and supplant it with an open, democratic republic will be undermined by the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans of the United States. She wants to know the real reason we’re in Iraq? IMHO, it’s because Saddam already had a fairly secular state (for an Islamic country), and W (erroneously) thought that the Iraqis would be overjoyed to see Saddam go (they were) and would be reasonably moderate in setting up and continuing in their secular government (they weren’t), giving the Middle East a modern, secular, democratic state to emulate, and therefore supplant the murderous, autocratic theocracies running the Muslim world with belief system left over from the time of the Crusades (which the Muslim world, at least the part that hates us with a raging hard-on, _still_ hasn’t gotten over yet!). Fuck WMD, fuck terrorist links, fuck Saddam Hussein, and fuck liberating the Iraqis from him. I’m not excusing Bush for this royal mess, but I’m also not condemning his motives. If we leave _now_, then not only Casey Sheehan, but every single Coalition soldier, every single journalist, aid worker, contractor, and Iraqi who has died so far, their deaths would have been for nothing. _Nothing._ We may as well have lined them all up alongside the road in front of Pres. Bush’s ranch and machinegunned them into the ditch, and start over at square one, pretending that tomorrow is September 12, 2001. > [@stochastic](#): > > Also, if it helps her accomplish her goal, is it not rational for her to accept help from others when offered? Why does that diminsh her message or her sincerity? Again, I never addressed this issue, so I’m curious as to why you’re asking me for an answer. Do you just want _my_ opinion? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/149 "2005-08-18T11:38:26Z")
[QUOTE=ExTank > [@](#): > > She wants to know why Casey Sheehan died? [This](http://groktheidiom.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-casey-sheehan-died.html) is why he died. He died just in case this individuals theory is correct? Is that the “Better to fight them there than here” theory? The threat of terrorism is very real and dealing with it presents no easy answers. The “It could be worse” justification for war is pretty lame. BTW , the author is totally inapproproate in his use of the \*\*Abe Lincoln quote. \*\* > [@](#): > > At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. > > ``` > At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. > > ``` Does the term Civil War ring a bell? > [@](#): > > If we leave _now_, then not only Casey Sheehan, but every single Coalition soldier, every single journalist, aid worker, contractor, and Iraqi who has died so far, their deaths would have been for nothing. _Nothing._ > > We may as well have lined them all up alongside the road in front of Pres. Bush’s ranch and machinegunned them into the ditch, and start over at square one, pretending that tomorrow is September 12, 2001. Another classic. I understand the feeling. It is an appalling thought, which is exactly why so many people are angry to the point of a passionate hatred at this President and his administration. People believe based on the evidence, that this president and those with him, lied to the American public to start a war. They already feel the anguish and betrayal that you speak of and refuse to consider. Your proposed answer? Send in more troops to die and keep doing it until we find some justification for this mess. How well I remember these same words being used to stretch the Vietnam tradegy on for year after year. It appears we won’t wait that long and for this war. It appears there are Americans who aren’t willing to sacrifice 58,000+ {Names on the wall} killed in combat an untold wounded, waiting in vain for a justification or anything we might claim as victory. What do you see as the end result of that very same attitude in the Vietnam era? When you throw these words out with such moral indignation you might want to remember that for a lot of Americans it’s “been there, and done that” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/150 "2005-08-18T13:00:45Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The woman is receiving outside money. Big effing deal. Why does this simple fact need to be attacked here? Why does it need to be brought up, then? > [@ExTank](#): > > If we leave now, then not only Casey Sheehan, but every single Coalition soldier, every single journalist, aid worker, contractor, and Iraqi who has died so far, their deaths would have been for nothing. Nothing. > > We may as well have lined them all up alongside the road in front of Pres. Bush’s ranch and machinegunned them into the ditch, and start over at square one, pretending that tomorrow is September 12, 2001. That same mentality caused tens of thousands of American deaths in Vietnam, and yes, they were still for nothing. The responsibility for that lies with those who held the view you have just repeated. That war couldn’t be won, and neither can this one, and for essentially the same reasons too. Any more deaths there will be wastes, but _you want them to happen anyway_. Gotta think with your head, not your balls, dude. Those who cannot remember the past etc. are still not as bad as those of you who can but refuse to heed it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/151 "2005-08-18T13:16:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why does it need to be brought up, then? Because people on both sides of this argument were speculating about what outside support Cindy Sheehan was getting. All I did was find some sources that answered that question. Again, if you have an issue with those facts as reported, I suggest taking it up with the source, not the messenger. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/152 "2005-08-18T13:19:20Z")
“People on both sides” is pathetic weaseling. Kindly look back and tell us \*who brought it up \* here, as I said. \*Then \* tell us why, okay? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/153 "2005-08-18T13:37:24Z")
Mrs. Sheehan’s financial situation was speculated upon by **Clothahump, light strand, eponymous, Push You Down, Snowboarder Bo** and **minty green** before I posted about it. The difference, of course, is that I didn’t speculate. I had cites. I don’t know why **Clothahump** brought it up in the first place. Why don’t you ask him? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/154 "2005-08-18T13:48:03Z")
I don’t think the Mrs. Sheehan recieving some support from liberal groups diminishes her message in any way. Those who blatently present it as such such as Rush and other White House shills are just scumbag media whores doing what they are paid to do. However, if it was discovered that Cindy was being paid some inflated fee by Liberal groups it would lower my respect for all involved. The message is there and very real. Let’s not phony it up and sully the importance of it. OTOH it really cracks me up that people will critisize this woman as being less than sincere by quoting the oh so obvious shills who make huge money by catering to a certain mentallity and supporting this admin with any BS they can. Even worse is the comparison with the dishonesty of this President and his admin. The best example of the spec in someones eye and the log in your own I’ve ever seen hands down. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/155 "2005-08-18T14:11:08Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Mrs. Sheehan’s financial situation was speculated upon by **Clothahump, light strand, eponymous, Push You Down, Snowboarder Bo** and **minty green** before I posted about it. > > The difference, of course, is that I didn’t speculate. I had cites. > > I don’t know why **Clothahump** brought it up in the first place. Why don’t you ask him? Absolutely false. I never speculated on Mrs. Sheehan’s financial situation. I was asking Clothahump for cites to back up his declarative statements regarding her financial situation. In fact, I never did anything other than ask Clothahump for cites, until _you_ made the claim that Mrs. Sheehan was being paid, and cited articles that showed nothing of the sort. I, and others, then called you out as either distorting the words written in USA Today, or simply failing to have any real reading comprehension. > [@Snowboarder Bo in post #122](#): > > It specifically says that there were media events sponsored by the groups, but says nothing about payments made to Mrs. Sheehan. The financial underwriting is linked to “being championed” by the word “and”, therefore the championing is being financially underwritten, which is evidenced by the next sentences in the article. > [@Snowboarder Bo in post #134](#): > > I have yet to see any evidence from you that Mrs. Sheehan is being paid or recieving money for stating her views, or for being in Texas, or for anything else. All I see is that others have paid for some of the events which have helped to spread her views. By your argument, USA Today is also “paying” her, because they paid the reporters who covered her story. But I never speculated on her financial situation, not once. To say that I did is a lie. Also, **Clothahump** , still waiting on that cite re: Mrs. Sheehan’s alleged book, TV, movie deals. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/156 "2005-08-18T14:16:44Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > But I never speculated on her financial situation, not once. To say that I did is a lie. All I was saying was that I was hardly the person who brought the subject up. I’ll happily clarify my previous statement to this effect. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/157 "2005-08-18T14:38:25Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > All I was saying was that I was hardly the person who brought the subject up. > > I’ll happily clarify my previous statement to this effect. Then do so. Retract your statement in post #153 and acknowledge that you mischaracterized my postings in this thread. Don’t weasel around it with an explanation of why you lied. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/158 "2005-08-18T14:48:59Z")
Listen, all I did was answer the question of financial support to Mrs. Sheehan’s cause with some facts. And those facts are pretty clear. Cindy Sheehan is being supported in her cause by a number of organizations, and they are providing monetary and material support. Again, I don’t find this particularly controversial, and have stated so. So I wonder about the motivations of people who’ve reacted to this news with such distress. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/159 "2005-08-18T14:49:33Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Mrs. Sheehan’s financial situation was speculated upon by **Clothahump, light strand, eponymous, Push You Down, Snowboarder Bo** and **minty green** before I posted about it. Well, the main reason I jumped into this thread is because **Clothahump** was insinuating that Ms. Sheehan was somehow doing what’s she’s doing for financial gain. In other words, the reason for her protest is because outside groups/organizations are the **real** force behind her protest and have given her some sort of incentive to “cash in” on her son’s death. Which is why I called bullshit on his/her agrument. If I’ve misconstrued **Clothahump’s** argument, then I apologize. But maybe he/she would like to clarify exactly the point he/she was getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262/160 "2005-08-18T14:53:28Z")
I think that would be helpful as well. Again, I don’t think Cindy Sheehan is getting rich here. And I don’t believe for one second that her motivations are monetary. The fact remains, though, that this isn’t really a one woman protest. There are a lot more individuals and groups involved than just her. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan/317262.md?page=9)