I’m sure everyone knows by now that Cindy Sheehan is leaving the protest, at least for a while, to care for her mother who has had a stroke.
I’m remarking on this solely to hope for her mother’s recovery.
I can understand and respect that. Some of my family freaked when my son went to Bosnia. Thank God he, and you made it home safe.
I might add that I do believe Mrs. Sheehan has been used by those who oppose the war and GWB.For whatever reasons she chose to participate. I respect her adult choices as well. I see no moral difference between those who oppose the war useing Mrs. Sheehan and a 100 things that GWB has done.
For what it’s worth–and I’m sure it will be worthless to True Believers such as yourself–Sheehan denies the anti-semitic sentimenst that the right-wing smear machine has attributed to her.
i didn’t catch the host name, but it was station 740 at approximately 5 pm’ish.
Let’s just assume that that is true.
What about the comments attributed to her by her leftist allies?
From remarks of Cindy Sheehan at a pro-Lynne Stewart rally earlier this year:
Cindy Sheehan at a Veterans for Peace rally:
Cindy Sheehan has indeed been making plenty of comments about Israel. That’s surely her right, but she runs the risk then of people listening to this message and ignoring what she says is her main point.
As you’re doing right now?
Spare me. If someone makes comments like this, they certainly can be debated, can’t they? Or do you fall into that “absolute moral authority” crowd who’d allow Cindy Sheehan to say anything she pleases without criticism?
No, I fall into that crowd that is trying to stick to the subject of her protest in Crawford, not irrelevant (but to some self-relieving) sidetracks.
If the remaining justifications for leaving our people in Iraq are not a topic you wish to explore, you ought to try a different thread.
It is possible to mention Israel, and even criticize some of their actions or policies, without being anti-Semitic, isn’t it?
Or is any criticism of Israel a de facto anti-Semitic remark?
Scylla mentioned comments vaguely anti-semitic in tone. minty green stated that those comments couldn’t be conclusively attributed to her.
There are comments that Mrs. Sheehan has made that carry a similar tone, and that absolutely can be attributed to her. They come from sites allied with her, and she has not disavowed them.
They are, for better or worse, part of the whole Cindy Sheehan experience.
And again, if you have a problem with these comments, take it up with Mrs. Sheehan. After all, it’s not smearing someone if they actually did the thing in question.
Shrill and hyperbolic, but hardly anti-semitic.
It is, however, transparently diversionary. The issue isn’t Sheehan’s actions or motivations; she’s just another Jane Doe, really (which is the source of her power, of course). No, the issue is Bush’s actions.
Actually, what minty green stated was
which was followed by a quote from Mrs. Sheehan categorically denying that she had made some of the comments attributed to her. Mr. Moto, you have once again mischaracterized someone else’s statement, making it seem as if there is only doubt about the source, when in fact there is outright denial by Mrs. Sheehan. Your tactics in this thread have been to lie, mischaracterize, and to avoid discussing the issue of Iraq; instead you choose to attempt to discredit Mrs. Sheehan and anyone whom you see as one of her supporters. Are you perhaps a Halliburton stockholder or something?
Don’t fight that battle on my behalf. I thought his characterization of my post was fairly reasonable.
Snowboarder Bo:
Now, now, Halliburton is politically connected and profiteering, but I don’t think it’s been dishonest.
I’m not, I’m fighting it on my behalf… I’m one the people who have found themselves on the receiving end of his false statements. With no apology or retraction, either, just a lame explanatory statement.
What, guilt by association again? :rolleyes:
We debate that one regularly and it’s never pretty. At least our Israeli members don’t believe it’s true.
It’s ironic that you would engage in such immature slanders in the very same sentence in which your complain about smears. It is doubly so, considering how prickly you have shown yourself to be when mischaracterized.
Your blatant hypocrisy aside, will you retract your slander, or are you only interested in truth when it serves you.
The dig that you take at me is a mischaracterization, and by your own link attributing this to the right wing is clearly false. According to your own link Cindy is claiming that a specific anti-semite has altered this document for his own purposes and disseminated it with her name on it.
This being the case, your accusing the “right wing smear machine” of attributing this to her is a blatant fasehood according to your own source.
I think it’s a fine thing that Cindy is disavowing these statements. That being said, I am skeptical of her story as the sentiments she claims in the document do closely echo statements that can be positively attributed to her.
There are two problems with her story though concerning this email. First off, this is not what she told people the first time this email was brought to her attention:
Sheehan recently originally claimed that a hacker infiltrated her email and produced the document.
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/8/18/175654/041
Now her claim is that this Tersh guy is taking advantage of her notoriety to promote an anti-semitic agenda.
Unfortunately Mr. Tersh originally posted the letter back in March on Usenet long before Sheehan became notorious.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/bullyard/msg/7f523b1a73be1a36?hl=en
So, I’m afraid this explanation doesn’t necessarily hold water, either.
That being said, I am happy to accept that Sheehan disavows the anti-semitic sentiments and make no further mention of them.
There is much to abhor in her current statements though, and I wonder if people would be supporting her so strongl if they actually listened to what she was saying.
I strongly support her for her loss. However, I abhor her sentiments.
Are you talking about the statements Mr. Moto linked to, or other statements?
I’m not trying to score a point, I’m just curious.