No. I would be accusing her of mental illness because she is destroying her family by going way, way overboard with her grief over the loss of her son. And that would only be if that were actually the case.
However, I have to say that I am starting to change my viewpoint. At first, I thought what I said: she was delusional from grief and allowed herself to be exploited. But the more I read about this whole mess, the more I’m coming to think that she’s not delusional and never was. She has destroyed her family and is exploiting her own son’s death to gain publicity for herself and make money. And that’s an even worse scenario than the manipulation I thought was happening before.
Please tell me you’re kidding. How is she making money? How could she have forseen this? How could she even have known how long the vacation was going to be? Did she plan her son’s death? What about the Divorce? Are her in-laws in it?
Clothahump, did you not make this statement in a previous post:
If the above happens to be true, and I will have to do a bit of research before I accept this statement as factual, it seems the destructive actions are being taken by the family and her husband, not the other way around. In any event, how does having a disagreement so fundamental that one is rejected by one’s family necessarily equate to mental illness on the part of the person so rejected?
Regardless of which claim you choose to support, that Mrs. Sheehan is either mentally ill, or is deliberately and carelessly “destroying her family” for no clearly stated reason, your attitude is appalling and frankly, reprehensible.
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.
How do you know she’s being paid? She decided to do this on her own.
Benefit in what way? Monetarily? Do you actually think Ms. Sheehan is doing this to make money?
Total bullshit…
Again, more bullshit…
Here’s what I see. I see a mother upset over the death of her son. And angry. So angry, in fact, that she has taken it upon herself to deal with her grief and anger by doing what she’s doing.
Your right about the publicity, though. But it’s no more than what MADD or others have done to shine light on a particular issue.
As I said before, but I’m sure you didn’t bother to look, she could have gotten as much as $500,000 in death benefit from her sons death. Or she could just be a independently wealthy woman. Is there a reason you think that a woman couldn’t have her own money? I could easily take a month and a half off, and sleep in a tent. It’s not like she’s saying at the Ritz.
I always like the idea that the people who say things like “follow the money” often refuse to do the same in terms of the Bush and Co and the war in Iraq. Who exactly is benefitting from the war?
The interesting thing so far in this thread is how few people on either side actually talk about what they have heard Sheehan say. She’s either a symbol a saint or a whore.
I heard a radio interview with her yesterday. She’s level headed and personable.
But if I hear her compared to Rosa Parks one more time… I will shit a bus.
Since this is Great Debates, let’s just say Clothahump is just as erroneous on this count as he is on everything else he’s written on this topic. Here’s Cindy Sheehan on ‘Hardball’:
Though by Clothahump’s logic, if he has a step-aunt in Piqua, OH who disagrees with him, that instantly makes everything he writes invalid and irrelevant (not that they aren’t already ).
Newsflash. It’s most assuredly not “Bush and Co”. If this war were being fought over oil as so many, many, many people have claimed, we’d be paying $0.90 or less at the pump instead of $2.90 or more at the pump, because we would have taken every bit of Iraq’s oil for our own.
But let’s answer the question. Who is benefitting from the war? Well, first and foremost, it’s the Iraqi people, who are now free. In the long run, it will be the entire Middle East and as a result, the whole world.
Oh, but wait. That can’t possibly be right; that shoots all the liberal theories about profiteering by Bush squarely in the ass, and we can’t have that now, can we? Okay, follow the money. Show us exactly how Bush and Co are profiting. Point to the dollars flowing into their pockets. We’d all love to see that.
If, on the other hand, you take note of the fact that oil is one hell of a lot more profitable at $66/barrell than at $29/barrell . . . Follow the money, as some might say,
. . . to impose a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy, cozy up to Tehran, and toss women’s rights into the garbage. What great benefits!
Hey, Clothahump, it’s been about 2.5 hours now since I posted my questions for you in post #68, and I still haven’t seen any answers or cites from you.
Correction, that would be 2 meetings. She already had her moment with the President.
Using your logic, former President Clinton should avail himself to all the goldstar mothers who wish to ask him why he turned down an offer to hand OBL over to the US. Surely he can spend the same 15 minutes your logic demands.
Is it unreasonable to ask?. No. Is it unreasonable to demand? Yes. It is also unreasonable to expect a President of the United States to involve himself with anything that is clearly political grandstanding. That’s what drunken Senators are for.
It’s sad that people with an agenda have taken advantage of an emotionally distraught person. Had the media circus not pitched their tent on her soul she still might have a family to go home to in her time of need.
You seem to think that your second sentence (which is (assuming he wasn’t killed by friendly fire) true) in some way refutes what she is saying in your first sentence, which it doesn’t. (Assuming that we can insert “indirectly” between “Bush” and “killed”.)
Whenever a president orders troops into battle, he’s taking responsibility for what happens to them. On his shoulders rests the responsibility for their deaths, should they die.
Of course, other people might ALSO be to blame, equally or moreso. For instance, if a crazy mad serial killer invades the Smithsonian and takes 1000 people hostage, and the president orders the army to take him down, and they do, and 2 soldiers are killed in the process, saving 995 innocent lives, then the person MOST responsible for the 2 soldiers’ deaths is the serial killer, but the president still made a decision which led to them dying. It might have been a correct decision (and probably was, in this case), but he IS STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULTS OF HIS DECISIONS. If he could have chosen to try a non-lethal tear gas attack first, HE is the one who is responsible for not having done so, due to the weighing of the risks and rewards of that other path. If one of those 2 soldier’s mothers, distraught with grief, wants to know why he didn’t try the tear gas, should he say either “don’t ask me, as the serial killer, HE is the one who killed them?” or “hey, he volunteered freely, thus, it can’t possibly be my fault that he’s dead”?
And there might be other people responsible, also. If a prison warden makes a mistake which lets a serial killer escape, and then he holes up in a house, and then the police captain comes up with an ill-advised plan and sends in 3 troopers to get him out, and he kills them, he is MOST responsible for their deaths, but both the prison warden and the police captain are also responsible for those troopers’ deaths, and should, if they are decent people, feel that they owe an explanation of their actions to those the troopers left behind.
Members of the public are only allowed one meeting with the President? Where does this rule come from?
if anybody were actually demanding such a meeting, you might have a point. But they aren’t, so you don’t. Besides, Clinton’s smooth enough to pull off the empathy bit and still explain that your wingnutty attempted-equivalence talking point is complete hooey. But that’s a discussion for another thread, which in fact we had multiple times a couple years ago.
No, members of the public are allowed as many meetings as the President wishes.
My point was valid regardless. The key word was “demanding”. Her chances of a second meeting were significantly lowered when it became a demand.
No, I’m suggesting multiple “someone’s” are taking advantage of her. Specifically meetcindy.org . They are taking advantage of an emotionally distraught person. She has driven away her husband, alienated her family, and dismissed her active-duty son’s wishes.
How do you know she “drove away” her husband? Cite?
Perhaps he is just a weak-kneed pissant jerk who can’t bear to face the possibility that his son was engaged in a fraudulent war? Perhaps he’s just another jerk who can’t bear to stand by his wife through this tough time, and he’s taking the easy out. Perhaps he was enticed by potential monetary reward, stature, reverance by right-wing fanatics who seek to use any means to discredit his upset, grieving wife?
I ask, again, Magiver: cite?
Clothahump, it’s been over four hours now since I asked you for a cite for your assertions, which you made in the form of questions which you apparently knew the answers to. Still waiting…
When the transcripts of my secret bugs of the Oval Office, Bohemian Grove, and Skull & Bones HQ are ready for publication, you can pay your $14.95 like everybody else. Until then, I’m just going by the only thing that possibly seems to make sense from Bush’s POV. Obviously the Iraq invasion was not about fighting terrorism (the Bush Admin had no good reason to believe Hussein supported al-Qaeda), nor removing WMDs (likewise), nor was it mainly about unseating a tyranny (why don’t we have troops in Haiti or Cuba? They’re both easier to get to). The only other characteristics of interest Iraq has are (1) its own oil supply and (2) its strategic importance in the oil-rich Middle East. The invasion took control of both of those factors out of Hussein’s hands and put them (for the moment) in ours. The main point wasn’t to seize Iraq’s oil as spoils of war, but just to make sure it keeps being pumped and exported no matter what,* and the same with the oil of neighboring countries. If Bush gets the chance to further enrich members of his “base” in the process, so much the better, as far as he’s concerned.
*An aim in which Bush might ultimately prove to have failed, Og help us!
).