Just say Mooooooooo

See it all at Cindy Sheehan Watch or just google “Crazy Cindy”

When a woman completely changes her account of an earlier meeting, when she was on permanent record with her former account, she has no justification for asking for a second meeting.

Those using Ms. Sheehan’s grief for their political shilling are despicable.

Grow up, come back and have an adult conversation.

That was your contribution and YOU are telling ME to grow up? What exacltly did you contribute that was so mature?

I was pointing out in a semi-humorous (if it weren’t so sad) way that the people who should come talk to Sheehan are not in a real position to answer her questions in good faith and will simply have to resort to the half-truths and pollyanna type answers that we have grown accustomed to.

Ms. Bastian has asked VFP to remove her son’s name from their displays, but they refused.

First answer the question posed by another couple who lost a son in Iraq. By what right does Mrs. Sheehan and her supporters demand the President meet with her a SECOND time when so many families, theirs included have never had the chance to meet with him for a first time?

I don’t see much sympathy in the media for instance for the Mother who asked that HER son’s name be taken off of one of the crosses in displays by Veterans For Peace and at Crawford, her photo is not being flashed over the waves.

I find it odd that Mrs Sheehan could speak so glowingly about her meeting with Bush last year and so differently now.

No I do not think events warrant a second meeting for her, neither do I think she wants one.

And if she DID get one? It would be a slap in the face for every family who lost someone in Iraq and has never had the chance to meet with President Bush.

Never a good Idea to give into Blackmail Michael.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

33% favorable, 38% unfavorable. The demographic split is exactly what you would expect.

“HOwever, since the president seems incapable of honestly answering unscripted questions that he has been prepared for in advance, that’s unthinkable. So, perhaps he could send in Dick Cheney, who unlike Bush might have a chance of thinking on his feet. However, Dick Cheney might not be the best choice since he has all the warmth and compassion of a corpse and he is the person who said months ago that the Iraq insurgency was in its final throes. So, if not Bush and if not, Cheney then Maybe Rice??? As long as Cindy Sheehan doesn’t ask an uncomfortable question like: “How would the smoking gun show up as a mushroom cloud if Iraq didn’t have ANY nuclear capability?â€Â?. Tough one. Perhaps it IS better to sit in the Crawford ranch and watch reruns of Gilligan. ”

Does mommy know you are playing on her computer?????

Grow up, come back and have an adult conversation.

Anyway, why would Bush or the Republicans even want this anti-war circus to end? In the long run, it could well play right into their hands. The longer Ms. Sheehan et al continue to make fools of themselves, the more they also discredit the anti-war position and the left in general. (Nolan makes this same point in his blog entry, calling this another example of the Left “proving itself to be its own worst enemy.”)

If anyone, it’s the Democrats who should be concerned about how damaging to their image (read: their election prospects in ‘06 and ‘08) this whole thing could become, and strongly encourage Ms. Sheehan to call it a day.

Another great post, as usual. I too see the similarities between Ms. Sheehan and Terri Schiavo’s plight. For the anti-war hard Left, Sheehan is the new face of the anti-war moment. For the pro-war right, she is an unhinged moonbat, embarassing her son’s name. For the rest of us, (at least for me), she is a grieving mother who has some whacked out views.

I think its legitimate to oppose her views, but not attack her personally. I feel sympathy for her loss. As far as the criticism goes, part of me wonders if she wasn’t already prepared for this? Perhaps she’s more savvy than we realize? If that’s the case, then this has indeed become a circus, that she herself has a chief hand in making.

Media sideshows and political controversies like this bring out the most opportunistic types. Michael Moore and MoveOn.org in the Sheehan affair, and Randall Terrry and Tom DeLay in the Schiavo affair. It’s tragic all around.

He won’t, but I’ll say again that Bush should meet her. He doesn’t have to, and she may not even want to at this point, but he should.

I’ll also say that I don’t for a minute believe Cindy Sheehan really wants a meeting with the President (as has alreayd been mentioned, she herself has admitted that such an encounter would be counterproductive for her cause). What’s she going to do? Demand that the troops be brought home (the most asinine of all positions anyone can take at this point, whether they originally supported the war or not)? She’s already done that. It won’t – and shouldn’t – happen.

Traitors deserve death.

Nothing more needs be said.

And Big Gay Al, I don’t read Kos often, but whenever I do, all I see are obscenity laced tirades against anyone to his right. And don’t forget his public cheerleading for Iraqi insurgents. (Or have you forgotten [i.e., selectively ignored] the whole “Screw ‘em” controversy?)

And as for coordinated smear campaigns, what about the DNC Chairman going around saying that ALL Republicans are thieves and liars, and then basically having the Dem Party leadership go, “Yeah, what he said!”

Or perhaps you would prefer the NARAL ad claiming the John Roberts supported bombing abortion clinics?

So quit shoveling the crap that only Republicans use smear campaigns.

Oh, or do those not count as insults or smear campaigns because one can do or say anything you like about anyone to the Right of the World Workers Party? (And now THAT is an insult!)

It’s a good thing this site is devoted to finding a Center in American politics. Else things could get nasty!

Nothing discredits Cindy better than her own words.