Cindy Sheehan: Idiot Mouthpiece
If her grief-addled head isn’t being filled to the brim by the assorted wackjobs vampiring off of her, then she’s really, really ill-informed
“You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism,” Sheehan declares.
Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: “My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don’t owe you a penny…you give my son back and I’ll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we’ll put this war on trial.”
“And now I’m going to use another ‘I’ word – impeachment – because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail.”
She’s going to feel really stupid when, some years from now, someone points out to her that there’s no such place as “Palestine” for Israel to vacate, you don’t have the option to not pay income tax no matter what your bitch with the government, and you actually have to commit an American crime to be impeached.
The weight of the shame that’s going to come down on Cindy Sheehan once she realizes she’s the mouthpiece for some of the purely dumbest human-beings on the planet could be soulcrushing. I hope sincerely that she realizes it before her wounds are too deep to ever heal.
UPDATE: In the interest of letting you see what the “other side” of this argument says about this “run-of-the-mill Bushie”, here’s a link to someone who disagrees in what seems to be to be fairly typical leftist fashion. But you be the judge.
No related posts.
Category: Moonbat Nonsense
She’s going to feel really stupid when, some years from now, someone points out to her that there’s no such place as “Palestine” for Israel to vacate
Palestine is a geographical area – the oft-cited "there is no palestine" meme is a linguistic trick – it doesn't mean 'there is no area commonly referred to as palestine' – rather, it means 'there is no area to which Palestinians have a legitimate legal claim.'
you don’t have the option to not pay income tax
Of course you do; you can pay your taxes or go to jail. She explicity chose the latter.
you actually have to commit an American crime to be impeached.
Do you? It's clear that Congress can impeach & remove for "high crimes & misdemeanors. What if they just said that Bush's conduct constituted HC&M (obviously they wouldn't, but this is all hypothetical) – would the Constitution faerie wave its wand and undo the removal? I'm guessing probably not. Our closest analog to the Constitution faerie, the court system, has said that impeachment isn't justiciable. That said, the Congress almost certainly won't impeach unless there's been an egregious violation of American law; they could, but they won't .
jpe – Okay, I'll grant you that there was a place we commonly knew as Palestine. We call it southern Jordan today (formerly known as Transjordan). It's not where Israel is or was. Now if we can get a "Jordan out of Palestine" rally happening, I'll be right there with you. Those Jordanians have been oppressing the Palestinians long enough!
Though I will say that it's an A-Ride Ticket to Crazyland when someone drops Israel and Palestine into a discussion of Iraq. It's one of those Godwin's Law analogues.
I don't know that I'd call "tax or prison" really an option. That may be a semantic thing, though. If you have to do something or go to the poke, that strikes me as not an option.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you do. In order to commit a crime, you have to be found guilty of committing a crime. So long as the presumption of innocence exists, you can't have committed a crime, legally, until the court says you have. That said, Congress is going to take its cues from the court to find out if the high crime or misdemeanor actually happened. I'm not so sure that's a semantic distinction, but a legal one. The court may have stepped aside on whether an impeachment is a court matter, but Constitutionally, I'd say you'd have to be in the court system somewhere (or just be blatantly guilty, like Nixon) to be impeached.
Funny thing about that knocking down of the crosses:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011388.php
The twit who knocked them down was wrong. And the twits who saw it more as a photo op than a memorial are equally wrong.
So I've been doing some thinking about this Cindy Sheehan thing. I think she has a right to speak out and I think we have duty to listen to her. That's right, we have duty to listen her. If something was going terribly wrong in Iraq and soldiers were being mistreated, ill-equiped, or whatever, she has a right to talk about it and we have a duty to listen and do something about it. But that only goes so far, we have no duty to accept her opinion on foriegn policy or matters not immediate to her son's death. And we have every right to disagree with it too.
Otherwise, just how far does this extend? My brother is a policeman. If he is killed in the line of duty by a repeat offender, do I or my mother get to decide judicial sentencing policy? If we declare that all first-time offenders should be locked up for life to prevent other policeman from being killed by repeat offenders, should there be condemnation for people questioning our declaration?
Cindy Sheehan has responded to President Bush's comments concerning meeting her and has posted her response in The huffington Post. The first statement Cindy Sheehan makes that comes off as anti-democratic is this one and I quote Cindy Sheehan- " Does anyone else know what "democratic" means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one." Cindy Sheehen in that particular statement actually attacks 51 % majority rule as a bad form of government and if you can read anything else into that, defending that statement, please make your comment at the end of this post. I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan that 50 plus one is much better then Saddam's 1 % plus brutal totalitarian rule in which the 1% Saddam, rules 99 % of the entire population. Maybe Sheehan has met with some socialist organizations that oppose democratic forms of government. I did notice that a socialist website called 'Socialist Worker Online' is running a rather large article advocating Sheehans position. Cindy Sheehan actually gave an interview to the Socialist Worker Online, she spoke to Socialist Worker’s ERIC RUDER which is mentioned at the beginning of the article. In her interview with the Socialist Worker Online she says and I quote " Some people may think that we’re fighting terrorism over there. But when is that job ever going to be complete? Terrorism is just a new “ism.” It was “communism” when I was growing up." Here Cindy Sheehan is discounting the validity of the threat of communism in the past as just a made up " ism." I believe history taught us that communism brutally oppressed and killed millions of innocent people and is still somewhat of a threat today in places like North Korea where millions have died from starvation due to KimYong II, brutal rule. Cindy Sheehan later went on to say and I quote " I DEFINITELY think that we should support war resisters in the military". I will leave that statement up to the readers interpretation, but it sounds to me to border on subversion and treason. Here is Cindy Sheehan's interview with the Socialist Workers Online in its entirety http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/549/549_06_… .
The next statement Cindy Sheehan makes is both inaccurate and untruthful and I quote
"This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn't ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for." Actually Cindy Sheehen didn't ask Bush, she demanded that he "bring the troops home now", here is a quote from her statement made on August 18 2005 and carried by ABC News ""If George Bush comes out here today or if we leave here at the end of August, this is only the beginning, and we're not going to stop until our troops are brought home", I would suggest that means a withdrawal what would you think it means? Also in this ABC article written by Eric Noe it is stated " In addition to requesting a meeting with Bush, Sheehan is now calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. She promised to send a similar message if the president agrees to meet with her." Here is the complete article you be the judge http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1045556&pa… . Is ABC lying, did they just make that up? I have myself watched Cindy Sheehan on national television say time and time again "bring our troops home now" but she has stated that she has never intended to ask Bush that question. I smell another lie. Whats really strange is in Cindys own article she just released today she says this and I quote " Then bring our troops home. The status quo in Iraq is awful", if you ask me she cant even get through one article without contradicting herself. She goes on to imply that America is spreading "imperialism " by what she says is 14 permanent bases being set up in Iraq the size of Sacramento, California. I dont know if there is any United States military bases on the entire planet Earth the size of a large U.S. city,if there is please let me know ok. By the way the interview Cindy Sheehan gave to the Socialist Worker is the same Socialist worker who ran this article entitled " The Meaning of Marxism" in which they praise Marxism to no end. Here is the link to that garbage http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOf…
I still do not get Cindy's hate for GW. It is a voluntary military. Perhaps she should have directed her son NOT to join the military and saved college tuition – instead of obviously nodding at his choice to join the army. If there were never a possibility of going to war, I am sure many more people would join the military. Thank God we have men and women with a love for their country that most of us wish we had… and Cindy's son was a patriot who served with honor. Cindy is doing everything she can to make that worthless. She must be a real piece of work, no wonder her husband filed for divorce.