Cindy Sheehan realizes irrelevance two years later than world

CNN.com coverage of Sheehan's "resignation" from the anti-war movement here.

For upwards of an entire year after her son's death, I took Sheehan's comments as the hallmark of a woman unable to handle her son's death, desperately in need of a great deal of therapy and/or medication. Somewhere around year two, I came to the conclusion that it was about time for her to stop trying to make political hay out of her tragedy (which is far different from simply opposing the war; tons of reasonable people oppose the war - almost none of them do not try to make a spectacle out of a casualty therein). Thankfully, blissfully, she has realized that her shrill cries fell upon collectively deaf ears, and has returned to glorious anonymity.

Disgusted me since the moment she used "My son died in Iraq" to get on television. I don't discount her loss, I just recoil at her willingness to use her son as leverage to get airtime and shill for Democrats to whoever would listen.

Quote:

---

... and shill for Democrats to whoever would listen.

---

She was eventually, by her story, abandoned by her supporters in the Democratic party because of some of her actions and complaints about them. Very unfortunate that her son died in the line of duty, but even more unfortunate how she used his death to try to get somewhere in the world.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Whoops! Just kidding!

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...news-a_section

She says she's going to run against Pelosi and she's actually seemingly getting a fair amount of support from the SF Newspapers. She probably has an outside shot to win since Pelosi has moved somewhat to the center and I'm betting most of her district wants to send Bush to Guantanamo. Whatever the outcome, I'm hoping for some comedy.

Please, God in Heaven, let her beat Nancy Pelosi. Please let the most bile-spewing whackjobs of the Bay cannibalize one of their own. Please, grant me this one request.

Amen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaviani
Please, God in Heaven, let her beat Nancy Pelosi. Please let the most bile-spewing whackjobs of the Bay cannibalize one of their own. Please, grant me this one request.

---

God, that would be hilarious. You know, that district might be ripe for a snipe if someone moderate actually runs. With Pelosi and Sheehan splitting the lunatic vote.

Only a city as messed up as San Francisco could elect such people, openly root for Barry Bonds, and spew hate towards our military at every turn (wanting to deny them access to recruit at schools, wanting to turn away retired ships that serve as historic monuments and museums, etc.).

Sheehan is an anti-war activist who has maintained a constant position against the war. This is far more than can be said of the Democrats in power such as Pelosi or Conyers, or sites such as Daily Kos who are prepared to throw principle out the door the moment they think it might alienate moderate republicans or swing voters.

Good on her for holding Pelosi accountable. And too fucking bad if she splits the Democrats base and lets the Republicans win in 08, the Dems might learn that political expediency is scorned by more than just grass roots activists.

Not to defend the Democratic majority presently in power, Malacasta, but following American politics is the art of accepting that absolutely no one in the major two-party establishment - a handful of ten or less excepted - has an ideology they are willing to adhere to beyond simple political expediency. Left-wingers may well be disappointed by the recent Democratic majority whose ostensible only actual policy goal is the embarassment and/or annoyance of the present administration to no effective end. If that disappointment is allowed to ferment for a solid ten years or so, perhaps they can share in the feeling of this nation's non-Christofascist right wing who became embittered with the eventual largesse and, ultimately, corruption of the Republican party and their complete abandonment of their own (small-government) principles.

It blows. It all blows.

Oh, as a postscript, the Daily Kos isn't a forum for political expediency - it is a hate site whose posters by-and-large are militant, MoveOn.org-style left-wing hyper-authoritarians themselves. The fact every Democratic Presidential candidate is attending their convention at least reassures me that the major American left-wing party is as thoroughly corrupt and as worthy of disposal as the major American right-wing party.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot an important little part: Cindy Sheehan isn't an "anti-war activist." She's a mentally imbalanced mother who exploited her son's death for national attention, and, in turn, was exploited by the ravenous, hyper-left-wing caucus to put a face on their particular anti-war agenda. If there's any justice in the world, she'll rob San Fransisco of a representative for two years and make sane politicos the world over laugh at the futility of the borderline cancerous, Code Pink breed of left wing vitriol eminating from that cesspool of a city.

I'm also glad Sheehan is trying to hold Pelosi accountable. Very few people actually directly stick it to their party when their party is behaving (in their opinion) badly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaviani
If there's any justice in the world, she'll rob San Fransisco of a representative for two years and make sane politicos the world over laugh at the futility of the borderline cancerous, Code Pink breed of left wing vitriol eminating from that cesspool of a city.

---

And it may teach politicians of all flavors that cavorting with insane attention-whores like Sheehan will eventually bite you in the ass.

Seriously, would you let me get away with a post like this on these boards?

Close the border folks are bile-spewing whackjobs whose leaders, such as Malkin, are “insane attention-whores. Malkin runs a hate site whose posters by-and-large are militant, Freeper-style right-wing hyper-authoritarians themselves (Ironic considering their name – heh). Thankfully, Malkin and Bush are splitting the lunatic vote and we can hope for at least eight years of irrelevance due to the rabid vileness eminating from that cesspool of an ideology.

Please, please, please show some respect those in your community who hold similar beliefs to these “bile spewing whack jobs and lunatics”. If you’re going to paint me this way, then at least back up the reasons so I can defend myself on those counts.

Why should anyone show any respect for Cindy Sheehan? She is absolutely despicable.

As a parent, I find her incredibly foul. She is literally PROFITING from her son's death, and she is using it to stroke her own pathetic ego.

She is in the same category as "people" like Michael Savage. They are absolutely worthless human beings and are positively beneath contempt.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta

Please, please, please show some respect those in your community who hold similar beliefs to these “bile spewing whack jobs and lunatics”. If you’re going to paint me this way, then at least back up the reasons so I can defend myself on those counts.

---

Holding similar beliefs to a scumbag doesn't make you a scumbag. Nor does it mean anyone is painting you with the same brush.

Cindy Sheehan isn't a worthless piece of trash because she opposes the war. She is a "bile spewing whack job" because of the way she is profiteering off her son's death (against the wishes of her own family, I might add). She doesn't care that she is gleefully using her son's name contrary to his own beliefs. She doesn't care that she uses her patriotic son's death to cavort and flirt with clear haters of America like Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro.

She does what she does for the pure, selfish, personal joy of the attention and personal financial profit. That's just sick.

Cindy Sheehan has been using her son's death as a political tool for several years. She is a whackjob. What else needs to be said?

She also said she was retiring from the public a few months ago - and yet, she is incapable of doing so.

(S)he is profiteering off her son's death
(She is) gleefully using her son's name contrary to his own beliefs.
I’d like to see some sources here.

clear haters of America like Hugo Chávez
You say “clear” but it’s in no way clear that Chavez is a hater of America. He hates Bush and co, but then if everyone who hated Bush were a whack job lunatic, the non-whack job lunatics would be pretty lonely.

She does what she does for the pure, selfish, personal joy of the attention and personal financial profit.
Says who, those who hate her? Do you have access to her mind to know this? Come on Ari, this is just a bullshit claim.

On Sheehan making profits:

Quote:

---

The State University College at Oneonta has booked a Fox News Channel military analyst to counter a lecture tonight by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.

Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, who retired from the Army in November 2003 after leading a mechanized infantry battalion into Baghdad, will give a presentation sponsored by the student-run College Union Activities Council at noon Friday in the Hunt Union Square...

Sheehan is getting paid $11,000 for the hour-long talk, while Rutter will receive his standard fee of $600 for his presentation, Dromgoole said.

---

http://www.amazon.com/Not-One-More-M.../dp/0977333809

Quote from Cindy Sheehan's diary:

Quote:

---

First of ail, I would just like to say that I am not only in favor of impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, but of trying them for war crimes and locking them both up in Guantanamo for the rest of their lives! I also agree with Tom (Hayden) that an "anti-war" movement is basically a self-destructive movement, because when our objectives are achieved, the movement is over. That is why we must call ourselves a "peace" movement so our movement will never end. There will always be a need for people who commit their lives to peace as strenuously as they commit their lives to the anti-war movement.

Sat, May 05, 2007

Daily Kos

---

Even if this war ends, she's found a way to keep on going.

On Chavez and America... not just Bush:

Quote:

---

"Iran has every right . . . to develop atomic energy and to continue its research in that area," Chavez said at a joint appearance with Khatami. "All over the world, there is a clamor for equality . . . and profound rejection of the imperialist desires of the U.S. government. Faced with the threat of the U.S. government against our brother people in Iran, count on us for all our support."

Gerver Torres, a former Venezuelan government minister who now runs a private development agency, said such statements illustrate one of Chavez's key goals. "His main motivation now is to do everything he possibly can to negatively affect the United States, Bush in particular," Torres said. "He is trying to bring together all the enemies of the United States. He believes the United States is the devil."

Washington Post

---

On Casey Sheehan's beliefs as spoken by his sister:

Quote:

---

Sheehan was killed Sunday in a fire-fight outside Baghdad. Sheehan’s family members said his sergeant told them he and another soldier, Cpl. Forest J. Jostes, volunteered to be part of a quick response team when rioting started in Baghdad.

"He didn’t have to go," said Sheehan’s 23-year-old sister, Carly. "He would do anything for anybody. He’d give you the shirt off his back. He was just a loving and caring person."

"That’s all he wanted to do was serve God and his country his whole life," Carly Sheehan said. "He was a boy scout from age 6 or 7 and an Eagle Scout. It was kind of a natural progression to go into the military from that. He said he was enjoying the military because it was just like the boy scouts but they got guns."

-Associated Press

---

Obviously, C. Sheehan had a CHOICE in going on the mission where he, ultimately, died. He believed in what he was doing enough to risk his life where he did not have to do so. Whether or not the fight is actually a RIGHTFUL thing is not in question here; it is his beliefs that we're discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta

Says who, those who hate her? Do you have access to her mind to know this? Come on Ari, this is just a bullshit claim.

---

Says those who judge her by her actions and her statements and have found them to be entirely distasteful. Do you know George W. Bush's mind? Do you know Bill O'Reilly's mind? No, but you judge them on their continuous and repeated behavior, and rightfully so. That's all you have to judge them on because you will probably never get to have a one-on-one talk with either. If you enter the public eye, what's "on your mind" becomes irrelevant. You are choosing to let the public judge your actions. Thus, as a public figure, especially since she's worked so hard to get there, Cindy Sheehan's ACTIONS and WORDS are what should be continually judged, not whatever may be in her mind. You can't hold her to a different standard than other public figures. That would be manipulative.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaviani
CNN.com coverage of Sheehan's "resignation" from the anti-war movement here.

For upwards of an entire year after her son's death, I took Sheehan's comments as the hallmark of a woman unable to handle her son's death, desperately in need of a great deal of therapy and/or medication.

---

Two months after her declaration, she's still going, so I don't think she's going to stop.

I can't ever imagine doing what she's doing because I DO feel that she's disrespecting her son's choices, but I also can't imagine (and hope that I will NEVER know) the pain of losing a child in something I felt was senseless. I sympathize with her while at the same time feeling somewhat disgusted by her choices. Ultimately, whatever it is she's after, I don't think she'll find it.

Malacasta is right. The claim that Sheehan's motivations are purely for attention and profit is bullshit. Sheehan making any money as a result of her activism is clearly an incidental side effect rather than an underlying motivation. It's clear to me that she legitimately wants the war to end, and legitimately wants certain people held accountable. I find it almost incomprehensible than anyone truly believes that if she wasn't profiting, she wouldn't be an activist. It's absurd to the point of hilarity to say that she's a whack-job lunatic while simultaneously being a cunning activist businesswoman.

If one thinks that she's using her son's death as a political tool, I can agree with that. I'll also note that there's nothing wrong with that, either. There are plenty of activists that are motivated by a personal loss, and use that loss to illustrate a point or to appeal to the emotions of others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena

I can't ever imagine doing what she's doing because I DO feel that she's disrespecting her son's choices

---

So if your child died of a drug overdose, you wouldn't become an anti-drug activist because that would disrespect his/her choices, am I right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
It's absurd to the point of hilarity to say that she's a whack-job lunatic while simultaneously being a cunning activist businesswoman.

---

I scrolled up and re-read. I don't really see anyone saying that she's a cunning activist businesswoman or even trying to imply that. One person asked that someone cite the fact that she was profiting off her son's death. That was done. The end. You're welcome to argue that strawman, though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

If one thinks that she's using her son's death as a political tool, I can agree with that. I'll also note that there's nothing wrong with that, either. There are plenty of activists that are motivated by a personal loss, and use that loss to illustrate a point or to appeal to the emotions of others.

---

It's a valid and viable point of view to think it's okay to profit and gain fame over someone else's death, even if that person is your own child. It's also completely a valid and viable point of view to be utterly disgusted that she would do that in the face of her own son and family's beliefs. It's really not a matter of right and wrong, but it is a matter of judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
So if your child died of a drug overdose, you wouldn't become an anti-drug activist because that would disrespect his/her choices, am I right?

---

Depends. Did she die of an overdose because a doctor prescribed an incorrect amount of drugs? Did she die of a drug overdose because I left medicine out that I shouldn't have? Did she die of an overdose because someone at school left a bottle out and she thought it was candy?

Did she die of an overdose because she was taking recreational drugs and I knew about it and tried to stop it? Did she die because she was at a party and a bunch of other kids with lax parents had a bunch of drugs there?

Also, this is kind of a moot and silly question. Drugs have a physical addictiveness that cannot even begin to be compared to an active choice of a grown human being who CHOSE go on a mission he was NOT even required to go on. To try to compare the two is quite irrational.

On Profiting and Profiteering:
Cindy Sheehan is raising money from her speaking tours and the sales of her book. That money is then put back into the peace movement or is given to her children. I wouldn’t call this personally profiting, but the point is arguable. Profiting is different to profiteering. Profiteering has a different meaning and a different history, it’s really not applicable to Sheehan at all. I objected above to the word profiteering.

On Sheehans diary:
I don’t know what this quote is supposed to show. She wants a perpetual peace movement, so what? I know a ton of people who want a perpetual peace movement. I want a perpetual peace movement. Wanting a perpetual peace movement doesn’t mean you want perpetual profits.

On Chavez and America – not just Bush:
I said bush and co. I should have been more clear here and said the current administration. Chavez hates the current administration. Chavez doesn’t hate the American people.

Torres is an ex-minister in the previous government, and is extremely hostile to Chavez’s reforms. To quote his personal opinion that he THINKS Chavez BELIEVES that the United States is the devil isn’t really very convincing.

On Using Casey’s name contrary to his own beliefs:
Casey signed up to go to Iraq and volunteered for a mission to help rescue fellow Americans and was killed on this mission. These are the facts we know, we also know he wanted to be a chaplain but didn’t get that post. Cindy believes that her son would have supported her. Cindy had communications with her son that none of us are privy to. I just don’t think anyone has enough information here to make this call.

On Judging Cindy:
I have all sorts of judgements about Cindy which aren’t that favourable to her. I have all sorts of judgments about Bush and O’Reilly, as you say, that aren’t favourable to them. But I think it should be no more acceptable to trash talk Sheehan on these forums than it would be to trash talk Bush.

You say “Cindy Sheehan's ACTIONS and WORDS are what should be continually judged, not whatever may be in her mind.” I agree with you, and this is why I object to this comment:
“She does what she does for the pure, selfish, personal joy of the attention and personal financial profit”.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Sheehan making any money as a result of her activism is clearly an incidental side effect rather than an underlying motivation.

---

Bwahahahaha. Then why does she charge such outrageous fees to speak. $11,000 is not "incidental."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

It's absurd to the point of hilarity to say that she's a whack-job lunatic while simultaneously being a cunning activist businesswoman.

---

Good thing we never called her "cunning" or a "businesswoman" then, eh? Her money grubbing is no more cunning than people who hire personal injury lawyers to show them the money.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
So if your child died of a drug overdose, you wouldn't become an anti-drug activist because that would disrespect his/her choices, am I right?

---

Yeah. Abusing drugs and joining the military are the same thing!

Great point!

How incredibly insulting to every single member of the military (of which we have many on Threshold) to equate their patriotic choice to drug abuse.

Seriously. Your whole argument died right there... hideously.

You know, I just spent some time looking up quotes from Hugo Chavez that pretty much shows his disdain is not just for Bush but for all of America. I found plenty, but ultimately, it doesn't really matter. We could go back and forth over this all day, especially with us misquoting each other and deliberately misunderstanding each other.

Ultimately, you think that Cindy Sheehan is a respectable person who should be admired (I think). Others think that she's a disrespectful person who is profiting off her son's death and using it to climb into the spotlight. We'll both keep pointing out various things that support our beliefs, and snipping each other's posts.

Ultimately, Sheehan is a small bump in the grand scheme of things. I don't respect her. I don't admire her, but perhaps others need to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
On Profiting and Profiteering:

[text excised]

Profiting is different to profiteering. Profiteering has a different meaning and a different history, it’s really not applicable to Sheehan at all. [more text excised]

---

I wonder if you maintain this distinction when you offhandedly hear about Exxon-Mobil making record quarterly profits - or if the central dichotomy is that profiting is engaged in by individuals you sympathize with, whereas "profiteering" only occurs at your expense (or the expense of sympathetic groups, or at the hands of individuals you disdain). In any case, wouldn't a person advocating a collectivist philosophy (forgive me if that's misstating your economic position, but I'm fairly certain it's a fair one?) disdain ANY pursuit of a profit motive beyond incidental expenses and reasonable necessities?

Quote:

---

On Sheehans diary:
I don’t know what this quote is supposed to show. She wants a perpetual peace movement, so what? I know a ton of people who want a perpetual peace movement. I want a perpetual peace movement. Wanting a perpetual peace movement doesn’t mean you want perpetual profits.

---

Wait a god damned minute.

She's demonstrated to have a clear FINANCIAL BENEFIT by the continuation of her "movement" - as you've conceded implicitly above, Sheehan is PROFITING from such DIRECTLY [even if we could argue that she's suffering a psychological loss of some sort by the knowledge the war continues - that's rather irrelevant, as I'm stating she's making a fiscal gain, which is empirically observable], and she has stated she wishes the movement on which SHE DERIVES PROFIT to become PERMANENT, and we cannot reasonably infer that she would attempt to continue profiting pemanently? What, will she mysteriously forego $11,000 speaking fees once "the war" ends and the "peace movement" transitions to...whatever it is you do when you're pro-peace and there's no war to protest [profitably]?

No, seriously, I want an answer to this. Do you really think she'd speak and NOT pursue a profit if such a movement existed in a post-Iraq War world?

If so, how do you explain her accepting speaking fees now? Does it somehow benefit the peace movement for her to accept money now that no longer takes place after "the war" ends?

If not, why would you make such a disingenuous statement as that "wanting a perpetual movement" [that you profit from the existence of] "doesn't mean you want perpetual profits?"

Quote:

---

On Chavez and America – not just Bush:
I said bush and co. I should have been more clear here and said the current administration. Chavez hates the current administration. Chavez doesn’t hate the American people.

---

Here's a specific quote that I found more generalized than just "the Bush administration."

(From CNN): "Chavez held up a book by Noam Chomsky on imperialism and said it encapsulated his arguments: "The American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination, and we cannot allow him to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated."

Ignore, for a moment, the validity of citing Noam Chomsky as a source, and let's merely stipulate a few things:

1) Noam Chomsky has been a long-time critic of American government, society, and institutions.

2) This criticism predates George W. Bush taking office in 2000.

3) CNN is accurately reporting that Hugo Chavez feels that Noam Chomsky's arguments, to whatever extent he understands them, represent his thoughts.

If this is the case, wouldn't it seem to imply that Hugo Chavez's objections to America go FAR deeper than George W. Bush? Indeed, Noam Chomsky's hatred of America is not something so petty so as to relate to a single man or his administration - is a deep rejection of the entire structure of America on a socio-economic scale, as I would presume you'd agree [being far more of a Chomsky advocate than I]. If this is the case, how can you possibly assert with a straight face that Chavez's objections, hatreds for, or problems with America are only rooted in the "American government," and that he "loves the American people?"

Who do you think makes up all those corporations, institutions, and bureaucracies that Chomsky rejects? Robots? Ninjas? Robot ninjas?

If this is not the case, why is Hugo Chavez citing Chomsky? Intellectual laziness? An inauthentic attempt to seem well-read? Or is he attempting to pander favor from highly affluent, guilty, Western collectivist allies whose loathing of the very prosperity they were born to makes them inherently predisposed to accept uncritically the blithe ravings of a despot?

(P.S. -- if you don't like that quote, here's a couple more; disregard them on your own time.

1] (Fox News) "The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah," Chavez told reporters, ending the statement with the Arabic phrase for "God willing."

2] (CNN) "The U.S. Government which will be fully aware of the needs of Africa, the needs of the poor. Let's assume that we have a government here in the United States that overnight decides to cut in half the military expenses and withdraw the troops from around the world and declare it is the champion of peace of the world and declare itself an enemy of imperialism and then devote billions of dollars to the poor. Last year the defense budget was $400 billion in military defense. Just for one single year. One single year. For those $400 billion we can go to Africa, in the poor countries of Asia, in the Caribbean and Latin America, we can help them." Ignoring the fact he does not even explain what possible justification such international confiscation of a sum greater than the majority of the world's national GDPs, keep in mind that the American military budget has been at such levels for decades, under Republican and Democrat alike, before GWB was even born: this cannot be reasonably dismissed as a criticism of "this administration.")

Quote:

---

Torres is an ex-minister in the previous government, and is extremely hostile to Chavez’s reforms. To quote his personal opinion that he THINKS Chavez BELIEVES that the United States is the devil isn’t really very convincing.

---

Chavez has actually made diabolical references (see also: the U.N.) to the President of the United States on multiple references. Granted, you might argue this means he merely thinks GWB is the devil, not America. If you wish to construe this as such, I believe you are incorrect; however, Torres shares a culture with Chavez and was in a high-ranking position with the Venezuelan government - two links to the man that you and I do not possess. You offer up speculation with precisely NO source that Chavez's anti-American rhetoric is actually anti-American administration rhetoric. Why is speculation to the contrary that is at least based on an individual's observations several rungs closer to the man in question inherently "not very convincing?" Is it because it disagrees with you?

If so, why are we bothering to argue with you?

If not, why not?

Quote:

---

On Using Casey’s name contrary to his own beliefs:
Casey signed up to go to Iraq and volunteered for a mission to help rescue fellow Americans and was killed on this mission. These are the facts we know, we also know he wanted to be a chaplain but didn’t get that post. Cindy believes that her son would have supported her. Cindy had communications with her son that none of us are privy to. I just don’t think anyone has enough information here to make this call.

---

No. None of us know what Casey would have wanted, now, because he's dead. This leaves us with two important secondary sources - one, as you note, are his actions. Another, however, are the interpretations of Casey Sheehan's ENTIRE family, not merely her mother, who has MASSIVE POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL LOSS TO WITHSTAND IF SHE WERE TO ADMIT SHE WERE GOING AGAINST HER SON'S WISHES. Again, let me repeat that Cindy Sheehan has DIRECT FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL MOTIVE TO LIE ABOUT HER SON'S DESIRES.

So, on the one hand, you have a woman who benefits fiscally and politically from stating Casey would have supported her.

On the other, you have the fact that the REMAINDER of the Sheehan family has DISOWNED Cindy Sheehan for capitalizing on Casey's death and DISTORTING his position on the war. You have his IMMEDIATE FAMILY stating that he would have SUPPORTED the war - we're not talking remote cousins or mere acquaintances, but siblings - as well as his role in it, and we have his record of behavior as an honorable soldier, boy scout, and contemporary patriot that indicates that even had he some qualm with his particular mission, he would have supported "the war" on the principle of honoring his commitment to the United States Military and the chain of command he swore to adhere to, and that, thereby, he would "support the war."

Essentially, Cindy Sheehan claims one thing which she has direct motive to lie about, and every other available piece of secondary evidence points in the exact opposite direction.

I normally find that you're a person willing to make explicit calls on issues that most people would find too labyrinthine or complicated to venture into stating in absolute terms a proper position. Is there a chance you have decided this simply "can't be called" because the preponderance of the evidence would cause a person without your particular collectivist agenda to conclude that Cindy Sheehan is at best consciously disregarding her son's personal beliefs to continue her activism (and personal profits), and, at worst, intentionally lying about them to those exact ends?

Quote:

---

On Judging Cindy:
I have all sorts of judgements about Cindy which aren’t that favourable to her. I have all sorts of judgments about Bush and O’Reilly, as you say, that aren’t favourable to them. But I think it should be no more acceptable to trash talk Sheehan on these forums than it would be to trash talk Bush.

---

In principle, this is the only part of your post to which I do not object. I think that baseless "trash talking" - essentially positionally empty statements designed only to express personal disdain for an individual - is more or less worthless in terms of political discourse. This thread (as it has evolved) is not simply about an individual's like or dislike for Cindy Sheehan. The statements that she is "selfish" or "seeking personal profit" are being expressed specifically to explain why there is a significant differentiation between an individual being repugnant due to their ideology and an individual being repugnant due to their personal behavior (as has come up earlier in this thread) Such a distinction is not only important, but clearly must be delineated. You have asked we not declare Cindy Sheehan to be a repugnant woman, as there are others who share her ideology. We respond to you here not to "trash talk," but to more explicitly address why we find her a vile human being - as I, and others, do.

Quote:

---

You say “Cindy Sheehan's ACTIONS and WORDS are what should be continually judged, not whatever may be in her mind.” I agree with you, and this is why I object to this comment:
“She does what she does for the pure, selfish, personal joy of the attention and personal financial profit”.

---

I also agree with this sentiment in relation to public figures. That is why it is critical one goes to great lengths to scrutinize the minutae of what, precisely, public figures are doing. I believe a preponderance of the evidence indicates that Cynthia Sheehan is:

- profiting off spreading a message inspired by her son's death;
- doing so in direct contravention of what most likely would have been his wishes;
- desiring to perpetuate those profits for the indefinite future;
- seeking to leverage herself into political office or a permanent position on the national stage;
- quite possibly mentally imbalanced.

Hence, the original post of the thread; hence, our responses to your somewhat logically flimsy claims; hence why we disdain, deplore, even despise her without that hatred enjoying any transitivity towards your person or those like you whatsoever.

Hey, just got back from the grocery store and I have guests coming over now. I say this because lots of interesting and valid points have been raised that I would like to address, but I probably wont be able to sit at the computer for a good 24 hours from now (if anyone was waiting for my reply). Just a heads up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle

Yeah. Abusing drugs and joining the military are the same thing!

Great point!

How incredibly insulting to every single member of the military (of which we have many on Threshold) to equate their patriotic choice to drug abuse.

---

Nice attempt at trying to paint what I said as an insult. I didn't say that using drugs and joining the military are the same thing. I didn't compare them on the basis of morality, and I didn't compare them to make a point about strength of character of an individual or anything similar. I said that they have one thing in common - they're both choices, and that's the only comparison I made. The point of my saying it is to illustrate that just because someone chooses to do something, that in itself does not mean that their parents shouldn't subsequently advocate against activities relating to it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena
I scrolled up and re-read. I don't really see anyone saying that she's a cunning activist businesswoman or even trying to imply that. One person asked that someone cite the fact that she was profiting off her son's death.

---

One person said that she was motivated purely by "attention and profit". Motivated by profit? Sounds like a businesswoman to me. Also, she'd be a cunning one in order to craft an image for herself as an activist and be successful enough at it to eventually earn large speaking fees. I say "craft an image for herlself" because she clearly wouldn't genuinely be an activist at all if profit and selfish attention were her only ambitions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Nice attempt at trying to paint what I said as an insult. I didn't say that using drugs and joining the military are the same thing. I didn't compare them on the basis of morality, and I didn't compare them to make a point about strength of character of an individual or anything similar. I said that they have one thing in common - they're both choices, and that's the only comparison I made. The point of my saying it is to illustrate that just because someone chooses to do something, that in itself does not mean that their parents shouldn't subsequently advocate against activities relating to it.

---

Your comparison is flawed because the "choice" to overdose is in no way similar to the choice to put your life in danger for a cause you believe in. There is a world of difference between a parent working to put an end to drug abuse in memory of their lost child and someone speaking out against a cause that their child willing put their life at risk for.

Now, some maintain that the war in Iraq is illegal, so if you subscribe to that line of thinking you could say the war is illegal and drug use is illegal, so choosing to be a part of either is the same thing. This still doesn't change the fact that choosing to risk your life fighting for something you believe in is a world apart from the intentionally or unintentionally ending your life by overdosing on drugs.

I know your intent isn't to insult my choice to put my life in danger to protect my country and our way of life, but comparing it to the choice to engage in illegal, addictive, and self-destructive behavior is insulting. I don't put my life in danger for any of the same reasons a drug addict does, and I don't purposefully seek to end my life like someone overdosing on purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Nice attempt at trying to paint what I said as an insult. I didn't say that using drugs and joining the military are the same thing.

---

Yes you did. You drew an equivalence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

I said that they have one thing in common - they're both choices, and that's the only comparison I made.

---

Murdering someone and giving to charity are also choices. Do you draw equivalences between them as well?

You drew the comparison, and it is a totally outrageous, absurd, and insulting comparison. Now you have to live with the result of your own words - a result that makes you look extremely bad.

You guys are getting into the knitty-gritty. Knitty, gritty, kitty litter.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Murdering someone and giving to charity are also choices. Do you draw equivalences between them as well?

---

I was planning on saying something to this tune, but I was beaten to it. Really, you can compare anything you want but I believe that in this case the comparison loses any meaning.

The fact that I disagree with Cindy Sheehan's political views has very little to do with how I view her as a person - she is an exploiter who has been disavowed by the rest of her family because of the aforementioned exploitation. It is extremely repugnant to me that she would take her son's death and essentially use it for profit and political-office viability. This is totally separate of her political leanings.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
One person said that she was motivated purely by "attention and profit". Motivated by profit? Sounds like a businesswoman to me. Also, she'd be a cunning one in order to craft an image for herself as an activist and be successful enough at it to eventually earn large speaking fees. I say "craft an image for herlself" because she clearly wouldn't genuinely be an activist at all if profit and selfish attention were her only ambitions.

---

Um, no. Tons of people are motivated by profit that honestly can't hold on to a dime. They're always looking for the next big way to make money. That doesn't mean that they're good at it or that they're successful. I sure as heck doesn't mean that they're a businesswoman. She has no image of being a successful business woman to me at all, but it's very clear that she's attempting to profit from the death of her son and her subsequent limelight. I'm not sure she's successfully crafted an image of being an activist at all, at least not a successful one. There are lots of activists who believe we should bring the troops home and end the war in Iraq. I find them much more convincing than Sheehan.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Yes you did. You drew an equivalence.

...

Murdering someone and giving to charity are also choices. Do you draw equivalences between them as well?

---

I wasn't drawing a complete equivalence and you know it. I was making a comparison based on something that they have in common. When two things have something in common then it's perfectly reasonable to compare them in that specific regard. If someone compared me to a murderer on the basis that we are both humans, I wouldn't be insulted by that. Maybe because I'm rational. Go figure. If you don't understand that, then I'm not particularly interested in whether or not I look bad in your eyes.

For people who apparently aren't able to follow my analogy, let me put it into simpler, more general terms. The fact that her dead son wouldn't approve of what Sheehan is saying/doing is irrelavent. I think Sheehan believes that what she is saying is truth. Regardless if it is truth or not, she believes it is. If someone believes something is true, it's not acceptable for them to say anything to the contrary just because others may be offend by it, or otherwise not approve. Even if that other person is her dead son. If Sheehan speaks what she thinks is true, that is not a character flaw, even if the whole world thinks she oughtn't be saying it. If someone thinks that Sheehan is lying, or otherwise incorrect, then bring on the logical argument. I'm not saying any of this as a supporter of Cindy Sheehan's political positions, believe me. But for people to stoop to the "she shouldn't even be arguing this in the first place because her dead son wouldn't like it" soundbyte, that's pretty weak.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
I wasn't drawing a complete equivalence and you know it.

---

No, I don't know it. Don't make ridiculous, erroneous comparisons if you don't like the implications.

FACT: You compared drug abuse to joining the military.

Now you are regretting the natural implications of that, but you aren't willing to apologize for it or take it back. Until you do, your whole argument is a farce.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub

For people who apparently aren't able to follow my analogy, let me put it into simpler, more general terms. The fact that her dead son wouldn't approve of what Sheehan is saying/doing is irrelavent.

---

Good thing that isn't the point we are making then, huh? It is relevant when she does it IN HIS NAME.

When she uses his name and his sacrifice to demand multiple meetings with the President (beyond the one she already got). When she uses his name and his sacrifice to rake in massive speaking fees.

He chose to give his life for his country. It is despicable for Cindy Sheehan to use and twist her son's sacrifice for her own fun, profit, and fame.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
For people who apparently aren't able to follow my analogy, let me put it into simpler, more general terms. The fact that her dead son wouldn't approve of what Sheehan is saying/doing is irrelavent. I think Sheehan believes that what she is saying is truth. Regardless if it is truth or not, she believes it is. If someone believes something is true, it's not acceptable for them to say anything to the contrary just because others may be offend by it, or otherwise not approve. Even if that other person is her dead son. If Sheehan speaks what she thinks is true, that is not a character flaw, even if the whole world thinks she oughtn't be saying it. If someone thinks that Sheehan is lying, or otherwise incorrect, then bring on the logical argument. I'm not saying any of this as a supporter of Cindy Sheehan's political positions, believe me. But for people to stoop to the "she shouldn't even be arguing this in the first place because her dead son wouldn't like it" soundbyte, that's pretty weak.

---

You're leaving out some pretty relevant facts as you state this in addition to stating something as fact that is nothing more than opinion. It doesn't matter if Sheehan thinks it's true to me even though it might matter to you. And it IS a character flaw in my eyes even if you might not think it is. Why? She is directly profiting and gaining fame from her son's death with total disregard to the pain she is bringing to her family and their memory of his beliefs. While you might be okay with someone doing that to their loved ones, it is perfectly valid for others to believe she is a crappy, horrible person for doing it REGARDLESS of what she thinks. I'm boggled, though, that you think her BELIEF is worth more than the BELIEFS of her other children, her husband (who also lost a son), and her dead son. What makes Cindy Sheehan so special that I should applaud her for trampling all over someone else's beliefs? You obviously think it's wrong for us to be questioning her beliefs, so why isn't it wrong for her to totally disregard her own family and son's beliefs? I don't think you can have it both ways. (This is of course assuming that her motives are as pure as you imply them to be, which I highly doubt.)

I honestly have no problem if someone wants to think Sheehan's cause is true, but I won't be told that she is RIGHT in her behavior. You don't get to make that judgement for me.

After all this time, does Cindy Sheehan still invoke the name and memory of her son whenever she speaks at rallies or marches, etc...??
If so, even this perpetual memory invocation gets old and loses it's purpose and meaning. 911 had a tragic loss of thousands of lives, but when you keep bringing it up, over and over again as politicians do, it starts becoming too common, and common things lose their value.

I would hope she would ween herself off of this, and focus on doing her part to help bring the troops back home. The media, however, would likely continue to prefix her as "the woman who lost her son in Iraq", thereby rendering any attempt by her to distance herself from this moniker pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
After all this time, does Cindy Sheehan still invoke the name and memory of her son whenever she speaks at rallies or marches, etc...??
If so, even this perpetual memory invocation gets old and loses it's purpose and meaning. 911 had a tragic loss of thousands of lives, but when you keep bringing it up, over and over again as politicians do, it starts becoming too common, and common things lose their value.

I would hope she would ween herself off of this, and focus on doing her part to help bring the troops back home. The media, however, would likely continue to prefix her as "the woman who lost her son in Iraq", thereby rendering any attempt by her to distance herself from this moniker pointless.

---

Not to flame, not to insult. I know it can easily be taken that way, so I wanted to state that ahead of time. I would just like to point out that this is probably the most logical and agreeable thing I've ever read by Kestra. I have to agree with this. At this point Sheehan is probably beyond the point where the public would give her a chance, even if she did a 180. Although, it is admittedly because she so strongly set herself in the position.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
After all this time, does Cindy Sheehan still invoke the name and memory of her son whenever she speaks at rallies or marches, etc...??

---

Yes, she does. In May of 2007, she begins her letter to the Democratic Congress with the following:

Quote:

---

Hello, my name is Cindy Sheehan and my son Casey Sheehan was killed on April 04, 2004 in Sadr City , Baghdad , Iraq . He was killed when the Republicans still were in control of Congress. Naively, I set off on my tireless campaign calling on Congress to rescind George’s authority to wage his war of terror while asking him "for what noble cause" did Casey and thousands of other have to die. Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, I have lost my optimistic naiveté and have become cynically pessimistic as I see you all caving into as one Daily Kos poster called: "Mr. 28%"

---

When she decided to give up being an "attention getting whore" (her words, not mine, she cites him again:

Quote:

---

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes.

---

Again in May:

Quote:

---

On the very early Saturday morning, eight days before Casey was killed in Baghdad , I received a phone call from him. He was still in Kuwait . He talked about the heat; about heading to Baghdad the following week; he was on his way to mass; then he told me about stopping in Shannon Airport, Ireland on the First Cav’s way to Kuwait .

---

I don't doubt that she does miss her son. I feel bad for her that she writes in a very discouraged manner because it's always hard to fail at something you tried to do. I will always have sympathy for her for losing her child. It's nothing I'd ever wish on anyone.

With that said, I still completely disagree with the methods in which she did things because I ultimately feel like she damaged the cause for which she was fighting by having ulterior motives.

Gaviani, you raise points that lead to answers that could fill threads (or tomes) in their own right. I’m going to choose to be pretty brief and simple here because we’re not exactly on topic, and because I really don’t have the time I’d like. If you were interested in following up how a collectivist might reach the conclusions I reach, and are frustrated by my brevity and low level responses, then there is a lot of written work out there I could direct you to.

On Profiting and Profiteering.
I wonder if you maintain this distinction when you offhandedly hear about Exxon-Mobil making record quarterly profits - or if the central dichotomy is that profiting is engaged in by individuals you sympathize with, whereas "profiteering" only occurs at your expense (or the expense of sympathetic groups, or at the hands of individuals you disdain).
Personally, and this is in no way true of all of my activist friends, I try to keep my rhetoric fairly conservative. This is probably due to an experience that I cringed through during the first gulf war, and also the training I have received on these boards over the years when I regretted being hyperbolic. So yes, I do maintain the distinction between profiting and profiteering. For the most part I would use profiteering in the context of war profiteering, for example:
All Farmer Brown’s neighbours give their eggs to the army. Farmer Brown keeps some of his eggs aside, and sells them at $20 a pop to the townsfolk. Farmer Brown, to my way of thinking, is a war profiteer.
I’d say my usage is fairly common, but I don’t suppose it’s entirely universal. I don’t think it’s fair to say that I name people differently depending on their political persuasion with these two words.

In any case, wouldn't a person advocating a collectivist philosophy (forgive me if that's misstating your economic position, but I'm fairly certain it's a fair one?) disdain ANY pursuit of a profit motive beyond incidental expenses and reasonable necessities?
This might sound like I’m being tricky, but I don’t mean to. There are a couple of principles that I am expected to keep. I can’t be a union organizer, I can’t be in a job where I hire and fire, I can’t be a scab etc. I don’t, however, have any problem with being well paid. I find it totally bizarre that an actor might get paid $20 million for a film, for example, but I don’t have any “principled” objection to it.
Cindy Sheehan charges a high price for her speeches. She says, and I have no particular reason to doubt her, that after the expenses she has from her activism, and looking after her children, that she doesn’t have much left. But even if she was banking tons, or driving around in a flash car I wouldn’t object in principle (provided she didn’t keep saying she was skint). I’ve been involved in tons of fundraising, and the speakers we get are sometimes very expensive and we need to charge more, or get more punters, to raise more money. That’s the way it goes.
Socialists have no problem with good wages, good working conditions, and a comfortable lifestyle more generally, but they struggle for that to be available to everyone. To that end, we oppose what we see as the economic exploitation, oppression, wars, dramatic inequalities, environmental destruction etc. of global capitalism. We do not seek to escape capitalism but to transform it into something far more humane. So, no, we don’t suffer a moral or ethical crisis in the face of the market, money, or marketing – we must operate within capitalism in order to organise against it and overcome it – and we must pay for all of the necessities that organisation and activity requires. As we all know, basically no aspect of modern life is untouched by the market and money, least of all a socialist rag.

She has stated she wishes the movement on which SHE DERIVES PROFIT to become PERMANENT, and we cannot reasonably infer that she would attempt to continue profiting pemanently? What, will she mysteriously forego $11,000 speaking fees once "the war" ends and the "peace movement" transitions to...whatever it is you do when you're pro-peace and there's no war to protest [profitably]?
I don’t think by establishing that Sheehan gets money from her activities that we’ve established that money is her motive for activism. Seriously, this is an important point and if we differ here then we’re at an impasse. A doctor like Fred Hollows got renumerated for his work on eyes, but that doesn’t mean he did the work in order to get renumerated.
In the post Iraq war peace movement - which WILL exist whether Sheehan wants it or not (because there are always peace movements because there are always wars, weapons sales, land-mine fields, damaged lives etc ) - she might well try and continue to get remuneration for her activities, or she might not. If she does, then she’ll be like any ‘big name’ of a movement who tries to get remuneration for dedicating their lives to a cause. If she’s getting money from her efforts, that’s because people are interested enough in whatever cause she is attached to, to pay money to see her. This is a good thing for the cause because it means that the cause has legs. We use big names to build interest in causes, that’s what we do. There’s nothing sinister about that.
If Sheehan drops out of a movement because she’s not getting enough money then people would probably ask her about her motivations. There could be any number of reasons, but if it turned out that Sheehan was only interested in exploiting her son’s death for the money all along, then that’s pretty rough. As it is at the moment though, she says she’s not, and many people choose to believe her.
You have some follow on questions here, I haven’t explicitly answered them, but I hope you get my way of thinking so that you can see how I would answer them consistently. If not, then maybe we could move to slow motion PMs.

On Chavez, American Foreign Policy and Anti-Americanism:
Yes, Chavez uses a lot of left wing rhetoric about American Imperialism. I don’t think this makes him anti-American any more than I’m anti-American. American foreign policy directly impacts on people like Chavez and me and Iraqis (for example) and we have every right to have a strong opinion one way or the other on it. But opposing America’s foreign policy doesn’t mean one hates America, you really can’t believe (for example) that the majority of the US population hates America by opposing the Iraq war. Chavez wants the US to stay out of Venezuela, he has good reason to want this, again that doesn’t mean he hates America.
Cindy Sheehan took advantage of the popularity of Chavez in South America to help bring attention to the anti-war cause. She used his renowned anti-Iraq war and yes, anti-Bush reputation to build the movement at home (the US). Obviously, this was a bold tactic - if the majority of the US population (and the anti-war movement) felt that Chavez was anti-American then she’d have just shot herself in the foot. I’d say that Chavez didn’t help Sheehan too much in the US, but her move would have built some solidarity in South America – where Chavez is very popular – by showing that US citizens aren’t all in favour of the war (or anti-Chavez, or anti- the symbol he is becoming in Latin America). In this way I actually think she probably helped the US.

On the Sheehan Family
From the WAPO “My in-laws sent out a press conference disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey,” Sheehan said. “We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the elections when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey’s death. The thing that matters to me is that my family: Casey’s dad and my other 3 kids are on the same side of the fence that I am.”
To partially support Cindy’s claim is the poem written by Casey’s sister, which can be found here:
http://albloggerque.blogspot.com/200...-by-casey.html
If we take Cindy at her word here (and most of what I read suggests it is probably true) then the family is split between the immediate family and the in-laws.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Now you are regretting the natural implications of that, but you aren't willing to apologize for it or take it back.

---

By missing the point of the analogy so entirely, you've concluded that I didn't realize what the implications were. You
are mistaken. You are correct, however, that I do not intend to apologize.