Cindy Sheehan lies and deception!

And Bush used the death of - wait, someone go get me the current figures for the death toll on civilians in Iraq - Okay, 40,000 civilians and 2800 military -

To make a political point.

His political point - that It's Perfectly Fine for one country to invade another - despite the evidence that they don't have WMD's - in order to "disarm" them, and then spend an inordinate amount of time securing the oil fields the country has, getting a no-bid-contract to the Vice President's conglomerate company to operate those oil fields, building a pipeline acorss the desert to the Kuwaiti port,

Plunging the country into a civil war

spending billions and billions of dollars

destroying the United State's international credibility,

and operating offshore torture camps (HELLO, DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THAT ONCE UPON A TIME OUR TROOPS LIBERATED PEOPLE FROM TORTURE CAMPS????)

(I forgot the whole shredding of the Bill of Rights)

---

Bush uses the death and torture of 50,000 people to make a political point. Not a single one of these people did he nurture, grow, love, raise, cry over, or make any sort of investment in whatsoever.

Cindy Sheehan is using her own /flesh/ and /blood/. To point out the lies and hypocrisy.

Here. If it stopped all the wars in the world, restored peace, fed the starving, removed an unjust regime from power - how about just your pinky? If we threw in $50,000? Just one pinky. You'll never play piano again, but the world will be better for it forever.

and did I say it was right? Both sides are using it, what makes her different from Bush? Oh yeah you agree with her.

well somehow I doubt she killed even a rabbit in her life, bush is a murderer, no two ways about it. hmm who to agree with.. that IS a tough one.

and you dodged again, way to go richie, your on fire today!

Bush didn't lose a child of his own. Also --Bush uses tragedy to cause even more tragedy.

Another difference? Cindy Sheehan is correct. Bush is not.

I like to occasionally quote Matthew - "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Cindy Sheehan didn't make the choice for her child to join the military, nor for her child to die. She didn't set an extremely unethical foreign policy, an ill-advised military action, she didn't act on bad intelligence. She never gets her child back. Ever. The people who died? Never coming back. Ever.

War doesn't have to last forever.

I have in my collection of writings, the text of a speech made by Martin Luther King, Jr. - another non-violent anti-war activist. As I read the text of his speech about Vietnam, I am struck by precisely how easy it is to replace every instance of the word Vietnam with the word Iraq, and how striking his speech remains.

I will quote a bit from it...

"We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.""

He said another bit -

"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."

Her point is that her son never had to die at all. Bush's point is that he's right no matter what, numbers be damned.

still not getting my point I see.


In fact you reinforced it, thanks kendra

You believe that US Invasion and Occupation of a sovereign nation that didn't attack us is a correct action? The world is not a football game, Billybob. This is far more serious than partisan bickering.

Bush has sold the soul of our country to fatten the wallets of his cronies. I'm sorry you don't see that.

well I much like any human will tend to take a side.. and I usually stick with the less warmongery.. women who lost son in war against man who was raised filthy rich, dodged wars himself, ran companies into the ground, invaded sovereign nations, has the blood of countless folks on his hands ( Id usually say conscience but ROFL this is Bush) and now continues to whitewash everything he does through manipulation of a rather flakey to begin with media to an apathetic general public, its not rocket science really *breaths in*

NO SHIT!!

Ok that being said, I am not defending the invasion here. I am saying, yall are hailing her for the same thing yall are hating Bush for. It all seems hypocritical to me.

hmm, I am not defending Bush, I am merely pointing out that yall are hailing her for the same thing you lament Bush for, taking the death of someone to bring attention to something. That is wrong no matter who does it.

so eh.. what your saying billybob is, in order to be a good and proper candidate to protest against the Bush regime, you must personally be untouched by his crimes or risk being called a hipocrite? works very bloody well for bush I tell yea o.O

It's not the same thing though.

Cindy = lost a kid
Bush = didn't lose a kid

hmm read what I said to your post

tactics = the same

I'm sorry but I think she is using her son's death to further her political point and that is morally wrong. This isn't a partisan thing to me.

No. Bush fails to think, fails to care, fails to consider the evidence. He fails to respect the Rule of Law, he fails to consider the international accord and the sovereignity of nations. He sends people to die, kills and tortures them. He is an arm and a leg and your brother's tractor dealership - for an eye.

Cindy. Wants. Peace. Her son is already /dead/. He died serving his country - which is a shame. He ought to have /lived/. She lives, serving her country.

Bush - Wants to kill people for no discernible reason other than war. Did we mention more war? Oh, yes, warmongering. Did we mention shredding the bill of rights? Oh, and killing mor people.

What does Cindy want?

I don't hate people for being politically active over the memory of dead people. Our Founding Fathers did it /all the freakin time/. They were practically assured that people dying for freedom was necessary, and that their memory was to further the cause of freedom.

Bush sure as /hell/ isn't furthering the cause of freedom. The memory of my first /dog/ furthers the cause of freedom more than he does.

still not getting my point I see, if you will read further I did say that both were wrong.

I know your point -

You believe that using the memory of the dead to call for peace (which it seems to you is a political motive) is immoral.

Here are your Founding Fathers. You consider them immoral as well.

Here is Martin Luther King, Jr. You consider him immoral as well.

Here, then, is the Dalai Lama - spiritual leader of an entire nation that is being oppressed by fascists. He, to you, is immoral.

I am immoral, to you - my grandfather, his father, died or suffered terribly for decades because they chose to defend my rights and freedoms - and I will state that, clearly and proudly. My grandfather stated it, clearly and proudly.

There's this person, BillyBob, lived about 2000 years ago ...

A time comes when silence is betrayal.

If it's immoral to you to speak of the memory of those who died in service to an ideal, to move people to take action against the idiots who are shredding that ideal and hijacking it's offices for their own ends - fine. Brilliant. It's immoral, to you. There are a lot of us for whom the greater immorality is having killed the person in the first place, and allowing more to follow them unto the sunless lands.

Yes, I do. Its called disgrace. You want to compare Cindy to Jesus, go for it. Using death to campaign for anything is wrong in my opinion. If you don't like that, I'm sorry. If you want to campaign for peace, go for it, however don't keep bringing your son into the discussion like she does. She is trying to gain sympathy support.

Your Majesty, I agree with you on this.

However, her "political point" is that Mr. Bush started an unjust war that is killing Americans, for no apparant reason and she is trying to do two things, as far as I can see.

1) To get a response of ANY kind from them.

And, more importantly,

2) To maybe try to stop this war so other mothers don't have to go through what she went through.

THOSE are her "political points". She's anti-Bush for a VERY good reason. The best reason, I'd say. Doesn't she have a right to stand up to the man who is directly responsible for her son's death? I don't think that anyone can deny his involvement in that.

Other than what I brought up, what other political point is she trying to make?

I think she is trying to prevent other Mother's from experiencing her grief.

Of course that's what she is doing. What's wrong with War??

Mother's children die needlessly. What should she use as a talking point?

THAT's her point!

oh I don't know, how about the 30 some odd reasons you, yourself have posted here? GEE WHAT A CONCEPT!!

True - she is trying to gain sympathy from people who lack the capacity for it, apparently; even one death in an unjust war is too many, and pretty much every war is unjust. Why should she try to engage people's emotions, caring and love? AUGH what a crime to feel sympathy with someone for losing a loved one! Our society can't endure us feeling human emotions for people we don't personally know! What was she thinking? The human condition can't possibly be universal, and we must all suffer our losses in silence and never learn from mistakes made, neither by ourselves nor by others.

How dare she make us try to feel that we are in the same situation she is in?