I've not said anything on this site about the Cindy Sheehan situation up in Crawford. She is entitled to her beliefs, no matter how wrong I believe them to be.
My respect for her son's sacrifice has led me to respectfully avert my gaze from the sorry spectacle she is making of herself. Grief can, after all, cause people to do and say irrational things. I have therefore remained mute on the subject (save for one comment satirizing a post by John Aravosis over at Americablog).
But members of the Sheehan family are speaking out, in a statement issued through The Drudge Report.
Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.Thanks, Cherie
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
I think that says about all that needs saying about Mrs. Sheehan.
By the way, is anyone else struck by the fact that there is so little media coverage of survivors who support the war? Could it be that those are the "dog-bites-man" stories and this is "man-bites-dog"?
UPDATE: From the New York Post.
[Cherie Quartarolo's] e-mail was initially sent to San Francisco radio station KSFO and then reported on the Web site of the Vacaville Reporter newspaper in Casey Sheehan's hometown.The Post e-mailed Quartarolo, and she responded by identifying herself as the aunt and included a copy of her statement.
KSFO talk-show host Melanie Morgan told The Post that she got to know Quartarolo after a July trip to Iraq by conservative radio personalities.
Quartarolo contacted her after hearing her reports praising U.S. troops.
Quartarolo didn't claim to be speaking on behalf of Casey's father, Patrick Sheehan, who is separated from Casey's mother and who has declined to comment on her protest.
(HAT TIP: GOPBloggers)
 |
Trackback Information for Sheehan Family Speaks Out Against Cindy
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/108098Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Sheehan Family Speaks Out Against Cindy'.
Comments on Sheehan Family Speaks Out Against Cindy
good god, get a life
|| Posted by , August 12, 2005 12:21 AM ||Hey, loser... She is a mom who disagrees with an immoral war, lost her son to it, which is more than you will ever grieve in your whole pathetic life, you turd blossom. Get a life.
|| Posted by I Hate You, August 12, 2005 12:25 AM ||Gee -- one loser who lacks the testicular fortitude to even identify him/herself -- and another who believes that hurling personal insults and a couple of trite phrases is superior to actual argumentation.
This is my first -- and I had intended last -- post on Mrs. Sheehan. Maybe I need to post links to every negative article, if i am going to be trashed by leftists for not abiding by their warped world-view on her actions.
But then again, those same losers do not even respect the other members of the family -- why should I expect any respect from them?
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, August 12, 2005 12:33 AM ||Don't you just love the mature, fact-filled rebuttals that liberals fling?!
I agree with you.
|| Posted by Impatient Girl, August 12, 2005 12:35 AM ||I'll keep reading.
www.survivaltheory.blogspot.com
And i made a point of speaking respectfully of Mrs. Sheehan. I don't particularly think she is evil -- I just think she is wrong, misled by those who would use her for their own purposes.
It's sort of like what some folks during Vietnam tried to do with POW families. Having grown up during that time in a military family, I heard from one wife about requests that she speak out against the war as a means of getting her husband (who was seriously tortured and housed in the "Hanoi Hilton" POW camp) preferential treatment.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, August 12, 2005 12:45 AM ||Count me in as well.
It must be a terrible thing to lose a child, but everyone—Cindy Sheehan in particular—seems to have forgotten that Casey Sheehan was an adult who willingly volunteered for the army.
Does anyone else wonder how this would have played if the Sheehans were black, and from the projects?
|| Posted by Curtis G., August 12, 2005 12:46 AM ||NO, this is America -- if GW Bush has compassion, he would take the time to walk down and talk to Cindy and be compassionate. No, he did not.
He had 50 vacations in 5 years -- a typical American will never have that opportunity -- he's doing NOTHING at all. And he said he went to Texas to "re-connect with his people" -- well, is he? He is hiding in his ranch miles away from people.
He will only meet people who are pro-Bush, he won't meet people who disagreed.
One word: Crybaby. But no, you won't agree with it.
Cindy is winning the whole thing -- Matt Drudge is merely attacking her because Matt is pro-Republican and pro-Bush, Drudge is Roehmosexual to start with ... like you.
|| Posted by , August 12, 2005 02:22 AM ||Matt Drudge is attacking her?
Wrong -- Cindy Sheehan's own family is criticizing her.
And don't forget -- President Bush did meet with Mrs. Sheehan a year ago. She came out of that meeting quite pleased, singing his praises. Now she is being used by some of the worst elements of the American Left, folks who are more than willing to exploit her grief and loss.
Oh -- nice homophobic insult. Why is it that liberal queeers hate themselves so much that they think calling others a queer is an insult?
And why is it that they are too cowardly to leave any identifying information?
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, August 12, 2005 05:50 AM ||GW Bush did not really meet Cindy -- he offended her by calling her "Mom" -- I would be offended. It is not American Left that exploit her -- Cindy is trying to talk with him in person. Be human, be civil -- all it takes few minutes for Bush to talk.
Or is he truly the buffoon that he has to delegate anyone else to do the job for him?
Matt is gay, he reserved the right to do things to others but we can't do that to him? Please.
|| Posted by , August 12, 2005 09:33 AM ||You wrote a thoughtfull and respectfull article that included your difference of opinion. I have to wonder what the "hate mail" you keep getting here in the comment section is built around.
Point number 2; the news media in general wants to make President Bush look bad any way they can, even at the cost of the USA, our spirit, our troops and our way of life mean nothing to them.
|| Posted by TF Stern, August 12, 2005 10:02 AM ||Mrs. Sheehan indeed already, if not praised Bush, at least spoke fondly of him. She is INDEED being used by the Left to tarnish Bush. Standard MO. And if Natalie Holloway has been a staple on cable news for over 2 months, you can be sure that Sheehan will be now, too, if she decides to stick this out.
And based on this anonymous poster, lefties should never pounce on conservatives for supposed gay-bashing ever again. They're much worse at it.
|| Posted by Hube, August 12, 2005 10:12 AM ||Typical conservative response.
|| Posted by , August 12, 2005 11:59 AM ||Man, RWR, you sure stirred up the anonymous crowd!
I've got no major problem with this. Cindy Sheehan is standing up for herself, and I respect that. Her in-laws disagree, and are standing up for themselves by attacking Cindy. It would have been better if they had simply said they support the president, but they couldn't resist taking a few potshots at an ex-inlaw who hadn't said anything about them. Kind of pathetic of them, I suppose, but, in the pantheon of abusive inlaws, they don't even make the top 100.
|| Posted by Dan, August 12, 2005 12:12 PM ||That above anonymous post with the "Roehmosexual" comment is none other than Ridor. I believe he's the original author of that new slang. A pretty sure bet I believe it's Ridor. He even has a grudge about Bush taking 50 days of "vacation" time (which isn't really a vacation since all Presidents are on duty 24/7 and it's rather a working vacation than not) in his blog recently. Plus he has an intense dislike toward Matt Drudge which he talks about repeatedly in his blog. Put 2 + 2 together here. The "Roehmosexual"comment is one of his favorite derogatory comment in his blog. Look it up in Google. Type in "Roehmosexual" and "Observe" and hit "repeat the search with the omitted results included" at the bottom for a complete listing.
He doesn't even have, as RWW said, the testicular fortitude to identify himself as that person. He's done the same thing on my blogsite. A major grudge they hold when people post anonymously.
I don't mind when people come out as they are and post their opinions but when they start to do these things anonymously then they are nothing but a wimp. Did Ridor get banned from RWR?
|| Posted by mcconnell, August 12, 2005 01:32 PM ||Anyways, you're right RWR. It is awful to lose a child no matter what the circumstances are. Sheehan is being used by the Left, IMO. But is she at all getting compensated by the Left to have her speak?
Yeah -- it is so typical of the Left that they engage in anonymous hit & run commenting. I went out of my way to show Cindy Sheehan respect, but since i dare to disagree I must be savaged and accused of hateful things.
As far as Matt Drudge is concerned, I don't care if his preference is for women, men, electrical sockets or rubber chickens. I treat him as a human being and an equal -- I don't believe his sexual choices (whatever they may be) require him to have certain political beliefs in order to be shown the respect and granted the privacy that the Left demands for its partisans and their sexuality. To a liberal, your rights increase or decrease based upon your willingness to conform.
Lastly, Gutless Coward, your own post indicates that the President did meet with her. Her own words at the time indicated something very different from what she says now -- which leads me to believe she is either being manipulated for political purposes or has been driven to dementia by grief, or both. The left has failed to answer one simple question -- why should this one woman and her experience be given deference above all those who have lost husbands, sons, and siblings and who continue to support this president and this crusade against jihadi terror?
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, August 12, 2005 05:41 PM ||Dan -- their comment was not paricularly abusive. They dared to say they believe her to be wrong, and did so respectfully..
I find it funny that you would think such mild comments are abusive.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, August 12, 2005 05:44 PM ||Banned? No, Ridor was never banned. he stormed off in a huff, and I privately asked him to come back. he is, and remains, welcome.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, August 12, 2005 05:47 PM ||We live in a democracy, get used to it. The opinions of her sister-in-law have nothing to do with Cindy. Unlike neocon cretinous morons like yourself, the world is full of people who can understand freedom of speech.
|| Posted by wolleybugger, August 12, 2005 06:27 PM ||Who says the woman has no freedom of speech, or that she should be silenced? No one here -- we (and other conservatives who support the US, the president, and the troops) are merely exercising OUR free speech rights to criticize someone whose actions (and, in some case) motives we question.
I'm curious though, wallaby buggerer, why you are so threatened by the exercise of free speech by other members of the Sheehan family -- or by patriotic Americans?
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, August 12, 2005 06:40 PM ||Oh, and by the way, marsupial sodomizer, we live in a republic, not a democracy. Go read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers for details.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, August 12, 2005 06:42 PM ||RWR, also, our Pledge of Allegiance it states "Republic" for which the flag stands for...
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all"
http://www.home ofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html
It is really funny when LLLs scream that we cannot criticize other people, especially Liberals, and yet they believe they own full possession on Freedom of Speech. Not so. It belongs to everybody...preferably U.S. Citizens.
|| Posted by mcconnell, August 12, 2005 08:00 PM ||Ridor left in a huff? I must've missed that one.
|| Posted by mcconnell, August 12, 2005 08:02 PM ||Yeah, it was Ridor. The anonymous poster. Same date on the posting here and over there. Nearly the same context, too.
Ridor sez:
Malkin, Drudge, LGF and RWR: When Cindy Sheehan asked for GW Bush to come out of his reclusive Crawford Ranch for few minutes of talk, to have the normal conversation. Show some compassion for the mother of a dead soldier. After all, he is on his 50th vacation in 5 years (10 per years!), he said he wanted a vacation to "reconnect with his folks in Texas" -- this is his chance to be normal and be civilized. Apparently, no. GW Bush dispatched his supporters like Matt "Roehmosexual" Drudge, Michelle "Chink Bitch" Malkin, Little Green Snotballs, that nobody's prick, Rhymes with Right to assault the mother of a dead soldier of her simple request to meet and talk with GW Bush on a casual level.
http://ridor.blogspot.com/2005/08/75k-done-up-next-is-100k.html
|| Posted by mcconnell, August 12, 2005 08:13 PM ||Funny how Ridor claimed that RWR "assaulted" Mrs. Sheehan. I see no indication of that. Questioning somebody's motive is not assaulting. I guess the little weenie sees value in surreptiously post comments anonymously just as a hit and run driver sees value of leaving the scene of an accident.
Just to clarify, RWR, I agree with you that the inlaws weren't very abusive to Sheehan - they could and should have stuck to their point that they were supporting the president, but, hey, when have estranged inlaws ever been known for treating each other nicely?
This whole thing, IMHO, is a silly tempest in a teapot. As you know, I'm a liberal strongly opposed to Bush's policies and the war, but that doesn't make Cindy Sheehan my personal savior. She's one human being reacting to her circumstances. Similarly, the inlaws are individuals who got personal in their disagreement with Sheehan, though, as you rightly observe, they didn't exactly go berserk on her.
As for my cohorts on the left who have over-reacted to your posts on the topic, they need to read before reacting. If you buy into the mythology that Sheehan is some kind of unquestionable font of wisdom, though, any sort of questioning or indication of less-than-total-approval is blasphemy, and must be attacked with fury. Nonsense, I know, but both sides have their wingnuts, I suppose.
|| Posted by Dan, August 13, 2005 11:59 AM ||I feel sorry for someone such as Cindy Sheehan. She is being lead by people with an agenda, and consequently making herself out a fool. Of which I am sure she is not. I am ashamed to see someone exploited so shamelessly by those with personal views of their own to push. People that have nothing whatsoever to do with Ms Sheehan and her grief, nor that care about her. Wake up Ms Sheehan, listen to your family.
|| Posted by Mark, August 14, 2005 10:28 AM ||Post a comment