A.W. at Freespeech.com has been on trial lately (he says), so he’s been a little late in playing the Cindy Sheehan smear game. But what he lacks in punctuality, he make up for in both verbosity and wingnuttery:
I’ll lay out my evidence shortly, but here are the pertinent points in my book. The proper reaction, I think, should be driven by Christian compassion.
"Christian compassion" — keep that phrase in mind as we get further into A.W.’s post.
UPDATE: A.W. below questions the patriotism of Sheehan and her supporters, yet it was a member of the anti-Sheehan crowd (A.W.’s people) who desecreated a memorial of crosses dedicated to fallen soldiers. Said Sheehan:
"It’s so ironic that I’m accused of dishonoring my son’s memory by doing what I’m doing, by the other side, and then somebody comes and does this," Sheehan said.
Ironic, yes. But given some of the sentiments of the pro-Bush-at-all-costs crowd (see below), not entirely surprising. They’ll desecrate anyone — or anything — just to make their point.
There are obviously many theories that might explain her conduct, but the one that makes the most sense to me is that she has actually been driven into irrationality, by her profound sense of grief.
Grief causes irrationality. You heard it here first. It causes people to do weird things, like – oh – bomb countries that didn’t attack us.
That implies two things to me. First, of course, we shouldn’t take any of the words coming out of her mouth with any seriousness.
Right. Because grieving people just babble bullshit. Or something. I guess that includes people like Debra Burlingame?
Second, it is time for everyone to leave her alone. And I mean everyone.
"Nothing to see here. Just some ranting woman."
From the perspective of her mental health, her new “friends” in the radical peacenut movement…
Peace. What a radical idea.
…if they are truly her friends, should tell her to go home. And the right wing should not feed this by antagonizing her. And the media should turn off their cameras.
Because people might actually learn something. Can’t have that.
Not that any of this will happen. The gap between “will happen” and “ought to happen” is pretty wide here.
So’s the gap between A.W.’s "left ear" and A.W.’s "right ear". I’m just inferring though.
Anger is a part of the grieving process, and often in that process, that anger can be truly irrational. And there can be no doubt that this anger is exactly that–irrational. Some people in the throes of grief scream at God and hold Him personally responsible. I think Ms. Sheehan has simply found a closer proxy.
Get that? Bush isn’t quite God, but he’s closer to God then the rest of us. Because he’s president.
Some might suspect she is simply a dishonest preener, and there is some evidence to suggest that, but for my money, her behavior simply cannot be explained as the product of a rational mind.
So . . . I guess A.W. thinks she’s irrational. I think we get that point. It’s almost like . . . if he says it 20 times, it must be true.
Of course the chief evidence of dishonesty has to do with the way her first encounter with Bush was described.
Even though A.W. discounts the idea that Sheehan is a "dishonest preener", he’s going to present evidence of her dishonesty. In other words, he’s going to smear on a basis that he rejects!
Let us take first the account of the meeting that Sheehan gave recently:
It was—you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.
He wouldn’t look at the pictures of Casey. He didn’t even know Casey’s name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, “So who are we honoring here?” He didn’t even know Casey’s name. He didn’t want to hear it. He didn’t want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn’t even call him “him” or “he.” He called him “your loved one.”
Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.
Compare this to the account she gave closer to the time:
From our archive: Bush, Sheehans share moments
Since learning in April that their son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had been killed in Iraq, life has been everything but normal for the Sheehan family of Vacaville.
Casey’s parents, Cindy and Patrick, as well as their three children, have attended event after event honoring the soldier both locally and abroad, received countless letters of support and fielded questions from reporters across the country.
“That’s the way our whole lives have been since April 4,” Patrick said. “It’s been surreal.”
But none of that prepared the family for the message left on their answering machine last week, inviting them to have a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle.
Surreal soon seemed like an understatement, as the Sheehans – one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush – were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military. But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey’s commander-in-chief.
“We haven’t been happy with the way the war has been handled,” Cindy said. “The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached.”
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey’s sacrifice would make the world a safer place.
But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn’t stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.
“We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us,” Pat said.
Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
“I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.”
The meeting didn’t last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son’s sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.
For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.
“It’s hard to lose a son,” she said. “But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war.”
The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.
“That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,” Cindy said.
Let’s see. First, Cindy was peeved about the impersonal letter. Then she met with the president for 10 minutes, and decided to withhold her doubts about the war which caused her son’s death. Now, she’s NOT withholding her doubts about the war which caused her son’s death. Yeah, she’s all over the map.
You can’t reconcile the two accounts. The fact is that back then she saw Bush as personally empathizing with their loss. Today she claims he saw meeting them as a party, and paints a portrait of a man who doesn’t care. You can’t honestly reconcile those two accounts.
Yeah, Bush personally empathized because, you see, he was there in person.
Besides, there is nothing to reconcile, because there is no contradiction. He empathized with her loss (or, you know, said he did), but clearly it was a matter of rote. Apparently, A.W. thinks that people are one-dimensional, and can convey only one thought or expression at a time.
There’s another fundamental conflict in her statements between what she was saying back then and what she is saying now. Back then she was telling us “I now know [Bush is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis[.]”
But today this is what she said she would tell Bush if she met him (in part):
And I’m gonna say, “And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for.” And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy I’m gonna say, bullshit.
You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don’t tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.
Yes, another contradiction! Like, when I was a child, I sincerely used to think that Santa Claus came down the chimney on Xmas eve. I even wrote a story about it when I was seven! But now, I don’t claim that to be true anymore. Obviously, I’ve gone nuts with my contradictions.
And that is not even her only explanation for the so-called “real” motives behind the war. Nope, she has more!
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel.
See, Bush can have as many reasons as he wants to have the war against Iraq. He can change them at will. Or, as Sheehan herself noted, he’ll move on to some new rationale whenever one particular rationale proves to be bogus. But failing to understand Bush’s ever-changing motives however, is Sheehan’s fault, according to A.W.
This is powerful evidence that she has been less than honest with us throughout…
Yes, I agree. Changing the rationale for having a war IS powerful evidence of dishonesty…
but, frankly, it is so odious in my mind that a mother would exploit the death of her own son, that I have to presume against it, even in the face of this evidence.
In other words, I want expend hundreds of words implicating (strongly) that she is a liar, and then deny that she’s a liar, so I can smear her another way. Good show, A.W.!
Besides, simply being a liar doesn’t quite fit the facts. Why would she give such a positive account of Bush only to lie about it later, if she was always such a moonbat?
She was "always" such a moonbat, therefore there wasn’t any contradiction — what?!?
Occam’s Razor ("the simplest solution is usually the best") suggests to me that we should think that this is all the result of grief.
I see. When she met with Bush soon after the death of her son, she didn’t have grief at all, so she was speaking the truth. Now, over a year later of recovery and counselling, she’s suddenly acquired grief over her dead son, so she’s a lying moonbat. Or just a regular moonbat. Or something.
It also should be noted that she is going through a divorce now.
Noted. And the relevance is…?
Her husband is painted by the left as being some kind of right wing monster
Who is painting him that way? A.W. doesn’t say.
. . . but the reality is he is a Democrat, too–just not as radical as she is. (Source.) This leads me to suspect that he was a calming, rationalizing influence on her, and losing him has left her unmoored mentally, perfect for the idiocy of the Michael Moore crowd.
Thank God for husbands. If it weren’t for them, their normally-servile wives would go completely unhinged and, you know, act as really radical Democratics (instead of boilerplate radical Democrats like Pat Sheehan).
So we see a progression. Originally it was about freedom and democracy. Then it was all a plot to help Israel, now it is about oil and, blah, blah, blah.
Anyone else struck by the fact that A.W. has failed to mention the "imminent threat" of Saddam’s WMDs? Because Sheehan has. Talk about a progression of rationales.
And let us remember that she is now working closely with Michael Moore. This is the same dickhead that said this about the people who murdered her son:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen[.]
Therefore, Sheehan now has Michael Moore’s coodies, apparently because posts of hers appear on his blog (along with hundreds of other blogs and newspaper op-ed pages). And like Moore, she understands that the insurgents see themselves as fomenting a revolution. I guess.
Of course insincerity, the desire to use her son as a political prop could explain this, but if you agree we should presume heavily against that possibility, what options are left? Irrationality is the only possible explanation.
There’s also the possibility that Sheehan sincerely believes what she is saying, and doing. That seems to me to be the "simplest truth" (a la Occum’s Razor). Note that A.W. doesn’t reject that possibility, but only because his addled mind can’t comprehend that possibility.
After all, even if she believed Bush was part of an evil conspiracy led by the Jews, the Freemasons and the oil companies…
Which she doesn’t, of course, but let’s put as many words in her mouth as possible to make her look loony. It’s amusing how A.W. can exaggerate rhetorically at will, but takes everything Sheehan says as literal translation.
Let’s try this in reverse. If Sheehan is "nutty" because she says things that are literally untrue, and it is literally untrue that "she believed that Bush was part of an evil conspiracy led by the Jews, the Freemasons, etc.", then, ipso facto, A.W. is nutty.
the fact remains that terrorists are the ones who killed her son. They are the direct cause of his murder. The “evil conspiracy” would only be at best the indirect killers.
Interesting how we invaded Iraq as a result of 9/11 even though Iraq’s complicity didn’t even rise to the level of "indirect killers". But no matter. Logic is not A.W.’s forte.
So if you are rational, then the bulk of your venom would be directed at the terrorists, right?
Like bin Laden? Ooops.
And any man who cheered on those terrorists would be scum in your eyes. If someone killed my son without justification, I would never ally myself with people who cheered those killers on.
So . . . um . . . people who are indirectly culpable can be held accountable. Therefore, Bush, by invading Iraq, should be held accountable. See how A.W. defeats his own argument?
And yet here she is doing exactly that. Nor could ignorance explain it, either. With the media saturation that is occurring, certainly she has heard of what Moore said by now.
A.W. assumes that Moore’s quote was widely reported in the mainstream media. It wasn’t.
The more you dig into her past commentary, the more, frankly, nuts she seems.
That’s "Christian compassion" for you.
For instance, she said this to supporters recently:
"This is something that can’t be ignored,” Sheehan said during a conference call with bloggers representing sites like democrats.com, codepink4peace.org, and crooksandliars.com. “They can’t ignore us, and they can’t put us down. Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn’t know anything, and we would already be a fascist state.”
“Our government is run by one party, every level,” Sheehan continued, “and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government.” Sheehan also called the 2004 presidential election “the election, quote-unquote, that happened in November."
So, according to her, Bush wants to turn America into a fascist dictatorship.
No, that’s not what she said. A.W. likes to blockquote someone, and then tell you what you just read. Only he changes it, hoping that you haven’t read the blockquote. Where I grew up, we called that "lying".
And the mainstream media, you know the same media that gave us fake Texas Air National Guard memos and fake Downing Street Memos, is a propaganda outlet for Bush. And Bush stole the 2004 election.
A.W. thinks the Downing Street memos were forged. Of ALL the things that the media has reported on in the past, oh, two years, he cites two things, one of which isn’t even true, to further the false belief that the media is "liberal", or some such nonsense. This is what we’re dealing with.
And what to make of this little bit of ranting at a rally for Lynne Stewart:
The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush.
Not Osama, mind you. Bush. The mind boggles.
I guess it depends on what you define as a "terrorist". A.W. uses "terrorist" as a synonym for "bad guys". Apparently, so does Sheehan. I’m not sure what A.W.’s problem is here. I guess he’s saying that she’s nutty because she thinks Bush’s policies have threatened the safety of America. Mind you, A.W. can’t simply disagree with Sheehan on this point; he has to call her "nutty".
And consider this. If Bush is the terrorist, then who is carrying out that terrorism? Our soldiers. You know, like her dead son… I won’t say she followed that logic to its ultimate conclusion, but it is the unavoidable conclusion if you accept that claim: Casey Sheehan, was a terrorist.
Well, obviously, Sheehan was speaking rhetorically, a concept that A.W. has yet to discover. She doesn’t think that Bush is, you know, literally ordering literal acts of terrorism.
But it gets better, folks:
Too many people in our country that don’t even really know we have a war going on.
Um, is there anyone who doesn’t know we are at war?
What Sheehan meant was that people don’t really know there is a war going on, because Bush hasn’t asked the country to make sacrifices. Tax cuts for the rich and all that.
And she admits blame for her son’s death as follows:
I take responsibility partly for my son’s death, too.
A.W. doesn’t understand the difference between "responsibility" and "blame". Or, more likely, he does understand the difference, and is being dishonest with his readers.
I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for."
Contrast that with the ads she is running in Texas telling people that she loves her country.
Yes, people who love their country should send their sons and daughters to kill people in other countries. How ELSE can you show your love for the country, if not by exposing your children to danger for a war you consider unjust?
When A.W.’s children beat up another kid on the way home from school, A.W. is going to reward them. Because, you know, he loves his kid, which means he must unequivocally support his kid in everything that he or she does.
By the way, is Sheehan running ads in Texas, or is this another A.W. lie? Should we be taking A.W. literally, and if so, isn’t he an even bigger nutjob?
As much as I favor irrationality as an explanation for most of her behavior, here is a clear example of bullshit.
But we were not attacked by Iraq.
Stop the presses! And actually, our planes were attacked by Iraq repeatedly, but I think I know what she is saying.
I think we all know what she was saying, A.W. So why did you mention it at all? To score a few cheap points against a greiving mother that you have "compassion" for? You betcha!
We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if (applause) [A.W. apparently she trails off and never finished her thought]. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada.
Is she suggesting that 9-11 was done by the “neo-cons” in a Reichstag fire scenario? And that Pearl Harbor was the same?
No. A.W. has not read about PNAC (the Project For A New American Century, the think tank manned by Wolfowitz, Cheney, and other neo-cons. In 2000, they advocated invading Iraq and establish it as a democracy in the Middle East. They recognized that such a war and transformation would be politically unpopular unless there was "some catastrophic and catalyzing even – like a new Pearl Harbor". And obviously, 9/11 provided such an event. This is what Sheehan meant.
More from her:
I would never have let [Casey Sheehan] go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant.
Can we question her patriotism?
Apparently, anyone who questions "the system" is "unpatriotic". Historically, this would include people like Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, women suffragettes, or people who opposed Vietnam. People that A.W. hates, because real Americans don’t criticize Bush.
What they’re saying, too, is like, it’s okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons.
You say that like as if there is something wrong with it. Yes, we trust Israel, and ourselves, with nukes, but not Syria and Iran. And any rational person thinks that this makes sense.
And dammit! We are the rulers of the planet! We get to decide everything for everybody, because we believe in freedom and . . . um . . . self-rule . . . um . . . oh, dear.
We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now.
Apparently, anyone says something wrong in a speech, or uses the wrong word, is a nutjob who can’t be trusted.
And that is about it. (Source.)
So let’s review:
* Bush, not Osama, is the biggest terrorist. And by extension, her son must have been a terrorist, too.
* America is not worth dying for.
* She might believe that 9-11 (and Pearl Harbor?!) was a Reichstag fire scenario.
* Iran and Syria can be trusted with nukes just as much as Israel and the U.S.
* We are waging nuclear war on Iraq.
So let’s review:
A.W says we should treat Sheehan with "Christian compassion" and then finds every way possible to smear her
You need more? I got more.
Imagine my surprise.
From another speech, at a church:
Is there yet an American who can not clearly see that Dick Cheney…whether it be 1975 or 2005…will say whatever he thinks is required to ultimately cause wealth and power to move to himself and to his friends? …need I defile this holy place with words like “Haliburton” and “Kellog, Brown & Root” and “torture” and “US weapons industry”? Indeed, the Apostle Paul is correct in saying that, ultimately, the love of money leads to ruin and destruction.
So we are back to base profit motive.
Your inability to organize your post does not mean that Sheehan has an inability to stay on topic.
By the way, I am sure she can show how exactly Cheney planned to make money off the war, right? Right?
And I am sure A.W. can show that Sheehan is "working closely" with Michael Moore, right? Right?
And can we get a nice reference to either Hitler or Stalin?
You mean, a reference besides your Reichstag reference above?
That is the only thing that is missing here…
Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Rumsfeld is a liar…that he, as with Hitler and Stalin….will say anything so long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking?
Ah, that’s the good stuff…
Interestingly, the first Nazi reference in A.W.’s post was raised by — you guessed it — A.W. Mmmmm. He must have Nazi on the brain.
And she doesn’t care for Wolfowitz, either:
"Can we question her patriotism?"
As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country whose skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks? Am I the only person in this room who clearly sees that Paul Wolfowitz is a threat to our nation’s security…and to peace on our beloved earth?
And of course we have to suspect there is a great unsaid here.
Translation: Allow me to put words in her mouth, because it is the only way I can make my point.
That the reason why Wolfowitz is such a threat is because he is part of some evil zionist conspiracy or some bullshit or that. That is the tiger hiding in the bamboo, here. That is why David Duke likes what she says so much (you’ll see what I mean in a moment).
I can’t wait.
Hey and can we rant about the administration in general, and add a little electronic voting conspiracy-spinning?
Our country has been overtaken by murderous thugs….gangsters who lust after fortunes and power; never caring that their addictions are at the expense of our loved ones, and the blood of innocent people near and far. We’ve watched these thugs parade themselves before the whole world as if they are courageous advocates for Christian moral values….and for the spread of democracy. Yet we all know that they are now putting in place, all across this country, a system of voting that provides no way to validate the accuracy of the counting of the votes. Our loved ones have been buried in early graves even as these arrogant thugs parade themselves before the entire world, insisting that democracy is worth dying for, killing for, and destroying entire cities for, all the while they are busy here at home overseeing the emplacement of an electronic voting system that invites fraud at every turn, an electronic vote-counting system that provides no way to validate the votes cast, and that, by it’s very design, prohibits recounting the votes.
Ah yes, that is good conspiracy theorizing…
Kind of like the way Sheehan herself is in bed with Michael Moore and David Duke.
But what is really missing, from this speech in a church, is a reference to group sex:
In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God’s devoted servants.
A.W. tacitly understands that he has probably lost his audience, so he tries to wake them up with a reference to "group sex". Because — ha, ha — she used the phrase "orgies of carnal pleasure"! That’s a reference to "group sex"!! Get it?!?
So let’s review:
* Cheney supports the Iraq war because he is personally profiting from it.
* Rumsfeld is Hitler and Stalin, wrapped up into one.
* Wolfowitz is a threat to national security.
* Electronic voting is a Republican conspiracy.
* Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are having group sex. It is not clear if they are having sex with each other, or just other people in their common presence.
So let’s review:
A.W says we should treat Sheehan with "Christian compassion" and then finds every way possible to smear her, even if it means putting words in her mouth or flatly making shit up.
Okay, I’m done again.
I cannot believe that any reasonable person reading all that she has said and written doesn’t at some point have that intuitive moment when it dawns on you: she’s a nut.
Let’s see. Has A.W. provided us with all that she has said or written? No, I think we’ve got some cherry-picking here.
And if we are looking for a proximate cause of that irrationality, grief seems like the most likely candidate. Is she sincere? Except on the patriotism issue, I think so…. So the only explanation is, simply put, she has gone over the edge.
What else could explain someone opposing Bush other than irrationality?
Which is not to say your compassion should stop.
Of course not. Calling her "nuts" and making shit up actually helps her. Don’t you see?
There is no doubt that many minds that once seemed sturdy could fall into that kind of madness if subjected to the trauma of a parent outliving their child. So there is a certain “there but for the grace of God go I” element there.
Where? Certainly not in your post, A.W.
It could be you, it could be me, who is so shattered by grief to be reduced to this.
A.W., no situation can reduce a person to a point lower than the one you’ve just taken.
And you cannot think her new raddy lefty friends are helping. After all, they probably cheer when she says she doesn’t think America is worth defending.
"I can’t say for sure whether or not they cheer, or what they are specifically cheering at, but let’s just assume they probably do, and let’s assume that they are cheering at something vile and unpatriotic."
They don’t even ask basic questions when she accuses Cheney of personally profiting from the Iraqi war (you know, basic questions like “How?").
Don’t they know that only A.W. is bestowed with the power of making assumptions?
And as right wing bloggers, and even sensible lefties attack her, this just becomes part of her paranoid worldview. The media, including those evil bloggers, are out to get her, to cover for the neo-con conspiracy, or some bullshit like that. We only agitate her mental problems, as do the media who swarm around her every day.
Were she to read your post, A.W., I’m sure she would send you a bouquet of roses.
What she really needs is time out of this media circus, to gather her thoughts, to let rationality reassert itself.
Let’s see. Her son died in April 2004. The "media circus" began, oh, two weeks ago. I think, A.W., she has gathered her thoughts. (A.W. thinks that she didn’t exist until he "discovered" her).
And I won’t judge her husband, because I don’t know his situation…
…but I hope he has tried at every turn to reach her. I was struck not long ago, by a line in an episode of South Park.
A.W.’s view of the world is shaped by cartoons and comics. They are more real to him than reality.
Stan was watching his family go through a divorce, and he said something to his Dad close to “When you married Mom, you became family. And you don’t leave family.” Of course there are some cases where I think people are fully justified in divorce. But barring fairly extraordinary circumstances, you should see the one you married as if they were now blood; you have to stick with that person no matter what, you have to care for that person no matter what.
Sadly, the death of child, whether by war or some other means, often tears families apart. It would be nice if that didn’t happen, but it does. There’s no blame when such a marriage dissolves, and any real marriage counsellor often will advise that a dissolution is the best thing. It depends, of course, on the people and the situation. But in any event, South Park is not a basis for an intelligent discussion on thsi topic.
That is not to say you don’t also have moral judgment. Because in the end, that judgment, that honesty, is part of your love. So without knowing what Mr. Sheehan has actually done, I hope he has tried his best to bring his wife back from the brink. Obviously he is at a stage where he seems to be giving up on her; but I would hope he only reached that stage after tremendous effort.
Of course, A.W, also doesn’t know why Mr. Sheehan filed for divorce in the first place, and assumes (without evidence) that it is because of Cindy’s political beliefs. Not that it is any of A.W.’s (or our) business. But then again, A.W. doesn’t believe in privacy. Especially when he’s smearing someone.
Anyway, that is my peace on the Sheehan matter. Don’t hate her. Pity her.
Because she’s a nut. He forgot to add that.
And lord, stop taking this person so seriously. Yes, the pain she feels is real and terrible. But that doesn’t suddenly make her rantings make sense.
No, but it doesn’t mean her rantings don’t make sense. Perhaps . . . hey, here’s a thought. Perhaps she feels pain AND she opposes the war in Iraq… and there’s no causal connection between the two! Or perhaps, in working through her grief, she really tried to understand for what noble cause her son died, and found such an explanation wanting.
* Or here is perhaps an easier way to think about it. It is very similar to the plot of Episodes I-III of Star Wars. That is Palpatine, posing as Darth Sidious, helps start a rebellion, that then he uses to justify a grab for power. Which suggests to a degree the infantilism of these radical lefties, that they actually think that life is like Star Wars, and not even the good movies in the series, either.
Oh, can I try one of those?!?
"Perhaps it is easier to think of A.W. as a guy who puts tinfoil on his head and barks at the moon. Which suggests how much utter stupidity A.W. must possess, seeing as how he puts tinfoil on his head and barks at the moon."
Wow, that was fun!
**By the way, wikipedia expresses skepticism that the nazis were responsible, although a confession by a fellow nazi seems pretty good to me. But I never studied the issue closely because I never particularly cared.
A.W., always with the Nazis. He’ll raise them to make a point, even though he doesn’t particularly care whether that point has historical validity or not.
And where was that David Duke reference he promised?