Absolutely Priceless!

I read this on Neal Boortz’s site and I laughed out loud! It is so priceless that, rather than explain or re-comment, I’m just going to give you Neal’s own words:

Everybody with a television set knows that Al Sharpton was down at Crawford on Sunday praying with Cindy Sheehan and hamming it up for the cameras. The Welfare King was sucking in the media limelight as much as he possibly could. But then we had a little bit of an incident that would lead one to believe Al was in a little bit of a hurry to get out of there.

The car hauling Sharpton was clocked at 110 miles an hour on a 65mph Interstate, then was chased by police for nine miles. Things got worse, too. Once the cops were able to pull the car over, they arrested the driver for reckless driving and evading arrest and impounded the car. So now Al has no ride. Texas isn’t such a hospitable place for a race warlord and media pimp. So what was Al’s take?

He says the police are embellishing the story. He acts like the driver was just leisurely pulled over for speeding. Right. 110 in a 65 and the cops arrest him. Doesn’t sound like they impounded the car because he was just going 11 over. But the best part of the story comes at the end.

Sheriff’s deputies offered Sharpton a ride, but he refused. So he said he would walk, hitching a ride from a passerby to the airport. Can you imagine…you’re on your way to DFW and there is Al Sharpton….thumbing a ride, walking on the shoulder?

Would you pick him up?

Priceless.

I think that the visual of Al Sharpton thumbing a ride on a Texas highway makes the entire Cirque de la Sheehan worthwhile. Ok, maybe not, but close ;)

How Many Nuclear Weapons Can You Make from 500 Tons of Yellow Cake?

A recent comment on the blog opined that Bush is a muderous liar and therefore we should leave Iraq now, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that history would prove him right. Unfortunately, history is being made every day, and it is proving him wrong. Too bad he isn’t paying attention to what is going on in the world around him.

The major rally cry of the anti-war crowd is “Bush Lied, People Died!” Somehow, they have narrowed down the sole reason for war in Iraq was WMDs. And, they contend, there were none. Therefore, Bush lied to get us into a war for some personal Bush-family vendatta against Saddam Hussein.

Now, if you are some kind of extremist, conspiracy theorist, or just simple minded enough to buy a one-sided argument, that might actually hold water. And if you believe this is the whole story, you probably also believe the Freemasons and the Illuminati are plotting to take over the world. But, that is a far cry from reality. I prefer to base my opinions on something a little more substantial than conspiracy theory and circumstatial evidence.

So let’s focus on the Weapons of Mass Destruction, since that is the main point of contention. Let’s look at what we know about Iraq’s weapons programs. I submit the following as a few examples:

So we know that Saddam Hussein did have programs to develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and that these programs did in fact continue on in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions. So, why have these stockpiles of weapons not shown up.

Well, who is to say they haven’t? One specific example comes to mind – al Tuwaitha. The Tuwaitha site was heavily bombed during the ’91 allied campaign, yet, when the allies showed up in 2003, they found that this site had continued to be used to stockpile material as part of an appearent nuclear weapons program.

Here is an interesting statement to consider. It is from M.N.H.Comsan of the Egyptian Nuclear Physics Association, Cairo, Egypt. He states that as of July 10, 2001, all fissionable material had been removed from Iraq.

According to discussions, all nuclear and fissionable materials were removed from Iraq, equipment were destroyed, research in nuclear sciences was severely contracted, and most of scientists left the country. 30 years may be needed for the Al-tuwaitha site to recover and peaceful nuclear activities started again.

How surprised Dr. Comsan must have been at the recent discovery of 500 tons of yellow cake uranium located at the Tuwaitha site, along with 300 tons of radioisotopes including Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60. Both are extremely radioactive substances that are ideal for use in Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD), or “dirty bombs.” Yellow cake is uranium that has been milled into uranium oxide that can be enriched into weapons grade uranium. The discovery of depleted uranium at the Tuwaitha site indicates that the enrichment process was indeed taking place. A total of 1.8 tons of enriched uranium have been discovered and removed from Iraq since the war started in 2003.

Now, the IAEA knew about the yellow cake after the first Gulf War and they sealed it so that it could not be used by Saddam Hussein. The American Thinker offers this must read article to consider why on earth would the agency charged with preventing nuclear proliferation allow this material to remain in the hands of a dictator that clearly desired to develop nuclear weapons.

History of the al Tuwaitha site up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War

Nuclear material found in Iraq and removed: UN complains about 1.8 tons of enriched uranium the US removed from Iraq

U.S. Rep Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan visits the al Tuwaitha site:
http://hoekstra.house.gov/Photos/?PhotoID=19218
http://hoekstra.house.gov/Photos/?PhotoID=19299
http://www.freedom.gov/Hoekstra/Uranium.wmv

More information al Tuwaitha from the International Atomic Energy Agency: Nuclear capabilities of Iraq – The IAEA plan of action

More food for thought – 500 tons of uranium is enough to create 142 nuclear weapons

History of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War

No. The liar here was not George Bush. It was Saddam Hussein. He had the base material to manufacture nuclear weapons. 1.8 tons of enriched uranium later, we are lucky he didn’t get that far.

Our next discussion will focus on multiple reports of warheads loaded with sarin from different parts of Iraq. Yet Saddam said he destroyed his sarin loaded weapons a decade ago. If he is not credible on this point, do you actually think he is to be believed in other areas involving WMDs?

Death Before Dishonor

T. R. Fehrenbach recently wrote an opinion piece for the San Antonio Express-News. Some of the ideas I felt were thought provoking, especially in light of our recent discussions:

[This] made me wonder about my own mother, when I took the shilling and voluntarily went to a new war. She didn’t like it, nor did my grandparents. Which I understood. But it was my decision; I was of age, and men untie the apron strings. We do it when we marry and when we go to war.

Had I been killed, I would have expected my mother to grieve. She grieved when one of her cats died. In fact, if no one grieved at my passing, my life would not have been worthwhile.

But if my mother had condemned my service and my dying, I would have felt that she dishonored me. I was not a child, her little boy. I did what men do, though women may weep. The way it’s always been, and probably always will be, world with or without end.

… Spartan mothers, it is said, told sons to return with their shields or upon them. In other words, death before dishonor.

Our culture does not allow us to say such things today. But the ethos still lives. Which is why we honor the valiant dead.

I cannot speak for others, but I would hope my mother would have done so had I not returned.

Probably best to keep this one away from your liberal friends:

[Read the Column Here]

Support the Troops

You want to support the troops? The way NOT to do it is by standing with Cindy Sheehan. This undermines the mission and lowers troop morale. Unfortunately, the vocal few get the most press coverage. As I’ve said before, if you don’t support the mission, you don’t support the troops.

If you want to show your support, here’s the right way. Go to the following link and get involved with one or more of these groups:

America Supports You

Some quotes from our service men & women:

I really appreciate all those out there who support us and what we’re doing. We all signed up and volunteered to do our job and I know that what we’re doing is right… I want the entire world to be able to experience the freedoms that we all enjoy as Americans… Thank You for all your support and may we always “Let Freedom Ring.”
SSgt Charles Foster USAF, Roosevelt, UT

Thank you for all of your support. It means a lot to me to see all of the people who are taking their time to thank us for what we are doing.
Brad Purkhiser/AO2/U.S. Navy, Woodruff, SC

[More…]

I’m Not Done Yet

Mr. Patterson really got my dander up. Not because he took some cheap shots by making a flimsy attempt to insult my intelligence (I believe the best he could muster was “idiot” – that’s the equivalent, in my book, of trying to throw sand at me, yet he is trowing into the wind), but rather because, unfortunately, his viewpoint seems to resonate from far too many people these days. The sad fact is that a great many of these disciples of the hard line extremists merely parrot the opinions of those they choose to follow. That is not unlike a jury basing its entire decision on the statements made by the prosecution, without bothering to listen to the defense.

So as a result of Mr. Patterson’s weak attempt at insulting me, there is a great deal more to write on this subject – the war on terror, the war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction. There will likely be things you don’t agree with me on. That’s ok. If a preacher isn’t making some of his congregation feel uncomfortable – well, he ain’t preachin’!!

We will take a look at the hard facts. If you choose to disagree, that’s fine. If you choose to chime in with your thoughts, the comment line is open. Be forewarned, however, that if you choose to spew forth with name calling, but can’t back up your position with more than a baseless opinion, you will be eaten alive! Mr. Patterson says that history will prove him to be right, but he has yet to produce one single fact to back up his opinion. If I chose to wait for one, I believe I would be waiting a long time. (“I read it on Michael Moore’s web site, so it must be true” does not count.)

Calling a Spade a Spade

Well, sorry folks. It had to happen sooner or later. With my posts about Cindy Sheehan and the War in Iraq, it was only a matter of time before some extremist (right or left) had to come by.

In case you missed out, one of my posts received an ill-written comment on how wrong I was about the war. The problem was, the writer of said comment clearly had no supporting evidence for his opinion. I hypothesized that he was likely a member of an extremist group – either a Michael Moore wannabe or MoveOn.org. Or both. So I commented on his comments, and sure enough, he was waiting in the wings. This time with an even more entertaining rant.

It is amazing to me that some people think that, just because they know where the “caps lock” key is on their keyboard and that they can bandy about with name calling, that they somehow display themselves as intelligent. The truth is that they expose their ignorance. Hey, a few mispelled words or punctuation errors are ok here and there. We all make them, especially when writing so prolifically. Who has time to proofread that much content? But mix it all together and you look like a grade A imbecile.

For kicks, I looked up some synonyms for imbecile. They are quite fun. Here are a few of the better ones: addle-pate, boob, cretin, dimwit, dunce, dunderhead, fool, halfwit, ignoramus, lamebrain, loony, lunkhead, muttonhead, numskull, simpleton.

So, this commenter is clearly an extremist. Interestingly, even though I stated that I belong to neither major political party, he referred to me as a right wing republican (as if that was an insult). I guess, from the extreme left, everyone else seems to be right wing – even Bill Clinton. Anyway, since my commenter is clearly a big fan of Michael Moore, he may take offense at Bill O’Reilly’s recent comments about what makes an extremist.

If you think Michael Moore reports accurately, you’re an extremist.

Extremists who follow other extremists rarely take the time to actually learn their position. They could not debate themselves out of a paper bag. And yet they try to take on anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. If you disagree, look out! A barrage of expletives and name calling will commence. And here is a tip: if they call you a Nazi, congratulations! You have won your argument. It means that, even though you may still have supporting evidence and documentation on your position that you have not dipped in to, your opponent has been run into a corner and can’t get out. It is much like the little kid in a fight that, when backed into a corner, puts his head down and just starts swinging and flailing his arms. He’s bound to hit something, anything. He doesn’t care what, as long as it’s something.

Feel free to comment and debate. It is healthy and realistic. But for goodness sake, if you are going to open your mouth, make certain that you know of what you speak. And if you are grammatically challenged, perhaps you would be better off remaining silent.

I Should Have Known…

Typical of those that can’t substantiate their position, they always resort to name calling, throwing things, and if all else fails, pull out the ever popular “I know you are but what am I?”

Seems my friend Mark Patterson is back with more comments. And this time, it is clear that he not only refuses to research before he takes a position, he also likely didn’t even read my post before he started his rant. Now, I could have just deleted his post. And frankly, that probably would be the wise thing to do. But, I have chosen to make an example of how not to win a debate with me. It’s also kind of funny, for those of us grounded in reality, to read the rants of someone clearly out of touch. Seems I touched a nerve with this one. (Note that if you are offended by either strong language or simply can’t stand to read rants written by people who don’t, won’t, or can’t read, then you probably should just avoid this post).

THIS IS THE TRAGEDY, JUST LIKE VIETNAM, YOU IDIOTS BELIEVE THE LIAR MURDERER BUSH.

Wow. Nothing like starting off with a well substantiated point. When all else fails, throw “liar” and “murderer” into your statement. And for good measure, call your opponent an “idiot.” That sure scores points. Mr. Patterson must have been a Master Debater in school.

THERE ARE STILL, STILL PEOPLE TODAY THAT THINK IT WAS THE “PROTESTERS” WHO KEPT US FROM “WINNING” VIETNAM, WAKE UP LOSER.

Now, I’m not sure if “wake up loser” is actually supposed to be part of this sentence. It actually went better with the next one. But that is where Mr. Patterson put his period, so I can only assume he meant this to be an ill-conceived sentence for some specific reason.

Also note that, again, it is typical that when you can’t substantiate a statement, you must resort to name calling. And, I would submit for discussion that we didn’t actually “lose” in Vietnam. It was two years after we pulled out, as a result of losing the war at home, that North Vietnam overan the South. So, yes, in an indirect way, the protesters were part of what kept us from winning in Vietnam. And you make it sound like the protesters of the Vietnam era were somehow warm and fuzzy about the troops. Appearently you have forgotten that our troops came back to be spit on and called “baby killers.” But I digress…

YES I SUPPORT THE TROOPS YOU ASS, I WANT THEM HOME, HEAR ME STUPID, HOME, NOT DEAD OVER THE LIES OF A LIAR MURDERER,

Again with the name calling. (Can this guy debate or what?) We all want them home. But some of us want them to complete what they are doing, which is stabalize a volatile region. Regardless of whether you believe the war was right or not, it would clearly be foolhardy to pull out now.

Here is also where it becomes abundantly clear that Mr. Patterson either can’t read, or doesn’t want to. In my previous post, I referred to H. Con. Res. 104 (which reiterates Public Law 105-338) and I quote:

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) stated that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

The promotion of a democratic government has yet to be completed. Now hold that thought for a moment, because I need to add the next part of Mr. Patterson’s comments to tie this together.

SO WHAT IF YOU VOTED FOR THE SCUM, THAT MAKES IT O.K.TO KILL KIDS FOR NOTHING, JUST TODAY FOOL, 8/26, THOUSANDS, THOUSANDS OF SUNNI’S MARCHING IN BAGHDAD WITH BANNERS,SHOUTING FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN,

Here is where it is completely obvious that Mr. Patterson doesn’t read things before he opens his mouth. He seems to think that he pays attention to the news and I don’t. Ok, Mr. Patterson. Maybe you missed it, but we also had news today from General Richard Myers that the troops want to finish the job. That would be the job I mentioned earlier, the promotion of a democratic government. You do know who Gen. Richard Myers is? If not, I’m not going to tell you. You clearly need to learn how to do your own leg work instead of having to be spoon fed.

Bringing up the Sunni demonstration only serves to reinforce my point that you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about. Based on your statement, it would seem that you actually believe that a demonstration by a portion of a minority group that includes members of Saddam’s former party means that the entire country wants Saddam back. That’s pretty much what is going on here in America, since you probably also believe that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU FOOLS TO WAKE UP, THE TOTALLY SAD FACT IS AS THE YEARS ROLL BY, HISTORY WILL PROVE YOU A ASS, AND ME RIGHT, WOW, SOME VICTORY WHEN THE GUYS OVER THERE DIE, AND ARE WOUNDED FOR LIFE, YOU SHOULD BE REAL PROUD OF YOUR STUPID REPUBLICAN LIAR MURDERER AND THE PARTY THAT IS KILLING INNOCENT KIDS,

I shouldn’t have to point this out, but it is actually AN ASS.

The rest is just too easy. I almost feel guilty pointing this out, but you haven’t done a lick of research. Republicans aren’t the only ones in support of this military action. Or, haven’t you noticed? You do realize that every vote taken in Congress is a matter of public record? I know that you don’t like to read on your own, and it would require some effort, but please Mr. Patterson, before you embarass yourself any further…

GOD BLESS MICHAEL MOORE, AND I WOULD BET YA, YOU NEVER,EVER SAW FAHRENHEIT 9/11, YOU CHICKEN HEARTED SOULD,THE GOOD THING IS THIS IS THE DEATH KNELL OF THE RIGHT WING,MAYBE PAT ROBERTSON CAN GET SOME “CHRISTIANS FOR BUSH” IDIOTS TO GO OVER THERE SUCKERS,AND I WOULD LOVE A YEAR FROM NOW TO TALK TO YOU WHEN ALL THESE TRUTHS COME OUT, AND THE COUNTRY REALIZES WE WENT TO WAR FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, AGAIN.

Oops. You did it. I tried to stop you. But I couldn’t save you from yourself. Well, we all know now, don’t we? You clearly have no ability to think for yourself, do your own research, develop your own opinion. I was correct in my first post when I mentioned you were likely a left wing extremist associated with either Michael Moore or MoveOn.org.

So appearantly you feel that since you are either too lazy, or too illiterate, to learn on your own, it would be easier to take a left wing extreme view handed to you in a “documentary” that clearly had a biased agenda. Call that your own opinion since you clearly are unable to develop your own. You somehow believe that “there is no terrorist threat”, that somehow this would all go away if we pulled out. Oh, you poor misguided fool. To pull out now would only strengthen extremists that are already bent on the complete and total destruction of Western Civilization.

Of course I fully expect to see another rant from Mr. Patterson. I would be deeply disappointed otherwise. While I am sincerely impressed with your unabated mastery of the English language, I would recommend sir, that you do a little research and develop a well substatiated point before you attempt rebuttal. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

It’s About Respect

Here is one of the best quotes I’ve seen that sums up why it’s important to support the troops in their mission:

In Vacaville, Toni Colip, 50, said her son, David, went to high school with Casey Sheehan and is now in the Marines, although not in Iraq. She said her son opposes Sheehan’s activities and has asked her to support his military service even if he is injured or killed.

“He said, ‘Don’t dishonor me, don’t walk on my grave,'” Colip said.


Bush Backers Amass to Counter ‘Peace Mom’

Cindy Sheehan could take a lesson here. I didn’t know Casey Sheehan, and I’m going on the heresay of the media here, but it sounds to me like he was what I would consider a hero. He was an eagle scout and then he went into military service. He re-upped after the war in Iraq was in full swing so he knew what he was getting into. And from what I understand, he volunteered for the mission in which he was killed, and it was a rescue mission at that. To me, this man should be honored.

I’m glad to see that there are military families out there with the “You don’t speak for me, Cindy” slogan. They accept what has already been accepted by their sons and daughters: they are serving on a mission that their country asked them to do and they do it with honor. If they make the ultimate sacrifice, we should not deny them an honorable memory. To not support their mission takes away what they gave their lives for.

My city has lost several sons to this war, on 9/11, in Afganistan, and in Iraq. We have a memorial to the victims of 9/11, complete with a beam from the WTC and stone from the Pentagon. This is also a memorial for one of our own residents, Naval Commander Dan Shanower, who died in the attack on the Pentagon.

The memorial takes its theme from an article written by Commander Shanower entitled “Freedom Isn’t Free.” In it, he wrote: “Those of us in the military are expected to make the ultimate sacrifice when called. The military loses scores of personnel each year. Each one risked and lost his or her life in something they believed in, leaving behind friends, family and shipmates to bear the burden and celebrate their devotion to our country…Freedom isn’t free.”

When Cindy Sheehan stands up at an an anti war rally supporting Lynne Stewart, who aided and abbetted terrorists, and says “This country is not worth dying for,” she spits on the grave of every member of our military who answered the call of duty and made that ultimate sacrifice. Compare and contrast the following statements, one from a fallen soldier, on from a soldier who may be called to make the ultimate sacrifice, and one from a mother whose son has fallen:

Those of us in the military are expected to make the ultimate sacrifice when called.” – Commander Dan Shanower

Don’t dishonor me, don’t walk on my grave.” – David Colip

This country is not worth dying for… I would never have let [Casey] go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have.” – Cindy Sheehan

Sorry, but I have no respect for Sheehan. She has stepped out of the sympathetic role of grieving mother and into the role of antiwar activist. Think about that when picking which side you are on.

Iraq – Failure Is Not An Option

If you missed The O’Reilly Factor on Tuesday, August 16, 2005, you probably missed some of the most concise and clear explanations of the reality of Iraq and the War on Terror.

O’Reilly kicked it off with his “Talking Points”

Now on to Iraq. First off, if you want the USA to lose this fight in Iraq, you’re a bad American. Everybody got that? You can oppose the action, but rooting for your country to lose is inexcusable.

At this point, the cut and run crowd has no case. If Iraq descends into chaos, yet another terrorist state will emerge. We removed one terror enabler, Saddam, and to allow another one to take his place is simply madness. It’d be like handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban. Again, the cut and run people are simply clueless.

And he goes on to say:

Now the mistake many Americans are making is to define the war in ideological terms. This conflict should be about performance, not a preconceived political viewpoint.

There’s no question a free Iraq cooperating against worldwide terrorism would be a good thing. There’s no question. So you can argue that the price the USA Is paying is too high. That’s a legitimate debate, but rooting against a free Iraq is atrocious.

And finally:

The Iraqis themselves must understand it’s their fight in the long run. Right now, lots of Iraqis are signing up, but their efficiency in battle is weak after two and a half years. That’s got to change fast. American blood and treasure is giving its people the chance at freedom, but we can only do so much.

[Read the entire column here]

Later in the program, O’Reilly had on Ret. Lt Gen Thomas McInerney and former Senator Zell Miller. If I had known their discussion was going to be so good, I would have taken copius notes. So for lack of better commentary, here is the synopsis from The O’Reilly Factor archive:

Top Story
A no-spin look at Iraq
Guests: Fox News analyst Zell Miller & Fox News military analyst Gen. Thomas McInerney

For more on Iraq, The Factor was joined by Fox News analysts Gen. Thomas McInerney and Zell Miller, both of whom claimed the war is going far better than most news reports indicate. “We have made enormous progress,” General McInerney said. “The coalition forces have built schools and hospitals and have gotten the economy going. The terrorists and the insurgents are fighting even harder because they know they are losing.” Miller agreed, and disputed the suggestion that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should step down. “I would rather have an exhausted Rumsfeld than a fresh and invigorated someone else. He is enough of a patriot and a good soldier to know when it’s time to leave, but right now I don’t see any reason to replace him.” The Factor argued the other side, pointing out that insurgent attacks have increased over the past year. “I’m not a military guy, but that says that things are getting worse there. All the insurgents have to do is to continue to create terror and chaos, and we haven’t been able to get the terror component under control.”

Miller, the former Democratic Senator from Georgia, also addressed the Cindy Sheehan controversy. “I think she is being used. Her agenda is one she had even before her son was unfortunately killed, and his death has given her a soapbox. He did not die in vain – it was on a hero’s mission.” The Factor pointed out that Sheehan has become a darling of many in the media. “Newspapers in America are 20 to 1 in favor of Cindy Sheehan and propping her up and giving her legitimacy. That is going to spill over into the general population. The far left is trying to pull the Vietnam game all over again and erode support for the war.”

[Quoted from The O’Reilly Factor archive]

Cindy Sheehan, It’s Time to Stop

I had originally written this post earlier today and saved it as a draft since I wasn’t sure I would actually post it. Since this was written, Reuters has released a story that Cindy’s husband has filed for divorce. Of course her response to the press is that they had decided this before she camped out in Crawford. However, since their son was killed over a year ago, my guess is that she has allowed her grief or her selfish need for attention (I’ll leave it up to you to decide which) completely consume her life. So I find it unlikely that her husband’s decision is totally unrelated.

Interestingly, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I recently finished reading C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce” which, if you haven’t read it, is not about divorce (at least, not in the usual sense of the word). There is a very apropos section of the book where we are introduced to a mother that is so consumed with the death of her son, she not only allowed it to destroy her earthly family, she also refused to accept God’s eternal love. Rather than try to explain, I’ll just say read the book. It’s worth the read.

Anyway, the rest of what I wrote is below, unedited. Take from it what you will…

When Cindy Sheehan first hit the news, I admit that I did have some sympathy for her plight. What real human being wouldn’t? The woman lost her son in war. She deserves to grieve.

But as the Bush-hating media has glommed on to exploit her, she has shown her true colors. She has shown that she is a willing participant in her own exploitation. That says to me that, since she is willing to cheapen the death of her own son, she obviously has an agenda. Given what has been pouring out of her mouth, her request to meet with the President isn’t to gain closure or ease her pain. In fact, if Bush did meet with her, it would likely take the wind out of the sails of her real agenda, which is clearly becoming an extremist agenda.

Consider this from IBD this week:

Grief is something to be endured, not exploited. Those who use it to push their agendas end up cheapening it. A mother’s grief becomes just one more emotional lever to manipulate the media and the public. That’s where compassion ends and cynicism properly starts. [read the entire editorial here]

Also consider her recent statement, “You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism” indicates that she has now somehow become an expert on foreign relations and international diplomacy. Yet to do that would only reinforce the belief among the terrorists that we are weak and without resolve, encouraging further attacks. It is abundantly clear that Sheehan has absolutely no concept of militant fundamentalist Islam. To them, every citizen of the world must either be Muslim or be destroyed. There is NO middle ground.

What I think is the worse than dishonoring the death of her son is that she cheapens the ultimate sacrifice of every soldier who has died in Iraq. She is saying to the parents of every fallen soldier in this war, “My son died in vain and so did yours.” To say you support the troops and then illigitemize their sacrifice is hypocritical.

So the question to me has become, “Has Cindy Sheehan completely lost her sanity due to her pain and grief, or is she truly that selfish that she will allow her self to exploit her son’s death to achieve her 15 minutes of fame?” I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she has lost it. I will submit as evidence the following:

  1. Claims George Bush killed her son, so she doesn’t owe a penny of 2004 taxes.
  2. Claims Bush should be impeached and tried for war crimes.
  3. Her family has issued a letter of NONsupport for her tirade