"Miss America" Is losing it

In her own words

from JoeUser Forums

Cindy Sheehan quote:

"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"

"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.

"They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up..."

"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?"

"The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war."

"We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people."

"
2,327 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Definitely losing it. The maturity level astounds me.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

She's been exposed to the senile ramblings of the lunatic fringe for too long.  Someone ought to go down to Crawford and rescue her before she loses the plot totally.

Seems to me the lunatics have made the most of her grief and have pretty much manipulated  her into being their mouthpiece.  Not only is she humiliating herself, she's desecrating her sons sacrifice.  What would he say about all of this, about her words if he were here?

Disgusting. 

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Definitely losing it. The maturity level astounds me.

I was thinking she is starting to sound like Dabe.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

She's been exposed to the senile ramblings of the lunatic fringe for too long. Someone ought to go down to Crawford and rescue her before she loses the plot totally.

Makes me wonder if it is some time of transmitted disease.  Is potty mouth a contagious disease?

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now she's blaming the Department of Domestic Doggy Do for her son's death?

Thanks Dr. Guy, for showing us that the "Mickey Mouse" statement was among the more sane quotes from Miss Cindy!

At the risk of hijacking your article, I kind of prefer this kind of quote from Crawford...

Before the vigil, Gary Qualls, of Temple drove to Sheehan's camp site and removed a wooden cross bearing his son's name. He said he supports the war and disagrees with Sheehan.

"I don't believe in some of the things happening here," Qualls said. "I find it disrespectful." Link



Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

At the risk of hijacking your article, I kind of prefer this kind of quote from Crawford...

I heard an interview with a mother from Idaho I think where she was highly incensed when told her son's name was on one of those crosses as well.  She was definitely not a Sheehan fan.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
makes me wonder if it is some time of transmitted disease. Is potty mouth a contagious disease?


It's not so much about the cussing as it is the propaganda she's being fed. She's pretty vulnerable; she's grieving and grief can make you do some odd things (just look at where she's at and what she's doing). These eejits are taking advantage of that.
They really ought to be ashamed of themselves. Is there nothing they won't stoop to?

Good for the parents who went and removed the crosses bearing their children's names.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Good for the parents who went and removed the crosses bearing their children's names.

They should have never been there without permission.  It just seems so disrespectful.  She has stated that she does not want her Son's name associated with war efforts- so why should she be using other fallen soldiers names without family consent? 

It's just wrong.  She simply could have put crosses with the dates that the soldier died- she didn't need to use their names.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
She has stated that she does not want her Son's name associated with war efforts- so why should she be using other fallen soldiers names without family consent?


Does seem a bit hypocritical, eh?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's just wrong. She simply could have put crosses with the dates that the soldier died- she didn't need to use their names.


I'll go with that.

I know that it's been suggested that this point of view is anti-woman, but I really think that she is sincere in her motivations and being batted back and forth and fed talking points by her handlers.

I don't think she's susceptible to this because she is weak or crazy or a woman. I think she's a grieving human being trying to deal with her circumstances and make something of value out of her suffering.

I don't want to criticize her, because god forbid I ever find myself in a similar situation. I feel sympathy for her. Caring and feeling sympathy is not the same as agreeing with everything she's said. It's just looking at the situation with a bit of perspective...which I feel is in order.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think she's a grieving human being trying to deal with her circumstances and make something of value out of her suffering.

Many people have been playing up the "grieving" bit.  At what point does grief turn into "crazy"?  Most people think that this was stemmed from the recent death of her son.  his death wasn't recent- he died in April of 2004.  Is it sane for anyone to actually grieve for over a year?

Being a Mom, I have tried to put myself in her shoes.  But, I still can't understand her.  It would be a whole different story if her son was drafted and went to war- but he wasn't.  He reenlisted even though he knew he was headed to war.  To me, that means that he believed in what he was doing.  To use his name to fight against what he believed in seems really, really wrong.  Which, makes me wonder if that is why her husband is filing for divorce.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is it sane for anyone to actually grieve for over a year?


You're kidding, right? Grieving can be crazy. Grief can make you do things that are odd or out of character for you. There's no set way to deal with a loss of such magnitude.

My aunt, who lost her son in a car/train accident experienced grief and problems associated with her loss for decades (she and her husband eventually divorced as well, which is VERY common for couples who have lost a child).

Which, makes me wonder if that is why her husband is filing for divorce.


I think that's pretty crass.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

You're kidding, right?

No, I'm not.  "Grieving" is an outward expression of loss.  Actively grieving (to the point of this whole thing being about grief, not some other motivation such as being pulled in by some extremest political group) for more than a year is not healthy.  Even a lot of religious groups mark phases within the first year for grieving (like Judaism which has five stages ending with "Yahrzeit" which commemorates the first year).  After that, you feel sorrow and loss, but not true grief. 

If she is truly grieving for her son, why isn't this about her son?  How many quotes have you seen where she talks about her son (other than the "you killed him" type line)?  You don't. 

These aren't words of grief, these are word of somebody with an agenda: ""My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004," Sheehan told an audience of Veterans for Peace. "You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny. ... You give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me [for back taxes] and we'll put this war on trial."

I think that's pretty crass.

Why?  If your husband left you to protest, and during that protest was using your child's name in vain, could you stand behind him?  Say you are 18 years in the future, and one of your boys bravely fights for this country because he believes in the fight and dies.  Would you be OK with your husband using your fallen son's name to protest the very thing that he died for?  Could you stand by his side even though he was exploiting your child's death?  I'm pretty sure that I couldn't.

BTW, have you seen the statement that her family has sent out to the press?  It reads:

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 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.

 

 

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation


Excatly. What would her son say about all this? To me, she's desecrating and dishonoring his sacrifice.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is it sane for anyone to actually grieve for over a year?

I have never lost a child, but a close friend of mine has. Her grieving process has lasted more than four years, and while she is getting on with life, there are times when her grief still consumes her. I can't imagine her loss (or Mrs. Sheehan's) and would never put a time limit on how long she has to "get over it". I don't think she ever will.

Actively grieving (to the point of this whole thing being about grief, not some other motivation such as being pulled in by some extremest political group) for more than a year is not healthy.

It may not be healthy, but that doesn't negate the fact that it happens.

My feelings on the issue of her grieving notwithstanding, I also believe that because of her grief, she was vulnerable... and made a pawn of the Left. The thing that bothers me most about this case is their willingness to use her grief for their own agenda. The manipulation disgusts me. They don't care about her grief, they see an opportunity to push their purposes and seized it. That exploitation is sickening.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, she is a grieving mother who has lost her son. She also asks for sympathy while she openly and publicly insults every other mother who lost a son or daughter yet still supports Prs. Bush.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's not so much about the cussing as it is the propaganda she's being fed.

So in essence it is a contageous disease.  I really doubt she usedd that kind of language before falling into bed with these eejits.  It just amazes me that they have become so rabidly filled with hatred that they lose all control of their higher motor functions.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

They should have never been there without permission. It just seems so disrespectful. She has stated that she does not want her Son's name associated with war efforts- so why should she be using other fallen soldiers names without family consent?

Excellent point.  Perhaps someone should remind her of that statement.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Does seem a bit hypocritical, eh?

I think seem is the wrong word.  More like IS.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

I know that it's been suggested that this point of view is anti-woman, but I really think that she is sincere in her motivations and being batted back and forth and fed talking points by her handlers.

I know it is her handlers feeding her this, but eventually you have to assign responsibility to her.  She is either a willing dupe, or an easily manipulated one.  Her handlers may be writing the scripts, but she still has the capability to say no to them if she really wanted to, and wanted to keep to her original goal.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Being a Mom, I have tried to put myself in her shoes. But, I still can't understand her. It would be a whole different story if her son was drafted and went to war- but he wasn't. He reenlisted even though he knew he was headed to war. To me, that means that he believed in what he was doing. To use his name to fight against what he believed in seems really, really wrong. Which, makes me wonder if that is why her husband is filing for divorce.

I guess her grief has turned to hatred and that has no time limit.  I think that is why her family is distancing themselves from her.  They do not recognize their mother/wife/daughter any longer.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

My aunt, who lost her son in a car/train accident experienced grief and problems associated with her loss for decades (she and her husband eventually divorced as well, which is VERY common for couples who have lost a child).

Some people sink into themselves.  My Sister in law and her Husband instead created a scholarship fund in memory of their son.  Within a year of his death (car Accident).  Sure the loss hurt them, but instead of wallowing in self pity, they did something constructive.  While the original act by Sheehan could be construed as constructive, her latest antics are not.  She is wallowing in self pity and ignoring the rest of her family.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

These aren't words of grief, these are word of somebody with an agenda: ""My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004," Sheehan told an audience of Veterans for Peace. "You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny. ... You give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me [for back taxes] and we'll put this war on trial."

That has to be the goofiest statement of all.  And it shows that she no longer cares about her original purpose, just getting her face and voice on the nightly news.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Excatly. What would her son say about all this? To me, she's desecrating and dishonoring his sacrifice.

I think the rest of her family actually answered what her son would think.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

The thing that bothers me most about this case is their willingness to use her grief for their own agenda. The manipulation disgusts me.

That is exactly how I feel, and hence my term of pimps for them.