Cindy Sheehan Brings Anti-War, Anti-Obama Message to Martha's Vineyard

So the only thing it took to change liberals against the wars to for the wars was putting a D over and R... WOW, you folks come pretty CHEAP!!! PATHETIC!!! DISGRACEFUL lot you are!!! It's so sad to see you become what you proclaimed to despise. Warmongering thugs corrupt to the core and drunk with power from stealing other peoples money at the barrell of a gun. Maybe Obama IS Cheney's cousin after all. The policy shoe still fits!!!

"The media is so biased it is sickening. When Bush was president all the media outlets covered Cindy Sheehan. Now that she is protesting Nobama you dont here anything about it.”

You don’t 'hear' anything about it, yet you found your way 'here' to a mainstream media web site, to post your comments on a blog titled “Cindy Sheehan Brings Anti-War, Anti-Obama Message to Martha’s Vineyard.” How deliciously ironic.

The media is so biased it is sickening. When Bush was president all the media outlets covered Cindy Sheehan. Now that she is protesting Nobama you dont here anything about it. The change is here. God help us all.

Did george soro's help cindy fight obama on the war?? Guess not huh I guess the left is ok with the qwar now ..They were only upset when bush was president. Did soros give cindy money or a plane ride like he did with bush..this guy is a joke Soro's you suck....If you dont like america ..LEAVE

she is a disgrace to the memory of her son
too bad she wasn't in the car with Teddy
do you think Obama is stupid enough to meet with her

So now it's OK to label Sheehan a Nut case right? Before she was a grieving mother protesting an evil President, today she's a crazy lady attempting to disturb the Messiah.

I HAVE NO BREAD IN MY CUPBOARD? CAN I EAT CAKE ? PLEASE GIVE ME A MORSEL OR A CRUMB WILL DO.

Well Cindy China just got the best pool of oil in Iraq with BP so maybe they can thank your son for that contract. Guess Hillary had to hand it over so they wouldn't dump our bonds and would still tale our paper for those Walmart goodies! See, it's David Rockefeller's "global economy" and Afganistan is all about the Caspian gas and oil but that's going to India! Our biggest oil supplier is Canada but we might take out Chavez like we've been trying for years-see they're oil banksters. America isn't run by the politicians-they're fronts to sell the "program" the real rulers want. The 34,000 "lobbyists" pay off Congress and America is being used as soldier botts globally while being bankrupted on the homefront. The main media has been long controlled by them for decades and it seems to work at keeping the people nice and dumbed down. The robber barons bought this country back in 1913 with the FED/IRS scam and all your Federal Taxes go into their private banks. Control ALL the money and you control EVERYTHING. Back to Hollywood Insider! When you're 21 they let you buy beer, watch sports, and drop your money in Vegas. A few laughs, some T&A, that's about it.

Posted by: Lorraine | Aug 30, 2009 7:52:11 PM

Wow, Lorraine. If you actually have a son, I appreciate his service but you clearly can't read. Sigmonde is actually as gullible as YOU, and I'm likely the one you think was shooting my mouth off.

Here's why I think you're full of it. From WaPo:

Saturday, September 9, 2006

"A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued."

In addition, there is the other declassified information I mentioned, BUT you're likely one of the 69% who believed on the eve of the war that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, right?

What is going on in America? Sheehan was on the news 24/7 outside of Bush's house in Texas. Now, I read about this buried somewhere on the internet.

Staying with the subject -- Cindy Shehan ( spelled wrong on purpose ) She is a NON entity.

As I know,lots of people voted for him because they don't like war and hoped he would end the war.
So..what now?

Sigmonde....too many people in this country are as naive or dumb as you. Al Qaeda has been around for many years, and were training their followers in Iraq under the approval of Sadam Hussein.

I supported both wars, and my son has been serving in both. Just remember that his service makes it possible for you, those like you and the Sheehans of this planet to enjoy the freedoms of shooting your mouths off on subjects you know nothing about.

The only one I feel sorry for is Sheehan's son who gave his life for what he believed in, only to have his mother disgrace him and make it meaningless.

Obama must imagine himself "beyond" As far as we know, he has never worked as single day of his life and nothing has been said ever about his reading of a bill. Speaking of bills, I wonder how much Martha's Vineyard runs. Getting perks is one thing,. I'm sure,. he learned well in that Political Machine of Illinois. And whats happening with Ex governor Blogojevic. Isn't he going to court to face the music or is the machine fixing things up.? Other criminal cases are mentioned daily without respite. About Blogojevic. there is a news blackout. Why?

You are in charge. Bush and Petraeus want the surge. What would you have done?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Aug 30, 2009 2:06:33 PM

***

Yikes. I'm not sure why you're so interested in my opinion on this as I'm no expert, but as I recall the surge was proposed a few months prior to Petraeus taking over in Iraq and before I became familiar with the Petraeus doctrine overall. Because he is so articulate and bright and experienced, I've always felt a certain amount of trust and found a great amount of credibility to everything he brings to the table-- moreso than with politicians and partisans. Hence, I was very uneasy about the surge until I became more familiar with Petraeus and his efforts overall-- so I consider your question imperfect as I wasn't in charge and didn't have all the same information one in charge would have, but if I was in charge and had talked to Gen. Petraeus and understood his overall philosophy and strategy, I would've voted for his proposal. Hindsight, of course, is always 20/20. I don't think just a surge in troops alone did the job necessarily-- it was part of the story, although I'm amazed by and very supportive of our troops. I think the way it got boiled down in the campaign was politics by politicians on both side of the aisle. I've been frustrated by both parties when it comes to discussions of the war and foreign policy in sound bites. I think Obama painted himself into a corner a bit where he couldn't really say yes, John McCain's surge worked. I'm not even clear that it was John McCain's version of the surge that worked. I credit General Petraeus.

So, are you wrong? I don't know. I'm not sure what you're asking that about. I still think the original statement I said was ridiculous was ridiculous, and other than defending that, I don't really have any big bones of contention that I find worth pursuing. You've acknowledged both parties played politics with the war. I'll even throw in a "big time."

As I stated before, invading Iraq was wrong.

My beef is with the Dems in 2006 and beyond. Bush and Petraeus wanted the surge. The Dems didn't and wanted out of Iraq. I think that the Dems were more interested in scoring political points then doing the right thing by and for the Iraqi people.

Am I wrong? Well, go back to 2006 with all you know now. You are in charge. Bush and Petraeus want the surge. What would you have done?

Ok. So you pretty much buy in to the whole Dem narrative. Gotcha down.

And what do you make of the emerging out-of-Afghanistan soon movement or do you not acknowledge its existence?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Aug 29, 2009 4:44:42 PM

***

I'd say the first statement is pretty dismissive of me and oversimplifies the situation as the Dems began divided on the issue and there has been more than one narrative. In the 2004 and 2008 primaries, I didn't vote for those who had voted for the Iraq War. On the other hand, as I mentioned I do respect General Petraeus and I have listened very carefully to everything he has said. Right now, I am supportive of what we're doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan-- and while I need to read up more on the issues surrounding bin Laden in Pakistan and what can be done, I'm supportive of more hawkish type stuff under given circumstances than a lot of my truly liberal, antiwar friends and colleagues. I tend to get walloped from both sides left and right-- but I do think many of these issues involve more nuance than they're often given due to our sound bite culture.

There is growing disapproval and discontent about Afghanistan. It's intensified along with the rising U.S. and NATO casualty rates, now at the highest level of the nearly 8-year-old conflict. Absolutely! I'm not part of the discontent, although, of course, no one likes casualties and my heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones. I'm not one to say we should stay there till the bitterest of ends, come what may, no matter what till we meet unrealistic end goals. However, the WH admin has assembled a list of about 50 measurements to gauge progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan. My understanding is that they measure things like newly trained Afghan army recruits, Pakistani counterinsurgency missions and on-time delivery of promised U.S. resources, and that the results will be used to fine-tune the list which will be presented to Congress by Sept. 24th. I'd like to see that. I think whether the conflict can be "won" (and/or our objectives can be achieved) is dependent on the goals, and how realistic they are-- and a good assessment of where we are now.

Does sheehan work? I hope I am not paying for her stuff. A place overseas in a chow hall, would be a good place for her to earn a living.

My view is that the Dems played politics with the Iraq war and used it to bash Bush.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn

Bush and Co. proposed reasons that America should fear Iraq, and it was necessary to invade for american security, with the added cover of UN resolutions, (as if those folks enjoyed participating in the UN..)
Bush & Co. were wrong with their stated policy decisions and rationale....plain and simple, what they said was not true.

you can couch this any way you care to, but, they got it wrong, their policies started a war by mistake, and it is my belief that as more documentation becomes declassified the extent of this strategic blunder and acts associated with it will bring shame on our country

Afghanistan is morphing into something far from the initial goals stated after Sept. 11th.
It is a conflict that can't be won, and as much as I would like to see Obama come out ahead there, I think in the end he too will be proven wrong with his decisions there.

opposition to the war in Iraq was in full swing even before the first bomb was dropped.

That's absurd. Opposition to the war at its inception was minuscule compared to the 2005-2007.

_____________________________________

Opposition to the ATTACK on Iraq was in full flight BEFORE the official attack - protest marches including hundreds of thousands of people were taking place all around the United States - this despite Bush's threats that you were a traitor if you opposed the attack on Iraq "you're either with us or agin us"

Later on, almost the entire public opinion shifted unanimously against the Americans in Iraq as it became clear that no 'Mission' had been accomplished and that Bush and the neo-cons had dug the country into another festering snake pit.