RIP Cindy Sheehan
Posted by Joe Rivett on 08.27.2009
Neither the media or myself care about what she has to say anymore. In addition, calling Obama's foreign policy worse than Bush didn't make her popular with the left...
Recently, Cindy Sheehan wrote a letter wondering where the anti-war Democrats are. I guess Cindy fell for Obama too. In case anyone wasn't paying attention, Obama ran to the right of John McCain on the war in Afghanistan. Here is merely fulfilling a campaign promise. In case you weren't aware Cindy, very few Democrats did not oppose the war in Afghanistan, rather most wanted to escalate the conflict.
Cindy, the left did not oppose war, they opposed George W Bush. The Democrats are not peace activists. When Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in the 90s, very few on the left cared. The Democrats opposed the war because it was the popular thing to do. In the beginning it wasn't and that is why they supported it, once public opinion went south, so did Democratic support. Had Bush fired Rumsfeld or listened to Powell, it is likely Iraq would have gone much smoother. Democrats weren't protesting the war instead they had a problem with the fact Bush didn't know what he was doing. To make matters worse, Bush lied about the reason why. This gave the Democrats ground to oppose it. Now that Bush is out and corruption has declined, the Democrats are willing to work with their president.
Another problem Cindy is you keep making ludicrous statements that give the anti-war movement a bad name. Here is a short list of ridiculous things that have come out of your mouth: (This taken from a previous column I wrote about her)
"I admire President Chavez for his strength to resist the United States. Instead, Bush is waging a war of terrorism against the world."
Cindy Sheehan in my mind will always be remembered for the stupid and outlandish comments she has made. As much as I did not like the presidency of George W Bush, it is quite a stretch to call him a terrorist. But Cindy Sheehan had no problem referring to George Bush as a terrorist:
1. "The biggest terrorist in the world is George W Bush."
2. "I was told my son was killed in the war on terror. He was killed by George Bush's war of terror on the world."
3. "Why would I want one more mother -- either Iraqi or American -- to go through what I'm going through? I don't want him to justify my son's honorable sacrifice to continue his murderous killing policies."
Cindy, you served your purpose. You personalized the Iraq War. But the Iraq War has been over for quite some time. Nobody cares what you think about Afghanistan. Very few people care about peace. Even fewer people care about Afghan civilians. I opposed Iraq because I deal with Americans who are suffering at my job everyday. It bugs the hell out of me that it will cost over a trillion dollars but we can afford tax cuts and to say "no" to increased access to health care which denies some people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Instead of arguing that war is evil, why not argue that it is expensive? Why not argue that it costs too much to be the policemen of the world; the same thing Republicans argued in the 90s before Neocons took over.
Maybe you should have read my column in January of 08 when I had this to say about Obama:
"I'm sick of the word "change." Every single politician says they are going to represent change. I have never heard a politician state that they are for the status quo.
Barack Obama was the first to successfully deploy this word. How does Barack plan to change Washington? I have no idea. He states he is going to work with Republicans. I'm sorry but I don't see John Boehner and Mitch McConnell compromising with President Obama. This is the Party that tried to impeach a lame duck president over lying about a blowjob. Do you really think they are going to work with you? Maybe John McCain and the liberal Republican senators from Maine will but I think Mr. Obama is promising something that rarely happens.
There are three reasons I don't believe Obama will bring great change. Republicans never work with liberal Democrats, Obama is influenced by lobbies and Obama's platform is just standard Democratic talking-points."
Rivett, you're just so desperate and pitiful. I bet if I were to check I'd find nothing but bright red Kool-Aid pumping through your veins.
Obama did not run to the right of John "maybe a hundred" McCain. I shouldn't have to remind you that McCain wanted to stay in Iraq and fight an eternal war against a bunch of guys who had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. People against the Iraq War opposed it because it was a stupid war based on lies. Afghanistan is the war that should have been waged in the first place. Somehow I find it hard to find too many hippies weeping about hunting down and killing the guys who actually orchestrated 9/11.
That said, Cindy Sheehan is a whiny hippie.
Posted By: EPIC CAT (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 01:29 AM
I get what you are saying, especially about how Democratic politicians used the anti-war sentiments of the populace as their platform when they will go whatever way the wind blows (which, to be fair, is true of almost all politicians-- and the ones it's not true of are the hardline types who do more harm than good). A politician serves their constituents best when he follows their wishes instead of his own. This is not a process helped by our cultural ADD.
That said, Obama is not the first person elected on a platform of "Change" (that, to the best of my knowledge, was Clinton).
Posted By: Madcap Unlimited (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 06:44 AM
you should have used a different title. I thought she actually was dead.
Posted By: Bryan Jones (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 07:58 AM
Just shows everyone how Democrats are self-righteous wishy-washy people. We are for war, because thats what Americans want. Now we are against war, because thats what Americans want. Now that we are in power, we are for war again, even after a year ago we were against war just to get our people elected. Sounds like a bunch of lying hypocritical bastards to me.
I would also like someone to prove that George W Bush lied about why we went over there. Granted, no weapons of mass destruction were found, but the U.N. who did the weapon investigations were not satisfied with what they were being shown(in other words, they thought that the "Powers that be" in Iraq were hiding their weapons). Sounds like a very legitimate reason to go to war. Of course the hypocrite left-wing doesn't see it that way.
Posted By: JWestmoreland (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 09:58 AM
3. "Why would I want one more mother -- either Iraqi or American -- to go through what I'm going through? I don't want him to justify my son's honorable sacrifice to continue his murderous killing policies."
i'm not sure i understand what's the problem with what she said here.
unless it's "murderous killing policies" which is a bit dramatic. I just would have gone with idiocy.
Posted By: Guest#5458 (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 10:30 AM
" I bet if I were to check I'd find nothing but bright red Kool-Aid pumping through your veins."
Jesus Christ, kid. What's with you and the Kool-Aid?
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on August 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Actually, Epic Cat, if you look at the opinion polls for the last year or so, the Democrats don't seem too interested in fighting in Afghanistan these days.
And he said he ran to his right on AFGHANISTAN, not Iraq.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I agree that the Democrats did not oppose the Afghan war, and that they USED the peace movement for votes.
And Obama DID run to the right of McCain with regard to Afghanistan. But illuminates a contradiction in your assertions:
I disagree with your calling them "the left". They are not the "left", they are the "center". If they run to the "right" of Republicans on certain issues, then they cannot be called the "left".
Cindy Sheehan represents the actual "Left", and she is a great and beautiful person who speaks truth to power against enormous odds.
A true woman of the people, she also received 19% of the vote in the Senate election against Nancy Pelosi, which is an incredible number for an independent.
So to say things like, "nobody cares about her anymore," is just ignorant and disingenuous.
But props to you for recognizing the Democrats for what they are (your incorrect assessment of their political compass position notwithstanding).
Posted By: Matt (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 11:32 AM
By the way, Bush is, and will always be, a terrorist. He is a hard-right Neocon whose presidency was dedicated to making people afraid, and killing people.
He is a terrorist, and should be treated as such. To suggest otherwise is, again, disingenuous.
Posted By: Matt (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Rivett is wrong.
Cindy Sheehan is entirely justified by calling out George Bush as a "terrorist". His totally fallacious, unnecessary, and corrupt Invasion of Iraq has killed, mamed, and slaughtered over 1.5 million people -- none of whom had anything to do with the 9/11 event. It has destroyed an entire Country (ancient Babylon) and its history. If this is not the very apogee of "terrorism", then just what the heck is? This is for mass-violence, human carnage, and chaos than any so-called "terrorist" could ever dream of in their wildest fantasies.
Of course Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld are terrorists. Anyone who perpetrates mass-violence against innocent people deserved that title.
And, yes, this includes President Obama as well, who has not changed the corrupt and recklessly violent U.S. Foreign Policy one bit. Obama has been escalating the Wars, wasting away our money further, and recklessly killing thousands of more innocent civilians using new aerial Bombing attacks by "unmanned" Drones.
Someone has to stand up to this madness, this immoral human carnage, and corruption which is also bankrupting our Country and ruining our Economy and furture economic stability.
These Wars and illegal Foreign Occupations must stop. They are unsustainable - just like your cheap attack on Sheehan and the protesters.
Posted By: FreeSociety (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM
We need more Kool-Aid
Posted By: Kent Baker (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 11:50 AM
By the way, Bush is, and will always be, a terrorist. He is a hard-right Neocon whose presidency was dedicated to making people afraid, and killing people.
He is a terrorist, and should be treated as such. To suggest otherwise is, again, disingenuous.
Posted By: Matt (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 11:34 AM
No kidding. After all, those poor helpless taliban and al-queda radicals deserves our hugs and sympathy.
I have an idea: take a trip over there, walk right up to them and, together, have a good cry over the horrors of American foreign policy.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 12:19 PM
JFK was a terriorist to then for getting us into Vietnam.
Posted By: Guest#6741 (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 02:10 PM
JFK was a terriorist to then for getting us into Vietnam.
Posted By: Guest#6741 (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 02:10 PM
Actually most of it was engineered by Eisenhower. Kennedy just followed up on the plan. - Which makes him no better actually. Just splitting hairs. Sorry.
Posted By: Guest#4564 (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 02:57 PM
I (and many of my friends on the left) agree that Iraq was 100% wrong, but the invasion of Afghanistan was completely justified and should be stepped up.
Sadly, Bush has created such a quagmire in Iraq that we can't just get up and leave. To do so would most likely damage the region even more than we've already damaged it.
And Mikel - I await the day you can actually argue with facts instead of painting everyone that diagrees with you as a lover of terrorists. I have a feeling Rush Limbaugh will have sex with Rosie O'Donnel before that ever happens though. So stay ignorant and happy, and don't go outside because the evil gay brown terrorist men are just waiting to assrape you and turn you into an America-hating terrorist fag.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 03:51 PM
was Cidy Sheehan being respectful when she disrupted many hearings and the state of the union address? Or was that brown shirt wearing, nazi, unamerican,terroists, racist,astro turf, hate mongering?
By the way Rivett, you on the left loved her before, now you throw her overboard when she speaks out against the Messiah? Comical.
Posted By: John (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 07:21 PM
John, if you bothered to check out the "more articles by Joe Rivett" tab, you'll find that I never had anything nice to say about her. I encourage you all to check out my archive of amazing columns!
Posted By: Joe Rivett (Registered) on August 27, 2009 at 08:09 PM
I just find it funny that several people on the left actually want Sadam still incharge of Iraq. Does anyone remember Kuwait? Do you think Bush the elder just went in there because he took a wrong turn at Albuquerque? The world is better off with Sadam and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read up on the history of the middle east.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 08:53 PM
Now that Bush is out and corruption has declined, the Democrats are willing to work with their president.
I believe it is highly dubious to assert that corruption has diminished in DC. I truly believe that it is escalating, and has been for decades. It doesn't matter who is there.
Besides the President and the democrats could do anything they wanted without the republicans compromising with him. They have the votes, they have the power, just not the courage to truly do what they believe is right, that is if they truly believe in anything other than selfish motivations and themselves as seems to be the case with most anyone in politics.
Posted By: Korupt (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 09:22 PM
Rivett,
Never had anything nice to say huh?
5-30-07.......and I quote "So Cindy Sheehan has made some good points"
Same article, Sheehan says "I believe that any candidate who supports the war should not receive our support. It doesn't matter if they're Senator Clinton or whoever."
Rivetts response:
"This is a great quote because it shows that Cindy Sheehan is not a partisan hack of the Democratic Party."
Don't challenge me. You know Rivett, aren't you getting tired of me kicking your ass?
Posted By: John (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 09:53 PM
Dunn, you're so something and something.
Kool-Aid quips are to EPIC CAT like humbling Brian Blair is to the Iron Sheik.
Posted By: EPIC CAT (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Let me preface this by saying that I would classify myself as right of center, and I was against the war in the beginning. I thought that even if you subscribed to the notion that they still had WMD's, that it wasn't in our nations best interest to go there. I also think that fair-minded people can have a very healthy debate about it. But...
Hate to break this to you, but democrats weren't against the war in Iraq. They voted overwhelmingly for it (I know I get it, the brightest, smartest, most articulate people in the world, the democrats, were lied to, and couldn't think for themselves) and voted overwhelmingly to fund it every time the president asked them to.
In addition to that they all voted for things like the Patriot Act, not once, but twice. Obama himself voted for it in 2006, and has already expanded on it now that he's the one in charge (where are all the libs now?).
And Iraq is such a quagmire that Bush left Obama with, that Bush himself set the timetable to leave, which Obama is still on. Go Figure.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Hey people. Can we drop this right left charade yet? It's pathetic. On and on we go with the left vs the right. These distinctions don't mean anything any more. Both parties are more aligned to special interest lobbyists and Wall St than Joe Lunchbucket.
Rivett, you are NOT part of the system buddy. You might think you're cool because you voted for Obama and he won. You backed the winning team this season. Good for you!
But take a look at what's changed. Nothing of substance has changed. Obama is still a warmonger like Bush. Obama has blown vastly more taxpayer funds than Bush. We're talking trillions in deficit spending which will absolutely bankrupt this nation for the benefit of Maserati driving Wall St bankers.
Obama is a con artist. A flim flam man. You've been duped people and Cindy Sheehan has exposed your hypocrisy. She's called your bluff. No wonder you hate her and wish she would RIP.
Posted By: SnapOutOfItMorons (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 02:24 AM
"And Mikel - I await the day you can actually argue with facts instead of painting everyone that diagrees with you as a lover of terrorists."
I was agreeing with him and so does the muslim extremists he is empathizing with.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 10:07 AM
By the way, Bush is, and will always be, a terrorist. He is a hard-right Neocon whose presidency was dedicated to making people afraid, and killing people.
He is a terrorist, and should be treated as such. To suggest otherwise is, again, disingenuous.
Posted By: Matt (Guest) on August 27, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Come on, JD, you're not going to JD Dunn THIS guy??????
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on August 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM
You aren't even talking about the article anymore. For years, the Democrats let Sheehan run wild on Bush and the Republicans like a rabid dog. They loved all of the press that she got. Now, Sheehan has realized that the Democrats are "in control" of everything, so here comes the rabid dog.
Posted By: Flynn2 (Guest) on August 29, 2009 at 07:44 AM
I stopped reading this after the "corruption has declined" remark since it's just gotten worse after Bush left office.
Posted By: Charles (Guest) on August 29, 2009 at 01:15 PM
John I disagree,
By stating that Cindy made one good point in not supporting Hilary doesn't mean the OVERALL article or the thesis was positive on her tactics and the stupid things she said.
Posted By: joe rivett (Guest) on August 29, 2009 at 06:07 PM
Simply put... Republicans = Democrats. The difference is only in the name and the sheep who blindly follow the puppets the party props up every 4 to 8 years. We get the goverment we deserve.
Posted By: Bake (Guest) on August 30, 2009 at 12:27 PM
americans look at politics like it's a sporting event, divided between the two teams and their favorite players. It's kinda ridiculous.
Posted By: Guest#2409 (Guest) on August 30, 2009 at 05:35 PM
JWestmoreland said: "Just shows everyone how Democrats are self-righteous wishy-washy people. We are for war, because thats what Americans want. Now we are against war, because thats what Americans want."
So essentially, what you are saying is that all Americans are self-righteous, wishy washy people.
Don't know if you're American or not, but if you are, you just threw yourself into the same pool. And pretty much, Republicans are Americans too, right?
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on August 31, 2009 at 01:37 AM
Do you think if Bush was never elected we wouldn't have had an Iraq war eventually?? I understand the argument that we rushed in and didn't collaborate enough, but the Iraq war had been brewing for a LONG time. Even Al Gore was calling for it in the 90's.
Posted By: C (Guest) on August 31, 2009 at 03:51 PM
So based on all of the posts can I conclude that everyone on both sides is in agreement that the whole "don't look at my lack of experience because I'm something different than the rest of politicians" theme that Obama used directly and indirectly has been completely exposed as a short-term election tactic and has nothing to do with how he actually intends to govern?
How do you like the bill of goods that was sold to you now?
Posted By: Steven Xavier (Guest) on August 31, 2009 at 11:06 PM
"His totally fallacious, unnecessary, and corrupt Invasion of Iraq has killed, mamed, and slaughtered over 1.5 million people -- none of whom had anything to do with the 9/11 event. It has destroyed an entire Country (ancient Babylon) and its history"
And how long did you serve in the military? I mean, you DID serve in the military and did a tour over in Iraq to see all the bullshit just described, right?
Oh, let me guess, you're one of the morons that gets their "news" from The Daily Show.
Posted By: Guest#4417 (Guest) on September 01, 2009 at 02:34 AM
STAY CURRENT