I was planning to let the Cindy issue stand and move on to other issues. The problem is that she remains the “darling” of the Leftist American press, left-over hippies from the ‘60s who never got over Nixon and Vietnam, and young hippie wannabes in pursuit of an identity chasing the “flavor of the month” cause. Having listened to and read her latest words, I no longer believe that this woman is an innocent, being used by the left. I believe that she is entirely complicit in this whole campaign and feel compelled to continue to comment in defense of the troops and the President.
She is not a woman distraught at losing a child; she is a hatemonger using the death of her son to bash the President and the United States. Her own words convict her. She is more reminiscent of a stalker than a mourner. Her obsessive hatred is far beyond any which might be explained in the pain from loss. She is not deluded by some Machiavellian plot of extreme Left-wing activist “kooks,” she is an extreme Left-wing activist kook. She had this Leftist anti-war stance well before her son was killed. She is not mourning his loss, she is not turning her efforts towards helping her own family or other families who have lost loved ones, cope with their losses, instead she is picking at the scab of their healing wounds, delaying the healing process and prolonging their pain. This is not a nice woman; this is not a caring woman; this is a hateful, destructive, selfish, woman who is more interested in her own political agenda than in healing the damage she has done to her own family in pursuing this wrongly directed vendetta.
Mrs. Sheehan’s son died a hero’s death trying to rescue his fellow soldiers from an ambush in Sadr City. He deserves to be remembered for that sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, he made in a selfless act of courage. Thanks to Cindy, he will be remembered as sacrificial lamb dragged through the streets of America to prop up her anti-America, anti-Bush, campaign against the war in Iraq. She attempts to garner sympathy with her sad tale of a mother in grief, rebuffed by an uncaring, cold hearted, war mongering president, in her time of greatest need. A mother who lost her son, seduced into serving by lies, to a war which was started by a lying administration bent on enriching its friends and top contributors. Unfortunately for Cindy, she is wiping the tears from her eyes with a tissue of lies. There have been incorrect assertions from this administration, but the term “lies” conveys the intent to deceive and there is no corroborative evidence, direct or indirect, that this administration ever made assertions regarding this war which were intended to deceive the American people.
When WMD were cited as a reason for attacking Saddam, it was universally believed by all intelligence organizations that they existed in Iraq. When Iraq’s attempt to buy high grade uranium ore from Africa was mentioned, there was and still is substantial evidence for that attempt. In spite of the fact that the Bush administration has backed away from that assertion, the British have not. They continue to maintain the veracity of their intelligence. When the Saddam-al Qaeda connection was discussed, it was and has been proven to have been extensive and real. Even the faulty 9-11 Commission Report confirmed the numerous links of al Qaeda to Saddam’s Iraq. Since its publication, evidence has only grown that those links were extensive. Of course those on the Left will insist that the 9-11 report says there were no links between al Qaeda and Iraq, but they are not fully reading the report and are quoting William Clarke’s testimony out of context, not the report of the commission itself.
Another of the lies coming out of the Sheehan camp is that President Bush has been changing the reason for the war as each one has proven false (of course only the WMD assumption has proven so). The fact is that President Bush has never wavered from his original statement as to why we were going to Iraq except for the admission that we have found no WMD and that contrary to intelligence gathered by the CIA, MI6, the French DRM, and the Russian SVR, apparently there were none when we entered Iraq. Certainly the emphasis has changed as the situation has changed, but the president included WMD, al Qaeda links to Iraq, freeing the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator, fighting terrorism in Iraq so that we don’t have to fight it here, and establishing a stable democracy in his speeches leading up to the war.
The most recent and biggest lie to come out of the Left is the lie that Bush never wanted a peaceful end to the Iraq situation, that according to the Downing Street Memo, Bush planned on fighting a war from the start. Beyond the obvious argument that the famous line “the intelligence was being fixed around” going to war means that the efforts at obtaining intelligence was being concentrated on that possibility, it would have been insane to expect anything else given Saddam’s record. Saddam had never, repeat that NEVER, been an honest dealer with the UN or with the USA. To have expected him to suddenly be cooperative would have been naïve at the very least (something Liberals are very good at). Going to war with Iraq was virtually inevitable once it was decided to confront him on the WMD issue.
Personally I would have been astounded had the Bush Administration not been making war plans with Iraq. I would expect there to have been half a dozen possible scenarios fully worked up prior to our going in. When one is talking about the possibility of going to war, he wants to be prepared for any eventuality. I would have had every available intelligence officer working on the move into Iraq once I had decided that it was possible. I would certainly not have waited until the deadline ran out before I made my plans and started gathering intelligence. What the anti-war, anti-Bush people are suggesting President Bush should have done, not plan early, falls into a category I reserve for the pacifists of the Left, stupid, naïve, and DUMB. Had President Bush done that, then there truly would be grounds for impeachment. To suggest that the President didn’t try to get Saddam to give up peaceably is a base lie. Having sought and obtained a UN resolution, the President made one last effort on March 16th, 2003 to get Saddam to comply, meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Azores, Portugal. Following that meeting, the President then gave Saddam Hussein a forty-eight hour ultimatum to leave Iraq. Quoting the President from his speech on March 17, 2003:
"On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.The President never sought this war; he came to it in the genuine belief that Iraq posed a very real and growing danger to its neighbors and, with its connections to al Qaeda, the United States. He gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid it. But Saddam chose to rely upon assurances from his French allies that they could subvert any move toward war by the UN. They were right, they were able to subvert America’s efforts in the Security Council, but what they didn’t count on is an American President whose resolve and determination were not to be ruled by the UN. What they didn’t expect was a President who, unlike Clinton or Gore, was an American first. Now those who oppose this war have every right to quibble and complain that it was unnecessary and that we should end it. They cross the line when they say that President Bush “lied to get us into the war.” That is simply a fantasy derived from their own opinion, founded on Chimerical assumptions.
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger [my emphasis], but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."
The Left wingers have great contempt for those of us who support the President in this war, describing us variously as being “dumb,” “brainwashed,” “hicks,” “evil,” “mean spirited,” “war mongers,” and a host of other more “colorful” names which you can find in the “comments” sections of this and other conservative blogs. That is alright with me as I have at least as much contempt for them. Their penchant for name calling and insult throwing fails to impress me as cogent arguments for their cause. Quite the opposite. It leads me to think of them as inarticulate, slavish followers of anti-American, opportunistic, socialist, hate-mongers such as Mikhail Mooresky, Alexi Frankenov, Susansky Sarandonova and her pet Tiny Tim.
Now as to Cindy. We know for sure that she lies. We have her own words on it. She has given us two different accounts of her meeting with President Bush following her son’s death in April of 2004. We have her assertion that her now estranged husband [link] supported her, an assertion we now know to be false. She asserted that she was not a political activist prior to her sons death (an assertion to which I alluded in one of my editorials on Cindy[link]). We now know that she was a political activist against the war before her son was killed. She has claimed that she only wanted to talk to President Bush in order to ask him what the “noble cause” was for which her son died. Yet she arrived in Crawford riding in a red, white, and blue, bus emblazoned with “Impeachment Tour.” If all she was seeking was a meeting with the President, wouldn’t it have made more sense for her to avoid the publicity and caravan of anti-war protesters and seek the meeting in private? She would have been much more likely to have achieved her stated goal that way. Of course, the answer is she doesn’t want to meet with the President; she wants to generate a side show for the MSM. Her worst lie of all though is that Casey died for no good reason. Casey obviously didn’t believe that, he was the first to volunteer for the rescue mission. Cindy Sheehan is a publicity seeker looking to get all the attention she can for her Liberal agenda. Hardly the sympathetic figure the MSM is portraying. For those on the Left who feel it is indecent to invade her private life and difficulties, I can only say that it is of her own volition that she has become such a public figure, inviting such scrutiny and it is she that is invading the President’s privacy by harassing him while he is trying to get some time to himself from working at the most stressful and difficult job on the planet. Cindy go home, your family needs you more than we do.
Evil wins hearts with the face of innocence, poisons minds with the voice of need, and destroys goodness by seducing its kindness. It never appears in its own diseased skin.