Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Sheehan: Terrorists are Freedom Fighters

I always enjoy an article that tickles two of my pet peeves at a time. This one sure does:

Cindy Sheehan and Media Bias.

(I am also posting a note from Drudge on how far the protesters will go, at the end of this blog)

First up, we have this article at Worldnet:
(the website includes a video link)

In it, Cindy is quoted as saying:

..."You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."

So they are freedom fighters, despite the fact they kill far more of their own people then Americans.

Now to be fair, she isn't the first, and obviously wont be the last to say this. But it still is an ironic position, as you will see.

The article goes on to point out, the remarks were made to a CBS reporter during an interview, and yet magically never made the news:

She made the remark during her trek earlier this month to Crawford, Texas; but her equating the enemy with freedom fighters has not been highlighted by the mainstream media, despite her telling it directly to a reporter for CBS News. Sheehan's comments were recorded on video by Veterans for Peace, a group pushing for Bush's impeachment.

She also made one of the most disrespectful comments I have heard, in my opinion as a vet:

Sheehan also referred to her son, Casey, not as a war hero, but rather a war victim:

"If I was thinking straight, which I wasn't, I never would have allowed a military funeral, and I wouldn't have buried him in his uniform," Sheehan said. "I just basically stayed sitting on my couch, crying and drinking for a week."

I lose more sympathy for this woman daily.

Noted in the article is a biting comment, but it is interesting at the same time:

"What's her problem then?" asked one messageboard poster on, "Her son was killed by a 'freedom fighter.' She should be proud."

Maybe that's pushing it, but it does raise an interesting point. The people she is subtly supporting killed her son, ambushed him as he was on a rescue mission.

Has that crossed her mind at all? And as she apparently supports their cause now, will her anti war protests embolden them, as some critics charge? Will her efforts to end the war actually cause more death?

Time will tell, and we can pray not.

A final note on a protest related story, courtesy of Drudge:
Wed Aug 2005 24 21:20:05 ET

Anti-war protestors besieged wounded and disabled soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C, a new web report will claim! is planning to run an expose on Thursday featuring interviews with both protestors and veterans, as well as shots of protest signs with slogans like "Maimed for a Lie."

The conservative outlet will post video evidence of the wounded veterans being taunted by protesters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Developing late...

This, if true would rank fairly high on my disgusto meter. If true, this is proof that these people have no decency at all, and comes very close to pushing me over the line from irritated to very angry.

The soldiers in that hospital, regardless of how you feel about what happened to them, deserve the chance to recover in peace. They can decide to protest or not later for themselves.

How would the anti war protestors feel if the pro war protestors went to Cindy's mom's hospital to protest Cindy's actions?