Patterico's Pontifications

8/14/2005

Cindy Sheehan Calls Bush “Lying Bastard” and “Maniac”

Filed under: Current Events,Sheehan,War — Patterico @ 4:24 pm



Counterpunch, no right-wing publication, is reporting that Cindy Sheehan is calling George Bush a “lying bastard” and a “maniac.” She also says:

And the other thing I want him to tell me is “just what was the noble cause Casey died for?” Was it freedom and democracy? Bullshit! He died for oil.

She is also using her son’s death as a justification to refuse to pay her taxes for 2004:

Sheehan said defiantly, “My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. 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.”

Small wonder Bush is not eager to meet with her again — in public or in private.

31 Responses to “Cindy Sheehan Calls Bush “Lying Bastard” and “Maniac””

  1. I don’t think anyone is ever eager to meet a maniac. But then again, the President has already met her and there is no need for him to do so again. Except, of course, to satisfy the agendas of the packs of radcals and journalists who see something to gain from her rage and dementia.

    It’s a shame that her grief has been co-opted. Her words reflect just about every crackpot anti-Bush slogan of the last few years.

    Should it be a major news story? No. Would it be a major story if August were not a traditionally slow news month? Probably so. A manufactured story, but there is always room for a story that fits agendas.

    Dave (7356b1)

  2. “A manufactured story”

    whats manufactured, and what is this idea that since he met her once there is no need to speak again?

    actus (a5f574)

  3. Actus, is there really anything to gain by meeting again? It would seem her mind is made up. Bush will certainly not convince her that the death of her son was in a noble cause, nor will he convince her that this is not “about oil” or “making his friends rich”.

    There will be no civil discourse, as she has already made explicitly clear in several statements and speeches. There will be no “speaking” with her, no dialogue, no discussion, no help with her grief. That’s clearly not where her interests lie at this point.

    So, again, what is to be gained by a second meeting?

    Dave has it right.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  4. Given that “Mother Sheehan” has come out with these whoppers:

    You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don’t tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.

    Cuz, we’re not freer. You’re taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren’t freer, they’re much worse off than before you meddled in their country.

    You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine

    Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.

    It was the unstated threat. Iraq wasn’t going to attack America or nuke America. But Iraq was a threat — to Israel. That was the real threat and had been for fifteen years. But for the US government this was the threat that couldn’t speak its name. Europe doesn’t care much about that threat. And the US government didn’t think they should lean too much on it, because going to war to protect Israel wouldn’t be popular.

    We’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that
    the Secret Service killed us.

    Sheehan is a loon. No reason to meet with her, AGAIN.

    Besides, ol’ David Duke has endorsed her campaign. Check out his website where he’s backing Cindy to the hilt.
    M

    Memo to the Left: Crawford Peace House (anti-Semitic nut jobs), Code Pink, ANSWER, Communist Party USA, etc. are loonies and the folks behind “Mother Sheehan.” Finding David Duke (America’s least favorite Nazi) backing your stuff is a sign to moveon.org.

    Jim Rockford (e09923)

  5. “So, again, what is to be gained by a second meeting?”

    By bush? probably nothing.

    actus (a5f574)

  6. What would SHE gain? How many meetings you figure she should get?

    He met with her and her husband once already. Would two be enough? Three? Twenty? Should he give her an office at the White House?

    This is a simple, tawdry political stunt. Bush met with her – a decent gesture to someone that lost a loved one to a US military action. That’s 100% more meetings with a President of the United States than any of the rest of us are ever likely to have.

    He did the decent thing. She spit in his face. OK, fine – all’s fair in politics in this country nowadays. She’s a grieving parent and that’s an ugly feeling.

    I see no reason why – any – sitting President should cater to this sort of political carnival. He did the right thing.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  7. “Come after me (for back taxes) and we’ll put this war on trial.”

    Right. Like her new buddies in the lunatic left haven’t been trying to do that for the last three-odd years. 9_9

    AWG (5b134d)

  8. Be interesting to see if this stops with Cindy or if Mother Superior Sheehan’s act of courage will spur the formation of “Deadbeats for Justice”…

    Scott (57c0cc)

  9. “What would SHE gain? How many meetings you figure she should get? ”

    I think people will stop paying attention to her if he meets her nicely again.

    actus (a5f574)

  10. “I think people will stop paying attention to her if he meets her nicely again.”

    The only problem with Bush inviting Sister Sheehan Full o’ Grace back, is that it would make every other attention starved lunatic feel snubbed, and before you know it he’d have to include everyone from Dear Leader Kim Jong Il to Khatami to OBL to Michael Jackson to John Kerry to come and cry on Bush’s shoulder about whatever ails them – and then Cindy would feel she wasn’t getting Bush’s full attention, and so she’d have to withhold taxes for 2005, and we don’t want THAT…

    Scott (57c0cc)

  11. “The only problem with Bush inviting Sister Sheehan Full o’ Grace back, is that it would make every other attention starved lunatic feel snubbed”

    I thought the claim was that mothers like sheehan were in the minority. If there are lots of them, then too bad for bush.

    actus (a5f574)

  12. “I thought the claim was that mothers like sheehan were in the minority. If there are lots of them, then too bad for bush.”

    I actually can picture Kim Jong Il and Michael Jackson trying steal Cindy’s stage dressed as “mothers” – and the MSM playing along. Thanks for the laugh.

    Scott (57c0cc)

  13. “What would SHE gain? How many meetings you figure she should get?

    I think people will stop paying attention to her if he meets her nicely again.”

    That’s what you submit she would gain? That people would stop paying attention to her?

    Well, assuming that’s what you really mean, that would definately be to her benefit, since she pretty clearly needs to be left alone to face her problems on their own terms.

    But if you are honestly asserting that people would “stop paying attention to her” if Bush met with her – again – I think you are (putting it as nicely as possible) absolutely wrong.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  14. It usually takes liberals less than 15 minutes into an argument before they start the name calling. You got to hand it to her, it took her days. You go girl.

    bill (26027c)

  15. So, Cindy, was it for oil, or was it for the Joooooos?

    IMO the phrase “anti-Semitic nutjob” should be appended to any mention of her name.

    Good for President Bush to refuse to meet with her.

    Nick

    NickM (ee3eb6)

  16. “So, again, what is to be gained by a second meeting?”

    By bush? probably nothing.

    No, Actus, first by her – she’s made up her mind – then by the rest of us who will not be instructed by her over-the-top rhetoric. There’s simply nothing but political theatre in this.

    As I said, …there will be no civil discourse, … There will be no “speaking” with her, no dialogue, no discussion, no help with her grief. That’s clearly not where her interests lie at this point.” The focus of my statement was clearly not Bush.

    Harry Arthur (ff55a5)

  17. What is to be gained by a second meeting? For Mrs Sheehan and those who support her, it is credibility for her and for their position.

    For the president? Not a damned thing.

    Mrs Sheehan asked, rhetorically I’m sure she thought, “Am I stupid?” (See comment #4)

    Well, yes, actually.

    Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b)

  18. Those darned Jews again. If they were running everything, Cindy, would they have allowed the mass exodus from Gaza? If they can have anything they want from the U.S., why doesn’t Sharon just order U.S. airstrikes on Damascus, Tehran, Cairo, etc.?

    bureaucrat (825e78)

  19. Is this the way you want your hero son to be remembered, by a ranting raving out of control lunatic?
    Bush is correct in not talking with her again. We all grieve. Grieve for your son do not spoil his name and honor

    Karl (2157ad)

  20. Karl is correct, I think Bush is doing the right thing by not talking with her.

    betting (7605c7)

  21. Karl is it, I don’t think bush really cares what any of you ignorant bastards has to say, conservative or other wise. I don’t see how talking to him at all does anybody any good.It’s not like he is a public servant or anything. It’s not like he has to worry about what the voters think anyway. Don’t worry though, when you all are starving in the streets because bush squandard away all of “your” money I’ll be sure to kick your asses to the curb with the rest of the trash so that the tires on bush’s multibillion dollar limo won’t get filth on them as he drives right on by you.

    john (156da3)

  22. When do I get to meet with Bush?

    sharon (03e82c)

  23. Bush is an absolute bastard. Sheehan is absolutely in the right.

    Cristy (f74082)

  24. Hi Cindy … uh, I mean Cristy.

    DRJ (51a774)

  25. Sheehan is a raving attention seeker. She’s not the only one to have lost someone. And what about the families of these soldiers that are deployed every other year to Iraq. We’ve all made sacrifices and are continuing to do so. She is a dishonor to her son’s memory and the proud service he gave his country. No Bush has no responsibility to meet with her again. I don’t agree with the war either…but I fully support the fine men and women who took that oath to serve this nation and are honoring said oath

    Veteran, USAF
    PROUD Army Wife

    Laura Roberts (f4b3ee)

  26. Cristy, go cook your husband, boyfriend or girlfriend a meal and shut up.

    Lawrence (c5e289)

  27. BUSH IS A FUCKING BASTARD
    ALL THE MILLIONS HAVE DIED FOR OIL
    NOTHING MORE
    HE IS AN IGNORANT FREEDOME HATING FACIST AND TERROEIST FUNDAMENTALIST
    AND ALL AMERICANS LOVE HIM!

    jessie (962e4a)

  28. The real shame is the fact so many people have died because of a lying Buffoon and even more sad that the people were foolish enough to elect the worst presidentin the history of the country. Bush has violated the constitution repeatedly and the Congress lacks the guts to impeach him.

    Daniel Silverton (4a15c3)

  29. Someone else with zero knowledge of history and zero knowledge of the constitution. Good example of a Cindy Sheehan fan.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. No Daniel, the shame is that people like you and Jessie spend your time Googling phrases such as “Bush lying bastard” then come upon these posts that are more than two years old and subject us to your juvenile opinions. I guess at least you know how to unlock the caps, unlike your comerade Jessie. Must be a slow day even in Loserville.

    JVW (13af87)

  31. Sadly, ad hominem attacks seem to rule the roost here on both sides.

    Granted that Cindy Sheehan is more of a media phenomenon than anything else, but I have yet to see a convincing rationale for the war in Iraq. Even if you think she is disrespectful, can anyone explain to me why the war in Iraq was ever justified? “Bringing freedom to the Iraqi people” doesn’t feel right. It certainly wasn’t the initial justification (WMDs anyone?).

    If it really is “freedom and democracy” which justifies the war in Iraq, there is a question which needs to be answered: what if some other country decided that Americans weren’t free and decided to bring freedom and democracy by invading the continental US to overthrow the sovereign government? I realise how ludicrous this is in practical terms – not even China is ready for that (yet 😉 Still, if anyone can justify the war in Iraq, please do so. We could all benefit from an improved understanding of the situation.

    Observer (1858c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3031 secs.