It had to be an inside job, dontcha know:
I think a new investigation is something that many many people agree with, if people don’t start saying, ‘It’s an inside job.’ Because that turns a lot of people off, even though I think it [9-11] was an inside job, I just don’t know how far inside it went. But as soon as you say it’s an inside job, people start saying, oh, you’re accusing Dick Cheney of planning the whole thing, blah blah blah. Well, of course, some people are (laughs) but then people say, we don’t know, we need to find out. Was it CIA? Was it whoever? Whoever, um, it had to be an inside job. There’s like no way they could have done that, just like the one on December 25th. There’s no way that guy could have done it without some kind of help, and we know he got help. Who was (crosstalk) that nice-dressed man that got him through that these people witnessed, got him through security?
I doubt this comes as any particular shock to anyone who actually followed her rantings and ravings in the past. As I noted in an op-ed for the L.A. Times written back in August 2005:
Sheehan’s changing accounts of her meeting with Bush are relevant to understanding the president’s decision not to meet with her again. So are her descriptions of the president in a Dallas speech reported by leftist newsletter Counterpunch as a “lying bastard,” a “maniac” and the leader of a “destructive neocon cabal.” In an article for CommonDreams.org, she called that supposed cabal the “biggest terrorist outfit in the world.”
It’s a small step from calling the President’s “neocon cabal” the “biggest terrorist outfit in the world” . . . to calling 9/11 an inside job.
Still. It’s worth noting.
Don’t expect an apology from any of the media nitwits who puffed this woman up during Bush’s presidency. They accomplished their goal: getting a Democrat elected in 2008. If their heroine Cindy Sheehan turns out to have been a lunatic, well, that’s life.