Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Sheehan tells Hadley 'get that maniac out here !'

“That lying bastard, George Bush, is taking a five-week vacation in time of war,” Cindy Sheehan told 200 cheering members of Veterans For Peace at their annual convention in Dallas last Friday evening. She then announced she would go to Bush’s vacation home in nearby Crawford, Texas and camp out until he “tells me why my son died in Iraq. I’ve got the whole month of August off, and so does he.”

Sheehan left the VFP meeting on Saturday morning and is now in Crawford with a couple dozen veterans and local peace activists, waiting for Bush to talk with her. She said in Dallas that if he sends anyone else to see her, as happened when national security adviser Steve Hadley and deputy White House chief of staff Joe Hagin did later that day, she would demand that “You get that maniac out here to talk with me in person.”

She told the audience of veterans from World War Two to today’s war in Iraq, that the two main things she plans to tell the man she holds responsible for son Casey’s death are “Quit saying that U.S. troops died for a noble cause in Iraq, unless you say, ‘well, except for Casey Sheehan.’ Don’t you dare spill any more blood in Casey’s name. You do not have permission to use my son’s name.”

“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. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We’re not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism,” she exclaimed.

“There, I used the ‘I’ word – imperialism,” the 48 year-old mother quipped. “And now I’m going to use another ‘I’ word – impeachment – because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail.”

8 Comments:

Blogger G_in_AL said...

This chick has every right to dissent, she has every right to disagree with policies, but after her account of the President's visit with her in 2004, and her new version, I cant take her creditably.

To me, this isnt a grieving mother, its political activism riding on the coat-tails of grieving parent sentiment.

Disagree? Why does the media not show parents that agree with current plolicy? Why does the media not ask Cindy why her recolection of events has changed so drastically.

While emotions can chagne, events cannot. Bush cannot give her the present of happiness and closure in 2004, but in 2005 he now acted like it was a party and didnt care...

This is crap, and shame on the Media for hyping it.

August 11, 2005 4:15 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

i can not speak for her motive G , and i have Motive of my own

i genuinly believe we were wrong to invade a soveriegn nation without legal authority and believe that (without making things worse) we need to get out as quick as possible

finish the israel/palastinian issue

allow them to control there own resources

remove ALL US and British troops from the Middle east completely

some people dont listen to evidence but they do listen to emotion , and a mother who lost her son brings emotion

i admit i am biased here G , but i support her

August 11, 2005 6:24 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

I really dont doubt her motives, or feel I have any right to question her protest. I question how the reaccount of events went from day to night so quickly.

And if we go Xenophobic and pull all the troops home, the Chinese will move in quickly. Half those countries in the Middle East love that we are there. UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait are three great examples. They think having Americans there is absolutely fantastic. But that doesnt get much press coverage.

The middle east is THE epicenter of the most strategicly vital asset of the world. To pull our troops completly out would be to invite ANY of our other enemies direct access to a quick strangle hold on our nations.

Israel and Palestine... almost 30 years now, and still no plan has worked... Not really thinking WE can ever change that one.

August 11, 2005 7:17 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

it is there asset G , it belongs to them . not to the west ..

it is not ours to protect


you really think the chinese would "invade" or sumit

now way jose


you have nukes / china has nukes .. you wont go agaisnt then and they wont go agaisnt you

but this concept that america has some devine right to the oil etc in the middle east is straight from the handbook of imperelism .


it is not yours G .. if they decide tomorrow that the US should not have that oil then that is there right ..

August 11, 2005 7:23 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

Its not a devine right, its a necessity. If right now every oil producing nation cut their distribution to the UK, would you expect your governemnt to so "well, ok, it is yours to start with"?

Nope. We are not talking about a neat toy or a cool exhibit at a show. This is the life blood of the world. The only thing stopping us, or any other major power from invading, and TAKING the oil is our enlightened sense of sovernty (spelling).

World Wars were fought over less than this stuff.

August 11, 2005 10:17 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

it is not G , we have north sea oil and if someone came in and took that then we would nuke them

erm maybe this is why you dont want the middle east with nukes


it belongs to them . it is in there country

you have NO right to it at all , unless they decide to sell it to you

do the africans have a right to your electricity ?

do the brits have a right to your corn grown in your field

life sucks sometimes G but they OIL is theres .. we have not a single right to it at all

and if we have decided to build a society dependant on oil that we dont have then who exactly do you think has been stupid

it isnt them

August 11, 2005 10:28 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

What else would have been done with Oil if we didnt use it? The middle east was built on the shoulders of OUR innovation. They depend on us as much as we depend on them. The only reason their deserts are worth anything is because the "West" inveted machines that could use the black crap comming out of the ground over there.

And while in the world of sensabilities, you are right, the world of realities, wars are fought over things like this. One nation needs something, and another has it. Either they can trade, or they go to war. They will continue to trade, because they could never use it all. But if for some reason, they cut off any one country in the world... there would be a war. Vital assets have always been the root causes of war. Tribes would fight over hunting territory. Cities would fight over fishing rights. Nations will fight over oil.

To claim us as stupid for making an oil dependant society is like saying it was stupid to invent the use of electricty. It just doesnt play out. I know you are not a Quaker, so you use an internal combustion engine every single day. Now imagine life without it. Imagine life without electricity. That is what life without oil would be.

I am glad they have oil. And it is theirs, thats why they are rich beyond measure. But if they EVERY try to deny it to someone, a war will ensue.

August 12, 2005 4:18 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

hehhehehe ..

finally after all this back and forth we are getting somewhere i think G


you see .. this is what drives american foriegn policy .. it is fear

you dont want anyone else to have nukes etc incase you need to enforce your will

the american economy is dependant on oil .. foriegn oil

it is running out G .. there cant be that many more fossilised things to dig up ...

george orwell said :

In our time, politics are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the
Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of
euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.

hmmm .. you can justify your right to oil G .. but the only justification you actually have is having a bigger gun then them

... your describing imperialism my friend .. hehehe

better hope those scientists come up with an alternative to oil soon eh !

August 12, 2005 7:05 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home