Her son, while tragically killed in Iraq, was doing what he believed to be his duty. She is a lonely housewife caught up in her little world of "Pity Me". I do not believe her son, a real american hero, would approve or agree with some of the crap she has been pulling in his name. Put her back in the kitchen and give her a broom and tell her to shut her rambling mouth.
2007-01-09 03:33:47 · 16 answers · asked by bigbro3006 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
First of all, Ill respond to Hawkeye......He is a hero because he went to war to defend democracy and assist a needy people, and was killed doing it. That make him a HERO.....Something Hawkeye will never be.
As for shutting up Miss Pitypot....I dont think we can do that, unless the Liberal Media ignores her.....
And for Michelle.Sheehan is harming the Morale of every service member, the same way, the cowardly protesters did during the VietNam War.......
2007-01-09 03:48:41 · answer #1 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I don't think she is asking for pity, but I do think she has been used by the antiwar crowd. Truthfully, I don't think she is all that bright, and never cared that much about her son to begin with.
I think she said the right thing to the right person and "POOF" she's a poster girl for the antiwar movement. They found out that she actually talked to Bush, so they got her to demand another "audience" with him, then made a deal out of his refusal. That started her whole career with the "peace" movement.
I doubt she could find the kitchen if she fell over it. This is the woman who went on a fast eating icecream because she didn't consider it a food.
I know I'm being mean, and I tried not to be that way, but she has gotten on my last nerve.
May her son rest in peace.
2007-01-09 03:54:29 · answer #2 · answered by Linea 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
He reenlisted while he was in Iraq, so she can't really say he didn't know what he was getting into. Her beginning argument was that President Bush didn't have time to meet with her for a second time (yes, he met with her once). Freedom of speech unfortunately lets her say what she wants, too, even if it means publicly smearing her son's name.
2007-01-09 06:10:08 · answer #3 · answered by DOOM 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
all you people talking about freedom of speech, it is also our freedom not to have to be subjected to her idiocy and to say it as loud as we want.
Cindy Sheehan (her ex-husband should sue to have her stop using her married name) drapes her self in the blood of her son, then has all the far left attack dogs go after anyone who criticizes her because she "lost her son". If she loved her son she would not drag his name in to her venomous little plots to harm the country he fought and died serving.
She deserve as much respect as she shows her son, ZERO!
If she was out protesting one of Clinton's "wars" (yes there were more than one and they were all failures) then the left would be calling her a loon, In fact i bet had her son died in one of those conflicts she wouldn't even bat an eye at his loss.
The worst part is she will never feel ashamed of her actions, and the loony far left will continue to tout her depraved, anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-Terrorist speech as being the Vital in stopping the war.
I hope she she lives the rest of her life as the lonely, bitter, pathetic crone she is.
Add on: John, No Clinton would not! Bush gave her a meeting. But she was only satisfied with that till her far left handler's told her not to be. Basically she wants all of Bush's time. he does not have time for ever nutter to vent and spew bile all over the place just for the satisfaction of saying they did it. The only way Clinton would giver her time is if she was a 20 something intern, shes not, and Clinton would have found an excuse to get out of it.
2007-01-09 04:22:01 · answer #4 · answered by Stone K 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
She gave up parental rights to her son when he was nine years old. He lived with his dad and had little contact with her. She didn't care one way or the other when he enlisted. Four years later, she had another son. Guess what... she gave up rights for that son , too, who also lives with his dad. Now, Cindy ... who clearly didn't want any part of motherhood... is carrying on like a banshee. Using her dead son to gain the media's spotlight is sick.
2007-01-09 03:54:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
The funny thing is that I'm sure her son joined the army because she couldn't pay for college.
2007-01-09 03:38:08 · answer #6 · answered by pinwheelbandit 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
When she began I had sympathy for her for the loss of her son. Now she is just a big mouth attention seeker who needs to stay home and bake a cookie!
2007-01-09 03:42:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
She never supported him when he was in the service. Suddenly she acts like she cared.
It is a shame that she has so little respect for her son to admit that he was doing something he believed in.
2007-01-09 03:43:14 · answer #8 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 7⤊ 4⤋
And I'm afraid she's going to get worse once the Senate starts calling her to testify in all the upcoming pre-election photo ops (hearings).
2007-01-09 03:43:59 · answer #9 · answered by The Father of All Neocons 4 · 4⤊ 4⤋
It's her right because of a little thing called "Constitution". It a free country (USA) and we all are free to do what and speak up for things we believe in...Move to China if you want to shut people up....Ti-amen Square was about shutting people up...would you prefer to live there?
2007-01-09 03:50:38 · answer #10 · answered by Lovely B 3 · 2⤊ 5⤋