The people who she is teamed up with hate people who choose to go into the military.
It is kind of gross that she is doing this. Her son deserves a better eulogy.

Just a reminder to all those "Bush never attended a soldier's funeral" folks -

Democratic Presidents are 'O-for-World Wars' in that category .

I wonder if being a liberal is similar to being islamic. I mean according to the Koran, it's ok to lie to infidels under most circumstances, if supporting islam. So maybe it's ok to lie if your a liberal as long as your supporting liberalism or those ideas...

Larry,

Absolutely they think that way. I can think of about three examples off the op of my head:

1. That NARAL ad about to be run claiming nominee John Roberts wrote a brief supporting anti-abortion terrorist Eric Rudolph. Everything about the ad is either misleading, omits a lot of information, or is an outright lie. Doesn't bother NARAL at all, because it's in service to preserving Roe v Wade.

2. Howard Dean told an immense lie at a young Democrats rally claiming the Kelo case was an example of Bush's right-wing court screwing over the little guy in favor of the wealthy. It was so egregiously false even a Daily Kos diarist couldn't abide it. She was promptly denounced by other Kossacks who stood by Dean and said that while maybe Dean's comment was a lie, it illustrated a greater truth (that Bush and Republicans are evil, so it's perfectly ok to lie about them if it hurts them).

3. The Democrats lying and obstructing Bush's judicial nominations claiming that suddenly they required 60 votes for cloture. When Republicans complained this was an abuse and the propect of ending the abuse arose, the Democrats turned the truth completely on its head and said it was the REPUBLICANS who were tampering with 224 years of Senate tradition and the very existence of the country and more importantly Senate comity were being threatened by the out-of-control GOP. Months later in a NY Times magazine report on Democratic strategies in 2005 pointed out how the Democrats had inverted the truth and how the position they presented to the public was a falsehood. The Democrat pollster/consultant laughed and said that such matters was above the public's paygrade.

It's also an example of the anecdotalism that has thoroughly infected politics. It's not enough to argue that, say, we need to beef up HIV screening for pregnant women because X% of newborns are testing positive. No, we've got to trot out little Timmy Schloegal, born under a sentence of death, so we can all look into his eyes and tell him what we're going to do about it. I'm all for the individual over the group, but does anyone really think we should alter foreign policy based on somebody's heartbroken mom?

What I find special is the NY Times blathering on about her and never telling the reader that she changed her story 180 degrees. So th NY Times wants to pass on the lie. What does that make the NY Times -- Dan Rather's new gig?

It reminds me of Nick Berg's father. I am disgusted that parents will use their children's death to further their political causes.
this quote is from Nick Berg's father.

People ask me why I focus on putting the blame for my son's tragic and atrocious end on the Bush administration. They ask: "Don't you blame the five men who killed him?" I have answered that I blame them no more or less than the Bush administration, but I am wrong: I am sure, knowing my son, that somewhere during their association with him these men became aware of what an extraordinary man my son was. I take comfort that when they did the awful thing they did, they weren't quite as in to it as they might have been. I am sure that they came to admire him.

I've never seen that quote from Berg's father before. That's just plain sickening.

I hope Cindy has an umbrella. It's rainin like hell here today.

On the plus side, it isn't 98 degrees. Weather warning though to the Crawford Camp-Out Club, when the clouds go away, it's going to be hot and humid as hell.

It figures that the Shrub would use his weather-altering technology to chase the poor woman away from her noble vigil. He's sinister in ways rational minds can't even comprehend!

Sobek - it wasn't Bush's weather-altering technology - he's too stupid, remember? ROVE is the brain. shesh. It's a Rovian plot.

Odd you don't see the media trotting out the parents of the Rangers killed in Somalia to express their feelings on the President then.

The NYT zooms in with laser like focus on this, yet remains stone silent on the mushrooming Scare America scandal.

NYT Editors: "Hmmm, bash Bush, or expose rip-off of kids and elderly? That's a no brainer!"

Iblis-
It's because a) most military families respect (if not fully support) the choices and sacrifices their loved ones are making and b) the media will only focus on those families who have a sad story that sheds a negative light on this administration/war/country.

Personally, I think Nick Berg went to Iraq either to get away from his dad and/or to piss him off.

Before the Iraq war there was this human shield who wanted to see her daughter who had enlisted and was stationed in Iraq. When she found her, the daughter refused to see her mother and also put on the record she had not seen her mother for several years. Gee, I wonder why?

Opposite Chris Walken in that Zombie movie?

Cindy Sheehan is a bitter, troubled woman who is either oblivious to or untroubled by the fact that her loss and grief are being exploited by these sick anti-war ghouls. Ghouls who really don't give a good goddam about dead soldiers except as a crass political bludgeon. And of course, our vulture media is there in all it's one-sided majesty to turn this awful spectacle of cruel disingenousness into a full on carny show. No honest, sane person would truly believe President Bush would act so casually (as he did in Sheehan's new story ) towards the families of slain soldiers, especially after seeing how he interacts with the troops the last few years. I hope lightning strikes some of these motherfuckers.

Yes, and that meeting was in June, 2004 - in the middle of a re-election campaign. Is it even remotely credible that Bush would be yukking it up in front of bereaved families, when the war was the big controversy of the election? I mean, come on! Even a shallow, insincere goofball like Kerry would know better than to do that.

Oh, sure.

I quote Ace on my blog and instantly get this comment:

"Hypocrisy flavored kool-aid. mmmmmmm, Does the body good.

"Ace said it well on his site. "She has a right to have strongly-felt opinions. She doesn't have the right to lie. Even if she lost her son in Iraq-- she does not have the right to lie."

Fine, we understand Ace. No matter what her tragedy, loss of live, sacrifice by her, her family and her son - "she" does not have the right to lie.............but bush, cheney, rummy, condi, pearl et all. Well, they can lie us into a war all they want can't they 'Ace'. They are patriotic lies after all?

"She has a right to have strongly-felt opinions" oh, are conservative chicken hawks now giving that right back to liberals. Is she 'with us' or 'against us" Ace?

put the koo-aide down boys and get to a recruitment center.....ya, I know, busy with the blog.

B

Seriously, is there some sort of rule that all conservative bloggers are chickenhawks until proven otherwise? I'm really frickin' sick of the left trying to squash dissent by demanding their critics be only people who have been in combat.

This guy is obviously a product of the DU/Kos/Atrios fever swamps, though. It's like a game of 'count the liberal talking points.'