Now This is an Obscenity

*** Warning ***

Unhinged rant ahead.

Look- Cindy Sheehan’s statements should stand on their own, and from my perusal, some of them are pretty damned outrageous. Likewise, it is my opinion that many of the ‘peace’ and ‘anti-war’ groups that are now aligned behind Cindy are pretty damned vile. Furthermore, it is clear to me that this President means what he says, that we are not leaving Iraq until he says so (no matter what the polls say), so the only reason Democrats are grabbing on to Cindy is for partisan gain and for retribution for real and perceived sins over the past few years. Fine. All well and good, I am not afraid of saying so and dealing with all of the bullshit and catcalls from the left.

But this kind of bile coming from Michelle Malkin is fucking out of line, and spare me the ‘like it or not, this is news’ crap. It is goddamned disgraceful. Knock it off, take down that post, and then apologize. Cindy Sheehan’s marital status, her relationship with her husband- none of that is your damned business. Even if you think it ‘proves’ a point. If it proves anything, it proves that losing a son in war fucks up families. Thanks for the deep insight.

No fucking shame. I don’t give a shit what even the nastiest folks on the left say about Malkin anymore. She brings this shit on herself, with vicious bullshit like this. No wonder she rushes to defend Karl Rove at every opportunity.

[/rant]

*** Update ***

Just out of curiosity, does anyone remember Malkin’s stance on the NYT doing a background check on Judge John Robert’s adoption records? I do.

Or, as Crooks and Liars notes, her reaction to John Kerry mentioning Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter?

If her husband comes forward, and makes a statement, that is his right. He was, after all, Casey’s father. But running through Cindy Sheehan’s marital records to call her a liar or score political points is wrong.

*** Update ***

Michelle comments:

Unhinged critics have gone ballistic over the fact that I linked to this news, which was first broken by another site called Dang If I Know over the weekend.

In response, this blogger spewed profanities left and right.

Hey- I warned you I go unhinged when I see people dumpster diving into people’s marriages. Particularly when it is folks on my side- you know, the ones who believe in the ‘sanctity of marriage.’ Particularly when they are self-styled social conservatives who pretend to have a passing concern for standards of public conduct and human decency.

And quit pretending you are just breaking the news of her divorce. You are breaking the news of her divorce as an active attempt to discredit her. Have some decency. Try, just once, to be better than Chris Lehane.

I also like the attempt to just pass this off as ‘Hey! I just linked to news someone else broke!’ A true profile in courage. Personally, what got my knickers in a twist, and still does, is this:

Assuming this report pans out, it will be interesting to see if Cindy Sheehan continues to insist that she and her husband “are on the same side of the fence” with respect to her anti-war activism.

Who f-ing cares? Sheehan’s marriage is irrelevant- married, single, gay, straight, she is still Casey’s mother, and no amount of discussions regarding what her husband believes, or why she is divorced, or any other personal details change that. Stick to her statements about the war, stick to her actions, and stick to the groups promoting her. But stay the hell out of her marriage, or her failing marriage. Or get a job with the National Enquirer.

Again, no shame.

*** Update ***

Now damnit, cursing, loud expression, even stupidity are allowed, but I will not tolerate racist garbage, Michelle’s name is Michelle Malkin, and Michelle being wrong about something doesn’t give you the right to act like a spokesman for Stormfront in the comments section.

*** Final Update ***

This is why we shouldn’t go rummaging through her martial life.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






223 replies
  1. 1
    Defense Guy says:

    I have to agree. It’s way overboard.

  2. 2
    Brad R. says:

    No fucking shame. I don’t give a shit what even the nastiest folks on the left say about Malkin anymore. She brings this shit on herself, with vicious bullshit like this. No wonder she rushes to defend Karl Rove at every opportunity.

    Yeah, as if writing In Defense of Internment wasn’t enough of a clue that she’s a nasty lying harpie.

  3. 3
    KC says:

    Gawd, who reads Malkin!? I’ve seen her on television a couple times. In every appearance, she just seemed like a loser looking for a way to get popular.

  4. 4
    TallDave says:

    I don’t know, the husband has made it clear Cindy’s protest led to this. How is it wrong to report it?

  5. 5
    TallDave says:

    I mean, if this were something totally unrelated to the protest, like her kid was caught smoking a joint or something, then I could see the outrage. But this is directly related to Cindy’s whole raison d’etre as an object of media attention.

  6. 6
    aaron says:

    I live in Erie,PA. Our local newspaper recently stopped printing Ann Coulter because she was too out there. Guess who they decided to replace her with….lol…..

  7. 7
    capelza says:

    I stay away from Malkin, actually I stay away from most of the pundit mouths on either side of the gultch, but going there was a very unpleasant experience to say the least.

    Just wow…she is a nasty piece of work.

    Tall Dave, just asking here, but where has Mr. Sheehan said this? Would like to see it.

    I think that honestly, if a few days of protests lead to a divorce than that marriage was already on the skids in the first place.

  8. 8
    db says:

    I also agree that this is too far.

    But just to think about how some justify this:
    -She made herself a public figure. Thus, she should expect that her life is going to be scrutinized (court interpretations would largely support this, too) – much like an elected official’s decision to run for office opens themselves up to scrutiny as to what their marital life is like (e.g., Bill Clinton).

    What can we talk about? What shouldn’t we? Marital strife would appear overboard. Infidelity?

    I hate drawing lines. Blogging on the internet has really forced to me to consider how much I value complete freedom. I don’t want to tell the little guy who is not being heard that he can’t say what he wants. But should bloggers who have more readership be held to different/higher standards because of their impact?

  9. 9
    Blue Neponset says:

    Pick a side db. In this instance do you believe it is OK for Michelle Malkin to mention Cindy Sheehan’s marital situation?

  10. 10

    […] Update (8/16/05 2:28am): John Cole has a few words for people poking around in Cindy Sheehan’s personal life. By the way, hello all you Balloon Juice readers! Fontana Labs at Unfogged unfavorably compares Cindy Sheehan’s campsite to Michael Moore’s guerilla tactics, but supports Sheehan’s protest nonetheless. Tags: Cindy Sheehan, George Bush, Crawford ranch protests, anti-war movement, Iraq War   […]

  11. 11
    Vladi G says:

    I’ll give you points for consistency. The only thing in the post I’d quibble with is this:

    Furthermore, it is clear to me that this President means what he says, that we are not leaving Iraq until he says so

    I would changed that to “…we are not leaving Iraq until someone (Cheney, most likely) tells him to say so.”

  12. 12
    TallDave says:

    Well, Cindy herself made this an issue in her own blog post on HuffPo:

    “I have not spoken to them since the elections when they supported the man who is responsible for Caseys death” Sheehan wrote of her in-laws. They later sent an email asking her to please stop exploiting Casey’s death. Is their displeasure with her actions out-of-bounds?

    It would be interesting if the rest of Casey’s family showed up in Crawford and protested in support of the war. They seem to have more class than that, though.

  13. 13
    jg says:

    They just keep attacking her. Anything to avoid addressing the real issue.

  14. 14
    Steve says:

    Right, the relatives emailed a statement to the news media, their local radio hosts, the Drudge Report, etc., but we thank them for their “class” in not disagreeing with Cindy publicly.

    It will be interesting to see how many, like TallDave, show their true colors here.

  15. 15
    Emma Zahn says:

    Thanks for the warning. I won’t read it.

    Sure some of the things Cindy Sheehan says are impolitic but she sounds remarkably sane and very straight-forward in her posts which you can find at Kos and at Huffington Post.

  16. 16
    Miller says:

    Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are 2 of Karl’s Angels. Each one vying to be the toughest, most mean-sprited mouthpiece for the worst elements of the extreme political right.

  17. 17
    MisterPundit says:

    I agree that Sheehan’s marital problems should be left to her and her family, but I can also see how her husband’s opinion is relevant since he obviously also lost a son, the same son being used by Sheehan to press her political point of view.

    But certainly, it would be better to find out what his opinion is by asking him, not by specualting about it as a result of their marital problems.

  18. 18
    capelza says:

    Thing is, what does Sheehan’s marital status have to do with whatever it is she is trying to accomplish at Crawford?

    Does it show that, IF this is why he is leaving her, that she is doing it without the support of her family, what point does that make? That a woman should just shut up and get back in the house if her husband doesn’t support her? “See! Even her husband thinks she’s a wack! HAHA, that proves it!”

    That a husband, who promised to love, honour and cherish, in sickness and health, decided that his wife was unhinged and so he was dumping her. Did the husband just find out his wife was a Democrat? DId he just realsie that losing her son was a life altering experience? Again, what does this have to do with the reason she at Crawford? Just askin’.

    Would Malkin and her ilk be so quick to post something like this if the tables were turned and someone on the right was in a similar situation was going through all this while camped out in front of a Clinton’s house. Or a Kennedy house? I realise that some on the left would probably do the same thing. It’s just more crap, like Joe Wilson going to Niger for fun and a luxury vacation, It has nothing to do with the main issue…

  19. 19
    jg says:

    Again, what does this have to do with the reason she at Crawford?

    Its something to talk about other than WHY she is at Crawford.

  20. 20
    TallDave says:

    Thing is, what does Sheehan’s marital status have to do with whatever it is she is trying to accomplish at Crawford?

    She’s there protesting because she’s Casey’s mother. When Casey’s father divorces her over the fact she’s there protesting, that seems very relevant.

  21. 21
    James Emerson says:

    ***yawn***

    It keeps the meter spinning I guess…

  22. 22
    capelza says:

    Tall Dave…I would like to read where you have found out that he is leaving her because of this. Did he put out a press release or an interview? Really, I am just asking.

  23. 23
    TallDave says:

    Or a Kennedy house?

    Like Ted’s maybe? Asking why he killed their daughter?

  24. 24
    db says:

    Blue Neophyte:

    Pick a side db. In this instance do you believe it is OK for Michelle Malkin to mention Cindy Sheehan’s marital situation?

    I said I think this is too far. That means NO to your question.

    Here’s my question – what is out of bounds and what is not? Also, I think folks like Malkin or Atrios or some of the diarists at kos or redstate get targetted for outlandish comments because their readership is so high. So do we apply a higher standard just to those high-profile individuals on the internet because we certainly can’t monitor every person that comes along and wants to blow hot air and ill-informed banter.

    I hope that by raising such questions you do not assume that I support Malkin’s actions. I oppose what she is doing; and oppose it strongly if you want me to be more clear about what side I am taking.

  25. 25
    TallDave says:

    You mean besides Cindy’s statement to that effect, and this:

    Sheehan Family Statement:

    The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

  26. 26
    capelza says:

    Or a Kennedy house?

    Like Ted’s maybe? Asking why he killed their daughter?

    Exactly, and would the Malkin’s of this world be so quick to publish something like this if Mr.Kopechne filed for divorce while Mrs. Kopechne was protesting outside of the Kennedy Compound? Wouldn’t she be all over the evil left for doing such a nasty thing?

    Also, I would still like a link or something for Mr. Sheehan’s statement that he was divorcing his wife over this. Thank you.

  27. 27
    Mr Furious says:

    John, In honor of your superior anger, I yield my screenname to you for the day.

  28. 28
    John Cole says:

    If Mr. Sheehan comes out and says something, he is well within his rights. but to run around and gleefully speculate about this shit, to publish divorce petitions, and the like, is to plumb the depths of human decency.

    Stop excusing it. You wanna know why I have been receiving hatemail for the last week because I said that we should be able to question Sheehan’s statements and positions? Because of assholes like Malkin pulling cheap stunts like this.

    Quit fucking excusing it.

  29. 29
    RSA says:

    From the prolog to the rant:

    Furthermore, it is clear to me that this President means what he says, that we are not leaving Iraq until he says so (no matter what the polls say), so the only reason Democrats are grabbing on to Cindy is for partisan gain and for retribution for real and perceived sins over the past few years.

    Here’s another possibility: Democrats think that Bush might be persuaded to change his mind. Reasonable people do, once in a while. They even admit the occasional mistake.

  30. 30
    James Emerson says:

    Sheehan Family Statement:

    Yeah, who actually signed the statement?

  31. 31
    Otto Man says:

    Tall Dave, that statement is signed “Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.” I don’t see “father” in that list.

    Furthermore, the most reputable place I’ve seen that statement is Drudge. No major media outlet has it, which I find odd, given how much they loved the family-vs.-family themes of the Schiavo showdown. Can you point me to a reputable source where that statement appears?

  32. 32
    Sav says:

    The NY Times reports on Sheehan’s family situation with with info given from Cindy Sheehan herself.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08.....wanted=all

    Time Magazine does the same.

    http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....60,00.html

    Apparently they’re all on the right-wing conspiracy list with Malkin.

    Well, if nothing else, this post should bring back some of the furious loonies.

  33. 33
    Rick says:

    John,

    I don’t think this is the way to go about getting that valuable blogroll from Ms. Malkin. Unless Karl Rove orders her to include you.

    Always thinking five moves ahead, that guy.

    Cordially…

  34. 34
    TallDave says:

    Mrs. Kopechne was protesting outside of the Kennedy Compound?

    Would the media cover it so gleefully? Unlikely. Would they seize on anything to discredit the Kopechnes? You betcha. Remember all the talk about Paula Jones being trailer trash?

    to plumb the depths of human decency.

    They were married for 28 years. He just divorced her Friday. She says they stopped speaking because they support Bush. The Sheehan family says it’s wrong for her to exploit Casey’s death. It’s really not stretching the bounds of common sense or decency to acknolwedge A may have something to do with B. This stopped being private when Cindy started holding press conferences talking about it.

    I agree it would be better if Patrick made his own public statement, but in a way he just did. This isn’t like digging around in John Roberts’ sealed adoption files.

  35. 35
    capelza says:

    As was said above, the family statement did not include any of the immediate family. And I did go read what she said via Malkin’s site. So they agree in principle about the death of their son, but he can not live with the protests.

    That’s his right, and it is tragic that it has caused a split in this family. Though I do have to point out that Mr. Sheehan has declined to comment so any conjecture on what he really feels is just that…

  36. 36
    Rick says:

    John,

    P.S. Bile? I saw Ms. Malkin’s post when it first appeared, and remembered no bitter triumphalism. Clicked your link, and her update has no either. Just the regrettable facts; more so than John Roberts’ gay adopted kids.

    Cordially…

  37. 37
    Steve says:

    The statement, I think, has been confirmed. So is the fact that it originates with a bunch of in-laws.

    It’s all beside the point, of course. We all know that not everyone agrees with Cindy Sheehan. 39% or whatever percentage of Americans still support the war. And I’m sure there are plenty of parents of slain soldiers out there who support the President and the war 100%.

    And you know what? If one of those parents came forward and said, “My son died for a noble cause, and I support the war to honor his memory,” and so on and so forth, you know what? I doubt it would alter my opposition to the war, but I would listen respectfully to what they had to say, and that’s that. It would never occur to me to get into a shouting match with anyone who actually served in Iraq, or who lost a family member in Iraq, regardless of their opinion. Let the rest of us who haven’t been personally affected do the bickering amongst ourselves.

    I’d like to think it’s still possible to disagree with someone’s opinion without doing oppo research and smearing them as a person.

  38. 38
    mac Buckets says:

    “I have not spoken to them since the elections when they supported the man who is responsible for Caseys death” Sheehan wrote of her in-laws.”

    So Cindy stopped talking to her family because they voted for Bush in an election? I feel so sorry for her. There’s no clearer sign that she has come off the rails.

    She put partisan politics above her family? It’s only politics, and none of it will bring Casey back.

    That being said, divorcing your wife because she is, well, mentally not-right is weak. Father Sheehan should’ve stuck it out until his wife gets help.

  39. 39
    capelza says:

    TallDave..I have to say, Paula Jones IS trailer trash. You missed the big Celebrity Boxing Special on Fox three years ago? Paula Jones stepped in for Amy Fisher in a match against Tanya Harding. This from the woman who once said she took the whole Clinton “affair” public to get her reputation back? Read that last sentence carefully, and you’ll see the irony.

  40. 40
    Ben says:

    Well, well, well… so much for the jesus freaks like Malkin being the party of god or the party of morals. The republicans (of which I am one) are turning out to be the same lying sacks of shit that the Dems are… at least the Dems don’t pretend to be anything other than what they are. Michelle, WWJD? Why doesn’t Michelle ask Mr. Sheehan what he meant by his marriage vows… until death do us part? That isn’t really what any of the jf’s mean, just more of their propaganda. That is the last straw for me and the party of hypocrites.

  41. 41
    James Emerson says:

    From Arianna

    Where do I start with this piece of manufactured offal? How about the fact that no one put their names on the statement, which was “signed” by “Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins”. Don’t these folks have names? The only name attached to the “Sheehan Family” statement (delivered to Drudge via email with permission “to distribute as you wish”) belongs to Cherie Quartarolo who describes herself as Casey’s aunt and godmother. So did I miss something? Since when does godmother outrank mother? What I really want to know is: how does Casey’s second-cousin-twice-removed feel about Cindy’s vigil? How about his ex-brother-in-law’s cleaning lady?

    From Cindy

    Still putting out the O’Reilly fires of me being a traitor and using Casey’s name dishonorably, my in-laws sent out a press statement disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey. We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the election when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey’s death. The thing that matters to me is that our family — Casey’s dad and my other 3 kids are on the same side of the fence that I am.

    Seem fairly certain that the letter was politically movitivated AND untrue, but then it DID come from Drudge…

  42. 42
    John Cole says:

    Rick:

    You find nothing wrong with posting copies of someone’s legal proceedings regarding her martial status and then writing:

    Assuming this report pans out, it will be interesting to see if Cindy Sheehan continues to insist that she and her husband “are on the same side of the fence” with respect to her anti-war activism.

    All it is trying to do is use her marriage, or failing marriage, as a smear to refute her other claims. “Cindy is so nuts even her husband can’t take it! HAHAHAHAHA.’ is what she is saying.

    Cindy Sheehan’s statements should stand or fall on their own, and not with this sort of crap.

    It is contemptible.

  43. 43
    neil says:

    Thank you, John, for pointing out what should have been obvious. And, indeed, what is so difficult about the Cindy Sheehan case — Malkin and her ilk, who dominate the political discourse in a certain field, have no response to their critics except for smear, smear, smear. No surprise that the left has latched onto a critic whose main distinction is her unsmearability.

  44. 44
    neil says:

    ‘A certain field,’ I should have mentioned, is the field of cable TV punditry. Malkin subs for Hannity. This sort of poison goes all the way to the heart of prime-time.

  45. 45
    Steve says:

    I should point out that Cindy freely acknowledged to the media that she and her husband had been separated for a few months. But digging through the divorce files, engaging in wild speculation about motives, publishing that she has a Prudential insurancy policy or whatever, that’s just tawdry.

  46. 46
    jg says:

    She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation.

    It APPEARS that way? Well then we should just run with that as though it was FACT.

  47. 47
    Defense Guy says:

    Well then we should just run with that as though it was FACT.

    Honestly, when have facts been any part of this circus. Nope, speculation and lie are the rule of the day here.

  48. 48
    MisterPundit says:

    Because of assholes like Malkin pulling cheap stunts like this.

    Quit fucking excusing it.

    Yikes! Well, that’s it for me. I agree that the Sheehan’s marital problems should remain a private affair. I also think that point can be made without the vitriol. Cheers folks.

  49. 49
    neil says:

    Also… I’m glad you recognize the root causes of nasty email. Very perceptive of you, not to excuse the stupid people who send the messages.

  50. 50
    James Emerson says:

    On the other hand:

    After the meeting in Crawford, participants said health care costs had been a major topic of discussion, though they wouldn’t say what, if any, policies the president might pursue. Instead, they crowed about the administration’s postvacation plans: to redouble efforts to privatize Social Security….

    It’s good to know that our President has his priorities in order…once he gets back from vacation.

  51. 51
    Mike S says:

    Malkin posts bilous screeds on an hourly basis yet is deeply offended when someone responds with bile toward her. There’s no excuse for the E-mail that was sent to her but her glee at having the sender fired shows exactly what kind of woman she is.

  52. 52
    Rick says:

    All it is trying to do is use her marriage, or failing marriage, as a smear to refute her other claims. “Cindy is so nuts even her husband can’t take it! HAHAHAHAHA.’ is what she is saying.

    Cindy Sheehan’s statements should stand or fall on their own, and not with this sort of crap.

    It is contemptible.

    John,

    Again with the question mark thingy (as in “bile?”), but *smear?* These are just the facts of this particular family tragedy. I thing where you run off the rails (to plenty of applause from the Kosbots here), is in putting words in her mouth, when all she did is repeat someone else’s pointing out some Sheehan dots.

    Connect them as you wish.

    Malkin is quite mild and mannered, not contemptible. She has all the right enemies, which is telling.

    Cordially…

  53. 53
    Gerry says:

    It’s interesting that you brought up the Cheney/Kerry thing. I believe that Cheney’s reaction to Kerry should be an example of how reaction to Sheehan should be.

    That said, there is part of the divorce story that I think is relevant. It came in the New York Times artilce on the story:

    The toll of her son’s death has carried over into Ms. Sheehan’s marriage: She said she and her husband separated a few months ago as a result of the war, and of her activism. Although she and her estranged husband are both Democrats, she said she is more liberal than he is, and now, more radicalized.

    Now, why the Times was asking her about her divorce is one thing, and on how we got to this point, I probably agree with you. However, I do think it is relevant that she attributes her separation and divorce to her self-described radicalization.

    I guess that’s my way of saying that I agree with you in principle, and I felt the same initial reaction as you. However, having read a bit more about it, I think that it probably is not as bad as it appeared at first blush. It speaks to how ‘out there’ she has become.

  54. 54
    Mike S says:

    Malkin is quite mild and mannered, not contemptible. She has all the right enemies, which is telling.

    It’s telling who defends her as well.

  55. 55
    capelza says:

    Was it neccessary to post an image of the actual court document if it is “only news”? Why not simply note the divorce filings.

  56. 56
    Defense Guy says:

    Malkin is quite mild and mannered, not contemptible. She has all the right enemies, which is telling.

    I like Malkin. I just happen to think tertiary issues, like ones family, should be out of bounds. My opinion, others may disagree.

  57. 57
    mac Buckets says:

    I guess that’s my way of saying that I agree with you in principle, and I felt the same initial reaction as you. However, having read a bit more about it, I think that it probably is not as bad as it appeared at first blush. It speaks to how ‘out there’ she has become

    She refers to her not speaking to her fellow grieving family members because they voted for Bush as “radicalization.” I think we can all agree that when partisan politics become more important than your family, the situation has gone beyond “radicalization,” and has escaped into mental disorder. I can’t imagine what losing one of my kids, even adult kids, would do to me, so I won’t cast Stone One at her — she’s dealing with something horrendous, and it’s got her twisted. I hope she finds out soon that hate isn’t the answer.

    If anyone is attempting to “frame” (read, “use”) her tragedy on either the left or the right for partisan gain, they should go directly to hell.

  58. 58
    Gerry says:

    mac Buckets–

    I agree with everything you wrote. It is along the lines of the sentiment I was trying to put my finger on, and you hit it squarely.

  59. 59
    docG says:

    Gerry,
    Adding the next two sentences after your NYT quote is more telling.

    The toll of her son’s death has carried over into Ms. Sheehan’s marriage: She said she and her husband separated a few months ago as a result of the war, and of her activism. Although she and her estranged husband are both Democrats, she said she is more liberal than he is, and now, more radicalized.

    “He agrees with the philosophy of what I’m doing,” Ms. Sheehan said, “but not the intensity. He wanted me to pull back, but I couldn’t. We grieved in two completely different ways.”

    The death of a child increases divorce rates. “We grieved in two completely different ways” is the issue and surely helps understand Ms. Sheehan’s behavior and change of attitude regarding President Bush. I don’t think her response to the death of her son is particularly different or less useful than a rich person setting up the umpteenth similar, competing foundation for a particular childhood disease to which they lost their child. Everyone grieves in their own way and should be respected, if not agreed with.

  60. 60
    Gerry says:

    “I don’t think her response to the death of her son is particularly different or less useful than a rich person setting up the umpteenth similar, competing foundation for a particular childhood disease to which they lost their child.”

    On this, I disagree. While it is undeniably true that everyone grieves in their own way, not every way is equally useful, and I completely disagree with the idea that every way should be respected. Some are constructive, some are destructive. I think that setting up philanthropic organizations is constructive. I think that blaming your country for terrorism is not. YMMV.

  61. 61
    Cyrus says:

    You wanna know why I have been receiving hatemail for the last week because I said that we should be able to question Sheehan’s statements and positions?

    I still haven’t seen any of this discussion of Sheehan’s statements and positions. I’d love to, because the immediate pullout she wants is a very risky idea (well, I’m less certain of that now that I’ve read some thoughts on it, but still), but it’s still all about her marriage and flip-flops. Dammit, why isn’t the natural opposition, the guys who already have the soapboxes and the loudspeakers, explaining why Sheehan’s ideas are wrong? Why do they waste all their time saying things that literally might be illegal to say against a private citizen instead of explaining why their ideas and policies Re: Iraq are less bad than hers?

    I’m at the point of mailing a $20 check and a sincere letter of thanks to the first truly big-name right-wing pundit who devotes his or her column or talk show slot to trying to explain why Sheehan is incorrect, not why she’s an evil treacherous shrill harpy-like deceitful self-centered stupid feminazi jackal and a bad mother. If they had done that without any serious personal attacks on her at all, well, I don’t have as much money to spare as they would deserve for it. And the shaving cream on the cake is, to judge by the fact that they still have their jobs and everything, a fair number of people aren’t bothered by it.

    This is the modern American right wing.

  62. 62
    tBone says:

    Ah, this is why I like Balloon Juice. The moonbats and wingnuts will get whiplash trying to reconcile John’s latest rant with his previous posts on the Sheehan debacle, even though his position hasn’t really changed. (Or maybe this is just an attempt by the dastardly Mr. Cole to hide those pesky face-tentacles again.)

    On a serious note, this story just gets sadder and sadder, and assholes like Malkin and her lefty doppelgangers won’t let go of the corpse until it’s drained of every last drop of blood. At this point I feel like I need a shower every time there’s a new “development.”

  63. 63

    […] I came to this altogether unsurprising news by way of John Cole, who writes in part: […]

  64. 64
    Cyrus says:

    Talldave —
    She’s there protesting because she’s Casey’s mother. When Casey’s father divorces her over the fact she’s there protesting, that seems very relevant.

    I have to say, I’m not seeing it. It’s just more character assassination. Casey’s father’s opinion matters as much as any other private citizen’s. It matters to Casey’s mother, and it only should matter to Casey’s mother, as much as she wants it to.

    Hell, maybe Casey was a loyal Bush supporter, but that doesn’t make his mom’s opinion any less valid or her actions less justified. She still lost him in an incompetently managed war of choice. If her husband doesn’t approve or even agree, what’s she supposed to do, give up on his say-so? Why? She gets to make her own decisions. Like thousands of others, she lost a child, and the fact that one of those thousands happens to have lost the same child is no more relevant than all those others who lost children.

  65. 65
    BinkyBoy says:

    mac Buckets:

    I’ve separated myself from all my right-wing uncles and cousins. They voted for an idiot just because of an R next to his name. They essentially have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people around the world, all because of a political slant. To me, they deserve the greatest contempt I can possibly heap on them, especially because they show no guilt at what they have done.

    And I think you’ll find that type of sentiment more and more common as right wingers take this country more and more in the direction of a fascist nation bent upon forcing countries around the world to bend to their will.

    Congrats on being on the winning side, but I still think you are an asshole.

  66. 66
    Defense Guy says:

    And I think you’ll find that type of sentiment more and more common as right wingers take this country more and more in the direction of a fascist nation bent upon forcing countries around the world to bend to their will.

    Unless it’s a really bad country, like say Bosnia, then of course we are all for it. It’s really just that the Republicans aren’t picking the right countries to force into submission. Perhaps it would be handy to have a bully list so that we can know in advance which dictators are ok to ‘bully’.

  67. 67
    BinkyBoy says:

    Well, I’m sure you wouldn’t be happy unless France was right up at the top of that list. Its always ok to make fun of France and marginalize them if they don’t agree with your view of the world, right?

    Oh, and lets not forget about Spain. Those chickenshit appeasers definately don’t fit in with our view of how the world should be. We can bully them with economic sanctions easy enough, I’m sure.

    And how about those Asian countries, huh? They really arn’t stepping up to the English speaking bandwagon fast enough.

  68. 68
    Defense Guy says:

    Are you suggesting that we put the free democratic countries of France and Spain on a list of countries run by tyrants? Actually, this explains a lot.

    Perhaps you just don’t understand the definitions of tyranny or dictatorship or oppression, or perhaps you just let your hate of all things ‘right’ cloud every last other thing you come into contact with.

  69. 69
    lenny says:

    Why do left wingers think it necessary to use the F word all the time? Does it make them feel… you know…. like a man?

  70. 70
    tBone says:

    To me, they deserve the greatest contempt I can possibly heap on them, especially because they show no guilt at what they have done.

    I bet you’re a lot of fun at family reunions.

    I am (to say the least) not a fan of the Bush administration, but I have many close family members and friends who voted for him, and the suggestion that “they essentially have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people around the world” is disgusting.

    Sanctimonious horseshit like that is not the way to win friends and influence people.

  71. 71
    frenchy lamour says:

    DB:
    “What can we talk about? What shouldn’t we? Marital strife would appear overboard. Infidelity?”

    Are you the same DB from attytood? Because if you are, i seem to remeber an offlist agreement we had about dropping a certainline of discussion because it hit too close to home for you.

    Cole is right: “Even if you think it ‘proves’ a point. If it proves anything, it proves that losing a son in war fucks up families. Thanks for the deep insight.”

  72. 72
    Jeff says:

    If you think decisions that Bush made killed your son (which is, at least, an arguable position for Sheehan to take), then not speaking to family members who loved your son also but who nevertheless continue to support the man you consider responsible for his death is actually pretty rational.

    As for her actions being different from setting up a trust or what have you, it is a matter of opinion as to whether one response is more “constructive” than the other. If Sheehan’s actions halp force the government to be more accountable to the men and women it sends to kill and die (or be maimed), than I think I would consider that “constructive.”

  73. 73
    Darrell says:

    BinkyBoy wrote:

    I’ve separated myself from all my right-wing uncles and cousins. They voted for an idiot just because of an R next to his name. They essentially have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people around the world, all because of a political slant.

    And there you have it. Read how the leftist kooks really think. By voting for Bush, they have “caused the deaths of tens of thousands”.. Wasn’t John Kerry advocating pretty much the same thing as Bush for Iraq? except for his suggestion about fighting a more ‘sensitive’ war and all?

    “fascist nation” blah, blah. ‘Reality based’ community?

  74. 74
    Steve says:

    John Kerry would have taken us into Iraq. There’s a new one.

  75. 75
    jg says:

    and the suggestion that “they essentially have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people around the world” is disgusting.

    Would ‘condoned’ be a better word than ’caused’? It was mentioned quite a lot that Bush’s win in 04 was a confirmation of the people’s support of the way the Iraq war was run.

    Wasn’t John Kerry advocating pretty much the same thing as Bush for Iraq?

    I’d have to say no since Bush’s plan was stay the course and Kerry didn’t want to stay the course. If you’re talking about pre-war when we all did the patriotic thing of BELIEVING the president then yeah, at that time, Kerry and Bush were on the same page.

  76. 76
    Otto Man says:

    Why do left wingers think it necessary to use the F word all the time? Does it make them feel… you know…. like a man?

    I don’t know. Ask Dick Cheney.

  77. 77
    Darrell says:

    My initial reaction was to agree with John Cole, and I still do to some extent. However, given that Cindy Sheehan has told the press about the divorce, the divorce was covered in the NY Time and Time magazine for chrissakes, it’s not like Malkin “exposed” this divorce or anything. Her divorce had already been covered. It was no secret at all. None. Perhaps a bit unseemly on Michelle’s part to show part of the divorce record, I’ll agree with that.. but given that it had already had been reported, Malkin’s column was nothing rising to the level of Cole’s wildly overheated claims of “smear”, “bile”, etc.

    You might forgive Michelle for being a tad bitter, having had the ever so classy Left refer to her as “little brown fucking machine”, a “Manila whore”, “Just like in Manilla, Honey, they’ll pass you around ’til they’ve all shot their load in you”.. many of those same leftists are no doubt now feigning outrage over her posting about Mrs. Sheehan’s divorce.

  78. 78
    tBone says:

    and the suggestion that “they essentially have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people around the world” is disgusting.

    Would ‘condoned’ be a better word than ‘caused’? It was mentioned quite a lot that Bush’s win in 04 was a confirmation of the people’s support of the way the Iraq war was run.

    Many of the Repubs I know who voted for Bush did so despite their unease at the handling of the Iraq war, not because they thought he was doing a bang-up job with it. They believed the alternative would be even worse.

    I don’t agree with their reasoning, but saying they “caused” or “condoned” thousands of deaths makes them sound like a bunch of callous, blood-thirsty monsters. They’re not, and saying they are is just as bad as a wingnut calling all Kerry voters a bunch of treasonous anti-American cowards.

    You know what pisses me off the most about this? I’ve actually ended up on the same side of an issue as Darrell.

  79. 79
    earl says:

    Why would it make a difference if her protest caused the divorce? Does that automatically prove something “wrong’ about the protest? If I chose to take a new job and my wife didn’t like it and therefore divorced me, it would be her wrong, not mine. I am still an indivual. I still make my own choices. The vows that we took did not involve me doing only what she agrees with and vica versa.

    It is therefore rightly called “diversion” to speak of the divorce. The subject at hand is the war. Bringing up diversions proves the inability to defend the subject at hand.

  80. 80
    tBone says:

    Sorry, guess nested blockquotes don’t work.

  81. 81
    Darrell says:

    Steve wrote:

    John Kerry would have taken us into Iraq. There’s a new one

    Did Kerry vote for authorization to use military force in Iraq or not? Or was that a ‘new one’ for you too? Look it up.

    Oh, and this from Kerry, July 29, 2002, in a speech to the 2002 DLC National Convensation, NYC:

    “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.”

    Oh my, Kerry sounds like one of those eevil Republican ‘warmongers’, wouldn’t you agree?.. I hope this helps clear things up for you

  82. 82
    jerry says:

    Bipolar much?

  83. 83
    John Cole says:

    Containment is a moot point, because circa 2001 there was a strong push to lift all sanctions, and the UN Security Council no longer had the willpower or ability to continue with containment. Not surprisingly, the nations most immersed in the UN Oil-for-food scandal, business dealings and oil contracts with IRaq, and clandestine arms deals were those most in favor of lifting sanctions and ending containment, at least as it existed then.

  84. 84
    Steve says:

    The idea that John Kerry, or any Democratic President for that matter, would have invaded Iraq as a “response” to 9/11 is positively laughable. That’s assuming, of course, that a Democratic administration would have permitted 9/11 to occur at all.

  85. 85
    Darrell says:

    TBone wrote:

    You know what pisses me off the most about this? I’ve actually ended up on the same side of an issue as Darrell.

    Now I know that has to hurt. Welcome to the dark side tBone..at least on this one point. If you stay too long though, evil genius Karl Rove will steal your soul

  86. 86
    Darrell says:

    Steve wrote:

    The idea that John Kerry, or any Democratic President for that matter, would have invaded Iraq as a “response” to 9/11 is positively laughable. That’s assuming, of course, that a Democratic administration would have permitted 9/11 to occur at all.

    So then, John Kerry’s actions/votes (authorizing use of military force in Iraq) and his words (“I agree with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq” + a lot more he said).. all these facts mean nothing to you, right? because in your ‘reality based’ world, it just couldn’t be true, right?

    Did you know that regime change in Iraq became official US policy under a Democratic President, Bill Clinton? Isn’t that something?

  87. 87
    Steve says:

    Yes, I knew that. And yet Clinton didn’t invade Iraq, amazing, huh?!

  88. 88
    Andrei says:

    “She put partisan politics above her family? It’s only politics, and none of it will bring Casey back.”

    You do realize that for her, politics have a direct correlation to foreign policy which has a direct correlation to how her son was put into harm’s way in the first place. Therefore, her politics are quite important in her life right now, as she lost her son due to political decisions.

    The problem, imho, with too many Americans these days is they think politics are unimportant. Not enough people value their vote nor do they realize that political discussion is far more required at the family dinner table than gossip about the latest Tom Cruise incident.

  89. 89
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    If you want to know what John Kerry voted for and why, read the (lengthy) statement he made about it on the Senate floor, prior to the vote, and then read the resolution. As all things Kerry, it’s not cut and dried.

  90. 90
    Sophia says:

    “Patrick Sheehan filed a petition for the dissolution of his marriage Friday in Solano County Superior Court.”

    It speaks volume that Mr. Sheehan chose Friday to file a petition for dissolution. It’s sad, it’s private but the timing of the petition is a statement and is newsworthy. Mr. Sheehan could have waited for the media-circus to wind down, say 4-6 weeks and then filed his petition but he chose not to.

    Michelle Malkin is not drawing attention to a divorce proceedings which occurred months ago or years ago but one that is occuring in the midst of political theatrics.

    If Mrs. Sheehan had an underage daughter who petitioned the court to be legally emancipated while her mother was camping outside the Summer White House, would you be outraged if the media covered it?

  91. 91
    kevin lyda, co. galway says:

    i find it amusing that john cole is so upset about this. a party that handed out band-aids with purple hearts at their convention. pundits that write books defending internment, and others who write books about liberal opponents titled “traitors.” he supports a party built on the rantings of limbaugh, liddy, hannity and o’reilly.

    and he’s stunned – shocked – that malkin posted the sheehan divorce papers.

    mr. cole, this is how the game is played now. by all means try to convince folks on the right to stop. but understand that you’re just pissing in the wind.

    sadly the democratic establishment agrees with you. they believe in high minded discourse. look at the bashing kerry is getting in this thread by trying to work with bush on the iraq war resolution. they don’t like folks like moore, air america, leftie bloggers and even cindy sheehan. but the fact is that the dem establishment are losing election, and fighters like moore and others are having success. you and the high minded dem leaders can sit in your ivory towers and lecture us all on playing nice. but the fact is that you’re irrelevant and more importantly ineffective.

  92. 92
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    Balloon Juice is becoming one of my favorite left/liberal blogs.

  93. 93
    John Cole says:

    That hurt, Andrew.

  94. 94
    Mike says:

    “BinkyBoy Says:
    mac Buckets:

    I’ve separated myself from all my right-wing uncles and cousins. They voted for an idiot just because of an R next to his name. They essentially have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people around the world, all because of a political slant. To me, they deserve the greatest contempt I can possibly heap on them, especially because they show no guilt at what they have done.”

    WoW.
    Giving up on family because of silly politics.
    How mature and loving of you.

    “And I think you’ll find that type of sentiment more and more common as right wingers take this country more and more in the direction of a fascist nation bent upon forcing countries around the world to bend to their will.”

    Doubtful. I have relatives I disagree vehemently with politically. We still sit down to dinner and gather on Christmas though. That’s because we realize family is far more important than politics. Maybe you just need to get a little older to get this.

  95. 95
    Mike says:

    “Steve Says:
    The idea that John Kerry, or any Democratic President for that matter, would have invaded Iraq as a “response” to 9/11 is positively laughable. That’s assuming, of course, that a Democratic administration would have permitted 9/11 to occur at all.”

    I love this.
    Now we’re moved into “what might have been” land.
    It just gets better and better.

  96. 96
    tBone says:

    Now I know that has to hurt. Welcome to the dark side tBone..at least on this one point. If you stay too long though, evil genius Karl Rove will steal your soul

    What does Karl Rove do with all of those souls, anyway? Does he keep them in little bottles in a cabinet in his office a huge cavern under the White House? Or does Cheney inhale them to feed his malevolent powers? And if I join the Dark Side, do I get a cool tattoo or something?

  97. 97
    Andrei says:

    “That hurt, Andrew.”

    Not as much as when the Steelers go 7-9 this year.

  98. 98
    Darrell says:

    kevin lyda, co. galway Says:

    i find it amusing that john cole is so upset about this. a party that handed out band-aids with purple hearts at their convention

    “band-aids with purple hearts”? Que horrible!!

    sadly the democratic establishment agrees with you. they believe in high minded discourse.

    High minded discourse? We see a fine example in the very next post:

    unpoetaloco Says:

    Imelda Malkin, the Republican comfort woman, is so pathologically self-hating and feels so undeserving because she’s not a WASP that she thinks she has to prove her Republican credentials by eviscerating whomever doesn’t toe the Party line.

    August 15th, 2005 at 7:54 pm

    “feels so underserving because she’s not a WASP”. Oh the irony.. if only the left had a brain, they might see it

  99. 99
    Darrell says:

    And if I join the Dark Side, do I get a cool tattoo or something?

    Unfortunately no, but I will pass your suggestion along at the next vastrightwingconspiracy(tm) meeting

  100. 100
    Dave says:

    From the Lone Star Times:

    “…a reader by the name of Tina Kramer has written into our comments who claims to know the Sheehan family. She also claims to know the exact reasons leading to the separation:

    Cindy’s husband had chest pains recently, he called her (she just happened to be in Vacaville Ca at this time) Cindy told him she was busy having lunch at fresh choice and couldnt be bothered. Pat (her husband) goes to the doctor on his own, and is told he has not health insurance due to his loving wife canceling his policy as well as her dauthers policy because she was running out of the 250,000 she got from Casey’s life insurance and needed more money. By canceling their health insurance it saved her 900 dollars a month so she could stay on the road with the anit-war gang.”

  101. 101
    Pelikan says:

    Balloon Juice is becoming my favorite blog period! Mostly because it’s no-one’s home turf.

    It’s hard to believe sometimes that these are the polite conversations…

    Also A: This whole Sheehan thing is just an outlet for a lot of pent-up aggression on both sides of the aisle, maybe we should a have a lib/con extreme games or something..
    B: It’s interesting to see that the discourse still has not gotten too disgusting for some of you yet. I wonder how far it will have to go for Tall Dave to say “enough!”

  102. 102

    […] Now This is an Obscenity […]

  103. 103
    Ziv says:

    I cannot believe that a woman that claims to be Casey Sheehan’s mother would spit on what he volunteered for, would disrespect everything he stood for, would slander his memory, would wish to render every aspect of his sacrifice moot, could actually be his mother. Obviously the rest of Casey’s family is just as amazed, just as repulsed by this craven, dogma spewing shell of a woman. Yes she is hurting over the loss of her son, but nothing excuses this complete shift from her comments after her last meeting with President Bush. I agree with her family and her soon to be ex-husband, I wouldn’t want anything to do with her either.

  104. 104
    bragova says:

    Why do left wingers think it necessary to use the F word all the time? Does it make them feel… you know…. like a man?

    I don’t know. Ask Dick Cheney.

    Or George W. In May 2002 Time magazine quoted him saying to Condi Rice and two senators, “F— Saddam. We’re taking him out.” http://www.time.com/time/world.....95,00.html

  105. 105
    Sadly, No! says:

    Sorry, Michelle- You’re Still a Vile Piece of Shit

    Yesterday, Ms. Internment USA posted a link to Cindy Sheehan’s divorce papers and wrote, “it will be interesting to see if Cindy Sheehan continues to insist that she and her husband ‘are on the same side of the fence’ with…

  106. 106

    […] If you haven’t saw it on Drudge already, the Sheehan divorce rumors are true. Michelle Malkin who first reported on this last evening was the first blogger on this tonight. As I respect Michelle as a terrific journalist and putting up any news on Sheehan, I don’t think the divorce should be a topic that is discussed. A divorce is a private family matter and has no merit in this discussion since the two separated in early June 2005. A death of a child, especially one that died in war, is something that severely (for lack of a better term) fucks up a family. The only thing that should be discussed in this case is the crazy antics of a woman who needs to stop using her son to get her political agenda out. In my humble opinion, we should stay on the topic and let the Sheehan family deal with the divorce in private. Now I wouldn’t go as far as my friend over at Balloon Juice did, but you get the idea of how he feels on the matter. And I wouldn’t go to the other end of the spectrum, like La Shawn does, and says we shouldn’t discuss this matter. Sheehan deserves all the bad press she gets because she decided to put her face in the media. Sorry you just can’t have it both ways.    Filed under Cindy Sheehan […]

  107. 107
    Ziv says:

    Michelle tends to be right and Cindy is completely clueless, she is a sad sort of apologist for everything that is evil, and she is the flavor of the month with the main stream media. This is why the NYT is becoming a joke, this is why the Democratic party is losing its base, this is why the NEA can’t seem to teach children or explain the success of children that ignore the NEA altogether, this is why the AFL-CIO can’t seem to get its act together, this is why Soros loses so often, this is why the DU is going into screaming fits… America just doesn’t believe the BS any longer and the socialists are losing more and more frequently, and now that Bush is going to shift the Supreme Court back to the center, the Dems realize that if they can’t win elections, they will not be able to expect an activist judiciary to make law rather than interpret it.

  108. 108
    Donald Buck says:

    Cindy Sheehan has gone freekin’ nuts!!! She has changed her story from her last meeting with Bush. Her family has disowned her and said she has disgraced what her son was doing and her husband is leaving her. What more proof do you need? If that isn’t enought she is now quoting the Michael Moore talking points.

    Keep hanging on this “Poster Child” for the mentally ill and see where you cause goes….

    You guys are so distrought you will gray on to anything no matter how insane….Keep it up!!!

  109. 109
    Aaron says:

    Don’t touch the precious Mother Sheehan! She can barely stand all the TV lights and cameras! Don’t talk about her family, well, except for the son who VOLUNTEERED TWICE!

    C’mon, human beings are interested in such salacious details, and it is not about her kids (I think we all get the kids are hands off part.) This is a sort of “character witness” thing.

    Though, if we want to start keeping our hands off of these sorts of things, I could agree to that….but where does it start? With Gov. Ryan’s divorce papers?

    I suggest, first we lay off the kids…though even then people will look at the Bush twins and pass judgement on the parenting skills of the Prez!

    Okay, enough! I have no idea what is okay and what is not!

  110. 110
    Heywood says:

    Divorce filings are public documents.

    It’s newsworthy because it demonstrates that even the person closest to her recognizes she’s way off the reservation.

    You people are like a bunch of 4th graders under the playground tree, showing each other how you’ve learned how to cuss. Pathetic.

  111. 111

    Re: the gossip about the Sheehan marriage – since when does anyone check to see whether your insurance policy is in force when you go to the doctor? That story sounds like complete horse hockey to me.

    As to the rest of it, the story isn’t whether or not Cindy Sheehan has already spoken about her marital status – it’s that Malkin decided, apropos of nothing, that it discredited Sheehan’s personal credibility. (Hmm. Did it do anything to diminish Newt Gingrich in her eyes?)

    As to her speculation about the cause: Can I really be the only person here who’s aware there’s a very high divorce rate among parents who lose a child? It’s a crushing blow and parents often deal in completely different ways. I think a little empathy is called for under such tragic circumstances.

  112. 112
    News says:

    Its news, so fucking deal with it, ya loser.

  113. 113
    Jeff G says:

    Funny to watch all the lefties coasting here on John’s outrage, then giving vent to the bile in their own dark souls as they feign outraged over Malkin’s mention of an already publicized story.

    Personally, I wouldn’t have mentioned it, because it is counterproductive to speculate on her husband’s reasons for leaving; but as someone noted above, Mr Sheehan did chose this time to file, so that kind of very conspicuous timing makes floating connections tempting. Malkin succumbed to it, but (in my opinion) her post reads as if she’s almost hesitant to post it.

    Again, I didn’t post on the story. But I think John is overcompensating by attacking Malkin so viciously — which unfortunately the Kossacks here have taken to mean it’s open season for throwing out racist cracks about Malkin. As Rick points out, Malkin’s mention may have been uncalled for (it’s debatable; a lot of other media outlets ran the story), but why didn’t John go after the site that initially posted it?

    If you want to distance yourself from Malkin, John, just do it. But don’t keep looking for instances where you can use her as a punching bag to prove your freethinker’s bona fides.

  114. 114
    DougJ says:

    I cannot believe that a woman that claims to be Casey Sheehan’s mother would spit on what he volunteered for

    People, people…I’m sure none of you thought I’d be the voice of reason here, but come on, it’s obvious that this is exactly what Cindy Sheehan and her far left comrades want: for conservatives to start taking cheap shots at Cindy Sheehan, thus making us look like jerks in the eyes of the media. I was just sent a link to a lefty blog (atrios) where they’re talking aobut just this.

    I think we have two options here: (1) attack Cindy Sheehan on substantive grounds and (2) shut up and wait for this to go away. Either seems fine. But attacking her as a mother will just hurt us. It’s exactly what they want.

  115. 115
    Ziv says:

    Susie, I am sorry to say this, but empathy would be wasted upon a dogmatic fool like Cindy Sheehan. She has lied, and will continue to lie, about how Bush acted when he met with her and the Sheehan family after Casey’s death. I can accept that, but what I can’t accept is that the dominant media sources will print laudatory accounts of this woman’s hijacking of her sons life. She is everything that her son fought to defeat, everything that killed him is there in the people Cindy Sheehan now calls friends.

  116. 116
    Loaded Mouth says:

    Help out Cindy Sheehan!

    I didn’t believe this news when I first read it on a horrible-sit-that-will-not-be-named, but now the AP is reporting that

  117. 117
    DougJ says:

    She is everything that her son fought to defeat, everything that killed him is there in the people Cindy Sheehan now calls friends.

    Ziv, see my post above. And knock if off — if you actually support this president.

  118. 118
    Don... says:

    Ok… When do you quit giving someone a pass after the loss of a child??? Where is that line in the sand???

    She can say and do whatever she wants for how long without being called on the lies she tells. This is great for the libs because you are not allowed to touch our quarterback…. All the while you use every cuss word and derogatory comment to discribe M Malkin.

    Sorry but it doesn’t wash other that we don’t have to do anything…. All we have to do is watch her and the rest of you Libs holding on to your hero go down in flames with her.

    She is taking you with her and I love it…

  119. 119
    Leslie says:

    Of course she is justifying it by saying that hundreds of MSM outlets did the same thing…uh, I thought she had no use for the MSM outlets?

    I am prolife, I vote Republican, my husband is serving in Iraq, but a lot of these right-wing bloggers (not you, Baloon Juice) are just making me sick. Even my husband, who is not a pacifist and is for the war, said people needed to leave Cindy Sheehan alone. Michelle Malkin wouldn’t break a nail for the people in Iraq, Sudan or anywhere else. I wish she would be quiet and stop embarrassing the rest of us.

  120. 120
    KillCon2005 says:

    It’s too late, pal. You are on defense. It’s gonna be a slaughter.

    Tom Tomorrow:

    The collapsing storyline

    Digby is wondering what it is about Cindy Sheehan that gets under the right wingers’ skin. My own quick two cents: she makes them realize they’re losing control of the narrative. For four years, conservatives have answered any criticism by invoking the flag, the troops, and of course 9/11 itself. But “the troops” are not an ethereal concept or a moment frozen in history–they are individuals, each with their own stories, not all of whom are going to happily hew to the party line. (I hear tell that some of them may even be–gasp–Democrats.) Cindy Sheehan drives this home. As the mother of a young man sacrificed on the altar of George Bush’s hubris, she has the moral authority to challenge the precarious worldview they’ve constructed, and deep down, they know it.

    Kill a connie for the real Jesus Christ. Better dead than red.

  121. 121
    BryanP says:

    Honestly, you’re insane, illiterate and blind.

    Insane because you’re calling for a blogger war? What the heck is that? It’s funny, that’s what it is.

    And illiterate because obviously you can’t comprehend simple sentences. If you read the story about what Ms. Sheehan said immediately after she met the President. You can see that she obviously changed her story with political aims in mind.

    It worked, I mean all you idiots fell for it. Oh, and if you want to be taken seriously, learn how express your opinions in a more professional manner.

    Thanks.

  122. 122
    BryanP says:

    Oh, one more thing. Why is it okay to talk about her son dying but not her divorce that is directly related to her actions after said son has died?

  123. 123
    Ziv says:

    DougJ, I don’t simply support W, I support America as it should be. Everything Cindy S. is, is in direct opposition to what I hold dear. She has allied herself to groups that are just despicable, I support W if he supports America, which he has done much more than any other national level political figure I can name. Cindy S. is not just wrong in nearly everything she says, she is wrong in a pathetically telegenic way that could actually impact on how America fights against Jihadi terrorists. Nothing you have written dissuades me from the conclusion I have drawn that Cindy S. is a sad, shrivelled sort of a reject, but she can be used to hinder a great deal of what conservativism could otherwise have done to protect this country.

  124. 124
    Rich from New York says:

    If my wife used my dead son as a stepstool to get her head above the riffraff and onto the tv screens of millions of Americans, for her own causes which go directly against what my dead son stood for, I’d divorce the bitch too.

    I’d also hope that people would see it for what it is and skewer her for it.

  125. 125
    djc says:

    Jeff G said:

    If you want to distance yourself from Malkin, John, just do it. But don’t keep looking for instances where you can use her as a punching bag to prove your freethinker’s bona fides.

    Look at the comment areas: 95% of his fanbase(?) are Kosmonaut moonbats.
    I guess he’s just adjusting to his new spot in blog world.

    You break it, you’ve bought it.

  126. 126
    David R. Block says:

    Are you sure that Atrios is to your left? It’s getting hard to tell.

  127. 127
    Dan says:

    I feel badly for Cindy Sheehan and I dont agree with all the negative bile that is being thrown her way. But … I also agree with Michelle Malkin. Cindy Sheehan has thrown herself in the middle of this mess. It seems like every day she is coming up with something more and more inflamatory to say (Israel, the Bush twins going to war, Bush killed my son, not paying taxes). She pulls up these soundbites, either on purpose herself or via one of the groups she has allied herself with, that are meant to grab the headlines. She wants the media attention in her life, she is thriving off of it. She has to take the good press as well as the bad press.

  128. 128
    BryanP says:

    Good comment, Rich.

  129. 129
    John Cole says:

    DJC-

    YEs, I see. Recognizing that even if Cindy Sheehan gets divorced from her husband, she still is Casey’s mother, and using it to discredit her does nothing to refute Cindy Sheehan’s outrageous statements is clearly just playing to the crazies.

    LEave her damn family out of it- even if she has lied about her family situation. NOYB. Check the damn outrageous things Sheehan has said- check the groups she is aligned with- there is fertile territory there.

    Gleefully speculating that the divorce of this pitiable woman provides you with ability to discredit her seems below the belt. Why? Because it is.

    Jeff- I read Malkin. 2-3 times a day. Not the person she linked to. And Malkin is the one who is spreading the speculation.

    And you racist punks whose comments I have had to delete- knock it off.

  130. 130
    Dr. Baltar says:

    Keep defending Malkin.
    Keep defending Coulter.
    Keep defending Rove.
    Keep defending DeLay.

    Keep defending all the lairs, whackos, crooks, and traitors.

    It’s EXACTLY what we want you to do. Pretty soon the personal carpetbombing of your opponents is not going to work and you will be exposed for the asses that you are.

    John Cole is a prime example of how you are going to lose the thinking, rational base of the Republican party. Pretty soon all that will be left are the wingnuts who think that Malkin, Cloulter, and Rush are what is RIGHT with America.

  131. 131
    Ziv says:

    I hate to admit it, but in a sad sort of way I welcome Cindy S.’s diatribe, as I welcomed NARAL’s attack on Roberts. Conservatism is winning, and the battles we fight are increasingly on ground of our own choosing. Kos, Josh, DU, they just don’t matter as much this year as they did last year, and next year they will be further out of the mainstream. They just don’t get it, and until they do, they will continue to lose support. Freakanomics explained how crime rates were related to abortion, they failed to carry their statistics one level further. Women that tended to abort their children were more likely to have mothered children that were more likely to commit crimes, therefore 18 years after Roe v. Wade the crime rate dropped. What the author failed to mention is that democratic parents tend to have democratic children, and that democratic women are noticeably more likely to have an abortion. 1973, Roe v. Wade, 1994 Newt Gingrich and the Contract for America. Every year the Democrats espouse the one procedure that is most likely to shrink the Democratic base, and they can’t do anything to stop it, because abortion is one of the things the democratic party lives for… Or rather, can’t live without.

  132. 132
    djc says:

    Yikes,

    And the other 5% on this website can be….

  133. 133
    W.B. Reeves says:

    Doug J,

    It’s not that folks on the left want the right-wing to spew bile on Cindy Sheehan. It’s just that they know that the right-wing can be counted on to behave true to form. Since they understand what sort of fight they’re engaged in and since Cindy Sheehan has volunteered for duty, they are shaping their strategy accordingly. A strategy that depends on the accuracy of their reading of the right-wing response. So far they seem to be on the money.

    There is another side to the blasts being directed at Sheehan. It is an attempt to intimidate others from speaking out. Last Thursday there was a vigil outside our local V.A. in support of Sheehan. It was attended by three local Gold Star Mothers. It made the front page of the following day’s paper. Today’s paper reported that one of them has since gone out to Texas to join Sheehan. I understand that other such vigils were held around the country.

    Cindy Sheehan is not a lone figure. She is simply the immediate target. It will instructive to see how many Gold Star Mothers will get the same treatment as they come forward.

  134. 134
    Brainster says:

    Lighten up a bit, will you? Jeez, everybody thinks it’s news so why shoot the first person whose blog you see it at? It matters because she has presented herself as being supported by her family, but now we discover that’s not the case. It’s already appeared in several newspaper stories in addition to being highlighted on the Smoking Gun.

  135. 135
    Steve says:

    I like how all these sputtering new posters, who have obviously come here from Malkin, have proven John right and put the lie to the claim that MM “merely reported the news”: obviously, the new fun thing for right-wingers to laugh about is that Cindy Sheehan is so nuts her husband can’t stand her, as the divorce absolutely conclusively proves.

    Although, John, I’m not clear on why it is worse for Malkin to ascribe motives to Cindy’s husband than for her to claim that her dead son would have been ashamed. At least the husband has the power to speak for himself if he wants to.

  136. 136
    Cutler says:

    “Stop excusing it. You wanna know why I have been receiving hatemail for the last week because I said that we should be able to question Sheehan’s statements and positions? Because of assholes like Malkin pulling cheap stunts like this.

    Quit fucking excusing it.”

    No, you’re receiving hate mail because they’re hateful sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    This vitriol shouldn’t be excused, and I’m not talking about Malkin’s.

  137. 137

    […] John Cole is not amused by Michelle Malkin’s thinly-veiled glee over Cindy Sheehan’s failing marriage. John writes: Who f-ing cares? Sheehan’s marriage is irrelevant- married, single, gay, straight, she is still Casey’s mother, and no amount of discussions regarding what her husband believes, or why she is divorced, or any other personal details change that. Stick to her statements about the war, stick to her actions, and stick to the groups promoting her. But stay the hell out of her marriage, or her failing marriage. Or get a job with the National Enquirer. […]

  138. 138
    djc says:

    To “old sputtering poster”

    Cindy Sheehan is so nuts her husband can’t stand her, as the divorce absolutely conclusively proves

    How dare you say that!!!

  139. 139
    Ziv says:

    The only reason anyone cared about Sheehans opinion regarding the war in Iraq is the fact that she lost a son there. How can it be ‘out of bounds’ for the media to publish the fact that she is now losing a husband due to her opposition to this same war? She has made her choices, I doubt she will be happy with them.

  140. 140
    Cali Thinker says:

    Get a grip. Your adolescent response to Michele Malkin’s comments is so unbelievably irrational that you sound like an islamic nutball who decides to kill his teenage daughter b/c she is rumored to no longer be a virgin.

  141. 141
    Dadahead says:

    I haven’t given a shit what anybody says about Malkin for some time. Fuck her and her tits. I welcome Cole to the party (better late than never) – now that Michelle has been fully exposed as the one who is truly “unhinged” (really – can you think of a better word to describe her?) – but let’s not pretend that this behavior is exactly surprising …

  142. 142
    mac Buckets says:

    BinkyBoy wrote:

    I’ve separated myself from all my right-wing uncles and cousins. They voted for an idiot just because of an R next to his name. They essentially have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people around the world, all because of a political slant.

    Yes, and your whacked priorities (not to mention your odd interpretation of causation) mark you, too, as mentally unwell. If you have the excuse of a dead family member, I’m sorry for you, just like I am for Cindy Sheehan. Otherwise, I don’t think I’d place my hatred and dementia on full display, but you are free to have a go if you like.

    Congrats on being on the winning side, but I still think you are an asshole.

    I’ll try to go on. Really, I will.

  143. 143
    navig8r says:

    A look backward at Peg Mullen and her husband’s life after losing their son in VietNam might be instructive. I think FRIENDLY FIRE (C.D.B. Bryan) may be out of print, but your local library should still have a copy. For the cognitively challenged, the (very truncated) film version is available from several on-line vendors.

  144. 144
    jg says:

    Oh, and this from Kerry, July 29, 2002, in a speech to the 2002 DLC National Convensation, NYC:

    “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.”

    Oh my, Kerry sounds like one of those eevil Republican ‘warmongers’, wouldn’t you agree?.. I hope this helps clear things up for you

    Kerry said he supports regime change. Didn’t say he supports unilateral action against a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Also you’re just showing that at one time this president did have some credibility, people believed him. Supporting him before he was shown to be a liar isn’t a crime. Why try to hold it against someone?

  145. 145
    mac Buckets says:

    Didn’t say he supports unilateral action against a sovereign nation under false pretenses.

    What-ilateral? You guys really don’t know what unilateral means, do you? (Hint: it doesn’t mean “without France”.) It kind of undermines your point when the first thing we read is either an oft-repeated lefty lie, or proof that you aren’t that bright.

    As Rick points out, Malkin’s mention may have been uncalled for (it’s debatable; a lot of other media outlets ran the story), but why didn’t John go after the site that initially posted it?

    If you want to distance yourself from Malkin, John, just do it. But don’t keep looking for instances where you can use her as a punching bag to prove your freethinker’s bona fides.

    Oof! Right on the button, JG. All this vitriol thrown because of a link, but the original source gets off scott-free? Is he not a big enough fish for anyone to make bones off of?

  146. 146
    Brainster says:

    Gee, John, funny thing but USA Today, AP, AFP, Reuters and just about every other news organization is running with this story. You’re the one who’s overreacting here.

  147. 147
    John says:

    The Sheehans were already separated before Cindy began her protest, so for TallDave to suggest that the divorce is a result of her protest strikes me as ridiculous.

  148. 148
    Fair says:

    If Rove told Michelle to start herself on fire and jump out of the window, she would.

    She is a person in dire need of attention, pray for her.

    Somebody should, she is very misdirected and misguided.

  149. 149
    Fair says:

    Oh and BTW, negative attention is what she craves the most. Good God, what does that tell you about her?

    She needs Divine Intervention as she is basking in every word of your negative post…

  150. 150
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    Uh, John, Malkin isn’t Michelle’s name. Go check the copyright on her anti-Japanese book. It’s in her maiden name, Maglalang. That didn’t, of course, stop her from criticizing Teresa Heinz Kerry for her on-and-off surname choices, and I can’t imagine what hay she’s made with Valerie Plame Wilson.

    Malkin compounded this with the almost certainly untrue claim that when she got married she took her dear, sweet husband’s name (unlike those hairy-armpit Democrat wives, you know), but just didn’t file the papers so she had to use her old name in the book. Well, I’m not a lawyer, but in most if not all jurisdictions the only paper a woman needs to adopt her husband’s name for legal purposes is the marriage license. That, plus actually using the husband’s surname, it sufficient to effect the change of legal name. So Malkin’s story smells fishy to me. Could it be that the nice, ordinary name Malkin would hook more newspapers that one of those foreign-sounding names? Hmmmm.

  151. 151
    Patterico says:

    I don’t give a shit what even the nastiest folks on the left say about Malkin anymore. She brings this shit on herself, with vicious bullshit like this.

    Hmmm. Are you saying that if somebody says nasty things about a public figure, then they are asking for others to make nasty comments about their personal lives — and we shouldn’t care if that happens?

    Hasn’t Cindy Sheehan said nasty things about the President? At least as nasty as anything Michelle Malkin has said about Sheehan? Does that mean that she “brings on this shit herself”?

    I’m not sure you’re being entirely consistent here, John.

  152. 152
    John says:

    “Cindy treated it [the Quartarolo letter] with a shrug. Her husband will send out a more detailed response soon. In the meantime, Cindy says the letter is to be treated as little more than bad, dumb noise.”

    The more detailed response was released and reported.

    If she hadn’t stated how much her family/husband supports her, I would completely agree with you that this was out of bounds.

  153. 153
    Xrlq says:

    Andrew’s right about the copyright notice. No clue why she used her maiden name, she just did. I’m 99.999% sure the copyright notice would be equally valid under either name – as would be mine if I copyrighted my own blog under the name Xrlq (or any other fake name that could be readily identified as referring to me).

  154. 154
    Mike S says:

    Boy. These Malkin fans sure are sweethearts.

    The New Republican Party in full effect. This isn’t your father’s Republican Party. Hell, this isn’t even Reagan’s Republican Party.

  155. 155

    I disagree with you on this, John, and I’d like to tell you why. Cindy Sheehan’s entire claim to fame is based on a family connection to a dead American serviceman, her son Casey. Casey, as we all know, made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and is to be admired and respected for that. Cindy, on the other hand, has never performed an admirable or heroic deed in her life, but has magically achieved victim status by pimping her son’s sacrifice. She’s cashing in, either literally or figuratively, from a family connection.

    That being the case, it seems to me that anything to do with her family connections is fair game. Does she speak for Casey, or is she exploiting him in death to achieve a personal goal? Do other members of her family agree with her? Is she playing with a full deck? These are all fair questions because of who she is, what she’s doing, and how she’s doing it.

    So this isn’t the same as the voyeurs digging into the Roberts adoption papers because Roberts never presented his adopted children as credentials for the Supreme Court.

    You can leave Malkin out of it completely, as the AP is carrying the same story and nobody in their right mind gives a damn about Malkin in the first place.

    Is it proper to note that Cindy’s undergoing a divorce right now? I think it is, and I think it’s relevant to her state of mind and credibility.

    But that’s just me.

  156. 156
    Sav says:

    Stick to her statements about the war, stick to her actions, and stick to the groups promoting her. But stay the hell out of her marriage, or her failing marriage. Or get a job with the National Enquirer.

    John,

    If Ms. Sheehan is willingly giving details of her divorce to bastions of conservatism like the NY Times and Time Magazine, why is it out of bounds for bloggers to mention some of those details? It’s be one thing if Ms. Sheehan told them she didn’t want to discuss her family situation or that it was off limits, but she seems more than comfortable talking about it to help keep the story in the media.

  157. 157
    perroazul del norte says:

    Skimming through all the above makes me glad that my last vote for President was for Buchanan in 2000. He has been proved right on all the major issues: US involvement in the ME, “free trade” deals and illegal immigration. My second choice was Nader. AH…if only he had had Perot’s money we might have been spared much misery.

  158. 158
    Mark says:

    Truly lame. Not sure what your deal is, but you need some meds my friend. The adoption of kids is completley differant than adults getting a divorce.

    And fix your blog. It is doing weird things. Could be a reflection of it’s owner. Maybe some more javascript and how about some php calls while you are at it. That should really slow it down.

    And another thing copyright notice or not, it is still stealing to take code. it is copyrighted. sheesh.

  159. 159
    Bubbalicious says:

    H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S

  160. 160
    Nigel Boag says:

    Cindy Sheehan is a stinking little communist, and, as such, must be smashed by any means possible.

    Loathsome little bitch is not fit to shine her son’s shoes.

  161. 161
    Peter T. says:

    This bugs the hell out of me. Here you have a young asian female, through sheer pluck and determination, making a place for herself among the top conservative political thinkers of the 19th century. All of whom are white, male, and dead 100 years.

    Get off her back.

  162. 162
    Kathy Cole says:

    Oh, one more thing. Why is it okay to talk about her son dying but not her divorce that is directly related to her actions after said son has died?

    Because this is why:

    As to her speculation about the cause: Can I really be the only person here who’s aware there’s a very high divorce rate among parents who lose a child? It’s a crushing blow and parents often deal in completely different ways. I think a little empathy is called for under such tragic circumstances.

    You have no idea the extent to which their son dying all by itself killed their marriage, irrespective of how long it took her husband to actually file. Divorce rates for couples whose children die are very high. A little respect for their pain might be helpful, not to mention more honest.

  163. 163
    Chadster says:

    Can I just say it right here? I like reading conservatives who have a legit beef with the Republican party from time to time. And it doesn’t even have to be “principled”, either. But folks like Cole, the Commissar, and others, who revel in their “RINO” or “Maverick” status, really urinate me off. I mean, it’s one thing to say, “Look, I’m a Republican, and I generally vote that way, but I don’t necessarily believe X.” It’s another to say, “hey guyz look at me im a rebel rush is fat ‘n malkin is a ch*** santorum is prolly gay i luv davidscottanderson the ENTIRE FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DEPENDS ON THE CENTER VIVA CHE MCCAIN! LOLZ.”

    Hey Cole, if you’re reading this, and I know you probably are, stop sucking. I’d tell you WHAT to stop sucking, but unlike you, I don’t believe that folks who say nasty things about others automatically deserve to have nasty things said about them.

    Oh, and spare me that half-hearted update in which you defend her against “racist garbage.” You said she brought it on herself, so why should you care who says it on your site? After all, it’s her fault, right?

    Moron. Sorry. No other name for it.

  164. 164
    Son Of The Godfather says:

    Your rant is misguided.

    Mrs. Shehan brought her family into the issue by saying they supported her beliefs.

    They obviously do not.

    It shows a pattern of delusion.

    Someone compared it to traitor John Kerry’s mentioning Cheney’s lesbian daughter… The only difference is, Cheney did not A) Bring his daughter into the argument and B) Claim that his daughter was “straight”.

    In my opinion, What Michelle has posted is absolutely fine. You’ve picked the wrong battle here.

    SOTG

  165. 165
    Bob Sheehan says:

    You wankers. In a properly organized Texas, Cindy would be put to sleep. Just proves that Demorants are determined to breed the Human Race out of existence, replaced by some sort of weird Birkenstock Boulder/Berkley cocaine honking hairy pitted Wimmen Zulus for Mohammed.

  166. 166
    Michael. says:

    Susie from Philly Says:

    Re: the gossip about the Sheehan marriage – since when does anyone check to see whether your insurance policy is in force when you go to the doctor? That story sounds like complete horse hockey to me.

    I have no idea if that story is true or not. Don’t even care.

    But, purely as a point of order, many medical offices, including my own, do check to see if an insurance card is still valid, as does the local health department and Walgreens Pharmacy. Not all doctors do, some only do for new patients, and it may depend on your region of the country, but I think too many of us have been burned before.

  167. 167
    TWM says:

    This woman put her family into the mix when she claimed that they supported her actions. The fact that they don’t is obviously news then.

  168. 168
    wyck says:

    Well, when you go public nowadays, as Mrs. Sheehan has, then you go public. You can’t have it both ways, it seems.

  169. 169
    Jack Hamilton says:

    Malkin reported the divorce they are public records. They are in the newspapers every day.Whats wrong with you people are you so blinded by hatred that you cant see the forest for the trees. This nutburger publicity hound Cindy Sheehan she has already met the President.She also said great things about him till Code Stink got there paws on her. Now this loathsome publicity seeker dishoners the death of her son who was a career army man that believed in his mission to free the people of Iraq and help defeat terrorism. He would no doubt be ashamed of her self serving conduct. But this twit had to drag his body out to the public herself instead of keeping it private. So you knuckle headed goober smoochers grow up get a life. Your just pissed because all your lefty Democrat women look like Ann Lewis or Maxine waters. Gag. Hell I guess thats enoug to piss you rabid American hating one toothers off.Why dont you go get Barny Frank to sit on your face and pass gas and leave Malkin alone. Have a nice day.
    Jqack Hamilton

  170. 170
    Jim Allen says:

    Man, this is looking like Schiavo all over again.

  171. 171
    Pug says:

    think we can all agree that when partisan politics become more important than your family, the situation has gone beyond “radicalization,” and has escaped into mental disorder.

    You’ve mentioned this as just “partisan politics” a couple times. In this case, it’s a little more than just partisan politics as she explains it. She feels Bush is responsible for the death of her son. Whether that is rational or not she has stated clearly that is what she believes.

    However, not speaking to someone who voted for the man you believe to be responsible for your son’s death is quite rational. It’s not just “partisan politics” anymore when your son has died, it’s personal.

    Maybe it’s “partisan politics” the way two brothers fighting on different sides of the Civil War was. At some point it isn’t just a friendly family argument about politics anymore.

  172. 172
    Stormy70 says:

    Man, this is looking like Schiavo all over again.

    Yes, and just like the Terry issue, I’m out of it. Taking the cheese, for real, not like John’s taking the cheese, which means he will post on it numerous times. ;)

  173. 173
    Tina says:

    Cindy Sheehan falsely claims that Casey’s father supports Cindy’s idiotic efforts in Crawford. Cindy is a liar. I want to know (a) that Cindy is a liar and that (b) the MSM is covering up those lies for her. I have a feeling that Casey joined the Army just to get away from his sick demented mother. If Casey’s father were 20 years younger he would do the same just get to Iraq and as far away from Cindy as he can. If you think this is just like the NYT probing the Roberts’ adoption, then you are wrong. Roberts’ children are just that – helpless children. They are not sick, twisted adults who drove their adult children to an early death in Iraq or drove their husbands to divorce while haranguing an unwilling public with the help of the sycophantic MSM.

  174. 174
    unpoetaloco says:

    Dear Imelda Malkin,

    Please add my voice to the chorus of Americans who think you are an eviscerating, self-loathing pile of monkey dung. I’m sorry that you think that the only way the Waspy Republican Party will accept you is by becoming a Filipina Uncle Tom.

    It’s lamentable that you value your ancestry so little that you overcompensate – prove your Republicanism – by being an über Nazi bitch.

    Needless to say each Fascist cause has their ‘ho – their comfort woman if you will – it’s just ironic that you don’t see that the only orifice in your body they would lower themselves to use is your mouth.

  175. 175

    Is Cindy Sheehan’s divorce off-limits?

    When it came out recently that the New York Times was investigating the adoption of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’…

  176. 176
    Stormy70 says:

    Dude, can the racist BS.

  177. 177
    Steve says:

    Half the pro-Malkin faction says that Malkin was just reporting the straight facts that are in every paper, and not trying to imply anything about Cindy’s husband, so lighten up.

    The other half says that Malkin had every right to bring it up because the divorce proves that Cindy’s husband must not support her protests against the war.

    Maybe we should just let the two halves battle it out.

  178. 178
    Bob says:

    1. “Gawd, who reads Malkin!?” – The unpleasant answer is a lot more people than read this blog. Sorry.

    2. “Our local newspaper recently stopped printing Ann Coulter because she was too out there. Guess who they decided to replace her with…[Malkin]”. There’s no comparison between Coulter and Malkin. Coulter is snide, Malkin is pretty straight-arrow. She doesn’t stoop to the same level of nasty rhetoric as Coulter and acts like a lady despite a pretty constant stream of abuse like the comments here. I don’t care if you disagree with my opinion.

    3. “Just wow…she is a nasty piece of work.” Nasty is in the eye of the beholder. I think it means that you simply disagree with her, after the breathless hate is taken out of your comments.

    4. “Keep defending all the lairs, whackos, crooks, and traitors. It’s EXACTLY what we want you to do. ” Malkin is neither a “lair”, a whacko, a crook, or a traitor. If you can substantiate your claims, do it. You make as much sense as a Palestinian protester.

    5. “Fuck her and her tits.” Spoken like a gentleman. How persuasive.

    6. “If Rove told Michelle to start herself on fire and jump out of the window, she would.” Actually, she tells Rove what to do, doesn’t she?

    7.”Cindy Sheehan is a stinking little communist, and, as such, must be smashed by any means possible. Loathsome little bitch is not fit to shine her son’s shoes.” Who can argue with this unassailibly grown-up logic? Now there’s a nice contribution to the public discourse. Not very relevant, but earnest nonetheless…

    Folks, you need to put your hate away. It’s not healthy.

  179. 179

    […] There is no need to go rummaging through her personal life- even if it is ‘news.’ […]

  180. 180
    Kryten42 says:

    I interrupt the *troll war* to post some *true* recent quotes from Cindy. :)

    Today was George Bush’s accountability moment, and he lost. Two young ladies from San Diego drove all night to get to the rally and they had to leave tonight to get back home. One of them said: “Wow, we can drive all the way from San Diego just to meet you and he can’t even come down to the end of his driveway to meet with you.”

    George Bush: you work for me. I pay your salary. Come out and talk to me. Anyway, I have a feeling you are about to be fired!!!

    I had a soldier from Ft. Hood come out today and he brought me a small stone with a First Cavalry insignia painted on it and the pictures of three of his beautiful buddies who were murdered there by George’s reckless policies. It was such an incredible moment for me when he said: “Keep on doing what you are doing. We are so proud of you. Casey would be so proud of you.”

    There is a meeting tomorrow at the County Commissioner’s meeting to vote on closing Prairie Chapel Road and then evicting us. We were all worried about that and planning on being arrested when we got the best news yet. The property owner who owns property near Bush’s ranch and right across the street from Bush’s church will let us move Camp Casey there!! He has property on both sides of the road … a full acre for us to camp! We are so excited!!! We can fit more people and we will be closer to the ranch. Miracles, miracles.

    just wish George had as much courage in his entire body as Casey had in his little pinky, then he would meet with me. Crawford, TX is beautiful prairie land, but I could think of dozens of other places I would rather be right now. However, if George or anybody else thinks I am leaving before my mission is “accomplished” they have another think coming. I will stay the course. I will finish the mission. I will take no prisoners.

    By the way, we had about 7 counter protesters today and hundreds at Camp Casey…don’t let the mainstream media say differently.

    OK… continue trolling! LOL

  181. 181

    Ummm…The lives of famous people are reported on in great detail by a wide range of print media, from respectable newspapers to tabloid sheets.

    Unless one condemns (hypothetical situation here, don’t know if they did) People magazine for reporting on the Pitt-Aniston divorce, then condemning political pundits for commenting on the divorce of a famous, political person like Sheehan is inconsistent.

    Just making a case for consistency and a broader perspective on the issue. 2 cents, for what it’s worth.

  182. 182
    Varnished_opinion says:

    Sheehan has mentioned that her husband is against the war several times. Their entire immediate nuclear family is against the war. Im pretty sure ive even seen a statement from the husband (one liner) where he said he agreed with cindy but wished she would come home. Same for the son.

    I dont know why a guy who was against the war would suddenly be pro-war. Sounds like they are just having marital difficulties and its a bad time for her to be away on her crusade. Th-th-th-thats all folks.

  183. 183
    Josh says:

    Malkin’s willingness to lie and libel is well-documented.

  184. 184

    […] I’m disappointed in John Cole. His recent rant against Michelle Malkin defends the indefensible. He should know better. […]

  185. 185
    Cyrus says:

    I don’t know if I should hope that all these Malkin defenders are really left-wingers doing over-the-top impersonations to discredit her actual supporters, or not. Hope so: things aren’t really all that bad. Hope not: things are that bad, but them acting like this might help people realize it.

    That $20 check and a letter of thanks is still waiting for a major conservative pundit to actually criticize Sheehan’s ideas, not her person. Still waiting.

  186. 186
    Baghdaddy says:

    You said:
    “Cindy Sheehan’s statements should stand on their own”

    Ok, which statements: the pro-Bush statements…or…the anti-Bush statements?

  187. 187
    Michelle says:

    The Associated Press is reporting this evening:

    The husband of Cindy Sheehan, the mother camped outside President Bush’s Texas ranch to protest the death of a son in the Iraq war, has filed for divorce, according to court documents.

    Patrick Sheehan filed the divorce petition Friday in Solano County court, northeast of San Francisco. His lawyer did not immediately return a call seeking comment Monday.

    The Smoking Gun has posted the petition here.

    I referenced the filing in a straightforward post on Sunday here.

    Unhinged critics have gone ballistic over the fact that I linked to this news, which was first broken by another site called Dang If I Know over the weekend.

    In response, this blogger {John Cole} spewed profanities left and right. This one {DCMediaGirl} declared:

    Open war on the self-hating racist bitch Michelle Malkin. OPEN. WAR.

    Looks like they need their prescriptions filled. Pronto.

    The rabid dogs play the hypocrisy card by raising my objection to John Kerry’s reference to Mary Cheney’s lesbianism and my criticism of the NYTimes’ dumpster diving into the adoption records of SCOTUS nominee John Roberts. Unlike Cindy Sheehan, Dick Cheney and John Roberts did not cite their family members’ political or ideological positions to support their campaigns. Mrs. Sheehan herself–not any Karl Rove operative or right-wing smear merchant– put claims of family solidarity on the public record.

    And that is why the Associated Press and The Smoking Gun deemed the divorce petition newsworthy. So have Reuters, dozens of other bloggers, and hundreds of MSM outlets. CNN and the New York Times have also both reported on the Sheehan’s marital distress.

    So, I guess they should all be expecting the same four-letter-word-laced blog diatribes and hate mails and declaration of “open war” against them.

    Right?

  188. 188
    Kathy from Austin says:

    Sheesh, what hateful drivel on this blog. Sure way to turn off the majority of people who are neither: moonbats, hate-inspired, or searching for a life outside of others’ actions. Get a grip. Ms. Sheehan has put herself in the spotlight intentionally (nay, yearned for it) and guess what? ‘Ya reap what ‘ya sow.”

    Kathy from Austin

  189. 189
    jg says:

    Didn’t say he supports unilateral action against a sovereign nation under false pretenses.

    What-ilateral? You guys really don’t know what unilateral means, do you? (Hint: it doesn’t mean “without France”.) It kind of undermines your point when the first thing we read is either an oft-repeated lefty lie, or proof that you aren’t that bright.

    Oh No! I forgot Poland! My whole point is toast now. I think you know what I meant by unilateral. Sure England went along but I think its safe to say 95% of the planet thought it was a stupid idea and would end up exactly as it has. Sorry I wasn’t COMPLETELY true to the facts and I gave you a way to dismiss my point. I’m certain you would have found your own way to dismiss it so I shouldn’t have given you an out.

  190. 190
    coolcajun says:

    I am kinda on the fence about this issue. There is a war of words on both sides. I do think Cindy has a right to free speech and assembly but there is no answer that the president will give that will satisfy her and she knows it.

    There is one comment posted that I think was out of line:

    Cindy, on the other hand, has never performed an admirable or heroic deed in her life, but has magically achieved victim status by pimping her son’s sacrifice. — Richard Bennett

    Richard, how do u know this? I don’t know the woman(unless you actually do and if so I apologize). I am sure she probably has done something good as have you in the past.

  191. 191
    John C. says:

    So, I guess they should all be expecting the same four-letter-word-laced blog diatribes and hate mails and declaration of “open war” against them.

    Ah, they’re used to it; hate-mail and vicious diatribes are the stock and trade of the Right. You should know. Anyway, it’s about time someone declared open war on you. You’re nothing but a blight on public discourse.

  192. 192
    Log Cabin says:

    It seems that leftists are unable to make an argument without profanity and insults. I guess it’s hard to top “Chimpy McHitlerburton lied, millions died.” Now we can add, “that bitch, Michelle Malkin is an F***ing smear merchant” to your intelligent discourse.

    Check the last few elections, it’s not working. Keep up the good work.

  193. 193
    Steve says:

    You are the maniac. Why you would so rudely attack the ever gracious Malkin? It is just evidence of your jealousy that a woman can beat you in an argument every time.

    Nice language you have there. No wonder I stopped comming to read your infantile rants. You are so childish.

    Why do you give Sheehan a break but not Malkin? You say the death of her son is obviously the reason for the breakup but I see it differently; Sheehans insane grab for camera time while riding her son’s corpse has driven her husband to leave her.

    Oh but you are all for glorifying a mad woman who has no business being the focus of anything except maybe a group encounter session at a psychologist’s office. Sure, you say, the death of her son in the evil MacBushHitler war forced the marraige apart. You are an ignorant idiot. Ignorant because you clearly know nothing and and idiot because you cannot be told how you are.

    So sit here in you little echo chamber and howl away at your betters, like Michelle Malkin.

  194. 194
    DougJ says:

    Everything Cindy S. is, is in direct opposition to what I hold dear.

    So you’re in direct opposition to a woman who raised a great young man who served his nation honorably? Is that really where you want to position yourself? Because I know it’s where dailykos and moveon want to position you.

  195. 195
    coolcajun says:

    It seems that leftists are unable to make an argument without profanity and insults. I guess it’s hard to top “Chimpy McHitlerburton lied, millions died.” Now we can add, “that bitch, Michelle Malkin is an F***ing smear merchant” to your intelligent discourse.

    The ultra leftist four letter diatribe is unfortunate as it does nothing but add to the already vitrolic atmosphere in politics as of late. I tend to think that most on the left and on the center tend not to subscribe to that type of rhetoric. Then again I may just be naive.

  196. 196
    greeseyparrot says:

    It’s quite evident how limited (selective) are the sources many of the folks commenting here rely upon for their information. A fair number of you insist upon continuing to parrot the long debunked story about Mrs. Sheehan’s change of heart after her original statements. For those of you with the courage to veture outside your right wing bubble/echo chamber, here is a link to the original story from The Reporter 6/24/2004 (Vacaville, CA) http://www.thereporter.com/rep.....23921,this is the story from which Drudge mined the comments which he used (of course without regard to context) in his original flip-flop screed. Here also is a link to The Cunning Realist (which I presume is a site that has credibility with at least some of you) in which he honestly considers the whole basis for the “Cindy changed her story” meme… http://cunningrealist.blogspot.....-them.html Anybody got a taste for the truth? c’mon, I dares ya

  197. 197
    Stevo says:

    Hey pinhead Cole;

    Where were you when you saw Michelle ‘dumpster diving’?

    Oh! you made that up? Is that all you have to defend your invective; lies?

  198. 198
    Carrick says:

    1) Cindy Sheehan has made herself a public figure. Like it or not, she is the current spokeperson/mascot of the anti-war movement.
    2) Her marital status is part of the public record, including the filing for divorce by her husband at this particular moment.
    3) Had it been a senator or member of the house, the president or a nominee for the Supreme Court, nobody would have questioned the relevancy of the information.

    The fact she is getting divorced is not interesting in and of itself. It is the very special timing of the filing for divorce that carries any significance to the general public. And “yes, it is our business when somebody gets divorced,” thank you very much. If it wasn’t public business, it wouldn’t be part of the public record, now would it?

  199. 199

    […] There’s not a whole lot more than I can say about the Sheehan protest, but I’ll try a bit. Cindy Sheehan is right: What is the noble cause we are fighting for in Iraq? Honestly, can’t George Bush answer that one question? Finally, I think John Cole might be on the right track, here, when he gets on Malkin’s case for the smear she keeps trying to pull. Some of called on him to apologize, and he did to an extent, but I think his pissed-off stance is right. Honest-to-God, someone’s gotta stand up to Malkin, I’m glad somebody on her side is doing it. […]

  200. 200
    JoeS says:

    In a war of words and ideas, the Left is losing. Your forum is a perfect illustration. Who would you trust to run the country, Michelle Malkin’s supporters or Balloon Juice’s supporters.

    Clinton Admin, Janet Reno and “Wall” Gorelick CAUSED 9/11.

    Kerry tried to postition himself as the “tough” candidate early in the primary. He even threatened to invade Iraq (BEFORE President Bush mentioned it) but, alas, “Wrong War, Wrong Time” Dean flanked him to the left and good old “Flip Flop” changed his “Deeply Held Convictions.”

    I agree with Rudy Giuliani on 9/11/01, “Thank God George Bush is President!”

    I am looking forward to your responses… yeah right

  201. 201
    Cyrus says:

    Politics makes for strange bedfellows, if you’ll pardon the expression: I’ve learned a lot of respect for DougJ today. We disagree on big things and that’s not changing, obviously, but there is such a thing as decency, political success should be the means rather than the goal itself – to paraphrase a good book, it’s easier to stand up to your enemies than to your allies. Thanks.

  202. 202
    g-man says:

    sheehan’s a loony bitch. I would divorce her too.
    you lefties like to dish it out but but you sure can’t take it.

  203. 203
    Kristi says:

    TallDave on August 15th, 2005 at 2:45 pm: She’s there protesting because she’s Casey’s mother. When Casey’s father divorces her over the fact she’s there protesting, that seems very relevant.

    Amen, brother.

    And, John, I guess profane language directed toward Michelle is morally superior to her post on Sheehan’s divorce. Give. Me. A. Break.

  204. 204
    Reading A1 says:

    Political theater, or, Where’s Jesse?

    Probably the most socially meaningful, certainly the most engaged, of the various things I did in my grad-student days to procrastinate my dissertation was to work as an organizer for Yale’s fledgling TA/student labor union (GESO, the Graduate Employe…

  205. 205
    Keith says:

    While I have every respect for the fact that this lady lost a child in a horrible manner, I cannot respect her for who she has sided with. MoveOn? CodePink? The MSM? Whose agenda is being fed here? And the real kicker? Ms. Sheehan and her outrageous statements. “This country is not worth dying for” and “George is a murderer” are but two of the most over-the-top statements I can recall. Are these reported by the MSM? Nope.

    Vladi G, how are you, you lefty kook? I haven’t seen any of your bile since I was banned from Jessie and Amanda’s site…

  206. 206
    jg says:

    While I have every respect for the fact that this lady lost a child in a horrible manner, I cannot respect her for who she has sided with.

    Well thank God you found a reason to dismiss her. For a fleeting second there was a legitimate anti-war voice but you put that to rest quickly.

    Why does the right spend so much time looking for reasons to dismiss people?

  207. 207
    Greg L says:

    My first & last visit to this blog. I decided a few years ago that our country is headed for a Second Civil War, and if the discourse on this blog is any indicator, the fires are much closer than I thought. In the First Civil War, the excuse was slavery, in the Second Civil War, the excuse will be abortion, but the real cause will be all the assorted pent-up vitriol that surrounds all many other issues alluded to here in this “discussion” about wingnuts vs. commies and everyone in between. It was a great experiment, our nation, but I guess it won’t survive our bottomless capacity for hatred. Good luck, people. You’ll need it.

  208. 208
    MisterPundit says:

    Why does the right spend so much time looking for reasons to dismiss people?

    Yawn. Her views are being dismissed. Get a clue.

  209. 209
    Small Block Chevy says:

    You lefties need to relax. (Especially this Cole guy.) Can’t you lefties get righteously indignant without getting profane? Answer one question. Was Cindy Sheehan telling the truth a year ago or now? It’s one or the other. It can’t be both. God bless Mrs Sheehan for her loss. God bless everyone who loved Casey for their loss. God bless Casey for his honorable service.

    And God bless Michelle Malkin. I guess you guys don’t believe that somebody (I wonder who) was supplying the Japanese intelligence on how to attack Pearl Harbor. Internment was not done without cause.

    Keep sending us fire-breathing left-leaners like Howard Dean. We love it. You’re making it too easy. LOL!

    Small Block

  210. 210
    tommy higbee says:

    > Ah, they’re used to it; hate-mail and vicious diatribes are the stock and trade of the Right.

    Having looked at Democratic Underground a time or two, I always find this kind of statement funny. It’s just amazing how often the left will tell us that they are just too nice compared to conservatives — too independent, too given to reasoned discourse, etc. While conservatives of course are full of hate, anger, and bile.

    Now obviously, neither side is immune to bad behavior. That said, I’ve seen more hate, viciousness, nasty language, insults, and complete absence of reason on the left than I’ve ever seen on the right.

    This puzzled me for a while, until I came to understand that, while the right sees the left as foolish, the left sees the right as EVIL. So it’s easy to justify any sort of nasty behavior when you’re fighting evil.

    This explains the tendency to call Bush Hitler, and to talk about Nazis, fascists, hate mongers — all the stuff we saw before the last election.

    And to get back to Michelle Malkin, those who call her “self-hating” are just displaying their complete ignorance of Asian history and culture. No, I’m hardly an expert, but I do know that we tend to lump the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipino’s together because they are all in the category “Asian”. But just because they’re all Asian doesn’t mean they’re all alike, or that they see each other as Asian brothers.

    On the contrary, there’s historically been very bad blood between some neighboring countries in Asia. As near as I can tell, Michelle Malkin is Filipino in heritage. In World War II, America fought the Japanese, and the Filipinos were our allies. The Phillipines suffered greatly under the Japanese occupation. In the famed Bataan Death March, the Filipinos tried to help the Americans as much as they could get away with, and were some of America’s firecest and best allies against the Japanese. Many Asian countries hated the Japanese with a passion, but no country had more right than the Phillipines.

    In other words, for a Filipino to criticize the Japanese is not anything resembling self-hatred. It’s more like a dog-bites-man story.

    Fortunately, these old animosities are dying out. Japan is a far different country these days. But calling Michelle Malkin “self-loathing” just shows the ignorance of the insulter.

  211. 211
    Canadian by-stander says:

    Certain readers are getting all riled up over the use of expletives in this blog and its comments. The intelligent response to this group of people is, “Go fuck yourselves.” If it’s good enough for Cheney, it is, and ought to be, good enough for all ya’ll. Cussing is not a bad thing; it’s fun, in fact, especially insofar as it gets a rise out of uppity fucks.

    Two things that are apparent to someone with no real interest in this debate:

    1. Michelle Malkin certainly deserves all of the (non-racist) polemical comments directed her way, as she is, and will likely continue to be, an intellectual non-weight; and

    2. The only people that stand to gain from a prolonged discussion of anything related to Cindy Sheehan are the people with whom she has aligned herself.

    I happen to think that the war is, was, and will continue to be a really stupid idea. The polls say that 60% of your countrymen and women agree with me. If I were in the minority, though, I would steer right fucking clear of this minefield. She’s not a politician, a lawyer, or a journalist, and will not be held to the same standards of consistency by the public. As long as she keeps spouting unenlightened anti-war rhetoric, and ya’ll keep dissecting it, she is, in effect, winning. Morons.

    Support the troops, not the war.

  212. 212
    greeseyparrot says:

    Yawn, Yawn, Moonbat, yawn, Moonbat, Moonbat. Boy you lefties sure can’t take it, oh and by the way… yawn. Now I remember why I don’t post on this site. I made a comment above that I thought at least deserved a response, but all that followed were comments responding to nothing and no one.

  213. 213
    Dick Cheney says:

    I heard Cindy Sheehan wasn’t even in Cambodia,
    and shot herself to get those medals.
    -Dick

  214. 214
    Don says:

    For all you Cindy Sheehan lovers saying leave her husband out of it……

    Bend you and grab you ankles!!!

    Cindy Sheehan’s “Husband” say that Cindy Should Go Home!!!

    He also say’s that she is doing a disservice to their family.

    That’s what he told people magazine… I wonder if you are going to say he’s lying??? I don’t think you can keep up the “leave her private life out of it,” since he has injected himself into the discussion!!!

    I told you not to hold on to her coat tails but you didn’t listen!!!

    Hahaha!!!

  215. 215
    Julio says:

    Hey balloon-knot , you should send Michelle Malkin a thank you card for linking your sorry blog.

    I’ll bet this is the most hits you’ve ever had.
    My first ( and last ) visit………..unless Malkin or coulter links you again.

  216. 216

    Hey — when the Ditch Bitch brought the Bush daughters into the matter many months ago, she opened herself and her family up to any sort of examination we choose to give. After all — she made herself a public figure, and dragged them along with her.

    Unless you believe that Cindy Sheehan was, herself, out of line.

    Oh, and I don’t think your commenters were ACTING like Stormfront posters. I think they are from Stormfront — or other KKK/Nazi/White Supremacist sites. After all, those folks are lining up behind Cindy because of her antipathy toward Israel and the Joooos.

  217. 217
    Dan says:

    Keep on posting, loathesome libs! Spew your vile hatred, let the the torrent of obsecenity flow!

    With every post, every blog, every thread, you show the world what you really are: sad, demoralized, and completely lost.

  218. 218
    Keith says:

    Hey, Canadian bystander, 60% of my countrymen and women do NOT agree with you; the poll shows that 60% of the people disapprove of the way the President is handling the war. Of that 60%, probably about 25% of those agree with you, and the other 75% disapprove of the President not doing enough, i.e., they think we should be kicking ass!!!

    The 25% who agree with you do so because they want to be just like you Canucks–socialist morons. Could you please expedite their immigration to your sorry-ass country?

    And oh, have a nice day…

  219. 219
    jerry says:

    there is a difference between public and private information?………marriage records are public…….sorry, but that is just the way it works……………

  220. 220

    I come from Vacaville My family lived there from 1942 till 1985 My farthers family worked for the Bucks, Mr Yourbough and Shyar and Harmes he built most the area roads and worked on Lake Berryesa and Built Lake Salono. When my son at early age wanted to go into the Army or Marines my farther took the time to look up the history of the war he fought in . My uncle was a Army snipier in Korea but because he worked with Cia you can’t get any info on him he took out the two genrals that ended that war.My son was in at the time we went to Afganistan and Irag did two tours one to each country as a snipier it was his choice even if I did not agree to it I supported him. I grew up during the Vietnam war lost alot of friends and family there. There is a big diffrence between this war and that war. My moms family goes Army all the way back to the civil war.Did I want him over there espeacaily as a snipier no but it’s what feels he needed to do. he was already in when (/11 happened I will neaver forget that call or the look of the students that day when thet heard the news. Because this war came to US soil he wanted to defend our country and he did was in both countrys . He has lost friends I work for Job Corps we personaly lost students them and the attack on ship USS cole some got injured. But its there choice and I will back my son’s choice and I’ll back that choice till I die. He’s out now 5 years service now is a private Body gaurd in Atlanta Ga he is now gaurding the pepole that handing the money to the Katrina victoms He loves his job and he got out because dosen’t belive in the politics of the Army. But would go back after he finishes his Education if needed. Because he belives in this country and the right to be a democractic society and to for all be safe in our homes and buissness to grow up with out fear and for the choice of religion even if he is a athis wasn’t raise that way but has those chioces because all the people before him that fought for those freedoms for us and every country we have freed to have those rights.

  221. 221

    Hi i’am Sandra Cowan what wanted say with my statement you as mother should respect your son wishes to do what he did I know how tough it is to go thur boot camp. we do those for young adults too at Job corps and I saw my son family go thur them during Vietnam and boy friend. Respect there choice there memory and there belief in God and country even though my sons says he is a athis he has to remember from my heritage balance and sprit are all around things have to balance if your didn’t want to go to war he had know all he had do was fail at boot camp or regsister as a consciousess objector to the war. Since he didn’t all of us conculded that he wanted to serve god and country or like my son freedom and love of country. It’s not like it use to be you went out of respect for your family we raise our children now to have voice if we don’t we our not respecting them or ourselfs.

  222. 222

    […] This is a woman who sneeringly posted Cindy Sheehan’s divorce papers on her website in a sickening moment of bwah-ha-ha gotcha “journalism.” She laughably accused the New York Times’ travel section of aiding and abetting would-be assassins of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. She wrote a shoddily researched and overtly propagandistic “history” book defending mass racial internment. And let’s not forget her loon conspiracy theories about Mexicans plotting to retake the Southwestern United States in a full-scale reconquista. […]

  223. 223

    Nice and usefull post, thanks, this is one for my bookmarks!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] This is a woman who sneeringly posted Cindy Sheehan’s divorce papers on her website in a sickening moment of bwah-ha-ha gotcha “journalism.” She laughably accused the New York Times’ travel section of aiding and abetting would-be assassins of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. She wrote a shoddily researched and overtly propagandistic “history” book defending mass racial internment. And let’s not forget her loon conspiracy theories about Mexicans plotting to retake the Southwestern United States in a full-scale reconquista. […]

  2. Reading A1 says:

    Political theater, or, Where’s Jesse?

    Probably the most socially meaningful, certainly the most engaged, of the various things I did in my grad-student days to procrastinate my dissertation was to work as an organizer for Yale’s fledgling TA/student labor union (GESO, the Graduate Employe…

  3. […] There’s not a whole lot more than I can say about the Sheehan protest, but I’ll try a bit. Cindy Sheehan is right: What is the noble cause we are fighting for in Iraq? Honestly, can’t George Bush answer that one question? Finally, I think John Cole might be on the right track, here, when he gets on Malkin’s case for the smear she keeps trying to pull. Some of called on him to apologize, and he did to an extent, but I think his pissed-off stance is right. Honest-to-God, someone’s gotta stand up to Malkin, I’m glad somebody on her side is doing it. […]

  4. […] I’m disappointed in John Cole. His recent rant against Michelle Malkin defends the indefensible. He should know better. […]

  5. […] There is no need to go rummaging through her personal life- even if it is ‘news.’ […]

  6. Is Cindy Sheehan’s divorce off-limits?

    When it came out recently that the New York Times was investigating the adoption of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’…

  7. […] John Cole is not amused by Michelle Malkin’s thinly-veiled glee over Cindy Sheehan’s failing marriage. John writes: Who f-ing cares? Sheehan’s marriage is irrelevant- married, single, gay, straight, she is still Casey’s mother, and no amount of discussions regarding what her husband believes, or why she is divorced, or any other personal details change that. Stick to her statements about the war, stick to her actions, and stick to the groups promoting her. But stay the hell out of her marriage, or her failing marriage. Or get a job with the National Enquirer. […]

  8. Loaded Mouth says:

    Help out Cindy Sheehan!

    I didn’t believe this news when I first read it on a horrible-sit-that-will-not-be-named, but now the AP is reporting that

  9. […] If you haven’t saw it on Drudge already, the Sheehan divorce rumors are true. Michelle Malkin who first reported on this last evening was the first blogger on this tonight. As I respect Michelle as a terrific journalist and putting up any news on Sheehan, I don’t think the divorce should be a topic that is discussed. A divorce is a private family matter and has no merit in this discussion since the two separated in early June 2005. A death of a child, especially one that died in war, is something that severely (for lack of a better term) fucks up a family. The only thing that should be discussed in this case is the crazy antics of a woman who needs to stop using her son to get her political agenda out. In my humble opinion, we should stay on the topic and let the Sheehan family deal with the divorce in private. Now I wouldn’t go as far as my friend over at Balloon Juice did, but you get the idea of how he feels on the matter. And I wouldn’t go to the other end of the spectrum, like La Shawn does, and says we shouldn’t discuss this matter. Sheehan deserves all the bad press she gets because she decided to put her face in the media. Sorry you just can’t have it both ways.    Filed under Cindy Sheehan […]

  10. Sadly, No! says:

    Sorry, Michelle- You’re Still a Vile Piece of Shit

    Yesterday, Ms. Internment USA posted a link to Cindy Sheehan’s divorce papers and wrote, “it will be interesting to see if Cindy Sheehan continues to insist that she and her husband ‘are on the same side of the fence’ with…

  11. […] Now This is an Obscenity […]

  12. […] I came to this altogether unsurprising news by way of John Cole, who writes in part: […]

  13. […] Update (8/16/05 2:28am): John Cole has a few words for people poking around in Cindy Sheehan’s personal life. By the way, hello all you Balloon Juice readers! Fontana Labs at Unfogged unfavorably compares Cindy Sheehan’s campsite to Michael Moore’s guerilla tactics, but supports Sheehan’s protest nonetheless. Tags: Cindy Sheehan, George Bush, Crawford ranch protests, anti-war movement, Iraq War   […]

Comments are closed.