[NegPhil]

Cindy Sheehan's diary


I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong."

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am doing because I am an "attention whore" then I really need to be committed. I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.

Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children’s children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too...which makes the property even more valuable.

This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

It’s up to you now.

[fingernailsonhull]

I don't care much for Cindy Sheehan, but this paragraph really hit home:

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

[VioletlightHeron]

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. One of my problems with the political left in general is their willingness to negotiate or talk with governments like Saddam's Iraq or Sudan in the expectation that negotiation will solve problems. Take for example the recent talks between the U.S. and Iran. Anybody with a brain realizes that Iran is entering into these negotiations to stall for time and to sap our willpower to do anything about Iran supplying armaments to Sadr and his militia. Negotiation between governments works when both parties have good faith reasons to negotiate and adher to the agreements reached. When one government has no intention of keeping its part of the bargain, then the agreements are just a fancy piece of toilet paper.

[opiated]

yeah.thank god she's gone while Bush is still around..we can all sleep easy now

[skippy the wonder dog]

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. One of my problems with the political left in general is their willingness to negotiate ....

Well, don't tar everyone with the same brush.

I see no reason to negotiate with conservatives. :wink:

[opiated]

After a briefing this morning, Bush was informed that 3 Brazilian soldiers had been killed in Iraq. To everyone’s amazement, the colour ran out of Bush’s face, he then collapsed onto his desk, his head in his hands. Visibly shaken and almost whimpering, he finally composed himself and asked his Chief of Staff “Just exactly how many is a Brazilian?”

[VioletlightHeron]

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. One of my problems with the political left in general is their willingness to negotiate ....

Well, don't tar everyone with the same brush.

I see no reason to negotiate with conservatives. :wink:

Nice try at taking my comment out of context, skippy :wink:

What's the point of negotiating with another country's government that has absolutely no intention of honoring their end of the bargain? The only use negotiations with Saddam or Iran would be to threaten them militarily if they engage in acts which threaten our national security. The idea that Iran can be trusted to help "stabilize" Iraq is ludicrious. In the abstract, what Iran is doing or what Saddam did makes perfect sense in that they have interests that clash with ours and they are doing what they can to achieve those goals. However, a rational foreign government would think about the benefits of pursing these goals against the cost of threatening Western security interests. For example, the U.S. and the Soviet Union could negotiate arms treaties and enforce them because both governments were rational actors and didn't want to go to engage in military conflict.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. One of my problems with the political left in general is their willingness to negotiate ....

Well, don't tar everyone with the same brush.

I see no reason to negotiate with conservatives. :wink:

Nice try at taking my comment out of context, skippy :wink:

Nice try at appreciating a joke.

Better luck next time, VLH.

[Sam]

Whatever. I don't know enough about Cindy Sheehan to like her or hate her. I do know enough about Bush and his ilk to know that they're f*cking jack@sses who have spent countless lives in their bid for something - world dominance? More money? Who the hell knows.

I like to think that I have a finite amount of ire to expend in my life and I'm not wasting it on someone whose greatest crime appears to be that she tried to use her son's death to bring attention to an unjust war. Not when George Bush and Stephen Harper walk the Earth. Is Sheehan an attention whore or a grieving mother? Who knows and, really, who cares? Did anyone die because she camped herself outside Bush's ranch? Did anyone really lose anything because of it? And, if someone suggests that she gave comfort to the 'enemy' - trust me, the enemy doesn't need Cindy Sheehan to gird their loins. They're ready to do battle.

Incidentally, you can negotiate with just about anyone. The trick, to quote Teddy Roosevelt, is to 'speak softly and carry a big stick.' Like most well known saying, Bush has managed to mangle that expression. He thinks you're supposed to 'speak loudly and be a big tool.'

[VioletlightHeron]

.
Incidentally, you can negotiate with just about anyone. The trick, to quote Teddy Roosevelt, is to 'speak softly and carry a big stick.' Like most well known saying, Bush has managed to mangle that expression. He thinks you're supposed to 'speak loudly and be a big tool.'

Sam, I have to question how closely and deeply you look into world issues like nuclear proliferation and rogue regimes, such as Sudan, Iran and Iraq, when you give the impression ( in my mind) that following Teddy's saying is all that you need to discourage hostile nations from a course of action that threatens national security interests. Teddy's course of action works if a) the hostile nation is run by a person in a rational state of mind (spare the Bush jokes :roll: ) and can be deterred from their course of action or b) the hostile nation is weaker militarily or economically than you. It also helps if some of your so called allies are serious about backing you up and not playing footsie with the opposing party under the table, ie France opposing U.S. intervention in Iraq because of the 4 billion in oil contracts that the French state owned companies had with Saddam's Iraq or China and Russia blocking U.N. intervention in Darfur because they buy 85 percent of Sudan's oil. Where's the outrage from the Left about China, France and Russia's "blood for oil" policies in encouraging some of the worst human rights abusers?

[skippy the wonder dog]

Oh, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Want to talk nukes? Let's talk Pakistan. What are the rough, tough Republicans doing about the state that spread nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere?

Sweet fuck all, is what.

Stop the nonsense. Whether a regime is led by someone "rational," etc., is obviously subjective, which let's you define what regimes we should negotiate with and which we shouldn't according to your whim, or to be more precise, according to the whim of your favoured pundits. And surprise, surprise, you then find, via circular reasoning, that "the left" is always in favour of negotiating with the wrong people, while the right always negotiates with the right people.

Such as, for example, Pakistan.

[NegPhil]

Alright man, I have held my toung but your ridiculous statements are driving me crazy. Pull your head out of your ass long enough to turn off Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson or whatever right wing propaganda outlet that you fill your head with. Wake Up! What needs to happen for you to see the truth? And another thing that baffles me is why do you people pick on the French? Really, it's just ignorant. Stop. You are making a choice.

[VioletlightHeron]

Let's talk nukes indeed, Skippy. If you remember correctly, both India and Pakistan became nuclear powers back in 1997. Now, that isnt to suggest that Clinton was at fault for letting both these countries go nuclear. In fact, the entire international community was unable to do anything to prevent these two belligerents from testing their precious toys and strutting about like they were big, bad and powerful. Pakistan's godfather of nuclear technology, I.E. Khan ( I think that is his name, but not sure) ran a secret nuclear chop shop shipping nuclear technology to the NoKo's and other countries, but was placed under house arrest by Mussarraf (sp?) after the U.S. and other Western nations placed pressure on Pakistan to reel him in. I don't recall the exact time frame when this all happened, but to suggest Republicans did nothing or is doing nothing about Pakistan's nukes is absurd. Right now, I'd be more worried if the radical Islamic militant political parties in Pakistan took over and decided they wanted to launch Round 4 of aggression against their neighbor India, but it looks like Musharraf and the Pakistani military is firmly in control. I would imagine that Bush is worried about all hell breaking loose if Musharraf gets knocked off, but what the hell can you do about that besides keep on supporting Musharraf politically? I don't believe that the Pakistani military is going to do anything foolish with their nukes because a) India has nukes too and they have the capability to wipe out Pakistan in retaliation. I'd be more worried about Aheminjad and his holy bunch of drooling mullahs acquiring nukes in order to launch Armaggedon so that their precious "hidden imam" can come out of the rabbit hole :roll:

[skippy the wonder dog]

In summary: Iranians can't wait to commit collective suicide, so naturally, we can't negotiate with them. But the Pakistanis have shown that they're rational ... because Republicans have negotiated with them.

There you go with that circular reasoning again.

[VioletlightHeron]

In summary: Iranians can't wait to commit collective suicide, so naturally, we can't negotiate with them. But the Pakistanis have shown that they're rational ... because Republicans have negotiated with them.

There you go with that circular reasoning again.

err, never in my arguement did I say that Republicans and only Republicans have negotiated with Pakistan and therefore we have nothing to worry about from Pakistan. If you read my post, you would notice that I said I was worried that if somebody offed Musharraf then we would have a very serious problem because the radical Islamic parties would probably take control and cause serious problems. Musharraf and the Pakistani intelligence agencies aren't saints themselves; there have been published reports that the Pakistani intelligence agencies have not been the most helpful in tracking down Osama Bin Ladin. The U.S. and the West have to be watchful of the intentions of Pakistan, but like I said, when you have a next door neighbor with the capability to crisp your ass to a fare thee well if you try something first, it's likely that Pakistan isnt going to launch nukes at India. Only in a extreme crisis (say some radical offshoot of one of the Pakistani Islamic groups strikes at a high value target in India with mass casualities) does the likelihood of nuclear war between India and Pakistan occur. In addition, if you re-read my post again, you'll find I never said that we could never negotiate with the Iranians as a nation, I specifically mentioned Ahmadinejad and his bunch of crazy mullahs were untrustworthy.

NegPhil, I'd like you to know that I don't listen to Rush or Tucker anyway, so your ranting drivel really doesnt apply to me. I have a degree in international relations and these are my thoughts and opinions based on all the information I can gather from news sources. Assuming that a person with an opposing viewpoint gets their marching orders from Rush or Tucker is one of the reasons your political party lost the last two presidential elections.