Cindy Sheehan, the so-called Peace Mom seeking a second meeting with President Bush in connection with the Iraq War death of her son, says terrorists killing Americans are "freedom fighters."

 

She made the remark during her trek earlier this month to Crawford, Texas; but her equating the enemy with freedom fighters has not been highlighted by the mainstream media, despite her telling it directly to a reporter for CBS News.

 

Sheehan's comments were recorded on video by Veterans for Peace, a group pushing for Bush's impeachment. (Editor's note: The video of Cindy Sheehan is approximately 30 minutes long, and requires several minutes to load, even with a high-speed connection.)

 

"You know that the president says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don't you believe that?" asked Mark Knoller of CBS, surrounded by a host of other reporters.

 

"No, because it's not true," Sheehan replied. "You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."

 

A WorldNetDaily search of CBS News, Google News, and Lexis-Nexis archives found not a single news report mentioning Sheehan's "freedom fighters" remark.

 

"The question of whether or not we should be in Iraq is not relevant in this discussion," Fred Keller of Clearwater, Fla., told WND. "We're there and have troops in the field under fire and these people are aiding and abetting the enemy."

 

"What's her problem then?" asked one messageboard poster on FreeRepublic.com. "Her son was killed by a 'freedom fighter.' She should be proud."

 

Sheehan also called for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops, characterizing the ongoing conflict in Iraq as a "travesty."

 

"It's a monstrosity," she said. "It was based on lies, and since it was based on lies, why are people still dying every day for lies? That's what they're dying for. And as soon as we get them out of the country, the insurgency will go down. They might have a little bit of trouble at first, but you know every Iraqi tells me, 'We're a civilization that has been around for thousands of years. We can handle our own problems.'"

 

Sheehan referred to her son, Casey, not as a war hero, but rather a war victim.

 

"If I was thinking straight, which I wasn't, I never would have allowed a military funeral, and I wouldn't have buried him in his uniform," Sheehan said. "I just basically stayed sitting on my couch, crying and drinking for a week."

 

Sheehan left Texas last week to care for her 74-year-old mother who had a stroke. She's expected to return soon to Crawford, where anti-war activists/entertainers such as singer Joan Baez and Margot Kidder, best known for her role as Lois Lane in "Superman," have been making headlines.

 

Kidder, a Canadian who has lived in Montana for 34 years, became a U.S. citizen last week so she could protest the Iraq War without being deported to Canada.

 

President Bush, meanwhile, is slated to spend two hours tomorrow with families of other slain soldiers.

 

"Well, I did meet with Cindy Sheehan," Bush said, referring to his meeting with the entire Sheehan family last June at Fort Lewis, Wash. "I strongly support her right to protest. There's a lot of people protesting. And there's a lot of points of view about the Iraq war."

 

"She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it," he added, noting Sheehan's pullout philosophy. "I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake. I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East would be ? are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States. So I appreciate her right to protest. I understand her anguish. I met with a lot of families. She doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with. And I'll continue to meet with families."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45938

They might have a little bit of trouble at first, but you know every Iraqi tells me, 'We're a civilization that has been around for thousands of years. We can handle our own problems.'"

913302[/snapback]

 

Of course, for those of you who didn't know, Cindy Sheehan runs an Iraqi-only bed and breakfast where she meets an estimated 135 Iraqis a month, whom she asks for opinions on the sovereignty of Iraq.

 

:plain

 

The woman is batshit insane.

She is disgracing her dead son's memory.

Youre going to post an article from a blantantly biased source and then accuse others of having an agenda?

 

This piece jumps all over her for the use of one technical term to try and slander her. Its called selective journalism. It ignores everything else she says to try and distort her into being some pro terrorist person. It totally ignored her point or see if she actually does support terrorists. She is clearly referring to people who come from other countries to try and remove an occupying force. The technical term is mujahideen. Ronald Reagan referred to the Afghanistan mujahideen, include Osama Bin Laden, as freedom fighters. Now if I follow the cheap lowlife journalism of worldnetdaily, I can distort what Reagan said as "Reagan called Bin Laden a freedom fighter!" So if worldnetdaily doesnt allow for distinguishing or an explanation, why should I?

 

This is the second time the right wing noise machine has tried to distort this lady's views or lie(this first one being that she supported the Palestinians, no source being found). It goes to show how far people will go. But I guess they must be scared that she will actually accomplish something. Next up, "Sheehan in love with Bin Laden!"

 

If you dont agree with whats she is saying or how she is doing it, then thats fine. I dont agree with much of them either. But the slander and distortion machine sickens me.

But the slander and distortion machine sickens me.

913528[/snapback]

Cindy Sheehan isn't guilty of that or anything!

But the slander and distortion machine sickens me.

913528[/snapback]

Cindy Sheehan isn't guilty of that or anything!

913591[/snapback]

Ok, then rip on her for that. But does that make it ok to resort to cheap tactics? Two wrongs dont make a right.

 

Plus Sheehan isnt a journalistic source. Her rants carry no extra weight. People see her for what she is. Readers of worldnetdaily, however, buy into this stuff because its reported as fact.

 

The best defense of worldnetdaily cant be thats its just as bad as a greiving mother who is on a mission.

What is occurring as Frank Rich points out is the "Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan".

Come on F_M, I know your a bleeding heart, but defending a woman that says terrorists are freedom fighters?? You know better than that.

From the same source that used an obviously forged e-mail to claim Cindy's antisemitic?

 

Sorry, but I'll pass. I'll let WND stick to what they do best--reporting on Israel--as long as they agree to stay out of everything else.

it was a misquote and totally bs article. This administration and their control of the media sickens me.

 

I think we should rename half of the newspapers and Fox to UBA

 

Up Bush's Asre

 

 

But if you wish to have a debate over the term freedom fighters

 

The Boston tea party was proclaimed a terrorist style attack against the british back in the UK at the time.

 

Would those men be freedom fighters or Terrorists?

 

The IRA is responsible for thousands of deaths within the UK, yet if you ask most folks within Ireland they will be considered Freedom fighters.

 

Are they terrorists or freedom fighters?

 

The Militias within the revolutionary war fought with bandit tactics hitting supply trains and shooting and purposeful killing of officers.

Would that be terrorists acts or acts of freedom fights?

 

My point? History is written by the winners. That is whom decides the facts of what takes place. If in 500 years the US has crumbled (likely but I hope not), and Iraq and the middle east is the power in the world again. You might see those men being "heros" to the world and proclaimed as such.

 

A funny world we live in. But my personal opinion is the men and women over there in our uniforms are the heros. I just hope they can either get reinforced by about 200,000 more soliders or brought home. Specially the navy and National guard soliders, and reserves over there.

Come on F_M, I know your a bleeding heart, but defending a woman that says terrorists are freedom fighters?? You know better than that.

914571[/snapback]

Im not defending her views. Im just saying its ridiculous to resort to distortion techniques to destroy someone's credibility. Do you honestly think this mother believes people who kill innocent civilians are good people? The piece ignores her point in favor of one tiny blimp taken out of context. The media gets away with this all the time because people defend this crap. This is no different from NARAL running those ads accusing John Roberts of supporting abortion clinic bombers. The left critisized them for that and they were pulled. Yet some of you guys think this is ok because you dont like this women.

From the same source that used an obviously forged e-mail to claim Cindy's antisemitic?

 

Sorry, but I'll pass. I'll let WND stick to what they do best--reporting on Israel--as long as they agree to stay out of everything else.

914677[/snapback]

 

Do you trust CBS after their use of an obviously forged note to claim that Bush went AWOL?

I feel sorry for Sheehan that she has lost her son, as well as I feel sorry for all of the family's out there that have lost someone in this war. Hell I almost went and wish I did go...

 

The point is, is that her son made the choice to join the military and knew of the risk that came with the job. He knew that, and all of us that are either in now or were in knew that.

 

Is this here way of dealing with the loss of her son? Could be, I don't know.

 

But what right does she have to make the statements she has made over the past couple of weeks? I can understand a mom, dad, sister, brother, etc..... being mad over the loss of a family member and might say some harsh things. But you don't go on national TV and make yourself look like a fool by making statements like she has made.

 

So do we just give her a pass, and allow her to make radical statements and give her plenty or air time to do so due to the fact that she has lost her son in a war that she now doesn't agree with?

 

My answer is no. You may disagree with me, but consider this..

 

Her actions in my view not only dishonor her son, but they dishonor myself and anyone else that has served in the military. Most of all she has dishonored her family. By doing what she is doing now, she is breaking up her family just so she can get her point across to the country...

 

And she is using here dead son to do it!!!!

 

Again, her son made the choice and gave up his life for his country, not her.

 

For her to use her son's death to further her agenda, as well as the left's agenda is just sad

Since you're so smart, you must know what noble cause Casey died for. Care to explain it?

 

Is it the weapons of mass destruction? Nope, none found.

 

Is it to combat Islamist extremism? Nope, Saddam was more of a Stalinist.

 

Is it to fight terrorism over there rather than over here? Not only is that narcissistic, but also completely untrue, unless you're willing to fight them in London.

 

Is it to capture Osama? Nope, he's in the tribal region of Pakistan.

 

Is it to bring freedom to the Iraqis? Nope, they're about to set up an Iran-like theocracy. I'm sure the women will absolutely LOVE their abayas, whether they like them or not.

 

 

So now that we knocked down the myths, the last question remains: did Casey and 2,000 others die in vain? So far, the answer appears to be yes.

The 8,000,000 Iraqis who voted in January's election beg to differ....

You mean the 8 million Iraqis who just voted for an Islamic (potentially Islamist?) state?

They are freedom fighters. Who cares!?

 

I don't agree with them, but they DO have a cause. Just because she calls them freedom fighters and "everyone" hates this woman now is no reason to obscure the fact that these guys believe in something...

 

This is just another thread to call this woman a bitch for no reason. That's what it boils down to.

Since you're so smart, you must know what noble cause Casey died for. Care to explain it?

 

Is it the weapons of mass destruction? Nope, none found.

 

Is it to combat Islamist extremism? Nope, Saddam was more of a Stalinist.

 

Is it to fight terrorism over there rather than over here? Not only is that narcissistic, but also completely untrue, unless you're willing to fight them in London.

 

Is it to capture Osama? Nope, he's in the tribal region of Pakistan.

 

Is it to bring freedom to the Iraqis? Nope, they're about to set up an Iran-like theocracy. I'm sure the women will absolutely LOVE their abayas, whether they like them or not.

 

 

So now that we knocked down the myths, the last question remains: did Casey and 2,000 others die in vain? So far, the answer appears to be yes.

916232[/snapback]

 

 

Fair enough, I'll answer to the best of my ability......

 

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction- All I have to say is go to the U.N. web page and look up Iraq and WMD's. http://www.un.org/ I've could go on and on about this subject... In fact i've done so many research papers on this for school that rewrite them in my sleep....

 

To make this answer short, end of 1st gulf war, Iraq agreed to destroy all WMD's.... Failure to do so would lead to sanctions and use of force if necessary. If you want to read the cease fire agreement between Iraq and the U.N. go for it..... Between the end of the first gulf war which was 1991 through 2002 there were over a dozen violations by Iraq to this cease fire agrement. Again you can read all of the resolutions that the UN put against Iraq during those years by going to the UN's web site and read it for yourself.... All 12+ dozen UN resolutions

 

Oh, and between the years of 1998 and 2002, there were no weapons inspectors in Iraq, which of course violated the cease fire agreement, and gave you know who plenty of time to hide of move those WMD's.

 

2.Is it to combat Islamist extremism- I'm not saying we should or shouldn't..... though they are making every other Islam look bad.

 

3. Is it to fight terrorism over there rather than over here? Not only is that narcissistic, but also completely untrue, unless you're willing to fight them in London.- I would say take the fight to them. Doesn't matter where they are, or who they are... They were luck in London in finding a crack in the system.... Will it happen again? Maybe.... will it happen here? Maybe.... But I'd rather fight them over there and do my f***ing best to make sure they don't get another chance...

 

4.Is it to capture Osama?- We'll get him..... The fact that he has to keep moving around is sign that we are closing in....

 

5.Is it to bring freedom to the Iraqis? Nope, they're about to set up an Iran-like theocracy. I'm sure the women will absolutely LOVE their abayas, whether they like them or not.- I think you would have more of a case if we were forcing our own views down their throats. What we have done for the first time is allow the Iraqi people to vote for whats best for them rather then have some dictator tell them how to live... We've given them the ability to vote freely without fear of being shot dead. If they chose to vote for more of an Islamic state, then so be it..... Its there right!!!! will it be like having another Iran, I doubt that. Then again, who is to say that will happen... They may choose to have more of a free society. Either way, if you listen to the news and really follow whats going on in re guards to that, you'll see that taking their time and making sure they do it right where all parties will have a say in what happens in that country...

 

6. So now that we knocked down the myths, the last question remains: did Casey and 2,000 others die in vain? Casey and the others that have died during this war died fighting for their country and for what they believed in. Again, this is a volunteer army... There was no draft, no one forced them to go... Though they may have not all agreed with why we went to war, they answered the call of their country. And are making sure that people such as your self don't have to go over there via a draft... Cause if they didn't do it, rest assure, you would be forced to do it when they bring back that draft.. Which by the way will never happen because, people like Casey and myself that have served our country will make sure that people like you won't have to go over there.....

 

Last thing I need, had I gone, would to have someone that didn't want to be there next to me, cause more then likley they would get me killed first before the terrorist could.

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction- All I have to say is go to the U.N. web page and look up Iraq and WMD's. http://www.un.org/ I've could go on and on about this subject... In fact i've done so many research papers on this for school that rewrite them in my sleep....

 

To make this answer short, end of 1st gulf war, Iraq agreed to destroy all WMD's.... Failure to do so would lead to sanctions and use of force if necessary. If you want to read the cease fire agreement between Iraq and the U.N. go for it..... Between the end of the first gulf war which was 1991 through 2002 there were over a dozen violations by Iraq to this cease fire agrement. Again you can read all of the resolutions that the UN put against Iraq during those years by going to the UN's web site and read it for yourself.... All 12+ dozen UN resolutions

 

Oh, and between the years of 1998 and 2002, there were no weapons inspectors in Iraq, which of course violated the cease fire agreement, and gave you know who plenty of time to hide of move those WMD's.

 

1. This was not the same evidence presented to the American people by the Bush administration. They were told that there was a clear and present threat and that they knew Saddam actually had WMDs, not that Saddam was up to his old ways in playing "keep the inspectors out." Its amazing that the last resort to hide behind is the "he violated the UN agreement" argument. Listen, this was not the same argument that caused Powells former aide to refer to his UN speech as the lowest point in his life(where they were essentially told to pick evidence from a buffet-http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/index.html?section=cnn_latest).

 

Furthermore, when did it become our duty to pick and choose what UN agreement we would enforce when the UN itself decides to take a different route? If you have a contract with your friend, can I come in guns blazing to enforce it even though you dont want to?

 

3. Is it to fight terrorism over there rather than over here? Not only is that narcissistic, but also completely untrue, unless you're willing to fight them in London.- I would say take the fight to them. Doesn't matter where they are, or who they are... They were luck in London in finding a crack in the system.... Will it happen again? Maybe.... will it happen here? Maybe.... But I'd rather fight them over there and do my f***ing best to make sure they don't get another chance...

 

2. The invasion of Iraq created new, nonexistent terrorists. Furthermore, the international ones arent walking into our gun barrels in Iraq. Yes we are fighting insurgents but many of them are Sunni and are trying to kick us out. Yes Zarqawi is in Iraq, but how many other AQ people have we caught or killed in Iraq? The "take the war to them" argument is usually reserved for the naive people who see this as a war against brown people and the entire mideast who cant get past the simple concept of a traditional war. Hell, I bet nuclear bombs are an option too.

 

 

3. How much longer until we start turning the vice against the new un-American but democractically elected government? And cmon, lets be honest. This war was never about the Iraqi people. They became a side issue and a politically convenient justification. Like Ive said before, how many Americans knew the word Kurd wasnt referring to Little Miss Muffet before Bush decided to bring it up?

 

 

So Ill give you credit for making the argument.(seriously, good to see actual arguments from conservatives) But the justifications for the war are so flimsy that they could barely hold a feather. And its enough for an American citizen to express their first amendment right to free speech against the president, last time I checked.

Heres my response to BullDurham's point.

 

Lets say Mrs.Sheehan's son died in vain as you make the arguements for. Let's assume this point, b/c arguing on the merits of the war has gotten older than Methuselah.

 

Her son, an adult by law, because in this country a person is an adult when they turn 18, decided to join the military. After reading corresponding paperwork he signed up. Once a person is in the military whatever war the govt wants to send you to,you have to go. It is not YOUR decision to go or not b/c you signed a legally binding contract. His mom's upset, and as well she should be. Shes saying some things that may or may not be idiotic, however the real problem is the goddamn sensationalist media in this country. This really is a who cares issue. If my son where to end up on the street as a heroin addict and die of a drug overdose, should I get TV coverage of bashing the education system or some othet govt program. No. Neither should she. Thats the bottom line. For as correct or idiotic as she may be, this is not newsworthy.

 

And my final thought for all to grasp: Mothers and Fathers DO NOT send their kids to war, nor do they send them to the military. Same way a person with a scholarhsip or financial aid choses to go to college, another can join the military, even if his parents dont want him to.

She is disgracing her dead son's memory.

913447[/snapback]

 

 

 

That basically sums it all up right there.

She is disgracing her dead son's memory.

913447[/snapback]

 

 

 

That basically sums it all up right there.

917280[/snapback]

It's rediculous. Some people really just let emotions and what not take away their thinking ability.

But what right does she have to make the statements she has made over the past couple of weeks? I can understand a mom, dad, sister, brother, etc..... being mad over the loss of a family member and might say some harsh things. But you don't go on national TV and make yourself look like a fool by making statements like she has made.

916140[/snapback]

I respect that you hold differing opinions on the war - however, to ask what right she has to make these statements is downright ignorant. She has the right under the first amendment - a right that the military has fought to preserve (though not in Iraq).

 

She has the right to express her opinions, if they differ from yours - why does it make her wrong and not you?

 

In my opinion, disrespecting the memory of her son would be to mention why he wasn't a good person and deserved to die. She didn't do any of this. Instead, she chose to voice her frustrations over policies that she (and many others) don't understand. While your post demonstrates that you hold certain beliefs over why the war in Iraq was necessary, you need to realize that those who don't believe as you do hold valid opinions as well and should be equally respected.

But what right does she have to make the statements she has made over the past couple of weeks?? I can understand a mom, dad, sister, brother, etc.....? being mad over? the loss of a family member and might say some harsh things. But you don't go on national TV and make yourself look like a fool by making statements like she has made.?

916140[/snapback]

I respect that you hold differing opinions on the war - however, to ask what right she has to make these statements is downright ignorant. She has the right under the first amendment - a right that the military has fought to preserve (though not in Iraq).

 

She has the right to express her opinions, if they differ from yours - why does it make her wrong and not you?

 

In my opinion, disrespecting the memory of her son would be to mention why he wasn't a good person and deserved to die. She didn't do any of this. Instead, she chose to voice her frustrations over policies that she (and many others) don't understand. While your post demonstrates that you hold certain beliefs over why the war in Iraq was necessary, you need to realize that those who don't believe as you do hold valid opinions as well and should be equally respected.

917334[/snapback]

 

Best thing I've read all night.

 

This woman is being demonized by some people and made a hero by others. I think the important thing at least, is she's gotten people talking. Although, I'm not sure she's got them talking about the right issue which would be the war. Instead we seem to be focusing too much on if she's a hypocrite/crazy.

But what right does she have to make the statements she has made over the past couple of weeks? I can understand a mom, dad, sister, brother, etc..... being mad over the loss of a family member and might say some harsh things. But you don't go on national TV and make yourself look like a fool by making statements like she has made.

916140[/snapback]

I respect that you hold differing opinions on the war - however, to ask what right she has to make these statements is downright ignorant. She has the right under the first amendment - a right that the military has fought to preserve (though not in Iraq).

 

She has the right to express her opinions, if they differ from yours - why does it make her wrong and not you?

 

In my opinion, disrespecting the memory of her son would be to mention why he wasn't a good person and deserved to die. She didn't do any of this. Instead, she chose to voice her frustrations over policies that she (and many others) don't understand. While your post demonstrates that you hold certain beliefs over why the war in Iraq was necessary, you need to realize that those who don't believe as you do hold valid opinions as well and should be equally respected.

917334[/snapback]

 

She has every right to say what she wants.

 

But you have to ask yourself, would she be doing and saying this stuff had her son not die over in Iraq? Would she base her views on the war, which she has every right to do so, if her son were still alive and fighting in Iraq?

 

And why is the area where she is located known as "Camp Casey"?

 

I feel for her. As we all do. I'm sure most of us have friends or family members over there and pray for their safe return.

 

And we all have the right to view our own option on this war. We can say what ever about the war. I don't care really. Your not going to change my mind about it, and I'm not going to change your mind about it.

 

Part of the problem in this mess I guess is the fact that the national media has gotten involved and has given her a national stage to say what she thinks. The other part of the problem though is Sheehan herself.

 

Again, we can say what ever we want in this county, which makes this country so great. But there comes a point when we all know when not to say s***. There's that line that we just don't cross.

 

 

 

In my view Sheehan has crossed that line, with the help of the media in using her son's death as a platform to push her ideas about the war,and to basicly give her a pass on anything she says. Even if it doesn't make any sence

 

She has the right to say what ever she wants, but please don't use your son's death as the way to do it. Don't blame other people for you son's death when he's the one that choose to go into the military and knew of the risk involved.