INDC Journal

« Random IM Conversation with Goldstein, Eleven | Main | Question: What's Wrong With Michelle Malkin's Post on RU-486? »

August 16, 2005
Must Reads

Posted by Bill

Hitchens on Sheehan.

Catalano on Sheehan.

A distracted reader might smell some conflict between those two messages, but he'd be mistaken.

Posted by Bill at August 16, 2005 09:22 AM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

I have to respectfully disagree with Michele to some extent, but I want to tread carefully, here.

Sheehan's made some claims to the effect that her family -- other people touched by the loss of Casey -- supports what she's doing; that, in effect, she's doing what she's doing not just in her own name, not just in Casey's name, but also in theirs.

To the extent that revelations about disagreements within the family demonstrate these claims to be false, they are relevant. But only to that extent. Gloating over the woman's divorce is just ghastly.

Posted by: Brett at August 16, 2005 03:11 PM

A fair distinction.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at August 16, 2005 03:27 PM

"Sinister Piffle" would be an excellent name for a rock band.

Posted by: Evil Otto at August 16, 2005 05:06 PM

Brett, I've made the point that the divorce was in the works before this all became an issue.

Just because they are getting divorced and just because the family is not together does not mean they don't support her views on the war/Bush/Casey's death. You can divorce someone and still share their political beliefs.

Posted by: michele at August 16, 2005 07:27 PM

There was a message on Drudge, coming from Casey's aunts & uncles, that they distanced themselves from Cindy and supported Bush.
I'm just surprised (not) that that didn't get any airplay.

Posted by: rbj at August 17, 2005 09:42 AM

Staying away from the personal issues, I found her statement on Hardball interesting:

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling? SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America. MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11. SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

Posted by: Hubris at August 17, 2005 09:49 AM

rbj,it didn't get any media play because it turns out that the relatives in question aren't close to the Sheehan family at all, hadn't seen Cindy Sheehan in years and barely knew Casey.


That said, her Afghanistan statement is indicative of real moonbat territory. It's almost Rall-like.

Posted by: michele at August 17, 2005 10:19 AM