Caution – You Are Entering An Insanity Zone

I wrote the post on Cindy Sheehan earlier and originally called her a “media whore” though I subsequently chose to call her a pawn — probably a more apt description. At RedState, we left it “media whore” with an apology/clarification.

The lefties got my office phone number, email address, and IM and have been filling up voicemail, etc. today. These people are nuts. Calling me something is one thing, but referring also to my secretary as the “c” word because she works for me — that’s over the top.

Cindy Sheehan is a lefty sacred cow. She wants to attack the President (and Israel) and then hide behind her dead son to avoid criticism. She cannot.

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

19 Comments

  • Yes, verbally abusing your secretary is definitely not appropriate. Verbally abusing ANY underling is never appropriate and excusable.
    Neither is calling a grieving mother a “media whore”! You may disagree with Mrs. Sheehan’s position but don’t for a minute think that she wouldn’t give anything to have her son back. God, I really have to hold back from “shouting” because your comment was so unbelievably thoughtless and frankly vicious.
    And, please, an apology/clarification? Give me a break. You knew what you were writing when you wrote it. This story has been on the wires for days. It’s not like you were caught up in the moment and impulsively started making keystrokes. “Excellent written, verbal, and interpersonal communication skills …. “?? Pretty big “oops” for someone who uses the above to describe themselves.
    Finally, I didn’t notice a stint in the Armed Forces in your curriculum vitae. Why not? You seem very, very excited by it all. We need recruits. Why not put your very valuable regional experience at the service of your country? I don’t have half your experience in the region and I was mobilized and went. I have brothers who have been. Why don’t you sign up?
    Oh … yeah .. you call Gold Star moms “whores” … you’re a coward.

  • I agree with the above commenter. That article shows only your utter lack of heart. This woman lost her son, and what she wants is for Bush to come out and explain in detail exactly what was the “noble cause” Casey died for. That’s it.

    How ironic that you get so offended by someone calling your secretary a c–t. Yeah, you’re right, that’s way out of line. Guess you shouldn’t have called a grieving Gold Star Mother a whore, huh?

  • Well, Mrs. Sheehan, as sorry as we all feel for her, is certainly fond of media attention. I suppose the leftist wackos would have attacked you even if you hadn’t used the w-word to describe her.

  • Hey people, how about just being an American for a change. People cannot fit into two boxes in this Country! There are decent Republicans in this country and there are decent Democrats in this country, and when you get in the gutter with comments then you get what you ask for. I am ashamed of this comment made by someone that should have known better, but I am not at all surprised. As Forest Gump says “Stupid is as stupid does.”

  • President Bush would be totally disgusted with the attacks against Mrs. Sheehan, and rightly so, that were made on this website. This is not the way to build the Republican Party at all.

  • Amazing then how the party is dominating state legislatures, governors mansions, the House, the Senate, the White House, and is rumored to control the Supreme Court as well.

  • “These people” are upset at your utter lack of respect for a mother who has lost her son in a war. A war that the President claims to be for a “noble cause”. What cause ? She has a right to an answer. Your post, your subsequent ham-fisted correction, your self-pitying, are all deserving of the scorn you recieve.

    You, Sir, are a disgrace to us all.

  • Dear Matthew,

    I am not an idiot, at all. I call dumb remarks as I see them. I see you have to get in the sandbox with Eric, when he gets sand in his eyes and try to protect your buddy. I am the mother of a Marine, and I think what Eric said is terrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Cindy Sheehan is a lefty sacred cow. She wants to attack the President (and Israel) and then hide behind her dead son to avoid criticism. She cannot.

    Whereas the whole don’t question the war unless you want to be called a traitor mentality isn’t at all a case of sacred cowism for the right.

    As I see it, you could either answer Mrs. Sheehan’s question of what noble cause she buried her son for or you could start attacking her stance by slinging mud. My guess is that nobody on the right can really answer the question and that’s why Mrs. Sheehan scares you.

  • Let us pause for a moment, and look at how badly we all act toward one another. It is time for Democrats and Republicans to come together as one United States. Yes, I was probalby too hard on Eric but he had me pretty angry yesterday. Usually as a Christian, I try to turn the other cheek. But a former Sunday school teacher told our class that we should turn the other cheek when confronted by things that we do not like, but that we never should be a door mat for anyone.

    It is one thing to criticize real things that are not going right in our country, but attacking people on a personal level is crossing the line. I would hope that Eric learned by this experiece yesterday, and will tone down the comments.

    If we do not come together, we are going to destroy this great country for our children and grand children. We are supposed to be United.

  • I see a great contrast between her first comments about her meeting with Bush in her interview on June 24, 2004, that was just several months after her son was killed, and the latest comments she is making about that same meeting with Bush. Cindy Sheehan first said after her meeting with Bush, that she ” now knows that Bush is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqi’s.” Then she went on to say and I quote, ” I know he’s sorry and feels pain for our loss.” She used two descriptions to describe her impressions of Bush after,Bush’s meeting with her, “Sincere” and ” He’s sorry and feels pain for our loss.” Now its quite the opposite description of Bush, if you were to listen to her new interpretation of that same meeting with Bush, you would think it was two seperate meetings. Cindy Sheehan now says about that meeting with Bush that ” Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject,and he acted like it was a party.” That statement indicates just the opposite of what she originally said about Bush, in that she even used the word “sincere” in describing Bush’s demeanor. So I’m to take it that she felt that “acting like it was a party” was sincere, and sincere was as she described Bush in her first interview? The question that now remains concerning her two completely different versions of that meeting with Bush, is, which one is the true story and which one is the lie? In her first interview with David Henson she stated that Bush felt “sorry” about the loss of her son,then Cindy Sheehan turns around and says just the opposite in her interview with Blitzer and I quote ” Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died.” Excuse me but “sorry” and “happy” are not synonyms Mrs.Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan’s versions of that meeting with President Bush just don’t match, they are not remotely similar.

  • Cindy Sheehan is dishonoring her son Casey in several ways. One way she dishonors him is by omitting what his own views on the Iraq war was and synthesizing her own personal views with his. I find it strange that she says her son was against the war in Iraq, but yet Casey Sheehen reenlisted in the army of his own volition, that just doesn’t comport with Cindy Sheehan’s statements. This is a 100 % volunteer military, there is no conscription and that begs the question as to why Casey Sheehan reenlisted in a war he opposed, if that is even true. If perhaps Casey Sheehan disagreed with certain aspects of the war in Iraq e.g..he felt maybe we needed more troops in Iraq, or more armor on humvee’s or better food for the troops etc., then that should be explained by Cindy Sheehan without the partisan hyperbole. A person can complain about particular conditions in Iraq without opposing the entire war in Iraq you know. During another interview on national television Cindy Sheehan stated that her son was killed by friendly fire, when she was pressed about that statement she then said ” well I have speculative evidence that he was killed by friendly fire.” It’s amazing that anyone could use the words speculative and evidence in the same sentence side by side and keep a straight face. Evidence substantiates an allegation, speculation is just the opposite it requires no evidence at all,to use “speculative evidence” together is a perfect example of an oxymoron. The real truth of Casey Sheehan’s death is he was killed by hostile fire in Sadr City, this was the consistent report of his death since day one, medical reports and the reports from fellow soldiers who were present at his death confirm the same fact. Casey Sheehan was a real hero of the first order, when a convoy of soldiers from his unit was attacked in Sadr City he volunteered to join a rescue force to get them out, even after his commanding Sergeant told him he didn’t have to go because he was a mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was reported telling his officer ” I go where my chief goes.” Thats not a man who didn’t believe in his cause or his duty, thats a hero. Casey Sheehan’s family has released this statement and I quote ” 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.”

  • I notice the “Sheehanites” love to repeat Cindy Sheehan’s redundant and what they consider to be “revelational” question , “What noble cause did Casey Sheehan die for?” Now I guess we have to return back to the elementary class of Saddam 101 to answer that question.

    1. Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace in the Middle East. His aggression was only held in check by constant monitoring and economic sanctions that he then used as an excuse to starve and brutalize the people of his own country , all the while, building himself more and more elaborate and gaudy palaces. Was it “Noble” and should have Saddam been removed from power? Ask the Kurds, the Shiites, the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, the Iranians, and the marsh Arabs. I think they’d all say yes.

    2. Saddam brutally tortured and killed hundreds of thousands maybe even millions of innocent people. In my opinion, that alone was sufficient for getting rid of him. “Nobly sufficient”

    3. Saddam Hussein supported terrorism in the Middle East and around the world. It has been well-documented that Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel . Just eliminating that incentive to kill innocent Israeli woman and children is “noble” reason alone to remove Saddam. I know Cindy Sheehan is cringing about that one.

    4. Terror groups associated with Al Qaeda were operating within Iraq in terrorist training camps such as Salman Pak before the war, and had been funded, at least in part, by the Iraqi government. There is no direct link, other then sheltering the terrorist, between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, 2001, but there is no doubt that Saddam was part of the larger problem of terrorism.

    5. Saddam Hussein disregarded numerous United Nations resolutions, 17 in all, dealing with disarmament and inspections. His military fired anti-aircraft weapons at U.S. and U.K. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones on a daily bases, so he never lived up even to the initial cease-fire agreement that ended hostilities at the end of the first Gulf War, let alone any of other numerous resolutions by the U.N. Security Council. Any one of those violations would provide legal justification for the war.

    6. The “domino effect” theory for moving the Middle East towards democracy and away from terrorism has a good chance of working, and yes that alone is a NOBLE reason to be in Iraq. Witness Libya’s recent renouncement of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Iraq itself is moving inexorably toward democratic self-rule, despite the efforts of terrorists and “dead-enders” and the “anti-war defeatest at home” to sabotage the process. If our government stays the course, we will win in Iraq and that victory is for all Iraqi’s.

    7. Removing Saddam Hussein, in my view, was a major part of the larger strategy for the Middle East to move the entire region away from Islamic fundamentalism, theocracy and brutal dictatorship, which give rise to terrorism, and towards representative governments, ruled by law and respectful of individual rights, which will bring peace and stability to the whole region. Yes that is a NOBLE reason and cause to be in Iraq. The insurgents want to keep the blood flowing long enough to distract from that goal, and also so in America dissent will rise against the war in Iraq resulting in a withdrawal.