Cindy Sheehan Enters Stage Right

“The only one in this orgy of anti-war sentiment who has not spoken is Casey Sheehan”

Cindy Sheehan’s son was killed in Iraq. She’s a grieving mother. Last year, the President met with Mrs. Sheehan, comforted her, and grieved with her. At the time, Mrs. Sheehan thought the President had done well and appreciated him. Enter August, no major news, and a media still smarting over the President’s re-election despite everything they threw at him. Cindy Sheehan returns entering stage right — this time a willing pawn of the media in the form of a grieving mother.

Mrs. Sheehan says she wants the United States out of Iraq now. She does not want other mothers to go through what she has gone through. But, other mothers have gone through what Mrs. Sheehan has gone through and many are offended by her actions, thinking her deed cheapens the memory of Casey and other fallen soldiers. At the same time Mrs. Sheehan wants us out of Iraq, she wants Israel out of “Palestine.” One must stand back in amazement at how victimhood can turn a grieving mother into a statesman.

I have no use for Mrs. Sheehan. While Casey’s grandparents, aunts, uncles, and numerous cousins having issued a statement saying Sheehan “now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation,” the media and the left allow and encourage Mrs. Sheehan to do what the others have been so inept at doing — keeping an anti-war, anti-Bush story alive through the August news slumber. Concurrently, the media and the left ignore those parents of the fallen who are offended by Mrs. Sheehan, support the President, or otherwise recognize that Mrs. Sheehan’s actions discredit and undermine the work so many fallen soldiers works hard for. Those people just do not make the story flow like the left wants.

The remarkably humorous bit of all of this is that while Mrs. Sheehan is using the body of a dead solider to get her fifteen minutes of fame, Mrs. Sheehan is letting that body be used by Michael Moore, Code Pink, the DNC, and the media to extend their fifteen minutes of fame. The only one in this orgy of anti-war sentiment who has not spoken is Casey Sheehan, who gave his life that Iraq might be free. Whether he believed in the cause or was just doing his job, we will never know. But he did not die in vain. Iraq will be free. And in September we will all go back to forgetting who Cindy Sheehan is, not that we ever cared to begin with, and we will remain in Iraq.

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts


  • As a conservative Republican I think the wild, ad hominem and ridiculous rhetoric of the right is starting to be an embarassment.

    Many of us have grave doubts about the Iraq war and and we are not flaming left wingers, we are the conservative base.

    Is the right so fixed with blinders that there is no possibility of criticising George Bush, who is not even a legitimate conservative?

    The Republican party will suffer for the Iraq cluster-mess for a long time.

    Tom Lee

  • It really is fascinating watching reich-wing ideologues attack Sheehan. Any decent person might pause before calling a Gold Star Mother a “whore” but the chickenhawk keyboard battalions of the right.

    You know, just because Bush/Rove/Cheney want to drive off a cliff it doesn’t necessarily follow that you’re un-American if you think it’s not such a bright idea to follow. The profoundly limited democracy that he’s installing in Halliburtistan just isn’t worth the cost and this country (take a look at the polls) knows it.

  • As an American citizen, Cindy Sheehan is entitled to say, do, think, whatever she wants. She has also EARNED the right to do so without being villified for it by losing her son to Bush’s awful adventure. Whether or not her son ardently supported or opposed the war he died in is irrelevant to what his mother (and the rest of his immediate family as it turns out) believes.

    She is not using the body of a dead soldier for her fifteen minutes of fame (a comment even more loathsome considering who the dead soldier is in this case.) She is not a whore, nor is there anything humorous about this. This abominable screed of yours is beyond despicable. Is there nothing you won’t say or do to protect your incompetent leader?

    Would you call a Gold Star mother who was more to your liking a “whore” for camping out front of Michael Moore’s house?

    I truly don’t know how people like you sleep at night. I eagerly await your war stories when your own stop-loss enlistment is up.

  • That was a disgusting, baseless and unforgivably repugnant thing to say.

    You are a coward just like your president, and the fact that you would rather denigrate a grieving mother than have the balls to actually fight in a war that you purport to support, much less consider the feelings of those who suffer for bush’s stupidity, illustrates the moral bankruptcy of your leaders, your politics and whatever malignancy resides where your humanity should be.

    You are not worthy to be from the same country as Casey Sheehan or his brave, grieving mother.

    You are an insect.

  • Wow. I thought the republican smear tactics had reached their nadir with both the Plame and Swift Boat fiascos, but this is a whole new level of slime. What kind of sick world do you live in where you can consider it appropriate, even for a moment, to call the mother of a dead veteran a ‘whore’? How could you possibly have even thought this without immediately rejecting it as horrifically inappropriate and over the top? Is this your idea of supporting the soldiers that your votes sent into a war zone? You support the troops but call their mothers whores? I have a feeling that if Casey Sheehan was alive you’d be a bit more circumspect about insulting his mother. But then again, that wouldn’t happen, would it? You would never dare say anything that might get a trained soldier angry at you, would you? But once he’s gone and died for your cause, well then – his mother is fair game.

    No wonder you and your ilk are looked upon as loathsome, amoral monsters.

  • Does Cindy Sheehan have a right to speak and ask questions?

    If she does, what’s your beef with her?

    Should we all empathize with her suffering? If not, why not?

    How was invading Iraq a noble cause?

  • Casey Sheehan gave his life for…wasn’t it WMD?

    In the same paragraph you say “Iraq will be free”, followed a sentence later by “we will remain in Iraq”. That sums up the current contradiction.

    Cindy Sheehan has a simple request; to meet with the president for an hour. Her son lost his life due to the president’s actions, which are becoming more and more suspect to this entire country (read polls recently?) as more buried things come to light.

    How you can live with yourself for denigrating her, the mother of a veteran who lost his life, is astounding. What have you lost in the war? You should be ashamed.

  • I am a Republican, and I agree with all of these posts about the insults of Eric toward this grieving mother. I do not agree with the foul language, though. It would be the best thing that ever happened to our Country if some of these cowardly lawyers that boast about being conservatives would join the military and fight for the cause that they support. FYI, if I were young enough I would join the military myself.

    I support the war and our brave men and women, but I would never stoop to the low level of attacking a mother that lost her son to war. I think that the so called “social Republicans” are a sick bunch. I look forward to the day that the Libertarian Party can gain the numbers to run both of these inept parties out of Washington DC. The Republicans have become nothing but pork barrel spenders, and have lost touch with the Republican Party that President Reagan helped create. And you are hearing this from the mouth of a dyed in the wool Republican!

    We are involved in ventures such as taxpayers paying for Bass Pro Shops (I belive 26 are being built this year). I want government out of financing businesses that should be using their own money to build businesses.

    This has got off base, my apologies. I am ashamed to be a member of a Party where one of our members insults a grieving mother. I am the mother of a Marine and it makes me sick. My good friends that lost their son last October in Iraq feel bad about the war, my goodness that is a parents right-is it not? You never know what a parent must endure when he/she loses their child. We are supposed to die before our children die.

  • Just because you Republican assholes jumped down into the gutter when your ignorant president told you to, doesn’t mean that you’re going to take the rest of the country with you.

    In case you haven’t figured it out yet, Erick-Woods (that’s how you have your name in the About Me section of your blog: with a hyphen; how stupid is that?), you’re an asshole of the first water. Even some on your own side think so.

    Bob Dylan saw idiots like you coming when he wrote “Positively Fourth St.” about 40 years ago.

  • Keep it up! I think you’ve finally turned my Republican brother into an independent with your reprehensible remarks! It took awhile, but he has become utterly disgusted with the attacks on Michael Schiavo, Paul Hackett, Valerie Plame, and now Cindy Sheehan. Not to mention the WMD fiasco, which he still tried to rationalize. When I made him read your disgusting remarks about Mrs. Sheehan, he literally reacted as if he’d been kicked in the stomach. He can’t stand behind a party that is so devoid of honor, integrity, and plain good sense. So thanks–I have the feeling a lot of people are feeling the same way tonight.

  • Please, Eric is not the face of the Republican Party! We are not all “devoid of honor, integrity and plain good sense!”

  • Eisenhower was a Republican and a conservative. Today he would be a liberal Democrat, maybe a Progressive. It’s the party that left him. Anyone who ever confused this Eric moron, or Bush and his ilk with a “conservative” has been hoodwinked. Goldwater probably wouldn’t like this Eric moron either. And we will never hear of them again.

    You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land… But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government.

    Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this–in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid…

    But in all governmental fields of action a combination of purpose, procedure and objectives must be considered if you are to get a true evaluation of the relative merits… I suppose that even the most violent critic would agree that it is well for us to have friends in the world, to encourage them to oppose communism both in its external form and in its internal manifestations, to promote trade in the world that would be mutually profitable between us and our friends (and it must be mutually profitable or it will dry up), and to attempt the promotion of peace in the world, negotiating from a position of moral, intellectual, economic and military strength.

    No matter what the party is in power, it must perforce follow a program that is related to these general purposes and aspirations. But the great difference is in how it is done and, particularly, in the results achieved.

    You say that these critics also complain about the continuance of “controls,” presumably over our economy. There is nothing in your letter that shows such complete ignorance as to what has actually happened as does this term. When we came into office there were Federal controls exercised over prices, wages, rents, as well as over the allocation and use of raw materials. The first thing this Administration did was to set about the elimination of those controls. This it did amid the most dire predictions of disaster, “run away” inflation, and so on and so on. We were proved right, but I must say that if the people of the United States do not even remember what took place, one is almost tempted to regret the agony of study, analysis and decision that was then our daily ration.

    You also talk about “bad political advice” I am getting. I always assumed that lawyers attempted accuracy in their statements. How do you know that I am getting any political advice? Next, if I do get political advice, how do you know that it is not weighted in the direction that you seem to think it should be–although I am tempted at times to believe that you are just thrashing around rather than thinking anything through to a definite conclusion? So how can you say I am getting “bad” advice; why don’t you just assume I am stupid, trying to wreck the nation, and leave our Constitution in tatters?

    I assure you that you have more reason, based on sixty-four years of contact, to say this than you do to make the bland assumption that I am surrounded by a group of Machiavellian characters who are seeking the downfall of the United States and the ascendancy of socialism and communism in the world. Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated–then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.

    It’s clear Ike’s brother Edgar was a John Bircher. I’m glad Reagan’s dead. He was a dottering old fool.

  • “a willing pawn of the media”

    Before the edit you were contemptible. Now you’re contemptible and gutless.

    A true American hero. With brave and noble souls like you leading the fight, we can rest easy.

  • That damned liberal media is at it again, talking about Cindy Sheehan incessantly when they should be covering all the missing white women, shark attacks, Jennifer Aniston and baseball’s steroid abusers.

    If they go on about the 1800 dead servicemen and the thousands of seriously maimed soldiers and the chaos in Iraq one more time I’m going to scream…

    When are they going to start talking about all the noble sacrifices being made by articulate young Republican lawyers who really understand the importance of Iraq (but unfortunately don’t have the time to volunteer for a tour in the national guard) in the wake of 9/11?

  • If Cindy Sheehan were, as you say, a pawn of the media, she wouldn’t be out there you jerk. Because, in case you’ve JUST today slithered out from that rock you must live under, the media has been covering up for this administration for several years and has effectively skirted any issues that dare oppose views held by King George and his court. It has only been in the past couple of weeks that they’ve even attempted to report the truth. You sorry pig.