George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan

Blogcritic Jude Nagurney Camwell, speaking truth to power, has reported bravely on how that big meanie President George W Bush is mistreating Cindy Sheehan, mother of a dead soldier.

President Bush - Call Off the dogs on Cindy Sheehan

This is horrible! President Bush is an evil no good bastard for turning dogs loose on this poor woman. That's just wrong.

Worse yet is the VRWC news media. They haven't reported a thing about the dogs. What kind of dogs has he got attacking her? Dobermans, Rottweillers? Enquiring minds want to know!

To hear the right wing fascists at Fox News tell it, you'd think it was HER trying to harass the president, crassly exploiting her own son's death, milking it for attention and sympathy.

To hear them tell it, you'd think this woman presumes a right to demand the personal attention of the leader of the free world not just once, but whenever and wherever she wishes.

Her son was killed defending the country after volunteering to join the military. Therefore, having lost a son, Mom should expect the president to change the entire defense strategy of 300,000,000 people because of her confused and changing emotional states.

In fact, by rights President Bush should resign, and appoint Ms Sheehan as President and Commander in Chief. She's got license.

I'm still not sure, though, how that's going to play out with all the mothers of 1000 other dead soldiers who still believe in defending the country, even though it has cost them dearly.

Instead of turning the reins of power over to Ms Sheehan, he's viciously attacking her. He's released the hounds, like J Montgomery Burns. You bastard!

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for Al Barger

Article Author: Al Barger

Unreformed hawkish Hoosier hillbilly Al Barger runs the still squeezin' down the psychodelic Kentucky moonshine at More Things. What with the paranoid religious visions, the Pentecostal music, visions of God and anarchy running amok and such, somebody …

Visit Al Barger's author pageAl Barger's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 1 - RJ

    Aug 12, 2005 at 7:55 pm

    The moment someone throws in with a "person" like Michael Moore, they lose all credibility.

    Sorry, Ms. Sheehan, but you already met with the President. If you had something on your mind, you should have mentioned it back then. If you want to relay some info to him, try writing a letter.

    But, of course, the media wouldn't be covering you 24/7 if all you did was write a letter...

    Here is what she had to say about her one-and-only meeting with Bush:

    THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

    "'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

    "The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

    "The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

    "For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

    For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

    "'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."


    Here is what Ms. Sheehan's family thinks about her current "protest":

    Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

    Thanks, Cherie

    In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

    The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. 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. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

    Sincerely,

    Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.


    Any questions?

  • 2 - RogerMDillion

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:12 pm

    The moment RJ takes a side of an issue, it loses all credibility.

  • 3 - Shark

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:12 pm

    Bush should listen to somebody.

    Either way, he would love an opportunity to get out of Vietn...uh, I mean Iraq.

    Iraq is still a FUCKING DISASTER... and will be known as one of the biggest blunders in American history.

    Limp 'satires' won't change that.

    =======

    Now back to your earlier scheduled tag-team wrestling match.



  • 4 - Shark

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:16 pm

    "...This is horrible! President Bush is an evil no good bastard for turning dogs loose on this poor woman. That's just wrong.

    Worse yet... They haven't reported a thing about the dogs. What kind of dogs has he got attacking her? Dobermans, Rottweillers? Enquiring minds want to know!"


    PS: Big Al, this piece (especially the section quoted above) is way below your usual lax standards for writing quality.

    ~Doh!

  • 5 - DSCHILD

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:19 pm

    SHE'S A COMMUNIST! You complain about losing your freedoms. "Waaah, the government wants to look through my backpack." But then you support this communist woman and the terrible groups that she's supporting.
    Do you know anything about these groups? Do some research and take the time to learn something!

  • 6 - RJ

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:21 pm

    Oh, well. You post some serious cited and sourced info, and all the Left has to offer are snarky personal attacks.

    Am I surprised? Not at all.

    Enjoy your 39 Senate seats in 2007! :)

  • 7 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:22 pm

    Actually, the part about the dogs was fairly funny, but the rest just lapsed into sarcasm. I wish he'd gone on with the dogs and other goofy hyperbole along the same lines.

    BTW, thanks to RJ for the link to the statement from the Sheehan family. It does put the situation in perspective a lot better than a bunch of talking heads making the same claims that this is all basically just an opportunistic partisan smear campaign.

    Dave

  • 8 - MCH

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:22 pm

    And we know that R.J. (Bobby) Elliott's parents will never have to worry about experiencing the same loss as Cindy Sheehan's sacrifice.

  • 9 - RJ

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:26 pm

    I don't know about her being a commie, but she's pretty chummy with Michael Moore, who has openly spoken (while in Europe) about his complete distaste for his fellow Americans, and who supports policies that are, at the very least, socialist.

    This is akin to a pro-war supporter camping outside of Teddy Kennedy's mansion and blogging on Hal Turner's site.

    (Of course, if that were to happen, we wouldn't have to hear from the MSM about how Senator "killer" Kennedy should meet with this protestor. Instead, all we would hear about is how this hypothetical protestor is a fringe wing-nut with an axe to grind.)

  • 10 - Shark

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:28 pm

    Dave: "...the part about the dogs was fairly funny..."

    No.

    It was so fucking obvious -- it was junior high shit.

    And "enquiring minds want to know" is about as original and creative as "Where's The Beef?!"

    If Al has any pride, he should delete the whole thing.

  • 11 - Victor Lana

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:28 pm

    When thinking about Ms. Sheehan, apply the old Native American saying:

    May I not judge someone until I walk in his (in this case her) mocassins.

    Anyone who has lost a child in Iraq/Afghanistan has the right to speak about this; otherwise, let's give Ms. Sheehan a right to her opinions. This is America and not Nazi Germany (or the old Iraq for that matter) afterall.

  • 12 - Shark

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:30 pm

    RJ: "You post some serious cited and sourced info, and all the Left has to offer are snarky personal attacks."

    And I post my opinion that IRAQ IS A FUCKING DISASTER regardless of how many mourning and/or opportunistic "commie" moms protest against it, AND I HEAR FUCKING CRICKETS FROM THE SAME CROWD THAT USED TO ARGUE WHAT A WONDERFUL THING THE INVASION WAS.

    feh.

    [chirp-chirp]

  • 13 - Shark

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:32 pm

    Let's not talk about Iraq; let's talk about some poor women camped outside of Bush's Vacation Land.

    Typical sleight-of-hand/framing the debate.

  • 14 - RJ

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:35 pm

    No one is saying she doesn't have the right to say whatever she wants to say.

    And no one should tell her critics that they don't have the right to freedom of speech either.

    Let her give interviews from her tent, and let her blog on MM's site. She's welcome to do so.

    And the rest of us are welcome to point out her flip-flopping, and the views of the rest of her family.

  • 15 - RJ

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:39 pm

    Shark:

    Fewer Americans have died in roughly 2.5 years in that "FUCKING DISASTER" Iraq than die in one month on US highways in automobile accidents.

    BAN CARS! GENERAL MOTORS IS HITLER!

  • 16 - gonzo marx

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:42 pm

    oh RJ..that stat ios soOOOOOooOOOooo fucked

    percentage of 300 million versus percentage of 125 thousand?

    i sure as hell don't know the exact numbers..but i bet someone has them

    i'm fairly certain you know my position on this one...we have to fix what we broke, but no matter how you try and polish it, the situation in Iraq is still a steaming turd

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • 17 - MCH

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:46 pm

    Re comment #15;

    Look Elliott (RJ), you just pissed on the graves of those 1,800 brave soldiers who lost there lives in Iraq.

    For you to compare volunteering, training and being killed in action in combat to accidental highway fatalities is just more confirmation of how far out-of-touch with the horrors of war you really are.

    Of course, what else should we expect from someone who refuses to even TRY to enlist?

  • 18 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:48 pm

    Don't go there, Gonzo. I've got the actual numbers. I posted them on a previous thread.

    The percentage rate of death among soldiers in Iraq is actually lower than it is among people of the same ages in the general population if you take all causes into account. The higher risk of being in a war zone is apparently countered by the availability of rapid medical care and the much lower chance of being in a car accident - remember we're dealing with people in the prime bad driving age.

    Dave

  • 19 - MCH

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:56 pm

    R.J. and Dave Nalle comparing driving to combat.

    And this from the so-called "Support the troops" group...

  • 20 - gonzo marx

    Aug 12, 2005 at 9:57 pm

    i understand..but the trick here is you said "all causes"

    that adds a lot of variables

    my only point is that the bullshit of this bogus "statistic" is NOT framed properly...but is used for propaganda purposes

    remember, i have stated my position on Iraq plenty of times...never once have i said "unconditional pull out"

    but nobody can tell me it's a "good thing" the way it's going

    double the number of boots on the ground, and seal off the fucking borders, spend the Resources required to do it right

    meanwhile...those that are trying to tear at this woman, are doing the real injustice...just leave her be and the frenzy dies next news cycle....talking shit about a grieving soldier's Mom is not only stupid politically, wrong ethically...but totally repugnant...about on par with the whole Schiavo thing

    but who listens to me, eh?

    Excelsior!

  • 21 - Bennett

    Aug 12, 2005 at 10:00 pm

    Uh, Dave? I think that was gonzo's point, but I could be wrong.

    So you guys agree that RJ is a bit, how shall I say, a tad, you know, it's like, well, kinda, totally wrong.

    Right?



  • 22 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 12, 2005 at 10:06 pm

    >>i understand..but the trick here is you said "all causes"

    that adds a lot of variables<<

    Yes, but keep in mind that casualty stats from Iraq include all causes too.

    >>my only point is that the bullshit of this bogus "statistic" is NOT framed properly...but is used for propaganda purposes<<

    Actually, I haven't seen it used for propaganda at all, except maybe one brief reference from Jim Dunnigan who's not exactly a partisan.

    >>remember, i have stated my position on Iraq plenty of times...never once have i said "unconditional pull out"

    but nobody can tell me it's a "good thing" the way it's going<<

    I didn't say anything to this subject. That's RJ's department. I think there's good and bad happening there, and agree we need to stick it out.

    >>double the number of boots on the ground, and seal off the fucking borders, spend the Resources required to do it right<<

    Of course the problem with doing this - and you're entirely right that we should - is that it's politically unmarketable in the current environment, and would lead to more casualties which would create more outrage. The short sighted partisan obstructionism of the left has made this solution to the war almost impossible to implement.

    Dave

  • 23 - gonzo marx

    Aug 12, 2005 at 10:09 pm

    clarification: it was RJ's comment..and other statements like it from various sources that i was referring to as propaganda

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • 24 - Bill B

    Aug 12, 2005 at 10:37 pm

    RE comment 1 and 7

    Check comment 11 here

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/09/113022.php

    for the full story; unless you're just too content with drudges cherry picked blurbette that fits so nicely into your neat, little, simplistic world view.

  • 25 - Al Barger

    Aug 12, 2005 at 10:39 pm

    Monsieur Nalle, thank you for critiquing my actual writing. I think I made my point about the issue and had hopefully a half decent yuck or two, though the artistic angle of the original post may be a bit short. I will try to do better.

    Again, the "satire" tag is something of a misnomer, but I'm just trying to make good and sure that this post does not somehow get taken literally at Google news, or some such.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

blogcritics lists for Jul 10, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for June

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs