Who hates ya, baby?
Michael Reagan, in an apparent bid for Wingnut of the Decade, has crushed the competition with the worst attack on Cindy Sheehan I’ve seen thus far. Look at this garbage:
In this case it could well be that Cindy Sheehan is projecting her rage at George Bush when the one she really despises is her late son Casey, who died as a hero in Iraq, precisely because he did die a hero in Iraq.
You bet, readers! Oh, yeah! He “went there”!
Cindy Sheehan hates her dead son!
The more I listen to Cindy Sheehan and consider her past actions and her past words, it occurs to me she has always been a liberal, she’s always been anti-military, and she’s always been anti-Republican. It appears that she raised Casey in such an environment, yet despite that what does he do? He not only joins the military engaged in a war she bitterly opposes, but to add insult to injury when his enlistment runs out, he re-enlists although he knew that by so doing it meant he would be sent to Iraq where a war his mother despises is being fought.
Think about that. What Casey did was to reject not by words but by deeds his mother’s most closely-held beliefs.
Think that’s the height of presumption? Look at this:
He went, and it cost him his life. You can almost hear her saying to his spirit, “How dare you spurn me and turn your back on me? How dare you go join the military, and then how dare you volunteer to fight against the innocent Iraqi freedom fighters and get yourself killed?”
Readers, you can almost hear her saying those things to his spirit. Cindy Sheehan, lover of those freedom fighters, hates her dead son for “spurning” her and “turning his back on her.”
What kind of sick fuck could write and publish something like this? How does he manage to sleep at night, or look at himself in the mirror? No amount of wingnut Kool-Aid could produce this kind of writing; this isn’t even political porn; this is the demented raving of someone who’s completely morally and spiritually bankrupt. Beyond the far borders of wingnuttia lies pathology, and that’s where Mike Reagan has gone. He has lost his fucking mind.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Your email address is never displayed.
Do not paste an entire article or blog post into here: create a link to it (or at least create a tinyurl) instead.
The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
August 27th, 2005 @ 00:05
The left has lost their souls.
This woman is held up as the poster woman for America’s servicemen’s mothers - when her view is in the vast MINORITY.
She is not even intelligent enough to follow the scripts written for her by the DNC.
We don’t cover Sheehan because other sites are obsessed with this.
I’ll tell you one thing that IS fact.
If the liberals in this country and in the media try to make another Viet Nam out of the war on terror, they will pay for it - and right here in THIS country.
Tread lightly.
August 27th, 2005 @ 10:14
You’re heading in the direction of Rush Limbaugh Kool-Aid territory with that comment. What view do you think is “in the vast MINORITY”? If you think the Iraq war is still popular, you haven’t seen any recent polls. Americans are just starting to wake up to what the Bush administration has gotten us into.
As far as the “war on terror,” your comment makes no sense at all. I know it sounds good when Rush says it, but you know perfectly well that international terrorism, a genuine danger that America has to face, isn’t something we can fight with mechanized infantry and smart bombs. The Iraq war is, and has always been, pointless, unjustified, and immoral, and it’s making America less safe as well. We need to get the hell out of there ASAP, and then start concentrating on the real-life terrorists who want to blow up our cities (and the cities of our allies, what few allies we still have left, that is).
Save your tough talk about “paying for it” and “treading lightly.” I don’t want to hear that keyboard tough-guy foolishness here.
August 27th, 2005 @ 21:47
Again - all words, no solutions. Yep, a true liberal.
The war is unpopular for two reasons;
1) you minority French acting, ankle grabbing cowards want to run and hide - in addition to letting millions of people suffer without lifting a finger
2) the majority of real Americans know that VERY aggressive and strategic air strikes and invasions into Syria, Iran and even Saudi Arabia would end this war much quicker.
You state that the war on terror is not your standard conflict. Granted. But how would you fight it? No one on the left has a strategy except retreat and appease.
How would you ‘concentrate’ Mr. Liberal?
As far as what you considered to be internet tough talk you didn’t like - fine. Nevermind.
August 27th, 2005 @ 23:25
We already covered this exact same territory on a comments thread at Liberal Quicksand.
August 28th, 2005 @ 08:33
And your silence when asked what you would do is deafening.
Backseat driving, arm-chair quarterbacking and osterich head in the sand tactics are considered ‘a plan’ by liberals.
So to is the liberal plan of surrendering to foreign powers, while fighting your own countrymen.
August 28th, 2005 @ 10:04
Can you read? I said we’ve already had this exact same discussion at your blog. Have you forgotten?
August 28th, 2005 @ 23:30
I got your answer to me on this subject. You should post that on your blog. It is ‘yours’ and really good stuff.
I know many leftist people and they all claim to be brave and Americans - then vote socialist, appeasement and with enemies to this nation. What’s your point?
I know the United States has flaws. They are called liberals.
You call the right wing blind nationalists. I call the left treasonous cowards. Who is right?
Nationalists take over nations and try to keep them. Name the country the United States took over and kept in the last 100 years?
Treasonous cowards want to retreat, appease our enemies (like during the Clinton adminstration) and blame the United States for terrorist attacks.
The entire Democratic foreign and domestic safety platform is exactly THAT.
I have proof. You do not. I am right - you are wrong.
The ’surgical strikes’ you think are such a good idea (coward’s code for ‘bombing from 40,000 feet) would have to be in several countries. Talk to your fellow liberals. They are against that also. So would you be if push came to shove.
You speak of intellegence gathering. How do you do that without pressuring prisoners. Don’t hand me that ‘torture’ crap. Show me the scars, the missing limbs, or executions. So your own limp wrist prevents you from gathering the exact information you said you needed to take action. Typical liberal analysis - BIG HOLES ignored. You would not even do the intellegence gathering you said you need. Paralysis by analysis. Typical liberal ploy to talk and not act.
Indiscriminate killing does not breed more terrorists.
Want proof? Indiscriminate killing of Americans in 14 terrorist attacks - including 9/11 - still did not convince most liberals that we are at war - and that we need to fight NOW.
So how does freeing muslums from the threat of death from Saddam Hussein cause more terrorists? Come on - use your head.
You believe for some stupid reason that the United States caused terrorism with our foreign policies. Policies like what - giving aid to the entire world is the problem?
What is our foreign policy blunders worth terrorism?
Buying muslum oil? Feeding hungry mulsums? Stopping the Soviet Union from killing muslums? Stopping Saddam from killing muslums? Saving muslum tsunami victims?
Name these blunders. Do it in a blog. That will be interesting reading and fun to disintegrate.
August 28th, 2005 @ 23:34
Hank, you researched his response and tore it apart. You really expect him to try you again?
Dump is not going to list what he thinks is wrong with the United States.
His socialist - communist side will leak out.
Right Dump?
August 29th, 2005 @ 00:44
> His socialist - communist side will leak out.
I rely on Depend Adult Undergarments to help prevent my socialist/communist side from leaking out. It’s embarrassing when that happens in public, you know what I’m saying?
> Nationalists take over nations and try to keep them.
Nationalism: “loyalty and devotion to a nation or ethnic group that places emphasis on promoting the interests, cultural and social values, or religion, of one group above all others.” Taken to extremes, this leads to xenophobia and/or jingoism. You’re confusing this with imperialism.
> Treasonous cowards want to retreat, appease our enemies (like during the Clinton adminstration) and blame the United States for terrorist attacks.
Nobody wants to “blame” the US for terrorist attacks. What you don’t want to understand is that American foreign policy plays a role in creating grievances against us. You’ve bought into the story that terrorists hate us simply for what we are, not what we do. When you think that way, you play right into their hands.
> (coward’s code for ‘bombing from 40,000 feet)
That’s a silly thing to say, and you know it. You can do better than that. Why not go ahead and impress me with your theories on strategy and tactics? Why have you impugned the bravery of the US Air Force? Do you hate America or something?
> You speak of intellegence gathering. How do you do that without pressuring prisoners.
Right… the only people in the world who know anything about terrorist organizations, their structure and plans are: prisoners!
> Don’t hand me that ‘torture’ crap. Show me the scars, the missing limbs, or executions.
If you really mean that, you are morally and spiritually bankrupt.
> So your own limp wrist prevents you from gathering the exact information you said you needed to take action.
Boy, that’s some tough talk. Are you ever capable of disagreeing without resorting to insults? I don’t think you’d be a good guy to go out drinking with.
> So how does freeing muslums from the threat of death from Saddam Hussein cause more terrorists?
Uh, let’s see: how about exposing them to the threat of death by American soldiers, Iraqi militiamen, insurgents, and assorted jihadis? Every day we stay over there, more Arabs become willing to join in what they see as a global struggle against America. The invasion of Iraq created, and continues to create, additional grievances for the Arab world to hold against us. We have fucked that country up, and they’re pissed off about it. That’s why the soldiers you claim to support keep getting killed.
> You believe for some stupid reason that the United States caused terrorism with our foreign policies.
You’re going to have to show me where I said that, because I don’t recall ever having said it.
> What is our foreign policy blunders worth terrorism?
That question is incoherent. What do you mean by “worth terrorism”?
Why don’t you try attacking what I actually say, instead of what you imagine I think? Then we might get somewhere.
And personal insults are going to get you banned, if they continue. You can disagree with every single word that ever comes out of my fucking mouth, and more power to you if you do, but my patience with your tough-guy trash-talking persona is starting to wear thin. Fair enough?
August 29th, 2005 @ 11:14
Fair enough.
I will try not to get so angry when you STILL refuse to state what your solutions would be. All on the left do, and I think it is because they do not have any.
It is VERY frustrating for me to have about 40% of my fellow countrymen not behind the effort to eliminate the ememy that want us dead.
Now the ‘left’ can disagree with certain aspects of the war. I do also. But I say what I would do instead.
The left is just undermining what we are doing - WITH NO PLAN OF THEIR OWN!
This is why I think there are treasonous motives behind SOME on the left.
You have the same knack I have for disecting people’s statements. Great. But I still answer the questions asked. Let me re-phrase the question you dodged by saying it was incoherent.
“What in the US foriegn policies would make us terrorist targets for radical muslum terrorists?”
I do attack what you say - by telling you it sounds treasonous BECAUSE you don’t have a counter idea. I only see negative criticism of our country when we are at war from you - and the rest of the left.
Post a blog with your method of ending the terrorist threat.
August 29th, 2005 @ 20:19
You’ve got a good point: a lot of people are indeed complaining about the War on Terror without suggesting what they think would be some better ideas. There’s a huge issue getting in the way, and that’s whether the war in Iraq has anything to do with the War on Terror. My opinion is that it absolutely does not, but that’s beside the point right now.
You seem to be suggesting that criticism of our country is especially bad when we are at war, but free speech is free speech. As Americans, every one of us has the right to express our opinions, whether they be positive or negative, whether we’re at war or not. (I don’t buy this demoralizing-the-troops business that I hear so often. Not once during the entire 1991 Gulf War did I hear any of my fellow servicemen even mention the war protests that were happening back home. We were more concerned with doing the job we were sent over there to do.)
You’ve got a good idea, though. I will post my ideas on what we ought to do to deal with the threat of terrorism.
August 31st, 2005 @ 04:49
Love to hear them my fellow American and thank you for the opportunity to hear them!