Cindy Sheehan Brings a Little Class to That Town

by Mike on April 25, 2006

in Politics

As Mark Levin would say, I think this woman attended charm school on a football scholarship. Zombie Time has video and a good roundup of the loon’s speech in Berkeley last month where she exclaimed her joy about speaking in “Smartland” and displayed her trademark dignity and grace. And to think the left was once giddy about putting her on display. Oh, right.

Link via Expose the Left

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Ryan April 26, 2006 at 7:22 am

Why shouldn’t we do what we need to do in order to secure our resources?

Going to war for oil makes perfect sense. Without oil, we can’t drive, food doesn’t get to markets, we can’t fly, and numerous other things that Americans need will not be realized. If we all lived in huts and farmed in a plot of land aside the manger then OK, oil wars are bad. But that’s not the reality of today’s world or this war.

Of course that’s even assuming this war was fought for oil. Is a war on tyranny a bad thing? Seems to me World War II was that kind of war… Come to think of it, so was the Cold War too. Where they worth it? Mideast oil was an big issue in those two conflicts too.


Chris April 26, 2006 at 12:12 pm

I feel the need to address bxc2739′s comments on Iran. The comment about “mass candlelight vigils being held in Tehran” and how it proves that Iran is on our side is not as accurate as it was made out to be. True, these spontaneous vigils did break out, but one thing that bxc2739 failed to mention is that agents of the Iranian government quickly shut them down. Much of the population in Iran is pro-Western, however the government is not. This is especially true in the fashion that the Reformist canidates were banned from seeking election , thus leading to Mahmoud’s “election.”

Also remember that in most Middle Eastern States, the governments have much more control over their people than does our government in the US. Just as an example, one of my students had for a period of time lived in Saudi Arabia. Many natives of Saudi Arabia her age thought very highly of America, however they were very careful about what they said and when they said it. This is a testament to that fact that they never know who is listening. We must remember to make the distinction between what the regualr citizens think and when they can say it vs. what the government thinks. It is for this reason that we should be wary about comments that Iran has gone from loving to hating us in 5 years.


rightonoz April 26, 2006 at 11:16 pm


bxc did verge on making a FEW valid points. Let’s face it, in the west (and ‘some people say’ (to use the favourite Fox TV expression) that GWB is more guilty than many, we do have dual standards. It’s ok for the US to help overthrow democraticly elected governements that are too left wing and install a rabid dictatorship (Chile, Argentina….), every bit as bad as Sadam , but no threat to US oil interests. But then he shot himself down by raving like some rabid dog. Yes our governments have supported regimes that have suppressed peoples in the Arab world, Israel to the exclusion of a more balanced plan plan that may have brought moderate Arabs onto our side and helped prevent the growth of Arab terrorism (PERHAPS)

Ryan, a dangerous statement that it is ok to go to war to secure oil supplies. Let’s face it the oil belongs to them. The beloved free market rules give them the right to use oil as an economic weapon, just as any US company will use it’s resources as economic weapons given half a chance. Let’s face it the US, UK, France etc have all used economic as well as physical weapons. Under those same free market rules, we either find alternative sources or bend over and ‘take it like a man’.

Having some in depth exposure to Iranian’s on business, yes, most of them are very much pro west (though some do not forgive the US for dumping the Shah and letting the redicals take over). Most just want to be left to live a free’er life and not to pick sides, though the West (Sorry mainly US and perhaps UK) do seem to be driving them towards a position where their country is under such a threat from the US/Israel that they dare not speak their mind, even to friends, and many are actually swinging against us.


Ryan April 27, 2006 at 4:53 pm

The oil belongs to them because the West gave it to them. We dug it, we built the infrastructure, and in an act of good will, the British decided to let go of their colonial possessions after WWI and WWII, some having oil rich, Western-friendly monarchs at the helm (ie-Saudi Arabia).

The economy of the West runs and depends on oil. Economic prosperity leads to political stability, which leads to political plurality and a higher standard of living. I wish we weren’t so dependent on Islamo-fascist regimes in the Mideast for that resource, but that’s the reality. China and India will realize this soon, after their first big recessions caused by oil supply at some point, and join the club.

I don’t like war, having had my brother just get back from a year in Iraq, but I understand that national self-interests are powerful forces and coersion is sometimes necessary. Leaving the military option off the table in that case only emboldens those who already have us by the balls.


Mike April 27, 2006 at 7:49 pm

I love how this topic emerged in a post on a completely different topic but here goes. I’d like to point out that Ryan’s comments re: oil were sarcastic. I say this because I have personally iscussed the topic with him. Sarcasm sometimes doesn’t coem through in writing.

I won’t address all of the first commenter’s points as the idiocy speaks for itself. I beleive Oz implictly acknowledged that as well.

I think much of this debate is based on the false premise that Iran is a peaceful nation being pressured into unilateral disarmament by a bunch of hypocrites. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. is the most powerful nation on the earth which will use force to defend itself unless the Democrats are in power. (remember Oz, it was Carter betrayed the Shah). It is not the stated policy of the U.S. to invade other nations to create a theocracy. That was a stated goal of the Pan Islamic Iranian revolution.

During the 1980s, the U.S. did indeed provide assistance to the Pan-Arabic dictator in Iraq; however the purpose of this action was to have the two nations undermine each other in the process.
Sometimes in war, it is necessary to align with less than desirable regimes to achieve an objective. We did this with the USSR against the Nazis. It is smart to take out one threat and worry about the other at a later date.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, a big no no in a post 9/11 world. They are developing nukes, not for defensive purposes against an American Empire as some moonbats would have us beleive, but to annihiate Israel, continue their sponsorship of terror, and threaten the world with their radical version of Islam as articulated by the Islamofascists in 1979, the same group the current president surrounded himself with.

Oz raises a good point about the Iranian people. I appreciate the fact they want to be left alone. However, the U.S. cannot ignore Iranian leadership when htat leadership specifically threatens our ally, Israel, with destruction. The U.S. cannot ignore a regime which has harbored and continues to harbor and sponsor terrorists who would strike American soil. That sad fact was a fact even before 9-11. Any suffering inflicted on the Iranian people is the result of their leaders, not ours.

Our nation will defend itself. If rogue states don’t want to taste our daisy cutters, then they best back off.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: