GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Cindy Sheehan SWOT Analysis

by

Okay, I have to confess… I have a love/hate relationship with my new favorite blog, The Malcontent. What’s not to love? The content is great, the topics are stuff I don’t see anywhere else. So why the hate? He is funnier than I am, the bastard! 🙂

Here is the latest from The Malconent…. a SWOT Analysis of Cindy Sheehan. I spit out my Cheerios at this one! Very creative….

By the way, how long will it be before someone on the Wacky Left blames her mother’s stroke on President Bush?

-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com

Comments

  4. Of course it’s Bush’s fault, Bruce. Bush created division in their family. By not immediately and totally caving into Cindy (whom the world should cater to), Bush put her mother through the stress of having to sign a public letter repudiating her daughter’s ugly politics.

  6. I guess it’s official: it’s now A-OK to openly mock this idiotic Moonbat Mom without fear of seeming insensitive to her loss. Congratuations, Cindy…just like all the rest, you’ve achieved maximum overreach!

  8. 1. Cindy Sheehan is the gift that keeps giving. Give the woman a microphone and put her on CNN Mon-Wed-Fri, and on MSNBC on Tue-Thurs. What the heck, she can have Air America on the weekends for all I care.

    She is every comedian’s and satirist’s dream. Too sad, her brave son died for this country, yet her mother is pushing her political agenda, instead of privately grieving.

    2.

    “”Cindy Sheehan To Assess Zionist Doctors And Pres. Bush’s Reckless Health Care Policies (Part 2)”

    3.

    “Al Gore Calls On Cindy Sheehan To Tone Down Her Environmental Drive” (Part 3)”

  12. By the way, how long will it be before someone on the Wacky Left blames her mother’s stroke on President Bush?

    It’s already happened. There was some vomit I glanced over in the sea of vomit on (Spin) Media Matters. Some douchebag was wondering if it was possible to induce a stroke.

  13. Schadenfreude, Reader, technically means not just getting pleasure from the suffering of others, but getting pleasure from the well-deserved sufferings of another.

    The best way to explain it is that feeling you get when you are driving along, observing the speed limit, and some hotshot blasts by you doing 90…..then seeing him or her pulled over by a state trooper in the next two miles.

  15. #13: “Schadenfreude, Reader, technically means not just getting pleasure from the suffering of others, but getting pleasure from the well-deserved sufferings of another.”

    NDT, adding the “well-deserved” qualifier may make Bruce, you (and the others above) feel better about taking pleasure in the news of the stroke suffered by Cindy Sheehan’s mom, but the dictionary won’t. From Merriam-Webster: “Etymology: German, from Schaden damage + Freude joy: enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others.”

  17. Having lived and worked in Germany, I stand by my translation. 🙂

    You assume, Reader, that I do take joy from Cindy Sheehan’s mother having a stroke. I do not, nor do I take pleasure in her divorce, her estrangement from her family, or her son’s death.

    What I do take joy in is the fact that the publicity she demanded is slowly unraveling her facade and is taking all the leftists who tried to use her down with her racist, anti-Israel remarks and her moonbattery concerning Afghanistan.

  19. ND30, keep in mind that the Moonbats routinely bend or even make up their own definitions when they want to use a word to support a dubious point, e.g., “Nazi”, “fascism”, “sacrifice”, and now “Schadenfreude”. In their world, up is down, black is white, and evil (of course) is good.

    The only glee to be enjoyed at Cindy Sheehan’s expense has nothing to do with her son, husband, or mom but rather because she’s now getting the stuffing beaten out of her for her own shockingly offensive words and actions. But I have to wonder if all the ills that have befallen her family recently have anything to do with the Big Man Upstairs sending some bad Karma her way? If I were her pet, I’d think serously about going underground!

  20. She looks like a guy in that photo. Or in any other photo I’ve seen of her. On that, has anyone ever seen Cindy Sheehan and Brent Musberger in the same place at the same time? Hmmmm….makes ya think.

  21. This is how she lost her son:

    “…the insurgents who slaughtered Specialist Sheehan and his cohort were militiamen loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric. The Americans probably didn’t stand a chance. As Mr. Burns reported, members of “the new Iraqi-trained police and civil defense force” abandoned their posts at checkpoints and police stations “almost as soon as the militiamen appeared with their weapons, leaving the militiamen in unchallenged control.”

    …one of the emissaries Mr. Bush sent to Cindy Sheehan in Crawford was Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser who took responsibility for allowing the 16 errant words about doomsday uranium into the president’s prewar State of the Union speech

    –http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21rich.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=6c0b54b3c1bcba20&ex=1282276800&adxnnl=0&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1124595100-KeCiKvV1ojCyEcdhWJEfoQ

  22. Yes, that’s exactly how Casey lost his life. But Cindy doesn’t care how many Americans, or Iraqis, are slaughtered by “militiamen loyal to Sadr” or any other terrorists. She’s repulsive.

  25. From NRO
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_21_corner-archive.asp#073754

    LOSING THE WAR ON TERROR: THE VOICE OF DESPAIR ECHOES AGAIN [Andy McCarthy]
    For what it’s worth, this is where I get off the bus. The principal mission of the so-called “war on terror” – which is actually a war on militant Islam – is to destroy the capacity of the international network of jihadists to project power in a way that threatens American national security. That is the mission that the American people continue to support.

    As those who follow these pages may know, I have been despairing for a long time over the fact that the principal mission has been subordinated by what I’ve called the “democracy diversion” – the administration’s theory that the (highly dubious) prospect of democratizing Iraq and the Islamic world will quell the Islamists. (Aside: go ask Israelis if they think the fledgling “democracy” in Gaza and the West Bank – which is very likely to bring Hamas to power – promotes their national security.)

    Now, if several reports this weekend are accurate, we see the shocking ultimate destination of the democracy diversion. In the desperation to complete an Iraqi constitution – which can be spun as a major step of progress on the march toward democratic nirvana – the United States of America is pressuring competing factions to accept the supremacy of Islam and the fundamental principle no law may contradict Islamic principles.

    There is grave reason to doubt that Islam and democracy (at least the Western version based on liberty and equality) are compatible. But that is an argument for another day. The argument for today is: the American people were never asked whether they would commit their forces to overseas hostilities for the purpose of turning Iraq into a democracy (we committed them (a) to topple a terror-abetting tyrant who was credibly thought both to have and to covet weapons of mass destruction, and (b) to kill or capture jihadists who posed a danger to American national security). I doubt they would have agreed to wage war for the purpose of establishing democracy. Like most Americans, I would like to see Iraq be an authentic democracy – just as I would like to see Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. be authentic democracies. But I would not sacrifice American lives to make it so.

    But even if I suspended disbelief for a moment and agreed that the democracy project is a worthy casus belli, I am as certain as I am that I am breathing that the American people would not put their brave young men and women in harm’s way for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government. Anyplace.

    It is not our place to fix what ails Islam. But it is utter recklessness to avert our eyes from the fact that militant Islam thrives wherever Islam reigns. That is a fact. When and where militant Islam thrives, America and the West are endangered. That is also a fact. How can we possibly be urging people who wisely don’t want it to accept the government-institutionalized supremacy of Islam?

    And if the United States, in contradiction of its own bedrock principle against government establishment religion, has decided to go into the theocracy business, how in the world is it that Islam is the religion we picked?

  27. Anon:

    I read McCarthy’s piece and was stunned to see a conservative write about getting off the Pro-Iraq War bus and especially this one line from McCarthy: “But even if I suspended disbelief for a moment and agreed that the democracy project is a worthy casus belli, I am as certain as I am that I am breathing that the American people would not put their brave young men and women in harm’s way for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government. Anyplace.”

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_21_corner-archive.asp#073754

    Then, today, I found this shocker from Prof. Bainbridge: “It’s time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished?”

    http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/08/what_might_have.html

    Along with this posting from La Shawn Barber, seconding an “emotion” from HCS’s and Gen’s Place: “I agree Bush has squandered the Conservative momentum. I am not going to doubt his salvation. That’s between him and God. On the other hand, Bush I bet has some massively terrible advisors. He did not surround himself with fellow Christians and they have led him astray.”

    http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/08/21/squandered

    And in other news you won’t hear about on Gay Patriot:

    Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) said today on NBC’s “Meet The Press” that he had “private conversations with George Bush”, “going back to just after 9/11” in which Bush talked about Iraq in way that would indicate Bush was already (at that early date) planning his War On Iraq. Of course, this counters the claim by Pro-War conservatives that Bush only went to war as a last resort and that he honestly pursued inspections and diplomacy before deciding to attack Iraq.

  29. #27 — And, so the schadenfreude festival begins.

    There will be rides, games, a beer tent, and ommpah bands. On Wednesday, the Kiwanis will crown “Miss Schedenfreude.” It will be even better than last year’s!

  30. The only thing more masochistic than the self loathing needed by Pro War, Pro Bush Christian Freeper Gay Fellows ‘swotting’ at an Anti-Bush, Anti-War activist would have to be “Little Miss Piggy” Rove himself ‘swotting’ at her after getting a brutal ass whipping from Gosch/Gannon.

  31. You know folks, Reader proves over and over again that he/she/it doesn’t “read” at all.

    That’s why, generally speaking, I don’t bother reading Reader. It would be extending a courtesy where the reciprocal courtesy is lacking.

    My eye did just happen to catch something inadvertently, to the effect that Bush is evil/bad/liar/wrong because he was musing on the necessity to invade Iraq or something when he came into office. The fact that Reader thinks such a thing would be a scandal proves, once again, that Reader never reads. Why? Because it has been addressed many, many times, in GP discussions where Reader supposedly was reading and took part.

    So, can I be bothered to re-cap the answer to it one more time? Yeah, what the heck. 2 things to consider (again, already mentioned in GP discussions many times):

    1) The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. A law passed by Congressional Democrats, mandating that any U.S. Presidential administration work for Iraq regime change. In other words, when Bush assumed office on Jan 20, 2001, *it was the law* that he think about replacing Saddam.

    2) The Gulf War I cease-fire, which Saddam violated in oh so many ways, and which consequently he negated (each and every time he violated them), returning the U.S. and Iraq to a legal and moral state of combat whether we wanted it or not.

    I won’t bother with the rest of Reader’s trash, just this bit that caught my eye. I’m sure the the rest of Reader’s trash is as obstinate in refusing to learn or account for any new information as ever.

  32. And (3) despite all the above, it is a matter of historical record, of course, that Bush spent two years (in addition to Clinton’s 8 previous) trying diplomatic means to resolve Saddam’s cease-fire violations, such as his blocking of U.N. weapons inspectors. So yeah, it’s still fair to say Bush invaded as a last resort. A long-overdue last resort.

    And don’t get me started on U.N. oil-for-food…..we now know the French were (in some instances) on Saddam’s payroll, and had given Saddam secret assurances that they were obstructing and undermining the Coalition in every way they could. So to think Bush/Blair were ever could have ever enjoyed French support, is pathetically childish.

  33. “Trash”, eh?

    The “trash” you just spent all that time on was actually a series of quotes from conservative bloggers, with their links. But, I could see why you wouldn’t want to admit you read it.

  35. Reader-

    One thing you may have missed — unlike you, each of the bloggers you cite actually presents facts and argument to support their claims.

    Interestingly, you also were apparently unable to notice the facts and argument Joe presented to counter the point made by the third writer you cut-and-pasted from.

    Did you have a response to those arguments? (rhetorical question, sadly)

  36. OT:Is Hiring a Publicist a Stage of the Grieving Process? Sure it is: Denial, Despair, Bargaining, and Hiring a Publicist.

    Cindy Sheehan’s connections to MoveOn include a relationship with Fenton Communications, who have coordinated public relations with MoveOn for the last several years. The Houston Chronicle first reported the question back on August 11th, “Sheehan has developed media savvy with assistance from the national public relations firm Fenton Communications, which has also worked with MoveOn.org, the liberal group that campaigned against Bush last year.”

  37. Clint, you’re asking me to read and respond to a poster who insists he never reads my posts? Don’t see the point in it, and certainly feel no obligation.

    Re: your words, “writer you cut-and-pasted from”, you could have easily added “with full attribution”, you know — since I provided the links and clearly made the attribution. Leaving an implication to the contrary is just plain dishonest of you, Clint.