My reply to Mr. Darnell. How did I do? (warning, long post)

[Systematic Chaos]

Original thread by growlypants here.

I couldn't believe what I was reading, and I just had to deal with the anger somehow. I tore him a new one paragraph by paragraph and tried to keep it civil, but with only limited success. I guess anger can be a good thing. I never would have taken the time to do something like this even a couple of years ago. In fact, I think I'm going to post this whole thing over on my blog. :)

Dear Mr. Darnell:

Let's take this point by point, shall we?

You say, "It is time to put an end to the “Cindy Sheehan debacle” in Crawford, Texas. Since I am not one to sugarcoat a subject I will start by simply saying: Ms. Sheehan is a liberal nut case who needs to be put in her place."

I say that if demanding a few simple answers from our highest elected employee about her son's death, and suggesting that our troops come home so that no more will die in this pointless war makes Mrs. Sheehan a "liberal nut case", then count me in! And while we're at it, what does that make Pat Robertson for advocating the assassination of the leader of a sovereign nation that is no threat to the US? A hero?

You say, "Cindy Sheehan, who returned to her camp outside Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas Thursday after going to California to care for her ailing mother, is demanding to see President Bush over the death of her son in Iraq. Her son, 24-year-old Army Specialist Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq last year. She has also started protesting the war in Iraq and has since become the poster child for the anti-war wackos who are calling for the complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq."

I submit that what she decided to do has grown its own legs and is sprinting along quite nicely. Mr. Bush doesn't have an approval rating that's tending toward the 30's, with no sign of stopping its downward spiral, simply because people no longer like his hair style. She is not anybody's "poster child". She is somebody who has decided to exercise her First Amendment rights for very good reason. Were our founding fathers "poster children" too? Their dissent is the reason why America is even here to begin with.

And when you wrongly - and I would venture to guess knowingly - submit the following: "'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.'"....

I would point you to an existing article that completely blows those "quotes" out of the water as deliberate distortions. http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=3662 Can you please explain your reason for not researching the points in your article, which is a clear and flagrant violation of everything you should have learned in Journalism 101?

You then say, "Now, apparently the grieving mother has changed her mind about President Bush, calling him the 'biggest terrorist in the world', and follow that with "The Drudge Report produced transcripts of a speech Ms. Sheehan recently gave at San Francisco State University where she said, “We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!”

I reply by giving you limited "credit" for at least acknowledging your use of a Drudge article as a source for your article. That alone should render your piece utterly bereft of integrity in the mind of anybody who follows the news, as opposed to sitting in a chair all day listening to the right-wing cheerleading on Fox or CNN. George W. Bush a traitor? Absolutely, sir! And a lot of other things for which I hope someday there will be a place reserved for him and his entire cadre of war criminals in The Hague.

Your next quote from Cindy is: "She continued her anti-war tirade saying, “The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a US-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war.”

I ask you: Why don't they need to go fight in this war? Their father believes so strongly in it, after all. Don't you find it the least bit wrong that not one member of congress or this administration has a son or daughter fighting for what Bush so proudly proclaims to be a "Noble Cause"? Why should this be an opportunity taken advantage of mostly by part-time Reservists and Guardsmen, and the children of the working poor who are desperate to make a little money to better themselves with a college education?

Next Cindy quote in your article: "'We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up... in Washington, we will impeach all those people.'"

I agree fully with Mrs. Sheehan, as should anybody who cares about America. When you invade a nation based wholly upon lies, and then change your story over time to fit the facts, as shown in this series of quotes that I dug up which dates from 2004 and would have some real humdingers in it if it were current ( http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-10-04/discussion.cgi.25.html ), then I would have to say high crimes have been committed and should be punished accordingly. Or, do you condone blatant dishonesty from those in power?

Your next paragraph is a real prize: "Ms. Sheehan also proved her lack of intellect stating, 'We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.' I must admit, nuclear war is news to me. Has anyone else heard of this?"

And have you, sir, bothered to read one paragraph of objective analysys on the lingering effects of depleted uranium? Would it bother you if I came to your neighborhood and sprinkled a few kilograms that horrible substance all over, assuming I could live long enough to do it? My guess is that you'd be highly pissed at me, and rightly so!

And then, this: "I think it is time for our gloves to come off. Many columnists around the country have “tip-toed” around the Sheehan controversy because they have respected the loss of her son. But now Ms. Sheehan is showing her true colors: Liberal activist, not loving mother. I think it is time to fight back."

Hmm... "Many columnists", eh? Is that like the be-all, end-all source of choice in American mainstream media, aka "Some People"? I got news for ya. Most of the bobble heads on American TV news look for any and every opportunity to get a spiteful jab in at Mrs. Sheehan whenever they bother to even discuss her activities. And since when were "liberal activist" and "loving mother" mutually exclusive? Do you want Mrs. Sheehan to take some parenting lessons from Barbara Bush?

And then you write: "Ms. Sheehan and other appeasers around the world provide the fuel that feeds the fire of terrorism. If not for this fuel, terrorists would realize that they do not have a chance to sway the minds of people and would end the bombing. Terrorists are not stupid, they understand that bombing innocent civilians will not change the minds of the strong, but will break the will of the weak. So they attack the weak and the weak fold."

Please explain to me exactly how Mrs. Sheehan is, in your words, appeasing terrorists? And while you're at it, could you also be sure to book a conference in NYC, wherein you explain to those millions of Americans just how "weak" they must have been to allow that group of Saudi thugs to fly hijacked airplaines into the Twin Towers? I'm sure you'll have quite the rousing reception.

Nice logic here: "Spain is a good example of this reasoning. Would the terrorists have attacked Spain if the whole population stood strong against terrorism? No. What would be the point?"

So now we know that both the good citizens of New York and the Spaniards are not only weak, but proud enough of that fact to eagerly beckon terrorists to attack them? Where do the London bombings fit into this logic? Oh, that's right, the UK is part of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing". They weren't weak, they were merely what... unlucky? Jupiter in the wrong house that day?

Next: "Every time an appeaser voices his or her opinion against the war in Iraq terrorists gain hope that they can change the will of the people. So whether they want to admit it or not, appeasers protesting the war in Iraq are indirectly responsible for the death of the innocent. And the death of our soldiers."

So let me see if I can get this straight. Those of us who demand the return of our troops from the war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan so that no more of them will die or have their limbs blown off are "enablers", and "directly responsible for...the death of our soldiers"? But the very government that ordered them into this quagmire, gave them utterly inadequate equipment, and allowed such horrible events as Abu Gharaib, is ensuring our troops' safety? Wow, it's really hard to believe that I, and not this administration, must accept the blame for almost 2,000 dead soldiers and counting. How will I ever live with such guilt?

And more of the same: "In fact appeasers are directly responsible for the death of Ms. Sheehan’s son, not George W. Bush. If the whole country was united for the war in Iraq, I doubt if the terrorists would have started their suicide bombing campaign."

So, then, it is the protestors who didn't want this war from the very start, and the protestors alone, who ensured that bombs and rockets, rather than flowers, were thrown at the feet of our troops right from the start? It is truly amazing what an effect people half a world away can have on events, I tell ya! And since you apparently believe it so much, it must be true....

And then: "Using this logic Ms. Sheehan has become the biggest terrorist in the world, not George W. Bush as she so eloquently stated. And the liberal media has become her ally by spreading the word of her protest to the terrorists."

Do I begin by pointing out that "Ms. Sheehan" was married? Or do I ask you to rent yourself a copy of "Outfoxed" and learn for yourself just how "liberal" our media is? Or do I just chuckle to myself, roll my eyes and move on? Eenie meenie miney mo....

"One other point: Every time Ms. Sheehan opens her mouth in protest she is dragging the legacy of her son through liberal muck. Her son was a hero who volunteered to serve his county and died protecting the constitution. Now his mother has become a traitor who is using the war on terror to wage a war against a president whom she does not like. What sense does this make?"

To answer your final question succinctly, plenty. It must really gall you that this lone woman has started a movement that can not simply be ignored or swept under the rug, like so many successful protests where 10,000 people show up and if the mainstream media even bothers reporting on it, the number will magically lose a zero. Or two.

"Does Ms. Sheehan want her son to be known as the son of the liberal wacko from California sitting in a ditch in Crawford, Texas, or would she like her son to be known as a young man who died protecting the people of the United States?"

Has it ever occurred to you that if "Ms. Sheehan" were granted an audience with Mr. Bush, who is on vacation anyways and obviously has plenty of free time, she would keep her end of the bargain and go back home? And could you please stop acting as if you know what "Ms. Sheehan's" intentions are? She is doing what she is because she loves her son, and if a small minority of deluded people want to believe differently then they're not worth the time of day.

Your conclusion: "She is no longer a grieving mother but has become a target in the battle against liberal activism and it is time the war was taken to the enemy. Unfortunately her son’s good name will soon go down in history as the son of a wacko liberal instead of a war hero."

How shall we take the war to the enemy? By mowing down rows of crosses and American flags honoring the fallen? Or maybe by writing articles that draw on "information" that has already been vigorously debunked in order to slander and cast a negative light upon the desire of one grieving mother to get a shred of truth out of a bunch of lying chickenhawks? Yeah, I'll grant you one thing, and that is it's going to be one hell of an uphill battle turning the tide of public opinion now that they understand that they've been lied to and that the reputation of their once-great nation is now damaged almost beyond repair. Where do we even begin?

Yours in Truth,
Kirk Tuminaro

[mzteris]

1. excellent! n/t