Sweet coups de grâce at the end. You should like, get paid and stuff. You're a real writer.

I'd like to ask her which she loves more - her son or her newfound fame.

hln

I'd like to ask her which she loves more - her son or her newfound fame.

Eh, she's a little mental is all. I honestly don't think she's a fame-whore.

I would, however, like to ask Janet Norwood what she thinks of Cindy.

You should like, get paid and stuff.

Oh, my ass. There's a whole long list of people who should get paid before I do, and you're on it.

(But thank you. You do always say the nicest things.)

I can totally hand down my judgment.

Doesn't mean I should.

I think you should. Saves me a lot of time since I don't have to write it then. Or it would, if I ever wrote anything anyway.

I'll bet you get sick of trackbacks from me saying "What she said" or the equivalent.

Um. . .

So I left it here in your comments, instead!

Hah!

I'll bet you get sick of trackbacks from me saying "What she said" or the equivalent.

Wrong! I blog, therefore I have a greedy needy little ego.

I love trackbacks. I know some bloggers have got rid of 'em, but me? Never.

I think you should. Saves me a lot of time since I don't have to write it then.

Two words, Jim: Andrea Harris. It's basically all what I'd say if you filled me full of battery acid first.

Or it would, if I ever wrote anything anyway.

We ARE all eagerly awaiting a slow-down at your job. Oh hell yeah.

I tried to think of something to say about the whole Sheehan thing, but I simply couldn't find it in me to care enough about it. So I simply linked to other people (as indeed, it appears to be obligatory to post about it). Just added you to that list.

Time to out myself as a long-time Ilyka lurker but not a commenter. I had to chime in on this one because I completely agree with you. I'm not a big supporter of this war (due mostly to personal "feelings" about it when my husband spent a year in Iraq with the Army reserves about a year ago), but even I don't think this woman should be sitting out there. It definitely just makes her look mental and isn't going to change anything, least of all the grief that she's going through over the loss of her son.

There's definitely something about wars that makes people loopy -- even people who aren't direct participants in them. When my husband when in Fallujah, I received a phone call from one of the soldier's wives who told me to turn on the Fox News Channel. Hannity & Colmes was on, and one of the wives of our soldiers was on it, blathering about how awful the war is, how unprepared our soldiers are, how they have nothing to do over there but play video games while they're simultaneously in grave danger every second, etc. While she had every right to express whatever opinions she had about the military (despite the fact that the majority of them were dead wrong), there are a million reasons why she shouldn't have done that. I wish there was some way to convince these folks that television appearances don't make for the greatest therapy sessions.

It's hardly worth commenting on your blurb criticizing a mother who in her despair over what she feels was the unnecessary "sacrifice" of her son to this unjust war is now trying to press the issue that the President of the United States should address the concerns of those Americans who oppose the Iraq War. But I wonder if she would be doing what she is doing if indeed our president did openly address those concerns instead of merely avoiding them, ignoring them, telling the world that he is just too busy to take the time and make the effort while he vacations at his Texas ranch for five weeks.

...the President of the United States should address the concerns of those Americans who oppose the Iraq War...

Bill, you've convinced me.

If Bush would just come out and agree that Casey Sheehan "was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel," concede that attacking Afghanistan was also a mistake, agree to immediately withdraw all the troops, and then resign, everything would be kosher.

Why can't this fucker Bush understand that it's all about the communication? Address the concerns, Mr. President!

I love trackbacks. I know some bloggers have got rid of 'em, but me? Never.

So your okay with me just saying, "I like this post" and linking? Kewl! I always feel I need to preface a trackback with some profound reason as to why I'm linking it. I think I have low have linking esteem or something.

heh, every trackback is like a little christmas present :)

It's hardly worth commenting

Then don't.

on your blurb criticizing a mother

Please be more clear. Do you mean Judith's excerpt? Do you mean this paragraph?

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. I don't think anyone's really disputing that Cindy Sheehan has a right to hang around Crawford making a pest of herself. She does, I do, you do, we all do, that's America, blah blah blah. She can do what she's doing; I hope we're all clear on that score.

And that brings up another thing: Unlike some people out there, I don't subscribe to the theory that motherhood is inherently sacred. Some mothers MAKE it sacred by their efforts--and some mothers leave the baby home with a new man every week. Motherhood doesn't grant you immunity from criticism, bucko, and you know who taught me that?

My mean ol' bitch of a mother.

who in her despair over what she feels was the unnecessary "sacrifice" of her son to this unjust war is now trying to press the issue

Bringing up point #2: Despair doesn't automatically grant you immunity. Nor does it automatically confer correctness. Being the most devastated in the room doesn't make you the best, the brightest, the purest, etc.

Listen: I know she's despairing. That's fucking obvious. I notice Sheehan's defenders inevitably take great pains to point that part out as though somehow we heartless on the right had overlooked it. WE HAVEN'T. That's why I disagreed with hln, above: I don't think she's a fame-whore and I will not talk about her as if she were one. Nor would I ask her "which she loves more, her dead son or her newfound fame."

So save yourself the drama.

that the President of the United States should address the concerns of those Americans who oppose the Iraq War.

How would you like him to do that, Bill? Do you want concerns "addressed," like in one of those "townhall meetings" of yore? Or do you simply want him to pull all the troops and fold?

If he did have a big ol' gathering to "address the concerns," what are the odds you'd believe a single fucking thing he said during it? Don't you know he's evil? I read it on the Atrios every day, brother.

But I wonder if she would be doing what she is doing if indeed our president did openly address those concerns instead of merely avoiding them,

Again: How do you want them "addressed?" (Remember to use your ZIP + 4!)

And how is he "avoiding" them? The man already met with her once. How many times should one average citizen get to meet the President?

ignoring them, telling the world that he is just too busy to take the time and make the effort while he vacations at his Texas ranch for five weeks.

I obviously don't know, but I suspect that he's thinking, "Meet with one, I gotta meet with all of them." You want to tell me Sheehan's backers wouldn't push for exactly that, too?

"Great news, gang! He's talking to Cindy! Go ahead and get the tickets confirmed for the rest of them. We're gonna FLOOD THE ZONE here, man, just flood it. We'll have our troops back home in six months, tops, where we can return to belittling them, encouraging our kids to avoid ROTC and other fascist paramilitary organizations, and banning them from campuses nationwide!"

I'm not actually feeling much agita over Cindy. It's what's behind Cindy that I don't like.

Next time, Bill, find some way to express yourself without the army of straw men. Because little that you so bravely object to in your comment bears any relation to what I actually said.