Cindy Sheehan's speech at SF State Univ.

[Navy Pride]

Here is a speech that Cindy Sheehan made at San Francisco State Univ. on April 27 2005.......This may be the real Ms Sheehan........I apologize if this has already been posted and for the foul language this woman used:

http://thepoliticalteen.net/category/idiot-of-the-day/

CINDY UNLEASHED: ‘THE BIGGEST TERRORIST IN THE WORLD IS GEORGE W. BUSH’
Wed Aug 17 2005 21:51:56 ET

“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!”

So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at San Francisco State University.

Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: “We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.”

Sheehan unleashed a foul-mouth tirade on April 27, 2005:

“They’re a bunch of f***ng hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up…” Sheehan said of the Bush administration.

“If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bulls***, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?”

“The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-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.”

“We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog s*** in Washington, we will impeach all those people.”

END

 

[SKILMATIC]

And to think people on this forum actualy support what this woman is doing and saying.

What has this country come to?

 

[Alex]

And to think people on this forum actualy support what this woman is doing and saying.

What has this country come to?

I support her First Amendment rights. She can say what she wants. She can protest if she wants. She can speak out against the government if she wants. It is because of people like her that we have the freedoms we do. People stood up and spoke against the government 229 years ago and now we are a country that has every right to speak against a government that we feel is wrong. Thank the stars for people like her.

More power to her.

 

[Tetracide]

She has every right to protest, and she has every right to stand as tall as she wants on her son's coffin, staining the American flag with the dirt of Crawford, Texas, to say anything she wants.

Her words, and the media's blind acceptance of anything she says is maiming the Left's cause much more than they think.

Mom's and Dad's that have lost their sons and daughter are outraged to tears about this, and how she has "disrespected those who have given their life for this country." The Left thinks they have a victory there in Texas, when they are so blind to the ground they are losing across America.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Again I support 1st ammendment rights. I dont however support bashing people.

There also is a thing of misusing rights. And shes misusing them. Bush is a terrorist? Ok dont you think thats a little too far? I am sure he would look good with a beard and a turbin. You are missing the whole point here. Cindys speech isnt free speech its ridicule.

Thrers a difference.

Now if she wants to be antiwar then fine. Campaign that after the war and occupation is done. If she wants to protest agaisnt the president fine, just do it in a peaceful and in a humane manner.

 

[scottyz]

And to think people on this forum actualy support what this woman is doing and saying.

What has this country come to?

And to think people on this forum actually support what Bush is doing on saying.

What has this country come to?

 

[superskippy]

It's her right, but I personally think she is insane and I hate her.


Acknowledges support from David Duke was all I needed to hear.

 

[SKILMATIC]

And to think people on this forum actually support what Bush is doing on saying.

Is that what you think? You think becasue I support in what the troops are doing I support bush? That in no way has any correlation to what you just said. Supporting military servicemen are waay different than supporting some sort of political figure.

To tell you the truth I think government as a whole is a sham and a joke. Its merely a way for some people to make a buck. But that doesnt disregard the fact there are some meaningful people in government. No I am not an anarchist. I just think if there should be more accountablility we should do away with the electoral college. Ok that had nothing to do with your post, :lol: But the top part did.

 

[ShamMol]

Wait, have to voice support of this line, cause it is the best piece of rhetoric I have come across since the days of Squawker. I mean, not only do I think it is semi-accurate, but wow, it is like bile. Fun times Cindy, fun times.

“If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bulls***, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?”

Cmon, that is rhetoric you can't match people!

 

[Tetracide]

 

[superskippy]

She is a loon excersing her right. Sometimes freedom has a price I suppose

 

[Navy Pride]

And to think people on this forum actually support what Bush is doing on saying.

What has this country come to?

The greatest country in the world and we will never let Liberals like you drag it down........

 

[ShamMol]

The greatest country in the world and we will never let Liberals like you drag it down........

Do you really think that we are all out to get you just because we say, enjoy different things, or think in different ways? Do you know what that is called? It is called intolerance. We aren't. We want what is best for this country and sometimes that means questioning what is going on-it means that ability to question must be cherished and honored, even if we don't like how it is being used. Surely you can see that, or are you blinded by patriotism to see that every once and while your country, your leaders (even republican ones) and your soldiers did something wrong. Sey Hersh put it great-we love our boys in blue, or whatever color they are wearing today. Sure they ***** up every now and again, but they always do us proud and now it is time to do them proud and save them unecessary deaths and injuries.

Open your eyes and see that we are not to be feared or hated, that we, just like you, are Americans, that want the very best possible for our country and especially those serving it.

I need to rant a little here, so I do beg forgiveness. Sey Hersh said on the Daily Show that we won't win this war even if we train up the Iraqis because we didn't talk to the insurgency and try and bring them into the political process a year ago. People on the left were called idiots, retarded for suggesting that would even be possible, when now it clear (because one prominent militia/insurgency leader has done so) that it would have been possible to bring them in. If only we had done so.

 

[vergiss]

Sheesh. Remind me never to express left-wing views to the media, lest I get demonised and hounded by schmucks who can't stand to hear opinions that they disagree with.

 

[Tetracide]

I believe that all those who are in elected positions truly and honestly want to see this country be better (not that we are in a hell hole, but because that is their job - to make this country better). The place where we differ is how both sides define us as a better nation.

Some radicals on the left would see America better as a socialist state, free social programs, the works.

Some radicals on the right would see America better if we used our power regardless of circumstances to “fix” the world so it better suited our needs.

Both sides have the same reasons for thinking such; they want to see America a better place in their view. The clash of ideas consists of reasons why we think each other's opinions are wrong - how each other's opinions are not the best for America.

That being said, there are some on both sides of the aisle, that have lost their way, and have drowned in the political process, and want change that obviously maim this country, yet they refuse to see it. They concentrate on the effect it will have on the opposing party or ideology. That is what I fear a majority of the liberal base have fallen to, and I assume it is visa-versa with the Left’s view of the Right. Some have drowned in the political process, and want things that are wrong for this country.

Her son's death aside, Cindy Sheehan, I'm afraid, has become one of them. The things she has said while the media has given her this spotlight are horrifically anti-American, and no liberal, no leftists should deny that. She has stepped the line multiple occasions, and has drawn the attention of shady political figures, calling more attention to her underlining reasons for her actions.

Those that have not lost their way on the left, or do not want to lose their way, need to recognize the radical they have so willingly an unquestionably aligned themselves with. The horrific and moral-degrading things she has said are comments I would expect to come from the Jamaat-e-Islami party in Britain.

Until those level-headed, true patriotic American leftists realize who they have aligned themselves with (beyond a mother who has lost her son), the American people will not allow such seething anger and hatred take hold in our government. I hope they soon recognize this, and we can move on to issues that really matter, like the War on Terror, legislature, and our road to the future of a better and safe America.

 

[scottyz]

The greatest country in the world and we will never let Liberals like you drag it down........

Because I disagree with Bush I'm a liberal? :rofl Hagel disagrees with Bush too, is he a dirty "liberal"? You do realize this country was founded on some VERY liberal ideas.

 

[ShamMol]

I believe that all those who are in elected positions truly and honestly want to see this country be better (not that we are in a hell hole, but because that is their job - to make this country better). The place where we differ is how both sides define us as a better nation.

Some radicals on the left would see America better as a socialist state, free social programs, the works.

Some radicals on the right would see America better if we used our power regardless of circumstances to “fix” the world so it better suited our needs.

Both sides have the same reasons for thinking such; they want to see America a better place in their view. The clash of ideas consists of reasons why we think each other's opinions are wrong - how each other's opinions are not the best for America.

That being said, there are some on both sides of the aisle, that have lost their way, and have drowned in the political process, and want change that obviously maim this country, yet they refuse to see it. They concentrate on the effect it will have on the opposing party or ideology. That is what I fear a majority of the liberal base have fallen to, and I assume it is visa-versa with the Left’s view of the Right. Some have drowned in the political process, and want things that are wrong for this country.

Her son's death aside, Cindy Sheehan, I'm afraid, has become one of them. The things she has said while the media has given her this spotlight are horrifically anti-American, and no liberal, no leftists should deny that. She has stepped the line multiple occasions, and has drawn the attention of shady political figures, calling more attention to her underlining reasons for her actions.

Those that have not lost their way on the left, or do not want to lose their way, need to recognize the radical they have so willingly an unquestionably aligned themselves with. The horrific and moral-degrading things she has said are comments I would expect to come from the Jamaat-e-Islami party in Britain.

Until those level-headed, true patriotic American leftists realize who they have aligned themselves with (beyond a mother who has lost her son), the American people will not allow such seething anger and hatred take hold in our government. I hope they soon recognize this, and we can move on to issues that really matter, like the War on Terror, legislature, and our road to the future of a better and safe America.

I think that this liberal base you speak of has become more radicalized because what was once our voice in the Senate and world affairs, the Democratic Party, shifts farther and farther to the right in order to try and appeal to the centrist independent voters. This can't be said of Repubs who keep shifting farther to the right (Read What's Wrong With Kansas for some really interesting material on religious messages, conservatism and the heartland). The point being, in a point to have some voice when they have lost theirs, they go too far. The radical right did this in the mid-90s, but this time it is a shift to the left.

There are those on the left like myself who try and see all sides of the issue before making up their mind and not just listen to kos. But there are those who are not like me, just like there are those on the right in the exact same situations. They listen to limbaugh or drudge, instead of seeing all sides and coming to a rational conclusion. But, there is honestly nothing we as one person can do about that except complain and bicker about who is right.

All that being said-people on the right have to recognize that we have a right to say what we want, even if they don't like it. We didn't silence them when Clinton was attacked daily, though he can hardly be called liberal thanks to his views on big business that permeated throughout his entire administration. There was a reason states held out from signing the constitution until there was a bill of rights, because they realized how important the first amm. along with others were. Realize that right-even if you don't like, even if I don't like it.

 

[Stinger]

I support her First Amendment rights. She can say what she wants. She can protest if she wants. She can speak out against the government if she wants. It is because of people like her that we have the freedoms we do. People stood up and spoke against the government 229 years ago and now we are a country that has every right to speak against a government that we feel is wrong. Thank the stars for people like her.

More power to her.

We ALL support her right to speak but just because you have a RIGHT to speak does not make what you speak RIGHT. This knee-jerk reponse that the left always puts up is so bogus but it does demonstrate that you can't defend what she says.

So do you support what she says or not, do you agree with what she says? Her First Amendment rights are not an issue.

 

[Stinger]

I support her First Amendment rights. She can say what she wants. She can protest if she wants. She can speak out against the government if she wants. It is because of people like her that we have the freedoms we do. People stood up and spoke against the government 229 years ago and now we are a country that has every right to speak against a government that we feel is wrong. Thank the stars for people like her.

More power to her.

BTW Alex it wasn't a protest gathering she was speaking at. It was a support gathering, and gathering support the lawyer who was aiding and abetting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist connected with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. That's who this woman supports, the terrorist who want to kill us. But she has a right to do that doesn't she. Do you still support her?

 

[Alex]

She has every right to protest, and she has every right to stand as tall as she wants on her son's coffin, staining the American flag with the dirt of Crawford, Texas, to say anything she wants.

Her words, and the media's blind acceptance of anything she says is maiming the Left's cause much more than they think.

Mom's and Dad's that have lost their sons and daughter are outraged to tears about this, and how she has "disrespected those who have given their life for this country." The Left thinks they have a victory there in Texas, when they are so blind to the ground they are losing across America.

They have not "given their life for this country." They have given their life for the Bush Administration. Big difference. I do not see how Sheehan is hurting any party. If anything, she is the beginning of the Iraq war protests that will start to happen more frequently. She is an American hero who is setting the stage for much more rebellion. A well deserved rebellion.

 

[Alex]

Again I support 1st ammendment rights. I dont however support bashing people.

There also is a thing of misusing rights. And shes misusing them. Bush is a terrorist? Ok dont you think thats a little too far? I am sure he would look good with a beard and a turbin. You are missing the whole point here. Cindys speech isnt free speech its ridicule.

Thrers a difference.

Now if she wants to be antiwar then fine. Campaign that after the war and occupation is done. If she wants to protest agaisnt the president fine, just do it in a peaceful and in a humane manner.

Sheehan has the right to speak as she wishes. If that comes out as ridicule, so be it.

I would also equate Bush with terrorists. He pushed for an invasion of a country without just cause. (Not to mentioned he flat out lied about the reasons why.) What would you call that?

 

[Alex]

Her son's death aside, Cindy Sheehan, I'm afraid, has become one of them. The things she has said while the media has given her this spotlight are horrifically anti-American, and no liberal, no leftists should deny that. She has stepped the line multiple occasions, and has drawn the attention of shady political figures, calling more attention to her underlining reasons for her actions.

There is nothing anti-American about free speech. There is nothing anti-American about protesting. There is nothing anti-American about wanting grievances acknowledged.


Amendment I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Alex]

We ALL support her right to speak but just because you have a RIGHT to speak does not make what you speak RIGHT. This knee-jerk reponse that the left always puts up is so bogus but it does demonstrate that you can't defend what she says.

So do you support what she says or not, do you agree with what she says? Her First Amendment rights are not an issue.

Right and wrong are subjective. It is right for Sheehan to say what she is saying and of course some would find it wrong. The bottom line is, she has the right to say it as she wishes.

 

[Alex]

BTW Alex it wasn't a protest gathering she was speaking at. It was a support gathering, and gathering support the lawyer who was aiding and abetting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist connected with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. That's who this woman supports, the terrorist who want to kill us. But she has a right to do that doesn't she. Do you still support her?

"Aiding and abetting"? Prove this. Not that it means anything.

 

[cnredd]

Sheehan has the right to speak as she wishes. If that comes out as ridicule, so be it.

I would also equate Bush with terrorists. He pushed for an invasion of a country without just cause. (Not to mentioned he flat out lied about the reasons why.) What would you call that?

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University.

But when Bush says it, it becomes a lie...