Re: Mark Goldblatt’s The Best of Cindy Sheehan:
Liars… that’s all you are! Cindy did not say those things and you know it.
— Patricia Mattes
Thank you, Mark Goldblatt for the Gospel according to Cindy. She is right about one thing when she thanks God for the Internet “or we wouldn’t know anything.” For how would we have the full, unexpurgated text of Cindy’s fulminations, were it not for Goldblatt in TAS Online? No family newspaper would stay in business long if it printed what this foul-mouthed lunatic has to say.
In fact, Cindy would not be in business long if any newspaper or any periodical printed what she actually has to say. Instead we are treated to the Myth of Cindy — the pundits who laud her as the person who has “put a face on those who object to our being in Iraq.”
Cindy does not speak for me and if I thought her face remotely resembled mine, I would slit my wrists. That may seem cruel, but Cindy’s is not a face contorted with grief; but rather the visage of a person consumed by an unreasoning political hatred that probably began when Bill Clinton got caught “with his pants down” and got impeached for lying to a grand jury.
We have “Lefties-in-need-of-a-lobotomy” just like her, daily, in our local fish-wrap’s Letters to the Editor column. All vitriol, all the time. The only difference is they have no KIA son to buttress their argument.
Too bad you missed her latest gibberish: “Bush wants to kill more soldiers because he has killed soldiers.”
Don’t know what to call it, but it’s mighty lachrymose.
— Diane Smith
South San Francisco, California
Sometimes cold logic leads us to conclusions belonging to that set of things which in a just world, a perfected world, one ought never have to think or to speak.
After reading through the collection of sayings of Chairman Cindy Sheehan, so thoughtfully compiled by Mark Goldblatt, it seems to me that Ms. Sheehan really didn’t like her son Casey very much at all.
Ms. Sheehan does not seem to me to have the capacity for like, let alone love.
— Paul Kotik
Many thanks to Mr. Goldblatt for finally putting forth a comprehensive compilation of Ms. Sheehan’s radical leftist diatribes. If there ever was a classic textbook illustration of the political agenda of the MSM in full chorus, it would certainly be their collective “ordinary mom” profile of Ms. Sheehan in juxtaposition to her unreported radical polemics. Couple this story with Byron York’s piece in today’s National Review Online, which details the professional radicals that have packaged and managed Ms. Sheehan as if she was in full campaign mode (which she is) and the exposure of the fraud becomes complete. I concur with Mr. Goldblatt that Ms. Sheehan should be given her own column in the New York Times. She is, after all, the embodiment of the insanity that has taken over that paper and her columns would be indistinguishable from those of Dowd, Krugman and Rich. Ms. Sheehan’s loss may in some way have contributed to her radical agenda, although it appears she has traveled this path for some time; but what excuse does Ms. Dowd and the rest of the crew at the NYT have to explain their collective madness?
— A. DiPentima
I got up and drove to Crawford on Saturday morning. I saw thousands in that little town there to support the President, our war effort, and our troops. The press, however, was out in a pasture outside of town with a maybe one hundred or so fools. I had to drive out there to see what the folks were talking about in town. It was a scene right out of the 1960s. There were middle-aged hippie fools looking for free love and drugs, and to curry favor with Ms. Cindy. She pranced and preened under her tent like a peacock spreading its feathers. What total nonsense.
The stories I heard in Crawford from plain and simple folks, like me, were so touching. Several came who had lost children in the war. All said, to a person, my son or my daughter was an adult. They knew what they had chosen to do. I am proud of them. Meanwhile, outside Crawford, Cindy spouted the ridiculous and was covered by many press vans.
I heard several Vietnam vets say they came home to be reviled but our soldiers won’t because we will stand up for what is right. However, if the liberal press directs the news, as it did to cause our failure in Vietnam, I am not convinced that we can overcome. Still, I watched my honorable husband come home from Vietnam to this nonsense and I sat quietly. Others in my family will not come home to this without me speaking out this time.
Back at my ranch now,
— Beverly Gunn
These are the ravings of a sick, self-impressed and liberal-manipulated person. I truly hope she continues to embarrass the liberals.
Re: Jed Babbin’s UNdermining Democracy:
Jed Babbin’s “UNdermining Democracy” reminds me of the terse synopsis used by guys-without-neckties, like me, when referring to the U.N.: “To hell with it.”
Really. To hell with it, already.
— Paul Kotik
“The time for victory is near. All over the world, Muslims are sacrificing more and contributing more to the struggle. May Allah accept us all to be slaughtered.”
Them being slaughtered would not be a bad thing — we need to help them along.
— Elaine Kyle
Cut & Shoot, Texas
SAN FRANCISCO TREATS
Re: Lisa Fabrizio’s A City of Infamy:
Excellent article. I have already decided that San Francisco no longer needs any tourist dollars from my wallet, now or in the future. Hopefully, those of us who are conservative, and truly supportive of our military, will band together to help keep the hotel rooms in San Francisco available to liberal tourists.
— R. Goodson
Vero Beach, Florida
Many of us in the military are still furious over the Navy’s senseless decision to retire the last battleships while their replacements are just vague, expensive ideas. For some reason the Navy has systematically destroyed its ability to deliver naval gunfire support to the Army and Marine units ashore in hostile territory.
An updated battleship would still be the toughest and most intimidating warship in the world. I really don’t care about the San Francisco thing — the Iowa should be sailing off the coast of Iran right now with its guns trained on their nuclear sites.
— Chris Bramley
GAMBLING ON THE EAGLE
Re: Brian S. Wesbury’s Bearish on Buffett:
Mr. Buffett is NOT bearish on “America” or its economy, since he keeps most of his U.S. stocks as he did for over 40 years now. He is only bearish on the U.S. dollar, for various reasons I am not going into now. Mr. Buffett himself said his position against the dollar is not for a week, a month, or even one year. He sees things coming years in advance, and he has always been proven right! Look at those who considered him wrong at the time of the Nasdaq bubble. Again he was proven to be on the right side. He will be seen right again today, only it will take a few years for everyone to acknowledge it. Remember that his strategy made him the world’s second richest man.
— Marc Haagen
“Being short, the dollar in this environment is not a great investment strategy. Warren Buffett should just say ‘non.’ The French already have.”
Unfortunately the French and Dutch “no” doesn’t mean a thing for the Eurocrats in Brussels. They go on with their plans and are expanding in every field you might think of. They threaten to start talks with Turkey in October as if nothing happened in the meantime.
This is sad and even more, it is undemocratic to the utmost. The average TV-informed citizen has no idea what the bureaucrats are planning and doing behind their backs in Brussels; Go on as if nothing had happened, expand and control, establish new institutions on our dime.
They simply ignore the populations. What can be done about their arrogance? I don’t know an answer since it doesn’t matter who you vote for or against in Europe, obviously. Maybe people should start a revolution? I count on Americans to expose them. We, the citizens, are powerless.
— Mrs. Beier
I, for one, am glad to see Warren buffeted by the consequences of his investment errors. As is the case with many gazillionaires, Buffett is in favor of vigorous population control measures — presumably because he and other tycoons can’t imagine that the quality of life for someone living below the official poverty level can be anything other than abysmal (although maybe his advocacy is based on nothing more elevated than an abhorrence for the sheer numbers of the “wrong sort” of people). In any event, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that his gamble was based on a theory that Europe’s dwindling fertility rates would translate into a fat bottom line, making a huge bet against the U.S. — nice going, “genius.”
— D. Carter
Thank you for writing this article, it made me feel stronger about our country and happy that someone like Buffett lost megabucks betting against it. Take that!
— Joni Ramm
Los Angeles, California
Re: Patrick J. Hynes’s Bent out of Shape:
You apparently, like all compassionate conservatives, just don’t get it. This President and his administration is a disaster. You cling to an ideology that is dying as I respond to your ridiculous ridicule of a mother who lost a son in another senseless war fabricated by our government. Instead of tearing down a woman who actually stands for her beliefs, why don’t you provide us the intestinal fortitude of supporting the presidential failure occupying the Oval Office. Please, provide the reason we are at war with Iraq. And please don’t attempt to explain that somehow Iraq is the key to the war on terrorism. I have exhausted the civil ability to listen to the right-wing garbage that has been spewing from conservatives over the last five or so years. Quite frankly conservatives have no backbone or vision for a safer America. Conservatism is an ideology that is reactionary at best. I always thought that the elephant is a perfect symbol for the Republican Party. Just go to a circus and watch how each elephant grabs the tail of the elephant in front of him, as each blindly follows the leader.
— George J. Tomascik
Re: Roy Hogue’s letter (under “It’s a Choice Thing”) in Reader Mail’s The Wall Street Turtle? and Patrick Hynes’s Bent Out of Shape:
Mr. Hogue, you might think it arrogant for President Bush to “suggest that I, or anyone should join him in his exercise program,” but it was JFK who started the President’s Challenge — a national youth fitness test. I don’t remember anyone screaming about that.
This is just such a bunch of baloney. I’m glad we have a president who is interested in staying fit. The article had it just right. What’s with Chait and everyone criticizing the president for exercising? How petty. How unserious in time of great seriousness.
— Deborah Durkee