Is this e-mail verified?

Good question.

I heard a reporton Lars Larsson's radio show that said the same thing. I don't know if he was using Drudge as a source though.

Pro or con, I have never liked the parading of the individual gibbeted bodies of our fallen. Let them rest in peace and honor - anything else is abuse.

And yes, peace to their family. Not a pretty sight.

She should finish the job and piss on her son's grave. She has already pissed on his memory and valor.

The President both depend heavily on the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. It is very difficult to accept that a sacrifice such as Mrs. Sheehan’s son, may never come to any good ends.

The Bush Administration has bungled every aspect of this war, and is suffering the consequences of short sightedness and incompetence. And, it shouldn’t have been a surprise. There have been an entire litany of criticisms provided by professional Military and Diplomatic people long before the war, with respect to both the consequences, the weak planning and bad assumptions.

Good professional soldiers tend to soldier on, and honor those lost for their valor and courage.

However, there is another type of courage that we all, as Americans, must find within ourselves. That is the courage to speak truth to power. In order to do that, we all have to reflect on what is reality, and what is merely our own self- deception; our inability to face the unpleasant evidence of political misleadership, even as our sons and daughters show perfect heroism and courage in the face of the ultimate adversity.

Bush should have listened to General Shinseki, General Zinni, General McPeak, Admiral Crowe, Brent Ashcroft and all the others. It was difficult to ignore their experience and wisdom when they gave their warnings. It is impossible to avoid the truth in what they said now that their prophecies are coming true.

And example:

Gen. Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000

The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks’ approach to methodically move up and attack quickly probably saved a great humanitarian disaster. But the military was unprepared for the aftermath. Rumsfeld and others thought we would be greeted with roses and flowers.

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn’t need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don’t know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.

Bush knows the truth. Allowing a visit from Mrs. Sheehan would mean facing it.

Hm. Allowing a visit from Mrs. Sheehan... like the one he already allowed? Oh darn, doesn't look like he's avoiding her out of shame or anything, considering he's already met her after her son died.

I believe this is the 2nd blog I've seen you post this screed on. What's the matter? Not enough people flocking to your own blog?

"She should finish the job and piss on her son's grave. She has already pissed on his memory and valor."

It isn't his mother that "pissed on his memory and valor", it's the man who lied us into this war.

Finish your thought, Ken. Don't stop there, tell us WHY the president lied. Let's assume he did. So why, then? I'm pretty sure I've heard it all, but tell us your idea, please.

When you lose a loved one in war ,you want to believe the loss was in a good cause. Its a natural reaction to reject the notion that we were lied into war and the people who lose their lives or limbs were betrayed by their own government. Mark Twain said it best."Support your country always;Support your government only when it deserves it". Folks,do not confuse the country with the government. This country and our troops deserve our support. This government does not.

The whole point is that it seems like Ms Casey is creating a spectacle over her son's death. She is entitled to her grief and to her opinion on Bush, the war etc. But when she starts using her son for her own agendas (and agenda for all we know, her son might have been against), then that rubs me the wrong way.

armynurseboy

I think you might be jumping to conclusions as to an agenda. Her first meeting with Bush was quite bad from her recounting of it. Maybe she wants more answers.

Ditto Twian...

"Bring all our troops home" sounds like an agenda to me.

"Ghost Dansing": Don't pretend that you would support the war under any circumstances other than if Al Gore had been president in 2001. Nice job mentioning McPeak - the man was a disgrace to the bus driver's uniform he forced all USAF officers to wear. I wasn't surprised at all to see him tap-dancing on stage with that trumpet shoved up his butt during the Democratic National convention. He always was a clown.

Sheehan is now claiming that the war was all about oil. That's sad, but it's her fundamental message, and one as old and discredited as Ghost Dansings silly claim to comprehend military issues above. I'll bet she was heavily recruited to her task as left wing messiah. After 1800 dead they finally found one. Now you can visit any memorial web page dedicated to any of the fallen and you'll see messages left by these bastards trying to recruit the survivors to be their little political tools. Your previous post hit it dead on, greyhawk. They've failed to recruit the wounded so they've turned to the dead because they can't talk back. Here come the flag draped coffin photos now.

And Carl Yee: your comments show you missed the point of this post completely.

WHILE SOLDIERS MOTHER SAY STOP TO CINDY SHEEHAN, THEY DON'T AS "WHY THE FAR RIGHT CONCERITIVES ARE NOT DOWN AT THE ENLISTMENT OFFICES"?. THEY SEEM TO RALLY FOR THE TROOPOS BUT STOP SHORT OF ENLISTING. BUT CINDY IS INSULTED, SPAT APON AND DEMONIZED. AMERICA WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ WE NEED TROOPS AND THAT MEANS FAR RIGHT CONCERITIVES THEY ARE THE ONES WHO BELIVE IN BUSH WHY NOT ENLIST FOR HIM?.
YOU NOTICE BUSHS DAUGHTERS SEEM TO FEEL THEY HAVE NO NEED TO ENLIST .

No matter what invective the "sheehanites" desire to throw at me via "ad hominem",it doesn't really counter Cindy Sheehan's contradictory statements, erroneous assertions and down right lies. The fact remains that in her first interview with David Henson she stated that Bush was "sincere" and "felt sorry for their loss." Her husband or should I say "ex-husband" Patrick Sheehan followed up her praise of Bush by saying yes he agreed that Bush was sincere in their meeting. Later Cindy Sheehan made a complete 180 degree turn in the opposite direction and not only was Bush, in her second version of that same meeting, not sincere, but according to her he "acted like it was a party." My reasonable question is which version is the truth and which is the distortion? During another interview on national television Cindy Sheehan stated that her son was killed by friendly fire, when she was pressed about that statement she then said " well I have speculative evidence that he was killed by friendly fire." It amazing that anyone could use the words speculative and evidence in the same sentence side by side and keep a straight face. Evidence substantiates an allegation, speculation is just the opposite it requires no evidence at all,to use "speculative evidence" together is a perfect example of an oxymoron. I also notice Cindy Sheehan refuses to elaborate on what reasons would led her to believe that her son Casey Sheehan was killed by friendly fire. The real truth of Casey Sheehan's death is he was killed by hostile fire in Sadr City, this was the consistent report of his death since day one, medical reports and the reports from fellow soldiers confirm the same conclusion. There has never been one verifiable hint that Casey Sheehan was killed by friendly fire so you have to ask yourself whats Cindy Sheehans real objective in asserting a lie. Cindy Sheehan says she speaks for her son but Im seeing just the opposite, she is really only speaking for herself. Cindy Sheehan says her son Casey was against the war in Iraq, but Caseys actions prove just the opposite. If Casey Sheehan vehemently opposed the war in Iraq, like Cindy Sheehan contends, why would Casey reenlist in the first place to serve in a war he didnt believe in ? Casey Sheehan was a real hero of the first order, when a convoy of soldiers from his unit was attacked in Sadr City he volunteered to join a rescue force to get them out, even after his commanding Sergeant told him he didn't have to go because he was mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was reported telling his officer " I go where my chief goes." Thats not a man who didn't believe in his cause or his duty, thats a hero. Cindy Sheehan is stating that her son was offered a "non-combat" position as a Chaplain's assistant. Any soldier knows that Chaplain's assistants are infantrymen assigned to protecting the Chaplain and Casey Sheehan was not a chaplain's assistent in the first place. Cindy Sheehan also stated that she didn't send the email to ABC's Nightline that stated that "her son was not in Iraq to protect Israel." First she said that a "former friend " who just happened to be anti-Israel doctored the email . Here is what she said and I quote her. Cindy-- "A former friend who is anti-Israel and wants to use the spotlight on me to push his anti-Semitism is telling everyone who is listening that I believe that Casey died for Israel and has gone so far as to apparently doctor an email from me." This specter who is according to her, a “former friend” and just happens to be anti-Israel, is of course never named. I am under the impression that this person is none other than Cindy Sheehan herself. ABC now says it talked to Sheehan and she said she did in fact write the letter in question after all and she did receive an e-mail from ABC confirming that ABC had received it. But she thinks the version on the web has been tampered with.Now that it has been confirmed that she herself sent the email she totally changes her story once again.Now instead of asserting that ABC can’t confirm this mystery persons email and therefore its irresponsible to even report on this particular email, she now says she did send it, but she “thinks” it was tampered with. Im just curious how she could have written it and not really know if its been tampered with , she says now she thinks the web version was tampered with. I for one would like to hear testimonny from Casey Sheehans fellow soldiers in Iraq ,I bet they have a completly different version as to how Casey felt about the war then what is being presented by Cindy Sheehan. You know if Cindy Sheehan personally is against the war in Iraq, she has every right to voice her opinion, but to distort her sons mission and purpose and his own perspective on Iraq is just not right.

Cindy Sheehan has responded to President Bush's comments concerning meeting her and has posted her response in The huffington Post. The first statement Cindy Sheehan makes that comes off as anti-democratic is this one and I quote Cindy Sheehan- " Does anyone else know what "democratic" means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one." Cindy Sheehen in that particular statement actually attacks 51 % majority rule as a bad form of government and if you can read anything else into that, defending that statement, please make your comment at the end of this post. I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan that 50 plus one is much better then Saddam's 1 % plus brutal totalitarian rule in which the 1% Saddam, rules 99 % of the entire population. Maybe Sheehan has met with some socialist organizations that oppose democratic forms of government. I did notice that a socialist website called 'Socialist Worker Online' is running a rather large article advocating Sheehans position. Cindy Sheehan actually gave an interview to the Socialist Worker Online, she spoke to Socialist Worker’s ERIC RUDER which is mentioned at the beginning of the article. In her interview with the Socialist Worker Online she says and I quote " Some people may think that we’re fighting terrorism over there. But when is that job ever going to be complete? Terrorism is just a new “ism.” It was “communism” when I was growing up." Here Cindy Sheehan is discounting the validity of the threat of communism in the past as just a made up " ism." I believe history taught us that communism brutally oppressed and killed millions of innocent people and is still somewhat of a threat today in places like North Korea where millions have died from starvation due to KimYong II, brutal rule. Cindy Sheehan later went on to say and I quote " I DEFINITELY think that we should support war resisters in the military". I will leave that statement up to the readers interpretation, but it sounds to me to border on subversion and treason. Here is Cindy Sheehan's interview with the Socialist Workers Online in its entirety http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/549/549_06_CindySheehan.shtml .
The next statement Cindy Sheehan makes is both inaccurate and untruthful and I quote
"This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn't ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for." Actually Cindy Sheehen didn't ask Bush, she demanded that he "bring the troops home now", here is a quote from her statement made on August 18 2005 and carried by ABC News ""If George Bush comes out here today or if we leave here at the end of August, this is only the beginning, and we're not going to stop until our troops are brought home", I would suggest that means a withdrawal what would you think it means? Also in this ABC article written by Eric Noe it is stated " In addition to requesting a meeting with Bush, Sheehan is now calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. She promised to send a similar message if the president agrees to meet with her." Here is the complete article you be the judge http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1045556&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 . Is ABC lying, did they just make that up? I have myself watched Cindy Sheehan on national television say time and time again "bring our troops home now" but she has stated that she has never intended to ask Bush that question. I smell another lie. Whats really strange is in Cindys own article she just released today she says this and I quote " Then bring our troops home. The status quo in Iraq is awful", if you ask me she cant even get through one article without contradicting herself. She goes on to imply that America is spreading "imperialism " by what she says is 14 permanent bases being set up in Iraq the size of Sacramento, California. I dont know if there is any United States military bases on the entire planet Earth the size of a large U.S. city,if there is please let me know ok. By the way the interview Cindy Sheehan gave to the Socialist Worker is the same Socialist worker who ran this article entitled " The Meaning of Marxism" in which they praise Marxism to no end. Here is the link to that garbage http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml