I see a great contrast between Cindy Sheehan’s first comments about her meeting with Bush in her interview on June 24, 2004, that was just several months after her son was killed, and the latest comments she is making about that same meeting with Bush. Cindy Sheehan first said after her meeting with Bush, that she ” now knows that Bush is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqi’s.” Then she went on to say and I quote, ” I know he’s sorry and feels pain for our loss.” She used two descriptions to describe her impressions of Bush after Bush’s meeting with her, “Sincere” and ” He’s sorry and feels pain for our loss.” Now its quite the opposite description of Bush, if you were to listen to her new interpretation of that same meeting with Bush, you would think it was two seperate meetings. Cindy Sheehan now says about that meeting with Bush that ” Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject,and he acted like it was a party.” That statement indicates just the opposite of what she originally said about Bush, in that she even used the word “sincere” in describing Bush’s demeanor in her earlier interview. The question that now remains concerning her two completely different versions of that meeting with Bush, is, which one is the true story and which one is the lie? Cindy Sheehan’s versions of that meeting with President Bush just don’t match, they are not remotely similar.

The URL in which Cindy Sheehan says a former friend doctored an email is at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/camp-casey-day-12_b_5830.html

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. Also if you will notice David Dukes is supporting her all the way. Dukes just wrote an article entitled " Why Cindy Sheehan is Right” its full of the usual anti-semitic invective that he has perfected over the years. Here are some quotes fron David Dukes article.

David Dukes– ” Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel.”

David Dukes–” In truth, Cindy Sheehan is absolutely right. Her son signed up in the military to defend America, not Israel.”

David Dukes wrote in his August 14 article that Cindy Sheehan was right in saying that her son didn’t join the military to protect Israel. Since August 14th Cindy Sheehan says that email to Nightline was “doctored by a former friend”. Why doesnt a reporter just ask Cindy Sheehan who this mystery person is who she calls her former friend and who framed her? Also why would anyone need to frame Cindy Sheehan with anti-semitic remarks when she freely does that all on her own? Sheehan sounds more and more to me like a spokes-person for Hamas everyday.

Cindy Sheehan is dishonoring her son Casey in several ways. One way she dishonors him is by omitting what his own views on the Iraq war was and synthesizing her own personal views with his. I find it strange that she says her son was against the war in Iraq, but yet Casey Sheehen reenlisted in the army of his own volition, that just doesn’t comport with Cindy Sheehan’s statements. This is a 100 % volunteer military, there is no conscription and that begs the question as to why Casey Sheehan reenlisted in a war he opposed, if that is even true. If perhaps Casey Sheehan disagreed with certain aspects of the war in Iraq e.g..he felt maybe we needed more troops in Iraq, or more armor on humvee’s or better food for the troops etc., then that should be explained by Cindy Sheehan without the partisan hyperbole. A person can complain about particular conditions in Iraq without opposing the entire war in Iraq you know. 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’s 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. 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 who were present at his death confirm the same fact. 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 a 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. Casey Sheehan’s family has released this statement and I quote ” We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation.”

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.

Some people have ask me what groups exactly has Cindy Sheehan allied herself with, well here’s the list. Now Cindy Sheehan will tell you they followed her, but as you notice she never has attempted to seperate herself from any of these groups. Instead she has allowed them to set up booths to sell their merchandise as long as the money goes to her cause. The ISO was ask to leave camp crazy, but not because they were Marxist rather because Cindy Sheehan had made a deal with the organization ‘Code Pink’ and others to contribute their profits to the overall effort’s of Cindy Sheehan. The International Socialist Organization was attempting to pocket the profits they were making by selling their Howard Zinn books and not contribute to Sheehan’s cause, so they were ask to leave. Actually Cindy Sheehen gave an interview to ‘The Socialist Worker Online’ just several weeks earlier in which she stated and I quote, ” I DEFINITELY think that we should support war resisters in the military.” Anyway here’s the list of organizations Cindy Sheehan has allied herself with.

1. Al-Awda (San Francisco) – A Palestinian organization dedicated to the “right of return,” that Israel will absorb some five million Arabs into its midst. Its members endorse the Hamas statement, “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.”

• American Friends Service Committee – A putatively Quaker organization with a long history of support for Communist causes, foreign and domestic, its membership often overlapped with that of the Communist Party USA. AFSC refrained from criticizing the Soviet Union and called reports of Pol Pot’s killing fields a “misinformation campaign.” More recently, the Soros-funded organization encouraged city councils to oppose the Patriot Act and joined with other leftist radicals to oppose the liberation of Iraq.

• International ANSWER (Bay Area) – A front for the Workers World Party’s International Action Center headed by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark (who recently volunteered to serve as Saddam’s lawyer), International ANSWER has supported such madmen as Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and Kim Jong-il. ANSWER was also the prime sponsor of the large “antiwar” rallies before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

• Code Pink – A far-Left group of faux housewives established by omnipresent pro-Castro activist Medea Benjamin, the founders met while agitating on behalf of Nicaragua’s communist Sandanista government. Benjamin, with Communist Party USA member Leslie Cagan, founded the International Occupation Watch in Baghdad, an organization dedicated to getting U.S. GIs to declare themselves conscientious objectors and get themselves sent home. Code Pink spokesperson “Sand” Brim flew a surgeon into El Salvador to operate on Marxist guerrilla leader Nidia Diaz’s hand shortly after guerrillas under her command murdered American troops. Co-founder Jodie Evans is a Democratic Party fundraiser with ties to eco-terrorists. Late last year, the group traveled to Iraq to donate $600,000 in cash and supplies to the terrorist stronghold of Fallujah. They made headlines this year by bursting into John Bolton’s confirmation hearings. Furthering the Left’s incestuous relationship, Medea Benjamin’s Code Pink is also a member of Leslie Cagan’s United for Peace and Justice, which became the “mainstream” voice of the anti-American Left opposed to the War on Terror.

• Free Palestine Alliance – A leftist Palestinian organization demanding “an immediate end to all U.S. aid to Israel,” it seems to exist only as a member of International ANSWER’s “steering committee.” (Its contact information is the same as the IAC.)

• Global Exchange – Another organization founded by Medea Benjamin, which takes credulous left-wingers on trips to Potemkin villages around the world, to demonstrate the glories of socialism (in places like Cuba) or the evils of U.S. foreign policy (in locales such as Iraq and Afghanistan).

• Green Party – Ralph Nader’s political vehicle in 2000, this Red-Green alliance supports radicalization of the U.S. economy under the guise of preserving the environment. Meanwhile, its foreign policy would have kept Saddam Hussein in power and catered to Kim Jong-il. Their candidate in 2000 for California’s U.S. Senate seat was none other than the ubiquitous Medea Benjamin.

• International Socialist Organization – Despite supporting Trotskyite Communism, the ISO supports (or supported) the USSR, Communist China, Cuba, and North Korea (Stalinist or Maoist nations all), because of those nation’s united opposition to the world’s real enemies: the United States and capitalism. Also a member of UFPJ.

• Not in Our Name (NION) – Founded by Maoiost radical C. Clark Kissinger of the Revolutionary Communist Party – an organization considered extremist and violent even by fellow Maoists – this “antiwar” coalition produced a “Statement of Conscience,” signed by thousands of leftists, condemning America’s “openly imperial policy towards the world.

• Party for Socialism and Liberation – A party that proudly proclaims, “we aim for revolution in the United States.” The most recent issue of their magazine hails the Iraqi terrorists’ “determination and ability to resist.” And they explicitly wish to play a role in our defeat in the region: “The experience of the Vietnam War proved that the anti-war movement in the United States can gain confidence from the resistance of the oppressed peoples standing up to and defeating the largest military power in the world.”