 Print this article |
 Email to friend |
Author: AmeriPundit
"No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology." - Ronald Reagan
One would think that Reagan's remarks left little room for a mother to tolerate the death of her son in a "war of choice". Furthermore, based upon his words, one would
One would think so... that is, if one chose to think.
For Reagan's alleged "conservative" disciples, the opposite seems to be true. Because Cindy Sheehan has not accepted an illusory WMD threat, Bin Laden links, spreading freedom and an emancipation of women (Islamic fundamentalist style on both), or any of the other multiple reasons given her, and the country, for her son's death in Iraq, they seem to feel that she has forfeited her right to speak and/or protest on the matter. It seems to be a clash of values between the "neo- cons" (new cons) and the old cons.
In support of their position, today's "conservatives", among other things, have said that she is/has:
"... hurting our troops and endangering our troops; an anti-Semite; hateful; in bed with the radical left; aligned herself with people who hate this country, hate this government; shamed her son by her comments; trying to pull a little bit of a swindle and been totally co-opted by the whole Michael Moore leftist mentality; exploiting death; engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch; supported by hysterical paranoid ideologist[s] who have turned the "Camp Casey" protest into "Camp Fruitbat and Nutbag."
And, as one of FOX's Sans-A-Belt(way) Boys said, ( Next Page )
Rate this article:
(No ratings yet)
Saving ...
