Monday, August 15, 2005

The Obvious, Well-Stated

By Ace Of Spades:

Question: If we are to credit Cindy Sheehan's opinions on war simply because she lost a son and now wishes an end to war...

...should we also listen to those who lost husbands and wives in the 9/11 attack and whose emotion-driven response was to wish for nuclear strikes on major Muslim cities and holy sites?

Just curious. Because there's a lot of strong emotion on both sides of this. I wonder -- I wonder so much -- why the LMSM is only willing to publicize the Give Peace a Chance sort of emotionalism.

Criticizing Cindy Sheehan-- The New "Hate Speech"!!!
Talk about chilling my right to dissent. Protein Wisdom notes that the left is attempting (rather unsuccessfully, as the title of my post suggests) to place any sort of criticism of Cindy "Mr. DeMille, I'm Ready For My Close Up" Sheehan as beyond the pale.

After all, she lost someone in the War on Terror.

I guess that means that Ted Olson, who lost a wife in the sneak attack that began the hot phase of the War on Terror, should be empowered to call for carpet bombings of Muslim cities if it strikes his fancy... and no criticism of his decisions will be countenanced.

1 comment:

Akaky said...

Come on, guy, you know it doesnt work that way. Cindy Sheehan's son is dead because of Bushitler and his poodle, Blair--BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED; Barbara Olson is dead because the US never did anything to stop the root causes of terrorism. If we want to stop terror we need to empathize with the poor Islamic masses and their pain and not criticize them when they express their understandable outrage about AmeriKKKa and the Joos. (Oh, I'm sorry, I should have asked, do you want the sarcasm cut thick or do you prefer it in thinner slices?)