Cross posted from It Affects You
One of my favorite radical Right Wing groups is still at it, I see. Concerned Women for America decided to weigh in on Cindy Sheehan’s vigil, and to nobody’s surprise they came out against this grieving mother. And they did it in typical sleazy CWA style.
Early on in the article (in the second sentence) they write “we need to respect her grief at losing her son.” Of course, they go on to show an amazing lack of respect.
While their “respectful” commentary is filled with vile remarks, there’s one slap in particular which stands out. CWA attempts to label Cindy a “crackpot” (their exact word) by painting some of what she said as irrational. And look at what they include:
She is even urging the President to send his two “party-animal” daughters into the conflict and she is threatening to impeach everyone in the White House and U.S. military. Those are not rational statements
They just figuratively slapped Cindy Sheehan across the face.
I’d like to ask CWA just what is so irrational about the idea that either of the Bush girls might join the military? Should they be exempt? Is it beneath them? Is it not their war to fight? Just what, exactly, makes the thought so “irrational” to you? Why was it okay for Casey Sheehan to go to Iraq, but irrational for the Bush girls to do the same? You mind explaining that one to me?
And now on to the rest of their commentary. First, there is the title:
Exploiting Cindy Sheehan’s Emotional Crackup
Nothing says “respect” like labeling someone a “crackup.” And I mean nothing.
And look at these other expressions of respect CWA bestows upon Cindy:
- “The woman is clearly unhinged”
- “It is embarrassing and inhumane for the media to expose this poor women’s unbalanced behavior.”
- “Somebody needs to step in to provide her with a quiet place to rest and, one would hope, regain her rationality and emotional balance.”
- “It is terribly sad to see the press — bored from a slow-news August and the forced inactivity in Crawford, Texas — exploit someone who has become a crackpot.”
- The woman can spew out foul language and call people names with the best drunken sailor or dock worker.
- “It is unspeakably sad that a woman who should be grieving the loss of her son has, instead, turned to name-calling and unseemly behavior in an ideological campaign that dishonors the memory of her son and disparages the heroic cause for which he gave his life.” (CWA, like Maglalang, apparently has the power to speak with those from beyond the grave.”
All I can say to CWA is well done. You sure respected the hell out of Cindy Sheehan.
Ah, Ladies Against Women has spoken! Not those nice Bush girls! Really, dahling, don’t you think they’ve gone too far? Really, nobody we know would ever invite those people to anything we do. And that hat…..!
It is hard to fathom the double standards of these hypocrites.
Do you know the real group called Ladies against Women? They are… shall we say, theatrical. Their manifesto from their truly tasteful website begins:
I guess this is the real-life version. It’s getting harder and harder to recognize satire.
One almost thinks CWA is a parody group. It’s surprising to find that they are real.
… I simply can’t parse that first paragraph of their demand at all. I know they’re calling for women to lose the right to vote… But they also seem to be calling for them to suffer, because that makes them equal with men or some such garbage…?
to the military. (Not that they see combat–)
Our “royalty” sends their young adults into hiding.
Actually, they do see combat: Prince Andrew served on HMS Invincible during the Falklands conflict as a Sea King helicopter co-pilot. The government were reportedly nervous about his being in combat but the queen apparently insisted he should not be removed from his post.
called Concerned Women for America that has a MALE as their spokesperson ….