portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government | political theory


Krauthammer's personal attack on Cindy Sheehan
(Portland, Or.)
Charles Krauthammer's article, "The War in Iraq" (Oct 3) was a personal attack on Cindy Sheehan, and had no value. After reading the article I looked to see who this guy was and found on the bottom of your paper that he is a member of the Writers Group for the Washington Post.

My reaction was Wow, he writes for the Post? I could not believe that the Post would allow such a vicious attack on the messenger, and never bother to answer the simple question that Cindy Sheehan is asking, "Mr. President, what is this noble cause that you talk about?" The question continues to ask why her son and, as of this writing, 1941+ soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. After reading the article I also thought this guy should work for Fox News, he sounds just like O'Reilly or Kristol. Guess what folks--- he does work for Fox News and is part of that group of pundits who are paid to smear people, or just help the Bush Administration get their lies out, (remember Williams?).

When your paper shows that a reporter works for the Washington Post, that gives the reader a false sense that what he will say has importance. If you include that Krauthammer also is a paid consultant for Fox, that would give some balance to why he would write such an attack on Cindy Sheehan.

I am a grandfather, and a Vietnam Vet. Do I have the right to ask our elected politicians for what noble cause we are killing our beloved soldiers or am I now some commie socialist that Krauthammer sees under his bed to pop out at any time? Have you no shame Krauthammer?

homepage: homepage: http://www.squardon13.com

where the value is 05.Oct.2005 01:10


I read the column by krauthammer in the big O, but don't have it before me, so i'm struggling to remember the specifics of what he said...searched and searched but couldn't locate the column on oregonlive.com.

Krauthammer's piece, and the response on the part of the bush administration to sheehan's work, is proof that Cindy Sheehan has then shaking in their boots.

As I recall it, krauthammer's opinion is of the idea that Cindy Sheehan's viewpoint is completely unrealistic, unpatriotic, leftwing hysteria that rational patriotic people in this country should dismiss outright. As at least this one characteristic of the vietnam war begins to rear it's head, guys like krauthammer, bush and company, and all the rest that are trying to convince themselves we're still fighting the good fight, all persist in believing that Cindy Sheehan is just a flash in the pan.

Cindy Sheehan is the human side of the war in Iraq likely to be increasingly manifested in this country. Yeah, some of her views might be a little extreme, but it always works that way. While the foulups in the war continue, all the moderates in this country are listening closely to the vanguard of resitance to the war that is people like Cindy Sheehan. They don't like their blood wasted just for the hell of it, just to satisfy the whims of some money grubbing political adventurer hoping to leave a dazzling, self absorbed legacy to the nation. Support for bush and his little stunt in Iraq erodes a little more each day.

Krauthammer is just a columnist. He's not making policy. The Oregonian should definitely run his stuff so all of us know exactly where the minds of some citizens in this country may be going in regards to the war.

I think the address below links to the column in question:

 link to www.washingtonpost.com

The Oregonian is only good for Help Wanted ads and wrapping fish... 05.Oct.2005 07:48

Pravda or Consequences

Their advertisers want folks to buy stuff, not think about the world.

If you put up sensational stories then you get people to turn off rational thought and engage emotional feelings. Now you advertise big cars, new furniture, and a vacation that you deserve.

It's like lambs to slaughter.