Where’s the Coverage of Cindy Sheehan?

With President Barack Obama heading to Martha’s Vineyard for a long vacation away from touting the “success” of the Iraq War and promoting the Afghan War’s escalation this weekend, he is going to be greeted with a lot of ads critical of his health care plan. And something else, or rather someone else.

Cindy Sheehan.

Remember her? The public face of the antiwar movement who hounded President Bush for years after her son was killed in Iraq in April 2004. The woman who expressed exasperation when the Democratic Congress which was swept to power largely on antiwar sentiment failed to do anything about ending the wars.

She’s back, or really she never left, but you might not have heard anything about her in awhile. And you might not be hearing about her now, unless you’re reading sites like ours or the Washington Examiner. The Bush Administration gave way to the Obama Administration, and while the wars are going as strong as ever, being antiwar is just so… passé now.

At least that’s the impression you’d get watching the cable news. According to Sheehan, the mainstream media “wants me to go away like most of the rest of the anti-war movement has done under the Obama presidency.” Cindy isn’t going away though, and she’ll be shadowing the president’s vacation just as she did with the last one. The only question is, will anyone cover it?

33 thoughts on “Where’s the Coverage of Cindy Sheehan?”

  1. cindy needs no mutes nor cripples to stand behind her
    the deaf and dumb non-aqmbulatory aides are home looking for work

  2. President Obama The Divine is taking a 10-day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard. That’s understandable. He’s a war-fightin’ man, and a war-fightin’ man needs a good rest.

    My best to Cindy Sheehan.

  3. As Justin Raimondo said on a recent antiwar radio interview, the left is now in full support of the wars that they thought so horrible under Bush. What has changed?

    1. This is so not true. The Left is still antiwar, as much as ever. The Left doesn't like Obama any more than the conservatives. The street protests went away long before Obama got in office. They stopped because they were so obviously no doing any good. It has nothing to do with Obama. But it IS true that we need to find ways to resist. We can't leave it up to Cindy.

  4. We are imprisoned and impoverished by the demands of war and empire. Cindy's path is righteous and one every American needs to follow.

  5. Cindy Sheehan's opposition to the wars under an Obama administration doesn't conform easily to the standard two party fraud media template that all issues are purposefully pigeon holed into in this country.

    Sheehan was portrayed as some sort of reflexive anti all wars all the time leftie freak. See- in our quite purposefully very dumb political culture- only "Leftists" oppose war. While "rightists" support all wars.

    Now that the "anti-war" Obama has been elected- the man who is bringing "Change"- it just won't do to have Sheehan's opposition to these wars given much attention. Her opposition to these wars under a "Liberal" president just doesn't fit the media mold. It would jeopardize the Beltway's carefully constructed "left/right" control mechanism.

    1. I agree completely. Some of the most vicious attacks on Sheehan have come from places like Huffington Post and Daily KOS (though to be fair, many on both sites are critical of Obama's continuing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan; I'm just not sure if they represent the majority opinion).

  6. There is only one Party when it comes to our unending war upon Islam – the Zionist Party. And there is only one MSM reporting what we are supposed to know – the Zionist oriented MSM. That is it..

  7. Richard

    Israel certainly has nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan, they have never fought a war.
    In Bush's own words "Of course I wanted to get Saddam. He tried to kill my Dad." That is not a good reason to launch a war, but I fail to see the connection to Israel. There has been such a long history of anti-Semites saying that "Jews control the world" that whenever anyone says something like "Zionist oriented MSM," it looks rather bad. I know you are trying to says Zionist oriented MSM rather than Jews control the media, but it is the same thing. Especially since most of the coverage of Israel from the MSM is about its disproportionate use of force and not the fact that gays have civil rights in Israel while in Iran they are execute for their sexual orientation.


    There is only one Party when it comes to our unending war upon Islam – the Zionist Party. And there is only one MSM reporting what we are supposed to know – the Zionist oriented MSM. That is it..

  8. It’s all very simple…. When Cindy became an anti-Zionist the main stream media silenced her. Commisar Rahm has even put her on the terrorist watch list to impede her travels (another thing the media won’t touch). war w/ Iran is just the thing to get Obongo out of his plummetting polls.

    1. Is that true? Unbelievable! Too bad her son died fighting so his mother would be labeleld a "terrorist".

  9. Well, Obama has certainly accomplished at least one thing: he's demontrated conclusively that the "progressive" movement in this country is just as willing to disregard unpleasant facts and just as ready to embrace militarism as any conservative dinosaur. They simply like a different style, one that appeals to their own self-image and self-interest. Pathetic.

  10. The press, and the so-called progressives, had enough of Ms. Sheehan when she had the temerity to challenge Pelosi. It was a disgrace how that congressional race was blacked out by the MSM. Pelosi is a fraud. She becomes speaker because the people elected dems to end the war and hold the bushies accountable. So Pelosi says impeachment is off the table and we'll continue to fund the wars. What's wrong with that picture? The r/d/l/c two party system is just stupid and corrupt, and will be the death of the republic in short order. I refer all of you to a great piece written by, of all people, Larry Flynt on 8-20-09 entitled Common Sense 2009. It says it all.

  11. Maybe, if the parents of murdered soldiers were to soak themselves in gasoline and ignite it, the MSM would cover it?

  12. Daniel,
    You say that Israel never had anything to do with the war in Afghanistan ….
    Oh please! In probably one of the few real messages from Bin Ladin, he gave three reasons for the attack upon America on 9-11 – American troops in Saudi Arabia, exploitation of native resources like oil, and (most importantly) American support of Zionism and its genocide of Palestinians.
    Regarding the MSM, do you think that they will ever tell the American public that thousands have died in Afghanistan and Iraq and that we will spend trillions just so the Zionist “settlers” can steal more land and destroy Palestine. Because that is exactly the choice we have made as a nation and the challenge we have given to the Islamic world (radical and moderate).

  13. Cindy has been accused of "bumper sticker politics' among many other things, but you know, "What noble cause?" still works for me.
    Go Cindy!

  14. Whoever would say that Israel had nothing to do with our current wars is uneducated or delusional. The neocons in the Bush administration were very much in charge of defense and foreign policy. Netanyahu was the first person i saw on tv after 911 calling for us to attack Iraq. Douglas Feith ran the office of Special Plans in the Pentagon where all the phony intelligence came from. Look at his background. Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle Woolsey. These guys were very much in on the selling and planning of the wars in the first Bush administration and are all Israel Firsters. The plan was to go after Iraq and then use it as a base of operations to go after Iran and Syria but the stupid bastards did everything wrong because they had no interest in listening to professional advice on the war and reconstruction.

  15. The US seven-year war and occupation of Iraq is driven by several major political forces and informed by a variety of imperial interests. However these interests do not in themselves explain the depth and scope of the sustained, massive and continuing destruction of an entire society and its reduction to a permanent state of war. The range of political forces contributing to the making of the war and the subsequent US occupation include the following (in order of importance):

    The most important political force was also the least openly discussed. The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC), which includes the prominent role of long-time, hard-line unconditional Jewish supporters of the State of Israel appointed to top positions in the Bush Pentagon (Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz ), key operative in the Office of the Vice President (Irving (Scooter) Libby), the Treasury Department (Stuart Levey), the National Security Council (Elliot Abrams) and a phalanx of consultants, Presidential speechwriters (David Frum), secondary officials and policy advisers to the State Department. These committed Zionists ‘insiders’ were buttressed by thousands of full-time Israel-First functionaries in the 51 major American Jewish organizations, which form the President of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO). They openly stated that their top priority was to advance Israel’s agenda, which, in this case, was a US war against Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, occupy the country, physically divide Iraq, destroy its military and industrial capability and impose a pro-Israel/pro-US puppet regime. If Iraq were ethnically cleansed and divided, as advocated by the ultra-right, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and the ‘Liberal’ President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and militarist-Zionist, Leslie Gelb, there would be more than several ‘client regimes’.

    Top Zionist policymakers who promoted the war did not initially directly pursue the policy of systematically destroying what, in effect, was the entire Iraqi civilization. But their support and design of an occupation policy included the total dismemberment of the Iraqi state apparatus and recruitment of Israeli advisers to provide their ‘expertise’ in interrogation techniques, repression of civilian resistance and counter-insurgency. Israeli expertise certainly played a role in fomenting the intra-Iraqi religious and ethnic strife, which Israel had mastered in Palestine. The Israeli ‘model’ of colonial war and occupation – the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 – and the practice of ‘total destruction’ using sectarian, ethno-religious division was evident in the notorious massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut, which took place under Israeli military supervision.

  16. The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

    “None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels,” said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith’s authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

    The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel’s Likud party.

    In 1996, he and Richard Perle – now an influential Pentagon figure – served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

    The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister.

    The OSP absorbed this heady brew of raw intelligence, rumour and plain disinformation and made it a “product”, a prodigious stream of reports with a guaranteed readership in the White House. The primary customers were Mr Cheney, Mr Libby and their closest ideological ally on the national security council, Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice’s deputy


    1. The war in Iraq was fought largely because of Israeli influence over Washington. For the same reason America may attack Iran.

  17. It just goes to show it really doesn't matter which particular party is in power. The Republicans.The Democrats. Just two branches from the same tree. I call them the Republicrats. American foreign policy, if you can call it that, basically remains unchanged. It also goes without saying it neither protects Americans or serves their best interests.

  18. Why has Antiwar.com not recently reported some highly significant *news articles* in the Sibel Edmonds case?

    Sibel Edmonds recently gave a long deposition in Washington, DC where she testified on behalf of Ohio Congressional candidaate David Krikorian. Krikorian ran against, and will again run against, Cong. Jean Schmidt, who opposes the Armenian genocide resolution in Congress and has taken loads of money from Turkish sources. Krikorian had pointed this out, and Schmidt filed a complaint against Krikorian with the Ohio Election Commission. Edmonds then testified behind closed doors.

    Antiwar itself has had no *news articles* about the issue. Find such news articles in the Armenian American press simply by doing a Google News search for Sibel Edmonds. Antiwar gives practically no coverage to Armenian issues ever. Now why is that?

    There has been news elsewhere for a long time about how neo-cons and some Jewish American lobbying groups work with Turkey to cover up the Armenia genocide. Very little news about THAT has found its way onto Antiwar. i wonder why.

  19. If Obama is utterly and incontrovertibly convinced of the "rightness," the "morality," of the AF-Pak engagement as the SOLE option available, then let him show good faith–as Sartre has it–and send nurse/wife Michelle there to tend to the sick and the dying. After all–"no sacrifice too great," obtains in this quote-unquote administration as well, correct?

  20. Lear K,

    thank you for the history review of the middle-east over the last quarter century.
    It all actually adds up.

Comments are closed.