Gods I am pissed! What is with cons attacking grieving loved ones?

Maybe I am over reacting but Gods I think Cons are low life's!

I mean, first we have had to listen to that abuse that Cindy Sheehan took. That she really didn't love her son, that she was just out for her own aggrandizement, that her family disowned her and didn't support what she was doing. EVEN a bold faced lie that she had given custody up of Casey in the divorce (18 years before the divorce was even filed..I guess Sheehan is a time traveling witch as well?)

Then we have Coulter and the 9-11 widows, only the latest of Coulter's personal attacks.

And NOW we have Michael Berg saying that he got no happiness from the death of Zarqawi. I can understand it. If it were my son, this news wouldn't undo my pain either or undo that someone else's son or daughter is likely to still be killed.

But others feel differently...

Nicolas Berg's father sounds like a nut job

Yet he (Michael berg), and evidently you. would be content with Zarqawi continuing to create more suffering , just like he has suffered.

After what I've read, seen and heard things that Michael Berg said, definitely not his son.  I don't like him at all.  He is an asinine coward and nothing more .

He should watch the beheading video of his son and then spout off about how he takes no joy in the monsters death.
Who knows, maybe he wasn't even the biological father and that is the reason he can be so passe about it .

http://groups.msn.com/eXtremelyPolitics/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=419870&all_topics=0

And I admit it, i finally just lost it. Started calling them all lying choads and cowards and what not . And I know I shouldn't have lost my temper. But really, what is with people attacking grieving loved ones with whom they disagree? Has anyone on DU been mudslinging people like Qualls who lost a son but still supports the war and somehow I missed it? Is this normal?

Because damn, this just seems so VILE to me. At least terrorists don't claim they have some moral high ground. Or maybe it's just that I talk to these idiots more then I have ever talked to a self described "terrorist".

Anyway, had to share. How do you guys deal with this? Just ignore it?

They spew that garbage because they know they have no logical or deductive leg to stand on, so all they have left in their arsenal is hate and attack. They know they can't beat us with fact, so instead they are reduced to simply having a mission of affecting us emotionally rather than intellectually. Too often it works. But my advice is to just ignore the stupidity.

and their families.

It's because they have no empathy. They can't relate to someone who doesn't look and act like they do. That takes an imagination and some vulnerability. Those wastes of space shut themselves off a long time ago, and convinced themselves that every bad thing that happened to someone else, happened because they deserved it. They can't believe it could happen to them. They deal with life's difficulties like small children.

Why are you surprised?

Remember the Wellstone funeral?

There are two types of people in the world. Humans, and conservatives. Conservatives don't believe in evolution because they haven't evolved.

They rant and rave to "support out troops" but then they attack John Kerry, Max Cleland, and any other vet that speaks out against the war.

They have no problem using 9-11 victims to further their war aims, but if one of them speaks against the right wing agenda, they're "abusing their status as a victim."

How do I deal with it? I get angry. I get furious. I don't know if I have any good advice in that area. Sorry. I wish I did. But anger is becoming a way of life for me now. That's the price we pay for remaining human. And at least I can say that I still am a human being with decency. The cons turned to garbage years ago.

Repukes have always attacked the messenger when they don't like the message. Bill Clinton will forever be the man who wagged his finger and said "I did not have sex with that woman." He's been neutralized, deemed irrelevant and a serial liar. It doesn't matter if what he says for the remainder of his life is true and whatever led up to that moment was true. He wears the scarlet "L" in their minds.

Now we have unimpeachable people speaking truth to power and they can't stand it. They want somebody with a flaw so they focus in like a laser beam on the flaw and can summarily dismiss them. Since they cannot do that in this case, they use the very thing that makes them the perfect spokesperson to tear them down.

You give an excellent example of what "cognitive dissonance" is all about.

-Christians, even regular, ordinary Joes who don't think to much about the existence of God - for the intensity of their love to far exceed their capacity for blind, uncritical hatred, when the two vie for possession of their soul. But then, they're 'nut jobs', so that is only to be expected.

On the other hand, it is almost a defining characteristic of the more brutish Republican, to be more than prepared to injure their own children - if not physically, as does happens, too - psychologically, and this, merely to spite, to get their own back on their wife or partner, who finally treats them with the contempt they always merited. In short, their hatred will completely overwhelm any love they might have managed to muster, so may God help any innocent and vulnerable soul they can use as a pawn in the service of their hatred. The control freak freaks out, or rather lets what he always was all hang out.

Zarqawi, of course was no innocent, but he could scarcely be blamed for returning like for like, to aggressors who insist on continuing to outdo him in their demonic savagery, i.e. the Neocon leadership; at least, blamed by a man such as Mr Berg, who

a) prefers to grieve, one of the most Godlike activities we are capable of as human beings, rather than rage and fret and hate over something that cannot be remedied in the here and now;

b) would be infinitely more likely than our crass 'friends', to have reflected on the whole context of his son's death, the war, the suffering so wantonly caused by his government to innocent Iraqis and their families; maybe the personal circumstances of the man himself.

However, something like the broader picture of Zarqawi and his works was described in the UK Daily Mail, under the heading, 'Ironically, it was the US who created Zarqawi'. To read the whole article, click on:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmsearch/overture.html?in_page_id=711&in_overture_ua=cat&in_start_number=0&in_query=zarqawi&siteOr=

Then search under Zarqawi. It is Article 5 in the list that appears.

I am little more calm now. The guys on that site are now trying to hide behind the first amendment, claiming that they were just stating thier "opinion" and so I have no right ot call them on it. What a crock'o' Sh*t!

So I just walked away.

Still it seems we need a good organized way to deal with swiftboating. becuase if the trolls on the internet are saying it, you know it's going to soon become standerd propaganda for the rest of the right wing.

built up a clamour against Holywood Liberals speaking out.. so too will they build a clamour against veterans and victims of their policies from speaking out. Will not work.

Antiwar = satan in their messianic eyes.

turning the other cheek.