That without kids raised something in my mind as well: Cindy (and I assume her husband) have three other kids. Where are they at in all this???

I'm guessing the 'without kids' parts comes into play if there are no children below age 18. All of them are, I think, so no custody fights.

RPS,

There are no minor children - this I'm pretty sure of.

However, the word "kids" is the part that seemed a bit off to me. That's not normally the term used in FamLaw or Family Court circles.

By her own admission, Mrs. Sheehan has not spoken with her in-laws since November '04 (because they supported Bush). That could add some strain to an already difficult situation. The term "kids" struck me as unusual as well.

Would you mind explaining the importance of whether or not Sheehan is married or divorced?

Would you mind explaining the importance of whether or not Sheehan is married or divorced?

The media seems to think it is important to show her family story in regards to her activism and son's death. And Ms. Sheehan herself seems more than willing to share information on the subject as she did with Time Magazine and the NY Times.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1093760,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/politics/13crawford.html?pagewanted=all

I know that's not the answer you were looking for.

Mitch, the “dissolution without kids” appears to be part of the Search Engine to help people search for types of cases rather than part of the court documents themselves. See:

http://courtconnect.solanocourts.com/pls/bprod_cc/ck_public_qry_cpty.cp_personcase_setup_idx

For those interested in seeing the actual documents, they can be viewed at the Smoking Gun:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html

As you can see it says “minor children” rather than “kids.”

What does a person's marital status have to do with Cindy Sheehan's stance against the lies that led to her son's death? There are millions of Americans who would like to ask the very same questions she is trying to ask. Are some of you insinuating that she is unstable, which led her to divorce her husband? Has anyone asked her husband what happened? What, pray tell, has led most Americans who have been polled to answer that they disapprove of the war and the way the Bush administration has misled our country? More unstable minds? Hmmm, let's see - lowest approval rating for a second-term president, lower appoval rating than Clinton when he was impeached. I guess they just asked the crazies to respond.
I can just hear Jon Stewart now - Oh, Democracy! How we long for your return!

Yep, Taranto covered the family angle in his Best of the Web today. To sum up, she lost her job (too many absences)

The children are in their early 20's (at least the two mentioned)

And, if I read the divorce papers right, it's her husband that is divorcing her- not the other way around.

Psst, Teena, I'm sure there are a lot of mothers who disagree with the war and are devastated by the loss of their child- you just don't hear about them because they never seek the publicity. That's the main difference here. Sad, but true- do anything that attracts this much publicity and everything related to you is fair game- ask John Roberts.

"Hmmm, let's see - lowest approval rating for a second-term president,"

Good, considering that the second (and hence last) term of an administration is when most president’s worry about their “legacy” rather than trying to fix problems like Social Security or the Islamacist tyranny and terrorists that lead to 9/11; I’m glad to see that President Bush is doing his job even if means suffering at the polls.

Oh, here's another good quote from Mother Sheehan:

What they're saying, too, is like, it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It's okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It's okay for the countries that we say it's okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It's okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can't have them. It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it's--yeah--and it's okay for Iraq to occupy--I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon.

----
Newsflash! Nuclear war has taken place in Iraq! Fallout contaminates country for years!

That's fine if you get your news from the National Enquirer I suppose, but these claims do not help her credibility when it comes to other things. Oh, and the fact that David Duke has come out in support of her stance because it's against Israel doesn't help matters any, either.

Here's another interesting thing in the same Taranto piece:

Surviving son Andy, 21, supports his mother in principle but recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her "to come home because you need to support us at home," he says.

-----
I say this in all seriousness, with no snark intended. The woman needs some serious mental/emotional help. She's tearing herself and her family apart here, and it's not being done by the snarky comments of the nasty right wing, it's being done by her own actions. This course is just plain self-destructive, but if you're gonna play the victim, then that just adds to your credibility I suppose.

Quite right, Cindy Sheehan is knowingly and willingly digging her own grave at the expense of her family as her “supporters” keep handing her a larger shovel.

What answer was MOM looking for Sav?

MOM,

One might suspect the answer you were looking for is "her relationship with her family is irrelevant to what's going on in Crawford, and the right are all ignorant knuckle-draggers for bringing it up!".

The fact that her family - the father, siblings, aunts uncles and cousins - of her late son repudiate her grandstanding, increasingly-bizarre actions, while those on her side are increasingly anti-war, anti-America zealots, is not going to get on the network news, but it's crucial to understanding why the mainstream media has latched onto this story, and can not be trusted to tell the whole story.

Ever.

Don't tell me, MOM, that you support her Ms. Sheehan's anti-semitic ranting. Do you?

Christopher Hitchens has weighed in on Sheehan and cuts to the heart of the matter (click on my name for the link):

“There are, in fact, some principles involved here. Any citizen has the right to petition the president for redress of grievance, or for that matter to insult him to his face. But the potential number of such people is very large, and you don't have the right to cut in line by having so much free time that you can set up camp near his drive. Then there is the question of civilian control over the military, which is an authority that one could indeed say should be absolute. The military and its relatives have no extra claim on the chief executive's ear. Indeed, it might be said that they have less claim than the rest of us, since they have voluntarily sworn an oath to obey and carry out orders. Most presidents in time of war have made an exception in the case of the bereaved—Lincoln's letter to the mother of two dead Union soldiers (at the time, it was thought that she had lost five sons) is a famous instance—but the job there is one of comfort and reassurance, and this has already been discharged in the Sheehan case. If that stricken mother had been given an audience and had risen up to say that Lincoln had broken his past election pledges and sought a wider and more violent war with the Confederacy, his aides would have been quite right to show her the door and to tell her that she was out of order.”

What answer was MOM looking for Sav?

I'm not entirely sure, but I doubt it was one I gave.

You tell me, what were you expecting?

Mother Sheehan and the Crawford Castaways? Behold the new face of the Democratic Party.

How is the divorce issue relevant to the question at hand? She may or may not be grandstanding but whether or not she is divorced or being divorced doesn't add one iota to the discussion of the merits of her position - or yours.

It's not relevant of course, just some more down home GOP s*it slinging. Why it's the "Come Home Coya letter" of 2005!:

"Coya, I want you to tell the people of the 9th District this Sunday that you are through in politics. That you want to go home and make a home for your husband and son. As your husband I compel you to do this. I'm tired of being torn apart from my family. I'm sick and tired of having you run around with other men all the time and not your husband. I love you, honey."

http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/119coya_knutson.html

The Ny Times and Time Magazine both do stories detailing Sheehan family issues with the consent and help of Cindy Sheehan, and that somehow constitutes GOP shit slinging.

Glad that's cleared up.

If Ms. Sheehan didn't want to talk about her family's problems, I'm sure she wouldn't.

Why are you getting into digging up divorce records, Mitch?

Clearly many things could cause this divorce - especially Cindy spending so much time away from home.

When one spouse gets into the public eye, that is hard on the marriage.

I haven't followed this Cindy Sheehan story too much - it seems to be a distraction on the real issues.

I don't really care whether they are divorcing or not - that's between the Sheehans.

Since Cindy Sheehan's opinion of George Bush and his policies regarding the war reflect what most people in the U.S. feel, according to the polls, I am happy to see that the Democratic Party will be making a meteoric increase in membership. Poor leadership, disastrous foreign policy, consistent and continuous lies, and close ties to the biggest supporters of terrorism - the Saudi royal family - have been the catalysts for this. Most of us will not remember much about Cindy Sheehan in the years to come, but we will never forget one of the worst periods in American history which began with the conspiracy to manipulate Florida's election results and only ended because George W. Bush could not seek a third term.

"Since Cindy Sheehan's opinion of George Bush and his policies regarding the war reflect what most people in the U.S. feel, according to the polls,"

The only poll that matters was held last November.

"I am happy to see that the Democratic Party will be making a meteoric increase in membership."

Teena, did you read the whole story? Bush's approval is down, but the Democrat Party's approval is down *even more!* It's *way below* Bush's rating!

As to the rest of your comment - wow. Did you get locked in a room where an eternal loop of "X-files" was playing or something?

Now for some whining from our Republican leadership, or as the blogger who posted this said, "they are eating themselves":
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050816/NEWS02/508160341/1009/NEWS

Teena,

Your comment above is completely off-topic.

If you want an outlet to post things on whatever topic you want, there's this new invention called a "blog". Get one.

And please stick to the topic of the original post.

"Since Cindy Sheehan's opinion of George Bush and his policies regarding the war reflect what most people in the U.S. feel, according to the polls"
Now, there is the kicker: "ACCORDING TO THE POLLS"
Not according to the American People, but 'according to the polls'...skewed as usual.
And another lie compounded on flawed analysis.
Since 80% of Democrats are anti Bush and 90% of Republicans are FOR Bush, with Independents falling approximately into the same mix, the polling HAD to have been skewed to get a 42%approval rating.
Ergo, it must be much higher, or why skew the poll?
Cindy Sheehan does not speak for all Gold Star mothers nor does she speak for the majority of them. Nor do the democrats speak for a majority of this nation. Bush did not lie, and THAT lie and misrepresentation has been refuted on many occasions. Since Mr. Joe Wilson, proven liar sits beside Cindy Sheehan it would point to just who are the liars around here.
Mr. Wilson had a partisan reason to not only lie but misrepresent his wife's influence and position at the CIA for partisan political reasons. Liars are usually found out as Mr. Wilson has been.
Truth tellers have facts to bear them out.
WMD WAS in Iraq and some of it may be there yet.
Able Danger points to the absolute of Iraqi connections as does the presence of Salman Pak in Iraq.
Lazy people like to spout headlines whether facts or the truth bear them out and this seems another attempt to repeat garbage long enough for it to become truth.
Well, it doesn't. In Hitler's day it almost wiped out the whole Jewish race. These days we have access to information that makes it clear that if one cares about issues they find out about them before repeating slander and headlines from media with a definite agenda that is not in the best interests of this country, our troops or our Commander-in-Chief and our President!

And that brings us to the crux of the Cindy Sheehan issue.
The left has been unsuccessful in their attempts to lie about Bush and his motives. They are desperate and are happily using Cindy, willing or not, as their pawn to further their leftist agenda. I have a strong feeling she is very willing in this effort and has no shame considering her present behaviour going so far as to stand on her own son's coffin to shrilly decry not only our president but our nation, and most offensively, the military from which her boy was so closely associated and for which he sacrificed all. The best thing to do is stop giving her a voice. Take away the cameras and the microphone and allow her to slink home in a shame she is too partisan to recognize.

And that brings us to the crux of the Cindy Sheehan issue.
The left has been unsuccessful in their attempts to lie about Bush and his motives. They are desperate and are happily using Cindy, willing or not, as their pawn to further their leftist agenda. I have a strong feeling she is very willing in this effort and has no shame considering her present behaviour going so far as to stand on her own son's coffin to shrilly decry not only our president but our nation, and most offensively, the military from which her boy was so closely associated and for which he sacrificed all. The best thing to do is stop giving her a voice. Take away the cameras and the microphone and allow her to slink home in a disgrace she is too partisan to recognize.

I notice Eva shut up, Mitch.

Eva - shouldn't you apologize for reading Mitch wrong and accusing him of something he wasn't doing?

Because that seems to be what you do all the time.

Sorry to go off-topic, Mitch. Thanks for posting it, anyway. As for those who shamelessly politicize tragedy, does the name Terri Schiavo ring a bell? George Bush has not been let off the hook for his lies. On the contrary, Patrick Fitzgerald is hard at work bringing him to justice. Stay tuned.

Teena (and all others condemning MM and others for reporting the divorce),

Have you written your notes of displeasure to Yahoo News? AP? CBS? How about ABC, NBC OR CNN? All of these news outlets and more have reported on the news that Mr. Sheehan has filed for divorce, so I don't think it is the "vast right wing conspiracy" or the Karl Rove mind meld...

As far as the "Bush lies" - those so-called lies have been disproven again and again. Facts are funny things, they can not be changed and the facts here are the Democratic Party tried it's collective best to portray the President as a liar and they failed, miserably. The truth has come out.....

Cindy, Snowbunnie, and others...when, where, and how have Bush's lies been disproved? Cindy Sheehan is one of many millions of people who have not been told the truth. Apparently there is a channel of information to which some of you have been given the secret code. Please share it with the rest of us. It would clear up quite a few things for the American people as well as the Iraqis.

Ah! None so blind as those who will not see. Which way to the revolution?

I didn't read Mitch wrong. If you can't find anything better to say about Cindy Sheehan than she's getting divorced, then it's pretty pathetic.

Patty Wetterling and her husband were able to maintain their marriage despite losing Jacob - but many marriages do break up after losing a child.

The point is why mention this at all. Why not debate the issue Cindy Sheehan is addressing - rather than ad hominem attacks on her.... Oh she is getting divorced. Aren't you divorced, Mitch? Does that affect the validity of what you say?

I don't think so.

Snowbunnie, I seriously would like to know where you get your truths? If you are simply enjoying Internet articles which support your views, as Eracus has accused Democrats of doing, you can't be sure you are getting the truth. What exactly do you think Joe Wilson lied about? It is common knowledge that members of the Bush administration lied about the existence of the forged documents from Niger. The U.S. embassy in Rome already had the documents three months prior to the president's state of the union speech in which he said, "The British Government
has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But the administration claimed to not know they were fake until after delivering the speech even though our allies, the Brits, say they gave them to Cheney's office in early 2002 and according to the IAEA, it was easy to identify the documents as forgeries because, among other things, they were on stolen letter head no longer in use. On this issue, either the Bush administration is horrendously incompetent or they are lying.

Eva: "I didn't read Mitch wrong."

Again, yes you are. I originally posted this because the whole story seemed fishy. Hence the title.

Teena:

"Snowbunnie, I seriously would like to know where you get your truths?"

Not from the mainstream media!

"If you are simply enjoying Internet articles which support your views, as Eracus has accused Democrats of doing, you can't be sure you are getting the truth."

No, but if you find a pattern of different sources pointing to the same conclusion, you get a pretty fair idea.

And I suspect you're getting your "truth" from sources a whole lot less reliable.

"What exactly do you think Joe Wilson lied about?"

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5630

It's a GOP site, but it includes copious citations.

"It is common knowledge that members of the Bush administration lied about the existence of the forged documents from Niger."

Wrong:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002552.php

By the way - what do you make of Able Danger? Who's lying now?

Oh, people...having fun with Teena I see!

BTW, does Sheehan remind anybody else of Kathleen Soliah (or whatever Olson) in type, looks, politics, etc.? Or are they all pretty much the same "type" anyway? Plain, homely women with graying hair (and I'm 50 so I can talk) and NOT a brain in their frickin' heads. It's one thing to let other people determine what you think and what you're "for or against" when you're 16....it's another to keep going on that way in middle-age.

That's the problem in a nutshell, Colleen. The Left has never grown up, it's just grown old. And desperate, having not learned a thing in the process. Nixon lied, Reagan lied, Bush lied, blah, blah, blah.... and all the while their "leadership" has been laughing all the way to the bank. It was all about "me" then and it's all about "me" now. What a bore....

Yep-that's exactly what my husband and I were talking about as we drove home from the Cities Monday and listened to some radio coverage about Sheehan. I said that the left are just like adolescents that are constantly rebelling against "daddy"....constantly. I think that's why there are so many leftists in "academia" as well. And then you throw in the asinine get-ups they wear at protests and parades, etc. Not what you'd call your "solid citizens" and grown-up people. Rebellious children. It's one thing to be creative and possibly eccentric...but, it's not usually about that....it's about poking "society" (daddy) in the eye. Whatever daddy is for, they're against. I can remember beiing like that at one time....34 years ago and cringe when I think that I thought I knew more than my (very patient) dad!

thank