Kirsten Anderberg's Selfish Hate-Fest Against Cindy Sheehan
Having read endless diatribes by Kirsten Anderberg published on Portland IMC
and having seen my attempt to comment on them removed and/or deleted for no
reason other than opposing Kirsten Anderberg's views, I have decided to publish
this reply elsewhere in the hope that my concerns about Anderberg's free reign
on various IMC's can be denounced. The final straw is an article Anderberg
has written denouncing Cindy Sheehan and defaming Cindy Sheehan's son: How Many Kids Did Cindy Sheehan's Kid Murder?
Let me begin by making my own position on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
clear. I oppose these wars vigorously. I consider these wars to
represent the height of American stupidity, malice, and criminality. I
believe that everyone from President Bush down to his commanders on the front
lines should be arrested and put on trial for war crimes. Now that it is
clear that war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed in Iraq
and Afghanistan, I do not support anyone who chooses to fight on the American
side in these wars. With that said, I will now point out the ethical
depravity represented in the position promulgated by Kirsten Anderberg in her
Kirsten Anderberg's Libeling of Cindy Sheehan's Son
Kirsten Anderberg makes the following statements about Cindy Sheehan's son:
- Cindy Sheehan's son "has terrorized Iraqis."
- Cindy Sheehan's son "has murdered and plundered in the name of
- Cindy Sheehan's son was a "paid terrorist."
While it is self evident that Iraqis have been terrorized by American
soldiers, I have seen no evidence that Cindy Sheehan's son has terrorized
Iraqis. A relative of my own has been sent to Iraq in a medical
role. Will Kirsten Anderberg one day write that he has terrorized
Iraqis? I am aware of absolutely zero information that has been published
which indicates that or supports the position that Cindy Sheehan's son has
terrorized Iraqis, nor do I find it reasonable to infer that he has. What
would motivate one "activist" to smear the son of another activist in
this way? I will provide several possible answers to this question later
in this article.
The next charge is that Cindy Sheehan's son has murdered. Murder is the
unlawful taking of another person's life. From a legal point of view, the
war in Iraq is an illegal war. Murder is defined to be "the unlawful
taking of a human life." Bush has ordered Americans into Iraq to
fight an illegal war. At the time of deployment, most Americans believed
that the war was a legal war. They believed this not because it is true
but because they were lied to by their government and their government's lies
were supported by the media. Those of us, myself included, who opposed the
war from the start were tuned into alternative sources of information, aware of
American history, and had a realistic understanding of why the government's
position should be rejected and why the corporate media should be ignored.
However, we were in a very small minority. The majority of Americans who
supported the war around the time Cindy Sheehan's son was sent to Iraq were
working under false assumptions which were foisted upon them unethically.
Under such circumstances, given the plight of a soldier on the battlefield who
has been lied to about his reasons for being sent to combat, it is not at all
clear that these soldiers were committing murder. Yes, their President who
sent them and lied to them about the reasons for the war is guilty of murder,
but the soldiers who merely fought on false premises are not murderers.
Unless Kirsten Anderberg can demonstrate that Cindy Sheehan's son killed someone
while knowing that the war was based on false premises for any reason other than
self defense, her charges are libelous.
Kirsten Anderberg levels the charge that Cindy Sheehan's son has plundered in
Iraq. This charge I find to be the most unsupportable of all. She is
accusing Cindy Sheehan's son of stealing items from Iraq and taking personal
possession of them. There is not only absolutely no evidence supporting
this position, but there is no reason to even fantasize that this was the
case. Yes, some American soldiers plundered (enough of them did so to get
caught), but this in no way is reasonable cause to believe that any particular
The final charge leveled against Cindy Sheehan's son is that he was a
"paid terrorist." Given that we have already dismissed the
charge that he was a terrorist, this accusation becomes voided.
In addition to libeling Cindy Sheehan's son, Kirsten Anderberg goes on to
libel Cindy Sheehan. Anderberg makes the following heartless charges
against Cindy Sheehan:
- Cindy Sheehan said nothing to her son about torturing, terrorizing or murdering Iraqis in an illegal war.
- Cindy Sheehan is completely self-centered.
- Cindy Sheehan is capitalizing on her son's death in order to pursue a new
- Cindy Sheehan caused the deaths of Iraqis (see "while she was CAUSING the deaths").
- Cindy Sheehan raised a paid murderer and terrorist.
Let us address these one at a time.
Anderberg claims that Cindy Sheehan said nothing to her son about torturing, terrorizing or murdering Iraqis in an illegal war.
I ask you, how does Anderberg know what Cindy Sheehan discussed or did not
discuss with her son? How could she possibly know? Clearly, she
doesn't know. Nevertheless, despite the fact that she does not know she
strongly and boldly makes this claim as if she is omniscient (which she clearly
isn't). A kind interpretation of Anderberg's libel would be that she is
delusional. However, I do not believe that she is delusional. More
on that later.
Anderberg charges Cindy Sheehan with being completely self-centered.
This flies in the face of the evidence. Cindy Sheehan has sacrificed a
large amount of her own time standing up against war criminal Bush and demanding
an end to an illegal war. Cindy Sheehan is sacrificing her own safely, her
own comfort and her own time to help end the murder of Iraqis. I cannot
imagine how an objective person would come to the conclusion that Cindy Sheehan
is being completely self-centered. Where does this come from?
Anderberg asserts that Cindy Sheehan is capitalizing on her son's death in
order to pursue a new career path. Um, what career path would that be, Ms.
Anderberg? Would it be the career path of a political activist? They
make a lot of money don't they? How would this amount to
"capitalizing." I detect some darker motivation behind
Anderberg's accusations. After all, Anderberg's own website is a frequent
forum for her solicitation of funds from readers for Anderberg's most important
Making things worse, Anderberg charges Cindy Sheehan with causing the deaths
of Iraqis. How exactly did Cindy Sheehan cause the deaths of Iraqis?
Did she cause these deaths by giving birth to her son? Should all women
just cross their legs and not bear children lest they accidentally kill someone
by giving birth? Before I read this, I did not think Anderberg capable of
such low blows, but now I stand corrected.
Finally, Anderberg charges that Cindy Sheehan raised a paid murderer and
terrorist. Well, Ms. Anderberg, my mother raise several sons. One is
a US Army officer and another is an anarchist. Could you please explain to
me how it is that my mother is responsible for one son becoming a soldier and
the other becoming an anarchist? Perhaps it will shed some light on your
Why is Anderberg publishing such trash?
Understanding Kirsten Anderberg takes years of reading her materials.
Several very clear patterns emerge upon inspecting her writings. Anderberg
is a misandrist. Her writings are full of vindictive flung against
men. As well, they are full of false accusations against individuals
(always male), and outright false statements about society that are easily
refuted (the refutations of which are religiously deleted by Portland IndyMedia).
She makes grand anti-male generalizations and then applies them to individual
men, sometimes by name, without any evidence. We see this once again, only
this time directed at the son of Cindy Sheehan. Anderberg's comments
directed against Sheehan's son are her false attributions based on nothing more
than her hatred for men. Notice, Anderberg does not mention the fact that
women are deployed in Iraq as well and that these women are murdering alongside
men. She also mentions Iraqi mothers as victims of the war while not
mentioning Iraqi fathers. For Anderberg, all that matters is that women
are a priori victims and that men are a priori criminals. This is an
unbalanced and untrue view of the world.
On another level, Anderberg is attacking Sheehan because she views Sheehan as
a successful activist and views herself as an unsuccessful activist. She
believes that since she writes and has written for some time, she deserves the
fame, attention, and respect that Sheehan is receiving. Her jealously of
Sheehan provokes her to libel Sheehan for no reason other than making a name for
herself. Personally, I find this disgusting.
Anderberg's diatribe against Sheehan forwards the goals of one and only one
party: the party that wishes to silence opposition to the war. It is a
backhanded way of doing it. Frankly, with "friends" like
Anderberg, we don't need enemies.