The blogsphere is thinking faster and with more wit than the Clinton SpinClinic ever could.
I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
Let her meet with the President.
That's right. I've finally changed my tune.
Let her meet with the President who thwarted the United Nations Security Council and made the case for war.
Let her meet with the President who hindered the progress of United Nations weapons inspectors.
Let her meet with the President who lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction that they'd use on Americans.
Let her meet with the President who killed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Let her meet with the President who came to office in a rigged election, and maintained his grip on power through rigged voting and militaristic patriotism.
Let her meet with the President who turned his country's media into a mouthpiece for his fascist and discriminatory policies.
Let her meet with the President who transformed his country into a single-party dictatorship, sowing fear and resentment against any who dared to oppose his iron-fisted rule.
Let her meet with the President who proved himself a coward by fleeing when his country was attacked.
Let her meet with the President who should be brought up on war crimes charges for his dastardly misdeeds.
Let her meet with the President who spent billions of dollars on weapons while social welfare programs went unfunded and the poor continue to suffer for it to this day.
Let her meet with the President who has a track record of invading Arab Muslim countries for oil.
Let her meet with the President who knew full well about the bloodthirsty torture and murderous horrors at Abu Ghraib.
That's right. Let her meet with Saddam Hussein.
http://isfullofcrap.com/oldcrap/2005/08/le...indy_sheeh.html
Full Version: Cindy Sheehan should meet with the President!
How ironic MiMatt....that most people who read that will associate all those things with George Bush... So thanks for pointing out all the Bush-Hussein similarities!!
I do find it interesting that Bush won't meet with Sheehan but will take time off from his ridiculously long vacation to go and meet with a VFW group in Utah. He can't meet with a woman who is right outside his door but he can travel to Utah and basically meet with the George W. Bush fan club?
However one point from the conservative side I do agree with is that Sheehan's son voluntarily went back to Iraq after already having served his tour. His death, like the deaths of all the others, is tragic. But if he himself was as vehemently oppossed to the war as his mom, why did he go back?
[ August 22, 2005, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: George_Twinsfan ]
However one point from the conservative side I do agree with is that Sheehan's son voluntarily went back to Iraq after already having served his tour. His death, like the deaths of all the others, is tragic. But if he himself was as vehemently oppossed to the war as his mom, why did he go back?
[ August 22, 2005, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: George_Twinsfan ]
QUOTE
However one point from the conservative side I do agree with is that Sheehan's son voluntarily went back to Iraq after already having served his tour. His death, like the deaths of all the others, is tragic. But if he himself was as vehemently oppossed to the war as his mom, why did he go back?
Cindy has answered that question. He said his buddies were all going and saw it as his duty to go with them. Incidentally, Casey Sheehan joined the army with the idea of becoming a chaplain's assistant.
QUOTE
George_Twinsfan:
But if he himself was as vehemently oppossed to the war as his mom, why did he go back?
So what? Let's say he was a rabid supporter of the war and President Bush. His mother isn't allowed to have a different opinion? If it were the mother of a serving member of the military, that might be a point, but there's no one to speak for Casey Sheehan at this point. He's dead. His mother's pissed off. It's between her and her conscience whether her son would have approved of her actions. As far as I can tell her argument is not that an unwilling military has been forced into upholding a policy that it disagrees with, but that the very fact that this administration is betraying it's most ardent supporters, the men and women willing to give up their lives on the say so of the Commander in Chief, damns it. That her son signed up for a second tour of duty strengthens Cindy Sheehan's case rather than weakening.
But if he himself was as vehemently oppossed to the war as his mom, why did he go back?
Sheehan has already met with Bush, whom she supported and with whom she agreed. Suddenly along comes Moveon.org and Michael Moore, and her tune has changed 180 degrees. I feel for the poor lady, who is obviously being used by the ultra-left.
Interesting that her former husband, the father of their deceased son, doesn't agree with her at all. Of course, his opinion doesn't count because it doesn't embarrass the president; therefore, the media isn't interested in him.
The president, ANY president, would be ill-advised to meet with someone currently in her position.
Interesting that her former husband, the father of their deceased son, doesn't agree with her at all. Of course, his opinion doesn't count because it doesn't embarrass the president; therefore, the media isn't interested in him.
The president, ANY president, would be ill-advised to meet with someone currently in her position.
QUOTE
HotlantaTarheel:
How ironic MiMatt....that most people who read that will associate all those things with George Bush... So thanks for pointing out all the Bush-Hussein similarities!!
Gee, and all the time I thought the list was leading to a Clinton crescendo!How ironic MiMatt....that most people who read that will associate all those things with George Bush... So thanks for pointing out all the Bush-Hussein similarities!!
That said, I do have mixed feelings about the President's declining to meet her. Smacks a bit of old Nicholas II, what? There can never be much harm in listening.
Maybe it's stories like this that changed Cindy Sheehan's mind about the president? A National Guardsman from PA who was killed in Iraq on August 9th e-mailed his family before he died about how terrible things were. He couldn't have possibly been telling the truth about Vietnam II, could he? Nah. He must have been coerced by Michael Moore. 
QUOTE
We heard Jim Kulick this morning on the Michael Smerconish show on WPHT-1210. The reason Smerconish invited him on was to talk about the emails that John Kulick had sent home from northern Iraq in the months before he was killed. Over the eight months that the Philly-area firefighter served in Iraq, his opinion of the mission changed radically.
As described by his brother, John Kulick's emails tell the story of a patriotic American who was betrayed -- by his own government. Because it was John Kulick's government that -- after spending more than $100 billion on Iraq -- sent him into hostile territory without the proper armor. And it was John Kulick's government that sent him into a war that lacked a strategy, and that, as a result, not only eliminated the enemy but was waged in a way that created new enemies every day.
Jim Kulick said his brother's emails showed a man who was becoming more and more worried. John Kulick said the insurgents were using increasingly sophisticated IEDs -- improvised explosive devices -- and were firing rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs, into their camp. \"They had to hide under their cots -- there was nothing they could do,\" Kulick's brother said. \"The Humvees weren't armored, or lightly armored -- they were basically useless. At first they were sending them out in pickup trucks. They weren't really equipped to fight this war.\"
Kulick told his family that troops were taking police vests that had been donated to them and putting them on the floor of the Humvees instead of wearing them. Jim Kulick noted that at the same time his brother was reporting this, two of his friends who are area police officers serving in Iraq told him they had needed to bring their own sidearms. In his emails, John Kulick had begun to describe the war as \"a quagmire.\"
As disturbing as those reports were, what Kulick had to say about the conduct of the war was even more troubling. He told his family that the Iraqi police \"were corrupt and inept and there was no way they could ever train them to the degree where they could keep order.\" And when his unit went out after insurgents, far too many innocent iraqis were killed in the crossfire. And, Kulick reported home, \"the more hate that created.\" When the Americans left an area, the insurgents came back the next day.
Eventually, when Kulick saw Iraqi citizens kneeling in the street in prayer, his interpreter would tell him they were praying for the Americans to leave. \"They would rather live with evil they knew rather than live with us,\" Kulick said in his emails. \"We were killing them as much as the insurgents were.\"
As described by his brother, John Kulick's emails tell the story of a patriotic American who was betrayed -- by his own government. Because it was John Kulick's government that -- after spending more than $100 billion on Iraq -- sent him into hostile territory without the proper armor. And it was John Kulick's government that sent him into a war that lacked a strategy, and that, as a result, not only eliminated the enemy but was waged in a way that created new enemies every day.
Jim Kulick said his brother's emails showed a man who was becoming more and more worried. John Kulick said the insurgents were using increasingly sophisticated IEDs -- improvised explosive devices -- and were firing rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs, into their camp. \"They had to hide under their cots -- there was nothing they could do,\" Kulick's brother said. \"The Humvees weren't armored, or lightly armored -- they were basically useless. At first they were sending them out in pickup trucks. They weren't really equipped to fight this war.\"
Kulick told his family that troops were taking police vests that had been donated to them and putting them on the floor of the Humvees instead of wearing them. Jim Kulick noted that at the same time his brother was reporting this, two of his friends who are area police officers serving in Iraq told him they had needed to bring their own sidearms. In his emails, John Kulick had begun to describe the war as \"a quagmire.\"
As disturbing as those reports were, what Kulick had to say about the conduct of the war was even more troubling. He told his family that the Iraqi police \"were corrupt and inept and there was no way they could ever train them to the degree where they could keep order.\" And when his unit went out after insurgents, far too many innocent iraqis were killed in the crossfire. And, Kulick reported home, \"the more hate that created.\" When the Americans left an area, the insurgents came back the next day.
Eventually, when Kulick saw Iraqi citizens kneeling in the street in prayer, his interpreter would tell him they were praying for the Americans to leave. \"They would rather live with evil they knew rather than live with us,\" Kulick said in his emails. \"We were killing them as much as the insurgents were.\"
QUOTE
MIB:
Sheehan has already met with Bush, whom she supported and with whom she agreed. Suddenly along comes Moveon.org and Michael Moore, and her tune has changed 180 degrees. I feel for the poor lady, who is obviously being used by the ultra-left.
Interesting that her former husband, the father of their deceased son, doesn't agree with her at all. Of course, his opinion doesn't count because it doesn't embarrass the president; therefore, the media isn't interested in him.
The president, ANY president, would be ill-advised to meet with someone currently in her position.
Correction, Cindy Sheehan, like millions of other Americans used to agree with Bush and used to be in favor of the war. However, as the situation over there continues to drain lives and money with absolutely no signs of progress, many millions of people, just like Cindy Sheehan, have changed their minds and now think that the ongoing military action and the lives lost are all in vain. The conservatives seem to think that anyone who changes his or her mind is suddenly a shill for Michael Moore. Cindy Sheehan was sitting outside the ranch before moveon.org or any others started pushing her story.
Sheehan has already met with Bush, whom she supported and with whom she agreed. Suddenly along comes Moveon.org and Michael Moore, and her tune has changed 180 degrees. I feel for the poor lady, who is obviously being used by the ultra-left.
Interesting that her former husband, the father of their deceased son, doesn't agree with her at all. Of course, his opinion doesn't count because it doesn't embarrass the president; therefore, the media isn't interested in him.
The president, ANY president, would be ill-advised to meet with someone currently in her position.
QUOTE
Sheehan has already met with Bush, whom she supported and with whom she agreed. Suddenly along comes Moveon.org and Michael Moore, and her tune has changed 180 degrees. I feel for the poor lady, who is obviously being used by the ultra-left.
Actually, Ms. Sheehan's description of her participation in the 2004 joint meeting (with other families who had lost loved ones in Vietnam II) has never changed. She has consistently (and I first heard her description last year) said that Bush treated them disrespectfully, appeared not to care about who they had lost (referring to her son only as "your loved one"), did not seem to know her name (called her "Mom" the whole time) and was generally detached from the experience. She did appreciate getting to meet other parents who had lost children, calling that a "gift" from the President. Of course Drudge and others in the GOP spin machine were all too willing to parse her previous comments out of context to try to prove some monumental shift on Bush (sort of like when studios were caught taking reviewers' comments out of context on movies and TV shows, so that "an amazing achievement in horrible films" became "an amazing achievement"), but that was simply part of The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan, as Frank Rich aptly put it yesterday in the New York Times.
Ms. Sheehan does admit to a change in her outspoken-ness and her tactics, but also attributes those to damning evidence like the Downing Street Memos, which categorically prove Bush and his minions lied to get us into this war.
Quite frankly, I don't agree with Ms. Sheehan that our troops should be immediately pulled out, although I don't see an end to the Iraq quagmire other than civil war and eventual partition into three distinct states. Perhaps if the UN had been able to lead a true coalition to peacefully remove Saddam from power and use the existing Baathist infrastructure to create a freer Iraq such an eventuality could have been avoided. But the actions of the Bush administration basically led to this outcome, and no others - they didn't fight the war right, even after they creatively enhanced the evidence they needed to justify it. I just hate to think of us screwing the Iraqi people over again, as we did under the LAST two Republican administrations.
Meanwhile the brave Sir AWOL has left Camp Chickenhawk to rally support for the war in Utah and Idaho. Wow, impressive, what's next - Mississippi?
He's doing a great job "marketing" the war, kinda like he did with Social Security.
He's doing a great job "marketing" the war, kinda like he did with Social Security.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
That said, I do have mixed feelings about the President's declining to meet her. Smacks a bit of old Nicholas II, what? There can never be much harm in listening.
This is a lose lose situation for the President. If he meets with her, he cannot possibly say anything that will satisfy her and then has her putting out her version of the meeting with no White House control (something every president dreads, I'm reminded of the gay bashing/hate crimes bill episode of The West Wing). If he doesn't meet with her, he looks small and unwilling to countenance opposition.That said, I do have mixed feelings about the President's declining to meet her. Smacks a bit of old Nicholas II, what? There can never be much harm in listening.
I've certainly never been an advisor to a president, but I can certainly imagine that the majority of his staff is firmly against meeting with her because it goes against script and can only lead to embarrassment. I do think the braver course would be to meet with her and demonstrate some modicum of listening, but the risks of doing that are far more significant than the risks of not speaking to her. Of course, the potential rewards of speaking to her are proportionately greater than the rewards of not speaking as well.
QUOTE
jqueer:
This is a lose lose situation for the President. If he meets with her, he cannot possibly say anything that will satisfy her and then has her putting out her version of the meeting with no White House control (something every president dreads, I'm reminded of the gay bashing/hate crimes bill episode of The West Wing). If he doesn't meet with her, he looks small and unwilling to countenance opposition.
How about if he agrees to meet with her, but only if it is televised live on any network that wants to show it? Then he won't have to worry about her version of events.
This is a lose lose situation for the President. If he meets with her, he cannot possibly say anything that will satisfy her and then has her putting out her version of the meeting with no White House control (something every president dreads, I'm reminded of the gay bashing/hate crimes bill episode of The West Wing). If he doesn't meet with her, he looks small and unwilling to countenance opposition.
[quote]Joe in Philly:
[/quote]How about if he agrees to meet with her, but only if it is televised live on any network that wants to show it? Then he won't have to worry about her version of events. [/QUOTE]
Right, have the mother of a dead soldier harrangue the president for 15 minutes (a number plucked from air) on live television. Now it's a lose lose lose situation.
If you can come up with a script for the President that can respond to anything this woman has to say that will make him look compassionate yet steadfast, that will justify the war in the minds of the majority of Americans who no longer see it as defensable, I would suggest sending it to the White House. I can't, and I don't think his handlers can either.
[/quote]How about if he agrees to meet with her, but only if it is televised live on any network that wants to show it? Then he won't have to worry about her version of events. [/QUOTE]
Right, have the mother of a dead soldier harrangue the president for 15 minutes (a number plucked from air) on live television. Now it's a lose lose lose situation.
If you can come up with a script for the President that can respond to anything this woman has to say that will make him look compassionate yet steadfast, that will justify the war in the minds of the majority of Americans who no longer see it as defensable, I would suggest sending it to the White House. I can't, and I don't think his handlers can either.
If she just harangues him for 15 minutes it'll serve to make her look bad, and all he'll have to do is come up with a statement on the order of "I am truly sorry for the loss of your son, as I am for the loss of all of the soldiers who've lost their lives. I understand the pain you feel. However, I firmly believe that we are doing the right thing and even though it will take much more time than we'd like and even though it costs lives, in the end the world will be a better, safer place."
Now, if she can resist the urge to vent and instead ask the tough, rational, smart questions without settling for generic or vague or misleading replies, that's a whole different ballgame.
Now, if she can resist the urge to vent and instead ask the tough, rational, smart questions without settling for generic or vague or misleading replies, that's a whole different ballgame.
QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
If she just harangues him for 15 minutes it'll serve to make her look bad, and all he'll have to do is come up with a statement on the order of \"I am truly sorry for the loss of your son, as I am for the loss of all of the soldiers who've lost their lives. I understand the pain you feel. However, I firmly believe that we are doing the right thing and even though it will take much more time than we'd like and even though it costs lives, in the end the world will be a better, safer place.\"
That's a best case scenario for the President, and even that isn't going to make him look good. It'll only make him look not as bad. However, can the President take that chance that someone won't have prepped Ms Sheehan with the right questions? You know, the questions they don't have answers too.If she just harangues him for 15 minutes it'll serve to make her look bad, and all he'll have to do is come up with a statement on the order of \"I am truly sorry for the loss of your son, as I am for the loss of all of the soldiers who've lost their lives. I understand the pain you feel. However, I firmly believe that we are doing the right thing and even though it will take much more time than we'd like and even though it costs lives, in the end the world will be a better, safer place.\"
My point is that there isn't any resolution to this situation that the adminstration can count on that will make the President look good. Is it possible that she could self destruct so that the President doesn't catch the flack? Sure, but are you going to bet on that happening on live television when the possibility is stronger that she will be armed with the right questions?
I don't think a meeting with her is going to sway those on the President's side or those on Sheehan's side. Televised or not, no matter how bad either side comes off, those opposed to the war will remain so, those in favor of the war will remain so. Though this discussion board is merely a microcosm, it's just like all these political debates here. I've never seen anybody swayed by another poster's arguement, no matter how compelling. The divide between the two sides is so wide that it won't change many, if any, opinions.
QUOTE
George_Twinsfan:
I don't think a meeting with her is going to sway those on the President's side or those on Sheehan's side. Televised or not, no matter how bad either side comes off, those opposed to the war will remain so, those in favor of the war will remain so. Though this discussion board is merely a microcosm, it's just like all these political debates here. I've never seen anybody swayed by another poster's arguement, no matter how compelling. The divide between the two sides is so wide that it won't change many, if any, opinions.
Why give a damn about how he or she LOOKS? The issue is a war that millions of Americans opposed, and that now a majority of the nation believes we were wrong to begin and have doubts about us winning. 1864 American soldiers have died, 30,000 have been wounded, and there seems to be no end in sight, Islamic Republic of Iraq or not. So rather than all the politicization, why can't the President be a man and a leader, and just meet with this woman? She doesn't strike me as someone who harangues, though I could be wrong. I don't think a meeting with her is going to sway those on the President's side or those on Sheehan's side. Televised or not, no matter how bad either side comes off, those opposed to the war will remain so, those in favor of the war will remain so. Though this discussion board is merely a microcosm, it's just like all these political debates here. I've never seen anybody swayed by another poster's arguement, no matter how compelling. The divide between the two sides is so wide that it won't change many, if any, opinions.
He could have defused this mess a long time ago if he'd just been a man and a leader and said, "Look, Mrs. Sheehan, what questions do you want me to answer?" And then he could have answered them as truthfully as possible--which would be a challenge for him, since he has steadily offered up lies and propaganda, but surely the truth is somewhere in that man's head--and then concluded the whole thing with, "Now, you may not agree with my answers, but I respect you and I respect your son, who gave his life for this country. We will agree to disagree, but I do respect you and I am glad we had the time to talk." Or something simple like that. It's not that hard, is it?
But he was too afraid or inept or whatever to do such a basic thing, and now the thing has snowballed and he's had to flee to Utah and Idaho to spout more propaganda to "friendly" audiences while still not addressing the substance of this woman's, and a majority of Americans' concerns.
[ August 22, 2005, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
Actually, Ms. Sheehan's description of her participation in the 2004 joint meeting (with other families who had lost loved ones in Vietnam II) has never changed. She has consistently (and I first heard her description last year) said that Bush treated them disrespectfully, appeared not to care about who they had lost (referring to her son only as \"your loved one\"), did not seem to know her name (called her \"Mom\" the whole time) and was generally detached from the experience. She did appreciate getting to meet other parents who had lost children, calling that a \"gift\" from the President.
Point of fact: On an ABC News video segment last week, Sheehan in an interview specifically said that when she first met Bush, he was noticeably concerned and quite sympathetic, visibly moved by the suffering she had gone through. Actually, Ms. Sheehan's description of her participation in the 2004 joint meeting (with other families who had lost loved ones in Vietnam II) has never changed. She has consistently (and I first heard her description last year) said that Bush treated them disrespectfully, appeared not to care about who they had lost (referring to her son only as \"your loved one\"), did not seem to know her name (called her \"Mom\" the whole time) and was generally detached from the experience. She did appreciate getting to meet other parents who had lost children, calling that a \"gift\" from the President.
It's no surprise now that she's flipping and flopping to bow to the radical Left who is supporting her in this.
How's this for this woman's nuttiness:
In a rally April 27, 2005 supporting lawyer Lynne Stewart, convicted of aiding terrorists, Sheehan blasted the U.S. as a country (independent of Bush being the current president): "America has been killing people since we stepped on this continent. We have been responsible for death and destruction worse than anyone else....It's OK for Israel to occupy Palastine and for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon? They're a bunch of f**king hypocrites! And we just need to rise up."
This woman's whacked!
Speaking of snowball. Bush having a meeting with Cindy Sheehan on TV has less a chance of happening than a snowball surviving in hell.
It's a really great idea and I'd be tuned in, but it just won't happen. W stands for Wuss afterall. Remember, this is a man who required an oath of allegiance to attend his "town hall" meetings.
If Cindy Sheehan maintained a soft composure and asked reasonable questions, he would be eaten alive. Alas, we'll never know.
It's a really great idea and I'd be tuned in, but it just won't happen. W stands for Wuss afterall. Remember, this is a man who required an oath of allegiance to attend his "town hall" meetings.
If Cindy Sheehan maintained a soft composure and asked reasonable questions, he would be eaten alive. Alas, we'll never know.
QUOTE
fantomas:
...he's had to flee to Utah and Idaho to spout more propaganda to \"friendly\" audiences while still not addressing the substance of this woman's, and a majority of Americans' concerns.
Come on now. Even you, in your exaggerative condition here, knows that the president has these appearances planned many months in advance, as he and every other president has done whenever they're on their so-called vacations. He hardly fled. He makes appearances all the time, even when he's supposed to be "off work" in Crawford. Of course, why should a simple fact like that stop you from being accurate? ...he's had to flee to Utah and Idaho to spout more propaganda to \"friendly\" audiences while still not addressing the substance of this woman's, and a majority of Americans' concerns.
QUOTE
HornFan:
If Cindy Sheehan maintained a soft composure and asked reasonable questions, he would be eaten alive. Alas, we'll never know.
That's kinda hard to do, considering she's a nutjob.If Cindy Sheehan maintained a soft composure and asked reasonable questions, he would be eaten alive. Alas, we'll never know.
I'm surprised FT--well, actually I'm not surprised, considering he's cut from the same ultraleft cloth as Sheehan's radical supporters are--thinks the president should meet with her. No president should ever meet with someone who's masquerading as a grieving mother when in reality she's being exploited by the president's most virulent opponents. The poor woman doesn't even realize she's being politically raped.
QUOTE
That's kinda hard to do, considering she's a nutjob.
Some see a nutjob, some see a grieving Mom.
She was a grieving mother until her ulterior motives became clear. Even her son's father--interesting that no one seems to care how he feels--has frequently criticized her. He's even contradicted her claims that her son wouldn't have wanted this war, etc.
Some believe Ms. Sheehan, some believe Mr. Sheehan. Some aren't sure if her motives are "clear". And some of us aren't mind readers, nor sitting in judgement of either one of them.
I'm assuming they're divorced, which could explain his motivation.
But I just love how quick you right-wing thugs are to call her a nutjob. What about the link to the blog I posted? What about the guy whose brother died in Iraq? Any explanation for those e-mails? Is the dead solider a nutjob? Is his brother a nutjob? Is the conservative radio host who put his brother on the air a nutjob?
But I just love how quick you right-wing thugs are to call her a nutjob. What about the link to the blog I posted? What about the guy whose brother died in Iraq? Any explanation for those e-mails? Is the dead solider a nutjob? Is his brother a nutjob? Is the conservative radio host who put his brother on the air a nutjob?
MIB, have you ever lost a child? I thought so. Only when you have will you be qualified to call a mother a "nutjob" once she has lost her child. Your lack of compassion is sickening.
MIB- i think that was a very cruel post about the mother. She lost her child and for you to post that I think is terrible.
QUOTE
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
Actually, Ms. Sheehan's description of her participation in the 2004 joint meeting (with other families who had lost loved ones in Vietnam II) has never changed. She has consistently (and I first heard her description last year) said that Bush treated them disrespectfully, appeared not to care about who they had lost (referring to her son only as \"your loved one\"), did not seem to know her name (called her \"Mom\" the whole time) and was generally detached from the experience. She did appreciate getting to meet other parents who had lost children, calling that a \"gift\" from the President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of fact: On an ABC News video segment last week, Sheehan in an interview specifically said that when she first met Bush, he was noticeably concerned and quite sympathetic, visibly moved by the suffering she had gone through.
My point was that her descriptions of the meeting, both those I read last fall and those she has most recently given, have been consistent. I may have gotten the details wrong, but the whole point is she has not changed her mind about the President, except for growing in certainty that the war was unnecessary and her son was killed for nothing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
Actually, Ms. Sheehan's description of her participation in the 2004 joint meeting (with other families who had lost loved ones in Vietnam II) has never changed. She has consistently (and I first heard her description last year) said that Bush treated them disrespectfully, appeared not to care about who they had lost (referring to her son only as \"your loved one\"), did not seem to know her name (called her \"Mom\" the whole time) and was generally detached from the experience. She did appreciate getting to meet other parents who had lost children, calling that a \"gift\" from the President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of fact: On an ABC News video segment last week, Sheehan in an interview specifically said that when she first met Bush, he was noticeably concerned and quite sympathetic, visibly moved by the suffering she had gone through.
QUOTE
It's no surprise now that she's flipping and flopping to bow to the radical Left who is supporting her in this.
How's this for this woman's nuttiness:
In a rally April 27, 2005 supporting lawyer Lynne Stewart, convicted of aiding terrorists, Sheehan blasted the U.S. as a country (independent of Bush being the current president): \"America has been killing people since we stepped on this continent. We have been responsible for death and destruction worse than anyone else....It's OK for Israel to occupy Palastine and for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon? They're a bunch of f**king hypocrites! And we just need to rise up.\"
This woman's whacked!
Please provide a link to an objective news source for your alleged Sheehan quote. There is an enormous amount of crap being said about Ms. Sheehan that is not based on fact. Unfortunately, in the blogosphere it is entirely possible to create false impressions of people through manufactured quotes. Not that the GOP would EVER sink so low as to engage in character assassination. No never How's this for this woman's nuttiness:
In a rally April 27, 2005 supporting lawyer Lynne Stewart, convicted of aiding terrorists, Sheehan blasted the U.S. as a country (independent of Bush being the current president): \"America has been killing people since we stepped on this continent. We have been responsible for death and destruction worse than anyone else....It's OK for Israel to occupy Palastine and for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon? They're a bunch of f**king hypocrites! And we just need to rise up.\"
This woman's whacked!
And why exactly is it "wacked" to disagree with a lying piece of cr*p like Bush? He lied about the WMDs, he lied about the reasons for going to war, he and his administration completely screwed up the entire occupation, and now Iraq is likely to collapse into at least partially an Islamic fundamentalist state, which it was not before, complete with the perfect urban terrorist training ground. If this is his definition of "success" in war, perhaps Mr. Bush has more of an affinity with the French than we realized.
QUOTE
fantomas:
Why give a damn about how he or she LOOKS? The issue is a war that millions of Americans opposed,
I know that. You know that. But to think that the parties involved aren't concerned with how they look in all this is naive. The main reason why Bush's advisors won't allow him to meet with her is because of how it/he might look.
Why give a damn about how he or she LOOKS? The issue is a war that millions of Americans opposed,
What about the woman who's son died in Iraq a few weeks back? Her announcement to all was that her son died "making the ultimate sacrifice", and her wish was that everyone do what they can - that means enlist, kids - to continue fighting the ultimate evil, terrorism.
Any of you want to label her a nutjob?
LXN
Any of you want to label her a nutjob?
LXN
Lex, I disagree that this war has anything to do with "terrorism" but I am not labeling that woman a nut job, just wrong. However, I do agree with the premise that if it is a noble mission those who support it should go. That is one of Sheehan's points; why haven't the Bush daughters, for starters, joined? What about the children of all the senators, talking heads etc who are so ready to slam her joining the noble mission? Why are they so willing to let someone else die while they pursue "other priorities"?
Well to be fair, the Bush girls have a party to go to next week and will be busy shopping for new outfits.
I would love to see Paris and Nicole Bush over there. It would make for the greatest reality show or sitcom ever. But it really is highly impratical. The fact is that they would be very specific targets for the enemy forces since they would undoubtedly know the girls were there. But I do agree that the sons and daughters (and probably nieces and nephews) are highly underrepresented in the service.
I would love to see Paris and Nicole Bush over there. It would make for the greatest reality show or sitcom ever. But it really is highly impratical. The fact is that they would be very specific targets for the enemy forces since they would undoubtedly know the girls were there. But I do agree that the sons and daughters (and probably nieces and nephews) are highly underrepresented in the service.
And the children of the Democrats in Congress who voted for this war? Where are they? Are Kerry's kids over there serving? No, of course not.
LXN
LXN
QUOTE
millerbeach:
MIB, have you ever lost a child? I thought so. Only when you have will you be qualified to call a mother a \"nutjob\" once she has lost her child. Your lack of compassion is sickening.
I've lost my share of loved ones, including a 1-month-old cousin, thank-you-very-much.MIB, have you ever lost a child? I thought so. Only when you have will you be qualified to call a mother a \"nutjob\" once she has lost her child. Your lack of compassion is sickening.
Just because she lost a son doesn't mean she can't be a nutjob.
She formed an organization called Gold Star Mothers for Peace. There exists an organization called Gold Star Mothers, a group that is a nonprofit organization whose members have lost sons to war. They are none too happy right now that Sheehan is attempting to use their name to exploit what happened to her son.
She writes for Michael Moore's web site. 'Nuff said.
On another note, when President Clinton awarded medals to the parents of the soldiers killed in Mogadishu--he never visited with any of them, BTW--the father of one of the dead sons refused to shake Clinton's hand, instead ignoring him and explaining that Clinton "killed my son" (hmm...interesting that Sheehan's saying the same thing). The media blasted this man for "disrespecting the president" and embarrassing the president. Of course, if Sheehan does it, that's perfectly OK because...well, because it's Bush who's president.
Oh! The hypocrisy!
[quote]CPT_Doom:
How's this for this woman's nuttiness:
In a rally April 27, 2005 supporting lawyer Lynne Stewart, convicted of aiding terrorists, Sheehan blasted the U.S. as a country (independent of Bush being the current president): \"America has been killing people since we stepped on this continent. We have been responsible for death and destruction worse than anyone else....It's OK for Israel to occupy Palastine and for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon? They're a bunch of f**king hypocrites! And we just need to rise up.\"
This woman's whacked! [/quote]Please provide a link to an objective news source for your alleged Sheehan quote. There is an enormous amount of crap being said about Ms. Sheehan that is not based on fact. [/quote]
I saw this on two stations: MSNBC and FOX. I saw the actual rally and her speech, CPT. I suppose I'm just making this up, huh?
How's this for this woman's nuttiness:
In a rally April 27, 2005 supporting lawyer Lynne Stewart, convicted of aiding terrorists, Sheehan blasted the U.S. as a country (independent of Bush being the current president): \"America has been killing people since we stepped on this continent. We have been responsible for death and destruction worse than anyone else....It's OK for Israel to occupy Palastine and for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon? They're a bunch of f**king hypocrites! And we just need to rise up.\"
This woman's whacked! [/quote]Please provide a link to an objective news source for your alleged Sheehan quote. There is an enormous amount of crap being said about Ms. Sheehan that is not based on fact. [/quote]
I saw this on two stations: MSNBC and FOX. I saw the actual rally and her speech, CPT. I suppose I'm just making this up, huh?
QUOTE
Lexington:
And the children of the Democrats in Congress who voted for this war? Where are they? Are Kerry's kids over there serving? No, of course not.
LXN
One cannot fairly say this, LX. This is as ridiculous as those who say that Bush's kids should go to Iraq. No way!And the children of the Democrats in Congress who voted for this war? Where are they? Are Kerry's kids over there serving? No, of course not.
LXN
Does anyone have any idea how much of a problem if a president's children or a presidential candidate's children are to go off to war like this? To mandate it would cause a logistical nightmare. Can you imagine someone using these kids in a hostage situation or something similar? It would adversely affect either of the gentlemen to the point that they couldn't do their job.
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
...why haven't the Bush daughters, for starters, joined? What about the children of all the senators, talking heads etc who are so ready to slam her joining the noble mission? Why are they so willing to let someone else die while they pursue \"other priorities\"?
Read my post above. This cannot be permitted, even if they want to go willingly.
...why haven't the Bush daughters, for starters, joined? What about the children of all the senators, talking heads etc who are so ready to slam her joining the noble mission? Why are they so willing to let someone else die while they pursue \"other priorities\"?
its always so easy for someone to say someone is for the war and we should be over there and all this and that. It seems like 90% of the people that say that though know there's no way in hell they will ever go over there or anyone in their family will be there. The whole thing really bothers the shit out of me.
QUOTE
I saw this on two stations: MSNBC and FOX. I saw the actual rally and her speech, CPT. I suppose I'm just making this up, huh?
Oh no, "judge" I would never say that. After all, there is no way a member of the bar would ever claim things that were not true.If this alleged speech were on MSNBC or Fox (and please let me be the first to congratulate you on your ability to memorize), they would likely have a link, and I'd like to see it, that's all.
You see, I have seen Cindy Sheehan, on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, deny statements pretty close to this that were attributed to her. Given the Swift Boating of John Kerry, not to mention the disgusting and repulsive character assassinations ot the political opponents of EVERY SINGLE candidate for whom Rove has ever worked, it is always good to check these things out.
God, these discussions get so muddled.
Ms Sheehan's son was in the military by choice. By enlisting and going to war, he and she both knew that his life would be in danger. He's a hero because he died fighting for this country. That's an entirely different matter than whether or not you or I agree with the war. We went to war, he died fighting for us.
If I lost a son, I'd be a wackjob myself. Cindy Sheehan doesn't appear to be a wackjob at all though, in fact, according to Joan Baez, someone I respect greatly, she's a totally together individual fighting for what she believes. That, I believe, is a very American thing to do.
President Bush made a grave and stupid mistake by not meeting with Ms. Sheehan whether privately or publically. For god's sake, her son died in this war, a war many of us call his war. At this point in time, most rational people have surmised that this administration's motives about this war have been deceptive at best. It's never just been about stopping WMD, we all know that, and therefore standing up for peace and getting out of Iraq is more than valid. Bush's advisors should have recommended meeting with Ms. Sheehan: not only would it be the compassionate, right thing to do, but it would have diffused the entire ranch sit-in. But Bush and his team have always only cared about half the country. This is why their errors, lies, and arrogance maneuvers are now coming so fully into view.
Ms Sheehan's son was in the military by choice. By enlisting and going to war, he and she both knew that his life would be in danger. He's a hero because he died fighting for this country. That's an entirely different matter than whether or not you or I agree with the war. We went to war, he died fighting for us.
If I lost a son, I'd be a wackjob myself. Cindy Sheehan doesn't appear to be a wackjob at all though, in fact, according to Joan Baez, someone I respect greatly, she's a totally together individual fighting for what she believes. That, I believe, is a very American thing to do.
President Bush made a grave and stupid mistake by not meeting with Ms. Sheehan whether privately or publically. For god's sake, her son died in this war, a war many of us call his war. At this point in time, most rational people have surmised that this administration's motives about this war have been deceptive at best. It's never just been about stopping WMD, we all know that, and therefore standing up for peace and getting out of Iraq is more than valid. Bush's advisors should have recommended meeting with Ms. Sheehan: not only would it be the compassionate, right thing to do, but it would have diffused the entire ranch sit-in. But Bush and his team have always only cared about half the country. This is why their errors, lies, and arrogance maneuvers are now coming so fully into view.
QUOTE
Does anyone have any idea how much of a problem if a president's children or a presidential candidate's children are to go off to war like this? To mandate it would cause a logistical nightmare. Can you imagine someone using these kids in a hostage situation or something similar? It would adversely affect either of the gentlemen to the point that they couldn't do their job.
Perhaps we can ask the descendants of FDR and Eleanor about that. After all, all four of their sons and their only son-in-law were in the military during WWII, and ALL were at least in combat zones, if not actually in combat.
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
Great job, now welcome to the 2000's and instant TV.
QUOTE
Does anyone have any idea how much of a problem if a president's children or a presidential candidate's children are to go off to war like this? To mandate it would cause a logistical nightmare. Can you imagine someone using these kids in a hostage situation or something similar? It would adversely affect either of the gentlemen to the point that they couldn't do their job.
Perhaps we can ask the descendants of FDR and Eleanor about that. After all, all four of their sons and their only son-in-law were in the military during WWII, and ALL were at least in combat zones, if not actually in combat. QUOTE
MIB:
Sheehan blasted the U.S. as a country (independent of Bush being the current president): \"America has been killing people since we stepped on this continent. We have been responsible for death and destruction worse than anyone else.\"
Based on 15 minutes' research I just did, this appears to be an accurate quote.Sheehan blasted the U.S. as a country (independent of Bush being the current president): \"America has been killing people since we stepped on this continent. We have been responsible for death and destruction worse than anyone else.\"
And if you have any kind of grasp of American history, you know, from the Indian wars to Hiroshima to Central America, it's essentially true.
QUOTE
MIB:
I suppose I'm just making this up, huh?
Wouldnt be the first time.
I suppose I'm just making this up, huh?
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Hey Toots, Grab a shower
I wonder how your mom would feel if she lost a son fighting for his country, for this "noble cause." Oh wait, that's not applicable.
Hey Toots, Grab a shower
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
Prove it, Liar.
QUOTE
MIB:
I suppose I'm just making this up, huh?
Wouldnt be the first time. I suppose I'm just making this up, huh?
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
If this alleged speech were on MSNBC or Fox (and please let me be the first to congratulate you on your ability to memorize), they would likely have a link, and I'd like to see it, that's all.
The speech wasn't a news story per se; rather, the speech was broadcast on the news shows. I can't remember if the FOX one was Britt Hume's or Bill O'Reilly's. The MSNBC one was Scarborough's, I think. I don't remember. I was flipping around the news channels as I always do--CNN, FOX, and MSNBC--and came across the same footage, that of April 27, 2005. Behind Sheehan was the edge of some Leftist poster. So don't call this alleged. It actually happened, your physically not viewing it notwithstanding.If this alleged speech were on MSNBC or Fox (and please let me be the first to congratulate you on your ability to memorize), they would likely have a link, and I'd like to see it, that's all.
QUOTE
You see, I have seen Cindy Sheehan, on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, deny statements pretty close to this that were attributed to her. Given the Swift Boating of John Kerry, not to mention the disgusting and repulsive character assassinations ot the political opponents of EVERY SINGLE candidate for whom Rove has ever worked, it is always good to check these things out.
I ask again: why hasn't anyone given the father of this dead soldier any press? Because he isn't trying to embarrass the president and politicize his son's death, that's why. Shame on Ms. Sheehan for turning this grieving tragedy into some twisted, political circus.
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
Perhaps we can ask the descendants of FDR and Eleanor about that. After all, all four of their sons and their only son-in-law were in the military during WWII, and ALL were at least in combat zones, if not actually in combat.
You can't honestly say that this is the same situation, can you? If so, you're more naive than I thought.Perhaps we can ask the descendants of FDR and Eleanor about that. After all, all four of their sons and their only son-in-law were in the military during WWII, and ALL were at least in combat zones, if not actually in combat.
A president's--any president's--children would quickly become the bargaining tool for some terrorist, thereby compromising that president's ability to objectively make decisions crucial to a war. In FDR's days, they didn't have Islamofascists going after civilians the way they do now, in a war unlike any we've previously seen.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.