In the "West Wing" episode "Inauguration," scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin has his characters quoting--I believe--Margaret Mead in saying, ""Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does."
So now we're seeing this taking hold in Crawford, Texas, as Cindy Sheehan puts exactly what the White House has never wanted onto the losses in Iraq: A human face.
I have to admit, I think it's absurd when I read the contention that her son joined the army some years back but never thought he'd actually have to GO anywhere. Ma'am, he joined the ARMY. Did he think it was all Sergeant Bilko or Gomer Pyle? I mean, sure, there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity, but there was no guarantee it was going to last.
Nevertheless, when the time came, her son did what he signed up to do. Did what he had to do. And now she's doing what she has to do--getting in the President's face. And the President is doing what he has to do--hide in his ranch and wait for this to go away.
She's demanding accountability from her president.. Now we see just how much building rage there is in this country in terms of others likewise demanding it.
PAD
UPDATE--I really like this notion, as mentioned below: "Wouldn't it be interesting if some of the other moms who lost their sons in Iraq decided to join that one-woman protest, so that it continued to grow in size...and grow...and grow..."
It'd be like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, except it's Mothers Opposing Bush. MOB. "Yes, there's a MOB scene here in Crawford." "MOB rule has broken out outside the White House..."
Interesting thought.
Posted by Peter David at August 12, 2005 12:42 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingIt's fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he's already met with her. Why tell the whole story when half of it will do?
From what I saw on the news, Bush is trying to spin it for him, saying that he sypathizes with the mother, but that he can't pull troops out of Iraq now. Gee, it would be nice if he caould at least explain why the kid died, if his life had a purpose. Get with the program Mr. Bush. Children are dying so you could get reelected. Well, you got reelected, you can stop now. Or are you going to prove that there really ARE WMD's in Iraq?
And I would like to see what was said at that "meeting." I really would. Did he give a reason for her sons death? Show that he served a greater purpose? or did he just give her the runaround?
I would like to believe that there is no man with soul so dead that he could look a grieving mother in the face and twist the truth. Maybe he did give her a reason. but I doubt it.
Of course, this could just be 1:12 AM bitterness talking.
"It's fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he's already met with her. Why tell the whole story when half of it will do?"
Okay, well, that's simply bull considering every story I've read about her makes specific mention that she and other mothers met with Bush last year. So whatever your bash-the-media agenda is, you might want to acknowledge that stating inaccuracies yourself is hardly the cleans-hand approach you want to take for condemning the media of being inaccurate.
PAD
"It's fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he's already met with her. Why tell the whole story when half of it will do?"
Del, As PAD mentioned, it's been in practiclaly every media report in this story. (Perhaps Limbaugh and O'Reilly fail to mention it?) What's also mentioned is that according to Sheehan and others present, Bush gave little more than empty lip service, never mentioning names of the deceased. Plus Sheehan's son had died only eight weeks prior to her meeting with Bush and she was still in deep despair. She was in no condition then to ask the type of question the she and many other relatives and loves ones of soldiers lost in this useless invasion want answered now.
elf
Susan Ager of the Detroit Free Press has a suggestion as to how Bush should handle the situation. She said he should just listen to her. Just him. No aides or media along for the ride. No promises, no platitudes. He should just _listen._
http://www.freep.com/features/living/ager9e_20050809.htm
Seems to me it's the least Bush (or any president in the same situation, for that matter) can do.
Rick
This made me laugh...
http://postcards.ucomics.com/get/?MsgID=28098509f660b8a4f02ecb860c8a6793&site_ref=ucomics
I have to admit, I think it's absurd when I read the contention that her son joined the army some years back but never thought he'd actually have to GO anywhere. Ma'am, he joined the ARMY. Did he think it was all Sergeant Bilko or Gomer Pyle? I mean, sure, there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity, but there was no guarantee it was going to last.
Everyone who joins the military takes an oath to put the US Constitution above their own life. It's the one thing we've all had in common and I don't think it's a bad thing in itself if you're looking to put something above your own life, even for a while.
This wasn't the case here. Iraq was invaded to impose peace in an oil-rich region by military dominance, which sounds natural if you measure strength by dominance but actually may not have been on the list of "honey do"s for members of the military who actually show up for their drills.
Maybe their expectations have been misworded, but there is no inconsistency inherent in Mrs Sheehan's demands.
"I, (insert name here), do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me, so help me God (last portion may be omitted)."
It's been a few years since I took an oath of enlistment, so I might be a little rusty, but that's the oath as best I can recall. Neither the oath nor the UCMJ leaves room for a soldier to decide whether a particular war is justified or not - his job lies on the battlefield. He is qualified to determine whether a particular order is lawful, but international politics are another kettle of fish.
As you can hear here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4791911
she says that what she wants to do is say to his face that he shouldn't continue to say that further killing is justified by the loss of soldier's lives to this point.
Niiice.
I like the concept that a soldier (and apparently their family) of the United States Armed forces gives up their right to protest/ disagree with their government when they sign up.
Must be one of those "sacrifices" things that I hear so much about...
"She's demanding accountability from her president.. Now we see just how much building rage there is in this country in terms of others likewise demanding it.?
Accountability?
What's known now that wasn't known June 2004 when Bush met her and other families of the dead?
What's known now that wasn't known November 2004?
Wasn't Kerry arguing that he would have kept the troops in Iraq? Aren't troops still in Bosnia ten years after Clinton said they'd be home by Christmas? Didn't Dean argue for keeping the troops in Iraq? Weren't only Sharpton and Kucinich the candidates for pulling out of Iraq immediately? Haven't some conservatives like Buchanan argued for an immediate pullout?
Haven't some on both left and right argued for MORE troops in Iraq to really secure Baghdad and the country?
What is there to argue that has not been argued before?
And what about families of dead soldiers who want to have every last Iraqi killed in revenge of the deaths of family members? Should Bush meet with them too?
Hasn't one of the complaints been that Bush argued for the invasion in Iraq was due to emotion, revenge for the attempt on his dad's life (and maybe to finish what his dad wouldn't or couldn't)?
-- Ken from Chicago
That's right Snowcrash. It is a sacrifice of sorts. Sometimes people just want to serve their country. They can disagree with the decisions of the govt, but in the end, the oath is the same: you do what you are told. No one joins the military hoping for a chance to go to Iraq and possibly get killed (or at least very few). They join in the hopes of being able to help people or defend their country, to serve a purpose higher than sitting around and criticizing everyone and everything anonymously on a blog. But that could just be me.
Steve,
I like how you're conflating disagreeing with the government (something that the US Constitution apparently affords to the meanest of it's citizens) with disobeying orders. Also, I still don't understand where in the Uniform Code of Military Justice it says that a soldier's family members aren't allowed to take part of lawful protest/ dissent.
By the way, as it ads a little to the story, here's a statement from the rest of the Sheehan family...
"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. "
With the way things are right now Snowcrash has good reason to want to be anonymous. But in a way he is serving his country. He sees a problem and he's complaining about it. Sure he close isn't sacrificing his life, sure it's snide and sarcastic, but it strikes the core of the matter.
What do armed personel do when their government does something wrong? Really wrong? They go off and do what they're told to do. Of course they can say no if something like My Lai or Abu Ghraib goes down but otherwise they're committed to doing their job. Of course many of them die doing their job but for what?
Obviously you don't see it this way, Mr. O'Rando, but at least half of America does not believe this is a justified or necessary war. In fact we think it's evil. Say what you want about Saddam; you're probably going to be right but many of us don't buy those same arguments when it comes from up top. The war is wasting our money, getting our people killed, and it makes America look bad. Sometimes you need words, not a gun, to defend your country and sometimes you have to stand up to your country to save it.
Snowcrash: Keep on keepin' on.
"Say what you want about Saddam; you're probably going to be right but many of us don't buy those same arguments when it comes from up top."
Just to cause a real shitstorm....has anyone actually added up all of the civilian deaths Bush is responsible for? and compared it to the number that Saddam is responsible for? I mean, Saddam killed hundreds of thosands more, but bush isn't all that squeaky clean. I fail to see why, in the most advanced civilization on earth, we kill ten's of thousands of innocent civilians.
Also, Ted Rall's latest Op/Ed makes an interesting point. You can find it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050803/cm_ucru/gotempathy;_ylt=AtlUwFTdYr3_8LFFbYdvSyI_vTYC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
but if that doesn't work....He makes the point that Americans have always cheered insurgents, like in the movie "Red Dawn." He then goes on to ask what if what happened to Iraq had happened to America? Rather intereseting idea, because we all know that the insurgents would fight to the end. Why should Iraqis be any different?
To Jerry Wall:
Thank you for sharing that. BUT she lost her son. She lost a person she carried inside her for 9 months. She lost someone she raised and cared for 18+ years. They "merely" lost someone who was a part of the family.
I think she has a bit more invested in her grief than they do...
Jerry, that little statement from the purported rest of the Sheehan family just conveniently fails to mention a SINGLE NAME. The simple fact that SOME ANONYMOUS PERSON wrote a "statement" doesn't make it a valid statement. There doesn't need to be a complete list (although people who are willing to openly disagree with the government by taking out full page ads do actually include their names), but it should include the name of at least the effin' spokesperson who delivered the statement.
Of course, these alleged family members don't really have a great deal of bearing on the matter. Who actually lost their son in Iraq? Um, I believe it was Cindy and her husband. As far as I'm concerned, any of Casey Sheehan's other relatives can go stuff "their" statement up their collective asses.
Just to cause a real shitstorm....has anyone actually added up all of the civilian deaths Bush is responsible for? and compared it to the number that Saddam is responsible for? I mean, Saddam killed hundreds of thosands more, but bush isn't all that squeaky clean. I fail to see why, in the most advanced civilization on earth, we kill ten's of thousands of innocent civilians.
Mollu Ivans made the foolish statement not toolong ago that Bush killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. To her considerable credit she apologized in her next column--and it was a real apology too, not the sort of mealy mouthed crap that most people try to get away with. Elevated herself quite a bit in my eyes.
He makes the point that Americans have always cheered insurgents, like in the movie "Red Dawn." He then goes on to ask what if what happened to Iraq had happened to America? Rather intereseting idea, because we all know that the insurgents would fight to the end. Why should Iraqis be any different?
As usual, Ted gets it wrong. A-the "insurgents" are largely foreign and B- they are mostly killing Iraqis.
Comparisons to the movie RED DAWN indicate either an unfamiliarity with the movie, Iraq, or both.
What's also mentioned is that according to Sheehan and others present, Bush gave little more than empty lip service, never mentioning names of the deceased.
Sheehan's said more than that. According to her (and I'll grant that her memories are undoubtedly shaded by grief and rage), Bush apparently didn't KNOW the name of her son, and kept calling her "Mom" even after she made it clear she felt that was disrespectful.
Perhaps teaching adolescents for years is affecting my phrasing, but my main response at this point is a simple, "You go, girl." Best wishes to her in the Crawford heat.
TWL
Susan Ager of the Detroit Free Press has a suggestion as to how Bush should handle the situation. She said he should just listen to her. Just him. No aides or media along for the ride.
Like bush would do ANYTHING without his handlers.
I have to admit, I think it's absurd when I read the contention that her son joined the army some years back but never thought he'd actually have to GO anywhere
Keep in mind the advertisements that said join the (military branch) & see the world. Or get job training. Or get college money. The marines are the only ones who sell duty & service"
as for the family letter, it hasn't been confirmed yet. note it's signed "Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins", but not with actual names.
As usual, Ted gets it wrong. A-the "insurgents" are largely foreign and B- they are mostly killing Iraqis.
(B) is certainly true, though you can make an easy argument that simple statistics would suggest that Iraqis would be the majority of the dead.
(A) -- evidence, please. It's looking more and more to me like there's a lot of sectarian fighting going on.
TWL
Bill-
No sane person is saying that he killed more people than Saddam. However, I would like to know what the current estimate is. I was simply saying that he is responsible for thousands of deaths, many of which are, unfortunately, unavoidable in a war. How many though, are gratuitious, caused by Bushes infantile love of fireworks that lead to the idea of "Shock and Awe?" You know, when I was learning history, we called that Blitzkrieg, and it was always intended to have one purpose: terrify the civilian population of the country you are about to invade into quick surrended.
"As usual, Ted gets it wrong."
True dat. In his own, special way, he is as nutty as Ann Coulter. We could really use a few less schizophrenic squirrels in the Op/Ed pages.
Wouldn't it be interesting if some of the other moms who lost their sons in Iraq decided to join that one-woman protest, so that it continued to grow in size...and grow...and grow...
Just to add something to the previous posts who point out that soldiers shouldn't be too surprised when they get sent off to fight, I wonder if we would use that same argument to the thousands of National Guardsmen who also got a lot more than they bargained for.
When I was a kid, my uncle was part of the National Guard reserves, in addition to holding down to other full time jobs. True, part of it was because he really needed the extra money to help pay the bills, but I know he also wanted to help serve his country at least in a small way. But looking back with a couple of decades' worth of hindsight, I can't help thinking if he was suddenly sent to the Middle East for several months, my aunt and five young cousins probably couldn't survive, either financially or emotionally. And the scary thing is, there are families all across America that are in that very situation right now. Apologies for wandering away from the main point of this thread, but it's just something I couldn't help thinking about when I read a few of the earlier posts.
there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity, but there was no guarantee it was going to last.
Presumably, PAD is referring to the Clinton years. Unfortunately, while Clinton may not have been as much of a warmonger as Bush, he did conduct bombing raids on Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and the former Yugoslavia, all without Security Council authorization. Not to mention the sanctions on Iraq which were responsible for the deaths of about half a million Iraqis.
On the number of civilians killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, (Re: James Carter's comment), the conservative estimate is about 24,000, with 37% of those killed directly by US troops (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php).
-the "insurgents" are largely foreign
Not according to the Iraqi Interior Minister:
http://www.mercurynews.com%2Fmld%2Fmercurynews%2Fnews%2Fspecial_packages%2Firaq%2F12350221.htm
(sorry - registration required)
Anyone taking bets on whether Bush will stop by, or even waive, to Mrs. Sheehan on his way to his Meeeleon dollar fundraiser this afternoon at the next ranch over (according to the radio this morning, the quickest route is right by Mrs. Sheehan). What looks worse for him? Driving by and waiving, or avoiding driving by by taking back roads and claiming it was a security issue? Of course, if all she wants to do is chat with him, he could stop for 5 minutes, hear her out, thank her for her dedication to her son's memory and sacrifice, and promise to do everything he can to bring our troops home as quickly as is safe for the Iraqis.
Because I think more and more people are starting to get fed up with the line of Grade A Bull that says taking the troops home now is bad for US safety. It recent reports that the insurgency really is 90% national Iraqis, then the Administration can't even say that by fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we're preventing them from planning and executing plans elsewhere. Because it seems like most of the people we're fighting in Iraq now are mostly Iraqis that want the US Invader out of their country.
http://www.thereporter.com/republished
Here's the link to the original article written after Mrs. Sheehan met with the President the first time.
"...sure, there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity..."
But the Reagan years were so long ago that hardly anyone recalls them now. (Surely you weren't referring to the administration that sent us into Kosovo?)
"What's known now that wasn't known June 2004 when Bush met her and other families of the dead? What's known now that wasn't known November 2004?"
Well, aside from the body count as of August 2005 with no end in sight: Nothing. There's nothing known now that wasn't known back then. Bush was a lying sack of crap back then, and he still is. The only difference is that by November, too many Americans were unwilling to face it, and thus elected him.
But as someone else on the board said earlier, Americans are now coming out of it, like drunks recovering from a bender and discovering evidence of their misdeeds, and are going, "Oh my God, what have we done." They're acknowledging now what was known then. And everything from his plummeting numbers to this grass-roots protest is evidence of that.
PAD
"But the Reagan years were so long ago that hardly anyone recalls them now. (Surely you weren't referring to the administration that sent us into Kosovo?)"
Well, I certainly wasn't referring to the Administration that engaged in voodoo economics and illegal arms deals...
PAD
....I don't know where to start with the comments being made on this board. Suffice to say, if you fight a war trying to aviod anyone getting killed, you will end up with getting everyone killed. President Bush did not kill Mrs. Sheehan's son. Being President is not an easy job with easy decisions, and it is the height of arrogance to play monday morning quaterback. Every president had had to make decsions that resulted in some soldiers being somewhere that ended up getting someone's son or daughter killed. I do not think any President has ever taken that job likely. You might as well call all of them murderers, especially Lincoln.This utter lack of respect for the office of the President is unconscionable. If you disagree with whomever the president is, fine, work to vote someone else in, but in a decent manner the way You would want to be treated. I already know that these words will fall on deaf ears because the hate spewing from the liberals on this board is palpable. It is ironic that the people who claim to be intellectually and morally superior to President Bush, would be the first to throw stones at him, without even a hesistation. That is what I find frightening about America's future.
What I'm waiting for -- with dread -- is the media being escorted away from the protestors, and then have word trickle out that the protestors have been 'relocated for their own safety and for Presidential security', and 'that there were a few who were detained by Secret Service for further questioning'.
It's not Tianamen Square with the tanks, but I'm waiting for the clampdown....
Randy, here's the difference: I respect the office, but in the case of this President, I have very little respect for him and his decisions and actions. He is either lacks the necessary competence to perform the duties of the Office, or he's an outright liar that manipulated the emotions of this country at it's lowest time in order to advance his own agenda of war and destruction. I've heard over and over that the decision to invade Iraq was based on the best information available. It was a crap line then that I didn't buy, and it's even worse now knowing the truth...that the best information said that Iraq lacked not only actual MWDs, but also the capacity to construct and deploy them. And that the best information was ignored by this President, and twisted to allow him to justify a grant of war power that has engaged us in the struggle we are in today.
You go ahead and find someone that's posted here saying we need to get out because it's wrong for troops to die in war. Meanwhile, consider this: Do you account a million deaths in Iraq during Saddam's regime to Saddam himself? Many people do, in fact, say that Saddam killed a million people. Or at least he's responsible for those deaths. And if you are one of those that hold that that idea, then indeed Bush did kill, or was responsible for, Mrs. Sheehan's death. Even if you don't, as the Commander in Chief, he IS resonsible for the orders given to those soldiers that die in service to their country.
You suggest that we need to respect the office. I'd say that it's you that lacks respect for the office, by wanting to give whoever is President a free pass. I say I can respect the office just fine, but when there's an idiot sitting in the chair, I have no qualms about saying so.
"Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. "
Now that's funny. There can easily be another set of Grandparents, aunts and Numerous cousins out there that do support her. MORE importantly, I wouldn't care if my Aunts and cousins supported me! She's not doing it for them. I don't even see how it's a political thing. Its a mother wanting to stop the unnecassary deaths of other sons and daughters. Sheesh...has it been said she want's so and so to run against Bush? Has it been said she said she wants Bush out of office? Has it been said she's a major donater to the Democratic party? I love how the "other side" tries to spin this into a "she has a political motive!" What? You think she's running for president?
This utter lack of respect for the office of the President is unconscionable.
As Capt. Sheridan on B5 (you know, that show that our host here wrote a couple of episodes of) was known to say, there is a difference between the office and the person currently occupying it.
I respect the former. I'll happily dance on the latter's grave.
Do have a nice day now.
TWL
no matter who is sitting in the White House, i feel that everyone should respect the office of President.
and i think it's about time someone told George W. Bush that.
This utter lack of respect for the office of the President is unconscionable.
As others have already said, there's a difference between respecting the office and the individual holding the office.
I afford the individual currently in the office the respect that I feel he's earned.
Speaking as a resident of both Texas and the US during his tenures in charge of both, I say that, from me, he's earned absolutely no respect.
Of course, given the level of respect that he demonstrates for anyone who disagrees with him, I'd imagine he'd say much the same about me.
Someone will need to call me at bedtime and remind me to lose sleep about that.
Snowcrash, you're putting forward a straw man - and some people here have tackled it.
I haven't seen anyone yet say that Mrs. Sheehan "doesn't have the right" to protest the war, or her son's death. I personally hold that the First Amendment gives every citizen not in uniform an absolute right to protest anything, at any time, in any reasonable locale (for instance, protesting on the Amtrak line during the commute would be stupid, and thus not covered). Some of us just hold it rather disingenous of Mrs. Sheehan to claim that when her son joined the US Army - "See the world! An army of one!" etc - he "didn't think he'd have to go anywhere." If her son thought that, I doubt he would have scored highly enough on a standardized IQ test to join the Army (yes, they do have minimum standards!).
As for Randy, I'm reminded of something Spider Robinson wrote once:
"You know, those roughnecks who stomped on my head while chanting 'America! Love it or leave it!' back in the sixties didn't have a bad slogan - it's just that they got to define 'love of America', which they defined as 'blind worship of America'. And they got to define 'America' as 'the guy in the White House'."
I remember a couple of years ago how much flak Bush took for never meeting with families, and never going to funerals. It was inappropriate - he needed to look them in the eyes - etc.
Well, he did start meeting families. She had her time with the President. She blew it. She didn't demand her "answers" then (which, by her own admission, she won't believe now if he does come out and answer).
Now she's asking for a second meeting to demand his "accountability moment". Sorry, but the accountability moment was last November. Bush passed.
This just shows me how desperate the media is for something that resembles a story.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does."
Clearly false. Mindless killers can also change the world.
I respect the former. I'll happily dance on the latter's grave.
I'm glad to see the "tolerance of the Left" in full view. I didn't like Clinton, but I still would have had a respectful meeting with him since he was the elected President, and I certainly will not celebrate his death.
George Bush is the legally elected President (spare me the jokes on 2000 - he won again). That deserves some measure of respect no matter your political affiliation.
"Now she's asking for a second meeting to demand his "accountability moment". Sorry, but the accountability moment was last November. Bush passed.
This just shows me how desperate the media is for something that resembles a story."
One, that meeting was shortly after her son's death. Maybe a little much to expect her to be doing more than grieve during her first "meeting," perhaps?
Two, unless I've missed something, Mrs. Sheehan decided to do this on her own. She's not being funded by, supported by, or encouraged by, any media. Her story is being reported, yes, but then again, having a mother of a soldier killed in Iraq decide to set up a peaceful, respectful vigil in an attempt to attaim some personal peace and closure with the man she sees as largely responsible for her son's death, especially when that man is the President, well, gosh, I can see why it'd be surprising that this would make the national news.
"George Bush is the legally elected President (spare me the jokes on 2000 - he won again). That deserves some measure of respect no matter your political affiliation."
Why? Because it shows that their guy sucks less than the alternatives? Come back to me when this country actually has a decent electoral process with a run-off between top vote-getters, so that people actually feel like their vote counts, and maybe then I'll have some "ok, you beat us" respect for whoever wins an election.
"I'm glad to see the "tolerance of the Left" in full view."
Hey, Cool! Tim, you never told us that you got elected spokesperson for the "left." Gratz, Tim.
I'll happily dance on the latter's grave.
Um....gack.
Anyway, the poster above who said that the media is not reporting that Ms Sheehan met with the president is quite incorrect. What is not being reported is that her account of the meeting has changed so dramatically, from "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis, .... I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." and ""That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," to her more current assessment of the meeting.
Ther has also been no press that I have seen outside of bloggers regarding some of her questionable statement about Israel being behind the war.
Now I suspect that if this were an adminstration that was perhaps more to the liking of the media, these issues may have been raised. Who can say? Maybe they just want a good story and things like that just muddle up the message.
A former student of mine signed up with the Marines the day after 9/11. We all supported him; I'm sure you know some "9/11" recruits yourselves.
He signed up to defend his country after a hideous attack. He thought he was going to Pakistan or Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden and his crew.
Instead he was shipped to Iraq in the initial invasion. Walked from Kuwait to Baghdad and looped south again. Came home for a visit. Went back again and was in Falujah. Home again now and we expect a visit today or tomorrow. Then he's being shipped out A THIRD TIME for Iraq.
Those who say "these kids should have known what they were signing up for" are evading the issue. The issue is not whether to fight or not.
J, and his generation signed up to fight terrorists, to put themselves between the enemy and our beloved homes. Instead they have been used in a sideshow that has only recruited more support for Bin Laden. Bush's invasion of Iraq has given aid and comfort to the enemy.
Ironically, I demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq, but now I cannot in good conscience call for an immediate withdrawal. In the words of the not-quite-courageous-enough-to-resign Colin Powell, If You Break It, You Own It. The initial invasion was a mistake that will cost us for years to come. It would be even more monstrous if, like drunken fratboys, we were to say, "gee, sorry we trashed your house, not fun anymore, gotta go now."
The war on terror IS being mismanaged, and lives ARE being wasted, and we are clumsily losing the battle for hearts and minds and bombs in the Middle East. Let's deal with that instead of complaining about the messenger's style.
Mark --
Well, he did start meeting families. She had her time with the President. She blew it.
You willing to walk up to her face and say that, Mark?
Based on her accounting of the meeting, the President showed ignorance and an utter lack of understanding of what she was going through. To dismiss that as "he met with her, she blew it, tough luck, this is a non-story" is to pretty much define over-the-top callousness.
(And to Bill -- yes, her account has changed. I'm inclined to trust the latter one, since she's had more time to process it. During a job interview this past April, I got asked one question which in hindsight was exceptionally odd and borderline offensive. I didn't think about it at the time -- it only struck me a week or two later as to how weird it was -- and that was under far less of an emotional burden than Cindy Sheehan had to deal with after her son's death.)
Exactly what "answers" she wants is not the issue. Her presence, and Bush's absence, speak all the answers we're likely to get about this whole misbegotten exercise in Pax Americana.
And as for my "dance on his grave" comment and your response of ...
I'm glad to see the "tolerance of the Left" in full view.
A healthy "bite me" is in order for this one, Mark. First, if you're willing to dismiss a grieving mother with "she blew it", then you don't have any friggin' moral high ground to criticize me. Second, I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself here, and I seem to recall you being incensed in the past when any conservative was asked to defend the statements of another. You want to accuse me of something, go ahead -- but aim it at me, not some amorphous boogeyman. I thought you were better than that.
For the record, that statement of mine was meant literally. An older friend of mine once swore he'd dance on Nixon's grave, and when he moved out to southern California he did exactly that. I have no intention of harming Mr. Bush -- but he's got a good 20+ years on me and I fully expect to outlive him, and I *will* enjoy that when the time comes.
I didn't like Clinton, but I still would have had a respectful meeting with him since he was the elected President, and I certainly will not celebrate his death.
Remind me again how the two situations are similar, please.
This isn't ideological. I didn't celebrate Reagan's death, and I won't celebrate that of Bush Sr. when it eventually happens. This has nothing to do with the so-called "tolerance of the Left" (nice to see that I'm not only a spokesman, but one monolithic enough to be capitalized) -- it has everything to do with one man and his utter unworthiness to hold any office he's held for as far back as I've followed his career.
And if you want to judge me based on that, I suspect you know precisely where that judgement can be placed for best use.
TWL
(backs away from Tim slowly, hands raised, making soothing "cooing" noises)
Although I clearly had a similar response to Mark.
"Being President is not an easy job with easy decisions, and it is the height of arrogance to play monday morning quaterback."
"Monday morning" my ass. I've been objecting the previous Tuesday through to the weekend. I, along with millions of Americans, have despised this war from the get-go. And as the body count increases, more and more people are starting to realize the insanity of Bush's war.
"Every president had had to make decsions that resulted in some soldiers being somewhere that ended up getting someone's son or daughter killed."
And every president has tried to make that the last resort...as opposed to Bush, who was hot to bomb Iraq before he even got into office. Furthermore, every president has had to answer hard questions about those decisions: Questions that Bush has tried to minimize in terms of receiving them, and answered badly when he couldn't avoid it.
"I do not think any President has ever taken that job likely."
Yes, it's likely Bush should never have taken this job either. But that was the Supreme Court's job: To take it for him.
"You might as well call all of them murderers, especially Lincoln."
That's just an idiotic comparison. Lincoln is to Bush what gold is to brie.
"This utter lack of respect for the office of the President is unconscionable."
Not the office. The man.
"If you disagree with whomever the president is, fine, work to vote someone else in, but in a decent manner the way You would want to be treated."
Right, yeah, because that's what the GOP is really into with its campaigns: Decent, respectful treatment of its opponents. Swiftboat veterans. Willie Horton ads. Oh yeah...decent.
"I already know that these words will fall on deaf ears because the hate spewing from the liberals on this board is palpable."
And here's yet another nutty notion: The person who runs this board is liberal. So people showing up to share those views makes sense. People show up to get in his face and be rude only makes sense to the people who are doing it, since going around to conservative bastions and screaming at them is something it would never even occur to me to do.
PAD
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/10/face.insurgency/
"One senior U.S. military official provided CNN with a nationality snapshot of fighters captured during Baghdad's anti-insurgency push, Operation Lightning. Of the 1,000 people captured, 50 were non-Iraqi. Most were from Sudan, Syria and Saudi Arabia."
elsewhere in the article they state that suicide bombers seem to be largely foreign.
(And to Bill -- yes, her account has changed. I'm inclined to trust the latter one, since she's had more time to process it. During a job interview this past April, I got asked one question which in hindsight was exceptionally odd and borderline offensive. I didn't think about it at the time -- it only struck me a week or two later as to how weird it was -- and that was under far less of an emotional burden than Cindy Sheehan had to deal with after her son's death.)
That's a perfectly valid opinion. I just wonder why the mainstream media types seem unwilling to even aknowledge the issue. I suspect they are afraid that many will come to an opposite and equally valid opinion.
I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of a president changing his policies over a one-person protest, or even a thousand person protest. Remember the episode of the TNG where Troi kept failing officer school because she wouldn't send Giordi go his death? It's something like that, the leader needs to be able to make rational decisions, even if it means some soldiers die.
I can appreciate the protest, but if the president thinks he's doing the right thing, then he shouldn't change his strategy.
"One senior U.S. military official provided CNN with a nationality snapshot of fighters captured during Baghdad's anti-insurgency push, Operation Lightning. Of the 1,000 people captured, 50 were non-Iraqi. Most were from Sudan, Syria and Saudi Arabia."
elsewhere in the article they state that suicide bombers seem to be largely foreign.
That makes sense...I can't see how any Iraqi thinks that they will gain much by mass killing other Iraqis.
Ryuukuro: Thanks for the defence, but just a couple of things. I'm not posting under my name more out of sheer force of habit than anything else. Also, I'm not an American. I'm from a nation so benighted, that we only have one Internet...
The other Jonathan: I'm not entirely certain what Straw Man you think I was putting forth. From my vantage, you and Mr O'Rando seemed to deliberately portray that a soldier having a different/ dissenting opinion to his governments policy as the same as that sodier disobeying orders stemming from that policy. Also, whether or not that soldier is qualified to hold any opinion is pretty irrelevant.
so, one one hand we have largely foreign suicide bombers coming into the country and killing Iraqis. these people were not there before we invaded.
on the other hand we have largely Iraqi insurgents who seem to resent the invasion that has turned their home into a warzone for foreign terrorists.
An addendum to my previous comment: I also don't see how or why a soldiers duty/ limitations should similarly limit his family's ability to hold and espress their opinions. If there is a reason, I'd like to know. I'd like it to be more concrete than "honouring his sacrifice" or somesuch vague sentiment, though.
For the record, that statement of mine was meant literally. An older friend of mine once swore he'd dance on Nixon's grave, and when he moved out to southern California he did exactly that. I have no intention of harming Mr. Bush -- but he's got a good 20+ years on me and I fully expect to outlive him, and I *will* enjoy that when the time comes.
Good luck with that. I suspect that in the fullness of time, when the American people finally realize what an utter fraud has been perpetrated upon them, the best W can hope for is (to quote one of my favorite movies) "to get ya buried in secrecy so yer grave don't get violated!"
An older friend of mine once swore he'd dance on Nixon's grave, and when he moved out to southern California he did exactly that.
Just wondering how he managed to get away with that. And did he have musical accompaniment? And did he just do a few box steps or did he actually boogie down?
i support what cindy sheehan is doing
standing up for her son and all of the sons and daughters of america who have died
but the only way bush will meet with her is if sheehan and a army of mothers like her
storm the gates of the ranch itself
that would draw such media attention bush wouldnt have a choice especially if one of the moms were injured by the secret service trying to get in
barring that he wont meet with her
because is if he does the meetings will never stop
i would LOVE to see those moms storm the ranch though
"I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of a president changing his policies over a one-person protest, or even a thousand person protest."
How bout over fifty percent of the nation? Virtually every poll shows his approval rating well below fifty percent. (And I only say virtually cause I don't have every poll at my fingertips.)
"I'll happily dance on the latter's grave."
Way to go Tim! I just hope they bury him near where I live so its an easy commute.
This whole situation reminds me of the old joke about the Marine recruit who is being run ragged by his drill sargent. At the end of a really nasty session, the sarge gets up in his face and sneers "I bet you can't wait for me to die so you can piss on my grave." And the soldier replies; "Sir, no sir! When I get out of the army, I am never gonna stand in line again!."
"Lincoln is to Bush what gold is to brie."
Aww, but...I LIKE brie. And Lincoln.
Now, if you all will excuse me, I am off to take dancing lessons.
George Bush is the legally elected President (spare me the jokes on 2000 - he won again). That deserves some measure of respect no matter your political affiliation.
"Some measure," again, being that which he's earned.
At which poing, I refer you to my earlier statement.
"Anyway, the poster above who said that the media is not reporting that Ms Sheehan met with the president is quite incorrect. What is not being reported is that her account of the meeting has changed so dramatically, from "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis, .... I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." and ""That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," to her more current assessment of the meeting."
Not quite true. I direct you to this link. Do your own detective work from there.
:)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
************************************************
I don't know why posters here and elsewhere seem shocked at the concept of people wondering why they are at war after signing up in the military.
I was in high school in the late 80's and had lots of military types visiting the school and fishing for people to sign up. A lot of my friends were into graphic arts, journalism and other stuff like that. They were often told that they could follow those paths in the Army/Navy/whatever and would be told, when the question of combat came up, that not everyone is sent off to fight.
Long time ago? Local case only? No. I have a number of younger friends with younger sibs who've been told the same thing as well as a few co-workers who are just out of school by no more then a year or two who had been fed the same line of bull.
why are some of our servicemen & women shocked to be facing combat? Because many of them were told by people who are really good at nonanswer word games something that sounded like being told that they would never see combat but wasn't.
*******************************************
Just to keep the records straight in debates.....
Great!! I used to be the only Jerry on the site. I go on vacation from the net for a while and you replace me with another one. OK. Just to keep things easy in arguments I'll change my posting name to Jerry C. from here on out.
Remind me again how the two situations are similar, please. This isn't ideological...it has everything to do with one man and his utter unworthiness to hold any office he's held for as far back as I've followed his career.
My point is simply that he is the President. That is worth some respect, and that DOES tell me something that you reject the judgement of the American people. You can sugar-coat it, call it non-partisan, whatever. Maybe that means little to you because you disagree with him so much, but it means a lot to me. I guess that makes me old-fashioned that I think that a person deserves some respect for holding the office. I didn't realize I was so alone in that sentiment. I really thought better if you, Tim.
As far as Ms. Sheehan goes, let's get practical for a moment. What do you really expect? How far backwards does the President go? Does he walk outside the ranch and listen to her tirade? How many more people would show up and camp outside the White House "until the President meets with me" if he did? He'd spend the rest of his Presidency doing it, not to mention dooming every president from here on in to the same fate. Sorry, but the last thing I want to see is any President give in to demands like this.
I am sorry for her loss, but she is being unrealistic, manipulative and is grand-standing for the media for something her son wanted to do. This is a partisan attack more than a principled stand, and to be seen as anything else is looking through rose-colored glasses.
What I'm waiting for -- with dread -- is the media being escorted away from the protestors, and then have word trickle out that the protestors have been 'relocated for their own safety and for Presidential security', and 'that there were a few who were detained by Secret Service for further questioning'.
Well, this what "Free Speech Zones" are for you know.
"I am sorry for her loss, but she is being unrealistic, manipulative and is grand-standing for the media for something her son wanted to do. This is a partisan attack more than a principled stand, and to be seen as anything else is looking through rose-colored glasses."
Wow, ok, so, I guess you talked with her son before he shipped out and asked him if he wanted to go to war? Or, maybe, right before or as he was dieing, you again checked with him to make sure that he really, really wanted to give his life in Iraq?
Or, maybe slightly more probable, you've been down to Mrs. Sheehan's stand, and chatted with her, and heard her utter the words "I'm pulling this grand-standing stunt for the media, to play upon my son's death for a partisan attack."
Maybe, just perhaps, she really is a grieving mother that's been so affected by the death of her beloved son that she's decided, rather than sit around and mope, she's actually going to DO something about it. Maybe, just maybe, there's a small chance that her actions will wake something in the American People (and just for the record, the American People did not elect Bush...the electoral college does that, based on the results of the election we had...you know...the one were close to 50% of registered voters DIDN'T vote) to get our government to stop sending our children and brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers overseas to die in a senseless conflict that at the end of the day does nothing to make Americans any safer than they were the day before, or the week before, or the year before.
But I guess that's all just liberal grandstanding. My mistake. You seem to be so much closer to the people involved, I'll just take your word for it.
Or, maybe not.
Not quite true. I direct you to this link. Do your own detective work from there.
:)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
??? I went there dreading that I would find out that everything I'd written that she had said was just something somebody made up. But I seem to be missing whatever David Brock is seeing. There's no "lie" there, unless you think that quoting her was supposed to make people think that she had supported the war and now she didn't, which I don't think was the point at all.
Anyway, for those who want the real unspinned deal, here's the actual original article: http://www.thereporter.com/republished/ci_2923921
Her version of Bush's attitude and how she felt seem to me to have undergone a major shift. Nothing wrong with that but it's disingenuous of Brock to pretend that it hasn't happened.
BTW, here's a transcript of a speech Ms Sheehan gave Monday:
I'm gonna tell them, "You get that evil maniac [the president] out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who's blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."
And I'm gonna say, "OK, listen here, George. #1, you quit, and I demand, every time you get out there and say you're going to continue the killing in Iraq to honor the fallen heroes by continuing the mission; you say, except Casey Sheehan.' "
"And you say except for all the members of Goldstar Families for Peace' cuz we think not one drop of blood should be spilled in our families' names. You quit doing that. You don't have my permission."
And I'm gonna say, "And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for." And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, bullshit.
You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.
Cuz, we're not freer. You're taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren't freer, they're much worse off than before you meddled in their country.
You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine
I think the best move that the Bush adminsistration could make with this case is to see to it that Ms. Sheehan is allowed as much TV time to fully espouse her views as is possible.
Maybe, just maybe, there's a small chance that her actions will wake something in the American People (and just for the record, the American People did not elect Bush...the electoral college does that, based on the results of the election we had...you know...the one were close to 50% of registered voters DIDN'T vote)
Oh, you mean the election that had the biggest turnout (both in real and percentage terms) in decades? This reminds me of the extreme Right saying "Clinton wasn't elected by a majority". It was BS then and now. In the words of Aaron Sorkin: Decisions are made by those who show up. I have little sympathy for those who actively choose to not be involved.
"I am sorry for her loss, but she is being unrealistic, manipulative and is grand-standing for the media for something her son wanted to do. This is a partisan attack more than a principled stand, and to be seen as anything else is looking through rose-colored glasses."
I love this. I've been watching all week conservative media hacks and others trashing her and using her son's desires and wants and beliefs as the source for their stand and viewpoint. Do any of them know the family? No. Have any of them ever spoken to the son who the claim to speak for while attacking his mother? No. Have any of them ever spoken to her? Damn few.
I don't agree with the way she's making her stand or the demands she has to end this. Where, as another poster has already poted at length, would caving in by the Prez end for him or future holders of the office? But to see and hear so many idiots work so hard to show that they are idots by speaking for a person they never knew and against both his mother and her knowledge of what her own son was like and believed almost makes me laugh out loud. And I love the ones who take it that extra step. I just love the Hannitys, Rushes and others who actually make statements about how her son would be so outraged or upset about her actions now.
Please. I don't mind honest debate but try and not be so stupid that you make me laugh until I puke.
"Oh, you mean the election that had the biggest turnout (both in real and percentage terms) in decades? This reminds me of the extreme Right saying "Clinton wasn't elected by a majority". It was BS then and now. In the words of Aaron Sorkin: Decisions are made by those who show up. I have little sympathy for those who actively choose to not be involved."
Which isn't the point...you said " you reject the judgement of the American people." Am I to take from your words that followed that that you consider the American people to be those that voted for Bush? A smudge over 50 million in a country of 278 million? I don't care that Bush won the election, and I don't care that he won the popular vote. He doesn't represent the American people, he represents a minority block that managed to squeeze by in an election.
And everytime I hear some Bush supporter say "I have little sympathy for those who actively choose to not be involved." I think, good: You go right on thinking that while you trash the good will America had to her name, and comethe next round of elections, we'll see what all those people think of you and your President.
ok. Sheehan's first point, is, i think, excellent. the President has said that we need to continue the killing to honor those that have already died.
it's much like John Kerry's line, "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?".
clearly, she's not as eloquent, but her point is good. there are grieving families who don't want more people killed in their name.
of course i don't expect the President to concede to this. it would be nice if he'd stop invoking the name of those already wounded, but i don't expect that.
asking what the noble cause her son died for is is of course rhetorical as well. you cannot expect a straight answer from the administration for that. as she pointed out in that original Reporter article, they've been changing their excuse for war since day one.
whether it's for oil, i can't say. i don't think it's that simple. of course, the region wouldn't be very important without oil, so it must factor in somehow.
as for getting the U.S. out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine. these are unrealistic pipe dreams, but i appreciate the sentiment.
i'm just waiting for someone to start calling her anti-semitic because she's criticized Israel.
Hmmm... When W dies, what dance should I do when I reach his grave? Moonwalk, the Robot, an impromptu breakdance routine?
Personally, I'm siding with the mother, and NOT just because I loathe the current President with a hatred reserved for Teletubbies and the people who cancelled Greg the Bunny.
From what I've read and heard, it seems that Bush's idea of comforting was his usual rhetoric, which, in my mind, couldn't comfort anyone unless it included a complimentary lobotomy.
I also disagree that soldiers surrender the right to question orders. If they feel an order is injudicious, they should have every right to confront their superior on it. If every soldier just followed orders and didn't use instinct and their brains, there'd probably be even more dead than there are now.
Anyone denegrating this woman's efforts out of hand isn't doing the situation justice. Only by examining all sides of the conflict can a logical conclusion be reached.
Of course, I'm someone who, during the election, wore a shirt that said "Burning Bush: A Biblical Experience". So I'm not unbiased.
Bill,
The mediamatters page from the link has links in it to the complete press story from last year. It also includes (with sources to check the full stories) quotes from Reporter staff writer Tom Hall & Reporter editor Diane Barney about the situation at the time of the report about the 2004 meeting.
What it shows is that the quotes from her first chat with Bush are true but pulled a bit out of context and spun a bit. The lie comes from saying that her position is a major shift from one year ago.
I've read the 2004 story. It doesn't read anything like the way the media dogs attacking her would say that it does. She was critical of Bush and the war in the 2004 piece.
*""We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place."*
Seems to me from that bit that she had questions then and was upset in 2004. She's just more upset now. Has her anger or hate for Bush grown? Yeah, I would tend to think that. But that's not the same as going from a Bush backer to hater in one year as many are attempting use these quotes to say. It just doesn't read as a 180 as much as it does a slow burn into a raging fire.
I would also tend to think that the death of her son and the time she has had to reflect on that may have made her more bitter toward the war and Bush then she was one year ago.
I will go with you 100% that her mouth may be the best weapon that Bush has to use against her in the long run. I would also go with anyone who says that she comes off as a tad unhinged. But can we be just a wee bit more honest about pointing out what a wingnut she may be?
i'm just waiting for someone to start calling her anti-semitic because she's criticized Israel.
Criticizing Israel is not anti-semietic. Believing that the current war exists because the USA is controlled by Jews who are concerned only for Israel's security...well, that may be a different matter.
It was the unstated threat. Iraq wasn't going to attack America or nuke America. But Iraq was a threat -- to Israel. That was the real threat and had been for fifteen years. But for the US government this was the threat that couldn't speak its name. Europe doesn't care much about that threat. And the US government didn't think they should lean too much on it, because going to war to protect Israel wouldn't be popular.
Supposed transcript of a Cindy Sheehan speech. I'm trying to track down its authenticity. It's not inconsistant with what she has said before but I don't want her to be lumped in with the far left Jew Haters unfairly.
But I'm sure one of the many reporters in Crawford will be happy to ask her to clarify her position. Anyone? Bueller?
Assuming she is alive. according to the Randi Rhodes Air America Forum:
SATURDAY NIGHT UPDATE FROM CINDY SHEEHAN
By Buddy Spell
Upbeat Defiance.com
LOUISIANA ACTIVIST NETWORK
August 6, 2005
Briefly, I just got off of the telephone with Cindy at 10:58 PM (CST).
She’s on the side of the road with six (6) other activists.
They expect others to arrive from the VFP convention in Dallas to spend the
night with them tonight.
Cindy says that the protesters will be killed if they stay the night.
“We’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that
the Secret Service killed us.”
She asks that we all light candles in solidarity and looks forward to more
company in the days ahead.
Apparently the Secret Service missed. Bastards! First they trip John Kerry while he was skiing, now this!
Seriously, wow. It's like a cult. If Limbaugh or Hannity really want to make this go away they should be out there handing out microphones.
ok, if she thinks the Secret Service is going to kill her, she's nuts.
i haven't heard her say anything to that effect in the several live interviews i've heard.
still, the points from her speech earlier are, i think, reasonable.
saying we're there because of our government being controlled by Jews is nuts.
on the other hand, a heavy pro-Israel anti-Palestine bias in our mainstream media has been influencing public opinion on middle-east policy for decades.
this is complicated by the fact that reasonable misgivings about Israeli policy have fed anti-semitism and that political attack dogs habitually conflate criticizing the government with being against the people.
Israel is a major aggravating factor to the whole middle east problem. unfortunately, i can see no easy solution.
I just realized what the situation in Iraq reminds me of: The situation in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. As in Iraq, America was looking for money, and, nominally, to liberate the Filipino people from the Spanish, who were a VERY oppressive regime. However, the situation deteriorated rapidly. The Fliipinos had already declared independence, so the American occupency galled them into The Philippine-American War. Under Emilio Aguinaldo, a large conflict started that required a constant occupying force of 126,000 american troops. Soon, torture and slaughter of Filipinos was common (Including the "water cure" which got a new lease on life at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.) as well as scorched earth campaigns that included the destruction of entire villages. At the end of it all, over 4,000 Americans had been killed, as opposed to 20,000 of the insurgents (they called em that back then too.) and anywhere from 250,000 to ONE MILLION civilians. At the higher end, that was nearly one eighth of the population. The resistance was so fierce that the Army iimplemented the Colt .45, useful for its ability to actually knock a charging opponent backwards.
Unless something changes I can see a very similar situation developing in Iraq over the next ten years.
Bill,
You're doing a lot of uncharacteristic cutting and running, or at least you were earlier in the thread. Allow me to point it out.
1) The point of the mediamatters article (which I was about to post when Jerry beat me to it) is that Cindy Sheehan's attitudes haven't done a huge shift so much as a shift in degree -- and perhaps even more importantly, that the quote you referenced about "the gift the president gave us" had nothing to do with HIS presence and everything to do with the presence of the other grieving families. In short, either you took the quote out of context or the source you used did, and came to a fairly different and IMO dishonest interpretation.
2) After you said that most of the insurgents were both foreign and primarily killing Iraqis, and other people posted evidence showing that your statement applied to the suicide bombers but NOT the overall insurgency, you went on without missing a beat as if it had backed your point.
You're generally very quick and very generous about praising people when they're willing to admit they're wrong. I am truly saddened that I'm not able to do the same here -- at least not yet.
TWL
James -- loved the joke. It added some much-needed levity. :-)
Sasha --
"An older friend of mine once swore he'd dance on Nixon's grave, and when he moved out to southern California he did exactly that."
Just wondering how he managed to get away with that. And did he have musical accompaniment? And did he just do a few box steps or did he actually boogie down?
I don't recall all the specifics, which were obviously secondhand anyway. Basically, he went to the Nixon library on some very slow summer weekday when crowds were expected to be minimal, and at some point when the actual gravesite area was either deserted or nearly so, he slipped past the ropes up to the grave and did a little jig for a few seconds.
He was then escorted off the premises, but was very calm about it. "No problem -- I did what I came to do."
(Roger would even know the person I'm talking about, since all three of us were on the same mailing list for a while. On the other hand, Roger seems to be exhibiting good sense and ignoring this thread entirely.)
TWL
(Yeah, I know, I'm late to the party...)
Del: "It's fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he's already met with her."
What, is there some law that a citizen of the United States only gets one meeting with the President? Or is it a simpler "one dead child for every five minutes" rule? Perhaps Del and the other anti-Sheehan smearers can suggest Mrs. Sheehan send off her other three kids to die for GWB -- maybe he'll be generous and give her a whole half-hour...
If there's one thing this whole episode shows, it's that the Bush apologists can say they "support the troops" and "respect the dead" and "hold traditional family values" -- but they don't mean it. Their unrestrained rush to destroy the mother of a dead serviceman merely because she disagrees with the President shows the true darkness in their hearts.
--R.J.
I don't care that Bush won the election, and I don't care that he won the popular vote. He doesn't represent the American people, he represents a minority block that managed to squeeze by in an election. And everytime I hear some Bush supporter say "I have little sympathy for those who actively choose to not be involved." I think, good: You go right on thinking that while you trash the good will America had to her name, and comethe next round of elections, we'll see what all those people think of you and your President.
So, Bush's win isn't the will of the people because only a fraction of them showed up, but the next election (where only a fraction will show up again), will be definitive proof of what the people think.
Mark --
My point is simply that he is the President. That is worth some respect, and that DOES tell me something that you reject the judgement of the American people.
Christ on a pogo stick, not this canard.
Sure, I "reject the judgement of the American people." I also think "American Idol" is a lousy show, for what it's worth, I've never found apple pie particularly tasty, and I think football is a highly overrated sport.
There, anyone else whose judgement I can "reject" while I'm at it?
I find Bush unfit to hold office. He nonetheless holds the office of president. That means he holds a certain amount of power that I'm obliged to recognize, and I do. That doesn't mean I'm honor-bound to give him respect: respect is earned, boyo, and he's done everything he can short of beheading my cat to make sure I know how little my profession, my education, my values, and my opinions are worth in his eyes.
If you think someone deserves respect simply for holding an office, that doesn't make you old-fashioned -- just naive.
As far as Ms. Sheehan goes, let's get practical for a moment. What do you really expect?
Well, let's see -- there's that word "respect" that you were so fond of.
If you seriously think that going out of his way to meet with one grieving mother is going to forever hobble the presidency, then I'm simply at a loss. Then again, I'm also at a loss at how easily so many people are willing to demonize absolutely anyone and everyone in an effort to make Saint Dubya's hands remain clean.
I am sorry for her loss
You'll have to forgive me if I have extreme difficulty believing that.
TWL
sickened
BTW, here's a transcript of a speech Ms Sheehan gave Monday:
[speech deleted for brevity]
I think the best move that the Bush adminsistration could make with this case is to see to it that Ms. Sheehan is allowed as much TV time to fully espouse her views as is possible.
I think she should get that time as well, but I don't see the same outcome. I think people would recognize, respect and agree with the emotions they heard in that speech, and with MOST of the actual statements made, though not all.
TWL
"So, Bush's win isn't the will of the people because only a fraction of them showed up, but the next election (where only a fraction will show up again), will be definitive proof of what the people think."
Of course Bush's win doesn't reflect the will of the people? How could it? Less than 25% of the "people" voted for him. The election represents exactly that...the will of less than 25% of the people. And less than 50% of the registered voters. Come nest election, if people decide to stay home again, the next president will likewise not reflect the will of the people. They just happened to win the election.
Well, aside from the body count as of August 2005 with no end in sight: Nothing. There's nothing known now that wasn't known back then. Bush was a lying sack of crap back then, and he still is. The only difference is that by November, too many Americans were unwilling to face it, and thus elected him.
But as someone else on the board said earlier, Americans are now coming out of it, like drunks recovering from a bender and discovering evidence of their misdeeds, and are going, "Oh my God, what have we done." They're acknowledging now what was known then. And everything from his plummeting numbers to this grass-roots protest is evidence of that.
PAD
So you are really angry at the voters?
Are you sure they were in denial or they too wanted to lash out at someone, anyone and Hussein was a convenient inconvenience?
You were in New York City in 2001, 2002, 2003 ... how many argued for bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East in general? How popular was the phrase, "nuke *forward* to the Stone Age" during those years?
If a liberal is a conservative who's just been arrested then a conservative is a liberal who's just be mugged. The US was "mugged" Tuesday, September 11, 2001, and while many retreat into a shell or put on a brave face, many seek holy or unholy retribution--from wherever, whatever or whomever they can obtain it ... deserved or not.
It's not like Bush acted solo or without support, popular support.
It's not like there was not much of an alternative offered in 2004--as far as Iraq goes.
-- Ken from Chicago
"If you seriously think that going out of his way to meet with one grieving mother is going to forever hobble the presidency, then I'm simply at a loss."
Ya know, Lincoln is legendary for taking time to meet grieving families, and helping them, even, in one story, commuting the sentence of a soldier sentanced to death when his sister came and pleaded with him. and he had a heck of a lot more dead soldiers on his hands.
Yet Shrub can't take five minutes (ok, five minutes AGAIN) to simply speak to a woman who has just lost the most precious thing anyone can ever have? Hell, thats not even being stupid, or misspeaking. Thats just being a bastard. Especially as he is ON VACATION so its not like he is dictating affairs of state.
It's not like there was not much of an alternative offered in 2004--as far as Iraq goes.
There was, until the media decided Dean was "too unstable" to be the Democratic nominee. As opposed to our model of stability, President Fratboy.
TWL
Oh, and as far as "Monday morning quarterbacking", isn't it the job of voters of any democracy, even a Democratic Republic, to do such Monday morning quarterbacking? After all, aren't politicians "public servants"? Aren't voters the "boss" of the elected?
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Of course the rub is when the electors want conflicting or contradictory items from the elected.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -- just so long I'm the dictator."
--George W. Bush, CNN, December 18, 2000
If you seriously think that going out of his way to meet with one grieving mother is going to forever hobble the presidency, then I'm simply at a loss. Then again, I'm also at a loss at how easily so many people are willing to demonize absolutely anyone and everyone in an effort to make Saint Dubya's hands remain clean.
That's just it - he's already been meeting grieving mothers, and has met with this one before. Why should he do so again - just because she camped out on the doorstep? Boy, if that's all it takes to get a meeting with the President, then the tents will crop up on Pennsylvania Avenue faster than Super Bowl tickets on eBay.
I am sorry for her loss
You'll have to forgive me if I have extreme difficulty believing that.
So, because I disagree with her motives and actions on this day, then I am incapable of empathy? While I've not lost loved ones due to combat, I have lost them long before their time in tragic circumstances. It's hard not to hold others responsible for it on a lot of days, believe me. I understand far better than you know.
No, not because you disagree with her motives and actions -- because of everything you've said across this thread that shows you'd rather trash her and everything she wants than have Bush show any sign of "weakness".
And I never said you're incapable of empathy, merely that I have trouble believing that you're displaying it in this instance.
TWL
I am not trashing "everything she wants" or anything else about the rest of her personal life. I have never attacked her, where some comes from, what she does, or tried to demonize her beyond the set of events she put on public display herself. Her intent is not to meet with the President, but to humiliate him.
Bottom line: I think what she wants, and how she's going about it, is unreasonable. You think differently.
heck, if she wants to humiliate the president, she should just give him a microphone and put him on TV for everyone to see and hear.
Bottom line: I think what she wants, and how she's going about it, is unreasonable. You think differently.
Agreed on that much. Let's leave it there.
TWL
This just in: Military officials had singled out Mohamed Atta in 1999 as possibly being involved in a terrorist cell, but the information was not allowed to be passed onto the FBI. Exactly, what files did Sandy Berger destroy? Of course, since he was a Clinton guy, no one on this board gives a damn that Sandy Berger stole top secret documents (hidden in his underwear, no less) and destroyed them. I bet most of the posters here think he should be applauded. Liberalism=Blind Rage.
I hope everyone takes note of the rhetoric that Bush et al are using now to explain why we have to stay in Iraq. And by the way, a lot of it is quite valid- I wish we'd never gone in, but Powell's Pottery Barn anaology is very much in effect right now.
The reason I bring this up is I want everybody to watch how this rhetoric takes a sudden, well, spin, at some point in 2006. Reason being that our troops have to be out before the midterm elections, otherwise the Republican Senators running for re-election will take a pasting. They will therefore put an enormous amount of pressure on their good friend George W. Bush to get our troops out so that Iraq can't be used as a campaign issue against them. So I'm betting summer of 2006: that's when Bush tells the American people that our work in Iraq is done and he can bring our boys home.
Randy, please cut out all the stupid assumptions, wouldja?
If it comes to light that Sandy Berger destroyed files relevant to the 9/11 investigation or to events leading up to it, then I (and, I think, most people here, liberal or not) would say he needs to be held accountable -- and no, that doesn't mean giving him the Medal of Freedom, just in case you were losing track.
Sheesh. Just because the current president runs a cult of personality, people seem to think every liberal slavers over everything Clintonian.
TWL
I have this image of Bush on a street corner, with a table, cards, and Chaney in the background, hussling America with a schtick of Three Card Monte, trying to convince John Q. Public that the WMD can really be found.
The point of the mediamatters article (which I was about to post when Jerry beat me to it) is that Cindy Sheehan's attitudes haven't done a huge shift so much as a shift in degree -- and perhaps even more importantly, that the quote you referenced about "the gift the president gave us" had nothing to do with HIS presence and everything to do with the presence of the other grieving families. In short, either you took the quote out of context or the source you used did, and came to a fairly different and IMO dishonest interpretation.
I have to disagree. Ms. Sheehan has been characterizing her previous meeting with Bush in the harshest possible light, as a transparently political affair with a distant, uninvolved president. Her earlier statements are the exact opposite and the bit about "the gift the president gave us" just reinforces how positive the meeting was--at least when she first was quoted about it.
Her opinion of what the President was thinking and how he acted has changed. Fine. But it's hardly illegitimate for people to point this out. Media Matters is spinning, which is what they do best, but which makes them IMHO about as reliable as FreeRepublic.com.
2) After you said that most of the insurgents were both foreign and primarily killing Iraqis, and other people posted evidence showing that your statement applied to the suicide bombers but NOT the overall insurgency, you went on without missing a beat as if it had backed your point.
You're generally very quick and very generous about praising people when they're willing to admit they're wrong. I am truly saddened that I'm not able to do the same here -- at least not yet.
Well I can safely say that I'm probably wrong about the overall insurgency. Blame it on a really piss poor memory of the MSNBC article that said that "Saudi Arabia and Syria are the major source of insurgents"(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/) Had I bothered to do more than skim it would have been clear that they were talking about major sources of foreignall insurgents. Mea Culpa. I wasn't really trying to weasle out of any admission but I suppose it looked that way.
Their unrestrained rush to destroy the mother of a dead serviceman merely because she disagrees with the President shows the true darkness in their hearts.
??? Unrestrained rush to destroy her? By quoting her? Or do you really think that the secret service will kill her?
Freedom of speech is a two way street. Ms. Sheehan has every right to say what she thinks, in whatever manner she wishes. The sacrifice that her son made, however, does not exempt her from having to take responsibility for her words and possibly even having to accept criticism for them. I would hope that people would show a certain amount of leeway for her, more than might be granted towrad someone else, given her situation but I sure hope that the right and left don't start playing a game of "let's start dragging the families of the dead into the shoutfests and anyone who dares to do any less than agree with them is a big meanie".
I find Bush unfit to hold office. He nonetheless holds the office of president. That means he holds a certain amount of power that I'm obliged to recognize, and I do. That doesn't mean I'm honor-bound to give him respect: respect is earned, boyo, and he's done everything he can short of beheading my cat to make sure I know how little my profession, my education, my values, and my opinions are worth in his eyes.
On this we agree--at least with the part about HAVING to respect a president, any president, just because they have the job. I recall when Clinton was president and handing out diplomas at some college, some students refused to shake his hand. That was certainly their right. Personally I would have shaken it, despite the low opinion I had of him, just for the fact that he was there to congratulate the students and shaking his hand was in no way an endorsement. But that's me.
There was, until the media decided Dean was "too unstable" to be the Democratic nominee.
No, that was the Democrat voters who did that. He ran a bad campaign where it counted--getting out the voters. His methods in Iowa will go down in history as some of the worst ever--the "scream" just finished off a candidacy that was already dead.
I think that Dean recognizes this as well, that he could never win. Look at how quickly he took himself out of the 2008 race.
Interesting study in contrasts: google "Randy Shugart" Clinton and compare the number of results to "Cindy Sheehan" Bush.
I draw no conclusions but it's interesting.
Posted by Del
It's fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he's already met with her. Why tell the whole story when half of it will do?
Well, most of the stories i've read DO mention it.
Some go into more detail than others, but, in case you missed the details, it was a meeting alng with a whole bunch of other families of dead soldiers/marines.etyc., and the President basically spouted the same slogans he always does and neither responded constructively to any questions nor actually really seemed to really connect to the idea of who they were or why they were there.
In short, either you took the quote out of context or the source you used did, and came to a fairly different and IMO dishonest interpretation.
I have to disagree. Ms. Sheehan has been characterizing her previous meeting with Bush in the harshest possible light, as a transparently political affair with a distant, uninvolved president. Her earlier statements are the exact opposite and the bit about "the gift the president gave us" just reinforces how positive the meeting was--at least when she first was quoted about it.
I'm going to disagree right back. She has said, and the reporters from the paper who originally quoted her have said, that "the gift the president gave us" is referring to togetherness with her family and the unexpected respite the whole trip was, NOT to the meeting itself.
Here's a link to the original paper, not to Media Matters:
http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_2925925
Now, Is she lying? Is the original reporter lying? Or did dear ol' Drudge decide to stretch the truth and let every single right-wing blogger have a simultaneous orgasm in the bargain?
I know which one I'm picking. Your mileage, of course, may vary, but it's frankly disappointing to see you working so hard to present this woman as insincere and insane. As you say elsewhere, it would be nice if both sides were to remain above that.
On this we agree--at least with the part about HAVING to respect a president, any president, just because they have the job. I recall when Clinton was president and handing out diplomas at some college, some students refused to shake his hand. That was certainly their right. Personally I would have shaken it, despite the low opinion I had of him, just for the fact that he was there to congratulate the students and shaking his hand was in no way an endorsement. But that's me.
I'd have shaken Reagan's, or Bush I's. Not this one.
[Asimov once shook the hand of Wernher von Braun, if my memory of his autobiography is accurate, and then felt very disquieted later that evening when he realized he'd shaken a hand that had itself shaken Hitler's.]
There was, until the media decided Dean was "too unstable" to be the Democratic nominee.
No, that was the Democrat voters who did that.
I'd go back and look at the timing if I were you, Bill.
Dean gives a speech where he discusses undoing a lot of media deregulation.
One day later, the media coverage of his campaign changes dramatically. Suddenly, instead of fiery he's borderline nuts; instead of passionate he's a loose cannon.
Dean didn't run the best campaign, sure -- but to deny any sort of media influence in helping to take him down (well before the infamous "scream") is to ignore reality.
As a point of courtesy, BTW, could I ask you in general to refer to "Democratic" voters and politicians rather than "Democrat voters"? Saying the latter gives me images of Bob Dole on a bender, and I really doubt that's how you're trying to be perceived. (Even if it is, I'd prefer that you use the label we tend to self-identify with.) Thanks.
I think that Dean recognizes this as well, that he could never win. Look at how quickly he took himself out of the 2008 race.
Sure, he could never win -- now. Even ignoring the media influence, the Democrats have been eating their primary losers for breakfast for decades, which I think is a big mistake.
TWL
Interesting study in contrasts: google "Randy Shugart" Clinton and compare the number of results to "Cindy Sheehan" Bush.
I hadn't heard of Shugart -- thanks for the information.
The latter gets more results, true -- possibly because Clinton actually let the dad talk to him (and tell him off pretty good, from what I read), thus rendering it a less enchanting media story.
No media conspiracy needed there -- just common sense.
TWL
Posted by Jonathan (the other one)
As for Randy, I'm reminded of something Spider Robinson wrote once:
"You know, those roughnecks who stomped on my head while chanting 'America! Love it or leave it!' back in the sixties didn't have a bad slogan - it's just that they got to define 'love of America', which they defined as 'blind worship of America'. And they got to define 'America' as 'the guy in the White House'."
I don't know if it was original with Harlan Ellison or not, but i always liked his response to That Slogan: America -- Change it or lose it."
Posted by: indestructibleman
on the other hand we have largely Iraqi insurgents who seem to resent the invasion that has turned their home into a warzone for foreign terrorists.
And for suicide bombers fighting the foreign terorists, too.
Posted by: Mark L
My point is simply that he is the President. That is worth some respect, and that DOES tell me something that you reject the judgement of the American people.
You mean the people of whom less that 50% think that he's doing a good job in general, and of whom 42% (and dropping) think that his war is a good thing?
it's frankly disappointing to see you working so hard to present this woman as insincere and insane. As you say elsewhere, it would be nice if both sides were to remain above that.
I'll have to challenge you on that. Please show me where I have presented her as insincere and insane. I have stated that her opinions of the meeting with the president (are you aware that there are now supposed to be pictures of her posing with Bush, even getting a kiss?) have changed. I think anyone who reads the first account and compares it to what she says now would agree. I have also said that this change of opinion was "Fine." I stated to one poster (you) who said she had simply had more time to process her thoughts that "That's a perfectly valid opinion." I stated "Her version of Bush's attitude and how she felt seem to me to have undergone a major shift. Nothing wrong with that but it's disingenuous of Brock to pretend that it hasn't happened."
I then quoted her.
I disagree with much of what she says but that in and of itself is not evidence of my believing her to be insincere and insane. I don't doubt for a moment that she believes them. So much for insincere. Her apparent views on the influence of Jews on foreign policy strike me as wrong but being wrong is not the same thing as insanity. I know that many have a compulsion to believe that anyone who dares to disagree with them or espouse a different opinion must be insincere and/or insane. I'm not one of them.
My statement about Bush wanting to give her the microphone reflects my opinion that she many of the opinions I have seen attributed to her are out of the mainstream and will win her no support. Again, that is not the same as being insincere or insane. Just so we're clear.
As a point of courtesy, BTW, could I ask you in general to refer to "Democratic" voters and politicians rather than "Democrat voters"? Saying the latter gives me images of Bob Dole on a bender, and I really doubt that's how you're trying to be perceived. (Even if it is, I'd prefer that you use the label we tend to self-identify with.) Thanks.
I'll try to remember that and if I forget it is not intentional--I like to refer to serious parties by the way they wish to be called--"pro-life" "pro-choice"--even if I personally don't agree with the total validity of the term. Um, does this mean that I'm supposed to use "Democratics" as a plural? "I walked by the headquarters of the Democratic Party and was chased down the street by 4 angry Democratics."
I hadn't heard of Shugart -- thanks for the information.
The latter gets more results, true -- possibly because Clinton actually let the dad talk to him (and tell him off pretty good, from what I read), thus rendering it a less enchanting media story.
No media conspiracy needed there -- just common sense.
Hmmm, perhaps...if a parent tells off Bush to his face do you suppose it will get the same same almost nonexistent level of reportage?
Who knows? Just like we'll never know if I'm right about this one_ if this were Clinton, Gore or Kerry in office, some of the same folks lionizing Ms. Sheehan would be castigating her as a tool of right wing partisans who were exploiting her tragedy for political gain. Some of the right wingers now critisizing her would be egging her on. And the number of news stories about it would be considerably less than what we are seeing. Although Ms Sheehan herslf thinks that "the mainstream news media have not paid enough attention to her cause" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001929.html
Interesting study in contrasts: google "Randy Shugart" Clinton and compare the number of results to "Cindy Sheehan" Bush.
I draw no conclusions but it's interesting.
It is interesting. The one conclusion I find myself drawing is how much the internet (and especially blogs) affects news coverage nowadays and vice versa.
Another curious bit. I was reading Bob Dornan's speech anouncing his candidacy for President (against Clinton in '96) and came across this passage:
I asked Randy Shugart's dad, Herb why he refused to shake Clinton's hand at the White House Medal Of Honor ceremony. Clinton told Mr. [Herb] Shugart he didn't even know the about the operation in which Randy was killed. . . that he didn't know Addid had been flown by a US Army aircraft to Addis Ababa. And Herb Shugart, the father of a Medal of Honor winner, told me, "Mr. President, you're not worthy to be Commander-in-Chief. I have nothing else to say to you." [applause] I know what is entailed with the Commander-in-Chiefs job. It's disgraceful Bill Clinton doesn't even have a clue.
I'll close on this. One of my adversaries in the press-and brother, do they love their adversarial role-said ';Congressman, your passion in the Well, is that too strong for the White House? Might you not get us involved in a conflict" I pointed out to him that warriors or those trained to be combat ready warriors do not endanger the precious lives of their brothers and sisters in uniform unless, if all other means are exhausted, we can look their parents, their brother and sisters, their widows, their children in the eyes and tell them why their young heroes was asked to risk their young lives. Clinton cannot do that because he doesn't understand the careful, moral use of the power entrusted in the presidency. If you want to see tragic American history unfold be fore your reading eyes in one heartbreaking chapter after another about evil civilian leadership, I suggest you read Robert Strange MacNamara's rotten book, as I'm doing. Never again, will a war criminal like MacNamara soil our nation's honor.
I wonder if Mr. Dornan holds the same opinion of the current occupier of the Oval Office. If he doesn't . . . well I don't think the English language has a word that accurately conveys the depth of sheer bald-faced hypocrisy that would require.
And for suicide bombers fighting the foreign terorists, too.
I don't get it--are you saying that the US soldiers are foreign terrorists? Don't want to accuse you of anything, just a clarification if I misunderstood.
Bill,
Maybe. Maybe not.
I posted the link to the media matters site rather then other links because, removing the editorial aspect of the posting, it was the best source for links to the original 2004 news story, the Reporter's new stories and statements about this subject and the article about this whole shebang from the writer and editor involved in this from the beginning. Reading and taking all of that into account does tend to lean, to me, towards her not making a drastic change in her personal views of Bush. It still reads to me as a slow burn that grew into a whole lotta rage.
But even if you take everything away except the original 2004 piece you can still see the early seeds of her stance now. Several points in the 2004 piece that are kind to Bush are quotes from her husband and her and not her alone. There's also a bit where she states that she wanted to ask Bush several questions like the ones she wants asked now (only slightly less venomously worded) but didn't because **she and her husband** decided not to do so. Throw in the fact the the "gift" line reported by so many to be about Bush wasn't and that she viewed meeting Bush as an almost secondary aspect about the trip and you have a printed story that really can be seen either way.
There have been any number of occasions where my wife and I have been in situations that, for better or for worse, one of us has talked the other into biting our tongues about a situation and playing nice because of the situation at hand. Thing is, like some of her printed comments from the 2004 piece, the odd statement comes out that betrays what we might actually be wanting to say more fully. Maybe it's my past experiences, including meeting with politicians and having to be somewhat political myself at times, but I just see a different meaning in some of the comments and attitudes from the first article then you do. I can see her having bit her tongue a bit then, with the odd slip, and then getting more and more ticked with Bush as time went by.
My thing with this is that I don't support her stand at all. I think she's acting like an overly grieving mother at best and a total loose screw at worse. I think she's the absolute wrong person to be the "human face" on the deaths in Iraq. And she's making almost anyone in the anti-Bush camp look like a loon along with her. But, damn, there's enough stupidity coming out of her mouth to bury her and people want to attack her on the incredibly weak notion that she has made a complete 180 on Bush and has somehow been subverted or mind controlled by the evil Libs and their minions in the vast and all powerful media empire. Just let her blather on and look like a nut and she'll be written off as a nut or a grief stricken mother who is no longer in her right mind about Bush or her sons death and soon forgotten.
Plus, I really don't see her sideshow act down in Texas changing one person's mind. Her act is so over the top and so out there that it will only serve, in the end, to strengthen Bush's supporters views of him as a noble war leader being attacked viscously by the evil Lib press while strengthening the Bush opponents' views of him as a careless, feelingless warmonger who hasn't the guts to face a critic or have an event that's not staged and managed down to the last word. It really is the most pointless sideshow in the Iraq/Bush good or bad saga to come along in quite some time now.
*************************************************************
Sandy Berger, the "wall" and the 9/11 commission and the latest conservative conspiracy theory.......
The idiot brigade is out in force. The story being put forward (mostly by Rush and Hannity and then picked up elsewhere) is that the wall was created under Clinton and stopped all communications between agencies that could have averted 9/11. Oh, and Berger got rid of the evidence so the Commission stocked with Clinton guys could could ignore it.
Don't make me laugh. The "wall" that is being talked about as stopping the information from being shared wouldn't have restricted all the information being discussed. It also wasn't put in place by the Clinton White House. It was merely continued under Clinton as it had been under Bush 1 and was again renewed in early 2001 by Ashcroft's Justice Department. This has been such a nut job week for these guys.
How serious should this theory be taken? Not very. Once you remove the lies and omissions from it you have very little left of it. Add in the fact the the loudest voices behind this theory are the same ones who were voicing the conservative conspiracy theory that the evil E.P.A. and its evil regulations caused the last space shuttle explosion and you can see that you've pretty much crossed into territory so fat out there that even Oliver Stone wouldn't touch it.
To listen to all of you liberals and conservatives argue I really believe this country is doomed. Corruption and stupidity run rampant everywhere. I can't believe a word that comes out of anyone's mouth because it's all self-serving BS. God it's just like OSU vs. Michigan. Everybody picks a side and then fight it out to the end no matter what. Somebody give me hope.
the Wallace and Gromit movie will absolutely work.
umm. i'm slightly inebriated (my roommate is having a party, i've had a few cheap beers, a rusty nail, and a Jameson's).
the former should read "the Wallace and Grommit movie will absolutely rock."
"You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine"
I'm only half-way through the thread, but in reading the transcript of Mrs. Sheehan's statement, one thing becomes clear: There is at least a hint (being kind) of anti-semitism here.
How the two scenarios she speaks of are connected escapes me.
Remember folks, when all else fails "Blame the Jews".
Joe,
I'm in the Big XII, so I'm pretty lukewarm on Big 10 schools all the way around. OSU-Michigan just doesn't do a lot for me. Does that give you hope?
:)
Now, OU-Texas on the other hand.....
There is at least a hint (being kind) of anti-semitism here.
That's not true. For one thing, criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic.
For another, there is an obvious comparison in the situations. (Just like the Irish/English troubles too) Any country which is occupying foreign territories will be attacked by the indiginous peoples. You want to stop the terrorism? Stop getting involved in other peoples countries. Get out, get the army out, and stay out.
That goes for America in Iraq (and other countries), Israel in Gaza/West Bank, and many other comparable situations.
You may disagree, fair enough, that's fine. But don't try to label her fair comment as somehow anti-semitic.
"To listen to all of you liberals and conservatives argue I really believe this country is doomed"
Arguing about politics isn't really a sign of impending doom. Places where it isn't allowed--now THERE'S a place you might want to avoid.
At any rate, go to the library and pick up some old issues of TIME or NEWSWEEK from the late 60s. Reading those we are currently in a comparatively tranquile Eden.
Jerry,
I agree that the story of her "conversion" has been overblown--my complaint has been on how the media simply glossed it over. I recall hearing plenty about how Kathleen Willey's story had changed. But as I said before, I think they had a story they wanted to tell and left out anything that didn't jibe with it.
I don't think Ms. Sheehan is the nut youthink she is (though apparently I've given that impression to Tim) but her views on many issues are definitely out of the mainstream.
"You may disagree, fair enough, that's fine. But don't try to label her fair comment as somehow anti-semitic."
I guess it sort of depends on your definition of Palestine. Some want the Israelis gone. Out of there. By any means necessary.
Coupled with he apparent statements that Jews are responsible for the war, one is certainly allowed to wonder. There are about 27,000 reporters down there, maybe someone could ask her.