Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Paul,

While I sympathize with Cindy, it is a tough thing to lose a loved one, especially a child, I have to wonder why she is reporting something different than she did in 2004 when Bush met with her then?

She is quoted as saying in 2004:

“‘I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,’ Cindy said after their meeting. ‘I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.’

“The meeting didn’t last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son’s sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

“The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

“For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

“‘That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,’ Cindy said.”

Now she is saying that the President ‘acted like it was a party’.

Striking difference between the two.

Btw, I have no problem with Cindy saying what she is saying now, nor with her being camped out making demands.

I just don’t see how I can be swayed by them, personally, especially when she is calling for Bush to send his two daughters to war. One of the more asinine things I’ve seen.

She should rather realize that her son, who re-enlisted before his death, was doing what he wanted to, not what his parents wanted him to do. A freedom that is welcome in the US. Expecting someone to force their children to do anything is highly irresponsible.

Further news:

Family members of Cindy Sheehan, the Vacaville woman camped outside President Bush’s ranch in Texas protesting the war in Iraq, reportedly have denounced her actions.

In an e-mail to a San Francisco radio station, Cherie Quartarolo, a sister-in-law and godmother of Sheehan’s son, who was killed in action in Iraq in 2004, said: “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 expense of her son’s good name and reputation.’

In the e-mail, Quartarolo says she is speaking on behalf of Casey Sheehan’s paternal grandparents, as well as “aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.’

Casey’s father, Patrick of Vacaville, was not mentioned. He has acknowledged that he and his wife are separated, but he has declined to comment on his wife’s high-profile protest in Crawford, Texas.

The family’s statement, however, added, “The Sheehan family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving.

“The rest of the Sheehan family supports the troops, our country and our president, silently, with prayer and respect.’

By Steve Holland
1 hour, 28 minutes ago

President George W. Bush on Thursday said he sympathized with a mother who lost a son in Iraq and who has been leading a protest vigil near his ranch but that he would not pull U.S. troops from Iraq prematurely.

“I grieve for every death,” Bush said as Cindy Sheehan remained camped out about five miles away. For six days she has been demanding Bush meet with her about her son, Casey Austin Sheehan, an Army specialist killed in combat in Baghdad in April 2004.

“It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one. I understand the anguish that some feel about the death that takes place,” Bush said.

But, he added, “Pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy.”

Bush also said he had made no final decision on increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to help improve security during October elections, but he noted pointedly that having more troops in place helped provide stability during the Iraq elections last January and during Afghanistan elections.

“It seemed to have helped create security, and I know the secretary of defense is analyzing that possibility,” Bush told reporters.

The United States has roughly 138,000 troops in Iraq. Pentagon officials have said the number could go up this fall to bolster security for the Iraqi elections.

He also sought to not raise Americans’ hopes about substantial troop reductions next year, although military officials have talked openly about the possibility.

CABINET MEETING

Bush answered questions at his Texas ranch after meeting with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and national security adviser Stephen Hadley.

While the security advisers were meeting, Sheehan, 48, was again calling for the session with Bush. Bush did meet with her in June 2004.

Sheehan has been leading what she and supporters hope will be a budding peace movement to demand U.S. troops leave Iraq. The White House sent Hadley and deputy White House chief of staff Joe Hagin to meet her last Sunday, but that was not enough for her to call off her vigil. The White House has said there are no plans for another meeting.

“All I want is for President Bush to take one hour out of his vacation and meet with me before another mother’s son dies in Iraq,” the Vacaville, California, resident said. “You don’t use our country’s precious sons and daughters unless it’s absolutely necessary to defend America.”

She added: “Mr. president, it is time to level with the American people: Why did we go to war? Why have so many died? And when are they coming home?”

With Americans increasingly questioning the U.S. involvement in Iraq, Bush tried to address Sheehan’s concerns and bolster U.S. support for the troops.

“Listen, I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan,” Bush said. “She feels strongly about her position. And she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America.”

He said he has thought “long and hard” about her demand to “get out of Iraq now” and strongly disagreed, saying a premature withdrawal would betray the Iraqis just as they are being trained to defend themselves and allow for a U.S. pullout.

“Oh, I know it’s hard for some Americans to see that progress, but we are making progress … Withdrawing before the mission is complete would send a signal to those who wonder about the United States’ commitment to spreading freedom,” he said

“pulling the troops out now would send a terrible signal to the enemy”

i.e.

“I know that, by pressing forward, the sons and daughters of strangers are going to die, and I feel like their deaths are worthwhile, because it makes it clear to the enemy that we will not be defeated.”

i.e.

“By ‘we will not be defeated’, I currently mean that Iraq will become less of a risk to the world, and a better place to live than when Saddam was ruling there.”

so then the full response is:
“It is necesarry for me to authorize the deaths of young American men and women so that I can prove to the terrorists that the American people are not frightened by violence, and will go after Iran and other countries, and destroy them, because we aren’t joking around like we did in Somalia, we’re here to stay, and I’m going to make sure these murderers understand that. We may get hurt, but they’re facing a real battle, and we’re taking it right to them. But let me make it clear that our real goal here is to make Iraq into a democracy, and although the terrorists probably have no problem with Iraq becoming a democracy, they definitely have a problem with us, so the fact of the matter is, we’re going to have to fight them there, even though the reason we are fighting them is rapidly getting more and more convoluted.”

“‘I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,’ Cindy said after their meeting. ‘I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.’

“The meeting didn’t last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son’s sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

Now she is saying that the President ‘acted like it was a party’.

Makes you wonder, did someone put her up to this?

So, if Cindy Sheehan has a “right” to see the President because her son was killed in Iraq, then every mother who’s son was killed in Vietnam
had a “right” to see LBJ. Funny, he never even bothered to try to meet with them.

All these quotes, without any link or citation, are almost useless. There is no easy way to check out the source.

Don’t get me wrong, I feel sorry for her that she lost her son. Just like I feel sorry for the other mothers who have lost children over there and in Afganastan.

But Cindy Sheehan still grieves for her son and Bush avoids talking to her. He does not care. He knows that his 2 daughters are not stupid enough to enlist in the Iraq war. He can rest easy. He has no need to worry. He can act peremptorily, like a king.

And those who have enlisted and gone to Iraq to do the duty they agreed to do to protect and defend the US are stupid? Quite a slap in the face of over 130,000 Americans doing their jobs and trying to make the world a little safer.

Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld were and are very wrong to have invaded Iraq, but don’t ever fault those men and women who are putting their lives on the line. They weren’t wrong and they aren’t stupid.

The presidents attitude(and by extension the Republican Party’s)is a classic example of the ostrich that buries its head in the sand or the dog that closes its eyes in the hope that if it cant see it cant be seen.Nobody except him and his cronies believes that the war in Iraq is serving us any good.
His apparent refusal to talk to this woman reminds me of Ted Koppel’s attempt not too long ago of trying to put a face to the fallen of the war.Or his administration’s refusal to show pictures of caskets coming back home from the battlefield.If you cant see it it isnt there,right?
Listening to rightwing talk radio (Larry Elder springs to mind and that shameless apologist Sean Vanity) you would get the definite impression that the mother was planted there by democrats for the sole purpose of ruining the president’s well earned vacation.White house spin has it that the president meets with grieving families from time to time.What they dont mention is that this meetings are carefully coordinated media and public relations exercises meant to paint the president in a more glowing light in the hope that it will gloss over the ever lenghthening shadow of discontent that is becoming a permanent part of his legacy.

nitpicker:

Google is a wonderful resource for the Internet Blogger.

Original story

Latest story

John Doe,

So, should I be able to demand an audience with the president being a disabled veteran? Or because my great uncle was killed in Korea? Or do I have to have lost a child to gain that right?

Oh, not just 1 meeting but 2. The first one she didn’t request, it was offered to her by the president hismelf.

The mass media’s incessant and biased reporting about the Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts have emboldened the terrorists, have prolonged the conflict and have caused hundreds of additional deaths of our troops.

Just think about it .. when the media and people like Cindy Sheehan attack the president and our countries policies they are only encouraging the terrorists to continue their attacks. The terrorists rejoice whenever their leftist media allies aid and abet them with their reporting .. so they continue to kill our soldiers whenever possible.

Do you know who killed your son Cindy Sheehan .. the media. Do you know how many more soldiers will be killed by your protests? - hundreds! The terrorists win when you play their game; you are playing right into their hands and to the detriment of our troops!

how does rhinehold make as part of the republican spin machine?

i’m not sure if anything he/she is saying is credible…

“Do you know who killed your son Cindy Sheehan .. the media. Do you know how many more soldiers will be killed by your protests? - hundreds! The terrorists win when you play their game; you are playing right into their hands and to the detriment of our troops!”

I can’t think of a better way of saying this.

Rhinehold,
You,I believe have closed your eyes to the bigger picture here,which is the presidents inabilty to look the American people in the eye and lay out a believable vision of hope for ultimate success.His refusal to acknowledge mistakes only fuels the notion that this whole thing was never thought out through and a woman like Cindy has a certain claim to more forthright honesty than most of us deserve.Due to the whitehouse’s paranoic dislike of anything that might derail their carefully crafted public relations campaign our soildiers have become statistics in the public mind.Cindy’s efforts will probably not make too much of a difference.But at the end of the day one only hopes that they will raise the awareness that those 130000 collective heroes out there have a human face and that something more than lipservice will be paid for their efforts by people like you and me typing away from behind the comforts of the freedom they fight for.

Sheehan’s entire mission is political and self-serving. Ask her son’s fellow soldiers whether he died in vain or for an unjust reason. Every soldier I know is proud of the service they perform and willingly accepts the risks. How dare she corrupt her son’s memory for the rest of her family and for American’s in general. I’m sorry for her loss. I have 2 sons and I would be devastated if anything happened to them, but I would not, could not use their deaths the way she is. She’s had her meeting with the president, she doesn’t need or deserve another. There are other parents who may want that contact. She needs to return to her home and if she is that politially motivated, then she should get involved, run for office, work on someone’s campaign, something. Anything but this posturing to the media.

From what I’ve read, the woman decided not to make such a fuss about her feelings because she didn’t feel it was the time or place to do so.

Also, comments to being happy or grateful relate with reunions with relatives, rather than any gratitude for the president’s policies.

This is how low the GOP has sunk, mudslinging at a mother who’s lost her son, second guessing the feelings of a woman whose situation most have absolutely no experience with.

I wonder how today’s GOP would rewrite the St. Crispin’s Day speech from Henry V. Those on the right who glorify this war, almost to a man, are people who’ve never actually had to fight one. They are content to glorify this war from behind a wall of prose, while the folks who had the real guts fight, die, and suffer separation from their loved ones.

So do any Republicans out there who support this war so unequivocally count their manhoods cheap that they’re not there, or, as they’ve shown quite well, are they content to recount war stories where the only machine gun chatter comes from a keyboard?

I know that sometimes a war only gets better after a tough period, but this tought period has lasted for over two years. It’s time we start a new direction and to the things, however painful that it will take to win this war. The GOP must commit itself to putting this country on a real war footing, or else do what Cindy Sheehan says, because anything else is a betrayal of soldiers who so far have been asked to win a war with the moral support and not the means of victory.

Let me make this unmistakeable for Republicans who like to twist Democrat’s words: We must win this fight, but we’re not going to win it with a strategy that has the fatal flaws of the president’s strategy. We’re only going to win this if we establish control over the battlefield, and that won’t happen as long as we’re cheap on manpower, and only set to get cheaper as time goes on.

Rhinehold,
Thanks for the links. Now I’m convenced she’s been put up to this.

“Do you know who killed your son Cindy Sheehan .. the media. Do you know how many more soldiers will be killed by your protests? - hundreds! The terrorists win when you play their game; you are playing right into their hands and to the detriment of our troops!”

HOW TRUE, it’s the same thing that happened in Vietnam. Only then we had a total idiot for a president (LBJ) as well.

Paul,
This is the way the Republican noise machine always reacts. If anyone says something that differs from the Republican Party line, the machine attacks, smears and destroys them.

Read the links that Rhinehold provided. It doesn’t sound like Bush is attacking her at all.
In fact he said that she has her right to her opions.
And he has a right NOT to see her again if he doesn’t want to.

Sorry guys, once again you use the tactic ‘This is just the republican spin machine’ on a guy who is neither republican or democrat.

I even stated that she has every right to protest and speak her mind, but I have every right not to be swayed by it because of her previous comments. Coupled with, of course, her family who ALSO think she is doing this for political gain, not parental concern.

So, spin by accusing spin, it’s been done to me before and it won’t be the last time, when those who are inable to debate on the facts can’t they attack and accuse of attacks.

Cindy Sheehan has taken up a permanent post near Bush’s Crawford ranch during George’s five-week “working” vacation (NYT, CNN). Showing true patriotism, Cindy is seeking a conversation with Bush — “I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son? He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is.”
Now, to be fair, Cindy isn’t exactly outside Bush’s ranch; her and a group of protesters were stopped about five miles from the ranch. In fact, the secret service have been trying to force them off the road by speeding their vehicles dangerously close to the protesters.

She was set off by Bush’s speech in Grapevine, TX on Wednesday where the man with only about one-third of the country’s support in Iraq stated that, “Our men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and in this war on terror have died in a noble cause, in a selfless cause.”
Cindy is exercising a great deal of patriotism in her display against Bush and his rhetoric — we’re sick of hearing how “sorry” Bush is when men and women die for his selfish cause.

Secondly, a lot has developed in the time period Bush first met with Casey’s mother.

Ask a thousand different suits in Washington why we’re in Iraq and you’ll get a thousand different answers. Ask how we plan to win the war, and you’ll get a blank stare.
no one believes that the Iraqi security forces will be up to the task of securing the country any time soon.
.
LIE #1: “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program … Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” — President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: “You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that’s just a lie.”
LIE #2: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: “They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,” he told the New Republic, anonymously. “They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly.”
LIE #3: “We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” — Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on “Meet the Press.”
FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
LIE #4: “[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” — CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening’s speech by President Bush.
FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early ’90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.
LIE #5: “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases … Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.” — President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq’s control and patrolled by Allied war planes.
LIE #6: “We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions
targeting the United States.” — President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: Said drones can’t fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq’s drone-building program wasn’t much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn’t a “manned aerial vehicle” just a scary way to say “plane”?
LIE #7: “We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they’re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.” — President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.
LIE #8: “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” — Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States’ own intelligence reports show that these stocks — if they existed — were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.
LIE #9: “We know where [Iraq’s WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.” — Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.
LIE #10: “Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited.” — President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts — including the State Department’s intelligence wing in a report released this week — have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
So, months after the war, we are once again where we started — with plenty of rhetoric and absolutely no proof of this “grave danger” for which O.J. Smith died. The Bush administration is now scrambling to place the blame for its lies on faulty intelligence, when in fact the intelligence was fine; it was their abuse of it that was “faulty.”
Rather than apologize for leading us to a preemptive war based on impossibly faulty or shamelessly distorted “intelligence” or offering his resignation, our sly madman in the White House is starting to sound more like that other O.J. Like the man who cheerfully played golf while promising to pursue “the real killers,” Bush is now vowing to search for “the true extent of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs, no matter how long it takes.”
On the terrible day of the 9/11 attacks, five hours after a hijacked plane slammed into
the Pentagon, retired Gen. Wesley Clark received a strange call from someone (he didn’t name names) representing the White House position: “I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, ‘You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,’” Clark told Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert. “I said, ‘But — I’m willing to say it, but what’s your evidence?’ And I never got any evidence.’”
And neither did we. (terrorists that crashed the WTC were from Egypt & Saudi Arabi)
Casey Sheehan
Age: 24 Vacaville, Calif. 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Tex. Killed when their units were attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire in Baghdad.

Those on the right who glorify this war, almost to a man, are people who’ve never actually had to fight one. They are content to glorify this war from behind a wall of prose, while the folks who had the real guts fight, die, and suffer separation from their loved ones.

I’ve never heard or read of anyone glorifying this war. And having been in one myself, anyone who glorifies war has never been in one or is a complete idiot.

At this point I’ll support the many who are taking the first steps to bring charges against Bush and impeach him.
It takes more than a man to walk down that road. It takes a Good Leader and President that we can totally respect for all the right reasons.

If a democratic party president had started this war under the same exact conditions and timing as Bush did he wouldnt have lasted 2 years into his first term.One thing I can say about GW he sure knows alot about damage control.I would even go as far as saying that his propaganda machine would probably have been the envy of the soviets and any toy soildier dictactor that uses fear to cultivate obedience.Bravo Karl Rove Communication Agency!

Stephen, I could not disagree with you more on winning in Iraq with more forces. That time came and went. Opportunity lost.

Projection of American troops in the Middle East CREATES terrorist recruiting numbers and escalates both the numbers of our enemies as well as their determination to target us there. In this regard, you sound like Bush. Making targets of our troops will somehow defeat terrorism is a completely erroneous position as the facts and data have shown over these last two years.

America needs to WAKE UP! We went ot war to get the bastard who tried to kill “Daddy” - personal revenge was the top reason for the war .

Bush used her in the 2004 propaganda photo op and has brushed her aside in 2005. Check out the one finger salutes given; in visual pre shoot test and to the press corp, this is his attitude towards any oppossing viewpoint - - FU!

We don’t have a choice at this point. If we let Iraq collapse, we have another Afghanistan on our hands. Our best alternative is to show our strength, take direct control, and then let things go when the insurgency has been successfully strangled. If we didn’t want to deal with this, we never should have gotten involved in the first place.

This time, though, it can’t be unilateral. It must be a united effort with the imprimatur of the UN and the cooperation of the neighbors in that area.

This is part of why I opposed Bush so bitterly, because I know he’s the last person who’s going to be able to do that. Or maybe he’s the best person possible, but getting him to the point and the opportunity where he could do this would be prohibitively difficult.

I never wanted to see America humiliated like this, our claims discredited, the battlefield out of the control of the world’s greatest army, thanks to lousy strategy. It just absolutely sucks. But giving up here will only make things worse. We have to undo the damage of this war, or God help us we will see another war, perhaps worse in our future. Additionally, we do not need to come out of this war with the kind of broken military we came out of Vietnam with. We also don’t need all the damn inferiority complexes that had us investing in all the expensive impractical weapons systems we could get our hands on. We shouldn’t be buying expensive, impractical weapons systems the way a depressed housewife buys shoes when she gets depressed.

Our policy should not be based on living down past wars, but fighting present ones well.

Rhinehold-
You take the Administration line at face value so often you might as well be a Bush Republican in that respect. You use the same rationales, repeat the same spin, believe the same lies and misdirections.

If you want to be respected as an independent, be independent. Don’t take Bush’s word for things. Find out for yourself, and stop assuming the rest of us liberals are simply trying to take down great men and leaders we’re envious of. That approach is poisoning the objectivity you pride yourself in, and it’s making you appear like a Republican in all but name.

Can anybody enlighten me on when and how we got distracted from the reasons given for this Iraq adventure thats gone horribly wrong?Can anybody tell me how it came to be that the reason we are now told we went to war is because Sadaam was a bad guy that had to be taken out?Did somebody say democracy in the mideast?I dont quite recall that reason being given when the war started.Does anybody remember the rumour that Iraqis would be waiting for us with roses and kisses?Oh and does anybody remember that the guy that ran for president was called a flipflop?No no, that guy didnt win.Does anybody remember how and why we got here in the first place?

Throughout the Civil War Abraham Lincoln met often with the families of those who gave “the last full measure of devotion” to their country. He did so because he felt deeply responsible for their loss and an obligation to face their grief squarely. He understood he had a duty to carry some small part of their loss upon his own shoulders.

Cindy Sheehan changed her mind?
Cindy Sheehan is unpatriotic?
Cindy Sheehan has been put up to this?

So what?

I want a President with the courage and compassion and sense of responsibility of Lincoln. I want a President who will listen to a mother who changed her mind. A mother who is unpatriotic. A mother who has been manipulated. Because the only thing that really matter is Cindy Sheehan is a mother who gave her son to this nation. That’s the only thing that matters.

John Doe-
Scroll down a little bit, take a look at my entry, Words Without Deeds Betray. Heck, take a look at many contributor’s entries on the blue column.

I believe the question of what we do now is not settled by the evils of the origins of this war. We have to recover, and be willing to take the bruises and the casualties that will require. We got no choice now. The Red column is right in saying that we can’t abandon the place. Where they went wrong was in starting the war whose blunders made our lingering presence necessary.

You take the Administration line at face value so often you might as well be a Bush Republican in that respect. You use the same rationales, repeat the same spin, believe the same lies and misdirections.

If you want to be respected as an independent, be independent. Don’t take Bush’s word for things. Find out for yourself, and stop assuming the rest of us liberals are simply trying to take down great men and leaders we’re envious of. That approach is poisoning the objectivity you pride yourself in, and it’s making you appear like a Republican in all but name.

Stephen, please, don’t you recall my bashing of Bush on several issues related to the Iraq, most notably his failure to articulate the reasons why and just latching on to the WMD arguement and most recently against his handling of the war after we took out Saddam. It’s been a disaster since that point.

If you DON’T recall, then please go back into the 3rd party archives and re-read them.

I was for the war for a variety of reasons, WMD was only an ancillary one for me. So yes, I am completely at odds with most in this column who, like Bush, simply latch on to the single issue and ‘slug it out’ without looking at the reality of the situation. If my views match those of the administration, it’s not because I read a ‘press release each morning with talking points’ but because we see some things similarly.

Can anybody enlighten me on when and how we got distracted from the reasons given for this Iraq adventure thats gone horribly wrong?Can anybody tell me how it came to be that the reason we are now told we went to war is because Sadaam was a bad guy that had to be taken out?Did somebody say democracy in the mideast?I dont quite recall that reason being given when the war started.Does anybody remember the rumour that Iraqis would be waiting for us with roses and kisses?Oh and does anybody remember that the guy that ran for president was called a flipflop?No no, that guy didnt win.Does anybody remember how and why we got here in the first place?

We got here because it was a step that needed to be taken for a variety of reasons. As I stated before, the Bush administration BLEW IT when they latched onto the WMD issue and didn’t articulate the entirety of the reasons that made this necessary.

We are here now because, as I pointed out last month, the administration is fighting this post war mess very badly. The troops should have been home by now and the longer we keep using the same tactics that aren’t working the longer we worse off we all will be.

But don’t fall into the trap of looking at this as only a WMD issue, there were a myriad of reasons that this was was necessary, many of them I detailed out last november in the 3rd party column.

While I have the utmost sympathy for her as a mother who has lost children of my own, I temper this with some different realities.

Casey not only enlisted he re-enlisted. He was aware he was going to go to Iraq if he re-enlisted. While I support her right to protest one we all have, I also do not feel making demands that the Bush twins must go or if this doesn’t happpen all of the troops must be pulled out is productive.

Had the President never met with her at all that would be one thing, but in her own words she and her husband decided:

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.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn’t stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

“We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us,” Pat said.

The President is probably not going to meet with her, that’s become obvious, so then the question is what is the real result here? It was already obvious from her statements she made as far as her demands she knew they were not going to be met, that she felt she would be arrested. Most realize the easiest way for her to gain more support is to be arrested. Some are comparing her to Rosa Morgan.

Many of us have had personal struggles, yet this isn’t really about Cindy wanting answers to a question she doesn’t accept the answer already given to her about. That is why I do not believe she has a “right” to any claim. No more than any protestor would have. How many of them does any President not just this one make it a practice to meet with?

It is quite appearant that political hindsight is always 20/20.

Anyone can make the right decisions if you know what’s going to happen.

Anyone can complain about what happened if they don’t like the way things turned out.

Anyone can sit and complain about anything.
(Only in America)

We didn’t elect just anyone as President or to our Congress. The choses are not easy, the potential fall out to these decisions are great. History shows many who’ve made tough choses, some good, some bad.

There will always be “ifs”…

Mr. Bush is a no-show for an ever greater proportion of Americans, not to mention Iraqis. Cindy Sheehan is no exception.

TO RHINEHOLD:

check your source before you post:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

SP

Impeach if you can…
There aren’t enough facts.
There probably won’t be.

But please keep trying, it sends the right message.

Cindy Sheehan writes today in a posting of the Huffington Post, “This is George Bush’s accountability moment. That’s why I’m here. The mainstream media aren’t holding him accountable. Neither is Congress. So I’m not leaving Crawford until he’s held accountable.”

Every person who believes in Ms. Sheehan, repeat that word: ACCOUNTABILITY.

That is what her protest is really about. It is a sad and sick commentary on our so-called democracy when the President is NEVER held accountable.

In a perfect world, this is how Bush would be held accountable:

(1) The MSM needs to stop pussyfooting around and ask him tough, pointed questions when they have the chance. When he resorts to his talking points, don’t accept the answer! Press him until he answers the questions DIRECTLY.

(2) Bush should have to appear before Congress like Tony Blair does in front of parliament. Ever heard the discourse in British politics? It is refreshingly frank and honest because the leaders are constantly being held directly accountable. They can’t get away with BS rhetoric. They have to admit their mistakes when they make them.

(3) There NEED to be metrics for success laid out for the Iraq war. In business, clear goals are laid out for revenues, profits, employee satisfaction, etc. And if the numbers aren’t up to snuff, the CEO is ousted. Likewise for the Iraq War, there need to be metrics for goals to be achieved and then we need to measure progress on things like troop levels, troop casualties, civilian casualties, monetary cost, infrastructure levels, etc. Then we need to issue a public report card on this progress. If it “compromises national security” to set goals in terms of troop levels, casualties, etc. then perhaps there could be a bi-partisan congressional oversight committee that evaluates the success by the determined metrics, then publicly issues the administration’s grades. For example:

Human Cost - C
Monetary Cost - D+
Mission Execution - F
Rebuilding Iraq - C-

Bottom line: at the end of the day, the public needs to know how Bush is doing without having to sift through the rhetorical BS.

So anyway, Cindy Sheehan wants Bush to be ACCOUNTABLE for his decisions as President. Someone is finally backing Bush into a corner. And despite the Right’s objections and their smears, they cannot deny the fact that Bush OWES her (and us all) a non-filtered answer to her question: What is the noble cause of this war?

To those on the right, I am about to pose a few questions. I hope someone (O’Rhinehold?) will have the balls to answer me DIRECTLY, without resorting to talking points, or slandering Cindy, or anything else. Just answer this question DIRECTLY.

Given the democratic values we expect (and claim to uphold) in this country, do you believe Bush is accountable enough in terms of what he has to answer to? Do you believe he is challenged enough publically? Why shouldn’t Bush have to answer to the mother of a fallen soldier? Is 20 minutes of his time (on vacation no less) really too much of a burden?

Personally, I think it’s pretty clear that he’s evasive only because he doesn’t have a good answer. If he did actually have a good answer, then he’d have no reason not to talk to her.

He has already answered her, and did again today. He sent two top staffers out to talk to her which is more than most people get. He addressed this specifically today. Yet that wasn’t good enough, nothing he says will be good enough so it’s futile.

The key to this is she doesn’t want to hear his answers so it wouldn’t matter if he gave her 20 minutes or 20 hours. There is nothing he could say to her that would make her support what is going on in Iraq.

I’m not even a republican or someone who supports Bush on the majority of what he does but even I can see the obvious here.

If you read her three demands on the gold star family site you’d know she started this with the intention of getting arrested so it would create more media attention. Or somehow expected Bush to somehow force the twins to enlist. If he refuses to meet with her he’s the bad guy. If he meets with her it’s not going to solve anything since he will not meet her other demands so it won’t end this either. It’s up to her to decide what she really wants that is possible from this, not him.

Soulpower,

I posted the link to the original article written in 2004, not the Drudge piece.

What ‘source’ didn’t I check first? What in my response was invalid?

Did she NOT say what the original article quoted her as saying?

I heard about the Drudge piece yesterday and then checked out what was originally said today before posting anything.

Maybe you should check what is being said before you accuse others of not checking their sources.

I am of the opinion that Rhinehold is a paid Republican spin doctor.

Cliff you are very uninformed.
Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General of the United States, has launched a campaign (not affiliated with impeach-bush-now.org) to impeach members of the Bush Administration.
The nonpartisan national Campaign to Impeach Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld (CIBCAR) is led by Professor Francis Boyle at the University of Illinois
John Dean, former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon, an early advocate of a Bush impeachment, believes that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to get the United States into a war with Iraq. Dean believes this is an impeachable crime.
Liberal author and activist William Rivers Pitt has been one of the most outspoken proponents of impeachment against President Bush.
Ralph Nader’s 2004 presidential campaign also promoted the cause of a Bush impeachment by raising public awareness of the numerous alleged crimes of the Bush Administration.
J. Bradford Delong has called for Bush’s impeachment, though perhaps rhetorically.
Richard Cohen, a Washington Post columnist, has accused Bush of impeachable offenses and called on the American electorate to figuratively “impeach” Bush by voting against him.
Numerous partisan left groups and writers for their websites, such as Democratic Underground, Daily Kos and Democrats.com, have called on Congress to impeach Bush.
Two Congressmen, John Conyers and Barney Frank have floated trial balloons on the possible impeachment of Karl Rove, and the opening of an independent investigation of the handling of the Valerie Plame affair which in their own words, could lead to impeachment. Citation from Newsmax. Rep. Conyers has authored the introduction to John Bonifaz’s book outlining a case for impeaching Bush. Congressman Frank advocates investigation, but feels that calls for impeachment are premature.
At the most recent state convention, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin cited the Downing Street Memo in calling for the Impeachment of both George Bush and Richard Cheney

A Republican candidate for the Vermont House of Representatives seat has said he will campaign for impeachment against George W. Bush
activist Bob Fertik, advocates impeachment based on evidence coming to light in what has become known as the Downing Street memo, involving the Bush administration’s military operations in Iraq
Among these organizations are Veterans for peace, which has called for the impeachment of George Bush.

Gold Star Families for Peace sent a bus to Crawford, TX emblazoned with the words “Impeachment Tour” in August of 2005. The group is seeking to hold the president accountable for his actions in 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Only the House of Representatives can impeach a president. Write to your Representative today, tomorrow, the next day, and urge others to do likewise.

Dear Representative:
Please register my strong support for the Campaigns to Impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld. I believe these men have overstepped their authorities, and have exceeded the powers granted their offices by the U.S. Constitution. Further, they have broken international treaties such as the Geneva Convention, and this increases the danger to our own troops in the field. These men may have committed War Crimes by ordering the carpet bombing of areas of Afghanistan. The “Bush Doctrine” of “preemptive” war is illegal under the Nuremberg Charter, and is the same thinking that the Nazis employed sixty years ago. Their assaults on civil liberties in the United States are unconstitutional, and they directly violate the guaranteed rights of American citizens. The Bush Administration’s decision to ignore Freedom of Information Act requests is clearly illegal under that Act. And finally, the Bush Administration’s obstruction of investigations into the events of September the 11th, 2001 and of investigations into the Osama bin Laden family prior to September the 11th, may warrant Obstruction of Justice charges.
Sincerely,
(Your Name Here)

I am of the opinion that Rhinehold is a paid Republican spin doctor.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

I think anything else I say on the point would stray from our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger rule here.

I hope you continue visiting the site. :)

CINDY SHEEHAN HAS A CLAIM. IT WOULD BE IN HIS BEST INTEREST TO LET THIS GRIEVING MOTHER SAY WHAT SHE NEEDS TO SAY.

IT WOULD BE IN HIS BEST INTEREST TO LET THIS GRIEVING MOTHER SAY WHAT SHE NEEDS TO SAY.

How is he stopping her?

I never thought Bush supporters could ever sink as low as what I read here tonight and see on TV.
To even think that this woman doesn’t have a right to speak out against this war, to want answers to some pretty important questions is amazing to me. First, I gather it hasn’t occurred to her detractors that maybe she was trying to make the first meeting seem positive. I gather you’ve all lost a son, and in that first few months (it was 9 weeks after his death), I wonder how much shock you’d be in.

Second, I want to know why this President, in that first meeting, didn’t bother to learn her son’s name was Casey, and why he couldn’t say it. He didn’t bother to know Cindy’s name either.

She lost her son. Enough said. She has a RIGHT to demand answers.

This President, who sent this woman’s son into harm’s way for a war that many KNEW had nothing to do with the War on Terror, could not even SAY his name to her. Her son, no matter how much you want to spin it, is dead because of this President. He is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops with him. That has never changed since the beginning of this country and it’s not any different now.

It is all “smoke and mirrors” with all this talk about what she “originally” said. Who cares? And not only that, she doesn’t deny that she has had time to reflect. It is what she is saying now, and what more than half of the American people want to know, including a heck of a lot of other parents of dead soldiers.

This President just doesn’t get it. And her detractors here don’t get it. It is the arrogance of a President who sent men and women to an unwise war without a plan, based on false assumptions, that outrages so many of us. People are dying and he OWES her and US an answer for his actions. What has he lost? Nothing. She lost the most precious thing a woman can have - a child. I know. I have two sons, and if they died for my country I sure as hell would expect the President — when meeting with me — to care what their names were.

And nobody that wants to discredit this woman “sympathize[s]” with her. If you did, you’d stop trying to discredit her. The real problem is that like the President of the United States, people are not allowed to disagree with you, to voice dissent. If find that ironic since we are a country that was borne from dissent.

I never thought Bush supporters could ever sink as low as what I read here tonight and see on TV. To even think that this woman doesn’t have a right to speak out against this war, to want answers to some pretty important questions is amazing to me.

Who is saying she doesn’t?

I have no problem with Cindy saying what she is saying now, nor with her being camped out making demands.

I just don’t see how I can be swayed by them, personally, especially when she is calling for Bush to send his two daughters to war. One of the more asinine things I’ve seen.

I’m not a republican, nor did I vote for Bush either time. I do however have the right to my opinion just as Cindy Sheehan does. I’ve lost three children so does that up my ante as far as having more power to demand attention or does the fact that they died before they were old enough to enlist make my loss somehow less important? I do sympathasize with her because I know how that loss feels. That does not require me to agree with her methods or her comments.

How you lose people is by assuming that everyone that does not feel this is the way is a Republican or a Bush supporter or is somehow discrediting her. It demonstrates there is no difference between either side. There is no honesty, no attempt to find a workable solution, just empty demands. It reeks of the “either you are with us or against us” type mentality that has caused more division than solutions.

She does have the right to dissent and she is doing so, however she is not guaranteed the right that the President has to meet with her.

I never thought Bush supporters could ever sink as low as what I read here tonight and see on TV.

Are you watching CNN, MSNBC or Fox (left to right repectively)? Big difference.

Second, I want to know why this President, in that first meeting, didn’t bother to learn her son’s name was Casey, and why he couldn’t say it. He didn’t bother to know Cindy’s name either.

Source please. Otherwise you’re propogating the spin you accuse the Right of doing.

Everyone, let’s please save each other the trouble of weeding out factual information from BS by providing sources to our claims. I’d much appreciate it.

No, Lisa, you miss the point and your argument holds no water. The President, by not meeting with her, disrespects every single parent who lost a child because of HIS actions. There is no “with us or against us” here — where do you find that? My outrage is two-fold — a President who doesn’t have an ounce of decency to know the dead soldier’s name when going to meet with the mother of said dead soldier; and the discrediting of this woman by supporters of the war comparing her statements that she made before, somehow attempting to kill her credibility. Her credibility is Casey. That’s all she needs.

Funny how you and Reinhold didn’t mention the fact that he didn’t know Casey’s name. I gather that doesn’t bother you.

Reinhold, there is nothing assinine about asking the man who sent her son to his death to ask if he would make the same sacrifice. Surely you are smart enough to understand the implication. And further, your attempt to discredit her is saying she doesn’t have the right to do this. My god, you know how this works. The current Cindy Sheehan “talking points” on TV and radio is nothing more than telling her she should leave.

BTW, you should understand as well that the Downing Street Memo came about after she saw him the first time. More information was given to us about this war and why we went there after she saw him the first time. There are questions that have not been sufficiently answered consistently. The story keeps changing.

I would also gather that what bothers the supporters of the war/Bush, is that Cindy’s vigil reeks of a political statement. And of course it does, and Bush and Company know it. Yelling “no taxation without representation” while throwing tea in Boston Harbor probably isn’t any different.

I can only hope we get the same results — a change. A President who finally realizes he is accountable not only to the people that voted for him, but for those that didn’t vote for him, and he is most accountable to the people who lost loved ones because of him.

The President, by not meeting with her, disrespects every single parent who lost a child… the story keeps changing.

Chris, please refer to previous posts before stating your point so emphatically. Bush already met with her.

Gandhi, you are correct. I’m sure you understand that I was talking about the current situation.

I also spent the last 20 or so minutes trying to track down the link referring to Bush not knowing Casey’s name. I humbly apologize for not providing a link. I’ve read so much in the last few days, I can’t find it. I will continue looking, though.

Chris I can’t comment on what I am not sure is true, as a parent, had the president not known my child’s name I would have probably have mentioned it in the first article written about my experience. If I already had reservations, which was expressed, had he not only not known my name but my son’s name I would have probably not been able to keep quiet about that, but then again that is me. I realize that is the claim being made now, but there have been parents who have met the president under the same circumstances that say he did know their names and their son or daughters name. So did it really happen? I can’t say.

Having never met the president I can’t comment as to how he behaves or if he was properly prepared by whitehouse staffers as to who he was going to meet.

I tend not to play the speculation game whenever possible. I’ve found it at times proves not to be true. As an example the other day when everything was crazy as many were reporting Cindy Sheehan had been threatened with arrest on Thursday, yet later it was proven to be a rumor, and it is now Friday and she was not arrested.

Same with Leonard Clark, it was claimed he was arrested then was not. I prefer to base my opinion on as much fact and as little speculation as possible. This stems from making mistakes in the past, so I try to be as accurate as possible.

However, if you’d like me to speculate I would say if it was indeed true that the President did not know her name or Casey’s than the Whitehouse staffer that did not inform him of who he was meeting should be disciplined for not doing his or her job.

Reinhold, there is nothing assinine about asking the man who sent her son to his death to ask if he would make the same sacrifice.

That’s not what she is doing. She is asking the President to send them. She didn’t send her son, her son chose to go. If the Bush girls decided they wanted to go I doubt that he would stop them.

So yes, demanding anyone to force their children to go to war is simply stupid.

And these ‘children’ are grown adults.

Further I would add to the Jenna/Barbara debate that if either or both of them wanted to volunteer it would be a security nightmare. They would be at an increased risk of kidnapping or death by virtue of who their father was. It would unnecessarily increase the risk to anyone that was assigned with them.

Simple logic to me makes that whole demand not a realistic one.

Rhinehold,

It’s now clear to me, that for those of you demanding an explanation for Sheehan’s previous positive comments on Bush, you need to believe revelations like the Downing Street Memo have not also changed the positions now of a majority of Americans against the war. And, for you to distort Sheehan’s son re-enlistment as his unequivocal support for Bush’s handling of the war, is to forget Paul Hackett’s pledge to fight for the SOB in the White House, regardless.

What those on the Right are defending, is Bush’s inability to simply and unscripted, explain to Sheehan why her son’s death was for a just cause.

“What those on the Right are defending, is Bush’s inability to simply and unscripted, explain to Sheehan why her son’s death was for a just cause.”

What I object to is the left using Mrs. Sheehan to further their hatered of President Bush.

Mrs. Sheehan had her visit with the President. A lot of people who lost loved ones in the war have never and will never get the chance to meet with the President even once, and she is demanding a second meeting.

I appreciate the sacrifice that her son made and I can relate to her loss, but I think she has been made a pawn for the far left cause.

Of course this is my opinion, but I lose more respect for her with every news report I hear.

The President has answered her questions, She didn’t like his answer.

Craig-
I am fully aware of the bipartisan support for the war. What I would argue is that bipartisan support was gained by a combination of political strong-arm tactics and dishonest use of intelligence. I think there is plenty of evidence for both charges.

As for the ILA, If you noticed, Clinton never waged a pre-emptive war in support of his policy. There’s a good reason: Clinton shared Bush’s belief, which was that Saddam was hiding something, but he did not share the certainty that Bush has in spite of a lack of evidence. That’s the difference.

We fought a pre-emptive war, a kind of war that is very tricky in terms of international law, and for good reason. Pre-emptive war means shoot first, prove you’re right after, and of course by that time the crap’s already started.

As I’ve said before, the WMDs and terrorist presence are part of the legal justification for both the authorization for force, and our plea to the UN. That Bush went forward despite thin evidence is the crux of my criticism. You go to war like this, you make your case damn tight, and you make damn sure you’re right. Anything else is reckless. Clinton blew up a factory near which a unique precursor of chemical weaponry was found. The notion that it was a baby formula or pharmaceutical factory is on that was put foward by the owner, who had links to terrorists.

What Tenet gave Bush was what the CIA could prove. What Bush gave America was filled with all the reports that his officials took directly from the CIA, intelligence that had been analyzed and found wanting. Bob Woodward recounts Colin Powell having pages torn out because of their uncorroborated nature, and throwing the report across the table and calling it shit. The CIA failed because it was not allowed to do its job without political interference. We have the good people in the CIA, we just don’t have them above them in the White House.

tomd-
Read what I write and tell me that I don’t have reason to dislike Bush. Listen to her, and ask yourself whether she doesn’t have a reason not to trust Bush’s reassurances. You may think us irrational, but we nonetheless have our reasons.

The question is why do you hate and fear us? Why do you have to pre-empt our negative view of Bush? You think we’re endangering our country? I think we’re standing for goodness and honesty in our government, and a victory in the war. We think the two are connected. When an administration can bubble themselves away with secrets and lies, the American people lose, not just in war, but in our democracy. The intentions might be good, but results are not.

We fought a pre-emptive war

No, it was a preventative war, like Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. As such, it was technically illegal under international law. A pre-emptive war is launched in response to an imminent threat. Even President Bush admits Iraq was not an imminent threat.

Just a quibble. Carry on.

Your quibble has been noted.

It only became preventative after it couldn’t be proved pre-emptive.

What I object to is the left using Mrs. Sheehan to further their hatered of President Bush.

The more the Right demagogues our pressing of accountability on Iraq as ‘Bush-hating’, it becomes a clear signal that our efforts are succeeding.

Cindy Sheehan has lost a son and her grief is both understood and shared by many. It appears however that her son was doing what HE wanted to do not what SHE wanted him to do. In fact, I believe that he reupped.

Her actions reek of politicizing the death of her son. IMO she is tainting the good reputation of her son and the other brave soldiers who proudly serve and in some instances have sacrificed their lives.

Through our discussion of the issue, we show our own inconsideration for what should be a private matter within the Sheehan family.

A Letter from Cindy’s own family members:

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks, Cherie
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford, Texas, issue: Sheehan family statement:

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 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.

OK…. so…. If someone on the ‘left’ or someone who disagrees with the President says what they feel, they are just being political and should be immediately suspect…? If they support Bush, then they are just being good Americans…?

And… whatever someone says immediately after loosing a loved one should hold and they should never able to change their mind or evolve they way they feel - because it’s dishonest and just being political…?

Do I have these arguments right?

Maybe you guys are just mad at Sheehan because she’s getting air time and you think it might be doing political damage to your side. Maybe you guys are just politicizing her grief to cast doubt on those who disagree with you….???

I think Sheehan is just a mother who feels she lost her son for the wrong reasons and she’s asking the President to answer to her. Maybe she’s spent time with other parents and they’ve come to a consensus that things are not as they should be. It’s their right to publicly ask the President whatever they want to ask him…

Of course he doesn’t have to answer her. He’s made it this far without answering people’s concerns or questions - but this one is making him look completely idiotic. He is right there, and he could’ve met with her for a few minutes at the beginning of this whole thing and it would’ve deflated her public cause. Bush left himself wide open to have this story used as political fodder, and I can’t really blame people for using it against him.

Bert,

Rhinehold, It’s now clear to me, that for those of you demanding an explanation for Sheehan’s previous positive comments on Bush, you need to believe revelations like the Downing Street Memo have not also changed the positions now of a majority of Americans against the war. And, for you to distort Sheehan’s son re-enlistment as his unequivocal support for Bush’s handling of the war, is to forget Paul Hackett’s pledge to fight for the SOB in the White House, regardless.

Those of you?

First of all, I have not demanded anything from Cindy. I have stated more than once that she has every right to do what she is doing and I support her in any protest she wants to have. All I have said is that because of the past statements I am not swayed by it. That is all. Very simple.

Second of all, I have not stated at any time that her son’s re-enlistment was a sign of his support for the war, I have clearly stated more than once that it was a sign that he was doing what HE chose to do. He knew the risks and he took them for whatever reasons he had. She did not force him to go or ‘send him’ so demanding the same of Bush is asinine.

Now, do you want to debate what I’ve stated above or continue to Straw Man what I’ve said and argue that?

The family members who signed that should be ashamed of themselves. How do you accuse that boys own mother of exploiting his death for partisan gain, and sleep at night? That’s cold. You don’t betray family. You don’t turn against your own because you disagree.

With regard to my posts earlier about the first meeting with Bush, I’m still unable to find a link to the exact words from Cindy about Casey being referred to as a “loved one” only… but I know I read it from Cindy’s own words. You can read her diaries at kos here:

http://cindysheehan.dailykos.com/

Somewhere in the many diaries about Cindy, I read this information. It was about two days ago, and it bothered me a great deal.

Cindy did say this in one of the entries: “First of all, I did meet with George, and that is not a secret. I have written about it and been interviewed about it. I will stand by my recounting of the meeting. His behavior was rude and inappropriate. My behavior in June of 2004 and is irrelevant to what is going on in 2005. I was in deep shock and deep grief. The grief is still there, but the shock has worn off and the deep anger has set in. And to remind everybody, a few things have happened since June of 2004: The 9/11 commission report; the Senate Intelligence report; the Duelfer WMD report; and most damaging and criminal: the Downing Street Memos. The VERY LAST THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS IS: Why do the right wing media so assiduously scrutinize the words of a grief filled mother and ignore the words of a lying president?”

Maureen Dowd’s NYT piece alludes to it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/opinion/10dowd.html

I can appreciate any skepticism about what I said, and I wish I could have found the exact link. Feel free to not believe it, I understand.

Lisa, I wonder why you make the possible “arrest” of Cindy into something that reeks of dishonesty. Spin much? The truth is, she was threatened with arrest. It is there in her diaries. They chose not to arrest her simply because they were smart enough to realize how bad that would look.

And I ask you what Cindy asks you — why do you feel the necessity to try to spin Cindy’s actions as something dishonest when you seem to not question our own elected (well….maybe) President of the United States? Why do you hold her accountable and not him?

And Steve Smith — she is not tainting his memory. Casey joined before Iraq. He wanted to go to Afganistan because he believed in the cause there. He wasn’t happy to go to Iraq but he went. And died. He died. She wants to know why, she wants answers to questions that Bush doesn’t give. Yes, she is politicizing the death of her son. So what? Did Rosa Parks politicize segregation by refusing to sit at the back of the bus?

Damn right she did.

With regard to the in-laws letter. Cindy’s diary will tell you her response to that. And personally, the very fact that these people felt a need to come out against her tell me a lot about them. There is no disrespect for the memory of Casey here because of someone wanting answers to why and having others join her in a peaceful protest against a war that was unwise and can be argued as making the war on terror worse. How is that disrespecting his memory?

Supporting the war is one thing; demonizing the actions of a grieving mother is another. And you are also engaging in politicization of her actions by questioning her motives, don’t you?

Reinhold, you have got to be kidding me.

Second of all, I have not stated at any time that her son’s re-enlistment was a sign of his support for the war, I have clearly stated more than once that it was a sign that he was doing what HE chose to do. He knew the risks and he took them for whatever reasons he had. She did not force him to go or ‘send him’ so demanding the same of Bush is asinine.

Nobody FORCED him to go? He had an obligation! You think it’s easy for someone like him to say “no.” You think he went skipping to Iraq all happy about going? I think not. What world do you live in? And not only that, you don’t seem to understand that lies were told about this war, we were deceived, Casey was deceived and he paid for it. How in the heck can you turn it around onto Casey? It’s like saying “sucker, you chose to go, you’re dead now, don’t make us feel guilty about it, and especially shut your mother up about it.”

Of course, it should not be taken literally that the twins should go. The underlying implication is there — Bush is not willing to put himself into the same shoes as Cindy. He doesn’t HAVE to. The fact that he is responsible for Casey’s death seems lost on you.

Why won’t anyone on the Right respond to my DIRECT questions posed earlier?

Typical I guess… If you don’t answer the direct questions, you never have to be held accountable.

Not that I am really on the right so maybe I am not the one you are asking for answers or maybe your questions are not answered because you are so partisan that it appears you do not want answers but merely talking points.

Given the democratic values we expect (and claim to uphold) in this country, do you believe Bush is accountable enough in terms of what he has to answer to? - No. But I do not believe that any president is held accountable to the degree that they should be (or any politician for that matter). It is a fact of life that politicians avoid answering for those things that they believe will hurt thier image or office.

Do you believe he is challenged enough publically? - Same answer as above.

Why shouldn’t Bush have to answer to the mother of a fallen soldier? Is 20 minutes of his time (on vacation no less) really too much of a burden? - To expect a president to meet personally with citizens who have a complaint, question, or other items does not seem to be a productive use of time. To me it is a silly expectation that a person can demand that the president meet them in person. I would much rather have a president devote his time to more important issues of state (not that Bush does a very good job at that either but that is another issue).

While I do not know why her son enlisted I do know that many people enlisted because we were attacked. Those who enlisted for that reason wanted to get OBL because he was responsible for the bloodshed on 9-11. They are noble, all soldiers are and they deserve our respect. The same though cannot be said of Bush and Co. They had this agenda planned for years, 9-11 gave them an excuse. They lied, they repeated the lies so often some still believe their initial lies now long disproved. How many reasons were given for the war in Iraq?
Give the poor woman a break, she lost her son to a cause she may once have believed in based on a lie. The realization that it was based on a lie or rather a myriad of lies took some time to come. If her son died hunting down OBL I don’t think she would question the cause nor would she accuse the president of killing her son. The fact that her son died in an operation that has clearly been a boon for terrorist recruitment means he may have died aiding the very cause he enlisted to fight. That betrayal by the administration is why she needs answers.

It’s like saying “sucker, you chose to go, you’re dead now, don’t make us feel guilty about it, and especially shut your mother up about it.”

Chris, man, get a grip.

I have said REPEATEDLY that I support Cindy to protest and say whatever she likes. I have not ONCE said that she needed to ‘shut up’.

And yes, he enlisted and then RE-enlisted just before going to Iraq. He knew what was going on, he made his own decisions, and I support him in that. That he died is tragic and having lost the full use of MY knees, I understand fully what goes through anyone’s mind when they sign up for the military.

So seriously, you need to read what is being said, not what you THINK is being said.

Mike P.,

I appreciate the honest responses and I agree with some of your points, or at least see where you’re coming from.

Your answer to the first question leads to one of my major points. You agree that Bush is not accountable enough. While many politicians are not accountable enough, I don’t think it’s a sufficient excuse for Bush not being so. Aside from the fact that Bush’s evasion of responsibility seems particularly egregious, it is simply dangerous for democracy to never have to answer to the public while you have the propaganda machine cover your tracks.

Is there such a thing as too much accountability? I don’t think so. I think that’s what leadership is. All Cindy Sheehan is doing is using her position as the mother of a fallen soldier to ask Bush to be more accountable than he has been thus far. Anyone who takes major issue with her asking the question either does not value democracy or is simply in denial about the answer to her question.

As for Bush not taking the time to answer her question, well you at least brought up the most reasonable retort. It’s true that it theoretically sets a bad precedent on demands for his time. But I believe her fight is unique and the attention in the press demands some sort of response.

I’m not going to deny that this is a political issue in many regards, and Cindy has made it such. But sometimes it takes politicizing injustices to effect change. She is just taking a stand and has every right to do so. If the public latches on to her crusade, it’s only because it resonates on some level. The ball is in Bush’s court and he can either respond or not… and whether he realizes it or not, what he chooses to do will go a long way towards telling the public what the answer to Cindy’s question is. Silence = no noble cause.

But Cindy Sheehan still grieves for her son and Bush avoids talking to her. He does not care. He knows that his 2 daughters are not stupid enough to enlist in the Iraq war. He can rest easy. He has no need to worry. He can act peremptorily, like a king.

First, a person enlists into the military—not to the war in Iraq—that is a mission the military may send you on.

Second, there are hundreds of thousands of military members who put their lives on the line so that you have the freedom to make these ill-informed statements. Not one of them is stupid—they have all volunteered for the military, with the full knowledge that they could be sent there. I take personal offense at calling my prior service and my brother’s and brother-in-law’s service stupid or calling us stupid.

Third, Cindy Sheehan has a valid case and petition for the government, but nothing George Bush or anyone else in the world can do is bring her son back. Bush has met with the woman on a prior occaision—he is under no legal obligation to meet with her. On a practical side, if he does meet with her, is he obligated to meet with the next aggreived mother? You could argue yes, but if that is all he does, who will be president?

Finally, as tragic as it is to lose a child, in war people die and unfortuneately those who die are often young—war is a young person’s profession. Grieving parents are also a fact of war. If you don’t like the war, fine, that is your right, but don’t make a martyr of Cindy Sheehan, even if she asks for it.

Seems to me that POLITICS is the act of trying to change or impact the government and society-at-large.

Seems to be a huge difference between being POLITICAL and being PARTISAN. Maybe I’m missing something, but all this noise about ‘just being political’ is ill-founded. POLITICS seems to be the responsibility of every American citizen.

Now being PARTISAN - following a party to the disregard of sensibility - should be limited or avoided.

Sheehan - to me - is being political in that she is trying to change the outcome future events… who can knock her for doing that?

Saying that politicians in general are not accountable enough does not excuse Bush or any others. It is merely a fact of life when it comes to any political office. I just do not understand the philosophy that “Bush is not accountable” when the fact is that you could insert any president’s name in place of “Bush” and say the same thing. You can argue that Bush is less accountable to some degree but now you are dealing with opinions and perceptions of accountability within politicians. I am not going to touch your comment about “propoganda machine” because I disagree with that and evenmore so with the availability of alternate media sources now.

I love the way you say that anyone who has an issue with Sheehan demanding that Bush meet with her in person does not value democracy. Talk about a general partisan comment meant to attack those with a different viewpoint. I guess the concept that intelligent people can have a different viewpoint is not part of your reality. I do not see that Sheehan is asking Bush to be more accountable but that she is using her son’s death to attack the policies of the administration. I have no problem with that since everyone has the right to protest and demand but but I see it more as a political protest than a personal one. I do not see her request as unique or that it demands a response.

Bush has not been silent on her cause. But the answers he gives are dismissed because they are not what she wants to hear.

Tony,

Not knocking her. Just using the information at hand to determine whether or not to be swayed by it.

That is my right, isn’t it?

As was posted in her own ‘diary’ on DailyKOS (hint number 1) she says that after all of the things came out she became more upset. This explains why she is changing her view of what happened in 2004. At the time she said that Bush was caring, etc. Now, having looked back on it and with the ‘revalations’ she notes, she is seeing the encounter differently. So her view that Bush was a jerk in the first meeting now are suspect, IMO. That’s fine we all use information and change our minds over time.

But, that doesn’t mean I have to be swayed by it. Sorry, I’m just not. Where are the reporters talking to the parents of children who DO support the president and can’t get anyone to hear their stories? You’re right, that’s not news. It’s not ‘sensational’ and not what grabs ratings.

It’s tragic for her to have lost her son. And she has ever right to be out there protesting and trying to make people aware of her opinion and views on the situation. You will not find me saying anything differently on the subject.

Cindy Sheehan has met with the President face to face in June 2004 and overall Bush has met with the families of over 270 soldiers who have lost their lives. Cindy did have her chance to speak her peace directly to the President isn’t that what she is claiming that her motives are now? So if in fact she already had that chance, what do you suppose are her motives now? Also, Stephen, why should the other family members be ashamed for writing their opposing opinion to Cindy’s actions; because they support the war and you and Cindy don’t? As one who supports this conflict, I think you and Cindy ought to be ashamed. So move on.org.

tony good point! Tip O’Neill said “All politics is local” and I say it does not get any more local than family…

sorry to bring up something from earlier but:

“Do you know who killed your son Cindy Sheehan .. the media. Do you know how many more soldiers will be killed by your protests? - hundreds! The terrorists win when you play their game; you are playing right into their hands and to the detriment of our troops!”

Are you kidding me?!?!?!??!
Are those of you who support this statement really ignorant enough to believe that if you dont talk about it or acknowledge the fact that this was a terrible decision to go to war and an even more terrible execution of attack, will make these facts go away? if we stop talking about what a quagmire this president has put us and our soldiers in we will magically win? that those fighting us will suddenly have no reason to oppose our presence any more?

Wow, I am constantly amazed at the depths of arrogance and ignorance

As for Cindy, the more time that goes on the more evidence piles up about how we were lied to and manipulated into going to war with Iraq (see Annie’s post above which does an excellent job of laying out several of these lies in detail). If I lost a loved one I would just get more and more angy as time went on and more and more detail comes out about how devious and underhanded this administration truly is.

Cindy is my Idol. She saw that she could have a platform to try and bring more and more light on the lies and deceptions about Iraq that cost her son her life, and she went for it. Now, even as her name is being dragged through the mud and even her own family distances themselves from her she is willing to stand by her convictions and be heard. Her point is valid and no amount of spin can have any effect on the truth and honsety born of a mothers grief.

Cindy I wish you all the best and want you to know you are an inspiration!

I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. She is obviously in pain over the loss of her son. She does not have the support of her family in her actions, which puts her out there alone.

I don’t think she is doing the right thing, or certainly not doing it the right way. I’ve read her open letter to George Bush, which I found mostly insulting and disrespectful. But I can recognize that its an outcropping of her pain, so I’m willing to give her some leeway on that.

I hope the political activists don’t take control, or haven’t already taken control, of her story. It would be easy for anti war people to use her story simply to further their cause, and she might allow that….or she might just be caught in the current.

She has the freedom that America gives to its citizens to speak her mind freely, to advocate for the things she believes in. I hope she isnt used as a pawn by others, and I hope that her anguish subsides. I also hope her son is remembered more for his sacrifice for his country, and the honor of his choice to re-enlist, than for some media spectacle.

God bless Casey Sheehan, and God bless America.

Thought I could help with a source for the info on Bush not knowing Casey’s name when he met with the family:

He first got there, he walked in and said, “So who are were honoring here?” He didn’t even know Casey’s name, he didn’t, nobody could have whispered to him, “Mr. President, this is the Sheehan family, their son Casey was killed in Iraq.” We thought that was pretty disrespectful to not even know Casey’s name, and to walk in and say, “So who are we honorin’ here?” Like, “Let’s get on with it, let’s get somebody honored here.”

Vex, a recent poll conducted by the BBC, which included over 6000 interviews, stated that 70% of Iraqi’s feel that their lives are better off now and that they are optimistic about thier future. I guess their opinions don’t matter to you. Also, 14 of 18 provinces in Iraq are peaceful and the representative council votes to approve a new constitution on Monday. You can chant it all you want, but those facts prove that Iraq is far from the quagmire you and your ilk would want us to believe. Furthermore, please refrain from the tired old mantra of lies and manipulation that led us to war. I guess if you feel that you were lied to and manipulated than I have to think that you just weren’t paying attention. Annie’s post is nothing more than accusing the President of not having a crystal ball, hindsight is 20/20, the President acted on the best intelligence that was in front of him at the time and that is what we pay him for. Also, your callous disregard for the hundreds of thousands of lives torn apart by Saddam over the last couple of decades disgusts me. God forbid you should have to get up off of your sorry ass to help improve someone else’s life without finding out which way the political wind is blowing. Good luck in 2008.

Jay-
If I read the text of that letter correctly, they were accusing her of politically exploiting her son’s death. That’s a pretty major public stab in the back, and that’s got to hurt that person.

This is the fundamental problem that the GOP political strategy has created in this country: a phobia for liberals. Doesn’t matter how practical we get, the Right tells us our dissent, our plans, and our very existence is a danger to the Republic. It got old quick, and it’s sickening to see the Right spin things to such a despicable extent.

A good policy in this country is one that can survive it’s critics. The Marketplace of Ideas is the arena for the competition between Republicans and Liberals, and it is unfortunate that the right doesn’t seem confident enough in it’s persuasiveness to apply its free-market ideas to getting their views out.

Stephen, don’t you mean Republicans and Democrats, or do the liberals now own that party? You are also assuming that the left doesn’t spin anything, at the very least be impartial on who spins what. As far as Reps not being confident in the “marketplace of ideas”, what was the 2004 election all about? I believe that both parties were able to fully inform the “marketplace” on their ideas and the Reps won, by more than 3.5 million popular votes. The Reps are very confident in their persuasiveness, hence the election, and surviving their critics very well I might add. Finally, I don’t think that the liberals need much help to be phobic.

If the stakes weren’t so high, this back-and-forth would be comical. Ideology is blinding most of the bloggers from actually deconstructing the points made by the opposing viewpoint. Here is the bottom line, like it or not:

1 - We’re in Iraq for the forseeable future. Doesn’t really matter at this point how we got there. Pulling out now would create a bigger mess, particularly with the Iranians licking their chops.

2 - High-minded arguments about impeaching Bush or expecting wars (and the politics behind wars) to be progressed as though run by Boy Scouts or the Ladies’ Auxilliary are at minimum simplistic and naive, at worst dangerous to US security. Think about it — in the best of situations, both combatants and civilians die in wars, and no other country goes to the level of effort the US does to minimize both. Stop and think for a second — compare US policy and actions vs any historical campaign. More to the point, it makes no sense to hold our fighters to Marquess of Queensberry boxing rules when the other side is coming with a chain and lead pipe.

3 - Whether or not you support this war (and by extension, Cindy Sheehan), you cannot ignore media’s impact. I’m fairly sure parents of those killed in the Vietnam war would have camped out in front of Johnson’s white house had they been as media savvy, and I’m not sure the US civilian reaction would have been to endless access to the carnage from past campaigns: Guadalcanal, El Alamein, Ardennes, Verdun, Somme, Ypres, Valley Forge …

4 - Every single lost soldier, marine, airman and sailor is a family tragedy. The competing emotions are comparing the fact that, for whatever reason, those in the service volunteered vs the remaining family is feeling a huge loss and may in fact not support the war (at least in the short term while dealing with the loss — what cause is “worth it” to a parent who buries a child, grown or otherwise?).

5 - Using a fallen serviceman/servicewoman to push a political agenda is beyond cynical politics, particularly when viewed with item #1 above. True believers on either side will think that their particular martyr makes them/their cause bulletproof, but it doesn’t.

6 - The US congress gave Bush approval to move forward, and key leaders had access to the same intelligence reports. I believe a vote was recorded somewhere.

Discourse is good, but until people look critically at their own positions and seriously consider opposing points, everything else is noise and all of this back-and-forth is as productive as an episode of “Crossfire”.

Davo

Cindy Sheehan speaking with Air America: “Why is my meeting in June of 2004 relevant? Over 1,100 more soldiers are dead since then, the Downing Street memo report [has come] out, the Senate intelligence report has come out, and the 9/11 Commission report has come out. Saddam is gone, they’ve had free democratic elections in Iraq, and our troops are still there.”

Cindy Sheehan’s diary exerpt Dailykos:

“Still putting out the O’Reilly fires of me being a traitor and using Casey’s name dishonorably, my in-laws sent out a press conference disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey. We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the elections when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey’s death. The thing that matters to me is that my family: Casey’s dad and my other 3 kids are on the same side of the fence that I am.

Since Congress is not holding George Bush accountable and the media is not doing their jobs and holding George Bush accountable, we the American people need to hold him accountable for lying to us to get us into a disastrous war. November 2 2004 was not his accountability moment: today is. We are finished allowing him to get away with deceiving the American public and abusing his power.

We are mad as hell and we’re not taking it anymore.”

Chris,

Once someone has passed on everything said or thought about them is a memory.

Is Cindy Sheehan the only grieving parent of a lost soldier who wants to know why? Get over it.

There is nobody who can know what she is thinking, what are her motives, etc. For sure none of us are in a position to sit in judgement of her and/or her family members.

She is turning personal tragedy into a public side show and would be well advised to go home and mourn in a way that shows respect for her son’s memory.

I say tainting his memory because if she stopped today, the poor brave young man will still be known as the guy who’s mother created all the stir. He deserves a better legacy.