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.

“Why is my meeting in June of 2004 relevant?”

Air America, Daily KOS. Hmm, a pattern is forming…

But beyond that, the reason the meeting is relevant is that from it she made statements that contradicts something she is saying now. She says now that Bush was despicable in 2004. She said then that he was nice and caring.

That’s it, very simple. Based off of that many are seeing her actions as more of a political demonstration, not a greiving mother asking for answers. Which is all well and good, I support her actions. But it does put it into a different perspective.

Jay
1. a recent poll conducted by the BBC, which included over 6000 interviews

Source?

2. 14 of 18 provinces in Iraq are peaceful…

Its just the most populous ones where people keep dying and the idea of “peaceful” in the other 14 is overstated, there is just not as high of a concentration of violence. go live there see if you feel safe and secure (never mind have power or water to drink)

3. the representative council votes to approve a new constitution on Monday.

so when this happens all the hostility will just stop? did you miss the part where they are trying to blow up those working on the constitution? How about the part where creditability is suddenly given to this “constitution” born under occupation.

4. I have to think that you just weren’t paying attention…the President acted on the best intelligence that was in front of him at the time

no, he acted on intelligence hand picked to meet his criteria as has been proven over and over again. see “yellowcake from Niger” and “Downing street memo” I ve been paying attention to things like this and understanding their implications while people like you simply act as apologists spinning and excusing reality.

5. thousands of lives torn apart by Saddam over the last couple of decades disgusts me

you mean like when we were giving him weapons and shaking his hand while supporting him in his war against Iran? (yeah he was killing his people then to but for some reason it wasn’t a priority)

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.”

its not a secret that the tubes could not have been used for centrifuges, It is not hindsight that makes what was said a lie, this is willful deception

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.”

This was investigated and proved impossible but Bush still included it in his state of the union. It is not hindsight that makes what was said a lie, this is willful deception

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.

there was no credible shred of evidence to base this statement on It is not hindsight that makes what was said a lie, this is willful deception

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.

The contact between Iraq and AlQaeda was negligible and not worthy of even being called friendly much less cooperative.It is not hindsight that makes what was said a lie, this is willful deception

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.

this is direct fabrication and Powell was so ashamed of having said it he retired. It is not hindsight that makes what was said a lie, this is willful deception

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”?

Instill fear in the American public by overstating the capabilities of Iraqi air power they had be under a no fly zone for how many years with no air force??? It is not hindsight that makes what was said a lie, this is willful deception

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.

where when what how, questions that should have been asked and werent so the intelligence would fit with the administration line, It is not hindsight that makes what was said a lie, this is willful deception

I believe my point is made. Jay not one part of your post holds any water. I dont know what it takes to wake someone like you up, but for now just go watch FOX news. they will feed you the latest spin, discredit whoever dissagrees and hammer the conservative line into your brain with such skill that soon, you wont remember thinking anything else…

Chris, it’s obvious we don’t agree on this topic. As far as the “spin much”, yes the threat of arrest was spun. Cindy herself on the Gold Star Family site said

we plan on staying until we are arrested or satisfied with the answers. (I am betting on jail).

The media wasn’t picking up the story the way many wanted it to. Then the threat of arrest came in making it appear it was from the Whitehouse or Secret Service. It was later discovered that was not the case. Then the media coverage increased, in part thanks to the blogswarm that happened on the arrest threat.

Did Cindy cause the exaggerated rumor to start? According to the writer on Kos that first wrote it, this came directly from Cindy. Did he misunderstand? It was later clarified but by then the impression was made that if she did not leave by Thursday she was going to be arrested so that Bush campaign supporters didn’t have to drive by her.

If anything this demonstrates we should be careful in what we report, sometimes that first statement isn’t accurate.

Yeah Vex, you’re the smartest one on the planet. Keep listening to Air America and soon your brain will be completely mush. It’s a shame that so many good Americans had died in the past so that you can enjoy your freedom of being selfish, myopic and essentially a blight on the human race.

BTW Vex, simply google “iraqi opinion polls” I am assuming you can do that.

Steve,

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

She is not tainting his memory, she is using it to try and stop others from dying. She sees the cause of her sons death and its senslessness and Cindy is honoring her son by fighting the arrogance and deception of this administration that brought on his death.

Jay,
good job critiquing my post instead of name calling. I can see you take after FOX already.

this is what you said:
“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”

Are you dismissing or simply turning a blind eye to the fact that this is not even remotely true?
what can you give to counter these blatant examples of deception? anything?

Vex, the definition of insanity is foing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I have debated liberals on the merits of going to war now for two years and am quite honestly done doing it. In my opinion, there were a plethora (many) of valid reasons to attack Saddam, in fact had I been President I would have done it years ago. Every single credible intelligence source in the world community strongly suspected Saddam of possesing WMD’s, including Ted Kennedy, but I guess the President should have asked you because you are the smartest one on the planet. WMD’s were only one of the reasons to go into Iraq (again that paying attention thing). But why digress with someone who has the ultra-left blinders on. As far as “name calling” how is refering to you as being myopic, “name calling”?

“Air America, Daily KOS. Hmm, a pattern is forming…”

Yes, it reflects the pattern of how news from the left must be disseminated these days.

Cindy Sheehan on CNN’s Late Edition:
“If we didn’t have the Internet, none of us would really know what was truly going on. This is something that can’t be ignored.”

“But beyond that, the reason the meeting is relevant is that from it she made statements that contradicts something she is saying now. She says now that Bush was despicable in 2004. She said then that he was nice and caring.”

Alternet interview with Cindy Sheehan:

Alternet: One of the things they’re saying most recently is that you already met with President Bush. What was that first meeting like, what was going through your mind? Because I know in the full news report it came out that you did have reservations about the war already, even at the time of the first meeting.

Cindy Sheehan:
Right, I did have reservations about the war before Casey was killed. But also, in that first meeting, I was in shock. We just buried Casey barely two months before. I think it’s really ironic that they’re so willing to assiduously scrutinize the mother of a war hero, a grieving mother, a mother filled with shock and grief, but they won’t even scrutinize a president when he says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, when everybody else is saying, “No, he doesn’t.” If the mainstream media and the right-wing media hadn’t been such propaganda tools for Washington D.C., my son might still be alive.

Alternet:
What did the President say to you during that first meeting?

Cindy Sheehan:
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.”

So anyway, he went up to my oldest daughter, I keep calling her my oldest daughter but she’s actually my oldest child now, and he said, “So who are you to the loved one?” And Carly goes, “Casey was my brother.” And George Bush says, “I wish I could bring your loved one back, to fill the hole in your heart.” And Carly said, “Yeah, so do we.” And Bush said, “I’m sure you do,” and he gave her a dirty look and turned away from her.

Alternet:
Did he talk to you directly?

Cindy Sheehan:
Yeah, he talked to me directly, do I have to say what it is or can you read it somewhere else? [laughs] He came up to me, and he said, “Mom, I can’t imagine your pain, I can’t imagine losing a loved one, whether it be an aunt or an uncle, or a cousin,” and I just stopped him and I said, “It was my son, Casey was my son. I think you can imagine it, Mr. President, because you have children. Imagine if one of your daughters was killed in this war. Trust me, you don’t want to go there.” And he told me, “You’re right, I don’t.”

“Based off of that many are seeing her actions as more of a political demonstration, not a greiving mother asking for answers. Which is all well and good, I support her actions. But it does put it into a different perspective.”

From Gold Star Families for Peace:

by Carly Sheehan Brother Casey KIA 04/04/04 Sadr City Baghdad

Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
The torrential rains of a mother’s weeping will never be done
They call him a hero, you should be glad that he’s one, but
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?

Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
He must be brave because his boy died for another man’s lies
The only grief he allows himself are long, deep sighs
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?

Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother’s grave?
They say that he died so that the flag will continue to wave
But I believe he died because they had oil to save
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother’s grave?

Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?
The leaders want to keep you numb so the pain won’t be so deep
But if we the people let them continue another mother will weep
Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?

The sounds my daughter wrote about in her inspired poem, so poignantly and amazingly a few weeks after her brother, my son, was killed in Iraq, have been repeated over and over again too many times since the criminal invasion/occupation of Iraq began in March of 2003.

These sounds are imprinted in my DNA. I will never, ever forget the night of April 4, 2004, when I found out that Casey had been killed. After what seemed an eternity, I finally began to wonder who or what was making those horrible screaming noises. Then I realized it was me. It couldn�t have been Casey�s father, because he was paralyzed in stunned silence holding the pair of pants he had been folding when the deliverers of death news arrived.

I will also never forget the day when we buried my sweet boy, my oldest son. I�ll never forget the playing of taps, or the violent, and in hindsight, thoughtless, volley of the 21-gun salute. If I live to be a very old lady and forget everything else, I will never forget when the general handed me the folded flag that had lain on Casey�s coffin, as his brother and sisters, standing behind me, sobbed.

The saddest thing about the obscene sounds of violence is that they never should have been heard in the first place. From Maine to California, and from Baghdad to Falluja, these dirges were unnecessary. In my travels, and from hundreds of emails, phone calls, and cards and letters, I am discovering that people who formerly supported the invasion of Iraq are withdrawing their support. I even believe that many of our fellow citizens who still support the ignominy of Iraq are doing so because they are clinging to the deceptions so desperately, because they want the deceptions to so be the truth. It will be painful to come to terms with supporting the lies of this administration. It will be painful to know that wholesale killing of innocent people occurred because you and so many others believed the betrayals, but acknowledging the mistake is the first step to correcting it. And believe me, acknowledging the mistake is not as painful as hearing those devastating sounds.

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) has realized that he had been duped into supporting the invasion. I have spoken to him about his change of heart, and he is so sad that his wholehearted support of the administration helped cause so many good people to hear those gut wrenching sounds of grief. But he is going forward to do what he can to end this occupation as soon as possible. He has co-sponsored a bi-partisan bill (HRJ 55) with other Congressional leaders like Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Ron Paul (R-TX) to force our administration into a troop withdrawal beginning October 1, 2006. The bill is a good first step to ensuring that families here in America and all over the world do not have to suffer needless death in war. However, I would like the withdrawal to begin tomorrow, because I don’t even want to try and imagine the sounds Casey heard before he died. I don’t want to imagine the sound of the bullet strong enough to pierce the Kevlar coating on his helmet to rip through his skull. I don�t want to know the sounds of a mother in Iraq wailing for her entire family. These sounds need to stop immediately. It is time to bring our troops home.

The sound I do want to hear is the sound of a Nation Waking Up. I will rejoice to hear the sounds of the collective Mea Culpa and the beating of breasts. I want to hear the deafening clicks as the steady stream of news-o-tainment is turned off, propaganda that is turning us into zombies who are numb to the truth. I want to hear the sound of our children getting off planes and boats from Iraq to the joyful squealing of their children and the deep sighs of relief from their spouses, parents, and other loved ones. I want to hear our citizenry lifting up their voices in chorus and singing, “We will never let this happen again.”

Cindy Sheehan
Co-Founder
Gold Star Families for Peace
July 18, 2005

I have debated liberals on the merits of going to war now for two years and am quite honestly done doing it.

what merits exactly are we talking about, come on dont avoid and say your too tired to debate anymore. sort the fabrications from reality and there are no merits to this war as the only possible outcome was what we are seing now, a power vaccum and continually increasing violence.

and i believe you called me not only narrow minded but selfish and a “blight on the human race”

Vex, one last time;
1. 17 UN resolution violations stemming from the Gulf War cease fire agreement which in and of itself is enough reasons to go to war.
2. Failing to become completely transparent on all weapons programs and violating resolution #1441 stating serious consequences if ignored.
3. Continued hostilities towards British and American fighter jets patroling the no-fly zone.
4. The prospect of WMD’s which Saddam had used in the past and (again) every credible intelligence source in the world strongly suspected.
This is not to mention the mass graves and rape rooms found after entering Iraq, but again those lives don’t mean anything to you.
I will apologize for the “blight on the human race”, that may have over reached, but I do believe sincerely that your attitude towards this conflict is myopic and selfish.

An Open Letter to President Bush - Meet with Cindy:

I am a twenty-year USAF retiree who served during operations Desert Storm, Just Cause, Deny Flight, and others. Thus, I am writing with some degree of understanding with regard to what it means to sacrifice one’s own desires for the body politic and the good of the whole. I am also writing through a deep connection with my brothers and sisters under arms and an abiding personal appreciation for their gift of service on my behalf, especially those like Casey Sheehan.

As you know, Casey was killed in action on April 24, 2004, placing his life in the way of harm because he believed in the concepts that are the core of our national heritage. He sought to live out those words that we hold so dear—honor, sacrifice, liberty, freedom. You often speak of such words, Mr. President. You use them liberally in your speeches as if the words themselves legitimize your message.

Well, Mr. President, Cindy Sheehan has suffered the loss of a son, and now she camps outside of your ranch seeking your response. She has suffered at a much deeper and more profound level than most of us. She has suffered because you used those words and called us into war. She has suffered because you called us to what you described as a noble cause. So, Mr. President, Cindy now deserves, has an absolute right to know, exactly how this “noble cause‎ connects with those words. She deserves to know how her son’s death has brought more security to her nation and goodness to the world. Her incredible loss absolutely entitles her to truth-telling without political prattle, audience without impertinence, and explanation without irrelevance. She needs to see how in this “noble cause‎ there is a connection between the truth of those words and death of her son. And Mr. President, so do we all.

For if there is no such truth, if the reality is that you lied to us from the beginning, that you claimed linkage to Al Qaeda where none existed, that you claimed there were weapons of mass destruction when there were none, that you had chosen this war before any of the facts were in, that you and your administration suppressed evidence contrary to what you told the world, that our nation is at war and our young men and women are dying and killing because you and some other narrow-visioned ideologues had some misplaced notion of your own authority, and were too audacious and arrogant to consider a path of peace and proactive non-violence, then Mr. President, you need to get down on your knees and beg Cindy Sheehan forgiveness for the sake of your name. But more than that, you need to beg forgiveness from the God with whom you claim to have intimate relationship. You need to get down on your knees and beg forgiveness … for the sake of your very own soul.

For, Mr. President, I think its like my Grandmamma used to say about those big-haired TV-evangelists who always seemed to have a word for the sin of others but could not seem to see their own darkness: “Saying ‘I believe’ might just be another road to hell.‎ Of course, Jesus says it a different way, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and then do not do what I say?‎

So, Mr. President, I’m praying that you will find the courage and compassion to speak with this grieving mother, discover a deeper sense of the God whom you claim to know, and that you might truly learn what it means to live into the life of the Christ who continues to claim that it not the powerful and privileged who are blessed, but the humble, the hurting, and the peace-makers.

Peace and grace,
Steve
SMSgt (retired) – USAF

—-
Yeah Vex, you’re the smartest one on the planet. Keep listening to Air America and soon your brain will be completely mush. It’s a shame that so many good Americans had died in the past so that you can enjoy your freedom of being selfish, myopic and essentially a blight on the human race.
—-
WOW. this takes the discussion to a whole new level. Thanks for keeping this intelligent.

Vex, I’ll respond to you ‘lies’ later, mostly likely in a post in the middle column. It’s getting a little long for a comments response.

Lefty, were you trying to make a point? You took the statements I made based off of the information available and then just respewed them back with no explanation on how they would alter what I said.

She said something a year ago and is contradicting it. It’s not as if she said nothing at all about the president and then is now saying bad things, she is painting a completely different picture.

And that is her right to do, but are you trying to convince of something that is a matter of opinion, not fact. I’m sorry you don’t like it but it doesn’t make much difference now, does it?

Rhinehold-
No, she did not. The original quote:

“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.

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.

Also this in the accompanying MediaMatters article:

Moreover, Sheehan was not referring to her meeting with Bush as “the gift the president gave us.” She was actually referring to the trip to Seattle, as Reporter staff writer Tom Hall noted in an August 9 article responding to Drudge: “Sheehan also said the trip to Seattle helped connect her family to others that had lost a son or daughter in Iraq. Sheehan said sharing their story with those families was rewarding, as was the time she got to spend with her own family. ‘That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,’ she said in the story. Drudge included that quote in his Monday morning report, but didn’t explain that it referred to sharing time with her family, not the president.”

It stands to reason that if these people had researched far enough to find Cindy Sheehan’s quotes, they knew what they did and did not say. Those who have been asserting a great change of heart in Cindy Sheehan have either not researched the source material themselves, or are knowingly lying about the positions she took.

I assume, Rhinehold, that you’re not on the side of such dishonesty. Do I assume wrongly?

I hate this corrosive kind of rhetoric. This is what people say about other folks when they don’t care for anything but power. People with a shred of human decency would not be smearing and sliming the mother of a dead soldier. What’s next, requiring loyalty oaths from the family before the officer hands them a flag?

This is evil behavior, and it all too sadly represents the norm in the conservative media. Loyalty to the GOP matters more to these folks than real world actions. Nobody had to dump the acid and slime on Cindy Sheehan they did to disagree with her. They’re doing this because they’re in this to win.

It matters how you play the game, Rhinehold. I’ve seen too much of this sociopathic behavior from the Right Wing Media to believe these people should be sleeping at night.

Rhinehold:
“You took the statements I made based off of the information available and then just respewed them back with no explanation on how they would alter what I said.”

I thought they directly altered what you said previously.

You said:
“But beyond that, the reason the meeting is relevant is that from it she made statements that contradicts something she is saying now. She says now that Bush was despicable in 2004. She said then that he was nice and caring.”

No, she didn’t say he was nice or caring earlier. After her ten minute meeting with the president she said:
“I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,”
and:
“I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.”
Her husband (who was kinder) said:
“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,”

That’s it. There was no contradiction in what Cindy Sheehan said, then or now. She now claims that she was in shock when she had that ten minute meeting with the president, but even then, the original article still reflected her true feelings. (see larger exerpt below)

You also said:
“Based off of that many are seeing her actions as more of a political demonstration, not a greiving mother asking for answers. Which is all well and good, I support her actions. But it does put it into a different perspective.”

I gave you her perspective. She is obviously both a grieving mother and a political demonstrator because of what she has learned about this war since that time.

“She said something a year ago and is contradicting it. It’s not as if she said nothing at all about the president and then is now saying bad things, she is painting a completely different picture.”

What contradiction? What different picture?
The Reporter article:

But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey’s commander-in-chief.

“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.

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.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

“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.

Which brings us back to the present and what Cindy Sheehan recently said on 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.”

Stephen,

By the same token couldn’t you be accused of not presenting her full quotes? From your article she also said:

“”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.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

“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.”“.

It is not sliming or smearing her to wonder about the difference in her two statements. Obviously each side wants to interpret her statements and her actions in the manner that makes a specific viewpoint look the best. There is little doubt that her stated opinion of the president has seemed to change over the past year. What caused the change is of course what is being asked. Was she being polite and respectful to the office of the president in 2004 with her statements or has politics swayed her opinion over the past year?

Of course that is a question that can not be answered.

Cindy Sheehan wants to know why it was necessary for her son to die. She wants the President to explain this to her one on one.

The reasons for the war have been clearly detailed by the President at it’s outset and, hundreds of times since in speeches, meetings and all manner of media. Whether or not those reasons are valid have been debated by politicians, the general public and “experts” in every format possible.

With all due respect to Cindy Sheehan, what does she expect the President to tell her?

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.

Yeah, he deserves the legacy of being known as the guy whose mother stopped the most half-assed, misbegotten war America has ever gotten into, and kept more of his brothers in arms from being killed in another nation’s civil war.

Cindy Sheehan wants to know why it was necessary for her son to die. She wants the President to explain this to her one on one.

The reasons for the war have been clearly detailed by the President at it’s outset and, hundreds of times since in speeches, meetings and all manner of media. Whether or not those reasons are valid have been debated by politicians, the general public and “experts” in every format possible.

With all due respect to Cindy Sheehan, what does she expect the President to tell her?

How about the truth? It’s the one explanation for the war he hasn’t tried yet.

Mike P.-
Those are significant quotes, if others have used the source to indicate that she completely changed her story. Even fully quoted, it is obvious that her changes in opinion are the natural result of a deepening anger and waning shock over her son’s death.

That’s the slime: making her look like a cynical opportunist, exploiting her own son’s death for political purposes.

This is the sad state of denial Bush’s supporters are in. It seems they cannot believe any negative feelings towards the president can be rational or justified at heart. Only when one fully agrees with the president and his starting this war, can somebody be considered sane, consistent, honest, and patriotic. Any other position is a sign of mental instability, suggestibility, or just plain stupidity. I’m sick of that, especially at this stage in the game, with so much confirming the left’s view of Bush, and so little confirming Bush’s view of himself.

Stephen,

Whether or not the change is due to deepening anger or getting over shock is not possible to tell. You are saying it it is obvious to you because that is what you wish to believe. I do not think she has completely changed her story and she had doubts even back in 2004 from her comments. However she has changed her opinion and tone to a very large degree in the past year and asking why the change is a valid question.

I am not going to say she is or is not exploiting her son’s death for political purpose because I do not know that answer. It is definately a valid question though since her opinions seem to have changed in the past year.

As for your comments on Bush supporters you can say exactly the same thing about Bush haters. They believe those who have differing opinions are “sheep”, “Nazis”, “stupid”, etc.. There are the extreme on both sides who just label others with differing viewpoints no matter whether those viewpoints can be defended. Disagreement with others viewpoints do not mean they are wrong, merely different. Especially the Moderates who catch it from both sides since they do not agree completely with either.

I cant believe 119 death row inmates are now free nationwide because they were found out they were innocenct and the crisis is growingplease checkout www.innocenceproject.org thank you for your time

Mike P.-
The more interesting question is why you have to have Cindy Sheehan’s motives be so murky when there’s a simple answer and explanation that she’s already given that fits the facts. That’s the closest you can get to evidence of her state of mind, and unless you can get clear evidence that she thinks otherwise, it’s about as definitive as it gets.

Why even raise the question? Why does she not get the benefit of the doubt on her motives? I know you don’t personally believe this stuff, but what reason would people have to falsely assert a contradiction unless they were aiming to discredit her by an ad hominem attack?

I would agree that namecalling is inappropriate, but that is not what I’m engaging in.

Disagreements between viewpoints, if they are completely centered around the subjective can be as unsettleable as you imply, but those are not the arguments I’m making here. When an argument concerns facts and evidence, there are arguments that can be considered right on the facts, and ones that must be considered wrong.

Any argument that relies on those quotes to portray her position as a complete flip-flop is counterfactual, and therefore wrong.

Mike P:
“Whether or not the change is due to deepening anger or getting over shock is not possible to tell.”

No. It is possible to tell, because that is what Cindy Sheehan herself is saying.

“You are saying it it is obvious to you because that is what you wish to believe.”

She said she was shock in the Alternet interview I quoted above, and she says it again in this interview with The Raw Story:

Today, she says her comments came at a time when she was still in shock at her son�s death. Casey, a Humvee mechanic, was in Iraq just five days before he was killed last April.

Sheehan recalls her meeting with Bush as “surreal.”

“He didn’t act like he was somebody who was consoling a grieving family, he acted like we were at a tea party, and we left feeling a lot worse,” she recalls.

“At the end of the interview [with Bush] I said, “Why were we invited? We didn’t vote for you in 2000, we’re not going to vote for you this year, and he said, “Mom, this is not about politics. So when he said that� maybe because I was in shock� I believed him.”

It was during the Republican National Convention, she says, that her feelings surrounding the meeting soured.

“He said at the RNC that he meets with families, he feels their pain, it’s really hard work because he watches the news reports on TV, it’s really hard work being a commander chief… and when he used it at the RNC, he used it for political gain, and that’s when I thought I can use it too.”

On Saturday, National Security Advisor Steven Hadley and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joe Hagin met her outside the ranch, listening to mothers� concerns for about 45 minutes. Sheehan says she was disappointed.

“First of all, I didn’t know who they were,” she remarks. “They came out and introduced themselves and we talked, and I guess I was supposed to be very impressed and very intimidated.”

“I told them, I don’t want to be lied to, I want to meet with the president�, that’s an oxymoron,� and I thanked them for coming out,” she adds.

“At one point they said that George believes there are weapons of mass destruction,” she continues, “and they said something else to me, and I said, I may be a grieving mother but I’m not stupid. I don’t believe you even believe what you�re saying.”

As we wrap up, the normally ebullient mother turns silent when I inquire about her son, who she says was lied to by military recruiters.

Casey “was regular Army and he didn’t tell us anything,” she mutters. “He didn’t want to go but he said it was his duty and he had to go.”

Jarin said….

“Yeah, he deserves the legacy of being known as the guy whose mother stopped the most half-assed, misbegotten war America has ever gotten into, and kept more of his brothers in arms from being killed in another nation’s civil war.”

Jarin, I can see the next headline now :
CINDY SHEEHAN STOPS WAR IN IRAQ

Then Jarin said…..

“How about the truth? It’s the one explanation for the war he hasn’t tried yet.”

Jarin, headline #2 ; PRESIDENT FINALLY TELLS ALL ABOUT THE WAR IN A DISCUSSION WITH CINDY SHEEHAN

Next time you are ordering whatever it is you take to put you in this mind set, put me down for some.

“Whether or not the change is due to deepening anger or getting over shock is not possible to tell. You are saying it it is obvious to you because that is what you wish to believe. I do not think she has completely changed her story and she had doubts even back in 2004 from her comments. However she has changed her opinion and tone to a very large degree in the past year and asking why the change is a valid question.”

Mike P.,

It may be a valid question to ask yourself why her tone has “changed” but I think the only reason most people are doing that is because that’s what the Right wing slime machine is telling them to do.

I mean, let’s think about why this is being made an issue. The jist behind it is that someone is trying to make Cindy look like some kind of hypocrite and destroy her credibility. Do we agree there? That this questioning of her “change” in opinion is meant to discredit her?

So we have a woman who was still in shock from her son’s death when she first met Bush, and was a little kinder in her words about him then. Obviously a lot has changed since then, so is it not only possible but likely that her reservations about his policy, as more damning facts have come out, have become stronger with time? Isn’t it also reasonable to assume that the emotion involved in meeting the President about your deceased son might evoke more compassionate feelings in the moment?

The real problem I have with this smear campaign is that, even if her position has shifted over time, WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? The slime machine keeps throwing this bit out there to discredit her, but HOW exactly does it discredit her? What is the insinuation of a shift in position?

Is the insinuation that she’s just doing this now to get her face on TV because she’s always wanted to be famous or something? If so, then someone please go on record with that assertion.

If that’s the case, I think it’s a pretty sick assertion.

I think if a mother loses a son, she’s allowed to get angry and get angry on her own terms. To suggest there are ulterior motives is just beyond reprehensible.

Stephen,

Her motives are murky not because I make them that way but because the change in her statements over the year makes them murky. When there appears to be a change in a person’s opinion then it is a fair question to ask why the change. When it comes to political issues then of course motives are scrutinized when things change. Why does that surprise you?

Of course some people will try to discredit her but not everyone who wonders about the change in opinion are trying to discredit her. Wanting to know facts is not an attempt to discredit but an attempt to understand the purpose.

But opinions are not facts and although I did not say she flip flopped I did say that the focus of her statement did change over the year. There is nothing wrong with trying to understand the change in her approach and why it occurred. Of course an arguement will be based on her quotes since she is the one who made them. How can you just dismiss them as counter factual?

—-
When there appears to be a change in a person’s opinion then it is a fair question to ask why the change.
—-
Sort of like going from Iraq with WMDs & 9/11 connection to Saddam was a bad guy and Iraq needed to be Democratic.

Andrew,

If it is a valid question then why do you just dismiss it as right wing slime? We are dealing with politics here and the motive for an agenda is always a valid question to investigate.

I do not think it is a matter of making her look like a hypocrite but an attempt to underestand whether this is a personal belief or a political one. Of course there are people who call her a hypocrite just as there are those who call her a hero. I do not think she is either one but knowing the motive behind an agenda is important in my opinion.

There is no doubt that a lot has changed in Iraq since her son died in April, 2004 and that the policies have made her more angry about what happened to her son. That is a plausible reason so why not just say that? Instead of saying that she was kinder due to shock - which I do have a problem with - why not say that the asministration’s policies since her son was killed have made her more and more angry?

OF course if a position has shifted in a political apsect it means something and there is nothing wrong with wanting to know the reason for the change. When the Swiftboaters came out against Kerry why were they discredited based on a change of what they said during wartime? It is the same thing. If a person changes their statements or opinions in a political way then the reasons for the change are valid conversations.

OK… the Swift Boat guys were a political organization that were funded by one of Bush’s largest financial supporters - who were critical of Bush’s opponent - who ran national ads attacking Bush’s opponent. they had $million$.

Besides that - the Swift Boat and Sheenan are almost identical.

Tony,

Nice dodge. Both are people with an agenda who were / are being questioned based on previous statements to help determine motive.

Sorry if it is too difficult of a concept for you to understand.

Mike P
“When there appears to be a change in a person’s opinion then it is a fair question to ask why the change.”

Is this question meant to be intentionally obtuse, or are you just skipping over everything I’ve posted here today?

The Raw Story interview:
“It was during the Republican National Convention, she says, that her feelings surrounding the meeting soured.

“He said at the RNC that he meets with families, he feels their pain, it’s really hard work because he watches the news reports on TV, it’s really hard work being a commander chief… and when he used it at the RNC, he used it for political gain, and that’s when I thought I can use it too.”

Cindy Sheehan to 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.”

Do neither of these things answer the question of why Cindy Sheehan decided to become an activist against this war?

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?

NO you don’t have it right. This is still a free country and anyone is free to believe as they want, and to change their mind, at least (God forbid) until Hilary get in office.

Lefty,

So based on your posting: “”He said at the RNC that he meets with families, he feels their pain, it’s really hard work because he watches the news reports on TV, it’s really hard work being a commander chief… and when he used it at the RNC, he used it for political gain, and that’s when I thought I can use it too.”“.

She is doing this for political reasons because she does not like Bush and that is her motive? It is only about political gain?

That is where I disagree with you since I do not think it is completely political but feel free to believe what you wish.

Since I have been talking with Stephen and Andrew I was unaware that not answering your posts was “obtuse” or that I was required to do so.

—-
Nice dodge. Both are people with an agenda who were / are being questioned based on previous statements to help determine motive.

Sorry if it is too difficult of a concept for you to understand.
—-
OK - so the one group makes accusations to falsely discredit a war hero running for political office and the other in a mother who lost her son in war and wants answers. One group was paid to say what they said…

Are you suggesting that Sheehan was paid for what she is doing? If so, I assume you have proof, or at least a lead to this accusation.

It’s been over a year since her original comments - and evidence against the Iraq war has mounted tremendously. Is it so unreasonable that someone - given what has been in the press for the last year - to have a change of mind regarding Iraq? To immediately accuse her and try to discredit her seems in keeping with the Republican mind set… Shoot the messenger, ignore what is being said.

Back during her original statement over 1 year ago - Cheney was still insisting that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 and that the WMDs might still be found.

Or it this all too much for you to understand? (Sorry for the dig, but the last sentence of your post was pathetic.)

and one more point about being political:

Isn’t being political the attempt to alter or influence the way our country is run? OK - Sheehan is doing this for political reasons. She thinks the war in Iraq is wrong and is doing something about it. Could you argue with the validity of doing exactly that?

But your posts seems to suggest that her actions are ‘politically’ motivated (and somehow some covert agenda is there), in that she wants to help one political party over another. She has not supported another’s ideology on this - she is simply pointing out that Bush’s policy in Iraq was wrong and is a failure. That might be an attempt to tear down one political party (based on it’s past actions…) but it hardly supports the other.

This is not party politics, it is straight forward politics.

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.

by: Andrew L. at August 12, 2005 10:38 AM

Maybe we didn’t know you wanted answers saying as I’ve asked youall questions and never got an answer I sure didn’t know it. Anyway, heres some answers for you.

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?
Yes, he’s given plenty of answers, youall just choose not to believe him.

Do you believe he is challenged enough publically?
Yes, the liberial media and youall make sue of that.

Why shouldn’t Bush have to answer to the mother of a fallen soldier?
She had his attention for 20 minutes already, why didn’t she ask her questions then?

Is 20 minutes of his time (on vacation no less) really too much of a burden?
No, but again she has already seen him for 20 miniutes, why should he disrupt his vacation to give her another 20 minutes. Would you disrupt your vacation for someone you already had seen for 20 minutes then they demand another 20 minutes? If not, why should Bush? He has a right to an uninterupted vacation as much as anyone else.

MikeP:
“That is where I disagree with you since I do not think it is completely political but feel free to believe what you wish.

Since I have been talking with Stephen and Andrew I was unaware that not answering your posts was “obtuse” or that I was required to do so.”

Since what I’ve been posting has not been my opinions, but the words of Cindy Sheehan herself, I think that yes, you should be required to read and respond to what I’ve put up - before mounting your next baseless attack on her character and her motives.

—-
He has a right to an uninterupted vacation as much as anyone else.
—-

The guy has been on vacation most of the past 5 years.

Tony,

It has nothing to do with the group but that in both cases prior statements were brought up to question or discredit those making the claims. If you do not understand that concept then I can not make it any simpler. ( I won’t even touch your “war hero” claim.

Who suggested Sheehan was paid or do you usually make baseless accusations?

Who accused or discredited her? Again you are making baseless accusations about me.

Did not know that Cheney was the topic or had anything to do with Sheehan.

Sorry about the dig? You started the pathetic digging.

Lefty,

Just curious which baseless accusations you mean. Please feel free to point out any baseless accusation I made about Sheehan.

I won’t bother waiting for your reply.

Lisa, that “arrest” thing really worries you doesn’t it? I have no idea why. Cindy isn’t lying, I’m sure, there was a concern about her being arrested, and they were moved. But what I have to wonder is why you make an issue of it? And I believe you make an issue of it because in doing so, you somehow think that discredits her.

I will let this self-professed “lifelong conservative” speak for me:

Decency Is Not In Them Even when something really outrages me, usually that outrage gives way to a bit of calm, measured thinking. With the Cindy Sheehan story, that’s not the case.

If one needed any further proof that this incarnation of “Republicans” and alleged conservatives includes a faction that has gone completely and tragically over the edge, the smear campaign against Cindy Sheehan is it. For those who might not be familiar with the details of this and are looking for an accurate, factual account, a good summary appears here.

The essence of the right-wing smear machine’s “outing” of Cindy Sheehan is her supposed flip-flop from supporting President Bush in 2004 to disapproving of him in 2005. As details of this have become clearer, it’s obvious the flip-flop is nothing more than a canard. But setting aside the Sheehan story for a moment, have any of the shameless smearsters seen the public opinion polls recently? Here’s some breaking news for them: a whole lot of Americans who supported Bush a year ago—-including an increasingly large part of his “base”—-have turned against him. And that includes many millions of people who haven’t lost a parent, child, or sibling in Iraq.

There are so many side issues of shamelessness and crass opportunism in this story it makes my head spin. Think about the gall of a political and media machine “accusing” a private citizen of changing her mind (imagine that!) about an elected and supposedly accountable public official. When did a private citizen supposedly changing her opinion about something rise to the same level as a flip-flop about firing anyone involved in the leaking a CIA agent’s name? At what point did the ability to change one’s mind about a politician become something to be ridiculed and accused of instead of cherished as a basic right? And it’s not as if in the past year we haven’t learned anything about the pre-war manipulation of intelligence, as well as the incompetent planning, that resulted in the death of Cindy Sheehan’s son and thousands of others like him.

Something else about this story that infuriates me is the vision of feckless, smarmy smearsters and cowards hiding behind keyboards in cities like Washington and New York (and yes, Miami), punching out electronic missives in a pathetic and desperate attempt to impugn the integrity of a woman sitting in the dust and August heat of Texas—-a woman who, along with her dead son, embodies everything that’s right about this country. The growing division between the professional class of spinning punditry and the vast expanse of Middle America that actually does the working, the fighting and the dying so the pundits can spend their time chattering has never been more clear than with this story.

If I had lost a parent, child or sibling in Iraq, I’d be right next to Cindy Sheehan sitting in that dust and heat. And I wouldn’t budge until the president—-ensconced within that reassuring bubble of faith, brush-clearing and mountain bike-riding—-found a few moments to come listen to me. I hope as many people as possible join her protest and offer her food, water, and whatever legal or media assistance she may need.

In the meantime, it behooves the rest of us to do our part and engage in some “outing” of our own. That includes identifying and relentlessly shaming those who have become so unmoored from morality that not only have they abandoned the uniquely American ideals of accountability and sacrifice, they openly ridicule them.

He says exactly why I showed up at this blog and reacted to what was said here about Cindy Sheehan. The level in indecency that has taken over the Republican party since 1992 has nearly broken my heart.

Cindy said she “wants the country back.” So do I — from all the hatred, bigotry and lies that has been poured out to millions of us by the Republican “spin” machine.

Sorry, thought I posted the link right but its not working.

here it is:

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/08/decency-is-not-in-them.html

Chris,

Thanks for the link. I have not seen that blog before. Just curious though - he talks about the smearing of Sheehan. Other than extremists on message boards, who is doing the smearing? It seems like the internet is the main place to hear people attack her.

mike -

——
Who suggested Sheehan was paid or do you usually make baseless accusations? (The Swift Boat guys were paid. That was the point I was making. You brought them up… just trying to see the connection.)

Who accused or discredited her? Again you are making baseless accusations about me. (No - your posts clearly state that you suspect her of alterior motives. “I do not think it is a matter of making her look like a hypocrite but an attempt to underestand whether this is a personal belief or a political one.” You immediately cast doubt on her… If you are not casting doubt - then please explain where you are heading with this.)

Did not know that Cheney was the topic or had anything to do with Sheehan. (It’s a timeline reference… I thought that was a pretty easy one.)

Sorry about the dig? You started the pathetic digging. (You immediately attacked my intelligence in your post because I questioned you.)
—-

Tony

You immediately attacked my intelligence in your post because I questioned you.) - The last comment on this type of post. actually your first post reeked of sarcasm when I brought up the Swiftboaters in relation to Sheehan. The point being if you had read the post is that using previous comments to question current statements is not an uncommon occurance. I see no reason why there is anything wrong with comparing what a person said in the past to their current stance and wondering why a change in position.

Saying that this statment,” “I do not think it is a matter of making her look like a hypocrite but an attempt to underestand whether this is a personal belief or a political one.” is casting doubt on her completely eludes me. If you mean that asking about a motive is casting doubt then you are entitled to your opinion.

(It’s a timeline reference… I thought that was a pretty easy one.) So if I use a comparison to the swiftboats then it confuses you but it is fine to use a reference to Cheney when Sheehan is the topic?

The way I see it (a hypothetical example):

I see a friend with a really nice car. 2 ways to ask about it -

“Hey, nice car, where’d ya get it?”

“Hey, nice car. I’m not saying you’re a thief, but where’d ya get the money? I simply want to know.”

One asks about where to buy a nice car, the other implies that there’s a potential something illegal or wrong was done in getting the car.

When you ask: “I do not think it is a matter of making her look like a hypocrite but an attempt to understand whether this is a personal belief or a political one.” You are casting doubt on her motives and implying that there’s maybe something behind it all that’s wrong.

As far as the Cheney comment: You stated that Sheehan has contradicted herself and you think there might be something amiss by that. I was simply trying point out the timeframe when she made her first comment and the one she is making now.

As far as the comparison between the Swift Boat and Sheehan: I can’t think on anything but sarcasm. The Swift Boat guys were a proven politically-paid for myth. If you feel the same is true for Sheehan, then say it. Otherwise, the comparison is ill-founded.

Mike P:
“Just curious which baseless accusations you mean. Please feel free to point out any baseless accusation I made about Sheehan.”

I didn’t say baseless accusation.
I said:
“your next baseless attack on her character and her motives.”

And here they are:
“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 am not going to say she is or is not exploiting her son’s death for political purpose because I do not know that answer. It is definately a valid question though since her opinions seem to have changed in the past year.”

“I do not think it is a matter of making her look like a hypocrite but an attempt to underestand whether this is a personal belief or a political one. Of course there are people who call her a hypocrite just as there are those who call her a hero. I do not think she is either one but knowing the motive behind an agenda is important in my opinion.”

“OF course if a position has shifted in a political apsect it means something and there is nothing wrong with wanting to know the reason for the change. When the Swiftboaters came out against Kerry why were they discredited based on a change of what they said during wartime? It is the same thing. If a person changes their statements or opinions in a political way then the reasons for the change are valid conversations.”

“I won’t bother waiting for your reply.”

Likewise.

MikeP-

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.”

This was her during that visit. This last year can adequately explain her position today. I mean hell, we only had Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Najaf, daily IED attacks and over a thousand soldiers killed, and the violence still escalating. Taken together, her position at the time of her last meeting, the war’s escalating chaos, and her personal loss in the war, what’s the mystery? Don’t you think people can do political things for personal reasons?

It is not change that should invite suspicion, for naturally, people change opinions over time. Talk to me a year from now, and I may be fighting this war and reconsidering my positions, or protesting for a complete and utter pullout. Either one would not necessarily be out of character for me, if the proper motivation were present.

I am the grandson of a veteran, and a very proud supporter of the military, but I am also keenly aware of the mistakes of years before, and am already distrustful of the war and the leaders who started it.

I think you could look through my posts and see either choice in them. I think the same could be said of Cindy Sheehan. I think we can see her later choice in the one before, and in the choices inbetween.

No, Chris you asked me:

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.

That’s what you stated to me, so I apologize if responding to something you stated is now an obsession. It’s obvious this discussion is becoming circular with few of the real facts discussed.

Lefty,

Let’s look at these “baseless attacks” that you claim:

And here they are:
“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.” - You are saying she is not attacking the policies of Bush? If that is what you are saying then you should read more about Sheehan.

“I am not going to say she is or is not exploiting her son’s death for political purpose because I do not know that answer. It is definately a valid question though since her opinions seem to have changed in the past year.” - Nice try but there is no attack here on Sheehan. What I said is that I do not know the answer to that question.

“I do not think it is a matter of making her look like a hypocrite but an attempt to underestand whether this is a personal belief or a political one. Of course there are people who call her a hypocrite just as there are those who call her a hero. I do not think she is either one but knowing the motive behind an agenda is important in my opinion.” - Point out any attack in this quote.

“OF course if a position has shifted in a political apsect it means something and there is nothing wrong with wanting to know the reason for the change. When the Swiftboaters came out against Kerry why were they discredited based on a change of what they said during wartime? It is the same thing. If a person changes their statements or opinions in a political way then the reasons for that” - Again point out any attack in this comment.

Try again.

Stephen

Of course people do political things for personal reasons and I am sure that is her thought process also. It is not that changing a position in life creates suspicion but it does create a desire to know the reason for the change and especially when it is in the political arena. Of course she has every right to express her views ( with the “Impeach Bush” bus), request and audience with Bush (a ridiculous request IMHO), or to protest. By the same token I have every right to wonder how much of her public display is political or limelight driven (yes I know that statement will bring out lots of attacks). I do not take Bush at his word automatically and why should I accept the work of Sheehan either?

I am the grandson of a veteran also although I am not sure what bearing that has on things. Nowhere did I say that I trusted the leaders completely.

Lisa — the real facts? Well, first, you are obssessed with the arrest in your effort to discredit her. And I have stated the facts — Cindy said she was informed she might be arrested. She wasn’t sure what would happen. She was not arrested.

End of facts. There is nothing more to discuss about it, but you seem intent on bringing it up, since you brought it after I responded. This possible arrest obviously annoys you. Why that is is for you to look at.

Mike — as for smears, go to your local radio right-wing station and you will hear it. I heard it today on a local station in Baltimore, where the host was belittlng Sheehan in Crawford, and he talked about how he was having one of his “friends” infiltrate the group so they could “report” back. The tone of the broadcast and his use of words made it obvious he thought Cindy should be ridiculed.

Bill O’Reilly said: “I think Cindy Sheehan is being used by far left elements who object to our way of life. Everyone knows. Hillary Clinton knows” Object to his “way of life”???!!! (not touching that one). As a matter of fact, Reilly has set out to smear Cindy in nearly every broadcast this week. Then John Gibson took up where O’Reilly left off keeping up this theme of her being in with the “far left” factions.

I support her, and I’m not “far left.”

Mike Gallagher, right wing radio host, is having a “Pro-America Bus Tour to Crawford,” the implication being that if you’re Cindy or support her you are un-American, I guess. (http://www.mikeonline.com/)

That is just three… I heard smearing of Cindy from Monica Crowley on MSNBC, and even WOlf Blitzer took a dig at her with a comment about “she met with him before.” (Same stuff as here.)

I’m sick of the smear tactics this Republican Administration engages in, and I’m sick of the supporters who think it is okay. “Liberals” are not the enemy of the free world, nor are they un-American. Heck, I don’t even think of myself as a liberal and now I want to be one just to spite all the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O’Reillys of the world.

It’s not just on the internet. Just watch Fox News, you’ll hear it, I’m sure.

Chris,

I will be the first to admit that I do not pay much attention to right wing radio anymore than I pay attention to Air America. The extreme edges do not interest me much. I will take your word on the quotes since it would not surprise me at all.

Probably not the place to say that the host of the various Air America stations do exactly the same thing that the Limbaughs, Savages, etc. do just from the other end of the spectrum. I just disagree that all the smears come from the Republican camp.

Not sure what you mean by you support Sheehan. Of course I support her right to protest and state her views. I think any citizen demanding and expecting an audience with the president is a little naive though.

And Mike P - I have to ask you a simple question. Did you read the diaries I linked to?

I think you should read them carefully in the order they were written. This woman decided to go down to Crawford, and when this decision was made, she had no idea whether he would see her immediately or not, and she had no way of knowing how many people would join her. People have joined her because of their desires to do so, inspired by Cindy’s determination. You see, the problem with your argument lies is that you somehow see some grand political motivation that was all planned out (you sure you haven’t watched O’Reilly?) so she could get in the limelight.

Guess what? I hate to break this to you, but the timing is right for a woman to question this President about this war at this time. If it wasn’t Cindy, it would be some other mother or father, you can bet on it.

So just give it up, will ya? Movements like this have a way of taking off, much to the even shock of the one leading the charge. A movement takes followers — without that, she’s just some woman sitting on the side of the road all by herself. The limelight came to her.

Mike, you commented while I was writing… I just want to say that no, the smears just don’t come from right-wing radio, but my experience through the 1990s tells me that the anger you hear from the left (and from moderates like me) was borne from the vitriol spouted by hateful people like Rush.

TO be honest, Rush and his ilk got me political active. That and the impeachment. I won’t even go there…

I welcome AirAmerica. I’m sick of only hearing one side.

Mike P-
I bring up that I am grandson of a veteran because it has bearing on my admiration for veterans. I grew up at one’s knee.

It seems like you’re unwilling to follow the logic I’m presenting to you all the way. For some reason, you insist on ambiguity, even when the facts are clear.

The question is, just what necessitates the questioning of her reputation? Would you have ever questioned her motives, had they not come out with that incomplete quotation?

As for the ridiculous request, Bush only avoids it, because he can’t control it. He can’t guarantee he gets out of a meeting with her without political damage.

I think Steve Clemons hit it on the head:

It’s hard to know, but I think that Harry Truman would have met Cindy Sheehan. I think that Dwight Eisenhower would have. He knew about military sacrifice — the horror and complexity of it.

snip

Ronald Reagan would have stopped his car, if for no other reason that to hold Cindy Sheehan for a few moments, to express the regrets of a nation that her son was lost, and to thank her — even though he might not have made her and many of us believers in this war.

Bill Clinton would have had Cindy in to the ranch and made a summit of it.

George Bush drove by…on the way to a fundraiser. Shameful.

He should have stopped, made a gesture — even if she stood on the opposite side of his policies.

It is shameful. It’s also stupid, from an audience oriented point of view. There is a good reason why many movies feature a hero seeking justice from apathetic authority figures who are either hiding the truth or refusing to answer for some crime. Cindy has become an archetypal underdog character, the kind that writers put in a story to goad heroes into doing the right things.

Bush has a bad habit of carelessly casting himself as an antagonist in the stories of those who oppose him.

Sorry, last post… was back reading your comments Mike, and I’m really quite shocked that you could somehow defend the Swift Boaters.

When the Swiftboaters came out against Kerry why were they discredited based on a change of what they said during wartime? It is the same thing. If a person changes their statements or opinions in a political way then the reasons for the change are valid conversations.

Do you not see the irony here? You seem to indicate that it was okay for them to change their minds, and that we should be sympathetic to them because they were criticized for it, much like you and others have done to Cindy. You also seem to be trying to figure out if Cindy is being “political” or “personal,” as if the difference is so important as to warrant a discussion.

Well, interesting enough, the Swift Boaters were acting as both political and “personal” — you see, these guys hated Kerry who came back from the war with long hair and criticized their war. That was “un-American” to them (much as it is now) because in their world, you are not allowed to criticize the government of the United States. They were looking for revenge and Bush gave them the opportunity.

And we are through the looking glass now with this Party. The war veteran is villified, the guy who couldn’t complete his obligation to the military is elected. The woman who lost her son in the war is discredited by people that have never had to serve. We truly are in Wonderland, Alice. The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Just another example of why I am appalled at how the Republican party has allowed themselves to be used by far-right factions that will discredit anyone and anything that disagrees with them. In my view, they are not Americans. They’ve forgotten our history, our legacy, and our birth. Freedom. Freedom to even disagree.

I’ll stop now, I promise…;)

Chris,

I did read much of her diaries although not all of them when the link was given earlier today. Not sure what bearing that has on things or what grand arguement I am making. Apparently asking questions or attempting to determine reason or motive is disturbing to you. As for O’Reilly apparently you watch him much more than I do yet you shift his thoughts onto me. Interesting arguement.

I think the timing is right for many to question the president and administration. My comment is that it is pretty naive to expect the president to take the time for a private audience.

Give it up? Apparently other opinions or thoughts bother you so I will leave your posting to someone who agrees completely with you and not present any other possibilities for you since it disturbs you. Just thought that was the purpose of these forums. Sorry to disturb your reality.

I think the anger from the left - or the right - is not just the result of talk radio but a shift of political strategy to make it even more of an “us vs them” system. You get people to vote by triggering an emotional response whether it is “anybody but Bush” or “gay constitution amendment” or whatever. It is what our political system has evolved into currently. The problem of course is that the parties cater to the political edges and moderates are left without very appealing choices.

The impeachment would take much more time.

“I welcome AirAmerica. I’m sick of only hearing one side.”. So why listen to either side of these two extremes?

Stephen,

When it comes to politics I always question motives. If that makes me a cynic then so be it. Just am very skeptical of the pure as snow philosophy in politics.

I think it is something that most politicians would avoid. What benefit would it be to a politician to meet with someone who’s stated intent is to impeach them? Granted that most politicians are not as disliked as Bush is so they would not produce so much hate.

I have no idea on how Truman or Eisenhower would have handled it since I will be the first to admit I do not know that much about them. I think he is probably right about Reagan and Clinton and he could probably throw Carter in there also. They all had more compassion than Bush shows. Does that make Bush wrong? Matter of opinion.

Chris,

If you can find anywhere that I defended the swiftboaters I would like to see it. Comparing strategies in how things went is not defending any particular group. However if you want my opinion I think they had just as much right as anyone else to express their views.

“You also seem to be trying to figure out if Cindy is being “political” or “personal,” as if the difference is so important as to warrant a discussion.” - This whole thread started out about Cindy and her perceived motives if you would read it. That is what most of the discussion points were in the original post.

“Just another example of why I am appalled at how the Republican party has allowed themselves to be used by far-right factions that will discredit anyone and anything that disagrees with them. In my view, they are not Americans. They’ve forgotten our history, our legacy, and our birth. Freedom. Freedom to even disagree.”

You say freedom to disagree. Does not that same freedom go for the far right factions? Is calling them unamerican because you disagree with their tactics and views any different than them calling others unamerican?

I’ll stop now, I promise…;)

Chris, you asked me, I answered, I’m sorry if you don’t agree with my opinion but it is my opinion. To try to make an issue out of me answering something to you sorry I don’t get it.

However since you are “done” now, best wishes, though I might suggest in the future not directing comments to me if you are not interested in a response. Generally when someone writes something to me I feel it a common courtesy to respond.

:-)

Mike P —

ah, I’m don’t feel like quitting, do you? ;)

Now, now, please don’t feel the need to insult me. You have asked questions, and I have merely given you my response to it. I certainly believe in asking questions. That is what I’ve been saying, isn’t it? The right to ask questions and the right to disagree. And O’Reilly is mentioned as a mere example of the smear on Cindy Sheehan. Believe me, I cannot watch him, my stomach can’t take it. I’ve been made aware of his dispicable comments about Cindy.

Furthermore, please don’t disturb my reality. Other opinions don’t bother me. Smear campaigns, insults, lies, bigotry, prejudice, that bothers me. And I was referring to the Republican party — not you, of course. Your opinions here don’t bother me. I thought the purpose here was to discuss as well?

And about AirAmerica, well… lately, their “side” seems pretty right on for the most part.

I should thank Bush and Company — they made me go to the LEFT!

As to the Swift Boat post — well, it would take quite a long post to list all the things that I find abhorrent about the far-right. I think some of them are un-American. You know, a bunch of protesters showed up to counter Cindy’s peace protest, shouting “We don’t care” to the Sheehan camp.

That’s all I need to know about the far-right.

On one side: Mother lost her son in the war.
On the other: “We don’t care.”

Lisa — sorry, that “last post” thing was only because I felt I was talking too much. You have every right to respond and would hope you would. But I don’t see anything being discussed now about the arrest issue, did you have something more to say?

Mike P.
Frankly I think you play into Republican hands by taking that attitude. Hell, insinuation is worse than factuality. They get to insinuate that Kerry somehow conspired to get shrapnel in his ass while destroying enemy supplies, just to get a ride home. They conspire to push bullet free versions of battles that even one of Kerry’s biggest critics (aside from the Swiftvets) said was Bull.

People like you will go on saying, hey, that’s suspicious, and meanwhile, the folks saying these things will just float on by with much worse records, because Republicans get free rides on defense and fiscal policy.

Nope Chris, all I was doing was trying to answer you because I thought you wanted a response from me. I was not trying to focus on the arrest issue except from the point of answering your questions on it and my reasoning on it from that point.

Stephen Daughtery:

It’s hard to know, but I think that Harry Truman would have met Cindy Sheehan. I think that Dwight Eisenhower would have. He knew about military sacrifice — the horror and complexity of it. snip

Ronald Reagan would have stopped his car, if for no other reason that to hold Cindy Sheehan for a few moments, to express the regrets of a nation that her son was lost, and to thank her — even though he might not have made her and many of us believers in this war.

Bill Clinton would have had Cindy in to the ranch and made a summit of it.

George Bush drove by…on the way to a fundraiser. Shameful.

He should have stopped, made a gesture — even if she stood on the opposite side of his policies.

Stephen Daughtery:
It is shameful. It’s also stupid, from an audience oriented point of view. There is a good reason why many movies feature a hero seeking justice from apathetic authority figures who are either hiding the truth or refusing to answer for some crime. Cindy has become an archetypal underdog character, the kind that writers put in a story to goad heroes into doing the right things.

Bush has a bad habit of carelessly casting himself as an antagonist in the stories of those who oppose him.”

That is the Truth.
Fuck, even Nixon came down in the middle of the night and talked to the protestors! I was there and saw the bastard do it myself - he stood not forty yards away from where I was.
Bush has broken every record you know, when even the worst behaved and most shameful president in American history begins to look decent by comparison!

I guess I can see why Adrienne thought I should look at this website to read some of the stuff that is posted here - and the dumbass things that are being written by these rightwingers.
But despite all her fire and undying optimism about progress in this world, I still claim it won’t make one damn bit of difference.
People who take a moron like Bush seriously aren’t going to be changed by any words that anyone writes here. And I think they couldn’t care less for military grunts, or anybody else that doesn’t already agree with what they think.

In case anyone is interested (due to A’s visits to this place), I’m her cousin (a Vietnam vet). She says she has mentioned me before and she MADE me do this today since I’m visiting her and making her cook me my favorites.
She wants me to tell you that she won’t be coming to this spot anymore because of a bias she perceives with the management… in favor of the Republican’s. She might be right. Where is the guy who is supposed to be slamming commenters like this one:

“Yeah Vex, you’re the smartest one on the planet. Keep listening to Air America and soon your brain will be completely mush. It’s a shame that so many good Americans had died in the past so that you can enjoy your freedom of being selfish, myopic and essentially a blight on the human race.”

Isn’t that kind of thing supposed to be a violation?

And what the hell does that guy know about war or dying? Not much, I’m guessing (or he wouldn’t talk that way) - and he’d probably piss his pants if he ever did.

People on the Left or Right who are opposing this war are not selfish, myopic or a blight on anything - save the Neocon’s plan to do what they mindlessly schemed to do years ago. Wake the fuck up - this isn’t even news unless all you’ve been doing is watching the goddam idiot box and believing every scrap of propaganda Bush & Co. throws your way.

I just read Adrienne the “Alice through the looking glass” post put up by Chris - we both thought it was totally brilliant, and she says “that kind of drama and flair will do more than merely fill her place!”

Raising a glass and saying goodbye,
Slainte,
Lefty and Adrienne

PS. from Adrienne: My best wishes and fondest thoughts to all you Left & Liberal Watchbloggers (you’re well aware of who you are, and I’ve definitely praised you often enough to be proud in the process ;^). And to kcTim - who for some reason I’ve always wanted to talk to and liked, despite his opposite mindset.

Take Care Now.
Fois (Peace) agus (and) Siuthad (go on with your bad selves)!
(That’s in Scots Gaelic, in case you were wondering.)

posted by rinehold quoting a family member…”The rest of the Sheehan family supports the troops”

I am SO SOOO sick of the above attitude! It implies that Cindy Sheehan is against the troops!

Why is it the rightwingers accuse anyone who opposes bush’s decistion to invade Iraq as not supporting the troops!!!

This is not Vietnam, I’d say 99.9% of Iraq war opposers LOVE the troops - that’s why they wish they didn’t get killed/shot in Iraq!!!! Nobody is spitting on returning soldiers!!! It’s regular Americans who don’t want their sons, daughters, fathers, and friends getting killed in Iraq.

This lady loved her son (a soldier) - she isn’t against her son or the soldiers in Iraq - she is against them getting hurt/killed in Iraq.

For the LIFE of me I do not understand the below logic of the right:

Supporting troops = supporting sending them to Iraq to their deaths.

Being against troops = saying hey don’t send them to Iraq - there isn’t a good enought reason for them to sacrifice their lives there

——————————————————————-

People debating Iraq policy is fair game, but let’s all agree that WE ALL support our troops!

Final point - let’s flip it back - how would you like it if the left had a new campaign : that goes like this -> Why do the right hate our troops, why don’t the conservatives care that they are being killed and mamed? Please we urge all Americans to SUPPORT our troops & save their lives by pulling them out of Iraq and re-instating the we won’t invade your country unless you declare war or attack the USA or one of it’s allies.

I mean REALLY people let’s all respect each others opinions - remember the people against the Iraq war basically give the exact same reasons Bush sr. gave for not taking it over the first time!!!! Be fair - debate civilized!

I’ve seen a few references to O’Reily and his “attacking” Mrs. Sheenan.

Would any of you please point out any untruth that O’Reily has said about her?

—-
Would any of you please point out any untruth that O’Reily has said about her?
—-

Read what is written above. There is no truth or untruth, just vile opinion and conjecture. O’Reily doesn’t bother to discuss on fact or truth - doesn’t fit his mindset.

It is his opinion, so if you want someone to disprove his feelings, then … O’Reily is an asshole (IMO) - can you point out the untruth in that?

He is dishing out Republican smear, and that was what the above post was focusing on. That was the ‘attacking’ Sheehan.

To those who have made comments like “should all the Viet Nam mothers have asked to meet with Johnson” and to those who question Sheehan’s veracity because of the 2004 meeting:

On Good Morning America last week, I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears Sheehan as she addressed the latter question- in 2004, she didn’t know about the Downing Street memo, the phantom WMD, the lies on which this illegal invasion and its subsequent police action were founded. Had she known what she knows now, she would certainly would not have been one of the parents paraded in front of the media in order to prove Bush’s kindness and “compassion” (the far right has destroyed hat word, hasn’t it?).

As to the comments that pepper the board about other presidents, I don’t really remember (especially since I wasn’t born until towards the end of Viet Nam) many people who have taken the steps and generated the publicity Sheehan has. But Sheehan is from a different generation and the threat to us all is very different. Sheehan is not asking for tea and sympathy. She is asking why Bush can lie, can manipulate and get away with it. She asking for accountability from leadership in her country and if I remember graduate courses in Constituational history correctly, that bears some resemblance to what was demanded of a certain parliament a few years back and harkens back to the very basic issues that led to the founding of this country in the first place.

As to Mike P. and his comments on talk rasio, please don’t comment if you are not listening to either side. Air America tends to allow the other side to actually TALK, whereas Hannity, Limbaugh and their ilk insult, scream, and disconnect anyone with a non-neo-con offering or a different opinion, dismissing them as un-American idiots, and have this amazing ability to twist truth and spout hypocrisies without batting an eye. Air America is no where near to that extreme. And you need to listen because it’s really important to know not only what the other side is upt o, but your side as well- even if it is the extreme of your side!

To those who have made comments like “should all the Viet Nam mothers have asked to meet with Johnson” and to those who question Sheehan’s veracity because of the 2004 meeting:

On Good Morning America last week, I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears Sheehan as she addressed the latter question- in 2004, she didn’t know about the Downing Street memo, the phantom WMD, the lies on which this illegal invasion and its subsequent police action were founded. Had she known what she knows now, she would certainly would not have been one of the parents paraded in front of the media in order to prove Bush’s kindness and “compassion” (the far right has destroyed hat word, hasn’t it?).

As to the comments that pepper the board about other presidents, I don’t really remember (especially since I wasn’t born until towards the end of Viet Nam) many people who have taken the steps and generated the publicity Sheehan has. But Sheehan is from a different generation and the threat to us all is very different. Sheehan is not asking for tea and sympathy. She is asking why Bush can lie, can manipulate and get away with it. She asking for accountability from leadership in her country and if I remember graduate courses in Constituational history correctly, that bears some resemblance to what was demanded of a certain parliament a few years back and harkens back to the very basic issues that led to the founding of this country in the first place.

As to Mike P. and his comments on talk radio, please don’t comment if you are not listening to either side. Air America tends to allow the other side to actually TALK, whereas Hannity, Limbaugh and their ilk insult, scream, and disconnect anyone with a non-neo-con offering or a different opinion, dismissing them as un-American idiots, and have this amazing ability to twist truth and spout hypocrisies without batting an eye. Air America is no where near to that extreme. And you need to listen because it’s really important to know not only what the other side is upt o, but your side as well- even if it is the extreme of your side!

Adrienne and Lefty, please please please keep on posting if you can find it in your heart. I need you, hell even Jack needs you but he wouldn’t admit it. I was hoping against hope that Adrienne would back off of her stance against the Democratic Party but I understand her feelings, I’m almost there myself but not quite. I will really miss A as I’ve told her before but I see regulars come and go here all the time so I suppose it’s to be expected. And where is kctim, by the way?

Angie,

If you think that Air America handles their shows any different than what Limbagh, etc. do then you are just listening with a partisan ear. They both use the same strategies, name calling. put downs, etc.. Yes it is a balance to the right wing radio stations but they use the same strategy. Randy lumps all Republicans into the same catagory just as Limbaugh does with Democrats.

Two sides of the same coin.

Chris,

First of all if I insulted you in the last post I apologize. Just put it down to being up too late at night. So on with a new day.

I am not really interested in getting into the Swiftboaters. My point was that they have just as much right to state their opinion as Sheehan or Moore or whoever. Just because a person disagrees with an opion does not make the people unamerican.

I did not know that anti-Sheehan protestors showed up although it does not surprise me. However they have as much right to express their opinion as she does.

People debating Iraq policy is fair game, but let’s all agree that WE ALL support our troops!

Actually, I will agree that MOST of us do. However, I did see a few bumper stickers on a car recently that nearly stopped my heart.

One said “The Nazis supported their troops too” and the other ‘Fuck the Troops”. He had a yellow ribbon with a red cross through it.

So, while I won’t be suggesting anyone doesn’t support the troops simply because they don’t agree with a given war, I also won’t be saying that ‘everyone’ supports the troops. :(

It seems to me that lost in all of this discussion or, maybe said in another way in a previous post is :

1. What qualifies Cindy Sheehan, more so than the other parents and loved ones who have lost relatives in the Iraq war to a one on one explanation from President Bush and,

2. If the explanation for the war that President Bush has been telling is not factual, what makes Cindy Sheehan or anyone else for that matter entitled to the “truth”?

Watchblog posters know the truth - the media knows the truth-political and military analysts know the truth-University Professors know the truth-retired Generals know the truth, why doesn’t Cindy Sheehan believe one of these truths.

—-
What qualifies Cindy Sheehan?
—-

She was able to commit her time and grab the attention of the country and the press. That’s all that’s required. Why are you looking any further? Should you have to be ‘an expert’ or ‘authority’ to question out leaders?

It’s like the moronic old saying “Who do you think you are?!” She is Cindy Sheehan, and obviously that’s enough.

Mike P - no problem about the insult, etc… it was late for me, too. ;)

You said:

I did not know that anti-Sheehan protestors showed up although it does not surprise me. However they have as much right to express their opinion as she does.

Of course they do, but here is what I find curious about this discussion:

You say nothing about the reports from Crawford that state they were chanting “We don’t care” to peace protesters that consist of parents and others that have lost loved ones. Why doesn’t that bother you?

No-one on this thread that questions Cindy, has ever said anything about the fact that the President in their first meeting didn’t take one minute to find out Casey’s name. Why doesn’t that bother you?

See, that’s what I don’t understand. It’s like supporting this war has made people insensitive to their fellow Americans. I may sound self-righteous here, and I’m sorry, but that is what galls me about the dialogue that takes place in this country right now.

And thanks, Angie, for that great post, and especially what you point out about right-wing radio. I’m listening to AirAmerica right now, and they are not even close to having the same arrogance of the right. They do take calls from those that disagree, unfortuntely for the right, most of the time they have no argument. They call to merely agitate. The right consists mostly of insults, not even remotely coming close to discussing the issues at hand. Not saying they don’t engage in the same thing, sure they do, but once again, I’m appalled at the level of discourse that comes from the right.

Why does that not bother people? Why do people think that it is okay to smear people? Why in the HELL did people not see the hypocrisy of the Swift Boat bullshit? They did not have the right to do what they did — and if you think it was merely them speaking their minds, you’re naive as hell. They accused him of shooting himself! Did you not listen? This wasn’t even remotely close to someone just “speaking their mind.” It was a Karl Rove dirty politics paid for smear to muddy the waters to win an election at all costs. More than anything, I wish people would wake up!

I don’t get it. Why does none of this even remotely bother you?

And Steve Smith — now I’ve heard it all. Do you honestly believe an American mother who lost her son in the war is not entitled to the “truth”? My god. Words escape me. You should really read more carefully, because you seem to miss the point that it is obvious Bush misled this country on this war. And if you really think we don’t deserve the “truth” from our leaders, I suggest you move to a country with a dictatorship. You may find yourself blissfully happy there.

Lefty wrote:

I just read Adrienne the “Alice through the looking glass” post put up by Chris - we both thought it was totally brilliant, and she says “that kind of drama and flair will do more than merely fill her place!”

Lefty and Adrienne, with comments like that, I’m sorry to see you go. ;) lol

Actually, is it true that those that run a Democratic log support the Republicans more? I’m new here… I also hope you’ll come back. I thought Lefty made some good points.

Mike P.-
Air America is a fairly new development by obviously partisan Democrats. One things Democrats do, though that is uncharacteristic of many of the talk-radio Republicans. There’s less of a need on my sided to destroy the Republican party.

People have a right to speak their opinion, but the question of credibility is important. You raise it too, but I think you raise it on the wrong grounds.

The SwiftVets are brought in because they are a perfect example of this dichotomy. They made a great number of claims and insinuated that Kerry’s service was not genuine in character, and so it shouldn’t be considered. They based their skepticism, though, mostly on the anecdotal memory of their members. Kerry could come back with documentations not only supporting his medals, but also putting the claims of the SwiftVets in factual doubt.

Examples? There exist oodles of them.

With the Boston Whaler incident, two of the people who were actually there say that it is impossible for the people making the claims to have been there with them. Additionally, Kerry’s wound was attained because he shot at soldiers with his grenade launcher at thirty feet away, rather than forty-five. I guess he should have gotten out of the boat and taken a tape measure to his surroundings before he shot at the enemy. I’m sure they’d understand.

With the Silver Star citation, there is no mention of the in-the-back shooting of the man (or boy) with the rocket launcher that Kerry’s critics say got him the medal. It was his tactics of turning the attack on the enemies that are mentioned.

With the Bronze Star and the accompanying purple heart, the reports say that Kerry was knocked against the side of his pilot house by the explosion. This wasn’t some firecracker. The man Kerry saved mentions being shot at, which the SwiftVets deny, and mentions Kerry having blood on his arm when he reaches down to haul the man up from his vulnerable position.

With his speech at the Senate Foreign Affairs commitee, Kerry relates that he is telling the committee of things that other soldiers told him. He’s not ratting out other soldiers, but relating their confessions. His purpose in the speech is also misinterpreted. Only in considering any criticism of what the soldiers did as a betrayal can Kerry’s speech be considered such. His targets with that speech were the commanding officers and administration officials who put soldiers in the position that compromised their morals and made war criminals out of men who had no such inclination. He even named himself as one by admitting he participated in free-fire zones, engaged in search and destroy missions, and accepted a fifty-caliber machine gun for use as an anti-personnel weapon. He related that he found this out only after the fact, after examining the law.

All this got distorted, by people whose bills were paid by friends of the president and the GOP. They put out a book, which from the little I read of it was dripping with vitriol and never once gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt. If a form mislabelled a medal, it must have been Kerry’s fault, and not the guy who typed it up. If Kerry got a medal for a small wound, it was his fault, not the Navy’s. They emptied the thesaurus piling on the hatred on Kerry.

Additionally, a number of these men supported Kerry in a tough Senate race. There’s where your suspicions should be drawn. Why oppose him now, having supported him then?

The point, ultimately, is that doubt should be based on the facts, not simply on a reflexive reaction against one’s political opponents.

Steve Smith-
1)What entitles her? The same thing that entitles any other soldier’s family member to ask the same question: It’s a free country, Steve, and the constitution tells us this is our freedom What counts her out is the real question. What disqualifies her? The president can choose not to meet with her, but that a choice that doesn’t reflect well on him.

2)If a building had collapsed unexpectedly, questions would be asked. If it turned out somebody’ had been stealing money from a pension fund, questions would be asked. If two ships collide in a harbor, despite all the precautions that are supposed to be made, questions will be asked.

When something designed to work doesn’t function properly people want to know why, because mistakes get people killed, injured, lose them money, lose them their reputations, etc, etc.

The fact is, we don’t know the whole truth about why things go wrong, when they go wrong. That’s why we investigate, because sometimes there are non-obvious results.

Not wanting to continue in error, we try and find out. We get nervous, fearful, and angry when those who lead us get in the way of dealing with that. When they lie to us. When they misinform or only selectively inform us of the truth. Your side might simply see it as marketing or public relations, but my side sees it as opacity in government on some of the most important issues possible: our defense.

If our intelligence system really was politically mangled in the run-up to Iraq, what happens if we fail to discourage that in the future?

What happens if Rove is let off easy, or not fired? What happens in the future when somebody in the field is outed by a politician they unfortunately happened to piss of with intelligence or opposition they didn’t like. What happens when the sole determination of who gets raised up and who gets humbled in our system depends on whether one kisses the ass of those in power.

Republicans should take heed that the liberties they allow their governing officials will be precedent for the liberties of their opponents. If we don’t insist on a practical government that deals with the facts rather than constantly tending to its image, we will see good government go from a reality, to being just a dream.

Chris, be specific about the rhetoric from the right that “appalls” you. Also, are you saying the “Swift Boat” men didn’t have the right to tell their side of the story? How much “hypocrisy” was involved in the Mary Mapes/Dan Rather debacle? Was that an attempt to “muddy” the waters? How about your party’s chairman remarks re: the party of monolithic white christians, “I hate republicans and everything they stand for”? Is that your idea of “appalling discourse”? If you care to open a debate with me, feel free, I am one on the right who has a strong argument, absence the insults, and will address any issue you want. Re: Sheehan, she has already had her face to face with the President and just because she disagree’s with him and/or did not get the answer she wanted that does not entitle her to demand another meeting. The only “truth” you’re looking for is one that supports your agenda, whatever Bush said would not be good enough, he knows that, we know that, everybody knows that because your agenda is transparent.

Jay said:

Re: Sheehan, she has already had her face to face with the President and just because she disagree’s with him and/or did not get the answer she wanted that does not entitle her to demand another meeting. The only “truth” you’re looking for is one that supports your agenda, whatever Bush said would not be good enough, he knows that, we know that, everybody knows that because your agenda is transparent.

You wonder what rhetoric from the right I find “appalling.”

Bingo. You just said it. The problem with you is that you can’t even see how insulting and condescending that post is. I have no idea why ANYONE would be angry with Cindy Sheehan. She wants answers from a President about why her son is dead, and she wants these answers because she and the rest of America has been misled.

The fact that that even pisses you off is appalling to me.

So debating you seems clearly to be a waste of time. Not only that, it is Stephen Daugherty’s post you should be responding to.

Go ahead. I’m waiting for this ability to put out a “strong argument” in support of the motives and actions of the Swift Boaters.

Chris,

Often in politics it is somewhere between the two extreme arguments where the truth lies.

For the Swift Boat vets, you have to remember that O’Neil was saying these things and debating them with Kerry since early 1970. The charges the left made that they only existed because Rove got them together and funded them were absurd to anyone know knew the story longer than just the 2004 election.

As for why some supported Kerry to be a senator and didn’t want him to be in command of troops, I think they tried to answer that question when asked several times. You can disagree with it but they did have an answer that made sense.

But what was worse was the character smearing of the vets themselves that was appaling to me. To say that they were all lying or wrong because some were found out to be lying or wrong is disengenuous. I would liked to have had more independant reviewing of what was asserted and also would like for Kerry to have signed the release form he promised to do and never did that would have answered some of these questions.

So the right can say that the Swift Boat Vets proved something and you can say they were all lying cads. Again, the truth, as usual, lies somewhere between those two extremes.

Lefty,

Bush has a bad habit of carelessly casting himself as an antagonist in the stories of those who oppose him.

Are you sure it isn’t those who oppose him that cast him as an antagonist when they tell their stories?

And I think they couldn’t care less for military grunts, or anybody else that doesn’t already agree with what they think.

There’s where your wrong. Alot of us are vetern’s and care a lot about the military. We also like to here what the other side has to say or we wouldn’t be on this blog. We may not agree but that doesn’t mean we don’t care about your opion.

rassam1999,

This is not Vietnam, I’d say 99.9% of Iraq war opposers LOVE the troops - that’s why they wish they didn’t get killed/shot in Iraq!!!! Nobody is spitting on returning soldiers!!!

I’ll bet it’s only a matter of time, they weren’t spitting on soldiers at the beginning of Vietnam either.
And if it does start I’ll be at the airports to handle the scum bags.

It’s regular Americans who don’t want their sons, daughters, fathers, and friends getting killed in Iraq.

And what Americans want to see our troops being killed?

Rhinehold,

I been lax on a policy of mine with you and I hope you can forgive me.
Anyway, Thankyou for your service to our great country and specially for your personal sacifice

Well, Reinhold, the truth sometimes isn’t in the middle of all. You do make it all sound reasonable, I’ll give you that, and I do agree that this was a long time coming for O’Neill. The problem is — O’Neil distorted and Bush’s supporters all but made Kerry sound like some pyschotic who was actually thinking about running for President while in Vietnam and shot himself so he could get a medal! How can you even think that people wouldn’t be so disgusted by that? Why should I believe ANYTHING they have to say?

Being paid for the Republicans to come out and smear Kerry because they disagreed about the war was their personal and political agenda disguised as “speaking their minds.” Funny how the same people that supported the Smear Vets didn’t give a rat’s ass about Bush’s inability to follow through on his commitment. And this guy should be our Commander in Chief? Come now, the reason he was okay was because he was a Republican — party first, country later.

It is this blaring hypocrisy that is rampant in the Republican party and their supporters which I object to.

And Ron Brown, how in the world do you have the gall to speak for other people’s motives? And to say that people that oppose the war will spit on the soldiers. I gather that is what you want, because, you see, you have no desire to understand those that don’t agree with YOU. Apparently, this is what you wish will happen.

I find this particularly interesting:

And what Americans want to see our troops being killed?

Give that man a cigar! Cindy Sheehan is one of those Americans! So are the protesters with her!

Jay sorta like listening to Rush Limbaugh. But listening to him turns you into a robot with only the programing hat Bushco wants you to have.

Yeah Vex, you’re the smartest one on the planet. Keep listening to Air America and soon your brain will be completely mush. It’s a shame that so many good Americans had died in the past so that you can enjoy your freedom of being selfish, myopic and essentially a blight on the human race.
Posted by: Jay at August 12, 2005 12:58 PM

BTW Vex, simply google “iraqi opinion polls” I am assuming you can do that.
Posted by: Jay at August 12, 2005 12:59 PM

tony, Chris, Stephen Daugherty,

You all mis-interpret the meaning of my post.

First, I know that tony and Stephen know full well that people on Watchblog have been advocating that Bush “tell the truth” since the early stages of the war. It would take volumes to quote and reference the posts and number of articles of criticisms for “not telling the truth, America deserves the truth, the relatives of the dead soldiers deserve the truth, etc.”

Next, you cannot tell me that you actually think that the President is going to reveal any “truths” other than those he has chosen to reveal, to anyone in the immediate future.

Continuing, when responding to my post it was not mentioned that I said “What qualifies Cindy Sheehan, more so than the other parents and loved ones who have lost relatives in the Iraq war to a one on one explanation from President Bush”. You guys read only the first part “What qualifies” and responded to that. You didn’t say anything about the key point in my statement which was “more so than the other parents, etc.”

In spite of the fact that you know what I have said is the actual scenario you choose to renew the entire “Bush Lied” rhetoric on the media frenzy surrounding Cindy Sheehan, who is no more qualified or otherwise credentialed to hear “the real truth” for the first time from the President.

—-
“What qualifies Cindy Sheehan, more so than the other parents and loved ones who have lost relatives in the Iraq war to a one on one explanation from President Bush”.

—-

Same answer as above. She has the focus of the press and the country. That’s all she needs to put herself in postition/ or deserve to ask for the truth.

You didn’t say anything about the key point in my statement which was “more so than the other parents, etc.”

The question doesn’t matter. She just happens to be the one asking. She has never positioned herself as somehow more worthly to ask the question. What right did Rosa Parks have over other blacks to refuse to sit at the back of the bus? I just feel the question is moot. Sheehan was angry, she went to Crawford, she told others she was going, and they joined her. Simple as that. I don’t understand your point.

And yes, you’re right. I don’t think Bush will tell her the truth. I don’t think he believes he owes the truth to her. He is a coward every single time his car speeds by.

That’s the problem. He should stand there like a man and take her questions and her rage. Why do people continue to excuse this arrogant coward of a President is something that baffles me. Casey and Cindy Sheehan are ten times braver than our own President.

And you know what? You know I’m right. The “right” knows I’m right, that is why she has been ridiculed and criticized. They’re afraid of her, too. And they’re afraid because they know their President has let them down once again — he didn’t have the courage or decency to just face her and get it over with.

Chris, I am curious as to how you would answer the Howard Dean appalling comments, please explain to me how those comments are not as equally appalling to you. You are also wrong, wrong, wrong, period. Furthermore I am not “angry” at Ms. Sheehan, she can do whatever she chooses, I just think that the President does not need to meet with her AGAIN. Among the plethora of reasons to invade Iraq including the prospect of WMD’s, 17 UN cease-fire resolution violations which are all the reason needed to attack. Among those resolutions was the right of the US to proceed with hostilities should any of the cease-fire agreements be violated. That in and of itself states that we had every right to continue military action against Saddam. I know this may bother you as you so want to believe that we illegally invaded but get over it and moveon.org. Finally, Bush is twice the man you are, neocons are certainly not afraid of you or any other extremist including the jihadists. Have a wonderful day.

Chris and tony,

What makes America great is that you have the right to your opinion and to post it and I have the right to my opinion and post it.

When opposing opinions meet without agreement we have an impasse.

You can claim your position is the right one and I will claim that mine is and never the twain shall meet.

Well, Jay, I’m not a man for one. And as a woman, I’m twice what you and Bush are.

Thank you, Jay, for proving the point that I hoped to make when I came here. Thanks for proving that Republicans cannot discuss issues without resorting to insults.

I’m really sorry that I came to a democratic blog hoping to talk to reasonable people, I guess I was wrong.

And Steve — interesting response to our responses. Nothing of substance. Moving on…

In Crawford, a DJ trying to talk to people at the Crawford “Peace House” has been loosing his phone connection. The people that obviously are against Cindy are interrupting the Peace House’s phone lines, causing callers to be disconnected, etc. Typical of the Republicans — when you’re desperate, resort to breaking the law.

http://www.theguyjamesshow.com/

BTW, I should probably make my position clear here. I believe that what Sheehan is doing is political theatre, and I am fine with that, but I know what it is. Further, I’m on the fence about pulling out of Iraq NOW, and that is based on the FACT that Bush has made a mess of things with his ill-conceived war, and I’m not sure if pulling out puts Americans more in danger. At the same time, it can be reasonably argued that our futher appearance there may do nothing to make things better and hurts our cause in the long run. Look at history. Whenever we have engaged in something like this, we usually make it worse.

You should not make assumptions about people (yes, I read the moveon.org dig). That is what people like you do — if someone doesn’t agree completely with your ideology, apparently they are “wrong, wrong, wrong, period.”

Grow up.

Chris, Reps may lob insults (though sometimes it’s too easy) but you have succesfully dodged every question or issue I raised which is very typical liberal. When you run out of answers (which happens often) you cry foul. Answer the questions, specifically about Dean and the very legal reason to attack Iraq. Please.

Chris,

And Ron Brown, how in the world do you have the gall to speak for other people’s motives? And to say that people that oppose the war will spit on the soldiers. I gather that is what you want, because, you see, you have no desire to understand those that don’t agree with YOU. Apparently, this is what you wish will happen.

Yeah whatever you say.
I was spit on and the last thing I want to see or hear of is just that. If you had bothered to read what I said and not what you wanted me to say you would’ve known that.

As far a my not understanding people that don’t agree with me, I don’t have to understand them, I just have to give them the right to their opion, and that is what I try to do. Do you ? Or do you jusy attack those that disagree with you?

Chris -

Glad to have you here. Even though us who agree with you usually save our responses for REPs, I do enjoying reading your responses. I would appreciate your continued responses.

btw - just an odd feeling from the post above - “to Chris and tony”…

I dated a woman in college for several years, named Chris, and it was odd to see the two names together again. Nothing forward at all by that, just an odd remembrance.

Jay -

Just a point, why so worried about Howard Dean? He’s the head of the Democratic Party. He’s not an elected official - he’s a cheerleader for our political party, and I really tend to agree with what he says. There might be a few exceptions, but for the most part I will side oh his side.

My question is why bring Dean up at all when discussing Sheehan? Kind of an out-of-the-way thread to follow - or are you trying to simply say something about Democrats/Liberals? Bring it up directly to me, and I will try and explain where I see things. Nothing personal, just want to discuss these things directly with someone from a different point of view.

Chris-
Just wanted to say I love this analogy:

“The question doesn’t matter. She just happens to be the one asking. She has never positioned herself as somehow more worthly to ask the question. What right did Rosa Parks have over other blacks to refuse to sit at the back of the bus? I just feel the question is moot. Sheehan was angry, she went to Crawford, she told others she was going, and they joined her. Simple as that. I don’t understand your point.”

I think thate statement pretty much sums of the whole thing. (and I wish I had thought of it, darn it)

You also made me think a bit about the history of 60s radicalism and the opposition to Viet Nam with your comment about Sheehan’s protes as political theater. Reminded of reading about Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies and all the wild things they used to do.

We need more questioning like this and we need more people like Sheehan forcing us to move from complacency to action. Modern political complacency is the reason we as a nation are in the circumstances that led to the birth of an activist Cindy Sheehan and I hope she and others like her provide the catalyst for major political change in a couple of years. :)

Tony, I welcome the exchange. I bring Dean up on account of many on this blog refering to Reps “unable to discuss issues without resulting to insults”. IMO, Dean is hurting the democratic party, he is one of the worst bomb throwers on either side of the aisle and he did become very close to winning that party’s nomination. Re: addressing the issue, I have yet to be debated on my assertion of our right to attack Iraq. Included in the 17 UN resolutions Saddam violated was the right to continue military action if any of the resolutions were violated. That makes this war perfectly legal. Also, Chris is dodging the Dean reference, if she accuses the reps of resorting to insults, I am very curious as to how she feels (and you feel) about Dean and Harry Reid who, if you will remember called the President a “loser” in front of elementary school children.

Jay, I agree, the Dem’s did not improve their party one iota by replacing McAuliffe as attack dog with Dean as attack dog. All that changed was the name. Dumb!

Chris said “Grow up”.

That kind of flame baiting and insult will lose you your privilege of posting here Chris. This will be your only warning to comply with our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger, policy.

Jay said: “Finally, Bush is twice the man you are…”

This kind of flame baiting and derogation of other participants characters here will lose you your privilege of participating in the dialogues at WatchBlog. This will be your only warning. Please comply with our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger, policy. The word messenger here refers to all other participants at WatchBlog in case there is any confusion on that point.

Jay -
The Iraq war may have some obscure legal reasoning… but I’m not aware of any. If you are referring to the UN resolutions requiring Saddam to destroy his WMDs… which was the reason for such a hasty invasion - Saddam did disarm, and we were the ones on the wrong side of the ‘law.’ Also - they are UN resolutions, not American resolutions. Who gave us the right or authority to take policing of UN issues on our own. If Saddam was indeed in violation of these resolutions, and it warranted military enforcement, then it was up to the UN.

Bush used the fear of WMDs to engage the American public and our leaders on the path to war. I’m not sure anyone could refute the idea that the intelligence for that was wrong (at best) or manipulated (worse) or used to support out right lies (the worst case.) I do not know for sure which case it is, and neither does anyone else posting here. For our opinions, we have to base on past track records and expectations of what really happened. I’m pretty sure we differ on this conclusion.

As far as Howard Dean goes - he has attacked Bush and his vigilant supporters for what he sees as the wrongful death of 1700+ American soldiers, the invasion and destruction of a sovereign country, and the waste of $300B. (Not to mention the insanely high number of maimed and killed Iraqis.) Bush’s cowboy mentality has destroyed any and all credibility or trust we might’ve had in that part of the world, and the rest of the world might just have a slightly higher opinion of us.

One point I have about the Iraq war - if not for the immediate threat of WMDs and 9/11 terrorists, what possible reason could warrant the invasion of Iraq at this point in time? Our 9/11 attackers were still free in the world (and still are.) We needed to maintain focus on this immediate threat, yet Bush decided to take our eyes off the ball and go after Iraq. What possible conclusion in Iraq could be seen as a more immediate threat to us than Bin Laden?

I know that Iraq could possibly be democratic (how strong that government ever becomes, only time will tell) and I know Saddam was an asshole - but that is not what is threatening the lives of Americans. Saddam was completely contained for 12 years, and his military influence in the world was diminished to the point that they could fly even on sortie against our forces when invading Iraq. Unless the laws have changed, it is still illegal to kill assholes. (It might help limit traffic problems, but…)

Also take into account the lies brought forth to the UN to support our desire to attack Iraq: aluminum tubes, yellow cake from Niger, predator drone planes, specific amounts of chemical and bio weapons “that not only do we know they have the, but we know where they are.” - as well as the mobile labs. And the fact that when we invaded Bush never planned to secure nuclear power or conventional weapon sights. I know of no quicker way to get weapons into the hands of our enemies.

When it’s all said and done: any President and support group that faces this sort of track record can be called just about anything and deserve even worse… and ‘loser’ hardly scratches the surface.

Chris,

It is hard for me to say much about protestors who chant “I don’t care” since your post was the first I heard of it. Until I can corroborate it how can I comment on it? Not that I disbelieve you but you know how things are said on message boards. If people are doing that then I think it just shows how sorry some people are.

Just because some people support the war does not make them any more insensitive than some people who do not support the war. There are idiots on both sides of the arguement just as there have always been in politics. Yes the vitrolic comments seem worse over the past decade or so than previously.

It is not ok to smear people of any form whether it is Bush or Sheehan or whoever. The fact is that is one of the current staples in politics and you see it from both sides. What can you call the Rather memos other than an attempt to smear Bush? As if Bush has not done enough things why forge evidence? The hypocrisy exists on both sides of the spectrum. You can argue which side does more but the level does not excuse the smears from either.

Tony, good feedback much of which I will enjoy addressing.
1. “Obscure legal reasons” for the war; the whole crux of the cease-fire agreement was our right to continue military operations against Saddam if he violated any part of the agreement. He violated that agreement on numerous occasions. Secondly, the UN Security Council votes to approve of any UN santioned military action. We failed to get the vote of Germany, Russia, and France. Why? Because, as we learned later though strongly suspected, they were in bed with Saddam making billions. (where is your outrage at that?)
2. “anyone can refute that the intelligence was wrong”, every credible intelligence agency in the world all came to the same conclusion. Hindsight is 20/20, Monday morning quaterbacking is a weak argument.
3. Tell me how these comments represent his concern over soldiers deaths:
“I hate the republicans and every thing they stand for”
“The republicans are nothing more than white christians”
“Republicans have never earned an honest living”
Also, I don’t care what most of the incompetent dictatorial countries think of the US, they should all be more concerned about why their own people are starving and dying.
4. “What possible reason for invading Iraq”, first of all at least 70% of the Al Qaeda organization is dead or in prison, granted Zawahiri and Zarqawi are still a major problem, we have made huge strides. As far as UBL, personally I think he’s dead, however it took us five years to find Eric Rudolph and he never left N.C., and we still have 18,000 boots on the ground after him so we haven’t taken our eye off of the ball. Saddam has already cost us lives in the first Gulf War, which had nothing to do with GW (wow can that be true). We seriously hurt his operation in that war, but he was reloading. If left alone, or in “containment”, he would have continued to amass more arsenal for his future operations (do you seriously think he would have standed pat)and any future operation of agression by Saddam would have involved us and our soldiers. Today we see a peaceful democratic Afghanistan and a up and coming new Iraq.
5. “Lies”, if every credible intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion of strongly suspecting WMD’s, how can reciting that information be a lie? He was also not “completely contained”, how do you explain the numerous occassions of hostile fire at our s and British patrol planes over the no-fly zone?
6. And finally, your opinion is that since you disagree with these conclusions, any name or disrespect towards the President is justified. That is really cowardly, immature and exactly what you accuse the reps of doing.

Jay-
The authorization for war focused primarily on WMD and terrorists.

Pieces of evidence, including headliners like the Niger Uranium, the Aluminum tubes, the mobile labs, The expected stockpiles were not just wrong, but flagrantly so. People knew these things were B.S.

Dean’s comments as quoted do not seem to be part of any discussion about WMDS or foreign policy for that matter.

As for the incompetent, dictatorial countries, they’re having a field day thumbing their noses at us.

Usama Bin Laden is charismatic leader, not the type you leave around to gather more follows, reconstitute his organization.

The percentage of al-Qaeda dead is a deceptive measure, because it represents old data about the leadership. You never heard of field promotion? recruitment is not their biggest problem.

Afghanistan is a mess, largely ruled by the Warlords of the place.

Sorry, Jay, I was quiet because my kids just got back from a vacation at the beach with their father. It was time to get away from the computer.

About Dean — not sure I was dodging anything, but I like Dean. I like him because he’s angry as hell and it’s about time. One more hyprocisy from the right is that I should be upset we have an attack dog, when the Republicans have done nothing but attack since 1992! I should state, though, I don’t always agree with what he says.

With regard to Iraq, Tony said it all for me. His response regarding is probably 100% the same as mine. I really don’t know what I can add to that discussion, except to maybe list the reasons why I think it is perfectly justified to call Bush a “loser.” They include everything from appointing polluters to positions in Environmental Protection, to dismissing global warming, to not believing that Al-Quada was a bigger threat to us than Iraq when he came to office because he was unwilling to listen to a “Democratic Administration,” to demoralizing a State Department by instilling an environment of loyalty over intelligent dissent, to playing to the fear of gays getting married to win an election, to telling the American people that he has a mandate and political capital he intends to spend (sorry, Jay, the arrogance of this man enrages me), to allowing a Republican congress to spend money on their pet projects and contribute to the bankrupting of our government, to changing his stance on whether someone in his Administration would be held accountable for outing a CIA agent, to not firing Rumsfeld in an attempt to show the world that we do not support torture, to pushing through a Patriot Act that is at the very least questionable about what America really stands for, to — and this really bugs me — being the kind of leader that doesn’t seem to care that people all over the world are hating us more every day. And I guess that is my major problem with Iraq.

Maybe you think I’m not addressing your Iraq post issue by issue, but this is my point — it is the leadership of Bush that concerns me. I’m glad you think OBL is dead, but I don’t think so. I hope you’re right. The point is if there are short term successes (we have not been attacked since 9/11 is something I hear in Bush’s defense) does not change the possible long term damage this man has done to our image in the world. I’m sure your response is (and his) is that we’re in a war now and that doesn’t matter. Of course it matters. Terrorism is borne from hatred, whether that hatred is illogical or not, rational or not. It has to be diffused along with making strong statements about how we will not back down or deal with terrorists. Iraq is now in the war of terror in a way it wasn’t before. I’m afraid now because of what Bush has done there — I think we’ve just created another generation of terrorists that may kill my kids next time. I know when I say that to Republicans, they dismiss it, but there is a lot of evidence out there that Iraq is becoming another Alamo. Where is the intelligence of this Administration? They seem so smart on how to win elections, but can’t use that same amount of smarts to realize that this war on terror includes our “image.” It is not enough to just be “tough.” This is a very complicated issue, and while I HATE terrorists, abhor their tactics, they are a kind of enemy we have never really encountered before. The rules have changed — and he took the eye off the ball when he left the war on terror and ran over to Iraq. YOu can disagree — so be it — but it was a rush without a plan or an understanding of what we were up against. And I have to wonder why the supporters of George Bush are so easily willing to believe and support whatever actions he takes, and in many instances, buy right into the talking points without wanting to search further.

I am on other discussion boards (entertainment, I’m a movie buff) and I talk and chat with people from all over the world and their feelings toward the United States is pretty bad. I just cannot believe that we are right and the rest of the world is wrong. That makes no logical sense to me. Jay, you don’t seem to care what the world thinks of us. That’s fine. Reasonable people with disagree on that point, and I disagree. I believe in this global era, that if we are going to portray ourselves as “leaders,” then we need to lead by example, and we need to attempt to understand others’ opinions. I don’t think the Bush Administration gives a damn, and more than anything, we have now given up our moral authority by at least giving the appearance that torture is okay.

Bottom line: I believe we have sold our souls to the devil because of 9/11. I believe we’re turning into what we say we don’t approve of. I believe we’re becoming hypocrites in the eyes of the world and I blame George W. Bush.

You know, maybe all that doesn’t answer what you want me to answer, but its just how I feel about it all and I got on a roll.

Angie — I remember the 60s! I think I’ve been excited about Cindy Sheehan because I feel like the American people stopped caring about what was going on around them — it’s nice to see an activist make a stand. But I’m sure that’s just me. ;)

And Mike — I agree with you to a point. I remember Hillary Clinton being the subject of ridicule at the Bush convention in 1992. I honestly never remembered anything like that in all the years I watched conventions. To me, it was the beginning of this now current ugly state of dialogue that has everyone yelling at everyone else. And the impeachment will forever instill in me a total distrust for Republicans. I often wonder if I will be an 80 year old lady one day still holding a grudge. At the moment, I will never forgive them. And I believe the Republican party is the one responsible as it moved farther and farther to the right. I don’t have a link, but years ago I read where Bush Sr. was upset that the right-wing Christians took over that Convention. Gosh… now his son is leading the charge. :(

I saw a bumper sticker on the way to work the other day that sums up my feeling of the REPs I loathe and will never be able to see eye-to-eye with:

“One nation under GOD… like it or not!”

The other had the ACLU, with a Soviet sickle and “Enemy of the state.” The ACLU - Communists… that one made me laugh my ass off.

(If you’re wondering how I know this person was a REP - there were about a dozen other moronic stickers to go with that one.)

Whether you mean for them to stand for the REP party or not, they have the mouthpiece right now, and it can’t be ignored. From the war in Iraq (which will always be condoned with lies - IMO), the pathetic harping on Gay Marriage during the election (and the GOD-crap Marriage Protection Act…) and Bush’s ill-fated faith-based initiatives (helps if you actually fund those sorts of things), Freedom Toast (no explanation needed here), a President that makes Dan Qualye look like a brain-scientist… I will always see this Administration as the most corrupt, most dishonest in our country’s history. And I see the REP party in lock-step the whole way… never ever questioning…

and about supporting the troops:

“The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon’s procurement system.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/international/middleeast/14armor.html

Jay -

Others posted my response to you before I came back online. So, I’m not sure what else I have to add. But here goes…

The UN is the UN, regardless of how you feel about it’s individual members. If Russia, France and Germany are all in bed with Saddam - nice generalization without any supporting facts - then why do you think they signed the original UN resolution… and why were they agreeable to military action against Iraq if the weapons inspectors came back with violations. Those three countries wanted to give the UN inspectors the remaining 30 days to finish their job. We rushed ahead and prevented them from doing their job. The UN inspectors were proven correct… we were proven wrong. Why do you think Bush forced the war in Iraq rather than waiting 30 days? Was it his fear on an imminent threat or the fear of loosing his ability to invade Iraq?

Bush used the UN Resolutions to reason out our attack on Iraq WITHOUT the agreement of the UN. If you disagree with the validity of the UN, the how do you maintain validity of its resolutions?

The intelligence leading us to war with Iraq was wrong (or at least strongly suspect) and the Bush Administration knew this. They knowingly put false statement in the SOTU address as well as into the arguments Powell made before the UN prior to the war. (It’s like the crap the Bush Admin. was laying about how no one could’ve ever suspected terrorists using planes to attack our buildings? Yet, they had several intelligence report stating just that.) For you to dismiss it as hindsight or Monday-morning quarterbacking is lame (and ignoring the facts.)

You still state that we’ve made great strides in Afg. and against Al Queda, yet their leader (OBL) is still free and they are now actively attacking anywhere in the world they choose to go. Our vacation from terror - while they were busy in Iraq - is probably at an end, they are more than likely planning numerous attacks here and abroad, and we’re still in a quagmire in Iraq. Brilliant.

Rhinhold..Oh come on . Almost everyone except you and fox ,are supporting an american soldiers mother..that died for what , I dont know, and I for one want some answers.. I didnt raise my children for 18 years and go thru all I did to give the president the right to kill my child, unnecessarily ,just so iraqs could vote. I didnt pay taxes, so bush could give away my money to india to develop nuclear weapons..or let billions be stolen by halliburton, Why is it so hard for you to understand that we all believed bush when he said iraq had WWMD ,and then we find out bush and blair were making it up….Lying to us…..You hear…Lying to us and our media doesnt care at all how many die for bushs lies. Why, are you not supporting her…Because this will be your child next.. Our media gets paid to lie to us…..I only know that this is not the america I love..Our media has destroyed us by letting him get away with corruption , and lies. They keep corruption about republicans away from us and we have to find out from overseas, that ,by the way have seen those abu graub photos of americans raping and killing 8 year old.s..This has to stop.. We americans know we have to get the truth from elsewhere because our media is in bushs pockets..We used to just hear truth, not opinion,, opinion was not allowed in news..Now our media is controlled by clear channel, sinclair , fox,etc. and all we hear is opinion and they did it to themselves by following fake fox news.. .. Cindy knows that cheney, bolton, bush are doing to iran what they did to iraq, and you just sit there. afraid. Well I am proud, of cindy, she is not afraid……

Run georgie Run..You have a dead soldiers mother that wants to talk to you and wingers are upset…You need to go on vacation like you do when troubles come…oh right. your already on vacation..Cindy believed george too, like all of us when he said sadamm had WWWD..We believed him, but we wont do it again…Wingers havent heard about downey memo (media wont tell us) which says that bush and blair lied and fixed the facts to destroy iraq. Clark said 10 days after bush was in office, he wanted to destroy and conquer iraq and had companies lined up to handle his oil for us.He was so excited, we were going to be rich.. We never had a president delibertly want to destroy a country and all brown people but we have one now.. This isnt about republican or democrat, this is about corruption and I dont care who does it…..Clean house..stop hurting america…Cindy says, that yes, its 100 and yes, the fire ants are biteing us, and yes, we are hungry and need water but our soldiers in iraq have it much worse. Go cindy… god love ya girl

I think a lot of Republicans support Bush, and by association, the war. Not that they support the war in and of itself, but that they fear if they turn on the President. they will be left with the Democrats.

We can hope we get out of Iraq soon enough, but with out destroying the Republican Party. It is a quandry

Dee Lee -

Not sure what to make of your post… can you explain a bit more?

If nothing else, one good thing that has come out of this thread is that you Democrats, Liberals and all other non- Republican party members may have found someone (Cindy Sheehan) who you could run for office and get elected. I would start with the California mid-level government positions.

She will get plenty of exposure from the banners, T shirts and camping gear. The book and sale of movie rights will push her way over the top for campaign funding.

I am truly surprised that we have not yet heard from our friends on the left about how Cindy Sheehan and her supporters are being mis-treated while demonstrating in Crawford.

Surely you guys can unearth some obscure Constitutional right that they are being denied.

I was thinking that maybe she could get the Town of Crawford to order President Bush to vacate his ranch under the eminant domain provision. They could claim that constructing the Cindy Sheehan Auditotium and Conference Center would provide benefits that the ranch could not.

I didnt raise my children for 18 years and go thru all I did to give the president the right to kill my child,

The president didn’t kill that boy/ Iraqi insurgents did. If he did then Johnson killed my brother.

In addition to the President did not 100 Senators and 535 members of Congress (minus a few dissenting votes I believe) agree that we should go to war with Iraq.

steve-

“In addition to the President did not 100 Senators and 535 members of Congress (minus a few dissenting votes I believe) agree that we should go to war with Iraq.”

This again. You’ve been proven wrong (not by us, but by 9/11 commission and other Congressional committees… ) so, keep saying it if you will, but it demeans the viability of your other posts.

I find these threads interesting. Especially the lack of most posters ablility to see the other sides prespective. I sometimes wonder if America will ever be untied for anything, ever again. It just doesn’t seem to in our nature anymore. I personaly belive the War on Terror, must be fought, but I also belive invading Iraq was a terrible mistake. What to do, I have know idea! But what really scares me is why we are so at odds against ourselfs.

Well, tony, I’m not sure what to make of the recent posts here. It seems to me this discussion is getting us nowhere now.

For those that come here that are interested in Cindy and her experience there, she had this to say in her kos diary today that really sums up why I’m thrilled with what she is doing:

We also met a man whose son was KIA in Iraq in November of 2004. He still loves George Bush and thinks we are doing great things in Iraq. By the end of the day we were drinking beer together and telling each other “I love you.” I am telling you miracles are happening here in Crawford.

Anyway, back to the fantabulistic thing that happened to day. We had a rally downtown in Crawford. Then the people caravanned up to Camp Casey. I was told to come down to the point of the triangle to greet them. While I was walking down to the point, I had a great view of Prairie Chapel Road. There was car, after car, after car!!! I started sobbing and I felt like collapsing. The cars kept on coming. It took almost a full hour for them to all get to Camp Casey, it was a miraculous sight to see. It was identical to Field of Dreams.
People came from all over the country to be here. We are building a movement and they are coming.

I read that this morning and tears came to my eyes. I hope she’s right. I hope this movement lasts and makes a difference.

To everyone out there who supports Cindy Sheehan and her efforts…send her flowers!! (preferably yellow ones!) Show her you mourn her loss and you support her tremendous courage to try and get answers from this president who believes he shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions. Let the media know, and anyone who questions Cindy, that there is massive support for her and her goal. Let her receive thousands of flowers!!!

Call: Irene’s Flowers & Gifts at(254) 840-3772
- they deliver to Crawford ditches!!!

Thank you and let’s hope that peace is on the horizon!

***Please pass this idea along to your friends!****

Chris… thanks for the update. I’ve been away from kos for a while - just a bit gun shy from the past election. I’ll check it out.

During the past election - my business partner, 2 of my employees and a vender (and me…) put together a house party to raise money. It advanced to a restaurant (with 7 speakers) a bar (with 4 bands) a kids zone play area and a silent auction. We had 450 people show, raise $5k and signed up 62 people to volunteer on election day. While that was an absolute blast - it was the community that we found ourselves in. Everyone discovered each others events - shared email lists and marketing… putting up posters all over the place. It was the closest I think I’ve felt to movements in the 60s. If there was a muddy field, we would’ve all been running naked through it.

I’ve really enjoyed the feeling coming out of Crawford… seems to be a similar evolving event… community… movement?

btw - I have a bit of time on my hands. I’ve spent all weekend with a sick 2 yr. old - mostly throwing up on me. hmmmmm… wonder why my stomach doesn’t feel so good now.

Thought I would post Bush’s latest defense for not meeting with Cindy.

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/08/14/20050814wacbushprotest.html

I think it very important to point out here his reason:

“I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life.”

Should I explain all the ways this quote cracks me up?

Tony, the joy of kids is catching their stomach viruses. Cleans out the system. ;)

Motoman045

Our country is made up of believers and rational thinkers. For believers, no amount of evidence or data can change their beliefs. For rational thinkers, no amount of belief can ever replace data and evidence. It has always been so. Today, however, everyone has a voice without consequence, so we hear from 10’s of millions more Americans on any side of the rational/believer spectrum and hence, unanimitity in this country is even less possible today than in times past.

—-
“I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life.”
—-
Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy… almost.

… he wasn’t holding a beer was he? Oh, that’s right, he’s going on a bike ride. OK, I can understand trying to enjoy your vacation, but from the most vacationed President, it does come across as insincere. I’m just sort of amazed that this has gotten so out of his control. I’m guessing he’s hoping it’ll all blow over once his vacation is over with and he’s back in DC.

… I guess we’ll see.

tony,

Am I incorrect about the Senators and Congressmen? Is this an outright lie (I am a Republican so I am prone to lies) or am I mis-informed?

No, Steve, the point is that those that supported and voted for the war were misled, and many admit that now they would not support the war.

It seemed to me that was Tony’s point.

And Tony, I thought I would answer for Dee Lee since he/she hasn’t answered you. I would gather that Republicans are upset with Bush’s handling of the war, but they support him because it is all they have. No matter what, they cannot support Democrats because those democrats will raise their taxes and support all those poor people, and they’ll let those loose values take over the country with women having abortions and those gays getting married, and they are an immoral party that no matter what cannot be supported. So it’s the party or its nothing. And they believe whatever the talking heads tells them about the Dems. And the ol’ “tax and spend” label hasn’t left us no matter how much it is no longer based in reality.

‘Course, who was that guy that balanced the budget anyway? Hmmm….

You know, I can understand being loyal to your party, but any loyalty now to Bush boggles my mind.

steve -

No - you had the number of Senators and Congressman correct - it’s what you said they did that was wrong. It was an OK to use force as a last measure, and to encourage Bush to gain UN approval before use of military force against Iraq.

Bush failed there…

If the Congress had voted outright to declare war on Iraq, why the heck would Bush have gone to the UN?

We also know that the intelligence given to Congress was altered from what Bush saw. Not necessarily the issues about WMDs, but the doubt of the sources for the WMD intelligence.

Just a way out of sequence comment-
It cracks me up that the Reds are so upset that Cindy Sheehan has changed her mind or wasn’t against the president in the past. In almost every thread I’ve ever read, some right-winger, has made the point that all democratic arguments boil down to the fact that we hate Bush and just want power for ourselves. That, and the not supporting the troops thing. So here’s a woman who didn’t hate Bush before, who was apolitical, who has a son who gave his life in Iraq, who decided that the president was wrong and to fight against him, and now she’s a cynical, attention grabbing, flip-flopping, untrustworthy political animal. I mean, make up your minds.
It just amuses me. Carry on.

I was thinking about Angie’s comment about the 1960s tonight, and what is interesting about Sheehan to me is that she is even more symbolic than the students that marched in the 1960s. These were students who didn’t want to have to go fight, so they were really guilty of an agenda, an agenda someone could easily argue was cowardice.

Sheehan, OTOH, is an anti-war movement symbolized by the face of a grieving Mom. It is bloody brilliant when you think about it, and it isn’t like she meant for it to happen. Any following she has generated is because of what she instills in people’s emotions — emotions that have been building up with nowhere to go. There have been anti-war protests going on, but it was easy to make them all out to be liberal peacenuts, but Cindy — her agenda is different altogether. She just wants answers to questions we all have and she has a right to ask since she lost her son. Bush is unable to even grasp that she has the right to ask. By denying her that right, and for the Bush apologists to say that “well, then we’d have to see everyone that wants to see the President” ignores the very real issue at hand — this President does not believe he is accountable for this war nor is he accountable to the American people.

And what kills me is that the right thought by attacking her it would get them somewhere. It has gotten them nowhere fast, and Bush’s insistence on not seeing her is exposing his arrogance for all to see (I have no idea why they weren’t seeing it before). The right knows this, therefore the attacks.

Amazing. What a blunder for the Bushies. They honestly just don’t get it. And now it is too late. Bush lost this one.

Cindy Sheehan has every right to grieve for as long as she must. I seriously doubt that anyone begrudges her that emotion. I personally do not feel she deserves criticism for taking a different position now than she took earlier. She has also captured the commitment of a fair number of supporters for her demonstration which is a powerful accomplishment.

Realistically she is not saying or asking for anything over and above what everyone has been asking for since the early stages of the Iraq war.

I am purposely avoiding politicizing this issue beyond what is IMO absolutely necessary. It would be terrific if the President of the United States could personally talk to the survivors of each deceased soldier, to each person who has seen his or her retirement fund vanish, with each senior citizen who cannot afford prescription drugs, with every protester of governmental regulation or action, etc. The simple truth is that he cannot. (Reminder, I am not speaking specifically of Bush but, a President in general).

You may disagree or, more likely say that this case is different and/or his reasons for not doing so are selfish. True or otherwise, no single case can be different because then we will have a norm. The POTUS does not have the time to devote to these types of one on one meetings.

Sadly, I am of the opinion that there may be a possibility that there is more to this than is known at this juncture. It seems more than coincidental that this demonstration is timed perfectly to President Bush’s vacation (I know one of hundreds of vacations), it is at his ranch, in his adopted home town and, there are other high ranking government personalities on site.

I personally hope that this issue is completely of Cindy Sheehan’s doing independent of “background motivation and support” and that she is able to gain as much satisfaction from it as she possibly can.

Steve —

I think that people like to make this more complicated than it is. Whether you want to believe it or not, this woman was angry about some comments he made before leaving for vacation, and she decided she was going down there. There were 6 people there with her that first day. Now there are at least 300 (I honestly wish it was 3000). The point is, this isn’t and shouldn’t be about whether this opens the door for other wanting an audience with him — the people that have joined her aren’t even saying that — the point should be squarely on the President’s inability to understand that he is accountable to people like Cindy Sheehan. To be stubborn enough to continue to not see her when her movement is swelling, to be arrogant enough to talk about how he needs to go bike riding to “balance” his life shows that we have a President who doesn’t even want to deal with the fact that people are dying for a war that he pushed through and manipulated information to get into.

Her son is dead for a “noble cause” that it turns out now will not be democracy in Iraq but most likely an Islamic republic. The “noble cause” was a failure and people want to hear him get a grip on reality and apologize for his incompetence and arrogance that led Casey Sheehan into war.

That’s the point. There is more to this, steve, as you say, and it is the Bushies that aren’t telling the whole tale. I’m surprised anyone would think Cindy is the one not telling the whole story.

And about Cindy’s gaining “satisfaction,” the truth is, many more people than Cindy are gaining a sort of satisfaction that Bush is being shown to be coward he truly is.

IMO it is virtually impossible to look at this issue from any other angle or, make any meaningful points that have not already been made up to the present.

For me, this thread is completed.

steve -

“I personally hope that this issue is completely of Cindy Sheehan’s doing independent of “background motivation and support” and that she is able to gain as much satisfaction from it as she possibly can.”

Can you please chill on the conspiracy theory stuff unless you have information suggesting something? I mean, continually casting suspicions on her because she has issues with your President is pretty damn low. It’s the kind of Republican-style attack that will absolutely keep us from seeing eye-to-eye on future issues.

Chris -

Yep! I agree…

Looks like we covered this issue pretty well. Thanks.

Tony said…..

“Can you please chill on the conspiracy theory stuff unless you have information suggesting something? I mean, continually casting suspicions on her because she has issues with your President is pretty damn low. It’s the kind of Republican-style attack that will absolutely keep us from seeing eye-to-eye on future issues.”

Tony, the Watchblog forum is rife with theory. In fact it is theory that keeps many threads interesting.

We will never see eye to eye on present or future issues as long as we continue to have the opinions that were shared on this thread.

steve -

So a woman who wants answers to the death of her son must be examined under a microscope and completely vetted to make sure there is nothing suspicious… because anyone who dares take on this President must be evil in some sort of way or another. Maybe she’s a terrorist and is just wanting to get alone with the President to attack him.

I have no issue at all with theory… but the constant attack and suspect of her character because she dares to publicly question what Bush has done… to suspect her love of her son and his memory (only doing this for fame … and other complete horse shit…) is inhumane and if it is the Republican way of thinking - then I can promise you I will never, ever see eye-to-eye with the likes of people who follow this train of thought.

Tony, I guess we just agree to disagree.

So, steve, your response to tony about agreeing to disagree means that you believe a woman who lost her son in Iraq and wants answers to questions about why is someone whose character should be questioned?

Is that what you are saying?

I’m wondering what “opinions” you were referring to with your comment about never seeing eye-to-eye. BTW, I disagree that Democrats and Republicans cannot discuss things. I just had a few martinis with my neighbor who hates Kerry as much as I hate Bush. And we had a good time! It is possible if people respect each other.

Chris,

No, that is not what I am saying or ever was saying.

What I am suggesting is that there are unfortunately thousands of Cindy Sheehans. As there are thousands of other people who have disagreements/beefs, etc. with the President (not just Bush but, Presidents in general).

For the President to begin a practice of speaking to each and every one of these folks is not a practical course of action.

OK - sure… there are 1000s of people who could have grief with the President and demand his time…

But Sheehan has done something very unique, she has the attention of the country and the press. Again, that’s all she needs to do… She has the right to ask because she can. Bush can continue to ignore her - but it’s giving people the image of him saying “blah blah blah… I can’t hear you, blah blah blah.”

What’s worse now - he can not possibly go out to see her for fear of loosing face, yet if he doesn’t see her, then he leaves people with the impression that he does not care about the families of the military. Quite an issue for him to work through…

As far as agreeing to disagree… it does seem to mean what Cindy suggests. I’ve read your other posts, and even though I do not agree with you often, I don’t think you are vile or contemptuous of grieving mothers. I do think people’s willingness to attack Sheehan for support of their political party comes across as such.

tony,

For whatever reason this thing has gotten to epic proportion. Since Bush is on vacation anyway it seems that he could have made this all go away by inviting her to the house for an hour and dealt with it as best he could. Or, even better, walked out to her encampment and sat and talked to her for awhile.

Unfortunately now it’s too late, he is in a no win situation that he probably deserves. He cannot save face regardless of what he does now.

steve -

I agree with you on this one. I think Bush is in a bad way - and not sure how he can change the public perception… but one thing I do think the Republicans need to worry about is that they are being effected by this… and Bush has no more elections to run in.

Personally, I think you know how worried I am about this :)

—- breaking news from Crawford…
Late last night, a pick-up truck dragging chains ran over the rows of white crosses on the side of the road near Cindy Sheehan’s vigil. Each cross commemorated a dead soldier; this morning, many of them were broken or gone.
—-

What else can you add to this sort of bullshit.

I am a registered Republican who is sick to death of Bush. The fact that our troops don’t have adequate armour and humvee armour is MURDER! There is no reason for the richest country in the world to not properly armour our troops. I encourage any family members who have lost loved ones due to inadequate equipment to join together and sue the government for negligence.

I’d like to see Bush send his girls over there without proper equipment and see how fast that would change.

Bush, you SUCK! Gas prices are getting higher and higher and I’m starting to think it’s your own little Enron. Bush’s whole career was made on the oil industry and it’s starting to look very suspicious. Why are we still messing with old technology like petroleum when we should focus everything we have on hydrogen?

BTW, she is not ‘camped out’ at the protest site, nor is she honoring her pledge to ‘not budge’ from the site and to stay there until Bush’s vacation is over.

While many others are camping out, she is spending her nights at a motel down the road!!

This crackpot (and she is a crackpot) can’t even fulfill her supposed duties by roughing it like her followers and supporters.

What Sheehan does and says goes way beyong the grieving mother schtick that the media portrays her as. I’ve heard and read transcripts from various interviews and speeches with her and she is absolutely fanatical, uninformed, simplistic, and conspiratorial to the point where she makes Michael Moore almost seem honest (whom she blogs for, BTW).

And today on Moore’s website, she denies her saying in an e-mail to Ted Koppel that (in one of a few sources where she does say this) her son died for Isreal. She actually accuses the people who work for Nightline of changing her e-mail to capitalize on her notoriety.

She also blows off the symbolism of the divorce by claiming that it was set in motion ‘before’ the Crawford stunt. She’s right. It was set in motion before this, but AFTER she started crusading for the fringe far left. She seems to carefully leave the idea open that the divorce was pending before Caseys death, which she avoids saying specifically.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/

Kari -

You’re a registered Republican, huh? Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000 and why?

I love it when someone tries to pass themselves off as credible by claiming that they turned on someone or something and then follow it up with the typical garbage and childish hostility associated with the far left.

Do you know what Humvees represent? They have replaced the open-air jeep as a means of transportation. Jeeps that weren’t armored and didn’t even have roofs!! Humvees were NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE ARMORED! They weren’t meant to be battle vehicles.

If you’re going to pretend that you are a Republican, then you should avoid ignorant nonsense about Humvee armor and Enron etc.

You’re a Republican and I get advice from the ghost of Paul Wellstone every night!

She also blows off the symbolism of the divorce by claiming that it was set in motion ‘before’ the Crawford stunt. She’s right. It was set in motion before this, but AFTER she started crusading for the fringe far left. She seems to carefully leave the idea open that the divorce was pending before Caseys death, which she avoids saying specifically.

Oh, that makes her a crackpot alright.

Cindy Sheehan: “I would like to address some specific concerns that have been raised against me. The first one is about my divorce. I addressed this on my blog the other night. My divorce was in the works way before I came out to Crawford. My husband filed the papers before this all started. It just recorded last Friday. My husband didn’t know that it would become public record, and public knowledge. He had told his lawyer not to serve me with the paperwork or even bother me while I was at Camp Casey. He was trying to do the right thing. He didn’t want me to find out.”

And what in the hell DOES IT EVEN MATTER? It is between the two of them. I don’t even know what I’m defending here, since I cannot understand, for the life of me, why her divorce is even an issue. I just cannot get my head around that one.

On CNN:

COOPER: You were also quoted as saying, “My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. If you get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine, and you’ll stop the terrorism.” How responsible do you believe Israel is for the amount of terrorism in the world?

SHEEHAN: I didn’t say that.

COOPER: You didn’t say that? OK.

SHEEHAN: I didn’t say that my son died for Israel. I’ve never said that. I saw somebody wrote that, and it wasn’t my words. Those aren’t even words that I would say.

I do believe that the Palestinian issue is a hot issue that needs to be solved, and it needs to be more fair and equitable, but I never said my son died for Israel.

COOPER: OK, I’m glad I asked you that. Because, as you know, there’s tons of stuff floating around on the Internet on sites of all political persuasions, so I’m glad we had the opportunity to clear that up.

SHEEHAN: And thank you, because those are not my words. It doesn’t even sound like me saying that.

I gather a reasonable person, with no hidden partisan agenda and no desire to tear apart a person’s personal life for partisan gain and to support a President no matter what his actions (or inactions), could analyze this in a fair way and say that someone isn’t telling the truth. With the way the media has supported this Administration, a reasonable argument could be made that someone could have changed the e-mail.

Damn, just reading Otto’s post here leads me to believe that people would lie about Cindy Sheehan.

And then, of course, there is George: “We have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission.” “The families of the fallen can be assured that they died for a noble cause.”

Cindy: And what is that noble cause, Mr. President?

Is it the WMDs that were never found? Is it the links between Saddam and Al-Queda that were never found? Oh, I know, it was the democracy you wanted to instill in Iraq which is now going to be an Islamic Republic, the very thing we DID NOT WANT because that would make Iraq a hotbed for terrorists. Was it so the contractors could make tons of money? Was it for oil? That’s noble, we all need to drive, right? Just tell us, Mr. President — which “noble cause” was it? Gee, I’m just dying to know.

George Bush: But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there’s somebody who has got something to say to the president, that’s part of the job,” Bush said on the ranch. “And I think it’s important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say.” “But,” he added, “I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life.”

I gather not answering her questions keeps him balanced.

Gosh, what a crackpot she is. How dare anyone ask the President that? It’s not like he’s accountable for running this war, or for having enough equipment to keep the troops safe, and hey, he is surely not accountable FOR THE REASONS WE WENT THERE!!!

How dare Cindy Sheehan ask him these questions. What a crackpot she is.

Oh, and speaking of crackpots: Rush Limbaugh’s latest about Cindy: “Frankly, I’m also fed up — not fed up. I retract that. I’m weary, ladies and gentlemen, of even having to express sympathy. “Oh, she lost her son!” Yes, yes, yes, but (sigh) we all lose things.”

Gosh, she should just so get over it. I mean, we all lose things.

>>And what in the hell DOES IT EVEN MATTER? It is between the two of them.

Because it’s yet one more thing in a laundry list of statements and claims by either her, her supporters or the media that is radical, misrepresented or flat out dishonest! Look, she had the option of either not responding to comments about her divorce or telling the truth about it! She chose instead to sputter this rehearsed (and yes, it was rehearsed - her words are repeated almost verbatim on her blog) semi-truth about how what she’s doing in Crawford had nothing to do with her divorce, when it was what led her there that seemed to have had much to do with her divorce, along with the alienation of much of her family. It’s a credibility issue and it’s a fair one. Her husband made this pretty obvious.

As far as her alleged comments on Isreal, she can make the case that someone forged the letter. I have a hard time believing that Nightline would be behind it. It’s easier to think that she wrote it (and despite what she says, it sounds very much like her) and now is backing away from it than that Ted Koppel or a Nightline producer concocted it. Or perhaps she is telling the truth - after all, why would she defend herself here when she has scores of much more ridiculous statements to defend?

Besides, she is being sponsored by the Crawford Peace House, which has a picture of Isreal on it’s website with the word “Palestine” over it. If she isn’t hostile towards Isreal, then perhaps she should screen her ‘friends’ a little better.

She IS a crackpot. She echoes long dying sentiments and conspiracy theories hurled from the fringe left since day one of the war, sentiments that are largely rejected and disproven. And she’s not even coming up with anything original!! There is no new smoking gun, no new insight. This is the same old tiring schtick with a new face and one that I don’t think is going to have the lasting impact they are hoping for. This is nothing more than a media circus. Bush is going to leave Crawford in a couple of weeks and go back to DC and she will have achieved nothing substantive (kind of like Moore and Farhenheit 911).

She has this image as someone who thinks they will get a meeting with the president (though I doubt she ever actually thinks it will happen) by participating in an Impeachment Tour, blogging for Michael Moore and being rallied around by the usual suspects (moveon.org, ACT, etc.) Yeah, the president, ANY president is going to ligitimize the views of these fruitcakes by offering her a conference.

Frankly, I think Bush should meet with her. No media. No cameras. Invite her to a National Security meeting and let her spew her idealistic nonsense to Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Meyers. Give her the ear of the president for an hour and when she’s done embarrassing herself, tear into her and make her understand that this isn’t a game and she had better have real and realistic solutions beyond partisan politics and kitchen ideology. Hammer it into her and tell her bluntly why her moronic views can NEVER be implemented or endorsed. Have some security analysts and military people standing aside to show her the pure destructiveness, both politically and militarily, of her ideas if they were to be insane enough to entertain them.

And then send her humbled butt out the door to go blog about it.

Please.

Cindy Sheenan is just spouting the same worn out
anti-war propaganda and lies the democrats
have been *ineffectively* spewing for years.

Those arguments didn’t hold up to honest debate
and President Bush won re-election.

Now, the democrats adopt a grieving mother as
spokesperson so anyone that argues the content
and illogic of their arguments can be shouted
down as being insensitive to a dead soldier’s
mother.

It’s funny how I haven’t seen a single reference
in the Main Stream Media about members of her
own family denoucing what she is doing.

Bush would be an idiot to meet with this shrill
*again*.