I Love Cindy Sheehan

[yeahwho]

I adore and respect her more everyday. I've posted about her before here and now I'm posting about her again, because I love Cindy Sheehan (http://news.google.com/news?q=cindy%20sheehan&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wn).

She is being denied by GWB, who has never been accountable for anything in his life. I pray for her daily.

[D_Raay]

She'll be on O'Reilly tonight... I wonder how much of it they will edit out?

[yeahwho]

Bill has already started his NeoPatriConic (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/10/smear-sheehan/) smear so I'm sure it will be some very repugnant bullshit.

[Documad]

I forget. What war did O'Reilly fight in? :rolleyes:


I can't imagine how much worse it would be to have your son die when you don't think there was any value in what he was doing.

[sam i am]

I adore and respect her more everyday. I've posted about her before here and now I'm posting about her again, because I love Cindy Sheehan (http://news.google.com/news?q=cindy%20sheehan&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wn).

She is being denied by GWB, who has never been accountable for anything in his life. I pray for her daily.

Just out of curiosity, did you LOVE her so much when she was praising Bush two months AFTER her son died?

She's recently recanted, saying she was in "shock." Wow. Great defense for changing your mind. Sorry, officer, I didn't mean to speed, I was in shock.

Please. :confused:

[D_Raay]

Just out of curiosity, did you LOVE her so much when she was praising Bush two months AFTER her son died?

She's recently recanted, saying she was in "shock." Wow. Great defense for changing your mind. Sorry, officer, I didn't mean to speed, I was in shock.

Please. :confused:
See this is what I don't get. Are you stating that she has some sort of agenda?
Perhaps she was hired by the left to do and say what she is doing and saying?
Her son WAS killed, am I right? Have you been in this position before?
Isn't it possible that after many sleepless nights after burying her son she decided to do some research on the facts that were there leading up this war?
Maybe that's why she changed her mind? Context is meaningless in this world we live in... both sides are guilty of it and I am, frankly, quite sick of it.

[sam i am]

I agree that context is meaningless.

Imagine for a moment if this same scene were playing out with Clinton as Prez and some right-wing, conservative mother (or better yet, to truly test all of your ideals, a FATHER) were there every day harrassing Clinton and wringing her or his hands on public television.

I seriously doubt that any of you would have even a tenth of the sympathy you have for Sheehan.

I appreciate all of the idealism over her stance, and agree that she has the right to express herself, just don't saint her unless you're willing to do the same for someone in the same position on the other side of the aisle.

[racer5.0stang]

Did her son volunteer to sign up in the military or was he drafted?

[sam i am]

Did her son volunteer to sign up in the military or was he drafted?

volunteer.

[D_Raay]

I agree that context is meaningless.

Imagine for a moment if this same scene were playing out with Clinton as Prez and some right-wing, conservative mother (or better yet, to truly test all of your ideals, a FATHER) were there every day harrassing Clinton and wringing her or his hands on public television.

I seriously doubt that any of you would have even a tenth of the sympathy you have for Sheehan.

I appreciate all of the idealism over her stance, and agree that she has the right to express herself, just don't saint her unless you're willing to do the same for someone in the same position on the other side of the aisle.
Au contraire ... I would have exactly the same stance.

I have NO, none, nada love for Clinton. I'm a little more outside the box than supporting Clinton.

[QueenAdrock]

Imagine for a moment if this same scene were playing out with Clinton as Prez and some right-wing, conservative mother (or better yet, to truly test all of your ideals, a FATHER) were there every day harrassing Clinton and wringing her or his hands on public television.

I seriously doubt that any of you would have even a tenth of the sympathy you have for Sheehan.

I wouldn't agree with that. If Clinton invaded a country and rallied up support by saying "They have attacked us/will attack us soon" and was later found out to be bullshit, *and* was later found out that he's making millions off of the war and doesn't give a shit about bringing the troops home even though his justification had been proven wrong, I'd be furious. I wouldn't support a President like that.

So it's a moot point. Yes, if Clinton did that, I'd have JUST as much sympathy for the woman. It doesn't matter who the President is, democrat or republican, WRONG is WRONG.

[synch]

I agree that context is meaningless.

Imagine for a moment if this same scene were playing out with Clinton as Prez and some right-wing, conservative mother (or better yet, to truly test all of your ideals, a FATHER) were there every day harrassing Clinton and wringing her or his hands on public television.

I seriously doubt that any of you would have even a tenth of the sympathy you have for Sheehan.

I appreciate all of the idealism over her stance, and agree that she has the right to express herself, just don't saint her unless you're willing to do the same for someone in the same position on the other side of the aisle.
Show me a mother/father/whatever that protested against Clinton because of something nasty that he did and I'll applaud his/her courage and tenacity (if said qualities apply in that particular situation).

Levinsky's dry cleaner doesn't count though.

[Rich Cheney]

For Democracy MAN would give his only son.

[infidel]

Just out of curiosity, did you LOVE her so much when she was praising Bush two months AFTER her son died?

She's recently recanted, saying she was in "shock." Wow. Great defense for changing your mind. Sorry, officer, I didn't mean to speed, I was in shock.

Please. :confused:You have to realize it would be difficult for any parent to admit their son died needlessly in a worthless war. Many parents are in denial even though they know in their heart that their kid's death was worth nothing.
It may take years for them to finally admit it. Wonder how many dead Vietnam soldiers parents who originally felt their kids "gave the greatest sacrifice" now realize they where hoodwinked?
Cindy just pulled out of the daze earlier than most, give it a couple years and more GI parents will feel the same as her.

[sam i am]

You have to realize it would be difficult for any parent to admit their son died needlessly in a worthless war. Many parents are in denial even though they know in their heart that their kid's death was worth nothing.
It may take years for them to finally admit it. Wonder how many dead Vietnam soldiers parents who originally felt their kids "gave the greatest sacrifice" now realize they where hoodwinked?
Cindy just pulled out of the daze earlier than most, give it a couple years and more GI parents will feel the same as her.

How many parents are PROUD of their childrens' service to their country. Far more than those who agree with Sheehan. Have you seen Memorial Day parades? Veterans Day? Millions observe these holidays with respect and honor for their dead children. Even Cindy Sheehan, initially. Then, she "got religion" (of the left) and went out to protest. Whoa! What conviction! What honor! What integrity! She took a hug from President Bush MONTHS after her son died, and now, unlike any other grieving mother or father, DEMANDS to speak to Bush again? Who the hell is SHE, that she deserves so much better than others? Huh? Who IS she?

[Documad]

You have to realize it would be difficult for any parent to admit their son died needlessly in a worthless war. Many parents are in denial even though they know in their heart that their kid's death was worth nothing.
It may take years for them to finally admit it. Wonder how many dead Vietnam soldiers parents who originally felt their kids "gave the greatest sacrifice" now realize they where hoodwinked?
Cindy just pulled out of the daze earlier than most, give it a couple years and more GI parents will feel the same as her.
(y) You would have to tell yourself that your son died for the good of his country or you would lose your mind during the initial grieving.

I am seriously surprised that this woman is not the new Satan to talk radio idiots! I was stuck driving for work most of today and they kept talking and talking about her. They're most upset that she changed her mind. I think it's hilarious that none of their callers have ever changed their minds on any important topic. How sad is that? Why even take in new information if you're not going to process it?



I'm not a Clinton fan, but he wouldn't have taken a five week vacation.

And Clinton would have met with her. He would have felt her pain.
For all his faults, that man genuinely loves people.

[King PSYZ]

Ok now you are being a fool Sam.

she said she was fine with everything until the downing street memo issue came to light. she was and is proud of her son and you're doing a diservice to her and every member of the armed forces to say or even imply she doesn't any longer.

she's pissed because now it's coming to light that her son may have died for nothing, for a invasion based of false information and what's more if this downing street memo fiasco turns out to be what many belive will show that it was known the intel was bad and they pressed ahead anyway.

wouldn't you be pissed if your children died in combat only to find out later that the whole reason they were sent was based on a sham and their deaths could have been prevented?

[Ali]

Hey, at least you're allowed to protest in the US... unlike the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4156660.stm)!

[sam i am]

Ok now you are being a fool Sam.

she said she was fine with everything until the downing street memo issue came to light. she was and is proud of her son and you're doing a diservice to her and every member of the armed forces to say or even imply she doesn't any longer.

she's pissed because now it's coming to light that her son may have died for nothing, for a invasion based of false information and what's more if this downing street memo fiasco turns out to be what many belive will show that it was known the intel was bad and they pressed ahead anyway.

wouldn't you be pissed if your children died in combat only to find out later that the whole reason they were sent was based on a sham and their deaths could have been prevented?

King, I'll take your fool comment ONLY IF the proof is in the pudding.

[King PSYZ]

My fool comment is directed at how you implied she no longer repects her son in your post, I cannot agree with being angry and disapointed equates to her not having pride in her son.

Also, proof or not she has a right as both a mother and a US citizen to know what our motivation for this conflict is. The US was built on loud voices challenging the status quo.

[sam i am]

My fool comment is directed at how you implied she no longer repects her son in your post, I cannot agree with being angry and disapointed equates to her not having pride in her son.

Also, proof or not she has a right as both a mother and a US citizen to know what our motivation for this conflict is. The US was built on loud voices challenging the status quo.

Sure. But she doesn't have MORE right than any other mother to be HEARD.

We have the right to express ourselves in this country, but NO ONE has the right to be heard, listened to, understood, etc.

That's my point with Sheehan. She expects preferential treatment. Must be nice to be so full of yourself that you EXPECT the President to speak with you AGAIN. Sounds like Forrest Gump to me.

[King PSYZ]

But what says that she and we all don't have the right as the people he has sworn to protect and represent to have him answer certain questions?

[yeahwho]

Sure. But she doesn't have MORE right than any other mother to be HEARD.

We have the right to express ourselves in this country, but NO ONE has the right to be heard, listened to, understood, etc.

That's my point with Sheehan. She expects preferential treatment. Must be nice to be so full of yourself that you EXPECT the President to speak with you AGAIN. Sounds like Forrest Gump to me.

So the media and the ciizens of the United States should focus only on Cindy Sheehan's self centered attempt to ask the President a question?

Shouldn't the media and the citizens focus on the President instead? Why are 140,000 troops still in Iraq 2 years after the fall of Baghdad? Cindy is a conduit for common sense, she is not a radical, she is not a tool, she is not a pundit, she is not an enemy....she is a Mother of a dead son who wants to ask a question. Shouldn't we as citizens ask these same questions?

What sounds like Forrest Gump to you, sounds like a Mother of a dead son to me. Lets all point fingers at the Mother and her self centered activities in Texas. Fucking Bitch! Leave the President alone, he doesn't need to talk and comfort you, you made your sacrifice, now move along....let the President continue with his callous dysfunctional smear of all things humane, dear and kind in the civil world.

sam i am....that is some pretty sick thinking. I love Cindy Sheehan and pray for her daily. George needs to accept his part in the deaths of these soldiers.

There is a major chunk of the citizens of the USA who disagree with you sam i am.

[QueenAdrock]

Bush already talked to the lady. The lady and her husband said they both respect Bush.

So he obviously has no problem talking to her, right? He's able to field all the questions and answer everything she has to say? So why isn't he spending only 20 MINUTES of his vacation, answering her questions again? Are BBQ's and bike riding really that important that he can't spend a few goddamn minutes of his time talking to her? If it's the case that he just doesn't want to be bothered, that's pretty insensitive, seeing as how she doesn't need that much time and it wouldn't take much out of his time to talk to her.

I'm thinking he's just terrified, now that she's pissed off about her son being dead, and he can't give a good reason as to why he's dead that's not already played out, cliched, or just plain false.

[sam i am]

I wouldn't agree with that. If Clinton invaded a country and rallied up support by saying "They have attacked us/will attack us soon" and was later found out to be bullshit, *and* was later found out that he's making millions off of the war and doesn't give a shit about bringing the troops home even though his justification had been proven wrong, I'd be furious. I wouldn't support a President like that.

So it's a moot point. Yes, if Clinton did that, I'd have JUST as much sympathy for the woman. It doesn't matter who the President is, democrat or republican, WRONG is WRONG.

Queen - you know I love and respect you, BUT

I don't buy it. If the roles were reversed, and ESPECIALLY if it were a FATHER out there doing what Sheehan is doing, there would be little to no media coverage and NO ONE on the left of the political spectrum would be sympathetic to his plight, wanting to see the Prez twice over the same matter.

Please don't insult your or my intelligence by trying to argue differently.

[sam i am]

Show me a mother/father/whatever that protested against Clinton because of something nasty that he did and I'll applaud his/her courage and tenacity (if said qualities apply in that particular situation).

There are so many qualifiers in that sentence, it's impossible to parse.

Don't try to convince me that your love for anybody anti-war extends to those of us on the right side of the political spectrum. ESPECIALLY if it were a father.

[sam i am]

There is a major chunk of the citizens of the USA who disagree with you sam i am.

And there's a majopr chunk of the USA who disagree with you, yeahwho.

SO?

Does it stop you from believing your point of view? No. Same here.

We both deserve respect, but NO ONE HAS to listen to us.

We elected (or selected if you want to bring up that shibboleth) Bush and he's Prez. I despised Clinton, think Carter was a fool, feel Johnson and Kennedy totally took this country down the wrong path, but I was not IN POWER then.

The big diference now, and why you all bleat so loud against Bush, is that he and us on the right side of the political spectrum are in power and can make policies that you HATE.

So, you can all rail all you want. It doesn't hurt me. Preach to your own choir. Convince yourselves that you are correct and we are wrong, but without POWER, there's NOTHING you can really do about it. Go out and protest, fly your banners high, and feel good about how you are SO smart and informed and just wait until '06 and '08.

BUT

Remember you felt the same in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Remember how OUT of power you are. Realize that IT IS GOING TO CONTINUE. History and demographics are against you.

And so are just enough of the Americans who vote in this country to continue it that way for the forseeable future.

Enjoy you nightmares for the next year. '06 will be ANOTHER Republican year.

[synch]

There are so many qualifiers in that sentence, it's impossible to parse.

Don't try to convince me that your love for anybody anti-war extends to those of us on the right side of the political spectrum. ESPECIALLY if it were a father.
I may not agree with most people on the "right side of the political spectrum" but that doesn't mean that I can't respect them if I see that their points are either valid or understandable.

[sam i am]

I may not agree with most people on the "right side of the political spectrum" but that doesn't mean that I can't respect them if I see that their points are either valid or understandable.

Are you saying you couldn't follow the analogy?

[synch]

What analogy do you mean? The one you posted in the post before mine? If so I hadn't read all of it. It seemed like too much of a "HAHA LOSERS!" post.

It might as well has been a gmsisko post which is kind of dissapointing as you seemed to be a tad more open minded than him.

There are so many qualifiers in that sentence, it's impossible to parse.I didn't pick up on that before, must have only glanced your post.

Stop picking sentences apart and pretend they are too poorly constructed for you to comprehend. It's poor form man.

[QueenAdrock]

Queen - you know I love and respect you, BUT

I don't buy it. If the roles were reversed, and ESPECIALLY if it were a FATHER out there doing what Sheehan is doing, there would be little to no media coverage and NO ONE on the left of the political spectrum would be sympathetic to his plight, wanting to see the Prez twice over the same matter.

Please don't insult your or my intelligence by trying to argue differently.

No one? Sam, I'm surprised to hear you say this, just when the other day I got blasted by making generalizations about the right. Just like you may not be the run of the mill righty, I'm not your run of the mill lefty. I may be a liberal, but I do know hypocrisy when I see it. I'm sympathetic to any and all people who have lost family members in a war, all politics aside. It's HUMAN NATURE to sympathize with a woman who carried a child in her womb for 9 months, gave birth to it, and raised it all of his life. I don't care what the circumstance is, I'd support anyone who was questioning why the life they had created, raised, and loved, had been murdered. The right should too, but apparently not as much. Unless she's a brain-dead vegetable who has already been practically dead for 15 years, and is simply left to die a peaceful death, THEN it's an issue.

And just like I said, I would NOT support any president who created and maintained a bullshit war. I don't think MOST liberals would support said president, so it's silly to say that liberals would not be sympathetic to the same issue reversal, seeing as how it most likely won't be an issue. This doesn't fall under left-and-right politics, this falls under moral issues. The left usually doesn't believe in war unless it's an extreme circumstance, and we certainly don't believe in bullshit wars. So that's why it's a moot point; we wouldn't have elected someone that pulls this bullshit in the first place, and I doubt there will EVER be a "role reversal".

[synch]

UPDATE: We are sorry to learn of the illness facing Cindy Sheehan’s mother. Sheehan’s spokeswoman has indicated Cindy plans to return to Crawford, Texas in the next 24 to 48 hours. Whether or not she returns, the “You Don’t Speak for Me, Cindy” Tour will continue as originally planned. Never let a tragedy in the life of the person you are targeting hold you back from having a little road trip.

[QueenAdrock]

*yawn*

I love how gmsisko complains about moveon.org, and other left-wing biased sources, and then posts up his Republican propaganda like it's somehow different.

[yeahwho]

I guess if your going to copy and paste I will play at your level, here is an accurate account of the tactics employed by this administration and it's followers, from the Sunday NYTimes ed/op page link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21rich.html)


August 21, 2005
The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan
By FRANK RICH
CINDY SHEEHAN couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.

When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.

The most prominent smear victims have been Bush political opponents with heroic Vietnam résumés: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry. But the list of past targets stretches from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke to Specialist Thomas Wilson, the grunt who publicly challenged Donald Rumsfeld about inadequately armored vehicles last December. The assault on the whistle-blower Joseph Wilson - the diplomat described by the first President Bush as "courageous" and "a true American hero" for confronting Saddam to save American hostages in 1991 - was so toxic it may yet send its perpetrators to jail.

True to form, the attack on Cindy Sheehan surfaced early on Fox News, where she was immediately labeled a "crackpot" by Fred Barnes. The right-wing blogosphere quickly spread tales of her divorce, her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops, her incendiary sloganeering and her association with known ticket-stub-carrying attendees of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Rush Limbaugh went so far as to declare that Ms. Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents - there's nothing about it that's real."

But this time the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war.

When the Bush mob attacks critics like Ms. Sheehan, its highest priority is to change the subject. If we talk about Richard Clarke's character, then we stop talking about the administration's pre-9/11 inattentiveness to terrorism. If Thomas Wilson is trashed as an insubordinate plant of the "liberal media," we forget the Pentagon's abysmal failure to give our troops adequate armor (a failure that persists today, eight months after he spoke up). If we focus on Joseph Wilson's wife, we lose the big picture of how the administration twisted intelligence to gin up the threat of Saddam's nonexistent W.M.D.'s.

The hope this time was that we'd change the subject to Cindy Sheehan's "wacko" rhetoric and the opportunistic left-wing groups that have attached themselves to her like barnacles. That way we would forget about her dead son. But if much of the 24/7 media has taken the bait, much of the public has not.

The backdrops against which Ms. Sheehan stands - both that of Mr. Bush's what-me-worry vacation and that of Iraq itself - are perfectly synergistic with her message of unequal sacrifice and fruitless carnage. Her point would endure even if the messenger were shot by a gun-waving Crawford hothead or she never returned to Texas from her ailing mother's bedside or the president folded the media circus by actually meeting with her.

The public knows that what matters this time is Casey Sheehan's story, not the mother who symbolizes it. Cindy Sheehan's bashers, you'll notice, almost never tell her son's story. They are afraid to go there because this young man's life and death encapsulate not just the noble intentions of those who went to fight this war but also the hubris, incompetence and recklessness of those who gave the marching orders.

Specialist Sheehan was both literally and figuratively an Eagle Scout: a church group leader and honor student whose desire to serve his country drove him to enlist before 9/11, in 2000. He died with six other soldiers on a rescue mission in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, at the age of 24, the week after four American security workers had been mutilated in Falluja and two weeks after he arrived in Iraq. This was almost a year after the president had declared the end of "major combat operations" from the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln.

According to the account of the battle by John F. Burns in The Times, the insurgents who slaughtered Specialist Sheehan and his cohort were militiamen loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric. The Americans probably didn't stand a chance. As Mr. Burns reported, members of "the new Iraqi-trained police and civil defense force" abandoned their posts at checkpoints and police stations "almost as soon as the militiamen appeared with their weapons, leaving the militiamen in unchallenged control."

Yet in the month before Casey Sheehan's death, Mr. Rumsfeld typically went out of his way to inflate the size and prowess of these Iraqi security forces, claiming in successive interviews that there were "over 200,000 Iraqis that have been trained and equipped" and that they were "out on the front line taking the brunt of the violence." We'll have to wait for historians to tell us whether this and all the other Rumsfeld propaganda came about because he was lied to by subordinates or lying to himself or lying to us or some combination thereof.

As The Times reported last month, even now, more than a year later, a declassified Pentagon assessment puts the total count of Iraqi troops and police officers at 171,500, with only "a small number" able to fight insurgents without American assistance. As for Moktada al-Sadr, he remains as much a player as ever in the new "democratic" Iraq. He controls one of the larger blocs in the National Assembly. His loyalists may have been responsible for last month's apparently vengeful murder of Steven Vincent, the American freelance journalist who wrote in The Times that Mr. Sadr's followers had infiltrated Basra's politics and police force.

Casey Sheehan's death in Iraq could not be more representative of the war's mismanagement and failure, but it is hardly singular. Another mother who has journeyed to Crawford, Celeste Zappala, wrote last Sunday in New York's Daily News of how her son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, was also killed in April 2004 - in Baghdad, where he was providing security for the Iraq Survey Group, which was charged with looking for W.M.D.'s "well beyond the admission by David Kay that they didn't exist."

As Ms. Zappala noted with rage, her son's death came only a few weeks after Mr. Bush regaled the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association banquet in Washington with a scripted comedy routine featuring photos of him pretending to look for W.M.D.'s in the Oval Office. "We'd like to know if he still finds humor in the fabrications that justified the war that killed my son," Ms. Zappala wrote. (Perhaps so: surely it was a joke that one of the emissaries Mr. Bush sent to Cindy Sheehan in Crawford was Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser who took responsibility for allowing the 16 errant words about doomsday uranium into the president's prewar State of the Union speech.)

Mr. Bush's stand-up shtick for the Beltway press corps wasn't some aberration; it was part of the White House's political plan for keeping the home front cool. America was to yuk it up, party on and spend its tax cuts heedlessly while the sacrifice of an inadequately manned all-volunteer army in Iraq was kept out of most Americans' sight and minds. This is why the Pentagon issued a directive at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom forbidding news coverage of "deceased military personnel returning to or departing from" air bases. It's why Mr. Bush, unlike Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, has not attended funeral services for the military dead. It's why January's presidential inauguration, though nominally dedicated to the troops, was a gilded $40 million jamboree at which the word Iraq was banished from the Inaugural Address.

THIS summer in Crawford, the White House went to this playbook once too often. When Mr. Bush's motorcade left a grieving mother in the dust to speed on to a fund-raiser, that was one fat-cat party too far. The strategy of fighting a war without shared national sacrifice has at last backfired, just as the strategy of Swift Boating the war's critics has reached its Waterloo before Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury in Washington. The 24/7 cable and Web attack dogs can keep on sliming Cindy Sheehan. The president can keep trying to ration the photos of flag-draped caskets. But this White House no longer has any more control over the insurgency at home than it does over the one in Iraq.

[yeahwho]

Letter to the editor, Seattle Times 8/21/05

Have the courage to yield

My grandmother lost her son, Capt. John Z. Wheeler, on Bataan in World War II. He had the Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Bronze Star. We have a letter of condolence in our family from Gen. Douglas MacArthur praising my Uncle John for covering the retreat.

My mother lost her son, my brother, John Wheeler Glenn, a Marine corpsman, due to Vietnam.

I served as well in a combat zone. I went when I was called, albeit reluctantly.

I would like to say this to my president: Be a man — and talk to the woman!

— Andrew Glenn, Seattle

[King PSYZ]

1.) Will she come back? And if she doesn't, will anyone call her on it? Not a chance...the media has already elevated Saint Cindy to official Bush-bashing icon status.
Compasionate conservatism my ass, her mother is sick. Shouldn't taking care of her family take presidence? What the fuck do you mean by "call her on it"?
You have a very skewed view of reality through those right wing tinted glasses you wear. Even though most of you have this fear that left wing jews control the media, anyone who watched "war coverage" in the united states know that it is all nothing more than a propaganda machine right now, even when they do "cover" someone questioning things, they smear her character at the same time.
2.) Will she follow through on her promise to follow Bush wherever he goes...including back to Washington? I doubt it...she's gotten all the attention she wants....what further purpose would be served by protesting anymore?
You dolt, she doesn't want attention, that's you. She's trying to get answers to questions that she and many other greiving families do. The purpose served by further "protesting" is by bringing and continuing to bring attention to the fact we as a nation were led into war on falsehoods and hidden agendas.

[QueenAdrock]

My brother brought up a good point. The extreme right-wing in this country is a lot like ants. If something is a potential threat to the rest of the hive, they go out and attack. They may not even know why they're attacking at times, they just follow the rest of the hive because it's instinct to follow everyone else.

Well, that and no one likes ants and they're always places you don't want them to be and no matter how many of them you squash there's always 9,000 more. :p

[synch]

Stop that gmsisko. Promise me that that's your last post I'll ever agree with.

Moral of the story: Extremists suck.

edit: The world makes sense once more. I figured that gmsisko probably thinks someone that is anti war and/or pro-choice is extreme left.

Right?

[King PSYZ]

her son made a choice, he WAS an adult.

but you dont want to take that into consideration do you

No doubt this lady is just using the liberal media to make her voice louder...

and the media is gobbling it up

so much for the "Right wing media" theory....


So all of those dead soldiers would be GLAD that their mothers would all be going AGAINST what they so strongly beleive in??

I have YET to see an armed forces member agree with this lady...

The bottom line is... this is a democracy.. it doesn't matter what this one lady thinks... but the media forgot about that.
Letter to the editor, Seattle Times 8/21/05

Have the courage to yield

My grandmother lost her son, Capt. John Z. Wheeler, on Bataan in World War II. He had the Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Bronze Star. We have a letter of condolence in our family from Gen. Douglas MacArthur praising my Uncle John for covering the retreat.

My mother lost her son, my brother, John Wheeler Glenn, a Marine corpsman, due to Vietnam.

I served as well in a combat zone. I went when I was called, albeit reluctantly.

I would like to say this to my president: Be a man — and talk to the woman!

— Andrew Glenn, Seattle

[QueenAdrock]

The exact same thing could be said about people on the extreme left.

Yup. Which is why I'm not extreme. Extremists are fucking crazy, scared human beings who clutch to like-minded scared people like the Sean Hannity's of the world.

However, let's take a re-cap of attacking, right vs. left.

Kerry ads:
Positive campaign ads : 75%
Negative campaign ads: 25%

Bush ads:
Postive campaign ads: 25%
Negative campaign ads: 75%

The way I see it, the right is a lot more attacking than the left, at least in the campaign ads of last year. Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html)

Not to say the left doesn't attack, it's just not one of their priorities. But that's exactly how Karl Rove and his cronies play. If they see something attacking them, or potentially attacking them, they snuff it out ASAP.

[QueenAdrock]

Lets let a liberal weanie answer this question.

Yeah, because if he SIGNED UP to fight for our country, he deserved to die, huh? Is that what you meant to say? Because you sure come off as having the "if he wasn't drafted, it's his own fault for dying" mentality.

I'd like to see you go to Iraq now and tell those soldiers "Hey, if you die, it's your own fault because you signed up for this." I'd like to see how far you could go without having a boot up your ass.

[Documad]

Lets let a liberal weanie answer this question.
I was answered two minutes after it was posted. I don't know how you missed it.

Why answer it again?


P.S. the ant analogy is a great fit for the right-wing media. It doesn't work for the extreme leftists. I'm not sure what an extreme leftist is, but I'm pretty sure they're the exact opposite of the ant analogy.