PeterDavid.net

It's fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he's already met with her. Why tell the whole story when half of it will do?

From what I saw on the news, Bush is trying to spin it for him, saying that he sypathizes with the mother, but that he can't pull troops out of Iraq now. Gee, it would be nice if he caould at least explain why the kid died, if his life had a purpose. Get with the program Mr. Bush. Children are dying so you could get reelected. Well, you got reelected, you can stop now. Or are you going to prove that there really ARE WMD's in Iraq?

And I would like to see what was said at that "meeting." I really would. Did he give a reason for her sons death? Show that he served a greater purpose? or did he just give her the runaround?

I would like to believe that there is no man with soul so dead that he could look a grieving mother in the face and twist the truth. Maybe he did give her a reason. but I doubt it.

Of course, this could just be 1:12 AM bitterness talking.

"It's fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he's already met with her. Why tell the whole story when half of it will do?"

Okay, well, that's simply bull considering every story I've read about her makes specific mention that she and other mothers met with Bush last year. So whatever your bash-the-media agenda is, you might want to acknowledge that stating inaccuracies yourself is hardly the cleans-hand approach you want to take for condemning the media of being inaccurate.

PAD

"It's fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he's already met with her. Why tell the whole story when half of it will do?"

Del, As PAD mentioned, it's been in practiclaly every media report in this story. (Perhaps Limbaugh and O'Reilly fail to mention it?) What's also mentioned is that according to Sheehan and others present, Bush gave little more than empty lip service, never mentioning names of the deceased. Plus Sheehan's son had died only eight weeks prior to her meeting with Bush and she was still in deep despair. She was in no condition then to ask the type of question the she and many other relatives and loves ones of soldiers lost in this useless invasion want answered now.

elf

Susan Ager of the Detroit Free Press has a suggestion as to how Bush should handle the situation. She said he should just listen to her. Just him. No aides or media along for the ride. No promises, no platitudes. He should just _listen._

http://www.freep.com/features/living/ager9e_20050809.htm

Seems to me it's the least Bush (or any president in the same situation, for that matter) can do.

Rick

This made me laugh...

http://postcards.ucomics.com/get/?MsgID=28098509f660b8a4f02ecb860c8a6793&site_ref=ucomics

I have to admit, I think it's absurd when I read the contention that her son joined the army some years back but never thought he'd actually have to GO anywhere. Ma'am, he joined the ARMY. Did he think it was all Sergeant Bilko or Gomer Pyle? I mean, sure, there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity, but there was no guarantee it was going to last.

Everyone who joins the military takes an oath to put the US Constitution above their own life. It's the one thing we've all had in common and I don't think it's a bad thing in itself if you're looking to put something above your own life, even for a while.

This wasn't the case here. Iraq was invaded to impose peace in an oil-rich region by military dominance, which sounds natural if you measure strength by dominance but actually may not have been on the list of "honey do"s for members of the military who actually show up for their drills.

Maybe their expectations have been misworded, but there is no inconsistency inherent in Mrs Sheehan's demands.

"I, (insert name here), do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me, so help me God (last portion may be omitted)."

It's been a few years since I took an oath of enlistment, so I might be a little rusty, but that's the oath as best I can recall. Neither the oath nor the UCMJ leaves room for a soldier to decide whether a particular war is justified or not - his job lies on the battlefield. He is qualified to determine whether a particular order is lawful, but international politics are another kettle of fish.

As you can hear here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4791911

she says that what she wants to do is say to his face that he shouldn't continue to say that further killing is justified by the loss of soldier's lives to this point.

Niiice.

I like the concept that a soldier (and apparently their family) of the United States Armed forces gives up their right to protest/ disagree with their government when they sign up.

Must be one of those "sacrifices" things that I hear so much about...

"She's demanding accountability from her president.. Now we see just how much building rage there is in this country in terms of others likewise demanding it.?

Accountability?

What's known now that wasn't known June 2004 when Bush met her and other families of the dead?

What's known now that wasn't known November 2004?

Wasn't Kerry arguing that he would have kept the troops in Iraq? Aren't troops still in Bosnia ten years after Clinton said they'd be home by Christmas? Didn't Dean argue for keeping the troops in Iraq? Weren't only Sharpton and Kucinich the candidates for pulling out of Iraq immediately? Haven't some conservatives like Buchanan argued for an immediate pullout?

Haven't some on both left and right argued for MORE troops in Iraq to really secure Baghdad and the country?

What is there to argue that has not been argued before?

And what about families of dead soldiers who want to have every last Iraqi killed in revenge of the deaths of family members? Should Bush meet with them too?

Hasn't one of the complaints been that Bush argued for the invasion in Iraq was due to emotion, revenge for the attempt on his dad's life (and maybe to finish what his dad wouldn't or couldn't)?

-- Ken from Chicago

That's right Snowcrash. It is a sacrifice of sorts. Sometimes people just want to serve their country. They can disagree with the decisions of the govt, but in the end, the oath is the same: you do what you are told. No one joins the military hoping for a chance to go to Iraq and possibly get killed (or at least very few). They join in the hopes of being able to help people or defend their country, to serve a purpose higher than sitting around and criticizing everyone and everything anonymously on a blog. But that could just be me.

Steve,
I like how you're conflating disagreeing with the government (something that the US Constitution apparently affords to the meanest of it's citizens) with disobeying orders. Also, I still don't understand where in the Uniform Code of Military Justice it says that a soldier's family members aren't allowed to take part of lawful protest/ dissent.

By the way, as it ads a little to the story, here's a statement from the rest of the Sheehan family...

"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. "

With the way things are right now Snowcrash has good reason to want to be anonymous. But in a way he is serving his country. He sees a problem and he's complaining about it. Sure he close isn't sacrificing his life, sure it's snide and sarcastic, but it strikes the core of the matter.

What do armed personel do when their government does something wrong? Really wrong? They go off and do what they're told to do. Of course they can say no if something like My Lai or Abu Ghraib goes down but otherwise they're committed to doing their job. Of course many of them die doing their job but for what?

Obviously you don't see it this way, Mr. O'Rando, but at least half of America does not believe this is a justified or necessary war. In fact we think it's evil. Say what you want about Saddam; you're probably going to be right but many of us don't buy those same arguments when it comes from up top. The war is wasting our money, getting our people killed, and it makes America look bad. Sometimes you need words, not a gun, to defend your country and sometimes you have to stand up to your country to save it.

Snowcrash: Keep on keepin' on.

"Say what you want about Saddam; you're probably going to be right but many of us don't buy those same arguments when it comes from up top."

Just to cause a real shitstorm....has anyone actually added up all of the civilian deaths Bush is responsible for? and compared it to the number that Saddam is responsible for? I mean, Saddam killed hundreds of thosands more, but bush isn't all that squeaky clean. I fail to see why, in the most advanced civilization on earth, we kill ten's of thousands of innocent civilians.

Also, Ted Rall's latest Op/Ed makes an interesting point. You can find it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050803/cm_ucru/gotempathy;_ylt=AtlUwFTdYr3_8LFFbYdvSyI_vTYC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

but if that doesn't work....He makes the point that Americans have always cheered insurgents, like in the movie "Red Dawn." He then goes on to ask what if what happened to Iraq had happened to America? Rather intereseting idea, because we all know that the insurgents would fight to the end. Why should Iraqis be any different?

To Jerry Wall:
Thank you for sharing that. BUT she lost her son. She lost a person she carried inside her for 9 months. She lost someone she raised and cared for 18+ years. They "merely" lost someone who was a part of the family.

I think she has a bit more invested in her grief than they do...

Jerry, that little statement from the purported rest of the Sheehan family just conveniently fails to mention a SINGLE NAME. The simple fact that SOME ANONYMOUS PERSON wrote a "statement" doesn't make it a valid statement. There doesn't need to be a complete list (although people who are willing to openly disagree with the government by taking out full page ads do actually include their names), but it should include the name of at least the effin' spokesperson who delivered the statement.
Of course, these alleged family members don't really have a great deal of bearing on the matter. Who actually lost their son in Iraq? Um, I believe it was Cindy and her husband. As far as I'm concerned, any of Casey Sheehan's other relatives can go stuff "their" statement up their collective asses.

Just to cause a real shitstorm....has anyone actually added up all of the civilian deaths Bush is responsible for? and compared it to the number that Saddam is responsible for? I mean, Saddam killed hundreds of thosands more, but bush isn't all that squeaky clean. I fail to see why, in the most advanced civilization on earth, we kill ten's of thousands of innocent civilians.

Mollu Ivans made the foolish statement not toolong ago that Bush killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. To her considerable credit she apologized in her next column--and it was a real apology too, not the sort of mealy mouthed crap that most people try to get away with. Elevated herself quite a bit in my eyes.

He makes the point that Americans have always cheered insurgents, like in the movie "Red Dawn." He then goes on to ask what if what happened to Iraq had happened to America? Rather intereseting idea, because we all know that the insurgents would fight to the end. Why should Iraqis be any different?

As usual, Ted gets it wrong. A-the "insurgents" are largely foreign and B- they are mostly killing Iraqis.

Comparisons to the movie RED DAWN indicate either an unfamiliarity with the movie, Iraq, or both.

What's also mentioned is that according to Sheehan and others present, Bush gave little more than empty lip service, never mentioning names of the deceased.

Sheehan's said more than that. According to her (and I'll grant that her memories are undoubtedly shaded by grief and rage), Bush apparently didn't KNOW the name of her son, and kept calling her "Mom" even after she made it clear she felt that was disrespectful.

Perhaps teaching adolescents for years is affecting my phrasing, but my main response at this point is a simple, "You go, girl." Best wishes to her in the Crawford heat.

TWL

Susan Ager of the Detroit Free Press has a suggestion as to how Bush should handle the situation. She said he should just listen to her. Just him. No aides or media along for the ride.

Like bush would do ANYTHING without his handlers.

I have to admit, I think it's absurd when I read the contention that her son joined the army some years back but never thought he'd actually have to GO anywhere

Keep in mind the advertisements that said join the (military branch) & see the world. Or get job training. Or get college money. The marines are the only ones who sell duty & service"

as for the family letter, it hasn't been confirmed yet. note it's signed "Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins", but not with actual names.

As usual, Ted gets it wrong. A-the "insurgents" are largely foreign and B- they are mostly killing Iraqis.

(B) is certainly true, though you can make an easy argument that simple statistics would suggest that Iraqis would be the majority of the dead.

(A) -- evidence, please. It's looking more and more to me like there's a lot of sectarian fighting going on.

TWL

Bill-

No sane person is saying that he killed more people than Saddam. However, I would like to know what the current estimate is. I was simply saying that he is responsible for thousands of deaths, many of which are, unfortunately, unavoidable in a war. How many though, are gratuitious, caused by Bushes infantile love of fireworks that lead to the idea of "Shock and Awe?" You know, when I was learning history, we called that Blitzkrieg, and it was always intended to have one purpose: terrify the civilian population of the country you are about to invade into quick surrended.

"As usual, Ted gets it wrong."

True dat. In his own, special way, he is as nutty as Ann Coulter. We could really use a few less schizophrenic squirrels in the Op/Ed pages.

Wouldn't it be interesting if some of the other moms who lost their sons in Iraq decided to join that one-woman protest, so that it continued to grow in size...and grow...and grow...

Just to add something to the previous posts who point out that soldiers shouldn't be too surprised when they get sent off to fight, I wonder if we would use that same argument to the thousands of National Guardsmen who also got a lot more than they bargained for.

When I was a kid, my uncle was part of the National Guard reserves, in addition to holding down to other full time jobs. True, part of it was because he really needed the extra money to help pay the bills, but I know he also wanted to help serve his country at least in a small way. But looking back with a couple of decades' worth of hindsight, I can't help thinking if he was suddenly sent to the Middle East for several months, my aunt and five young cousins probably couldn't survive, either financially or emotionally. And the scary thing is, there are families all across America that are in that very situation right now. Apologies for wandering away from the main point of this thread, but it's just something I couldn't help thinking about when I read a few of the earlier posts.

there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity, but there was no guarantee it was going to last.

Presumably, PAD is referring to the Clinton years. Unfortunately, while Clinton may not have been as much of a warmonger as Bush, he did conduct bombing raids on Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and the former Yugoslavia, all without Security Council authorization. Not to mention the sanctions on Iraq which were responsible for the deaths of about half a million Iraqis.

On the number of civilians killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, (Re: James Carter's comment), the conservative estimate is about 24,000, with 37% of those killed directly by US troops (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php).

-the "insurgents" are largely foreign

Not according to the Iraqi Interior Minister:

http://www.mercurynews.com%2Fmld%2Fmercurynews%2Fnews%2Fspecial_packages%2Firaq%2F12350221.htm

(sorry - registration required)

Anyone taking bets on whether Bush will stop by, or even waive, to Mrs. Sheehan on his way to his Meeeleon dollar fundraiser this afternoon at the next ranch over (according to the radio this morning, the quickest route is right by Mrs. Sheehan). What looks worse for him? Driving by and waiving, or avoiding driving by by taking back roads and claiming it was a security issue? Of course, if all she wants to do is chat with him, he could stop for 5 minutes, hear her out, thank her for her dedication to her son's memory and sacrifice, and promise to do everything he can to bring our troops home as quickly as is safe for the Iraqis.

Because I think more and more people are starting to get fed up with the line of Grade A Bull that says taking the troops home now is bad for US safety. It recent reports that the insurgency really is 90% national Iraqis, then the Administration can't even say that by fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we're preventing them from planning and executing plans elsewhere. Because it seems like most of the people we're fighting in Iraq now are mostly Iraqis that want the US Invader out of their country.

http://www.thereporter.com/republished

Here's the link to the original article written after Mrs. Sheehan met with the President the first time.

"...sure, there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity..."

But the Reagan years were so long ago that hardly anyone recalls them now. (Surely you weren't referring to the administration that sent us into Kosovo?)

"What's known now that wasn't known June 2004 when Bush met her and other families of the dead? What's known now that wasn't known November 2004?"

Well, aside from the body count as of August 2005 with no end in sight: Nothing. There's nothing known now that wasn't known back then. Bush was a lying sack of crap back then, and he still is. The only difference is that by November, too many Americans were unwilling to face it, and thus elected him.

But as someone else on the board said earlier, Americans are now coming out of it, like drunks recovering from a bender and discovering evidence of their misdeeds, and are going, "Oh my God, what have we done." They're acknowledging now what was known then. And everything from his plummeting numbers to this grass-roots protest is evidence of that.

PAD

"But the Reagan years were so long ago that hardly anyone recalls them now. (Surely you weren't referring to the administration that sent us into Kosovo?)"

Well, I certainly wasn't referring to the Administration that engaged in voodoo economics and illegal arms deals...

PAD

....I don't know where to start with the comments being made on this board. Suffice to say, if you fight a war trying to aviod anyone getting killed, you will end up with getting everyone killed. President Bush did not kill Mrs. Sheehan's son. Being President is not an easy job with easy decisions, and it is the height of arrogance to play monday morning quaterback. Every president had had to make decsions that resulted in some soldiers being somewhere that ended up getting someone's son or daughter killed. I do not think any President has ever taken that job likely. You might as well call all of them murderers, especially Lincoln.This utter lack of respect for the office of the President is unconscionable. If you disagree with whomever the president is, fine, work to vote someone else in, but in a decent manner the way You would want to be treated. I already know that these words will fall on deaf ears because the hate spewing from the liberals on this board is palpable. It is ironic that the people who claim to be intellectually and morally superior to President Bush, would be the first to throw stones at him, without even a hesistation. That is what I find frightening about America's future.

What I'm waiting for -- with dread -- is the media being escorted away from the protestors, and then have word trickle out that the protestors have been 'relocated for their own safety and for Presidential security', and 'that there were a few who were detained by Secret Service for further questioning'.

It's not Tianamen Square with the tanks, but I'm waiting for the clampdown....

Randy, here's the difference: I respect the office, but in the case of this President, I have very little respect for him and his decisions and actions. He is either lacks the necessary competence to perform the duties of the Office, or he's an outright liar that manipulated the emotions of this country at it's lowest time in order to advance his own agenda of war and destruction. I've heard over and over that the decision to invade Iraq was based on the best information available. It was a crap line then that I didn't buy, and it's even worse now knowing the truth...that the best information said that Iraq lacked not only actual MWDs, but also the capacity to construct and deploy them. And that the best information was ignored by this President, and twisted to allow him to justify a grant of war power that has engaged us in the struggle we are in today.

You go ahead and find someone that's posted here saying we need to get out because it's wrong for troops to die in war. Meanwhile, consider this: Do you account a million deaths in Iraq during Saddam's regime to Saddam himself? Many people do, in fact, say that Saddam killed a million people. Or at least he's responsible for those deaths. And if you are one of those that hold that that idea, then indeed Bush did kill, or was responsible for, Mrs. Sheehan's death. Even if you don't, as the Commander in Chief, he IS resonsible for the orders given to those soldiers that die in service to their country.

You suggest that we need to respect the office. I'd say that it's you that lacks respect for the office, by wanting to give whoever is President a free pass. I say I can respect the office just fine, but when there's an idiot sitting in the chair, I have no qualms about saying so.

"Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. "

Now that's funny. There can easily be another set of Grandparents, aunts and Numerous cousins out there that do support her. MORE importantly, I wouldn't care if my Aunts and cousins supported me! She's not doing it for them. I don't even see how it's a political thing. Its a mother wanting to stop the unnecassary deaths of other sons and daughters. Sheesh...has it been said she want's so and so to run against Bush? Has it been said she said she wants Bush out of office? Has it been said she's a major donater to the Democratic party? I love how the "other side" tries to spin this into a "she has a political motive!" What? You think she's running for president?

This utter lack of respect for the office of the President is unconscionable.

As Capt. Sheridan on B5 (you know, that show that our host here wrote a couple of episodes of) was known to say, there is a difference between the office and the person currently occupying it.

I respect the former. I'll happily dance on the latter's grave.

Do have a nice day now.

TWL

no matter who is sitting in the White House, i feel that everyone should respect the office of President.

and i think it's about time someone told George W. Bush that.

This utter lack of respect for the office of the President is unconscionable.

As others have already said, there's a difference between respecting the office and the individual holding the office.

I afford the individual currently in the office the respect that I feel he's earned.

Speaking as a resident of both Texas and the US during his tenures in charge of both, I say that, from me, he's earned absolutely no respect.

Of course, given the level of respect that he demonstrates for anyone who disagrees with him, I'd imagine he'd say much the same about me.

Someone will need to call me at bedtime and remind me to lose sleep about that.

Snowcrash, you're putting forward a straw man - and some people here have tackled it.

I haven't seen anyone yet say that Mrs. Sheehan "doesn't have the right" to protest the war, or her son's death. I personally hold that the First Amendment gives every citizen not in uniform an absolute right to protest anything, at any time, in any reasonable locale (for instance, protesting on the Amtrak line during the commute would be stupid, and thus not covered). Some of us just hold it rather disingenous of Mrs. Sheehan to claim that when her son joined the US Army - "See the world! An army of one!" etc - he "didn't think he'd have to go anywhere." If her son thought that, I doubt he would have scored highly enough on a standardized IQ test to join the Army (yes, they do have minimum standards!).

As for Randy, I'm reminded of something Spider Robinson wrote once:

"You know, those roughnecks who stomped on my head while chanting 'America! Love it or leave it!' back in the sixties didn't have a bad slogan - it's just that they got to define 'love of America', which they defined as 'blind worship of America'. And they got to define 'America' as 'the guy in the White House'."

I remember a couple of years ago how much flak Bush took for never meeting with families, and never going to funerals. It was inappropriate - he needed to look them in the eyes - etc.

Well, he did start meeting families. She had her time with the President. She blew it. She didn't demand her "answers" then (which, by her own admission, she won't believe now if he does come out and answer).

Now she's asking for a second meeting to demand his "accountability moment". Sorry, but the accountability moment was last November. Bush passed.

This just shows me how desperate the media is for something that resembles a story.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does."

Clearly false. Mindless killers can also change the world.

I respect the former. I'll happily dance on the latter's grave.

I'm glad to see the "tolerance of the Left" in full view. I didn't like Clinton, but I still would have had a respectful meeting with him since he was the elected President, and I certainly will not celebrate his death.

George Bush is the legally elected President (spare me the jokes on 2000 - he won again). That deserves some measure of respect no matter your political affiliation.

"Now she's asking for a second meeting to demand his "accountability moment". Sorry, but the accountability moment was last November. Bush passed.

This just shows me how desperate the media is for something that resembles a story."

One, that meeting was shortly after her son's death. Maybe a little much to expect her to be doing more than grieve during her first "meeting," perhaps?

Two, unless I've missed something, Mrs. Sheehan decided to do this on her own. She's not being funded by, supported by, or encouraged by, any media. Her story is being reported, yes, but then again, having a mother of a soldier killed in Iraq decide to set up a peaceful, respectful vigil in an attempt to attaim some personal peace and closure with the man she sees as largely responsible for her son's death, especially when that man is the President, well, gosh, I can see why it'd be surprising that this would make the national news.

"George Bush is the legally elected President (spare me the jokes on 2000 - he won again). That deserves some measure of respect no matter your political affiliation."

Why? Because it shows that their guy sucks less than the alternatives? Come back to me when this country actually has a decent electoral process with a run-off between top vote-getters, so that people actually feel like their vote counts, and maybe then I'll have some "ok, you beat us" respect for whoever wins an election.

"I'm glad to see the "tolerance of the Left" in full view."

Hey, Cool! Tim, you never told us that you got elected spokesperson for the "left." Gratz, Tim.

I'll happily dance on the latter's grave.

Um....gack.

Anyway, the poster above who said that the media is not reporting that Ms Sheehan met with the president is quite incorrect. What is not being reported is that her account of the meeting has changed so dramatically, from "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis, .... I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." and ""That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," to her more current assessment of the meeting.

Ther has also been no press that I have seen outside of bloggers regarding some of her questionable statement about Israel being behind the war.

Now I suspect that if this were an adminstration that was perhaps more to the liking of the media, these issues may have been raised. Who can say? Maybe they just want a good story and things like that just muddle up the message.

A former student of mine signed up with the Marines the day after 9/11. We all supported him; I'm sure you know some "9/11" recruits yourselves.
He signed up to defend his country after a hideous attack. He thought he was going to Pakistan or Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden and his crew.
Instead he was shipped to Iraq in the initial invasion. Walked from Kuwait to Baghdad and looped south again. Came home for a visit. Went back again and was in Falujah. Home again now and we expect a visit today or tomorrow. Then he's being shipped out A THIRD TIME for Iraq.
Those who say "these kids should have known what they were signing up for" are evading the issue. The issue is not whether to fight or not.
J, and his generation signed up to fight terrorists, to put themselves between the enemy and our beloved homes. Instead they have been used in a sideshow that has only recruited more support for Bin Laden. Bush's invasion of Iraq has given aid and comfort to the enemy.
Ironically, I demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq, but now I cannot in good conscience call for an immediate withdrawal. In the words of the not-quite-courageous-enough-to-resign Colin Powell, If You Break It, You Own It. The initial invasion was a mistake that will cost us for years to come. It would be even more monstrous if, like drunken fratboys, we were to say, "gee, sorry we trashed your house, not fun anymore, gotta go now."
The war on terror IS being mismanaged, and lives ARE being wasted, and we are clumsily losing the battle for hearts and minds and bombs in the Middle East. Let's deal with that instead of complaining about the messenger's style.

Mark --

Well, he did start meeting families. She had her time with the President. She blew it.

You willing to walk up to her face and say that, Mark?

Based on her accounting of the meeting, the President showed ignorance and an utter lack of understanding of what she was going through. To dismiss that as "he met with her, she blew it, tough luck, this is a non-story" is to pretty much define over-the-top callousness.

(And to Bill -- yes, her account has changed. I'm inclined to trust the latter one, since she's had more time to process it. During a job interview this past April, I got asked one question which in hindsight was exceptionally odd and borderline offensive. I didn't think about it at the time -- it only struck me a week or two later as to how weird it was -- and that was under far less of an emotional burden than Cindy Sheehan had to deal with after her son's death.)

Exactly what "answers" she wants is not the issue. Her presence, and Bush's absence, speak all the answers we're likely to get about this whole misbegotten exercise in Pax Americana.

And as for my "dance on his grave" comment and your response of ...

I'm glad to see the "tolerance of the Left" in full view.

A healthy "bite me" is in order for this one, Mark. First, if you're willing to dismiss a grieving mother with "she blew it", then you don't have any friggin' moral high ground to criticize me. Second, I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself here, and I seem to recall you being incensed in the past when any conservative was asked to defend the statements of another. You want to accuse me of something, go ahead -- but aim it at me, not some amorphous boogeyman. I thought you were better than that.

For the record, that statement of mine was meant literally. An older friend of mine once swore he'd dance on Nixon's grave, and when he moved out to southern California he did exactly that. I have no intention of harming Mr. Bush -- but he's got a good 20+ years on me and I fully expect to outlive him, and I *will* enjoy that when the time comes.

I didn't like Clinton, but I still would have had a respectful meeting with him since he was the elected President, and I certainly will not celebrate his death.

Remind me again how the two situations are similar, please.

This isn't ideological. I didn't celebrate Reagan's death, and I won't celebrate that of Bush Sr. when it eventually happens. This has nothing to do with the so-called "tolerance of the Left" (nice to see that I'm not only a spokesman, but one monolithic enough to be capitalized) -- it has everything to do with one man and his utter unworthiness to hold any office he's held for as far back as I've followed his career.

And if you want to judge me based on that, I suspect you know precisely where that judgement can be placed for best use.

TWL

(backs away from Tim slowly, hands raised, making soothing "cooing" noises)

Although I clearly had a similar response to Mark.

"Being President is not an easy job with easy decisions, and it is the height of arrogance to play monday morning quaterback."

"Monday morning" my ass. I've been objecting the previous Tuesday through to the weekend. I, along with millions of Americans, have despised this war from the get-go. And as the body count increases, more and more people are starting to realize the insanity of Bush's war.

"Every president had had to make decsions that resulted in some soldiers being somewhere that ended up getting someone's son or daughter killed."

And every president has tried to make that the last resort...as opposed to Bush, who was hot to bomb Iraq before he even got into office. Furthermore, every president has had to answer hard questions about those decisions: Questions that Bush has tried to minimize in terms of receiving them, and answered badly when he couldn't avoid it.

"I do not think any President has ever taken that job likely."

Yes, it's likely Bush should never have taken this job either. But that was the Supreme Court's job: To take it for him.

"You might as well call all of them murderers, especially Lincoln."

That's just an idiotic comparison. Lincoln is to Bush what gold is to brie.

"This utter lack of respect for the office of the President is unconscionable."

Not the office. The man.

"If you disagree with whomever the president is, fine, work to vote someone else in, but in a decent manner the way You would want to be treated."

Right, yeah, because that's what the GOP is really into with its campaigns: Decent, respectful treatment of its opponents. Swiftboat veterans. Willie Horton ads. Oh yeah...decent.

"I already know that these words will fall on deaf ears because the hate spewing from the liberals on this board is palpable."

And here's yet another nutty notion: The person who runs this board is liberal. So people showing up to share those views makes sense. People show up to get in his face and be rude only makes sense to the people who are doing it, since going around to conservative bastions and screaming at them is something it would never even occur to me to do.

PAD

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/10/face.insurgency/

"One senior U.S. military official provided CNN with a nationality snapshot of fighters captured during Baghdad's anti-insurgency push, Operation Lightning. Of the 1,000 people captured, 50 were non-Iraqi. Most were from Sudan, Syria and Saudi Arabia."

elsewhere in the article they state that suicide bombers seem to be largely foreign.

(And to Bill -- yes, her account has changed. I'm inclined to trust the latter one, since she's had more time to process it. During a job interview this past April, I got asked one question which in hindsight was exceptionally odd and borderline offensive. I didn't think about it at the time -- it only struck me a week or two later as to how weird it was -- and that was under far less of an emotional burden than Cindy Sheehan had to deal with after her son's death.)

That's a perfectly valid opinion. I just wonder why the mainstream media types seem unwilling to even aknowledge the issue. I suspect they are afraid that many will come to an opposite and equally valid opinion.

I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of a president changing his policies over a one-person protest, or even a thousand person protest. Remember the episode of the TNG where Troi kept failing officer school because she wouldn't send Giordi go his death? It's something like that, the leader needs to be able to make rational decisions, even if it means some soldiers die.


I can appreciate the protest, but if the president thinks he's doing the right thing, then he shouldn't change his strategy.

"One senior U.S. military official provided CNN with a nationality snapshot of fighters captured during Baghdad's anti-insurgency push, Operation Lightning. Of the 1,000 people captured, 50 were non-Iraqi. Most were from Sudan, Syria and Saudi Arabia."

elsewhere in the article they state that suicide bombers seem to be largely foreign.

That makes sense...I can't see how any Iraqi thinks that they will gain much by mass killing other Iraqis.

Ryuukuro: Thanks for the defence, but just a couple of things. I'm not posting under my name more out of sheer force of habit than anything else. Also, I'm not an American. I'm from a nation so benighted, that we only have one Internet...

The other Jonathan: I'm not entirely certain what Straw Man you think I was putting forth. From my vantage, you and Mr O'Rando seemed to deliberately portray that a soldier having a different/ dissenting opinion to his governments policy as the same as that sodier disobeying orders stemming from that policy. Also, whether or not that soldier is qualified to hold any opinion is pretty irrelevant.

so, one one hand we have largely foreign suicide bombers coming into the country and killing Iraqis. these people were not there before we invaded.

on the other hand we have largely Iraqi insurgents who seem to resent the invasion that has turned their home into a warzone for foreign terrorists.

An addendum to my previous comment: I also don't see how or why a soldiers duty/ limitations should similarly limit his family's ability to hold and espress their opinions. If there is a reason, I'd like to know. I'd like it to be more concrete than "honouring his sacrifice" or somesuch vague sentiment, though.

For the record, that statement of mine was meant literally. An older friend of mine once swore he'd dance on Nixon's grave, and when he moved out to southern California he did exactly that. I have no intention of harming Mr. Bush -- but he's got a good 20+ years on me and I fully expect to outlive him, and I *will* enjoy that when the time comes.

Good luck with that. I suspect that in the fullness of time, when the American people finally realize what an utter fraud has been perpetrated upon them, the best W can hope for is (to quote one of my favorite movies) "to get ya buried in secrecy so yer grave don't get violated!"

An older friend of mine once swore he'd dance on Nixon's grave, and when he moved out to southern California he did exactly that.

Just wondering how he managed to get away with that. And did he have musical accompaniment? And did he just do a few box steps or did he actually boogie down?

i support what cindy sheehan is doing
standing up for her son and all of the sons and daughters of america who have died
but the only way bush will meet with her is if sheehan and a army of mothers like her
storm the gates of the ranch itself
that would draw such media attention bush wouldnt have a choice especially if one of the moms were injured by the secret service trying to get in
barring that he wont meet with her
because is if he does the meetings will never stop
i would LOVE to see those moms storm the ranch though

"I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of a president changing his policies over a one-person protest, or even a thousand person protest."

How bout over fifty percent of the nation? Virtually every poll shows his approval rating well below fifty percent. (And I only say virtually cause I don't have every poll at my fingertips.)

"I'll happily dance on the latter's grave."

Way to go Tim! I just hope they bury him near where I live so its an easy commute.

This whole situation reminds me of the old joke about the Marine recruit who is being run ragged by his drill sargent. At the end of a really nasty session, the sarge gets up in his face and sneers "I bet you can't wait for me to die so you can piss on my grave." And the soldier replies; "Sir, no sir! When I get out of the army, I am never gonna stand in line again!."

"Lincoln is to Bush what gold is to brie."

Aww, but...I LIKE brie. And Lincoln.

Now, if you all will excuse me, I am off to take dancing lessons.

George Bush is the legally elected President (spare me the jokes on 2000 - he won again). That deserves some measure of respect no matter your political affiliation.

"Some measure," again, being that which he's earned.

At which poing, I refer you to my earlier statement.

"Anyway, the poster above who said that the media is not reporting that Ms Sheehan met with the president is quite incorrect. What is not being reported is that her account of the meeting has changed so dramatically, from "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis, .... I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." and ""That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," to her more current assessment of the meeting."

Not quite true. I direct you to this link. Do your own detective work from there.
:)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

************************************************

I don't know why posters here and elsewhere seem shocked at the concept of people wondering why they are at war after signing up in the military.

I was in high school in the late 80's and had lots of military types visiting the school and fishing for people to sign up. A lot of my friends were into graphic arts, journalism and other stuff like that. They were often told that they could follow those paths in the Army/Navy/whatever and would be told, when the question of combat came up, that not everyone is sent off to fight.

Long time ago? Local case only? No. I have a number of younger friends with younger sibs who've been told the same thing as well as a few co-workers who are just out of school by no more then a year or two who had been fed the same line of bull.

why are some of our servicemen & women shocked to be facing combat? Because many of them were told by people who are really good at nonanswer word games something that sounded like being told that they would never see combat but wasn't.

*******************************************

Just to keep the records straight in debates.....

Great!! I used to be the only Jerry on the site. I go on vacation from the net for a while and you replace me with another one. OK. Just to keep things easy in arguments I'll change my posting name to Jerry C. from here on out.

Remind me again how the two situations are similar, please. This isn't ideological...it has everything to do with one man and his utter unworthiness to hold any office he's held for as far back as I've followed his career.

My point is simply that he is the President. That is worth some respect, and that DOES tell me something that you reject the judgement of the American people. You can sugar-coat it, call it non-partisan, whatever. Maybe that means little to you because you disagree with him so much, but it means a lot to me. I guess that makes me old-fashioned that I think that a person deserves some respect for holding the office. I didn't realize I was so alone in that sentiment. I really thought better if you, Tim.

As far as Ms. Sheehan goes, let's get practical for a moment. What do you really expect? How far backwards does the President go? Does he walk outside the ranch and listen to her tirade? How many more people would show up and camp outside the White House "until the President meets with me" if he did? He'd spend the rest of his Presidency doing it, not to mention dooming every president from here on in to the same fate. Sorry, but the last thing I want to see is any President give in to demands like this.

I am sorry for her loss, but she is being unrealistic, manipulative and is grand-standing for the media for something her son wanted to do. This is a partisan attack more than a principled stand, and to be seen as anything else is looking through rose-colored glasses.

What I'm waiting for -- with dread -- is the media being escorted away from the protestors, and then have word trickle out that the protestors have been 'relocated for their own safety and for Presidential security', and 'that there were a few who were detained by Secret Service for further questioning'.

Well, this what "Free Speech Zones" are for you know.

"I am sorry for her loss, but she is being unrealistic, manipulative and is grand-standing for the media for something her son wanted to do. This is a partisan attack more than a principled stand, and to be seen as anything else is looking through rose-colored glasses."

Wow, ok, so, I guess you talked with her son before he shipped out and asked him if he wanted to go to war? Or, maybe, right before or as he was dieing, you again checked with him to make sure that he really, really wanted to give his life in Iraq?

Or, maybe slightly more probable, you've been down to Mrs. Sheehan's stand, and chatted with her, and heard her utter the words "I'm pulling this grand-standing stunt for the media, to play upon my son's death for a partisan attack."

Maybe, just perhaps, she really is a grieving mother that's been so affected by the death of her beloved son that she's decided, rather than sit around and mope, she's actually going to DO something about it. Maybe, just maybe, there's a small chance that her actions will wake something in the American People (and just for the record, the American People did not elect Bush...the electoral college does that, based on the results of the election we had...you know...the one were close to 50% of registered voters DIDN'T vote) to get our government to stop sending our children and brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers overseas to die in a senseless conflict that at the end of the day does nothing to make Americans any safer than they were the day before, or the week before, or the year before.

But I guess that's all just liberal grandstanding. My mistake. You seem to be so much closer to the people involved, I'll just take your word for it.

Or, maybe not.

Not quite true. I direct you to this link. Do your own detective work from there.
:)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

??? I went there dreading that I would find out that everything I'd written that she had said was just something somebody made up. But I seem to be missing whatever David Brock is seeing. There's no "lie" there, unless you think that quoting her was supposed to make people think that she had supported the war and now she didn't, which I don't think was the point at all.

Anyway, for those who want the real unspinned deal, here's the actual original article: http://www.thereporter.com/republished/ci_2923921

Her version of Bush's attitude and how she felt seem to me to have undergone a major shift. Nothing wrong with that but it's disingenuous of Brock to pretend that it hasn't happened.

BTW, here's a transcript of a speech Ms Sheehan gave Monday:

I'm gonna tell them, "You get that evil maniac [the president] out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who's blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."

And I'm gonna say, "OK, listen here, George. #1, you quit, and I demand, every time you get out there and say you're going to continue the killing in Iraq to honor the fallen heroes by continuing the mission; you say, except Casey Sheehan.' "

"And you say except for all the members of Goldstar Families for Peace' cuz we think not one drop of blood should be spilled in our families' names. You quit doing that. You don't have my permission."

And I'm gonna say, "And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for." And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, bullshit.

You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.

Cuz, we're not freer. You're taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren't freer, they're much worse off than before you meddled in their country.

You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine

I think the best move that the Bush adminsistration could make with this case is to see to it that Ms. Sheehan is allowed as much TV time to fully espouse her views as is possible.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a small chance that her actions will wake something in the American People (and just for the record, the American People did not elect Bush...the electoral college does that, based on the results of the election we had...you know...the one were close to 50% of registered voters DIDN'T vote)

Oh, you mean the election that had the biggest turnout (both in real and percentage terms) in decades? This reminds me of the extreme Right saying "Clinton wasn't elected by a majority". It was BS then and now. In the words of Aaron Sorkin: Decisions are made by those who show up. I have little sympathy for those who actively choose to not be involved.

"I am sorry for her loss, but she is being unrealistic, manipulative and is grand-standing for the media for something her son wanted to do. This is a partisan attack more than a principled stand, and to be seen as anything else is looking through rose-colored glasses."

I love this. I've been watching all week conservative media hacks and others trashing her and using her son's desires and wants and beliefs as the source for their stand and viewpoint. Do any of them know the family? No. Have any of them ever spoken to the son who the claim to speak for while attacking his mother? No. Have any of them ever spoken to her? Damn few.

I don't agree with the way she's making her stand or the demands she has to end this. Where, as another poster has already poted at length, would caving in by the Prez end for him or future holders of the office? But to see and hear so many idiots work so hard to show that they are idots by speaking for a person they never knew and against both his mother and her knowledge of what her own son was like and believed almost makes me laugh out loud. And I love the ones who take it that extra step. I just love the Hannitys, Rushes and others who actually make statements about how her son would be so outraged or upset about her actions now.

Please. I don't mind honest debate but try and not be so stupid that you make me laugh until I puke.

"Oh, you mean the election that had the biggest turnout (both in real and percentage terms) in decades? This reminds me of the extreme Right saying "Clinton wasn't elected by a majority". It was BS then and now. In the words of Aaron Sorkin: Decisions are made by those who show up. I have little sympathy for those who actively choose to not be involved."

Which isn't the point...you said " you reject the judgement of the American people." Am I to take from your words that followed that that you consider the American people to be those that voted for Bush? A smudge over 50 million in a country of 278 million? I don't care that Bush won the election, and I don't care that he won the popular vote. He doesn't represent the American people, he represents a minority block that managed to squeeze by in an election.

And everytime I hear some Bush supporter say "I have little sympathy for those who actively choose to not be involved." I think, good: You go right on thinking that while you trash the good will America had to her name, and comethe next round of elections, we'll see what all those people think of you and your President.

ok. Sheehan's first point, is, i think, excellent. the President has said that we need to continue the killing to honor those that have already died.

it's much like John Kerry's line, "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?".

clearly, she's not as eloquent, but her point is good. there are grieving families who don't want more people killed in their name.

of course i don't expect the President to concede to this. it would be nice if he'd stop invoking the name of those already wounded, but i don't expect that.

asking what the noble cause her son died for is is of course rhetorical as well. you cannot expect a straight answer from the administration for that. as she pointed out in that original Reporter article, they've been changing their excuse for war since day one.

whether it's for oil, i can't say. i don't think it's that simple. of course, the region wouldn't be very important without oil, so it must factor in somehow.

as for getting the U.S. out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine. these are unrealistic pipe dreams, but i appreciate the sentiment.

i'm just waiting for someone to start calling her anti-semitic because she's criticized Israel.

Hmmm... When W dies, what dance should I do when I reach his grave? Moonwalk, the Robot, an impromptu breakdance routine?

Personally, I'm siding with the mother, and NOT just because I loathe the current President with a hatred reserved for Teletubbies and the people who cancelled Greg the Bunny.

From what I've read and heard, it seems that Bush's idea of comforting was his usual rhetoric, which, in my mind, couldn't comfort anyone unless it included a complimentary lobotomy.

I also disagree that soldiers surrender the right to question orders. If they feel an order is injudicious, they should have every right to confront their superior on it. If every soldier just followed orders and didn't use instinct and their brains, there'd probably be even more dead than there are now.

Anyone denegrating this woman's efforts out of hand isn't doing the situation justice. Only by examining all sides of the conflict can a logical conclusion be reached.

Of course, I'm someone who, during the election, wore a shirt that said "Burning Bush: A Biblical Experience". So I'm not unbiased.

Bill,

The mediamatters page from the link has links in it to the complete press story from last year. It also includes (with sources to check the full stories) quotes from Reporter staff writer Tom Hall & Reporter editor Diane Barney about the situation at the time of the report about the 2004 meeting.

What it shows is that the quotes from her first chat with Bush are true but pulled a bit out of context and spun a bit. The lie comes from saying that her position is a major shift from one year ago.

I've read the 2004 story. It doesn't read anything like the way the media dogs attacking her would say that it does. She was critical of Bush and the war in the 2004 piece.

*""We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place."*

Seems to me from that bit that she had questions then and was upset in 2004. She's just more upset now. Has her anger or hate for Bush grown? Yeah, I would tend to think that. But that's not the same as going from a Bush backer to hater in one year as many are attempting use these quotes to say. It just doesn't read as a 180 as much as it does a slow burn into a raging fire.

I would also tend to think that the death of her son and the time she has had to reflect on that may have made her more bitter toward the war and Bush then she was one year ago.

I will go with you 100% that her mouth may be the best weapon that Bush has to use against her in the long run. I would also go with anyone who says that she comes off as a tad unhinged. But can we be just a wee bit more honest about pointing out what a wingnut she may be?

i'm just waiting for someone to start calling her anti-semitic because she's criticized Israel.

Criticizing Israel is not anti-semietic. Believing that the current war exists because the USA is controlled by Jews who are concerned only for Israel's security...well, that may be a different matter.

It was the unstated threat. Iraq wasn't going to attack America or nuke America. But Iraq was a threat -- to Israel. That was the real threat and had been for fifteen years. But for the US government this was the threat that couldn't speak its name. Europe doesn't care much about that threat. And the US government didn't think they should lean too much on it, because going to war to protect Israel wouldn't be popular.

Supposed transcript of a Cindy Sheehan speech. I'm trying to track down its authenticity. It's not inconsistant with what she has said before but I don't want her to be lumped in with the far left Jew Haters unfairly.

But I'm sure one of the many reporters in Crawford will be happy to ask her to clarify her position. Anyone? Bueller?

Assuming she is alive. according to the Randi Rhodes Air America Forum:
SATURDAY NIGHT UPDATE FROM CINDY SHEEHAN
By Buddy Spell
Upbeat Defiance.com
LOUISIANA ACTIVIST NETWORK
August 6, 2005

Briefly, I just got off of the telephone with Cindy at 10:58 PM (CST).

She’s on the side of the road with six (6) other activists.

They expect others to arrive from the VFP convention in Dallas to spend the
night with them tonight.

Cindy says that the protesters will be killed if they stay the night.

“We’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that
the Secret Service killed us.”

She asks that we all light candles in solidarity and looks forward to more
company in the days ahead.

Apparently the Secret Service missed. Bastards! First they trip John Kerry while he was skiing, now this!

Seriously, wow. It's like a cult. If Limbaugh or Hannity really want to make this go away they should be out there handing out microphones.

ok, if she thinks the Secret Service is going to kill her, she's nuts.

i haven't heard her say anything to that effect in the several live interviews i've heard.

still, the points from her speech earlier are, i think, reasonable.

saying we're there because of our government being controlled by Jews is nuts.

on the other hand, a heavy pro-Israel anti-Palestine bias in our mainstream media has been influencing public opinion on middle-east policy for decades.

this is complicated by the fact that reasonable misgivings about Israeli policy have fed anti-semitism and that political attack dogs habitually conflate criticizing the government with being against the people.

Israel is a major aggravating factor to the whole middle east problem. unfortunately, i can see no easy solution.

I just realized what the situation in Iraq reminds me of: The situation in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. As in Iraq, America was looking for money, and, nominally, to liberate the Filipino people from the Spanish, who were a VERY oppressive regime. However, the situation deteriorated rapidly. The Fliipinos had already declared independence, so the American occupency galled them into The Philippine-American War. Under Emilio Aguinaldo, a large conflict started that required a constant occupying force of 126,000 american troops. Soon, torture and slaughter of Filipinos was common (Including the "water cure" which got a new lease on life at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.) as well as scorched earth campaigns that included the destruction of entire villages. At the end of it all, over 4,000 Americans had been killed, as opposed to 20,000 of the insurgents (they called em that back then too.) and anywhere from 250,000 to ONE MILLION civilians. At the higher end, that was nearly one eighth of the population. The resistance was so fierce that the Army iimplemented the Colt .45, useful for its ability to actually knock a charging opponent backwards.

Unless something changes I can see a very similar situation developing in Iraq over the next ten years.

Bill,

You're doing a lot of uncharacteristic cutting and running, or at least you were earlier in the thread. Allow me to point it out.

1) The point of the mediamatters article (which I was about to post when Jerry beat me to it) is that Cindy Sheehan's attitudes haven't done a huge shift so much as a shift in degree -- and perhaps even more importantly, that the quote you referenced about "the gift the president gave us" had nothing to do with HIS presence and everything to do with the presence of the other grieving families. In short, either you took the quote out of context or the source you used did, and came to a fairly different and IMO dishonest interpretation.

2) After you said that most of the insurgents were both foreign and primarily killing Iraqis, and other people posted evidence showing that your statement applied to the suicide bombers but NOT the overall insurgency, you went on without missing a beat as if it had backed your point.

You're generally very quick and very generous about praising people when they're willing to admit they're wrong. I am truly saddened that I'm not able to do the same here -- at least not yet.

TWL

James -- loved the joke. It added some much-needed levity. :-)

Sasha --

"An older friend of mine once swore he'd dance on Nixon's grave, and when he moved out to southern California he did exactly that."

Just wondering how he managed to get away with that. And did he have musical accompaniment? And did he just do a few box steps or did he actually boogie down?

I don't recall all the specifics, which were obviously secondhand anyway. Basically, he went to the Nixon library on some very slow summer weekday when crowds were expected to be minimal, and at some point when the actual gravesite area was either deserted or nearly so, he slipped past the ropes up to the grave and did a little jig for a few seconds.

He was then escorted off the premises, but was very calm about it. "No problem -- I did what I came to do."

(Roger would even know the person I'm talking about, since all three of us were on the same mailing list for a while. On the other hand, Roger seems to be exhibiting good sense and ignoring this thread entirely.)

TWL

(Yeah, I know, I'm late to the party...)

Del: "It's fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he's already met with her."

What, is there some law that a citizen of the United States only gets one meeting with the President? Or is it a simpler "one dead child for every five minutes" rule? Perhaps Del and the other anti-Sheehan smearers can suggest Mrs. Sheehan send off her other three kids to die for GWB -- maybe he'll be generous and give her a whole half-hour...

If there's one thing this whole episode shows, it's that the Bush apologists can say they "support the troops" and "respect the dead" and "hold traditional family values" -- but they don't mean it. Their unrestrained rush to destroy the mother of a dead serviceman merely because she disagrees with the President shows the true darkness in their hearts.

--R.J.

I don't care that Bush won the election, and I don't care that he won the popular vote. He doesn't represent the American people, he represents a minority block that managed to squeeze by in an election. And everytime I hear some Bush supporter say "I have little sympathy for those who actively choose to not be involved." I think, good: You go right on thinking that while you trash the good will America had to her name, and comethe next round of elections, we'll see what all those people think of you and your President.

So, Bush's win isn't the will of the people because only a fraction of them showed up, but the next election (where only a fraction will show up again), will be definitive proof of what the people think.

Mark --

My point is simply that he is the President. That is worth some respect, and that DOES tell me something that you reject the judgement of the American people.

Christ on a pogo stick, not this canard.

Sure, I "reject the judgement of the American people." I also think "American Idol" is a lousy show, for what it's worth, I've never found apple pie particularly tasty, and I think football is a highly overrated sport.

There, anyone else whose judgement I can "reject" while I'm at it?

I find Bush unfit to hold office. He nonetheless holds the office of president. That means he holds a certain amount of power that I'm obliged to recognize, and I do. That doesn't mean I'm honor-bound to give him respect: respect is earned, boyo, and he's done everything he can short of beheading my cat to make sure I know how little my profession, my education, my values, and my opinions are worth in his eyes.

If you think someone deserves respect simply for holding an office, that doesn't make you old-fashioned -- just naive.

As far as Ms. Sheehan goes, let's get practical for a moment. What do you really expect?

Well, let's see -- there's that word "respect" that you were so fond of.

If you seriously think that going out of his way to meet with one grieving mother is going to forever hobble the presidency, then I'm simply at a loss. Then again, I'm also at a loss at how easily so many people are willing to demonize absolutely anyone and everyone in an effort to make Saint Dubya's hands remain clean.

I am sorry for her loss

You'll have to forgive me if I have extreme difficulty believing that.

TWL
sickened

BTW, here's a transcript of a speech Ms Sheehan gave Monday:

[speech deleted for brevity]

I think the best move that the Bush adminsistration could make with this case is to see to it that Ms. Sheehan is allowed as much TV time to fully espouse her views as is possible.

I think she should get that time as well, but I don't see the same outcome. I think people would recognize, respect and agree with the emotions they heard in that speech, and with MOST of the actual statements made, though not all.

TWL

"So, Bush's win isn't the will of the people because only a fraction of them showed up, but the next election (where only a fraction will show up again), will be definitive proof of what the people think."

Of course Bush's win doesn't reflect the will of the people? How could it? Less than 25% of the "people" voted for him. The election represents exactly that...the will of less than 25% of the people. And less than 50% of the registered voters. Come nest election, if people decide to stay home again, the next president will likewise not reflect the will of the people. They just happened to win the election.

Well, aside from the body count as of August 2005 with no end in sight: Nothing. There's nothing known now that wasn't known back then. Bush was a lying sack of crap back then, and he still is. The only difference is that by November, too many Americans were unwilling to face it, and thus elected him.

But as someone else on the board said earlier, Americans are now coming out of it, like drunks recovering from a bender and discovering evidence of their misdeeds, and are going, "Oh my God, what have we done." They're acknowledging now what was known then. And everything from his plummeting numbers to this grass-roots protest is evidence of that.

PAD

So you are really angry at the voters?

Are you sure they were in denial or they too wanted to lash out at someone, anyone and Hussein was a convenient inconvenience?

You were in New York City in 2001, 2002, 2003 ... how many argued for bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East in general? How popular was the phrase, "nuke *forward* to the Stone Age" during those years?

If a liberal is a conservative who's just been arrested then a conservative is a liberal who's just be mugged. The US was "mugged" Tuesday, September 11, 2001, and while many retreat into a shell or put on a brave face, many seek holy or unholy retribution--from wherever, whatever or whomever they can obtain it ... deserved or not.

It's not like Bush acted solo or without support, popular support.

It's not like there was not much of an alternative offered in 2004--as far as Iraq goes.

-- Ken from Chicago

"If you seriously think that going out of his way to meet with one grieving mother is going to forever hobble the presidency, then I'm simply at a loss."

Ya know, Lincoln is legendary for taking time to meet grieving families, and helping them, even, in one story, commuting the sentence of a soldier sentanced to death when his sister came and pleaded with him. and he had a heck of a lot more dead soldiers on his hands.

Yet Shrub can't take five minutes (ok, five minutes AGAIN) to simply speak to a woman who has just lost the most precious thing anyone can ever have? Hell, thats not even being stupid, or misspeaking. Thats just being a bastard. Especially as he is ON VACATION so its not like he is dictating affairs of state.

It's not like there was not much of an alternative offered in 2004--as far as Iraq goes.

There was, until the media decided Dean was "too unstable" to be the Democratic nominee. As opposed to our model of stability, President Fratboy.

TWL

Oh, and as far as "Monday morning quarterbacking", isn't it the job of voters of any democracy, even a Democratic Republic, to do such Monday morning quarterbacking? After all, aren't politicians "public servants"? Aren't voters the "boss" of the elected?

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Of course the rub is when the electors want conflicting or contradictory items from the elected.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -- just so long I'm the dictator."
--George W. Bush, CNN, December 18, 2000

If you seriously think that going out of his way to meet with one grieving mother is going to forever hobble the presidency, then I'm simply at a loss. Then again, I'm also at a loss at how easily so many people are willing to demonize absolutely anyone and everyone in an effort to make Saint Dubya's hands remain clean.

That's just it - he's already been meeting grieving mothers, and has met with this one before. Why should he do so again - just because she camped out on the doorstep? Boy, if that's all it takes to get a meeting with the President, then the tents will crop up on Pennsylvania Avenue faster than Super Bowl tickets on eBay.

I am sorry for her loss

You'll have to forgive me if I have extreme difficulty believing that.

So, because I disagree with her motives and actions on this day, then I am incapable of empathy? While I've not lost loved ones due to combat, I have lost them long before their time in tragic circumstances. It's hard not to hold others responsible for it on a lot of days, believe me. I understand far better than you know.

No, not because you disagree with her motives and actions -- because of everything you've said across this thread that shows you'd rather trash her and everything she wants than have Bush show any sign of "weakness".

And I never said you're incapable of empathy, merely that I have trouble believing that you're displaying it in this instance.

TWL

I am not trashing "everything she wants" or anything else about the rest of her personal life. I have never attacked her, where some comes from, what she does, or tried to demonize her beyond the set of events she put on public display herself. Her intent is not to meet with the President, but to humiliate him.

Bottom line: I think what she wants, and how she's going about it, is unreasonable. You think differently.

heck, if she wants to humiliate the president, she should just give him a microphone and put him on TV for everyone to see and hear.

Bottom line: I think what she wants, and how she's going about it, is unreasonable. You think differently.

Agreed on that much. Let's leave it there.

TWL

This just in: Military officials had singled out Mohamed Atta in 1999 as possibly being involved in a terrorist cell, but the information was not allowed to be passed onto the FBI. Exactly, what files did Sandy Berger destroy? Of course, since he was a Clinton guy, no one on this board gives a damn that Sandy Berger stole top secret documents (hidden in his underwear, no less) and destroyed them. I bet most of the posters here think he should be applauded. Liberalism=Blind Rage.

I hope everyone takes note of the rhetoric that Bush et al are using now to explain why we have to stay in Iraq. And by the way, a lot of it is quite valid- I wish we'd never gone in, but Powell's Pottery Barn anaology is very much in effect right now.

The reason I bring this up is I want everybody to watch how this rhetoric takes a sudden, well, spin, at some point in 2006. Reason being that our troops have to be out before the midterm elections, otherwise the Republican Senators running for re-election will take a pasting. They will therefore put an enormous amount of pressure on their good friend George W. Bush to get our troops out so that Iraq can't be used as a campaign issue against them. So I'm betting summer of 2006: that's when Bush tells the American people that our work in Iraq is done and he can bring our boys home.

Randy, please cut out all the stupid assumptions, wouldja?

If it comes to light that Sandy Berger destroyed files relevant to the 9/11 investigation or to events leading up to it, then I (and, I think, most people here, liberal or not) would say he needs to be held accountable -- and no, that doesn't mean giving him the Medal of Freedom, just in case you were losing track.

Sheesh. Just because the current president runs a cult of personality, people seem to think every liberal slavers over everything Clintonian.

TWL

I have this image of Bush on a street corner, with a table, cards, and Chaney in the background, hussling America with a schtick of Three Card Monte, trying to convince John Q. Public that the WMD can really be found.

The point of the mediamatters article (which I was about to post when Jerry beat me to it) is that Cindy Sheehan's attitudes haven't done a huge shift so much as a shift in degree -- and perhaps even more importantly, that the quote you referenced about "the gift the president gave us" had nothing to do with HIS presence and everything to do with the presence of the other grieving families. In short, either you took the quote out of context or the source you used did, and came to a fairly different and IMO dishonest interpretation.

I have to disagree. Ms. Sheehan has been characterizing her previous meeting with Bush in the harshest possible light, as a transparently political affair with a distant, uninvolved president. Her earlier statements are the exact opposite and the bit about "the gift the president gave us" just reinforces how positive the meeting was--at least when she first was quoted about it.

Her opinion of what the President was thinking and how he acted has changed. Fine. But it's hardly illegitimate for people to point this out. Media Matters is spinning, which is what they do best, but which makes them IMHO about as reliable as FreeRepublic.com.

2) After you said that most of the insurgents were both foreign and primarily killing Iraqis, and other people posted evidence showing that your statement applied to the suicide bombers but NOT the overall insurgency, you went on without missing a beat as if it had backed your point.

You're generally very quick and very generous about praising people when they're willing to admit they're wrong. I am truly saddened that I'm not able to do the same here -- at least not yet.

Well I can safely say that I'm probably wrong about the overall insurgency. Blame it on a really piss poor memory of the MSNBC article that said that "Saudi Arabia and Syria are the major source of insurgents"(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/) Had I bothered to do more than skim it would have been clear that they were talking about major sources of foreignall insurgents. Mea Culpa. I wasn't really trying to weasle out of any admission but I suppose it looked that way.

Their unrestrained rush to destroy the mother of a dead serviceman merely because she disagrees with the President shows the true darkness in their hearts.

??? Unrestrained rush to destroy her? By quoting her? Or do you really think that the secret service will kill her?

Freedom of speech is a two way street. Ms. Sheehan has every right to say what she thinks, in whatever manner she wishes. The sacrifice that her son made, however, does not exempt her from having to take responsibility for her words and possibly even having to accept criticism for them. I would hope that people would show a certain amount of leeway for her, more than might be granted towrad someone else, given her situation but I sure hope that the right and left don't start playing a game of "let's start dragging the families of the dead into the shoutfests and anyone who dares to do any less than agree with them is a big meanie".

I find Bush unfit to hold office. He nonetheless holds the office of president. That means he holds a certain amount of power that I'm obliged to recognize, and I do. That doesn't mean I'm honor-bound to give him respect: respect is earned, boyo, and he's done everything he can short of beheading my cat to make sure I know how little my profession, my education, my values, and my opinions are worth in his eyes.

On this we agree--at least with the part about HAVING to respect a president, any president, just because they have the job. I recall when Clinton was president and handing out diplomas at some college, some students refused to shake his hand. That was certainly their right. Personally I would have shaken it, despite the low opinion I had of him, just for the fact that he was there to congratulate the students and shaking his hand was in no way an endorsement. But that's me.

There was, until the media decided Dean was "too unstable" to be the Democratic nominee.

No, that was the Democrat voters who did that. He ran a bad campaign where it counted--getting out the voters. His methods in Iowa will go down in history as some of the worst ever--the "scream" just finished off a candidacy that was already dead.

I think that Dean recognizes this as well, that he could never win. Look at how quickly he took himself out of the 2008 race.

Interesting study in contrasts: google "Randy Shugart" Clinton and compare the number of results to "Cindy Sheehan" Bush.

I draw no conclusions but it's interesting.

Posted by Del

It's fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he's already met with her. Why tell the whole story when half of it will do?

Well, most of the stories i've read DO mention it.

Some go into more detail than others, but, in case you missed the details, it was a meeting alng with a whole bunch of other families of dead soldiers/marines.etyc., and the President basically spouted the same slogans he always does and neither responded constructively to any questions nor actually really seemed to really connect to the idea of who they were or why they were there.

In short, either you took the quote out of context or the source you used did, and came to a fairly different and IMO dishonest interpretation.

I have to disagree. Ms. Sheehan has been characterizing her previous meeting with Bush in the harshest possible light, as a transparently political affair with a distant, uninvolved president. Her earlier statements are the exact opposite and the bit about "the gift the president gave us" just reinforces how positive the meeting was--at least when she first was quoted about it.

I'm going to disagree right back. She has said, and the reporters from the paper who originally quoted her have said, that "the gift the president gave us" is referring to togetherness with her family and the unexpected respite the whole trip was, NOT to the meeting itself.

Here's a link to the original paper, not to Media Matters:

http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_2925925

Now, Is she lying? Is the original reporter lying? Or did dear ol' Drudge decide to stretch the truth and let every single right-wing blogger have a simultaneous orgasm in the bargain?

I know which one I'm picking. Your mileage, of course, may vary, but it's frankly disappointing to see you working so hard to present this woman as insincere and insane. As you say elsewhere, it would be nice if both sides were to remain above that.

On this we agree--at least with the part about HAVING to respect a president, any president, just because they have the job. I recall when Clinton was president and handing out diplomas at some college, some students refused to shake his hand. That was certainly their right. Personally I would have shaken it, despite the low opinion I had of him, just for the fact that he was there to congratulate the students and shaking his hand was in no way an endorsement. But that's me.

I'd have shaken Reagan's, or Bush I's. Not this one.

[Asimov once shook the hand of Wernher von Braun, if my memory of his autobiography is accurate, and then felt very disquieted later that evening when he realized he'd shaken a hand that had itself shaken Hitler's.]

There was, until the media decided Dean was "too unstable" to be the Democratic nominee.

No, that was the Democrat voters who did that.

I'd go back and look at the timing if I were you, Bill.

Dean gives a speech where he discusses undoing a lot of media deregulation.

One day later, the media coverage of his campaign changes dramatically. Suddenly, instead of fiery he's borderline nuts; instead of passionate he's a loose cannon.

Dean didn't run the best campaign, sure -- but to deny any sort of media influence in helping to take him down (well before the infamous "scream") is to ignore reality.

As a point of courtesy, BTW, could I ask you in general to refer to "Democratic" voters and politicians rather than "Democrat voters"? Saying the latter gives me images of Bob Dole on a bender, and I really doubt that's how you're trying to be perceived. (Even if it is, I'd prefer that you use the label we tend to self-identify with.) Thanks.

I think that Dean recognizes this as well, that he could never win. Look at how quickly he took himself out of the 2008 race.

Sure, he could never win -- now. Even ignoring the media influence, the Democrats have been eating their primary losers for breakfast for decades, which I think is a big mistake.

TWL

Interesting study in contrasts: google "Randy Shugart" Clinton and compare the number of results to "Cindy Sheehan" Bush.

I hadn't heard of Shugart -- thanks for the information.

The latter gets more results, true -- possibly because Clinton actually let the dad talk to him (and tell him off pretty good, from what I read), thus rendering it a less enchanting media story.

No media conspiracy needed there -- just common sense.

TWL

Posted by Jonathan (the other one)

As for Randy, I'm reminded of something Spider Robinson wrote once:

"You know, those roughnecks who stomped on my head while chanting 'America! Love it or leave it!' back in the sixties didn't have a bad slogan - it's just that they got to define 'love of America', which they defined as 'blind worship of America'. And they got to define 'America' as 'the guy in the White House'."

I don't know if it was original with Harlan Ellison or not, but i always liked his response to That Slogan: America -- Change it or lose it."

Posted by: indestructibleman

on the other hand we have largely Iraqi insurgents who seem to resent the invasion that has turned their home into a warzone for foreign terrorists.

And for suicide bombers fighting the foreign terorists, too.

Posted by: Mark L

My point is simply that he is the President. That is worth some respect, and that DOES tell me something that you reject the judgement of the American people.

You mean the people of whom less that 50% think that he's doing a good job in general, and of whom 42% (and dropping) think that his war is a good thing?

it's frankly disappointing to see you working so hard to present this woman as insincere and insane. As you say elsewhere, it would be nice if both sides were to remain above that.

I'll have to challenge you on that. Please show me where I have presented her as insincere and insane. I have stated that her opinions of the meeting with the president (are you aware that there are now supposed to be pictures of her posing with Bush, even getting a kiss?) have changed. I think anyone who reads the first account and compares it to what she says now would agree. I have also said that this change of opinion was "Fine." I stated to one poster (you) who said she had simply had more time to process her thoughts that "That's a perfectly valid opinion." I stated "Her version of Bush's attitude and how she felt seem to me to have undergone a major shift. Nothing wrong with that but it's disingenuous of Brock to pretend that it hasn't happened."

I then quoted her.

I disagree with much of what she says but that in and of itself is not evidence of my believing her to be insincere and insane. I don't doubt for a moment that she believes them. So much for insincere. Her apparent views on the influence of Jews on foreign policy strike me as wrong but being wrong is not the same thing as insanity. I know that many have a compulsion to believe that anyone who dares to disagree with them or espouse a different opinion must be insincere and/or insane. I'm not one of them.

My statement about Bush wanting to give her the microphone reflects my opinion that she many of the opinions I have seen attributed to her are out of the mainstream and will win her no support. Again, that is not the same as being insincere or insane. Just so we're clear.

As a point of courtesy, BTW, could I ask you in general to refer to "Democratic" voters and politicians rather than "Democrat voters"? Saying the latter gives me images of Bob Dole on a bender, and I really doubt that's how you're trying to be perceived. (Even if it is, I'd prefer that you use the label we tend to self-identify with.) Thanks.

I'll try to remember that and if I forget it is not intentional--I like to refer to serious parties by the way they wish to be called--"pro-life" "pro-choice"--even if I personally don't agree with the total validity of the term. Um, does this mean that I'm supposed to use "Democratics" as a plural? "I walked by the headquarters of the Democratic Party and was chased down the street by 4 angry Democratics."

I hadn't heard of Shugart -- thanks for the information.

The latter gets more results, true -- possibly because Clinton actually let the dad talk to him (and tell him off pretty good, from what I read), thus rendering it a less enchanting media story.

No media conspiracy needed there -- just common sense.

Hmmm, perhaps...if a parent tells off Bush to his face do you suppose it will get the same same almost nonexistent level of reportage?

Who knows? Just like we'll never know if I'm right about this one_ if this were Clinton, Gore or Kerry in office, some of the same folks lionizing Ms. Sheehan would be castigating her as a tool of right wing partisans who were exploiting her tragedy for political gain. Some of the right wingers now critisizing her would be egging her on. And the number of news stories about it would be considerably less than what we are seeing. Although Ms Sheehan herslf thinks that "the mainstream news media have not paid enough attention to her cause" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001929.html

Interesting study in contrasts: google "Randy Shugart" Clinton and compare the number of results to "Cindy Sheehan" Bush.

I draw no conclusions but it's interesting.

It is interesting. The one conclusion I find myself drawing is how much the internet (and especially blogs) affects news coverage nowadays and vice versa.

Another curious bit. I was reading Bob Dornan's speech anouncing his candidacy for President (against Clinton in '96) and came across this passage:

I asked Randy Shugart's dad, Herb why he refused to shake Clinton's hand at the White House Medal Of Honor ceremony. Clinton told Mr. [Herb] Shugart he didn't even know the about the operation in which Randy was killed. . . that he didn't know Addid had been flown by a US Army aircraft to Addis Ababa. And Herb Shugart, the father of a Medal of Honor winner, told me, "Mr. President, you're not worthy to be Commander-in-Chief. I have nothing else to say to you." [applause] I know what is entailed with the Commander-in-Chiefs job. It's disgraceful Bill Clinton doesn't even have a clue.

I'll close on this. One of my adversaries in the press-and brother, do they love their adversarial role-said ';Congressman, your passion in the Well, is that too strong for the White House? Might you not get us involved in a conflict" I pointed out to him that warriors or those trained to be combat ready warriors do not endanger the precious lives of their brothers and sisters in uniform unless, if all other means are exhausted, we can look their parents, their brother and sisters, their widows, their children in the eyes and tell them why their young heroes was asked to risk their young lives. Clinton cannot do that because he doesn't understand the careful, moral use of the power entrusted in the presidency. If you want to see tragic American history unfold be fore your reading eyes in one heartbreaking chapter after another about evil civilian leadership, I suggest you read Robert Strange MacNamara's rotten book, as I'm doing. Never again, will a war criminal like MacNamara soil our nation's honor.

I wonder if Mr. Dornan holds the same opinion of the current occupier of the Oval Office. If he doesn't . . . well I don't think the English language has a word that accurately conveys the depth of sheer bald-faced hypocrisy that would require.

And for suicide bombers fighting the foreign terorists, too.

I don't get it--are you saying that the US soldiers are foreign terrorists? Don't want to accuse you of anything, just a clarification if I misunderstood.

Bill,

Maybe. Maybe not.

I posted the link to the media matters site rather then other links because, removing the editorial aspect of the posting, it was the best source for links to the original 2004 news story, the Reporter's new stories and statements about this subject and the article about this whole shebang from the writer and editor involved in this from the beginning. Reading and taking all of that into account does tend to lean, to me, towards her not making a drastic change in her personal views of Bush. It still reads to me as a slow burn that grew into a whole lotta rage.

But even if you take everything away except the original 2004 piece you can still see the early seeds of her stance now. Several points in the 2004 piece that are kind to Bush are quotes from her husband and her and not her alone. There's also a bit where she states that she wanted to ask Bush several questions like the ones she wants asked now (only slightly less venomously worded) but didn't because **she and her husband** decided not to do so. Throw in the fact the the "gift" line reported by so many to be about Bush wasn't and that she viewed meeting Bush as an almost secondary aspect about the trip and you have a printed story that really can be seen either way.

There have been any number of occasions where my wife and I have been in situations that, for better or for worse, one of us has talked the other into biting our tongues about a situation and playing nice because of the situation at hand. Thing is, like some of her printed comments from the 2004 piece, the odd statement comes out that betrays what we might actually be wanting to say more fully. Maybe it's my past experiences, including meeting with politicians and having to be somewhat political myself at times, but I just see a different meaning in some of the comments and attitudes from the first article then you do. I can see her having bit her tongue a bit then, with the odd slip, and then getting more and more ticked with Bush as time went by.

My thing with this is that I don't support her stand at all. I think she's acting like an overly grieving mother at best and a total loose screw at worse. I think she's the absolute wrong person to be the "human face" on the deaths in Iraq. And she's making almost anyone in the anti-Bush camp look like a loon along with her. But, damn, there's enough stupidity coming out of her mouth to bury her and people want to attack her on the incredibly weak notion that she has made a complete 180 on Bush and has somehow been subverted or mind controlled by the evil Libs and their minions in the vast and all powerful media empire. Just let her blather on and look like a nut and she'll be written off as a nut or a grief stricken mother who is no longer in her right mind about Bush or her sons death and soon forgotten.

Plus, I really don't see her sideshow act down in Texas changing one person's mind. Her act is so over the top and so out there that it will only serve, in the end, to strengthen Bush's supporters views of him as a noble war leader being attacked viscously by the evil Lib press while strengthening the Bush opponents' views of him as a careless, feelingless warmonger who hasn't the guts to face a critic or have an event that's not staged and managed down to the last word. It really is the most pointless sideshow in the Iraq/Bush good or bad saga to come along in quite some time now.

*************************************************************

Sandy Berger, the "wall" and the 9/11 commission and the latest conservative conspiracy theory.......

The idiot brigade is out in force. The story being put forward (mostly by Rush and Hannity and then picked up elsewhere) is that the wall was created under Clinton and stopped all communications between agencies that could have averted 9/11. Oh, and Berger got rid of the evidence so the Commission stocked with Clinton guys could could ignore it.

Don't make me laugh. The "wall" that is being talked about as stopping the information from being shared wouldn't have restricted all the information being discussed. It also wasn't put in place by the Clinton White House. It was merely continued under Clinton as it had been under Bush 1 and was again renewed in early 2001 by Ashcroft's Justice Department. This has been such a nut job week for these guys.

How serious should this theory be taken? Not very. Once you remove the lies and omissions from it you have very little left of it. Add in the fact the the loudest voices behind this theory are the same ones who were voicing the conservative conspiracy theory that the evil E.P.A. and its evil regulations caused the last space shuttle explosion and you can see that you've pretty much crossed into territory so fat out there that even Oliver Stone wouldn't touch it.

To listen to all of you liberals and conservatives argue I really believe this country is doomed. Corruption and stupidity run rampant everywhere. I can't believe a word that comes out of anyone's mouth because it's all self-serving BS. God it's just like OSU vs. Michigan. Everybody picks a side and then fight it out to the end no matter what. Somebody give me hope.

the Wallace and Gromit movie will absolutely work.

umm. i'm slightly inebriated (my roommate is having a party, i've had a few cheap beers, a rusty nail, and a Jameson's).

the former should read "the Wallace and Grommit movie will absolutely rock."

"You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine"

I'm only half-way through the thread, but in reading the transcript of Mrs. Sheehan's statement, one thing becomes clear: There is at least a hint (being kind) of anti-semitism here.

How the two scenarios she speaks of are connected escapes me.

Remember folks, when all else fails "Blame the Jews".

Joe,

I'm in the Big XII, so I'm pretty lukewarm on Big 10 schools all the way around. OSU-Michigan just doesn't do a lot for me. Does that give you hope?

:)

Now, OU-Texas on the other hand.....

There is at least a hint (being kind) of anti-semitism here.

That's not true. For one thing, criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic.

For another, there is an obvious comparison in the situations. (Just like the Irish/English troubles too) Any country which is occupying foreign territories will be attacked by the indiginous peoples. You want to stop the terrorism? Stop getting involved in other peoples countries. Get out, get the army out, and stay out.

That goes for America in Iraq (and other countries), Israel in Gaza/West Bank, and many other comparable situations.

You may disagree, fair enough, that's fine. But don't try to label her fair comment as somehow anti-semitic.

"To listen to all of you liberals and conservatives argue I really believe this country is doomed"

Arguing about politics isn't really a sign of impending doom. Places where it isn't allowed--now THERE'S a place you might want to avoid.

At any rate, go to the library and pick up some old issues of TIME or NEWSWEEK from the late 60s. Reading those we are currently in a comparatively tranquile Eden.

Jerry,

I agree that the story of her "conversion" has been overblown--my complaint has been on how the media simply glossed it over. I recall hearing plenty about how Kathleen Willey's story had changed. But as I said before, I think they had a story they wanted to tell and left out anything that didn't jibe with it.

I don't think Ms. Sheehan is the nut youthink she is (though apparently I've given that impression to Tim) but her views on many issues are definitely out of the mainstream.

"You may disagree, fair enough, that's fine. But don't try to label her fair comment as somehow anti-semitic."

I guess it sort of depends on your definition of Palestine. Some want the Israelis gone. Out of there. By any means necessary.

Coupled with he apparent statements that Jews are responsible for the war, one is certainly allowed to wonder. There are about 27,000 reporters down there, maybe someone could ask her.

Bill,

Fair enough.

Since I've been critical of the press for ignoring aspects of the story, I should mention when they get it right. From today's Washington Post:
After the meeting, [Cindy Sheehan] was quoted by the newspaper in her hometown of Vacaville, Calif., as saying that the president seemed sympathetic. Subsequently, she has said that Bush treated her callously during the meeting.

There, that wasn't so hard.

Bill,

I'll have to challenge you on that. Please show me where I have presented her as insincere and insane.

Fine -- "inconsistent" and "possessed of opinions most people would find loony." I figured the phrases I used were close enough; apparently you don't.

Most of the time, when people say they're presenting evidence that someone's "opinions have undergone a major shift," the implicit message is that either the original or the new opinion is an opinion of convenience and not a deeply held view. Lord knows Kerry got that enough (sometimes fairly, sometimes not).

You're bright enough that you had to know people would be taking that message away from what you had to say -- thus, "insincere."

I don't even know why I'm bothering at this point, as nobody's listening. You seem content in your self-appointed role as Calm Not-At-All-Partisan Guide To Reality.

Um, does this mean that I'm supposed to use "Democratics" as a plural?

Cute.

No. "Democratic" is the adjective, "Democrat" is the noun.

[Shugart]

if a parent tells off Bush to his face do you suppose it will get the same same almost nonexistent level of reportage?

Depends on the situation and what's gone before, same as pretty much always. It's certainly less likely now, given how much attention this particular parent is getting.

Done here, I think -- way too many other things are going on for me to keep beating my head on this particular wall. Let me know when you feel like having an actual conversation again.

TWL

" Of course, since he was a Clinton guy, no one on this board gives a damn that Sandy Berger stole top secret documents (hidden in his underwear, no less) and destroyed them. I bet most of the posters here think he should be applauded. Liberalism=Blind Rage."

You know the difference between Democrats and GOP Neocons? Democrats become outraged at wrong-doing. GOP Neocons become outraged at Democratic wrong-doing.

Democrats became angry at wrong-doing by Clinton. Neocons form a blockade around Bush and accuse anyone who doesn't share their uniformity of being unpatriotic.

Democrats tell people what they themselves think. Neocons tell people what everyone should think and get abusive when they don't.

Conservatism=Blind Ignorance.

PAD

I would've gotten involved in this thread sooner, as there are alot of interesting points and comments being made, but I spent most of yesterday resurrecting my personal computer from a hard drive that decided to die.

Apparently my Dell PC came with a Hitachi "DeathStar, version 2" (as opposed to version 1, which caused a still-ongoing class action lawsuit against IBM).

"As usual, Ted gets it wrong."

James Carter -
True dat. In his own, special way, he is as nutty as Ann Coulter. We could really use a few less schizophrenic squirrels in the Op/Ed pages.

I think you're both nutty. Rall, unlike our administration, Coulter, and most other right-wingers, has been to some of these countries and seen things for himself, first hand.

And, unlike most liberals, he has balls. Which might explain his distain for many of his "fellow" liberals as well.

Apparently honesty and facts from a liberal means 'nutty' as well these days.

Joe Nazzaro -
I wonder if we would use that same argument to the thousands of National Guardsmen who also got a lot more than they bargained for.

There was a story on the news the other night about how the governor of Wyoming (iirc) wants some of the state's NG troops brought home to help fight wildfires in the state.

But the government won't do it. So, instead of using the National Guard as intended - to do things within our country - they're being sent overseas.

Bobb -
Anyone taking bets on whether Bush will stop by, or even waive, to Mrs. Sheehan on his way to his Meeeleon dollar fundraiser this afternoon at the next ranch over

He didn't.

Randy -
This utter lack of respect for the office of the President is unconscionable.

Right. The Republicans haven't had respect for the office since Clinton was inaugerated, and it continued with the monkey getting "elected".

Jonathan (the other one) -
(yes, they do have minimum standards!).

Standards that they not only keep lowering, but have frequently ignored just so they could get bodies in the door.

Londo -
I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of a president changing his policies over a one-person protest, or even a thousand person protest.

Well, it must be comforting to know then that Bush completely ignored the protests of MILLIONS around the world before invading Iraq.

Mark L -
That is worth some respect, and that DOES tell me something that you reject the judgement of the American people.

And what does it say when Bush himself rejects the judgement of the American people?

The funny thing is, is that if you went and told somebody like, say, Ann Coulter, that she has to have similar respect for Clinton as you're telling us we must have for Bush, she'd probably turn into Satan and bite your head off.

Jerry C -
Do any of them know the family?

I'd love to know if any of them have had to even deal with what she's going through. Bush won't. Nobody else in his Administration will.

James Carter -
Especially as he is ON VACATION so its not like he is dictating affairs of state.

Is he ever dictating affairs of state? Bush has no officially taken the most vacation time of any president in history.

And when he is at the Oval Office, he's sleeping on the job.

Bill Mulligan -
Hmmm, perhaps...if a parent tells off Bush to his face do you suppose it will get the same same almost nonexistent level of reportage?

I didn't read that article from during the Clinton administration, but we all know that things have changed drastically, even since Bush first came into office.

Yes, the internet was there during the Clinton years, but the proliferation of news sites and blogs was not. FoxNews was not (or at least not as it is now).

The scene has changed to the point that, if the next president is a Democrat, they're going to have to deal with the same stuff Bush has.

Joe Kraicinski -
God it's just like OSU vs. Michigan.

Being an Iowa Hawkeyes fan, I guess this means I truly am an Independent. :)

A local fundamentalist "Christian" statist radio talk-show host called her a knucklehead last night.

I called, getting as far as "You called a Gold Star Mother a knucklehead. That's low, even for you --" before he cut me off the air and proceded to rip her all the more.

This is the same jerk who cut me off the air last week when I challenged his false witness in which he claimed there were no instances in the Old Testament of Jehovah killing or ordering the killing of babies and small children.

Posted by Bill Mulligan

And for suicide bombers fighting the foreign terorists, too.

I don't get it--are you saying that the US soldiers are foreign terrorists? Don't want to accuse you of anything, just a clarification if I misunderstood.

No -- i'm saying that almost certainly a large percentage of those fighting them perceive them that way.

And i'm implying that from an outside viewpoint, our troops in Iraq (of whom my set-son-in-law has been one since May, who has already been blown up once in his APC, luckily non-fatally) may look a lot like those Warsaw Pact troops that rolled into Prague.

So, I was just reading an opinion piece from Arianna Huffington.

I don't watch much tv these days, and I don't visit Faux News's website, so I was unaware of how far the right-wingers had already taken this, and how badly they're treating Mrs. Sheehan.

From the article:
"The lowlights included Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin tag-teaming up to push the idea that Sheehan’s "story hasn’t checked out". O’Reilly also claimed Sheehan "is in bed with the radical left", and, later suggested "this kind of behavior borders on treasonous"... and, for bad measure, tried to slime Sheehan by linking her with "people who hate this government, hate their country"."

I mean, seriously people: how many times can Republicans cry wolf against people that dislike Bush's policies? to accuse anybody in disagreement of being traitors?

And, of course, pissing on liberals along the way.

Man, this country needs to wake the hell up already.

"I think you're both nutty"

"Apparently honesty and facts from a liberal means 'nutty' as well these days."

Just cause he went there really has nothing to do with his column and/or cartoons, especially since his last four columns have been about: Online advertising hurting printed newspapers, comparing the insurgents in Iraq to "Red Dawn," Abortion/John Roberts, and Karl Rove's being more loyal to Bush than America. Of those four columns (all of which can be found on yahoo by the way) only one could have anything to do with how much of those other countries he had seen. I stick by the fact that he is too radical.

We (meaning liberals) are quick to jump on Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and their ilk. And rightly so. However, we are less quick to jump on our own radicals, such as Michael Moore and Al Franken. Lets face it, ultra-radicalism of any kind is despicable, and serves nothing more than to provide hot button issues that we can harp on come election time. And, to put it bluntly, all it does is provide fodder for the other side. You will, I hope, pardon me for not wanting my politics to be represented by a former "Saturday Night Live" writer and a reject from "The Biggest Loser."

Maybe I am nutty, Craig. Insanity is often defined as a large deviation, mentally, from the norm. If the norm is polarized, partisan BS, then I suppose someone like me, who would like a little REAL debate on REAL issues is, without a doubt, insane.

You know what? I can live with that.

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/081205.asp

do you really think you can compare Al Franken to Michael Moore? Franken is very moderate (or at least he was when i was listening to his show, and in the books of his that i've read).

now, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Janeane Garofalo, those people are out there (Rhodes seems like a moderate from what i've heard, but she's nutty and incoherent).

even if Franken were far left, he certainly hasn't engaged in gross misinforming or hate-mongering like Coulter et al. i really don't see how he's a radical. i mean, he's a big fan of Bill Clinton, the greatest Republican President since Eisenhower.

"Franken is very moderate (or at least he was when i was listening to his show, and in the books of his that i've read)."

Really? He struck me as a radical when I was first exposed. O'course, I was exposed to him back in those dark days when I was still...brrrr....a consrvative. :) I haven't read much of his lately, so I may be wrong. Anyway, I still don'r like a SNL writer being one of the faces of the liberal party, but lets forget him. Anyway, my original point (that we are quick to jump on conservative radicals, while ignoring our own, thus making us a wee bit hipocritical.) still stands.

"even if Franken were far left, he certainly hasn't engaged in gross misinforming or hate-mongering like Coulter et al."

I don't know, some of the attacks on Limbaugh and co at the end of his books (the Vietnam parodies) were a little vicious. And the point is, is that liberals like to claim the high ground, and be known for being nicer, for not running dirty campaigns, et cetera. We cannot, then, afford to even come near the shadow of Coulter's or limbaugh's actions.

In the end,radicalism solves nothing. All it does is get everyone worked up, and real issues are lost in the crossfire of hotbutton topics. I like to think of myself as a mostly middle of the road, if slightly liberal, guy. Issues are important things: School vouchers, abortion, War, Poverty, the economy, Social Security. All these are issues. The war in Iraq? Issue. Gay rights? not issue. Liberals are just as capable of bringing up non-issues as conservatives are, and it is the kind of behavior we cannot afford.

Of those four columns (all of which can be found on yahoo by the way) only one could have anything to do with how much of those other countries he had seen.

Wow, you judge his life by four columns. Give yourself a cookie.

Maybe you could start with this piece, if it's not too much effort.

So, I stand by my comments. I'll take the opinions of our soldiers of how the war is going (as conflicting as they are) over the politicians and pundits of the Republican party.

All these are issues.

That nobody in this country seems to give a damn about.

Or am I mistaken in the thought that people didn't vote on gay marriage bans... err... "moral values"... in the last election?

ok. "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" is pretty much all below-the-belt jabs, but that's the point. the book is meant as a parody on the politics of personal destruction.

anyway, that aside, i think radicalism is important. it's a vital part of political discourse. radicalism helps the spread of ideas.

unfortunately, because radicalism tends to be louder than moderation, it gets far more than it's fair share of press coverage and does tend to distract from very important, less flashy issues. like labor. i think Unions are a really important issue that tends to get lost.

i'm not sure i'd agree that gay rights isn't an issue. society has a long way to go towards acceptance. it shouldn't be an issue in this day and age, but sadly, with all the gay marriage bans last election, it clearly is.

You're bright enough that you had to know people would be taking that message away from what you had to say -- thus, "insincere."

I don't even know why I'm bothering at this point, as nobody's listening. You seem content in your self-appointed role as Calm Not-At-All-Partisan Guide To Reality.

Since I've said--and I believe--that Ms. Sheehan is sincere, I guess I'm not as smart as you think I am.

Since I like you and have enjoyed our conversations, let's just agree to disagree before this gets, um, disagreeable. I know what's in my mind but if somewhat wants to think I'm being dishinest about that there isn't a whole lot I can do about it.

Apparently honesty and facts from a liberal means 'nutty' as well these days.

Rall's the right wing's favorite kook. He makes them look good in comparison and is useful as a tool with which to tar all liberals (unfairly) as sharing his extremism.

The scene has changed to the point that, if the next president is a Democrat, they're going to have to deal with the same stuff Bush has.

That's a good point that sevral of you have made. The internet and bloggers have radically changed how stories get reported or not reported. The Air America/Boys and Girls Club story is just the latest in a series of events that would have slipped through thecracks if it weren't for regular people practically forcing news organizations to do their job. Ultimately this will be good for all of us (though I suppose potentially we may end up with so many stories that nothing lasts long enough to register. Could a story like Watergate, which took so long to gestate, have the same impact today?

Mike,
Ok, I'm glad that for once I didn't jump to conclusions. I hope your son in law stays safe.

So, I stand by my comments. I'll take the opinions of our soldiers of how the war is going (as conflicting as they are) over the politicians and pundits of the Republican party.

the ones who voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

Rall's the right wing's favorite kook. He makes them look good in comparison and is useful as a tool with which to tar all liberals (unfairly) as sharing his extremism.

Funny, I don't find him to be that extreme.

I find him to be nothing more than brutally honest. And, to chalk up him a point, he's willing to admit he's wrong when he's wrong.

But then, anyone left of Coulter is moderate by comparison.

the ones who voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

I was referring to the situation in Iraq and other countries. Some of those places which Rall has visited, while said politicians and pundits haven't.

I find the situation (and Rall's comments) with Krgyzstan to be particularly interesting - a democracy with no oil.

And no US support.

"i think radicalism is important. it's a vital part of political discourse. radicalism helps the spread of ideas."

So do I. Hell, I enjoy being radical (see my comments on dancing on Bush's grave.) However it is like cake. You can only take so much before it makes you sick. Radicalism was instrumental in the formation of America. If Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton hadn't been so radical, they might not have gotten nearly as much done. The problem with radicalism is that it clouds the real issue. With yet another historical analogy....look at the pre civil war period. The issue was slavery, but it was clouded by the hot button topics of Admitting states to the union. eventually, the emnity got so hot that the members of congress would refuse to vote on on legislation proposed by the opposing party. If you look at the Civil war, a lot of non-war related legislation was passed, primarily because it could be passed.
I could see a similar situation happening in our congress today. Radicalism should rarely be indulged in. It is all to easy to fall into the trap of being ONLY radical. Then you get problems.

"Wow, you judge his life by four columns."

Nope. I am a regular reader of his column and his cartoon. Those were the four most easily availible for example. And, actually, they seemed pretty typical to me. at most, 1/4 of his columns have to do with the middle east. This is not to mention his.....inflammatory..... cartoons.

"I'll take the opinions of our soldiers of how the war is going (as conflicting as they are) over the politicians and pundits of the Republican party."

Wow, great either/or, Craig! The almost entirely republican military, or their bosses! Give your self a cookie, Craig. You deserve it. Why don't you try consulting someone who isn't a radical? Like, say, dig out some of what Colin Powell and wesley clark have to say.

"That nobody in this country seems to give a damn about."

Don't care about? Or weren't TOLD about? I really didn't hear a whole lot of issues coming from either side of the aisle. Or was the democrats plan to fix schools buried deep inside the Memos "proving" Bush went AWOL? Give the people a race with issues, and you will get issues. The entire conservative party doesn't consist of ann coulter clones. Look at it this way. Bush was elected with a 51% (or so) majority. Polls have his approval rate down in the forties. Clearly, about 6-10% of republicans are thinking about switching. So, you can meet them half-way, and put a democrat in the white house, and probably sew up the house and senate too, or you can retreat behind radical retoric, and probably lose again.

"let's just agree to disagree before this gets, um, disagreeable."

I think it may be a little to late for that. I was hoping that, with the dearth of trolls on this page lately, we could have civilized discussions.

Wow, great either/or, Craig! The almost entirely republican military, or their bosses! Give your self a cookie, Craig. You deserve it.

Good to see you ignored my response to Bill's same inquiry.

Was it intentional, or just dumb luck on your part?

I have a certain amount of sympathy for Cindy Sheehan, as I would for the kin of any coalition soldier, American or otherwise. However, grief and politics are a dangerous combination. Grief is an emotion, and emotions are by definition irrational, even if grief is more understandable than most emotions. And I think the last thing we need in politics is more irrationality, especially of the knee-jerk, emotionally crippled variety. Trace a line back from any number of legislative efforts regarding drug use, alcohol consumption, gun use, consumer protection, whatever, and I suspect you'll find a grieving mother or wife driving the crusade. Exactly why the personal pain of one person or a small subset of people should trump the freedoms of other is beyond me. But let them grieve, by all means. Just don't take their political aims seriously.

-Dave O'Connell

Yes, it's those damn irrational women who screw things up every time...

I'll give you the benifit of the doubt, and assume that *perhaps* this wasn't the message you meant to put across, Dave?

Part of the reason bush won't meet with her is he "wants to go on with his life"

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7606

Also, shots have been fired at Camp Casey.

http://198.65.14.85/News/2005/31-40/32news21.htm

"Was it intentional, or just dumb luck on your part?"

neither. It was a conincidence I was typing my post at the same time as you were typing yours, so I missed your response. I see what you are saying about Rall, but I still disagree. I really don't think that we are going to convince each other of anything, so we should simply agree to disagree.

"And I think the last thing we need in politics is more irrationality"

I would disagree here. I think that a lot of the really important changes were made by irrational decisions. Look at the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat was irrational. Black college kids letting themselves get beat up for sitting at a lunch counter is really irrational. Is Cindy Sheehan a bit irrational? Perhaps, but she is getting attention, and thats what counts. she is drawing the attention of millions of more rational people to her cause.

neither. It was a conincidence I was typing my post at the same time as you were typing yours, so I missed your response.

Ok. That makes sense.

It's also why I check for other new posts after posting one of my own. :)

Craig,

A little bit puzzled. Rall states regarding Krgyzstan that "Now Central Asia's only democracy is history."

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4150084.stm) reports that "Kurmanbek Bakiev has been officially inaugurated as president of Kyrgyzstan, a month after winning the Central Asian state's elections."

Granted, Rall's piece was from March...it's just amazing that you picked that one on the very same day that the BBC had their article. Was it intentional or just dumb luck on your part?

Granted, Rall's piece was from March...it's just amazing that you picked that one on the very same day that the BBC had their article. Was it intentional or just dumb luck on your part?

Dumb luck, as I had never seen that article.

The "exile" of Akayev was, in a nutshell, a coup by fundamentalists.

As for the "election", would you call Iran a democracy after their recent presidential election?

I wouldn't.

I think the Gold/Brie comment says a lot.

Lincoln would have met with her. He would have walked out the front door and listened to what she had to say. The very first day. No news, no publicity. Just honest, human compassion.

I tried posting this earlier, but it got mucked up, and then I saw that someone had "stolen" it from me, so I'll jump on here with the chance to say...

but, I LIKE brie...can't we use some OTHER comparisson that doesn't have us equating Bush with that gooey, tasty, cracker-topping cheese?

How about American cheese, the blandest cheese of them all?

Hmm, bland but inexplicably well-liked. That's not half bad.

There's always Limburger, which has the additional benefit of making everyone think you're about to make a Rush reference...

TWL

After having a mostly cheese-less 4 month diet (it's the cholesterol) this once cheese snob would contemplate murder for a real cheeseburger...even topped with American (ah, but nothing melts quite like American...)

How about some kind prepackaged fake cheese then, like Velveeta or Cheez-whiz?

I'm just trying to be clear here...

The Republicans, guardians of morals, protectors of the family, are against a mother wanting to know the reason her son died?

So...Bill O'Rielly vs Al Franken.

Uhm...isn't one a journalist, or at least a news comentator vs the other who's a commedian? I mean, one has a daily show on a major news channel, the other was Stuart Smalley?

Is this the disconnect that the right has? They've been spinning reality in their own twisted way they can no longer tell the difference between Right World and the Real World? When Jon Stewart on Crossfire and he was taking them to task for not actually working to inform people, they tried to reflect the criticism by pointint out his own fluff interview with John Kerry....they didn't seem to get the difference between a news show and a fake news show on Comedy Central.

No Todd, they're against a bereaved mother taking the spotlight away from the photo-ops of Bush clearing brush from the most brush-infested ranch in America. Doesn't she know that the month of August is earmarked for Bush's "look like a plain ole' country rancher" event?

For those who say "It's not what her son would want!", putting aside that you don't know her son...would you go up to a member of MADD and tell her to shut up, because clearly their dead child liked beer?

Uhm...isn't one a journalist, or at least a news comentator vs the other who's a commedian? I mean, one has a daily show on a major news channel, the other was Stuart Smalley?

No, one is the former host of a tabloid news program and the other helped create the Coneheads. Why should we take the opinions of either of them seriously?

they didn't seem to get the difference between a news show and a fake news show on Comedy Central.

Waitaminute. Are you saying that Crossfire wasn't a fake comedy news show?

You know, I have to say that in this thread I'm seeing a lot more instances of generalization on both sides than I'm used to here, maybe because it's such a sensitive issue. I'm glad such passionate issues only pop up occasionally on here; much like radicalism, it's important to have a reenergizing debate every so often, but not continuously.

Personally, it's a crap call to have to make whether to meet with her or not; she's got President Bush in the classic Catch-22. Meet with her as an individual protester, opening the floodgates to future instances and a veritable gridlock of the office, or don't meet with her to avoid this and be labeled as uncaring, etc. At this point, would people consider President Bush compassionate for meeting with her, or would they, after calling for him to meet with her and attacking him for not doing so, then promptly reverse and label any such meeting a political act, void of sincerity, if he chose to meet with her?

As an aside I nearly bashed my Republican head into my desk when I read his statement regarding the protest about having to move on with his life. Why do you continue to say such things, Mr. President? Did you go an extra mile or two on the mountain bike and get a little dizzy? "As I told her last summer at the White House, I'm sorry for Mrs. Sheehan's loss; her son died in honorable service to this country. Thank you." That's all you should say about it; otherwise, talk about your shiny bike or what you're doing to move things forward in Iraq, but don't get in an emotional battle with a mother of a serviceman killed on duty.

Are you saying that Crossfire wasn't a fake comedy news show?

I never found it very funny...though the bow-tie was a good laugh. I hear it was supposed to make him look edgy and appeal to the youth market.

Why do you continue to say such things, Mr. President?

Because Dick told me too!

I never found it very funny...though the bow-tie was a good laugh.

Well, it certainly wasn't a serious news program either.

I hear it was supposed to make him look edgy and appeal to the youth market.

Yeah, because bowties are sooo popular among the 18-24 demographic. I think Tucker is trying to convince people he's the illegitimate son of George Will.

By the way, I suppose I should be totally honest:

If I'm president, no way in hell do I meet with this woman.

I understand her plight. I'd feel badly for her. Maybe I have her meet with CJ Cregg. But I just don't see how the president of the United States can be dictated to by a protestor setting up on his front lawn, no matter how heartfelt her protest and deep her anger. If the president establishes the precedent that he'll meet with a single protestor who brings her case to the media, then basically he's setting himself up to have his calendar dictated by every person with an issue and access to a TV camera. Next thing you know, several thousand people are setting up shop outside the White House 24/7, every individual shouting that he or she won't leave until they get THEIR audience with the president. To quote Leo McGarry, "Government will stop. This will be all we do."

I just don't see how he can meet with her, unless he's prepared to meet with two hundred and fifty million other people, all of whom feel they have as much right as Cindy Sheehan.

PAD

How about some kind prepackaged fake cheese then, like Velveeta or Cheez-whiz?

Perfect. Bush -- the voice of the Cheez-Whiz generation.

(Good on pretzels, too.)

TWL

If I'm president, no way in hell do I meet with this woman. I understand her plight. I'd feel badly for her. Maybe I have her meet with CJ Cregg. But I just don't see how the president of the United States can be dictated to by a protestor setting up on his front lawn, no matter how heartfelt her protest and deep her anger.

In fact, a couple of staffers went out last week (I'm wanting to say the Deputy CoS - so she got Josh Lemon-Lymon out there). However, that's not what she wants.

By her own admission, this is what she wants. She said publically that she knows if Bush meets with her, then her momentum is gone and this is over and the media storm ends.

Typical politics, really: perception is more important than reality. In this case, you have an idle press corps in Crawford just dying to cover something, and in she walks.

I have to wonder if President Bush will take his month-long vacation in Crawford after this.

I have to wonder if President Bush will take his month-long vacation in Crawford after this.

That brush ain't gonna clear itself!

Dick always make sure there's enough planted there for me to clear.

Thank you PAD, for justifying why the President shouldn't meet Sheehan again.

There's always Limburger, which has the additional benefit of making everyone think you're about to make a Rush reference...

If it weren't for Warner Bros cartoons, I don't think 1 person out of 500 would know what Limburger is. Sadly, more and more kids are growing up without exposure to those classics.

By the way, I suppose I should be totally honest:

If I'm president, no way in hell do I meet with this woman.

PAD comes through with a breath of fresh air. Kudos, sir.

If it weren't for Warner Bros cartoons, I don't think 1 person out of 500 would know what Limburger is. Sadly, more and more kids are growing up without exposure to those classics.

There's also the Python "cheese shop" sketch.

"You haven't asked me about Limburger, sir."
"Is it worth it?"
"Could be."
"All right. Do you have any Limburger, he asked, expecting the answer 'no.'"

My kid's gonna get an education in the classics, for sure.

TWL

have either of you actually eaten Limburger? i have. it's not something a child should be exposed to. if limburger were to make it onto the menu at Gitmo, i think even Alberto Gonzales would consider that to be torture.

it must be popular around here, because they always keep it in stock at the Albertson's on Crenshaw.

"venezualen beaver cheese?"

As for the "election", would you call Iran a democracy after their recent presidential election?

I wouldn't.

Well, neither would I but we are talking about Kyrgyzstan, right. I'm not the impartial international expert that Ted Rall is but I understand that the Organization for the Security and Cooperation of Europe gave the elections a passing grade, the first time a former Soviet central Asian republics got a passing grade from the OSCE.

Here is a Newsweek article that has several firsthand accounts from families who have met with the President (note, none of this came from the White House). Not all wanted to meet with him, some have refused. It provides a bit more information on how the President has handled these meetings.

I have to wonder if President Bush will take his month-long vacation in Crawford after this.

*scoff* What makes you think he won't just decide to extend the vacation while he's at it?

but I understand that the Organization for the Security and Cooperation of Europe gave the elections a passing grade

Well, if they approved our last two presidential elections as well, I can't say I have any faith in them. ;)

I've been away for a few days.
Earlier in the thread John wrote (and I'll reply to in sections):

That's not true. For one thing, criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic.

Usually the one goes hand-in-hand with the other. Sad but true.

For another, there is an obvious comparison in the situations. (Just like the Irish/English troubles too) Any country which is occupying foreign territories will be attacked by the indiginous peoples. You want to stop the terrorism? Stop getting involved in other peoples countries. Get out, get the army out, and stay out.

Firstly the Irish-English problem has to do more literally with religion than with occupation. Secondly her remark mentioned "Palestine", which as a whole might indicate that she does not support the existence of Israel as a state, as "Palestine" describes the entirety of the region. Thirdly, although the US has provided support for Israel, that support is not with the presence of American troops. The Israelis are on their own in that department and have done quite well, thank you.

That goes for America in Iraq (and other countries), Israel in Gaza/West Bank, and many other comparable situations.

Israel is withdrawing from Gaza as this is being written. And they are doing it despite huge upheaval among their own population who are at loggerheads with each other over whether it will finally provide the springboard for true peace in their country. And it's being spearheaded by Ariel Sharon, who I can't compare to anyone LESS likely to do such a thing from his past experiences, yet who must be viewed as a visionary because he's the guy who's willing to really give it a try. We'll see if a real peace can be achieved there or whether the Palestinians will just continue as usual. (Incidentally, I think it'll sadly be the latter.....but we'll see). So your argument is without merit.

You may disagree, fair enough, that's fine. But don't try to label her fair comment as somehow anti-semitic.

See refutation to first item.

Apologies if my use of italics did not translate.

Earlier poster I am sorry for her loss

TWL: You'll have to forgive me if I have extreme difficulty believing that.

No, actually, we don't have to forgive you for assuming that your opponents lack basic human values and the capacity for sympathy, or for pretending such in order to get in a good rhetorical jab. We have to be disappointed in you for that. Geez, Tim, you're supposed to be one of the smart ones here; make some effort to raise the level of discourse.

Someone wrote, "George Bush is the legally elected President (spare me the jokes on 2000 - he won again). That deserves some measure of respect no matter your political affiliation."

Why? Because it shows that their guy sucks less than the alternatives? Come back to me when this country actually has a decent electoral process with a run-off between top vote-getters, so that people actually feel like their vote counts, and maybe then I'll have some "ok, you beat us" respect for whoever wins an election.

You do realize that when two parties command the allegiance of the vast majority of the population (which wasn't true about 1992 or 2000, but was in 2004), a run-off between top vote getters looks exactly like the general election, right? Given the new records set for votes cast and the tightness of the races in the "battleground states," it's pretty difficult to argue that large numbers of people outside the reddest or bluest states felt their votes didn't count in 2004; turnout mattered, and 118,000,000 people turned out. Every vote was counted and there was a legitimate winner. You don't have to like it, but don't blame the lack of a runoff for 60,693,281 people disagreeing with you. Frankly, I don't think runoffs are even a good idea; only first choices should be counted. Your complaint that it boils down to "your guy sucks less than the alternative" is precisely what a runoff guarantees; having voted for the candidate of their choice in round 1, and having had him eliminated, round 2 exists for the sole purpose of smaller factions choosing the lesser of the remaining evils. There is no added benefit from a runoff, unless you consider it beneficial to make it explicitly clear that a majority of the population voted against the winner when given a free choice. At least with the current system, there's an outside chance someone interesting could emerge with a mandate in which a majority of the voters actually feel "their" candidate won.

You may disagree, fair enough, that's fine. But don't try to label her fair comment as somehow anti-semitic.

See refutation to first item.

You didn't really refute that, though. He said that criticism of Israel doesn't necessarily imply anti-Semitism. You said that they typically overlap. Those statements aren't logically contradictory; saying that something is "usually" X concedes that it is sometimes !X, which is really all the first post said.

"Two, unless I've missed something, Mrs. Sheehan decided to do this on her own."

You've missed something.

Unless all those left-wing political activist groups that send me mail to my mailbox are all lying, she is definitely not doing this on her own. They are supporting her. and gladly take credit.

"Two, unless I've missed something, Mrs. Sheehan decided to do this on her own."

You've missed something.

Unless all those left-wing political activist groups that send me mail to my mailbox are all lying, she is definitely not doing this on her own. They are supporting her. and gladly take credit.

David Bjorlin wrote:
You didn't really refute that, though. He said that criticism of Israel doesn't necessarily imply anti-Semitism. You said that they typically overlap. Those statements aren't logically contradictory; saying that something is "usually" X concedes that it is sometimes !X, which is really all the first post said.

Tell me David, how would you characterize a comment like "Get Israel out of Palestine"?

"Israel is withdrawing from Gaza as this is being written."

but aren't they still building homes in other parts of the occupied West Bank?

the whole settlement thing sets up a perverse situation. you have the settlers, who are given financial assistance (in some cases up to half a million dollars per family) from the government, plus the millions rolling in from non-government sources. the are a tiny minority living among Palestinians, many of them refugees expelled from their own home villages.

the discrepancy in wealth alone is enough to make the situation a powder-keg.

the uprooting of the settlers is certainly going to be painful. my understanding is that while some are going to a new village being built further north, many will wind up in hotels and there's not necessarily a good plan for where to put all of them.

however, this move is not necessarily out of the goodness of Sharon's heart. this area was becoming strategically too difficult to hold. by pulling out in one place, they can better hold onto other parts.

Lincoln would meet with the woman, but while PAD was definitely wrong about what conservatism is, he was correct about why the POTUS shouldn't meet with citizen Sheehan. If he does then he's setting a precedent to meet with any 1 out of 250,000,000 people set up something like this in his front yard at any given time.

Aside from that, what, pray tell, is a neocon? It's been six months since the last time I read or heard anyone define or elaborate or ellucidate or determine precisely what a neoconservative is and how that is different from a so-called paleoconservative.

however, this move is not necessarily out of the goodness of Sharon's heart. this area was becoming strategically too difficult to hold. by pulling out in one place, they can better hold onto other parts.

I think that's perhaps a jaded point of view on the situation. The Palestinians have long held Gaza as one of their most important areas for withdrawal. In carrying out this move Sharon is demonstrating a sincere desire to move forward on the peace process.

However, he has also made it clear that if the Palestinians continue their terrorist ways against Israel, or worse use Gaza as a new base of terrorism, Israel will retaliate much more forcefully than anyone could have previously contemplated. So there is the olive branch if you will, tinged with the threat of a severe situation should it not be accepted. This indicates that Israel would have no problem strategically holding the Gaza if it so desired.

Rather, as one of the ministers in Sharon's government also stated, it would be interesting to see how the Palestinians now handle autonomy in Gaza, pointing out that any failures there would now be their own and that they would no longer have Israel to blame.

If nothing else, this is a golden opportunity for the Palestinians to demonstrate their true intentions.

Unless all those left-wing political activist groups that send me mail to my mailbox are all lying, she is definitely not doing this on her own. They are supporting her. and gladly take credit.

Look again. The claim you are allegedly refuting is that

"Two, unless I've missed something, Mrs. Sheehan decided to do this on her own."

It says nothing about what kind of support she did or didn't receive after making that decision -- it says that the decision was made on her own. You have not said anything that bears on that point.

TWL

Geez, Tim, you're supposed to be one of the smart ones here; make some effort to raise the level of discourse.

What a lovely quote to see mere seconds after you said something about pretending in order to get in a good rhetorical jab.

You might want to see my response to Mark if you really think I was accusing him of lacking the capacity for compassion. Your choice, of course.

TWL

Aside from that, what, pray tell, is a neocon?

A neocon is a conservative who has tossed the idea of limited government out the window in favor of flexing America's military might as the strategy of first choice and who thinks diplomacy is a sign of weakness. See: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, etc.

You do realize that when two parties command the allegiance of the vast majority of the population (which wasn't true about 1992 or 2000, but was in 2004), a run-off between top vote getters looks exactly like the general election, right?

The better option, imo, is to open up the primaries - to take away the decision from the RNC and DNC about who gets the nomination, and have registered voters choose those candidates in a single election.

But then, we're still down to the same two-party, "whoever has the most money wins" situation we've got now.

Our whole political system sucks ass.

"You do realize that when two parties command the allegiance of the vast majority of the population (which wasn't true about 1992 or 2000, but was in 2004), a run-off between top vote getters looks exactly like the general election, right? Given the new records set for votes cast and the tightness of the races in the "battleground states," it's pretty difficult to argue that large numbers of people outside the reddest or bluest states felt their votes didn't count in 2004; turnout mattered, and 118,000,000 people turned out. Every vote was counted and there was a legitimate winner. You don't have to like it, but don't blame the lack of a runoff for 60,693,281 people disagreeing with you. Frankly, I don't think runoffs are even a good idea; only first choices should be counted. Your complaint that it boils down to "your guy sucks less than the alternative" is precisely what a runoff guarantees; having voted for the candidate of their choice in round 1, and having had him eliminated, round 2 exists for the sole purpose of smaller factions choosing the lesser of the remaining evils. There is no added benefit from a runoff, unless you consider it beneficial to make it explicitly clear that a majority of the population voted against the winner when given a free choice. At least with the current system, there's an outside chance someone interesting could emerge with a mandate in which a majority of the voters actually feel "their" candidate won."

David, I can't say that much of what you say is untrue, but there's also a lot of opinion within it. If I'm doing the math right, your figure of 102 million votes this time around is just 56% of the registered voters. While that is a majority, and an impressive number, I would not call 56% a "vast" majority. Vast to me would be somewhere in the high 70s to 80s%.

And whether you have a run-off or not, there will always be voters that are voting against a candidate as much as they are voting for a candidate. I don't see what's so special about first choices that should give them more weight over second choices. Process of elimination is a very valid way to arrive at a consensus. Start with everyone's ideas, discuss their merits, eliminate those that are unpalatable to many, boil the choices down to a smaller number, and then decide on those. If voters are going to vote petty, they're going to vote petty whether there's a single election or a run-off. But I could toss the other argument at you and suggest that with just the top 2 vote getters, voters are more likely to vote based on the real issues, focusing on the only two choices they have.

My response wasn't meant to be a criticism of our election system, although it clearly became that. The post I was responding to suggested that simply by virtue of winning the election, Bush had proven himself worthy of respect. Bush won with votes from about 29% of all registered voters, with 43% not voting. I fail to see what about that accomplishment demands respect? If Bush had truly won the election by a "vast majority" if all registered voters, that I might actually respect.

"Thank you PAD, for justifying why the President shouldn't meet Sheehan again."

Yeah, but the problem is that Bush can't justify it.

I mean, it's obvious to ME why Bush can't have his schedule dictated by Cindy Sheehan. And if Bush explained it in similar terms to what I just did, I think it would be pretty irrefutable.

Instead he talks about feeling her pain buthe's got to get on with his life? Get ON with his LIFE? WTF?

I was able to explain it. Why the hell can't he?

My comprehension of the problem doesn't make him any less of a putz.

PAD

Thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, anyone? (Other than "I can't see how it'll happen in this country in the next century", of course?)

TWL

"The post I was responding to suggested that simply by virtue of winning the election, Bush had proven himself worthy of respect. Bush won with votes from about 29% of all registered voters, with 43% not voting. I fail to see what about that accomplishment demands respect? If Bush had truly won the election by a "vast majority" if all registered voters, that I might actually respect."

Actually, I suppose it all boils down to what's intended by "respect."

I mean, I respect Bush right now. I respect his ability to lie. To decieve. To spread fear. To talk out both sides of his mouth. To say "Saddam" and "9/11" enough times together so that 73% of the American public become convinced that Iraq destroyed the Two Towers (instead of Bush's pals, the Saudis) while retaining deniability of ever specifically saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I respect his ability to rewrite history, turning an unprovoked invasion searching for non-existent WMDs into an alleged exercise in Democracy, and will certainly rewrite it further, like a Presidential Pee Wee Herman standing over his broken bike and claiming, "I meant to do that."

I respect his ability to take his utter inability to string a coherent sentence together and transform it into self-effacing folksy charm that helps get him elected by people who are more concerned about voting for a guy they feel comfortable watching on TV rather than a man with intellect.

I respect all those things.

They're just not attributes I value or respect in a president.

PAD

Tell me David, how would you characterize a comment like "Get Israel out of Palestine"?

But that comment is not of itself anti-Semetic (or more accurately, anti-Jewish). Now if the comment was "Get the fithy Zionists out of Palestine" . . . .

"Thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, anyone? (Other than "I can't see how it'll happen in this country in the next century", of course?)"

i think that Instant Runoff Voting is an excellent idea. the Green Party has been pushing for it at the local level in many places. thanks to their efforts, there are now a few hundred towns around the country that use Instant Runoff Voting for their elections.

it's not much, but it's a start. it also shows that third parties really can make a difference.

Instant Runoff Voting and holding Elections on a weekend (or making Election Day a holiday) would be two very positive moves for this country.

Sasha is right. One unfortunate mistake many people make is to confuse the Jewish people with the nation and government of Israel. One can disagree with the policies an actions of Israel and not be anti-semetic.

Interestingly enough, Cindy Sheehan has publicly denied making the "my son died for Israel" statement attributed to her.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/15/acd.01.html

Well, it seems that somebody REALLY hates Cindy Sheehan. She and her supporters had set up crosses alongside the road with the names of fallen soldiers. (Not sure how familiar everyone is with these, but they're fairly common around my part of the country, usually as a marker of someone who died as the result of a traffic accident near the location of the cross.) Well, apparently, someone who hates the idea of honoring dead soldiers decided to smash through a number of the crosses with his/their pickup truck. What exactly does that say about the mindset of Dubya's neighbors?
In response to "Blue Spider"s comment Unless all those left-wing political activist groups that send me mail to my mailbox are all lying, she is definitely not doing this on her own. They are supporting her. and gladly take credit., is it not possible that Cindy came up with the idea of this protest on her own, but has received support AFTER deciding to go to Crawford? I mean, I really hate to think that you can't even consider that as a possibility unless you've been so fully propagandized by the right-wing hatemongers and liars that the idea of a single person taking action on their own is inconceivable. (Hint: Rosa Parks acted ON HER OWN when she refused to give up her seat in the "Colored" section of the bus to a white man, and was later supported by the rest of the Colored community of Montgomery. However, there's no evidence that anyone prompted Mrs Parks to take such an action.) I don't deny that Ms Sheehan has received support SINCE making her stand, but for you to suggest that there was some conspiracy afoot is beyond rational thought.

Thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, anyone?

Useful only if a third party (or more) can get more votes than what they're getting now.

The problem is getting to the point where there's a viable third party.

And our existing, worthless two parties won't allow that.

Craig, I'm hopeful that we'll see the end of the 2 party stranglehold on this country's government end in my lifetime (that's hopefully sometime in the next 50 or 60 years). Why? Because what really wins elections? No, not votes....it's access to voters. And traditionally, access to voters meant you needed money. and lots, and lots, and lots of it. Print, Video, Radio, and in-person tours.

Today, a simple person with a simple blog has access to literally the whole country (or at least that portion that has internet access). Access to voters should quickly become something that everyone will have. And given that, it's only a matter of time before a non GOP/Dem candidate makes use of this Internet to run a campaign, start a true grass-roots, word of mouth movement, and get an independant into the White House.

but Instant Runoff Voting could help make third parties viable.

how many more people might vote for the Greens or some other party if they weren't concerned about casting spoiler votes?

i'm not saying the third parties would stand much chance of winning big elections, but this sort of thing might help them gain momentum.

i suspect a lot more people might have voted for Nader or someone like him if they had been able to put Kerry as their second choice.

i'm not saying John Kerry would have won if there were Instant Runoff Voting.

it would be nice if the officials in charge of voting were career civil servants rather than partisan politicians. the last two presidential elections have hinged on states where the official in charge of the voting process were working for the Bush campaign. it's hard to imagine a clearer example of a conflict of interest.

i'm not saying John Kerry would have won if there were Instant Runoff Voting.

No, but I'll go ahead and say Gore almost certainly would've.

TWL

Okay, no matter what you think about Cindy Sheehan's vigil, can we all agree that the guy who drove a druck over the crosses she put up is an asshole?

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-08-16T191837Z_01_SCH657034_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-BUSH-PROTESTER-DC.XML

Nice to know Patriotism and supporting the troops only lasts for some until the real costs of this war come and camp out on your doorstep, eh?

TWL wrote What a lovely quote to see mere seconds after you said something about pretending in order to get in a good rhetorical jab.

Who's pretending? You've been a regular on here for as far back as I can remember, and most of the time I've respected you even when I've disagreed with you. But not in your comments after the election, and certainly not now.

You might want to see my response to Mark if you really think I was accusing him of lacking the capacity for compassion. Your choice, of course.

Which part did you want to make sure I saw, the part where you told him to bite you, or the part where you defended rejoicing in the death of another human being?

I'm going to repeat a story I'm sure I've mentioned on this blog before. The first big case I was involved with as a prosecutor was a death penalty case. My role was that of "third chair" which is roughly equivalent to "flunky." (This is not a complaint, actually; I was a year and a half out of law school, and flunky work was all I had any business doing in a murder case.) A few things stick in my mind from that experience. One of them is the sight of the family of one of the victims right after the death verdict came back, forming a circle in our waiting room and praying to thank God for the verdict. I may never get past the image of people thanking their maker for His alleged role in the death of one of His children. Another thing that will stick with me is the party (with cake) my bosses threw after the death verdict (not the guilty verdict, after the sentencing). One of the things the flunky does is wheel around the little cart that has the pile of books and case law that the actual trial attorneys need to have handy in the courtroom, which usually meant that shortly before court started I'd have to ride up the only functioning elevator with the other interested parties, including the defendant's father. That poor old man whom I'd seen dozens of times now had just seen his son sentenced to death, and these people were celebrating.

I told that story to make this point: it was utterly inappropriate to rejoice in the death of a sexually sadistic serial murderer then, and it's utterly inappropriate for you to drool over the possibility of dancing on this man's grave now. Not his political downfall, which I agree is fair game, but his death. I could have understood getting carried away with rhetoric to begin with, but having come back afterward and say, in contemplation of the man's death, "I *will* enjoy that when the time comes" you have forfeited almost all the respect I formerly had for you. (Not that I expect that to ruin your day, any more than your response would ruin mine, but there you have it.)

I say "almost all" because, similar to PAD's acknowledgement of what he considers Bush's amazingly evil qualities, I have to tip my hat to your amazing gall in questioning the sincerity of someone else's expression of compassion.

Okay, no matter what you think about Cindy Sheehan's vigil, can we all agree that the guy who drove a druck over the crosses she put up is an asshole?

Absolutely.

"Well, apparently, someone who hates the idea of honoring dead soldiers decided to smash through a number of the crosses with his/their pickup truck. What exactly does that say about the mindset of Dubya's neighbors?"

Well, it says that aside from horribly disrespecting Dead soldiers and their Parents, that they are dumb enough to burn up Gasoline when they do it. I hope that $40 in gas, plus the beer these good ol' boys ingested, was worth it.Morons.

Im sorry, but this is just sad to think for all this "Support the Troops" rhetoric that some Yahoo would do this crap. In front of parents of soldiers no less.

David,

Who's pretending? You've been a regular on here for as far back as I can remember, and most of the time I've respected you even when I've disagreed with you. But not in your comments after the election, and certainly not now.

I don't know which post-election comments you're referring to. I seem to recall that many conservatives actually gave me significant praise for my first post after Kerry conceded. Not that you need to be in lockstep with those people, but I certainly wasn't feeling a sense of uniform scorn.

(Not that I expect you to dig them up by any means; it's idle curiosity, that's all.)

[my response]

Which part did you want to make sure I saw, the part where you told him to bite you, or the part where you defended rejoicing in the death of another human being?

Okay, you're just not even trying to read at this point.

Yes, I said those two things (justifiably, IMO and clearly not IYO). I also said several other things which I considered clarifying remarks -- I believe it was the same post, but it could have been another one.

it was utterly inappropriate to rejoice in the death of a sexually sadistic serial murderer then, and it's utterly inappropriate for you to drool over the possibility of dancing on this man's grave now.

To quote Bill, I'm going to have to challenge you on that. Please show the post wherre I drooled or mention same.

You can feel it's utterly inappropriate, and I can respect that. Doesn't change my feelings one whit, though.

And I realize it's difficult to get tone of voice in a print medium, but the "I will enjoy that" was more a sense of grim I'll-have-little-else-to-enjoy-by-then-given-the-country determination than sending out party invitations. I don't know if that helps. I doubt it. Ah well.

you have forfeited almost all the respect I formerly had for you.

Just for being "inappropriate"? Damn, what happens to the people who are downright rude?

As for losing respect ... gee, I figured I'd done that after the fourth time you said I was a coward for considering leaving the country.

Now, clearly we do agree on one thing -- that the guy who ran down the crosses in Crawford is a jerk. (And you're the first person to agree with that as well; I was starting to wonder if anyone was going to chime in on it.) I'm happy to start over from there if you'd like.

But rest assured, I will not apologize for my beliefs, my values, my convictions, or my passions, and if those particular elements of my humanity have so soured your opinion that you can no longer engage in a respectful conversation, well, I can live with that too.

TWL

Damn, what happens to the people who are downright rude?

Oh! Oh! I know, I know! ;)

G'wan, shoo. Git, Craig. No, no, not nearly enough. Git mo. Git mo.

TWL

Now, clearly we do agree on one thing -- that the guy who ran down the crosses in Crawford is a jerk. (And you're the first person to agree with that as well; I was starting to wonder if anyone was going to chime in on it.)

See, this reminds me of a previous thread where, if memory serves me right, we were all supposed to agree that threatening to kill judges was wrong and there was some disappointment when there was not a flood of posts agreeing with this. (forgive me if I've completely forgotten the correct details). I hate having to feel like silence = assent on this board. Some things strike me as worth commenting on and others don't. I'd rather write about exploding bats than dumb rednecks.

I mean, if I mention that David Duke has come out in support of Ms. Sheehan and expressed the hope that all the liberal posters will join me in condemning this jerk, would you all feel obligated to do so? (And wouldn't my doing so be a fairly transparent attempt to score points against Ms. Sheehan's supporters under the guise of righteous outrage over David Duke?).

"...that you can no longer engage in a respectful conversation, well, I can live with that too."

This is one of the more vitriolic thread I have seen here in a while. When you have a subject as flammable as the war in Iraq, I suppose tempers are bound to run high, but some of it strikes me as...excessive. I am as guilty as anyone of being harsh, but it really serves no ones purpose. Instead of getting reasoned, informed, respectful discussion, you get radicalism.

Just my two cents, and maybe I'm putting it where its not wanted, but I never saw anyone hurt by good manners. (except when I dropped "Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior" on my toe.) ;)

I remember that thread as well, Bill, and you'll note that I *didn't* in fact say something like it this time, nor has anyone else. I stated a fact, that's all -- given the activity of the thread up to this point, a nearly 4-hour delay between the link going up and anyone saying "yeah, that guy's an ass" struck me as atypical.

That's all. No judgements or hidden messages.

TWL

I don't know which post-election comments you're referring to.

As for losing respect ... gee, I figured I'd done that after the fourth time you said I was a coward for considering leaving the country.

Yeah, actually that was the post-election discussion that I was referring to. And no, that didn't eliminate all respect, just a large chunk of it.

But rest assured, I will not apologize for my beliefs, my values, my convictions, or my passions,

Same here. Going back to the post-election argument, I would no more emigrate from the US than I would abandon my nuclear family. I realize that there are people who do both of those things, and I disapprove of both. You have the right to act on your convictions, but I have a corresponding right to criticize what I perceive to be a disturbing lack of tenacity, and I don't apologize for exercising my right. Similarly, if you want to enthuse in a public forum about dancing on a human being's grave, that's your business, but please don't be surprised when people mistake your gallows humor for appalling sadism.

Now, clearly we do agree on one thing -- that the guy who ran down the crosses in Crawford is a jerk. (And you're the first person to agree with that as well; I was starting to wonder if anyone was going to chime in on it.) I'm happy to start over from there if you'd like.

Works for me, and I'll even throw out the first topic. The State of Texas charged the "jerk" (far too mild a term, in my opinion) with a felony; according to CNN, Sheehan doesn't want him prosecuted. I hope the DA in Crawford completely ignores her wishes and slams the little schmuck. I'm not that forgiving; perhaps you've noticed.

I'm going to throw out a real curveball: I don't necessarily disagree with Cindy Sheehan's choice of protests. If there's an ounce of sense in her body she knows the President cannot come out and meet with her, for the reasons that PAD articulated above. It's a brilliant protest maneuver for that very reason: the media will cover her for a solid month, and at least some portion of the population won't do the math to realize why the President can't let himself be guilted into meeting with people, so she'll be a sympathetic figure sitting in weather that will remind people of, gee, a desert. This is a far more effective PR blitz than the fake USAF memo from last year, and it probably has the advantage of being essentially sincere (let's all be honest here-- if one of our close relatives were killed for what we considered a bad reason, we'd be pretty outraged). She doesn't seem to be breaking any laws and she's getting her message out perfectly. Good for her.

That's all. No judgements or hidden messages.

That's cool. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Damn, what happens to the people who are downright rude?

I think they're given their own shows on FOX News.

Sasha is right. One unfortunate mistake many people make is to confuse the Jewish people with the nation and government of Israel. One can disagree with the policies an actions of Israel and not be anti-semetic.

OK, let's suppose that the comment "Get Israel out of Palestine." is not anti-semitic.

If you know much about the history of the area, you will recall the purpose that Israel was created in the first place. It was to be a home for the Jews who goodness knows had been persecuted enough throughout history up to that point in time. You could even call it a refuge of sorts.

Given that, I reiterate: how would you characterize Mrs. Sheehan's remark? Better yet, how would you propose to have solved the issue of a Jewish homeland?

On a slightly different take, Kathleen Parker also agreed with Peter in her August 16 column in the Orlando Sentinel that the President should not meet with Mrs. Sheehan, but for somewhat different reasons.

The unfortunate reality that she points out is that Mrs. Sheehan was against the war from the start (fair enough), but that she has now turned into the "poster girl" of sorts for the anti-war movement and worse for all those other political interests who have an axe to grind, some without necessarily the best interests of the populace as a whole. So regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the situation, it boils down to a situation of "nobody wins". It also provides a distraction from the real problem and creates a circus atmosphere which can be spun in an infinite number of ways. I wonder if Mrs. Sheehan's son would approve of all this were he able to voice an opinion?

Bill

That's cool. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Accepted, and thanks.

TWL

David,

Works for me, and I'll even throw out the first topic. The State of Texas charged the "jerk" (far too mild a term, in my opinion) with a felony; according to CNN, Sheehan doesn't want him prosecuted. I hope the DA in Crawford completely ignores her wishes and slams the little schmuck.

I think we can agree on that as well. (I haven't managed to find the details on it yet, though -- felony what? Can willful destruction of properly be a felony-level offense? Last I checked, there wasn't a statute for felony assholishness, particularly in Texas.)

I'm not that forgiving; perhaps you've noticed.

Not touchin' that one.

TWL

Given that, I reiterate: how would you characterize Mrs. Sheehan's remark?

First of all, given that she has publicly denied making the remark, I can't say for certainty that it is her remark in the first place. Second, as far as territory goes, the terms "Israel" and "Palestine" can mean different things to different people. To many Arabs, Palestine refers to the entire region, while to many of the Israelis, Palestine doesn't even exist. So, it's possible that (assuming she did say it), that "get Israel out of Palestine" could have just meant withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, which Israel is already doing partially. Without knowing what may or may not have been in her head at the time she allegedly made the statement, I'm not assuming any motive to a statement taken out of context. Finally, we all know that modern Israel was created to give the Jewish people. Thank you for telling us something every 8th grader knows. The point is, given that there are millions of Jews not living in Israel, to say that "Israel = the Jewish people" is absurd.

Better yet, how would you propose to have solved the issue of a Jewish homeland?

Given that Nobel Peace Prize winners have failed to solve that problem, I doubt that anyone in this forum, including myself, has the solution. The secret to lasting peace is for everyone in the region to learn to coexist peacefully. Now, if you ask me how we get there from here, my answer is, "beats the hell out of me".

Never one to let a sarcastic remark be mistaken for silent assent, let me add my "aye" to Mr. "I Only Support Our Troops If Support Means Run Over Their Honorary Death Markers With My Pickemup Truck" does get whatever legal violations he's commited thrown at him. Bravo for Mrs. Sheehan for showing compassion, but let's leave the real showing of compassion decision up to the jury on this one.

On a slightly different take, Kathleen Parker also agreed with Peter in her August 16 column in the Orlando Sentinel that the President should not meet with Mrs. Sheehan, but for somewhat different reasons.

Amusingly, Ted Rall also agreed with PAD's comments in his blog yesterday.

I get the feeling we're going to see alot more pieces like this in the coming weeks.

If only more of those had come out a year ago.

the real problem with saying Israel=The Jewish People is that it cuts both ways.

on the one hand, anyone criticizing the Israeli government can be written off as an anti-semite. which is very much like saying that anyone who doesn't agree with George Bush's administration is anti-American. it's a logically bankrupt but often effective tactic.

on the other hand, there are people who have legitimate concerns about the Israeli government, who for years have been told Isreal=The Jewish People. is it any wonder that some of these people transfer their anger towards the Israeli government to Jewish people as a whole?

for years i was a supporter of Israel, because i bought into this false equivalence. i felt that supporting the Jewish people meant supporting Israel. the Jewish people were the underdogs throughout history and i naturally felt sympathetic towards them.

more recently i've learned to separate the two. i'm sure there are many people out there who just de facto support Israel without seeing that there are two viable sides of the issue.

is it any wonder that some of these people transfer their anger towards the Israeli government to Jewish people as a whole?

Yes, it is a wonder that anyone could be so stupid. Just because people say something doesn't mean you can be excused for believing it if it has no logical basis.

Just because people say something doesn't mean you can be excused for believing it if it has no logical basis.

Like Saddam being responsible for 9/11, for example. People in power implied it, and lots upon lots upon buttloads of people believed it. (Wasn't there a recent poll showing something like 73% of those polled believed Iraq had a hand in it?)

If you're saying approximately 73% of the populace is really stupid, well ... frankly, at this point I'm not sure I disagree, but I'm glad to see you saying it.

TWL

In all fairness, Tim, there is always the possibility that some piece of evidence will emerge that shows that Iraq and Al Queda were closer than we know. That will not change one's opinion on whether or not it was a good decision to go to war given the facts as known at the time, but it remains a possibility.

(And "had a hand in it" is an awfully ambiguous term. One could argue that the CIA "had a hand in it" since they supported the rebels in Afghanistan, some of whome morphed into the Taliban. If Iraq has ANY ties whatsoever to Al Qeda you could make the argument that they "had a hand in it". Pretty meaningless term.)

(and yeah, I know I must have at least 14 ways of spelling Al Queeda. Just doesn't seem worth my time to look it up.)

There will never be any evidence to support racism, including anti-Semitism, because it is simply a fantasy to think that people are good or evil based on their ancestry. (yes, I am aware that you agree with this).

I may think that believing that Dennis Kusenich will be the next president is crazy but it isn't in any way shape or form as crazy as, say, astrology or fairy photos.

At any rate, no, I don't think that 73% of the population is stupid, even when they have the temerity to disagree with me. If 73% ever think that a cabal of Jews is pulling the strings of the USA government I may have to amend that opinion.

I think that's sophistry, Bill. A far greater percentage of people are believing this demonstrably false statement than the one you responded to, yet you're bending over backwards to say that this one kindamightapossibly be okay. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's intellectually dishonest, but it's certainly fuzzy ... and very disappointing, as it's way below your usual standards.

I'm not saying the two statements are MORALLY equivalent, simply that when you say "just because lots of people say something doesn't mean you can be excused for believing it if it has no logical basis", you've made your argument far bigger than saying "racism is utterly stupid".

TWL

"Just because people say something doesn't mean you can be excused for believing it if it has no logical basis."

it's the big lie. you take something logically indefensible and treat it like it's self-evident long enough, and eventually a lot of people will be fooled.

"There will never be any evidence to support racism, including anti-Semitism, because it is simply a fantasy to think that people are good or evil based on their ancestry. (yes, I am aware that you agree with this)."

there are many situations where otherwise intelligent people will allow themselves to fall into habitual stupidity.

I think we can agree on that as well. (I haven't managed to find the details on it yet, though -- felony what? Can willful destruction of properly be a felony-level offense? Last I checked, there wasn't a statute for felony assholishness, particularly in Texas.)

According to the news story I read, property destruction can be elevated to a felony if $1000+ worth of property is destroyed, and somebody estimated the value of the destroyed memorial above $1500. (How you estimate a fair market value for a memorial, I do not know. Maybe they used the value of the construction materials.)

The point is, given that there are millions of Jews not living in Israel, to say that "Israel = the Jewish people" is absurd.

For starters, I have never ever said that Israel equals the Jewish people as a whole. However, I point out that someone who makes a remark like "Get Israel out of Palestine" might.....just might.....have a wee, tiny, infinitesimal bias against having Jews in the area, and could therefore have that same wee, tiny, infinitesimal bias....well you know.

And now, just to reinforce my earlier statements in previous threads about the aim of many in the area, the following comes from the AP today, and it is a direct quote:

"This is only the first step to liberating all of Palestine including Jerusalem east and west and every inch of Palestinian land from the sea to the river."

Made in dead seriousness by Hamas spokesman Younis al-Astal in reference to the Gaza evacuation.

It should be interesting to watch what happens with Sharon and Israel if Hamas continues its terrorist ways. Comments?

I think that's sophistry, Bill. A far greater percentage of people are believing this demonstrably false statement than the one you responded to, yet you're bending over backwards to say that this one kindamightapossibly be okay. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's intellectually dishonest, but it's certainly fuzzy ... and very disappointing, as it's way below your usual standards.

Well, they can't all be homeruns.

Made in dead seriousness by Hamas spokesman Younis al-Astal in reference to the Gaza evacuation.

And this has exactly what to do with Cindy Sheehan?

My point is that neither you nor I know what she meant by that statement, even if she did make it. Of course, you have chosen to ignore that just as you have chosen to ignore the fact that she denied making the statement in first place. Instead, you quote a terrorist and pretend the two are somehow equivalent. The ignorance of that is astounding to me.

"According to the news story I read, property destruction can be elevated to a felony if $1000+ worth of property is destroyed, and somebody estimated the value of the destroyed memorial above $1500. (How you estimate a fair market value for a memorial, I do not know. Maybe they used the value of the construction materials.)"

Have you seen what funeral services cost these days? I kid not, my father-in-law paid $100 for a funeral employee to use model glue (Testors) to "seal" a tinfoil box containing his mother's ashes.

Tube of model glue: $1 (conservatively)
Tin Foil Box: $0.50
Time taken to glue lid of box: less than 1 minute.

Cost for that "sealant application?: Almost $6000 an hour.

Here's something from a new article on Yahoo:

"The State Department warned U.S. Central Command before the invasion of
Iraq of "serious planning gaps" for postwar security, according to newly declassified documents.

In a memorandum dated Feb. 7, 2003 — one month before the beginning of the Iraq war — State Department officials also wrote that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally."

(sarcasm)
I'm shocked, utterly shocked at such a revelation!
(/sarcasm)

"(sarcasm)
I'm shocked, utterly shocked at such a revelation!
(/sarcasm)"

What's more shocking? That there are Federal employees competent enough to have thought and reported this? Or that the people at the top are so incompetent that they disregarded this?

What's more shocking? That there are Federal employees competent enough to have thought and reported this? Or that the people at the top are so incompetent that they disregarded this?

It would have to be the former.

We all know, by this point, that the Bush Administration is so damned incompetent, that nothing they do should surprise anybody any more.

The level of ignorance, stupidity, negligence, and contempt they've shown the rest of the country really is on a monumental scale.

hey Peter, i know this has nothing to do with the current thread but i wonder if you've read this. It's about you & McFarlane

http://www.savantmag.com/14/rant14.html

Joe V.

"We all know, by this point, that the Bush Administration is so damned incompetent, that nothing they do should surprise anybody any more."
And yet, the other party couldn't defeat them in the election. Who's more imcompetent?

"Exactly, what files did Sandy Berger destroy? Of course, since he was a Clinton guy, no one on this board gives a damn that Sandy Berger stole top secret documents (hidden in his underwear, no less) and destroyed them."

didn't comment on this before, because i didn't know the story.

when they say Sandy Berger had files in his pants, they are strictly correct. he had them in his pants pocket.

he removed photocopies of files, not the originals. on 7-30-04, the Wall Street Journal, that great bastion of the left, reported that officials investigating the matter found that "no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the [9-11] commission." the article was titled "Berger Cleared of Withholding Material From 9/11 Commission."

he improperly took copies of documents he had access to home. the improper part was that even copies weren't supposed to leave the building.

his story, against which no contradictory evidence exists, is that he wanted to review cases to better testify before the commision.

so, the reason the lefties aren't concerned about this case is that there isn't a case.

when someone comes up with anything more than unfounded accusations, i'll be concerned.

-will

"And yet, the other party couldn't defeat them in the election. Who's more imcompetent?"

i don't think that anyone here is denying that the Republicans in general and the Bush team in specific are very good at playing politics.

they are political geniuses but policy idiots.

"And yet, the other party couldn't defeat them in the election. Who's more imcompetent?"

Hey, it's my favorite "we won, nyah, nyah, that proves we're better than you" argument. If Bush were so competent, why are his support numbers seemingly falling every week? And why are there an increasing number of protests about his continued sham war on Iraq? A competent president wouldn't lose the support of the country in what is really the most crucial period in terms of needing support, i.e., the long rebuilding process that insures against the need to go back and do this all over again in 2 years when the shell government we leave there gets overthrown by a guy worse than Hussein.

Bush's poll numbers are sinking because their constant "everything is going fine" drumbeat doesn't square with reality. People are seeing the casualty figures for a 2.5 year-old occupation that was supposed to last "six months, top" and know that we're being conned.

At any rate, no, I don't think that 73% of the population is stupid, even when they have the temerity to disagree with me.

I'm willing to bet 73% of America, if asked, would agree with the following statement:

Columbus discovered the world was round.

It's not true. Washington Irving invented the Columbus story. Knowledge of the Earth's roundness was known to scientists of that time.

The big lie works. If something is said enough, people start believing there has to be some truth to it. Or else it wouldn't have been said, right? Wrong.

1) I'm an Israeli. I was also a Peace activists. I have seen Israeli mothers and fathers do similar things to what ms. Sheehan has done.

2) The situation here is very complicated. It is hard to explain. I'm not sure Ms. Sheehan understands the complications. The slogan that Israel should get out of Palestine is problematic because of them. I have held signs that say that Israel should get out of the Territories in order to avoid such complications.

3) Israel has no interest in Iraq.

4) Criticizing Israel is fine. I do it all the time. However, the same way that criticism of American policy has turned for many, in Europe and even more so in the Arab and Muslim world (which has much more crazy state propaganda), into anti-Americanism, so it is with Israel and anti-semitism. The difference is that people criticising American policy may (and too often do) tap into silly prejudices about Americans; but people criticising Israel tap into a very dark well of anti-semitism. Case in point, the idea that Israel or Jews somehow control American policy with Iraq or in general. I don't know if Ms. Sheehan has done so.

5) The only significant similarity between the situation in Iraq and Israel/Palestine is that in both cases you have to deal with terrorists and guerrillas working inside a supportive civilian population.

6) The differences are many. Three significant examples: Israel can leave Gaza like the Americans can leave Iraq, but Gaza will still be next door; The Israeli occupation of Gaza was supported by an ideology that Gaza belongs to Israel and they built settlements there, wheras America has no such interest in Iraq; many Palestinians in Gaza wish to see Israel gone completely, which means that withdrawing from Gaza and even from the west bank (both of which I support) do not necessarily end the conflict.

7) Sharon probably did not withdraw from Gaza for Peace, but because he thinks it will make the control of the West Bank easier. This is a mistake on his part, Israel should leave the West Bank. But it is still good that we left Gaza.

8) The Hamas will continue to attack Israel, because they believe that terrorism is a good way to force Israel to withdraw from places, and because they gain political prestige this way. Israel wil retaliate, they will retaliate back, and so on. I fear this will cause Israel to stay in the West Bank even longer. In any case, it will not acheive the purpose of removing Israel completely from the region.

9) It is a mistake to support a cause just because it is the underdog.

You make some excellent points, Micha. I just want to emphasize that you can't take an out of context quote from a letter that the person it is attributed to denies making and use it to ascribe a particular motivation to that person.

I'm willing to bet 73% of America, if asked, would agree with the following statement:

Columbus discovered the world was round.

I don't consider it an example of stupidity when people repeat something they have heard, if it's a reasonable fallacy. I'll bet that 73% of this blog probably think that the change in seasons has to do with the distance of the Earth from the sun, especially if they had the same teacher I did in third grade. Knowing the facts isn't a sign of intelligence, just education.

My lack of sympathy for racists over the age of 6 is in part because I'm tired of people making excuses based on emotionalism and expecting the rest of us to accept them. "I'm racist against blacks because a black guy raped my sister." Yeah, so, every black guy raped her? Does that make ANY sense? But I've endured normally sane women ranting for hours over how evil men are just because they have had the misfortune of dating a few losers (ignoring the fact that each of these guys was an exact carbon copy of the other).

It gets tiring. People are basically saying "I know what I'm saying is wrong but I feel like it's right." I'd like to make them feel the back of my hand upside their head.

I know what you mean, Bill. There is a definite difference between being ignorant and being stupid. At least a person who is ignorant of the facts has the capacity to learn the correct facts. A stupid person will just continue on the way they always believed because challenging a preconceived notion is too much for their mind to handle.

As for Columbus, while the scientists of his day acknowledged that the world was round, many of the lay people of the day persisted in the belief that it was flat. Kind of like certain people with regards to evolution or global warming.

Of course, Columbus didn't *prove* the Earth was round anyway since he never made it all the way around or even to China what with an entire continent in the way. Magellan was the first to successfully circumnavigate the globe and even so, there are still people today who insist the world is flat.

Side note about Bill's comment about women: I've had similar experiences. I've known many women who bash men at every expense and complain about how horrible *all* men are. Strangely enough, these are the same women who, when they encounter a man who doesn't have a job, a clean shirt, or the ability to speak in complete sentences, can't seem to keep their clothes on.

Strangely enough, these are the same women who, when they encounter a man who doesn't have a job, a clean shirt, or the ability to speak in complete sentences, can't seem to keep their clothes on.

Where were these women when I was single? I could have managed each and every one of those attributes.

Re Israel again: I found the following comment by James Lileks regarding the the Presbyterian Church's efforts to use its stock holdings to target Israel for its treatment of Palestinians:

But they're not anti-Semites. Heavens, nay. Don't you dare question their philosemitism! No, they looked at the entire world, including countries that lop off your skull if you convert to Presbyterianism, and what did they choose as the object of their ire? A country the size of a potato chip hanging on the edge of a region noted for despotism and barbarity. By some peculiar coincidence, it happens to be full of Jews.

Strangely enough, these are the same women who, when they encounter a man who doesn't have a job, a clean shirt, or the ability to speak in complete sentences, can't seem to keep their clothes on.

Where were these women when I was single? I could have managed each and every one of those attributes.

Damn. Is that all it took?

"Damn. Is that all it took?"

No, there is on more thing that you need. A wedding ring helps.

I got hitched last Dec. and it blew my mind how many more women hit on me now then before. I swear I've got about 10X more women hitting on me now then I did pre-ring.

And women call US dogs with no standards.

And yet, the other party couldn't defeat them in the election. Who's more imcompetent?

Not that it's much of a claim to fame, but I said several years ago that Bush would have us in a war to get reelected.

And, like I said, not much of a claim to fame, because I'm far from the only person to say it.

Bush didn't win by a landslide in this last election (contrary to the opinions of those who saw the election as a 'mandate').

Between the war (people don't like changes of leadership in times of war) and 'moral values', Bush didn't need to worry about working on his script for Hamlet.

I dont know what Ms. Sheehan said or meant. I'm more concerned with the association people make between Israel and Iraq. I hope she didn't make that association, but even if in this case she didn't, the idea is out there.

It seems to me that people are born racist and need to learn how not to be racist. It is difficult. Racism is like a childhood disease. Some people develope antibodies, but some don't, and some are not as imune to all kinds of racism/prejudice.

I don't want to ascribe antisemitism to the Presbyterian curch. I have friends who would be happy to see external forces pressure Israel with regards to its policies towards Palestinians. I'm less enthusiastic. I don't think they are really antisemitic, but I do think their focus on Israel of all places has to do with considerations other than humanism. I do feel there is something hupocritical about it. But mostly it is pointless.

"hey Peter, i know this has nothing to do with the current thread but i wonder if you've read this. It's about you & McFarlane

http://www.savantmag.com/14/rant14.html"

I hadn't seen that before, no.

For anyone wondering, the writer got snippy because I didn't support McFarlane in the Tony Twist case. The reason I didn't, of course, was because I thought Todd was a dunce for getting himself into that fix in the first place. He went out of his way to name a criminal after a hockey player and then went out of his way to SAY in PRINT that he'd named the character after the hockey player. Dumb dumb dumb.

The column's basically a slanted screw-job. For instance, he doesn't bother to mention that although I thought Todd brought the trouble needlessly on himself, I stated repeatedly I thought the monetary amount was insane and deserved to be struck down.

To cite one example of how wrong-headed the columnist was, I quote the following:

"Lest we forget the many, many references to Little Mermaid characters in David's Aquaman. The Pinky & The Brain references in The Incredible Hulk. The Ben Stein references in Young Justice. If you think the NHL is tough with copyright infringement, you should see the boys from Disney at work. These guys sue elementary schools for painting Minnie Mouse over the girls' bathroom. Peter's just as guilty as Todd is here, and yet he doesn't seem to see anything wrong with kicking a man when he's down."

No, Peter's not just as guilty. Throwaway one-shot in-joke references that don't mention the actual names of the characters or violate trademarks or copyright is not the same thing as introducing a regular character in both the comic and in an animated series. As for Ali Ben Stein in"Young Justice"...guess what? I cleared it. With Ben Stein. I contacted him, told him what I wanted to do, sent him the script, got his approval for everything from the name to the jokes to the likeness used in the comic, and sent him comp copies when the book came out.

In other words...I behaved responsibly.

And Todd didn't.

That's the difference.

And if the columnist wanted to behave responsibly, he might have asked me instead of making baseless charges.

PAD

As much as I admire Lileks ability to turn a clever phrase, he's wrong to say that just because the governments in most of the middle east are wrong, that means that the government of Israel is right 100% of the time.

It seems to me that people are born racist and need to learn how not to be racist.

I disagree completely. Racism is taught.

Den,
Yes, the person - and i use that term loosely here - who ran over Cindy Sheehan's crosses is scum. And racism IS taught.

Wow. How about that? I 've areed with you twice on one thread:)

I'd say that racism is a learned thing, although fear of the outsider, the stranger, might be an ingrained instinct. Racism goes far beyond any natural instinct.

As much as I admire Lileks ability to turn a clever phrase, he's wrong to say that just because the governments in most of the middle east are wrong, that means that the government of Israel is right 100% of the time.

I don't think he believes that. I think he believes that almost 100% of the criticism goes toward the Israeli side while Arab governments commit daily human rights abuses with nary more than a collective shrug from the same people who are so quick to judge Israel.

I disagree completely. Racism is taught

This we can agree on. I know of no study that shows racism to be something one can be born with. Even the fear of a stranger or of differences in physical appearance don't explain racism. I've never, for example, seen a kid born with the fear of red hair. Put a bunch of little kids of all races in a room with toys and you'll have a bunch of happy kids (unless there aren't enough toys, then it's like the UN with a slightly higher percentage of soiled pants.)

I think he believes that almost 100% of the criticism goes toward the Israeli side while Arab governments commit daily human rights abuses with nary more than a collective shrug from the same people who are so quick to judge Israel.

I would disagree with that statement as well. I know many people willing to criticize both Arab and Israeli governments.

On the other hand, Bush is a great supporter of Israel and he can't seem to stop metaphorically fellating our "friend" in Saudi Arabia.

Like I said, I'm all for criticism against Israel. It is also true that people criticize the Arab world, and other places too. But, there is an exagerated focus and sometimes even vilification of Israel when worst abuses are happening all over the world. This double standard does not excuse what Israel does, but it makes it easier for the people who support these things to justify themselves.
When people miscast the deaths of innocent Palestinians by the Israelis -- against which I have demonstrated more than once -- as if Israel goes around slaughtering civilians, while ignoring or paying less attention for the slaughter of thousands in Sudan, and while ignoring the deliberate attacks on civilians by suicide bombers, it is more difficult for my side to convince Israelis that we should act differently.

I don't kbnow if racism is something people are born with. It is also necessary to clarify the supposed difference between racism and prejudice. But here is an observation. Israelis don't have the heritage of racism towards blacks. Nor are blacks so oftenly associated with crime as they do in the US. They do not hate them or fear them. There are blacks in our society, and many people would disapprove of racism towards them. But if you asked Israelis, too many will display bigoted concepts. They don't know any better.
Similarly, Americans don't have a heritage of conflict with Arabs that we have, but since 9/11 how much prejudice emerged against Arabs.

Racist ideas about Arabs, Jews, Blacks, etc. are always out there. People need to make a conscious effort to reject them.

Racism is taught. They got it exactly right in "South Pacific"--You've got to be taught to hate and fear. You've got to be taught from year to year. It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear. You've got to be carefully taught.

I'll never forget once when I was channel surfing, and I stumbled over an episode of the Montel Williams show, of all things. And it was one of the most compelling instances of TV I've ever seen.

Williams had on two women: A white supremacist, and a member of the NAACP. And these two women are going at it, and the white supremacist is explaining that whites and blacks simply CANNOT get along peacefully. That there must ALWAYS be hostility.

And Williams says, "It's interesting you should say that. Can we cut to the green room camera please?"

And there in the green room are two children: The black woman's daughter and the white woman's son. Both of them are about four years old. They are playing together, peacefully, joyfully.

The black woman is now grinning and the white woman erupts at Williams. "You said you were going to keep my son in a private room! That he wouldn't be speaking to any of these people!"

Meanwhile the kids suddenly realize they're on TV, seeing themselves on the monitor. Giggling deliriously, they both bound onto the nearest couch and start bouncing and waving. Then, purely spontaneously, they throw their arms around each other and continue to bounce and laugh.

The white woman goes completely mental. She leaps out of the chair, bolts from the studio, down the corridor (a cameraman with a hand-held following her the whole way), grabs her son, and drags the bewildered kid away down the corridor. The little girl is left behind, stretching out her arm, calling his name, and he's shouting back to her in a piteous manner, wanting to go back and play with her some more.

That was maybe five, six years ago. I have little doubt that if that boy encounters a black girl now, he'd spit on her or shove her or call her a profane name.

Yeah. It's taught.

PAD

"I don't think he believes that. I think he believes that almost 100% of the criticism goes toward the Israeli side while Arab governments commit daily human rights abuses with nary more than a collective shrug from the same people who are so quick to judge Israel."

i think one reason Israel is singled out for criticism is in response to it so often being held up as a shining beacon of freedom and democracy in the savage middle east.

As for Columbus, while the scientists of his day acknowledged that the world was round, many of the lay people of the day persisted in the belief that it was flat. Kind of like certain people with regards to evolution or global warming.

The reason Columbus set sail was commercial..to discover a shorter trade route. It had nothing whatsoever to do with science. Proving the religious nuts wrong was such a sexier, if you'll excuse the term, reason though, that when Washington Irving wrote it, everyone glommed onto it.

Of course, John. In fact, his critics in Europe didn't shoot him down on the basis of the Earth being flat, but because the journey was too dangerous or that the distance was greater than he had anticipated (turns out they were right about the latter).

So really, the idea that he "proved" the Earth is round is about as accurate as saying he "discovered" America, except for the natives that were already there, some vikings who had been there 500 years earlier, and the fact that he never actually did set foot on the mainland.

Still, my original point was just that there were many sustitious people of his time that did believe that the Earth was flat. There still are a few flatearthers around today, in fact.

"i think one reason Israel is singled out for criticism is in response to it so often being held up as a shining beacon of freedom and democracy in the savage middle east."

Compared to the other countries there it's an exaggeration but not much of one. It's a far more accurate statement than the one held by a majority of EU members according to a Gallup poll-The poll found 59 percent of Europeans believe Israel represents the biggest obstacle to Mideast and world peace.

That doesn't mean automatically that anyone who believes that is an anti-semite. It's not like Europeans have a history of hating Jews.

It's amazing to me that the photos of the two gay kids being executed in Iran didn't generate much outrage. Palestinians execute "collaborators" and the world yawns--meanwhile, American cop-killers get marches in their honor.

There's no point in getting upset about the double standard but it's fun to point it out and hear the squeals.

i think there's a tendency to hold democracies to a higher standard than autocratic regimes.

this is why, on some level, i'm more upset about Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo Bay than i am about what Hussein did to his people (which was, objectively, far worse).

certainly, Israel is a lot better than most of its neighbors.

i would have to say that the very existence of Israel is very problematic for the region. just because it adds fuel to the fire.

that doesn't mean i think we should get rid of Israel. i can't help but think there was a better solution to the issue of a Jewish homeland, but i really don't know what that would be.

i don't believe that either the bible or the fact that they were there a thousand years ago gives them any rights to that land.

however, the fact is, they're there now. they're established and they have legitimate squatter's rights. it is their home now. i'm not using the term squatter's rights derisively here.

it's a really twisted situation. the Jews, who have been oppressed throughout history were put into a situation where they became de facto oppressors simply by being there.

i thought that this was a very good article on the current state of anti-semitism:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050103&s=judt

Tony Judt makes some good points but while the situation in Europe among non-Muslims may be much improved, the level of pathological jew-hatred among Israel's neighbors and in all too many of those who emmigrate from there, is cause for serious concern. Tha word "nazi" gets tossed around way too much but when you have The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion being made into TV movies it's hard to imagine how a people raised on that filth will be able to participate in Mr. Judt's "one-state" solution to the problem.

1) I do hold Israel to a higher standard, but then again, I am an Israeli.

2) I don't like the idea of other countries first putting my country on a pedestal and then knocking it off the pedestal. There are Israelis such as myself that are not satisfied with some of Israel's less democratic practices. But, unlike the US, we are not interested in being an ideal for the rest of the world. And although we may have been more likeable as victim, we do not want to be that either. Israel should act better for itself.

3) In any case, if one's interest is to help people who are suffering there is little significance to the democracy or the lack of democracy of the opressor, only to the degree of suffering.

4) The idea that Israel adds to the fuel in the middle east,or that the existence of Israel should be questioned is a frightening idea for me. Everybody accepts that the Americans have treated the native-Americans badly, or the Europeans were wrong to colonize the world. It is accepted that Islam's conquests are in the distant past. But nobody questions the US's right to exist, or expect Europeans to give up their countries as well as their colonies, or that Islam should roll back its conquests. Nor is it assumed that the west should give up its economic interest with the Muslim world because these contacts fuel Bin-Laden. The Jews could not persue their own national interests all these centuries because a large part of the world (and the land of Israel/Palestine) was divided by two greater religions, who also considered the same land sacred. Would it have been better had the Jews then go on to build a homeland on lands taken from Africans or Indians?

5) I hate getting into the historical stuff, the real problems are here and now.

6) Israel did not become an oppressor just by being there. The oppression was the result of wars that have placed Arabs in a weaker position compared to Jews. But the wars started because the national asperations of the Jews to build a Jewish State opposed the national aspirations of Arabs wishing the same land to be part of an Arab or Muslim nation-state. This is a conflict between nations, not oppression.

7) The best way I heard to explain the situation in Israel/Palestine now is this: The Palestinians are fighting two wars. One understandable war to end their occupation by Israel. Another to destroy Israel, which is less acceptable. Israel is fighting to defend itself from terrorism, which is understandable; but also to continue the occupation of the Palestinians, which is not. The Palestinians use terrorism for both goals, which is unacceptable. Israel uses military force which is sometimes acceptable and sometimes not. And here lies only part of the complexity of the situation.

"But nobody questions the US's right to exist, or expect Europeans to give up their countries as well as their colonies, or that Islam should roll back its conquests. Nor is it assumed that the west should give up its economic interest with the Muslim world because these contacts fuel Bin-Laden."

to be honest, i have heard all of these things suggested. ok. actually i haven't heard anyone talking about rolling back Islam's conquests, but the rest i've heard.

actually, your comparison to the U.S. is very fitting. i feel the same way about both (ok, i know a lot more about the U.S. situation, being part Chocktaw). i consider the founding of the U.S. and the founding of Israel to both be very problematic. though, frankly, the Jewish people had a better claim on that land than Europe had on America.

however, the fact is, we're here, it's our home now. i don't consider the elimination of Israel to be an option for reasonable people to consider. In the U.S., i see more people who'd like to see the Palestinians driven from the West Bank and Gaza than Israel eliminated.

i'm more concerned about anti-Arab sentiment than anti-Jewish sentiment simply because i see more of it.

Micha,

Your perspective is appreciated; we hear so much about the Middle East situation but not that often from people actually a part of it.

As Micha points out, the situation in Israel is very complicated. I think both the Israelis and the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, which is which I disagree with any effort to distill the conflict down to a simplistic "Israel good, Palestinians bad" mentality.

Israel exists and is not going anywhere. The Arab world has never come to terms with that fact. The sad thing is, the more the Palestinians engaged in terrorism (supported by other Arab nations), the more it pushed Israel into taking more heavy-handed tactics to protect their security.

Recent events do raise some hope. The new Palesntinian leadership and the pullout of Gaza have given us at least a glimmer that peace can be found.

Thanks Bill.

Anti-Arab sentiments in American society probably have more to do with 9/11 and Iraq than with Israel. Americans have to deal with them as Israelis have to deal with theirs. However, although antisemitism may not be very visible in American society, it is part of the ideology and propaganda of Al-Qaida and other Arab and Muslim organizations and governments. And these people act on their beliefs. So it should be taken seriously, while making sure it is not used as an excuse for misconduct by Israel or the US.