In the “West Wing” episode “Inauguration,” scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin has his characters quoting–I believe–Margaret Mead in saying, “”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.”
So now we’re seeing this taking hold in Crawford, Texas, as Cindy Sheehan puts exactly what the White House has never wanted onto the losses in Iraq: A human face.
I have to admit, I think it’s absurd when I read the contention that her son joined the army some years back but never thought he’d actually have to GO anywhere. Ma’am, he joined the ARMY. Did he think it was all Sergeant Bilko or Gomer Pyle? I mean, sure, there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity, but there was no guarantee it was going to last.
Nevertheless, when the time came, her son did what he signed up to do. Did what he had to do. And now she’s doing what she has to do–getting in the President’s face. And the President is doing what he has to do–hide in his ranch and wait for this to go away.
She’s demanding accountability from her president.. Now we see just how much building rage there is in this country in terms of others likewise demanding it.
PAD
UPDATE–I really like this notion, as mentioned below: “Wouldn’t it be interesting if some of the other moms who lost their sons in Iraq decided to join that one-woman protest, so that it continued to grow in size…and grow…and grow…”
It’d be like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, except it’s Mothers Opposing Bush. MOB. “Yes, there’s a MOB scene here in Crawford.” “MOB rule has broken out outside the White House…”
Interesting thought.
• 
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
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.
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.
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 áššëš.
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.
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 ášš. 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