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.
• 
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, bûllšhìŧ.
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? Ðámņ 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. Bášŧárdš! 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? Hëll, thats not even being stupid, or misspeaking. Thats just being a bášŧárd. 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 dámņ 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.