Bush, in describing Cindy Sheehan, stated, “She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it.”
This puts Cindy Sheehan in the company of military experts who told Bush things he didn’t want to hear prior to the attack on Iraq. Experts who turned out to be correct.
PAD
• 
Sheehan has gone on record saying that “America is not worth dying for.” Considering what her opinion is, I’m going to say that I disagree with her too.
Darin
She’s expressed her opinion on the Israeli/Plaestinain conflict as well, an opinion that PAD would apparently disagree with, given the comment a few postings down.
This puts PAD in the company of…Bush.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/08/army_specialist.html
Cindy Sheehan posted to her blog again today and I have a few questions for her. I have posted comments to her blog asking questions but for some strange reason they never get past her censorship. As always, I will use quotes…
“Bringing our troops home from the quagmire that he has gotten us into will be weakening the United States? George: even if you pretend you didn’t know that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction and Iraq was not threat to the USA before you invaded, Americans know differently.”
Ms. Sheehan, whether you like, dislike or are ambivalent to an individual It is incredibly impolite to use first name only when you are not on a first named basis with an individual. I would not presume to call you “Cindy”. In fact judging by the tone of your recent blogs using the first name only of George Bush was meant to heighten your disrespect, you earn no points there, you are obviously not a well-mannered individual regardless of your feelings.
“Why don’t you channel some courage from my son and come down and face me. Face the truth. Your house of cards built on smoke and mirrors is crumbling and you know it.”
Here you call him a coward, not in those words but you know exactly what you meant. Again, not the way to get things done nor is it the way civil human beings talk to one another. You keep losing points in the etiquette category. Ms. Sheehan. I tend to listen to other views and try to keep an open mind on issues; you are doing nothing but pushing people farther away (except for those who are closed minded like the extremes of both parties).
“I didn’t go to Crawford to meet with Steven “Yellow cake uranium liar” Hadley or the other “high-ranking” official they sent out. I went to meet with George. Does he get that yet? I did meet with him 10 weeks after his insane and arrogant Iraq war policies killed Casey and 9 weeks after I buried my oldest child. George: things are different between you and I now.”
Yellow cake uranium liar???? Now you are getting completely irrational Ms Sheehan.
“I never said I did. I want one answer: What is the “noble cause” MY son died for. There are also dozens, if not hundreds of families from all over the country who want to know the same thing.”
Dozens possibly hundreds… which is it Ms. Sheehan? Dozens, hundreds or America, which is quite a bit more than either of those two figures.
“A Democratic Constitution? Is anyone else insulted that he thinks we are stupid and think that the Constitution they will form in Iraq will be democratic and ensure equal rights to all citizens? Does anyone else know what “democratic” means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one. Up to 62% of Americans think our troops should be coming home soon. That is a majority, so why don’t we force our employee, the president, to do what we want him to do?”
Possibly because the United States of America is not a democracy but a republic. Majority does not rule in the US and never did. We elect representatives that take everything into account when making decisions. If it was majority rule 50% plus one could vote to open hunting season on any given group of people and it would become legal. That is a democracy… want one?
“Another sham election where the country is shut down for the day and no one knows what the heck they are voting for?”
Sure sounds like the USA….
“As hard as George is working riding bikes and taking naps? If he cares so much about an Iraqi Constitution, why doesn’t he take some time from his busy vacation activities and read the US Constitution. He may find out that he started an un-Constitutional war in Iraq. He may lose some sleep over it. (What am I saying?)”
Please back that one up. What exact article of the U.S. Constitution is being violated and how?
“Amen to that George. You got one thing right. Thanks to you and your lies the people of Iraq are suffering from a tragic and unnecessary war and my son was violently killed and ripped out of the heart of our family.”
And how many Iraqi families have you talked to in Iraq to form that factual statement? I have gotten the complete opposite opinion from service men that constantly hear from Iraqis that they are grateful we became involved.
“Then bring our troops home.” Then she said, “This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn’t ask him to withdraw the troops,”
These contradictory statements were within a paragraph of each other. Which is it Ms. Sheehan?
“His policies of preemptive wars of aggression for power and greed don’t bring America safety, either.”
What additional financial income has George Bush received from this war? How exactly has his net worth increased? That after all is what the “greed” part would indicate.
“How does he honor the soldiers by killing more of their buddies? People say Casey is ashamed of me and I dishonor his memory! I knew my son better than anyone on earth and I know he is appalled by the continued carnage in his name.”
If your brave son feels or felt that way why did he re-enlist?
Ms Sheehan, please answer these questions. America wants to know.
I enjoyed reading your post, GvdM.
What additional financial income has George Bush received from this war? How exactly has his net worth increased? That after all is what the “greed” part would indicate.
No, that’s one of the possible things it could indicate.
It could also indicate that friends, relatives, or corporate backers are in a position to make an obscene profit from the war — which is, in fact, true given things like Halliburton.
Some of your other questions are quite valid. However, you take a lot away from that with your initial points about her “ill-mannered” style, which are just borderline silly. Taking her to task for addressing Bush by his first name? What, you think we’re in Parliament all of a sudden?
The woman’s got counter-protestors addressing her by name and saying things at least as rude as she is. She’s had a truck come and run down crosses in her camp, which is hardly good for the equanimity — AND, let’s point out, not only has she lost her son, but she just went home to Vacaville to take care of her mother after said mother suffered a stroke.
I hardly think a lecture on rudeness is particularly important to the issues at hand.
TWL
People might also be interested to know (and can find out by following GvdM’s link) that GvdM has apparently been posting this link on several blogs.
It seems carpet-bombing is now being used in the political arena, not just the military one.
That doesn’t necessarily change the validity of the questions — but I think it’s good information to have.
TWL
Some of your other questions are quite valid. However, you take a lot away from that with your initial points about her “ill-mannered” style, which are just borderline silly. Taking her to task for addressing Bush by his first name? What, you think we’re in Parliament all of a sudden?
Especially since, reportedly, when W originally met her and other grieving mothers, he tagged her with the nickname “Mom” and continued to use it despite being hinted at that it was overly familiar.
This is a favorite tactic of Bush’s, to give lip service to his detractors whilst misrepresenting their positions, then to talk about how his detractors don’t represent the majority of Americans even when they do. And he’s still not asked to supply any sort of proof for his statements, because everyone treats them as sort of “gospel opinions”…
No, people don’t treat Bush’s statements as gospel opinions. It’s just that so many people now know that Bush has no clue about what’s real and what’s not when he’s speaking about something that they all just shrug and let it go. How do you argue with somebody who believes facts are whatever he says that makes him feel good about himself at that moment?
I used to just think that Bush was a good straight faced con man. These days I honestly believe that the man, who states that he doesn’t read news papers or mags or watch TV news, has no idea what’s really going on in the world or what damage his actions cause in the world.
Every past Prez, D or R, in my lifetime I’ve had some respect for even if I disagreed with them. Bush is the first who I agree with almost 0% of the time and have 0 respect for. I think that Cindy Sheehan is a complete wingnut. 75% of his job, as far as getting me on his side of this issue, is done before he has to say one word. And he’s shown that he’s too stupid and/or too out of touch with the real world to make the easy argument that would get the other 25% in the bag (and it’s an argument that’s been made by me, several posters here and PAD with ease.) How can you respect that?
I heartily disagree with Jerry C’s comments that the President is stupid. His ideas may be described as stupid. But ‘stupid’ men do not ascend over their peers to the level of President of the United States. There’s just too many hoops to jump through with running for office and winning partisan nomination for ‘stupid’ men to be elected leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
Many Republicans felt that President Clinton was ‘stupid.’ That was the result of bitter partisanship blinding them from clear thinking. President Clinton was an intelligent man who made very stupid decisions when it came to his personal life. The rash of name calling and belittling of the Presidency over the past 13 years has been a product of the ultra-partisanship that has gripped Washington, D.C. in particular and the rest of the country in general.
Dozens possibly hundreds… which is it Ms. Sheehan? Dozens, hundreds or America, which is quite a bit more than either of those two figures.
Please back that one up.
Now you are getting completely irrational Ms Sheehan.
These contradictory statements were within a paragraph of each other. Which is it Ms. Sheehan?
Thank you, Captain Nitpick.
I think GvDm is a little confused as to which smear tactics he should be using. He is going over her every word with a fine-tooth comb, looking for inconsistencies as if that somehow proves that she is lying.
See, Mrs. Sheehan is NOT a criminal trying to keep her story straight. (That would be the OTHER party…) She is a citizen expressing her opinion. Who CARES if she sometimes says things that are inconsistent. Everyone does, unless they are a professional politician with speechwriters and handlers carefully culling every word in carefully prepared speeches. (That would be the OTHER party…) Mrs. Sheehan knows what her own opinions are better than anyone else. If she sometimes doesn’t express herself articulately, that doesn’t mean her opponents can shout, “AHA!!” as if they have somehow caught her in a lie.
“What additional financial income has George Bush received from this war? How exactly has his net worth increased? That after all is what the “greed” part would indicate.”
well, it sure got him re-elected.
I am confused, did the war get him elected or was it moral issues? Or does that just depend on what excuse the libs on any given day?
Depends on which lie the cons are using that day…
GvdM asked that Cindy back up where the Constitution was being violated. Allow me to demonstrate what I have seen. If I am incorrect, I welcome clarification.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 grants Congress the power to declare war. This power is not granted to any other section of government and certainly not the President.
Congress has not declared war upon Iraq. They did however vote to grant the President extreme leeway in dealing with terrorism in the wake of the acts almost four years ago. Now it has been stated that when another country declares war upon us or engages in war upon us, the US does not need a congressional declaration. (I found reference to that on http://www.noematic.org/news/archives/009455.html)
Anyway, the war on Iraq is of debatable legality. Add to this debates about the lengths about legal police actions (spurred from the days of Vietnam when it was decided that police actions could not last very long without being declared as a war) and you can see that Cindy does indeed have at least have a leg to stand on where this point is concerned. I personally think that this is something that should be discussed further in the various media. I would like to see it receive more airtime and for a resolution to be acquired quickly.
Ms. Sheehan, whether you like, dislike or are ambivalent to an individual It is incredibly impolite to use first name only when you are not on a first named basis with an individual.
Bush… Bush.
I tend to say it in a way that makes it rhyme with “ášš”, so maybe calling him George would be best. Certainly beats calling him “Dubya”.
But at least I didn’t call Cindy Sheehan “Mom”.
And how many Iraqi families have you talked to in Iraq to form that factual statement?
Well, there are the families of plenty of dead Iraqis to talk to.
But ‘stupid’ men do not ascend over their peers to the level of President of the United States.
Well, I’d certainly like to know which of Bush’s inner circle has his arm shoved up Bush’s ášš, because the man comes across as nothing more than a puppet alot of the time.
did the war get him elected or was it moral issues?
The man wanted a legacy, and he wanted to stay in office. A war takes him halfway there on the re-election part.
“Moral values” (of which the neocons have none) are the other half.
Or does that just depend on what excuse the libs on any given day?
Ahh, now we get into the “let’s blame the liberals for the fûçkûpš of neocons” part of the discussion.
You could do a “Top Ten Reasons Why Bush Dragged Us Into the Quagmire Known as Iraq” and still have half a dozen reasons left over.
Posted by Scipio at August 23, 2005 09:53 PM
I heartily disagree with Jerry C’s comments that the President is stupid. His ideas may be described as stupid. But ‘stupid’ men do not ascend over their peers to the level of President of the United States. There’s just too many hoops to jump through with running for office and winning partisan nomination for ‘stupid’ men to be elected leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
Actually, you can be quite stupid and get elected President.
Your handlers and scriptwriters (particuarloy in the casde of ex-actors with incipient Alzheimers) have to be smart and totally unethical.
This quite neatly explains 2000 and 2004.
Posted by Scipio at August 23, 2005 09:53 PM
I heartily disagree with Jerry C’s comments that the President is stupid. His ideas may be described as stupid. But ‘stupid’ men do not ascend over their peers to the level of President of the United States. There’s just too many hoops to jump through with running for office and winning partisan nomination for ‘stupid’ men to be elected leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
Actually, you can be quite stupid and get elected President.
Your handlers and scriptwriters (particuarloy in the casde of ex-actors with incipient Alzheimers) have to be smart and totally unethical.
This quite neatly explains 2000 and 2004.
I wouldn’t neccessarily call Bush stupid, but I would definitely call him intellecutually lazy and not very curious about the world around him. As has been stated, he doesn’t read any papers and has only advisors who filter news to him. All press conference questions are submitted in advance, probably due to his inability to speak off-the-cuff. His college transcript was nothing to shout from the mountaintops about either. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the drug use he did all the way into his mid-20s, if not later, may have had a hand in dulling his mind a bit…
Ms. Sheehan, whether you like, dislike or are ambivalent to an individual It is incredibly impolite to use first name only when you are not on a first named basis with an individual.
You know what is incredibly impolite? Making up cutsey nicknames for foreign heads of state. Nothing says “We don’t take your country seriously” like calling the president of Russia “Mr. Pootie-Poot”.
I wouldn’t neccessarily call Bush stupid, but I would definitely call him intellecutually lazy and not very curious about the world around him.
I would say that is probably the most accurate description of him. Bush managed to skate through the first 40 years or so of his life just depending on his family connections. Since then, he’s been surrounded by a bubble of media handlers and yes men who only tell him what he wants to hear. It’s not exactly the kind of environment that fosters a sharp intellect.
Spend five years where the only “average” people you meet are handpicked shills reading you scripted questions and platitudes about how great you are and you’ll probably start buying into the hype, too.
No wonder he’s always giggling during his press conferences.
As has been stated, he doesn’t read any papers and has only advisors who filter news to him. All press conference questions are submitted in advance, probably due to his inability to speak off-the-cuff.
Well, if you were one of his handlers and knew he had a tendency to say idiotic things like saying he doesn’t want to meet with a the mom of a dead solder because, “I need to get on with my life” while he’s in the middle of a monthlong vacation, would you let him speak off the cuff?
“But ‘stupid’ men do not ascend over their peers to the level of President of the United States.”
Huh? If only this were true. The American way, unfortunately, is not based on intellectual merit for advancement. It’s based on popularity and accumulated power. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says a Presidential candidate has to demonstrate a certain IQ or competancy. It’s all about votes. And you don’t have to be very smart to generate votes. All it really takes is a good public image, a few phrases to spout off in front of cameras, and decent spin doctors around you to do damage control. Stay away from really big scandals, or in some cases, engage in some, and you’ve got yourself a good chance to get elected.
Maybe it’s not accurate to say that Bush is dumb, or an idiot. He is, after all, an experienced pilot, and he has managed to win several elections. He is not, however, what I would call smart, or as his father might have said, prudent. He’s the duly elected leader of the world’s leading country, and he doesn’t see the value of reading about the events that occur in the world around him? How can he expect to lead if he’s making little to no effort to determine what the needs of the country are?
Here’s the difference I see between dumb people and smart people. Smart people do dumb things, and when someone points out to them that they did, they feel dumb, and try not to do those things again. Dumb people do dumb things, but never understand that they shouldn’t have.
Ahh, now we get into the “let’s blame the liberals for the ****ups of neocons” part of the discussion.
You could do a “Top Ten Reasons Why Bush Dragged Us Into the Quagmire Known as Iraq” and still have half a dozen reasons left over.
Wasn’t doing that, I was just pointing out that the libs excuses for losing the election changes depending on the topic at hand. As per most things liberal, there is no consistency.
Well, if you were one of his handlers and knew he had a tendency to say idiotic things like saying he doesn’t want to meet with a the mom of a dead solder because, “I need to get on with my life” while he’s in the middle of a monthlong vacation, would you let him speak off the cuff?
I don’t know about you, but when I take a vacation I leave everything behind. I don’t get daily updates on how my workplace is progressing. I don’t spend hours every morning being kept up-to-date on all facets of my company. The President does. Hardly a ‘vacation’ at all!
I’m a couple hours of policy updates are squeezed in between the biking, golfing, and brush-clearing photo-ops, but that doesn’t change the fact that Bush spends more time away from the Oval Office than any other president in recent history. He’s our first part-time president.
And I’ll note you jumped on the offhand comment about vacationing and completely ignored my central point about the “I need to get on with my life” comment. Can’t defend that, huh?
As per most things liberal, there is no consistency.
As opposed to the multiple justifications for invading Iraq, which has now moved into the self-perpetuation phase, ie, the war is justified because so many have already died in it that we owe it to them to continue.
Can’t defend that, huh?
Don’t really see why I need to. The press kept hounding him on a something that was dealt with(He has already met with her) and should not be re-hashed over and over, and he gave a response. Nothing to defend.
As for intelligence, I think it’s clear that its not a prerequisite for the job. In fact, it’s clear that being too smart is actually an impediment. Look at the last election, where we had a choice between two sons of wealthy families who attended elite prep schools and Ivy League universities. One presented himself as a hyper-intellectual policy wonk. The other put on an image as a plain ole’ ordinary joe.
Now, which one took the oath of the presdiency last January?
Keep ducking, Ken. My point wasn’t that refused to meet with her again. It was the idiotic statement he made to explain why didn’t want to.
“Wasn’t doing that, I was just pointing out that the libs excuses for losing the election changes depending on the topic at hand. As per most things liberal, there is no consistency.”
Whereas Bush is the ideal of all things conservative: See matters only in terms of black and white; never perceive multiple aspects of any subject; never admit a mistake; do what you’re told.
Plus your argument is based on a wholly false premise: No one has EVER made the argument that the entirety of ANY group must walk in lockstep (although the GOP is certainly pretty close to that.) Different people believe different reasons as to why Kerry lost. To say that the difference of opinions invalidates all of them is just foolishness.
Me, I’ve been consistent: I said Kerry was going to lose if he didn’t manage to distinguish himself from Bush on Iraq. To me, it was that simple. When he subsequently stated that, if he knew then what he knew now, he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, and presented no alternative to the current situation, I flat out said, “That’s it. Election’s done. He’s going to lose.” Bush concocted the war because it was reasoned, correctly, that Americans would be reluctant to switch horses in midstream unless given real incentive to do so. Kerry didn’t do it. Therefore, they didn’t. That simple.
PAD
“Wasn’t doing that, I was just pointing out that the libs excuses for losing the election changes depending on the topic at hand. As per most things liberal, there is no consistency.”
well, yeah. i mean, look at all the excuses those liberals have concocted for attacking Iraq.
“I don’t know about you, but when I take a vacation I leave everything behind. I don’t get daily updates on how my workplace is progressing. I don’t spend hours every morning being kept up-to-date on all facets of my company. The President does. Hardly a ‘vacation’ at all!”
Is this supposed to generate sympathy? As in “lay off the guy, he’s on vacation?”
You know who gets vacations? Peons. People that, in the greater scheme of things, can afford to go away from work for an extended period of time, and not be missed. I’ll admit, most times, I’m a peon. I usually don’t have projects that can’t wait a week or two for me to get back from kicking my heels up. You know who doesn’t get vacations? Heads of businesses, agency leaders, heads of state…pretty much people whose job is so important that they have to make on a dialy basis decisions that guide and steer an organization. The President is one of those positions…you don’t get days off. The country’s problems don’t go on hold for you when you want to go chill at your ranch. You want the seat, it’s pretty much work for each and every day of your administration. Why? Because, constitutionally, you really can’t delegate all of your responsibilities. There’s going to be something that comes up every single day that’s going to require your attention.
“…I was just pointing out that the libs excuses for losing the election changes depending on the topic at hand. As per most things liberal, there is no consistency.”
There’s no “liberal” inconsistancy here at all. You’re dealing with arguments being made by different people and lumping them together to attack them.
Lots of different people looked at the facts that were out there after the 2004 elections and walked away with a theory about the main reason Bush won based on the top three or so reasons. Some people think that the main reason Bush won was the faith card. Some believe, as I do, that the main reason Bush won was that he played the war/fear cards so well. That doesn’t mean that we don’t acknowledge the other person’s main cause theory as a supporting factor in Bush’s win. We just disagree on what reason was the #1, #2 and #3 reason. Different people with slightly different takes on the matter. No inconsistancy at all.
Now, if you want REAL inconsistancy on the faith issue then you need look no farther then the many Bush backers out there. The day after the election you had the man on the street, the radio goons, the Fox News Zoo and the Bush Admin themselves going on about how the elections was a mandate on faith in this country based on how many people made that the prime reason for voting Bush. But all these same people brushed aside any and all news reports about the many reasons people voted against Bush or for Kerry or reports of how data showed stronger Kerry turn out then the final vote showed.
The reason that all of this stuff was based on worthless, meaningless, useless garbage news was, in their own words, because it was all based on election night polling data that was, is and always has been nothing but a waste of time because it is and has never been the slightest bit correct (big lie by the R’s there by the by.) No one who knew anything, it was said over and over and over again, believes anything that the polling data from election night says.
Major inconsistancy. Why? Because all that data on the faith issue came from the very same polling data that they were badmouthing at every chance. But now, now that it said something that they liked, that polling data was the unquestioned truth about the state of the nation and all that was real in America. But only on that one issue that they liked.
As per all things neo-conservative, there is no consistency.
Sheehan has gone on record saying that “America is not worth dying for.”
She’s expressed her opinion on the Israeli/Plaestinain conflict as well, an opinion that PAD would apparently disagree with, given the comment a few postings down.
In the interests of fighting ignorance, I’ll just pop the bubbles here and note that Mrs. Sheehan has never said those things. Her statement about “this country is not worth dying for” is a reference to Iraq, and the Israel/Palestinean quote appears to have been created out of whole cloth by her critics.
Just another edition of Stuff You Won’t Hear About On Fox News(tm)…
–R.J.
” … I’m also mindful that I’ve got a life to live, and will do so.”
– gwb
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050824/ts_usatoday/bushdoggedonvacationbycritics
Look at the last election, where we had a choice between two sons of wealthy families who attended elite prep schools and Ivy League universities. One presented himself as a hyper-intellectual policy wonk. The other put on an image as a plain ole’ ordinary joe.
yeah but maybe one reason the voters made the choice they did is because they thought that the “Hyoer-intellectual” part wasn’t true. Given Kerry’s fairly clodish campaign and the revelation of his sub-Bush college grades, maybe they were right.
No one has EVER made the argument that the entirety of ANY group must walk in lockstep (although the GOP is certainly pretty close to that.)
You’ll see far more diversity of opinion in the people running for the GOP peresidential race than in the Democratic one. Bet on it. McCain, Giuliani, Frist, Brownback,—hëll of a lot bigger differences between these guys than between Clinton, Kerry and Edwards. (obviously it could well end up being someone not even on the radar scope). I’d say the Deocrats only WISH they were so diverse but given the rumblings from the Daily Kos crowd about purging the party of the Clinton DLC types I guess they really don’t.
In the interests of fighting ignorance, I’ll just pop the bubbles here and note that Mrs. Sheehan has never said those things. Her statement about “this country is not worth dying for” is a reference to Iraq, and the Israel/Palestinean quote appears to have been created out of whole cloth by her critics.
Just another edition of Stuff You Won’t Hear About On Fox News(tm)…
No idea about the veracity of the first comment but the second one came from a letter that she apparently wrote. She now denies that she wrote the specific anti-Israeli section of the letter, though there are reasons to doubt the truth of that–but even if she did write it and now is sorry she did so, that’s good enough for me.
However, to pretend that conservatives just made up the quote to discredit her is ridiculous. Even id her version of the story is true, it was not “her critics” who made it up. Ms. Sheehan herself made the following statement on Michael Moore’s website: A former friend who is anti-Israel and wants to use the spotlight on me to push his anti-Semitism is telling everyone who is listening that I believe that Casey died for Israel and has gone so far as to apparently doctor an email from me. If you are going to mock Fox News it behooves you to get the facts straight. I look forward to your correction.
What correction? She never endorsed that view, but the right-wing smear machine keeps perpetuating the lie that she did.
But hey, this is a group that has no qualms about labeling a Vietnam vet who lost three limbs in combat as an anti-American supporter of terrorism, so nothing they do surprises me any more. Disgusts, yes; surprise, no.
–R.J.
“yeah but maybe one reason the voters made the choice they did is because they thought that the “Hyoer-intellectual” part wasn’t true. Given Kerry’s fairly clodish campaign and the revelation of his sub-Bush college grades, maybe they were right.”
i’m not in the habit of giving the average voter much credit, but i really don’t think there are many people out there who actually believe John Kerry is less intelligent that George Bush.
after the whole swift-boat thing (not to mention the push-polls against John McCain in 2000, or the perpetuation of the Love Canal/Love Story/Invented the Internet misquotes), i don’t think it was unreasonable to assume that the damaging statements attributed to Ms. Sheehan were the product of some right-wing smear campaign.
that said, there are of course cranks on both sides. it’s just that the cranks on the right tend to be much better organized.
after the whole swift-boat thing (not to mention the push-polls against John McCain in 2000, or the perpetuation of the Love Canal/Love Story/Invented the Internet misquotes), i don’t think it was unreasonable to assume that the damaging statements attributed to Ms. Sheehan were the product of some right-wing smear campaign.
Given that the statement was consistent with other rhetoric she has said and rather mild compared to the anti-Israel stuff spewed by the people she associates with…AND given that HER story is that a “former friend” is responsible for the story…yeah, it really is unreasonable.
What correction? She never endorsed that view, but the right-wing smear machine keeps perpetuating the lie that she did.
Just kidding, nobody expects you to admit that “the Israel/Palestinean quote appears to have been created out of whole cloth by her critics.” is inconsistant with EVERY version of the truth that’s out there. Whether or not you believe that Ms Sheehan is 100% telling the truth about her “former friend” or if you think that the quote was actually hers, either way there was no “right wong smear machine” creating the quote out of whole cloth.
You were wrong. No big. I’ve been wrong before and will be again–on a regular basis, in the minds of some. I just hope the next time its not right before I make a snarky comment about the accuracy of others.
Hi! Sorry to be off-topic, but PAD, you said you wanted to know when the “Spike” one-shot shipped to comic shops… It’s at shops today.
Thanks!
Matt Hawes
COMICS UNLIMITED
654-B E. Diamond Avenue
Evansville, IN. 47711
Given that the statement was consistent with other rhetoric she has said and rather mild compared to the anti-Israel stuff spewed by the people she associates with…AND given that HER story is that a “former friend” is responsible for the story…yeah, it really is unreasonable.
The point made is that it wasn’t unreasonable to make the original assumption, given past patterns of behavior.
I would agree that holding fast to that opinion NOW in light of new facts is unreasonable, however.
TWL
yeah but maybe one reason the voters made the choice they did is because they thought that the “Hyoer-intellectual” part wasn’t true. Given Kerry’s fairly clodish campaign and the revelation of his sub-Bush college grades, maybe they were right.
First of all, his grades weren’t even released until after the election, so they had no impact on the outcome. Second, the really “clodish” thing about his campaign was the air intellectual superiority that he cloaked himself in. Unfortunately for him, the average American voter apparently based their decision on who they would rather have a beer with than who looked smarter.
You’ll see far more diversity of opinion in the people running for the GOP peresidential race than in the Democratic one. Bet on it. McCain, Giuliani, Frist, Brownback,—hëll of a lot bigger differences between these guys than between Clinton, Kerry and Edwards.
As a newly-minted Democrat, I’m going to jump on this one. I love how Republicans tout how diverse their presidential candidates are and then name a bunch of people who have no chance in hëll of getting the nomination. McCain is despised by the GOP leadership. Giuliani will get killed over the adultary and living with a gay couple. And Frist just killed his support from the social conservatives by backing stem cells in a desperate bid to regain some credibility as a physician after torpedoing that with his video tape diagnosis of Terri Schiavo. And yes, I don’t care how he spins it now. I saw his entire statement on the Senate floor. He invoked his expertise as a physician in saying that he didn’t think she looked like she was in a persistant vegetative state.
First of all, his grades weren’t even released until after the election, so they had no impact on the outcome.
Well, yeah, I know that. My point was that voters saw through his faux-intellectual attitude and later developments showed that they were right to do so.
I love how Republicans tout how diverse their presidential candidates are and then name a bunch of people who have no chance in hëll of getting the nomination.
Well, we’ll see. Just who do you think DOES have the inside track? Right now the polls show that Republicans prefer, in order, Giuliani, McCain, Rice, Frist. I didn’t include Rice because I don’t think she is interested in running.
As for them having no chance in hëll of winning…again, we’ll see.
Well, we’ll see. Just who do you think DOES have the inside track?
Right now? Someone with the last name ‘Bush’, maybe…?
Wouldn’t surprise me at all to see Jeb get put forth as the time approaches.
Well…On a slightly less political note.
PAD, I ‘ve been mulling over the recent development with Madrox and I had a thought, but I didn’t know how else to bring it to your attention.
Eons ago, in the eighties, there was a Marvel short-run called “Contest of Champions”. It had one of those Elders of the Universe trying to get back his brother (the Gamesmaster and the Collector as I recall, but I may be wrong). It introduced several “international heroes” like Shamrock from Ireland {lame}, Perigrine from France {REALLY lame}, and Blitzkreig from Germany {Sadistically lame}. It also featured a Chinese hero called “The Collective Man”. Basically they/he were/was three brothers who merged and had the the stregnth of three men (yes, I know…lame, but hear me out). In one scene, though, he channelled all the stregnth of 3+ billion Chinese citizens in one HUGE burst of strength. The shock knocked him out, but he kicked Ben Grimm into orbit. In the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, it also stated that he was “connected” to any Chinese citizen and could, with effort, recall any fact or idea of any Chinese person. For example, a genius chinese inventor knows how to build a bomb from from toothpaste and hair gel, this guy could, through meditation and concentration, latch onto that information as well.
Now I know lately Madrox has been exhibiting the latter function (knowing what any dupe knows or studies). Could he, however, do the former? Could he create a bunch of dupes and then merge back with them and for a (very) short time have super-stregnth?
He used to shoot electric power beams from his suit as he converts energy to matter to make his dupes (and his body supplies the energy – like Cyclops or Storm) and could use any “extra” energy as force bolts. It just seemed like a cool way to use his powers. Just an idea and you being the cool writer you are, I just wanted to pass it on to you. 🙂
Trace
You’ll see far more diversity of opinion in the people running for the GOP peresidential race than in the Democratic one.
When Person A looks at a group of five people, all of whom oppose Person A on several key issues, they all look the same to Person A.
However, Person B, who is closer in the political spectrum to these five people, is much more likely to see their differences.
Of course, take another five people, and Person A and Person B are switched. It’s human nature.
The “most likely” Democrat you didn’t name in your list, is Dean. I know several moderates who refused to vote for Kerry, but at least claim they would have voted for Dean. He was successfully painted as “angry” by his primary opponents in 2004, but America likes passion.
Senator Biden was putting some feelers out a few months ago, but I think his time came and went in 88.
Maybe PAD should run. 😉
not to start another war, but has anyone seen the bumper sticker:
“no one died when Clinton lied…”
Kirk and I were driving around Portland and spotted ten of them in a row within a 10 minute drive home. not trying to be funny, but I guess some things just have a way of blowing over, while other things you can’t bury no matter what you do, or who you are.
This entire situation is very surreal. I don’t really want to get too into the politics of it all… but I know this woman. She’s a sweet lady who was a youth leader at my church. It’s very weird seeing someone you know and think is an amazingly kind and good person dragged through the mud by just about everyone. John Stewart said it best when he said (I’m paraphrasing) “What kind of woman raises a altar boy, eagle scout, honor student marine?! What a crackpot!”
It’s a shame that she’s getting attacked so heavily when she’s just airing her grievances.
I’ve seen a few of the “No one died when Clinton lied” bumper stickers, too.
Here’s a nifty quote from our wonderful leader, who would probably prefer to be referred to as “George” if he heard some of the things I’ve referred to him as in my less-temperate moments:
“I understand [Cindy Sheehan’s] anguish. I met with a lot of families. She doesn’t represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with. And I’ll continue to meet with families.” (from an article by Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times, which I read in the Baltimore Sun dated 8/24/05)
Given this administration’s penchant for carefully orchestrating every event where someone might ask the President a question, and making dámņ sure no one asks him anything that might be embarrassing or off-message, is it really all that surprising that he hasn’t encountered a lot of anti-war sentiment from the families he’s met with?