L.A. Times Joins the Crowd in Distorting the Cindy Sheehan Story
As part of its never-ending quest to be the New York Times of the Left Coast, the L.A. Times today follows the NYT‘s lead in hiding from its readers contradictory statements by Cindy Sheehan. The paper goes further and affirmatively reports that she was “dissatisfied and angry” after her meeting with President Bush last year, never once mentioning her positive statements about Bush at the time.
You must know by now who Sheehan is, since the liberal media is cramming her story down every American’s throat. He is the grieving mother who is camped outside President Bush’s Crawford ranch, and the L.A. Times loves her story:
For more than a year, a modest bungalow known as “Peace House,” located a few miles from President Bush’s ranch, has served as a headquarters for antiwar activists. It is lonely work, with little more than a skeleton crew on hand much of the time.
But then Cindy Sheehan hit town.
. . . . Now, in the space of just a few days, what started out as a seemingly quixotic personal mission has become something of a phenomenon . . . . Antiwar leaders hope that putting the spotlight on Sheehan will motivate Americans who oppose the war, creating a political force strong enough to compel the Bush administration to change course.
Wow. This woman could be the catalyst for the Administration to back out of Iraq!! That is just too good a story to muddy up with the facts, as we shall soon see. Prepare yourself, because the distortion in the upcoming quote is breathtaking:
The White House, meanwhile, has sought to cope with Sheehan’s vigil without abandoning its strategy for dealing with the families of troops who have died. On a number of occasions, Bush has met with bereaved relatives — including some who have challenged him sharply on the war — but he has done so privately, away from news cameras and reporters.
Sheehan, a Vacaville, Calif., resident who opposed the war even before her son’s death, was a member of one such group in June 2004. She came away from that meeting dissatisfied and angry.
“We wanted [the president] to look at pictures of Casey, we wanted him to hear stories about Casey, and he wouldn’t. He changed the subject every time we tried,” Sheehan said. “He wouldn’t say Casey’s name, called him: ‘your loved one.’ “
She came away “dissatisfied and angry,” eh?
Today’s article never once mentions that Sheehan gave quite a different account of her meeting with Bush to the Vacaville Reporter last year. We’ve been through this before with the New York Times, but I’m going to quote it again. You tell me how “dissatisfied and angry” she sounds:
“I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.”
The meeting didn’t last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son’s sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
. . . .
The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.
“That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,” Cindy said.
The “dissatisfied and angry” Cindy Sheehan, ladies and gentlemen.
Her husband Pat agreed:
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.
But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn’t stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.
“We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us,” Pat said.
Not one word of this appears in today’s story. There is not even the slightest hint of it.
Every time I think that I am numb to the outrageous behavior of this newspaper, they do something like this.
This is a perfect example of how Big Media ignores inconvenient facts while peddling a story it likes. The L.A. Times and other Big Media outlets obviously think this is a great story: one mother taking on the Administration. Just look at the quotes from today’s story above. But it’s nowhere near as good a story if all the relevant facts are reported. If you learn that Ms. Sheehan and her husband once had nothing but praise for President Bush’s behavior in last year’s meeting, it kinda takes the oomph out of her current complaint that he was an insensitive boob.
So The Times simply decides not to mention that at all — and uncritically reports that she “came away from that meeting dissatisfied and angry.”
This story was written by two reporters: Edwin Chen and Dana Calvo. According to the late David Shaw, it must have been reviewed by four experienced Times editors. Are we really to believe that nobody in this process has heard about Ms. Sheehan’s previous account of her meeting with President Bush?
The possibility becomes even more remote when you realize that the reporters were on the Internet looking for information on the story. Chen and Calvo report: “By Wednesday afternoon, ‘Cindy Sheehan’ was the top-ranked search term on Technorati.com, the search engine for blog postings.” Gee, and in all those blog postings you didn’t notice a single one that alluded to her earlier account of the meeting? The story also says: “Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin disdainfully called the activists promoting Sheehan “grief pimps.” You’re reading Michelle Malkin and you aren’t aware of the previous account of the meeting?
Nobody at the L.A. Times reads the Drudge Report?
These people are either hopelessly uninformed, or they are lying to you — right to your face. There is no third explanation. And I find it almost impossible to believe that they are that uninformed.
UPDATE: Thanks to Michelle Malkin, AOL, and RealClearPolitics for linking the post. I hope new readers will bookmark my front page and return often.
Readers should understand: as I have said before, I am not inclined to criticize Ms. Sheehan. She is a grieving mother, and I can’t possibly imagine what it’s like to lose a son. But it is simply outrageous for the media to pretend that she has not previously portrayed her meeting with the President in a different light.
UPDATE x2: If I could say one thing to Cindy Sheehan, it would be to suggest that she read the post to her from Mohammed of Iraq the Model. More here.
LA Times is going totally bonkers on this. Check out the website photo of Cindy Sheehan being consoled by Bill Mitchell – the title is “2 SONS LOST”. Of course Sheehan has not lost 2 sons, the photo just implies that. Mitchell and Sheehan both lost one son, and the grief peddlers have arranged for them to be together for the photo-op.
Shredstar (e73f56) — 8/11/2005 @ 7:13 am” There is not even the slightest hint of it.”
I think that when someone meets the president, and comes away saying “i respect the office of the president,” there is a slight hint of dissatisfaction.
actus (a5f574) — 8/11/2005 @ 7:18 amPatterico,
I didn’t get a chance to respond to you on the last thread, so here it is:
You’re right. We can argue about whether its dishonest or crosses the line, but now that the story has built up its own momentum, it’s clear that these papers are loathe to even address the inconsistency.
The Vacaville article had its own journalistic angle (read: agenda), but I really wish Sheehan would address the basic and obvious questions about what changes of events and/or heart brought her to Crawford.
I still don’t questions her motivations at all. She’s sincere and I don’t think she particularly owes any courtesy to the president on the issue of this war. But it’s not smart to let the question fester. There are too many of us out here with a healthy skepticism for both sides who are taking note.
biwah (f5ca22) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:40 amFollowing is a message I sent to the LA Times Readers’ Representitive. Keep up the good work ‘P’, I appreciated it!
The front page story about Cindy Sheehan is either a blatent example of liberal bias in your newspaper or very sloppy reporting. I can’t believe that two reporters, Edwin Chen and Dana Calvo were ignorant of the “other” story that Sheehan reported after meeting with the President following the death of her son. If the reporters were truly interested in telling an accurate story this contridiction would have appeared in the story.
I continue to be disapointed by example after example of bias in your paper. If it wasn’t for the Sports and Business sections, I would cancel my subscription of 23 years…
Chuck (bf87ab) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:42 amCheck the bottom of the story. Three other crack journalists (Ron Brownstein, Joel Haverman and Johanna Neuman) also contributed to the report. Five reporters, and not one could find the prior articles about Ms. Sheehan’s visit with the President .
kyle (dca2a1) — 8/11/2005 @ 9:20 amAnd what about Ann Wright, the woman who identified herself as a former US Diplomat who resigned to protest the war–couldn’t five reporters (three in DC) have confirmed her self-identification and position as a diplomat?
Never mind…
AP gives us this:
Sheehan did meet with Bush in June 2004: She was among grieving military families who met with the president at Fort Lewis, Wash. She has said her feelings have shifted from shock to anger since then, in part because of various reports that have disputed some of the Bush administration’s justifications for the war.
Again, I don’t think the inconsistencies in the articles detract from Sheehan’s credibility. Sheehan has been anti-war since before her son enlisted, and she started Gold Star Families for Peace in March at the latest, well before the meeting with Bush. If her words and actions have changed since then, it’s not by much, especially considering the loss she experienced in that time.
It’s the newspapers that should be more forthcoming.
biwah (f5ca22) — 8/11/2005 @ 9:21 amWhy is it that Bush can hold hands with members of the Saudi royal family, and spend hours or days with them, but can’t spend five minutes talking to Cindy Sheehan? There is definitely something very wrong with this picture, and if y’all can’t see it, it’s because your ideology is blinding you. I hope someday you’ll take off the blinders and realize how badly you’ve been fooled. P.T. Barnum said there’s one born every minute, and he was right.
Dave (fb59e9) — 8/11/2005 @ 9:48 am[…] Patterico tries (in vain, I am sure) to instruct the press as to what exactly is wrong with Mrs. Sheehan’s very extreme shift in accounts of her previous meeting with President Bush. I have to wonder why a President who met with her before, and has seen her account of it move from, presidential sympathy to presidential partying, would have any interest in meeting with her again. […]
The Anchoress » The Company She Keeps (a936fc) — 8/11/2005 @ 9:54 amDave, we know you are lying to us. No one has reported the Bush has never met with Cindy Sheehan. Indeed he has spent more than five minutes talking to Cindy Sheehan, and she thought the talk was a “gift of happiness” (quoted because those are her words). Maybe those blinders are keeping you from reading what is right in front of you. Dave, don’t be a sucker for the PT Barnum’s and Cindy Sheehan’s of the world.
Leland (8894aa) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:15 amDave…did miss the part where THE PRESIDENT ALREADY MET HER????
Idiot.
thecla (edcd1b) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:15 amDave,
Please spend some time and read articles in their entirety before posting. That way you can avoid people reading your post and thinking you are an ignoramus(sp).
Since it appears you didn’t read Patterico’s article in it’s entirety, let me give you this link:
http://www.thereporter.com/republished
As Patterico (and the article) states, Mrs. Sheehan (and her husband) was given 10, not 5, minutes with which to speak with the President. The invitation was made in advance, directly to the Sheehans. They, therefore, had time to prepare for the upcoming meeting. The article details what happened and displays a completely diferent “situation” than that detailed in the LA Times article.
I am sympathetic to Mrs. Sheehan and her loss, but am a bit skeptical about her “change of heart.” Media coverage, like that by the LA Times, doesn’t help us when it only gives us a lop-sided view of what is going on.
Chip O'Brien (b85bb7) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:27 amYou didn’t answer my question: why can the so-called president hold hands with Saudi sheiks but not publicly meet with Cindy Sheehan? Does the word “coward” mean anything to you? I’m still waiting for an answer…
Dave (fb59e9) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:30 amDave,
I personally don’t think the President needs to publically meet with Mrs. Sheehan. Not to seem callous, but what’s the difference between her and many other families that have lost loved ones in Iraq (or Afghanistan)? Hmm? Is it because she’s the “only” one asking for the meeting?
Nope. Not a good enough answer for me.
You keep mentioning that the President has met with the Saudi “shieks”. I imagine you are aware that as President, he is obliged to meet with FOREIGN officials. And…it just so happens that Saudi Arabia is a foreign country with which we have diplomatic relations. We also have diplomatic relations with Canada, Mexico, China, Russia, etc., etc. What I’m saying is….it’s his JOB and that’s what he’s doing.
Yes, the word “coward” means something to me. I reserve that for Senator Edward Kennedy.
Chip O'Brien (b85bb7) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:38 amIf Bush has not met with Sheehan, he is a coward. Dave, for you to claim that Sheehan has not met with Bush, you are accusing her of lying. She has admitted as much.
Shredstar (e73f56) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:39 amMSM Spinning for Sheehan
Cindy Sheehan is mostly being portrayed in the MSM as a lone grieving mother looking for answers about her sons death from the president who “caused” it. But that is not an accurate portrayal of the situation. Patterico details an exampl…
The Unalienable Right (7a057a) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:56 am> There is definitely something very wrong with this picture, and if y’all can’t see it, it’s because your ideology is blinding you.
Right. Since when does factual reporting have to do with ideation? Bah! to your revisionist thinking, dishwater intellectual! I’ll take objective reporting, accurate statements, and a cold-hearted look at the facts – in other words, an ideology based on truth – over insubstantial hand-wringing, anytime.
> P.T. Barnum said there’s one born every minute, and he was right.
Quoth Instapundit: Indeed. Heh.
Quoth me: But it’s you that’s been suckered.
Ken de Montigny (3f4276) — 8/11/2005 @ 11:11 amDoes the word “coward” mean anything to you? I’m still waiting for an answer…
And what, you’re going to pout and complain until you get one that essentially agrees with you? First you ask why the President won’t meet with Sheehan, and then when you’re called on the fact that she has met with him you quickly (and lamely) changed the question to meeting “publicly”. Talk about cowardly…
In any case, why should the President grant even a modicum of the appearance of legitimacy to Sheehan’s moonbatty defamation of his character? That would be the same as if President Reagan had gone on TV to talk about the inane rumors about him stealing cans of pork-n-beans from homeless people and eating them in the White House kitchen. The only people who believed those lies were people who wanted to believe them; Reagan couldn’t have convinced them otherwise. Similarly, we can reasonably assume that President Bush sees the futilty of jumping into the Sheehan media circus, and wisely chooses to use his time more wisely.
Mind you, I don’t expect you to see things that way, as it doesn’t fit the DU template.
AWG (9c177b) — 8/11/2005 @ 11:21 amIn the cases of both the LAT and NYT the answer is they are lying. And they both think we are so dumb we will no know they are lying. Insult to injury.
Rod Stanton (7320bc) — 8/11/2005 @ 11:33 am“They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.”
Quoted because you goobers can’t seem to grok the English language. The trip was the gift, not the bullshit Bush blew up their asses.
Morons.
Yo Jimbo (6b72ed) — 8/11/2005 @ 11:34 am>”There is not even the slightest hint of it.”
>
>I think that when someone meets the president, and >comes away saying “i respect the office of the >president,” there is a slight hint of >dissatisfaction.
Usually when that person finishes that sentence with
“…and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us,” Pat said.”
It means they have positive feelings for the person. But I suppose you stopped reading when you had enough for a quote that fit your goals.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:09 pmPress Release from the Institute for Public Accuracy, 8/8/05 (Monday):
Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of the group Gold Star Families for Peace, is the mother of Casey Sheehan, a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004. Cindy Sheehan is in Crawford and is determined to meet with President Bush. She said today: “I met with Bush two and a half months after Casey was killed and I was still in shock at that time. We had decided not to criticize the president then because during that meeting, he assured us ‘this is not political.’ And I believed him. Then, during the Republican National Convention, he exploited those meetings to justify what he was doing. It’s now clear to me that what I had feared is true: Bush lied us into war, and Casey, more than 1,800 other Americans and thousands and thousands of Iraqis are dead because of what he did. … While Bush is comfortable in his ranch, we are here in a ditch in the heat because we want answers. But the troops and the Iraqi people are suffering way more than we are and we want that to end.”
****
To me, this makes sense…and the failure to report on this head-on seems even more odd, even from a liberal strategic point of view.
Rod: Whatever faults you ascribe to the Times’ reporting, you should reserve “lying” for when they intentionally make statements that they know are false, i.e. lying. Otherwise you’re crying wolf, which, by the way, IS lying.
If you are such a close critical reader, why not use apply some of those skills to the now-gospel Vacaville Reporter article? Taken in the context of what we know about Sheehan, it sure doesn’t say that she thought he was an A-1 president or consoler of families. And now that we know that the media can’t be trusted, why is the VR article given a free pass as the whole, complete, and unvarnished truth? Journalists on the Left and the Right spin STORIES out of FACTS.
One thing for sure: if she had been bombastic right after the sympathy meeting with Bush, you’d all be skewering her as a radical bitch who was dishonoring her son and probably lacked the capacity for maternal love to care that he was dead in the first place.
Wake up to your own biases, folks. Or not.
biwah (f5ca22) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:10 pm“Why is it that Bush can hold hands with members of the Saudi royal family, and spend hours or days with them, but can’t spend five minutes talking to Cindy Sheehan? There is definitely something very wrong with this picture, and if y’all can’t see it, it’s because your ideology is blinding you. I hope someday you’ll take off the blinders and realize how badly you’ve been fooled. P.T. Barnum said there’s one born every minute, and he was right.”
Er… he DID meet with her – even the lib rags have admitted that much. The point of contention now is that Sheehan wants ANOTHER meeting, which the president hasn’t granted.
You just confirmed PT Barnum’s theory with your post.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:13 pm“during that meeting, he assured us ‘this is not political.’”
Show me a person who (honestly) believes that a meeting with a politician (the US President no less) is anything other than “political” and I’ll show you a very willing dupe.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:16 pm[…] Meanwhile, MSM reporters continue to ignore the glaring contradiction in Mrs. Sheehan’s accounts of her meeting with President Bush. Reading comprehension-challenged leftists can’t seem to grasp that the issue is not whether Mrs. Sheehan was anti-war before her son died in Iraq (she was), but why she has completely changed and embellished her account of Bush’s behavior and her and her family’s impressions of him. Patterico spells it out for the slow wits at the Los Angeles Times. […]
FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » PLEASE STOP, CINDY! (baa0b4) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:20 pm“You didn’t answer my question: why can the so-called president hold hands with Saudi sheiks but not publicly meet with Cindy Sheehan? Does the word “coward” mean anything to you? I’m still waiting for an answer…”
No one answered that question because you didn’t ask it – let’s refer back to what you DID ask:
“Why is it that Bush can hold hands with members of the Saudi royal family, and spend hours or days with them, but can’t spend five minutes talking to Cindy Sheehan? There is definitely something very wrong with this picture, and if y’all can’t see it, it’s because your ideology is blinding you. I hope someday you’ll take off the blinders and realize how badly you’ve been fooled. P.T. Barnum said there’s one born every minute, and he was right.”
Nope, don’t see anything about a “public” meeting in there. Fact is you didn’t read the article and now you’re trying to cover up for it by moving the goalposts – sorry to inform you that the snap kick has already cleared those posts & hit the netting.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:37 pm“Quoted because you goobers can’t seem to grok the English language. The trip was the gift, not the bullshit Bush blew up their asses.
Morons.”
Oh? Let’s look at what Cindy actually said about that “gift”-
“That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,” Cindy said.
So you’re saying that Bush gave Cindy the “trip” to visit him as a “gift”?
Moonbat.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:40 pm“The Institute for Public Accuracy”? Please include a link to the Institute’s website. I’m sure on close inspection we will be able to independently determine its objectivity and long-established tradition of straight analysis and reporting. Or am I just sounding like one of those suckers Barnum loved to talk about?
kyle (dca2a1) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:45 pmNo one should take the earlier reports as gospel, but any objective reporting of this story ought to include prior statements by Ms. Sheehan which appear to be inconsistent with her current pronouncements. I think good journalists ought to ask her about the prior newspaper reports, particularly when Code Pink and other advocacy groups are funding the stay in Crawford, and Ms. Sheehan’s current statements sound so much like the talking points from Code Pink, et al.
I don’t think that’s too much to ask from a major metropolitan daily.
Scott:
You suggest that there is an alternative meaning. What is it?
The “happiness” of “being together” clearly referred to the total experience of the trip.
To get in her head just a little bit (no other way interpret), she was being positive without singing his praises.
You know…positivity?
biwah (f5ca22) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:47 pmHere’s the link to the Institute for Public Accuracy’s “about us” page. Reach your own conclusions about their latest press release quoted earlier in these discusions:
kyle (dca2a1) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:51 pmhttp://www.accuracy.org/aboutus.php
My biggest problem with Ms. Sheehan is her belief that her son was some how a helpless victim in all of this. I am retiring after 21 years in the military, been to a few dangerous places, and I did it all because I had taken an oath, wanted the responsibility, and wanted to be a man among men. According to this, Ms Sheehan encouraged her son to desert to Canada! I admire her son for being the type of guy that I would have liked serving with, and I do feel diminished by his death. He died as a soldier, and I honor him for that. Ms Sheehan can grieve as she wishes, but please do not infantilize her son any further.
Totally politically incorrect opinion, but one that is probably common about other soldiers.
Greg (e5d4c1) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:56 pmWell. I agree with biwah about the consistency of Cindy Sheehan. It doesn’t seem entirely out of the question that she decided to be polite in the previous interview and withhold specifics of the meeting.
Further, I don’t think you have much of a point with this LA Times article. I mean, take a look at this article from those tree-hugging liberals at The Wall Street Journal.
They don’t mention Sheehan’s old interview, either. Do you consider this to be outrageous? Is the Wall Street Journal trying to be the new New York Times, in your opinion?
Or is it that, like with the LA Times, the crux of the article was not Sheehan’s past history?
Or is a more reasonable explanation that Sheehan’s previous bland, polite statements to a dinky local paper are a non-story? Is a more reasonable explanation that Sheehan raises uncomfortable realities about this war and people who don’t feel like confronting that are, instead, doing everything they can to malign her personally?
Tastrophe (bd1032) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:57 pmKyle:
Try google – no disrespect, it’s just more convenient.
Also, I got the hot tip on the press release from where else – Tuesday’s Vacaville Reporter.
Look, I (if not all the other lefties here) support holding media – left, right, and center – to a higher standard than they have been exhibiting.
But as the debate drifts toward Sheehan’s credibility, I am defending her 100%. Humans employ different countenances and modes of speech in different social situations – hell, so do chimps. Those mudslinging against her personally don;t have a leg to stand on. So she gets support from other anti-war groups – surprise fucking surprise. If you’re accusing her of being a partisan, guess what? She is, and has been for a while. It’s because of her courage, and some degree of political savvy, that’s why she is a force to be reckoned with.
I am disgusted with the smarmy line that “I respect her grief as a mother, but she should keep it private.” Never mind what people think she “should” do. She is channeling her grief and her beliefs into real, well-placed, symbolic action, and has created a sticky, seemingly no-win situation for her much more powerful political adversary.
biwah (f5ca22) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:59 pmBlah, blah, blah. Bush and co. know why we’re there. It’s you all who are confused. After all the phoney wars, shady CIA plots, coups and assassinations, not one ounce of it done in the name of democracy, you still buy everything the government tells you, hook, line and baited sinker. I wonder if there is anything to be admired about such naivete. Meanwhile, the world and humanity accelerates its nosedive straight into the ground at several hundred miles per hour, led by this ignorant cowboy masquerading as president. Jolly. Enjoy the ride.
Dave (21800c) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:06 pmWell. I agree with biwah about the consistency of Cindy Sheehan. It doesn’t seem entirely out of the question that she decided to be polite in the previous interview and withhold specifics of the meeting.
You guys sound like Actus in the last thread on this topic.
If you read the Vacaville Reporter article, she was perfectly willing to criticize Bush and the war — she just didn’t criticize his behavior in the meeting. So your argument is clear spin.
But that’s fine — for you. If you want to spin like tops to make something that’s clearly inconsistent appear consistent, go nuts. But the media should report the facts and then let the partisans like you guys do the spinning.
Simply hiding this information is, as I have said before, rank deception.
Patterico (19e407) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:15 pmPlease, explain more of
“Meanwhile, the world and humanity accelerates its nosedive straight into the ground at several hundred miles per hour, led by this ignorant cowboy masquerading as president. Jolly. Enjoy the ride. ”
Dave, you are soooo smart. I really want to learn what makes your side tick. Go on, huckleberry.
Greg (e5d4c1) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:19 pmHow can we do anything but enjoy the ride, with tragicomic clowns like you to entertain us, Dave?
AWG (9c177b) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:21 pmBiwah,
Is this the same institute for public accuracy?
“You mentioned Sam Husseini, who’s with the Institute for Public Accuracy. This is the outfit that sent Sean Penn to do pro-Saddam propaganda before the invasion of Iraq.” – http://michellemalkin.com/
If it is, it sounds like they have an agenda.
Steve (6a5113) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:38 pm“If it is, it sounds like they have an agenda.”
From a michelle malkin website? no way!
actus (a5f574) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:48 pmThe following appears on Drudge:
The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president’s Crawford, Texas ranch.
The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey’s aunt and godmother:
Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks Ð Cherie
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:
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.
Jackie Warner (95d9f3) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:49 pm28-
Not sure exactly what point you’re trying to make; I was acknowledging that this is a positive statement about the president.
“That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,” Cindy said.
The president. gave her. a gift. of “happiness”.
Happiness = good.
It’s really pretty simple……
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:50 pmI couldnt stand the couple of minutes I spent on the IPA website. Sorry, couldnt do it. It’s like reading the who’s who of mental illness.
steve (c3ff58) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:51 pm“Meanwhile, the world and humanity accelerates its nosedive straight into the ground at several hundred miles per hour, led by this ignorant cowboy masquerading as president. Jolly. Enjoy the ride.”
Ok, thanks for checking on us.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:53 pm“From a michelle malkin website? no way!”
Is there more than one now?
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:54 pmGet real, there are how many million people in this country? She met the president, now she complains it was too soon. Hey I’d like to meet the president too but it ain’t going to happen.
bill (b1f417) — 8/11/2005 @ 2:11 pm“why is the VR article given a free pass as the whole, complete, and unvarnished truth”
Biwah, I’m not sure why you think the VR article is flawed. If Sheehan thought the article didn’t reflect her views (and there is both positive and negative in the article) she had lots of avenues at her disposal to correct the record: request a follow up interview, write a column, send in a letter to the editor. All the things you would do given the same set of circumstances. She, apparently, didn’t.
Dave, my dog figured out how to get out of a wet paper bag. Can you?
Sweetie (f6fb72) — 8/11/2005 @ 2:20 pmSheehan’s Dozens
Well, it appears from a rudimentary Google search that “grieving soldier’s mother” Cindy Sheehan, if she wasn’t a virulent, obnoxious pacifist before meeting with President Bush a year ago, has certainly parlayed her assumed “victim” status into …
Hard Starboard (59ce3a) — 8/11/2005 @ 2:35 pm“The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.”
well, not so silent.
actus (a5f574) — 8/11/2005 @ 3:00 pmBush lovers don’t like the message, so they attack the messenger with irrelevant prattle and gossip. This mother has earned the right to speak out. She is doing what the “independent” news media and the Congress failed to do — demand that President Bush tell the truth about why his Administration manipulated public opinion with false and misleading information to build support for his occupation of Iraq. Under the Constitution lying to the Congress is grounds for impeachment.
David E. Bruderly (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 3:40 pmWe personally know the Sheehan’s in Vacaville. Casey was a eucharistic minister at St Mary’s. He had hopes of being a chaplin’s assistant but was made a humvee driver. Cindy Sheehan is angry because she realizes her son died in vain. Read the entire article in Vacaville Reporter. (thereporter.com)
mike (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 3:55 pmHe died doing his job….could have been driving to work and had a wreck…no more no less…this is about mom and her getting print time….not about the son…..she doesn’t deserve the attention and is disgracing her son’s memory.
James Bowles (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 4:02 pmI’m a special forces operative who is just about to go back to Iraq and this is sad. I do regret the loose that you are feeling but your son or daughter was not drafted by President Bush in the military. He entered under his own power. Correct? Where you there when he or she uttered the oath that every soldier takes when he enters the service. It states that he will go wherever the President sends him and does what is asked of him. You son did that but you feel that he shouldn’t have done the job that he VOLUNTEERED for. Where you upset when he got the college money, signing bonus, or paycheck from President Bush for again VOLUNTEERING for the military? If you want to protest something, protest why you didn’t stop your son from VOLUNTEERING for the military. I am sorry for your loose but what did you honestly think when he joined the military? That he would always be safe to go to college on taxpayers money and never get called to the duty that he VOLUNTEERED for? This is on you for not stopping him from joining the Army not President Bush who is thankfully doing his job as Commander in Chief. All you are doing is ruining the memory and service of a fallen hero. Your son. I’ve been shot twice and am looking forward to going back to Iraq. I only hope that if I die my family will act with the dignity that comes with the Uniform that I proudly wear.
Dave (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 4:02 pmThis is an open letter only to Mrs Sheehan. As a Korean War Veteran, please stop staining every veteran both living or killed in action, Pow’s, and every war vet from WWII up to the Afgan and Iraq’s People Liberation. No Vet can ever be proud,parent or not for what you have done to the Office of the Presidency, our Flag and the personal agenda you have been pushed into by certain UN-American haters. Forget free speech, Giving one’s life has a higher authority whether past or present when serving one’s country and doing it as CASEY SHEEHAN DID…. voluntarily.
Ron Buckman (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 4:30 pmRegarding the Sheehan comments.
Walter B (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 4:32 pmJust another ploy by the jackass population to discourage and break down the moral of our troops just as they did during the Vietnam War.
Don’t these people realize that all this negatvity
towards our mission in Iraq is feeding the terrorists? If we worked this hard in unity rather than trying to divide our country, this war would have been over already.
The media hopped on this story with this soldier’s mom, yet I couldn’t get a single bit of interest when my husband, a volunteer soldier for 16 years was “medically seperated” from the army for not being immediatrely deployable to go back to Iraq. He was in Iraq from March 1, 2003 to September 29, 2003. He was brought back to go to Alaska for 3 years. While in Iraq, he tore his rotator cuff in his shoulder. For those who don’t know, this is one of the ligaments which connects the shoulder blade to the upper arm. Soldiers commonly wear these out doing pushups. He was not allowed to have surgery in October 2004 when it was finally decided that surgery may fix it. It was not convenient for his unit in Fort Wainwright Ak. When he had surgery in November 2004, he was put on profile for several months. In February when he went in for a followup appt. he was informed he was being medically seperated for not being immediately deployable. He wasn’t given adequate recovery time. He wasn’t asked if he wanted this. He was given no retirement, no disability, and a 12 year severence pay for 16 years in service. He will have to pay back every penny of the severence pay to ever get disability for his shoulder, his knee which he hurt doing army pt, his stomach, which was misdiagnosed for several years, and when it was properly diagnosed it was several more years before he could get surgery to fix the hiatel hernia and actually eat without vomiting almost immediately. Yes he took medication to keep him from vomiting, it didn’t work as good as it was supposed to. The media will give attention to that woman who lost her son, but not the wife of a volunteer soldier who lost his job as a volunteer soldier who is a veteran of both Gulf Wars. Think about it. How many former soldiers have the same story? I can tell you it is alot. How long before the draft gets reinstated? At the rate Fort Wainwright Alaska was “medically seperating” soldiers, I say within a year at most. That is scary. It is wrong to force volunteer soldiers out when there is so much they can do, and they want to stay in.
Patricia Wonderling (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 4:34 pmDave and the President both depend heavily on the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. It is very difficult to accept that a sacrifice such as Mrs. Sheehan’s son, may never come to any good ends.
The Bush Administration has bungled every aspect of this war, and is suffering the consequences of short sightedness and incompetence. And, it shouldn’t have been a surprise. There have been an entire litany of criticisms provided by professional Military and Diplomatic people long before the war, with respect to both the consequences, the weak planning and bad assumptions.
Dave is right in that good professional soldiers tend to soldier on, and honor those lost for their valor and courage.
However, there is another type of courage that we all, as Americans, must find within ourselves. That is the courage to speak truth to power. In order to do that, we all have to reflect on what is reality, and what is merely our own self- deception; our inability to face the unpleasant evidence of political misleadership, even as our sons and daughters show perfect heroism and courage in the face of the ultimate adversity.
Bush should have listened to General Shinseki, General Zinni, General McPeak, Admiral Crowe, Brent Ashcroft and all the others. It was difficult to ignore their experience and wisdom when they gave their warnings. It is impossible to avoid the truth in what they said now that their prophecies are coming true.
And example:
Gen. Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks’ approach to methodically move up and attack quickly probably saved a great humanitarian disaster. But the military was unprepared for the aftermath. Rumsfeld and others thought we would be greeted with roses and flowers.
When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn’t need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.
When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don’t know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.
Bush knows the truth. Allowing a visit from Mrs. Sheehan would mean facing it.
Ghost Dansing (8e49e0) — 8/11/2005 @ 4:36 pmPlease, Cindy Sheenan, please read this. Also didn’t your son Volunteer for military service?
A historical account of Terrorism against the US ~
This is not very long, but very informative You have to read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979… that alarm has been ringing for years
US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.
AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!
That’s what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed -AD) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been “Get Out of Bed!” In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.
It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world’s most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.
America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America’s inability to deal with terrorism.
America’s military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.
Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.
In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.
Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.
Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of
1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.
Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.
The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.
The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.
A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.
They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.
The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.
In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn’t know. But if you’ve read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don’t have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.
The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to “Get out of Bed” and act decisively now. America has been changed forever.. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said “… it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant.” This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.
Support Our Troops and support President Bush for having the courage, political or militarily, to address what so many who preceded him didn’t have the backbone to do, both Democrat and Republican. This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.
If you believe in this please forward it to as many people as you can especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action. If you don’t believe it, just delete it and go back to sleep
Gail Traverso (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 4:38 pmWe would never have gone into Iraq if the truth about WMD were known. So, all of what has followed is based on incorrect intelligence. Bush has never acknowledged that he could have never convinced Congress to make war on Iraq without WMD.
This war is without justification, based on wrong intelligence and terrible logic by the administration.
The situation gets worse and worse as insurgents flock to Iraq to kill our soldiers. This is a real disaster for America and Bush is responsible for what is happening.
Bob Slagle (777f5a) — 8/11/2005 @ 4:44 pmBush doing his job as Commander and Chief?
We should always be proud of the troops that sacrifice their lives defending our Feedoms, but unfortuately our Commander and Chief lied about the immediate threat Iraq posed on the US and he should be accountable for his actions. At the very least he should brush aside his political stubborness and listen to one of the Americam he represents. Last time I checked he worked for the United States, which includes Cindy Sheehan, not the Republican Party.
Mike (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 4:48 pmThe last Dave to post must be a different Dave than earlier in this comment thread.
To the last Dave, the snake eater (do they still call special forces operatives that?): Thank you for your service. Thank you for defending my freedoms. Thank you for giving the Iraqi people a chance to be free. Thank you for taking the fight to the enemy. Thank you for defending the lives and welfare of my family. You can rest assured that I will never waver in my support and admiration of our troops and their mission. I am too old to join up. My war was Vietnam and I avoided that war by staying in ROTC, waiting it out and serving as a JAGC officer in peacetime. You make me ashamed that I did not fight for our nation during my youth. But I am supremely proud of our fighting men and women. God speed.
Breaker (a427d4) — 8/11/2005 @ 4:59 pmMy son served in Iraq and more than likely will be headed back. Just like this womans son he volunteered to join the military. There is no draft, no one was forced to join. I personally hope my son gets out of the military which he has served for 8 years. If he chooses not to I cannot place blame on Bush. Nor should Bush meet with anyone under pressure. This could set the stage for others who could possibly put our President in harms way. God only knows who would camp out next. A terrorist perhaps. God Bless all of our soldiers. I hope this Mom can one day find peace of mind. I cannot imagine her sorrow.
Beth (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 5:01 pmReply to Dave!! I am one American who appreciates your service to our country. All of these folks criticizing our President and the work our troops are doing in Iraq really bug me. These idiots don’t seem to realize that they live in the only country on God’s earth that would tolerate their antiUS ranting and ravings. What a bunch of pathetic losers!!!!!!!!!!
Don (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 5:02 pmThanks to Patricia Wonderling and her husband, too. And Thank You Ron Buckman.
Breaker (a427d4) — 8/11/2005 @ 5:04 pmThanks Beth and thanks to your son.
Breaker (a427d4) — 8/11/2005 @ 5:05 pmMrs. Cindy Sheehan, Lets just say your your son was shot in the Head, in a sports arena in Iraq by one of Saddam’s sons.I’m very sorry about your loss. That has to be one of the toughest things that any mother must live through, in there whole life time. I thank your son to the bottom of my heart,for his helping in the freedom of the Iraqian people. No one likes War. If your son had made it home alive. What would he say? How proud would he be? How proud would we be of him? Thank You Casey. We are all very proud of you.
Don Allard (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 5:19 pmI believe Casey Sheehan’s spirit can see what is happenning. I believe he is tormented by what his mother is doing. His stomack is turning so hard it is making him cry. There is nothing more that he wants than for his mother to respect him for what he has done to help this country in our war against terror(remember the Jihad against us). His mother is spitting in his face with her actions and words. HE is wishing she would stop. I hope you are reading this Mrs Sheehan. Search your soul for what your son would want you to be doing now and you will know it to be true. Can’t you hear him crying out?
Pete (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 5:21 pmI, without a doubt, stand by Mrs. Sheehan’s beliefs and actions during these trying times. It is truly hard to back out of a war that has extended for this amount of time, but I can’t contemplate why it has extended for this long. Mrs. Sheenan’s questions haunt all of the parents of a soldier during this war. Bush has said that we are fighting for freedom, justice, and peace. Bush told the American people there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Where are the weapons of mass destruction George? American soldiers lives are putting their lives on the line for peace in Iraq…true, and I respect and thank them for what they are doing. But I don’t respect the President for how he is using the bravery and respect of all the American soldiers to walk the streets of a RELIGIOUS WARZONE. This is a war based on one man, George Bush, who has started this war with little support of the world and has talked his way through the American people by using vague and unspecified statements. Please, I beg of you…Tell Mrs. Sheehan and the American people, in detail, why America is really at war and why soldiers should stay in Iraq risking thier lives?
Ed (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 5:44 pmThere are many reasons that have been specified many times. You just don’t want to hear them.
Pete (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 5:48 pmMike @ 4:48 pm wrote:
What a silly, shallow, knee-jerk thing to write.
There are hundreds of millions of Americans who will never see the President of the United States in person, much less personally meet with him. Ms. Sheehan had her chance to be heard when Bush gave her the opportunity. That’s what is known as a “once in a lifetime opportunity.”
Now, Sheehan’s decided that out of about 3,600 parents who have lost a child in Iraq, she’s so special that she’s demanding to see him again. Why should Bush prostrate himself to her? What good will it do anyone? Does Sheehan think she’s going to change his mind? Does Bush believe if he can say “I’m sorry” a second time, she won’t turn around and tell the leftist media that he’s shedding crocodile tears?
I notice that the lefties in force here tonight have failed to blunt Patterico’s rock solid point; the Times’ failure to provide all the facts — including the earlier, sunnier account of her first meeting with Bush — is prima facie evidence not only of their
L.N. Smithee (692158) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:04 pmliberalDemocratic Party bias, but their dereliction of their duty to their readers.Most right wingers are either stupid or brain dead. You can be “dissatisfied and angry” and still respect the office of the presidency. I never liked President Clinton because of the Monica affairs, but I respected the position and the office he held. The war in Iraq was based on pack of lies with the help of the same media you are now criticizing (NY Times, Washington Post and the LA Times), beating the war drums, being propagandanists for the Bush administration.
Dr. Femi mumuney (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:06 pmThis is my first foray into the blog zone but I was interested in why you were going after Cindi Sheehan. I read your article, and then noticed at the end your references to Michelle Malkin. Now it makes sense. I have listened to that raging lunatic on a number of occasions. She is one of the most Hate mongering people I have ever meet. Why do all of the conservatives continue to talk about Christian values and yet you all want to spew hatred. By the way, Bush IS a coward, just like the majority of his Neo-con buddies. The war hero in the last election was villified by the facist right. Just remember that the term “Bleeding Heart” refers to our lord and saviour.
Bill Anderson (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:39 pmFACT: 2 attacks on W.T.C. by Al Q., Numerous other attacks and bombings by Al Q., Plenty of distortions on the side of Al Q., Al Q will not stop until we are all Muslim or we kill them, Oh yea we have to be the right kind of Muslim as well… I feel for Mrs. Sheehan. I think ill side with Bush, sorry lefties. Note the Pre-Bush events and explain that. Thank You Casey.
J.W. (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:41 pmIt amazes me that anyone can question her motives, or reasons for not reacting towards Bush this way initially. Apparently those people have never lost a loved one in such a violent manner. It is well within her rights and totally understandable to rethink or reassess her feelings after the initial shock of her sons death. She was probably searching for consolement and trying to believe that he didn’t die for an unworhty cause. Apparently she has reassessed her point of view and has come away thinking that his death was for an unworhty cause. I don’t disagree.
easyrawl (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:47 pmI agree with Chip O’Brien. Along with many others. Oh, by the way, did she forget that her son enlisted? That was his choice to enlist, he knew what was involved with his choices. Accusing President George W. Bush is not the way to go. The President is doing what any great leader should or would do for his country, and for his people. As for keeping us safe, I believe that he is doing the best that he can!
Misty Schiefer (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:50 pmAmerica is finally waking up to the deceit, lies and disinformation of the Bush Administration. I’m proud that one American is making the difference in galvanizing the anger, frustration, etc. of what the illegal invasion of Iraq has posed. Despite what experts ranging from CIA, Gernerals, former State Department officials, etc., Bush and his cronies bribed the so called ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to invade a souverign country. His rehetoric of human rights abuses, WMD and Terrorism were no more then lies and disinformation to soothe the gulible masses. When Sec. Powell went before the UN Security Council to seek approval for the invasion of Iraq, his speechs was flawed from the begining. I surmise that his reasoning was quite the opposite of what the Bush Administration was attempting to sell to the World Body. France, Germany, Belgium and other countries have their own intelligence and came to a different conclusion then what the US and Britian came to. Now with the events unfolding and stories in the Washington Post, the truth is finally being leaked out slowly but decisively. We are in Iraq not for WMD, Terrorism, etc., as the Bush Administration would have you believe but for OIL. Plain and simple the US and Britain stretegy is to control the Oil supplies of the World. Just who is benefiting at the cost of innocent American and Iraqi lives is the big Oil Conglomorations. The Oil prices have rocked to ‘skyhigh’with no end in sight. These right wing repukes, ultra-neo-conservatives and ultra-fundamentalist zealots are ruining this country with their agenda. Never before in America’s History have we witnessed such polarization of the American People since the acendency of the Bush Administration. What his actions did with the illegal invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of a sovereign government was to create turmoil. In essence, he opened up a ‘pandora box’ despite what leading political, economical, experts have warned. Now our country have spent over 300 billion dollars and the Oil prices are $65 per barrel. Futhermore, the International Community have looked upon the US and Britain with disdain, mistrust, etc. What Bush and his cronies are attempting to do is to coerce their own beliefs and agenda on the rest of the World. This will be a ‘hard sell’ and shall prove to be futile unless bribery takes place something that most gullible Americans are not aware of.
Yichuan1 (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:51 pmI have a grandson in Iraq.No one likes war but sometimes its what has to be done to protect our freedom. My grandson has been there since the war started came home for a two mo. leave and is back there again. When he was home he told me he was angry at the way the media wrote about the war.He stated he and his buddies respect Pres.Bush and believed they were doing the right thing by helping the Iraq people. The people were grateful they were there,the problem is the terriosts not the Iraq people or the innocent children.The media never writes about all the good things happening in Iraq. Protesting the war and bashing the Pres.puts done the morale.I pray for all who lost love ones but protesing the war dishonors what they believed in and died for.It also sends a bad message to other countries and achieves what the terriosts want and divides the U.S.
nancy traeger (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:51 pmShame on that woman for smearing her son’s good memory. He fought for what HE believed in, and she is making this all about HER.
We are staying in Iraq to complete the job, as GWB has said all along. We are training their soldiers now that their government is getting set up. THEN we can get out of there.
Not that it seems to matter to this woman, but that country is very grateful for our help and does NOT want us to leave until we finish the job. We had to under Bush 41’s leadership because of the involvement of the UN.. and don’t we all know why things didn’t work out the way they should have, considering the UN’s crooked involvement NOW?? READ, lady. Let your grief take a different direction besides an attempt to divide this country. You are making a fool of yourself and shaming the memory of your beloved son.
Bobbi Laird (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:57 pmMy sincere gratitude to all of those who have fought for our country, and to those who are fighting for us now. I do understand how the families feel about their losses, so i do not want anyone to get the wrong idea of me, it just angers me that she makes it seem like she is the only mother who hasv lost a loved one in this war. She is not! That is all, Thanks.
Misty Schiefer (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:58 pmWhat I don’t understand is why a woman who has lost her son, is not allowed to look deeper into the situation and thus gain clearer vision about the sweet talk from Bush. If she was so satisfied with Bush’s remarks, then why the need for the meeting? To cause trouble? Not likely. So, now you’ve told me the real story. In response, it makes no difference to me so why print it? Every being has a right to change their minds as they learn and grow. Perhaps the author should do some learning and growing so they can know how this works.
Sharon (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 7:08 pmBefore we all jumped to judgment on Cindy Sheenan and her motives, maybe we need to take a deep breath and realize that she is a real person – not the caricature painted here on this board. The waves of anger and despair from losing a child can drive a person to do many things.
I’ve read where some believe that she “had her time” to address these issues with the President. In the strictest sense, she did – but how many of us, if we’re honest, would have the composure to think of those things. How many times have you wanted to add something to a conversation/interview/application that you forgot at the time? If she feels that this is her way to do that, fine. She is simply exercising the very freedom that her son died trying to protect.
Quite frankly, before this whole thing gets any bigger it might not be a bad idea for Bush to meet with her again – if not as the President of the USA then as a compassionate man of faith. The vision of him driving by her on his way back to the White House will only play to his critics.
The idea that her original account is dramatically different from the one now being offered is also somewhat suspect. In every account that I’ve read, she scarcely was doing cartwheels gushing about what a delight it was to meet him. I think that after the honor of meeting Bush had worn off she realized that she and her family still had a lot of questions and a lot of unanswered ones at that. Not to mention the pain.
I do agree, however, that while the two accounts are not diametrically opposed, it would have been prudent for the media to mention them and let the people decide for themselves.
But to do that, we, the people, need to remember that we are all Americans and put aside the petty nonsense that permeates this discussion.
DWB (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 7:18 pmWhen did this woman ever claim to feel she was the only mother who lost a child in the war? Why do people think that her standing up against it means she thinks she is special. I’m disgusted that more mothers have not stood up. This woman loved her son and this is how she is dealing with it. Everyone grieves differently. Anyone who judges another’s way of grieving is simply an idiot.
Sharon (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 7:19 pmI cant believe that a mother would do this to her son’s and our troops great bravery.
Pamela Rowlett (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 7:27 pmCasey was a great young man I am sure and he died doing what he thought he had to do for his country It is so sad to see a mother ruining her son this way If Casey is looking down from heaven right now I know that he would be so ashame of her. I can understand why President Bush isent meeting with her. If he did then everyone else would expect it and he has a job to do.
President Bush is doing a wonderful job. Now if the guy had been drafted I would think differently but this is what Casey wanted to do with his life and it was his choice.
Cindy is just looking for attention like Jane Fonda.
For a mother to smear her sons name like this is a disgrace to me.
Our military have a job to do and they are doing a great job. Freedom dosent come cheap.
God Bless President Bush and all our military troops
Go home Cindy where u belong and stop ruining your sons good name.
One Cindy, two Cindys, a million Cindys…go Cindy! The Bush ship is sinking.
sangoncito (63db14) — 8/11/2005 @ 7:48 pmShame on you Pamela for thinking you know what this woman’s son would think about her actions. You have no idea and are being rudely presumptuous! No one knows other than his family, friends and God. I know you’re not one of the three and I doubt you fit the other two categories.
For you to say Casey would be ashamed is sickening!
God Bless the United States of America!
Dean (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 7:54 pmWell well, a woman protest in front of Bush’s big ranch summer camp and some people don’t like it. They should enlist and go fight the war, save the world and support this administration lies to drive us into this new Vietnam. I can’t believe you Americans voted for Bush a second time. Who’s next? His brother? Frenchy here
jean-philippe STUART (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 7:58 pmThe Bush Administration has been inconsistant about the Iraq war from just about every angle, except one, since the beginning. G.W. Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq from the beginning. To find an excuse for war, Iraq was 1.) accused as a co-conspirator for 9/11. 2.)Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. 3.)Iraq was part of a triumvirate of evil, along with Iran and North Korea.
Yet, with the Republican Guard defeated, mission accomplished and access to Iraqi records obtained, the administration has not been able to prove that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Nor has anyone been able to find any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and as to the triumvirate of evil…North Korea and Iran seem to be getting along just fine, with no threats of war from the Bush Administration, thank you very much.
After the fact, G. W. Bush changed his reasons to go to war from Iraq being a threat to the security of the US, to “Isn’t the world a better place without Sadaam?” Don’t attack Cindy Sheehan for inconsistancy involving the complicated emotions of grief, attack G.W. Bush for his inconsistancy and lack of depth in foreign policy. Former Vice President Al Gore warned the country in 2000 that Bush’s lack of foreign policy background could get the country into a war, that the whole nation would end up having to pay for, in blood as well as money.
Cindy Sheehan, as a grieving mother, is trying to get Bush to admit to his own failings and bring truth back to the office of the presidency. As Americans, Republican or Democrat, we should all applaud her effort.
Chris (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:00 pmThis is typical of conservatives. Never deal with the issue itself, just mount personal attacks against anyone who disagrees. This woman lost her son in a war that was started for no apparent reason and that we have little chance of winning, and Patterico attacks her. Just what one would expect of people who would lie and cheat to start a war.
[“Patterico attacks her”? That is a lie. Have you taken honesty lessons from the L.A. Times?? I have gone out of my way *not* to attack her. See my update — posted before your comment. What I *have* done is point out her inconsistent statements. That’s not an attack. That’s telling the truth — something Big Media seems reluctant to do with this story. — Patterico]
Robert (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:09 pmCindy Sheehan dishonors her son.
I found this:
http://www.politicalmusings.net/archives/2005/08/08/the-truth-behind-the-opportunism/
Here’s the key sentence:
“Casey Sheehan re-enlisted with the Army in August of 2003, knowing that his unit would eventually be deployed in Iraq.”
Casey Sheehan did not have to re-enlist. He knew the dangers, and he was awarded a Bronze Star for action at the time of his death.
His mother is standing on his coffin and playing the grieving mother. What a head case.
By the way, Mrs. Sheehan has met with President Bush on one occassion already. It was just with other relatives present. What is with this demand for more time?
Patch (8ba69f) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:10 pmi feel for ms. sheehan. however, the only one making it appear as if her son died in vain is her.
whoby (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:20 pmhe obviously thought it was a cause worth dying for since he VOLUNTEERED to go- there hasn’t been a draft enacted that i’m aware of.
i wonder if she would be camped outside the ranch if he were still alive.
MY HUSBAND IS IN IRAQ DOING HIS SECOND TOUR. HE IS ACTIVE DUTY (ARMY INF). IT IS VERY HARD ON FAMILIES OF DEPLOYED SOLDIERS. FOR ME, I HAD TO LET GO OF THE ANGER CAUSED BY BEING SEPERATED FROM MY HUSBAND BECAUSE OF THIS WAR.NOT TO MENTION ALL THAT HE HAS MISSED WITH OUR SON.I STOPPED ASKING WHY? THEN I PUT ALL OF THAT ENERGY IN SUPPORTING HIM IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE.AND THAT INCLUDES A GREAT DEAL OF SACRAFICES. I’M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE MEDIA’S IDEA OF THIS WAR NOR WHY WE ARE THERE.I REFUSE TO WATCH THE NEWS. IT IS BS AND MOST SOLDIERS WILL TELL YOU THAT. WHAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST IS MY HUSBAND’S MORALE, HIS MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH,AND MOST OF ALL HIS SAFTEY. HE DOESN’T COMMENT MUCH ON WHETHER WE SHOULD BE THERE OR NOT BUT HE FEELS STRONGLY THAT IT IS HIS DUTY, NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE.I CAN TELL YOU THAT ALL OF THIS NEGATIVITY DOES EFFECT THE MORALE OF SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.IT AMAZES ME HOW PEOPLE CARELESSLY TALK ABOUT THIS WAR AND THE MILITARY. HOW THEY SOMETIMES FORGET TO THINK ABOUT THE LIVES LOST, THE LIVES FIGHTING, AND THE LIVES THAT ARE FOREVER CHANGED. NOT JUST THE LIVES OVER THERE BUT THE ONES RIGHT HERE AT HOME.THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO DON’T REALIZE HOW HARD THE “MILITARY LIFE” IS.HOW MUCH WE GO THROUGH TO KEEP THIS COUNTRY SAFE AND IT UPSETS ME.I CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR OUR SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES, THIS COUNTRY, AND THE PRESIDENT.I HOPE THAT YOU WILL ALSO.
TINA KENNEDY (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:28 pmIt never ceases to amaze me how the people opposed to Bush don’t go as far back as they should to get ALL of the facts. In 1998 Clinton(s)
Hank L (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:34 pmand Madeline Albreight said there were definately WMDs in Iraq. Why have the ones opposed to Bush not looked into this? I still see bitterness from the last Presidential election….plain and simple.
Hey Neo-Cons!
Argonaut4 (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:35 pmGee, maybe the reason she’s NOW down in Crawford is because–well, gee—300 more soldiers and Americans have been slaughtered since her son put his faith in his gov’t that his life would not be wasted. To this day, I guarantee Dubya can’t find Iraq on a map.
the only thing that is amazing to me in all of this is that we are aguing about lying in the press.
jim mason (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:38 pmThe only evidence we have is that Bush lied about the reason to go to war in the first place.
Why are the Bush backers so afraid of being questioned about thier intentions?
It isnt only the media that is doing the spin here, it is the Republican party again, trying to defend a story that they feel will sway the voters against them.
Trying to shift the blame to the media is a very good tactic to get away from the basic issue, which is…Why are we at war? Why is there no plan?? and why is Bush so afraid?
I’m sorry for Mrs Sheehan on her loss. She wants to blame Pres. Bush for her son’s death. He’s the only she can blame that close and safe. She should be blaming the real murderers, the terrorist in Iraq. I am the mother of a soon to be deployed soldier, so my worrying is just beginning. I also know and so does he, it was his decision to go to help a country to be free of terrorism. I respect and support him, and I will not blame Pres. Bush. Our armed forces should be respected and supported for the sacrifices they make, not used.
Suzie (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:42 pmdont get me wrong, i support our troops Suzie, it is just that the honesty issue has never been on Bush’s side. Just one thing that you should remember before your son goes off to fight. The terrorists were not in Iraq. There is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. I hope that your son stays safe in our new vietnam.
jim mason (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:47 pmYou may not care to criticize her, Patterico, but her family has no such qualms. They feel that she is using her son’s death for ulterior reasons and are saying so publicly. See Drudge.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:55 pmI read your comments with sadness, because I see that you have no room in your life for anything but an unbending view that George Bush has Intelligence!! It is so sad to think that someone with half a brain would believe him. I hope your children never have to go to Iraq. I hope with all my heart that my children (ages 21, 18 and 16) never have to go there, either. Think about all the GOOD that George Bush has done for you, and you will have nothing but emptiness. I am so sorry for you.
catherine (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 9:01 pmMr Mason, I’m not blind and neither is my son. I didn’t say anyting about 9/11. My son has seen the horror the terrorist has used on innocent people in Iraq. And I supported our troops in Vietnam. I am wearing a POW/MIA bracelet that I wore during the Vietnam war, so I will always remember the disrespect people like you gave our troops and I will do everything I can to let our President and our troops know we’re behind them. Oh by the way the soldier on my bracelet was a POW almost 6 yrs.
Suzie (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 9:13 pmInteresting to see your spin on the facts Patterico. It is clear that you have agenda in your reporting as well – you want to take on the LA Times but not the Wall Street Journal (see previous post re WSJ story) and yet you pontificate about searching out all the relevant stories. Further you distort the quoted story by putting in bold what YOU believe to be the essence of the description of the meeting (are we spinning now?). Read in its entirety Mrs Sheehan’s description of the meeting is by no means highly complementary. The family agreed not to make a stink and she complied – no more/no less. Now can you tell us why you would quote her estranged husband to support your argument that SHE was excited about the meeting? Could it be because he happens to support your view of events? Get off your high horse – you spin as much as the rest – until you take on the Wall Street Journal report your critique of the LA Times is nothing more than promoting your political agenda.
Bert (090209) — 8/11/2005 @ 9:35 pmPerhaps Mrs. Sheehan’s son enlisted when he believed that Iraq had WMD. If you remember Bush said they had them. He died right around the people began to question where the weapons ACTUALLY were and around the time the reports were shown to be lies. The only person in Bush’s cabinet who had fought a war intially did not support the war and he had enough morality to quit rather than support Bush for a 2nd term. Almost all of the warhawks with Bush today hid out in the guard or in college when they had their chance to fight the war in ‘Nam. Today not one of those warhawks has a child who has enlisted. Believe it or not MOST who have enlisted have enlisted for economic reasons not political reasons. They stay and fight for their friends and their units not because they believe in the whole stopping terrorists in Iraq malarky. It amazes me that all of those waying the flag on line and attempting to prove that they are more American than those who disagree with them always conveniently ignore that fact. It’s too much generally for their one dimensional minds to wrap around. Perhaps there was a time when people could bllindly trust their leaders. It was long before I was born, however. I personally know that interviews are full of misquotes, mis-statements and mistakes. For Patterico to harp on the previous interviews is disingenious – unless he really is ignorant enough to believe that the newspapers print truth all the time. Oh wait – I believe he was braying about the fact that the LA Times was misleading by omitting information. Bottom line – clearly Patterico supports Bush and the war; not enough to enlist though. He seems to be one of those Americans that thinks that talking tough makes you tough. Sad. Any one who has had a child or a loved one die in this war is the ONLY ONE in a position to talk. The rest of you are just blathering. Myself included.
Bedazzled (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 9:46 pmIt’s been my experience that those opposed to the Iraqi war because Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9/11 refuse to acknowledge Saddam’s brutality, the murdering of thousands of his own country’s men, women and children, and the torture of thousands more. They refuse to acknowledge that for the first time, these Iraqi’s now have an opportunity for freedom; a chance to raise their families, work, and live without the fear that any second terror may be rained down upon them by their “leader.” The US men and women who have died in this war against terror have died for a just and noble cause–the same as those of their comrades who died in the previous wars. To say otherwise is to diminish their sacrifice …
worthey (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:02 pmAlthough we feel for Cindy and her family, we are hoping that she will reconsider and come home.
Evans girl (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:05 pmCindy has 2 daughters that are greiving too and worried about their Mom along with many friends. What you dont hear is that casey wanted to defend our country and did not object to going where he was sent. Unfortunately it cost him his life. Through time this has been the cost of wars from many families. Cindy your family and friends need you and are financially and emotionally drained watching you subject yourself to this cause. Is this what Casey would have wanted you to do, ignore Carlee Jenny, and Pat.
GEE! I’m surprised that hillary and bill and john and john aren’t draped around her. Did al get to her first? Which part of the Socialist/Communist Democratic Party got to her? It was only a matter of time before they brainwashed her. After all, people on the left like to dilue themselves into believing they represent the mainstream of America when in fact THEY ARE THE FRINGE ELEMENT!!! Look at history to judge for yourselves. They espouse the same values and propoganda as Stalin and Hitler. Remember they don’t want you to remember that those regimes were both leftist!!! It’s a crime against our founding fathers to allow the leftist extreme which can hurl personal attacks at will against the people who aren’t thinking along their treasonus paths as outlined by our very own Constitution, but they hide like cowards behind it at every chance they get. The most vocal you’d recognize: Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy, Gore, Edwards, and all the others who pretend to represent their constituents. All you can say to them is SIEG HEIL or TOVARISH COMRADE!
Ed Subowsty (a9eb8b) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:26 pmAfter all, they claim to know what is best for you, not you.
First, please read our home town newspaper quoting her after a personal meeting with President Bush. Yes, Cindy has changed her story.
Second, in 1969, in Viet Nam, among the many brave Air Cav Troopers in my unit that were killed in combat, there was one special and fellow pilot in my combat helicopter unit who was killed with a flight school classmate of mine. After his death, his mother took on a stance EXACTLY like that Cindy Sheehan is taking. Her young, surviving daughter, who was much younger than my fellow pilot, was enveloped in an anti-war atmosphere created by her mother, much like that Cindy Sheehan is creating around her.
Still to this day, this younger sister of my fellow Air Cav pilot is wrapped in her brother’s death, unable to break free of these shackles. This once young girl, now 35 years later, has basically defined HER life in terms of the loss of her older brother.
Would it have been different for her, and her family, if they had tried to find peace with their loss in a different way?
Cindy Sheehan wants answers: I am sorry, but if the President agrees, and meets with her AGAIN, she will not be satisfied and find peace. If he answers each of her questions as completely as he can, she will NOT hear what she wants to hear, and she will not find peace. If he brings all the troops home from all of the edges of the world, she will not find rest. For Mrs. Sheehan peace will ALWAYS be a moving target, as each attempt to find peace from outside her heart and soul proves fruitless.
The peace that Cindy seeks will have to come from within herself. I pray that she seeks to find an inner peace within herself which she can find, before she is consumed by chasing answers and actions outside of her control that will never bring her peace.
Grover, Vacaville, CA (Cindy Sheehan’s home town)
Grover Wright (ee3eb6) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:29 pmFirst time to visit this blog. first time to post. So here goes. Having been to Iraq during the first Gulf War, I can say that at that time there were WMD’s. And at the time I retired from the military, the intellegence briefings I was privy to supported that there were still WMD’s there. BTW I retired Jan. 2003. What every “expert” seems to forget is that the President acted on the current intelligence at the time. Monday morning quaterbacking it now is a waste of time.
After every conflict, if you follow history, there has always been rumor and inuendo to say that the President purposely led us into war. I have heard it said that Roosevelt and Churchill conspired to get us into WW II. That is the luxury of 20/20 hindsight.
The fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN Treaty that authorized force if necessary to make him comply. How many times did he thumb his nose at the world? Too many. As to the WMD’s they were there once and we know that the Arms inspectors, by their own account did not see them all destroyed, so where are they? I hope not here, sitting inside a terrorist’s suitcase ina train depot, or an airport.
The majority of the insurgents as the news media calls them are nothing more than mercenaries from other countries who want to advance thier agenda. To make the US look like fools and to embarass us on the world stage.
Right or Left, I don’t care. Everyone should show their support for our troops and for this country. Regardless of what relgion you are/believe in, you should get down on your knees and thank whoever it is you believe in that you live in a country that allows you to publicly voice your dessent, for I have been to countries where you would simply disappear for saying anything negative about the goverment (Iraq was like that)
As Mrs. Sheehan. Grieve, you have that right. Voice your opinion, you have that right as well. But to say that The President of the United States “Murdered” your son, is in my opinion, a dishonor to the sacrifice he and all of the others made. As others have said. This is an ALL VOLUNTARY MILITARY. No one twisted their arms to make them join. If Mrs. Sheehan is sincere about honoring her son’s memory, there are better ways to go about it. The pictures I see plastered everywhere remind me of a certain picture of a certain actress sitting on an anti aircraft gun in Noth Vietnam while US POW’s were being tortured in various camps (The Hanoi Hilton among others). Unintentionally I am sure, she is giveing “comfort and aid” to the terrorist whose goal is the eventual eradication of our way of life and definately giving Al-Jazerah TV some excellent video and sound bites they can broadcast.
Agree, disagree, I couldn’t care less. The truth is there and no matter what I say will change the way anyone interprets it. But unless you’ve been there (SF Dave), then you have no business making an uninformed opinion as to how the Iraqi people feel about being out from under Saddam’s rule. Also I supported the invasion because based on Saddam’s and the UN’s track record since the end of the first Gulf War, I was unwilling to take the stand that Saddam would eventually be honest and forthright with the world, only to wake up some day and find out the sceneio in Tom Clancy’s SUM of ALL FEARS had come true somewhere in the world.
Oh yeah…one more thing…The terrorist of 9/11 had no “direct” connections with Iraq, but for those of you who didn’t know. There was a Terrorist group operating in Northern Iraq that had ties with Al Qaeda that fought agains the 82nd and the Kurds and then fled to Iran. There were Terrorist training camps all ove Iraq. And Al Zar…However you spell it…the head of Al Qaeda was in Iraq recovering from wounds recieved in Afghanistan at Saddam’s invitation. So no there was no direct connection, but there are always those who want us to wait for that sucker punch before they cry foul. Anyway….
Thank you and good night.
Rick (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:35 pmEmotion vs. Debate
Before I explain what the leftist hubbub is all about, I note again, that out of respect for Mrs. Sheehan’s grief, I will not comment on the moral status of her actions. But…. To understand why this is a big deal, we must consider Mrs. Sheehan’s ac…
Gus Van Horn (51c73c) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:40 pmTINA KENNEDY,
I COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR STRENGH!!!!!!I HOPE THAT ALL YOU PRAY FOR COMES TRUE. PLEASE RESPOND TO YOUR HUSBAND, THAT THERE ARE “MANY OF US” FOREVER GRATEFUL TO HIM FOR DEFENDING AND PROTECTING “US”. THAT’S WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT !!
TAMMY DEAN-MUSSON
TAMMY (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 11:27 pm“MOTHER OF A SAILOR”
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
RICK, THANK – YOU!!!!!!
TAMMY (0f4734) — 8/11/2005 @ 11:33 pmIMPEACH BUSH
ASD1460 (1d6514) — 8/11/2005 @ 11:38 pmThis is Dave again. We are still called snake eaters sir in Spec Ops. War is not the same as it was in the days of WW2. People need to realize that. Gorilla warfare is the way of the future. Small bands of fighting that pretty much never go away. The rule in Gorilla warfare is that the one soldier will die but he is to take out 5 of the enemies soldiers by any means. Car bomb or any other low brow IED. We in America still fight by RULES because of people that value worthless life (terrorist) over the life’s of our soldiers. These people like the ACLU say that every person deserves the human right awarded to them by whatever(Not God because the ACLU doesn’t believe in that). There is no such thing as battlefields, armies, laws, rules, or concept of human life in combat now but we in America are forced to fight with our hands tied because liberals still think these things exist. Liberals are all for human rights but they want us to leave and forget about the human rights of the Iraq people. People that were getting killed by Sadam at a rate of about 7000 a month. I’ve seen the graves first hand and I know what that bastard did to his own people. These same liberals say that Africa needs help, which I totally agree with, but how are we to help them. Africa would be 10 times worse than Iraq. so what is the answer? You say that we should leave but what then? Will the terrorists get a seat at the united nations so we can send Hillary to negotiate trade and policies with them? Because if we leave, they will rule that place. We are winning the war on terror. America is safer now because they are fighting us over there instead of here. Do I agree with all of the war planning? No. But I am proud of the job that I and 135,000 other soldiers are doing over there. A job that we all volunteered for. So when you go to bed outside the ranch in Crawford tonight Mrs. Sheehan, thank every soldier that is in Iraq for the fact that there won’t be a terrorist bombing near you or your family tonight. Because you see, were defeating terrorism in a foreign land and not in our land. Sleep safe tonight.
Dave (8511a3) — 8/11/2005 @ 11:45 pmI think what Ms Sheehan is doing is great. She is standing up for what she believes in – why is everyone making such a big fuss about some things she may or may not have said at an earlier date? Bush has changed his story many times on the reasons why we are fighting in Iraq. I do not feel safer here in America. Do you think the people in London feel anymore safe? The same thing could happen here. We went after the wrong person. Where is Osama? What ever happened to going after the one who orchestrated the 9/11 terriorist attacks? Do you honestly think that the people in Iraq are much better off? Why were we bombing Iraq before the war actually started? Too many questions have to be answered. What exactly did you gain in Viet Nam? I know we lost over 58,000 good young men and women. Shouldn’t we have learned our lesson, not to go jumping in to something that cannot be finished?
Irene (ee3eb6) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:08 amTo the extent that the “insurgents” who killed Casey Sheehan are political, they are the remnants of the the Baathist regime of Sadaam Hussein, whose sons operated a nightly rape gang in Baghdad. To the extent that the “insurgents” who killed Casey Sheehan are religious, they believe that every woman who Cindy Sheehan knows (or knows of) who has engaged in extramarital sex is an abomination in the eyes of Allah who deserves to be put to death. These are the killers of Casey Sheehan — and these are the people Cindy Sheehan wants us to stop fighting against.
Anyone who is opposed to tyranny, theocratic or otherwise, should be against both flavors of “insurgent” — as should, even more emphatically, anyone whose lips the phrase “women’s rights” has passed. Vehement contempt for “misogyny,” however defined, has been mother’s milk to the American left for the last thirty-five years. And yet Cindy Sheehan, whose son died at their hands, thinks we should not be fighting these woman-hating scum.
When contempt for the despised W drives an otherwise model leftist like Mrs. Sheehan to abandon opposition to the most basic bugbears of modern feminism, that contempt has reached the level of pathology. Have some sympathy…not for a devil, but for a sad woman whose grief has overwhelmed her sense.
porkopolitan (b7b69e) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:10 amGold Star Mothers for Peace. Since when does “peace” mean only that the US does not participate in the fighting. If the US left, warlords would battle over Irag, killing hundreds of thousands if not millions. This is “peace” no – this is “soundbite”. It is not peace unless NOBODY is being killed not just US servicemen. 800 people a month are being killed in Iraq. Under Saddam — during the “peace” time, 10,000 people a month were being killed. Why is Bush blamed for the 800 but gets no credit for the 10,000.
Nimmer (1d6514) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:34 amPres. Bush was barely in office when 9/11 happened. The planning of the terrorists for that day started long before he got there. Clinton/Gore/Albright ALL said there were WMD’s over there. Where they ended up, who knows. Regardless, the US had to respond or once again, look weak and sit and wait for the next time. Besides – what part of liberating 25 million people from the likes of Sadam is wrong? Some of you sure sound “selfish”. How would you like to live in a country that just throws innocent people (mostly women and children) into mass graves? You live in a country that allows you to LIVE, along with the chance to persue life, liberty and happiness. Shouldn’t all people have the same chance? Pres. Bush hasn’t done EVERYTHING right, but he IS our President and should be respected as such. I, for one, did not like Pres. Clinton at all, but I sure did respect his position and the office he held and prayed for his guidance. What’s with all the hatred, anyway?
K. Ferrando (a9eb8b) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:45 am1400 years ago, my homeland, a country in the ME, was invaded by the Islamic army. My land which for more than 3000 years was the source of civilization, went into the depth of darkness, never to see the light again. Those who oppose the war in Iraq are calling for the destruction of our civilization and an end to our advancement. Read the history of the Islamic invasion of the middle east and learn the lesson. Freedom comes with a high price of sacrifice. We will fight the terror and we will sacrifice.
Lila Makarious (ee3eb6) — 8/12/2005 @ 1:20 amI am truly sorry for Ms. Sheehan’s loss. It is very painful to lose a loved one and she must make it even worse for herself by believing that it was not in a worthwhile cause. Apparently, her son did not agree with her.
Robert (f0f1d5) — 8/12/2005 @ 1:57 amThis should not be a political issue! We are in the war now. We are committed to it. Virtually all the senators and the vast majority of citizens recognize that even if they did not agree with the war, we must stay the course. Withdrawing completely now means abandoning Iraq to the terrorists. Sheehan and the people she is with are trying to put public pressure on Bush to abandon Iraq to the terrorists. That is a bad idea and the vast majority of Americans recognize it. This is demoralizing to the military personnel and is unpatriotic and traitorous given the fact that we are already in the war and must stay the course. Calling the President names does nothing good and takes away from the public’s willingness to see the war through to a successful conclusion.
Regarding the war:
Let’s review the facts as they were known at the time. Saddam had invaded Iran and used wmd against them in a bloody eight year war. Saddam invaded Kuwait and was poised to take Saudi Arabia. Saddam had wmd we discovered at the time. He signed a cease fire treaty, promising to destroy his wmd. He violated 17 UN Resolutions upon which the cease fire was based. He gassed 5000 Kurds. He used wmd on a dozen documented occasions. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and politicians on both sides all unaminously agreed that Saddam had wmd. Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998. The economic sanctions against Saddam were not being complied with. France was routinely violating them as the Oil for Food Scandal shows. Hence, the sanctions were not an effective response to Saddam’s regime. The inspectors were accompanied by minders. It was a shell game. There was no way to have any degree of confidence in the findings of the inspectors. We had no way of knowing whether the inspectors were not finding wmd because the wmd had already been destroyed or because Saddam had hidden it too well for the inspectors to find it. The inspectors were only let back in when we had 150,000 soldiers on a carrier in the region. We could not keep them there indefinitely. As soon as the soldiers went back home, Saddam would have kicked the inspectors back out. There was, therefore, no acceptable status quo to leave in place. The choice was to let Saddam go on unfettered breaking UN Resolutions and possibly passing off wmd to terrorist groups who could use the wmd in an attack against us or to liberate Iraq. Saddam did have stockpiles at one time. Saddam could reproduce the stockpiles since his scientists still knew how to make the wmd. We had never seen any evidence that Saddam had destroyed his own wmd. Why would Saddam secretly destroy his own weapons of mass destructions? What possible benefit would he get from destroying the wmd in private? If he had destroyed it in public, the sanctions would have been removed and his economy would have benefitted from improved trade relations. However, there seemed to be no reason for Saddam to destroy his wmd secretly. Hence, we had no reason to believe that he had destroyed the wmd in secret. The only reason we were given to believe that Saddam no longer had wmd was Saddam’s own word. His word was insufficient. Given the fact that we knew that he did have wmd in the past and his utter lack of motive to destroy his own wmd the lack of proof of his destruction of his wmd, the lack of an effective response to Saddam’s repeated violation of the UN Resolutions and terms of the cease fire and the consequences of not acting and being wrong, the President made the only rational and logical choice he could make. What if we did nothing and Saddam had wmd which he did pass off to terrorists and they hit us using those wmd? Hundreds of thousands of US citizens would die. The consequences of this was too great. Lying means intentionally stating what you know to be false. As Bush’s statements were no different than those of both Clintons and numerous other politicians and international organizations, they are equally liable to whatever charges of mendacious speech that Bush is accused of. Protesting the war prior to its inception is not wrong (just misguided). However, after the war has begun, it is unpatriotic for the reasons given above. One must consider the consequences of doing nothing and being attacked with wmd from terrorist group which got those wmd from Saddam. One must remember the facts as they were then known. Given the risks, the fact that Saddam had used wmd before, the lack of effective alternatives, the lack of evidence to show Saddam had destroyed his wmd, his utter lack of motive for destroying his own wmd, no other decision is rational. Had an attack with wmd from terrorists who got the wmd from Iraq taken place, these same peace niks would be blaming the President. While Iraq has problems now, Japan did not become a peaceful democracy overnight either. Liberals in those days said Japan was a hopeless failure. However, they were wrong then. In a decade, we may very well see a stable, democratic Iraq. Democracies do not foment terrorists groups and they do not start wars.
Finally, the fact is that Sheehan’s story is completely opposite of what she said originally. It is not possible to reconcile the accounts. They are polar opposites and one of them could be true or both could be false, but both cannot be true since they are mutually exclusive.
The earlier account is much more likely to be an accurate reflection of the meeting. Bitterness and bad company account for the dramatic change in her tune. Her loss does not excuse her actions or her speech. Other people have suffered equal losses and did not choose to act the way that she has. Hence, they are proof that this was not necessary. There is a difference, apparently, in her character and the character of other parents of fallen soldiers. How we respond to loss reveals what is in our hearts. Would Casey have wanted her mother to act like this? I seriously doubt it. If only soldiers could vote, the election would not have been close! That is a fact! Bush would have won in a landslide. Among the soldiers, the election could easily be seen as a referendum on Iraq. Those in the best position to know what is going on there apparently feel that it is worthwhile and going much better than the general public knows (which is simply being fed bad news which is more dramatic than the gradual incremental progress occurring in Iraq). Given this information, Casey would probably oppose his mother’s actions and speeches. If we excuse her actions, we could excuse irresponsible (and possibly illegal) actions of all kinds for similar reasons. At some point in time, she made a conscious choice to turn this from private grief to a public vendetta in which she could vent her views of the world by using her son’s death as nothing more than a platform to step on. There was a moment in time when she stepped over this edge. Unfortunately for her, she has run into a chasm of grief which is void of that which could give her the healing she needs. While Christianity and the Bible and the Savior offer no support whatsoever for socialism, pacifism and the left wing viewpoint of the Michael Moores of the world, The Savior does offer love, healing and grace in the Scriptures. It is in the Scriptures where the Father’s love is revealed to be so great that He willingly gave His Only Son for worthless causes like us! He did it without bitterness and without regret!
Maybe sheehan has change her story a little, so what? this is’nt about just her and her son, it’s about soldier’s dying much like the soldiers did in vietnam. We need more protest like this, does’nt matter if it’s wrong or right it balance’s the way the system works. If we all just go along with the leaders and do what they say then quess what we have a dictatorship! God bless america and the troop’s sacrificing there live’s for this great country where people like sheehan have the right to voice her opinion in protest. Here’s another recap of history: Bush senior war in Irag people died. Bill Clinton had an affair and lied about it, not good, but how many people died from it? George W Bush whats the total? somewhere around 1,800 soldiers, not counting Allied troops, Iraqi civilians, and terrorists. When George Bush became president I think we all knew what was going to happen WAR IN IRAQ. Then Sept 11th hit us hard (and let us never forget), so we did a little goose hunt for Osama Bin Laden and quickly focused our intentions on Iraq. It was a good thing getting suddam hussien out of power, but where should our priorities been at that time, after all Osama Bin Laden is still missing and I can’t remeber the last time Bush has even mention sept 11 or Osama. Like I said Suddam Hussien needed to be taken out of power but all we have accomplished is making the job of the terrorists easier by finding americans in Iraq, after all there is more terrorist in Iraq now then there was before we invaded. Lets not forget the most simple obvious fact of all George Bush is in the Oil Business, oh yes so is his dad, Is there oil in Iraq? Politicans are good at justifing everything they do (repulicans and democrats), and I’m sure twenty years from now we will look at this war much like we do vietnam today, I pray that I am wrong about that. What is the solution to this war? So are we going to stay there until they operate like America? I’m not very good in history but I don’t think when our constitution was wrote there was another country with heavily armed soldiers telling we had too. Does anyone ever think about what the innocent Iraqi families are thinking day in and day out, do you honestly think they can trust america when there family has been killed and the country torn apart and then we expect them to live like us? Try putting yourself in there shoes when all you are is a regular family in Iraq. Just because I disagree with the war does’nt mean I am not patriotic it mean’s I’m living in a great country where I can voice my opinion God Bless America and our Troops
Mike (ee3eb6) — 8/12/2005 @ 3:29 amTastrophe: In case you really are uninformed and not totally disingenuous, allow me to be one to tell you the facts of life. Outside of the editorial and opinion pages, the Wall Street Journal is a liberal newspaper. Their article on Cindy Sheehan, which as you point out, also doesn’t mention Sheehan’s meeting with President Bush, is simply proof of the WSJ’s liberalism. Al Hunt, to be seen on several of the pundit tv shows, is a liberal and is the WSJ’s Washington DC bureau chief. The WSJ maintains a strict separation of opinion (conservative) on the editorial page and reporting (when strictly not numbers is liberal).
Jabba the Tutt (92b32b) — 8/12/2005 @ 3:43 amMike wrote #115:
Spoken like a true moderate. Let’s see, a little lying, if it’s in a good cause, isn’t a bad thing, it’s a good thing. This is what Mike is saying.
Let’s add a little lying to the truth, it’s balance. So, lying, adding untruth to truth, compromising with the truth, takes us further away from the truth. I believe we need the truth, the fullest possible truth, in order to make the best possible decisions.
Mike wants less truth, why? Because the truth doesn’t match up to his predetermined opinions. So, the world has to revolve around Mike and his opinions. We all need to be lied to and lie to ourselves, because that makes Mike feel better.
Hmmm, when one actually looks at balancing the truth with little lies, it doesn’t look so good anymore.
Mike says that this isn’t about her (Cindy Sheehan). Sorry, just as Mike wants us to accept his dross for the gold of truth, even Sheehan’s relatives are appalled by her behavior and have publicly said, it’s all about Cindy, not her son. Unless Mike wants us to accept his little lie for the good of the cause.
Jabba the Tutt (92b32b) — 8/12/2005 @ 3:58 amDavid E. Bruderly wrote #45:
Mr Bruderly has drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid de Moonbat.
Like everyone else, Cindy Sheehan, “the messenger”, has the obligation to speak the truth. She lied. She smeared. She accused the President of foul behavior. She accused the President of the equivalent of partying on her son’s grave.
Lying and slander do not equal “speaking out”, Mr Bruderly. Attempting to get through the MSM patented Wall of Sound propaganda and hold “The Messenger” to a standard of truth is hardly attacking “The Messenger” or prattling about irrelevent gossip.
Sheehan’s family certainly didn’t think so.
Oh, but you, Mr Bruderly, have superior compassion to the rest of us neanderthals, so you know better than the rest of Casey Sheehan’s family. They have false consciousness as the Marxists would say and need the Vanguard (ie you, Mr Bruderly) to speak for them.
And the liberals wonder why the rest of us so despise their arrogance, after all it’s for our own good. And screw the NCAA, Go CMU Chippewas! That’s another example of liberal arrogance assuming they know better what’s good for people.
Jabba the Tutt (92b32b) — 8/12/2005 @ 4:10 amCindy Sheehan is involved with anti-Israelists
I discovered this very disturbing article from the NY Sun (via Michelle Malkin) that reveals some very interesting things about anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was murdered in Iraq
Tel-Chai Nation (59ce3a) — 8/12/2005 @ 4:30 amjabba the tutt wrote: Let’s see, a little lying, if it’s in a good cause, isn’t a bad thing, it’s a good thing. This is what Mike is saying.
I never said sheehan lied, you assumed I mean’t she was lying to fit your views. So I will clear up what I meant for you, I believe she changed her mind on her view’s of the president. Have you ever changed your mind?
Mike (ee3eb6) — 8/12/2005 @ 4:55 amWow Patterico, you musta got linked up over at DU or something.
I’m thinking about 95% of the left leaning folks that posted in this thread didn’t even read – or if they did they surely didn’t understand the point of – your original post.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 8/12/2005 @ 5:28 amI’m sure in the early stages of grief I might say or think one thing, but later when the shock has worn off, I’d say another.
Perhaps you’ve been so fortunate that you’ve never lost a loved one? Perhaps too young to have lost a child? As a mom, if something happened to my child, it would be months, before I think I could approach “normalcy” – maybe longer.
She has great courage to grieve so in public and to relive this loss over and over.
Military obeys orders. If they don’t they’re court marshalled. It’s our duty here at home to make sure those orders are the best orders – do you really have this much faith in Bush that he’s giving the right orders? That we have enough troops over there to do the mission? That they have what they need in equip and armor to do the mission? That we should’ve gone into Iraq in the first place (it is NOT related to 9/11!)? That we have the capacity to care for the injured and the families of the dead (VA hospital funding lagging, 10’s of thousands injured, long delay in receiving benefits, etc.)
Take off the rose colored glasses and put yourself in her shoes, or the shoes of the troops. They’re trying to tell us something when they refuse missions (remember the crew that did?). And then they get in trouble when they do follow orders (Abu Ghraib – the peons took the fall for following orders, but nobody higher?) There are people going unwillingly to Iraq, what of them? Why are we asking the Nat’l Guard to carry the load? Think people. Does this really make sense to you?
Cindy is showing great courage and looking for answers many of us are asking. I’m fortunate not to have lost a son to this war in Iraq, but she’s the only one who can ask these questions and you feel justified in questioning her?! Who are you? What’s your stake in all of this? Think about it.
Max (1373ef) — 8/12/2005 @ 5:31 am51 (Dave #2)-
Well said, and thank you for your service.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:03 amCindy is to be pitied, Max, at best. She is acting like Nick Berg’s dad, using her grief as a talisman to protect her from criticism as she sullies her son’s memory as she allows herself to be the center of a contingent of anti-American groups prancing and capering at Crawford.
And the moral depravity of so-called “modern journalism” is fully exposed by their complicity in showcasing her and hiding the contradictory nature of her statements months ago with her statements today.
And if you don’t think Saddam’s Iraq has nothing to do with worldwide Islamo-fascism, then you are just as deluded as the pitiful Cindy.
Darleen (f20213) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:03 amBTW
My grandsons’ uncle is currently in Iraq.
Darleen (f20213) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:04 amEverything she said was taken out of context. The fact is she never said anything pleasant about the visit to the president. Those remarks were about a completly different trip to Seattle that she took with the other families.
So to everyone who’s been duped… you have to dig to find the truth.
Here’s what actually happened.
Do you feel like a sucker?
Don’t be so gullible!!
Roller
Roller (c0576e) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:09 amTo every Right winged republican who has though that they have the right to critize this woman. “STOP WITH THE REPUBLICAN FRAT BS” eVERY THING THAT COMES OUT OF BILL RILEYS MOUTH IS FOLLOWED LIKE A DOG ON A ROPE” When You hardcore republicans have a child, and lose a child then you can speak in critism otherwise you need to shut up because you cant understand that pain you dont have a clue!!! secondly take a look at what your leader has done to you he has sent a generation of young men and women to fight the wrong country. The only people that ever attacked us during 9/11 was the Saudi Arabians but we cant attack them because we have oil love when it comes to the saudis. LOOK AT WHAT HE HAS DONE IN THE MEAN TIME HE HAS PULLED THE EMMINET DOMAIN LAW THROUGH THE COURTS WHICH MEANS HIM AND HIS FRIENDS CAN TAKE YOUR LAND IF THEY LIKE IT ENOUGH. Think people think There is a reason why George Washington didnt like the ideal of Political parties- they lead people around with lies for gain “Think people , Think people, Think!!!! we are losing children for the lack there of….
mr Tye (0f4734) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:23 am“She has great courage to grieve so in public and to relive this loss over and over.”
That pretty much strikes to the heart of why a lot of people on the left support Sheehan, i.e. 1) showings of grief are therapeutic not only for the aggrieved but also for their supporters – and therefore the more public and often, the better. Here comes core issue #2:
“she’s the only one who can ask these questions and you feel justified in questioning her?! Who are you? What’s your stake in all of this? Think about it.”
2) The other part of the attraction for many Sheehan supporters is the sense that here at last is a debate so charged with righteous emotion that one can make general statements and dismiss critics based on their perceived moral standing rather than forming and defending a position purely on its own merits.
Therefore noone is going to budge on this, because both sides are speaking different languages.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:27 amThe fact is she never said anything pleasant about the visit to the president.
Not true. Read the actual article.
Patterico (756436) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:34 amAlso, Roller: note that I quote the bit about the trip to Seattle in the post.
That doesn’t mean she didn’t say anything pleasant or positive about her meeting with Bush.
She may not have changed her position on the war, but she has changed her attitude about the President’s behavior in the meeting with her. The media ought to report it.
Patterico (756436) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:37 amFrom 127-
“The fact is she never said anything pleasant about the visit to the president”
From The Reporter–
“We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us,” Pat said.
Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting…
“I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.”
Gee, sounds like the visit went just horribly.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/12/2005 @ 8:05 amAfter reading a few more of the posts, I am more convinced than ever that the libs in this country are by and large idiots, or flat out liars.
What ever happened to the conservative Dems? I miss ya, man!
Greg (e5d4c1) — 8/12/2005 @ 8:12 am“Gee, sounds like the visit went just horribly.”
Scott, you shouldn’t quote the husband when talking about what cindy feels.
[Actus: As the portion of his comment that you quoted indicates, he was talking about how the visit actually went. The husband’s comments are relevant to that. They are therefore also relevant to the accuracy of her current description of how that visit went. — Patterico]
actus (a5f574) — 8/12/2005 @ 8:37 am“Scott, you shouldn’t quote the husband when talking about what cindy feels.”
Actus: good thing I also quoted Cindy in that post, huh?
Guess you just didn’t care for what she had to say…
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/12/2005 @ 8:51 ammr Tye-
“LOOK AT WHAT [Bush] HAS DONE IN THE MEAN TIME HE HAS PULLED THE EMMINET DOMAIN LAW THROUGH THE COURTS WHICH MEANS HIM AND HIS FRIENDS CAN TAKE YOUR LAND IF THEY LIKE IT ENOUGH.”
This goes against my better judgment, but here goes – if I could ~prove~ to you that your statement above is 180 degrees from the truth, would it change ~any~ of your feelings about Bush/Republicans/etc?
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/12/2005 @ 8:56 am“Actus: good thing I also quoted Cindy in that post, huh?”
Of course. Its just weird to see the husband being quoted as speaking for the wife. Really all he said about the wife is that she respects the office of the president. Talk about damning by faint praise. I don’t know why that quote keeps on getting repeated.
actus (a5f574) — 8/12/2005 @ 8:56 amFamily of Howard Dean Pleads: Please Stop, Howard!
Looks like Howard Dean’s family has taken a cue from Cindy Sheehan’s relatives. Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Howard Dean, we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release.
WuzzaDem (af7df9) — 8/12/2005 @ 9:02 am“Its just weird to see the husband being quoted as speaking for the wife”
Sorry if seeing that gave you the heebeejeebies, but as Patterico has already explained, it’s called supporting evidence (offered in addition to Cindy’s own words about the meeting).
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/12/2005 @ 9:03 amCasey Sheehan is dead and that is a tragedy. But, he died in the combat uniform of his country, fighting to save his comrades in arms. He didn’t have to do it, he wanted to do it. Casey volunteered to take up arms and confront the enemy. He died like the proud man he was, he died a hero, and he went to his god like a solider.
His mother fails to understand Casey’s decision to defend his country and his fellow soldiers, nor does she respect his honorable death in the cause of freedom. But, her transparently self-serving posturing brings shame and disgrace on her alone.
Casey’s courage and honor shine brightly, and nothing Cindy says or does can besmirch his good name. She ought to be proud of her son, and ashamed of herself for using his death as a soapbox for her twisted partisan caterwauling.
Black Jack (ee3eb6) — 8/12/2005 @ 9:22 amYou are right. It is too bad this woman has turned to emotional bitterness. The liberal media’s use of her “protest” belittles the sacrifice of her son. The fact is: the war against the terrorist’s is now being fought in Iraq and the mid-east. USCENTCOM with it’s components and standing Joint Task Forces and in partnership with many nations (with reps at CENTRAL COMMAND) are engaging the terrorists who are recruiting all over the world to kill innocent people. The terrorists have commands in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa, etc. These are the front lines. These terrorist networks need to be dismantled. Further bringing democracy to Iraq is also a good building block for the safety of the mid-east and to protect our country. Stay Informed: centcom.mil
John Miller (a9eb8b) — 8/12/2005 @ 9:35 am“it’s called supporting evidence (offered in addition to Cindy’s own words about the meeting).”
Is it also supporting evidence that the husband, and his side of the family are bush supporters?
actus (a5f574) — 8/12/2005 @ 9:36 amAn excellent and well-written expose. I will return to your site often. Thanks.
Eric John Nies (2bdc1b) — 8/12/2005 @ 9:55 am“Is it also supporting evidence that the husband, and his side of the family are bush supporters?”
If it is, then by the same criteria Cindy also was a “Bush supporter”, something that hardly aids the agenda you and the merry bunch in the MSM are trying to push here.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/12/2005 @ 10:14 am“If it is, then by the same criteria Cindy also was a “Bush supporter”,”
What same criteria?
actus (d931b7) — 8/12/2005 @ 10:29 amI can not begin to imagine the mothers pain; however, her son volunteered to join the armed services. I do not know Casey Sheehan’s true beliefs about the war; however, based on the media and his mothers accounts, I understand he was vocally opposed to the war. If this is true, his death probably saved the lives of other service members. My husband is a former Marine Corp infantry officer and I assure you he wouldn’t have wanted this guy (Casey) going to battle with him. If he was as vocal about his position as his mother makes it sound, I doubt his fellow soldiers wanted him to be part of their squad. He was a danger to other soldiers. T Hurley
T Hurley (920145) — 8/12/2005 @ 10:38 am“LOOK AT WHAT [Bush] HAS DONE IN THE MEAN TIME HE HAS PULLED THE EMMINET DOMAIN LAW THROUGH THE COURTS WHICH MEANS HIM AND HIS FRIENDS CAN TAKE YOUR LAND IF THEY LIKE IT ENOUGH.”
Mr. Tye,
I don’t understand why you tell us to think when you cleary are incapable.
Before you reply to this, do a little homework on the internet and you will find that it was the liberal judges (along with the moderates) who votes in favor of the corporations in the Emminet Domain case. It was the 3 conservative judges who dissented.
Brad (9cf478) — 8/12/2005 @ 10:51 amRobert:
You painted a very complete picture of your case, but it has key flaws with respect both to the war and to Sheehan.
Re the war, specifically sanctions and inspections:
“The economic sanctions against Saddam were not being complied with. France was routinely violating them as the Oil for Food Scandal shows. Hence, the sanctions were not an effective response to Saddam’s regime. The inspectors were accompanied by minders. It was a shell game. There was no way to have any degree of confidence in the findings of the inspectors. We had no way of knowing whether the inspectors were not finding wmd because the wmd had already been destroyed or because Saddam had hidden it too well for the inspectors to find it. The inspectors were only let back in when we had 150,000 soldiers on a carrier in the region. We could not keep them there indefinitely. As soon as the soldiers went back home, Saddam would have kicked the inspectors back out. There was, therefore, no acceptable status quo to leave in place.”
There was nothing preventing us from keeping a carrier in the Gulf for a matter of years or even decades. It would have given us readiness for a variety of conflicts, instead of overcommitting us to a single theater. How is our commitment of ground troops to a war of indefinite length somehow a more expedient “status quo”?
The fact that a thorough inspection would have taken extensive time and resources is obvious, but how much less time, and how much fewer resources it would have taken, with the cost shared more widely, than what we are now inextricably committed to! That’s why it is NOT just pacifists, but moderates and pragmatists, who oppose this war.
…and we could have punished France more effectively for its misconduct if we had a united front against them, arguably – but the war didn’t bring France into account nearly to the extent it should have.
The war was sold as a quicker and easier alternative to the laborious inspection/sanction process, but such a process was in fact quicker, cheaper, aggressive, and would have always kept the military option close. We knew this – no 20/20 hindsight here, and so did many if not most of Bush’s military advisors. This was BLATANTLY ignored.
What is maddening is that Bush was nonetheless hot to trot in with the dressed-down, semi-crippled-from-the-start invasion that followed. In any version of America that recognizes its own founding principles, this will never fly, and you will not browbeat citizens into uniform silence with your warped ideas of patriotism.
Re Sheehan:
“Her loss does not excuse her actions or her speech. Other people have suffered equal losses and did not choose to act the way that she has. Hence, they are proof that this was not necessary.”
Your logic, that the mass of grieving families who have kept silent (and not all have, by any means) logically prove the rightness of silence in the aftermath of loss, is absurd. It presumes the existence of one right answer, and then blithely identifies your precise views as that right answer.
biwah (f5ca22) — 8/12/2005 @ 11:05 am“What same criteria?”
A better way to put it would have been “what criteria”?
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/12/2005 @ 11:15 am[…] Patterico’s Pontifications » L.A. Times Joins the Crowd in Distorting the Cindy Sheehan Story […]
soulhuntre >> core/dump » Casey Sheehan, used as a tool… (1d0ae5) — 8/12/2005 @ 11:19 am[…] Yes, her son’s death is a tragedy. But, it is no more a tragedy for her than it is for the families of the other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers that have died in Iraq. However, she seems content to cash in her grief for the media exposure that she’s gaining. It just feels … cheap. I also don’t see what she hopes to accomplish with her meeting with the President. Mr. Bush has not shied away from other grieving families, but a death in the family should not be a guarantee of an overnight stay at the Crawford ranch. She has met the president before, but, according to Patterico’s Pontifications, is a little amnesic about it (don’t want to quote the whole thing here, go read all of it. […]
bitweever.com » Blog Archive » Cindy Sheehan (31ff1f) — 8/12/2005 @ 11:33 am“A better way to put it would have been “what criteria”? ”
People are getting really angry and irrational at cindy. Stephanie miller had some quotes from the fox-heads this morning. Amazing.
actus (a5f574) — 8/12/2005 @ 11:34 amActus
What the hell???? Why is Cindy’s husband… CASEY SHEEHAN’S FATHER to be dismissed by you? Is HIS feelings about his son and his son’s service lesser than pitiful Cindy’s??
Good lord… everytime I think the Left has gone as low as it can, I’m proved wrong. From attacking the Roberts’ preschoolers to dismissing the FATHER of Casey Sheehan because he is dignified about his grief and not some pathetic marionette for the Left….
disgusting… simply disgusting
Darleen (f20213) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:17 pm“What the hell???? Why is Cindy’s husband… CASEY SHEEHAN’S FATHER to be dismissed by you? Is HIS feelings about his son and his son’s service lesser than pitiful Cindy’s??”
Darlene, Cindy Sheehan is rejecting all the comments from her family that don’t line up with her thinking. It’s all very cult-like — the anti-war radicals seem to be isolating her from her family so that they can ride this rocket as far as it can take them, regardless of what damage they’ll do the Cindy in the meantime.
Angry in T.O. (4d3553) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:27 pm“From attacking the Roberts’ preschoolers to dismissing the FATHER of Casey Sheehan because he is dignified about his grief and not some pathetic marionette for the Left….”
yes. attacking a parent of a dead soldier is disgusting.
actus (a5f574) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:27 pm“People are getting really angry and irrational at cindy.”
Yes, contrary opinions certainly can be a frightening concept – better pull the blankie back over your head and hum loudly.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:30 pmActus
Do you have reading comp problems or has the meth you smoke caused enough holes in your brain you have shortterm memory loss?
Cindy is a pitiful because she is, at best, so twisted in her grief that’s all I or anyone here can feel for her. The anti-American (including the anti-Semitic Crawford “Peace” House) Left who are using her cannot expect to use Casey Sheehan’s dead body as an inviolable shield behind which they can attack with impunity Casey Sheehan’s family, the vast majority of families that have both lost a son or daughter in Iraq and support the war, and those of us with family members CURRENTLY in Iraq and support the war.
The indecency of you, actus, and the anti-American Left is breathtaking.
Darleen (f20213) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:40 pmI just figured it out –
Actus = Maureen Dowd
Think about it
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:44 pm“The indecency of you, actus, and the anti-American Left is breathtaking.”
If not casey, there 1800, no, thousands more dead bodies from which one can criticize this war. There’s no way the wingers can smear all those parents.
actus (a5f574) — 8/12/2005 @ 12:55 pmACTUS
PAY ATTENTION…I know its hard for you
Cindy Sheehans sentiments ARE NOT SHARED by the majority of family members that have ALSO lost sons or daughters
So if there is “smearing” being done it is by YOU and YOUR ILK that have no problems with supporting the troops as long as they shoot their officers
Ironic, isn’t it, that Cindy is being used by the people who support the Islamist terrorists who killed her son.
I think she needs psychological help.
You? Leave the country, please, chickendove
Darleen (f20213) — 8/12/2005 @ 1:01 pmTell me how many of you folks have lost a loved one in the ultimate sacrifice for this country? Do you comprehend the pain she feels? You may not agree with Mrs. Sheehan camping out in Crawford but she has every right to express her views. Last time I looked we still lived in a democracy. Please remind me again why we are in Iraq- was it for WMD? or to topple Saddam? or to spread democracy in the Middle East? True Conservatives do not believe in Nation Building. Tell me who is better off now that we are in Iraq? The 1800+ dead soldiers (not to mention the thousand more maimed for life)? The thousands of dead civilian Iraqis? Do you believe the average Iraqi citizen feels better off (they have less safe water, electricity and infrastructure in place than when Saddam was in power)?
It is a plain and simple total foreign policy disaster. My prayers are with Mrs. Sheehan and every other soldiers family who have lost loved ones in Iraq. May this National Nightmare end soon.
Sincerely,
A Libertarian friend in Pennsylvania
Ron Paul's Rangers (ae2079) — 8/12/2005 @ 1:30 pmyeah actus,
which part of “we are 100% righteous, blessed, and have a mandate to rule the world, and you’re a traitorous, illiterate, drug-addicted piece of commie dog crap” did you not understand?
jeez louise…
biwah (f5ca22) — 8/12/2005 @ 1:54 pm“I think she needs psychological help.”
Yes. the foxnews ludovico technique!
actus (a5f574) — 8/12/2005 @ 2:11 pmThe Grief Jackels
Over at Patterico, the DU seems to have crawled into the comments section of a post about the LA Times’ left wing biased reporting on Cindy Sheehan. I just love leftists, they think so clearly. They really do grasp complex
Right on the Left Beach (af7df9) — 8/12/2005 @ 3:13 pmThere are pictures of Cindy an President Bush online, she had them on her webpage for awhile then removed them .
I am sorry for her loss, but she doesnt speak for all the military . Her son signed up for this, not once but twice knowing the risks. He is a hero .
Pepahearted15 (a9eb8b) — 8/12/2005 @ 4:08 pmGod Bless Cindy, may she find some peace . But in this she is wrong.
In response to Max…
“Take off the rose colored glasses and put yourself in her shoes, or the shoes of the troops. They’re trying to tell us something when they refuse missions (remember the crew that did?). And then they get in trouble when they do follow orders (Abu Ghraib – the peons took the fall for following orders, but nobody higher?) There are people going unwillingly to Iraq, what of them? Why are we asking the Nat’l Guard to carry the load? Think people. Does this really make sense to you?”
I find it interesting that you fail to also mention the many soldiers that are reinlisting to go back to Iraq because they believe our fight over there is a nobel cause. You fail to mention the brave men and women that signed up for the military AFTER the start of the war in Iraq because they believe that our military can do much to help the Iraqi people. You fail to mention the numerous soldiers currently in Iraq who believe the MSM doesn’t do enough to mention the good that is happening over there. Granted its not a walk in the park and it shouldn’t be painted as such, but you my friend ARE mentioning ONE side of the story.
I believe the MSM simply isn’t doing enough to get both sides out to the public. I DON’T mean simply start printing happy-go-lucky, blowing sunshine up all of our a**es pieces, I DO mean BOTH sides. Talk about the insurgency, but also talk about the buildings, power plants, and roads that are being reconstructed. Talk about the fact that women are still being opressed and shunned, but that women are starting to come out of their shells to speak out for their rights and how women are being included in the process of writing the new constitution. Talk about the fact that many jobs are starting to pay a higher salary, but many of these jobs come with a higher risk due to the insurgency. Now this is not to say that the msm NEVER writes about both sides, but it sure seems that the msm tends to write a lot more negative than positive, and a more balanced approach would be be wonderful.
Karen
Karen (acf4ae) — 8/12/2005 @ 4:12 pm“Talk about the fact that women are still being opressed and shunned,”
Still since the invasion?
actus (a5f574) — 8/12/2005 @ 4:56 pmAirbrushing Visible History
Earlier today, Red State's Erick Erickson wrote a piece in which he referred to professional grieving Mom Cindy Sheehan as a "media whore" -- a rather common designation for someone who appears to be using her "access to [me…
protein wisdom (5ba4b4) — 8/12/2005 @ 5:23 pmbiwah,
Yours is the case with key flawed arguments.
It is one thing to have soldiers liberating Iraq. It is something else to keep them there indefinitely without any ad terminous doing nothing at all. The latter would not be politically possible for a very good reason: it makes no sense (economically, militarily, politically, …).
The fact is that we could have spent years and years inspecting, but we still would not have had any certainty regarding the findings of the inspections. If we could have had some certainty by simply extending the inspection process longer, that would have been the thing to do. However, it is crystal clear even to leftists (whatever you may call yourself), that even with significantly more time spent on the inspection process we could not have any degree of confidence regarding the findings. Hence, the inspections were not an effective way of determining whether or not Saddam had wmd.
There was no effective way to punish France for violating the economic sanctions imposed against Iraq. They were not disposed to change their policy to work with the United States. The sanctions were, as all honest, informed journalists will tell you, falling apart.
What I said was that the overwhelming majority of parents of fallen soldiers did not act the way that Sheehan has. Hence, it is not necessary for her to act that way. Catch the key word: ACT that way. They are not ACTING that way. Even If they have a disagreement about the war, they have chosen to ACT differently than Sheehan. The point stands as written: Other parents of fallen soldiers suffered the same loss and are not ACTING the way that Sheehan did. Hence, the loss is not an efficacious CAUSE of ACTING like that. It is not her disagreement with policy or her grief that I am commenting on here; rather, I am pointing out that there is not a significant mathematical correlation between suffering that loss and ACTING like she is. No doubt there are other parents of fallen soldiers who disagreed with the war. However, they are grieving privately without stepping over the bodies of their sons and daughters to promote a left wing political agenda held long before the war. Whether the majority of parents of fallen soldiers share Sheehan’s namecalling, assumption of ill will … is dubious at best. Most likely, the majority of parents of fallen soldiers think that the war was/is a necessary evil. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of them do not wish us to cut and run, abandoning Iraq to the terrorists which is what Sheehan is trying to pressure Bush into doing. No rational American believes that the best thing to do is to immediately completely withdraw from Iraq. Yet this is Sheehan’s position (along with her communist friends and Michael Moore…). Therefore, she is exerting public pressure to do something that is quite obviously not in America’s best interests. Allowing her to push that agenda and to promote that cut and run philosophy emboldens the enemy weakens political support to see the war through (which even if you disagree with the war, you must admit is the correct or best course of action). Cutting and running does not become the right course of action because Casey was murdered by terrorists.
We all know that the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush. They are there in the field. If they had felt that Iraq was a complete mistake and that we should cut and run, they would have voted for Kerry. They knew that Bush was not going to change his policy after being reelected. He made that crystal clear. Therefore, it is correct to say that their vote reflects their affirmation of Bush and the liberation of Iraq.
The alternative of hoping for the best (since the inspections did not tell us for sure whether Saddam still had wmd and since the sanctions were not working but being systematically violated) and taking Saddam at his word is not a logical or rational course of action. There were two primary arguments for liberating Iraq. The first argument was that since Saddam had possessed and utilized wmd on more than a dozen documented occasions and since we had no proof that Saddam had destroyed them (and since he had no motive to do so in private), it was logical to believe that Saddam still had wmd. Stockpiles could have been made again since his scientists still had the know how. This belief was shared almost universally in the Western World. Obviously, were such wmd used in attacks by terrorists against America, we could suffer losses that number in the hundreds of thousands. Second, what types of countries are most likely to produce terrorists? Typically, the countries that produce more terrorists are not democracies. Moreover, democracies initiate wars (remembering that Iraq invaded Kuwait and since Saddam violated the cease fire terms, the war was simply a continuation of the Gulf War) less frequently than tyrannical dictator led countries.
No war goes perfectly. There are casualties and missteps in every war. Nevertheless, when one compares casualty rates of Iraq with say Viet Nam the point is clear: this war has produced far fewer American casualties than Viet Nam …
Robert (ef42ee) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:00 pmEurope and Japan were pointed out as disasters after World War II. However, we see healthy democracies in Europe and Japan is clearly a stable democracy. The assumption that because there are setbacks now in Iraq, therefore, it will turn out badly is one which proves too much. It proves that Japan and France and Germany would not be the stable democracies they are. Therefore, one could tread softly before writing off Iraq as a hopeless quagmire.
The time for being able to patriotically disagree with the war and try to prevent it has passed. Now, all Americans who love their country must and will support the war effort since we cannot cut and run without dire consequences. Anyone who acts like Sheehan and calls for a full withdrawal immediately is demonstrating a greater love for leftist ideology than for their country. On the other hand, any constructive ideas to improve the prosecution of the war are evidence of a deep love for one’s country.
If I could say one thing to Cindy Sheehan, it would be to suggest that she read the post to her from Mohammed of Iraq the Model. More here.
Patterico (756436) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:19 pmI notice the left is childishly fond of calling Bush a liar. The only lying that has been well proven about the Iraq war was done by Joseph Wilson, who was the first one to really start calling Bush a liar by questioning the famouse “16 words” of his State of the Union Address where he referred to Iraq attempting to buy Uranium in Africa.
Problem was, virtually everything Wilson claimed turned out to be a lie, as established clearly by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Yet somehow, the “Bush lied, people died” meme that started with a real liar just keeps gathering steam. There may not be a perpetual motion machine, but rumors and false accusations certainly don’t need any facts to sustain them!
No, the fact that we haven’t found the expected WMD doesn’t prove that Bush lied about them. All available intelligence said Iraq had them. The Iraqis themselves were sure SOMEONE had them! That alone makes the charge that Bush lied to get us into the war indefensible.
Besides, we still don’t know that the WMD weren’t there. All we know is that we haven’t found them yet. This could mean a)there never were any b) they were all destroyed c) they were all hidden d) they were all moved, or e) there were never all that many, and Saddam had already used them before we got there. Only option a seems to support the angry left, so they willfully disregard any evidence for the other possibilities.
So when you have people screaming about how Bush lied when they don’t know any such thing, then you know who the real liars are.
Tom Henderson (f52586) — 8/12/2005 @ 10:03 pm“No, the fact that we haven’t found the expected WMD doesn’t prove that Bush lied about them. ”
Iraq on the record
Includes misleading statements, not statements that later turned out to be wrong.
actus (a5f574) — 8/12/2005 @ 10:44 pmPresident Bush has been very careful about putting the spotlight on those in bad situations. He is compassionate and acring and doesn’t have to put on a public display about. The fact that he will not meet with this lady tells me he sees through the no win situation. If he meets with her, she will not be satified and the left (and their news organiztions) will have a field with anything that he says. He has met with her and she since has stated she disagrees with him on his policies. She has made he opinion known. Get over it.
George (1d6514) — 8/13/2005 @ 7:25 amI am glad the touchy feely press was not around during the Revolutionary War. I guess Benedict Arnold would be called a misunderstood peacenik today.
Cindy Sheehan is the ultimate patriot.She Americas 2nd Rosa Parks bringing attention and focus to the lie of a President who lack the capacity to tell the truth and live within the boundries of the law of this land!! He ‘s thinks, acts and reasons like a pathological criminal!!! The fact that he has followers is no suprise, so did his idol Hitler!! He understands manipualtion!
Roy (1d6514) — 8/13/2005 @ 11:35 amI am sorry for her son & I am sorry for Ms. Sheehan. I am not quite as sorry for her as I might be. Part of my sorrow for her has been diverted into a channel of repugnance by the way she’s behaving.
I was glad & relieved to embark on a military adventure when I was 17 years old. I was a high school dropout & had been moping around the house in a depression for over a year. I knew by then that I was in serious trouble as far as prospects in life were concerned. I didn’t know how to get a job & my confidence level was so low that I was beyond trying. The manager at the nearby store had looked at snaggle-toothed, gawky me & snickered when I had gathered my small bit of courage & haltingly asked if he had a job & that had destroyed me.
But here was this recruiter who didn’t laugh, didn’t roll his eyes or curl his lip with disdain. My Navy recruitment officer in Houston back in 1960 was blunt about the wages, something like “You’ll never get rich, boy,” & a chart of the pay scale was handed to me. But I wasn’t after big money; I was after a life; I was after something to be. I will admit the recruiter did not stress the possibility of danger, but I had seen a lot of war movies & knew that if any shooting started I would be expected to put myself at risk. I was young but not so dumb that I didn’t know that.
So her son probably knew but I guess Ms. Sheehan didn’t know that her son stood a chance of being killed by dint of joining the Army. No, that was an aspect of military life she had never contemplated. Or maybe she believed that her son’s death could only happen during a war of which she approved.
Ms. Sheehan I am sorry for you, but the President did not steal your son from your arms. Your son walked into a recruitment office & must have known, even if you do not, what that meant.
Ms. Sheehan I am sorry for you but your son was not a victim. Your son is a hero. Your son died so you can shed tears on CNN & have a retinue of reporters follow you & so you can be famous for awhile & draw a lot of media attention & be fawned over by those who are against the war.
Ms. Sheehan I am sorry for you but there are others who are pleased, although they will not say so – yes, happy that you have presented them with a perfect storm of a mother to help them blow away & sink Iraq like a scuttled ship. They care nothing for your dead son but they will shed tears – oh yes, a river of hypocritical, sanctimonious tears from avid, eager eyes upon your head & breast & you will shed tears on them, too. And everyone will be covered with tears on CNN & in the pages of the New York Times & probably on NPR & perhaps even Aljazeera. Fame is a wraith that whispers in our ear. Fame is seductive.
Ms. Sheehan I am sorry for you but when you tire of camping in Texas will you pitch your tent outside the door of the Iranian delegation to the United Nations? If you do your new-found friends will be nowhere around. Will you hold up the photographs of your son outside the Syrian embassy in Washington & shed some tears onto their doorstep? If you do you will find that those who promote your grief better than Barnum promoted freak shows will be suddenly against you.
Ms. Sheehan I am sorry for you but do you realize the ones who killed your son are nodding smugly to each other & smiling & chuckling at what you do?
Grief is embracing one another in the alcove of the funeral home. Grief is choking on tears but continuing with the eulogy. Grief is the hollow resonance of dirt falling onto a coffin. Grief is reminiscing with family & friends. Grief is remembering 10 years later what their voice sounded like. Grief is as mute as an empty room. Grief is as hushed as a wreath.
Ms. Sheehan I am sorry for you.
John Moulder (1135d5) — 8/13/2005 @ 11:41 amRoy, answer me this: are you a real, live Bushitler-moonbat, or a right-winger parodying one? These days, it’s tough telling the two apart.
Xrlq (ca1ad5) — 8/13/2005 @ 12:16 pmWow! John Moulder, that about says it all.
Jackie Warner (95d9f3) — 8/13/2005 @ 12:19 pmI wrote before about my feelings and told of my gransons feelings, he is serving in Iraq. I just finish reading some comments and as I said before it saddens me so much how people are using this to enhance their hatred for Pres. Bush and continue their anti war agenda. I wish they would all agree on one thing the morale of our fighting men is being brought down and we are deviding the U.S. and feeding more and more food to the terriosts and making laughing stocks out of our brave soldiers and American people who love this country and respect the leader Pres.Bush and support the troops. Wisen up and learn to read and search the facts. Hussen was the bigest wmd weapon and we are blessed to be rid of him and his family of murderers.
nancy traeger (0f4734) — 8/13/2005 @ 2:47 pmThanks Jackie Warner:
Ms. Sheehan cries on cue. Ms. Sheehan waits for the best camera angle before kneeling down in front of the mock grave near Crawford. Ms. Sheehan is becoming more & more media-savvy & in her tent outside Crawford after the newshounds have gone to bed Ms. Sheehan polishes her presentation before laying her sorrowing self down to sleep.
Casey Sheehan’s grave is a lonely, deserted place of silence. There are no video cameras there, no microphones, no crowds jostling for a better view.
In dark rooms in Fallujah they take heart & vow to Allah to shoot more wicked American soldiers in the face & yearn for Paradise.
In Iran & Syria their grins widen as they watch Aljazeera.
Osama bin Laden in his hideout in the mountains dismisses the messenger who brings such strange good news, strokes his beard & marvels & thanks Allah for Ms. Sheehan.
O Fame, you are truly the most seductive of all the wraiths that haunt our psyche.
Ms. Sheehan I am sorry for you.
John Moulder (1135d5) — 8/13/2005 @ 5:01 pm“Ms. Sheehan is becoming more & more media-savvy”
One day she’ll be as good as the president. Maybe then they’ll meet.
actus (a5f574) — 8/13/2005 @ 6:26 pmOne day she’ll be as good as the president. Maybe then they’ll meet.
Maybe they already met.
Patterico (756436) — 8/13/2005 @ 6:42 pm“Maybe they already met.”
Can’t be that hard then.
actus (a5f574) — 8/13/2005 @ 6:48 pmCan’t be that necessary either.
Patterico (756436) — 8/13/2005 @ 6:55 pm“Can’t be that necessary either.”
Why is that, is he expected to act the same way again?
actus (a5f574) — 8/13/2005 @ 7:51 pmWhen you pick up the newspaper and read an article on an ongoing story, the details reported previously are not repeated. Newspapers assume that the reader has been following the story. They do that so as not to annoy the readers who have been following the story. New readers are expected to make some effort to catch up.
When Ms. Sheehan became “newsworthy”, the information about the first meeting was reported, as were her motivations for seeking a new meeting. To repeat the information given in all previous articles, in every article, would be ridiculous.
She is doing what she feels to be the right thing, and it doesn’t matter if her family members or anyone else agrees with her. It also doesn’t matter if her actions are misguided or perfectly appropriate. What matters is that she is speaking up, which is precisely what her son died for – her right to express herself.
A lot of soldiers volunteered to fight this battle based on the belief that the WMD’s existed.Too much evidence points to not only no WMD’s, but foreknowledge that the WMD message was manipulative and contrived. (Yes, I know, some of you are going to say ‘back that up’, to which I say go read the archives of every major newspaper, the congressional record, etc.)I have a huge amount of respect for those soldiers for having the courage to volunteer during wartime, and I appreciate their committment to our freedoms. But to say that Ms. Sheehan doesn’t have the right to speak out, or that she is disgracing her son by speaking her mind, is to say that what those soldiers are fighting for isn’t worth the fight.
Every person responding to the original post here is exercising the right to express themselves. Nothing requires them to also read reporting from multiple sources so as to mitigate the “media bias” and nothing requires them to closely examine their own biases to see if they themselves are making an effort to be fair. This is what makes High School debate teams so valuable – being forced to argue a viewpoint you don’t believe in means you have to set aside your biases and honestly try to see the opposing view. It’s an eye opening experience. I recommend it.
rikki (1d6514) — 8/13/2005 @ 8:31 pmFor anyone who wants to misread the “respect for soldiers who volunteered in wartime”, yes, I also respect those who volunteered in peacetime. And those who refused missions because they believed the missions were misguided, and those who went to jail for the same reason. All those people did what they felt was right and it doesn’t matter if I agree with them or not.
As an American Citizen, I believe we all have a duty to speak up, to pay attention, and to hold our government accountable. Too often I think we forget that politicians are EMPLOYEES. We hired them. They work for us, they need to answer to us.
rikki (1d6514) — 8/13/2005 @ 8:51 pmWhy is that, is he expected to act the same way again?
I’d expect he would always be sympathetic and sincere — just like she said he was back in June 2004.
Patterico (756436) — 8/13/2005 @ 9:20 pm“I’d expect he would always be sympathetic and sincere — just like she said he was back in June 2004. ”
Nothing to worry about then.
actus (a5f574) — 8/13/2005 @ 9:27 pmExcept the possibility that she’ll lie about it — again.
Patterico (756436) — 8/13/2005 @ 9:35 pmDoes she have an explanation as to why she’s more special than the other families, that she alone deserves two meetings with the Commander in Chief? If she does, I haven’t heard it yet.
Patterico (756436) — 8/13/2005 @ 9:36 pm“Except the possibility that she’ll lie about it — again.”
Should be harder now.
“Does she have an explanation as to why she’s more special than the other families, that she alone deserves two meetings with the Commander in Chief? If she does, I haven’t heard it yet. ”
I can see two of more possibilities. (1) she’s not more more special, and everyone is entitled to what she’s asking for. (2) the idea that she’s not representative of familes of the deceased that are out there, so it doesn’t set that much of a precedent to meet with all the anti-war mothers that feel the way she does.
actus (a5f574) — 8/13/2005 @ 10:03 pmThe bullshit fake outrage is just so obvious in this case. The President does good by just staying away from that crap.
Shredstar (e73f56) — 8/13/2005 @ 10:22 pmI notice that someone (“Rikki”) has said:
> Too much evidence points to not only no WMD’s, but foreknowledge that the WMD message was manipulative and contrived. (Yes, I know, some of you are going to say ‘back that up’, to which I say go read the archives of every major newspaper, the congressional record, etc.)
So you want to make the statements, but you don’t want to back them up. Instead, you want those of “us” who are skeptical to try to back up your statements.
Sorry. Accusations of the President lying are not automatically to be accepted. You want to accuse him, back it up yourself. The “actus” poster at least posted a link to a PDF. Granted, it was produced by the opposition political party, and therefore only credible in combination with other evidence, but at least it’s something.
You would think the left would want to avoid the subject of lying for a while.
You do remember Bill Clinton being caught in multiple lies? The favorite “defense” was, “It was all about sex! Everybody lies about sex!”
You might remember when William Safire wrote a column saying that, based on all the evidence, Hillary Clinton was a “congenital liar”. If you don’t remember that, you might remember that Bill Clinton famously talked about punching him in the nose for calling his wife a liar.
Then we had Al Gore, who told so many mistruths and exaggerations in his campaign for president that even the network news anchors were doing stories questioning why Gore kept telling whoppers.
Ah. Those were the days. And then we had a new president. And it appeared that, whatever else President Bush would be called, it wouldn’t be “Liar.” Until Joseph Wilson piped up and accused him of lying to try to manipulate evidence, and suddenly it was a given that the President lied in his State of the Union address, which of course was far more serious than the lying that Bill Clinton had done.
Except that it was Wilson who was lying. Now in most cases, when the person accusing someone of lying is found to be a liar, their accusations are no longer considered credible. But in this case, the “Bush lied, people died” crowd never missed a beat. They don’t NEED proof that Bush lied, they already KNOW he did.
And so we come back to that link claiming the president lied, provided by “actus.” The problem with this document is that it ignores that every “misleading statement” made was based on available intelligence at the time. Most people understand that if you say something that is true to the best of your knowledge, but turns out to be wrong, that IS NOT a lie. It’s called being mistaken.
Yes, the document calls out every “misleading statement” made in the run up to the Iraq war, but completely fails to show that those making the statements knew they were wrong. So even if you assume that Saddam NEVER had these WMD, and all the statements made were false, you still can’t show that the people making the statements KNEW they were false.
But that’s assuming that WMD’s NEVER existed in Iraq, which is an assumption as opposed to a fact. There are, as I mentioned before, 5 possible reasons for not finding the WMD’s in Iraq. a) There were none b) They’ve been destroyed c) They’ve been hidden d) They’ve been moved e) There were never all that many, and they were used up by the time we got there.
Of these, A is the most popular on the left. The problem with theory A is that Saddam certainly had SOME WMD’s at some point, because he USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE. Can’t use what you don’t have.
B is certainly possible. There’s no evidence of destruction of WMD’s, but there are only 2 possible reasons to destroy WMD’s: To prove to others that you’ve destroyed them, or to pretend you never had them. Since the first of those was exactly what Saddam was required to do by sanctions, and never did, any destruction of WMD’s would be to try to claim innocence, and the destruction would be kept secret. That said, I’m skeptical of destruction. Saddam would want to keep his WMD’s if he could. Unless he was okay with destroying the current stock in hope of rebuilding later…
Theory C really fits well with Saddam’s MO. We have actually found entire fighter planes hidden in the sand in Iraq. We pulled Saddam out of a spider hole. Saddam was really good at hiding things.
Theory D is actually plausible. Lots of things were moved to Syria just before the war. Maybe WMD’s were some of them. Before the last Gulf war, Saddam moved fighter planes over to Iran for “safekeeping”. Of course, Iran never gave them back, so he might prefer Syria.
Theory E is my current favorite. We know Saddam had at least some WMD’s. I can well believe he exaggerated what he had, used what little he had to make people think he had more, and has been “misleading” the world ever since. Including, apparently, most of the world’s intelligence organizations.
So which theory is true? I have no idea, but the idea that he never had WMD’s is the least convincing. Unless you’re just positive that Bush lied.
Tom Henderson (5cee26) — 8/13/2005 @ 10:40 pmTom Henderson said:
You do remember Bill Clinton being caught in multiple lies? The favorite “defense” was, “It was all about sex! Everybody lies about sex!”
And back then we thought we had it real bad!
Tom Henderson also said:
Most people understand that if you say something that is true to the best of your knowledge, but turns out to be wrong, that IS NOT a lie. It’s called being mistaken.
Does that count for MRS. Sheehan with her first visit with Bush, maybe after time she realized she was “mistaken” her and the rest of America, basicaly they screwed up they made a mistake ok there human. Will they apologize or admit there mistakes? No the bush administration is now telling the media that there original expectations of Iraq don’t seem achievable, and they are re evaluating there efforts in Iraq, sounds like to me there thinking about pulling out. Ok good, but now bush as his eye on Iran, oh boy here we go again, If we go to war with Iran I will have the same question then as I do today. Is osama in Iran? Does Iran have oil too? No Osama is’nt in Iran if he is alive he is in the safest place in the world right now, Saudi Arabi, they have a lot of oil there too, but there are friend’s of our’s so that will never happen. How many hijackers were saudi arabain? I think it was around 15 of the 19. Iran has nuclear weapons that they plan on using against the world, this sounds familiar. Don’t you think if Iran had nuclear weapons they would hurry up and use them on us before we come after them. There is many other countries in the world were leader’s our murdering there people in different ways and would like to get there hands on “weapons of mass destructions”. How many Americans have to die to save the world from evil people, it would take decades to even try and after all that you would have to start all over again from where you first started because by then Iraq would have another evil leader 40 years later. Lets pull our troops out just to send them back again to Iran. I can’t wait for bush’s presidentency to be over I don’t care if he or she is repulican or demorcrat as long as he or she does’nt have any links with bush’s family.
Mike (ee3eb6) — 8/14/2005 @ 4:02 amCertainly you guys seem to want to believe that Ms Sheehans’ attitude has changed since the visit – that’s the thrust of the “pontification”, right? But this article was published at about that time, contains a lot of quotes (unlike the gooey reporting you love so much), and paints a picture quite consistent with what’s going on now.
Richard (182879) — 8/14/2005 @ 9:04 pmhttp://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=105971
Richard:
You have misread the date. Your article is a column published last month.
Patterico (756436) — 8/14/2005 @ 9:45 pmPatterico made a good last point. There is just no justifiable argument as to why the President must meet with her again.
What if they do and then another person demands the same?
In fact, the President doesn’t even have to meet with them in the first place. It is just his choice to do so.
I am sure the people who hate Bush would only agree with a televised high profile meeting, with the grieving mother giving the President a piece of her mind. But I go back to the point in question. If she is allowed to meet the President again, why can’t someone else camp and follow the President around and demand also to meet with him?
It would become a circus (more than it already is) if anyone camped outside where the President is would be given an audience. He has already sent representatives to speak with her, but this story just seems to be one of “amusement” rather than anything else. One more attempt to pin something on the President.
Comments by the Actus user seem to focus on the fact that the President already met with her so that it would not be so hard to meet with her again.
But for what purpose? And why can’t anyone/everyone who wants to talk with the President just camp him out and have cameras trained on you?
No one can answer these questions because they don’t make any sense. But I am sure the circus will continue until it just fades and dies. Like it always does.
mb (a696b5) — 8/15/2005 @ 8:46 am“What if they do and then another person demands the same?”
I thought the claim was that sheehan was a vast minority of mothers. So others won’t be claiming the same. But if they do, well, the vacation will have to be a few weeks shorter.
actus (a5f574) — 8/15/2005 @ 8:48 amThis is Dave who posted #51 and #109. I leave for Iraq in 2 days now. Just wanted to say to all that I love this forum and appreciate the people that post their thought on this. Even if you have the crazy thought that this woman is doing any good by protesting for her fallen son. I’ve been wounded 4 times while overseas and 2 of those being gunshot wounds. I’ve dealt with the worst in Iraq and also seen the best in the faces of the young over there. There are good Iraq’s who are thankful that they are now free. If I die in combat I’ve told my wife not to expect a meeting with our commander in chief. He did not hold a gun to my head and force me to join the Army. He did not force me to join the infantry or Special Forces. But he did pay me a good wage, provide free medical, free education, and a free house to raise my children in. He gave me pride in my Uniform because he did not let me stand by and watch 3000 innocent people that I swore to protect die in vein. My wife if asked to visit the president will thank him for putting the intrest of the nation above all else. There were no WMD’s but I feel good knowing that a madman is no longer boasting about killing Americans while being in charge of a large country. So don’t expect answers from the man that gave me the opportunity to serve, get paid, go to school, and raise a family. Give him thanks. Just like Casey, I choose this life. I know the chances I take. I’m sure he did to. I only wish his mother would see what she’s doing to a great American Soldier’s memory. Casey will always be remembered as a great soldier even though cindy will be remembered as an awful mother.
Dave (a9eb8b) — 8/15/2005 @ 6:32 pmMonday Night Sheehan Update
Family tensions following the death of a child often lead to divorce. In the case of Cindy Sheehan, whose ongoing vigil outside President Bush’s Texas home has become a public spectacle, her husband cited “irreconcilable differences” and pulled th…
Hyscience (715474) — 8/15/2005 @ 11:58 pmu have some very sharp articals and remarks on this site
For a bunch of fucking nazi warcriminal types
…
How many iraqis were killed?
stop staring at ur bellybuttons u selfish pricks
not an american (91c09c) — 8/17/2005 @ 8:31 am[…] […]
Ivory Power » Blog Archive » Sheehan deserves no “admiration”… (2bf00e) — 8/19/2005 @ 2:10 pmI don’t think this incident is about Cindy Sheehan’s actions. Consider those on this website’s comments who treat Ms. Sheehan as some sort of sophisticated political operative. She’s just a grieving mother, for God’s sake. Certainly, she’s caught up in the events swirling about her. But, as I say, this isn’t about Ms. Sheehan’s actions, it’s really about George Bush’s reactions to her actions. There are those among the commenters here who defend Bush for not getting caught up in this. Personally, I find it indefensible. Bush reportedly does not read newspapers or consume much media unfiltered. This refusal of his to confront an adversary (who, after all, can’t hurt him) looks increasingly to me like confused cowardice. If Bush’s political advisers are telling him to stay away from this woman because “he can’t win”, then I say, “It’s not all about winning every time.” Sometimes, it’s about rising above and realizing what is expected of the President of the United States. And I think Bush is failing miserably on this point.
Robert Anderson (07f1d5) — 8/23/2005 @ 3:02 pm[…] More than two weeks after I first complained about the omission — and five days after my complaint was expressed in an op-ed — the Los Angeles Times has finally mentioned Cindy Sheehan’s Vacaville Reporter interview on its news pages: In 2004, Sheehan was part of a group of military families that met with Bush at Ft. Lewis, Wash., near Seattle. But she has since said that she was offended by how the president handled the meeting and that her opposition to the war had intensified. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Maybe Somebody Is Reading the “Outside the Tent” Column After All (421107) — 8/26/2005 @ 6:58 amStalking The President
Mrs. Sheenan should spend her time trying to come up with ideas on how this world could get along a little better rather than stalking the President. Standing up for what you believe in is a wonderful trait. Actually working towards changes by being a part of a group is even more wonderful. I would have liked to have met her before her son died fighting for our country. I wonder what role, having to do with Keeping Peace In This World, she took then… Now that she has everyone’s attention I would like to see her in an active group that uses appropriate methods of helping to prevent wars. I am sad for her family’s loss along with the rest of the families that have lost members. What can we do to be proactive and use preventive measures to end wars?
Music -It’s Probably Me by Eric Clapton
Penny Bradford
Penny Bradford (819857) — 8/26/2005 @ 5:58 pmCarson WA
CINDY SHEEHAN IS A PUPPIT OF THE LEFT.SHE HAD EVERY INTENTION OF MAKING A SCENE AT THE “STATE OF THE UNION” THE LEFT SHOULD BE ASHAMED FOR INVITING HER..BUT THATS RIGHT THEY HAVE NO SHAME. ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS NAME CALL AND BASH BUSH..AND HEY IF THATS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO GO RIGHT AHEAD BUT DO YOU HAVE TO BASH BUSH AT FUNERALS.. YOU LIBS HAVE NO CLASS.. FUNNY HOW THESE LIBS WERE ALL AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT BUT VOTED FOR IT..NOW THEY WILL TELL SOME VOTERS IN UPCOMMING ELECTIONS THEY WERE FORCED DUE TO CIRCUMSTAMCES AND OTHER VOTERS THEY WERE FOR IT ALL ALONG..SOUNDS LIKE A FLIP FLOP TO ME…THESE LIBS WANT NOTHING ELSE BUT TO SEE US LOSE THIS WAR SO THEY CAN SAY ” WE TOLD YOU AMERICA THAT WE WERE GOING TO LOSE THIS WAR AND HAD NO REASON TO EVEN START THIS WAR” THESE LIBS CLAIM TO BE AGAINST TERRORISM BUT DO EVERYTHING TO FIGHT THE WAR EFFORT…I WONDER WHY??? FUNNY HOW WHEN YOU CALL A LIB ON THIS THEY WILL REPLY “HEY ARE YOU QUESTIONING MY PATRIOTISM” AND TO THAT I SAY “YES” I AM. THESE LIBS ARE NOTHING BUT ‘PAPER PATRIOTS’. I REMEMBER WHEN THESE SAME LIBS MADE FUN OF PEOPLE WHO PROUDLY HUNG AMERICAN FLAGS ON THERE CARS..SAYING WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THERE PATRIOTS NOW..WELL I SAY WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO PROVE THEMSELFS
FRANK PORTIGIANO (9f37aa) — 3/6/2006 @ 7:48 am