Patterico’s Pontifications » L.A. Times Joins the Crowd in Distorting the Cindy Sheehan Story

8/11/2005

L.A. Times Joins the Crowd in Distorting the Cindy Sheehan Story

Filed under: Dog Trainer, Sheehan, War — Patterico @ 7:05 am

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.

207 Comments

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.

Comment by Shredstar — 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.

Comment by actus — 8/11/2005 @ 7:18 am
Patterico,

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.

Comment by biwah — 8/11/2005 @ 8:40 am
Following 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…

Comment by Chuck — 8/11/2005 @ 8:42 am
Check 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 .
And 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…

Comment by kyle — 8/11/2005 @ 9:20 am
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.

Comment by biwah — 8/11/2005 @ 9:21 am
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.

Comment by Dave — 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. [...]

Pingback by The Anchoress » The Company She Keeps — 8/11/2005 @ 9:54 am
Dave, 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.

Comment by Leland — 8/11/2005 @ 10:15 am
Dave…did miss the part where THE PRESIDENT ALREADY MET HER????

Idiot.

Comment by thecla — 8/11/2005 @ 10:15 am
Dave,

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.

Comment by Chip O'Brien — 8/11/2005 @ 10:27 am
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…

Comment by Dave — 8/11/2005 @ 10:30 am
Dave,

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.

Comment by Chip O'Brien — 8/11/2005 @ 10:38 am
If 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.

Comment by Shredstar — 8/11/2005 @ 10:39 am
MSM 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…

Trackback by The Unalienable Right — 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.

Comment by Ken de Montigny — 8/11/2005 @ 11:11 am
Does 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.

Comment by AWG — 8/11/2005 @ 11:21 am
In 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.

Comment by Rod Stanton — 8/11/2005 @ 11:33 am
…and she thought the talk was a “gift of happiness” (quoted because those are her words).

“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.

Comment by Yo Jimbo — 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.

Comment by Scott — 8/11/2005 @ 12:09 pm
Press 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.

Comment by biwah — 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.

Comment by Scott — 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.

Comment by Scott — 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. [...]

Pingback by FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » PLEASE STOP, CINDY! — 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.

Comment by Scott — 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.

Comment by Scott — 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?
No 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.

Comment by kyle — 8/11/2005 @ 12:45 pm
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?

Comment by biwah — 8/11/2005 @ 12:47 pm
Here’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:
http://www.accuracy.org/aboutus.php

Comment by kyle — 8/11/2005 @ 12:51 pm
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.

Comment by Greg — 8/11/2005 @ 12:56 pm
Well. 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?

Comment by Tastrophe — 8/11/2005 @ 12:57 pm
Kyle:

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.

Comment by biwah — 8/11/2005 @ 12:59 pm
Blah, 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.

Comment by Dave — 8/11/2005 @ 1:06 pm
Well. 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.

Comment by Patterico — 8/11/2005 @ 1:15 pm
Please, 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.

Comment by Greg — 8/11/2005 @ 1:19 pm
How can we do anything but enjoy the ride, with tragicomic clowns like you to entertain us, Dave?

Comment by AWG — 8/11/2005 @ 1:21 pm
Biwah,

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.

Comment by Steve — 8/11/2005 @ 1:38 pm
“If it is, it sounds like they have an agenda.”

From a michelle malkin website? no way!

Comment by actus — 8/11/2005 @ 1:48 pm
The 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.

Comment by Jackie Warner — 8/11/2005 @ 1:49 pm
28-

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……

Comment by Scott — 8/11/2005 @ 1:50 pm
I 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.

Comment by steve — 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.

Comment by Scott — 8/11/2005 @ 1:53 pm
“From a michelle malkin website? no way!”

Is there more than one now?

Comment by Scott — 8/11/2005 @ 1:54 pm
Get 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.

Comment by bill — 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?

Comment by Sweetie — 8/11/2005 @ 2:20 pm
Sheehan’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 …

Trackback by Hard Starboard — 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.

Comment by actus — 8/11/2005 @ 3:00 pm
Bush 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.

Comment by David E. Bruderly — 8/11/2005 @ 3:40 pm
We 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)

Comment by mike — 8/11/2005 @ 3:55 pm
He 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.

Comment by James Bowles — 8/11/2005 @ 4:02 pm
I’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.

Comment by Dave — 8/11/2005 @ 4:02 pm
This 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.

Comment by Ron Buckman — 8/11/2005 @ 4:30 pm
Regarding the Sheehan comments.
Just 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.

Comment by Walter B — 8/11/2005 @ 4:32 pm
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.

Comment by Patricia Wonderling — 8/11/2005 @ 4:34 pm
Dave 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.

Comment by Ghost Dansing — 8/11/2005 @ 4:36 pm
Please, 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

Comment by Gail Traverso — 8/11/2005 @ 4:38 pm
We 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.

Comment by Bob Slagle — 8/11/2005 @ 4:44 pm
Bush 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.

Comment by Mike — 8/11/2005 @ 4:48 pm
The 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.

Comment by Breaker — 8/11/2005 @ 4:59 pm
My 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.

Comment by Beth — 8/11/2005 @ 5:01 pm
Reply 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!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by Don — 8/11/2005 @ 5:02 pm
Thanks to Patricia Wonderling and her husband, too. And Thank You Ron Buckman.

Comment by Breaker — 8/11/2005 @ 5:04 pm
Thanks Beth and thanks to your son.

Comment by Breaker — 8/11/2005 @ 5:05 pm
Mrs. 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.

Comment by Don Allard — 8/11/2005 @ 5:19 pm
I 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?

Comment by Pete — 8/11/2005 @ 5:21 pm
I, 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?

Comment by Ed — 8/11/2005 @ 5:44 pm
There are many reasons that have been specified many times. You just don’t want to hear them.

Comment by Pete — 8/11/2005 @ 5:48 pm
Mike @ 4:48 pm wrote:

At the very least he should brush aside his political stubborness and listen to one of the Americam he represents.

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 ~~liberal~~ Democratic Party bias, but their dereliction of their duty to their readers.

Comment by L.N. Smithee — 8/11/2005 @ 6:04 pm
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.

Comment by Dr. Femi mumuney — 8/11/2005 @ 6:06 pm
This 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.

Comment by Bill Anderson — 8/11/2005 @ 6:39 pm
FACT: 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.

Comment by J.W. — 8/11/2005 @ 6:41 pm
It 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.

Comment by easyrawl — 8/11/2005 @ 6:47 pm
I 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!

Comment by Misty Schiefer — 8/11/2005 @ 6:50 pm
America 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.

Comment by Yichuan1 — 8/11/2005 @ 6:51 pm
I 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.

Comment by nancy traeger — 8/11/2005 @ 6:51 pm
Shame 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.

Comment by Bobbi Laird — 8/11/2005 @ 6:57 pm
My 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.

Comment by Misty Schiefer — 8/11/2005 @ 6:58 pm
What 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.

Comment by Sharon — 8/11/2005 @ 7:08 pm
Before 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.

Comment by DWB — 8/11/2005 @ 7:18 pm
When 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.

Comment by Sharon — 8/11/2005 @ 7:19 pm
I cant believe that a mother would do this to her son’s and our troops great bravery.
Casey 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.

Comment by Pamela Rowlett — 8/11/2005 @ 7:27 pm
One Cindy, two Cindys, a million Cindys…go Cindy! The Bush ship is sinking.

Comment by sangoncito — 8/11/2005 @ 7:48 pm
Shame 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!

Comment by Dean — 8/11/2005 @ 7:54 pm
Well 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

Comment by jean-philippe STUART — 8/11/2005 @ 7:58 pm
The 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.

Comment by Chris — 8/11/2005 @ 8:00 pm
This 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]

Comment by Robert — 8/11/2005 @ 8:09 pm
Cindy 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?

Comment by Patch — 8/11/2005 @ 8:10 pm
i feel for ms. sheehan. however, the only one making it appear as if her son died in vain is her.
he 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.

Comment by whoby — 8/11/2005 @ 8:20 pm
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.

Comment by TINA KENNEDY — 8/11/2005 @ 8:28 pm
It 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)
and 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.

Comment by Hank L — 8/11/2005 @ 8:34 pm
Hey Neo-Cons!
Gee, 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.

Comment by Argonaut4 — 8/11/2005 @ 8:35 pm
the only thing that is amazing to me in all of this is that we are aguing about lying in the press.
The 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?

Comment by jim mason — 8/11/2005 @ 8:38 pm
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.

Comment by Suzie — 8/11/2005 @ 8:42 pm
dont 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.

Comment by jim mason — 8/11/2005 @ 8:47 pm
You 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.

Comment by Kevin Murphy — 8/11/2005 @ 8:55 pm
I 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.

Comment by catherine — 8/11/2005 @ 9:01 pm
Mr 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.

Comment by Suzie — 8/11/2005 @ 9:13 pm
Interesting 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.

Comment by Bert — 8/11/2005 @ 9:35 pm
Perhaps 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.

Comment by Bedazzled — 8/11/2005 @ 9:46 pm
It’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 …

Comment by worthey — 8/11/2005 @ 10:02 pm
Although we feel for Cindy and her family, we are hoping that she will reconsider and come home.
Cindy 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.

Comment by Evans girl — 8/11/2005 @ 10:05 pm
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!
After all, they claim to know what is best for you, not you.

Comment by Ed Subowsty — 8/11/2005 @ 10:26 pm
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)

Comment by Grover Wright — 8/11/2005 @ 10:29 pm
First 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.

Comment by Rick — 8/11/2005 @ 10:35 pm
Emotion 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…

Trackback by Gus Van Horn — 8/11/2005 @ 10:40 pm
TINA 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
“MOTHER OF A SAILOR”

Comment by TAMMY — 8/11/2005 @ 11:27 pm
RICK, THANK - YOU!!!!!!

Comment by TAMMY — 8/11/2005 @ 11:33 pm
IMPEACH BUSH

Comment by ASD1460 — 8/11/2005 @ 11:38 pm
This 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.

Comment by Dave — 8/11/2005 @ 11:45 pm
I 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?

Comment by Irene — 8/12/2005 @ 12:08 am
To 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.

Comment by porkopolitan — 8/12/2005 @ 12:10 am
Gold 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.

Comment by Nimmer — 8/12/2005 @ 12:34 am
Pres. 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?

Comment by K. Ferrando — 8/12/2005 @ 12:45 am
1400 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.

Comment by Lila Makarious — 8/12/2005 @ 1:20 am
I 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.
This 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’