L.A. Times Silent on Sheehan’s More Extreme Statements
No story in the L.A. Times today about Cindy Sheehan’s recent and seemingly newsworthy statements (mentioned yesterday here) calling President Bush a “lying bastard” and a “maniac.” Today’s only story is about a frustrated neighbor who jarred protestors by firing a shotgun on his own property.
Nothing about her refusal to pay taxes for 2004 either. That one hits home for me; after receiving the four-month extension, we are filing our return today.
It’s no mystery to me why Bush wouldn’t want to meet with someone who has called him the leader of the “biggest terrorist outfit in the world,” not to mention the new epithets quoted above.
UPDATE: According to Newsweek:
Family members interviewed by NEWSWEEK say they have been taken aback by the president’s emotionalism and his sincerity.
Why hasn’t the L.A. Times spoken to family members such as this? Why is it that the only ones they quote are the Cindy Sheehans? (H/t: Michelle Malkin.)
Sheehan Vents, Exposes Self As Angry Leftist
Well, well. Just give people like Cindy Sheehan enough time, and they will self-destruct on their own… Patterico says that the LA Times has said not one word about Sheehan’s screed.
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS (b55965) — 8/15/2005 @ 7:35 amAn “interview” with the neighbor who fired a shotgun on his own property aired on CNN yesterday. It was the funniest thing I’ve ever seen: “What message were you trying to send by firing a shotgun on your own property?”
Shredstar (e73f56) — 8/15/2005 @ 9:19 amBe cool if they set up target practice ranges right on their property line & shoot clay pigeons all day – with the pigeons “just happening” to go up every time some moonbat tries to talk to a credulous reporter…
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/15/2005 @ 9:26 am“Be cool if they set up target practice ranges right on their property line & shoot clay pigeons all day – with the pigeons “just happening” to go up every time some moonbat tries to talk to a credulous reporter… ”
I’m sure the secret service would be very happy with gunfire near the president.
actus (a5f574) — 8/15/2005 @ 9:49 am“I’m sure the secret service would be very happy with gunfire near the president.”
Don’t recall hearing that the Secret Service had any opinion on Mattladge, so I’m not sure they’d be much concerned about my scenario either (if anything they probably would be happy with gunfire near moonbat protestors).
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/15/2005 @ 9:55 am“Nothing about her refusal to pay taxes for 2004 either.”
This one had me rolling my eyes for being ludicrous and simple posturing. Excuse me but unless- as you point out- she was on extension, the taxes have already been filed. Also, I might add that the most likely status would have been married filing jointly, in which case there’s a good chance her husband has already taken care of it for both of them.
And last, assuming she was filing on her own, what sources of income would she have had to even owe taxes? (It’s certainly possible, of course, I’ve just not tried to dig into her background enough to find out if she had any sort of job in 2004.)
Now if we’re talking 2005, that’s a different story. First, of course, she’d need income. (I wonder how much she’s being paid to appear on all these TV shows? Wouldn’t take much to put her in the top 1% of wage earners…) But second, now that it looks like she may be getting a divorce, she’d be able to file as single or (assuming she gets the three kids) as head of household.
Speaking of which, she’s missing out on a golden opportunity to capitalize on her three remaining kids… she needs to have them there and be crying out defiantly “you killed one of my kids, but you’re not getting these three! They’re going to know you for the @#$#$@ you are, you @#$@#$!”
Scriptfox (621c66) — 8/15/2005 @ 10:28 amNewsweek – Breaking: President Bush is not a heartless automaton
A couple of useful correctives to the Sheehan reporting today —
The Unalienable Right (7a057a) — 8/15/2005 @ 11:09 amFrom Newsweek, we learn that President Bush may not be a cruel, heartless, unfeeling robot after all:
In emotional private meetings with the families of soldiers killed in Iraq a…
Our regional paper, normally a Sheehan-loving rag, ran a good counter-piece today on a Harley-driving Dad. Worth the read.
Scott (6c1a38) — 8/15/2005 @ 6:58 pmPatterico on Sheehan
Patterico is telling “the rest of the story” concerning Cindy Sheehan…
Huperborea (59ce3a) — 8/15/2005 @ 7:54 pmMrs. Sheehan is beyond belief. Among what Mrs. Sheehan said at SFU before she moved on to Texas was “this country is not worth dying for” and “we are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now”. Has her grief driven her into a complete loss of what is reality or is she just more of what she was before her son enlisted? She is not even responding to the pleads of her son to return home for the needs of her family.
Al Reasin (146304) — 8/15/2005 @ 8:03 pmMoobat Mom About to Lose Another Family Member
From the Associated Press:
A California woman leading an anti-war protest near President George W. Bush’s Texas ranch is being sued for divorce.
Cindy Sheehan — whose son was killed in Iraq — is demanding a personal meeting with…
Independent Sources (4f7430) — 8/15/2005 @ 9:01 pm[…] 3. Paterrico on the Los Angeles Times silence on Cindy Sheehan’s calling President Bush a “lying bastard” and a “maniac.” […]
Independent Sources » Blog Archive » Moobat Mom About to Lose Another Family Member (4f7430) — 8/15/2005 @ 9:04 pm“No story in the L.A. Times today about Cindy Sheehan’s recent and seemingly newsworthy statements (mentioned yesterday here) calling President Bush a “lying bastard” and a “maniac.” ”
Something tells me if we heard dubya as hot and unfiltered as sheehan, and without a policy apparatus backing him up, he’d end up just as kooky.
actus (a5f574) — 8/15/2005 @ 9:38 pmWould the L.A. Times report it, do you think?
Patterico (756436) — 8/15/2005 @ 10:15 pm“Would the L.A. Times report it, do you think? ”
Seeing as how he’s the guy with the finger on the button, I think so. But if he wasn’t, probably not.
actus (a5f574) — 8/16/2005 @ 6:58 amI, for one, am thoroughly offended that Sheehan felt like she could use bad words just because her son died in a war of choice. She should be kissing Bush’s ass instead, for letting her son help
protect America from Iraq’s WMDsliberate the Iraqi peoplemake the world safer for democracy! But I digress.This post wonders why is the L.A. Times fixated on reporting that Cindy Sheehan is a grieving, angry mother of a dead soldier, instead of reporting on every goofy thing that Cindy Sheehan ever said? Because, obviously, her grief and anger are clearly nullified by her use of mild profanity and/or her deviant opinions about U.S. foriegn policy in general. Furthermore, why isn’t the Dog Trainer doing a thorough investigation into her failing marriage life (thank God we still have Michelle Malkin!)? Because the important thing here is that we can take any criticism of Dear Leader’s Fool’s Errand and portray it as brainwashed, conspiracy-theoried, Communist extremism. The worst thing that could ever happen, God forbid, is that word gets out that somewhere in America, a not-clinically-insane sane person might be against Bush’s handling of this war.
Tom (eb6b88) — 8/18/2005 @ 2:07 amSheehan is not interested in peace. She’s become an icon of hate and sadism. She’s cruel beyond words to a President who has the weight of the world on his shoulders and is trying to protect his country’s citizens from extremists who want to kill them.
Lisa (b684a2) — 8/18/2005 @ 2:44 am…She’s cruel beyond words to a President who has the weight of the world on his shoulders and is trying to protect his country’s citizens from extremists who want to kill them.
You know, it seems to me that Cindy Sheehan is probably more upset about the loss of her son than Bush is from the effects of Sheehan’s savage “cruelty.” I, for one, feel no pity for Bush. His intentions aside, he had zero foresight going into Iraq and has zero vision for what to do now. At this point, I would love to believe that this war of choice could result in making America safer and strengthening U.S. presence and credibility in the Middle East and worldwide–but I simply can’t. Can you?
We’re totally stuck now, and to make matters worse, everything that those anti-war Communist hippies like me predicted have come to pass: no WMDs, no “missing link,” no “liberating the Iraqi people” (or at least that one is debatable at best), no functional, independent democracy–and if you think the so-called democratic government is going to flourish after we leave, I’d love to sell you the deed to this wonderful, orange landmark in the San Francisco Bay…
Sorry so negative. I’m seriously depressed that the leaders who confidently took us headlong into
Tom (eb6b88) — 8/18/2005 @ 6:15 pmIraq can’t offer any sort of plan where to go from here other than pithy accolades about “staying the course.” In short, my heart goes out to Cindy Sheehan and every other friend and family member of a soldier who died in this ill-thought-out mess.
This post wonders why is the L.A. Times fixated on reporting that Cindy Sheehan is a grieving, angry mother of a dead soldier, instead of reporting on every goofy thing that Cindy Sheehan ever said? Because, obviously, her grief and anger are clearly nullified by her use of mild profanity and/or her deviant opinions about U.S. foriegn policy in general.
As long as you’re not arguing that Bush should meet her again, perhaps her statements aren’t that relevant. But plenty of people profess to be mystified as to why he has avoided a second meeting. Do you think this language might help explain why?
Patterico (756436) — 8/18/2005 @ 6:34 pm