August 18, 2005

• Don't forget the guy who ran over 50 US flags and 500 crosses. Kudos to you pete for posting this. I was going to myself the other day, but didn't get around to it.
• Apologies for the "casey's story" link, it is in fact more about the mother. meet with cindy.org and After downing street.com
• Is it a movement? Sure, why not? There was a movement to stop the war from happening in the first place, too. Look how that turned out. Will it have an impact? I hope, I wish, but I doubt it. This government has consistently steamrolled over any opposition, and over any logical or emotive force standing in their way. I doubt we will ever see a 'groundswell peace movement' like there was for Vietnam, if only because the conditions allowing that to happen will never be permitted to occur. All that being said, these barriers shouldn't stop us from trying. We should never stop trying.
• You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out? ....And friends - they may thinks it's a movement. And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar. With feeling.
• Cindy Sheehan is my abolute moral authority.
• While I feel for Ms. Sheehan's loss, I'm not entirely sure what she hopes to accomplish. Her son was an adult, a volunteer and knew the risks - yet as a parent myself, I can't imagine that ameliorates her grief. At the same time Bush, if Sheehan's death can ultimately be attributed to him, cannot bring him back. What would she say to him, were he willing to meet her? How could he respond to what she might say? "I'm sorry"? "You're right, it's a bad war and I'll bring everyone back home today"? Nearly two thousand American mothers have lost their sons to Iraq - can he - nay, *should* he - meet with them all? Could they change his mind or his duties as Commander in Chief? Should they even be allowed to try? Should Sheehan be sitting outside bin Laden's or al Zarqawi's doorstep instead? I've always felt grief is a private thing, and I have known some measure of it, so it is not as if I speak from the surety of inexperience. And yet, power must be beholden to those it uses in its aims - if Bush is answerable to anyone, it is to the people, and especially so those who made sacrifices on his effort. I don't know if there is a right answer to this, and I have no idea what I'd do if I was Bush. I have some idea what I'd do if I was Sheehan.
• One of the intriguing things about the situation is that Bush has always seemed to be "the smirking chimp" - completely unaffected by the gravity of his decisions, unwilling or unable to explore the issues in depth. And a meeting with Sheehan may give him a dose of "reality" - that's the interesting part. In the infinite realm of possibility perhaps it would even change his mind about the rush to war and the course it should now take. Probably not, but possibly so. Fun to think about anyway.
• It's even more fun to think about Bush getting impeached and thrown in prison. And then getting married to his cellmate.
• Fes: My workmate has a little calender of Busishms, mostly designed to demonstrate what poor command of the English language your President appears to have. One of them took on a slightly different slant last week, though, because it's from a 2002 speech wherein Bush is telling everyone that he spends time with the families of those who fall in service. If one is prepared to tell an audience that one's boundless compassion includes hugging widows and the like, one ought to follow through.
• pete: Change his mind how? Even if he *did* change his opinion fundemantally about whether it was a good idea to go into Iraq, the necessities of the situation there are well beyond his capacity to change. It will be done when it is done, and not one moment or death before. The best he could do is make every effort that the former is soon and the latter is small. Bush is aware of what Sheehan thinks (how could he not be? Every person in America is) and, I believe, he thinks that meeting with her cannot help her and can only harm him. Cold, but it is what it is. I don't condone it - he should have met with her, and all the others, because it's teh right and honorable thing to do 9upon preview: rodgerd is right) - but I suppose I understand it.
• sorry about the typos :P
• I saw a snippet on the news last night that was good. One of the Sheehan camp supporters said something along the lines of: "Bush said to Osama, 'You can run, but you can't hide.' Bush said to John Kerry, 'You can run, but you can't hide.' President Bush has run, and he's hiding!" I got a chuckle outta that
• Fes, you took the words right out of my mouth. Uh, your first post, that is. Not the part about the typos!
• Fes: I dunno - if we take as a given that she'd change his mind about the morality/practicality/legality of invading Iraq, perhaps he would take a different approach to it's current status. For example, sacking the losers in his cabinet that can't seem to find their ass with both hands (Condi, Rummy, et. al.) and bringing onboard some less-partisan more practical people (i.e. let Colin be Colin). Sheer fantasy of course, but there we have it.
• and fwiw, I think the "meeting with her" portion of the story is pretty far in the background. I'm really more interested in the buzz she's currently pulling - specifically with regard to the left. Maybe the cabin-depressurization feeling of Bush's re-election may have finally bottomed out? Perhaps the Plame story is the start of the MSM return to integrity, and the Sheehan story is the beginning of a true popular antiwar movement?
• I'm not sure that Powell could change much, either, that Bush himself couldn't. Rumsfeld, I agree with you - he has proved incompetent in protracting the war, and should have been asked for his resignation at the election. Rice, I think, is both smarter and more effective than she gets credit for, and is hamstrung by having to put on a game face and play smiling for a team that has not done very well. I have great sympathy and a good deal of admiration for Rice. There has been a lot of disassociated opposition to the war, but it's mostly coalesced around youth, who are roundly discounted (often wrongly, but still) for playing poseur and simply not having all the facts, not to mention the all too often childish name-calling that characterizes their ire - they hate Bush! Bush is evil! No blood for oil! When the situation is far more complex than that, with some fairly compelling arguments for the other side. In any event, the last few months have seen Bush's approval ratings droop, support for the war wane (daily violence and no end in sight = a very real sense of WTF), so it could be that Sheehan's (quest? protest? vigil?) serves to galvanize public opinion .Time will tell.
• so maybe the "time is right" for someone like Sheehan? Perhaps that's it. But if some such galvanization could have prevented this ill-advised war . . . Agreed on the childish name-calling. There was a great article (linke from MeFi i think) that basically said 60s-style protests don't work now - with some good discussion on why (lack of 'generation gap', people aren't shocked anymore, etc)
• Alices Restaurant (the first flash mob)
• let Colin be Colin? Jesus. Is there someone still clinging to the idea that Colin Powell is something other than an Uncle Tom and a Bush crony as bad as the rest of them? No worse, actually, because he probably knows better. All these people knew what they were getting into when they signed up to work for Bush, and if by some miracle they had some kind of life changing realization that what they were doing sucked and tried to make changes, they would be fired instantly. Bottom line, though, is people are getting sick of this war- look at the polls. We were in Vietnam from the 50s, and people didnt start to turn against it for over a decade. Things are actually moving pretty fast on this one...
• oh and "some folk'll never run over a bunch of crosses symbolizing soldiers killed in Iraq, and then again some folk'll..."
• While we're at it, how about we dig up the bones of Lyndon Johnson so that every mother who lost a child in Vietnam has the oppertunity to meet with him. Just out of curiousity, does every greiving mother deserve a face-to-face meeting with the president?
• because he probably knows better Exactly - he was stiffarmed from explaining why invading Iraq might not be the best course of action at that time. buck09: yes.
• Looks like it's over
• I really need to quit looking at this stuff. It makes me hitting people angry. Two things are for certain: Sheehan's son should never have died and Bush will never feel an ounce of remorse or sympathy. I really want to believe that the US is better than all of this, but right now, it's impossible. It's not that the terrorists have won, it's that we lost whatever it is that made us a little bit more right than others. Not everyone, just some of them. How much more of our country's honor do we have to trample on before it's enough?
• dmn, I've been thinking of that a lot lately. During the Clinton administration, didn't the far right wing repubs believe he was ruining the country? Now, they have control of the White House. How much of what's going on is them trying to "repair" the Clinton damage, and how much is spite, do you think? And another question for you: Is it possible that they actually believe that what they're doing is the best course for our country? Or do you feel they really are simply doing whatever will enrich their own lives without taking into consideration the fact that their actions will have long lasting effects?
• Is it possible that they actually believe that what they're doing is the best course for our country? Yeah. That's what bothers me so much.
• Is there a parallel here with the mother that Mike Moore interviewed and then followed/led to DC in Fahrenheit 9/11? I guess she wasn't maybe as committed in her cause (although she undoubtedly suffered as much) as Sheehan is, but she certainly didn't garner a following like this.
• I think it's to the "right time / place" thing Fes pointed out Monkeybashi (also another reason I find it interesting). During the build-up to the war, she wouldn't have gotten this kind of exposure/sympathy (in the true sense of that word).
• It is the press that is making this story significant, not the woman. There have been countless protests and demonstrations over the past three-plus years. The press has finally decided that they might be able to sell one of them as a story now. If this woman did this same thing one, two, or three years ago, the press would not have made it a story.
• >Is it possible that they actually believe that what they're doing is the best course for our country? rationalization n To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior. (psychiatry) A defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening. Poor people, as we all know, are poor because they don't want to work. What's good for big business is good for American. Saddam, after all, was a baaad man. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. (When confronted with someone like Sheehan, that last one is particularly good for chanting, with your eyes shut, while your limousine drives past her.)
• I'm so sick of 'gestures' and 'symbols' that do nothing but simplify, trivialize, divide, detract, and distract. The people and entities who endorse this way of "thinking" are reducing America and its citizens into ciphers - and it's hard to tell if anyone really minds. (Maybe this isn't the place for this, maybe I'm tired, naive, or just a uncomprehending fool who should keep his Canadian trap shut...)
  
• Don't assume that Camp Casey won't go on in Cindy's (hopefully temporary) absence.
• The camp may go on, but this isn't much of a story without the grieving mother to pull in the viewers.
• Buck09: Nice try. A pile of bones can't be made to look at someone and see the pain in their eyes. A pile of bones can't be put on trial for war crimes along with the rest of his administration for complicity. I sincerely hope someone has the sack to haul this Administration before the Hague for this war. Minda: I sure as hell hope they do, because the alternatives scare the living bejeezus out of me. Truthfully, I think that's how the Administration justifies it's actions - but I'm not so sure it's why they're doing these things. I'm somewhat sure that Bush is just settling old scores because he can.
• While I feel for Ms. Sheehan's loss, I'm not entirely sure what she hopes to accomplish I assume that she was hoping for a personal admission or apology from the President to help assuage her grief after her son died in a war waged in a highly incompetent manner for mendacious reasons. Now that Bush has insulted her son's memory with his inept responses, giving her an opening, I suspect she's enjoying causing him pain, even if it's a sort incomparable to her own. It's amazing how blinding arrogance can be. For all of the Bush machine's media savvy and careful control, they could have handled this so much better and more easily. Colin Powell is...an Uncle Tom and a Bush crony as bad as the rest of them? Given some of the interviews leaked out of foggy bottom at the end of Powell's term, I suspect he has little but contempt for most of his high level counterparts in the Bush administration. His opinion of Bush in particular I have no idea. I suspect that Powell's problem was that he is too good a soldier. He follows orders even if he disagrees heartily with them, without generating hopeless friction by arguing about courses he has no hope of changing. It might make for a limitation in a US Secretary of State, particularly in this administration, but it's a limitation that is essential and highly laudable for a General in a democracy. ... And to end on a conspiracy note for a lighter change of mood...has anyone noticed how often people convenient to the Bush camp have strokes or plane crashes?
• I think that most of us are missing some of the finer points here. Do you think Shehan would have attracted this attention if she camped out in front of the white house? She selected Crawford for several reasons... It highlights that the pResident is on vacation (Again)! And it comes at a time when his approval ratings are at their all-time low. AND it comes on the heels of the RoveGate stuff. Perfect storm kind of thing. She knew he would never meet with her. That would have changed the dynamic. He played into his own trap, and now he has to wait it out. There are many more greiving mothers out there in Crawford.
• She knew he would never meet with her I have not bothered catching any of the interviews with her but I suspect she honestly was hoping the President would meet with her and chose Crawford because she could not legally get away with camping in front of the White House, where it would also have been much easier for Bush to look too busy for such a meeting.
• Of course he would never meet with her, regardless of context. Your're absolutely right. He's obeying the little earpieces that control this life. If she had parked her bad self in front of the White House, she would have been sent to Gitmo ASAP. In this case, she's showing that this administration has no concern about the public welfare ("I've got to get on with my life"}.
• I suppose it's too much to point out that Bush has already met with Sheehan once... Now, I don't know the results of that meeting (I've heard conflicting reports), but my point is, it's not as if Bush has ignored Sheehan's grief. Now, whether she feels assuaged or not is not the issue. She's looking for policy change through her vigil. Will it work? I don't know. Personally, her recent rantings have sounded pretty far out there, borderline anti-Semitic, and too conspiracy-theorist minded for me. I'll be waiting to see how this turns out.
• I suppose it's too much to point out that Bush has already met with Sheehan once... I'm not picking a fight. Just trying to keep the facts out there. I have no firm personal opinion on Sheehan at this point. She apparently met with Bush amongst roughly 15 other families in Seattle, 2 months after her son's death. She claims she was still in shock at the time and not thinking clearly enough to engage the President. She also claims that Bush entered the chamber with the comment "Who we'all honorin' today?", which didn't exactly rub her the right way. No matter your opinion of the war, the Bush team's handling of this has been approaching debacle. Rule#whatever of PR - the wackier the person complaining, the more carefully you have to handle it.
• couple of points: 1. august is a slow news month, which is why this story has gained traction in the media, imo. 2. sheehan has become a focal point for what many consider to be the cavalier attitude of this u.s. administration toward its war dead. > Some of the right react. man, these people are fucking despicable. sheehan on how people are trying to make this about her rather than about the war.
• Still, it's somewhat disengenuous to claim that Bush denied her a face to face meeting. And yes, PR is key. So how do you deal with a person like Sheehan? So you meet with her, and she explains just how upset she is that her son is dead, how the war is unjust, how the President is a liar, etc. When the President then says, "I'm sorry for your loss," will she then demand to stay in the Crawford ranch living room until the boys are brought home? Grief expresses itself in many ways. This is one of the more strident and *ahem* annoying ones.
• Some facts: According to the MSM minutes, the president and his administration is responsible for going to war. Without an exit strategy. Without a timetable. With an incompetant Sec of Defense with no combat experience who delibrately ignored the advice of generals. For these reasons, this administration is responsible for each and every dead soldier. These facts came to light after Bush's last meeting with Sheehan. The circumstances surrounding the last meeting were dishonest, and now everyone knows it. In their last meeting, she got condolences. Now she deserves an apology. The man who leads this nation is on a 5 week vacation while the nation is at war- a war in which troops are dying every single day. The president is riding his bike, fishing, going to little league games, reading, and taking naps. He, a self-proclaimed compasionate family man, refused to take time out from any of these leisure activities for the mother of one of the troops who died under his command as so-called commander-in-chief. He said he "needs to get on with his life." (That remark, by the way, replaces Cheney's I didn't go to Vietnam because "I had other priorities" comment as the most callous, tactless, and heartless thing ever said by a politician, ever.) While the president was busy getting on with his life, prominent republicans were attempting to smear the greaving mother. One such accusation was that she voted for Bush in 2004, and has "flip-flopped" since then. Check the polls- a lot of people who voted for him think he's a cunt now. One man (gun nut, republican) went a little beyond the rest- he drove all the way to Crawford, attached a pipe and chains to the back of his truck, and drove over a memorial erected by the greivers/protestors for the American military casualties of this war while physically threatening the people themselvse with the truck. The President has not condemned his actions, which are both illegal and disrespectful to the troops. He threatened lives. He drove over crosses, and flags. He desecrated a memorial to the men and women who gave their lives serving this country. No response from the allegedly tough-on-crime, pro-religion, pro-flag, ultra-supporters-of-the-troops right wing. Astounding. I'll lay $20 on the table that says that fucker's got a magnetic yellow ribbon on his truck.
• This is one of the more strident and *ahem* annoying ones. Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe you should join the President and "get on with your life." You know what you and the rest of the republicans find really annoying about this? The damage it's doing to your poll numbers. Your "compassionate conservative" certainly hasn't earned any supporters with his atrocious and cowardly behavior over the past week.
• you and the rest of the republicans Cool it, smallish bear.
• >Grief expresses itself in many ways. This is one of the more strident and *ahem* annoying ones. Greed expresses itself in many ways. This (war) is one of the more profoundly evil and despicable ones.
• I'm totally with f8xy on this one. How would meeting with the war criminal help?
• OK, maybe I'm misusing the word "totally" here.
• Cool it, smallish bear. Oh? He just joined a rather large group of people who are attacking this woman from behind their keyboards. What do you want me to call them? How about cowards? A republican is someone who supports the republican party. That word would not currently refer to anyone who is conservative, but does not condone the dispicable actions of this administration and the party which supports it. So get off my back, and try addressing any one of the many valid points I've included in either of my posts.
• Sigh. Whatever. Keep on shrillin'.
• Here's some more gems: Grief expresses itself in many ways, indeed. Here's how a true patriot responds to Mr. Northern's actions. Hypocricy, or yet another reason why the president and other republican leaders should apologize, not just to Cindy Sheehan, but to all of us. The difference between conservatives and republicans. Whatever indeed. If you're not mad, you're not watching.
• Like f8xy said: strident and annoying. For god's sake, man, go empty your bladder or chop some wood or something, then come back and read your own posts starting from "Some facts" (always a bellweather of impending opinionated screed). If this is therapy for you, then I hope it's helping. However, if you're trying to communicate, there are more effective methods.
• Proffers kittens
• Nah, kittens are out, pandas are in!!
• *nods to smallish bear* Thanks for sharing those links...
• Fes: "I have no idea what I'd do if I was Bush. I have some idea what I'd do if I was Sheehan." And what would that be? You would STFU? Rrrrright. You would be quiet with your opinions? And the pres.... we can't actually expect him to articulate a response to this criticism. How low are our expectations of him? Massive media coverage of this minor, almost insignificant, effort to protest his war. When she started she was just one person, not the president of the county, nor of a media company. Not the president of anything. She had enough and took some damn action by camping out. And the pres is hiding out. On vacation. Getting on with his life. And what is this protest? To demand the president answer for his policies. She wants to confront him with the end result and ask him why. To have the president of the US stand up and account for this war, and why it was started, and how it was conducted. I would like to know these answers. Not to me in person – not just because I didn't get to make my demands on CNN, but also because I didn’t to go and TRY to meet the twit. And not everyone who asks for a personal meeting with the pres, should get one. But this time, I think it warrants the president of this country’s attention. So it took a mother of a dead Iraqi vet camping out at the pres's vacation to get the ball rolling. Now it's a national issue. I want to know how the president can justify his FUTILE* war. Anyone? Sympathizers, supporters and apologists for the bush admin, now is your chance. Stand were your pres will not, and address this issue. *“It’s futile.” A quote from another mother, down in Texas, camping out. Lost her son. Also addressed the fact that her son was an adult. He “choose” to go. Those darn free willed military folks.
• smallish, I am not smearing Sheehan, merely offering my opinion of her current practices. And I don't doubt she's gone through a lot. Obviously--she lost a son, and I dare not speak against the grief she must be experiencing. I have two brothers serving in the military. One is currently in Iraq, the other is set to be deployed in September. I understand the frustration and feelings people at home feel about their daughters and sons going to war. A lot feel this war is wrong, that we need to pull out now, that our brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers and sons and daughters and friends are there for reasons spurious and misguided. And I am not decrying that belief either. HOWEVER. I am saying that her actions come across (to me) as more strident and annoying than effective. And I doubt they are attracting much support from mainstream Democrats, who right now need to appeal to the middle base. Sheehan is so far from the middle right now, even though she would seem at first to be an ideal candidate for middle-grounders. But look at her talking points: She believes the "mainstream media" (the very means by which she has become a leftist cause celebre spokesperson) is a "propaganda tool" controlled by the government. She calls for the immediate pullout of Iraq and has advocated the same for Afghanistan. Even admitting the war was a mistake, would this be wise? What would all the mothers over there say when their sons and fathers and husbands and brothers are killed in civil war? She believes the war is being funded and aggressively pushed by a "PNAC Neo-Con" Jewish cabal. This is da Vinci Code fiction, and inflammatory to boot. She blames Bush for killing her son Casey, infantalizing him (Casey) and all other troops who voluntarily and freely chose to join the military in the process. Is this the way to treat the honoured fallen? Is this the way to feel about the soldiers who are alive and well? That they were "duped"? It seems to me that Cindy Sheehan has closed debate and discussion with the level of vitriol she has expressed for the President and this war. She has not fostered a mutual party arrangement, which is why Bush has declined to meet with her a second time. She has instead resorted to attack-dog rhetoric. She's not looking for a peaceful meeting--she's looking for a fight. She's requesting her own personal war with Bush, and she's being given a stage to do so. Sorry if I still come across to you as hypocritical republican mouthpiece. It would appear closed discussion doesn't end with Sheehan.
• f8xmulder: links?
• 33% of polled americans want all the troops home immediately. 66% want a time table for withdrawal, with everyone home within a couple of years. 1% are living under rocks I suppose. You can't say that the 33% are the most left, because there is no one defining "left" characteristic. True, 33% is not mainstream, but it's an idea that appeals to a lot more people that many would expect. Fox news is the mainstream media, and it is a mouthpiece for the administration. Even the NY Times, a supposed liberal media establishment, was integral in deceiving people in the leadup to war. That aside, I do not agree with all of her points. The PNAC thing in particular I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. And I know she's looking for a fight, and, while this approach may not be very productive, I think that this is an appropriate way to address our infintile leader and his dwindling horde of raving lunatic supporters, who are always looking for a fight, as demonstrated by their attacks on her. One can disagree with her points, but still respect her and her grief. I wasn't offended by this last post of yours, but in the first, the word annoying came off as dismissive and disrespectful. goetter- keep yapping, maybe you'll get your own cable news show. Or better yet, go get yourself a truck, some chains and a pipe and show the rest of the country how you really feel.
• She blames Bush for killing her son Casey, infantalizing him (Casey) and all other troops who voluntarily and freely chose to join the military in the process. Is this the way to treat the honoured fallen? Is this the way to feel about the soldiers who are alive and well? That they were "duped"? Shit, I forgot, and now I have to post twice. :( I don't agree that she is trivializing the service of the troops or their situation by acting in this way. Why? Because she herself was duped. Her last meeting for the president, and his support for him was prominent at some point in the election cycle last year. I remember seeing her on TV. (I disagreed with her then, but I still had respect and sympathy for her. I just thought she was a bit misguided.) When she talks about the troops being duped, she is looking at it from her own point of view. She supported her young son's decision to enlist for the same reasons he enlisted. When you think about it, they really did pull the old bait-and-switch on them. A whole lot of people enlisted after 9/11 to go fight the taliban, who really are horrible and responsible for terrorism. If, as the DSM proves, the administration really was planning on going to war in Iraq with these people right from the start, then she's absolutely right- many people were duped, and some of them are dead because of it.
• Fes: "I have no idea what I'd do if I was Bush. I have some idea what I'd do if I was Sheehan." And what would that be? You would STFU? Rrrrright. You would be quiet with your opinions? While "some idea" does not necessarily indicate total surety, I imagine I would privately dealing with the loss of my son and helping my family do the same. I am not going to level criticism at Ms. Sheehan for her actions, as I firmly believe she is well within her rights to do whatever it is she feels will get her through this, and she has my sympathy - but it is not what I'd do. I have no taste for airing my grief in the public eye. But I don't begrudge her this choice. At the same time, her loss doesn't automatically validate her opinion of either Bush or the war, either. The two are separate, even mutually exclusive things. And that is what we're really talking about here - opinions. Some think the war is illegal, unwinnable, a travesty, while some think it is laudable, justified, our duty. The only "facts" here is that there is a war and people die in it. Whether or not history will look kindly on the costs and sacrifices made in its protraction will ultimately be decided over the course of decades, not days. In the interim, each of us holds our own views, colored by our preconceptions, morals, politics, etc. We seek out opinions that justify our own, and it is all to easy to slap a coat of Quikcrete on them and call them good and righteous, and point to others' and call them wrong and evil. It is our nature. I am reminded of the story of the frog and the scorpion: "You fool!" cries the frog. "You have stung me and now we shall both drown!" "I am a scorpion," explains the scorpion. "It is what I do." In one's own opinion, one is ever the frog - but reality suggests that we are nearly all of us scorpions, scrambling for links to validate our attacking the other scorpions, and thus demonstrate, mostly to ourselves, that we are yet frogs.
• Fes, that was beautiful.
• keep yapping, maybe you'll get your own cable news show. Or better yet, go get yourself a truck, some chains and a pipe and show the rest of the country how you really feel. You aren't worth my time. You "win." Goodbye.
• >The only "facts" here is that there is a war and people die in it. Sorry, but I don't see much moral ambiguity in that. I hear what you're trying to say- sometimes things aren't as simple and clear-cut as we make them in our minds. But sometimes they are. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say War Is Evil. Maybe sometimes it's an evil that can't be avoided by any means. Was this one of those times? Were there other choices than going to war? Were the premises for the war true, or false? If false, were they deliberately fabricated? Who profits from this war, and who's paying for it? Do we really have to wait decades for the verdict of history to know what's going on here? I don't believe we do. With respect to all thoughtful voices and regards to the frogs.
• Dear Frogs: The water is fine, Love, The Scorpions.
• You aren't worth my time. You "win." Goodbye. You can't say "win" in quotes there.. because the quotes make it clear you think they did NOT win, which is then saying "This is the last thing I'll say regarding this. I win."
• Ok, I'm serious here. How about red pandas? I'm not belittling the issues here, but let's all take a deep breath and a step back and just chill for a moment. Death and war and motherhood and politics and morality are all emotionally charged topics, and I can understand everyone being worked up about them. But we're all friends here. Let's be civil. Please?
• zenon, links below mainstream media as propaganda tool for govt Neo-Con agenda (scroll down to John Conyers letter, sorry, no permalink) pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan
• Guess what? I win. Now we can all stop.
• I'm pretty much where Fes stands on this whole issue, if that hadn't been made clear. She's welcome and entitled to her public protest. I happen to personally think it's a pretty unorthodox methodology she's using to convince us all of her views.
• I agree that she comes across as strident, but that's her tactic and it's obviously working. For now. Smallish bear, your comment to goetter was low, I think. I hope maybe you're taking a break from this thread.
• smallish bear was being strident, true. But goetter was being condescending. (I like goetter, but his "sigh; whatever -- I'm not going to actually engage in substantive conversation, but rather just huff snidely in your direction" act does a darn good job of provoking people who disagree with him.) As far as Sheehan's concerned: Thank god somebody's trying to hold Bush et. al. accountable for the mess in Iraq. The press and the Congress have sure been out to lunch when it comes to doing so, at least until very recently.
• This thread is a near perfect example of why I believe Sheehan's protest should not be discussed as a debate point by people who disagree about the Iraq war. On left-leaning sites, opponents of the war will use her and her son as a symbol of all that it wrong with it and the heartless bastards who started it. There will be a bunch of useless platitudes about how Bush is evil and Sheehan is a hero; they are useless because those who already agree will view them as tautologies, while they will only alienate or inflame those who disagree. Supporters, for their part, will acknowledge her loss and refuse to let it sway their opinion of the greater cause. Some name-calling will ensue as an anti-war advocate belittles someone else for disagreeing about a minor part of the story when, lying behind this, is a disagreement about the war and Bush himself. The reaction to this story is symptomatic of the increasingly polarized nature of the war itself. Which is probably why it has the life it does. But, really, for the pro-war folks who keep up with the news, understand the issues, and possess basic critical thinking skills, they should not be swayed by her case, not any more than any other death.
• But, really, for the pro-war folks who keep up with the news, understand the issues, and possess basic critical thinking skills, they should not be swayed by her case, not any more than any other death. Big thing with the Sheehan case is that she's forcing a human face onto the stories of all the many deaths for the first time for many folks. That's what makes her important. She has the opportunity to get people to think about her son's death and other soldiers' deaths (and maybe even Iraqis' deaths) in a deeper way than many people have allowed themselves to think about those deaths before.
• I just want everyone involved in this (f8x, goetter, fes, and everyone) to know how much I have appreciated this measured and intellignt thread. I follow many of the political scream-sites, and I don't value their discourse because it is poisoned. Congrats, Tracicle, for attracting and maintaining an intelligent base.
• I accept your criticism, HW. It's my response when I lose patience, much as name-calling is others'.
• Oh, and I mustn't forget Hawthorne Wingo! Thanks again; I am on the fence on many issues, and I see that as a potential weakness. your thoughtful ideas help me.
• Big thing with the Sheehan case is that she's forcing a human face onto the stories of all the many deaths for the first time for many folks. It's incredible that in this day we still dehumanize our opponents in armed conflict, nevermind our political foes at home. It seems ever less likely that we may someday reach the point where we not only believe that 1 American = 1 Pakistani = 1 Bolivian = 1 Iraqi, but act that way, too. In the meantime, putting a more human face on the cost of war can't be a bad thing (even if my wish that Iraqi casualties were treated with equal sorrow goes unmet -- I was quite frustrated by the "anti-war marches" populated by Americans unhappy with their own casualties, as if a perfect killing machine -- and thus, no losses on our side -- would be perfectly acceptable also).
• > Ok, I'm serious here. How about red pandas? i go visit one of these every week or two, at this place. you can see the red panda without going into the menagerie. sometimes (s)he's just hanging out in (her)his box, but sometimes we get to see (her)him wandering around. on the thread topic - i have no idea how much cindy sheehan is hurting. i've no idea how bad it is for a mother to lose her son to a war that she considers (or even later reevaluates) to be improper/unjust/misguided. so she's shrill? well, um, big deal. she's lost her kid...
• I like the Jardin des Plantes, I used to walk through there every day on the way to Censier Rouge.
• She believes the war is being funded and aggressively pushed by a "PNAC Neo-Con" Jewish cabal. f8x: This appears to be a bit of propaganda she says was spread by an anti-semitic "friend" of hers. From the michael moore site where she guest-blogged here (sorry, had to pull it out of Google cache). I forget where I read that part about the person who started it tho . . .
• f8x, above you point to:

  Neo-Con agenda (scroll down to John Conyers letter, sorry, no permalink)

  she uses "Neo-Con agenda" in the letter you link to. there's no mention of PNAC, or Jewish, or Israel, or Zionism.
• "The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion." -- G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)
• A Utah television station is refusing to air an antiwar ad featuring Cindy Sheehan Zer vill be no opposing views!! Rheturn to your conzuming! Schnell! /cliche
• And, on the other side, a pro-soldier-death demonstration.
• Okay that's just fuckin' bizarre.
• I'm for the war, but against the troops.
• I'm against protesting, I just don't know how to show it. /Mitch_Hedberg
• Bush has yet to attend a single funeral. Aides say Bush has not attended a military funeral because he does not want to favor one ultimate sacrifice over another. I guess I'm just surprised. Even if it is Bush. Wow.
• Now he's saying Cindy Sheehan weakens America. Of course.
• My ultimate sacrifice is better than yours!
• You have to be on a five week vacation to say that, Monkeybashi
• CBS Affiliate Will Not Air Sheehan Ad Because There Is “No Proof” Of Absence Of WMD In Iraq... There's no proof that Gillette is "the Best A Man Can Get" either, but they don't have a problem running that one. or, after RTFA, the Kerry Swift Boat Ad is a better refutation Quicktime .mov of the ad in question here After WTFA (watching the fine ad), I'd say that I wouldn't have done it that way but if you hang in there, it is oddly moving. As in, I almost wanted to bail on it until a certain turn of phrase was used - then I was like "well, okay"
• It's obviously the Liberal Media. They're choosing NOT to run the ad, so that it'll look like the Liberal Media is in fact run by the CONSERVATIVES, which makes the conservative media look bad, leading to a backlash that was JUST WHAT THE FUCKING LIBERALS WANTED ALL ALONG. Don't you see? It's all a part of their fiendish liberal plot! Don't fall for it! And God Bless Americans.
• I give it up to Sheehan... But I also see how this ad could be turned against her by those that are already dragging her through the manure pile. It seems like a total crap-shot. But who knows what kind of effect the ad may have (in the markets where it will actually be broadcast). IMHO, it takes a true "patriot" to stand up and voice your opinion, addressed directly to the "president." She's got some cahones!
• Agreed. And I think it's a little over-the-top, but it did get to me. Perhaps if I was folding laundry or waiting to see who killed Laura's-secret-lover-slash-step-uncle maybe it wouldn't work at all. I doubt it would be a good idea to program it during Monday Night Football. Maybe advertising isn't the proper arena for this either way.
• Agreed as well on all of your points. Sometimes silence can be a highly effective tool. She might be better served keeping her mouth tight and sticking it out silently in the "trenches." Everyone knows her feelings at this point, there's no point in beating it further... evenutally, it will begin to work against her I think.
• The "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" tour is enroute to "Camp Casey." Yup, this is gonna get ugly. They've got ads up 'n running as well. *sigh*
• Conservative activists and military families were en route to Crawford from California on a tour called "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" The caravan coordinated by Move America Forward plans to hold a pro-Bush rally in town Saturday. On first view, "Conservative activists" is a painful turn of phrase. Black is white! Night is day! Jeesus Hot Buttered Keehrist.
• Move America Forward is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to preserving our American heritage of freedom and liberty. . . . Since then the duo has fought the liberal news media's attack on President Ronald Reagan's legacy via the Defend Reagan Committee and the efforts to undermine support for our troops and the fight against terrorism by the "Blame America First" crowd. And the level of discourse takes it in the nuts again.
• Move America Forward...dedicated to preserving... gah! and i recently heard katharine harris describe herself as a progressive conservative.
• Using language to create or defend a position is one thing. Manipulating language crudely and poorly to alter the context of an argument is pretty sick. a.k.a. Using trite, outdated definitions is one thing, but challenging the nature of inquiry to reveal God's truth is as American as righteousness!
• We want to progressively conserve...moving forward to keep things from changing...you know, being active in staying the same...it all makes perfect sense, if you drink enough. just conserve some beer for me, bitchez
• What's over the top about the ad? It seems pretty spot-on to me. Is it that she calls Bush a liar?
• Yeah that and the full-face-in-frame shot. I think a bit longer would have been better aesthetically - what they have lends more of an "up in YOUR face" quality that the ad doesn't need. Maybe that's just me though. I'd disagree with someone up in my face even if I agreed with them.
• War Backers Hit the road The car caravan, sponsored by a pro-Iraq war group called Move America Forward and headed by a woman whose son is a Marine. . . A living Marine, one would assume. And hope for.
• So now Sheehan is a supporter of Michael Moore - who gives a fuck about *her* son I suppose! Geez. She is obviously a sick individual that wants to bring America down [/SARCASM]. Reminds me of my days of protest. I stood up for something I believed in, voiced my opinion, and what happened? Suddenly I was accused of being "un-American" and wished dead by two Vietnam vets. Why do I get the feeling the the group that is mobilizing to oppose Sheehan wouldn't mind if she suddenly dropped dead? I also agree about the quality of her ad. It was a bit too much "in-the-face." I mean, as I watched it I was thinking, "damn, she needs to get her teeth cleaned!" While I agree with her points, the shot kinda muddled it.
• No Parking and it's not a ranch, dammit - it's a set
• Cindy Sheehan arrested with 300 others outside the White House. Go civil disobedience.
• Well, that was about a deft as a kangaroo fucking a football.
• Yea but that kangaroo is on every network tv station in the world. She's a true American.
• More than 500 people were demonstrating outside the White House when part of the group approached the railings and hung on them placards bearing the names of soldiers and civilians killed since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. According to the organizers, this act of civil disobedience was pre-planned as a continuation of the huge march that brought together more than 100,000 people in the streets of Washington last Saturday. Which part was the civil disobedience? The approaching or the placard hanging? What document defines these things?
• Argh: Sheehan is NOT the kangaroo in this case. Techsmith: I think people are prohibited from hanging placards on that fence for security reasons. I'm not entirely sure, however, why this would warrant arrest or why the arresting officers would be stupid enough to arrest Sheehan at all, let alone IN FRONT OF CAMERAS. It's like the model UN at my high school is running the show, sans Mr. Shoubt the not-very-subtle advisor.
• She blocked the sidewalk which is illegal. Hence the arrest. I wish we had more people like her in this country willing to stand up (or in this case sit down) and be heard.
• I don't much like the way this war has been handled, from the earliest UN debates, the "Shock and Awe" bombings, the "Mission Accomplished" stage shows, the profiteering, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, right through to the ongoing bunglings of today. But what would happen if Sheehan and company got their way? If the troops all came home tomorrow? Who would take power in Iraq? Who would oppose them? What would Iran do? What would Israel do? How would it all play out in a year...5 years...20 years? Sheehan is on a single-issue mission to prevent other (American) mothers like her from losing their sons & daughters, which is laudable...but at what cost?
• It's true, we are well and truly fucked for years if not decades.
• > How would it all play out in a year...5 years...20 years? i fear the 5-year and 20-year timeframes would be much the same even if the troops all went home tomorrow.
• You do the same thing we did in Vietnam. You walk away and say "Man that sucked, boy did we fuck up."
• The problem being, there's not a power like China to waltz in and say "here's how it's going to be . . " - the Middle East is a tad bit unstable in a political regard. Who'da thunk sticking our dick right in the middle of it it would be such a nightmare?!
• Cindy digs in...
• Good Riddance Attention Whore Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives... Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.
• The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most. That's bitter. Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too...which makes the property even more valuable. .