posted on August 15, 2005 02:01:16 PM new
Best of the Web Today - August 15, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
The Sorrow and the Pity
Time magazine reports that Cindy Sheehan's family is "imploding":
Sheehan lost her job at Napa County [Calif.] Health and Human Services because of all her absences, she says.
Husband Pat, 52, couldn't bear having [fallen son] Casey's things at home and put most of them in storage. "We grieved in totally different ways," Cindy says. "He wanted to grieve by distracting himself. I wanted to immerse myself." . . . The couple separated in June.
Daughter Carly, 24, wrote a poem that begins, "Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?"
Surviving son Andy, 21, supports his mother in principle but recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her "to come home because you need to support us at home," he says.
The New York Times reports that Mrs. Sheehan's politics were the cause of her marital collapse:
She said she and her husband separated a few months ago as a result of the war, and of her activism. Although she and her estranged husband are both Democrats, she said she is more liberal than he is, and now, more radicalized.
The Times doesn't elaborate on Mrs. Sheehan's description of herself as "radicalized."
Through her own words, unreported by either Time or the Times, she makes clear that she has embraced a grotesque ideology that goes far beyond garden-variety Angry Left paranoia--though it includes plenty of that, as National Review's Byron York reported last week:
"This is something that can't be ignored," Sheehan said during a conference call with bloggers representing sites like democrats.com, codepink4peace.org, and crooksandliars.com. "They can't ignore us, and they can't put us down. Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state."
"Our government is run by one party, every level," Sheehan continued, "and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government."
Sheehan also called the 2004 presidential election "the election, quote-unquote, that happened in November."
Sheehan spoke at an April San Francisco State University rally in support of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in February of providing material aid to terrorists.
Here's an excerpt:
I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just.
America has been killing people. . .since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that #*!@ to my son and my son enlisted.
I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for." If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq.
We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have.
The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. . . .
What they're saying, too, is like, it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons.
It's okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It's okay for the countries that we say it's okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It's okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can't have them.
It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it's--yeah--and it's okay for Iraq to occupy--I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon.
Earlier in April, at a speech before the United Methodist Church in Venice, Calif., Sheehan likened Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to "Hitler and Stalin" and was particularly lurid in describing her hatred of Rumsfeld's then-deputy:
As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country whose skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks?
She concluded: "In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants."
The mainstream media have largely ignored Sheehan's crackpot views, and not only--perhaps not even primarily--for ideological reasons.
Members of the White House press corps find the annual sojourn to Crawford deathly dull. They need something to do; they want bylines--and "heartbroken everymom" makes for a much more compelling story than "extremist hatemonger."
The journalists will soon move on, and her political allies may do so as well. For them she is a mere instrument. The White House press corps will discard her as soon as they return to Washington where there's real news going on. Serious opponents of the war in Iraq will cast her aside if her foul statements make her an embarrassment.
When that happens, we can only hope that someone still cares about Cindy Sheehan--not as a story or a symbol, but as a human being.
-----
'It's Freedom, Ma'am'
Blogger Mohammad
Fadhil of IraqtheModel.com eloquently answers Cindy Sheehan (quoting verbatim):
I know how you feel Cindy, I lived among the same pains for 35 years but worse than that was the fear from losing our loved ones at any moment. Even while I'm writing these words to you there are feelings of fear, stress, and sadness that interrupt our lives all the time but in spite of all that I'm sticking hard to hope which if I didn't have I would have died years ago.
Ma'am, we asked for your nation's help and we asked you to stand with us in our war and your nation's act was (and still is) an act of ultimate courage and unmatched sense of humanity. Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families. Your face doesn't look strange to me at all; I see it everyday on endless numbers of Iraqi women who were struck by losses like yours.
Our fellow country men and women were buried alive, cut to pieces and thrown in acid pools and some were fed to the wild dogs while those who were lucky enough ran away to live like strangers and the Iraqi mother was left to grieve one son buried in an unfound grave and another one living far away who she might not get to see again.
We did nothing to deserve all that suffering, well except for a dream we had; a dream of living like normal people do.
We cried out of joy the day your son and his comrades freed us from the hands of the devil and we went to the streets not believing that the nightmare is over. . . .
The mothers went to break the bars of cells looking for the ones they lost 5, 12 or 20 years ago and other women went to dig the land with their bare hand searching for a few bones they can hold in their arms after they couldn't hold them when they belonged to a living person.
I recall seeing a woman on TV two years ago, she was digging through the dirt with her hands. There was no definite grave in there as the whole place was one large grave but she seemed willing to dig the whole place looking for her two brothers who disappeared from earth 24 years ago when they were dragged from their colleges to a chamber of hell.
Her tears mixed with the dirt of the grave and there were journalists asking her about what her brothers did wrong and she was screaming "I don't know, I don't know. They were only college students. They didn't murder anyone, they didn't steal, and they didn't hurt anyone in their lives. All I want to know is the place of their grave."
Why was this woman chosen to lose her dear ones? Why you? Why did a million women have to go through the same pain?
We did not choose war for the sake of war itself and we didn't sacrifice a million lives for fun! We could've accepted our jailor and kept living in our chains for the rest of our lives but it's freedom ma'am.
Freedom is not an American thing and it's not an Iraqi thing, it's what unites us as human beings.
-----
David Duke disagrees.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 15, 2005 02:30:36 PM new
I think it takes a special kind of desperation for a story to attempt to polticize the break-up of a family following the death of a child. How incredbily calous that reporter must be to feel the need to actually write a story in which the method of a mothers grief is made partisan and then criticized and judged.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 15, 2005 02:41:10 PM new
::"Our government is run by one party, every level," Sheehan continued, "and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government."::
Linda - why didn't you bold this part? Oh the Irony!!
::I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for." If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq.::
Why not bold the entire statement since it's clear that she is not talking about the US but rather Iraq when you read the WHOLE statement?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 15, 2005 02:44:55 PM new
So you don't think Time Magazine should be showing the public her past political leanings/activies of supporting terrorist who are our enemies?
I find that odd. I think having all the news about a person the left wing wackos is using to promote problems for this President are up for being discussed.
If we see she's not just a poor mom who is one of thousands that have lost their sons....but rather as a very radical political partisan....it gives more balance to how the American public sees here....least I think it does.
--------
Any comment from you, fenix, on the woman's answer to what Cindy has been saying? Did her words of wanting freedom bring any understanding of how they see freedom that they didn't have before we took down saddam?
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 15, 2005 03:05:15 PM new
The only desperation is with Cindy. Her problem is that her son defied her by enlisting against her wishes. Then he had the audacity to reenlist.
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 15, 2005 03:19:32 PM new
LOL bear.....they don't want to talk about her sons wishes/actions....even though they give their 'lip service' to supporting our troops. I have YET to see one instance of them actually doing so.
They agree with his [self admitted, radicalized mother]
-----------------
fenix - Why didn't I bold this and that? Because those weren't the points I wanted others to forcus on. The whole story is there for them to read. I'll bold what I wish to...
As far as the statements from her....I don't agree with her....why should I. Now we're seeing more clearly she's just using her son's death to further her long held, terrorist supporting positions.
On having control of all of government at the current time. YES>....it's wonderful....and happens so seldom in our republic.
BUT what you dems don't
'get' is they didn't take over the government....they were ELECTED into it. Why? Because American's voted that way. They didn't choose dems? Why....because the democratic party stands for nothing except complaining, whining and blocking anything from getting accomplished.
The republicans are pressing on getting things passed, taking care of government's business....making a difference. While the dems are still back in 1998 asking 'what did we do wrong - where did we lose the support of the American people?'.
And here in 2005 even screaming deam says they need to figure out what they need to do to start getting elected.
Maybe one day the democratic party will figure out they have to stand for something so they will EARN back one part of Congress or the WH.
Your best leaders haven't been good enough it appears, since the republicans have been VOTED into office while the dems are complaining on the side lines.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 15, 2005 03:30:20 PM new
I'm not sure that I am seeing what the argument is here.
Cindy Sheehan is speaking out against the war and her government, which every citizen is allowed to do lawfully. She is not speaking for her son, daughter, husband or family. She has every right to protest as long as she does not break the laws..isn't that correct?
Whether you think she is wrong in what she is saying or not..isn't this her right?
In my opinion, if there weren't so many who agree with her stance, the whole thing would have dissipated in a day, but now it isn't the voice of Cindy Sheehan we hear but the echo's of the millions who agree with her..
What am I missing here? Is this not her right under the law?
posted on August 15, 2005 03:49:36 PM new
maggie - First of all I see no argument here. WHO do you believe is arguing? We're having a discussion...each saying how we feel/or see this situation. That's not arguing, imho.
Secondly no one is saying she doesn't have the right to speak out. Where are you getting that from?
Thirdly....it's far that both sides be presented....as our Congress and President still support the war....whether this mother and the polls agree or not.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 15, 2005 04:12:03 PM new
Well, it was my mistake then.. that's why I asked what I was missing.. I wasn't sure if the discussion was arguing her right to protest on in the legal sense or based on moral views.
It is obvious that this has turned into a political tug of war (no pun intended) whether she is being "USED" by the Democrats or whether the "Press" is fanning the flames to make news..or the Republicans using her as a representative of what they refer to as Un-patriotic Democrats.. the woman has a mind of her own and is exercising her rights..
So.. the discussion is whether we agree with her statements or disagree.. I agree that she has a right to her own opinion.. would I have done the same...probably not...for fear of dishonoring my Son's choice.. but having said that, I don't hold her opinion against her..
posted on August 15, 2005 04:23:58 PM new
::LOL bear.....they don't want to talk about her sons wishes/actions....even though they give their 'lip service' to supporting our troops. I have YET to see one instance of them actually doing so. ::
Who is "They" Linda? Are you referring to me? I'm the only person that was in this thread when you made the statement sdo it must be me but I guess I am unaware that the singular entity of me now qualifies as a "they". Does this mean I can now qualify for group insurance plans?
Now to directly address the point... I did not talk about the son, I have not explressed any opinion anywhere on these boards regarding her actions so I think that it might be presumptuious to attach opinions and motives to me that I have not expressed.
I do not speak for large groups of people so there is no need to address me as "you dems" just as I do not think that you as speaking for a large group of conservatives and so don't adress you as "you neoncons".
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 15, 2005 04:27:54 PM new
Maggie - My point is that I think that the direction that story is trying to take things in is disgusting. She's a grieving mother and rather than accept that this is coming from her grief and just letting it go (as in, if you don't agree with her.. stop giving her still more coverage) they trying to demonize her. This is the mother of a child that died in battle and you have journalists and people like bear trying to attack her? Personally I find it tacky.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 15, 2005 04:46:07 PM new
maggie - August has always been know as a 'slow' month for news. Unless something out of the ordinary happens....political chatters have little to discuss/argue about since Congress is in recess. So this activist mother is making headlines where if it weren't a slow news period....she and her actions would most likely be back-page news.
--------------------
fenix - LOL.....they or them is dems. When I mention your name or say 'you' I'm speaking about you or your actions.
If you haven't been reading what THEY have been posting....then I'd believe you didn't know who I was referring to. But their names are right to the left of their posts. AND....before I forget....it is not unusual here to be referring to something done in other threads....not only in the topic thread.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 15, 2005 05:10:37 PM new
Just saw this on Yahoo news.
Husband of 'Peace Mom' Files for Divorce
The husband of Cindy Sheehan, the California mother camped outside President Bush's ranch in Texas to protest the death of a son who was killed while serving with U.S. forces in Iraq, filed for divorce, according to court documents.
Patrick Sheehan filed a petition for the dissolution of his marriage Friday in Solano County Superior Court. His lawyer did not immediately return a call seeking comment Monday.
The couple's eldest child, Casey, 24, was an Army soldier killed in April 2004.
Cindy Sheehan said the stress of the death led to the separation of the couple, who were high school sweethearts.
How are they "demonizing" her by telling her continuing wacky story. The "protest" story was a one day thing which has now deteriorated into the "nut job" story. It is a "story" in as much as it is "news", but it is not the news people victimizing her. The victimizers are the ones using her for their own theatre of the absurd.
Is it Cindy who is the ringmaster? The little crosses and the catering trucks. Is Cindy supplying the funds for these?
When she makes the talk show circuit, I wonder how she's going to make the airfare. Somehow God will provide.
posted on August 15, 2005 06:14:13 PM new
Caroline...this is old news by now and so what? You and LindatwelveK remind me of two gossipy old spinsters acting like divorce is wicked !
SLOW NEWS MONTH LINDATWELVEK?
Only if your head's in the sand....the number of troops killed in Iraq is at a record high.... NOT SLOW NEWS.
Rove.
Abramoff.
Roberts.
There's lotsa news so your "" So this activist mother is making headlines where if it weren't a slow news period....she and her actions would most likely be back-page news.""
...is jealousy. Look stupid, the whole world is watching this....so don't try to play it down...it IS a big deal even if it isn't about you
posted on August 15, 2005 06:41:34 PM new
I also wonder who is using who here - is Michael Moore, et al. using Sheehan to further their anti-Bush & anti-war agenda, or is she using them to further hers?
Here is my question, as I am hopelessly logical - where is she showering and using the restroom? Does she leave to go to a local hotel to shower & go to the bathroom and then return, or do you think there are facilities there?
posted on August 15, 2005 06:46:49 PM new
I've read that there are several port-a-potties there....and that originally she was sleeping in a tent. But the sheriff advised her to go stay at a motel in Crawford from now on as he feared for her safety after he got of his duty and had to leave.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 15, 2005 06:54:06 PM new
Caroline - If you're interested in reading a day to day post of what's going on with Cindy....the Huffingtonpost.com appears to be keeping a daily journal of what happens.
posted on August 15, 2005 07:01:43 PM new
Interesting, thanks for the link. Very sad situation all the way around - no one will win, no matter what happens.
I am curious as to what she will do when President Bush return to DC. I wonder if she will leave then.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Caroline
posted on August 15, 2005 07:02:33 PM new
::How are they "demonizing" her by telling her continuing wacky story.::
Through her own words, unreported by either Time or the Times, she makes clear that she has embraced a grotesque ideology
"extremist hatemonger."
::it is not the news people victimizing her.::
I didn't say they were victimizing her, I said demonizing.
Yes - it's a nut job story. She's a grienving mother that is taking things to far and despite the fact that there are two huge stories going on right now (the Iraqi constitution negotians and the Gaza pullout) newswriters and producers seem to be falling over themselves to keep this in the news. Of course after two weeks, her reason for being there is is not going to keep readers/viewers interested so now it's time to start trying to dirty her up.
In my opinion she needs to go home now. She is not going to get what she wants... even if Bush brings her down to the house, makes her some iced tea and talks to her for three hours, she's not going to get what she wants. Her son is still going to be dead. In the meantime, her message is being weekened by a media that is bored and wants to make a new story.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 15, 2005 07:33:57 PM new...even if Bush brings her down to the house, makes her some iced tea and talks to her for three hours,...she's not going to get what she wants...
How could she not know this? When all's said and done, she's not 'changing' anything.
And the crap about her marriage dissolving because of "stress from the grief of her sons death" - boy, that was a pure load of it, if I ever heard it in my life! Talk about exploitation of her sons death!
,
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Aug 15, 2005 08:11 PM ]
posted on August 15, 2005 07:57:13 PM new
Cindy Sheehan's Sinister Piffle
What's wrong with her Crawford protest.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Aug. 15, 2005, at 11:50 AM PT
Here is an unambivalent statement: "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."
And, now, here's another:
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.
The first statement comes from Maureen Dowd, in her New York Times column of Aug. 10. The second statement comes from Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq last year. It was sent to the editors of ABC's Nightline on March 15. In her article, Dowd was arguing that Sheehan's moral authority was absolute.
I am at a complete loss to see how these two positions can be made compatible. Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive. I dare say that her "moral authority" to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my "moral" right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?
Sheehan has met the president before and has favored us with two accounts of the meeting, one fairly warm and the other distinctly cold. I have no means of knowing which mood reflected her real state of mind, but she now thinks she is owed another session with him, presumably in order to tell him what she asserted to the Nightline team. In pursuit of this, she has set up camp near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and announced that she will not leave until she gets some more face-time with our chief executive. This qualifies her to be described by Dowd as "a 48-year-old Californian with a knack for P.R." Well, I think I have to concede that if Dowd says you have a knack for PR, you have acquired one even if you didn't have one before. (I am not entirely certain, for example, that the above letter to ABC News would count as a delicate illustration of the said "knack."
The president has compromised by sending his national-security adviser, Stephen Hadley, down that Crawford road to meet the PR-knackish Cindy. Not good enough, exclaims Dowd. Hadley was pro-war and has even been described as a neocon! Clearly, then, the Sheehan demand is liable to expand the more it is met. President Bush must either find a senior staff member who opposes the war and then send him or her down the track to see if that will do. Or else he must, like the Emperor Henry of old, stage his own Canossa and attend on her himself, abject apologies at the ready. After all, we mustn't forget that we are dealing—as was that emperor in his dispute with Pope Gregory—with "an absolute moral authority."
What dreary sentimental nonsense this all is, and how much space has been wasted on it. Most irritating is the snide idea that the president is "on vacation" and thus idly ignoring his suffering subjects, when the truth is that the members of the media—not known for their immunity to the charm of Martha's Vineyard or Cape Cod in the month of August—are themselves lazing away the season with a soft-centered nonstory that practically, as we like to say in the trade, "writes itself." Anyway, Sheehan now says that if need be she will "follow" the president "to Washington," so I don't think the holiday sneer has much life left in it.
There are, in fact, some principles involved here. Any citizen has the right to petition the president for redress of grievance, or for that matter to insult him to his face. But the potential number of such people is very large, and you don't have the right to cut in line by having so much free time that you can set up camp near his drive. Then there is the question of civilian control over the military, which is an authority that one could indeed say should be absolute. The military and its relatives have no extra claim on the chief executive's ear. Indeed, it might be said that they have less claim than the rest of us, since they have voluntarily sworn an oath to obey and carry out orders. Most presidents in time of war have made an exception in the case of the bereaved—Lincoln's letter to the mother of two dead Union soldiers (at the time, it was thought that she had lost five sons) is a famous instance—but the job there is one of comfort and reassurance, and this has already been discharged in the Sheehan case. If that stricken mother had been given an audience and had risen up to say that Lincoln had broken his past election pledges and sought a wider and more violent war with the Confederacy, his aides would have been quite right to show her the door and to tell her that she was out of order.
Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead "must not have died in vain." I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 15, 2005 09:20:58 PM new
Just out of curiousity, did she meet with Pres. Bush, as Bears article says? And did she also meet with a Sr Advisor ?
Does anyone know what she is waiting for, or is this a protest she is doing down there? (I mean , she has every right to protest) just wanted to know if she is still waiting for a meeting with the president or something else?
I have not kept up with this story at all, obviously
posted on August 15, 2005 09:40:32 PM new
Near - from what I heard, she did meet with him at one time awhile ago. She met with two senior assistants when she first started heer onsight protest. She says that she is staying there until Bush meets with her now or until his "vacation" is over although I have heard that if he doesn't meet with her by then she has said she will follow him to Washington to continue the vigil.
Maybe he should offer her a ride to the airport when he leves and get this over and done with.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 15, 2005 09:56:29 PM new
So she has met with him, and the outcome was?
And also with Sr advisors, and again, the outcome was? Sorry, but I am way behind on the news these days!
So if she has met with the Pres once, she didn't get enough time, and wants more, just trying to understand what she is trying to accomplish here. I know that she is against the war, ok, but does she think she will convince Bush to end the war or what?
And to add, that its not easy to get a meeting with the president, AND senior advisors, unless
she has some kind of pull??
posted on August 15, 2005 10:24:13 PM new And to add, that its not easy to get a meeting with the president, AND senior advisors, unless she has some kind of pull??
posted on August 15, 2005 11:00:38 PM new
Hi NearTheSea - I hope everything is going okay for you...I think of you all the time, praying for you too.
Cindy Sheehan met with President Bush in WA along with the other parents who had lost children. He meets and speaks with all the families at the different bases. This was approx. 11-16 weeks after her son was killed in Iraq.
At THAT time, she has been quoted as saying things like she really thought he was nice, he really cared about the death of her son...etc. All positive things....nothing negative at all.
Now...she's angry and wants to meet with him again and she's mad has all get out and want to tell him to his face. She's saying he's a murderer etc..and worse....totally blowing it. He has refused - can't imagine why . So she decided to camp out on the roadside across the road from his ranch. There were others that joined in too. About 50 is what I read.....camera crews from the MSM media etc.
After this story started getting a little media attention....President Bush sent our two of his security advisors to speak with her. She wasn't interested and made it very clear she was GOING to speak to the President or stay there until either she did...or he returned to WA after the Congressional vacation month is up. Now I've read she will follow him to WA if he doesn't see her before then.
IMO, she had her turn just like every other family has. If the President took time to speak with her....then he'd owe it to everyother American who has a beef they want to tell him face to face. Can you imagine how many years he'd be tied up? -D
So...now old michael moore....and other left wing fanatics have joined in....and Sheehan's making public appearances all over the Nation....and venting her anger about this war. Read one of the quotes I posted where she admits she's long been a political activist....who tried to convince her son not to enlist and not to re-enlist...wanted him to run off to Canada with her instead of going to Iraq....etc.
Obviously mother and son didn't agree....he went against her wishes.
Now her whole life is falling apart and when this story blows over....she'll still not have her son back...and she'll have destroyed the rest of her family.
sad sad case and imo, the media is using her anger, grief to further their agenda against this war.
posted on August 15, 2005 11:11:07 PM new
Well dang, Linda and NTS are we 3 the only ones up this late? Wait, hang on a minute, i'll be right back, i suddenly feel like drinking a tall glass of Tang.
Why? Because American's voted that way. They didn't choose dems? Why....because the democratic party stands for nothing except complaining, whining and blocking anything from getting accomplished.
Caroline 