# Cindy Sheehan



## Sapper6 (Aug 12, 2005)

to avoid causing distraction in the America Supports You Freedom Walk  thread, i thought starting a new thread about this Cindy Sheehan stuff would be appropriate.



> Originally Posted by Feisty Mouse
> Another bit of distracting fluff fanfare, attempting to roll the 9/11 terrorist attacks into the war in Iraq, still trying to make that nonexistent link.
> 
> Maybe I'd be more impressed if our President, who has taken another full month off (since when did Presidents get months off?) on his ranch, won't even talk to Cindy Sheehan, an actual mom who lost an actual son in the actual seemingly endless war in Iraq.



Sapper6 Response:


> i don't see any "non-existent link" trying to be made here with a freedom walk.
> 
> you anti-bush people seem to provide your own "bit of distracting fluff" to discredit everything this administration does, and it's pretty pathetic.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 12, 2005)

interesting article here...



> *Consoling a mother is never easy *
> 
> http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Only a particularly heartless churl would argue with a mother's expression of grief over the loss of a son on a distant battlefield, and you won't find criticism of Cindy Sheehan here. She's conducting a vigil at Prairie Chapel Ranch until George W. Bush invites her in to talk about abandoning the war in Iraq.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2005)

To be blunt. If we called off every war based on greiving relatives of soldiers we would still be a British Colony.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 12, 2005)

how very true :asian:


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 12, 2005)

The ideas that Cindy Sheehan "dramatically changed her viewpoint" since she first met the president in June 2004 cropped up on the Drudge Report 8/8/05.  That assertion is untrue, and the quotes mentioned earlier in this thread were taken out of context.  If you would like to read the entire story as it evolved, and look at the full articles containing the quotes, instead of just the quotes in isolation, you can find a review *with links to the original articles* at:

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200508100009

My personal opinion is that even if she had changed her view, so what?  Did you ever bury your child?  I did.  It's a very, very long time before the haze begins to thin, and you begin to think more clearly.  And so what if her relatives don't agree with her--they're entitled to their opinion, too.

Casey Sheehan gave everything for his country.  Cindy Sheehan gave her son to this country.  Now, after the stated cause of this war has changed again and again, Cindy wants to ask the president face to face what noble cause her son died for.  I think she's entitled to an audience.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2005)

So who chooses what families the President should have personal meetings with from now on? Loosing a child now entitles you to a private audience with the president? If I were a family that believed my loved one sacrificed his/her life for a cause he believed in, Id be upset with her.

The fact that I was a former soldier and that Sapper is a current one doesnt give our opinion any more or less weight on matters, nor will it grant us access to the Oval Office. Besides the emotional factor, why should Mrs.Sheehans'?


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 12, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> The ideas that Cindy Sheehan "dramatically changed her viewpoint" since she first met the president in June 2004 cropped up on the Drudge Report 8/8/05.  That assertion is untrue, and the quotes mentioned earlier in this thread were taken out of context.  If you would like to read the entire story as it evolved, and look at the full articles containing the quotes, instead of just the quotes in isolation, you can find a review *with links to the original articles* at:
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200508100009
> 
> ...



believe what you will.  most grief-stricken parents of fallen soldiers will never be afforded the opportunity to meet the commander-in-chief.  this lady has already, with the president even helping her to unite other famliy members with them, allowing them to be together in a time of discomfort.  now she stages an absurd media frenzy because she failed to ask some specific questions?  the media is eating it up.  negativity in the media sells, period.  i'm sorry for her loss but her actions in the media are a disgrace and unjust.   

@ Tgrace

very well said


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 12, 2005)

> If I were a family that believed my loved one sacrificed his/her life for a cause he believed in


And that's a key point.  Cindy Sheehan has no idea what her son sacrificed his life for.  I've heard her speak:  She said that her son believed we should go to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden, and in fact he believed he was going to do that.  That was a cause he believed in, but Iraq?  That's the question.

George W. Bush is not the Pharoah. He works for us, and unfortunately I think that many of our elected officials seem to forget that.  We paid for the war, and we deserve to know what and why we paid for it.  Cindy Sheehan paid more than some of us.  She wants to know what is the purpose of this war.

This President has spent no time going to the funerals of the soldiers--other wartime presidents somehow found the time.  He spends time meeting GOP contributors. He's taking a 5 week vacation...he could take an hour and spend it with Cindy.

Do you really think that's too much to ask?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2005)

If the President went to a Soldiers funeral it would turn a families pain into a media frenzy and you would then be saying that he was using a soldiers death as a media op to push his war agenda...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 12, 2005)

> i'm sorry for her loss but her actions in the media are a disgrace and unjust.


She's peaceful.  She's polite.  She hasn't used any vulgarity or hurt anyone.  She hasn't broken any laws or damaged any property, to my knowledge.  She talks to the press when she wants to.  She expresses her opinion, respectfully.  She's within her rights.

What's disgraceful and what is unjust?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2005)

Does every soldier who lost a limb get an audience with the president?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 12, 2005)

> If the President went to a Soldiers funeral it would turn a families pain into a media frenzy and you would then be saying that he was using a soldiers death as a media op to push his war agenda...that he was using a soldiers death as a media op to push his war agenda...


President Johnson attended soldiers' funerals.  So did President Reagan.  Jimmy Carter attended a memorial service for murdered hostages.  Even President Lincoln attended soldiers' funerals and visited the war wounded...including Confederate wounded.  It wouldn't be something novel for a president to acknowledge the war dead in this manner.

By the way, please don't tell me what I _"would then be saying." _ I'm perfectly willing to say things myself.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 12, 2005)

we are at war.  people die in war.  soldiers are plenty aware of this.  sure it's a sad reality.  this isn't any different than the thousands of peace vigils that took place during vietnam.  sure, it started out peaceful enough.  then turning to hippie rallies, pot-head orgies, unorganized cluster ****s.

oh, there taking donations too, to fund the exploits.  they've already gotten the attention of numerous filmmakers and authors who want to "share her story" with public.

hhmmm    oh, no money to be made here.

almost forgot, they've also enlisted the "hunger strikers for hire" known as Code Pink to hunger strike for them until GW clears his schedule.  now that's intelligent.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> President Johnson attended soldiers' funerals. So did President Reagan. Jimmy Carter attended a memorial service for murdered hostages. Even President Lincoln attended soldiers' funerals and visited the war wounded...including Confederate wounded. It wouldn't be something novel for a president to acknowledge the war dead in this manner.
> 
> By the way, please don't tell me what I _"would then be saying." _I'm perfectly willing to say things myself.


Really..refrences?

Chew on this for a while...

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=271680


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2005)

Memorial services are common. Individual funerals are not.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/20050701_1933.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030411-13.html
http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/000714.html



> _P.P.S.: The soldier sitting closest to me clearly liked Bush, perhaps because he had just seen the president, in person, for the third time. Apparently, Bush pays regular visits to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. Did you know that? I didn't. Admittedly, it's easier to visit the wounded than to go to funerals, which Bush has been accused of not doing enough of. Still ..._


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 12, 2005)

the LINK to the original article citing when Mrs. Sheehan first met with the president.  read it.

180 degree turn, ya think :idunno: 

Cindy Sheehan is a puppet for michael moore and every other anti-bush faction out there.  is she smart enough to realize this?  apparently not.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 12, 2005)

excerpt from blogsforbush.  i couldn't agree more :asian: 



> Cindy Sheehan has become, perhaps unwitting, a tool of the anti-war left, a puppet of MoveOn.org. The actual purpose of this vigil is, in the mind of Sheehan, to get President Bush to "tell the truth" about Iraq. The "truth" in her mind now is the same version of MoveOn.Org: that President Bush deliberately misled us into liberating Iraq and thus Ms. Sheehan's son died in vain for a false cause.
> 
> Those of us who haven't been in Ms. Sheehan's shoes can't possibly understand the grief of a mother who has lost a child - sorrow can all so easily turn into anger and resentment over those who had a hand in setting the situation that resulted in the lost life even when the facts show that everyone has acted honorably.
> 
> ...



the president's statement to the vigil and the things Cindy Sheehan is voicing:



> Part of my duty as the President is to meet with those who've lost a loved one. And so, you know, listen, I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about her -- about her position. And I am -- she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position. And I've thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is, get out of Iraq now. And it would be -- it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long-run, if we were to do so. But no, Steve, I've met with a lot of families, and I have done my best to bring comfort to the families and honor to the loved one, and get different opinions when you meet with moms and dads and sons and daughters and wives and husbands of those who have fallen. One opinion I've come away with universally is that, you know, we should do everything we can to honor the fallen. And one way to honor the fallen is to lay the foundation for peace.



Cindy Sheehan's reply:



> "The President says he feels compassion for me, *but the best way to show that compassion is by meeting with me and the other mothers * and families who are here. Our sons made the ultimate sacrifice and we want answers. All we're asking is that he sacrifice an hour out of his five-week vacation to talk to us, before the next mother loses her son in Iraq. He says he is spreading peace. How can you spread peace by killing people?



hhmmm, she's already been afforded that opportunity once.  that's once more than hundreds of others.



> He says he is spreading peace. How can you spread peace by killing people?



it's called war, ma'am.

so who's the puppetmaster...?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2005)

http://hnn.us/articles/1784.html



> Have presidents in the past attended the funerals of soldiers who died in combat? Have they taken note of the deaths of U.S. soldiers? The record is mixed, as can be seen below. It would appear that few presidents have ever actually attended military funerals, though many used the bully pulpit to draw attention to lives lost in the service of their country.



Most of the Presidents who did attend individual funerals actually knew the person in some way.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 12, 2005)

Well, I'm not sure what about that google page I'm supposed to be "chewing on," but here are a few references on presidents attending funeral and memorial services:

Lincoln:
Davis KC. Don't know much about the civil war.  New York: Harper Collins, 1996.

Clinton: US Department of State: http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Clinton_Vows_No_Safe_Harbor_for_USS_Cole_Attackers.html

Reagan: Arlington National Cemetery
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/terror.htm

http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/1784.html


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not sure what about that google page I'm supposed to be "chewing on,"


The answer. You must not be familiar with Google Research services.


> The thrust of your current question is whether there is a difference
> between what President Bush is doing regarding honoring those killed
> in action and his four predecessors  Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
> Sr. and Clinton. Ive spent many hours researching your question and
> ...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 12, 2005)

Yeah, you're right, I'm not familiar with google research services, but I offer my own citations.  Whose opinion is that of google research services?  

But whether or not he's gone to funerals isn't even the issue.  The issue is whether he can spare an hour for Cindy Sheehan.  I don't see it as real big deal.  A Gold Star mother feels so strongly about it she's willing to travel a thousand miles and camp out?  Geez, spare her an hour.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2005)

She already had one...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 12, 2005)

Well, to be exact, she had 6 minutes.  OK, so I guess you disagree with me, and you don't think she deserves an hour.  Fair enough.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 12, 2005)

she was afforded the opportunity.  period.  she's met with senators, national security advisors, department of defense officials, and the president of the united states of america.  and now, a denial of a "2nd chance" encites a politically motivated tantrum.  

placing bets she's not there by the end of the month :idunno:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 12, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> And that's a key point. Cindy Sheehan has no idea what her son sacrificed his life for. I've heard her speak: She said that her son believed we should go to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden, and in fact he believed he was going to do that. That was a cause he believed in, but Iraq? That's the question.
> 
> George W. Bush is not the Pharoah. He works for us, and unfortunately I think that many of our elected officials seem to forget that. We paid for the war, and we deserve to know what and why we paid for it. Cindy Sheehan paid more than some of us. She wants to know what is the purpose of this war.
> 
> ...


I leave for a while, and the "we're at war, and you have to love the war and die for the war and put up and shut up!" folks have arrived.  lol!

Simply because other families have not been granted an audience by no means limits Mrs. Sheehan from demonstrating to get the President to listen to her.  Remember guys, this isn't a communist country where you stand in line and receive your bread and then cower away for fear of the Big Bad Government, right?  ...right?  

So you think the Drudge Report is a great source for news.  Way to be.  Still doesn't change the fact that she can demonstrate peacefully - and many pro-war, supporting our troops = sending them to their deaths, folks don't want to see a military mom suffering in full view - it would be more tasteful out of the limelight.  

This whole "flip-flopping!" charge as a viable way of addressing what someone has to say is kind of ridiculous.  Why not apply that to your President and his Administration as well, then?  I think Americans who are supporting this war - with their lives, with their money, with their country's best - should never be afraid to make sure that when we ask our troops to make that ultimate sacrifice, they are doing it for a good reason, and not a reason that amorphously floats around as politicians see fit.


----------



## Matt Stone (Aug 13, 2005)

I hate these political threads, mostly because armchair generals and armchair presidents believe that, in their omniscience, they are fully aware of all that the President shoulders as his personal burden both simply as President and as a President of a nation at war.

Our country has been a bastion of freedom and personal liberty for hundreds of years.  Our Government has been only as good and correct as the flawed and all too human people elected to run it.  When our country was small and new the Federal Government answered to the people directly; it could, because there weren't that many people to have to address.  As our country grew, both from those who were here at the foundation of it as well as those who flocked to our banner from oppressed countries around the world, the distance between our elected leaders and the populace grew into a vast gulf, requiring additional elected leaders to bridge the gap.

War is not a pretty thing.  People die, are maimed, and go insane.  Killing another human being is the very highest of abberations to the human mentality, and is codified as the first prohibition from the mouth of God, Himself.  Sometimes, however, in order to defend the greater good, or the nation as a whole, it becomes a "kill or be killed" decision; do you lay down and die quietly, or do you refuse to be slaughtered by the enemy?  The unfortunate consequence is that some of our own are going to die anyway, whether they lay down or resist.  It is a fact of war that casualties are produced on _both_ sides, and it could easily be said that war is a contest of will moreso than anything else...  Who's will is stronger, which side is willing to bear the cost before one side concedes defeat?

This is going to be long, but please stick with me...  Some cold, hard, factual statistics from the U.S. Civil War Center:

In the *Revolutionary War* we had approximately 3.5 million citizens; there were approximately 200,000 people in the military, amounting to only 5.7% of the population under arms; 4,435 soldiers were killed in action, 6,188 were wounded but not killed, for a total of 10,623 war casualties over a period of 80 months.   

In the *War of 1812* we had approximately 7.6 million citizens; there were approximately 286,000 people in the military, amounting to only 3.8% of the population under arms; 2,260 soldiers were killed in action, 4,505 were wounded but not killed, for a total of 6,765 war casualties over a period of 30 months.   

In the *Mexican War* we had approximately 21.1 million citizens; there were approximately 78,700 people in the military, amounting ton only 0.4% of the population under arms; 1,733 soldiers were killed in action, 11,550 died from other causes, and 4,152 were wounded but not killed, for a total of 17,435 war casualties over a period of 20 months.

In the *Civil War*, the Union had approximately 26.2 million citizens; there were approximately 2,803,300 people in the military, amounting to 10.7% of the population under arms; 110,070 soldiers were killed in action, 249,458 died from other causes, and 275,175 were wounded by not killed, for a total of 634,703 Union war casualties over a period of 48 months.

In the *Civil War*, the Confderacy had approximately 8.1 million citizens; there were approximately 1,064,200 people in the military, amounting to 13.1% of the population under arms; 74,524 were killed in action, 124,000 died from other causes, and more than 137,000 were wounded but not killed, for a total of 335,524 Confederate war casualties over a period of 48 months.

To summarize, in the *Civil War*, when we were _killing ourselves_, the United States had approximately 34.3 million citizens; there were approxiimately 3,867,500 people in the military, amounting to 11.1% of the total population under arms; 184,594 were killed in action, 373,458 died from other causes, and more than 412,175 were wounded but not killed, for a grand total of war casualties caused by fellow countrymen of 970,227 over a period of 48 months (amounting to 3,846 war deaths _per month_).   

In the *Spanish-American War*, we had approximately 74.6 million citizens, with approximately 306,800 people in the military, amounting to 0.4% of the population under arms; 385 were killed in action, 2,061 died from other causes, 1,662 were wounded but not killed, for a total of 4,108 war casualties over a period of 4 months.

In *World War I*, we had approximately 102.8 million citizens, with approximately 4,743,800 people in the military, amounting to 4.6% of the population under arms; 53,513 were killed in action, 63,195 died from other causes, 204,002 were wounded but not killed, for a total of 320,710 war casualties over a period of 19 months.

In *World War II*, we had approximately 133.5 million citizens, with approximately 16,353,700 people in the military, amounting to 12.2% of the population under arms; 292,131 were killed in action, 115,185 died from other causes, 670,846 were wounded but not killed, for a total of 1,078,162 war casualties over a period of 44 months (amounting to 6,639 war deaths _per month_).   

In the *Korean War*, we had approximately 151.7 million citizens, with 5,764,100 people in the military, amounting to 3.8% of the population under arms; 33,651 were killed in action, 103,284 were wounded but not killed, for a total of 136,935 war casualties over a period of 37 months.   

In the *Vietnam War*, we had approximately 204.9 million citizens, with 8,744,000 people in the military, amounting to 4.3% of the population under arms; 47,369 were killed in action, 10,799 died from other causes, 153,303 were wounded but not killed, for a total of 211,471 war casualties over a period of 90 months (amounting to 526 war deaths _per month_).

In the first *Gulf War*, we had approximately 260 million citizens, with 2,750,000 people in the military, amounting to an all-time low (with the exception of the Spanish-American and Mexican wars) of only 1.1% of the population under arms; 148 were killed in action, 145 died from other causes, approximately 467 were wounded but not killed, for a total of 760 war casualties over a 1 month period.   

Statistics for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not available on that site.  I suspect that is because the current conflict is ongoing...

The point of all that?  That we haven't really yet begun to lose soldiers; history bears out that this is one of the safest conflicts in American history.  Though a single death is too high a price, but objectively speaking we're still doing pretty damn well overall...

Our country has grown soft.  We are fat and weak, and though no price can be placed on a single human life, we value Freedom and the ideals of the Framers too little.  In our ongoing success, we have grown apathetic and detached; we no longer believe anything to be worth fighting and dying for; we are so wrapped up in our own "pursuit of happiness," we forget that sacrifice, hard and bitter, is what allowed our country to drag itself away from its own oppression and to come to the call of our allies time and again.

Bush is an idiot.  Nobody would dispute that.  Were it not for the fact that he is not personally running the show in prosecution of the War on Terror, that that is left to his advisors and generals, things would be far worse.  But he is not the worst President we have had, and his track record and the wisdom of his decisions will be borne out by history.

In all this pointless debate, let's not lose sight of what the troops on the ground are fighting for - *each other* (something I don't expect those of you who have never served to understand).  They work for the safety and security of the Iraqi and Afghani people, whose countries have been immeasurably benefitted by our presence - they have schools where once they did not, they can vote where once they could not, and have a voice where once they were silenced by oppressive and murderous regimes.  That is enough for me.  Granted, the original stated purpose of our efforts have changed.  That is upsetting, but it is a marginal issue.  The grander issue is that we remain embroiled in combat action in these countries, and will continue to be so "until."

What's disgraceful about Mrs. Sheehan's behavior?  That she cheapens her son's sacrifice by whining about her own lack of an audience with the busiest, most powerful person in the Western world.  She has no concept of the responsibilities of the President, yet she pesters him like a bored child wanting attention from a parent who has immediate responsibilities for the good of the family to attend to.  She says her son's death was pointless and wasted - that is an insult to her son, his service, and his sacrifice, as his efforts and the efforts of other war dead have allowed others to live free...

A few quotes, and my solitary contribution to this nonsensical thread is done:



> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
> 
> (Interesting degree of sacrifice, don't you think?  Especially worthy of emulation, given the religious bent of so many Americans...)





> "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
> 
> (The true measure of what a soldier believes in, don't you think?)



Peace to all of you.  May you never have to bear the burden of defending your own freedoms, that others far stronger defend them for you.  May you never have to bear the burden of a family member, child, or comrade falling to the enemy to ensure your own liberties.

And may this all end sooner rather than later...

Pax.

 :asian:

***EDIT  For those who repeatedly talk about all their "taxes" that are "paying" for the war, shut up with all the talk like you've just bought a new appliance and now want the manufacturer to answer questions about the thing...  You aren't "buying" a war.  Your taxes fund the efforts of the Government, and ensure their ongoing activities.  Certainly, the wages some of these jackasses are paid are beyond exorbitant and they should answer for that, but too many people act like they are personally funding every bomb and missile sent "down range."  Get over it...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 13, 2005)

Said much more eloquently than I could manage....:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 13, 2005)

And I too am done here.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 13, 2005)

> What's disgraceful about Mrs. Sheehan's behavior? That she cheapens her son's sacrifice by whining about her own lack of an audience with the busiest, most powerful person in the Western world. She has no concept of the responsibilities of the President, yet she pesters him like a bored child wanting attention from a parent who has immediate responsibilities for the good of the family to attend to. She says her son's death was pointless and wasted - that is an insult to her son, his service, and his sacrifice, as his efforts and the efforts of other war dead have allowed others to live free...


Really?  The President is so busy he can take a month vacation at his ranch?  Wow.  We should all be so busy.  

I think it's ridiculous to say that a mother is cheapening her own son's death.  I believe Mrs. Sheehan finds her son's death cheapened by being used to continue a war which fewer Amercians are believing in.  Please remember, the reasons the President has given from why we are in Iraq has changed what, 3 or 4 times now?  We didn't find any WMDs.  Then Saddam Hussein was caught.  We have no set plans on how or when to pull out and leave the country of Iraq to run itself.  So we see an indefinite war being waged there...and mothers like Mrs. Sheehan find the excuse "soldiers have died, therefore we need to send more soldiers in to die" pretty weak.

Of course war is a terrible thing.  Simply because many people die in a war does not mean that we should give up on understanding why we are there, and what our goals are.  Treating soldiers like used Kleenex is beyond disgraceful.  Military families like my own believe in our troops, but want them being put in harm's way FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.  

I think the mother of a dead soldier is allowed to ask whatever questions she wants. 

Matt, I believe that you are insinuating that we are in Iraq for "freedom".  Why then are we not in North Korea?  Why then have we not defended Tibet?  Why have we not stepped in in other countries?

"Freedom" was about the third or fourth reason (excuse?) Bush gave for being in Iraq.  Waffling on why we are at war just doesn't cut it with me - and I suppose even less so for a mother who has lost her son to the war.


----------



## Matt Stone (Aug 13, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Really?  The President is so busy he can take a month vacation at his ranch?  Wow.  We should all be so busy.



Yes, I'm sure that when the President "takes a vacation" he's completely out of the loop, alone, unplagued by the daily, endless updates and reports on every situation ongoing around the globe.  The President, being the most powerful person in the Western world, has no right whatsoever to get away from the White House, step out of the business suit, and do a little Presidential work in more comfortable surroundings, right?

People should speak only about what they have direct knowledge of.  Assumptions that "vacation" means the same to the leader of the Western world as it does to some middle class family in Podunk, Iowa, are ill-advised...



> I think it's ridiculous to say that a mother is cheapening her own son's death.



Think what you like.  When a son's sacrifice, one that he believed in (according to what I've read thusfar), is used for the mother's political agenda, it cheapens his death.  You may find it ridiculous.  I find it ridiculous that you can't see how his mother is using his death for her own purposes...



> I believe Mrs. Sheehan finds her son's death cheapened by being used to continue a war which fewer Amercians are believing in.



Whatever.  Being a parent, I know there is little that could soothe the loss of one of my children.  I would be insane with rage and grief.  I've never said that her loss was any less than the loss any other parent or spouse has felt.  But she isn't alone, and she isn't the only one.  What makes her so special?



> Please remember, the reasons the President has given from why we are in Iraq has changed what, 3 or 4 times now?



Please remember, as you sit on your couch, or call in sick to work, or do whatever it is you do, that I am the *last* person you need to remind about any particular aspect of this war...  You aren't the one fighting it.  Keep that in the front of your consciousness every day you go about your normal activities...  *I*, however, along with thousands of my comrades, are the ones that get sent into the meat grinder, not you.

Take this as politely as I mean it, though it's going to come across wrong - "Sit down and shut up."  Have your opinions, but don't presume to preach to a soldier about all the evils of war, unless of course you have the intentions of popping down to the local recruiter to sign up...



> We didn't find any WMDs.  Then Saddam Hussein was caught.



I've never once argued that Bush was anything other than what he was, nor that our reasons for being in the places we are are unclear at best.  Back off that part of the argument.  Address the things I spoke to, or bring up something new...  The whole "why are we there" discussion smells a lot like dead horse...



> We have no set plans on how or when to pull out and leave the country of Iraq to run itself.



That *you* are aware of, you mean.  There are plans, but like so much else in our narrow-minded, tunnel-visioned country, it isn't something you announce to the world.  If we were to tell CNN every single troop location, the intended missions of those troops, to *include* the schedule for their withdrawal, there'd be a lot more bodies piling up...

Since this is a martial arts forum (and remember that "martial" means "pertaining to _war_"), let's think on the words of Sun Tzu - 

If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, there is defeat in a hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy, the odds are even.  If you know yourself and the enemy, victory is assured

By not announcing our intentions on any given operation (and withdrawal is an operation just like a combat patrol is an operation), we at least keep the odds even...



> So we see an indefinite war being waged there



No, uninformed and overly nosey civilians see the war as being indefinite.  Even our slightly retarded Commander in Chief knows we can't fight a war "indefinitely."  Things like attrition to troop numbers through regular ending of enlistment contracts, retirements, low recruiting goals, deaths, reduce our warfighting capacity.  Longer deployments, increased deployments and time away from spouses and children, make soldiers reconsider remaining in the service.  The Government is fully aware of that factor, during war *or* peace.



> ...and mothers like Mrs. Sheehan find the excuse "soldiers have died, therefore we need to send more soldiers in to die" pretty weak.



So, when at work, if you are in an office with 9 other people, and 5 quit, are you still able to accomplish the same 10 person workload with only 5 people present?  Certainly not, and you'd be complaining incessantly if you were expected to.  The military is already doing a 10 person job with only about 7 or 8 people present.  If a couple of those get killed, replacements are needed.  It is part and parcel of the soldier's job, something that we all understand and accept.  



> Of course war is a terrible thing.



Especially for those of you watching it on TV, right?



> Simply because many people die in a war does not mean that we should give up on understanding why we are there, and what our goals are.



I tend to leave that up to the people we elected to run the show...  If they weren't competent to lead, we shouldn't have elected them.  We really have nobody to blame but ourselves for our choices in Governmental leadership, since it was either our action or non-action that put them there in the first place...



> Treating soldiers like used Kleenex is beyond disgraceful.



How are they being treated as "used Kleenex?"  Soldiers fight, are killed, and new ones brought up to replace them.  That's _part of being a soldier._  We are, in the grand scheme of things, pawns to be used to execute the grand strategy set in place by our generals.  That's how war is fought.  If you don't like it, don't join.  But that's how our job is done...



> Military families like my own believe in our troops, but want them being put in harm's way FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.



No kidding?  When you say "military families like my own," what do you mean?  Who in your family is military?  If it is further away than a sibling or parent, personally I don't count it.  In my book that just means you have someone in your family that was/is in the military.  My uncle was in the Marines, but that doesn't make his generation a "military family," nor does it make our extended family (his generation, mine, and my childrens') a military family.  *My* family, my wife and children and I, comprise a military family.  Are you saying the same thing?



> I think the mother of a dead soldier is allowed to ask whatever questions she wants.



Certainly.  She can ask all she wants.  But expecting the President to drop everything so she can ***** about how wrong she thinks things are is, as you put it earlier, ridiculous...  



> Matt, I believe that you are insinuating that we are in Iraq for "freedom".  Why then are we not in North Korea?  Why then have we not defended Tibet?  Why have we not stepped in in other countries?



Give it time...   :ultracool   



> "Freedom" was about the third or fourth reason (excuse?) Bush gave for being in Iraq.  Waffling on why we are at war just doesn't cut it with me - and I suppose even less so for a mother who has lost her son to the war.



Whatever.  Sometimes it is enough to just be doing the right thing.  Sometimes the right thing is unpleasant, sometimes it's painful.  Sometimes it gets you killed.  As a soldier, a husband, and a father, I've tried to make it clear to my family that this is exactly how I see it.  If I die in combat, so be it.  The grand politics of "why" isn't my concern, nor should it be theirs.  I chose to be a soldier, one of a great Army of *volunteers,* all of whom knew the potential outcome of their service when they enlisted.  It is no shock to those on active duty, nor should it be a shock to their families, when our Commander in Chief places us in harms way, that the Ultimate Sacrifice may have to be paid.

It's what we do.  It's what we are.  Honor the fallen by honoring their sacrifice.  Honor the dead by remaining resolute against those who have declared war on our homes and our people.  We have too many touchy-feely neo-hippies wanting world peace, ignoring that there are elements in the world who don't want that peace, and who have dedicated their existence to killing our people and crippling our country.  They want to eradicate our way of life.  For me, that's what I'm fighting against.  Let Bush worry about oil.  But for me, and for many of my Brothers and Sisters, we're fighting to put enough fear in the hearts of these pseudo-Muslim terrorists that they won't _dare_ raise a hand to us, our children, or our grandchildren.

If you want to discuss this more, email me.  I hate political threads.  I go to these boards for martial arts discussion.  I get enough politics at work... 

Pax.

 :asian:


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 14, 2005)

> *BUSH PROTESTING MOM CALLS FOR 'ISRAEL OUT OF PALESTINE'; VOWS NOT TO PAY TAXES*
> Anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!
> 
> "You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.
> ...



what's next, naming a room in the white house after her...?  it's getting pretty damn rediculous now.  oh wait, i guess she has a right not to pay taxes since she lost her son to war. 

i give her 2 more weeks.  she's back in her comfy house watching dr. phil.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 14, 2005)

> i give her 2 more weeks. she's back in her comfy house watching dr. phil.


I guess you never buried your child.  Don't bet on it.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 14, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I guess you never buried your child.  Don't bet on it.



no, your right.  i buried my sister.  not quite the same i know.  but i certainly wouldn't sell my loved one's death for political agenda.

mindset of Cindy Sheehan:

_first, i lose my son to federal service that he openly volunteered for (and re-enlisted for)

second, i wanna meet the commander-in-chief.  i level with him on his outlook for the Iraqi people.  he's so sincere.  mission accomplished.

third, i meet and speak with several democratic leaders of the senate, have a few drinks.

next, i wanna meet with the president, again, and tell him how worthless of a leader he is and he killed my son.

i want him to fix the problem in palestine and until he does, i'm not leaving this mosquito infested ditch in texas.

i don't think i should pay taxes again either, because you killed my son.

i'm so happy, there making a movie about my story next year.  watch Lifetime television for women for more details.  a couple book deals forthcoming._

it's pathetic.  how many mother's have lost sons and daughters to this war?  to any war, since the inception of our country, they might not have agreed with?  excuse me if i appear so damn heartless but what makes this women so special?  she lost her son to combat, a service he volunteered for, twice!  of course this lady deserves a folded American flag and the condolences of her nation, a huge thanks for experiencing such a loss.  the same loss that hundreds of thousands of mothers before her experienced.  you don't see them demanding not to pay taxes ever again.  i'm sick of hearing about her.  she's clearly got an agenda.  so who's the man behind the curtain?  who's pulling the strings?  politics.  it's disgusting.

hey phoenix44,

get off your box chief.  you wouldn't know the first thing about war or the price of it.  you know and believe only what the TV tells you.  you know not the mindset of a soldier or why they do what they do.  just because i never buried a child to combat does not mean i'm oblivious to what is happening.  my child is 5 years old.  she wants to be like her dad when she grows up.  she wants to be a soldier.  and when that time comes, should she ever find herself in harms way, and God forbid she loses her life to service to this great nation, i shall never disrespect her service, actions, and memory like this women has done to her own.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 15, 2005)

> get off your box chief. you wouldn't know the first thing about war or the price of it. you know and believe only what the TV tells you.


Do you know me? Because if you don't you have certainly made a lot of assumptions about me. All wrong, BTW.



> you know not the mindset of a soldier


I never claimed I did, but I do understand the mindset of a parent who buries her child.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 15, 2005)

> Do you know me? Because if you don't you have certainly made a lot of assumptions about me. All wrong, BTW.



taking a chance i guess. :idunno: 



> I never claimed I did, but I do understand the mindset of a parent who buries her child.



you speak from experience.  sorry for your loss, but no two different people will deal with parental grief in the same manner.  there are those that accept the loss, as tragic as it may be, and then there are those that are going to endlessly look for someone to blame.  cindy sheehan obviously falls into the latter, and to make outrageous demands of people that they cannot possibly make happen, that is sad.  it saddens me to see her succomb to that.  please accept my apologies if i've offended you in any way.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 15, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> no, your right.  i buried my sister.  not quite the same i know.  but i certainly wouldn't sell my loved one's death for political agenda.
> 
> mindset of Cindy Sheehan:
> 
> ...


_
The actual conversation went more like
"Hi mom! Sorry whatsisface died."
"His name was..."
"Thanks for commin' by mom!"_


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 15, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> The actual conversation went more like
> "Hi mom! Sorry whatsisface died."
> "His name was..."
> "Thanks for commin' by mom!"



of course, you were there, you would now huh. :idunno:


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 15, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> taking a chance i guess. :idunno:



Y'know, its funny...

The "chances" you took in reference to Phoenix44 sure sound an awful like what my first-year critical thinking perfesser called "red herrings".

Funny, that.  :idunno:


----------



## Marginal (Aug 15, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> of course, you were there, you would now huh. :idunno:


Glibly paraphrased granted, but that is how the news reports I've read have painted it. Bush didn't know Sheehan's name, and called her "mom" during the entire meeting.


----------



## ginshun (Aug 15, 2005)

The longer this goes on, it seems to be getting more and more like a politcal platform and less and less like a mother grieving a son.

 She has already had one meeting with the president, what makes her any more deserving of a second one than all the other parents who never got one at all?

 She has my condolences for her loss, but I really don't know what she thinks she is going to accomplish.  And now the stuff about not paying her taxes and throwing out her stance on Isreal?  Come on lady.


 And honestly, every time somebody brings up the presidents "month long vacation" it just makes them look silly.  I am sure you people know as well I do that regardless if the President is conducting buisness from DC or from Texas, its not like he really gets to take a vacation like you or I do.  He still has briefings all day and has to do his job no matter where he is.  Everybody knows this, even the people critisizing him for his vactaion.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 15, 2005)

He did have to cut that one vacation short to sign "Terri's bill". Can't do everything from Crawford apparently.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 16, 2005)

The truth about Cindy Sheehan.


----------



## modarnis (Aug 16, 2005)

and Cindy Sheehan's own unbiased blog is available at:
http://michaelmoore.com/


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 16, 2005)

I'm going to side with my right leaning brothers right now. I really hate Michael Moore. Chasing this woman around with his video camara and bankrolling her grief driven actions is deplorable. Nobodies death should be turned into a political stunt...

There are better ways to oppose this war. There are better ways to show that real people are dying. Turning this into a soap opera is NOT one of them.

This is another case of political sensationalism.  The right had their Terri Shaivo and now the left has Cindy Sheehan.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 16, 2005)

While I agree with some of the points Moore makes in his books and movies...

I'm still left with the overall impression that the man is a partisan, self-righteous, pompous *******. In many ways he is to the Left what Ann Coulter is to the Right.

As I've said before, if you're going to go about crusading against injustice and moral outrage, it'd be best to have a few virtues (like, oh say, humility) yourself first.

Laterz.


----------



## ginshun (Aug 16, 2005)

Interesting development according to thesmokinggun.com:

Sheehans Husband Seeks Divorce

* Bush roadside protester named in California petition filed Friday *







 AUGUST 15--The next well-wisher approaching Cindy Sheehan at her tent encampment outside President George W. Bush's Texas vacation home may actually be a process server. That's because the California woman's husband--in a curious bit of timing--filed for divorce Friday afternoon (below you'll find a copy of Patrick Sheehan's complaint, lodged August 12 in Solano County District Court). With Sheehan, 48, entering a second week outside Bush's Crawford retreat, her husband's divorce petition cites "irreconcilable differences" for the demise of the couple's 28-year marriage (the Sheehans, the document states, have been separated since June 1). Along with a Vacaville home, Patrick Sheehan listed other "community assets" as "any and all benefits payable as a result of son's death," including a Prudential insurance policy and "benefits from the U.S. Government." From her roadside outpost, Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son Casey, an Army Specialist, was killed last year in Iraq, has become the face of the U.S. antiwar movement, telling reporters that she will not budge until Bush meets with her and explains "why our sons are dead." Noting that Bush has referred to the war as a "noble" pursuit, Sheehan told Reuters, "If it's such a noble cause, why aren't his daughters over there?" Through an aide, Patrick Sheehan's lawyer, Glen DeRonde, declined to comment about the court filing, so it is unclear whether the divorce complaint will be delivered to Cindy Sheehan in Texas or when she returns to her home east of San Francisco.


----------



## Matt Stone (Aug 16, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Noting that Bush has referred to the war as a "noble" pursuit, Sheehan told Reuters, "If it's such a noble cause, why aren't his daughters over there?"



Um, because they didn't *enlist*, becoming *volunteer* soldiers, like SPC Sheehan did...  *twice*.

If people can't see that she is pursuing her own agenda by this point, then they are hopelessly blind...


----------



## ginshun (Aug 16, 2005)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Um, because they didn't *enlist*, becoming *volunteer* soldiers, like SPC Sheehan did...  *twice*.
> 
> If people can't see that she is pursuing her own agenda by this point, then they are hopelessly blind...


 
 Exactly, its not like Bush personally plucked her son out of his home and forced him into the war.  He he signed up once, and then signed up again after the war had already started.  I think he knew what he was getting into.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 16, 2005)

Now that even some of my usual sparring partners are coming to somewhat of an agreement here, let me concede that there is nothing wrong at all with having a protest outside of the Pres. ranch. If folks are where they are supposed to be doing nothing illegal, they are well within their rights. My "problem" with Mrs. Sheehan is the obvious combination of her own inherent agenda and her manipulation by other political powers.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

It's the short-sightedness of the whole thing that offends me. "Just bring the troops home"...oh, it's so simple...why didn't we think of that. Problem is, bringing the troops home will result in MORE American dead, not less. 

These idiots can see past the nose on their face. If you pull the troops out now, the terrorists win...If the terrorists win this battle, then they will be convinced they will win the WAR. Thousands of fence riding Islamic extremists will be inspired by the victory, and will FLOCK to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to join the (now winning) campaign against the US and the west. Oh yeah, that's a plan. 

Regardless of what you think of Bush or going in to Iraq to begin with, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that we can just pull out now. We're committed folks.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8966183/

Well, it seems that, for whatever reason, Mr. Sheehan has had enough. It is not clear what his motive for filing divorce is, but it's likely the strain of this entire ordeal.

Ironically, msnbc felt compelled to note that a row of crosses erected as protest by Ms. Sheehan and the other protesters were ran over by a pickup truck. The belief among the protesters, no doubt, is that it's a Republican conspiracy.

Just as likely, is the explaination that the crosses were struck by Senator Ted Kennedy, also on vacation in Texas, who was driving an intern back to her motel room after a night of drunken debauchery. 

Mr. Kennedy is rumored to have remarked, "Thank god there wasn't a canal this time...now if I can only find my darn pants." At this point this is only speculation.


*********************************************************


It's the short-sightedness of the whole thing that offends me. "Just bring the troops home"...oh, it's so simple...why didn't we think of that. Problem is, bringing the troops home will result in MORE American dead, not less. 

These idiots can see past the nose on their face. If you pull the troops out now, the terrorists win...If the terrorists win this battle, then they will be convinced they will win the WAR. Thousands of fence riding Islamic extremists will be inspired by the victory, and will FLOCK to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to join the (now winning) campaign against the US and the west. Nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc, will feel confident in supporting and funding these terrorists, because they know we won't have the resolve to do anything about it. The house of cards will come tumbling down. Oh yeah, that's a plan. 

Regardless of what you think of Bush or going in to Iraq to begin with, you'd have to be a complete moron to believe that we can just pull out now. We're committed folks. We CAN'T pull out, don't you understand. It would be a catastrophe of epic proportions. It won't be another Vietnam it'll be our Dien Bien Phu. 

It's like standing in a closet holding a live handgrenade, and you can't find the pin. Dropping it is not an option. If you don't find the pin, you're dead. Overly simplistic ideals like "Bring the troops home now" aren't going to accomplish anything. 

1800 troops dead in Iraq? Pull out now, and 1800 will seem cheap at twice the price, and it won't be just our soldiers and marines, it'll be young children and old folks, and a good cross section in between. We'll see things that make 9/11 look like a three car pile up on the freeway.  

For better or worse we've stirred the hornets nest, now we have to deal.  Running and hiding are NOT an option.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 17, 2005)

Here you go:

http://www.wacotrib.com/hp/content/news/stories/2005/08/17/20050817waccrossmemorial.html

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=9391224&src=rss/topNews


A Viet Nam vet intentionally drives his truck across 800 crosses that they put up as a shrine honoring the war dead at "Camp Casey."

A shrine memorializing the war dead...and this guy desecrates it.  

They were crosses...wouldn't that be blasphemy?  The article mentions how the guy goes to church with the local sheriff, so I assume he's "God fearin'."

It strikes me that this goes WELL beyond the bounds of poor taste, even just ignoring the criminality of his actions.  Can anybody here justify this on any grounds?   Regardless of the nature of the reasons giving rise to the shrine, it was still a shrine to the war's casualties.

Edited addendum:  I note the crosses were adorned with flags, which means that the flags were desecrated as well...and the second article mentions the perpetrator was 46, making him far too young to be a Viet Nam vet.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2005)

The guy was a putz....so.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 18, 2005)

That's true. And he was arrested. Hey, every faction is entitled to its putz contingent.


----------



## ginshun (Aug 18, 2005)

More news on the growing media circus surrronding Cindy Sheehan.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19186

 Apparently Neo-Nazis like her stance on Isreal.

 Nothing says your doing the right thing like knowing that David Duke has your back. :|

 Aperently every left wing kook in the contry is cashing in on Mrs. Sheehans noteriety.  This thing is such a media created event in almost sickens me.  

 I am starting to feel a little sorry for this woman, and not because of the death of her son, because of the way she is letting herself become nothing more that a pawn in the game.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Apparently Neo-Nazis like her stance on Isreal.
> 
> Nothing says your doing the right thing like knowing that David Duke has your back. :|



Not that I have a dog in this fight one way or the other (I'm actually somewhat indifferent about Ms. Sheehan's "campaign" here), but...

Simply assuming that one's position is incorrect solely because individuals you dislike also accept said position is a logical fallacy:

Logical Fallacy: Guilt By Association

Laterz.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 18, 2005)

Really.  As I said, every faction has its putz contingent.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 19, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Not that I have a dog in this fight one way or the other (I'm actually somewhat indifferent about Ms. Sheehan's "campaign" here), but...
> 
> Simply assuming that one's position is incorrect solely because individuals you dislike also accept said position is a logical fallacy:
> 
> ...


If you really have no dog in this race, you might want to explain that to hardhead and his "god fearin christian" comment.  David Duke agreeing with Sheehan is no more or less of a comment about her position than the fact that some lone nut ran over some crosses is a comment about the opposite position.  "Guilty by Association".  I'm willing to simply believe you happened to miss hardhead's comment, and that's why you didn't include it with this one.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If you really have no dog in this race, you might want to explain that to hardhead and his "god fearin christian" comment.  David Duke agreeing with Sheehan is no more or less of a comment about her position than the fact that some lone nut ran over some crosses is a comment about the opposite position.  "Guilty by Association".  I'm willing to simply believe you happened to miss hardhead's comment, and that's why you didn't include it with this one.



So, lemme get this straight...

Me "not having a dog in this fight" = Me "having a personal responsibility to correct Steve's comments about wacky Christians".

Uh-huh. Sure.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 19, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> So, lemme get this straight...
> 
> Me "not having a dog in this fight" = Me "having a personal responsibility to correct Steve's comments about wacky Christians".
> 
> Uh-huh. Sure.


 Not at all, I said I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I was just pointing out that there were two posts, not one your comment applied to.  I never claimed that slight was intentional on your part.  In fact, I thought so much of your post that I simply wanted to extend it's influence to other posts it applied to.  Sorry if you didn't catch that part.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2005)

But all the same it is interesting WHO gets the attention.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 23, 2005)

Ms. Sheehan has an interesting blog post on the 'huffingtonpost' web site, replying to recent news reports about President Bush's trip to Idaho.

Most notable is the confusion concerning what Ms. Sheehan has requested.



> "On Sheehan, the grieving mother who has camped near his ranch since Aug. 6, the president said he strongly supports her right to protest. 'She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it,' Bush said. 'I think *immediate withdrawal from Iraq* would be a mistake,' he said. 'I think those who a*dvocate immediate withdrawal* from not only Iraq but the Middle East are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States.'"​This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. *I didn't ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for.* I am still waiting for one member of the press corps to ask him that. I am still waiting for that answer. First, we were told WMD: false. Then we were told Saddam=Osama: false. Then we were told Saddam was a bad man to his own people and we had to get rid of him: he's gone. Then we were told the Iraqi people had to have elections: they did. Now we are spreading "freedom and democracy" but we are building 14 permanent bases, some the size of Sacramento, Ca. To me that indicates that we are spreading the cancer of imperialism and usurping THEIR natural resources.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 23, 2005)

Someone should tell Ms. Sheehan (is it Ms. already? poor thing) that Nobility was left in England a couple hundred years ago. Maybe she should try asking Tony Blair.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 23, 2005)

> Now we are spreading "freedom and democracy" but we are building 14 permanent bases, some the size of Sacramento, Ca.


 Is this true?  I thought the President claimed that we would not have a permanent military presence in Iraq.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 23, 2005)

Well, dont take this as law but...I think shes confusing permanent with "improved". The longer the military stays the more developed the base becomes. My friend who is back on leave from Iraq can testify. Buildings get constructed. Walls get built, barracks, mess halls, gyms, PX's etc. The "permanent" comes when the government says "we arent going to leave" not when a base reaches a certain size or state of development.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 23, 2005)

Apparently, several television stations will not air an add by Ms. Sheehan. It can be viewed here:

http://www.gsfp.org/

MisterMike, I do try to refer to people respectfully. I always thought that Ms. was an accepted method of addressing a woman, married or otherwise. You may notice that I tend to address Mr. Bush as 'President', and members of the Supreme Court as 'Justice' (or 'Cheif Justice' when appropriate). I also try to address elected leaders by their titles; Senator, or Representative.


"When we use words like 'Honor', 'Duty', and 'Code' it means something. You use them as a punch-line.' - Colonel Nathan R. Jessep


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well, dont take this as law but...I think shes confusing permanent with "improved". The longer the military stays the more developed the base becomes. My friend who is back on leave from Iraq can testify. Buildings get constructed. Walls get built, barracks, mess halls, gyms, PX's etc. The "permanent" comes when the government says "we arent going to leave" not when a base reaches a certain size or state of development.


Have you read "Rebuilding Americas Defesnes" by Paul Wolfowitz?  In it, he writes that we need to shift our defenses from Europe to the Balkans and the Middle East...among other things.  I know that Mr. Wolfowitz played a huge part in forming US policy before he left to be president of the World Bank.  I wonder if these bases are the implementation of that policy.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Have you read "Rebuilding Americas Defesnes" by Paul Wolfowitz? In it, he writes that we need to shift our defenses from Europe to the Balkans and the Middle East...among other things. I know that Mr. Wolfowitz played a huge part in forming US policy before he left to be president of the World Bank. I wonder if these bases are the implementation of that policy.


 If we didn't maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq, we'd be complete morons.  We are getting out of Saudi Arabia, which is one of the main stated intentions of Al-qaeda.  Permanent military installations in Iraq was always part of the plan, and should have been.

I've stated in several posts that the Iraq war was a strategic one, not a tactical one.  Placing ourselves directly between Syria and Iran, with a significant military force, is a way for us to respond to future crisises in the region.  I, for one, would be very angry if we DID NOT maintain that presence.

Of coure, maintaining military bases is far different than having to garrison cities.  Bases can be defended, it's doing patrols in populated areas that gets us shot at.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Not at all, I said I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I was just pointing out that there were two posts, not one your comment applied to.  I never claimed that slight was intentional on your part.  In fact, I thought so much of your post that I simply wanted to extend it's influence to other posts it applied to.  Sorry if you didn't catch that part.



I should bring up two points here:

1) I really didn't read Steve's post closely and don't see what bearing it had on Ms. Sheehan's protesting campaign. Ergo, it didn't seem relevant to the discussion at hand.

2) This still makes the assumption that it is somehow my personal responsibility to correct all logical fallacies brought up on this thread. It is not.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 24, 2005)

Thats not surprising in the least.....


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats not surprising in the least.....



Nor are your lightning-fast, one-liner, sarcastic multi-posts.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 24, 2005)

I am just the padwan of sacracm oh master.....


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 24, 2005)

oh, looky here, Cindy's Back!!!  hooray!!!    i haven't seen a sequel _this_ bad since Caddyshack 2. :idunno: 

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/24/D8C6FJ3G0.html



at least some parents still hold pride for what their loved ones are doing...



> NAMPA, Idaho -- President Bush today took direct aim at Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protester who has set up camp near the Bushes Texas ranch and purports to speak for military moms who, like her, have lost a son in the Iraq war.
> 
> Speaking to hundreds of Idaho National Guardsmen, the president singled out military mom Tammy Pruett of Pocatello, Idaho, whose husband and five sons have all served in Iraq.
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 24, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> oh, looky here, Cindy's Back!!! hooray!!!  i haven't seen a sequel _this_ bad since Caddyshack 2.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/24/D8C6FJ3G0.html
> 
> at least some parents still hold pride for what their loved ones are doing...


Are you insuating that Ms. Sheehan was, in any way, not proud of Casey? Did Mr. Rove put you up to that smear?


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Are you insuating that Ms. Sheehan was, in any way, not proud of Casey? Did Mr. Rove put you up to that smear?



perhaps, but not in the manner you'd prefer though.  i think you know what i mean...i know that others will.

and no Mr. Rove didn't ask me to say that.  should i have *any* inclinations whatsoever about how to smear, i'd just ask cindy.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 24, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> perhaps, but not in the manner you'd prefer though. i think you know what i mean...i know that others will.
> 
> and no Mr. Rove didn't ask me to say that. should i have *any* inclinations whatsoever about how to smear, i'd just ask cindy.


I actually have no idea what you mean. It seems that you think that Ms. Sheehan is somehow not proud of her son, his service to the country, and his death in uniform. If you actually mean something else, I will be pleased to have you explain it to me. 

I believe Ms. Sheehan wants only one thing. She would like the President to explain to her, in person, what is the purpose that caused her son to give his life for our country. 



			
				Laura McCarthy in the Washington Post said:
			
		

> _"But no matter where he [Bush] goes, he's going to find a Cindy Sheehan in every community across the United States. The name is going to be different, but the message is going to be the same."_


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I believe Ms. Sheehan wants only one thing. She would like the President to explain to her, in person, what is the purpose that caused her son to give his life for our country.


 I have to point this out... you can debate the right or wrong of it, I don't care.

 When you Enlist... "purpose" holds NO meaning. At that point you are like a bullet: They point the gun and fire you, and you go... you don't ask why, you just do.

   This was what her son did. if he didn't "Understand" before he enlisted... well. I won't comment on that.

 Perhaps what she needs, instead of an explaination is an understanding of WHY her son was a Soldier.

  I often wonder what exactly people think "MILITARY SERVICE" means.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 24, 2005)

He understood....she did not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 25, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I have to point this out... you can debate the right or wrong of it, I don't care.
> 
> When you Enlist... "purpose" holds NO meaning. At that point you are like a bullet: They point the gun and fire you, and you go... you don't ask why, you just do.
> 
> ...


If this is true, then why make any oaths that are not, "I promise to serve without reservation, without question, the will of my leaders..."

There is a higher purpose then that in all public service.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 25, 2005)

I think the point for Ms. Sheehan may be that we were told we were fighting to protect the nation from Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam Hussein had stocks of WMD that could be transferred to terrorist organizations of global reach, which could then be used against the United States. That would, indeed, be a noble cause. 

But, there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Then we were told that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda. And that nefarious connection could only indicate an imminent threat to the United States and her allies. Wasn't Mohammed Atta meeting with top Iraqi personnel in Prague just months before September 11, 2001? That would, indeed, be a noble cause.

But, Mohammed Atta was never in Prague during the Spring and Summer of 2001.

Then we were told that we are spreading Peace and Democracy to the Iraqi people, and the Middle East. We have returned sovereignty to the Iraqi People June 28, 2004. We celebrated the victory of independent elections on January 30, 2005. Truly, this must be a Noble Cause for which we must ask our soldiers to sacrifice.

But, more than 1,100 mothers have entered into the organization of Gold Star Mothers since returning soveriegnty to Iraq.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

I will not debate what Casey knew, or didn't know; did or didn't understand. It seems obvious that Casey followed orders. He was in Iraq. He died in Iraq. He died in service to the country. I don't think any more needs to be said about young Mr. Sheehan's service.


----------



## qizmoduis (Aug 25, 2005)

It's important to understand that while Casey Sheehan took his military oaths when he entered service and died doing his duty, his mother did not take those same oaths.  President Bush is supposed to be accountable to the citizens of this country, including Mrs. Sheehan.  She has every right to want to know the truth, as do we all.  As citizens, we have every right to demand an accounting from Mr. Bush.  The last time I checked, Mrs. Sheehan WAS an U.S. Citizen.  Does her son's service somehow restrict her from exercising her rights as a citizen?  The conversatives apparently believe that.

I do have reservations about the way she's going about this, however.  I don't see that Mr. Bush has any obligation to explain himself and his "reasoning" to her in person.

The conservative insinuations and insults against Mrs. Sheehan are typically disgusting and beneath dignity.  But par for the course in terms of conservative political tactics.  You can see plenty of examples of this nastiness even in this very thread.  Every time I believe the conservatives can't get any lower, they prove me wrong.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 25, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> It's important to understand that while Casey Sheehan took his military oaths when he entered service and died doing his duty, his mother did not take those same oaths. President Bush is supposed to be accountable to the citizens of this country, including Mrs. Sheehan. She has every right to want to know the truth, as do we all. As citizens, we have every right to demand an accounting from Mr. Bush. The last time I checked, Mrs. Sheehan WAS an U.S. Citizen. Does her son's service somehow restrict her from exercising her rights as a citizen? The conversatives apparently believe that.
> 
> I do have reservations about the way she's going about this, however. I don't see that Mr. Bush has any obligation to explain himself and his "reasoning" to her in person.
> 
> The conservative insinuations and insults against Mrs. Sheehan are typically disgusting and beneath dignity. But par for the course in terms of conservative political tactics. You can see plenty of examples of this nastiness even in this very thread. Every time I believe the conservatives can't get any lower, they prove me wrong.


 First of all... Let me start by saying, again... I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE.

 I may seem that way on these type of issues, but that may be because MY opinion and belief on THESE issues.   I suppose  when I start talking about a womans right to have an abortion and the stupidity of damn conservative viewpoint on that, I'll be a Lib too.  Whatever.

 Second... I'm sorry... BUT.  Not You, I, nor Michaeledward have any right to march up to the president and demand an explanation of WHY we are in Iraq.  Unfortunate as it was that her son died, niether does she.  PERIOD.  BECAUSE THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS, FRIENDS.  

 Lessee, did the parents of the Rangers killed in Mogadishu deserve a special audience with the president and an explaination why we were involved in a _*kidnapping attempt*_ under the watchful eye of President Clinton?

 Short answer, No.

 People.  I understand that there is a beleif that we are over there to steal oil... some vast conspiracy that started with a "lie" about WMD. (I highlight lie because as screwed up as our administration is, I would NOT be supprised if they really DID believe they were there, especially after we sold them to them when they were "allies".) I understand that many of you TRUELY BELIEVE with all your heart and soul that the election was rigged, and Bush isnt our lawful president.

 I don't know about any of that.  What I know is that this presidency, in terms of warring, fighting, police action etc etc... is not much different than any other in my lifetime... in that American soldiers were off someplace else fighting someone elses war and dying for it.  'Nam, Grenada, Panama, Yugoslavia, Mogadishu, the first gulf War...

 Honestly, I can agree we shouldnt be doing it... but I can't agree that this woman is somehow special because her son died.  A lot of parents have lost their sons and daughters in service to this nation.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 25, 2005)

I am not so sure that any one on this thread has stated that they believe Ms. Sheehan has the right to an audience with the President for any reason. 

I am fairly certian, however, that Ms. Sheehan has the right to ask the question she is asking, to whomever will listen. She also has the right to camp out in Crawford and be a general pain in the *** to the President. 

Don't know that anyone has suggested anything other.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> She also has the right to camp out in Crawford and be a general pain in the *** to the President. .


Does she?  Or are we very politically side-stepping around stalking laws?  Thats not a challenge, BTW, Im curious how it compares.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don't know that anyone has suggested anything other.


Maybe not... its definatly the TONE I picked up on in this thread.  I could be wrong... but thats how it read to me.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 25, 2005)

Theres been plenty of people implying that the President should give this woman a private audience.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 25, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Does she? Or are we very politically side-stepping around stalking laws? Thats not a challenge, BTW, Im curious how it compares.
> 
> Maybe not... its definatly the TONE I picked up on in this thread. I could be wrong... but thats how it read to me.


Actually, I do not know where 'Camp Casey' has been established. If she is tresspassing on someone's property, then perhaps there is a legal challenge there. Also, can one actually be 'stalking' when they are camped out with scores of supporters, and only approaching television cameras? Or, do you actually have to approach the subject?

As for TONE ... you know how that goes in cyberspace ... several have stated there are 'reservations' about how Ms. Sheehan is going about her campaign. I would think actual text would carry more weight than inferred or implied tone.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 25, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Casey Sheehan gave everything for his country. Cindy Sheehan gave her son to this country. Now, after the stated cause of this war has changed again and again, Cindy wants to ask the president face to face what noble cause her son died for. I think she's entitled to an audience.


Theres one


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Actually, I do not know where 'Camp Casey' has been established...




Actually, Camp Casey is located in Tongduchon, Korea approximately forty miles North of Seoul. Camp Casey spans nearly 3500 acres and is occupied by some 6300 military and 2500 civilians.  Camp Casey was named and officially dedicated in 1952 in memory of Maj. Hugh B. Casey, who died in a plane crash here in December 1951. Casey arrived in Korea in 1951, a Second Lieutenant, and served as a company commander in the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division. He received the Distinguished Service Cross, the nation's second highest award for valor, for heroism at the Hungnam beachhead. According to Lt. Col. Roy E. Lewis, then executive officer of the 7th Infantry Division Support Command, Casey was ordered to have his company in a blocking position west of Hungnam by sunrise the next morning. He had to cross a mountain pass with two to three feet of snow in it. Forcemarching his men, he had them only halfway to the objective by sunrise. He pressed forward, refusing to give up despite the fatigue and hopelessness of the mission. He didn't stop marching until ordered to. To Lewis, this was what made Casey an extraordinary soldier. "He gave little thought to himself," Lewis said. Later, while he was serving as senior aide to Maj. Gen. Williston B. Palmer, then Commanding General of the 3rd Inf. Div., Casey's light observation plane was hit by ground fire. The plane crashed just west of the present 2nd Infantry Division headquarters. A white wooden cross was erected to mark the spot; it was replaced in 1960 by a white concrete cross. "Lest we forget," the cross and camp now mark the memory of a brave man. 

Camp Casey is one of the forty-two camps north of Seoul authorized Hardship Duty Pay of $150 per month as of 01 January 2001. The Hardship Duty Pay is paid to troops who are permanently assigned to areas where it is authorized or who serve 30 consecutive days of temporary duty in those areas. Several factors are considered in determining whether a location qualified for the pay: climate, physical and social isolation, sanitation, disease, medical facilities, housing, food, recreational and community facilities, political violence, harassment and crime. The extra pay provides meaningful financial recognition to troops assigned in areas where living conditions are substantially below US standards. 

Family Quarters are not available. All but 76 of the Division's soldiers serve one-year unaccompanied tours. All soldiers live in on-post quarters. See the quality of life and unit-specific pages for more information on recent barracks upgrades and construction projects.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-casey.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 25, 2005)

Sapper6 .. thank you for that information.

I am not the person who labeled Ms. Sheehan's encampment 'Camp Casey'. It is a term that has been used on Weblogs, and I assume in other media reports.

By listing your facts, in the manner you have, it certainly seems you are being disrespectful of young Mr. Sheehan's service. I'm certain, you don't intend that.


----------



## Rick Wade (Aug 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If this is true, then why make any oaths that are not, "I promise to serve without reservation, without question, the will of my leaders..."
> 
> There is a higher purpose then that in all public service.



Here is the actual oath of enlistment.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that *I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice*. So help me God." 

The part in bold is the part you are thinking of we are expected to question orders that are unlawful.

V/R

Rick

P. S. 


When I went over there I told all of my family no matter what your beliefs are don't make a spectical of my memory If something should happen to me.  That is exactly what she is doing to her son, she is tarnishing her son's memory and on another note he wasn't a kid as she said he was I know I am not.

V/R

Rick


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 25, 2005)

Rick,

Do you really believe this mother's actions are tarnishing the memory of her son?

Why? 

What specifically about her actions do you think are affecting the memory of her son? 

Are *you* willing to think less of this soldier because his mother wants to know why he died? A soldier who followed orders. A soldier who served where his Commander-in-Chief told him to serve. A solder who obeyed the orders of those officers appointed above him.

Is that how we 'Support Our Troops'? 



			
				John F. Kerry said:
			
		

> Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."
> We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sapper6 .. thank you for that information...
> 
> ...By listing your facts, in the manner you have, it certainly seems you are being disrespectful of young Mr. Sheehan's service. I'm certain, you don't intend that.



disrespect?  not in the least.  that's _where_ camp casey is established.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Are *you* willing to think less of this soldier because his mother wants to know why he died? A soldier who followed orders. A soldier who served where his Commander-in-Chief told him to serve. A solder who obeyed the orders of those officers appointed above him.
> 
> Is that how we 'Support Our Troops'?


 If by "Think Less of" you mean we are more focused on the actions of the Mother and less and less on the Sacrifice of the son... then yes.


----------



## Rick Wade (Aug 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rick,
> 
> Do you really believe this mother's actions are tarnishing the memory of her son?




NO



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why?



Because what she does now has no actual bearing on what her son did his actions were of his own free will and he acted with honor in the line of dudty suporting the U.S. ARMY.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> What specifically about her actions do you think are affecting the memory of her son?



Because now when ever people hear the name Casey Sheehan they don't think about a great American they think oh that poor mother lost her son.  They don't ever think this guy gave the ultimate sacrifice.  She has totally spun this thing and now it is all about her.  If she felt so bitter why didn't she ask the questions to the president when she had the chance some 14 months ago?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Are *you* willing to think less of this soldier because his mother wants to know why he died? A soldier who followed orders. A soldier who served where his Commander-in-Chief told him to serve. A solder who obeyed the orders of those officers appointed above him.



Michael you answered your own question sir.  He died following orders.  However I will disagree with you in the fact No one told him to serve he *volunteered* to serve just like I did.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Is that how we 'Support Our Troops'?



I support our troops every day by making sure that they have the things that they need to stay as safe as they can.  I exchange emails with them all the time.  These are hard workingmen and women working 12 -15 hour days in 120 - 130 degree heat.  It sucks I know.  And with all that going on the worst thing that sucks is when you do get an hour down time to watch TV or something you see.  CNN or some other News station WE are loosing the War and the next story Cindy Sheehan still in Crawford TX.  

She should be at home taking care of her mother next she will be suing the hospital for negligent care.

Here is the bottom line.  I feel for Mrs. Sheehan I have never lost a son.  But is has got to be hard her marriage is falling apart and I sure she has a job.  She needs to take care of her life and get on with her life and start living again.  She probably needs some professional Dr. Phil help.


Thanks for the interesting discussion points Michael I look forward to your rebuttal.  However I think with me being in the military for 17 years now and judging from your past topics we will probably have to agree to disagree.? :idunno:


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2005)

Rick,

I am not sure that we disagree. 

But, your PostScript on post 89 indicated that you did believe Ms. Sheehan was dis-honoring her son's service.

I do not know who this whole affair is 'about'. I don't think that Ms. Sheehan is camped out in the desert of Texas to bring attention to herself. She has stated that she would like to know why our solders are dying in Iraq. There have been many reasons given by the Administration; when one proves false, a new reason rises to the fore. (WMD, Hussein-binLaden terrorism link, Hussein a brutal dictator, spreading democracy) 

There has been an awful lot of 'spin' about what Ms. Sheehan's intentions are for this little expedition. Ms. Sheehan has not called for the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq. That, of course, has not stopped the President of the United States from insinuating, from his bully puplit, that this is her goal. 

No doubt, there are many challenges in her life, as there are in all of our lives. She is coping with them the best way that she knows how, as we all do. But, in some of the statements on this thread, there seems to be a great deal of disrespect toward the fallen soldier, because the mother is publicly questioning the President and his Administration's policies.


----------



## Rick Wade (Aug 26, 2005)

Micheal I tend to agree with you on the Sheehan Issue 

I mean no disrespect to her son: However I think she is going about honoring him the wrong way.

However As much as I hate to say it (oh the pain, LOL) I see what you are saying with the changing agenda.  But that said I think you never know exactly what you are getting into until you are in it.  Kinda like the "grass is greener on the other side" thing.  We had no idea what Sadam was doing to his people.  So once we take him out do we puul out and leave the country in caos?  No we help them establish a new government and get them back on their feet.

V/R

Rick


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> It's important to understand that while Casey Sheehan took his military oaths when he entered service and died doing his duty, his mother did not take those same oaths. President Bush is supposed to be accountable to the citizens of this country, including Mrs. Sheehan. She has every right to want to know the truth, as do we all. As citizens, we have every right to demand an accounting from Mr. Bush. The last time I checked, Mrs. Sheehan WAS an U.S. Citizen. Does her son's service somehow restrict her from exercising her rights as a citizen? The conversatives apparently believe that.
> 
> I do have reservations about the way she's going about this, however. I don't see that Mr. Bush has any obligation to explain himself and his "reasoning" to her in person.
> 
> The conservative insinuations and insults against Mrs. Sheehan are typically disgusting and beneath dignity. But par for the course in terms of conservative political tactics. You can see plenty of examples of this nastiness even in this very thread. Every time I believe the conservatives can't get any lower, they prove me wrong.


 She has the right to ask. I'm saying President Bush has no obligation to give her a direct answer. Mrs. Sheehan is one citizen among millions. We, as a political body, have a right to be heard. Mrs. Sheehan has no more or less of a right to individual audience with the President of the United States than I do, or anyone else for that matter. If you want to give the fact that her son sacrificed his life for this country, then she has no more or less of a right to an individual audience with the President than any other mother who has ever lost her son in the service of this country. The whole thing is a publicity stunt by Ms. Sheehan and her handlers. She has the right to do it, but I doubt her son would be proud of his mother for what she is doing in his name.

So please save the crass "The conservatives are trying to deny her, blah blah blah."  She has lost her son, but many other mothers have two in nearly identical circumstances.  I want to know why you think this one is of such greater importance than any other mother who has lost her son in combat?  I'll answer that, simply because you agree with what she is saying politically.  If she were saying the opposite, as many other military parents who have lost sons and daughters have been, you'd simply call her a tool of the Bush administration.

I don't fault Ms. Sheehan, she deserves our sympathy for losing her son.  I fault the political hacks who are using Ms. Sheehan as a political tool.  Shame on them.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

Shes a media celebrity. The whole world knows who she is now. If anybody believes that her ego has NO bearing whatsoever here is kidding themselves.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Shes a media celebrity. The whole world knows who she is now. If anybody believes that her ego has NO bearing whatsoever here is kidding themselves.


 Her ego aside, she's wittingly or not become a tool for a political fringe. They've invested a lot of time and money in to making her their poster child.  That's just how these things are done.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

It leads me to wonder, dont all these leftist organizations and pundits see that by being so publicly involved that they actually start hurting the cause. I personally would have had much more respect for the woman if she had eschewed help from MoveOn, Moore, etc.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> It leads me to wonder, dont all these leftist organizations and pundits see that by being so publicly involved that they actually start hurting the cause. I personally would have had much more respect for the woman if she had eschewed help from MoveOn, Moore, etc.


 It can help their cause, but not when it becomes blatantly contrived as this incident has become.  I actually think most Americans, many of whom would otherwise be sympathetic to Ms. Sheehan's cause, are a little irritated by this incident.  It's just my opinion.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

Id have to agree.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 26, 2005)

excerpts taken from http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=3382521 . 

*PR Machine Behind Cindy Sheehan?*



> With the President back at his Crawford ranch, the anti-war protest right outside his ranch is getting a lot more media attention. ABC7 looks at who is financing the operation and who's providing on-the-ground support.





> The camp at Crawford is full of Cindy Sheehan supporters, people from all walks of life, *but off to the side are a small group of professionals skilled in politics and public relations who are marketing Cindy Sheehan's message*.





> Cindy Sheehan kneels before a cross with her son's name on it, touches his picture, wipes her tears. It's an outpouring of emotion that is part of a *scheduled news event organized daily for the television, radio and print reporters* who crowd in to capture a mother's grief.





> Leading the group is Fenton Communications employee, Michele Mulkey, based in San Francisco. Fenton specializes in public relations for *liberal non-profits*.
> 
> Their bills are being paid for by True Majority, a non-profit set up by Ben Cohen -- of *Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream fame*.



yummy ice cream, bad politics



> Cohen's group has teamed up with Berkeley based MoveOn.org, an anti-Bush group co-founded by Joan Blades.





> Gold Star mother Karen Meredith came here from Mountain View. Her *son Ken Ballard died last year*.
> 
> Karen Meredith, Gold Star mother: "Sometimes things don't feel quite right to me. They don't feel wrong, but maybe that's how they do it in the *marketing business*."
> 
> ...



no way!!!  say it ain't so...



> There is also the "Cindy you don't speak for me tour," a caravan of military wives and mothers led by Deborah Johns of Roseville. Her son William is a marine who has served two tours of duty in Iraq.
> 
> Johns and her supporters are traveling to Crawford to confront Cindy Sheehan.



kick her *** sea-bass!!!!

oh no, no politics there...


----------



## qizmoduis (Aug 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I want to know why you think this one is of such greater importance than any other mother who has lost her son in combat?



I don't.  It's the conservatives who have latched onto her story, because she's a military mother who has dared not toe the line they've drawn for military families.  She challenged Mr. Bush, and the right-wing vultures swooped down en-masse with screeches of "Liberal tool!" and "Disgrace to her son!", simply because she did something just a little off-beat.

I think the real question here is this:  Why do conservatives believe that families who've lost their children in this debacle should keep quiet and/or praise Mr. Bush's disastrous policies?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 29, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> I don't. It's the conservatives who have latched onto her story, because she's a military mother who has dared not toe the line they've drawn for military families. She challenged Mr. Bush, and the right-wing vultures swooped down en-masse with screeches of "Liberal tool!" and "Disgrace to her son!", simply because she did something just a little off-beat.
> 
> I think the real question here is this: Why do conservatives believe that families who've lost their children in this debacle should keep quiet and/or praise Mr. Bush's disastrous policies?


An astute observation.

Anyone else who has issued a challenge on the activities in Iraq, has been listed as a traitor, or worse, a liberal. Somehow ... we hate America; we are conspiracy theorists looking for stolen elections (by the voting machines or by the Supreme Court). Immediately, all arguments are cast aside like an Alan Colmes comment. 

Ms. Sheehan is a bit more difficult for the Karl Rove's of the world to criticize. She has become the tip of the spear that those with legitimate concerns can align themselves behind, without the silly McCarthy-like attacks. Sure, the right wing is doing their best to gain some traction against Ms. Sheehan, and those who oppose the war (questions about who is funding Ms. Sheehan, for instance - she already met with the President - mis-reporting the details of the first meeting [ascribing to the President Ms. Sheehan's re-connection to her family when the original news report indicated it was the other families that created that connection])

This woman is being steam-rolled by very powerful destructive political forces. Who knew that being 'swift-boated' was going to be a verb; I mean, other than John McCain.


----------



## DngrRuss (Aug 29, 2005)

Wow, so much to get snippy about, so little time...

 Questioning the administration regarding the death of Casey Sheehan, and any other soldier for that matter, is neither unAmerican, disrespectful, nor is it improper. 

 When a soldier signs on the dotted line, he is putting his own life and safety on the line to defend our country from all threats. Yes, he has to follow the orders of the Comander in Chief, the will of the Congress, his commanding officers, etc. Only if the order is unjust or illegal does the soldier have the right and/or duty to not follow those orders. Noone is denying any of that. Noone is denying that Casey Sheehan did his duty and made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. The question here is, did his country squander that sacrifice?

 Comparisons have been made between the current war in Iraq and the Vietnam war. There is at least one very distinct difference: In Vietnam, there was always one answer to the question "why are we here?"- to stop the spread of communism and protect our country from the domino-effect. Whether you agree with that reasoning or not, whether you supported that war or not, at least you knew where the administration stood and what the facts (at least what we were being told) were.

 With the Iraq war, the story keeps changing to either fit a current political climate, or hide the fact that we have made a rather large-scale blunder. If we were going in to protect ourselves against WMD's, and none were found, I would want to know why my son sacrificed his life and noone was accountable in the administration. Then the story changes to Hussein=BinLaden. Then that proves not to be accurate. Again, why is my son dead, and noone in the administration accountable? Then the story is that this is the "war on terror" (_sidenote: haven't we learned that when we declare a war on a noun- like drugs, poverty, illiteracy, terror, etc.- that it just doesn't work)_, but the terrorists weren't bombing Iraq until we destabilized it. Again, my son pays the ultimate sacrifice, and noone up the food chain is accountable?

 This administration has done very little other than to give stump speeches and redneck-rhetoric to rally the country behind it. I would also like some answers. I want the government to be accountable for it's actions. You tell me I'm threatened, by God, send in the Marines to kick ***. But if the threat is not exactly what you said it was, then proves not to be there at all, I want some answers. And I haven't lost a child (though a few of my students are over there). I would demand answers if I had.

  Does Ms. Sheehan _deserve_ a private audience with the President? I don't think so. I agree that there are millions of prople with millions of different grievences with this government, so seeing each of them is unrealistic. Seeing Ms. Sheehan specifically would probably be political suicide for the President. 

 Do I think that her questions deserve answers? Abso-friggin'-lutley. This idea that the President has no accountability is absurd. He works for ME. He works for Ms. Sheehan. He works for every American on this board. He may be the CEO, but we are the stockholders. 

 How many executives of any business would survive the ax if they were this inconsistent and, imho, incompetent? If I were the CEO of a company and one of my executives gives me information that causes me to take action that puts the company and myself in jeopardy, and this information proves to be false, I would fire his a** and do what I can to fix the problem. Noone in this administration has paid any price for the actions of this country- though many soldiers have.

 I have stated on other threads that I do not support a pull-out of Iraq. I want to be a good American and a good citizen of the world. My country screwed up this situation, and my country needs to fix it. I want my administration, my government, and my soldiers to be accountable. I want to see the best result from this debaucle as possible. I don't think I'm gonna get it as long as this administration is in power, changing stories, not accounting for thier actions, and not taking the bull by the horns and fixing the situation.

 I as an American am embarrassed by what my government has made me look like to the rest of the world. I am outraged that they are not doing everything they can to fix the situation and firing those who caused it. It continues to make us all look like a bunch of trigger-happy rednecks that shoot first, then don't even bother to ask questions.

 All Ms. Sheehan wants is accountability. I think she deserves it, as do we all. Brave soldiers are willing to sacrifice thier lives for us. I for one do not want those sacrifices to be wasted in my name, by an administration that can't seem to get it's story straight, and is allied by a movement that throws out labels like "unAmerican, traitor", and the ever popular "liberal" for those who wants answers and accountability.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

Excellent post, Russ.  

Something in particular I'd like to chime in about...



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Then the story changes to Hussein=BinLaden. Then that proves not to be accurate.



On an episode of _The Daily Show_ several months back, they actually showed video footage of Vice President Cheney explicitly "confusing" Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden over five times in three different speeches. For example, when the issue of when Bin Laden would be apprehended was brought up, Mr. Cheney something to the effect of "Hussein is a very difficult man to find". Apparently, he didn't even realize he'd made the mistake.

Personally, I found it hilarious. And depressing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 29, 2005)

Of course that all side-steps the point of why you folks have elevated Ms. Sheehan above other parents of sons and daughters who have died in action. It also insinuates that you think the difference is Cindy's politics are more enlightened while, as Rus insinuated, other parents "Tow the line" (i.e. are idiots who don't know any better, right?). Basically, you are saying that it isn't their loss that you care about, it's whether their politics are correct.  Cindy Sheehan's politics are correct, so she is worthy of admiration.  

You can't gloss over this by questioning why conservatives question Cindy's motives by simply suggesting that she has the right to say what she wants. Of course she does, men like Casey died for that right. That's also the right of other military parents who have lost sons and daughters who have no desire for Cindy Sheehan to be their self-appointed spokes person.

"Maureen Dowd of the New York Times portrays Mrs. Sheehan as a distraught mom standing heroically outside the guarded gates of the most powerful and inhumane man on earth, President Bush. Ms. Dowd is so moved by Mrs. Sheehan's plight that she bestowed upon her and all grieving parents the title of "absolute moral authority." That characterization epitomizes the arrogance and condescension of anyone who would presume to understand and speak for all of us. How can we all possess "absolute moral authority" when we hold so many different perspectives?"

Ronald R. Griffin 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 29, 2005)

perhaps he could blame Prez Bush for this one too...

_**MODERATOR NOTE**

 Post edited to comply with copyright policy.

 G Ketchmark / shesulsa
 MT Sr. Moderator._


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 29, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> perhaps he could blame Prez Bush for this one too...


 And they didn't get BEATEN?  In TEXAS?!  That'll probably be the driver's defense.  "We were black in Texas, we weren't pulling over."


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> perhaps he could blame Prez Bush for this one too...



Umm... exactly what relevance does this have to the discussion at hand?? Its as confusing as the earlier post about the loony driver running over crosses...

Also, when quoting a news story verbatim it always helps to actually cite one's source.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 29, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Umm... exactly what relevance does this have to the discussion at hand?? Its as confusing as the earlier post about the loony driver running over crosses...
> 
> Also, when quoting a news story verbatim it always helps to actually cite one's source.
> 
> Laterz.  :asian:



relevence?  to you, none.

the source is the Associated Press and almost all local texas affiliates, just an excerpt of course.  ya think i thought it up all by myself?  check it out, it's legit.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> relevence?  to you, none.



A snappish personal attack in lieu of an actual logical response? Ahem...

Appeal To Ridicule

Personal Attack



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> ya think i thought it up all by myself?



Actually, the thought never crossed my mind.

However, to put it bluntly, not all sources are created equal. That is why it is important to use citations, as opposed to simply expecting others to take what you say on blind faith.

That being said, its more than likely that you used copy-and-paste to present that excerpt, so my guess is the source is online.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 29, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> A snappish personal attack in lieu of an actual logical response? Ahem...
> 
> Appeal To Ridicule
> 
> ...



my apologies if offense was taken.  when a thread such as this is taken to extreme discussion, as this one has with 7+ pages of rhetoric, some things posted tend to be "irrelevent".  it's not the first time this thread has seen "irrelevency" and probably won't be the last.  seeing that this took place shortly afterward of an "appearance" at the Sheehan camp, and his speedy departure make it perfectly relevent, since "Cindy Sheehan" is the topic of this thread.  i could mostly hypothesize in stating that mr. sharpton was at the Sheehan camp for a PR visit, and probably got held up, hence causing him to be late for his next, regularly scheduled PR venue, hence blatently breaking the law and playing dumb when caught.  of course all hypothetical thinking of course.  i left the article open for personal interpretation by others here.  that's all.

thanks for the links.  pretty interesting stuff there, i must say so myself.  saved in favorites for future reference. :supcool:

and you are correct in assuming the sharpton article was the offspring of "copy-and-paste" trickery.  like i stated before, my primary source was the AP.  you can reference more on the story at foxnews, cnn, etc.  i should _have_ mentioned this in the post containing the story, an obvious oversight on my part.  i hope this one clarifies any doubt of media orgin.

good day :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> my apologies if offense was taken.



No worries. It takes a helluva lot more than that to offend me.  



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> when a thread such as this is taken to extreme discussion, as this one has with 7+ pages of rhetoric, some things posted tend to be "irrelevent".  it's not the first time this thread has seen "irrelevency" and probably won't be the last.  seeing that this took place shortly afterward of an "appearance" at the Sheehan camp, and his speedy departure make it perfectly relevent, since "Cindy Sheehan" is the topic of this thread.  i could mostly hypothesize in stating that mr. sharpton was at the Sheehan camp for a PR visit, and probably got held up, hence causing him to be late for his next, regularly scheduled PR venue, hence blatently breaking the law and playing dumb when caught.  of course all hypothetical thinking of course.  i left the article open for personal interpretation by others here.  that's all.



That's all well and good, but...

While I don't really have a strong position about Ms. Sheehan one way or the other, I feel that logical discourse should be true to form. This means not wandering off into fairly "irrelevant" side issues like who agrees with her policies about Israel, who ran over what crosses on their way to see her, or who got pulled over after meeting with her 3 hours earlier. They're all distractors, in my opinion.

Really, though, I think this discussion has just about played itself out. 



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> thanks for the links.  pretty interesting stuff there, i must say so myself.  saved in favorites for future reference. :supcool:



No prob.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> and you are correct in assuming the sharpton article was the offspring of "copy-and-paste" trickery.  like i stated before, my primary source was the AP.  you can reference more on the story at foxnews, cnn, etc.  i should _have_ mentioned this in the post containing the story, an obvious oversight on my part.  i hope this one clarifies any doubt of media orgin.



Yup. Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Rick Wade (Aug 30, 2005)

As much as I hate to admit it I am still paying attention to HER, but here is what is amazing with everything that happened last weekend in crawford, with the anti war protest vs. the Cindy you don't speak for me protest all I saw on any of the news networks was Sharpton with Sheehan.  Now is that fair coverage of what is going on?  NO.  

And talk about changing view on the President's side here is a little tid bit for ya.  When ask by Bill Mar on his show the other night She said I am glad the President didn't come talk to me that allowed me to stay out here longer and turn this into a noble cause (did she think this wasn't a noble cause to begin with) now with the help of everyone else we will get help get the troops out of Iraq sooner.  Who does she think she is she doesn't dictate foreign policy.  

P.S. Her life is falling apart CINDY go home and take care of your mother and try to save your marrage, no one in your own family support you.  You are being used as a political pawn.

Man this make my blood boil

Rick


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2005)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> And talk about changing view on the President's side here is a little tid bit for ya. When ask by Bill Mar on his show the other night She said I am glad the President didn't come talk to me that allowed me to stay out here longer and turn this into a noble cause (did she think this wasn't a noble cause to begin with) now with the help of everyone else we will get help get the troops out of Iraq sooner. Who does she think she is she doesn't dictate foreign policy.


Somebody has been listening to Laura Ingraham. This argument is an argument of character assassination. Spin away. Spin away.

It certainly represents the 'tin ear' the adminstration has concerning anything beyond it's campaign contributors. 

*If *the President, on August 7th, came out and sat down with Ms. Sheehan and explained the Project for a New American Century, Ms Sheehan would not have been a media attraction. That the President, and his handlers, decided not to face someone who objects to their policy, has converted Ms. Sheehan from a distraught, perhaps neurotic, Gold Star Mother, into a Media Event. Something that all media people are interested in during the dog-days of August. Anything to change the topic from Ms. Holloway. 

Ms. Sheehan has made it acceptable to question the reasons and execution of the war in Iraq; something ambassador Joseph Wilson did at great personal peril. (A recent survey shows 9 out of 10 Americans feel it is acceptable for war-dissentors to express their opinions). 

To take the statement "_I am glad the President didn't come talk to me_" and turn it into 'proof' that Ms Sheehan is out for her own glorification, is 'swift-boating' in the finest tradition. I expect that from Ms. Ingraham or Ms. Coulture.

Why the hell are our soldiers dying in Iraq? 

I think it's time to update that other thread.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 30, 2005)

Just a little food for thought on the subject... since everyone seems to be blaming this war on *Bush*...

 I was watching a Movie today, an import from Japan. It was about a ninja hired to assassinate the Shogun because, at the core of the whole thing, some of his people were upset that he was wasting the lives of their soldiers on a war with Korea.

  The Ninja sneaks in, wakes the Shogun up, and has a chat with him.

 The shogun basically says: "Do you think the armies all just stand up and march at my order? The will of one old man? No, I just carry out the will of the state... you can kill me, but do you think its going to change anything? And if I went against the will, do you not think I would simply be replaced by someone who would do what they want?"

  Thats the Gist of it anyhow. And it really fits... I mean, let me ask you?

 Is this REALLY Bush's war? Did he conceive of it, make the troops of other nations go fight, etc? I think there are far more people involved than a figurehead leader, but he is doing his job well... Keeping your focus on him and not them.

  Call me a conspiracy nut... but ultimatley, its not Bush's power fueling the war... Its just convienent to blame him.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 30, 2005)

_ Keeping your focus on him and not them._

 Reminds me of Hitchiker's Guide To the Galaxy where it talks about Zaphod Beeblebroz as the Galactic President and that his real job was not to wield power but to distract attention away from it.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 30, 2005)

That would be Zaphod Beeblebro*x*.  And yes, a most fascinating similarity. :ultracool


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 30, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _ Keeping your focus on him and not them._
> 
> Reminds me of Hitchiker's Guide To the Galaxy where it talks about Zaphod Beeblebroz as the Galactic President and that his real job was not to wield power but to distract attention away from it.


 Well, like I said, maybe i am just turning into a conspiracy nut... but I think this is much bigger than the Prez.


----------



## Rick Wade (Aug 30, 2005)

Mike, 
    I am shocked that you actually listen to that conservative talk show crap (LOL).  That really suprises me that you listen to Laura.  

However I did happen to catch Bill Mar that particular night because my wife had control of the remote.

    Don't get me wrong I don't agree with her on everything but I think she is dead on, on this topic.  

V/R

Rick


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2005)

Rick,

It's a toss up between her and Sean Hannity as to who drives me away quicker. There are some conservatives for whom I have a great deal of respect. 

However, that is the *exact* argument Ms. Ingraham was making last night;

   Ms. Sheehan said "I'm glad the President didn't meet with me."

Well, I certainly am glad the President missed the boat. He has turned a relatively small, inconvenient issue into a major issue. And it leaves conservatives of principle kicking and screaming in a most undignified way; ad hominem attacks. 

So, anyhow ... I can usually last through about 7 or 8 minutes of Ms. Ingraham. I wish her health, a happy marriage, and lousy ratings.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 15, 2005)

Ms. Sheehan has successfully impacted public discourse and law in America. 

It is now illegal to park on some 23 miles of road around the Crawford Texas ranch owned by President Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/15/bush.ranch.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

I wonder how close this decision comes to prohibiting citizens from petitioning their government?


----------



## Rick Wade (Sep 15, 2005)

Mike .. Mike .  Mike

Pleeeaaassee let this thread die.

Thanks

Rick


----------



## Tgace (Sep 15, 2005)

Ember stirrer....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 19, 2005)

Cindy who?


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 21, 2005)

*Sheehan: Get troops out of 'occupied New Orleans'*

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46368



> "George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, *pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans * and Iraq, and excuse his self from power," she said. "The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they don't fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest.



pure ignorance.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> *Sheehan: Get troops out of 'occupied New Orleans'*
> 
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46368
> 
> ...


 I say again "Cindy who?" She's a clown, why even give her the air time. She's turned the death of her son in to a half-baked political circus. She should be ashamed. I'm starting to wonder if the woman needs professional help.  Wasn't her 15 minutes of fame up last month?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 24, 2005)

So, let's review what is taking place today ... 

United for Peace is holding a rally on the Washington DC Mall today. Estimates put the gathering at a substantially larger size than the America Supports You Freedom Walk of three weeks ago. (by the way .. the United for Peace walk route has been published beforehand, unlike the America Supports You Freedom Walk).

President Bush is going to make sure he "doesn't get in the way" of a) Hurricane Rita response and b) United for Peace by hiding in Cheyanne Mountain (aka Northcom). 

The Pentagon is executing 'Granite Shadow', a nuclear counter proliferation exercise in Washington DC today - a 'Martial Law' exercise. Do you think this has *any *connection to the United for Peace rally? 


http://www.unitedforpeace.org


Karl Rove is coordinating and leading the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts from a Fund Raiser in North Dakota.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 24, 2005)

Cindy Who?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Cindy Who?


You can find her here ...


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 24, 2005)

and shorty after, you can find her here...

http://www.omh.state.ny.us/omhweb/facilities/mhpc/facility.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 24, 2005)

Well, actually, after Ms. Sheehan arrived in New York, the local Law Enforcement Officials acted in such a way that she had to go here:

http://www.mountsinai.org/msh/msh-home.jsp


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2005)

Ms. Sheehan was arrested today.

Demonstrating *without a Permit.* 

Who needs a stinkin' 1st Amendment anyhow ... Right ... Right? 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9493139/


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 26, 2005)

well, it's the law.  not too much to ask, and pretty damn inexpensive anyhow.

what are those freaks smiling and clapping for?  arrested in the name rights and freedom i suppose.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Ms. Sheehan was arrested today.
> 
> Demonstrating *without a Permit.*
> 
> ...


What amazes me about this post, is how selective we get about supporting only those laws we agree with.  Im guilty of it too... dont get me wrong... but the requirement to have a permit for those types of rallys and stuff has been around quite a while, its not like this is somthing new for Sheehan.  So basically, she broke the law, was arrested for breaking the law, but really it was just about shutting her up?  I suppose its POSSIBLE... but we will never know, as she didnt bother to get the permit.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2005)

Well ... is there a conflict between the First Amendment to the Constitution, and sitting in front of the White House ... individually, or with a group of, what was it ... 40?  

(EDIT - actually, apparently there were 370 people in the protest group - it took 4 hours to arrest them all - I would have also participated in this protest and smiled as I was arrested too. - Please see my signature line)

*Congress Shall Make No Law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble.*


----------



## Tgace (Sep 26, 2005)

Congress didnt.....


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *Congress Shall Make No Law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble.*


The same can be said of my right to Bear arms, but I am not allowed to do so in illinois without the proper permits.



So if I go grab a gun and sit out in the street somplace with it, will you come to my rescue when I am arrested for that too?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> The same can be said of my right to Bear arms, but I am not allowed to do so in illinois without the proper permits.
> 
> 
> 
> So if I go grab a gun and sit out in the street somplace with it, will you come to my rescue when I am arrested for that too?


I believe the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads 

*A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*

So, if you are wearing the uniform of a Well Regulated Militia, and if you demonstrate how the Illinois permit 'infringes' on your right to sit in the street with your weapon ... You Betcha! 

I'll get arrested for that.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I believe the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads
> 
> *A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*
> 
> ...


It says that a well reglauted militia is neccessary for a free state.  It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shal not be infringed... not the right of aforementioned Milita. It has always been my belief that the wording in that did not secure the rights of the milita to bear arms, but rather for the people to bear arms so they may create the neccessary militia.  Hence the "Rights of the People" as opposed to "The rights of the Militia"

Or does the term "People" in the constitution only refer to Milita? In which case, only the Milita has the right to  peaceably to assemble... as that is also a right of the "people."


----------



## elder999 (Sep 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I believe the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads
> 
> *A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*
> 
> ...


See here



> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 312 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> The classes of the militia are
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.





> I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty_-GEorge Mason, Constitutional Convention_





> The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."[/i[Zechariah Johnson[/i]





> "The militia is the whole people, except for a few public officials" _James Madison _


Please do not get me started on this-you're *wrong*.(And it's a terrible bit of thread drift, ayway...)


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> It says that a well reglauted militia is neccessary for a free state. It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shal not be infringed... not the right of aforementioned Milita. It has always been my belief that the wording in that did not secure the rights of the milita to bear arms, but rather for the people to bear arms so they may create the neccessary militia. Hence the "Rights of the People" as opposed to "The rights of the Militia"
> 
> Or does the term "People" in the constitution only refer to Milita? In which case, only the Milita has the right to peaceably to assemble... as that is also a right of the "people."


The Amendement says what it says. The term 'people' in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not capitalized. It is not given any greater weight than any other word in the sentence.  The 2nd Amendment to the constitution is one sentence. One 'Full stop', as the Brits say (or so I am led to believe). We can not pick and choose which clauses within the sentence we want to keep or discard. I agree the subject of the sentence is the word people, but I am not willing to disreguard the dependent clause.

So, let me concede for the moment that people make up a militia, and not the other way around.

Let us address the premise that the 'permit' required by the State of Illinois somehow 'infringes' upon your right to keep and bear arms. 

We will notice that the 2nd Amendment does not say ... '*will create no law*' ... (which *is* the wording of the 1st Amendment - although your argument in 12:04 post suggests the wording in the two amendments are the same). The only prohibition to the State (or City, or Federal Government) is that any law created concerning the right to keep and bear arms does not 'infringe' on that right. 

Time to Show Cause.

What damage can you show, derived from the permit process? 
How has your right been infringed? 

Make no mistake .. if you can demonstrate how the Illinois permit process prohibits you from sitting a lawn with your weapon, I will be there to defend you; to be arrested; to protest the taking of your rights.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 27, 2005)

Congress still passed no law....


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Amendement says what it says. The term 'people' in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not capitalized. It is not given any greater weight than any other word in the sentence. The 2nd Amendment to the constitution is one sentence. One 'Full stop', as the Brits say (or so I am led to believe). We can not pick and choose which clauses within the sentence we want to keep or discard. I agree the subject of the sentence is the word people, but I am not willing to disreguard the dependent clause.
> 
> So, let me concede for the moment that people make up a militia, and not the other way around.
> 
> ...


Tgace's point is exactly my point... Neither Illinois Gun laws, nor the local law that required the permit to gather were passed by congress.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 27, 2005)

An interesting PDF about public protest by the ACLU.

http://www.aclu-nj.org/downloads/RightToProtest.pdf


----------



## Gene Williams (Sep 27, 2005)

Cindy Sheehan is an idiot, a tired old hippie (or hippie wannabee; I don't know how old she is). Many such protests are supported by international socialist/communist organizations anyway and those of you who support them are just as stupid as she is, unless of course you are a communist/socialist, in which case have fun.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 27, 2005)

-Moderator Note-

Please Keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Technopunk
MT Super Moderator


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2005)

Somewhere in that dusty old document, there is something about any powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the State Government.

So, let us think about that idea in relation to the 1st Amendment.

Does the District of Columbia have the right to make a law prohibiting the peaceable assembly of the people? - Good question

Who makes the laws for the  District? .... Isn't it Congress? 

And is that a specific right --- not right, but  instruction; 'shall make no law' --- directly granted to the Congress? 

This argument can get a bit circular there, can't it? But it seems the instruction is directed at Congress, and Congress has jurisdiction. (Is there a different law-making body for the District of Columbia?)

Congress can make *no law* prohibiting the peaceable assembly of the people. Because Congress makes the laws for the District of Columbia, it would seem that a law requiring a permit to protest would *a law* related to the peaceable assembly  ... and therefore unconstitutional.

You could, of course, argue that a law requiring a permit does not prohibit anything .... but it is, after all, *a law*.

If the protest was taking place in a State, I would suppose that the State Legislature could make a law requiring a permit ... although I'm fuzzy on that.


Concerning the 2nd Amendment. 

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not explicitly empower the federal government law making abilities concerning the right to bear arms, therefore, any law making privileges related to keeping and bearing arms fall to the state, provided they are within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment. Again, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit laws. Thus, we can assume that any State enacted statute, that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is constitutional. Only if a state statute can be shown to infringe on keeping and bearing arms would a constitutional challenge be valid.


Rest assured Technopunk ... I would defend your rights just as vigorously. Somewhere around here, we used to have a Bill of Rights. It does, however,  seem to be in short supply of late. 


But come on guys, I don't think you guys need this basics civics stuff.


When our country arrests a little old lady for singing church hymns in front of the White House, we really have given away quite a bit, haven't we?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2005)

Gene Williams said:
			
		

> Cindy Sheehan is an idiot, a tired old hippie (or hippie wannabee; I don't know how old she is). Many such protests are supported by international socialist/communist organizations anyway and those of you who support them are just as stupid as she is, unless of course you are a communist/socialist, in which case have fun.


Hey Gene, since you don't seem to be using any of your rights at this time, perhaps you could give them to Ms. Sheehan ... or any of the other 100,000+ attendees of Sunday's gathering.

I'm wondering if anyone could recognize a real communist, or a real socialist if they met one.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 27, 2005)

I think you are partially in error there Mike....

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/



> What is the difference between a public law and a D.C. law?
> A public law is a federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President.  A D.C. law is a District law passed by the Council, and upon approval of the Mayor, and completion of the Congressional review period, becomes effective.



Apparently the DC legislature writes and approves DC local law. Congress only has a review. They do not "pass" local law per se.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think you are partially in error there Mike....
> 
> http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/
> 
> Apparently the DC legislature writes and approves DC local law. Congress only has a review. They do not "pass" local law per se.


Quite possible ... not being a resident, and only an occassional visitor, I have little experience with DC governance, just snippets picked up in news reports, and inferences based on those snippets. 

Still, in the theoretical, it would seem such permits could present an opportunity for a Constitutional Challenge.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Still, in the theoretical, it would seem such permits could present an opportunity for a Constitutional Challenge.


Maybe thats what she needs to do... use her arrest as a springboard to challenge that law and have it changed.   Isnt the first step tword changing the law breaking it?

If not... oops, my bad.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2005)

Quickly, I can think of three ways to change a law.

Petition the legislature.
Seek redress in the courts.
Dissolve the government and create a new one.
Thinking more slowly, she could write a book, which could start a war, which could end an injustice ... think Harriet Beecher Stowe.


----------



## tradrockrat (Sep 27, 2005)

As much as i wanted to stay out of this thread, the tangent of constitutional law just sucked me in.


Here's my .02 cents

cent .01 - The lady is an idiot, and I think she's a disgrace

cent .02 - She's got the right to be a disgrace, and I think that under a strict intepretation of the Bill of Rights, she has the right to be there.  HOWEVER,  I also believe that the Constitution allows for the revisiting and modification of it's structure because the founding fathers knew that the the thing wasn't perfect and would need to be able to remain flexible and open to change.  Having said that, why shouldn't she have to get a permit?  And more importantly, why didn't she?

The answer is because it's not about her constitutional rights AT ALL!  She knew this would happen and she planned for it and she counted on it.  She thinks this makes for a more powerful soundbite, plain and simple.  After all, did she not say OVER AND OVER again as they removed her, "The Whole world is watching?"  Yes she did.  She probably has delusions of granduer placing herself up there with real American Heroes like Martin Luther King and others who had a real reason for doing what they did, not just some feeling of self importance and a misguided attempt at noteriety.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2005)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> I also believe that the Constitution allows for the revisiting and modification of it's structure because the founding fathers knew that the the thing wasn't perfect and would need to be able to remain flexible and open to change. Having said that, *why shouldn't she have to get a permit?*


Liberals don't tend to be confused with strict constructionalists ... 

but if you're all for throwing out the Bill of Right, go right ahead. But the answer to the question is  <drum roll please> The First Amendment. 

'Congress shall make no law ... blah blah blah



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> And more importantly, why didn't she?
> 
> The answer is because it's not about her constitutional rights AT ALL! She knew this would happen and she planned for it and she counted on it. She thinks this makes for a more powerful soundbite, plain and simple. After all, did she not say OVER AND OVER again as they removed her, "The Whole world is watching?" Yes she did. She probably has delusions of granduer placing herself up there with real American Heroes like Martin Luther King and others who had a real reason for doing what they did, not just some feeling of self importance and a misguided attempt at noteriety.


Well, She didn't get the permit (apart from the whole 1st Amendment issue) because she had every intention of getting arrested. Don't you think its just a little embarrasing to haul off a little old lady who just wants to deliver a message to the President? 

I don't know how many times she said 'The Whole World is Watching'. And, sadly, I don't believe the whole word was watching. Check your local 'Fair and Balanced' liberal media outlet. Check to see how much space they gave to the 100,000 plus protest on the capital mall (in column inches, or air time) and compare it to the amount of space they gave to the 400 people gathered to protest the peace march and support the President. In all likelyhood, the two groups were given equal space and time. 100,000 to 400 given equal time ... that counts as 'Fair and Balanced', eh ... seems like a gift to the right wing.

And I am not going to ascribe to her delusions. I am going to take her at her word, that she would like to question the president "What is the Noble Cause for which her son gave his life?" 

To Save America from Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
Because Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11
Because Saddam Hussein was an evil man
To Transform the Middle East and Spread Democracy
Because other soldiers have died, more soldiers must die
The President has decided to not address Ms. Sheehan. That certainly is his perogative. I'm sure he has been far too busy destroying the careers of life-long civil servants to pay much attention. Either that, or he is hiding in Cheyanne Mountain. Ole Tin Ear deserves, certainly, to be taken to the woodshed for allowing Ms. Sheehan to gain such a political foothold; to allow her to become so well known that internet posters feel they can attack ad hominem.

I am also wondering what qualifies as a 'real reason' for protest? Do you think a tarrif on tea would qualify? How about forcing an old lady to sit in the back of the bus? Surely, if these qualify as a 'real reason' for protest, then the death of a loved on in an undeclared war should qualify, don't you think?

Oh, My, this was just going to be a quick little response.

Anyhow, if you feel you don't need any of your rights at the present time, please feel free to give them to me. Mine seem to be in short supply.


----------



## Gene Williams (Sep 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Liberals don't tend to be confused with strict constructionalists ...
> 
> but if you're all for throwing out the Bill of Right, go right ahead. But the answer to the question is <drum roll please> The First Amendment.
> 
> ...


Well, you are certainly exercising your right to be hysterical and reactionary to the max. Take another hit on the bong and tell us some more.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2005)

Gene Williams said:
			
		

> Well, you are certainly exercising your right to be hysterical and reactionary to the max. Take another hit on the bong and tell us some more.


What a compassionate thing to say to a sober addict. Thanks.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2005)

*============================================*
 Mod Warning:

 Please keep the discussion polite and civil.  Sniping or general insults will not be tolerated.  Please review Martial Talk's General Posting Rules for clarification.

 -Dan Bowman-
 -MT Senior Moderator-
*============================================*


----------



## Gene Williams (Sep 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What a compassionate thing to say to a sober addict. Thanks.


Maybe you should've sobered up sooner.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 27, 2005)

Gene Williams said:
			
		

> Maybe you should've sobered up sooner.



 :-offtopic 

why not just discuss the thread at hand?  your comment was uncalled for.  real classy pal.

remember those chants the cheerleaders use to yell out on the sidelines of the game?  let's try one...

give me a M!!!

give me a O!!!

give me a D!!!

what's that spell???  later williams.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 27, 2005)

Mike and I have our differences but.......


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 27, 2005)

I was at the Peace March in Washington on Saturday.  One of the reasons I went was to see it for myself.  I knew there would be no press coverage of the event, and in fact there was very little coverage.

For one thing, there were WELL OVER 100,000 people.  It was HUGE.  According to Stars & Stripes Magazine, the estimate was around 250,000 by mid-afternoon.  As for counter-protestors, there were maybe 200, located in an area of about 2 blocks of city sidewalk along the route.

And yes, it was Sheehan's intent to get arrested.  The three day event, organized by United for Peace and Justice, included the march, rally and concert on Saturday, training and conferences on Sunday, and peaceful civil disobedience on Monday.  

Cindy Sheehan is not tool of the left, but she did galvanize the peace movement.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2005)

*MOD NOTE:

 Thread locked pending Administrative review.

*-Dan Bowman-
 -MT Senior Moderator-


----------

