Lexis

According toDaily Kos:

http://david-swanson.dailykos.com/

If this is true -and I hope its not, it truly is disgusting. How could this women be a freakin threat to national security? She's a grieving mother who wants answers and Bush's people ar just afraid its bad PR.

Lain

Messed up. Really messed up. She, like pretty much majority of Americans, just wants answers from Bush on what kind of noble cause did the soldiers die for. I mean, c'mon, we're already taking lives of innocent people, citizens or soldiers.

I'm probably gonna be flamed for this big time, but in my opinion, it's as if Bush is using the 9/11 as an excuse to keep going with the war. (There was an article that mentioned something along the lines of that) Yes, I know the 9/11 was a certain tragedy and it has affected the world both econmically and emotionally. But think about it. Within Middle East, Israel, and parts of Europe, there are places that have been bombed, lives were lost, economy was affected, yet it doesn't turn out to be a national holiday. Sorry if it sounds a bit harsh but as I look at the situation now, I ask myself "What exactly are we fighting for?"

TrepeGroupie4

I agree that Bush is using 9/11 as an excuse for everything- he uses fear as a tool of power. Even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, all he had to do was say "9/11", and many people supported the war on Iraq.

WalkingOnSunshine

From the link that Lexis provided: (marked as David Swanson's diary)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the adminstration has not said she would be arrested? It seems, in accordance to that Daily Kos link, that someone told someone that an arrest might take place on Thursday. I don't know seems something is not adding up.

I am very sorry that this woman lost her son. When I first heard about her story I thought she was trying to reach the President to talk to him for the first time. However, it seems that President Bush met with this woman on June 24, 2004 at Fort Lewis. After meeting with the President she was interviewed by David Henson for "The Reporter". (link to article here.

Here is a bit of what was included in that article:
And now a year later, this woman has a large platform available to exercise her freedom of speech whether for the good or bad. During a public outing in which she spoke - she said that she had stopped paying her taxes and challenged the government to "come after her". During the same event, she told the audience to tell young people not to join the military.

Then last Friday, Sheehan gave a speech at the Veterans for Peace Conference in (Dallas) Texas where she said:
This is a strong statement especially the bolded part (which I did) and I can see why maybe the Secret Service might be watching this woman closely.

Lexis

Even in light of that statement, its not like she is going to be anywhere near the ranch anyone. Protesting is not violence and even if Bush were sitting in a room with her, he'd still have all his people and she certainly couldn't hurt him.

I posted the thread late last night and haven't yet checked if the situation has changed/more details been added but I think whomever made this decision (if it has indeed been made) is wrong.

I have seen the article but I think in light of the shifting information and that fact that - understandably - her emotions would be all over the place after her son's death, I think it is a resource rather than an authoritive opinion. I think maybe the DSM tipped her over the edge and they came a while after her meeting with Bush.

ceilirose

I read the article from the local paper (Vacaville Sun) and I got the impression that she respected the office of the Presidency but not the person who was holding it. Shrug...it's what a lot of people feel and that goes back to the Clinton days. Anyway people change their minds when faced with new information. The majority of the American public now feels Iraq wasn't worth it. That's completely different than public opinion in March 2003.

In terms of Bush - what some see as being resolute others see as being stubborn and short sighted.

Here's a link about parents not wanting their children to enlist in the military:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0603-02.htm

It's not just Cindy Sheehan saying this although her words have a little more impact.

I don't think the Bush Adminisration needs the public relations nightmare of having a Gold Star Mother arrested. As a father and the leader of the country he could spare 30 minutes to talk to her with the Secret Service standing by to protect him from whatever Sheehan could or would do to him.

RedRockSedona

Do you often take somebody out of context?


Emphases added but given that I do not see where Cindy Sheehan is being inconsistent.


But just suppose for a second that within a year's time time that there are 1000 more deaths, also in that year we had three very incriminating memos surface. One dated back to April 2002 which stated how we wanted to have regime change in Iraq. Another memo dated back to the summer 2003, mentioning about how U.S. and U.K. flew sorties over Iraq in 2002 to provoke Saddam Hussein and destroy his anti-aircraft infrastructure and this entire well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. The there was the now famous "Downing Street Memo" and this one wrote not only echoes the call for regime change but also reports on how the U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.

Let us then throw into the works how we now know that 15 month before we sent Wilson to Niger over that Saddam/Niger Yellow Cake letter that this letter found by the Italian Intelligence was a forgery and a really bad forgery at that but that is OK we’ll send Wilson to Niger any ways and then try to turn his report into some State of The Union address/cause for going to war....of course if Wilson later objects to being used and yes misquoted we can always out his wife in the CIA

So maybe just maybe being told your son or daughter died protecting us against WMD that this is one huge lie of many doesn’t stomach very well any more.

Lexis

http://mwc.mayfirst.org/?q=node/53

I think any change in tone is explained by Cindy in that post. And I am so hugely in awe of her.

She mentioned about how Bush wouldn't look at the pictures they took of Casey when they met him and wouldn't even use his name or even refer to him as a "he" - it was all "your loved one", like he'd memorised a script and couldn't stray from it because he wouldn't know what to say or do.

WalkingOnSunshine

I agree that protesting, as long as it stays non-violent, is a perfectly acceptable way to express dissent. However, this woman traveling to the President's house during his vacation to demand answers seems like someone has gotten to her. I am not taking away from what she has lost, but her ways of going about this are a bit off, to say the least. Again, when I heard this woman was protesting outside his ranch and that she had lost a son in the war - I hoped he would meet her. Now, it has come to light that he did in fact do just that before. But now, she is challenging the government to come after her for her unpaid taxes and preaching to crowds to convince young people to not sign up for the military. Those kind of tactics do not help matters at all.


The message of parents telling their kids not to join or even consider is wrong. As well, as the message that these parents are trying to get recruiters kicked out of the high schools is wrong. It is wrong and unfair to not only the military, but as well to those currently in the military - to those that have family in the military - and wrong to those that are too young to know the military. People have a choice in this country of whether or not they want to serve it. And, I think the fact that parents want to stop their kids from joining the military could eventually lead to a draft.

Now, I realize that parents, like Sheehan, who have lost child(ren) to the war may want to warn others that something like this could happen to them. However, I think that fact is well known by now. When you join the military, by choice no less, there has and always will be the possibility that you may have to go to war. I think these parents who are trying to get recruiters kicked out of the high schools are trying to limit a segment of the population - the job population. What happens when people don't like the fact that doctors are allowed on school campus during job fairs? Will parents start to try and them removed from visiting schools during careers day? What about lawyers? Accountants? Insurance Agents? Public relations? It could go on & on.

And then what? Maybe after seeing the parents protesting military presence at college days it will lead to protesting other things. What next? Maybe a protest against certain schools that do not offer enough financial aid? Or maybe their affirmative action programs seem to be not quite enough? This could lead almost anywhere and it just might. But, the bigger problem to me at least, is the message this is sending to those that want to join. The message that is simply - Why? Why would you want to risk your life? Why would you want to join this "unjust" war? Why? Why? Maybe, because they have a sense of duty and pride and maybe they want to make a difference. Whatever their reason - it is just that - their own reason(s).

How did I take her out of context? I said "here is a bit of what was said in the article" and then I provided a link to the article so that you could read it yourself.

Lexis

II think someone has gotten to her - the President and all the planners of the war. I can totally understand her fury and frustration over what has gone on, just as I can understand how some parents would throw themselves whole heartedly into supporting the war (because they believe in the mission and although they grieve for their child, they believe he died for something right).

And in regard to tactics, I have to say that its a sad fact in todays world that stunts get press coverage. She wants to draw attention to herself, in order to draw attention to the larger issue. Look at the coverage thus far for example - she's been on so many different shows, so many networks, television and radio, print press interviews...I get totally why she's doing it as a means to an end.

I still believe Bush should meet with her as I think she deserves that, for her loss alone. They met before but as she said, she was deeply unsatisfied with his conduct. Now, if he doesn't care about that, well, that's his problem. But now, its a press problem that his advisors will have to devise a strategy to deal with. I mean, even as a Republican, you can see how this could be a PR disaster for Bush.

ceilirose

Given a level playing field I agree that joining the military is a noble choice and can provide numerous opportunities for both men and women. However given the situation we have now - two to four tours of duties in Iraq, the stop loss program where soldiers set for discharge can't do it, the reduction of benefits for our veterans, the lack of proper armor, supplies, etc. that our soldiers have to endure plus a situation which looks to involve our soldiers and a good, hefty chunk of our budget for years with no clear cut resolution then I can't blame parents for steering their kids away from the military. That's not even to mention the numerous tours the Reserves are doing doing and how some are coming back and not getting their jobs back or seeing their businesses collapse.

Right now the country is asking these men and women to make terrific sacrifices but are we as a country/government giving them anything back? I don't think it's a fair situation and I blame the President, his advisors and his war planners for the mess in Iraq. Condi Rice said recently that terrorism was on the wane in Iraq and I have to ask what solar system she's living in.

Now there may be a draft and one of the factors is the low recruitment numbers but that's only a part of the reason. People look at the situation in Iraq and see how the military is stretched so thin and the dangers they face and our leaders telling us that we have to stay the course or some other trite saying and it's not good enough.

I think you're being a little dramatic by saying doctors and accountants could be banned. We all know the military recruiters are facing this situation because the people that sign up will have a better than even chance of being targets for terrrorists 24/7. But if parents want to protest any recruiters they feel are inappropriate then that's their choice. They pay the taxes that support the schools and the salaries of the people that work for them. It's their right.

I don't share your concern about protests to be honest. If people want to protest something and they do it legally then so be it. I used to have an ob/gyn at a women's clinic and had to listen to pro-choice protestors spew hateful, ugly things at me when I was just getting a check-up. It may not be the most pleasant situation but you learn to deal with it.

UnsilentMajorty

Please don't. My IQ just dropped a few notches after reading this.

You're reaching. You're grasping at straws.

What I think you haven't realized yet... And you are young... Is that a lot of times the things we hold dear and cling to don't exactly turn out to be the way we envision them.

The truth of the matter appears to be this: This administration BETRAYED the honrable young men and women of our armed forces by using them in an illegal manner by invading a country that posed no immediate -- or even long term -- Threat to the United States and now, has no exit strategy and they did it just to further private interests (Haliburton) as well secure oil reserves to keep this country and the industries that depend on that oil functioning and post obscene profits in the process. The so-called "War on Terror" is just an added bonus if you can call it that.

I also don't think your generation realizes that no administration in the history of the United States has ever... EVER.. Wanted to go to war until this one. Even during WWII. This administration WANTED to go to war before 9/11. The Neo-Con agenda was to dominate/destabilize the Middle-East. The fact 9/11 happened was an added bonus and they used the fear and confusion to sway people, both citizens and Congress, who would not normally support such an action like invading Iraq and thousands of people are dead as a result...

And parents like Cinday Sheehan want this administration, this president, to be held accountable for these actions if this is in fact the real reason we invaded. It is a moral issue at the core -- Something the Republicans love to tout in an arrogant manner whenever they need to defend what are immoral actions at the core.

Cindy Sheehan and a host of other grieving parents want to know WHAT DID THEIR CHILDREN REALLY DIE FOR?

Because at the core... What this administration is doing to this country and the world is WRONG. The real reasons behind why their sons and daughters are dying (died) is WRONG in the moral sense. You can strip away all the sense of duty, pride and honor that a soldier feels and have their actions be WRONG if the intentions of their commanding officer... The president... Are wrong from the start.

For example, a Nazi soldier can have pride, duty and honor as a soldier, but his purpose was morally wrong because of the intentions of his commanding officer, Adolph Hilter. Many people believe this to be a similar case with regard to Bush and Iraq. Moreso than you may want to admit or have been exposed to.

Again, this is at the heart of the issue. Right and wrong.

I asked you if you knew the difference between right and wrong on another thread and you refused to demonstrate you did.

I think the reason was because my question cuts to the heart of your belief system -- which is also at the core of our political beliefs -- And I think you may know deep down some of the things this administration has done, is doing and will do is not right and not in the best interests of America, its people, or the world at large and are in fact wrong in every sense of the word.

If you can justify invading another country just because the leader didn't like America and killed his OWN people and there was NEVER any UNDENABLE PROOF that he had WMDs and would ever openly attack America... Then you don't know the difference between right and wrong.

If you can sit there and defend Karl Rove and his outing of Valarie Plame and say the administration did nothing wrong or illegal... Then you don't know the difference between right and wrong.

If you can sit there and defend the nomination of John Roberts who's past rulings have been in favor of destroying and negating a persons Civil Rights granted under the Constitution, destroying the environment and making it easier for large corporations to exploit the working-class... Then you don't know the difference between right and wrong.

If you can sit there and defend a president who openly doesn't believe in Evolution and wants to force the Evangelical Christian Right's narrow, religious and biggoted views... Opinions... On such things like Stem Cell Research, Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion and other issues on the American public and make those opinions into law (key factor) then you don't know the difference between right and wrong... Or don't care or are selfish, perhaps

You can also respond that my and other Liberal's idea of right and wrong is being weak in the face of terrorism (9/11! Remember 9/11!), but that would be farthest from the truth.

Right and wrong doesn't just mean protecting a nations citizens -- Which I think you are obsessed with, and this obsession is overriding your common sense. Right and wrong also means making the lives OF those citzens better. This administration is doing that only for a very select few (Evangelical Christians; Rich) and while you may not have experienced any of this bias yet -- You said you had never been laid off before -- You WILL, without a doubt experience it in one form or another in your life time and then it will be interesting to see where your views stand and if your definition of right and wrong changes. Hopefully, it will.

Phillylive07

I think it's fine to support Steamcell research of all kinds and Abortion but to say a person does not know the difference between right and wrong just because they don't want life to be destroyed is wrong in itself.

Lain

It's ironic on how we made Bush our president again for his 2nd term. Thank the lucky stars that it's his last term (can go no longer than 2 terms). We were doing a survey in our school during the time of the 2004 elections on who we should vote for and that half the class said they voted for Bush. One of my friends, who voted for the "hypocrite" said "He might as well finish what he started" It's unfortunate that this whole mess he started (following his father George Bush Sr.) has a possibility that it would never end. But then again, if John Kerry were elected, it's hard to predict what he might have in store.

There is no point into this war at this point. Thousands of soldiers are getting killed in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. If this whole war was about 9/11, shouldn't they focus more on going after Osama Bin Laden (who has yet to be captured)? What are the chances that we could be the next target from Iraq or Afghanistan that would have perhaps the Statue of Liberty or even the White House obliterated? I'd say a 50-50 chance. Don't you think it's ironic that throughout this whole war, not one major monument in the U.S has been touched but places in Europe have. No, I'm not saying I wish somebody bombed something in this country but I'm just explaining the irony.

Lexis, you got a point. It almost sounds like he had memorized it from a script. And what's this about Bush not wanting to use his name or look at Casey's pictures. It's like he's not important to him. Well Mr. President, every soldier that's risking their lives out their in Iraq and Afghanistan should be important to you, trying to protect this country.

RedRockSedona

Let's see...

Was said by Pat Sheehan not by Cindy but more than that it was a direct referance back towards Pat’s own belief that "Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election."

but let's move on

This quote was said by Cindy but was a comparison back to how Cindy’s felt after receiving a form letter to express Bush's condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was "an impersonal gesture"


This "moment" came about largely in part to being able to meet with the other families of fallen soldiers, in the sharing stories with these other families, in the exchanging of contact information with families going through much of what the Sheehan family were going through and was due to the relief found in being able to support each other in a common grief. Yes this meeting came about because of Bush for which the Sheehans thanked Bush for…but he was not the why.


So yeah, without the frame of referance in each case you are taking Cindy (and Pat) out of context.