Mom holds vigil near Bush ranch

Remove all ads!

@Darkwolf:
I wasn't talking about you specifically. I simply think that anyone that doesn't take the time to properly examine all the nuances of the various candidates should not be allowed to vote. That includes me, and I'm about 99.9% sure it includes you as well. But since more than just those 400 people (estimate) are allowed to vote, one can only do one's best. *shrug*

The ignorant masses (again including probably every registered voter on this site; no offense) cannot really be held responsible for someone else's choices if they did not really know who it was that they were voting for. If one of Bush's (or Kerry's, for that matter) friends or family voted for him, then yes, their brains should be exported as spoiled goods, but the average citizen cannot possibly know what Bush or Kerry is going to say or do in any particular circumstance.

(Quick summation of my opinion: Any particular person can be intelligent, even brilliant or inspirational. But people are idiotic numbnuts who I wish I didn't have to deal with. In other words, if you were to gather the greatest minds in the world all into one place, I guarantee you they would come up with the stupidest, most moronic idea in history.)

Rather, I put the burden on the people who had a direct hand in their development (friends, family, teachers, and even enemies), those who put them in a place to be voted for (campaign advisors, the Rebuplican/Democratic Committee, etc.), and last but certainly not least, the idiot who thought it would be a good idea to put themselves in charge in the first place! (i.e. Bush/Kerry)

As for broken promises, Social Security, the length of the war in Iraq (or struggle, if you prefer ), finding Osama, and WMDs spring easily to mind. Were I inclined to ponder the depths of Bush's inadequacies, I'm sure I could come up with about a hundred more, but frankly it's too depressing.

 

Well, we are off topic, but SS is still being worked on, Bush never set a date to pull out of Iraq, they are still hunting Osama, and I don't remember the President setting a date by which we would capture OBL.

 

@khaavern

I have never heard of truthout.org before I was at their site. Is there any doubt that it is a liberal democratic site? They have dedicated quite a bit of their website and who knows how much bandwidth to support her videos, etc. To me that implies that they are the deep pockets that are keeping her and her "Camp Casey" going.

You have completely misunderstood my position (this happens a lot to consevatives) I never said that her opinion wasn't valid. As they say opinons are like *******s, everyone has one To me this seems like the Bush Haters using a grieving mother to further their own agenda and the fact that she seems to be relishing it, to me belittles the sacrifice her son made. I know I wouldn't want to be famous for having a dead child.

 

Well said TGS!!

 

@Darkwolf:
Of course he hasn't set any dates, he's got plenty of scapegoats to go on TV and get blamed in his place when the ridiculous promises they made (on behalf of the president) amazingly don't get met. If you're going to make a promise, at least make it reasonable. I'm not so much angry that he kept the soldiers over there this long as I am that he promised them they could come back sooner and then broke that promise.

I'm not sure if this makes much sense, but it's not the dishonesty that gets me. It's being dishonest about his dishonesty. Clinton was the kind of liar that would be okay with me. He lied, to your face and repeatedly, but he stuck to his lie until the end, and if he was found out he took the heat and went on from there. Bush's continuous blaming of underlings and complete irresponsibility with regard for what his administration is doing wrong is what really cheeses me off.

[rant]
Take responsibility for your own actions (or inaction), you SoB!!! Either take the heat you rightly deserve, or resign the presidency in favor of the people who are doing the real work in your name!
[/rant]
Sorry, but I needed to get that off my chest.

Getting back to the topic, I think that if anyone is using this woman, they're crazier than she is. To have a figurehead who is so easily derided, and whose motives are so obviously questionable, is just as stupid as both major parties nominating presidential candidates with a combined IQ of less than 100.

 

Bah, there are persons with much better performance than this. See Hitler for example, he fooled 50 million germans for 12 years and 60 years after his death his fans (unfortunately) are still here and many of them are not even Germans.

 

TGS: truthout.org is definitely a liberal democratic site. But why would the fact that they support Casey mean that she is their puppet? As far as I see, they are providing just a board for her opinions.

Are you suggesting that money provided by truthout.org or any liberal organization is what keeps Casey going? I think that is quite a stretch/unfounded accusation.

Now we went from liberal democratic to "Bush Haters" . The fact that some people do not agree with Bush's policies does not mean that they are some sort of loons. And again, I fail to see how exactly they are using her. The fact that they provide 'exposure' for her is quite natural in my opinion, since she happens to advocate the same ideeas as they do. I don't get it, you are saying that you should not allow suporters of a cause you advocate to post on your own site?

In the same manner, one might argue that Rush Limbaugh is <using> his callers when he gives them airtime - the opportunity to state their beliefs - during his radio program.

 

Cindy Sheehan: Day Nine at Camp Casey

Yes Mrs. Sheehan, you should, since you and your "activism" are about as real as Mickey and Disneyland.

 

I agree with you Darkwolf - I think Ms. Casey is being manipulated and carrying this on for some ulterior motive. The President met with her once and expressed regret about his death, but said he firmly believes in the mission in Iraq. Although I think we were off by one letter, something has to be done about the Middle East.

Most parents (if not all) of soldiers killed don't get one on one time with the President to talk about their feelings - she should feel grateful he met with her at all. Now, before you start labelling me "neocon" I think Bush is pretty much a bonehead - but on this issue, I side with him. He went above and beyond in meeting with her the first time - now it's being milked!

 

My brother joined the military because he supports the cause in Iraq and what we're trying to accomplish. This sickens me, and if he is aware of it, probably him as well.

This doesn't do justice for her son. In my eyes it's just smearing mud upon his memory. He served willingly -- like most of the soldiers that I know and that are out there. Hell, most of them CHOOSE to be out there, and that's what soldiers I've met have said to me. She's going to have to accept that.

 

I agree. A lot of people feel the same way regarding death. But I'm not sure what your larger point is regarding death.

Well, yes...again we agree. And I admit to you that I don't know as well. But all of that is beside the larger points that are driving this debate. Do large corporations bankroll the current politcal leaders and policy agenda? It is their "deep pockets" that fuel the issues and political ads that influence our democratic system. Are you arguing against them as well?

You mentioned her "abuse." Perhaps that point was taken on its face value.

I have several copies, in fact. Let me post some highlights:

How about those Dems? Yes, I can understand that, since, like Ms Sheehan, they take the Constitution seriously also...at times. Democrat Senator Byrd is known to carry a beat-up and somewhat worn out old copy with him whenever he enters the Senate chambers.

It is the minorty who is more likely to protest. This is generally regarded as an oppostition viewpoint. And safeguarding the rights of the minority was one of the larger considerations of the Founders. As far as her reasons, you, or I, for that matter, don't need to agree with those reasons for them to be considered "legitimate," since that is your opinion. While you may consider all this to be your "truth" and you are entitled to think so, it is still only your opinions. Every American has the right to his/her opinion, whether or not there is agreement.

The Presdident's broken campaign promises are widely known and the subject for a whole other topic.

Yes, and many are having second thoughts. Take a look at how his level of support has dropped drastically.

GASP!

Yet again, being referred to as a "liberal" and "pro-democratic" is a fine compliment to some of us. This is JFK on the subject of being referred to as a liberal:

I'm not sure what you mean by "Bush Haters." Are they those who dislike him because of his bad policies? Or perhaps they dislike the policies themselves? Or those who dislike him for reasons unknown? You may want to add a little to your opinion here for the rest of us. Narrowing this down a bit would be helpful for some of us to better target our responses.

Yes, and hunting, and hunting...and we may all be on SS by the time Bush finds Osama. If my job performance was that poor...

[ August 17, 2005, 08:06: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

It's quite saddening for me to see the word "liberal" tossed about with the same disgust and venom that "communist sympathiser" attracted in the McCarthy era. Then again, with the curtailing of social assistance and welfare in many Western countries under the guise of "encouraging self-sufficiency and economic progress", I'm not sure I should be surprised. Unless it affects them directly, most people couldn't care less.

I don't think this woman has an entitlement to access the President. She could have gone about it in a less public way. However, she has committed no crime and is exercising her right to peaceful demonstration. She is asking for answers that, frankly, a lot of people with relatives coming home in boxes will probably want to hear. Stone-walling someone like that doesn't stop them from having a point, and will likely only increase support for them, not to mention making Bush and Co. look even more insensitive.

Pardon my cynicism, but only just over 50% voted at all, IIRC. Even of that proportion that did vote, I daresay that a large chunk voted against Kerry for his position on various issues, rather than voting for Bush (and vice-versa, I'm sure, but that doesn't disprove my argument). It's that "bucket of urine/neck-deep in vomit" argument again - it's unpleasant either way, but would you duck?

To say nothing of getting at him, or avoiding turning him into a martyr.

 

Havn't innocent people suffered enough?

Also Bu$h has stated he does not care about OBL, but frequently changes his mind, when it suits him.

Leave the greaving mother alone! What she is doing is tacky etc, but she is also greiving, and needs support, not insults.

 

She may be grieving, but I'd take her actions more as a public form of protest, aimed at getting people's attention and support. She has full right to make a stand, and given that she has lost her son, I don't think she should be criticized for what she's doing.

 

@nonsequitur

As sad as you are to see the word liberal tossed around, I'm curious about how you feel when a certain poster has his neo-con fantasies/tirades?


EDIT:

@Chandos

I feel your pain about deep pockets running our system. However, I believe you seem to believe that it is corporate America that is polluting the system. I think you are conveniently forgetting the power of organized labor, NOW, ACLU, ad nauseum. This problem is not in a vacuum, these liberal groups have as deep if not deeper pockets than the evil corporations.

Calling something a liberal democratic site is a jab at the Democratic party, not at the form of government known as democracy.

I have always found JFK's quote to be kind of ironic. To me, instead of describing liberalism he is describing conservatism. I see no evidence that liberalism believes in "Man's ability" instead it seems to be believe that Man must be coddled by government, as they know not what they do. Isn't welfare just another form of slavery to the state? Sorry, that is way off topic.

I have a different definition of Bush Hater. A Bush Hater is someone who hates him by defintion. It has nothing to do with him as a man or his policies, it is just that they didn't get their man, so they hate him. A Bush hater would be hard pressed to admit anything admirable about (even if he liked puppies). The category of Hater isn't exclusive to liberals. There are plenty of Hillary haters also.

[ August 17, 2005, 15:24: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]

 

Go back and look at the baselines for that poll Chandos. The sample consisted of 39% Republicans, 49% Democrats, and 12% independent/others. I wonder why the AP would use such an unbalanced sample?

JFK is spinning in his grave thinking of what Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Al Franken, and Al Gore have made of his party. There is a reason that Zell Miller calls the Demcratic party "a national party no more"...

Again, well said TGS!

 

Please feel free to change any reference I have to "Bush Haters" to Neo-libs . It never dawned on me that that reference could be deemed offensive. I apoligize if I offended anyone.

 

Patti Davis - daughter of former president Roanld Reagan - has written, IMO, an excellent commentary on Bush/Sheehan. Her points are well taken and I agree with her sense that anyone who would be President should feel compelled to listen to those whom he serves.

Reading between the lines, one gets the sense that Davis is seeing the big picture here. I think she has put into better light one of Bush's greatest faults, at least as some of us see it: It is the feeling that he only listens to those who share his vision of what America stands for. I'm not arguing here whether that vision is right or wrong, only that he appears to disregard those who don't agree with him. Davis puts it into good perspective here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8987871/site/newsweek/

[ August 18, 2005, 06:10: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos,

The way you have stated that Patti Davis is the daughter of Ronald Reagan implies that she has more importance because of this, or that she must be a conservative because of this fact. Neither of these could be further from the truth. Patti Davis gave frequent speeches condemning her father and his policies while he was in office, often to the embarrassment of the President (like the Playboy layout and interview she did). Patti Davis could hardly be considered mainstream.

I am sorry, but the fact is that it would be nice if the President could meet with this Sheehan, it would set a precedent that could not be maintained. The neo-libs are having a field day with this because there is no way that the President can win this one. The fact is that they are raising holy hell about it because of the fact that the President is handling it exactly as he should, and the neo-libs are pissed because they want him to step in the dog squeeze by actually giving this woman a meeting.

Lets see how this plays out.

President Bush meets with her, but only agrees to meet behind closed doors. Sheehan has already demonstrated that she has no qualms about lying about meetings with the President (she either lied just after she met him the first time or is lying now as her story has completely changed), and she comes out after the meeting and tells the press that the President was cold and uncaring and told her that she had better accept her sons loss as it is a reality and that he refuses to change any of his positions even after meeting with her. Oh and the press blast him for being afraid to meet with her in front of witnesses

or

He meets with her with the press there. What else can he say that he didn't say in the first meeting and to the public already? The press sticks Sheehan in front of the camera where she states that the President did nothing to comfort her or change her opinion, and she continues protesting and even demands a 3rd meeting, or a public debate.

The President is doing exactly what he should by being understanding publicly, distancing himself from her, and not interfering with her right to demonstrate, especially as the longer this goes on the more instability she demonstrates.

Update:

Ok, there were doubts this woman was a loon?

A quote from a speech she gave on 4/27/05:

Link: http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm

Not any more.

[ August 18, 2005, 16:47: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]