Cindy Sheehan - Camping Out in Crawford

MrBadExample

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
Bush motorcade passes anti-war mom's protest
Friday, August 12, 2005; Posted: 2:27 p.m. EDT (18:27 GMT)

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- President Bush's motorcade, en route to a political fund-raiser near his ranch, passed Friday by the site of Cindy Sheehan's Iraq war protest where more than 100 people had gathered to support her.

Sheehan -- whose son, Casey, was killed five days after he arrived in Iraq last year at age 24 -- held a sign that read: "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?"

It's unclear whether Bush, riding in a black Suburban with tinted windows, looked at the demonstrators as his caravan passed.

The motorcade did not stop.

...


I'm enjoying watching the Republicans squirm on this one. Michelle Malkin is making her typical insane attacks on a grieving mother. Drudge is trumping up stories that her family is against her (no, just the in-laws). Bush could have easily diffused this by meeting with her privately earlier in the week for half an hour. Then she would have had no reason to camp out. By avoiding her, he's just made it a bigger story. And now with no news coming out of Washington and the President's approval rating slide, it's becoming a bigger media story.

Clinton could have handled this better between blowjobs. :lol:
 
I understand a mother's anguish when her son dies in a war she doesn't believe in, while Scrubking can sit on this side of the Atlantic championing a war he's too pussy to fight in.
 
I really can't understand why, even if he disagrees with her sentiment, that he can't at least take 15 minutes to invite her in and at least hear what she has to say. I mean, for god's sake she gave up her only son for his war, she deserves at least 15 minutes.

Personally, I don't agree with them that we should just pull up stakes right now and leave. Mainly for the fact that it would cause a hell of a lot more problems down the road.

All the talk radio shows are saying that what she is doing is disrespecting her son's sacrifice but I believe that it could also be argued that by totally dismissing her and not talking to her, that Bush is demeaning the sacrifice that her son gave.
 
So the administration saves face, however, by not following through on threats to arrest the group there as a "security threat."

Are they leaving today or something (Sheehan et al., I wouldn't expect Bush to leave with 4 more fucking WEEKS of vacation time to go).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are they leaving today or something (Sheehan et al., I wouldn't expect Bush to leave with 4 more fucking WEEKS of vacation time to go).[/QUOTE]
Last I heard additional people are coming this weekend and they are supposed to stay throughout his entire vacationa nd then follow him back to DC. Whether all this happens or not, or if the media attention will continue, is anyone guess. At least it's more interesting than the missing girl in Aruba.
 
I read reports where the first meeting went something like this:

Bush walks into a room full of grieving mothers in a jovial mood. He bursts out "So who are we honoring today?"

Such tact.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I really can't understand why, even if he disagrees with her sentiment, that he can't at least take 15 minutes to invite her in and at least hear what she has to say. I mean, for god's sake she gave up her only son for his war, she deserves at least 15 minutes.

Personally, I don't agree with them that we should just pull up stakes right now and leave. Mainly for the fact that it would cause a hell of a lot more problems down the road.

All the talk radio shows are saying that what she is doing is disrespecting her son's sacrifice but I believe that it could also be argued that by totally dismissing her and not talking to her, that Bush is demeaning the sacrifice that her son gave.[/QUOTE]

She didn't "give up" her son. He was a man who chose to be in the military. If you work for the military you may have to put your life on the line. I don't think she is disrespecting her son, but she has to realize what being in the military means. Everyone wants the war to end, but simply saying "stop the war" is not helpful and neither is making a spectacle of yourself. I know someone who went to the college I work at in the National Guard. He told me, "I never thought I'd be sent to fight." What do you think being in the military is? If it was just playing on the shooting range and collecting a check, everyone would do it.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']She didn't "give up" her son. He was a man who chose to be in the military. If you work for the military you may have to put your life on the line. I don't think she is disrespecting her son, but she has to realize what being in the military means. Everyone wants the war to end, but simply saying "stop the war" is not helpful and neither is making a spectacle of yourself. I know someone who went to the college I work at in the National Guard. He told me, "I never thought I'd be sent to fight." What do you think being in the military is? If it was just playing on the shooting range and collecting a check, everyone would do it.[/QUOTE]

As a citizen, she has a right to question her leader on his decisions to enter wars (especially "pre-emptive" wars)

As a mother who has sactificed her own flesh-and-blood for this country, I would argue that her appeal to meet with the President has special merit.

Of course, to be fair Bush takes more vacation then a socialist French union member, so since his hours of work are so limited she may just be in his "to-do" pile (along with catching Bin Laden and securing the borders)
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']She didn't "give up" her son. He was a man who chose to be in the military. If you work for the military you may have to put your life on the line. I don't think she is disrespecting her son, but she has to realize what being in the military means. Everyone wants the war to end, but simply saying "stop the war" is not helpful and neither is making a spectacle of yourself. I know someone who went to the college I work at in the National Guard. He told me, "I never thought I'd be sent to fight." What do you think being in the military is? If it was just playing on the shooting range and collecting a check, everyone would do it.[/QUOTE]

I've known people who've talked to recruiters, they often do everything possible to tell you that you wont, or there's minimal risk, of you ever having to fight (assuming you don't go in saying you want to fight). And many people base opinions on their friends who never had to fight, and tell others how they got the benefits of signing up but were never shipped off.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I've known people who've talked to recruiters, they often do everything possible to tell you that you wont, or there's minimal risk, of you ever having to fight (assuming you don't go in saying you want to fight). And many people base opinions on their friends who never had to fight, and tell others how they got the benefits of signing up but were never shipped off.[/QUOTE]

:roll:
They must have learned their tactics from Best Buy. "Oh yeah, I mean if ANYTHING breaks at all or your just not happy bring it back with this service plan and we'll get you set up with a new one pronto. No questions asked, couldn't be more easy"
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I've known people who've talked to recruiters, they often do everything possible to tell you that you wont, or there's minimal risk, of you ever having to fight (assuming you don't go in saying you want to fight). And many people base opinions on their friends who never had to fight, and tell others how they got the benefits of signing up but were never shipped off.[/QUOTE]

That's true too, but it doesn't take much to realize that it is a potentially dangerous job.

At anyrate I hope she finds some closure.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']That's true too, but it doesn't take much to realize that it is a potentially dangerous job.

At anyrate I hope she finds some closure.[/QUOTE]

Ya, it's just the whole "it'll never happen to me" type of thinking.
 
I feel sorry for this lady who has been taken advantage of and been turned into a tool for the radical liberal agenda.

These people are indeed the scum of the earth.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']I feel sorry for this lady who has been taken advantage of and been turned into a tool for the radical liberal agenda.

These people are indeed the scum of the earth.[/QUOTE]

Umm.... how is she being taken advantage of? She seems to be getting exactly what she wants (minus the meeting of course).
 
[quote name='Scrubking']I feel sorry for this lady who has been taken advantage of and been turned into a tool for the radical liberal agenda.

These people are indeed the scum of the earth.[/QUOTE]

Wow way to parrot the Fox talking point you dumb fuck.

You're implying she's a complete idiot with no thought of her own which is insulting.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']I feel sorry for this lady who has been taken advantage of and been turned into a tool for the radical liberal agenda.

These people are indeed the scum of the earth.[/QUOTE]

Now, if you were writing to us from Iraq, I could tolerate what you have to say.

Since you're typing from the safety of America, any argument you want to make, truthful or not (and this one sure ain't truthful), is ruined by the fact that your lifestyle does not support your pro-war beliefs.

You are living, breathing hypocrisy. And a chickenshithawk.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']I feel sorry for this lady who has been taken advantage of and been turned into a tool for the radical liberal agenda.

These people are indeed the scum of the earth.[/QUOTE]
...

I actually thought the "Swift Vets" was the lowest the republicans could go, blatantly lying about a veteran and villainizing him to further a political agenda.

But to attack a fallen soldiers mother? WHAT. THE. fuck.

Have you people no fucking ethics at all?

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Are personal attacks over this really necessary?[/QUOTE]

If you are of age, physically able, and support this war (and/or the entirety of the conservative agenda), you have *NO* reason for not enlisting in the military.

In particular, if your contribution to the discussion is nothing more than the kind of partyline pap gleaned verbatim from frontpagemag and Fox News, then it's not as if reasoned, rational discourse will change anything you have in mind.

It is not an attack as much as it is an appeal: our military enlistment has been waning for almost an entire year. Scrubking, you support everything this administration does militarily. Thus, it is Scrubking's obligation to join the military.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you are of age, physically able, and support this war (and/or the entirety of the conservative agenda), you have *NO* reason for not enlisting in the military.

In particular, if your contribution to the discussion is nothing more than the kind of partyline pap gleaned verbatim from frontpagemag and Fox News, then it's not as if reasoned, rational discourse will change anything you have in mind.

It is not an attack as much as it is an appeal: our military enlistment has been waning for almost an entire year. Scrubking, you support everything this administration does militarily. Thus, it is Scrubking's obligation to join the military.[/QUOTE]

See, I'm somewhere in the middle. If you can admit you're too scared to fight, then I can accept that. If you honestly need to help support your family, raise kids etc. that's fine. If you honestly intend to stay here and help the cause from home (ie. enter politics, help like minded republicans get elected etc.) then you're doing your part. But if you just sit here and say things like scrub, but don't have a real need to be here, don't go all out in giving your time to help your party, and don't even admit you're a coward, then I agree with you myke.

If he just admits he's a coward then I have no problem. There's a big difference between really believing in something and giving up what you currently have to go to a foreign land and possibly die, that's an extremely difficult thing to do sometimes. Though, if he started saying how everyone who's able bodied should join the military, then nothing (except the possible exception of an extreme family economic need to stay) should be considered an excuse.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you are of age, physically able, and support this war (and/or the entirety of the conservative agenda), you have *NO* reason for not enlisting in the military.

In particular, if your contribution to the discussion is nothing more than the kind of partyline pap gleaned verbatim from frontpagemag and Fox News, then it's not as if reasoned, rational discourse will change anything you have in mind.

It is not an attack as much as it is an appeal: our military enlistment has been waning for almost an entire year. Scrubking, you support everything this administration does militarily. Thus, it is Scrubking's obligation to join the military.[/QUOTE]

That really didn't answer my question about personal attacks on people.

A person in the topic was called a dumb fuck and a chickenshithawk.

As Cheapy said....

"This is place for mature discussion and is NOT a flame forum."

Of course I know that means nothing, but it would be nice if this really was a place for mature discussion.

It really doesn't bother me much because regardless of if I agree with someone's opinion or not, I won't use name calling as a tactic. That is never constructive. I see no reason to do it.

IMO, this forum could really be something great without the childishness but as it is, it is the butt of many jokes on CAG. Considering the amount of crap that goes on here, that is saying something.

I have nothing against you and I hope you don't take this post in that way. Quite frankly, I don't come to the vs. boards that much anymore anyway.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you are of age, physically able, and support this war (and/or the entirety of the conservative agenda), you have *NO* reason for not enlisting in the military.

In particular, if your contribution to the discussion is nothing more than the kind of partyline pap gleaned verbatim from frontpagemag and Fox News, then it's not as if reasoned, rational discourse will change anything you have in mind.

It is not an attack as much as it is an appeal: our military enlistment has been waning for almost an entire year. Scrubking, you support everything this administration does militarily. Thus, it is Scrubking's obligation to join the military.[/QUOTE]

Actually it's not an obligation, that's why it's a volunteer army, if we still had drafts that would be an obligation to join the military. Don't take any offense to this, but this is about the dumbest thing I've seen you say myke. Now I don't want to make a case for scrubking alone (personally I think almost all of what he says is uncalled for and mostly unfounded), but since when in this country have you had to devote yourself entirely to a cause because you support is politically. To reverse the roles why don't you travel around to every democratic party rally for about 2 or 3 years and give a portion of your life to your political cause? Of if you support abortion rights go to all those rallies for a couple years? What if you have a family to provide for or are working on your education? You seem like you could be in your mid-late 20's, what was your position on the conflict we had with Kosovo? If you were 18 and supported going over there maybe you should've signed up then. What about going into Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, some people actually did support that and sign up, but lots of people supported it and didn't. Did you support it? And if so did you sign up? I don't know the military background of you or anyone else on this board really, but IMHO you should only call someone a coward or chicken if you've actually done whatever is they aren't doing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you are of age, physically able, and support this war (and/or the entirety of the conservative agenda), you have *NO* reason for not enlisting in the military.

In particular, if your contribution to the discussion is nothing more than the kind of partyline pap gleaned verbatim from frontpagemag and Fox News, then it's not as if reasoned, rational discourse will change anything you have in mind.

It is not an attack as much as it is an appeal: our military enlistment has been waning for almost an entire year. Scrubking, you support everything this administration does militarily. Thus, it is Scrubking's obligation to join the military.[/QUOTE]

I am of age (26), physically able (moderate shape), and support this war. I choose not to enlist in the military.

You support the troops, right? Then why haven't you joined the military? Your support would mean quite a bit more if it was covering fire while they moved into position.

I used to work for a company whose major decisions I didn't agree with. That didn't stop me from collecting my paycheck. How can you possibly argue that nothing I say has any merit because of a career decision I made?

I think scrubby is as big an idiot as you do, but your attack is baseless.
 
Besides, a chickenhawk is someone who does everything they can to avoid military service adn conflict (i.e. draft deferments, student exceptions, joining the Texas Air National Guard) And then advocates military service, and pushes conflict.

Not someone who decided not to join. I will not join, but if they draft me, I'll go.
 
[quote name='fanskad']I used to work for a company whose major decisions I didn't agree with. That didn't stop me from collecting my paycheck. How can you possibly argue that nothing I say has any merit because of a career decision I made?[/QUOTE]

Doesn't surprise me.

I think most Republicans are hypocrites.

Why not sell your soul for a little extra cash, right?
 
[quote name='camoor']Doesn't surprise me.

I think most Republicans are hypocrites.

Why not sell your soul for a little extra cash, right?[/QUOTE]

Listen, douche, I'm not a republican, I'm not a hypocrite, I'm not your one-dimensional cardboard cutout to have crap slung at me.

Most of your posts are aggressive, judgemental, and completely unfounded.

The decisions I was referring to were in the vein of corporate strategy, not any of the "moral" issues you're thinking of. I firmly believe that the only "moral" responsibility of a corporation is to provide profit for it's shareholders.

You're the hypocrite, bashing christians for zealotry, while you're an even bigger fanatic for the opposite side. You use "Republican", and "Christian" just like the right uses "Liberal". Just because they disagree with you doesn't make that a dirty word.

Now douche, that's a dirty word.

Douche.
 
[quote name='fanskad']Besides, a chickenhawk is someone who does everything they can to avoid military service adn conflict (i.e. draft deferments, student exceptions, joining the Texas Air National Guard) And then advocates military service, and pushes conflict.

Not someone who decided not to join. I will not join, but if they draft me, I'll go.[/QUOTE]
Um, no. A chicken hawk is someone who supports the war vocally, is elligible for service, and still doesn't enlist.

Scrubking is a perfect example of a chickenhawk.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Um, no. A chicken hawk is someone who supports the war vocally, is elligible for service, and still doesn't enlist.

Scrubking is a perfect example of a chickenhawk.[/QUOTE]

Then we're working from different definitions of Chickenhawk. I support the war, am elligible for service, and I don't enlist. That doesn't make me a chickenhawk. If they need me, they'll draft me. And I'll go.
 
[quote name='fanskad'] I firmly believe that the only "moral" responsibility of a corporation is to provide profit for it's shareholders
....
Now douche, that's a dirty word.

Douche.[/QUOTE]

What an enlightened attitude. Using your logic, corporations should poison us all with industrial waste and hook the people on addictively destructive foods and chemicals in order to make another fast buck.

You're right - there are at least some modern, fiscally-unresponsible neocon Republicans that think they are doing the right thing in the long run.

You're just a dangerous anarcho-capitalist. With a dirty mouth.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Actually it's not an obligation, that's why it's a volunteer army, if we still had drafts that would be an obligation to join the military. Don't take any offense to this, but this is about the dumbest thing I've seen you say myke. Now I don't want to make a case for scrubking alone (personally I think almost all of what he says is uncalled for and mostly unfounded), but since when in this country have you had to devote yourself entirely to a cause because you support is politically. To reverse the roles why don't you travel around to every democratic party rally for about 2 or 3 years and give a portion of your life to your political cause? Of if you support abortion rights go to all those rallies for a couple years? What if you have a family to provide for or are working on your education? You seem like you could be in your mid-late 20's, what was your position on the conflict we had with Kosovo? If you were 18 and supported going over there maybe you should've signed up then. What about going into Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, some people actually did support that and sign up, but lots of people supported it and didn't. Did you support it? And if so did you sign up? I don't know the military background of you or anyone else on this board really, but IMHO you should only call someone a coward or chicken if you've actually done whatever is they aren't doing.[/QUOTE]

To some extent, point taken. Many many people have good reasons for not serving, even if they support the troops. If it helps any, I drank High Life last night, which I fully regretted this morning. Not that it excuses my overgeneralization.

My contention with SK is that he's not attempted to justify or rationalize why he hasn't gone. Not school, family, glee club, nothing. I simply want to know why someone who ardently supports this war, and the rationale for doing so, is not involved in said conflict.
 
[quote name='fanskad']I firmly believe that the only "moral" responsibility of a corporation is to provide profit for it's shareholders.[/QUOTE]

Someone needs to read Das Kapital.

Let me be perfectly clear in asking this: what responsibility does a corporation have towards its workers, in your mind?
 
[quote name='camoor']Doesn't surprise me.

I think most Republicans are hypocrites.

Why not sell your soul for a little extra cash, right?[/QUOTE]

I thank you for this post, only because I saw fanskad's post on working for a company he didn't agree with. In my head, I immediately wanted to conjure the spirit of Ward Churchill to respond to his remark. I'll let your words do the talking instead.

In honor of fanskad's statement, though, the word of the day is "complicit."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you are of age, physically able, and support this war (and/or the entirety of the conservative agenda), you have *NO* reason for not enlisting in the military.

In particular, if your contribution to the discussion is nothing more than the kind of partyline pap gleaned verbatim from frontpagemag and Fox News, then it's not as if reasoned, rational discourse will change anything you have in mind.

It is not an attack as much as it is an appeal: our military enlistment has been waning for almost an entire year. Scrubking, you support everything this administration does militarily. Thus, it is Scrubking's obligation to join the military.[/QUOTE]

Because he's not obligated to. He can say and think whatever the hell he wants and that doesn't automatically force him to do anything about it.

By that reasoning, if you're of age, able, and are against the war, you have *NO* reason for not camping out on Bush's house either.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I thank you for this post, only because I saw fanskad's post on working for a company he didn't agree with. In my head, I immediately wanted to conjure the spirit of Ward Churchill to respond to his remark. I'll let your words do the talking instead.[/QUOTE]

You wanted to do WHAT?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you are of age, physically able, and support this war (and/or the entirety of the conservative agenda), you have *NO* reason for not enlisting in the military.

In particular, if your contribution to the discussion is nothing more than the kind of partyline pap gleaned verbatim from frontpagemag and Fox News, then it's not as if reasoned, rational discourse will change anything you have in mind.

It is not an attack as much as it is an appeal: our military enlistment has been waning for almost an entire year. Scrubking, you support everything this administration does militarily. Thus, it is Scrubking's obligation to join the military.[/QUOTE]

I know that many get tired of the holier than thou espousing of those on the left about the war in Iraq. Military campaigns and battle plans never survive first contact with enemy forces. It's always up to enlisted men and low level officers to deal with fluid combat situations and high level officers to deal with the changing dynamics of the strategic positions of their forces and missions. That said the military never has an easy going against hostile forces despite the often inflated claims of military contractors, air power advocates and arm chair generals claiming not enough force is brought to bear.

The thing that is bothering me most about the left now is their oft repeated claim that many on the right are chicken hawks. They say that if you never served in the military you have no moral right to insist that military actions be expanded or undertaken. They say if you're of military age and haven't enlisted you have no right to support the campaign in Iraq as if you haven't signed up you're not really supporting the military enough.

Bull. I hear this from arm chair peaceniks and then have to wonder...

Have they cleared out their 401K's, personal investments, IRA's or managed money accounts of any defence contractors? Or do they claim ignorance that their growth or stable income funds may have money invested in Boeing, Northrop, General Dynamics, Texas Instruments, Raytheon, Halliburton, Bechtel or any other number of companies on the front lines financially supplying ongoing war against Islamic extremeists.

Are they still paying their taxes? Are they telling their employers not to withold any taxes from their paychecks? Does a small business owner who is vehemently against America defending itself and its interests not file his/her quarterlies? Are they willing to risk the penalties of financial civil disobedience and battle the IRS over their lack of support? Will a peace activist risk jail time, fines, wage garnishment, put their property at risk through possible leins to back up their beliefs?

We're asking soldiers to risk their lives. The least they can do is suffer a little financial or legal hardship for their cause. Yet, you don't hear about this do you. You don't see sections of New York, San Francisco or Los Angles liberal hotbeds with siezed property going up for government auction or the jails filling with tax rebels do you?

Does the peacenik leftist skp work to attend sit ins, chain themselves to a fence of an Air Force or Army base, do they spend their weekends telling people to engage in mass civil disobeience of the kind I'm mentioning?

Of course not.

These people continue to live their middle class to upper class lifestyles without sacrifice but will be happy to tell you how misguided you are without undertaking any of the above actions. They'll sit by in their air conditioned abodes nestled tightly behind their keyboards telling us how evil the U.S. is, how Bush needs to be impeached and how we're an imperialist power. Then between online, print and broadcast tirades they'll drink $5 latte's, drive their SUV grocery wagon 3 miles to Target, Wal Mart or Safeway where they'll fill up with more groceries than an Afghan or Iraqi family will see in a year.

If the left wants to mock anyone that supports our current actions with the label chicken hawk turnabout is fair play. Until they're willing to put their money, freedom and finances at risk they have no room to talk and rightfully deserve the title of chicken dove. I see no such action but what do you expect from a group of cowards who is full of hot air and words and absolutely no action to back them up.
 
Excuse me PAD, for one I DON'T drive a SUV so don't generalize.

Also I wouldn't have my money in Halliburton EVER. I don't believe in such a disgusting company. Halliburton makes most of it's money off the destruction and rebuilting of other countries. Without war, Halliburton CAN'T function as the company it is today, sizewise. Furthermore this company is a POS. They are the ARCADE vendor, in fact the NAMCO arcade vendor of rebuilting countries, i.e. they use the shittiest materials they can find, charge the government the most they can and then pad the fuck out of their pockets. Would I potentially have my money in Boeing or Texas Instruments? Yes, at least the first you KNOW they're using stuff for war applications. On the other hand I would not put my money in HP, Kodak and others. However I don't like Texas Instruments doing that so perhaps I wouldn't invest in them.
Also note what you mention is illegal, things that SK could do would be within' the bounds of law though I would agree more Liberals need to get involved campaigning for 06.
 
The decisions I was referring to were in the vein of corporate strategy, not any of the "moral" issues you're thinking of. - fanskad

Well there you go, that had shat all of anything to do with what was being talked about.

As for those College Republican who actually operate under the fiction they are "fighting the war at home" by being ass deep in right wing propaganda. If anything I despise them even more.
 
The following email was sent out by Casey's aunt and godmother:


Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks Ð Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
Click to expand...

Her son apparently was proud of his service in the military, the family described him as promising to "do his best and serve honorably" upon going to Iraq. She is just shaming his memory at this point.

Moveon.org is now paying her bills and many other things. One minister went as far as calling her "the Rosa Parks" of the anti-war movement. This is simply a woman who is becoming unhinged before our very eyes.

She has become yet another useful idiot for the radical left.
 
[quote name='vindicator']The following email was sent out by Casey's aunt and godmother:




Her son apparently was proud of his service in the military, the family described him as promising to "do his best and serve honorably" upon going to Iraq. She is just shaming his memory at this point.

Moveon.org is now paying her bills and many other things. One minister went as far as calling her "the Rosa Parks" of the anti-war movement. This is simply a woman who is becoming unhinged before our very eyes.

She has become yet another useful idiot for the radical left.[/QUOTE]

This is a conflict between the two parties, nowhere does it mention what the son really thought about being shipped off, or of any corrispondance between him and the mother in the few days he was in iraq.
 
[quote name='fanskad']The decisions I was referring to were in the vein of corporate strategy, not any of the "moral" issues you're thinking of. I firmly believe that the only "moral" responsibility of a corporation is to provide profit for it's shareholders.[/QUOTE]

So there's no moral obligation to keep customers alive, then?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/i...ad378f7ed1c61c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
That is, unless the customers are also shareholders.

PAD, I've made my corrections already, but if you'd like to use the law of unintended consequences to point out how all people are complicit to some degree, you aren't doing much to lend credence and validity to your side of the ideological debate. Perhaps I'll comment later, but I'm late for an event at the moment.
 
[quote name='vindicator']The following email was sent out by Casey's aunt and godmother:

Her son apparently was proud of his service in the military, the family described him as promising to "do his best and serve honorably" upon going to Iraq. She is just shaming his memory at this point.

Moveon.org is now paying her bills and many other things. One minister went as far as calling her "the Rosa Parks" of the anti-war movement. This is simply a woman who is becoming unhinged before our very eyes.

She has become yet another useful idiot for the radical left.[/QUOTE]

Sad that her family feels such fear of the new American government and the radical followers of right wing news organizations that they issue a statement distancing themselves from a courageous crusader in search of some truth and compassion from Our Leader.
 
[quote name='camoor']Sad that her family feels such fear of the new American government and the radical followers of right wing news organizations that they issue a statement distancing themselves from a courageous crusader in search of some truth and compassion from Our Leader.[/QUOTE]

One man's "courageous crusader" is another's "radical looney".

Look! I can make absurd statements too!

Its ashame that this lady has to have her bills paid by someone else. Her companies should be paying her quadrouple her wages for not being at work or doing anything (except sitting of course) at all!
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']This is a conflict between the two parties, nowhere does it mention what the son really thought about being shipped off, or of any corrispondance between him and the mother in the few days he was in iraq.[/QUOTE]

Casey Sheehan re-enlisted last August and planned to make a career in the military. According to his father, Casey "loved the Army because it gave him a chance to serve his country."

If you ask me, she is tarnishing the memory of her son and dishonoring him through her actions. This is no longer about a mother's sorrow, but a desperate attempt to disperse a radical agenda.

Besides, this shouldn't be a political situation in the first place, this woman is clearly not in a balanced state of mind, so you have Moveon.org, Michael Moore and other far-leftists using her mental state and her persona as a vehicle to push their viewpoints. Listen to her talk, everything she says is basically a moveon.org/Michael Moore talking point.

EDIT: btw, this is Moore’s splash page as of 4:40PM Eastern on Aug.11, 2005:

moore_using_sheehan_tragedy.jpg


Disgusting. What’s the exclamation point about? Glee? He revels in this shit. He’s never more happy or more in his element than when he can exploit death to make himself get noticed. What a particularly nasty example of our species this Mooreon is.
 
[quote name='vindicator']Casey Sheehan re-enlisted last August and planned to make a career in the military. According to his father, Casey "loved the Army because it gave him a chance to serve his country."

If you ask me, she is tarnishing the memory of her son and dishonoring him through her actions. This is no longer about a mother's sorrow, but a desperate attempt to disperse a radical agenda.

Besides, this shouldn't be a political situation in the first place, this woman is clearly not in a balanced state of mind, so you have Moveon.org, Michael Moore and other far-leftists using her mental state and her persona as a vehicle to push their viewpoints. Listen to her talk, everything she says is basically a moveon.org/Michael Moore talking point.[/QUOTE]

Bush Jr. is clearly not in a balanced state of mind, so you have Cheney, Rove, and other far-rightists using his mental state and his persona as a vehicle to push their viewpoints.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] If it helps any, I drank High Life last night, which I fully regretted this morning.
[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Well that explains it. Damn High Life, "champagne of beers" my ass...


As for my opinion on the actual topic, I feel sorry for her losing a son, but I certainly think she's now playing it up for a political agenda. I mean apparently she already met Bush once and apparently opposed the war then, but said and did nothing when she meet him I suppose. Now she claims there's evidence and allegations that our purpose for going to war was false, but one year ago there were plenty of these allegation and evidence around with people looking for election ammo and so on. Now she wants another meeting? What about the thousands of relatives of soldiers who never got to meet the president after their son, brother, father, daughter, mother, etc. was killed? I guess she deserves two meetings with the president because she disapporves of the war, that seems (at the risk of sounding heartless) a little self-serving.

Personally I think like so many other things in the national media and press this has been blown out of proportion. I mean think of the two years where hardly any anti-war protests were covered at all, but now because polls show Americans think things are going worse this suddenly gets tons of coverage.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']As for my opinion on the actual topic, I feel sorry for her losing a son, but I certainly think she's now playing it up for a political agenda. I mean apparently she already met Bush once and apparently opposed the war then, but said and did nothing when she meet him I suppose.[/quote]
Most likely she was still stunned by the news of the death of her son, and far too devistated, emotionally, to do anything at all. Now that some time has passed, she's had some time to at least begin to heal and now wants to call to account those who cost her son his life.

Now she claims there's evidence and allegations that our purpose for going to war was false, but one year ago there were plenty of these allegation and evidence around with people looking for election ammo and so on. Now she wants another meeting? What about the thousands of relatives of soldiers who never got to meet the president after their son, brother, father, daughter, mother, etc. was killed?
Click to expand...
Quite true: Bush really should spend some more time apologizing to the people he's hurt. Of course, the never-ending stream of devistated families showing up on the news meeting with the president would most likely damage him politically, so he just picks and chooses a few representative people to meet, ones still too stunned by the news to have had any time to think.

Personally I think like so many other things in the national media and press this has been blown out of proportion. I mean think of the two years where hardly any anti-war protests were covered at all, but now because polls show Americans think things are going worse this suddenly gets tons of coverage.
Click to expand...
Quite true: the press's failure to question this war earlier has been one of the biggest failures of journalism since, well, I don't know when. At least they're giving SOME coverage to it now, though it can really only be described as 'too little, too late.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top