Bush tells why he won't meet Sheehan

[Dr. K]

"I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."

[Buckey]

"I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."

408630[/snapback]

 

How lame.

[PastaJoe]

So why doesn't he kill 2 birds with 1 stone and jog down the road to Cindy Sheehan. Fit to jog but unfit to lead. What a loser.

[OnTheRocks]

granted our President never attended the Winston Churchill Orator School.....

but i would like to see the link to the article to see the context of these comments.

[RkFast]

MMMM MMMMMM Hotpockets!

[Dr. K]

granted our President never attended the Winston Churchill Orator School.....

but i would like to see the link to the article to see the context of these comments.

408709[/snapback]

 

Here you go: http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/...ushprotest.html

 

a quote from this article: "In addition to the two-hour bike ride, Bush's Saturday schedule included an evening Little League Baseball playoff game, a lunch meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a nap, some fishing and some reading."

[VABills]

‘‘But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job,'' Bush said on the ranch. ‘‘And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say.''

 

 

The rest of the quote from your story.

 

Basically everyone wants a private audience with the president. Hell I would love it, but guess what there are 300 million people or so in this country and if he sat down and listen to each and every moron whining about something, he would never do his job, or have nay privacy and time to himself. He will not nor should be held hostage to every liberal nutcase who wants attention, just like Dean should not have to listen to every Rich in Ohio nutcase that wants 20 minutes of his time.

[Buckey]

‘‘But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job,'' Bush said on the ranch. ‘‘And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say.''

The rest of the quote from your story. 

 

Basically everyone wants a private audience with the president.  Hell I would love it, but guess what there are 300 million people or so in this country and if he sat down and listen to each and every moron whining about something, he would never do his job, or have nay privacy and time to himself.  He will not nor should be held hostage to every liberal nutcase who wants attention, just like Dean should not have to listen to every Rich in Ohio nutcase that wants 20 minutes of his time.

408788[/snapback]

 

No, Not every single one of 300 million... Just one. There are a lot of excuses by you loyal followers, but It could easily be handled...and this can be easily ended and actually help his image, but he can't wait too long...

he can simply come across as look, let this be for everyone who wants to meet with me and feels as she does... I'll express my points of view now, after considering the concerns of some of our citizens... yadda yadda yadda...

[VABills]

No, Not every single one of 300 million... Just one. There are a lot of excuses by you loyal followers, but It could easily be handled...and this can be easily ended and actually help his image, but he can't wait too long...

he can simply come across as look, let this be for everyone who wants to meet with me and feels as she does... I'll express my points of view now, after considering the concerns of some of our citizens... yadda yadda yadda...

408818[/snapback]

And if he does it with one, everyone else will do the same thing. Lemming mentality. As far as it goes she has had her 15 minutes, now get off the stage.

 

Of course you're wrong, since she already met with Bush back at Ft Lewis, but she feels it was satisfying so she wants more time.

 

Sheehan, 48, and other grieving military families met with Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis (search), near Seattle, two months after her son's death.

 

But she says the meeting was unsatisfactory, and it came before reports surfaced about faulty pre-war intelligence, which enraged her.

[Buckey]

And if he does it with one, everyone else will do the same thing.  Lemming mentality.  As far as it goes she has had her 15 minutes, now get off the stage. 

 

Of course you're wrong, since she already met with Bush back at Ft Lewis, but she feels it was satisfying so she wants more time.

 

Sheehan, 48, and other grieving military families met with Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis (search), near Seattle, two months after her son's death.

 

But she says the meeting was unsatisfactory, and it came before reports surfaced about faulty pre-war intelligence, which enraged her.

408825[/snapback]

 

I guess you didn't read what I said. He doesn't in any way have to meet with anyone else and no one else will do it because of the way he handles it.

[VABills]

I guess you didn't read what I said. He doesn't in any way have to meet with anyone else and no one else will do it because of the way he handles it.

408840[/snapback]

And why does one deserve special treatment and a second chance to vent to the president when there are 299,999,999 other people who have never even had a first chance.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

And why does one deserve special treatment and a second chance to vent to the president when there are 299,999,999 other people who have never even had a first chance.

408849[/snapback]

 

Because "Bush bad". Didn't you get the memo?

[SilverNRed]

No, Not every single one of 300 million... Just one. There are a lot of excuses by you loyal followers, but It could easily be handled...and this can be easily ended and actually help his image, but he can't wait too long...

he can simply come across as look, let this be for everyone who wants to meet with me and feels as she does... I'll express my points of view now, after considering the concerns of some of our citizens... yadda yadda yadda...

408818[/snapback]

Because, retard, she doesn't even want to meet the President. She admitted that on Keith Olbermann's show last week. I posted a link to the transcript here last night.

 

She says actually meeting him would take away her "momentum" and she's having too much fun with her three-ring circus. Meanwhile, terrorists are probably doubling their efforts to kill Americans in off-chance that one of the troops they kill will turn out to have an unhinged mommy who, in response, will do everything she can to crush morale back home.

 

Just because this woman's son was a hero, that doesn't mean she isn't an embarassment. Good for Bush; I wouldn't meet with her anyway. At least, not until she's back on planet earth with the rest of us.

 

EDIT: Here. These are the only words from Cindy Sheehan that you have to know.

[Mickey]

Because, retard, she doesn't even want to meet the President.  She admitted that on Keith Olbermann's show last week.  I posted a link to the transcript here last night. 

 

She says actually meeting him would take away her "momentum" and she's having too much fun with her three-ring circus.  Meanwhile, terrorists are probably doubling their efforts to kill Americans in off-chance that one of the troops they kill will turn out to have an unhinged mommy who, in response, will do everything she can to crush morale back home. 

 

Just because this woman's son was a hero, that doesn't mean she isn't an embarassment.  Good for Bush; I wouldn't meet with her anyway.  At least, not until she's back on planet earth with the rest of us.

 

EDIT: Here.  These are the only words from Cindy Sheehan that you have to know.

409014[/snapback]

The idea that an average citizen who has lost a loved one to a war she feels we were bamboozled into by a dishonest administration using the same politically saavy tactics as the administration used in selling the war to begin with seems to me a poetic justice. The administration uses soldiers, their sacrifices and their very lives in their own propaganda to support their position. Why is that okay?

 

Its a propaganda battle and as much as I don't want to see a battle of the grieving widows and moms, I am just as disgusted with the administration and their prop-a-bull-sh*t. They have so many memorable ones I can't even pick a favorite from the quote I use below to "last throes".

[SilverNRed]

The idea that an average citizen who has lost a loved one to a war she feels we were bamboozled into by a dishonest administration using the same politically saavy tactics as the administration used in selling the war to begin with seems to me a poetic justice.  The administration uses soldiers, their sacrifices and their very lives in their own propaganda to support their position.  Why is that okay?

 

Its a propaganda battle and as much as I don't want to see a battle of the grieving widows and moms, I am just as disgusted with the administration and their prop-a-bull-sh*t.  They have so many memorable ones I can't even pick a favorite from the quote I use below to "last throes".

409137[/snapback]

The difference being that the Bush administration used propaganda for a war to being about change in the Middle East (a region that needs change like cancer patients need chemo) and Cindy is using it, whether she knows it or not, to crush the morale of our troops and country. In other word's, Cindy's propaganda is the propaganda that the terrorists like. That's an interesting way of honoring her dead son.

 

Of course, if you follow her line of reasoning that the war was wrong and that we shouldn't be in Iraq, doesn't that make us the bad guys? So wouldn't that make the terrorists in Iraq the good guys? And wouldn't that mean she's saying the people who killed her son did the right thing? (After all, he had no right to be there and re-enlisted to go back) Just wondering.

 

Then again, you can do the same thing with Michael Moore's "lahjik." He made a big deal about how no politicians were "sending" their kids to Iraq but doesn't think that Cindy Sheehan should be held accountable for "sending" her son to Iraq. Gosh, I thought parents were responsible for putting their kids in the military - what happened to that? Oh, but I guess in this case it was Bush's fault that Casey Sheehan re-enlisted and died in combat.

[erynthered]

Damned if does, Damned if he doesnt, thats what the truth is.

[CoachChuckDickerson]

The difference being that the Bush administration used propaganda for a war to being about change in the Middle East (a region that needs change like cancer patients need chemo) and Cindy is using it, whether she knows it or not, to crush the morale of our troops and country.  In other word's, Cindy's propaganda is the propaganda that the terrorists like.  That's an interesting way of honoring her dead son.

 

Of course, if you follow her line of reasoning that the war was wrong and that we shouldn't be in Iraq, doesn't that make us the bad guys?  So wouldn't that make the terrorists in Iraq the good guys?  And wouldn't that mean she's saying the people who killed her son did the right thing?  (After all, he had no right to be there and re-enlisted to go back)  Just wondering. 

 

Then again, you can do the same thing with Michael Moore's "lahjik."  He made a big deal about how no politicians were "sending" their kids to Iraq but doesn't think that Cindy Sheehan should be held accountable for "sending" her son to Iraq.  Gosh, I thought parents were responsible for putting their kids in the military - what happened to that?  Oh, but I guess in this case it was Bush's fault that Casey Sheehan re-enlisted and died in combat.

409159[/snapback]

 

Let me start by saying I don't support pulling out our troops. I think we do need to finish the job.

 

With that being said, what kind of f--ked up world do we live in where those who make the ultimate sacrifice, and lose a loved one, can't voice their opinion? By insinuating that she is painting the terrorists as the good guys is !@#$ sick. Maybe our brave service men and women, in the future, should have to sign a contact that states their loved ones can only grieve in the privacy of their own home with the doors locked. This way they don't disturb or dishonor the rest of us with such displays.

[Mickey]

The difference being that the Bush administration used propaganda for a war to being about change in the Middle East (a region that needs change like cancer patients need chemo) and Cindy is using it, whether she knows it or not, to crush the morale of our troops and country.  In other word's, Cindy's propaganda is the propaganda that the terrorists like.  That's an interesting way of honoring her dead son.

 

Of course, if you follow her line of reasoning that the war was wrong and that we shouldn't be in Iraq, doesn't that make us the bad guys?  So wouldn't that make the terrorists in Iraq the good guys?  And wouldn't that mean she's saying the people who killed her son did the right thing?  (After all, he had no right to be there and re-enlisted to go back)  Just wondering. 

 

Then again, you can do the same thing with Michael Moore's "lahjik."  He made a big deal about how no politicians were "sending" their kids to Iraq but doesn't think that Cindy Sheehan should be held accountable for "sending" her son to Iraq.  Gosh, I thought parents were responsible for putting their kids in the military - what happened to that?  Oh, but I guess in this case it was Bush's fault that Casey Sheehan re-enlisted and died in combat.

409159[/snapback]

 

Wow, little Cindy Sheehan has managed to "crush the morale of our troops and our country..." I think you are giving her too much credit on that score. Perhaps the lies about WMD's and all the rest, the daily death toll and apparent lack of progress are doing more to hurt morale than little Cindy Sheehan and her roadside camp.

 

I am not sure how to address the hoplessly elementary idea that if the war is wrong we are bad and they are good thing. Even if she is right, not every man, woman, child and soldier in the US is "bad" because their government and leaders led them into what she sees as a needless war. Further, that doesn't make insurgents "good". There have been many conflicts where both sides were "bad".

 

I'm not sure consulting with terrorists to find out what they like and then simply doing the opposite is a sound strategy. Though something like that worked for George Costanza, I don't think it would transfer well to the foreign policy sphere.

 

I think you have Moore's "lajik" a little mixed up. His thoughts, to the extent they can be referred to as such, was that politicians who didn't send their kids to a war they supported should be called to task to see if they tried to talk their kids into serving. I think that is why he was trying to pass Army recruitment stuff to them. Apparently Cindy Sheehan in fact did try to talk her son out of it but failed. I don't really follow Moore's point but it was funny to watch some politicians squirm. By the same token, I don't see what it has to do with Sheehan.

 

There does seem to be an awful lot of reaching for anything to try and discredit her but you know, even if that effort eventually pays off, the war isn't going to be transformed overnight to a rousing success. I don't think recruitment will suddenly skyrocket if she folds her tent. The daily death toll won't change much either. That is the President's real problem and the nation's. Little Cindy here isn't going to make that go away for any of us.

[Mickey]

Let me start by saying I don't support pulling out our troops. I think we do need to finish the job.

 

With that being said, what kind of f--ked up world do we live in where those who make the ultimate sacrifice, and lose a loved one, can't voice their opinion? By insinuating that she is painting the terrorists as the good guys is !@#$ sick. Maybe our brave service men and women, in the future, should have to sign a contact that states their loved ones can only grieve in the privacy of their own home with the doors locked. This way they don't disturb or dishonor the rest of us with such displays.

409182[/snapback]

I agree, let her have he say and if this is the way she wants to do it, let her go for it.

 

As for finshing the job, that is hard to disagree with and it sounds good but tell me, how are we going to know when the job is finished? What, specifically are the conditions for withdrawl? I think that is the big question.

[SilverNRed]

Wow, little Cindy Sheehan has managed to "crush the morale of our troops and our country..."  I think you are giving her too much credit on that score.  Perhaps the lies about WMD's and all the rest, the daily death toll and apparent lack of progress are doing more to hurt morale than little Cindy Sheehan and her roadside camp.

409197[/snapback]

Cindy Sheehan and her roadside camp and their national TV coverage every single day on every single channel manage to blot out all of the work being done by our troops on that side of the world pretty well. Not that you expect a rounded view of what our troops are doing every day in Iraq from our media anyway.....

 

There does seem to be an awful lot of reaching for anything to try and discredit her but you know, even if that effort eventually pays off, the war isn't going to be transformed overnight to a rousing success.  I don't think recruitment will suddenly skyrocket if she folds her tent.  The daily death toll won't change much either.  That is the President's real problem and the nation's.  Little Cindy here isn't going to make that go away for any of us.

Name one war that was considered a "rousing success" as it was going on. World War II has to be the most romanticized war you can think of these days and we had the same people saying the same things 60 years ago. "Too many people are dying. The President is an idiot. What are we fighting for?"

 

Most people in our military support the President and support the war - they voted that way last November. Casey Sheehan re-enlisted to go back to Iraq. His mother using his name to further her nutty views - when it's clear they didn't agree politically - is just plain sick.

[Ghost of BiB]

I don't think it's appropriate for a sitting president to have to explain why or why not meet with an individual citizen. It's also not appropriate to ask or demand that he does. There's no way I'd meet with her either, were I in his shoes.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Name one war that was considered a "rousing success" as it was going on.  World War II has to be the most romanticized war you can think of these days and we had the same people saying the same things 60 years ago.  "Too many people are dying.  The President is an idiot.  What are we fighting for?"

409204[/snapback]

Well, and we had to use the most extreme of means to end that war on its final front. Or at least that is what we are told.

[SilverNRed]

Well, and we had to use the most extreme of means to end that war on its final front.  Or at least that is what we are told.

409215[/snapback]

Why not come right out and say what you mean with that last part?

[RuntheDamnBall]

Why not come right out and say what you mean with that last part?

409217[/snapback]

Because it's pure speculation how much more time and life it would have cost us to win that war on the ground, and I'm not entirely read up on what the Japanese were planning on doing in that last month of the war, I had read in some places they were planning on surrendering anyway, others that they weren't. Honestly, I wish weapons the like of atomic bombs never existed. I also understand that we could easily have been on the receiving end of that knowledge and I'm glad we exercised that power first.

 

I meant to say nothing else. Please try not to fish for a fabricated conflict here.

[SilverNRed]

Because it's pure speculation how much more time and life it would have cost us to win that war on the ground, and I'm not entirely read up on what the Japanese were planning on doing in that last month of the war, I had read in some places they were planning on surrendering anyway, others that they weren't.  Honestly, I wish weapons the like of atomic bombs never existed.  I also understand that we could easily have been on the receiving end of that knowledge and I'm glad we exercised that power first.

 

I meant to say nothing else.  Please try not to fish for a fabricated conflict here.

409225[/snapback]

Hey, I just wanted to know what you were driving at.

 

As for nuclear weapons, you can argue they've saved more lives than they've ended. We haven't had anything like WWII since, well, WWII.

 

On the other hand, we could've used non-nuclear weapons to bomb the living sh-- out of mainland Japan and probably killed at least as many people as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - just like what the 8th AF did to Germany months earlier.

 

And while nuclear weapons have basically halted full-scale wars between nations, they'll probably end up being the weapon of choice for small groups of radicals who aren't prone to nuclear retaliation. Unfortunately, we can't "un-invent" them at this point.

[Wacka]

Hey, I just wanted to know what you were driving at.

 

As for nuclear weapons, you can argue they've saved more lives than they've ended.  We haven't had anything like WWII since, well, WWII. 

 

On the other hand, we could've used non-nuclear weapons to bomb the living sh-- out of mainland Japan and probably killed at least as many people as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - just like what the 8th AF did to Germany months earlier.

 

And while nuclear weapons have basically halted full-scale wars between nations, they'll probably end up being the weapon of choice for small groups of radicals who aren't prone to nuclear retaliation.  Unfortunately, we can't "un-invent" them at this point.

409231[/snapback]

 

We did firebomb the living sh-- out of Japan. More people died in firebombing of Tokyo than in the two A-bombs. They happened over weeks rather than in an instant.

 

RTDB- please read before posting. Even after the two bombs were dropped, some of the members of the military tried a coup to stop the surrender. We were planning to build field hospitals to handle tens if not hundreds of thousands of wounded and dead in the invasion of the Japanese home islands.

[KD in CA]

Let me start by saying I don't support pulling out our troops. I think we do need to finish the job.

 

With that being said, what kind of f--ked up world do we live in where those who make the ultimate sacrifice, and lose a loved one, can't voice their opinion? By insinuating that she is painting the terrorists as the good guys is !@#$ sick. Maybe our brave service men and women, in the future, should have to sign a contact that states their loved ones can only grieve in the privacy of their own home with the doors locked. This way they don't disturb or dishonor the rest of us with such displays.

409182[/snapback]

 

And how exactly is she not being allowed to "voice her opinion"?? Is someone censoring her? Does she not have cameras in front of her 24 x 7?

 

What's the problem here?

[Ghost of BiB]

And how exactly is she not being allowed to "voice her opinion"??  Is someone censoring her?  Does she not have cameras in front of her 24 x 7?

 

What's the problem here?

409344[/snapback]

 

Because everyone on the planet reads TBD PPP as their only reliable news source?

 

Anyone found the little blonde girl yet? I need an update.

[OnTheRocks]

i am not so much bothered by her protest as much as i am bothered by the attention it is getting.

 

i mean really.....this lady is on the news so much i thought maybe she was protesting the fact the blonde girl hasn't been found and she was blaming Bush because he doesn't like the Dixi Chicks and the Dixie Chicks were going to do a concert to raise money for the lady who has to keep traveling back and forth to Aruba......but they are torn about how to divie up the money between the blonde girls mom and helping pay legal fees for the runaway bride who....****GASP** has to mow lawns!

 

[Terry Tate]

I don't think it's appropriate for a sitting president to have to explain why or why not meet with an individual citizen. It's also not appropriate to ask or demand that he does. There's no way I'd meet with her either, were I in his shoes.

Very good. Three different threads, and still no reason advanced for why the President should meet with her.

 

Maybe she should threaten to hold her breath until he meets with her. We could break into regularly scheduled programming for that.

[Mickey]

  Casey Sheehan re-enlisted to go back to Iraq.  His mother using his name to further her nutty views - when it's clear they didn't agree politically - is just plain sick.

409204[/snapback]

How is it clear he didn't agree politically? Could he possibly have re-enlisted to stick it out with his guys even if he detested the war? You haven't the foggiest idea what he was like or what he believed or what he thought about anything from the war to his mother to anything else. If you don't mind, I won't venture to make up facts and then condemn her based on what I've made up. I'm thinking that maybe, just maybe, she knew her son and what he believed a tiny bit better than you. I know, its a crazy thought but there it is.

 

As for media coverage, I have seen about a bazillion hours of fawning coverage of the war from the git-go. The media isn't the problem, they are not hiding some sort of paradise blooming in the desert. They are reporting attacks and resulting casualties, day in and day out and they are doing it accurately. Don't worry about Cindy Sheehan and how many cameras are on her, worry about the insurgency and our response. She will pop out of the headlines just as fast as she popped into them. The insurgency didn't start in response to Cindy Sheehan and the public's perception of this war as a disaster in the making didn't start last week.

[UConn James]

I don't think it's appropriate for a sitting president to have to explain why or why not meet with an individual citizen. It's also not appropriate to ask or demand that he does. There's no way I'd meet with her either, were I in his shoes.

409210[/snapback]

 

I understand that. What I don't understand is how Bush's PR people could let him utter a sentence like, "Yaknow what, I've got a life to live" when the thing being talked about is, Mrs. Sheehan's son doesn't.

[Mickey]

I don't think it's appropriate for a sitting president to have to explain why or why not meet with an individual citizen. It's also not appropriate to ask or demand that he does. There's no way I'd meet with her either, were I in his shoes.

409210[/snapback]

The smart thing politically would be to meet with her and let her fade back into obscurity. There is a story David Brinkley tells in "Washington Goes to War" about Hoover and FDR. Remember the bonus marchers? They were a bunch of WWI vets who were promised a big bonus at some point and when the depression hit, they wanted the money a little early since they feared they would starve to death before it came due. They camped out in Washington for a month protesting and finally Hoover ordered them removed. I think MacArthur led the army raid on the camp. It was pretty nasty and pretty violent. Politically, Hoover got nailed with having treated these vets so poorly. Well, when FDR won, the marchers came back and camped out, hoping to get a better deal from FDR. They didn't. What he did was send them food and water and had the park police help them out however they could. He even sent Eleanor over to see them with a load of blankets and other provisions. FDR even signed most of them up for the Civilian Conservation Corp. and as for the bonus, he vetoed the bill just as he told the vets he would. He treated them so well that they accepted his alternatives and the entire issue just faded away until 1936 when a bill was passed over FDR's veto that paid them something.

 

He doesn't have to meet with her but it might not be a bad move.

[Mickey]

i am not so much bothered by her protest as much as i am bothered by the attention it is getting.

 

i mean really.....this lady is on the news so much i thought maybe she was protesting the fact the blonde girl hasn't been found and she was blaming Bush because he doesn't like the Dixi Chicks and the Dixie Chicks were going to do a concert to raise money for the lady who has to keep traveling back and forth to Aruba......but they are torn about how to divie up the money between the blonde girls mom and helping pay legal fees for the runaway bride who....****GASP** has to mow lawns!

 

 

409367[/snapback]

What is interesting is why she is getting so much coverage. I think she has come along at the right moment, at a time when the public appears to be more concerned about the war and the direction we are headed in Iraq than they have before. She is a lens focusing a lot of anger and worry about the war.

[UConn James]

The smart thing politically would be to meet with her and let her fade back into obscurity.  There is a story David Brinkley tells in "Washington Goes to War" about Hoover and FDR.  Remember the bonus marchers?  They were a bunch of WWI vets who were promised a big bonus at some point and when the depression hit, they wanted the money a little early since they feared they would starve to death before it came due.  They camped out in Washington for a month protesting and finally Hoover ordered them removed.  I think MacArthur led the army raid on the camp.  It was pretty nasty and pretty violent.  Politically, Hoover got nailed with having treated these vets so poorly.  Well, when FDR won, the marchers came back and camped out, hoping to get a better deal from FDR.  They didn't.  What he did was send them food and water and had the park police help them out however they could.  He even sent Eleanor over to see them with a load of blankets and other provisions.  FDR even signed most of them up for the Civilian Conservation Corp. and as for the bonus, he vetoed the bill just as he told the vets he would.  He treated them so well that they accepted his alternatives and the entire issue just faded away until 1936 when a bill was passed over FDR's veto that paid them something.

 

He doesn't have to meet with her but it might not be a bad move.

409469[/snapback]

 

There's the Neocon definition of compassion, which is a quality that you say you have while you're giving a speech. And then there's the actual definition of compassion, which is a quality that requires real action. If you remember Marv's quote in this vein....

[OnTheRocks]

What is interesting is why she is getting so much coverage.  I think she has come along at the right moment, at a time when the public appears to be more concerned about the war and the direction we are headed in Iraq than they have before.  She is a lens focusing a lot of anger and worry about the war.

409474[/snapback]

 

i would say she is getting so much coverage because people like Chris Matthews and Joe Scarbourough and Keith Olberman and Sean Hannity, and Alan Colmes and and and....who else? Good Morning America, the Today show crew....etc...etc...etc....know that this woman is a train wreck waiting to happen and they are going to ride this "one trick pony flavor of the week" until something else comes along. i don't think it has one ounce to do with anything you mentioned.

 

Sort of like the Karl Rove story....it kind of died out when John Roberts was nominated....then that story took a step back for Raf. Palmiero...then he took a step back for Mrs. Sheehan.....and in about 24-48 hours she is going to be gone when 100's of Jews die while being forced out of Gaza.....oh wait...no...that won't make the news....

 

as mentioned either in this thread or the other one about the same topic, this lady knows she is the ring leader of a 3 Ring Circus and she is enjoying her 15 minutes.

is she sincerely devastated at the loss of her son? i don't doubt it for one second, but i don't think this "circus" is about that anymore.

 

when the camera lights finally dim and reporters all finally go home....this lady will never be heard from again.

[SilverNRed]

How is it clear he didn't agree politically?  Could he possibly have re-enlisted to stick it out with his guys even if he detested the war?  You haven't the foggiest idea what he was like or what he believed or what he thought about anything from the war to his mother to anything else.  If you don't mind, I won't venture to make up facts and then condemn her based on what I've made up.  I'm thinking that maybe, just maybe, she knew her son and what he believed a tiny bit better than you.  I know, its a crazy thought but there it is.

409454[/snapback]

She also thinks President Bush "murdered" her son, so her grip on reality isn't spectacular at the moment.

 

If I detested a war, I wouldn't re-enlist to go fight it. But that's just me.

 

As for media coverage, I have seen about a bazillion hours of fawning coverage of the war from the git-go. The media isn't the problem, they are not hiding some sort of paradise blooming in the desert.  They are reporting attacks and resulting casualties, day in and day out and they are doing it accurately.  Don't worry about Cindy Sheehan and how many cameras are on her, worry about the insurgency and our response.  She will pop out of the headlines just as fast as she popped into them.  The insurgency didn't start in response to Cindy Sheehan and the public's perception of this war as a disaster in the making didn't start last week.

Speaking of "making up facts"......

[Ghost of BiB]

I understand that. What I don't understand is how Bush's PR people could let him utter a  sentence like, "Yaknow what, I've got a life to live" when the thing being talked about is, Mrs. Sheehan's son doesn't.

409464[/snapback]

 

Because the Bush PR people need to all be fired. They have the worst marketing skills of any administration since television.

[UConn James]

If I detested a war, I wouldn't re-enlist to go fight it.  But that's just me.

409512[/snapback]

 

Then there's Paul Hackett, who ran for Congress in a Repub-thick Ohio district (and lost 52-48) by really lashing into Bush and the reasons and execution of the war. He served one tour, and despite his own feelings, it's his job and he's going back in November.

[UConn James]

Because the Bush PR people need to all be fired. They have the worst marketing skills of any administration since television.

409567[/snapback]

 

I don't doubt that, but the statement struck me as incredibly callous, even for him. Like "I sincerely apologize for that remark" callous. But he doesn't do things like that, ever; admitting you were wrong is weakness.

 

There's a way to hold your position and still be courteous. Most people have to learn this by age 6.