For what it's worth . . .

Posted by: MattMac112

For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 11:16 AM

This just crossing on Drudge . . . <br><br>FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY!<br>Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET<br><br>The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch. <br><br>The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Cherie Quarterolo, Casey's aunt and godmother: <br><br><blockquote>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 – Cherie <br><br>In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement: <br><br><blockquote>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. <br><br>Sincerely, <br><br>Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.</blockquote></blockquote> <br><br>Developing...<br><br>= = = = = = = = = = =<br><br>That said, as the Mother of Casey Sheehan, and a citizen of our country, Cindy Sheehan can do and say whatever she wants. I just thought it was interesting to read the reaction from the rest of the family. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 11:38 AM

Isn't it just a tad ironic that a family would be suspicious of their relative's political motivations and react by participating in an ongoing political hatchet job? How lovely. Also, why would they contact a web site that had previously misrepresented their relative so badly that the source newspaper had to follow up?<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 11:49 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Isn't it just a tad ironic that a family would be suspicious of their relative's political motivations and react by participating in an ongoing political hatchet job?<p><hr></blockquote><p>As family members of the slain soldier, they have a voice too. And why are you so willing to pass on the notion that Cindy Sheehan might not be engaging on her own political hatchet job? I'm not saying she is, but it's possible. Her family certainly thinks so. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Also, why would they contact a web site that had previously misrepresented their relative so badly that the source newspaper had to follow up?<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Part of the large "NeoCon conspiracy", of course. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 11:50 AM

A mother and father are upset that their two daughters are making national headlines leading a protest that has found a voice for millions. Grandparents who lost a grandson want that grief to fade away. I can sympathize with Sheehan's parents, but is an email from an aunt and godmother worthy of a Drudge headline? <br><br>Cindy Sheehan was interviewed yesterday: link<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 11:58 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>but is an email from and aunt and godmother worthy of a Drudge headline? <p><hr></blockquote><p>Seeing as how Cindy Sheehan is pushing to make this a very public story, why wouldn't a statement from Casey Sheehan's family be a Drudge headline?<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.
Posted by: steveg

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:04 PM

Looks to me like the media has become both adept at, and comfortable with helping families publicly rip themselves apart. Family Fued News has been a tad slow since the Shiavo circus left town. But oh looky, a new brawl with a big fat shiny political handle is rolling down Main Street! <br><br>Barf!<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:11 PM

Good point. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:11 PM

That just makes it more ironic!<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:13 PM

"Pushing" to make this a very public story by sitting for days is a ditch along the road to the Ranch?ô I thought she said herself she was surprised by the attention, so of course she'll talk to the reporters her come to her. <br><br>Right or wrong, foolish or brilliant, she's taking responsibility for her actions. She's not asking anyone else to justify her protest, she's asking the President to talk to her face to face about his responsibilty. She lost her son and she firmly believes his death was not for the reasons the President has stated. <br><br>Would emails from Matt Drudge's godmother be worthy of this publicity if they disagreed with his public political posturing? <br><br><br>Gandhi walked across India to the sea to make salt (so it went in the movie.) <br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:13 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>That just makes it more ironic!<p><hr></blockquote><p>YAY! It's ironic . . . and?<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:20 PM

Oh... I'm sorry... did you want me to take this bait?<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Part of the large "NeoCon conspiracy", of course.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Snore. What's more boring than another lengthy discussion about your accusations? I'd rather just skip it.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:22 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>"Pushing" to make this a very public story by sitting for days is a ditch along the road to the Ranch?ô I thought see said herself she was surprised by the attention, so of course she'll talk to the reporters her come to her.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Oh of course Gary. She's "surprised" by the attention . . .<br><br><blockquote>"WHAT? What's with ... gosh ... What's with all the press attention? I just didn't know I'd be getting an attention over this. Huh! Wh ... why are these camera crews here? Why am I being interviewed? I just wanted to quietly sit in a ditch in Crawford Texas as a protest. I'm going to march up to the front gate and demand the President talk to me. I had nooooooo idea that, of all things, would attract the media. This is just so wild. Huh!"</blockquote><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Would emails from Matt Drudge's godmother be worthy of this publicity if they disagreed with his public political posturing?<p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't know, but a statement from the rest of Casey Sheehan's family is a component of this suddenly national story, like it or not. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:33 PM

Why? Because they don't like her politics? Why is that a headline component of the story other that to create controversy? Creating news... emails from 'godmothers' <br><br>I don't agree with all of Sheehan's politics, but that's not the issue at all. She has said some amazingly stupid things over the last few days, again that's not the story. Should we disrespect her protest because maybe sometime in her past she failed to pay taxes for a nanny <br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:50 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Why? Because they don't like her politics?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Because they are a part of the family and they wanted to release a statement saying, in effect, stop using your son, our family member, to advance your political activism. Since her political activism is part of her protest, and thus part of the story here, her family's statement is relevant to that story. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Should we disrespect her protest because maybe sometime in her past she failed to pay taxes for a nanny<p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't think anyone is disrespecting her protest. As members of her immediate family, they felt compelled to issue a statement. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.
Posted by: rman

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:54 PM

So here is a simple question. Why was an e-mail sent, instead of a press conference to the local media?<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:55 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So here is a simple question. Why was an e-mail sent, instead of a press conference to the local media?<p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't know. Does it matter? <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: rman

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 12:59 PM

Yes it does, any one could have sent the e-mail. You could have.<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Thank you for saying so - 08/11/05 01:06 PM

"Because they are a part of the family and they wanted to release a statement saying, in effect, stop using your son, our family member, to advance your political activism"<br><br><br>That is exactly Cindy Sheehan's message for the President.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 01:13 PM

What I would like to know, exactly how should a parent react to the death of a child and the reasons for it? Also, who has the right to tell her how to act? Even if we would not do what she is doing, who are we to decide what is the correct thing for her to do or not do? <br><br>How would you react to losing a son or daughter?<br><br>Chris<br><br><br><br>Light-Imagery<br><br> <br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

You're welcome - 08/11/05 01:13 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>That is exactly Cindy Sheehan's message for the President.<p><hr></blockquote><p>And President Bush responded to her . . .<br><br><blockquote>It's the spread of liberty that is laying the foundation of peace, and is very important for our citizens -- no matter what side of the political aisle you're on -- to understand that the mission is a vital mission and it's one that will be -- that we obviously couldn't complete if -- if we -- if we didn't fulfill our goals, which was to help the Iraqis.<br><br>Yes, Steve.<br><br>Q Just to make clear, you're referring to Mrs. Sheehan here, I think?<br><br>THE PRESIDENT: I'm referring to any grieving mother or father, no matter what their political views may be. Part of my duty as the President is to meet with those who've lost a loved one. And so, you know, listen, I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about her -- about her position. And I am -- she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position. And I've thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is, get out of Iraq now. And it would be -- it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long-run, if we were to do so.</blockquote><br><br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: sean

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 01:18 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently respectfully grieving.<p><hr></blockquote><p>well, if that was working for you, then i suggest you silently and respectfully continue to grieve and not run to drudge. cindy has obviously decided to fight for her son's memory by trying to raise a stink in the hopes of helping other families not to experience the same pain. she is protesting a president and a policy. the family is merely dividing a family. that's love. <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 01:26 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What I would like to know, exactly how should a parent react to the death of a child and the reasons for it?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Hopefully, none of us will ever find out.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Also, who has the right to tell her how to act?<p><hr></blockquote><p>None of us do . . . but I give her family, his family, the benefit here. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Even if we would not do what she is doing, who are we to decide what is the correct thing for her to do or not do?<p><hr></blockquote><p>None of us are, except her family. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>How would you react to losing a son or daughter?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Again, I hope to never find out. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 01:33 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>well, if that was working for you, then i suggest you silently and respectfully continue to grieve and not run to drudge. cindy has obviously decided to fight for her son's memory by trying to raise a stink in the hopes of helping other families not to experience the same pain. she is protesting a president and a policy. the family is merely dividing a family. that's love.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Her family, Casey's family, is saying . . . <br><br><blockquote>[Cindy] now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation.</blockquote><br><br>. . . And as a family, they are coming together to tell her to stop the exploitation. But go ahead and trash the family just because it goes against your ideological grain. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: You're welcome - 08/11/05 01:33 PM

Why has Drudge recently edited down the letter, removing the name of the "aunt and godmother"? Could it be because the validity of it is being questioned? Perhaps. Either way, Karen Hughes prepares the language for the President, Drudge once again does the heavy lifting, Oliphant almost got it right:<br><br><br><br><br>Bush's prepared statement doesn't quite come close. It's only going to backfire, the more he dodges and the more both sides of the media play these games.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 01:43 PM

How can an argument for unbiased media be an honest argument when emails from a now "anonymous godmother" is presented as noteworthy (FWIW) news in one of the most politically charged stories of the week? I don't get it. Drudge is a biased hack, why can't others see that?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 01:45 PM

you've got it partly right when you quote the family saying: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>[Cindy] now appears to be<p><hr></blockquote><p>the family apparently doesn't even completely know the motivation, yet they're none too quick to make a guess and they've worded it well . . . "appears."<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 01:47 PM

Obviously, the family has every right to make their opinion known as she also has the right to carry on how she wishes. It's also obvious that you disagree with her protest and side with what the family is purported to have said. I would imagine she would be glad that you don't have to walk in her shoes. <br><br>---<br> In reply to:<br><br> Even if we would not do what she is doing, who are we to decide what is the correct thing for her to do or not do?<br><br>None of us are, except her family. <br>---<br><br>I disagree with you that the family has the right to decide how she should act. <br><br>Chris<br><br><br><br>Light-Imagery<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 03:22 PM

Yup!<br><br>Mother Trumps Family!<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 04:16 PM

Funny both you and Bryan use the same trick to introduce information which portrays a mother's grief as not really all that sincere. You both used, "that said". As if it is OK to say a mother's grief is profound blah blah blah, that said, she is a nut case taking money from Soros.<br><br>A mother's grief is a mother's grief. There is nothing more profound. And there is nothing so small as someone who tries to belittle a mother's grief of losing her child.<br><br>A godmother should be listened to if she tries to shut the mouth of a mother's grief? As Celandine says, the mother trumps, big time. You kill a child then you listen to the mother. Royal flush ace high.<br><br>I hope this kind of villainous bullshiit backfires on the likes of Drudge.<br><br>Developing ... Drudge has jumped the shark. He is really showing his true colors reporting this.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 04:27 PM

Don't call what Drudge does "reporting." He's merely a rumor mill used as a tool by people looking to spread disinformation. I'll call him a reporter when he actually goes out and does reporting work.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
Posted by: DLC

Re: You're welcome - 08/11/05 04:28 PM

ROFL !!<br><br>well here's my letter to the AJC about a dumbass who called her a traitor.<br><br>"Jimmy Hallís condemnation of Cindy Sheehan for wanting to face Bush about her sonís death was totally irrational saying she was a traitor giving aid to the enemy. That kind of insane reasoning was responsible for 58,000 deaths in Vietnam. It essentially says though the war effort is broken and disfunctional, sit down and shut up while we needlessly send more young to their deaths (because we donít have any other plan). That is a real principle of democracy to show the world.<br><br> If anyone aided the enemy, it was GW Bush. He sent too few good Americans to Iraq, without the proper equipment, and with no plans how to get the job done. Even years later they are lacking in proper equipment and enough support. If anyone is to be called traitorous, the President should be first. He misled us all to get us into this quagmire even after all the warnings from our former allies, and many others who questioned the dubious intelligence from the beginning. Now weíre stuck; we have no flexibility to deal with Iran or N. Korea; and Osama Bin Laden, the real 9/11 master mind, is still free to threaten us. Bush has failed us on numerous fronts including the waste of billions of tax payerís money on his foreign policy fiasco, the worst since Vietnam and Iran Contra.<br><br> Kudos to Cindy Sheehan; she is exercising her first amendment rights. As Maureen Dowd said in an accompanying column, Bush says heĎs a populist but he never meets ordinary people. Hereís your chance Mr. President, if you have as much guts as this woman has"<br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 04:41 PM

Developing ... Drudge has jumped the shark. He is really showing his true colors reporting this.<br><br>He edited his story by taking out the godmother's name... but he left the original time stamp on when he posted his story. Is that common for journalists to do that? Sounds unethical to me. <br><br>Some have claimed he's not a journalist. Then what is Matt Drudge? Not commentary. More than a news portal because he's writing his "Developing..." headline stories that news agencies, commentators and pundits, and the whole online world of blogs and forums are using for reference. He dates it, cites sources and everything else that a journalist does... except the honesty doodad.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: steveg

What about Mother Trump's Family? . - 08/11/05 04:46 PM

<br><br>Huh? HUH?<br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 04:49 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Don't call what Drudge does "reporting." <p><hr></blockquote><p>yeah - that's like calling a 4 yr old's finger painting in kindergarten - cultured art. <br><br><br><br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 04:53 PM

That's weird. I went back to Matt112's post and the godmother reference is gone too. Maybe we just dreamed it.<br><br>I guess that is what the benefit of .... Developing ... is. you can "report" anything you want and come back and add and subtract, leaving the byline date as is. <br>This is fraudulent. Someone reading a dated story expects the story to be created when the date occurs. Real reporters get their ass kicked for less.<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 04:57 PM

... from Cherie Quarterolo, Casey's aunt and godmother:<br><br>It's in Matt's post, her name was deleted on Drudges current post.<br><br>Pretty bad move to edit out the author of the "email" and not give any indication of it. Some blogs are stating that this person is fictitious... that the story is bogus. Facts, we need facts!<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 05:16 PM

Her family is saying...<br><br><br>Sheehan just said on Olberman's show that the letter is from her in-laws, rightwing ultra conservatives who she has always been in confrontation with over politics. The aunt is an in-law who she rarely ever talks to, criticizing publicly the mother of the dead soldier. Pathetic, but maybe they are hoping for a book deal.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 06:02 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Funny both you and Bryan use the same trick to introduce information which portrays a mother's grief as not really all that sincere.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No I didn't. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A mother's grief is a mother's grief.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Correct. And a family's grief is a family's grief. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And there is nothing so small as someone who tries to belittle a mother's grief of losing her child.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's true. Can you point to where someone is "trying to belittle" a mother's grief of losing her child?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A godmother should be listened to if she tries to shut the mouth of a mother's grief?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Is the family trying to "shut the mouth of a mother's grief?" <br><br><blockquote>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. <br><br>Sincerely, <br><br>Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.</blockquote><br><br>Where?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I hope this kind of villainous bullshiit backfires on the likes of Drudge.<p><hr></blockquote><p>The email didn't come from Drudge, it came from the family of the fallen soldier. The family is going against the anit-Bush protest of the mother and speaking out . . . Look at how you liberals recoil in horror. Oh the horror. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 06:12 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Sheehan just said on Olberman's show that the letter is from her in-laws<p><hr></blockquote><p>Right. Casey Sheehan's grandparents. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>rightwing ultra conservatives who she has always been in confrontation with over politics.<p><hr></blockquote><p>So Cindy Sheehan is an ultra-left-winger. Perhaps they shold've included this in their email? Oh no, no, no Gary. Let's let Cindy rip to shreds Casey's family and you can join in too because they speak out, saying Cindy Sheehan (their relative) is using the death of her son to advance her (now obvious) political agenda. Oh the nerve of those rat-bastard relatives!<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The aunt is an in-law who she rarely ever talks to,<p><hr></blockquote><p>But sitll the Aunt of the slain soldier. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>criticizing publicly the mother of the dead soldier.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Openly speaking out against what they see is an exploitation of a now dead family member. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Pathetic<p><hr></blockquote><p>You're right. The liberal attack mode is pathetic. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 06:33 PM

"The liberal attack mode..."<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 07:13 PM

well what I'd STILL like to ask these nuts want to defend Bush and Iraq is what the F is Bush's plan ?? has he announced a new one? NO !<br><br>the moron doesn't HAVE a workable plan- it's more of the same STUPIDITY and getting more young men like Casey KIlled !!<br>It didn't work in Vietnam - won't work now either.<br><br>We're just making OBL and Iran stronger !! <br><br>Nice plan, you dumbazz, immoral President !!<br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: sean

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 08:10 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Let's let Cindy rip to shreds Casey's family and you can join in too because they speak out, saying Cindy Sheehan (their relative) is using the death of her son to advance her (now obvious) political agenda.<p><hr></blockquote><p>actually, they said "appears" not "is."<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> The liberal attack mode is pathetic.<p><hr></blockquote><p>yeah, they should just leave the rumormonger drudge alone. attacking should be his monopoly only, eh? <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: garyW

Reality Check - 08/11/05 09:00 PM

Just to summarize : what is developing as the most significant anti-war protest of our generation, one woman's personal protest that has tapped into the world media, one that is nonviolent and for a just cause, one who's goal is to save the lives of Americans and Iraqis, Cindy Sheehan is the single person that the President today felt he needed to address in a public statement (although he was silent last year when millions across the globe marched to protest the war), and who's protest is seen by our resident conservative as a call to arms of the "Liberal Attack Mode"... she should be ignored, her motives and respect for her own fallen child questioned [i]because of an email posted by the Drudge Report from her disgruntled in-law aunt who doesn't like her politics or her publicity. [i]<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 09:10 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Just to summarize : what is developing as the most significant anti-war protest of our generation, one woman's personal protest that has tapped into the world media, one that is nonviolent and for a just cause, one who's goal is to save the lives of Americans and Iraqis, Cindy Sheehan is the single person that the President today felt he needed to address in a public statement (although he was silent last year when millions across the globe marched to protest the war), and who's protest is seen by our resident conservative as a call to arms of the "Liberal Attack Mode"... she should be ignored, her motives and respect for her own fallen child questioned because of an email posted by the Drudge Report from her disgruntled in-law aunt who doesn't like her politics or her publicity.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Interpret it anyway you'd like. There is a majority that will see it for what it is.<br><br>It's really not a laughing matter.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 09:21 PM

Cindy's quest is not a laughing matter. the war is not a laughing matter. that american's like cindy's son have died is not a laughing matter. <br><br>that some conservatives are trying to find a liberal attack at the heart of this woman's quest is also not a laughing matter; it's lunacy!<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: garyW

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 09:25 PM

The laughing matter is the tactics used twice now by the Drudge Report and the way this twisted logic is used to discredit and disrespect her efforts.<br><br>The protest of Cindy Sheehan is one of the most serious and influential turning points of the anti-war majority. That's why I support her, promote her efforts on this forum, and will remained tuned into to her story in any way possible.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 09:27 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Cindy's quest is not a laughing matter. the war is not a laughing matter. that american's like cindy's son have died is not a laughing matter. <br><br>that some conservatives are trying to find a liberal attack at the heart of this woman's quest is also not a laughing matter; it's lunacy!<p><hr></blockquote><p>The Liberal attack is all in the handlers. That's not funny either.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 09:38 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>yeah, they should just leave the rumormonger drudge alone.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Why do you doubt Drudge received an email from Casey Sheehan's family? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> attacking should be his monopoly only, eh?<p><hr></blockquote><p>How is Drudge "attacking"? The family sent an email to Drudge and said:<br><br><blockquote> Feel free to distribute it as you wish. </blockquote><br><br>Where in that is Drudge "attacking" anyone? Conversely, I see the usual suspects attacking Drudge and attacking Cindy Sheehan's family. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 09:45 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Just to summarize : what is developing as the most significant anti-war protest of our generation, one woman's personal protest that has tapped into the world media, one that is nonviolent and for a just cause, one who's goal is to save the lives of Americans and Iraqis, Cindy Sheehan is the single person that the President today felt he needed to address in a public statement (although he was silent last year when millions across the globe marched to protest the war), and who's protest is seen by our resident conservative as a call to arms of the "Liberal Attack Mode"... she should be ignored, her motives and respect for her own fallen child questioned because of an email posted by the Drudge Report from her disgruntled in-law aunt who doesn't like her politics or her publicity. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Oh Good Lord . . . Here, let me add just a tad more dramatics to your post . . . <br><br><embed src="http://homepage.mac.com/barnett112/.Music/kumbaya.wav" width=320 height=25 controller="true" autoplay="false" type="video/quicktime"><br><br>Please re-read the post with the appropriate soundtrack.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and who's protest is seen by our resident conservative as a call to arms of the "Liberal Attack Mode"<p><hr></blockquote><p>Casey Sheehan died serving his country. Along with his Mother, the rest of his family grieves his death. Today, Casey's family decided to write a statement and send it to Drudge for posting, saying . . .<br><br><blockqoute>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.</blockquote><br><br> . . . which of course sends our resident liberals recoiling in horror like a vampire to daylight. How DARE someone speak out against their new anti-war spokesperson?! Well, they aren't just "someone", they are Casey Sheehan's family too. And they too have a voice in what Cindy Sheehan has decided to make very, very public. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 09:57 PM

You accept Drudge posting a email from "aunt and godmother" as meeting acceptable journalistic standards, I dont.<br><br>Sheehan is the mother, and mothers rule. Even if the aunt-in-law and godmother are not liking it. The President even said today that this is America and Cindy Sheehan is free to say what she wants. She is, and a whole lot of people are listening. <br><br>Tomorrow's another day, and surely one more Drudge creation to get us talking <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:02 PM

drudge likely received an email from the aunt of cindy's son. i never questioned that. i merely stated that drudge is a rumormonger . . . a label he's earned.<br><br>EDIT: gary covered the rest and i pretty much duplicated it.<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sean on 08/12/05 01:03 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:07 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Sheehan is the mother, and mothers rule.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Unless you are the mother of Terri Schiavo?<br><br>I hope that talking and listening, brings Ms. Sheehan comfort. <br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: garyW

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 10:10 PM

"And they too have a voice in what Cindy Sheehan has decided to make very, very public."<br><br>Why? She wants to ask the President to truthfully tell her what noble cause her son died for? She wants to ask the President to not use the death of her son to justify the continued fighting. She wants to ask him in person to end this war.<br><br>She has brought more honor and meaning to her son's sacrifice for country and the importance of 'love of family' than any other instance I can remember in two years and 1800 lives. Casey Sheehan served and died for reasons she feel have not been honest. This is a mothers' protest. She's not asking the President for answers for her in-laws, she's asking for herself.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:11 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You accept Drudge posting a email from "aunt and godmother" as meeting acceptable journalistic standards, I dont.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well three snaps in a "Z" formation for you. You can always stamp your feet or hold your breath too. Uh, Ms. Johnson, please note that Gary doesn't find Drudge's journalistic standards up to snuff . . . .What's that? . . . Yes, I'm sure he knows about Jayson Blair at the New York Times . . . Yes, yes, I'm sure he knows about the many retractions they had to make . . . Just make a note of his displeasure with Drudge. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Sheehan is the mother, and mothers rule.<p><hr></blockquote><p>What are you talking about? What the hell does this mean, "mothers rule." <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Even if the aunt-in-law and godmother are not liking it.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I wonder if Casey Sheehan minimized his family to *just* an 'aunt-in-law' and godmother. You're also missing:<br><br><blockquote>Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.</blockquote><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> The President even said today that this is America and Cindy Sheehan is free to say what she wants. <p><hr></blockquote><p>That's true. She does. More power to her. But Casey's other family members, since Cindy Sheehan has decided to make this so public, felt like they wanted to express their voice too. And they have. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and a whole lot of people are listening. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Great! And now a whole lot of people have read Casey's family's email too. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Tomorrow's another day, and surely one more Drudge creation to get us talking<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm sure if this were a fabrication, the liberal media will waste ZERO time in getting the 'aunt-in-law', godmother, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins on the air. <br><br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: sean

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:15 PM

casey wasn't married, thus the parent rules. it's quite simple in this case.<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 10:15 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Why? She wants to ask the President to truthfully tell her what noble cause her son died for? She wants to ask the President to not use the death of her son to justify the continued fighting. She wants to ask him in person to end this war.<br><br>She has brought more honor and meaning to her son's sacrifice for country and the importance of 'love of family' than any other instance I can remember in two years and 1800 lives. Casey Sheehan served and died for reasons she feel have not been honest. This is a mothers' protest. She's not asking the President for answers for her in-laws, she's asking for herself.<p><hr></blockquote><p>And the President answered her today . . .<br><br><blockquote>THE PRESIDENT: I'm referring to any grieving mother or father, no matter what their political views may be. Part of my duty as the President is to meet with those who've lost a loved one. And so, you know, listen, I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about her -- about her position. And I am -- she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position. And I've thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is, get out of Iraq now. And it would be -- it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long-run, if we were to do so.</blockquote><br><br><br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:18 PM

Yes, mothers rule in their love and grief for their children. Mrs Schiavo is no exception, no matter what email her aunt-in-law and godmother may have written.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 10:21 PM

the thing is gary, the in-laws have spoken out, but their story will go away. their love for bush created a small ripple, but sheehan's love for her son will create a much larger wave. the in-law story is something nice for drudge to promote and for conservatives to hang their hat on, but their story is small and nearly over. attention for cindy's cause is attention even if some of it comes with a negative slant. bush paid her attention today as well. the story grows larger with any and all attention and that's a good thing. <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:22 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>casey wasn't married, thus the parent rules.<p><hr></blockquote><p>What are you people talking about? The "mother rules." The "parent rules." <br><br>Rules what? <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 10:23 PM

"And the President answered her today . ." <br><br>No, the President read a prepared statement to the press today.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:26 PM

I'll repeat what I said in case you missed it.<br><br>Mothers rule in their love and grief for their children. <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 10:26 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>No, the President read a prepared statement to the press today.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, that wasn't part of the prepared statement. President Bush was taking questions from reporters. The President responded to Cindy Sheehan. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:29 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'll repeat what I said in case you missed it.<br><br>Mothers rule in their love and grief for their children.<p><hr></blockquote><p>And I'll ask again: what the hell does "Mothers rule in their love and grief for their children" mean in the context of this thread? <br><br>How has Casey's other greiveing family member's email change, for one second, Cindy Sheehans "love and grief for her child"? <br><br>So again, what the hell are you talking about?<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 10:30 PM

The president read a prepared & rehearsed statement responding to a reporters question. Don't kid yourself that he went out to meet the press corp without his statement briefed with his staff beforehand regarding Sheehan.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:36 PM

Sheehan's actions are her own, actions taken because of the love and loss of her child. The other Gold Star mothers and fathers and spouses are their for their own personal reasons. <br><br>It's sad that her family is ashamed of her actions. But Cindy's protest is not about her in-laws or parents shame of her. <br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:36 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>How has Casey's other greiveing family member's email change, for one second, Cindy Sheehans "love and grief for her child"? <p><hr></blockquote><p>well, they haven't changed it at all. however, they have tried to change the way you perceive cindy's love by saying that it "appears" to them to be politically motivated, etc. in other words, they aren't sure, but their "love" of casey caused them to overlook their doubts and come to conclusion enough to speak out "for" casey. <br><br>here's how a normal, average family works: the parent's speak for their children when their children are young and when their unmarried children are dead. the grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. never speak for the children as long as the parents are alive without the consent of the parents. this is a simple concept. mothers rule.<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 10:37 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>the thing is gary, the in-laws have spoken out, but their story will go away. their love for bush created a small ripple, but sheehan's love for her son will create a much larger wave. the in-law story is something nice for drudge to promote and for conservatives to hang their hat on, but their story is small and nearly over. attention for cindy's cause is attention even if some of it comes with a negative slant. bush paid her attention today as well. the story grows larger with any and all attention and that's a good thing.<p><hr></blockquote><p>The thing is sean, that's some twisted logic. The story will be: a family torn apart, not by the tragic loss of a loved one in a time of war, but by the maniulative powers of outside sources trying to capitalize on an event and emotion for political motives. You are an associate.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 10:37 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The president read a prepared & rehearsed statement responding to a reporters question.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Oh yes . . . conspiracy central again. Of course, Gary. Of course. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Don't kid yourself that he went out to meet the press corp without his statement briefed with his staff beforehand regarding Sheehan.<p><hr></blockquote><p>The President repsponded to the question regarding Cindy Sheehan. It was an off the cuf ... Oh but wait ... I know. The reporter was [/i]wired too[/i]! Oh OK Gary. I see where you're coming from. The reporter was wired! He whispered . . . <br><br><blockquote>Ok Mr. President. Here comes question 4-B. Cindy Sheehan. You just point to me and I'll direct the question toward Cindy, just like we rehearsed. Get ready . . . </blockquote><br><br><br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 10:44 PM

if drudge has his way, i wouldn't be surprised to see that story line win out. it certainly worked for the media quite well in the schaivo case . . . but, republicans in congress and the president played a huge role in that story growing wings. the media is alone on this one and the in-laws aren't going to speak out any more, so we'll see what drudge and a few other media outlets can do alone if they want this thread to gain traction. i wouldn't count on it.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> You are an associate<p><hr></blockquote><p>gosh, um . . . okay???<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:48 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>well, they haven't changed it at all<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah, that's what I thought too. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>however, they have tried to change the way you perceive cindy's love by saying that it "appears" to them to be politically motivated, etc. in other words, they aren't sure, but their "love" of casey caused them to overlook their doubts and come to conclusion enough to speak out "for" casey. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Well they are a hell of a lot closer than any of us are to either Casey Sheehan or Cindy Sheehan. And they certainly have known both a lot longer. However, since Cindy has decided to make this so open and public, they felt compelled to speak out *for* the rest of the family, not "for" Casey. They are allowed to do that. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>here's how a normal, average family works: the parent's speak for their children when their children are young and when their unmarried children are dead. the grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. never speak for the children as long as the parents are alive without the consent of the parents.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Whoo boy, now you're making the rules for Casey's family and everyone else. Is there no end to your edu-mu-cation lectures? Now here's the biggest "rule" of all: They are part of his family and they have every right to say what they said, regardless of how many fits anti-war liberals throw. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 10:54 PM

Exactly. Anyone can say anything they want. <br><br>My hunch here is that the family knows Cindy Sheehan is a bit of a nut, and they're trying to give her some much-needed advice. <br><br>Here's a family rule that I'm sure even the professor would concede is always true: no matter what the family, [i]there's always one.<br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 10:58 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>if drudge has his way, i wouldn't be surprised to see that story line win out. it certainly worked for the media quite well in the schaivo case . . . but, republicans in congress and the president played a huge role in that story growing wings. the media is alone on this one and the in-laws aren't going to speak out any more, so we'll see what drudge and a few other media outlets can do alone if they want this thread to gain traction. i wouldn't count on it.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Um. . . diminutive character man. . . anybody home. This isn't a novel. I wasn't talking about any printed story. These are all encompassing life events. "That Story Line" is a loser. You are an associate.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 11:03 PM

they aren't the rest of the family. they are part of cindy's in-law family. nobody on her side has signed on with those in-laws.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Whoo boy, now you're making the rules for Casey's family and everyone else. Is there no end to your edu-mu-cation lectures? Now here's the biggest "rule" of all: They are part of his family and they have every right to say what they said, regardless of how many fits anti-war liberals throw. <p><hr></blockquote><p>actually, you failed to look beyond my word (or rules) because if you had you would find that the law agrees with me. my parents cannot pick my children up from school without my permission; they have no power of attorney when my kids are in the hospital without my written permission; they have no visitation rights with my children legally without the parent's permission. now, we get along much better with our parents than cindy's in-laws appear to be with cindy, but . . . i suppose a grandparent or aunt could sue to gain some rights -- how did that work for the grandparents of OJ Simpson's children? if ever there was a case to overturn parental rights . . . <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: garyW

Re: Reality Check - 08/11/05 11:05 PM

I don't find any comfort in your assertions that the President isn't briefed and prepped on the major issues (front page of many major papers) before going in front of the press corp. I have a hard time believing that's true.<br><br>Being briefed by your staff before a press conference is not a conspiracy. And since you decided to go psycho about it in this thread too, it's all yours.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/11/05 11:07 PM

Well, without getting into a painfully boring discussion about the various legal standings of family members, I prefer to just stick with the fact that the in-laws know her better than we do, and are just basing their statements on such knowledge. <br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 03:13 AM

I have a question... has Drudge verified the Emails they received were authentic? Ie did they follow-up via phone call... or verify an address?<br>Hell ANY one can send them an Email and claim they are Sheehan's family... even Karl Rove !! <br><br>and since Drudge appears to be assembling their stories on the fly ....aka "developing Story " - they could easily be deceived.. <br><br>as New pointed out-- don't call their blab "reporting"... far from it..<br>Druge = muck, sludge, sediment, sewage. <br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 03:19 AM

I watched that on TV and he WAS reading a Prepared statement- the part you posted... <br>maybe he answeredd a few questions later but that part he was reading...<br><br>he didn't seem very sincere either - a SERIOUS matter and he's cracking smirks and smiles.. it look (as his other events) very STAGED !<br>I was shocked Rummy and Rice (standing behind him) weren't physically holding him up, and holding his hand. <br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 03:37 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Well, without getting into a painfully boring discussion about the various legal standings of family members, I prefer to just stick with the fact that the in-laws know her better than we do, and are just basing their statements on such knowledge. <p><hr></blockquote><p>yes but you overlook the OBVIOUS... who says their views are ACCURATE ?<br><br>I think I've heard Cindy enough on interviews and she's very rational and logical. She also had good explanation why her opinion has modified since her original meeting with Bush, and how her original words were twisted and "cut and pasted" to give a supportive appearance when even then she was uneasy about many things. After the shock of her loss began to wear off, she had a much clearer picture and was able to sort out her thoughts.<br>IF you ever know anything about family deaths and the stages the bereaved go through psychologically, her explanation FITS.<br><br>Hell 2+ years later, has GW figured "his Plan" for Iraq out yet ? NO !!<br>More of the same BS is all he can suggest...(his speech yesterday- nothing NEW)...<br>That's the travesty here, Bryan... and why many want to pull to - Pres Bush has NO PLAN.. it's more of the same carnage and lives expended for little to no gain. <br><br>IF he didn't have a solid PLAN he (we) should have NEVER GONE !!! .......and if he can't come up with one (which is very apparent) .. then time to get the HLL out.<br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 05:41 AM

I know that song! <br><br>Here are the words and picture to go with it:<br><br><br><br>[color:purple]A Nation Rocked to Sleep</font color=purple><br><br>Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son? <br>The torrential rains of a mother's weeping will never be done <br>They call him a hero, you should be glad that he's one, but <br>Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son? <br> <br>Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries? <br>He must be brave because his boy died for another man's lies <br>The only grief he allows himself are long, deep sighs <br>Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries? <br> <br>Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave? <br>They say that he died so that the flag will continue to wave <br>But I believe he died because they had oil to save <br>Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave? <br> <br>Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep? <br>The leaders want to keep you numb so the pain won't be so deep <br>But if we the people let them continue another mother will weep <br>Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?<br><br>by Carly Sheehan SISTER of<br>Brother Casey KIA 04/04/04 <br>Sadr City Baghdad <br><br><br>The sounds my daughter wrote about in her inspired poem, so poignantly and amazingly a few weeks after her brother, my son, was killed in Iraq, have been repeated over and over again too many times since the criminal invasion/occupation of Iraq began in March of 2003. <br><br>These sounds are imprinted in my DNA. I will never, ever forget the night of April 4, 2004, when I found out that Casey had been killed. After what seemed an eternity, I finally began to wonder who or what was making those horrible screaming noises. Then I realized it was me. It couldnít have been Caseyís father, because he was paralyzed in stunned silence holding the pair of pants he had been folding when the deliverers of death news arrived. <br><br>I will also never forget the day when we buried my sweet boy, my oldest son. Iíll never forget the playing of taps, or the violent, and in hindsight, thoughtless, volley of the 21-gun salute. If I live to be a very old lady and forget everything else, I will never forget when the general handed me the folded flag that had lain on Caseyís coffin, as his brother and sisters, standing behind me, sobbed. <br><br>The saddest thing about the obscene sounds of violence is that they never should have been heard in the first place. From Maine to California, and from Baghdad to Falluja, these dirges were unnecessary. In my travels, and from hundreds of emails, phone calls, and cards and letters, I am discovering that people who formerly supported the invasion of Iraq are withdrawing their support. I even believe that many of our fellow citizens who still support the ignominy of Iraq are doing so because they are clinging to the deceptions so desperately, because they want the deceptions to so be the truth. It will be painful to come to terms with supporting the lies of this administration. It will be painful to know that wholesale killing of innocent people occurred because you and so many others believed the betrayals, but acknowledging the mistake is the first step to correcting it. And believe me, acknowledging the mistake is not as painful as hearing those devastating sounds. <br><br>Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) has realized that he had been duped into supporting the invasion. I have spoken to him about his change of heart, and he is so sad that his wholehearted support of the administration helped cause so many good people to hear those gut wrenching sounds of grief. But he is going forward to do what he can to end this occupation as soon as possible. He has co-sponsored a bi-partisan bill (HRJ 55) with other Congressional leaders like Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Ron Paul (R-TX) to force our administration into a troop withdrawal beginning October 1, 2006. The bill is a good first step to ensuring that families here in America and all over the world do not have to suffer needless death in war. However, I would like the withdrawal to begin tomorrow, because I don't even want to try and imagine the sounds Casey heard before he died. I don't want to imagine the sound of the bullet strong enough to pierce the Kevlar coating on his helmet to rip through his skull. I donít want to know the sounds of a mother in Iraq wailing for her entire family. These sounds need to stop immediately. It is time to bring our troops home. <br><br>The sound I do want to hear is the sound of a Nation Waking Up. I will rejoice to hear the sounds of the collective Mea Culpa and the beating of breasts. I want to hear the deafening clicks as the steady stream of news-o-tainment is turned off, propaganda that is turning us into zombies who are numb to the truth. I want to hear the sound of our children getting off planes and boats from Iraq to the joyful squealing of their children and the deep sighs of relief from their spouses, parents, and other loved ones. I want to hear our citizenry lifting up their voices in chorus and singing, "We will never let this happen again." <br> <br>Cindy Sheehan <br>Co-Founder <br>Gold Star Families for Peace <br>July 18, 2005 <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 05:52 AM

I hear every gold star mother is going to get that prepared statement along with a complimentary video of George Bush looking for WMD under his desk complete with out takes. It is such a hoot and they are so sad and all it should really cheer them up. A coupon for an autographed crotch shot of the famous Mission Accomplished Bush is also contemplated but they haven't figured out the discount yet. The GOP didn't want to just give away one of their big money makers.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 06:14 AM

I really don't care about the 'Crotch-Shot'! <br>...since I already have the Neat-O 'ACTION FIGURE'!<br><br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 06:28 AM

...but seriously...<br><br>I saw the Downing Street Memo Meeting. I watched them <br>discussing how Bush Mugged for "His Base" laughing out <br>loud as he pretended to look in a cabinet and peek under <br>the desk "Nope! No WoMD HERE!" (HAR HAR HAR)<br><br>The speaker said; "I can tell you who wasn't laughing<br>CINDY SHEEHAN wasn't laughing... and neither were other<br>parents that have lost their children...."<br><br>Cindy Sheehan was Just ONE of the Speakers at <br>the Downing Street Memo Hearing ...along with <br>Ambassador Joe Wilson... <--remember him? <br><br><br>I'd never heard of either of them up until I watched <br>(and recorded) them on C-SPAN 3 that afternoon, when <br>"THEY" were counting on No One Watching! <br><br>BroadCast at 3PM, from a cloakroom-sized room in the <br>BASEMENT of the Capitol Building, ...scheduled concurrently <br>with at least 10 MAJOR Voting issues, to force the speakers <br>and listeners to either miss the voting, ...OR TO MISS THE <br>MEETING ALTOGETHER! ..and still they came...<br><br>'The RULING CLASS' did everything, short of lob a grenade<br>into the room to stop this story from getting out...and you're <br>telling me that you're not the SLIGHTEST BIT INTERESTED <br>in what the Republicans were so damned desperate for you <br>NEVER TO HEAR????? <br><br>Available as both QT Streaming & .MP3 Download<br><br>[color:green]John Conyers' Downing St...lor=red> <br><br>If you're tired of "Hear-Say" concerning [color:red]the hearing</font color=red><br> .....here's your last chance to hear it for yourself.<br><br>News sources, since the hearing, have repeatedly <br>attempted to downplay both the number & credentials <br>of the people involved with the meeting. Trying to make <br>it seem like it was a single dissatisfied Congressmen & <br>a handful of "Bush-Hating Liberal "Fringe Wack-Os".<br><br>Their Credentials are ASTOUNDING! Among them were <br>former CIA Agent Ray McGoverin, CIA Analyst & Former<br>Ambassador Joe Wilson, and the Congressional Lawyer <br>John Bonafaz. ...and yes, Cindy Sheehan.<br><br>123 Members of the House of Representatives signed the<br>Petition, armed with 56,000 signatures (including mine) <br>requesting an accounting for the questionable intelligence <br>that lead to the preemptive strike against a sovereign <br>country, on the strength of what certainly amounts to a lie.<br><br>Since then, many more people have gotten on board, as<br> the scales fall away from their eyes, and they are finding <br>that not only did 'the Emperor Have No Brain', but he <br>ALSO didn't have a Leg to Stand On when he used his <br>OWN Brand of 'TERRER' to convince Congress & The <br>American People to go to WAR.<br><br>Outting Valerie, shutting down the branch of the CIA that<br>searches for WoMD, the ongoing Saga of Karl Rove, and<br>MOST ESPECIALLY The DOWNING STREET MEMO are ALL<br>one story, and ALL Lead STRAIGHT TO THE TOP!<br><br>If You're on BroadBand, PLEASE Take the Time to download<br>the Streaming Version and listen as you surf, or on your iPod<br>or whatever, instead of your iTunes. I PROMISE, ...not only<br>will it be Music To Your Ears ....but a real eye opener as well.<br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 06:33 AM

Not to change the focus of this unbelievably interesting thread about the burning issue of Aunt Gertrude's letter to Drudge but didn't the dude with the cockeyed goggles play a bit part in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"?<br><br><br><br>Or in that Ferris Bueller movie? He looks so familiar. Looks like he was smoking a doobie on the poop deck before GW arrived.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 06:43 AM

YEAH! I Remember HIM! "The Pizza Guy"!<br><br>Watz-his-Name? Oh Yeah! MR. Madonna! <br><br><br><br>It looks like I shoulda' held out for <br>the Anatomically CORRECT Action Figure! <br><br>Naaa! <br>...problly just his rolled-up gym-socks. <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: MattMac112

DLC blows it again - 08/12/05 06:44 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I watched that on TV and he WAS reading a Prepared statement- the part you posted... <br>maybe he answeredd a few questions later but that part he was reading...<p><hr></blockquote><p>No Dave, the part I posted, where he mentioned Cindy Sheehan, was after his prepared remarks. It was during Q&A with reporters. Your first clue is when Bush says "Yes Steve." You know, 'cause, right in the middle of his prepared remarks, Bush often just stops and calls on reporters. Matter of fact, he does this quite often during State of the Union Addresses. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>he didn't seem very sincere either<p><hr></blockquote><p>Oh yes Dave, that's right. Bush was dancing an irish jig while answering the reporters question. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> a SERIOUS matter and he's cracking smirks and smiles<p><hr></blockquote><p>And during the part where he was talking about Cindy Sheehan, he told two jokes and farted twice. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I was shocked Rummy and Rice (standing behind him) weren't physically holding him up, and holding his hand.<p><hr></blockquote><p>What?<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: Zapata_

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 06:45 AM

It's also available directly from cspan as a realmedia stream. Here's the rtsp<br><br>rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/iraq/iraq061605_downing.rm<br><br>or you can access it from my personal page (along with a lot of other content, including many docs.)<br><br>http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/sveniot/indexa.html<br><br>BTW, if it comes from Matt Drudge, then it is worth nothing.<br><br><br>BushCulters would do better to go on diets and enlist.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 06:51 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I don't find any comfort in your assertions that the President isn't briefed and prepped on the major issues (front page of many major papers) before going in front of the press corp. I have a hard time believing that's true.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Of course he is briefed. I never said he wasn't. But you're asserting that Bush's answer to the reporter's question was "prepared and rehearsed." Alluding that Bush was less than sincere when answering the question. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Being briefed by your staff before a press conference is not a conspiracy<p><hr></blockquote><p>I never said it was. I was mocking your petty criticisms of "prepared and rehearsed." <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 06:55 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Not to change the focus of this unbelievably interesting thread about the burning issue of Aunt Gertrude's letter to Drudge but didn't the dude with the cockeyed goggles play a bit part in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"?<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, Fast Times at Ridgemont High was shot in 1982. Even if guy in the cockeyed goggles were 25, that would've put him at 4 years of age. I guess there could've been a small child in the background during some of the Mall shots. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Or in that Ferris Bueller movie?<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>That was four years later, in 1986. He'd be 8 years old. Maybe he was that kid near the end of the movie, when Bueller ran through the house. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 06:57 AM

<br>Thank You! Good Links!<br><br>The one thing that would have been devastating to PBS<br>is if the Neo-CONS were able to shut-down the BBC News!<br><br>I see a time where, we the people, will be huddled around<br>contraband radios, (a la 'RadioFreeEurope') during the <br>Cold War, seeking for news other than Govt. Propaganda. <br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 07:02 AM

He could be a stoned out 35 yo reservist who thought he was home free but someone dragged him onto this carrier for a year. I would be smoking the big spleef too if someone did that to me. Especially if the guy who did it was standing in front of me wagging an enormous padded crotch at the cameras.<br><br>Then he would be 14 in Fast Times. But you also could be right and the guy on the carrier is a love child created during Fast Times.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 07:02 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>they aren't the rest of the family. they are part of cindy's in-law family. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Again, why don't you go stand on Casey Sheehans grave and tell him that his grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are worthless. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>actually, you failed to look beyond my word (or rules) because if you had you would find that the law agrees with me.<p><hr></blockquote><p>What are you talking about sean? There are no "laws" here. Cindy Sheehan has decided to make a political statement over her sons death. The rest of Casey Sheehan's family decided to release a statement about those actions. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Reality Check - 08/12/05 07:04 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>He could be a stoned out 35 yo reservist who thought he was home free but someone dragged him onto this carrier for a year.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Could be, but he doesn't look to be in his mid 30s. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: sean

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 09:01 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Again, why don't you go stand on Casey Sheehans grave and tell him that his grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are worthless. <br><p><hr></blockquote><p>and, matt pulls out the straw-man yet again. <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 09:07 AM

prolly didn't even read the poem <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 09:17 AM

Well, he's obviously not an associate. <br><br>Have you noticed today's talking point is that "Cindy Sheehan has a political agenda."<br><br>"She has an agenda" just as potent as saying the Pope is Catholic. It's better than saying "she is an associate", because no one has a clue what's up with dat. Considering she founded "Gold Star Families for Peace" would have made her agenda pretty obvious. You think her critics would do her a favor and add a link to her site so her agenda is spelled out for all to read firsthand?<br><br> <br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 09:33 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and, matt pulls out the straw-man yet again. <p><hr></blockquote><p>No I didn't. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: bood

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 09:38 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>No I didn't.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Yes you did.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Now ain't that a finely reasoned argument! <br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 09:44 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Have you noticed today's talking point is that "Cindy Sheehan has a political agenda."<p><hr></blockquote><p>She does have a politcal agenda. Are you saying she doesn't? I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to a political agenda but an agenda she has nonetheless. Unfortunately, the Michael Moore, radical anti-war, anti-Bush left is embracing her as their new "trophy mom." I wonder how much compassion these people really have for Cindy, or are they giddy that their agenda is getting some Congressional recess face-time? <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 09:46 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Now ain't that a finely reasoned argument!<p><hr></blockquote><p>In the face of LowerCaseSean's baseless charge, yes. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 09:58 AM

Is the Pope Catholic? How much clearer can I state it. Of course she has a political agenda [/doh!] I even gave you a link.<br><br>What other Liberal organizations do with her as their trophy is their agenda, and that is not what this discussion has been about (smells like wet straw)<br><br>
Posted by: skuldugary

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 10:03 AM

If I understand right, it's a volunteer army, right? <br>What was she expecting? He was going to be picking flowers? If she was against his joining and he did anyway, that shows that he supported this country and the President. <br><br>If she supported him joining and has now changed her position, then at the very least, she is naive. <br><br>It's understandable that she's railing against the war. She lost her son to it. I'd be mad too. If I was against the war to begin with, I'd be really mad, but... I don't believe I would used my son's casket as a political soap box to stand on.<br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 10:39 AM

If you listen to her she makes it clear that she always objected to this war in Iraq. Her son enlisted and served under the claim of WMD, etc. She is making this protest because Bush's reasons have changed and that he now states that her son died for a noble cause and others will die to honor his sacrifice. She doesn't accept that or his reasons now considering the light shed on the many aspects leading into this war.<br><br>I think this has been stated in this thread, her reasons and goals, and I've posted links to her website and also a thorough interview. Never has she said anything negative about the troops or treated them with any disrespect. <br><br>Freepers are organizing a "support the troops" "screw Sheehan" rally in Crawford this weekend. That's pretty much the misguided notion that her opposition takes -- because she supports the troops and sees each and every one as an individual and a "mother's son" and wants every single one alive.<br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 11:08 AM

Many many in the Guard and reserves joined years ago to get extra $ and some to further their education. They never dreamed they'd be used as a front line defense. I'd also bet they don't tell you the dangers of combat when they recruit you either.-- it's all pie in the sky- feel good - Army of 1- see the world used -car salesmanship. Fine - paint roses - deliver sht!<br><br>Regardless, NO ONE expects to be used as "cannon fodder" or as bait to flush out insurgents.They expect a President to only go to war when he HAS to and when our National security is directly threatened. One could make that argument for Afghanistan BUT not Iraq. Now that Iran is going nuclear , how long will it be before Bush invades Algeria?? <br><br>The President has NOT been honest about the whole damn thing- he's changed his tune and flip-flopped several times on the reasons the war was necessary, so why shouldn't everyone else change their opinions? Furthermore, he has NO RATIONAL PLAN to go forward with... it's hard to LEAD when you don't have a F-ing CLUE what you're doing- esp when people's LIVES are at stake !! <br>Bush is the Pied Piper of Bagdad leading good men to their deaths !! <br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 11:10 AM

Kasey Sheehan<br>From what I can find out in a short time. This young man decided to join the army. There is claim from his mother that he was tricked into joining by the recruiter (speak to any raw army recruit and they will tell you that stories about being tricked by a recruiter are 10/penny - and all these kids go on to serve with honour and distinction). So this Army Specialist, from what I gather, becomes a mechanic, and is eventually assigned to combat in Iraq (once again rumour mill suggests that mechanics are not mandated to a war zone, they volunteer). From an interview with Sindy this morning she stated that when she found out about this assignment she encouraged him to run away with her to Canada. He went to Iraq, showing an obvious understanding to the concept of Honour, Duty and Responsibility - he volunteered, he received orders, he went to war.<br>From what I have been able to discover - Army Specialist Kasey Sheehan was an honourable young man who set an example that many of us will never come close to living up to.<br><br>Sindy Sheehan<br>Is an entirely different case. You just need to read her writings and listen to her rhetoric. She is a devout believer that Bush stole election 2000, and then stole 2004. Her lifetime ambition was to see Bush lose 2004 and following that result to see him impeached. She says she wants to meet George W Bush face to face to find out why her son had to die, and why we are at war.<br><br>I see her public (news media) claims as dubious - she has had face time with the President (something most of us will never get), we have all heard the reasons (excuses) why we went to war, and we have heard why the members of our armed forces are being killed. Does she really believe that she would get a different answer from George in private than he has given in public?<br><br>She states that 62% of the US citizenry thinks we shouldn't be in Iraq, her logic continues that's a majority, therefore we shouldn't be there - wasn't the majority persuaded we should be there at the beginning of the war? I think I shouldn't have dropped that bottle of milk last week - however wishing it hadn't happened still didn't change the fact that I had to clean it all up.<br><br>The woman is a dingbat given way too much time by both liberals and conservatives alike, I think I'll go back to giving this story the attention it deserves now.<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 11:24 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What other Liberal organizations do with her as their trophy is their agenda, and that is not what this discussion has been about<p><hr></blockquote><p>And I have addressed what this discussion has been about at length. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and that is not what this discussion has been about (smells like wet straw)<p><hr></blockquote><p>Of course it's a component of what the discussion has been about. <br><br>Wet straw - ??<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 11:24 AM

Again, I've posted her own words where she says into the camera that her son and his buddies enlisted to serve in Iraq when the President claimed that our national security was threatened by Sadam and his WMD. She did not want him to go because she opposed the war.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>she has had face time with the President (something most of us will never get)<p><hr></blockquote><p>... and she has the President of the United States talk about her to the press corp. This from a President that never recognized the millions that protested the war a year ago. Every political blog is talking about her in one way or another. And the international media is covering the story, interviewing her and elevating her protest from one woman sitting in a ditch to that of an anti-war spokesperson. I'd say Cindy Sheehan sees that she's in a position of power and she damn well has taken full advantage of it. <br><br>Any other liberal, anti-war organization would be foolish if they didn't take advantage of this momentum. And so it goes.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 11:27 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you listen to her she makes it clear that she always objected to this war in Iraq. Her son enlisted and served under the claim of WMD, etc. She is making this protest because Bush's reasons have changed and that he now states that her son died for a noble cause and others will die to honor his sacrifice. She doesn't accept that or his reasons now considering the light shed on the many aspects leading into this war.<p><hr></blockquote><p>And no one is saying she doesn't have a right to sit in a ditch in Texas from now until next August. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Freepers are organizing a "support the troops" "screw Sheehan" rally in Crawford this weekend. That's pretty much the misguided notion that her opposition takes --<p><hr></blockquote><p>That "opposition" is the rest of Casey Sheehan's family. You know, the people liberals are now trying to minimize and piss on.<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 11:30 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I'd say Cindy Sheehan sees that she's in a position of power and she damn well has taken full advantage of it. <p><hr></blockquote><p>You're coming close to saying she's exploiting the death of her son to further a political agenda. . . .<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Any other liberal, anti-war organization would be foolish if they didn't take advantage of this momentum. And so it goes.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Any other liberal, anti-war organization would be foolish if they didn't take advantage of exploiting the dead soldier. And so it goes. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 11:39 AM

The liberals on this forum have only pissed on Matt Drudge and expressed their sympathy for the family, both who in their own ironic ways are using Cindy's son as a tool to further their own political views. <br><br>The family want to honor their grandson,nephew/godson by having his mother shutup by an email to the Drudge Report promoting their love of country, troops & George Bush.<br><br>Cindy wants to honor her son by having his Commander in Chief spend a little one on one time... nowhere in the Constitution does it say citizens can only talk to the President once. She wants her protest to be heard by the rest of the world.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 11:51 AM

Cindy Sheehan is only exploiting the media coverage of her protest. You can twist that any way you want. It's an argument neither of us can win.<br><br>I have not heard Sheehan say "Casey would have...." regarding any political viewpoint. She's speaking only for herself. She has through Gold Star Families for Peace and her protest made others who share her common plight join her so their voices can be heard too. <br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 12:08 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The liberals on this forum have only pissed on Matt Drudge and expressed their sympathy for the family, both who in their own ironic ways are using Cindy's son as a tool to further their own political views. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Wrong Gary. It was you who said of Casey Sheehan's family . . .<br><br><blockquote>Pathetic, but maybe they are hoping for a book deal.</blockquote><br><br>They aren't in the spotlight. They simply released a statement regarding this very national story, disagreeing with the protest. And you call it pathetic and that they are looking for a "book deal." <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The family want to honor their grandson,nephew/godson by having his mother shutup by an email to the Drudge Report promoting their love of country, troops & George Bush.<p><hr></blockquote><p>They didn't tell Cindy Sheehan to "shut up." They released a statement through the Drudge report and now you crazy libbies are in full rabid attack mode. Proud of yourselves? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Cindy wants to honor her son by having his Commander in Chief spend a little one on one time<p><hr></blockquote><p>The President has already spent a little one on one time with her ... <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>nowhere in the Constitution does it say citizens can only talk to the President once.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Nowhere in the Constitution does it say citizens can demand a meeting with the President, and he is to grant that meeting at once. He's alreayd met with Cindy Sheehan. Now she's embracing the radical anti-war left. I dunno Gary, I would think it'd be a tad bit easier to gain an audience with the President if your tent, parked in front of his house, wasn't decorated with posters of the President calling him a liar. Just a wild guess. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 12:56 PM

Yep. I said it. That's kinda pissing on the in-law aunt who wrote an email to the Drudge Report claiming their disagreement with her political motivations and publicity and state their own love of country, troops and George Bush.<br><br>"Sheehan just said on Olberman's show that the letter is from her in-laws, rightwing ultra conservatives who she has always been in confrontation with over politics. The aunt is an in-law who she rarely ever talks to, criticizing publicly the mother of the dead soldier. Pathetic, but maybe they are hoping for a book deal."<br><br>FWIW, it seems that Cindy Sheehan has always embraced the anti-war movement. To claim it is the radical left is to imply something other than the peaceful protest she has waged. <br><br><br>(Matt I'm gone now for a few days and will enjoy picking this up with you later after this story continues.) developing....<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 01:13 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Yep. I said it.<p><hr></blockquote><p>"It" being "Pathetic, but maybe they are hoping for a book deal." But then you said . . .<br><br><blockquote>The liberals on this forum have only pissed on Matt Drudge and expressed their sympathy for the family, both who in their own ironic ways are using Cindy's son as a tool to further their own political views</blockquote><br><br>Which isn't true. Of course you're pissing on the Casey Sheehan's family. Why? Because they voiced their concern that Cindy Sheehan is dragging the good name of Casey through the mud for political reasons. That they dare stand in opposition of the radical left anti-war movement. Oh the nerve of some people! <br><br>Once again, liberals stand up and show their true attack-dog colors. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 04:52 PM

I flipped on NPR today and all I got was Cindy Sheehan. I changed the channel and more of this. I wonder why this story has such legs then I hear Mattmac112 say<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Once again, liberals stand up and show their true attack-dog colors. <p><hr></blockquote><p>And I think, is this what the Bush admin is using to attack a gold star mother? Sorry, you don't mess with gold star mothers. That has been true for over 85 years. Bush has hit a well hidden third rail. Rove knows it. You cannot win this argument. Rove wants you all to shut up. Because no matter how you say, "for what it's worth", and "that said", you are attacking the mother of a fallen soldier. <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 05:56 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And I think, is this what the Bush admin is using to attack a gold star mother?<p><hr></blockquote><p>What are you talking about? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Sorry, you don't mess with gold star mothers.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Who is messing with gold star mothers? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> That has been true for over 85 years. Bush has hit a well hidden third rail.<p><hr></blockquote><p>How has President Bush "hit a well hidden third rail?"<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Rove wants you all to shut up. <p><hr></blockquote><p>What does any of this have to do with Karl Rove?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Because no matter how you say, "for what it's worth", and "that said", you are attacking the mother of a fallen soldier. <p><hr></blockquote><p>You're all over the map, Paul. No one is "attacking" the mother of a fallen soldier. On the other hand, liberals here have been, and still are, attacking the family members of Casey Sheehan. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/12/05 05:58 PM

So many questions, so little ... <br><br>
Posted by: TheGreatDivide

Propagation of all genocide, Inc.? - 08/12/05 08:58 PM

I bet $10000000000000 bucks, that it's knawing at all common sense folks' minds (ya know the branded lefty smarty pant$)_.....<br>the fact that they claim DEMOCRACY in a chaos they mapped out all the way to <br>Iran/Contra... there is NO democracy with electronic cheating...<br>remember kids can change grades at their schools if they REALLY gotta lame out...<br>The dirt doers are all over the fragmented map...<br>Rove, Con'da lease, Evangelical so and so, Katherine Harris (who in a way was the root cause of everything after that has fallen, like the fallen etc... sorry no love there, bit of anger actually...)<br>Delay:<br><br>When U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Game asked Abramoff if he was aware of the charges, the lobbyist replied, "Yes, sir." Game ordered Abramoff to give up his passport before allowing his release ahead of his return to Florida next week. Abramoff later left the courthouse and departed in a car without commenting to reporters. He was told he could post $250,000 of a $2.25 million bond on Tuesday in Florida only if federal prosecutors there determine that the money came from legitimate sources, said U.S. Attorney's spokesman Thom Mrozek. Family members would be liable for the balance of the bond if Abramoff fails to appear at any subsequent hearing. A defense attorney said Abramoff was in contact with law enforcement immediately after hearing about the charges. "He does look forward to returning to Miami where he will vigorously defend against the charges against him," Anthony Pacheco said after the court appearance. [color:red]The six-count federal indictment unsealed in Fort Lauderdale alleges that Abramoff, 40, and a partner, Adam Kidan, 36, of New York, faked a $23 million wire transfer to defraud two lenders out of some $60 million to finance the $147 million purchase of SunCruz Casinos from Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis in September 2000. The deal ultimately collapsed and Boulis, 51, was killed five months later in an apparent hit. The shooting is unsolved. </font color=red>Abramoff's indictment alleges that he used SunCruz income to pay for political fundraising activities. He has denied any wrongdoing concerning SunCruz.<br><br>?<br><br><br>------------------- it's not woman that is man's human ruin<br>it's corruption ya dumb jocks! LOL... sigh.<br><br>OK, OK<br>my real freestyle tangent #081205.7899999: yes, Walmart does smell like many alergens and stank up in there... at least nearby ones here in Flhumida. FL33314:<br><br>Ol' pirates yes they rob I<br>sold I to the merchant ships...<br>how long will they kill our prophets<br>while we stand aside and look...<br>won't you help to sing <br>these songs of freedom<br>cuz all I ever had<br>redemption songs<br><br>emancipate yourselves from mental slavery<br>none but ourselves can free our MINDS!...<br><br>Yeah, more ras for dat arse...<br><br>Blood is not cheap where I come from.<br>Guess you have to hurt physically<br>guess someone in your family has to be murdered<br>because society was so divided...<br>no longer do I stray in the path of the misguided<br>yet we're all still taxed, this is the imbalance.<br>Some will clean what's left behind, rusted and corroded<br>some must be, unfortunate as it sounds<br>reprogrammed, the 40-60 year olds... those I worry of most<br>especially with tazers, guns and drugs; and the like...<br>all it takes is constant communication towards the youth<br>to save the youth from immenent domain of synthetic drugs and crime...<br>well, that's another methed/exstasied out story... hate that crap...<br>oxycondin too... CRAP. Don't even have to 'experience' it to know.<br><br>so won't you help to SING THESE SONGS<br>of FREEDOM, true FREEDOM<br><br>not the invented media crap...<br>mos def not that damn child abusive and debt ridden society<br>the one they sell through Hollywood<br>don't fall for Hollywooooood...<br><br>Dead Can Dance. Goggles on.<br><br>Catch y'all underground<br>hiding from this fallout<br>from this <br>great divide...<br><br>btw<br>don't judge your neighbor by their cover<br>no matter how fugged up the dialect gets<br>remember we're all fragmented at best<br>this industrial machine we call 'modern society, civil society'<br>is <br>well, still scarring<br>tiz up to you and I<br>you and your loved one (not that killing in the name of any god helps love to grow)<br>everyone may just<br>live<br><br>what divides us is an illusion<br>made up by men in their confusion<br><br>ah,<br><br>PAYCE<br><br>don't we all pay for cause and effect...<br><br>"spoke of love no one would listen<br>seems everyone's trying to prove something<br>starting over may be the best thing<br>so stop the bombs<br>and let's BEGIN<br>cuz this war, these wars<br>no one can win..." - Ziggy Marley<br><br>may his father rest in peice<br>no matter how evil the reign is in Zimbabwe<br>someday Mugabe too shall pay.<br><br>P A Y C E<br><br><br><br>Why is it all or nothing? All is boring and nothing is a drag.
Posted by: bood

Re: For what it's worth . . . - 08/13/05 08:36 PM

A little less pleasing and a lot more shouting.<br><br>