http://www.cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2006/01/30/n/HeadlineNews/FEINSTEIN-SHEEHAN/resources_bcn_html

To top that off she's hopping on board a global political effort which seems pretty anti US ( all sides mind you, left and right) atm.
http://newsbusters.org/node/3752

She's also meeting with Chavez and by all means shows no sign of letting up on her own agenda.

I'm pretty sure her son ,who died in service to his country, would be shocked and awed at his mom's lunacy.

Fandros

I can tell you that when a parent loses a child it is absolutely the most horrific thing that can be, living life with the most unbearable of grief that never goes away and nevergets better.

A child is not supposed to die before a parent, it is not the natural order of life.

This is the reaction of a grieving mother, thats all it is and in my mind she has every right to to what she wants. She did not have that child to watch him grow up and die in a war.

Combating Liberal Media.... Doesnt make them much better if they only report news that is in favor the other side does it..? jesus news just sucks.

Rover, this is not a grieving mother. She's being used by a series of folks behind the scenes. She's being USED...and she's too damn stupid to know it.

You hardly head to a foreign country that has serious issues with our country and isn't part of the war that killed her son and then praise said despot and claim it's out of grief and honor for your dead son.

Fandros

Used sounds about right. Too bad. Well, maybe she's making some money off of it.

I screwed up tonight and got gas at a damn Citgo. Started pumping before I realized it.

Rover, this is not a grieving mother. She's being used by a series of folks behind the scenes. She's being USED...and she's too damn stupid to know it.

You hardly head to a foreign country that has serious issues with our country and isn't part of the war that killed her son and then praise said despot and claim it's out of grief and honor for your dead son.

Fandros

I don't think that going to praise Chavez is a great thing, you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is she is a mother in grief and she is not thinking about anything but the loss of her son. People are "funny" when they are in grief they often do things that are not always the right thing in the minds of those who are not experiencing what they are thinking. Believe me, I can tell you from a birds eyeview.

I watched as my wifes parents went through an uncontrollable, for lack of a better descriptive, despondancy when my wife died suddenly back in 1998. I also watched as a very good friend of mine and his wife went through the horror of their 5 year old daughter who was killed by a car. It is something that one will NEVER get over and I myself can feel nothing but compassion for this mother regardless of what choices she makes in support of her found cause.

You can bet that not only is she absolutely heartbroken but she feels an anger unmatched and one that I hope both you and I never experience.

As far as ANYONE be it liberal or conservative that uses the grieving parents of a child killed in a war, wrong or right, they are all equally guilty of a horrific sin against their own soul. On that part I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I will never be able to bring myself to sit in judgement of the actions of a parent who has had to endure the loss of a child.

Used sounds about right. Too bad. Well, maybe she's making some money off of it.

I screwed up tonight and got gas at a damn Citgo. Started pumping before I realized it.


Whats the deal with Citgo? I missed something.

Chavez owns Citgo lock stock and barrel ( pun intended).

And I agree with you Mir, there's no way I'll put money in Chavez's hands. Even with Former Pres Carter blessing his crooked polls in 2004. I wish America would find a way to wash their hands of that crook.

And you are right Rover. My entire point of the thread was to show disdain for those that would use her grief. I seriously doubt Cindy Sheehan knows herself, let alone us knowing her. And the fockers using her? should burn

Fandros

This is why in my will I require that a statement to the effect of "This was my decision to live my life this way" that is to be read if I happen to find my untimely demise in combat be read at my funeral. I don't want any mother fucker using me as any sort of anti war protest. Not even my dear old mom.

Cindy Sheehan WAS a grieving mother, who helped to galvanize many who opposed the war in Iraq.

She has now made herself pretty much irrelevant with her poor choices in presenting her views, and her associations with with those who have presented themselves as anti-everything U.S. except the dollar.

I think she had better get some much better advisors if she truly has aspirations to run for elective office, because she would be laughed out of most campaigns at this point.

I pretty much agree with Byl. Cindy had a solid point during her stay at Crawford, simply wishing for Bush to meet her and provide an explanation for why her son died. But she lost focus, said a lot of dumb things, and is essentially irrelevant at this point. I think those on the right should be thanking her "advisors;" they steered her badly. Probably the same bunch that run Democratic presidential campaigns.

For one of the few times in modern history I agree with Thor and Byl. Cindy at one time was a figure, now she is becoming desperate in her lack of attention, and try to do anything to get back on the radar. To even think that she could run for a congressional seat is a joke. She would get a few sympathy votes, and that is all. I agree that she is being counciled by the wrong people. And while Thor joked about it, those that are running the democratic party are controlled by these same people. Until the democrats purge themselves of people like Kennedy and Dean who bow down to these people, you will continue to lose elections slowly all the while blaming the American people for not being mainstream.

As a note, the reason I link the people counciling sheehan to Kennedy and crew is because of this Alito thing. What the hell does Alito have to do with Sheehan's son dying in Iraq? Since attacking Alito credentials did not work, or trying to say he is a bigot, lets try the sympathy side...

The thing that is sad about this woman is that she is going against everything her son believed in. He lived and died for his country. He died an honorable death, a much more noble death then say getting killed in a drunk driving accident. But, to go on a crusade against the values of her fallen son is sickening, and I hope if her son is watching he understands that his mother fell off the rocker and can forgive her.

:devil

For one of the few times in modern history I agree with Thor and Byl.

Ok Shanno, sit down.

Take a deep breath.

Pour a shot of something strong, whiskey or scotch, and toss it back.


Now, believe it or not, we also agree about Alito. <gasp> It is true.


And Trikki, I agree with you about her not understanding her own son's sense of honor, and it is sad. But, I am sure he would forgive her. Hell, I forgave my mother when I found out she had thrown out all my stuff the day I shipped to Nam, figuring I would not be coming home. Mothers have the capacity for great love, and for great gaffs.

Sheehan = Coulter

Sheehan = Coulter

LOL, great comparison. 2 marginalized women with over-inflated opinions of themselves.

Except Coutler can speak and think for her self....and...well...is hot.

The World Social Forum is not an organisation, not a united front platform, but "…an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo- liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a society centred on the human person". (From the WSF Charter of Principles).

Lets look at it this way. Fandros was found expressing himself at the same forum as known liberal Kelraz and also known social outcasts Dante and Elren. Fandros must obviously be either liberal or a social outcast. That sounds just as silly as your first post I'm afraid :( That isn't to say that all issues seem to attract their own collection of zealots and nutjobs.

Until you can quote quotes, the whole mess is irrelevant. And honestly, the CBS thing where the woman is running for office isn't that outlandish either. I mean, heaven forbid someone runs for office and tries to get involved in a democracy, right?

http://www.wgal.com/politics/6646975/detail.html


Looks like she was arrested last night and some congressmans wife was ejected too.

Your post confuses me to no end Kelraz. Not sure who you are referring to.

Sheehan is being used, that's my entire point. She's not doing this because she's thought any of this out.

Fandros

Just because you go somewhere where a bad person is, doesn't mean you're evil. She never said or did anything wrong there, yet you blindly roped her in with someone who actually at the event never said anything really wrong either.

Just because you go somewhere where a bad person is, doesn't mean you're evil. She never said or did anything wrong there, yet you blindly roped her in with someone who actually at the event never said anything really wrong either.

Thats because guilt by association has really been all the rage amongst the right ever since McCarthy.

Duh guys, she's a vocal opponent of the current administration who visited the same country that elected someone who opposes American neoliberalism in South America and has dark skin, ipso facto making him a terrorist. The obvious next step is for the House to call a commitee on unAmerican activities to investigate this.

Ummmm wow in the dark much ??

She met with Chavez, had her visit paid for by Chavez and spoke pubically in support of Chavez.

For someone in the know you know you don't know...you know?

Fandros

Ummmm wow in the dark much ??

She met with Chavez, had her visit paid for by Chavez and spoke pubically in support of Chavez.

For someone in the know you know you don't know...you know?

Fandros


I didn't realize she held such a position of power that she would make the Bush administration feel so threatened by her. The very fact that they try to act like they ignore her and keep her actions visible in the press is what is driving her and her "legend".

Realistically, Bush should have shown some compassion and met with her when she asked. It would have been a public relations coup for the administration and would have effectively expended most of her ammunition. But then again...look at the ignorance that this administration seems to have for the force that drives human beings.

The only reason her meeting with Chavez is relevant to the US media frenzy is because the administration has labeled Chavez all sorts of things for having the gall to try get his country out from under the jackboot of foreign corporate interests -- any actual bad things he may or may not have done are entirely coincidental to whether or not Oceania has always been our enemy, er, we're *supposed* to dislike him.

It is pleasing to notice that we have so far been unable to effect his removal (even though we likely tried in 2002), and many other more moderate South American political groups have been embolded by that.

Wow.....head in sand.

Haven't there been countless international news reports about the growing concerns with the misuse of power by Chavez and crew?

Oh, likely that didn't happen huh...cuz well we all know that if the Right says it's evil then it's really a good thing.

World isn't black and white....

Oh and rover..shame

Fandros

Let's back up a bit. When she was speaking pubically. What was she wearing?

Realistically, Bush should have shown some compassion and met with her when she asked. It would have been a public relations coup for the administration and would have effectively expended most of her ammunition. But then again...look at the ignorance that this administration seems to have for the force that drives human beings



Enlighten me on why he should have met with her? If I am not mistaken, he did that once already when her son first died. So, what you are saying is that the President of the United States should meet with any grieving parent or anyone with a hatchet to bury? At least this President tries to meet the parents of every soldier killed. He visits Walter Reed to see the troops without the media hoopla... but then that would make him appear that he actually cares.

What really bothers me the most is the attention this woman gets. Does anyone here know the names..James Smith? or how about Herbert Shughart? I am willing to bet most here do not. Why is that? Because while they protested thier children getting killed in combat, it was not against this President. They received next to zero media coverage, and were not the poster children for the opposing branch of government. For those that are curious, James Smith was the father of Cpl. Jamie Smith. If you seen the movie Blackhawk Down, he was the soldier that bleed to death on the table when his artery was severed. And Herbert Shugart is the father of SFC Randy Shugart, who was one of the delta force soldiers to go down to try and protect the pilot of a blackhawk shoot down in the same battle. He recieve the Medal of Honor for his actions.

Smith was know for sending back the LETTER (not personal) of condolence, along with his own letter. While Shughart was famous (well not really) for refusing to shake Clinton's hand while they were invited up to receive the Medal of Honor. These events did receive a little airtime (mostly talk radio), but NOTHING close to this fiasco. I am just sick of it.

BTW.. this post is not about ripping Clinton (so relax Clintonites). It is solely part of my vendetta against media bias.

I hope it was what she was wearing to the State of the Union Address:

http://images.ibsys.com/2006/0201/6641228_240X180.jpg

...'cause, dayum.

I am just sick of it

Those are significant examples, but there are a couple of huge differnece I think you have to agree with. I hated the Somalias situation with a passion, but....

1. We never had 115k troops and 2k dead in Somalia.
2. We were out of Somalia pretty quickly.

What really bothers me the most is the attention this woman gets. Does anyone here know the names..James Smith? or how about Herbert Shughart? I am willing to bet most here do not. Why is that?

The big difference between Iraq and Somalia is that there was no question of why we were there. It is arguable that we should have sustained more troops. It is arguable we backed the wrong warlords. It is arguable we pulled out too soon. It is arguable we should have never gone in. A lot of things are arguable about that situation, but everyone who knew we were there prior to the infamous urban battle knew why (even if that was far too few people). The reasons were clear and unambiguous.

You might note this is the polar opposite of Iraq, in which huge portions of the population, including everybody with a clue and nearly everyone outside the US, knows the party line about the war has been bullshit from the word go. It has been known bullshit for so long that it's not even sensational enough to report on it anymore -- you're either an apologist for the administration and accept the reality distortion field required to not immediately WTF their rationale, or you gave up ever expecting a real answer a long time ago. Until the media frenzy got a unequivocable, emotionally simple image to resonate in the public mind it was a dead story.

What are the media jackals going to make of someone quietly and personally protesting the waste of their sons and brothers and fathers? That doesn't sell. The president blithely taking vacation time and ignoring a grieving mother? That fits on a Hallmark card.

As to why he should have met with her: there have never been any published records of their original group meeting; he did not meet with her alone; and while I am loathe to specifically comment I suspect it wasn't the appropriate place and time.

If you're sick of it, turn off the TV. You'll likely end up better informed that way regardless.

Whatever one thinks of Sheehan, her arrest for wearing a shirt distasteful to the administration was absurd and in violation of her rights. Capitol police agreed, albeit after her removal from the premises. Perhaps even more absurd was the removal (but not arrest) of Beverly Young, wife of Congressman Bill Young, from the House gallery for wearing a shirt, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom" (clearly not a shirt of protest).

Preserving Bush's bubble, it would seem, at all costs.

Well the idea, as stupid as it is, is that no protesting in the capitol. So it would have been even worse to throw out the one wearing the anti-war shirt, and let the pro-war stay. At least this way it was equally stupid.

There is/was a dress code in place for the Address.

She flagrantly disobeyed it ( not to mention wearing a tshirt to a black tie event) and imho at most should have been removed. I think the cuffs were overboard.

As for no record of Chavez and Sheehan meeting up....wrong

http://winnipegsun.com/News/World/2006/01/30/1417758-sun.html

It was very public and very documented. During the same meeting Chavez made public statements against the US and even went so far as to blame us for the death of another crook. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013000629.html

Again, my entire point is...she's being used...it's sad and someone should burn in a special lil hellfire all their own.

Fandros

The big difference between Iraq and Somalia is that there was no question of why we were there. It is arguable that we should have sustained more troops. It is arguable we backed the wrong warlords. It is arguable we pulled out too soon. It is arguable we should have never gone in. A lot of things are arguable about that situation, but everyone who knew we were there prior to the infamous urban battle knew why (even if that was far too few people). The reasons were clear and unambiguous.




Why were we there? It was because the local leaders were stealing food, hindering UN operations, killing innocent people, corruption. When Bush the first got involved, it was called Operation Restore Hope, and he sent 25,000 troops there. They had equipment, and were ready. Then along comes Clinton, and he reduced the number of troops, and gave control over to the UN (smart move...). The mission changed then. instead of food delivery, it changed to a nation-building mission. Then, after the Battle at Mogandishu, Clinton pulled out totally, because he had a election to win. Osama points to that defeat and withdrawl as the first time we have shown weakness. It gave him the fuel he needed to ramp up his vendetta, and what do you know... 9/11.

Explain how this is POLAR OPPOSITE? The only difference is that the UN is currently NOT involved. We still had support from other countries that were not making million from the oil for food. What I do see as opposites.. Bush did not reduce the number of troops. He did not fear losing an election and pull the troops out. He has not shown weakness to the terrorists of the world. So, some of the reasons we went to war was faulty intel... that is water under the bridge. At one time, Saddam did have chemical weapons, some nuclear research material. Where did all this go? Just because we did not find it, does not mean it did not exist.. hello Syria...

As to why he should have met with her: there have never been any published records of their original group meeting; he did not meet with her alone; and while I am loathe to specifically comment I suspect it wasn't the appropriate place and time

Here is a quote...


"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,"

Guess who said this quote.. 11 weeks after her son died and she got to meet the president... I will give you ONE guess....

As for turning off my TV? That is not enough. I see it in the newspapers and on the radio.. hell, I might as well live in a cave...

Why were we there?

The original reason for military intervention in Somalia was a complete breakdown of organized government in that country, which remained the reason throughout, and technically would still be the reason to be there today if political winds hadn't shifted.

Explain how this is POLAR OPPOSITE?

Because from evidence, the Iraqi invasion was in the speculative phases before Bush even announced his bid for the Presidency and certainly in planning before 9/11 -- which anyone who looks at what's really going on, instead of allowing the terrorist paranoia to frame tautological arguments has known for a long time. There were and still are multiple nations in the Middle East and elsewhere that met *all* of the public justifications for the invasion of Iraq (even after they've been changed a few times in what can only be described as Orwellian doublespeak) and had functional enough economies to be a threat. [1]

Whereas Somalia remains just about the only territory, African or otherwise, in a persistent state of effective anarchy (unless you want to count post-war Iraq).



Guess who said this quote.. 11 weeks after her son died and she got to meet the president... I will give you ONE guess....


What does that have to do with anything, other than proving Sheehan changed her mind? Whether or not she deserved an audience with George III is largely irrelevant compared to whether or not such a meeting could have trivially prevented all media fuss, saving all of you the torment of having to hear about this crap. It's not like Bush had to tell her it was all part of a Friedman economics experiment to prove the failures of South America and Africa were the local's fault and make his corporate cronies billions in the process.

And while it's entirely tertiary, as for Osama and his claims about about Mogadishu, that sounds like a lot of after the fact justification, because the particular lesson was about 20 years later than the text-book example of how to beat the United States. All those tapes are is bait for the dogmatic, on either side.

And speaking of bait for the dogmatic, the meeting with Chavez that inspired the latest frenzy is more of the same. Chavez likely met with hundreds of people all of whom have more political clout than Sheehan, including Americans. In the competition for eyeball time, easy sucker punches carry the day.

[1] Carefully examining the criteria of these things makes for fun thought experiments. I know most people are too lazy and ignorant to bother, but it's fun to say, compare the "charges" against Chavez with those against pretty much every other established South American political group and then wonder why all the ones that are labeled with terrorist or militant or destabilizing rhetoric happen to be in favor of re-nationalizing South American resources. Things that would make you go "hmm."

The same works for Iraq. Why not Syria, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or North Korea ... most of which better suited the goal of cutting funding to terrorists or neutralizing potential weapons of mass destruction, yet made far less tantalizing targets for what was to be the examplary war of the New American Century. It was an example, all right.


In any event, don't think I'm defending Sheehan. I just think most of the coverage people are upset about not only grossly oversimplifies pretty much everything, but also depends on pre-supposed and entirely unsupported assumptions that can only exist in a vacuum of real information.

With regard to 1) above, I think it is pretty much a knee jerk reaction to any avowed political entity that espouses communist influenced ideology. But to be fair, there is good reason for this. It is a long favored strategy of the extreme left (i.e. the commie bastages) to rely upon guerrilla warfare and terrorism to come to power. It's part and parcel of Mao's little red book (guiding bible for the Shining Path) as well as Leninist doctrine.

Look at who is labeled as terrorist in South America.... Shining Path in Peru, FARC in Columbia and a few others. None are sitting governments. What do they have in common? They rely upon murder and intimidation at a grass roots level to exert control over areas of the countries they inhabit. That is what makes them terrorists, not that they want to nationalize anything.

To my knowledge, Chavez and Morales in Bolivia have not yet been labelled as terrorist. In the case of Chavez, it is pretty clear he is pro-FARC if not outright supporting them in their logistics. Beyond the leftist rhetoric that is at odds with American political/economic philosophy, he has also been taking worrisome steps that could foreshadow a new dictatorship in Venezuela. It remains to be seen if he will force through a change to the Venezuelan constitution to allow himself to become "President for Life" or to destroy the possibility of political competition. But there are other signs that are cause for worry.

As an example, Chavez has raised a paramilitary force (supposedly to defend against American invasion) drawn only from his political base and that answers only to him, not the Venezuelan army or constitution. The big stink over his buying 100,000 AK47s last year was that about 40,000 of them were to go to his personal "militia". It bodes ill for any party that tries to oppose him now with armed thugs ready to keep him in power at the point of a rifle. Even the catholic church is worried about him, and they tend to be quite left wing in that part of the world.

Does that mean that everything Chavez wants to do is evil? Not at all. But it does bode ill for Venzuela's long term prospects as no communist government has ever been tolerant of criticism or free speech.

C'mon, Shanno. You make valid points arguing your point of view, and then muck it all up with the statement that Clinton pulling out gave BinLaden fuel to ramp up his vendetta, leading to 9/11.

First off, I don't think weakness would be used to fuel a vendetta, as much as indidels invading Moslem territory (which was done by his predecessor).

Second, no American president can be held accountable for 9/11. The Islamic fanatics who follow the likes of Bin Laden have hated the US for a long time, and it is the clash of cultures and relgious beliefs that are at the foundation.

9/11 was inevitable. If the suicide attack had failed, there would have been another attack on other targets (and I have no doubt we will see more at some point). Bin Laden has made it his purpose to bring his war to the American homeland, and he has plenty of fanatical followers who are eager to find ways into our country and to then create chaos. Nothing short of the elimination of the Islamic faith 600 or so years ago could have prevented 9/11, and even then if someone with the means and hate wanted it, they would have caused it.

Cindy Sheehan is against the war and blames Bush for her son's death. Fine. She can have her imagined reality as long as she does not use it to harm anyone. Maybe some day she will take a moment to read some of the words her son used, and be at peace.

It would have been more to her advantage to point out how the terrorists have won, to some degree; the free and open superpower is no longer quite as free and open, as a result of their attack on us.