Redstate

Since all polls show a trend away from support for the Iraq War, I don't think this is a good idea.

Additionally, do you really want to make the story larger than it already is?

Lastly, to which silent majority are you referring?  The question is not meant as a snark, but as a truthful request for clarification.    

How does this do anything but confront Sheehan for what she's become in the most respectful way possible?

I suspect that she wouldn't hesitate to meet with them.

Does anyone think a majority of Moms will support the notion of losing a son for the cause of Democracy in Iraq?

of her own words.

""We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said."

http://www.thereporter.com/republished

Those are not her words that you're citing in that quote but those of her husband.  Although she did have some praise for the President even while, at that time also stating (from your link):

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

She isn't being entirely inconsistent.

equate with complete silence, deference and an nodding of the head at every utterance of our elected leaders?  

Is this America or is this Communist China?

From the article, it also seems like the family made a fundamental decision about the right way to handle these things:

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act.  

So, what's changed? Why was it inappropriate and against Casey's wishes in 2004, but not today?

on the that...my bad.

I will answer the other comment with a reminder that the resolution for the use of force listed several reasons for the invasion...there has not been a bunch of new ones made up.

it would require you to not say the holder of the office "murdered" your son... if you had either class or breeding.

She has the right to her opinions, the right to protest, etc...fine

Why didn't she just call the White House switchboard and ask for an appointment with the President to discuss this?  If she had, and been rebuffed, it would have strengthened her position...

Instead she has created a public spectacle.

Her loss was horrible, and I empathize with her pain, but I have to question her methods.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

Some of us have neither, yet behave ourselves just the same. Stop with the eliteism.

saying that to the wrong guy for a lot of reasons not the least of which is that I've put up with enough moonbattery for one day.

to ask people to have class?

Class is not about money, power, looks, or anything like that...it is just about having class.

why do you suppose she didn't? If she thinks sitting in front of the President's house is a good way to get an answer, let her.

Mike Gallagher today announced he will be leading a rally in Crawford to counter this Sheehan spectacle, with singing from church groups, etc.  He was even hoping someone would donate busses to bring them all in.  This could result in a flash point tonight, given how rabid some of these lefty supporters of Sheehan are.

she would have made it public...that was why I stated that it would have strengthened her argument.

Reading comprehension is still trading high. Buy some anyway.

The question was not whether a majority of moms would support losing sons in Iraq, but whether a majority of moms who have already lost sons approve of what Sheehan is doing.

Casey Sheehan joined the military and unfortunately paid the ultimate sacrifice.  I feel bad for any mother who lost a son, but that doesn't mean that Cindy Sheehan's or any grieving mother's views about the war have any more credibility than those of any other American citizen.

I'm not so sure that the trend of the American Public is away from support from the war ... as it is that folks are getting angry that politicians are futzing with the war.

For example ... I wonder what percentage of the American people would have been just fine with, say, NUKING Fallujah (the first time).

because this should not be about confrontation.  Her beliefs are her own and she has a right to express them.  But a loud, proud contingent of people with the opposing viewpoint who show up to tell their stories and not simply to confront/intimidate Sheehan would have the desired effect of letting the public know there are families out there with the opposing viewpoint.

When did Republicans become so party loyal that they can ignore what goes on around them and do nothing but verbally fellate the President?

Cindy Sheehan lost her son.

Have some respect.  Get some dignity.

"When did Republicans become so party loyal that they can ignore what goes on around them and do nothing but verbally fellate the President?

Cindy Sheehan lost her son.

Have some respect.  Get some dignity. "

First, your obscene little reference seems a little out of place in a post calling for dignity....

Second, I think that we all empathize with her loss, and would not deny her an opportunity to mourn...but I think her methods are questionable.

Actually, Rep. Jan Schwochi (sp?) of Illinois told Cindy Sheehan in a conference call that the noble cause her son died for was Cindy's anti war activities. Cindy Sheehan agreed.

And, in my mind ... that's obscene.

The link to the audio is here, on Joe Trippi's website. http://joetrippi.com/?p=1363  You have to listen about a third of the way in ... but it's there.

Sooo ... it's not okay for your son to die a hero in Iraq, but it IS okay for your son to die to support your pet anti war cause ... ?

Also ... someone told me that Sheehan was on Olberman last night, and mentioned that she really didn't care if she talked to Bush. Does this mean she's just there for the party?

that trolls ceased to be able to tell the difference between calling a moonbat a moonbat and blind support of the President? Hmm.. I guess that's pretty much always been true.

I could still call Michael Moore a loony, even if John Kerry were President, and the same principle applies to this woman.

That's your One Bite™ for "verbally fellate the President" by the way.

I extend sympathy to Cindy on the loss of her son, just as if he had been killed in a car accident or died of old age.

Casey was old enough to make his own decisions and he wasn't a "baby" anymore.

Casey was a double enlister who understood duty, honor and country.

The sacrifice he gave to his country is beyond repayment.

I extend her no sympathy whatsover for pushing an anti-American agenda that includes the quote "this country is not worth fighting for".

had to say that up front...

Where did you get the information on Casey's re-enlistment, and the quote that you listed?

your obscene little reference

It is nice to see that you don't dispute what is going on.

Second, I think that we all empathize with her loss, and would not deny her an opportunity to mourn...but I think her methods are questionable.

"Ending The Sheehan Spectacle"  What empathy.  

Here you go:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=17915

excert:

While one might dismiss some of Sheehan's hyperbole due to grief over her son's death,

a little research about Casey Sheehan revealed that contrary to being tricked by military recruiters, Casey Sheehan had re-enlisted in the U.S. Army voluntarily when he was 24-years-old, after serving his first hitch successfully. Casey Sheehan was in fact a hero who received a Bronze Star. He was attached as a mechanic to the artillery division of the 1st U.S. Cavalry in Iraq. When a convoy of soldiers from Casey's unit was attacked in Sadr City by insurgents, Casey volunteered to join a rapid rescue force to get them out. His commanding sergeant told him he did not have to go into combat, because he was a mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was quoted telling his officer, "I go where my chief goes." He was tragically killed during the rescue attempt. The source for this story? Cindy Sheehan herself.

I read through some of your past posts, and it is apparent that you have developed a Pavlovian tendency to attack all things GWB...Hey, have at it...everyone needs a hobby.

Your comment was inappropriate, incorrect, and undignified.

Empathy does not mean total agreement with her political motivations.

Casey was old enough to make his own decisions and he wasn't a "baby" anymore.

Yup.  Never said anything to the contrary.

The sacrifice he gave to his country is beyond repayment.

As is hers.  

Or did we forget that she sacrificed something too?  And her sacrifice was probably more than of most here.  

The spectacle here is what "Republicans" are making of themselves.

Interesting link...

I have one for you. Enjoy.

We are discussing the issue...period.

Ms. Sheehan has decided, for her own reasons, to make a spectacle of herself, and it frankly sickens me that so many are willing to exploit her for nothing more than politics.

It's a family site.  Please refrain from using such language.

At least do it about something where you are sure I goofed, OK? Nowhere in the original post does it mention people being opposed to what she is doing. It does mention people being in favor of the fight for Democracy in Iraq. It does mention mothers who have lost sons. I think the reasonable conclusion is that the majority he speaks of has something to do with moms with lost sons and fighting for Democracy in Iraq.

One of the key premises for Redstate is to rely on actual facts, not imagined "known facts". I ask if the majority the original poster speaks of - whatever exactly he meant - is imagining a majority, or he speaks of one he knows exists.

> Or did we forget that she sacrificed

> something too?

She sacrificed a son (that she was willing to run over with a car to keep out of Iraq) and got worldwide fame, and no doubt some fortune when her story (almost certainly) gets published in a big first printing.

This perspective probably won't sit well with you but I really don't care.

Casey made the sacrifce, personal and he gave it willingly.

Cindy had something taken from her, something that by her own words she didn't want to support.

She didn't have a role in telling her 24-year old son what to do, we call that maturity.

Sacrifice is something given of yourself willingly.

We are a nation with a volunteer army.

Do some of those people go into the military with a roulette mentality of never facing combat?

Perhaps.

People who reenlist in a combat zone know the danger, know the cost and Casey gave it willingly.

As I said before, Cindy lost a son, a terrible tragedy of war, she deserves our personal sympathy for that and has received a nation's sympathy already extended to her personally by our nation's leader.

Beyond that, she is using the platform of her son's death as a example of why her leftist agenda should be followed and I have and never will have sympathy or tolerance for anyone with that position.

By NUKING, do you mean "aggressively engaging in combat", or do you mean "the first use of nuclear weapons against a civilian population since Nagasaki"?

I can't help but think that the deeper she gets, the  more shattering it'll be for her when it all falls apart.

My guess is that the activism, the praise showered on her from the left, and all that helps keep her mind off of things.

When it ends she'll have to deal with things all over again.

"Class or breeding"?

Is like a case study in how NOT to manage the PR of a protester

If Bush had just met with her when she got there, he could have come out, sat down half an hour, said all the things about Iraq he always said, she'd say all the anti war things she always said, and that would have been the end of the story

Instead, he didn't meet with her, and now it might be too late. Media outlets have hooked up, and people are joining her.

Ok, well, not putting out the fire intially was a mistake, but people ATTACKING her is just about the least intelligent move possible. If you don't agree with her, fine, then just ignore her. But trying to discredit her now just reflects poorly upon the discreditor. You aren't going to rally sentiment against a war mother, no matter how much you talk about her stance on Israel. Sorry, it ain't gonna happen. Nobody hates moms. Additionally, polls show her anti-war stance is shared by a majority of Americans.

And the "let's send mothers to meet with her" would just play into her hand, because she would gladly meet with them. You can call it a "spectacle" all you want, but all you're doing is contributing to the spectacle.

That's kind of the point. This woman has already had her meeting with the President, which all parents of fallen soldiers are not automatically entitled to. It was a gesture of goodwill voluntarily extended by the President.

Now, however, she is demanding, as part of a rank publicity stunt to speak with him again, to ask why Bush killed her son (which he didn't). Now, Bush has already responded to her personally - yet again - but this time in a news conference.

But you know what? I'd really like to meet the President and ask him why he signed BCRA, or the Medicare "Reform" Bill, or any number of other things. In fact, I think I'll demand it - I'll go camp out on the White House lawn and refuse to move until he speaks with me personally about it. Then later, Adam can camp out and demand that Bush come out and speak with him personally about the transportation bill. While we're at it, we could get Thomas and Augustine in there to demand that he veto the Embryo destruction bill, and talk with them about it personally.

After all, its our tax dollars at issue - surely he owes it to us to speak to him personally.

You see where this is going.

So how does this woman's breeding have anything to do with what she is doing?  What does that say about her son?

blood for money? that aint never a good trade. your tax dollars have nothing on the loss of a life, whether casey's life, the other 1800+ troops who have died, the triple amputees who come home and have nothing left to them (i think id rather be dead), or the hundreds of thousands of iraqis lives (both civilian and security).

That having been said, in several of those instances, the government is interested in confiscating my money to kill people. Some of them haven't been born yet, but that's irrelevant in my eyes.

And it's a whole heck of a lot more than 1800 over the span of three years.

So I'd say I have every right to camp out on Bush's lawn and demand a personal visit.

If Bush had just met with her when she got there, ... and that would have been the end of the story

If  you beleive that I have a bridge available for sale over the East River in New York.

He met with her once before. Why is her opinion more important than any other parent who has lost a child in Iraq? What has she done that justifies the President spending time listening to her dump on him? Since when did have a child killed in combat bestow some special knowledge of how to conduct a war?

"Listen to me Bush (not even Mr. President) I know what we should do in Iraq because my son was killed there. His death has revealed to me the secret of fixing the Middle East: US out of Iraq, Death to Israel, no Blood for Oil, blah, blah, blah." This is simple narcisism on her part.

She lost her son and now she has allowed herself to become a tool for the "peace at any price, better Red than dead" crowd.

Even if it weren't a morally difficult policy to defend, ever hear of radiation blow back? We have 140,000 troops in there.

think it does then I suppose I'd never be able to explain to you what class or breeding are.

Jan Schakowsky(D-Ill) is a Marxist. She's firmly in the Barbara Lee/Dennis Kucinich/Howard Dean wing of the party.

It's no surprise she would say something like that.

On the suggested meeting of 50 pro-war Gold Star moms--it wouldn't be necessary if we had an honest MSM reporting that most of them still support the effort.

specifically this one

Why is her opinion more important than any other parent who has lost a child in Iraq?

I don't think it is. I don't think she thinks it is, either. Regardless, if they would all like to meet with Bush to express their opinions, be it of anger, or support for the war, then I feel they should be entitled to that option.

If Bush doesn't want to meet with me, then fine. I didn't vote for him. However, their families paid the ultimate price, and meeting with them for half an hour is the least he can do. He's on vacation, after all, so his time isn't that pressed. Cindy even did the hard part by traveling to Crawford to see him, he only needs to go to the edge of his yard.

If you can buy a meeting with the president by donating a large enough sum of money to his reelection fund, then why can't you buy a meeting with him for giving the life of a family member?

But you know what? I'd really like to meet the President and ask him why he signed BCRA, or the Medicare "Reform" Bill, or any number of other things. In fact, I think I'll demand it - I'll go camp out on the White House lawn and refuse to move until he speaks with me personally about it. Then later, Adam can camp out and demand that Bush come out and speak with him personally about the transportation bill. While we're at it, we could get Thomas and Augustine in there to demand that he veto the Embryo destruction bill, and talk with them about it personally.

If you feel that strongly about these topics, I strongly encourage you to do so. In fact, I would applaud your actions. And while Bush might not be able to meet with you personally, the attention you draw to your cause would still be a welcome result. Right?

I'd like to politely ask one question of those commenting here:  what noble cause are our troops dying for in Iraq?  Please limit to ten words or less.  Thank you.

Marie in Mississippi

The President should cut a deal with Cindy from Vacaville...

"I'll meet with you and your "peace at all costs" people if you protestors all meet with the surviving families of the 9-11 attack."

"Since you obviously want me to understand the impact of pursuing a policy of war against Islamists, you should also understand the impact of pursuing a policy of ignoring them."

You're not special. You don't get to dictate the terms of debate here.

I will have to conclude that there isn't a logical one.

freedom.

You don't have an answer.

You may rest assured that we will shrug with the utmost of sincerity.

This isn't your house. Don't pee on the rug.

in the invasion of the following countries, which are not currently enjoying "Freedom" (they are all led by dictators):

1. Omar al-Bashir, Sudan.

Age 61. In power since 1989.

Last year's rank: 7

A colossal humanitarian tragedy in western Sudan's Darfur region has uprooted 2 million people and killed 70,000, mostly through the activities of government-supported militias. This is nothing new in Sudan, where Omar al-Bashir, its dictator, has engaged in ethnic and religious persecution since seizing power in a military coup. Sudan has 6 million internally displaced persons--more than any other nation. In southern Sudan, where Christianity and traditional religions are practiced, Bashir tried to impose Islamic law in a campaign that included aerial bombing of villages and enslavement of women and children. His forces met with armed resistance, escalating to what some called a civil war between Muslims and Christians. (In Darfur, meanwhile, he has been killing Muslims.) Last month, Bashir signed a cease-fire with rebels in the south. It allows government troops to remain in southern Sudan and prohibits southerners from voting for independence for six years.

2. Kim Jong Il, North Korea.

Age 62. In power since 1994.

Last year's rank: 1

Kim Jong Il slipped from first place, but not for want of trying. North Korea still ranks last in Reporters Without Borders' international index of press freedom, and it earned Freedom House's worst score for political rights and civil liberties for the 33rd straight year (a world record). The Ministry of People's Security places spies in workplaces and neighborhoods to inform on anyone who criticizes the regime, even at home. All radios and TV sets are fixed to receive only government stations. Disloyalty to Kim Jong Il and his late father, Kim Il Sung, is a punishable crime: Offenses include allowing pictures of either leader to gather dust or be torn or folded. The population is divided into "loyalty groups." One-third belong to the "hostile class." These people receive the worst jobs and housing and may not live in the capital, Pyongyang. Below the hostiles are the estimated 250,000 held in prison camps, some for crimes allegedly committed by relatives. Executions often are performed in public.

3. Than Shwe, Burma.

Age 72. In power since 1992.

Last year's rank: 2

In response to world opinion, Gen. Than Shwe freed 9000 prisoners, but hopes for a new liberalism faded when only 40 were political detainees (among more than 1000 still being held). The rest were common criminals. Than Shwe extended the house arrest of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party won 80% of the vote in the last open election (1990). The arrest of opposition members resumed. Freedom of expression is not allowed; unlicensed possession of a fax machine or modem is punishable by 15 years in prison. To relocate ethnic minorities, the army destroyed 3000 villages and drove 1.2 million Burmese from their homes. In a landmark case, Unocal Corp. of California agreed to pay damages to Burmese villagers who said the military used torture, rape or murder to force them to work on the company's pipeline.

4. Hu Jintao, China.

Age 62. In power since 2002.

Last year's rank: 3

Despite China's economic liberalization, President Hu Jintao's government remains one of the most repressive. Some 250,000 Chinese are serving sentences in "re-education and labor camps." China executes more people than all other nations combined, often for nonviolent crimes. The death penalty can be given for burglary, embezzlement, counterfeiting, bribery or killing a panda. Hu's government controls all media and Internet use. Defense lawyers who argue too vigorously for clients' rights may be disbarred or imprisoned. And if minorities (such as Tibetans) speak out for autonomy, they're labeled "terrorists," imprisoned and tortured.

5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia.

Age 81. In power since 1995.

Last year's rank: 5

Bending under strong international pressure, Crown Prince Abdullah and his family, who have absolute power, are holding Saudi Arabia's first elections in 40 years--municipal elections, that is. Women may not vote or run for office, owing to "technical difficulties": Most Saudi women don't have the photo IDs needed to register; there aren't enough female officials to register those who do; and men may not register women, because the sexes are forbidden to mingle in public. Worldwide, the royal family promotes an extreme form of Islam called Wahhabism, which considers all followers of other religions--even other Muslims--"infidels." In 2004, the U.S. State Department added Saudi Arabia to its list of nations in which religious liberty is severely violated.

6. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya.

Age 62. In power since 1969.

Last year's rank:

Dishonorable mention

Increasingly annoyed by other Arab leaders, Qaddafi--once considered a supporter of terrorism --has gone to great lengths to re-establish links with the West. He turned over a perpetrator of the 1988 terrorist bombing of an American commercial flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and made substantial payments to families of the victims of both the Lockerbie bombing and that of a French plane. He gave up his nuclear weapons program and is opening his nation's economy to foreign investment. Yet at home he continues to run a brutal dictatorship, maintaining total control over all aspects of Libyan life. Freedom of speech, assembly and religion are harshly restricted. Entire families, tribes and even towns can be punished for "collective guilt." Political opposition and damaging public or private property are considered "crimes against the state."

7. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan.

Age 61. In power since 1999.

Last year's rank: Not mentioned

Two years after seizing power in a military coup that overthrew an elected government, Gen. Pervez Musharraf appointed himself president of Pakistan. He recently agreed to step down as head of the military, then reversed his decision, claiming that he was best suited to unite Pakistan's contentious political and military elements. "The country is more important than democracy," he said. Pakistan has endangered the world by spreading nuclear technology. Last year, it was discovered that Abdul Qadeer Khan, head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, had been selling nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. As for civil liberties in Pakistan, a woman who has been raped may present her case only if she can produce four Muslim men who witnessed the attack.

8. Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan.

Age 64. In power since 1990.

Last year's rank: 8

Niyazov has developed an overbearing personality cult that crushes dissent and invades all aspects of life in Turkmenistan, no matter how trivial. He controls his one-party state with torture, disappearances, detentions, house demolitions, forced labor and exile. He muzzles all media, and it is illegal to criticize any of his policies. Statues of Niyazov appear everywhere, and his picture is on all denominations of money. His "moral guide," Rukhnama (Book of the Soul), is required reading for students, married couples and even applicants for a driver's license. Female newscasters may not wear makeup, nor may young men wear beards, long hair or gold teeth.

9. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe.

Age 80. In power since 1980.

Last year's rank: 4

After leading an anti-colonial war of liberation, Mugabe was elected Zimbabwe's first prime minister, raising hopes for a new era of democracy. But he has turned increasingly dictatorial and run his country into the ground. Average life expectancy in Zimbabwe is 33 years--among the lowest in the world. One of Mugabe's many repressive laws deems it a crime "to make an abusive, indecent or obscene statement" about him. He continues to hold elections, but opposition is discouraged. Looking toward a vote in March, the parliament passed a law banning from Zimbabwe any human-rights or civil-liberties group that receives money from abroad. In other words, independent election monitors will not be allowed.

10. Teodoro Obiang Nguema,

Equatorial Guinea. Age 62.

In power since 1979. Last year's rank: 6

Since major oil reserves were discovered there in 1995, U.S. oil companies have poured $5 billion into this tiny West African nation. Most of the oil income goes to President Obiang and his family, while the majority of the people live on less than $1 a day. Some American oil companies are being investigated for improprieties involving Obiang. The U.S. State Department has accused Obiang's government of committing torture. In November, 20 people--including 11 foreign nationals --were sentenced to prison for an alleged coup attempt. The only evidence against them, says Amnesty International, were confessions extracted through torture.

Contributing Editor David Wallechinsky has reported on international figures for PARADE, including an interview with Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. His next book will be "Tyrants: The World's 20 Worst Living Dictators."

Dot org site

I'm sure it took a lot of time and talent.

If you throw the chickenhawk meme around again or anything that remotely resembles it, it will be your last post here.

Besides being a troll, you aren't even a very smart one.

You come to our sandbox to kick dirt up, demand that we play your game, with your rules, and then if we decide not to play in your little fantasy world, you think you have won?  I'm relatively new here myself, but this amount of hubris is a little much to bear.

Look around the web site, read people's posts, you'll find thousands and thousands of eloquent words from some incredibily smart and passionate people.

I can only imagine that you need an answer in ten words because that's all your manic little mind can handle, so outside of a more eloquent response how's:

Freedom for the Iraqi people, security for the American people.

One of her lunatic anti-war backers, something called Gold Star Mothers for Peace, has put together a TV ad that will run on local cable outlets(and, of course, on every MSM news show tonight). It has Sheehan looking into the camera, reciting the best of MoveOn, Michael Moore and the rest of that crew("Mister Bush, you lied to us. You lied about weapons of mass destruction. You lied about connections between Iraq and al Qaeda..." blah blah blah).

Anyone who doubted this was a gigantic PR stunt should now have NO doubt at all.

Just watch the "free media" this ad gets over the weekend.

of dictators currently in power.  Wondering why that would offend you...  The cutting and pasting was because I can't spell most of their names.  

That's apparently not a valid "argument".

HE HAS ALREADY MET WITH HER. Now, the whole matter is an unseemly, sickening little sideshow, hijacked by far lefties. Her son's sacrifice is no less, but certainly no greater, than those of other brave soldiers who have been killed.

Remember when our troops in Somalia were slaughtered as the UN stood by (BlackHawk Down)? When posthumous medals were given out by the President, the father of one of the soldiers went up to Bill Clinton and said, as I remember, "You have no business being commander in chief". Point made, issue closed - the correct way.

I really think that had she had not turned this whole thing into a media spectacle, he might very well have met with her. Now, no chance.

Also, by your count, the President would need to meet with the families of fallen soldiers for 22 1/2 weeks, assuming a forty hour work week. If that is what you think he ought to be doing, fine. Just realize what you are asking - unless of course, you meant only families of fallen soldiers who are against the war.

but it makes you look like you have nothing to say.

of this have to do with Iraq?  Where's your ten word limit?

To things like mission statements and those in charge. Notice that your infantile demand does not fit with the first link, and you are conspicuously absent from the second.

How many times does he have to meet with her?

By my count he's met with her far more times than he has met with others who have lost sons.  

Another face-to-face meeting would, if televised or recorded, allow her to make Bush look bad by screaming at him.

If not televised or recorded, allow her to make all kinds of slurs against him that he could not rebuff without looking like he was attacking a grieving mother.

Why not freedom for the people in the other countries, that I so lazily cut and pasted earlier?  Why only Iraq?

is saying "only in Iraq."

not ours.  Besides the thread is about Iraq.  If you want to debate the merits of Darfur and some of the others, peruse the site a bit.  I know trevino has probably posted on it.

As for this being a dot org.  Have you paid for your bandwidth today?

what is the noble cause?  And the answer was "freedom for the Iraqi people".  I'm simply asking, when are we freeing the people of the other dictator led countries of the world?

Also, by your count, the President would need to meet with the families of fallen soldiers for 22 1/2 weeks, assuming a forty hour work week. If that is what you think he ought to be doing, fine. Just realize what you are asking - unless of course, you meant only families of fallen soldiers who are against the war.

I dind't do the math, so I'll trust yours.

Either way, I knew what my post would entail. I suspect most of them wouldn't take up the offer. But in this case, she's already traveled to Crawford, so she did the hard part.

And Bush is currently on a 5 week vacation. Counting this one, and assuming he takes one each of the next 3 years, thats 20 weeks right there. It wouldn't be all too hard to pick up another 2 weeks here or there, so I don't think "being pressed for time" is a terribly great excuse.

HE HAS ALREADY MET WITH HER. Now, the whole matter is an unseemly, sickening little sideshow, hijacked by far lefties.

Sickening? Seriously? What's sickening about a protest? There are sick protests (like the guy who protests funerals saying God caused 9/11 because of gays) and then there's a mom in a tent. This is not unseemly or sickening, let's get a grip here. People ATTACKING her is unseemly, because why are they even bothering? How is her protest affecting their lives in any way? Ehh?

Again, I reiterate my point. If a campaign donor can buy a chance to meet with Bush, more than once, then why can't the death of a family member? Or does she need another dead child to cash in another meeting?

You can choose to answer the question or ignore it, your decision.  You seem to have a broad definition of the word "demand".

oh, i cant find the quote offhand, but here's a paraphrase.

it would be far less of a bloody crime for a thousand citizens to cease paying their taxes for this year, than to pay those taxes and enable the state.

i know this isnt a fond viewpoint here, i know its probably bannable for the dissent. i wholeheartedly believe the american military is the largest, best funded, and highest trained mechanism of state based terror in the world. to wit: 2 million civilians dead in vietnam, half a million in cambodia. we gassed the southerners, but not our enemies, the vietcong. if you adjusted the amount of people we murdered in nicaragua to per capita terms for the US, it'd be about 2.25 million american citizens.

anyway, blood for money, aint never been, never gonna be a fair trade.

I just want an answer, not the you'll never understand.

you need to at least defend and explain your position rather than give up on it and just move on without any explanation.

under the illusion that you are 1) tough (Stryker, hardeharhar) or 2) that you somehow set the rules here. You aren't and you don't.

So try your he-man schtick out some other place.

But its for being an imbecile, not for dissenting.

and just in case you're too young to get the inference, it's SNL from when they lampooned everyone...

#1 Cause For Fighting: Fight there and not here.  

Every towelheaded jihadist that has his brains splattered is one less than can get through our Southern Border and blow up a Walmart in Mississippi.

Sorry it doesn't meet your ten words..

attack the anti-protesters tonight in Crawford.  They won't be there to meet with Sheehan or her ilk, but to show support for the President's policies, for the troops and for the country.  And they will do so respectfully.  I'm betting the moonbats go off the deep end with resulting violence and arrests.

Since you are so bold to assume that I'm younger than you are, let me state for the record that I'm 29.  I've now had my sexual morality called into question on this board, in the rudest of ways (which was not only a sexiest slur, but I'm married-- by the way) for asking a question.  Let me guess: if you don't like something that a female says, then you call them a female prostitute; if it's a male that disagrees then he's a homosexual.  

I don't care if it's from an SNL skit, let's take out the ad hominem "slut". And for the record, "towelheaded jihadist" isn't appropriate either.

The old flypaper theory.  And in your fantasy, the terrorists don't reproduce (have children)?

Drudge Report has the story of Cindy's family and their joint statement opposing Cindy's position. She is an embarasment to the family, and now simply being used by the Left elite to further their cause. When it is all said and done, poor Cindy won't be able to show her face in public, or at the family reunion.

Sheehan Family Statement:

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

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

I'd like to politely ask one question of those commenting here:  what noble cause are our troops dying for in Iraq?  Please limit to ten words or less.  Thank you.

You're only interested in doing something if it can be explained in ten words or less?  What a sad, sad commentary on the state of our nation.  

Yet, I'll play your game -- as wrongheaded as it is.  Those troops dying in Iraq are dying for (here's the one word answer):  "us."  We sent them there.  And it don't matter whether the 'cause was noble or not.

What, you don't like my one word answer?  You say that you didn't send them there?  The Administration did?  Why don't you listen to the next couple words -- the words you want to exclude because you're interested only in the soundbite:  There are no private wars in a Republic; the cost of equal representation is equal responsibility.  When the nation commits troops -- rightly or wrongly, Democratic President or Republican President -- they fight for all of us.  They are our sons and daughters, our fellow citizens.  They are dying for us.

The point trying to be made is that she's protesting, and by allowing her to build steam and not meet with her, regardless of whether he has met with her in the past, he is building the story.

It's really bad p.r.

Her motivations or whether she has previously met him have nothing to do with it, and attacking her viewpoints are no cure for it. In fact, they prolong the story, hence more bad p.r. Protests only work as long as people talk about them and cover them. The more controversy you create, and attacking a mother whose lost a son is controversial, the longer the story lasts.

how we distinguish the people that you described earlier T.H.J (I have to use an acronym) from not combative civilian Iraqis, who mean us no harm?  They all do look alike don't they?  Hmmm...that reminds me of something, can't recall what sort of people would think that...hmmm..

What I meant was more aggressive pursuit of the war.

But ... a poll of how the American people would have felt about actually nuking Fallujah ... might have been instructive.

The noble cause is that he's doing his duty as an American soldier.

Listen: I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with the war. In fact, I disagreed with the war. However, what Cindy Sheehan is doing is not only casting dishonor for her son's sacrifice but also discrediting LEGITIMATE arguments against the Iraq war (philosophical differences with neoconservatism, disputes about Iraq=al-Qaida, disputes with the flypaper theory).

I'm sorry that you encountered so much invective on this thread. Try and show you're over here in good faith and you may get a better reception.

the word "mistake" isn't in your vocabulary.  I voted for Bush in 2000, so I do feel partially responsible for his failed policies.  I wouldn't have voted for this war and Congress should be held accountable, along with those who lied (if anyone) to get them to vote for this war.

Go chat with the other moonbats on The Pile™

..so much more eloquently. Exactly. I may have thought the Iraq war was SO not a good idea - but Casey Sheehan was fighting for US. Right or wrong. This doesn't mean we can't dissent. But we have to honor his sacrifice.

I was referring to American Public opinion.

And, yah ... am aware of blowback ...

But, what I'm saying is that nobody's asked if the American People think that the Iraqi war should be more aggressively, and less politically, pursued, the results might be instructive.

Disagreeing with Bush about how the war's being prosecuted doesn't necessarily mean that the person polled thinks we need to pull out.

the word "mistake" isn't in your vocabulary.  I voted for Bush in 2000, so I do feel partially responsible for his failed policies.  I wouldn't have voted for this war and Congress should be held accountable, along with those who lied (if anyone) to get them to vote for this war.

You think that this is a response?  I do despair at the state of our schools that you missed the point so completely.  (FTR, public school grad.)

Anyway, not to be cliche, but you protest to my.  My point was that it doesn't matter who you voted for, our troops are still dying for us; that is the essence of a nation.  Your response?  "I voted for Bush."  

Some things are more important than partisanship.  Criticize Bush's conduct of the war (God knows I have), but never forget that there are kids over there right now who are dying for us.  And show some Godd-mmed respect.

If she camped out in her tent, alone and dignified, with no comment except "I would like to meet with President Bush to express my views on this war, and I do not plan to leave until he meets with me. I have no further comment", then we have a whole different ball game. There are ways to protest (as you rightly pointed out), and then there are ways NOT to protest.

I guess I am a little touchy about this because of the way the left tried to appropriate 9/11 in order to tar and feather George Bush. (From what we are hearing lately, it seems as though they WERE able to do that with the 9/11 Commission.) They also turned a certain Senator's funeral into a Republican hatefest, as you will recall. Using the dead for partisan ends is, as I said, sickening - at least to me - and the left has certainly set that precedent.

Using your son's death - or allowing your son's death to be used - in what seems to be an attempt simply to embarass the President is also, in my view, sickening. To trade in her sacrifice, and her son's, for this fifteen minutes of indignity and "gotcha", makes it cheap and tawdry.

Now this may not be her motivation - I cannot begin to guess that. I am just saying that to this casual observer, it certainly seems that way. The inclusion of Michael Moore et al into the fray does not help her achieve her aims, if they are indeed noble rather than political. I wish her the best, but I think her pain and anger is misplaced, and being misused.

Leon, I'm beggin' ya here, please fire up the scrapyard compactor if you haven't already.

Muchas gracias, amigo.

Gee, the promptness and efficiency is nice.

I have reserved most judgement on this issue.  We are all pulled in different directions by our personal sympathy for her (Ms. Sheehan's) loss of her son and how her actions (or those of people around her) affect our own political sensibilities.

But even aside from the fact that I couldn't possibly disagree with her or her actions more, I draw a line at one thing:  her selfish demand that the President of the United States meet with her...again!

There are currently about 290 million Americans, and most of us never have and never will meet a sitting President,  not even just to shake hands, let alone discuss matters of policy.  That's just the nature of the job for one lonely man (or woman) serving as the chief executive, financial, and military officer for a large nation, and that is the basis for representative government.

So for Ms. Sheehan to demand to see the President a second time to resolve her own grief-based narcissism is enough to make me see red.  If her anti-Israel pronouncements and less-than-noble fellow travelers don't cheapen her cause enough, her own selfishness certainly completes the job.

What is the difference between their ad and the Swift Boat ads?

I wouldn't sacrifice my son for this war.  I would like to see a show of hands of which mothers here would sacrifice their sons or daughters in Iraq.

Calling it a democracy is a little far fetched, don't you think?

after many things happened.  Go back and look up her most recent interview.  You'll be able to see why she currently opposes the war.

done that isn't respectful?  I've been reading that the anti-protesters are walking around Sheehan's camp intentionally bumping into people and staring them down.  Looks like they are looking for a fight. What is respectful about what they are doing?

as he is only 5.  But my husband may be sacrificed for this war or any other cause to defend this nation on any given day.

Happy now?

snappy.  I was asking a legitimate question.  I am sorry that your husband may be put in harm's way but are you willing to lose him for this war?  I'm not talking about defeding our borders, I am talking about fighting in Iraq?

and the last one you'll use here.

Go irritate someone else with your juvenile attempts at logic.

To ask that people comport themselves civilly, and hopefully with a bit of panache and confidence shouldn't be too much to ask. "Class", when used to refer to behavior, is something that would be wonderful for everybody to practice all the time. As soon as somebody brings "breeding" into a discussion though, I for one feel like they're trying to look down their nose at me, and I've got plenty of "breeding", and plenty of nose.

in Yoda speak;

Too far I went, sorry I am.

being against war and all it's horror is "lunacy"?

the thoughts of your son or your spouse being sacrficed for this or any other oil war does not make me happy

was "installing a democracy" in those original resolutions?

about death, destruction and maimed bodies?

I think installation of a democracy was pretty much implied, after all I don't think the goal was to remove Hussein, and let some other dictator take over.

as soon as they discover OIL, bring it on baby

eom

Seek help.

About kicking trolls into the burning depths of Gehenna.

Instead of singing from church groups, the counter demonstration chose to use the enlightened, productive chant of "we don't care, we don't care". Those "rabid", "lefty" Sheehan supporters sang "God Bless America". Just think about that. Regardless of the circumstances, it is never remotely appropriate to go up to anyone and say "your son is dead? I don't care." Chanting it en masse at the mother of a dead soldier is disgusting, no matter what side you're on.

Doesn't mean they don't have a good grasp of marketing.

...forgot to tell me we were a blog re-enactment of Brideshead Revisited.

If you mean that Cindy Sheehan may have chosen to sing a patriotic song because it would look good, I can't say for sure what her motives were. Yes, probably the fact that it would look good occurred to somebody, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the counter protestors.

Well, the "moonbats", rather than going off the deep end, sang God Bless America. The anti-protestors, respectfully I should add, chanted "We don't care", a classy response to anyone mourning the loss of a loved one in battle.

... yourself "if it's all about the oil why the h*ll are we paying $67/bbl?"

The left's "War for Oil" blather is sheer nonsense. If it were all about getting Iraqi oil why would we not have simply cozied up to Saddam, made kissy-face, and signed him up for a billion dollars a year in military aid? He would have happily sold us every d*mn drop of oil that Iraq could produce! And it would have cost a d*mn sight less in dollars, let alone the troops.

your other post left the impression you were in favor of Nuking Iraq.  If you are not in favor of such drastic measure, I suggest avoiding the "metaphor."

Weird how nobody has responded; it's almost like you guys on the right don't ever want to admit you made a mistake...

And let's not pretend here.

We don't feel the need to dignify trolls with a response.

... get so sick and tired of this "War for Oil" cr*p that I almost can't contain myself. There are several varieties of moonbat in the world; one of them parrots this nonsense because they don't have any ideas of their own; another variety actually believes this to be true because their base of knowledge is so thin that it makes sense to them.

Bush is not building the story.

In fact, by ignoring her until the end of his stay in Crawford the problem will go away more quickly and with less effect than if he met her and gave her the PR points.

And the added bonus is that sooner or later the MSM will actually cover her change of heart as they run out of things to say about the story and pressure in the blogosphere grows.

the problem it will be her barking moonbat opinions on things like the WOT, Israel, and promise to not pay her taxes.

Once the MSM catches on to those opinions, she is going to get dropped like a hot plate, because the MSM and the dems have already placed her on the pedastel, and they aren't going to want to become to active in knocking her off, so instead the story is just going to die.

If for no other reason than pasting 2 entire copyrighted articles into the comments.

A few still read the post. Your party is going down wirh DubYa's poll numbers.

Doug Thompson.  You knew he was going to show up after a while.