Redstate

But I'm not ready to apologize.  I've been called a "Nazi" and a "fascist" and a "f*cktard" in emails to my account and phone calls to my house by people who disagree with my views on Iraq on a number of occasions in the past three years, and I've never returned the favor, and I'm frankly sick of the fact that our counterparts on the Left enjoy swearing their oaths at us.  I'm sick of them, and I'm not going to take it any more from them.  You might have touched a nerve with the word "whore" but that's nothing in comparison to the things I've been called, and all of us have been called, by people who simply don't care what they say or how much it hurts, demeans, or threatens people.  Enough.

The people on the Left are the ones who have deliberately created this discourse, and they're the ones who should be responsible enough to admit it and pay for it.  I'm not about to apologize or start believing they're the victims.  

let's cut to the chase about this whining and gnashing of teeth that has gone on about Erick calling this poor, greiving mother a media whore.

I give you her words from Olbermann's show last night-

"OLBERMANN:  Last question.  It`s pure politics.  The nature of the media coverage you`re getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that, from the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn`t it really better if President Bush doesn`t meet with you?

SHEEHAN:  I would think so, yes.  I think it`s great.  And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don`t want to give them any hints.  And I think that`s something they`ve probably already thought about.

But, you know, but we`re here.  We`re committed.  We`re staying the whole month of August, and then we`re moving to Washington, D.C.  And we`re going to have a 24-hour vigil on his front lawn to keep the pressure on.  The pressure is there.  Sixty-two percent of Americans want our troops home.  And this is giving them a voice to stand up and be counted and say, You know, we want our country back, and we want our troops home."

Media whore, media pawn, call her whatever you want.  She is in this for her fifteen minutes of fame.  Not to have a personal meeting with the president or anything else.

Darleen said it best last night.  You just have to pity her.  Nothing more, nothing less.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8925133/

Hat tip: http://www.blogsforbush.com/

she is doing more damage to her cause than good -if her cause is to get us out of Iraq.  There are plenty of conservatives who are disgusted at the incompetence of the military leadership - but we sure aren't going to associate with the whacko media whores pretending to mount a cause on the road to The President's house...If she was serious about her cause, there are many more effective ways to go about it - all she is doing now, with the help of left wing whackos, is getting media attention for her emotional loss...the news channels call it emotional porn...it fills in for the reporters having to do work...

Ms. Sheehan is a pawn of the media?  Hardly - she is the one using the media.  She wants media attention for her cause, and she's been clever enough to get their attention.  As for "allowing herself" to push an anti-war agenda, I think we ought to give her credit for being an adult.  Opposing the war is her agenda, and she's having some success furthering that agenda.  I heard her speak last year - she is very passionate about the honor her son displayed, and she believes strongly that her son died for no good reason.  To say she is being manipulated is ridiculous - she holds her views for a reason and is doing her best to bring attention to her cause.

these folks, who are still in Lafayette Park....

http://www.prop1.org/conchita/vigil/860106ws.htm

"We`re staying the whole month of August, and then we`re moving to Washington, D.C.  And we`re going to have a 24-hour vigil on his front lawn to keep the pressure on."

How can Ms. Sheehan be a media whore?

LOTS of bereaved moms assuage their grief by stepping on a red white and blue tour bus, with "Impeach Bush" emblazoned on the side!

And ... remember. She agrees with Representative Jan Schwarski (sp?) that the noble cause her son died for was his mother's anti war activities.

I'm pretty new here, but there's a reason I'm here and not somewhere else.  This place has standards/

Their "standards", or obvious lack thereof, is not excuse for response in kind.  Erick was right to apologize.

or actually holds the views she is espousing...it is really a pretty sad situation.

you have in mind

there are many more effective ways to go about it

It seems to me that most avenues for raising objections have and/or are being tried by those who were either 1) against the war initially or 2) have become disenchanted as things drag on.  Public protests and media seeking have generally been among the legitimate and, upon occasion, successful methods or changing opinions or of at least raising awareness.  This has been true for those among all sides of the political spectrum.  Look at abortion clinic protests, the Schiavo situation, etc. as well as war protestors.

thought of when I heard about this story. I don't know if Sheehan will continue for 25 years for a noble if not misguided cause, but I don't see any obvious reason to critize her either.

has been emotion-filled and full of overwrought rhetoric for a long time, and it's disingenous to say that either side created it, IMO.  I suspect you don't need them, but I can provide plenty of examples of vile invective flung leftward by the Right.  

Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

there might be a little to criticize her for

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

She sold out by lying about her meeting with the President. She dishonors her son for the cheap attention of a bunch of people who would have spit on her son for his patriotic volunteer service to this country. She sells out by allowing herself to be a sock puppet for the lying leftust trash press, like the NYT.

You have nothing to aplogize for.

.. if she is in fact a media 'whore'. The interview with Olberman gave tremendous insight into her agenda. She wants this to drag on for a while. And for what purpose? Simply to get more attention.

If the media were to close up shop tomorrow and move onto a big story elsewhere, how long do you think she would stay camped out? Without the cameras and reporters, I don't think too long.

I am reminded of the Baby Jessica in the well story years ago. The men who saved her garnered instant fame. As I understand it, one quit his job just to hit the talk show circuit. When the story finally died out, his popularity waned and he committed suicide.

When this story moves to the back burner, and they all do, what will be the fate of Cindy Sheehan?

Is not what I would call it. Sure, she wants media attention. She wants people to listen to her cause. So does anyone who cares about anything. I don't think it cheapens what she's doing in the slightest.

Patty Wetterling is a great example. She got the Amber Alert system in place by putting it in the public eye. The more in the public eye something is, the more likely the public is going to demand action and that something be done about it. If she's in it to cause a change in policy, then of course she wants press.

And she doesn't have to be anyone's pawn. I don't think she is. I think she's a Liberal and I think she's anti-war, but I don't think she's anyone's pawn. That is the equivalent of saying that because you believe in the war and you will write a blog in support of the war, you are a pawn of the president. Just because you believe something and agree with a movement does not make you that movement's pawn.

And for one second, could we please just admit that its possible that her son did not believe in the war in Iraq but agreed to go, anyway? It's not that difficult and doesn't change the validity of the policy. But our military is single-minded. Hell, look at Paul Hackett. As it is, it is not for anyone to question his motivations or beliefs, and as his mother, she ought know better than we. Can't it just be said that, we believe you, we understand, we stand by our policy?

Let's assume, arguendo, that she fervently believes the drivel she's been running off at the mouth with -- that the invasion of Iraq was part of some grand conspiracy to steal its oil wealth and give aid and comfort to Israel; that all the claims about WMD were completely manufactured; et cetera et cetera.

Does this make her whoring for the cameras any less disgraceful?

there is more insinuation and character assassination by implication in that post than I would have thought possible in so few sentences.

Were Terry Schiavo's parents media "whores"?  They used public attention to try and rally action around their cause.  This seems somewhat analogous.  While I was against the Congressional intereference in their case, I was sympathetic to their plight and never attacked them nor impugned their personal motivation.

Ms. Sheehan has a cause -- it stands to reason that she will use the media attention to further her cause.  This is hardly different than what any highly motivated activist would do for their issue regardless of their place on the political spectrum.

Is that a concept which is simply to obscure to fathom?  

Erick, you were pretty explicit:

"Cindy Sheehan returns entering stage right -- this time a left wing media whore in the form of a grieving mother."

Your apology amounts to "maybe it was innappropriate and anyway the left does it too!"

if you are able to formulate an apology for calling Mrs Sheehan a "left wing media whore" that does not entangle itself with what some leftist moonbat wrote in an email to you, then that would be redemptive. It's not as if no one on teh right has ever refrained from teh Hitler analogy with respect to Democrats or liberals, after all - and equally irrelevant.

VirginiaBelle;

Some very valid points, and well thought out. The only thing that would make me question whether or not her son was against the war in Iraq, is that he re-enlisted. Sadly, he died within days of his return, but my guess would be that since he had been there before and signed up again, he must have felt that we were doing the right thing. Especially considering that his own mother has a long history of anti-war activities. Ironic when you think about that. A woman who is anti-war and for nuclear disarmament, has a son who fights a war she opposes. Not just once, but twice.

....Yes, I'm sure it isn't possible that she just wants the troops out of Iraq. After all, there couldn't possibly be a noble motive in anyone who opposes this war.</snark&gt

Her son has given her a platform to stand on and be heard where otherwise she certainly wouldn't have had one. Having her son die gives her the license to use that platform if she so wishes. It's also possible that since she feels her son died in vain (whether warranted or not), this is a way to make sure that he didn't.

I apologize for the harassment you have recieved at your place of business.

That was in no way my intention when I posted. I stand by my post completely but that is out of bounds. God forbid that become a common practice. I have updated and urged that it stop.

Who gets an apology for this one?

I don't know what Casey Sheehan believed. But, he re enlisted for a reason. If he was anti-war, he could have not re enlisted, and joined his mom's anti war activities.

I'm just not sure that many soldiers re enlist to serve in a war they do not agree with.

Here is what turn my stomach about Cindy Sheehan. If you listen to the audio on Joe Trippi's website, you'll hear her agree with an Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schkowski that the noble cause Casey died for was his mother's pet anti war activities.

Now, as a mom myself, I was willing to cut Cindy plenty of slack to grieve in her own way ... until I heard the above.

Because it seems to me that your last duty to your child is to preserve their memory ... not USE their death as an excuse to get in front of TV cameras, and trying to pretend that's what your kid would have wanted you to do.

THere is something really offensive to basic decency about this whole sorry spectacle ...

Bush met with her once, and has given her answers. She just doesn't like the answers she got.

I do not see the purpose of him meeting with her again. Although, it might be constructive if Laura handled this one.

Unless she is getting paid for her media interviews, she is not a whore. She is more correctly a media slut.

that you got a laugh out of me on that one :)

somebody has to be paying for her to be down there.  Lord knows she's not going to work everyday.

But, thanks for clearing up the whore vs. slut debate.  I have to correct my brother on those two all the time.  :)

Were Terry Schiavo's parents media "whores"?  They used public attention to try and rally action around their cause.  This seems somewhat analogous.  While I was against the Congressional intereference in their case, I was sympathetic to their plight and never attacked them nor impugned their personal motivation.

Terry Schiavo's parents' indeed used the media, and political pressure, and every other route legally available to them. Their "cause", however,  was to try to keep their daughter alive.

This is nothing like the "cause" that Cindy Sheehan is espousing. As nearly as I can tell, her "cause" is the impeachment of George Bush, immediate surrender in Iraq, and the destruction of the nation of Israel. Her "cause", if she really achieved it, would mean the immediate death of thousands, if not millions, of people with whom she has no connection whatsoever. Terry Schiavo's parents, had they achieved theirs, would simply have prevented a single death, at least for a time. Is this really such a great parallel?

But I also have friends in the Marines who can't stand the war but consider the Marines their family and wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they didn't stand beside their fellow Marines. The point is we don't know.

I just think that arguing the individual facts of this case is dangerous grounds to be wading in. Even if Sheehan did change her mind, so what? I change my mind about most everything at least twice. I'm disillusioned with a lot of things, including the shoes I bought last week and the power of protesters to change public opinion (ironically enough). But you can't discount my opinions just because I used to believe something differently.

There's an argument to be made, but none of this is that argument. If anything should be argued, it should be the policy, not the individual. It's why, despite Cindy Sheehan's existence, the war is important. Why the war is worth fighting and why Casey did not die in vain, despite what she feels. This is all noise in the background blurring from that debate.

I did make several comments expressing my distaste with your original wording and its attack the messenger message.  I wasn't disagreeing with your right to take on the anti-war message itself.

I agree that you've experienced both some counter-vitriol and manufactured outrage from many anti-war partisans.  At the same time, one could suggest that your diary itself was part of this same dynamic, from the opposite perspective.

Amazing what happens when you take on a "lefty and/or righty" sacred cow.

Using the media to help your cause is something which anyone with a cause does.  It is how you bring attention to your cause.  Did it ever occur to you that she might believe in her cause?  I have heard her speak with deep emotion and passion about her son, and how she doesn't want other families to go through what she has for what she believes is no good reason.  Disgraceful is continuing to use such vile words to describe her.  She is someone who deserves respect, even in disagreement.

as being interested in saving lives of other sons and daughters.  I wasn't drawing an exact parallel only pointing out that people of strong convictions are LIKELY to use the media to their advantage in a debate if they have the werewithal to do so.

because I fail to see the relevance. What sacrifice for the nation have the targets of that particular site's ire made?

I think it's possible to disagree with Cindy Sheehan, and critique her agenda, without calling her a media whore. Apparently Erick agrees. I do not, however, think it is impossible to aplogize for calling her a media whore without invoking irrelevant examples of other people calling other people media whores. The prior usage of the term "media whore" by any entity leftwards of Rick Santorum (or leftwards of Ted Kennedy, for that matter) is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether an apology tha carries baggage of "the other side does it too" is really an apology or not.

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

And I don't think it detracts from my point. I think what she was saying is that there was a point if she can get the message across and stop the same thing from happening to others. Again, similar to Patty Wetterling, or What's-his-Name from America's Most Wanted.

However, I don't think it will bring closure or anything if she were to meet with Pres. Bush. It's symbolism at its finest. Which is why he should've met with her before it became a story. She probably would've continued to stay outside the Ranch because she wouldn't have liked the answers, but it wouldn't have been a story. Protests only work if they get coverage.

she has done nothing in her public life that merits respect.

Sent you an email to say thanks.  Yeah, we'll agree about this, but there is no reason people can't play nice.

Why, precisely, am I - or any other decent individual -  required to respect the opinions of a woman who believes that her son was killed, I quote, because of a "PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel"?  (Link)

I do look forward to seeing your answer, particularly since it will no doubt include a reason why I wouldn't be obligated to do the same for, say, Pat Buchanan, a member of Stormfront or anybody else making the same argument.

You may be new here, but you should check out some of the other liberal blogosphere and message boards.  If Erick had "responded in kind" poor Clayton would have had to sit all day long and try to reconstruct the MySQL database server after it exploded.  He's being very generous by apologizing.  What Erick said in that post was nothing.

If you disagree with her, then just disagree with her.  If she's wrong, say why she is wrong instead of lowering yourself to demeaning her personally.  She has sacrificed immensely for this country, so I think she deserves some latitude from the personal attacks.  Your link led to a site which asked if I was 18 to proceed.  Please link to a mainstream media account if you want me to read about something she said.

time you posted that link in this thread as a response. What is it supposed to mean?

i hardly think that bush getting called a nazi is comparable to calling cindy sheehan a media whore.  calling the president names is like a child being rough with a mastiff, some blows just don't register.however, to call out the attack dogs and go after a lone, private citizen and grieving mother to boot, is uncalled for.

she wants to know what exactly is the noble cause that her son died for.  there were no WMD.  iraq had no ties to 9/11.  saddam was an SOB.  there are lots of SOB's in the world, and we're only going after the one sitting on a pile of oil.  had her son been told he was going to risk his life for us to control the second largest supply of oil in the country, do you think he would have re-enlisted?  

the rationale for the war changed monthly as each old reason was proven false.  she has a right to confront the man who is so cavalier with the lives of our young.  

if the cause is so noble, why arent' recruiters being inundated with able bodied republicans?

I just conceded, for the purposes of the argument, that she believes in her cause. So can we move on from that?

Cindy Sheehan's fervent beliefs, whatever they are, are not in my view germane, except perhaps as evidence in a civil commitment proceeding. And, yes, I am perfectly aware that people with a cause routinely wave the bloody shirt to attract cameras. This doesn't make it any less ghoulish and despicable.

several of the quotes in it show incredible ignorance, and at least one quote

""America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.""

...would, I think, really bring her entire message into question.

"private citizen"

I think you just mean unelected, she has made herself a public figure. I leave the rest of it for someone else to tear apart your poor logic, it's just not worth it to me to bother refuting Known Facts that have been debunked before.

In reverse order:

1. The link was to a google newsgroup; beats the heck out of me why it was age-protected.  But if that's an issue, here's a Google cache to another site that has the text in question.
   
2. 'Sacrifice'?  Her son made his own choices, which she opposed to the level of her ability. He made a sacrifice - the ultimate one, in fact, and I regret that he had to.  She has suffered a loss.

3). And now she's using that loss to promote a conspiracy theory that claims that the complex geopolitical factors that made up the Gulf conflicts can be aptly summarized as It's All The Fault Of The Jews.  You can respect that viewpoint, if you like.  I shan't.

And I'm pretty much done talking about this.

She doesn't want other families to lose sons like she has.  Ghoulish and dispicable would be thinking her son's death was worth the media attention, but no doubt she would happily make the trade to have her son back and be anonymous.

but no doubt she would happily make the trade to have her son back and be anonymous.

Given what we have seen from this woman, color me dubious.

(And spare me manufactured outrage.)

That was outrageous and unsupported.

This woman has been gleefully parading herself in front of any camera or microphone pointed vaguely in her direction for about the past week. At the end of the month she'll be taking her show on the road. The word "shameless" barely begins to do the whole sorry spectacle justice.

And it's outrageous and unsupported to suspect she's a self-promoter, and that having made herself the centerpiece of this tableau, she might be a bit reluctant to return to anonymity, even if it meant her son would magically rise from the grave?

From the AP:  

"On Friday, she released a 60-second television ad running on cable channels in the Crawford area the rest of the month. The $15,000 cost was paid for by Gold Star Families, a group Sheehan founded."

Gee, cheap cable commercials.  Posts via Michael Moore's website.  As Bush passes by in his motorcade, holding up a sign saying "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?" so she can be sure to make the news (and ignoring the fact that Bush, his deputy chief of staff, and his national security advisor all have met with her.  There's no need for an apology.

The term seems right on the money.

-TS

sheesh.

Dude, the woman lost her son.  All she's asking for is an answer.  An answer, by the way, that would probably help change this number substantially.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

It's a shame that the right seems to only know how to attack. No one is actually arguing with her message, or her mission, they are just attacking her as a person.  

It doesn't help discourse, it doesn't help America.  

mk

""America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.""

The first sentence is just a simple fact in my opinion. Some of the killing was (is) necessary, some not.

The second sentence, "This country is not worth dying for".... I take "This country" to mean Iraq, not America. Taken in this context, I would agree.

It should not be up to America to bring democracy to the multitude of barbaric nations in this world. We should not be made a global police force.... This used to be a "conservative" value. The current administration has taken a valid need to defend against islamic extremism, and twisted it into an excuse for nation building in the middle east.

"Dude", you know very well that she is not not looking for "an answer": by her own admission, she is looking for an opportunity to publicly challenge the President on various talking points of the fringe left.

If no one is arguing with her message, it is only because her message -- no blood for oil, no American imperialism, free Palestine, blah blah blah -- is so far around the bend that it is unworthy of serious response.

Sorry, I hadn't heard her say any of those things.  Please link to what you are referring to.  

I'm pretty sure you are putting words in her mouth, but I will back down if you can show me what you are talking about.

You say challenge, I say question.  They are the same thing.  

She is looking for an answer.

One that I wouldn't mind hearing, but I don't have a dead son, so I don't have a right to demand.

mk

We can not have a discussion of the Middle East if criticizing the policies of Israel becomes It's All The Fault Of The Jews.  Palestinians have been conducting acts of terrorism against Israel for decades, but nobody doubts that there can be no peace between Israel and Palestine without substantial Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza.  Laying fault is utterly irrelevant when describing what a final peaceful outcome would be.

Go here.

Read. Admire. Particularly the bit about how her son was "killed for lies and for a PNAC neo-con agenda to benefit Israel".

Then go here, and savor Ms. Sheehan's rants about how we'd all be living in a fascist state but for the Internet, and how her son was killed for oil and American imperialism, and how we'll only stop terrorism by getting the U.S. out of the Middle East and Israel out of Palestine.

This isn't about her getting a chance to ask the President some measured questions -- an opportunity she's had once before, I might note. She's a moonbat. She wants to confront the President with her moonbattery. That's not going to happen. So instead she plays up her status as a grieving mother, and poof, cameras, controversy.

It's despicable.

I've posted a few replies without noticing this Erick... I appreciate the correction.

I accept the clarification, personally, by which you and trevino make the distinction that it's the metaphorical "whore" of the media not a literal "whore" or even a metaphorical sexual comment.

Especially since you also agree that even "media whore" did not help your point nor really allow it to be more succinct.  Indeed, it brings in far too many stray points.

I appreciate your clarification.  Of course this doesn't change our positions, but it's tiny step to a more civil disagreement.  While one tiny step does not get us all actually to the point of civil disagreement, you have done your part and I credit you for that.

I stand corrected.

I will, however, say that attacking a grieving mother personally is not doing your side much good in the public eye.  Most of America is growing skeptical of the war.  We are looking for answers.  OK, a neo-con pro-israel conspiracy sounds pretty out there, but we haven't heard a convincing reason from the Whitehouse since their original reasons were proved false.  So Sheehan's nonsense makes about as much sense as anything right now.

No, I don't believe the conspiracy theory.  I'm just saying, explaining to us why we are there might be more productive than calling a grieving mother names.  

Or, if you will REMINDING us why we are there.  Since I'm sure you will tell me something I have heard before.  Just any intelligent response would be better than trashing this poor, clearly distraught woman.  You people just look like savages.  It's kind of scary, honestly.  

mk

Oh, she'd care about other families as long as they supported her side of the leftist cess pool.

If they happened to utter a sylable of support for the President who "murdered her son", she suddenly becomes much less compasinate and caring about their offspring.

Someone who hangs out consistently with Lynne Stewart, who openly asks if the insurgents should be supported, doesn't really care about other military families.

we're there because the Congress of the United States, including many of your leftist heroes used the same basis for a war authorization that Bill Clinton used in 1998.

The difference is that Bush deicided to put feet to action after seeing the region of the world that brought trade-center jumpers (briefly) to our television screens

Grieving mothers grieve in private for a time; this is beyond grief, it's a show.

Grieving mothers don't kneel to a makeshift fake cross every time a camera gets near even though they just did five minutes earlier.

The media reports "she just wants a meeting" adnauseam without acknowledging that she's already had one.

True "savages" are people who stand masked before a camera and saw a person's head off...the hyperbole from your side isn't doing anything to contributing to a real debate on this either.

Shifting the blame to Clinton doesn't make the war ok.  No one said I liked Clinton.  No one said I like the people you are calling my "Leftist Heroes."  You are making assumptions about me that simply are unfounded.  And shifting the blame to these lefties only cements in my mind that this war is wrong and now you right wingers are looking for a scapegoat.

Now I have a sense of your world view.  You are the guy who likes to put the whole world into easy to understand categories;

Kavalier doesn't like the war/defends Sheehan = he is a bleeding heart, Clinton loving liberal.

Grief = private sadness for a limited period of time.

Cross = who knows.  I don't know what a  "fake cross" is.

Dude (and I mean that in a friendly way), the world is a complicated place.  There are many different people who don't like the war.   There are many different ways to grieve, and you have no right or evidence that she is doing anything but grieving, so in the absense of such evidence, I'm telling you, you guys seem like savages.  

As for your definition of meeting... Please.  That wasn't a meeting.  Meetings involve an exchange of words and ideas.  

mk

But I'll stand by it.

It was more a distraction from my main point.  My main point is, you righties should not attack people personally.  It really damages intelligent discourse in America.  Attack ideas, issues.  Attack what she is saying.  

When I asked (for her) why we are at war, you responded by telling me a bunch stuff about legislative process and defunct intelligence.  That isn't an answer.  You were attacking me (or you thought you were.  I'm clearly not what you think I am).  

If you have a real answer, give it.  The personal attacks are just grotesque.

mk

I never said a thing about blaming this war on Clinton.

Not finding a terrorist leader in your own country because of legal political correctness?...now there's another topic.

It was a joint resolution of Congress that continues to be funded by the majority of the Congress.

Our President met with her for as long as any other family that has had a hero fall.

She doesn't deserve another minute of his time just because she's gotten more public in her protests.

My world view is that America is the single greatest experience in a representative republic that has ever visited this earth.

If our government would concentrate on keeping out people who have gotten here legally, killing people who only want to kill us because of who we are and allowing us to make the same individual decisions about our finances and future, it would be much better.

My bottom line is that while we continue to have a force of presence in Iraq and Afganistan we drive the terrorists to an area we control with superior firepower and kill them there and not have them walk into a Walmart or Costco here in the states.

Well,  I don't disagree with much of what you said.  I am skeptical as to whether our strategy is making our Walmarts safer.  

The one point I do disagree with is the amount of time Sheehan gets with the president.    I think as long as I am paying that guy to be president, he should be working.  If he weren't on a Five week vacation, I might agree with you.  He has better, more important things to do.  But come on.  Meet with the lady, settle her down, address her concerns.

In short.  BE A LEADER.  

the location of the President does not indicate vacation.  He's taking five weeks away from the White House, coinciding with the Congress's August recess, but he's not in Martha's Vineyard (where our former President took his time away).

Roosevelt spent much time away from Washington in Georgia and it was never characterized as a vacation.

This woman is beyond settling down with being heard.  

She has aligned herself with the most vocal, most strident leftist idealists in this country and no amount of face time or "hearing" would satisfy her.

If Bush met with her the story would suddenly turn to "President ignores widow pleas in a meeting to leave Iraq".

Do you think the relatives of the Corregidor pennisula had a grief against Roosevelt for leaving them to face the Bataan Death march?

Absolutely.

We are at war.  We are not at war with a nation but with a moving target.

Right now the largest presence of that target is in Iraq.  I wish the Iraqi people would stand up more quickly but it has been 3 generations since they've known anything resembling freedom.

Our President has said this will be a different type of war and apparently some never heard that line.

There is no pretty picture to Iraq right now, it is an emerging new government painfully slow in taking shape.

Absolutely not. "Media Whore" fits her about as much as it does Chucky Schumer.

BTW, why is she blaming Bush for killing her son, while sucking up to Code Pink who gave $600,000 to "the other side"?

A half assed response full of redundant talking points, but at least you stopped attacking the woman.  

We probably shouldn't get into a fight about the war, because that is probably pointless.  Personally, I don't understand why you and the Pres think Terrorists can't multitask, or why you would keep toading the "fight them there and not here" line after the London bombings, but whatever.  

We're going to Oklahoma! And Arkansas! And Ohio! And Michigan! And then we're going to Washington and take this country back!

I think I know where she picked up this shtick. Yeeearghhhhhhhhh!

First, you may have noticed the absolutely huge "no profanity" banner above the subject field there. If you didn't, notice it now. This is your only warning.

Second, the President already took time out of his schedule to meet with this woman personally. This honor is not a constitutional right, and is not one that every parent of a slain soldier gets.

Now, she is camped out with a bunch of lunatic conspiracy-theorists demanding yet another meeting with the President. Despite the fact that he again personally addressed her and the question of whether we would leave Iraq in a press conference.

We live in a country with 300 million people. I've never met a single President. I've seen exactly one in person (Reagan). Nobody has the right to demand a personal audience with the President any time they get something stuck in their craw, and the President should NOT legitimize this kind of behavior.

"We can not have a discussion of the Middle East if criticizing the policies of Israel becomes It's All The Fault Of The Jews.  "

...is that she is doing precisely the opposite; she is using It's All The Fault of The Jews for her primary argument for what's going on in the Middle East.  

Look, CA Pol Junkie, you always seemed like a decent enough sort (polite to me, at least), so I'm not going to scream at you now.  But I will not respect this woman's opinions.  If you have a problem with that, it's your problem, not mine.

Good-bye.

Back to insulting the woman instead of the message.  Oh well.

What profanity?

Seriously, I don't know what you're talking about.

It's in the very first line of your post!

garbage like "no war for oil" and "the terrorism would stop if Israel left Palestine" I really don't see the need to expend the effort.

Go back and read your post again c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.

That counts as profanity on this site?  

The word refers to donkey, in addition to being a euphemism for a body part.  

Especially the way I used it, ONLY refers to a donkey.  It wouldn't make any sense to say half- the way you seem to think I meant it.  It refers to a half hearted act of labor.  Donkeys are beasts of burden.

If something is half- the way I said it, it refers to a half hearted attempt at labor.

So, sorry to offend, I won't use the term again, but by no definition was I being profane.  

mk

We're prudes. Life is hard. Thanks for agreeing to the rules.

Great website.  Very easy to do searches.  

The word in question appears 20 times on various active threads on your board.  It is NEVER criticized except in this one case.  I think you all are being prejudiced because I disagree with you on the war.  

This is my first day posting here, and it is clear to me now that you are hostile towards outsiders.  

I thought this was supposed to be where the rational, open minded right wingers go, where I could have intelligent conversation, but instead I get jumped on for using a word used all the time on TV and radio AND your very own board.

-Very Saddened

mk

You're cool.  I'll stay.

you allow language like this:

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/7/24/15168/5198/54#54

??

Why pick on me?

I assure you that if that is so, it is due to oversight, rather than bias. I do try, but it is simply impossible to monitor the comments here 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I know for a fact, however, that I have warned and/or banned folks for using that word before, so your contention that it is never challenged is false.

If you will point out said comments to me, I will be happy to rectify the situation.

P. S. Any comments by a guy named "Krempasky" are exempt, being that he runs the place.

So, this is a wonderfully ironic post on your part.

The commenter you reference got sent to The Pile™ shortly after that comment. The only reason that you don't see a response to that comment on here is because he also took the liberty of e-mailing all the editors a profanity-laden tirade directly as well, and so his banning was mostly silent, as far as the site goes.

So, the guy who runs the place is exempt from the rules?  

Hm.  You can see how this might seem...  y'know.  odd.

Hey, Leon,

I just want to take a moment to point out that you, a man in authority, quickly and completely responded to my concern.  You reassured me.  You were nice.  You showed leadership and restraint.

I think Bush could learn from you.

mk

But I'll just say that he tries. Hard.

When you put the effort into the cause that Mike has, you can build your own blog and have double-standards like that, too.

And flattering me won't help you, there.

Bush already did that for this woman. Now she's demanding that he allow himself be screamed at by someone who admittedly hates him.

That's not asking for leadership, it's asking for masochism.

I agree that no one should be forced to be yelled at.

But her questions represent the questions of many Americans.  I would think a strong leader would issue a strong statement publically with a clear explanation.  

Like you did (sorry, I know Flattery!).

mk

What Bush already did:

``I grieve for every death,'' Bush said as Cindy Sheehan remained camped out about five miles away. For six days she has been demanding Bush meet with her about her son, Casey Austin Sheehan, an Army specialist killed in combat in Baghdad in April 2004.

``It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one. I understand the anguish that some feel about the death that takes place,'' Bush said.

But, he added, ``pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy.''

Sorry if you don't like his speaking style.

His style is fine.  I just don't hear any answers to the legitimate questions in those quotes.  I believe that he feels their pain.  I agree that removing the troops is a bad move.

That doesn't answer the questions of what we hope to gain now that the WMD theory is gone, the connection to Osama is gone, and the fight them there not here theory has proved defunct.  

I'm not saying that there isn't an answer, I just haven't heard it articulated.  And I think a good leader would remind us why we are there.  

The support for the war is dropping drastically.  I'm not happy about that. But it does indicate that he is failing as a leader to explain why so many of our sons and daughters are dying.

Leon,

Thank you so much for engaging me.  This has been a good learning experience, and eye opening.  I really want to start communicating with people who disagree with me and try to understand their POV.  I am way to isolated in my ivory tower existence.  

I'm sorry about the profanity.  I hope you understand that ill intent was far from my mind.  I would appreciate it if you removed my warning simply because I am concerned that I don't know what is defined as profanity here.  I read the rules, but honestly, I had no doubts about that use of that word.  I was wrong I understand.  I won't do it again.  but clearly the line is fuzzy.  If you don't remove my warning, I understand that as well, but hope you consider.

With that, I go to bed.  Thank all again for engaging me.  This site rocks.  

I don't mean to be snide, but the question the woman is demanding an answer to is, "Why did Bush kill my son?"

That will be hard for him to answer, given that Iraqi terrorists killed her son.

She does not want an honest answer to a question - she wants a national platform to oppose the war, and the media is happy to give it to her. It's frankly incredible that she's acting stunned and hurt at the pushback, given that she courted the attention in the first place.

And, FWIW, I wish Reagan was still President, too.

So Sheehan's nonsense makes about as much sense as anything right now.

Oooo-kay.

It is clear that Cindy Sheehan believes in heart that the President lied to the congress and the American people about the reasons we went into Iraq. I happen to agree with her. A patriot is one that I willing to put ones life on the line for their country. A patriot speaks truth to power. I believe she is doing that just the same as I did in my 19 months in Vietnam. She is willing to have her name dragged through the mud to just get one answer from our President to just one Question. For what reason did my son die in Iraq? I vigorously supported going to Afghanistan and capturing Osama Ben Laden. I wish we had done the job. It is an outrage that he is still on the loose.

       We can succeed in Iraq. All we have to do is do what Saddam did. Create a reign of terror. We have so far have not reduced ourselves to that level, thank God. Otherwise, look how long the Irish have been fighting the English? Look at the French and our history in Vietnam. Look at China, Algeria, Chechnya today etc. When you invade another mans land it does not matter what your version of Democracy you wish to impose upon the inhabitants of that land for there will be those who fight you to the death for their own version. After all it is their country. We spent 700 billion dollars, spent a decade, had 550,000 troops on the ground and lost 58,000 of my brothers on the same reasoning that the President stated today. Bring Democracy to Iraq. Bring Democracy to Vietnam. How much treasure, lives and wounded and mother's pain is it going to take before we lose our arrogance that we know what's best for some else's country?

      It is not about 15 minutes of fame. It is about standing up for the truth. Cindy Sheehan is a patriot who is speaking truth to power.

You can be glad that I'm not an editor.  At my house the words dang and gosh are forbidden.  IMO, they are too close to the "wash your mouth out with soap" words.  As far as I'm concerned, if I have to wait until the last letter to know if you're swearing, you're too close.

Appropriate exclamatory phrases are restricted to:  Goodness Gracious, Oh Dear, Bless Pete, Thunder, etc.

is the wrong question at this point.  While there still may be light at the end of the tunnel in terms of ME reform, it seems a very faint light in a very long tunnel.  The proper question now, IMO, is what disaster we hope to avoid.

Patty Wetterling's son was not an adult soldier who re-enlisted in the military and knew what might happen to him. She also did not go out and call people fascists or make anti-Semite comments to further her cause. She did not say extremely offensive things to our president and  our soldiers. She saw a need and preformed an undeniably positive good. With all due respect to her situation, Mrs. Sheehan's comments were extremely offensive and way out of left field. When I hear her talking, I hear Michael Moore.

Not that I don't think a little more compassion toward her could be good, but I stand by Erick's tone and words. Her comments, and the arena and tone they were made in, imply something more than grieving.

"Media whore" if extreme, is definitely applicable. Quoting Barry Goldwater "It takes an extreme to prove a point"

Change this

"Not that I don't think a little more compassion toward her could be good"

To this:

Now I do think Erick could have phrased things a little better, etc...

"Profanity is not tolerated."

That's one of the reasons I liked this site.

But this post crossed that line.  I noticed up thread someone got slapped for saying half-** (half a donkey).  But the op can use the word whore all he wants, apparantly.  Whore, whore, whore.  

This'll probably be my last post here, as this place is currently rushing toward Little Green Footballs land and freeperville as the domain of the whining and the gnashing of the teeth of the empowered and enfranchised elite.

I really thought this site was a cut above.  I thought I'd found the intelligent conservative community.  But I'm sadly going to have to look elsewhere.  This has become in the last couple of months like the toilet-end of Daily Kos, filled with nothing but angry rants.

Attacking, really just rabidly ranting and calling your critics media whores is utter garbage, and it totally destroys your own argument.  As was the totally mistaken slamming of Hackett that another poster had to retract.  Then there was last weeks post accusing Frist (and, btw over half of Republicans) as being "pro slicing and dicing of babys" because they don't think that blastocysts should be thrown away when they can save lives.  Way to put a very subtle, fine point on your argument.  Sophists.

You're not winning the arguments.

But the problem is, you're not winning the arguments because you refuse to argue on the merits.  You poison the well almost before you open your mouth.

I have a family member who does that all the time at family gatherings.  The tactic is a verbal flash-bang grenade.  He says something so outrageous, so far over every line of political fairness or decent discourse that you either have to fight him on it, or bite your tongue.  If you don't want the family gathering to be ruined by a fight, you stay silent and let him say his one awful thing, and then silently stew.  And it emboldens him.  He "wins" the argument because nobody calls him on it.  So he does it all the time.  He'll thow in doozys like "black people are so gullible and stupid, they always back democrats."  And watch out as everyone in the room bites their tongue and walks over to the cheese dip, not wanting to turn the party into an episode of crossfire.

Well, you folks who like redstate that way, just lost me.  Someone who would say what he feels about calling someone a media whore just because you disagree with what she's saying, and she happens to be saying it in the media.  I'm calling you on this, because I can't stand it when people poison the debate.  And there's been a lot of garbage like that on Red State in the last month or so.

Red State used to be a site which I read because the writers were SMARTER than me.  What the heck happened?  Who opened the floodgates and let rants run on page one?  Who said that attacks on personality were the way to go, and not attacks on arguments?  Now you're whining about how you get hate email.  What the heck is this site, Atrios?  Get a vanity blog, Erik.  Make Red State about SOMETHING other than yourself!

Anyway, I write these words in hopes that those sticking around might benefit.  Not likely.

Have fun on your road toward being the right wing equivalent of Michael Moore.com.

Utter garbage.  Sorry to leave.  I fully expect to get lots of good riddances.  If you post "good riddance" this post was not meant for you.  It's plainly obvious your a person who likes to wrestle in the filth that the "media whore" comment wallows in.  I've walked away, because I have no desire to stick around while posters like erik spew filth, and ad-homs, and when someone say's it's below the belt, you just say tu quoque.

Yes, the left does it too.  Garbage in, garbage out.

Enjoy the new redstate.org.  All Hannity, all the time.

a site that actually has debate may be too much for your sensitive sensibilities.

Your argument is a weak defense of a statement that is well beyond the pale.

I have a first amendment right to express my views as does she.  I respect her right to express  herself, however, I do not agree at all with her.  

This is nothing but a trap the lefties are trying to lay for us by trying to portray us as offensive, mean-spirited or whatever.

I've been harrassed and scremed at by my liberal butjob colleagues at work and at home.  I see how easy it is for them to smear real Americans who try to bring up a contrary point to Sheheen and her roving band of turds down in Crawford.

If there is a definition of a culture war, this is it!  Wake up before it is too late.

I suppose mothers and wives, etc. should keep quiet and mourn in private.  They should not go public with their loss.  That is part of the problem with this war:  the lack of sacrifice by the majority of Americans.  Let's see, the rich get tax breaks, the middle class gets what?  The poor must enlist and die in a insane war to get the education they could not afford.  So only one small group is paying the price of this war and it is the families of our servicemen.  And this my friend is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Our prez spends his time living his life on vacation while he commits others to death in Iraq.  

And I hate the ones who can't even be imaginative more.

Bye.

this dead horse that has been repeatedly talked about in RS threads, Cindy Sheehan opened herself up to criticism the moment she chose to speak out publically on her beliefs.  If she speaks, why do others not given the freedom to put forth their opinions?  Hmmmm?  As another member here put it so succinctly  "she has used her son's coffin as a podium, and took the flag that was draped on it and wrapped it around herself to shield herself from criticism".  Get over it.

And I am.

You aren't against those words enough not to use them in public.  Way to set the bar.

Rush Limbaugh said that Sheehan was Bill Burkett, but I say that she is more like Terry Shiavo.  The right used the helpless and debilitated Terry Shiavo and maligned her husband against his wishes, and against the stated will of Terri Shiavo, to further their own agenda.  They preyed on someone who could not even tell them if she wanted them to intervene or not, and all the evidence points to the fact that she did not.

Cindy Sheehan started a crusade on her own paid for by herself and was later joined by like-minded groups who received her enthusiastic support.  

It could be argued that both women were/are "being used" by interest groups with ulterior motives, but at least Sheehan was alert and gave consent to said usage.  The same cannot be said for Shiavo and the right.

"Cindy Sheehan started a crusade on her own paid for by herself and was later joined by like-minded groups who received her enthusiastic support."  

Get a grip-

She's financing it with her dead son's government life insurance.

against the stated will of Terri Shiavo

No one knows what that was. There was conflicting testimony.

all the evidence points to the fact that she did not

That is for sure a falsehood.

You are welcome to state your opinions, and to back them up with facts. What you can't do is back them up with Known Facts™, which are simply talking points masquerading as facts.

Doing a bunch of that will get you the boot. Consider this your one warning.

I am only stating the conclusion of every single court to look at the case, including the federal court mandated by the bill passed by congress specifically for this case.  Every single court found that there was enough evidence to support her husband's claim that she would not have wanted to remain alive in that condition.  

So, when you say that I am not entitled to my own facts, you'd better be sure that you have the facts yourself.

The stuff you people choose to argue about is just silly.  First, the claim is that her effort was financed by 3rd party groups, then when that is debunked, you claim that its somehow inappropriate for her to spend the money that she got from the government in a way that she sees fit.  Geeze, its her dang money, she can spend it however she wants.  

Since when has any republican been opposed to letting people do what they want with their own money?  what kind of republican are you?

"Geeze, its her dang money, she can spend it however she wants."

No argument from me here.  Let's just be clear on where that money came from though.

Just one more example of her using her dead son and his government life insurance to help promote her pathetic little cause.  

...is none of anyone's business.  What the heck do any of us know about cindy Sheehan's personal finances.  no one really knows what she is doing with the money she gets from the government, do we?  We know that she got the same ammount given to every fallen soldier's family, but beyond that, we do not know exactly what she is doing with it.  What if she was independently wealthy and just put the money from the government in the bank next to her other money.  Would anyone be saying "lets just be clear where the money comes from" in that case?  I think not.

Since you want to know where the money comes from, do you propose that there be a law that requires all protesters to file a statement with the government listing all their sources of income?  

Again, this is not a very republican sentiment.  Most of the republicans I know are for "smaller government" and for government staying off of people's backs.  I believe that Ronald Reagan said something about that.