He lied, and they died.

[HomerJSimpson]

Even if you don't agree with the reasoning, you've got to admit it is a great sound bite.

[Pumpy Tudors]

What are you talking about?

[HomerJSimpson]

What are you talking about?


That's the refrain of the mother's who have lost son's in Iraq, and are now protesting the president. I just heard three or for saying that, and couldn't help but think that was a catchy sound-bite.

[Easy Mac]

I don't like the soundbite, and Im against the war.

[Anthony]

sounds like something Johnny Cochrane would say. i don't like it.

"If the beans ain't spilled, more will be killed".

[ThunderingHERD]

Who is she going to blame her mother's stroke on?

[Dutch]

Who is she going to blame her mother's stroke on?

She's already cleared Al Qaeda and Ted Kennedy of any wrong-doing. Whew...

[dawgfan]

Catchy, but like nearly every soundbite, hopelessly oversimplified and thus disingenuous.

[Joe]

dumb

[MJ4H]

I think I will choose to grow up on a different planet next time.

[Schmidty]

Mother's Against Elvis's Chefs:

They fried and He died.

[HomerJSimpson]

Mother's Against Elvis's Chef's:

They fried and He died.


Classic.

[panerd]

I was looking forward to Bill Mahar's show returning tonight, but after checking the listings and seeing this woman is going to be on I may take a pass. Like Easy Mac said there is plenty of stuff that I don't like about the war, but this lady is ridiculous. It's not like her son was drafted into this war and it's not like Bush ignored her when her son was killed.

I think Real Time with Bill Mahar can be really funny sometimes when Mahar does more of his anti-religion and "Let's save the children!" jokes, but something tells me this nutjob woman is going to do a lot of whining and get a lot of cheers from the typically far left studio audience.

[Galaxy]

Aren't other military moms stepping out against her?

[HomerJSimpson]

Aren't other military moms stepping out against her?


Yes, and many joining her.

BTW, please don't think I support her because I started this thread (I think she is a nut). This has nothing to do with their cause, but more the jingo-istic statement caught my ear tonight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

BTW, please don't think I support her because I started this thread (I think she is a nut).

Then why even dignify her idiocy by giving this publicity hound whack-job even the most insignificant amount of what she craves?

{I ain't mad at you for it HJS, I just don't understand the logic here).

[chinaski]

Then why even dignify her idiocy by giving this publicity hound whack-job even the most insignificant amount of what she craves?

{I ain't mad at you for it HJS, I just don't understand the logic here).
you do realize shes been at this for over a year with zero publicity from the MSM until she went to Crawford? Have your son killed for no reason and then come back here and tell us youre sane.

[Anthony]

i don't understand how someone who has paid the ultimate price for their country - having their son/daughter die in a (senseless and unnecessary?) war - could be viewed as being an idiot and loony. from where i stand, it seems like a good case can be made that many did not have to die. we arguably went there under false pretenses, and what worse way to lose a child than for a lost cause?

Jon, or anyone else who wants to knock this lady - you can throw your rocks at her when your child dies in a war. the way i see it, unless your child has died or you yourself have served in a war no one has the right to bash this lady. at the end of the day she's made more of a sacrifice than you have, so you can sit in the comfort of your desk tap tapping away at your keyboards making fun of people.

she's paid the ultimate price for your freedom. regarding Iraq - our freedom wasn't ever in jeopardy and ultimately since no WMD's were found...neither was our safety. so i can see where the pointlessness of it all compounds her grief.

i may not see eye to eye with you jon, but even i don't wish the same fate on your kid(s) that her's faced.

[JonInMiddleGA]

i don't understand how someone who has paid the ultimate price for their country - having their son/daughter die in a (senseless and unnecessary?) war - could be viewed as being an idiot and loony. from where i stand, it seems like a good case can be made that many did not have to die. we arguably went there under false pretenses, and what worse way to lose a child than for a lost cause?

The only way it's a "lost cause" HA is if we don't have the wisdom or courage to finish the job ... ALL of the job, not just a phase of it.

And I believe I've got as much right to judge her actions as she does to judge those of the President, or the military. I'm sure as hell a lot closer to her situation than she is to theirs.

... so you can sit in the comfort of your desk tap tapping away at your keyboards making fun of people.

Hey, if she'd like to drop by & spout off about matters that are clearly above her intellectual ability to judge properly, she can have at it -- I'll be happy to tell her to fuck off personally, but I'm not going to waste the money or energy to fly my ass to Texas to do it.

she's paid the ultimate price for your freedom.

Sorry HA, but I have to call bullshit on that statement, because that's exactly what I see -- her son paid it, but she didn't.

but even i don't wish the same fate on your kid(s) that her's faced.

And I don't/didn't wish it on hers either, I don't like losing anybody in uniform.
But sometimes its neccessary, that's a fact of war. That doesn't make it any less of a loss, but that's still a fact.

[Dutch]

It's just dirty politics. Let's get a soldier's mom to stand behind while we argue politics. And when people try to defend the fight against terrorism in Iraq, they say, "How dare you argue when this lady lost her son! Oh, and stop stealing Iraqi Oil, and no WMD's equals a peace loving Saddam Hussein."

It's all just partisan bullshit. Nothing unusual. The only difference, of course, is I believe this lady's son did not die in vain.

Afterall, I doubt he was hit by a bus, I'm pretty sure a terrorist killed him. That's going to happen when you are fighting terrorists. God bless him.

[Anthony]

i guess. i feel bad for her nonetheless. if she has ulterior motives and her public display is just grandstanding for whatever reason, i still feel bad. no one should have to bury their offspring. i just get miffed when people act so flippant about this woman who lost her son, just cuz it's a war and death is to be expected doesn't diminish her loss nonetheless.

the only thing that bothers me regarding families who want an answer from Bush is that he hasn't admitted any wrongdoing/errors/misjudgement to the press or high officials, they expect him to confess it was all a mistake to them?

[dawgfan]

the only thing that bothers me regarding families who want an answer from Bush is that he hasn't admitted any wrongdoing/errors/misjudgement to the press or high officials, they expect him to confess it was all a mistake to them?

See that's the thing - I have no love for Bush and I didn't support going to war at the time we did (though I think now that we're there it would be worse to withdraw before the Iraqi's are ready to handle their own security), but this protest rubs me the wrong way. She doesn't actually want any answers because she knows she won't get them, at least not any better ones than she got the first time she met with Bush. This is political grandstanding. I sympathize with her loss, and I understand her opposition to the war due to the terrible cost it's put on her and her family, but I'd feel less bothered by it if she'd drop the pretense of wanting to meet with Bush again as though he owes it to her, and have her simply lend her name to the "bring-home-the-troops" cause and be a spokesperson for it.

The demand for a meeting with the President after she's already had one is for me what diminishes her cause.

[Anthony]

a-ha...i wasn't aware that she met him already. that casts things in a different light. i thought she was just a poor mother of a deceased soldier who wanted some closure with the President.

i still feel bad for her loss, but i can see what all the fuss is about now.

[chinaski]

ive been really hard on Cindy this whole time while talking with my girlfreind. I fully believe GW has no obligation in any form to meet with her. I think its beyond stupid to think just because you lost your son in a war, regardless of the circumstances, that youre allowed to meet with the president. especially when its fully clear youre against the war and nothing fruitfull could ever come from this meeting. once you sign that paper, youve signed your life away and you and your family should accept that. You dont get to say, "Hey! you werent president when i signed up!".

but, in the same respect, I feel her pain. it pains me too no end when i hear of a soldier getting killed, because in my heart i believe they died fighting in the least honorable military action this country has ever deployed. I cant imagine how i would feel if my son was killed... and then compound that tragedy with the so called reasons he was sent off to fight; i cant even say what id do.

[chinaski]

a-ha...i wasn't aware that she met him already. that casts things in a different light. i thought she was just a poor mother of a deceased soldier who wanted some closure with the President.

i still feel bad for her loss, but i can see what all the fuss is about now.
She didnt meet with him. She has talked repeatedly of that 'meeting' and it was nothing of the sort. She was in a group of 17 other families (50+ people), who all met with Bush, at the same time for 10 minutes. No face time, nothing. He came in, said how sorry he was, and left. thats it.

[HomerJSimpson]

Then why even dignify her idiocy by giving this publicity hound whack-job even the most insignificant amount of what she craves?

{I ain't mad at you for it HJS, I just don't understand the logic here).


Nothing deeper than an impulse thing. I was watching the news, and there were several ladies that were leaving for Crawford, and they all said the same line. It caught me as.. well.. not funny, but catchy, so I felt like typing it out. Nothing more than that. I do wonder if it will be one of those phrase that catch on and we'll hear for awhile, and even if it is short and pithy enough that it sticks and makes a difference.

Anyway, carry on.

[chinaski]

My favorite.... Who Would Jesus Bomb?

[HomerJSimpson]

My favorite.... Who Would Jesus Bomb?


That one is pretty good, too, but to up-front offensive to some to be affective.

[dawgfan]

She didnt meet with him. She has talked repeatedly of that 'meeting' and it was nothing of the sort. She was in a group of 17 other families (50+ people), who all met with Bush, at the same time for 10 minutes. No face time, nothing. He came in, said how sorry he was, and left. thats it.

And why exactly does she deserve any more than that?

[flere-imsaho]

Who is she going to blame her mother's stroke on?

this nutjob woman

why even dignify her idiocy

if she'd like to drop by & spout off about matters that are clearly above her intellectual ability to judge properly

There are no words to express what I feel when I read these kind of statements.


This is political grandstanding. I sympathize with her loss, and I understand her opposition to the war due to the terrible cost it's put on her and her family, but I'd feel less bothered by it if she'd drop the pretense of wanting to meet with Bush again as though he owes it to her, and have her simply lend her name to the "bring-home-the-troops" cause and be a spokesperson for it.


Of course it's political grandstanding. And you know how the Bush Admin got us to go to war in Iraq? Yes, political grandstanding.

I would be absolutely thrilled if this country could sit down and have a reasonable debate about the Iraq War and the War on Terror. But just take a minute to look/read the pro-war zealots on Fox, Rush Limbaugh, at the National Review, etc... and they're pumping up the imagery, using the "scare" words, using inflammatory language, and engaging in every trick in the book to advance their own agenda. Like it or not, this is what passes for political discourse in this country, these days.

The reactions of those above show that Cindy Sheehan is engaging the pro-war zealots on their own ground.

[Gary Gorski]

It's not like her son was drafted into this war

The fact that people seem to ignore this fact is what annoys me the most about this lady and the people protesting with her. I feel horrible for her and her family - it is a tragedy that the young life of her son and many others has been lost in this war but at the same time the people who are serving did sign up voluntarily for the service.

I mean its not like the military is some pyramid scheme - you know when you sign up that you are signing up to serve our country in any place in the world at any time. I do believe the president before the current one sent troops all over the world as well. Its not like people in the military have been doing nothing since the previous Bush administration. Anyone who bravely and courageously signed up to serve our country should know that there is a chance they will be called to serve in action and that once they sign up they are turning their lives over to our country for the duration of their service.

Whether you believe in the war or not the brave men and women in the service deserve better than to be used as political pawns so people can get in the news and on TV. The men and women in the service may not be in Iraq by choice but they freely enlisted and are doing what they knew they might have to do someday by serving in active combat for our country. All of them are heroes and when any of them die its a tragedy - can't we at least let them rest in peace with the dignity and honor of dying for our country rather than turning their death into a reason for a media circus?

[Arles]

She didnt meet with him. She has talked repeatedly of that 'meeting' and it was nothing of the sort. She was in a group of 17 other families (50+ people), who all met with Bush, at the same time for 10 minutes. No face time, nothing. He came in, said how sorry he was, and left. thats it.
.

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. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

"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.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

"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."

The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.

For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.

"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."

The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

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

[cougarfreak]

ive been really hard on Cindy this whole time while talking with my girlfreind. I fully believe GW has no obligation in any form to meet with her. I think its beyond stupid to think just because you lost your son in a war, regardless of the circumstances, that youre allowed to meet with the president. especially when its fully clear youre against the war and nothing fruitfull could ever come from this meeting. once you sign that paper, youve signed your life away and you and your family should accept that. You dont get to say, "Hey! you werent president when i signed up!".

but, in the same respect, I feel her pain. it pains me too no end when i hear of a soldier getting killed, because in my heart i believe they died fighting in the least honorable military action this country has ever deployed. I cant imagine how i would feel if my son was killed... and then compound that tragedy with the so called reasons he was sent off to fight; i cant even say what id do.

So once you "sign the paper, you sign your life away"? I don't agree with that at all. Most don't join thinking they will die, there are plenty of ways to serve your country in the military and not die in the process. I think most that sign up would hope that IF a President takes them to war, there will be just cause, AND proper planning. Not sure if either was present in our current situation.

[Arles]

So once you "sign the paper, you sign your life away"? I don't agree with that at all. Most don't join thinking they will die, there are plenty of ways to serve your country in the military and not die in the process.
I'd be amazed if most people that sign up for the armed forces don't think there is atleast a 0.5% chance they will be killed or seriously injured over their term. That's essentially what the chance is in Iraq and I don't think that's an unrealistic risk level to expect when signing up to the military.

Now, that doesn't make the deaths that have happened any less tragic, it simply puts the risk into context.

[ThunderingHERD]

First of all, I am very liberal and resent being categorized as otherwise. Second, this mother's "protest" reaches deaf ears with me, just as any other markedly biased cause would.

[Dutch]

I would be absolutely thrilled if this country could sit down and have a reasonable debate about the Iraq War and the War on Terror. But just take a minute to look/read the pro-war zealots on Fox, Rush Limbaugh, at the National Review, etc... and they're pumping up the imagery, using the "scare" words, using inflammatory language, and engaging in every trick in the book to advance their own agenda. Like it or not, this is what passes for political discourse in this country, these days.

What is your opinion of the groups MoveOn.Org and United for Peace and Justice that are the primary organizers of the protest in Crawford? You didn't mention them, so I was curious.

www.moveon.org
hxxp://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1879

[ThunderingHERD]

Most people that sign up for the military do so because they have nothing better to do. Should we make a virtue out of that--having nothing better to do? Our best and brighest my ass--doesn't anyone remember what sort of total douchebag went in to the army right out of high school?

No, no--I'm just kidding. It's not only the people that have nothing better to do that join the army. I'll be the first to admit, there's a certain breed of people that are just really, truly, honest-to-goodness, gung-ho assholes.

[CraigSca]

I'm sure the parents of the deceased in this war would love to hear your description of their sons and daughters.

[Raiders Army]

Thoughts:

Cindy Sheenan is a grandstanding idiot who is belittling the memory of her son. While as a parent, I feel for her, she has taken this to the nth power. This is no longer about her son. This is her political agenda, which she is using her son. If you people can't see that, then you're blinded by your own emotions about the war.

She is fighting the wrong battle. Whether we went over there is a mistake or not is a moot point. We can't go back and change the past. If we pulled out because of this woman and her agenda, then that would definitely be a mistake...and two wrongs don't make a right.

Everyone who joins the all-volunteer military should know that they could give their life during their service. The enlistment oath for the Army is:

"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so help me God" (so help me God optional).

You will obey the orders of the President of the United States. There is nothing else to be said about that, unless you break your oath. Furthermore, each person who joins is stupid if they don't think that they could be sent to war and possibly die.

Whether you realize it or not, there is a certain level at which you begin to harm the troops morale. In some ways, you cannot say "I don't support the war, but I support the troops." Think about it. There are soldiers who don't agree with the war and don't want to be over there anyhow. Then they hear comments about pulling out and an unjust war. This drags them down further and causes discipline problems for the command. What can happen can be disasterous. The effects can range from a mind wandering during a patrol to outright disobeying orders.

I think Sheehan's media struggle is indirectly hurting soldiers. She needs to shut the fuck up and get over it. Her actions will not bring her son back.

[Raiders Army]

Dola,

Furthermore, as soldiers we must obey the orders of the President. If he has done something unlawful, then that's something that Congress or the Supreme Court would have to decide....obviously he didn't do anything outside the bounds of his power. Whether we think he's wrong or right is irrelevant. We must do what we're told to do...otherwise we will break our oath.

[flere-imsaho]

What is your opinion of the groups MoveOn.Org and United for Peace and Justice that are the primary organizers of the protest in Crawford? You didn't mention them, so I was curious.


First, the primary organizers were Gold Star Mothers for Peace and Veterans for Peace. Groups like MoveOn & UPJ came in later and turned it into more of the publicity even it's become.

Second, groups like MoveOn (I don't know much about UPJ) are the anti-war/left-wing zealots, the response to the right-wing noise machine. Is that what you wanted to hear? I'm not going to be hypocritical about that.

We can argue forever about who started this lack of reasoned debate in American politics, but until you can get people to turn off Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly, and stop reading Anne Coulter, we on the left are going to continue to support MoveOn, watch Jon Stewart and read DailyKos.com & MyDD.com.

Hell, we can't even have a reasonable discussion here, going by the quotes I pointed out above. Everyone has become so inured to this type of "debate" it's no wonder we can't come to a consensus on anything.

"You either support the President, or you support the Terrorists."
"You either support the mothers of the troops, or you're anti-American."

This is the level to which "debate" occurs in this country, and the right-wing noise machine perpetuates it just as much as the left-wing organizations such as MoveOn do.

[Dutch]

I don't know much about UPJ

An alarming number of the UFPJ cells think that Stalin was a great man. In a nutshell, anti-American, pro-Communist. This has nothing to do with whether the war against terror should be in Iraq. This is about Socialism vs. Capitalism. And these people hate Bush so much that they blame him for the Israeli conflict.

The left has a lot of powerful friends that hate the USA. But I guess, as long as the money is pouring in, who gives a shit, right? That is an abuse of capitalism for their own sinister gain.

And whether you agree with them or not, whether you know about them or not, you are a free "noise machine" to their cause. Am a "noise machine" for the pro-USA agenda? I guess so.

[dawgfan]

Of course it's political grandstanding. And you know how the Bush Admin got us to go to war in Iraq? Yes, political grandstanding.

I would be absolutely thrilled if this country could sit down and have a reasonable debate about the Iraq War and the War on Terror. But just take a minute to look/read the pro-war zealots on Fox, Rush Limbaugh, at the National Review, etc... and they're pumping up the imagery, using the "scare" words, using inflammatory language, and engaging in every trick in the book to advance their own agenda. Like it or not, this is what passes for political discourse in this country, these days.

The reactions of those above show that Cindy Sheehan is engaging the pro-war zealots on their own ground.

First off, I'm hardly a 'pro-war zealot'. Secondly, while I'm more sympathetic to liberal/progressive grandstanding and rhetoric, it's still grandstanding and rhetoric, things I have very little tolerance for. My reaction to the Cindy Sheehan story is my way of protesting the piss-poor political discourse in our society.

I would rather be honest and rational about how I view the world than rely on preconceived political/cultural/spiritual beliefs - I think that kind of intellectual honesty is the only way to get at the truth of the matter. I sympathize with Cindy Sheehan's loss, I refuse to use perjorative terms with regard to her, I have no love for Bush and his administration, but my reaction to Sheehan's campaign is to feel that she needs to "move on" from her campaign to meet with the President and cut the bullshit. He's met with her already, something most grieving parents of soldiers killed in action haven't had the chance to do, so her campaign to meet with him again rings very hollow to my ears. If she were to drop that pretense of wanting another meeting and focus instead on just being a spokesperson for aggrieved parents of killed and wounded soldiers, I wouldn't have an issue with her.

[Dutch]

I would rather be honest and rational about how I view the world than rely on preconceived political/cultural/spiritual beliefs - I think that kind of intellectual honesty is the only way to get at the truth of the matter.

I agree 100%. But here's the problem. It's very similar to making a Nuclear Free World. Whomever acts first....loses the battle.

Nasty politics, pure and simple. And why I am a strong proponent of the media not taking sides. I can't stand it when the NYT says they will endorse the Democratic candidate, or ABC says they will, or the LA Times will. It diminishes their ability to write with integrity.

The main stream media in America is slowly catching up with the paprazzi bs in Europe. It's worthless reporting. It's not informative. It's "endorsed" information.

That's not what the press is being protected by the constitition to do.

You want a catchy bumper sticker, how about this,

"American Press: It's supposed to be insightful, not inciteful."

[dawgfan]

Nasty politics, pure and simple. And why I am a strong proponent of the media not taking sides. I can't stand it when the NYT says they will endorse the Democratic candidate, or ABC says they will, or the LA Times will. It diminishes their ability to write with integrity.

Funny how you only mention news organizations that endorse Democratic candidates. Does it also bug you when Fox News takes such an unabashadly conservative stance, or when newspapers endorse Republicans?

I would agree that the role of the press is observer and commentator rather than active participant. Understand though that bias is in the eye of the beholder and straight reporting can and usually is viewed through many eyes to being partisan. So long as people view the world through politically (and socially, religiously and culturally) narrow partisan views, the news media will be under attack as being biased.

[dawgfan]

Dola...

I agree 100%. But here's the problem. It's very similar to making a Nuclear Free World. Whomever acts first....loses the battle.

I wonder if this is really true? There are enough people in this country in the middle of the political spectrum that I wonder whether a more intellectually honest and less politically partisan approach by a candidate or political party would be found refreshing and gain favor.

[HomerJSimpson]

First off, I'm hardly a 'pro-war zealot'. Secondly, while I'm more sympathetic to liberal/progressive grandstanding and rhetoric, it's still grandstanding and rhetoric, things I have very little tolerance for. My reaction to the Cindy Sheehan story is my way of protesting the piss-poor political discourse in our society.

I would rather be honest and rational about how I view the world than rely on preconceived political/cultural/spiritual beliefs - I think that kind of intellectual honesty is the only way to get at the truth of the matter. I sympathize with Cindy Sheehan's loss, I refuse to use perjorative terms with regard to her, I have no love for Bush and his administration, but my reaction to Sheehan's campaign is to feel that she needs to "move on" from her campaign to meet with the President and cut the bullshit. He's met with her already, something most grieving parents of soldiers killed in action haven't had the chance to do, so her campaign to meet with him again rings very hollow to my ears. If she were to drop that pretense of wanting another meeting and focus instead on just being a spokesperson for aggrieved parents of killed and wounded soldiers, I wouldn't have an issue with her.

Great post, and summarizes my thoughts completely.

[flere-imsaho]

The left has a lot of powerful friends that hate the USA. But I guess, as long as the money is pouring in, who gives a shit, right? That is an abuse of capitalism for their own sinister gain.

That's about as defensible a statement as saying that the right has a lot of powerful friends who hate blacks.

[flere-imsaho]

First off, I'm hardly a 'pro-war zealot'.

Sorry, it was not my intention to lump you with the other 3 posters I quoted. I was responding to you separately. I quoted them, responded to them, then quoted you, responded to you. My apologies if that was unclear. It probably should have been 2 posts.

Secondly, while I'm more sympathetic to liberal/progressive grandstanding and rhetoric, it's still grandstanding and rhetoric, things I have very little tolerance for. My reaction to the Cindy Sheehan story is my way of protesting the piss-poor political discourse in our society.

I don't blame you for this. As I said, this is the nature of political "discourse" in this country, these days. I'm not saying that's a good thing.

[flere-imsaho]

I wonder if this is really true? There are enough people in this country in the middle of the political spectrum that I wonder whether a more intellectually honest and less politically partisan approach by a candidate or political party would be found refreshing and gain favor.

I'm going to be cynical and say that I doubt it. I don't think Americans are interested in tough, extended, intellectual debates on the issues. We mostly want to be entertained.

[Dutch]

Funny how you only mention news organizations that endorse Democratic candidates. Does it also bug you when Fox News takes such an unabashadly conservative stance, or when newspapers endorse Republicans?

You didn't seem to mind when Flere questioned Fox, Rush, and the National Review, so I figured it was okay.

Do you see my point though? If I mention both sides and Flere only mentions Fox News, then I have lost the battle. In order to defeat propaganda, you have to be fully aware. I don't care which side is better, I care that we get the information we need to make a decision.

As an aside, yes Fox News is right-leaning, you bet. But where I am, Fox News is channel 360. CNN starts off the cable stations and ABC, NBC, CBS are all sitting in usual one digit channels.

FoxNews is not something you will just stumble across, the only reason it's so popular is because middle America has searched for it. Good for them for wanting to stay informed on what both sides of these issues are.

I don't see what's so wrong with that.

Also, acquiring your daily consuption of news from the internet is booming. The main search engines have the news displayed. It ain't Fox News' interpretation that I'm finding on Yahoo! and Google. These I'd describe it as "University Left". It's horribly slanted as for what they will put in their headlines.

Another area of major concern is the AP, AFP, and Reuters. These are our PRIMARY news collectors. The first line of reporting, if you will. They are strongly anti-Bush. Reuters is probably near 100% negative slant towardss President Bush, the AFP is absolutley 100% negative towards Bush and the Associate Press probably lies in the realm near the 75% mark in their stories that are negative towards President Bush.

For example, the recent story about the .XXX Domain that was blocked by the US Commerce Department. The AP insisted that not the US Commerce Department would get credit for questioning the implementation of the new domain, they wrote it as "The Bush Administration" and used buzz words like "acting unilaterally" just to piss the reader off.

However, on the flip-side. When discussing the "Peace Mom" down at Crawford, there is hardly ever a mention of who is really running the show there. Hardly (if ever) is the United For Peace and Justice or MoveOn.ORG or the Communist Party of America mentioned as sponsoring the circus down there.

Just give me all the information. Let me decide.

[Raiders Army]

I'm going to be cynical and say that I doubt it. I don't think Americans are interested in tough, extended, intellectual debates on the issues. We mostly want to be entertained.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what there is to debate. Whether we should've gone in there or not? This isn't the time for that. We've already done it.

If we debate whether we should pull out at this point or not, I think that everyone would agree that we shouldn't.

[ThunderingHERD]

Christopher Hitchens' article on Sheehan from Slate:

What Cindy Sheehan Really Wants
Now imagine if she gets it.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Friday, Aug. 19, 2005, at 1:44 PM PT

Caught in a lie? Click image to expand.

Caught in a lie?
When are the bureau chiefs of our newspapers and networks going to snap out of their own vacation-induced trances and send some grown-up correspondents down to Crawford, Texas? For weeks now, Cindy Sheehan has not been asked a single question that is any tougher than "How does it feel?" The media have been acting as her megaphone. After Slate published her real opinions on politics (a weird confection of pacifism with paranoid anti-Zionism) last Monday, she was eventually asked about her statement that her son Casey had been killed in a war for Israel, and she denied ever having made it. So, we must now say that, as well as being a vulgar producer of her own spectacle, and an embarrassment to her family, Cindy Sheehan is at best a shifty fantasist.

After Slate published an extract from a letter that she wrote last March to ABC Nightline, Anderson Cooper of CNN asked her about the anti-Israel remarks the letter contained. She denied making them and proceeded in her blog to assert that someone had gotten hold of her original letter and somehow doctored it. This dark and murky allegation—evincing further paranoia on her part—has been easily and convincingly refuted, as can be seen in this sidebar. Cindy Sheehan, not content with echoing the Bin-Ladenist line that the president is the real "terrorist" and that he is the tool of a Jewish cabal, has dug a pit of falsehood around her own wild story.

This week, before family matters called her away from Crawford, she mutated her demand—that the president lower himself into that pit and join her down there—into the shameless request that he join her for Friday prayers. The nerve! We all know how much the MoveOn.org forces believe in the power of prayer, and in the president's sincere religious convictions (their contempt for this is the only thing on which I agree with them). But, hey, try anything once for a tear-jerker or a bit of moral blackmail—what Maureen Dowd has so laughably called "absolute moral authority."

Continue Article

What do these people imagine that they are demanding? Would they like a referendum to be held, among the relatives of the fallen in Iraq, to determine the future conduct of the war? I think I can promise them that they would heavily lose such a vote. But what if the right wing were also to demand such a vote and the "absolute moral authority" that supposedly goes with it?

One of three things could then happen. The ultra-right anti-Zionist forces of David Duke and Patrick J. Buchanan, both of whom approvingly speak of Ms. Sheehan's popular groundswell, would still lose the vote. So would the media fools who semi-automatically identify Sheehan and her LaRouche-like drivel with the "left" or "progressive" forces. This would leave us with a random pseudo-majority, made up of veterans and their relatives. Who wants this to be the group that decides? One might as well live in a populist, jingoist banana republic. Never mind the Constitution, or even the War Powers Act. Only victims and martyrs can decide! Get ready to gather under the balcony of a leader who speaks rotundly of such glory.

Then there is the question of humanitarian or pacifist emotion. Some have perhaps been drawn to "Camp Casey" out of reverence for life. Their demand, however, is an immediate coalition withdrawal from Iraq. Have they seriously asked themselves how humane the consequences of that would be? The news of a pullout would put a wolfish grin on the faces of the "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia" brigade, as Mr. Zarqawi's force has named itself in order to resolve all doubt. Every effort would be made to detonate every available car-bomb and mine, so as to claim the withdrawal of coalition forces as a military victory for jihad. I can quite understand Ms. Sheehan's misery at the thought of her son being killed on some desolate road. But will she be on hand to console the parents whose sons are shot in the back while being ordered to surrender and withdraw?

I hope I don't insult the intelligent readers of this magazine if I point out what the consequences of such a capitulation would be for the people of Iraq. Paint your own mental picture of a country that was already almost beyond rescue in 2003, as it is handed back to an alliance of homicidal Baathists and Bin-Ladenists. Comfort yourself, if that's the way you think, with the idea that such people are only nasty because Bush made them so. Intone the Sheehan mantra—repeated this very week—that terrorism is no problem because after all Bush is the leading terrorist in the world. See if that cheers you up. Try it on your friends. Live with it, if you are ready to live with the consequences of what you desire.

This is an argument, about a real war, that deserves moral seriousness on all sides. Flippancy and light-mindedness have no place. Cindy Sheehan's cheerleader Michael Moore has compared the "insurgents" in Iraq to the American minutemen and Founding Fathers. Do I taunt him for not volunteering to fight himself in such a noble cause? Of course I do not. That would be a low and sly blow. Do I say that he is spouting fascistic nonsense? Of course I do. Is Cindy Sheehan exempt from any verdict on her wacko opinions because of her bereavement? I would say that she is not. Has she been led into a false position by eager cynics who have sacrificed nothing and who would happily surrender unconditionally to the worst enemy that currently faces civilization? That's for her to clarify. While she ponders, she should forgo prayer, stay in California, and end her protest.

[CamEdwards]

I had a lot of sympathy for Cindy Sheehan until people like David Duke started applauding her anti-Israel conspiracy statements.

It's true I've never lost one of my children, and I do feel badly for her for that. Yet somehow her husband has managed to suffer the same loss without turning into a barking moonbat.

I hope her mom gets better and I hope that Cindy Sheehan finds whatever peace and sanity she can. In the meantime, I also hope people realize what a complete nutter she is.

[dawgfan]

You didn't seem to mind when Flere questioned Fox, Rush, and the National Review, so I figured it was okay.

Do you see my point though? If I mention both sides and Flere only mentions Fox News, then I have lost the battle. In order to defeat propaganda, you have to be fully aware. I don't care which side is better, I care that we get the information we need to make a decision.

I don't think of politics as sports, and so the tit-for-tat idea of "He attacked the people on my side, so if I don't attack the people on his side and ignore the people worthy of scorn on my side I lose!" rings hollow to me.

You said you had an issue with the news media making endorsements, then proceeded to only point out those that endorsed Democrats - do you really oppose the media making endorsements, or just endorsements that don't conform to your beliefs? Given what you wrote, that's a legit question.

As an aside, yes Fox News is right-leaning, you bet. But where I am, Fox News is channel 360. CNN starts off the cable stations and ABC, NBC, CBS are all sitting in usual one digit channels.

FoxNews is not something you will just stumble across, the only reason it's so popular is because middle America has searched for it. Good for them for wanting to stay informed on what both sides of these issues are.

Maybe in your neck of the woods. People looking for news in most parts of the country aren't going to have a difficult time finding FoxNews.

Also, acquiring your daily consuption of news from the internet is booming. The main search engines have the news displayed. It ain't Fox News' interpretation that I'm finding on Yahoo! and Google. These I'd describe it as "University Left". It's horribly slanted as for what they will put in their headlines.

Another area of major concern is the AP, AFP, and Reuters. These are our PRIMARY news collectors. The first line of reporting, if you will. They are strongly anti-Bush. Reuters is probably near 100% negative slant towardss President Bush, the AFP is absolutley 100% negative towards Bush and the Associate Press probably lies in the realm near the 75% mark in their stories that are negative towards President Bush.

For example, the recent story about the .XXX Domain that was blocked by the US Commerce Department. The AP insisted that not the US Commerce Department would get credit for questioning the implementation of the new domain, they wrote it as "The Bush Administration" and used buzz words like "acting unilaterally" just to piss the reader off.

However, on the flip-side. When discussing the "Peace Mom" down at Crawford, there is hardly ever a mention of who is really running the show there. Hardly (if ever) is the United For Peace and Justice or MoveOn.ORG or the Communist Party of America mentioned as sponsoring the circus down there.

Just give me all the information. Let me decide.

When one is heavily left or heavily right-leaning, most news looks right-wing or left-wing in comparison.

[Dutch]

When one is heavily left or heavily right-leaning, most news looks right-wing or left-wing in comparison.

I would agree with that, except most far left people generally defend the media, with exception to FoxNews, of course. ;)

Supporting the war against terrorism should not label someone as far-right. That's nonsense.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I want the news to tell the truth, not be 'for' or 'against' anything.

EDIT:

Plus, it works both ways. People on the far left see all the major news networks controlled by major multinational corporations, people on the far right call them liberal America-haters if they dare mention anything against Bush. Most people in the middle turn the channel to The Simpsons or CSI.

[flere-imsaho]

I would agree with that, except most far left people generally defend the media, with exception to FoxNews, of course.

Actually, I think people on the far left probably scorn the media just as much as anyone else. It's folks on the center-left (heck, probably center-right, too) who defend the media the most.

This is probably one of the few topics on which you & I agree, though. The 4th Estate has badly lost its way in the past 20 years.

[jeff061]

Foxnews on Comcast where I'm at is channel 25, CNN is 26. Or maybe 24 and 25, I forget. So it's not buried everywhere, like it should be.