OT: (Political) Looks Like Cindy Sheehan Has Some Company

[duckman]

Pro-Bush Camp Sets Up in Crawford

Sunday, August 21, 2005

http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

CRAWFORD, Texas — A patriotic camp with a "God Bless Our President!" banner sprung up downtown Saturday, countering the anti-war demonstration started by a fallen soldier's mother two weeks ago near President Bush's ranch.

The camp is named "Fort Qualls," in memory of Marine Lance Cpl. Louis Wayne Qualls, 20, who died in Iraq last fall.

"If I have to sacrifice my whole family for the sake of our country and world, other countries that want freedom, I'll do that," said the soldier's father, Gary Qualls (search (javascript:siteSearch('Gary Qualls');)), a friend of the local business owner who started the pro-Bush camp. He said his 16-year-old son now wants to enlist, and he supports that decision.

Qualls' frustration with the anti-war demonstrators erupted last week when he removed a cross bearing his son's name that was among hundreds the group had put up along the road to Bush's ranch.

Qualls called the protesters' views disrespectful to soldiers, and said he had to yank out two more crosses after protesters kept replacing them.

Cindy Sheehan (search (javascript:siteSearch('Cindy Sheehan');)), whose 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, died last year in Iraq, started the anti-war demonstration along the roadside on Aug. 6. "Camp Casey" has since grown to about 100 core participants, and hundreds more from across the nation have visited.

Sheehan vowed to remain there until Bush agreed to meet with her or until his monthlong vacation ended, but she flew to Los Angeles last week after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke. Her mother has some paralysis but is in good spirits, and if she improves, Sheehan may return to Texas in a few days, some demonstrators said.

In her absence, the rest of the group will keep camping out for the unlikely chance to question the president about the war that has claimed the lives of about 1,850 U.S. soldiers.

Bush has said he sympathizes with Sheehan but won't change his schedule to meet with her. She and other families met with Bush about two months after Casey Sheehan died, before she became a vocal opponent of the war.

Large counter-protests were held in a ditch near Sheehan's site a week after she arrived, and since then, a few Bush supporters have stood in the sun holding signs for several hours each day.

Bill Johnson, a local gift shop owner who created "Fort Qualls," said he wanted to offer a larger, more convenient place for Bush supporters to gather.

He and others at "Fort Qualls" have asked for a debate with those at the Crawford Peace House, which is helping Sheehan.

It's unclear if that will happen. But a member of Gold Star Families for Peace (http://www.gsfp.org/), co-founded by Sheehan and comprised of relatives of fallen soldiers, said her group would not participate.

"We're asking for a meeting with the president, period," said Michelle DeFord, whose 37-year-old son, Sgt. David W. Johnson, was in the Army National Guard from Oregon when he was killed in Iraq last fall. "We don't want to debate with people who don't understand our point of view."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sovereignstar]

Sweaty balls called the protesters' views disrespectful to soldiers

Sounds like a bright fellow.

[jeff061]

That town needs to be firebombed. Clear 'em all out.

[Joe]

Sheehan vowed to remain there until Bush agreed to meet with her or until his monthlong vacation ended, but she flew to Los Angeles last week after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke.



Fucking quitter.

[Greyroofoo]

That town needs to be firebombed. Clear 'em all out.

you're a sick man who desperately needs a trout in your rectum

[jeff061]

I wasn't being serious, at least not totally.

[Airhog]

"We don't want to debate with people who don't understand our point of view."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


This line just shows how closed minded this lady really is. If she doesnt want to debate with people who doesn't understand her point of view, then why does she want to meet the president? Obviously she doesn't want to debate with him, probably just read him the riot act for getting her son killed.

I an understand that she is upset because her son was killed. However, its not like this kid was an innocent bystander just visiting Iraq for fun. She fails to realize that if you join the Army, and you are sent off to war, there is a distinct chance that you won't be coming back alive.

[NoMyths]

Nice. He says he'd sacrifice his whole family for freedom, and yet he doesn't support Sheehan using her freedom to lawfully speak her mind. Regardless of whether or not you support the woman (I for one am troubled by her), this guy seems representative of all "freedom-loving patriots" who don't understand, let alone love, the freedoms the ostensibly would kill or die to defend.

[duckman]

Nice. He says he'd sacrifice his whole family for freedom, and yet he doesn't support Sheehan using her freedom to lawfully speak her mind. Regardless of whether or not you support the woman (I for one am troubled by her), this guy seems representative of all "freedom-loving patriots" who don't understand, let alone love, the freedoms the ostensibly would kill or die to defend.
I think it has to do more with the fact they kept putting his son's name on those crosses at the demostration site. She has no right to use his name to push her political agenda. It pissed him off, so he's doing something about it. Good for him.

[gstelmack]

Nice. He says he'd sacrifice his whole family for freedom, and yet he doesn't support Sheehan using her freedom to lawfully speak her mind. Regardless of whether or not you support the woman (I for one am troubled by her), this guy seems representative of all "freedom-loving patriots" who don't understand, let alone love, the freedoms the ostensibly would kill or die to defend.
So he doesn't have the freedom to disagree with her? Anybody who supports the war and what is going on over there isn't allowed to speak out against those who don't support it?

[Greyroofoo]

i think i just have the question the guy who uses his freedom of speech to protest someone else's freedom of speech

[Cringer]

Ok, if I'm that Bush neighbor I am popping off that gun every hour or so now. Guy has to be going nuts with all those people right in front of his house. I know I would be doing things to people just to get them to move and stay away from my property, I don't what side they are on.

But then again, I have always taken pleasure in fucking with people who park in front of my house without permission.

[jeff061]

That argument is used far to often, and it rarely ever works. He is not protesting someone elses freedom of speech other than removing his son's name from the cross. Letting a difference of opinion be known is not the same has muzzling the other side.

I am left leaning, hate Bush, but this Sheehan pack agitates me a bit.

She was saying how good and supportive Bush was just after her son died, a year later she is saying the opposite.

[duckman]

i think i just have the question the guy who uses his freedom of speech to protest someone else's freedom of speechSo he's not allowed to question her motives for using his son's name to make her protest? She made it his business the moment she put his name on one of those crosses. This is not difficult to understand. Would you like it if someone took one of your children's name without your permission to make a political statement you don't endorsed?

[duckman]

She was saying how good and supportive Bush was just after her son died, a year later she is saying the opposite.
Exactly. Someone convinced her to protest the war using her son as the main theme of it. First, she thought of Bush as a honest individula and now he's liar and cover-up artists. Somebody started putting shit in her head that led her to believe differently. I'm curious as who were initial supporters when she began this "crusade".

[NoMyths]

His son died in Iraq. I see no reason why the name shouldn't be placed on one of the crosses, and I definitely don't believe he should take the cross down. He certainly didn't not die in Iraq, which the cross makes clear, while taking it down doesn't.

He certainly has the freedom to disagree with her, but censoring her protest by damaging the display is infringement. The fact that the soldier who died was his son doesn't supercede his son's sacrifice for the country, nor the fact that his name is now part of the public record as a soldier who died in combat.

[jeff061]

Because she is using the crosses for no other reason but to push her agenda.

I'm not saying I support the guy who drove a truck through them, he's a dick. I'd like to think if someone is using my or my family's name to promote something I am not affiliated with people would understand me taking it down.

What she is doing down there is not cool, she is just a kook who makes liberals look bad.

[duckman]

His son died in Iraq. I see no reason why the name shouldn't be placed on one of the crosses, and I definitely don't believe he should take the cross down. He certainly didn't not die in Iraq, which the cross makes clear, while taking it down doesn't.

He certainly has the freedom to disagree with her, but censoring her protest by damaging the display is infringement. The fact that the soldier who died was his son doesn't supercede his son's sacrifice for the country, nor the fact that his name is now part of the public record as a soldier who died in combat.
She's exploiting the man's son for her own political agenda. Fine if she wants to drag what her son did through the mud, but she has no right to use his son's name to make her case. He's protecting the image of his son, so he has the right to make sure that it is not exploited for her own selfish political views. He has every right to demand that his son's dead memories not be used for her own use and she has no other choice but to not use it. It's not censorship, but common decency towards others' wishes which this woman fails to abide to.

[NoMyths]

But he (or you) can't take it down. You can ask to have it taken down. You can petition to have it taken down. All lawful intervention--and remember, super-patriots are all about the rule of law (theoretically). If I were the guy, I'd pursue all those avenues.

[jeff061]

I wouldn't. I'd go in there and take it down. Any reasonable or logical person would leave it down after this happened.

Christ her whole family is publically discouraging her and her husband is divorcing her. She's a nut.

[Tekneek]

...her own selfish political views...

Could you go into detail what these are? They don't seem to have been reported in any of the articles I read.

[NoMyths]

Any reasonable or logical person would obey the law. It's what our country relies on to keep running, and all countries collapse in the absence of. And any reasonable and logical American would understand that while supporting the freedoms our country endorses and protects can be frustrating when actions one doesn't agree with happen, it doesn't mean that you get a free pass. Democracy is for grown-ups, not kindergarteners.

[duckman]

But he (or you) can't take it down. You can ask to have it taken down. You can petition to have it taken down. All lawful intervention--and remember, super-patriots are all about the rule of law (theoretically). If I were the guy, I'd pursue all those avenues.
Whose to say he didn't asked for it to be taken down? You're forgetting she doesn't paid heed to any reasoning. Her own family has asked her to stop using her son to prtoest the war and it hasn't stopped her from doing it anyways. Personally, I would sue her organization for every red cent it has for the emotional distress it's caused for putting name up.

[NoMyths]

Whose to say he didn't asked for it to be taken down? You're forgetting she doesn't paid heed to any reasoning. Her own family has asked her to stop using her son to prtoest the war and it hasn't stopped her from doing it anyways. Personally, I would sue her organization for every red cent it has for the emotional distress it's caused for putting name up.Perhaps he did and she declined. That's how it goes. One can then pursue other legal avenues and hope for the best. But at the end of the day it's the name of a soldier who died for his country...it's pretty hard to keep that out of the public domain, and it's one of the things that comes along with the territory.

[Tekneek]

I wouldn't. I'd go in there and take it down. Any reasonable or logical person would leave it down after this happened.

Christ her whole family is publically discouraging her and her husband is divorcing her. She's a nut.

Ok. So, if someone comes along and defaces a nativity scene, any reasonable or logical person would leave it that way? Am I taking it too far? How far does this go and what does it apply to? Only political demonstrations?

If your whole family is against you, and your spouse is leaving you, that nullifies your protest and invalidates your position? I hope everyone is put through this same test in the future, then, on all sides of every debate.

[duckman]

Could you go into detail what these are? They don't seem to have been reported in any of the articles I read.
I don't know. You may want to ask her own husband (who is divorcing her over this very thing) and her other son. I bet they would have a better idea what they are. She hasn't thought too highly of their wishes.

[Tekneek]

I don't know. You may want to ask her own husband (who is divorcing her over this very thing) and her other son. I bet they would have a better idea what they are. She hasn't thought too highly of their wishes.

You specifically mentioned "her own selfish political views." I figured you knew what they were if you were talking about them. I shouldn't have to go and ask her family about things you were writing on FOFC, should I?

[jeff061]

Ok. So, if someone comes along and defaces a nativity scene, any reasonable or logical person would leave it that way? Am I taking it too far? How far does this go and what does it apply to? Only political demonstrations?

If your whole family is against you, and your spouse is leaving you, that nullifies your protest and invalidates your position? I hope everyone is put through this same test in the future, then, on all sides of every debate.

???? Maybe if my kids name was written on the forehead of the baby and I wiped the name off. I'm specifially talking about involving people in your protest who want nothing to do with it.

One does not have anything to do with the other

[Tekneek]

???? Maybe if my kids name was written on the forehead of the baby and I wiped the name off. I'm specifially talking about involving people in your protest who want nothing to do with it.

One does not have anything to do with the other

Do the rights to the name of a dead adult revert to their family? I'm not so sure. While it may be in good taste to seek the approval of their family, I'm not sure there is a legal requirement to do so.

[jeff061]

The kid is not dead.

And if he was, in a situation like this, yes I think the kid's family should have the right to protect his legacy.

Edit: forget 1st line, mis-read part of article :).

[jeff061]

And as far as all this legal talk going around, I don't care. I like to have my OWN mind, and I know what is right or wrong reguardless of the law. This will probably spark some sharp reaction and is a point we will no doubt fundamentally differ on. So it's not worth arguing :).

[duckman]

Perhaps he did and she declined. That's how it goes. One can then pursue other legal avenues and hope for the best. But at the end of the day it's the name of a soldier who died for his country...it's pretty hard to keep that out of the public domain, and it's one of the things that comes along with the territory.
This is about using someone's name for political gain without permission and you know it. She's not honoring his memory, but using it for her political agenda. This has nothing to do with keeping his name out of the public domain.

You can't even admit at what she is doing is wrong. :rolleyes:

[NoMyths]

And as far as all this legal talk going around, I don't care. I like to have my OWN mind, and I know what is right or wrong reguardless of the law. This will probably spark some sharp reaction and is a point we will no doubt fundamentally differ on. So it's not worth arguing :).Sigh.

[jeff061]

Yeah, I had a response written up to your post about going throught he proper channels(which would likely lead to an improper outcome), but I sighed and deleted it.

[NoMyths]

This is about using someone's name for political gain without permission and you know it. She's not honoring his memory, but using it for her political agenda. This has nothing to do with keeping his name out of the public domain.

You can't even admit at what she is doing is wrong. :rolleyes:What are you talking about? I've already indicated that I am troubled by the woman and that if I were the father I would want to get the name removed as well.

There really doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this "discussion" when two of the major participants a) aren't interested in what it takes to be a law-abiding, democracy-supporting American and/or b) can't read. So I'll let my above posts stand as my statement on the matter and move on.

[duckman]

You specifically mentioned "her own selfish political views." I figured you knew what they were if you were talking about them. I shouldn't have to go and ask her family about things you were writing on FOFC, should I?
Is not selfish to disregard what her own husband is saying on the matter? She basically threw her family's wishes in the garbage and went ahead with using her dead son for political gain. Sounds selfish to me. :rolleyes:

[Galaril]

Nice. He says he'd sacrifice his whole family for freedom, and yet he doesn't support Sheehan using her freedom to lawfully speak her mind. Regardless of whether or not you support the woman (I for one am troubled by her), this guy seems representative of all "freedom-loving patriots" who don't understand, let alone love, the freedoms the ostensibly would kill or die to defend.

Well, said. ;)

[Galaxy]

Any reasonable or logical person would obey the law. It's what our country relies on to keep running, and all countries collapse in the absence of. And any reasonable and logical American would understand that while supporting the freedoms our country endorses and protects can be frustrating when actions one doesn't agree with happen, it doesn't mean that you get a free pass. Democracy is for grown-ups, not kindergarteners.

And any reasonable and logical person would have common respect for the wishes of other people.

[jeff061]

Yeah, I'm sure people making sure their dead family members names aren't dragged through the dirt by some mentally unbalanced women will cause Democracy to fail. :rolleyes:

[Tekneek]

I like to have my OWN mind, and I know what is right or wrong reguardless of the law.

I am totally onboard with the idea that people should be governed by a different standard than the simple question of legality.

[Tekneek]

Is not selfish to disregard what her own husband is saying on the matter? She basically threw her family's wishes in the garbage and went ahead with using her dead son for political gain. Sounds selfish to me. :rolleyes:

Is that a political view? Using your son's name in a political protest, against your husband's desires, is a selfish political view? Let's assume it is one. What are the others?

[jeff061]

It's a selfish action to support a political view. Maybe the initial wording wasn't for the best.

And it's not just the husband, it's also the aunts, uncles, grandparents, the works.

[duckman]

What are you talking about? I've already indicated that I am troubled by the woman and that if I were the father I would want to get the name removed as well.

There really doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this "discussion" when two of the major participants a) aren't interested in what it takes to be a law-abiding, democracy-supporting American and/or b) can't read. So I'll let my above posts stand as my statement on the matter and move on.
You said that you were troubled by the woman's action, but not exactly what action you were so troubled about. Instead, you said that the soldier's name is public domain. Now, I maybe an illiterate redneck hillbilly, but I take that as it's okay for her to use the name.

On second part of your response, I never said that it was okay for him to physically take the crosses himself. However, I can sympathize with him because I wouldn't want my son to be used that way. I would appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. :)

[Tekneek]

It's a selfish action to support a political view. Maybe the initial wording wasn't for the best.

Doesn't sound unusual when it comes to politics in the US.

And it's not just the husband, it's also the aunts, uncles, grandparents, the works.

I'm not sure how it changes anything if it is a whole bunch of people in the family or just one. Right or wrong is not determined by how many people are on your side.

[Galaril]

I am a little surprised at this father's seemingly small regard for his family. Since, he is willing after just losing a son to offer to give the rest up. I am sure his family appreciates it. As a father I would respect my childrens wishes though I might disagree. But, I wouldn't be willing to lose anymore after the terrible sacrifice he has already suffered. And jsut as a note I served in the Gulf albeit 1990-1992 so would not consider myself one to not know what it is to go off to war.

[duckman]

Using your son's name in a political protest, against your husband's desires, is a selfish political view?
Yes. Last I checked, there was two people who are parents to a child.

[Tekneek]

Yes. Last I checked, there was two people who are parents to a child.

A selfish action, perhaps, but I fail to see it being a "selfish political view." Still, I granted that point for the sake of argument. What are the other "selfish political views" you were alluding to?

[Galaxy]

Doesn't sound unusual when it comes to politics in the US.



So that makes it ok?

[duckman]

I am a little surprised at this father's seemingly small regard for his family. Since, he is willing after just losing a son to offer to give the rest up. I am sure his family appreciates it. As a father I would respect my childrens wishes though I might disagree. But, I wouldn't be willing to lose anymore after the terrible sacrifice he has already suffered. And jsut as a note I served in the Gulf albeit 1990-1992 so would not consider myself one to not know what it is to go off to war.
Once the kid turns 18, there is not much you can do but be supportive. If it was my kid, I would try my best to talk him out of it before he got old enough to sign up on his own.

[duckman]

A selfish action, perhaps, but I fail to see it being a "selfish political view." Still, I granted that point for the sake of argument. What are the other "selfish political views" you were alluding to?
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you want from me. I thought I gave a pretty good explanation of this. :confused:

[Tekneek]

So that makes it ok?

Not at all. I'm just not as stunned and outraged about it. I might be onboard with it being a problem that has to be stopped as long as it goes across the entire political spectrum and is applied evenly to everybody. I can't help the feeling that she is being attacked because of her message, rather than the way she is delivering it.

[jeff061]

I can't help the feeling that she is being attacked because of her message, rather than the way she is delivering it.

Not in my case. Generally I'm am arguing on the side of the left.

[sovereignstar]

But then again, I have always taken pleasure in fucking with people who park in front of my house without permission.

*boom ch boom boom*

[Tekneek]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you want from me. I thought I gave a pretty good explanation of this. :confused:

I was seeking to find out what her "selfish political views" were. You responded by telling me to ask her family what those "selfish political views" are. You then told me that using her son's name against the wishes of her family was a "selfish political view." I offered to accept that, although it does not seem to be a political view at all. I then asked what those other "selfish political views" might be, since that seems to indicate there is more than one. You then claim to have no idea what I am talking about...

Maybe you didn't mean she actually HAD "selfish political views", but rather that she MIGHT have some.

He's protecting the image of his son, so he has the right to make sure that it is not exploited for her own selfish political views.

[Joe]

blah blah blah

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't help the feeling that she is being attacked because of her message, rathr than the way she is delivering it.

Umm, how about the rather obvious possibility -- both.

[Tekneek]

Umm, how about the rather obvious possibility -- both.

A possibility, but I hope people are consistent about it. I hope some of the people upset about her using names on crosses don't approve of the use of photos of other people's babies/fetus/etc in anti-abortion protests.

I just want consistency on these positions regardless of political persuasion. If you've got to get the permission of the dead individual's family, let's require it for every political protest/statement.

[jeff061]

The difference being if someone was down in Texas rallying for the mass genocide of liberals and the forced planet wide conversion to christianity using the same technique Sheehan was, John would be supporting the message AND the way it's being delivered. Go figure.

[Tekneek]

The difference being if someone was down in Texas rallying for the mass genocide of liberals and the forced planet wide conversion to christianity using the same technique Sheehan was, John would be supporting the message AND the way it's being delivered. Go figure.

That's my problem. Let's not have double standards. It's not 'anything goes' for political views you approve of. Let's decide on some rules that apply to everyone regardless of their position and be consistent about it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The difference being if someone was down in Texas rallying for the mass genocide of liberals and the forced planet wide conversion to christianity using the same technique Sheehan was, John would be supporting the message AND the way it's being delivered. Go figure.

I'll give you the first part of that, but you're waaaaay off-base on the latter.

And if you look through the thread, I don't believe I've said a word about the method of delivery of this sack of shit down in Texas. I really don't think there's a method of spewing her type of idiocy I'm going to particularly approve of, so how she's doing it really doesn't matter much to me.

So basically Jeff, fuck you & the horse you rode in, not only are you missing the mark with your shot here but you can't even spell my name right.

[jeff061]

Tekneek was drawing a difference between the message and the delivery, you, john, were saying you disagree both. Now if I understand your last post you consider the delivery and the message one and the same(which is tough to seperate from all the hatred you spew). If this is the case I think it is you missing the mark.

I don't even want to touch the fact that you just agreed with the idea of mass genocide and globally forced religion.

[sterlingice]

I wouldn't. I'd go in there and take it down. Any reasonable or logical person would leave it down after this happened.

Christ her whole family is publically discouraging her and her husband is divorcing her. She's a nut.
I don't know. You may want to ask her own husband (who is divorcing her over this very thing) and her other son. I bet they would have a better idea what they are. She hasn't thought too highly of their wishes.
Lots of people are making good cogent arguments for both sides of the debate in this thread. Frankly, I side with the "I disagree with her" people but why the hell do we know that her husband is divorcing her and her other son disagrees. It seems like the slime machine is in full effect.

SI

[jeff061]

The husband is a bit of an assumption, since the divorce is just happening now.

As for the rest of the family, They wrote a public letter (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm)

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't even want to touch the fact that you just agreed with the idea of mass genocide and globally forced religion.

What happened Jeff, you were absent on "How to pay attention" day in class?

I'll give you the first part of that

That'd be the sound of me chuckling at a call to eliminate liberals from the gene pool. Kinda reminds me of a lawyer joke, you know, the one that ends "a good start".

but you're waaaaay off-base on the latter.

That'd be Ixnay on the "globally forced religion" thing. Just guessing here, but maybe you're confusing my complete distrust & disdain for Islam with some sort of "compelled Christianity" but like I said, you're waaaaaaay off the mark with that one. My feelings for them are about their actions, not whether their beliefs are in perfect harmony with mine. You're expanding something fairly specfic into much more than I've said. Ever seen me rant about, just for example, the evil Hindus? Or the evil Buddhists? Didn't think so.

I mean, it's not like I invest much energy in trying to hide what I think/believe when I say stuff, the least you could do if you're gonna bitch about me is get the simple things straight.

[jeff061]

I meant to post that as an exaggeration and a joke on your reputation, not an actual fact about your beliefs. I thought the former was religion and genocide and latter comment was about the message and the delivery.

And yes, I have the attention span of a gnat.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

It's kind of sad that this, like so many political issues, comes down to personal popularity. Many protests of the same issue have gone virtually unnoticed and unreported. Here the press found a good individual on whom to focus attention (not to say that she wasn't seeking personal attention, but these other protests also sought attention, just not on such a personal level and were ignored by the press). Now the debate revolves not around Iraq, but Cindy Sheehan and whether she's a likable person and what her husband thinks, what her second cousin has to say, etc, etc. The coverage is more in the vein of the missing white woman stories or the runaway bride than serious political reporting. Just more personality politics, celebrity reporting, schlocky crap. And I'm sure the sheer amount of coverage this is garnering will inspire political activists of all sorts to emulate the Cindy Sheehan model, generating ever more trivial and meaningless garbage to fill the void of political discourse in this country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... generating ever more trivial and meaningless garbage to fill the void of political discourse in this country.

On a somewhat serious note though, I believe there's a very legitimate argument to be made that there really isn't a "void of political discourse" at all, it's just that politicals no longer has the facade of being about specific issues -- it's about core beliefs, core values, etc., which in turn shape our positions on individual issues.

[HomerJSimpson]

Here the press found a good individual on whom to focus attention


You lost me right there. No, they haven't, which is the whole point of many in this thread. There are many other mothers the press could have concntrated on, who are not the level of nut that Sheehan is. For instance, any mother who had not already met the president and praised his sincerity. That is why, even though I sympathize with the cause, I do not sympathize with Sheehan, except maybe that some are using her poor mental condition for their political benefit.

[MrBigglesworth]

On second part of your response, I never said that it was okay for him to physically take the crosses himself. However, I can sympathize with him because I wouldn't want my son to be used that way. I would appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. :)
Wait a minute, my head is about to explode. This is why Cindy is in Texas!! She objected to her son's name being used by Bush to promote the war, and objected to him saying that he died for a noble cause. And when she was doing it, she was a 'disaster slut', 'media whore', 'grief pimp', etc. The right has become a parody of itself. Logic and reason are completely gone, it's only the support of Mr. 36% approval rating that matters.

[duckman]

Wait a minute, my head is about to explode. This is why Cindy is in Texas!! She objected to her son's name being used by Bush to promote the war, and objected to him saying that he died for a noble cause. And when she was doing it, she was a 'disaster slut', 'media whore', 'grief pimp', etc. The right has become a parody of itself. Logic and reason are completely gone, it's only the support of Mr. 36% approval rating that matters.
You show me one speech or press release from the White House that used her son's name specificly. I'm not talking about a newspaper article either. I want to see a press release, or a speech by a White House member. Happy hunting!

[MrBigglesworth]

You show me one speech or press release from the White House that used her son's name specificly. I'm not talking about a newspaper article either. I want to see a press release, or a speech by a White House member. Happy hunting!
Show me one press release or speech by Cindy Sheehan mentioning this guy's son specifically.

[duckman]

Show me one press release or speech by Cindy Sheehan mentioning this guy's son specifically.She used it on the display in front of her "camp". She might as well have used it in a speech.

[Raiders Army]

Show me one press release or speech by Cindy Sheehan mentioning this guy's son specifically.
No need. The crosses were enough.

[SelzShoes]

This was posted on Mickey Klaus's blog on slate.com

"Jonathan Chait begins to make the badly-needed liberal case against Sheehanism:

The trouble is, plenty of liberals have come to believe their own bleatings about moral authority. Liberal blogs are filled with attacks on "chicken hawk" conservatives who support the war but never served in the military. A recent story in the antiwar magazine Nation attacked my New Republic editor, Peter Beinart, a supporter of the Iraq war, for having "no national security experience," as if Nation editors routinely served in the Marine Corps.

The silliness of this argument is obvious. There are parents of dead soldiers on both sides. Conservatives have begun trotting out their own this week. What does this tell us about the virtues or flaws of the war? Nothing. ... [snip]

Sheehan also criticizes the Afghanistan war. One of the most common (and strongest) liberal indictments of the Iraq war is that it diverted troops that could have been deployed against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Are liberals who make that case, yet failed to enlist themselves, chicken hawks too?"

[sachmo71]

Sheehan for president!

[Galaxy]

Wait a minute, my head is about to explode. This is why Cindy is in Texas!! She objected to her son's name being used by Bush to promote the war, and objected to him saying that he died for a noble cause. And when she was doing it, she was a 'disaster slut', 'media whore', 'grief pimp', etc. The right has become a parody of itself. Logic and reason are completely gone, it's only the support of Mr. 36% approval rating that matters.

I thought her son signed up to serve in the military, to serve and defend our nation?

[MrBigglesworth]

She used it on the display in front of her "camp". She might as well have used it in a speech.
Bush speaks all the time of the noble causes they are dying for. He may as well have used his name.

Produce for me a State of the Union speech in which Cindy Sheehan talks about that other guy's son's sacrifice in a negative manner. Happy hunting.

[MrBigglesworth]

I thought her son signed up to serve in the military, to serve and defend our nation?
He did. Cindy's point is that the Iraq war neither serves the purposes of nor defends our nation.

[ISiddiqui]

I do love the fact that she is now a 'nut' and that is proven because her husband is divorcing her? WTF?

Ah, partisan politics.

[duckman]

Bush speaks all the time of the noble causes they are dying for. He may as well have used his name.

Produce for me a State of the Union speech in which Cindy Sheehan talks about that other guy's son's sacrifice in a negative manner. Happy hunting.Cindy display Mr. Quall's son's name on a cross in front of her protest camp. That's the same thing as specifically mentioning his name in a speech.

[ISiddiqui]

He "may" have said it? Um... do you understand what "may as well" means?

[duckman]

Um... do you understand what "may as well" means?
It's been a long day (first day of the fall semester), so words are running together. :)

I apologize for my comment.

[ISiddiqui]

No need for apologies... just bow down to MrBigglesworth and say you've been a bad, bad boy... um... nevermind.

[duckman]

No need for apologies... just bow down to MrBigglesworth and say you've been a bad, bad boy... um... nevermind.
Lets not and just say I did. ;)

[HomerJSimpson]

I do love the fact that she is now a 'nut' and that is proven because her husband is divorcing her? WTF?

Ah, partisan politics.


People on both sides are calling her a nut (and it has nothing to do with her divorce). This is about as bi-partisan as it gets.

[Galaxy]

He did. Cindy's point is that the Iraq war neither serves the purposes of nor defends our nation.

To me, thats the whole purpose of this debate I do not get. Her stance on the war is fine, but its how she is dragging her son's honor and those other people (such as using other soldiers on crosses who disapprove) who served, for her own political gain. Why does she think she gets to have a meeting with President Bush? Many of us may or may not agree with the war, but we are reasonable in that we don't expect that the President to go around and meet with every single person in the country. That's not his job, nor should it be.

[ISiddiqui]

People on both sides are calling her a nut (and it has nothing to do with her divorce). This is about as bi-partisan as it gets.
Some people on both sides are calling her that. Plenty of people don't think so, however. Hell, if she was just a nut, there is no reason we'd be talking about her now.

[HomerJSimpson]

Some people on both sides are calling her that. Plenty of people don't think so, however. Hell, if she was just a nut, there is no reason we'd be talking about her now.


Really, I can think of plenty of nuts that we talk about and get a lot of attention.

[MrBigglesworth]

...but its how she is dragging her son's honor and those other people (such as using other soldiers on crosses who disapprove) who served, for her own political gain. Why does she think she gets to have a meeting with President Bush? Many of us may or may not agree with the war, but we are reasonable in that we don't expect that the President to go around and meet with every single person in the country. That's not his job, nor should it be.
Part of her anger is in that Bush is going around touting her son's sacrifice to gain support for the war. Her point of view (and mine) is that she is defending her son's honor by demanding to know what he was sent to die for. It is obvious that it did nothing to protect this country, and it's getting more and more obvious that Western freedom and democracy is not being instituted in Iraq.

That is the point of her protest, to bring attention to the issue. The President can see her or not, that's his decision, but she has a right to protest. And even kings in the middle ages could be petitioned by his citizens, saying Bush is above that is putting him up onto some kind of impossible pedestal. He meets with groups all the time, from boy scouts to major league champions to oil lobbyists.

[Arles]

Hell, if she was just a nut, there is no reason we'd be talking about her now.
Michael Jackson? Mike Tyson? That moonbeam professor from Colorado? David Duke?

You really believe what you stated there?

[Hurst2112]

Sheehan for president!

BILLY Sheehan for president!!!

http://www.concertshots.com/images/cs-BillySheehan1-Atlanta71901.JPG

http://www.rockdetector.com/assets/img/interviews/47/billy6.jpg

[ISiddiqui]

Michael Jackson? Mike Tyson? That moonbeam professor from Colorado? David Duke?

You really believe what you stated there? Yes I do believe what I've said. Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson were celebrities before they became 'nutty'. The Colorado professor was made a talking point by Bill O'Reilly. David Duke actually ran for office. This woman is holding a simple protest. Of all the protests, she gets coverage. The reason is not because "she's a nut" (she isn't), but because her pleas tug at us. This isn't some anarchist yelling that Bush will be first against the wall when the revolution comes (in that case no one cares and no one covers it), but a woman who lost her son to this war. That's why we care and that's why it is news and that's why people are flocking to her side. After all, it was just her out there first and then people came from all over to join her side.

I mean really, how often do people speak about any other single protester if they weren't a celeb already?

[HomerJSimpson]

Yes I do believe what I've said. Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson were celebrities before they became 'nutty'. The Colorado professor was made a talking point by Bill O'Reilly. David Duke actually ran for office. This woman is holding a simple protest. Of all the protests, she gets coverage. The reason is not because "she's a nut" (she isn't), but because her pleas tug at us. This isn't some anarchist yelling that Bush will be first against the wall when the revolution comes (in that case no one cares and no one covers it), but a woman who lost her son to this war. That's why we care and that's why it is news and that's why people are flocking to her side. After all, it was just her out there first and then people came from all over to join her side.

I mean really, how often do people speak about any other single protester if they weren't a celeb already?


Not many protesters have billionares funding their protest.

[sterlingice]

Not many protesters have billionares funding their protest.
Who in the what now?

SI

[Raiders Army]

Yes I do believe what I've said. Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson were celebrities before they became 'nutty'. The Colorado professor was made a talking point by Bill O'Reilly. David Duke actually ran for office. This woman is holding a simple protest. Of all the protests, she gets coverage. The reason is not because "she's a nut" (she isn't), but because her pleas tug at us. This isn't some anarchist yelling that Bush will be first against the wall when the revolution comes (in that case no one cares and no one covers it), but a woman who lost her son to this war. That's why we care and that's why it is news and that's why people are flocking to her side. After all, it was just her out there first and then people came from all over to join her side.

I mean really, how often do people speak about any other single protester if they weren't a celeb already?
Her pleas do not tug at my heart whatsoever. They itch my skin and it makes me want to bitchslap the stupid out of her.

[gstelmack]

It is obvious that it did nothing to protect this country,
I don't think there's anything "obvious" about this. We've got Al-Qaeda fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than carrying out strikes here. You may disagree that the war in Iraq is having that effect (maybe something else is keeping them over there, and it's only coincidence that so many Al-Qaeda and other terror group fighters are helping out the insurgents), and that's fine, but I definitely think it's a point open to debate and so not at all "obvious" that our troops in Iraq are doing nothing to protect this country.

[Raiders Army]

Part of her anger is in that Bush is going around touting her son's sacrifice to gain support for the war. Her point of view (and mine) is that she is defending her son's honor by demanding to know what he was sent to die for. It is obvious that it did nothing to protect this country, and it's getting more and more obvious that Western freedom and democracy is not being instituted in Iraq.

That is the point of her protest, to bring attention to the issue. The President can see her or not, that's his decision, but she has a right to protest. And even kings in the middle ages could be petitioned by his citizens, saying Bush is above that is putting him up onto some kind of impossible pedestal. He meets with groups all the time, from boy scouts to major league champions to oil lobbyists.
Stop drinking her Kool-Aid.

[TroyF]

Cindy has EVERY right to protest the way she is. She has the right to use the cross with the Bush supporters son.

But this is where the bad part comes in. . . If the media did their job, this would completely discredit her and end the story. This should have became a focus for the media. They should be asking her some tough questions about it. Why do you feel it's ok to go against another parents wishes? Do you not have respect for your fellow citizens? Why don't you even want to engage in a debate with the pro Bush camp? If you feel your position is right, what do you have to lose?

After she babbles off some rhetoric, walk away. That's it. No more media reporting of her unless something new with the story breaks. She clearly has no respect for the people who oppose her, she has no respect for the father of a dead soldier, and she's met the president once and didn't bother asking him her important question then.

She is going through all of the stages of grief. I feel horribly for her loss. I feel horribly for ANY loss of life in this conflict. I support the war and I know what that entails, but that fact doesn't mean I don't feel for people like Cindy.

The father shouldn't be removing the crosses as much as it pains him. She has the right to do what she's doing. I'll say that one more time.

One last thing. . . I am NOT for the people who use pictures of aborted fetuses at all. I think the pictures are disgusting and horrific to look at. I don't think it helps the Pro-Life cause (a cause which I've never supported by the way, I've never been able to come to grips with that one and probably never will). I don't think it proves a thing.

But to compare those fetuses to this mans son on a cross is an incredibly thought out analogy. There are no names on those posters. There are no relatives jumping up and down about, because there are no recognizable faces on them. And there are no parents walking around screaming that their child wanted to be aborted to support the pro-choice crowd.

There are MUCH better analogies which could have been made here. If you want an example of Bush or the right's supporters doing something like that, look no further than the Iraqi soccer team. (I'm not saying that isn't a debate in itself, but it has a hell of a lot more relevance than the abortion poster analogy.)

[John Galt]

But this is where the bad part comes in. . . If the media did their job, this would completely discredit Bush and end the story. This should have became a focus for the media. They should be asking him some tough questions about the war.

Fixed that for ya (although I agree with you that the media should be engaging Sheehan as well).

[TroyF]

Fixed that for ya (although I agree with you that the media should be engaging Sheehan as well).


You are kidding, right?

Bush gets more negative press in a week than most presidents get in a four year period.

The war has been questioned, picked apart, and analyzed more than any single conflict in the last 25 years. They are asking Bush tough questions about the war. And they've tried like hell to discredit him. All in all, they've did a pretty good job at it I think, as his approval rating is low as hell.

If the press spent 1/150th of the time they shred Bush to analyze Sheehan, this story would die in a day. Problem is, Sheehan is good for the press. Negative news is good news. They'll play her for everything she's worth.

The made for TV movie is probably already being produced.

[John Galt]

You are kidding, right?

Bush gets more negative press in a week than most presidents get in a four year period.

The war has been questioned, picked apart, and analyzed more than any single conflict in the last 25 years. They are asking Bush tough questions about the war. And they've tried like hell to discredit him. All in all, they've did a pretty good job at it I think, as his approval rating is low as hell.

If the press spent 1/150th of the time they shred Bush to analyze Sheehan, this story would die in a day. Problem is, Sheehan is good for the press. Negative news is good news. They'll play her for everything she's worth.

The made for TV movie is probably already being produced.

I'm not at all kidding. I think the press has been ridiculously pro-war, gives Bush more positive coverage than most presidents (although I believe they give every president too much positive coverage). A simple comparison between the U.S. press and the media in almost any democratic country in the world shows how incredibly right-wing mainstream media has become during wartime. Go over the transcripts of Bush's press conferences - he gets asked so many softballs (and not just from the plants like Gannon). Access has become so important in modern media that the White House corp doesn't really do any Q&A's (they may ask a stinger or two, but without followup it is useless).

The liberal media bias is beyond a myth in the administration. No credible study has been able to support it and comparisons with countries like England (who has a government that a strong political investment in the war) show how little real criticism our media does. They just reprint press releases from whoever issues them with no real investigation. It is just a sad, sad state of affairs all around.

[gstelmack]

I think the press has been ridiculously pro-war, gives Bush more positive coverage than most presidents (although I believe they give every president too much positive coverage).
Um, what positive coverage does he EVER get? The simple truth that shows me how anti-war the media is: pretty much ZERO coverage of anything GOOD that happens in Iraq.

[John Galt]

Um, what positive coverage does he EVER get? The simple truth that shows me how anti-war the media is: pretty much ZERO coverage of anything GOOD that happens in Iraq.

Pretty much every press release from the administration gets sent out "as is" and labelled "news" by the media reporting it. There is virtually no investigative journalism aimed at the administration in mainstream media. There is virtually no attempt to hold the administration accountable for blatant contradictions by mainstream media (except for the Daily Show, if that counts). A majority of newspapers in the U.S. endorsed Bush for president (even more than did in 2000).

Even when news is critical of the Bush administration, it is within narrow margins. There is nothing resembling the systemic attacks and deep questioning that occurs in foreign media. The U.S. media is pretty much a lapdog for most administrations, but it seems to be even worse during the war.

What is the negative war coverage you see? Deaths? Those will and should ALWAYS be reported. What else? Economic conditions and status updates? Again, those will and should always be reported. Look at the Constitution coverage - the media just repeats what it hears. The media has finally become somewhat more "anti-war" IMO, but has severely trailed the public in that regard (it is not the case as TroyF has asserted that the media has driven the public). Even now, however, the U.S. media's handling is so much more pro-war than any other major democracy in the world.

Fox News showed that waiving the flag sells and every corporate network has followed suit.

[Galaxy]

[QUOTE=TroyF]Cindy has EVERY right to protest the way she is. She has the right to use the cross with the Bush supporters son.
[QUOTE]

Why does she have the right? What if his son supported the war, and was proud of serving? It may not be illegal, but it is very disrespectful to me. Her protest is fine, but do not go dragging other people with you for your own purposes.

[MrBigglesworth]

Why don't you even want to engage in a debate with the pro Bush camp? If you feel your position is right, what do you have to lose?
Such is the power of the conservative slime machine.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050814/capt.txlm11108140008.bush_peace_mom_txlm111.jpg

That's Cindy hugging...Gary Qualls. That's about a week before Qualls showed up with camp Qualls. Cindy asked any pro-Bush parents that have lost a child in the war to come and visit, and he was the only one that came. They talked for about an hour, at the end they told each other, 'I love you', not in a romantic way but in the way of two people that understand what the other is going through. Now, where are the Bush-lackeys screaming about how he is changing his story? Where are they screaming at him for being a greif pimp, media whore, or disaster slut? Surely, not every one of them can be hacks who only argue a point to death when it is in favor of Bush, can they?

hxxp://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2005/08/14/MNG9ME7PKV1.DTL&o=1

[HomerJSimpson]

Such is the power of the conservative slime machine.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050814/capt.txlm11108140008.bush_peace_mom_txlm111.jpg

That's Cindy hugging...Gary Qualls. That's about a week before Qualls showed up with camp Qualls. Cindy asked any pro-Bush parents that have lost a child in the war to come and visit, and he was the only one that came. They talked for about an hour, at the end they told each other, 'I love you', not in a romantic way but in the way of two people that understand what the other is going through. Now, where are the Bush-lackeys screaming about how he is changing his story? Where are they screaming at him for being a greif pimp, media whore, or disaster slut? Surely, not every one of them can be hacks who only argue a point to death when it is in favor of Bush, can they?

hxxp://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2005/08/14/MNG9ME7PKV1.DTL&o=1

I'm not a Bush lackey, but I'll scream. What an idiot! He is as bad as she is. If your going to come out and attack someone, don't go and have pictures of yourself hugging them a week before, and don't give an interview in the paper talking about how sincere and good a man he is. Is it really that hard to find a mouth-piece that isn't so easily compromised?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is it really that hard to find a mouth-piece that isn't so easily compromised?

Maybe he was slow in figuring out what a f'n idiot she is? Maybe he tried really hard to give her the benefit of a doubt but in the time since then he realized she didn't deserve it? Maybe she emptied a Port-a-Pottie in his yard?

I'm rather disgusted by the photo, but at least he's doing something positive now, so it isn't a total loss.

[BrianD]

I'm not a Bush lackey, but I'll scream. What an idiot! He is as bad as she is. If your going to come out and attack someone, don't go and have pictures of yourself hugging them a week before, and don't give an interview in the paper talking about how sincere and good a man he is. Is it really that hard to find a mouth-piece that isn't so easily compromised?

One would think that if one was going to attack someone, it would be difficult to not have pictures of one's self hugging them a week before. Once we figure out the whole time travel thing, then we may be able to change things that happened in the past to reflect current feelings.

[HomerJSimpson]

One would think that if one was going to attack someone, it would be difficult to not have pictures of one's self hugging them a week before. Once we figure out the whole time travel thing, then we may be able to change things that happened in the past to reflect current feelings.


So, your saying he was *against* the war the week before, and is now *for* the war and against the use of his son in anit-war protest? Little hard to believe, isn't it?

[ISiddiqui]

Nothing indicates that Qualls was against the war. Remember Sheehan invited pro-Bush parents to come by and Qualls was the only one of those.

[BrianD]

So, your saying he was *against* the war the week before, and is now *for* the war and against the use of his son in anit-war protest? Little hard to believe, isn't it?

Not remotely. I'm saying he was *for* showing support for other parents of kids killed in the war but is *against* having his son's name used in an anti-war protest.

I don't agree with the woman's anti-war efforts, but I'd give her a hug and sympathy for her lost son.

This woman is more than just a political figure, and any attempt to see nothing but the political figure in her is shortsighted and disingenuous.

[gstelmack]

Pretty much every press release from the administration gets sent out "as is" and labelled "news" by the media reporting it. There is virtually no investigative journalism aimed at the administration in mainstream media.
What about the Karl Rove / CIA leak that was all over here a few weeks back? Mud flies both ways in the press every day.

And is the press supposed to modify press releases? They should be sent out "as is".

But I will concede one point: the press in this country has definitely been more and more in the habit of releasing stories written for them, rather than by their own reporters. This is on both sides of the aisle, and even outside politics. Ads now look like news stories, companies pay off people to write favorable stories, etc. It's just one more reason I don't trust much of anything the media says these days.

What is the negative war coverage you see? Deaths? Those will and should ALWAYS be reported. What else? Economic conditions and status updates? Again, those will and should always be reported.
Pretty much ALL they report is how many attacks were made today and how many soldiers were killed. The exception is some update on holdups in the Iraqi consitutional process. You never hear about new schools or businesses opening, Iraqi people who SUPPORT the U.S. efforts, etc. What little of this does make it out all comes out in little side stories in non-mainstream press, usually coming from interviews with the troops that are over there or have just returned. Heck, the DoD report debated here that had some positive things to say on the Iraqi situation wasn't reported much at all. The point is you rarely if ever hear about anything positive happening in Iraq, and the result is waning support here in the U.S. because people don't think anything is being accomplished, because no one is telling them.

[TroyF]

[QUOTE=TroyF]Cindy has EVERY right to protest the way she is. She has the right to use the cross with the Bush supporters son.
[QUOTE]

Why does she have the right? What if his son supported the war, and was proud of serving? It may not be illegal, but it is very disrespectful to me. Her protest is fine, but do not go dragging other people with you for your own purposes.


Simple Galaxy. She has the LEGAL right. It is moral? Ethical? Rude?

All of the rest is opinion. Until a law is put on the books telling someone they can't use a name in the form of a protest, Cindy has the right to do whatever the hell she wants. I disagree with it, but I disagree with a lot of things I can't legally alter. Life sucks sometimes.

As far as the picture with him hugging her and the reporting of her conversation, some have already made the points I would have:

1) The hug was for the fact both of them have went through something incredibly tragic.

2) He went to the camp as a "pro" war person, not as part of the anti war crowd.

3) This really makes me REALLY not like Sheehan. This wasn't some nameless face. She knew this man and she knew his story. She knew his viewpoints and understood the magnitude of his loss. Yet she still refused to remove the cross after he made the request. Forget sad. That's just pathetic.

[MrBigglesworth]

As far as the picture with him hugging her and the reporting of her conversation, some have already made the points I would have:

1) The hug was for the fact both of them have went through something incredibly tragic.

2) He went to the camp as a "pro" war person, not as part of the anti war crowd.

3) This really makes me REALLY not like Sheehan. This wasn't some nameless face. She knew this man and she knew his story. She knew his viewpoints and understood the magnitude of his loss. Yet she still refused to remove the cross after he made the request. Forget sad. That's just pathetic.
But your comment to Cindy was: "Why don't you even want to engage in a debate with the pro Bush camp? If you feel your position is right, what do you have to lose?" It's obvious that she was engaging in a debate with the pro Bush camp, and at the end of it they found common ground.

[ISiddiqui]

The point is you rarely if ever hear about anything positive happening in Iraq, and the result is waning support here in the U.S. because people don't think anything is being accomplished, because no one is telling them.
That's very simplistic, IMO (you are basically saying that if the media trumped up the new businesses and schools people would support the war in great numbers). The minor good being done is far outweighed by the bad. Especially seeing how this new Constitution is a few steps back, promoting Islamic law and pushing down women. A few new businesses and schools get built... woopie! There are still problems with electricity and water generation in some areas, for one. OTOH, the Iraqi Constitution may create a mini-Iran. I think most people see that more troops are getting wiped out daily and then a Constitution like this comes out from the Council and people wonder what are we doing.

And the American people do get good news, such as this article proclaiming hope about the Constitutional process:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/23/iraq.main/index.html