NationStates Jolt Archive

I haven't seen a post on this and if there is one, I apologize.
http://timesheraldonline.com/ci_2922883
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/09/mr_bush_lets_talk/
"For the most part, contact with average voters is reduced to ceremonial photo opportunities with political supporters.

This is not a Bush White House phenomenon, although Bush is perfecting the art of presidential isolation. During the 2004 presidential contest, Bush's campaign events were packed with supporters and screened for dissidents. Since his January 2005 inauguration, he held four press conferences. During his first term, he held the fewest solo press conferences of any president in the television age."

Should Bush talk with Mrs. Sheehan?

Doubtful it'll work. When he was governor of texas, there was a man who was dragged to his death by being chained to a pickup, by two white guys. The man's mother lobbied for an anti-hate crime bill, had an appointment with Bush, and went in. She told him what happened (which he was fully aware of), what the bill would entail, and placed it on his desk. He didn't say a word..Instead, he just took the paper, placed it face down, blank side up, as his way of saying "No".

My point is that I doubt he'd feel moved by their plea. If he couldn't bother to even give an explaination to the aforementioned woman, then he certaintly doesn't care how many troops are killed for his little crusade.

I support the war, and I fully respect people to voice their opinions. They won't be changing my mind. I'm a little upset about the Rolling Stones, but they are still my favorite band and that won't ever change.

I applaud this woman's dedication, wholeheartedly.

If the so-called liberal media ever gets off its collective ass and covers this story, Bush might decide that it's worth it to meet with her, just to avoid the bad press. There's been some talk that she'd be arrested as a national security threat--some big meeting is supposed to happen at the vacation home--and man would that be a pr disaster. She's already said that she's not leaving until 1)Bush meets with her, 2) she gets arrested (and they'll have to carry her to the squad car) or 3) August ends.

Im not trying to be crewl or anything, but i donr believe that mother needs to talk to bush. it was that soldier's decision do go into iraq, and thats y he died there. the soldier should of know there was a possibility of death

Im not trying to be crewl or anything, but i donr believe that mother needs to talk to bush. it was that soldier's decision do go into iraq, and thats y he died there. the soldier should of know there was a possibility of death
Her argument isn't about her son's decision to serve his country. Its about her country not serving her son. She is saying that he had inadequate supplies and that the way that he died could have been prevented. Not only this but now Bush is using her son as a promotion for his war. That is what makes her upset. The soldier's father, by the way, fully supports the war.

Im not trying to be crewl or anything, but i donr believe that mother needs to talk to bush. it was that soldier's decision do go into iraq, and thats y he died there. the soldier should of know there was a possibility of death
Grammar and spelling help to make a coherent argument.

Her argument isn't about her son's decision to serve his country. Its about her country not serving her son. She is saying that he had inadequate supplies and that the way that he died could have been prevented. Not only this but now Bush is using her son as a promotion for his war. That is what makes her upset. The soldier's father, by the way, fully supports the war.

Was she there? If she wasn't, she has no grounds to talk on.

Gosh sounds like my family.. my dad fully supports the war.. strongly.. and my mom doesn't.

What, Bush meet with a regular American who hasn't signed a loyalty oath or been vetted by Karl Rove? Perish the thought.

I know it is impossible, but I wish America could go back to the days when the president was more open to the people and described by Walt Whitman

The thing that caught my eye reading the article was:

She wants to tell the president that he should pull all American troops out of Iraq.There are roughly 1800 American soldiers that have been killed in this war. Let's assume for just a moment that only one in five of those have a family member who wants to complain.

That's 360 people. Would anyone really suggest he should be expected to have 360 conversations with family members because soldiers died in a war, and their family doesn't like the war?

And if you wouldn't, why this woman? If not all 360 - and that assumes just 1 in 5 - why her, or any other individual affected by the war? For that matter, I'm not clear on why she must speak to him in person to deliver her message of disapproval.

I just don't see a reason to grant her request, personally.

The Sheehan woman has already had a private meeting with President Bush. It was in Seattle about a year ago. The story she's currently telling, that she met with him and he was mean and indifferent to her, directly contradicts the story she told after that meeting took place last year. Just take a look at what she told a reporter (http://www.thereporter.com/republished) then:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." She also talked about how her life briefly returned to normal: "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."

Hmm...now let's flash-forward to the present day, where she's singing a different tune:

"Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party."

Whatever. Go home, Mrs. Sheehan. You're the one dishonoring your son's memory.

Was she there? If she wasn't, she has no grounds to talk on.

Gosh sounds like my family.. my dad fully supports the war.. strongly.. and my mom doesn't.
I think she should be able to get an audience with a man who is using her son's name.
"Ms Sheehan has met the president before, a few months after Casey died. She describes his behaviour as "disrespectful" and "inappropriate", saying he kept referring to her as "mom", could not remember Casey's name and acted as though he were at a party. According to Ms Sheehan, Mr Bush said he could not imagine losing a loved one like an aunt or uncle or cousin. She reminded him that Casey was her son."

My heart goes out to the mother whose son fell in the attack on and occupation of Iraq. But parents whose children seek some sort of glory on the 'field of battle' should have their eager children visit the military cemeteries around the world. Let those children not stand in admiration of the precise alignments of the crosses, crescents, stars of David, etc., but rather make them go and read the names of each person who has sacrificed himself to the will of some political ideology. Have them notice the gratitude of the nation for whose policies each one fought - from Leipzig, Waterloo, the Crimea, Vicksburg, Verdun, Stalingrad, Okinawa, etc. ad nauseum, i. e. the wilting flowers and drooping flags. Remind them that many of the fallen left wives, husbands, children behind to fend for themselves; many had no chance to procreate and their potential dies with them on the field of battle. And have them study history: many lie in their graves, having fought for a government or a nation that no longer exists.

And then, dear parents, if your child still is enamoured with military 'glory', break his legs and take him home. The military does not want handicapped people, at least not yet.

Oops, I forgot to mention Bush! But since these posts are probably censored, I will be discrete and not say a single word about him and his gang. ;)

The story she's currently telling, that she met with him and he was mean and indifferent to her, directly contradicts the story she told after that meeting took place last year. Just take a look at what she told a reporter (http://www.thereporter.com/republished) then:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." She also talked about how her life briefly returned to normal: "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."

Hmm...now let's flash-forward to the present day, where she's singing a different tune:

"Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party."

Whatever. Go home, Mrs. Sheehan. You're the one dishonoring your son's memory.
I wonder if you read the entire article in your own link...
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

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.

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.

I think she should be able to get an audience with a man who is using her son's name.
"Ms Sheehan has met the president before, a few months after Casey died. She describes his behaviour as "disrespectful" and "inappropriate", saying he kept referring to her as "mom", could not remember Casey's name and acted as though he were at a party. According to Ms Sheehan, Mr Bush said he could not imagine losing a loved one like an aunt or uncle or cousin. She reminded him that Casey was her son."

She can't get her story right. She claimed otherwise before. She said Bush was truly sorry about it. She's truly full of shit and is trying to get the media spotlight.

I wonder if you read the entire article in your own link...
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

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.

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.
Yes, they decided that discretion was the better choice and decided not to harangue the President over his conduct of the war. The article concluded as I quoted, with very complimentary remarks about Mr. Bush. Now she is telling a very different story about the meeting. A story that isn't borne out by the facts.

If the so-called liberal media ever gets off its collective ass and covers this story, Bush might decide that it's worth it to meet with her, just to avoid the bad press. There's been some talk that she'd be arrested as a national security threat--some big meeting is supposed to happen at the vacation home--and man would that be a pr disaster. She's already said that she's not leaving until 1)Bush meets with her, 2) she gets arrested (and they'll have to carry her to the squad car) or 3) August ends.

Funny. I heard this all over the Right Wing Media. They respected her for her right to dissent AND said that Bush should talk with her. How about that huh?

Grammar and spelling help to make a coherent argument.
Do you just jump from thread to thread correcting grammar? Get a freakin life!

Yes, they decided that discretion was the better choice and decided not to harangue the President over his conduct of the war. The article concluded as I quoted, with very complimentary remarks about Mr. Bush. Now she is telling a very different story about the meeting. A story that isn't borne out by the facts.
I don't see any discrepency in her position on Bush.

I don't see any discrepency in her position on Bush.
Too bad. I do. That's life.

Too bad. I do. That's life.
The complimentary remarks were directed at having a vacation with her family and the families of other fallen soldiers. They were not directed to Bush.
"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. "
Soon I'm going to end up posting the entire article...

Too bad. I do. That's life.
No--that's bullshit. Bush could wipe his ass with the Constitution and you and others like you would find a way to excuse it. Sheehan's story and her feelings about this war have been consistent, and yet you right-wingers are so scared of people like her, people who are willing to stand up and confront the bullshit we're fed every day that you've got to swift-boat her. It's pathetic.

The complimentary remarks were directed at having a vacation with her family and the families of other fallen soldiers. They were not directed to Bush.
Soon I'm going to end up posting the entire article...

But don't leave out important parts.

"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.


Clearly the woman just wants attention. She should shut up and go home.

Do you just jump from thread to thread correcting grammar? Get a freakin life!
No, actually, I jump from thread to thread looking for someone interesting. I was going to write a post relating to this thread, then I stumbled upon that little gem and offered some advice on how to get people to actually listen to you instead of looking at the words "i thnk u r crzy" and having their heads explode.

No--that's bullshit. Bush could wipe his ass with the Constitution and you and others like you would find a way to excuse it. Sheehan's story and her feelings about this war have been consistent, and yet you right-wingers are so scared of people like her, people who are willing to stand up and confront the bullshit we're fed every day that you've got to swift-boat her. It's pathetic.
Her thoughts on the war may well be consistent. That doesn't mean she was ever treated badly by anyone. She certainly seemed to think that she had a decent meeting with Bush in Seattle at the time it happened. Her revised version of what happened is what looks and smells like BS.

Oh, sticks and stones...

Choosing two lines and calling them "the important parts" is ridiculous. Read the article. Her sentiments follow through to this day and her compliments to the president were pretty weak to begin with.
I don't think many people, after meeting any person equal in stature to the president would tell the media outside, "God, what a dick." She actually did get her sentiments across on how she felt about the war while also honoring how her son would have liked her to behave.
This argument is petty compared to the larger issue of why the president won't speak to not only this woman but practically no one that has a differing opinion.

Should Bush talk with Mrs. Sheehan?

According to mass media, he did last year. Had decent results. She's changed her tune about it now.

It's not Bush's fault.

No, actually, I jump from thread to thread looking for someone interesting. I was going to write a post relating to this thread, then I stumbled upon that little gem and offered some advice on how to get people to actually listen to you instead of looking at the words "i thnk u r crzy" and having their heads explode.
Well, your intentions may be good, but no one will listen to YOU if all you do is correct people. Most people find it extremely rude, and it gives the impression that you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion. Just something to think about.

According to mass media, he did last year. Had decent results. She's changed her tune about it now.

It's not Bush's fault.
Wait a minute... are you guys reading the Drudge Report?

It all makes sense now.

Her thoughts on the war may well be consistent. That doesn't mean she was ever treated badly by anyone. She certainly seemed to think that she had a decent meeting with Bush in Seattle at the time it happened. Her revised version of what happened is what looks and smells like BS.

Oh, sticks and stones...
She lost her son in a war that is predicated on lies--that, bub, might well be the definition of "treated badly" to some.

Choosing two lines and calling them "the important parts" is ridiculous. Read the article. Her sentiments follow through to this day and her compliments to the president were pretty weak to begin with.
I don't think many people, after meeting any person equal in stature to the president would tell the media outside, "God, what a dick." She actually did get her sentiments across on how she felt about the war while also honoring how her son would have liked her to behave.
This argument is petty compared to the larger issue of why the president won't speak to not only this woman but practically no one that has a differing opinion.
But he did speak with her. And sixteen other families at that time. More families at other times. What should he do? Visit with every crackpot that has a contradictory opinion? Every fifth crackpot? Every time a mother with a dead son wants a meeting? Bush has done more than his duty to this woman. I'll be disappointed if she gets to see him again.

But he did speak with her. And sixteen other families at that time. More families at other times. What should he do? Visit with every crackpot that has a contradictory opinion? Every fifth crackpot? Every time a mother with a dead son wants a meeting? Bush has done more than his duty to this woman. I'll be disappointed if she gets to see him again.
I'd be disappointed if he doesn't. I'll be much more disappointed, though, if he doesn't start addressing the questions that she is asking.

I'd be disappointed if he doesn't. I'll be much more disappointed, though, if he doesn't start addressing the questions that she is asking.
To quote Westley, "Get used to disappointment." This is the nothing-is-ever-my-fault administration.

Whatever. Go home, Mrs. Sheehan. You're the one dishonoring your son's memory.


By what right do you make that judgement?

To see a video by Cindy Sheehan:
http://realvoices.org/rv/cindy.html

Wait a minute... are you guys reading the Drudge Report?

It all makes sense now.

Funny thing is, he links everywhere to just about every news site out there.

She lost her son in a war that is predicated on lies--that, bub, might well be the definition of "treated badly" to some.

War based on Faulty intel and not lies. I love how the left always tries to say this even though it is untrue.

He will, then make some grand public speech about the contribution of dead fathers and sons in Iraq to the war on terror and then ask for more heroes.

Well, according to this guy, and his book, Bush press conferences were mostly scripted.
Meaning Bush knew the answer he was going to give, even before the questions were asked.

Meaning that the media present, did not ask any questions that were deemed "inflammatory".

So You can blame Bush for misleading the people, and the media for not speaking out against it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565848918/102-7824059-7741769?v=glance

War based on Faulty intel and not lies. I love how the left always tries to say this even though it is untrue.


They keep the "Lie" mantra going. It makes them feel good. That and half the douchebags out there think its true and take up the chant as well.
Dont waste your breath on them.

They keep the "Lie" mantra going. It makes them feel good. That and half the douchebags out there think its true and take up the chant as well.
Dont waste your breath on them.

I know. I don't even know why I bother. I guess its just how I was raised. See something wrong, correct it. I forgot I'm dealing with liberals who can't think for themselves.

I know. I don't even know why I bother. I guess its just how I was raised. See something wrong, correct it. I forgot I'm dealing with liberals who can't think for themselves.


I agree 100%

Anyone who does not think like you do..MUST not be able to think for themselves.

I know. I don't even know why I bother. I guess its just how I was raised. See something wrong, correct it. I forgot I'm dealing with liberals who can't think for themselves.


They do think for themselves-they just insist on thinking for you as well.

Should Bush talk with Mrs. Sheehan?

No, he's not very good with words. Anything or probably everything he says would be ridiculed. And cutting the mother off after he has replied with all the answers he has memorized(or fed into his ear) wouldn't be good either. What's done is done, I don't think it would be right to pull out from over there now after we've went in and removed Saddam. But then again, I also think there will never be any peace over there no matter what and we should just let them do whatever they are going to do to one another and only do something if they fuck with us or our allies. Then get it done and don't pussy foot around. But it won't ever be like that unless holy hell breaks loose.

I agree 100%

Anyone who does not think like you do..MUST not be able to think for themselves.

:confused:

I have in no way said this B.S. (i like those initials. your post fits it)

Since it seems like every liberal is spouting only one reason that was false and neglecting all the other reasons that is in the joint resolution is really short sighted. Considering we already proved that it was bad intel that Bush used, saying he lied is rather stupid.

:confused:

I have in no way said this B.S. (i like those initials. your post fits it)

Since it seems like every liberal is spouting only one reason that was false and neglecting all the other reasons that is in the joint resolution is really short sighted. Considering we already proved that it was bad intel that Bush used, saying he lied is rather stupid.


ehh..you didnt prove anything, and at any rate...you as much as said yourself that you think Liberals cant think for themselves, and therefore, you assume that anyone who disagrees with you....isnt "thinking".

ehh..you didnt prove anything, and at any rate...you as much as said yourself that you think Liberals cant think for themselves, and therefore, you assume that anyone who disagrees with you....isnt "thinking".

When they all spout the samething (nearly word for word) is individual thinking? WOW!!!!!

I never said that those who disagree with me aren't thinking for themselves. My mother disagrees with me constently but she isn't spouting the same false mantra every day. A mantra that was proven false on so many occassions it isn't funny.

When they all spout the samething (nearly word for word) is individual thinking? WOW!!!!!

I never said that those who disagree with me aren't thinking for themselves. My mother disagrees with me constently but she isn't spouting the same false mantra every day. A mantra that was proven false on so many occassions it isn't funny.


If you dont believe that Conservatives do the very same thing....even more often, with regards to Iraq, your living in some sort of delusional make believe world.

However, as you've been around this forum for a long time, and Ive read some of your posts, I dont believe thats the case...so which is it?

Well, according to this guy, and his book, Bush press conferences were mostly scripted.
Meaning Bush knew the answer he was going to give, even before the questions were asked.

Meaning that the media present, did not ask any questions that were deemed "inflammatory".

So You can blame Bush for misleading the people, and the media for not speaking out against it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565848918/102-7824059-7741769?v=glance

Speaking of media, why doesn't the media press the Sheehan woman about the inconsistencies in her position last June, when she was interviewed for the Vacaville paper, and her current position as poster child for MoveOn.org?

She won't get the troops home.
I feel kinda weird on how they sign up for the army knowing that war might come, but when they get injuired or killed its Bush's fault for the war and death of all these people.

Its sad really....

If you dont believe that Conservatives do the very same thing....even more often, with regards to Iraq, your living in some sort of delusional make believe world.

I know they do. However, I know what the Joint Congressional Resolution states. Yes it mentions WMD, it also mentions his violation of UN Resolutions, Violation of the agreed upon Cease-fire AND humanitarian reasons as well.

Speaking of media, why doesn't the media press the Sheehan woman about the inconsistencies in her position last June, when she was interviewed for the Vacaville paper, and her current position as poster child for MoveOn.org?


Sorry, I havent read anything on the subject as of yet, and cant give you an educated answer until I do.

I know they do. However, I know what the Joint Congressional Resolution states. Yes it mentions WMD, it also mentions his violation of UN Resolutions, Violation of the agreed upon Cease-fire AND humanitarian reasons as well.


Ok.. so..

If we remember correctly, around the time Bush made his speech concerning Iraq to the U.N, how many times did he make a clear connection, or at the very least, and implied connection between Saddam Hussein, and Al-Qeada?

"This man has connections to terrorism"
"This man has weapons of mass destruction..."

Over and over....

Two things that we know that Saddam did not posseses.

So..you say his info was faulty..I say he intentionally misled the public into believing Saddam was a threat to U.S security, and THAT alone was why we went to war with Iraq.
Talk of "liberation" only came around when we found no weapons, and no connections to any Terrorist groups.

So...in summation, to conclude that Liberals, or any other poltical oreintation "isnt thinking", or operate on lower levels of intelligence than your own, becuase of rhetoric and lies....is the ulltimate in hippocracy.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html


Sorry, that article is almost a year old, and its widely accepted by both sides that Iraq had no connections to terrorism, or wmd's, pre-US invasion.

Your grasping at straws.

Ok.. so..

If we remember correctly, around the time Bush made his speech concerning Iraq to the U.N, how many times did he make a clear connection, or at the very least, and implied connection between Saddam Hussein, and Al-Qeada?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1278573/posts
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/4/121101.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

There was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Two things that we know that Saddam did not posseses.

One yes and the other, no.

And one more link for even more kicks:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083778/posts

Sorry, that article is almost a year old, and its widely accepted by both sides that Iraq had no connections to terrorism, or wmd's, pre-US invasion.

Your grasping at straws.

Funny that other sources say nearly the same as csnnews does isn't it?

She won't get the troops home.
I feel kinda weird on how they sign up for the army knowing that war might come, but when they get injuired or killed its Bush's fault for the war and death of all these people.

Its sad really....



I know some people who went into the military just for the money, education cost coverage, health care etc. Isn't a bad idea, but you need to consider that you may have to actually fight. One can't predict if the fight will be justified, or even if it is, that once in middle of the war that you won't be shitted over. It never entered my mind to join the military until I was 26. If I had thought about it sooner, I would have done it.. but by then I felt I was too old to go in although the Marines and Navy didn't think so. I took the ASVAB, but in the end didn't follow through. I thought about it and decided I was already set in my ways so to speak and wasn't for an 18 or 20 year old telling me what to do. As for the war part, that was the first thing I thought about and came to terms with before even considering it. Not to say that I know exactly what I would have done once in the middle of it, but I do know I'm not one to leave my friends or partners hanging, I would've stood by their side.

But for the people that protest for their kin in the war, they did not make the decisions that the one over there serving did. I understand their feeling in wanting their folk to come home from a war they feel isn't neccessary. But if they are aware that their son, daughter etc. feels they are doing the right thing, they should support them. People might bash the president and politicians for the war, but the ones to personally feel it are the ones that served.

Funny that other sources say nearly the same as csnnews does isn't it?


Really?

Then why has the search for them offically been stopped if such things were truly found?
Surely, the hunt would be continuing to ensure such things were not being discovered by insurgent forces.

Why would Bush not trump the discoveries as a victory, as he did the Capture of Saddam?

Please..those are shady at best, certainly, if it were ANY President, whos actions were so scrutinized in this war as Bush's are, would be jumping up and down screaming "see?? see?? I told you! I told you!!"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1278573/posts
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/4/121101.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

There was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.



One yes and the other, no.

And one more link for even more kicks:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083778/posts

also..that site is one designed to be just a LITTLE BIASED TO THE RIGHT.

I think you should less biased, and less opinionated sites, when try to claim them as actual news.

Its like asking a Catholic is God is real, and expecting an objective answer.

Really?

Then why has the search for them offically been stopped if such things were truly found?

Because its been ignored by the press. You can find links to these stories in the links I provided.

Why would Bush not trump the discoveries as a victory, as he did the Capture of Saddam?

Would it do any good? Problem is, its already been touted that they had no connections. How would it look if all of a sudden proof came up to prove the Iraq/Al Qaeda link? People would just say it was falsified even though it isn't.

also..that site is one designed to be just a LITTLE BIASED TO THE RIGHT.

I think you should less biased, and less opinionated sites, when try to claim them as actual news.

Its like asking a Catholic is God is real, and expecting an objective answer.

Follow the links there. The evidence is there B.S.

Follow the links there. The evidence is there B.S.


I did, and every one of them took me to the same site, with an obvious Right slant to it.
Much like Fox News, only with less content and more opinion pieces.

Show me the same article by a more respected agency, with retorts from respected journalists on BOTH sides of the arguement who are willing to vouch for their existance, and I'll agree that you may have something there.

However, as the NeoCons did not trumpet this as a victory, especially when Bushes approval ratings have dropped to an all time low....I wont believe it, until I see true objective, non-partisan confirmation.

I do not see why she should have a meeting with Bush. Her son joined the Army and new what to expect, thats why he joined. Before any of you start saying what do i know. I have just finished 25 years service and was in the first Gulf War and the Iraq War. I for one fully supported the War and still do.

On saying that I think that both the US and UK should think about bringing the Boys home before the end of next year.

I did, and every one of them took me to the same site, with an obvious Right slant to it.
Much like Fox News, only with less content and more opinion pieces.

Show me the same article by a more respected agency, with retorts from respected journalists on BOTH sides of the arguement who are willing to vouch for their existance, and I'll agree that you may have something there.

However, as the NeoCons did not trumpet this as a victory, especially when Bushes approval ratings have dropped to an all time low....I wont believe it, until I see true objective, non-partisan confirmation.

Ok! Ignore the evidence. Your loss that you don't want to actually have an intelligent debate on this with facts from both sides of the political spectrum. Just go back to your fantasy world and I'll stick with the real world.

Because its been ignored by the press. You can find links to these stories in the links I provided.



Would it do any good? Problem is, its already been touted that they had no connections. How would it look if all of a sudden proof came up to prove the Iraq/Al Qaeda link? People would just say it was falsified even though it isn't.

thats crap.

Bush would use any such discoveries as a victory, to rally his country around his ideas.
AS WOULD ANY PRESIDENT, in his shoes.

and several news agencies, would attack this story with rabid ferocity if it were credible, just to have some proof, one way or another.
That would be HUGE news.

Trekster']I do not see why she should have a meeting with Bush. Her son joined the Army and new what to expect, thats why he joined. Before any of you start saying what do i know. I have just finished 25 years service and was in the first Gulf War and the Iraq War. I for one fully supported the War and still do.

On saying that I think that both the US and UK should think about bringing the Boys home before the end of next year.

Thank you for serving [NS]Trekster. My father is currently in the theater on his last rotation there.

Andif things hold true, our forces should start coming home middle of next year.

thats crap.

Bush would use any such discoveries as a victory, to rally his country around his ideas.
AS WOULD ANY PRESIDENT, in his shoes.

and several news agencies, would attack this story with rabid ferocity if it were credible, just to have some proof, one way or another.
That would be HUGE news.

Believe what you will B.S. I'm going back to the actual real world now. Not the real world you live in.

Ok! Ignore the evidence. Your loss that you don't want to actually have an intelligent debate on this with facts from both sides of the political spectrum. Just go back to your fantasy world and I'll stick with the real world.


How is it evidence if it comes from such an untrustworthy source?

And becuase I doubt that kind of right-wing drivel makes me a poor debater?

Its I who am insisting on evidence that is non-partisan in its source.
Not you.

and yet you have the nerve to imply that I live in a fantasy world?

again..refering back to my earlier post....your'e a hippocrite.

I haven't seen a post on this and if there is one, I apologize.
http://timesheraldonline.com/ci_2922883
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/09/mr_bush_lets_talk/
"For the most part, contact with average voters is reduced to ceremonial photo opportunities with political supporters.

This is not a Bush White House phenomenon, although Bush is perfecting the art of presidential isolation. During the 2004 presidential contest, Bush's campaign events were packed with supporters and screened for dissidents. Since his January 2005 inauguration, he held four press conferences. During his first term, he held the fewest solo press conferences of any president in the television age."

Should Bush talk with Mrs. Sheehan?
Great goin', Mom! Way to dishonor your dead son's memory. Nice. :(

Believe what you will B.S. I'm going back to the actual real world now. Not the real world you live in.


you should stay in mine....we like to choose what we believe, instead of letting others tell us what we should.

You might like it.

Thank you for serving [NS]Trekster. My father is currently in the theater on his last rotation there.

Andif things hold true, our forces should start coming home middle of next year.

Hey I wish him well and a safe return.

Trekster']Hey I wish him well and a safe return.

So do we all Trekster! :) and thanks :)

you should stay in mine....we like to choose what we believe, instead of letting others tell us what we should.

You might like it.

Sorry but I'm not going to live in a world that doesn't look at all the evidence.

Sorry but I'm not going to live in a world that doesn't look at all the evidence.


evidence from such a biased site isnt evidence.

If it were, Micheal Moore would be the gospel truth.
You wouldnt agree thats the case would you?
So whats the difference?

I'll tell you....its becuase it coincides with your personal beliefs.
To you...its ok as long as you agree with it.
But when its not....its "liberal closemindedness" isnt it?

Again, I remind you of your potential hippocracy.

evidence from such a biased site isnt evidence.

If you say so. I don't think so but then, I guess I'm just opened minded to the fact that it could just possibly be true.

If it were, Micheal Moore would be the gospel truth.
You wouldnt agree thats the case would you?
So whats the difference?

Michael Moore has been debunked. That's the difference.

I'll tell you....its becuase it coincides with your personal beliefs.
To you...its ok as long as you agree with it.
But when its not....its "liberal closemindedness" isnt it?

I'm not going to be persuaded. I'm sorry that Im keeping open the possibility that those we have interrogated could just be very well telling the truth about Saddam's link with Al Qaeda. I guess liberals don't want to see that because it would've disintegrated everything they've been spouting.

Again, I remind you of your potential hippocracy.

I'm reminding you of yours. At least I am keeping possibilities open.

I don't think Bush should approuch this woman.

People are selfish, and if Bush tries to compassionate with one person, then another person would want the same thing. Then another...and another.

I remember Bill Clinton tried to compassionate with parents of lost soldiers and did not work too well in his favor.

He shouldn't get involved, but the mother is a bitch for using her son as a stepping stone to get her 15 minutes of fame. Why is she accusing Bush of killing her son when it is some arab in the middle east who pulled that trigger? The Army isn't a part-time job at McDonalds.

If you say so. I don't think so but then, I guess I'm just opened minded to the fact that it could just possibly be true.

Its also true that its possible Bush has been purposely misleading the american public about Iraq from day one.
Until I see proof..Im not gonna make a judgement.



Michael Moore has been debunked. That's the difference.

Debunked in your eyes, certainly not much of anywhere else.
Aside from his shady editing techniques, most of what he claims is true, Its just his very aggressive anti-Bush stance, and his willingness to use such potentially misleading techniques in his films, that make him less credible.

You should instead, check out his books, which although you wont like what he says, you will find, about 27 pages of sources and quotes to back up his claims.
Pity he doesnt use the same diligence with his films.



I'm not going to be persuaded.

Im sorry..what was that about an open mind, you were saying?

I'm sorry that Im keeping open the possibility that those we have interrogated could just be very well telling the truth about Saddam's link with Al Qaeda. I guess liberals don't want to see that because it would've disintegrated everything they've been spouting.

Heres another possibilty for you, since your enjoying your "open-mindedness".

Theres a possibilty that people will crack under torture, and admit anything.

Or do you think that real witches were killed in Salem Mass, so long ago?



I'm reminding you of yours. At least I am keeping possibilities open.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Of course Im keeping possiblities open.
To not do so, is to miss out on a lot in life.
Anything is possible.

Im not trying to be crewl or anything, but i donr believe that mother needs to talk to bush. it was that soldier's decision do go into iraq, and thats y he died there. the soldier should of know there was a possibility of death

her son didn't decide to go to iraq he joined the military to defend his country.

her son didn't decide to go to iraq he joined the military to defend his country.
You really should actually read what you write, you know? That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Joining the military isn't like deciding which ride you want mommie to take you on at Disney World. :headbang:

You really should actually read what you write, you know? That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Joining the military isn't like deciding which ride you want mommie to take you on at Disney World. :headbang:


I think what he meant was "The soldier thought he was going to defend his country, not invade one that posed no threat".

Either way, regardless of my own views on the war, it was a pretty dumb thing to say, every soldier knows the risks.

Its really a question of wether he died for the right cause.

I think what he meant was "The soldier thought he was going to defend his country, not invade one that posed no threat".

Either way, regardless of my own views on the war, it was a pretty dumb thing to say, every soldier knows the risks.

Its really a question of wether he died for the right cause.
If the cause is right in your own heart as a soldier, then it's the "right" cause regardless of who says or does what. Most soldiers don't die for a cause of any sort, they die trying to help their brothers survive.

If the cause is right in your own heart as a soldier, then it's the "right" cause regardless of who says or does what. Most soldiers don't die for a cause of any sort, they die trying to help their brothers survive.


I agree, mostly.

Ever watch "Band of Brothers"?

Good series...

anyways...they had a very intense comraderie and they would often die, saving others in thier unit.
Thats just what they felt was right.

On the other hand...look at Vietnam.
Many, many of the soldiers did not feel that they were dying for anything important, and most of them didnt really undertand why they were even fighting.

So..as non-combatants, in hindsight, we can say "WW2 was the right thing to do, but Vietnam wasnt."
But in the end, if the soldier who is doing the fighting, and dying, believes his cuase is the right one...thats all they need.

Ok.. so..

If we remember correctly, around the time Bush made his speech concerning Iraq to the U.N, how many times did he make a clear connection, or at the very least, and implied connection between Saddam Hussein, and Al-Qeada?

"This man has connections to terrorism"
"This man has weapons of mass destruction..."

Over and over....

Two things that we know that Saddam did not posseses.

So..you say his info was faulty..I say he intentionally misled the public into believing Saddam was a threat to U.S security, and THAT alone was why we went to war with Iraq.
Talk of "liberation" only came around when we found no weapons, and no connections to any Terrorist groups.

So...in summation, to conclude that Liberals, or any other poltical oreintation "isnt thinking", or operate on lower levels of intelligence than your own, becuase of rhetoric and lies....is the ulltimate in hippocracy.


We have deviated far enough from the original topic that I think it's safe to make this point. Making errors is unavoidable. Every military leader this country has ever had has made errors. The first 'W', George Washinton, made enough mistakes to last a lifetime. He also got really lucky. Understanding the nature of errors is vital to our well-being.

There are two types of errors. The type I error, where we we reject a true hypothesis when we should accept it. The type II error is when we accept a false hypothesis when we should reject it. In decision-making, there's always a non-zero probability of making one error or the other. That means we're confronted with asking the question: Which error is least costly? Let's apply this concept to a couple of issues.

The stated reason for going to war with Iraq is that our intelligence agencies surmised Saddam Hussein had, or was near having, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence is never perfect. During World War II, our intelligence agencies thought that Germany was close to having an atomic bomb. That intelligence was later found to be flawed, but it played an important role in the conduct of the war.

Since intelligence is always less than perfect, we're forced to decide which error is least costly. Leading up to our war with Iraq, the potential errors confronting us were: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we incorrectly assumed he didn't. Or, he didn't have weapons of mass destruction and we incorrectly assumed he did. Both errors are costly, but which is more costly? It's my guess that it would have been more costly for us to make the first error: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we incorrectly assumed he didn't.

Since we are not endowed with pre-cognition, we must decide on a course of action before it has been made clear what the proper decision should be. We humans are not perfect. We will make errors. Rationality requires that we recognize and weigh the cost of one error against the other.

Most of you seem to be missing the point on this. Many people disagreed with Bush that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Saying now that Bush was shocked when they didn't is no excuse. Inspections were still ongoing and they were stopped prematurely. Even if Saddam did have nuclear weapons, intelligence pointed out that it was highly unlikely that he would use them unless he was pushed into a corner. So, we pushed him into a corner. A genius way to find out if Saddam did or did not have nuclear capabilities.
But this really has nothing to do with the question. Regardless of her beliefs or mine, this woman is obviously putting out an effort beyond what most people would do. To say that this will just keep happening isn't true if Bush answers her questions. She has taken on the role of spokesman for many families of fallen soldiers who support her. Why wouldn't Bush speak with her? Further... why won't Bush speak with anyone without canned questions and answers?

The President of the United States (not "Bush" thank you...his title is "The President" or "President" or "Mr President") has already met with this woman.

The press has conveniently ignored this fact.

I think that the lady in question is, as has been suggested, looking for the media spotlight.

The President of the United States has already met with this woman (and ten minutes is a long time given his schedule) and I see no reason why he should do so again.

Given the disrespect she has shown to both the man and the office..were I he, I would not do so either.

The President of the United States (not "Bush" thank you...his title is "The President" or "President" or "Mr President") has already met with this woman.

The press has conveniently ignored this fact.

I think that the lady in question is, as has been suggested, looking for the media spotlight.

The President of the United States has already met with this woman (and ten minutes is a long time given his schedule) and I see no reason why he should do so again.

Given the disrespect she has shown to both the man and the office..were I he, I would not do so either.
The fact that she has met with him before is not a secret. It's discussed in the media and often in this thread. She treated him with respect when she met him though she did not think highly of him. And for me, he's Bush. The Bush, if that makes you feel better.

The fact that she has met with him before is not a secret. It's discussed in the media and often in this thread. She treated him with respect when she met him though she did not think highly of him. And for me, he's Bush. The Bush, if that makes you feel better.
So that makes me wonder about two things.

First, how many times is a president obligated to meet with an angry citizen?

Second, what happened, or who co-opted the woman between the June '04 meeting, where she was civil and pleased at the outcome and now, where she appears to only want to harangue the President?

So that makes me wonder about two things.

First, how many times is a president obligated to meet with an angry citizen?

Second, what happened, or who co-opted the woman between the June '04 meeting, where she was civil and pleased at the outcome and now, where she appears to only want to harangue the President?
How often does it have to be pointed out to you that she wasn't pleased then or now with her meeting with Bush? She has questions for the president that me and literally thousands of other Americans believe should be addressed. The president is obligated to answer it's citizenship. One citizen demanding audience with the Chief of State isn't enough (as was clearly demonstrated over the past week). Luckily, Sheehan has plenty of people backing her up.

"I shamefully and regretfully admit that before Casey was killed in Iraq I didn't publicly speak out against the war. I didn't shout out and say, "Stop. Stop this insane rush to an invasion that has no basis in reality. Don't invade a country based on cherry-picked intelligence and despicable scare tactics. You don't use our country's precious lifeblood unless its absolutely necessary to defend America." If I had broken the bonds of my slavery to silence sooner, would Casey still be alive? I don't know." - Cindy Sheehan

How often does it have to be pointed out to you that she wasn't pleased then or now with her meeting with Bush? She has questions for the president that me and literally thousands of other Americans believe should be addressed. The president is obligated to answer it's citizenship. One citizen demanding audience with the Chief of State isn't enough (as was clearly demonstrated over the past week). Luckily, Sheehan has plenty of people backing her up.
Sorry the 'Big Lie' technique doesn't work on me. You can't just tell me the same lie over and over and expect me to eventually believe it. When Sheehan said, "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith," I was convinced she was satisfied with the meeting she had with the President. End of argument, for me, anyway.

Second, she had an opportunity that the vast majority of next-of-kin never get. She had a personal meeting with the President of the United States. Remember the paragraph in the Vacaville paper? '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.' If she squandered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, that's her problem. The President doesn't owe her another opportunity to harangue him over a good decision.

Sheehan has reached the limit of what should be tolerated of a surviving parent. She has used her dead son as a tool to get and keep the media's attention. In doing so, she has cast disrespect onto her son's memory, the service, and the life that he volunteered to his country. Sheehan needs to shut up, go home, and grieve in private, not on national television. Oh and she should write a letter to the President. That's what the rest of us do when we want his attention.

The Sheehan woman has already had a private meeting with President Bush. It was in Seattle about a year ago. The story she's currently telling, that she met with him and he was mean and indifferent to her, directly contradicts the story she told after that meeting took place last year. Just take a look at what she told a reporter (http://www.thereporter.com/republished) then:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." She also talked about how her life briefly returned to normal: "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."

Hmm...now let's flash-forward to the present day, where she's singing a different tune:

"Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party."

Whatever. Go home, Mrs. Sheehan. You're the one dishonoring your son's memory.


You have no sense of perspective. None at all. If I was invited to meet with the President, I would be extremely complemented. Immediately after the event, I would have reacted the same way she did. After getting to think on it, I also would have come to the same conclusion that she did, and reported what she did. And besides, President Bush makes contradictions all the time. No one is listening to anyone tell him to go home, are they? Doubtful. The impeachment campaign hasn't even recieved any press attention.

Sorry the 'Big Lie' technique doesn't work on me. You can't just tell me the same lie over and over and expect me to eventually believe it. When Sheehan said, "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith," I was convinced she was satisfied with the meeting she had with the President. End of argument, for me, anyway.

Second, she had an opportunity that the vast majority of next-of-kin never get. She had a personal meeting with the President of the United States. Remember the paragraph in the Vacaville paper? '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.' If she squandered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, that's her problem. The President doesn't owe her another opportunity to harangue him over a good decision.

Sheehan has reached the limit of what should be tolerated of a surviving parent. She has used her dead son as a tool to get and keep the media's attention. In doing so, she has cast disrespect onto her son's memory, the service, and the life that he volunteered to his country. Sheehan needs to shut up, go home, and grieve in private, not on national television. Oh and she should write a letter to the President. That's what the rest of us do when we want his attention.



No one gets Bush's attention. He's the most insulated of any of our 43 presidents. I commend her method, and I would never say face to face with the president "leave the war now you fucking asshole" even though it's exactly what he deserves to hear. This woman was being respectful, and you're being an insensitive prick. Nowhere are the casualties being mourned in our news. It's absolutely appropriate for her to be getting press attention, or didn't you hear? The American public has the least support for the war that it's ever had! Isn't it about time someone got the chance to talk to this anti-democratic asshole? The will of the people should be enough to stop this war!

Sorry the 'Big Lie' technique doesn't work on me. You can't just tell me the same lie over and over and expect me to eventually believe it. When Sheehan said, "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith," I was convinced she was satisfied with the meeting she had with the President. End of argument, for me, anyway.

Second, she had an opportunity that the vast majority of next-of-kin never get. She had a personal meeting with the President of the United States. Remember the paragraph in the Vacaville paper? '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.' If she squandered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, that's her problem. The President doesn't owe her another opportunity to harangue him over a good decision.

Sheehan has reached the limit of what should be tolerated of a surviving parent. She has used her dead son as a tool to get and keep the media's attention. In doing so, she has cast disrespect onto her son's memory, the service, and the life that he volunteered to his country. Sheehan needs to shut up, go home, and grieve in private, not on national television. Oh and she should write a letter to the President. That's what the rest of us do when we want his attention.
Your lies are bigger than my lies and my dad can beat up your dad. You're being ridiculous. You quote two lines and, it appears to me, that you still refuse to read the entire article. Or, if you have read the entire article, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Bush has used Cindy Sheehan's son as a tool to win the media over on his war. Bush can use her son but Cindy Sheehan should keep quiet and not do anything in her son's name? Where the hell did you pull that one out of?

Your lies are bigger than my lies and my dad can beat up your dad. You're being ridiculous. You quote two lines and, it appears to me, that you still refuse to read the entire article. Or, if you have read the entire article, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Bush has used Cindy Sheehan's son as a tool to win the media over on his war. Bush can use her son but Cindy Sheehan should keep quiet and not do anything in her son's name? Where the hell did you pull that one out of?
Nice spin pal, have you ever thought of a career in creative writing? I mean journalism?

Okay, there's a difference you have not yet discerned between Sheehan having anti-war views and with Sheehan being unhappy with the meeting she had with the President. In June 2004, she was anti-war. But in June 2004, she was also satisfied with her encounter with the President. The article makes both points clear. She also had, and used, the opportunity to ask the President to make her son's life count for something. That's all reasonable.

Don't ever forget that she had an opportunity that most mothers of dead soldiers never get. Most only get a letter from the commanding officer and a flag at the funeral. President Bush has gone out of his way to accommodate the families of soldiers and Marines that have been killed in this war. Your objections not withstanding, Sheehan has been treated more than fairly.

I'll quote a couple more paragraphs from the story. Then you tell me explicitly why these lines don't represent the meeting with the President.

"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."


Now you tell me why she is entitled to a second meeting. It's not because she is a rabid anti-war activist. There are lots of those. It's not because she had a son that volunteered to serve his country and was killed in that service. There are lots of those, too. Is it because she is the story of the week?

If she wants to protest the war, let her protest. She has no more right to use her son in that campaign that I would in a campaign for the war. Casey Sheehan volunteered to serve the people of this country. As an elected representative of the people, the President has every right to honor men that have given their lives in that service. I'll repeat myself, if Mrs Sheehan wants to grieve over the loss of her son, she should do it in private. Not on the network news.

I'm done. If the last post wins the argument, you can take the honors.

I haven't seen a post on this and if there is one, I apologize.
http://timesheraldonline.com/ci_2922883
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/09/mr_bush_lets_talk/
"For the most part, contact with average voters is reduced to ceremonial photo opportunities with political supporters.

This is not a Bush White House phenomenon, although Bush is perfecting the art of presidential isolation. During the 2004 presidential contest, Bush's campaign events were packed with supporters and screened for dissidents. Since his January 2005 inauguration, he held four press conferences. During his first term, he held the fewest solo press conferences of any president in the television age."

Should Bush talk with Mrs. Sheehan?

He already has.

Meanwhile - she is being interviewed by Bill Oreilly on Fox right now - I mean - right now : 8:15 EST 8/10 - - it is very interesting - tune in if you can.

Doubtful it'll work. When he was governor of texas, there was a man who was dragged to his death by being chained to a pickup, by two white guys. The man's mother lobbied for an anti-hate crime bill, had an appointment with Bush, and went in. She told him what happened (which he was fully aware of), what the bill would entail, and placed it on his desk. He didn't say a word..Instead, he just took the paper, placed it face down, blank side up, as his way of saying "No".

My point is that I doubt he'd feel moved by their plea. If he couldn't bother to even give an explaination to the aforementioned woman, then he certaintly doesn't care how many troops are killed for his little crusade.

No such thing as hate crime. That is such BS.

How about you just toughen up on laws period, stop letting murders out on parole, or giving them reduced sentences. I wish I could support frying the bastards, but I can't. One person's life however, is not more worthy than another's just because the perpetrator may have hated him for some reason. That is called biased justice. And that should be illegal too.

O'Reilly will be on again 11-12 pm Eastern time. Anyone see this?

Nice spin pal, have you ever thought of a career in creative writing? I mean journalism?

Okay, there's a difference you have not yet discerned between Sheehan having anti-war views and with Sheehan being unhappy with the meeting she had with the President. In June 2004, she was anti-war. But in June 2004, she was also satisfied with her encounter with the President. The article makes both points clear. She also had, and used, the opportunity to ask the President to make her son's life count for something. That's all reasonable.

Don't ever forget that she had an opportunity that most mothers of dead soldiers never get. Most only get a letter from the commanding officer and a flag at the funeral. President Bush has gone out of his way to accommodate the families of soldiers and Marines that have been killed in this war. Your objections not withstanding, Sheehan has been treated more than fairly.

I'll quote a couple more paragraphs from the story. Then you tell me explicitly why these lines don't represent the meeting with the President.


Now you tell me why she is entitled to a second meeting. It's not because she is a rabid anti-war activist. There are lots of those. It's not because she had a son that volunteered to serve his country and was killed in that service. There are lots of those, too. Is it because she is the story of the week?

If she wants to protest the war, let her protest. She has no more right to use her son in that campaign that I would in a campaign for the war. Casey Sheehan volunteered to serve the people of this country. As an elected representative of the people, the President has every right to honor men that have given their lives in that service. I'll repeat myself, if Mrs Sheehan wants to grieve over the loss of her son, she should do it in private. Not on the network news.

I'm done. If the last post wins the argument, you can take the honors.
All the points you raise have already been addressed many times. So, I guess it is a good time for you to leave. I'm not trying to win a debate but I am trying to get you to agree with me. Nobody wins if Sheehan and others like her are not answered by Bush. Her son gave a life. Bush could at least give an answer.

This woman has no credibilty outside of the daily Kos kool-aid drinkers.

This woman has no credibilty outside of the daily Kos kool-aid drinkers.
You know, I believed her until you convinced me otherwise with the vastness of your mighty intellect. Thank you ever so much for showing me the light and the error of my ways. :rolleyes:

This may have been stated already.. but Bush did meet with her at Fort Lewis near Seattle about a year ago. It is reported that she felt Bush was a little callous. I don't know how meeting him again is going to change the outcome much. She being against the Iraq war and Bush obviously supporting it. It seems like it will turn into a huge media circus before it ends.


Edit: I see it was already addressed.

This woman has no credibilty outside of the daily Kos kool-aid drinkers.
Kool-Aid is a credible drink.

The thing to realize about all this is that it shouldn't even be an issue. It's a simple public relations issue.

If Bush were smart, he'd have met with her a second time, the second she showed up in Crawford. Invited her up to the ranch, sorry, no reporters, we just want this to be a private conversation and she can talk to you when she gets back, etc. He wouldn't even have to listen to her--just let her speak her piece, and think about trucks or something while she's talking--and when it's done, it's done. It's not even a page 31 story.

But now it's a pr disaster. She has mobilized a lot of favorable press and it's serious enough that the right-wing pundits, the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, are out swift-boating her as hard as they can. The talking points have been repeated here ad nauseum. And for what? So Bush can enjoy his vacation without having a living example of his conscience prick him a bit?

It's just another example of how these guys are a bunch of clowns when it comes to public relations. You think Clinton would have ever let something like this happen? No way--that fucker was smoooooooth. He'd have had her eating out of his hand by the time it was over. Bush is an arrogant clown, and this debacle just proves it.

And on a side note:
As for the first "party" he had with Sheehan, who really expected it to be unenjoyable? Bush does know how to party after all. Watch the video:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/bush/bush_tsg.mov
Only in America.

Let's put it this way, this is Nationstates, and in game terms I am a head of state.

I personally would not meet with her again, and would either

A/ send a letter

B/ arrange for her to meet with the Vice President or the Secretary of State

or

C/ take one look at my schedule and the schedule of the others in my government, many of whom work 12 or 18 hour days and simply tell her that the Office of the First Minister of the Free Western Nations regrets to advise that he is unable to meet with her again..as he has duties to perform on behalf of those that elected him.

How may times is the head of state expected to meet with one woman to placate her and the media frenzy she is creating?

The old adage of not feeding the trolls come to mind.

You think Clinton would have ever let something like this happen? No way--that fucker was smoooooooth. He'd have had her eating out of his hand by the time it was over.

His hand????

Riiightttt.

He's on Vacation. I think he has an extra fifteen minutes in his schedule. Maybe some time between Gilligan's Island and The Price is Right.

HA HA - yeah. She probably would be doing more than eating out of Clinton's hand.