Should Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan?

Rich said:
She thinks that we should pull out of Iraq. She's not calling troops murderers (as we did in Vietnam), she's not giving information to the enemy. She is just saying "we shouldn't be there". Luckily, in countries like ours she can do that - but if we get to the stage where we say "for scurity reasons you can't question the govt anymore", then we probably need a whole new revolution.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "We did in VietNam?"Were you one of those?

It would surprise you how a scene like she's causing can be seen worldwide as being the way all Americans think because of the media focusing on her ideals. Propaganda can be manufactured by the enemy using just such stunts like hers. That reaches our soldiers and occupies their thoughts when they just need to think about doing their job. I have said before, with freedom comes responsibility. Our responsibility right now is to show unity and not focus on Michael Moore's gang.
 
Nope, GW shouldn't give her the time of day. She's been taken over by the liberial elements of American society. Groups like MoveOn.org are funding her little left-wing crusade. And when and others insults are troops. THey're killing our troops. It gives the enemy recuiting power and it also lowers the morals of our boys and girls overseas.

I'm not saying that he loss of her son is worthless. But she does need to realize that her son ENLISTED. Not drafted. And fighting in a war is part of ENILISTING in the Army. I've lost friends in Afghanistan and I miss them everyday. H3LL, I almost lost my life there. But, what started as a honorable thing (Such as wanting your son to get he honor that he deserves) has turned into a Liberial Media Circus. Her son must be turning over in his grave, her husband filed for divorce. And George W. Bush has already spoken and met with her once. Just as he meets with the famlies of fallen or wounded soldiers. He's a great man and I'm proud to say that I met him once during my time in Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He's not like the other folks from Washington DC. He actually thinks and speaks and relates with the normal man of society. Not the super rich high class snobs.
 
Missileer

Concerning the 'story doesnt check out' bit.

I did some checking on this claim, cause it strikes me as being unusual. Sure enough the story somes from Matt Drudge (Remember what I said about Drudge's inaccurucy in reporting). The other source of this story is Michelle Malkin, another conservative hachet man.

Needless to say I checked what the Left had to say and sure enough Mediamatters.org had the refute to the entire arguement

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

There is also a similar story on Salon.com and a editorial of the NYtimes.

It smells like a conservative hachet job, and it wouldnt be the first time...
 
Missileer said:
Rich said:
She thinks that we should pull out of Iraq. She's not calling troops murderers (as we did in Vietnam), she's not giving information to the enemy. She is just saying "we shouldn't be there". Luckily, in countries like ours she can do that - but if we get to the stage where we say "for scurity reasons you can't question the govt anymore", then we probably need a whole new revolution.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "We did in VietNam?"Were you one of those?

OK let me clarify (& btw I wasn't "one of those" - should have used "as people" rather than "we") but what I was getting at was that there was an overwheling anti-war sentiment in the late 60s & early 70's that translated into the worst treatment of our soldiers. My point was that Cindy Sheehan isn't doing that.

It would surprise you how a scene like she's causing can be seen worldwide as being the way all Americans think because of the media focusing on her ideals. Propaganda can be manufactured by the enemy using just such stunts like hers. That reaches our soldiers and occupies their thoughts when they just need to think about doing their job. I have said before, with freedom comes responsibility. Our responsibility right now is to show unity and not focus on Michael Moore's gang.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't suprise me at all - I've seen too much of the world to be surpised by what people think.

Now I am a little confused - so clear this up for me. Hypothetically, if we were involved in a war that you knew was completely wrong and a waste of human life - you're saying that its your responsibility is to stay quiet about it in order to support the troops. And even if there was a "gang" that supported your views, they shouldn't receive any attention either.
I am not talking about a war which is questionable but a war that you know deep down in your gut is plain wrong.

Because I wonder how Ms Sheehan sees this war?

Yes, you are right, we have responsibilities to support our troops (and ensure the kind of treatment that troops received in vietnam doesn;t happen again- which is part of the importance of knowing and understanding history)
But we also have a responsiility to ourselves to question and seek the truth in things, even when it might be unpopular or even dangerous. That's why the Free Speech amendment is there in the 1st place.

As I said in a previous post, I don't happen to agree with pulling out of Iraq but given the choice between that and giving Ms. Sheehan the right to speak out against the war, I'd go with the latter every time.

(btw - for the record I was not "one of those" Never was and never wil be.)
 
5.56

We are probably going to disagree. But before we do I wanted to thank you for the tip concerning the Colt. I haven't picked it up yet but when I will I do as you suggested.

There is no doubt the left is using Sheehan to discredit Bush. We shouldnt be too scandalized too much. The far right would do exactly the samething given the opportunity.

The thing is public opinion is becoming pretty strong against the war and I think Bush is making a mistake by not dealing with this situation. Every day we see new causilities, Bush doesnt want to look heartless or his already low popularity may never recover. Even if that means taking a small sting of embarressment. My advice for Bush:

Swallow pride, Meet the lady, let them go home. Situation is forgotten about in a month.
 
mmarsh said:
Missileer

Concerning the 'story doesnt check out' bit.

I did some checking on this claim, cause it strikes me as being unusual. Sure enough the story somes from Matt Drudge (Remember what I said about Drudge's inaccurucy in reporting). The other source of this story is Michelle Malkin, another conservative hachet man.

Needless to say I checked what the Left had to say and sure enough Mediamatters.org had the refute to the entire arguement

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

There is also a similar story on Salon.com and a editorial of the NYtimes.

It smells like a conservative hachet job, and it wouldnt be the first time...
Click to expand...

No, it's a He said/She said. You and I can read and post until we die of old age but unless you and I were witnesses to each contested point, what we want to believe is what we will choose to believe. Matt, keep after them.
 
Just a bit of info. I go to college in Waco, my apartment is 15 minutes from Bush's ranch.

I saw the footage today of "all the people" gathered around Cindy Sheehan's memorial thing and really, there arn't that many. If you count the number of people in that shot that's pretty much to total number. I know exactly where they are and the church service that is heald every sunday under I-35 for the homeless draws at least twice the crowd as this nation-wide televised "protest" or whatever.

...not that I blame the anti-war crowd, Waco's a crappy town built around the University and I'd rather protest in like Laguna Beach or New York City, that would so more fun. Protests are so boring anyway, got to let off steam at the dance clubs afterwards and Waco don't have none.

Just a little perspective for ya'll.
 
Rich said:
Missileer said:
Rich said:
She thinks that we should pull out of Iraq. She's not calling troops murderers (as we did in Vietnam), she's not giving information to the enemy. She is just saying "we shouldn't be there". Luckily, in countries like ours she can do that - but if we get to the stage where we say "for scurity reasons you can't question the govt anymore", then we probably need a whole new revolution.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "We did in VietNam?"Were you one of those?

OK let me clarify (& btw I wasn't "one of those" - should have used "as people" rather than "we") but what I was getting at was that there was an overwheling anti-war sentiment in the late 60s & early 70's that translated into the worst treatment of our soldiers. My point was that Cindy Sheehan isn't doing that.
Click to expand...

Now I am a little confused - so clear this up for me. Hypothetically, if we were involved in a war that you knew was completely wrong and a waste of human life - you're saying that its your responsibility is to stay quiet about it in order to support the troops. And even if there was a "gang" that supported your views, they shouldn't receive any attention either.
I am not talking about a war which is questionable but a war that you know deep down in your gut is plain wrong.

Because I wonder how Ms Sheehan sees this war?

Yes, you are right, we have responsibilities to support our troops (and ensure the kind of treatment that troops received in vietnam doesn;t happen again- which is part of the importance of knowing and understanding history)
But we also have a responsiility to ourselves to question and seek the truth in things, even when it might be unpopular or even dangerous. That's why the Free Speech amendment is there in the 1st place.

As I said in a previous post, I don't happen to agree with pulling out of Iraq but given the choice between that and giving Ms. Sheehan the right to speak out against the war, I'd go with the latter every time.

(btw - for the record I was not "one of those" Never was and never wil be.)
Click to expand...

Okay, let's get the hypothesis out of the way first and maybe clear up your confusion. First, I don't share your skepticism that what we're doing is wrong. But, if I did, I always have the right to vote the scoundrel I disagree with out. I can (and do often on veteran matters) stay in contact with my Senators and Representatives.

I would never, never put on a disgraceful display like this woman and her sycophants are doing. Even if, Heaven forbid, I disagreed deep down in my soul with what my Government was doing, I would not dig out my old holey fatigues and decorate them with "catchy" sayings and fake medals and rant in front of a camera.

I would never "march for freedom", I marched for three years, that was enough. I would never think of a Revolution and even if you are not serious, that can get you in trouble. There is a bus scheduled for a protest trip pretty soon, if you believe strongly enough, book passage.

I was stupid enough to wear my uniform off base during the `60s and "they" waited until I sat down in a bus depot and spat down my collar and ran. The Old Man had warned us at muster but I just couldn't believe Americans were that cruel.
 
Missileer, first my apologies. I don't really disagree with anything you said in your last post and I feel that what happened in the 60s to troops in uniform, including yourself, was reprehensible. I was only a kid at the time but I had two uncles that went through the same experience.

The point I tried to make, (which I now realise was inappropriate) was in response to the assertion that Sheehans protest was a comfort to the enemy and therefore should not be allowed. I don't agree with her antics but I strongly disagree that she should have her first amendment rights denied.

Just on another point, the context in which I used the word revolution was meant to simply highlight the importance of protecting free speech. Nothing more.
 
I had never been to VietNam and the clods didn't care, all they saw was a uniform. Another time, our team flew out to White Sands to qualify on the Hercules and landed in El Paso. We were tired and our khakis were hot so we sat on a cement wall about three feet high surrounding a cactus "garden". As soon as we relaxed, some young girl turned on the sprinklers and soaked us. She turned them off as soon as she saw us run. She probably enjoyed that. You can imagine how a battle weary soldier who was home on leave from in country felt when he got the same type of crap pulled on him.
 
Missileer

If it were any other President (Liberal or Conservative) I'd agree with you.

But lets be honest. You know very well there is a group of Bush supporters (not all) led by Karl Rove who have a long history of systematically sliming campaign to anyone who presents the slightest political threat to Bush. The victims have been both Democrats and Republicans. I have heard several conservatives on this very board who admit that Bush can be a very vindictive SOB. The guy even manages to outdue LBJ in terms of being nasty.

This list includes, John McCain, Max Cleland, Paul O'Neil, John Kerry, Richard Clarke, Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Kofi Annan, the AARP just to name a few...

This afternoon CNN was reporting the right wing talking heads (Limbaugh, Drudge, Coulter etc...etc...) have declared a Jihad against this women. The term they used was 'fair game'. Despite the fact she is not a public figure.

Incidently, did you know that Bush Senior (a man of which I have a Great Deal of respect for) actually fired Karl Rove for Sliming his opponent during Bush Senior's failed Texas Senetorial Campaign?

Too bad Dads sense of decency failed to rub off on Junior.
 
mmarsh said:
This afternoon CNN was reporting the right wing talking heads (Limbaugh, Drudge, Coulter etc...etc...) have declared a Jihad against this women. The term they used was 'fair game'. Despite the fact she is not a public figure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, she is 'fair game' and is a public figure. If you're sitting in your house with an opinion you keep to yourself that's one thing. When CNN devotes a whole hour block of their programming to you and your opinion, then you get that right to have that opinion... but the rest of the world gets the right to have their own opinions about you.

I think she's disgracing her son's life for her own fanatical politics.

I also think Bush is an absolute idiot for not talking to this woman on day 1. What would have have lost by letting her sit down for 5 minutes and just smile and nod then send her on her way. What's she going to do then, go up to the cameras and say "I came here and Bush met with me on the frist day... but now I want another meeting because I, uh, forgot to tell him something."

There never would have even been any cameras to talk to.
 
Whispering Death

1. No, a Public figure means your in politics (that your in the game so to speak). Public figures have press secretaries, spokespeople, damage control teams and the experiance to deal with the slime tactics ad personal attacks. Sheehan is just a civilian in a popular movement who has become a painful reminder of how bad the war in Iraq is going. Its not at all the same thing...

2. Thats your opinion, your're entitled to it, and if you want to go to Crawford to support the war the Left/anti-war movement should not dig into your personal life in order to discredit you. Same rules apply for both sides...

3. I absolutly agree with you on the last point. This started out with just one person had he just dealt with it he wouldnt be in the dark hole he's in now. Now she's got the media and over half the country behind her. And Bush looks like an mean, cold, arrogant, SOB.

A real public relations disaster for Bush and its getting worse every single day...
 
mmarsh said:
1. No, a Public figure means your in politics (that your in the game so to speak). Public figures have press secretaries, spokespeople, damage control teams and the experiance to deal with the slime tactics ad personal attacks. Sheehan is just a civilian in a popular movement who has become a painful reminder of how bad the war in Iraq is going. Its not at all the same thing...
Click to expand...

You do realize she hired a press secretary to get the media on-board with this protest thing. She is a spokesperson for a particular view on an issue, and not a popular one in America I'll add. The polls have consistantly shows that Americans do not support bringing all the troops home now. One could just as easily make the argument that you shouldn't say anything bad about the president until election year because he's just a guy only making only $400,000 a year in the hardest job on the plannet. Screw that, this is America and free speach means free speach. Free speach doesn't mean only anti-war people can say whatever they want and pro-war people arn't allowed to speak their minds.

If you want to work 9-5 have a family and political opinions and only let them be voiced when you're alone in the privacy of the voting booth that's great, you don't get any heat. If you're going to be on the national and world news for hours every day spouting off your opinions then I have the right to have my opinions about you or Tom Cruise or Pamela Anderson or Courtney Love or whoever.
 
If you could meet Mrs. Sheehan face to face, what do you think you might say?
I like to be able to say something like this - Hey, Cindy my deepest sympathy for the loss of your son. But you know what? I've lost some of my closest friends in wars. I may not know what it's like to have a child die in combat, but I do know what it's like to have someone I care for and who cares for me die in my arms.
My friends and my brothers, we joked around together, we worked together, we lived together, and we looked out for each other. They're gone now and they're not coming back.
How do you think that makes me feel Cindy? When I came home from the wars, I talked to my mother. She was never elated at the prospect of me dying. I understood that. But she never was a turncoat either. She understood the risks involved. She took great pride in my service. She comprehended the price. She took pride in my Dad's service too when he went to war before me. She supported him and she supported me. My mother would never have dishonored my life by grandstanding in front of the liberal media. She would never have allowed herself to be hijacked my the left wing extremists.
You say you want peace? How about justice Cindy? Peace is not just. Is it as simple as peace vs. war? No, not quite. It's justice vs. injustice.
The kind of pacificism you and your cohorts are trying to shove down the throats of Americans requires peace at all costs, forfeiting justice in the process.
Peace is not always just, not always loving and not always peaceful. How many "peace rallies" have you seen where everyone is happy? There's an awful lot of yelling and cursing and flailing of signs to be considered a very peaceful assembly in my opinion.
It may not be very PC but here's how I feel.
Non-focused, inefficient violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half-assed measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully thought through, professional, well executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead. Not "on trial, not "reeducated", not "nurtured back into the bosom of love" Just plain dead.
I'm a retired Army Infantryman. I am proud of my military career and proud of everything I have done. It stirs my heart when I walk into a store or while walking down the street wearing my "Retired Army" cap and someone says, "Thank You". I can't fully describe my feelings when that happens but I'll try. I feel a bit surprised perhaps, but I also feel a sense of happiness, a feeling of a job well done, pride, Esprit de corps, and yes, gratitude. That person, right there, who just said thank you to me, I would die defending you and your freedoms. I still consider it a privilege and an honor to have served you and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. You, my fellow American are most welcome.

Pardon the rant folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top