Should Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan? - Page 5




 
--
Should Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan?
 
August 16th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Should Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
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.
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.
August 16th, 2005  
5.56X45mm
 
 
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.
August 16th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
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...
--
Should Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan?
August 16th, 2005  
Rich
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
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.
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.
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.)
August 16th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
The residents around the ranch are starting to dislike that woman. Shes not going to get to meet with the president, thats never going to happen. Shes made her point, lost her husband and her family in the process. Its time for her to respect her son and just go home.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/Rabs/cartoon.gif
August 16th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
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.
August 17th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
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...
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.
August 17th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
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.
August 17th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
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.
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.
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.)
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.
August 17th, 2005  
Rich
 
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.