Mrs. Sheehan speaks

[AKA_Monet]

Although Cindy Sheehan is being used as a "lightening rod" for the complacency of our generations--left or right winged--she is still allowing herself to be used for whatever purposes someone has for her...

The rest I haveta say needs to go on another thread...

[Lindz928]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
Although Cindy Sheehan is being used as a "lightening rod" for the complacency of our generations--left or right winged--she is still allowing herself to be used for whatever purposes someone has for her...

The rest I haveta say needs to go on another thread...

I think you are absolutely right and it almost makes me feel even more for her. I don't think those people really care one bit about her or her son, and I wish she could see that.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by KSigkid
I've actually talked to my parents about this last night, and they seemed to confirm that. My dad said that when he talked to the guys in his unit when they came back to the U.S., he heard similar stories of families selling/giving away their children's possessions. There was just a large assumption that their kids weren't coming home.

I'm sure my parents would say the same thing if I asked them. Maybe our grandparents' generation, who had to deal with a similar thing during WWII, would probably say the same thing. Today, it seems like young enlistees--and their parents--just aren't prepared in the same way for deployments in war or peace. I wish everyone could have heard my stupid aunt hem and haw because my cousin was sent to Korea on a remote for a year.

Regretfully, my father and I don't really talk about the time he spent in Southeast Asia (we've talked about it in great detail, but only a handful of times).

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Lindz928
There is no reason to try and make me sound insensitive. I am not here to argue. I feel for the fact that her son was killed.

My point is that it is even more sad that she is letting herself be used by these organizations. THEY are using her grief and her loss to further their political ideas. That is just not right.

A year ago she was fine with the meeting that she had with the President. Now, she wants to live in front of his house and let the rest of her life fall apart. I'm sorry but you making me sound insensitive to her grief (which I definately am NOT) is not going to change the facts.

Don't worry. This is the New and Politics forum and we are free to discuss Mrs. Sheehan given that she is very much a public figure now.

-Rudey

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by Lindz928
There is no reason to try and make me sound insensitive. I am not here to argue. I feel for the fact that her son was killed.

Holy crap, I was trying to agree with you. I didn't think you sounded insensitive at all.

[Lindz928]

Originally posted by valkyrie
Holy crap, I was trying to agree with you. I didn't think you sounded insensitive at all.

Oh goodness... Well in that case I'm really sorry.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
Although Cindy Sheehan is being used as a "lightening rod" for the complacency of our generations--left or right winged--she is still allowing herself to be used for whatever purposes someone has for her...

The rest I haveta say needs to go on another thread...

I do think she is being used, but I think it's a mutually beneficial relationship. There are those who are using the example of her son as fuel for their personal viewpoints, but she is also using their numbers and protests to lend legitimacy to her complaints. I don't really feel bad for anyone (beyond the "obviously it's painful to lose a member of your family" concept) in this situation.

I agree very much with Munchkin that people of our generation are just not as prepared for soldiers' deaths as they were in previous generations. Part of this is due, of course, to the lack of serious Vietnam-style conflict in our generation. Not meaning to point fingers at anyone, but I also think part of the problem is due to the current administration's stance on what images of the war are being shown to the country. We aren't supposed to see pictures of caskets, of violence, et cetera. That wasn't the case with Vietnam. I think many people -- and I am including myself in this -- just take the lack of violence being shown as a lack of violent acts happening, which is certainly not the case. I know I have had friends in Iraq and I have friends that are there now, and I certainly don't worry that their lives are/were in danger, when chances are that that was not the case at all.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
...people of our generation are just not as prepared for soldiers' deaths as they were in previous generations...I also think part of the problem is due to the current administration's stance on what images of the war are being shown to the country. We aren't supposed to see pictures of caskets, of violence, et cetera. That wasn't the case with Vietnam. I think many people -- and I am including myself in this -- just take the lack of violence being shown as a lack of violent acts happening, which is certainly not the case. I know I have had friends in Iraq and I have friends that are there now, and I certainly don't worry that their lives are/were in danger, when chances are that that was not the case at all.

Aside from the fact that I am not understanding what you are saying, however during Vietnam, the only violent battle that I remember seeing on national television was the Battle of Tet. The via sattellite didn't start really until the late 1970's...

What we see on TV are pictures coming off from Al Jeezera [sp?] and other foreign networks. Then the media, like CNN, chooses to broadcast them to the public accordingly. Most of the times, they do not show us the whole picture. If you go to foreign newsources, you see a different side. Probably most of it is propaganda, too. But, some of it is legit.

Also, I remember that after Vietnam, no longer would there be a censorship in the numbers of American troops that were killed in battles, which was a problem in Vietnam. The presidential admin at that time NEVER listed the number of troops killed in battle and it was censored by government regulators--like the FCC. In fact, it was an offshoot from both WWII and Korean War that they only post the positive information... Technology changed all that...

That is what the protestors of Vietnam fought at that time. They wanted the government and the media to come clean as to what is going on in that area.

So pretty much, what we see on TV today is a "policy" of them coming clean if troops have been killed. Now, how one media outlet presents vs. another may be up for debate. But, the reason why they are telling how many troops have died today is from the debacle in Vietnam...

If OUR government wanted to suppress the media directly, they can put a gag-order on the outlets... It will be pricey to do that with those outlets that don't play ball and side with the President's agenda--believe me it is in Karl Rove's purview to slice and dice it that way... But, I doubt they will do that because there are some benefits for "information leaks" and "chatter"...

As far as funky picture control--like seeing US flag draped caskets--good luck stopping that. Because folk here do like to hack and take pictures from their cellphone and post them internet wide so fast... Besides, new biz is about who gets the scoop first isn't it?

Dude who got the London bombings on the Tube with cellphone got pizzaid, didn't he...

So right now, Mrs. Sheehan has the pulse of the old foggy Vietnam protesters on crack ready to go. Her camps can push them into an effect or bolster the ratings of the President as to why we should be in Iraq...

It's all a matter of Spin... Moves...

Meanwhile, the most top rated story that was put on the 3rd page of my newspaper was the fact the China and Russia are doing a combine military exercises about 200 miles from Taiwan on the Chinese-Russian border... Because, they say, they are fighting against terrorism... No to say, the Chinese and Russians don't need to fight against terrorism... But apparently, the Chinese are looking to buy some nice bombers with nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the Russians--I think Tu-22M's or something like that...

Things that make you go Hmmmmm???

[AKA_Monet]

Yeah it's the BBC. but they do have some valid views on this issue:

US anti-war movement gains steam

By Adam Brookes
BBC News, Washington

Cindy Sheehan's roadside protest outside President Bush's ranch has rallied America's anti-war movement.

Cindy Sheehan has become the focus for the anti-war movement

It has also attracted a posse of experienced activists and advisers who sense political advantage to be gained.

And it has stoked conservative rage.

Frank J Murray, writing in the Washington Times, called Ms Sheehan "the poster child for surrender".

It's worth remembering that we are in the middle of August.

Congress is in recess.

News is slow.

The president is at his ranch.

And the White House reporters assigned to sit out the summer in sun-blistered Texas are no doubt grateful for the Cindy Sheehan story unfolding under their noses.


The rest: BBC...

and here's an answer to your question Rudey:

Liberal Groups...

[AKA_Monet]

From Rueters:

Iraq protester to leave because of mom's illness

By Caren Bohan
24 minutes ago

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in the Iraq war, said on Thursday she would temporarily leave her camp site near President George W. Bush's ranch because her mother had suffered a stroke.

ADVERTISEMENT

"We just had a terrible call," Sheehan told reporters. "My mom had a stroke."

Sheehan, whose vigil has drawn attention to her demands for a pullout of troops from Iraq, flew to Los Angeles with her sister to see her mother, Shirley Miller, 74. Her supporters said she hoped to return in the next 24 to 48 hours, depending on her mother's condition.

"I'll be back as soon as possible but we'll keep you posted," Sheehan said.

The protester, whose 24-year-old son Casey was killed in combat in Iraq last year, has spent the last 12 days camping out down the road from the ranch where Bush is vacationing.

Sheehan, who met with Bush in 2004, is demanding a second meeting so she can ask him about his justifications for war and urge him to bring home the troops. The White House has refused a meeting, though Bush has expressed sympathy for the Vacaville, California, woman.

More than 1,800 Americans have been killed in Iraq and thousands more have been wounded.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), a Nebraska Republican and Vietnam war veteran, said Bush should have met with Sheehan again.

"I think the wise course of action, the compassionate course of action, the better course of action would have been to immediately invite her in to the ranch," Hagel said on CNN. "It should have been done when this whole thing started. Listen to her," he said.

'IRREPLACEABLE' LOSS

Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday offered sympathy to the families of fallen soldiers who face "irreplaceable" losses but insisted the Iraq war was worth fighting despite growing American unease.

Cheney spoke in Springfield, Missouri, the day after tens of thousands of people attended candlelight vigils around the country to show support for Sheehan.

The vice president did not mention Sheehan, but in an address to veterans he spoke at length about the difficulties faced by families like hers.

"In this difficult and necessary cause we have lost some of our finest Americans. That loss is irreplaceable, and no one can take away the sorrow that has come to the families of the fallen," Cheney told a convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. A copy of the speech was distributed to reporters in Crawford.

Cheney reiterated Bush's stay-the-course message, saying "perseverance" was a part of the U.S. military's history since the Revolutionary War.

"Iraq is a critical front in the war on terror, and victory there is critical to the future security of the U.S. and other free nations," Cheney said.

At the Crawford roadside that Sheehan calls Camp Casey, her shocked supporters held a moment of silence for Sheehan, who is also grappling with the filing of divorce papers by her husband Patrick last week.

"There is no doubt about this with Cindy -- she started the movement, she'll finish the movement," said Ann Wright, who manages the camp's operations.

The group, whose presence has annoyed some local residents, is relocating their tents, canopies, chairs and banners to some private land offered to them by a supporter, Fred Mattlage. It is closer to Bush's ranch.

The peace group Codepink organized a letter-writing campaign to urge first lady Laura Bush to support their cause.

The women planned to make a procession from the camp over to the Secret Service checkpoint of the Bush ranch to try to deliver the letters.

[Rudey]

You didn't hear it from me but a lot of it has to do with fund raising by these groups who just want a little more media attention.

-Rudey

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
Yeah it's the BBC. but they do have some valid views on this issue:

US anti-war movement gains steam

By Adam Brookes
BBC News, Washington

Cindy Sheehan's roadside protest outside President Bush's ranch has rallied America's anti-war movement.

Cindy Sheehan has become the focus for the anti-war movement

It has also attracted a posse of experienced activists and advisers who sense political advantage to be gained.

And it has stoked conservative rage.

Frank J Murray, writing in the Washington Times, called Ms Sheehan "the poster child for surrender".

It's worth remembering that we are in the middle of August.

Congress is in recess.

News is slow.

The president is at his ranch.

And the White House reporters assigned to sit out the summer in sun-blistered Texas are no doubt grateful for the Cindy Sheehan story unfolding under their noses.


The rest: BBC...

and here's an answer to your question Rudey:

Liberal Groups...

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by amanda6035
If you dont like the way the country is being run, GTFO. Your son did a noble thing, and you're stepping all over his name and his grave by making it look like the work he did was trash. I'll bet he's frowning down at your stupiditiy right now.

You think the founding fathers wanted everyone who didn't like it to GTFO? No, they didn't. They wanted people to work to elect someone who would represent their values and their ideals. Hence why nearly half the country did NOT vote for Bush.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
You think the founding fathers wanted everyone who didn't like it to GTFO?

It says nothing in the Constitution about GTFO. KTHXBI.

Sincerely,
valkyrie, esq.

[Lindz928]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
You think the founding fathers wanted everyone who didn't like it to GTFO? No, they didn't. They wanted people to work to elect someone who would represent their values and their ideals. Hence why nearly half the country did NOT vote for Bush.

Luckily though, more than half of the country DID.

I agree with all of ya'lls GTFO statements. We do have freedom of speech and I don't think it's right to tell someone to just leave if they don't like it. However, I think that if you say, "I'm gonna leave if So-and-so gets elected or if such-and-such happens." Then I say you are welcome to it. I am not going to miss you.

[amanda6035]

Originally posted by Lindz928
Luckily though, more than half of the country DID.

I agree with all of ya'lls GTFO statements. We do have freedom of speech and I don't think it's right to tell someone to just leave if they don't like it. However, I think that if you say, "I'm gonna leave if So-and-so gets elected or if such-and-such happens." Then I say you are welcome to it. I am not going to miss you.

Someone beat me to it. Not only was it more than half, it was the highest popular vote in history.

The GTFO statements are directed to those who, are in fact, saying "If this happens, then I'm leaving." Maybe it didnt say it in exactly those words earlier, but I figured people were smart enough to figure it out. I guess I was wrong. Of course not everybody is going to agree. It'd be a boring world if everyone did, but as I mentioned earlier, if you are TRULY that unhappy about something, then WHY are you staying around, making yourself more miserable?