Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cindy Sheehan
#1
Quote:President George Bush has said he "sympathised" with the mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq but refused to heed her call to pull out the troops. Speaking from his Texas ranch where Cindy Sheehan has been holding a roadside protest, Mr Bush said withdrawing would be a "mistake".

Ms Sheehan is vowing to remain until she gets to speak to the president about his justification for the war.

Dozens of well-wishers have turned out to join her demonstration.

"Listen, I sympathize with Mrs Sheehan," Mr Bush said. "She feels strongly about her position.

"And she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America." You don't use our country's precious sons and daughters unless it's absolutely necessary to defend America

He said he had thought "long and hard about her position" calling for US troops to be sent home. But he had decided against it, he said.

"It would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so," he said.

Mr Bush's remarks came after meeting with security advisors, including Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Ms Sheehan's son Casey was killed in Baghdad's Sadr City in April 2004.

The Californian has been camped outside Mr Bush's property since Saturday and has become a symbol for the US anti-war movement.

"All I want is for President Bush to take one hour out of his vacation and meet with me before another mother's son dies in Iraq," she said.

"You don't use our country's precious sons and daughters unless it's absolutely necessary to defend America."

However, some veterans and relatives have dubbed the vigil a distraction and are keen to ensure support for those serving in Iraq does not wane.

Ms Sheehan met the president once before when he visited Fort Lewis in Washington state to meet relatives of those killed in the war.
Reply
#2
A reply from the rest of the Sheehan family (from Drudge so administer with a grain of salt):
Quote:FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY!
Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET

The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch.

The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother:

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

Thanks, Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Developing...
"Most people just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Reply
#3
Personally - Cindy should keep up her vigil. Many people in my circle appreciate her desire to see the president and wish Bush had the balls to meet with a mother who lost a son in his war. But like his service (if you can call it that) in the Texas Air National Guard - he shows his yeller stripes when things really matter.

The least he could do in the name of honor is to meet her, her son (not the child of her so called relatives) who was killed in a war concocted by Bush - his life should be worth at least an hour of the Presidents time to meet with her.

He owes her.

Go Cindy!!!!!!!!
Reply
#4
Ridiculous. Bush owes her nothing. Her son signed up for the job, he even reenlisted, knowing full well what would be expected of him.

Her little tirade is a slap in the face of everything her son believed in. Parading around with her son's picture as though he is the only one that died. Personally, I find her sickening.
'People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.' -George Orwell
Reply
#5
Murdok Wrote:Personally - Cindy should keep up her vigil. Many people in my circle appreciate her desire to see the president and wish Bush had the balls to meet with a mother who lost a son in his war. But like his service (if you can call it that) in the Texas Air National Guard - he shows his yeller stripes when things really matter.

The least he could do in the name of honor is to meet her, her son (not the child of her so called relatives) who was killed in a war concocted by Bush - his life should be worth at least an hour of the Presidents time to meet with her.

He owes her.

Go Cindy!!!!!!!!

He did see her. Why should she get access whenever she wants?
Reply
#6
Vagrant Wrote:Ridiculous. Bush owes her nothing. Her son signed up for the job, he even reenlisted, knowing full well what would be expected of him.

Her little tirade is a slap in the face of everything her son believed in. Parading around with her son's picture as though he is the only one that died. Personally, I find her sickening.

I couldn't disagree with you more Vagrant. Well maybe I could, but that is a side bar. Isn't her 'little tirade' as you put it the essential representation what her son believed in, fought for, and died for? Freedom of speech for Iraqi's but not Americans? Whether or not I agree with her, she is within her rights to express her views. Isn't she? Your not gonna give me any of that 'she is supporting the terrorists' BS are you? But I do agree with you that Bush doesn't owe her anything. The president shouldn't be expected to be answerable to each and every individual. Kinda flies in the face of representative democracy to me.
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#7
No way, BD, I fully support her right to protest. What I have a problem with is her expecting to see the man because she lost her son.
'People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.' -George Orwell
Reply
#8
Vagrant Wrote:No way, BD, I fully support her right to protest. What I have a problem with is her expecting to see the man because she lost her son.

Well then I guess I don't disagree with you after all. I agree that it would not make sense to expect her son's death to buy her an audience with the president.

By the way, have you given up at IAP? I can't remember seeing you post over there lately.....
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#9
Let's not forget that she's had an audience already.
Reply
#10
Javelin Wrote:Let's not forget that she's had an audience already.

Yes, and she had nothing but good to say about Bush after her first visit, as did her husband. It's just now that she's changed her story......hmmmm sound familiar........to one of outrage. I looked up this story a few days ago for the whole story. And, one that I might add is NOT being put out by the New York Times. Also sound familiar?
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#11
Outrage? Hmmm.... Losing your son in a war that has turned out to be started based pretty much on a lie, who should be outraged? And so what if he signed up. Bush signed the papers that ended up sending him to his death. Let's face facts here - Bush, for what ever reason, sent him to war and because of Bush her son died. Period. No Bush - no death - in fact no nearly 1,900 deaths now that I think of it.

Iraq is a boondoggle and everyone who is even half honest with themselves in here know this. Maybe if they found one large cache of WMD - well maybe. But no.
Reply
#12
Murdok Wrote:Outrage? Hmmm.... Losing your son in a war that has turned out to be started based pretty much on a lie, who should be outraged? And so what if he signed up. Bush signed the papers that ended up sending him to his death. Let's face facts here - Bush, for what ever reason, sent him to war and because of Bush her son died. Period. No Bush - no death - in fact no nearly 1,900 deaths now that I think of it.

Iraq is a boondoggle and everyone who is even half honest with themselves in here know this. Maybe if they found one large cache of WMD - well maybe. But no.

This statement is so full of wrong "facts" I don't know where to start. Based on a lie? Best you can say is partially based on probably mistaken information. Bush being the only one who would have done this? Unproveable.

If she was outraged before, why didn't she say something the first time? The woman is using the death of her child for a political agenda, and whether she's hurting or not, she's being used. Whoever is pushing this, whether it is her, or someone else - they should truly be ashamed of themselves for using this soldier's death for their political bullshit.
Reply
#13
Murdok Wrote:Outrage? Hmmm.... Losing your son in a war that has turned out to be started based pretty much on a lie, who should be outraged? And so what if he signed up. Bush signed the papers that ended up sending him to his death. Let's face facts here - Bush, for what ever reason, sent him to war and because of Bush her son died. Period. No Bush - no death - in fact no nearly 1,900 deaths now that I think of it.

Iraq is a boondoggle and everyone who is even half honest with themselves in here know this. Maybe if they found one large cache of WMD - well maybe. But no.
You're changing the intent of my post here, Murdock. I wasn't addressing the validity of the war, I was speaking to the fact that she had only good things to say about Bush after she met with him last year. And, now has changed her story, but The New York Times ran the story inaccurately to reflect that she "left" her first meeting with Bush in "outrage."

Here is the link to that story.

Edited to add link.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#14
I suggest that someone start a thread and put up a laundry list of things that Murdok has to say about political issues. Chuck, I just may do this.

For example, you are convinced that the war in Iraq was based upon a "lie", which means malicious intent. And since we went in to Iraq for only ONE reason, WMDs, then since we did not find them, it was a lie, and there were no legitimate reasons to do so.

So, let's use this as "NUMBER ONE", meaning that Bush lied and sent us into Iraq over a lie.

Ok? So from now on, when you wish to hammer home this point, instead of waxing poetic and wasting wrist action, just type in large letters, "NUMBER ONE", and everyone will understand what you mean.

How does that sound Chuck? S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#15
SoloNav Wrote:
Murdok Wrote:Outrage? Hmmm.... Losing your son in a war that has turned out to be started based pretty much on a lie, who should be outraged? And so what if he signed up. Bush signed the papers that ended up sending him to his death. Let's face facts here - Bush, for what ever reason, sent him to war and because of Bush her son died. Period. No Bush - no death - in fact no nearly 1,900 deaths now that I think of it.

Iraq is a boondoggle and everyone who is even half honest with themselves in here know this. Maybe if they found one large cache of WMD - well maybe. But no.
You're changing the intent of my post here, Murdock. I wasn't addressing the validity of the war, I was speaking to the fact that she had only good things to say about Bush after she met with him last year. And, now has changed her story, but The New York Times ran the story inaccurately to reflect that she "left" her first meeting with Bush in "outrage."

Here is the link to that story.

Edited to add link.

And, where is the MSM when it comes to reporting the thousands and thousands of parents WHO DO NOT have such outrage at the deaths of THEIR sons? Wouldn't it be preseting a more balanced view of reactions among survivors? I hear these parents quite frequently on the local news as we've lost a tremendous amount of soldiers from this region. However, the MSM chooses to disregard these parents' views. And, apparently Cindy was among them until she was persuaded by the "aginners" who camped out on Bush's property where they've been for quite some time. I agree that she's (or someone is) using the death of her son for political purposes as evidenced by her flip-flop from one year to the next. I consider that shameful to exploit my son's death in the cause he APPARENTLY believed in to further my own agenda.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#16
E, actually, I believe that she is the one bing manipulated, but the MOVEON crowd and others on the left. She is enjoying her time in the limelight, but the principle instigator or instigators is the Left, with here getting a ride out of it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#17
So I gather only conservatives are the only ones who can be outraged?

I cannot begin to tell you what I would do if my Son dies over there. And let me say one more thing. There are hundreds parents who have lost loved ones over there... sons and daughters. And if you really think they all agree with Bush in this matter - then you are so wrong. Michael Moore (hero to no one in here) had one such parent in his expose on Bush. And you know what? When she tried to see the president to express her grief over her loss - she was turned away. Repeatedly. As have a number of outraged parents.

Bad publicity.

Go Cindy! Lets show the world what kind of President we have, yellow stripes and all!
Reply
#18
Murdok Wrote:So I gather only conservatives are the only ones who can be outraged?

I cannot begin to tell you what I would do if my Son does over there. And let me say one more thing. there are hundreds parents who have lost loved ones over there... sons and daughters. And if you really think they all agree with Bush in this matter - then you are so wrong. Michale Moore had one such parent in his expose on Bush. And you know what? When she tried to see the president to express her grief over her loss - she was turned away.

Bad publicity.

Go Cindy! Lets show the world what kind of President we have, yellow stripes and all!
Had she already visited with Bush as do all the other parents who have lost sons/dtrs? I doubt that she was the only one excluded from such an audience. But, of course, we have MM's word on this, don't we? This has nothing to do with conservatives or liberal's outrage. It has to do with the correct reporting of facts which tends to stabilize any sensationalism on EITHER side. Obviously, The New York Times has misrepresented the facts. You should be outraged at this.
And, yes, I know it's the left that has made a spectacle of this family's grief to further their own end. Unfortunately, parrots on the left are picking up the crumb as their owners knew they would. It's called the Pavlonian response: Ring a bell = salivate. Dirt on Bush (even untrue) = Foaming at the mouth. Wink1
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#19
SoloNav Wrote:
Murdok Wrote:So I gather only conservatives are the only ones who can be outraged?

I cannot begin to tell you what I would do if my Son does over there. And let me say one more thing. there are hundreds parents who have lost loved ones over there... sons and daughters. And if you really think they all agree with Bush in this matter - then you are so wrong. Michale Moore had one such parent in his expose on Bush. And you know what? When she tried to see the president to express her grief over her loss - she was turned away.

Bad publicity.

Go Cindy! Lets show the world what kind of President we have, yellow stripes and all!
Had she already visited with Bush as do all the other parents who have lost sons/dtrs? I doubt that she was the only one excluded from such an audience. But, of course, we have MM's word on this, don't we? This has nothing to do with conservatives or liberal's outrage. It has to do with the correct reporting of facts which tends to stabilize any sensationalism on EITHER side. Obviously, The New York Times has misrepresented the facts. You should be outraged at this.
And, yes, I know it's the left that has made a spectacle of this family's grief to further their own end. Unfortunately, parrots on the left are picking up the crumb as their owners knew they would. It's called the Pavlonian response: Ring a bell = salvate. Dirt on Bush (even untrue) = Foaming at the mouth. Wink1

Further, out of the almost 2,000 deaths in Iraq, the Left has been able to scrounge up 2? Where are the others? I can probably give you about 100 from this area that I've heard on the local news that are the direct opposite of Cindy's current stance. Why are these not put on the air? Probably for the same reason that the news is skewed to show only the negatives in the Iraq war. It's called media bias.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#20
SoloNav Wrote:
SoloNav Wrote:[quote="Murdok"]So I gather only conservatives are the only ones who can be outraged?

I cannot begin to tell you what I would do if my Son does over there. And let me say one more thing. there are hundreds parents who have lost loved ones over there... sons and daughters. And if you really think they all agree with Bush in this matter - then you are so wrong. Michale Moore had one such parent in his expose on Bush. And you know what? When she tried to see the president to express her grief over her loss - she was turned away.

Bad publicity.

Go Cindy! Lets show the world what kind of President we have, yellow stripes and all!
Had she already visited with Bush as do all the other parents who have lost sons/dtrs? I doubt that she was the only one excluded from such an audience. But, of course, we have MM's word on this, don't we? This has nothing to do with conservatives or liberal's outrage. It has to do with the correct reporting of facts which tends to stabilize any sensationalism on EITHER side. Obviously, The New York Times has misrepresented the facts. You should be outraged at this.
And, yes, I know it's the left that has made a spectacle of this family's grief to further their own end. Unfortunately, parrots on the left are picking up the crumb as their owners knew they would. It's called the Pavlonian response: Ring a bell = salvate. Dirt on Bush (even untrue) = Foaming at the mouth. Wink1

Further, out of the almost 2,000 deaths in Iraq, the Left has been able to scrounge up 2 families? Where are the others? I can probably give you about 100 from this area that I've heard on the local news that are the direct opposite of Cindy's current stance. Why are these not put on the air? Probably for the same reason that the news is skewed to show only the negatives in the Iraq war. It's called media bias. That is an outrage to me.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Cindy Sheehan no time for sons grave Marbleheader 65 13,709 05-10-2006, 11:50 PM
Last Post: Marbleheader

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)