Idiots camped outside Bush's crawford ranch.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>The woman is using her dead son to get media attention for
>her personal political views.

Again, I think it is in poor taste to smear a woman who has lost her son because you disagree with her.

That wasn't a "smear". But just because she has lost a son, does not mean that she gets a free pass to say anything she wants without criticism. Now that she's started talking about Jews in Israel being connected to our war in Iraq, she deserves whatever responses she gets. She's over the top. And her husband is divorcing her too - another indication that maybe she's "lost it".

Quote

Does that mean you have the same goals as the 'liberal media?'

Um, yeah - the cat's out of the bag - I'm secretly a flaming liberal!

[dorbie 0]

The stigma of anyone criticizing her is being exploited here. If we ALL have the same free pass then, I'm happy with that. It's just another way of stating the exact same presumed equality, so semantic games don't alter what's being done here. Her motives are fair game, especially if her recent comments are wildly inconsistent with contemporaneous remarks as she calculates her soundbites to do the maximum damage to the President.

As for talking to her last, I've heard many many statements by her including long audio recordings, I don't need to discuss nuances with her when she makes the unequivocal remarks she has. The implication that I now have to have a discussion with every political figure before forming an opinion based on their multiple lengthy public remarks is utterly ridiculous and just more of the nonsense surrounding this issue. She's making these statements to influence opinion, you seem happy when the opinion goes your way but when it doesn't somehow a personal dialog is required. Rubbish!

It's not the outrage of the right that's made this the big issue, it's the headline publication of Bush being called a murderer, and an insensitive guy who acted like he was at a party meeting families of the fallen etc.

[Everon 0]

With all due respect, if you are saying her accusation of Bush being a murderer is outrageous, unfounded, and deranged, you must remember that this war is based upon this administration's lies:

1) WMD? Lie - there was no evidence.

2) Al-Qaida? Lie - no connection.

3) A threat to the U.S. and neighbors? Puhleeze!

In short, I can't argue with her.

[dorbie 0]

Thanks for illustrating my point.

[billvon 3,117]

>The stigma of anyone criticizing her is being exploited here.

You can criticize anything she says, as can anyone. But going after her marital status?

I see this at the DZ all the time. Someone will do something someone else doesn't like, and suddenly you'll hear "no wonder Joe broke up with her, she's a bitch." I have very little respect for people who substitute personal slurs for real arguments.

>Her motives are fair game . . . .

Yes. You could call her any sort of vile name you choose, and suggest she has the basest motives. Again, that says more about you than about her.

>It's not the outrage of the right that's made this the big issue, it's
> the headline publication of Bush being called a murderer . . .

That's been done here about a hundred times, and it's been done by various big groups in the US dozens of times. Same thing. If you say "I disagree because Bush is looking out for the US all the time, and he's proved it by X Y and Z" or whatever, fine. If your reply is "she's saying that because she's a lying unfaithful bitch" then again, you're not discussing the issue, and have made clear the level of discussion you want to have.

We have rules against doing that to people on this board because it quickly leads to people making nothing _but_ personal attacks. Just take a look at rec.skydiving if you want to see what happens with no restrictions against personal attacks. The same thing happens in public discourse if you stoop to that level (although there's no hard rule against it here.)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>I have no sympathy for this woman:

I think it is in poor taste to smear the families of dead US soldiers. She has as much right as anyone else to peacefully protest; indeed, I would hazard a guess that she has a greater understanding of the sacrifices we make in Iraq than you do.

Bill, you need to read up on some of her statements she's made. She's gone off the deep end and is smearing the memory and honor of her son's service. Her own family has spoken in non-support of her activities.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Bill, you need to read up on some of her statements she's made. She's gone off the deep end and is smearing the memory and honor of her son's service. Her own family has spoken in non-support of her activities.

Maybe, but the response is to point out the craziness, not to talk about her impending divorce as proof that she's a whacko. Her words were doing that just fine, no?

I believe many of you resent the attention her message is getting. And you're making it personal.

[Duckwater 0]

Imagine being a resident of Crawford and all of a sudden you have a bunch of jobless stink hippies and their port-o-johns on your lawn.

Im sure her son is turning over in his grave. I would be.

--

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>The stigma of anyone criticizing her is being exploited here.

You can criticize anything she says, as can anyone. But going after her marital status?

Never did Bill, I've never once mentioned her divorce, in fact you brought it up. I do notice you relish telling people on the right what they can and can't say you have no bother with her saying anything she likes. It's a double standard. You can't have it both ways, if she can run around calling someone a murderer and lying about the President's conduct (as demonstrated by her own earlier contradicting remarks) then when she gets as good as she gives she has invited it upon herself.

Her family discord is relevant public record w.r.t. the public letter from many of her family members asking her to stop and claiming that her son believed in what he was doing in the armed services. She's created this fiasco by using her son's memory like this and some of the family has publically repudiated her, that is absolutely fair commentary. I know those on the left would like to hide the inconvenient facts and pretend this is just about the mom and how she'd have us perceive her son. You seek to restrict this debate because you don't want the glaring holes in this contrived pantomime pointed out.

Besides all this, the whole concept is unballanced, I don't doubt that in any war you will find mothers like this, should they have been paraded on the front pages and national broadcasts during WWII? Where's the attention to the mothers who support the cause their son's sacrifice was made in? If nothing else this is disproportionate attention but it's much more cynical than that, and not surprising given the way her story is being exploited to meet a political agenda.

All the time we're suppose to treat as serious news that Bush is being asked meet a political enemy and a campaigner who has called him a murderer like it's a serious proposition. One who has exploited his last meeting to attack him with demonstrable lies. It's just a political stunt that meets the goals of protestors.

[pajarito 0]

She needs to keep doing exactly what she's doing.

- She's making herself look like an ass.
- She's making the liberal left look more like an ass
- She's making the liberal media, who's giving her all this attention, look like an ass

Life is good.

[kallend 2,148]

You proclaim "idiots" about the persons who have managed to get their message carried on all the major medial outlets in the country. How many times have you had your opinions carried in the national media (and no, Speakers Corner doesn't count)?

Seems to me that your "idiots" are more savvy than you are, so what does that say about you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

We had a thread the other day about whether or not the soul exists.

After reading this thread I can now say that there must be some folks without souls.

I've never been a parent, but I have had family members die. I think this mother is entitled to her feelings, opinions and maybe she's even earned the right to be a little irrational about the subject.

GWB and his staff royally screwed up by not acknowledging her to begin with. Had he, this entire situation probably would not have escalated to this point.

Side note, he did meet with her once in June of 2004.

But here's the kicker about this current episode. GWB did make a statement about it yesterday and royally blew it. He essentially said he was too busy to speak with her while he was on vaction. I don't really know how anybody in his staff could have possibly thought that was a good idea or even made logical sense when he clearly has time to attend a Little League game.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Everon 0]

He was also too busy (on vacation) when blatently warned about commercial airline attacks. Oh, sorry, that was 4 years ago......

[billvon 3,117]

>that is absolutely fair commentary.

I recall the right wing being shocked that anyone could stoop so low as to bring up Bush's past drug and alcohol abuse during the campaign, even after his public statements about it. But apparently a woman's family discord is fair game. Ah well - let's hope you are never subject to such convenient moral standards.

>All the time we're suppose to treat as serious news that Bush is
> being asked meet a political enemy and a campaigner who has
> called him a murderer like it's a serious proposition.

So why are you?

Again, the right wingers have decided that this should be a big deal. They went after her. They generated all the controversy. They are the ones giving 1001 reasons she should be disregarded and vilified, which makes all the moderates in the country wonder what she's saying to get the extremists so riled up. The right wingers made Michael Moore a millionaire; now they are giving credence to an outspoken woman through their hatred.

>It's just a political stunt that meets the goals of protestors.

It meets her goals. And until you've been through what she has, I suspect you don't have a good understanding of her motivations.

[billvon 3,117]

>Imagine being a resident of Crawford and all of a sudden you have a
> bunch of jobless stink hippies and their port-o-johns on your lawn.

Now a woman who lost her son is a "jobless stink hippy." Wow. Excellent slam on a woman who lost her son fighting for you.

Saw a conservative blogger who summed it up pretty well:

----------------------
Something else about this story that infuriates me is the vision of feckless, smarmy smearsters . . . hiding behind keyboards in cities like Washington and New York (and yes, Miami), punching out electronic missives in a pathetic and desperate attempt to impugn the integrity of a woman sitting in the dust and August heat of Texas---a woman who, along with her dead son, embodies everything that's right about this country. The growing division between the professional class of spinning punditry and the vast expanse of Middle America that actually does the working, the fighting and the dying so the pundits can spend their time chattering has never been more clear than with this story.

If I had lost a parent, child or sibling in Iraq, I'd be right next to Cindy Sheehan sitting in that dust and heat. And I wouldn't budge until the president---ensconced within that reassuring bubble of faith, brush-clearing and mountain bike-riding---found a few moments to come listen to me. I hope as many people as possible join her protest and offer her food, water, and whatever legal or media assistance she may need.
---------------------

[shropshire 0]

<> Then I belive that the loss is yours. The loss in your humanity.

One may argue against her actions or her politics but anyone who makes personal attacks (a number of people both here and in the media) have lost the arguments (and credability) in an instant.

People are entitled to protest against any actions that our govenments make (in our name) and should be able to do so without let or hinderance.

Her actions, thoughts and beliefs do not detract from the service that he son did for his country (anyone saying otherwise is taking a really cheap shot!). They are 2 different people and are entitled to be treated separately.

We should ALL be able to ask the difficult questions and expect answers not ridicule.

Our governments have unleashed (at best) an immoral action against innocent civilians. The Far Right would have us belive that all of these deaths our for the Greater Good of the Many. This kind of rhetoric is totally unfounded [IMHO] and the oft used term colateral damage should go by the pefectly good word that we already have for taking the live(s) of [Uncounted!!] innocents.

We should all have the courage that this lady displays and stand up for what we belive. Dont hide behind our flags and subscribe to the theory .. My Country ... Right or Wrong. Dont live my the Left nor the Right but address and question every issue on it's own merrits.

PAX!
.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I still think your choice of words sucks.

Criticize her goals, sure - getting out of Iraq now ain't gonna happen.

But to say you have no sympathy for a mother who's outlived her son is just callous. She didn't make the choice to send him, her son made his choice and got killed for it. Now she's hurt, angry, upset, and doing the one thing she could come up with.

Is her campaign going to accomplish anything even close to her goals? Probably not. She won't get closure, she won't get satisfaction, and the hurt will never abate. At least she'll feel like she did more than just sit there and mourn.

I have a lot of sympathy for her.

I feel the same sympathy but she is the one that has taken her greif into the poliical arena.

I think she is being used myself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

Bill, Bill, Bill, come on lad, you and I both know that there is such a thing as having too much freedom.

Settle down.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The woman is using her dead son to get media attention for
>her personal political views.

Again, I think it is in poor taste to smear a woman who has lost her son because you disagree with her.

>One grieving woman does not get to set American foreign policy.

No, but she may be worth listening to. Or not; feel free to change the channel.

>There are plenty of other grieving moms who disagree with her about
>withdrawal from Iraq. It's funny how we don't see the media putting
>any of them on the air every day...

Cause they're not camping out to get their views across.

When's the last time YOU posted something good about a mother who supports the war? You seem to post far more about things you don't like that war protesters do. Does that mean you have the same goals as the 'liberal media?'

I do not see the "smears" you keep talking about She has stepped into a political arena and in that arena of topics, issues and ideas you have to live.

She is being used by the media and others to push a politcal point. Being a greiving mother is supposed to mark you as off limits if you step into it?

Sorry, I don't agree.

Personally, I don't see this as news myself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> I think a lot of right-wingers are terrified of this woman and are bringing all guns to bear on her,

All guns to bear? You said - O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin and some guy called "FOX News" which could be O-Reilly. Two opinion page people and some opinion based radio talk show personalities is considered "all guns to bear"? She's a footnote in the news, a freak show suitable for tabloid entertainment and that's what she's getting, neither the DNC or the Republicans are using her at all - they don't want to be associated with her. Why?

It's sad to outlive your child and in that she has my sympathy. But her protest is not mourning, it's an activist exploiting her son's death - that doesn't warrant sympthy whether one agrees with her war stance or not. It's not classy. I hope she chooses to get help for her grief. I hope she takes her political energy and puts it to positive use.

You can support her 'stated' goal of withdrawal, but still not support her exploitation of her son's service. It's 2 things and they don't have to be supported both simultaneously to keep the one in front.

Edit: I swear, if a mass murderer said in an interview that solar power is a good thing, you'd lobby to get him out of jail.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sinker 0]

Quote

You proclaim "idiots" about the persons who have managed to get their message carried on all the major medial outlets in the country. How many times have you had your opinions carried in the national media (and no, Speakers Corner doesn't count)?

Seems to me that your "idiots" are more savvy than you are, so what does that say about you?

Since "all the major medial [sic] outlets" have covered her she is, therefore, NOT an idiot? Perhaps a return to remedial syllogistic reasoning is in order, professor. Last I checked, just about any clanging gong could garner major media attention.

That having been said, I do agree that it is the epitome of heartlessness to visciously attack this woman's character. Fine, argue against her politics. I certainly disagree w/ them, too. But she lost her SON for crissakes! Being a parent myself, I'd be positively insane if I lost one of mine as well, especially if it was in a conflict that I thought was started nefariously. The woman needs sympathy not hatred. And in my opinion, sympathy would include NOT giving her any more media attention. That is only fueling her problems.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 3,117]

> She's a footnote in the news . . .

If that was the case, I don't think anyone would be making such a stink. It is on the front page of both CNN and FOX news though.

> But her protest is not mourning, it's an activist exploiting her son's death.

Yep, and that's what a lot of right-wingers think. But for some that sentiment seems reserved for issues the right wing doesn't like. Recall the political stink that resulted from the Terri Schiavo case. I didn't hear any of the right wingers here condemning the people who came to support Schiavo's family. Indeed, right wing pundits heaped praise on the pro-life activists that showed up.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> Recall the political stink that resulted from the Terri Schiavo case. I didn't hear any of the right wingers here condemning the people who came to support Schiavo's family. Indeed, right wing pundits heaped praise on the pro-life activists that showed up.

The difference here is that both political parties exploited the schiavo case for political position - no one other than the media is touching this woman with a 10 foot dog catcher's net. Some right wingers did goof on the pro-life campers, even on this site. You are confusing "right wing" with "pro life". If you exclude the strongly pro-life people, I thought the general sentiment of those I consider right of center was just "leave the schiavo's alone, it's a personal thing" that was my position. Of course, if we are stereotyping, the left wingers don't understand the concept of leaving people alone, the Schiavos must be controlled to make a political statement about the environment or abortion or whatever is the trendy thing today for the masses to nod and cluck about.

But I forget, everyone even barely right of center is an extremist, so lump them all together, it's easier that way.

This woman has an agenda and is exploiting her son to make hay with for that agenda. A lot of "people" think that. Even those that agree with some of that agenda.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[gemini 0]

They both may be absurd statements, but what we were talking about was her "protest" not American policy in the middle east. Stick to the forum Bill. Most of us can't be drawn out like we used to.

Blue skies,

Jim

[Mirage63 0]

Quote

hey both may be absurd statements, but what we were talking about was her "protest" not American policy in the middle east. Stick to the forum Bill. Most of us can't be drawn out like we used to.

Bill is the master, he has much time and energy and he's a greenie.....it's not safe to argue w/Bill