For fuck’s sake, the woman had just lost her son and was suddenly in the spotlight answering questions about meeting the president. It’s not a stretch to imagine she would default to being polite, even if that didn’t accurately represent her true feelings. According to the S.J. Mercury News article I read this morning, she has since said she believes her son died for nothing, and is very angry about it. What does it matter if her earlier words don’t match her current ones? Is it such a stretch that a grieving person can’t conclude the loss of their loved one wasn’t worth what was gained by invading Iraq and decide to speak out about it?
And? My own family has different political views than I do and may react differently to a tragic situation like this. That doesn’t invalidate my views, or theirs.
This seems to be a talking point parroted endlessly by right-wing critics of what Sheehan is doing. I don’t normally do this, but…
Cite?
I don’t see Michael Moore with his hand up her ass. So what gives? How exactly is she being used as a puppet? She seems to be making her own choices and generating her own publicity. I just don’t see it.
I actually read an O’Reilly piece on foxnews.com this morning on Sheehan (I happened to wander across it while looking for the transcript of a three-way shoutfest involving a healthfraud con artist. Honest). Obnoxious turd that he is, I didn’t see his remarks as trashing the woman.
Obviously she appeals to the Left as an articulate symbol of the Common Folk’s opposition to the war. Her having praise for Bush following her meeting with him is worthy of mention, as is her linkage with people like Michael Moore.
She’s certainly entitled to change her mind and be angry about what happened to her son.
Before concluding more about what’s going on here I’d like to see a transcript of her entire interview following meeting with the Prez, and some concrete examples of what supposedly constitutes right-wing “smears” of Ms. Sheehan.
I saw an interview with her in which the interviewer asked [paraphrased], “Is there any answer the President could give you which would satisfy you?”
To which she replied [again, paraphrased] “No, but I still want him to try.”
So she’s a troll. And there A) that trolls get a lot more attention in real life than they do on this board, and B) why, therefore, this board, is a way more civilized, decent, respectable place than the spew coming from either the left OR the right.
Really, just as it is gross to have politicians protesting against the war at the funeral of a service man, it would have been in bad taste to launch complaints at a politician just then.
Wow. And here I was thinking that surely nobody who wasn’t Michelle Malkin would be such an asshole to a mother who is mourning her son. And if so, surely they wouldn’t attempt to speak for a dead man.
I sort of have a different question about all of this. Is it just possible that what she is doing is not politically motivated at all? I mean, I could totally see if I had a child and that child died in a war wanting to have the person that ordered that this be so to look me in the eye and tell me why.
The Republican noise machine has developed a number of standard dodges that come into play whenever criticism is aimed toward the President. They’re trotted out reflexively, regardless of whether there’s evidence for them or not:
“Oh, it’s just left-wing media bias.”
“Oh, she’s just a puppet of the left.”
“Oh, she’s a flip-flopper.”
The power of these dodges is that they can be applied to ANYTHING. When you have a list of handy excuses for Why My Side Is Always Right And Their Side Is Always Wrong you don’t need to stop and think. All criticism can be simply waved away.
Well, yeah. But when those talking points are parroted on the board, I want to see a citation. When people use empty talking points, it makes the baby Jesus cry and all that jazz…
And I love how people are pointing to the e-mail Drudge received from Sheehan’s family as if that somehow undermines her. Curious how those who cite the e-mail don’t indicate that she responded to it, saying that the relative who wrote the e-mail didn’t know her son well and that her immediate (nuclear) family is behind her 100 percent.
She’s not a troll. She believes that her current opinion is right, and that there isn’t anything Bush could say that would change it. However, the only person who can verify that is Bush. It’s not wrong to ask someone whose decision affected your life so deeply to explain their decision to your face and not just a camera.
This was already answered in post #28 and others. There is a different context now in the demand for a new meeting with the president; an explanation on why are we in Iraq is demanded.
Oh, I agree. I don’t think the SREs (Standard Republican Excuses) should be allowed to pass without scrutiny either.
SREs aren’t really meant for bipartisan consumption anyway. They exist as mental band-aids for covering up moments of cognitive dissonance within the tribe. In this case they’re being deployed to resolve the uncomfortable gap between “support the troops” and “slam the anti-war crowd”.
Let’s all remember that Bush could not have sent troops to Iraq without the authorization of Congress. Funny…but I don’t see Cindy Sheehan camped outside of John Kerry or Hillary Clinton’s office asking why they voted to send her son to his death. What was so important in Iraq that Kerry and Hillary felt compelled to send US troops into battle for? While we’re at it, why doesn’t Cindy demand that Kerry and Hillary join her in Crawford and publically demand the president to bring all US troops home?
But I guess that doesn’t really fit in with the Michael Moore, Move-On “Bush Lied, Troops Died” template, does it?
Would you listen to yourself? You sound like a lunatic. Bush initiated the idea of invading Iraq and pushed to make it happen. To pretend anyone else bears even a fraction of responsibility for this event taking place, for better or for worse, is idiotic.