Once Bush owns up to his mistakes, I hope she moves on and gets them to own up to theirs. Gotta start somewhere–might as well start at the top.
*Leon Panetta: You voted for the Iraqi resolution. Do you have any regrets?
Senator Clinton: I don’t regret voting to give the President authority. I regret the way he used the authority.*
Sorry, but this is a crock. Any member of Congress who grants “authority” to a President to stage war without a Congressional war declaration (preceded by a full debate) has abdicated his or her responsibilities. Almost all of them are old enough to remember the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and how it was used by LBJ to sink us deep into the Vietnam quagmire.
Everyone who voted for the Iraq resolution took part in a copout, and should be deeply ashamed.
George Bush is MORE responsible than Hillary Clinton.
George Bush is MORE responsible than John Kerry.
Therefore, if Ms. Sheehan is looking for someone to hold accountable, it’s only natural that she should pick the person who bears the greatest responsibility.
It isn’t difficult to understand. It’s amusing as hell, the mental gymnastics you’ll go through to blame everything that’s going wrong on the Democrats, though. “It isn’t the administration’s fault! Congress didn’t try hard enough to stop him!”
Agreed. But standing by and letting a wrong be committed is not the same as committing it yourself.
If my buddy gets drunk and announces that he’s going to walk down the street and beat the crap out of his ex-wife, and I say “Yeah, go ahead, she deserves it”, I certainly bear some responsibility for what insues. But not as much as my buddy does.
Wow, another overinflated outrage from rjung. Shocker!!
I saw the O’Reilly/Malkin piece, and they were very, very sympathetic with Ms. Sheehan over the loss of her son. They say that she is now being used by MoveOn.org, etc to advance their political goals, and this is a reasonable conclusion to come to based on what’s happening. She did, in fact, change her views as to Bush’s feelings of empathy. She clearly said, in the original newspaper inerterview, that Bush understood her pain. Whether or not she agreed with him on the war is besides a separate issue. She now claims that he does not “feel her pain” as the saying goes. Is that not a change of mind from what she said in the earlier newspaper article?
I just don’t see a beg “smear campaign” aginst this woman. It’s a big story because there’s nothing else going on.
Bush isn’t going to meet with her, and he shouldn’t. He has already met with her once, which is more than many of the families got who lost sons/daughters. Let’s imagine what would happen if they did meet. She’d get to call him a liar and terrible president. He’d repeat all the “reasons” for the war that he’s been harping about from the begining and he’d tell her again that he’s deeply sorry she lots her son. Net accomplishment: ZERO.
If protesting the war makes her feel about honoring her son, then by all means she should continue her protest. But you don’t get to meet with the president just because you’re the squeaky wheel.
I agree.
The problem is that when posed the question “What are our soldiers dying for?” Bush doesn’t have a good answer. He doesn’t owe one individual mother an answer, but he does owe the country as a whole an answer, and so far he hasn’t been able to offer anything more than platitudes.
Well “good” is in the eye of the beholder. Far be it from me to offer a “good” answer to that question, but at this point the soldiers are dying in order to help Iraqis create a free country for themselves. We might not like that answer, but I don’t see why it isn’t “good”. Yeah, Bush has been all over the map on the reason for the war, but whether or not you consider the reasons “good” or not depends on your presepective and what you’re trying to accomplish.
“good” as in consistent w/the original reason given would do it in my book.
You ask to borrow $500.00. I ask “why do you need/want the money”. YOu tell me it’s for rent, formula for your infant son, and medications for your mother dying from cancer. I give you the money.
a month later, I find out you spent it on whiskey, loose women and a summer rental of the Brooklyn Bridge. Now, I may consider any and /or all of these “good” things to spend money on, but they were most assureadly not what you said at first.
Bush did not tell Congress, the American people and the mothers of soldiers “We need to send soldiers to Iraq to help the Iraquis create a free country”. we were robbed of the chance to agree or disagree with that choice. the fact that all of his other posurizations and mushroom cloud scenarios turned out to be carefully constructed house of cards, does not mean that we must absolve the administration for the responsability of putting us where we are.
If he admitted “we were wrong to go in. But now that we’re there, we have a responsability to at least not leave them in worse position than if we’d not interferred.” I’d accept that as an acceptable answer for “why are we there now”.
he’s not come anywhere fucking near that admition. nor has any of his followers. Instead, we keep hearing this never ending bullshit (although I must admit that it’s amusing in a fucked up way, to hear some one claim that it’s the Dem’s fault for not stopping him in the first place).
Cindy Sheehan: Shameless Publicity Seeker or Pathetic Pawn? The Conservative Voice
Misguided Mom GOPUSA
Fox News Perfects its Cindy Sheehan Smears
And that’s not even counting the stuff from Drudge and O’Reilly et al from earlier this week.
As for the folks who say, “she already met with Bush,” I guess I wasn’t aware of the law that says you can only meet with the POTUS only once. Or is it like a parking meter – five minutes with the President for every child killed in war? Can someone explain this “compassionate conservatism” for me?
It’s a tough spot. On the one hand I think Bush should come out and talk to her, but on the other then he’ll open the door up to some nuts pulling the same stunt.
Funny how she’s not blaming the enemy for killing her son.
From the OP:
Dude! Ever since you’ve been posting here, you’ve been pissed off at the right’s efforts.
There’s a whole beautiful world out there. Take a deep breath, walk around outside, smell some roses. It’ll do you a lot of good. Really.
I can smell your desperation from here.
You mean like this, from the IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION 107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 October 10, 2002
Yeah, yeah, it was the main reason. But saying that wasn’t part of the resaon is simply untrue. And at this point in the war, it IS the reason.
I hate GWB.
I hated him before the war. I hate him now. I hated him as Governor of Texas.
This woman is wrong to do what she is doing. I don’t think any President has to spend an hour with the mom of a fallen soldier. Even if he is ‘on vacation’.
This woman, to me, shows something that is really wrong with America today. The idea that is someone dies, the world must fucking stop. From the people who put up roadside memorials to people who die in traffic accidents, to the people who insist that the footprints of the WTC should never be built upon, to this woman, JHC, enough is a fucking-nough.
Bush is an evil man, but that doesn’t mean his schedual should be dictated by some ‘Gold Star Moms’. I thought that was bullshit when the right tried to lay that down on Senator Clinton and I think it is bullshit now.
I’m hardly “desperate.” In fact, I’m sorta glad. I like seeing the mainstream media focus on this lunatic liberal whackjob while utterly ignoring the ‘Able Danger’ story (the Clinton administration had Atta in its sights prior to 9/11 but decided not to let the FBI know about it? This after the WTC had been bombed in '93? No big deal, right?) or the AirHead America scandal (money for children and Alzheimer’s patients somehow winds up in the coffers of Air America? No big deal, right?)…while their ratings continue to vanish and their circulations continue to dwindle.
I love it. I loved watching the Move-On idiots and the Michael Moore morons lose “the most important election of our lives.” I was happy last November and I’m happy right now.
Because people like you would immediately lambaste them for making political hay from the grief of a poor, poor woman whose son died valiantly while fighting terrorism?
I don’t fault Bush for not meeting with the woman, and I certainly don’t think she has a “right” to meet with him. However, I think she is absolutely right to do what she is doing, and that the individuals who are trying to smear her for it are assholes. She lost her son and wants to protest. Good for her. That’s what America is all about.
So…if I’m following you… you’re saying… Bush good, Clinton bad?
Why, that’s…that’s remarkable! It explains everything! All these complex political issues were swirling around in my head but you’ve solved them all in a single stroke!
Stock market go up? Bush good! Earthquake in Kansas? Clinton bad! Hooray!