I’ll be offline for a few days
Peace – Chris
-
Archives
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
-
Meta
Enjoy your vacation Chris.
Vacation?? What think you’re the prsident or something?
A thought on Sheehan. Why didn’t the president just meet with her? My guess would be he has a little free time one cannot clear brush 24/7.
In addition it seems like members of his own party agree that it is time to leave Iraq, right thinker has made that argument numerous times. Unleashing the attack dogs was not a good way to deal with this situation.
Seems that the whole problem for Bush is the changing reasons for the war. When the war first started Saddam Hussien was an “iminent” threat who had to be dealth with. If that was the real reason than why are we still there? I have a feeling that is a discussion that Mr Bush does not want to have.
Realty bites:
From the washington post:
:”‘We set out to establish a democracy, but we’re slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic,’ said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. ‘That process is being repeated all over.'”
I am truely sorry for Ms. Sheehan’s loss. However, most of the parents who have lost children in Iraq don’t seem to be making media spectacles of themselves. Why not?
Paul:
Some people grieve silentely and some do not. The same can be said of certain countries, for example when terrorist attacked, England they worked towards solving the problem, but seem to be doing it quietely. Other countries might be a little more vocal about their suffering.
Personally I think Sheehan has a right to excercise free speech and say whatever she wants. Just like the president has a right not to meet with her. What I find hard to understand is why people are attacking her,( I am not saying that you are attacking her, but some right-wing commentators are) she has an opinion and is doing what she thinks is best to express it. What could possibly be more american?
Plus I really think Bush should spend a half hour with her and defuse the situation.
I’m back from attending the funeral for my Father who passed suddenly and unexpectedly on Aug. 4. He passed in his sleep which is how we all should go but it was just so unexpected. This is a good topic for me to get started with…
Why didn’t the president just meet with her? My guess would be he has a little free time one cannot clear brush 24/7.
He already met with her. Her family has met with Bush as did many other families so it is very odd that she wants more benefit than what the others got. Why does she deserve more?
Personally I think Sheehan has a right to excercise free speech and say whatever she wants.
I agree with this.
What I find hard to understand is why people are attacking her
As I agree she has the right to free speach she also has to live with the effects of that speech. They attack her because she has turned her son’s death into a media spectacle in an effort to calm her sorrow. She is destroying the memory of her son, the life he chose and the public’s memory of him.
The freedom of speech is not also the freedom from responsibility for what you say. These “right-wing” commentators are free to respond to her attacks and since she is using her dead son to push an agenda she has set the stage for how the dialogue progresses. “Right-wing” commentators also benefit from freedom of speach.
Plus I really think Bush should spend a half hour with her and defuse the situation.
When he met with her the first time it didn’t solve anything, why do you think a 2nd, 3rd or 4th meeting will?
She is a tool of the ACLU, MoveOn and other liberal attack groups now. She has an agenda to push so it isn’t about her son anymore, it’s about blaming Bush for what Saddam Hussein did.
Seems that the whole problem for Bush is the changing reasons for the war.
The reasons never changed there was about 20 of them but liberals could only remember 1 or 2 at a time so when Bush went from WMD to stability Dems said “WHAT ABOUT WMD?” and when Bush added humanitarian Dems said “WHAT ABOUT STABILITY?”
The reasons are the same now as they were then except that the WMDs were either all used up on his own people or the Syrians were able to get them all out by the time we arrived.
However, most of the parents who have lost children in Iraq don’t seem to be making media spectacles of themselves. Why not?
Mayb she expected her son to get all the benefits of the military such as the G.I. Bill, medical coverage, skills and money without any of the risk. It’s sad that the boy was courageous and had a mind for the future and the mother is destroying all that for a liberal agenda.
Celebrate his life, don’t tear down everything he stood for. That is what turns my stomach in this whole thing.
Right-thinker:
First, sorry for your loss, I hope you are doing well.
Good point about free speech it cuts both ways, and generally in order to have a spectacle you need spectaters and some of them are going to disagree with you. People should not hide behind their victim status to avoid critisism.
As far as tearing down everything he stood for, you have to figure that Sheehans kid was willing to die for a cause he believed in, and he learned that from somewhere. In other words she is standing up for a cause she believes in and I don’t see how that hurts her soms memory.
First, sorry for your loss, I hope you are doing well.
Thank you very much, I’ve been better, it just takes time.
In other words she is standing up for a cause she believes in and I don’t see how that hurts her soms memory.
I rarely see Casey’s name anywhere, it all seems to be about Cindy’s political views. Casey re-enlisted to go back so he felt very strongly that the war isn’t a lie, isn’t a fraud and that we are doing great things over there. Casey believed strongly enough to risk his life that going to Iraq is the right thing and, sadly, Cindy is saying he died for a lie, died for nothing, died for oil. Brutal.
RT:
To me she seems a bit like a mom blaming the OD of her child on a pusher, her kid may have enjoyed drugs but in the end they got him killed.
Grieving mothers are a double edged sword, the million mom marchers made me want to vote republican, evidentely they made a lot of people vote republican, but at the same time they are able to get a lot of publicity so both parties use them. Personally I get tired of people playing the victim card, that is why right now I admire the british, they refused to be victims afer the subway bombings, right now I think America could use some of that stiff upper lip. We seem to have created victim celebritys, for example the aruba thing.
In a country with free speech and ratings driven news I have a feeling we are going to get more stuff like this.
If sheehan were my mom I don’t think I would be mad at her, I am kind of used to my mom telling me I do dumb things and if she can get a national platform more power to her.
To me she seems a bit like a mom blaming the OD of her child on a pusher, her kid may have enjoyed drugs but in the end they got him killed.
HAHA, technically a great analogy but I think Casey had a pride of duty and a sense of doing good works that led him to military service.
We seem to have created victim celebritys, for example the aruba thing.
Absolutely, I see it in the insurance business. There aren’t any accidents anymore, it’s always someone’s fault that something happened and we as a society feel the need to take revenge on those determined at fault. Doctors can’t save everyone, it’s impossible. Some idiot is going to drink the gasoline irregardless of the sticker that says not to.
In a country with free speech and ratings driven news I have a feeling we are going to get more stuff like this.
I see speech getting more curtailed, not by government but by special interests. What ever a Republican says some liberal is going to say it’s racist. The new strategy to combat speech we don’t like is to label it racist or sexist or insensitive thereby removing scrutiny of the message itself. Vicente Fox says Mexicans take jobs Blacks don’t want and the uproar was deafening until Louis Farrakahn says “he’s right.”
Speech currently is in it’s most fragile state in our history, in my opinion.
RT:
Almost no matter what you say you are going to offend someone and unfortunately even if you are right it is no excuse.
As far as always blaming somone else, sometimes bad things just happen and no one can stop it, but people keep looking to the government to prevent all bad things. Personally I blame the right-wing pundits for politizing everything.
You work in the insurance biz? No wonder you want a cap on damage awards.
Almost no matter what you say you are going to offend someone and unfortunately even if you are right it is no excuse.
Are you saying that there is no excuse for offending people or no excuse for censoring speech?
As far as always blaming somone else, sometimes bad things just happen and no one can stop it, but people keep looking to the government to prevent all bad things.
Not everyone looks to the government, not Republicans in general nor libertarians and few independants. The big government fix all is a liberal position and it is on the decline.
Personally I blame the right-wing pundits for politizing everything.
Right-wing pundits are reactionary in that they respond to the accusations and attacks from others. O’Rieley, for example, doesn’t make breaking news or unprecedented stands on obscure issues but opines on the foolishness of others, usually the NYT.
By the time the right-wing pundits are involved what ever it is has already been politicized. Why else would they be talking about it? Remember, Republicans are constantly under attack by the liberal machine so I see their dialogue as just responses to political challenges.
You work in the insurance biz? No wonder you want a cap on damage awards.
Did I say I wanted a cap on damage awards? I do want penalties for frivilous lawsuits and I’m for limiting attorneys fees in class action suits and the like. I don’t like it when a lady gives birth after 6-9 months of no pre-natal care and then successfully sues the doctor for any problems the crack baby has. I also think that a child who tries to use superman underoos to fly from the roof of his house is S.O.L.
RT:
You mean Underoos don’t make you fly.
As far as conservative pundits go it seems to me that conservatives are better at talking about the issues of the day, I think it is smart in that it gets them more readers or viewers. For example fox news’s obsession with white missing women. The problem is that it gives the impression that governement can fix everything.
Right now I would say conservatives are the one looking for government fixxes. For example, the war on drugs is all about trying to make people do something that is better for themselves through laws. Rick Santorums entire book is about encouraging people to live in a certain way. Abstinence education is all about preventing pre-marital sex, and keeping people from using birth control.
Terri Schiavo was all about trying to offer a politcal solution to a medical problem.
You mean Underoos don’t make you fly.
Just to the ER.
The problem is that it gives the impression that governement can fix everything.
I see it as media taking charge in an investigation and shows a lack of faith in the law enforcement community.
For example, the war on drugs is all about trying to make people do something that is better for themselves through laws.
Maybe spiritual laws and the aid of religious groups but the only laws Republicans seem to support are prison terms for drug offenders.
Rick Santorums entire book is about encouraging people to live in a certain way.
Again, not government intervention but moral intervention. Throw in some states rights and your on target.
Terri Schiavo was all about trying to offer a politcal solution to a medical problem.
Actually, it was about the sactity of human life and challenging governmental proceedures that give an unfit guardian a fiduciary trust. Like allowing Michael Jackson to adopt young boys.
Right – sorry about your loss.
Thanks, I appreciate it. You talk to someone one day and then you can never talk to them again. You have to get as much in now while you can.
August 25, 2005
White House Denies Bush is on Vacation
The White House seems to be a little defensive about President Bush’s summer vacation. According to the San Bernardino Sun, a spokesman insisted “the reason that Bush is in Crawford, Texas, is due to the renovation of the West Wing of the White House.”
Said the spokesman: “He’s operating on a full schedule; he’s just doing it from the ranch instead of from the White House. The only week he had officially off was this last week.”
Whether he’s on vacation or just away, USA Today notes he’s been “shadowed by anti-war demonstrators” the entire time.
MMM seems maybe the president is getting a tad defensive