thatoneguyinslc thatoneguyinslc

Welcome to Crawford Cindy...No pun intended!

▼

Welcome to Crawford Cindy...No pun intended!

Another reason to hate Texas

from JoeUser Forums
Link

A lot of you know who Cindy Sheehan is. She's the mom leading the protest/vigil outside dubya's hideout in Crawford Texas. This article isn't about her protest. Others have covered that . This is about what happened yesterday....

Some redneck asshole took it upon themselves to drive through a few rows of the crosses erected on the side of the road. These crosses were part of her protest, and had the names of every american soldier, sailor, airman and marine killed in the Iraq war. Regardless of how you feel about her protest, i think you should be outraged. These crosses represent the sacrifices these kids made for the good old USA. It shows how some people feel about any dissent towards the war. They will go so far as to descecrate the names of those who gave all. It also shows that some will go to any length to disrespect anyone who opposes the war. Those crosses represent the losses of the families of the dead. Wether they are temporary or not is irrelevant. It is a slap in the face of every family who has lost a loved one. Regardless of how they feel about Mrs. Sheehan's protest.

But i'm not too suprised it happened. I was expecting something to happen. I never would have thought those who support the war would sink to such a level. One dumbass redneck gives the rest of you a black eye.

I guess i gave a few of them too much credit. My bad!


Thanks for reading,
thatoneguyinslc
14,774 views 116 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
No Kingbee, I wouldn't find it hard to accept her actions in the manner you suggest. In fact, I did at first. However, her own words tell a completely different story. She considers U.S. Servicemembers victims of Prs. Bush; nothing but brainwashed kids who can't think for ourselves.

You made a joke about how people see Cindy Sheehan as "Stupid, Weak or Crazy"... well, if she considers us nothing but brainwashed fools, does she see us any better?
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
"i guess it's easier for you to deal with her by simply dismissing her as misguided or making excuses for her in an attempt to demean her and devalue her message even as you nobly claim to support her right to deliver it."


No, king, with respect. It is hard to deal with because it is the same "blood for oil", we're Israeli puppet junk that we have been arguing about for years now. What if one of us at JU said this:

"Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel."


Come on. I wouldn't expect you to sit by silently if pro-Bush parents said stuff you disagreed with. I can't imagine her grief, but that grief doesn't lend any more legitimacy to her conspiracy theories than the grief of pro-Bush parents. There are people who stand and oppose her that lost kids. Do Sheehan's reporters lend THEM any more credence?

I believe that she is sincere, and I can't imagine her grief. I don't think for a moment, though, that she is really any more schooled in politics or has any more "inside" information than the people who lost family and still support Bush.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with baker on his last point. I think she is going on a gut instinct rather than any "inside" info.

You know...When i wrote this article, i had no idea that it would carry on this long. In fact It's the most commented article in my time on JU. I guess you never know which article will hit the hot button. Live and learn.

I would like to thank all of you for keeping it within the lines of civility.
Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top
She considers U.S. Servicemembers victims of Prs. Bush; nothing but brainwashed kids who can't think for ourselves.


i really should address this after i do bakerstreet's comments but you're first in line.

i just finished reading the letter that is fast becoming the issue or non-issue or whatever it's gonna be. the impression i took from it differs considerably from your take (assuming it's the basis for this claim).

from what i can tell, she feels--as do i--the administration was in such a rush to invade iraq it put a great many of our military personnel at risk. furthermore, it wasn't a screwup in just one area. generals who projected two or three times as many troops were needed found themselves being shoved out the door. troops were shipped into combat without armor or with insufficient armor. expert information was disregarded in favor of disinfomration from people like chalabi and 'curveball'.

you may not choose to see it that way (based on your experience and your perception of the administration). but to write her off as a tool of moveon.org (especially since, even as i type this, a swiftboatdeadsoldier'smoms group is producing attack commercials for chrissake) does her an injustice.
Reply #105 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel."


there's two ways that can be read or understood.

let's face facts. the pnac was hardly shy as far as its advocacy of regime change for iraq. it's also true that pnac and bush himself both claimed the road to jerusalem ran through baghdad (irony of ironies, it may ultimately turn out they werent very good at reading maps and the exact opposite is the case). unfortunately i can't get to the wall st journal's archives for free (and i'm sorry but i'm not about to pay for the privilege). perhaps you can or know someone who can. in that case, a search for the friday march 14, 2003 edition will locate a frontpage (far left column) story in which a number of people close to bush (as well as bush himself) go on at great length about how regime change in iraq would benefit israel and therefore benefit the us.

the article--which was very bush-friendly--was clearly intended to reinforce the idea that once iraq was transfromed, it would provide the platform from which a new israel/american friendly middle east could be constructed.

there is also significant documentation of plan b teams, consisting of pnac-friendly civilians appointees operating semi-autonomously in the pentagon during the buildup to the war.

i don't see it as a zionist or jewish conspiracy. but i do believe that too many pnac members idealized israel to the point of losing their objectivity. that losss of objectivity very likely was an important factor in the way the invasion of iraq was planned and scheduled.
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are people who stand and oppose her that lost kids


unfortunately it appears we're about to be treated to the battle of those who lost kids in iraq and afghanistan.

"As Sheehan supporters gathered at vigils Wednesday, Deborah Johns of Roseville was in Sacramento filming an anti-Sheehan commercial.

"I'm here to tell you that military families support our troops AND their mission -- in spite of what people like Cindy Sheehan say," Johns says in the ad, according to an advance script reviewed by The Chronicle. Her son William, a Marine who has served two tours in Iraq, is stationed in Florida.

"Cindy Sheehan certainly doesn't speak for me, our military families or our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan," Johns says in the ad.

Republican strategist Sal Russo produced the ad, and a spokesman for his consulting firm expects it to begin airing on CNN and FOX News within a week. And Johns will lead a caravan, dubbed "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy," that departs San Francisco on Monday for Crawford. That effort is organized by talk-show host Melanie Morgan of San Francisco's KSFO-AM.

Supporters of the counter-Sheehan caravan have started selling T-shirts that say, "Unlike some people ... I do support our troops in Iraq tour."

Johns and other Bush supporters, pointing to the many prominent liberals who have praised Sheehan, say she is being used. But Johns said her support by the GOP doesn't make her feel used.

"I made my son a vow (before his second tour of Iraq last year) to get out their positive stories that are happening in Iraq," Johns told The Chronicle on Wednesday. "And if Sal Russo and the Republicans are going to help get that message out, well, that's OK."
Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top
don't think for a moment, though, that she is really any more schooled in politics or has any more "inside" information than the people who lost family and still support Bush.


i hope i didnt give the impression i felt she had any 'insider info' was at all politically astute.

noone but the politically naive would consider doing something as hokey as going to crawford uninvited in an attempt to try and see bush.

remember max cleland doing the same thing last year?

but then perhaps a little naivete is in order.
Reply #108 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would like to thank all of you for keeping it within the lines of civility


yeah...well, fuck that
Reply #109 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kingbee. To me what she did was about the same thing Kerry did when he made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. He threw his service in the ring, then complained that people would dare make it a political issue. She now takes her (more than undestandable) grief and uses it to further a political agenda (calling Prs. Bush to task for the war), now she wonders how anyone could be so callous as to make her grief an issue.

That is the problem with all emotional pleas for political purposes. The people who first broach the subject are the ones politicizing the emotion, then those who look beyond the emotional response are labelled "uncaring".

The other problem with the emotional tactic is, there are just as many people on the other side of the issue who have emotional events behind their opinions also.

"The Grieving Mothers", "The 9/11 Families", "The Troops", "The Vets"... All these labels miss one major point. All grieving mothers, 9/11 family members, and veterans aren't on the same side of the issues. Those who respect the members of each of these groups don't all respect them for the same reasons. I'm a military retiree, so is ColGene. Would you, under any circumstances lump me and him together on issues concerning the war in Iraq or Prs. Bush? If either of us decided to play the "emotion" card, would you agree with one of us or the other based solely on our retiree status?

Plain and simple... If you don't want your emotions to become the issue, don't make them the issue.
Reply #110 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is the problem with all emotional pleas for political purposes. The people who first broach the subject are the ones politicizing the emotion, then those who look beyond the emotional response are labelled "uncaring


that's why i said only the politically naive would involve themselves in this type of action. on the other hand, the politically naive occasionally accomplish things simply becuse they don't realize they're doing something that can't be done.

generally, i believe you're correct. the schiavo case is another example.

referring to kerry, there was a time not that long ago--in years anyway (25 years ago for sure)--when an otherwise viable prospective candidate for even a relatively low-level office would have been passed over solely for not having any military service around which to build a campaign.
Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top
referring to kerry, there was a time not that long ago--in years anyway (25 years ago for sure)--when an otherwise viable prospective candidate for even a relatively low-level office would have been passed over solely for not having any military service around which to build a campaign.


Actually that still happens today. Kerry's service would have made a pretty good selling point on his bid for the White House. On the other hand there is a strong enough part of the voters of this country that he could have just as easily ran on his anti Vietnam activities after the war. The problem is, he tried to do both... in doing so, he pretty much cancelled out any advantage to himself to either group and gave his political oposition all the amunition needed to keep his butt out of the big chair in the oval office.

I'm not really trying to relive the 2004 election, but that's the other problem with emotional appeal arguments, you never know which of your backers your going to piss off along the way. ;~D
Reply #112 from JoeUser Forums Top

despite nearly 20 comments previous to mine in which that was suggested, i totally agree.

Only by you.  NOt every man is an Einstein, not every woman is a Curie.  NO one made a generalization about women in General except you.  I would get some tinactin for that athlete's tongue of yours.

Reply #113 from JoeUser Forums Top

If we are still in search of the elusive valid source of Miss Cindy accusing Prs. Bush of murdering her son, here's one straight from Miss Cindy's words...

And it looks like my son's murder and the murder of almost 1,800 other Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis whose only crime is that they were born in Iraq at the wrong time, are dead -- are dead for the agenda of the neo-con war machine. Link

I think that "kill" is the word we are looking for here, not "murder".  I'm pretty sure that CNN is a reliable source, so here is the quote: "'I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?' Sheehan told reporters."  http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/07/mom.protest/

 

Reply #114 from JoeUser Forums Top
I heard a sound byte of her saying "My son was murdered by the policies of this government and commander in chief". She always seems to pose it just at the brink of saying it, but not quite. I think she is sincere, but I think she is a lot more prepared than she seems at first glance. Now that there are 'media consultants' working with her, that's not likely to change.

p.s. when she said she wasn't going to pay taxes any more, she said:

"You killed my son for this. I don’t owe you anything. And if I live to be a million, I won’t owe you a penny."


to carry on what Karma pointed out.
Reply #115 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can't believe it took this long. But i'll accept it as a fact. Like i have previously stated, I tend to not put much stock into sources that are on the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

Thanks for your dilligence Karma
Reply #116 from JoeUser Forums Top

I can't believe it took this long. But i'll accept it as a fact. Like i have previously stated, I tend to not put much stock into sources that are on the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

Thanks for your dilligence Karma

Nah.  You just loved the jousting!