Cindy Sheehan

[Lazerblade]

Normally I avoid political discussion like the plague, because quite frankly I'm not that educated when it comes to politics. It seems to be nothing but secrecy, mindgames, and empty promises.

However, just for the hell of it, I'll see what doing my homework has accomplished.

Bush already met with this woman, and gave her answers. The answers he gave obviously didn't satisfy her, but in a move to be polite, she accepted those answers and moved on...

Until Sheehan started listening to some inner voice or influential people around her, then she decided to use her son's death to attract attention, forcing some more solid answers out of Bush if possible.

The problem is that obviously the two "combatants" are at different political skill levels, and that Bush cannot give answers that he doesn't have. My guess is that Bush isn't even fully briefed on everything. If he were, then either he'd have to have one hell of a brain, or he'd have to be a machine, because that much data would overload anyone. That's why he has 10 advisors following him around at all times, to tell him what he needs to know when he needs to know it.

On the other side of the coin, Sheehan could very easily find her answers elsewhere. There are tons of resources for this sort of thing. Not just the media, but higher-up officials and advisors could explain the situation to her in terms she can not only understand, but be more willing to accept. The problem is that she wants to place the person responsible for the war on stage to justify it, but the answer she seeks is one she can't get from him. She needs to talk to the person in charge of individual missions, the commanding officer or a liaison from the BOO where her son was stationed, to explain why her son went where he did, and why it was important for him to go there.

Though these answers are pretty vague and based solely on opinion, I think that politics is primarily opinion, sprinkled with truth and fact only when such truths and facts have no potential for damage or backlash, or when they can be justified by reason or right.

Of course as I said, I'm not into politics, but I'm trying to understand.

[SilentEdge]

The fact is, Bush is in a way responsible. "The buck stops here". He is responsible all the way down the food chain, despite the fact he's at the top he is by no means severed from the responsibility. The question in my mind is if this woman lied the first time, or is playing politics now.

[SODsniper]

Ugh...saying 'according to FAuX news' pretty much negates any point you were trying to make.  It's like making a point by saying 'according to Michael Moore'.  Both may have some facts in there but there's so much BS that it makes them uncredible.

IMHO...Bush meets the lady for a big 5 minutes 3 weeks ago and this is a non-story.  Now, as Mike points out, it's building into a two sided, 3 ring circus that isn't going to go away anytime soon and the circus is taking attention away from a pretty valid moral point by Mrs Sheehan.

Bush already met with her once.  She did not seem to have a problem with his handling of the Iraq war at THAT time.

Besides, can you imagine the precedence that is set by this sort of extortion?

Face it, Sheehan et al are ONLY interested in one thing.  They do not care about the troops in Iraq, they don't care about the troops that are dying to keep Iraq free.  That lame and pathetic group is ONLY interested in humiliating the President.


SODsniper

[SODsniper]

Normally I avoid political discussion like the plague, because quite frankly I'm not that educated when it comes to politics. It seems to be nothing but secrecy, mindgames, and empty promises.

However, just for the hell of it, I'll see what doing my homework has accomplished.

Bush already met with this woman, and gave her answers. The answers he gave obviously didn't satisfy her, but in a move to be polite, she accepted those answers and moved on...

Until Sheehan started listening to some inner voice or influential people around her, then she decided to use her son's death to attract attention, forcing some more solid answers out of Bush if possible.

The problem is that obviously the two "combatants" are at different political skill levels, and that Bush cannot give answers that he doesn't have. My guess is that Bush isn't even fully briefed on everything. If he were, then either he'd have to have one hell of a brain, or he'd have to be a machine, because that much data would overload anyone. That's why he has 10 advisors following him around at all times, to tell him what he needs to know when he needs to know it.

On the other side of the coin, Sheehan could very easily find her answers elsewhere. There are tons of resources for this sort of thing. Not just the media, but higher-up officials and advisors could explain the situation to her in terms she can not only understand, but be more willing to accept. The problem is that she wants to place the person responsible for the war on stage to justify it, but the answer she seeks is one she can't get from him. She needs to talk to the person in charge of individual missions, the commanding officer or a liaison from the BOO where her son was stationed, to explain why her son went where he did, and why it was important for him to go there.

Though these answers are pretty vague and based solely on opinion, I think that politics is primarily opinion, sprinkled with truth and fact only when such truths and facts have no potential for damage or backlash, or when they can be justified by reason or right.

Of course as I said, I'm not into politics, but I'm trying to understand.

One slight error to an otherwise dead on balls accurate post.  

Sheehan WAS satisfied with the answers Bush gave her the first time.  It was only when, as you say, she started listening to the looney left, that somehow those answers were not enough.  But, as I indicated, they do not want answers.  They just want to rake the President over the coals.  And the fact that they use a soldier's death as a baseball bat to beat the President over the head with simply shows how desperate and pathetic the Anti-American loons have gotten.

I also find it pathetically sad that, throughout all the diatribes and BS statements (Nuclear war in Iraq!??  Sheeya, right!!) Sheehan and the rest of the looney bins had not made ONE statement against the scumbags who actually killed her son.  To listen to her and all the other loons, you would think that they approve of the scum that killed her son.



SODsniper

[MrCouch]

Ugh...saying 'according to FAuX news' pretty much negates any point you were trying to make.  It's like making a point by saying 'according to Michael Moore'.  Both may have some facts in there but there's so much BS that it makes them uncredible.

and i could say the same about CNN or MSN or NPR. the only reason people trash Fox News is because it is basically the ONLY Conservatively favored station. So of course thier opinions are going to be quite different from CNN or others. they are sitting in a lions den.

just remember we are fighting with a two sided blade.

and FYI, i watch more than FOX news to make sure im seeing both sides of the wall.

[Zazoo]

and i could say the same about CNN or MSN or NPR. the only reason people trash Fox News is because it is basically the ONLY Conservatively favored station. So of course thier opinions are going to be quite different from CNN or others. they are sitting in a lions den.

just remember we are fighting with a two sided blade.

and FYI, i watch more than FOX news to make sure im seeing both sides of the wall.

News is supposed to be objective. A lot of the so called "news" on Fox is heavily editorialized. And Fox won't even admit its own bias. Instead it plays those dumb "Fair and Blanced" and "We Report, You Decide" mottos. They aren't fooling anyone.

Stations like CNN and MSNBC may be guilty of these things as well, but Fox News takes spin and partisan hackery to a whole new level.
~Mike

[MrCouch]

News is supposed to be objective. A lot of the so called "news" on Fox is heavily editorialized. And Fox won't even admit its own bias. Instead it plays those dumb "Fair and Blanced" and "We Report, You Decide" mottos. They aren't fooling anyone.

Stations like CNN and MSNBC may be guilty of these things as well, but Fox News takes spin and partisan hackery to a whole new level.
~Mike

to each his own.

[MONOLITH]

*not looking*  

[Dr.Jeckyl]

i just hope everyone can someday realize that the emporer has no clothes.

[SilentEdge]

i just hope everyone can someday realize that the emporer has no clothes.

They were invisible clothes you idiot! Did you even READ the story?!?!

 

[Dr.Jeckyl]

i love you Silent.:1 (11):

[SODsniper]

News is supposed to be objective. A lot of the so called "news" on Fox is heavily editorialized. And Fox won't even admit its own bias. Instead it plays those dumb "Fair and Blanced" and "We Report, You Decide" mottos. They aren't fooling anyone.

Stations like CNN and MSNBC may be guilty of these things as well, but Fox News takes spin and partisan hackery to a whole new level.
~Mike

The problem with "news" these days is that the people (you and I) have decided  they don't LIKE news.  They (We) just want to be entertained.

News hasn't been "News" for quite a long time.

Having said that, FNC does a better job at presenting all sides than most NewTainment...


SODsniper

[SODsniper]

i just hope everyone can someday realize that the emporer has no clothes.

Wrong...

The "Emporer" finally had the balls to see something thru.  To stay the course.

I know that most Americans from the Looney Left do not have the stomach to do what's right.  Tough shit.  Deal with it.

Despite what all the looney left will tell you, there are some things WORTH fighting for.  Freedom don't come free, nor does it come cheap....  But it is well worth the sacrifices..

Or perhaps you feel that it is better to have a psychotic madman at the helm of a country?  

So much for liberal "compassion", eh?


SODsniper

[MONOLITH]

Or perhaps you feel that it is better to have a psychotic madman at the helm of a country?  

*heh heh. Even I, a diehard right wing republican, can see where he just left himself wide open*

[Dr.Jeckyl]

yeah i'll leave that one alone but i'm sure he knows what one of us "looney" left would say.

another reason i don't get into these political discussions is i, unlike most of the people who do, can't articulate what i want to say without leaving anything out that would either help my case or make it easy to take what i say out of context or wrong all together, so i don't. i know what i want to say, and i have a good feeling atleast 90% of it is fact.

i just would like everyone to open there eyes and stop towing the party line for a few minutes, read up on some more sources for information, and think about what is REALLY going on. maybe then we can all come out of this fiasco all the better.

[MONOLITH]

Ya gotta learn to just laugh it off Doc. I did, and I'm much better now.

They even said I can stop my meds soon.  

[MaJix]

I cant see how american lives are worth iraqi freedom... operation "iraqi freedom" am i right? or am i missing something here

[Zazoo]

The problem with "news" these days is that the people (you and I) have decided they don't LIKE news. They (We) just want to be entertained.

Speak for yourself. I like to be informed. I don’t consider infotainment and news commentary shows (which are pretty entertaining when opposing commentators attempt to out shout each other   ) as reliable source of hard news.

Personally, I find that the type of people who swear by a single news source (especially commentary heavy sources that have a clear biases, such as NPR or FNC) really aren’t looking to be “informed” about anything. Being able to fire off a few dozen of their party’s latest talking points isn't a big deal if a person can’t provide a single well-formed argument to support any of them (you think they’d get the hint that talking points are inherently inane).

News hasn't been "News" for quite a long time.

Credible news sources still exist. You just have to look around.
It is out there and it’s more plentiful and accessible than ever before in the history of mankind (though it does sometimes get lost in a sea of shit :tongue:).

Having said that, FNC does a better job at presenting all sides than most NewTainment...

Well… I guess this is my point.
According to what standard does Fox News do a better job? In your opinion, the “newstainment” (infotainment) standard. If you say so. I’m not about to argue that point because I don’t really make it a point to get my news from infotainment sorces. Last I checked infotainment didn’t have very high journalistic standards. I also don't consider news commentary shows as reliable sources of hard news (for obvious reasons). Do you? If not, then why waste time on sources like FNC and other similar cable news outlets when credible sources (note: plural) of hard news are out there? Why deal with the BS and bias when it isn’t even necessary?

Don't get me wrong, it is fun to watch the Sean Hannity's and the Michael Moore's of the world foam at the mouth on national TV, but I'm not going to rely on them for anything more than a cheap laugh.

~Mike

[Zazoo]

Wrong...
The "Emporer" finally had the balls to see something thru.  To stay the course.

I know that most Americans from the Looney Left do not have the stomach to do what's right.  Tough shit.  Deal with it.

Despite what all the looney left will tell you, there are some things WORTH fighting for.  Freedom don't come free, nor does it come cheap....  But it is well worth the sacrifices..

Or perhaps you feel that it is better to have a psychotic madman at the helm of a country?  

So much for liberal "compassion", eh?

Just a tip:
Strong opinions are welcome and heated debates are inevitable,  but you need not rely on this kind of vitriol to make a point. At best it tells people you are too emotional about a subject to intelligently discuss it. At worst is suggests that your opinion lacks enough substance to be supported otherwise.

Don't insult your own views by resorting to this tripe. It isn't necessary nor is it welcome here.

Thanks,
~Mike

[SODsniper]

Just a tip:
Strong opinions are welcome and heated debates are inevitable,  but you need not rely on this kind of vitriol to make a point. At best it tells people you are too emotional about a subject to intelligently discuss it. At worst is suggests that your opinion lacks enough substance to be supported otherwise.

Don't insult your own views by resorting to this tripe. It isn't necessary nor is it welcome here.

Thanks,
~Mike

I'se just calls 'em as I seese 'em...  

We all have our little foibles..  This is mine.   I peruse a LOT of political forums (and run a few myself) and this kind of uninformed, emotionalistic and utter nonsense is way to prevelant.  

It's also the reason why I try not to mix political discussions with other discussions.    Got sucked into this by the SHEEHAN heading, as she has been a pet project of mine ever since she started this lunacy of hers.




SODsniper