my reply took a while....I had to wait and make sure tk was finished editing his post
 

remember folks, Media Matters for America is a self-described "progressive" research and information center, not a "left-wing", "lefty" or "liberal" research and information center mind you, but progressive.

rejoice comrades, various "journalists" and "progressive (there's that word again) bloggers" are keeping an eye on the evil right-wing facists for you. :EA:


thanks albed, it's a shame that so many are so blinded by their hatred for Bush et al. that they can't or won't admit something so obvious.

L.A. Times Joins the Crowd in Distorting the Cindy Sheehan Story

don't get too carried away dissecting the tangential minutia in your search for talking points, fellas - try to keep your eye on the ball: her son died for a lie - she's earned the right to be where she is, asking the questions she's asking. period.

progressive = "left-wing", "lefty"
"liberal" = conservative

Yeah, lets not post any 4-page quotes about "tangential minutia" here, huh.


She didn't earn anything. All she did was squeeze a baby out of her vagina; big deal.


Trying to gain glory for what her adult son did with his own life already shows her moral level.


But let's not slam, slime and trash her by questioning her right to lie because, hey - her son died you know.

You couldn't be more offensive, albed, but you're on the right track.

She, like all families of military personell, shares a portion of her son's honor for his service. This of course gives her the right to be upset with the president for puting him in harm's way and she deserves some kind of explanation. But if he were my son I'd rather talk to his commanding officer or some other soldier who knew him better; the president would be the last person I'd go to for consolation. Ms. Sheehan's vendetta will only prolong her grief, it's unhealthy and I feel bad that she can't seem to get on with her life. But what's worse is that she's invoking the name of a dead family member to make a political statement. Rather than exploiting her son's death she should be celebrating his life.

I could be far more offensive Mazer. I've just been unusually nice lately.

Funny she's not voicing her sons opinions, just her own.

Don't you wonder why the press doesn't focus more on her son instead of on her?

Quite likely her sons politics were contrary to hers and she definitely opposed his service so she should be the last to share his honor and using his death for her own political purposes makes her just a little disgusting.

I see you recognize the exploitation; try to recognize how phony the claims of grieving are.

She already had her consolation time with President Bush and seemed quite content with it. Trying for a second one just reeks of political manipulation.

what a profoundly arrogant thing to say. how could you know this - that the son was in agreement with the administration's objectives and practices. or is it just an assumption on your part? for all you know he was just as angry with a fatally blundering washington as she is now. many serving in iraq are. in which case she is in fact speaking for him, and against those whose policies terminally exploited this soldier, and indeed she is celebrating his too short life. the burden of proof is not on mrs. sheehan. unless presented with strong eveidence to the contray one must assume a mother knows her own child. the burden of proof is on these strangely agitated pro-bush critics, who seem to think a few short lines in a year old story make them experts on this familly.

- js.

It's an opinion Jack. Try to sober up before you post so you can understand what's going on and make an intelligent reply.

fuck..my clock said 10 minutes...you're not abusing your mod powers are you? I don't see an edit notice.

lol @ "intelligent reply." albed your non-techincal posts are little more than schoolyard taunts. if you remove the insults from your comments there's nothing left but nouns. ;)

- js.

once you "quote" a post you freeze the text while you run out the clock, not the writer. he or she could make a change in 5 mins (or less) but if you hold your post up the clock can appear to run out. still, whether it's 5 minutes or 10 in this particular case any changes made were for style - not for debate positions - no points were altered. in the future you might want to wait a few minutes before jumping in, or, if it's that important to communicate instantly - try chat.

- js.

Jack........drunk...........idiot.

You're right.



I waited till my clock said 8:13 before starting my reply but it could be off a minute or two. I'm not complaining because your post was a little lamer originally.

wingnut catnip :CG:

If he sees that ad then he won't have to meet with her, she said it all.

Well,she looks like a raving Liberal.
Isn't there a law against people like her?
If not,there soon will be.
Asking the President questions indeed,
whatever next?

Seriously, who gives-a-fuck?

There's a thousand legitimate questions that President Bush should be answering - and he should be being asked them by a focused, serious media... But instead of asking them, we're stuck with this ridiculous circus act, where the questions are somehow ignored, in favour of 'continued coverage' of the baloney "David v Goliath" story that the news networks love to jerk off to, knowing that it can be drawn out over the course of a couple of weeks without actually tackling the reasons for the action. Of course she's being manipulated by 'the left'... of course it's a bullshit set-up! What did Sheehan or anyone else expect?

Cindy Sheehan can eat the dirt that the Presidential motorcade flicks up in her face. I dislike this populistic method of critique at the best of times (purely because it falls so easily into the hands of the info-tainment departments of every news channel) but when the detailed lies and abuses of power of Government are boiled down to a single issue of a protesters argument... ugh... no thankyou.

In such turbulent times, we need upstanding journalists who are prepared to grill politicians and ask questions that may lead to them being barred from press rooms. We need thorough, sober and hard-nosed critique, not another performing seal that will just add to the superficial bullshit of 'news coverage'.

a fair point, t-man, and well put, as always :W:

the fact is that 80% of the mileage that this story has gotten is because Cindy Sheehan is staging this protest in Crawford, Texas, in front of an army of media who have nowhere to go as long as the Prez is there and absolutely nothing else to report on. if she had done this anywhere else, the story would have come and gone by now. from a strictly pr point of view, one could say it was a very clever move on her part - guaranteed coverage.

that being said, if her little circus keeps the hard questions about the war on the front page and in the mind of the public, then this event, political theater though it may be, will have done some good. without question, the press has been asleep for years, but populist eruptions of sentiment can blow open doors that the press is not comfortable opening on thier own. if it takes a performing seal to get their attention, so be it. whatever it takes.

gee whiz, whose country is this? bush's, the press', the people's? if it's the people's then we need the cindy sheehans of this land, by the 1000's, by the 1,000,000's, to stand up and insist on accountability from thier elected representatives, if we ever hope to have a working democracy. i don't remember bush being forced to run for president or to take the oath of office. if citizens make him uncomfortable he should get over it - or resign, and let someone take over who appreciates what an amazing thing a peoples' democracy is supposed to be.

btw, i don't watch a lot of tv but i do watch a little each day and when i graze i see the usual crap still running like game shows, entertainment tonight, soap operas and the mindless morning "news" shows where slimey celebs slide from one channel to another plugging forgetable product. i'm not seeing wall to wall cindy tv by any means. i actually first learned about it here. if i hadn't seen knife's thread i would have only gotten a superficial taste on a shields/brooks debate last friday on the newshour, and they didn't spend a whole lot of time on it. this ain't no baby jessica fallen down the well. not by a long shot. now that was media circus.

- js.

I think she is dishonoring her son. If he didn’t want to go to war he shouldn’t have joined the military. When you are in the military you do what you are told, you do not ask questions. She has every right to protest and I can feel her pain, but I would never use the death of a Soldier, a Warrior for political gain, esp. my son.

What she can do is read UNSCR 1441, 678, & 660, the 12 years of noncompliance to UN resolutions.

The outcomes of war are not measured on the reasons the war began, but by what that war achieves. I think this can be said of every war, and we do not know what this war will achieve yet. At the end of each war, there was still no perfection. When the civil war ended, the freed slaves did not have true freedom and equality because they were degraded by those who felt they were inferior, regardless of the emancipation proclamation. At the end of WWII, it was the beginning of the cold war as the USSR took territories in Europe and created huge enslaved states. In every war, another struggle began and that is the truth for Iraq.

A quote from Cindy, “Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry?

Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.”

He was protecting America Cindy, and he was helping to spread freedom, something many of us take for granted.

Republic Jack, The USA is a Republic and it works just fine.....

this, of course, is a marketing slogan for the war that has no discernable basis in fact.

been drinking the kool-aid again, have we?:drk: