Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[Charade]

And the agenda is what? It might make Bush look bad........tough.

Yanno, there is good news out there that's rarely reported by the MSM. And if you think the MSM is being objective, you're sadly mistaken.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Some of the conservatives posters have been or have pretended to be offended when asked why they have not volunteer for active service given their professed support of Bush's war in Iraq. Some liberal posters have been so nice as to post the link to the armed forces enlistment forms to facilitate any conservatives posters who want to volunteer.

Well, the conservative posters have company. Cindy Sheehan intends to ask a very basic question of Bush. Bereaved mother camps outside Bush ranch

"I want to ask him why did my son die? What was this noble cause you talk about? And if the cause is so noble, when are you going to send your daughters over there and let somebody else's son come home?"

This is a good question and Bush should answer it.

John, the trip was fine. I made it to the hot seat at WWTBAM-PI for my 13th trip but blew it at the 32,000 point level.

 

[ThAnswr]

Yanno, there is good news out there that's rarely reported by the MSM. And if you think the MSM is being objective, you're sadly mistaken.

Like what, John? You people have been blowing that smoke up each other's butts for so long, you think you can blow it up everyone else's.

The only good news coming out of Iraq is the human interest story of the average soldier and that is reported everywhere.

Sorry the media can't hide the daily casualties and bombings. What a shame the dangerous road from the airport to Baghdad isn't being reported as if it's Rodeo drive.

FYI, watch Lou Dobbs every Friday night when he highlights a hero in the military.

And again, the story in Crawford is that the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq is camping outside while Bush is inside. If that reflects badly on Bush, so be it.

 

[lyeag]

So, when did Sludge become a Democrat?

Btw, the media is doing what the media is supposed to do which is to report on what's going on.

I would say that people like Michael Moore really aren't the best types to associate with if you are being sincere in your quest. I understand she wants her story out and she probably doesn't care how it gets out, but Michael Moore?

 

[Charade]

I would say that people like Michael Moore really aren't the best types to associate with if you are being sincere in your quest. I understand she wants her story out and she probably doesn't care how it gets out, but Michael Moore?

Unfortunately I think any loud mouth will do.

 

[bsnyder]

Some of the conservatives posters have been or have pretended to be offended when asked why they have not volunteer for active service given their professed support of Bush's war in Iraq. Some liberal posters have been so nice as to post the link to the armed forces enlistment forms to facilitate any conservatives posters who want to volunteer.

Well, the conservative posters have company. Cindy Sheehan intends to ask a very basic question of Bush. Bereaved mother camps outside Bush ranch This is a good question and Bush should answer it.

John, the trip was fine. I made it to the hot seat at WWTBAM-PI for my 13th trip but blew it at the 32,000 point level.

The question's not even logical. It's a volunteer army, and Sheehan's son volunteered.

From this article, published last year after the Sheehans met with President Bush:
http://www.thereporter.com/republished

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

I feel for this woman. She's obviously consumed with grief. And at some point in the future she's also probably going to be consumed with guilt for exploiting her son's memory in such a selfish way.

 

[Charade]

Bet, I posted both the Drudge article and that entire article a page or two back.

 

[ThAnswr]

I would say that people like Michael Moore really aren't the best types to associate with if you are being sincere in your quest. I understand she wants her story out and she probably doesn't care how it gets out, but Michael Moore?

I'm a little slow on the uptake today. So how exactly does Michael Moore fit into this? Is the controversy that Moore posted her story on her website? So Michelle Malkin and Sludge are the only ones who get the okay? Malkin and Sludge can tear this woman a new one so they can keep the neo-con decoder rings, but no one else is entitled to the story.

And what quest? She's a grieving mother who's angry at Bush and if what she does makes him uncomfortable, so be it.

Honestly, I don't understand how the righties can get their panties in a wad over this story. The woman has a right to protest. She's on public land. She has a right to express her opinion and her opinion is Bush killed her son. So........and the problem is? It might make Bush look bad. Again, tough.

Or what's really gravelling the righties is that they can no longer control the flow of information and opinion because there are more (not Moore) voices out there and a greater audience for those voices. Hmmmm.....

 

[JennaTX]

She had her time with the president. I am glad she thought it brought comfort for a while. She has every right to be angry- her son is dead. That is war.

Let's just imagine if every parent on both sides of the war thought they were entitled to a meeting with Bush whenever they wanted? Really, how realistic is that? The press is jumping all over it because they want to push their side. The Dems are jumping all over it because they can use it for their gain. I feel for her. I really do. Death can bring on a lot of anger no matter what the cause of death is. Placing the blame is part of the grieving process for some people, but this isn't doing her any good.

Okay, I am new to the boards, so please don't tear me apart!!!

My only thought about this, and other people posted about why should she be able to meet with President Bush, why should the President waste his time meeting with war protestors, and not everyone can meet with the President. If that is the case/argument, then President Bush should not during his State of the Union addresses have parents of fallen soldiers in the audience who he singles out while saying that they represent why the war is so needed, why we must "stay the course". He also should not then meet with parents/spouses/siblings of other fallen soldiers who support him and the war and have photos taken, interviews given, etc. If he is going to meet with one side then the only fair thing would be to meet with the other side.

I truly do not understand how people want to take a mother's grief over the loss of her son and say that she must have some other agenda. Of course she has another agenda, she wants to get honest answers about why her son died. She has stated that when she first met with the President that all of the reports about there not being any WMD's found, etc. were not out yet, so why would she question him at that time? And regardless of whether you feel she is some left wing activist who is just trying to bring down President Bush, she still has lost a son and I believe deserves some respect for that.

 

[bsnyder]

The question's not even logical. It's a volunteer army, and Sheehan's son volunteered.

From this article, published last year after the Sheehans met with President Bush:
http://www.thereporter.com/republished



I feel for this woman. She's obviously consumed with grief. And at some point in the future she's also probably going to be consumed with guilt for exploiting her son's memory in such a selfish way.

Oops! I only saw the reference to Drudge and we all know his news is tainted.

 

[Charade]

I'm a little slow on the uptake today. So how exactly does Michael Moore fit into this? Is the controversy that Moore posted her story on her website? So Michelle Malkin and Sludge are the only ones who get the okay? Malkin and Sludge can tear this woman a new one so they can keep the neo-con decoder rings, but no one else is entitled to the story.

And what quest? She's a grieving mother who's angry at Bush and if what she does makes him uncomfortable, so be it.

Honestly, I don't understand how the righties can get their panties in a wad over this story. The woman has a right to protest. She's on public land. She has a right to express her opinion and her opinion is Bush killed her son. So........and the problem is? It might make Bush look bad. Again, tough.

Or what's really gravelling the righties is that they can no longer control the flow of information and opinion because there are more (not Moore) voices out there and a greater audience for those voices. Hmmmm.....

Just curious... why is the reaction from the left (to the reaction of the right) frequently seem to be "panties in a wad" or "a big deal"? Why can't just an honest level headed opinion be stated without all the hoopla?

 

[ThAnswr]

The question's not even logical. It's a volunteer army, and Sheehan's son volunteered.

The point is that if it's such a noble and worthy cause, why haven't any of the Bush's bothered volunteering?

Or for that matter any of the keyboard jockies and water cooler warriors?

 

[lyeag]

I'm a little slow on the uptake today. So how exactly does Michael Moore fit into this? Is the controversy that Moore posted her story on her website? So Michelle Malkin and Sludge are the only ones who get the okay? Malkin and Sludge can tear this woman a new one so they can keep the neo-con decoder rings, but no one else is entitled to the story.

And what quest? She's a grieving mother who's angry at Bush and if what she does makes him uncomfortable, so be it.

Honestly, I don't understand how the righties can get their panties in a wad over this story. The woman has a right to protest. She's on public land. She has a right to express her opinion and her opinion is Bush killed her son. So........and the problem is? It might make Bush look bad. Again, tough.

Or what's really gravelling the righties is that they can no longer control the flow of information and opinion because there are more (not Moore) voices out there and a greater audience for those voices. Hmmmm.....

Moore has more than just a story posted. check out his website, a daily diary, photos, the works. Codepink is answering the phones for her (as per Cindy's entry for today). There are a lot that are more than just reporting, they are using her grief for their own exposure just as surely as (I forget the name Randall?) was in the Schiavo case. This woman is in pain and angry, and they are going to use her and then spit her out when they have no use for her anymore.

 

[ThAnswr]

This woman is in pain and angry, and they are going to use her and then spit her out when they have no use for her anymore.

You mean like Paula Jones?

 

[Charade]

The point is that if it's such a noble and worthy cause, why haven't any of the Bush's bothered volunteering?

you'd have to ask them.

Or for that matter any of the keyboard jockies and water cooler warriors?

why does supporting the war require picking up a weapon?

 

[ThAnswr]

Just curious... why is the reaction from the left (to the reaction of the right) frequently seem to be "panties in a wad" or "a big deal"? Why can't just an honest level headed opinion be stated without all the hoopla?

Would you prefer boxers in a knot?

And, don't even think of mentioning tightie-whities.

 

[lyeag]

Okay, I am new to the boards, so please don't tear me apart!!!

My only thought about this, and other people posted about why should she be able to meet with President Bush, why should the President waste his time meeting with war protestors, and not everyone can meet with the President. If that is the case/argument, then President Bush should not during his State of the Union addresses have parents of fallen soldiers in the audience who he singles out while saying that they represent why the war is so needed, why we must "stay the course". He also should not then meet with parents/spouses/siblings of other fallen soldiers who support him and the war and have photos taken, interviews given, etc. If he is going to meet with one side then the only fair thing would be to meet with the other side.

I truly do not understand how people want to take a mother's grief over the loss of her son and say that she must have some other agenda. Of course she has another agenda, she wants to get honest answers about why her son died. She has stated that when she first met with the President that all of the reports about there not being any WMD's found, etc. were not out yet, so why would she question him at that time? And regardless of whether you feel she is some left wing activist who is just trying to bring down President Bush, she still has lost a son and I believe deserves some respect for that.

I think there is a difference in that Bush is trying to honor those people when they are invited to the State of the Union speech. I don't really think this mother would consider it an honor and accept. I wouldn't say it would be a waste to meet with protesters, but I would say that civility would be sorely missing.

He did meet with this mother as he has done with many families. It is not realistic for the president to be able to meet with everyone who wants to discuss the death of their child in the war. Like I said, I feel for this woman. She opposes the war and that is her right. Her son volunteered for the military, just like I did, just like my husband did. We know what might happen.

 

[bsnyder]

I agree that her understandable and lamentable grief does not entitle her to an audience with the President, especially not a second time. Nor does respect for her loss require anyone to agree with her assessment of the war.

But I am struck by the parallels to the Schiavo fiasco that transpired months ago. Many but certainly not all conservatives at that time argued in so many words that the Schindlers' grief at the potential loss of their daughter entitled them to essentially fabricate all manner of smears against Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer, or anyone else that opposed them. It is now clear that they knew that what they were saying was blatantly false. Yet it was all justified in the name of a parent's quest - Congress could go in special session, district courts remained open to all hours of the night, and any falsehood, no matter how egregious, could be advanced.

Not sure what that means about her grief and how much coverage it legitimately merits. Just making the observation

Interesting observation and I agree, there are parallels. I thought the Schindlers grief caused them to do and say all sorts of things, including wrongly accusing their son-in-law of attempted murder. They'll have to live with their guilt too.

 

[Charade]

You mean like Paula Jones?

Umm.. this is one degree of separation from Clinton so that makes you (ding ding ding) the winner.

 

[Charade]

Would you prefer boxers in a knot?

boxers are for liberals. I'm not a "free spirit". I like things "close to home".

And, don't even think of mentioning tightie-whities.

Umm... ok.