Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[BuckNaked]

While I understand what you're saying ThAnswr, I also don't think that losing a child (or anyone, for that matter) suddenly means that a person is immune to criticism for their actions.

 

[wvrevy]

Did someone really just use the "New York Sun" as a reference ?

Let's see...she's receiving support from:

Gold Star Families for Peace - Familes of soldiers killed that are against the war.

Veterans for Peace - Kind of self explanatory, unless you take the right wing view that only veterans that support the war should count.

Code Pink - A womens group that opposes this war.

Peace House - A place where protestors are offered a bit of shelter from an otherwise hostile environment.

Yeah...She ought to be ashamed. Hey, since you're using such a credible source as the NY Sun, can I start posting links from the Democratic Underground and SmirkingChimp.com and calling them "news sources" ? They're about as credible as the NY Sun.

 

[wvrevy]

While I understand what you're saying ThAnswr, I also don't think that losing a child (or anyone, for that matter) suddenly means that a person is immune to criticism for their actions.

No, legally she is certainly not immune. Morally, however...well, I guess that's up to you to decide. Personally, I think that she's got a lot more right to oppose the war and speak out about it than the keyboard warriors around here do to support it.

But I guess that's just my opinion. If you feel like verbally kicking a woman that is angry that she lost her child to a cause she doesn't believe in, then by all means, flail away. Nobody can stop you. Just don't expect to gain a whole lot of respect for doing so.

 

[BuckNaked]

No, legally she is certainly not immune. Morally, however...well, I guess that's up to you to decide. Personally, I think that she's got a lot more right to oppose the war and speak out about it than the keyboard warriors around here do to support it.

But I guess that's just my opinion. If you feel like verbally kicking a woman that is angry that she lost her child to a cause she doesn't believe in, then by all means, flail away. Nobody can stop you. Just don't expect to gain a whole lot of respect for doing so.

I haven't kicked her at all. I think she is out of line to expect some kind of personal attention from the President (again), but she can sit down there till the cows come home for all I care. As long as she isn't breaking any laws, let her have at it.

But if she is going to put herself out there, knowing that one side is going to use her for political purposes, then she and her supporters should be neither surprised nor offended when the other side cranks up the political machine as well.

 

[wvrevy]

I haven't kicked her at all. I think she is out of line to expect some kind of personal attention from the President (again), but she can sit down there till the cows come home for all I care. As long as she isn't breaking any laws, let her have at it.

But if she is going to put herself out there, knowing that one side is going to use her for political purposes, then she and her supporters should be neither surprised nor offended when the other side cranks up the political machine as well.

No, I don't think anyone is surprised that the right wing attack dogs have been called in. At least, nobody that's been paying any attention to Republican political tactics over the last decade or so. That's about the only thing they are really good at, isn't it ? So no...nobody is surprised.

But offended ? That's another story, entirely.

 

[BuckNaked]

No, I don't think anyone is surprised that the right wing attack dogs have been called in. At least, nobody that's been paying any attention to Republican political tactics over the last decade or so. That's about the only thing they are really good at, isn't it ? So no...nobody is surprised.

But offended ? That's another story, entirely.

Of course Republicans were going to jump into it - just like the Democrats did. Funny how you're offended that Republicans are involved, but it doesn't appear to bother you one bit that Democrats are politicizing this as well.

Why is that?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

There but for the grace of God go you or I. End of story.

Sometimes God's grace doesn't extend quite far enough to cover everyone. There are probably people posting or reading here who know full well the sting of war's impact on their family. So, do they get a free pass, too?

I don't believe it is "brick-throwing" to say using a family member's death in combat for partisan political purposes is wrong. Ms. Sheehan acts like she's the first and only person to have this experience or that because of this experience she is somehow specially entitled now.

I hope time will bring clarity to her. I hope she realizes before it is too late that there are too many political vultures circling her, hoping to use her for their own advantage and too ready and willing to toss her aside when her effectiveness wanes. She's suffered enough loss for a lifetime to have it compounded by being turned into a political pawn. Her son's sacrifice is too great to be turned into a club to try to beat out some political advantage.

 

[wvrevy]

Of course Republicans were going to jump into it - just like the Democrats did. Funny how you're offended that Republicans are involved, but it doesn't appear to bother you one bit that Democrats are politicizing this as well.

Why is that?

Well, I'm not offended that the Dems have gotten involved, but I am offended by their politicizing the issue. I have no problem, for example, with them sending a letter to the president asking him to meet with this woman. I do have a problem, however, with that same letter being released to the press.

I'd have a lot more respect for either side standing up for their issue if they would just not do it front of a microphone quite so often.

 

[wvrevy]

Sometimes God's grace doesn't extend quite far enough to cover everyone. There are probably people posting or reading here who know full well the sting of war's impact on their family. So, do they get a free pass, too?

I don't believe it is "brick-throwing" to say using a family member's death in combat for partisan political purposes is wrong. Ms. Sheehan acts like she's the first and only person to have this experience or that because of this experience she is somehow specially entitled now.

I hope time will bring clarity to her. I hope she realizes before it is too late that there are too many political vultures circling her, hoping to use her for their own advantage and too ready and willing to toss her aside when her effectiveness wanes. She's suffered enough loss for a lifetime to have it compounded by being turned into a political pawn. Her son's sacrifice is too great to be turned into a club to try to beat out some political advantage.

The political situation would be diffused with a five minute meeting. Bush is bringing that part of it onto himself. Meet with the woman, listen as she bawls him out, thank her for her input, even *gasp* apologize for her loss, and that's the end of it. Bush looks like a good guy, and the Dems and everybody else can't criticize him for ignoring a grieving mother.

So don't blame her for causing the political dust-up. Bush could have ended it days ago.

 

[BuckNaked]

The political situation would be diffused with a five minute meeting. Bush is bringing that part of it onto himself. Meet with the woman, listen as she bawls him out, thank her for her input, even *gasp* apologize for her loss, and that's the end of it. Bush looks like a good guy, and the Dems and everybody else can't criticize him for ignoring a grieving mother.

So don't blame her for causing the political dust-up. Bush could have ended it days ago.

OMG, give me a break. You know as well as I do that there is NO WAY that's how it would play out. You'd probably be right up until the point she left the building, then she'd come out, say that the President gave her new answers, then all of the "The President refused to answer grieving mother's questions" would start.


I asked before, but I'll ask again...she's met with him once. How many meetings does she believe she is entitled to?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The political situation would be diffused with a five minute meeting. Bush is bringing that part of it onto himself. Meet with the woman, listen as she bawls him out, thank her for her input, even *gasp* apologize for her loss, and that's the end of it. Bush looks like a good guy, and the Dems and everybody else can't criticize him for ignoring a grieving mother.

So don't blame her for causing the political dust-up. Bush could have ended it days ago.

It would set a bad precedent for the future. Anyone who wanted 5 minutes of the President's time could set up their own little protest shop. There'd be no end of people seeking "just 5 minutes" with the President to talk or bawl him out or whatever they need to do. I don't recall previous Presidents making it a point to have little chats with protesters, but I'm willing to sit corrected.

She already had her meeting albeit in a group. She could have spoken up then. Nothing has changed that entitles her to another meeting with the President.

 

[cardaway]

Nobody dislikes him more than I do, but the only way Bush wins this particular game is to continue not to play.

No way this woman stops, she's just looking for the next thing to launch from. She made that clear with her responses in the radio interview. She's looking to make this grow, not to end.

 

[BuckNaked]

Nobody dislikes him more than I do, but the only way Bush wins this particular game is to continue not to play.

No way this woman stops, she's just looking for the next thing to launch from. She made that clear with her responses in the radio interview. She's looking to make this grow, not to end.

That was my point as well, cardaway (not the not liking him part, but the rest of it). It isn't going to stop, whether he meets with her or not.

 

[wvrevy]

And that's fine, and that's a legitimate point...but that's not her problem, is it ? Besides, if he's already done it once, he can easily deflect questions of doing it again by stating that this is not to set a precedent and that he can not do this every time someone feels the need to have their grievances heard. Sorry, but the political ball is in his court. He holds all the power in this situation.

As for "how many meetings she thinks she deserves", I imagine you would have to ask her that question. Obviously, she feels that there are things she needs to say and would like to say them to the man she feels is responsible for putting her son in harm's way.

 

[wvrevy]

That was my point as well, cardaway (not the not liking him part, but the rest of it). It isn't going to stop, whether he meets with her or not.

Again, I disagree. Right now, the story is "Bush hiding from grieving mother", or at least that's how it plays. If he meets with her, the story has to change. Take away the stage from her, and she becomes yesterday's story. 'Till then, you'll just keep seeing things like this:

 

[BuckNaked]

As for "how many meetings she thinks she deserves", I imagine you would have to ask her that question. Obviously, she feels that there are things she needs to say and would like to say them to the man she feels is responsible for putting her son in harm's way.

I wasn't aware that President Bush had put a gun to her son's head and forced him in to the military. I stand corrected.

 

[wvrevy]

I wasn't aware that President Bush had put a gun to her son's head and forced him in to the military. I stand corrected.

Over-dramatize much ? Bush sent the military into harms way...can we agree on that, at least, or are you going to blame Clinton for it ?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

And that's fine, and that's a legitimate point...but that's not her problem, is it ? Besides, if he's already done it once, he can easily deflect questions of doing it again by stating that this is not to set a precedent and that he can not do this every time someone feels the need to have their grievances heard. Sorry, but the political ball is in his court. He holds all the power in this situation.

That's been tried before by President's and it has never held water. Once they do something out of the ordinary, it becomes a precedent.

As for "how many meetings she thinks she deserves", I imagine you would have to ask her that question. Obviously, she feels that there are things she needs to say and would like to say them to the man she feels is responsible for putting her son in harm's way.

Ms. Sheehan has other communication vehicles available to say what she needs to say. In fact, her message has gotten plenty of media coverage. This is not about a need to "say them to the man she feels is responsible for putting her son in harm's way." This is about being the center of attention, her 15 minutes of fame if you will, in the center ring of a media circus.

 

[wvrevy]

That's fine, T_M, but that is your opinion. Just don't expect a lot of respect for attacking a grieving mother and calling her a glory hound.

 

[BuckNaked]

Over-dramatize much ? Bush sent the military into harms way...can we agree on that, at least, or are you going to blame Clinton for it ?

That's kind of silly - why would I blame President Clinton for it? My point is (as you well know), her son joined the military as a volunteer. He knew that he could be sent to war, just as anyone that joins the military knows. If you don't want to go, then by all means, don't sign up.