Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[swilphil]

The wire service article I read said Sheehan was divorcing because of "stress from their son's death," not the protest. It actually is somewhat common for couples to divorce after the death of a child.

 

[peachgirl]

Would he really divorce her over one issue?

There has not been one word from her husband that would substantiate such a claim. It's just one more of the dirty attacks the right is waging against her because they want to shut her up. She worries them a great deal.

It's very common for the death of a child to result in the parents divorcing. More than likely Bu$h's war has not only cost them their child, it's cost them their marriage...and my guess is they aren't the only ones who have suffered both losses.

 

[bsnyder]

So 1800+ Americans have died so as to not maintain the Status Quo as regards Iraq and only Iraq. Which for the umpteenth time, Iraq/Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. To continue.. So our freedoms were in jeapordy by the status quo in 2003 but were not in jeapordy with the status quo between 1991 and 2003.

I still get no answer to the fundamental question regarding Freedoms in America. That is my question, many supporters of the war keep talking about fighting for our freedoms yet cannot or will not define exactly what freedoms we lost or would have lost if Saddam was still in charge.

Iraq is nothing more than neo-con saber-rattling, trying to become the 'British Empire' of the 21st century.

Obviously our freedoms (if you define this as the threat of terrorism) were in jepardy between 1991 and 2003....we just didn't fully realize it yet. Surely you would agree with that, even if you don't agree that Saddam was part of the threat.

 

[What the Heck]

Hey I have a question for you:

When you were in the service did you ever want to question what was going on, or not agree 100%, but followed orders anyway? Do you have any stories that might apply to the Sheehan saga?

OOOOOOOOOOOBaby, I love when you question me.

Let's see, I was in from 77 to 87. I think the time that would fit best (although not really a close fit) was when we were ordered to not march on the Iranian embassy. We were ordered by the State Department to stay away from any protests going on regarding the Iranian hostage crisis. They thought it was too hot of an issue for us to participate in.

Other than that I can't really remember much. The military, for the most part, really didn't like Carter as President, although we followed his orders (too much). I remember the first Wednesday in November of 1980 - at the Pentagon there were so many happy faces it looked like Christmas.

 

[swilphil]

It's very common for the death of a child to result in the parents divorcing. More than likely Bu$h's war has not only cost them their child, it's cost them their marriage...and my guess is they aren't the only ones who have suffered both losses.

Hey Peachgirl--I just said the bit about divorce being very common after the death of a child, and I was THINKING the part about the connection to the war and other families being affected. Great minds and all that.

I suspect that the longer this war goes on (and I hope it's not too much longer) the more negative consequences we are going to see. We now have 60 year old Vietnam vets whose lives were forever changed by that war. What kind of life are these boys and girls (and I do still consider them kids) going to for the rest of their lives?

 

[ThAnswr]

Well, that's certainly a convenient explanation for the extreme change in her account of the meeting she had with the President. I'd just like to know: which account accurately represents her meeting with the President and what prompted the abrupt change in the way she characterizes that meeting?

Quite honestly, I don't give a crap what her meeting with Bush was like and I fail to see why it's so damned important to the righties. Are you looking at new angle such as bribery, blackmail, etc? What's the point?

And I still find it damned funny that the right is so obsessed with the fact that Cindy Sheehan changed her story.

Please, you've got to stop this. You're killing me.

But as one columnist put it (Eric Zorn in the Chicago Tribune, who I don't believe could remotely be characterized as a "conservative"), Of course, that blog entry yesterday set off a firestorm leading to this entry today...

With all due respect to Eric Zorn, the meeting between Bush and Mrs. Sheehan is not going to take place because Bush knows what she's going to say, but because he doesn't know what she's going to say. He and his handlers can't control events as they have in the past.

It is also completely irrelevant as to whether someone is entitled to a face to face meeting with a president. Bush can choose to meet Mrs. Sheehan or he can choose not to. However, what amazes me is that Bush is either too arrogant or too ignorant to see the pr value in meeting someone face to face and explaining why he took this country to war. He had everything to gain, but was too stupid to see it. Do you honestly think people would have had less respect for Bush if he had met her? Do you think the righties wouldn't have touted that meeting as further proof that Bush is a leader?

Frankly, I hope he never meets her too. I'm enjoying watching the sight of how one little woman on a roadside in Crawford, TX can cause the righties to rachet up the rhetoric and turn themselves inside out.

But, it's all irrelevant as Bush does not have the stones.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

OOOOOOOOOOOBaby, I love when you question me.

Let's see, I was in from 77 to 87. I think the time that would fit best (although not really a close fit) was when we were ordered to not march on the Iranian embassy. We were ordered by the State Department to stay away from any protests going on regarding the Iranian hostage crisis. They thought it was too hot of an issue for us to participate in.

Other than that I can't really remember much. The military, for the most part, really didn't like Carter as President, although we followed his orders (too much). I remember the first Wednesday in November of 1980 - at the Pentagon there were so many happy faces it looked like Christmas.

I love picking peoples brains..... Thanks for answering.

It's interesting to hear different opinions. I don't consider all military members as a single entity, just kind of like a bunch of individual souls that may look alike, but they really are just like the rest of us.

 

[DisDuck]

No, none of my freedoms were in trouble. I could still speak my mind, read whatever I wished, travel to any state and even travel overseas. I did not feel under threat from any quarter. I walked the streets of Boston and New York without fear. From 1995 to 2001 I went to WDW 8 times plus 4 cruises.

I could still vote in local, state and national elections. Actually, there is more to fear now. I may not be allowed to fly because my name might be similar to someone on the LIST like several 2 yo's. I am now subject to random searches, etc. If I complain about this or Iraq I am considered by some to be anti-troop or anti-america (just like 1969 all over again - Viet Nam).

In the 229 years since the Declaration this country has been invaded once (1812) and attacked twice(1941 & 2001). In the later 2 cases, freedoms were removed from American Citizens by our own government (Interment Camps and Patriot Act) not by the attackee(Japan or AQ). Again, in both cases the USA targeted the appropriate group/country, declared war on Japan/invaded Afghanistan. Iraq is the only preemptive war the US has entered into in its history and no one has been able to come up with a logical and reasonable explanation. I repeat this war is nothing but a macho(read bully) reaction by the neo-cons including Bush.

 

[peachgirl]

Hey Peachgirl--I just said the bit about divorce being very common after the death of a child, and I was THINKING the part about the connection to the war and other families being affected. Great minds and all that.

I read your post right after I submitted mine.

I agree, the immediate deaths are just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the long lasting consequences of Bu$h's choices. Long after he is gone we'll still be living with them.

 

[dcentity2000]

The problem I have with this subject is that Michael Moore loves it. And I'm not too fond of Michael Moore.



Rich::

 

[wdw4us2]

The military, for the most part, really didn't like Carter as President, although we followed his orders (too much). I remember the first Wednesday in November of 1980 - at the Pentagon there were so many happy faces it looked like Christmas.

Too true. There were lots of smiles in Fulda, Germany that day, too. I predicted that the hostages in Iran would be released within 30 days of Reagan taking office. We were happy when it turned out to be even sooner.

I could give you a long list of things that were wrong in the US Armed Forces when Carter was President. They were corrected within the first year of the Reagan presidency. Imagine that.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Quite honestly, I don't give a crap what her meeting with Bush was like and I fail to see why it's so damned important to the righties. Are you looking at new angle such as bribery, blackmail, etc? What's the point?

And I still find it damned funny that the right is so obsessed with the fact that Cindy Sheehan changed her story.

Easy answer: it goes to motive. It goes to finding out what the truth is. It goes to exposing the charade that the extreme left has concocted to justify this "tantrum."

With all due respect to Eric Zorn, the meeting between Bush and Mrs. Sheehan is not going to take place because Bush knows what she's going to say, but because he doesn't know what she's going to say. He and his handlers can't control events as they have in the past.

It is also completely irrelevant as to whether someone is entitled to a face to face meeting with a president. Bush can choose to meet Mrs. Sheehan or he can choose not to. However, what amazes me is that Bush is either too arrogant or too ignorant to see the pr value in meeting someone face to face and explaining why he took this country to war. He had everything to gain, but was too stupid to see it. Do you honestly think people would have had less respect for Bush if he had met her? Do you think the righties wouldn't have touted that meeting as further proof that Bush is a leader?

One doesn't need to be a psychic to accurately predict how a 2nd meeting with Ms. Sheehan would have been spun. Since both sides have made their positions perfectly clear and neither side is about to change its mind, what would be the point, except to provide the media & talking heads with more cannon fodder.

Frankly, I hope he never meets her too. I'm enjoying watching the sight of how one little woman on a roadside in Crawford, TX can cause the righties to rachet up the rhetoric and turn themselves inside out.

I've noticed how silent the left has been throughout all this... no blogs, no interviews, no talking heads, no appearances, no editorials... just the purest model of composure and restraint. Your own rhetoric through all this has certainly been tame.

 

[bsnyder]

...no one has been able to come up with a logical and reasonable explanation.

They have come up with a logical and reasonable explanation, but it hasn't satisfied you.

I repeat this war is nothing but a macho(read bully) reaction by the neo-cons including Bush.

You're leaving out the Democrats in Congress who voted to authorize the war.

 

[peachgirl]

Just wondering...

If Ms. Sheehan is using her son's death to promote her political agenda, what are the people who are going down there (those who have lost a member of their family or who have family currently in the military) doing?

Seems to me they're doing exactly the same thing...using their loved ones to promote their political agenda.

If you believe Ms. Sheehan is using her son and that makes her a horrible person, then you must either believe the same of all the other military families who are invading Crawford to show their support of Bu$h or your position is what it is simply because you don't agree with her views.

 

[DisDuck]

Bet.. 1) I will now include the Democrats who showed no spine and went along with the ride; 2) Detail the logic and reason for the war that makes any cause/effect since. For example.. Afghanistan: Cause=9/11 & AQ; Effect=Retaliation Irag: Cause=?????; Effect=1800+ Americans Dead.

 

[bsnyder]

Just wondering...

If Ms. Sheehan is using her son's death to promote her political agenda, what are the people who are going down there (those who have lost a member of their family or who have family currently in the military) doing?

Seems to me they're doing exactly the same thing...using their loved ones to promote their political agenda.

If you believe Ms. Sheehan is using her son and that makes her a horrible person, then you must either believe the same of all the other military families who are invading Crawford to show their support of Bu$h or your position is what it is simply because you don't agree with her views.

I agree that they are also making a political statement.

I don't believe she's a horrible person for using her son's death for her own political agenda, one that was totally at odds with her son's. I think she's unhinged by grief.

As for those who have attached themselves to her....lower than pond scum, IMO.

 

[bsnyder]

Bet.. 1) I will now include the Democrats who showed no spine and went along with the ride; 2) Detail the logic and reason for the war that makes any cause/effect since. For example.. Afghanistan: Cause=9/11 & AQ; Effect=Retaliation Irag: Cause=?????; Effect=1800+ Americans Dead.

Iraq: Cause: Murderous dictator with two heirs meaning a status quo FAR into the future, flaunting 19 UN resolutions, in violation of Gulf War cease-fire agreement, repeated cat-and-mouse games with UN Inspectors, corrupt Oil-For-Food program leading to crumbling support for sanctions which would have led to opportunities for increased future capabilities to threaten neighbors and other countries.....

I could go on and on. We're never going to agree, obviously. I don't begrudge you your opinion though.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Just wondering...

If Ms. Sheehan is using her son's death to promote her political agenda, what are the people who are going down there (those who have lost a member of their family or who have family currently in the military) doing?

Seems to me they're doing exactly the same thing...using their loved ones to promote their political agenda.

If you believe Ms. Sheehan is using her son and that makes her a horrible person, then you must either believe the same of all the other military families who are invading Crawford to show their support of Bu$h or your position is what it is simply because you don't agree with her views.

First, I don't think that what Cindy Sheehan is doing "makes her a horrible person." I don't think she is "horrible" at all, just as I wouldn't think that of anyone with whom I may disagree.

Second, I would object to anyone using their child's death or injury in Iraq or any war for partisan (or even non-partisan -- if such a creature exists) politics or political advantage. Such activity, whether it is for or against any presidential administration dishonors that person's memory and tarnishes their sacrifice.

I may disagree with what people do with their child's memory, but I would never label them "horrible."

 

[DisDuck]

The trouble Bet is that reasoning can be used to invade Iran, N.Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Libya several years ago, Viet Nam(oops we tried that once before), Syria. Your listing is an after the fact excuse for the war. I have requested and keep requesting the 'threat' to America that Iraq presented. If one can be demonstrated then actual I would change my mind. I have done so in the past. From 1965 to 1969 I supported the Viet Nam war and that was with my brother over there also. Once I read the Pentagon Papers and other materials, did some historical seaching (my college major/degree) I discovered that Viet Nam was a sham and switched sides. What I never did; however, was blame the troops just the policy makers for putting them there. Just like Iraq I do not blame the troops just the policy makers on both sides.

So come on every war supporter here is an opportunity to change a mind. Show me the imminent and direct threat that Saddam posed to America. Show me the direct support of AQ and The Taliban. Come-on convince me and not by hearsay and bluffing/blustering because that is all that I see so far. Saddam played poker with the UN & US but instead of calling his bluff/bluster we tipped over the table and drew our gun on him. However, when his sleeves were exposed no 'cards' were found. Show me the cards.

 

[What the Heck]

There has not been one word from her husband that would substantiate such a claim. It's just one more of the dirty attacks the right is waging against her because they want to shut her up. She worries them a great deal.

Really? Would you believe Cindy's words?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1737867,00.html
She admits that he does not agree with the "level of intensity" she has devoted to peace in the past year.

Yes, many relationships cannot cope with the loss of a child. Especially when one of the parents chooses to ignore the other's grief for their own purpose.