Cindy Sheehan Arrested at Capitol

[disneymom3]

VERY few have ever said that. I hate that this is applied to all of "them" so often.

I'm all for free speech on both sides but some comments are just plain nasty which is pointless and unpleasant. Not that being pointless and unpleasant are against the law or anything but it does little to get one's ideas across.

Also, disagreeing with someone by saying that they should leave the U.S. is to me very unAmerican. The U.S. was built upon dissent after all.

I have to say that while "few" in the great scheme of things may have said this, I am a lonely republican in a sea of democrat friends and every ONE of them said this before the last election......they are all still here.

The rest of your post I totally agree with. If we all took to just blindly following whoever was in charge, we wouldn't be much of a democracy anymore would we.

I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan and I think she needs some major grief counsellig, but it doesn't give her leave to disobey the laws. Especially since the request that she simply cover her shirt seems entirely reasonable.

 

[bsnyder]

Roll your eyes all you want, Bet, but never once did I say that all Republicans go along with Rev. Robertson's ridiculous statements, like the previous poster insinuated that all Dems go along with Alec Baldwin.

Plenty of Democrats (here and elsewhere) have tried to position Robertson as the face of the Republican party, every time he gets another 15 minutes of fame with a stupid remark. The previous poster didn't even mention Baldwin by name. It's essentially two sides of the same coin, and I think your distinction is on shaky grounds here.

That's just my opinion though!

 

[Karibeth19]

I may regret posting here, but this has really been bothering me, so here goes. To me, the problem with what Ms. Sheehan, and also Mrs. Young, did, is they violated the rules of decorum of the United States Capitol. Of course they had every right to protest (or show their support) anywhere else they pleased: outside the Capitol, in front of the White House, in Crawford, even in their own front yards. However, it is not allowed in the gallery of the U.S. Capitol. It bothers me that many people today think that because they disagree with, or dislike our government, and/or the people who hold the high offices within our government, they do not have to show respect towards those institutions. The U.S. Government, along with its high offices (President, VP, SC Justice, Congressman) are much bigger than any one person and all are entitled to a certain amount of respect. When you are in the Capitol building, you are expected to behave in a certain way out of respect for the institution, much the same as how appropriate clothing (no shorts) is expected when visting the Vatican, or how silence is expected of visitors to Arlington during changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns. You may not be Catholic, or you may not care about the unknown men buried at Arlington, but you are still expected to follow their rules of decorum. Upon meeting the President (I know some of you perish the thought, but stay with me.), he should be addressed as "Mr. President" or "Sir" out of respect for the office of the President of the United States, whether you like GWB, or detest him. It drives me crazy when news organizations refer to him as "Mr. Bush", not because it is disrespectful of the man, but of the office he holds. It reminds me of a story I once heard about Ronald Regan. He refused to ever enter the Oval Office wearing anything other than a suit and a tie. When asked about this, he remarked that he didn't want to disrespect the office of the President. He knew that the office was much bigger than one man. The same goes for the Capitol of the United States. It is more than just a building; it is an institution where the bodies of our government come together to work to uphold the ideals laid out for us by the Constitution and our founding fathers. The people who gather in that building may try to promote policies or have personalities that we find objectionable, and we have the right and responsibility to speak out against them. But out of respect for the institution, those protests should not take place in the gallery during a State of the Union address.

There, I've said my peace. It may not be as eloquent as I intended (Things always sound better in my head than when I write them down.), but the increasing lack of civility and appropriate behavior among many people in this country is something that bothers me greatly, and I feel that is the true crux of this whole situation. Just because we have the "right" to do something, doesn't mean there aren't situations where acting on that right is completely inappropriate.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

It cracks me up that you Bush-people who SOOO love to prattle on about how proud you are to be Americans are so QUICK to tell anybody that chooses to excercise their rights in dissent that they should leave. Well...it would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

I don't remember who said it exactly, but I remember some of the Hollywood elite saying that they would move out of the country if Bush won...so I'm still waiting on that threat to be fulfilled.

 

[numbersman]

Yes they are but did you bother to look at their credentials?

Credentials or not, they have no LEGAL authority, which makes their opinion as important and binding as yours or mine.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Karibeth19 -- that was a great post!

 

[dcentity2000]

Either you're ignorant or less than honest. President Bush gave a whole series of speeches leading up to the war, and never once did he say Hussein huge piles of WMDs was the reason for going to war. Nice try to rewrite history.

We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.

This is about disarmament and this is a final opportunity for Saddam Hussein to disarm. If he chooses not to do so peacefully, then the United States is prepared to act, with our friends, to do so by force. And we will do so forcefully and swiftly and decisively, as the President has outlined.

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region...

Good grief...

Do you live under a rock?



Rich::

 

[wvrevy]

I come from a military family, and I believe that if you go to sign up for the military you should always be prepared that our country could go to war.

I believe she is so lost in her grief that she puts a spin on her side of the story.
I agree that both women should have been escorted out, that was the point I was making.

Yes, but nobody signs up thinking, "Gee...I hope we decide to invade someplace that has never attacked us and doesn't have the capability, then set up a semi-permanent presence in a country in which anybody that walks by could be the guy that's going to blow up half my squad." Of course the possibility of going to war is ever-present. It's part of the job. I may have been an electron pusher in the Air Force, but even I knew that. But the oath you take on entering the service doesn't say anything about building nations halfway around the world.

I'm no pacifist, despite being called that here on occassion. I fully realize that war is sometimes necessary when diplomacy completely fails. But it should never be the first option on the table, and it was for Bush and company (ALL of the evidence supports that). Mrs. Sheehan believes similarly, and her son died for reasons she does not agree with and has reason not to believe. I'm sorry, but in her situation, I could only HOPE to bring as much attention to the problems as she has.

 

[Planogirl]

I have to say that while "few" in the great scheme of things may have said this, I am a lonely republican in a sea of democrat friends and every ONE of them said this before the last election......they are all still here.

I'm a Democrat in a sea of Republicans so I feel for you. I do know some Democrats and none of them threatened to leave but if any of them did, I'd probably tell them to have a nice trip.

Karibeth19, I definitely agree with you up to the point. I believe that we have to balance that decorum with the right of access to the government by the common man. Their dress won't necessarily be all that formal and some people may not be aware of the proper forms of address but they still have the right to be allowed inside our government institutions.

 

[kc10family]

How interesting that ONE mother from a little town in N Cal has added so much controversy to this country.

FYI… her husband divorced her over what she has done/doing. She has other children (under the age of 20 I believe) whom she doesn’t see much anymore. How sad for those kids. How sad for the husband of so many years. More than just herself was affected by the loss of her son, but she has left those others (her family) behind and forgotten.

I for one feel sorry for her and hope she doesn’t “loose” her other children forever because of her son. How sad it would be for her daughter to get married and not invite her own mother or share in the joy of a grandchild.

I think her message is out and she should be there for her other children, they need her also.

But I am just some shmoe writing on this board.

 

[MrsKreamer]

I may regret posting here, but this has really been bothering me, so here goes. To me, the problem with what Ms. Sheehan, and also Mrs. Young, did, is they violated the rules of decorum of the United States Capitol. Of course they had every right to protest (or show their support) anywhere else they pleased: outside the Capitol, in front of the White House, in Crawford, even in their own front yards. However, it is not allowed in the gallery of the U.S. Capitol. It bothers me that many people today think that because they disagree with, or dislike our government, and/or the people who hold the high offices within our government, they do not have to show respect towards those institutions. The U.S. Government, along with its high offices (President, VP, SC Justice, Congressman) are much bigger than any one person and all are entitled to a certain amount of respect. When you are in the Capitol building, you are expected to behave in a certain way out of respect for the institution, much the same as how appropriate clothing (no shorts) is expected when visting the Vatican, or how silence is expected of visitors to Arlington during changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns. You may not be Catholic, or you may not care about the unknown men buried at Arlington, but you are still expected to follow their rules of decorum. Upon meeting the President (I know some of you perish the thought, but stay with me.), he should be addressed as "Mr. President" or "Sir" out of respect for the office of the President of the United States, whether you like GWB, or detest him. It drives me crazy when news organizations refer to him as "Mr. Bush", not because it is disrespectful of the man, but of the office he holds. It reminds me of a story I once heard about Ronald Regan. He refused to ever enter the Oval Office wearing anything other than a suit and a tie. When asked about this, he remarked that he didn't want to disrespect the office of the President. He knew that the office was much bigger than one man. The same goes for the Capitol of the United States. It is more than just a building; it is an institution where the bodies of our government come together to work to uphold the ideals laid out for us by the Constitution and our founding fathers. The people who gather in that building may try to promote policies or have personalities that we find objectionable, and we have the right and responsibility to speak out against them. But out of respect for the institution, those protests should not take place in the gallery during a State of the Union address.

There, I've said my peace. It may not be as eloquent as I intended (Things always sound better in my head than when I write them down.), but the increasing lack of civility and appropriate behavior among many people in this country is something that bothers me greatly, and I feel that is the true crux of this whole situation. Just because we have the "right" to do something, doesn't mean there aren't situations where acting on that right is completely inappropriate.

Here Here, I couldn't agree more!!

 

[dcentity2000]

I don't remember who said it exactly, but I remember some of the Hollywood elite saying that they would move out of the country if Bush won...so I'm still waiting on that threat to be fulfilled.

Threat met, I'm afraid. Canada was the main recipient, I believe. Not many went, but a good few did.



Rich::

 

[bsnyder]

Yes, but nobody signs up thinking, "Gee...I hope we decide to invade someplace that has never attacked us and doesn't have the capability, then set up a semi-permanent presence in a country in which anybody that walks by could be the guy that's going to blow up half my squad." Of course the possibility of going to war is ever-present. It's part of the job. I may have been an electron pusher in the Air Force, but even I knew that. But the oath you take on entering the service doesn't say anything about building nations halfway around the world.

You mean like the Balkans?

 

[toto2]

She doesn't? Then what was last night's stunt all about?

Did the other women wearing a Tshirt with a message do it to be in the spotlight herself , or she did it for her message to be heard ?

 

[bsnyder]

Nice post, Karibeth!

 

[Judge Smails]

Credentials or not, they have no LEGAL authority, which makes their opinion as important and binding as yours or mine.

Now you're just whistling past the graveyard. When pressed on the issue during the upcoming investigations is the Senate committee investigating Bush and FISA going to come and knock on your door or are they going to go to the above mentioned Constitutional scholars?

 

[wvrevy]

You mean like the Balkans?

How many died in the Balkans ? Did it destabalize a region of the globe as well ? Were we lied to about how the Balkans were going to attack us any day now with their massive stockpile of WMD's, which we knew they had and knew where they kept them ?

Afraid you'll have to do a little bit better than that.

 

[Planogirl]

How interesting that ONE mother from a little town in N Cal has added so much controversy to this country.

FYI… her husband divorced her over what she has done/doing. She has other children (under the age of 20 I believe) whom she doesn’t see much anymore. How sad for those kids. How sad for the husband of so many years. More than just herself was affected by the loss of her son, but she has left those others (her family) behind and forgotten.

I for one feel sorry for her and hope she doesn’t “loose” her other children forever because of her son. How sad it would be for her daughter to get married and not invite her own mother or share in the joy of a grandchild.

I think her message is out and she should be there for her other children, they need her also.

But I am just some smoe writing on this board.

But a "smoe" who makes good points.

I tend to sympathize more with her situation than slam her too. I know that she comes across poorly at times but I still feel like she is in pain and that has driven her to this cause.

 

[charlie,nj]

Again people, don't construe the "Support Our Troops" as being pro war.

In this instance you most certainly can....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Call it the tale of two different shirts worn by two very different women: a well-known peace activist who has agitated the White House and a lawmaker's wife who has staunchly supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq



.

 

[toto2]

I may regret posting here, but this has really been bothering me, so here goes. To me, the problem with what Ms. Sheehan, and also Mrs. Young, did, is they violated the rules of decorum of the United States Capitol. Of course they had every right to protest (or show their support) anywhere else they pleased: outside the Capitol, in front of the White House, in Crawford, even in their own front yards. However, it is not allowed in the gallery of the U.S. Capitol. It bothers me that many people today think that because they disagree with, or dislike our government, and/or the people who hold the high offices within our government, they do not have to show respect towards those institutions. The U.S. Government, along with its high offices (President, VP, SC Justice, Congressman) are much bigger than any one person and all are entitled to a certain amount of respect. When you are in the Capitol building, you are expected to behave in a certain way out of respect for the institution, much the same as how appropriate clothing (no shorts) is expected when visting the Vatican, or how silence is expected of visitors to Arlington during changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns. You may not be Catholic, or you may not care about the unknown men buried at Arlington, but you are still expected to follow their rules of decorum. Upon meeting the President (I know some of you perish the thought, but stay with me.), he should be addressed as "Mr. President" or "Sir" out of respect for the office of the President of the United States, whether you like GWB, or detest him. It drives me crazy when news organizations refer to him as "Mr. Bush", not because it is disrespectful of the man, but of the office he holds. It reminds me of a story I once heard about Ronald Regan. He refused to ever enter the Oval Office wearing anything other than a suit and a tie. When asked about this, he remarked that he didn't want to disrespect the office of the President. He knew that the office was much bigger than one man. The same goes for the Capitol of the United States. It is more than just a building; it is an institution where the bodies of our government come together to work to uphold the ideals laid out for us by the Constitution and our founding fathers. The people who gather in that building may try to promote policies or have personalities that we find objectionable, and we have the right and responsibility to speak out against them. But out of respect for the institution, those protests should not take place in the gallery during a State of the Union address.

There, I've said my peace. It may not be as eloquent as I intended (Things always sound better in my head than when I write them down.), but the increasing lack of civility and appropriate behavior among many people in this country is something that bothers me greatly, and I feel that is the true crux of this whole situation. Just because we have the "right" to do something, doesn't mean there aren't situations where acting on that right is completely inappropriate.

As much as I agree with Miss Sheean point of view about the war , I must say that I kind of agree with you.