Cindy Sheehan Arrested

[septbride2002]

She dishonors them in one of her many statements; Referring to the insurgents as freedom fighters. Disgusting.

I have not read that anywhere, and if it is true - I do not agree with her statement. But I think that makes her look like an idiot - not necissarily dishonor her son's service. Now if she spit on his coffin and refused to attend his funeral because of her beliefs - that would be dishonorable.

~Amanda

 

[sgtdisney]

She and her son disagreed about the Iraq war while he was still alive. Mothers and sons can disagree and yet both can still honor the other.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you here. Ms. Sheehan may be totally opposed to the war. More power to her. However she is dragging her son into this, without him being able to speak to defend how he felt about the war. She can protest the war all she wants, but don't drag the poor fallen soldier through all this. That is dishonoring him to be.

She is rabid kook, if you ask me. Wait, did I just say that, or did George W. Bush make me say that??

 

[richiebaseball]

See... on rare occasions, even us neo-cons can have a change of heart.

I thought neo-cons didn't have hearts. How can you change it?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I thought neo-cons didn't have hearts. How can you change it?

Follow the yellow brick road!

 

[septbride2002]

I will have to respectfully disagree with you here. Ms. Sheehan may be totally opposed to the war. More power to her. However she is dragging her son into this, without him being able to speak to defend how he felt about the war. She can protest the war all she wants, but don't drag the poor fallen soldier through all this. That is dishonoring him to be.

She is rabid kook, if you ask me. Wait, did I just say that, or did George W. Bush make me say that??

I think Ms. Sheehan is entitled to talk about her loss. Whether they agreed on the war or not - he was still her son and therefore I don't think it is off limits to talk about how his death has effected her.

~Amanda

 

[richiebaseball]

Follow the yellow brick road!

Wait a minute! I got it now! George W Bush is the wizard! And Karl Rove is the man behind the curtain that we're supposed to ignore!

I knew it could all be tied back to this administration somehow!

Richard

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Pre-arranged areas? They got away with that crap during the Republican convention. What's next pre-arranged issues or pre-arranged slogans?

And by any chance are those areas far from the ears and eyes of Bush? This is just another way to keep the "president in the bubble" in the bubble.

Americans have a right to protest even when it's inconvenient for the Bush WH.

Pennsylvania Avenue was closed to vehicular traffic after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.

So before we begin calling this an exlusive Bush Bubble (too late)

It began in the Clinton years. Newt Gingrich even wanted it reopened.

This closure became permanent after 9/11.

No luck in finding anything regarding pedestrian traffic except that it is allowed.

But evidently "security risks" pseudo or otherwise isn't limited to the republicans.

 

[CharlesTD]

Big deal. She's just a dime a dozen nut. How did she get so much attention?

Because she has used he son and his death as a voice against the war in Iraq. She is also the one who started the biggest campaign against the war with enough guts to speak up about it unlike many that just think it nad never say anything she has used her freedom to speak out against it when many wouldn't so why does this make her a nut. I don't find her any nuttier than those roaming around touting how much they support the war.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Wait a minute! I got it now! George W Bush is the wizard! And Karl Rove is the man behind the curtain that we're supposed to ignore!

I knew it could all be tied back to this administration somehow!

Richard

So who gets to wear the ruby red slippers?

 

[sgtdisney]

I think Ms. Sheehan is entitled to talk about her loss. Whether they agreed on the war or not - he was still her son and therefore I don't think it is off limits to talk about how his death has effected her.

~Amanda

Of course she can speak about what she wants. Thanks in part to her son, and all the other fine people in the armed services, she has earned that right. Of course I also have the right to think she is decimating his memory and that she is off her rocker.

She should have some class. There are other ways of getting your point across than being arrested in Washington that are infinately more productive.

 

[Disney Doll]

I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. I do believe she is a mother who has gone over the edge because of her grief over her son. I will not presume to understand how that feels...to lose a child.

I feel sorry for her late son, because his mother is using his service to further her own end, and we have no way of knowing what his thoughts were on the war. I can only assume since we have a volunteer military, that it was his choice to serve, he believed in & understood the causes he was fighting for, and he was also aware of the danger. "Dishonoring" his memory may be a little strong (and it may not be)but the fact remains that his name is forever going to be connected to his mother's behavior, and that may not be the way he would have wanted to be remembered. Unfortunately he doesn't have a say in the matter. His legacy will be tied to his mother's behavior.

As far as the arrest...I am quite sure based on all accounts that those who were arrested were very well aware of the fact that what they were doing was going to get them arrested. I am not sitting here saying "Oh the poor woman...she lost her son and now she's been arrested". It was much too calculated of a media show for me to have any sympathy.

As far as the safe zones around the White House...I don't have a problem with them, regardless of who the President is...Republican or Democrat. I also don't have a problem with there being "rules" for protest. Yes, folks have a "right" to protest, but I also have the "right" to not have to deal with it.

 

[ThAnswr]

So who gets to wear the ruby red slippers?

I heard Ritchie will fight you for those ruby red slippers.

 

[Geoff_M]

But evidently "security risks" pseudo or otherwise isn't limited to the republicans.

That's correct. I periodically visited DC when I was a kid starting in 1977 and I can't recall ever seeing a stationary protest allowed along the White House perimeter fence side of the street. If you wanted to go see what the conspiracy whackos were up to, you had to cross the street.

As for the whole "protesting permit" issue, the notion of the requirement of such a permit has withstood judicial challenge on a number of occasions. The only time the courts have struck down such permitting requirements are in the cases were it can be argued that the process is burdensome in a manner intended to thwart protests. A case in point was when a city attempted to require a Klan group to post a "damage bond" to cover the potential costs of damage to a city park the Klan wanted to use for a rally. The Klan argued that counter protesters could use such a requirement against them by deliberately damaging the park in an effort to fanancially harm the Klan group. The courts sided against the city. As long as the requirements are minimal, and don't appear to be idelologically driven, the courts have said they pass muster.

 

[ThAnswr]

Pennsylvania Avenue was closed to vehicular traffic after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.

So before we begin calling this an exlusive Bush Bubble (too late)

It began in the Clinton years. Newt Gingrich even wanted it reopened.

This closure became permanent after 9/11.

No luck in finding anything regarding pedestrian traffic except that it is allowed.

But evidently "security risks" pseudo or otherwise isn't limited to the republicans.

It was wrong then and it is wrong now. It seems the more we become obsessed with "security", the less safe we feel, and the more "security" we go along with.

 

[ThAnswr]

That's correct. I periodically visited DC when I was a kid starting in 1977 and I can't recall ever seeing a stationary protest allowed along the White House perimeter fence side of the street.

And there it is in a nutshell. Some of us were not "kids" in 1977 and remember a different time.

Maybe our reaction to security is a generational thing?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It was wrong then and it is wrong now. It seems the more we become obsessed with "security", the less safe we feel, and the more "security" we go along with.

As a private citizen.. I have as much right to access and feel safe in a location..as someone does to protest in it. You may protest the government--but what right do you have to get in MY way and prevent me from exhibiting MY first amendment rights. Protestors haven't played fair--there are now rules for that.

You can't fly over the white house either. thanks to an idiot who flew into it. Quick. Grab a lawyer!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I heard Ritchie will fight you for those ruby red slippers.

Mabye we can share custody.

 

[Geoff_M]

Maybe our reaction to security is a generational thing?

You're right... it probably started with that little thing in November, 1963.

 

[septbride2002]

Of course she can speak about what she wants. Thanks in part to her son, and all the other fine people in the armed services, she has earned that right. Of course I also have the right to think she is decimating his memory and that she is off her rocker.

She should have some class. There are other ways of getting your point across than being arrested in Washington that are infinately more productive.

Techically - it was men LIKE Casey Sheehan that give Cindy Sheehan the right to speak. The men that fought in the revolutionary war are the men responsible for that freedom. While yes Casey protects that freedom - this particular war in no way jepordized that freedom.

~Amanda

 

[sgtdisney]

Techically - it was men LIKE Casey Sheehan that give Cindy Sheehan the right to speak. The men that fought in the revolutionary war are the men responsible for that freedom. While yes Casey protects that freedom - this particular war in no way jepordized that freedom.

~Amanda

I don't recall saying it was Casey Sheehan alone who fought for the freedom of speech. Of course we know where the freedom began, but we have had people protecting our freedoms for over 200 years INCLUDING Casey Sheehan.

Whether or not the reasons for this war jeopordized this freedom remains to be seen. But of course in a pinch remember, it's all George W. Bush's fault.