Mickey

No idea. Look, if you are the heavy weight champion of the world and some 98 pound poindexter jumps in the ring, flips you the bird and says "Its go time", your best response is to walk away not jump in to the ring and beat him to bloody pulp. No one is going to applaud your having pounded the guy though some will deplore such an unfair fight even if the wimp asked for it. Walk away and you steal his limelight and soon, any audience present will just laugh at the goof's foolishness. All this beating up of Cindy Sheehan is gaining her opponents nothing. Not the best analogy but it is friday and even I am getting tired of Cindy Sheehan.

Thanks for the link, that was an interesting piece. This was an especially well made point" "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" is President Bush's exit strategy. But how can the Iraqis the U.S. Army is training defeat an enemy the U.S. Army has itself been unable to defeat in two years? Buchanan asks an excellent question.

Considering the latest polls, I can see why the right is getting jittery over the war and the potential effect it can have on the next election cycle. Against that backdrop, in comes Cindy Sheehan. I don't think that the worries reflected in those polls are going to be effected by what happens with this story. I think they are wasting ammunition on her. The steady bad news out of Iraq is the problem, not Sheehan. It has the feel of sideshow.

If you follow my posts on this issue, I don't think she is a threat but that the right does hence the "all hacks on deck" response with every one from Limbaugh to Coulter to Hannity etc, etc. trying to destroy this woman. Do try and keep up.

Actually I read a piece today that was critical of how the mainstream media was repeating the criticisms of her from the far right. Again, what I find interesting is not that she is being attacked or really whether those attacks or on the mark, over heated or whatever. That she has become such a lightning rod even if a short lived one, I think, is indicative of something larger. She is seen as a pretty major threat given the reaction all around.

I don't think Coulter quoted her honestly, I wasn't accusing you of misquoting Coulter. What I did, was take Coulter's quotes and Sheehan's name and just googled them and quickly got a transcript of what she actually said. I wasn't surprised to see a different picture than the one Coulter painted. That doesn't mean, based on her actual words, even in context, that she couldn't be discredited on some levels. I think "anti-war protester whose son died in the war" is an accurate description of her, even "dedicated anti-war protester" would do. Coulter however was going much further than that along the lines of the "B word in a ditch" thing. To me that is the difference between legit, even dead-on, criticism and hysterical, lying, fire eating crapola. What can really be damaging about that Coulter or Moore like approach is that it can remove any possibility of a civil discussion. If you are a person who agrees with the basic anti-war message of Cindy Sheehan, how do you have a civil discussion with someone who is calling her a "B word in a ditch"? By the same token, if you support the President, how do you have a civil discussion with someone who calls him "murdering idiot" or some other slam?

Support for the war is at a low point but I don't think Cindy Sheehan is responsible. Reality is accomplishing that. She hasn't "tipped" anything. The reaction to her however is, I think, an indication of some real concern on the right that they are vulnerable on this issue and that public support could be slipping away. It could just be a temporary shift in opinion that will reverse itself with some good news, only time will tell.

She has a larger audience than the President of the United States, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Malkin, etc, etc, etc combined? Wow, I had no idea she was so all powerful. Apart from whether its piling on or not, the huge reaction she has inspired I think is an indication of something larger in terms of the public's concerns about the war and our leaders. That is what I am taking from the incident. The left is getting a little bolder on the war and the right is starting to worry about the 2006 elections if the war keeps going this way. I guess with republicans themselves being more critical of the President as the 2006 elections cycle approaches and the war dragging on, it shouldn't come as a surprise to see some democrats being even more critical as well. I wonder what the next media circus will be. From the Jackson trial to Cindy Sheehan, it has been a long summer.

Okay, George Bush was sent by God. He convinced me. I'll stop worrying about voting for him or not and simply worship him. The funny thing about moral relativism is that everyone deplores it and everyone embraces it. Relativism simply recognizes that one size fits all justice can result in an injustice. It doesn't mean, as Stein seems to think, that there are not actions which are criminal, deplorable, terrible, abominable, etc, etc. A child shop lifting a piece of gum is theft, so is an adult shop lifting a $10,000 gold necklace. Should they both get 15 years? Theft is theft, right? We all consider the facts and circumstances of an act in determining the appropriate response. It is not a case of excusing conduct as Stein implies, it is a matter of determining the appropriate punishment. Some of the examples he uses are pretty selective and truncated just enough to jam into his thesis. Neville Chamberlain wasn't a moral relativist, quite the contrary. He wasn't excusing German actions, he was hoping to avoid a war that couldn't be avoided. He was also recognizing that Germany was armed to the teeth and ready for war while the rest of Europe was not. He simply couldn't face the fact that the awful death and destruction of the War to end all wars was about to be repeated. And so he deluded himself into thinking he could negotiate out of it. The idea that Chamberlain sat around thinking, "you know, relatively speaking, Hitler isn't such a bad guy after all, by jove, I think I'll give him Austria..." is comical. By the way, using a Hitler reference I believe is a no-no here, I think you owe me a toaster or a plate of retatta or something like that. What Stein deplores as relativism is more accurately described as realism. There are "enemies of the human spirit" everywhere, not just in the middle east. Does that mean that we need to invade every nation with this problem? Should we invade China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and half a dozen other lands? If not, why not? Could it be that reality dictates that we can't dig evil out of every miserable hole in the planet so we have to, gasp, consider the facts and circumstances and do only what is realistically possible? Sounds relative to me. 1. Relativists and absolutists would agree, Saddam was evil, no question. 2. They would also agree that we can't go to war with every miscreant society on earth all at once. 3. The only potential disagreement is, based on the all the facts and circumstances, should we go to war with Iraq? At this point, it is more a question of whether it was or wasn't a smart idea to have gone to war in Iraq. The determination of that question has nothing do to with excusing the conduct of anyone. Sure it is pure evil to behead civilians, sure it is pure good to help kids in Mosul. What would Ben say about bombing a city and killing, unintentionally, many innocent civilians including kids? How about gunning down an innocent man in a train station in London? Are those acts pure good, pure evil or, all in all (ie, relatively) good. What Ben does here is invent a version of moral relativism that its adherents wouldn't recognize and then he pins it on people who don't at all believe or practice this imaginary philosophy he has invented. Then he demolishes them with extreme examples like sawing heads off and saving kids rather than looking at the close calls in the middle, the difficult calls that would challenge the thinking of relativists and absolutists alike.

I think that the people who would be interested in a third option are a fractured bunch politically. They have no dominant view that could weld them together. Many would disagree with eachother even more sharply than they do with either established party. Some sort of cataclysm could do it maybe. A depression, that kind of thing.

I wonder if maybe God killed Casey so that she would be motivated to protest the war in precisely the way that she did. Maybe Casey asked God to shut her down to keep her from being destroyed by the raving Coulters and Limbaughs of the world. Maybe the goal was to spare her that, not shut her up. Misca, her mother, her aging mother had a stroke. So maybe Casey asked God to off his own Grandmother? Man, this woman really, really got to you guys didn't she? Here you are seeing divine intervention in finally getting her off the stage. Was she so dangerous that we needed God himself to help us out? I didn't realize the right was this jittery over the war.

She "merely relayed" Sheehan's quotes? First, she puts Sheehan's words in the mouths of every democrat in the country when she says "Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say..." Sorry but that is pure crap and if you want to lap it up, fine, but the fact is no one takes this harpie seriously outside of the extreme right. In another thread, RK went on about how the people on the board on the right are balanced and see the hypocrisy of politicians while those on the left are all dedicated partisans, blind to the shortcomings of their own party. I see that bit of self congratulatory hype as just a smidge over the top when, in the same day, he is quoting Ann Coulter. As for Coulter's accuracy, here is what Sheehan said, in context, with Coulter's lift in bold: "I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq." Seems to me she is willing to die for the country if its attacked but not in a war like this one. Why? Because we weren't attacked. Agree with her or not, fact is Coulter's lift was misleading. Another example, here is what Sheehan said: "America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent..." Here is Coulter's quote, or rather, misquote: "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" First off, Sheehan is just agreeing with what someone else said. Second, Coulter got the quote wrong and left out the reference to another person. Third, ask Native Americans, lynching victims, etc. etc. about whether there is some truth to the ideat that since Eurpoeans stepped on this continent, there has been a lot of killing. Another, here is what Sheehan said: "I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant." What Coulter says, first cutting in her own words and then adding Sheehan's: "She calls the U.S. government a 'morally repugnant system'..." Problem is, Sheehan didn't say "government". She said "system", Coulter guesses that she must mean "government" so I guess we just have to trust Coulter's mind reading abilitites. She makes it sound as if Sheehan thinks democracy and constitutional government are "repugnant". That is simply nonsense. In the same speech, Sheehan complains that Congress abrogated their responsibilty when it gave Bush a vote to go to war without a declaration of war. She thinks they undermined the constitution in doing so and, in my judgment, the "morally repugnant system she deplores" is not the government we were all raised on, democracy, but what the governement has become. This very sentiment has been expressed by the right as well in their endless anti-government rants over the years. Again, by removing context, cutting and pasting and adding her own spin, Coulter manages to twist Sheehan into some sort of Mama Bin Laden. That doesn't mean that Sheehan's motives and all couldn't have been perfectly skewered using accurate quotes but that is Ann Coulter. The truth about Sheehan is probably enough to discredit her position but that isn't enough for the Ann Coulters of the world, they have to make it personal and turn her into something she simply is not. Enough already.

Your being sarcastic, right?

I agree with that but I'm not talking about rights. Its piling on, an unequal contest between a nobody and every right wing talking head from Limbaugh to Coulter. What is interesting to me is why this anti-war, anti-Bush protester, as opposed to many, many others, has drawn so much fire. My own feeling is that there are those on the right who are acutely aware that public support for the war is at a low. Anxiety on the issue is high, the news is slow and then along comes this lady in a tent. The fact that the media and every left wing talking head has trumpeted her as a genuine martyr is just another sign that public opinion may be shifting. An emboldened left opposes the war with more vigor and a worried right reacts in hyperdrive. I don't know, just a theory. It just seems like an awful lot over an awful little.

I don't understand why are you sharing this with us. Do you think that is a bit out of bounds? I don't really have an opinion on what she is doing apart from she ought to be able to have her protest and fade into black without being personally attacked like this. For example, what would be behind the thinking that leads one (not you) to be enraged that she called the President a rotten so-and-so but applaud her being called or treated like a "B word in the Ditch"? I think the leader of the free world is probably able to take a nasty jibe from a nobody like little Cindy Sheehan a little better than Cindy Sheehan will be able to handle mericless attacks from media superstar zillionaires from Limbaugh to Coulter. Why don't hey pick on someone their own size? What is behind this massive mobilization of the republican attack machine against this woman? Why is it so important to shred her to pieces? "She's crazy, she's mean, she is a liar, she's nuts, she hates Bush, she is a tool of the left, she is a B word in a ditch." Twenty-four seven. People who will excuse a President who took us to war with thousands dead based on WMD's that never existed have their panties in a bunch over an old woman in a tent. Even if she is the biggest kook in Crawford, isn't this just a bit unseemly?

RK, if you find yourself quoting Ann Coulter you need to step back man, seriously. The claim of being balanced and a non-hypocrite you made in that thread started by Dr. K can't survive this Coulter quoting. I won't begrudge you your opinions on Cindy Sheehan but really, Ann Coulter?

No it wasn't, here are your exact words: "It clearly looks like this was white washed by the 9-11 commission. The question is why. Who or what were they protecting?" You first declared the commission to be guilty and only then did you ask a question looking for villains. You weren't looking to "simply engage in discussion" you were just launching another one of your patented partisan attacks at the first sign of an opening from some news story you read somewhere. You didn't even bother to research the story enough to see the ample evidence that in fact, it was the Pentagon in 2000 and 2001 (gee, who was Prez in 2001?) that really has some trouble here. The story is far too undeveloped to be throwing around declarations that "clearly" anybody did anything. If you want a "simple discussion", then why don't you leave out the kangaroo trial and verdict you conducted in your head declaring the 911 Comm. guilty of a cover-up?

Re-read his initial post, especially the first line where he declares that the 911 Comm. clearly white-washed this and the only question is why? So you see, he already declared a conspiracy and the "legitimate question" he was asking was to invite speculation as to the motivation. He has already determined that a "crime" was committed now he just wants to hunt up some suspects. Surprise, it's all Bill Clinton's fault. That was about as legitimate a question as me asking him, "So Richio, how long has your mother been a whore and why do you keep denying it? You simply declare a fact that is not a fact and then use it justify your "inquiry".

Well, you're certainly a lot of fun today. Whatsamatta, still distraught over Roscoe's sprain/break/infection/VD/amputation or whatever it is?

My dog ate my surveillance report.

In response, I just flipped a bird at my monitor screen. That'll show 'em.

Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Off with your head.

You mean Senator Schiavo, that guy?

Well every time you would say that you didn't know his view on the war better than his mom, you would follow it up with a statement about how clear you were that his views were not what she says they are because yadda, yadda, yadda. In any event, we seem to be pretty close on this as far as no one having any idea what Casey Sheehan would think of all this if he could tell us. With that ignorance in mind, I don't think that any conclusions on that score are warranted.

In a more humane era, he would be hospitalized and well cared for but alas, those days are gone. Think how much more productive he would be knitting socks and making decorative corn cobb holders.