Mickey

"...the left is generally anti-religion..."?!!!? On the contrary, it is so important to us that we think it shouldn't be sullied by dragging it into politics.

I don't know what came over me. Some sort of inexplicable wave of optimism that perhaps a reasonable discussion could be had with him. It has passed.

Right, I haven't responded to you? Shall we count how many replies I have made to you in this and related threads? I am allowed to respond to others and if I choose to reference your posts in those responses, tough. We all know that you maintain you don't claim to know more than mom but at the same time you know she is wrong about her son, "it's clear" to you. You have made that inconsistent point over and over. Do we have to keep rehasing it?

link? All I could find was the drudge story which is based on an e-mail purportedly from Casey Sheehan's aunt and godmother, whose name is supposedly "Cherie Quartarolo", which was "signed" by "...grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins." First, it doesn't list the father or siblings and second, it actually contains no names of anyone besides this "cherie". Casey Sheehan's aunt, Dede Miller, said, I think at his funeral if I read the story right, that the war was insanity that needs to stop, however you want to interpret that. Dede Miller His sister Carley also has reportedly spoken out against the war. Carley Sheehan Patrick Sheehan's divorce papers mention nothing that would indicate he disagrees with Cindy over the war and its conduct. She has said he doesn't agree with her protest but he does agree that the war is a lie. My point is that none of us know what that young man thought. His family might, like his mother, siblings and father but we don't.

She must be destroyed. The very idea that a person could be a patriot and disagree with the right just doesn't compute. Look at the trouble Silver has even considering the notion that Casey Sheehan's service wasn't an endorsement of the war itself or the President. It can't be. It must be instead that the boy's mother is a brainwashed lunatic who doesn't know her own son as well right wing strangers knew him. The reasonable view is that none of us know what the heck his views were on the war and that whatever they were, they are just one soldier's view of the situation. Judging by the reaction you would think the entire future of the global struggle against violent extremism hangs in the balance. I predict that both sides will engage in a battle of the widows and grieving moms. Just about everyother heartfelt human instinct we all share, base or otherwise, has been harnessed by one side or the other in this war. Fear, patriotism, suspicion, religion, grief, anger, etc. etc. etc. This is just more of the same.

Right, mom says one thing about her son, you say another. Between you and her, I'm going with her on the off chance that she knows more about her son than you.

C'mon Gavin, don't bother with the issues, just start an insult war. My experience on this board is that virtually every position ever taken that disagrees with the Republican one is quickly denounced as left wing whackery. There are two main explanations. One is that democrats are never even accidentally right or that the righties here reflexively, in Coulter/Limbaugh/Hannity like fashion, denounce every position of the "enemy" out of a conviction that they are always right. Take that along with the christian right's role in directing the Schiavo passion play, that creationism be taught in science classes and the public castration of Senator Arlen Specter and there is enough truth to the role religion plays in the ethos of the right to justify a little satire on my part. As for my zeal for party, perhaps that explains why I supported the war, am against most gun control legislation, was against the addition of the prescription drug benefit, for drilling in ANWR and taken a number of other fairly conservative positons on a number of issues.

How do you manage this schizophrenia? You say you haven't claimed to know her son's views better than his own mother in one sentence and then say that you do the next because "it's clear" to you. Okay, you win. You don't claim to know her son's position on the war better than she but you are sure that his views are not what she says they are because it is clear to you. Makes sense, no contradictions there.

Do me a favor and talk to Richio about his countless posts during the election skewering Kerry for not attending funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. Would you consider him a "Bush-hater"? Hmmm...I don't seem to recall your being critical of those posts.

Look, see if you can follow this reasoning: Everyone who disagrees with the right is a left wing whacko or someone brainwashed by left wing whackos because otherwise, the possibility woud exist that every so often, Republicans are wrong and that my friend is blasphemy, pure crazy talk. It can not be. The Republican agenda is a holy agenda inspired by the bible which is the inerrant word of God so no other reasonable conclusion can be drawn. Simple, see?

Riiigght. Republicans would never, ever, ever exploit anger and grief. Never.

Actually, it isn't clear at all. The chart Weldon is showing now isn't the original chart, it is a "reconstruction" from his memory of the original. When he had the original and used it during a presentation 2002, Atta wasn't on the list. The commission itself says Atta's name wasn't in the papers released to them by the Department of Defense when they asked for the Able Danger information. Weldon never mentioned Able Danger and Atta in a number of prior communications with the Commission. I have no idea what the real story is, I am just advising caution. I think this would be a good story to wait out and see what information surfaces rather than jumping in taking this or that side, it might save some embarassment later such as all those posts of yours during the war to the effect that "Eureka, WMD's found in Iraq", every one of which proved to be BS within days of your post. You may end up regretting moving too early on this one, without knowing if the story is true and if it is, who effed up. Patience is a virtue. Here are some links for more info on this story: 911 Comm Statement on Able Danger This document sets out the history of the Comm. and the Able Danger information. Even if it is true, I think the people in trouble are the DOD who apparently withheld this information from the commission, that is of course, if Weldon and/or the commission are to be believed. There are ample reasons to suspect his story. Excellent story tracking what the no longer anonymous Col. Shaffer has to say complete with additional links. Weldon Interview Rozen on Weldon and his chart

If I am not mistaken it is written, in Leviticus I think, that: "Cold Fusion is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord"

A lot of polls came out this weekend that show a pretty strong downward shift in the public's attitude about the war and the way this administration is handling it. To my mind, that means there is a far more receptive audience for what she has to say than was previously the case. The Rove story heated up because there was finally something to report what with Miller going to jail and Cooper disclosing his source and so on. It will kick right back up again when there is something new to report. Right now all that is happening is more testimony before the Grand Jury with tid bits of what the latest witness might have said. I agree that Cindy Sheehan's moment in the spotlight will be shortlived, at some point all news eventually becomes old news. I do think though that she has come along at the right time in terms of the war and the public's attitude about it having reached a low point. On the left there seems to be a stampede to embrace this woman and her story while on the right, the "Swift Boat" forces are in high gear denouncing her from every angle 24-7. I think the level of attention from all corners is an indication that she has become a focal point even if a short lived one. That's just my sense of it OG, I am thinking out loud here, not staking out a position.

Which proves that you don't recognize the importance of duty and comradeship but it doesn't shed any light on what Casey Sheehan's views on the subject were. Look, if you want to claim that you know this now deceased stranger better than his won mother, fine, I think readers here are able to see that claim for what it is.

A good comparison with the exceptions that the ebonics flap was in Oakland which is in northern California and took place in 1996, nine years ago, while the evolution flap is a statewide issue in Kansas that is taking place now.

Pretty much exactly what you said: "This isn't accomplishing ANYTHING (except possibly telling the terrorists that killing Americans gets you a lot of press back in the U.S. if they happen to have insane family members)..." Clearly, the terrorists were aware that killing Americans gets our attention long before Cindy Sheehan came along so what is it that her actions are "telling" the terrorists that they didn't know already? What exactly is your point here, that she is helping terrorists? Please explain.

Right now there is a school board meeting being planned somewhere in Kansas to prohibit the teaching of cold fusion.

Once again, you describe yourself perfectly. I think you recognize this kind of thing better than most as it is your own mo. I haven't been trolling through Drudge and the like to see what his third cousin on his father's side twice removed has to say about what he was like. Unlike you, I have not ventured a single guess as to whether he would applaud his mother's actions or deplore them because I didn't know him. Neither did you but you have no problem taking a side anyway. As between you and her, I'm thinking she knew him a little better.

Right, because before Cindy came along, they had no idea that killing Americans kind of gets our attention. In fact, I think a strong argument can be made that terrorism itself was invented in response to Cindy Sheehan. Why, if it weren't for her, there would be no war and no terrorists. Is this kind of thinking a prelude to blaming setbacks in the war on protesters? From here on in are we going to see posts after every roadside bomb killing in Iraq claiming that it is all Cindy Sheehan's fault? Makes sense.

Thank you Doctor.

What is interesting is why she is getting so much coverage. I think she has come along at the right moment, at a time when the public appears to be more concerned about the war and the direction we are headed in Iraq than they have before. She is a lens focusing a lot of anger and worry about the war.

The smart thing politically would be to meet with her and let her fade back into obscurity. There is a story David Brinkley tells in "Washington Goes to War" about Hoover and FDR. Remember the bonus marchers? They were a bunch of WWI vets who were promised a big bonus at some point and when the depression hit, they wanted the money a little early since they feared they would starve to death before it came due. They camped out in Washington for a month protesting and finally Hoover ordered them removed. I think MacArthur led the army raid on the camp. It was pretty nasty and pretty violent. Politically, Hoover got nailed with having treated these vets so poorly. Well, when FDR won, the marchers came back and camped out, hoping to get a better deal from FDR. They didn't. What he did was send them food and water and had the park police help them out however they could. He even sent Eleanor over to see them with a load of blankets and other provisions. FDR even signed most of them up for the Civilian Conservation Corp. and as for the bonus, he vetoed the bill just as he told the vets he would. He treated them so well that they accepted his alternatives and the entire issue just faded away until 1936 when a bill was passed over FDR's veto that paid them something. He doesn't have to meet with her but it might not be a bad move.

How is it clear he didn't agree politically? Could he possibly have re-enlisted to stick it out with his guys even if he detested the war? You haven't the foggiest idea what he was like or what he believed or what he thought about anything from the war to his mother to anything else. If you don't mind, I won't venture to make up facts and then condemn her based on what I've made up. I'm thinking that maybe, just maybe, she knew her son and what he believed a tiny bit better than you. I know, its a crazy thought but there it is. As for media coverage, I have seen about a bazillion hours of fawning coverage of the war from the git-go. The media isn't the problem, they are not hiding some sort of paradise blooming in the desert. They are reporting attacks and resulting casualties, day in and day out and they are doing it accurately. Don't worry about Cindy Sheehan and how many cameras are on her, worry about the insurgency and our response. She will pop out of the headlines just as fast as she popped into them. The insurgency didn't start in response to Cindy Sheehan and the public's perception of this war as a disaster in the making didn't start last week.

No it's not, the odds of getting an intelligent response from a wall is far greater. Where do you get off insulting walls like that? I know walls sir, I have worked with walls, and Richio, sir, is no wall.