Cindy Sheehan is a puppet and a nut

[Reuben Gant]

The new buzz word is that she represents the "tipping point" in the Iraq War.  Both CNN and MSNBC used that term.  Why?  I don't know!  Probably because it's a good way to present a story and make a meaningless story seem meaningful.

 

411693[/snapback]

I was wondering when they were going to start using that phrase "tipping point," it may very well prove to be, but I doubt it. I was looking at Zogby who states:

 

"Only 38 per cent give the president a positive rating for handling it (Iraq). And, today, the linkage between Iraq and the war on terrorism that has worked for Mr Bush in the past is taking its toll. Barely a majority give the president positive marks for handling the war on terrorism - down from 66 per cent when he was re-elected in 2004. " Aug 10,2005

 

But this doesn't represent a widespread anti-war movement as much as Bush's failure to clearly articulate what needs to be accomplished and how long it will take. Another social convention that prevents the "tipping point" is that currently the military and the celebration of military values is seen as the remedy for the things plaguing the country. (e.g. Terrorism, selfishness, greed, lack of sacrifice)

 

If I am thinking like a marketing guy, I am betting against a widespread anti-war movement developing from this (although I do believe there is long overdue, nationwide discussion needed for the role of the military in this country, but that is another thread)

[Wacka]

I'll say it again. you libs just don't get it.

 

 

Keep holding hands and singing kumbayah, it just gives the islamofascists an easier target when the shoot you or blow you up.

 

 

The libs remind me of some of the characters in the movie "Mars Attacks!"

They're on the top of a hotel in Vegas with signs welcomming the martians. The martians laugh and blow them to smithereens.

[SilverNRed]

The libs remind me of some of the characters in  the movie "Mars Attacks!"

They're on the top of a hotel in Vegas with signs welcomming the martians. The martians laugh  and blow them to smithereens.

411797[/snapback]

I'm pretty sure you just combined Mars Attacks and Independence Day into one movie there.

 

Independence Day had the nutjobs with signs standing on buildings in Los Angeles.

 

Mars Attacks had all the aliens laughing while they killed people and took place mainly in Las Vegas.

 

In retrospect, both movies sucked.

[RkFast]

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.

411755[/snapback]

 

Mick...as BiB said, I brought up Coulter's name for the sole purpose of crediting my source. Board mods here and elsewhere tend to get a bit upset if you dont.

 

The quotes are all Sheehan's. You want to try and "spin" away her comments, knock yourself out. But the fact is that she is a fraud. She is NOT some poor grieving mom who rolled up to Bush's front door with a simple plea. She is a radical anti-war protester who is, and has been for some time now, organized and bankrolled by the Left who just happens to have the clout of having a son who fought and died in Iraq, giving her words more weight. Outside of that, she's Micheal Moore...or your local loudmouth, irrational protester. And why should Bush meet with that?

[KRC]

Get real.  She's backed by every "name" in the George Soros/Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party.  They're paying for her PR rep! 

 

And every major "mainstream" news outlet is covering her several hours a day.  I tried flipping through the cable news channels last night and couldn't get away from her.  The new buzz word is that she represents the "tipping point" in the Iraq War.  Both CNN and MSNBC used that term.  Why?  I don't know!  Probably because it's a good way to present a story and make a meaningless story seem meaningful.

 

I can't imagine anyone trying to frame her as this "nobody" trying to take on the big names on the Right.  She has plenty of powerful friends and people who want to broadcast her.

411693[/snapback]

 

Excellent point. Sheehan has a larger audience then Limbaugh. She can get her message out to more people than Limbaugh, but yet Limbaugh is the bad guy because he dares to criticize someone. While she may be a "nobody," the machine behind her is not.

 

Like Paul said: if you venture into politics on the scale that Sheehan has to blast the administration, you can't then complain that people are criticizing you. That would be the height of hypocrisy.

[KRC]

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. 

411672[/snapback]

 

And the left is not "piling on" with her message? As I said in another post, she has a larger audience than Limabugh, Coulter and Hannity combined. To say that it is an unfair contest is just flat-out wrong.

 

Again, why should she receive a free pass to say anything without allowing dissent to her accusations?

[Mickey]

Excellent point. Sheehan has a larger audience then Limbaugh. She can get her message out to more people than Limbaugh, but yet Limbaugh is the bad guy because he dares to criticize someone. While she may be a "nobody," the machine behind her is not.

 

Like Paul said: if you venture into politics on the scale that Sheehan has to blast the administration, you can't then complain that people are criticizing you. That would be the height of hypocrisy.

411922[/snapback]

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.

[Mickey]

I was wondering when they were going to start using that phrase "tipping point," it may very well prove to be, but I doubt it. I was looking at Zogby who states:

 

"Only 38 per cent give the president a positive rating for handling it (Iraq). And, today, the linkage between Iraq and the war on terrorism that has worked for Mr Bush in the past is taking its toll. Barely a majority give the president positive marks for handling the war on terrorism - down from 66 per cent when he was re-elected in 2004. " Aug 10,2005

 

But this doesn't represent a  widespread anti-war movement as much as Bush's failure to clearly articulate what needs to be accomplished and how long it will take. Another social convention that prevents the "tipping point" is that currently the military and the celebration of military values  is seen as the remedy for the things plaguing the country. (e.g. Terrorism, selfishness, greed,  lack of sacrifice)

 

If I am thinking like a marketing guy, I am betting against a widespread anti-war movement developing from this (although I do believe there is long overdue, nationwide discussion needed for the role of the military in this country, but that is another thread)

411772[/snapback]

 

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.

[KRC]

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.

411929[/snapback]

 

When she is covered to the extent that she is covered in the media, yes. How many newspapers/media outlets pick up what Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity says on a daily basis. Compare that to the non-stop coverage Sheehan has received in all media outlets (TV, radio, web, newspapers, magazines, etc). A commanding audience fueled by the left and anti-war organizations.

 

The non-stop coverage of her has made her audience bigger than her opposition.

[Mickey]

Mick...as BiB said, I brought up Coulter's name for the sole purpose of crediting my source. Board mods here and elsewhere tend to get a bit upset if you dont.

 

The quotes are all Sheehan's. You want to try and "spin" away her comments, knock yourself out. But the fact is that she is a fraud. She is NOT some poor grieving mom who rolled up to Bush's front door with a simple plea. She is a radical anti-war protester who is, and has been for some time now, organized and bankrolled by the Left who just happens to have the clout of having a son who fought and died in Iraq, giving her words more weight. Outside of that, she's Micheal Moore...or your local loudmouth, irrational protester. And why should Bush meet with that?

411914[/snapback]

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?

[KRC]

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?

411941[/snapback]

 

Well said, Mick.

[Mickey]

When she is covered to the extent that she is covered in the media, yes. How many newspapers/media outlets pick up what Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity says on a daily basis. Compare that to the non-stop coverage Sheehan has received in all media outlets (TV, radio, web, newspapers, magazines, etc). A commanding audience fueled by the left and anti-war organizations.

 

The non-stop coverage of her has made her audience bigger than her opposition.

411938[/snapback]

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.

[KRC]

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.

411948[/snapback]

 

She is just a pawn in this, unfortunately. The main problem is the left-wing machine behind her. That is why the right is working so hard on his. There are key elections next year and the war (and its perception in the public's eye) will be crucial in the campaigning.

[PastaJoe]

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.

411931[/snapback]

 

Well said. She is just the tip of the iceberg, and is currently getting the media attention. But there are other Gold Star mothers with her, as well as others who are now stepping forward and speaking to the media, who have been emboldened by Sheehan's courage. There are alot of people who opposed this unnecessary invasion, and a majority of Americans now think it was a mistake, but were afraid to speak up because they would be wrongfully accused of being anti-American and aiding the enemy. But now that they see others stepping forward, and a continued lack of security in Iraq at the expense of our soldiers lives, they are coming forward. It may be too late to pull out as Sheehan would like, but at the very least we must hold those who advocated this invasion accountable where possible in future elections.

[Reuben Gant]

It may be too late to pull out as Sheehan would like, but at the very least we must hold those who advocated this invasion accountable where possible in future elections.

412148[/snapback]

The political right is losing control of the narrative they created for this war.

I would describe the sentiments of most as "disillusionment" rather than "anti-war."

 

BTW if anyone is interested Orbis Foreign Policy Reseach Institute put this arcticle on US Casualties in the public domain:

 

Fatalities in Iraq over 2 years PDF 16 pp.

[fisheralum]

Get real.  She's backed by every "name" in the George Soros/Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party.  They're paying for her PR rep! 

 

And every major "mainstream" news outlet is covering her several hours a day.  I tried flipping through the cable news channels last night and couldn't get away from her.  The new buzz word is that she represents the "tipping point" in the Iraq War.  Both CNN and MSNBC used that term.  Why?  I don't know!  Probably because it's a good way to present a story and make a meaningless story seem meaningful.

 

I can't imagine anyone trying to frame her as this "nobody" trying to take on the big names on the Right.  She has plenty of powerful friends and people who want to broadcast her.

411693[/snapback]

 

In fact, MOVE ON dot ORG took out two full pages in the local Waco Tribune Herald with quotes from people all over the country supporting her, which would have had to take a little bit of time to assemble, or was already ready to go. This thing is just another choreographed political stunt

[RkFast]

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?

411941[/snapback]

 

Well said. Those are the "red meat" people and I used red meat to feed folks who prefer vegetarian. Bad move. But the point remains. Her rhetoric is outlandish....way over the top. She's not some poor Mom who lost her son. She's much more. I think fisheralum just said it best..."This thing is just another choreographed political stunt." From the pre-fab "protest kits" Moveon.org is handing out in support, to the PR agency thats been paid for by her backers, right down to her clothes....the straw hat and loose-fitting t-shirt to make her look just like "poor mom from down the street." Its all a stunt.

[Reuben Gant]

Well said. Those are the "red meat" people and I used red meat to feed folks who prefer vegetarian. Bad move. But the point remains. Her rhetoric is outlandish....way over the top. She's not some poor Mom who lost her son. She's much more. I think fisheralum just said it best..."This thing is just another choreographed political stunt." From the pre-fab "protest kits" Moveon.org is handing out in support, to the PR agency thats been paid for by her backers, right down to her clothes....the straw hat and loose-fitting t-shirt to make her look just like "poor mom from down the street." Its all a stunt.

412236[/snapback]

The Nation magazine profiled Cindy Sheehan as early as March 2005.

To characterize her protest as spontaneous is indeed misleading. This was done with forethought to the publicity it would generate.

[erynthered]

The Nation magazine profiled Cindy Sheehan as early as March 2005. 

To characterize her protest as spontaneous is indeed misleading. This was done with forethought to the publicity it would generate.

412293[/snapback]

 

 

 

<gasp> You mean she tricked the media?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Reuben Gant]

<gasp> You mean she tricked the media?

412309[/snapback]

Naaa, but the media does have a tendency to frame their stories in a way that

makes it look like fresh journalism. Covering one person is always easier than covering a movement, e.g. much more broadcast journalism is devoted to the president than what happens in congress. Just a limitation of the broadcast format.