Dr. K Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 "I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."
Buckey Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 "I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so." 408630[/snapback] How lame.
PastaJoe Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 So why doesn't he kill 2 birds with 1 stone and jog down the road to Cindy Sheehan. Fit to jog but unfit to lead. What a loser.
OnTheRocks Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 granted our President never attended the Winston Churchill Orator School..... but i would like to see the link to the article to see the context of these comments.
Dr. K Posted August 16, 2005 Author Posted August 16, 2005 granted our President never attended the Winston Churchill Orator School.....but i would like to see the link to the article to see the context of these comments. 408709[/snapback] Here you go: http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/...ushprotest.html a quote from this article: "In addition to the two-hour bike ride, Bush's Saturday schedule included an evening Little League Baseball playoff game, a lunch meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a nap, some fishing and some reading."
VABills Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 ‘‘But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job,'' Bush said on the ranch. ‘‘And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say.'' The rest of the quote from your story. Basically everyone wants a private audience with the president. Hell I would love it, but guess what there are 300 million people or so in this country and if he sat down and listen to each and every moron whining about something, he would never do his job, or have nay privacy and time to himself. He will not nor should be held hostage to every liberal nutcase who wants attention, just like Dean should not have to listen to every Rich in Ohio nutcase that wants 20 minutes of his time.
Buckey Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 ‘‘But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job,'' Bush said on the ranch. ‘‘And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say.'' The rest of the quote from your story. Basically everyone wants a private audience with the president. Hell I would love it, but guess what there are 300 million people or so in this country and if he sat down and listen to each and every moron whining about something, he would never do his job, or have nay privacy and time to himself. He will not nor should be held hostage to every liberal nutcase who wants attention, just like Dean should not have to listen to every Rich in Ohio nutcase that wants 20 minutes of his time. 408788[/snapback] No, Not every single one of 300 million... Just one. There are a lot of excuses by you loyal followers, but It could easily be handled...and this can be easily ended and actually help his image, but he can't wait too long... he can simply come across as look, let this be for everyone who wants to meet with me and feels as she does... I'll express my points of view now, after considering the concerns of some of our citizens... yadda yadda yadda...
VABills Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 No, Not every single one of 300 million... Just one. There are a lot of excuses by you loyal followers, but It could easily be handled...and this can be easily ended and actually help his image, but he can't wait too long...he can simply come across as look, let this be for everyone who wants to meet with me and feels as she does... I'll express my points of view now, after considering the concerns of some of our citizens... yadda yadda yadda... 408818[/snapback] And if he does it with one, everyone else will do the same thing. Lemming mentality. As far as it goes she has had her 15 minutes, now get off the stage. Of course you're wrong, since she already met with Bush back at Ft Lewis, but she feels it was satisfying so she wants more time. Sheehan, 48, and other grieving military families met with Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis (search), near Seattle, two months after her son's death. But she says the meeting was unsatisfactory, and it came before reports surfaced about faulty pre-war intelligence, which enraged her.
Buckey Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 And if he does it with one, everyone else will do the same thing. Lemming mentality. As far as it goes she has had her 15 minutes, now get off the stage. Of course you're wrong, since she already met with Bush back at Ft Lewis, but she feels it was satisfying so she wants more time. Sheehan, 48, and other grieving military families met with Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis (search), near Seattle, two months after her son's death. But she says the meeting was unsatisfactory, and it came before reports surfaced about faulty pre-war intelligence, which enraged her. 408825[/snapback] I guess you didn't read what I said. He doesn't in any way have to meet with anyone else and no one else will do it because of the way he handles it.
VABills Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 I guess you didn't read what I said. He doesn't in any way have to meet with anyone else and no one else will do it because of the way he handles it. 408840[/snapback] And why does one deserve special treatment and a second chance to vent to the president when there are 299,999,999 other people who have never even had a first chance.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 And why does one deserve special treatment and a second chance to vent to the president when there are 299,999,999 other people who have never even had a first chance. 408849[/snapback] Because "Bush bad". Didn't you get the memo?
SilverNRed Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 No, Not every single one of 300 million... Just one. There are a lot of excuses by you loyal followers, but It could easily be handled...and this can be easily ended and actually help his image, but he can't wait too long...he can simply come across as look, let this be for everyone who wants to meet with me and feels as she does... I'll express my points of view now, after considering the concerns of some of our citizens... yadda yadda yadda... 408818[/snapback] Because, retard, she doesn't even want to meet the President. She admitted that on Keith Olbermann's show last week. I posted a link to the transcript here last night. She says actually meeting him would take away her "momentum" and she's having too much fun with her three-ring circus. Meanwhile, terrorists are probably doubling their efforts to kill Americans in off-chance that one of the troops they kill will turn out to have an unhinged mommy who, in response, will do everything she can to crush morale back home. Just because this woman's son was a hero, that doesn't mean she isn't an embarassment. Good for Bush; I wouldn't meet with her anyway. At least, not until she's back on planet earth with the rest of us. EDIT: Here. These are the only words from Cindy Sheehan that you have to know.
Mickey Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Because, retard, she doesn't even want to meet the President. She admitted that on Keith Olbermann's show last week. I posted a link to the transcript here last night. She says actually meeting him would take away her "momentum" and she's having too much fun with her three-ring circus. Meanwhile, terrorists are probably doubling their efforts to kill Americans in off-chance that one of the troops they kill will turn out to have an unhinged mommy who, in response, will do everything she can to crush morale back home. Just because this woman's son was a hero, that doesn't mean she isn't an embarassment. Good for Bush; I wouldn't meet with her anyway. At least, not until she's back on planet earth with the rest of us. EDIT: Here. These are the only words from Cindy Sheehan that you have to know. 409014[/snapback] The idea that an average citizen who has lost a loved one to a war she feels we were bamboozled into by a dishonest administration using the same politically saavy tactics as the administration used in selling the war to begin with seems to me a poetic justice. The administration uses soldiers, their sacrifices and their very lives in their own propaganda to support their position. Why is that okay? Its a propaganda battle and as much as I don't want to see a battle of the grieving widows and moms, I am just as disgusted with the administration and their prop-a-bull-sh*t. They have so many memorable ones I can't even pick a favorite from the quote I use below to "last throes".
SilverNRed Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 The idea that an average citizen who has lost a loved one to a war she feels we were bamboozled into by a dishonest administration using the same politically saavy tactics as the administration used in selling the war to begin with seems to me a poetic justice. The administration uses soldiers, their sacrifices and their very lives in their own propaganda to support their position. Why is that okay? Its a propaganda battle and as much as I don't want to see a battle of the grieving widows and moms, I am just as disgusted with the administration and their prop-a-bull-sh*t. They have so many memorable ones I can't even pick a favorite from the quote I use below to "last throes". 409137[/snapback] The difference being that the Bush administration used propaganda for a war to being about change in the Middle East (a region that needs change like cancer patients need chemo) and Cindy is using it, whether she knows it or not, to crush the morale of our troops and country. In other word's, Cindy's propaganda is the propaganda that the terrorists like. That's an interesting way of honoring her dead son. Of course, if you follow her line of reasoning that the war was wrong and that we shouldn't be in Iraq, doesn't that make us the bad guys? So wouldn't that make the terrorists in Iraq the good guys? And wouldn't that mean she's saying the people who killed her son did the right thing? (After all, he had no right to be there and re-enlisted to go back) Just wondering. Then again, you can do the same thing with Michael Moore's "lahjik." He made a big deal about how no politicians were "sending" their kids to Iraq but doesn't think that Cindy Sheehan should be held accountable for "sending" her son to Iraq. Gosh, I thought parents were responsible for putting their kids in the military - what happened to that? Oh, but I guess in this case it was Bush's fault that Casey Sheehan re-enlisted and died in combat.
erynthered Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Damned if does, Damned if he doesnt, thats what the truth is.
CoachChuckDickerson Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 The difference being that the Bush administration used propaganda for a war to being about change in the Middle East (a region that needs change like cancer patients need chemo) and Cindy is using it, whether she knows it or not, to crush the morale of our troops and country. In other word's, Cindy's propaganda is the propaganda that the terrorists like. That's an interesting way of honoring her dead son. Of course, if you follow her line of reasoning that the war was wrong and that we shouldn't be in Iraq, doesn't that make us the bad guys? So wouldn't that make the terrorists in Iraq the good guys? And wouldn't that mean she's saying the people who killed her son did the right thing? (After all, he had no right to be there and re-enlisted to go back) Just wondering. Then again, you can do the same thing with Michael Moore's "lahjik." He made a big deal about how no politicians were "sending" their kids to Iraq but doesn't think that Cindy Sheehan should be held accountable for "sending" her son to Iraq. Gosh, I thought parents were responsible for putting their kids in the military - what happened to that? Oh, but I guess in this case it was Bush's fault that Casey Sheehan re-enlisted and died in combat. 409159[/snapback] Let me start by saying I don't support pulling out our troops. I think we do need to finish the job. With that being said, what kind of f--ked up world do we live in where those who make the ultimate sacrifice, and lose a loved one, can't voice their opinion? By insinuating that she is painting the terrorists as the good guys is !@#$ sick. Maybe our brave service men and women, in the future, should have to sign a contact that states their loved ones can only grieve in the privacy of their own home with the doors locked. This way they don't disturb or dishonor the rest of us with such displays.
Mickey Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 The difference being that the Bush administration used propaganda for a war to being about change in the Middle East (a region that needs change like cancer patients need chemo) and Cindy is using it, whether she knows it or not, to crush the morale of our troops and country. In other word's, Cindy's propaganda is the propaganda that the terrorists like. That's an interesting way of honoring her dead son. Of course, if you follow her line of reasoning that the war was wrong and that we shouldn't be in Iraq, doesn't that make us the bad guys? So wouldn't that make the terrorists in Iraq the good guys? And wouldn't that mean she's saying the people who killed her son did the right thing? (After all, he had no right to be there and re-enlisted to go back) Just wondering. Then again, you can do the same thing with Michael Moore's "lahjik." He made a big deal about how no politicians were "sending" their kids to Iraq but doesn't think that Cindy Sheehan should be held accountable for "sending" her son to Iraq. Gosh, I thought parents were responsible for putting their kids in the military - what happened to that? Oh, but I guess in this case it was Bush's fault that Casey Sheehan re-enlisted and died in combat. 409159[/snapback] Wow, little Cindy Sheehan has managed to "crush the morale of our troops and our country..." I think you are giving her too much credit on that score. Perhaps the lies about WMD's and all the rest, the daily death toll and apparent lack of progress are doing more to hurt morale than little Cindy Sheehan and her roadside camp. I am not sure how to address the hoplessly elementary idea that if the war is wrong we are bad and they are good thing. Even if she is right, not every man, woman, child and soldier in the US is "bad" because their government and leaders led them into what she sees as a needless war. Further, that doesn't make insurgents "good". There have been many conflicts where both sides were "bad". I'm not sure consulting with terrorists to find out what they like and then simply doing the opposite is a sound strategy. Though something like that worked for George Costanza, I don't think it would transfer well to the foreign policy sphere. I think you have Moore's "lajik" a little mixed up. His thoughts, to the extent they can be referred to as such, was that politicians who didn't send their kids to a war they supported should be called to task to see if they tried to talk their kids into serving. I think that is why he was trying to pass Army recruitment stuff to them. Apparently Cindy Sheehan in fact did try to talk her son out of it but failed. I don't really follow Moore's point but it was funny to watch some politicians squirm. By the same token, I don't see what it has to do with Sheehan. There does seem to be an awful lot of reaching for anything to try and discredit her but you know, even if that effort eventually pays off, the war isn't going to be transformed overnight to a rousing success. I don't think recruitment will suddenly skyrocket if she folds her tent. The daily death toll won't change much either. That is the President's real problem and the nation's. Little Cindy here isn't going to make that go away for any of us.
Mickey Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Let me start by saying I don't support pulling out our troops. I think we do need to finish the job. With that being said, what kind of f--ked up world do we live in where those who make the ultimate sacrifice, and lose a loved one, can't voice their opinion? By insinuating that she is painting the terrorists as the good guys is !@#$ sick. Maybe our brave service men and women, in the future, should have to sign a contact that states their loved ones can only grieve in the privacy of their own home with the doors locked. This way they don't disturb or dishonor the rest of us with such displays. 409182[/snapback] I agree, let her have he say and if this is the way she wants to do it, let her go for it. As for finshing the job, that is hard to disagree with and it sounds good but tell me, how are we going to know when the job is finished? What, specifically are the conditions for withdrawl? I think that is the big question.
SilverNRed Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Wow, little Cindy Sheehan has managed to "crush the morale of our troops and our country..." I think you are giving her too much credit on that score. Perhaps the lies about WMD's and all the rest, the daily death toll and apparent lack of progress are doing more to hurt morale than little Cindy Sheehan and her roadside camp. 409197[/snapback] Cindy Sheehan and her roadside camp and their national TV coverage every single day on every single channel manage to blot out all of the work being done by our troops on that side of the world pretty well. Not that you expect a rounded view of what our troops are doing every day in Iraq from our media anyway..... There does seem to be an awful lot of reaching for anything to try and discredit her but you know, even if that effort eventually pays off, the war isn't going to be transformed overnight to a rousing success. I don't think recruitment will suddenly skyrocket if she folds her tent. The daily death toll won't change much either. That is the President's real problem and the nation's. Little Cindy here isn't going to make that go away for any of us.Name one war that was considered a "rousing success" as it was going on. World War II has to be the most romanticized war you can think of these days and we had the same people saying the same things 60 years ago. "Too many people are dying. The President is an idiot. What are we fighting for?" Most people in our military support the President and support the war - they voted that way last November. Casey Sheehan re-enlisted to go back to Iraq. His mother using his name to further her nutty views - when it's clear they didn't agree politically - is just plain sick.
Recommended Posts