Ghost of BiB Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 I don't think it's appropriate for a sitting president to have to explain why or why not meet with an individual citizen. It's also not appropriate to ask or demand that he does. There's no way I'd meet with her either, were I in his shoes.
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 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?" 409204[/snapback] Well, and we had to use the most extreme of means to end that war on its final front. Or at least that is what we are told.
SilverNRed Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Well, and we had to use the most extreme of means to end that war on its final front. Or at least that is what we are told.409215[/snapback] Why not come right out and say what you mean with that last part?
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Why not come right out and say what you mean with that last part? 409217[/snapback] Because it's pure speculation how much more time and life it would have cost us to win that war on the ground, and I'm not entirely read up on what the Japanese were planning on doing in that last month of the war, I had read in some places they were planning on surrendering anyway, others that they weren't. Honestly, I wish weapons the like of atomic bombs never existed. I also understand that we could easily have been on the receiving end of that knowledge and I'm glad we exercised that power first. I meant to say nothing else. Please try not to fish for a fabricated conflict here.
SilverNRed Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Because it's pure speculation how much more time and life it would have cost us to win that war on the ground, and I'm not entirely read up on what the Japanese were planning on doing in that last month of the war, I had read in some places they were planning on surrendering anyway, others that they weren't. Honestly, I wish weapons the like of atomic bombs never existed. I also understand that we could easily have been on the receiving end of that knowledge and I'm glad we exercised that power first. I meant to say nothing else. Please try not to fish for a fabricated conflict here. 409225[/snapback] Hey, I just wanted to know what you were driving at. As for nuclear weapons, you can argue they've saved more lives than they've ended. We haven't had anything like WWII since, well, WWII. On the other hand, we could've used non-nuclear weapons to bomb the living sh-- out of mainland Japan and probably killed at least as many people as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - just like what the 8th AF did to Germany months earlier. And while nuclear weapons have basically halted full-scale wars between nations, they'll probably end up being the weapon of choice for small groups of radicals who aren't prone to nuclear retaliation. Unfortunately, we can't "un-invent" them at this point.
Wacka Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Hey, I just wanted to know what you were driving at. As for nuclear weapons, you can argue they've saved more lives than they've ended. We haven't had anything like WWII since, well, WWII. On the other hand, we could've used non-nuclear weapons to bomb the living sh-- out of mainland Japan and probably killed at least as many people as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - just like what the 8th AF did to Germany months earlier. And while nuclear weapons have basically halted full-scale wars between nations, they'll probably end up being the weapon of choice for small groups of radicals who aren't prone to nuclear retaliation. Unfortunately, we can't "un-invent" them at this point. 409231[/snapback] We did firebomb the living sh-- out of Japan. More people died in firebombing of Tokyo than in the two A-bombs. They happened over weeks rather than in an instant. RTDB- please read before posting. Even after the two bombs were dropped, some of the members of the military tried a coup to stop the surrender. We were planning to build field hospitals to handle tens if not hundreds of thousands of wounded and dead in the invasion of the Japanese home islands.
KD in CA 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] And how exactly is she not being allowed to "voice her opinion"?? Is someone censoring her? Does she not have cameras in front of her 24 x 7? What's the problem here?
Ghost of BiB Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 And how exactly is she not being allowed to "voice her opinion"?? Is someone censoring her? Does she not have cameras in front of her 24 x 7? What's the problem here? 409344[/snapback] Because everyone on the planet reads TBD PPP as their only reliable news source? Anyone found the little blonde girl yet? I need an update.
OnTheRocks Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 i am not so much bothered by her protest as much as i am bothered by the attention it is getting. i mean really.....this lady is on the news so much i thought maybe she was protesting the fact the blonde girl hasn't been found and she was blaming Bush because he doesn't like the Dixi Chicks and the Dixie Chicks were going to do a concert to raise money for the lady who has to keep traveling back and forth to Aruba......but they are torn about how to divie up the money between the blonde girls mom and helping pay legal fees for the runaway bride who....****GASP** has to mow lawns!
Terry Tate Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 I don't think it's appropriate for a sitting president to have to explain why or why not meet with an individual citizen. It's also not appropriate to ask or demand that he does. There's no way I'd meet with her either, were I in his shoes. Very good. Three different threads, and still no reason advanced for why the President should meet with her. Maybe she should threaten to hold her breath until he meets with her. We could break into regularly scheduled programming for that.
Mickey Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 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. 409204[/snapback] 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.
UConn James Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 I don't think it's appropriate for a sitting president to have to explain why or why not meet with an individual citizen. It's also not appropriate to ask or demand that he does. There's no way I'd meet with her either, were I in his shoes. 409210[/snapback] I understand that. What I don't understand is how Bush's PR people could let him utter a sentence like, "Yaknow what, I've got a life to live" when the thing being talked about is, Mrs. Sheehan's son doesn't.
Mickey Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 I don't think it's appropriate for a sitting president to have to explain why or why not meet with an individual citizen. It's also not appropriate to ask or demand that he does. There's no way I'd meet with her either, were I in his shoes. 409210[/snapback] 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.
Mickey Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 i am not so much bothered by her protest as much as i am bothered by the attention it is getting. i mean really.....this lady is on the news so much i thought maybe she was protesting the fact the blonde girl hasn't been found and she was blaming Bush because he doesn't like the Dixi Chicks and the Dixie Chicks were going to do a concert to raise money for the lady who has to keep traveling back and forth to Aruba......but they are torn about how to divie up the money between the blonde girls mom and helping pay legal fees for the runaway bride who....****GASP** has to mow lawns! 409367[/snapback] 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.
UConn James Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 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. 409469[/snapback] There's the Neocon definition of compassion, which is a quality that you say you have while you're giving a speech. And then there's the actual definition of compassion, which is a quality that requires real action. If you remember Marv's quote in this vein....
OnTheRocks Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 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. 409474[/snapback] i would say she is getting so much coverage because people like Chris Matthews and Joe Scarbourough and Keith Olberman and Sean Hannity, and Alan Colmes and and and....who else? Good Morning America, the Today show crew....etc...etc...etc....know that this woman is a train wreck waiting to happen and they are going to ride this "one trick pony flavor of the week" until something else comes along. i don't think it has one ounce to do with anything you mentioned. Sort of like the Karl Rove story....it kind of died out when John Roberts was nominated....then that story took a step back for Raf. Palmiero...then he took a step back for Mrs. Sheehan.....and in about 24-48 hours she is going to be gone when 100's of Jews die while being forced out of Gaza.....oh wait...no...that won't make the news.... as mentioned either in this thread or the other one about the same topic, this lady knows she is the ring leader of a 3 Ring Circus and she is enjoying her 15 minutes. is she sincerely devastated at the loss of her son? i don't doubt it for one second, but i don't think this "circus" is about that anymore. when the camera lights finally dim and reporters all finally go home....this lady will never be heard from again.
SilverNRed Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 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.409454[/snapback] She also thinks President Bush "murdered" her son, so her grip on reality isn't spectacular at the moment. If I detested a war, I wouldn't re-enlist to go fight it. But that's just me. 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.Speaking of "making up facts"......
Ghost of BiB Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 I understand that. What I don't understand is how Bush's PR people could let him utter a sentence like, "Yaknow what, I've got a life to live" when the thing being talked about is, Mrs. Sheehan's son doesn't. 409464[/snapback] Because the Bush PR people need to all be fired. They have the worst marketing skills of any administration since television.
UConn James Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 If I detested a war, I wouldn't re-enlist to go fight it. But that's just me. 409512[/snapback] Then there's Paul Hackett, who ran for Congress in a Repub-thick Ohio district (and lost 52-48) by really lashing into Bush and the reasons and execution of the war. He served one tour, and despite his own feelings, it's his job and he's going back in November.
UConn James Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 Because the Bush PR people need to all be fired. They have the worst marketing skills of any administration since television. 409567[/snapback] I don't doubt that, but the statement struck me as incredibly callous, even for him. Like "I sincerely apologize for that remark" callous. But he doesn't do things like that, ever; admitting you were wrong is weakness. There's a way to hold your position and still be courteous. Most people have to learn this by age 6.
Recommended Posts