« The Wrath of the Lamb |
Main
| Judge Roberts "Closet" Liberal? »
Sunday, August 14, 2005
They Make Me Sick!
I’ve been following the Cindy Sheehan story this week like many of you have, and I am disgusted by her treatment from the right-winged poison pen set. It has degererated into a disgusting circus of innuendo, rumor and pure lies. These chicken-hawk conservatives are trying to vilify a woman who has more guts and bravery than the entire lot of them because she dares, DARES to stand up and ask that the president explain to her WHY her son died. WHY we are in Iraq. WHY this ‘noble mission’ has been executed with the kind of skill you would normally see in a beer drenched game of Axis and Allies.
Just look at Media Matters for America and their breakdown of Matt Drudges anti-Cindy propaganda piece that Cindy had “dramatically” changed her account of the meeting she had with the President in June 2004. According to Media Matters
Drudge attempted to back up his false assertion by reproducing Sheehan quotes from a 2004 newspaper article without providing their context. After the story appeared on the Drudge Report, it gained momentum among conservative weblogs and eventually reached Fox News, where it was presented as hard news and in commentaries
And what are these false quotes that Matt Sludge blatantly manipulated to create his lie?
“‘I now know [Bush is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,’ Cindy said after their meeting. ‘I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith,’ ” and, “For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again. ‘That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,’ Cindy said.”
Except Matt left out all the salient points, in his typical “unfair and slanted” wanna-be Brit Hume way. For example, he forgot to mention the rest of the article that says:
“We haven’t been happy with the way the war has been handled,” Cindy said. “The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached.”
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey’s sacrifice would make the world a safer place.
But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn’t stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.
Also it is important to note that the “gift” referenced in the Drudge quote was her trip to Seattle, not the gift “of meeting with President Tiny Tree. It wasn’t as if the the divine hand of George was some sort of all-healing balm for her broken heart. No, but you wouldn’t know that from Drudge. Distortion, distortion distortion. You know, the Standard Operating Procedure for the right-wingers.
Of course we all know what happened next. The lie got picked up and spread because the little Sheeple out their with their blogs, and their newspapers and their TV Channels (yes I mean Fox) can’t be bothered to go out and see if Drudge, DRUDGE of all people(!), is credible.
No wait, THEY DON”T CARE IF HE IS CREDIBLE. They know most people won’t ever do more than hear that Cindy Sheehan is just trying to get attention and then tune out.
Liars, Thieves and Bastards all of them.
If the President was half as brave and Cindy Sheehan is, he’d meet with her. If he has the balls to send troops into harms way, he should have the balls to meet face to face with an angry mother and explain why we invaded another country.
Not that he will. He can’t win and knows it. His position is indefensible. Therefore he is content to wait it out and let his “dirty tricks” squad assassinate the character of Ms. Sheehan the same way they did Joe Wilson. The same way they did John Kerry. John McCain. Bill Clinton.
Do not let the noise-machine do to this poor lady what they do to anyone with the guts to stand up and DARE ask Why?
Stand up and fight back. Now is the time to be heard. Now is the time to get involved. Take back the country. The campaign starts now.
Posted by Cranky Liberal at 08:13 PM in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2999654
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference They Make Me Sick!:
Comments
Yeah! Good post. I really think the Right's smear tactics are going to backfire this time. Character assassination of a politician or career government employee is bad enough. A mother whose son got killed in Iraq? I think they stepped on it this time.
Posted by: Tom Harper | Aug 15, 2005 12:13:04 AM
I dunno. The sheer amount of ire over at Moxie's site the other day made me very, very sad. I seriously doubt that any of the sheeple/wingnuts would even care to hear the truth if it was blared out in front of them.
:(
Posted by: Tracey | Aug 15, 2005 12:25:32 AM
I don't really care what they WANT, they are going to hear the truth over and over and louder and LOUDER until it penetrates their thick skulls.
Let's just say it like it is. Attention all you right leaning Bush lovers:
"Your leaders think you are stupid, and are using you like a cheap hooker"
"Your leaders think you are stupid, and are using you like a cheap hooker"
"Your leaders think you are stupid, and are using you like a cheap hooker"
Let me know when your tired of working for such worthless pimps. There are options. We can help.
Posted by: The Cranky Liberal | Aug 15, 2005 6:19:28 AM
The woman (Sheehan) had her meeting with President Bush already. Sheehan doesn't have to like the outcome of the meeting with Mr. Bush. It doesn't mean she gets to meet with him whenever she she see's fit to see him.
You liberals need to get over it and move on.
Many other American mothers/fathers have lost there sons/daughters and NEVER had a chance to meet with Mr. Bush ONCE.
Posted by: TheChosenOne | Aug 15, 2005 9:12:43 AM
Sorry cupcake - ain't getting over it and don't need to. Far from it, it is a point of focus.
Should we get over the lies and distortion from Drudge and Fox and how you guys lap it up like it is the gospel? Naa no need to get over that either.
When anyone tells you you should get over it folks, it's because they can't argue and just want you to make all the bad news go away.
Posted by: The Cranky Liberal | Aug 15, 2005 9:23:32 AM
Cranky,
Here is the fact and only fact of the matter. Twenty-four year old Army Spec. Casey Sheehan re-enlisted in the Army the August prior to be killed in Iraq. Yes, 24yrs. old when he RE-ENLISTED in the Army in a time of war. He knew full well what he was re-elisting for and what damn well could happen or not happen. Why did he re-enlist? Because he felt what he was doing was right and in best interest for his country. Casey as some of you would put wasn't some 18 yr. old being taken advantage of just out of highschool. Casey had just finished serving out one enlistment in a time of war and CHOOSE to re-enlist to defend his country because of HIS beliefs NOT HIS MOTHER'S Cindy Sheehan! Casey ended up dying not for his mother Cindy but for HIS COUNTRY AND WHAT HE BELIEVED IN. Can I make it any more clear for you. Does Cindy Sheehan have the right to grieve for her son? Yes indeed she does. She has NO right to demand a second, or for that matter a first meeting with the President.
It was a courtesy that President Bush extended to his family. It wasn't an extension for her to express her views on the war.
Cranky, if you can't see that then I'd have to say that you are blind. Sorry.
Posted by: TheChosenOne | Aug 15, 2005 11:32:20 AM
Cranky,
One last point if Drudge, Fox, etc... make you sick then all I have to say is everytime Ted Kennedy opens his mouth it's filled with nothing but lies! Why don't you police your own party and I'll police mine. Your side is filled with just as many lies as my party is. So, why don't you put together a post that says, "They all make me sick!"
Posted by: TheChosenOne | Aug 15, 2005 11:38:52 AM
Hello Chosen one. Ted Kennedy doesn't represent the party in power.
Cindy Sheehan is symbolic of all the mothers who have children in Iraq.
during Viet Nam there was a movement Another Mother for Peace, it became quite powerful. In this war most mothers would be scared to be involved in something like that.
Why? Because they'd be called unpatriotic, flag hating, moon bats and all the slimy things your party (as you call Drudge Fox etc) can think of
Posted by: pia | Aug 15, 2005 1:08:05 PM
Good Grief!!
Posted by: steve | Aug 15, 2005 1:42:12 PM
I read the article. What I want to know is what has happened in the last year that would make a mother go from wanting to follow her sons wishes to completely disregaurding them.
That story still is a great peace of evidence showing that Cindy had the chance to tell Bush how she felt over a year ago. What has happened over the year? Book deals? Publicity? The possibility of getting Hillary elected? Just some Ideas!!!
Posted by: Political Pie | Aug 15, 2005 6:24:30 PM
Did you all read the story about Bush's neighbor shooting a gun?
here's a link to CNN's.
Notice what she says at the end:
"If the neighbor is tired of having us here, he should talk to his other neighbor, George Bush, and ask George Bush to come out and meet with me, and then we'll leave," she said."
She has the right to say what she wants. She has the right to protest. When that protest disrupts the private property of an innocent bi-stander then she's got a real problem. Maybe all of this Drudge stuff isn't so far fetched. Maybe the lady is off-kilter or something, some Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Chosen is correct here. Her son re-enlisted during a war. There was a choice. George Bush did not kill her son regardless of what many of you think.
Posted by: steve | Aug 15, 2005 7:01:27 PM
George Bush started a war on trumped up intelligence and bogus claims of threat to national security. If your son ran into a burning building to save a child and died, then you learned- oh whoopps there was no child, we made that up, you would be pissed as hell that your son died needlessly. NO matter how heroic the action, the fact was it was not necessary. All that has come to light in the last year.
All I can say about the right to protest in a private neighborhood is Terri Schiavo. I think you guys can just shut up now thank you very much.
Why she "changed her mind" over the last year (which according to the original news story it is a real stretch to say she changed her mind at all) I can not say. I tend to think it is honest greif and anger over her sons needless death. Maybe you think that it has to be greed or some organized poltical event to get a democrat in office. Of course you have no way of knowing that and no proof at all what so ever. Then again, why should things like proof mean anything. It doesn't to the President.
Posted by: The Cranky Liberal | Aug 15, 2005 8:32:46 PM
It is not only "right wing" conservatives that are disgusted with Cathy Sheehan's antics. It is also her husband. He has just served her with devorce papers as she makes a total a** (Democrat mascot) out of herself. Read this smoking Gun report and visit my website if you would like.
Here is the Smoking Gun Article:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html
Posted by: Ken Bingham | Aug 15, 2005 8:49:53 PM
Well the fact is that they started to break up after her sons death put a HUGE strain on the marriage. Who cares what her soon to be ex husband thinks frankly. He has the right ot think it, she has the right to express her opinion.
Posted by: The Cranky Liberal | Aug 15, 2005 9:10:41 PM
As for protesting in a private neighborhood, Cranky, may I remind you of the anti-Bush hero and kinder-artist extraordinaire, Stephen Pearcy. I can just only see his house from here, when News 10 raises it's remote broadcast antenna.
Your move Cranky.
WAIT!!!
Wasn't it the liberals who wanted Terri to die in peace and yet now you want to keep Ms. Sheehan talking?
Ok... now it's your move.
Posted by: steve | Aug 15, 2005 10:14:04 PM
I don't appreciate you swearing in my blog. If you can't make an intelligent argument then don't bother with it. Your comment has been deleted.
Posted by: Ken Bingham | Aug 15, 2005 11:32:16 PM
Wait, wait, wait, Cranky. Are you trying to tell me that the news is not "fair and balanced"? Hmmm. I think I'll have to go mull this new information over.
And there seems to be some feelings that we need to explain why Mrs. Sheehan would change her mind. How about smoking gun proof that the president lied about the war? It's called the Downing Street Memo, kiddies. Remember that story the conservatives buried?
And "steve", explain how wanting to grant someone a noble death is comparative to allowing someone to protest under their first amendment right? I mean, other than the fact that they're both the right and proper thing to do? And oh, my God, Stephen Pearcy?! Wow, you really slammed that door shut! Good job, Steve!
Oh, your move, schmuck.
Posted by: Brad | Aug 16, 2005 12:37:16 AM
First off, I love your blog. I do not believe in almost everything you write, but the writing is intellegent and backed up with news; which is usually based off facts.
As a Libertarian you do not need to argue the fact she has the RIGHT to say anything
she wants. I'm arguing about her credibility.
She did not want her son to join the armed service. She was mad that he reenlisted DURING THE IRAQI CONFICT. Now, just as Casey did not follow his moms wishes, Cindy is showing a blantant disregaurd for her sons!
Posted by: Political Pie | Aug 16, 2005 12:39:41 AM
I just linked to your site. In fact I created a new category Liberal Friends.
I hope liberal doesn't affend you; I know certain democrats think that is a bad name! =)
Posted by: Political Pie | Aug 16, 2005 12:45:58 AM
Brad:
Thanks for actually reading what I wrote and what I commented on. Now try the comprehension part.
Um... may I ask, what the hell are you talking about?
I merely pointed out how Sheehan's protest disrupted innocent parties, ie Bush's neighbor. Cranky brought up Schiavo on the "right's" protest over her. So I took it to Pearcy. And since you don't own a house near Pearcy, you don't know the disruption he causes with his protests. Read the comments first, comprehend them, then comment. It's freaking simple.
I mean seriously, where did I talk negatively about Sheehan's right to protest? When did I speak of a "nobel death"? You pulled your liberal rhetoric out of your ass trying to look all bad in front of your little friends here.
Nice try, dorkus!
Posted by: steve | Aug 16, 2005 1:31:13 AM
Cindy can protest all she wants for whatever reason. Bush, handled the situation poorly. Where are his public relations people? If he can't show sincere understanding and explain the situation in the Middle East, then he is not a leader I can feel happy about. I don't think the issue is about Cindy or Bush. The issue is we are in conflict with the Middle East, with or without Cindy and Bush. That's where we must focus our resolve. And right or wrong, the US government must act on behalf of it's citizenry. And It's part of Bush's job to clearly illustrate that all measures taken are for the good of the American people. And he has not done that.
Posted by: Vince Parker | Aug 16, 2005 5:20:24 AM
To Steve - whatever. No point arguing with you because well, your steve.
To Ken - I didn't visit your site yet to read what you had written. I left my comment here on my site. If someone came in and left a rude comment, rest assured it wasn't me. Not that I'm above that, but only if the general tone of the persons blog seems to allow that sort of thing. Feel free to email me the comment so I can see what was posted. My appologies for any confusion.
You have to love the web.
Posted by: The Cranky Liberal | Aug 16, 2005 6:03:30 AM
As for Bush not meeting with cindy. If any of you remember Bush a few years ago, told the terrorist to bring em on, The message he was sending was "I Bush am not afraid of you terrorist. Well its seems when Cindy brings it to Bush, Bush avoids her. How can Bush tell the terrorist to bring it, and when a non-terrorist brings it, He runs.
Posted by: Elijah | Aug 16, 2005 8:53:07 AM
Awww, poor Steve. He got it handed to him, and now he has to cry about how I didn't "comprehend" him. I'm afraid I did, pal. You're just trying to throw the same useless neocon talking points against the wall and see which ones stick.
Nice job proving your worth!
Posted by: Brad | Aug 16, 2005 12:30:59 PM
Brad:
You are such an idiot. If pointing out Sheehan's protest has a negative effect on Bush's innocent neighbors and their private property is a "useless neocon talking point" then good. Remember it was your liberal judges on the Supreme Court that changed value of private property with their recent imminent domain ruling. I guess nothing is sacred anymore right?
I am not the one that is crying and back pedaling into name calling binge.
Posted by: steve | Aug 16, 2005 1:46:02 PM
Cranky loved your answer to Steve. However I feel compelled to copy something Steve saiI merely pointed out how Sheehan's protest disrupted innocent parties, ie Bush's neighbor. Cranky brought up Schiavo on the "right's" protest over her. So I took it to Pearcy. And since you don't own a house near Pearcy, you don't know the disruption he causes with his protests.
steve you're saying that anybody who doesn't own a house near Pearcy can't understand the disruption he causes?
But anybody who lives in California can understand how a person who lives in Manhattan..had their lives disrupted, and how the disruption is still going on?
Your analogy would mean the exact opposite thing. Think I have to go with Cranky,here, you're Steve!
Posted by: pia | Aug 16, 2005 1:48:48 PM
Cranky loved your answer to Steve. However I feel compelled to copy something Steve saiI merely pointed out how Sheehan's protest disrupted innocent parties, ie Bush's neighbor. Cranky brought up Schiavo on the "right's" protest over her. So I took it to Pearcy. And since you don't own a house near Pearcy, you don't know the disruption he causes with his protests.
steve you're saying that anybody who doesn't own a house near Pearcy can't understand the disruption he causes?
But anybody who lives in California can understand how a person who lives in Manhattan..had their lives disrupted, and how the disruption is still going on?
Your analogy would mean the exact opposite thing. Think I have to go with Cranky,here, you're Steve!
Posted by: pia | Aug 16, 2005 1:49:43 PM
Cranky loved your answer to Steve. However I feel compelled to copy something Steve saiI merely pointed out how Sheehan's protest disrupted innocent parties, ie Bush's neighbor. Cranky brought up Schiavo on the "right's" protest over her. So I took it to Pearcy. And since you don't own a house near Pearcy, you don't know the disruption he causes with his protests.
steve you're saying that anybody who doesn't own a house near Pearcy can't understand the disruption he causes?
But anybody who lives in California can understand how a person who lives in Manhattan..had their lives disrupted, and how the disruption is still going on?
Your analogy would mean the exact opposite thing. Think I have to go with Cranky,here, you're Steve!
Posted by: pia | Aug 16, 2005 1:50:54 PM
pia... no... I was merely bringing two like situations together where you had Bush's neighbor expressing his desire for the protest to end and Sheehan to go away because of the daily disruption. On the flip side, if Pearcy wants to put up his kindergarten art work to make a statement, fine, but when news crews descend on his street, blocking traffic, increasing traffic and basically disturbing neighbors it's similar to what Sheehan is doing. I never said these people did not have the right to protest. In an entirely different situation I personally protested Pearcy's art on my blog and got an attempted flogging by Pearcy himself. Go read the comments. However, go look how civil I was.
The point I was trying to make though to Cranky is Sheehan is down there disrupting the neighborhood for personal gain by protesting in a private neighborhood, all be it a neighborhood full of 100 acre plus ranches. Innocent people now are involved and affected by it. Should we say, sorry it's her right or is it getting out of hand, like it did with Schiavo and Pearcy.
Pia, I understand I may have pushed it too far with the Manhattan/California thing and came to that realization with my sister in law during the 7/7 bombing in London. I can see where you are coming from reading my last comment about having a house near Pearcy but that was not my intent. I was merely reflecting my own personal experience to confront Cranky's Schiavo argument.
Posted by: steve | Aug 16, 2005 8:53:27 PM
Steve, "You are such an idiot"
I'm the one name-calling? Come on, champ. Is that supposed to be ironic that you start with that, then say I'm the one name-calling? Hope you're having fun on your high moral ground.
Pearcy has FUCKING ZERO to do with Sheehan, nor does the publicity/media circus anything to do with her. She was there long before that started. She didn't call them and say, "hey, there's a party at Crawford, let's go." She staged a protest as is everyone's right. Not her fault the media showed up. Not her fault hundreds of other protesters showed up.
And, yes, saying that it's such a big tragedy that Bush's neighbors are SO inconvenienced is a neocon talking point. It's part of an attempt to smear because Lord knows the neocons can't argue facts. Just like they couldn't argue facts with Joseph Wilson.
Who were the "liberals" on the court that voted for that? Well, they didn't really change the law, now did they, son? No, the state and federal governments have been taking property under "imminent domain" for years. There's ANOTHER of your arguments down the tubes.
Come on, kiddo. We're giving you all these "moves", but you keep dropping the ball. Maybe you should stop trying. Idiot.
Posted by: Brad | Aug 17, 2005 1:47:53 AM
Whatever Brad, whatever...
Practice that reading comprehension would you please.
Posted by: steve | Aug 17, 2005 9:57:12 AM
Steve wrote "Remember it was your liberal judges on the Supreme Court that changed value of private property with their recent imminent domain ruling."
Here are the justices that voted infavor for the ruling. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Now Steve lets look the party background for each judge. The judges are in the order as how they are listed above.
John Paul Stevens
Born: April 20, 1920
Party: Republican
Time served: 29 years, 7 months, 29 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Ford
Anthony Kennedy
Born: July 23, 1936
Party: Republican
Time served: 17 years, 6 months, 0 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Reagan
David H. Souter
Born: September 17, 1939
Party: Republican
Time served: 14 years, 10 months, 9 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Bush
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Born: March 15, 1933
Party: Democrat
Time served: 12 years, 0 months, 8 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Clinton
Stephen G. Breyer
Born: August 15, 1938
Party: Democrat
Time served: 11 years, 0 months, 15 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Clinton
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/justices/
Steve seems like only two democrat justices voted infavor, the rest were repubican. Steve Before you try and lie on who voted in favor of Imminent Domain do some research.
Posted by: Howard | Aug 18, 2005 9:46:24 AM
Bravo Howard!!! Thanks for playing Steve any other catch phrases you'd like to throw out or is that all the RNC and GOP had to offer?
Posted by: The Bastard | Aug 18, 2005 9:53:06 AM
Post a comment
