posted
So…. Two stories (see below)…. Which sounds reasonable? And which fits in the norm? I’m used to this Bush: http://www.ashleysstory.com/ Wouldn't more people have been outraged that day of her visit to the White House if her account she is now saying was true? Something just doesn’t add up. Sounds like someone got a hold of her. I do feel bad for her loss, but I think it’s a real shame that it sounds like she is being used.
quote: PROTESTING SOLDIER MOM CHANGED STORY ON BUSH Mon Aug 08 2005 10:11:07 ET
The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!
Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."
CINDY 2004
THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:
"'I now know he's 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.'
"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
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."
CINDY 2005
Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.
She vowed on Sunday to continue her protest until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son?"
In an interview on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him last year.
"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.
"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'
Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.
BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...
SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...
posted
It's possible she changed her mind on her own, for whatever reason. Sometimes, being visited by important people can make things seem better, and then perhaps the glory wears off?
I don't know, I'm just speculating. It's possible the two stories are the same story expanded in each direction- the first way exaggerated because she wanted the visit to seem wonderful, the second because she wanted the visit to seem insensitive and inexcusable.
People do not need to be bribed or brainwashed or otherwise conspiracy-theoried in order to change their minds. It makes a good story. After all, a "the president is wonderful" only sells for so long. You're reading her story, aren't you? How much did she sell it for?
It's just one woman's fluctuating opinion- don't pay so much attention to it.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The saddest thing is that this is gonna be touted as somehow showing that Bush's detractors in general are wrong.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does sound like this woman's story is being spun two different ways, either by herself or by the two different reporters who interviewed her. Maybe she looks at the experience differently now that more time has passed, or maybe she's changed her mind about the war and is deliberately spinning the story to support her current views.
Even if she is deliberately changing her story... Well, I'm not going to say that's not bad, but I'm far less concerned about one protester who changed her story than I am about one President who changed his stories. (Why did we go to war in Iraq? That one changed about monthly for a while there.) One of them is in a position of higher responsibility and accountability than the other one.
posted
It's a woman going through a grief process I hope none of us ever has to. Her opinions will change, as would any of ours. Her grief, and the warp and weft of it, are just being played out publicly.
I'm sorry for her loss and sorry that she's placed herself to become media fodder.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
With all the horrible things that people have been saying about Bush in the past five years, it's really hard not to support him, if only out of spite.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Substitute "Kerry" into that sentence, then wonder why you didn't support him. Or Clinton (either one).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm just glad we throws-ed out Saddam - who supported those who hate us and want to kill us.
Without him, Iraq and the world are on the road to being much safer places. Now if we can just do something about that Kim Il-Thug in Korea...
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the original article from The Reporter, which is the 2004 article Drudge refers to as the "before" picture:
quote:Bush, Sheehans share moments By David Henson/Staff Writer
Since learning in April that their son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had been killed in Iraq, life has been everything but normal for the Sheehan family of Vacaville.
Casey's parents, Cindy and Patrick, as well as their three children, have attended event after event honoring the soldier both locally and abroad, received countless letters of support and fielded questions from reporters across the country.
"That's the way our whole lives have been since April 4," Patrick said. "It's been surreal."
But none of that prepared the family for the message left on their answering machine last week, inviting them to have a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle.
Surreal soon seemed like an understatement, as the Sheehans - one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush - were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military. But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief.
"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.
"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.
Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
"I now know he's 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."
The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.
For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.
"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."
The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
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.
David Henson can be reached at schools@thereporter.com.
Drudge was quoting the woman somewhat out of context. He made it sound like the woman loved Bush in 2004, while it was clear in the original article that she expressed serious doubts about the war and the sacrifice her son and her family were asked to make on behalf of our country.
Drudge's edit also made it sound like the meeting with President Bush lead to making this family "whole" again. The original article actually attributes this, at least partially, to the family meeting up with other families that had also lost loved ones in the war.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In today's Washington Post (registration required), they talk about how Cindy Sheehan has been sort of co-opted (willingly it appears) by some highly political organizations. The groups surrounding her have hired media consultants, etc.
It's really not about her or her son's death anymore. It is about embarrassing (and in the case of Sheehan's organization, impeaching) President Bush.
It's interesting that they also quoted members of her family as having written to various media outlets saying that they disagree with her. Her response has been that she hasn't talked to "those people" since immediately after the election (of the President who killed her son...). She has the support of her immediate family, just not these others.
...
On the Republican side, they are now organizing counter protests in Crawford so the area outside Bush's ranch will be some sort of protest/antiprotest battleground. Some further right-wing websites are accusing Sheehan of all sorts of stuff.
...
It doesn't bother me that she has changed her story. I have no problem at all with a person changing their mind about the President, and especially as one works through the grieving process, a certain amount of back and forth is to be expected.
The problem I have is that this just another opportunity for splitting the country down the middle. I think the press does feed that. And I think people must really enjoy it in some perverse fashion. As much as I hate having George Bush as my President (check the archives if you doubt me) and as much as I hate this war, it's pretty clear that if we pulled out now, though it would save American lives now, it would doom us to refight this battle again and again, and we would be abandoning the people of Iraq to a worse fate than when we built up Saddam in the first place.
Roy:
quote:I'm just glad we throws-ed out Saddam - who supported those who hate us and want to kill us.
Roy...the reason he was in power in the first place is becuase we supported him. The reason we were so sure he had WMD is because sold them to him in the first place in our zeal to counteract Iran.
Saying that this all boils down to a simple "they hate us and want us dead, so we should kill them" equation is not really accurate.
Part of the reason we've gone after Saddam is because he ceased being our "creature" in the Middle East. We didn't stop him when he tried wiping out the Kurds in his country -- using our technology, I might add. We were still okay with him up until the point when he disobeyed us and went into Kuwait after we supposedly forbade it. (His story is we signaled by our silence that it would be just fine with us.) The bottom line is that he started supporting our enemies after we abandoned him and then threw him out of Kuwait. He felt betrayed. There's at least a 50:50 chance that we did exactly that -- told him (not in so many words) that it was okay to invade Kuwait, knowing all along that we'd go in and attack him afterwards. Anyway, he claims to have proof of checking with the State Department first. Should be interesting.
I'm not excusing him. In fact, we should never have been involved with him in the first place. But we have this stupid, short-sighted habit of seeing only the present enemy and not the long-term interest of stability.
It's one of the things about us that our enemies hold against us. The fact that they're right doesn't make it more palatable that our soldiers are now over there dying. At least not to me. Those people are paying for decades of bad policy just as much as they are fighting for Iraqi freedom. IMHO.
That stuff is not all Bush's fault (Bush I or Bush II). We have had a mind-numbingly bad foreign policy in the Middle East since WWII.
What I do blame Bush II for is his manipulation of the situation post 9/11 to get his war. I think that we could have achieved our ends diplomatically and the only reason that wasn't the way it worked out was because there's a family issue with Saddam holding over from Bush I's term. And he wanted it so badly that it didn't matter if the real situation wasn't anywhere near as dire as he needed it to be to start the war. He just fudged the data and presented it to the World. And when he gets called on it, suddenly those who point out the truth are "unpatriotic" or "abetting the enemy."
Well...on that score, we can also blame Bush and the GOP for causing the rift that is so obvious in this country. There are lots of other contributing factors and parties (including the DNC and the press), but when you lie and someone calls you on it, the polite thing to do is to 'fess up, not point a finger at them and whine about how we must "hate America."
I only hate the America they seem to want to create. I see signs that they are failing to get their way, and that the America I love is finally breaking through all the BS and taking back some of its liberties and its comittment to honesty and justice. It's one election too late, IMHO, but that's okay. You can't keep that kind of spirit submerged forever.
Mark these words. The last 8 years will do more damage, ultimately, to the GOP cause in this country than Nixon ever did.
Fortunately, we'll also come out of it with a healthier conservatism as they shuck off the far-right Bible thumpers who have lost sight of both their conservative ideals and their Christianity. That fringe of the conservative movement will be a disgruntled minority wondering what the heck happened as true Christians and conservatives plus moderate liberals take back the political scene in this country.
I think true liberalism is dead for awhile, but centrists in both parties are going to dominate after this national orgy of retribution is over.
I only hope, for the sake of the good people of Iraq, that we finish the positive work there before we pull the rug out. They'll need lots of support and once the pendulum swings the other way in the US, it'll be hard to strike a balance and keep the democratic advances from getting swept away.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think true liberalism is dead for awhile, but centrists in both parties are going to dominate after this national orgy of retribution is over.
I think that that might be a good thing if you are right, Bob. I am uncomfortable about both sides when it comes to the extremes of either. While I have no problem with some sorts of social programs I wouldn't want to live in the world most of them would create, liberal OR conservative.
I wouldn't like either, I think. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah...I think what we really need is a government of technocrats. People wth true expertise deciding where we spend our efforts and resources. Plotting a (boring) but steady course. That sort of thing.
Unfortunately, there are always needs that go unmet and we have to split our dollars among so many good and worthy efforts.
I talked with an engineer from France. They pay over 50% of their salary in taxes. But they never have to worry, ever, about what happens to them or their family if the breadwinner(s) gets/get sick.
I worry about this country's health care system. I mean, the people working in most retail companies no longer get full time hours and benefits. At least not in the South, maybe it's different in the unionized areas of the country. The hospitality "industry" is the same -- 30 hour work weeks, so minimal benefits, if any.
Great if you're 19 or have benefits from a pension plan and you've already retired once. But that's no way to support families.
I swear, for the cost of the Iraq war we could've done at least SOMETHING about health care costs, coudln't we?
I mean, we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars here. Isn't there SOMETHING we can do?
posted
You know, I really cant stand this type of debate. It is a problem that I see all the time in politics: instead of simply refuting the argument presented by Sheehan, the right says that she is "in-bed" with the liberal left or has politcal motives. Of course, these things make her incorrect and not worthy of paying attention to. I call this the Karl Rove theory of politics. By doing this, politicians dont have to deal with the arguments of the other side and that is simply wrong. Of course, it is not just a product of the republican party, the democrats are guilty of this as well. The only difference is that republicans are much better at it!
So here is my challenge to anyone who wants to say that sheehan is wrong: take her argument apart without saying anything about her liberalism or who she may be in bed with.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That bothers me as well, Humean316. They just want to wave away her concerns and it is quite frustrating. She is merely a mother that misses her son. Someone who has suffered a loss. I agree with her points and the way she is trying to get them across.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that she could be a conspiratorial fiend and still be right about the war, but the fact that she lost her son in the war doesn't mean she's right about it.
Both of those points seem lost on the media and politicians.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"agree that she could be a conspiratorial fiend and still be right about the war, but the fact that she lost her son in the war doesn't mean she's right about it."
But at the core of the argument, she has an argument against what Bush has said is a justified war. I agree with you dag, in that simply because she lost a son does not mean she is right. What does make her right, if in fact she is, is her argument against the war and her view that it is unjustified. But you dont see anyone on the right trying to show how that argument is wrong. All you see is the right saying that she is in bed with the liberal left and thats what I have a problem with.
"By the way, nice sn. You've picked a great philosopher to follow."
posted
The argument she's putting forth has been made many times and refuted many times. Not to the war opponents' satisfaction, I'll grant you, but the argument hasn't been put forth to the war supporters' satsifaction, either.
posted
I agree with her that the war is wrong. I also agree with Bush when he says that if we got out NOW it'd be a disaster.
But then, I haven't actually read where she is saying "end the war now." Maybe she is. I think, so far, Bush is answering her from afar so that he can deliberately ignore her core question and mischaracterize her as only being anti-war.
She's got a few very good questions for him and I for one think he's being less than honest in his so called "dealing with" her concerns.
I think he should meet with her. It damages his reputation more and more every day he skirts her and it makes him look uncaring. I think he's got a bigger picture in mind than the death of one soldier. She probably needs to hear that. It's sad that her son died, but as President he has to make decisions that go beyond the death of one man or woman, and the grief their death may leave in its wake.
Then he needs to answer for his creation of the situation, or his manipulation of it, or his handling of it. He needs to tell this woman that he honestly believes there was no possible other way to handle Saddam Hussein. And, if he's credible, the country will believe him. If he's not, then at least we can judge for ourselves whether we've been lead wrongly.
And then, either way, we need to decide as a people what, if anything, we want to do about it.
But we live in a political world. And as long as they can chalk her protests up to leftist coup-counting, the Administration can choose to ignore her or misconstrue her central points and answer what they know they can, and ignore the rest.
posted
This is what I take her argument to be: 1. My son died in Iraq in a war started by President Bush. 2. I have the right to know why my son died. 3. To fulfill this right, I should get to meet with the man resposible for sending my son to Iraq. 4. If he cannot justify the war to me, then he was wrong and deserves to face the consequences of starting said war.
I dont know whether she is right or wrong, but if you think you she is wrong then tear apart that argument. Honestly, I feel like the reason Bush will not answer her is because of the conclusion and his inability to answer that very question. If he cannot satisfactorily do so, then he could be in trouble politically.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But then, I haven't actually read where she is saying "end the war now." Maybe she is. I think, so far, Bush is answering her from afar so that he can deliberately ignore her core question and mischaracterize her as only being anti-war.
quote:1) We want our loved ones sacrifices to be honored by bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from the travesty that is Iraq IMMEDIATELY, since this war is based on horrendous lies and deceptions. Just because our children are dead, why would we want any more families to suffer the same pain and devastation that we are.
2) We would like for him to explain this "noble cause" to us and ask him why Jenna and Barbara are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble.
3) If George is not ready to send the twins, then he should bring our troops home immediately. We will demand a speedy withdrawal.
I've seen lots of good arguments against the war - most of them here. She's not making one of them.
posted
I think her arguments for bringing the troops home are emotional and lacking in substance, at least the kind that would give any real weight to the argument. But then, that's most of what makes me believe that she is genuine, and not some political pawn.
As for her wanting to meet with Bush. I think she has the right. In theory I think any one of us have the right to meet with our elected officials, even though that isn't physically possible. Bush meets with sports stars when the win events, and he has met with (I'm guessing) more than a 100 people who were involved with 9/11. This woman's son died for Bush's war, doesn't he owe her her right to look him in the eye and ask "Why?" And doesn't she then deserve an answer?
For all the talk Bush does of honoring the families of the dead, and the dead themselves, this doesn't do a lot for his credibility, that just because for once, one of them isn't lauding him for his actions, she gets virtually brushed off.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, many families who have lost loved ones in the war do find comfort in meeting with the president:
quote:President Bush was wearing "a huge smile," but his eyes were red and he looked drained by the time he got to the last widow, Crystal Owen, a third-grade schoolteacher who had lost her husband in Iraq. "Tell me about Mike," he said immediately. "I don't want my husband's death to be in vain," she told him. The president apologized repeatedly for her husband's death. When Owen began to cry, Bush grabbed her hands. "Don't worry, don't worry," he said, though his choking voice suggested that he had worries of his own. The president and the widow hugged. "It felt like he could have been my dad," Owen recalled to NEWSWEEK. "It was like we were old friends. It almost makes me sad. In a way, I wish he weren't the president, just so I could talk to him all the time."
---
Family members interviewed by NEWSWEEK say they have been taken aback by the president's emotionalism and his sincerity.
---
Ascione and her family were gathered with 18 other families in a large room on the air base. The president entered with some Secret Service agents, a military entourage and a White House photographer. "I'm here for you, and I will take as much time as you need," Bush said. He began moving from family to family. Ascione watched as mothers confronted him: "How could you let this happen? Why is my son gone?" one asked. Ascione couldn't hear his answer, but soon "she began to sob, and he began crying, too. And then he just hugged her tight, and they cried together for what seemed like forever."
Ascione's family was one of the last Bush approached. Ascione still planned to confront him, but Bush disarmed her in an almost uncanny way. Ascione is just over five feet; her late brother was 6 feet 7. "My whole life, he used to put his hand on the top of my head and just hold it there, and it drove me crazy," she says. When Bush saw that she was crying, he leaned over and put his hand on the top of her head and drew her to him. "It was just like my brother used to do," she says, beginning to cry at the memory.
Before Bush left the meeting, he paused in the middle of the room and said to the families, "I will never feel the same level of pain and loss you do. I didn't lose anyone close to me, a member of my family or someone that I love. But I want you to know that I didn't go into this lightly. This was a decision that I struggle with every day."
posted
I'm mostly with Bob on the "Don't like the war, think pulling out immediately would be bad" point.
A slightly different thought on Sheehan's protests, though. She did get to meet with the president once. Yes, she says he was flippant and disrespectful during that meeting. But that's still one more meeting with the (this or any other) president than most American citizens have ever had. Obviously I don't mean to minimize the loss of her son. The president should meet and try to console and listen to as many parents of soldiers who died as possible.
But part of me just thinks her "Why won't he meet with me?" protest falls a little flat there. He already did once. It's unfortunate she didn't pose any of her big questions during that meeting.
posted
True, she did already get to meet with him.
But her son is gone, and he's on a five week vacation. She's less than a mile away, and while he bass fishes and cuts down trees, she waits.
Is her argument thin? Maybe, but as far as I'm concerned his argument doesn't even merit vocalization.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beren, thanks for the direct link to the original story. Drudge's editing lowered my already low opinion of his site.
I agree with Maureen Dowd in a recent editorial edit:and Lyrhawn in a recent post. I'm surprised that Bush's handlers didn't long ago advise the President to invite her to a short meeting. It would only be politically prudent.
Instead, by attempting to ignore her, a minor story has balloned into an ongoing media circus, which is the main story coming out of Crawford. And the longer the stonewalling continues, the more heartless the President appears.
Most people, even Bush supporters, see a mother with a son killed in combat as deserving of a short meeting. She already had one, sure, but so what?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like the stonewalling now has serious blowback. OK, I admit it, I love political jargon.
quote: Hundreds of candlelight vigils calling for an end to the war in Iraq got underway Wednesday in a national effort spurred by Cindy Sheehan's anti-war demonstration near President Bush's ranch in Texas.
AP pictures with captions, via http://cryptome.org/brp3/bush-ranch3.htm edit:More than 1,500 vigils were held across the US Wednesday, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
There were 700 people at an Atlanta vigil yesterday. AFAIK, that's the biggest anti-Iraq war ever in this area. And there were 5 others at other metro locations. This is really picking up steam. http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/0805/18vigil.html
posted
I don't know how I feel about the "bring the troops home" campaign. It's impossible to bring them home now, not until the situation stablizes more.
I'm all for free speech, they can hold vigils and what not all over the country. But what they should really be doing is moving the campaign more towards preventing another catastrophe, rather than trying to stop one that has already occurred.
What's happened cannot be undone, it can only be finished.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm surprised that Bush's handlers didn't long ago advise the President to invite her to a short meeting. It would only be politically prudent.
