What does she hope to accomplish?

From Brian:

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Jeez, talk about needy.

The needy refers to the lovely Cindy Sheehan:


Small crowd joins Cindy Sheehan-led Bush protest in Dallas


11:35 PM CDT on Monday, June 8, 2009
By SCOTT FARWELL / The Dallas Morning News

DALLAS – About 50 people joined Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar activist whose son was killed in the war on Iraq, in a protest this afternoon near former President George W. Bush’s Preston Hollow home.

The march was sponsored by the Dallas Peace Center, which has been involved in protests with Sheehan since 2005, when the California mother staged a prolonged demonstration outside Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Protesters gathered about 4:30 p.m. at the southwest corner of Preston Road and Royal Lane. From there, they walked about a mile to John J. Pershing Elementary School, which is near the Bush home on Daria Place.

“I think this is going to be the protest of the summer,” Sheehan said in an interview this morning. “It’s really picking up a lot of energy.”

Organizers did not apply for a permit from the city and were required to stay on sidewalks and not cross or impede major streets, said Trish Major, communications director for the Dallas Peace Center.

“My guess is that the neighbors would probably rather that we not be there,” Major said, anticipating a cool reaction.

“But it’s also important to remember this is the neighborhood that welcomed the Bushes warmly, and they knew that by having a person of this stature in their neighborhood, this is something they would have to deal with.”

One neighbor who was less than enthusiastic about Sheehan’s appearance was Debbie Valentine. Outside her home down the street from the Bushes is a large sign, decorated with a Texas flag, that says, “Welcome home, George and Laura. Thank you for making America a safer place for our family.”

Valentine said: “I understand their right to protest, but this is just disrespectful.”

Unless there has been a radical change overnight, one about which I haven’t heard, George Bush is still no longer our president. He left that office peacefully, as mandated by the Constitution, on 20 January 2009. Protesting at the Bush home in Dallas won’t change a single thing, because former President Bush has no legal authority to change any of our policies now. All the intellectual Mrs Sheehan and her compatriots can do is what they already stated, urinate off the neighbors.

Of course, Brian answered the title question here with his own title: she’s looking to extend her fifteen minutes of fame.

86 Comments

  1. Of course, Brian answered the title question here with his own title: she’s looking to extend her fifteen minutes of fame.

    I’d say she’s at about 14:58 and counting …

  2. Phoenician: “I imagine she’s looking for an explanation why her child died for a lie, you heartless piece of shit.”

    Right on, Phoenician!!!

    The deranged people, Vivian, are the people who have no clue what it is like to lose a child, especially for a Bush/Cheney lie. Since I don’t know you, I don’t know whether you also fall into that category.

    I love the way people assign motives, having no idea what Cindy’s motives are.

    I think everyone can agree that she is a courageous woman who has been willing to put herself out there on behalf of all parents, not wanting them to go through what she has been through.

    And, it never ends.

    My heart continues to go out to all these forever grieving parents. And I say “hooray” for Cindy Sheehan!!!

  3. I think everyone can agree that she is a courageous woman who has been willing to put herself out there on behalf of all parents, not wanting them to go through what she has been through.

    No, I think she may well be off-kilter by now, driven away from full sanity by the lack of closure. Her stance may well have passed courageous and now just be tragic.

    What makes the wingnuts here heartless is that they look at this woman’s tragedy and consider her pathetic. I’m not going to wish that it happens to them, but, boy, is that wish tempting.

  4. The Phoenician politely suggested:

    I imagine she’s looking for an explanation why her child died for a lie, you heartless piece of shit.

    Assuming that your suggestion is correct, it would seem unhlikely to succeed. Even though now out of office, George Bush and his family are protected by the Secret Service; Mrs Sheehan won’t be able to ask the former president anything.

    Mrs Sheehan can get no answers that she hasn’t already received, and she can’t get policy changed. At this point, all she can do is annoy the neighbors.

    Of course, in a way, that, too, is her sort-of stated goal. The Bush’s new neighbors didn’t immediately greet him with hatred and scorn, so Mrs Sheehan is mad at them, too.

  5. I seem to remember a long line of individuals from both the Democrat and Republican sides wringing their hands over the intelligence indicating Saddam’s WMD. Names like Clinton, Kerry, Powell all sound very familiar. Where was the intel coming from? Who was in charge of intel when it was being collected, processed, and disseminated for gov’t consumption to base decisions on? Who was in charge when the leadership within the intel section of our gov’t was appointed? The answer’s might surprise some, as well as point toward who had real culpability in Ms. Sheehan’s son’s death, along with thousands of others.

    I would seem right, if we want to play the blame game, then we should do it right and not exclude any of the players – including those on the left.

  6. “I’m not going to wish that it happens to them, but, boy, is that wish tempting.”

    Right Pho, we believe you. Liar.

  7. pgwarner: “What are you doing?”

    I’ve heard Cindy speak about her motives, many times. Obviously, pg, you have not paid attention!

  8. Perry wrote:

    I’ve heard Cindy speak about her motives, many times. Obviously, pg, you have not paid attention!

    But do you seriously believe her? She knows that President Bush isn’t going to get down on bended knee and apologize, nor say that the war was wrong all along, nor would she accept such apology were it forthcoming. Our Kiwi Kommenter has suggested that, by now, Mrs Sheehan might be off-kilter by now; judging from afar, I’d say that he might be right about that.

  9. Cindy Mother Moonbeam Sheehan’s life was apparently made when she finally found a fulcrum point from which to leverage her generalized resentments.

    How can she be expected to now let go of that [hatred of George Bush] which has given her life whatever meaning it has?

    Looking forward to seeing her marching dazedly around under that trademark floppy hat, while singing Kumbaya, with all the other limp-armed retreads of her generation.

  10. Thomas Tallis:
    was assuming the title of this entry referred to Ms. Palin

    Tallis’ misogyny shows through. Can you tell me when Palin has camped out in someone’s neighborhood to grab attention?

    edgycater.blogspot.com

  11. it was called “the GOP convention,” Craig. always glad to see a conservative who’s passionately interested in misogyny, though – a fellow feminist is always welcome, even one who thinks that asking the question “what does she hope to accomplish?” is somehow a misogynist question if it refers to Sarah Palin but not a misogynist question if it refers to Cindy Sheehan. Perhaps you are new to feminism?

  12. Mr Tallis asked Craig:

    Perhaps you are new to feminism?

    Well, I apparently am! Before the 2008 campaign, I thought that feminism was about empowering women to be successful, to allow them to break free of traditional stereotypes and limitations. The 2008 campaign freed me of such silly notions. Feminism is about breaking free from old stereotypes, and allowing women to be successful within new stereotypes, to exchange the harness of old traditions for the restraints of the new dogma.

    It amazes me that we have spent so much time in our society moving away from the notion that only white men can have respected and varying opinions to where only white men can have respected and varying opinions; non-whites, white women, members of any particular minority you wish to name — with the possible exception of Jews — are Expected To Conform to whatever the current liberal orthodoxy says their positions should be based upon their membership in whatever demographic is at hand, or they are simply dismissed as the unwitting stooges or lackeys of white men.

  13. Right Pho, we believe you. Liar.

    And the wingnut talent for projection strikes again.

  14. I think Ms. Sheehan is so consumed by grief that she’s become unhinged. Sadly, Bush doesn’t have the answers she needs. Her son volunteered for two tours in Iraq, Bush did not force him, no one did. And perhaps that’s where the endless struggle and turmoil remains rooted with Ms. Sheehan.

  15. I think Ms. Sheehan is so consumed by grief that she’s become unhinged. Sadly, Bush doesn’t have the answers she needs.

    No, but a proper investigation showing precisely the distortions and lies involved in this war might be the only way to deal with it. And I’m not talking about Sheehan alone. Look at how long Vietnam festered in the US and that didn’t involve official sanction for torture and war crimes.

    Her son volunteered for two tours in Iraq, Bush did not force him, no one did.

    What precisely do you believe the politicians and citizens who send soldiers out to fight owe to those soldiers, if not the truth?

  16. I’ve heard Cindy speak about her motives, many times. Obviously, pg, you have not paid attention!

    Possibly I have not paid attention to Cindy; though I made no comment regarding her motives that I can see. What I have paid attention to is you questioning the motives of everyone you disagree with Perry.

    For instance how many times have you questioned GWB motives? How often Dana’s, Art’s, Eric’s or Sharon’s? You were doing it the other day regarding abortion.

    We all tend to do it. It is very hypocritical to reverse it though.

  17. No, but a proper investigation showing precisely the distortions and lies involved in this war might be the only way to deal with it.

    Except this might not be what Ms Sheehan is looking for; actually, I’m guessing underneath it all, it isn’t. She’s found a reason though to get up in the morning which is more than some in her situation are able to do.

  18. pg, disagreeing with someone is not questioning motives, rather it is questioning positions and decisions.

    On abortion the other day, my point was to show the inconsistencies of their so-called pro-life position, focusing only on foetus’s, but not on the death penalty or on waging wars of choice.

    My other point was to mention the terrorism that pro-life/anti-abortion extremists exhibit.

    The problem I’ve found is that the people you listed don’t want to address these points. What they continuously do is to create different words to express the same position. There is little discussion of the total perspective of a consistent pro-life position. You could call it cherrypicking.

  19. “And the wingnut talent for projection strikes again.”

    See what I mean. You answer Pho in kind and he becomes unhinged.

  20. The woman was a deranged radical before her son died. Perhaps his military service was prompted by his disgust for the actions of his mother.

    There are people who react irrationally to a tragedy and we should understand this. Yet there are others who exploit a personal tragedy to promote an agenda that predated the excuse.

  21. Art Downs, I don’t think I’ve ever read much about her life prior to her son’s death. Mostly post-death and her cause and notoriety.

  22. Protesters gathered about 4:30 p.m. at the southwest corner of Preston Road and Royal Lane.

    Aw, dang it. I wish I’d known they were there. I would have gone over just to laugh at them.

  23. I imagine she’s looking for an explanation why her child died for a lie, you heartless piece of shit.

    You shouldn’t call Cindy Sheehan a heartless piece of shit. Deranged, stupid, waste of carbon, maybe. But not heartless.

  24. I think everyone can agree that she is a courageous woman who has been willing to put herself out there on behalf of all parents, not wanting them to go through what she has been through.

    No, we don’t agree on that. She’s disrespectful of her dead son and his choices. She dishonors other vets. She’s self-centered and trying to hog the limelight, even when her 15 minutes of fame are up. Even Democrats don’t want to be near her these days.

  25. The problem I’ve found is that the people you listed don’t want to address these points. What they continuously do is to create different words to express the same position. There is little discussion of the total perspective of a consistent pro-life position. You could call it cherrypicking.

    That’s because you don’t really want to have that discussion. Being pro-life doesn’t mean a murderer has the same right to life as a baby, and I make no bones about that. If you want to worry about consistency of that magnitude, you’ll find plenty on the left, as well. They are completely pro-choice, anti-war, anti-death penalty. That’s pretty inconsistent. You could call that hypocrisy.

  26. Perry wrote:

    My other point was to mention the terrorism that pro-life/anti-abortion extremists exhibit.

    But even if that is the comparison you wish to take, it’s a poor one. Terrorists attempt to kill random people, in large numbers, and preferably in a spectacular manner, to instill terror in others. The killings of abortionists have been done small-scale, with methods designed to kill only the abortionist himself, though in a couple of cases, a family member was injured. Those efforts have not been attempts to kill masses or people.

    Property attacks on abortion clinics show a pattern of activity after hours, attempts to damage the facility to prevent future abortions from being performed there, and to avoid hurting the people on the premises. You might call that misguided or futile, but it certainly doesn’t seem like terrorism.

  27. I imagine she’s looking for an explanation why her child died for a lie, you heartless piece of shit.

    Yeah, like you really have a heart, Pho. Even on Pandagon, I rarely see you post anything that’s actually nice to anybody. Usually just snide comments and snarky attempts at humor.

    Do you have anywhere (online or “real” world) a single person who actually likes you?

  28. You answer Pho in kind and he becomes unhinged.

    Uh-huh.

    The woman was a deranged radical before her son died. Perhaps his military service was prompted by his disgust for the actions of his mother.

    Tell us, were you quite as repulsive before you started going senile, or is this merely a symptom?

  29. Yeah, like you really have a heart, Pho. Even on Pandagon, I rarely see you post anything that’s actually nice to anybody. Usually just snide comments and snarky attempts at humor.

    Wassamatter? Poor widdle wingnut can dish it out but can’t take it?

  30. The one thing that strikes me about Mrs Sheehan is that she is so single-minded. She lives in Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district, and tried to challenge Mrs Pelosi in the 2008 election, her issue being that Mrs Pelosi wouldn’t consider impeaching President Bush. Well, even if she had managed to unseat Mrs Pelosi, she’d have been in Congress for only seventeen days before President Bush’s term ended. Quixotic would be the kindest word to describe such an effort.

    The protests she led in Crawford, I can understand: George Bush was President then. But disrupting his neighborhood now, when he is no longer President, when he can do nothing she wants, strikes me as worse than pointless; it strikes me as just plain rude. She’s not mad only at George Bush; she angry at the people who voted for George Bush, at the people who don’t hate his guts.

    As for whether she is actually deranged, I think the best answer is to quote General Buck Turgitson in the movie Dr Strangelove: “I’d like to hold off judgement on a thing like that until all the facts are in.”

  31. The brainless harridan Sheehan has become rather boring and less than newsworthy. Why give her any face time?

    Had she been initially apolitical and her son been a pacifist who was conscripted and forced into battle and died, one could understand her actions. But this was not the case. She was obviously a dedicated radical before her son enlisted. Perhaps he did so as a reaction to mom’s radicalism. The virrago might be engaging in a bit of blame shifting.

    Exploitation of children to attain a political objective is nothing new. The Marxist and Atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair brought suit against the Baltimore School Board that eventually banned school prayer. There was never a prayer said at the school, only Bible reading from the Old or New Testament. It was voluntary and those who did not participate suffered nothing. The lies did convince the Supreme Court and the Mom made a lot of money playing the atheist game. Some of her associates became envious of the hoard of gold she had accumulated so they whacked her. Big loss.

    Her son admitted that the whole case was built around lies fashioned by mom. His reaction was to be part of the born again crowd.

  32. Well, I apparently am! Before the 2008 campaign, I thought that feminism was about empowering women to be successful, to allow them to break free of traditional stereotypes and limitations. The 2008 campaign freed me of such silly notions. Feminism is about breaking free from old stereotypes, and allowing women to be successful within new stereotypes, to exchange the harness of old traditions for the restraints of the new dogma.

    It amazes me that we have spent so much time in our society moving away from the notion that only white men can have respected and varying opinions to where only white men can have respected and varying opinions; non-whites, white women, members of any particular minority you wish to name — with the possible exception of Jews — are Expected To Conform to whatever the current liberal orthodoxy says their positions should be based upon their membership in whatever demographic is at hand, or they are simply dismissed as the unwitting stooges or lackeys of white men.

    We dealt with this misrepresentation of feminist response to Sarah Palin’s candidacy last time we had this discussion, and I can provide the links again, if you need – feminists were, naturally, conflicted about Palin (and remain so). For a feminist, any time a woman is afforded the chance to excel in a traditionally male domain (to say nothing of doing so in domain that some will still argue is naturally more suited to men than to women), it’s cause for celebration. Palin is/was a challenging case, because many of her beliefs run directly counter to some core feminist beliefs: that the right to terminate a pregnancy rests entirely with the pregnant woman, for example, and that “traditional values” have often served mainly to shore up male control of societal institutions & norms, and that millenia of governmentally-sanctioned male control require active measures of redress rather than a “well, turns out we’re equal” – that done things require undoing.

    So, as I always put it, and as the places I linked for you last time you pretended not to know this pointed out: Palin’s candidacy was a welcome challenge to orthodoxy in feminism, which should always strive for maximum diversity. Does that mean nobody hated Palin in feminist places? Well, of course not; you’d have to be stupid to think, “a feminist who supports the feminist principles that 1) made Palin’s candidacy possible in the first place and 2) are made manifest in that candidacy must therefore think Sarah Palin is real swell.” Of course loads of us hate Sarah Palin; her beliefs are noxious and she hasn’t got an honest bone in her body. But hating Sarah Palin, fiercely, doesn’t impact one’s feminist credentials, any more than hating Hilary Clinton does; it’s the motivation for the hate & the way it’s expressed that makes one misogynist.

    Always happy to elucidate matters for my neophyte feminist friend Dana!

  33. So, as I always put it, and as the places I linked for you last time you pretended not to know this pointed out: Palin’s candidacy was a welcome challenge to orthodoxy in feminism, which should always strive for maximum diversity.

    Oh Lordy, what a hoot! Diversity in feminism (chortle, snort)???!? Yeah, right. Diversity means having a black feminist, a white feminist, a Jewish feminist, a lesbian/bisexual/transgender feminist, etc., all of whom march in perfect ideological lock step.

    Oh, and throw in a few parakeet males as well, all parroting the Party Line.

    Bottom line: The reason feminists hate Sarah Palin is she dares to think for herself.

  34. Sharon reveals herself as an extremist: “That’s because you don’t really want to have that discussion. Being pro-life doesn’t mean a murderer has the same right to life as a baby, and I make no bones about that. If you want to worry about consistency of that magnitude, you’ll find plenty on the left, as well. They are completely pro-choice, anti-war, anti-death penalty. That’s pretty inconsistent. You could call that hypocrisy.”

    Only extremists use the term “baby” instead of foetus. Only extremists would take choice from women and dictate their personal decisions. Only extremists would be inconsistent on pro-life issues, supporting the death penalty, supporting wars of choice. It is obvious that you, Sharon, have earned the characterization of an extremist. So what’s next now?

  35. Dana says about Cindy Sheehan: “She’s not mad only at George Bush; she angry at the people who voted for George Bush, at the people who don’t hate his guts.”

    You know from experience, Dana, that people express their grief in different ways. Cindy Sheehan has chosen her way, to protest, to continue to protest the war and the man who led us into it, that led to her son’s death in April 2004. Most of us cannot put ourselves in her shoes, so why not just feel sad for her suffering and tolerate however she chooses to express it.

    In contrast to Dana, we have Art Downs, the “heartless shit”. Look at his latest: “The brainless harridan Sheehan has become rather boring and less than newsworthy. Why give her any face time?

    Had she been initially apolitical and her son been a pacifist who was conscripted and forced into battle and died, one could understand her actions. But this was not the case. She was obviously a dedicated radical before her son enlisted. Perhaps he did so as a reaction to mom’s radicalism. The virrago might be engaging in a bit of blame shifting.”

    All I have left to say to you, Art, is the wish that you never lose a son or daughter by the hands of a sudden, violent confrontation. Is it a calamity like that which will cause you to garner some sympathy and understanding for the suffering of a grieving parent? I hope for your sake that you will let your heart rule your head, for a welcomed change. That’s not weakness, Art, it is strength, a strength that you have yet to experience, apparently!

  36. Eric, I know you think saying “nuh-uh!” counts as discourse, but it doesn’t. You might start here and you might also look here for some examples of traditionally conservative areas embracing some or all of the traditionally feminist agenda. I know that most or all of what you know about feminism comes from people selling you old stereotypes, but in point of fact, feminism is neither inherently conservative nor liberal. Feminists do tend to become liberal because conservatives took so long to come around on some of the non-negotiable points of feminism (equal pay for equal work, for example), but it’s a wider playing field now.

    I don’t imagine you’re interested in actually knowing about that, though; you prefer caricature to accurate representation, it seems.

  37. what’s your stance on American citizens being tortured by foreign governments? Pho asks Dana.

    I shall answer for Dana and beg his pardon for butting in.

    Americans were maltreated and even murdered by our enemies. This was done in great numbers.

    This was seldom done to extract information. The Bataan Death March was torturous and has been excused as being the result of poor planning. Some Japanese officers swung for the crime. Far too few, it seems, as we only hanged about 1,000.

    American POWs were forced to work as slave laborers in Japan. The civilian workers on Wake Island were murdered by their captors.

    In Korea and Vietnam, some POWs were tortured to force them to utter lies, not reveal military truths.

    Few American POWs have really valuable information to provide.

    Not so with the terror establishment. We seem to have used waterboarding effectively to get information that saved American lives. Get over it and keep up the good work when benefits can be derived from it. How many Islamic reporters have we beheaded? How many bodies have we desecrated?

    I suppose that the Pho gets her jollies playing her deck of ‘Hate America’ cards. None of them are aces…. Her rants are amusing and bring to mind some lines from MacBeth: “Like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

  38. Perry wrote:

    Only extremists use the term “baby” instead of foetus.

    Seriously? Have you ever met a pregnant woman? Watched any later episodes of Friends, maybe? What a silly comment you made.

  39. Not quite what I was asking, Art. What’s your stance on foreign governments torturing American citizens now – such as this:

    In criminal custody, Mr. X told both his family and the U.S. consular officer who visited him that he had been severely tortured: repeatedly beaten on his head, kicked on his sides, stripped and held in a freezing cold room, placed in an electric chair and made to believe that he would be electrocuted, and held down in a stress position while his captors beat the bottoms of his feet with a large stick. During this horrific process, he said whatever the agents wanted him to say, and those statements may now be used against him in a criminal trial in {Foreign country}

    I think the opinions of the commentators here would be interesting.

    He’s being held in a Middle Eastern country on non-specific charges of “promoting terrorism”. He was an immigrant to the US who studied there, built up a successful business, started a family, became a citizen, and then moved overseas – and is now being tortured in jail. In your opinions, what should the US do about it?

  40. First of all, information obtained by enhanced interrogation is going to be inadmissible in an American court of law, so the situation you listed above does not apply. We weren’t looking for things on which to convict these prisoners, but information to try to disrupt the plans of their organizations.

    As for foreigners torturing or murdering Americans, Daniel Pearl is simply one of the most recognizable names, but Islamic terrorists have been doing this all along.

  41. Pho, would you be kind enough to link that story, so that we know a few more details, like what foreign country for instance?

  42. As for foreigners torturing or murdering Americans, Daniel Pearl is simply one of the most recognizable names, but Islamic terrorists have been doing this all along.

    Dana, we’re not talking about terrorists. We’re talking about a foreign government. What exactly should the US’s stance be in this situation?

    Pho, would you be kind enough to link that story, so that we know a few more details, like what foreign country for instance?

    I will when people have had a chance to express their opinions. There is a twist (and no, the country is not Israel).

  43. I suppose that the Pho gets her jollies playing her deck of ‘Hate America’ cards. None of them are aces…. Her rants are amusing and bring to mind some lines from MacBeth: “Like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

    you really ought to get your quotes right when you’re trying to affect the learned-Mr-Downs pose. there’s no “like” in the line. It’s: “life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player/that struts and frets his hour upon the stage/and then is heard no more! it is a tale/told by an idiot, full of sound and fury/signifying nothing.”

  44. Only extremists use the term “baby” instead of foetus.

    And only pompous, overly-impressed-with-themselves pinheads use the term “Foetus” …

  45. So Eric makes up his own dictionary, and then dives into the ad hominem game. Unimpressive, Eric!

  46. Representives of the Japanese nation tortured and murdered a lot of unarmed people, including Allied POWs. One officer even practiced cannibalism on prisoners.

    In our war with the terror establishment, are not in a traditional conflict with a state but an amorphous entity with links to state sponsors. Iran is rather active and one might question what rational interest they have in Lebanon. Libya was providing weapons to both extreme groups in Northern Ireland.

    How does one combat such evil? The ACLU and assorted Liberals favor a ‘law enforcement’ approach that involves after-the-fact actions with a full set of loopholes available to captured suspects. The ACLU and friends hate the USA as we know it and their actions that allegedly protect the majority by granting new ‘rights’ to thugs is getting a bit tiresome. The ‘Law Enforcement’ approach included the infamous ‘Gorelick Wall’ that limited the exchange of information among agencies.

    We need preemptive action and the harsh punishment of regimes that sponsor terrorism and provide funds or logistical support.

    How many subjects of our interrogation have died as a result of the action?

    How do we treat the monsters who gave us the Achille Lauro outrage, the Munich Massacre, the bombing of the USS Cole, and a host of other deadly act? Read them their rights?

  47. Perry lie – o – meter this week = 2

    1 – Only extremists use the term “baby” instead of foetus. Demonstrably false, just talk to a woman in her pregnancy and ask her what he has inside of her.

    2 – We prosecuted Japanese in WWII for “waterboarding.” False, that was water torture, which drowns people by jamming water down their throats. Plus, that wasn’t the worst of what they did.

    Unimpressive, Perry!

  48. How do we treat the monsters who gave us the Achille Lauro outrage, the Munich Massacre, the bombing of the USS Cole, and a host of other deadly act? Read them their rights?

    I’m sure this was a rhetorical question, but, according to the Weekly Standard, yes…

    [T]he Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee…

  49. Today it’s Miranda rights. Next it’ll be little yellow soccer cards and time outs standing in the corner, or sending them back to their terrorist hideout caves without dessert. Nothing surprises me anymore!

  50. Eric, the correct term during gestation is foetus, or fetus if you like. Look it up in the dictionary. Words have meanings, you know?

    On waterboarding, you are mincing words here. Water torture describes waterboarding. Isn’t it interesting that even for $1000 per second, Hannity, who said he would undergo waterboarding, backed out, just like you are here Eric.

    Torture is torture, and there are many ways to do it. Apparently Eric and Art could care less, proof of their moral depravity on the subject.

    And on Miranda rights — that’s our law, folks, so is habeas corpus. Don’t we pride ourselves anymore on the rule of law. Without it, anybody could be rounded up and detained indefinitely without having their day in court. Even you!!! Is that what you folks want, Eric, Art and Joe S.

    You folks don’t deserve to call yourselves Americans anymore, as you so easily let our values slip on an hysterical whim!

  51. Perry, you are beclowning yourself.

    1 – Please do walk up to a pregnant woman talking about her “baby” and correct her, preferably explaining the British spelling to her as well.

    2 – Water torture i suppose could describe waterboarding. But you should have been more clear and said “Water cure” which was what the Japanese did in WWII, and what you incorrectly described as “waterboarding.” Not the same thing. Water cure can result in death. Waterboarding induces fear. See a difference there?

    Forced ingestion

    Main article: Water cure
    In this form of water torture, water is forced down the throat and into the stomach. This happens repeatedly until osmosis causes the cells to explode. It was used as a legal torture and execution method by the courts in France in the 17th and 18th century, was employed against Americans and Chinese during World War II by the Japanese, and was also used against Filipinos by American Forces during the Philippine-American War. The Human Rights Watch organization reports that in the 2000s, security forces in Uganda sometimes forced a detainee to lie face up under an open water spigot.[1]
    Water intoxication can result from drinking too much water, and this has caused some fatalities over the years in fraternities during initiation week. For example, a person was hazed to death by Chi Tau of Chico State (California) in 2005 via the forcing of pushups and the drinking of water from a bottle. [2]
    [edit]Fear of drowning

    Main article: Waterboarding
    Waterboarding refers to a technique involving water poured over the face or head of the subject, in order to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning. Often a wet cloth is placed in the subjects mouth, giving them the impression that they are drowning.

    As for Miranda rights being “our law,” apparently wartime Afghanistan is now peacetime America. Who knew?

  52. OK carlitos, I will concede that pregnant women speak of their baby. That has become common usage. However when it comes to technical discussions about abortion, it is inflammatory language to speak of “murdering babies”, because strictly speaking, the unborn is a foetus, or fetus if you like that spelling better.

    I’ll also concede your point on “water cure”, a term I was not familiar with. From your research, it appears that we used this technique against Filipinos, but tried the Japanese for using the same against us in WWII. Doesn’t seem right, does it? Waterboarding doesn’t seem right either, because it is torture. Yet Cheney/Bush/Rice claimed that we do not torture. We have a biiiiig problem here, carlitos.

    Regarding Miranda rights for detainees, I support that, and habeas corpus. Both are foundations in our practice of justice, correct? Do we not wish to honor our rule of law, only when we choose. That’s tantamount to tyranny, don’t you think. The way you’d have it, we could round up anyone we wished outside of the US, and hold them indefinitely without ever charging them and bringing them to justice. We already have! Is this what you want, carlitos?

  53. Perry produces a linguistic problem:

    OK carlitos, I will concede that pregnant women speak of their baby. That has become common usage. However when it comes to technical discussions about abortion, it is inflammatory language to speak of “murdering babies”, because strictly speaking, the unborn is a foetus, or fetus if you like that spelling better.

    I’ll also concede your point on “water cure”, a term I was not familiar with. From your research, it appears that we used this technique against Filipinos, but tried the Japanese for using the same against us in WWII. Doesn’t seem right, does it? Waterboarding doesn’t seem right either, because it is torture. Yet Cheney/Bush/Rice claimed that we do not torture. We have a biiiiig problem here, carlitos.

    This is interesting: you have said that, technically, an unborn child is a fetus, and it is “inflammatory language” to use the term “baby,” even though you concede many pregnant women do refer to their unborn children as babies.

    Yet, when it comes to waterboarding, you have insisted that it is torture, and continue to use that word, even though there is considerable legal opinion that it is not. I know that you are honest enough to admit that your insistence on the word “torture” is meant to be inflammatory and use emotion to push the debate in your favor.

    Of course, the difference between us using “water cure” on the Filipinos and the Japanese using it on captured American soldiers is very simple: we won, and the Japanese lost.

  54. However when it comes to technical discussions about abortion, it is inflammatory language to speak of “murdering babies”, because strictly speaking, the unborn is a foetus, or fetus if you like that spelling better.

    Oh be honest. It’s inflammatory only to those who are pro-abortion, with whom it’s crucial to keep it a fetus, a blob, a mass of tissue, anything but what it really is. If you speak to those who are pro-life, it is a baby.

    It’s funny you mention technical discussions about abortion because I recently had several discussions about abortion with an oncology nurse, an MD, and a college prof who teaches A&P and biology, and all of them referred to what was in the womb and what is aborted, as a baby. Maybe it’s something in the water out here, eh?

  55. How does one combat such evil?

    Ooooh wait, let me guess:

    i, By becoming evil ourselves.

    ii, By starting wars unrelated to terrorists attacking us, draining away resources and attention from actual threats.

    iii, By alienating neutrals and allies through our policies.

    iv, By spying on our own people.

    I can has wingnut pundit gig, pls?

  56. Meanwhile, another right-wing terrorist has martyred himself and, once again, the silence on this blog speaks volumes. To paraphrase 30 percent of all right-wing blog output; where’s the outrage?

  57. Regarding Miranda rights for detainees, I support that, and habeas corpus. Both are foundations in our practice of justice, correct? Do we not wish to honor our rule of law, only when we choose. That’s tantamount to tyranny, don’t you think. The way you’d have it, we could round up anyone we wished outside of the US, and hold them indefinitely without ever charging them and bringing them to justice. We already have! Is this what you want, carlitos?

    So, when we are at war, in other countries, we will operate under the laws of the United States of America. That is what you want?

    So, when Kennedy and Johnson sent US soldiers to Vietnam, you wanted them to operate under US peacetime law? To attempt to arrest Viet Cong, rather than shoot them, yes? Perhaps they could shout, in Vietnamese “stop or I’ll shoot” and then wait to see what happens. Read them their rights, put them in custody, and try them in US courts? You are being silly.

    Phoenician, I’m starting to figure out that you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

  58. When Cindy Sheehan started raising the dickens, because after her son died, assuming he had been going to retaliate for Al Queda, as so many of those signing up did, and discovered he’d committed himself to something not only unjustified, illegal, and lacking in honor and humanity, which he was having to participate in, then died, and his mother was realizing the same thing, the amount of horror and resentment, you war supporters can only guess how it might feel. Remember, I’m talking about getting killed for deceptions upon us, the American people. Yes she’s pissed off. Why shouldn’t she be?

    But, she knows the crap the Right-wing media will throw at her, but she does it anyway. You all say alot about yourselves by assuming it’s all for the spotlight. It doesn’t have much to do with herself anymore. It has to do with the continuation of an illegal, dishonest, war of aggression, in which human beings are losing their lives, their limbs, and their sanity. The tragic emotional and physical repercussions down through their years, if they survive the war, will be an gargantuan misery to bear. Many will decide to take their own lives. Others will live in perpetual rage, with their families in shock all around them. Others will become alcoholics, or all of the above. This is an abuse of trust in which Bush and gang pulled, violating the fine honorable men and women of our military, which is hard to even grasp the reality of, since it is so ghastly.

    Bottom line, Sheehan never claimed it was about her. It’s about the lives of soldiers and their families, and the innocent victims of the bombings, we orchestrate, who she is verbally fighting for. Funny how you would percieve it in the perspective of “being in the spotlight”. Why is that YOUR perspective? That is what you all are thinking about, the spotlight, NOT the lives lost of innocent human beings.

    Not to mention that each time we drop a bomb, we are increasing the number of those committed to killing Americans, that may not have felt that way prior. That’s common sense, but you stopped using your own common sense, when you became a Right-winger. You stopped supporting all our country stood for by obliging Bush and Cheney back into the days of barbarism, with all power given to the new Monarch GWB and surrounding devotees.

    Then you act like our disgust of GWB is something that makes us crazy and “bad”, but the criminal operations of this cabal need to be called out. If you don’t have the honor to do it, then, you’ve shown the colors of your heart, and soul, and it looks more and more like a black hole, you call your heart. You abandoned your country when you decided torture, war of aggression, depleted uranium use, cluster bombs, land minds, white phosphorous (virtual napalm), and countless other horrors were OK w/ you all when Bush did it. Wellness of humanity (including our own troops) not a concern of you all Righites. Well, Cindy Sheehan does care, and she’ll go yell her guts out about it,a true Patriot with the spirit of a tiger, a mother tiger at that. Why is it okay for our sons and daughters to die for deceptions and conquests by our elitist government war profiteers? Why don’t you give a damn?

  59. So, when Kennedy and Johnson sent US soldiers to Vietnam, you wanted them to operate under US peacetime law? To attempt to arrest Viet Cong, rather than shoot them, yes?

    Nope. When the US picks up and incarcerates people who may be innocent or may be murderers, and are not soldiers, and are not part of an organised army, then I want them to act as a civilized country.

    Instead of one that tortures people to death.

  60. Cindy Sheehan was a radical long before her son died. She is a shameless bitch who has exploited his death to further her agenda.

    What more can be said about her?

    Was she a loving mom and wife before her son died and then was driven by emotion to become an ‘activist’?

  61. The ACLU and assorted Liberals favor a ‘law enforcement’ approach

    You’re being too generous, Art. What the ACLU and their ilk really favor is surrender and appeasement.

  62. So, when we are at war, in other countries, we will operate under the laws of the United States of America. That is what you want?

    What Pho really wants is for us to lose. ‘Nuff said.

  63. “Cindy Sheehan was a radical long before her son died. She is a shameless bitch who has exploited his death to further her agenda.”

    I’m sorry, but another “heartless shit” has just spoken!

    A “radical” by whose definition, Art?

    Is one who is against the Cheney/Bush Iraq War of choice a radical?

    I suspect that anyone who does not endorse Art’s ideology is a radical.

  64. Eric: “What the ACLU and their ilk really favor is surrender and appeasement.”

    Prove it, Eric!

    What does the ACLU have to do with this discussion anyway?

    For your information, the ACLU has traditionally been an advocate for the rule of law, Constitutionally based.
    http://www.aclu.org/about/

  65. blubonnet, the reason some people don’t take Cindy Sheehan seriously is that her actions are illogical. Nothing anyone can do will make her happy. Hence “protesting” at the former President’s home, when he has no power to do anything. Or running against Pelosi, for that matter. She would be acting in exactly the same way, no matter what the reason for her son’s death. She was being used by Code Pink and the like, which makes her a bit pathetic. Meeting a dictator like Hugo Chavez? What did that have to do with her son?

    That she and you believe the Iraq war was for “lies, deceptions, empire, profiteering” has been argued about every armed conflict in history. It’s not a new argument. The praetor railed against “war profiteers” back in 215 B.C., when he suggested that suppliers donate provisions for Spain on credit, levied a double tributum and spent millions of dinari of the citizens’ private savings on the Africa and Macedonia campaigns.

  66. other Dana: “Oh be honest. It’s inflammatory only to those who are pro-abortion, ….”

    You got that wrong. You zealots have a hard time comprehending, or don’t wish to comprehend, the fact that one can be pro-life/anti-abortion, yet regard the ultimate decision to be with the woman involved. I refer to you folks as zealots, because of your insistence on dictating your morals to another person. So, I am being honest, you are the one who is not. I don’t expect you to understand the distinction, Dana, but you might want to try!

  67. Carlitos, what you are missing is that sometimes grieving people often do not behave logically. Can’t you cut this suffering lady some slack?

  68. Every time you all attack the ACLU, you are saying that civil liberties are not important to our country.

    If an undesirable organization has something to say that we don’t agree with, well, if we prohibit their right to say it, we will be prohibitting ourselves from saying something disagreeable in the future.

    The organization is beside the point, the right for EVERYONE to have their civil rights is the issue. That is such an American standard, free speech, civil rights. Why do I have to tell you that? Didn’t you take high school social studies?

  69. I don’t imagine you’re interested in actually knowing about that, though; you prefer caricature to accurate representation, it seems.

    Uh, sure. This, from the fellow who just before had said this:

    Of course loads of us hate Sarah Palin; her beliefs are noxious and she hasn’t got an honest bone in her body.

    To quote PJ O’Rourke – Words fail me.

  70. You got that wrong. You zealots have a hard time comprehending, or don’t wish to comprehend, the fact that one can be pro-life/anti-abortion, yet regard the ultimate decision to be with the woman involved. I refer to you folks as zealots, because of your insistence on dictating your morals to another person.

    Yeah, darn those abolitionists anyway, trying to impose their morality on the slave owners. After all, if you don’t like slavery, then don’t own slaves! (To paraphrase the pro-aborts favorite retort to the pro-life people)

  71. Then you act like our disgust of GWB is something that makes us crazy and “bad”, but the criminal operations of this cabal need to be called out. If you don’t have the honor to do it, then, you’ve shown the colors of your heart, and soul, and it looks more and more like a black hole, you call your heart.

    These sort of vicious personal attacks will get you about as far with sane and reasonable people as your 9/11 Twoofer crap.

    PS Cindy Sheehan’s son seemed to believe what he was doing in Iraq was honorable. I can see his mom being a bit unhinged at his death, but c’mon, it’s now been 5 years, it’s time for her to get back in touch with reality, and actually honor her son’s death instead of turning it into an increasingly loony crusade (I mean, honestly, running against Nancy Pelosi because she’s not left wing enough?!??)

  72. 11 June 2009, 9:24 am

    I hope you didn’t get hurt tripping over your insufferable arrogance, Perry. Or maybe you’re just used to it by now.

    p.s. no distinction to understand here: your comment was rife with hypocrisy. Perhaps you might want to work through that. It renders one a far more honest person.

  73. Again I ask, was Cindy Sheehan a typical loving wife and mother before becoming unhinged by the death of her son?

    Was she a radical bitch who shamelessly exploited the death of her brave son?

    Was the son’s military service a form of penance for the sins of his mother?

  74. Other Dana: “insufferable arrogance”, “hypocrisy” — You just throw those ad hominems out there, without explanation, therefore they are inconsequential.

    I understand that to disagree with you brings out these insults, so I ask you now, who is being arrogant? Now be honest, Dana.

    Art, all three of those questions are front-loaded with intentional acrimony. You are just unable to cut this woman any slack, while you continue on with your heartless shitery. Shame on you!!!

    Eric, in my view it takes great courage to got out there and do what Cindy has done. Since you obviously don’t agree with her politics, then speak out against her politics. Why do you feel compelled to attack this grieving woman continuously? Perhaps I could have some understanding of your sentiments had you lost a son or daughter in the Iraq or Afghanistan Wars.

    And by the way, for the record, I am extremely disappointed that Obama’s policy has been to escalate his (now) war in Afghanistan. On that point I am as critical of Obama as I was of Bush when he was building us up for his Iraq War in 2002-2003.

  75. Eric clutches his pearls and collapses on teh fainting couch with: These sort of vicious personal attacks

    Meanwhile, let’s go through this thread:

    “Sheehan is dain bramaged, deeply deeply bramaged.”, “Looking forward to seeing her marching dazedly around under that trademark floppy hat, while singing Kumbaya, with all the other limp-armed retreads of her generation”, “The woman was a deranged radical before her son died”, “I would have gone over just to laugh at them”, “Deranged, stupid, waste of carbon”, “The brainless harridan Sheehan”, “Was she a radical bitch who shamelessly exploited the death of her brave son”.

    Uh-huh.

    And something I missed above – the wingnuts seems to be perfectly happy to have American citizens seized and tortured by foreign governments if the American government asks them to. Apparently, the government can do no wrong if the citizens in question have Arab names.

  76. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    Really, Yorkshire? And can you provide quotes from her backing up this thesis, or do you believe that any dissent with government policy is treason?

    You’re on a roll tonight Pho, two funnies in a row. Where did I say treason? OOOOPPPS, can’t find that. But if the rhetoric of anti-war is to stop war, then a mental nut case Jihadist had the perfect solution in his mind, kill a soldier. And since dear Cindy has been virulently anti-war, who’s to say he wasn’t affected by her?

Comments are closed.