Two Mothers

[theshire]

We’ve all heard of Casey Sheeehan’s mother. She’s everywhere. A Google News search for "cindy sheehan" turns up almost 16,000 references. But I’ll bet you’ve never heard of Sally Goodrich (http://www.berkshireeagle.com/localnews/ci_2965727).

Read the linked article for the details. Sally Goodrich took her grief and channelled it into something positive. She hasn’t prostituted the death of her son. She hasn’t attached herself to publicity whores like Code Pink, Michael Moore, or MoveOn. She chose her task, and went about it with a quiet dignity. When you do a Google News search for "sally goodrich", guess how many references turn up.

One, the article linked in this post.

Now, if you were to ask a representative of the mainstream media about this discrepancy they would undoubtedly respond with something to the effect that Casey Sheehan’s mother is newsworthy, that she’s someone the public is interested in learning more about, no matter what their views on the war might be. In this I am in total agreement: she is newsworthy and should be reported on. But the larger question is: how did Casey Sheehan’s mother become this media sensation in the first place? Because when you think about it, the only real difference between these two mothers is the amount of press coverage they are receiving. Both took a tragedy and channelled it into a cause. Why is one cause more worthy of press attention than the other?

It’s simple. As is beyond dispute, the media lean left. In the run up to the war the individual reporters were undoubtedly opposed to the war for personal reasons, but it was hard to argue with the justification that Saddam had WMD. Everyone, and I mean everyone, agreed that this was so. So while they wrote editorials about the ensuing quagmire, they really couldn’t attack the justification for the war on logical, factual grounds. Then, when it turned out that the pre-war intel was wrong, their left-wing brethren attacked the media for "not doing its job". There was one major paper (the NY Times?) that actually ran an editorial apologising to America for accepting the intel as it was presented, and not questioning it more, as if there was any way that they could have disputed what every major western intelligence service agreed was true. So, with egg all over their liberal faces, they have to somehow redeem themselves, and they see in Casey Sheehan’s mother the opportunity to do so. She’s the perfect martyr for the anti-war cause, and by promoting her under the guise of her "newsworthiness" they can claim an unbiased stance; they’re not reporting on her to promote her position, they’re just reporting on her because she’s news. But the only reason she’s news in the first place is because they chose to report on her. They’ve created their own self-fulfilling prophecy, in a way.

Why is Sally Goodrich any less newsworthy? Well, because nobody has heard of her. And why has nobody heard of her? Because the media aren’t reporting her story. Why is Casey Sheehan’s mother newsworthy? Because everyone has heard of her. And why has everyone heard of her? Because the media have been inundating the public with her story for the past few weeks. If the media had given Sally Goodrich the kind of press attention that they bestowed on Casey Sheehan’s mother then Sally Goodrich would be a household name. And if the media had ignored Casey Sheehan’s mother as they have Sally Goodrich, then the former would be nothing more than a wrinkly old bag sitting in a lawn chair, baking in the Texas sun. Of course, it’s hard to ignore Casey Sheehan’s mother when you have an army of well-funded liberal PR flacks making sure that her every utterance is recorded for posterity and broadcast to the world. Every utterance, that is, except for the one where she referred to the Islamofascists now terrorizing Iraq as "freedom fighters" and said of America, "This country is not worth dying for" (Link (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm) here).

Strange that the mainstream media would neglect to report on these highly inflammatory remarks, isn’t it? If Casey Sheehan’s mother is so newsworthy, wouldn’t reporting these types of polarising, offensive remarks be even more newsworthy? It seems to me that they would be, yet I haven’t seen these referenced anywhere but the online media and blogosphere. I wonder why that could be?

It’s amazing the type of "grass roots" campaign you can organise when you’ve got multimillionaire liberals and left-wing PR firms managing your every move, and a compliant media doing everything they can to portray you in the best possible light.

[kis123]

Shire:

I saw your post earlier and chose not to knee-jerk and to give it some thought. So here I am between bites of lunch comtemplating your post. Here are my thoughts:

Cindy Sheehan wasn't the first anti-war protester that got publicity. Remember the civilian contractor (who's name I presently don't remember) was beheaded? His father spoke out against the war, and a lot of people raised hell about it. Many pulled out their flags, chanted patriotism, and basically dismissed the man who grieved in outrage about his son's death.

Prior to that, all the dead soldiers parents and family talked about how the soldiers died heroes, how they believe in what they were doing over there, so on and on. Before I get uncerimoniously jumped, although very much anti-war, I respect and appreciate the soldiers' efforts in doing their appointed jobs and do believe they did die as heroes. They should be remembered that way. I can separate the war from the soldiers who fight in it.

While Ms Sheehan gained national attention by parking on the president's ranch, 18 members of a unit based about 25 minutes from my home were killed within less than a week. The parents of those soldiers didn't get national attention, but those who spoke, almost all spoke out against the war and wanted an explanation from the president why the war is going on after the objevctive of ousting Saddam had long ago been met. Those people weren't shown on national television.

I don't know why Sheehan waited 14 months to get angry enough to speak out. I don't know why her plea for one hour of Bush's time got so much press. I know it has cost her a lot-she lost both her son to the war and her husband to divorce. If I'm correct, her mother is ill as well.

One of the founding principles that makes America great is our Constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech. Yet, she speaks out against the war and the first thing people do is try to shut her down. She is within her right to speak out if she so desires whether we agree with her or not. Obviously her speaking out has created a lot of dialogue and, like her or not, her actions have caused almost every adult to form an opinion and position be if for or against the war.

If parents of fallen soldiers still want to support the war, by all means do so. I have no problem with them at all. But as far as the media is concerned, when we were in the Gulf war, all media attention was pretty much pro-war. When we started in Iraq the second time, media was all for it in the beginning. But over two years later, Saddam is gone and there is no end in sight. Maybe Sheehan was a catalyst that the media could ride the anti-war sentiment on. But I don't blame her for it in the least and neither should anyone else. She doesn't control what the media does and does not report.

As far as Sally Goodrich is concerned, here is just what I think of her:

:bowing: :bowing: :bowing: :bowing: :bowing: :bowing:

Too bad the media doesn't find her family's efforts newsworthy. :sowrong:

[MrMacphisto]

Read the linked article for the details. Sally Goodrich took her grief and channelled it into something positive. She hasn’t prostituted the death of her son. She hasn’t attached herself to publicity whores like Code Pink, Michael Moore, or MoveOn. She chose her task, and went about it with a quiet dignity. When you do a Google News search for "sally goodrich", guess how many references turn up.

One, the article linked in this post.

Good point... Goodrich did something useful with the grief of her son.

Now, if you were to ask a representative of the mainstream media about this discrepancy they would undoubtedly respond with something to the effect that Casey Sheehan’s mother is newsworthy, that she’s someone the public is interested in learning more about, no matter what their views on the war might be. In this I am in total agreement: she is newsworthy and should be reported on. But the larger question is: how did Casey Sheehan’s mother become this media sensation in the first place? Because when you think about it, the only real difference between these two mothers is the amount of press coverage they are receiving. Both took a tragedy and channelled it into a cause. Why is one cause more worthy of press attention than the other?

Because one is more controversial than the other. This isn't about political sides, because if you'll remember, the media ran with the Monica Lewinsky thing too, and that's not exactly a liberal agenda. The media shows whatever will get ratings, and sadly, a mother protesting the war gets more viewers than a mother who started a school in Afghanistan. If you want to blame anyone, blame the audience they are pandering to.

If TV audiences were more interested in positive and educational stories, then PBS, the History Channel, the Discovery Channel and other channels like those would be the big winners when it comes to ratings. However, that's not what the people want: they want controversy and sensationalism. From Jerry Springer to Sheehan, they want something that fires them up. Fox News practically bases its entire programming on this principle.

This idea also applies to other mediums. How else do you explain the success of things like Talk Radio? People want to be entertained, not educated....

It’s simple. As is beyond dispute, the media lean left. In the run up to the war the individual reporters were undoubtedly opposed to the war for personal reasons, but it was hard to argue with the justification that Saddam had WMD. Everyone, and I mean everyone, agreed that this was so.

If Clinton had entered a war that most of the world was against, then the media would do the same things to him as they have done to Bush.

So while they wrote editorials about the ensuing quagmire, they really couldn’t attack the justification for the war on logical, factual grounds. Then, when it turned out that the pre-war intel was wrong, their left-wing brethren attacked the media for "not doing its job". There was one major paper (the NY Times?) that actually ran an editorial apologising to America for accepting the intel as it was presented, and not questioning it more, as if there was any way that they could have disputed what every major western intelligence service agreed was true. So, with egg all over their liberal faces, they have to somehow redeem themselves, and they see in Casey Sheehan’s mother the opportunity to do so. She’s the perfect martyr for the anti-war cause, and by promoting her under the guise of her "newsworthiness" they can claim an unbiased stance; they’re not reporting on her to promote her position, they’re just reporting on her because she’s news. But the only reason she’s news in the first place is because they chose to report on her. They’ve created their own self-fulfilling prophecy, in a way.

If you want to talk about self-fulfilling prophecies, try the fact that the more we piss off the Islamic community, the more we're going to have to enter war to stop terrorism. There are obviously certain media outlets that have a liberal agenda, but they are no more numerous than the conservative ones...

Why is Sally Goodrich any less newsworthy? Well, because nobody has heard of her. And why has nobody heard of her? Because the media aren’t reporting her story. Why is Casey Sheehan’s mother newsworthy? Because everyone has heard of her. And why has everyone heard of her? Because the media have been inundating the public with her story for the past few weeks. If the media had given Sally Goodrich the kind of press attention that they bestowed on Casey Sheehan’s mother then Sally Goodrich would be a household name. And if the media had ignored Casey Sheehan’s mother as they have Sally Goodrich, then the former would be nothing more than a wrinkly old bag sitting in a lawn chair, baking in the Texas sun. Of course, it’s hard to ignore Casey Sheehan’s mother when you have an army of well-funded liberal PR flacks making sure that her every utterance is recorded for posterity and broadcast to the world. Every utterance, that is, except for the one where she referred to the Islamofascists now terrorizing Iraq as "freedom fighters" and said of America, "This country is not worth dying for" (Link (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm) here).

It is true that the media's refusal to publicize Goodrich is indicative of the pathetic journalistic standards of this country, but like I said, this has a lot more to do with a fickle audience than a liberal agenda.

Strange that the mainstream media would neglect to report on these highly inflammatory remarks, isn’t it? If Casey Sheehan’s mother is so newsworthy, wouldn’t reporting these types of polarising, offensive remarks be even more newsworthy? It seems to me that they would be, yet I haven’t seen these referenced anywhere but the online media and blogosphere. I wonder why that could be?

Good point... but here's the thing... maybe they want to make her out to be a hero. That obviously is the liberal agenda you're speaking of, but... there's a commercial component here. If you can successfully turn a protester into a hero (whether she's liberal or conservative), then you've got a media blitz that can really bring in the advertising dough in between commercial breaks. Some people really get into this crap, and American culture in general is particularly vulnerable to the "hero" syndrome. How else do you explain the people that always focus on the heroism during 9-11 and among our troops? Obviously, when people give their lives to a cause, it should be respected and acknowledged, but you'd think audiences might also devote part of their attention to really analyzing the situation we're stuck in right now. We hear a lot of bickering about Iraq from the left and a lot of ass-kissing from the right, but few people seem to bring up viable solutions to this mess. In the meantime, we idolize the people who are dying for us, but this does nothing to really help them. We need solutions, so that we can minimize how many die....

It’s amazing the type of "grass roots" campaign you can organise when you’ve got multimillionaire liberals and left-wing PR firms managing your every move, and a compliant media doing everything they can to portray you in the best possible light.

It's no more amazing than what publicity an internet hack like Matt Drudge can gather when Fox News decides to give him air time.

[ShadowTklr]

Mac: It's a good thing we think so much alike or else I'd be pissed at how often you beat me to the punch. :jester: And you say so many of the same things, too.

Shire: Once again, you've put together an insightful and well written post. It should definitely give most of us reason for pause in that we should try and understand some of the nuances behind a story, even as we rally to defend or denounce it.

I do happen to agree with Mac in that media is probably much more motivated by advertising dollars and ratings, than they are politics, but I do agree with you that both sides of an issue really do need to be reported in order to give a well balanced perspective on what people are doing and thinking.

I'll add only one other thing. With the exception of deliberate liberal or conservative reporting, mainstream media is media for the people at large. Their responsibility should be to help make sense of complicated issues so those issues are easier to follow. The late Peter Jennings was one of those reporters whom I could usually count on to do that well. Being a "mainstream" kind of guy myself (independent, free thinking, and capable of discerning between substance and spin) I appreciate having that kind of mentality in mainstream news reporting. I think it is the obligation of reporters to give clear information, without having to spin its meaning one way or the other in order to appease a particular political agenda.

Thanks Shire for a good thread.

[MrMacphisto]

Mac: It's a good thing we think so much alike or else I'd be pissed at how often you beat me to the punch. :jester: And you say so many of the same things, too.

Thanks, Shadow... :)

With the exception of deliberate liberal or conservative reporting, mainstream media is media for the people at large. Their responsibility should be to help make sense of complicated issues so those issues are easier to follow. The late Peter Jennings was one of those reporters whom I could usually count on to do that well. Being a "mainstream" kind of guy myself (independent, free thinking, and capable of discerning between substance and spin) I appreciate having that kind of mentality in mainstream news reporting. I think it is the obligation of reporters to give clear information, without having to spin its meaning one way or the other in order to appease a particular political agenda.

Amen to that... but the public itself also has a responsibility to read between the lines, so that they can better recognize when they are being "spun" to. I realize that a lot of people are simple-minded enough to only be interested in hearing whatever confirms their uneducated opinions, but I still have a shred of hope that maybe, with a little effort, a significant portion of the populace can start truly thinking for itself by not immediately trusting what they see on TV. A little skepticism never hurt anyone, and a little investigative initiative could help these people educate themselves rather than depending on media outlets to tell them what to think....

[drew70]

If you two "free thinkers" :blaugh: are finished stroking each other, I'd like to get a word in edgewise here. The excuse you guys give doesn't cut it. You missed the whole point of how Cindy Sheehan was carefully orchestrated and set up. She wasn't newsworthy until the media decided to make her newsworthy. I have serious doubts that any significant number of people give a damn about Cindy Sheehan, yet they continue to report on her nonetheless. lol. It really is laughable if you step back and look at what's being done.

[ShadowTklr]

If you two "free thinkers" :blaugh: are finished stroking each other, I'd like to get a word in edgewise here. The excuse you guys give doesn't cut it. You missed the whole point of how Cindy Sheehan was carefully orchestrated and set up. She wasn't newsworthy until the media decided to make her newsworthy. I have serious doubts that any significant number of people give a damn about Cindy Sheehan, yet they continue to report on her nonetheless. lol. It really is laughable if you step back and look at what's being done.

Whatever, Drew. These pathetic little stingers of yours are hardly viable arguments in favor of anything other than your inability to see straight. I guess your theory is consistent with many radical conservatives who believe that when there is clearly no way to defend against truth, you should simply invent a defense. Hey, you and Johnny Cochrane suddenly have a lot in common. :triangle:

[asutickler]

Cindy Sheehan has been used by both sides of the war issue:

First she was used by Bush (or, more likely, by his handlers) as a photo-op. There's no better way to make the President seem sympathetic than by showing him greiving with the parents of fallen soldiers.

Later, once her grief over her son's death had turned to anger, the anti-war groups got hold of her... And they've been using her to push their agenda and gain TV time ever since.

[theshire]

Casey Sheehan’s mother wants respect (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/camp-casey-day-20_b_6302.html) for the use of her son’s memory.

Perhaps she and the left-wing scum whoring out the memories of these soldiers could show some respect to someone like Gary Qualls. I’ll let Mr. Qualls speak for himself (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050825-120635-1786r.htm):

Mr. Qualls, an Army veteran from Penwell, Texas, said he has removed three different crosses bearing his son’s name from the nearly 600 erected on the narrow road leading to Mr. Bush’s ranch. Each time he removed a cross, protesters replaced it, he said.

Is anyone surprised? Does anyone think, for a second, that these despicable people actually care about these soldiers? They care about them only as far as their value as instruments of propaganda to get publicity for their radical left-wing agenda. But hey, why care what the other parents of these dead soldiers think? After all, Casey Sheehan’s mother speaks for all of them, doesn’t she? And if she doesn’t, well, fuck them. They’re brainwashed.

[drew70]

Whatever, Drew. These pathetic little stingers of yours are hardly viable arguments in favor of anything other than your inability to see straight. I guess your theory is consistent with many radical conservatives who believe that when there is clearly no way to defend against truth, you should simply invent a defense. Hey, you and Johnny Cochrane suddenly have a lot in common. :triangle:LOL. Johnny Cochrane has a lot in common with a "radical conservative" like me? Yes, I'm sure he's voted Republican for the last twenty years, opposes Affirmative Action and Gun Control, and wishes OJ was rightfully convicted. :blaugh:

And what do you mean, "no way to defend against the truth"? Exactly what "truth" am I defending against? We're talking about Cindy Sheehan's so-called crusade, and how the liberally biased media constantly reports on her, while ignoring somebody like Sally Goodrich. You and Mac are trying to write off this descrepancy as reasons of sensationalism rather than political bias. I maintain that this sensationalism was groomed and nourished by the Media, who could have easily done the same, or better with Sally Goodrich or Gary Qualls. But since they don't hate Bush, they're not "newsworthy." Let's instead take this shrieking, cursing bitch and air her arrogant demands to meet the President. Oh wait? He met with her already? Shit. Well, have her make another demand! We can't drop this now, we'll lose our momentum! :illogical

Tell me once again, who is on the defensive here?

[ShadowTklr]

LOL. Johnny Cochrane has a lot in common with a "radical conservative" like me? Yes, I'm sure he's voted Republican for the last twenty years, opposes Affirmative Action and Gun Control, and wishes OJ was rightfully convicted. :blaugh:

And what do you mean, "no way to defend against the truth"? Exactly what "truth" am I defending against? We're talking about Cindy Sheehan's so-called crusade, and how the liberally biased media constantly reports on her, while ignoring somebody like Sally Goodrich. You and Mac are trying to write off this descrepancy as reasons of sensationalism rather than political bias. I maintain that this sensationalism was groomed and nourished by the Media, who could have easily done the same, or better with Sally Goodrich or Gary Qualls. But since they don't hate Bush, they're not "newsworthy." Let's instead take this shrieking, cursing bitch and air her arrogant demands to meet the President. Oh wait? He met with her already? Shit. Well, have her make another demand! We can't drop this now, we'll lose our momentum! :illogical


Tell me once again, who is on the defensive here?

Drew, the one thing that you have never understood, is that it's okay to have differing opinions about things, and still have an intelligent perspective about them. I'm trying to make clear to you that our arguments both have valid points, as I said to Shire, but you don't seem to want to settle for anything less than complete correctness. You can't have it. You'll have to figure out some way to live with the fact that things aren't what you say they are, simply because you say them. The best we can hope for, in most cases, is discussion that gives food for thought, not conclusive evidence.

You think Bush is a good president, and I think he is the Anti-Christ. You think the war is righteous, and I think it is a waste of life and resources. You think the liberal media is inventing a cause, and I think the mainstream media is showing the human interest side of what many people in this country believe.

I appreciate a differing perspective, intelligently stated, even if I don't entirely agree with it. I try very hard not to assail the character of all conservatives, or all republicans with my posts. I don't always succeed, but I give a valiant effort. You could stand to be a little more courteous at times in the way you address others who do not share your point of view. I really do understand that it's hard. It's hard for me too sometimes, but I'd like to be able to discuss things with you without being disrespectful. God knows there are so many other things out there for us to disagree about. :bowing:

[kis123]

Sensationalism has nothing to do with political bias-it only has to do with sensationalism. What story can the media ride like Seabiscuit today? What will keep the viewers watching? What stations can hold you hostage until the commercial advertising comes on? The media could care less about the Cindy Sheehans or the Sally Goodrichs of this world. The media could really care less about the pain and grief these two mothers have endured. The only thing the media cares about is selling papers and keeping people transfixed to the tv tube. It's about the "flavor of the week" that gets reported.

Mac has a point-it's the public's responsibility to read between the lines and behave responsibly and intelligently to what's being reported by mainstream media because they could really care less what's newsworthy. If they cared, we'd know more about Sally Goodrich, wouldn't we?

The number of kids that die in American streets every day outnumbers 9/11 in multiples. But those poor kids aren't newsworthy unless they were shot up in a high school tirade.

We're coming up on the dreaded 9/11 within a matter of days. Let's see what the media can cook up for our benefit. Bet there won't be any stories about Sally Goodrich or those who took their tragedy and turned it into triumph. By then, Cindy Sheenan will be in the pile of "what's her name." By then, a new "flavor of the moment" will arise. Happy, happy, joy, joy-I personally can hardly wait! :Grrr:

[MrMacphisto]

If you two "free thinkers" :blaugh: are finished stroking each other, I'd like to get a word in edgewise here. The excuse you guys give doesn't cut it. You missed the whole point of how Cindy Sheehan was carefully orchestrated and set up. She wasn't newsworthy until the media decided to make her newsworthy. I have serious doubts that any significant number of people give a damn about Cindy Sheehan, yet they continue to report on her nonetheless. lol. It really is laughable if you step back and look at what's being done.

You're right, Drew... this is all part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

[MrMacphisto]

Casey Sheehan’s mother wants respect (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/camp-casey-day-20_b_6302.html) for the use of her son’s memory.

Perhaps she and the left-wing scum whoring out the memories of these soldiers could show some respect to someone like Gary Qualls. I’ll let Mr. Qualls speak for himself (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050825-120635-1786r.htm):

Is anyone surprised? Does anyone think, for a second, that these despicable people actually care about these soldiers? They care about them only as far as their value as instruments of propaganda to get publicity for their radical left-wing agenda. But hey, why care what the other parents of these dead soldiers think? After all, Casey Sheehan’s mother speaks for all of them, doesn’t she? And if she doesn’t, well, fuck them. They’re brainwashed.

You know what... you're right. Fuck it. Let's just move on and attack someone else. Why not Iran? C'mon, they can't be that hard to conquer....

[drew70]

.You're right, Drew... this is all part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. LOL. Conspiracy?! This isn't any conspiracy. Conspiracies involve secrets and behind the scenes planning, and cover-ups. What I'm describing is done right out in the open, visible for anybody to see, as part of standard policy. "Conspiracy," he says. That's just too funny.You know what... you're right. Fuck it. Let's just move on and attack someone else. Why not Iran? C'mon, they can't be that hard to conquer....Go for it, pal! You're a natural leader! You lead the way and the rest of us will follow! Just remember, we're right behind you! :blaugh:

[MrMacphisto]

What can I say? John Bolton supports that notion, and he's your man, right Drew? I'm sure I could get most neo-cons to support a war with Iran, and since they practically run things right now, it wouldn't be that hard to actually push this agenda....

[drew70]

Drew, the one thing that you have never understood, is that it's okay to have differing opinions about things, and still have an intelligent perspective about them. I'm trying to make clear to you that our arguments both have valid points, as I said to Shire, but you don't seem to want to settle for anything less than complete correctness. You can't have it. You'll have to figure out some way to live with the fact that things aren't what you say they are, simply because you say them. The best we can hope for, in most cases, is discussion that gives food for thought, not conclusive evidence.

You think Bush is a good president, and I think he is the Anti-Christ. You think the war is righteous, and I think it is a waste of life and resources. You think the liberal media is inventing a cause, and I think the mainstream media is showing the human interest side of what many people in this country believe.

I appreciate a differing perspective, intelligently stated, even if I don't entirely agree with it. I try very hard not to assail the character of all conservatives, or all republicans with my posts. I don't always succeed, but I give a valiant effort. You could stand to be a little more courteous at times in the way you address others who do not share your point of view. I really do understand that it's hard. It's hard for me too sometimes, but I'd like to be able to discuss things with you without being disrespectful. God knows there are so many other things out there for us to disagree about. :bowing:Shadow, the sentiments you express are honorable ones, I'll give you that. It's a lofty goal for conservatives and liberals to get together on a forum discussing politics, and hope for a discussion that's free of posturing, or character assasination. You are right. It's very difficult. I don't doubt that you hold much back, same as I do. And as difficult as it is, we have to ask ourselves, is that really what we want? Conversation devoid of emotion where we have to constantly go back and edit and re-edit our responses to make sure we haven't offended anybody? Is it worth all that effort? For me, it isn't. I only do it to the degree I'm doing it because it's the rule here. That's my sole motivation, to avoid censorship.

So yes, my goal is to ride as close to the limits of acceptable behavior without crossing that line. Is that such a bad thing? If you're driving on a road you know is heavily monitored and ticketed for speeding, and the speed limit is 25mph, don't most people drive the limit of acceptability? Unfortunately, much as I've tried, I can't seem to get any degree of specificity as to what is the speed limit in the P&R Forum. I see people getting ticketed for doing 45mph while others race by unmolested at 60mph. Would you believe that a quote of another TMF member was censored (deleted) from my Signature? This was a word for word quote of something somebody said on the P&R forum that wasn't censored. Evidently it was okay for the guy to say it to begin with, but not okay for me to quote him saying it. Who knew?! So yeah, it's really tough to find solid ground here at times. But what can we do? Try our best to live by the rules and take our lumps as they come.

[MrMacphisto]

Unfortunately, much as I've tried, I can't seem to get any degree of specificity as to what qualifies as an infraction. Would you believe that a quote of another TMF member was censored (deleted) from my Signature? This was a word for word quote of something somebody said on the P&R forum that wasn't censored. Evidently it was okay for the guy to say it to begin with, but not okay for me to quote him saying it. Who knew?!

Drew, we don't agree on much, but that's just fucking weird... They deleted your signature with my quote? :wow:

[drew70]

What can I say? John Bolton supports that notion, and he's your man, right Drew? I'm sure I could get most neo-cons to support a war with Iran, and since they practically run things right now, it wouldn't be that hard to actually push this agenda....You're right. Piece of cake, dude. What are you waiting for?

[drew70]

Drew, we don't agree on much, but that's just fucking weird... They deleted your signature with my quote? :wow:No, they didn't delete my quote of you. I had a quote from Hal a couple of months ago that didn't last an entire day. I took your quote out myself. Can't give you too much publicity. :p

[theshire]

Courtesy of this place. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17266_How_Phony_Can_They_Get) Here we see Mother Sheehan, grief-stricken and anguished, pausing for a quiet moment with the Rev. Al Sharpton, while another woman gently touches her face in sympathy.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/death2carisman/MamaMoonbatAndAl-01.jpg

Touching, isn’t it? How could anyone help but feel sorry for this poor woman and her obviously devastating loss?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/death2carisman/MamaMoonbatAndAl-02.jpg

Now, call me crazy, but it’s almost like the whole "quiet moment" was actually a well-scripted press event, designed to evoke feelings of sympathy in the viewer while actually being devoid of any legitimate feeling whatsoever.

And do you want to know what’s going through the Good Reverend’s mind? "I can’t believe I done drugged my black ass all the way down here to Texas and all the cameras are pointed at this wrinkly old cracker bitch!"

[drew70]

OMG! That is hysterical!! The first picture is the one the mainstream media will exploit. The bigger picture shows that it was clearly a well staged and coreographed photo. whoops! :blaugh:

[maniactickler]

I love that pic! but of course shes no tool of the media. :rolleyes:

[kis123]

Courtesy of this place. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17266_How_Phony_Can_They_Get) Here we see Mother Sheehan, grief-stricken and anguished, pausing for a quiet moment with the Rev. Al Sharpton, while another woman gently touches her face in sympathy.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/death2carisman/MamaMoonbatAndAl-01.jpg

Touching, isn’t it? How could anyone help but feel sorry for this poor woman and her obviously devastating loss?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/death2carisman/MamaMoonbatAndAl-02.jpg

Now, call me crazy, but it’s almost like the whole "quiet moment" was actually a well-scripted press event, designed to evoke feelings of sympathy in the viewer while actually being devoid of any legitimate feeling whatsoever.

And do you want to know what’s going through the Good Reverend’s mind? "I can’t believe I done drugged my black ass all the way down here to Texas and all the cameras are pointed at this wrinkly old cracker bitch!"


I can understand you're trying to prove a point, but the racial slurs on both ends are really uncalled for. Besides, no one has proof the photo has been orchestrated-it's no more than your opinion. :mad: :rant: :disgust: :sowrong:

[kis123]

I love that pic! but of course shes no tool of the media. :rolleyes:

Got proof?

[drew70]

That picture goes beyond proof. If you can look at that picture and not see a staged photo shoot, you need glasses. Al Sharpton is a douchebag. Just when you thought Jesse Jackson was the biggest douchebag to come along in years, enter Al Sharpton!

[Dr. Vollin]

Some folks just refuse to give up their delusions, I guess.

[drew70]

It's just amazing, isn't it? You know, you think you really know someone and then....(sigh)

[Cosmo_ac]

You know, can we move on? I mean really. The woman is pissed off because her son died for reasons other then what they were told, or at least one would assume as much. As for if her son's lost life was a waste or not is left up to opinion i suppose.

Frankly, i don't think she's a hero, simply a mother who lost her son and is upset. She probably feels that what she's trying to do is going to save lives of other young men and women in Iraq, so i'd hardly call her "evil" or "liberal".

As for her conversation with Bush, he won't give it, and really i don't blame him. Because really, what is he going to say? And what does she hope to hear? An apaology will do nothing, and probably mean even less to her. She won't find any closure here. Nor will she convince Bush to pull troops out of Iraq any sooner. No, i expect there will be many, many, more body bags filled before that happens.

All in all, i find the spectacle rather sad. This woman will only become more grief stricken and angry as time passes, unless she learns how to deal with things and move on. I'm also somewhat disapointed with the media for latching unto this. Not because it's some big "Liberal Conspiracy." It's drama, and people watch Drama.

[maniactickler]

Got proof?

Sure do.........common sense.

[kis123]

It's just amazing, isn't it? You know, you think you really know someone and then....(sigh)

This for me? Hope not-but if it is, then it is.

Show the proof it's staged-irrefutible and indisputible and I'll be out your way. If not, it's only supposition and opinion.

No one said Jackson and Sharpton are Nobel prize candidates. But why is it everytime they get involved in something, everyone's claws come out? Here's one that no one can prove, only assume.

Let me know as soon as you get the proof, okay?

[kis123]

That picture goes beyond proof. If you can look at that picture and not see a staged photo shoot, you need glasses. Al Sharpton is a douchebag. Just when you thought Jesse Jackson was the biggest douchebag to come along in years, enter Al Sharpton!

Got proof?

[maniactickler]

You know, can we move on? I mean really. The woman is pissed off because her son died for reasons other then what they were told, or at least one would assume as much. As for if her son's lost life was a waste or not is left up to opinion i suppose.

Frankly, i don't think she's a hero, simply a mother who lost her son and is upset. She probably feels that what she's trying to do is going to save lives of other young men and women in Iraq, so i'd hardly call her "evil" or "liberal".

As for her conversation with Bush, he won't give it, and really i don't blame him. Because really, what is he going to say? And what does she hope to hear? An apaology will do nothing, and probably mean even less to her. She won't find any closure here. Nor will she convince Bush to pull troops out of Iraq any sooner. No, i expect there will be many, many, more body bags filled before that happens.



All in all, i find the spectacle rather sad. This woman will only become more grief stricken and angry as time passes, unless she learns how to deal with things and move on. I'm also somewhat disapointed with the media for latching unto this. Not because it's some big "Liberal Conspiracy." It's drama, and people watch Drama.


Shes just dealing with her anger in the wrong way. making a spectacle of herself and disrespecting her son. just let it go cindy! just like this thread. let it go!

[drew70]

Got proof?Proof's in the picture, hon. Take another look. And just in case you're thinking that convincing you is the issue here, think again. The proof is there, plain to see. Ignoring it and demanding more proof isn't going to make it go away. lol.

[kis123]

Proof's in the picture, hon. Take another look. And just in case you're thinking that convincing you is the issue here, think again. The proof is there, plain to see. Ignoring it and demanding more proof isn't going to make it go away. lol.


Got proof?

[kis123]

Sure do.........common sense.

Got proof?

When you and Drew start showing me some hard evidence, not just your opinions or snappy remarks, I'll gladly receive it. Otherwise, it's the same old stuff that permeates both of your posts. Just more spitting in the wind without anything to back it up.

Cosmo is right, time to really let it go. Everyone has their opinion and that's all they have. After awhile, it turns into a big circle of nothing that goes round and round never reaching a conclusion.

[maniactickler]

You libs crack me up. does everything in life need a written essay of proof and pages of endless facts. you cant grasp common sense so you need to hide behind words and your alleged facts which mean nothing half the time. when basic common sense and reality back you against the wall, you try to cover up by confusing people with questionable information sources and words. one thing thats for sure, libs are great at deception and distorting facts. one of the reasons why i dont waste my time giving you facts. so you can try to refute them with lies. not that you even realize your doing it. but why bother. have a great day. :angel:

[theshire]

I'm not seeing how a picture of a set-up ISN'T proof of a set-up. :sowrong:

[ShadowTklr]

I guess its my turn to see something that none of you is seeing, or at least saying. OF COURSE THE PHOTO WAS SET UP. But then, I certainly didn't need to see all the cameras and microphones to know that EVERY photo opportunity is a set up. Do you think when that zipper head George Bush appeared on the USS Lincoln and declared those imbecilic words, “Mission Accomplished", with that huge banner in the background, he wasn’t executing a photo op?

It was a carefully thought out, and orchestrated screw up designed to attempt to appease the American people. I don't hear any cries of foul by the conservatives for what he did. Think about it. Bush had PR people who were speculating broadcast audience size, time of airing to ensure the greatest audience, approval by demographic, the design, lettering height, font and colors of the banner behind him (someone had to manufacture the sign long before the speech date), direction of shot, time of day for most favorable outdoor lighting, military personnel grouping in the audience, a SPEECH WRITER, and oh, let’s not forget the flack jacket.

So, let’s stop knuckling each other about what is blatantly obvious. Politics and Media sensationalism are the cornerstones for PHOTO SET UPS, children. Do you think when Bush stood among the rubble of the World Trade Center he wasn't taking advantage of the media moment in order to further his own political agenda with the ENTIRE WORLD WATCHING? Get real. You can't BUY that kind of photo opportunity. I’ll bet he damn near soiled himself with excitement thinking about what a great catalyst 9/11 would be for an invasion of Iraq.

When this woman started out, she didn't have the power of the media to propagate a lie to millions of people, like Bush did. She didn’t do it for the publicity. No one even knew who she was. She didn't consult with the liberals in order to execute the perfect propaganda plan. She did what she did out of grief and disappointment in a President who let his country down. I understand that motivation. However, that doesn't change the fact that this is becoming a goddamn circus act, and she is rapidly becoming the monkey in the middle.

Also, her statements are proof to me that she speaks from grief, and is a lousy spokesperson for the liberal left. Even if the liberals were seeking to use her for their own political agenda, she is not playing ball. The statements she made came from her own mind and feelings. I think she misspoke, and should have not said what she said. Had she been performing at the behest of some liberal agenda, she certainly wouldn’t have made her statements in the way she made them.

Everyone surrounding this woman has an agenda, and they're working their own angles on the back of her sincere grief. So as you continue to castigate and disparage her character, remember that she was ALONE in this. Her family doesn't seem to approve. Are they embarrassed? Who knows? But what you're missing is that her family KNEW what she was going to do before anyone in the press. She had to take a stand against the feelings of her own family in order to carry this out. That takes a lot more character than standing in front of a camera with Al Sharpton.

[drew70]

Got proof?

When you and Drew start showing me some hard evidence, not just your opinions or snappy remarks, I'll gladly receive it. Otherwise, it's the same old stuff that permeates both of your posts. Just more spitting in the wind without anything to back it up.

Cosmo is right, time to really let it go. Everyone has their opinion and that's all they have. After awhile, it turns into a big circle of nothing that goes round and round never reaching a conclusion.Yes, especially when one's intellect restricts the scope of their arguments to "Got proof?" You've been shown the hard evidence, and still you parrot away. And if you feel it's time to let it go, why do you continue to respond with "got proof?" It's not up to Cosmo nor Kis123 to decide when a conversation is finished. If you're tired of it, simply stop participating in it. Duh!

[Robace252]

As much as I agree with everyone's right to call Bush a "liar" and to dislike him immensely, I for once wanted to print a FACT! This once and for all will show that Bush while maybe not being a 100% honest person certainly did not lie, he was misled by EVERYONE...this is a report from an AP newswire prior to the Iraq War that shows excatly what most people here have forgotten about what was going on prior to the war.
----------------------------------------------------------
(AP) United Nations, New York, New York
Security Council agrees on Iraq, but no course of action

14 Dec 2002

As behind the scene negoations go on about what kind of action needs to be taken on Iraq, the UN Security Council does at least agree on one thing. The Security Council in a joint statement from the representives from the countries of China, Bulgaria, France, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, Mexico, Spain all agree that Iraq led by Saddam Hussein has the capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destructions against their neighbors as well as the desire to sell such weapons to terrorist orginizations such as Hamas and al-Qaeda. "The weapons that Saddam Hussein has in its hands and are willing to use or sell for personal gain are staggering. We of the Security Council agree with all the current sanctions, and are investigating other ways to force Hussein to comply with the resolutions he has ignored for 10 years."
Intelligence information provided to the UN Security Council from not only its own members but from the nations of Germany, Italy and Japan all indicate that Iraq has many unknown weapons programs and include the ability to use them mounted to long range missles which are banned for Iraq to possess.
"The ability of Iraq to use devestating chemical weapons on nations by way of their expanded rocket program include missles that can deliver such weapons as far away as Israel and possibly Western Europe. We must ensure that Iraq never has the chance to use such weapons or the results would be disasterous." stated a French Intelligence offical as the Security Council members asked him questions on intelligence gathering.
"If it was just our intelligence I could see how the Council could doubt such reports, but our reports have been verified by every member of this Board." stated US intelligence officals.
While the US prefers and suggests a military option if Iraq does not comply with adhereing to the Security Council resolutions, most on the Council still want a diplomatic solution.
"While the Council agrees with all intelligence gathered about the threat that Iraq possesses and agree that something needs to be done, we would still hope that a diplomatic solution is possible, but Iraq must comply with all of the resolutions passed by this body."
This joint statement released after the closed door session is not the strong language that the US wanted but a US spokeman for the US Congress believes that this is a step in the right direction to force Iraq to comply.
"Iraq now knows that they can no longer just thumb their nose at the world body without action being taken."

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

I certainly hope this helps dispell the myth that Bush lied about the intelligence, and if he did, I again say to you...so did everyone else. Dont blame just one, when they all were wrong. All of them.
Its just a shame that just because you hate or intensely dislike Bush you would be blind to the facts that the entire world agreed and supported the incorrect facts prior to war.

[ShadowTklr]

I certainly hope this helps dispell the myth that Bush lied about the intelligence, and if he did, I again say to you...so did everyone else. Dont blame just one, when they all were wrong. All of them.
Its just a shame that just because you hate or intensely dislike Bush you would be blind to the facts that the entire world agreed and supported the incorrect facts prior to war.

Interesting post Rob, but unfortunately, it seems that you have simply given more fodder for why Bush and his administration flunkies are liars, than you ever have for proving otherwise. Allow me to shred your so-called myth dispelling post with just a little more facts than you saw fit to include.

FACT: The report is 4 months prior to the invasion and is not the last word from those countries who intially agreed that Saddam had the "capability" and "willingness" to use WMD. Just prior to our invasion, the UN Security Council, Germany and France all abstained from giving their support due to a lack of substantial evidence that corroborated their initial suspicions about Iraq's possession of WMD. They simply were'nt comfortable with invading a soverign Nation based on supposition.

FACT: The only thing this report "proves" is that other nations had the same concerns as we did about Iraq's potential to use such weapons, had they actually had them.

FACT: Prior to the Iraq invasion, Hans Blix and his weapons inspection teams could not find any chemical or biological WMD, nor could they find any peripheral evidence of the presence of WMD.

FACT: The "Long Range Misslile Program" you point out turned out to be missiles with a range of about 93 miles WITHOUT A PAYLOAD. Although, these missiles were nowhere near the "most lethal weapons ever devised," as Bush stated, nor were they anywhere remotely capable of striking the U.S. and killing "thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands" of people as Bush stated, they were still clearly in violation of the Secuirty Council's ban on such weapons, even if only by the narrowest of margins.

FACT: Colin Powel, in February of 2001, during a news conference on the state of Iraq's possession of WMD, during a visit to Cairo, Egypt, said "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

This would seem to suggest that Iraq did not have the capability for WMD at this time. Is it possible to misunderstand that statement?

FACT: Condoleeza Rice, during a July 2001 interview with Larry King said "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

This statement suggests that we understand the structure of the country as well as their WMD capability.

FACT: It wasn't until February 2003, that Powell said: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

Um...WHAT WMD? And did he just say KEEP? To state that Saddam was determined to KEEP his WMD, implies that he already HAD them. But Powel and Rice both stated on separate interviews just 2 years earlier that Saddam not only had no WMD, but didn't have the ability to acquire them either.

FACT: Now, for those of you who have forgotten, the U.S. was monitoring movements in Iraq via satellite, on the look-out for large munitions transports, so we certainly would have seen them moving WMD into the country.

FACT: Secondly, the Gulf war ended in 1991. If Powel and Rice were telling the truth in 2001, and Saddam was not able to rebuild his capabilities to acquire WMD in 10 years, HOW was he able to become such a monumental threat in only 2 years from 2001 to 2003?

QUESTION: So, were Powel and Rice lying in 2001, or were they lying in 2003? Was Bush exercising selective hearing in order to make the case that Saddam DEFINITELY had WMD, or was he a simpleton who couldn't read the very reports he relied upon before making the decision to kill tens of thousands of innocent people?

[Robace252]

Since you like Facts alot shadow, and I will agree with a lot of those facts. Here's a fact with the accompaning news report that I know no one reported. I wonder why.
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."
He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

Hmmm, very interesting isnt it.
ANSWERS: Bush listened to the simpletons from the Clinton Administration and the so called intelligence and those around him to make his decision, just didnt do it on his own. Although I personally think he would have used any excuse to attck Iraq right or wrong it was the right thing to do to get rid of Saddam, the world is a better place without him.
ANSWERS: Everyone can change their minds in 2 years, such as the case with John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and all politicans. Im not defending Bush's actions, I know that we went with INCORRECT intelligence (again loose use of the word intelligence) and used blinders to obscure all other possible reasons and didnt wait long enough to verify the intelligence.
ANSWERS: Remember he had some memo prior to 9/11 that showed there was some intelligence that was non-specific about attacks on the US and he didnt act on that intelligence and look what happened.
FINAL ANSWER: I believe that Bush had incorrect intelligence from all agencies at home and abroad in the world. He made a judgement call and the fact he didnt act on pre 9/11 intelligence ate at his soul and didnt want to make the same mistake twice. He unfortunately made a rash decision based on his fears, his regret over 9/11 and listening to everyone else around him in his cabinet and made the decison. We now know that the information was WRONG WRONG WRONG. But at that time most believed it to be true.
But the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein so I support the war in Iraq. Women having rights, people voting and not being shot for having an opposing viewpoint and the possibility of a democracy in the middle east to me is a good reason to stay and to stick it out. The world will be more secure with a stable Iraq not controlled by a dictator.

I hope we can come to some level of an agreement, for this what I stated as my final answer is what I truly believe and to me seems logical, non-judgemental and simply a good use of common sense. I think everyone here has had great viewpoints and conducted themselves in mostly a civil manner.