• news
  • WEDNESDAY AUGUST 17 2005 9:00 AM

Right Wing Press Sinks to New Low

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a son lost in Iraq who has been keeping vigil in front of Bush's vacation ranch in an attempt to discover why, has become a target of the right wing media machine, complete with the distortions, outright lies and bile that it has become so well known for.

Conservative commentators and Web sites are taking aim at Sheehan with the same ferocity she has aimed at President Bush. In part, they are using her own words against her -- reciting such controversial comments as her vow to refuse to pay taxes to a government waging an "illegal" war and her desire to see Bush impeached.

[...]

"It's obvious Cindy Sheehan has become a political player, whose primary concern is embarrassing the president," Fox Television personality Bill O'Reilly wrote Tuesday in an online column. "She is no longer just a protester."


No, I think the president is doing a perfectly good job of that himself. Like his explanation of why he chose to go bike riding instead of speaking with her.

"I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so.


So while the president continues his leisurely month long summer vacation, the earnest protesters baking in the sun in Crawford continue to be victimized by the conservative press.

Still, [Sheehan] said some of the statements attributed to her are distortions. Contrary to a letter attributed to her that is circulating widely on the Internet, she asserts that she has never said that the United States is waging the war in Iraq to protect Israel.

"I have said a lot of strong things, and I'll stand by everything I said," Sheehan said, adding that she thought the document had been altered. "But I didn't say that."

The scrutiny that has accompanied Sheehan's quick rise to prominence has extended to her family. Several in-laws have publicly criticized her protest -- announcing their displeasure in a release to the Drudge Report. News that Sheehan's husband, Patrick, has filed for divorce has been trumpeted by some bloggers as evidence of her extreme views.


What a surprise - being unable to find any fault in the message of a mother wanting to know why her son was killed thousands of miles from home, blowhards like Bill O'Reilly and Matt Drudge have found it appropriate to make questionable allegations and tear apart the private life of a woman who just wants an answer from her elected officials for why her son had to die. At this rate, the next issue of the Drudge report will likely be "Mother Teresa: Just a Flimsy Liberal or Communist Stooge?"

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 11

Next

Comments
JohnClement

JohnClement

Silver Spring, MD
January 2004

AUG 17, 2005 09:41 PM

stockula said: A whole bunch of crap. I'd like to tackle this part though, because the beginning was just Stock throwing in David Duke for no other reason than to try and tie him to her. Forget the fact that Sheehan didn't interact with Duke in any way, and certainly didn't consult to find out his views before airing her grievances. Anyway, back to the subject at hand, since the trolling distraction nearly worked

In the end, what's her essential message?

1. We deserved the 9/11 attacks because of our foreign policies
2. Israel and the Jews control American policy
3. Fighting back against terrorism, such as invading Afghanistan, is wrong because it results in innocent people being killed. Instead we should acquiesce to the terrorists' demands. That will bring peace.
4. George Bush only invaded Iraq (with the cooperation of the US Congress, US media, and the Pentagon) solely to enrich himself and his close friends, and protect Israel.



He essential message is pretty clear and it's none of the above: She wants to know what her son died for.
See, she's was operating under the belief that we went into Iraq because they had these weapons that were a danger to us; you know, the reason we were given for going into Iraq. That's also the reason for her "illegal war" comment. We didn't find any weapons, she (and a shitload of other people, checked the polls lately? Oh yeah, I forgot. They're liberally biased) feels like she was lied to, and she wants to know why she had to lose her son.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 17, 2005 10:11 PM

Hasn't she already met with GW? Haven't her "questions"("Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for? If the cause is so noble, why don’t you send your twins?") already been answered? Let's not pretend she is there as anything but a protester. While I respect anyone’s right to believe what they hole true, but to me this feels more like a campaign than a hart felt expression of pain.

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

AUG 17, 2005 10:13 PM

BillHaverchuck said:

stockula said: A whole bunch of crap. I'd like to tackle this part though, because the beginning was just Stock throwing in David Duke for no other reason than to try and tie him to her. Forget the fact that Sheehan didn't interact with Duke in any way, and certainly didn't consult to find out his views before airing her grievances. Anyway, back to the subject at hand, since the trolling distraction nearly worked

In the end, what's her essential message?

1. We deserved the 9/11 attacks because of our foreign policies
2. Israel and the Jews control American policy
3. Fighting back against terrorism, such as invading Afghanistan, is wrong because it results in innocent people being killed. Instead we should acquiesce to the terrorists' demands. That will bring peace.
4. George Bush only invaded Iraq (with the cooperation of the US Congress, US media, and the Pentagon) solely to enrich himself and his close friends, and protect Israel.



He essential message is pretty clear and it's none of the above: She wants to know what her son died for.



The fuck she does. She has stated for months what she thinks about the war, Bush, and what her son died for. This is all sheer nonsense. And she HAS met with Bush; she is demanding Bush meet her a second time.


See, she's was operating under the belief that we went into Iraq because they had these weapons that were a danger to us; you know, the reason we were given for going into Iraq. That's also the reason for her "illegal war" comment. We didn't find any weapons, she (and a shitload of other people, checked the polls lately? Oh yeah, I forgot. They're liberally biased) feels like she was lied to, and she wants to know why she had to lose her son.



She was not lied to. The Clinton administration itself held much the same opinion: that Iraq posed a threat to the US because of its resistance to disarmament inspections, and that the official position of the USA was that the Saddam Hussein regime was a destablizing force in the world that should be deposed.

Clinton was satisfied enough with speeches and the odd bombing raid. After the attack of 9/11, the decision was made to eliminate Saddam. The status quo could have been extended as Clinton did during the 1990's, but the fruit of that policy was manifested by the 2001 attack on NYC and Washington. Should we continue that same lenient forgiving policy and just hope Saddam not arm terrorists with WMD's? Bush said "No."

We could have continued the measured, half-hearted, and cautious actions that Clinton took in the 1990's that did not dissuade terrorist attacks on US soil, or become extremely aggressive and sent a message that attacks on the US would be met with extreme reaction.

If in fact the WMD Iraq was suspected of developing there was not true, it is an error. And error is different from a deception or a lie. Iraq did themselves no favors by resisting inspections as much as humanly possible and acting like they had something to hide.

[Edited on Aug 17, 2005 by stockula]

Cathedral

Cathedral

Toledo, OH
August 2005

AUG 17, 2005 10:18 PM

stockula said:

legionnaire said:

*snip*
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy…not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn’t changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq…in fact it has gotten worse.

Now, a gauntlet of personal attacks has been let out against her. A recent article on David Horowitz’s FrontPage and repeated by many pro-Israel zealots dares to compare her with that incorrigible American, me. Here is a FrontPage reader’s commentary published in the Lonestar Times.

…(Sheehan) voiced vaguely anti-Semitic rhetoric when she alleged that the Iraq War was all about protecting Israel, i.e. a Jewish conspiracy (a similar opinion is frequently expressed by David Duke and his ilk).” – From the Lonestar Times August, 13, 2005

In truth, Cindy Sheehan is absolutely right. Her son signed up in the military to defend America, not Israel, and to safeguard our own democracy, not the democracy of some foreign nation that neither wants nor needs it. In advancing this war for Israel, government and media advocates obviously couldn’t get Americans behind the war by saying it was a war for Israel. They had to make up bogus reasons for the war, such as saying that Iraq was an imminent threat to America and that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Now that these lies have been exposed, they have changed the rationale for the war to “fighting for democracy” and “fighting against terrorism.” Here’s a short list showing why Cindy Sheehan is right!



*snip*

It just doesn't work like that. You can wrap Sheehan's radical politics in all the emotional fireworks you want. In the end, what's her essential message?

1. We deserved the 9/11 attacks because of our foreign policies

*snip*

3. Fighting back against terrorism, such as invading Afghanistan, is wrong because it results in innocent people being killed. Instead we should acquiesce to the terrorists' demands. That will bring peace.

[Edited on Aug 17, 2005 by stockula]



Wow. That's a helluva misconstruction. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say all these conclusions are blatantly wrong.

Sheehan never said, in this article you referenced, that we deserved 9/11, merely that the reason behind we, the American public, were given was wrong. The cause may have been poor foreign policy, but just because she expresses her opinion about the truthful purpose of the attacks does not mean she emplores the attacks. In the same vein, your third comment is completely ignorant of what Sheehan said: "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel," and what Duke said: "Her son signed up in the military to defend America, not Israel, and to safeguard our own democracy.She never said she was against the war from the get-go. Merely, she realizes now, after a son has died, that it is all for "lies."

Keep in mind that I have no public stance on this war. I neither support or protest it. This is not because I have no opinion on it; quite the opposite. Merely it is because I wish to fully understand what I think to be the truth before I begin voicing it heatedly. I fully support the safety of our troops and wish them the best, and honor those who have died, whatever the reason. I think the desecration of the memorial was a shame, and while I may or may not agree with Sheehans own beliefs, I do not agree with the distortion of her reasons.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

AUG 17, 2005 10:21 PM

Wow, leave it to stockula and bones to smear a lady who (a) voted for Bush twice, (b) lost her son in a war, about which (c) we have been been lied to repeatedly and constantly - all while totally misrepresenting her position. It would be funny if it wasn't actually tragic.

Like it or not, sweeties, she is middle fucking America. She is the average white middle-class American who invested belief and faith in your president and his debacle of a war, and she also lost her son and nobody can give her an honest and credible answer as to why. This is what America looks like more and more, boys. These are former supporters who are wondering what the fuck good this mess is.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 17, 2005 10:29 PM

Dead_Ringer said:
Wow, leave it to stockula and bones to smear a lady who (a) voted for Bush twice, (b) lost her son in a war, about which (c) we have been been lied to repeatedly and constantly - all while totally misrepresenting her position. It would be funny if it wasn't actually tragic.

Like it or not, sweeties, she is middle fucking America. She is the average white middle-class American who invested belief and faith in your president and his debacle of a war, and she also lost her son and nobody can give her an honest and credible answer as to why. This is what America looks like more and more, boys. These are former supporters who are wondering what the fuck good this mess is.



Smear? What the hell did I smear? Look at what I said and what exactly is wrong with my saying it? I have doubts, How dare I!!! I think right now this poor lady is being run like a advertising campaign. So?

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

AUG 17, 2005 10:30 PM

stockula said:

legionnaire said:

Conservative commentators and Web sites are taking aim at Sheehan with the same ferocity she has aimed at President Bush. In part, they are using her own words against her -- reciting such controversial comments as her vow to refuse to pay taxes to a government waging an "illegal" war and her desire to see Bush impeached.



Using her own words against her?!?!? THE BASTARDS!



Well, Stock as usual the problem is, she didn't say what you've quote and dissected at length. Christopher Hitchens did a smear piece on Monday from a web meme, bootstrapping it by saying ABC confirmed the contents of the letter. ABC did no such thing. ABC, in fact cannot seem to find a copy of the letter.

But hey, why pretend standards and ethics mean a shit when the CIC looks like a pompous and insensitive ass again. Time to roll out the smear machine.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

AUG 17, 2005 10:33 PM

bones_708 said:

Dead_Ringer said:
Wow, leave it to stockula and bones to smear a lady who (a) voted for Bush twice, (b) lost her son in a war, about which (c) we have been been lied to repeatedly and constantly - all while totally misrepresenting her position. It would be funny if it wasn't actually tragic.

Like it or not, sweeties, she is middle fucking America. She is the average white middle-class American who invested belief and faith in your president and his debacle of a war, and she also lost her son and nobody can give her an honest and credible answer as to why. This is what America looks like more and more, boys. These are former supporters who are wondering what the fuck good this mess is.



Smear? What the hell did I smear? Look at what I said and what exactly is wrong with my saying it? I have doubts, How dare I!!! I think right now this poor lady is being run like a advertising campaign. So?



Oh, right. When you said "let's not pretend she is there as anything but a protester," you just meant that the poor lady is being manipulated by those awful far-left war protesters who are taking advantage of her loss.

mQx

mqx

Seattle, WA
January 2003

AUG 17, 2005 10:37 PM

Subrosa said:
Bush has embarrassed himself. Had he simply taken 15 minutes and met with her when she got there (as his advisors should have told him to do), he could have avoided this whole scene. Instead, he's encouraged her to become a political player by giving her a legitimate political gripe.

Regardless of your politics, you have to admit that Bush really REALLY could have cut this one off at the pass had he wanted to. Instead, he stupidly pushed it to the point where he can't win either way. In an administration that has been so good at spinning defeats to look like victories, there's no way out of this one without getting some egg on his face.



If only this was an episode of West Wing... in that case, Bush, feeling secretly like he made a mistake, intentially didn't talk to her in order to cause enough anti-war protest that he can back out of the war , blame it on the anti-war movement and take credit for it at the same time... or something like that.

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with her... but I will say that the people saying what she's doing is anti-American are complete morons. She's either using her freedom of speech to say things some people don't want to hear and stand up for her beliefs... or she's a sickopath attention loving media whore.

Either way... it's completely American.


[Edited on Aug 17, 2005 by Mqx]

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 17, 2005 10:39 PM

Dead_Ringer said:

bones_708 said:

Dead_Ringer said:
Wow, leave it to stockula and bones to smear a lady who (a) voted for Bush twice, (b) lost her son in a war, about which (c) we have been been lied to repeatedly and constantly - all while totally misrepresenting her position. It would be funny if it wasn't actually tragic.

Like it or not, sweeties, she is middle fucking America. She is the average white middle-class American who invested belief and faith in your president and his debacle of a war, and she also lost her son and nobody can give her an honest and credible answer as to why. This is what America looks like more and more, boys. These are former supporters who are wondering what the fuck good this mess is.



Smear? What the hell did I smear? Look at what I said and what exactly is wrong with my saying it? I have doubts, How dare I!!! I think right now this poor lady is being run like a advertising campaign. So?



Oh, right. When you said "let's not pretend she is there as anything but a protester," you just meant that the poor lady is being manipulated by those awful far-left war protesters who are taking advantage of her loss.



No I mean she doesn't want or expect to talk to Bush. She is there to protest and thats fine, but she isn't there to "talk" to anyone but the press. As far as being taken advantage of, not really, she was anti-war, anti-bush before her son was killed, so I have no problem believing she's going all out too. What I mean is that the decisions that are being made are very calculating and about protest not grief,

Cathedral

Cathedral

Toledo, OH
August 2005

AUG 17, 2005 11:03 PM

bones_708 said:

Dead_Ringer said:

bones_708 said:

Dead_Ringer said:
*snip*



*snap*



*bang*



No I mean she doesn't want or expect to talk to Bush. She is there to protest and thats fine, but she isn't there to "talk" to anyone but the press. As far as being taken advantage of, not really, she was anti-war, anti-bush before her son was killed, so I have no problem believing she's going all out too. What I mean is that the decisions that are being made are very calculating and about protest not grief,



You might be onto something:



Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

...

On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.

Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her.






Edited to make it better.

[Edited on Aug 18, 2005 by Cathedral]

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

AUG 18, 2005 07:39 AM

stockula said:
I dont feel like listing Duke's raving about how the Jew-run media that loves Bush and supports the war is tricking America into liberating the Iraqi people.

It needs to be brought to the attention of the public that Sheehan is for all intents and purposes, an anti-American nutcase. Her politics are very much in step with the extreme Leftist fringe of people like Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, and Michael Moore. However, by virute of the fact she lost her son in the Iraq war, her fellow travellers think that no one can dare question her or her message, given the pain she's gone through.

It just doesn't work like that. You can wrap Sheehan's radical politics in all the emotional fireworks you want. In the end, what's her essential message?

1. We deserved the 9/11 attacks because of our foreign policies
2. Israel and the Jews control American policy
3. Fighting back against terrorism, such as invading Afghanistan, is wrong because it results in innocent people being killed. Instead we should acquiesce to the terrorists' demands. That will bring peace.
4. George Bush only invaded Iraq (with the cooperation of the US Congress, US media, and the Pentagon) solely to enrich himself and his close friends, and protect Israel.

I know these views are typical of the anti-war Left. Why does the same anti-war Left get so bent out of shape when their true views and objectives are presented to the American public? Why is publicizing her politics considered "A new low"? Why don't you see such ferverent interest in the views of mothers who lost their sons in Iraq but support the cause their boys died fighting for and their faith in the leadership of the president?

You sure dont see them making self-serving spectacles of themselves.



Okay, let's start with the fact that our favorite Troll is quoting and article by that famed and fine journalist David Fucking Duke - that should be enough for some giggles right there.

But then the questions arises? Is it possible for a person to be wrong about every single thing? Stockula clearly is out to bust the envelope on this one.

1. 9/11 is the result of 50 years of failed foriegn policy in the Middle East.
2. There are strong connections between our country's stance on Isreal, the (coincidentally?) jewish neo-con core in the pentagon and our position in the Isalmic middle east.
3. The manner in which the US is prosecuting the "war on terror" (even the White House is backing away from that language) is creating terrorists not eliminating them
4. Bush did invade Iraq in response to a vision of elitest oligarchy cloaked in the language of "democracy" (i.e. capitalist hegemony) and corporate imperialism.

Christopher Hitchens - whose essay is at the heart of this - is a disgruntled, drunken, recovering leftist who has chosen to cash in on the consevative lean in the US. His accusations are provable false and Troll Stocula's (that this person who was a Bush supporter is a closet Chomsky fan) are simply ludicrous.

I wonder if this guy can even breathe right.

smithers_jones

smithers_jones

I'm lost
November 2003

AUG 18, 2005 08:51 AM

stockula said:

Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!
By David Duke

Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War, is determined to prevent other mothers and fathers from experiencing the same loss.

Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and other’s sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America.

Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel.

In a recent letter to “Nightline,” she wrote the following hard-hitting words:

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy…not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn’t changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq…in fact it has gotten worse.

Now, a gauntlet of personal attacks has been let out against her. A recent article on David Horowitz’s FrontPage and repeated by many pro-Israel zealots dares to compare her with that incorrigible American, me. Here is a FrontPage reader’s commentary published in the Lonestar Times.

…(Sheehan) voiced vaguely anti-Semitic rhetoric when she alleged that the Iraq War was all about protecting Israel, i.e. a Jewish conspiracy (a similar opinion is frequently expressed by David Duke and his ilk).” – From the Lonestar Times August, 13, 2005

In truth, Cindy Sheehan is absolutely right. Her son signed up in the military to defend America, not Israel, and to safeguard our own democracy, not the democracy of some foreign nation that neither wants nor needs it. In advancing this war for Israel, government and media advocates obviously couldn’t get Americans behind the war by saying it was a war for Israel. They had to make up bogus reasons for the war, such as saying that Iraq was an imminent threat to America and that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Now that these lies have been exposed, they have changed the rationale for the war to “fighting for democracy” and “fighting against terrorism.” Here’s a short list showing why Cindy Sheehan is right!



I dont feel like listing Duke's raving about how the Jew-run media that loves Bush and supports the war is tricking America into liberating the Iraqi people.

It needs to be brought to the attention of the public that Sheehan is for all intents and purposes, an anti-American nutcase. Her politics are very much in step with the extreme Leftist fringe of people like Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, and Michael Moore. However, by virute of the fact she lost her son in the Iraq war, her fellow travellers think that no one can dare question her or her message, given the pain she's gone through.

It just doesn't work like that. You can wrap Sheehan's radical politics in all the emotional fireworks you want. In the end, what's her essential message?

1. We deserved the 9/11 attacks because of our foreign policies
2. Israel and the Jews control American policy
3. Fighting back against terrorism, such as invading Afghanistan, is wrong because it results in innocent people being killed. Instead we should acquiesce to the terrorists' demands. That will bring peace.
4. George Bush only invaded Iraq (with the cooperation of the US Congress, US media, and the Pentagon) solely to enrich himself and his close friends, and protect Israel.

I know these views are typical of the anti-war Left. Why does the same anti-war Left get so bent out of shape when their true views and objectives are presented to the American public? Why is publicizing her politics considered "A new low"? Why don't you see such ferverent interest in the views of mothers who lost their sons in Iraq but support the cause their boys died fighting for and their faith in the leadership of the president?

You sure dont see them making self-serving spectacles of themselves.


[Edited on Aug 17, 2005 by stockula]



Nice Stock. Compare Sheehan to fucking Klansman. Of course, what you fail to realize is that your post is far more revealing about your own character than it is about Sheehans.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 18, 2005 10:51 AM

NinjaTech said:

i'm not saying that what she's doing is wrong. and i'll concede; i'd say her primary concern has to do with what happened to her son. but embarrassing bush is most certainly her secondary concern



Why in hell would she have a "secondary concern"? She lost a child. She wants answers. Liker the majority of the States she has become disheartened as to why exactly we are fighting a war in Iraq.

This is the extreme problem with conservative ideology. They see black and white. Nothing more. She must be right or left. Maybe she is simply a mother looking for answers as to why her son died?

Here is a little fact: She voted for Bush. Twice.

If my son died I would be just as concerned. Embarrassing our leader would not even be part of my mental and moral agenda. Simply answers and simply truth.

Somethings the shades of gray tend to make more sense when approached with actual logic, not punditry.



Where did you get that she voted for bush? She has said that Bush "stole" the election and the Dems gave up and let him. Doesn't sound like she voted for him to me.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 18, 2005 06:21 PM

Monastrell said:
Trying to make that situation be about Michael Moore, the press, or David Duke is just ridiculous. The Republicans are pro-family and "family values" only when it is convenient.

For this guy to ignore this woman so he can chop wood, have fundraisers, jog, etc... is beyond revolting. Shame on anyone who tries to make it be about the superfluous crap and carnival atmosphere - and not the fact that the president won't take 15 minutes out of his time to meet with her.



He did meet with her. Does she really have anything to say or does she want to protest. Is she going to make a point or make press. I think you can seperate sympathy for her and believing what she's saying. Hell if she really wanted to talk to Bush she went about it in the worst way possible. And while I haven't posted any links to her questionable associates and statments, they are there.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 11

Next

featured interviews