• 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?"

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 11

Next

Comments
Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

AUG 18, 2005 08:03 PM

Monastrell said:
You know how to stop the protest ?
Talk to her....

Yes, he met with her once for about 15 minutes, did not know her name, her son's name, and was pretty indifferent.

But now, jogging and chopping wood is more important than compassion for your constituency. Paint it any way you want ---- he is being an asshole.

And those same security moms and suburban soccer families are taking notice, that the "good ole boy from Crawford, TX" is playing crawfish when accountability is in question ....

Hell, at least LBJ personally signed every "regret to inform you" letter ... spending 8 hours a day doing so in the 60's.

Its disgusting --- and the people who have latched upon this for political gain are disgusting --- but even then, none to the degree of the president.



Agreed on all points.

In addition, he met with her before it was revealed that Iraq did not have WMDs. Her purpose in meeting with Bush is to ask why her son died if not for WMDs.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

AUG 18, 2005 08:07 PM

Monastrell said:

bones_708 said:

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.



You know how to stop the protest ?
Talk to her....

Yes, he met with her once for about 15 minutes, did not know her name, her son's name, and was pretty indifferent.

But now, jogging and chopping wood is more important than compassion for your constituency. Paint it any way you want ---- he is being an asshole.

And those same security moms and suburban soccer families are taking notice, that the "good ole boy from Crawford, TX" is playing crawfish when accountability is in question ....

Hell, at least LBJ personally signed every "regret to inform you" letter ... spending 8 hours a day doing so in the 60's.

Its disgusting --- and the people who have latched upon this for political gain are disgusting --- but even then, none to the degree of the president.


Yes, you said what I was trying to say better than I did.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 18, 2005 08:20 PM

Monastrell said:

bones_708 said:

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.



You know how to stop the protest ?
Talk to her....

Yes, he met with her once for about 15 minutes, did not know her name, her son's name, and was pretty indifferent.

But now, jogging and chopping wood is more important than compassion for your constituency. Paint it any way you want ---- he is being an asshole.

And those same security moms and suburban soccer families are taking notice, that the "good ole boy from Crawford, TX" is playing crawfish when accountability is in question ....

Hell, at least LBJ personally signed every "regret to inform you" letter ... spending 8 hours a day doing so in the 60's.

Its disgusting --- and the people who have latched upon this for political gain are disgusting --- but even then, none to the degree of the president.



It's my belief that she doesn't want to talk to Bush and took this tactic so as not to speak with him but get press. If Bush did speak with her what would he say but what has been said over and over. She doen't want sympathy or reasurance, she wants to change Govt. policy.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

AUG 18, 2005 08:25 PM

Monastrell said:

Dead_Ringer said:

Monastrell said:

bones_708 said:

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.



You know how to stop the protest ?
Talk to her....

Yes, he met with her once for about 15 minutes, did not know her name, her son's name, and was pretty indifferent.

But now, jogging and chopping wood is more important than compassion for your constituency. Paint it any way you want ---- he is being an asshole.

And those same security moms and suburban soccer families are taking notice, that the "good ole boy from Crawford, TX" is playing crawfish when accountability is in question ....

Hell, at least LBJ personally signed every "regret to inform you" letter ... spending 8 hours a day doing so in the 60's.

Its disgusting --- and the people who have latched upon this for political gain are disgusting --- but even then, none to the degree of the president.


Yes, you said what I was trying to say better than I did.


That is perhaps the most annoying aspect of it ... pretending like she is invalid and everyone should be instead looking at Michael Moore or David Dake is just classic deflection without merit.

Something these jerks are perfecting the art of ...


Exactly. I personally cringe when ever Michael Moore's fat ass is trotted out in public because I think he's a fuck just like I think the fucks who fuck with him are fucks. He and Duke are so far from relevant to this discussion. But unfortunately they've somehow been associated with her by the far right, and the far right, per usual, obfuscates and distorts until the truth of her message is totally lost and forgotten.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

AUG 18, 2005 08:42 PM

Monastrell said:

bones_708 said:
..... she wants to change Govt. policy.


Hence that whole "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" thingee ....


Well, that bit isn't really one of the biggies any way.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

AUG 18, 2005 08:43 PM

Monastrell said:

bones_708 said:
..... she wants to change Govt. policy.


Hence that whole "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" thingee ....



The nerve of some people! How DARE they exercise their Constitutional rights!

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 18, 2005 09:24 PM

Subrosa said:

Monastrell said:

bones_708 said:
..... she wants to change Govt. policy.


Hence that whole "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" thingee ....



The nerve of some people! How DARE they exercise their Constitutional rights!



Have you read what I said. I've got no problem with her protesting anything she wants. I do think that is whats going on and not some distraught mother wanting to talk about her dead child and Bush ignoring her. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 18, 2005 09:27 PM

Monastrell said:

bones_708 said:
..... she wants to change Govt. policy.


Hence that whole "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" thingee ....


Did I say there was some problem with that?

dire_romantic

dire_romantic

Edmonton, AB
May 2004

AUG 18, 2005 09:30 PM

bones, how about you address the question where if Bush legitimately sat down and had (probably scripted) a discussion with her, that the media attention would get off her real fast? if she does indeed have any further agendas other than calling the president out on accountability, the national public would recognize it instantly if she still calls for more press time.

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

AUG 18, 2005 09:33 PM

The lady is a jerk.

She milked the death of her son to make a point, and from my point of view, she deserves the heat she is being given by "the right wing press".

I mean, of course I feel sorry for her, but she's just being a giant Moore-ish douchebag, and when anyone calls her on it, she invokes her son's death to gain sympathy.

dire_romantic

dire_romantic

Edmonton, AB
May 2004

AUG 18, 2005 09:41 PM

If that's truly the case, why wouldn't the president take this oppurtunity for good press?

Mother: "Why did you have my son die?"
Prez: "Your son and (insert current casuality count) others died to provide a safer and independent Iraq. While our worries about WMD's in Iraq were false, those concerns were secondary to promoting *bells and whistles* FREEDOM in a dictatorial regime. Your son's death is a sacrifice to give others who've never had freedom in their lives to finally taste it."

Can you imagine the good press he'd get off a response like that? Regardless of whether or not it's a heaping pile of fabricated bullshit. Any further protesting on her part will kill her sympathy immediately. I can't believe Rove, Rummy, and Bush are letting this slip by.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 18, 2005 09:41 PM

dire_romantic said:
bones, how about you address the question where if Bush legitimately sat down and had (probably scripted) a discussion with her, that the media attention would get off her real fast? if she does indeed have any further agendas other than calling the president out on accountability, the national public would recognize it instantly if she still calls for more press time.



I believe the way she went about it made it impossible. She started with giving speaches about Bush killing her son. She went on from there. This lady has been acting so far out that there would be no point to any meeting. Have you seen some of her "questions". They have all been answered. She and a lot of other people may not like the answers, but that doesn't mean you get different ones if you keep asking. I feel so bad for her loss. That doen't lead me to shift my beliefs because she "waves" her dead son around.

Hindsite is 20/20. maybe it would of been best to try and give her a meeting before this got raised to this level, but Sheehan had already made statments against the war, Bush, neo-cons, and jews before the whole "meeting" buissness started.

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

AUG 18, 2005 09:50 PM

Cathedral said:

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.



I should have said that she's said such things before, elsewhere, not strictly from that article or that TV interview.

Andvari

Andvari

Calgary, AB
April 2005

AUG 18, 2005 09:56 PM

stockula said:

Cathedral said:

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.



I should have said that she's said such things before, elsewhere, not strictly from that article or that TV interview.



Source?

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

AUG 18, 2005 10:08 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.



Why should he meet with this woman? She says she wants answers, but it's clear she has had her mind made up a long time ago, and wants to act righteously indignant and call Bush an evil greedy lying warmonger who killed her son for Halliburton and the Jews. Did you see "Bowling For Columbine", where Michael Moore tricks an Alzheimer's-addled Charlton Heston into meeting with him, so he can rail against him in front of the cameras? That's basically what the high-minded Cindy Sheehan would love to have happen.

Greg Gutfield put it a different way:

Sitting here with my can of beer online shopping for a new gardening hat, I can't help but think: what do the thoughtful Huffposters really want out of this media-inflated standoff with President Bush?
It must be:

The CHIEF BRODY SLAP.

THE CHIEF BRODY SLAP is based on the infamous scene in Jaws when a distraught mom slaps Roy Scheider across the face. Her son was eaten by a shark, but she blames the sheriff. Because he didn't do enough. It's not the shark, it's the sheriff. It's like me blaming Arianna for Christine Lahti's post. But unjustified. And with a shark.

THE CHIEF BRODY SLAP (CBS) is a chief staple in an any liberal diet: a fiery mix of outrage, self-rightious indignation and condemnation delivered from a moral highground so lofty it gives you a nosebleed. The Brody Slap is predicated on the idea that you don't need a solution, only blame. Who needs a real alternative when you're already outraged? It's easy!

Where do lefty celebs learn to deliver the Brody slap with such blinding speed and conviction?
YOGA SCHOOL? PILATES? THE PRIUS DRIVING MANUAL?

NO. The Chief Brody Slap comes naturally. To actors. It's really pantomime.
It's all symbolism, no action. And, like a seaweed wrap, it makes you feel good all over. While the rest of us do the heavy lifting, all you have to do is emote, when the going gets rough.

SOME FAMOUS BRODY-SLAPS THROUGHOUT HISTORY: Nero shoots the messenger. Smokers sue big tobacco. Johnny Depp moves to France. And just about any incident involving Sean Penn.

For the Brody Slap to work, the Huffpo will want Cindy Sheehan to talk to the President about her son in the same way Michael Moore wanted to talk to Roger Smith about Michigan poverty....not because something constructive will come out of the encounter, but because it will feel good making somebody else look evil.



It's just emotional drivel. The president doesn't debate citizens one-on-one, and he sure as hell doesn't indulge his political enemies in silly theatrics (see also here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/cleland.swiftboat )

We had an election over these issues almost a year ago. Bush won, we're staying in Iraq until the situation is stable enough for the Iraqis to handle it. Re-enlistments in the active armed forces remains very high (her son himself re-enlisted about 6 months before he was KIA), the military isn't punking out, nor is it demoralized, nor does it feel like Bush lied to them or is disserving them as CINC. So what the hell is this woman's fucking problem? What is she hoping to accomplish here?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 11

Next

featured interviews