Why do the right wing media so assiduously scrutinize the words of a grief filled mother and ignore

Ask's Cindy...

The woman who is protesting at Bush's Ranch... Here is here Blog, and some snippets taken out of her Blog of Which I will provide a link to at the bottom of the page.

She's camping in a ditch near George W. Bush's fake ranch--built as a stage set when Bush ran for President, so he could pretend to be a cowboy, instead of an oil man--because more Americans like cowboys...

Cindy wants to ask Bush about the Downing Street Memo. Even though the elite media never really put it on the front page, Cindy knows that it proves that Bush & Blair had decided to go to war long before they told the rest of us, that the reasons they gave out to the public were false.

I conservatively got 3 to 5 phone calls a minute. I did about 25 phone interviews and several TV interviews. I did several right-wing radio interviews. I was supposed to do: The Today Show, MSNBC live interview, Connected Coast to Coast (MSNBC) and Hardball (MSNBC). The Today Show just never showed up and the other 3 MSNBC shows cancelled for no reason.

For you all I would like to clarify a few things. First of all, I did meet with George, and that is not a secret. I have written about it and been interviewed about it. I will stand by my recounting of the meeting. His behavior was rude and inappropriate. My behavior in June of 2004 is irrelevant to what is going on in 2005. I was in deep shock and deep grief. The grief is still there, but the shock has worn off and the deep anger has set in. And to remind everybody, a few things have happened since June of 2004: The 9/11 commission report; the Senate Intelligence report; the Duelfer WMD report; and most damaging and criminal: the Downing Street Memos. The VERY LAST THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS IS: Why do the right wing media so assiduously scrutinize the words of a grief filled mother and ignore the words of a lying president?

I would say some damning questions that haven't been answered could easily lead one to suspect George Bush a criminal and treasonous bastard...

Check out her blog.

And if you agree with her, let he know by writing her so she knows not everybody in America is asleep.

www.meetwithcindy.org...

That link isn't working for me. I'd like to email her.

This site is another contact point:
www.crawfordpeacehouse.org...

I support her and I totally understand how her view has changed. Mine changed between the beginning of this war and now, too.

This may just be the woman who will lead this thing. I'm excited!

[edit on 9-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

I'm not entirely sure what you folks want out of this whole thing. Although you know I'm no Bush lover and don't like the war, I'm not sure it would even really be worth what I think you are hoping for (which simply won't happen anyway).

I personally don't trust her because of that initial interview and the fact that she has gone from passionatly for to vitriolic against in short order.

Is that reasonable? Sure, who knows what happens in the mind of a mother having lost a son.

But it sure lends itself to possible media ploy for sure as well.

Speaking objectivly, I don't think we can really afford much more here or abroad without going into areas we don't want to be in and aren't ready to deal with.

Bringing down a president would also serve to bring down a nation because the battle lines are drawn, but I don't think the people are mad enough to get much good out of the change at this point.

It's hard to say really.

Actively advocating on behalf of Cindy Sheehan, True Lies, like she does not have the vast majority of the left wing, anti-war broadcasting her every waking moment, eh?

Let me ask you this: based on her initial 2004 interviews and her comments concerning her son and how he felt, which was backed by his re-uping in the military, if her son was alive today, what would he think of what she is doing?

The woman is doing nothing more than disgracing what he had said, by her using his death for political grandstanding, period.





seekerof

Originally posted by TrueLies
And to remind everybody, a few things have happened since June of 2004: The 9/11 commission report; the Senate Intelligence report; the Duelfer WMD report; and most damaging and criminal: the Downing Street Memos.

Given the discovery of intent, fabrication & illegal action, I think she's more than entitled to have a change of heart.
Of course she is a political tool, of which "grandstanding" is a key part, the only part, afforded her. The American people, as evidenced by too many of this boards memebership, are religiously in "head in sand" mode with bypassing the Administrations numerous transgression in the name of perceived saftey...the "Not Switching Horses in MidStream" canard.
As the sheep can be lead to distraction with todays " pretty white girl is missing" diversions, they can be lead to focus on grief caused unnecessarily by hubris, a striving for empire and illegal actions. Then actions will follow.
Check the decibles of the stuck pig squeeeeeeeel of the Right over this.....they know their own knife has been turned on them.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I'm not entirely sure what you folks want out of this whole thing.

A truthful accounting of this situation by Bush himself would be a nice and legitimate start. Which is perfectly reasonable for an American citizen who just lost their child in a US-waged war to ask. Afterall, the president, according to all the propoganda, is accountable to we the people. Or did I miss something?

How hard would it be for the president to mosey on down (one evening) to where that poor lady sits, in a ditch, and to speak to her? What the hell is he so afraid of?

Anyone who thinks this is a guy who is protecting you might need to check yourself. He can't even face a little lady camped out in his driveway. God help Crawford if Al-Qaeda comes to town.

I personally don't trust her because of that initial interview and the fact that she has gone from passionatly for to vitriolic against in short order.

All I can suggest is that you find more and better sources. She, and her unfortunate and unwanted mission are quite real.

But it sure lends itself to possible media ploy for sure as well.

Media ploy? Huh? What kind of media ploy is this? A near-blackout? If this story lands in any A section in any newspaper of worth, it'll be in a brief inside a national roundup which amounts to absolutely no coverage. Out of sight out of mind. And they say this is a liberal media. Suckers.

Please explain this grand conspiracy. And what is its purpose?

Bringing down a president would also serve to bring down a nation because the battle lines are drawn, but I don't think the people are mad enough to get much good out of the change at this point.

So where were you when Nixon's administration came down? Unborn.. out of the country and without media? There is a machinery in place that thrives with or without a pretty president. That's the funniest thing about people who know nothing of the government.. they actually think a president has more power than the machine. Ameteurs....

Originally posted by Seekerof
Actively advocating on behalf of Cindy Sheehan, True Lies, like she does not have the vast majority of the left wing, anti-war broadcasting her every waking moment, eh?

Reaching how many households as opposed to the (actually) more right-wing controlled mainstream press?

Let me ask you this: based on her initial 2004 interviews and her comments concerning her son and how he felt, which was backed by his re-uping in the military, if her son was alive today, what would he think of what she is doing?

As a veteran, and a child of a very cool, concerned and supportive parent, I will answer that. He would probably understand her position completely, whether they fully agreed or not. As the son of a parent who cared THAT much about his plight, and those he served with, he would probly be proud as hell. I know I would. My mom once told me I was her hero. And she's glad as hell right now I'm not back in the Army 'cos she's smart enuff to know when someone's lying through their teeth.

If he was still alive, and he heard idiots attacking his mom and her credibility, he'd probly throw a line-drive through their jaw so hard they'd have to get their jaws wired shut.

The woman is doing nothing more than disgracing what he had said, by her using his death for political grandstanding, period.

And this statement is purely and ridiculously political. Touche'.





seekerof

[edit on 8/10/05 by EastCoastKid]

[edit on 8/10/05 by EastCoastKid]

Well said, Seekerof, even if you're points been countered with "Oh this is just stupid so I'm not going to answer it." I was watching Hannity and O'reily when they were covering it, and although I may not have watched all of it, I didn't hear any scrutiny at all! The right wing media was attacking the left wing media for using this woman as a tool. They weren't attacking HER. I mean this is completely ridiculous. Do you know how many other parents there are who have lost their sons in the military? It's a very sad thing, but you can't just expect everyone who loses a son who voluntarily signed up for the military and honorably gave his live to stand up and protest, especially if she supported these actions BEFORE her son was killed. To me, this whole thing is almost insulting to parents who have lost their sons, and still support Bush. And trust me, although the mainstream media doesn't show it, there are a lot of those. I know, I have a relative in the military, and for a couple fo days, they didn't know if he'd been capture, killed, or whatnot. If he had honorably given his life for a cause he felt was right, and then I saw these stories... I'd be really upset.

Truelies,

You can't expect Bush to privately meet with everyone who addressed him with these questions. If these questions really were credible, they'd be brought up in some kind of presidential adress or meeting. I'm going to tell you a story here. In my junior year of highschool, the school had a field trip to D.C. They also visited the white house, and all of those other government buildings. While there, (And this is a true story told to me DIRECTLY by my government teacher) there was a lady living up in a tree. Obviously homeless, and she wanted to privately speak to the president. This was her form of protest or whatever she wanted. She'd been staking out up there... I'm pretty sure a matter of years, so many that she was around there during the clinton administration, possibly further. All she asked was a mere 10 minutes of any president's time. As far as I know, she still hasn't gotten that. Why? Because the president doesn't have time to meet with every crazy tree lady that wants to spend time with him. And although the woman in these stories is obviously FAR more credible than a crazy tree lady, the president can't just personally address everyone that comes his way with ideas. Do you think Clinton stopped and talked to all of the right-wingers that were trying to address him about Monica Lewinsky, White Water, and the nuclear secrets he gave to China? No, and I don't blame him for that.

Originally posted by TrueLies

She's camping in a ditch near George W. Bush's fake ranch--built as a stage set when Bush ran for President, so he could pretend to be a cowboy, instead of an oil man--because more Americans like cowboys...

Oh, and this, completely ridiculous. This is a joke, right? I'm asking seriously. You don't really believe that Bushes ranch is a fake do you?



ed. to fix BB code

[edit on 13-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]