Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Smearing Cindy Sheehan
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There was cooperation or talk of it between the two. They both hated the US more than they hated each other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This issue gets into absurdities.

If we are sympathizing with Sheehan, with her pain over losing her son, or with her frustrations with Bush's insensitivity, then that's one thing.

If we are giving her credibility as some kind of expert on U.S.-Middle East relations, then we're getting on the same ridiculous ground as we were when Jennifer Flowers went on Nightline or some other serious news show to tell us her theory on Clinton's foreign policy...

So if she is using her son's dead body as a pedastal to mount a soap box, and people with larger issues and agendas are apparently using her because of her visibility in the press, then that's a very problematic thing, I think. If we're looking to explain why it's difficult for the media to cover this story, that might be one part of the explanation...What are her qualifications to speak as a Mid-East area specialist and policy analyst? What documentary evidence is she citing to back up her analysis about Israel, etc.?

It is common for innocent people like Sheehan to get caught up in larger leftist agendas, unwittingly...just look at the making of Rigoberta Menchu's book, made esp. significant when Menchu denounced the feminists, if memory serves.


Last edited by Gopher on Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
On the other hand



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What are her qualifications to speak as a Mid-East area specialist and policy analyst? What documentary evidence is she citing to back up her analysis about Israel, etc.?


Very good questions.

For every war that's ever been fought, you can probably find some dead soldiers' relatives who disagree with the war. You can probably also find a few who think the war is justified. So why should we listen to one set of relatives over the other?

I happen to think that Sheehan's points might very well have some merit to them(does anyone think Ariel Sharon was OPPOSED to the invasion of Iraq?) However, I would hold those opinions irrespective of whether or not a dead soldiers mother also held them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the other hand wrote:
So why should we listen to one set of relatives over the other?


One reason that complicates this is that it's hard to see someone in pain like that and not want to sympathize with them to one degree or another...thus the whole problem with the Sheehan issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
On the other hand



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
On the other hand wrote:
So why should we listen to one set of relatives over the other?


One reason that complicates this is that it's hard to see someone in pain like that and not want to sympathize with them to one degree or another...thus the whole problem with the Sheehan issue.


I believe that in formal logic, what you describe is known as the argument ad misercordium, or the appeal to pity.

The problem is, you could just as easily trot out a pro-Bush war widow to say "my son was killed by those awful insurgents and so I want our president to finish the job of cleaning up Iraq".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What are her qualifications to speak as a Mid-East area specialist and policy analyst?



Her original point was to challenge Bush for distorting evidence in order to mislead the public. As a citizen, she has every right to do that. Being the mother of a dead soldier lends moral weight to her position.

Anything else she said on any other topic is not relevant and should be ignored. She made mistakes in allowing herself to get side-tracked. The GOP attack machine was offered lots of material on a silver platter. She should have stuck to her original point. I think she was unassailable if she had been able to do that. She took her eye off the ball.

When ABC (or whoever) asked: "How do you respond to your critics who say....?" She should have said, "I'm not here to discuss other issues. If you want to discuss them with me, you can come back after Bush has answered my original question: Did you lie in order to take us into this war?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the other hand wrote:
I believe that in formal logic, what you describe is known as the argument ad misercordium, or the appeal to pity.

The problem is, you could just as easily trot out a pro-Bush war widow to say "my son was killed by those awful insurgents and so I want our president to finish the job of cleaning up Iraq".


Absolutely agree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Bobster



Joined: 15 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another mother of a fallen soldier joins Cindy at Crawford.

Sher's death brings me on an unlikely journey to Crawford, Tex. I join Cindy Sheehan, who has established a camp here.

My family is gathering with me as we hold our own vigil. We believe that we finally deserve a meeting with the President, one that has been denied us for the last 16 months.

We bring with us here the desire to share our humble story. We want the President to hear us talk about Sherwood. Perhaps he can answer some questions for us. We want to know why Sher, a case worker for the mentally handicapped, had to say goodbye to his wife and 10-year-old son to participate in the negligent endeavor that is the Iraq War.

We'd like to know what he finds noble about instigating and maintaining a war with a country that posed no threat to our country.


Frank Rich in his recent NY Times column :

CINDY SHEEHAN couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.

When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.

The most prominent smear victims have been Bush political opponents with heroic Vietnam résumés: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry. But the list of past targets stretches from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke to Specialist Thomas Wilson, the grunt who publicly challenged Donald Rumsfeld about inadequately armored vehicles last December. The assault on the whistle-blower Joseph Wilson - the diplomat described by the first President Bush as "courageous" and "a true American hero" for confronting Saddam to save American hostages in 1991 - was so toxic it may yet send its perpetrators to jail.

True to form, the attack on Cindy Sheehan surfaced early on Fox News, where she was immediately labeled a "crackpot" by Fred Barnes. The right-wing blogosphere quickly spread tales of her divorce, her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops, her incendiary sloganeering and her association with known ticket-stub-carrying attendees of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Rush Limbaugh went so far as to declare that Ms. Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents - there's nothing about it that's real."

But this time the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war.


Cindy said this in her blog, which is not only being published at Micheal Moore but also The Huffington Post, Daily Koz, and likely elsewhere as weel ... and I've been feeling the same for a while now :

"I got an email the other day and it said, "Cindy if you didn't use so much profanity... there's people on the fence that get offended."

"And you know what I said? "You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?"

"If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."


Another part of her blog :

Another thing is that the Israel thing has not died. I did not say that my son died for Israel. I have never said it, I don't think it, I don't believe it. It is just another lie, smear tactic from the right. It needs to die right now. It's not the truth. I stand by everything that I have said. But I will not stand by things that I haven't said. I am not anti-Semitic. I am just anti-killing.
The smear is not going to go away. The people inventing it are desperate and have nothing else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is their anyone out there who thinks that Wikipedia is part of "the conspiracy" against her? This is what she has said.


Quote:
Rhetoric
In her speeches and writings, Sheehan is direct and often blunt, a characteristic that has been noted by observers on both the left and right, and which Sheehan herself does not deny.[13]

There is controversy over an e-mail that Sheehan sent to ABC's Nightline allegedly containing various comments about Israel. A version of the email was posted to the "bullyard" Google group by "Tony" on March 18, 2005. [14] which allegedly states Casey "was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel" and he "joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Sheehan claims that the email was modified by James Morris to support his own personal agenda. [15] [16] However, James Morris denies altering the email before sending it along to Nightline. And two other individuals, Tony Tersch and Skeeter Gallagher, received a copy of Sheehan's email directly from her. It was Tersch who posted the email he received to the "bullyard" Google group. [17] Sheehan gave a speech to the Veterans for Peace convention stating, "You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine". [18]

In a letter to author William Rivers Pitt, she stated, "And most importantly and devastatingly, this war is based on lies and betrayals. Not one American soldier, nor one Iraqi should have been killed. Common sense would dictate that not one more person should be killed for lies. One of the people, my son, was more than enough for me and my family. I will live in unbearable pain until I die. First of all, because my first born was killed violently, and second of all, because he was killed for a neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world. This agenda and their war machine will chew up and spit out as many of our children as they can unless we stop them now." [19]

In another editorial relating her experience on a June 28, 2005 Larry King Live show she described President Bush as having "moronic and callous foreign policies" and said Senator John Warner "fell in lockstep behind his Führer." She said, "this war is a catastrophe" and "we should bring the troops home and quit forcing the Iraqi people to pay for our government's hubris and quit forcing innocent children to suffer so we can allegedly fight terrorism somewhere besides America. How absolutely racist and immoral is it to take America's battles to another land and make an entire country pay for the crimes of others? To me, this is blatant genocide." [20]

In an August 15, 2005 interview [21] on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Sheehan told Matthews that she thought she wouldn't have responded differently to her son's death had he died in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq. Sheehan argued that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was "almost the same thing" as the Iraq war and that in both cases it was wrong to invade an entire country to fight an ideology that did not necessarily represent all of the people of that country. When Matthews pointed out that "...Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.", Sheehan replied, "Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan." Sheehan also argued that American efforts in Afghanistan were not "having any success" and that "our troops should be brought home [from both Iraq and Afghanistan.]"

In a speech given on April 27, 2005 at San Francisco State University, Sheehan is quoted as stating "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We��re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush." [22] Similarly, Sheehan wrote that "Casey was killed in the Global War OF Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal." [23]


Everyone can make up their own mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan


As for the rest I agree w/ what Gopher said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deleted

Last edited by Gopher on Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Summer Wine



Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have read that parents wish to know why thier sons and daughters are fighting in Iraq? Whats it for? If the American Government gets up and says the reason, will that satisfy them and will they csupport thier childrens place in Iraq? If the American President gets up and says yes, we misled you but now these are the absolute reasons we are staying in Iraq. Will the democrats and antiwar people say, OK, now we know and while we won't support you, we will no longer complain that we are in there because of a lie and we wont protest for troops to come back?

Is there really a good reason to keep on slaming the US Government about thier position in Iraq, if they say their reason, or will everyone keep on saying that they are lying and bring the troops out?

One final question that I have is that I never see in any argument by the left is what do they want to happen in Iraq, if the US pull out and how likely do they believe that Al Quada (?) will end the fighting in Iraq if the US leave?Will they support an International force entering Iraq to protect the innocents? Or is this just a massive we are right and told you so fest, with no real consideration or concern for what happens if America runs away with its tail between its legs.

e.g Lebanon, US and French Peacekeepers pulled out because of the bombings, was there peace? no, there was an enforced military dictatorship by Syria until just recently. What will the end game be for Iraq?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
On the other hand



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Is there really a good reason to keep on slaming the US Government about thier position in Iraq, if they say their reason, or will everyone keep on saying that they are lying and bring the troops out?


When people ask "why are our soldiers dying in Iraq?", I think the question is meant rhetorically. I don't think anyone is seriously thinking to themselves "hmm, well they lied the first time around, but I wish they'd tell us the real reason that we're in Iraq so I can regain my confidence in them".

If the Bush admin did state any sort of new and noble reason for the war, I don't think that too many skeptics would buy it. Why not, you ask? Well, do you wake up every morning thinking that this is the day that THE WEEKLY WORLD NEWS is gonna start printing factual headlines?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:14 pm    Post subject: The Bigger Picture... Reply with quote

Real Reasons for Wars

If you review Kubrick's 2001: a Space Odyssey, you will note that the monolith first becomes interested in primates when they are divided into several groupings, fighting each other over territory and natural resources.

They fought to defend and/or expand their territories and control over water.

Except for the fact that nations have felt the need to "justify" warfare to their populations since approximately the 1500s, little has changed since the time of Kubrick's not so fictitious primate wars...

So take away the pretexts, take away the religious intolerance, take away the nationalism, and what remains are six billion people collected into several "tribes," who realize that there may not quite be enough to go around, and there you go. It still hasn't been worked out. But it's only been about seven million years, which, geologically, is not much time at all. So Marx was basically right in his analysis that it all comes down to economics, and everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

The real question, then, is not why we are in Iraq (which is merely the sideshow of the moment) but rather "How's it going to end?" Are we going to solve these issues and learn to coexist before we invent or disperse the technology that can end it all with the push of a button or the release of a chemical or a pernicious new germ (since I'm using film, how about 12 Monkeys as a reference?)? Are we going self-destruct or are we going to come together and make it? If the latter, then how?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
igotthisguitar



Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joan Baez Sings at War Protest Near Bush Ranch
President's backers continue their efforts
By Angela K. Brown, Associated Press | August 22, 2005

CRAWFORD, Texas -- Iraq war protesters camping out near President Bush's ranch are getting support from a prominent figure from the anti-Vietnam War movement: folk singer Joan Baez.



''In the first march I went to [opposing Vietnam], there were 10 of us. This is huge," Baez told relatives of fallen US soldiers yesterday before performing a free evening concert in Bush's adopted hometown.

About 500 people attended the concert on a 1-acre lot offered by a landowner who opposes the war. Not far away, protesters continued a camp-out started by grieving mother Cindy Sheehan.

Meanwhile, more Bush supporters arrived at a downtown pro-Bush camp. As of yesterday afternoon, more than 150 people had visited the large tent with ''God Bless Our President!" and ''God Bless Our Troops" banners and a life-size cardboard cutout of Bush.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/22/joan_baez_sings_at_war_protest_near_bush_ranch/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
The Bobster



Joined: 15 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gopher wrote:
If we are giving her credibility as some kind of expert on U.S.-Middle East relations, then we're getting on the same ridiculous ground as we were when Jennifer Flowers went on Nightline or some other serious news show to tell us her theory on Clinton's foreign policy...

Did you notice that you are drawing an equation betion between a woman who had a purely sexual affair with a politician, on the one hand, with a woman who has lost her firstborn child due to a war which she never believed was just or neceassary?

On the one hand, you have desire for notoriety, fame and possible financial gain - Jennifer Flowers, if I need to point out the obvious - and on the other, you have a woman in the midst of very conscious pain who just might see the healing process she needs for herself to be commensurate at least similar need for the salvation of her country ... at the very least, as she has said many times, she wants no more mothers to feel what she feels now.

I'm having trouble seeing your comparison as anything other than sick and twisted, and I'm hesitating, but I'll say it anyway : anti-woman.

(I don't know enough about Cindy Sheehan to call her an angel, but putting her in the same league with Jennifer Flowers - why not just call her a crack whore giving oral sex to the Commies at $5 a pop and be done with it ... I mean, hey, why not?)

There was a time when I welcomed your voice here as a voice of sanity which the rest of us might benefit from. This post makes me think my previous notions about you were absurd.

But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you really think Cindy is selling the death of her son in a similar manner that Jennifer Flowers once sold the memory of her trysts with Bill Clilnton, then say so clearly and with no pretense at anything else. Otherwise, what the hell are you talking about?

Quote:
One reason that complicates this is that it's hard to see someone in pain like that and not want to sympathize with them to one degree or another...thus the whole problem with the Sheehan issue.

That might be your problem, but it is not a problem that those of us who retain some regard for humainty share.

I'll go further. It is not the problem at all - it is the solution. There can BE no resolution until we start to understand and take a good look at the pain that others are experiencing, not just because of of our actions in this war ... but also because of our inaction in opposing it sufficiently.

Quote:
I'll tell you a story of a young Marine squad leader who led a couple of fire teams through the streets of Panama City on a mission to search houses and seize weapons during Operation JUST CAUSE (should it have been called "JUST BECUASE"?). He approached an intersection and went left rather than right. That choice cost him one Marine, who took a machine gun burst in the chest and died from a sucking chest wound.

What was the point of that death? What is the point of the Marine who has nightmares about that incident? What noble purpose was there in this event? It wasn't me, but it was a close friend, and I heard his nightmares for a couple of weeks in the aftermath.

The point of that death, and the point of that story is that war is not a small thing to be entered into lightly. The unfortunate faccts of history with regard to the US, though, is that we have tended to do exactly that, from the time of the Phillipines War in the late 19th Century until the present day, and the example you cite of the Second World War is the only exception I can think of.

Once entered into, lightly or not, or even after much reservation (as was the case in WW2) we tend to feel ourselves tied into the matter and cannot pull out despite the potential risk to ourselves or the future nature of the world that gets created by our actions.

The present war in Iraq was entered into lightly, with far too little thought beforehand about ultimate outcomes or the best means to acheive what we wish. And, yes, much like Vietnam (q.v., Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) it was sold on a tisssue of lies at the outset ... but knowing what we know now about history, there is no reason to continue this farce for one single day more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 9 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International