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?