[tomder55]

She is planning on protesting and demonstrating against the President when he visits Martha's Vineyard later this month when the President goes on vacation. Bet you won't see her tent city on your nightly newscast.

[JudyKayTee]

Are you talking about Cindy Sheehan?

I'll bet she gets press coverage.

[tomder55]

Yes but I prefer Sheehad . You mean to say you think the press will stand vigil with her the whole week ? I doubt it. See how supportive of her they were when she mounted a campaign against Madam Mimi Pelosi ?
Her 15 minutes are up.

[JudyKayTee]

Yes, I think she'll get coverage the whole week. Maybe not reporters camped out with her but I think enough people are fed up that she will get more than 15 minutes.

What is your argument or problem with her?

As far as I'm concerned the woman lost a son and has every right to protest anywhere and everywhere she chooses. If the media wants or doesn't want to cover her, that's a question of what sells.

Brad and Angelina sell. Cindy Sheehan may not.

I fail to see the humor in flippantly calling her Shee-had and, yes, I understand where you're going with that.

I protested Viet Nam, admittedly, on occasion and weakly. Had I lost a brother/husband/son, I'd be linking arms with Cindy Sheehan right now.

[ETWolverine]

I agree with Tom. At most, she'll get a day or two of coverage that amounts to, "Oh, look who's popped out of the woodwork," and then it'll be dropped.

She was a "useful idiot" to the left when she protested Bush so they gave her all the lense-time she wanted and more. She's a lot less useful to them now (though she clearly remains an idiot), so the press won't be quite so lovey-dovey with her this time around.

What's she protesting this time? Obama's not abandoning Iraq quickly enough for her? Or does she have a new cause de jure?

[speechlesstx]

As I hear she is still protesting the wars and I'll give her kudos for being nonpartisan on that. She has certainly walked the walk more than Michael Moore who blathered about how he would fight Democrats twice as hard as Republicans if they didn't get us out of Iraq ASAP back in 2007

The only way I see she'll get much coverage is if Obama stops by to see her and feel her pain.

[N0help4u]

I don't think it will get much coverage
She is a has been that both parties turned on and a Sheehan/Obama media coverage -I doubt the media would even want to go there.

[inthebox]

As I hear she is still protesting the wars and I'll give her kudos for being nonpartisan on that. She has certainly walked the walk more than Michael Moore who blathered about how he would fight Democrats twice as hard as Republicans if they didn't get us out of Iraq ASAP back in 2007

The only way I see she'll get much coverage is if Obama stops by to see her and feel her pain.

I agree. Was she unpatriotic then? Is she still unpatriotic now to be questioning this administration? I don't necessarily agree with her or her methods, but is anyone allowed to ask whichever president, why we are there, and what is the military/political objective, and how is that being or not being achieved?




G&P

[excon]

Hello:

She's a mother who lost her son in YOUR war. She took exception to it, and Elliot calls her an idiot... Shame on him.

excon

[ETWolverine]

She IS an idiot, and she used to be a useful one to the left. Now she's not.

She's an idiot because she thinks that by calling for the US military to leave Iran she's going to bring peace to the region. She's an idiot because she thinks that if she sings kumbaya loudly enough, she's going to make the terrorists suddenly stop wanting to force the world to become Muslim or die. She's an idiot because she thinks like Neville Chamberlain that if you make nice with bad people, they'll just leave you alone. She's an idiot because she has never learned the simple lessons of history that have taught us that not everyone is nice, not everyone has good intentions, and not everybody negotiates in good faith. She's an idiot because she's a naïve little girl in a grown woman's body who throws hissy fits at presidents, and has never grown up.

But most of all, I find her to be an idiot because she has deliberately decided to deny her son's heroism by denying that he CHOSE to serve his country, and instead places that heroic choice in the category of being forced into something "evil" by Bush. She denies that her son made a choice to sacrifice at least part of his life in the service of his country, denies the good work he did while he was in Iraq, denies the good of his fellows as well, denies all the things that made her son a great person, and instead chooses to say that Bush duped her son into something, which would make her son a fool.

Any woman who would deny her son's heroism and call to duty and honor for anger's sake is an idiot.

Cindy Sheehan: former useful idiot. One each.

Elliot

[spitvenom]

Her son dies in a war and you call her an idiot. That's mighty white of you ET.

[tomder55]

He called her a " useful idiot ".
Useful idiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indeed ;her "protest " went well beyond her sudden conversion to being against the Iraq war after her son's death . I think that is all she originally intended but she came under the influence of people with an agenda far beyond that who played on her hurt . As an example ;Suddenly she was embracing Hugo Chavez and supporting his dictatorial takeover of Venezuela .What did that have to do with the war ?

I disagree that there will be much media play to her Martha's Vineyard excellent adventure. There is a major battle occurring right now in Afghanistan and there has been little reportage and I have not heard the daily casualty reports the MSM did for the last 6 years of the Iraq war. It seems that Cindy hasn't gotten the message yet... a war without GW Bush is no war at all.

[ETWolverine]

Her son dies in a war and you call her an idiot. Thats mighty white of you ET.

I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

I explained my position. Don't like it? Tough. I've never changed an opinion because it was unpopular, not politically correct, or philosophically offensive to someone. I'm not about to start now.

Elliot

[spitvenom]

No one is saying change your position it is what it is and you are what you are.

[ETWolverine]

No one is saying change your position it is what it is and you are what you are.

And she is what she is.

[spitvenom]

Yes She is. A mother who's son died for YOUR freedom and protection.

[ETWolverine]

Yes She is. a mother who's son died for YOUR freedom and protection.

And who has now rejected EVERYTHING her heroic son believed in and fought for, has relegated her son's heroic CHOICES to those of an uneducated boob led by another uneducated boob, and who has dismissed her son's ACCOMPLISHMENTS as useless and inconsequential.

There's a reason her husband dropped her like a hot potato. HE still believes in the heroism of his son.

Elliot

[spitvenom]

Right back to post #11

[ETWolverine]

Yep.

Let's just poilitely agree to disagree on this one.

[speechlesstx]

As much as it pains me to say it, I can sympathize with Cindy for a change. I already gave her kudos for at least being consistent and I think she has a point when she wonders where all the war protesters and the media went once democrats gained control of everything.

Some of us have been wondering for some time now where all the outrage is over much of what Obama has done, such as continuing so many of the Bush policies he supposedly hated. Well, here's another chance for all you anti-Bush people to show your outrage instead of your hypocrisy...

Detainees Shown CIA Officers' Photos
Justice Dept. Looking Into Whether Attorneys Broke Law at Guantanamo

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 21, 2009

The Justice Department recently questioned military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay about whether photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, were unlawfully provided to detainees charged with organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

Investigators are looking into allegations that laws protecting classified information were breached when three lawyers showed their clients the photographs, the sources said. The lawyers were apparently attempting to identify CIA officers and contractors involved in the agency's interrogation of al-Qaeda suspects in facilities outside the United States, where the agency employed harsh techniques.

If detainees at the U.S. military prison in Cuba are tried, either in federal court or by a military commission, defense lawyers are expected to attempt to call CIA personnel to testify.

The photos were taken by researchers hired by the John Adams Project, a joint effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, to support military counsel at Guantanamo Bay, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the inquiry. It was unclear whether the Justice Department is also examining those organizations.

Both groups have long said that they will zealously investigate the CIA's interrogation program at "black sites" worldwide as part of the defense of their clients. But government investigators are now looking into whether the defense team went too far by allegedly showing the detainees the photos of CIA officers, in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes.

Wasn't the outing of Valerie Plame considered "treason?" What do you call it when the ACLU and defense attorneys spy on field agents at their homes and show the photos to terrorists?