Cindy Sheehan article

Going out on a limb here, but if it's possible to have any awareness of this world after death, then it's probably possible to also know why your mother would choose to act like Cindy Sheehan. Your after-life awareness would tell you that your mother's actions aren't related in the least to lusting after publicity or following "radical" groups. Instead you would know that your mother's actions have everything to do with her grief and her need to know the truth.

Talk about dishonor. I hear conservatives in the same breath saying that they understand Sheehan's grief, but that she's just a kooky radical out for publicity. This tells me one thing: they don't understand her grief at all.

Any mother who loses a child needs to uncover the reasons why, and to understand if anything could have prevented it. I saw it and lived it with my own mother when my brother died. Once again, her son's service is not denigrated one iota. Bush's war is built on lies. If you have a problem, you shouldn't be sniffing around Cindy Sheehan; you should be sniffing around the White House. There's your radical kook.

 

This isn't about her grief. She held these views before her son was killed. His death is merely giving her a platform to express them before the whole world.

And Tom, I have yet to see you or anyone else explain how it was that Bush was such a liar when he relied upon the very same information that prompted Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Ted Kennedy, et. al., to also state in very unequivocal terms that Saddam was a huge threat and almost certainly had WMDs in the years and months leading up to the war.

You've gotta answer that one.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindy Sheehan Arrested

I have to totally agree. Interesting that the ultra-left can't even see how many people on their own side of political spectrum see this situation for what it truely is.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cheney Rhetoric

Well, traffic enforcement isn't my bag anyway. I try to write one written warning (no $$$) per shift, just to keep the brass happy.

Even then, speeding (and most other traffic offenses) in Massachusetts isn't even a crime, it's a civil infraction.

I wasn't kidding about never arresting an innocent person. If I have the slightest doubt about it, I just apply for a Clerk/Magistrate hearing, which is basically a Judge Judy-type probable cause hearing. If there is probable cause, the case gets prosecuted the same as an arrest.

In my capacity as a Field Training Officer (FTO), one of the hardest things to get across to new officers is that it's not necessary to arrest everyone for every arrestable offense. The main purpose of an arrest is to ensure the suspect will appear in court. If I have someone who has committed a minor misdemeanor (shoplifting for example), they have good ID, a stable address, no extensive criminal record, and they don't give me a hard time, why would I arrest them? Request a hearing, and be done with it.

 

Fauss, read the news. Bush/Cheney and company decided to discount reports that there were no WMD, and trumped up completely unreliable reports (it turns out) that said there were WMD. Yes, liberal dems relied on the same information, but it was Bush and company who were filtering the intelligence and manipulating it for their own means. The evidence is now coming from multiple sources that Bush and Cheney had been looking for a reason, any reason, to invade Iraq.

Cheney stood up and told bald-faced lies to the American people and Congress about the threat from Saddam, after the people he commissioned to study the matter told him the opposite. It seems those reports didn't fit too well with the little war machine that was murmuring in his heart, so he ignored it.

Yes, I know, I'm getting my information from those nasty, liberal, and unreliable rags like the NY Times and Washington Post. Instead I guess I should be getting my info from right-wing bloggers or drug addicts like Rush Limbaugh??? The Post and the Times have how many Pulitzers between them? Maybe less than 100, maybe not.

Of course, there are also now leaks (and books) from former high-ups in the government who were part of the intelligence process, and of the machinations in the Bush White House.

That's how.

You write, "This isn't about her grief. She held these views before her son was killed. His death is merely giving her a platform to express them before the whole world."

This is wildly presumptuous on your part. Would you stand in front of Sheehan and tell her face-to-face that her actions have nothing to do with her grief, and that she merely wants a platform to espouse her world views? Now that would be dishonoring her son, and her. I think that you wouldn't dare tell her that. If you were foolish enough to try, I think you would be steamrolled by an angry mother's grief and rath that would leave you shaking. Just a guess on my part, but I'd stake money on it.

 

Tom

I think it is pretty clear Fauss is right. She is being controlled by the far left Michael Moore types that have no interest in the truth, but only in furthering a political view. It is very sad how willing they are to use her.

 

Her behavior defintely comes off like someone who is being used. Her speeches sound weirdly hollow and with feigned inflection, coming off like a dry reading by a very poor actress. The big pasted-on smile and glances toward the crowd while being arrested were just bizzarre. She really should go home and get some help, but that won't happen as long as the ultra-leftists can continue to turn her into a useful idiot. It's not just sad, it's sickening.


Kit

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cheney Rhetoric

What an interesting method to get around criminal procedure. San Francisco decriminalized parking tickets about a decade ago. Now if you want to contest them, you have to wait in line for some civil service grunt who almost always says you are guilty without having any real evidence at all.

I didn't think you were kidding. My brother says the exact same thing.

 

Are you suggesting that the Senate Intelligence Committee was reading reports that were intentionally tampered with and manipulated by the Bush team? That CIA and FBI information was being altered or suppressed before it got to the Senate? Are you prepared to back up that statement?

Also, I'd like to know how the Bush team was manipulating such data which was relied upon by many of Democrats I mentioned before George Bush took office. Perhaps as governor of Texas, he knew that somehow, some day, he would be president (I guess it was all fixed up by Haliburton, the Military Industrial complex, and his oil interest friends in Saudi Arabia) and so he managed, presumably through the usual suspects just mentioned, to manipulate such intelligence data.

Yes.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cheney Rhetoric

Anyone interested can do a search on <Administrative Law Judge> for some possibly dismaying enlightenment. NYC has had them for a long time. They ain't judges but they hold you by the same short hairs.

Maybe Faustus and Nosferatu can hold some real light to what is an ALJ.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cheney Rhetoric

Oh I love that: Nosferatu. Now you've given me a good nickname with which to combat him.

Actually, I'm not the type of attorney who'd have run across them. I've done litigation only on the side. Most of my practice has been writing up contracts, negotiating settlements, and occasionally, when all else fails, appearing in court. But I've never run across an administrative law judge. Where I did most of my legal work--Minnesota--they had district court, which are the regular trial courts, and conciliation court, which handles small claims $7500 and under, like Judge Wapner or Judge Judy. But both were manned (and womanned for those of you who are politically correct) by real judges who'd typically had decades of experience as a lawyer preceding their elevation (in status, if not salary) to the bench.

I do have a little story about a judge who had no formal legal training. I had a friend in law school (now a judge herself) who practiced criminal defense. Early in her career, she represented a client in some small backwards desert county in Arizona, in the real middle of nowhere. The judge was an old farmer who had no formal legal training; he evidently handled the misdemeanor overflow cases for the county. During the bench trial my friend raised some objection to the county attorney's line of questioning. The judge looked confused, fumbled a bit, then looked to the county attorney--of course, my friend's opponent!--and said: "Well, what do you think, Ed?"

Oy vey!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cheney Rhetoric

The last ALJ I ran across was in a Motor Vehicle office in da Bronx. She was objecting to my kicking out the plug of the machine taping her hearings. Nothing malicious on my part. Just that they had the machine I had to work on stuck in a corner where I had to stretch out to work.

Maybe Nosborne can get to the jugular of the ALJs.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cheney Rhetoric

Bruce,

You sound like you are a very fair and objective law enforcement officer. I have a cousing in law enforcement and I have a great deal of respect for the profession.

I have known some in the field, however, that were less than honest, ethcal, and professional. They didn't wear the blue long.

 

I have no doubt that there are handlers and organizers and plenty of people who want to use Sheehan as a tool. There's no shortage of people in either party like that. Let's remember the Swift boat nut cases.

At the root of it, though, Sheehan believes that the war is based on lies, and that Bush and his people have had their own agenda. She's right on both counts. It's also a war that needs to end. It sounds like Bush is trying to figure out a way to withdraw troops and still save face. I don't think he can do both.

 

They're exploiting the woman for their own gain, to further an agenda that's downright evil, IMO. They're the ones assisting a poor disturbed woman to destroy her family and make a fool of herself on national television. It's not right, not sporting to take advantage of her credulity and naivety like that for personal gain. Did you know that a Stalinist--STALINIST!--party organization was backing her and participating in the latest demonstrations? This is perfectly insane, IMO Stalin gave no ground to Hitler in terms of pure evil. And this is the type of organization for which she chooses to be a puppet? Why that national media with all their combined pulitzers doesn't expose this says volumes about their value as a source of truth and unbiased reporting.

I'd still like to see a shred of solid evidence or proof that Bush and company manipulated intelligence data while in office, altered info that went to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and covered up all data that was contrary to their opinion that Saddam was a threat to use WMD.

Also, I'd still like to know how Bush manipulated all that intelligence upon which numerous prominent democrats based their opinions that something had to be done about Saddam's WMD--all before Bush took office.

Would you like me to produce quotes?

 

Prior to President Bush being elected in 2000, Bill Clinton had been President for eight years. During every day of both of his terms, the United States enforced and several times extended no-fly zones over Iraq. American jets flew daily combat air patrols over that country. If any Iraqi aircraft rose, we shot them down. If any Iraqi radars lit up, we smashed them. Periodically we sent flurries of cruise missiles into downtown Baghdad.

If, as you suggest, President Clinton knew all the time that there were no WMD in Iraq, then what explanation can you give for American military activity during those eight years?

Again, I want you to explain American military action in Iraq during the Clinton administration. Pretty clearly the Clinton White House felt that military actions were justified. So, what was the justification? Presumably it wasn't right-wing "bloggers" (whatever 'bloggers' are supposed to be).

 

I forget exactly when, but I believe it was during the time immediatley preceeding our invasion of Irag. I heard Clinton claim that he had bombed the WMD's when he was president. He speculated that maybe he "got'em all".

My question to him then is "Where did you drop the bomds? If you bombed the WMDs, you had to know where they were."

Of course, he was never pressed on this because most people just rolled their eyes and filed it away as just another Clinton whopper.