We all know what Cindy Sheehan's saying in Texas, but did she say THIS?:

[MercutioATC]

"I now know is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss." after meeting with Bush after the death of her son?


If, in fact, she did (and I have no reason to believe she didn't) doesn't this weaken the arguement somewhat?

[Tsiyu]

1. We discussed this days ago

She was in shock, there was no DSM, no Plamegate, they cherry-picked her comments. She's doing more than you or I so leave it alone.

[MercutioATC]

7. "Leave it alone"?

Bullshit.

I'm not detracting from her loss or what she's attempting to accomplish. I'm asking a simple question.

If she did say it, I do think it GREATLY weakens the argument. That doesn't minimize her attempts in any way, it just gives the opposition a LOT of ammunition.

[Patchuli]

12. It doesn't weaken her argument one iota!

She was in shock after Casey died, that was only what 2 months later? I think she was trying to make it seem that it was nicer than it really was. I don't think she really wanted to believe that the pResident didn't give a damn about her son, which he doesn't.

Since then, the DSM has come out and the rationale for this monstrous war has changed back and forth until it became obvious that it was all bs to begin with.

Cindy has every right to ask * those questions, and if he was any kind of a 'man' he would answer them. And we as American people deserve answers to those questions as well. Why shouldn't those snot-nosed brats of his fight in his 'great cause?' I'm of the same opinion, you send yours W, and I'll think about sending mine. But

YOU FIRST!

[bos1]

18. it might weaken the argument a little but I think maybe America

will identify with her all the more if they get to see her speak -- her perception changed just like so many Americans have come to oppose the war

[MercutioATC]

35. THAT, I agree with.

I just think that making her change of attitude and the reasons why very public is crucial to people understanding her message. Without that, many will discount what she says as the grievings of a mother who lost her son.

[Divernan]

32. Your quick progression from "somewhat" to "greatly" is revelatory.

In your initial post, you ask whether her words weaken her position "somewhat". When challenged, you snapback that "If she did say it, I do think it GREATLY weakens the argument.. . . .gives the opposition a LOT of ammunition."

Pray, as Magistrate might say, enlighten us on exactly how her specific current comments on Bush, Iraq and her son's death are "GREATLY weakened."

I don't think her words shortly after her son died in any way preclude her current position on the issues around Iraq. She is challenging Bush's exploitation of the dead, including her son, to justify the continuing bloodbath in Iraq.

Perhaps you support Bush's War on Iraq. If so, say so. In your way of thinking, evidently every Senator who voted to support Bush, based on what we now know were massive lies, does not have the right to oppose Bush on any aspect of his conduct of this war.

[MercutioATC]

40. You're obviously not familiar with my postings...

I do not support this war and, unlike quite a few here, never did (nor did I support a candidate who voted for the war).

I stand by my statement that, without clarification,her statements seem contradictory to many people. To the best of my knowledge, she has not explained this change in opinion since she arrived in Crawford (which is when she started getting major media attention).

I think many will discount her statements without this explanation.

[Frederik]

97. Oh give it a rest

She didn't change her opinion "since she arrived in Crawford (which is when she started getting major media attention)". You haven't been paying attention, and consequently you are now parading your ignorance. She spoke at Conyer's DSM hearing, for instance, and her message then was exactly the same as it is now. She didn't get much media attention back then. She had spoken out before that, too, after new facts had begun coming to light about the lies that led to her son's death.

[MercutioATC]

99. I never said that she did...

Are we speaking different languages?

I've made it very clear that I'm not criticising her for her past statements, I'm just suggesting that she make the reasons for her now-different opinion known to the mainstream media if she hasn't already.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. When the police came to my door

and told me of my mother's death I was shocked. I was told she was hit by a car.

I spoke with the police in her city and they were very nice and sympathetic. I appreciated that.

When I got Charlottesville, I learned that the driver of the car who hit her was a police officer. Everyone was still nice, and I didn't think much of it.

Then the facts the police told me and the press didn't make sense. I began asking more question and I went to the scene of the accident.

I learned that the office, an under cover narcotics officer, wasn't off-duty as I was told, but on-duty.

Then I started to talk to witnesses. I learned he had been speeding 40 70mph in a 40 zone (the police denied this, but the skid marks contradicted them). I learned that the investigation had NOT been conducted by the State Police as I was told, but by the locals. They did all the measuring, report taking, witness interviewing, then turned it over to the state police who just acted as a transcriptionist.

I learned that the officer has left a bar ten minutes before he hit my mother. I learned that witnesses at the scene smelled alcohol on his breath. I learned that he was quickly removed from the scene and was never given a sobriety test. I learned my mother was tested for drugs and alcohol immediately after she was removed from the road. I had a district attorney look right into my eyes and argue that night was day. I discovered that officers deliberately lied on the accident reports.

When I hired an attorney and investigator to look into the matter, I was smeared by the police as a "greedy relative" looking to make some money off the police.

After the facts started to come out, the policeman was charged with reckless driving. When he went to court, his attorney claimed there was no evidence to prove his guilt, except for the evidence which proved his guilt, which should be disallowed. It was, and he was acquitted.

So, would it be fair to use my initial appreciation of the police's "sensitivity" to my plight against me, when I later criticized the police for lying and covering up?

[MercutioATC]

45. That's a great explanation of why your view changed.

If you were on national TV protesting the police's responsibility in the death of your mother (assuming you had previously stated to the press that you thought the police were very caring and responsible) wouldn't you deem it important to state why your opinion of them had changed?

Without that explanation, mightn't the average uninformed viewer view your statements as contradictory?

[Kelvin Mace]

78. I believe that if you go back and read the interviews

over the months, Sheehan addressed this. How many times does she have to cover the same ground.

Also, remember that most news folk gloss over that part and focus on the sensational parts.

I saw that in my case. In a number of interviews, I explained the genesis of the issue in detail. I said that I underdstood that the police have a hard job to do and that I wasn't judging all policemen on the actions of a few.

Those parts were always cut from the interview. What they wanted was sound bites.

Why is it MY repsonsibility to have to spell out my entire philosophy of life every time a reporter talks to me, especially when:

1) It won't see print.
2) The person I am criticizing is not held to the same standards as I am.

Sheehan is being "slammed" for changing her story. Since when did that become a crime in Bush's America? The fact that she changed her story is not as important as the reason. The reason should be obvious to anyone paying attention: Bush LIED!

When will the press hold Bush to 1/100th the standard of truth his critics are?

[Catrina]

95. When my husband was killed

a few years ago in a motorcycle accident, and the police never told me although I was just a mile from the scene, I was initially very angry because he died before I reached the hostpital, two hours away.

It took them 38 hours to finally come to our home to formally notify us of the accident. I did not want to talk to them, but was persuaded to do so by friends and family.

They were polite, answered all questions asked of them by all those present, and assured me that the accident was in no way my husband's fault. Despite my legimate reasons for being angry initially, their apparent professionalism and courtesy, caused me to feel grateful to them and I said so.

I also asked that someone thank them for me for their demeanor and for handling what must have been a difficult situation.

Four days later a newspaper article shocked me when I read that my husband was responsible for the accident. I called and told the editor to get in touch with the police, that they were mistaken. They told me the police had given them the information.

Everyone heard my complimentary comments about them ~ I will not repeat what I had to say when the same police who had told me what I already knew, that my husband was 'blameless' four days later told me when I asked him to correct the story in the newspaper 'those are the facts, ma'am'.

When new facts surface, initial attitudes can and do change drastically.

More importantly, when one suffers the kind of shock Cindy did, and I did, you WANT those in authority to acknowledge your loss. I don't know why that is important, but it can blind you temporarily because you need kindness so badly and appreciation for your lost loved one. You are VERY susceptible to kind words at that time.

Cindy was dubious about Bush before the interview, just as I was about the police ~ I can completely understand every emotional step she took and then the anger ~ the realization that they were lying, acting, not at all concerned, that you have been fooled, used and your emotions played upon.

Kelvin Mace, I am sorry for your loss and especially what you experienced at the hands of the police. That adds an additional dimension to the grief. It often delays the process of grief when lies and deceptions are a part of the horror. I never got answers, at least you did, but no justice. That hurts and while not true, it seemed to me to diminish my husband's worth.

Cindy did explain all of this, and in fact today, the reporter who wrote the original article, came out and showed how her words were taken out of context by Drudge and confirmed that she did express negative feelings about Bush ~ you can read it here, from the reporter from whom the quote in the OP came:


Under the headline, "Protesting soldier mom changed story on Bush," only portions of our story were printed. Left out were the Sheehans' reservations about the war.

The online report claimed Cindy Sheehan "dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander in chief last summer!"

We don't think there has been a dramatic turnaround. Clearly, Cindy Sheehan's outrage was festering even then.

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2925934

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

48. Brilliant response.

I'd expect that on the other board.

Congrats.

[MissB]

44. Read this, if you haven't already

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4295643

[FreedomAngel82]

62. Why?

If she said it before the DSM and all the other information that's now revealed it means nothing.

[MercutioATC]

65. You know that. I know that. Does the public know that?

I haven't seen ONE national report where that's been explained, which means 90% of the public doesn't have that information.

I think that without that explanation (and media exposure) her statements look contradictory and lose some credibility.

[Frederik]

96. I don't see why

honestly. She didn't know then what she knows today, and she probably didn't want to be too critical of the president. I don't understand how it "weakens the argument". Saying that it "GREATLY" weakens the argument is just bullshit, pure and simple.

[movonne]

2. No, I think she did think that at the time...but we all can change our

minds....Just look at bush...

[fortress]

3. depends on when she said it

if she said it while still dealing with the initial impact, then not really.

If she said it yesterday, then no.

See where I'm going with this???

[DistressedAmerican]

4. Nice Try. Nothing Undercuts Her Argument. Past Is Past.

Tell that to her son!

[MercutioATC]

10. "Nice try" at what?

??

[DistressedAmerican]

You Tell Me. What Is The Point Of This Post?

[MercutioATC]

20. Asking for clarification of information about Sheehan's statements?

I think her previous statements damage her current endeavor. I'm asking if anybody has an explanation I haven't considered.

Why?

[bos1]

31. it drives me crazy

when someone with the slightest criticism implied in a question gets jumped on here. DUers shouldn't act like Freepers.

[MercutioATC]

58. If I understand you correctly,

thanks.

I knew I was gonna draw some heat with this, as hot a topic as this is right now. I think this is a major problem with our party, however. We don't effectively explain ourselves at times and it makes us look weak...or indecisive...or crazy.

I think that needs to be said.

[Imagevision]

47. duh!

[MercutioATC]

50. I see you have a great command monosyllabic, inane responses.

I'm glad that's working for you.

[MissB]

51. I'm sure you've read the link that I've provided already

so you can come back and post something along the lines of "whew, glad she clarified and everything is okay".

Oh, in case you missed the link somehow, here it is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4295643

[MercutioATC]

56. I read it, and thanks.

Was that statement available anyplace except a liberal blog?

I guess my question is if she's made that statement to the MSM that's had cameras on her since she arrived in Crawford. If not, 90% of America has no idea she said it.

[MissB]

59. The media has been visiting her daily.

She has been on many national morning shows. If they haven't picked up her statement, then I'd throw the onus on the media, not on Cindy.

Alternatively, we could just blame Cindy for the whole thing.

[MercutioATC]

64. Relax.

Why is it that the person who points out the flaws in the armor gets crucified? I'm not arguing with her change of position. I don't doubt her sincerity.

I do, however, think that unless people hear WHY her position has changed her message gets lost in the controversy to many people. I haven't seen that happen yet. I think that's an issue.

That's all.

[MissB]

67. What controversy?

I think everyone's point here is that it isn't a controversy, except in the right wingers' convoluted minds.

I'm sure that millions more viewers watch national morning shows such as Good Morning America as opposed to Jon Stewart. The message is getting out.

[MercutioATC]

70. Well, the "right-wingers" are over half of America...

...of the remaining 50%, most get their information solely from the MSM. There IS a controversy, except to the 10% or so who have actually gone out and looked for the info.

[MissB]

71. Yep, including shows like GMA.

And no, there isn't a controversy, except in the right wingers' convoluted minds.

[MercutioATC]

79. Is there a specific reason for your hostility?

I've already stated that I wasn't aware of the GMA coverage.

I haven't criticized Cindy Sheehan's message (except to posit that it needed to be explained in the MSM more thoroughly).

A look at my profile and post history will show that I'm not new here and I'm definitely not sympathetic toward this administration.

I've gone out of my way to explain this to you in a non-confrontational way.

I'm sorry if I've failed to do that.

[U4ikLefty]

92. No, what you have done is bite off more than you can chew.

Then you claim hostility from the above poster?

[MercutioATC]

98. How so?

Asking questions isn't permitted now?

I didn't make a statement, I asked a question...how is that so offensive?

[emdee]

5. It doesn't weaken her argument at all.....

She read the DSM and looked at the lies told and *changed her mind* due to research. She has also said that she was in total shock over her son's death at the time of meeting with Bush.
emdee

[GOPisEvil]

6. Said before the Downing Street Memo was released.

After that, all arguments of "freedom for the Iraqis" are weakened, if not outright destroyed.

[fooj]

9. Yep. That pesky little DSM...

Peace.

[Nye Bevan]

8. She said this pre-DSM

I know several people who have turned against the war since then.

[MercutioATC]

17. Agreed. This needs to be clarified, though.

I might have missed some of her statements, but I haven't heard her say that her opposition to the war (or her feeling that her son's death was unjustified or whatever) was due to the DSM or other information that's been released since her meeting with Bush.

Without any explanation, her protest will devolve from a stand against an unjust war to the understandable lamentations of a distraught mother, IMHO.

[Connie_Corleone]

11. She was a mother still in the intial stages of grieving.

She wanted to believe that the president was sincere and didn't send her son to die for lies, even though she didn't really support the war before.

Since then, she's learned about DSM, Plame and other lies Bush told.

[JDPriestly]

22. It's sort of like Stockholm syndrome.

When something really horrible happens, people grasp for hope. They go into denial about what is happening to them. I guess they just think this can't be. They can interpret cruel acts as kindness. Also, they may blame themselves and see a bully as a benefactor. It's human nature. Cindy has had time to think rationally about what is going on. She has changed her mind. We are alive. We change. We grow. That's the nature of life.

Bush hasn't been consistent either. Remember how he said we had to go in because of WMDs and now says it is to promote freedom. The same people who criticize Cindy for inconsistency forgive Bush for a far more important inconsistency.

[malmapus]

13. What most have said

She did say that, and it was shortly after the loss of her son, she was still in shock and didn't have all the information that has come out since then.

Does not weaken her arguement one bit.

[libnnc]

14. to play on some familiar words...

The Downing Street Memos *CHANGED EVERYTHING*.

We're living in a post-DSM world.

[emulatorloo]

15. PLEASE GO TO THIS DU THREAD AND READ THE LINKED ARTICLE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4296257

[MercutioATC]

23. Thanks. I read it.

I still think that the spin on this is going to be ugly...

You can explain away her earlier statements in any number of ways, but I think SHE needs to state that she's changed her mind since the DSM or whatever...

...maybe she has but I missed it...

That's what I'm asking.

[emulatorloo]

27. She has -- and cites DSM. . .EOM

[MercutioATC]

29. Since she's arrived in Crawford?

That's my point. She started getting press when she went to Crawford. Has this issue been made clear since then?

[MissB]

37. Yes, IT HAS. In fact, she mentioned it YESTERDAY

Look through the first five or six pages of GD for a Crawford update from Cindy (posted by someone else). In it she makes a statement to the press.

[MissB]

42. HERE IT IS, so you can read it YOURSELF

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4295643

Sheesh.

[libnnc]

30. I think she has addressed it...very openly

Did you watch any of the DSM hearings that were on C-Span back in May? I don't have a link, but she was a key participant in those hearings that were lead by John Conyers. I'm sure the transcripts are floating around somewhere.

I understand what you're saying, but I really think that concern is dead in the water now, especially since Maureen Dowd's editorial.

But they will grasp at anything in hopes of tearing Cindy down. We will hear some crazy shit. It ain't gonna be pretty.

[Imagevision]

49. The Spin will begin after Bush has her arrested then the shit hits the fan

[JDPriestly]

16. I don't know if she said those words, but she explained explained.

She has changed her stance. Here is why. She was in a state of grief and shock at the time she saw Bush and thereafter. She has obtained new information. In spite of her kind words about him at the time, in fact he was rude, did not know her son's name and called her not by her name but by "Mom" at the time. Like most of us, Cindy is a polite woman. Most people would hesitate to call a president rude under the circumstances in which Cindy found herself shortly after her son died.

Cindy's journey from her son's death to Crawford has been long and arduous. She has learned a lot along the way. So have many of the rest of us. Millions of Americans who were caught up and persuaded to support the war by Bush's lies now oppose it. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind. It is a sign of intelligence, of the ability to learn. I wish Bush would change his mind about the war. Maybe he would be able to get us out of there. I wish Bush would change his mind about a lot of things. Cindy is all the more heroic for changing her mind and, in effect, admitting she made mistakes.

[stellanoir]

19. She has said

that she was still in shock at the time. It was only two months after she lost her son. Gradually the shock wore off and she grew increasingly angry with the revelations of the 9/11 commission, no WMD's, the DSM memos etc.

The five stages of grief are well established.

on edit-had to google to insure I got their order in accurate chronology

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Accceptance

[jobycom]

21. Which argument do you think it weakens?

[MercutioATC]

26. I think it will (and has) been spun as a "flip-flop"

...and something like this needs to be above scrutiny. If she has STATED that she changed her position based on new evidence, that's one thing, but i haven't seen any reports of that (at least not since she arrived in Crawford).

I think the apparent flip-flop weakens her statements.

[jobycom]

36. Something like what? Above what scrutiny? Flip-flop on what?

Spell it out, because I don't see what you're concerned about. A woman lost her son in a war she later learned was based on lies. Now she's protesting the president who lied to start the invasion, and asking him why he started the war in the first place. Like many Americans, including Senators and Representatives from both parties.

I don't see a flip-flop. I don't see what argument is weakened. You'll have to spell it out.

[MercutioATC]

54. Sorry, I thought I had been clearer...

...I sometimes make that mistake.

I'm not disagreeing with anything in your post. However, most Americans don't HAVE the information in your post. They didn't know who Cindy Sheehan was until a couple of days ago.

To those people (unless she has been on-camera with the MSM stating why her position has changed) her current statements lose credibility when they see her past statements after her meeting with Bush.

[jobycom]

73. I don't think she will

First, Bush and his advertising firm, ie the mainstream media, are going to smear anyone who steps up. Anyone. Mother Theresa, John Paul II. They will find something, or make something up. That's the way they operate. So there is no one "above reproach."

Second, people who want to like Bush will, no matter the evidence. THose who hate Bush will, because of the evidence. Those in the middle, who supported Bush once but aren't so sure now, may connect more with this mother who once supported the invasion and then turned against it when she realized what Bush had done.

Cindy Sheehan is closer to the average American than DUers. The Repubs might be doing us a favor by smearing her. It might make Americans realize just how far Bush will go, and it might make more Americans finally have the courage to admit their doubts.

Our job is only to show her support and to spread the truth about her. Let the rest of the nation decide how they feel. We didn't create Cindy Sheehan, we are only showing her support. She would continue with or without us. That's the type of leader this movement needs, anyway.

[Divernan]

39. What on earth do you mean, "above scrutiny."

As I pointed out elsewhere, under your approach to political discourse - if a Senator voted to support Bush's attack on Iraq, based on what were later revealed to be massive lies, that Senator should not criticize Bush for the lies or the current mishandling of the situation in Iraq, for fear of having some neocon scream, "Flip-flopper!"

When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir?
Edit: To attribute above statement to John Maynard Keynes.

[MercutioATC]

60. I just haven't seen a statement from her to the MSM that explains things.

Of COURSE new information calls for a review of position. I haven't seen this stated to the press, however. Without that, 90% of America doesn't GET the explanation, they just see a contradiction.

[MissB]

68. I guess you don't watch GMA

:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

72. Nope, I don't. If she made that statement on GMA, my concern is somewhat

alleviated.

[Diane R]

24. Personal perspective

My brother died in Vietnam. Initially, you are numb and you mumble platitudes to take the pain away. Everyone is saying, 'He died for a good cause', so you say, "he died for a good cause".

Also, you are trying desperately to not deal with the pain that the death was worthless. You try to believe there was a reason, and you certainly can't entertain the thought that the people who sent him to be killed are souless idiots.

When that realization sinks in, (and it always sinks in, remember McNamara's Mea Culpa book?), you are filled with such fury and rage. Why do you think so many of us whose family member was killed in prior wars are so anti-war? Once you finally accept that it was all pointless and a pathetic waste of a precious life, you just become determined to stop the idiots from killing others....who are all really just cannon fodder to them, sitting ducks, pieces on a chessboard.

Cindy's progression was perfectly normal. It would have been very unusual if she had been able to accept early on that Casey's death was unimportant to the man who sent him to war. For her own psyche, she had to try to convince herself that bush really cared. Unfortunately, as she had months to think about his behavior, she finally had to accept the fact that he didn't care at all.

[xchrom]

25. does it weaken her argument for you?

cindy, along with everyone else i've ever known, changed.
she's lived with the loss of her son and the reality of the war in iraq.

it's not worthy for discussion to question the validity and valour of this woman -- the gravesite of her son and the other gold star families speak for them.
and i'm sure every one of them went through changes in the course of living with their grief.

[MercutioATC]

28. It doesn't for ME, but I'm already in the choir.

...and I think anything that has a bearing on national politics and change is "worthy for discussion" here.

[MissB]

43. Here, read this if you haven't already

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4295643

[Imagevision]

52. MercutioATC It doesn't for ME, but I'm already in the choir.

The Bush choir, why do you hate america?

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[MercutioATC]

61. If you're trying to say something, say it.

Before you do, you might want to review my post history, lest you appear any more of an idiot than you already do.

[LynneSin]

33. It shows that Cindy, like a large % of our population was hoodwinked...

...hoodwinked into believe that Iraq was about 9/11 and they were a threat to our country. THe believed that if we didn't send troops that more attacks like 9/11 would happen on our soil.

Cindy believed that her son was serving for a noble purpose, a purpose to protect our country from terrorism and tyranny. She, like millions of others in this country believed the George W. Bush when he told us that there was no other choice that to send our troops to Iraq and start this war.

I seem to be finding more and more Cindys in this country, people who once fiercely believed in Bush and the war but now realize that maybe we, the anti-war supporters, were actually on to something.

I find nothing disrespectful about anything that Cindy has said before. She has made the greatest sacrifice to our country and at the time of her son's death she probably still believed that his death was for a noble purpose. But like millions of other folks in the United States, the truth was slowly seeping through the Bush-supporting media and when the DSM hit the streets she started to realize that maybe her first opinion was not a correct one. I'm sure reading those memos the ultimate fear crept through her like a bad b-movie horror flick - her son died for a reason that was not made clear to this country and for ulterior motives not related to democracy and freedom from terrorism. She realized that Bush had lied about the reasons for war and because of that lie her son lays in a cold grave six feet under.

To me Cindy gives the ultimate message - 'It's ok to change your opinion when you find out the real truth behind the war'. Her message will hopefully encourage more parents to discourage their children from enlisting in the military when right now enlistment almost guarantees a ticket to Iraq.

Please do not demean Cindy's message because of statements she said when she at one time truly thought that the Bush Administration was telling the truth. She was spoon-fed a story fed to the media in order to prevent the masses from asking real questions to the motive of the war. Hopefully Cindy's action will encourage more men & women like her to recognize the truth and be vocal as well

[Journeyman]

66. Thank you, LynneSin...

You give a concise, reasoned explanation. I hope the OP reads it and gains greater understanding of what , as you so rightly point out, millions of people are beginning to recognize -- the dawning realization that they were lied to and led to war for false reasons. Not everyone in the nation has been as perceptive as some of us on DU, who saw the build-up to war for what it was and opposed it on the same principles that today are being taken up by those countless millions.

For far too many people, acceptance of the idea that they have been so blatantly lied to and misled by their government comes as a grievous shock. Even I find myself, usually late at night, struggling to grasp the full import of what has happened. All those years of childhood civics and adulation of the "forefathers" are difficult to lightly cast aside. Sometimes, despite the evidence, I find myself fervently wanting it to be wrong, and yearning for a return to days which, frankly, never existed. And if I have these feelings, I can only imagine what people go through who have with less knowledge and a greater need for faith in the government and trust of the President.

[MercutioATC]

74. Lynne, please read some of my responses above...

...I'm not trying to demean her message, I'm concerned that it's being disregarded my many because her differing statements haven't been explained (or, at least, not broadcast by the media).

[radwriter0555]

38. retracted.. I don't know where this is going.

"never mind"

[MercutioATC]

63. Not going anywhere...

It was a simple statement. If she hasn't given an explanation of her change of position to the MSM since they've been covering her in Crawford, I think it weakens her statement as far as 90% of the population is concerned.

I'm not arguing her change of position, just the manner in which it has (not) been communicated.

[Goldmund]

46. It only weakens her argument in Bushworld

Even if you forget what all the other posters have rightly pointed out, even if you assume she changed her mind about that -- is it not a human being's right, no, obligation, to change her mind after she learns new facts, or simply gives a subject more thought?

This doesn't weaken the credibility of that person's statement, but only deepens it.

On Edit: I've now read you suggesting Cindy explain these "new facts" or more time to think... I agree that this would be prudent.

[Adams Wulff]

53. I'm no Cindy Sheehan, and I wasn't there but...

I can project with the best of them.

Her son is killed in Iraq, a mere two weeks after arrival, and the shock and horror was unimaginable for her. Two months later, she is invited to meet with the President. Note, that in the article, Cindy speaks of having great respect for the office of the presidency, and carried that with her to the meeting.

In the meeting, Bush was pompous, arrogant, and clueless. But in the immmediate aftermath of the meeting, Cindy gave more of a "benefit of the doubt" reaction, than a thoughtful, reflective one. That came later.

After DSM, PlameGate, and the constant redefinition as to why we are in Iraq, Cindy realized that this is not "a noble cause". A noble cause requires only the truth for it's validity. A noble cause stands on it's own, without the need of justification, the parsing of words, or platitudes.

What you have in her first reaction is the genesis of betrayal. It is important not to bury these words, but to trumpet them. It is an important part of the timeline, it gives one pause to think how things have changed in the mind of someone who gave so much, and was thanked so little for her loss.

We go to war only for that which is most important, and and only as the very last resort. These are the only criteria that Americans will agree to send their loved one's into harms way, because we know that the cost is so high.

This war fails at both. This has become radiantly apparent since Casey Sheehan paid the ultimate price. And that is why Cindy Sheehan is sweltering in the hot Texas sun, waiting for Mr. Bush to explain his actions.

It is pure democracy in action. Love it or leave it.

[Imagevision]

55. Nothing can weaken Cindy's arguement - Bush says thr troops

died for a noble cause! - I too don't know what this noblr cause is since 56% of americans now feel the US. is less safe since invading Iraq under phoney/false/lied pretenses to boot!!

[Divernan]

57. What's in a name? Let's turn to Shakespeare for enlightenment

Mercutio, kinsman to Romeo, in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. Mercutio's baiting of and eventual stabbing by the Capulet Tybalt brings about Romeo's banishment and the misunderstanding that leads Romeo & Juliet to double suicide.

As Mercutio is dying, he says "A plague o' both your houses."

You oppose Bush and you oppose Cindy Sheehan, i.e., a plague on both their houses.

By oppose, vis a vis Sheehan, I mean that you cast doubt where none can reasonably be cast.

[MercutioATC]

69. I'm sorry you haven't understood me.

Perhaps it's my fault.

I do NOT "oppose Cindy Sheehan"...if I did, i'd be gleefully chuckling at her apparent split personality instead of asking about the statements she's made to the national press. If you'll take the time to read my responses here (I've tried to keep up) I think you'll see that my concern is that the average person won't get the reasons for her change of opinion and will just attribute her actions to the misguided protests of a distraught mother.

[Divernan]

80. How dare you refer to her "apparent split personality"?

So everyone who has changed their support of the Iraq war, or may in the future change their support, has an "apparent split personality"? Sounds like grounds for recall of many an elected official as mentally ill. You claim that the "average person won't get the reasons for her change of opinion and will just attribute her actions to the misguided protests of a distraught mother."

I repeat that a reasonable person will easily understand how Mrs. Sheehan, as well as people around the world have changed their opinion about the necessity for and wisdom of Bush's war on Iraq For god's sake man, if less than 50% of the American public think Bush is truthful, I would say that Mrs. Sheehan is with the majority.

I think you are just someone who just likes the attention of stirring things up and upsetting all sides in a debate - why else did you choose Mercutio as your name?

[MercutioATC]

82. Because I think that's what many people will attribute her statements to.

Do you actually KNOW anybody who's not liberal? I work with quite a few of them. Without an explanation, they'd assume that 1) the was distraught and lashing out or 2) making a scene to get attention (for some liberal cause).

Unless you're EXTREMELY sensitive, how is asking the question "stirring things up"?

By the way, the origin of the name is as follows:

1) I needed a name that would be available on any ISP I chose to switch to.

2) In high school (years ago) I did Mercutio's soliloquy in a drama class.

3) I'm an air traffic controller (ATC).

It's that simple...

[Divernan]

84. You exaggerate to bolster your weak position.

Split personality is the alteration or dissociation of personality occurring in some mental illnesses, especially schizophrenia and hysteria. Changing one's opinion under Mrs. Sheehan's circumstances fall far short of the threshhold of schizophrenia or hysteria. (For hysteria, check out Rush.)

I know a fair number of people who are not "liberal". Many of them oppose Bush and what he's done in Iraq and what he's done to the Republican party. I'm talking about Republican committee people, and one friend who's a Republican member of the Kansas legislature.

I think your time would be better spent negatively labeling your co-workers than Ms. Sheehan. It is said that mental illness is contagious. Best be careful. But of course, you are now prepared to give them chapter and verse explanation, so they won't be ridiculing Mrs. Sheehan, will they?

[MercutioATC]

86. It wasn't a position, it was a question

(commonly denoted by a question mark)

And it doesn't appear that I have to check out Ruch for an example of hysteria, there seems to be plenty here.

Again, it was a QUESTION based on her differing statements, not an accusation. Why are you so profoundly offended?

[bos1]

94. A lot of INTOLERANCE here

for someone asking a simple question. This is what is killing America -- instead of right and wrong, the contest is "my side versus your side". Any criticism of MY side is a threat.

I first realized this in talking to an inlaw about Gov.Embarrassment (I mean Swarznegger's) playing around with tax allotments. I tried to tell her that even Conservatives should be outraged -- he is messing around with their MONEY. But the response was "oh the liberal media told you that"... In other words shooting herself in the foot in order to "support" her candidate.

Unfortunatley a lot of the same goes on here, when someone is asking a simple question about something Sheehan said, and gets ganged up on. The opposition will only stay weak if it can't do better than that.

[Woody Box]

75. Go back and fight the conspiracy nuts

with your tremendous inside knowledge of the Air Traffic Control world.

But don't ask a mother who has lost her son in an unjust war why she complained politely first and with more experience became more and more desperate and angry.

This is extremely inpolite.

[MercutioATC]

76. Your usual reasoned response, woody.

...it's good to see some things don't change.

[Divernan]

81. Mercutio's an Air Traffic Controller? Now that's scary!

nt

[Terran]

77. Kind of have to agree on the "What's your point" question.

I mean, if it does undercut her current position (which I believe it does not), would you have her say, "Oh, silly me!" and pack up and go home?

If she said this, then subsequent events and information have clearly made her change her mind. Simple as that. Unreasonable people will bash her with anything, no matter how stupid, and I'm sure they will use this too. I don't doubt her sincerity right now, do you?

[yodermon]

83. This is the article the freepers are using,

and the same article from which you quote.

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921

But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief.

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

So, you see, she is being taken out of context. Her position before her meeting w/ * is that "We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled." Right. Big ol' flip-flop.

When she does interviews with the MSM, she answers the questions asked. If the interviewer asks about her 2004 interview, she will respond, oh, i dunno, probably like this:

"Why is my meeting in June of 2004 relevant? Over 1,100 more soldiers are dead since then, the Downing Street memo report (has come) out, the Senate intelligence report has come out, and the 9/11 Commission report has come out. Saddam is gone, they've had free democratic elections in Iraq, and our troops are still there."

(from Salon article: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/09/sheehan_protest/ )

Who'd she say this to? Oh, right, Air America Radio. Not mainstream.
Shucks. I guess she really is damaging the left's credibility.

[MercutioATC]

85. Actually, I didn't quote an article, I used a direct quote of hers.

And info like this is what I was looking for with my original post.

[Tsiyu]

87. The Search feature on DU is very nice

I believe had you utilized it, all of your "concerns" would be answered without having to repeat this argument.

And let me guess; you don't have any kids, do you? Just a guess.

Because most of us who have kids can understand the shock a mother must feel when losing a beloved son; you seem unable to process this.

My belief is that the average American will "get it" even if you don't.

[MercutioATC]

89. My son is 3 1/2 years from draft age.

Why is it that you construe my question as an accusal? Have we become THAT sensitive?

[Sapphire Blue]

88. See Media Matters...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

[MercutioATC]

90. Thank you.

Would that your post had been the first reply...

[Sapphire Blue]

91. You're welcome... I just received the email update this evening.

Media Matters is an excellent source to check for the facts vs lies & distortions... you can sign up for email updates @ https://mediamatters.org/users/register.html?next=/users/prefs.html

[durutti]

93. Read here.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009