Dead Soldier; Happy Mom

[Jeff Boler]

Um..ok. So, you are invited to sit with Washington's elite, and listen to the State of the Union Address. So you go through your wardrobe, and instead of picking out a formal dress, you pull at a T-shirt, with language clearly against the war.

And you do not see this as a protest or an attempt to get noticed once again? Of course you don't. Because she's protesting George Bush, you rationalize it anyway you can. Had this been John Kerry, you'd be sreaming murder.

 

[michaeledward]

Then explain this,

Just take the spoon fed 'story' that Corporate America wants you to be aware of.

Yes, you are discounting them on the basis that they are "Corporate America."

My explanation for that sentence is, as described above, that there is more information available concerning the events of the evening. An intelligent person would make themselves available to such facts before forming an opinion.

Certainly, we need not wait for every available fact before coming to an opinion, because often facts are difficult to attain, and we should not expend more energy to gather facts than the decision will impact in the end. In this case, additional facts are easily available and there is no reason not to expose ourselves to them, aware of their subjective nature, and use them when forming an opinion.

Further, I apologize for ending a sentence in a preposition.

I feel free in saying that when someone has as much history of bias and rabidly attacking the president as Sheehan does, you do not listen too closely to them unless there is something to back up what they say. Would Sheehan have a stake in presenting things in a certain way? The answer is most obviously yes.

And nothing else I see from reputable sources seems to contradict the version that she was taken away and charged because she would not leave or take off the t-shirt as Young did.

Do the 'reputable sources' report who asked her to leave, politely without handcuffs?

Do the 'reputable sources' report who asked her to remove the t-shirt?

You are entering facts not in evidence. There is no evidence that Ms. Sheehan and Mrs. Young were asked to remove or change their clothing, even in the 'reputable sources'.

We all know that she has had to be dragged away from protests by the police. She has been photographed smiling as she is being carried away. This incident fits her past behavior. To think that she would not enjoy another media circus and chance to present the President in an bad light is folly.

So, you won't read what she has written about the event, but you will make suppositions about her thoughts, attitudes and opinions based on a photograph.

Was Mrs. Young's goal to also present the President in a bad light?

 

[michaeledward]

Um..ok. So, you are invited to sit with Washington's elite, and listen to the State of the Union Address. So you go through your wardrobe, and instead of picking out a formal dress, you pull at a T-shirt, with language clearly against the war.

And you do not see this as a protest or an attempt to get noticed once again? Of course you don't. Because she's protesting George Bush, you rationalize it anyway you can. Had this been John Kerry, you'd be sreaming murder.

OK ... Let's assume for the moment her intention is to embarass the President ... (something with which Ms. Sheehan has denied, out of respect for her Congresswoman).

So, why did she take the jacket off while sitting down, long before the President arrived?

 

[jdinca]

OK ... Let's assume for the moment her intention is to embarass the President ... (something with which Ms. Sheehan has denied, out of respect for her Congresswoman).

So, why did she take the jacket off while sitting down, long before the President arrived?

I think the reaction of both women in the aftermath was overblown and silly. I saw the congressmans wife on tv yesterday and even after he made the comment agreeing that this was a misinterpretation of the law, she was still shaking her head in disgust.

This was quite simply a couple of Capitol Hill cops who thought they were enforcing the law and were trying to be even handed. Everything that happened after initial contact with the two individuals went on their observations and verbal reports. It's been clearly acknowledged that they overstepped their bounds and both people have been personally apologized to by the chief of the capital police. There was no nefarious plot against Cindy Sheehan, no "Bush's Gestapo" (that one was pretty funny), no nothing. A couple of cops screwed up.

This is a tempest in a teapot, and not worth the press it's been getting.

 

[michaeledward]

That is a thoughtful response.

And, if there were no pre-existing pattern of behavior on the part of the Bush Administration interpreting t-shirts or bumper stickers as protests, and removing those people from an assembly area, I could agree with your analysis.

But, there is that pattern of behavior on the part of the Bush adminstration. As such, it is difficult to accept the argument that it was a couple of over-zealous officers on duty.

And, I don't think it is getting a lot of press. If the Congressman's wife had not been removed (and one other person was removed from the Gallery, although I can't find a reason why), it would be getting even less press.

I believe the officers were exercising their instructions as instructed, and Mrs. Young is, as they say in intelligence circles, blowback.

 

[Seig]

So far, the only person I have seen give their opinion as a Veteran is Don. While I disagree on many things with Don, as a Veteran, I agree with him. I joined the military during Desert Shield, the Coast Guard to be exact. The first thing they told me is, "You know you can be sent to Iraq, right?" I enlisted anyway. My specialty? Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue. Some of our SARs were not only high profile, but also extremely dangerous, as were some of LE Ops. No one made me choose to put my *** out there, I did it on my own. When everyone else was running away from disaster, we were running in. Did I do it for the victims? Maybe a little, but more importantly, I was there to make sure my shipmates came back. The saying we lived by, "You have to go out, you don't have to come back."
What does this have to do with the topic? Just this, most people in the military care more about their "buddies" than they do with politics. If my crew went out into a hurricaine and all hands were killed, how silly would it look if my mother started protesting against the president, god, and the weather?
Her son made a choice, good or bad.
His mother has a right to protest the war, as do all Americans, thanks to the veterans that fought the wars.
Using her son in the manner she is, from a veteran's stand point, is a disgrace.
If she wants to protest Bush, Iraq, or Snoopy for all I care, then fine, but don't use her son as a martyr. He wasn't, he chose to be there by enlisting.
The bottom line is this, there are right ways and wrong ways to do everything. She may be doing the right thing, but she's doing it the wrong way.

 

[jdinca]

That is a thoughtful response.

And, if there were no pre-existing pattern of behavior on the part of the Bush Administration interpreting t-shirts or bumper stickers as protests, and removing those people from an assembly area, I could agree with your analysis.

But, there is that pattern of behavior on the part of the Bush adminstration. As such, it is difficult to accept the argument that it was a couple of over-zealous officers on duty.

And, I don't think it is getting a lot of press. If the Congressman's wife had not been removed (and one other person was removed from the Gallery, although I can't find a reason why), it would be getting even less press.

I believe the officers were exercising their instructions as instructed, and Mrs. Young is, as they say in intelligence circles, blowback.

Mrs. Young was removed after Cindy Sheehan in a fit of "Political Correctness", IMO. She was removed after Bush had already started his speech. If your hypothesis that the administration had somehow taken control of the Capitol Hill Police just to keep her or other protestors out, then they wouldn't have bothered. If it had just been Sheehan who had been removed, I would possibly be more willing to concede your point.

I am willing to accept the CHP explanation at face value.

http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2006/pr_02-01-06.html

This agency is under the control of Congress, btw, and not the Executive Branch. Yes, yes, I know, they're all under the control of Republicans, so they're all guilty. :uhyeah:

 

[michaeledward]

I had heard both women were removed from the Gallery. I had assumed that both women were removed before the President started speaking. After seeing your post, referencing Mrs. Young's departure was after the President started speaking, I went to find that in news posts. The Washington Post does report that Mrs. Young was asked to leave approximately 45 minutes into the President's speech.

More interesting and More interesting.

So you think the Capitol Police just wanted to get Sheehan out of the Gallery to avoid embarrassing the President ... and then realized their actions might look bad on Wednesday morning, so they ran a Republican Congressman's wife through the wringer too; hedging their bets, so to speak.

Interesting.

So, what you're saying is Ms. Sheehan didn't do anything wrong. She shouldn't have been pulled out of the Gallery because of her bad fashion sense. And the powers that be are trying to make themselves look incompetent, but not malicious. Yes?


P.S. ... and even if the Capitol Police are under the direction of the Congress in normal times, don't you think when the President is visiting the Capitol, the Secret Service is giving all of the orders.

 

[jdinca]

So you think the Capitol Police just wanted to get Sheehan out of the Gallery to avoid embarrassing the President ... and then realized their actions might look bad on Wednesday morning, so they ran a Republican Congressman's wife through the wringer too; hedging their bets, so to speak.

P.S. ... and even if the Capitol Police are under the direction of the Congress in normal times, don't you think when the President is visiting the Capitol, the Secret Service is giving all of the orders.

No, that's not what I think. Based on the reports I've read, until somebody clued him in the cop didn't even know it was Cindy Sheehan. He saw the t-shirt when she opened her jacket and thought it was a protestor. As for Mrs. Young, I think it was political correctness in that she was also wearing a t-shirt with a political message so whe was in violation, regardless of whether it was pro or con. In both situations they overreacted.

Yes, I do think the Secret Service was calling the shots. I think they told the CHP that under no circumstances were they to allow a protestor to start protesting. I don't think they told them that if they saw Cindy Sheehan to "cuff her and stuff her".

 

[michaeledward]

Fair enough ...

As I mentioned earlier, once you start considering what is written on T-Shirts a protest that must be stopped, it becomes very difficult to define which words on T-shirts fall within the bounds and which words on T-shirts fall out of bounds. That is what makes those first five words of the Bill of Rights so amazing. It tells us right away, that the founders knew trying to create or define those boundaries can only lead to problems.

Congress shall make no law . . . . . .
​

Or, as Loa Tzu put it ....

The Tao the can be explained in words, is not the true Tao.
​

 

[Don Roley]

OK ... Let's assume for the moment her intention is to embarass the President ... (something with which Ms. Sheehan has denied, out of respect for her Congresswoman).

So, why did she take the jacket off while sitting down, long before the President arrived?

Well, you were talking about "patterns of behavior" when talking about the Bush administration. What about Sheehan? Her pattern of behavior is to cause as much trouble for the president as possible. And she enjoys the media attention as she has been litterally carried away from protests.

So, by wearing the t-shirt and failing to respond to the police when they talked to her, she got yet another chance to hit the airways and embarrass the president. People now are using this as an example of the goverment being fascist.

So by showing the t-shirt and then not leaving as Young did, she got all this media time. It fits perfectly with her agenda. Why should we believe her when she says she was not there to protest when everything she does is some sort of protest or another?

 

[Don Roley]

What does this have to do with the topic? Just this, most people in the military care more about their "buddies" than they do with politics. If my crew went out into a hurricaine and all hands were killed, how silly would it look if my mother started protesting against the president, god, and the weather?
Her son made a choice, good or bad.
His mother has a right to protest the war, as do all Americans, thanks to the veterans that fought the wars.
Using her son in the manner she is, from a veteran's stand point, is a disgrace.

Yes.

To protest is one thing. But now it looks like she will be using her son's death to maybe go after the power and prestige of being a senator. I do not think she has much of a chance, but the idea is not one that fills me with pity for her.

There has been a lot of talk about how she is just trying to use her son as she thinks he would like to be used. But none of those who have been in the military seem to agree. We would not want someone to disrespect our choices to push their own agenda or benifit from it. And if she uses his death to be one of the most powerfull people in American politics.......

 

[michaeledward]

Well, you were talking about "patterns of behavior" when talking about the Bush administration. What about Sheehan? Her pattern of behavior is to cause as much trouble for the president as possible. And she enjoys the media attention as she has been litterally carried away from protests.

So, by wearing the t-shirt and failing to respond to the police when they talked to her, she got yet another chance to hit the airways and embarrass the president. People now are using this as an example of the goverment being fascist.

So by showing the t-shirt and then not leaving as Young did, she got all this media time. It fits perfectly with her agenda. Why should we believe her when she says she was not there to protest when everything she does is some sort of protest or another?

I'm sorry, which 'reputable source' indicated that Ms. Sheehan did not respond to the police?


EDIT ..

Hey ... I found such a quote ... from the post I linked to .... let's review

Police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.

In this quote, the person stating that Ms. Sheehan "did not respond" is a Capitol Police Force Spokeswoman.

Mrs. Sheehan was charged Tuesday night with Unlawful Conduct after she displayed a T-shirt with an anti-war message while in the House Gallery.

The Press Release makes no claim of non-responsiveness from Ms. Sheehan. The charge against her is 'displaying an anti-war message'.

Measure these quotes against your prejudices.

 

[Don Roley]

I'm sorry, which 'reputable source' indicated that Ms. Sheehan did not respond to the police?

Several "corporate America sources" such as the AP, Yahoo, ABC and CBS.

For example,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_on_go_co/state_of_union_sheehan_8

".....but Sheehan did not respond."

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, and this statement from the guilty (oops not guilty, the charges were all dropped and the Capitol Police have offered an apology) ... from those very news reports must be discounted completely.

She said she felt uncomfortable about attending the speech.
"I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket," Sheehan wrote. "I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her."
She said she had one arm out of her coat when an officer yelled, "Protestor."
"He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs," she wrote. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.
"I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress," Sheehan wrote. "I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later."

I supppose by law enforcment standards, when the officer yells at you .... and you don't run over to him with your hands on your head, that qualifies as "did not respond".

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Its been my experience that Cops dont like being ignored....

 

[Don Roley]

Measure these quotes against your prejudices.

Yes, especially since the officers say they did tell her that she could not wear the t-shirt and she says no one did.

Sheehan got what she wanted- a chance to give the president a black eye and give those that hate him even more reason to stick to their guns.

Sheehan is giving one version of events. So far, no one else in the gallery has come forward to support her story of how the arrest went down. You would think others would see and comment to the press. When that guy got shot by air marshals in Florida, there was no shortage of people who did so, and there were more people in the gallery that night than on the tarmac. Anyone who takes her word for things have to be in the same catagory as those that think the President's precautions against bird flu are just a means of scaring the country into supporting him. :uhyeah:

 

[michaeledward]

. Anyone who takes her word for things have to be in the same catagory as those that think the President's precautions against bird flu are just a means of scaring the country into supporting him.

And don't forget the windfall in profits that Secretary Rumsfeld gets as a major stockholder in the maker of Tamiflu ...

 

[michaeledward]

Oh, yeah .... and there is this ...

From the United States Capitol Police Force Press Release dated 2/1/2006

As the Department reviewed the incident, it was determined that while officers acted in a manner consistent with the rules of decorum enforced by the Department in the House Gallery for years, neither Mrs. Sheehan’s manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention.

But, we better not believe them, either.

 

[Don Roley]

Oh, yeah .... and there is this ...

From the United States Capitol Police Force Press Release dated 2/1/2006

Yes, I read about that. It seems that both Young and Sheehan were taken away for something that everyone thought was in the rules, but was not. Everyone assumed that there were dress codes on the books. But it seems that when they wrote the rules that no one even considered the idea that people would try to show up in anything but their best clothes and act with the most proper of behavior.

So after they looked over the rules, they found that there really was nothing covering it as they thought and apologized.