-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Protesting Soldier Mom Changed Story On Bush
- Thread starter Joseph_Botwinick
- Start date
KenH
Well-Known Member
I hope that Mrs. Sheehan can overcome her bitterness one day and move on with her life while remembering the brave sacrifice of her son for her and all of us.
I feel sorry for her but if she is going to engage in politics then she has to be willing to put up with the political punches that may come her way.
I feel sorry for her but if she is going to engage in politics then she has to be willing to put up with the political punches that may come her way.
And so the Drudge parrots come out and parrot
his smear.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/sheehan1080805.mp3 she responds to maggot drudge here(on the audio
she responds to drudge at 1:50 into the audio..drudge is taking things totally out of context)
and looks its KenH again with his bitter analogy
again and now he feels sorry for her..4th time
Kenh she does not see herself as bitter and she
is definitely not asking for pity and so we
see the true colors...both of you agree with
the smear campaign and are parroting sound bites
and things out of context..oh the sychophants of
gay boy drudge. btw never share an omelet
with self loathing gay boy drudge. He is a maggot
of the 1st degree.imho
Drudge is one sick puppy
And Drudge? He's playing it a little closer to the vest. Asked to comment on the recent Page Six item detailing the scuffle, he responds: "Page Six rocks! So do you ..."
Yeah Drudge you are a major hypocrite pretending
to represent family values and you live one
weird ungodly life ..you need to repent.
oh another snippet:From reprobate drudge
Walls stands behind the allegations, which she thinks never would have made it out if Drudge hadn't aired them.
"It's all very well sourced," she told the New York Post's Page Six. "If he offers you a bite of his omelet, take a pass."
This guy is sick and has decieved a lot of people.
and the Right Wing noise machine knows he can
bottom feed.
his smear.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/sheehan1080805.mp3 she responds to maggot drudge here(on the audio
she responds to drudge at 1:50 into the audio..drudge is taking things totally out of context)
and looks its KenH again with his bitter analogy
again and now he feels sorry for her..4th time
Kenh she does not see herself as bitter and she
is definitely not asking for pity and so we
see the true colors...both of you agree with
the smear campaign and are parroting sound bites
and things out of context..oh the sychophants of
gay boy drudge. btw never share an omelet
with self loathing gay boy drudge. He is a maggot
of the 1st degree.imho
Drudge is one sick puppy
And Drudge? He's playing it a little closer to the vest. Asked to comment on the recent Page Six item detailing the scuffle, he responds: "Page Six rocks! So do you ..."
Yeah Drudge you are a major hypocrite pretending
to represent family values and you live one
weird ungodly life ..you need to repent.
oh another snippet:From reprobate drudge
Walls stands behind the allegations, which she thinks never would have made it out if Drudge hadn't aired them.
"It's all very well sourced," she told the New York Post's Page Six. "If he offers you a bite of his omelet, take a pass."
This guy is sick and has decieved a lot of people.
and the Right Wing noise machine knows he can
bottom feed.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Just because Ms. Sheehan doesn't call herself bitter that doesn't mean that she isn't, and she clearly is, APAL, IMO.
I see you continue with your despicable slash and burn policy, APAL. I hope that Ms. Sheehan(where is her husband in all of this?) realizes soon that the anti-war Left is simply using her for their own purposes, IMO.
I see you continue with your despicable slash and burn policy, APAL. I hope that Ms. Sheehan(where is her husband in all of this?) realizes soon that the anti-war Left is simply using her for their own purposes, IMO.
Her statements, which are now being reported by several sources, are contrary to each other. That means that she either has lied or is lying. She is talking about one visit with Bush and she has given two very different versions of that visit. Which is true? We can't know. Why? Because she has no credability left.
Even before I read this account yesterday I was suspect of this woman. When someone says, "The president killed my son", I start suspecting them. Her son was in the military, soilders fight in wars, and soilders get killed in war. Her statement was pure left wing deception. It would be like a policeman getting killed in the line of the duty (maybe on a traffic stop) and the wife accusing the chief of police of killing her husband. That would be stupid, and so is this. I believe it is clear that this woman has changed her story because she has fallen for the left wing spin machine. Which I am sure was not hard for her to do. After all she would be upset about the loss of her son and she would be looking for someone to blame (that is human nature). Instead of blaming the people who killed her son, or just accepting the fact that her son was a soilder who died in combat (like millions of others the world over), she has found herself a nice safe scapegoat (the president). After all there is a whole segment of our society who hates President Bush, just as there was a whole segment that hated Clinton. So she had an automatic support system that will ignore her conflicting accounts.
About people hating presidents:
"First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority..." 1Timothy 2:1-2
"Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Romans 13:7
Both the Bush haters and the Clinton haters are acting in unBiblical, unChristian ways.
Martin.
Even before I read this account yesterday I was suspect of this woman. When someone says, "The president killed my son", I start suspecting them. Her son was in the military, soilders fight in wars, and soilders get killed in war. Her statement was pure left wing deception. It would be like a policeman getting killed in the line of the duty (maybe on a traffic stop) and the wife accusing the chief of police of killing her husband. That would be stupid, and so is this. I believe it is clear that this woman has changed her story because she has fallen for the left wing spin machine. Which I am sure was not hard for her to do. After all she would be upset about the loss of her son and she would be looking for someone to blame (that is human nature). Instead of blaming the people who killed her son, or just accepting the fact that her son was a soilder who died in combat (like millions of others the world over), she has found herself a nice safe scapegoat (the president). After all there is a whole segment of our society who hates President Bush, just as there was a whole segment that hated Clinton. So she had an automatic support system that will ignore her conflicting accounts.
About people hating presidents:
"First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority..." 1Timothy 2:1-2
"Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Romans 13:7
Both the Bush haters and the Clinton haters are acting in unBiblical, unChristian ways.
Martin.
Given that she has changed her story and given that literally every other family of fallen soldiers has said that President Bush was very sympathetic and very concerned, I have to believe that she, as liberals do, is lying.
What a dispicable woman she must be to exploit the death of her son to promote her own idiotic political agenda.
What a dispicable woman she must be to exploit the death of her son to promote her own idiotic political agenda.
T
TexasSky
Guest
I support President Bush, and I've had the opportunity to meet him several times before he became so famous politically. I believe that he truly does care.
Having said that - I do not think that makes this woman a liar. Grief does horrendous things to people, and it is an emotional roller coaster.
I am more inclined to believe this poor woman is being used by others, than I am to call her a liar. She lost a son. She wants to ask her questions, and try to get answers that are not filtered by political operatives.
I deplore her methods, but she is a mother who lost a son. She is hurting. We need to give her some slack.
Having said that - I do not think that makes this woman a liar. Grief does horrendous things to people, and it is an emotional roller coaster.
I am more inclined to believe this poor woman is being used by others, than I am to call her a liar. She lost a son. She wants to ask her questions, and try to get answers that are not filtered by political operatives.
I deplore her methods, but she is a mother who lost a son. She is hurting. We need to give her some slack.
"What a dispicable woman she must be to exploit the death of her son to promote her own idiotic political agenda."
I agree Mike, I fully agree. This is what happens when people get so caught up in politics (on both sides). Truth becomes nothing more than an obstical to be explained away or ignored all together. Sadly this is very common in our nation. People are much more interested in defending their political position than learning the truth.
Martin.
I agree Mike, I fully agree. This is what happens when people get so caught up in politics (on both sides). Truth becomes nothing more than an obstical to be explained away or ignored all together. Sadly this is very common in our nation. People are much more interested in defending their political position than learning the truth.
Martin.
Texas Sky said:
Having said that - I do not think that makes this woman a liar. Grief does horrendous things to people, and it is an emotional roller coaster.
==I agree that this woman is probably suffering severe grief. I don't doubt that at all. A friend yesterday made the same type argument you are making when I mentioned this to them. My response to them, and my response here, is the same: It makes no difference. We can't excuse out and out lies and falsehoods just because someone is in mourning. This woman clearly has public/political motives (why else would she put herself where the tv cameras would find her?). She has made contradictory statements about the same event. So either she was not being truthful right after the meeting or she is not being truthful now. I tend to thing she is not being truthful now because of the time that has passed (etc).
Again I feel sorry for her, but that does not excuse her behavior.
_______________________________________
You said:
I am more inclined to believe this poor woman is being used by others, than I am to call her a liar.
==O, I fully agree. However she is a free moral agent and can think for herself. Again this is not some innocent woman. She has placed herself where she is on purpose (for political reasons) and she has made contradictory statements. If it walks like a duck.........
_______________________________
You said:
She lost a son. She wants to ask her questions, and try to get answers that are not filtered by political operatives.
==I will give her the answers: Her son was in the military, he was a soilder. Soilders fight in wars and many times are killed. I hope they know that going in. Her son died because he was in a battle/war. That is the answer.
I don't think she is looking for the answer, I think she is looking for someone to blame (and Bush is a easy scapegoat).
Martin.
Having said that - I do not think that makes this woman a liar. Grief does horrendous things to people, and it is an emotional roller coaster.
==I agree that this woman is probably suffering severe grief. I don't doubt that at all. A friend yesterday made the same type argument you are making when I mentioned this to them. My response to them, and my response here, is the same: It makes no difference. We can't excuse out and out lies and falsehoods just because someone is in mourning. This woman clearly has public/political motives (why else would she put herself where the tv cameras would find her?). She has made contradictory statements about the same event. So either she was not being truthful right after the meeting or she is not being truthful now. I tend to thing she is not being truthful now because of the time that has passed (etc).
Again I feel sorry for her, but that does not excuse her behavior.
_______________________________________
You said:
I am more inclined to believe this poor woman is being used by others, than I am to call her a liar.
==O, I fully agree. However she is a free moral agent and can think for herself. Again this is not some innocent woman. She has placed herself where she is on purpose (for political reasons) and she has made contradictory statements. If it walks like a duck.........
_______________________________
You said:
She lost a son. She wants to ask her questions, and try to get answers that are not filtered by political operatives.
==I will give her the answers: Her son was in the military, he was a soilder. Soilders fight in wars and many times are killed. I hope they know that going in. Her son died because he was in a battle/war. That is the answer.
I don't think she is looking for the answer, I think she is looking for someone to blame (and Bush is a easy scapegoat).
Martin.
T
TexasSky
Guest
When did changing someone's opinion become a lie and a falsehood?
The point I was making is that she might have previously been satisfied with the answers she received, and, as her grief moved forward, she is no longer satisfied.
These are her opinions about things. If those opinions change - they change. That is not a lie. That is a change.
And - a change quite typical in victims of grief. The stages of grief are:
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
This mother probably met the President when she was still in shock and denial. Thus, more open to any words of comfort.
Now, she is in the stage of anger, and at this stage - no words will comfort her, no words will be enough.
Calling a person a liar for changing their opinion is simply wrong.
The point I was making is that she might have previously been satisfied with the answers she received, and, as her grief moved forward, she is no longer satisfied.
These are her opinions about things. If those opinions change - they change. That is not a lie. That is a change.
And - a change quite typical in victims of grief. The stages of grief are:
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
This mother probably met the President when she was still in shock and denial. Thus, more open to any words of comfort.
Now, she is in the stage of anger, and at this stage - no words will comfort her, no words will be enough.
Calling a person a liar for changing their opinion is simply wrong.
When did changing someone's opinion become a lie and a falsehood?
==Its not. She is free to change her mind on Bush, the war, or whatever. Thats not the issue. Here she has given two very different accounts of what happened when she had her meeting with Bush last year. That is not something that she would need to change her mind about. Either he was cold, arrogant, and killed her son or he was a sincere, man of faith, who gave her family unity. This is not a matter of opinion this is a matter of her given two accounts of the same meeting. One is true and one is false.
________________________________
You said:
The point I was making is that she might have previously been satisfied with the answers she received, and, as her grief moved forward, she is no longer satisfied.
==Ok, but it is not so much his answers she is talking about. In the first report she said he was concerned, sorry, felt pain for their loss, who talked about Casey (etc). Now she is saying he would not talk about nor look at pictures of Casey, that he acted like he was at a party (etc). That is not her becoming unsatisfied with the answers as time/grief moved on. That is her changing her story on how he acted. She is trying to make Bush look bad.
__________________________________
You said:
These are her opinions about things. If those opinions change - they change. That is not a lie. That is a change.
==Ok, which is true? Was Bush, in their meeting, an arrogant jerk who would not take the time to talk about her son? Or was he a concerned man of faith who talked about her son? Did he make her son's sacrifice count for something or did he kill her son? These are not opinions these are descriptions of events. She has now given two very different discriptions. Which is true?
_______________________________
You said:
Now, she is in the stage of anger, and at this stage - no words will comfort her, no words will be enough.
==That maybe true, however it is no excuse. We must demand the truth from everyone (mainly those who speak in public).
Martin.
==Its not. She is free to change her mind on Bush, the war, or whatever. Thats not the issue. Here she has given two very different accounts of what happened when she had her meeting with Bush last year. That is not something that she would need to change her mind about. Either he was cold, arrogant, and killed her son or he was a sincere, man of faith, who gave her family unity. This is not a matter of opinion this is a matter of her given two accounts of the same meeting. One is true and one is false.
________________________________
You said:
The point I was making is that she might have previously been satisfied with the answers she received, and, as her grief moved forward, she is no longer satisfied.
==Ok, but it is not so much his answers she is talking about. In the first report she said he was concerned, sorry, felt pain for their loss, who talked about Casey (etc). Now she is saying he would not talk about nor look at pictures of Casey, that he acted like he was at a party (etc). That is not her becoming unsatisfied with the answers as time/grief moved on. That is her changing her story on how he acted. She is trying to make Bush look bad.
__________________________________
You said:
These are her opinions about things. If those opinions change - they change. That is not a lie. That is a change.
==Ok, which is true? Was Bush, in their meeting, an arrogant jerk who would not take the time to talk about her son? Or was he a concerned man of faith who talked about her son? Did he make her son's sacrifice count for something or did he kill her son? These are not opinions these are descriptions of events. She has now given two very different discriptions. Which is true?
_______________________________
You said:
Now, she is in the stage of anger, and at this stage - no words will comfort her, no words will be enough.
==That maybe true, however it is no excuse. We must demand the truth from everyone (mainly those who speak in public).
Martin.
<a href="http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/09/113022.php" target="_blank">Bush call off the right wing attack dogs
on Cindy Sheehan</a>
Raw Story is talking about the article from 2004 which Matt Drudge is employing, with a Right attack-dog-wind beneath his wings [he got the report archive from Freepers]. The mission to attack is on - the objective is to discredit the mother of a fallen Iraqi soldier.
A mother of a dead child pays close attention to the cause for which her boy dies. She looks, with open eyes, for the higher cause - something she can hold in her heart as a solid reason for never seeing her loving son on the face of this earth again.
Cindy Sheehan is horrified by what she is seeing. And she has been told that she will be arrested if she remains in Crawford, begging to see the President and have him look her in the eye, once again - only this time she has the courage that conviction has brought to her. She isn't in shock any longer. She cannot remain silent. Her conscience will not allow her to do so.
Her mourning has turned to questions. It was good of the President to have consoled her in mourning. It is wrong of the President to ignore her very public concerns and her very simple request.
Sheehan says that, during the Republican National Convention, she saw President Bush exploiting the meeting he'd had with her family to "justify what he was doing." She continued, "It's now clear to me that what I had feared is true: Bush lied us into war, and Casey, more than 1,800 other Americans and thousands and thousands of Iraqis are dead because of what he did."
my comment: I got my first inkling a major attack
was on from Free Republic as well in the mode
of the Swiftboat hit team. Drudge is leading the
way on this but he needs to realize he has tons
of skeletons in his closet and people have held
back for years over his gay cruising and perverted
lifestyle so he is fair game as he misrepresents
Cindy Sheehan and takes whole quotes out of context and does not comment on new information
Cindy Sheehan received.
I will go back to my Salient point it is wrong
to make someone walk in a ditch..stand in a ditch
regardless if you agree with her or not it is
wrong for the bottom feeder Matt Drudge who has
tons of skeletons in his closet to lead the way
and misrepresent her.
So lets actually let her speak and defend herself
against Drudge.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/sheehan1080805.mp3 audio in about 1:50
sorry some of the audio is bad I will try to get
a transcript of the interview.
on Cindy Sheehan</a>
Raw Story is talking about the article from 2004 which Matt Drudge is employing, with a Right attack-dog-wind beneath his wings [he got the report archive from Freepers]. The mission to attack is on - the objective is to discredit the mother of a fallen Iraqi soldier.
A mother of a dead child pays close attention to the cause for which her boy dies. She looks, with open eyes, for the higher cause - something she can hold in her heart as a solid reason for never seeing her loving son on the face of this earth again.
Cindy Sheehan is horrified by what she is seeing. And she has been told that she will be arrested if she remains in Crawford, begging to see the President and have him look her in the eye, once again - only this time she has the courage that conviction has brought to her. She isn't in shock any longer. She cannot remain silent. Her conscience will not allow her to do so.
Her mourning has turned to questions. It was good of the President to have consoled her in mourning. It is wrong of the President to ignore her very public concerns and her very simple request.
Sheehan says that, during the Republican National Convention, she saw President Bush exploiting the meeting he'd had with her family to "justify what he was doing." She continued, "It's now clear to me that what I had feared is true: Bush lied us into war, and Casey, more than 1,800 other Americans and thousands and thousands of Iraqis are dead because of what he did."
my comment: I got my first inkling a major attack
was on from Free Republic as well in the mode
of the Swiftboat hit team. Drudge is leading the
way on this but he needs to realize he has tons
of skeletons in his closet and people have held
back for years over his gay cruising and perverted
lifestyle so he is fair game as he misrepresents
Cindy Sheehan and takes whole quotes out of context and does not comment on new information
Cindy Sheehan received.
I will go back to my Salient point it is wrong
to make someone walk in a ditch..stand in a ditch
regardless if you agree with her or not it is
wrong for the bottom feeder Matt Drudge who has
tons of skeletons in his closet to lead the way
and misrepresent her.
So lets actually let her speak and defend herself
against Drudge.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/sheehan1080805.mp3 audio in about 1:50
sorry some of the audio is bad I will try to get
a transcript of the interview.
Raw Story is talking about the article from 2004 which Matt Drudge is employing, with a Right attack-dog-wind beneath his wings [he got the report archive from Freepers].
==I have the original story in front of me right now. There is nothing in the story that contradicts anything Drudge said. This is no "right wing" attack (though I am sure it will be used as such). This lady has contradicted herself. This is a fact that every honest person who has read the story must admit.
_________________________________________
You said:
The mission to attack is on - the objective is to discredit the mother of a fallen Iraqi soldier.
==She discredited herself when she contradicted herself.
Last year:
"I have a new respect for him (Bush) because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us" -The Reporter (Vacaville, CA)
Now:
"Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he (Bush) would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party" -CNN
There are blinding contradictions in those who accounts of the meeting.
_________________________________
You said:
Cindy Sheehan is horrified by what she is seeing. And she has been told that she will be arrested if she remains in Crawford, begging to see the President and have him look her in the eye, once again - only this time she has the courage that conviction has brought to her. She isn't in shock any longer. She cannot remain silent. Her conscience will not allow her to do so.
==She had a meeting with the president and if she was not honest then, for whatever reason, that is her problem and nobody elses. She can have whatever view on the war she wishes (I am sure I agree with her view of the war, btw). However the fact remains she has contradicted herself, she has told a falsehood either then or now.
After reading the original story I suspect two things:
1. Last year she was opposed to the war however she liked the meeting she had with Bush and, out of respect for the office, did not bring up her misgivings about the war. All of this is perfectly understandable.
2. This year she is more against the war and feels that it is not a necessary war. This belief has lead her to redefine her meeting with Bush.
In other words she was pleased with the meeting last year but now, because of her views on the war, she has changed her story about the meeting. She has redefined what happened to make it fit her new views (etc). It is pretty easy to see what is going on here. Her new view is anti-Bush so she must make Bush look bad.
___________________________________
You said:
Her mourning has turned to questions. It was good of the President to have consoled her in mourning. It is wrong of the President to ignore her very public concerns and her very simple request.
==There are thousands of people who would love a moment with the president (for a variety of reasons). This lady had hers. It is wrong for her to show up with signs, and the media, in an attempt to make Bush look bad. He gave her time last year after her son died and she was pleased with the meeting at that time.
____________________________________
You said:
Sheehan says that, during the Republican National Convention, she saw President Bush exploiting the meeting he'd had with her family to "justify what he was doing." She continued, "It's now clear to me that what I had feared is true: Bush lied us into war,
==This can't be supported. I saw the President of Russia just the other night say that everyone believed there were WMD in Iraq! Bush did not have to lie about this.
Funny thing we now see yet another contradiction...after the meeting with Bush her husband "noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election".
______________________________________
You said:
Drudge is leading the
way on this but he needs to realize he has tons
of skeletons in his closet and people have held
back for years over his gay cruising and perverted
lifestyle so he is fair game as he misrepresents
Cindy Sheehan and takes whole quotes out of context and does not comment on new information
Cindy Sheehan received.
==I don't see what that has to do with the conflicting accounts she has given.
___________________________________
You said:
So lets actually let her speak and defend herself
against Drudge.
==I don't care to hear her defend herself. I only care to hear her tell us which of the two accounts are correct and why we should now believe her.
This is about credibility .
I feel extremely sorry for her. I know she is going through a horrible, horrible time. Like her I am opposed to the Iraqi war but that is no excuse to contradict yourself.
In Christ,
Martin.
==I have the original story in front of me right now. There is nothing in the story that contradicts anything Drudge said. This is no "right wing" attack (though I am sure it will be used as such). This lady has contradicted herself. This is a fact that every honest person who has read the story must admit.
_________________________________________
You said:
The mission to attack is on - the objective is to discredit the mother of a fallen Iraqi soldier.
==She discredited herself when she contradicted herself.
Last year:
"I have a new respect for him (Bush) because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us" -The Reporter (Vacaville, CA)
Now:
"Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he (Bush) would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party" -CNN
There are blinding contradictions in those who accounts of the meeting.
_________________________________
You said:
Cindy Sheehan is horrified by what she is seeing. And she has been told that she will be arrested if she remains in Crawford, begging to see the President and have him look her in the eye, once again - only this time she has the courage that conviction has brought to her. She isn't in shock any longer. She cannot remain silent. Her conscience will not allow her to do so.
==She had a meeting with the president and if she was not honest then, for whatever reason, that is her problem and nobody elses. She can have whatever view on the war she wishes (I am sure I agree with her view of the war, btw). However the fact remains she has contradicted herself, she has told a falsehood either then or now.
After reading the original story I suspect two things:
1. Last year she was opposed to the war however she liked the meeting she had with Bush and, out of respect for the office, did not bring up her misgivings about the war. All of this is perfectly understandable.
2. This year she is more against the war and feels that it is not a necessary war. This belief has lead her to redefine her meeting with Bush.
In other words she was pleased with the meeting last year but now, because of her views on the war, she has changed her story about the meeting. She has redefined what happened to make it fit her new views (etc). It is pretty easy to see what is going on here. Her new view is anti-Bush so she must make Bush look bad.
___________________________________
You said:
Her mourning has turned to questions. It was good of the President to have consoled her in mourning. It is wrong of the President to ignore her very public concerns and her very simple request.
==There are thousands of people who would love a moment with the president (for a variety of reasons). This lady had hers. It is wrong for her to show up with signs, and the media, in an attempt to make Bush look bad. He gave her time last year after her son died and she was pleased with the meeting at that time.
____________________________________
You said:
Sheehan says that, during the Republican National Convention, she saw President Bush exploiting the meeting he'd had with her family to "justify what he was doing." She continued, "It's now clear to me that what I had feared is true: Bush lied us into war,
==This can't be supported. I saw the President of Russia just the other night say that everyone believed there were WMD in Iraq! Bush did not have to lie about this.
Funny thing we now see yet another contradiction...after the meeting with Bush her husband "noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election".
______________________________________
You said:
Drudge is leading the
way on this but he needs to realize he has tons
of skeletons in his closet and people have held
back for years over his gay cruising and perverted
lifestyle so he is fair game as he misrepresents
Cindy Sheehan and takes whole quotes out of context and does not comment on new information
Cindy Sheehan received.
==I don't see what that has to do with the conflicting accounts she has given.
___________________________________
You said:
So lets actually let her speak and defend herself
against Drudge.
==I don't care to hear her defend herself. I only care to hear her tell us which of the two accounts are correct and why we should now believe her.
This is about credibility .
I feel extremely sorry for her. I know she is going through a horrible, horrible time. Like her I am opposed to the Iraqi war but that is no excuse to contradict yourself.
In Christ,
Martin.
You said:
So lets actually let her speak and defend herself
against Drudge.
==I don't care to hear her defend herself. I only care to hear her tell us which of the two accounts are correct and why we should now believe her.
but isn't she addressing that in the mp3 audio?
This is about credibility . [I agree]
I feel extremely sorry for her. I know she is going through a horrible, horrible time. Like her I am opposed to the Iraqi war but that is no excuse to contradict yourself.
[It is not that simple Martin and she has explained herself but she is up against an attack
machine lead by Drudge and Free Republic where they can parrot and repeat and parrot and repeat.]
imho Aslanspal
In Christ,
Martin.
You can be for or against but to be attacked and
told to walk in a ditch is wrong...I would be
outragged if christians protesting were told to
walk in a ditch if they felt compeled too protest
a major leader...this does not look good on our
democracy ...when at the same time we are speaking
of nation building and democracies elsewhere.imho
So lets actually let her speak and defend herself
against Drudge.
==I don't care to hear her defend herself. I only care to hear her tell us which of the two accounts are correct and why we should now believe her.
but isn't she addressing that in the mp3 audio?
This is about credibility . [I agree]
I feel extremely sorry for her. I know she is going through a horrible, horrible time. Like her I am opposed to the Iraqi war but that is no excuse to contradict yourself.
[It is not that simple Martin and she has explained herself but she is up against an attack
machine lead by Drudge and Free Republic where they can parrot and repeat and parrot and repeat.]
imho Aslanspal
In Christ,
Martin.
You can be for or against but to be attacked and
told to walk in a ditch is wrong...I would be
outragged if christians protesting were told to
walk in a ditch if they felt compeled too protest
a major leader...this does not look good on our
democracy ...when at the same time we are speaking
of nation building and democracies elsewhere.imho
You said:
It is not that simple Martin and she has explained herself but she is up against an attack
machine lead by Drudge and Free Republic where they can parrot and repeat and parrot and repeat
==I have listened to the interview. She said nothing that explained, to me, why she is contradicting herself. In fact what she said verified what I thought. She has changed her story about the meeting (etc) because she has come to believe new information (some of which I agree with her about, some of which I don't). In other words she has changed her account to fit her new opinion.
Sorry but I just can't trust that. She has lost her credibility and her "explanation" did nothing to help her (in my view).
She said that "they knew they did not have wmd" which is factual wrong (Russia, etc, agreed with Bush). She has accepted an anti-war position that is coloring her statements.
As for right wing attacks, excuse me while I don't feel sorry for her. She went down there, brought media attention to herself, and now she is surprised that people are opposed to her? Come on. I believe she knew good and well what she was doing and things are going the way she wanted them to go. Also both the right and the left have attack machines so neither side can point fingers at the other without being a bunch of hypocrites (which most of them are anyway).
Martin.
It is not that simple Martin and she has explained herself but she is up against an attack
machine lead by Drudge and Free Republic where they can parrot and repeat and parrot and repeat
==I have listened to the interview. She said nothing that explained, to me, why she is contradicting herself. In fact what she said verified what I thought. She has changed her story about the meeting (etc) because she has come to believe new information (some of which I agree with her about, some of which I don't). In other words she has changed her account to fit her new opinion.
Sorry but I just can't trust that. She has lost her credibility and her "explanation" did nothing to help her (in my view).
She said that "they knew they did not have wmd" which is factual wrong (Russia, etc, agreed with Bush). She has accepted an anti-war position that is coloring her statements.
As for right wing attacks, excuse me while I don't feel sorry for her. She went down there, brought media attention to herself, and now she is surprised that people are opposed to her? Come on. I believe she knew good and well what she was doing and things are going the way she wanted them to go. Also both the right and the left have attack machines so neither side can point fingers at the other without being a bunch of hypocrites (which most of them are anyway).
Martin.