Cindy Sheehan: What do you think of her situation? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

joshbaumgartner · 08-17-2005, 03:28 PM

I would like to get an idea what folks here think of the Cindy Sheehan situation. Is she a greiving mom legitimately seeking the answers to her son's death, or a political operative capitalizing on tragedy to push an agenda? Should she be ashamed for turning her son's death into a political spectacle or is she doing her son proud by exercising the freedoms her son joined up to defend? Is she expecting too much as only one of the thousands of Americans who have lost a loved one, or is she truly a representative of a significant portion of those people who also want answers?

Bodyhammer86 · 08-17-2005, 03:40 PM

I think this post from the real police forums explains why she's just a political pawn whoring off of her son's death:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC Law

1. Her son died over a year ago, and President Bush met with her one-on-one way back then. She initially praised the President after that meeting.

2. She has a public relations firm and other staffers helping organize her media campaign and these people are either Democrat party wonks or paid by the Democrats.

3. She is now being hailed as an "expert" on the war and foreign policy in general and no one can rebut or criticize her because as soon as someone does, she or her handlers throw down the victim card and shout "how dare you attack this poor woman! Don't you know her son is dead?"

4. All parents of fallen heroes who support our President and the war are deliberately ignored. Several have shown up outside the Bush ranch and the media refuses to acknowledge them as they interview this professional victim who now presumes to tell us all just how the world should run.

She's nothing but a pawn/tool of the anti-Bush crowd and even if Bush met with her tomorrow she would not change her tune. That "meeting" would only ber grist for more of her venomous anti-Bush shilling.

Not to mention she has recently turned anti-Israel and is affiliated with moveon.org and Michael Moore.

joshbaumgartner · 08-17-2005, 03:50 PM

I have made the poll multiple choice capable so that you can select all applicable responses to your view.

Personally, I am torn on the matter. I do question to some degree the person herself, and no I don't think every person who loses a loved one deserves a special presidential meeting. On the other hand, she has clearly tapped into a reather large national sentiment, and I think there are some very legitimate questions out there that Bush needs to address, not specifically for Cindy, but for all of us in the country. So even if she is a political operative, that doesn't necessarily remove her right to seek redress. I mean I'm a political operative and so are a lot of others here, but I don't think any of us should have our rights within the society curtailed by that fact. I don't know how I feel about Cindy's personal quest, but I do think that many of the questions are ones that the nation as a whole deserves to have answered.

samcol · 08-17-2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

I don't know how I feel about Cindy's personal quest, but I do think that many of the questions are ones that the nation as a whole deserves to have answered.

That's exaclty how I feel. I think her personal quest is a representation of an increasing number of Americans who have some unanswered questions that deserve to be answered.

Bodyhammer86 · 08-17-2005, 04:02 PM

To further prove that Cindy Sheehan is a political pawn, she recently said that it would hurt her movement if Bush were to meet with her:

Quote:

OLBERMANN: Last question. It‘s pure politics. The nature of the media coverage you‘re getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that, from the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn‘t it really better if President Bush doesn‘t meet with you?

SHEEHAN: I would think so, yes. I think it‘s great. And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don‘t want to give them any hints. And I think that‘s something they‘ve probably already thought about.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8925133/

As for her now anti-Israel stance:

Quote:

CINDY SHEEHAN, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq and a leading anti-war activist, has panicked the Bush administration by claiming her son died for Israel.

“Am I emotional? Yes, my first-born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn’t changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse.”

When I accessed Cindy Sheehan’s statement via Rense.com, I was first sent to a Google page warning me that the link I was navigating to contained “Adult Content.”

The page had no pornography at all. Apparently, Google is now classifying criticism of Israel as “Adult Content,” like the web filters now legally deployed at public libraries.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=5644

Stare At The Sun · 08-17-2005, 04:16 PM

*shrugs* she speaks the truth..

Hardknock · 08-17-2005, 04:38 PM

Bush owes all of us answers. CIndy is the spark that finally lit the fire.

Wait and see.

Marvelous Marv · 08-17-2005, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

*shrugs* she speaks the truth..

To quote a movie, "In FantasyLand."

djtestudo · 08-17-2005, 05:09 PM

I love this.

The president meets with her, and she praises him after the meeting. Suddenly, she's camping out, demanding for him to meet with her AGAIN, and decrying the war.

I personally think that she should be completely ignored.

pan6467 · 08-17-2005, 05:09 PM

It's weird, last week I read 19 Obits for 19 Ohio men who lost their lives over there. Each had a picture and a few paragraphs.

The majority just talked about who he was, and his love for his family and the love they had for him.

However, there were 2 where the parents stated the man had lost faith in the war or that he questioned the war and so on....... and there were exactly the same number 2, saying how great the soldier believed the war to be and how he was doing the right thing.

So for anyone to say that the "anti-war" gets more press is BS in this case. I see it getting equal press, the difference lies in what we pay attention to.

When we agree with something we tend not to notice as much as when we disagree and find our ire raised by something. And that is the situation with the war. There is as much pro-war propaganda as there is anti-war propaganda and vice versa..... but we tend to notice the opposite of our belief more and therefore we believe it has more coverage.

As for this lady's case in point, I don't care what her motivation appears to be (political pawn), she has a right to be heard and seen.

So what if Bush saw her days after she lost her son and she came out of it praising Bush..... she was probably still in shock and the emotional bath hadn't taken her yet.... her husband (whom in all honesty I have not heard anything about except that he met Bush with her when their son first died) could have been the one issuing the press statement praising Bush and she was too in shock to say anything at that time.

For those who see this as a woman selling out for politics.... it maybe true, but I don't think you should judge anyone until you have walked in their shoes or heard them talk firsthand and not just the newsblurbs you pick and choose.

Bush, supposedly a great "Christian" should at least meet with her privately with both sides signing affadavits swearing the meeting contents will not be leaked nor any press statements released except to say they met....... That way both could be honest with each other and say exactly what they want to each other and noone will ever know what was said. And neither can gain PR from the situation.

This is this generation's Vietnam whether you choose to admit it or not, it'll divide the nation further and further and both sides will claim to be fighting for the right side. Both sides have their good and both sides have their bad.... but I guarantee both sides will be equally covered, yet the only coverage you'll take note of is that that either stregthens your position more or infuriates you most. You'll ignore most of anything in between.

Locobot · 08-17-2005, 05:45 PM

I'm really not sure what her agenda is, what she hopes to tell the President when she would meet with him for the second time. Obviously complete withdrawl from Iraq at this point would be almost as foolish as the initial invasion. Right now the only people entering the military are the poorest Americans who have few other choices. It is right to pay attention to people like Sheehan. It is not right to shield ourselves from the human costs of the Iraq junta.

I remember how the people who marketed this war (yes there was a marketing campaign) sold it as a gleeful escapade in the desert. Our fancy equipment would do all the hard work. We have the biggest and smartest bombs and Bradley fighting tanks (how many thousands of times did Fox news mention those?). It turns out, as many people including myself predicted, that MOAB bombs are completely useless at stopping suicide bombers from entering troop mess tents and detonating themselves. Smart missles turned out to be not so smart, 0 of 50 targets hit.

Most polls now have support for the Iraq war below 50%. If there were an equitable lottery draft that pulled people from all walks of life to serve and die I imagine that number would drop below 25%. Our goals for the country have been scaled back to apparently not even including democratic rule http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=93378 . The choices seem to have been whiddled down to a dictatorship *cough* (ala Saddam Hussein), or three autonomous states *cough* (civil war).

sapiens · 08-17-2005, 05:53 PM

I thought that the following piece in the NYTimes had an interesting take on the Cindy Sheehan situation:
Link

Quote:

New York Times
August 17, 2005
Conservative Compassion
By EDMUND MORRIS

CINDY Sheehan's attempt to have President Bush tell her - again - how sorry he is about the death of her son in Iraq is escalating into a protest more political than personal. As such, it is a legitimate expression of antiwar sentiment. But the individual cry for attention at the heart of it - "Mr. President, feel my pain!" - is misguided. Ms. Sheehan cannot expect a commander in chief to emote on demand.

I once spent two days at Ronald Reagan's side, for the purpose of seeing what it was like to be president of all the people, all the time. (At least, from his morning emergence out of the White House elevator until the equally prompt moment when, tapping his watch and chuckling, he would say to the host of his evening function, "The fellas tell me it's time to go home.")

Long before that moment - in fact, within a couple of hours - I was so emotionally exhausted that I could hardly stand. It was not that Mr. Reagan, 30 years my senior, set the pace that some hyperactive presidents have kept. What drained me was my writer's tendency to feel what people in the room are feeling. The hundreds who shook his hand (he told me that he averaged 80 new acquaintances a day, for eight years) were avid to make the most of the window granted them in the president's schedule, whether it was an interview, conference, ceremony, drop-by, or photo opportunity. With the exception of a few disapproving Democrats, they all bore the strange smile that celebrity imprints on the faces of supplicants and spectators: a fixed grin below dilated eyes, expressive more of yearning than delight.

The president's very first appointment was not even on his printed schedule. An aide, waiting with me at the elevator door, told Reagan that he would have to pause in the conservatory en route to the Oval Office. "There's a Louisiana state trooper there, sir, with his wife and daughter. He had his eyes shot out in the line of duty. Just a few words and a photograph."

We rounded the corner and came upon the little family, with the father in full uniform and mother and child radiant at his side. All three wore the smile, rendered still stranger in the trooper's case by his sightlessness. How long had they been dreaming, planning, saving for this catharsis? Reagan was masterful, enveloping them in his kindly aura even as he maneuvered them, with practiced ease, toward the camera. The whole encounter lasted less than a minute. It was so harrowing that I was taken aback by the president's instant switch to joviality as he continued toward the West Wing. He actually seemed to be looking forward to the rest of his day.

Not everybody who approached him after that first meeting sought consolation. But they all wanted something: decisions, commitments, encouragements, congratulations, interested frowns, laughter in response to their jokes, and always the photograph - to be mailed later, signed usually with an autopen, ready for framed display in dens from Anchorage to Key West, Fla.

Some presidents are better than others at handling this relentless demand for a show of personal involvement. Theodore Roosevelt exuded such cheerful charm that one visitor wrote about going home from the White House "to wring the personality out of your clothes." But T.R. did not like to have his deeper sentiments presumed on by "milksops" and "mollycoddles." No weeper himself, he recoiled from public displays of grief. Not so Bill Clinton, who (as a video of Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown's funeral demonstrated) carried his own automatic sprinkler system, responsive to the proximity of any TV camera.

Richard Nixon was not unsympathetic so much as transcendentally awkward. His way of dealing with a situation only half as fraught as Reagan's encounter with the state trooper was a desperate attempt at wit: "Don't worry, soldier, you see too much out of the other eye, anyway."

The allegedly chilly Jimmy Carter was a warm man face to face, curious, a careful listener, at ease with children. Yet he kept a tight rein on his emotions and real opinions. I recall one of his oldest friends saying in bemusement, "The moment he was elected president, a glass wall came down between us."

I have had few chances to observe George W. Bush close up, and can say only that he appears to have Theodore Roosevelt's muscular positivity (what Owen Wister, author of "The Virginian," described as "his determination to grasp his optimism tight, lest it escape him") and Reagan's benign lack of interest in individual human beings - without either man's ability to silently convey that they had, at least in private, pondered the larger questions of life and death.

But who am I to know? He has, after all, the loneliest of jobs. The Oval Office is not always disrupted by visitors. A president occasionally has (and needs) what Reagan used to call "quiet time." Except for the great wooden clock ticking, there is no more silent place in the world. Here - since we do not, despite frequent exaggerated misgivings, elect insensate persons to high office - a wartime commander in chief has to acknowledge that far afield, men and women in uniform are dying because of him.

Which may account for the fact that Reagan found comforting a state trooper and his family relatively easy: the officer, after all, was not blinded in response to a White House order. But when for the first time he had to salute a row of coffins with dead Americans in them - after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in April 1983 - he was, by his own admission, "too choked up to speak." Possibly the family members he greeted that day were puzzled by his silence. They should see the words he drafted in his private shorthand, words that he did not utter, presumably at the urging of White House spinmeisters:

TODAY . . . FAMLYs . . . THS. HONORD DEAD . . .

GALLANT AMs UNDRSTOOD . . . DANGER . . .

WNT WILLINGLY . . . BEIRUT . . .

DASTARDLY DEED - UNPARALLELD COWARDICE

AFLICTD MNKND LOOKS . . . US . . . HELP . . .

COWARDLY, SKULKING BARBARIANS

Maybe one day some such document will reveal what President Bush really feels about his own "honored dead." For the meantime, he is our elected president, with the business of a nation to run. Ms. Sheehan has gotten more time with him than most grieving mothers, and if she felt, during those unsatisfactory minutes, that there was a glass wall around him, it unfortunately comes with the job. A president has to protect himself from emotional predators, or he'd be sucked dry within a week of taking office.

Edmund Morris is the author of "Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan," "Theodore Rex" and a forthcomingbiography of Beethoven.

Personally, I don't think that she is "selling out" for politics or "whoring off her son's death" (which is kind of offensive). I don't know her motives, but they appear to be personal and political. I don't think that the President needs to meet with her again, but she has the right to criticize that decision and the war as much as she wants.

Bodyhammer86 · 08-17-2005, 06:20 PM

No offense but if you use the death of a family member to further your political agenda (be it right-wing or left-wing, pro-war or anti-war), than yes, you are "whoring off" your son or daughter's death and I would be equally disgusted if a pro-war right-winger were to use the death of a son or daughter to further his/her political ideology. However, I wouldn't really say that Cindy sold out for politics considering she was anti-war before her son died and didn't support Casey's decision to join the military anyway. And it's pretty damn obvious that her son wouldn't have supported his mother's cause considering he decided to re-enlist in the army after he served his time.

djtestudo · 08-17-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

her husband (whom in all honesty I have not heard anything about except that he met Bush with her when their son first died)...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...1sheehan1.html

Filing for divorce...

host · 08-18-2005, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

I think this post from the real police forums explains why she's just a political pawn whoring off of her son's death:
Not to mention she has recently turned anti-Israel and is affiliated with moveon.org and Michael Moore.

I want the members here who do not watch Fox "news", or listen to Rush, or visit the "real police" forums, or the drudgereport, or the "freeper" site, to get some insight into how someone could author and post the quote above....

It takes a huge, co-ordinated, propaganda effort to blunt the effects of the constant lies and distortions of the Bush admininstration and it's cheerleaders.
It must be a daunting task to spin the premise that public disclosure of the Abu Ghraib torture pics and videos would provide a "recruitment tool for Al Qaeda", or that Cindy Sheehan's protest is undermining the troops in Iraq.
The disconnect that convinces some Americans to argue that something other than the Bush Admin.'s own lies and war crimes, are somehow the "problem", grows more astounding to observe, every day.

Any mother who has lost a beloved child to this invasion and war of aggression by deception, who does not resort to what Ms. Sheehan is attempting to do, or does not support her, is either affected by grief and long discredited talking points, or is clinging to a myth that dying for the cause of "Iraqi Freedom" is a "noble cause".

Michael Moore and moveon.org, did not invade Iraq and instigate a chain of events that has resulted in the deaths and maiming of 15,000 Americans and uncounted multiples of that number, of Iraqis.

I've posted the Bush admin.'s record of lies, crimes, and distortions, all over these threads. They even made up a story about a threat to Bush's plane on 9/11, to cover for his odd movements throughout that day. Even though the whitehouse's own website documents the Jan. 12, 2005 press briefing and Scott McClellan's admission that no WMD were found in Iraq, the apologists still insist on being more "Bush" than Bush.......

Theirs is a fragile belief system. Discussion, disclosure, and dissent threaten to topple it's waning support among the still awakening American people.
Now they exhibit the stomach for smearing and abusing the grieving mother of a dead American soldier who was killed in Iraq. It is a campaign no more noble than Bush's latest reason for continuing American casualties in his occupation of Iraq. Whatever it takes.........

<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009">Cindy Sheehan "changed her story on Bush"? Tracking a lie through the conservative media</>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170008">Conservatives, others in the media launch smear campaign against Cindy Sheehan</a>
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200508110002">One day after smearing protester Cindy Sheehan, O'Reilly claimed he and Malkin were "respectful" to her</a>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459409/posts

pan6467 · 08-18-2005, 02:39 AM

I find it hypocritical of the media to skewer this lady and ANYONE who opposes the president, and yet when it comes to his lies, his and his "friends" scandals and contempt for the people, the press hides and does nothing.

Look how classy Limbaugh's drug addiction was handled by the mainstream, and yet when someone he doesn't like has problems he not only goes for the juggular but he rips everyone close to the person to shreds also.

And anyone who did try to report anything of true value on Limbaugh was threatened by his lawyers and taken to court to be silenced, as his case was still being investigated..... yet during Clinton's invetigations he was allowed to say whatever he wanted, come out with any news he wanted (true or not)... hmmmmm.

Look how Drudge and Fox will skewer everyone and anyone they want, but then if someone says something bad about Bush, Rove or any GOP they get defensive and trash that person so badly it's pathetic.

In most major news stories I find the press truly equal in coverage, but when it comes to skewering and destroying people the Right does a far better, more thorough job of it than the Left can ever dream of. And the Right doesn't care about facts, doesn't care about using the whole story or the context... they use what they want, put it in the context they want and destroy the person with precision and accuracy.

So I feel for this woman, hopefully, the people get sick of these GOP tactics of attack and see the GOP as the hypocrits they are.

stevo · 08-18-2005, 05:22 AM

She's a whack job, no doubtably traumatized by her son's death, but she is dragging her son's and family's good name through the mud with her antics. For those of you questioning her motives, here's an example:

Quote:

CINDY UNLEASHED: 'THE BIGGEST TERRORIST IN THE WORLD IS GEORGE W. BUSH'
Wed Aug 17 2005 21:51:56 ET

"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"

So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at San Francisco State University.

Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

Sheehan unleashed a foul-mouth tirade on April 27, 2005:

"They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up..." Sheehan said of the Bush administration.

"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?"

"The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war."

"We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people."

END

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Say what you will about matt drudge, but I have yet to read any false information posted on his site. If you find some, please let me know.

Charlatan · 08-18-2005, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Say what you will about matt drudge, but I have yet to read any false information posted on his site. If you find some, please let me know.

He is just as guilty as pretty much anyone in the press of manipulating context for their story.

Bill O'Rights · 08-18-2005, 07:15 AM

ObieX · 08-18-2005, 07:34 AM

I think if she didnt have a son who died in Iraq she would have been arrested long ago on any number of charges. (unfortunately)

host · 08-18-2005, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

She's a whack job, no doubtably traumatized by her son's death, but she is dragging her son's and family's good name through the mud with her antics. For those of you questioning her motives, here's an example:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Say what you will about matt drudge, but I have yet to read any false information posted on his site. If you find some, please let me know.

Attack....attack....attack...it must be difficult to live under a "belief system" that is so flawed and fragile that it reduces it's supporters to a level where it is necessary to accuse a mother who has lost a child in Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, of "whoring" and of being a "whack job", while citing "Drudge" for "back up", when her stated purpose is an attempt to influence the authorities who started the violent conflict under false pretenses to end it and spare other mothers the loss and the pain of living through the avoidable death of another American in Iraq.

Here is the "scenario" that lined up your Sheehan "talking points" for you. It is the same kind of bullshit "Op" that Rove put together to attempt to discredit Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. It positions about 40 percent of American adults in the same place, with the same talking points, at the same time.....but the "talk" is still BS...and if it is not challenged...each and every time...it begins to stick, regardless of it's lack of substance.

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
Cindy Sheehan "changed her story on Bush"? Tracking a lie through the conservative media

Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, has drawn significant media attention for staging an anti-war protest outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where she is demanding to meet with the president. On August 8, Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted an item on his website, the Drudge Report, in which he falsely claimed that Sheehan "dramatically changed her account" of a meeting she had with Bush in June 2004; Drudge attempted to back up his false assertion by reproducing Sheehan quotes from a 2004 newspaper article without providing their context. After the story appeared on the Drudge Report, it gained momentum among conservative weblogs and eventually reached Fox News, where it was presented as hard news and in commentaries. Media Matters for America will examine how one false story on an Internet gossip site ended up the focus of prime-time cable news coverage.

Drudge's August 8 item claiming that Sheehan had changed her story used quotes from a June 24, 2004, article in The Reporter of Vacaville, California, where Sheehan lives. The Reporter article described a meeting that Sheehan and 16 other families of soldiers killed in Iraq had with Bush in Fort Lewis, Washington, earlier that month. Sheehan's son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq in April 2004.

Drudge quoted Sheehan seemingly speaking glowingly of Bush: "'I now know [Bush is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith,' " and, "For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again. 'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said." Drudge contrasted these quotes to Sheehan's statements on the August 7 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, in which she said, of the 2004 meeting with Bush: "We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

Drudge, however, took Sheehan's quotes from The Reporter out of context in falsely claiming a shift in her position. The June 24, 2004, Reporter article also quoted Sheehan expressing her misgivings about Bush and the Iraq war:

"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.

Moreover, Sheehan was not referring to her meeting with Bush as "the gift the president gave us." She was actually referring to the trip to Seattle, as Reporter staff writer Tom Hall noted in an August 9 article responding to Drudge: "Sheehan also said the trip to Seattle helped connect her family to others that had lost a son or daughter in Iraq. Sheehan said sharing their story with those families was rewarding, as was the time she got to spend with her own family. 'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' she said in the story. Drudge included that quote in his Monday morning report, but didn't explain that it referred to sharing time with her family, not the president."

Reporter editor Diane Barney also responded to Drudge in an August 9 column, in which she said that Sheehan's positions on Bush and the war have not changed since June 2004. "We don't think there has been a dramatic turnaround. Clearly, Cindy Sheehan's outrage was festering even then," Barney wrote. "In ensuing months, she has grown more focused, more determined, more aggressive. ... We invite readers to revisit the story -- in context -- on our Web site and decide for themselves." An August 8 Editor & Publisher article quoted Barney further clarifying the paper's position: "It's important that readers see the full context of the story, instead of just selected portions. We stand by the story as an accurate reflection of the Sheehan's take on the meeting at the time it was published."

Throughout the day on August 8, Drudge's false story needed little time to spread to conservative weblogs:

* Drudge posted the Sheehan item on August 8 at 10:11 am ET.
* Right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin posted the item on her weblog one hour later, at 11:22 am ET.
* At 12:40 pm ET, the Drudge story appeared on C-Log, the weblog of the conservative news and commentary website Townhall.com.
* At 2:33 pm ET, MooreWatch.com posted the story.
* At 3:23 pm ET, William Quick of DailyPundit.com posted the story.

Fox News then picked up Drudge's distortion of Sheehan's quote. On the "Political Grapevine" segment of the August 8 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume, guest anchor and Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle highlighted Sheehan's supposed contradiction:

ANGLE: Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq last year, who's now camped outside President Bush's Crawford ranch demanding to see him, said yesterday on CNN that a private meeting with President Bush last year was offensive, insisting, quote, "He acted like it was a party. He came in very jovial, like we should be happy with that. Our son died for the president's misguided policies."

But just after that 2004 meeting, she gave a very different account, telling her local paper, the Vacaville Reporter, quote, "I now know the president is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." She added that President Bush, quote, "gave us the gift of happiness of being together."

By August 9, various journalists and progressive bloggers revealed Drudge's distortion. On Salon.com, journalist Eric Boehlert noted on August 9: "Put in full context, Drudge's claim of a flip-flop is easily dismissed." RawStory.com, a progressive news website, noted that Drudge "grossly took Sheehan out of context."

Nevertheless, Drudge's distortion again popped up on Fox News -- this time on the August 9 edition of The O'Reilly Factor. Host Bill O'Reilly made Sheehan's nonexistent contradictions the focus of his "Talking Points Memo" segment:

O'REILLY: The fascinating saga of Cindy Sheehan. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Mrs. Sheehan is protesting in Crawford, Texas, trying to convince Americans the Iraq war is wrong and the president should be impeached. She is doing so because her son Casey, an Army specialist, was killed last year in Iraq. No one has the right to intrude on Mrs. Sheehan's grief. That's number one. She's entitled to her opinion on a situation that has deeply affected her. And she's angry at the White House.

[...]

Well, here's something very strange. Two months after her son died, Cindy and her husband Patrick did meet with President Bush, as she said. After that meeting, Cindy was quoted by a California newspaper as saying, "I now know [President Bush] is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss." So Mrs. Sheehan has apparently changed her mind about the president.

[...]

In an editorial today in The New York Times, it says, "Mr. Bush obviously failed to comfort Ms. Sheehan when he met with her and her family. More important, he has not helped the nation give fallen soldiers like Casey Sheehan the honor they deserve." Well, let's go back to the California article. Cindy Sheehan was quoted as saying, "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together." It sounds like comfort to me. What say you, New York Times?

O'Reilly then introduced his guest to comment on Sheehan -- Michelle Malkin, who proclaimed that Sheehan's "story hasn't checked out," to which O'Reilly readily agreed:

MALKIN: I mean, the New York Times editorial board is all too eager to prop her up as some sort of martyr and to buy her line when, clearly, her story hasn't checked out.

O'REILLY: Yes, her story hasn't [sic] changed.

MALKIN: And so I think -- and I think that angle you're emphasizing is absolutely right here, which is the mainstream media just lapping this up and perpetuating myths and inaccuracies when they know it's not the truth.

O'REILLY: Yup. They don't identify -- in the New York Times editorial today, it was obvious they did not say her story has been inconsistent. And they did not pinpoint that she is in bed with the radical left.

On the August 10 edition of his syndicated radio program, The Radio Factor, O'Reilly continued to assert that Sheehan had contradicted herself, stating, "In her first meeting with the president, she was happy with him, and we read you the article that the Vacaville paper -- where she's from in California -- printed."

The latest "talking point" "Op", is aimed at placing the new revelation of pre-9/11 intelligence mismanagement blame, solely in the lap of the Clinton administration. Ole "Rush" carries the water for this "Op":

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508150002
Conservatives again misrepresented "wall" that purportedly inhibited intelligence sharing prior to 9-11

Since it was first reported that information identifying lead 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta may have been withheld from law enforcement officials more than a year before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, conservative media figures including the New York Post's Deborah Orin and radio host Rush Limbaugh have used the alleged incident to claim that a "wall" purportedly enacted -- or at least expanded -- under the Clinton administration blocked intelligence sharing that could have prevented the attacks. In his April 2004 testimony before the 9-11 Commission, former Attorney General John Ashcroft launched the false accusation by claiming that then-deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick prevented critical information coordination leading up to the 9-11 attacks by issuing a memo in 1995 setting out the "wall's" restrictions.

In fact, the "wall" was established well before President Clinton took office; according to the 1995 memo itself, Gorelick intended to codify procedures for the sharing of information between intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials to make sure evidence gathered by such agencies would be admissible in criminal prosecutions.

host · 08-18-2005, 08:46 AM

The TFP site did not respond when I posted (above). I am removing the duplicate post that resulted.............

I'll use this space to post the article that Drudge cited, in launchimg his "talking point" "Op" in an attempt to discredit Sheehan last week.

Quote:

http://www.thereporter.com/republished
Article Launched: 06/24/2004 06:00:00 AM

From our archive: Bush, Sheehans share moments
By David Henson/Staff Writer

Since learning in April that their son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had been killed in Iraq, life has been everything but normal for the Sheehan family of Vacaville.

Casey's parents, Cindy and Patrick, as well as their three children, have attended event after event honoring the soldier both locally and abroad, received countless letters of support and fielded questions from reporters across the country.

"That's the way our whole lives have been since April 4," Patrick said. "It's been surreal."

But none of that prepared the family for the message left on their answering machine last week, inviting them to have a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle.

Surreal soon seemed like an understatement, as the Sheehans - one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush - were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military. 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.

"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.

For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.

"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."

The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.

Compare the above 06/24/2004 Vacaville, Ca newspaper report, with Drudge's Aug. 8, 2005 "spin"....

Quote:

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...400_flash4.htm
PROTESTING SOLDIER MOM CHANGED STORY ON BUSH
Mon Aug 08 2005 10:11:07 ET

The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

CINDY 2004

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

CINDY 2005

Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.

In an interview Sunday on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him.

"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'

Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...

SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...

Developing...

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8997225/
Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Aug. 17
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show
Updated: 10:26 a.m. ET Aug. 18, 2005

(Near the end of the transcript.....)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN (voice-over): First, time for Countdown‘s list of today‘s three nominees for the title of worst person in the world. Nominated at the bronze level. In coastal Scotland................

........Also, the fine folks at Austin Community College in Texas. Carl Basham (ph) said he was denied the state residence discount for tuition. He has to pay $2,600 a semester instead of $500 because they say he spent too much time living out of state. Well it‘s true, Carl has been away, serving he says, two tours in Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN (voice-over): But the winner, it‘s the irrepressible Rush Limbaugh. On the radio, he said quote, “Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There‘s nothing about it that‘s real.”

I guess she made up that dead son in Iraq business! He also referred to her supporters as dope-smoking FM types. I guess the painkillers wipe out your memory along with your ethics. Rush Limbaugh, today‘s worst person in the world!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I doubt that I can influence your opinion, stevo, but.....the next time you read something that Drudge posts on his site, and you do not go through the process that I just presented....comparing Drudge's "interpretation" with the original report, try to consider that, to those who go through the process of exposing themselves to less "filtered" streams of information, when you offer what you believe is your "own" opinion, you will appear to them to be misinformed, as you do to some of us, here.

stevo · 08-18-2005, 10:15 AM

host- the only difference or innacuracies I see here is the quote "'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," that was not revealed in its whole context.

Did sheehan not say, "I now know [President Bush] is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss." Was this out of context as well?

and then she is quoted as saying:

"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"

Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

"They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up..."

"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?"

"The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war."

"We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people."

So list what she actually said, if this is not it.

All I'm trying to say is the lady is looney and obviously distressed and she's disrespecting her son and family with her behaviour. The drudge article I posted was an example of what she thinks and possibly a look at her motives, as I remember another post commenting on what her true motives are.

The whole thing looks like a waste of time and resources to me. She can sit out there and camp and protest all she wants, but one lady's bickering sure does gobble up a lot of media coverage.

host · 08-18-2005, 11:37 AM

stevo, the June, 2004 Vacaville. CA newspaper report that Drudge cited, and propagandized, followed soon after by the entire "talking point" "Op", apparatus that has "persuaded" you to embrace a Sheehan "flip flop", is revisited by the editor of that Vacaville publication. She disagrees with the Drudge "smear" attempt..........

Quote:

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2925934
Article Launched: 08/09/2005 06:57:00 AM

Anti-war position not new
By Diane Barney

Reporter readers have followed the evolution this past year of Vacaville resident Cindy Sheehan from grieving mother to outspoken anti-war protester who today is camped out near the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, demanding his resignation.

It is not the same Sheehan family we met in April, still stunned after learning that 24-year-old Army Spc. Casey Sheehan had died in an ambush.

The Sheehans - with 16 other families - met President Bush at Fort Lewis, Wash., where he extended condolences and appreciation for their sacrifice.

At the time, the Sheehans debated whether to be brutally honest with the president. They had serious concerns about the war. But in the end, they told our reporter, they decided to be respectful. President Bush even kissed Cindy Sheehan on the cheek.

Cindy Sheehan said of her first encounter with the president, "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

But that article, published June 24, 2004, was called into question on Monday following a story in the Drudge Report.

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.

In a press release Monday by the Institute for Public Accuracy, Sheehan explained she was "still in shock" at the time she met with the president.

"We had decided not to criticize the president then because during that meeting he assured us 'this is not political.' And I believed him," Sheehan wrote. "Then, during the Republican National Convention, he exploited those meetings to justify what he was doing."

In ensuing months, she has grown more focused, more determined, more aggressive. She co-founded Gold Star Families For Peace in December 2004, a group which has written numerous letters, articles and posted online reports. She has participated in protests around the country. She and her daughter, Carly, have appeared in anti-war TV messages. And now she's camping out near the president's ranch.

We invite readers to revisit the story - in context - on our Web site and decide for themselves. Stay tuned as it continues to evolve.

The author is editor of The Reporter.

stevo, your indignation directed toward Sheehan is misplaced. Her comments display the still growing outrage, frustration, and despair, as she emerges from the numbness of her grief. Her reaction to the following, in her circumstances is understandable. Your reaction to it is to defend and to support it, with the aim of continuing it's course without challenge or dissent.

Quote:

Iraq <a href="http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/CIA-2-23-01.htm">CIA Director Tenent's Feb., 2001 Testimony to Congress</a>

Since Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow United Nations' inspectors into Iraq as required by Security Council Resolution 687. In spite of ongoing UN efforts to establish a follow-on inspection regime comprising the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEA's Iraq Action Team, no UN inspections occurred during this reporting period. Moreover, the automated video monitoring system installed by the UN at known and suspect WMD facilities in Iraq is no longer operating. Having lost this on-the-ground access, it is more difficult for the UN or the US to accurately assess the current state of Iraq's WMD programs.

We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely. We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months. Without an inspection monitoring program, however, it is more difficult to determine if Iraq has done so.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml">Feb. 4, 2004 The Man Who Knew</a>
Powell said that when he made the case for war before the United Nations one year ago, he used evidence that reflected the best judgments of the intelligence agencies.

But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons.

One analyst, Greg Thielmann, told Correspondent Scott Pelley last October that key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.

Thielmann should know. He had been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau.......

"The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show."
Greg Thielmann

Bush and his administration knew the truth but later misled and distorted the actual threat Saddam posed to the rest of the
world are press remarks from Colin Powell on Feb. 24:

Quote:

2001:"QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?
SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.
We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."
Please take note that the above quote comes from a page on the
U.S. State Departments own website. <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>

Next, we offer a quote from National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:

Quote:

"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html">http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html</a>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050112-7.html
Q The President accepts that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he said back in October that the comprehensive report by Charles Duelfer concluded what his predecessor had said, as well, that the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there. And now what is important is that we need to go back and look at what was wrong with much of the intelligence that we accumulated over a 12-year period and that our allies had accumulated over that same period of time, and correct any flaws.

Q I just want to make sure, though, because you said something about following up on additional reports and learning more about the regime. You are not trying to hold out to the American people the possibility that there might still be weapons somewhere there, are you?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just said that if there are -- if there are any other reports, obviously, of weapons of mass destruction, then people will follow up on those reports. I'm just stating a fact. .................

......Q Two follow-ups. There's been quite a bit of talk that Syria might have hidden some of these weapons of mass destruction. Is the government of Syria cooperating at all in the search for WMD?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have the report from Charles Duelfer. You can go and look at that report in terms of addressing those issues, and I think the President has spoken to the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, if there are any other reports that come to people's attention, they'll follow up on those reports.............

............. Q Scott, did the White House intend to, at any point, come out and tell the American people that the search for WMD was over?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that the President addressed this issue back in October. Maybe you weren't there for when he talked about it. But Charles Duelfer is the one who was overseeing these efforts and he's now back here. He's continuing to wrap up his work. I think it's up to him to make those determinations about when he says everything is concluded.

Q And understanding that the White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, there is still some wrap-up work that he's doing; there's still some -- the Iraq Survey Group continues to operate in Iraq under the multinational force command. And much --

Q The search is over? Is the search --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think -- I think that others have already addressed that much of their physical search has -- that their physical search has essentially ended, yes, but that they continue to go through documents. So they're -- some of their work continues, because there are thousands and thousands of pages of documents that they were able to recover that were part of the basis for the previous report that Charles Duelfer released. And it was -- the President talked about it at that time, it was a comprehensive look at the regime and the regime's intentions and the regime's capabilities.

On Sept. 16, 2001, president Bush told the press that he could "not have imagined" that terrorists would hijack airliners and fly them into buildings. Later reports revealed that Bush's statement was not true.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010916-2.html
...........Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never.............

Only later did we find this to call the president's remarks into question:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16

While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday.

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...................

Quote:

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html
Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates
scenarios in preparing for emergencies
Story and Photos by Dennis Ryan
MDW News Service

Exercise SimulationsWashington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard.

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509471.shtml
'99 Report Warned Of Suicide Hijacking

WASHINGTON, May 17, 2002

Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, said U.S. intelligence long has known a suicide hijacker was a possible threat.

(AP) Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building......
(Edited to add lil "dots" between the quoted article segments.)

......"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.

In Jan., 2003, in his SOTU address, Bush <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1835559&postcount=46">detailed</a> the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq possessed. In Jan. 12, 2005, (above quote box), the whitehouse admitted that no stockpiles were found, or were likely to be found.

In May, 2005, the "Downing Street Memo", revealed a charge never denied by the Bush admin.....that in July, 2002, the US admin. was planning to invade iraq and was formulating "a set of facts" to "fit that policy".

As I do, Sheehan believes that the Bush admin. is running a criminal administration that has broken with the trust of the American people and has committed multiple war crimes. Her outrage at the loss of her son at the hands of these criminals is expressed appropriately. Your defense of this administration and your attack on Sheehan is not appropriate or responsive to the evidence of their lies, distortions, and violations of international law and conventions, stevo.

Marvelous Marv · 08-18-2005, 12:06 PM

I'm just sorry the poll didn't include a choice of:

"Her son would be ashamed of her."

That would be the most accurate response of all.

joshbaumgartner · 08-18-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I'm just sorry the poll didn't include a choice of:

"Her son would be ashamed of her."

That would be the most accurate response of all.

I thought about including something like that, but it seemed beyond the scope of the question, which was merely whether the president should meet with her, and why.

Personally, I think it is completely presumptuous to think we have any idea what her son would have thought. People assume because he joined up and especially because he re-upped, that he supported the war, but that as well is conjecture. There are many troops over there who don't support the war, and many who have even volunteered to return despite those feelings because of their call to duty, often because they have buddies they want to stand beside through this rough time. Also, there are many who have changed their mind after significant time over there. So to say that Casey would be ashamed of her is presumption of the highest degree. I think more accurately what you are saying is that if you were her son, you'd be ashamed of her, which is fine, but please don't project your view onto Casey. He isn't here to tell us what he thinks, and to prop him up like that by claiming he would think this or that is committing just as evil a sin as the one you claim his mom is committing by this spectacle.

Josh

cyrnel · 08-18-2005, 01:32 PM

She's leaving. Her mother had a stroke.

That'd be a conjecture-laden CSI episode.

"Harv, better bring in the BIG shovels."

Bodyhammer86 · 08-18-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Host

I want the members here who do not watch Fox "news", or listen to Rush, or visit the "real police" forums, or the drudgereport, or the "freeper" site, to get some insight into how someone could author and post the quote above....

Yeah, and I bet that all of your articles aren't liberal propaganda and don't come from biased, partisan and dubious sources at best

. The rest of your posts aren't even worth responding to, seeing as you think that anything that goes against your viewpoint is Republican "propaganda."

And while we're at it, I find it funny how the anti-war left on this board and in the real world try to show that they're on a higher moral ground than the right is. You know what? They fail, every one of their posts, newsblurbs, and articles shows that they're just as narrowminded as their Republican counterparts.

pan6467 · 08-18-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I'm just sorry the poll didn't include a choice of:

"Her son would be ashamed of her."

That would be the most accurate response of all.

I argue just the opposite, having been in the Navy and still having friends in the military part of why I and they are in is so that people may have their freedoms to demonstrate peacefully against that which they do not believe in.
Doesn't mean we have to agree with or support her cause/issue.

According to the Constitution she had the right to, and by exercising that right she is showing her gratitude. By sitting at home and doing nothing...... what is the point of having the right?

Elphaba · 08-18-2005, 06:39 PM

I agree with Pan. Sheehan is speaking out about the loss of her son's life and is asking the question, "Why?" If I had lost my first born and had since learned of the Downing Street memos, the vilification of Wilson and the outing of his wife, and all of the other obfucations and flat out lies, I would go "outspoken" as well. Calling her stance as "radical" is simply the spin meisters at work.

Seaver · 08-18-2005, 06:51 PM

I feel sorry for her in that she lost a son.

I feel more sorrow for the father, and the sons friends who try to mourn him with honor. I would be utterly ashamed of my mother if she pulled this. Undoubtably her now ex-husband feels the same way.

She got a meeting with the President, very few people have gotten this privlage when hundreds of thousands of people have given their lives. Why does she deserve two? Was her son wroth more than every other soldier in history?

AVoiceOfReason · 08-18-2005, 07:52 PM

Sapiens, I appreciated that Edmund Morris clip. The idea of meeting 80 people a day, all of whom want something from you, is just mind boggling. Perhaps that's why governors have done so well in running for president and senators haven't in recent years; on a smaller scale, the governor has had to deal with the same kind of attention seekers (I'm not saying senators DON'T have such, but it wouldn't seem to be to the same degree).

My vote was that she'd had her meeting with Bush, and nothing for either of them would be accomplished by another. Her message is loud and clear for anyone to hear that cares to, but he simply can't give in to meet her again after she pulled a stunt like this. It would set a bad precedent for him and perhaps future presidents.

Locobot · 08-18-2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

Yeah, and I bet that all of your articles aren't liberal propaganda and don't come from biased, partisan and dubious sources at best

. The rest of your posts aren't even worth responding to, seeing as you think that anything that goes against your viewpoint is Republican "propaganda."

And while we're at it, I find it funny how the anti-war left on this board and in the real world try to show that they're on a higher moral ground than the right is. You know what? They fail, every one of their posts, newsblurbs, and articles shows that they're just as narrowminded as their Republican counterparts.

If you're actually arguing that the Left is as structured and hierarchical as the Right's media apparatus you're either naieeve or new here. It's a well documented fact that the Right is given their marching orders and they're to OBEY or be ostracized. You'll only rarely see the type of division from party line on the Right as you do on a regular basis from the Left, to post otherwise is just drivel. Nothing is as easy and as cowardly as to spin universal cynicism such as your post above. Take a stand, make a point, or stop the prosaic masturbation. It's your choice.

stevo · 08-19-2005, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

stevo, your indignation directed toward Sheehan is misplaced. Her comments display the still growing outrage, frustration, and despair, as she emerges from the numbness of her grief. Her reaction to the following, in her circumstances is understandable. Your reaction to it is to defend and to support it, with the aim of continuing it's course without challenge or dissent.

...

As I do, Sheehan believes that the Bush admin. is running a criminal administration that has broken with the trust of the American people and has committed multiple war crimes. Her outrage at the loss of her son at the hands of these criminals is expressed appropriately. Your defense of this administration and your attack on Sheehan is not appropriate or responsive to the evidence of their lies, distortions, and violations of international law and conventions, stevo.

And all i did was call her nuts, in so many words. neither she nor her actions get me as pumped up as you about this whole thing. The woman lost her son, I know, and so she is rightfully distressed. But that doesn't change my opinion of her. In my eye she is just one more liberal nut with an axe to grind. I have no problem with her protesting, thats her right. The media coverage is a waste of time. There are plenty of anti-war protesters, she just has the biggest mouth at the moment, does that make her right?

I can't even believe I'm wasting my time posting about her.

mystmarimatt · 08-19-2005, 09:00 AM

Even though I am against the war in Iraq, I do find the near-deification of this woman to be a bit disturbing.

Yes, she lost her son. And it must be a terrible, terrible loss for her, and I feel sorry for her. But so have 1800 other mothers. And I feel sorry for them, as well.

I can understand her need to stand up and question, I just don't approve of the way the media and her supporters are treating her, as if she's Mary looking down upon the body of Christ.

FoolThemAll · 08-19-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

She got a meeting with the President, very few people have gotten this privlage when hundreds of thousands of people have given their lives. Why does she deserve two? Was her son wroth more than every other soldier in history?

Exactly my thoughts. I've no problem with her protesting, and protesting loudly. But I find the demands for a second meeting just plain obnoxious.

cyrnel · 08-19-2005, 09:47 AM

"Mr. President, you have a busy schedule today. Since you agreed to meet with Sheehan again, to be fair we've added the other 1799 fallen enlisted's families to your appointment schedule. Twice. Glad you got that one meeting with her out of the way. One down... Positive thinking ya'know. We've cleared your calendar for the next nine months."

I know her loss and feel for her but she needs help that's beyond a politician's training.

From the impersonal point of view, it's a horse-race. A produced episodic drama. Schiavo deja vu.

joshbaumgartner · 08-19-2005, 10:54 AM

Both from the wholly unscientific results of this poll and by my observations of the coverage and the chatter about this matter, it appears that the pro- and con- sides are coming at this from completely different points and aren't even arguing the same thing for the large part.

The anti-Cindy folks are focussing almost entirely on her individually. They attack her credibility, her past statements, the nature of her organization, the idea that she is dishonoring Casey, and that it is unreasonable for an average American to make a demand of the President.

To the pro-Cindy folks, most of these miss the mark. It isn't really about Cindy as much as it is all Americans who have had their trust in their leadership betrayed by this war. So even if everything her detractors say is true, it doesn't change the fact that a whole lot of Americans want the same answers Cindy is asking for, and their support for her isn't so much for her personally, as for the demand that Bush answer to the American people in general.

Really, this is coming down to an illustration of the divide in views about how government should operate. On the left, we want government that answers to the people and consider positions of leadership to be positions of responsiblity. On hte right, they are instead considered positions of privledge, that somehow by acheiving said post you deserve to be spared the burdens imposed on the lesser folks.

To many on the left, this is about having the king come down and acknowledge the pain he's caused to the pauper. To many on the right, its about an insolent woman who refuses to respect the President. It's a completely different issue for each side.

Seaver · 08-19-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Really, this is coming down to an illustration of the divide in views about how government should operate. On the left, we want government that answers to the people and consider positions of leadership to be positions of responsiblity. On hte right, they are instead considered positions of privledge, that somehow by acheiving said post you deserve to be spared the burdens imposed on the lesser folks.

I think you missed the point completely. I'm not demanding answers from the Government because my reasons for supporting the war had nothing to do with WMDs, it was to bring freedom to Iraq and put an end to the torture/rape of the country. There is no "lesser folks", I'm a lower class white guy paying his own way through college. I've never been blessed with a silver spoon, and to be considered having an easy life because I'm conservative is insulting.

I dont like her not because she disrespects the President, but because I believe she is pissing on her sons grave for publicity.

reconmike · 08-19-2005, 12:29 PM

Oh my, her mother had a stoke. Where was Rove when this happened? Its all Bush's fault!!!! All that undue stress that came from Bush not meeting with her a second time.
Impeach him!!! How dare he not meet with her, what she really needs is that fat ass Moore to hang out with her for a bit, maybe film it and make a "documentary" about the whole thing.
She is dishonoring her son in the most tragic of ways, I really hope she wonders a weee bit too close Bush's ranch....ahhh you can figure out the rest.

And Host, Ill cut and paste this once more, the only justifaction needed to go into Iraq:

United Nations

S/2002/1198

Security Council

Provisional

7 November 2002

Original: English

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Annex

Text of Blix/El-Baradei letter

United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission

The Executive Chairman
International Atomic Energy Agency

The Director General

8 October 2002

Dear General Al-Saadi,

During our recent meeting in Vienna, we discussed practical arrangements that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. As you recall, at the end of our meeting in Vienna we agreed on a statement which listed some of the principal results achieved, particularly Iraq’s acceptance of all the rights of inspection provided for in all of the relevant Security Council resolutions. This acceptance was stated to be without any conditions attached.

During our 3 October 2002 briefing to the Security Council, members of the Council suggested that we prepare a written document on all of the conclusions we reached in Vienna. This letter lists those conclusions and seeks your confirmation thereof. We shall report accordingly to the Security Council.

In the statement at the end of the meeting, it was clarified that UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be granted immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites, including what was termed “sensitive sites” in the past. As we noted, however, eight presidential sites have been the subject of special procedures under a Memorandum of Understanding of 1998. Should these sites be subject, as all other sites, to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, UNMOVIC and the IAEA would conduct inspections there with the same professionalism.

H.E. General Amir H. Al-Saadi
Advisor
Presidential Office
Baghdad

Iraq

We confirm our understanding that UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right to determine the number of inspectors required for access to any particular site. This determination will be made on the basis of the size and complexity of the site being inspected. We also confirm that Iraq will be informed of the designation of additional sites, i.e. sites not declared by Iraq or previously inspected by either UNSCOM or the IAEA, through a Notification of Inspection (NIS) provided upon arrival of the inspectors at such sites.

Iraq will ensure that no proscribed material, equipment, records or other relevant items will be destroyed except in the presence of UNMOVIC and/or IAEA inspectors, as appropriate, and at their request.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may conduct interviews with any person in Iraq whom they believe may have information relevant to their mandate. Iraq will facilitate such interviews. It is for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to choose the mode and location for interviews.

The National Monitoring Directorate (NMD) will, as in the past, serve as the Iraqi counterpart for the inspectors. The Baghdad Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Centre (BOMVIC) will be maintained on the same premises and under the same conditions as was the former Baghdad Monitoring and Verification Centre. The NMD will make available services as before, cost free, for the refurbishment of the premises.

The NMD will provide free of cost: (a) escorts to facilitate access to sites to be inspected and communication with personnel to be interviewed; (b) a hotline for BOMVIC which will be staffed by an English speaking person on a 24 hour a day/seven days a week basis; (c) support in terms of personnel and ground transportation within the country, as requested; and (d) assistance in the movement of materials and equipment at inspectors’ request (construction, excavation equipment, etc.). NMD will also ensure that escorts are available in the event of inspections outside normal working hours, including at night and on holidays.

Regional UNMOVIC/IAEA offices may be established, for example, in Basra and Mosul, for the use of their inspectors. For this purpose, Iraq will provide, without cost, adequate office buildings, staff accommodation, and appropriate escort personnel.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may use any type of voice or data transmission, including satellite and/or inland networks, with or without encryption capability. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may also install equipment in the field with the capability for transmission of data directly to the BOMVIC, New York and Vienna (e.g. sensors, surveillance cameras). This will be facilitated by Iraq and there will be no interference by Iraq with UNMOVIC or IAEA communications.

Iraq will provide, without cost, physical protection of all surveillance equipment, and construct antennae for remote transmission of data, at the request of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Upon request by UNMOVIC through the NMD, Iraq will allocate frequencies for communications equipment.

Iraq will provide security for all UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel. Secure and suitable accommodations will be designated at normal rates by Iraq for these personnel. For their part, UNMOVIC and the IAEA will require that their staff not stay at any accommodation other than those identified in consultation with Iraq.

On the use of fixed-wing aircraft for transport of personnel and equipment and for inspection purposes, it was clarified that aircraft used by UNMOVIC and IAEA staff arriving in Baghdad may land at Saddam International Airport. The points of departure of incoming aircraft will be decided by UNMOVIC. The Rasheed airbase will continue to be used for UNMOVIC and IAEA helicopter operations. UNMOVIC and Iraq will establish air liaison offices at the airbase. At both Saddam International Airport and Rasheed airbase, Iraq will provide the necessary support premises and facilities. Aircraft fuel will be provided by Iraq, as before, free of charge.

On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.

Helicopter flights may be used, as needed, during inspections and for technical activities, such as gamma detection, without limitation in all parts of Iraq and without any area excluded. Helicopters may also be used for medical evacuation.

On the question of aerial imagery, UNMOVIC may wish to resume the use of U-2 or Mirage overflights. The relevant practical arrangements would be similar to those implemented in the past.

As before, visas for all arriving staff will be issued at the point of entry on the basis of the UN Laissez-Passer or UN Certificate; no other entry or exit formalities will be required. The aircraft passenger manifest will be provided one hour in advance of the arrival of the aircraft in Baghdad. There will be no searching of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or of official or personal baggage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA will ensure that their personnel respect the laws of Iraq restricting the export of certain items, for example, those related to Iraq’s national cultural heritage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may bring into, and remove from, Iraq all of the items and materials they require, including satellite phones and other equipment. With respect to samples, UNMOVIC and IAEA will, where feasible, split samples so that Iraq may receive a portion while another portion is kept for reference purposes. Where appropriate, the organizations will send the samples to more than one laboratory for analysis.

We would appreciate your confirmation of the above as a correct reflection of our talks in Vienna.

Naturally, we may need other practical arrangements when proceeding with inspections. We would expect in such matters, as with the above, Iraq’s co-operation in all respect.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) (Signed)
Hans Blix Mohamed ElBaradei
Executive Chairman Director General
United Nations Monitoring, International Atomic Energy Agency
Verification and Inspection Commission

View Poll Results: Should Bush grant Cindy Sheehan's request for answers?
Yes, her personal sacrifice entitles her to it.	5	7.46%
Yes, the nation is owed a straight answer by Bush.	27	40.30%
Yes, it will demonstrate his compassion for the troops and their families.	13	19.40%
No, she doesn't deserve special treatment.	28	41.79%
No, the war is a noble cause, and has been sufficiently justified.	8	11.94%
No, he will appear weak for caving in to the left.	5	7.46%
Not sure.	1	1.49%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

08-17-2005, 03:28 PM	#1 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	Cindy Sheehan: What do you think of her situation? I would like to get an idea what folks here think of the Cindy Sheehan situation. Is she a greiving mom legitimately seeking the answers to her son's death, or a political operative capitalizing on tragedy to push an agenda? Should she be ashamed for turning her son's death into a political spectacle or is she doing her son proud by exercising the freedoms her son joined up to defend? Is she expecting too much as only one of the thousands of Americans who have lost a loved one, or is she truly a representative of a significant portion of those people who also want answers?

08-17-2005, 05:09 PM	#9 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I love this. The president meets with her, and she praises him after the meeting. Suddenly, she's camping out, demanding for him to meet with her AGAIN, and decrying the war. I personally think that she should be completely ignored. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

08-17-2005, 05:09 PM	#10 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	It's weird, last week I read 19 Obits for 19 Ohio men who lost their lives over there. Each had a picture and a few paragraphs. The majority just talked about who he was, and his love for his family and the love they had for him. However, there were 2 where the parents stated the man had lost faith in the war or that he questioned the war and so on....... and there were exactly the same number 2, saying how great the soldier believed the war to be and how he was doing the right thing. So for anyone to say that the "anti-war" gets more press is BS in this case. I see it getting equal press, the difference lies in what we pay attention to. When we agree with something we tend not to notice as much as when we disagree and find our ire raised by something. And that is the situation with the war. There is as much pro-war propaganda as there is anti-war propaganda and vice versa..... but we tend to notice the opposite of our belief more and therefore we believe it has more coverage. As for this lady's case in point, I don't care what her motivation appears to be (political pawn), she has a right to be heard and seen. So what if Bush saw her days after she lost her son and she came out of it praising Bush..... she was probably still in shock and the emotional bath hadn't taken her yet.... her husband (whom in all honesty I have not heard anything about except that he met Bush with her when their son first died) could have been the one issuing the press statement praising Bush and she was too in shock to say anything at that time. For those who see this as a woman selling out for politics.... it maybe true, but I don't think you should judge anyone until you have walked in their shoes or heard them talk firsthand and not just the newsblurbs you pick and choose. Bush, supposedly a great "Christian" should at least meet with her privately with both sides signing affadavits swearing the meeting contents will not be leaked nor any press statements released except to say they met....... That way both could be honest with each other and say exactly what they want to each other and noone will ever know what was said. And neither can gain PR from the situation. This is this generation's Vietnam whether you choose to admit it or not, it'll divide the nation further and further and both sides will claim to be fighting for the right side. Both sides have their good and both sides have their bad.... but I guarantee both sides will be equally covered, yet the only coverage you'll take note of is that that either stregthens your position more or infuriates you most. You'll ignore most of anything in between. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-17-2005, 06:20 PM	#13 (permalink)
Bodyhammer86 Insane Location: Mattoon, Il	No offense but if you use the death of a family member to further your political agenda (be it right-wing or left-wing, pro-war or anti-war), than yes, you are "whoring off" your son or daughter's death and I would be equally disgusted if a pro-war right-winger were to use the death of a son or daughter to further his/her political ideology. However, I wouldn't really say that Cindy sold out for politics considering she was anti-war before her son died and didn't support Casey's decision to join the military anyway. And it's pretty damn obvious that her son wouldn't have supported his mother's cause considering he decided to re-enlist in the army after he served his time. __________________ Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/ Last edited by Bodyhammer86; 08-17-2005 at 06:24 PM..

08-17-2005, 03:50 PM	#3 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	I have made the poll multiple choice capable so that you can select all applicable responses to your view. Personally, I am torn on the matter. I do question to some degree the person herself, and no I don't think every person who loses a loved one deserves a special presidential meeting. On the other hand, she has clearly tapped into a reather large national sentiment, and I think there are some very legitimate questions out there that Bush needs to address, not specifically for Cindy, but for all of us in the country. So even if she is a political operative, that doesn't necessarily remove her right to seek redress. I mean I'm a political operative and so are a lot of others here, but I don't think any of us should have our rights within the society curtailed by that fact. I don't know how I feel about Cindy's personal quest, but I do think that many of the questions are ones that the nation as a whole deserves to have answered.

08-17-2005, 04:16 PM	#6 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	shrugs she speaks the truth..

08-17-2005, 04:38 PM	#7 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	Bush owes all of us answers. CIndy is the spark that finally lit the fire. Wait and see.

08-17-2005, 05:45 PM	#11 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	I'm really not sure what her agenda is, what she hopes to tell the President when she would meet with him for the second time. Obviously complete withdrawl from Iraq at this point would be almost as foolish as the initial invasion. Right now the only people entering the military are the poorest Americans who have few other choices. It is right to pay attention to people like Sheehan. It is not right to shield ourselves from the human costs of the Iraq junta. I remember how the people who marketed this war (yes there was a marketing campaign) sold it as a gleeful escapade in the desert. Our fancy equipment would do all the hard work. We have the biggest and smartest bombs and Bradley fighting tanks (how many thousands of times did Fox news mention those?). It turns out, as many people including myself predicted, that MOAB bombs are completely useless at stopping suicide bombers from entering troop mess tents and detonating themselves. Smart missles turned out to be not so smart, 0 of 50 targets hit. Most polls now have support for the Iraq war below 50%. If there were an equitable lottery draft that pulled people from all walks of life to serve and die I imagine that number would drop below 25%. Our goals for the country have been scaled back to apparently not even including democratic rule http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=93378 . The choices seem to have been whiddled down to a dictatorship cough (ala Saddam Hussein), or three autonomous states cough (civil war).

08-18-2005, 02:39 AM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I find it hypocritical of the media to skewer this lady and ANYONE who opposes the president, and yet when it comes to his lies, his and his "friends" scandals and contempt for the people, the press hides and does nothing. Look how classy Limbaugh's drug addiction was handled by the mainstream, and yet when someone he doesn't like has problems he not only goes for the juggular but he rips everyone close to the person to shreds also. And anyone who did try to report anything of true value on Limbaugh was threatened by his lawyers and taken to court to be silenced, as his case was still being investigated..... yet during Clinton's invetigations he was allowed to say whatever he wanted, come out with any news he wanted (true or not)... hmmmmm. Look how Drudge and Fox will skewer everyone and anyone they want, but then if someone says something bad about Bush, Rove or any GOP they get defensive and trash that person so badly it's pathetic. In most major news stories I find the press truly equal in coverage, but when it comes to skewering and destroying people the Right does a far better, more thorough job of it than the Left can ever dream of. And the Right doesn't care about facts, doesn't care about using the whole story or the context... they use what they want, put it in the context they want and destroy the person with precision and accuracy. So I feel for this woman, hopefully, the people get sick of these GOP tactics of attack and see the GOP as the hypocrits they are. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-18-2005, 07:15 AM	#19 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	__________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

08-18-2005, 07:34 AM	#20 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I think if she didnt have a son who died in Iraq she would have been arrested long ago on any number of charges. (unfortunately) __________________ We Must Dissent.

08-18-2005, 10:15 AM	#23 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	host- the only difference or innacuracies I see here is the quote "'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," that was not revealed in its whole context. Did sheehan not say, "I now know [President Bush] is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss." Was this out of context as well? and then she is quoted as saying: "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!" Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now." "They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up..." "If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?" "The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war." "We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people." So list what she actually said, if this is not it. All I'm trying to say is the lady is looney and obviously distressed and she's disrespecting her son and family with her behaviour. The drudge article I posted was an example of what she thinks and possibly a look at her motives, as I remember another post commenting on what her true motives are. The whole thing looks like a waste of time and resources to me. She can sit out there and camp and protest all she wants, but one lady's bickering sure does gobble up a lot of media coverage. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

08-18-2005, 12:06 PM	#25 (permalink)
Marvelous Marv Cunning Runt Location: Taking a mulligan	I'm just sorry the poll didn't include a choice of: "Her son would be ashamed of her." That would be the most accurate response of all. __________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

08-18-2005, 01:32 PM	#27 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	She's leaving. Her mother had a stroke. That'd be a conjecture-laden CSI episode. "Harv, better bring in the BIG shovels." __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

08-18-2005, 06:39 PM	#30 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I agree with Pan. Sheehan is speaking out about the loss of her son's life and is asking the question, "Why?" If I had lost my first born and had since learned of the Downing Street memos, the vilification of Wilson and the outing of his wife, and all of the other obfucations and flat out lies, I would go "outspoken" as well. Calling her stance as "radical" is simply the spin meisters at work.

08-18-2005, 06:51 PM	#31 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I feel sorry for her in that she lost a son. I feel more sorrow for the father, and the sons friends who try to mourn him with honor. I would be utterly ashamed of my mother if she pulled this. Undoubtably her now ex-husband feels the same way. She got a meeting with the President, very few people have gotten this privlage when hundreds of thousands of people have given their lives. Why does she deserve two? Was her son wroth more than every other soldier in history?

08-18-2005, 07:52 PM	#32 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	Sapiens, I appreciated that Edmund Morris clip. The idea of meeting 80 people a day, all of whom want something from you, is just mind boggling. Perhaps that's why governors have done so well in running for president and senators haven't in recent years; on a smaller scale, the governor has had to deal with the same kind of attention seekers (I'm not saying senators DON'T have such, but it wouldn't seem to be to the same degree). My vote was that she'd had her meeting with Bush, and nothing for either of them would be accomplished by another. Her message is loud and clear for anyone to hear that cares to, but he simply can't give in to meet her again after she pulled a stunt like this. It would set a bad precedent for him and perhaps future presidents. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

08-19-2005, 09:00 AM	#35 (permalink)
mystmarimatt Omnipotent Ruler Of The Tiny Universe In My Mind Location: Oreegawn	Even though I am against the war in Iraq, I do find the near-deification of this woman to be a bit disturbing. Yes, she lost her son. And it must be a terrible, terrible loss for her, and I feel sorry for her. But so have 1800 other mothers. And I feel sorry for them, as well. I can understand her need to stand up and question, I just don't approve of the way the media and her supporters are treating her, as if she's Mary looking down upon the body of Christ. __________________ Words of Wisdom: If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

08-19-2005, 09:47 AM	#37 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	"Mr. President, you have a busy schedule today. Since you agreed to meet with Sheehan again, to be fair we've added the other 1799 fallen enlisted's families to your appointment schedule. Twice. Glad you got that one meeting with her out of the way. One down... Positive thinking ya'know. We've cleared your calendar for the next nine months." I know her loss and feel for her but she needs help that's beyond a politician's training. From the impersonal point of view, it's a horse-race. A produced episodic drama. Schiavo deja vu. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195 Last edited by cyrnel; 08-19-2005 at 09:58 AM..

08-19-2005, 10:54 AM	#38 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	Both from the wholly unscientific results of this poll and by my observations of the coverage and the chatter about this matter, it appears that the pro- and con- sides are coming at this from completely different points and aren't even arguing the same thing for the large part. The anti-Cindy folks are focussing almost entirely on her individually. They attack her credibility, her past statements, the nature of her organization, the idea that she is dishonoring Casey, and that it is unreasonable for an average American to make a demand of the President. To the pro-Cindy folks, most of these miss the mark. It isn't really about Cindy as much as it is all Americans who have had their trust in their leadership betrayed by this war. So even if everything her detractors say is true, it doesn't change the fact that a whole lot of Americans want the same answers Cindy is asking for, and their support for her isn't so much for her personally, as for the demand that Bush answer to the American people in general. Really, this is coming down to an illustration of the divide in views about how government should operate. On the left, we want government that answers to the people and consider positions of leadership to be positions of responsiblity. On hte right, they are instead considered positions of privledge, that somehow by acheiving said post you deserve to be spared the burdens imposed on the lesser folks. To many on the left, this is about having the king come down and acknowledge the pain he's caused to the pauper. To many on the right, its about an insolent woman who refuses to respect the President. It's a completely different issue for each side.