AP, Baltimore Sun: Sheehan T-shirt message "opposite" of, less "patriotic" than Young's
SUMMARY: In describing the shirts worn by Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young that caused them to be ejected from President Bush's State of the Union address, an Associated Press report (later amended) described the message on Young's shirt as "the opposite" of the one worn by Sheehan, while The Baltimore Sun called Young's message "more patriotic" than Sheehan's.
A February 1 Associated Press report described the message displayed on a T-shirt worn by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan to President Bush's State of the Union speech as "just the opposite" of one worn by Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-FL), while a February 2 Baltimore Sun article described Young's message as "more patriotic" than Sheehan's. Young's shirt read: "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom," while Sheehan's listed the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq at that point -- 2,245 -- along with the question "How many more?" Neither AP nor the Sun explained how decrying the deaths of more than 2,000 American service members indicated a lack of support for the troops or lack of patriotism.
Separately, on the live "Up to the Minute" news report during the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, anchor Colette Cassidy described Sheehan as an "anti-war protester" without describing the message on her shirt, but specifically noted that Young had worn a sweater "in support of U.S. troops," with a clear emphasis on the word "support."
None of the stories noted that Sheehan's son, U.S. Army Spec. Casey Sheehan, was killed in action on April 4, 2004, while serving in Iraq. The AP subsequently revised its report, deleting the "just the opposite" description.
Both women were removed from the visitor's gallery of the House of Representatives prior to the start of Bush's speech. Capitol Police, who arrested Sheehan but not Young, apologized the next day for removing both women, according to the reports.
From the February 1 Associated Press report by Laurie Kellman:
Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.
"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.
"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."
[...]
Sheehan's T-shirt alluded to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq: "2245 Dead. How many more?" Capitol Police charged her with a misdemeanor for violating the District of Columbia's code against unlawful or disruptive conduct on any part of the Capitol grounds, a law enforcement official said. She was released from custody and flew home Wednesday to Los Angeles.
Young's shirt had just the opposite message: "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom."
The two women appeared to have offended tradition if not the law, according to several law enforcement and congressional officials. By custom, the annual address is to be a dignified affair in which the president reports on the state of the nation. Guests in the gallery who wear shirts deemed political in nature have, in past years, been asked to change or cover them up.
From the February 2 Baltimore Sun article:
Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young, ejected from the State of the Union address Tuesday night for wearing slogan-bearing T-shirts, are off the hook with Capitol police -- but not with the manners police.
[...]
Sheehan's T-shirt said: "2245 Dead. How many more?" Young's was emblazoned with a more patriotic statement: "Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom."
From MSNBC's "Up to the Minute" news report during the February 1 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:
CASSIDY: And a Capitol police official tells MSNBC News, quote, "we screwed up" in arresting anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan over the T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address. The official also says the wife of Congressman Bill Young should not have been asked to leave either because she wore a sweater in support of U.S. troops. The official says neither woman violated any rules or laws.
Faux patriotism - those that really support the troops want them to come home alive. Neither Young nor Sheehan were disrupting the SOTU. Last time I checked, we have a first Amendment which guarantees us freedom of expression, and nowhere should that be more honored than in the "people's house" For either of them to have been removed is a national disgrace.
Doublespeak is language which makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive, or at least tolerable. It is language which avoids or shifts responsibility. It is language which conceals or prevents thought. Doublespeak is language which does not extend thought but limits it.
What is going on today is one of the greatest examples of doublespeak in history.
If you want the troops to return home safe, alive, spending quality time with their loved ones... if you insist their sacrifice and duty is to be used for just and honorable causes, then you are AGAINST the troops.
However, if you blindly, obediently, and unconditionally support a President who sends them to their deaths, without the proper armor, without an effective plan for victory, who continually extends their tour of duty, to a war based completely on lies and manipulation, then you are in SUPPORT of the troops.
It really is amazing. History is unfolding right before our very eyes folks.
I was just doing an essay on 1984 for a literature class. I also couldn't help but notice the similarities. The constant state of fear and war. The war that is ever changing and never ends. The elusive villan
Oceana has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia. Then in the middle of one of the speeches the alliance shifts and they change the paradigm so that Oceana had always been at war with who used to be our ally and always allied with our erstwhile enemy. The people in the crowd dont even skip a beat as they make the mental gymnastics to accept the new paradigm. Just like conservatives shifted to the NEW excuses to invade Iraq as if they werent just excuses when the old excuses were shown to be bogus. Forgetting the old rationale as the new one became the reason that was ALWAYS the reason to be at war with Eurasia, I mean Eastasia. Orwell was a prophet, mores the pity.
MMFA should have noted an additional piece of conservative misinformation here: the words on Ms. Young's shirt. The troops in Iraq are not defending our freedom; Iraq is not, and never was, a threat to our freedom.
I agree 100% that the AP article was wrong. If a garment saying "Support The Troops" is the opposite of Sheehan's shirt, that is the same thing as saying Sheehan's message is nonsupport of the troops. Many believe that to be the case; many do not; either way, it depends on your political view and hence the statement was wrong and sloppy.
The Sun article is far worse. It is clear opinion to say that Mrs. Young's garment is "more patriotic" than Ms. Sheehan's -- certainly, Ms. Sheehan would argue that to bring the troops home now from an unjust, unwinnable and indefinite war is the height of patriotism.
I do not agree on the MSNBC objection. The statement made was completely accurate (Sheehan is indisputably an "anti-war protester). I'm not prepared to parse or judge on which word is alleged to have been stated with an emphasis where the words themselves are accurate.
that Cindy Sheehan gets arrested but the senator's wife does not? News outlets were having a field day when it was first reported that Cindy got arrested until they had to report that a senator's wife was asked to leave for the same reasoning as well. The only story they have left is the false contrast between the statements on either t-shirt. With friends like these in our so called "liberal" media, who needs enemies?
Their new job is to define what patriotism is and is not and to tell us what is more or less patriotic. The people defining patriotism today give new meaning to what Samuel Johnson said:
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
She is not. She does have the right to speak her mind anyway she wants to. She had a legitimate reason for being there; an invitation from a Rep. There are actual laws that concern creating a public nusance or disrupting government business. Had she done so, then she should have been arrested. She didn't, so the apology from the police should be answered with a lawsuit.
As for the difference in the shirts, both supported the troops. The canard of the left not supporting the troops is old and dusty. I don't see any way that the public would see Cindy as anti troop. But then, the public never ceases to amaze me.
NEITHER slogan was more patriotic than the other. HOWEVER neither lady should have worn them. There's a time&place for this, and the State Of The Union Speech was NOT it. What should we expect next year? Rows&rows of invited guests displaying their "issues" on t-shirts? Their website addresses maybe? Eat at Joe's ads? Let's hope a RULE is put in place barring THIS type of dress by next year.
Now I've got something else on my mind.
I've got to admit I'm getting rather sick of Cindy Sheehan.
Now BEFORE you ALL attack me, please hear me out.
My sympathies STILL go out to her for the loss of her son. And I'll give her CREDIT for lighting a spark under an Anti-War Movement that had seemed a bit muffled&ignored BEFORE she came into the picture.
HOWEVER, in the last few weeks she has joined the Chavez "love-fest" (please people THIS guy is not a saint!) and threatened to run against Feinstein IF she doesn't do Sheehans bidding. I'm sorry BUT this sounds to me like a lady just slightly delusional and on a mis-placed power-trip.
That said, she shouldn't have been removed or arrested (since no rule against it [t-shirts] exists at this time). Personally I wish she'd stayed and caused a scene. Maybe THEN people could see her for the "kook" she's become.
I'm against the war in Iraq, have been from the start...BUT this lady, IMO, is no longer a POSITIVE force in the movement. She's become a parity of herself and ANY efforts she's involved in NOW resembles a circus atmosphere. Any respect she's earned has been spent. She MAY be an embarrassment to Bush--BUT she's become an embarrassment to herself&the anti-war movement as well
Go home Cindy, let others carry on the effort.
I have the exact same stand on the t-shirt issue - neither woman should have worn them, but the arrest and removal were absurd (incidentally I don't think Sheehan's arrest was political, I think the other woman wasn't arrested because she's married to a member of Congress). The SOTU simply isn't the place for it.
As for Sheehan, I agree it doesn't sound good at all. While I appreciate her message, I don't want people using her to criticize the mass of people who oppose the war.
The tshirts were worn at the best possible place. If they hadn't been ejected we never would have heard about it. It is safe to say that neither woman wore the tshirt with the desire to disrupt the event and bring it to the medias attention. It would seem to me that going to an event that is teaming with representatives from all over the country was an attempt to communicate with them. And as far as I can tell Cindy Sheehan is still doing what she's done all along, protest the war in Iraq. Her actions seem consistent with her beliefs, despite any circus that happens to follow her around. I don't think she ever signed up to be a leader of any movement.
Even if she hadn't been kicked out, I think it would have been more effective for her to just sit silently. She doesn't need a t-shirt to make her point, cold silence would work just as well if not better.
I believe she's sincere and consistent with her goals, that's understood, and I don't think she was really looking to be a leader either. She still has become an icon of the anti-war crowd, and it's just too easy for the pro-war crowd to play the guilt-by-association game. I know they'll do their best no matter what, but it's not wise to give them ammunition unnecessarily.
I remember a scene in the movie, "Seven", where Kevin Spacey tells Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, "You can't just walk up to someone and talk to them anymore...sometimes, you have to hit them with a sledgehammer."
Guess what?
The time for using a sledgehammer has come.
Bush and ALL his Chickenhawk Republican'ts (aka "Robots", "Replicants", "Cons", etc.) need to be hit with a sledgehammer.
I am sorry to disagree with you...but there IS a time and a place and THIS was the time and the place to do it.
Secondly, Sheehan and the Congresswoman were NOT sitting in Bush's face, distracting him. The mere fact that they were even TOUCHED for wearing clothing is disgusting.
This is AMERICA, Jeter, not Dubya's warped VIEW of "Uh-MER-Kuh". Sheehan wasn't yelling or talking or even gesturing...she was taken out of the building because Bush and Co. did NOT like her.
The fact that she was arrested just serves her cause because Sheehan may be able to file a First Ammendment suit now. Remember the First Ammendment? It's part of the document that Bush has defiled: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Bully for you.
I'm sick of BUSH.
I'm sick of his ranting and repeating of the same old junk day after day and ruining what was once a great country, taking down our international relationships with him.
I'm sick of his lies, his constant scandals (which seem to come weekly now for his Administration), his bottomless stupidity, his ignorance for the law, his lack of compunction about sending innocent troops to their deaths, and his lack of respect for anyone who doesn't share his viewpoints.
I'm also sick of him basing everything he does or says on religion and how religion is just wonderful and how God's gonna get us through stuff because he talks to God and God, God, God...
Sheehan simply stated that she admired Chavez for his disapproval for Bush. Hell, I admire ANYBODY who doesn't like Bush...but that doesn't mean I share their ultimate viewpoint on humanity. I hate Bin Laden and Chavez for what they've done and I WISH we would get Bin Laden...
I mean, Dubya told us all he would "git 'em...dead or alive!"
And he hasn't. Because he's a failure. A failure I'm sick of.
Sheehan is a wake-up call, Jeter. She's done more by herself than the sleeping Democrats have done in the last few years.
I don't think her intention was to cause a scene, Jeter...but you can believe what you want to.
Imagine that; the bush White House screws up again.....
If Beverly Young's t-shirt read "Support the Troops - Bring them Home," would the press have regarded that as the "opposite" of Cindy Sheehan's T-shirt . . .
Ms. Sheehan or the wife of the congressman should never have worn T-shirts in the first place. That was not the place. I am willing to bet that Ms. Sheehan would have made a bigger statement, just by sitting in the gallery. Not with some side show act or protest banner, just sitting there. After W made a statement on the war, the camera would have flashed to her face faster than the speed of light. She would have gotten more mileage out of a simple dignified protest like that than the ugliness that happened.
Freedom of speech is still a fundamental right we enjoy in this country and given there is no rule against there being worn in the Congressional gallery, well I think you know the rest...
I agree with Hogprint on that one. It's not about whether it's allowed or not, it's just about propriety. Neither woman should have been thrown out (much less arrested, criminy), but it really is not the time or place for that kind of thing. That is just opinion about what's acceptable and what's not, more "Emily Post" than legal code.
Mother Sheehan could have shown up in a bikini top for all I care. I don't know if she planned the outcome that way or not (getting ushered out). I'm just saying she would have had more face time and could have had a bigger impact sitting in the gallery with the camera flashing to her every time the word war or Iraq was mentioned. Just think if the camera caught her shedding a tear! The press would have milked that image till the cows come home.
"Just think if the camera caught her shedding a tear!"
I made the same point that it would have been much more effective for her to just sit there. But I have to disagree about the tear. I can only imagine how the right-wing pundits would have jumped all over the "phony theatrics" or some such.
What you are unable to admit is that people actually have legitimate complaints about this administration. People are genuinely and rightfully angry. And where is the debate that the Republicans seemingly want? I don't see the opportunities for that. Bush stacked his audiences with supporters, both during the campaign and on his social security tour. He doesn't have many press conferences. When he does we hear questions from Jeff Gannon and not Helen Thomas. Even online, behind monitors and with anonymity right-wingers don't like it much. How many right-wing sites allow conflicting opinions? And now we keep hearing about "responsible" dissent, as if it's not right to question the war. You yourself have failed more than once trying to explain exactly what it's supposed to mean. How can you possibly claim that the Republicans are interested in free speech when you yourself push this vague constriction on public discourse?
So I don't blame people for being upset, and honestly what goes around comes around. If Cheney can say the "F" word to a Senator, he can take it himself. If Gonzalez can lie in his confirmation hearing, then he can deal with seeing a quote from one of our founding fathers. And Coulter? Are you kidding, after talking about "mutually respectful and intelligent", you bring up Coulter? I don't care if she's joking, she's said so many outrageous and hateful things that she can take a pie in the face. Is any of it appropriate? No, and I wouldn't do it, but it's easy to argue that they deserve it.
When the Administration acts badly itself, it's much more difficult for you to chastise people for "acting badly" for acting out against it.
While I agree that she shouldn't have been arreseted and held in custody for 4 hours, I am getting a little sick of her now. I hadn't read anything about this before but I saw a video of her praising Hugo Chavez lastnight on TDS while in Venezuela while denouncing Bush as a dictator and American Imperialism, blah blah blah.
I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but Chavez is actually a little worse, you can't denounce one dictator while praising another. That's what has gotten the US in so much trouble over the past 50 years.
Cindy's probably very tired of her son still being dead. I am not tired of her quest to find out why. The Administration has not put forth a single valid reason in the three years we have been in the undeclared Iraq war, and it's time someone voiced the simple question, "How many more?" so it could be heard.
Perhaps you missed the point, whenever she pulls a stunt like that with Chavez she loses credibility and half the time she opens her mouth something ridiculous comes out. I realize the woman isn't that intelligent to being with but her 'handlers' ought to be watching out for her. It's because of stunts like this that people tend to tune her message out.
To those of you in here that say that wearing a t-shirt during a SOTU is somehow not appropriate?
How can you even think that? There is almost always a right time to use your 1st amendment right! I will admit that verbal interuptions should not be allowed during any speech (that didnt happen in this case)
The way I see it, if the Bush regime can't handle the critism then perhaps it needs to come to terms that the majority of this country...heck...the world is firmly against just about every one of their policies! Certainly as it pertains to Iraq and this pathetically engaged War on Terror (which is being run like the War on Drugs: Guilty by simple association! In the case of the War on Terror: Guilty by being Arab!)
Those of you that would say that any form of undisruptive protest (which was the case of both woman) is somehow bad or should not be allowed only reinforces the ability for this administration to grab more power and undermines the very freedoms we take for granted!
I also know that it is customary for the SOTU to be a formal event, but in the case of Bush's inability to say anything new or different or to take serious the true nature of what his lies are doing to this country and the world from his other informal speeches I certainly can understand not taking it seriously either.
It seems that when it comes to Bush any protest no matter where it is: Chicago.....Manhatten, KS......or in DC itself is somehow seen as inapropriate or un-American
I can remember clearly some of the Clinton speeches when the right-wing protesters were out in full force doing the same or worse! Where were all of you that now jump on us liberals when your side was doing it?? Was it un-American then or is it only when it works for you??
A t-shirt worn in protest is a simple message! Both Sheehan and Young wore t-shirts for their beliefs, whether you agree or not with either side it was a 1st amedment right!!
In closing however, I will say this: So long as the the speech giver is in no immediate physical danger then the protest should be allowed to take place and as I stated earlier: if that person's feeling are hurt or that a protest seen on TV would somehow undermine the speech's message....that is a good thing!! That is part of what makes America great!!
I have more to say, but I'll wait until later......
I don't think it's a right-wing vs. left-wing debate, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. I'm quite liberal but in my opinion it's just a bad idea. A big part of that is just because it's supposed to be formal, as you said. You don't have to take Bush seriously on every issue (thank God), but you should at least appear that you are able to. Secondly, it's just not the best way to get the point across. It diminishes credibility, in my opinion. Even though I am against the war very strongly, I recognize that effectiveness is key to the equation.
For example, look at your post and look at JBHFour's beneath. I agree with a lot of what's in both, I'm sick of the republican bullying tactics and I'm all for people speaking out. Nine times out of ten I'd probably agree with either of you on any given political point, or at least understand the basis of your argument. But while you state your argument with clarity and reason, JBH talks in caps and finishes with "you are just wrong". That's ridiculous, because it's a reasonable opinion, so there's no factual or ethical "wrong" to be declared. Just as reasonably you can say that while normally it should be somewhat formal, you have your own justification for making exceptions for making statements. I just feel that while that gets the message out, it makes people less inclined to accept it, and so it lessens the effectiveness. When I say it's not appropriate I don't just mean for the SOTU, I mean for the anti-Iraq war cause as well.
She has every right to do it, and I don't think anyone here is denying that. Should she have, though? That's a much more arguable question.
In my opinion, unequivocally yes.
And I cant think of the last time I disagreed with you. This is EXACTLY a first amendment issue. She was not disruptive, she had a right to be there. Your argument that it wasnt appropriate and didnt do her cause any good is a TACTICAL argument, but she was arrested for nothing more than passively protesting Bushs war. That to me is absolutly a free speech issue. Was she told that tee shirts are not allowed at that event? It is her RIGHT to show discontent for policies whenever and wherever she pleases. Tactics are a completely different argument.
No, the first amendment has nothing to do with the propriety of the matter, as I clearly said. She had the right to do it, and she shouldn't have been arrested, of course, those are legal matters that the first amendment applies to. Propriety does speak to decorum and tactics, and so it is part of the same argument.
Something can be legal under the first amendment and still not appropriate. People have rights to do all sorts of stuff that we can say they shouldn't do, that's why it's not a first amendment issue and why it's not really a partisan matter either, the way CaptFoster was suggesting.
I agree with Tobascoman77 and Captfoster2 100%- it's a TOTALLY "appropriate" place for it. It's the PEOPLE'S HOUSE, hello? Sheehan has done and said more by HERSELF than any of our so-called "Representatives" have so far. Sick of her? I'M SICK OF ALL THESE GOP THUGS THAT TRAMPLE ALL OVER EVERONE'S RIGHTS. You GO, Cindy! TRUTH to power.
You people that don't think it's "appropriate" are just flat wrong.
....or does the picture of Sheehan remind anyone else of OB-1 from Star Wars? Use the force Cindy.
Its just you
Its funny that we agree on the principle of what Cindy Sheehan did and the result of her simply showing up with a t-shirt on.
While I agree with the basic thought that you bring up Barbantio "Something can be legal under the first amendment and still not appropriate. People have rights to do all sorts of stuff that we can say they shouldn't do" is for all practical purposes correct.
But I failed to give this extra thought to go with what I had said: If Cindy Sheehan had been wearing a t-shirt that was in no way or could be construded as "political" do you think that we would be even blogging in here about the fact that she was arrested in the first place??
Which makes one wonder if this all happened simply because she was Cindy Sheehan and not say....you or me??
If the t-shirt had no message there would be no arrest, I'm sure. I would still prefer people dress better than that to such an event (money permitting, of course). I think the capitol police just screwed up, honestly, and the only reason they didn't arrest Mrs. Young is because of who her husband is. I could be wrong, but not only does it make sense considering they threw her out for the same faulty reason, but it would be pointless to throw out either of them if the intent was just to "silence" them. After all, we've heard more about it this way then we probably would if she had just sat there. Granted, someone may not have considered that at the time, but it seems like a little thought would make one consider the probability of it.
I could be wrong about that, and we may never know if it was censorship or just ignorance. If they did know she had the right to be there and arrested her anyway, then obviously that was outrageous, and if she sues we may hear details about that sort of thing.
It looks as if you and I are on the same page on this.... well for the most part anyways....
Here's food for thought.......
You had mentioned that Mrs Young wasnt arrested because of who she was......so on that thought.....could it be safe to say that perhaps Mrs Sheehan was arrested for being who she is??
Of course by asking you this it may seem to be kinda old news and what not..... but one could almost sense a posible trend in that if you become a name in the name of Anti-War Anti-Bush you might find yourself being, if not arrested then being used as Fox Opinion fodder if nothing else, but if you are Pro War or Pro Bush you might at worst be asked to leave or ignored all together.....certainly the right-wing media wouldn't care!!
But then....I'm just......no I think I'm on to something here!!