O'Reilly lamented "personal attack[s]" on Cindy Sheehan, ignoring his own role in smearing her
During the June 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan: "I don't like to see any American suffer the way I think Ms. Sheehan has suffered from losing her son to being personally attacked. And we wish her well." However, in sympathizing with Sheehan's "suffer[ing]," O'Reilly ignored his own history of smearing Sheehan, as Media Matters for America has documented:
- On the January 6, 2006, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly asserted: "I'm not vilifying the woman [Sheehan]. I play her comments, and I tell you the truth. She's run by far-left elements who are using her, and she's dumb enough to allow it to happen. It's not a vilification, it's a fact."
- On the October 25, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly included Sheehan in a list of "coward[s]" who had been invited to appear on his programs but would "not stand up and answer questions about their bomb-throwing statements."
- On the August 9, 2005, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly accused Sheehan of behavior that "other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq" think "borders on treasonous."
From the June 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: OK. Now, she took a lot of hits, Cindy Sheehan did. I believe they were her own fault because she crossed the line into advocacy and said some pretty ridiculous things, like Al Qaeda fighters were freedom fighters and things like that, and that the United States is a fascist nation. And she threw in with Hugo Chavez, and we've seen what he's like in the past week.
So she brought a lot of this on herself, in my opinion. But that must have taken a tremendous toll on the woman, the vitriol directed at her.
MEDEA BENJAMIN (co-founder of Code Pink and Global Exchange): Well, Cindy Sheehan was attacked from the beginning that she started to speak out, and then especially when she became famous because of the campout outside Bush's ranch. Then she was really a national figure, and the attacks were very -- hurting to her.
I mean, this is a woman who, because she lost her son, she became involved in this movement because she didn't want other mothers to lose their sons.
O'REILLY: OK, but if she had just kept it in that realm, I don't think she would have been personally attacked the way she was.
[...]
O'REILLY: Ms. Benjamin, it's the far left. When you throw in with terrorists and call them freedom fighters, when you call the United States a fascist nation, you're in Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore territory. You're in the far left.
Anyway, be that as it may, I don't like to see any American suffer the way I think Ms. Sheehan has suffered from losing her son to being personally attacked. And we wish her well. And we appreciate you coming on.
BENJAMIN: Well, thank you. And we will continue to try to end this war and do it --
O'REILLY: All right. I'm sure you will, Medea.
BENJAMIN: -- for Cindy and all the troops and everyone else. Thank you, Bill.
Regardless of what the Pope BO thinks now, Cindy is an American Hero, She is my personal hero in the fight against this war. She has lost more than any of us could ever know.
Dorris,
You seem to forget that if your child dies in Iraq, you're supposed to support the war, and talk about how supporting the troops is sending more of them to die in Iraq. How dare Sheehan speak out against the war? I mean, she's dishonoring the memory of her son, and all that he stood for (according to certain right wing pundits who apparently know MORE about Sheehan's son than she does). This was just a whole sad state of affairs for Sheehan I think. First, she loses her son, then she starts protesting the war, then the republicans come out and attack her personally and question her patriotism (remember, she did sacrifice her son), and all the while they go on "supporting" the troops and the parents of the troops that died, only of course if they didn't speak out against the war.
Did some people try to use Sheehan for their own means? Yeah, I do think that she got used by some liberal groups, but I believe that she thought by joining some of those groups, she maybe thought that her voice might be heard louder and better.
I do thank her for her son's service, and hope that she does find peace someday.
The fake noos channel is in the sleezy business of selling propaganda and the dumb a--es that watch and believe their agenda are THE ONES that should be ashamed of themselves for buying into the baby bush nation building and spreading of Democracy to people that have no concept of it and don't want it, and voting for bushskank in the first place. fake noos has a thin veneer or facade of being an actual news channel. They use inflections toward Democrats that are disparaging and gets really old quick. Its like they get a lot of their talking points delivered to them in old oxycontin pill bottles by slush limpbaugghh. It is mental pablum for mental migets. If you walk up to a hornets nest and hit it with a stick you can't blame the hornets for what happens next (Iraq) Baby bushskank does not know what he is doing and I would have liked for Putin to have kicked his a--. I hope American Inventor finds somebody that has created a retroactive birth control pill and baby bushskank gets a prescription.
Make no mistake...what happened to Sheehan was carefully orchestrated by the GOP, probably one of the Bush toadies in the White House. She dared to criticize President Numbnuts, and that was not to be tolerated.
Totally agree. How can many people still listen to this crap and not be able to place themselves in other countries in the past -- where a rogue or idiot "commander in chief" did nothing more than instill fear, xenophobia, and call some "great patriots" when they blindly follow, and others "anti-patriots" when they question.
I think America has only the next election to turn this ship around, or the intelligent start looking to other countries. Can you image how many bright people would head to Canada?
Don't let the door hit ya... ;-)
----"Don't let the door hit ya..." ;-)----
The right-wingers thrive and celebrate on having a rogue or idiot "commander in chief" who instills fear, xenophobia, gov't secrecy and wiretapping under the guise of patriotism and anyone who disagrees is un-patriotic. And if intelligent people want to protest or leave, they get a response like the typical one above. It's not the America we had prior to George W. Bush. We need to get it back.
zzzzzzzzzzz....
You really are AntiAnerican, aren't you?
So YOU AGREE!!! Thank you for understanding your own ilk. The nation will be left with nothing but sour puss, angry white men with little intelligence.
On the other hand, if someone with an above-average IQ takes over, and doesn't owe corporate America so much, I'll stay...
... along with people who understand science, think religion is to be kept out of politics, understand that War is Hell, and do not buy everything their own party spouts.
Please, allow the door hit you on the way out.
What? And leave everything to the Troglodytes? NEVER!
Damn straight.
This is our damn country too. I'll go to hell before I leave and let the conservo-nutbags permanently twist it into something ugly.
Oh he's just trying to save face - again. Always playing whatever card is most politicially expedient for the time.
O'Reilly has been ravaging Sheehan and anyone else who opposes the Bush administrations murderous wars. If you are for peace, you must be a communist, you hate america, or you're with the terrorists.
Oh yeah, doesn't he also use the line "blame America first crowd"???
It makes me sick to hear the garbage this man spews. But, the reality is quite different. It's Bill and the rest of these war lovers that act with hatred towards everything good about America.
They're happy to throw it all away to quench their thirst for power, profits and war.
Some further reading on this:
"The America-Haters Strike Again" - click here
Dude please. Enough with the blog-whoring. You have found a way to work that link into, like, seven different posts on different subjects...
I apologize if you think it's offensive, but i feel it's relevant to quite a bit that's going on in the media these days.
You're welcome, of course, to not click on something you're already read.
I do believe the reality doesn't change - these people continually bash whomever comes in opposition to their policies, and really have no other moral standing. Sheehan is now seen as no 'threat' to O'Reilly - so now he can be nice.
Makes me sick.
I think O'Really is doing this in a pathetic attempt to get us to retract the things we've called him such as a lying, hypocritical, draft dodging weasel.
If I've offended any of the Mustela Genus, I humbly apologize.
Do you think O really cares that others say or think negative things about him? I'd say that it's more likely he's trying to get us so worked up about his blatant hypocrisy that we choke on our own words and shut the heck up already. Or maybe, in the future when he's accused of personalized attacks on Sheehan, he can just roll this clip as proof that his accuser is a pinko liar, exhibiting secular progressive antisocial tendencies.
Does anyone else find that particular exchange incredibly surreal?
Of course O'Reilly talks out of both sides of his mouth, and the historical revisionism of his own words never fails to surprise anyone.....but he does make good points regarding Ms. Sheehan, nonetheless.
Had she not called the very murderers of her own son and his comrades "freedom fighters", and cozied up to the likes of American hating dictators like Hugo Chavez, she most likely wouldn't have been treated so shabbily by those that didn't like what she was saying. Who really knows?
Let's hope she finds peace.
"... she most likely wouldn't have been treated so shabbily by those that didn't like what she was saying. Who really knows?"
I know. She dared criticize the extremely incompetent BushCo, so it really does not matter what she said or did not say. She would have been vilified, not matter how carefully she could have stepped around the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Rove, etc.
Her son died for reasons she thinks are bogus. I think they are bogus. Every thinking person I know thinks the reasons are bogus.
Q: what do Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc. (the people who hate Sheehan) have in common? A: They never went to war, do not understand war, and will never understand war. They get rich from war... so maybe they really do understand from a rich coward's point of view.
Her son enlisted and then reenlisted again. Apparently he did not share his mother's opinion, and that is fine. She should speak for herself, not him.
Since Bush killed her son, she is the only voice of her son. Bless her and her Son.
Doris,
Her son enlisted in the military and went to Iraq twice, he volunteered for service knowing his life could be at risk for his country at any time. He was a brave and heroic man. He was murdered by those he was fighting against, they are the enemy.
His mother has every right to speak for herself and herself alone, and she most certainly did.
- His mother has every right to speak for herself - Tommy
Correctamundo. However, having lost a son doesn't give her any more rights than anyone else...she might have more reasons...but no more rights.
I believe her to be foolish and misguided...an opinion. I believe she was used and then discarded by the anti-war left...a fact.
Actually no. She discard them because they weren't doing enough to end the war.
"I believe she was used and then discarded by the anti-war left...a fact."
If it's a "fact", then don't put "I believe" in front of it.
Would you prefer "17 feet"? God o mighty...my side still hurts.
Estimates go as high as twenty feet now. Try to keep up.
Seriously, how many times can you trot that out? All you are doing is exposing yourself as a petty jackass. In my two years of posting here, is that really all you can find to attack me?
"I believe she was used and then discarded by the anti-war left...a fact. "
You mean, like the Troglodytes used Terri Schiavo? At least Sheehan can tell the Left to go pound sand if she thinks she's being used...a luxury out of reach for Schiavo.
No its NOT a fact. She was never USED she was sending the message SHE wanted sent. That is not being used. A rightwing talking point that doesnt even make sense.
"Correctamundo. However, having lost a son doesn't give her any more rights than anyone else...she might have more reasons...but no more rights. - wesley / Thursday June 7, 2007 01:57:00 PM EST"
What extra rights was Cindy Sheehan claiming for herself?
"He was murdered by those he was fighting against, they are the enemy."
Tommy;
If Casey Sheehan was taken prisoner and then killed by his captors, he was murdered. Likewise if he was fragged by Iraqis he was training. If he died in combat, he was not. As you stated, he enlisted, twice, and was engaged in bringing lethal force to a country which was not his. His death in combat would be no more murder than the combat deaths of GIs in any of our wars.
Lest you think I'm sympathising with his killers, I also object to the use of the phrase, executed by his captors, in new reports of murdered captives.
I agree executed by his captor is definitly murder.
Tommy, Casey Sheehan enlisted and at the end of his tour, he re-enlisted. He arrived in Iraq on March 19, 2004 and was killed after volunteering to rescue Americans who had been trapped by the Shia Madi Army, not insurgents, on April 4, 2004. It was his first tour in Iraq.
Worrier,
Points noted, but it still does not change the fact that his mother says she speaks for him because he has no voice - that is disrespecting her own son's views, in my opinion. He did not share her opinion of the war......she should make that very clear and speak for herself alone.
Her son's actions and his heroism speak for themselves.
You know no such thing you arrogant TWIT. Did you KNOW Casey Sheehan? What kind of insane arrogance do you have to even THINK you know better than a mother what best serves her sons memory?
I go by her son's actions, which contradicts his mother's opinions. What about that is hard to grasp? You want to make her son out to be just like her, sorry, the facts don't support it.
Thanks for elevating the discourse with your "twit" comment, you don't even deserve a response.
"I go by her son's actions, which contradicts his mother's opinions. What about that is hard to grasp? You want to make her son out to be just like her, sorry, the facts don't support it."
My sister reenlisted after the war started and was sent to Iraq for a year (she is/was not a supporter of this war). She loved the military so she reenlisted. After being in Iraq for a year she decided it wasn’t worth it. She got out of the army towards the end of last year.
Is there any evidence or information whatsoever provided by Ms. Sheehan or her family that her son Casey held the same feelings on the war he fought in as she did.
I have never seen it. His actions and his service would definitely suggest that he was not in agreement with her. Why she felt it so important to say she spoke for her son is beyond me? Why wasn't her voice and her valient war opposition enough?
Do you also think he shared her characterizing those fighting against her son and his fellow soldiers as "freedom fighters"? I would guess no.
“Is there any evidence or information whatsoever provided by Ms. Sheehan or her family that her son Casey held the same feelings on the war he fought in as she did.”
I don’t know what was behind Casey's reenlistment but I think she would know better than anyone posting on this board. The only one who could possibly tell us his motives for reenlisting is Casey but he died in Bush’s War. And do you have any evidence for your assertion?
Let’s assume Casey supported Bush’s war. He died in early 2004 and since then a lot of information has come out as what led to Bush’s invasion of Iraq. I’m going to assume he would have supported what his mother was trying to do.
“Do you also think he shared her characterizing those fighting against her son and his fellow soldiers as "freedom fighters"? I would guess no.”
We are occupying a country that does not want to be occupied and as a result they are killing American troops. The fact of the matter is that Bush’s decision to invade Iraq led to Casey’s death.
So on one hand we have your guesses and mind reading about someone you never KNEW and on the other we have HIS MOTHER. If anyone beyond a wife exists that has a right to speak for a man its his mother. There are many reasons to enlist YOUR take isnt the only possible explanation
My father was in the army during Vietnam, a war he greatly opposed. Membership in the military during a given conflict does not necessarily equate to a support for the policies behind the war (i.e.; Pat Tillman).
Bringing up examples of soldiers from history who didn't support the war or the mission they were involved in is irrlevant to Casey Sheehan.
Every indication is that he did not feel that way........but go ahead and manipulate his position to advance your own anti-war position, as his mother did. She has every right to grieve and protest, but if she doesn't feel her stance is strong enough on her own voice, that is unfortunate.
YOU are the one doing the manipulating base on YOUR interpretations of the actions of a MAN YOU DIDNT KNOW. She DID know him. SHE is in a much better position to speak for him than YOUR biased take on WHY he did something.
“Every indication is that he did not feel that way”
There is no indication one way or the other.
“........but go ahead and manipulate his position to advance your own anti-war position, as his mother did.”
I think you’re trying to assume what his position was because you’re a supporter of Bush’s invasion.
“She has every right to grieve and protest, but if she doesn't feel her stance is strong enough on her own voice, that is unfortunate.”
I don’t understand what you mean by this comment. It seems to me that the right brought her son into this by suggesting that he would not support what she was doing in an effort to attack her.
And how did you come to the conclusion that everyone who reenlisted after Bush started his Iraq warmongering talk, were supporters of the war?
Actually, the level of discourse is lowered by you endlessly repeating the same thing over and over, taking up a good quarter of just about any thread you respond to.
We get it. You don't like her. You think you know better what her son was about than she did.
You are right and I appologize you didnt deserve that remark. Frustration at oft repeated no sense behind them talking points got the better of me but that is not an excuse I was way out of line there. Again however with the false dichotomy. Did you assess his rationale for re-upping with your amazing mind reading powers or did you discern from the false dichotomy I cited that the ONLY POSSIBLE reason for re enlisting is that he completely supported Bushs actions? Doesnt matter neither can be supported by one seconds scrutiny. Cindy was his MOTHER, you didnt know him at ALL. It is simply arrogant beyond belief to think YOU are in a better position to speak for him than his own mother.
Tommy's a Casey Whisperer, didn't you know? From beyond the grave...
Just admit, Tommy, that the woman who raised him and loved him, might know a little bit more about what he would have wanted than every pundit out there, including any douche on a website. And I'll include myself in that class of people.
They are the enemy, we defined them that way. He was a soldier in a war zone his death was not a murder. International law makes armed resistance to occupation legal. We dont get to go to other countries kill them then snivel that they kill us back. I mean you can but its ludicrous
Yes, he did reenlist just after BushCo decided they needed more money, but at the time many thought that there were WMD, and some were even convinced that Saddam had something to do with the US invasion. Now we all know that was bull crap, don't we?
In my book, since her son died for oil and Cheney's Haliburton profits, Cindy can speak for him.
I wonder how so many people were duped into believing we had to invade Iraq? Could it be that the propaganda machine was well oiled and ready to go? Could it have been the lies that Cheney and Bush spouted for days, then had the nerve to mock their own lies at the press convention? D'uh, do ya think?
Impeach NOW.
If you want to focus on Bush and oil and the rest, while ignoring Sheehan's statements and alliances with Chavez and others, that is fine.
But those were the reasons she was vilified, discount them if you want, but that is the reality.
I credit Cindy Sheehan with giving the muted voices of the Anti-War movement traction. But you're absolutely correct Tommy when you point out her embracing of Chavez was a turn off to many that otherwise would have supported her.
I agree also, her embracing of Chavez is treason. Chavez is not a friend of America. He would be pulling the same crap if Kerry were President. Support of Chavez to me is equal to support of bin Laden.
"her embracing of Chavez is treason"
Really? Are we at war with Chavez? Rumsfeld embraced Saddam at one time. Wouldn't that be retro-active treason? Dick and George lied us into a war....that's closer to treason than anything Sheehan has done.
I agree with you Rumsfeld should have been charged with Treason. Point anywhere were I supported Rumsfeld? Chavez hates America, he hates you and I , do not think for one minute he does not. He loves Iran a nation that hates America (even hated us when Jimmy Carter was President). Do not for one minute think that when Hillary becomes President (which I hope she does) that Chavez will change or Iran will change , they will not. Cindy Sheehan losing her son is tragic. That did not give her the right to support someone as evil as Chavez.
"I agree with you Rumsfeld should have been charged with Treason. Point anywhere were I supported Rumsfeld? Chavez hates America, he hates you and I , do not think for one minute he does not. He loves Iran a nation that hates America (even hated us when Jimmy Carter was President). Do not for one minute think that when Hillary becomes President (which I hope she does) that Chavez will change or Iran will change , they will not. Cindy Sheehan losing her son is tragic. That did not give her the right to support someone as evil as Chavez."
Yikes! That's a low of strawmen in one argument or posting right there.
Chavez doesn't hate America. He hates Bush. There is a difference you know. Hating the President of a country doesn't mean he hates the entire country. Chavez hates the American populace so much, that every year he donates heating oil to the poor in the colder climes of the country (Northeast US of A) so that people can keep their heat on, because US government subsidies can't get them the heating oil that they do need. A real hater right there. Now, I'm not saying he's a peach of a guy, but he has been elected overwhelmingly a couple of times by the people in his own country, who seem to think that he's doing a pretty good job.
Iran, once again, as a country, does not hate America. There are actually a lot of people in Iran that don't hate America at all, but their leadership makes a good show of getting the right faces, and cheers on TV so that it does indeed appear that the entire country hates America, but this is very far from the truth. I suggest you poke your head outside the mainstream media in America and check some other sources. There are very progressive forces inside of Iran, and the country is very young, and a lot of them embrace western ideals and ideas, but they can't express that in the open because they'll get tossed into some deep dark hole, and probably never be seen again (again, a result of their bad leadership, and the Mullahs), but to state that Iran, as a country hates the US, that's just silly.
And, even if they did, people like yourself forget the history of how and when Iran became an Islamic republic after all. Since the CIA and the US put the Shah into power, and he was more abusive and dictatorial than even the Mullahs and their current President is. And hence the whole reason for their revolution. They were tired of the puppet the US government put into place to run their country.
I don't see where Sheehan supported Chavez, who is not evil (again, check some other news sources from around the world, and actually listen to the people in his own country). I do think that with a different President in the White House, his attitude towards the leadership of the US will change. Watch, that will happen.
Luckily, with Bush finally letting Condi Rice actually do some diplomacy, there might be some change in how Iran feels about the US as well. It wasn't very long ago, that Iran helped the US take down the Taliban shortly after 9/11. That we, as a country, up until very recently, have ignored them as a country, and didn't want to engage them also offended them. It's not bad to talk to people, and to try and work things out, and again, until recently that was the BushCo way of trying to work things out. Subtley threaten force, and then ignore. Iran could come around, but it will take awhile.
That is why Iran is giving arms to the Taliban.
Your love of Chavez is blatant, you are someone who is unable to see beyond the Evil Bush. As Bill Maher said once Bush is our President (he is our A*shole" Only we have a right to call him names. Nancy Pelosi was outraged at Chavez. Find me one reputable American political figure who thinks highly of Chavez.
You are stuck in that Manichean simplistic frame. I dont think HIGHLY of Putin does that make him the enemy of America? I dont think HIGHLY of Olmert or Burlesconi. It isnt that either or. We have done some serious screwing around with Central and South America. We overthrew democracies and installed dictatorships in Guatemala, Brazil, and Chile. Ya think that brings some animosity? That doesnt make the enemies of America. The coup of Chavez was done by people with TIES to Bush and the US. He has a decent reason to be mad. HE however can understand the distinction between ADMINISTRATIONS and their actions and the country. Apparantly you CANT make that distinction. We dont have to love Hugo or approve of all his actions to say its unfair to lump him in with Ben Laden. He has never even been ACCUSED by ANYONE of attacking Americans. Yet when asked if he has attacked Americans you say you dont know. Well by that standard I dont know if YOU are a murderer, of course I have no reason to think you are, much less any evidence so why would I make such a statement? You have no reason to think Chavez has attacked America or Americans either much less any evidence. The guy doesnt have to be Santa Clause to deserve defense from such unfair and frankly propagandistic attacks on him.
Please defend your assertion that Sheehan is guilty of treason for "embracing" Chavez, if you can. (Of course you can't; that's why you didn't even try.)
C'mon, Nerzog. Cindy met with Chavez who "hates America" and who "loves Iran" a "nation that hates America." What more evidence of treason do you need? And here you are defending Cindy, a woman who met Chavez who loves Iran who hates America. To Gitmo with you as well!
"That did not give her the right to support someone as evil as Chavez."
You're right. It's the Bill of Rights that affirmed her right to do that. Heard of it?
Bit extreme there aren't you? Has Chavez directed attacks on Americans?
Maybe , I do not know , I know he supresses freedom in his own country and hates America. If he had his way America would be gone.
I don't think so, please provide a quote.
J, I also do not like Chavez but I think you are slightly reaching here as is Tommy. Cindy Sheehan is not a friend of Chavez she visited him like she has visited other countries. Does not mean she tolerates all of his policies.
Your statement is flat out insane.
That is just insane. Chavez sends oil to low cost American communities every winter. What terrorism has he committed against us? There is good evidence Bush helped with the coup against him. Chavez may not be the nicest guy in the world he may say some bad things about our policies in his region of the world but treason? Ben Laden? Get a grip
"Support of Chavez to me is equal to support of bin Laden."
Then run, do not walk, to the nearest institution of higher learning and beg, beg, BEG them to enroll you in a remedial logic course.
Maybe I have a listening problem, but I didn't hear that Chavez is a communist dictator? Has your opinion of the man changed due to someone pointing out to you that he has been twice elected (twice more than Bungle) President of his country? that he is popular with the people of his country - 70-80% approval vs Bungle at 29%? That a whole bunch of anti-American sentiment from the man, might arise from US funding of his (military/Corporate) opponents? that those opponents have once already (with US blessing) pulled a coup, which was overthrown by popular uprising - pro-Chavez? That the station he shut down, causing such a clamor in the "free speech" segment of hate-wingia, could, under existing US law, have seen every on-air person, and all of management, shot at dawn (serially advocating assassination of Chavez)? That in fact, he shut down only the UHF part of the enterprise, leaving intact the wider-reaching and (more profitable) cable and satellite segments? And that we could well do the same here, were the FCC ever to look at the public service undertakings of most Corporate broadcast entities - that is, refuse FOR CAUSE to renew the license? Yeah, Cindy chose a real "evil" person to embrace, compared to the thieving bigoted lying murderous horde posing as Republicans.
Since I don't want to put words in your mouth...I'll just ask the question.
Who would you prefer as president of the USA...Hugo Chavez or George Bush?
Can we have a third choice?
LOL...yeah you get a third choice.
Conley, however, after cheerleading for Chavez and reviling Pres. Bush...gets to choose between those two...simply for the record.
Looking solely at acceptability within his own nation; generosity toward a population (ours) that reviles him; and based as well upon refraining from attempting the overthrow of the other; there is only one logical choice between these two. Bungle ain't it, as he would not be it up the ranks of Hell to at least the foot of Satan's throne. THAT choice might cause me some heartburn, but there are only a dozen people on this planet who could possibly be worse choices than madman Bungle, and every single one of them is already a Repugnant, save only Kim Jung Il.
Now, if that is the trophy you were competing for, it is yours. Polish it daily, and let the memory of of those "Glory Days" sustain you through your decline.
No trophy hunting here...I just wanted to see if your conviction matched your rhetoric.
While I disagree with your assessment...I would vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for Chavez. Yet, thanks for not ducking out and answering the question.
That is fair, I have often said I would vote for Spongbob Squarepants than Chimpy McShortbus.
If those were the only two options, I would pick Chavez. Chavez can implement some of his most controversial policies because he has support among the Venezuelan populace. In America, it would be nearly impossible (I would have said impossible before Bush’s reign of terror) for him to get away with that stuff because he would have virtually no support.
Who needs presidential debates...right now it's...
Chavez-2...any yellow dog-1
"If you want to focus on Bush and oil and the rest, while ignoring Sheehan's statements and alliances with Chavez and others, that is fine. But those were the reasons she was vilified, discount them if you want, but that is the reality. - tommy"
Sheehan was vilified a long time before she met with Chavez.
You dont know that. My father was a 20 year Marine he kept re-enlisting and went to Vietnam twice but did not agree with the war. He still felt it was his comittment to serve the country. It is flat out arrogant to think YOU know her son better than his own mother
"She should speak for herself, not him"
Of course, that's a totally disingenuous question. What was she always asking? "For what noble purpose did my son die?" That IS speaking (or asking a question) for herself. That was the key point of her activism.
You're not only doing some sort of mystical mind-reading trick on her dead son, but you're being dishonest about what Sheehan's efforts were about.
I enlisted in the USMC and the USNR and went to Desert Storm, Did I agree with Bush for sending troops to die for .50 a gallon gasoline? No I didn't. Just because someone enlists and reenlists doesn't mean they agree with the war they fought in. The two are mutually exclusive. When you are in the service you go where they tell you to go, you don't have a choice in the matter. I love it when people who have never served in the military try to say what people in the military think.
Interesting points. Does anyone have a timeline for when she met with Chavez and the remarks by and villification done by Bush supporters. Just a hunch, but I am guessing she was villified long before she met with Chavez.
A good question. Here's the chronology you requested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_and_criticism_of_Cindy_Sheehan
Drudge seemed to get the ball rolling. Among other things, Rush Limbaugh was saying that Sheehan's entire story was "nothing more than forged documents" in August 2005 (six months before Sheehan met Chavez).
Assuming she is as bad as the right says what is their excuse for attacking the 9/11 widows?
I am sorry but he is a soldier in a war zone if him being killed was murder then its also murder when we kill insurrgents. Hugo Chavez is NOT a dictator. He has won open and free elections held on time in his country. If you have a problem with his policies fine but he is NOT a dictator nor is he an America hater he is a BUSH hater when will you conservatives get that BUSH is not America when he bashes this country he bashes the POLICIES of a man who was connected to those who were behind the COUP. Are YOU a Venezuala hater because you despise Chavez? The guys policies are open to criticism some of those I would agree with however each year he sends oil to low income communities across the US and he offered free oil to New Orleans during their crisis. When will you stop being led around by the nose to despise this weeks newest incarnation of the official enemy?
And this is the process of tying loose ends up for finalization of what? Could it be that his people have received insider info that a pull out from Iraq is already in the works for September?
As long as a statement has an excusing phrase, O'Reilly doesn't consider it a personal attack. For example:
Personal attack: "O'Reilly is a slimewad who can't open his mouth without lying."
It's not a personal attack if you're just passing on a personal attack: "Some people are saying O'Reilly is a slimewad who can't open his mouth without lying."
Also not a personal attack if you say it isn't a personal attack: "I'm not attacking Bill O'Reilly personally, but he is a slimewad who can't open his mouth without lying."
It's double plus not a personal attack if you say it's not a personal attack AND you say it's a fact: "O'Reilly is a slimewad who can't open his mouth without lying. That's not an attack, that's a facts."
See? It's simple. If you just learn a few simple techniques, you too can express your true feelings without ever making a personal attack.
Don't forget the 'two birds w/ one stone' form, of repeating slander and insult and innuendo... that's where you not only repeat the slander (which is the whole point), but you then speculate whether that slander has it's origin with, or otherwise serves, another person...
...and in the process you get to slander that other person also, by calling them a 'slanderer', or otherwise painting them as supporting or benefitting from, the slander and insult.
We see this 'two birds w/ one stone' form of slander and insult presently being used against the presidential candidates Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton... the 'media' repeats a slander or insult against Sen. Obama (again, that's the whole point, to repeat the slander), and then speculates as to whether it originated with the Clinton campaign, or they otherwise deviously explore how the insult serves or benefits the Clinton campaign... all the while maliciously repeating the slander or insult as many times as possible (the whole point).
'Two birds w/ one malicious slandering insulting stone', that's what you'd call it.
In the form of the examples you gave, it might come out as:
"Are wolf blitzer and his gang at CNN behind the recent talk of bill o'reilly being a slimewad liar?"
"Is calling bill o'reilly a 'slimewad liar' fair game in the 'media' today? And if the blitzer camp is behind this, is that just 'media' business as usual? Or is calling bill o'reilly a 'slimewad liar' out of bounds and over-the-top, even for wolf blitzer and his supporters?"
"Here with us now are two 'pundits' to discuss the 'slimewad liar' tag on bill o'reilly, and to analyze how it benefits wolf blitzer, or even if it originated with him and his people at CNN."
I think you get it. And again, whether you're trying to slime two birds with a single stone, or are just aiming at the one, the whole point is to repeat the slander or the insult as often as possible... in every single sentence spoken, if you can.
True to form, BO is revising his roll in past events. Now he's sympathetic? Please...
I'm sure it would be so comforting to Cindy to know she has O'Reilly's sympathy.
Sympathy from this arrogant blowhard is emptier than a frat house keg.
Sheehan was on O Reillys list of cowards who wouldn't come on the program. But if se had I'm guessing it would have gone something like this:
BO: Joining me now is anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan who's son was killed in Iraq. Welcome to the No-Spin Zone.
CS: Thank you, Bill.
BO: Your son Casey died in Iraq. Whom do you hold responsible for your loss?
CS: George W. Bush
BO: Cut her microphone, okay this is ridiculous. We'll be right back after these messages.
I find it hard to believe that there are people who still believe in Junior's war. It breaks my heart each day when I hear of a young man or woman losing their life in what I consider a child's "I'll show my daddy" moment.
I'd like to think that the least Cindy wanted from Junior was a simple "I'm sorry" or "I made a mistake" which unfortunately will never happen. Dick is still telling lies to group after group and Junior is the dog chasing his tail, again and again.
For those who want to continue this mess, take your family and trade places with a family in Iraq. Experience what their life is day to day. Let the family from Iraq experience your life. For the soldiers who want to come home, and I'm sure there are many, let them. You can be the replacement. Enough is enough. Fox, which gives the least Iraq coverage on cable, and the blowhards like Bill and Sean you too can be replacements. Let's see how many of you will want to continue with the disaster Iraq is.
We teach our children (hopefully) to admit your mistakes and learn from them. Why don't Junior and Dick act like grown-ups for a change?
Fox has the least amount of Iraq coverage on cable? Not being one of their watchers, I find that fascinating, if predictable.
I don't watch either but saw it in polling data somewhere.
Pearlene,
As much as I sympathize with the families who lost loved ones in Iraq, your plea makes about as much sense as me asking you to change places with people on the 101'st floor of the WTC.
It is long on emotion and short on reality.
That Black and White thinking getting in the way again, AA? Pearlene is talking about trading places with an Iraqi family, not dead soldiers. Live in their shoes for a month, and then come back and tell us how the Iraqis are "better off" after President Numbnuts wrecked their country.
Actually it's not. Put up or shut up. You want this farce to continue, pick up you and the little woman or man and trot your happy butt to Iraq. If you think we can win this thing, again trot your butt their. I don't want mine or anyone's child dying so we can see if 'the surge" is working. How many times and how long ago did people demand more troops? Now after 4 years you want to listen? Like I said for those who think they know what it takes to win, join in and fight.
Unrealistic yeah but it's how I feel.
Actually it is. Your request is silly.
It is tantamount to me saying, since you are so anti-war why don't you put up? Lets see you get your hiney over to Germany and protest at the G8?
Actually that is more realistic than your scenario.
You can be against the war and against people who support the war but please try to provide reasoned arguments.
Why Germany? There are, from time to time, protests right here in the USA - an emminently accessible venue for participation. Protest might not be effective against idiot-boy Bungle and Darth, but short of revisiting the 2006 elections, and getting serious about sending every Repugnant home to await indictment - protest is all we have.
Actually trotting my butt over to the G-8 is unrealistic. I can stay here at home and protest. I can stay here at home and tell people like you who seem to think that asking you to do something you still believe in is somehow wrong. And I’m not anti-war, I’m anti THIS war. You are damn right I feel emotional cause losing so many lives for no emanate threat to America to say the least is down right criminal. If you think this war is justified you continue to fight it. If Rush & Co. are so sure that Junior’s policies are right for American get up off his or her lazy a**, put on a uniform and serve. Don’t call up any more young men and women. There is approximately 28% who still support Junior’s policy.
I say take the trade. Spend a month in Germany while he spends a month in Iraq. Just remember to wear loose clothing. Germany can get kinda warm in the summer.
If he DOES go over to Iraq, do he and his family get complementary flak jackets and helmets like Lieberman and the other "like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime" crowd?
Sorry, but this picture just cracks me up.
Nah, they have to go native. Br a real Iraqi family
Bitter, you have a great sense of humor
God (or the Associated Press) has a great sense of humor too, judging by that picture of Lieberman. =)
What's your reality?
Neal Boortz( 750 AM Atlanta) called Ms. Sheehan on Oct 3,2007 a "lunatic,a moonbat, and a crazy broad".
One would think with Boortzs' documented history of being a Class A, No.1,Card-Carrying Draft-Dodging Chickenhawk, he wouldn't want to draw attention to that fact, but Neal revels in attention.
The shear audacity of Boortz has no bounds,even attending (on stage) events which help, and celebrate "Wounded Veterans of The Iraqi/Afgahn War",the War which he supports! That's where Boortz will be July 10,2007, on stage with another Chickenhawk Hannity,and a Convicted Liar to Congress,Ollie North!
Having Boortz on stage at a Wounded Veterans Concert, would be like having Martin Luther King, front and center,"helping cheer on and support the cross-burning" at a Klan cross-burning!
Cannot one withhold support for one war and support another? Or does one have to either support all wars or oppose them all?
Perhaps they can get Cindy to appear since it is a fundraiser for children of deceased military?
One indeed can support one war and not another. That should be noted for anyone who uses the phrase "anti-war left" when referring to opponents of the disaster in Iraq.
Brab,
Interesting comment and good point.
It makes me wonder if there is an anti-war right? There probably is. Pat Buchanan? Sen. Hegel? I may be wrong. Can you think of anyone on the right who is anti war?
Reversing it, I would think Lieberman is on the left and supports the war although I haven't kept up with him so I could be wrong on that too.
Perhaps, that's a question of definition. Buchanan is an isolationist, and I'm not sure that's been synonymous with "anti-war" in most people's minds (although it seems like it could be). It's a more defined definition on the left because there is a small portion of people who don't believe in war under almost any circumstances. A nice idea, but overly idealistic, and not representing a very large percentage of the left as far as I've seen.
Ron Paul perhaps? Of course, talk radio regressives have already begun the "Ron Paul is crazy" attacks.
Lieberman is what RINO HUNTER would call a LINO.
You're absolutely correct. You can be opposed to one war and support another. I see no hypocrisy there.
But where hypocrisy rears it's ugly head is when that person opposed the war in which he could have participated and took steps to evade what was mandatory for others his age. Now that he is ineligible for service, he's all for sending someone else to fight.
Your second argument contradicts your first.
You are saying that one has to be for the war at the time and enlist and/or sever when one is young and capable of serving in order to be for a war at some later date.
However your first argument said you could be for one and against the other.
Your second statement effectively negates your first argument. So which is it?
The key phrase in the second argument is that he took steps to evade his own service. I find this guy and many others support for this war to be nothing more than hiding behind a flag they refused to serve under.
Support for a war and being an actual salesman for the war are two different things.
He did some work for a group of Iraq War vets, great. How about helping the 23 % of homeless people in this country who are veterans. Of these, 47 % are veterans of the Vietnam era.
It's possible that one of these men is someone who might not be in that situation if people like Boortz, Cheney, Bush etc. had not taken steps to avoid Vietnam.
Correction:Make the date of Oct 3,2007 read Oct 3,2006 on the previous post about Boortz!
The final blow to Cindy Sheenan was when the Democratic Party didn't follow through with their promise to make changes to this Iraq fiasco.
It isn't just Sheenan who felt demoralized; all of Americans felt demoralized when the Democratic Party cowered to a coward.
If one was hearing impaired I'm sure it would sound like "I'm the Dictator" when Bush said "I'm the Decider". Perhaps it doesn't matter if one was hearing impaired or not both statements probably means the same to Bush as far as he is concerned.
When Bush supporters fawn over Bush there is something pedophilic about it considering all of the editorial cartoons have Bush looking like a little boy riding on a wooden horse. Now can you see why O'Rielly is trying to re-write his anti Sheenan moments. He must sense it too.
PEARLENE_SCOTT1602's post: I find it hard to believe that there are people who still believe in Junior's war. It breaks my heart each day when I hear of a young man or woman losing their life in what I consider a child's "I'll show my daddy" moment.
There is nothing to fear - FDR
He tried to kill my daddy - Bush Jr, note "He" refers to Saddam.
Support Hanging On A Thread
I too was very dishearten by the Democrat's one weak moment. By withdrawing the time line language from the funding bill, the really blew it. However, I was unaware we, the Democrats, had given them a one time get it right mandate.
This is a very complex political time. The Democrats are in the position to take over the now one sided political landscape. The last thing I would want to do is turn my support into talking points of doom.
I recall, in doing complex math problems, you have to concentrate on the step by step intricate requirement to get the problem right. I was allowed to miss one question and still get an "A" on the test.
In a non perfect world, the more we allow ourselves to be human beings, complete with making "some" mistakes, the less stress it takes to do what we have been entrusted to do. The way I see it no one will even take the job on if they only have one chance to get it right.
We must also follow the criticism. I found myself arguing this very issue with a Republican who did not state that very fact up front.
My last point is this: We cannot miss the opportunity to pick are leaders up after they have crashed and burned in a political battle. As supporters, we must find out what our rolls should be and play them as well as we give criticism.
Joseph
The analysis here does not support the headline's claim that O'Reilly has "smeared" Sheehan in the past.
The excerpts from O'Reilly's past commentary are perfectly consistent with his current statement. He calls her actions "ridiculous" and "far left" this week - his past commentary (quoted in your text) refer to her as "dumb" and "far left". Perhaps identifying her as a "coward" and "treasonous" (in the past - again from your text) go further, but he is consistently respectful in emphasizing her sacrifice in the loss of her son; hardly, vilification or a smear job.
This is just not a valid point.
Calling her dumb and treasonous isnt a smear job? Please tell me that was a joke.
Did Billydub just tell us that O'Really called Mrs. Sheehan was a "coward" and "treasonous" but in a respectful way?
The next time someone calls me a coward or traitor I probably won't be so upset now, since it will be done in a respectful way.