'The mother of a soldier killed in Iraq said Sunday her vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch protests the use of her son's death to justify the Iraq war.

"I don't want him to justify my son's honorable sacrifice to continue his murderous killing policies," Cindy Sheehan told CNN's "Late Edition."

Sheehan has been demanding to see Bush and make him aware of the suffering the war has brought to Iraq.

Sheehan's son Casey Sheehan was killed in Baghdad's Sadr City in April 2004.

"Then George Bush ... said that the families can rest assured that their children died for a noble cause. And he also said that we have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen soldiers by continuing the mission, by staying the mission in Iraq.

"I do not want him to use my son's name to continue the killing. It's bad enough that my son is dead," she told CNN.

Sheehan met with Bush a year ago, among 15 families expecting consoling words from Bush.

"He acted like it was a party," she told CNN.

"We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity," Sheehan said.

"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," Sheehan said.

Sheehan's son was one of the 1,810 US soldiers killed in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. She plans to camp out until she gets a chance to speak to Bush again about the death of her son.

She said Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley and deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin met her outside the ranch Saturday and were "very respectul."

"Joe Hagin, the deputy chief of staff, said that, 'I can tell you the president really cares.' And I said, 'You can't tell me that because I've met with him and I know that he doesn't care,'" she told CNN.

She is also a founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, who have lost loved ones to war and oppose the Iraq invasion.

"Why would I want one more mother -- either Iraqi or American -- to go through what I'm going through? I don't want him to justify my son's honorable sacrifice to continue his murderous killing policies," Sheehan told CNN.

A national Newsweek survey Saturday put Bush's national poll ratings on Iraq at a new low, with only 34 percent of Americans polled saying they approved of his management of the conflict.
'


what do you think? does he genuinly not care about the families of those killed? or has he just become immune to it?

I haven't looked into the whole Sheehan thing too much, but I just read this article on Washington Post and I thought I would put it up on here. Go Here.

The most important part (that relates to this discussion) is this:

"Sheehan met last year with Bush at an event for military families and has been seeking another meeting with him. Slightly more than half of the country -- 52 percent -- said Bush should meet her again; 46 percent said he should not. Fifty-three percent supported what she is doing and 42 percent opposed."

Just throwing it out there...

It's not that I think Bush owes anything to Sheehan; I just think that Bush could have squashed the whole media circus by giving Sheehan a couple minutes. Then, if Sheehan wasn't satisfied, all he'd have to do is say that he'd just met with her. It's just poor PR.

Oh, and you're right: I'm not too used to you. I'm used to people citing "liberal media" whenever there's some story that reflects poorly on Bush. Yes, the media has a "sensationalist" bias.

However, there has been plenty of coverage on the counter-protest.

quote:

Oh, right, the "liberal media" (run by conservative owners and editors).

Good job jumping the gun and putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say "Liberal Media"? No. What I will say is Sensationalist Media. And it's getting out of hand. Seehan's a hot story, a greiving, radical mother who does something drastic. While that's all well and good, Sheehan is insignifigant in the long run BEFORE the media took interest in her. Now she's talking about going to Congress. What the hell is this?

As to the coverage of the counter protest, it's been mentioned but it certainly hasn't been given the same airtime that Sheehan's original stunt was.

You obviously haven't gotten used to me if you think that I would pull the "liberal media" card. It's a weak argument that is irrelevent in this case. And you can't always mock the idea of media bias and make it go away.

As to your first points, you continually fail to realize that Sheehan was owed nothing and that Bush was not obligated to say anything to her. He sent officials out there to talk to her, and his public opinions on the war are clear. Anything he would say to her would be right from those lines.

And she was lucky to get a mass gathering of families. We're all lucky that the causalties in this war are low enough that the COMMANDER IN CHIEF can meet with most of the families at all.

The President, Bush or otherwise, should not have to pander to petty little PR tricks like this. The only people who think that Bush would come off as "heartless" for not speaking to her now are the naive, sentimental, or ignorant. God help me if they're in the majority.

My point is, Bush would have appeared more sensitive and reasonable to the media if he'd given Sheehan the time of day. Sheehan wants something other than a jovial party. People make it sound like Bush gave Sheehan a personal meeting, but it was just a mass gathering of families.

If Bush spoke to Sheehan, that would have been a concession to her request of a meeting. After that, if she wasn't satisfied, all Bush would have to do to get the media on his side would be to say "I've already discussed it with her, and she wouldn't listen."

quote:

I was saying that I WOULD do it but have a life to lead. In any case there is a counter protest building down there. There are hundreds if not thousands of people who publicly protest things that never get any coverage.

What are you talking about? The counter-protest is all over newspapers too!

quote:

The only reason the Sheehan is an issue is because the media has given her unwarrented attention.

Oh, right, the "liberal media" (run by conservative owners and editors).

quote:

Sheehan's putting the First Amendment into action and making an @ss out of herself. And the 1st means nothing if you don't give equal coverage to the counter points.

The media has been giving balanced coverage of the counter protest and the Sheehan protest.

You can't just rely on the liberal media myth whenever you're stuck. Stop relying on crutches.

quote:

In a group meeting with how many other families?

Irrellevant.

quote:

Hyperbole. I don't see every citizen requesting little chats from the president. Besides, it's not like every citizen is starting a protest outside Bush's ranch.

That's because there's no chance of them actually getting to talk to him. A personal meeting with Sheehan would set a precedent far greater than simply "giving a dissedent the time of day."
And people start protests outside the White House frequently. Should he go meet with them? What about those anti-nuke protesters that have been camped out infront of the White House for the past decade or so? Hell I'd think they'd deserve attention before Sheehan, they've been there about 20 times longer. Sheehan has just as much a right to meet with him as I do, and if she can, then why can't I?

quote:

Or, Bush could listen with compassion to Sheehan and then explain publicly why he cannot pull the troops out. That would take a lot of the steam out of the protestors, who are citing the fact that Bush is starting to build his schedule around avoiding Sheehan.

Sheehhan has already publicly and apparently personally rejected Bush's position. His repetition of it will do nothing to "take the steam out of the protestors".

The fact that she doesn't like what he has to say does not give them a right to a personal meeting. Likely Sheehan would explode at Bush, or call him a monster, etc. Nothing new will come out of it.

quote:

If Bush would just give Sheehan the time of day, then I would be on Bush's side in this matter.

So you think that he is somehow obligated to see her and repeat the same messege he's already told her and the country?

quote:

What's your point? The fact that so many people could do what Sheehan's doing only makes her that much more special- because it's something that so many people wouldn't do. Cindy Sheehan is putting the first amendment into action, and that's part of what I love about the U.S.A.!

I was saying that I WOULD do it but have a life to lead. In any case there is a counter protest building down there. There are hundreds if not thousands of people who publicly protest things that never get any coverage. The only reason the Sheehan is an issue is because the media has given her unwarrented attention.

Sheehan's putting the First Amendment into action and making an @ss out of herself. And the 1st means nothing if you don't give equal coverage to the counter points.

I really wish I had the time to go down there but I don't. So I'm stuck here on campus writing letters to my college paper and putting up anonymous and satirical posters.

quote:

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:

Bush already met with Sheehan, he originally took the time to come to see her.

In a group meeting with how many other families?

quote:

One, if he saw her, it would set a precedent.

Of giving the time of day to somebody who disagrees with Bush.

quote:

While it's a nice idealistic idea, the President cannot just simply be open to little chats from every citizen.

Hyperbole. I don't see every citizen requesting little chats from the president. Besides, it's not like every citizen is starting a protest outside Bush's ranch.

quote:

Two, Sheehan was clearly a hysterical mother who was backed (some might say lead) by vehemently anti-war activists.

Because Bush messed up.

quote:

It wold simply be a waste of time, nothing productive would come out of it. Bush either gets yelled at, keeps his cool, and seems disconnected, or he gets yelled at, counters with facts and/or counter-points, and is seen arguing with a dead soilder's mother. Neither is a win situation.

Or, Bush could listen with compassion to Sheehan and then explain publicly why he cannot pull the troops out. That would take a lot of the steam out of the protestors, who are citing the fact that Bush is starting to build his schedule around avoiding Sheehan.

If Bush would just give Sheehan the time of day, then I would be on Bush's side in this matter. By ignoring Sheehan, Bush basically spread lighter fluid on a spark. It was horrid PR on Bush's part.

quote:

You know, if I had the backing of several dozen supporters, a decent disposable income, and support of nation-wide activists groups, I would have driven down to Texas and set up a counter protest. Hell, the only thing that really stopped me was the fact that I've got college to go to, and I'm about 500 bucks short.

What's your point? The fact that so many people could do what Sheehan's doing only makes her that much more special- because it's something that so many people wouldn't do. Cindy Sheehan is putting the first amendment into action, and that's part of what I love about the U.S.A.!

quote:

Cindy Sheehan is special because she took the time to come and see the president. I personally support Cindy Sheehan, but even if you don't, it should be obvious how idiotic Bush was in handling the issue.

Bush already met with Sheehan, he originally took the time to come to see her. Now, lets look at this rationally and you'll see why it's obvious that Bush and the rest of the President's staff is handling this well:

One, if he saw her, it would set a precedent. While it's a nice idealistic idea, the President cannot just simply be open to little chats from every citizen.

Two, Sheehan was clearly a hysterical mother who was backed (some might say lead) by vehemently anti-war activists. It wold simply be a waste of time, nothing productive would come out of it. Bush either gets yelled at, keeps his cool, and seems disconnected, or he gets yelled at, counters with facts and/or counter-points, and is seen arguing with a dead soilder's mother. Neither is a win situation.

quote:

Like ian said, Cindy is special because she's actually doing something about her problem, not just sitting on her tush and whining.

You know, if I had the backing of several dozen supporters, a decent disposable income, and support of nation-wide activists groups, I would have driven down to Texas and set up a counter protest. Hell, the only thing that really stopped me was the fact that I've got college to go to, and I'm about 500 bucks short.

El Rushbo, once again a beacon of truth. Besides, Sheehan has already left Crawford. The occupation of Crawford is ending.

I also heard Rush Limbaugh claim that Sheehan's entire story was a fraud. You had it right, blue- what a d.i.c.k.!

Did you hear what Limbaugh said about Sheehan? It was basically:
I don't feel that sorry for Sheehan about losing her son. I mean we all those things sometimes. What a d.ic.k!

Like ian said, Cindy is special because she's actually doing something about her problem, not just sitting on her tush and whining.

Cindy Sheehan is special because she took the time to come and see the president. I personally support Cindy Sheehan, but even if you don't, it should be obvious how idiotic Bush was in handling the issue.

Our government has a responsibility to use our armed forces only when necessary. Bush violated that responsibility, and Cindy Sheehan is calling Bush on that.

Also, Bush could have stopped this hole media circus by giving Sheehan a couple minutes. No, he would not have to give a couple minutes to every family with casualties in the war; I don't see 1800 families asking that of Bush.

However, if Bush had met Sheehan in the first place, he would have seemed much more reasonable. This is just one example of Bush not caring about what others think and say, all for the sake of appearing tough and resolute.

I wish I could just tell Bush the following: "Well, Mr. President, I think you're just narrow-minded and unable to compromise. Mr. President, your inability to listen to conflicting information has put this country in greater danger than before."

So, our president has no duty to use the armed forces responsibly? He can mislead congress into declaring a war for his own purposes, and when the soldiers get killed, that's not Bush's fault?

this is so rediculous like i said before how is bush supposed to go around to every family and say hes sorry? these people just need to get on with their lives, its your sons fault, he made the decision to join the military.

quote:

Sure, but Bush cannot declare war.

We get it. Congress declares war. But who tells Congress to declare war? Bush.

Happy?

it is daddys friends that had an air of neo-conservatism, the same air that echoed throughout the American heirarchy and intelligence gatherers and produced such a warped view of reality.

this makes interesting reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1254003,00.html#article_continue

quote:

Originally posted by FreeMarketLover:
Where was it at? I saw some crazies on nicolet mall. I kind of feel like "move on" and some of these other groups are using her for political propoganda. I respect the decision of a grieving mother to search for a cause and blame something irrationally if it is what she needs to do to cope with the death of a child(the saddest thing a human can experience) than I empathize with her. But the people who are using her state of grief for political ammunition are dispicable and should be ashaed of themselves.

Pictures of the counter protest up on my blog.

quote:

Originally posted by riskbreaker86:
Nah, his daddy's friends do that.

Do you know how the American government works, or are you just going to keep making mindless quotes to fill space?