Judge Issues Bench Warrant for Cindy Sheehan

[Jaaaman]

WASHINGTON - Sep. 28, 2007 (FNC) — A bench warrant was issued Thursday for antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan, who did not appear for arraignment Thursday in a Washington, D.C., courtroom to face charges related to her Sept. 10 disorderly conduct arrest on Capitol Hill... :shame:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298315,00.html

[lily]

"She wasn't aware that there was a court appearance today," said Sheehan's spokeswoman, Tiffany Burns, reached by cell phone.

"We'll have the attorney deal with this immediately, so as soon as she's rescheduled to appear, she'll be there," Burns added.

Whew! I thought she might be sick or something.......I can't imagine her not showing up and getting the press.

[Jaaaman]

Does Cindy Sheehan hate America that much?

[attachment=272]

[ViolaLee]

If you don't realize that's a fake, lying, right wing, typical, dishonest picture, I feel sorry for you're brainwashed mind.

[BoogyMan]

I have to wonder what her story will be.

[Scorpion]

She was out of the country getting some lovin' from her new main squeeze...

http://www.globalnewscast.com/GoToStories-3091/images/Sheehan-Chavez-anti-US.jpeg

Reminds me of "Hanoi" Jane Fonda...

http://www.kmike.com/KWjpg/hanoijane.jpg

[ViolaLee]

Because we are at war with Venezuela?

[Scorpion]

Because we are at war with Venezuela?


No, but both exhibit the same propensity for consorting with dictators.

[Jaaaman]

If you don't realize that's a fake, lying, right wing, typical, dishonest picture, I feel sorry for you're brainwashed mind.


It was ment to be a joke, dear. ;)

[ViolaLee]

If you don't realize that's a fake, lying, right wing, typical, dishonest picture, I feel sorry for you're brainwashed mind.


It was ment to be a joke, dear. ;)
Since you posted it as if it was a real picture, without any clue as to it's falsehood, and since it's not funny, I thought I'd take it upon myself to let everyone know it was fake. Dear.[hr]

Because we are at war with Venezuela?


No, but both exhibit the same propensity for consorting with dictators.


Hugo Chavez (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1925236.stm) won a

landslide victory in Venezuela's 1998 presidential election.

And he's been re-elected twice more (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/04/1418221).

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez won re-election by a wide margin on Sunday, securing a third six-year term in office. With most of the ballots counted, Chavez had won over 60% of the vote, more than 20 points over rival Manuel Rosales.

What is your definition of a dictator? Aren't dictators appointed, or installed at gunpoint and with force? I didn't know democracy could produce dictators.

[PatrickHenry]

What is your definition of a dictator? Aren't dictators appointed, or installed at gunpoint and with force? I didn't know democracy could produce dictators.
Hmm...

It is little noticed in the media and even the forum boards don't know how to handle it, but GW Bush is currently the DICTATOR of the USA...

I know this is a controversial statement. Many of you will refuse to countenance such an allegation. But it's true.

Because of the doctrine of the "State of Emergency" and its consequences, the President of the United States is capable of governing us WITHOUT REFERENCE to the standards of the Constitution.

Here's the Declaration again this year for the seventh time.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070920-9.html

Those of you who are ignorant of Emergency Powers should do your research.

Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

I assert that, having declared the emergency, that the President is currently the de facto dictator of America. You just don't know it...yet.

Fact.

[ViolaLee]

I agree Buck. But if people aren't willing to call Bush a dictator, then the moniker doesn't fit Chavez either.

Chavez, Bush and Ahmedinijad were all elected, democratically.

All were elected out of fear.

[Jaaaman]

All were elected out of fear.


I did not elect Bush out of any fear... I elected who I felt the best candidate was... and at that moment it was Bush.

[lily]

Just out of curiosity, Jaa.......what did you base your opinion on when you voted for him? If I recall, he was saying he was the only one that could keep us safe and that's what he ran his campaign on.

[Jaaaman]

Just out of curiosity, Jaa.......what did you base your opinion on when you voted for him? If I recall, he was saying he was the only one that could keep us safe and that's what he ran his campaign on.


I felt he had my best interests at heart. His value system, belief in God and his perserverence in keeping those that would harm US citizens domestic and abroad at bay were what I based my decision on.

[BoogyMan]

Has there been any kind of disposition of the warrant issued for Sheehan? I have heard nothing of substance with regard to this story since the 27th.

[Trish]

I agree Buck. But if people aren't willing to call Bush a dictator, then the moniker doesn't fit Chavez either.

Chavez, Bush and Ahmedinijad were all elected, democratically.

All were elected out of fear.


Opinions are wonderful things. Everyone has opinions on a wide-variety of subjects and issues. Most people, myself included, even have opinions about things they actually known nothing about. But, as wonderful as opinions are = they are just that - opinions. We can have "informed" opinions and we most certainly have uninformed opinions, but opinions nevertheless remain opinions - they are not facts.

I confess to becoming very annoyed when opinion is expressed as fact with casual indifference as if they were identical concepts. I suppose that's a personal shortcoming I should try to overcome. In any event, that last sentence in the above quote just annoyed the heck out of me.

Why and how Chavez and Ahmedinijad were elected I can't speak on since I don't live in those countries and I was not personally faced with having to make a choice in either of those countries (thank God!). I have my opinion as to why and how they were elected based upon what I've read and heard from multiple sources, but even though I consider that opinion to be an informed opinion, it's remains just my opinion.

However, I do have some knowledge about why Bush was elected, at least the second time around. Bush was elected the second time around because the Democrats were abysmal failures in two crucial areas - 1) in putting forth a candidate that had a realistic chance of winning, and 2) in their ability to communicate what they stand FOR. I know these things because I am a Democrat and in the last election I voted for Bush. Rarely have I been so torn about my vote, and rarely have I had to wrestle with my conscience about deciding for whom to vote. I had the choice of voting with my party for a man that clearly had no vision, no real idea of how to address the issues we were facing, or voting against my party and voting for a man that I didn't and don't particularly like but at least had a plan of action and actually told me what that plan was. All I heard from the Democrats then, and unfortunately with the exception of a few brave souls, all I am still hearing, was what was wrong with what Bush was doing. Okay fine - Bush was wrong, is wrong....then give me a viable alternative. Tell me what you stand for, Tell me what you are going to DO...not just what someone else has done or is doing wrong. Give me something - hell anything - on which I can base a decision based on what you ARE, what you BELIEVE, and what you want to DO to address the issues facing this country, not merely finger pointing at the other guy innumerating what he's done wrong. There is a big difference in my mind in standing FOR something and merely yelling that everyone else is wrong.

And that's the predicament in which I found myself last election and so I voted for Bush. Fear had nothing to do with my decision. I happen to know other Democrats that found themselves in the same boat. Fear was not a factor in their vote - the lack of a bona fide choice was. I also number many Republicans among my friends, family, and acquaintances. Fear was not a factor in their votes either.

Fear may or may not have played a part in the votes of some people. But, the same could also be said for those who voted for Kerry. Fear of Bush being re-elected may have influenced their decision to vote as they did. People vote for candidates for all types of reasons and those reasons are not necessarily based on any logical reasons. I have heard it said that many women voted for JFK because they thought he was cute. While I don't have a clue if that is true or not, I do know that people make their voting decisions on many facturs. Unless one is privy to the thoughts and feelings of every single person who voted for Bush, one is left with only an opinion as to why Bush was elected.

[lily]

I felt he had my best interests at heart. His value system, belief in God and his perserverence in keeping those that would harm US citizens domestic and abroad at bay were what I based my decision on.

In that order, it makes sense.:thumbsup:

[preservanation]

Bunch warrent?
She's been arrested more than my Aunt Sally (and that's a lot)
Pattern of behavior should count for something...it sure did for Bill...

[Trish]

It is little noticed in the media and even the forum boards don't know how to handle it, but GW Bush is currently the DICTATOR of the USA...

I know this is a controversial statement. Many of you will refuse to countenance such an allegation. But it's true.

Because of the doctrine of the "State of Emergency" and its consequences, the President of the United States is capable of governing us WITHOUT REFERENCE to the standards of the Constitution.

Here's the Declaration again this year for the seventh time.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070920-9.html

Those of you who are ignorant of Emergency Powers should do your research.

Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

I assert that, having declared the emergency, that the President is currently the de facto dictator of America. You just don't know it...yet.

Fact.


The first question that came to my mind when I read this post was to wonder why there seemed to be some confusing about what someone "may" or "can" do with what they "will" or "are" doing.

The second question that came to my mind was to wonder the post contained only what Bush "may" or "can" do in such an emergency situation and failed to post the qualifier to that "may" and "can." I wondered this because there is a really BIG qualifier in play....

"On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, I declared a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism..." (Bush, 2007, Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070920-9.html, emphasis added)

If the failure to include that particular qualifier didn't pique my curiousity enough, I then wondered why there was no mention of the very significant and far-reaching qualifiers to the President's National Emergency Powers capabilities. I wondered about this failure because those qualifiers do lend an entirely different perspective to the quote included in the referenced post. In the summary of the National Emergency Powers document is this explanation of those qualifiers...

"The President of the United States has available certain powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations). Such powers may be stated explicitly or implied by the Constitution, assumed by the Chief Executive to be permissible constitutionally, or inferred from or specified by statute.
Through legislation, Congress has made a great many delegations of authority in this regard over the past 200 years.

There are, however, limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of emergency powers. With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can public opinion. Furthermore, since 1976, the President has been subject to certain procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authority. The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority; required the President to declare formally the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated by the declaration, would be used; and provided Congress a means to countermand the President’s declaration and the activated authority being sought." (CRS Report for Congress, 2006, National Emergency Powers, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf, emphasis added).

Of course that qualifying information was found in the summary. There were also qualifiers ennumerated in the sentences just before the small quote included in the referenced post and immediately thereafter as well. In the interest of clarity, I'll post the entire paragraph.

"Federal law provides a variety of powers for the President to use in response to crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances threatening the nation. Moreover, they are not limited to military or war situations. Some of these authorities, deriving from the Constitution or statutory law, are continuously available to the President with little or no qualification. Others — statutory delegations from Congress — exist on a stand-by basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national emergency. These delegations or grants of power authorize the President to meet the problems of governing effectively in times of crisis. Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens. Furthermore, Congress may modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority. (CRS Report for Congress, 2006, National Emergency Powers, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf, emphasis added).

Very interesting elements these qualifiers. Including them in their proper places certainly changes the landscape.

I submit that unless the meaning of the words "de facto" and "dictator" have changed considerably, Bush is not a dictator, de facto or otherwise and the complete versions of the referenced documents so attest. I further submit that perhaps ignorance of the National Emergency Powers provisions is not nearly as troubling as an apparently deliberate misrepresentation of those provisions.

[ViolaLee]

If you don't consider Bush a dictator, do you consider Chavez or Ahmedinijad a dictator?

IMHO Bush was elected because people were afraid of terrorism and he and Cheney said if we elect a Democrat we will be attacked again. I'd vote against them for that lie alone, but that's just me. Bush was re-elected because people didn't want to change horses midstream (mid-war). The Iraq war was Bush's campaign ad. The Bush admin, with Karl Rove's smear tactic talent succeeded in making Kerry, an intellectual war veteran, into a wimpy loser. Meanwhile Kerry still got 1/2 the American's vote, maybe more, if you count the 500,000 disenfranchised people due to election fraud.

Bush has been aggressive in his foreign policy and other countries are 'nuking up' to protect themselves against us. Bush uses threats and name calling instead of diplomacy. People in South America, the Middle East, Asia, will vote for a leader who will claim to keep them safe from a US invasion. Because the US invades countries now, who never attacked or threatened us. We invade countries for their treasure.

[Trish]

If you don't consider Bush a dictator, do you consider Chavez or Ahmedinijad a dictator?

IMHO Bush was elected because people were afraid of terrorism and he and Cheney said if we elect a Democrat we will be attacked again. I'd vote against them for that lie alone, but that's just me. Bush was re-elected because people didn't want to change horses midstream (mid-war). The Iraq war was Bush's campaign ad. The Bush admin, with Karl Rove's smear tactic talent succeeded in making Kerry, an intellectual war veteran, into a wimpy loser. Meanwhile Kerry still got 1/2 the American's vote, maybe more, if you count the 500,000 disenfranchised people due to election fraud.

Bush has been aggressive in his foreign policy and other countries are
'nuking up' to protect themselves against us. Bush uses threats and name calling instead of diplomacy. People in South America, the Middle East, Asia, will vote for a leader who will claim to keep them safe from a US invasion. Because the US invades countries now, who never attacked or threatened us. We invade countries for their treasure.




If that's your opinion, that's your opinion. Stated as opinion, I have no problem with your comment. I don't agree with your opinion, but that's the beauty of opinions.

I would comment that Kerry lost not because of anything the Republicans and Bush did TO him, but rather of what Kerry and the Democrats did NOT do. They were too busy pointing fingers at Bush and ennumerating what was wrong with Bush to firmly establish and communicate what they would/could/should do. Like it or not, usually a clearly defined plan of action is preferable to most people rather than just a case of finger pointing "you're wrong" approach. It certainly was for me. I fear that the Democrats are still for the most part laboring under that same handicap. Of course, that's my opinion only.

I would like to ask you to provide support for your comment, "Bush...and Cheney said if we elect a Democrat we will be attacked again." Because try as I might, and I did try, I could not find one single instance reported where Bush said anything of the sort. I did find the following:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice," Mr. Cheney told a crowd of 350 people in Des Moines, "because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

He also said if Mr. Kerry was elected the nation risked lapsing to a ‘pre-9/11 mind-set' where attacks are viewed as criminal acts, not part of a war against terrorism” (Sanger & Halbfinger, 2004, Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins, NYTimes.com, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/campaign/08bush.html).

So, please…if you can provide a source for Bush saying something on that order, I’d be interested in seeing the source and the context.

I also did a quick google on US diplomatic efforts over the past couple of years. I found so many links, I simply don't have the energy to look at them all, much less post them all here. But I am just real confused as to what you consider diplomacy.

[preservanation]

A pattern of behavior should amount to something.
She nor her group should be allowed anywhere near any Congressional hearing.
How does Code Pink keep getting passes to disrupt serious and very important hearings?
An investigation is in order.

[lily]

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice," Mr. Cheney told a crowd of 350 people in Des Moines, "because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

I'm curious how you interpret this?

[Trish]

I interpreted the quote to mean that Cheney believed that the Bush/Cheney ticket was the right choice in the election and that a "wrong" choice would increase our chance of a future attack. Since the choices were Bush vs. Kerry, I think it's clear that Cheney was inferring that under Kerry's administration the country would be at a greater risk than under Bush's administration. The statement is a fairly common type of logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, whereby a person tries to sway another by asserting that because B follows A, A must have caused B. This tactic is used a lot in politics - I'm not, of course, saying it's right, just saying that politicians use this tactic a lot.

The point I was trying to make, however, was not about what Cheney said or meant. I was asking for clarification of the claim that Bush had also made such a statement. I could find no reference for Bush stating anything remotely similar to what Cheney had said. I was curious if there was any documentation supporting the statement or if Bush was being connected to the statement Cheney made as if they were the same person.

[preservanation]

We are guilty of this on all sides are we not?
"Just because a man is an admitted liar and philanderer, doesn't mean that he would be a bad President". Does it not?
Ad hominem at it's best.

[Trish]

True enough. We're all guilty at one time or another. I do try and keep a watch for them, especially in political issues. They can really muddy up the waters if one doesn't catch them when used!

[preservanation]

:worship:So true Trish!
G'nite
Szzzzzzz.

[ViolaLee]

If that's your opinion, that's your opinion. Stated as opinion, I have no problem with your comment. I don't agree with your opinion, but that's the beauty of opinions.

Everything I post is my opinion. I back things up with links, sometimes to show where I formed that opinion. Everything you post is your opinion. Everything is perceived differently by each person.


I would like to ask you to provide support for your comment, "Bush...and Cheney said if we elect a Democrat we will be attacked again." Because try as I might, and I did try, I could not find one single instance reported where Bush said anything of the sort. I did find the following:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice," Mr. Cheney told a crowd of 350 people in Des Moines, "because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

He also said if Mr. Kerry was elected the nation risked lapsing to a ‘pre-9/11 mind-set' where attacks are viewed as criminal acts, not part of a war against terrorism” (Sanger & Halbfinger, 2004, Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins, NYTimes.com, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/campaign/08bush.html).

So, please…if you can provide a source for Bush saying something on that order, I’d be interested in seeing the source and the context.
I heard them say it many times. Your quote being one of them. I'm surprised everyone doesn't remember this. But I do pay very close attention, more than most I guess. Here's some more:

Tuesday, October 31, 2006; Page A01 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000530.html)

SUGAR LAND, Tex., Oct. 30 -- President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday in an effort to turn out Republican voters in next week's midterm elections.

Wednesday, September 8, 2004; Page A01 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2917-2004Sep7.html)

COLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 -- Vice President Cheney warned on Tuesday that if John F. Kerry is elected, "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists, as the Bush campaign escalated a furious assault on the Democratic presidential nominee that has kept Kerry from gaining control of the election debate.

(CBS/AP) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641895.shtml)Vice President Dick Cheney says the United States will risk another terrorist attack if voters make the wrong choice on Election Day, suggesting Sen. John Kerry would follow a pre-Sept. 11 policy of reacting defensively.

Bush and Cheney said it back then and it worked. Now Giuliani is saying it. They are using fear to win elections.

Giuliani's comment (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/25/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-Giuliani.php) Tuesday in the state of New Hampshire echoed sentiments expressed by other Republicans in election time. The former mayor, who is leading in polls for the Republican nomination, said if a Democrat is elected, "it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there."

But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it."

Giuliani = more of the same.


I also did a quick google on US diplomatic efforts over the past couple of years. I found so many links, I simply don't have the energy to look at them all, much less post them all here. But I am just real confused as to what you consider diplomacy.
Diplomacy is talking to your enemies instead of threatening them with violence or name-calling - for example axis of evil.

[preservanation]

This is what Bush said
"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses. That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."
What is so bad about this statement VoilaLee?
Don't you agree that most Dems want to leave Iraq?
Doing so would cede the area to terrorist, would it not?
I'm confused re your outrage and protest, it is exactly what the left has been saying too.

[Elrathin]

Doing so would cede the area to terrorist, would it not?



No it wouldn't, it would allow the Iraqis to stand up together against them.

[preservanation]

Doing so would cede the area to terrorist, would it not?



No it wouldn't, it would allow the Iraqis to stand up together against them.

That is one of the criteria of victory.
If you think that Iraq is able to do that on their own, then we have succeeded.
Personally, I think they need our help for a while longer.
But I respect your belief that the bench mark has been met.

Unfortunately Hillary and Obama in the last debate indicated that it won't be possible to pull out before 2013.

But I sure hope you are right about the ability of the Iraqis to stand up together against them. That would be a very encouraging sign and would signal that we have succeeded in one of our most important and oft stated goals.
No one will be happier than I when we can start bringing our brave men and women home, in victory.

[AlanC]

What is your definition of a dictator? Aren't dictators appointed, or installed at gunpoint and with force? I didn't know democracy could produce dictators.

Hitler was head of his party and was democratically elected to office .. just before he had himself made dictator for life. So yes, democracies can produce dictators.

Don't forget Saddam got 100% of the vote in his last Iraqi election. So not every election is a democratic one either.

[preservanation]

Why have the lib dems dropped Sheehan as a spokesperson?
Something is going on here and I would like to know what.
Has she gotten too crazy, even for them?
I think they used her up and have discarded her empty shell on the side of the road.
A very shameful way to treat a mourning military mother who has served the dems so well.
Pretty ugly if you ask me.
If this is how they treat their friends, woe be to their enemies.
Lying about people is the least of their shameful tactics.

[Truth_and_Power]

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez won re-election by a wide margin on Sunday, securing a third six-year term in office. With most of the ballots counted, Chavez had won over 60% of the vote, more than 20 points over rival Manuel Rosales.

What is your definition of a dictator? Aren't dictators appointed, or installed at gunpoint and with force? I didn't know democracy could produce dictators.


Tell me you're not seroius viola. If you force me, I will not only explain to you how democracy produces dictators, but also how totally rigged and unfair the recent chavez elections were.

Take it back while you still can.

[Elrathin]

Why have the lib dems dropped Sheehan as a spokesperson?

I supported her protest of the Iraq war. That was fine AND WAS HER RIGHT. I don't deny her that.

There were two incidents that I shrugged her off as a nut on.

First, was when she said we had no business in Afghanistan. That was one war where the majority of democrats AND republicans agreed on.

The second was when she tried to say the National Guard in NEw Orleans was an occupying force.


A very shameful way to treat a mourning military mother who has served the dems so well.


So because she is a mourning mother that excuses her actions for everything? I don't follow you. There are some right wing nuts I'm sure you would agree on SOME of the things they said, but you sure wouldn't believe in EVERYTHING they said. Does you lack of support on eveything mean that the few things they have said that you would agre with don't matter? I don't think so.

Agreeing with someone on somethings, but not everything, is not kicking them to the curb. Sheehan had some very good points on the Iraq war, but most of everything else she spoke on (including some things on the Iraq war) were nuts.

[Trish]

I have two nephews in the service. One is in the Army, the other the Marines. Both are expecting to be sent to either Iraq or Afghanistan within the next few months, perhaps before the end of the year. One thing they both made clear to all of us prior to their departure for basic was that if they did serve in Iraq and were injured or killed NONE of us were to shame them as they feel Cindy Sheehan is shaming her son and his service. They made it quite clear that this was their choice for their lives, they knew what they were doing, they knew why they were doing it, and they knew what price they might have to pay, but that it was THEIR choice and we were to respect that and them.

Every time I see Cindy Sheehan I wonder if her son might feel the same. I can't get that thought out of my mind.