If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
The celebrity blog, Huffington Post has been abuzz with the story of Cindy Sheehan, a grieving mother camping outside Bush’s Crawford Ranch. She lost her son in Iraq and is demanding to meet Bush and ask him what the sacrifice that she and her family have made is all about. I am not sure of the political support behind her move, if there is any but all I see is a mother in pain upon the loss of her son in a war that she doesn’t consider just.
Almost 62% of American currently do not support the Iraq war and would rather have the troops home but the obstinacy of a man obsessed with ‘spread of freedom and democracy’ even when it isn’t working chooses to look the other way. There might be other logistical and far-reaching implications that we do not know about that prevents Bush from withdrawing his troops but he sure can end a solitary woman’s protest by walking down his driveway and meeting with her. After all, she is a part of his so-called loyal constituents – the military. It almost seems like a Bollywood script riding high on melodrama headed toward applause and tears when the woman finally gets her simple wish fulfilled. But this is a part of harsh reality where the poor woman is even considered a national security risk and threat to the president’s life. Come on, she is a frail old woman with a picket sign; what harm can she do? She have even guest-posted on Huffington’s blog making her noble intentions clear:
"This is George Bush’s accountability moment. That’s why I’m here. The mainstream media aren’t holding him accountable. Neither is Congress. So I’m not leaving Crawford until he’s held accountable. It’s ironic, given the attacks leveled at me recently, how some in the media are so quick to scrutinize — and distort — the words and actions of a grieving mother but not the words and actions of the president of the United States."
Are the leaders not accountable to a grieving mother?
by Patrix | on Saturday, August 13th, 2005 at 3:00 am | 
Politicking . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
August 13th, 2005 at 7:31 am reply
I am not an expert on American affairs, but isn’t it true that the lady already met the president once?
Apparently at that time her views were little different.since then ofcus she has joined the exalted company of Michael Moore.
Looks like media circus to me.
I do not know about the 62% figure, but if true I think it’s really unfortunate, as I think GWB is doing a good job.
By the way I am curious you are silent on Able Danger issue.
August 13th, 2005 at 4:29 pm reply
I would like Gaurav to elaborate on how GWB is doing a good job. Thank you.
August 13th, 2005 at 9:25 pm reply
Yes, Gaurav, we would like to know how Bush is doing a good job. Talking to a mother who is clearly in grief doesn’t sound too much of a political agenda, even if it is. Able Danger? sorry…Bush didn’t send me the memo on that one. I am hopelessly out of the loop. I had to google to find out what you were talking about.
August 16th, 2005 at 5:52 am reply
Patrix,
“Talking to a mother who is clearly in grief doesn’t sound too much of a political agenda, even if it is”
You hate bush if he doesnt talk to Cindy and you hate it when he talks to Cindy, something is wrong here.
By the way I now realize this whole “grieving mother” episode is even more farcical that I initially thought.
Her son Casey was not a toddler snatched by evil Bush, but a responsible adult, who voluntarily decided to join army, not only that he enlisted again and then it was that he died (unfotunately).
Now pardon me if it sounds harsh, but what Casey did as an thinking adult was his own matter (I hope that sound familiar to you) and his mother doesnt have any right to exploit his memories for narrow partisan gains.
Why I think,Bush is doing a good job is, he is trying to bring sense in Middle East (it was long overdue).
That and not any liberal pamphleteering is going to make enduring peace possible.
Regarding “able danger”, you see what you wish to see.
Regards
August 16th, 2005 at 1:41 pm reply
Let me point out the flaws in your argument one flaw at a time :
First of all, Bush is responsible for Casey’s death the same way an inebriated bus driver is responsible for a passenger’s death if he crashes into a tree. Sure, the passengers got onto the bus of their own free will, but it is the driver’s responsibility to drive it to the correct destination.
Secondly, how is Bush bringing sense to the middle east? By increasing terrorism there where there used to be none? By making the world safer? Heck, ever since the war on Iraq started, the number of terrorist attacks in the world has increased. By using the vague and cliched reasoning “trying to bring sense in Middle East”, I do not think you have proved your case at all.
Regarding “Able Danger”, this is what Time magazine had to say :
“In a particularly dramatic scene in Weldon’s book, Countdown to Terror, the Pennsylvania Republican described personally handing to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, just after Sept. 11, an Able Danger chart produced in 1999 identifying Atta. But Weldon told TIME he’s no longer certain Atta’s name was on that original document.”
Further, Weldon made the accusation that Atta was in the US under a green card, whereas he wasnt. As Far as I’m concerned, this is just one more atempt by the republicans to bullshit their way out of their political mess.
August 16th, 2005 at 11:43 pm reply
Gawker,
The passenger will be responsible if he/she knew that driver was drunk. When Casey joined the forces He joined it knowing it all the circumstances, and the fact that he re-enlisted establishes his apporval.
9/11, Bali bombing, USS Cole and other innumerable acts happened before Iraq, and no it was not due to Israel
(Which “Mother Cindy” is blaming apparently for her son’s death).
These fanatics hold grudge against rest of the world not only for Palestine, Afganistan and Iraq, but also for Chechenya, Kashmir, East Timor, Crusades, Loss of Andulusia, Evil Jews and other matters of history.
If you think that Islamic fundamentalism is reaction of evil Bush, then how do you explain Islamic fundamentalist butchering buddhist in Thailand or Christians in Phillipines, or for that matter killing fellow muslims in Islamic counteries, who dare to dissent.
Islamic counteries have dismal record in judicial and political reform.Moderate voices are suppressed and any discussion considered blasphemy.
In good old days this obstructionism could have been left to itself, but now when it has begun to affect the world, now is the time that a forceful arguement be made to convince middle east to move towards moderation.
GWB, in my humble opinion is doing exactly that.
Further, I think Clinton or Gore would have done the same, after much hand wringing ofcus (aka Hamlet)
Terrorist attacks have increased because they are more desperate than ever, terrorist think that by blowing up and buthering innocent civilians they can browbeat civilized world. They are counting on certain prophets of doom to win their dishonourable war.
Regarding “Able Danger”, unfortunately (for me that is), you seem to be correct (it could have been a good scandal), on the other hand, there is always
Dick “Nazi” Durbin.
(I have eaten a live toad as my punishment)
Regards
August 21st, 2005 at 4:54 am reply
Pls Gaurav…you must be Gaurav you must be totally out of your sane mind to think BUSH is doing a good job. I mean the man has nearly ruined two countries..and god knows how many more he plans to target….maybe next will be Iran.
Have you seen the movie ‘Farenheit 9/11′? If not…then you need to ! and if you have seen it and still dont get WHAT Bush is doing wrong…then you need to you his administration.