Ed?

Ed?

(Does anyone else hear crickets chirping?)

As for Cindy Sheehan–very wacky, whatever your political lean.

Reading your comments and Ed’s again, I shouldn’t have been surprised to you see you back here owning up to your error in a mature fashion. Your comment, while wrong, was respectful in tone. I should have distinguished between you and Ed when I wrote that I thought the two of you would “slink off.” I apologize to you for that.

Ed’s comment, by contrast, was pure name-calling. I have a strong feeling he’s not going to be as stand-up as Charles. Slinking off is exactly what I figure he’ll do, because he came out of the gate calling Jeff a “loser” multiple times. I just don’t think the guy has class in him.

You are correct. I did not read the thread carefully enough. You did not make an error; I did.

Charles

Or, instead of apologizing and retracting, you guys could just slink off and pretend like you didn’t baselessly accuse me and Jeff of an error. That’s what I’m kinda expecting here.

The lefties in this thread would put him in a catch 22, where he cannot explain what the problem is with the media coverage without “smearing” Sheehan. How then is he supposed to make his point about the media coverage (which IMO has been loathesome)?

The real creeps in this episode are the one on the left using Sheehan to make crass political points, and who will discard her like an empty beer can in the next few days when she is no longer useful to them.

Most on the right, as a matter of fact, have been very slow to criticize Sheehan, and seem to be doing so with some reluctance. It’s the PR push from the left that has forced them into doing so.

So I suppose in a real sense, this was “Swiftboating” in that true, relevant facts were used to counteract fictional press puffery. The polls do indeed indicate the quiet loathing Americans have for Sheehan’s actions, and do not indicate an America that is “losing patience with the war and Bush” — this is simply wishful thinking on the part of people who were against Bush in the first place.

I’m hoping for the sake of Cindy Sheehan that this return to LA is a permanent retreat from the spotlight, and that she gets on tending to her own affairs. I fear that the left, in its eagerness to exploit her, has made her life a greater misery. Despite leftist accusations of “sliming” by the right, I have no doubt that most are praying for her welfare.

Since your comment made a glaring error — by accusing me of an error I didn’t make (which you could have easily noted by reading through the comment thread and clicking on the link I provided) — could you please print a retraction?

Same goes for Ed, who started the ball of false accusations rolling.

Thanks,

Mr. Frey

Since your post included a glaring error by Mr. Frey, could you please print a retraction?

Are you going to make him guess what the “glaring error” was?

All of Casey’s commendations say that he was killed in the “GWOT” the Global War on Terrorism. I agree with most of GWOT, except that Casey was killed in the Global War Of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal.

(Whoops!)

Since your post included a glaring error by Mr. Frey, could you please print a retraction?

You are also cited in Instapundit, and he is famous for pointing out errors in the media. Could you ask him to also print a retraction?

Thanks,

Charles

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0606-29.htm

Ed, are you going to admit to being too lazy to check things out?

Gunther:

“Sheehan’s changing accounts of her meeting with Bush are relevant to understanding the president’s decision not to meet with her again.”

“In an article for CommonDreams.org, she called that supposed cabal “the “biggest terrorist outfit in the world.”

“She also has turned her son’s death into a tax protest,”

and finally, the one you Dowdified to make your point:

“Likewise, while The Times reported that Cindy’s husband, Patrick Sheehan, has filed for divorce — which may or may not pertain to her recent activities — it has not mentioned that other members of Sheehan’s family have clearly distanced themselves from her protest, as reported in the San Jose Mercury News.”

These are all pure media criticism.

As to the last quote, which you Dowdified: when I said that The Times had not reported that family members had distanced themselves from her protest, Times editors insisted that I acknowledge that they had reported the part about the divorce. I told them I didn’t think it was necessarily relevant, but they wanted it in there — so I insisted that a qualifier be placed in to show clearly that it didn’t necessarily have anything to do with anything.

The rest of the quotes are pure valid media criticism — things that Americans have a right to know about Ms. Sheehan, and help to explain why the president has steered clear of her a second time. I can understand why partisan leftists such as yourself might want this information hidden from Americans, but I can’t see why any fair-minded person would.

But not all those people want to cut and run. Many of them are impatient because they want us to fight harder. Others are impatient because they want us to do something about Syria and Iran. And many want more concentration on our borders.

Don’t count on lack of patience with Iraq and Bush as support for Dem talking points. It’s not.

The iconography of the victim is really a bizarre thing–this reminds me all too much of the Terri Schiavo nonsense.

Christopher Hitchens has summed Sheehan up best here and here. Sheehan has slimed herself.

Her son was an adult. He made his choice and acted on his convictions as an adult. It’s dispicable that she would use his death politically as a useful idiot for the Left. Her family has renounced her. She has been endorsed by the racist and anti-semitic likes of David Duke. She has endorsed Lynne Stewart, a convicted terrorist supporter.

So, Gunther, just what is it about Sheehan that you find so defensible given those facts?

Did you?

Please do.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0820-30.htm

Then tell me where she calls Bush a terrorist.

THE WORD TERRORIST DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE ARTICLE.

Jarvis, you are such a loser. And now you’re officially part of the sliming of Cindy Sheehan because you’re too lazy to check things out.

Loser.

“I would just emphasize that my piece was intended as media criticism, not as criticism of Sheehan herself.”

However…

“Sheehan’s changing accounts of her meeting with Bush are relevant to understanding the president’s decision not to meet with her again.”

“In an article for CommonDreams.org, she called that supposed cabal “the “biggest terrorist outfit in the world.”

“She also has turned her son’s death into a tax protest,”

“Likewise, while The Times reported that Cindy’s husband, Patrick Sheehan, has filed for divorce ..”

This has nothing to do with media coverage, and everything to do with sliming her and her reputation. You do it in an artful manner but it’s still nothing more than a continuation of the attacks from the right we’ve seen all week. You aren’t fooling anyone (well, perhaps Jarivs but that’s not surprising”).

Fred You are so right…or at least the majority of Americans are and I am one of them.
—————————————————————–
“In the Democrats’ radio address, former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia ticked off numbers indicating this war’s toll – nearly 2,000 service members killed, more than 15,000 wounded and some soldiers returning for their third tour.
“We need a strategy to win in Iraq or an exit strategy to leave,” said Cleland. ”The present course will lead us to disaster. More of the same just means more precious blood spilled in the desert.”

Chancy