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.
Instead, these cowards will attempt to disparge someone who is far gutsier than they could ever imagine to be.
Coward Watch...
One such coward/idiot is the always stupid Bill O'Reilly. He's nothing but an intellectual lightweight who relies on hate-mongering and the power to suppress speech on his program to win any argument. In an apt demonstration of why every college student should take logic classes, the illogical O'Reilly says the following about Sheehan:
(Cindy Sheehan is) the lead story on Michael Moore’s Web site on an almost daily basis. And she knows – I mean, Michael Moore isn’t a subtle guy. Everybody knows where he stands.
So I mean, I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous.
Idiot.
I'm not sure whether this kid is a coward or just foolish, but he could also stand a lesson in basic logic.
He essentially says that Sheehan is doesn't support the troops and doesn't support the "Office of the President." He explains why in a copy of a comment he left at the Huffington Post (and he's mad that they rejected this comment because he seemingly wants his foolishness aired to the world?). What it comes down to is she doesn't support the troops because they have a mission and she wants them to come home instead of accomplishing the mission. And she doesn't support the "Office" of the President because she claims Bush murdered her son which he says is illogical because he didn't actually commit the actus reus of the actual death.
Elsewhere in his post he claims that Sheehan is illogical...It goes without saying that you ought not try to judge logic when you can't make logical arguments on your own. First, it is not unsupportive to say that troops should come home before a mission is accomplished when the mission is both bullshit, a death trap for all involved, neverending, etc. How is it unsupportive to voice your opinion that the mission itself is not in the best interest of those people who are sacrificing their lives? How unsupportive of our armed forces is it to allow your own flesh and blood to go and die for the cause?
Second, it seems clear that Sheehan does not support the President on this issue. However, merely disagreeing with (and even blaming the President for) the death of your child who was sent by that President is not a silly argument. In fact, it's quite a valid feeling for her to have and wish to express. President Bush has to understand that with war comes certain death of a few or of possibly many. Sheehan is saying that this war is not accomplishing what he claims it is and that it cannot ever accomplish the goals he desires. Therefore, in her mind it is wrong to send troops to a potential death when the goal cannot ever be accomplished.
