Get off my property

[Redleg]

Fortunately it is not. I keep learning from this thread though. For instance that the word 'agenda' seems to have become short-hand for 'different ideas than the President' in your country. The President has no agenda. Not do the woman's family members who lick his boots in ways that would please Adolf Hitler. It is the woman who has an agenda => is a traitor => is not American.

When I used the term agenda for Mrs. Sheehan its because with the professional handlers - she has shown by her actions that she has more in mind then a simple talk with the President - ie she has an agenda she wants to accomplish. However I see that you want to assume that I think that the President has no agenda - Every President, in fact every politician has an agenda or they would not be politicians. (But don't let my opinion cloud your blanket generalization.)

I was thinking, Kaiser: wouldn't you agree the deceased son was a traitor as well? I mean, with him dying for the country over there in Iraq and having the wrong Mom back home and all?

A little below the belt I think Kaiser and a few others are wrong to call Mrs Sheehan a traitor - because she is exercising her rights as a citizen - within the United States, but that comment well smacks of something foul.

[Adrian II]

When I used the term agenda for Mrs. Sheehan its because with the professional handlers - she has shown by her actions that she has more in mind then a simple talk with the President - ie she has an agenda she wants to accomplish. However I see that you want to assume that I think that the President has no agenda - Every President, in fact every politician has an agenda or they would not be politicians. (But don't let my opinion cloud your blanket generalization.)



A little below the belt I think Kaiser and a few others are wrong to call Mrs Sheehan a traitor - because she is exercising her rights as a citizen - within the United States, but that comment well smacks of something foul.

Agenda, professional handlers, foul play -- whichever way you put it, it looks like blaming the victim to me. And as for Bush, I don't think Abe Lincoln would have treated the mother of a dead Union soldier this way. Bush gives the impression that he is afraid of her. And Sheehan is starting to make the news the world over.

[Redleg]

Agenda, professional handlers, foul play -- whichever way you put it, it looks like blaming the victim to me.

The thing is she is not a victim. Once the professional handlers came into play - its all about politics. The victim of war was her son

And as for Bush, I don't think Abe Lincoln would have treated the mother of a dead Union soldier this way. Bush gives the impression that he is afraid of her. And Sheehan is starting to make the news the world over.

Lincoln would have had her arrested and sent to the south.

[Adrian II]

The thing is she is not a victim. (..) The victim of war was her son.

You wanna play blind? OK, end of discussion.

[Redleg]

You wanna play blind? OK, end of discussion.

Come on now Adrian - you can't be that idealogical baised.

Again how is she the victim? She, Mrs Sheehan has decided to protest the war with professional handlers using the death of her son to support her cause. If she was just a victim - she would not need professional and organized handlers to protest the death of her son in war. Her actions have shown that she is far from being a victim. You might want to check out what the rest of the family has to say on the issue

In fact if you bother to review all of what she has said and done - it begins to paint a picture of someone who is not a victim - but something else.

However I find it amusing that instead of discussing the issue - you say end of discussion.

[Adrian II]

Lincoln would have had her arrested and sent to the south.

You didn't research that, did you? Nor did I, but I Googled around and found a little biographical gem, a tear-jerker of the kind that usually bears only a tenuous relationship to reality.

Shortly after the battle of Gettysburg, Edward, the elderly White House usher, showed a careworn, tearful woman into Lincoln’s office. Her husband and both of her sons were in the Army, she explained, and she was finding it hard to survive. Could she have one of her sons back?
The way she told her story moved him. He stood by the fire, his head low, keeping a grip on his emotions. ‘I have two [sons] and you have none,” he murmured. He stepped over to his desk and composed an order that would secure her youngest son’s discharge.
A few days later, Edward came to tell him, “That woman, Mr. President, is here again and still crying.”
“Let her in.”
The grief-stricken mother confronted him. She had found her son’s regiment, she told Lincoln, only to be informed that he had just died of wounds suffered in the battle of Gettysburg. Could she not have her surviving son.
Again he said softly, “I have two and you have none.” He sat down to write out another order. She stood beside him, and as he wrote, she stroked his wild mane, shooting in all directions and showing gray tints, as a mother might stroke a child’s. He stood up and thrust the order into her hands. He did not trust himself to say more than “There!” Then he hurried out of the room before he gave way to tears.

Geoffrey Perret, Lincoln’s War (Random House, 2004), pp. 346-347; from Michael Burlingame, ed., An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln (Carbondale IL, 1996), pp. 81-82

Well, there we have it -- good ol' Abe comforting a war widow and granting her family no less than two discharges. Even if we take this story with a lump of salt -- and we have to -- you will agree that it is a far cry from the callous treatment you suggested.

[Redleg]

You didn't research that, did you? Nor did I, but I Googled around and found a little biographical gem, a tear-jerker of the kind that usually bears only a tenuous relationship to reality.

Shortly after the battle of Gettysburg, Edward, the elderly White House usher, showed a careworn, tearful woman into Lincoln’s office. Her husband and both of her sons were in the Army, she explained, and she was finding it hard to survive. Could she have one of her sons back?
The way she told her story moved him. He stood by the fire, his head low, keeping a grip on his emotions. ‘I have two [sons] and you have none,” he murmured. He stepped over to his desk and composed an order that would secure her youngest son’s discharge.
A few days later, Edward came to tell him, “That woman, Mr. President, is here again and still crying.”
“Let her in.”
The grief-stricken mother confronted him. She had found her son’s regiment, she told Lincoln, only to be informed that he had just died of wounds suffered in the battle of Gettysburg. Could she not have her surviving son.
Again he said softly, “I have two and you have none.” He sat down to write out another order. She stood beside him, and as he wrote, she stroked his wild mane, shooting in all directions and showing gray tints, as a mother might stroke a child’s. He stood up and thrust the order into her hands. He did not trust himself to say more than “There!” Then he hurried out of the room before he gave way to tears.

Geoffrey Perret, Lincoln’s War (Random House, 2004), pp. 346-347; from Michael Burlingame, ed., An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln (Carbondale IL, 1996), pp. 81-82

Well, there we have it -- good ol' Abe comforting a war widow and granting her family no less than two discharges. Even if we take this story with a lump of salt -- and we have to -- you will agree that it is a far cry from the callous treatment you suggested.

Oh wait - then you will like this one. My research was alittle more then yours. From a interesting little book in my collection at home.

These mass deportations were dramatic and emotional but the relatively unheralded by the press. The banishment of a former Congressman from Ohio, attracted far more public interest.

Less then a month after Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside has used his Order No. 38 to forbid persons within his Department of the Ohio to express sympathy for the Southern cause, on May 4, 1963, a crowd gathered to hear a speech by Clement L. Vallandigham. The former officeholder said that he, "spit upon the Burnside order and trampled it under his feet." Denouncing Lincoln as a dictator, he called for an armistice that would end the fighting.

Late that night solders under Burnside's command broke down the door of Vallandigham's residence and carted him off to a military prison. Tried by the commission of eight officers, he was convicted of "publicly expressing sentiments designed to hinder suppression of rebellion."

Lincoln was placed in the difficult position of deciding whether to support the harsh military verdict or to set it aside. Concluding that the planned punishment of Ballandigham would do more harm then good, he directed that hte culprit be banished into Confederate Territory.

now this part is even more interesting

Placed aboard the gunboat Exchange at Cincinnati, the former lawmaker eventually reached the headquarters of the Union Army at Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Since he still strongly voicd his loyalty to the Union whose policies he challenged, he found himself unwanted by the Secessionist. Ordered off Confederate soil, he made a long and circuitous journey to Canada as the only man banished from both the United States and the Confederate States.

And you might want to read this -

Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Abraham Lincoln
September 24, 1862
Printer-Friendly Version

Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:

Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=425

[Adrian II]

My research was a little more then yours.

Those quotes tell us nothing about Lincoln's attitude toward mothers of dead Union soldiers, do they? They show that Lincoln had little time for people who openly sided with the enemy. No purprise there, I'm afraid.

In fact, what you are suggesting here is that Mrs Sheehan is siding with Saddam or Al-Zarqawi, which to me seems to be even further from the truth than anything else you wrote about her.

[Redleg]

Those quotes tell us nothing about Lincoln's attitude toward mothers of dead Union soldiers, do they? They show that Lincoln had little time for people who openly sided with the enemy. No purprise there, I'm afraid.

Lincoln would have had little time for Mrs. Sheehan - other then to feel sorry for the loss of her child. Which is exactly what the Suspending of Writ of Habeas Corpus shows. Linclon had the measure signed to squash any protesting of his action that he or his generals deemed necessary. There is a big difference from getting the President to have emptahy and sympothy for the loss of your loved one - and using the loss of your love one to protest. By all accounts of the Civil War - Mrs Sheehan would of been arrested with the Writ of Habeas Corpus having been signed by Lincoln - either at his direction or most likely under the direction of one of the Military officers under his command.

I can reference many instances were civilians were arrested for protesting the war which is one of the reason for the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

In fact, what you are suggesting here is that Mrs Sheehan is siding with Saddam or Al-Zarqawi, which to me seems to be even further from the truth than anything else you wrote about her.

That is not what I have stated - I what I have said is her use of professional handlers show that she is pursueing an agenda beyond just getting answers about why her son died from the President. BTW here is what I initially stated about Mrs. Sheehan

And in that they are wrong. If you think this woman is doing it for a noble cause - well that is fine, But, when an individual has professional handlers well it shows something about her agenda

You are assuming facts not in evidence in the discussion. I question her motives not her loyalties.

[KafirChobee]

It is always the same. During the Vietnam conflict if one protested the war they were labeled "bleeding-heart-liberal-commies" by the honorable VP Agnew - others took up his battle cry, even after he was dismissed on corruption charges. That is until the "silent majority" proved to be against the war as much as the vocal college students and "VN vets against the war". When the middle class began turning up at the rallys, it became difficult to claim they were all a buncha traitors to the noble cause of a free Vietnam (even tho it had been ruled by one military junta after another after the assassination of Diem) then. But, for some it was impossible to leave the "traitor" philosophy and turn to one of reason (or atleast, acknowledgement that we were in an unwinnable war). It remains the same today. Only today, it has yet to be proven that we can leave safely and lose what ever we think we have gained (access to the northern oil fields), a military hold in the middle-east (Haliburton has been given contracts to build 14 permanent bases in Iraq - but, you already know that).

To protest against an illegal war, is not being a traitor - it is a patriotic stance against the corruption that led our boys to war without a true reason or justifiable purpose. Which is now: the spread of democracy ... vs the original that Saddam was 45 minutes away with WMD he intended to use to destroy us (our way of life? - which they hate us for according to Bush43).

To equate that Mrs. Sheehan's actions are equal to siding with the enemy is ludicrous. It is simply bringing out the old format used in the Vietnam War (by the same sponsors of military incursions) to justify their actions by demonizing anyone that disagrees with them. It works for a while, until those that originally agreed with their premise see thru it - as the toll of soldiers lives being lost can no longer be justified by accusing others for it. Sooner than later, Bush43 must take responsability for his actions - I believe that is all Mrs. Sheehan is asking for.

Bush, is again the deer in the headlights - as he was on 9/11 for 7 minutes in a classroom after being told "America is under attack". He doesn't know how to respond, so he figures if he does nothing and leaves it to his minions to defile Mrs. Sheehan as being a tool for his enemies - it will all just go away. Like the DeLay affair, the Roves affair, the WMD, his and Cheney's ties to Haliburton and Enron, etc, etc, etc. He is banking on the short term memories of his constituents to do as they have always done - follow blindly and believe the propagations of the right-wing media.

It may work, again. Who knows? Expect a new change of menu soon - is how they generally get something off the front page and back on the obituaries where they believe they belong. Maybe they can bring back the boat-people ads against Kerry. What ever it will be, it will have a modecum of truth to it, but be trailed by a string of innuendo and lies. Is how they work, if you haven't noticed.