Cindy Sheehan

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:05 am

What a dummy. When the "story" first broke I was thinking, "Oh man, Bush had her thrown out, what's his problem, is he too scared to have her in the same building, blah blah blah. But then the word on CNN was that she had a banner or some sort of protest shirt. Turns out it was an anti-war shirt, and she may face 1 year in jail for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/ ... index.html

If thats what she was going for great. Not what I'd do, get arrested for something thats apparently against "the rules" (I would assume formal wear only, or something like that). I understand what she's trying to do, but I think she's going about it the wrong way.

By the way, saw this picture somewhere on the web, not bad huh?

Grizomatic · Post by **Grizomatic** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:15 am

Re/Max Griz wrote: I understand what she's trying to do...

Not sure I do...can you help a fellow Griz fan out here?

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:08 am

Make a scene? Is that what she's trying to do???

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:15 am

Mark my words, she is trying to sell a future book. Being a good old American I see her convictions running along the lines of trying to create a story to sell and make money off of.

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:29 am

She's a lunatic. She had her 15 minutes of fame this summer and is trying to keep it going. She is even considering running for the Senate in California. She thinks Dian Feinstien is too conservative!

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:57 am

What did she do?

She wore a anti-war shirt to the state of the union speach

Ohhhh the horor!!!!

Throw her in jail, torture her, listen to her phone calls. We have never allowed politcal decent in this country why start now!!!!!!

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:05 am

The wife of a Republican House member was also asked to leave because she was wearing a Support the Troops t shirt.

http://www.local6.com/news/6647094/detail.html

I also seem to remember that a man wearing an anti-Clinton t shirt was asked to leave during one of his State of the Union speaches.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:17 am

Stevicat wrote:The wife of a Republican House member was also asked to leave because she was wearing a Support the Troops t shirt.

http://www.local6.com/news/6647094/detail.html

I also seem to remember that a man wearing an anti-Clinton t shirt was asked to leave during one of his State of the Union speaches.

Were they handcuffed and arrested as well? Seriously, I hadn't seen that. If they were treated differently, then it is real cause for concern.

Absent inconsistent treatment, I have no sympathy for her. Rules are rules, as long as they are applied consistently. They might be silly, but I understand the respect and decorum that the event might require. We don't want our Capitol chambers to resemble the British or South Korean Parliaments (yelling, punching, scratching, biting ... literally).

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:18 am

Happens all the time but since it was Cindy Sheehan it got media attention.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:21 am

Apparently, the wife was not arrested (read the article linked).

This does bring up a serious issue -- why is one t-shirt grounds for arrest, and the other only for being removed from the chambers? Unless there is a very good means to distinguish the two, it would appear that Sheehan was targeted by the (Republican controlled?) House security.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:39 am

Different articles I read contain different versions of the event. According to Sheehan, she was never told to zip up her jacket, never advised that she was breaking any rules, and was simply cuffed and taken away for doing nothing more than wearing a t-shirt. Personally, given her past, I find that version of events difficult to believe...

According to security personnel, in addition to wearing the t-shirt, she was also being very vocal, was told that protesting inside the House chamber violated Congressional rules, and ignored repeated requests to zip up her jacket. Given her past, I find that version of events much easier to believe.

I don't want to come down too hard on Cindy Sheehan -- she lost her son, we all deal with these things differently, and who am I to blame her if she has gone slightly off the deep end. That said, based in part on how I envision that this event actually unfolded, I really feel no sympathy for her with regard to this particular event. She had to have known that she would draw attention wearing such a shirt at the State of the Union address. She may or may not have known going in that she was violating an actual rule by doing so, but I refuse to believe that she was literally arrested for doing nothing more than wearing a shirt. Frankly, part of me believes that this was exactly what she was hoping for...

--GL

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:41 am

Grizomatic wrote:
Re/Max Griz wrote: I understand what she's trying to do...
Not sure I do...can you help a fellow Griz fan out here?

No prob Grizo,

I think (and could be wrong here) that she's doing everything she can to stage public protests of the war in an effort to bring the troops home so more mothers don't have to go through what she probably did when she found out her son was killed.

Protests, books, speaking to organizations, even running for office, fine by me. Doing something dumb and getting arrested, not how I would roll.

BAC from what I heard on CNN Sheehan refused to cover up the shirt, when asked and then made a scene before needing to be physically removed. I'm not offering this as the reason why, but maybe thats why she was arrested when the wife of the republican maybe just agreed to leave peacefully.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:44 am

GL and Re-Max: Yeah, if she had to be physically removed, the it definitely makes sense to arrest her. I hadn't seen that explanation.

And yeah, I'm certain that her ultimate goal was to get as much attention as possible. Not that this is inherently a bad thing -- that's just what "activists" (a group that I find universally annoying) do. Civil disobedience, yada, yada, yada.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:10 pm

Grizlaw wrote:Different articles I read contain different versions of the event. According to Sheehan, she was never told to zip up her jacket, never advised that she was breaking any rules, and was simply cuffed and taken away for doing nothing more than wearing a t-shirt. Personally, given her past, I find that version of events difficult to believe...

yeah....somthing tells me that story is a load of bull...

According to security personnel, in addition to wearing the t-shirt, she was also being very vocal, was told that protesting inside the House chamber violated Congressional rules, and ignored repeated requests to zip up her jacket. Given her past, I find that version of events much easier to believe.

and according to sheehan they might be poltiical hacks...

I don't want to come down too hard on Cindy Sheehan -- she lost her son,

we know

we all deal with these things differently, and who am I to blame her if she has gone slightly off the deep end. That said, based in part on how I envision that this event actually unfolded, I really feel no sympathy for her with regard to this particular event. She had to have known that she would draw attention wearing such a shirt at the State of the Union address. She may or may not have known going in that she was violating an actual rule by doing so, but I refuse to believe that she was literally arrested for doing nothing more than wearing a shirt. Frankly, part of me believes that this was exactly what she was hoping for...

--GL

Frankly i think she had her 15 minutes of fame, but then that had kinda wore thin after this and now she is making a fool out of herself.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:39 pm

Detained, Booked and released. Sounds like common protocol to me.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:52 pm

The plot thickens. This article says she didn't resist (although it quotes no one or gives a reference to how they know this), and quotes the pro-war wife as being verbally abusive towards the security officer.

It does sound like there was some selective excessiveness (cuffed and stuffed) applied to Sheehan because of political nature of her shirt, especially comparing and contrasting her treatment to that of her counterpart. I don't personally find it to be a big deal, but it does give her ammunition for her lawsuit ... which will lead to more exposure for her and her message.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 13HK12.DTL

G.W.Bush · Post by **G.W.Bush** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:09 pm

Honestly, does anyone really think the security would have done this unprovoked? EVERYONE knows that the media would have a field day with this story, and if anything the security would offer more leeway to Sheehan than other people. Sheehan was looking for a way to get her name in the news, and she did it. The media will be talking about this for weeks, and then it will be old news and she will do some other stunt to get her attention that she so desperately needs.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:18 pm

G.W.Bush wrote:Honestly, does anyone really think the security would have done this unprovoked? EVERYONE knows that the media would have a field day with this story, and if anything the security would offer more leeway to Sheehan than other people. Sheehan was looking for a way to get her name in the news, and she did it. The media will be talking about this for weeks, and then it will be old news and she will do some other stunt to get her attention that she so desperately needs.

I'm not sure that security folks always have the best PR skills ... even at that level.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:42 pm

And finally ... the apology:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 422S45.DTL

Just to play to the role of screeching left-wing talk show host, would this have happened if the Republican's wive had not been snared at the same time?

Either way, I think both of them SHOULD have been booted. T-shirts with writing on them aren't exactlyt the attire one should wear to an event like that.

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:05 am

Perhaps security was rougher with Cindy Sheehan becase they were aware of some of the things she has said. She could be considered dangerous.

For example;

"They're not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror," she said. "The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush."

"We have no Constitution. We're the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh*t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the laughter!"

I begged Casey not to go. I told him I would take him to Canada. I told him I would run over him with a car, anything to get him not to go to that immoral war."

Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan

Re: Cindy Sheehan

Re: Cindy Sheehan