Zhe Shtate Uff Zhe Union Iss Shtrong
Feb. 1st, 2006 04:39 amFact-checking from ThinkProgress.org, and Cindy Sheehan's version of her illegal and classless arrest minutes before the SOTU Address.
So, what did you think of the SOTU?
So, what did you think of the SOTU?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 10:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 10:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 03:04 pm (UTC)As I suspected, Bush saw his shadow, meaning six more years in Iraq. That's all I really needed to know.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 03:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 04:04 pm (UTC)Who won the game -- Colorado or Minnesota?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 05:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 06:06 pm (UTC)too bad we can't elect fictional characters as president. i think we could stand a Pervect or two in the regime, just to clean things up a bit. failing that, one of Foglio's jagermonsters would do nicely.
/hopeful, deluded fantasy world
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 06:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 11:03 pm (UTC)Note that this has nothing to do with stifling dissent - it's against the law to wear any political slogan there. Even pro-war ones. (http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=24740)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 11:54 pm (UTC)Now, "Liberate Iraq" or "Nuke The Bastards", those I would consider pro-war.
More to the point, remember that being pro-war does not automatically mean you are pro-this war.
The upshot is: The current dialogue has been corrupted, or perhaps co-opted, to equate supporting the troops with supporting the mission. But it is demonstrably simple to do the one without the other -- for example, the way that BushCo keeps us in Iraq and Afghanistan while cutting pay and benefits for troops and using stop-loss to extend their tours.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-02 12:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-02 12:29 am (UTC)Which is why all charges have been dropped (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/1/192341/6915) because she didn't violate any rules or laws. And the officer who removed Rep. Young's wife should never have approached her, either.
Which makes it "stifling dissent".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-02 12:35 am (UTC)Also, explain to me how throwing out Rep. Young's wife, who was wearing a shirt ostensibly in support of the war, falls under "stifling dissent".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-02 12:42 am (UTC)I'll give you the removal of Rep. Young's wife as not "stifling dissent", although in its own way the message on her shirt was still a political statement. My first thought was that the removal was literally a cover action: "See, we removed people of both political persuasions! Therefore, our overruling of the First Amendment is perfectely fine."
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-02 12:49 am (UTC)I doubt they just did it to throw Sheehan out; after all, what could she possibly do within the House chamber that would be more embarrassing to the President than arresting her for no reason? Cause a scene? Start yelling random things? That would be more embarrassing to Sheehan than anybody else. Sure, if she was in the House chamber, that means the anti-war T-shirt would get its play on the networks during the course of the speech - but that's far less time than has probably been handed to covering the arrest story since.
So either the Capitol police are *both* highly partisan and highly inept, or they're just stupid. Which option you choose, I suppose, depends on your level of cynicism.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-02 01:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-02 01:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-02 01:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-02 01:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-02 05:54 am (UTC)