Cindy Sheehan Conference Call

Was there any mention of her June 2004 meeting with the President?

The story is making the rounds on the right side of the blogosphere.
I would imagine that would have come up.

She didn't discuss it at length, but a question from the American Free Press prompted her to say how quotes from that meeting showing up on righty sites/shows/publications are being taken out of context or were just wrong. She cited the Drudge Report specifically as being one of the sites propagating all this slander.

And here's Media Matters breaking it down: http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

I'm not going to be a Drudge defender. Here's the original story he cited.
http://www.thereporter.com/republished/

Something changed.

Now she's saying the President didn't take the meeting seriously.
Apparently she was "in shock," so she didn't tell the reporter?
That would have been a huge story at the time.

Now a year later she gets over her shock? Only to camp out to get a meeting with the President?

I'm not discounting the loss of her son, but it seems awfully fishy.

Alex, you say that you're "not going to be a Drudge defender," but you repeat his talking points word-for-word.

I'm missing something.

Can you explain to me why you put the words "in shock" in quotation marks? Those quotation marks suggest sarcasm, as if you don't believe that a mother would be in a state of shock after losing her son. Is that what you meant to imply?

Because that seems "awfully fishy" to me.

It's obvious this chick is distraught and is being used by the moonbats.

AlexC,

Whether or not the original story supports Drudge's (and many other detractors') assertions about a flip-flop by Mrs. Sheehan is shaky at best.

In fact the MMA link Albert provided points to this more recent article in The Reporter, which rebutts the Drudge version, simply by allowing the author of the original article to clear up the misconception some conservatives seem to have about the context of the comments they so gleefully quoted.

Even without the benefit of the added context, how does one miss these passages from the original article?

... "We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached." ...

or

... The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place. ...

You can read the more recent Reporter article, which offers useful clarification of the original article by clicking here. Apparently, the only people trying to change Mrs. Sheehan's original intent are people like Drudge...

"In shock" in reference to her reaction to Bush not taking their original meeting seriously.

She was still in shock and didn't know how to act in a place she never thought she would be, she said. Afterwards, she didn't want to tell the local reporter how let down she felt by a president who behaved like he was at a social event, who called her ``Mom'' and didn't seem to know the name or gender of her child, referring to him only as her ``loved one.''

So the President is a knucklehead and doesn't know how to address her, yet she doesn't make a mention of this to anyone? Especially not a reporter?

You're not paying attention...
The "flip flop" your words not mine are the lack of outrage a year ago.
In the original article there was no outrage about being called "mom" and not knowing who her son was...

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

You'd think that would have come up to the reporter.

But as Albert said in the blog post, "She initially met with him, but it seems as W was his normal jovial, oblivious self calling her "Mom" and not knowing who Casey was."

And in the newest article you linked..

"Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject," Sheehan told correspondent Wolf Blitzer of the cable news network. "And he acted like it was a party."

Why the change of heart? That was my question. Both you and Matt missed the point.

What happened? It's clear from the original article she was against the war.

If I met the President and he didn't know who my dead son (who died for Bush's war), you can be damned sure I'd make as many people know about it as I could. When it happened.

This woman has obviously gone off the deep end and is being used by the left. Scumbags that they are.

I'm going to have to agree with AlexC and thatdudefromphilly on this one. She is obviously being used and manipulated. The horrible thing is that her family had absolved themselves of her behavior and in a few weeks when the story has become dull, people who proport to sympathize with her cause will drop her and move on. She will have NO support system and will only dive deeper into dispair and sorrow.

but you obviously have no shame.

Thanks, at any rate, for giving us this insight into your character.

By that sort of situation I mean stressful and/or meeting with someone who seems larger than life, or even involved in an interview session, where you don't get to control the flow of the conversation, and you don't always get to carefully craft your answers?

It's easy to sit back from a distance and think of all the things you (or someone else) didn't say, but when you're in the middle of it, it isn't always that way. I hate to bring up this comparison, because it seems so trivial, but have you ever seen a contestant on a game show who couldn't think up a relatively easy answer when they're on the spot? Your first reaction might be to wonder how they got there without knowing such basic information, but people tend not to be at their best in these situations, and that's something most of us tend to forget.

I'm not saying you wouldn't have marched in with your talking points and stuck to it throughout the interview, but the fact is most people aren't as prepared for such situations.

That doesn't change the fact that it's quite common for people to respond more effectively when they've had some time to think and gain perspective.

But I suppose you can keep drumming up the idea that you would've done better in the same situation -- which I'm not necessarily buying.

...That Cindy Sheehan is made aware of the letter that was written to her by Mohammad over at Iraq the Model (an Iraqi). This letter should be read by everyone as it outlines to Ms. Sheehan (and the entire 'pull out now' crowd) what would happen to the people of Iraq and especially any Iraqi that is currently aiding the coalition upon our retreat. Is the left ready for a slaughter on their heads? Regardless of your feelings BEFORE we went in --we are there now and it would be a death sentence for thousands if we should leave...

I don't deny that being "starstruck" is a possibility.

What I do deny is that being starstruck extends to some period of time X, where you are interviewed for your local paper.

Once you get "unstuck" after the meeting you're going to say to yourself, "hey! that guy didn't know my sons name." or "hey! he was being a frat boy!" especially if you're no fan of the administration.

As Mrs Sheehan has quite ably demonstrated.

The story changed. But don't believe me.
Those neo-cons at the Washington Post say so.

After the meeting, she was quoted by the newspaper in her hometown of Vacaville, Calif., as saying that the president seemed sympathetic. Subsequently, she has said that Bush treated her callously during the meeting.