Portions of the transcript here (important parts have been bolded).
Reader LadyCop212 describes the clip:
I was flipping channels right after 8pm last night (8/11/05), when I caught a glimpse of her in an interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olberman. I wanted to make sure I got it right, so I recorded the midnight replay of the show, and this morning before work I watched it and wrote down the key points word for word, so these are quotes! He began the interview by asking her what she wanted and why she was there in Crawford, TX?Sheehan: “I want him to talk to me, I want answers.?
…. and just a question or two later, he asked her this –
Keith: “It’s pure politics, the nature of the media coverage you’re getting now…From the perspective of your protest there, in a way isn’t it really better if President Bush doesn’t meet with you??Sheehan: “I would think so, yeah.. I think it’s great. If he were to come out right now, I think it would diffuse the momentum, but I don’t want to give them any hints. And, I think that’s something they’ve probably already thought about. But, we’re here, we’re committed and we’re staying. In fact, we’re staying here the whole month of August…..?
I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Download and view video here.
niTworks FireNotes linked with Sheehan's Secret Strategy!
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
1:43 pm [ Quote ]
THANK YOU IAN! NOBODY ELSE WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS!
LADYCOP!
7:19 pm [ Quote ]
I think the President should state he would be glad to meet with her PRIVATELY and let Mrs. Sheehan have her say.HE can reiterate how he feels about her sons sacrifice and tell her he’s sorry she disagrees with him. She most likely will insist on cameras and reporters present and then the people will see that this is just a left wing political stunt.
9:20 pm [ Quote ]
Oldbermann is a hack. He should get back to talking about bouncing basketballs and middle-aged men in shorts playing games. I’d get more worked up about it except nobody knows who the hell he is.
12:17 am [ Quote ]
Even if the President does see her, she still won’t be happy. It is a lose-lose situation.
9:34 pm [ Quote ]
Sheehan’s Secret Strategy!
Shhh don’t tell Bush’s team that Sheehan’s planning to stay there until the end of August no matter what. If Bush comes out to meet her, then she’s lose the momentum of all the press coverage she’s been getting. Because she would be forced to go h…
8:09 pm [ Quote ]
look if you guys think this war is such a wonderful idea, why dont’ you get over there and fight
9:40 pm [ Quote ]
Sherry: That’s a little silly and shallow! I seriously doubt you meant it to sound as rude as it appeared! No one thinks it’s a wonderful war, no war is wonderful, or fun, or particularly attractive – but all too often in human history they are unfortunately necessary and honorable endeavors! Many of us opposing Sheehan’s hate filled attacks on the President, have fought for this country in other wars, many of us have sons and daughters and other close relatives in Iraq. I have a nephew and grandson there. If not for my age, I would go to Iraq today to help, support and defend our troops, but despite my asking they said no! I told them I could dig toilets, scrub pans or do any dirty work the needed, but they weren’t persuaded! So, please don’t assume people at home wouldn’t rather be over there than here. I know I would rather have served for Sheehan’s son than for her to suffer this loss and to be investing her time, energy and emotional health attacking the President.But, we cannot always have what we want in this life!
Lastly, to everyone! To oppose Mrs. Sheehan’s words and activities, does not mean we would ever want to deny her Free Speech rights, her right to demonstrate against our government or even act like a fool if she wants to. But, when she does, we get our Free Speech rights to oppose her, and even if that sometimes causes us to ridicule or talk unkindly about her, it is our emotions of the moment talking, not any personal dislike for her as a person! In fact, we still honor her sacrifice of her son as we honor his!
11:35 pm [ Quote ]
David,
thank you for your kind comment.
I initially supported Bush in this war when he said there was WMD. There was no WMD and now we are on a mission for democracy. It looks as though Iran is next. Today the administration admits Iraq will unlikely acheive democracy.
I feel George Bush mislead this nation and with evidence mounting, it appears he did so deliberately.
While you are willing to serve (God bless you for already having done so. ((((HUGS))) >, many claim to be supporters but are unwilling to serve. As I watched the republican convention I saw this kids who favored the war but felt they could better serve the cause here. HA!
I agree with you, the great thing about America is we have the right to express ourselves. It was unthinkable to me that a group of people taunted Cindy with a chant of “we don’t care” Obviously, compassion is not guaranteed in the constitution.
As for Cindy, she wants to end the war as we all do. I don’t hate George Bush. I don’t know the man. When he was elected, I didn’t vote for him but then I wasn’t all that excited about the other candidate either. It was a bit like asking would I rather have cancer or a heart attack?
I voted straight republican for 20 years until 2000. Why? I believe in smaller government,a balanced budget, prosperity. It seems for the majority of my life we have had republicans and this “new” republican party is something I don’t recognize.
Having expressed my displeasure with my party has me with labels I never imagined. Liberal has become a cuss word. I am pretty much a middle of the roader, but I guess until we get rid of the current party leaders, they can call me a liberal or whatever label makes them happy.
I just want my country back.
Terrorism is the highest it’s been in 20 years. The Pentagon admits we are breeding terrorists in Iraq.
The US Army War College termed the Iraq War “an elective war, which “is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate US military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security”
When Joe Wilson refuted Bush’s claim regarding Saddam’s quest for yellow cake uranium, Wilson’s wife was outted by an administration official and Rove called into hardball and said Wilson’s wife was “fair game”
With all that, I won’t even discuss the erosion of our constituion under the Patriot Act, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo.
This admininstration is disgusting beyond words. I will always support the military and will defend my country. I will not support that witch I know is morally and legally wrong.
10:18 am [ Quote ]
I think Sheenan’s words were taken out of context! Bushitler owes her some answers damn it!
12:57 pm [ Quote ]
Sherry, While I disagree with most of your political positions and conclusions about many matters, you expressed yourself quite well, and I respect your right to oppose the war and the Bush Administration.
Even conservatives don’t give Bush a blank check and there are plenty of disagreements with his management style, his ability to communicate and things like the poor border control, especially in the South. We generally prefer him over Clinton ( Bill or Hillary) Gore or Kerry, and believe many of the things that disgust and irritate you are due to Bush’s poor communications. While some things will irritate you, may I suggest that once in a while you turn into local conservative talk radio, in that way you will hear how conservatives disagre with Bush and some good arguments against some of your positions, in this way you will have a better balanced view. I listen to liberal media a lot, to hear what the enemy has to say, so to speak.
Anyway, I respect your views, appreciate your very clear message, and reserve the right to disagree.
1:15 am [ Quote ]
I have to give thumbs up to Cindy’s husband. I had been asking where her husband was, the Father of her son. I feel real sad for him. She has cast a shadow over her son being a Big Hero. He is a Big Hero in Our eyes. My nephew is over there, and she is just another Jane Fonda and just as cruel for making a butt of herself. The enemies love it. Grow up Cindy. Go home and bake some cookies and set down and look at the beautiful photos of your precious son. Make him, proud of you, not sad for the way you are treating his memory. Your husband is home alone watching you and you look so pitiful, and sound so dumb.
4:44 am [ Quote ]
Jane Fonda?
Lord have mercy,in what way?Jane Fonda went to ‘Nam and consorted WITH THE ENEMY.When did Cindy Sheehan take off to Iraq?
I don’t like what the woman is doing,but she’s no Jane Fonda.That’s like equating Mickey Mouse to Hitler,IMO.
And I don’t understand her husband,or her family.The woman has obviously got a serious screw loose since Casey died.I mean,she looks like warmed over sheol.She does’nt even look sane anymore.
Where is her husband through all this?Or her family?Besides writing letters to denonce her,or filing for divorce?Why have’nt they gotten her some help?She may have been a liberla,and off kilter before,but it’s pretty clear she’s completely cracked now.They need to get a doctor adn get her head shrinked,instead of writing letters to the newspapers.
You want her off the street?Her family could have got her off the street.They did’nt,and it’s rather sad that they left her out there acting a nut.
12:51 pm [ Quote ]
David,
What would you consider poor communication?
Bring em on!?
Saddam is seeking yellow cake uranium? oops.
David, I don’t listen to conservative radio for the same reason I don’t listen to Air America. They are the extreme of their views. I look at things from a rather pragmatic point of view. There were maps presented dipcitin the location of WMD. Not there. The focus then shifted to democratizing Iraq. Sorry. Didn’t sign on for that. I thought this was about perserving OUR freedom. There are some 50 known despots around the world and we chose Saddam. hmm
Dick cheney said the insurgency was in the last throes. how many lives ago was that?
I live in Virginia, a solid red state. Falwell and Robertson are selling people on the idea Bush is a Christian and we should support him. I have had some rather wonderful Christians who were just lacked the ability to do their jobs. Nothing personal, they just had to go because we couldn’t afford them. The same is true for the president and his ilk. He may be a nice Christian, but he is incredibly incompetent.
As an aside, didn’t you just love the republican trucker who ran over the memorial crosses for soldiers at Cindy’s camp? Don’t you just love those compassionate conservatives? He must be so proud. Defending the president in such a dramatic way. I am sure he is devout in his beliefs and feels he is doing his Lord’s will.
Then there was the pro Bush fella who shot a fellow at the flea market because he disagreed with the war. Sheesh.
Looks like we may be defending democracy in Iraq for 4 more years. I wonder if we are going to be so stupid as to squander 58,000 lives in Iraq as we did in Vietnam and accomplish absolutely nothing in the end?
Why is it our soldiers are awaiting armor while Haliburton not only get paid on time, but over paid and got a 72 billion dollar bonus?
David, apparently you consider anyone who connects the dots on this war as some left wing extremist. Those dismissive labels keep us from truly exploring the search for truth.
It’s nice to be an independent. I don’t feel the need to apologize for anyone.
As far as I am concerned, Cindy lost a son and she has a right to say whatever she thinks. As for her family still drinking the Bush koolaid and her husband divorcing her, well thanks Karl Rove. Nice to see the “TurdBlossom” is still on the job.
12:55 pm [ Quote ]
Marcia,
Get a grip hon. when you have buried you son, you may choose to handle your grief anyway you like. Until then, recognize this is America and (for now) people like Cindy may honor their lost loved ones any way they choose.
I say that her work to assure no other woman buries her son for a needless war honors her son. Choosing to support a failed policy for the sake of politics is an absolute betrayal.
4:53 pm [ Quote ]
Sherry-
The only person drinking Kool Aid is you. You do know that WMD’s were found in Iraq don’t you? Not stockpiles but WMD’s none the less which would have caused more damage then 9/11. If you don’t believe me I would suggest you do some research or I could post links to non conservative/republican news outlets that actually report what is really going on in Iraq unlike the major liberal media garbage that most Americans follow. Did you listen tobush when he state the REASONS (thats plural) for going to war in Iraq? I don’t believe you did much like most Democrats didn’t. You and your lemmings are all focused on WMD’s which WASN’T the only reason we went to war in Iraq.
If you think Bush lied about Iraq then you must also agree many Democrats did as well.Once you understand one crucial fact, that numerous prominent Democrats with access to intelligence data also openly declared and obviously believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. We’re not talking about small fry or just proponents of the war either. The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here’s a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”
To believe that George Bush lied about WMDs is to believe that there is a vast conspiracy to lie about WMDs that goes to the highest level of both parties & that stretches across both the pro and anti-war movements.
It’s just not possible—and that’s before we even consider the numerous other pieces of exculpating evidence like: all the non-American intelligence agencies that also believed Saddam had WMDs, CIA Director George Tenet famously saying it was a “’slam-dunk’ that Hussein possessed the banned weapons”, the once secret Downing Street Memo which certainly proves that our allies in Britain believed Saddam had WMDs…
“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”
...and of course, that we did find warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents and artillery shells filled with mustard gas & sarin (even though they were small in number and weren’t recently made).
When you add it all up, it appears that George Bush, like a lot of other people, was wrong about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of WMDs. But without question, he did not lie about it.
Then you drink from the glass of kool aid that tells you that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.This is another historical rewrite. The reality is that the pro-war movement in this country since 9/11 has plainly spoken of dealing with Saddam Hussein as part of the war on terrorism almost from the very beginning. Here’s George Bush in a speech given on 9/20/2001:
“Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
Iraq certainly was a state that harbored and supported terrorists and the approach Bush discussed, the Bush Doctrine, was adopted and talked about often in relation to Iraq during the lead up to the war. As proof, look to a column called “Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism” that I wrote back on March 13, 2003:
Why are we going to invade Iraq? Nine days after 9/11, George Bush said,
“(W)e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
That definition fits Iraq and since they happened to be the easiest nation to make a case against at the UN and in the court of World Opinion, they were our next logical target after Afghanistan—although they’re not our last target.”
The war on terrorism cannot be won as long as there are terrorist supporting states out there. So one way or the other, we need to get those rogue regimes out of the business of supporting terrorist groups of international reach. Saddam led one of those regimes and now, happily, he’s gone—perhaps before the US was hit with an Iraqi based terrorist attack:
“I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received … information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.”—Russian President Vladimir Putin as quoted by CNN on June 18, 2004
Even John Kerry seemed to at least agree that the fate of Iraq was crucial to the war on terror:
“Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean].”—John Kerry, 12/15/03
Kerry even pointed out that he thought Saddam might give WMDs to terrorists:
“I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that – that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.”—John Kerry, “Face The Nation”, 9/15/02
Now if even John Kerry of all people is willing to admit that Iraq is “critical to the outcome of the war on terror” and that Saddam was the kind of guy who might use terrorist groups to attack the US, we should be able to at least agree at this point that it’s not the least bit disingenuous to suggest that Iraq is an important part of the war on terrorism.
Saddam provided “safe haven” for terrorists with “global reach.” Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yassin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, “Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over…Scotland,”Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer,” & “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan” who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda’s forces in Iraq.
Without question, Saddam Hussein had extensive ties to terrorism. So fightin a war in Iraq is still fighting against terrorism.
Now I know you will say that Saddam hasno ties to Al Qaeda. Which means nothing as this is not a war against Al Qaeda but a war against terrorism. However Saddam did have ties to Al Qaeda.A couple of quotes by the 9/11 Commission, which were often used out of context during the polarizing 2004 election cycle, have fueled the ridiculous claim that Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al-Qaeda. Here’s an excerpt from an article at MSNBC called “9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida,” that should give you a good idea of the anti-war spin that was put on the Commission’s comments:
“It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,? and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates “have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq.”
The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.?
However, the spin doesn’t match the reality.
What the 9/11 Commission was trying to get across was that there was no evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda collaborated on specific attacks, not that they didn’t have a working relationship. 9/11 Commission Vice-Chairman (and former Democratic Congressman) Lee Hamiliton echoed exactly that point in comments that were largely ignored because they didn’t fit the anti-war storyline some people were pushing:
“The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don’t disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don’t have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States.”
While there may not be evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda cooperated in attacks on the United States, the evidence that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al-Qaeda worked together is absolutely undeniable.
For example, no one disputes that Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who once ran an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and is leading Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in Iraq today, was in Iraq BEFORE the war started getting medical care. In and of itself, that would seem to strongly suggest a significant connection.
But wait, there’s more!
Consider this comment by former CIA Director George Tenet in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002:
“Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.”
Here’s more from Richard Miniter, author of “Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”:
Here’s more from Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes, author of “The Connection : How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America”:
“Evan Bayh, Democrat from Indiana, has described the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as a relationship of “mutual exploitation.” Joe Lieberman said, “There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.” George Tenet, too, has spoken of those contacts and goes further, claiming Iraqi “training” of al Qaeda terrorists on WMDs and provision of “safe haven” for al Qaeda in Baghdad. Richard Clarke once said the U.S. government was “sure” Iraq had provided a chemical-weapons precursor to an al Qaeda-linked pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Even Hillary Clinton cited the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as one reason she voted for the Iraq War.”
So is there proof that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda worked together to hit targets in the US? No. But, is there extensive evidence that they had ties and worked together at times? Absolutely.
Now you state:I say that her work to assure no other woman buries her son for a needless war honors her son. Choosing to support a failed policy for the sake of politics is an absolute betrayal.
Well it is clear you are a democrat. Their agenda is socialism. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried so why do you support that failed agenda?
I will gladly send you addressed evelopes with paid postage Marines in Iraq. ALl you have to do is write them and tell them this is a pointlees war and see what they write in return to you. You might be surprised if you actually took the time to listen to the soldiers instead of the liberal media that the soldiers in Iraq support the war and feel it is a just and neccesary war. Their opinions mean more then Cindy’s or any other Democrat who distorts the truth about the war in Iraq.
Now I see you bring up the whole amror thing. Well you do know that it was a matter of logistics not money that caused our soldiers to not have the proper armor at the begining of the war. You do know that most of the vehicles that were not armored were NEVER DESIGNED to have this armor. You do know when all this hub bub broke about this that 97% of the military in Iraq had already been up armored. Of course you don’t because you could care less about what is really happening. Just think for a sec. if all these terrible things you think about Bush and the war were tru why then during the middle of the war did the military overwhelmingly vote to keep Bush in the White House? Simple, they actually know what is truth and going on unlike you and your Democrat lemmings who get their info from Jon Stewart and Michael Moore.
Now Don’t get me started on you so called “tolerant and accepting” liberals. You are ome of the most hate filled people I have ever come accross. They should really finish the sentence. Tolerant and accepting as long as you agree with us and our agenda otherwise you are a Nazi, Hitler, Homophobe, Racist, bigot etc. Thats what you and your party does. Criticise without offering new ideas and solutions and when you have no facts to back up your aguement you start name calling like calling rove a turd or whatever you called him. Thats very tolerant and accepting of you.
I have read your posts they are left wing talking points and show your ignorance so to that I say you are the weakest link goodbye.
12:12 am [ Quote ]
i heard your talking points too. Yes there was some WMD found, apparently left over from the last war. That said there was no viable method of delivery.
Yes many believed the lies from the intel community.
That said, Please read “Worse than Watergate” by John Dean. He is hardly a liberal