Skip to main content

This is a third update from Cindy as she prepares for the night.  I'll simply copy Celeste's email in full here.

I'm starting a new diary because the other one wouldn't take my second update.

Hi Brian,

I have just had a very disturbing call from Cindy- there are ten people preparing to sleep out on the side of the road, the media and police have gone, SEVERAL secret service people have stopped by to give this message

"people drive very fast on this road, somebody could run over you and you could get killed"

Cindy was frightened by this message and asked me to ask you to post it.  If this were not the government of Karl Rove you could take it lightly. But sadly, it is. I told Cindy to have people take turns keeping watch, I hope  the Vets will go back to stand guard.

It is hard to believe we live in these times, hard to believe we are governed by such dangerous people, and for us at GSFP hard to comprehend why we are without our sons.  Thank you to everyone for your amazing support today, plesae stay with us.

Celeste Zappala
co founder, Gold Star Families for Peace
Mother of Sgt. Sherwood Baker, KIA 4/26/04-Baghdad
Sherwood was killed protecting the Iraq Survey Group as they looked for the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction

Please Recommend.

Originally posted to NYBri Report on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:14 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  is anyone recording this? (3.60)
    because it's important to have a record.  Video is best, but at least have an audio recording device when the SS "warn" Cindy.
    •  Not knowing any details, I wonder (none)
      what the overall scope of support includes.  I agree that recording & communication devices are very important ... video, audio, cell phones, etc.

      It'd be great if someone there had a cell phone with camera, and could beam out photos for near-live posting in the blogosphere.

      Getting the updates from Celeste is a tremendous good start.

      Let's get serious about renewables and efficiency. It's time to Win the Oil Endgame.

      by by foot on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:21:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm getting these updates... (4.00)
        ...via Celeste Zappala who is talking with Cindy via cell phone.  I like the community of it.  A direct video uplink would exclude us and inclusion is the point of all this, I guess.

        From Crawford to Philadelphia to New York to Dailykos to all of you.  It takes a village...

        •  works for me (4.00)
          Many thanks for posting these.

          Let's get serious about renewables and efficiency. It's time to Win the Oil Endgame.

          by by foot on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:32:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  updates are great (none)
          but I was hoping that Cindy, or someone is taping these "warnings", or anything that's happening, whether we see or hear them right now or not.  

          Documentation is so important, as the people arresting during the repug convention will swear to now.  Charges being dropped because video evidence proved the authorites to be liars, otherwise who knows what jail time or fines innocent people would be spending.

          •  Thankfully (none)
            Due to these sort of messages, we can very easily prove that we knew beforehand if something happens to anyone there. Video tape would make a more compelling case, but it wouldn't really be necessary thanks to digital timestamping of everything we are discussing.

            That said, I, of course, sincerely hope no one is even bruised let alone seriously hurt and I wish Cindy and her group the best of luck.

        •  Thank you, NYBri, for this diary (none)
          Guess there were some people who over-imbibed last night -- or whatever. Hope you will keep posting from Celeste.

          It is better to die standing than to live on your knees. - Emiliano Zapata

          by cotterperson on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 08:49:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Cindy diaries are important (3.66)
        but they DON'T NEED TO TAKE UP THE WHOLE RECOMMENDED DIARIES LIST!  Somebody PLEASE tell Barb or WHOEVER how to update them.  Alternatively, please, someone please consolidate them!  I do not want to underplay this, it IS important, but there is other stuff important too!

        Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~Theodore Roosevelt

        by caseynm on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:52:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's easy for me to say... (none)
      .. here in CA, but if I was within 300 miles of Crawford I would be rollin in that direction right now. Like I said, it's easy for me to say, when won't or can't go myself, but I think it would be really great if able-bodied people of conscience in the nabe would go to Crawford, stand up for Cindy, stay there as long as she stays there, and protect her from harm.
      •  Attention krazypuppy and TexasKos (4.00)
        Now's your chance to shine!

        Paul Hackett learned on Tuesday that Kossacks can hit the streets and do great work in person.

        Show Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the Gold Stars that it can happen in Texas, too!

        Support our terrific open source media project! Donate to ePluribus Media today!

        by Timroff on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:17:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Gimme a Break (none)
      if one of the SS SUV's "accidentally" hits a protestor do you ACTUALLY believe anyone recording the event on video will be allowed by the SS to keep the tape??

      you're kidding, right?

  •  I just emailed the Iconoclast (4.00)
    They've been posting from the site of the protest all day and have sent a message to Bush on Cindy's behalf. I tried calling them but didn't get an answer but emailed in case they just weren't picking up. I don't know what else to do other than trying to get to word out.

    http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/2005/31-40/31news02.htm

    here is the post I've been viewing

  •  PLEASE RECOMMEND (none)
    Perhaps rename the diary to tell exactly what is happening?.

    Thanks.

    Recommended.

  •  Thank you for postingt this, Brian (4.00)
    I'd like to say, Cindy and co. should have tape recorders and video cameras (surreptiously) rolling to try and catch some of this shit.

    People will not believe it until they see it.

    "Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by hopesprings on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:51:20 PM PDT

    •  I second that! (4.00)
      I remember an article/debate (?) where bush was rambling on about how he met w/some other parents who lost a son/daughter in Iraq.  He kept going on about how he prayed with the family...Yeah, right!

      Not only has Cindy lost Casey in Iraq, but she and the group with her had to walk in a ditch!!  And now she is practically being threatened?  

      What the hell is wrong with this administration?

      "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

      by Street Kid on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:03:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Okay, we need to get serious here folks (4.00)
    What makes me scratch my head is 'people drive very fast on this road'?  Doesn't anyone find this STRANGE?  They are a mile from the ranch and that is as close as they can get...where would the traffic (much less 'fast' traffic come from).

    We need to have everyone get this word out to the press, that they actually fear that this is a warning of sorts.

    We need to put out a call for everyone that opposes this war to go and 'guard' Cindy and Company.....there are alot of retired military in Texas, find those that oppose this rat bastard and ask them to take shifts or a night....

    We then need to get a larger force down there in general...wouldn't it be nice to do candle light vigils EVERY nite, not with a dozen folks, but let's get 100's...and maybe like thousands during the days....

    Whatever happens, we need to beef this up, get bodies there, video cameras, digitals, laptops, etc...

    The more the merrier is what I say....

    •  OOPS. You beat me to that one... (none)
      Great minds and so forth.
    •  If there is a circle (none)
      a mile wide around the ranch...

      I remember driving really fast along those Farm to Market Roads. There were few to no street lights out of the town area. It's dark...really dark. And everything is really damn flat.

      "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

      by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:12:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  general security (none)
      I would think there is pretty high security too.  I can't imagine anyone being able to speed up and down the road that leads to the President's ranch.

      Ken Salazar (D-CO), who said he'll vote for the Flag Desecration Amendment, needs to hear from us.

      by OLinda on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:48:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope, not high security a couple weeks ago (4.00)
        I was there a couple weeks ago along Prairie Chapel Road, the same one Cindy and the others are camped out on. It is a small two lane road in a dark area. The only signs that you are near the compound are a series of orange signs warning you not to stop along the roadside or get out of your car. Also, just outside the entrance to the place, there's this farm house with several HUGE antennas....

        I don't know where they are camping but there is an old Baptist chapel near there that they should use as their base. Might not be as close as they want but they could camp in the parking lot.

        "Democracy begins in conversation." - John Dewey

        by TxTiger on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:44:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  People drive fast (none)
      It's clearly a reference to Bush himself, since his penchant for speed is common knowledge, as is the fact that Crawford is the last place in America where he can get liquored up, and not have to worry.

      Also, the car is the only safe place in America where Bush can safely receive his morning hand job from Condi.

    •  yes, people *do* drive fast on those roads... (none)
      The speed limit, unless otherwise posted, is 70 mph in Texas, statewide.  That goes for freeways, state highways, and even little, tiny, FM (farm-to-market) roads out in the middle of nowhere.

      Aside from that, yes, I have to say this is a shockingly small vigil.  Alas...

    •  Have you ever lived in the country? (none)
      I do. Some people drive very fast on rural roads.  That's just reality.  A co-worker of mine and 2 of his family members were killed a few years ago when they were driving to look at lights on christmas eve.  The kid who was driving was a city boy who had gotten a new sports car for christmas, and he decided to take it to the country to see what it could do.  It's common for people who aren't familiar with the dangers of rural roads (livestock, driveways, curves, bumps, stop signs in the middle of nowhere) to drive like maniacs.  If I knew that someone were going to sleep on the side of a rural road, I would give exactly the same warning the secret service did and hope that they stay far from the road.  
  •  Driving very fast?..... (none)
    If this place is THAT close to the Chicken Ranch, and if there is a roadblock just a mile or so ahead, how in the world could anybody be driving very fast at that location?

    Sounds odd to me is all I am saying.

    •  It's rural Texas... (4.00)
      It's the weekend. The roads are long, straight, and flat. Speed limits are questionable. And there are no street lights outside the town proper...it's bloody dark out.

      I loved driving fast in Texas. I also loved driving fast in Colorado...all those twists, turns, and switchbacks.

      "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

      by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:50:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  security (none)
        Guess I'm repeating myself, but kredwyn, isn't it very different on the road to the ranch?  The Pres. of the U.S. requires more security than that.  I just can't picture it. I picture things pretty tight around there.

        Ken Salazar (D-CO), who said he'll vote for the Flag Desecration Amendment, needs to hear from us.

        by OLinda on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:52:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  After taking a look (none)
          at the map on mapquest, you've got a whole lot of space. There's the ranch proper. Then there's the actual road (driveway) to the ranch that's probably about a quarter mile long. Then there's the perimeter of about a mile, which has Cindy and crew  based somewhere nearby...but not too close.

          Texas is flat and huge...you can see for a while in most directions. When I think about the rach area, I think about the place where my apartment complex was. Within 10 minutes of the town square yet at the same time...there was a ranch of Texas longhorns right across the street.

          "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

          by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:35:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  This is the state (4.00)
      Where at one time in the not to distant past, you could drink a beer in your car, as long as you weren't actually drunk while you did it.

      I have very little trouble beliving people drive very fast on that road late at night.

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:21:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  SATURDAY NIGHT UPDATE FROM CINDY SHEEHAN (3.33)
    SATURDAY NIGHT UPDATE FROM CINDY SHEEHAN

    By Buddy Spell
    Upbeat Defiance.com
    LOUISIANA ACTIVIST NETWORK

    August 6, 2005

    Briefly, I just got off of the telephone with Cindy at 10:58 PM (CST).

    She's on the side of the road with six (6) other activists. They expect others to arrive from the VFP convention in Dallas to spend the night with them tonight.

    Cindy says that the protesters will be killed if they stay the night. "We're not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that the Secret Service killed us."

    She asks that we all light candles in solidarity and looks forward to more company in the days ahead.

    Folks, the time has come today!

    Peace out.

    http://www.newdemocracyrising.com/lan.asp

    •  Give me a fucking break (3.28)
      What a bunchof hyperbolic arm-flapping.

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

      by Lestatdelc on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:00:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No fucking break for you... (none)
        Until you answer this:

        Which part of the above, specifically, is "hyperbolic arm flapping"?

        •  Well... (3.50)
          there's the possible implication that the SS is in the business of knocking off American citizens for the president.

          "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

          by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:43:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This... (3.07)
          "...If we get killed out here, know that the Secret Service killed us."

          If you can't see that as overwrought bat-shit crazy hyperbole... then you need fucking help.

          If Cindy actually "said" that, then my respect for her and those around her just dropped tremendously. That said, there is next to no way to attain the veracity of her supposed communicating those words.

          cheers,

          Mitch Gore

          Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

          by Lestatdelc on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:01:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Aww, did we get a little pissy? (2.76)
            Listen prick, I know the statement is melodramatic.

            And I'm sure you're due a "fucking break."  

            But the woman's son was killed in Iraq, and she's making a brave stand.  You don't know the pressure there on the ground, or what else is coming from the Secret Service.  No, I don't think they're gonna kill her, but I have NO doubt they're acting as political intimidators.  If she overreacted, she gets a lot of leeway in my book.

            But you -- you need a break.  Fine.  Make it really long one, dick.

            Jesus, what a sanctimonious asshole.

          •  Lestatdelc (3.60)
            the Secret Service intentionally frightened her.

            They sure as hell didn't offer her comfort and security and road protection just a few feet from the roadblock to the President of the United States of America and the leader of the Free World.

            Is it your nature to be callous and oblivious?

          •  Then... (none)
            ...you truly are  nutcase.  There have been too many executions, too many deaths.  The only care if they get caught.

            Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae

            by Truckle on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 03:59:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  LOL yeah... (none)
              I am a "nutcase" because I am not going to get my panties ins  wad over hyperbolic claims that the Secret Service is going to be behind some possible killing of Cindy Sheehan.

              Pull the other one, it has bells on it.

              cheers,

              Mitch Gore

              Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

              by Lestatdelc on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:06:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Lack of Insight and Compassion (3.50)
            Jeez, she was undoubtably being intimidated and she knows it!  Why don't you?  She is also suffering the post traumatic stress and grief from the murder of her son. Hyperbole?  What is missing in your head and heart that you do not frame this as FEAR? Sheesh.

            ePluribus Media. Support citizen journalism!

            by DEFuning on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 04:34:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What are you babbling about? (none)
              Arm flapping that the Secret Service is going to kill people is crap, I don't give a shit who is saying it.

              That Cindy Sheehan is stressed at the loss of her son (which I find a horrible loss that anyone should have to suffer) in now way should vindicate the exaggerated hyperbole being thrown around here by numerous people who are NOT Cindy Sheehan.

              cheers,

              Mitch Gore

              Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

              by Lestatdelc on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:55:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You don't understand. (none)
            Didn't you read the diaries about this? There are Secret Service vans blitzing by these people at speeds of over 50 mph and coming within inches of running people over. Cindy's fear of being run over is very real.

            You do things your way, and you let her do things her way. Fair?

      •  I like how you used the word "fuck" (2.75)
        you are a real bad ass! you sure put all of us in our place! wow!

        We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. -MLK

        by JLFinch on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:59:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's not often that... (4.00)
        I've had to read so far down into a thread on this site to find someone making a sane comment.

        Yoo're right, too.  This insinuation that the SS is "out to get them"{ is bat-shit insane.  It's like reading some horsehit on the FreeRepublic or LGF.

        Get a grip people.  This kind of paranoia is a bit over the top.

        "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- "It Can't Happen Here", Sinclair Lewis, 1935.

        by WyldPirate on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 03:09:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to agree (4.00)
          Do they honestly think they're going to be killed? Come on. Intimidation is one thing, but just imagine the logistics of killing off protesters that have made national news.
          •  Killed? (none)
            NO, I don't think the SS would be that stupid.

            Did they make a threat?  I sure as hell believe it.  Don't you? "Intimidation is one thing"  Yeah, it's one thing that really should make us all incredibly angry.

            Do we live in America, or not?  Jesus.

            The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

            by daveriegel on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:15:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How do we know (4.00)
              that the "agents" threatening Cindy are real Secret Service? Anybody here remember the Denver three?

              Whoever is in contact with Cindy should remind her to always ask for names, badge #'s, etc., of EVERY LEO she comes in contact with, and to record every conversation.

              As for people "Speeding down that road"...remember, that close to Duhbya's place has got to be one HELL of a high-security area. They only vehicles allowed to speed down that road are bound to be guvmint types.

              Al Queada is a faith-based initiative.

              by drewfromct on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:49:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree with this (none)
                Is it possible that whoever said this was issuing a threat?  Yes.  Is it possible that, if it was the Secret Service, it was just s stupidly-worded, honest warning?  Also yes.

                Look, I'm not naive.  I do understand the implications of "Nice little protest you have going on, there.  Be a shame if something happened to it." But in my experience, the Secret Service isn't in the business of issuing gangland-style threats to private citizens who are obeying the law but criticizing the President.  They have one job: protecting the President.  No threat, no interest.

                A Karl Rove lackey is another matter, however...

                •  Read some of the other diaries... (none)
                  on this subject

                  The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

                  by daveriegel on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 06:18:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please be more specific (none)
                    Are you saying Cindy's been threatened by the Secret Service before this?
                    •  When I posted this a few hours ago (none)
                      There were some other diaries up that described the coversation more specifically.  

                      Sure it can be interepreted as honest concern for her welfare.  But this is BUSH we're talking about.  These guys work for BUSH.  

                      I think we all feel the same way about BUSH.  

                      The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

                      by daveriegel on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:16:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  These guys... (none)
                        also worked for Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Hillary, Carter...

                        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                        by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:32:48 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Happened a long time ago. (none)
                          These people threw Democratic supporters out of Bush's campaign rallies last year. There were a ton of diaries on the topic. These people are as partisan as they come.
                          •  I'm related (none)
                            to one of "those people," and you're mistaken, they are not "as partisan as they come."

                            Do we know for certain at this juncture that the harassers of the Denver Three were SS? And was anyone killed or even physically harmed at the event? Don't get me wrong--I don't think suppression of free speech should be taken lightly. I also don't think we should assume that all SS agents are jackbooted thugs. My cousin isn't, and I'm heartened at what I hear from him regarding dissent within the ranks.

                          •  My mistake. (none)
                            But they still locked out Democrats and undecideds from Bush's campaign rallies. Who had the authority to order them to do that?
                          •  And as I recall (none)
                            security was similar at the DNC. Democratic and other protesters were kept in a cage in Boston.

                            I'm not in any way supporting such policies. Just asking that we cast blame in the right direction.

                            I'm trying to determine whether I have the strength to write a diary asking how broad-brushed attacks on law enforcement and security officers stateside now are so very different from "blaming the troops" during Vietnam.

                            If you haven't read this comment of mine, please do. We're on the same side here, I believe.

                          •  I understand. (none)
                            Who, in charge of the Secret Service is in charge of these policies? Also, who is in charge of the Secret Service? Those would be the questions we should ask.
                          •  The Denver 3 Incident (none)
                            was a GOP-Denver dude posing as a Secret Service Agent. And the 3 are actually suing. IIRC the papers reported who the guy was that did the posing. I think it was in the Rocky Mountain News.

                            I'm wondering if some of the information that they now have is as a result of the news coverage following the Secret Service investigation of the situation.

                            As for campaing rallies. Remember the Loyalty Oath/Pledge thingy? Isn't it possible that the Secret Service group was give orders from the higher ups that "Anyone without a wristband (or whatever they used to mark loyalty oath signers) should not be allowed to enter the event"?  Like it or not, the GOP presidential campaign events were marked as private invite/oath signers only affairs. This was covered widely in the media. To the best of my knowledge, private campaign events aren't illegal.

                            Dems just had fewer of them...

                            "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                            by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 09:16:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  "In my experience" (none)
                  "...in my experience, the Secret Service isn't in the business of issuing gangland-style threats to private citizens who are obeying the law but criticizing the President."

                  Iny my experience, the president's top advisors are not in the business of outing undercover CIA agents to score cheap revenge points against people who are criticizing the President.

                  In my experience, it isn't the business of the President to lead this country into a profiteer's wet dream of an endless war on the basis of baldfaced lies.

                  In my experience, it isn't the business of the president's top counsel to advocate torture as legitimate statecraft.

                  You know what?  Things have changed.  A lot.  Everything is different now.  I wouldn't put a single thing beyond these people, no matter how incredible it may seem to sane people.  This administration is insane.  They do things that make no apparent sense to sane people, because they have lost their moral compass and their moral sanity.  If you're so sanguine as to believe that that somehow doesn't include having people who cross them "accidentally" killed, you have a lot more faith than I do.

                  •  Baloney (4.00)
                    There is a critical difference between political appointees, who DO have a history of engaging in political activity (fancy that) and career civil servants in the Secret Service engaging in this sort of thing.

                    "The government" does not equal "the administration".  And that's not a matter of "faith".  I'm a career federal government employee.

                    •  Dammit (none)
                      then, you should understand.  

                      Who in the hell does Bush's security detail answer to??????

                      The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

                      by daveriegel on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:17:15 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I stand by what I said. (none)
                      And if anyone wants to give me another 1 rating because of it, fine.

                      Look, I realize that there is a difference between political appointees and career gov't employees.  But you must admit that there has been an unprecedented amount of intimidation, coercion, and arm-twisting by this administration on all levels of government, not just their own appointees.  

                      I would NOT put anything past them, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if their machinations have reached into the Secret Service as it has into so many other places in our government.

                      That is all.

                  •  Excuse me (none)
                    Little Brother, but exactly how did my comment rate a 1?  If you disagree go a head and say so, and tell me why.  Abusing ratings is what a shithead does.
            •  Killers? Nous? (none)
              Oh that's right, the US government never ever would kill a civilian!

              Er... unless they happen to be Iraqi, residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Vietnamese, Libyan, Cambodian, etc etc.

              Oh, all those funny furrners? How about Waco?

              </disgust>

              I would be more upset if I weren't so sedated...

              by Paolo on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 06:08:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hmmm (none)
                When you say "U.S. Government", what are you talking about?  The administration?  Secret Service?  Post Office?  Department of Agriculture?  Political appointees or career civil servants?

                The government isn't a monolithic block of behavior and attitude.

        •  Maybe not. (none)
          But they are driving their vehicles within inches of Sheehan and her group at speeds of 50 MPH. If these drivers make even the slightest mistake, e.g. have a little too much alcohol, someone could get killed.
      •  A zero? (none)
        ROFLMAO

        Yeah jimstaro... I am a troll.

        Fucking nimrods.

        cheers,

        Mitch Gore

        Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

        by Lestatdelc on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:57:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  For the record... (4.00)
    Do you really want to be sleeping by the side of the road in Texas?

    I can think of severla critters who will greatly enjoy sharing your body warmth. And none of them will be very comfortable to wake up to in the middle of the night. Humans and rattle snakes do not mix well. Nor do humans work well with scorpions. Brown recluse spiders are way too small to see in the dark of night. And I have seen a black widow in urban Texas.

    And don't even get me started with those gross water bugs.

    Those are all natural threats. Also the SS may well be right. I doubt it's a threat...more like they don't want anyone to get hurt.

    When the lights go out...they really go out if there aren't your normal street lights on the road.

    Be safe...

    "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:09:28 PM PDT

    •  Look. They said "PEOPLE". (none)
      That's scary shit, mkay?
      •  I know they said people... (4.00)
        But I was pointing out that there are non-people things to take into account.

        I lived in Texas for 5 years. I drove fast on those FM roads. And once you get out of the city proper in some places, there are no street lights. The roads are straight and flat.

        It's not unusual to be out there late at night and driving fast. The speed limits are variable and dependent on the area.

        And all I'm saying is be safe. Keep you camp well lit. Someone stays up to do watch.

        This is rural Texas. You don't know what's out there. Human is dangerous. Critters can be just as dangerous.

        I didn't even mention the coyotes.

        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

        by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:19:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  ok (none)
      mostly legitimate concerns but the odds of a rattler entering your tent and what not are pretty low.  In any case, please don't overestimate how scary nature is.  The right wingers do enough of that.
      •  You don't want (4.00)
        to underestimate it either. Nature is...

        May be low odds on the rattler...but scorpions and recluse spiders can do plenty of damage...quickly.

        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

        by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:21:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah,so what? (none)
          The people of this country have been camping outdoors since its inception. There are companies which have made fortunes (REI,EMS) by assisting people who sleep outdoors with their needs. Who gives a shit if there are coyotes,snakes and spiders in Texas when you have the proper equipment to protect against them?

          Every state in the country has critters that might bite you but that hasn't stopped people from safely camping outdoors. Sure there are people who drive at high speed on the roads of Texas. I doubt that Cindy Sheehan and her supporters will be camping on the road. The scare tactics won't work.

          "The lunatics have overtaken the asylum." And the asylum is burning.

          by Skylor on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:23:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow... (4.00)
            I pointed out some concerns with regards to the situation. Not everyone has your apparent expertise in the realm of purchasing camping equipment that will protect you against anything that Mother nature can throw at you. I know many folks who really truly hate camping and will never be caught alive or dead inside a tent.

            From what I gather...yes. These folks are camping out there tonight. If there's other information that says otherwise later on...good so much the better.

            This is a brown recluse spider. Notice that it's smaller than the dime. This (Warning: gross picture) is what it can do to you after the 10th day.

            I was offering some words of safety.

            There's no need to be rude about it.

            "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

            by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:34:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Brown recluse spiders aren't called (none)
              recluse for nada. They are shy, hate humans or any other big critter.

              They live in shelters like under rocks, surrounded by buildings or other out croppings. They sure as hell don't live by high speed highways in the middle of the  beginning of the Great American Desert.

              If anyone had told Bush he might die beimg bitten by the Recluse Spider (!) you know this TANG  deserter
              never would have moved to the Crawford outlands.

              What are you up to kredwyn?

              Are you aware of a sudden, previously unknown explosion of them on the edge of the desert? There are habitat problems. Resolve. Please!

              Publish  in Nature first. Then get back to us.

              •  The warnings were correct! (4.00)
                As a long-time camper( I started in the boy scouts at age 9-10?), I know that critters like to curl up in warm cozy spots, i.e. shoes, sleeping bags, ect..
                Just because snakes and spiders don't like humans doesn't mean they won't try to occupy the same area, especially if they were there first! And if you don't keep a clean campsite, the ants - gotta love those fire ants!- and other scavengers will be out in full force. This usually isn't a problem IF everyone there is an experienced camper. I'll bet most aren't.

                I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltaire

                by baracon on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 07:38:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Y'know? (none)
                When I moved to Texas I asked about the critter factor.

                And the very first one that I was warned about was the brown recluse spider. I was told several different horror stories about how friends of friends got bit by spiders after

                • rolling over and putting a hand under the pillow
                • sitting down in the grass at a picnic
                • and a few others

                One of those friends died because the spider bite was in the area of the person's head. Granted that those spiders were hanging out in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas which is just a smidge north of Crawford, which isn't really Great American Desert...it's rural and really dusty...but not it's not full out desert.

                I figure that it's better to be safe than sorry.

                And I didn't even mention the stories of the dozen copperheads living under the house in Corsicana, TX. That group managed to kill a dog.

                I don't need to publish in Nature to be concerned. But thanks all the same.

                "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 09:39:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  I thought the same thing (4.00)
      I have unfortunately spent most my life in Texas and have spent many nights driving down FMs. there are few lights. They are not wide, and sometimes you get drunk teenagers, or adults, out there on those roads.
      That being said, does anyone know how far they are from the road blocks and all the security for Bush?

      Being a patriot means you have to do more than wave a flag!

      by melthewriter on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:29:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The roadblocks... (none)
        would be at the entrance to the ranch. I'm assuming that there's some sort of long gravel drive from the FM road to the actual buildings. There was something about a mile radius.

        That would leave the FM pretty much clear of obvious blocks.

        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

        by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:32:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Depending on where they end up camping (4.00)
        here is a link to a map of the area.  Right to the left of Mattlage Rd on Prairie Chapel Rd is where the road lock is located.

        Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore; They're already overcrowded from Your dirty little war. - John Prine

        by Laura D on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:50:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's what I was thinking too. (4.00)
      My husband grew up in Oklahoma (it's on the northern border of Texas, for the geographically challenged).  His one and only camping experience was waking up in the morning being stung on the face by a scorpion.  So please, tell them to be careful.

      Also, in my experience, everyone drives fast in rural areas.  Whether the SS were actually threatening them or not, they should still be aware of this and be careful.

      No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. -Eleanor Roosevelt

      by tryptamine on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:38:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  rural roads (2.50)
        * everyone drives fast in rural areas. *

        Except for the city dwellers, come to visit. The same folks who are scared of the lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

        Realize, of course, that the rural dwellers see the city as wild and dangerous (pimps and muggers and queers, oh my), and they think the city dwellers drive too fast.

        Harming Cindy would simply make her a martyr, totally unproductive, and we know the brilliant strategerists in the White House wouldn't make so obvious a blunder, right?

        don't always believe what you think...

        by claude on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 06:01:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is scary shit folks (3.00)
    Does anyone know a Secret Service agent or how they operate?  This is the government who can and will do anything...they obviously feel a threat to National security with Cindy & Co.  

    For this to succeed we NEED to get alot of people there...it's tougher to dispose of hundreds...we need to question (through the press, let's get on this) what the SS means...EXACTLY.

    Can they park RV's, Trucks in the fields where they are?  Find out who the land owner is and get permission QUICKLY...then people need to take vehicles for them to stay in and be able to lock...

    •  IIRC (4.00)
      The SS was investigating a GOP operative who was impersonating a SS agent. I din't recall them being too happy about that particular situation.

      Are we sure that the SS wasn't just expressing valid concern about the safety of the protestors? Are we sure that they aren't just doing their job?

      How do you know that there isn't some level of sympathy within the SS ranks? After all, one place that the SS hires is from the military.

      Just asking some questions here...

      "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

      by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:28:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (3.61)
        The entire tin-foil hyperbole of this thread is disturbing to say the least.

        cheers,

        Mitch Gore

        Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

        by Lestatdelc on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:02:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It was in regards to the Denver 3 (none)
        And the SS has ended their investigation without filing charges even though they have identified the mystery man.

        While this does not imply joy and happiness on the part of the SS, they certainly don't seem to be too upset about it either.

        Support our terrific open source media project! Donate to ePluribus Media today!

        by Timroff on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:29:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't know that... (none)
          the SS is good at keeping its opinions to itself. It went through its investigation. It spooked the folks that needed reminded that they could be in really deep kim chee.

          The actual law suits are still in the works right?

          "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

          by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:31:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What law suits? (none)
            According to the link above,
            The Secret Service has determined the identity of a mystery man who forcibly removed three people from a March appearance by President Bush in Denver, but it has decided to not press charges.

            In a letter sent to three Colorado members of Congress, the Secret Service said that its investigation is over and that it will not name the man because no charges were filed.

            The terse letter -- released by the Colorado lawmakers -- puts to rest a months-long Secret Service probe into the identity of the man accused of impersonating a Secret Service agent to kick three anti-Bush Democrats from the president's rally.

            The people became known as the "Denver Three" as their crusade to unmask the mystery bouncer took them all the way to Capitol Hill. They said they were confronted by a man -- dressed in an official-looking suit and wearing an earpiece similar to ones plugged into the ears of Bush's security detail -- who forced them to leave an event simply because they had an "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on their car. The man never said he was an agent, but he threatened to arrest them if they did not obey his orders. The White House said he was a volunteer who was not operating in any official capacity for Bush. "Hopefully the White House will put in place procedures for town meetings that allow all views to be heard and that respect all law-abiding individuals," Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said in a statement

            (emphasis mine)

            Support our terrific open source media project! Donate to ePluribus Media today!

            by Timroff on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:58:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ACLU filed a (none)
              lawsuit, yes?

              Is it possible that the SS did just enough investigation that might possibly provide the ACLU with the needed evidence to sue the britches off of someone?

              "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

              by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:02:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  good point (none)
                wasn't aware of the ACLU suit.

                Support our terrific open source media project! Donate to ePluribus Media today!

                by Timroff on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 09:32:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not sure what (none)
                  involvement that the ACLU has in it. But there were rumblings about some sort of lawsuit. And it looks like this is the start:

                  'Denver 3' To File Civil Lawsuit
                  White House Is Stonewalling Them, They Say
                  The group known as the Denver 3 says they will take it court, 9News' Cheryl Preheim reports. They say the White House is stonewalling them.

                  Can't get into the actual article...not a subscriber.

                  "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                  by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 09:55:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  lawsuit still possible (none)
              Slightly OT, but since it came up:

              One of the Denver Three, Leslie Weise, was at the live broadcast of the Ed Schultz show July 29 in Denver.  She said that they had hoped to get satisfaction from the Feds, attorney general, and SS.  

              Now that they've been denied that, it sure sounded like they will sue the federal government for denying their civil liberties.  She gave every indication that they would, without actually saying they would. She is an attorney.  She repeated the saying about how anyone who represents himself has a fool for a client, so she won't be handling it herself.

              They have a web site set up at http://www.denverthree.com/ if anyone wants to help with legal fees.

              She told me in an email 7/31 that "The ACLU approached us almost immediately after this [the original incident] happened with offers to help.  We had decided to use our current attorneys, however the ACLU continues to participate on the sidelines with assistance."

              Ken Salazar (D-CO), who said he'll vote for the Flag Desecration Amendment, needs to hear from us.

              by OLinda on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:40:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  scary (4.00)
      Barbara, I think the SS may have said it to try to get the people to leave and not spend the night. The SS is not going to kill anybody.  I'm as tinfoily as they come; but, this is ridiculous.

      Ken Salazar (D-CO), who said he'll vote for the Flag Desecration Amendment, needs to hear from us.

      by OLinda on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:04:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have a pretty good idea (4.00)
      I work about two blocks from the Whitehouse and see agents every day.  I also see how they deal with regular and ongoing protests right outside the Whitehouse.  And I've never seen them act with anything less than total professionalism.

      Their job is to protect the President and to investigate counterfeiting, not to intimidate people who criticize the President (unless, of course, people are making threats).

  •  Are there News Cameras There? (none)
    Does anyone know if there are cameras there?

    A videographer or news cameras?

  •  Thinking Out Loud (none)
    Maybe, just maybe, Cindy and her companions would be more effective if they got good nights of sleep someplace safe and secure, like the Crawford Peace House, and then hit their "stake out" early in the morning and stayed there until late at night, and then go back into town and get more sleep.  They can last a whole lot longer if they repeat that pattern day after day, night after night.  

    Let's face it, the Chick-in-Chief is not going to leave the Chicken Ranch to go see her at night anyway, so why not conserve her energy at night?

  •  playing devil's advocate (4.00)
    is it possible that the secret service maybe just meant this as a friendly, factual warning?  the secret service hasn't ever really been implicated in any nefarious activities have they?  they're just the dudes who guard the president, not the ones who carry out his orders, correct?  i readily admit that i could be wrong on this one, but i always thought of the secret service as non-partisan....
    •  one reason to be suspicious (3.00)
      is that SEVERAL of them stopped by with the same message.

      one, maybe two-- that's considerate.  several?  that's intimidation.  IMO.

      if trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? we might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. jack handy.

      by akgrrl on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:08:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For all you know... (none)
        several could be three...or two groups of two agents.

        There are a lot of crosses on the side of the road in some areas of Texas. Maybe they don't want them to show up on their watch.

        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

        by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:18:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i guess i would argue (none)
          that if the people at the scene felt intimidated, and that the number of comments was out of line/eerie, then i trust them more than my own skepticism.

          i'm not there, i don't know the reality of the situation, but if she's concerned i'm concerned for her.  i'm not going to make phone calls right this minute, but red flags have been raised, and noted.  any harm?

          if trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? we might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. jack handy.

          by akgrrl on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:30:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  5 years of living (4.00)
            in Texas tells me that the roads aren't the safest place to be camping out for the night. I've driven those roads at night.

            The advice seems reasonable to me.

            There's been a whole day of protesting and media coverage. People are tired. It's effin' hot in Crawford right about now.

            Emotions are running high. So maybe it's time to sit down and breathe before reacting.

            "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

            by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:37:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Could it be (4.00)
        The Secret Service is very worried about this (since there's a potential liability for them), and really would like them to move somewhere safer?

        It's not as if they're making up the thing about people driving fast in Texas.

        Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

        Feingold for President

        by Goldfish on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:49:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If they care so damn much (none)
          let em put up a caution sign, or some flares.  

          Sorry, I think you are giving the SS too much credit.

          The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

          by daveriegel on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:22:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why? (4.00)
            Do you know of any prior incident in which the Secret Service made gangland-style threats to those whose only crime was protesting the President?

            In my experience, the Secret Service has one job -- actually protecting the President -- and they do it with impeccable professionalism, as a matter of pride.  And I say this as someone who works around the corner from the Whitehouse, sees protests at the Whitehouse every day and sees how the Secret Service does its job.

            I wouldn't put it past some GOP lackey to make threats, though, and we should keep in mind that they've done this before while impersonating SS agents.

            •  They also follow orders. (none)
              And judging by the fact that Hadley came out of the woodwork.... the admin is certainly aware of this protest.  

              They HATE protesters.  

              So you don't think Bush would send the SS out with a veiled threatening message?

              Not attacking the SS, but they do, after all, follow orders.

              The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

              by daveriegel on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:08:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "They"? (none)
                Funny, I'm a protester and my cousin in the SS knows it and loves me. We laugh, in fact, about being on opposite sides of the "fence" when I come to DC.

                The SS does not "just follow orders." They follow the LAW.

                Educate yourself before lobbing about such accusations in future, OK? Introduce yourself to several SS agents and ask them if "they" "hate" protesters or how far they are authorized and personally willing to go to protect the President. I strongly suspect you won't find murder on their lists.

                •  YOU educate yourself on antecedents. (none)
                  The antecedent of "they" in the above sentence is the administration.

                  If you think "they" follow the law, you are on the wrong site.

                  The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

                  by daveriegel on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:24:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Segmentis... (none)
                    Before you have a chance to post...sorry that was out of line on my part.

                    I'm just frustrated that peaceful protesters are being harassed.  And frankly I don't think it is hard to imagine someone from the Bush camp telling the SS to go out and make them feel unwelcome.  That is NOT to say I think the SS would actually use violence on protesters.

                    We probably still don't agree but I shouldn't have been so insulting.

                    The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

                    by daveriegel on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:32:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  So the "they" (none)
                    who follow orders are also the "they" who "HATE" protesters?

                    If anyone has a grammar problem here, it's you, not me, summa cum laude English major and professional editor.

                    "They," the Secret Service DO follow the law. My cousin wouldn't touch his job with a ten-foot pole otherwise. Now what SS agents do YOU know, again?

                    And I'm not on the wrong site, but thanks ever so much for your "concern."

                    •  See my above post (none)
                      apology there.

                      ("They hate" referred to Bushco.)

                      Seriously, I hate this bickering and my part in it.  We are supposed to be on the same side.  The above post was the first one here I have ever wished to take back.

                      But I still wonder if you are too close to the SS personally to wonder if they could ever be misused in Bush's service.  Are you totally dismissing that possibility?

                      The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

                      by daveriegel on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:42:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK (none)
                        Here's my lefty street cred in hopes it might help.

                        I've been a political activist since I was 15 (much longer if you count my participation in my parents' draft counseling activities during Vietnam--I was an accessory, behaving while they helped keep people out of THAT war). My FBI file began w/ a SANE protest where other marchers included other high school students and the grandmothers for peace.

                        I haven't rested since, and most recently, I spent 48 hours (24 in a condemned bus terminal and 24 in the tombs) in detention for peacefully protesting during the RNC.

                        Do I BLINDLY trust law enforcement officers and agencies? Certainly not. But do I object when people use broad generalizations--and melodramatic ones, at that--to define them? Yes.

                        During the RNC and other events (shutting down a freeway in CA on the eve of the first Gulf War comes to mind--the police were nothing but helpful, all of them), I've dealt with good cops and bad cops. I base my judgments on my experience, and I wish others would do the same. Is that asking too much?

                  •  Apology (none)
                    accepted, Dave, and thank for agreeing that this discussion is less than productive and should stop.

                    One more thing before I drop it myself, however. Please don't say things like "you're on the wrong site" to people with whom you disagree on just one matter. I've been working--hard--for our side all my life. Why should the fact that I have a cousin in the Secret Service in whose defense I feel bound to speak up (and he deserves it--he's no automaton) disqualify me from participating here?

                    Thanks. Peace.

          •  This is so (none)
            sociologically interesting.

            Who's more likely to be a racist? Someone who's never met anyone of another race, or someone who's spent a lot of time making an effort to get to know individuals of other races?

            My cousin's SS. When you've made an effort to talk to some agents and have come around from your "SS, all bad" prejudicial thinking, get back to me.

            Otherwise, admit that you know not of what you speak and keep your tinfoil generalizations to yourself.

    •  The Secret Service is well-known for singling out (none)
      and beating the hell out of individual anti-war protesters before turning them over to state or local cops.

      It happened over and over again in the Nixon era. I  doubt their M.O. has changed.

  •  Driving fast on gravel (none)
    is not recommended. This is common sense.  She is a National Treasure and needs to be treated as such.  If she so much has a bruise on her knee, somebody needs to be accountable for it.  nomas
  •  Secret Service (none)
    First, I think that Cindy and Crew should sleep in town at nite...but then they may just block the road further and further out, who knows.

    As to the SS and what they can do...I dated one, wouldn't trust em as far as I could throw em...

    •  Okay... (4.00)
      devil's advocate here...but I'm a bit hesitant about painting a whole bunch of people with the same paintbrush based on one guy and the dynamics of a relationship.

      "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

      by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:36:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for that, kredwyn (4.00)
        My cousin's Secret Service, and he'd want to protect Cindy & co., not harm them.

        Whether or not I'd call him relationship material is another story altogether. :)

        •  Now let me get this straight. (2.50)
          The Secret Service come to tell Cindy that is common practice for unknown drivers to come towards the President's Texas Residence at high speed (the one mile roadblock means that at 60 miles an hour the speeder is only ONE MINUTE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES),  the SS's conly comment is Cindy we  are worried about YOU?

          If that's the case, where are the road blocks, barricades, squadrols.

          Sounds more like a combo of the Sopranos and Mississippi Burning.

          Actually, it is!

          •  When there's (none)
            been an actual gangland shooting or lynching, let me know. In the meantime, neither you nor I can attribute motive to the SS's warnings.
            •  I was hoping some could figure out (none)
              that my references to the Sopranos and Mississippi Burning was NOT to say the  the KKK or the mob is  paying any intention to Cindy.

               Rather to say those thuggish tactics of bodily harm or worse are being used against Cindy, apparently from law enforcement types, apparently not above such criminal intimidation.

              I don't know if Cindy is intimidated, she seems pretty brave to me. But I would certainly be worried and maybe she is too.

              Also there is the implied threat  that law enforcement would stand aside if, if they know someone is out to get her or the people around, as "collateral damage."

              That's a lot to worry about.

              By the bye, some  DID get it.

              Google simile. Extra credit for analogy.

    •  Last night (4.00)
      Some guy used the same argument you just used to try to pain feminists as men-hating harpies. That argument sucked when he did it and it smells just as bad now.

      Argue with out the hyperbole and the fallacies and I might consider listening to you. However, your repeated posts on this thread, each presenting the same argument in a similar manor are not impressing me, or making me inclined to take you seriously.

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:53:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh cmon (4.00)
    I say the following as
    1. A person who has lived in rural states and areas nearly my entire life
    2. Driven way too fast on country roads
    3. An occasional camper
    4. A supporter of Iraq war protestors, especially the families of the fallen and Ms. Sheehan in particular

    Ms. Sheehan should take the SS officer's advice.

    Bush hardly cares nor notices what protestors think -- he doesn't even care what his own soldiers and intelligence agencies think.

    •  Judging by all the mailboxes (4.00)
      we have had to replace in 11 years on a TX county road - I hope they will camp as far off the roadway as possible.  We also end up filling tire ruts in our ditch 3 or 4 times each year.  

      The truth always matters.

      by texasmom on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:42:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not in Texas (4.00)
      But I am in Iowa, and I've driven my share of grade B (gravel) roads at 60+ miles per hour. The speed limit's often 55, and regardless of the speed limit, there are people who have a lot of miles to cover to get where they're going, and they're not slowing down for the view.

      Even if it was meant as a threat, which I sincerely doubt, it's sound advice. I sure as hell wouldn't camp on a gravel road in Iowa.

      I also wouldn't cross a Bush without expecting a shitstorm aimed at me, but based on prior behavior, this Bush will just stonewall and ignore the protestors, while Rove shapes the message from his office in D.C.

      •  o/t (none)
        i'm going to Iowa next week - is it hot and/or humid there?  thanks

        the good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. -jane addams

        by bsmcneil on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:47:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The President Of the United States (none)
        doesn't have a high security, barricaded residence in Iowa. And Iowa is better for it.

        And Iowans are smart enough, and decent enough (I know, I was born there) to know to slow down when you get within a mile of the President's occupied residence.

        Cindy was warned that, while the SS will protect the President, they are letting her know that any harm bearers are not Lee Harvey Oswalds, but more like the guys who killed Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

        Oh, poo pooh she's scared.

        Damn!!!!

    •  I disagree (4.00)
      he is highly allergic to any criticism, especially that which denigrates his glorious war time leadership as commander in chief.   Why does the SS go to such great lengths to protect the pres from protests?  

      There has never been a pres. in history who did more to avoid those who disagree with him publicly.  Jeez, have you been paying attention?

      This is the thinnest skinned president ever.

      The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

      by daveriegel on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:26:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Didn't intend for all of them to be painted (none)
    ...with one paintbrush...just knew a handful of the presidential and VP detail...that was when '41' was in office....
    •  You could have put this (none)
      In the same thread with the comment it reffered too. That way, I would have seen it before I posted my rather snappish reply to it. Had I seen this, I likely wouldn't have written it in such terms, or even at all.

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:58:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Candle (4.00)
    I'm located very far away, but I will put a candle in my window each night. It isn't much, but please tell Cindy I respect what she is doing. Anyone else have spare windows and candles?

    "We will no longer suffer in silence this continued assault that has now passed beyond intolerable"----A True US Patriot

    by khloemi on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:43:42 PM PDT

  •  Also lived in rural (none)
    areas all my life, and really don't think too highly of government advice.  If they say to do something, it is prudent to consider other options.  Just saying from my experience.
  •  We need someone or people (4.00)
    to donate a Motor Home for her to use, and we need Security Guards to stand guard with them for their safty. If no one comes forward, someone needs to start a pay pal donation center for Cindy. They lost big time with their Schiavo vigil in Florida, this is a no brainer. This is real and truthful and something everyone can relate to..A mothers love for her son who was killed in a War that the majority of Americans do not support and was illegal. We need to get folks out there to support her, and the men and women who have been killed by Bush and his illegal war. Cindy should not be alone there during the nights with just a couple other people. This is the begining of what we all have wanted. The protest of Bush's illegal War in Iraq. This is it folk. We wanted our protests. We wanted our Ukraine...Well it is starting in Crawford, Texas. And won't it be wonderful when the entire world finds out Bush is on Vacation for 5 weeks, while our soldiers are fighting for their lives every day in Iraq. We must get every high powered offical we have on our side out to Crawford to meet with Ms. Sheehan and have the press cover it. This is the good fight and could make Schiavo and the missing girl in Aruban look like small potatoes. Lets Support Cindy in everyway we can.

    *"I went to protest Dobson, and all I got was this damn feeding tube*

    by Chamonix on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:08:31 PM PDT

  •  Candles??? (none)
    Can somebody from the peace center just locate a coleman lantern with some extra fuel and run it out to the campers? Seems like a pretty easy solution to the drunk-redneck-in-a-pickup-truck-swerving-into-the-ditch scenario. Think.

    I Am The King Of The Eleven Comment Diary

    by CalbraithRodgers on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:19:17 PM PDT

    •  Maybe not, (none)
      I was shipped to Texas to live w/my grandparents when I was 14. A guy I went to High School with got a flat tire late at night and stood by the road with a flare while his friends tried to change a flat. A speeder tried to avoid him by veering to the right and hit everyone. He ran over this kid's arm, but the others were injured more seriously. They all layed there for hours, and the others died.
  •  I was there today and this is not (3.25)
    quite what was said.  In fact, it is not very close at all.

    I was planning to put up a diary with pictures.

    The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

    by TXsharon on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:19:19 PM PDT

    •  Then what WAS said? (4.00)
      Don't leave us hanging! Either clear it up, or don't come in and dangle that kind of nugget without more info.

      Support our terrific open source media project! Donate to ePluribus Media today!

      by Timroff on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:33:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know what? (3.87)
        It is after midnight and I have been in the boiling sun all day, been rained on, been screamed at by nut jobs, surrounded by the SS, listened to the whole party line crap by JOE HAGIN, ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF STEVEN HABLEN. FROM NATIONAL SECURITY.  

        I'm a little bit tired!  I'm not trying to dangle any thing just trying to stop some of the exageration.

        I want to write up a diary.  I have 44 pictures.  It might take me a while.

        The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

        by TXsharon on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:40:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Damn... (none)
          Talk about your cliffhangers. Be sure to tune back in tomorrow when TXSharon spills the beans...

          "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

          by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:47:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  In the time it took you to write both (1.85)
          of your posts, I'm sure you could have succinctly briefed us on what was actually said, or at least the gist of the exchange.

          I certainly appreciate your being there with your support and first-hand experience, but IMHO neither of your posts have been helpful in the least.

          •  Sorry (4.00)
            I am sincerely sorry that I irritated you.  My intent was positive in that I hoped to stop any panic without taking too much time so I could get my diary written up.  I am extremely tired and...well, sorry.

            It is true that with this bunch you never know what to expect but I don't think anyone is in any danger of being hurt.  They were using a pattern of intimidation.

            The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

            by TXsharon on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:20:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for the comment Sharon (none)
              however, it was not my intention to imply that I was irritated. Frustrated would be more appropriate. I wasn't looking for an apology, just a brief explanation as to why you thought Celeste had gone "overboard just a little".

              Having read through the diary while refreshing the comments, and until you finally wrote your comment above, there was quite a bit of animosity and downright nastiness in this diary, as I'm sure you would agree, or you wouldn't have posted what you did, or diaried just a few minutes later.

              To those kossacks who felt my frustration was unwarranted by troll-rating my comment with 2's or 1's - what goes around comes around. I hope it made you feel "good".

        •  My apologies (4.00)
          Truly, I'm sorry.

          Can we gat at least a snippet? People are getting really worried here, and if you can ease their fears it would be greatly appreciated...

          Again, sorry for the harsh tone. I'm just concerned.

          Support our terrific open source media project! Donate to ePluribus Media today!

          by Timroff on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:01:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I hope (none)
    the SSvc is a bit more professional then running around making veiled threats.

    Did anyone see credentials?

    I suppose it could be construed as that, or it could be that they really didn't want to deal with the hub-bub and conspiracy theories if someone does get run over.  (Think there's any Freepers in that part of Texas?)

    Or they just wanted an excuse to visit, check things out (as is their job) and decided to throw in a bit of "be careful" intimidation to boot.

    Or maybe they know it's Bushs' turn to take the battle wagon down to the liquor store tonight.  (He's damn dangerous enough on a bicycle!)

    The most important thing about life is to stay amused by it.

    by Paulie200 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:20:49 PM PDT

    •  I should have added... (4.00)
      just to let  you know where I'm comming from, that I think Cindy is one hell of a human being and I think her efforts to get a meeting with the President are admirable.

      The most important thing about life is to stay amused by it.

      by Paulie200 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 10:50:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Crawford middle of Nowhere (4.00)
    isn't like my swampville middle of nowhere.  I think of it like Roswell or something. It is covered.  Don't think a bug moves and they don't see it.  Cindy should be as safe there as she would be anywhere.
  •  This is ridiculous (4.00)
    You should be thanking the SS.  I think it would be rather obvious to anyone with intelligence that sleeping on the side of HIGHWAY is not in your best interests.  I dislike W and Karl as much as the next liberal, but throwing out little bombs like "This is the government of them, there is an alterior motive at play" is simply ridiculous IMO.  
  •  I'm sorry (4.00)
    Not highway, but road.  And I live in Texas,have been to Crawford myself, and people, including me, will drive insanely fast on those little blackened, dirt roads.  
    •  Not to mention (none)
      It is the weekend and a favorite place for teenagers to park.
      Now, if she actually thinks she is in danger, it might be just the situation. All day long with wingnuts yelling at you, hot as hell, at least it was in San Antonio, might do something to your thought process.

      Being a patriot means you have to do more than wave a flag!

      by melthewriter on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:46:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it happens.... (4.00)
      I know of an entire family that was wiped out on a two lane country road.  A family (dad was a veterinarian) stopped to help an injured animal on the side of a road.  

      A drunk came speeding down the road and mowed down the entire fmaily, all but one of the six person family died.

      I'm sorry, I can't stand this president, but I really feel the secret service's statemens are being distorted.  

  •  Why do so many posters above... (3.42)
    Insist that we should TRUST the Secret Service at this point?

    They acted as political enforcers for Bush rallies all through the '04 campaign season, throwing any dissenters out of pro-Bush events under the vague mantle of "security."

    I don't think you have to jump to the melodramatic conclusion that they're murderers to say:

    The Secret Service works for Bush, and should NOT be trusted.  

    The burden of proof lies with those who are still so naive at this point.  Why in the world would you assume that the Secret Service is totally professional and non-political, after what we've seen?   I'm sure there have been plenty of good, compassionate, fair people who have worked there over the years, but over 4+ years of the Bush administration, they've no doubt been supplanted by "team players" for Dubya.

    There can be NO serious assertion that any part of the Washington establishment -- or any part of government -- is immune from partisan politics at this point.  BushCo has consciously worked to set it up that way, under the direction of Rove, Cheney, and their minions.  We've seen ugly, naked GOP partisanship spread to areas where it was never seen previously.

    So I seriously doubt this is a warning that Cindy and company are about to be killed by the Secret Service.  (Though I give her a lot of leeway for hyperbole, given what she's been through.)   But it's been shown time and again that the Secret Service are now enforcing the POLITICAL will and fortunes of Bush at this point, not merely protecting his safety.  

    So let's not lose the forrest for the trees, and project some image of steadfast, objective professionalism on this Secret Service.  It may have been true once, but it obviously isn't anymore.

    •  The Secret Service (4.00)
      was also working for Kerry.

      And works for Bill Clinton.  And Hillary Clinton, presumably.

      Just something you should know.

      •  understood, PP (3.00)
        Just something you should know.

        But the ones who are working for Bush, down there, specifically...do you think they are immune from politics?

        Do you disagree with my basic premise?  And do you disagree that the Secret Service was used politically by BushCo in the 2004 campaigns?

        If so, please explain.  Not trying to pick a fight, I'm honesty interested in your answer.

      •  not interested in this discussion? (none)
        Too bad.

        I'll just add this:

        As for who the Secret Service "works for," if you want to be real technical about it, it's the Department of Homeland Security.  

        Just something YOU should know.

        Sure, the secret Service provides protection to national candidates.  But that's not mutually exclusive with them being subject to political manipulation.  Especially since one of BushCo's goals is to make EVERYTHING subject to that.

        •  Vince Foster... (3.00)
          Remember him? Clinton had him killed, remember?

          We lose a lot of credibility as a community when we turn around and make claims that we spent years fighting previously.

          •  wow, is THAT a straw man (none)
            "Vince Foster...Remember him? Clinton had him killed, remember?"

            So...because some rightwing nutcases made up a bunch of grotesque lies about Clinton, we have to make a public stand of trusting the Secret Service completely?  There are no shades here?

            Jesus.  There IS some territory between crazed conspiracy theorist and gullible fool.

            You don't have to believe that the Secret Service is planning to murder Cindy Sheehan (and indeed, I don't believe it) to be skeptical of the Secret Service's complete objectivity.  As I've said, I think it ignores ample evidence to the contrary: Bush's campaign '04 rallies, etc.  And the fact that they have SO many rules as to where Cindy Sheehan can't be, even though she's MILES away from Dubya, are worthy of hard questioning.

            So please don't pretend that I'm offering the same kind of logic as the ridiculous Foster conspiracists.  You may think it clinches the argument, but it says more about your weak reasoning than mine.

    •  The SS also (4.00)
      worked for Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Carter, Ford, Kerry, Bush I, and Reagan. Not to mention a whole bunch of other presidents after the assassination of Lincoln.

      The organization is a mix of people. Some will agree others won't. That seems pretty normal to me.  Though I'm remembering a period of time when the SS was considered to be a tool of the liberal political establishment during the Clinton years...

      I'm curious where it's been shown that the organization is out there promoting a political will. I'd like to see some credible evidence on that.

      "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

      by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:00:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chumley is correct about (3.50)
        the SS being used politically during the Bush administration.  The enforcement of the free speech zones, during the campaign the SS was used to keep American citizens wearing Kerry t-shirts out of events where the President was speaking.  There was that incident in Denver, (I believe) where 4 people holding tickets to the Bush event were not allowed entry (despite holding tickets) because of their T-Shirts and it was the SS that was responsible.

        Given that T-Shirt wearing is protected by the First Amendment, that George W. Bush was the POTUS and not the POTUBS (President of the United Bush Supporters), and that these people had tickets, that's pretty good example of the SS engaging in political activity not protective activity.

        I don't know if one should see this as a threat, but is yet another example of how the SS (under the guise of security) is being used politically, as chumley pointed out. That alone is something worthy of note by progressives and should be a matter of concern for the public.    

        In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

        by a gilas girl on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:16:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  OK (none)
        "I'm curious where it's been shown that the organization is out there promoting a political will. I'd like to see some credible evidence on that."

        All right:

        1. Please see ALL of the Presidential campaign 2004, where completely peaceful citizens who in any way seemed to oppose Bush were kept out of his campaign rallies by...the Secret Serivce.  I realize there's a whole separate issue of the Denver Three, and perhaps fake Secret Service people.  But I'm talking about what was status quo most of the time -- real Secret Service agents refusing entrance to these rallies and speeches.  Or do you dispute that that happened?

        2. Regarding Ms. Sheehan's immediate situation:  does the Secret Servce really think that all these restrictions on where she can and can't walk are necessary for Bush's SAFETY, given that she's miles away?  Or is someone more worred about his political safety?   Please note that this doesn't mean that every single agent would need to be a Bushie.  I'm sure most are simply doing their jobs.  It just means that their boss has to be sympathetic to Bush, and is willing to put more pressure on Ms. Sheehan, and / or trade off HER free speech rights for Bush's political convenience.

        Yes, none of that approaches...(bum bum bum BUM!) MURDER.   And by saying what she did, Ms. Sheehan leaves herself open to charges of being a nut.  (Though those who make those charges so vociferously on THIS thread seem a bit too anxious to do that, given what the poor brave woman is going through, and continues to go through.)

        As for the Secret Service protecting other Presidents, candidates, etc...well, sure.  But does it then follow that they're above suspicion, in these Bush years, where the administration consciously tries to make EVERYTHING political?

        That all kind of ignores the structural reality, too...the Secret Service is assigned to protect key people, yes, but they WORK FOR the Department of Homeland Security.  (Formerly the Treasury...changed in 2002.)   During campaign 2004, the head of the Dept. of Homeland Security was the very poltical Mr. Tom Ridge, of break-out-the-terrorist-alerts-when-Bush's-poll-numbers-sag fame.

        So friends, it's possible to be properly and rigorously skeptical without slippery-sloping immediately into tin-foil hate territory... though I'd agree that the phrase "ton foil hat" is great fun, and sometimes applicable.  

        To simply go in the total opposite direction of "tin-foil" is to blind accepting propaganda, and just as bad from the other end of the continumm.  It's naivete.  I think the real evidence points to a high need -- and even DUTY -- to be very skeptical after 4+ years of Bush outrages against our Constitution.

        So let's be reasonable.  Please address what I said above, and we'll discuss.

        •  je repet (none)
          <<The organization is a mix of people. Some will agree. Others won't. That seems pretty normal to me. Though I'm remembering a period of time when the SS was considered to be a tool of the liberal political establishment during the Clinton years...>>

          There's no naivetee in my statement. The agency is filled with people who think. Sometimes one of them has to protect someone he or she adamantly disagrees with.

          That's got to be a hard position to be in...would you take a bullet for someone you strongly disagree with?

          Have not swung in the opposite space that you seem to think I have. But I do have to ask...was the Denver 3 incident simply a one off? Or was there a regular practice of GOP representatives posing as Secret Service agents?

          Don't forget that there was a loyalty pledge that the GOP had people signing. I suspect that the Secret Service didn't have anything to do with that.

          "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

          by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  avoiding the main point (none)
            "There's no naivetee in my statement. The agency is filled with people who think. Sometimes one of them has to protect someone he or she adamantly disagrees with."

            No disagreement from me.  Nor was it a point I even raised. Seems pretty self-evident.

            "But I do have to ask...was the Denver 3 incident simply a one off? Or was there a regular practice of GOP representatives posing as Secret Service agents?"

            Hm.  Now that's something YOU have to produce some evidence for, if that's your argument.  Not saying it's not true, but your theory is sure going a long way to make sure the Secret Service looks innocent of EVERYTHING.  Why?

            "Don't forget that there was a loyalty pledge that the GOP had people signing. I suspect that the Secret Service didn't have anything to do with that."

            They may not have CONCEIVED it, but they certainly enforced it.  Or do you think anyone enforcing it was a GOP operative in disguise?

            You avoided all my points about Homeland Security, the parameters around Cindy Sheehan, etc.  It seems you want to push the idea of an absoutely pristine, inncorroptible Secret Service, and I truly don't get why.  

            And you're dodging the overall point, I think.  So let me ask a few simple yes-or-no questions, and just see if we can get anywhere together from there:

            1. Is it theoretically possible that the Secret Service could be put to work politically, for an unscrupulous President?  (Please note that I'm not saying murder, nor am I saying that every single agent would need to be corrupt.  So let's not slide down that slippery slope.)  

            2. If NO to # 1, please explain why -- and be specific.  

            If YES, please explain why the Bush administration would not be willing or able to use the Secret Service politically.
            •  Interesitng.,.. (none)
              "But I do have to ask...was the Denver 3 incident simply a one off? Or was there a regular practice of GOP representatives posing as Secret Service agents?"

              <<Hm.  Now that's something YOU have to produce some evidence for, if that's your argument.  Not saying it's not true, but your theory is sure going a long way to make sure the Secret Service looks innocent of EVERYTHING. Why?>>

              Actually. I don't have to do anything. It wasn't an argument. It was a set of questions that seem to make sense to me if faced with a group like the GOP. If they lied or posed about something like having a guy pretend to be a Secret Service agent at a federally funded event such as the Denver "town hall" on Social Security, why wouldn't they have already practiced the routine at other events?

              It's a question regarding the credibility of the new GOP and its willingness to don the outfit but not do the 'in the line of fire' work.

              Denver and the rest of the Social Security tour, unlike the 'private' presidential campaign events, was funded by federal dollars. If you didn't have an invite, you couldn't get in. And it wasn't against the law to keep the average citizen out. If you did try to get in without a ticket, you were trespassing, which means you got put out or arrested by the Secret Service who was doing its job of protecting the President.

              Should they have let Democrats who weren't bearing tickets into private campaign events? If that is political manipulation of the Secret Service by political operatives, then how do you expect them to do their job?  

              The GOP's campaign habits were well covered in the press. If the Dems wanted to do the same thing, they were within their pervue to do so. But Kerry seems to be able to handle the larger and more diverse crowds...including the hecklers.

              As for the loyalty pledge thing. If the order from on high is "No one who hasn't got this writst band (denoting that they signed this piece of paper) can't get into the event," of course they'll enforce it.

              Again, if that is political manipulation of the Secret Service by political operatives, then how do you expect them to do their job?  

              BTW...that is an amazingly loaded and leading Yes or No question. So guess what...am not going to, nor do I have to, answer it. (you might have a career in creating push polls)

              I haven't pushed the idea of a pristine anything. I have said that it is made of people. Some have one opinion. Others have another. And probably there's another group in there also that has a third opinion that is different from the first two. And frankly...that makes sense to me.

              You appear to be making a mountain out of a mole hill...to use an antiquated cliche.

              "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

              by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 07:25:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Stumbly fingers.... (none)
                Delete:
                Denver and the rest of the Social Security tour, unlike the 'private' presidential campaign events, was funded by federal dollars. If you didn't have an invite, you couldn't get in. And it wasn't against the law to keep the average citizen out. If you did try to get in without a ticket, you were trespassing, which means you got put out or arrested by the Secret Service who was doing its job of protecting the President.

                and insert this:
                Denver and the rest of the Social Security tour, unlike the 'private' presidential campaign events, was funded by federal dollars. In the public events, you had to have a ticket. But the tickets could be picked up from your congresscritter...by law, anyone could attend. In the campaign events if you didn't have an invite, you couldn't get in. And it wasn't against the law to keep the average citizen out. If you did try to get in without a ticket, you were trespassing, which meant you got put out or arrested by the Secret Service who was doing its job of protecting the President.

                and too many negatives...

                Delete:
                As for the loyalty pledge thing. If the order from on high is "No one who hasn't got this writst band (denoting that they signed this piece of paper) can't get into the event," of course they'll enforce it.

                and insert:
                As for the loyalty pledge thing. If the order from on high is "No one who hasn't got this wrist band (denoting that they signed this piece of paper) can get into the event," of course they'll enforce it.

                "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 07:47:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  yes (none)
                You appear to be making a mountain out of a mole hill...to use an antiquated cliche.

                A cliche indeed.  Inaccurate as well.

                Actually. I don't have to do anything."

                I agree.  So calm down, no one is trying to make you do anything you don't want to do.  Nor do I believe I could, just for the record.

                "BTW...that is an amazingly loaded and leading Yes or No question. So guess what...am not going to, nor do I have to, answer it.

                Again, the "I dont have to."  Nope, you sure don't.

                But the fact that you won't tells me all I need to know.

                "Amazingly loaded"?  Please!  Just direct.  And you don't seem capable of answering a direct question, or owning your assertions.

                And one of the things you clearly WANT to do is keep asserting your "Secret Service is corruptible" position -- made up and down this thread, and not just with me -- without taking responsibility for it.  

                Seems we have no disagreement that the GOP is nefarious, and capable of trying all manner of extra-legal manuevers.   Where we disagree is that you seem to think -- for reasons still not explained -- that the Secret Service is impervious to any pressure coming from the Bush administration to act on their political behalf.  I don't.

                We're getting nowhere.  So... believe what you must.  And enjoy.  

                Good night.  

                •  A PhD in Rhetoric... (none)
                  makes a question like this:

                  <<And you're dodging the overall point, I think.  So let me ask a few simple yes-or-no questions, and just see if we can get anywhere together from there:</p>

                     1. Is it theoretically possible that the Secret Service could be put to work politically, for an unscrupulous President?  (Please note that I'm not saying murder, nor am I saying that every single agent would need to be corrupt.  So let's not slide down that slippery slope.)  

                     2. If NO to # 1, please explain why -- and be specific.>>

                  far from simple to answer. It's not as simple (black and white) to me as it is to you.

                  A straight up 'yes' answer opens a whole gate of "see, I told you so they can be coerced into doing all sorts of heinous things". A straight 'no' answer is open to the "well what about this and that and that" response that generally includes JFK. And I don't see it as a simple question...I see that there are a whole bunch of context related nuances involved in your question.

                  So here. Let me try this:

                  • Theoretically speaking...it's possible for a NYC cop to be manipulated by an unscrupulous President.
                  • Theoretically speaking...it's possible for a minister to be manipulated by an unscrupulous President.
                  • Theoretically speaking...it's possible for 4 star generals to be manipulated by an unscrupulous President.
                  • Realistically speaking...there is a CIA analyst wandering around suing because he was fired for not tweaking the evidence re: WMD.

                  So...with the term theoretically firmly in place, it's possible that a Secret Service Agent could be manipulated by an unscrupulous President.

                  However I would add one huge qualifier to any of these. And that qualifier is that the cop, minister, general, agent may have no knowledge of  the actual manipulation.

                  Why do I say this? Because what seems to be "honestly doing their job by protecting the president" can be manipulation by a representative of the administration. And I'm not sure that it's fair to lay that on the Secret Service or the cop or the minister.

                  Not too sure where you got this idea:
                  <<And one of the things you clearly WANT to do is keep asserting your "Secret Service is corruptible" position -- made up and down this thread, and not just with me -- without taking responsibility for it.>>

                  I have said repeatedly that it's made up of people...complete with human qualities. Do I want them to be incorruptible? Yes. They protect the president. That's any president...not just the ones you agree with. And I think that for the most part they do a pretty good job doing what they are supposed to do.

                  As for the rest.

                  Let's just say that I have some friends who work in and around the District. They are dedicated people who feel a sense of duty that is not about political games...it's about something bigger. And they work very hard to make sure that they do their job...without thought to the political games going on around their heads. They dislike the games. But they do their jobs.

                  "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                  by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 09:50:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe... (none)
                  there's something that you're trying to say that I'm not getting.

                  But if it has anything to do with blind faith, I can honestly say that there are few things that I believe without question.

                  I have faith in most of my family.
                  I have faith in my long time friends.

                  I believe that they will be who they are. And if I need something they will do their darndest to help out.

                  There are a few other things that I trust in. But I do not put a blind trust in much at all since I quit Sunday school at the age of 10 and took up the idea of Free Thinking a couple years later.

                  And then there's the cat...who is really good at being a cat.

                  "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                  by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:12:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Quick question... (none)
              Then I'm off to pet my cat...

              FEMA is also under the auspices of Homeland Security. Do you expect them to suddenly stop going to natural disasters because the area scans liberal and some corrupt political operative wants to manipulate the agency?

              I don't. I expect them to do their federally mandated job.

              "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

              by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 07:35:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I could say... (none)
                ..."You can't make me answer this" like you do.  But I'll be gracious.

                FEMA is also under the auspices of Homeland Security. Do you expect them to suddenly stop going to natural disasters because the area scans liberal and some corrupt political operative wants to manipulate the agency?

                No, I don't.  It would be far too huge and obvious a political grab, if some GOP scumbag in the organization tried to do that.  

                But that was a pretty clunky hypothetical.  Talk about loaded, man!  I defer to your push polling mastery, friend.

                I don't. I expect them to do their federally mandated job.

                Well, bully for you.  So do I.

                But again, you're asserting the purity of (apparently all)  government agencies, and trying to create the slippery slope you enjoy so much:  

                There are some good people in this organization, and it has a noble ostensible purpose...

                THEREFORE it must be absolutely pure, and invulnerable to political manipulation.

                You leave out all questions of scale.  All questions of motive. And the reality of the Bush years.  I.e., Homeland Security itself was running obvious defense for the Bush campaign, with its terror alerts.  And yet somehow -- this culture can't possibly trickle down?

                I honestly don't understand your reasoning.  And
                I think it's pointless for us to continue this. We're both just getting increasingly agitated at each other -- it's creeping in more and more.

                So...I wish you no harm, honestly.  And apologies for the rising line of tension here.  

                We'll have to agree to disagree.   Have a good night, and give that cat a pet for me.

                 

                •  Once again... (none)
                  I never said anything about purity.

                  You seem to keep putting that word in my mouth. But I've never used it. Nor have I implied it.

                  On the contrary, I have said repeatedly that people are people. Some agree and some do not. No where have I said anything about every agency being pure of anything.

                  I did point out earlier that "I haven't pushed the idea of a pristine anything. I have said that it is made of people. Some have one opinion. Others have another. And probably there's another group in there also that has a third opinion that is different from the first two. And frankly...that makes sense to me."

                  But I also don't think that they are inherently corrupt, which I've read as your general implication.

                  The world is a lot greyer than the dichotomy that you seem to have set in front of me...

                  Quick other note: I didn't use the words "You HAVE to...," which is usually something that starts a bristle effect along the lines of "I don't have to do anything." ;-P

                  "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                  by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:04:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Because we are not sporting... (3.00)
      ...these

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

      by Lestatdelc on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:04:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about an (none)
      INFORMED and serious assertion?

      My cousin's SS. What agents do YOU know?  And through what links do you intend to prove  "it's been shown time and again that the Secret Service are now enforcing the POLITICAL will and fortunes of Bush at this point, not merely protecting his safety"?

      Suffice it to say you are categorically wrong and excessively paranoid. Check into it, for real. Talk to some actual agents rather than jumping to conclusions. It'll make you feel a whole lot better.

      There can be NO serious assertion that any part of the Washington establishment -- or any part of government -- is immune from partisan politics at this point.  BushCo has consciously worked to set it up that way, under the direction of Rove, Cheney, and their minions.  We've seen ugly, naked GOP partisanship spread to areas where it was never seen previously.
  •  And by the way (3.55)
    STOP calling them the "SS".  You know damned well who the SS were.

    If you don't, go read some WW II history, namely that in Europe.

    You have room in your diary title to type out "Secret Service".

      •  Sigh (2.87)
        Did you even fucking read my comment?

        Apparently not.

        Do you know any world history?

        Apparently not.

        •  Sure damn do (3.00)
          And any reasonable person would know it was the Secret Service
        •  Jesus (2.50)
          Did your father work for the Secret Service, or something?

          Please calm down.  

          (Sorry, please fucking calm down.)

          •  It's the ignorance and the arrogance (3.22)
            of some people here that is really getting to me.

            Ignorance - not have a clue about history.

            Arrogance - presuming to abuse history.

            Also, my dad would most likely piss off the Secret Service.  And has caught the eye of the FBI.

            I don't get the flip attitude with which people at dailyKos abuse historical references, especially that referring to something unimaginable that happened in Europe during WW II.

            I also don't get the constant cop bashing and law enforcement bashing that I see here.

            Maybe it makes you feel important?

            Who knows.

            •  sorry, but ridiculous (3.50)
              I also don't get the constant cop bashing and law enforcement bashing that I see here.

              I'm from a family of NY city cops, so I don't do "cop-bashing," nor do I brook it lightly.  The cops in my family are upright and fair.

              It doesn't follow that EVERY law officer is that way, or that abuse isn't possible.  Especially as it gets closer to the Bush administration.

              You're throwing a lot of shitballs about people's Ignorance and Arrogance, but you're not engaging in the actual discussion.

              But maybe name-calling makes YOU feel more important.

              Too bad, you're an excellent front pager.

               

            •  funny...this diary isn't (4.00)
              about you.

              *"I went to protest Dobson, and all I got was this damn feeding tube*

              by Chamonix on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:24:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Plutonium Page (4.00)
              I think the abreviation is acceptable, not because I see a parallel, but because it is a logical abbreviation and the blogosphere (and dKos is full of those kinds of abbreviations).  I am a person very aware of history and historical antecedants, and that parallel did even occur to me as I read NYBri's diary.  In fact, I used it myself.  I do believe in this context it is clear and in fact I have seen the Secret Service abbreviated in this way in other places, not as a attempt to draw a stupid or hyperbolic parallel, either.  

              So while I duly note your concerns, I think its a bit over the top as the context of this use really is clear and easily discernible. And I write the respectfully, as someone who is more often than not disturbed by the hyperbolic tones of folks at dKos.

              The issue, as chumley points out, is probably not the safety of Cindy and her group, but that the agency that protects the President is now being used in an inappropriate way to also protect his politics.  That's not what this agency is mandated to do and the politics of intimidation when practiced by law enforcement/protective services is always a matter of concern for progressives.  

              In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

              by a gilas girl on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:26:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Sometimes (4.00)
              we see in others what we are ourselves..plutonium page/arrogance
        •  you know what.. (4.00)
          you may be a front pager, but you are out of line. knock it off.

          *"I went to protest Dobson, and all I got was this damn feeding tube*

          by Chamonix on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:50:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Good thinking... (none)
      though I confess that I used it as a reference to Secret Service...not the other one.

      <kicks the dust with her sneaker toe>

      "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

      by kredwyn on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:10:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  SS (none)
      Jeez, P. Page, it's just short hand - people often abbreviate on blogs and email.  It's easier to type.  Like SS # for Social Security number. If I were writing about that, I'd take the short cut so I could post faster.  Nobody is making any kind of statement with the abbreviation; they're just abbreviating.

      Ken Salazar (D-CO), who said he'll vote for the Flag Desecration Amendment, needs to hear from us.

      by OLinda on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:28:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If the Secret Service (4.00)
    is SO concerned about Cindy's safety, perhaps they should encourage Dear Leader to come out and speak to her so that she can speak her peace and go home.  

    We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. -MLK

    by JLFinch on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:47:44 PM PDT

    •  Contrary to the movie Dave (3.40)
      The Secret Service is there to look tough and be tough when it comes to protection duty.

      They have no more say with regards to policy than you or I. And I suspect that if they voice personal opinon, they are reassigned.

      "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

      by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:16:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  dude.... (1.85)
        get a heart. If the scare crow could get one..so could you. You are on the losing battle of this fight. Your comments on this thread are heartless.

        *"I went to protest Dobson, and all I got was this damn feeding tube*

        by Chamonix on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:23:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  These people are not (4.00)
          professional operatives.  Cindy is exhausted and yes, scared.  If she has overreacted - give it a rest.  Sitting at a computer and poking out wise comments is a lot different than being where these mothers are.  They are ordinary people under extraordinary pressure.  As well, probably the whole situation is heightening the ever present pain of loss of children.  I agree that the comment, if reported acurately, was over the top.  Just thinking of some of the things I have said under pressure - have some empathy.  However, some of the comments here are over the top as well.  Put yourself in the place of these people and give them a break.  Someone needs to talk to these women and calm them down a bit.  They are in need of comfort, not keyboard tough talk.

          The beneficiaries are likely to be...large corporations and development firms. (O'Connor, J. dissenting in Kelo). God bless you, J. O'Connor.

          by xanthe on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 04:15:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (4.00)
          a) Not a dude.

          b) Not in a fight at all. And I wasn't doing anything beyond pointing out that it might be best to step back and think rather than react from the knee jerk response.

          c) A heart? Do you really have to fall into ad hominem thwacks? Is that really what you can resort to?

          Seriously. They have no say in the creation of public policy.

          "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

          by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:05:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So why (none)
          are you wandering around giving folks 1s?

          "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

          by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:58:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We should all be here to (none)
            Support Cindy and all others that go out to protest Bush and his illegal war, not discourage them. Cindy will read this thread and many comments are uncalled for and have hijacked parts of this diary. Some of the comments here are unproductive and I have rated a couple as I see them.

            *"I went to protest Dobson, and all I got was this damn feeding tube*

            by Chamonix on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:19:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Support, eh? (4.00)
              So let's see...

              You gave me a 1 for responding to your challenge of my comment with regards to the policy making capabilities of the Secret Service. That's not the agency's job.

              You told me that I was heartless because...well I don't really know why. You imply something about  my comments throughout the thread are heartless.

              But if you'd actually read my comments you'd note that I've voiced some not unusual concerns with regards to Cindy's safety...and the wisdom of camping by the side of the road in the middle of nowhereville, Texas. If you notice there are a number of other people who voice similar concerns.

              But nowhere in there did you see anything about my not supporting Cindy's efforts. I'm all for Cindy speaking truth to power.

              I did call for reason and thought over kneejerk reaction. I don't know where in the word "support," that doesn't exist as a supportive position.

              "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

              by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:29:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Supporting (none)
                the tin foil hat comment was uncalled for. And worrying about ants? This woman's son was killed in Bush's illegal war, I don't think she is worried about spiders and ant's. I saw your comments as trying to discourage people from going and supporting her, perhaps that was not your intent, it just seemed to take away from the meaning of Cindy's quest and these diaries.  By putting several of your comments together I found some of them to be unwarrented and counterproductive.

                *"I went to protest Dobson, and all I got was this damn feeding tube*

                by Chamonix on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:45:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well gosh... (4.00)
                  I'm sorry. I was unaware that being supportive meant that blind faith was required.

                  But as someone who lived in Texas for quite a while, I am well aware of the dangers posed by Mother Nature. Additionally, if someone should get bit by a snake, that could end an effective protest rather quickly couldn't it?

                  It seems reasonable to me that people should be thoughtful of their environment whilst getting the message across.

                  "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                  by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:53:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  and the support of (none)
                    the Tin Foil link, comment?

                    *"I went to protest Dobson, and all I got was this damn feeding tube*

                    by Chamonix on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:54:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It was... (none)
                      a late Saturday night snark moment...they are part of the blogosphere.

                      Also I find it problematic to imply that the Secret Service is a group of murdering thugs.

                      "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                      by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:56:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I think it was more (none)
                        intimidation and trying to get her to leave. They should have been treating this woman with kid gloves, even trying to get the sheriff to help out with the possible road problem..maybe helping instead of telling them they could be killed..... Thanks for setting the record straight in regards to your late night snark. I will go back and change my ratings.

                        *"I went to protest Dobson, and all I got was this damn feeding tube*

                        by Chamonix on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:20:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Of course they want (none)
                          the protestors to go and stay in a hotel at night. They absolutely do not want anyone to die on their watch.

                          They went by and advised. Sharon points this out in the objective section of her diary. Cindy is camped on a corner. She acknowledged that it's not easy visibility. There is little to no shoulder.

                          Their job in Crawford is security. By having Cindy and others camped at the corner, they wind up with one more mutable factor in their equation. The fewer things that they have to worry about...the better for them.

                          Trating her with kid gloves implies a lack of respect. That turns her into a fragile creature. CIndy Sheehan is so not a fragile creature. She's a pillar of strength. And I suspect that the guys who are in the Secret Service who'd served in the military earlier recognize that strength as that of their mothers.

                          I know that I'd want to be treated with respect...kid gloves can be taken as condescension.

                          "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                          by kredwyn on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:34:24 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  I find the (none)
                  holier-than thou attitude you're exhibiting less than productive, myself.
                •  This thread (none)
                  is rife with "informed" commentary from uninformed people. It wouldn't be so offensive if it weren't for the accompanying attitude.

                  I'm from New Mexico. When I was a baby, my mother was hospitalized with fire-ant bites.

                  Where do you live, exactly?

            •  I do support Cindy (none)
              I also support my cousin, who is in the Secret Service. Got a problem with that?

              Can we get out of this dreadful black-and-white territory, now, please?

        •  Funny (none)
          Here I thought wildly inaccurate mischaracterizations of my independent-thinking cousin in the SS were heartless.

          Kredwyn has said nothing that isn't simply sensible. I genuinely don't understand the motivation behind needing to believe the Secret Service is all bad, all the time. THAT, I find not only heartless, but mindless.

    •  or supply her and the group with (4.00)
      some sort of security or safty, instead of making wise ass remarks like "you might get killed out here". After all her son is one of over 1,800 people that have died in Iraq. Once again..Bush is managing to fuck something else up. His PR skill are for shit.

      *"I went to protest Dobson, and all I got was this damn feeding tube*

      by Chamonix on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:21:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or give her a friendly warning... (4.00)
        Or, you know, they could mention to her that people drive fast on that road and that she should be on the lookout.

        Look, this woman has a pass because she lost her son in Iraq and I can more than understand being a little paranoid about it. The rest of ya'll who seriously think the secret service is out to get her just need to get outside and try to rediscover that line between healthy skepticism and batsh*t insane paranoia.

        (OMG did you see Skyshadow threaten the folks who think the SS is out to kill Cindy! He wants them to go outside where they'll be easy targets for Delta force snipers and government superlaser satellites!)

  •  Casey Sheehan Fund/Foundation (4.00)
    I'm a techie, not a finance person and am clueless as to how to set this up.

    If we can raise almost $500k in a week, we should be able to raise at least that much over time.

    This woman, and the memory of her son deserves our respect.  Anyone out there thinking we should support her, and her son, by

       1. Providing any protesters for the next five weeks with tents, water, food etc.. Those on site would know the best way to spend the money.
       2. With a continuing interest in providing and supporting the kids of those that lost a parent in this "war".

    If I had this type of experience I would do it.  But I feel we all respect the courage she has shown and she deserves our support, and what better way to give her a lasting memory!

    •  Great idea pessullivan (4.00)
      Go to http://www.gsfp.org/ and click Donations; they accept money via PayPal or check.
    •  What About The Resolution Of Inquiry? (none)
      Yes, but, aren't they there to respect the memories of all the sons and daughters killed? I read they were chanting, "W killed her son!" This is not about just one, isn't this about all? And as such shouldn't that entail going about this by using the law and constitution in our favor for all? And I'm sorry, I just don't have anymore money to give to any effort unless I KNOW that it will lead to Bush's impeachment. I support her bravery wholeheartedly, but I think we should also be focusing on getting Barbara Lee's Resolution of Inquiry passed. We need to pummel the House of Representatives with mails and calls about this. How about a vigil outside the Capital Building until they pass this?

      NOTHING will come of this unless we do what needs to be done constitutionally. Cindy Sheehan could stand out there until Christmas, and she isn't going to get anything from that unfeeling SOB. I am also surprised that with all the media coverage, Ms. Sheehan has said nothing about the Downing Street Memo either, unless I missed it. Isn't this the GOLDEN opportunity to be getting this out to people with the website afterdowningstreet.org mentioned? This protest is in the MSM, what better time could there be? Not one report of this has even mentioned that. There is also no mention of the Resolution of Inquiry. There is also no mention of the breaching of article 2, section 4 of the constitution that is an impeachable offense. Why not? Wouldn't putting our energy, time and money also towards seeing that end truly be our legacy to those who died in Iraq?

  •  It speaks volumes (none)
    It speaks volumes about the Freeper-like trolls' lack of character and conscience, that they continue to give Bush & Co. a free pass on not only a huge blunder of a war in Iraq predicated on lies, but on the great (and criminal) lengths that they will go to so that they can stifle and even silence public opinion about the war and the Bush Administration's gross incompetence as our body of national leaders.

    Backing "your team" as if this were a football game instead of an international predicament of life and death (and our perhaps permanently damaged relationship with the world) speaks volumes. It means you're willing to sacrifice the things you purport to value in your national leaders--integrity, virtues, and moral values--so that your unflinching, stubborn, and childish support of a leader who is clearly wrong for this country will not waver. Shame on you Freeper-types.

  •  snot (4.00)
    Wow, this is one strange, snotty thread.

    Ken Salazar (D-CO), who said he'll vote for the Flag Desecration Amendment, needs to hear from us.

    by OLinda on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:53:57 AM PDT

  •  To Breathe The Air Around Tom Paine (none)
    A roadside vigil, for any purpose, near the Chicken Ranch is pointless and yet perfect.

    Threats from the SS throw logs on this fire of hope, while the light from this blaze reveals the emptiness of a bogus and infinitely lethal administration.

    We can only hope that Cindy and countless others keep this fire burning until common sense returns to even Joe SixPack, Nate Nascar, Ricky Religious and anyone else drinking the kool aid.

    Dick Cheney is a public servant. The check is in the mail. Santa Claus is coming to town.

    by UNCmark on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 03:03:03 AM PDT

  •  Dare I hope? (4.00)
    Dare I hope the Secret Service was just warning Cindy about Laura Bush's driving?  I guess they thought she might not have heard about Laura's dead boyfriend.  
  •  the most likely possibility (4.00)
    and one I haven't seen mentioned yet in this thread: the Secret Service are worried about what might happen if a few redneck Bush supporters decided it would be fun to have a few beers and run over Cindy and her group with their trucks.  All explained away later as an "accident", of course.

    You've seen some of the violent, threatening rhetoric spewed on freeper sites?

    Call me naive but I would give the Secret Service the benefit of the doubt here.

    Also, as a data point, I've known one Secret Service guy and his wife (he protected Ford and Carter) and they were really wonderful, decent people.

    *Springsteen for President*

    by hrh on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:11:17 AM PDT

    •  If there's a danger (none)
      (and in rural Texas you can never be sure) that's the danger -- its certainly the first one I thought of.  Given that Cindy Sheehan has gotten a lot of press today, the protest itself, as well as Cindy the individual and those sitting-in with her, become targets for right wing crazies.

      Besides, isn't that warning one that should come from local law enforcement (the people the protest organizers would have dealt with beforehand to clear the way for the protest, i.e. you don't protest without a permit these days and these organizations would have had some contact with local law enforcement prior to organizing the walk/protest)?  Along with being intimidating, it strikes me that it is potentially a question of jurisdiction.  Why didn't the WH send the locals out to give that warning, you know they are in contact with them?  

      In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

      by a gilas girl on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 05:40:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Watch Out for Bicycles (4.00)
    The Secret Service may have meant that dangerous bicycle riders use the road for high-performance cycling.
  •  What a bunch of nutcases in this thread. (4.00)
    Seriously, people. Does it seems more likely that...

    1. Bush, who is monitoring the situation closely rather than vacationing and riding his bike around, is so concerned about the obvious huge impact this particular protest is having on the national debate and his image that he has sent the Secret Service (who he's transformed from a cadre of dedicated, intelligent and patriotic Americans into his own personal goon squad using the same evil mind control that he used to get people to vote for him) out to make veiled threats towards the mother of a dead US serviceman.

    ...or...

    2. People drive fast on that road and the SS guys didn't want to see her get pancaked.

    Seriously, make off the tinfoil hats already. This idiocy is as bad as the perpetual "Clinton had Vince Foster killed!!!!" nonsense from the other side of the aisle and, I gotta say, it doesn't look any smarter on us.

    •  Likely Correct (4.00)
      Last time I knew, people could legally drink beer WHILE driving at high speed in TX. If they haven't changed that, it could be safer to stay way off the road for rest breaks.
      •  Additionally- (none)
        I have traveled in my not so distant youth, by frieght train and hitchhiking, across the continental states, Canada, and Mexico 3x.  Everyone knows you do not sleep on the road side.  It's just not safe, ever.
        But since everyone here is not a former gutter punk traveler, you may not fit my definition of "everyone".  As such, it may be worth noting that, using powers of deductive reasoning and common sense, that sleeping in dark sleeping bags along the roadside greatly increases your chances of death by auto.
        Here I am getting cynical again: Is it not more likely that Bush cares not for Cindy Sheehan, does not even know her name?  That it's easier in her mind to make this into a battle royale between her and the Bush Crime Family?  That her son's untimely and unfortunate demise at Bush Crime Family hands is easier to swallow, and easier to justify when it joins a larger framework of this fight to bring down Dumbya and his illegal war? Can percieving the SS dudes as throwing some KGB style cloak and dagger action into the mix make
        one/all feel more important, more accomplished, just plain better?
          I am not knocking Cindy Sheehan, as I have said a zillion times, I have 3 cousins over there, I check the death lists like everyone else, I rush to call my mom when new things develop.  I don't want them to die, and I don't wish loss of a loved one upon anyone.  However, it seems that we are stepping off the reality patio and flying into the sky of corrupted perception using tin foil nun habits a la Sally Field in this instance.
          In closing, what she is doing is great, the bad part is that it will not change anything.  The Bush Crime Family doesn't care, friends.  We do not matter.  Cindy Sheehan is not a public relations nightmare, she is not a mother in agony, she is not a valued constituent in pain, and b/c she represents nothing in the eyes of the Bush Crime Family, her actions will accomplish nothing.
        Maybe it's time we caught on to that bit of reality: As long a these people are in power, we are well fucked, the public means nothing, our actions can not dissuade them.
         
    •  Since when (none)
      does anything the Bush administration does follow normal logic?  Since when have they shown any kind of real compassion for the families of fallen soldiers?  Since when are you surprised by anything they do?

      "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

      by joanneleon on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:41:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's one thing (none)
        to be appalled at what "they do." Another thing entirely to be as worked up as some here are about what they haven't done, but might.
        •  I understand what you're saying (none)
          but I disagree with the tone of the original comment (and a few others in this thread), and I disagree with calling Cindy and anyone who is standing up for her a tinfoil hatter.  I feel that term is dismissive and insulting, and doesn't apply in this case.  It's also a term that's getting a bit overused on this site in places where it doesn't apply.  

          Instead I would like to be supportive toward her and perhaps offer suggestions of more prudent measures she could use to avoid any danger.  I really don't think the SS would do such a thing, but I don't blame Cindy for being worried.  Anyone who stands up against this administration would have a reasonable cause for worry in the current state of this nation.  It's not a "batshit crazy" paranoid fear, even though in this case I agree that it seems unlikely and unwise for the Secret Service to blatantly and overtly harm her.  But again, I've underestimated this administration before and the lengths they will go to, and I am much more wary now, and they've earned that wariness.

          "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

          by joanneleon on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:45:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  one more thing (none)
      That being said, I personally wouldn't sleep on the roadside and if I were advising Cindy I'd tell her to organize some type of symbolic presence during the night and then spend nights at a hotel/motel/B&B, whatever's closest,  in order to keep herself in decent shape and maintain her health during her campaign.  After all, if Bush does decide to talk to her I doubt it will be in the wee hours of the morning.

      But really I don't think it's appropriate to apply the tinfoil metaphor in this case.  She's a woman who is taking a stand on a war that the majority of Americans now oppose and she lost her son to this war.  She stood beside John Conyers, and has now made it her goal to stop other families from losing their loved ones.  She's trying to turn her grief and loss into something that benefits others.  She's no tinfoil hatter.

      I no longer put anything past this administration.  I've underestimated their depravity too many times already -- like the time I believed that they would not go so far as to send Colin Powell to the U.N. with false evidence and intelligence in order to get us into said war.  And when I believed that Colin Powell wouldn't compromise his integrity to do such a thing.  And a hundred other things.

      A bit foolhardy, in need of better planning, support and organization?  Emotions (understandably) getting the better of them?  Perhaps, but tinfoil?  No, sorry.

      "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

      by joanneleon on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:58:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  turn on CNN now (none)
    Sen. George Allen says Bush should meet with her.  Boxer on also.
    •  She is on CNN right now (none)
      Blitzer is about to interview her after the break.

      Human rights will soon go 'way. I am now your Shah today. Now I command all of you. Now you're going to pray in school. I'll make sure they're Christian too.

      by tlh lib on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 10:12:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If the SS is really concerned about her safety (none)
    Why don't they put up some cones or a small barrier to protect her from traffic?

    I'm sure the Secret Service is not there to make it any easier for protesters.

    However, if their concern is really for her safety, or maybe even for the safety of motorists, I'm sure they can think of some way to improve the security of the situation for everyone involved.  Maybe they could see her as the grieving mother of a soldier who died for the country and put out some traffic cones to keep her safe for a few nights while she waits to speak to her President.

    If they are stopping to make comments about her safety and doing nothing to even slow their own fleet of vehicles, I'm inclined to believe that the major motivation is intimidation.

    •  Well, for starters, the SS doesn't work (none)
      for Cindy Sheehan, do they?  I have no love for any government as I have seen in my brief life time it is inherently corrupt, and corrupts aal it touches equally.  I have no love for the secret service.  I have no love for Shrub.  I am not suggesting they are trustworthy.  I am suggesting that they would reccomend not sleeping on the side of the road b/c (1) Its dark
      (2) It's dumb
      (3) It's a very easy way to go to sleep and not wake up.
      (4) It is possible that they would then have a wrongful death suit on their hands, and do you think anyone in the BCF would wan't to deal with that?

      Sometimes it's easier go deal with your pain when you have a nebulous or specific evil to rail against, to fight (albeit 1 sidedly) than to deal with the reality, which in this case, is the fact that no one in the BCF cares that Cindy Sheehan's boy is dead at their hands, nor do they care about any of the others.  Sadly, camping out on their door steps won't change this.

  •  Are you sure it was the SS (none)
    Repugnants have been known to impersonate them lately.

    Most people are idiots... But don't tell them. It'll spoil all the fun for those of us who aren't.

    by d3n4l1 on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:09:19 AM PDT

  •  Crawford Duty (none)
    I thought this excerpt was interesting, from the International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/info/contact.html


    Then as now, White House officials take turns doing Crawford duty, which nobody fights for. This past week, Joe Hagin, a deputy White House chief of staff, was settled into his double-wide trailer across the road from the entrance to the ranch, where his job includes chainsaw time with the president.

    At some point this summer, Hagin will switch off with Rove, who has testified to a grand jury in the leak investigation and who in the past has not done long stretches of ranch time. But when Rove was elevated to White House deputy chief of staff after Bush's re-election, the promotion came with summer Crawford duty.

    Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, will split his ranch duty with his deputy, J.D. Crouch. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was freed from ranch duty when she moved on from national security adviser, will visit anyway, first for the foreign policy meeting next week, then for more of a social visit later in the month.

    Card does not do ranch duty, although he is expected briefly for the economic meeting on Tuesday, as are Josh Bolten, the White House budget director, and Treasury Secretary John Snow. If the past is any guide, the men will meet with Bush, stand at his side during a news conference under a blistering sun, and then race for the airport.

    Geez, 1600 acres and they can't even give the people doing "Crawford Duty" a guest house?  

    Do they allow cars to drive really fast and dangerously going by the double wide trailer too?  Sounds like it could be dangerous for anyone doing "Crawford Duty."

    "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

    by joanneleon on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 12:34:02 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site