babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 August 2005 10:46 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On the other thread, Dead Soldier's Mother... there was a "debate" about the emails Ms. Sheehan had allegedly written. The piece linked is interesting with respect to Rove's tactics mimicked (it seems) by some around here. (There are a few interesting links in this opinion piece.)


quote:
The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan
By FRANK RICH

CINDY SHEEHAN couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing ...

Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice ...The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam....

True to form, the attack on Cindy Sheehan surfaced early on Fox News, where she was immediately labeled a "crackpot" by Fred Barnes.....Rush Limbaugh went so far as to declare that Ms. Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents - there's nothing about it that's real."

But this time the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war. ...

THIS summer in Crawford, the White House went to this playbook once too often. When Mr. Bush's motorcade left a grieving mother in the dust to speed on to a fund-raiser, that was one fat-cat party too far. The strategy of fighting a war without shared national sacrifice has at last backfired, just as the strategy of Swift Boating the war's critics has reached its Waterloo before Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury in Washington. The 24/7 cable and Web attack dogs can keep on sliming Cindy Sheehan. The president can keep trying to ration the photos of flag-draped caskets. But this White House no longer has any more control over the insurgency at home than it does over the one in Iraq.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21rich.html?incamp=article_popular&page wanted=print

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 21 August 2005 11:02 AM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I had just read this from the Guardian when I saw this thread.

Some quotes from the Guardian:

'You can see that once support for the Vietnam war dipped below 50 per cent, it never came back,' said Professor Rick Stoll of Rice University. That has now happened with Iraq.

and, among other quotes from supporters and detrators, this:

Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive
Pro-war Vanity Fair writer Chistopher Hitchens

I read Molly Ivins yesterday and she's livid that the Downing Street Memos are not news. She didn't mention Cindy Sheehan, but isn't this bloody typical of the current state of the press? Ignore and/or pooh-pooh real, terrifying evidence of collusion and major lying by political leaders, while focusing on a dead soldier's mother.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 August 2005 11:12 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think I linked this here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=008094

If I didn't I have read it too. The only reason I mention this here is that I put a lot of effort into putting together the penultimate post on that thread where there are lots of links with respect to this and parallels to Vietnam.

Not to toot into my own horn, just mentioning it in case you're interested.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 August 2005 11:15 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:
[QB]
I read Molly Ivins yesterday and she's livid that the Downing Street Memos are not news.

She's been livid about this (and more in that respect) for a long time.

Isn't she just absolutely beautiful the way she is livid?

I'll never forget her column blasting the press corps when Fromm wouldn't let Heather Thomas ask a question but there were lots of other great columns as well.

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 21 August 2005 11:18 AM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:
I think I linked this here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=008094

If I didn't I have read it too. The only reason I mention this here is that I put a lot of effort into putting together the penultimate post on that thread where there are lots of links with respect to this and parallels to Vietnam.

Not to toot into my own horn, just mentioning it in case you're interested.



Sorry, VanLuke, so much to read. Well, that's what Sundays are for, right? I'll go back to your post with the links. Thanks for the effort.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 August 2005 11:25 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Frank Rich for president!

Rich has been hammering away at one connecting theme all this spring and summer: keep your eyes on the prize.

Cindy Sheehan is not really the story, just as Valerie Plame is not really the story. Karl Rove tries to keep everyone focused there, but that's because Karl Rove wants us to forget ... Casey Sheehan, and the good ole WMD, the rationale for going to war in the first place.

Och, what would Sunday be without Frank Rich?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 21 August 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm so glad Frank Rich wrote about this. I've been pretty much unaware of Cindy Sheehan since I don't watch much TV and have been away on vacation anyways...blissfully unaware I guess; but now I'm rudely jolted back into this world where the whole U.S. government and media regime goes beyond the lying pale in every single thing it does and says. Following it all is very exhausting - thanks for the links, VanLuke, and I'm looking forward to reading babblers' comments and insights on this.
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 August 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
[QB]Frank Rich for president!


I wish I had your ability to put things so succinctly and right to the point with humour thrown in as a bonus.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 August 2005 12:38 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I like him very much, VanLuke, so I'm always happy to see him come up with yet another great column.

I've been sitting here thinking, though: it is an extravagance -- it really is -- for me to be getting the NYTimes on Sundays. Not only is it an indulgence, but I have come to feel so hostile to so much of that paper. Great swatches of it just make me so angry every week, and not usually because anyone is writing anything that openly outrageous -- it is the smug assumptions behind much of the editorial framing that drive me nuts, the fact that the editors probably have no idea at all of how they sound to anyone who isn't an American.

And I have been known to shred a page with a Friedman column on it.

I flip through the style section and I think: Next? Caligula? I mean, seriously.

But then I get to Frank Rich, and I think, oh, gosh, I would be sorry to miss this ...

So, I dunno. Should I halt my sub? Most of it is wasted on me. Some of the book reviews are good, although I read too many of those already.

Someone make up my mind for me, please.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 21 August 2005 01:04 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Skdadl:

If its Rich you want there are ways to get him for free on the net. I only pick and choose what I want from the times. But the myway.com arrangement (create your own page) carries the best of the Times without having to pay or register. I recommend Myway.com to everyone because they really have no ads or popups to annoy and they bring you a great deal of tailorable news from sites you'd have to register for or pay for.

As for Rich, he's one of a handful who are telling it like it is the US media. And I am so grateful for that.

I hope that the US population is indeed finally awaking from their slumber and seeing things for how they really are. We'll see.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 21 August 2005 01:14 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know how or why, but I've had an on-line subscription to the Times for almost four years now, and from what I get sent to my inbox every single morning without fail, I would've sworn the Times was on the left (with niggling annoyances by Brooks and Friedman just to give me a reality check as to what the real mainstream is...)

I get the columns by Krugman, Rich and Herbert, plus free access to the articles I want, and the only time I've paid for articles was when I needed archived ones for (paid) research purposes. The only drawback is looking ahead at the day when they realize I'm getting this for free and cut me off.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 August 2005 01:18 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
skadl

far from wanting to make up your mind maybe the following helps.

I've been getting NYT headlines for free in my email for years. As you know the paper has a spotty history of 'objectivity' (cf Manufacturing of Consent and the various apologies, one of which was about the untruthful reporting about Hiroshima in 1945; got a Pulitzer too which was never taken away when the fraud was exposed) but 'it is the newspaper of record'. (There's got to be a reason why you spend the money for a sub)

I gave up on Friedman a long time ago (a long time before the attack on Iraq I read him regulalry; if the title is intriguing I have a quick look and very, very occasionally I even agree with what he says. I always read Rich, Krugman often Brooks and usually Kristof (although at times he irritates me too). And always, always Bob Herbert. I actually sent him 3 emails over the years thanking him. I know he read them because at some point I corrected some possible misunderstanding in my message and he answered 'I knew that'. What a heart this man has and what a writer! And of course the news, if it interests me. And they keep me in touch with US politics.

Then you get the multimedia links or voice reports, (eg from Kristof when he was in the melting artic). Images you can safe to your machine and illustrate your point on babble.

Sure you get lots of stuff in the print edition I don't get. Sure it's a lot easier on our aging eyes to read printed words rather than from a screen. But the electronic version does have its advantages

To correct for the bias of the NYT I read on a lot of other sites like Common Dreams, Working for Change etc etc where they reproduce articles form 'progressive' writers and always Molly Ivins and usually Ariana Huffington .

If you are worried about your privacy (mind you having a sub means they already have your address and name) you could use gmail as contact address for the NYT. Curently it's in Beta and available only on invitation from a current user. If you want one I got tons (you get 50 after a while) and I could send you one. In this case I would need an email address to send it to but to maintain your privacy you could just open a 'throwaway' acct at Yahoo. Or I could mail you the name and PW of one of the several accts I opened. (Hey, it's over 2 gigs of free storage space)

Be aware that some people have privacy concerns (CmotDibbler?) and some months ago there was a thread dealing with this. I don't share them (obviously) and we all have to make up our own minds. I find the ads blended in ver unobtrusive and at times even interesting. Other than trying to help make a little money for babble I never click on ads but I did a few times on those that gmail linked to my incoming messages (by machine

Now get this: In over 8 or 9 months I had 1 spam message make it into my gmail Inbox and the server recognised it and put it auytomatically into the spam folder (automatically emptied once a month). (It accidentally put a message from MarketWatch to which I subscribe into the spam folder. I told this is not spam and it went to my Inbox ever since.) Now compare that to my Telus (my IP provider) accts: A dozen a day and I hardly use those accts for anything anymore. (In passing MS collected over 800 million US in lawsuit awards against spammers. Say what??? How are they hurt? Why are we not getting the money? Most importantly, why can Google stop spam and MS doesn't? Becuase they don't want to?)

Not to be agist but how would you like "stillspeakingup" as alias? It was opened using an acct at Yahoo with a female name (Lotte), not that this is important.

All you'd have to do to lock me out is change the PW in settings.

And I would be crying about 'my beautiful alias' lost forever.

Hey, the hardest part about opening an acct is finding a nice sounding alias.

Send me a PM if you want it.

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 August 2005 01:21 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brebis noire:
[QB] the only time I've paid for articles was when I needed archived ones for (paid) research purposes.

One babbler (pogge?) shared with us a site for bloggers where you can get a lot of the "premiumn articles" for free.

I'll check if I can dig it up and if so post it.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 21 August 2005 02:02 PM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://www.bugmenot.com is even better (plus it works for other sites as well).
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 August 2005 02:15 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When I tried it with the Washington Post it didn't work and we're not talking about the same thing.

Btw I looked all over my hard drive and couldn't find it. It's maddening because I know it's there. If pogge notices this he'll fill us in, I'm sure.

I was talking about a site where you can get the full version of a NYT article a long time after they charge you money for anything more than the abstract.

It doesn't work for every article I think; [only for those that were linked to some blogs?]. It's a legal service the NYT provides for bloggers and I guess they just don't want it to be known widely since they want to sell the pieces.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 August 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you for the offer, VanLuke. When I have sorted out all those tech possibilities, I will PM you.

I did register with the NY Times online ages ago, so I have no trouble reading them when I want, although it's true that the old eyes wear out faster on the screen, flicker flicker.

Yes: what was pogge on about? Perhaps he will show up to explain.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 21 August 2005 02:30 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Yes: what was pogge on about? Perhaps he will show up to explain.

Are you talking about getting permanent links to NYT articles?

Copy the link for a particular article to the clipboard and then go here. Paste the link into the field provided, click on the Go button and it'll return a "blog-safe" link to the article.

There's a link provided on that page that you can bookmark such that when you're on an NYT page, you can click the link and it'll take you straight to the results. But I can't give you that link here -- it just doesn't translate. You have to go to the page I linked to and follow the instructions.

This doesn't work for all NYT content. And you have to get that blog-safe link before the piece is moved behind the pay wall or it's too late unless you want to pay for the access.

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 August 2005 02:52 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I should have known that Pogge is faster than I could come up with my completed search and post.

But I'll post the result of my work (which took quite a bit of time) just the same. Maybe there will be some useful additonal information and there are some links which might be of interest to some babblers.

Eureka!

Viva Google!

http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink

I might be confused here and maybe it's necessary to take note of the url within 7 days of publication (i.e. before it costs money) to have a permanent link. That makes certain that you have a permanent free link. (Which wouldn't help for research, I realise that.)

Playing around though I found that some articles are reproduced all over the place. Copy this title "U.S. Recruits a Rough Ally to Be a Jailer" into a "exact words" box of Google and you get tons of links (some, like this one shamelessly copied frrom the NYT with the masthead removed) making it widely available for free even though the article appeared in the NYT on May 1, 2005 and would cost you if you got it at the NYT site.

http://tinyurl.com/drrof

Also check out this site where I ultimately found the above link:

quote:
Note on links: Thanks to Dave, the Times does offer bloggers a way to link to articles without having to pay the archive fee, but this only works for articles published after May 5, 2003. Plus, it's hackier than most non-techie bloggers are going to put up with.

http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/003743.html

Have a look at this page as well:

quote:
If you link in to the Times archive through a link generated by the Radio UserLand aggregator, [link is on the site linked] or compatible software, the link will continue to work in the future, as long as there is no substantial abuse to this system.

The new policy began on May 5, 2003. All specially coded links pointing to articles after that date will continue to work.


http://backend.userland.com/2003/06/16#a265


quote:
This doesn't work for all NYT content. And you have to get that blog-safe link before the piece is moved behind the pay wall or it's too late unless you want to pay for the access.

That's what I suspected but look at "the work around" via google search I mentioned above

And if you click on the link on the top (NYT Headlines) you could "harvest" them before they are put behind the wall.

http://nytimes.blogspace.com/

For example an article in today's NYT about India, Hindusim and Biotech should be permanently avaialble via this link (shrunk with tinyurl):

http://tinyurl.com/9lfja

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 August 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you, pogge.

The Book Review really is good. Week after week, I read the whole damn thing, even reviews by Christopher Hitchens, and it makes me think of how both the Star and the Grope so diminished their own old book sections, and then I feel worse.

Maybe there are subs to the Book Review alone?

Mind you, the NY Review of Books is miles better, and then there is the London Review, not to mention the TLS, and and and ...

And thwap wonders why I never read a book???


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 August 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
skdadl

True my long post was unsolicited (though you did ask a question not directed at any one in particular) and maybe you thought I was up to some monkey business, or that this was a dishonest proposition (both not true) but wouldn't it have been nice to say 'thanks VanLuke, but no thanks'?

I had to get it out of my system against my better judgment perhaps.

So shoot me down if you wish but I'll never spend half an hour again trying to be helpful.

Note the time please and I didn't say I'll never be helpful again. I will especially since I've benefitted many times form the help from others.

But I always acknowledged it and if you say this has no place on this thread, may I remind you that it was you who went off on that tangent.

Now I feel better but I'll seek cover just in case.

edited to correct spelling errors

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 21 August 2005 07:51 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:
True my long post was unsolicited ...

It was also published within two minutes of skdadl's. It's possible she hasn't even seen it.

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 21 August 2005 08:20 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In which case I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm just too sensitive these days. Too many things going wrong.

edited to add:

Now I noticed that there is an answer "up there", which *definitely* wasn't on my screen when I composed my previous message. Neither was the one by Américain Égalitaire. The post by brebis noire followed immediately after mine 2posts up. I know this sounds weird but assure you I'm not making this up. Why else would I have been upset (if you trust that I speak the truth) all these hours?

Could we just forget it skadl? Please forgive me. It appears that I wronged you (even if I didn't do this deliberately)

Sorry.

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca