Mitch, every account I have read regarding Sheehan says she wore an anti-war shirt. Where are you getting that she was trying to unfurl a banner?

Upon further inspection, I find that there is ONE account of Sheehan trying to unfurl a banner...

From Powerline...

Will Mitch correct his post or won't he...?

From basically everyone; a google search shows the vast preponderance of SOTU stories that mention Sheehan mention the banner. It was on the live report last night.

Reuters:

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-02-01T021336Z_01_N3129628_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-SPEECH-SHEEHAN.xml

The Philly Enquirer, USA Today, and a stack of other dailies and networks pop up in a search (my spam blocker is blocking g*ogle right now, so I can't enter all the URLs. Suffice to say there are quite a few)

CNN apparently originally called it a banner (various blogs cited it), and then switched their story to the T-shirt, as on the current site.

"Will Mitch correct his post or won't he...?"

The better question might be "which account was right - CNN's "T-Shirt" piece or *every other media outlet* that reported the banner?"

Given CNN's sympathies, I wouldn't doubt a whitewash - but then, I've seen nothing conclusive.

So the REAL questions are:
a) what happened?
b) Who cares?
c) Will Doug correct his incorrect
insinuation?

I loved it when the Dems all lept to there feet to celebrate the fact that they have done nothing to solve the Social Security quagmire. There you go America - the party that avoids difficult issues.

The second best part was watching the Dem response. Was that a nervous tic in Governor Tim Kaine's left eyebrow? It kept soaring to the top of his forehead and then slowwwly sinking back into place. It was creepy.

Re: The eyebrow ...

Nah - no nervous tic. That's just how it is ... in fact, at some point last week a few folks over at RedState were talking about it having a mind of it's own. Kind of an amusing thread, actually.

Kermey,

Now I am not intending to start a debate, the issue is dead, but the President has been resoundingly destroyed on Soc. Security because his fear-mongering didn't jibe with the fact that if his economic fears were realized, his privatization program would also fail, but in brief, to suggest the Dems haven't presented solutions is false.

They've presented at least one pretty clear alternatives, remove the exemption for those making more than 90k. The President spent 75 days last year telling us why it would be good to pay 2-5% administration fees totalling 800Billion to private investment houses and looked like an idiot for suggesting that level of redirection of retirement taxes to the hands of the rich. Before you complain about "tax increases", remember, you're the one who claims it needs a fix (which it does need a modest one, and which the removing the 90k cap is a modest fix) so I'll take the ACTUAL application of those taxes being paid at retirement into the hands of those who contributed, being paid into the program as expenses are incurred, rather than rely upon a hokey program that privatizes and institutionalizes moving tax revenue into the hands of a the few, while putting the bill for SS on our children for our unfunded excesses.

Republican solution to SS, kill it through privatization while shifting massive dollars to Wall Street firms. Tax and Borrow immortalized.

One comment on his speech, the comment about "wanting to keep track of people who contact Al Qaeda" and "that it could have prevented 9/11", is such an utter falsehood in the latter case, and dishonest in the former that it rates with the same hostility Bush complained about so bitterly.

The 9/11 Commission concluded it was beaurocratic red-tape and intelligence slow-footedness that didn't capture the two Al Qaeda operatives who placed phone calls. Further, their conversations were in fact captured on 9/10, but not translated until 9/12. Considering we've heard the NSA has THOUSANDS of hours of tape untranslated, and further that the intelligence WAS in fact available, the latter claim is nothing less than a complete and utter lie. There was no mechanism to process the data, there was an apathetic intell and administration, and they had what they needed. This is just BS justification of...

"they want to know about conversations", which they CAN EASILY DO THROUGH FISA. Since 2001 (I think), some 9000 cases have come before FISA and only 4 have been declined. There was a General recently who opined that they "can't wait for judges", after all 'we're at war' don't you know. Yet no one has ever suggested these wiretaps were sought in haste rather than through FISA, were ever needed in haste, or when obtained in haste lead to anything at all. There is no evidence this is justification at all, similar to the lie Bush told above.

The reality is FISA afforded them every chance to "know who was talking to whom", EVERY chance. The key issue is WHY NOT use it, why violate the law (my opinion) when there was NO need. No one says don't find out who Al Qaeda is talking to, that's such a straw-man (lie), it's the exact sort of belicose uncivility that the President complained about out of the other side of his mouth while calling his opponents isolationists (which they aren't). He insults them while complaining about insults. He frames the discussion around that which was never at issue, specifically that ANYONE would object to the US intell services knowing who Al Qaeda is talking to.

No, the real issue is that there WAS NO NEED TO BREAK THE LAW TO DO IT. none, zip, zero. Whether you think he did, remember that the IV Ammendment requires not just prevention of "unreasonalbe search" but that it is not just a question of reasonableness determined by some omniscient President, but that proof of "probable cause" is also specifically listed in the IVth as the standard by which reasonableness shall be ascertained. FISA allows the President GREAT latitude, and can meet on an emergency basis to grant warrant within an hour or two. No, the issue is not WHETHER we should know about Al Qaeda's communications, but WHETHER the President should obey the law to do so, and why he didn't, seemingly for no reason at all.

As for insulting and then complaining, Mitch, it seems you take your cue from Bush, so as they call Bush "Shrub", perhaps we should call you Ditch, considering it's where your comments routinely hang out. (notice I didn't insult YOU Mitch, just your comments).

PB

The wife of a republican congressman was removed from the gallery for wearing a "Support our Troops" T-Shirt. I wonder if the two stories are confuted.

The wife of a republican congressman was removed from the gallery for wearing a "Support our Troops" T-Shirt. I wonder if the two stories are confuted.

Mitch asserted: "Best on-screen moment: George Bush referenced the failure of his social security initiative. The Democrats start baying at the moon like a bunch
of Italian soccer hooligans. Then the President dropped the other shoe; "The job still isn't done". It deflated the Democrat wing of the house, and drew a huge cheer in the audience."

Deflated? I thought you'd given up glue sniffing. Social Security "reform" is deader than Hoffa. Do you seriously think he'll get a bill through Congress in an election year? Or that if Bush were serious, he'd actually be talking about a "bipartisan commission"?

Haha! Wingnutz is funny!

A-Clo,

"Deflated? I thought you'd given up glue sniffing. Social Security "reform" is deader than Hoffa. "

SSA reform is probably dead enough. But I was referring to the Dems in the House of Reps deflating last night. It was a good comeback, ya gotta admit.

Well, you don't *gotta*, but it *was* good...

Rick observed: "The wife of a republican congressman was removed from the gallery for wearing a "Support our Troops" T-Shirt. I wonder if the two stories are confuted."

I read that Laura Bush was removed for wearing her "I'm With Stupid" shirt. Again.

pb fantasized: "They've presented at least one pretty clear alternatives, remove the exemption for those making more than 90k."

One little problem with this imaginary solution. You guys on the left are constantly harping about how 1% of the population hold over 50% of the wealth. The dirty little secret (John F'n Kerry and Teddy Kennedy don't want you to know) is that they don't get paychecks. You can't have FICA witholding on an overseas trust, bucko. So how does this address the increasing imbalance between Social Security payees and beneficiaries? Hmm?

Angryclown quipped: "I read that Laura Bush was removed for wearing her "I'm With Stupid" shirt. Again."

Have you been hanging out with Laura again? Those secret service dudes are slipping. Must be holdovers from the Clinton administration.

Hehe! Good work! -ipod nano skin
ipod nano