You cannot export elsewhere what you do not currently possess.
And doesn't whatever form of freedom and democracy that exists in 2005 America still give Cindy Sheehan the right to stand on the Crawford, Texas, roadside to confront our leadership?"
Oh, PUH-LEEEEEEZE.
What a Drama Queen.
So the fact that someone cannot "confront our leadership" means that America "does not possess" freedom and democracy??!!
Give me a break.
I have lived in Washington, DC since 1974, and I have never -- not once -- been permitted to go to the White House and demand to see Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush in order to "confront" our leadership. Never.
Bill Johnson ought to go see how easy it is to "confront" the leadership of any major (or, for that matter, minor) country. He'd quickly conclude that no country on earth has "freedom and democracy".
The guy's a loon.
I think the whole point of Cindy Sheehan -- with Micheal Moore's and a pro-Palestinian "Peace" group's "help", among others -- is to DEMAND that which is ludicrous to begin with, to, in effect, draw out people.
It's like saying, "WHY can't I have your child? You DENY ME a child, everyone deserves a child, and yet you have two, so you denying me one of your children is UNFAIR, it's against CIVILIZED STANDARDS, because (tears, facial distortions, *small sotto voice*) NO ONE who is DECENT would DENY a woman A CHILD! You are a fascist! You are a cruel, arrogant fascist! Our country deserves better!..."
And on and on.
What is intended is to incite others, that sort of solicitation for an argument about an impossible, implausible and/or politically sensitive issue that can't ever be resolved (in this case, "war" and "peace") by any one meeting between two persons or otherwise, because of the mammoth dimensions involved with both issues and all perspectives possible, etc.
The PURPOSE of Cindy Sheehan, by Moveon.org, Michael Moore and all the rest who have made Cindy Sheehan possible to the media extent that she has been, is to solicit and incite. They WANT adverse arguement, they WANT disorder and even chaos, and worse, because even responding to Cindy Sheehan in issue or specifically immediately (to their view) makes a person an "attacker."
Cindy Sheehan, with the Arianna Huffington blog's help has so far written that EVERYONE who questions her, makes much of any mention of or about her unless they're among her group of ardent supporters, she has labelled EVERYONE as "attacking" her.
She'll continue on as long as she gets people to even point a camera her way, provide her webspace, whatever. While some feel sorry and such for Cindy Sheehan, I don't. NO one with grief at the loss of a child would use that child's memory and life complete for such self service, is my point. Sheehan is a user of the worst proportions and her demands to "meet/speak with President Bush" as everyone is easy to discern is not sincere, but continued usery, if not continued threat BY Cindy Sheehan.
Bush did meet with her at Bush's decision a while ago and the second meeting is mysteriously undefined as to need or purpose. I think had Bush met with her to any degree so far, Cindy Sheehan would still be out there doing what she's been doing because it's not the actual MEETING that is the objective, but the inciting of disorder that is.
Otherwise, to be clear here, why would Michael Moore even be involved? Why would Arianna Huffington? Why would MoveOn.org? Why would a proPalestine "peace" group be housing her? (NO, Cindy Sheehan is not habitating in a tent.) Why the media?
It's a ruse. ANY response is labelled inaccurately an "attack," and will continue to be so...by Sheehan and her creators. It's all usery, and it's disgusting.