< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Sheen, Sheehan, who, what?

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Sheen, Sheehan, who, what?

Cindy Sheehan hasn't achieved a meeting with the president during her three-week war protest, but she met a man who plays one on TV. Martin Sheen, who portrays the president on NBC's "The West Wing," visited Sheehan's makeshift campsite Sunday.

"At least you've got the acting president of the United States," Sheen said as the crowd of more than 300 people cheered. "I think you know what I do for a living, but this is what I do to stay alive."
Martin Sheen, the guy who acts as a president on TV but doesn't need to act to portray a dickhead in reallife. He was much more convincing as a puppet. But on a more significant note
Amid all the comings and goings around Camp Casey on Sunday, peace activists Genevieve Van Cleve and Peter Ravella got married.

The aisle was strewn with hay, and the crowd hummed "Here Comes the Bride."

"This is meaningful. This has substance," said Van Cleve, 34, of Austin. "We completely support what they're doing, and we just wanted to add whatever love, fidelity, loyalty and honor that we could."
Kids, just say no to drugs or you'll end up like this.
ยท Linked Article

Posted by Chefen | 8/30/2005 07:20:00 PM

6 Comments:

Blogger Chris said...

I am curious why you say Martin Sheen is a dickhead. Is is soley because he visited Sheehan, or has he committed some other atrocious crime?

8/30/2005 08:38:00 PM  
Blogger Chefen said...

No Roger, just because of his general conduct over the years... no single incident, no "crime". He's just ended up in that general basket with the likes of Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Jesse Jackson etc etc

8/30/2005 09:09:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

Or else you could end up like you Chefen in that strange netherworld of total denial. Tom Engelhardt captures it beautifully in his recent post on Sheehan talking about Bush and his response to her protest.

"The problem is that what the President "sees" and what Americans are now seeing seem to be diverging at a rapid rate. For George, the details matter not at all. You won't find any Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds at each other's throats in the President's Iraq, or unable to agree on a constitution, or at the edge of internecine warfare, or living in a country lacking electricity, oil, and jobs, or potentially installing an Islamic government in Baghdad allied to the neighboring Iranian fundamentalist regime, or any of the other obvious features of the present situation, most of which can finally be caught any night on the national news. In his Salt Lake City and Idaho speeches, the only "Iraqi" George even mentioned was a Jordanian, "the terrorist Zarqawi," against whom, in at least the President's fantasy life and in his recent radio address, Sunni and Shia Iraqis actually come together in mutual defense in a touching show of national unity.

In the President's world, there is just them, the enemy, aka the terrorists, and us, the people who (in a nearly copyrighted phrase) spread freedom to the rest of the world."

The problem for you Chefen is the same problem Bush is having. He's no longer 'connecting' because the reality he is trying to promote is a fantasy.

8/30/2005 09:10:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Ackers - links, not copy-and-pastes please.

8/30/2005 09:25:00 PM  
Blogger Chefen said...

Morning Ackers, was worried you wouldn't turn up for the daily offtopic rant.

8/30/2005 09:31:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Ackers1, am I understanding you correctly that you are advancing a theory that divisions between Sunni, Shia, Kurds et al are a surprise to George Bush and the administration?

And further, that the left putting forward this revelation somehow makes their alternative (keeping Saddam in power) the reason why it was not worth the effort in removing him from power?

It appears to me the denial goes deeper than the Presidents supposedly ill informed administration, that the left can advance these ground breaking observations as something that would give its voice credibility for saying the US should not be in Iraq.

It's almost like the left are trying to own these "facts"

So why the President mistakenly tries to spread the concept of freedom through the rest of the world, we need to give pause to all those on the left who proudly say:

The world is not worth it.
We want Saddam back.
Anything you do will fail, so it is not worth the attempt.
If it does work, then the cost is not worth it.
Even if it does work, a UN censure would have done it twice as good.
We think the oil for food and economic sanctions for years really crippled Saddam and gave the people of Iraq an unprecedented level of wealth.
We don't actually believe the US spends any money on foreign aid
Even if they do, its just a capitalistic imperialist rip off
Bring back Che.

Or have I read too much into it? Maybe nearly as much as what you read into a Bush press release, but not half as much as Tom Engelhardt.

The problem is, what is happening in Iraq, and what the negative spin the left reports give it seems to me a determination to make a tough situation so much tougher than necessary.

Your contribution is noted. I am sure the ends justify the means. Unless you live in Iraq.

8/30/2005 09:57:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home