State of the Union: Anything But Sound

An hour of my life — and about a pint of Mylanta — was wasted as I endured a mixture of George Dubya Bush's lies, pandering, and right-wing absurdities while doing my annual Annotated State of the Union. The time would have been better and cerainly more enjoyably spent experiencing root canal, undergoing electroshock or struggling through sex with — ugh — a man. Turns out we didn't need the president to tell us whether the union was weak or strong — another incident offered the correct answer much more succinctly.

Bush invited the parents of a dead Death Brigader — one who allegedly agreed with the Iraq invasion and occupation, natch — to be his guests at his annual address before Congress. One patriotic mother who lost her son in the Iraq debacle is Cindy Sheehan. She didn't make the guest list. But she was there.

Sheehan, the antiwar activist who has been reviled by the Bushies (they only like military parents who agree with them), was invited to the SOTU by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), who gave the outspoken lefty peacenik a front-row seat after she reportedly promised she would behave.

"I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight," Woolsey told the Associated Press before the speech. "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq."

Sadly, Sheehan didn't get to witness the oration: She was arrested by Capitol Hill cops and escorted from the building before the GOPster's Emmy-worthy performance began. According to CNN, Sheehan had smuggled an antiwar banner into the Capitol gallery that she was planning to unfurl in an effort to embarrass the Resident.

Not true.

From Brad Blog:

The BRAD BLOG has confirmed the arrest moments ago with David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org.

According to Swanson, Sheehan was "arrested for wearing the shirt she was wearing all day, which had the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq... She was lifted out of her seat [in the Capitol Chamber gallery] by the Capitol Police and taken away."

She was wearing an antiwar T-shirt (according to MSNBC, it merely said, "2245 - How many more"), which I would think should be well within her rights to wear, so long as her naughty bits are covered. If we don't have the right to wear what we want, well, that doesn't say much for the state of the nation, does it?

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for natalie-davis

Article Author: Natalie Davis

Natalie Davis is an award-winning journalist, progressive- and GLBT-issues activist, musician and broadcaster. Davis' All Facts and Opinions - The Armchair Activist has existed since 1996. She is general manager and program/music director of Grateful …

Visit Natalie Davis's author pageNatalie Davis's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found
  • No image found

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 1 - Dave Nalle

    Feb 01, 2006 at 2:09 am

    Sadly, Sheehan didn't get to witness Shrubbie's oration: She was arrested by Capitol Hill cops and escorted from the building before the GOPster's Emmy-worthy performance began. According to CNN, Sheehan had smuggled an antiwar banner into the Capitol gallery that she was planning to unfurl in an effort to embarrass the Resident.

    Let's at least get this right. Sheehan was detained and released before the speech was even over. Contrary to your subtitle it was not because of anything Bush did. He wasn't even in the building yet. She was wearing a T-Shirt in violation of the dress code set by the Congressional Rules Committee many, many years ago and which she was certainly aware of and flouting deliberately so that it would create an incident which she could capitalize on. She wore a coat to cover her t-shirt and could have kept that coat on and not been ejected.

    Just setting the facts straight. [Deleted. We will edit/delete spam comments, duplicate comments, unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner. Comments Editor]

    Dave

  • 2 - Natalie Davis

    Feb 01, 2006 at 2:29 am

    Can you read? It is clear from my text -- the text you quoted, for crissake -- that she was taken away before the speech started ("before the GOPSter's [aka Shrub] Emmy-worthy performance began"). I did get it right. You owe me an apology.

    Oh, and you know what I really hate? I hate it when humans deign to tell me what emotion I feel. I don't hate Dubya the person. I hate what he says and does. There is a difference, even if you can't grok it.

  • 3 - Dave Nalle

    Feb 01, 2006 at 3:18 am

    Let me quote your subtitle/summary for the article:

    No dissent allowed: Cindy Sheehan learns the hard way that the Shrub demands a dress code.

    Dissent was clearly allowed, as there was booing and jeering from the crown a couple of times. And you did state here that Shrub demanded the dress code, which is not true.

    Let me quote from your actual article:

    Isn't this America, where one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Cindy Sheehan was arrested and handcuffed because cops thought she might do something?

    No, they removed her because she would not agree to comply with the dress code and rules for those seated in the gallery who are specifically prohibited from talking or making any kind of noise. They asked her if she would comply and she refused to answer them. By Congressional rules the gallery is not a place for participation.

    You can apologize any time you like. I refrained from even addressing the most hateful things in the article like 'Death Brigader' applied to one of our dead soldiers. [Deleted. We will edit/delete spam comments, duplicate comments, unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner. Comments Editor]

    Dave

  • 4 - Silas Kain

    Feb 01, 2006 at 3:35 am

    The whole thing was empty. It lacked substance, gave the GOP majority a few applause lines, and showed just how much of a failure the Bush Presidency has become. Like Ronald Reagan, he had the props; but, face it, he's not a great communicator.

    It dawned on me this evening that the President really isn't a bad guy. He's dependent upon people who have their own agenda which leans far to the right. His supporters and special interest financiers have been take care of -- that's the system we've allowed to become an industry. His two predecessors have become very close. Now that #41 has 'adopted' a new son (#42), #43 is making light. Daddy could have done much worse. Bill was known to be a wonderful son to his Momma.

    All that being said, let me return to regular progamming. George Bush presented his Administration's version of the State of the Union. The Democrats then aired their rebuttal whch received far less press. I think it's time that we ammend the Constitution to impose a level playing field. This means that upon completion of the President's presentation, the senior member of the opposition party shall present their view before Congress. I'm one who takes very seriously the prospect of ammending the Constitution. And in this case, it's time to get serious with the folk in Washington.

    I do wonder if it's fair to label a President's Adminstration as failure. We're all a bit culpable in ths one. Some of us have turned a blind eye to the corupt system that plagues Washington. Others feed into it. So at the end of the day is the failure of the Federal Government from 2002 - 2006 the fault of George W. Bush? Or are we all to blame for letting it happen?

  • 5 - sbtkd

    Feb 01, 2006 at 7:27 am

    can you say Nazi Germany. dejaVu all over again.
    the shirt police are watching. yet, we're fighting for "freedom" . whattajoke. It's the end of the world as we knowit.

  • 6 - Scott

    Feb 01, 2006 at 8:28 am

    Will 2008 get here already? Let's get this guy out of office.

  • 7 - tommyd

    Feb 01, 2006 at 9:14 am

    Dubya Bush blew hot air about not letting debate descend into anger when Bushco did nothing but stir up the anger and severely divided the country when they embarked on their glorious vision of giving the Iraqis democracy at the point of a gun and "shock and awe". Bush's corps of "brown shirt" fanatics constantly stir up anger and hatred against the evil "left-wing liberals" (which means ANYONE who doesn't agree with BushCo) on their radio shows and their Fox "News" shows. These neoconservative hacks don't know ANYTHING about reasonable debate based on facts but only rely on emotional and rhetorical "talking points".

    Bush is an absolute disgrace. A wretched liar. Intellectually vacuous. Cult of Personality wannabe dictator. Chickenhawk warmonger.

    No wonder this country is so fucked up.

  • 8 - Natalie Davis

    Feb 01, 2006 at 9:50 am

    Mr. Nalle, it is Bush's administration, Bush's Amerikkka, Bush's mentality (even if it is inspired by christofascist fundies and greedy caitalists) that rules this foul land. Therefore, I see the gestapolike tactics of the Capitol Hill Pigs as being part and parcel of his evil regime.

    As for "death brigader," I call 'em as I see 'em. I am sincerely sorry he died and of course send my condolences to his family for their loss, but that doesn't change the nature of the job for which YOUR soldier volunteered. Soldiers kill; they create death. They're trained to do it.

    Again with the accusation of hate. You'll call it what you want, I guess. Whatever. If I don't feel hatred, that doesn't change because you want to smear my character by labeling me thusly. So say it as many times as you want, Mr. Nalle; it won't change the truth. And if you don't believe it, that's your problem.

  • 9 - Bing

    Feb 01, 2006 at 10:05 am

    Cindy Sheehan is a pawn of the far left, anti-American elements in this nation and she most likely intended to beomce unruly during the speech so she deserved to be arrested.

    I know you lefties are gonna whine "but she lost her son....." yeah so, that means she gets to do or say whatever she wants for the rest of her life and no other American is allowed to question her or disagree with her? I don't think so.

    Funny how all you lefties are claiming her right to protest was stifled but you support laws to block peaceful pro-life protestors from expressing thier views. Bunch of hypocrites.

    As for tommyd, scoot, and sbtkd, you're the ones drinking that kool aid. We're not in a police state and we're not two steps away from one. Not even close. I realize that the Dem party has no message, answers, or direction and they can't win a major election to save thier lives so you guys have to use any tactics necessary to smear the GOP. You guys keep saying that our rights our being taken away but where's the evidence? Repeating your tired accusations over and over again without any evidence is just empty rhetoric. But that's nothing new for you lefties.

    [Deleted. We will edit/delete spam comments, duplicate comments, unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner. Comments Editor]

  • 10 - Scott

    Feb 01, 2006 at 10:16 am

    But what about Ted Kennedy, Bing?

  • 11 - tommyd

    Feb 01, 2006 at 10:16 am

    Bing, either enlist in the military and go and fight for Dear Leader Bush in the deserts of the Middle East, [Deleted. We will edit/delete spam comments, duplicate comments, unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner. Comments Editor]

    People like Bing foam at the mouth when they rant against "lefties" who disagree with and despise BushCo's policies, yet in the process they become what they hate: Intolerant fanatical assholes.

    I'm not an "evil lefty" Bing-bang, I'm a Far-Right Buchananite Paleoconervative and I find absolutely NOTHING conservative about Dumbya Bush nor YOU.

  • 12 - Pat Fish

    Feb 01, 2006 at 10:24 am

    I must ask the poster if Bill Clinton would have allowed Paula Jones, Monica, Broderick...in to one of HIS SOTU speeches with a nasty Tshirt and plans to wreak havoc. Would Hillary have allowed it?

    Not that any of these people get permission from the President. There is a dress code for such events so why is Sheehan exempt?

    By me, the woman should have been allowed to wreak her havoc. She would have become a national laughing stock, the Dems who invited her would be embarrassed and she'd have made Bush look better.

    Can't make rules to suit me when it's convenient. It doesn't work that way.

  • 13 - Mark Saleski

    Feb 01, 2006 at 10:31 am

    probably not. but, just as assuredly, there would be piles of conservatives screaming about that person's removal.

  • 14 - gonzo marx

    Feb 01, 2006 at 10:31 am

    and again...comment #14 tries to distract form the point that someone go tarrested for wearing a t-shirt

    welcome to the neocon Empire kiddies:

    Excelsior?

  • 15 - Dave Nalle

    Feb 01, 2006 at 10:38 am

    Mr. Nalle, it is Bush's administration, Bush's Amerikkka, Bush's mentality (even if it is inspired by christofascist fundies and greedy caitalists) that rules this foul land. Therefore, I see the gestapolike tactics of the Capitol Hill Pigs as being part and parcel of his evil regime.

    This is possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've seen written recently. Do you actually believe this or are you just carried away by the rhetoric?

    The gestapo would take people and torture them and shoot them in the back of the head. The Capitol Police detained a woman for half an hour and sent her home. Do you really think your comparison is at all accurate?

    Again with the accusation of hate. You'll call it what you want, I guess. Whatever. If I don't feel hatred, that doesn't change because you want to smear my character by labeling me thusly. So say it as many times as you want, Mr. Nalle; it won't change the truth. And if you don't believe it, that's your problem.

    It doesn't matter what I call it and I don' t need to label you. The hate that overwhelms your reason brands you for what you are whether I act as an observer or not.

    Dave

  • 16 - Dave Nalle

    Feb 01, 2006 at 10:41 am

    and again...comment #14 tries to distract form the point that someone go tarrested for wearing a t-shirt

    welcome to the neocon Empire kiddies:


    Gonzo, there's a dress code in the gallery. I was first there in the Johnson administration and it was in force then. So it's not something the neocons dreamed up. She could have kept her coat on and no one would have bothered her. Reports suggest that she was told by the Capitol Police that she could stay if she kept it on. She chose to remove it knowing perfectly well what the result would be.

    Dave

  • 17 - troll

    Feb 01, 2006 at 10:48 am

    Sheehan made her point by getting detained

    dissent lives

    troll

  • 18 - Bing

    Feb 01, 2006 at 10:48 am

    Well Tommy you sure sound like a left wing [Deleted. We will edit/delete spam comments, duplicate comments, unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner. Comments Editor] when you start in with that Bush is creating a divide bullshit. It takes two sides to make a divide tommy.

    Do you really think we are living in a police state where our rights our being taken away like these leftist [Deleted. We will edit/delete spam comments, duplicate comments, unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner. Comments Editor]? Where is the proof of this?

    It's like Dave Nalle just said. Nancy said that the incident last night involving Cindy Sheehan shows how our government is like the gestapo. Dave points out that the Gestapo would have done more than detain Ms. Sheehan for half an hour and then let her go.

  • 19 - tommyd

    Feb 01, 2006 at 11:48 am

    "First they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out -because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out -because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me!" -Pastor Niemoller, Catholic Priest, during the days of the Nazi Regime.

    Now dear Bing, can your mind understand this concept which the dear priest is conveying??

    Just because the Bush Regime is going after "terrorists" today doesn't mean that they will stop there. Bing, you and Dave Nalle both forget that One Party governments never, ever go well, nor do they ever end well. I wish people like you could think outside the box instead of repeating what the Neocon media drill into your heads.

  • 20 - Natalie Davis

    Feb 01, 2006 at 11:53 am

    "I must ask the poster if Bill Clinton would have allowed Paula Jones, Monica, Broderick...in to one of HIS SOTU speeches with a nasty Tshirt and plans to wreak havoc. Would Hillary have allowed it?"

    They would have been just as wrong. Wearing a shirt does not prove that a person had mischief in mind.




    "The hate that overwhelms your reason brands you for what you are..."

    Mr. Nalle, that's how *you* perceive it. That's your right. And, yes, I absolutely believe it.

    I don't care what you might think about me
    You'll get by without me...


    Go in peace.




    Comment Editor, please address #11. It is in direct violation of the comments policy.

  • 21 - troll

    Feb 01, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    good job Nat - but let's leave the editors out of this

    wear Bing's condemnation with pride but answer his point - where do you get off calling a dead US soldier a Death Brigadier...what's the point of this phrase - ?

    please fill in the blanks for those who don't understand your POV

    troll

  • 22 - Nancy

    Feb 01, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    Ref: comment #20 ... uh, I did? Far as I know, I haven't said anything before this post rahtcheer. But thanks for thinking of me, Bing.

    Comment on the Sheehan thing: Dave is right, sort of: there IS a dress code, but as far as I'm aware, nothing is stated or spelled out about T-shirts or messages thereon; Troll & Pat Fish are right: it would have been wiser & more politically astute to let Sheehan do whatever she wanted, create a fuss, and embarrass herself and/or the Dems thereby; removing & detaining her only gave the anti-Bush/GOP crowd a handle for claiming (correctly) ridiculously heavy-handed, over-authoritarian repressiveness by BushCo.

    But it's a typical BushCo response, in that what could have been passed off with humor, a graceful shrug, & a bemused expression - which would have been endearing of the Prez & probably roused the ire of the public against so rude a demonstration - was beyond the comprehension or execution of persons with no sense of humor or humility, but with over-developed senses of arrogance, self-importance, being The Law as well as generally being above it in all other things.

  • 23 - Nancy

    Feb 01, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    By which I refer to Karl Rove, Cheney, and those orchestrating said policies, not specifically Dubya himself.

  • 24 - Kham

    Feb 01, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    I can understand removing Cindy Sheehan. Just as many businesses reserve the right to not serve or remove people from their facilities. What I don't understand is how Cindy Sheehan could have been arrested? She was charged with a misdemeanor but had not yet committed the offense. This is frightening to this American. Are we now to expect to be arressted for what someone thinks we might do?

  • 25 - gonzo marx

    Feb 01, 2006 at 12:57 pm

    doesn't it strike anyone else as Strange that within our nation's capitol building...there is an Ordinance outlawing "demonstration and dissent"

    just a Thought

    Excelsior!

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for May 19, 2013

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs