Capitol Police admit t-shirt mistake...

[Roos]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Call it the tale of two different shirts worn by two very different women: a well-known peace activist who has agitated the White House and a lawmaker's wife who has staunchly supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan wore a shirt with the message "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

Beverly Young, the wife of 18-term Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Young of Florida, wore a shirt that read "Support the Troops."

Both shirts resulted in their owners being ejected from the House chamber before President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night. (Full story)

Sheehan, an invited guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat, was arrested around 8:30 p.m. ET on charges of unlawful conduct. Young was asked to leave but not arrested.

On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said neither woman should have been removed from the chamber. "We made a mistake," he told CNN.

He said an apology was made to Bill and Beverly Young, and the congressman has been told that Capitol officers will receive better training. He said they are operating under outdated guidance on House rules regarding demonstrations.

"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.

Gainer said he has attempted to reach Sheehan to tell her he is recommending that charges be dropped and to express his willingness to talk to her at her convenience, but has only been able to leave her a message.

Woolsey has called for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq and supports legislation for the creation of a Department of Peace.

"Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the president?" Woolsey said in a statement issued Wednesday.

Sheehan told CNN Wednesday that she planned to file a lawsuit despite Gainer's statements.

"I was there for four hours," she said. "It seems like someone could have figured out they made a mistake in four hours."

Sheehan said she was treated roughly and left bruised by the incident.

"I'm going to file a lawsuit for defamation of character and because my civil rights were violated, hoping that it will never happen to another person," she said.

Before Gainer's statements, Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said of Sheehan's shirt, "She was asked to cover it up. She did not."

'She has a real passion for our troops'
Outrage also came from the pro-war Young.

On Wednesday, he held up his wife's shirt on the House floor and denounced her treatment.

"She has a real passion for our troops, and she shows it in many, many ways," Young said.

"And most members in this House know that. But because she had on a shirt that someone didn't like, that said 'Support Our Troops,' she was kicked out of this gallery while the president was speaking and encouraging Americans to support our troops. Shame. Shame."

Young and his wife are known as passionate supporters of U.S. service members. He has spoken in the past about their many visits to military hospitals during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and their efforts to ensure the needs of the wounded and their families are met.

Sheehan, on the other hand, was thrust into the spotlight after her 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq in April 2004.

"Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war, did not violate any rules of the House of Representatives," Woolsey's statement said. "She merely wore a shirt that highlighted the human cost of the Iraq war and expressed a view different than that of the president."

Sheehan, a Vacaville, California, resident gained national attention in August, when she and hundreds of fellow protesters camped outside the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch, demanding an audience. She also recently penned a book, "Not One More Mother's Child."

Sheehan said Wednesday she was trying to "make a statement" with the shirt but did not intend to get arrested.

"I didn't think I would be provoking an incident," she said, suggesting that her message contributed to her arrest.

"I got arrested and [Young] didn't," she said. "What does that tell you?"

CNN's Ted Barrett, Eliott C. McLaughlin and Gary Nurenberg contributed to this report.

[thumpcbd]

Bah, it disrepectfull to wear a T-shirt to the Presidents SoU speach anyways. Anyone not getting dressed up for the occasion, should be ejected. There are restraunts with stricter dress codes.

I means srsly a t-shirt? At least throw a sports coat on, or the womens equlivent.

Casey

[Roos]

hmmm. This is true. But if there are no dress standards in place for the event, and Sheehan was invited, I don't think it's right that she be ejected, much less arrested for it. If it said 'Fuck Bush' and she refused to cover it then the ejection would seem appropriate... I mean, a woman was just thrown off a plane for wearing an 'offensive' shirt with vulgarities on it. But what her shirt said did not warrant her getting arrested by any means... and she wasn't. Sheehan was, however.

Just my opinion.

[zerojunkie]

The article doesn't illude to what might've transpired after she was asked to leave though, that could've made the difference.

[Roos]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

The article doesn't illude to what might've transpired after she was asked to leave though, that could've made the difference.

I agree, but from the reports I saw on TV she just refused to take it off or change and they escorted her out. She didn't say anything or make a scene at all... I would assume out of respect for the ones that invited her.

[JoshM]

Originally Posted by thumpcbd

Bah, it disrepectfull to wear a T-shirt to the Presidents SoU speach anyways. Anyone not getting dressed up for the occasion, should be ejected. There are restraunts with stricter dress codes.

I means srsly a t-shirt? At least throw a sports coat on, or the womens equlivent.

Casey

How is it disrespectful? Isn't that small and superficial in comparison to the loss of her son?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by JoshM

How is it disrespectful? Isn't that small and superficial in comparison to the loss of her son?

But we weren't talking about about her son as compared to a T-Shirt.

We were discussing whether it is disrespectful and inappropriate to wear a T-Shirt to such a formal event. It is disrespectful of the event and it is inappropriate. When one is invited to an event like the SotU Address one should wear formal or business attire - that's just common courtesy and decent manners.

[JoshM]

Originally Posted by xian

But we weren't talking about about her son as compared to a T-Shirt.

We were discussing whether it is disrespectful and inappropriate to wear a T-Shirt to such a formal event. It is disrespectful of the event and it is inappropriate. When one is invited to an event like the SotU Address one should wear formal or business attire - that's just common courtesy and decent manners.

*sigh* Again Xian you're completely missing the point. One can wear what one wants to wear. Her son is dead. I'm sure the suffering that goes along with that supersedes any kind of dress code attire expectations. There are no regulations or dress codes to this event. Messages work better on t-shirts and not on evening gowns. It IS a comparison to the death of her son because it’s the sole reason why she is against the war and wore what she wore. In her eyes the reason why her son is dead is disrespectful to her so why would she even care about her attire being perceived as disrespectful to others? She has a statement to make. Is it really that difficult to perceive it from her perspective enough to realize that a dress code is the last thing from her mind and not as important as the message she wants to influence?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by JoshM

*sigh* Again Xian you're completely missing the point.

Actually, I didn't. I was simply refusing to accept you're changing of the point from inappropriate attire to whether or not the war in Iraq is right/justifed/useful etc etc.

Originally Posted by JoshM

One can wear what one wants to wear.

Try wearing a bikini and oversized sunglasses and get a table at Abacus and let me know how that works out for you.

Time and place matter Josh.

Originally Posted by JoshM

Her son is dead.

What does that have to do with her choice to wear inappropriate attire to an event that can hardly have an equal as to level of formality?

Originally Posted by JoshM

I'm sure the suffering that goes along with that supersedes any kind of dress code attire expectations.

She can suffer and wear that shirt to her hearts content. However, she shouldn't be permitted to wear it at the State of the Union Address.

Originally Posted by JoshM

There are no regulations or dress codes to this event.

Are you sure? In any event - she wasn't arrested for violating dress code rules afaik. If you're confused as to the convention and expectation take a look at any film of the event and see what the attendees were wearing. Shouldn't be too confusing Josh.

Originally Posted by JoshM

Messages work better on t-shirts and not on evening gowns.

So now its not about what she should be permitted to wear its about what she should be permitted to say?

Originally Posted by JoshM

It IS a comparison to the death of her son because it’s the sole reason why she is against the war and wore what she wore. In her eyes the reason why her son is dead is disrespectful to her so why would she even care about her attire being perceived as disrespectful to others?

I have no doubt that she thinks just as you explained. However, wearing a T-Shirt (inappropriate in and of itself) with a protest slogan to such an event with the intent of disrupting it is still disrespectful - without regard to whether or not you agree with her message. (If a bunch of pro-war advocates heckled her when giving a speech to Congress you'd be up in arms... and you'd be right to be up in arms - but she wasn't giving the speech she was trying to disrupt it)

Originally Posted by JoshM

She has a statement to make. Is it really that difficult to perceive it from her perspective enough to realize that a dress code is the last thing from her mind and not as important as the message she wants to influence?

She's made it. Over and over and over and over and over and so are her 15 minutes. She's a tool of the anti-war left and its horribly sad because she is a greiving mother. However, that's no license for being an ass... or at least this big of an ass this often..........

[Vosh]

Maybe it's me but I don't think the point of all this is that she wore a t-shirt. It seems someone else wore a tshirt to this event also. THe difference was the message of the shirt and the treatment of the two particpants. One was arrested, the other wasn't. Why is there a difference? THAT it seems is the point. That they both wore something disrespectful to the event seems straightfoward or pointless, that they were treated differently seems to be fairly significant.

[GLopez]

I understand her being upset with the loss of her son.. but, if going to war and the possibilty of dying in a war would be such an issue, why would he sign his name on the dotted line?

If I were to sign my name enlisting in any of the armed forces, I'd be prepared to face whatever I'm getting myself into.... and that includes dying in a war that I may/may not agree with.


Also, I believe you should dress for the occasion. I sure wouldn't wear a shirt and tie to see Tiesto.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Vosh

Maybe it's me but I don't think the point of all this is that she wore a t-shirt. It seems someone else wore a tshirt to this event also. THe difference was the message of the shirt and the treatment of the two particpants. One was arrested, the other wasn't. Why is there a difference? THAT it seems is the point. That they both wore something disrespectful to the event seems straightfoward or pointless, that they were treated differently seems to be fairly significant.

Both were excluded. Both should have been. One was arrested. Maybe we should find out more about what Sheehan did and what the other lady did and compare their behavior in order to get an answer.

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by GLopez

I understand her being upset with the loss of her son.. but, if going to war and the possibilty of dying in a war would be such an issue, why would he sign his name on the dotted line?

If I were to sign my name enlisting in any of the armed forces, I'd be prepared to face whatever I'm getting myself into.... and that includes dying in a war that I may/may not agree with.


Also, I believe you should dress for the occasion. I sure wouldn't wear a shirt and tie to see Tiesto.

As her son very well was when he signed. All accounts of her son who dies showed that he was very proud of what he did and believed in the war. My curiosity is: Did she not care about the war until his death and then decide to protest or did she support the war for her child's sake until he died?

[Vosh]

Originally Posted by xian

Both were excluded. Both should have been. One was arrested. Maybe we should find out more about what Sheehan did and what the other lady did and compare their behavior in order to get an answer.

Exactly. But is anyone doing that? You are arguing over whether or not it was appropriate or not when it's not the issue, or so it seems. Compare what happened after they were escorted out, figure out why one was arrested, and then talk about the situation.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Vosh

Exactly. But is anyone doing that? You are arguing over whether or not it was appropriate or not when it's not the issue, or so it seems. Compare what happened after they were escorted out, figure out why one was arrested, and then talk about the situation.

I was arguing with Josh because that is what we do

But you're right - the question really is, "why was she arrested?"

More info is needed than was provided in the article to really sink any teeth into that discussion.