[NWPT61]WA blogger Lietta Ruger of Dying Warriors has joined Cindy Sheehan in her vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, TX.
In our family, we have 2 young Iraq veterans, having served already extended 15 months in Iraq are facing 2nd Deployments now, in few short months. This is no longer an all volunteer military; it has become perpetural entrapment for many of the troops. Years more of war in Iraq and Middle East with multiple rotated tours in combat; when will we bring home our troops?
Lietta has posted several firsthand accounts, and deserves all of our support for her personal efforts to get this issue into the local MSM. This is grassroots politics at its most effective.
Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son in Iraq, has also posted another account of her vigil to her diary on Daily Kos, and at times, it is downright moving. She closes:
We had a rally downtown in Crawford. Then the people caravanned up to Camp Casey. I was told to come down to the point of the triangle to greet them. While I was walking down to the point, I had a great view of Prairie Chapel Road. There was car, after car, after car!!! I started sobbing and I felt like collapsing. The cars kept on coming. It took almost a full hour for them to all get to Camp Casey, it was a miraculous sight to see. It was identical to Field of Dreams. People came from all over the country to be here. We are building a movement and they are coming.
We don’t have a full count of all the people who were there, but I would say hundreds. It was amazing and awesome. I felt the spirits of all of our needlessly killed loved ones in the presence of Camp Casey. I felt their strength and the wisdom of the ages with me in that wonderful place.
Today was George Bush’s accountability moment, and he lost. Two young ladies from San Diego drove all night to get to the rally and they had to leave tonight to get back home. One of them said: “Wow, we can drive all the way from San Diego just to meet you and he can’t even come down to the end of his driveway to meet with you.”
George Bush: you work for me. I pay your salary. Come out and talk to me. Anyway, I have a feeling you are about to be fired!!!
Meanwhile, six more U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq.
Leaving aside any arguments about her being there, her final comment is ironic. Bush is a lame duck, and nothing here is warrenting impeachment. he cannot be fired, and will retire on his own in a few years.
Her comment is just more rhetoric and the whole thing is turning into a media circus with the Dems standing center ring.
I have a lot of compassion for anyone who loses a child for any reason, and as a disabled vet I take serioucly all military casualties, but my sympathy is waning as this becomes more about partisan grandstanding then about her son.
her behavior is appalling. she couldn’t make her son do what she wanted him to do while he was alive so now she is demeaning his great sacrifice at his expense, now that he can’t speak for himself anymore. he joined the military and obviously believed in what he was doing….and now his mother is trying to take that away from him.
it’s terrible to lose a child…it’s even worse when a parent uses that loss to gain attention for herself and her lame causes.it’s as if she has a type of munchhausen-by-proxy syndrome. does she have no shame?
Even her own family is appalled at her allowing herself and her son’s memory to be used by the antiwar gang:
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
Reply to 2
No, Karl, this isn’t about “partisan grandstanding.” It’s about war, death, destruction, torn and maimed bodies, and questions about lies, abuse of power, what it’s for, and where does it end. I understand your “sympathy” for war, chest thumping, and conquest. You are, after all, a Republican (are you not?). But despite our differences over such partisan issues as right and wrong, truth and lies, war and peace; we’re all Americans (aren’t we?).
Thank you for your service, Karl, and welcome home.
@2
I guess if anyone would know about shamelessness, it would be you.
Gee Ghost et al., I’m just curious: Are you at all appalled by what’s happening in Iraq — the wrong war against the wrong country fought in the wrong way? Or do you still swallow Bush’s propaganda whole, and believe this has a damn thing to do with 9/11?
I got more bad news for you supporters of terrorism. Looks like we gotta go into iran and take out their “power plant”. It should be OK though, as france has also indicated that they are very concerned too. Of course, their approach is just words and paper.
You better get used to this. We’re in the early stages of WW3 and it’s gonna go on for decades. I wish it wasn’t this way, but I’m afraid it is…
Mark the Redneck @ 7:
Why don’t you enlist then, tough guy?
3
Gee, Mark, I think most of us have seen or heard the latest right-wing rumor. Thanks for posting it anyway. The so-called “Sheehan Family Statement” is too new for any of the debunkers to have checked it out yet. Here’s what I know about it.
1. It originated from Matt Drudge, whose credibility was completely destroyed by the fake “Kerry intern affair” story that Drudge released moments after Kerry locked up the primaries.
2. I heard a live radio interview with Cindy Sheehan a couple days ago. She said her own family is supportive, but her husband’s family are hard-core Republicans and dyed-in-wool Bush supporters, and most of the noise is coming from a particular sister-in-law that Cindy has been on the outs with for a long time.
So, yes, there is a family dispute. Cindy Sheehan married into a family of rabid GOP partisans. So, it’s not surprising they want to do some grandstanding of their own.
Redneck – you and your kind very much wish it were this way because it means employment for you in war profiteering – As long as you’re safe at home making money and the poor victims of the Walmart econonmy are doing the fighting and dying. The Cold War ends, it’s time for a War on Drugs, the WOD isn’t too profitable a war, so now a few fanatics pull a sucker punch and it’s time for a GLOBAL War on Terror. Can’t fault you assholes for not thinking big.
5 and 6……..i am appalled at what the terrorists are doing in iraq. and since you seem to not be able to tell the difference…that’s the islamo-fascist terrorists. we should have taken out saddam in the first gulf war, if we had ,and if we had dealt with bin laden when clinton could have 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. are you so naive as to believe that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? do you live in a vacuum? do you ever read? saddam was paying the homicide bombers that blew up innocent israelis.his guys met with bin laden’s……..
and if any of you far left lefties think that the american people think for a moment that any of you “love the soldiers, but hate the war” you are nuts.after all….our soldiers in gitmo are called torturers by you fools. have you read the al qaida handbook? “claimn they are torturing you…the american people [the far left] will believe you.”
no one is buying that baloney from you anymore.you are the same poeple [just in a different stripe] that spit on our soldiers coming home from vietnam. in your book america is always wrong.
instead of asking someone “why don’t you enlist tough guy?”…i would ask you …why don’t you move to france? see it really doesn’t make any sense does it?
but monday morning quarterbacking is a strong forte of the clueless left.
just think…if you had your own country you could fly a flag that said “we told you so”.i would recommend that you have an ostrich with it’s head stuck in the ground as your national bird on the flag.
Roger,
No, Karl, this isn’t about “partisan grandstanding.” It’s about war, death, destruction, torn and maimed bodies, and questions about lies, abuse of power, what it’s for, and where does it end. I understand your “sympathy” for war, chest thumping, and conquest. You are, after all, a Republican (are you not?). But despite our differences over such partisan issues as right and wrong, truth and lies, war and peace; we’re all Americans (aren’t we?).
I am an independent, I have not registered to a party since the 80’s.
And you are partially right, any discussions of war are non partisan, we all ahve a voice and concerns.
And I have no love of war, if you track my comments on other forums to that time, I opposed it at the time because we did not have big enough consensus and coalition, we had not locked down Afghanistan, and I thought the UN had a responsibility to clean up its own dog crap, since the corruption around the oil for food and all the nations Saddam was bribing were partially responsible for his power.
I think Saddam needed to, go but I disagreed that the US MUST be the worlds police force. I think the justification was there regardless.
Once the decision was made to go, I support the troops. I want them home as soon as feasible, and my intro page on my website displays my sentiments on that.
Track it back from my blog, there is a link there to it.
Cindy Sheehan’s protest is a mockery however. She met with GWB and loved the guy, as reported by her hometown paper. Interestingly I was stationed for 12 years at the base adjacant to her hometown, which is why I am so interested in all of this.
Now she wants to meet with him again and is demanding answers. her comments about that first meeting now are contradictory to her comments then, and I think that is telling. now she is a grieving mom and is surrounded by liberal handlers and advisors, and most of her press releases reads like a moveondotorg talking point.
Maybe she did not intend it to be so, but it is. The anti war people have flocked to her banner, because they think as a grieving mom she is an unimpeacable standard bearer they can follow.
She isnt, her actions and words have made her suspect.
But I am used to that. So for the most part, I dismiss it as free speech and her being anti war.
I dont mind dialogue about anything.
But she dishonors her son’s committment and service, because she trivializes what he did. She claims he joined to be a chaplain assistant, but worked on vehicles instead. Maybe so, but we all knew joining the military, that needs of the Military take precedence, even over guaranteed jobs. Involuntary crosstraining happens.
When he renlisted in Aug 2003, he did so knowing full well his unit was slated to be deployed. He weighed the options and made a choice.
When he died he had volunteered to go to a riot zone and make pickup on other soldiers. He made a choice.
All through this it seems to me that she, who is anti war (and she admits that most of her family is at odds with her politically) finds that anti war ideology can not accept that her child, whom she holds precious as all parents do, might be at odds with her as well, so she has created an internal drama that she plays out:
*how her son was tricked by lies
*how he stayed because of peer pressure
*how he stayed because his unit would ship out undermanned without him (which is BS, no one is that essential…)
All of this, and more, she uses to appease her conflict, that he believed in something that is anathema to her.
I have lost most of my sympathy for her, aside from that which I give all grieving parents who lose children for any reason, but I have gained a lot of pity for her.
She has created this lie she tells herself, and she will have to live with the pain it causes her.
She lives in the hell of ehr own creation.
Any commodities trader knows that market volatility is the source of profit opportunities. The oil patch boys and girls that surround Bush know this intimately therefore we have a new “Global” war.
moonbat…you truly live up to your name.
Geez moonbat – are you off your meds? WTF are you talking about? Try to be coherent.
I appreciate the sacrifice that Casey Sheehan made for this country, and respect his devotion to duty and professional service.
As for his mother, Cindy Sheehan, she is a pathetic excuse for an American, and stands against every principle that her son so selflessly and courageously gave his life to defend.
For example, on May 4, 2005, Cindy Sheehan spoke before a group calling itself “Students Against War” at San Francisco State University. The flyer distributed by “Students Against War” urged support for the Iraqi “Resistance” terrorists — i.e. the folks who are killing our soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, bombing mosques of rival Islamic sects, and blowing up school children with car bombs.
The featured speaker at this event was Lynne Stewart, a terrorist lawyer, who billed herself as a “Civil Rights Lawyer and Political Prisoner”. Stewart was recently convicted of conspiracy and for passing along fatwas (Islamic religious edicts) from Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman to his terrorist followers in Egypt’s Islamic Group. Rahman is the “Blind Sheikh” responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 that left six Americans dead and more than 1,000 people injured.
Maybe some readers will appreciate the views of Cindy Sheehan’s fellow traveler. When Stewart was testifying in her own defense before the federal jury that convicted her, she was asked why she was distributed fatwas which urged the killing of Jews. Stewart said she knew the fatwas urged the killing of Jews and that she could not deny this to him because the Blind Sheikh said that killing Jews was a good thing.
Guilt by association can be a very powerful tool. Obviously, one must question Cindy Sheehan’s motives at speaking before a meeting sponsored by an organization supporting Islamo-fascist terrorists that featured a keynote speaker who was convicted of assistance the World Trade Center bombers and thinks that killing Jews is a good thing.
Evidently, Cindy Sheehan didn’t make any statements to directly urge the killing of Jews. But she didn’t condemn the anti-Jewish remarks of Lynne Stewart and the other anti-Jewish speakers at the May 4, 2005 event. Obviously, Sheehan may really be thinking such repugnant thoughts, based on her repeated denunciations of Israel in her own comments, and her failure to repudiate explicitly anti-Jewish remarks by other speakers.
One interesting quote by Cindy Sheehan for her own speech: “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.” Does this mean she disagrees with our country’s actions in World War II also?
Here is a link to a story posted concerning the event shortly after it happened:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar.....p?ID=17915
Moonbat @ 12 – Hey, can you explain “calls” and “puts”. I’d love to hear what you know about commodity futures.
By the way, David Duke also supports Cindy Sheehan. And believes that the attacks on Sheehan for being anti-Semitic are the vicious lies of Zionist Jews.
http://www.davidduke.com/
David Duke calls his racist organization “European American”. People like David Duke and Cindy Sheehan believe that America isn’t worth dying for and that Jews have too much control over our country.
Wouldn’t America be much better off if the David Dukes and Cindy Sheehans of our country would simply leave our national borders permanently, and go back to whatever European country their forebearers came from? Let them see if the folks in the lands of their ancestors share their hateful beliefs.
Leave America to the real Americans — a term that is not defined by race, national origin, or religion — but by a common belief in democracy, freedom, and tolerance.
thank you richard. well put. it seems the far left ,for all their labeling of bush as a nazi, is far more instep with being nazis themselves. the far left hollywood elite entertained some of the nazis before world war two also. history does repeat itself.
these people are anti-semitic. period.
Yikes! Even the PI makes the point that most “resonable” thinking people already have. In my PROFESSIONAL opinion, Cindy needs real grief counseling and more. Couple this with the apparent fact that her husband filed for divorce last Friday, she needs help now from a psych-therapist and not the bizzare hard left.
By ROBERT L. JAMIESON JR.
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
President Bush could end the shenanigans of the military mom turned antiwar poster child who is camped outside his Texas vacation ranch.
All he has to do is meet with the grieving woman.
If the president spoke with Cindy Sheehan for a few minutes behind ranch doors, he could field her questions about why her soldier son made the ultimate sacrifice.
He could show the world he does have a heart, contrary to public perception. A brief tête-à-tête also would douse the blaze of media that threatens to make the cowpoke town the site of a whoopee-ti-yi-yo showdown.
Mom versus the Prez.
Trouble is Sheehan is not sincerely interested in meeting Bush for a private, heartfelt chat about her understandable anguish and lingering questions.
She wants to make a public splash by allowing critics of the unjustified war in Iraq to use her as a human bazooka against Bush, who got us into this war mess.
That Sheehan would allow her private grief to be plied for a public stunt seems unfathomable even if her underlying message about unnecessary blood being shed by American soldiers hits the mark.
Sheehan already got face time with the president, right here in Western Washington last year — a fact that folks tend to ignore as Sheehan morphs into the celebrity du jour.
It was in June 2004. Sheehan met with Bush at Fort Lewis. A reporter for a newspaper in Vacaville, Calif., Sheehan’s hometown, interviewed her about the occasion.
The mom said at the time that Bush seemed sincere about desiring freedom for the Iraqis and appeared to feel the pain of lost American lives. Sheehan said meeting Bush and hearing his condolences made her family feel better.
“That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness,” Sheehan told the newspaper.
Tellingly, when the Sheehan family met with Bush they opted not to share concerns about the war, according to news accounts.
Now Sheehan is sounding a different tune.
She believes Bush lied about the war. She says the war is wrong. She wants to return the presidential “gift” to sender.
“If I can shorten the war by one minute and save one life, that would just give me so much comfort in my grief,” Sheehan was quoted as saying this week.
I agree with Sheehan’s statement in principle. I do not agree with her form of political protest, which she has the right to do. Her effort just seems like a misguided spectacle.
Sheehan admits that she just wants to lay a question on Bush: Why did you kill my son?
Her accusatory tone suggests that she wants to flog the president with blame and vitriol and not have a meaningful, respectful dialogue.
At the very least, she gets her name all over the news as the mom who tried to stick it to Bush.
If Sheehan wants sober war policy answers, I have a one-word suggestion for her: Google.
She can read up on Bush’s shifting justifications for the Iraq debacle. She won’t get solid answers, but she will read a lot about a Bush administration that misrepresents facts and lies as a matter of habit.
She also will come across accounts of our “heartless” president crying with families of dead soldiers.
Sheehan’s Texas tantrum wittingly or unwittingly abets left-leaning forces that are happy to use her to get at the president. If the anemic antiwar movement needs a mourning mom to lead the charge against this unjust war, then the movement is in dire straits.
Protest marches and demonstrations, which powered public sentiment against the war in Vietnam, have been reduced to this — a mom with a mic.
Pathetic.
My thoughts drift to grieving parents of slain troops who have not even had a chance to meet with Bush.
There are hundreds of soldiers’ families — several in the Seattle area — in as much grief as Sheehan is over the death of her son, Casey, last year in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
They haven’t found the need to shack up near the president’s vacation pad to shame him into a confrontation under the guise of seeking sincere dialogue.
Some of these families believe the war is wrong, too.
They just choose to deal with their feelings in a way that doesn’t cheapen the memory of their loved ones or turn a grave matter into a media circus standoff that generates more heat than light.
the smearing of a dead soldier’s mother is lower than I thought even some you would go. Do you hear yourselves? Are you that pathetic and out of other ways of denial, that now you’re trying to take down someone who’s given up more than most of you will ever dream of in this war?
Why do you righties hate America and won’t support the troops? It’s disgusting. Patriotism is becoming inconvenient for the right, and to my surprise they’ve simply ditched it for the weak safety of partisanship.
Redneck – Here. Just substitute stock for commodity. Happy war profiteering – asshole.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Cindy’s call to have the Israeli’s leave Palestine are necessarily anti-semetic, as they are Anti-war, which she clearly is.
What they do however, is attract the attention and support of those who are anti-semetic, and they distract from her stated primary isse, her son’s death.
They say less about her as they do about some of her supporters, who will use anything they can to forward their agenda.
No moonbat. explain it to me in your own words. you pompous uneducated asshole.
karl:
“and she admits that most of her family is at odds with her politically”
no she doesn’t. She admits her in-laws support the war. Her own family is on her side, as well as her side of the extended family.
And if her in-laws are so firmly against her, why did only one of them sign a letter passed to Drudge?
Karl @ 24
are you willing to associate Bush negatively with James Dobson, then? He sent his adviser to Dobson’s show to praise him, the day after Dobson equated stem cell research with Nazi experiments.
Joe,
Why do you righties hate America and won’t support the troops? It’s disgusting. Patriotism is becoming inconvenient for the right, and to my surprise they’ve simply ditched it for the weak safety of partisanship.
I sincerely hope that wasnt addressed to me.
I may be a lot of things, but partisan and anti patriotic are not among them.
I would bet I have presonally done more then you have to support the troops.
Torridjoe @ 22
Cindy Sheehan smeared herself. She choose to associate with convicted terrorists, such as Lynne Stewart, who was convicted by a federal court jury for distributing communication which urged the killing of Jews.
No wonder David Duke and every other anti-Jewish group and organization in the USA is strongly supporting Cindy Sheehan.
It is never too late to apologize and seek forgiveness. Cindy Sheehan should take the moral high ground, while she has hundreds of microphones aimed at her. She should denounce Lynne Stewart, David Duke, and all of the other anti-Jewish groups and organizations of whatever stripe that have been hitching their star to her bandwagon.
Otherwise, I predict all of this will come to a head in a few days. Cindy Sheehan will be roundly denounced by the Bush Administration and the media for her association with and support by terrorists, anti-Jewish groups, and other extremists nutcases of various political stripes. And then her entire entourage will be cleared out of Crawford in the interests of national security.
It’s sad that wingers are demonizing Cindy instead of debating the issue.
Redneck – admit it. How much money have you made off of war profiteering? Do you revel in being soaked in blood?
Joe @ 26
She said in a radio interview that most Kasey’s family were Bush supports. Whether that most was all inlaws I do not know.
It is a moot point to my post anyway.
karl
Moonbat @ 31 – Answer the question or STFU.
tj@22–
Nobody is “smearing” Mrs. Sheehan tj….they are merely questioning her motives and apparent change of heart. Mrs. Sheehan has made herself a public figure willingly. She has taken a front and center political position. If Mrs. Sheehan thinks she can merely launch harpoons and hide behind her dead son as a “grieving mother”….I don’t think that is right either.
Hopefully Mrs. Sheehan will disclose who has “encouraged” her, contacted her and supplied her with her “talking points” in the weeks to come. I believe she will. It will make for a mighty interesting book and movie deal, won’t it!
Pray for Mrs. Sheehan and families who have lost loved ones in this war.
Joe at 27,
I dont know why it is relevent.
I know nothing about the statement in question, or the cisrcumstance you quote.
If you provide me some details, I will be happy to discuss it.
Let me say this about the issue in general.
I don’t think that liberals have the exclusinve ability to lace their speeches with rhetoric, half truths and faulty comparisons. I think Dobson could easily be as guilty of applying Godwins Law as Moveon.org.
But I also think that is outside the realm of this discussion.
Roger Rabbit has profited nicely from this war….
He bought National Oilwell Varco months ago and is up nearly 50%!!!! He rightfully bragged about his investment and profit!!!! Perhaps all you LEFTIST PINHEADS would be wise to check your retirement and other invested funds and find out how much profit YOU LEFTIST PINHEADS have made because of this war…identify it and give it back!!
clue to joe….this stuff doesn’t actually work. you said….
“Why do you righties hate America and won’t support the troops? It’s disgusting. Patriotism is becoming inconvenient for the right, and to my surprise they’ve simply ditched it for the weak safety of partisanship.”
no one…and i mean NO ONE buys any of that for a moment. and isn’t it odd that you use the exact same lines as the moonbat’s talking points?
try thinking for yourself….after you have read all the info you can.and why don’t you travel to the middle east while you’re at it. then maybe you would get just how wrong you are about just about everything.
war is horrible. none of us ever wants it. but sometimes it’s necessary. did you know there were nuts like you during world war two also? but no one listened then….either.
karl, it’s relevant because the thing Cindy Sheehan has done wrong according to you, is to have what you claim are radicalist supporters or acquaintances. Which, if you are going to accept the smear-by-association meme, makes George Bush a willing accomplice for having the White House fawn over James Dobson without repudiating his comments the day before.
If you think you earn the right to speak on the war based on what you’ve given–as you indicated by boasting of your own alleged support–unless a child you bore has been killed in action I’m not sure I understand how you think she hasn’t earned the right, or more of a right.
Wow we’ve got a neat little hate-fest going on here. With the hate coming from the right of course.
The at-times reasonable Richard Pope is off the deep end calling Cyndy Sheehan anti-semitic for not doing what the wingers want her to do at the precise second they want her to do it.
Wow if this “terrorist lawyer” is really a threat, why isn’t she in jail? Homeland Security falling down on the job? No, she’s probably worth more to the Bushies doing what’s she’s doing rather than cooped up in jail. All of this assuming that this woman has said and done what Richard and Front Page claim. Me. I’ve never heard of her till now. Quoting Horowitz? Sheesh. Fair and balanced for sure.
Come on XmasGoose let’s hear a call for a global war on Islam again.
ghost @ 37
we’ve been hearing from the right mouthpieces for years now that saying anything bad against the war, its effort, or those who have a personal stake it is unpatriotic, and shows they just hate America.
So if you’re attacking a military family who’s given the supreme sacrifice for the war you support so strongly, what does that tell you?
CG–
Perhaps Goldy, torridjoe, Roger Rabbit and the other LEFTIST PINHEADS can put together a group to travel to Iraq, Iran & Syria to “reason” with the Bin Laden’s and get them to lay down there arms. It would be worth it for those of us who are always RIGHT to chip in for their ONE-WAY TICKETS. By the time these boneheads finished their “plea for peace” the only peace their would be is “PIECES” of their body parts strewn all over Fallujah!!!
These LEFTIST PINHEADS are so fixated on hating Bush they cannot see how foolish they look…but they obviously don’t care either.
So tj and you other LEFTIST PINHEADS—when is your first meeting with bin Laden and Zarqawi??? Please film it for us.
Cynical @ 34
no one is smearing her? So you guys approve of Michael Moore and MoveOn and Lawyers for Terror as you contend? The intent is not to smear her by her association to people you don’t like? It’s not to discredit her by who you say stands with her?
1. She is a US citizen.
2. She has lost a child in the war.
3. She is exercising the right afforded to anyone in 1), and has a recognized cause as in 2).
4. She is exercising that right peacefully and lawfully.
5. When she arrived, she was virtually alone.
Which part of this is antithetical behavoir?
also @ 37
“did you know there were nuts like you during world war two also? but no one listened then….either.”
putting aside the ad hominem in the first part, if no one’s listening, why is Sheehan the top result in Google and technorati?
Rabbit @ 30
If there is to be legitimate debate over this issue, it should be with folks like Paul Hackett, the Iraqi war veteran (and reserve military officer) who narrowly lost a special election as a Democrat in a heavily Republican district in Ohio. Not with disgraceful people such as Cindy Sheehan.
Obviously, the Bush Administration prefers the “debate” focus on Cindy Sheehan and her fellow travelers. Do you think the entire administration is a bunch of morons? They are just drawing their noose, lying in wait, and letting Sheehan and company get as much rope as possible.
Now the noose is beginning to tighten. Stories about Sheehan’s association with convicted anti-Jewish terrorists are beginning to circulate. Career anti-Semites such as David Duke are salivating with the coverage given to Sheehan.
Give it a few days, maybe a week or two. Certainly while Bush is still in Crawford on vacation. Administration officials, perhaps Bush himself, will denounce Crawford, Duke, Lynne Stewart, etc. Bush will then meet with Casey Stewart’s respectable relatives — who support Bush’s position on Iraq and think that America IS worth dying for. Then there will be a national security sweep to clean Cindy Sheehan and her encampment out of McLennan County (where Crawford is located).
By allowing Cindy Sheehan to be elevated to a high status, then discrediting her, Bush will have achieved lots of beneficial objectives. Opposition to the war will be associated with extremist anti-Jewish terrorists, and further real debate will be unnecessary for the time being. High profile Democrats who take up Sheehan’s cause will also be dragged through the mud. And by denouncing David Duke, Bush will become less hated among African-American voters.
cynical…..i was thinking that sadly [for them] saddam is ALL TIED UP right now. but maybe they could have tea with bin laden???? ala dcdermott.
and joe….you are the one that said “righties” were unpatriotic.you can all talk all you want, run down america all you want…i won’t call you unpatriotic. idiotic …yes. unpatriotic…no.
and if you want to look for someone profiteering from the war look no further than roger rabbit. that wascally wabbit has been making money off the rise in oil prices. SHOCKING!
sheehan is nothing but an attention whore. yes, her son died and that is horrible for any parent. so maybe she should spend more time at the cemetery grieving than in front of cameras hamming it up.
too blunt? too bad……….
Joe,
I said having them distracts from the real issue.
If you are saying that Dobson’s rhetoric distracts from the issue of Stem Cell research, then I can agree to that. If you further assert their associatoin with him is problematic, I might agrree to that as well.
I try to live with facts, not rhetoric.
And your representation of me is wrong. I said she has every right to have the opinion, but when her stated reasons for it are at odds with her past comments, that is subject to scrutiny.
And in her case, I said what I thought was the source of her anger and pain. That was opinion.
I don’t claim any special privilage, nor did I claim she was unpatriotic. I said in my opinion, she dishonors her son’s choice by marginalizing it to meet what I think is her own needs.
I made my comments from my own experience and I referenced my past service as a qualifier to that experience.
I don’t want anyones adulation for my service. It just gives me a perspective.
I am sorry, reread my posts, I said nothing unfair to her except my belief in her own self deception, and that is clearly my assessment, and my opinion.
But she is an American, she has every right to stand and shout, and when she does, other people have the right to shout their agreement or dosabreement with her. Her words, and yours and mine will be heard and people will evaluate them, and comment on them.
That’s America Dude.
tj@41–
Sheehan is the top result on Google because a small group of fringe lunatic LEFTIST PINHEADS such as yourself spend every waking hour googling this stuff that’s why. American loves a good “soap-opera” and that’s what this has turned into.
Any bets that Mrs. Sheehan will profit from this with a book and movie deal??
chrismasghost, mark the redneck, karl, bf, IDGAF, Richard Pope, Mr. Cynical:
christmasghost was kind enough to try to answer for me on another post. Besides being WRONG…well she was wrong. So here is MY answer:
8/14/2005
I’ll answer for myself, thanx, dumbass.
There is nothing about YOUR arguments that convinces ME that you havs a shred of “common sense and intellectual integrity.”
It really doesn’t take a middle east scholar, a historian specializing in the last forty years of American history or a military strategist to come to the conclusion that invading this country without a plan to “win the peace” and “manage the occupation” was a blunder of historically monstrous proportions.
Say what you want assholes, but our solders are being slaughtered because of this incompetent and short-sighted leadership and guess what, shitheads…if you support them then YOU are complicit. So here are ol’ Rujax’s new talking points…well, point actually. If you support Bush…
YOU ARE A MURDERER.
Plain and simple folks. Accessory after the fact.
karl @ 43
thanks for the response. If you boil it down to her own comments and actions, that’s fine. I don’t think it’s unusual, however, for many people to have seriously rethought their opinions and statements on the war and presidency from 2 years ago. We’ve learned some things since then, and it’s fair to return if you think you were misled the first time.
Cynical, no one’s pressuing the right to speak on it, but they’re a big part of the total.
Patrick Sheehan, the father of Iraqi war hero Casey Sheehan, has filed for dissolution of his marriage to Cindy Sheehan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....3027/posts
It should make excellent news coverage when the process server delivers the divorce papers to Cindy Sheehan at her encampment in Texas.
Rujax,
As I posted I opposed it at the time.
I think it needed to be done however, even if I thought it was done wrong.
So Mea Culpa if you like.
Hope it makes ya feel better.
Redneck – keep dreaming. I won’t shut up. It’s what you wingers want. You’re taking a page from Bill O’Reilly’s book. Fuck you very much.
TJ – these wingers just want people to just shut up. If they don’t shut up then they’re smeared with guilt by association. McCarthyism. It’s such a tired old formula.
Cynical – the crumbs Roger Rabbit has made trading the volatility in oil prices aren’t in the same universe as the profits being made the people who put Bush in power. I hope the little guy make s a few dollars and then contributes to politicians who’ll stop this bullsh*t. Sweet revenge.
tj@46–
“no one’s pressuring the right to speak on it, but they’re a big part of the total”.
How do you know that tj???
The RIGHT people have a RIGHT to speak when Mrs. Sheehan does the “in-your-face” approach to expressing herself. I truly feel badly for Mrs. Sheehan…but probably for reasons much different than yours.
moonbat@49–
A perfect example of you LEFTIST PINHEADS being able to rationalize anything!!! THANK YOU!
Do as the LEFTIST PINHEADS say..
Not as the LEFTIST PINHEADS do!!!
Cynical – you’re braindead dude. It’s just a time honored tactic of any campaign – use the other side’s stupid greed against itself.
Get it you WINGNUT PINHEAD?!?
From Cindy Sheehan’s Diary at Daily Kos
http://cindysheehan.dailykos.com/
Thu Aug 11th, 2005 at 23:16:01 PDT
Today is kind of a blur to me. From running around from interview to interview, to getting a visit from Viggo Mortensen, today was a whirlwind of activity. I have discovered that the White House press corps is always looking for something to do and someone to cover. We have been happy to oblige them. We had a press conference today with Gold Star Families for Peace and Military Families Speak Out members. It was very effective when people who actually have skin in the game ask the president to be held accountable for the words he has actually said.
Still putting out the O’Reilly fires of me being a traitor and using Casey’s name dishonorably, my in-laws sent out a press conference disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey. We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the elections when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey’s death. The thing that matters to me is that my family: Casey’s dad and my other 3 kids are on the same side of the fence that I am.
Since Congress is not holding George Bush accountable and the media is not doing their jobs and holding George Bush accountable, we the American people need to hold him accountable for lying to us to get us into a disastrous war. November 2 2004 was not his accountability moment: today is. We are finished allowing him to get away with deceiving the American public and abusing his power.
We are mad as hell and we’re not taking it anymore.
Moonbat @ 42 – So in other words you have no fucking idea how futures markets work. You’re talking out your ass like most libs. Fuck you.
Moonbat@52–
Can’t you be a little more creative than WINGNUT PINHEAD??
Not only are you a LEFTIST PINHEAD….but you are clearly a PENCIL-NECKED GEEK as well!!
Wow Richard…I’m impressed.
killer.
Reply to 12
Karl, since voters in Washington don’t register by party, I could say we’re all independents. In any case, it’s a mistake to see the “war against terrorism” as a Democrat-Republican issue. The American people unanimously support fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. My recollection is that not one Democrat in Congress opposed going into Afghanistan. But, despite Bush’s claims to the contrary, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.
I do not track your posts, Karl. I can only respond to what I see in this thread.
Food for oil program — I’m disappointed to see you simply regurgitate right-wing propaganda. If you want to have a serious discussion about this topic, fine, do some research and come back with some real facts, not myths from the r/w noise machine. Despite herculean efforts by the latter to implicate Kofi Annan in the scandal, there’s no evidence he was personally involved in any impropriety. He would have been forced to resign if there were any truth to the smear campaign against him. Everyone knows there was corruption in the FFO program. Well, gee whiz Karl, baksheesh is a way of life in most of the world. So it’s no surprise there was a baksheesh system in place in Iraq, which is about as third-world as a country can get.
Saddam — was a brutal dictator, but the world is full of that sort. I share your feeling that American families — the Cindy Sheehans of the world — should not be required to sacrifice their children just to police tawdry alleys in far corners of the world. You say there was “justification.” What justification? The president’s responsibility is to protect the American people. Saddam was never a threat to our own country. Our government always knew Saddam’s target was his Arab neighbors. Saddam wanted to unite the Arab world under his leadership, by persuasion if possible, by force in necessary. But after the Gulf War, he wasn’t in a position to invade anybody. Being an Iraqi was no fun, but from America’s point of view he was nothing more than a nuisance. Was it worth $300 billion and 1,835 American lives to get rid of a nuisance?
Cindy Sheehan’s protest is not a mockery, and it’s offensive for you to say that. It shows that you disrespect people who disagree with you. That, my friend, is the heart of the problem with political discourse in our country and is precisely why our nation has become so polarized: The disrespect right wingers have for anyone who disagrees with them; and beyond the disrespect, their readiness to attack and smear anyone who criticizes them. Instead of attacking Cindy, why don’t you discuss the issue? Namely, what should we do now about Iraq? I happen not to agree with her main premise, that we should pull out the troops right now. Kerry and Clinton don’t agree with her on that point, either. Nor do most Democrats in Congress. She does not speak for very many people. But she personifies the frustration many people feel about Bush’s botched military adventure in Iraq, and that frustration is extremely widespread. Now, only about 40% of the American public thinks Bush is doing a good job in Iraq. It’s obvious to objective people that he isn’t. We’re bogged down, there’s massive waste and corruption, Iraqis don’t want us there, and we’re making little progress in providing Iraqi citizens with necessities of life. In all probability, the American experiment with Iraqi democracy will fail. The likely future of that country is sectarian conflict and another dictatorship. In that case, what was our sacrifice of blood and treasure for? Many of us feel our troops — whom we support as much as you do — are dying for nothing. That is an issue that deserves to be debated, not swept under the rug by resorting to ad hominen attacks on anyone who dares criticize the war or the president’s policies.
Sheehan did meet with Bush shortly after her son’s death. She was in shock then, and the war was young then. She — and the rest of us — have learned a great deal since then. To discount everything that has happened since her first meeting with Bush with your facile remark is absurd. She changed her mind about the war. Many of us who initially supported it, now see it as an unnecessary and doomed intervention.
You misquoted Sheehan when you said she admits her family is at odds with her politically. Only her in-laws are criticizing her. She married into a Republican family and doesn’t agree with the political views of her husband’s family, and her in-laws don’t agree with her political views. There’s nothing unusual about that. Many Americans have little in common, and little to do with, their in-laws.
Cindy Sheehan doesn’t want your pity. Once again, it’s insulting for you to insinuate that what’s going on in Crawford is a pity party. It isn’t. It’s an anti-war protest. More importantly, what started out as a one-woman protest has grown into the first significant anti-war demonstration we’ve seen in the U.S. since the invasion was launched, and the question is whether this will be an isolated event or mark the beginning of an organized anti-war movement. Support for Bush’s Iraq policies is crumbling in public opinion. Cindy Sheehan is not a long-haired college student who doesn’t want to be drafted, she’s a mother who lost a son in Iraq, and she’s questioning the wisdom of the war that took her son. That’s powerful stuff, given that the president’s stated rationales for going to war against Iraq have been debunked. Again, I find your comments facile, not well thought out, and nothing more than regurgitation of talking points from the right-wing hate machine. If you mean what you say about having a serious discussion, then I can only say that I’m very, very disappointed with your post #12.
53 – derivatives contracts and the markets they’re traded in are designed for the purpose of managing the price volatility risk of the underlying securities or commodities being traded.
Fuck you always.
16
Richard, my only response to your comment about Cindy Sheehan is that you’ve got it wrong, the pathetic excuse for an American is you. This post is way below your usual quality on HA. It’s also beneath the intelligence you’ve displayed here in the past.
Moonbat would like us to believe that Roger Rabbit is going to be the next George Soros…implying RR will donate his oil profits to the LEFTIST PINHEAD cause!!!
HAR-HAR-HAR-HAR-HAR!!!
The rank-and-file LEFTIST PINHEAD hordes his cash for his own selfish greed. They don’t donate to churches…but complain when others do. LEFTIST PINHEADS suck off the system and gladly give away others hard-earned money. But ask them to give say 10% of their income to something they supposedly truly believe in and it’s like you are asking them to cut off their scrotum or something!!
moonbat—56
Impressive display of “Googling” a term and spewing the answer as if you really know something about it. You are a “shallow bastard” as are all LEFTIST PINHEADS!!
Oh, and Richard — did you bother to check out the bona fides of the purported quote by Cindy Sheehan? You may end up with an awful lot of egg on your face if that alleged quote turns out to be a lie, which is more than likely.
Comment on 58
Roger Rabbit is going to donate his modest oil profits to himself, who needs it more than “the cause” does. Meanwhile, Mr. Cynical writhes in jealousy, kicking himself for not buying a shitload of NOV when the time was ripe. Eat your heart out, sluggish one!
Mr C,
I wonder if you really think lacing all of your posts with capitalized leftist pinhead comments really adds to the debate, or if you are trolling?
Just an observation, I like discussions but I hate labels.
RP @ 16
“As for his mother, Cindy Sheehan, she is a pathetic excuse for an American, and stands against every principle that her son so selflessly and courageously gave his life to defend.
Strong words. I hope you can let us know what in your view an exemplary American would be. In my view, an exemplary American has the responsibility as a citizen of the US to work to change policies (s)he disagrees with. That, in my view, is what Sheehan is doing. The post you bring up on her marriage purportedly dissolving is irrelevant, as are statements from her in-laws (which have been dismissed elsewhere).
58: I’ll bet most moonbats don’t know that Soros got rich destroying the economy and the good people of Thailand by speculating on the Thai Baht.
He got huge loans denominated in Thai Baht, and then converted them to dollars in currency market.
He then started rumor about devaluation of Baht. Sure enough, that triggered a panic, and he was able to pay back the loan with fewer dollars than was in the original conversion.
The devaluation of the baht devasted Thai economy. Many people found themselves wiped out.
Soros knew what would happen, and he didn’t GAF about anybody but himself. Typical asshole liberal.
58 – Cyn thanks for the compliment on 54 but 58?
Case in point – last time I looked (last week) the Republicans were 1.5 million in debt and Democrats a little less than 500k over the election contest.
What does that say about how tight D’s and R’s are with their cash when it comes to things they “believe” in?
rujax @ 45
I don’t know if I’d go so far as you, but I do think it is perfectly logical to claim that anyone taking an active support for this war is morally responsible for everything that happens during the course of that war.
As soon as Cindy Sheehan declared that Israel should get out of “Palestine”, she exposed either her lack of intellect or her whole hearted sell-out to the radical anti-semitic left.
Crawford Peace House, who is sponsoring her little circus, denies that Israel has a right to exist. Just what do they propose? That Jews should just march themselves into the sea?
If Sheehan takes money from these people, and lives in their house, and states their views, then she is one of them. Yes, that makes her anti-semitic, and a pox on the US.
Reply to 21
IDGAF — thanks for posting the P-I column spotlighting how lame Bush is. The guy really could use some political counseling. As Jamieson points out, all he has to do is meet the woman and argue his case in front of the TV cameras. Use lots of polite and smiley-smiley, and agree to disagree. She would then fold her tent, go away, and the media wouldn’t pay any more attention to her. He’s playing right into the hands of the protesters. He’s keeping her tent show alive and the cameras rolling. He looks like a coward who’s too weak to deal with a grief-stricken mom. Of course, that’s exactly what he is.
chrismasghost, mark the redneck, karl, bf, IDGAF, Richard Pope, Mr. Cynical:
Here you go killers, here’s how Bush is “supporting the troops”
From the New York Times
August 14, 2005
U.S. Struggling to Get Soldiers Updated Armor
By MICHAEL MOSS
“For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents.
The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon’s procurement system.
The effort to replace the armor began in May 2004, just months after the Pentagon finished supplying troops with the original plates – a process also plagued by delays. The officials disclosed the new armor effort Wednesday after questioning by The New York Times, and acknowledged that it would take several more months or longer to complete.”
I feel for the loss of any mother’s child. But she is defaming the name of her son and all those other brave soldiers who have given their lives to a fight that they believe in.
First – Other troops fighting with Casey stated that he believed in the mission and that he was one of the first to sign up for the special mission to save his fellow soldiers, that unfortunately ended his life.
Second – At least part of his family, flesh and blood are disgusted with Mrs. Sheehan’s actions.
Third – As I have said, I feel for her loss, but she is has political consultants, including but not limited to Joe Trippi. Not to mention the financial assistance she has been receiving from “Ben” of “Ben and Jerry’s” ice cream for her yearlong capade.
Fourth – other people who met with the President the same time that she did stated that he was very respectful of all their losses. They personally feel that she is hurting the memories of their loved ones who also lost their lives.
59 – Sorry Cynical. 56 was right off the top of my head. I’m a little bit of a financial markets and economics buff. I’ve never even traded futures contacts or options. Came close one time.
Janet @ 66
Why, because she didn’t say “occupied Palestine”?
By the way, expressing anti-Israeli view does not nake one anti-Semitic. And, I didn’t find any anti-Semitic statements on the Crawford Peace House’s website, can you link to some?
bf @ 69
how is she defaming it, specifically?
Question for 26
“And if her in-laws are so firmly against her, why did only one of them sign a letter passed to Drudge?”
TJ, where did you get this info? It’s tough to get the straight story on the Drudge letter because if you google it you get a zillion right-wing blogs, and you know what those are worth. Less than nothing.
I find it very interesting that only the sister-in-law signed the letter. It certainly fits. There’s been bad blood between Cindy and this woman for a long time. Looks like a vengeful sister-in-law with a bent for publicity-seeking is doing a little grandstanding of her own.
Moonbat @ 70 – Who do you think you’re kidding. “A bit of a buff”… shit… you’re a bit of a BUFFOON. Or a lot of buffoon. So since you’re an expert… tell me again how calls and puts work. Don’t google copy and paste. Just splain it to me. Or admit you’re FOS.
Reply to 29
Good grief, Richard, you are really lowering yourself today. It’s equally logical to argue that Bush should grab a microphone and apologize for the fact he’s supported by neo-Nazis, skinheads, militia groups, associates of convicted terrorist Timothy McVeigh, and other militaristic ultra-nationalists.
karl@62–
I feel the need to refer to these Leftist Pinheads as LEFTIST PINHEADS as a constant reminder to them that I know precisely where they are coming from…..and as a reminder to them that attempting to label themselves as Moderate, Centrist, PROGRESSIVES won’t fly here.
well, IIRC it’s in email format, signed by relationship and not names. So the person who cops to sending it is her sister in law. No one else to my knowledge from that side has made public comment one way or the other.
As for the husband, he has commented positively on supporting what she’s doing. That the marrgiage has been failing since Casey’s death is also not a secret.
32
No, Karl, it’s not a moot point. Your statement was factually incorrect. That’s not moot, it’s a problem.
36
CAUGHT BLUE-HANDED!!! ROGER RABBIT IS NOTHING BUT A MONEY-GRUBBING CAPITALIST!!! ROGER RABBIT INVESTS IN STOCKS!!! ROGER RABBIT MAKES MONEY IN THE STOCK MARKET!!!
Well, shit, Roger Rabbit has to eat, too.
At least Mr. C didn’t call me a commie. I can take small comfort in that.
Goddam. Now the wingers are calling me a capitalist. Goddam. I don’t know what to think. I don’t know what to say.
Roger @ 78,
My statement is not factually incorrect. It was repeated from her statement in an interview.
If you disagree with the context of it fine, I tried to keep it in context.
I do note that thus far only the family who has disagree with her is vocally saying anything, so I cannot verify what family agrees with her. All I did was repeat what she said.
And its still moot, Casey’s actions imply a completely different set of facts as hers, in my opinoin.
Karl
Roger Rabbit @ 57
There are a lot of credible ways to promote one’s opposition to Bush’s handling of the Iraq situation, than the travesty and outrage that Cindy Sheehan is orchestrating.
Do you really think that sharing the stage with Lynne Stewart and her advocacy of killing Jews makes Cindy Sheehan or her supposed cause more popular? How about the endorsement of David Duke and every other Jew-hater in the country? Or Cindy’s strident denunciation of Israel coupled with silence about the Jew-hating of her own supporters?
Like I say, Karl Rove and company aren’t exactly dumbasses. They will let this play out for a few days. The noose is already beginning to tighten. Soon, the trap door will be released. (Perhaps not exactly the best analogy, given David Duke’s support of Cindy Sheehan’s cause.)
I hope none of the “liberals” on here actually supports rabidly anti-Jewish folks such as Lynne Stewart and David Duke. But if anyone does, please come forward and tell us your story :)
Wabbit @ 81 – Geez, there’s nothing wrong with making money. Do you feel guilty about participating in the Murkin dream?
“The noose is already beginning to tighten.”
I’m not sure you have the right guy on the scaffold there, Richard. The whole reason they’re having you orchestrate the teardown is BECAUSE a noose is tightening…but it’s not on Cindy’s neck.
74 – Why do I bother?
Redneck – why are you here? You said this place was the “enemy”. Get the fuck out if you think we’re so ineffectual. Go circle jerk at (un)SP.
Commodity traders often buy puts and calls as insurance when they’re trading volatile futures contracts like say orange juice over the winter. It helps them sleep better at night and keeps them in the game better than a stop loss order would. Again just off the top of my head, I’m not an expert.
Roger Rabbit @ 75
I don’t see any evidence that President Bush is supported by “neo-Nazis, skinheads, militia groups, associates of convicted terrorist Timothy McVeigh, and other militaristic ultra-nationalists” as you put it.
Certainly, if you look at David Duke’s website, it is full of strident denunciations of the Bush Administration and its policies. At the same time, Duke strongly supports Cindy Sheehan and applauds her for promoting the same anti-Jewish agenda that he advocates.
I would doubt that “neo-Nazis, skinheads, militia groups, associates of convicted terrorist Timothy McVeigh, and other militaristic ultra-nationalists” would support a President, such as Bush, who names Blacks and Jews to major positions in his Cabinet.
And certainly President Bush would never share the platform with the likes of David Duke. While Cindy Sheehan was proud to share the stage with convicted terrorist Lynne Stewart, who expressly advocates killing and harming Jews.
Bush has no need to apologize for David Duke, since Duke doesn’t support Bush or anything Bush stands for. But Cindy Sheehan may very well give Bush the perfect opportunity for publicly denouncing David Duke :)
karl @ 82
this is what I’ve found, from a non-MSM source:
“Patrick Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan husband, supports his wife in her activism, he participates in some events and drives with Cindy when he is not working as a sales representative. He spoke about the toll this work is taking in the family. “If she is not away traveling or speaking, she is home with her laptop, watching news, or talking on the phone…This is important, we try to continue to support her.””
Moonbat @ 86 – Whatsa matter? Don’t you liked being called on your ignorance?
Let me help you. A “call” acts like a raincheck. It gives the holder the option to buy in the future at a specified price. A “put” is like an insurance policy. It obligates the holder to buy at a specified price.
To remember which is which use this mnemonic device: The forecast CALLs for RAIN.
I come here for a number of reasons. All the people I know are right thinking intelligent conservatives. I’m fascinated by the liberal mind. I actually think liberalism is a mental illness. So I come in here and look around so I understand what we’re up against. Frankly most of it is appalling.
Reply to 21..Your’e absolutely WRONG as usual Roger. As for cowards…Seattle’s leaders in that catagory post here daily for hours on end. Bush doesn’t come out of this looking like a coward. Cindy herself just reinforces the OVERWHELMING impression of the moonbat left and assures yet more even convincing Republican victories. I morn her loss, but that doesn’t change the fact that she is a mental midget and the majority of this country knows it. She cant even point out Palestine on map..You people sure know how to pick “spokespeople” But then again How-wierd Dean is your parties chairman. Nuff said.
Roger Rabbit @ 75
Also your use of the term “neo-Nazis, skinheads, militia groups, associates of convicted terrorist Timothy McVeigh, and other militaristic ultra-nationalists” is interesting for another reason.
Convicted terrorist Lynne Stewart (the one who helped the Blind Sheikh distribute his fatwas calling for the killing of Jews) was represented by lawyer Michael Tigar in her federal criminal trial. Tigar also represented Timothy McVeigh in appealing his federal death sentence conviction, as well as co-conspirator Terry Nichols.
Birds of a feather flock together …
Redneck – fascinated by the liberal mind? What a laugh! You’re narcissus – fascinated your own image – the imaged formed by being brainwashed by freeper propaganda!
chrismasghost, mark the redneck, karl, bf, IDGAF, Richard Pope, Mr. Cynical:
Hey murderers, here’s a little more about your fearless leader’s clusterfuck war:
Saturday, August 13, 2005. 9:00pm (AEST)
Half-price Colombian fighters offered for Iraq
A US company operating out of Ecuador says it has signed up about 1,000 Colombian police and military staff to work as hired guns in Iraq, for less than half of their US counterparts’ salaries.
Colombians “have been fighting terrorists for the past 41 years and are experts in their respective areas” such as explosives and guerrilla warfare, Epi Security and Investigation says on its website, iraqijobcenter.com.
The company based in the Ecuadoran city of Manta is run by American Jeffrey Shippy, who is in Baghdad, according to his Ecuadoran wife.
He works out of his home not far from the Manta air base Washington rented from the Ecuadoran Air Force to relocate some of the troops and planes it used to have in Panama.
The Colombian daily El Tiempo reported Friday that the Colombians would be paid $US2,500 to $US5,000 a month, roughly half what their US and British counterparts earn.
-AFP
$$$ wonder if Cheney gets a cut of THAT action, too.
****************************************************************
washingtonpost.com
U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq
Administration Is Shedding ‘Unreality’ That Dominated Invasion, Official Says
By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005; A01
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
“What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.”
****************************************************************
killers.
Redneck – Mental illness? You’ve been listening to too much Savage Weiner. Look no further than the mirror. You’re projecting.
This is the start of something big. I saw it happen in the sixties, and I’m watching it happen again.
Cool.
The reason I think liberalism is a mental illness is that it has failed every time it has been tried. It’s track record is zero because it’s unsustainable. Yet Murkin libs live under the delusion that it’s workable. I think that kind of thinking is certifiable nuts.
I’m simply fascinated by the mental gymnastics you guys go through to justify your actions. The “rights” and “entitlements” you dream up are amazing. I can’t image where you get the gall to think you’re entitled to stick your hand in my pocket and rob me of the fruits of my life’s energy. I find that absolutely appalling.
Thanks Joe @ 88, That’s one.
In wonder if it is current tholugh, since he just filed for divorce?
Oh well I am willing to concede that some of her relatives likely support her, so the label “most do not” may be misapplied.
Still, thats only one small portion of my beleif, so it isnt a deal breaker for me.
I still maintain the major portion of my posts, except as noted.
Karl
History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit, but even without being sure of “history” it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time—and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened.
My central memory of that time seems to hang on one or five or maybe forty nights—or very early mornings—when I left the Fillmore half-crazy and, instead of going home, aimed the big 650 Lightning across the Bay Bridge at a hundred miles an hour wearing L.L. Bean shorts and a Butte sheepherder’s jacket.. booming through the Treasure Island tunnel at the lights of Oakland and Berkeley and Richmond, not quite sure which turn-off to take when I got to the other end (always stalling at the toll-gate, too twisted to find neutral while I fumbled for change) … But being absolutely certain that no matter which way I went I would come to a place where people were just as high and wild as I was: No doubt at all about that.
There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda… You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, and that we were winning…
And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave…
So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave broke and finally rolled back.
Hunter S. Thompson
JC,
There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda… You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, and that we were winning…
Hwy 101 doesnt go to Los Altos, to get there you need Hwy 280.
Just trying to help.
:)
Karl
karl @ 82
reputedly the sister of Sheehan:
A Nation Rocked to Sleep
By Carly Sheehan
Sister of Casey KIA 04/04/04
Sadr City, Baghdad
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
The torrential rains of a mother’s weeping will never be done
They call him a hero, you should be glad that he’s one, but
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
He must be brave because his boy died for another man’s lies
The only grief he allows himself are long, deep sighs
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother’s grave?
They say that he died so that the flag will continue to wave
But I believe he died because they had oil to save
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother’s grave?
Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?
The leaders want to keep you numb so the pain won’t be so deep
But if we the people let them continue another mother will weep
What a lame, stupid PR stunt. You libs have no class. You will do anything no matter how base and exploitive to give Bush a black eye. No wonder you lost elections nationwide.
If we left Iraq now the ensuing blood bath would make Pol Pot look like a picnic. So you keep making noise demanding action that you know would lead to disaster.
how’s it looking now and for the last 24 months, Gary? Would you eat at that picnic? What evidence do you have that it would get appreciably worse? Considering that everyone who is fighting for the insurgency, native or foreign fighter, is fighting the Americans. What will happen when there are no more Americans to stand behind in their violence?
If Cindy Sheehan meant “occupied Palestine” she should have said it. But, that isn’t what she said. Crawford Peace House does not recognize Israel, occupied or otherwise. It is a big supporter of the PLO.
I agree, that wanting to give Palestinians a homeland does not make one anti-semitic. But to do so by destroying Israel, or by requiring that Israel give up Jerusalem, or guaranteeing the right of return, is anti-semitic because the only result is the expulsion of all Jews from the Middle East.
Redneck – again you demonstrate your ignorance. You think Bush’s governance is anything to scream about? This country is running budget and trade deficits at over 6 percent of GDP and climbing. The Chinese and Japanese have to prop up the value of the dollar so the consumer can keep buying their goods. The country is living off the freaking credit card. How sustainable is that?
Clinton balanced the freaking budget Nimrod! Bush has utterly neglected the economy to be a “war president”.
Worst.President.Ever.
Joe,
Moving. Not conclusive, but moving.
And be clear, I have and contain to maintain compassion to the parents for the loss of any child.
I used to serve on a military honor guard, I have folded the flags drapped over dead veterans caskets. I have seen the grief on loved ones faces as the 7 shells and folded flag are given to them, I am no stranger to grief.
There are two issues Joe. Her grief at the loss of her son, which is very real; and her beliefs about his service and sacrifice.
Those together are fuelign her protest.
And i wouldn’t have a problem with it, but she is disengenuous about her methods and comments.
She already stated during an interview that she hopes he does not come out, because it strengthens her position and her movement.
That tells me the movement is more importnat then the answers she is asking for.
She doesnt care about talking to Bush. She only cares about protesting him, which is her constitutional right.
But she should be more honest.
This isnt camp Casey, its Camp Cindy. Its all about her.
richard pope…
i used to think that the far left was just delusional and didn’t realize just who they were actually siding with. but after reading all these comments here i can conclude, sadly, that they do know and they don’t care.
look at roger rabbit saying that he invested in oil stocks [evil BIG OIL comrade…what a hypocrite] made money, and didn’t want to give any away because “he needed it himself”. yet when the rest of us don’t want to be taxed to death we are selfish monsters.
or the people defending sheehan’s comments and actions . she is anti-semitic. she is closer to being a nazi than george bush will ever be.oh, but it’s okay with the far left because they hate america too. and if america is pro-israel then they have to be anti israel. and if you are anti israel…you are anti semitic. if you share a stage with stewart and david duke thinks you’re peachy…you are a creep. period.
it’s very very sad that her son died. but people die all the time…and often while not doing what they wanted to. like murder victims. and these same libs are the ones that would be holding a candlelight vigil for a man that murdered a child…while celebrating abortion[see carla here]. abortion good…killing convicted murderers bad.
it’s the sybil mentality showing up over and over again.
and rujax…don’t delude yourself and quote the new york times. my cousin is an editor there…i have no illusions about what they are all about.trust me. and it isn’t telling the truth………
torridjoe…are you suggesting that we leave iraq now? are you suggesting that the after war stabilization is taking too long? know any history at all?
think world war two…..
chrismasghost, mark the redneck, karl, bf, IDGAF, Richard Pope, Mr. Cynical, janet s, Gary: You support Bush. Bush is a lying murderer. Therefore you are accessories after the fact to murder.
Hey happy assholes-
Chek out how Bush is supporting our troops at recently released post number 74.
More good old-fashioned fun at newly released post number 99.
What a great time to be a rethuglican.
Let’s face it — the you-you president of the U.S.A. knows nothing. He is a dunce. He does what he is told to do—say what he is told to say—poses the way he is told to pose. He is a fool
This is never an easy thing for the voters of this country to accept.
No. Nonsense. The president can not be a fool. Not at this moment in time—when the last living vestiges of the American Dream are on the line. This si not the time to have a bogus rich kid in charge of the White House.
Which is, after all, our house. That is our headquarters—it is where the heart of America lives. So if the president lies and acts giddy about other people’s lives—if he wantonly and stupidly endorses mass murder as a logical plan to make sure we are still Number One—he is a Jackass by definition—a loud and meqaningless animal with no functional intelegence and no balls.
To say that this goofy child president is looking more and more like Richard Nixon in the summer of 1974 would ba a flagrant insult to Nixon.
Whoops! Did I say that? Is it even vaugely possible that some New Age Republican whore-beast of a false president could actually make Richard Nixon look like a liberal?
The capacity of these vicious assholes we elected to be in charge of our lives for four years to commit terminal damage to our lives and our souls and our loved ones is far beyond Nixon’s. Shit! Nixon was the creator of mahy of the once-proud historical landmarks that these dumb bastards are savagely destroying now: the Clean Air Act of 1970; Campaign Finance Reform; the endagerd species act; opening a Real-Politik dialogue with China; and on and on.
The prevailing quality of life in America—by any accepted methods of measuring—was inarguably freer adn more politically open under Nixon than it is today in this evil year of Our Lord 2002.
The Boss was a certified monster who deserved to b e impeached and banished. He was as truthless creature of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover—a foul human monument to corruption and depravement on a scale that dwarfs any other public official in American history. But Nixon was a t least smart enough to understand why so many honoraboe patriotic U.S. citizens despised him. He was a Liar. The truth was not in him.
Nixon believed—as he said many times—that if the president of the United States does it, it can’t be illegal. But Nixon never understood the much higher and meaner truth of Bob Dylan’s warning that “To live outside the law you must be honest.”
The difference between an outlaw and a war criminal is the difference between a pedophile and a Pederast: The pedophile is a person who thinks about sexual behavior with children, and the Pederast does these things. He lays hands on innocent children—he penetrates them and changes their lives forever.
Being the object of a pedophile’s warped affections is a routine feature of growing up in America—and being a victim of a Pederast’s crazed “love” is part of dying. Innocence is no longer an option. ONce penetrated, the child becomes a Queer in his own mind, and that is not much different than murder.
Richard Nixon crossed that line when he began murdering foreigners in the name of “family values”—and George Bush crossed it when he sneaked into office and began killing brown-skinned children in the name of Jesus Christ and the American people.
When Muhammad Ali declined to be drafted and forced to kill “gooks” in Vietnam, he said, “I ain’t got nothin’ against them Viet Cong. No Cong ever called me Nigger.”
I agreed with him, according to my own personal ethics and values. He was right.
If we all had a dash of Muhammad Ali’s elequent courage, this country and world would be a better place because of it.
Okay, that’s it for now. Read and weep… See you tomorrow, folks. You haven’t heard the last of me. I am the one who speaks for the spirit of freedom and decency in you. Shit. Somebody has to do it.
We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world—a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not jsut Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us… No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we’ll kill you.
Well, shit on the dumbness. George W. Bush does not speak for me or my son or my mother or my friends or the people I respect in this world. We didn’t vote for these cheap, greedy little killers who speak for America today—and we will not vote for them again in 2002. Or 2004. Or ever.
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and prouc of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?
They are the same ones who wanted Muhammad Ali locked up for refucing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hane mongers among us—they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down thr throats of these Nazis.
Adn I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them.
Hunter S. Thompson
rujax–
@115
Precisely when did I say I “support Bush”??
Be specific please.
ghost @ 114
WWII and Iraq have nothing in common. And you might recall, since you claim to know, that the Marshall Plan was BEING planned 2 years before D-Day. Bush’s plan? There was none.
Yes, I’m saying we should leave now, as are top generals from history. I’m saying there has been no after war stabilization; things are clearly worse and we are the cause.
Your completely unsupported views in 112 are absolutely disgusting and pathetic. You’ve no basis for your vitriol. How sad for you.
karl @ 111
I actually thought the poem was a little cheesy, but that’s just my taste–and I posted it only as an indication of another family member who leaned a particular way.
As for what she really intends–I don’t think it’s been very hard to understand that her quest to see the President is metaphoric of the desire to have him explain and answer to everyone, not just someone camped out in front of his ranch. I’m not really sure that makes her disingenuous. She wants Bush to answer for the disproven circumstances under which her son went to war, and explain the “noble cause” he describes.
Thanks joe for the comment.
I dont think the poem is cheesy at all actually, it reflects quite well grief.
Grief is real.
I think the problem with her intentions, is that she is asking pointless rehtorical questions, and as then parrot Moveon.org and other liberal hate Bush groups, she ensures they aren’t taken seriously.
There are far more families who sense in Bush honest grief and her own words indicate she did sesne the same in him last year. This is beyond that aspect of it.
The disproven situations have been addressed ad naseum in the media and congress.
I agree that Bush and Congress (all of them) need to face up to the fact that our intelligence about the WMD’s turned out to be wrong with what has been found so far. I find the statements that “we went for more reasons then WMDs” to be factually true, but also to be diversionary in that WMD’s were a priority. Yes we did have reasons a plenty, the human rights violations and mass graves alone were enough in my opinion.
But that doesnt qualify as lying, and when she uses that as her mantra, it is just more rhetoric.
When it drops into spin and rhetoric, it becomes pointless.
My oh my are you Bushies in a tizzie over Cindy Sheehan’s vigil. The anti-war folk finally have an effective, symbolic protest to help them get their message out. What… you thought it wouldn’t happen eventually? That Americans were simply going to sit back and let Bush kill their sons in war we were led into on lies, and not complain?
Richard @29,
Um… and you think that’s a good thing? The full force of the GOP propaganda machine should be used to denounce and discredit a grieving mom, have her declared a national security threat, and then use the power of the police state to crush a peaceful protest. And you support this?
Oh yeah… but then in an earlier post you say the critics of the administration should be sent back to where they came from, leaving America for real Americans. And at what point do you suggest force should be used to ship out us traitors? And if no country will have us, where to do you suggest the administration build the detention camps? Of course, detention camps can be an expensive way to warehouse undesirables… I’m sure you can come up with a more final solution.
Oh… and Richard… fuck you for trying to label those of us who oppose the war in Iraq as antisemites. Antisemitism killed 90% of my extended family. It is real, and your cheap, rhetorical use of it is offensive. Indeed, it’s antisemitic.
And you know full well how ridiculous it is to brand Sheehan with David Duke. Hell… I endorsed you for port commissioner, and hope your opponent uses my endorsement to tarnish you. Shouldn’t you denounce me now?
Moonbat @52,
Yes, it is tired. That’s why violence is next.
Karl, you write:
“I agree that Bush and Congress (all of them) need to face up to the fact that our intelligence about the WMD’s turned out to be wrong with what has been found so far. ”
Which is false–our intelligence said the aluminum tubes were not for WMD. They were right, the White House was wrong. They indicated that remaining stockpiles were likely scattered, aged and functionally worthless. The White House was wrong. Our intelligence said the Niger docs were ridiculous fakes. The White House was wrong. The IAEA indicated clearly before the war that Saddam had no nuclear capability whatsoever. The White House was wrong. And not only were they wrong, they were wrong DESPITE having the information at their disposal to point that out–and they continued apace. THAT qualifies as lying.
Fair enough, Cyn…You’re removed.
Moonbat @ 110 – First, you’re more than welcome for the free education I gave you on futures trading. Isn’t it nice to get free knowledge from someone smarter than you?
Second, Nobel Prize winner Jimmy Carter hold the title of Worst President Ever.
Third, Clinton did not balance the budget. Clearly you don’t understand how the budget process works. Congress controls the budget, not the president. You can thank Newt for the balanced budget.
Fourth – Chinese and Japanese propping up dollar? WTF are you talking about. We’ve already established you don’t know shit about international finance, so don’t go into stuff you don’t understand. (BTW, one of my degrees is in international business, so stop trying to bullshit me.)
Fifth – Living off credit cards? Really? I’m not. I pay cash for everything; even my new luxury SUV. Only moonbat morons think they can borrow their way to prosperity.
Moonbat @ 110 – First, you’re more than welcome for the free education I gave you on futures trading. Isn’t it nice to get free knowledge from someone smarter than you?
Second, Nobel Prize winner Jimmy Carter hold the title of Worst President Ever.
Third, Clinton did not balance the budget. Clearly you don’t understand how the budget process works. Congress controls the budget, not the president. You can thank the speaker of the house at the time for the balanced budget.
Fourth – Chinese and Japanese propping up dollar? WTF are you talking about. We’ve already established you don’t know shit about international finance, so don’t go into stuff you don’t understand. (BTW, one of my degrees is in international business, so stop trying to bullshit me.)
Fifth – Living off credit cards? Really? I’m not. I pay cash for everything; even my new luxury SUV. Only moonbat morons think they can borrow their way to prosperity.
Fifth – Living off credit cards? Really? I’m not. I pay cash for everything; even my new luxury SUV.
Oh… and for all you righties out there just gleeful over the thought of denouncing, discrediting and destroying Cindy Sheehan. I’ve got news for you… there are another 1,800 grieving mother’s out there, and I’m sure there are more than a few who have turned against this war and have impeccable credentials to boot. And your president is creating grieving mothers faster than his propagandists can possibly discredit them.
It’s not Cindy Sheehan that has captured America’s attention… it’s the fact that she is a grieving mother, and as such, is a surrogate for all grieving mothers. We could have the start of a real anti-war movement on our hands here, and one with an unassailable symbol: maternal grief.
Joe, You mix a lot of truth and rumor there.
The niger documents were wrong, but the contacts and request to buy uranium was not. it was real, and nothing Joe Wilson said disputes it in whole measure.
In jsut about ever example cited, you reference one source that agrees with your position, but I could cite contrary sources that disagree.
And all of it is hindsight, and while it helps us understand what happened, it ignores the realy question:
In 2002, what did we and most of the world believe?
We beleived based on what was then credible intelligence that he was a threat.
So lets move forward and fix the process.
Mark the Redundant:
It’s the job of the President to submit an annual budget. Nice try.
And are you this praiseworthy of the massive credit that should go to Tip O’Neill for what you surely classify was a Reagan boom?
Goldy, while you are right, and there are grieving mothers who side with her, there are also a lot of vocal ones, as well as spouses who do not, and who do not want to be associated with her protest.
Fair is fair, let all sides be represented according to their position.
I wonder, why are grieving dads ignored? Is this a gender thing?
Karel, there was no request to buy yellowcake. It never came up. The best that can be said was it was hinted at, but it was not replied to, and nothing was done. There was no attempt to buy yellowcake, period.
I don’t understand your point about disagreeing sources. Wasn’t it your position that the intelligence showed us he had WMD capability, and mine that there was in fact no such consensus to that effect?
We did not believe based on credible intelligence that he was a threat. The intelligence that said he was a threat, was being disclaimed as not credible by other members of the intelligence apparatus (DIA, CIA, IAEA). The intelligence that showed he had nothing and was creating nothing, was 100% correct. The Bush administration had this information in front of them, and went with the bad information (Niger, tubes, nukes) anyway.
I’m all for moving forward. Let’s withdraw and quit making things worse.
I just love arguments that start out by calling the other side lying morons. Yeah, that’s going to change my mind.
Getting up on a stage with convicted felons who openly support terrorism, like Lynne Stewart, is more than “association”. It is endorsement of her politics. Being sponsored by Crawford Peace House, who is a big supporter of the terrorist group, PLO, and does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, is not simple “association”. Cindy Sheehan takes money from these people. That means she wholeheartedly believes in their causes.
That makes her anti-semitic, and a despicable human being. It doesn’t make me guilty of McCarthyism to call her on it.
Yes, she has every right to say whatever she wants. But, she then can’t go crying when others disagree with her.
Janet S–
please provide evidence of:
Sheehan “sharing” a stage with Stewart, rather than appearing at the same event as Stewart, and speaking independently of her.
Stewart “openly supporting terrorism”
Crawford Peace Houe’s support of the PLO, and how the political arm of the PLO is a terrorist group.
Money Sheehan has taken from CPH, directly.
Anti-semitic comments of any kind from Sheehan, ever.
What she’s said that you disagree with, that you have brought up in this post to disagree with.
chrismasghost, mark the redneck, karl, bf, IDGAF, Richard Pope, janet s, Gary, pacman: You support Bush. Bush is a lying murderer. Therefore you are accessories after the fact to murder.
redneck-
Not only DID the Big Dog do all that stuff…he had a hostile Republican Congress and richard mellon scaife funding a 10 year smear campaign and witchhunt. chimpy can’t even handle one greiving mother…shit…he can’t even get HIS OWN nominations past a house and senate that the republicans OWN! What a pathetic loser. I’ll bet he doesn’t get any bj’s either. No wonder (oooooh…that’s a name I forgot for my “wall of shame”) he’s so mean. He probably knocks his hookers around to prove what a MAN he is.
goldy…..”Oh… and Richard… fuck you for trying to label those of us who oppose the war in Iraq as antisemites. Antisemitism killed 90% of my extended family. It is real, and your cheap, rhetorical use of it is offensive. Indeed, it’s antisemitic.”
anti semitic? goldy,you bet it’s real and the very people that these loons are playing up to right now…the islamo-fascists would finish you and the rest of your family off in a heart beat right now too. don’t you get it? then you added…….
“We could have the start of a real anti-war movement on our hands here, and one with an unassailable symbol: maternal grief.”
so all you are looking for is a way to take advantage of a mother’s loss [like moveon is] so you can have another soapbox? wow….i’m impressed. at least YOU are honest about your intentions to use one person’s grief so that you can get your less than worthwhile message out.
hey moonbats…that means only one thing. it’s party time. break out your costumes. especially the bush-pinata…that’s always a “hit”……
god…you people are truly depraved and sad.
we’re not the ones smearing a war mother as a terrorist-supporting anti-semite without any basis whatsoever, ghost. That’s what’s sad.
Rujax @ 137 -Do you have me confused with somebody else? I have NFI WTF you’re talking about. Have you been taking your meds?
In our family, we have 2 young Iraq veterans, having served already extended 15 months in Iraq are facing 2nd Deployments now, in few short months. This is no longer an all volunteer military; it has become perpetural entrapment for many of the troops. Years more of war in Iraq and Middle East with multiple rotated tours in combat; when will we bring home our troops?
Does anyone know why even though only about 9% of our forces are deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan, so many are serving long tours or second tours? I can tell you. Because so many people in our military are undeployable. Of those undeployable, there is a disproportionate amount of women. It is impossible to get these people out of the military, they just fill up the state-side billets and the same people are forced to go on hardship tour after hardship tour.
That’s right! Our failures in Iraq can be blamed on women! The bitches! :rolleyes:
Joe,
Karel, there was no request to buy yellowcake. It never came up. The best that can be said was it was hinted at, but it was not replied to, and nothing was done. There was no attempt to buy yellowcake, period.
According to the NY Times, May 2004:
“The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq,”
“The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium,”
The paper conceded that while Saddam’s nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was “a more potent form” of the nuclear fuel, it was “still not sufficient for a weapon.”
Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.
Well he had some, and got it somewhere.
Fact is RE Niger, they had plans to sell illegally to 5 countries, including Iraq.
Look it up.
And contrary to your assertion, yes, most of the worlds intelligence communities did indeed believe it.
But I dont wanna tie this thread up with that.
torridjoe…..so now stating the facts[as in the truth] is smearing? what is really sad is that she doesn’t seem to have any respect for her son’s wishes. she was anti war before he joined, was she not? so now basically what she is saying is that he was too stupid to know what he was getting himself into, right?
she is slighting her own son’r judgement and intelligence every time she opens her mouth.
and george bush killed him. no…he didn’t. but the typical far left mantra is “it must be somebody’s fault…other than the real killer, because he probably has issues that america made him have…so let’s point the finger at anyone but the people responsible for actually killing her son.
hmmmm…*looking around*….must be america’s fault!!! it was bush. that’s it!!!
and yes…most of it is ill-placed grief. she really does need counseling, because when she crashes[and she will] the left will not be there. they have a nasty history of eating their own.
we are the only country in the world that will shed blood to free people we have never met. i am proud of that.
Joe,
i wont touch the “bitches” comment, but simgle parents, including mothers were a big problem in the Desert Storm deployments when I was active duty.
I don’t know how bad it is now, but I can believe it is still an impact.
But, I disagree with what michael said. Every person who isin a deployable job has to provide dependent care plans to their unit, including power of attorney and temp gaurdians. So while it’s an issue, it isn’t necessarily a deal breaker.
The fact is that the military has a huge overseas and domestic mission outside of iraq, and all of those take a lot of people.
I think the woman claim is a strawman.
Redneck – You accuse everyone around here of being “incoherent” and look what happens – you’re incoherent. Classic projection.
I could care less about your skills in the financial markets. Fuck you very much.
Jimmy Carter never sent Americans to be killed and maimed for oil and Middle East hegemony and he never slaughtered over 100,000 locals in the process. Your hero President is proud to be a mass murderer. He sleeps well at night.
Presidents can veto any budget that crosses their desks. They can also provide leadership where it counts. Clinton raised taxes on people who could afford it – the wealthy who got a gigantic break under Reagan. You wingnuts said this would tank the economy. It did the opposite. 2.9 million jobs per year were created during Clinton’s presidency. Compare that to maybe 400k per year during Bush. This rising tide balanced the budget not the lies and corruption of Newt Gingrich. Look how he ended up.
Yes, the Chinese and Japanese have propped up the dollar by buying Treasury bonds with the cash we send them. They do this to serve their interests. The dollar tanks, the american consumer can’t afford their goods. The Chinese until recently have pegged their currency to the dollar. Why have they started to change? The irresponsible fiscal policies of the Bush Administration and monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.
Your last assertion is a real hoot. I never said YOU were living off the credit card – I said the COUNTRY as in our budget and trade deficits. The United States is living unsustainably off of borrowed money.
This last point shows how narcissistic you are. Everything is about ME, ME, ME. This proclivity may have served you well during your career but it isn’t earning you jacksh*t in the human being department.
TorridJoe @ 136
I was wrong on my dates earlier. The event was on April 27, 2005 at San Francisco State University. The purpose of the rally was to show support for convicted terrorist Lynne Stewart. Here is a link to a transcript of the speakers’ remarks:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.....trally.htm
Here are some of the remarks made by Cindy Sheehan at the rally (Lynne Stewart, the keynote speaker, spoke last):
“First, I want to give my little story about Lynne. Of course, you all have read To Kill a Mockingbird. Lynne is my human Atticus Finch. He did what he knew was right, but wasn’t popular. And that’s what Lynne is doing. {applause}”
“This country is not worth dying for. … But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada.”
“I just want to say that you students, Students Against War, you have all my support and all my organization’s support. I told Kristen if you have any actions and you need a ringleader, that I only live about an hour away. I’ll be here.”
[Note — “Students Against War” distributed a flyer during the rally urging support for the Iraqi “resistance” — i.e. the terrorists who are killing school children, carbombing civilians, and blowing up rival mosques, in addition to killing our soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi police.]
Richard Pope–
These quotes by Mrs. Sheehan are disturbing indeed. This woman truly needs our prayers.
Goldy–
You have played the “I’m a victimized Jew card” whenever it is convenient but somehow in the same thought pattern fail to recognize WHO would kill you today simply because you are Jewish.
You are mighty confused Goldy. I think your overwhelming hate for Bush has clouded your ability to reason….as is the case with the entire lunatic fringe LEFTIST PINHEADS.
chrismasghost, mark the redneck, karl, bf, IDGAF, Richard Pope, janet s, Gary, pacman, no wonder: You support Bush. Bush is a lying murderer. Therefore you are accessories after the fact to murder.
Sorry redneck-
I was in a hurry and didn’t really read the whole exchange. I was basically commenting on your point three, and I’ll add that Clinton gat plenty of stuff through that helped the ordinary working indvidual as opposed to the current ruling oligarchy that kow-tow to the corporate and theocratic masters who pull the strings.
@142 – perhaps you have a better explanation for why the same 9% of our troops keep going to the Middle East over and over? When did you serve?
Goldy @ 121
I certainly wasn’t trying to label you as an anti-Semite. I was labeling Cindy Sheehan, Lynne Stewart and David Duke as anti-Jewish, since that label accurately describes them.
Keep in mind the technical difference between anti-Semite and anti-Jewish. Arab peoples are Semites racially. Arabic is a Semitic language. Jewish peoples often are not racially (especially from Europe), but the Hebrew language is a Semitic language. Probably the term “anti-Semite” developed because they were hardly any Arabic people in England, the USA or Europe, and it seemed liked a racially related term to describe hatred of Jewish people.
So calling Cindy Sheehan, Lynne Stewart and David Duke “anti-Semites” is not technically correct, since they don’t profess to have any quarrel with Arab people, who constitute the vast majority of the Semite population. Their quarrel is limited to the Jewish people, so anti-Jewish would be much more appropriate.
Nor am I trying to label all opponents of Bush’s policy in Iraq as anti-Jewish. I am merely saying that Cindy Sheehan and her crowd are rabidly anti-Jewish, and they will do absolutely no good for the position they profess to support.
And I do think that the Bush administration will play this story for all that it is worth. Let the truth about Cindy Sheehan, Lynne Stewart and David Duke develop. Then publicly denounce them. Then bring in extra security, etc. And then make them leave as a threat to national security — or at least relocate to some designated “protest zone”.
Karl@1 –
Yes, the president has done things to warrant impeachment. In particular, he knowingly misled congress during the State of the Union Address when he said “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
What he didn’t specify was that they ‘learned’ this from a memo that we forwarded them, which was known at the time to be false.
The State of the Union Address is a constitutional duty. This lie alone is not only reason to impeach Bush, but to imprison him. It will happen. Whether during his administration or afterward, the number of crimes he has committed against the state have to catch up to him. If what goes around comes around, our coke-snorting flyboy is going down for sure.
TJ:
Richard Pope just proved my first point, Sheehan endorsed Lynne Stewart’s politics.
Stewart was convicted of passing information between imprisoned terrorists and their fellow terrorist buddies on the outside. She knew what she was doing, and did it willingly.
I don’t recall restricting my comment about the PLO to the political wing.
Sheehan is staying at the Crawford Peace House, and CPH is publicizing her circus. Someone is paying for her to fly all over the country – anyone know who?
Sheehan has said that the troops should get out of Iraq. That is a recipe for disaster, and the Iraqi people do not support immediate withdrawal.
Sheehan also called for Israel to get out of Palestine. If you look at the map the Palestinians use, Israel doesn’t exist – it is called Palestine. Therefore, the only way for Israel to meet this demand is to surrender their country to the Palestinians. Sorry, I don’t agree with this. I believe the Israelis rightfully have a homeland, and deserve to stay where they are.
Rujax@147 – Oh. OK. Yawn…
In a coherent a manner as possible, can you explain why you hate corporations? Why do you hate those who produce everything a civilized society needs?
chrismasghost, mark the redneck, karl, bf, IDGAF, Richard Pope, janet s, Gary, pacman, no wonder: You support Bush. Bush is a lying murderer. Therefore you are accessories after the fact to murder.
Guys-
So what’s the difference between Sheehan’s comments about Israel vs. the Palestinians and the results of the pro-hawk-Israeli bias exhibited by the PNAC authors (Perle, Wolfowitz et. al.)? THAT strategy has been SO successful that Isael is withdrawing from Gaza. Gee, maybe Rachel Corrie DIDN’T die in vain you filthy blood-suckers. Nothing you like better than pawing over the graves of martyrs YOU disagree with.
I just want to take a moment to thank Cynical, Mark Le Redneck, and all you other SUV drivers for your business. I may be a capitalist, but I’m not an ingrate! I appeciate your patronage. :D
chrismasghost, mark the redneck, karl, bf, IDGAF, Richard Pope, janet s, Gary, pacman, no wonder: You support Bush. Bush is a lying murderer. Therefore you are accessories after the fact to murder.
Redneck-
Wal-Mart, Enron (that should be enough right there), Tyco, abandoning worker pension plans, outsourcing, obscenely inflated executive pay, etc.
The corporation is an eternal soulless artificial entity, the people who run them are the targets of my wrath. As if YOU give a shit about anyone but yourself, like a typical rethug.
Comment on 102
“The reason I think liberalism is a mental illness is that it has failed every time it has been tried. It’s track record is zero because it’s unsustainable. Yet Murkin libs live under the delusion that it’s workable.”
Okay Mark, let’s empirically test your hypothesis that liberalism’s track record is “zero.” Let’s see …
Liberals gave us the Constitution, Bill of Rights, free speech, free press, freedom of religion, due process of law, women’s suffrage, civil rights laws, the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, minimum wage, child labor laws, workplace safety laws, injured worker benefits, unemployment insurance, collective bargaining rights, the G.I. Bill, veteran benefits, Social Security, Medicare, public education, consumer protection laws, public health programs, and environmental laws that clean up the air we breathe and the water we drink.
What have right wingers given us? Wars, depressions, inflation, deficits, racism and bigotry, religious and social intolerance, and — they want to repeal most of the above.
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN
By John Gray
Cincinnati, Ohio
Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.
All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.
Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)
He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.
I apologize for the following comment, but I just couldn’t stop myself.
I don’t think Rachel Corrie died in vain, I think it was just Darwin’s Theory at work. Come on, how smart can a person be who stands in front of an operating bulldozer?
Heath at 150
Sorry, but the british have long since confirmed that their report about Africa was independent of ours.
Thanks for the comment, though misplaced.
Heath @ 150
Also, I dont beleive there is any such requirement in the constitution for a State of the union, if there is, please enlighten me with the article number.
Karl
Comment on 105
Cripes Karl — if Jesus can walk on water, he can get to Los Altos on Hwy. 101 if he wants to.
Heath,
Nevermind, i found it and you are correct.
Today I learned a new thing.
“The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
Article II, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution
roger @ 160
Silly me, I was underestimating him.
:)
@150 – What he didn’t specify was that they ‘learned’ this from a memo that we forwarded them, which was known at the time to be false.
Ok, I’m going to pull a Rather here; the memo was fake but the story was true.
111
“Its all about her.”
No Karl, you just don’t get it. It’s all about the young Americans who are dying in Iraq even as I type these words. But I don’t expect you to understand. Right-wingers are, to a person, self-centered. They can’t conceive of someone doing anything for others.
Ruj,
chrismasghost, mark the redneck, karl, bf, IDGAF, Richard Pope, janet s, Gary, pacman, no wonder: You support Bush. Bush is a lying murderer. Therefore you are accessories after the fact to murder.
I think we get the point.
In return, I think you must subscribe to the quote:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
~Lenin~
Roger,
No Karl, you just don’t get it. It’s all about the young Americans who are dying in Iraq even as I type these words. But I don’t expect you to understand. Right-wingers are, to a person, self-centered. They can’t conceive of someone doing anything for others.
This shows that you haven’t read anything I have posted here.
Karl
Reply to 112
Thank you for your patronage, Goose! I appreciate your business.
Richard Pope @ 149
As an attorney you should know better.
Would call any of your fellow attorneys:
a serial killer attorney?
a child molester attorney?
a embezzler attorney?
Here’s some fun information about some of your colleagues who would have no problem with you:
So how did the prosecution meet its burden? With classic McCarthy-era tactics: fearmongering and guilt by association. First, it tried Stewart together with Ahmed Sattar, an Egyptian-born US citizen against whom it had thousands of hours of wiretaps of communications with a terrorist group. Among other things, Sattar had issued a fake fatwa urging followers to “kill [Jews] wherever they are.” By trying Stewart and Sattar together, the government could taint Stewart with Sattar’s sins, even though, as was the case with the fatwa, she had nothing to do with them and no knowledge of them. In his closing, the prosecutor repeated Sattar’s “kill the Jews” fatwa more than seventy times.
Second, the prosecution sought to inflame the jury by introducing evidence that had nothing to do with Stewart’s actions. Shortly before the anniversary of 9/11, it played a tape of Osama bin Laden expressing support for the sheik. It introduced evidence of Al Qaeda’s bombing of the USS Cole, even though there was no claim that Stewart or her co-defendants had anything to do with Al Qaeda, and of a massacre in Egypt in which fifty-eight tourists were killed, even though the massacre long pre-dated the actions of Stewart and her co-defendants. The prosecution offered this evidence as “background,” not proof of Stewart’s culpability, but it is hard to believe that such a distinction could be maintained by a jury sitting less than a mile from Ground Zero.
Lynne Stewart broke an agreement she made when she transmitted a message from her client. She shouldn’t have done that. However, it was a real stretch to consider her a terrorist and for a Justice Department desparate for results in this war on terror Lynne Stewart was a convenient mark.
No wonder you’re running for port commissioner. You can’t be too popular with your colleagues. You will not have my support.
132
“The niger documents were wrong, but the contacts and request to buy uranium was not. it was real, and nothing Joe Wilson said disputes it in whole measure.”
Bullshit.
Roger,
Astute answer, to which I meanfully reply, Sez you!!
:)
Karl
152
“Why do you hate those who produce everything a civilized society needs?”
Gosh Mark, I’d like to ask George W. Bush the same question — why does he hate workers so much?
169
Richard is running for Port Commissioner? Here when I thought things could not possibly get worse at the Port Commission, it appears things could get worse at the Port Commission.
Roger and Heath,
Oh I forgot the answer:
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html#
Bush’s “16 Words” on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn’t Lying
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
July 26, 2004
Modified:August 23, 2004
Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA’s conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.
But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that’s not the same as lying.
Analysis
The “16 words” in Bush’s State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.
The Butler Report
After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.
The Butler report said British intelligence had “credible” information — from several sources — that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or “yellowcake.” That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.
The Senate report said the CIA then asked a “former ambassador” to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson — who later became a vocal critic of the President’s 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn’t likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well — evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger’s former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki “interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.” In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that “for most analysts” Wilson’s trip to Niger “lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.”
The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.
For that reason, Wilson himself has publicly dismissed the significance of the 1999 meeting. He said on NBC’s Meet the Press May 2, 2004:
Wilson: …At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date.
But that’s not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA’s view, Wilson’s report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger:
Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
“Reasonable to Assess”
At this point the CIA also had received “several intelligence reports” alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that “it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence.”
Reasonable, that is, until documents from an Italian magazine journalist showed up that seemed to prove an Iraq-Niger deal had actually been signed. The Intelligence Committee said the CIA should have been quicker to investigate the authenticity of those documents, which had “obvious problems” and were soon exposed as fakes by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“We No Longer Believe”
Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush’s 16 words weren’t based on the fake documents. The British didn’t even see them until after issuing the reports — based on other sources — that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.
Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that “we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” But that wasn’t until June 17, 2003 — nearly five months after Bush’s 16 words.
Soon after, on July 6, 2003, former ambassador Wilson went public in a New York Times opinion piece with his rebuttal of Bush’s 16 words, saying that if the President was referring to Niger “his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them,” and that “I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” Wilson has since used much stronger language, calling Bush’s 16 words a “lie” in an Internet chat sponsored by the Kerry campaign.
On July 7, the day after Wilson’s original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them “incorrect:”
Fleischer: Now, we’ve long acknowledged — and this is old news, we’ve said this repeatedly — that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.
And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing :
Rice: What we’ve said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn’t have put this in the President’s speech — but that’s knowing what we know now.
That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush’s speech:
Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written
for the President.
Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as “inconclusive,” and had “expressed reservations” to the British.
The Senate report doesn’t make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA’s thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren’t the basis for the CIA’s original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium. However, the Senate report did note that even within the CIA the comments and assessments were “inconsistent and at times contradictory” on the Niger story.
Even after Tenet tried to take the blame, Bush’s critics persisted in saying he lied with his 16 words — for example, in an opinion column July 16, 2003 by Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post :
Kinsley: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush’s State of the Union speech? . . .Linguists note that the question “Who lied in George Bush’s State of the Union speech” bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum “Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb?”
However, the Senate report confirmed that the CIA had reviewed Bush’s State of the Union address, and — whatever doubts it may have harbored — cleared it for him.
Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the “16 words” or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.
The final word on the 16 words may have to await history’s judgment. The Butler report’s conclusion that British intelligence was “credible” clearly doesn’t square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.
Karl
According to a 2001 article in the P-I, Richard Pope received a “poor” rating from the Municipal League of King County when he ran against Paige Miller in that year. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....rt17.shtml He also lost.
John @ 168
Lynne Stewart committed several serious crimes. She was tried by a federal court jury in Manhattan — one of the most liberal areas of the country. New York County, where Manhattan is located, was carried 82% Kerry to 17% Bush. A jury of 12 women and men from Manhattan unanimously convicted Stewart. I doubt that more than two or three of the jury members — at most — voted for President Bush.
If this is just some evil conspiracy by right-wing Republicans, where is the outrage by sensible mainstream Democrats? I haven’t heard a single word of support for Lynne Stewart or her buddy the Blind Sheikh from either of New York’s two Democrat Senators — Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer.
And I don’t think that sensible Democrats like Christine Gregoire will be saying a word in support of Lynne Stewart either. And I bet the nice Democrat incumbent that I am running against isn’t going to support Lynne Stewart either.
Cracks me up. Our friends on the right don’t like Cindy as a leader in The Peace Movement. Maybe we should let them choose?
Wabbit @ 156 – Precisely. All those programs that are wealth transfer programs in the end, destroy the economies and societies that created them. Cuba, USSR, Eastern Europe are current examples. France and Canada are in the process of crumbling.
If you’re so big on the Constitution, why are you trying to destroy it? For example, I notice you left our second amendment. And did you know there’s no such thing as a “wall of separation” in the constitution? That was a fantasy that was made up out of thin air by Justice Marshall.
Rujax – Thank you for your reply on why you hate corporations. If that’s the case, why do you give them any of your money? Stop buying anything made by a corporation right now. Make everything yourself. You’ll be so busy making everything that you’ll have to quit your job (if you have one)so you will no longer be a slave to one either.
Tell me more about “obscene pay”. What does that mean? Is there a limit on how much money a person should make? If so, what’s the dollar limit? And should the minimum wage be much much higher? If so, what should the minimum wage be? And tell me why on both questions?
Karl and Richard – thanks for the extensive review of the facts. Many on this site like to operate in fantasy land, where facts don’t really mean much. It is really so much easier to call those you disagree with “Liars”. It is intellectually lazy and dishonest. But, heh, when you have no good argument on your side, emotional outbursts work just fine!
Lynne Stewart committed several serious crimes.
According to the Justice Department and you don’t state what they are and you don’t bother to analyze the validity of the charges. Did you get all your information from David Horowitz?
She was tried by a federal court jury in Manhattan – one of the most liberal areas of the country.
The appalling thing about hysteria is that everyone believes what they are hysterical about. Americans want to believe their government is doing the right thing about terrorism.
Lynne Stewart couldn’t be tried on her own. She had to be tried with two other characters whose activities she was clearly ignorant of. This made the job easier for the prosecutor.
Yes, it is appalling that mainstream Democrats are silent due to the hysteria and it is equally if not more appalling that Republicans are playing the hysteria for all it’s worth.
I haven’t heard a single word of support for Lynne Stewart or her buddy the Blind Sheikh
Her client the Blind Sheikh. You’ve never represented anyone you didn’t like? Are you friends with everyone you represent?
Let’s take your name and put the name of your clients right next to yours as in:
Richard Pope and his buddy [insert client’s name here]
Anyone you’d be embarassed to be seen with here?
And did you know there’s no such thing as a “wall of separation” in the constitution?
Yep… there is also no right to an abortion or right to privacy either. That was also magically invented out of thin air as well as the interpretation that the right to bear arms was only meant for organized militias.
Pope @ 145–
Convicted terrorist? Are you trying to get people to just laugh at you? She sent a press release to Reuters, for heaven’s sake! She also got some letters out, but–not knowing any Arabic at all–I’m not sure how she can be pinned on any of the contents, and not a single action undertaken by anyone anywhere has been linked to any material aided in release by Stewart. That, by her conviction, was the extent of her “support of terrorism.”
Note that I used the pronoun “her” several times, since she is in fact female. Which makes your quote of Sheehan’s comments curious, seeing as how it refers to a male. ?? Care to corroborate your source, since clearly something’s quite wrong with the one you give?
You haven’t explained why calling for Israel to end an illegal occupation is anti-Jewish, either.
edit: nevermind on the pronoun trouble. It appears the reference is to Finch.
Rufus @ 179 – If The People referred to in the second amendment are organized militias, who are The People referred to in the first, fourth, ninth and tenth?
The courts have found many many times that the second applies to individuals not organized militias. That’s a stupid argument.
If you believe there are many sets of “People” please cite something to prove that’s what they meant.
Asshole @ 176 – Do you know what causes peace?
If you want to check facts, then check facts. If you want to repeat what a conservative website has to say, then quote factcheck.org. If you want to repeat what a conservative administration says, then quote their reports. None of which has to do with facts, all of which agree with the statement that Bush deliberately misleads you every day.
mark @ 182
militia are made of people. Where are militias referred to in the amendments besides the 2nd?
Jesus @ 176
You should have checked with a few lefties before your second coming. We would have told you that the people who profess to believe in you would call you a “Moonbat troll” and then banish you.
Torridjoe@185 – Take yer meds. You’re incoherent. Try stringing together phrases that make some kind of sense.
TorridJoe @ 180
Convicted terrorist is the appropriate description for Lynne Stewart.
Lynne Stewart was convicted of, among other things (a) conspiracy to provide and conceal material support for a conspiracy to murder persons outside the United States and (b) providing and concealing material support for a conspiracy to murder persons outside the United States. (She was also convicted of making false statements and conspiracy to defraud the United States, in addition to the two explicit terrorism convictions.)
If that doesn’t make Lynne Stewart a convicted terrorist, then what does?
You folks need to pick better spokespersons for your cause than Lynne Stewart, David Duke and Cindy Sheehan.
I would say that advocating the killing of Jews makes someone like Lynne Stewart anti-Jewish. And praising Lynne Stewart as another “Atticus Finch” for having the “courage” to advocate the killing of Jews makes Cindy Sheehan anti-Jewish.
Next thing you know, you will be arguing that David Duke really isn’t anti-Jewish either …
@185 – The right is the right of the People, not the right of the Militia.
Also TorridJoe @ 180
My quote of Cindy Sheehan’s remarks on April 27, 2005 was as follows:
“First, I want to give my little story about Lynne. Of course, you all have read To Kill a Mockingbird. Lynne is my human Atticus Finch. He did what he knew was right, but wasn’t popular. And that’s what Lynne is doing. {applause}”
The “he” refers to Atticus Finch, who was a male lawyer in “To Kill A Mockingbird”. Cindy Sheehan believes that a present day lawyer who advocates the killing of Jews occupies the same moral high ground as a lawyer in 1930’s Mississippi who defended an innocent black man falsely accused of raping a white woman.
mark @ 187
what about the word militia only appearing in the 2nd Amendment, confuses you?
richard @ 188
how about someone actually convicted of terrorism? Your own recitation of the charge shows she wasn’t convicted of terrorism at all. And the practical act she did do, was to pass a press release to the media. Are we going to bring Reuters up on charges?
Explain what act of terrorism occurred based on her actions.
Please cite where Stewart advocated the killing of Jews. In fact, the only documentation of threats I can find are of Jews AGAINST Stewart. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02.....ewart.html?
That’s the JDO, an organization that advocated terror.
And while you’re at it, explain what Lynne Stewart has to do with Cindy Sheehan’s protest at Crawford. This isn’t about Stewart.
michael @ 189
right–people organized into militia.
102/156, et al.
�The reason I think liberalism is a mental illness is that it has failed every time it has been tried. It�s track record is zero because it�s unsustainable. Yet Murkin libs live under the delusion that it�s workable.�
Okay Mark, let�s empirically test your hypothesis that liberalism�s track record is �zero.� Let�s see �
This good/evil, black/white, right/wrong argumentation is just plain stupid talk. Why are you grown adults wasting your precious moments on earth with such childish arguments?
It’s easier to understand why the trolls do it — it’s their job to destroy thoughtful discussion among “liberals.” So why do “reality-based” folks fall for it so easily?
@192- It doesn’t say that. It could just as easily mean people who might someday want to organize a militia. During the American Revolution, the war came before the militia, but the people already had guns and were ready. In all likelyhood that is what the authors of the Constitution who had just gone through that same thing had in mind.
193
but then you agree there is SOME connection to a militia, which of course doesn’t exist in any other amendment. Why do the others have such broad directives, but the 2nd places unfettered gun ownership into the context of militia?
Reply to 177
“All those programs that are wealth transfer programs in the end, destroy the economies and societies that created them.”
Wealth transfer is not necessarily bad per se. Insurance is a classic example of a wealth transfer program — although the many pay for the losses of a few, insurance provides peace of mind for all, and makes possible commerce that otherwise wouldn’t occur. (For example, a lender probably wouldn’t lend you money for a house or business that isn’t insured, because it’s just too risky for the lender.)
It’s true that transferring wealth from those who create it to others tends to undermine the incentives for wealth creation, it’s myopic to view society in one-dimensional terms. There is more to human society than self-interest or maximizing individual benefit. For example, most civilized societies tax the able-bodied for the support of the disabled, as a matter of societal values. Society is not one-dimensional, and its values are not purely economic. Wealth transfers occur to fulfill other societal objectives. Wealth transfer becomes problematic when too onerous, or carried too far.
“Cuba, USSR, Eastern Europe are current examples.”
No, they are not. Comparing social programs in liberal democracies to communism is utterly bogus. These systems have nothing in common.
Communist countries are NOT examples of “wealth transfer.” The essence of a communist system is state ownership of capital and a planned economy. In practice, communism is always totalitarian. However, not everyone opposes the regime or wishes for its overthrow. Some Russians are uncomfortable with a system under which unemployment is possible, for example. And many Cubans support Castro; for one thing, he set up a system of universal free health care. Under the regime he replaced, most Cubans didn’t have education or health care. They have those things now. Don’t misinterpret — I’m not a fan of either Castro or communism. In addition to the fact that living in a police state sucks major league, communist political systems produce very inefficient economies, and bring out the worst in people. The Russians had a saying, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” Russians are among the most cynical people on earth. Most of the refugees from former communist countries that I know are not good workers. They’re lazy, manipulative, and dishonest.
TJ @ 194
What I believe Michael @ 193 is trying to say is that it allows individuals to own guns BECAUSE and IN CASE there is a need to organize a militia.
If you believe that the ‘militia’ referred to in the 2nd ammendment is the military, national guard, or any other government run organization, do you realize that those organizations are not open to all? They are not open to the old, the unhealthy, and many others. Should we then sue the government if they reject an applicant because not allowing them to be in the “militia” is a violation of their 2nd ammendment rights?
Conversely, should we limit the right of free speech to those the government deems best equipped to speak, like the military only lets in those who are best qualified?
Rufus @ 179
“Yep… there is also no right to an abortion or right to privacy either. That was also magically invented out of thin air as well as the interpretation that the right to bear arms was only meant for organized militias.”
Rufus, you asked for it — the SCOTUS definition of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, that is. Here it is:
“The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power–‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment at the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia–civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
“Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: ‘Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.’ ‘In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.’
“’The American Colonies In The 17th Century,’” Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England–‘In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defense.’ ‘The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.’ ‘A year later [1632] it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony [Massachusetts].’
Also ‘Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a “good fixed musket,” not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.’
“The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784, provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should ‘contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age,…’ Also, ‘That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul [sic] of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgement of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,’ &c.
“By an Act passed April 4, 1786 the New York Legislature directed: ‘That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat…. That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack;…’
“The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785, (12 Hening’s Statutes) declared, ‘The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.’
“It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that ‘All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,’ with certain exceptions, ‘shall be inrolled or formed into companies.’ ‘There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.’
“Also the ‘Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o’clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows:… every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to the musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obligated to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchase out of the money arising for delinquents.'”
— U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=174
So … out of thin air, Rufus? P.S., I especially like the Court’s reliance on Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” you should too
183
“Asshole @ 176 – Do you know what causes peace?”
Absence of war.
189
Thanks for the brilliant legal analysis, Michael. This guy does a better job than you. http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html He might not be right, but he’s articulate.
The very dangerously stupid xmasG @ 11 “are you so naive as to believe that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?”
“We have no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with the 911” George W. Bush
Who you calling naive. xmasG?
198
Well that would shut you up, wouldn’t it?
Why GOPers are scared shitless of Cindy Sheehan: “Sheehan has moved the discussion and framing about the Iraq war away from how Iraq relates to the war on terrorism and towards how the war and by extension George W. Bush’s foreign policies are a threat to the American family.” For complete article see http://www.theleftcoaster.com/.....0.php#more
Well REGULATED malitia
Don’t see what your problem is Michael.
Roger Rabbit @ 202
I for one appreciate the publicity Cindy Sheehan is getting. I do not really think she has had the impact you describe, yet think it is good to keep bringing up the Michael Moore and MoveOn.org strategies.
The GOP’s new poster boy, Ah-nold, has a new bimbo eruption. Just after he announced his candidacy, National Enquirer paid $20,000 of hush money to one of his mistresses. http://www.latimes.com/news/lo.....-headlines
I also see that Ah-nold’s approval rating has dropped to 37% — even lower than Dubya’s. Looks like the voters may be fixing to terminate The Terminator.
Wabbit @ 199 – No, pacifying and appeasing enemies causes war. Destroying your enemy’s ability to make war causes peace. Works every time.
Wabbit @ 195 – The insurance analogy isn’t very good. People choose to pay a premium to get some level of protection against catastrophe. That’s not the same as encouraging and subsidizing the decisions of the bad choice crowd through confiscatory taxation. But I’m glad to see that you agree that it can go to far. That means there’s a glimmer of hope of turning you into a right thinkin’ capitalist and conservative. Making all that money on oil stocks turned you around pretty fast didn’t it?
That smear on Russians is kinda broad isn’t it? Are you some kind of racist? Who else do you hate (besides conservatives)? I know two people who escaped from Russia and they’re great people.
Wabbit @ 205 – I googled the babe he was tagging. Turns out it’s old story dating back to at least 2001 before he ran. Sorry, no news. No scandal.
205 – Hilarious! Was a blue dress involved? Tell DOOFUS.
More laughs. See if you can pick out DOOFUS, Redneck, XmasGoose and the rest of the (un)SP and HA extra chromosome crowd.
Hat Tip: TJ
Mark,
Do you know what causes peace?
The Boddhidarma knew. He said, “War and killing are wrong, but it is just as wrong to be unable to defend oneself and one’s family.” Then it is said he founded Kempo, so people could learn to defend themselves.
A lot of good comes from handguns. The 1995 FBI Uniform Crime Report indicated that US counties which enacted ‘shall issue’ carry-permitting had a corresponding 19% decrease of confrontational violent crime such as muggings and robberies, and a commensurate displacement of crime into property crime of vacant things such as cars and homes. The same report concluded that in a matrix of technique-of-self-defense (e.g., nothing, hand-to-hand, knife, handgun, runnning, screaming, etc. – it is a big table) the least harm came to both attacker and defender when the defense was gun, except in the cases of gun-vs-gun. Deadlies for both was defense with knife, but it was especially dangerous for the defender who had the knife, not the attacker who had any of a variety of things.
So you could make an argument that guns are better kept legal now that they are ubiquitus. I just made it for you.
But what can we do to reduce gun crime? Last night, there was a shots-fired 7 blocks from here. Not unusual for a shooting, the police flew down the street at 70 or 90 without sirens to roll up on that. It was precious that nobody got splatted like a bug in the streets over that. So I think there is a problem when this sort of ‘gun use’ is going on.
The only ‘militias’ I have heard of lately are the gangs and the Michigan Militia, Timothy McVeigh and Crew, and some Mujahadin practicing in Oregon while British Intelligence told our FBI to back off. WTF. Can we agree that there are problems to be solved with how well-regulated US militias are to date?
Each person has rights defined in the 10 Ammendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. These Amendments have specific terminology, such as “Religion”, “Government”, “Persons”, “Militia.” The church is not the state, and not all people are in the militia.
You might argue that any person who has a license to bear concealed firearms in this state is a member of a well-regulated group of people. But a group of people is not a militia, either. A militia practiced together. I am not suggesting that people should be required to practice together, but perhaps people should be checked on basic skills.
What we come back to often in this argument is that a government who knows of your licensed guns can confiscate them. This is true. This is already true. A government that can drop a bomb on your head with an Xbox can also ‘confiscate’ your guns. The 500 caliber repeating rifle at Waco did damage the helicopters, but ultimately the Army Tanks were unstoppable.
There is no benefit to having unregistered guns, it’s some old idea from when the US came into existence through armed revolution involving guys with rifles. So let’s license gun-possessing people. Then only criminals will possess guns illegally, and this can be a more severe crime for already violent people.
And as far as pistols go, revolvers and semis, there is no reason you should ever be allowed to anonymously fire one of these outside a gun range. If you are defending your house, you have nothing to hide except your failure to utilize a less risky (esp. in the city, with nearby neighbors) means. There really isn’t a situation where it is vital to be able to shoot at someone in secrecy. So I say we add taggants to manufactured rounds that code serial numbers in the residue.
The reason I’m a progressive is that I want to make progress, and part of that is solving the problem we have where guns are part of crime.
Of course, Britan is practically one big city, an island with London-Oxbridge starting to cover it up, and there they are talking about arming their police for once, and banning long kitchen knives. Um.
@203 – It would be hard to regulate a militia if the enemy was on the shores and every last citizen had not seen or touched a firearm. The time for familiarization with guns is in a non-emergency situation. We must be prepared.
Also remember that the American Revolution was a revolution against the patriots’ own government. Suppose England had not allowed the colonists to own firearms. Assuming there was some way back then to enforce such a law, the outcome of the Revolution probably would have been a lot different.
* James Madison: Americans have “the advantage of being armed” — unlike the citizens of other countries where “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
* Patrick Henry: “The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
* George Mason: “To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
* Samuel Adams: “The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
* Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
* Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
… Gun confiscation leads to a loss of freedom, increased crime, and the government moving to the left. This has already happened in England and Australia. After Great Britain banned most guns in 1997, making armed self-defense punishable as murder, violence skyrocketed because criminals know that law abiding citizens have been disarmed. Armed crime rose 10% in 1998. The Sunday Times of London reported on the new black market in guns: “Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style execution.” There has been such a heavy increase in the use of knives for violent attacks that new laws have been passed giving police the power to search anyone for knives in designated areas.
In 1996 Australia banned 60% of all firearms and required registration of all guns and the licensing of gun owners. Police confiscated 640,381 firearms, going door to door without search warrants. Two years later, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that all crime had risen and armed robberies were up 44%.
Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., described his first-hand experience in Cuba. Before 1958, Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista had all citizens register their firearms. After the revolution, Raul and Fidel Castro had their Communist thugs go door to door and, using the registration lists, confiscate all firearms. As soon as the Cubans were disarmed, that was the end of their freedom.
Tyrannical governments kill far more people than private criminals. The Nazis conducted a massive search-and-seizure operation in 1933 to disarm their political opponents, in 1938 to disarm the Jews, and when they occupied Europe in 1939-41 they proclaimed the death penalty for anyone who failed to surrender all guns within 24 hours.
http://www.nsm88.com/articles/arms.htm
What is a militia? According to the Militia Act of 1792 (passed about 5 months after the Constitution was ratified) defined the militia as every white male from age 18 to 45.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Michael @ 220 “It would be hard to regulate a militia”
IT doesn’t matter how “hard” you believe it to be. It is required by the constitution.
“For what noble cause did our sons and daughters die in Iraq, Mr. President?”
The REPrehensibles have half a dozen answers to that—all of them proven LIES. I’ll believe Bush when his daughters are in Iraq. I would even be willing to waive the drug and alcohol tests for them and the president.
@223 – see 222.
Poon said: “I would even be willing to waive the drug and alcohol tests for them and the president. ”
That was good! I needed a good laugh this morning! The RIGHT WING FASCISTS still can’t tell us why we are in Iraq…
Well, I can tell you why the LEFT WING FASCISTS (John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc. think we are in Iraq)
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677”;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688”;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to “work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge” posed by Iraq and to “work for the necessary resolutions,” while also making clear that “the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable”;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
Geez, MICHAEL…just post tyhe fucking link.
P.S. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell LIED to Congress and the AMERICAN PEOPLE
mICHAEL-
P.S. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell LIED to Congress and the AMERICAN PEOPLE about the reasons for invading Iraq. I DON’T CARE ANYMORE about who voted for the resolution that was put forward based on FABRICATED INFORMATION.
Ah, but you see Michael, Kerry and Clinton did not send troops to Iraq, Bushy did. He is the one who is responsible and needs to be held accountable. Where are the WMDs he insisted were there, even though Britain, Germany, France, the UN, and the CIA said they weren’t…. Typical RIGHT WING FASCISTS trying to shift the blame (oooh it wasn’t ME…..) Bullshit. We need to impeach this president for high crimes and misdemeanors, and YOU know it…
Mikey …. furthermore, you either KNOW IT, or you are a MORON, or you are about as un-American as one can get.
Michael-
P.S. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell LIED to Congress and the AMERICAN PEOPLE about the reasons for invading Iraq. I DON’T CARE ANYMORE about who voted for the resolution that was put forward based on FABRICATED INFORMATION.
The “Neo-Con Death Cult” wanted to invade Iraq since 1992! They tried to get Clinton to invade in 1998. They had been lobbying, fabricating, and prevaricating for well over a decade.
WE STILL DO NOT KNOW THE REAL REASONS FOR THIS INVASION AND OCCUPATIION. The pResident will not level with the American People. WTF is going on here???
According to the available evidence; George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell are liars and murderers and should be impeached, then brought up on more serious charges.
Fuck you and your RNC talking points.
Why are our soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq. I want to hear this from the pResident…not some nimrod like you.
Communique from Crawford
****************************************************************
Leave my family alone
by CindySheehan
Mon Aug 15th, 2005 at 01:44:40 PDT
I apparently am the sacrificial lamb of the peace movement. I don’t care about myself. Putting myself in the forefront and daring to challenge the president on his lies left myself open to the attacks. Which are, of course, half truths and distortions.
CindySheehan’s diary :: :: http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....44440/6234
When they start sliming my home life and my family, that’s where I draw the line. Yes, my husband has filed for divorce and yes he filed before I left for the VFP Convention and this trip to Crawford and yes IT IS BETWEEN MY HUSBAND AND I.
Having Casey murdered in Iraq by George Bush’s reckless policies has been hard enough on my family, but me setting off on my holy war to bring the troops home, my constant absences, and all of the media attention has put additional stresses on my family.
I chose my path after Casey died. The rest of the family has chosen theirs. We all still love each other and support each other in anything that we do. We didn’t want Casey to join the Army, but once he made that decision, we supported him and even encouraged him through boot camp.
We are a normal American family who have had good times, bad times, and terrible times. We hope the good times will come back. We hope that we will be able to laugh with abandon together like we used to one day. We hope that the troops come home and no other families have to go through what we are going through.
It isn’t about politics for us. No one asked Casey what political affiliation he was before they sent him off to die in Iraq and no one asked us who we voted for in 2000 before we were handed a folded flag from Casey’s flag-draped coffin.
I am not perfect and I never even claimed to be perfect. My family isn’t perfect, but we are pretty special…especially the children. We all miss Casey so much and it is George Bush and his neocon cabal who is at fault. The people who are dragging my family through the mud need to grow up and look at themselves. The Christ said: “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
If everyone followed Jesus’s advice, the world would be a much better place.
Rujax206 – According to Harpers: Week of Oct 1, 2002…..the President spoke at a fund-raising event and referred to Saddam Hussein as “a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time. ”
This is the reason most of the RIGHT WING FASCISTS don’t want to talk about this subject….
Janet S @ 136
“That makes her anti-semitic, and a despicable human being. It doesn’t make me guilty of McCarthyism to call her on it.”
No it doesn’t, on either account. But your quickness to impute anti-Semitic values on this woman is McCarthyist.
F1
Among others.
RP @ 152
“Keep in mind the technical difference between anti-Semite and anti-Jewish. Arab peoples are Semites racially. Arabic is a Semitic language. Jewish peoples often are not racially (especially from Europe), but the Hebrew language is a Semitic language. Probably the term “anti-Semite” developed because they were hardly any Arabic people in England, the USA or Europe, and it seemed liked a racially related term to describe hatred of Jewish people.
Barring the questionability of the issue of race on purely genetic grounds, there is—from a semiotic point of view, no essential difference between anti-Semitism and “anti-Jew”. For one useful explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism
Michael @ 228
“Well, I can tell you why the LEFT WING FASCISTS (John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc. think we are in Iraq)
Do you know what a fascist is? I do. If so, please tell me how they (or other unnamed individuals) are. If not, I’d be more than happy to provide you with details.
F1 @ 230
Furthermore, it is quite interesting to go back and read (or better yet listen to) statements that Bush made in the run-up to the Iraq war. Many of these statements give specific details—many quite awesome and fear inspiring—which have since been proven false.
@229 – I DON’T CARE ANYMORE about who voted for the resolution that was put forward based on FABRICATED INFORMATION.
@232 – George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell LIED to Congress and the AMERICAN PEOPLE about the reasons for invading Iraq. I DON’T CARE ANYMORE about who voted for the resolution that was put forward based on FABRICATED INFORMATION.
You realize that the Intelligence Oversight Committee is part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch, right? If the CIA was wrong, why wasn’t the legislature paying attention?
@232 – WE STILL DO NOT KNOW THE REAL REASONS FOR THIS INVASION AND OCCUPATIION.
I would be happy to debate the “whereas” statements one by one. I know you believe they are all lies, but you probably haven’t really read them and don’t realize how true they still are today. That is why I posted them verbosely here instead of a link.
@230 – Where are the WMDs he insisted were there, even though Britain, Germany, France, the UN, and the CIA said they weren’t
You can’t be serious…
Tenet told Bush WMD case a ‘slam dunk’
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL.....ward.book/
Mike @ 240 “Tenet told Bush WMD case a ’slam dunk’”
… again, Tenet is not the one who sent our soldiers to Iraq.
michael:
“Fuck Saddam, we’re taking him out!” ~GWB, 3/2002
Almost 250 posts, and the trolls are spitting fire. Yep, Cindy Sheehan has the Wingers scared shitless.
Here is a link to the divorce petition that Patrick Sheehan, father of Iraq war hero Casey Sheehan, filed against Cindy Sheehan on August 12, 2005:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a.....ehan1.html
Looks like Patrick is asking Cindy to pay HIM alimony! Cindy must be making lots of money off her political protesting, and her hubby is looking for a meal ticket. Another important community asset appears to be the life insurance proceeds and government benefits resulting from Casey’s death.
Hasn’t Cindy been claiming that her estranged husband was supporting her political activism? Now it seems he just wants his fair share of the proceeds …
speculating much Richard?
I’m amazed that righties are trying to discredit this woman by talking about her marriage failing… Talk about a low blow.
As others have said, its public that their marriage has been failing, largely due to stress from Casey’s death. Your ranting about ‘what he wants’ is baseless and cruel.
Pope…you’re even more of a jackass than I thought. A mean-spirited one at that. Be proud, baby, be proud.
@241 – again, Tenet is not the one who sent our soldiers to Iraq.
Did I say he was? I was debunking the CIA said they weren’t [WMDS]. The CIA did not say there were no WMDs. Why don’t you just admit you were wrong?
Richard Pope–
Thank you for having the guts to smoke this out and not back down. Mrs. Sheehan is clearly not a well woman…understandably. Those that are trying to exploit her grief for political gain need to be “smoked out” and revealed. Frankly, I think Mrs. Sheehan is so off-balance right now that she may very well starting telling who told her to say what and when!!! That is when this whole thing will get real interesting.
The same LEFTIST PINHEADS who are praising this ill woman will run away from her within the next month.
you should be glad Cyiniot, this Sheehan thing has us somewhat distracted from the rove scandal.
Ahhhh. . . The Republican Party, the party of “Lowered Ex-pec-ta-ion’s.”
We’ve gone from Saddam having “WMD’s no doubt about it”, to not having them, but we’re removing a dictator, to spreading democoracy througout the middle east to setteling for the “unreality of pre-war goals.”
Duh!
I guess when Bush finally pulls a cut-n-run before the 2006 elections, it will be seen as a great victory by the right.
To all you Republicans who are trashing Cindy Sheehan:
Please support our troops AND the mothers of the fallen.
Thank you.
@250 We’ve gone from Saddam having “WMD’s no doubt about it”, to not having them
We know they did have them, because they used them. They gassed the Kurds. They fired SCUDs (not exactly a WMD by itself, but still banned for Iraq to possess) into Israel. What ever happened to all these weapons? Did they use them all up? The UN inspections was never supposed to be a shell game, try to figure out where Saddam hid them today. The Iraqis were supposed to destroy the WMDs that they had AND WERE USING, in the presence of UN inspectors, so that it could be verified what happened to them. A decade of stalling and hiding brought us to the “whereas” statements. Now, because our administration didn’t act fast enough, we have no idea where the weapons went. The Iraqis say they destroyed them when no one was looking. Do you really believe that?
I am quite sure, once we pull out, and Iraq is an extremist Theocracy, we will have parades and speeches, and banners declaring “Mission Accomplished”….. The RIGHT WING FASCISTS will be so happy about their victory… and it’s all useless, useless…
@ 252.
I believe Hans Blix and Scott Ritter long before I’ll ever believe any of the crap being spewed from the Bush administration. So yes, they could not find WMD’s because there were NONE.
But then again, you probably fell for Colin Powell’s “artist rendition” of mobile weapon labs, didn’t you?
The point you’re missing is that the WH keeps lowering the threshold of what has been long-term reality on the ground. This is just blatant proof of the civilian leadership’s collasal failure to effectively plan for pre-war and post-war actions.
Sorry, nice try, but Bush is a failed Commander in Chief.
The end.
And the right will stomp on anyone, even a mother of a fallen soilder to promote their cause.
If it were anyone on the right discrediting a mother of a fallen soilder you guys would be all over it.
Take a reality check, then a morality check. You guys on the right who continue to support this administration are in serious need of both checks.
heath @ 219
to say that conceal-carry laws have reduced crime may be narrowly true, but it ignores the fact that states WITHOUT them have reduced crime EVEN MORE. The whole country has seen a reduction in crime since 1990. However, those with conceal-carries have lagged behind the rest of the country in that reduction.
michael @ 252
They were destroyed by the UN from 1991 – 1996, which we knew before the war. Remaining capability appears to have been destroyed by Clinton’s bombings in 1998.
If you wanted to know where they were, why didn’t you ask Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group? That’s what they’ll tell you: they were destroyed. They don’t exist. And odd pieces left were degraded beyond use long ago. Heck, much of it was useless when it was being made! The Iraqis were notoriously bad at putting together good chem munitions.
Saddam was no loose cannon operating willy nilly in the region. He was placed in a very confined box. No fly zone, no military actions in these areas.
This and many othere reasons cause their programs die on the vine. What most of the toothless and “never served” Republicans don’t understand is that any WMD munition that was made in the 80’s and used against the Kurds ran out of shelf life at least 10-15 years ago. Chemical and biological weapons are high maintenacne items with relatively short shelf lifes of useful effectiveness.
Sorry, Chumps, but your arguements just don’t hold water any more. Perhaps if we broke out our crayolas for you and drew you a picture, much like Powell did, you’d understand.
If that’s the case just say so, we’ll draw you a picture.
GBS @ 254
“I believe Hans Blix and Scott Ritter long before I’ll ever believe any of the crap being spewed from the Bush administration.
Well said. It would be informative for those still doubting whether Iraq had been sufficiently disarmed before the US invasion to go back and listen to the administrations public statements on the matter. Many of these statements presented what appeared on the surface to be factual information that ended up proving false.
It would be even more informative for those doubters to go back and listen to public statements by Scott Ritter (and others with direct knowledge of the Iraqi situation on the ground) that directly refuted the administrations positions. These statements have basically ended up proving true.
That of course leaves the following question: how did Ritter et al. have the correct knowledge of pre-2003 Iraq, whereas the administration—which should have had even more accurate information—got it wrong? To my mind, as a responsible citizen of the US, that leaves the following 3 possibilities:
1) The President lied about the state of Iraqi WMDs;
2) The President was lied to about the state of Iraqi WMDs, or;
3) The President was not competent to thoroughly and accurately investigate the state of Iraqi WMDs.
Starting from 3 and working backwards: If the Pres. was incompetent, he should be held accountable for such incompetence (leading to criminal negligence) through removal from office by impeachment. If he were lied to, he should fire the liars and issue a mea culpa to the US public. This would be best followed by a resignation on ethical grounds. If he lied to the US public, he should clearly be impeached.
All options point to one thing: the POTUS accepting responsibility for the failure to find WMDs. This has yet to occur.
@256 They were destroyed by the UN from 1991 – 1996, which we knew before the war.
Hmm.
Inspectors were told “that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them,” [Newsweek reporter] Barry wrote. All that remained ere “hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches” and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished.
@254 – I believe Hans Blix and Scott Ritter long before I’ll ever believe any of the crap being spewed from the Bush administration.
You mean kiddie-porn ritter, who changed his story about how big of a threat Iraq was the day GWB was elected?
Michael @ 259
link? Relevance? Are you actually disputing the fact that UN inspectors oversaw the dismantling of the Iraqi WMD stockpiles in the 90s? It’s not, like, some big secret. To most, anyway.
Ok guys, let’s break out the Crayolas. It is becoming very apparent that the RIGHT WING FASCISTS still don’t get it….
Michael @ 259
Scott Ritter in 2002:
“Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the UN, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy – unilaterally, without UN supervision – a great deal of this equipment. We were later able to verify this.”
Here’s the link: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr147e.htm
This is and has been the thrust of Ritter’s arguments since at least 2002.
RP @ 244
Your entire post is irrelevant to the central issue, i.e. Sheehan’s desire to know for what “noble cause” her son died.
I’d imagine you well know that it is often easier to attack the person than it is to attack the argument, and that this tactic is typical of political discourse in this country (the GOP has been particularly guilty since 2000) and others. When the person herself is not the issue, but is rather the messenger (so to speak) for a larger cause, attacking the person is fallacious and contributes nothing, I repeat nothing to the argument.
Thank you, Dr E, for you most eloquent and illustrative comments. I find it simply amazing that any intelligent, thinking person in this country believes we have the right to unilaterally invade any sovereign country for no reason whatsoever.
Ahhhh, the Seattle left at it’s best (and at the same time it’s worst) You liberals are like a bunch of penguins huddeling together on a melting iceberg. The desperation of your party and your so-called ideolgoy becomes clearer everyday when you stand a cheer a woman who has a psychiatric disorder as a “spokesperson” for you and your dwindling ilk.
igdaf @ 265
“when you stand a cheer a woman who has a psychiatric disorder as a “spokesperson” for you and your dwindling ilk
Please read my post above about attacking the person vs. attacking the argument. I hope you also have some figures about the “dwindling” numbers of liberals.
IDGAF @ 265 – “..a woman who has a psychiatric disorder”
That is exactly what we are talking about, attacking a woman who has the AUDACITY to stand up to the Republican lies…. I notice you offer no actual arguments, just attack the messenger… You guys are (and should be) getting desparate. BTW, can YOU tell me why we are in Iraq?
……..yah, didn’t think so
Oh, and I notice that the Iraqis have delayed their constitution…. Bet Bushs panties are in a bunch NOW!
Dr. E @ 265
I am still interested in knowing what “noble cause” that Cindy Sheehan was praising when she called convicted terrorist Lynne Stewart her personal “Atticus Finch”:
“First, I want to give my little story about Lynne. Of course, you all have read To Kill a Mockingbird. Lynne is my human Atticus Finch. He did what he knew was right, but wasn’t popular. And that’s what Lynne is doing. {applause}” (speech in support of Lynne Stewart at San Fran St U rally on 04/27/2005)
pope-
you don’t think defending the despicable in court is a noble cause? The Founding Fathers did, and so do I.
Michael@203 – It would be hard to regulate a militia if the enemy was on the shores and every last citizen had not seen or touched a firearm.
Hahahahahahha! Wow! Thanks for that laugh!
Did you hear, the Canadians are massing at our border!!!!
Richard Pope@272–
Another attaboy to you Richard…
These LEFTIST PINHEADS will soon be sprinting away from poor Mrs. Sheehan and her new pal Terrorist Stewart. One month from now, the LEFTIST PINHEAD Bloggers will be doing a Dan Rather!!!
Several months ago, an essayist wrote that Bush and Cheney could barbecue live puppies on the White House lawn and the Republican base would still applaud their actions. The posts on this thread from the Bush apologists prove the essayists’ claim. The rightwing is wholly incapable of critical thought when it comes to Bush. Slamming Cindy Sheehan, no matter what her motives and her background, is despicable. The party of values? Yeah, right.
Mr. Cynical @ 275
Karl Rove et al. aren’t stupid. They are sponsoring a liquidation sale on rope. Cindy Sheehan et al. are being offered an unlimited supply. Rove wants as many Democrats as possible to sign up for this foolish crusade.
Once Rove is sure there is enough rope, the trap will be sprung, and there will be a bunch of Democrats dangling in plain views.
RP @ 272
“I am still interested in knowing what “noble cause” that Cindy Sheehan was praising when she called convicted terrorist Lynne Stewart her personal “Atticus Finch”
You’re changing the subject here, and attacking the person, too. I see no reason for further comment, unless you’re willing to engage the actual subject: the reasons for the Iraq war.
yes, I’m sure that was his reasoning for withholding information from the FBI and the Grand Jury regarding his conversations with Matt Cooper… :)
RP @ 277
Your lynching/public execution analogy above is reprehensible.
“Slamming Cindy Sheehan, no matter what her motives and her background, is despicable”.
Really? Why is that ProudLeftist? Is it because as her “handlers” and supporters had hoped that “the poor grief-filled mother” couldn’t possibly be questioned without appearing “insensitive”? While the media definately is morte concerned about it’s own appearance than the facts. (just like you) No amount of questioning and name calling of her critics change the fact that she is a LUNATIC-has been, always will be and her camping out and assanine “public statements” resonate only with the tiny minority of people such as yourself and further exodus of middle America to the Republican Party. It makes me VERY happy that there are idiots like her, you and such cerebral giants as Rujax, Donna, DJ, TJ and and of course Fire-One to go along with the rest of your party. Cindy Sheehan is the new poster child for “Useful Idiots-The key to a Republican landslide victory in 2006/2008”
Dr E – I find it very interesting that the Republican voters on this blog are extremely upset over Ms Sheehan’s success. Looks like she may have started something big…
In other news, I was upset to see that the President is down-playing the possibility of invading Iran. (that usually means we WILL invade)
idgaf @ 281
“No amount of questioning and name calling of her critics change the fact that she is a LUNATIC-has been, always will be
Are we assume from your post that you have personally known this woman her entire life? Other than that, you’re just attacking the person—as are most on the right—which still contributes nothing to the argument.
“and her camping out and assanine “public statements” resonate only with the tiny minority of people such as yourself”
Unless poll numbers have changed in the past week or so, you’re wrong.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
“and further exodus of middle America to the Republican Party.”
Proof?
F1 @ 282
I sincerely hope that Iran is not on the military planners’ agenda, but it probably is. The development of the Caspian Sea oil beds has, in my opinion, moved Iran to the top of the neo-Con agenda (but not because Iran has substantial stakes in that oil).
Most people in this country have virtually no understanding of how potentially destabilizing (esp. on ethnic lines) a military invasion of Iran would have on the region. One can only hope impeachment proceedings will occur before that military misadventure could occur.
Dr. E @ 280
This is a figurative joke. Rove and company are letting Cindy Sheehan and her allies get enough rope to hang themselves with, before her wacky and dangerous ideas and allies get widespread attention.
On the other hand, I can see how my joke could be misconstrued, given the rabid backing of racist extremists like David Duke in support of Cindy Sheehan’s cause.
http://www.davidduke.com/
Dr. E @ 278
I am simply attacking Cindy Sheehan’s statements and beliefs. These are fair game, including her praise of an anti-Jewish terrorist convicted by the unanimous vote of a liberal Manhattan jury.
It is Cindy Sheehan who is engaging in vicious personal attacks. Just look at this excerpt from her 04/27/2005 speech at San Francisco State University:
“If he [President Bush] thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go this war.”
It would have been bad enough for Cindy Sheehan to say Bush “needs to sign up his two daughters”. But calling Bush’s daughters “little party-animal girls” is reprehensible.
This woman is clearly not playing with a full deck and there are those on the left who are more than willing to exploit her in a time of weakness. I grieve for her loss, but her son volunteered to serve. Her actions likely have Casey rolling over in his grave. Let the boy rest in peace. Before you left wing pricks start labeling me a do nothing war monger, Piss off, I served over a decade in Infantry, Airborne and Special Operations units and was severly injured in the line of duty. I have seen a battlefield or two and I know what sacrifice is and what the cost of freedom can be. My fiancee just returned from Iraq and may have to return. This lady is being used for an agenda, plain and simple.
Once again your motives biased. Geez, “we drove all the way here and the President couldnt meet a couple of delusional college sorority girls. The left will stop at nothing to push their agenda.
Angry Voter @286
you’re one evil SOB, you know that?
Just because she disagrees with you (just like a very large % of the population, who would like to hear the same questions answered), she’s mentally ill?
What kind of idiotic dittohead BS is that? I notice all the rightie trolls are sayin’ it, too… Did your secret masters tell you that its better to say that, because it seems less insensitive?
I don’t care what your military record is yourself. You haven’t lost a loved one close to you, therefore you can’t speak to her motivations.
also, you’re an idiot.
Angry Voter said: ” I served over a decade in Infantry, Airborne and Special Operations units ”
yeah, sure you are. And I’m the Easter bunny…
@287
I forgot to add the insane bit where the moron calls Ms. Sheehan a ‘delusional college sorority girl’.
Thats pure genious.
RP @ 285
I’ll give you your joke, but I don’t see what David Duke has to do with this, unless we have a statement on record from Sheehan about his support (haven’t seen one so far, could be wrong). I would also differ with your characterization of Bush’s daughters as “little party-animal girls” as rising to the level of vicious or reprehensible. (Their actions speak for themselves, anyway.)
What I would like to know is what you find so dangerous about her ideas.
Again leties you attack the messenger and not the message. And windie FYI, I have lost VERY close friends (eighteen of them in one night, October 3rd 1993) in a shit hole country that Bill Clinton pulled us out of (Somalia) when we were hot on Al-Qeada’s trail. Yes bozos, we were fighting them all the way back then. They were testing our tactics and checking our resolve. Our leadership failed us miserably.
And by the way, I have been wounded in battle you stupid bitch, have a 9 inch scar on my leg to prove it. We simply would not have the problems in the world today if that idiot would have let Task Force Ranger complete it’s mission.
And fire-none, you are a jackass, know what, let me know when and where you would like to conduct a denate on the topic.
This woman’s son was killed, and our POTUS called her ‘mom’ and said he ‘ddin’t want to go there’ when it came to imagining his kids serving in Iraq. What a great guy! Clearly, she’s crazy for being so offended and causing a big stir. The Prez can do no wrong, and therefore is never rude.
You know if Cindy was saying anything *remotely* new, I think I would be the first one to cheer her on.
As it is, she is parroting Michael Moore, Al Franken and Moveon.org, as well as Howard Dean and the DNC. The same baseless accusations, the same sensational statements, and the same rhetoric.
the only effective difference is that because of her son and her being a grieving mother, suddenly the left has decided she has the moral authority to speak and not be criticised.
As has been said before, the left is using her son as ammo, and her as a human bazooka to attack Bush.
The merits of any of her hessages become irrelevent, it is her presumed protection as being uncriticizable that matters.
Thats why I despise this whole left wing anti war Bush hating circus.
I think she began this honestly, sincerely. Now she is a willing puppet of the liberals, and as soon as she isn’t convenient or effective, she will be discarded.
As far as her being untouchable, she went on stage willingly, and now she has to face people who disagree: people like the families of other fallen soldiers; and no moral authority can shield her from that.
shooting_blanks et al………..
what about the mothers that lost sons during the clinton years? where was your outrage at a pointless war then? hmmmm?
oh…it didn’t exist, did it?
kosovo/bosnia was a threat to us how exactly?
the far left [especially in seattle] is a bizarre group of people that don’t seem to realize that not only are the 60’s O-V-E-R…but it was a failed “experiment”. just read some of jesus christ’s quotes of hunter s thompson.
why don’t you all just develop some intellectual integrity and admit that you are against the war because your motto is “anyone but bush”???
you think the rest of us haven’t already figured that out? do you think maybe that’s why you lost the election[s]?
i think it’s a great idea that washington become the national home of the liberal party. sorry to all of you sane people that live here…but it’s a lost cause.i think i’m going to start a “bus tickets for bums” program in california….and the tickets will be one way to seattle.
it’s a win win. california gets rid of freeloaders and you fools get more “voters”
how does that sound?
there we go again, righties assuming they know what parents who have lost children to the war think.
And even if you *do* find someone who’s lost a kid, and still supports this nightmare of an occupation, it doesn’t invalidate what she’s saying. Believe it or not, people disagree.
To Xghost… part of the reason alot of people say “Anyone but Bush” is *because* of the war. In typical fashion for your ilk, you have it backwards… again.
Ghost – Sorry, wrong again. All you have to do is answer one question: Why are we in Iraq? Can you do it? Huh? Cmon, give it a try. Bush can’t answer it. Looks to me like the Prez’s apologists are getting worried (and rightfully so). He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and needs to go. Surely even you can see that?
As to all the crapola you wrote about California, bums, etc it’s just all blah blah blah crapola just to let you hear your head ring … heh heh
…or maybe we should start a one way bus ticket program for Christmas Ghosties… to Alabama, maybe. (no offense intended Alabamans)
Ghost? Ghost? Why are we in Iraq? That is the question. Ms Sheehan says we don’t belong there. As do most of us here. So tell us please, why are we there?
This is the ultimate irony.
If Liberal’s were calling a mother of a fallen US soilder all the slanderous names the right is slinging what do you think the right would be accusing us of doing.
But, since the issue has spotlighted Bush’s failed policy in Iraq they will attack ANYONE.
As far as support for Bush is concerned, we know it’s waning. The proof you ask? Army recruiting goals are going to be missed this year. The Army is an organization that gave over 60% of its support to the president in 2004. The fact that people voted for Bush in 2004, but won’t give their vote of confidence with their childeren one year later, is proof positive, to me at least, that the base of support is erroding.
ChristmasGhost @ 293
There were several good reason to intervene in Kosovo.
1.) There was genocide going on.
2.) Instability in that particular region of Europe sparked WWII. Which as we all know cost over 400,000 lives. So it’s better to nip it in the bud then let it spill over into another raging conflict across the continent.
ChristmasGhost
Against the war? Please, you’re talking as if there is only one war.
Ghost?
What would you classify the mass graves in iraq? Or the Kurds he gassed?
If genocide is one of your standards, Saddam wasn’t far from the mark…..
Uhhhh, Pope…
They ARE party anumals.
http://www.thefirsttwins.com/
oooops, your bad.
293
This assumes there was a pointless war equivalent to Iraq during Clinton’s years, right?
Karl – That was in 1988, and there are some who say that the gassing was done by IRAN… So, if it was Sadaam in 1988, then why didn’t Bush 1 take out Sadaam? If it was Iran, then the question remains – Why are we in Iraq?
@ 301
So when Saddam gassed the Kurds did Regan:
A) Send in the military to stop it, or
B) Send Rumsfeld to shake Saddam’s hand.
The answer is: B
GBS @ 298
“If Liberal’s were calling a mother of a fallen US soilder all the slanderous names the right is slinging what do you think the right would be accusing us of doing.
Good point. There’s more than a certain amount of moral equivocation from the right these days.
There was also the Jurdish uprising in Post Gulf War.
Regardless, estimates are over 300k in mass graves with more being found every day.
As for Bush(sr) and the Gulf War I was Active duty then, and we wanted him to take the guy out.
But when Saddam Surrendered, he lost that ability. It was the moral failing of our coalition.
Thank god we turned the matter over to the UN for oversight.
See how well that worked……
Dr. E @ 306
I’ve started asking my conservative friends the “What if Clinton did it?” question.
It’s funny because in their subconscious mind they know the answer, they’d be against it. Then, when their conscience mind process the information, they have to make a value judgment against what Bush is doing today vs. the what if scenario posed.
I can tell by their delay that they are formulating and less than honest answer which always leads to a weak counter point. Which leads to another clobbering.
It’s fun to punch them in the proverbial beak over and over.
Karl- so the reason for being in Iraq NOW is he was committing genocide? And, just so you know, NO, we didn’t want to take out Sadaam. Bush had no justification. The Shiites wanted to take him out after the war, but Bush wouldn’t help them. Gen Schwartzkopf did not want to take out Baghdad and made it well known. Reason: No justification, and we would end up in a quagmire. (does that word sound familiar?) Powell did not want to take out Sadaam either, and made it well known. So, the question still remains: Why are we in Iraq?
oh and Karl, the UN did a quite reasonable job after we turned it over to them. They said there were no WMDs and it appears they were correct…. (oil for food? anytime there is money and a beauracracy, there will be criminals. Doesn’t make the entire UN evil. Using that logic, we would have to put the whole Senate in jail just for Newt’s transgressions)
“If Liberal’s were calling a mother of a fallen US soilder all the slanderous names the right is slinging what do you think the right would be accusing us of doing”.
Ok GBS…Let’s hear some of the “slanderous names” being aimed at Ms. Sheehan? Let’s hear some names, places, some factual documentation of ANYBODY slandering her? As for the military not meeting it’s goals? You better check the latest stats. @ months in a row of meeting goals and re-enlistments at an all time high As I said before. Sheehan decided to put herself upfront and center stage. The fact that she lost a son in the war doesn’t make her exempt from criticism when everytime there’s a camera, reporter or her dialy blog at michael moores website, she’s spouting a contorted, rambling, incoherant political view. But as always the left screams for the right of free speech, as long as it’s from the lunatic left.
FAGDI @ 310
Oh, Ok, sorry I stand corrected. Nobody on the right is saying anything derogatory about the mother of a fallen US solider. They’re all just singing her praises. Thanks for setting me straight.
PS: I’m a bit dyslexic, too.
IDGAF – yah, sorry about supporting that whole right of free speech thing. We should just let the Pres do all the talkin. Oh thats right, he wouldn’t meet with Sheehan… So what if he took a few lumps.. That is why he is a Chickenshit SOB!
Yeah, it’s a shame all those left-wing storm troopers carted off the mullahs…I mean evangelists at that (in)justice sunday thing. Sorry about that.
The only Chickenshit SOB in here is you and your miserable, pathetic, ignorant, absurd and INSANE comments.But as I’ve said before, keep it up! Perhaps you could go squat in a ditch and demand to meet with the president too. Karl Rove himself couldn’t have come up with a more useful idiot! The only thing that sucks must be having to be you!
IDGAF – you DO make me laugh….
… but you still won’t tell me WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ.
IDGAF – come, come, put that tremendous intellect to work, and just answer that one, simple question…
… or just run along and go watch your Fox news. I think they found a seashell on the beach in Aruba that might have something to do with the case…….
okay guys this is why we are in iraq……you took the bait as usual. but maybe, just maybe you will learn something from this?
GBS wins the prize. the reason we are in iraq now and have to be is the same reason we went into world war two….
*So it’s better to nip it in the bud then let it spill over into another raging conflict across the continent.* WELL SAID,BTW.
only ,i would add “world” instead of continent.
listen guys…i know some of you are laboring under the delusion that i am “pro war”…well i’m not. it is the definition of necessary evil…that’s all. i wish there were never another war, nor the need for one.but as long as people are people[hitler=saddam=bin laden] there will be the necessity for war.
how do we change this? i wish i knew. it’s human nature to be tribal. look at how you go at each other’s throats here. you think you are any different than the people that start [or finish] wars?
you’re not.
here is some recommended reading for all of you…and your kids….dr suess. read about the star bellied sneeches. i’m sure i’m spelling that wrong…but look for it. that and the lorax. sometimes surprising things come in small packages.
you know…it’s no different attacking other people verbally or on a small scale[ slashing tires] than it is to actually attack them. it’s tribal. and it ratchetes up.
so why don’t you be honest and admit that if this war were happening under clinton you wouldn’t have a problem.you DIDN’T have a problem.
you see…that’s all i have a problem with. only nuts like war [and bush isn’t one of them]. i have three sons, i can full well imagine what sheehan is going through. BUT, i can also say that her son made his choice and she has to respect that. be against the war. scream it from the hilltops…but don’t say that someone killed your son when he didn’t. the insurgents killed him…not geaorge bush. when she says the things she does she is making it sound as if her son couldn’t think for himself. and his loss was greater than hers…she doesn’t have the right.
xmas – okay, so YOUR reason is that we needed to nip something in the bud? What did we nip? What was Saddam about to do? The answer is NOTHING. He had NOTHING. No WMDs. NOTHING. Geez, I can’t make it any plainer than that. And if that is true, that makes GWB a criminal. Get it?
Or is it the same reason that we went into WWII? What? Because the Japanese bombed us? It was terrorists that bombed us. Most of them from Saudi Arabia. A few HQd in Afghanistan. WTF did Iraq have to do with it? The answer is again: NOTHING. And if this is true, that makes GWB a criminal. Get it now?
xmas – also, I don’t really know anything about Sheehan, I just know a gutless SOB when I see one. Bush has the power, why won’t he go talk to her? What, he’s afraid he won’t get reelected? You and I both know he is not doing the right thing here…. and just for being a chickenshit SOB, I hope it really hurts him, politically.
Fox news. The first broadcast news outlet to cut the liberal writers, producers, editors and reporters agenda out of the programming loop resulting in a historic rise to the top of the ratings. More people watch Fox than CNN and MSNBC put together. Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity are viewed each night by millions more than any other opinion/talk show.You hate and hate them for another point of view so far as their opinion programming and not slanting their news coverage through “omission” of fact that doesn’t serve their liberal ideology.
IDGAF – thanks for that commercial interlude you mindless dittohead…
IDGAF – but still no answer eh?
and with that, it is late here on the East coast. I am very impressed that there were over 300 posts. Shows, I guess, that this is a very volatile subject that a lot of people care deeply about.
Fire_one, you could be asking me what is the sum of 2 + 2 and I would answer 4. But since in your contorted, isolationist, socialistic, blame everybody for your personal failure to thrive, you would refuse the right answer and demand another, and another until the answer was the right “shade of grey” that met your totally ignorant and dysfunctional thought process. I do however thank you endlessly for your continued efforts to assure yet another Republican president in 2006!
fire_one………more people died in the 9/11 attacks than at pearl harbor. and these were all civilians[or most of them].the terrorists are from many countries true…but they are fighting under the same banner. islamo-fascism.don’t delude yourself into thinking that they aren’t as dangerous as hitler was. they are more dangerous. in today’s world, with the modern weapons they can do much more damage. and THEY have a plan. it’s not exactly a secret…they want to make the world theirs. stop worrying about “jesus-land” and start worrying about allah-land.
you should be getting this…you stated it all in your post but you refuse to expand your thinking to modern day. this is world war three. and we either win it or i don’t think we will be around to bitch about it. these people would sure as hell not let you bitch about it.not for one second.
i’ll give the liberals one thing….we are so spoiled here in america that we have become complacent. we have to make up boogie men to scare ourselves [look at the movies and political disourse] because MADE UP boogie men are so much easier to deal with than the real ones, aren’t they? and most americans [liberals especially] are big babies that don’t deal with any problems up front.
we americans are not big meanies, george bush is not a monster with an axe to grind just ’cause, there are real monsters at the door and if we don’t take them out….they will take us out.
we did nothing to deserve 9/11…they attacked us because we are the big dog on the block.and please…please, i can’t say this enough…stop listening to what others WANT you to think about islamo-fascism and start doing some research yourself. that part of the world and the cultures it contains are about as foreign to our way of thinking as you can get….don’t kid yourself. these people are playing for keeps.
and before you pooh-pooh this really think about what the alternatives to taking them down now are. we could become weak and [hence] no target or we could let everyone know that if you kick our little anthill you won’t like the results. i ,personally, prefer the latter.
they may come from many countries but that’s just geography baby. it means nothing. they are the enemy.
and i have to add….that whole “but we didn’t find any WMD’s” thing is old. he had them and we probably just haven’t found them YET. but i’ll bet syria has a clue.
and you doubt that he had them…ask the kurds…they KNOW he did.
I love it when the donks whine about Fox news or right wing talk radio. I just want give the widdle babies a widdle hanky to wipe there teary widdle eye. That’s alright widdle baby the truth hurts don’t it.
RUFUS: You’d be the last to know…
Do you, left of center types, wake up everyday hoping that we lose in Iraq? How sad an existence you live. I want the US to win the war, I want the US to stay in Iraq and work with the millions of Iraqis who are working to create a better country for themselves and their children. If American loses her stomach, I fear that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will be singled out and murdered. We have to finish what we started. If we leave Iraq, the terrorists will claim victory, much like Hamas is doing today on the Gaza Strip.
Think about how brave the Iraqis are. Those brave Iraqi men standing in lines to sign up for the armed services or the police departments, day after day – even when they are standing on the blood of those who stood there the day before, only to be blown up by a fringe group of their fellow countrymen. Remember how awesome it was to see the glee on the Iraqi’s faces when they held up their purple fingers this past January. Remember, the sight of the Iraqi men pulling down the statue of Saddam. Think about the brave little boys, who turned in their fathers because their dads were insurgents.
We cannot leave them.
re 330, bf: It was a “struggle” last week you lieing fascist piece of snake- dung.
xghost-
You have the awesome ability to reduce any thought or argument to it’s most stupid, most inane component.
“they attacked us because we are the big dog on the block” Only a simpleton would believe that to be a rationale for anything. Apropos to you, though, as it seems your views haven’t progressed much beyond junior high school. You are probably the type that keeps score and holds grudges for decades. Nice going dumbass.
Dearest bf-
Think about how angry the Iraqis must be.
Before the chickenshit in chief decided to make their country his own private g.i.joe play set…they had running water. they had electricity. ALL DAY. For their fucking AIR CONDITIONING.
They had JOBS. 85% of Iraqi men are unemployed.
“They all look the same so you don’t know who the enemy is.”
So the “coalition (THAT’S a joke we don’t hear a lot about anymore) forces” shoot at or round up…well…ANYBODY who looks bad. How would they know who’s who and what’s what…THEY DON’T SPEAK THE FUCKING LANGUAGE. Oh, I forgot, Pat Robertson gave them all the “Speak in Tongues Like Jesus Miracle Babel Translator Set” (batteries not included) from the local Wal-Mart. The best one is the “Benny Hinn Signature Model”. Look, Stupid…more Iraqi children are dying because of this war of “liberation” than died because of the sanctions. They’re parents are gone because of indiscriminate bombings. Hey “family values guys”, where’s the values if you “BLOW UP THE FAMILY!!!!There is no food. There is massive corruption. Mercenary contractors don’t care WHO they fuck up. The city of Fallujah is a prison. The “Green Zone” isn’t even safe anymore. This is a REAL clusterfuck that is getting worse all the time. 55 American service personnel have been KILLED so far since fearless leader went on holiday. August 2005 has been the DAEDLIEST. MONTH. EVER.
You fucks are completely delusional. You think WE’RE NUTS????
You’re high brother…real high.
We broke it…we oughta fix it…but not with this criminally incompetent bunch of delusional warmongers. Get Bush, Chenyburton, Rummy, georgy’s secret girlfriend Condi, and the whole insane PNAC gang OUT OF THERE. NOW.
Put some fucking honest grownups in charge. Get those poor people to work rebuilding their OWN country instead of slling the reconstruction to the highest republican fundraiser so they have a STAKE in their own future. Did you know the Iraqis have (or had before WE got there) the most educated work force in the Middle East. OF COURSE you didn’t you stupid re-puke. You also didn’t know (or care, since God created the earth last week)about the CENTURIES worth of irreplacable Art and Historical artifacts that were stolen or destroyed after Rummy’s cowboy ride into Baghdad. It took of FOUR DAYS to “win” this “war”. The peace has been fucked up for two years because THE GREAT BUSHINI and his band of incompetent jackals could’t be BOTHERED with planning for EEEEWWWWW “Nation Building”. Whatever good will we had with the “brave Iraqis” is destroyed unless they’re on the payroll.
And listen, children…come here real close…that’s right…Unca’ Rujax is gonna lay sumpthin’ on ‘ya…
real quiet…don’t you think that just might get one of these strong young men…like maybe one who just watched his little sister get cut to ribbons by a scared American teenager…don’t you think that might make that young man want to STICK A PIPE BOMB UP YOUR FUCKING ASS??????WELL???WOULDN’T YOU????WOULDN’T ANYBODY????DON’T YOU IDIOTS THINK THY FEEL JUST LIKE YOU WOULD????Are you really THAT stupid? just askin’. G’nite, all.
And oh, BTW bf, what WAS that noble cause our brave men and women in uniform are fighting and dying for.
When is Mr. “I’ve got to have balance in my life so I’m going to a Republican fundraiser…instead of speaking with regular Americans who have LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS about why their sons and daughters are getting maimed and killed…after I take a long bike ride in the hot Texas sun so I can look cut and buff when we go to play with those fiiiine Odessa hookers” gonna answer a simple question for us. Again…just askin’. Nighty nite.
Y’all don’t let the bedbugs bite.
rujax…as usual your answer is disappointing to say the least. no substance to it…just mud slinging.
what are you so afraid of anyway?
the only thing that i can see that hasn’t progressed past grade school is you. sadly.
what….my answer make too much sense for you?
let me guess about you. you have a lousy job. you have never been out of this country much less lived in another. you get your ideas about how the world works from the likes of michael moore. so if you are so smart…why don’t you tell me why they attacked us…that is if you can string the words together.
i hav elived in the middle east and other countries as well….what do you know about it, hmmmm?
@262 – Are you actually disputing the fact that UN inspectors oversaw the dismantling of the Iraqi WMD stockpiles in the 90s?
@264 – Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the UN, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy – unilaterally, without UN supervision – a great deal of this equipment.
Am I the only one who sees that the emperor is wearing no clothes? Oh, and for good measure,
@263 – It is becoming very apparent that the RIGHT WING FASCISTS still don’t get it
I get that @262 and @264 are contradictory to each other. Am I supposed to get something else?
@264 We were later able to verify this
How convenient. I notice that he was a little light on the details.
@266 – believes we have the right to unilaterally invade any sovereign country for no reason whatsoever.
I do not believe Saddam had the right to unilaterally invade Kuwait for no reason whatsoever.
@274 Hahahahahahha! Wow! Thanks for that laugh!
Did you hear, the Canadians are massing at our border!!!!
Either you don’t know your history very well or you arrogant to the point of stupidity if you believe that the United States will last forever as a superpower and that we will never be vulnerable to attacks on our borders.
@282 Dr E – I find it very interesting that the Republican voters on this blog are extremely upset over Ms Sheehan’s success. Looks like she may have started something big…
I am more upset over Omari Tahir-Garrett successfully clubbing Schell with a bullhorn. I think he has started something big…
@283 Are we assume from your post that you have personally known this woman her entire life?
And are we to assume that Cindy has known the Bush daughters all her life? Or is it open season on them?
@283 you’re just attacking the person
I’m not attacking the person, I am attacking her activities. I wouldn’t attack Michael Moore as a person, he might be a cool guy at a barbeque; however I disagree with his activities.
@284 I sincerely hope that Iran is not on the military planners’ agenda, but it probably is.
I sincerely hope that every potential threat is on the military planners’ agenda. We need to have a contingency plan for everything.
@298 Why are we in Iraq? That is the question.
Well, after the Gulf War in 1991 Saddam agreed to certain terms of a cease fire. As it turns out, there probably wasn’t a single one of those terms that he didn’t violate flagrantly on multiple occasions.
Why do you believe the cease fire should still be in place? That is the question.
@300 – There were several good reason to intervene in Kosovo.
1.) There was genocide going on.
I must have imagined mass graves in Iraq. Or did Bush lie about those too. And I though the Iraq standard was “They were no threat to us, why should we attack?” Or “What gives us the right to invade a sovereign nation?”, I’m sure that one has came up in this thread.
2.) Instability in that particular region of Europe sparked WWII. Which as we all know cost over 400,000 lives. So it’s better to nip it in the bud then let it spill over into another raging conflict across the continent.
If you think the loss of life in WWII was on the order of 400,000, you should ask the WEA for your money back. And am I to assume there is no unrest in the Middle East? This Europe thing is so last millenia.
@310 Karl- so the reason for being in Iraq NOW is he was committing genocide?
If I remember right one or more of the “whereas” statements dealt with that.
@314 Oh thats right, he wouldn’t meet with Sheehan…
Do you mean meet with her again? How often should he be required to meet with her? Every time the talking points change?
Postghosty-
What question am I supposed to answer…”Why don’t I agree with your mind-numbingly stupid view of the world?”
Go back over my (mostly) well-written (IMHO) comments. My case is made.
And what is this shit about Michael Moore? you are OBSESSED with MICHAEL MOORE!
MICHAEL MOORE!MICHAEL MOORE!MICHAEL MOORE!MICHAEL MOORE!MICHAEL MOORE!
I’m sick of your obsession with MICHAEL MOORE!MICHAEL MOORE!MICHAEL MOORE!MICHAEL MOORE!MICHAEL MOORE! Do I constantly brinng up your raving trassexual harpy Ann Coulter???? No! So STOP already. That movie was two years ago. And BTW…why DID the chickenshit in chief look like his binky had been run over by a truck when he was reading “My Pet Goat” to the kids. He sure didn’t look like the Captain Codpiece Action Figure like on the aircraft carrier. Yo Ho Ho…MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Michael-
You mean the Cindy Sheehan talking point (the ONLY one, BTW…She stays “on message” just like Karl teaches) that changed from:
“Mr. President, what WAS that noble cause my brave son fought and died for.”
to:
“Mr. President, what WAS that noble cause our brave sons and daughters in uniform are fighting and dying for.”
Yeah…she’s a flip-flopper all right.
Why Does Bush’s Neighbor Hate America?
*****************************************************************
Communique from Crawford…
Misses and Miracles
by CindySheehan
Mon Aug 15th, 2005 at 22:08:04 PDT
We still have so many great things happening at Camp Casey. In spite of all the smears and lies, people are still coming.
The most amazing thing today was learning that Camp Caseys are opening and spreading all over the country. They have been set up in Boston, Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere. If you can’t make it to Camp Casey, set up your own version. Camp Caseys are amazing places full of love and hope. I am so gratified that the movement is spreading.
CindySheehan’s diary :: ::
There is a meeting tomorrow at the County Commissioner’s meeting to vote on closing Prairie Chapel Road and then evicting us. We were all worried about that and planning on being arrested when we got the best news yet. The property owner who owns property near Bush’s ranch and right across the street from Bush’s church will let us move Camp Casey there!! He has property on both sides of the road…a full acre for us to camp! We are so excited!!! We can fit more people and we will be closer to the ranch. Miracles, miracles.
Mike Rogers from Tokyo showed up today and a dear woman from Australia who was a human shield in Iraq and knows that the Iraqi people are not jumping for joy that the policies of Bush destroyed their country.
This is an extremely short post today…I am exhausted.
@339 You mean the Cindy Sheehan talking point (the ONLY one, BTW…She stays “on message” just like Karl teaches
You must have missed the part where she wants the Jews to withdraw from Palestine…
fire_one:
During the first Guld war we did not go into Baghdad and remove Saddam because first that was not our stated goal when we formed the coalition, the goal was to get them out of Kuwait. We did that.
Saddam wanted to have more control over oil and he may not have stopped there, we don’t know. Oil is a vital resource for us which is why we wanted him out of Kuwait so that he did not have that much control over oil and oil pricing… That’s why we got involved for the super basic reason. That’s what it has to do with oil.
Sanctions were put in place on Iraq with a lot of support from other countries at that time. The sanctions were pretty much 2-fold in their reasons. 1 was to make sure Iraq did not have chemical/biological/nuclear weapons as well as long range delivery systems that he could use on his neighbors and internal enemies, as he was fond of doing. 2 was to weaken Saddam’s power at home because it was thought the sanctions would make him so unpopular there, as he was already unliked because of his brutality, so that the people would revolt.
Well, there was a Shiite uprising that we were supposed to have supported, but we didn’t which was very unfortunate, and it was crushed brutally. That pretty much put a stop to a revolution in the future because he was too powerful for such a thing. It also led to the southern no-fly zone, which is beside the point.
So, we come to the sanctions and the inspections… The inspections were to prove he did dismantle his weapons programs. He was never ever fully compliant with those inspections, even at the very end (I’ll get to that later). But these demands were to be lifted once we found him to be weapons/weapons program free. The sanctions, as they were started, did have a very bad effect on the Iraqi people. It was around 1995 or 96 that we can find the quote asking Albright, who was interviewing for Sec of State: Was it worth it that there have been 500,000 child deaths in excess, meaning that many children died due to lack of nutrition/birth mortality etc. She said yes it was worth it to contain Saddam. (she later clarified what she meant because it sounded so bad, but anyway). There were also a number of adults that suffered as well.
The international community really did not like these sanctions because of the toll it took on the Iraqis which is why we had the compromise of Oil for Food. Sanctions that were designed to hurt the regime, but not make the Iraqis suffer. Well, we now are seeing how bad that turned out because Saddam took that money and didn’t help the people, but build palaces as well as what ever other bribes and such he used with the vouchers.
All this time, as I mentioned, Saddam did not comply with the inspectors and restricted their access. Clinton bombed them a couple times because of this as we know. Because Saddam refused to let the inspectors do what they were there to do, to prove he didn’t have any weapons program.
Now we jump to 9/11. No, Iraq didn’t have a part in it, but it changed how we viewed the world.
Let’s look at what Saddam has done: He gassed the Iranians, he gassed the Kurds, he ruled his country with an iron fist, he sent SCUDs over during the 1st Gulf war to Israel to agitate them – he doesn’t hold any punches against his enemies.
He also sent monitary support for Palastinian suicide bombers and encouraged them, he met with Al-Qaeda operatives. No there was no deal made because they couldn’t agree. However, it showed that he was quite willing to do business with international terrorism, and he did do business with them against Israel. The desire was evident and who is to say they wouldn’t come to an agreement if he was given more time.
Well, by 2002 it was becoming very evident that the sanctions and inspections were greatly losing support in the world and it really was not much longer before they were going to be lifted. The intelligence stated that he still had WMD’s and that his programs were basically intact, ready to start up again. Hans Blix himself stated after he was pulled out that he would not have been surprised to have found the WMD’s, so this is not made up intelligence. What it was, was Saddam bluffing because of the Iranian threat. He made it seem that he still had them, and as we did discover he was planning to restart his chemical/biological programs once the inspections/sanctions were lifted. Which was one of the reasons we went to war btw.
All this while Saddam makes threats that he will destroy the US. Yes, they were only threats, but looking at his above actions and considering what happened with 9/11, is that something we could ignore?
Bush had to make a post 9/11 decision. Intelligence said he had WMD’s, he has worked with and has the desire to work more with terrorists, he has used WMD’s against his enemies, and he is threatening us. The sanctions are just about to be lifted and once that happend, there would be nothing for us to do. This is why war was our last resort, we had run out of time. The Bush administration was not alone in believing this threat either, in the beginning there was very wide support. They did not fabricate these reasons.
That is why we attacked Iraq – in a nutshell.
Well Michael all the blood, limbs and treasure for this.
Saddam was contained.
Still happy?
@igdaf
They’re slandering her by saying she’s an insane dupe, you moron
Oh yeah, Mike…like this…
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Hazardous Duty; One Woman’s Protest; Schwarzenegger Accusations; Athens Crash Investigation; Near Accident at Norfolk
Aired August 15, 2005 – 19:00 ET
COOPER: You were also quoted as saying, “My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism.” How responsible do you believe Israel is for the amount of terrorism in the world?
SHEEHAN: I didn’t say that.
COOPER: You didn’t say that? OK.
SHEEHAN: I didn’t — I didn’t say — I didn’t say that my son died for Israel. I’ve never said that. I saw somebody wrote that and it wasn’t my words. Those aren’t even words that I would say.
I do believe that the Palestinian issue is a hot issue that needs to be solved and it needs to be more fair and equitable but I never said my son died for Israel.
COOPER: OK, I’m glad I asked you that because, you know, as you know, there’s tons of stuff floating around on the Internet on sites of all political persuasions.
SHEEHAN: I know and that’s not — yes.
COOPER: So, I’m glad we had the opportunity to clear that.
SHEEHAN: Yes, and thank you because those are not my words. Those aren’t — that doesn’t even sound like me saying that.
COOPER: OK. I’m very glad we got that…
SHEEHAN: And I have read it. I have read it. I’m glad you did too.
I never said that she said “My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.” What she actually said was:
” I want him to tell me is `just what was the noble cause Casey died for?’ Was it freedom and democracy? Bullshit! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We’re not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism. There, I used the `I’ word – imperialism, and now I’m going to use another `I’ word – impeachment – because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail.”
Michael-
What part of “I didn’t say that” do you not understand?
SHEEHAN: I didn’t – I didn’t say – I didn’t say that my son died for Israel. I’ve never said that. I saw somebody wrote that and it wasn’t my words. Those aren’t even words that I would say.
@347 – Of course she didn’t say the exact words “My son died for Israel.” The quote in 346, however, is undisputed. You are using a standard liberal tactic: Make up something blatantly false (a quote that isn’t exactly what someone said), prove it wrong, and declare “mission accomplished.”
The quote from 346 is posted on Cindy’s own website…I’m pretty sure she said it.
Michael@348
You’re mixing two things.
She still has never said Casey died for israel, you idiot.
Cindy point 1) “Casey died for oil, to make our friends richer, and for american imperialism”
Cindy point 2) “If you want to stop terrorism, get the US out of Iraq, and Israel out of Palestine”
point 1 has little to do with point 2, ‘cept for the fact that they’re in adjacent sentences…
Okay, Michael…I’ll play along (just this ONCE);
I’m at: http://www.meetwithcindy.org/
Where’s the quote?
@349 – How many times must I say, I never said that she did say that. The actual quote was: “I want him to tell me is `just what was the noble cause Casey died for?’ Was it freedom and democracy? Bullshit! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We’re not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism. There, I used the `I’ word – imperialism, and now I’m going to use another `I’ word – impeachment – because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail.” I suppose you will follow this with another stupid comment about how she never said that her son died for Israel…Why do I even bother?
Michael…Michael…Michael-
Where is the source. Please.
If you’re right, you’re right, but where is the source?
Michael @ 338
2.) Instability in that particular region of Europe sparked WWII. Which as we all know cost over 400,000 lives. So it’s better to nip it in the bud then let it spill over into another raging conflict across the continent.
If you think the loss of life in WWII was on the order of 400,000, you should ask the WEA for your money back.
http://www.wwiimemorial.com/
Check out this link. Again, people like you should get your facts straight about the sacrafices real Americans make before you go displaying your ignorance.
404,000 Americans lost their lives in combat in WWII. President Clinton was on the right side of history to intervene in Kosovo. Rabid Bush supporters constantly find themselves on the wrong side of history and the facts.
Nice try at rewriting history, but as usual, you are dead wrong jsut like the misleader of our country.
ChristmasGhost
I took the bait? Oh, man is that ever funny. What you’re proving is that nipping our national security concerns in the bud is the correct course of action for the Commander-in-Chief.
What Kosvo and Iraq demonstrate is what TRUE leadership in the White House can accomplish when they understand all the options, honestly digest all the intel, and then chose the CORRECT course of MILITARY and political action.
Bush has demonstrated that by lowering our PRE-WAR goals because what he tried to achieve he could NOT accomplish.
RNC speak for failed.
Please, drop the party hack politics and refuse to support this president as he is ruining our military, our treasure and our internationl relationships around the world.
You don’t have to switch parties, just DO THE RIGHT THING. Which in this case doesn’t mean the conservative thing.
@353 404,000 Americans lost their lives in combat in WWII.
You didn’t specify Americans in your original post. Since your original post was talking about instability in Europe, why not use the number of European dead, not American dead?
President Clinton was on the right side of history to intervene in Kosovo. Rabid Bush supporters constantly find themselves on the wrong side of history and the facts.
Whoa, you just won me over. Brilliant argument.
Michael-
I’m waiting.
Ruj,
Go to David Duke or Arianna Huffington’s sites, they quote the same letter. I’m a sure google ca
She said it in a letter she sent to Nightline March 15 2005 after she felt her appearence was poorly protrayed.
“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.”
She can deny it now, but she apparently said it then.
Thats one reason why David Duke loves her so much.
http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=350
@ 355
So when people say over 1800 soldiers died in Iraq are you thinking that includes the Italians, Spaniards, oh and don’t forget the Poles. Don’t forget our friends from Poland.
Or, do you assume we’re talking about Americans?
Thank you, though, for reminding me that when I’m talking with a conservative I can’t speak on an intellectual level and that all aspects need to be explained in great detail or you won’t understand.
I know your kind has limited intellect; just look at the recommended reading list by ChristmasGhost, Dr. Seuss and Bush, My Pet Goat.
What’s your favorite book? Curious George? The main character looks just like Bush, a good little monkey.
OK, now we understand each other: can you say “un-der-stand?”
Uh-huh I knew you could. That’s a big word isn’t it? Do you know what it means, Michael? That’s right! When the adults are talking to you, you know what they mean. Good job.
Do you want some cookies with your milk? It’s almost nappy time. Gather around, we’ll read the president’s favorite book.
@ 355
Now that we’ve cleared the air on your inability to have a cognitive debate I’ll try to make my postings a little clearer for you.
It originally answered ChristmasGhost’s question of why President Clinton took military action in Kosovo. The number of American dead in WWII went over 400,000. The number of Americans killed in action in Kosovo, zero.
Would you like to continue comparing President Clintons war plans and final outcome in Kosovo vs. the Bush’s handling of the War on Terror and his LOWERED EXPECTATIONS?
Has anyone read the report in Crawford regarding the Crosses that were set up in memorial to our fallen soldiers and the Republican yahoo in a pick up truck who ran them over?
That’s all you need to know about the hate-filled, angry right wing in this country.
After over 350 posts, it has become abundently clear to me that the RIGHT WING F…. no, let’s call them what they are, the REPUBLICANS are willing to do anything and everything to protect their president. There was even a radio talk show host, Glenn Beck who called Ms Sheehan a “tragedy pimp”. Someone said “the REPUBLICANS could barbecue puppies on the White House lawn, and get away with it” Well, I for one, am going to make sure that is not true… We will have our day, and take back our Nation.
Is there a “Camp Casey” near Seattle? I will be back in Seattle for the next couple months, and would like to help out in some way…. TIA
359
I think the truck driver was a moron.
@ 363
I agree with you he was a moron and a Bush supporter, too.
OK, Truth Seekers:
Here is the actual, infamous letter that Cindy Sheehan wrote to the Nightline Television program regarding their program broacast on ABC 3/14/05.
Those of you who can read…without filtering the words through your magic internal editor…will notice that there is ONE reference to Israel and NO reference to Palestine. The reference to Israel is contained in the following sentence:
“Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel.”
Ohhh Yessss, the Neo-Conservative PNAC. That sure backs up a statment like “Cindy Sheehan thinks the war in Iraq was for Israel” or whatever other right-wing bullshit I saw when I was looking for this letter. You guys have a REAL PROBLEM. When civilians, that is: normal folks who don’t obsessively comment on blogs in lieu of a real life; find out they are getting spun…THEY DON’T LIKE IT. They like it even less when their daughters, sons, uncles, aunts, mothers, and fathers are getting killed and maimed and the guy they re-elected because he SAID he was trustworthy (meaning: WORTHY of TRUST) won’t level with them about WHY this is happening.
Anyway…chimpy is held hostage at his compound in Crawford by one brave greiving Mom. Who’da thunk it?
P.S. Just like the right to TOTALLY IGNORE the well stated points and concentrate on ONE out of context sentence they can use to mount and inflammatory attack. You jerks won’t read this letter. The truth just gets in the way of your little fantasy world. Shame, shame, shame.
****************************************************************
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Nightline Tonight Mon., March 14, 2005
That was my son’s unit. He was killed on that day 04/04/04. Here is a letter that I wrote to NightLine about the broadcast:
Love
Cindy Sheehan
March 15, 2005
To Whom it May Concern:
Imagine my distress when I turned Night Line on last night and I was confronted with the gory details of my son’s murder in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq on 04/04/04. Imagine, also, my sorrow and rage at the side of the story that you presented to the American public.
I was on the Night Line Townhall Meeting in Washington, DC on 01/27/05. After I spoke (which I think was a fluke), Ted Koppel dismissed me as being “emotional.” First of all, how can I approach this discussion without emotions, MY SON WAS KILLED, AND KILLED FOR LIES? Second of all, that show was not fair and balanced and I think the conclusion “Should we stay” was foregone.
The show last night was also not fair and balanced. To see all the wives being interviewed who had not lost their husbands and to hear what “hard work” it is to be left behind when their husbands are at war. How hard to you think it is to have a child killed in an illegal and immoral war? In this “wonderful” group of families left behind, we had exactly ONE of the wives call us..she is Diane Rose who was my son’s Colonel, Frank Rose’s wife. The last time we heard from Diane was in October and we feel we have been left behind by anyone connected to the 2-5 Cavalry. Is support only given if your loved one stays alive? One wife was quoted as saying that Sundays were the hardest for the families left behind. My son was killed on Palm Sunday last year..how does anybody think Sundays are for my family?
A distraught father who lost his son was shown telling how much his life was so adversely affected. Why wasn’t a mother (like me) who has been an outspoken critic of this war and of the President’s policies interviewed for this piece? Why wasn’t I given a chance to talk about 04/04/04 and the series of lies, mistakes and miscalculations that led to my precious oldest child’s death??
General Chiarelli was quoted as saying that 04/04/04 was a “wake up” call to the 2-5 Cavalry. If he thinks it was a “wake up” call, let me tell you how having 3 Army officers come to my door on 04/04/04 and tell me that my darling son was KIA. I have learned so many details of that day and of my son’s experience in Iraq.
The very first thing that went wrong happened in November at Ft Irwin, California…the 2-5 Cavalry went for desert training. They received open desert warfare training and my son was killed in an urban guerilla attack, which he hadn’t been trained for. Also, he was wearing an inadequate helmet and a Vietnam era flak jacket. Casey was stationed in a very dangerous place, like the General said: FOB War Eagle. I have subsequently learned that the soldiers of the 2-5 Cav who were stationed outside of Baghdad had Kevlar body armor. I have also found out that Casey slept in the back of his Humvee for the last 2 weeks of his life because there wasn’t any room on post for him to have a cot. How tired and overworked was he before he went into that battle on 04/04/04?
In addition, my son was killed after L. Paul Bremer inflamed the Shi’a by taking away their tv station and newspapers. The Abu Ghraib scandal was about to break in America…but it was well known by the Iraqi people that their citizens were being tortured and defiled in the prisons. My son was a sitting duck by the time 04/04/04 rolled around.
The very worst thing of all, is that my son was sent to rescue some fellow soldiers trapped in an ambush in the back of a LMTV..which is basically an open air trailer. It would be the equivalent of driving through Dallas on 11/22/63 in a Convertible. The troops stationed at FOB War Eagle were sent ahead of their tanks and Bradleys!!! They had to go into battle in the back of LMTV’s and non-armored Humvees. This is just proof to me that our troops are as important to their leaders as bullets are. It is a small miracle that only 7 of them were killed in the ambush. Luckily for the rest of the moms, it was dark. After my son’s murder, there was an article in Stars and Stripes that quoted one of Casey’s superior officers as saying. “04 April taught us a lesson. We won’t send soldiers to battle without their armor any more.” How do you think that made me feel? It was like “OOOPS, your dear son was killed. Life happens. Oh well, you live and learn.” The General was also quoted as saying that the insurgency “surprised” them. Why? Has there ever been an invasion/occupation of a sovereign country that hasn’t been resisted? Anyone with half a brain and an even rudimentary understanding of history would know that all occupations are resisted. The Pentagon and the Army brass did not plan adequately for an occupation.
Then Gen. Chiarelli said the thing that upset me the most. He said that the loss of life was terrible, but at least Iraqis had elections on 01/30/05. With the continuuing insurgency and with Iraqis and Americans losing their lives everyday there, how can he be proud of that? I may remind you and the General, that Iraqi elections was not the reason that our President and his Neo-Con war mongers invaded Iraq with our precious human resources. I will give the two reasons given for the invasion here: Saddam had WMD’s and he was an imminent threat to America. Saddam could have WMD’s on our shores within 45 minutes. Condoleeza Rice used fear as a factor when she said: Don’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. Rumsfeld and Colin Powell pointed out to us where the weapons were on a map.
The second reason that America was given before the invasion was that Saddam was the biggest sponsor of world terrorism and he supported Osama Bin Laden! Oh really??? The hijackers were predominantly Saudi Arabian as was Osama (who is still at large, by the way). The theory that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 was disproven by the 9/11 commission’s report. A huge factor in Americans believing all this bull is that our media..the Fourth Estate didn’t do any research and expose the lies for what they were: justifications for invading a country that posed no imminent or long-term threat to America.
One reason that the President DID NOT give for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was so that Iraqis could have elections. As a matter of fact, that was Ayatollah Ali al Sistani’s idea..not Bush’s. If the president in his lying and betraying in the lead up and rush to this insane invasion had told the world that we were going over there to give Iraqi’s elections, would we the people have gone along with the invasion? Would we as compassionate Americans have thought that it would have been worth billions and billions of dollars; hundreds of our amazing children dead; tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children dead: a country lying in ruins? I don’t think so. I certainly didn’t raise my son to be an outstanding citizen of the world to go and die so some people could have ink-stained fingers!!! If anyone reading this has children, would you think it was worth it?? Instead of some Congress leaders showing ink-stained fingers at the SOTU address they should have held up blood soaked hands.
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy…not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn’t changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq…in fact it has gotten worse.
It would be so amazing if your show would put me, or another parent who lost their child on who disagrees with the war and this administration: to have just an entire show..without presenting the false side of the debate. That would take a lot of courage and integrity. I hope your program will exhibit these qualities.
I also think that Mr. Koppel owes me an apology for the rude way I was treated on his show. After I expressed myself about the war being based on lies and that the troops should be brought home immediately because the war was based on lies, I was not thanked for my comments, or my son’s sacrifice. He just said to keep the discussion away from emotions. Then, the wife of a soldier who was killed was allowed to speak and she praised the policies of this deplorable and despicable administration, and she was thanked and praised by the panel.
Also, another aspect that Mr. Koppel refused to acknowledge was when a man walked up to a microphone and asked Richard Perle to explain PNAC..he was rudely ignored.
I am so glad the First Cavalry came home from this senseless and needless war based on the imaginations of Neo-Cons and fought with ignorance and arrogance by the Commander in Chief and the Pentagon. I am thrilled for the mothers whose children didn’t come home under the cover of darkness in flag-draped boxes like my son did. I am sure that some of Casey’s buddies were able to walk off the plane because of his sacrifice. I am just so deeply sorry that my son’s blood had to be their leaders’ lesson in how to occupy a country and fight an insurgency. My son is dead forever and my joy has been robbed from me for the rest of my life.
Your show needs to show both sides of this debate and stop being a propanda tool for this administration. This is my challenge to you from a true patriot who wants the lies exposed.
Love and Peace!!!
Cindy Sheehan
Mother of Hero: Spc Casey Austin Sheehan KIA 04/04/04
Casey’s Peace Page
Co-Founder of Gold Star Families For Peace
http://www.gsfp.org/
Um sorry Ruj, but you goofed…badly
Pay attention here, but the very next line after the one you quoted is the one she denies saying.
“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.
Thanks for validating it though, because you obviously beleived it was the real letter too, like so many others.
I want to hear from Nightline personally…..
And GBS, yes the driver was an idiot. I blogged that fact today, look if you dont beleive me. Its on my name link.
There are idiots on all sides of the political spectrum. he was one of the rights, unless he is just a jerk by nature.
Karl:
It’s not a question if I believe you or not. Like all conservatives on this blog, I believe what you are saying until you prove otherwise.
This person in Texas is a shining example of how angry and unhinged the base of the right wing is becoming. You man may not be at the point of running down crosses, shooting shot guns with the intent of intimidating people exercising their 1st amendment rights, attacking any thing and every thing that is left or left supporting, but many on the right are these days.
I believe, it stems from a the deep belief of what the RNC has been preaching for many years only to come to find out the base of the right has been conned. It’s tough to come to grips with being so blatantly fooled, I’m sure, but the ideals of your party have been long since hi-jacked.
Is your party fiscally responsible?
Is your party creating smaller government?
Is your party enhancing individual rights or truncating them?
Is your party intruding into the personal affairs of ordinary people or keeping out of their personal affairs? (Terri Schiavo)
In short what you’ve come to believe about the Republican party is now obviously not true.
That’s got to be tough to digest, but you’re going to have to answer to your own conscience in the voting booth in Nov ’06.
GBS,
A couple points.
First, I appreciate the cander and consideration. Thanks!
This person in Texas is a shining example of how angry and unhinged the base of the right wing is becoming. You man may not be at the point of running down crosses, shooting shot guns with the intent of intimidating people exercising their 1st amendment rights, attacking any thing and every thing that is left or left supporting, but many on the right are these days.
Tell me, in essence, is he any better then the people in Seattle who vandalized Bush signs in people’s yards or stole their flags? Or the ones who spit on my car because i had a support the troops magnet on it? Not even a bush sign, just a yellow ribbon for my friends fiance who was in Iraq. Or even the ones that stole the magnet?
The big issue is that courtesy and restraint has become an obsolete principle in politics, on both sides. Sure this jackass and his truck make a shining example, but on the other side was that Air Force Col who was videotaped vandalizing cars with Bush stickers. I dont really care who started it, both sides love to do it, and love to point fingers at the other.
And don’t get me wrong, the ones that do are the exception. Most people don’t care to go to that extent.
For your list, I could balance with an equal criticism of the left, which is why I am a stated indepentent moderate.
Neither the left or the right want to solve problems, they want to get in power and make the other guy look bad (to help stay in paower). The average congressman I believe cares more about reelection then he does his constituants. I tried to call my rep once, I never made it past an aid, and that on a veterans matter.
And in 06 and 08, I will likely be faced with two candidates that I cant tell apart except for a few issues, and I will be left trying to decide who to vote against, as I was in 00 and 04.
My son joined the Navy recently and has just been assigned to a submarine. My other son leaves in 3 weeks for the Air Force. I am more proud of both of them than they could ever know. They believe in the pursuit of freedom and what it takes to defend it. Imagine, a 20 and 19 year old showing more maturity than a 48 year old woman from California named Cindy Sheehan. Yes, it is a tragedy that her son was killed in Iraq. However, when he joined the military, he had to have known that a possibility existed that he might be called into some type of conflict. Would she be raising this kind of ruckus if her son died because he choked on a chicken bone? Would she try to ban everyone from eating chicken? She needs to accept the fact that what has happened, she cant change. He knew the risks. God forbid something happen to either of my 2 sons, but they know the risks involved. They signed up for the military during a conflict, to do something for her country. Her son signed up before a conflict. In either case, dying is a reality that we all face, rather we are in the military or crossing the street. We should be proud of what our military has done and what our nation has given us, the freedom to be who we are and say what we feel. My sons are protecting the very freedom that gives her the right to say what she thinks…..Cindy Sheehan, get over it and let go….God Bless America and George W. Bush. Bill Theodore from Keller, TX
Dear Mr. Theodore:
So you say your sons signed up to be ground combat troops in Iraq? As mean and awful and un-Christian as your comments about Mrs. Sheehan are, I cannot wish the same fate upon your family. I pray that your sons come home safely to you.
Karl:
First of all, you are welcome, and second thanks to you for your candor as well. In order for ordinary citizens, like you and me, to be governed in the manner that we want to be, we have to have honest, and at times terse discussions, to arrive at a place called “common ground.” Which, has become all too uncommon these days.
OK, to address your questions:
Vandalism in any form is wrong, that we can agree on. But, like most crimes there are varying degrees of how severe the crime was. From your counter points I think we have a slight disagreement. I believe, that when hundreds of crosses bearing the names of fallen US soldiers and American flags are maliciously run down is far more egregious than defacing a Bush yard placard, or vandalizing cars with Bush stickers. The latter is an attack on the policies of the president and what the owners of the cars stand for politically, the first is an attack on our dead soldiers. What would be the reaction from the right if a Liberal committed the same act? What would Rush, Hannity, Savage, Drudge, Medved, O’Reilly and the gang be saying about the left?
The level of malice running down a memorial to dead US soldiers isn’t on the same level as stealing a yard sign.
Yes, you could come up with a counter list of lefty policies you don’t like, but, what I’m specifically asking is, do you believe that the principles of the Republican party today are what they were in the 80’s and 90’s?
Now this is where we really part company. I don’t believe that both sides want to retain power by making the other guy look bad. The Republican right came to power based on this philosophy: Swift Boat Commanders for Truth comes to mind, along with all the other attacks that we’re Godless people (Justice Sunday) we’re immoral (support gay marriage) etc. etc. etc. Whereas the Democrats will point out policy failures of the right and the right counters by attacking people personally who are against their political ideology (Bill Clinton, Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, John McCain, et al the list is too long to post here)
Now I’m not saying they’re all choir boys, and sadly enough we often have to choose between the lesser of two evils when we are in the voting booth. But at this point in time you look back to 1980 and see how we tried trickle down economics for 12 years and it got us 3 recessions. We went with President Clintons policies and we had unprecedented prosperity across all sections of America. We went back to the Republican way for the last 5 years and look where we are at now.
Honestly which period of time was better for the nation as a whole: A) 1981-1993, B)1993-2001, or C) 2001-present?
I would venture to say a high majority of Americans would pick B.
It’s become painfully obvious that when George Bush opted to open the second front in the War on Terror, Iraq, he didn’t plan very well for all the realistic contingencies that are occurring right now. His father had the foresight to predict what would happen if he decided to take down Baghdad in the ’91 Gulf War.
No matter what, when you want to be the CiC, the buck MUST stop at your desk. Bush cannot hide from the policies that are failing in Iraq. Instead of staying the course, he needs to shift gears and take a new tact.
But a new tact can only come at the consent of the voters. So, well see in 06 & 08 what we, as a nation, will decide.
It’s amazing the lengths to which the satan-worshipers running the White House will go to try to suppress dissent that they truly fear, and it’s sad to see so many Americans being fooled into their twisted, evil service. If Mrs. Sheehan truly were no threat and wrong and not worth mentioning, then this blog wouldn’t be more than 350 entries long.
@ 369
We appreciate your children’s service. But you make a very contradictory point:
“We should be proud of what our military has done and what our nation has given us, the freedom to be who we are and say what we feel. My sons are protecting the very freedom that gives her the right to say what she thinks…..Cindy Sheehan, get over it and let go”
How do you merge these two statements “freedom to. . . say what we feel”, then “Cindy. . .get over it.”
By the very nature of your comment she MUST continue to voice her opinion, and I seriously doubt she’ll ever get over the death of her son. Who went into a firefight with antiquated body armor from the Viet Nam era on a flat bed truck instead of a Bradley fighting vehicle or some other armament.
When Bush commits our troops to war based on flimsy evidence and without proper planning, she has the right and the obligation to change public policy. Furthermore, when Bush decides that a preemptive strike is the correct course of action and picks the “Time and place of our choosing” he should ensure that our troops are well armed, well protected, and in sufficient numbers.
Bottom line, Bush’s policies are not representative of the best America can do.
May God watch over your sons, may they come home whole physically and mentally, may you never have to grieve.
@373 I don’t know who died, pardon the pun, and left you and Cindy as experts on urban warfare, but tracked vehicles are not a good long term solution for traveling on paved urban roads. They are extremely damaging to pavement.
GBS (apologies this is long, but I want to respond in context…)
First of all, you are welcome, and second thanks to you for your candor as well. In order for ordinary citizens, like you and me, to be governed in the manner that we want to be, we have to have honest, and at times terse discussions, to arrive at a place called “common ground.” Which, has become all too uncommon these days.
The sentiment is mutual
Vandalism in any form is wrong, that we can agree on. But, like most crimes there are varying degrees of how severe the crime was. From your counter points I think we have a slight disagreement. I believe, that when hundreds of crosses bearing the names of fallen US soldiers and American flags are maliciously run down is far more egregious than defacing a Bush yard placard, or vandalizing cars with Bush stickers. The latter is an attack on the policies of the president and what the owners of the cars stand for politically, the first is an attack on our dead soldiers.
We agree on the vandalism. I also agree that the running over of the crosses was in extremely poor taste, and disrespectful, but with a caveat…
I don’t like to overuse my vet status, but as one, I take flag desecration and desecratoin of military memorials very personal, so nothing about this I take lightly. Having said that, The idiot in the truck wasn’t protesting the dead, he was protesting the protesters. His target was the people who mande the monument. Mis method was improper and deplorable and deserves scorn. His misguided efforts to protest Cindy resulted in pain to a lot of people with sincere beliefs.
I say that not to excuse him. I say it because it represents the mindset of protest in this culture, where both sides attempt to excuse their actions because of their intent.
Tying this back to the stickers, defacing someones car is attack on them personally because of their position. It is no longer a symbol of disagreement with the administration, it is singling out an ordinary citizen for retribution by destruction of their property because you disagree with them ideologically, and frankly its presumptuous. There are people who want us out of Iraq with Bush Stickers on their car.
What would be the reaction from the right if a Liberal committed the same act? What would Rush, Hannity, Savage, Drudge, Medved, O’Reilly and the gang be saying about the left?
I agree, the righties would scream to the roofs, which is why i didnt address the outrage of the lefties. It is warranted.
The level of malice running down a memorial to dead US soldiers isn’t on the same level as stealing a yard sign.
Again, I doubt that bottom feeding idiot even cared about that aspect of it, he was sending them a message to go home. That lack of thought and consideration is pervasive in american politics.
Yes, you could come up with a counter list of lefty policies you don’t like, but, what I’m specifically asking is, do you believe that the principles of the Republican party today are what they were in the 80’s and 90’s?
This is not an evasion, but frankly I dont think either party represents what they used to. My disaffection with both sides is why I refuse to align with either. But historically both parties are not who they were, in my opinion.
Now this is where we really part company. I don’t believe that both sides want to retain power by making the other guy look bad.
Frankly that comment was short on my end. I beleive both parties will do anything necessary to gain and hold power.
The Republican right came to power based on this philosophy: Swift Boat Commanders for Truth comes to mind, along with all the other attacks that we’re Godless people (Justice Sunday) we’re immoral (support gay marriage) etc. etc. etc. Whereas the Democrats will point out policy failures of the right and the right counters by attacking people personally who are against their political ideology (Bill Clinton, Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, John McCain, et al the list is too long to post here)
Well, thats a narrow view, cylcle that back to Reaggon and Nixon beofre you lock it down.
But your idea has some merit. Along the 90’s the republicans sensed a resurgence in morality as an issue, and they seized it. And the left has seized its own attack philosophy. Come on, can you tell me that Moveon’s hitlaer comparisons, Michael Moore’s movies that misrepresent facts and Al Franken’s earlier political commentary disguised as satire were really that much better?
The leftists counter the morality attacks by marginalizing the right. Kerry was attacked for Vietname by the swifties, but suddenly Bush is a rich draft dodger. In fact the Rich accusation cracks me up the most since 9 out of 10 of ther welathiests congressmen are democrats.
Labelizing and marginalizing on both sides is the rule of the day now, not actual ideas and issues. And I am being fair, the right is ever as guilty of spin tactics and smear campaigns, but the left is just as effective.
Now I’m not saying they’re all choir boys, and sadly enough we often have to choose between the lesser of two evils when we are in the voting booth.
God, aint that the truth.
But at this point in time you look back to 1980 and see how we tried trickle down economics for 12 years and it got us 3 recessions. We went with President Clintons policies and we had unprecedented prosperity across all sections of America. We went back to the Republican way for the last 5 years and look where we are at now.
Well, first, CLinton also had a repbulican controlled congress to assist him in his successes, I think where as leftists see that as a leftists triumph, it was really one of the fewe times both sides did something right together. As we can see, unless congress coopoerates, the president can only do so much.
As far as now, unemployment is down, job creatoins are up and the economy is up. I can’t say i am worse off but thats me. its far too complex for a simple answer.
Honestly which period of time was better for the nation as a whole: A) 1981-1993, B)1993-2001, or C) 2001-present?
I would venture to say a high majority of Americans would pick B.
Well the periods also encompas a different international environment, so the question is hard to answer objectively, but for me, it was A.
It’s become painfully obvious that when George Bush opted to open the second front in the War on Terror, Iraq, he didn’t plan very well for all the realistic contingencies that are occurring right now. His father had the foresight to predict what would happen if he decided to take down Baghdad in the ‘91 Gulf War.
Two things. 1) I agree that the planners of the war in Iraq did not foresee the level of response they have now. I also agree that oepnign that front was premature, and I have said sao before. But lets remember Bush is not a military planner, he is a commander. The decisions were his, based on the plans he was given. The planners need to take responsibility. If he was presented, as it appears he was, with a slam dunk proposal, I am not surprised he took it. Responsibility is still his, but i am trying to see where the process failed.
Second, his father left Iraq alone for a different reason, one of appeasement to the coalition. We said our aim was to get him out of Kuwait. Once he was out, the momentum was gone to roll into Baghdad. To do so would have seemed vindictive, and he chose against it. I thought he was wrong then (i was active duty then) and I still do.
But he turned the matter to the UN, and frankly I still see the fiasco that was and get mad.
In my opinion, the war in Iraq bears a direct connection to the fact that the UN kissed his ass for 12 years.
No matter what, when you want to be the CiC, the buck MUST stop at your desk. Bush cannot hide from the policies that are failing in Iraq. Instead of staying the course, he needs to shift gears and take a new tact.
Talking to people that have been there, the failures we see are only a small part of the picture.
We rarely see the good that has happened.
But a new tact can only come at the consent of the voters. So, well see in 06 & 08 what we, as a nation, will decide.
Yep, no way he gets my vote in 08. Oh wait, he can’t run again…:)
Seriously though, I will choose who to vote for then, based not on what Bush did, but on the charactor and ideas of the nominees.
And frankly I have no hope of having 1 viable candidate to pick from, let alone two.
I think the attitude of the politicians at this time is leading us to select a nominee for the wrong qualities.
Question for you, who is your ideal choice from both parties to run, and be fair. I want to know who you see as the best from either side, and that includes any republican you can dream of that might actually be liveable if elected.
Let me know if you want to continue this offline, for the benefit of the other readers.
Is there a “Camp Casey” near Seattle?
I’m guessing they aren’t talking about the turtle farm. Inside joke.
God….how I miss spell check, that post was awful.
@ 374
Are you kidding me? You’re more worried about tearing up roads in a country that has been a war zone for 2 1/2 years vs. the safety of our troops?
It’s that kind of screwed up thinking from the right why we are in such a mess right now. If it was your life on the line, you’d want the Bradley or some other form of armor.
But your kind are Chickenhawks – all behind getting into war as long as someone else has to do the fighting.
You are the epitome of a PUSSY!
Karl:
You’ve made great points I disagree with some and will find commoon ground on the others with you, and a few others are not a critical like which was the best period of time in recent history.
I will say, however, that in my opinion, there is more to the story regarding military planning for the invasion and post invasion operations. I have spent time in the military, too, 10 years. I’ve had the distinct pleasure of directly serving with, and for, some of very great leaders while I was in the Navy. I know how damned smart our military leaders are. Don’t let anyone kid you, they are students of history, current events, cultures, and obsessed with details. So I don’t quite buy the story that some of the brightest mind in the world, in my opinion, couldn’t forsee the problems we are encountering today. I strongly feel that at some level of civilian leadership, Rumsfeld to Bush, the plans wer pared back.
Bush Sr. had to make a tough decsion at the end of the 1st Gulf War, finish off the Republican Guard that was just inside of Iraq in full retreat, or go with “Mission Accomplished.” (sorry for the jab). He choose correctly. That was the exit strategy, and, to be quite honest, the retreating Iraqis were getting slaughtered in every sense of the word. But, Sr. also knew that occupying Iraq would be an incredibly difficult mission and not worth the price. In a nutshell, he understood the reality on the ground.
From W’s statements, he honestly believed that once liberated, the Iraqi’s would be fully cooperative. That was his ultimate miscalculatin be cause he didn’t take the time to understand his enemy: Sun Tzo and Hannibal are teachers of war that our military studies carefully, Bush apparentoy skipped those reads.
To answer your queston. I like McCain. I don’t always agree with his politics, but I respect him tremendously and not just for his well documented service. But I think he’s politically damaged for not being able to get the nomination in the past. I think Jeb has a shot at the WH in ’08 depending on what W does from here on out. Frist is interested, but I don’t think he’s got a legtitimate chance.
For the Dems, I like either Gore or Kerry. I think Gore’s going to try to pull a Nixon in ’08.
Take it eays, and we can talk off line in the future.
@378 If the legitimate Iraqi government tells us we can’t drive tracked vehicles in the middle of Baghdad because they don’t want to repave the roads once a week, then we can’t do it.
If it was your life on the line, you’d want the Bradley or some other form of armor.
As a Gulf War I vet, I would prefer the Abrams myself. But I don’t always get what I want.
@ 380
So what you are saying is that the amount of money it would take to repave the roads are not worth the life of even 1 US soldier?
And yet, you seem to have to no problem with the Bush administration losing track of $8.8 billion dollars in Iraq and Haliburton is making millions in war profiterring.
Nice to see that the Bush administration is taking its orders from the interim Iraqi government regading how America will deploy its military assets during a time of war.
This is one of the many reasons why Bush is a failed CiC. He will allow brave US soldiers to risk their lives and die so Baghdad doesn’t have to repave roads.
If the “cause” is so NOBLE then why doesn’t he send his daughters to Baghdad to perform the exact same missions that Casey Sheehan died for? I’ll tell you why; too busy doing what daddy did during the Viet Nam war: smokin’, cokin’, drinkin’ and too busy to even get a medical exam to keep his flight status.
The real reason is, he doesn’t believe the death of his own childeren are worth the price. That’s why!
So what you are saying is that the amount of money it would take to repave the roads are not worth the life of even 1 US soldier?
It doesn’t matter how much it costs. If the Iraqi government tells us not to do it, and we decide to do it anyway, it would be counter to our goal of establishing self-government in Iraq. If the legitimately elected government of Iraq tells us to leave completely, we would do that too. But they haven’t. We could just nuke Baghdad and guess what, no more terrorist attacks (in Baghdad at least), but that would be counter to our goals.
Michael, you are truly pathetic.
You’re OK with Bush yielding our military’s best interest to preserve our troops lives vs. the Iraqi interim governmnet’s best interest in preserving their roads?
I need to have Goldy review this thread and repost your comments.
So you are saying that the best way to get it over with and our troops out of harms way is to force a showdown between Bush and the current Iraqi administration over roads? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.
Refusing to cooperate with the current Iraqi government will cost more lives, not less. I know that is what you want because that would make Bush look bad, but you should hide your intentions a little bit better.