BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Cryptic (again)
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 02:54 PM

Some may ask for "Source(s)" All the above were facts published in the nations newspapers. Some may have read and ignored due to the information not being what they wanted to hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: TIA
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 05:29 PM

"What is the noble cause for which our soldiers (and civilians) have died and continue to die?"

Cindy Sheehan, Azizi (and many others) still deserve an answer. From the speeches Bush has made in the last three days, the answer seems to be...

"The noble cause is the previous death of other soldiers."

I'm not just being a smart ass. This really seems to be the answer that Bush refuses to provide directly.

Rather circular, n'est ce pas?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 06:01 PM

haven't you read where the debt has now dropped $100 billion

No, I haven't. But I have read where the debt is now at the highest it has ever been in the history of the United States.

http://www.uncle-scam.com/Natl-Debt/nd-main.html

The national debt was dropping a bit during the Clinton administration, but it has been steadily climbing under GW Bush unil it is now the largest debt in the history of this country...

Debt as of September of 2000:

$5,674,178,209,886,86

Current debt:

$7,887,617,581,195.58


There was a slight drop between the months of March and April of 2005...

March:

$7,776,939,047,670.14

April:

$7,764,537,337,364.14


...but by May of 2005, it was climbing again and has been ever since, and is now the highest it's ever been.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:20 PM

BTW, if you look at the chart on that page, you can see that the national debt increased the fastest and the most (by a very large margin) under Presidents Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush, than any other presidents since before 1955.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:33 PM

"So long as I'm the president we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism,"     (G W Bush, Aug 24/05)

Maybe he learned something at cheerleader practice?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:43 PM

The fact that something hasn't happened doesn't necessarily mean it's been "contained", it just means it hasn't happened so far. Up until a few weeks ago it would have been possible for someone to make those kind of remarks about London.

I suppose it can be argued that the post 911 manouevrings of the administration managed to provide "Al Qaida" with so many other targets that it might have diverted attention onto them and away from the USA. Thanks a million.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 10:35 PM

Cryptic--

Did you really mean to set up a series of straw men for us to knock down?

We believe in actual sources, not an absurdly general "nation's newspapers". If you can't cite a specific source for every allegation you make, you'll find your views will be heavily discounted, or even ignored.

Carol has addressed your specious allegations regarding the debt.

I'll just take one of your alleged "Policy" points:    ANWR--the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not just a collection of letters or perhaps a Turkish potholder, as you might think.

There have been rather lengthy threads on ANWR on Mudcat. If you are proposing ANWR as any kind of a solution to US energy needs --(funny you ignored the obvious need for higher fuel economy standards)--you are sadly deluded. Probably should stop relying on Fox News.

According to the Wall St. Journal 17 March 2005, estimates of oil in the Refuge range from 6 to 16 billion barrels. Even at the high end this will not solve our energy problem. It will take about 10 years for Refuge oil to come fully onstream. Also, according to MSNBC 18 Mar 2005, the US Energy Information Agency, a branch of DOE, hence an upstanding member of the Bushite regime, predicts that in 2020 (when Refuge oil is onstream) 62% of the oil needed by the US will be imported, and that if the HIGH END (my emphasis) estimates of oil from the Refuge are accurate, Refuge oil could reduce that foreign oil dependence to 60%.

That's right, a 2% reduction. That's it. And that's the high end.

For this you want to violate a pristine wilderness. You claim to not be a Bushite. Sounds classic Bushite to me.

And what's more, it's just subterfuge to him anyway--he has included in his 2007 budget money from oil leasing in the Refuge-- source, again the Wall St. Journal. He is doing this in a desperate attempt to preserve his entire tax cut travesty, which you should know, disproportionately benefits the rich.


In general, as I said, you should start consulting other info sources than Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

I don't have time to knock down your other straw men now.

And, yet again, as others have pointed out, you have conveniently forgotten to answer Azizi's question---the crux of the entire thread: What is the noble cause soldiers and others are dying for in Iraq?

We're still patiently waiting for your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 11:45 PM

Ms Sheehan has returned to the Crawford acre. She has made a plain statement "It is not about me. It is about the immorality of this war."

I think she is doing well and deserves praise for standing up to really towering odds.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 01:03 AM

So is this the noble cause for the Iraqi war-to "take out" rulers of oil rich nations that don't agree with us?

I know that there is another thread about Televangelist & Bush buddy Pat Robinson's public call to assasinate the President of Venezuela. But maybe that thread has the answer to the question that I raised in the beginning of this thread. This is the same question that Cindy Sheehan and others are asking Bush to answer: What is the noble cause that has resulted in the deaths of Americans, Iraqis, and others?

Pat Robinson said that we should take out President Chavez of Venesuela [a nation which just so happens to be the world's 5th largest producer of oil].

See these excerpts from an online article about Robinson's comments:

"On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club," Robertson had said: "said "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

He continued: "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."


On Wednesday, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."

He later issued the apology on his Web site".

-snip-

Source: Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remarks
By Associated Press; http://www.comcast.net/news

Gee, do you think Pat Robinson really means his apology?

But you know on second thought, that can't be the reason why we are still in Iraq, for though we didn't "take out" Saddam Hussein, he was captured [though not by us].

So why are we still there??? Things are going from worse to worser there and we can't even use the excuse of helping the Iraqis construct a democracy-not with that constitution the Shia and Kurds want to push through.

Every thing has gone FUBAR and Bush is still on vacation.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 07:53 AM

Was not the original intent of this thread to see what the President had to say with regard to the war, not the posters?
Why badger a poster or two for an answer when you were waiting for the answer to come from the top?
Not that many here would listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 09:16 AM

Unless he's Garg, I don't think the President follows the threads.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 09:23 AM

"What is the noble cause for which our soldiers (and civilians) have died and continue to die?"

There is a difference between a question not answered and a question not answered to one's satisfaction. Though I am of the opinion that the war is a misguided (and will prove to be an ineffective) effort, the question, as asked, has been answered multiple times. Ms Sheehan just happens to not like the answer given.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 10:11 AM

I disagree, John. While a number of noble explanations have been mentioned by Bush at one or another time, they are clearly specious. The ones mentioned from before the war were false, and the current ones were obviously not themotivation at the time of starting the war unilaterally, since he has only come up with them relatively recently. So they are rationalizations in retrospect, not the genuine Casus Nobelli.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 10:28 AM

clearly specious to you and Ms. Sheehan, but clearly not to all. Not specious to perhaps even a majority of Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 10:38 AM

Azizi,

Try to get your facts straight.

"for though we didn't "take out" Saddam Hussein, he was captured [though not by us]."


The US DID capture Saddam, and then turned him over to the Iraqi government for trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 10:49 AM

John H, what is/em> the noble casue for which all these people have died and are dying?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 10:58 AM

I stand corrected. I was making reference to the tip-off, but Americans did indeed capture Saddam Hussein hiding in a squalor hidey hole.

Excerpt from online BBC news:
"Saddam Hussein was captured after a tip-off led American troops to a small, underground hole concealed next to farm buildings near the former leader's hometown of Tikrit.

Soldiers were seconds away from throwing a hand grenade into the hole, when Saddam Hussein emerged and surrendered, Colonel James Hickey who led the raid said.

The critical piece of information, obtained at 1050 local time on Saturday, came from an individual who had been arrested the previous day in Baghdad, he said...

Saddam Hussein was pulled out at 2036, "disoriented" and "bewildered", according to Major General Ray Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division.

He put up no resistance although armed with a pistol.

"My name is Saddam Hussein. I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate," he told the US troops in English, according to Major Bryan Reed, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division.

"Regards from President Bush," US special forces replied, Major Reed recounted."

Source: BBCNews Saddam's capture


-snip-

So that is that.

Beardedbruce, since WE captured Saddam Hussein, and he is awaiting trail by the "Iraqi government", that takes that reason for going to war off the table, right?

So why are we still there, and why are people still being killed on both sides?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 11:20 AM

When the insurgents STOP killing people ( mostly civilians) , perhaps the Iraqi government will ask us to leave, and we will. Under International law, we are obligated to remain until then- it is illegal to just pull out when the civilian governement is not capable of maintaining order.

As for why, why are you not asking the insurgents? The US is acting as a police force- NOT what it should be doing, but what it HAS to do as long as the Iraqis do not have a functioning police force of their own. Are you saying that US troops should NOT defend themselves, when attacked?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 12:00 PM

So, like the Spartans of ancient Hellas, who forced reconciliation on the citizens of Athens, we are providing the force necessary to stop civil war?

Wow -- that's eben ANOTHER explanation.

First, it was nukes aimed at America. Then it was other weapons of mass destruction. Then it was to overthrow an oppressive dictator who wrought havoc onhis citizens .... that one, at least, was based in fact. THEN, not before, it was to establish a democracy in Iraq, a move which has been violently contested by the insurgents ever since. Mostly because they are fueled by the Persians OR because they are rperesentative of the now disempowered minority rulers under Sadaam who are fighting to get some power back.

What is specious, John, is that the rationales were provided long after the fact of going to war, and the decision to go to war was taken long before the FIRST jsutifications were tendered, according to numerous reports includign the Downing Street memos. That means it was not a casus belli but an explanation post facto. SURE it is emoptionally satisying to think of building democracy in Iraq. Of that there is no doubt. It remains to be seen whether forcing a constitutional democracy at gunpoint can work or not. But Bush never thought these things through in the fuirst instance, and he has never spoken truthfully about them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 12:34 PM

No, Amos, to a good number of Americans it has never been anything but an attempt to fight international Islamic terrorism.

You don't think it is working. Many don't think it is working. We will continue to argue about whether it is working. We will continue to run for office and vote for politicians based on whether it is working.

You are positive that your reasons for believing as you do are unimpeachable. As strongly as you feel as you do, there are many on the other side who see it differently. It is, politically speaking, no different than any other issue over which intelligent Americans disagree and vote accordingly.

And even if "your side" wins in future elections, those who have died in the prosecution of this action, full-well believing it is a good chance to bring a better resolution to the Middle East, did so in the good faith that it was a noble cause.

Just as an aside -- to be perfectly clear, Ms Sheehan does not think that the action in Afganistan is any different than the action in Iraq - a distinction that many on the left are willing to claim (including some who post here). It is not some splitting hairs over whether the Afghan action WAS a part of the war on terror, but the action in Iraq was not. When asked, Ms Sheehan said that the action in Aghanistan is no different than the war in Iraq as far as the wasting of American lives like her son's.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 12:49 PM

The unfortunate fact is that Ms. Sheehan is a pretty poor spokesperson for those who oppose the President's policies. She has been given a lot of sympathy and deference due to the loss of her son (and due to the fact that she was accessible to reporters looking to add a little color to a slow news cycle). But when she ventured beyond a sympathetic role into one where she articulates policy differences and debates strategy, she quickly found herself out of her depth. My fear, actually, is that the backlash against Ms. Sheehan's fairly bizarre take on world events will be more potent, and of more consequence, than the sympathy she initially inspired. Her supporters would be better advised to address the tough questions honestly, rather than continue to milk this particular publicity stunt.

John Hardly is right; the reasons we are in Iraq have been articulated many times. Yes, the emphasis of one argument over another has changed over time; and yes, the WMD rationale was mostly (although not entirely) misguided. But the reasons have been articulated. There are plenty of faults that can be found with the administration's pursuit and conduct of the war, but continuing to ask this particular rhetorical question wears a little thin after a while. It's grandstanding, not reasoned debate about a set of tough issues. We can do better than that, can't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 12:51 PM

Amos,

I was answering the question "So why are we still there, and why are people still being killed on both sides? "

As for the reasons we are there, I have stated my opinions, and heard yours. I had thought we agreed to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 12:58 PM

as for the reasons that we originally went there...


Sorry about that. I am not sure that the "STILL" was sufficient to differentiate this.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 01:02 PM

It seems the answer we are getting is "you have already gotten your answer." I think I got lost somewhere. Could someone please provide the answer in a few simple sentences? Thanks very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 01:40 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri022603.asp

Soon, however, it became clear that the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"

But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine," and "Indict Bush and Sharon."

.....

"Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" Nasser the poet demanded.

The Iraqis would had much to tell the "antiwar" marchers, had they had a chance to speak. Fadel Sultani, president of the National Association of Iraqi authors, would have told the marchers that their action would encourage Saddam to intensify his repression.

"I had a few questions for the marchers," Sultani said. "Did they not realize that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the antiwar marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?"

Sultani could have told the peaceniks how Saddam's henchmen killed dissident poets and writers by pushing page after page of forbidden books down their throats until they choked.

Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground.

"The death and destruction caused by Saddam in our land is the worst since Nebuchadnezzar," he said. "These prosperous, peaceful, and fat Europeans are marching in support of evil incarnate." He said that, watching the march, he felt Nazism was "alive and well and flexing its muscles in Hyde Park."

.......

Who were these people who felt such hatred of their democratic governments and such intense self-loathing?

There were the usual suspects: the remnants of the Left, from Stalinists and Trotskyites to caviar socialists. There were the pro-abortionists, the anti-GM food crowd, the anti-capital-punishment militants, the black-rights gurus, the anti-Semites, the "burn Israel" lobby, the "Bush-didn't-win-Florida" zealots, the unilateral disarmers, the anti-Hollywood "cultural exception" merchants, and the guilt-ridden postmodernist "everything is equal to everything else" philosophers.

But the bulk of the crowd consisted of fellow travelers, those innocent citizens who, prompted by idealism or boredom, are always prepared to play the role of "useful idiots," as Lenin used to call them.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 01:45 PM

http://www.rainbowpush.org/FMPro?-db=rpodata.fp5&-format=rainbowpush%2Fdata%2Fdetailcommentary.htm&-lay=main&-sortfield=date&-so

"But if you turn over your weapons, your international support will expand, not decrease. At the UN Security Council, the vast majority will applaud your action and vote against any war. Across the third world, leaders like Nelson Mandela will raise their voices even more loudly in opposition. Inside the United States, even Republican skeptics about war would redouble their efforts. The president has pledged not to attack if you turn the weapons over. It would be most difficult for the administration to launch what could be a terribly costly venture were you to act.

Some say you would be too worried about your own position to take such a bold step, but after dealing with you twelve years ago, I don't believe this is your overwhelming concern. You may well worry about your neighbors – but even the most hostile of your neighbors sees no future in war or attacking Iraq. A war that would destabilize the region and polarize the world and perhaps usher in World War III is too great a price to pay. There must be another way. I appeal to you today to take the air out of the balloon of war. Your future, and the world's future security is in less weapons, not more. Yes, North Korea's arsenal appears to be deterring a US attack, but this is not true of yours. Your weaponry is dangerous enough to rouse concern, but not sufficiently potent to deter attack. For example, the CIA has warned that you are unlikely to turn over destructive weapons to al Qaeda terrorists unless we launch an attack against you. But this warning has done nothing to slow to the buildup to war. Your weapons, I repeat, do not protect you; they endanger you.

War will have devastating effects. This time, the attack will be against Baghdad, a city of millions. The greater the resistance, the greater the destruction; the greater the number of casualties, both civilian and military, and the greater the loss to your people. As you know, an invasion will likely spark civil discord in its aftermath - with the Shiites and the Kurds moving for power or independence. Iraq itself may cease to exist as we know it. There is neither honor nor martyrdom in bringing down this destruction.

This can be avoided only if you act now. Once more the fate of your country lies in your hands. I beseech you to act now, boldly: destroy your weapons to avoid a catastrophic war. "


I have to stand corrected- there were a few, faint voices that Saddam should comply with the UN resolutions, and his obligations under the cease-fire. But, please note WHOSE HANDS the fate of Iraq is in- and how the protests gave the indication that he did not need to comply.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 01:58 PM

There are, and always were, multiple reasons we went into Iraq. The most prominent reason advanced before the war was that Iraq apparently had and/or was seeking to acquire WMD, in violation of the 1991 cease-fire and UN resolutions. This was based on intelligence that has since proven to be faulty, and has been alleged to have been fabricated. But it was always the case that we didn't know as much as we wanted to because Iraq was not allowing the inspections process to go forward unfettered. The fact is that none of us knew for sure what the answer was prior to the war; we had to make educated guesses, and some guessed right, while others guessed wrong. Those who guessed right now claim that the "knew" the answer, but they didn't. Had Iraq allowed the inspections to go forward as they had agreed to do, we all would have had better information.

In addition, Saddam was seen as a threat generally, and there were concerns about specific overtures that he was thought to have made towards other unsavory characters and regimes that could have had unfortunate consequences. There was a risk of acting on this less-then-perfect intelligence; there was also a risk of not acting on it. Given our post-9/11 mindset, the risks of inaction weighed heavily in the decision process.

There were other reasons that were articulated both before and after the war. Saddam's regime had shown overt hostility toward its neighbors, particularly those with large oil reserves of their own. And he was brutal to his own people, particularly those from non-Sunni groups (Shiites, Kurds). He had repeatedly targeted and fired upon the US and British forces that were enforcing the no-fly zones that were part of the 1991 armistice (that alone was sufficient to warrant some level of military response). The economic sanctions regime was proving to be a failure, and was only harming the innocent. Iraq was an economic basket case, and a hostile menace, in a strategically important part of the world. It was thought -- naively, perhaps -- that if we could eliminate this undesirable and dangerous regime and promote a democratic government in its place, there would be great benefits to the region and the world.

All of these were factors in the decision process, and all were articulated prior to the commencement of hostilities, although it must be admitted that the WMD argument was emphasized most heavily; in fact, it was oversold in a serious way. But those who claim that they hadn't heard these other arguments before the shooting started must not have been listening very hard.

None of this should be taken as a defense of the specific plan the US and Britain followed, which has had pretty dismal results, and for which our leaders should be held accountable. But if we want to have an intelligent discussion about all this, and decide how best to deal with the mess we now have, we need to separate the rationale for going into Iraq from the plan we followed when we did so.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 02:05 PM

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/0813res.htm

http://www.un.int/usa/03iraqltr0320.htm


http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 02:38 PM

Let's see if I know how it developed. Here in truncated form is an overview:

9/11 happened. In due time we were informed that the perpetrators were mostly from Saudi Arabia (15 out of 19). They were, we were told, formed and financed by one Osama bin Laden (the same guy that the outgoing administration had warned the incoming Bush administration about) who was holding forth in Afghanistan and hidden and supported by the Taliban there.

So we went to war against Afghanistan. We exerted enough force to disband the Taliban for a time; we looked for bin Laden and didn't find him, although once we were pretty sure we had him cornered. At that point, US forces withdrew and sent in the Afghan forces. When they got into the stronghold, they didn't find bin Laden.

At this point, instead of rebuilding Afghanistan and helping it set up a sustainable economy and political government, we turned our attention elsewhere. Oh, we kept US military there - in greatly reduced numbers (we needed them in a different place) - who are still looking for bin Laden...

We, as a nation, had bigger fish to fry. From documents that have emerged, it is beyond doubt that the Bush administration was determined that during his presidency he would invade Iraq and topple Saddam. (We need only look at the Projects paper, signed by many of the same people who are currently in the administration for that proof, proof reinforced by the Downing Street memo.)

As the rationale for invasion, we were told numerous things. One: that Saddam, if he didn't yet have the capability of nuclear arms, was actively seeking such ("We don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud"; Two: that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons already (And "we know where they are") that he would not be reluctant to use; Three: That the Iraqi people would view us "as liberators", that we would be "met by flowers in the street"; Four: That although we "have not YET found the WMD, we know they are there"; Five: "Major combat is over"; Six: "The insurgents are disgruntled Saddam supporters who don't want to give up their power and who hate freedom"; Seven: "Iraq has become the staging ground of terrorism; "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them at home." Eight: "The US would be weakened if we pulled out our troops now."; Nine: "American soldiers have given their lives in a noble cause" that we dishonor if we ask What is that noble cause?

Close to 1900 deaths later, we still don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 02:42 PM

Ebbie,

Start in 1990 or so....




One who does not know history is doomed to repeat it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 02:53 PM

I do not believe the morality of this war is a matter of opinion versus opinion. The ineptitude of its conduct from the beginning, as well as the serial fabrication of PR explanations for it have shown it to be lacking a core cause worthy of the name.

The noble cause for which this war is being fought, the best slant that can beput on it, I guess, is two fold:

1. To reform the Middle East away from its traditions of autocracy and oligarchy by establishing a successful democracy in Irag and demonstrate what free Muslims can do for themselves.

2. To reform the economic impact of Iraq by making the United States the primary ally and customer of the new democratic government in regards to oil sales.

And neithe rof these are ends best acheived by invasion , slaughter, bombs and starting a war. THose are despicable means to a notionally positive end; but the end does not and never has justified the means.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 03:10 PM

A,

If the reasons you give were valid, and the only ones, I might agree with you.



However, should you bother to look at my references, and read my postings, I have stated a number of reasons, and only your first one is even touched on. YOU are now defining what I have said- INCORRECTLY.

And there has been a democracy in the Middle East, since 1948. One of the reasons that there is so much arguement here about the region.



"and from Amos...

Decency, courtesy, and a respect for the underlying commonalities will always make for a lively and interesting dialogue amongst those of differing ideas. "


B

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 03:48 PM

LOL, beardedbruce. It's not because it's a democracy that we argue about it. Democracy is good. We argue for different reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 05:01 PM

Go back to 1990? Okay.

The neo-conservatives (read some of the articles here for the general thrust of their political philosophy and their plan for America's place in the world as the only remaining superpower) were very unhappy with George the First when he didn't go all the way into Iraq during the first Gulf War, depose Saddam, and set up a puppet government. Purpose:   not necessarily to get Iraqi oil for ourselves (although that wasn't off the table and we certainly wouldn't be reluctant to siphon off what we needed), but primarily to have our hand on the tap. Whoever controls the spigot has much of the rest of the oil-dependent world (read "China," probably the next country most likely to challenge the sole superpower status of the United States). With the energy situation what it is, the Middle East is one of the world centers of geopolitical power, and whoever is in control there pretty much says what goes.

Several people have reported that within three days of George the Second's inauguration, George's edict was, "Find me an excuse to invade Iraq."

911 was a God-send to the Bush administration. I personally don't think they had anything to do with it (although there are many who do), but there is considerable evidence (assertions by various intelligence agents and agencies) that the Bush administration was fully aware of the possibility, but chose to ignore it.

There is plenty of documentation for all of this. I haven't time to dig it out at the moment—not because it's hard to find, but because there's so damned much of it, and anybody willing to look at it will have no trouble finding it—but if you insist, I will. It makes fascinating reading.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 05:38 PM

and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 05:54 PM

The right doesn't trust the left's sources and comforts itself in the knowledge that the left is merely parroting Michael Moore...

The left doesn't trust the right's sources and comforts itself in the knowledge that the right is merely parroting Rush Limbaugh...

Then all us self-appointed experts (we've read it on the internet after all don't ya know) get on here and call the other on their ignorance and inability to see the obvious.

"Jane, you ignorant slut."

"...and I don't like anybody very much"

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 06:07 PM

LOL John!! Shades of the Kingston Trio in 1960!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 06:11 PM

Bruce:

I had no thought of redefining what you said; merely posting my observations and reflections, for whatever they were worth.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 06:13 PM

Let's forget pure politics for a moment and consider applied sociology.

Earlier this afternoon Fox News aired an anti-war commercial featuring Mrs. Sheehan in close-up, not wearing any make-up, outdoors with her hair blowing. She looked straight into the camera and said passionately something like, "Mr. President, you lied to us. You lied to us about weapons of mass destruction," etc. "What is this glorious cause that my son died for?" Etc.

Right after that, a different commercial. This one featured another lady whose son had been killed in Iraq. But she was nicely made up, sitting on the sofa of her nicely appointed living room, quite composed, speaking at a slight angle to the camera, holding a large, framed color photo of her son on her lap. She explained that her son knew he was fighting for democracy in, told her that he knew the job was dangerous, etc. And she said that if U.S, forces are piulled out, it would be a betrayal of those who have already given their lives, etc.

Each woman, I think, was urging viewers to attend a pro- or anti-war rally in Crawford, Texas, over the weekend.

First, it's interesting that the ad agencies involved set up two different scenes. For the anti-war people, a forceful, outdoors-looking woman, delivering an emotional message straight into the camera. For the pro-war people, a pleasant middle-class home, a far more subdued sales pitch, with the speaker at arm's length or more from the viewer. Obviously the ad writers assume that the opposing sides are more likely to respond to very different "images" of a politically active parent.

Second, there's something distasteful about a "Battle of the Gold Star Mothers." I don't remember anything quite so crass, even during the war in Vietnam.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 08:05 PM

Here's another story about Gold Star families:

"Spc. Joseph "Joey" Hunt, 27, of Sweetwater, and Sgt. Victoir P. Lieurance, 34, of Seymour, were members of the 278th Regimental Combat Team. Two other members of the unit on the same combat patrol were injured Monday afternoon southwest of Samarra when an improvised explosive device exploded near their vehicle, ejecting at least one soldier.

Cindy Sheehan didn't speak for Lieurance family, but does she now?

Andre Lieurance referred to Cindy Sheehan, the California mother of a slain soldier, who recently camped out in front of President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in opposition to the war.

"She didn't speak for me. Now she does," the father told The Knoxville News Sentinel on Tuesday. "I'm with her. I believe we were lied to. (My son) did what he was supposed to. Bush didn't."

Click here for more on this dailykos dairy with comments about the
anti-Sheehan family sees the light

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 08:10 PM

Meanwhile, why is the third ranking Republican Senator trying to distance himself from Bush's Iraqi policies?

"The U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, who is third in the leadership, says one of the reasons people should vote for him is because he is in leadership," Casey said in an interview Thursday. "But he is not asking the tough questions."

Yesterday, Santorum disputed Casey's characterization, saying he had raised concerns about military and diplomatic progress in Iraq with administration officials, spoken publicly about intelligence failings that preceded the 9/11 attacks, and bucked the President in pushing for measures that crack down on Syria and Iran, which have been blamed for aiding insurgents [...]

"I have a very clear track record of being supportive of the policy, but not necessarily all of the tactics," the two-term senator said. "That shows a level of involvement and sophistication that my opponent has not grasped... . I still have concerns about our level of activity with respect to fighting the insurgency, and the number of former Baathists who are put in positions of power in the country and their relationships with Iran. I have expressed those concerns publicly and privately."...

Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's office acknowledged yesterday that it cannot locate public statements of the senator questioning the Iraq war, despite the senator's claim last week that he has publicly expressed his concerns.

But Santorum said that doesn't mean he hasn't made the comments"

More HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 08:11 PM

"...to a good number of Americans it has never been anything but an attempt to fight international Islamic terrorism"

I think you are probably quite right about that, John, and that a good number of Americans are actually under the impression that the previous government in Iraq actually and something to do with international Islamic terrorism, and more especially with the activities klinked with the Al Qaida franchise. However, unpleasant as the Saddam regime was, that was never actually the case, and I don't think anyone with any degree of expertise on these matters would claim that it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 08:40 PM

To the extent that the American public has believed that Iraq was in some way connected to the events on 9/11, that really is a failing on the part of the administration. It could easily have dispelled those ideas, instead of capitalizing on them in its efforts push for war with Iraq.

Re: Santorum... looks like he's positioning himself to push for either war, air strikes, and/or covert operations in Iran and Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 08:52 PM

Al Queda isn't the sum total of Islamic terrorism, MofH. Iraq was finacing terrorism elsewhere -- including, but not limited to paying incentives for suicide bombers.

But hell, you knew that, didn't you? I mean, it's probably in the archives about a jillion times. As it your comment about Iraq not being linked to Al Queda.

Hey, lets save time and number all the arguements!!!

...we'll call that "but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 as "#1L". The "L" designation will be for liberal...

......oh, wait, we have to change that "L" to an "O" for "opposition" because (as I keep forgetting) there is no such thing as "L" (think of the time we will spend in just not having to read one more god damn webster's dictionary definition of "liberal" and "conservative" and going into all lengths of semantic discussion on how there's no such thing as either).

#1N ("N" for "neocon" because, though there is no such thing as a "conservative" *see above discussion about dictionary definitions*) will be that "yes, but Iraq was still involved in terrorism"

#2O will be "No weapons of mass destruction"

#2N will be "All accepted international intelligence had it as high probability of WMDs -- plus Saddam had a history of using them"

#3O will be that Bush mispronounces Nuke-you-lar

#3N will be....


.....I like this.

Hell, maybe with this new shorthand this site will begin to actually load faster again -- imagine going a whole day without the site crashing!

I think I am a genius. ...or a gentile. I know it's a "g" word.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 09:41 PM

an answer in just a few short sentences......?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 10:35 PM

Lets not forget that the crimes which have been committed (including terrorism) are not committed by nations but by a few wealthy individuals fighting for power and profit who are able to manipulate a few young men to do their dirty work. Its the innocent civilians on both sides that suffer. Thats why war is not the answer.

Why are we killing so many Iraqi civilians and why are so many U.S.
soldiers being killed?

You do not liberate people by destroying their homes.

If it is war you desire, there are an endless number of nations that can be invaded. Thats the plan. War is profitable for Bush and Cheney as well as the people they represent. Its as simple as that. It is not profitable for the taxpayers who fund this madness, the soldiers who fight the war or the peoples who have been invaded.

Nobody wins except the corporate warlords.

To try to rationalize war is like trying to rationalize madness. You can't because there is no reason involved, only greed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 11:13 PM

John--

Absolutely right--- you are a g-word: G-U-L-L-I-B-L-E ------ to still believe Bush after he's been misleading the country for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:11 AM

Nicely done, John. Now, would you mind answering the subjects you have addressed in shorthand?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 05:45 AM

psssst. Mick, I gave numbers from both sides of the arguement.   Which ones you want me to answer? Tell you what, we can make "Not reading the post you are answering" be arguement #4O.

Ron Davies, that'n can be #5O (that's the "conservatives are gullible dupes of their own propaganda, but we only follow the truth -- our guys would NEVER lie" argument). But thanks for the sweet sentiment!

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 06:38 AM

I am only here for one reason !!