BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 06:39 AM

Which was the 200th post .

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 12:29 AM

John--No, I wouldn't say "conservatives are gullible dupes of the their own propaganda."--more like Bushites and those sheep who blindly follow them to the slaughter are said gullible dupes. Such people are not conservatives.

As I've said before, Bush is no conservative. Look at the would-be neo-Wilsonian foreign policy, the willingness to have the federal government intrude into schools over states-- (without giving states the funding necessary to meet new requirements), the willingness to have political tests for judges,--- etc, ad nauseam

Bush is a radical reactionary with messianic delusions. This is no conservative in my book. Does it describe you? I wouldn't think so.

And we can make your numbering of arguments #1 in the list of ways to dodge answering the question posed at the start of this thread. #2, of course will be accusing the person who asks such a question of being unpatriotic. Etc.

This however could prove as tiresome a game as yours.

How about actually complying with the eminently reasonable request by Guest TIA 25 Aug 1:02 PM and, for once,, stating the noble cause soldiers and others are dying for in Iraq NOW, not when the Iraq war started. Please, as requested, only a few simple sentences--the blunderbuss approach of linking to voluminous articles doesn't cut it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,NW
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 01:27 AM

here's a way to perhaps get an answer. for you bushite/war defenders/ superpatriots out there, just pretend that you are a recruiter speaking to a young man or woman and then complete this sentence with a truthful statement.
the reason i am asking you to risk your life is_____________ .
please give a brief one or two sentence answer and make sure that the reason is something you yourself would be willing to give your life and the ruination of your family for.
any takers?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 05:56 PM

"Iraq was financing terrorism elsewhere" True enough, and the same has regularly been true of the United States government, and of private organisations within the USA.

But in this context "international terrorism" means something other than local conflicts within which one or both sides make use of terror as a technique, and where they are getting some kind of backing from sympathisers elsewhere. It means the kind of thing that has been happening under the label Al Qaeda, and Saddam's regime was in no way involved in this.

The implication is that that Iraq's cheerleader and financial backer role in regard to what has been happening in Palestine/Israel could justify an attack on Iraq on the grounds of "international terrorism". It is worth bearing in mind that this is a mirror image of the kind of rationale which Al Qaeda has used to justify September 11.

Subject: The anti war protestor protestors
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 07:19 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushantipro.jpg

next: their replacements arrive.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: bobad
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 07:26 PM

Here's another one Donuel.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 07:35 PM

btw

The Cindy Sheehan 30 second TV spot is now airing on CNN in the DC area.
It is by far the most powerful sound bite with the most pathos I have ever heard regarding the Iraq war.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 09:56 PM

Repost from Plutonium Page [dailykos; Sat Aug 27th, 2005 at 12:50:03 PDT]

"Iraq, 9/11... Iraq, 9/11... Iraq, 9/11...

What do you do if you can't answer a question? Fall back to the same old talking points and slip the "Saddam-was-linked-to-the-9/11-attacks" conspiracy theory into press briefings.


Here's Trent Duffy taking during the August 25, 2005 White House press gaggle.


First, we have the update on Bush's busy schedule:


MR. DUFFY: Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. Just a quick update on the President's daily schedule. He had his normal intelligence briefings, and he has been for a bike ride this morning. Past that, I don't have anything to update you on his schedule.

Intelligence briefings? Like the August 2001 briefings about bin Laden, that Bush ignored?

Well, speaking of 9/11, here comes the propaganda. Ask about Cindy Sheehan and the war, and you'll learn all about 9/11 and why we're fighting this war:


Q Does the President feel that over the last couple of days he's made an effective and convincing case that Cindy Sheehan is misguided in her feelings about the war and what should happen to the troops?

MR. DUFFY: Well, first of all, the President has spoken continuously about the way he approaches this war, following September 11th, 2001. On September 14th, 2001, he stood at the National Cathedral and told all of America that this was going to be a very long and difficult war, and that there were going to be some very trying moments; but that because of what happened on 9/11, that we had to view the world in a different way.


Um, what? That's not even remotely close to an answer. It is, however, a great example of the ongoing effort to shore up support for the war by linking it to the War on Terror™ (or whatever the hell they're calling it these days).


Same bull----,* different day."

-snip-

*[my editing]

To read comments on this diary, click HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 12:20 PM

"the cause I'm asking you to risk your life is for is aiding the people of Iraq create a constitutional democratic government and protect it from violent Baathist, fundamentalist, and other reactionary insurgents partly financed by Syrian tyrants and Iranian mullahs. By helping to bring peace to Iraq, you'll be helping to re-stabilize the region and help rebuild a country we now have a heavy moral obligation to. By undermining violent anti-western forces, you'll be helping to push the Palestinian/Israeli peace process forward. Yeah, America can use some Iraqi oil too, and as usual we'll pay them plenty for it.

Nobody's ordering you to do this, because we don't have a draft in the U.S. If you enlist, that's your choice.

"Glorious" cause? Don't make me laugh! There's no glory in war, and every soldier knows it. But if you think democracy is better than one-party tyranny, and worth fighting for and risking your life at a chance of about 1 in 100, here's your chance to contribute your tiny little bit to the cause of progress.

Not interested? That's fine too. Think it over.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 12:34 PM

This proves definitively that an anonymous carping cybersnipe with too few guts to use a name has more brains than the current incumbent.

At least he can form a sentence that answers the question asked.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 12:43 PM

"A country we now have a heavy moral obligation to"--I wonder why.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 01:08 PM

Maybe it's the "Pottery Barn rule". The difference, however, is that in the Pottery Barn there's not usually a civil war going on, and staff and other customers are not trying to kill you.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 01:31 PM

"...a constitutional democratic government and protect it from violent Baathist, fundamentalist, and other reactionary insurgents partly financed by Syrian tyrants and Iranian mullahs."

If you are protecting the Iraqis from all of the above, who is left to form the democratic government?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 02:16 PM

Cindy Sheehan Is real.She is in pain over the loss of her son. George W lied us into this unforgiving multifactional civil war. George W has a lot to answer for.

Peter Woodruff

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 03:15 PM

...aiding the people of Iraq create a constitutional democratic government Not too much prospect of that.

The most likely outcome is going to be a bloody civil war, at which point the occupation forces will be pulled out. And the invasion and occupation will have succeeded in turning ruined Iraq into a seed-bed for international terrorism for decades to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 06:49 PM

Very funny, dianavan. The usual ignorant ploy of argument by ridicule.

Anyone who thinks there's a civil war now, pull the troops out and watch the real war begin. Fact: the insurgents are now mostly attacking Iraqis, not coalition forces. Fact: The biggest threat to Iraqis comes from the insurgents, not the occupation troops. Fact: Attacks on coalition forces have actually declined over the past two or three months, meaning it's getting safer, not more dangerous for the forces. Fact: Call it the "Pottery Barn rule" if you want, the question was reasons to stay now. Fact: The various patriotic Iraqi factions are still working on a constitution. If they haven't given up on their country, why should we? It took the thirteen colonies more than fifteen years to come up with a constitution. There were factions then too, slavery vs. antislavery, North vs. South, agriculture vs. manufacturing, federal vs. antifederal, Christian vs. deist, Tory vs. nationalist. They didn't have a TV miniseries attention-span back then telling them that more than a few months must mean failure.

I didn't vote for Bush, his planning for postwar was completely inadequate, but if there was any reasonable chance that WMDs existed in 2003, he made the right decision to go in. Remember that Iraq was the only country on earth whose position was that it had been at war with America since 1991. No treaty or agreement to end that war was ever signed. Saddam had been shooting regularly at planes in the no-fly zone. Bush had every reason to think that a Saddam-Osama alliance was a real possibility, if not then, then in the future.

Why should America's two sworn enemies NOT join forces? And Saddam was doing everything in his power to make the world believe that he did have the weapons! He didn't fool the inspectors but he did fool the CIA. Well, that's another one against the Bush administration, but being fooled isn't a prosecutable crime, and failing to defend the nation against foreign enemies is.

Please complete the following sentence, people.

"The world would be a safer and better place if Saddam Hussein was still in charge of Iraq four years after 9/11 because______________."

Then do this one.

"The Iraqi people had a much brighter future under Saddam Hussein than under their own imperfectly elected interim government because___________________________."

And one for you committed Marxists.

"When Hussein was in charge the Iraqi people were much closer to societal changes that would improve their lives because____________."

Pacifists, please do this final one. Or if you like, keep playing the blame game, and see how much good that does the Iraqis.   

"The removal of occupation troops now will bring stability to Iraq, protect it from an Iranian-style fundamentalist revolution, and keep innocent Iraqis safe, because_______________________."

"Gutless carping cybersnipe?" Good one. ROTFFFL.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 09:51 PM

The point is, it can be pretty safely predicted that at some point as things get worse the USA will pull out. The sooner they get out the less damage their presence will have achieved.

But the damage already done is pretty devastating. I don't just mean the physical and the human damage, I also mean the political damage, through the wayb teh occupation has created and strengthened the insurgent forces who will fight it out when they go.

An Iranian style fundamentalist revolution? That is by no means the worst outcome to be anticipated.

When you let a bull into a china shop you don't expect that removing it will restore the damage. And it doesn't really help to try to load the blame for that damage on the people who suggested that it wasn't such a good idea putting the bull in there in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 10:19 PM

Leaving now would surely be more likely to precipitate disaster than leaving later. Later there may be a constitution and a competent government, and all but the most fanatical terrorists may have had enough. The U.S. has had troops in South Korea for fifty years, and, frankly, the South Koreans are better off than they would have been otherwise, i.e., under the Kim family. Iraq may be a comparable situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:34 AM

Like our nameless Guest, I have a lot of problems with the way our President has pursued this war; his arrogance in dealing with potential allies leading up to the start of the war, his selective presentation of the facts in making the case for war, and his planning for the war as if the success or failure of the initial assault was all that really had to be considered. But those of you who kept insisting that you had not heard the rationale (or "glorious cause" in your words) for why we are in Iraq have gotten your answer; concise and well-articulated. Anyone prepared to acknowledge that?

Most people who know anything about the situation over there are in agreement that an immediate withdrawal would produce a chaotic situation that would be much worse than the situation now. I agree with our Guest; if you think this is civil war, just wait and see what happens if we pull out now. The success of our present course is not guaranteed by any means, and we need to be giving much more serious consideration to alternative approaches to moving forward from where we are now. But at this point we do have an obligation to continue to try to create the conditions whereby Iraq can have a stable, functioning democracy. Like it or not, that's the reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 11:14 AM

Whistle Stop:

If you bother reading the thread, you wills ee that I acknowledged ANonymous Guestie's articulation int he next post.

That does not mean that it is not a disingenuous articulation, done post-facto. The war was NOT entered into on these primises; they are an after-the-fact rationalization. It is possible that a visionary concept of stabilizing the Mideast with a democracy was stuck in Rove or Wolfowitz' head back in 2001 when they were already motivatin' to go to war, but this is the kind of opportunistic warmongering that has already ruined one democaracy -- that of ancient Athens -- and could easily undermine another -- ours.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 12:31 PM

Amos, there's no need to be unpleasant in your response; yes, I have bothered to read the thread, and have posted to it a number of times. Your response ("This proves definitively that an anonymous carping cybersnipe with too few guts to use a name has more brains than the current incumbent. At least he can form a sentence that answers the question asked.") was phrased in a pretty insulting manner, but you did acknowledge the post, after a fashion.

If you yourself bothered to read the thread, you might have noticed that I provided the antebellum rationale on 8/25 at 1:58 p.m., before our nameless guest provided the current rationale just a few posts back. Doubtless others have provided some of this information in this thread as well, but Azizi was continuing to claim that nobody was giving the answer to his threshold question. Azizi has not acknowledged either my post or our guest's. There has also been a tendency for some to claim that our leaders have not provided their rationale for public scrutiny. In fact, they have; the claim that they have not is a rhetorical device, not supported by the facts.

This does not mean that I agree with all of the rationalizations that have been offered, but at least I have paid enough attention to have heard them, and have enough integrity not to claim otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 12:54 PM

It's always going to be possible to say that wihdrawal is likely to be followed by disastrous events, because it will always be true. But it's going to happen sooner or later, for reasons of domestic American politics, analogous to the domestic American political reasons which led to the invasion in the first place. The worst of all options will be one in which the US holds on to the last minute, pretending it won't happen - and then runs like hell, as the whole place caves in. A Saigon style withdrawal, in other words.

What needs to be done now is to move urgently towards getting together and putting in place a replacement peacekeeping force, made up of units who will not be seen as in any way identified with the invaders - which would mean from countries which were opposed to the invasion at the time, and made their opposition known. Since in fact most countries in the world were opposed to the invasion, that should be possible.

This would be done to coincide with a withdrawal of the Americans and their allies (notably the British). The brief of the new force would be clearly limited to holding the ring while the people of Iraq worked out their own future, without outsiders leaning on them to ensure sweetheart deals for their friends and associates.

It'd be messy, it'd be less than perfect, and all kinds of things would be likely to go wrong. But it'd have better prospects for working out than the present shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 01:07 PM

I'm trying to imagine how we can help the Iraqis have a true democracy instead of a "one-party tyranny" when we are not able to make that happen even here in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 01:12 PM

McGrath, that might not be a bad idea. But we're likely to have trouble coming up with volunteers for that multinational replacement force. Most countries have been reluctant to sign on to a substantial military/peacekeeping role in Iraq, and if anything the way this situation has developed will have only increased their reluctance. Most countries probably suspect that the insurgents will continue attacking, regardless of whose forces are patrolling the streets.

Unfortunately, I think the fabled Pottery Barn rules are still in effect; we broke it, so we own it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 01:14 PM

WS:

The fact that many of the factors you mention were discussed about Hussein's regime is quite true, but I cannot honestly say I heard any of them being discussed as a basis for invasion.

There is no question that his regime was problematical and disgusting among nations in many ways.

I also do not question that in the event Iraq CAN elevate themselves into some sort of representative system without tearing themselvres to pieces, that they will be a better and stronger nation for it.

None of this however changesmy assessment that the decision to invade was uniquely ill-considered as a policy decision, was a flagrant reversal of some of our longest-held policies, and was perhaps the least intelligent solution we could have chosen; I also feel it was born out of an over-zealousness for warfare which ranks Bush's clique in my book as warmongers. His espousal of verbal and military violence show a disregard for the best standards of our country and people. If this is not rampant stupidity on his part, it is rampant lizard-brain bestiality and in either case I think he is unfit for duty.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 01:49 PM

Amos,

You intentionally confuse two distinct issues here: Why we invaded, and why we are still there. I believe no-one has refuted my reasons for us still being there yet, and the reasons for invading have been discussed at length in other threads. Your jumping back to the question NOT asked does not serve to advance reasonable discussion.


B

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 01:53 PM

CarolC, I can not remember the US not having "a one party Tyranny" no matter what group is in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 02:02 PM

Since Bush has been re-elected and since there is no coherent "impeach Bush" movement, the issue of the wisdom of invading in the first place is pretty moot. (It will come up again in 2008, though.)

A Saigon-style rout seems most unlikely. That came about from a massive enemy attack by an army of hundreds of thousands, combined with the collapse of the South Vietnamese army. If American forces had still been in South Vietnam at the time, to the number of a quarter million or more, the collapse might have been averted or at least forestalled.

I'm not trying to suggest one way or the other whether they should have been there in the first place, simply that their continued presence in 1975 may have made a difference at that moment.

There are no enemy armies rolling through Iraq, and support for the insurgents seems to be limited. Similarities to Vietnam remain superficial only.

It would look good on paper to replace the U.S. military with some sort of ad-hoc international force, but besides being the most powerful on earth, the U.S. military is probably the best equipped in every sense to limit further chaos. One hopes that it will.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 02:39 PM

Amos, I too have some real problems with how the administration has handled this. I differ with you on whether some level of military intervention was advisable; I believe it was, for the reasons I articulated in my earlier post. But I agree with you that the Bush administration has much to answer for in the way they have carried out this war.

However, I continue to believe that if you had not heard those other reasons prior to March 2003, you weren't paying close enough attention. I heard all of them, many of them in some of the most important speeches made by administration offiscials in late 2002 and early 2003 justifying military intervention (such as the 2003 State of the Union address, and Colin Powell's address to the UN). Admittedly, the belief that he had and/or was acquiring WMD was at the top of the list, with concerns about potential collusion between Saddam's regime and Islamic terror organizations in second place. But the other reasons I summarized in my earlier message -- Saddam's established history of belligerence towards his neighbors in the Middle East, his brutal treatment of his own people, his targeting of US and British forces patrolling the no-fly zones, the failure of the economic sanctions, and the desirability of establishing a democratic model for other Middle Eastern states to emulate -- were all part of the rationale that was articulated at length before the first shot was fired.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 03:13 PM

Well, we seem to be agreeing to disagree. Historically, the United States does not unilaterally invade foreign sovereign nations except in self-defense or in the aid of an ally as we did in Gulf War I.

One of the reasons this is important is that while we CAN get away with unilateral warmongering, we SHOULD not do so, for the simple reasons that it dramatically undermines our standing in the world AND in our own eyes, causing ferocious disharmony at home between those who support loyalty above principle versus those who do not. (Or however you want to define those divisions).

The question of the wisdom of Bushy's decision is not, I would offer, moot at all because it is indicative of a major sea-change in our thinking about our (the United States') place in the world. We now do not lead by example, but rather lead by force; instead of exporting the best thinking known to the species, we simply export violence in service of a political notion, an idea that is too Neanderthal and counter-productive to bear much analysis, I think. We did not go in at the request of the Iraqi people, and when they WERE begging us to support their brief indigenous revolution we failed them, causing the death of thousands both times.

The United States revolutionized the modern world with cotton gins, Chevies, refrigerators, electric guitars, CD players and portable generators, roads and dams, and above all with the undying concept that individual liberty guaranteed by law under aparticipatory government was an ideal.

None of these successes required unilateral invasion; it is most presumptuous for the current administration to believe they are above those traditions, and the laws that made them possible.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 03:22 PM

Well stated, Whistle Stop. That's certainly as I remember it as well. And you pointed out more succinctly what I meant when I said that there is a big difference between a question not answered, and a question not answered to one's satisfaction.

I would also opine that, as I remember it, the WMD card was miss-played mostly because it was percieved as the key to getting our once-allies, Russia, France, and Germany to join us, knowing (as we did at the time) that they shared the same intelligence that acknowledged the presence of WMDs.

As it turns out, it was a card poorly played because it did nothing toward getting more international involvement -- those allies were benefitting too much from the status quo. With the conditions of the '91 cease-fire and the UN sanctions, those three countries were making a killing (literally) in trade with the Hussein regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 03:26 PM

Historically, the United States does not unilaterally invade foreign sovereign nations except in self-defense or in the aid of an ally as we did in Gulf War I.

And that's what we did this time as well. Again, as with Whistle Stop, I may not be thrilled with how things are at present, but I'm not for revising history either.

This is the continuum of the '91 action wherein we defended Kuwait and then left it up to the UN to set the standards by which Hussein could remain in power. He did not abide by them. The cease-fire ended.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 03:36 PM

I'm sorry but mounting a major invasion without the UN's support is hardly justifiable as an extension of UN policy. Bush decided to cowboy it because the UN was reluctant to resort to force of arms. What he saw as a great opportunity to demonstrate the United State's bold and independent management looks to others like an opportunity for mayhem, especially because it was managed so ineptly. The purpose and thrust of Gulf I and its whole objective was to aid in the restoration of Kuwait's soverignty. Justifying the current invasion on the basis of Hussein's tapdancing with the terms of the ceasefire is and was poor statesmanship of the worst sort.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:08 PM

But UN's prewar behavior was the scandal. The UN was reluctant to resort to arms because, as we now all know, it was allowing benefit by the billions of $$ to Hussein and the former allies of ours. It showed that it had no intention of standing behind its own sanctions. The UN didn't say that its sanctions were in place for the wrong reasons -- just that it had no intention of enforcing them, no matter what the consequences might be or become.

Demand that we own our own gullibility or poor intelligence, but please don't make the UN out to be honorable in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:28 PM

To paraphrase Bill O'Reilly- Bush is incredibly lucky to have a whaco like Sheeham be the voice of the democratic party.   According to Rasmutin polls- Sheehan has a 33% approval rating in the USA.   It takes a lot to have your son killed and have that low an approval rating.

Sheehan has also motivated and increased pro Bush suppport and Anti Sheehan rallies.    Bush is incredibly lucky that the the progressives, liberals, democrats, and Ossamaites (I use all 4 of those interchangeably- if I am a Bushite, than most mudcatters are certainly Ossamaites as their policy and recommendations match his) have chosen to make their stand with Cindy Sheehan.

We abslutely agree to continue giving Sheehan a microphone and let her call Bush a terrorist, the terrorists freedom fighters, and tell Isreal to get out of Palestine.    That is certainly the way to get the Moderates and Jewish Vote.   WAY TO GO CINDY!

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:29 PM

Precisely so, Guest,29 Aug 05 - 01:53 PM. At least not within my lifetime, at any rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:34 PM

the U.S. military is probably the best equipped in every sense to limit further chaos. One hopes that it will

It may be the best equipped to do so, but its (and the administration's)methods so far, are directly responsible for chaos we see there now. I don't see any reason to hope that this will ever change.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:37 PM

A while back, either just before or after the outbreak of the war, a graduate student (I forget from where) earned his fifteen minutes of fame by announcing he'd identified something like 27 reasons/excuses offered by the adminstration to justify the invasion of Iraq. One highbrow magazine even ran a full-page color chart linking the reasons to the spokespersons who had given them.

The idea was not that we had plenty of good reasons (though perhaps we did). The style of presentation clearly implied that there was no good reason, just a bunch of conflicting bad ones given by political hacks who couldn't keep their story straight.

The 27 or so reasons, by the way, strongly overlapped, and were reducible to about ten. But the point now is that all the current, supposedly "post facto" reasons were enunciated before the war. And some of us thought, as we still do, that most of them were pretty cogent.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:45 PM

Sheehan is scarcely crystallizing support for Bush; his approval ratings have been sinking steadily. Especially in regard to his handling of Iraq; as Maureen Dowd put it he is staying the course on bicycle trails all over the West.

I suspect that objects viewed in the rear-view mirror are far less cogent than they appear. But really, I have to leave this to the individual conscience and mind of the particupants here -- I don't have the time or inclination to quibble about whether these reasons were as suprcilious then as they seem to me know. Because they are wholly secondary to the REAL flaw in Bush's makeup. His real insanity is his willingness to embrace violence because he can make the ends justify it.

Learning that the ends DON'T justify the means is one of the hard lessons of high school. Or the first decade of life after college. Surely by the itme you are 30 you ought to have discovered it, if you have lived any kind of life at all -- doing things which seem immoral because you have a moral-sounding excuse just doesn't cut it. Invading a country as a logical extension of a due process of law is the most callow rationalism, not wise leadership. I am not talking about defending life and home; that was not the case in this war.

The man is an imperialist and a warmonger. He has blood on his hands that need not have been shed except for his own personal aberrated arrogance.

That is the point.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:51 PM

Most countries have been reluctant to sign on to a substantial military/peacekeeping role in Iraq,

Getting involved alongside the occupation forces of the people who invaded Iraq? And in the process being seen as colluding in what happened? Hardly too surprising.

The essential element in any peacekeeping force that would have a hope in hell's chance of making thing better rather than worse would be that they would be seen as representing nations that werer fundamentally opposed to the invasion, and replacing the US presence, not assisting it.

They'd still likely enough get shot at and blown up, because that's what happens in these kind of situations, but it'd be harder for that to be seen as patriotic resistance work. Not if they were honest about their intentions, and their intentions were honest intentions.
.............

When I raise the possibility (probability) of a "Saigon style" exit from Iraq that doesn't mean that I am suggesting that there is a close one to one parallel between all the characteristics of the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, just that it seems pretty likely to me that events are going to unfold in a way that leads to a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq. After all, that's how it worked in Lebanon and in Somalia, not just in Vietnam. All very different scenarios, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,ABE
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:13 PM

An answer to both Amos and CarolC;

Chaos, CarolC? Too bad you couldn't have been a small part of Viet Nam, actually, I am glad you were not. That was the height of chaos. And 54,000US troops lost their lives.

Amos said that "historically, the US does not invade unilaterally invade.........except in selfdefense".

Again, Viet Nam and one exception is enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:33 PM

I don't think I know what point you are trying to convey to me, ABE, but I am very aware of the chaos of Vietnam. In what way does your point relate to what I said?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:43 PM

Amos,

" He has blood on his hands that need not have been shed except for his own personal aberrated arrogance.

That is the point."


Exactly. That is the point that some/many of us DO NOT agree with you on, and try to discuss without the assumption, apriori, that YOU are right ( correct). You do not seem capable of realizing that not everyone agrees with YOUR conclusions: You are not even willing to allow others to have any intrepretation of the facts other than what YOU believe.

Much like Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 09:08 PM

How about cutting that sentence of Amos to "He has blood on his hands that need not have been shed"?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 09:26 PM

At the risk of diverting the thread topic, let me point out that the U.S. did not "unilaterally invade" Vietnam. If the word has any meaning, there was no American military "invasion."

In addition to several thousand Australian and New Zealand troops, as well as troops from Thailand and the Philippines, there were tens of thousands of South Korean forces in South Vietnam.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 09:29 PM

"Bush is incredibly lucky that the the progressives, liberals, democrats, and Ossamaites (I use all 4 of those interchangeably- if I am a Bushite, than most mudcatters are certainly Ossamaites as their policy and recommendations match his) have chosen to make their stand with Cindy Sheehan." Guest/ LarryK


Guest Larry K, until this moment I didn't realize that you are a dishonest, slanderous clown. If you had a grain of integrity you would be ashamed of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 09:34 PM

Remember, "GUEST Larry K" could be absolutely anybody - that's one of the problems with being a GUEST, any nut can sign in as you. So don't go making any assumptions, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 10:05 PM

Well, I guess... she says sulkily.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 10:27 PM

Ebbie,

If one can be called a "Bushite" if one has even a single point of agreement with Bush, then it seems fair to call someone with at least one point in common with Osama an "Osamite". As I do not like the term Bushite, I refrain from using either- but it is neither dishonest nor slanderous, as you have never complained about those here calling anyone who disagrees with them "Bushites".

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 10:58 PM

You are mistaken, badly. First, the term Bushite is usually used to describe someone who uncritically parrots phrases and policies promulgated by Bush, or his clones. An Osamite, accordingly, would be one who pushed ideas like the satanic evil of the West, the justification for eradicating Americans anytime and anyplace, and the moral imperative of purifying Islamic territory of other beliefs and groups.

Not one of these policies has been espoused by any of those who criticize Bush or who refer to those who parrot his PR as Bushites.

This sort of absolute black and white thinking is completely unworkable.

Bruce, there are opinions and there are opinions. Some people believe that violence and slaughter of humans is abhorrent. Others think it is merely a diplomatic tools, right up there with letters of protest and the dispatching of ambassadorial representatives and similar mechanisms of diplomacy. I consider, and I think most thinking people agree with me, that it is the resort used when diplomacy has failed completely.

This was not the case with Hussein's regime. Yes it was frustrating and he was dragging and avoiding.

But that is not the same thing.

To use the machinery of war when you do not need to, in a premeditated and intentional fashion, and to falsify the rationale for it, to lie about it and cover it up -- surely these are the actions of betrayal of trust. Ask the brothers, sisters, parents, wives and children of the un-necessarily dead.



A