|
15 Aug 05 - 08:30 AM (#1542096) Subject: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi It has been more than a week since Cindy Sheehan came to Crawford, Texas to ask President Bush what was the noble cause in Iraq that took her 24 year old son's life. It would have been so easy for President Bush to take 30 minutes or so of his time during his 5 week long vaction to pay his respects to a grieving mother whose son died in the war he started. Instead, George Bush has attended at least one political fund raiser, has gone bicycle riding, gone fishing, thrown a pitch at a little league ball game, took naps, and is also reported to have read. There has been other Mudcat threads about Cindy Sheehan. Among those threads is Cindy Sheehan will be arrested tomorrow In my opinion, the reason why Cindy Sheehan wasn't arrested at that time was because her request to meet with President Bush has achieved world wide attention from the mass media. I believe that the reason why Cindy Sheehan has become so powerful a symbol of people's concern about the Iraqi war is that she speaks from her role as a loving mother. Veterans and other concerned citizens have traveled to Crawford, Texas to show their support for Cindy. Other mothers, fathers, and relatives whose sons or daughters died in Iraq have aslo joined with Cindy in Crawford, Texas. They are still waiting to ask George Bush why their children died in this preemptive war. This thread provides another opportunity to post your opinions and the lastest news about Cindy Sheehan. |
|
15 Aug 05 - 08:53 AM (#1542126) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Pre-emption implies that one is acting to forestall a threat or avoid an attack from others. What was this one intended to pre-empt? (An awful neologism). A |
|
15 Aug 05 - 08:56 AM (#1542129) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST Other mothers, fathers, and relatives whose sons or daughters died in Iraq have aslo joined with Cindy in Crawford, Texas. They are still waiting to ask George Bush why their children died in this preemptive war. Could it be because they are victims of Pres Bush, who is at present the world's most powerful serial bully? That's an excellent article from the UK about "serial bullies", imo. I'd like to make it required reading for all voters before they cast their ballots, nad for all "seekers" considering embarking on an unfamiliar 'spiritual path' under the wing of a so-called 'guru' too. From the article: "Projection Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this, every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves. This knowledge can be used to perceive the bully's own misdemeanours; for instance, when the allegations are of financial or sexual impropriety, it is likely that the bully has committed these acts; when the bully makes an allegation of abuse (such allegations tend to be vague and non-specific), it is likely to be the bully who has committed the abuse. When the bully makes allegations of, say, "cowardice" or "negative attitude" it is the bully who is a coward or has a negative attitude." Replace the word "bully" with Pres Bush, and "other people" with his various targets (Iraqis, Koreans etc). I'm sure you'll see what I mean! |
|
15 Aug 05 - 08:57 AM (#1542130) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,daylia GUEST above is me. Forgot to sign in (again!) |
|
15 Aug 05 - 10:26 AM (#1542201) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: tarheel cindy sheehan is not a loving mother! if she was,she'd have more respect for her son's heroic demise in the service of his country...after all he volunteered for his role in the military because he thought it was the right thing to do! cindy met with the president once and now this hounding,and harrassment venture of hers is to only obtain more publicity for her and to give the liberal media a chance to make her front page news,now that washington, is ho-hum news,with the president at home on vacation! who do you think is paying her bills?...no need to answer that because we all know it's the liberal media! and...one more thing,now that we know the clinton administration knew in advance that the 911 culprits were in this country during his tenure in the white house and did nothing about it...where are the demonstrators to accuse bill clinton of killing their loved ones at the world trade center? shame on cindy sheehan! president bush no more killed her son(as she says he did)than any other president,since george washinton,that has sent troops to war to protect the freedoms that we enjoy in our country! |
|
15 Aug 05 - 11:17 AM (#1542252) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Oh, bullshit, tarheel. She has practically no expenses. She's living in a goddamned tent asking Bush for a short meeting. He could have stepped out of his fat limo on his way to that damn barbecue and calle dher over for five minutes and it owuld have been a complete PR coup for him. What the hell do you think he is so afraid of? And, just by the way, what do you think Bush's little war is protecting us from exactly? Saddam's nukes? A |
|
15 Aug 05 - 11:18 AM (#1542254) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Charlie Baum How many more young Americans are the Cindy-Sheehan bashers prepared to kill to postpone their need to admit they were taken in by Bush's lies and that the war was a mistake? John Kerry asked of Vietnam, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" If the Iraq War is based on lies, it leaves us with the conundrum, is it better to ask someone to die for a mistake or to die for a lie? |
|
15 Aug 05 - 11:30 AM (#1542266) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Wesley S Tarheel - Whenever the words "We all know" are used there's a darn good chance that someone is clueless. |
|
15 Aug 05 - 11:48 AM (#1542276) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi See this letter from the Arizona Republic Online Edition Cindy Sheehan's protest is heroic Aug. 15, 2005 12:00 AM When a lone Chinese protester faced down a tank in Tiananmen Square, the world applauded him as a hero. He stood up to an evil government in the full view of the world. Why should we not treat Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who is protesting outside President Bush's Texas ranch, the same way? There is no one finer than the American fighting man and woman. They have selflessly gone wherever ordered, whenever ordered to do so by their commander in chief. To send these noble military personnel to a place we do not belong, for reasons that never existed - which is what George W. Bush has done - is to abuse their good will and the patriotism of our military. On top of that, Bush has done everything in his power to minimize any personalization or honoring of their losses. He brings bodies home in the dark of night and tries to distract our attention from their deaths. Godspeed to Cindy Sheehan and to all the other families of lost servicemen and women, and honor to their memory. - Don McGuire, Glendale |
|
15 Aug 05 - 12:01 PM (#1542292) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Big Mick tarheel, you are pathetic. You are typical of those who, when faced with facts they cannot refute, just make things up. For folks like you it isn't about truth, it is about defending at all costs from anything that threatens your comfort zone. And it appears that folks like you are willing to do it with the lives of our young heroes. Do you remember the "weapons of mass destruction" crap? Isn't that the reason we went to this war? You and the Swift Boat Veterans deserve each other. Why bother with the truth when a lie will do? These brave and patriotic young folks went off to war based on a lie. Their sacrifices continue because we don't know how to extricate them. Like those of us who fought in another war, there is no way for them to come back knowing the world is better for their sacrifice. They will spend years getting over this. I thought we had learned, but obviously not. Mick |
|
15 Aug 05 - 12:20 PM (#1542302) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,G Ouch, Tarheel! State a few facts around here and get attacked. I read your post 10 times and can not see whare you were incorrect in your thinking. The facts rile them up everytime; 1. He volumteered 2. She met with GWB already, like hundreds of other have. 3. Clintons' Administration was aware - wait until that comes out. 4. etc. If he does stop to talk to her again, then he should stop to talk with every protester about anything. What about me with regard to the starvation in Africa? While her Son can't be returned, many lives of African children could be save. TH, you know you struck a nerve when someone starts their post with "Oh, bullshit". |
|
15 Aug 05 - 12:41 PM (#1542310) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Jeri Same old lines from the same old political script. I remember some folks' knee-jerk defense of Richard Nixon because their looked for 'evidence' to prove their beliefs true rather than looking at the evidence and constantly re-evaluating their beliefs. This has grown into something huge. This has become the beginning of the end to our war, I think. Something compassionate needed to start it because no one was listening to the shouted slogans and righteous anger gets boring after a while. As the folks reading from their scripts if anyone's listening anymore. Cindy Sheehan comes off as kind and sensible and is inspiring her opposition to act like a bunch of reactionary nuts. I do not think this was a very difficult accomplishment. This protest is different though, because it's got a human face and a human heart. At its heart, it's about one woman with a dead son who is trying very hard to make his death have some meaning. Even if you don't agree with Cindy Sheehan or what she's doing, how can someone who's never met her say she's 'not a loving mother'? Oh yeah...it's in the script. |
|
15 Aug 05 - 01:45 PM (#1542349) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Yes, he volunteered out of a sense of duty. The fact that that sense of duty was transformed into an ambush in Iraq was not his decision, but the decision of his CiC. Yes, Bush met her once before, called her "Mom" and showed no sensitivity to her situation. I'd like to know the specifics about Clinton's administration, what they were aware of when, instead of all this histrionic armwaving from the right. You are missing the point entirely if you think stopping to talk to her would mean he should necessarily talk to anyone else. That's just specious irrationality. By talking to her he would be speaking indirectly to thousands of people. She is not just "a protester" -- that's just reframing the situation to suit your stupid rhetoric. ANy protest is NOT the same as any other protest. If you can't see the difference between a mourning mother and some random citizen protesting about the fate of children in Africa, you are too blindered to suggest any reasonable viewpoint in this discussion. The differences are important. A |
|
15 Aug 05 - 03:12 PM (#1542399) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: tarheel thank you ,guest g...they always jump on me no matter what i say!i'm their "beat up on" guy,in here!!!i've yet to post anything in here that any of them agreed with me,so i am use to it now!...in fact,i love to RILE THEM UP,anymore..hehe hehe hehe ...can't wait to read the responses and see thier little pointed heads all gathered around,after pulling them out of the hole in the sand! then they let me have it till their blood pressures burst!!...he heh hehe heheh in case they didn't know it,i sure don't loose any sleep over their brainless comments! i just state my feelings,which is what the threads here are all about and i sure do not claim to be a friggin' know it all like these knot heads here! BTW,cindy sheehan is a disgrace to her son,her family, her community and her state and the U.S.A.! |
|
15 Aug 05 - 03:16 PM (#1542407) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi I agree that "If you can't see the difference between a mourning mother and some random citizen protesting about the fate of children in Africa, you are too blindered to suggest any reasonable viewpoint in this discussion. The differences are important." I also believe that people can and should be concerned about causes that don't directly affect them. I'm sure that many people posting here are concerned about starvation in Africa and the war in Iraq. After all, we can multi-task, and one concern does not cancel out the other. Yet, this request for a meeting with Bush [which, in my opinion, is more a vigil than a protest] is different because it comes at a time when this war is so obviously failing. The mission has not been accomplished as Bush had announced many months ago, and people don't know anymore why the heck we are there. Furthermore, this request for a meeting with Bush is different because the person requesting it is a mother who paid the ultimate sacrifice of price losing her son in this war-a sacrifice to loving mothers that can be much worse than their own death. And the reason why this meeting with Bush is different because it occurs during his annual five week long summer vacation. Five weeks!!!!! How many other people have five weeks vacation with pay????? Have any other presidents taking that long of a vacation-and during war? And who is in charge of the government while Bush is on vacation? [Maybe it's the same group of people who are in charge when Bush is in Washington, D.C.] I can't believe that President Bush or his 'advisors' don't see that continuing to refuse to talk to Cindy Sheehan is a public relations fiasco. For that reason if not any other, I suspect that Bush might give Cindy Sheehan a short audience with him soon. |
|
15 Aug 05 - 03:38 PM (#1542428) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: tarheel HERY AMOS AND BIG MICK!!!! wanna step outside for a moment and tell me all those curse words to my face?it takes a small man to use BIG curse words at members in here! tar... |
|
15 Aug 05 - 03:52 PM (#1542437) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Tarheel: I do apologize for the roughness of my language in response to your first post here. My rancor was not directed to you; as I have expressed before, I have every respect for you, as a musician, and as a regular citizen of our wide-ranging community here. I do think it is a litttle short-sighted of you to accuse me of not coming into chat and "hiding out in the threads". I at least do not call you names behind your back or accuse you of being a mighty small person to others when you are absent. What I think is "small" is promoting violence, pretence, sanctimony and mindless compliance with ill-informed and unthinking leadership. These traits made sad fools out of the Japanese citizens, and the German citizens, and prior to them has made fools out of all kinds of people on all sides of every major unnecessary conflict. IF there is ANYTHING that a wise and thinking citizen should abhor it is unnecessary use of violence, because of the ruin it brings to all sides. You have elected to support violence that was not necessary, because it is backed with a shallow, windy authority. I have chosen not to. You and I disagree. With all due respect, I suggest we not take it personally and be big enough to simply agree that we take different views. I have spoken my feelings using the same personal freedoms that you have used to speak yours. While I disagree with your thinking, I will never attack or undermine your right to voice that thinking freely, although I may disparage the reasoning behind it. That's the risk and the reward of being free citizens of a great nation, you and I. I think it can be made greater without unnecessary war-faring than it can with. A |
|
15 Aug 05 - 04:07 PM (#1542447) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,G Amos, et al If this woman was not ranting and raving about Israel being part of the world terriost problem (she believes the US is the other half, she might attract a few more followers. Were you there when GWB spoke with her? How would you know if was any sensitvity or not? One other point, and it is not due to me taking to heart ANYTHING you might say Amos, but why can't you reply to commentary without using an attack format? I am not irrational nor blindered. It appears to me you are trying to get the President down to your level which is appearing to be one of hatred combined with a false appearance of knowing the facts. If the President, now matter who he might be, stops to that level, then I too shall work to get him out of office. Why not answer the comments in the posts, not resort to attacks as you can see, that is easy. |
|
15 Aug 05 - 04:51 PM (#1542478) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos IF nothing I say is going to touch you in anyway, nameless One, I see no point in addressing the issues you raise. I asserted that if you could not see the difference between two things (which you asserted were equivalent) then you were too blindered to be able to speak with intelligence and discrimination. That makes perfect sense to me -- the ability to differentiate between things which are similar in som ewayis a critical part of intelligence. There are specific and factual reasons behind each adjective I use when describing the President; he has made choices or demonstrated behaviors which support every one of them; subliteracy, proneness to violence, unthinking, ill-prepared, and so on. If there are some I have used you feel are unfounded, take the trouble to specify. A |
|
15 Aug 05 - 06:10 PM (#1542543) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie I don't think that "tarheel is a disgrace to the mudcat, his community and his state and the USA"- but I do think his using that phrase to describe Cindy Sheehan is a shameful bit of parroting. I believe that he has a right to air his views (God. I wish he'd air them enough to make them palatable.) but I also think that his thinking along with that of others of the subset he belongs to is the major reason for the mess this country is in. And Guest, G, if you don't see tarhee's problem, you're just as uninformed, blinkered and shortsighted as he. |
|
15 Aug 05 - 07:26 PM (#1542604) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Guest: Tarheel is a bona fide musician and a member of the Mudcat of long standing. He has exercised his God-given right to have an opinion and to voice it. In that respect he is no disgrace to anyone. THe merit of his conclusions may be in question, but there is no disgrace in having opinions as such. I feel his reasoning has flaws in it, and he feels the same way about mine, but how can you dare try to embarrass him into not communicating? A |
|
15 Aug 05 - 07:39 PM (#1542615) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow But he doesn't know where the shift key is kept on his keyboard... I find I see posts that that as inducing the same kind of alienating and diminishing effect as when people writing letters to the editor or whatever use green ink. |
|
15 Aug 05 - 08:33 PM (#1542683) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Big Mick I just logged on to apologize for my "pathetic" comment. I found a PM from tarheel objecting to it. Let me say that I regret starting with that comment, it was a knee jerk reaction to what I read. My apology for that phrase is sincere. Tarheel may be a member of longstanding, but that does not set him above being held accountable for what he says. His comments about this mother being a "disgrace to her son,her family, her community and her state and the U.S.A.!" show him to be a poor spokeman for the cause he espouses. This woman has suffered a loss that no Mother or parent should suffer. This loss was caused directly by the war started on false pretense by this President. While we can argue about the merits of the war, there is no argument that the demon that drives this woman is the loss of her son. She believes that she is honoring his memory. Call her misguided, Tarheel, and I respect your viewpoint. Call her a disgrace to her son's memory and I have no respect for your viewpoint. In fact I find it disgusting. On a separate issue, why the need to parrot the administration viewpoint? No valid thoughts on the issue of your own? As to your offer to say these things to your face, I would hope that if we are ever in the same room, you will identify yourself. I will gladly repeat each and every one of them. You may then react with intellect and debate, or you may react in the way your post implies. I am more than willing and capable of responding to whichever you use. Mick |
|
16 Aug 05 - 01:03 AM (#1542855) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Boab Is tarheel a parent? Has he got a son of "military age" [what a sick expression]? If so, may I put a question? Would he, if blessed with such second sight, patriotically encourage his son to support his president and join this "war" in Iraq if he knew without question that his son was going to his death? Or would he be a parent worthy of the name and do all he could to dissuade his son from taking such a course? Or would he, as others so pathetically do, step forward proudly after the end of his boy's life, and insist that his "son died for freedom"? What "freedom"? Whose "freedom"? It is likely that tarheel has no such son. If he has, may the lad beware;Bush wants him. There ARE causes worth fighting to the death for; the neocons' "war" doesn't come within a trillion miles.... |
|
16 Aug 05 - 02:38 AM (#1542877) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,kirsten Soldiers With Peace Activist Parents to Wear Special Uniforms in War By Kirsten Anderberg (www.kirstenanderberg.com) There have been a lot of parents of fallen U.S. soldiers recently in the press. The way they act is as if their sons should not have been killed in the war because they are peace activists. News flash to these parents: Your kids look just like the rest of the occupying enemy in Iraq. Kids whose parents are "peace activists" do not have special colored clothing that signals their parents are peace activists to the fighters in Iraq. And what good *is* your peace activism, if you simultaneously send your kids to war? Do these peace activist parents not realize that the first line of peace activism is in your own HOME? Get off those overpasses with peace signs and get into your kid's life if he is enlisting in the armed services! Do these peace activist parents not realize that it was their son or some other person's son? And their son was the invader? The game is war, and the aim is to kill. Why are they all of a sudden just now getting the gravity of the situation? Is it that these people did not care about others dying until their kids died? Why did they let their kids go? I know it sounds terrible, but I would literally break my son's legs before I would let him leave to Iraq to kill some other mother's little boy. I would rather go to jail and break his legs, than to allow him to go to war and come home dead, after killing others. I don't care about this "free will" argument. There are certain parental responsibilities here. There is a traditional war song in America that goes, "I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier, I brought him up to be my pride and joy, who dares to place a musket on his shoulder, to shoot some other mother's little boy? Let nations arbitrate their future troubles, it's time to throw the sword and gun away. There'd be no war today, if mothers all would say, I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier." There is this whole tough love/"brat camp" movement in America where "liberal" parents are somehow willing to intervene in their kids' lives against their wills when drugs are involved. Yet when it comes to their kids making the biggest and deadliest mistake of their life, joining the U.S. military to support a hostile illegal occupation in Iraq, they have a hands off policy. If you are a "peace activist" parent who would be willing to do an intervention on your kids over drugs, but would not do the same if he tried to enlist in the military, that is on your family's head, but it makes no sense to me. I feel that the woman camping outside the president's ranch right now is mostly concerned with relieving her guilt, not in stopping the war. If she cared about stopping the war, she would not have provided the military with soldiers. And she would have protested as vehemently BEFORE her son was dead. We are now listing about 2,000 American soldiers dead from our illegal occupation of Iraq on the American nightly news. Yet the amount of Iraqi soldiers, children, and mothers, that we, Americans, have killed in Iraq is exponentially higher. For every sobbing white peace activist mom in America, there are hundreds of sobbing mothers in Iraq, and they ain't getting the press the woman at the president's ranch is right now. There is a certain air of white middle class privilege about her protest at the president's ranch right now too. What mother in poverty could afford such an action? I believe if she was a welfare mom who just lost her son, she could not afford to sit at the president's ranch like that. Would she bring her other kids with her to the protest? How long do you think it would take for Child Protective Services to show up at her encampment if she was there with her young kids? And who is paying for her sitting there? Has she quit her job to do this? How does she eat while she is not working? Who is paying her rent as she sits outside Bush's ranch? Is she now risking homelessness, unemployment and the loss of her other kids to do this protest as a welfare mom would? I sense money and sustaining this protest never entered her mind. I sense nothing in her life is in jeopardy from this action, and she can sit there as long as she wants because she is from the middle class. I also believe it is because she is white and middle class that she has not been arrested. I honestly believe if that was a poor black woman agitating for Bush to see her, she would have been forcibly removed by violent cops already. I think the reason they are letting her stay there, with all the press is 1) she is not perceived as a threat due to her class and race, and 2) she already has shown she will send her kids to war while simultaneously saying she is a peace activist and that is what the government WANTS so they see no threat in her at all. They see, as well as do I, the totally hypocritical stance she has taken, and look at it more with amusement than a need for defense against it. Peace activists who send their kids to war are now acting shocked that death could come to their child! Somehow they had believed it could not happen to them, just like teenagers who feel they can do any stupid trick and survive because they are immortal. If you supported murder as your son's profession, and he comes back killed by others who also have killing as their profession, can you really expect sympathy? Is it really shocking that American soldiers are killed in a hostile occupation of Iraq? Isn't that what they are there for? To kill or be killed? That is why my son can't go to the Iraq war. I will not allow it in our family. I am not willing to let him kill others and to only launch an outcry once mine is dead. I am willing to put up a stink before my kid is dead in this war. And I am willing to stand up against the government taking my draft aged son as well. But to just hand over your son, giving him support in his choice to be a soldier in Iraq, while still claiming you are a "peace activist" is ridiculous. The first thing peace activists should be doing is keeping their own kids out of the military! That seems incredibly obvious. And to not do so, and only cry out once your child is dead, well, that is just too little too late, as utterly callous as that sounds. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 09:10 AM (#1543017) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,G Well said, Kirsten. I hope some will read and reread your post. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 09:23 AM (#1543028) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos I think to be fair you should remember that she begged her son not to go into the military, and offered to take him to Canada. She did not send him, as your rhetoric implies. Parental responsibility changes dramatically when a human being becomes of age; to try and control another adult's life other than by providing what wisdom one can is tricky and almost impossible in some cases. I would hazard a guess, Kirsten, that you have not raised a child to adulthood. We don't raise our children to be things, but to be alive, well, as competent and intelligent as possible, to be endowed with the skills we can teachthem. Anything more particular than that is to deny the individual his own life's path, which often has little or nothing to do with your wishes, and is pretty much of a crapshoot anyway. OF course she has some guilt and wishes she had thought of something to do to stop him from going to war. At least she is doing something to stop others from having to, little though it is. A |
|
16 Aug 05 - 09:37 AM (#1543043) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Donuel The attacks against Mrs. Sheehan are abnormally viscious. By planting a post that seemed to invite criticism of Cindy Shehan I brought the worst of the worst out of the woodwork... http://p080.ezboard.com/fpoliticsofthepeoplefrm1.showMessage?topicID=7500.topic What will happen to her is anyone's guess. Will she earn a place on the no fly list? Will she be evicted by local authorities? Will the Texas unwritten law of "she had it comin" come into play? Will squemish Democratic leaders deny her like the apostles before a cruxifiction? That she used the word fascist to exemplify the administration was courageous and correct. That she is now called a "liberal whore" is not much different from being called a dirty Jew in the early days of Germany's NSP. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 09:47 AM (#1543051) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John MacKenzie Perhaps GWB could enact a law prohibiting protests within a given area surrounding his ranch, in much the same way as the UK government has round our parliament because their consciences pricked them every time thay had to pass a man making a justified protest in Parliament Square. As far as the 5 weeks vacation in a time of conflict is concerned, again GWB may be taking lessons from Tony Blair who was so bloody immature as to refuse to break his holiday to go the the funeral of a great Socialist called Robin Cook. Giok |
|
16 Aug 05 - 10:17 AM (#1543072) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi After reading Kirsten's post, I also wondered if she had raised any children to be adults. If so, I don't think her comments would be the same. **** Kirsten, I take exception to your comments about race & poverty in and the Cindy Sheehan vigil. If I understood you correctly, you wrote that if a Black woman were to 'pull a Cindy' [i.e. camp outside the president's vacation home in an effort to meet with him to ask him why her child died in his war], she would be poor, with no saved to support her while she 'protested', and therefore she would lose her low wage job...Also, I gathered from your comments that this hypothetical Black "Cindy Sheehan" would have to bring her other underaged children along and those children would then be in danger of being taken from her by child welfare department [that is to say they would be more in danger of this response than any underage White children would be]. I'm sure that Kirsten must know that there are African Americans who are very economically well off and there are African Americans who have the financial resources to take a month's vacation with or without pay to do what they feel is important to do. Also, Black folks do have families who would be willing to take care of their under age children if they decided to do something that might get ugly [as I pray won't happen with Cindy Sheehan's vigil]. So okay I get that Kirsten is being hypothetical-What if Cindy Sheehan were Black? Would she be such a powerful symbol of a mother's love [my words] or would she have been allowed to set up her camp, or would she have been quickly arrested and any underage children who she might have brought with her be put under the custody of child welfare?. My response to these hypthetical questions is remember the press is and Internet bloggers are closely watching and recording what is going on at Camp Casey. If Cindy Sheehan had been Black AND had started the Gold Star Mothers for Peace group AND was a blogger on dailykos and other political websites, and had asked for other parents whose sons and daughters were killed in Iraq to join her in Crawford, and had asked other veterans to join her too, ...if all that were the same and if the police would have done a Rambo on her, then her race might have been a plus factor in the amount of media coverage and public outrage that she [this hypothetical Black Cindy Sheehan] would then receive. But that's alot of 'ifs'... Besides, there is an implication that in 2005 the police in Crawford would treat a Black woman and Black children differently than they would treat a White woman and White children. I believe that the presence of the media there watching and recording what is happening would mean that the police couldn't get away with differential treatment based on race, even if they wanted to do so... And even if individual members of the Crawford, Texas police department don't believe in equality among the races, I would hope that they have been trained to treat any person the same way, regardless of their race or ethnicity... Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.... Azizi |
|
16 Aug 05 - 10:26 AM (#1543078) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Jeri A soldier, sailor, airman or Marine does volunteer to stand in harm's way. (It may be hard to believe, but any person who's at least 18 years old doesn't need a parent's permission to join up.) A volunteer must trust leaders not to squander their life for stupid reasons. These leaders should feel the weight of that decision, because each shattered, bloody body is someone's loved one. We trust them to keep those lives in their hands as safe as possible and spend them as miserly as they'd spend their own. I think one problem that has been made clear is that any appearance of a sense of respect for these warriors' lives beyond empty words, is not important to the current US regime. There are, I think, two kinds of people in the world. There are those who are inpired by hope and dreams and love and light, and they try to find the good in people and situations and make things better. There are those who are inspired by hatred and anger and disdain, and they look for weaknesses and things to pick apart. They look for reasons to be furious and vengeful, and to shout at people and hurt people. They do these things because...hell, I don't know. Maybe it's the only thing they've learned proves they're here. Most of us dip into both sides a bit. We can look for things to be angry about and then try to find a way to make life better. Some folks just like staying pissed off though, and some think that gives them an excuse to do stupid stuff. For example, it's obviously OK to drive a truck over symbolic representations of gravestones of the fallen. It's justifiable if the dead, their deaths and their loved ones' tears aren't quite as important to you as your anger and hatred. Something Ghandi and Martin Luther King demonstrated was that you don't have to try much to defeat hatred. You just resist angry impulses, go on being visibly free of hatred and hate will eventually defeat itself. And for something completely different: I wonder what the word 'vacation' is euphemizing, because the leader of the free world taking this much time off to just hang out on the ol' ranch really tests the public's gullibility. Even the ones that think Pro Wrestling is a sport. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 10:31 AM (#1543082) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Larry K A Mother's love so much that her family is disowning her and her husband is divorcing her. (see todays news stories) a Mother's love that when she first met with Bush they kissed (picure on many websites) a Mother's love that she stated that Bush was genuinely concerned with the people of Iraq and uplifted her with their meeting A Mother's love that she has now changed her story 180 degrees and no one in mudcat seems to wonder why. (you can change your opinion on Bush or the war, but you can't change your opinion on what happended at the first meeting or how she felt when she left the meeting with Bush) PS- Please check your facts. Sheehan is not camping out in a tent. She is camping out in a Motel funded by the left and drives to the site with the reporters for photo ops. This the eyewittness account of a soldier from Iraq who has just written a new book and met with Sheehan at the motel and went on national radio to report his meeting with Sheehan. I am surprised at how many of you veteran mudcatters would be taken in by such cheesy photo ops. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 10:53 AM (#1543101) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,G Larry K - I will say to you the same thing I said to Tarheel; in my very brief time around this place, I have found that when you use fact(s) as opposed to feeling, you will get hammered. Tarheel ended up being referred to as a disgrace. Of course, both he and you are more aware of this situation than I. A funny thing, someone named Ebbie (means as much as "G") went so far as to say if I could not see Tarheels' problem, then I was as "uninformed, shortsighted and blinkered as he is". How insightful! I never heard of Tarhell until yesterday and have only read two of his posts. I am not a Physic - but I am intelligent enough to see where this type of thinking is rampant here. Amos did come to Tarheels' defense with regard to his being a human being. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 11:01 AM (#1543106) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos G: You are mistaken. Tarheel was not hammered for his recitation of facts, but for his reactionary extremist recitation of derogation. A |
|
16 Aug 05 - 11:26 AM (#1543135) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,G Tarheel was hammered for facts - Much info on the 9/11 bombers was available in the late 90s' That is now being expose. Her expenses are being taken care of by several groups. While you may disagree with his his approach, he appears to be no different than anyone else here. I in no way can percieve her sense of loss when she heard of her Sons' demise. What has transpired between then and now is unknow to me. My regret is that she is becoming a media whore and that soon will be accused of 'tap dancing' on her Sons' grave. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 12:44 PM (#1543210) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: curmudgeon "PS- Please check your facts. Sheehan is not camping out in a tent. She is camping out in a Motel funded by the left and drives to the site with the reporters for photo ops. This the eyewittness account of a soldier from Iraq who has just written a new book and met with Sheehan at the motel and went on national radio to report his meeting with Sheehan. " OK, Larry, time to do what you ask others to. Being currently afflicted with the gout, I have the time to do a little reearch, and nothing you have stated in this last paragraph appears in any news source, including some far right Sheehan haters. Your sources, please? |
|
16 Aug 05 - 12:46 PM (#1543212) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos You may slander her as much as you wish, G, with crude party-line smirches like media whore. IMO, anyone willing to stand up and be counted against the libertine use of gratuitous violence is on the side of civilization against the most barbarian forces and aberrated thinking of the human race. I cannot see why some people believe so devoutly in the exultation of slaughter and the glorification of warfare, the greatest waste ever invented. Those who promote it are called war-mongers, merchants of destruction. Thus, GWB. That's my $.02. A |
|
16 Aug 05 - 01:16 PM (#1543250) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie I have an idea. We - everybody- is aware that this country is badly splintered, that there are factions that are poles apart. There are groups in this country right now that are trying to find a common ground for both poles to come together. Until we reach that common ground we cannot see into each other's eyes. So, let's try this: * Do we agree that a parent's grief is a subjective thing and that no one else can actually know what the person's feelings are? * Do we agree that at the end of the day (hate that phrase) each of us lives our lives being grateful for the love and satisfaction that comes to us through our families and friends and, since we are into music, the music in our lives? * Do we agree that well meaning people may disagree in the perception of a problem and how to address that problem? Any other ideas on the things that we can agree upon? |
|
16 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM (#1543254) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos From "Commondreams.org": Vigil Threatens to put President in Tough Spot By Marc Sandalow WASHINGTON - A grieving Northern California mother's vigil near President Bush's Texas ranch is putting a human face on the toll of the Iraq war as she brings worldwide attention to her anguish. Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville began camping in a ditch along the road leading to Crawford, Texas, on Saturday, determined to confront Bush over the death of her son Casey, a 24-year-old Army specialist who was killed in Sadr City on April 4, 2004. Cindy Sheehan with Bill Mitchell at a Crawford, Texas, vigil. Both have lost sons in the fighting in Iraq. (Jason Reed / Reuters) That a grieving woman seeks to speak to the president or that she opposes the war is hardly news as the war rages in its third year. But the image of an anguished 48-year-old mother standing outside the vacation home of the most powerful leader in the world, asking him to explain her son's death, is compelling and has caught the attention of millions of people from Canada to New Zealand. For Bush, Sheehan's presence seems to create a no-win situation. If he invites her to talk, he further elevates her protest, potentially angers the other families of the more than 1,850 Americans who have died in Iraq and provides Sheehan a greater forum to spread her anti-war views. If he ignores her, he risks appearing so callous that he doesn't have the time, or the inclination, to spend a few minutes of his vacation with a mother who lost her son as a direct consequence of the president's foreign policy decisions. Bush dispatched national security adviser Steve Hadley and Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin to talk with Sheehan on Saturday -- a step Sheehan said was insufficient -- but has shown no willingness to invite her to the ranch. White House aides left reporters in Crawford with no sense that they were considering such a meeting. Sheehan, who took shelter in a nearby motel Tuesday night after rain and lightning threatened her tent, said she will remain in Crawford through August unless she gets a "good'' meeting with the president or is arrested. Fascination with the story is growing among the dozens of Washington journalists assigned to follow Bush in Crawford with little else to do, as well as among an ever-growing Internet audience. The Web site Technorati.com, which monitors Web logs, listed "Cindy Sheehan'' as its most frequently requested search. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other members of Bush's foreign policy team gathering in Crawford this morning must either helicopter to Bush's ranch or drive directly past Sheehan's encampment, where scores of supporters and reporters will be watching. "Cindy is making history. She is also leading a movement,'' said Bob Fertik of Democrats.com, who helped Sheehan create the Web site: meetwithcindy. org. Almost as quickly as Sheehan has been idealized by war opponents, she has been demonized by some war supporters, who consider her a pawn of the left. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 01:24 PM (#1543259) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos AN excerpt in her own words, from a letter to the press from Cindy Sheehan: "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 invaseion 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. ..." |
|
16 Aug 05 - 01:27 PM (#1543262) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC I haven't been able to get any specific dates on the separation and filing for divorce scenario, but it looks to me from the contents of this article... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050813/ap_on_re_us/peace_mom ...that she and her husband had separated as a result of the stress arising from Casey's death, and that it happened before she started camping out near the Bush ranch. So that would make at least one of tar_heel's "facts" more vicious gossip than "fact". This does seem to be the pattern of the people who are criticizing her. Use vicious gossip, inuendo, slurs and invective in an attempt to bring her down because morally and ethically, they don't have a leg to stand on. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 01:32 PM (#1543267) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie powerful |
|
16 Aug 05 - 01:38 PM (#1543271) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,G My final foray here for a few days. Usually can only do a couple days, every couple of hours in th mornings. No defense of myself, Amos, but I was not slandering her. I said I regret - she has been referred to a media wh... on more than show, and implied on many others. One other thing; your 1:19 PM post from Commondreams.org and an article written by Mark Sandalow and another by Jason Reed. I have never heard of either writer nor have I heard of the Blog. This is a Democratic view and not of all Democrats. It just does not make sense to seek out, read and post that which meets ones fancy. While I may be able to see a reason for Iraq, and don't single this out as our main problem in our world, as I have read a lot of history as I am sure you have and we are just one big morass of warring and killing since the world came about. I can nowhere find a story regarding this conflict that I can completely agree with. 1.e., being careful not to damage the Mosques being used by the insurgents as foxholes. With my limited knowledge, even I know that a 500 pound would work on them as well as a government building. Why, you may ask? To save the lives of American troops. Religion has nothing to do with it. We learned to do that in WW2 when the Germans occupied the churches. The first thing the tanks did upon reaching a town was shell the steeples. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 01:53 PM (#1543285) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Thanks for the clarification, G. SOrry if I was a bit brusque. we are just one big morass of warring and killing Well, do we wish to continue as such? Or is there such as thing as improving human life? I suggest that better social designs, better reciprocal understanding and dialogue, and better technology can move civilization to better conditions. Conditions do not have to be endlessly bestial and barbaric. Apathy about the past is a weak excuse to surrender the future. A |
|
16 Aug 05 - 02:03 PM (#1543291) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos From SFGate, a San Francisco e-new website: "IT WOULD be easy to dismiss Cindy Sheehan's protest in Crawford, Texas, against the U.S. invasion of Iraq as one woman's response to the death of her soldier son in Iraq. But the scrappy protest of the Vacaville mother could be the catalytic event that might help build a significant movement against the war. Opinion polls show widespread opposition to the war, and to Bush's conduct in promoting it. Peculiarly, this unhappiness has yet to translate into anything that could be called an anti-war "movement." But remember that it took several years before opposition to the Vietnam War began to congeal into what we now call the "movement" against that disastrous war. In hindsight, demonstrations, such as the one outside the Oakland Army Terminal in April 1965, the departure point for many troops to Vietnam, and the march on the Pentagon in October 1967, were key events in motivating national opposition to that distant war. Sheehan's campaign may one day be viewed in a similar light. Some conservatives, including talk-show host Bill O'Reilly, are now desperately trying to discredit her. They're calling her actions treasonous, or implying as much. But Sheehan is no "Hanoi Jane" Fonda. As a distraught mother with no ties to traditional anti-war organizations, she won't be as easily tarred. What she is doing, at great personal cost, is piercing the comforting cloak of secrecy thrown up by U.S. authorities that has shielded most Americans from awareness of the full human cost of the Iraq engagement. ..." |
|
16 Aug 05 - 02:42 PM (#1543323) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos A current interview with Cindy Sheehan clarifies what she believes. A |
|
16 Aug 05 - 03:48 PM (#1543371) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: tarheel Guest Boab...yes,i am a parent! i will soon be 69 years of age! i have been married to my wife peg,for 46 yeasrs this past july 23rd! my daughter and son both joined the U.S.Navy when they finished high school and both aquired training that led them to their respective jobs now! i also spent 8 years in the U.S.Navy and was honored that my kids joined that branch of service because their dad served his country there! do not think for one momnent that in did not not feel concerned for them during their service! geezz,if you can't knock on me as a member of MUDCAT,you now want to beat up on me as a parent! how dare you! you are not man enough to be a member here or give your real name so that i could send youi a PM and really tell you what a infidel that you are to critize me and my family! you do not even know me nor anything about me! what a coward to say those things about me and my family members! what's more,i am a conservative and a born again Christain and i am not ashamed to tell you nor anyone else in here about it! when was the last time that you asked God to forgive you of your sins and put your faith and trust in Him? what would happen to your soul if you died tonight? think about it,dear friend! i demand that you apologize to me and my kids for your derrogatory remark about us! tar... |
|
16 Aug 05 - 04:21 PM (#1543401) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Tar: Chill, dude! Stop waving your arms around and injecting your private metaphysics into thediscussion. It has no bearing on the topic. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 05:22 PM (#1543427) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC tarheel, you are doing exactly the same thing to Cindy Sheehan that you are accusing Boab of doing to you. Why is it ok for you to do it and not for Boab to do it? |
|
16 Aug 05 - 05:40 PM (#1543440) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Bobert Will all the anti-Cindy Mudcatters with kids in Iraq please step forward... |
|
16 Aug 05 - 07:16 PM (#1543506) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: robomatic Last Night the "Daily Show" did a neat parallel with a Republican flack charging Ms. Sheehan with profaning the memory of her son, followed by a photo moment from the archives with same Republican apologist defending the parents of Terry Schiavo for defending the rights of their daughter. It's pretty clear that Ms. Sheehan is speaking her mind in her own country. Whether she is honoring the memory of her son, or exploiting it depends more on the observer's position than on Ms. Sheehan, who, regardless of your opinion, is exercising her free rights as a US citizen who has lost more in this war than most of us. On behalf of 'W', I think it more likely that he is exercising his sense of politics in not meeting with the lady rather than exposing his callousness. I suspect that PM Tony Blair would be able to make real hay out of this opportunity with his exceptional talent of communications, a talent that President Bush does not have to an equivalent degree (to put it mildly). |
|
16 Aug 05 - 07:25 PM (#1543521) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Hell, seems to me to stop the black limo and give her a hug of sympathy and say "I am sorry" would cost him nothing and would be within even his absurd vocabulary. ANd would reap great PR benefits politically. A |
|
16 Aug 05 - 08:02 PM (#1543555) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC Whether she is honoring the memory of her son, or exploiting it depends more on the observer's position than on Ms. Sheehan I think Ms. Sheehan is the only person who can make that determination. She is, after all the only person who knows what is in her heart. All else is speculation at best, and character assasination at worst. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 08:04 PM (#1543556) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Stilly River Sage I just saw a headline that said her husband filed for divorce. I'm not following this story much, but that does seem to add insult to injury, perhaps making her position more vulnerable in the public eye. |
|
16 Aug 05 - 08:28 PM (#1543572) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos They've been breaking up from the strain of the loss of their son anyway, according to reports, but she got the news that he files in California while she was standing her vigil in Texas. A |
|
16 Aug 05 - 08:52 PM (#1543589) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow In Britain too there are parents whose sons have been killed in Iraq who have been active in protesting against the war and the continued fighting and killing. (For example Rose Gentle) But so far as I am aware, there hasn't been any of this hate and rage agains them, even by people who disagree with them. I get the impression there is something very wrong indeed in the way in which people disagree with each other over these kinds of things in the States. "Only in America" - isn't that supposed to be an expression of pride in your country, as a kind of model of how things should be?... |
|
16 Aug 05 - 10:47 PM (#1543656) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies OK Tarheel- You have consistently, if very creatively, dodged the issue raised in Azizi's first posting on this thread. What exactly is the noble cause Cindy Sheehan's son died for? So far, all we have from you is the typically fatuous-- (look it up)-- Bushite answer--"the service of his country". But there has to be a reason for the country to need such service. Please enlighten us as to what it is--since Bush no longer says that WMD were the concern, and the alleged link to Osama has been discredited. "Protecting the freedoms we enjoy", another of your classic boilerplate phrases--(do you and our illustrious "commander in chief" have the same unimaginative and logic-challenged speechwriter?)-- also raises more questions and answers none. Saddam is long gone from power--exactly what freedoms are being protected? It seems likely that the freedom being protected is the freedom to watch Iraq sooner or later dissolve into factions squabbling about oil, federalism and the role of Islam in government. Somehow that doesn't seem worth dying for. I guess some of us must not enjoy it as much as you do. |
|
17 Aug 05 - 11:20 AM (#1543985) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos A gentleman Texan down the road a short way has kindly offered his one-acre lot to the Sheehan delegation. This gives them some space and security from the Rangers or sheriffs who were beginning to get pressured to move them from countty land. He stated that he believed that people should be allowed to protest if they choose, and that he believed the Iraqi war was one we didn't need to be in. I think he has demonstrated real gentility, after two other nearby ranchers have shown such barbaric dramatizations (firing off shotguns and driving a pickup over the group's signage/crosses). A |
|
17 Aug 05 - 01:01 PM (#1544069) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Whistle Stop As much as I might sympathize with Ms. Sheehan for her loss, and may even share some of her views, it's a little hard for me to figure out what she's after, other than to make a scene. She surely can't imagine that she (and every other citizen in this nation of almost 300 million) has a right to multiple meetings with the President, or that her status as a grieving mother entitles her to demand a one-on-one debate with the President. She does have a right to express her views, to lobby others to join in her cause, and to request that her elected representatives use their authority to influence the nation's policies. But no President in modern times has opened himself up to meetings with every private citizen who might want one. We have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association and assembly, so there are lots of ways for Ms. Sheehan to make herself heard, and to encourage others to similarly raise their voices. I respect her son's sacrifice, and her grief, and I too think the administration needs to revisit some of the simplistic assumptions it continues to hold and broadcast to the rest of the world. But the campout by the side of the road in Texas is starting to look like a childish stunt to me. |
|
17 Aug 05 - 01:05 PM (#1544074) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Well, mebbe so; but I for one would really like to know the answer to her questions. If her stand bendsprotocol a bit, it is little enough compared to the amount of ignorance Mister Bush has inflicted on the nation's citizens about what he is really doing as their elected representative, and why. A |
|
17 Aug 05 - 01:26 PM (#1544098) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,TIA She's taking crap for allegedly (allegedly) staying in a motel? As opposed to GWB who spends every night pampered on his ranch. She's taking crap for "exploiting" her dead child for political purposes? As opposed to GWB who "exploited" his daughters for political purposes at last summer's convention (and they are still alive, and will never be anywhere near Baghdad). She's taking crap for "changing her story". As opposed to GWB who invaded Iraq for WMD...no no 911...no no freedom and democracy... |
|
17 Aug 05 - 01:26 PM (#1544099) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: kirstenanderberg Yes, I have raised a child to adulthood. My son is 20 and will be 21 in Oct. He is my only son. I raised him all by myself. I talked to him about this just last night, and he said "hell yes you better break my legs to keep me from going if I try something that dumb!" Yes, I have a RIGHT to speak on this, as in a draft, which is impending as we cannot keep up with this war, MY SON GOES NEXT. And yes, if she LET her son go, she SENT him. AS I WOULD NOT LET THEM TAKE MY DRAFT AGE SON IN A DRAFT. SHE LET THEM TAKE HER SON NOT IN A DRAFT! She has no excuse!!! Would she let her son just be a free will sex offender or serial killer? Hell no! No difference here. As I said, I would not physically allow my son to go. Period. I would immediately get a family intervention, I would break his freakin legs if I had to. I would physically harm my son's body to keep him from leaving to kill others, something he would regret later, or to come back dead himself, something I would regret later. If i had to kidnap him against his will to stop his export, I would risk my own jailing for that. I see that NOW BEFORE he is sent off and coming back dead. I did not need my son to come home DEAD to understand this war for god's sake! You simply cannot be an antiwar protester and send your kids off as soldiers. You become a "military" family the minute you allow that to go down. There is a time to take a stand. And this is one of them. NO ONE IS TAKING MY SON OFF TO IRAQ for this ILLEGAL OCCUPATION. NO ONE. You will have to KILL ME FIRST. Thus if I live long enough to show up on GWBush's lawn in protest of my dead son, it will be because they TOOK my son AGAINST MY WILL AND JAILED ME TO KEEP ME FROM STOPPING HIM! Also, my son and I have already had MACHINE GUNS aimed a foot from our heads in March 2003 in PERMITTED protest zones. I have SEEN US cops aim a machine gun at my kid, who was unarmed, was a teen, was in a permitted zone, doing nothing illegal or violent, and they aimed a machine gun less than a foot from his head and I was right there asking the military cops why he was physically threatening my son for free speech and we had snippers aimed at us, this was on March 22, 2003 and then we were corralled and cops beat people around us until their heads bled and we feared for our safety...we have already begun to street fight with US cops for our rights to protest this war in Seattle, so do not act like I am not backing up my words with action. I have also been interviewed on national radio shows about how to make a conscientious objector file for your sons now...before the draft comes. This is VERY serious to me. The US Military MAY NOT have my son for ILLEGAL occupations based on WMD LIES, plain and simple. |
|
17 Aug 05 - 01:39 PM (#1544127) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Kirsten: There is no need to be yelling like that. She tried to argue him out of it and he believed it was his duty. You may be in a position to judge what the right degree of violence you would like to use on your own son under such circumstances is, but I don't think you have the right to accuse Cindy Sheehan of not being you; she never signed up to be you. Her protest was overruled by his self determination. She did not SEND him anywhere -- to the contrary she exerted herself to stop him from going; but she respected his decision. I think, had she to make the same choice over again, she might indeed see your reaosning. But also bear in mind that in her case it would have been assault and battery against an adult, legally, regardless of the maternal relationship. A |
|
17 Aug 05 - 01:39 PM (#1544128) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,TIA Right on! |
|
17 Aug 05 - 02:20 PM (#1544191) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie "But also bear in mind that in her case it would have been assault and battery against an adult, legally, regardless of the maternal relationship." Amos As it would also be in your case, Kirsten. You don't buy into the idea of freedom? If your child, as a free thinking adult, should disagree with your own views on a matter, do you really think it is either your right or your duty to keep him or her from acting on their own beliefs? Going or not going to war is only one aspect of a much larger issue. |
|
17 Aug 05 - 03:27 PM (#1544248) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos On the Demagoguery ahead -- excerpted from this article which predicts a lot more irresponsible arm-waving and blame and character-besmirching sleaze from the overheated NeoCon camp before much longer: "The Bush administration's top officials must be counting the days until the end of the presidential vacation brings to a close the Crawford standoff between Camp Casey and Camp Carnage. But media assaults on Cindy Sheehan are just in early stages. While the president mouths respectful platitudes about the grieving mother, his henchmen are sharpening their media knives and starting to slash. Pro-Bush media hit squads are busily spreading the notions that Sheehan is a dupe of radicals, naive and/or nutty. But the most promising avenue of attack is likely to be the one sketched out by Fox News Channel eminence Bill O'Reilly on Aug. 9, when he declared that Cindy Sheehan bears some responsibility for "other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous." That sort of demagoguery is on tap for the duration of the war. Military families will be recruited for media appearances to dispute the patriotism of antiwar activists -- especially those who speak as relatives of American soldiers and shatter media stereotypes by publicly urging withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. " A |
|
17 Aug 05 - 03:32 PM (#1544254) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce Ao, Amos, a grieving mother who is against the war is just expressing her opinion, but one who supports the war is a demagogue? All have the right to express their opinions- but if one side uses the fact that her son was killed as a platform, why do you deny the other side the same right? |
|
17 Aug 05 - 04:53 PM (#1544294) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos I wasn't. I was citing the article. What the author implies, and rightly, I think, is that if a grieving mother who believes in the war calls Cindy Sheehan's behaviour treasonous, she is crossing the line into demagoguery, or at least irrational extremist rhetoric. The exercise of free speech is not treasonous, generally; I believe conspiring to overthrow the Constitution or government by force may be so defined legally, but I am not positive about that. Sheehan is not calling those who defend Bush's war treacherous for their actions, despite the undermining effect it has had on our national repute, the hemorrhaging impact on our financial resources, and the ruination that it will have wrought on the thousands of men and women who return from the horrors of war physically intact and mentally shattered. These things do great damage to the nation. By inciting violence beyond need, Mister Bush has opened a Pandora's box of nightmares which will roll out over the years as men wake up in cold sweats reaching for their weapons, only to find they are in bed at home. It has happened with every class of war veterans -- WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, and Desert Storm. It is aknown consequence of sending men to do violence. Perhaps it is an unfortunately treasonous side effect of political decisions. But no-one in Sheehan's camp is calling those who support the war -- mothers or not -- treasonous, despite the possible reasons for using that term. Such language would be demagogic, intended to rouse flames and ire instead of reason and a review of what we are and what we stand for. A |
|
17 Aug 05 - 05:05 PM (#1544299) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce Amos, Thank you for the explaination. I was nodding, right until the last line in the paragraph "Perhaps it is an unfortunately treasonous side effect of political decisions. But no-one in Sheehan's camp is calling those who support the war -- mothers or not -- treasonous, ..." Such language seems to be demagogic, as well as contradictory. Or, are you NOT in Sheehan's camp? |
|
17 Aug 05 - 05:09 PM (#1544303) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos My point, which may have slipped sideways in transmission, is that although it could be argued that supporting the war is "treasonous" in the sense that it is harmful to the well-being of the nation and against the common good, nevertheless those in Sheehan's camp are not resorting to such language. To do so would not be rational, but intentionally inflammatory. I am in support of Sheehan getting her questions answered honestly, although I fear this is unlikely; and I admire her courage in standing up to be counted despite the inevitable character assasination it has brought her from those more interested in being right than in right being. A |
|
17 Aug 05 - 06:25 PM (#1544358) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow Weird! |
|
17 Aug 05 - 07:43 PM (#1544406) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Kevin, what are you applying that to? A |
|
17 Aug 05 - 07:57 PM (#1544419) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi Parents of fallen Marine make plea to Bush POSTED: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:50:03 PM UPDATED: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:34:36 PM CLEVELAND -- The Cleveland family of Marine killed in Iraq says President Bush needs to create a plan that will bring the troops home Rosemary Palmer is the mother of Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder the Second, who was buried yesterday. Palmer says the war is not going well and that changes have to be made. She says the troops either need more support or they need to be pulled out of Iraq. At a news conference at their home today, Palmer and her husband applauded Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier who has posted herself outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Palmer says Sheehan is the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement. Schroeder died two weeks ago in a roadside explosion along with other Ohio-based Marines. Source: http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=39408 |
|
17 Aug 05 - 08:08 PM (#1544432) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow What does weird mean there? My post to this thread yesterday at 8:52 pm gives a hint. "Weird" means a time and a place where this kind of hate and contempt toward this lady is evidently accepted as a normal part of political behaviour. Weird, and frightening, because it's showing itself in the most powerful political entity in the history of the planet. |
|
17 Aug 05 - 10:18 PM (#1544480) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Bobert Well, seems the Bush nmassive PR machine is workin' 24/7 tryin' any trick they can come up wioth to discredit Cindy Sheehan with out seemin calous... Good luck to them but I'd rather have my hard earned tax bucks goin' toward something more positive than trying to get me to think they way that Bush's PR folks would like me to think... And, IMHO, I think this woamn has every right to do what she is doing... Since her first meetin' with Bush a lot of stuff has come to the forfront and, yeah, ain't jus' Cindy Sheehan that has questions... Seems there ain't too many folks, other than the partisan true believin' Bush-heads, that don't have a lot of questions... Meanwhile Bush hides out on the ranch... Normal... That seems to be his MO.... Hide and let daddy fix it... He is not a man... He is a spoiled little kid who occasionally tries to act like he is a man... ... which is yet another lie on his resume'.... Like he cares??? Legacy???? Hmmmmmm???? Crook, liar and murderer... That 'bout sums up his regime... When can we have our country back? This guy is killin' it.... Bobert |
|
17 Aug 05 - 10:59 PM (#1544501) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST Bobert, You make a great standup comic - forget the guitar. |
|
18 Aug 05 - 12:34 AM (#1544551) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi "On Monday night, a vandal in a pickup truck ran over hundreds of small white crosses that had been installed in Crawford, Texas as a simple memorial to the Troops killed in Iraq. The vandal, who police say is Waco resident Larry Northern, was soon arrested, and OpTruth's Perry Jefferies managed to find his e-mail address. Here's what he had to say: Mr. Northern: I am a Veteran of the Iraq war, having served with the 4th Infantry Division on the initial invasion with Force Package One. While I was in Iraq,a very good friend of mine, Christopher Cutchall,was killed in an unarmoredHMMWV outside of Baghdad. He was a cavalry scout serving with the 3d ID.Once he had declined the award of a medal because Soldiers assigned to him did not receive similar awards that he had recommended. He left two sons and awonderful wife. On Monday night, August 16, you ran down the memorial cross erected for him by Arlington West." To continue reading this open email to the vandalizer of the crosses at Camp Casey, click Operation Truth |
|
18 Aug 05 - 02:47 AM (#1544591) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,kirsten anderberg Look, you cannot say you have to let kids have free will and be soldiers and then act like you didn't know they were risking their lives. That is idiocracy. And then to feign ignorance to cover guilt once they are dead is ludicrous. Period. Do not complain about American kids coming home dead in bags if you did not complain about them going there to begin with. |
|
18 Aug 05 - 06:47 AM (#1544677) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Big Mick kirsten, I really wonder at what drives some of these arguments. You are attempting to answer emotion with logic. I guess you can try, but I don't know how far you will get. I get the distinct impression from your posts that you have the answers and we poor saps should all be able to "get it". How many Mothers and Fathers in the last 45 years or so had to set back and watch as their children went to a war they may have had doubts about? They did it because young folks, despite our best efforts, grow to young adulthood and make choices. We raise them to do so, and not just the choices we want them to make. It is not only in the war arena. I just heard a caller to an NPR talk radio show complaining that his beautiful, science trained, college graduate niece had chucked it all andwent to one of the old Soviet Republics to preach the Gospel to Moslems. The whole family is in distress, but she has made her mind up. Mothers and Fathers are only complicit in the decisions that their children make to the extent that they raised the children. Mick |
|
18 Aug 05 - 07:53 AM (#1544709) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Look, you cannot say you have to let kids have free will and be soldiers and then act like you didn't know they were risking their lives. I don't think anyone is doing this. But understanding it never lessens the overwhelming sorrow when the risk turns bad. Every risk has two sides, also. I wonder if Casey had killed a dozen angry men of his age but different nationality and religion, and come home with the blessings of Uncle Sam, would she be staked out? Obviously not. Someone else might be, though. And Casey could be just as ruined internally, maddened by what he went through and what he did. War is the worst choice available. A |
|
18 Aug 05 - 09:16 AM (#1544787) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: *daylia* MY own son, age 23, is back "camping" on my futon for a few weeks till he gets settled at school/work. I've had to set some "sound boundaries" around here lately, particularly around this one new and particularly brutal and oppressive heavy metal number he likes, by a group called System of a Down (I think they're from the UK). Just imagine all that testosterone ROARING out the last verse over and over, and you'll see why I had to set the boundary .... "B.Y.O.B. System Of A Down lyrics Artist: System Of A Down Album: Mezmerize Year: 2005 Title: B.Y.O.B. Why do they always send the poor! Barbarisms by Barbaras With pointed heels. Victorious, victorious, kneel. For brand new spankin' deals. Marching forward hypocritic And hypnotic computers. You depend on our protection, Yet you feed us lies from the table cloth. La la la la la la la la la, Everybody's going to the party have a real good time. Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine. Kneeling roses disappearing, Into Moses' dry mouth, Breaking into Fort Knox, Stealing our intentions, Hangars sitting dripped in oil, Crying FREEDOM! Handed to obsoletion, Still you feed us lies from the table cloth. La la la la la la la la la, Everybody's going to the party have a real good time. Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine. Everybody's going to the party have a real good time. Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine. Blast off, its Party time, And we don't live in a fascist nation, Blast off , its party time, And where the fuck are you? ….. Yeah Where the fuck are you? Where the fuck are you? Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor? Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor? [X4] Kneeling roses disappearing, Into Moses' dry mouth, Breaking into Fort Knox, Stealing our intentions, Hangars sitting dripped in oil, Crying FREEDOM! Handed to obsoletion, Still you feed us lies from the tablecloth. La la la la la la la la la, Everybody's going to the party have a real good time. Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine. Everybody's going to the party have a real good time. Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine. Where the fuck are you! Where the fuck are you! Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor? Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor? [X3] Why, do, they always send the poor [X3] They only send the poor [x2]" Good question - it's just the form that's not user-friendly for an ole fossil like me. Lately though, because of Cindy and her son, I've had a change of heart about that song. And I keep wondering if Casey liked the same music Eric does - they were about the same age. "Kids" (???) that age are much more likely to listen to their peers and the media than their mothers. I know - I have 3. So I'm glad at least somebody's asking the questions - and in a form that might attract the attention of the young ones who need to ponder it most. I'd like to make it mandatory listening for all young people considering a career in the military! It's just so unfortunate Casey never got to hear it. And poor Cindy is most thankfully reaching a larger audience. Even though I am pro-peace and non-violence, if my sons chose to join the Armed Forces today, they would do it with my blessings and best wishes. I'd certainly make it my business to be sure they understood why I'd prefer otherwise, but I would never interfere with their free will by trying to force my point of view on them, or continue to harrass them about it - much less "break their legs"! That's because I'm into non-violence and freedom for ALL, even those who disagree with me - not to mention avoiding police, courts and prisons (as Amos pointed out). My grandfather was decorated for bravery for his actions in the trenches of WWI, at the ripe ole age of 19. My father spent a couple years in Korea before I was born, then in Egypt during the 60's, as a UN peacekeeper. I remember the daily stress and worry that he'd be posted to Vietnam when he got back from teh Middle East - but that war ended before they sent his division. I would not DREAM of dishonouring them today by informing them about how "foolish" or "immoral" (??) I thought their careers (and their sacrifices) were! Even if I did think that way (which I don't), and even if the ones who choreographed those wars were misguided and 'evil' (which they probably were). That's because I love them, and I know saying those those things would only hurt them, and change nothing anyway. Opinions, circumstances and choices may come and go, but in the end only Love Rules. Even so, the stand Cindy is taking is commendable and vitally important. It's so dangerous to publicly hold a 'serial bully' accountable though! Not to mention the planets's most powerful serial 'superbully' (at present, anyway). Drives their "Malice" levels up right off the scale, if I remember correctly from the article I linked to in my first post here. So I just keep watching, and hoping, and praying for the best .... |
|
18 Aug 05 - 10:12 AM (#1544835) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos May the Universe spare your son, and your son spare your ears, from their several assaults. A |
|
18 Aug 05 - 01:34 PM (#1545019) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie I'd like to throw another thought into this mix. For years this one song has offended my sensibilities. It was written (recorded?) in 1914 and I object to the mindset it propounds. "Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag And smile, smile, smile While you've a lucifer to light your fag Smile, boys. That's the style! What's the use in worrying? It never was worthwhile. So pack up your troubles in your old kit bag And smile, smile, smile." Vietnam protests have taken us a long way past the idea that we should present ourselves or our boys as fodder for our 'betters' to use as they see fit. |
|
18 Aug 05 - 02:00 PM (#1545036) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow 1915 actually. Here's a page with the lyrics and a couple of recordings from 1916 and 1917. I think you may be misunderstanding the mindset, Ebbie - basically it's not gung-ho patriotism, it's keep-smiling-through stoicism, with a definite touch of irony. Remember it's an English song. |
|
18 Aug 05 - 06:33 PM (#1545209) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi BREAKING: Cindy's going home asap ...Cindy Sheehan's mother has had a stroke and she is heading home to be with her. Cindy said, in the brief clip, that the camp would continue as other Gold Star Mothers were there. Pray for her. And keep the strength flowing to Camp Casey." -snip- For more information on the vigil by Cindy Sheehan and other Gold Star parents, visit dailykos |
|
18 Aug 05 - 09:06 PM (#1545316) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Her son. Her husband. Her mother. Dear heavens to Betsy, this gal is hoeing a rough row. A |
|
18 Aug 05 - 09:23 PM (#1545338) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie Not to mention some oft the media. Thanks, McGrath. I didn't even know the song was British. And I certainly didn't know it had verses! I had never heard them. It well may be meant in irony- as various have said, some Americans don't pick up on too finely pointed irony; I don't think my failure is because I am American but because, for whatever reason, I tend to be literal by nature. |
|
18 Aug 05 - 09:46 PM (#1545363) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Bobert Well, good danged post daylia... Yeah, what's gettin' shuffled unner that table is not the right ot wrongness of America's forieng policy under Bush but personalities... Cindy v. Bush... Yeah, I'm sorry that Cindy has had to rush off but this ain't about one woman's grief but a much larger issue of a terribly flaweed American foriegn policy... This is what we should be discussin'... See, this is how good the Bush PR team is... Like what are we really discussing here? Whether a woam who has lost her son has a right to petition the president??? Like who friggin' cares??? It's more about whether the mothers , afether, brothers and siteres of all the service folks in Iraq have a right to clear answers on why we are still there... Bobert |
|
18 Aug 05 - 10:52 PM (#1545418) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies Bobert is dead right. As I pointed out earlier, none of our intellectual giant Bushites have managed to answer Azizi's question opening this thread--what exactly was the glorious cause Cindy Sheehan's son died for? The silence has been deafening. As others have pointed out, you can perhaps gain a good picture of how much Bush believes in his own cause by observing how hard he has tried to persuade his own daughters to join the "front lines of freedom" in Iraq. As I noted earlier, it seems likely that the only freedom being protected by her son's death is the freedom to watch Iraq, sooner or later, descend into factions squabbling over oil, federalism, and the role of Islam in government. Even if the constitution does finesse these issues by this coming Sunday, they will not go away--and any of these could destroy Iraq as a state. (Obviously the Kurdish north has been de facto, if not de jure, independent for years now--and sees no reason to backtrack.) |
|
18 Aug 05 - 11:19 PM (#1545424) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: katlaughing I am sorry if this has already been posted, but tonight, I can finally say "I see some hope and am proud of some of my fellow Americans." To see why, look at this slide show of favourite pix from around the country from over 1700 candleight vigils for Cindy: click here. The more the shurb ignores her, the bigger the groundswell of Americans for Peace, imo. Give 'im enough rope... kat |
|
18 Aug 05 - 11:55 PM (#1545438) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Don Firth Here ya go -- Clicky. I heard on the radio today that there are those who think that Cindy's vigil has had a sort of "Rosa Parks Effect" and may very well have breathed new life into the peace movement. Let's hope!! Don Firth |
|
19 Aug 05 - 08:59 AM (#1545586) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: JennyO Oh yes Don, I really hope so. I just saw the slideshow and was filled with hope. Well done those people! More and more this is reminding me of the Vietnam era. If public opinion turns our way sufficiently, Bush will have to start listening, if for no other reason than his desire not to get voted out of office. Jenny |
|
19 Aug 05 - 04:55 PM (#1545948) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: katlaughing Thanks, Don, for the clicky. I tried to fix mine last night when the 'cat went down.:-) I DO believe this is breathing new life in the Peace Movement. I loved that one sign which quoted the 60's "War is not good for children and other living things." Don't forget there is a HUGE IMPEACH BUSH march on Washington, DC coming up next month!! |
|
19 Aug 05 - 07:15 PM (#1546061) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow It's rather a pity you don't have the same system of popular recall nationally that Arnie the Terminator took advantage of in California. |
|
19 Aug 05 - 08:06 PM (#1546093) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos The President is quite impeachable, Kevin...it only requires enough brave lawyers...oh, never mind!!!!!! A |
|
19 Aug 05 - 09:28 PM (#1546129) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: *daylia* Keep it up, folks! A concerned friend from New Orleans just sent this encouraging update: "...Meanwhile, Bush's approval continues to sink. For example, this from the webnews... August 17, 2005 Bush Approval Continues to Fall http://tinyurl.com/at7p3 President Bush's job approval has dropped to 41% nationwide, according to the results of 50 separate but concurrent, statewide public opinion polls conducted by SurveyUSA ( http://tinyurl.com/9x75l ) Bush's approval rating ranges from a high of 59% in Idaho to a low of 29% in Rhode Island. a.. Bush is above 50% in 7 states. b.. Bush is at 50% in 2 states. c.. Bush is below 50% in 41 states. Compared to last month's poll, Bush's approval numbers dropped 5 or more points in 10 states. The single largest drop was in Minnesota, where it fell 10 points. Bush also fell 9 points in New Mexico. For state by state details go to SurveyUSA http://tinyurl.com/9x75l |
|
19 Aug 05 - 09:33 PM (#1546133) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: *daylia* PS System of a Down is not from the UK, but the US. That feels reassuring, somehow. ANd thanks all, for your thoughts and songs and blessings too. |
|
19 Aug 05 - 09:59 PM (#1546153) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi See this online article of two Gold Star Mothers who are joining the vigil in Crawford, Texas: "Ga. Moms Protest at Bush's Ranch It is traveling day for Evelyn Allen and Patricia Roberts, two mothers who lost their sons to the war in Iraq. "We just don't know the truth behind the war," Allen told 11Alive's Jerry Carnes "We're at a standstill. Why is it going on? We want to know why." Allen is the mother of Jonathan Shields who was 25 when he died in Iraq. Patricia Roberts is the mother of Jamaal Addison, who was killed at the age of 23. The mothers boarded a plane at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, bound for Crawford, Texas. They've joined in a protest there in front of President Bush's Texas ranch, demanding that president Bush end the war. "I've never heard from the President," said Roberts. "He's never sent his condolences and never acknowledged my son personally, and that's what I ask of him." Civil rights leaders, including Rev. Joseph Lowery and John Evans, also made the trip. "This trip isn't about who Bush is," said Rev. Lowery. "It's about who we the people are, and we are the people who call for an end to the slaughter." In the same airport, at virtually the same time, hundreds of soldiers lined up for their trip to the Middle East. Sgt. Carnell Lee said goodbye to his wife and daughter. "I can understand their grief because we're losing soldiers over there," said Sgt. Lee said of the protesting mothers. "But, we've still have a mission over there and we still have to complete that mission before we come back." Sgt. Curtis Hodges said grief can't interfere with unfinished work. "Let us do our job," said Sgt. Hodges. "Let us do our job and complete the mission, and when the mission is done, we'll come home." Protesters say if Bush doesn't bring American soldiers home, they will demand that congress end their financing of the war." http://11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=68052 |
|
19 Aug 05 - 10:01 PM (#1546155) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi What is the noble cause people are dying for? **** Maybe I finally got #100??!!! |
|
19 Aug 05 - 10:03 PM (#1546159) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos "System of a Down"?? What -- Microsoft's next release? A |
|
20 Aug 05 - 07:54 AM (#1546209) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,G Does anyone hear remember the Twin Towers. I am sorry that Ms. Cindy lost her son - but there were 1100 innocent families that never got so much as a DNA sample to bury. She did. Maybe it was time for action. There were 8 documented and reported terriost attacks against the US during WJCs tenure, each involving a loss of life. The action taken was mostly on a legal basis which the enemy has no concept Cindy versus Bush? Ridiculous!! Her right to protest is guaranteed. The promise of results is not. She is merely a blip on the temporary radar screen and will fade from view. I am sorry to say but I now think she is merely a pawn of the radical Left. Moveon.org, American Socilaist Party, etc. |
|
20 Aug 05 - 08:09 AM (#1546215) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Bobert No, GUEST, G, she is a pawn of both the radical left AND Bush's PR team because no one is really talkin' about why in the hell we are in Iraq??? That is good news fir Bush because he doesn't seem to have an answer and all the ones he has thrown at us in the past have turned out to be fabrications... BTW, 9/11 is *not* an answer... Iraq was not responsible... Saudi's were... Bobert |
|
20 Aug 05 - 08:45 AM (#1546236) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: *daylia* Right on, Bobert. And this article poses an interesting question - Is THIS the glorious cause Casey Sheehan died for?? THE WAR FOR ISRAEL - (and you thought the oil was for the U.S.) You are looking at the reason for the war against Iraq. This war is being fought for Ariel Sharon and for Israel's strategic benefit! That's what Israel does. It has its intelligence organization, Mossad, carry out false flag operations and deceives others into attacking their enemies. In short they get others to fight their wars for them.... Israel is in the midst of its plan to use the United States military, which it controls, to conquer Iraq and divert Iraqi oil to the Haifa refinery via the Mosul to Haifa pipeline. The U.S. has built airbases at H2 and H3 (which stand for Haifa 2 and Haifa 3) to protect this strategic pipeline. The pipeline is intact, fully operational, and is being used to covertly send oil to Israel. Paid for with the blood of American soldiers that die in Iraq. Iraq is being turned into another Palestine state for Israel. This war was fought in order to secure Israel's future. Israel, being a parasite nation, needed to create an income stream that would continue if funding from the United States should dry up. They have been working on the plan to steal Iraqi oil for years. Read Israel's Blitzkrieg on Middle East Oil by Joe Vialls for more on this. To quote Mr. Vialls article, "... they are already planning to steal 1,825 million barrels of Iraqi oil per annum. Taking a nominal price of US $25.00 per barrel ... the Israeli-Jewish terrorists stand to make a cool US $45,625,000,000.00 each year .... " [Thats over 45 1/2 Billion dollars a year or $125 million each day!!!]... Zionist forces are in control of the United States. When Ariel Sharon said: "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." (Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael) -- it was no idle chatter. He was telling the truth. They have gained control through the Federal Reserve System controlling the banks. They are also firmly in control in England. Hence the 2 allies will unite to fight a good fight for the greater good of Israel... " ?????? wow, that's quite the chilling analysis. But put it together with this, from the blogsphere, and see how we end up in a real 'Deep Freeze': http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/index.php/BreakWithDemocrats The Bush cabal that occupies the White House is fanatical, arrogant and believes it is doing the work of God. One would think the U.S. were some kind of theocratic state given all the heavy emphasis on religion. Newspaper articles detail how God supposedly told evangelist Pat Robertson that the Iraq war would entail heavy casualties. Bush supporters testify that they believe that through Bush, "God is in the White House." There is an open disdain for facts and reality. A New York Times Magazine (17 October) article by Ron Suskind describes how a senior Bush advisor told Suskind that "guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore'." Suskind points out that Bush does not have to claim that he is ordained by God; others do it for him. He quotes zealous Bush supporter Hardy Billington declaring, "God gave us this president to be the man to protect the nation at this time." "We may be that generation that sees Armageddon," Ronald Reagan infamously remarked. Though Reagan was probably thinking of a nuclear showdown with the Soviet Union, today many religious fundamentalist leaders are predicating their positions on the Near East, particularly Israel/Palestine, on a desire for an apocalyptic battle of titanic proportions in the region. This has led to an unholy alliance between the Zionist neocons and the largely Protestant fundamentalist right in the U.S. The two groups have drawn together in spite of the anti-Semitism of the bible-thumpers—Pat Robertson, for example, an ardent supporter of Israel, assigns Jews a role in his imagined conspiracy spelled out in his book The New World Order that reminds one of the lies in the anti-Semitic screed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These Christian fundamentalists want to see Armageddon, even if it means nuclear war in the Near East; they want to see the "Second Coming" and the end of the world. And they know to play on the deep religiosity that pervades this country, where, according to a recent Gallup Poll, some 42 percent of Americans describe themselves as "born again" or evangelical Christians. It is not an accident that gay marriage is blown up into some huge supposed threat to civilization as we know it, pushing the ever-popular hot buttons of American religious mania and sexual hysteria. The fanatical religiosity of the Bush administration, its war-crazed policies, its supreme imperial arrogance and its attacks on the rights of labor and black people have produced a sharp polarization in this country. "When it comes to policy," the New York Times (26 October) noted, Bush "has done more than any president in recent history to advance the agenda of Christian social conservatives. .. Egads. Will we EVER know the truth??? But the upside is, according to polls I read this morning, over 60% of Americans are behind Cindy, only 33% against. Way to go, America! :-D you can do this you can do this you can do this you can do this.... |
|
20 Aug 05 - 08:53 AM (#1546244) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi Cindy Sheehan is certainly the catalyst, but this vigil and the question she wants to ask George W. Bush [What was the noble cause in Iraq that resulted in her son's death?] is one that many other Gold Star families are asking. And more and more people are asking why Americans, Iraqis, British, and other people are dying as a result of this war. After all 911 has nothing to do with the Iraqis. Osama Bin Ladin was the master mind behind that tragedy and he has still not been captured. And after all no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq {other then the one's we're using]. And Saddam's been captured. So what's the real reason the USA started a war with Iraq? Why have so many people died and have been terribly injured? And why are we still in Iraq?? It wouldn't have anything to do with Iraq's oil would it??? |
|
20 Aug 05 - 09:08 AM (#1546247) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi For the record, I wrote my last post before reading daylia's post. And I'm not sure that I agree with her conclusions that the Iraqi war is being fought because of Israeli Zionism. I think that this war was started to get a hold of Iraqi oil. I also believe that Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq had something to do with the fact that his father had decided not to continue his Desert Storm war into Iraq. Maybe George W felt that here was his opportunity to be a war president just like his father, and to prove that he was "tougher" than his father by doing what his father decided not to do.. Of course this is all speculation. I'm no pyschologist, but I'm sure that pyschologists in the future will have alot of material to work on theorizing what made George E. Bush tick. But in the here and now people are dying and being badly injured because of this war. It's time that the Americans knew the true reason {s} we went to war and what our exit plan is. |
|
20 Aug 05 - 09:11 AM (#1546248) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi Sorry "George E Bush" {Georgie??} should be "George W Bush". |
|
20 Aug 05 - 09:15 AM (#1546253) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: *daylia* Azizi, those aren't my own personal conclusions. I really don't know what to make of the articles I just posted. |
|
20 Aug 05 - 10:35 AM (#1546297) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos The ZIonist hypothesis is just bull, in my humble opinion. Jewish people have a lot of influence in America, but so does that other cult, the Protestants, for example. You never hear about the Protestant conspiracy (well, not as often, anyway). And then there is the Hispanic conspiracy, and the Catholic conspiracy, and the Estonian conspiracy. It is unlikely Sharon said that, and if he did, I suggest he was bragging. THe articles are just rants. A |
|
20 Aug 05 - 11:12 AM (#1546311) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Terry Allan Hall Living about 3 1/2 hours away from Crawford, a few of us have made a trip down there on two occasions to take Ms. Sheehan bottled water, soda and other non-perishables, and to let her know that we appreciate her efforts. One of the most interestings things (to me, anyway) is to find out how many of the residents of Crawford support her stance and think "Dubya" is a National Embarrassment! |
|
20 Aug 05 - 11:35 AM (#1546319) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Terry -- very glad to hear that! A |
|
20 Aug 05 - 12:07 PM (#1546330) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies Guest G-- If you think that Bush's invasion of Iraq has helped on the "terriost" (sic) front, it's time for you to start thinking, though that may be an unnatural act for Bushites. Rather than help, it has, by giving Osama et al. lots of footage of dead women and children--and lots of "infidels" in Iraq, been the best recruiting tool he and other anti-Westerners could hope to have---and we are seeing the results in London and elsewhere. |
|
20 Aug 05 - 12:23 PM (#1546333) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies Also, Daylia-- That absurd article you posted is the just the latest offshoot of the "The Protocols of the Elders of ZIon". As Amos says, the world Estonian conspiracy is just as likely. Or maybe it's the world Canadian conspiracy-- to clog all the world's computers by overloading with news and speculation about golden-throat former sci-fi stars. |
|
20 Aug 05 - 02:38 PM (#1546355) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi See this excerpt from Cindy Sheehan's latest entry to her diary on dailykos: "...Contrary to what the main stream media thinks, I did not just fall off a pumpkin truck in Crawford, Tx. on that scorchingly hot day two weeks ago. I have been writing, speaking, testifying in front of Congressional committees, lobbying Congress, and doing interviews for over a year now. I have been pretty well known in the progressive, peace community and I had many, many supporters before I even left California. The people who supported me did so because they know that I uncompromisingly tell the truth about this war. I have stood up and said: "My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it." I have never said "pretty please" or "thank you." I have never said anything wishy-washy like he uses "Patriotic Rhetoric." I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING. The Downing Street Memos dated 23 July, 2002 prove that he knew that Saddam didn't have WMD's or any ties to Al Qaeda. I believe that George lied and he knew he was lying. He didn't use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made us afraid of ghosts that weren't there. Now he is using patriotic rhetoric to keep the U.S. military presence in Iraq: Patriotic rhetoric that is based on greed and nothing else. Now I am being vilified and dragged through the mud by the righties and so-called "fair and balanced" main stream media who are afraid of the truth and can't face someone who tells it by telling any truth of their own. Now they have to twist, distort, lie, and scrutinize anything I have ever said when they never scrutinize anything that George Bush said or is saying. Instead of asking George or Scotty McClellan if he will meet with me, why aren't they asking the questions they should have been asking all along: "Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for? What do you hope to accomplish there? Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't? Why did you lie to us? Why did you lie to the American people? Why did you lie to the world? Why are our nation's children still in harm's way and dying everyday when we all know you lied? Why do you continually say we have to `complete the mission' when you know damn well you have no idea what that mission is and you can change it at will like you change your cowboy shirts?" Camp Casey has grown and prospered and survived all attacks and challenges because America is sick and tired of liars and hypocrites and we want the answers to the tough questions that I was the first to dare ask. THIS is George Bush's accountability moment and he is failing...miserably...." -snip- Click HERE for more. |
|
20 Aug 05 - 03:29 PM (#1546368) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos GEt it said, gurl!! A |
|
20 Aug 05 - 03:34 PM (#1546371) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,*daylia* Or maybe it's the world Canadian conspiracy-- to clog all the world's computers by overloading with news and speculation about golden-throat former sci-fi stars. LOL at least we have rockhard evidence of that, right here on Mudcat! "My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. Interesting how even Cindy uses the phrase 'evil cabal'. To requote the second article in my 8:45 post above: ...today many religious fundamentalist leaders are predicating their positions on the Near East, particularly Israel/Palestine, on a desire for an apocalyptic battle of titanic proportions in the region. This has led to an unholy alliance between the Zionist neocons and the largely Protestant fundamentalist right in the U.S ... These Christian fundamentalists want to see Armageddon, even if it means nuclear war in the Near East; they want to see the "Second Coming" and the end of the world. And they know to play on the deep religiosity that pervades this country, where, according to a recent Gallup Poll, some 42 percent of Americans describe themselves as "born again" or evangelical Christians. Sorry, I just don't see the same level of absurdity in this line of reasoning as others do. Or in the possibility that Iraq was invaded and occupied by the US, in order to "liberate" the Iraqi oilfields for Israel's consumption. |
|
20 Aug 05 - 03:36 PM (#1546374) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: katlaughing Terry Allan Hall, haven't seen you here in ages!! Good to hear from you and that is great news about the folks of Crawford. Thanks for letting us know! In Peace, kat |
|
21 Aug 05 - 04:42 AM (#1546465) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Boab Tarheel--first, I AM a mudcat member. My "cookies " have been lost twice in recent tech glitches. Since I do not personally know you, I cannot be expected to know for sure of your status in the matter of family, etc.. So it transpires that you are a family man, and married for a truly respectable length of time. That I may in any way have given concern to any innocent member of your family, I apologise unreservedly. I do not, however intend to withdraw any slightest part of my opinions . You wish the world to know that you are proud of your family's commitment to Bush's armed forces? Fair enough---but do not expect all others to come even close to applauding such a commitment. And please let my immortal soul be my own concern. I believe that your war-leader himself claims to be a "born again christian". I'm with Robert Burns on that score; "If such as he in Heaven may be, then welcome, hail damnation!" I am a Christian. I have always been a Christian, and never had the need for "rebirth". I shall make a point of re-affirming my mudcat membership, and you may p/m. me with whatever your further comment might be. Boab |
|
21 Aug 05 - 10:31 AM (#1546562) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Donuel We are entering the time when all the evil in the mud begins to hatch out. IT will be the most perilous time of all when the most guilty become the most desperate. Stories coming to public attention include: a Mother's grief and anger, the DOD project Able Bravo (in charge of investigating Al Quada) was shut down in June 2001, John O'Neal of the FBI was taken off the case of Al Quada terrorism in early 2001 and effectively removed from the FBI - he warned of the impending attack and died on 9-11 as head of the private security for the WTC. These stories will eventually dwarf the Rove treason gate scandal. The desperation of those who wish to silence the screams of those who have suffered the open wounds of this administration have always had one reliable weapon; fear generated by an attack. It matters little if they make it happen or let it happen, the result will be the same. In my opinion the neo con war machine has no choice but to revisit an attack on American soil if they wish to silence all dissent, witnesses and detractors of the policy of full blown war and invasion including the use of nuclear weapons. I will not be here to say I told you so. All you will hear that will remind you of this prediction are two words: Code Red. |
|
21 Aug 05 - 10:41 AM (#1546565) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies Daylia-- It certainly is true that some of the more messianic religious Right are actually looking forward to Armageddon, and that could tie in with a nuclear war, possibly starting in the Mideast. But just ask yourself--do you think Israelis would look forward to it? And as far as the Iraq war being fought for Israel, which is actually pulling Bush's strings,--as I said, that fits perfectly with Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which as you know was a turn of the 19th century screed, which has been used to justify anti-Semitism ever since. Don't be sucked into it. |
|
21 Aug 05 - 10:43 AM (#1546567) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Donuel Yesterday (fellow Texan) Lance Armstrong narrowly averted being wiped out by GWB while they mountain biked all over the Bush ranch compound. The Discovery channel filmed their entire excursion which passed very close to "camp" Sheehan. Lance recently expressed an interest in entering politics. |
|
21 Aug 05 - 10:55 AM (#1546578) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies Donuel-- Where was Bush born? He ain't no Texan. Connecticut has a better claim (if it wants one). |
|
21 Aug 05 - 11:38 AM (#1546600) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow Does anyone hear remember the Twin Towers What on Earth does that have to do with the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Apart from serving as a kind of reward for the people who brought down the Twin Towers, promoting their ideology, and generally helped them strenbgthen their influence. |
|
21 Aug 05 - 12:27 PM (#1546619) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST I think I agree with Guest "G" - after 8 incidents against the US and or its' citizens during that 9 year period ending on September 11th, everything has been localized into Iraq. |
|
21 Aug 05 - 12:40 PM (#1546624) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies "everything localized into Iraq"--you must be a Bushite--not very observant. Everything's fine in London, Spain, Afghanistan, etc.? Typically Bushite--as long as there's no direct attack on the US, that's fine with you. |
|
21 Aug 05 - 04:28 PM (#1546688) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: katlaughing "There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. Others hug but having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug and that's me and I know what it's like." - President George W. Bush (Washington DC, 12/11/02 |
|
21 Aug 05 - 04:45 PM (#1546693) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST Speaking of "observant", try to be more precise in your reading as I quote from my post "after 8 incidents againt the US and or its citizens during that 9 year period ending on September 11th". I am not a "Bushite" whatever that may entail and I also don't ignore the rest of the world as some here would have a person to think. I was simply contraidicting a few in these hallowed halls. |
|
21 Aug 05 - 10:01 PM (#1546801) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies "Ghost" (you're no guest)-- Sorry, you lose again. Perhaps you'd like to do some research this time before shooting from the hip again. Your extra credit question is: were the London and Madrid attacks before or after 11 Sept 2001? After (pick a number of incidents) ending on September 11 2001, everything has been "localized into Iraq". I repeat---------wrong. Unless your geographical knowledge is wonderful as your logic--and you've somehow managed to locate Madrid and London in Iraq. If so, congratulations on your imaginative approach. Too bad the facts are against you. |
|
21 Aug 05 - 10:18 PM (#1546815) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow What does "everything has been localized into Iraq" actually mean? A bit cryptic. |
|
21 Aug 05 - 10:39 PM (#1546836) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies "Cryptic" is being kind. But let's see what explanation they come up with. |
|
22 Aug 05 - 09:48 AM (#1547082) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Folk Singer Supports Anti-War Protesters By ANGELA K. BROWN The Associated Press Monday, August 22, 2005; 5:48 AM CRAWFORD, Texas -- Joan Baez was against the Vietnam War and she showed it _ appearing at marches, once even blocking the entrance of a military induction center. The folk singer is against the Iraq war, too, and she showed her support Sunday to protesters camping out near President Bush's ranch. Peace activist and singer Joan Baez arrives at Cindy Sheehan's anti-war camp near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, Sunday, Aug. 21, 2005. (AP Photo/LM Otero) (Lm Otero - AP) Baez took to the stage for about 500 people on an acre lot offered by a landowner who opposes the war, performing such classic peace anthems as "Song of Peace," "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" and "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot." Not far away is the camp started by Cindy Seehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq. "In the first march I went to (opposing Vietnam) there were 10 of us. This is huge," Baez told the relatives of fallen soldiers before performing just up the road from the ranch. |
|
22 Aug 05 - 04:32 PM (#1547301) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Stilly River Sage Amos beat me to it. Here is a link to the story and there's a photo. SRS |
|
22 Aug 05 - 04:49 PM (#1547312) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Rainbeau Leigh I am so proud today. My young daughter looked so cute as she headed off to TX to lend her voice to this protest. I nearly cried as she wiggled into my old hip-hugger bluejeans (complete with an old pack of Zig-Zags still in the pocket here these thirty-five long years later!). She said that, with her wearing my old jeans, it'd be just like me being there -- on the front lines again. I am so tickled that fashion has recycled in such a timely manner. She not only looked cute in my old jeans -- she fit in perfectly with her friends who are accompanying her. Though all theirs were new, her friends were wearing almost exactly the same kind of jeans! I finished her ensemble with a peace symbol medalion that I used to wear. It hung over her tie-die halter top. Her boyfriend is going with her (I pulled him aside and gave him a couple of packs of Trojans to take with them -- I know how these protest parties can be at night after a long day of, you know, protesting). With his sideburns and long hair he reminded me so much of one of the boys I used to hang out at protests with. He had those great long sideburns. Man, could he party! I get so nostalgic for those good old days. Life has kinda lost meaning since then -- I mean, it was only a few short years and people were wearing Izod and designer labels -- losing complete track of what really matters in life. Then everyone had to get jobs and stuff and it has just never as fun since. And, as good as I used to look in my peasant skirts and gypsy shirts, I just looked silly in Calvin Klien. I'm so glad my daughter has been able to grow up in another era when things matter! ...when she can have something to believe in and look good while doing it! |
|
22 Aug 05 - 06:18 PM (#1547341) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow Keep on wearing what feels right for you, and sooner or later there'll be other people wearing that kind of stuff again. That goes from principles as well. |
|
22 Aug 05 - 06:40 PM (#1547357) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST I don't think I know anyone who has "lost track of what really matters in life". We, or most of us, have to 'grow up' and take on new directions. Along with that, I find that there is more to do and have fun with today than 35 years ago. And, one more time, my comments with regard to US property and citizens have nothing to do with London, Madrid or the North Pole. Ron, I did not lose, rather you are simply lost. |
|
22 Aug 05 - 07:14 PM (#1547388) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow Presumably that was a GUEST who has posted before, but the price to pay for being a nameless GUEST is that they aren't actually identified with previous posts, so can't enter properly into any kind of continuing conversation... |
|
22 Aug 05 - 07:24 PM (#1547393) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST I am the Guest you refered to as "cryptic". I thought naming London and Madrid as Ron did would be enough of a clue for anyone. Obviously I over estimated one or two of you. |
|
23 Aug 05 - 12:21 AM (#1547453) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies Ghost-- Pretty feeble--can't you do better? So--US soldiers are not US citizens--you might note they have in fact been attacked since 2001. And--it's fine for our "Coalition partners" to be attacked? If all you're saying is that there have been no attacks on the US at home since 2001, then 1) that's meaningless, considering how many serious attacks there have been on our "partners" or 2) it shows clearly how much the "Coalition" means to you Bushites--the classic 'I'm all right, Jack' attitude--perfect Bushite. To keep your perfect record of complete nonsense,(congratulations) you're also wrong about Clinton. You've conveniently forgotten (funny how that happens) about Clinton's cruise missile attacks on bin Laden in Aug 1998, and the attack on a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The fact that the Sudan plant turned out to not be a chemical weapons plant does not negate Clinton's aggressive foreign policy. However, congratulations, you get the last word. I don't waste my time shadow-boxing with ghosts. Get a handle and I'll be glad to continue--but otherwise, enjoy your soliloquy. |
|
23 Aug 05 - 11:46 AM (#1547731) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,TIA And when Clinton did attack, you morons screamed "Wag the Dog".... |
|
23 Aug 05 - 12:00 PM (#1547745) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Cryptic Touchy, touchy, touchy! Resorting to name calling is an indication of no real fact or even rumors. Do you not remember that "Wag the Dog" was a sucessful movie? Primarily based on the blowing up of an Aspirin factory and shooting a Camel in the ass with a $1,000,000+ Cruise missle. Oh, and the taking out of two tents belonging goat herders. But(t), it did take Monica off the airwaves for a few days. ....and thank you for the Oxymoron of the year; Clinton's "Agressive Foreign Policy". And don't try to bounce back with Bosnia - we still have troops there and the place is still a mess. |
|
23 Aug 05 - 12:07 PM (#1547751) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Aggressive foreign policy is no virtue in itself, nameless one. Intelligent understanding of foreign cultures and politics, good assessment of the correct level of effort, understnading PR techniques, and a desire to never have to use violence if it can be avoided (but knowing when it cannot be avoided) are far better criteria. Bush's foreign policy has been aggressive enough to be deemed psychotic. A |
|
23 Aug 05 - 02:10 PM (#1547811) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC Clinton and Bush are cut from the same cloth. The main difference is that Bush is a lot more out in the open about it than Clinton. But they both sold their souls to the devil and waged war for the wrong reasons. I stopped believing that Bosnia was a humanitarian mission when I learned that depleted uranium was used in civilian population areas. |
|
23 Aug 05 - 05:35 PM (#1547978) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Cryptic Excellent insight, CarolC - But at the risk of being called a Bushite (again), I am going to wait to ascertain what the outcome of the current campaign demonstrates. I am a mediocre conservative, somewhat in favor of the current action, but very disturbed in several of the aspects in which it is being waged. (whatever that means - difficult to really know what is going on) |
|
23 Aug 05 - 05:47 PM (#1547990) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Cryptic Amos, I am Cryptic, hear me snivel! I think it is unfair to refer to me as nameless now. What is an Amos? But I do agree to some sort of an identity reference. My comment with regard to "agressive foreign policy" was due to WJC not having one. I agree it is not a great way to run the world. However, I do not think the policy of GWB is psychotic. You were no doubt not in favor of Viet Nam as there is less discussion to be had on the viability of that debacle. |
|
23 Aug 05 - 06:09 PM (#1548006) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC My own opinion, GUEST,Cryptic, is that we can look to the methods used in this military adventure (as with Bosnia) to tell us what the real agenda was/is behind the US led invasion and occupation of Iraq. If humanitarian concerns were the primary agenda, the people of Iraq would be experiencing less suffering now than they did under Saddam. |
|
23 Aug 05 - 06:33 PM (#1548035) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Well, Cryptic, why not make yourself a membership using this fine handle, so we can have a reg'l'ar conversation? You obviously have a sense of humor in spite of your wayward convictions, so we could probably get along all right! :D Lessee...policy: facing an oil crisis caused by a century or more of massive build-up of an oil-dependent technology base, remedy the situation by unilaterally invading a foreign land that can only postpone the problem, rather than address the source of the problem; in doing so, create an aberrated solution that adds a great deal of suffering to the country one is repsonsible for, and costs thousands of lives in the country one is invading. Policy: As the inheritor of a balanced budget, throw the nation into unprecedented deficit spending that will fiscally burden our heirs for ten generations OR ruin the credit of the nation whren they welch on the instruments of said debt. Policy: While throwing fiscal prudence to the winds, ALSO reduce the net revenues of the Federal government by providing for major tax breaks for anyone sufficiently above the average in income. Policy: WHen faced with irrefutable evidence of dramatic climatic change signficantly exacerbated by human impacts, create supercilious invalidations of the science involved as a justifications for refusing toparticpate in remedial efforts by othe rnations. Policy: As the inheritor of the world's greatest experiment in human dignity and civil rights since Athens, the United States Constitution, threaten to trivialize it by making it a vehicle for narrowminded moral judgements impinging on the private lives of citizens. These are all first-rate examples of psychosis in my opinion. All of them can be laid squarely at the feet of the Bush machine. He has been the most ruinous President we have ever had. He is glib, scurrilous, illiterate and ill-mannered. A |
|
23 Aug 05 - 06:38 PM (#1548040) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Cryptic Point well taken, CarolC. However, we all get our information from a myriad of sources. You must have lunch (as I have) with several people who have been there. Why believe what I say? Clinics, schools, Medical centers, Young girls and women now going to school. More air conditioning, appliances, etc. than ever before which has been the cause of some electrical blackouts. (now eliminated) |
|
23 Aug 05 - 06:41 PM (#1548043) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Cryptic Will answer later, Amos. |
|
23 Aug 05 - 07:29 PM (#1548085) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow Cryptic by name (and that's not a bad handle either, and a great improvement on namelessness) - but a bit too cryptic by content too. Is Cryptic's point in that earlier crpytic post that since there haven't actually been any notable foreign terrorist attacks on American soil since September 11, that this mustb be ascribed to the war on Iraq, since it occurred after that date? There seems a certain logical gap in that argument. After all, there have been a steady stream of atrociities around the world since then which have been plausably linked to the ideology/organisation/inspiration termed Al Qaida, and in some cases also specifically to the Iraq War. Including the recent events in London. |
|
23 Aug 05 - 09:38 PM (#1548194) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies Cryptic-- I agree with Kevin and Amos--excellent handle. However: As I pointed out, the Sudan supposed weapons factory was not in fact one. On the other hand, there's no doubt whatsoever that Bush has an absolutely perfect record in intelligence. Or maybe not. In all senses of the word: "It's a slam dunk". (remember that one?) "They'll be cheering us in the streets" (that didn't last long) "No, General Shakashvili, we won't need 100,000 troops in Iraq after the war". Etc., ad nauseam. Not to mention Bush's own giant intellect. Sorry, when it comes to intelligence, you Bushites had best find another tree to bark up. Now ,demagoguery, especially winning elections on the basis of panicking an easily led electorate through appeals to hate and fear--there the Bush team is absolutely tops--congratulations. And, by the way, we are still waiting for an answer to Azizi's question that opened the thread-- all the pro-Bush posters --(since you seem to take exception to the term Bushite)-- somehow have neglected to tell us what the glorious cause was that Cindy Sheehan's son died for (and others continue to die). You were in fact going to give us an answer, now, weren't you? After all, that's the genesis of the entire thread. Still waiting patiently for that answer. |
|
24 Aug 05 - 02:50 PM (#1548794) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Cryptic Amos, Quick thoughts to your policy statements. Policy - seems like no one wants to drill in Anwar, etc. Besides, Carter even tried to get something started but to no avail. Policy - Too much spending on both sides of the aisle but, haven't you read where the debt has now dropped $100 billion and tax revenues are UP, probably due to the booming economy which was spurred by the yax cut and subsequent additional spending by wage earners. Policy - It was an across the board tax decrease - more people than ever before are now not paying taxes and the top 5% of wage earners are paying 50%+ of all income taxes. Policy - The climate situation is still up in the air. If the treaty was so dam'ned important, why did WJC refuse to sign it and 'Algore' wanted nothing to do with it? and McGrath - As far as attacks go involving the US, its' properties and civilans, you must admit it has been contained in one area. I am not, however, disregarding the London attacks. God bless the Brits and their standup attitude. Policy - There have been no changes to the Constitution. Even though I have been referred to as a 'Bushite', the amending of that great document on the basis of a small percentage of the population should never be done. "Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness" as it states perhaps allows for the provision of "gay marriage". The so called Defense of Marriage Act would be better directed at decreasing the 50% divorce rate in the US. That would be a real "defense of marriage. |
|
24 Aug 05 - 02:54 PM (#1548798) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Cryptic (again) 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. |
|
24 Aug 05 - 05:29 PM (#1548914) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: TIA "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? |
|
24 Aug 05 - 06:01 PM (#1548936) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC 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. |
|
24 Aug 05 - 07:20 PM (#1548968) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC 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. |
|
24 Aug 05 - 07:33 PM (#1548978) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,daylia "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? |
|
24 Aug 05 - 07:43 PM (#1548985) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
24 Aug 05 - 10:35 PM (#1549094) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies 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. |
|
24 Aug 05 - 11:45 PM (#1549134) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
25 Aug 05 - 01:03 AM (#1549160) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 07:53 AM (#1549276) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 09:16 AM (#1549346) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Unless he's Garg, I don't think the President follows the threads. A |
|
25 Aug 05 - 09:23 AM (#1549351) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly "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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 10:11 AM (#1549399) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
25 Aug 05 - 10:28 AM (#1549414) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly clearly specious to you and Ms. Sheehan, but clearly not to all. Not specious to perhaps even a majority of Americans. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 10:38 AM (#1549421) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 10:49 AM (#1549430) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie John H, what is/em> the noble casue for which all these people have died and are dying? |
|
25 Aug 05 - 10:58 AM (#1549433) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi 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? |
|
25 Aug 05 - 11:20 AM (#1549458) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce 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? |
|
25 Aug 05 - 12:00 PM (#1549495) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
25 Aug 05 - 12:34 PM (#1549533) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 12:49 PM (#1549544) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Whistle Stop 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? |
|
25 Aug 05 - 12:51 PM (#1549545) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 12:58 PM (#1549557) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce as for the reasons that we originally went there... Sorry about that. I am not sure that the "STILL" was sufficient to differentiate this. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 01:02 PM (#1549559) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,TIA 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 01:40 PM (#1549578) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 01:45 PM (#1549584) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 01:58 PM (#1549592) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Whistle Stop 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 02:05 PM (#1549596) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce 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 |
|
25 Aug 05 - 02:38 PM (#1549627) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 02:42 PM (#1549633) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce Ebbie, Start in 1990 or so.... One who does not know history is doomed to repeat it. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 02:53 PM (#1549642) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
25 Aug 05 - 03:10 PM (#1549657) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce 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 |
|
25 Aug 05 - 03:48 PM (#1549681) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC LOL, beardedbruce. It's not because it's a democracy that we argue about it. Democracy is good. We argue for different reasons. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 05:01 PM (#1549729) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Don Firth 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 |
|
25 Aug 05 - 05:38 PM (#1549756) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round |
|
25 Aug 05 - 05:54 PM (#1549769) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly 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" |
|
25 Aug 05 - 06:07 PM (#1549779) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos LOL John!! Shades of the Kingston Trio in 1960! A |
|
25 Aug 05 - 06:11 PM (#1549782) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Bruce: I had no thought of redefining what you said; merely posting my observations and reflections, for whatever they were worth. A |
|
25 Aug 05 - 06:13 PM (#1549783) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 08:05 PM (#1549845) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi 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 |
|
25 Aug 05 - 08:10 PM (#1549846) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi 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 |
|
25 Aug 05 - 08:11 PM (#1549847) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow "...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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 08:40 PM (#1549866) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 08:52 PM (#1549873) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 09:41 PM (#1549905) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,TIA an answer in just a few short sentences......? |
|
25 Aug 05 - 10:35 PM (#1549944) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: dianavan 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. |
|
25 Aug 05 - 11:13 PM (#1549957) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies 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. |
|
26 Aug 05 - 12:11 AM (#1549974) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Big Mick Nicely done, John. Now, would you mind answering the subjects you have addressed in shorthand? Mick |
|
26 Aug 05 - 05:45 AM (#1550080) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly 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! |
|
26 Aug 05 - 06:38 AM (#1550114) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Leadfingers I am only here for one reason !! |
|
26 Aug 05 - 06:39 AM (#1550115) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Leadfingers Which was the 200th post . |
|
27 Aug 05 - 12:29 AM (#1550750) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies 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. |
|
27 Aug 05 - 01:27 AM (#1550771) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,NW 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? |
|
27 Aug 05 - 05:56 PM (#1551094) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow "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. |
|
27 Aug 05 - 07:19 PM (#1551151) Subject: The anti war protestor protestors From: Donuel http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushantipro.jpg next: their replacements arrive. |
|
27 Aug 05 - 07:26 PM (#1551154) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: bobad Here's another one Donuel. |
|
27 Aug 05 - 07:35 PM (#1551158) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Donuel 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. |
|
27 Aug 05 - 09:56 PM (#1551236) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Azizi 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 |
|
28 Aug 05 - 12:20 PM (#1551584) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST "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. |
|
28 Aug 05 - 12:34 PM (#1551593) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
28 Aug 05 - 12:43 PM (#1551599) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies "A country we now have a heavy moral obligation to"--I wonder why. |
|
28 Aug 05 - 01:08 PM (#1551619) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies 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. |
|
28 Aug 05 - 01:31 PM (#1551635) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: dianavan "...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? |
|
28 Aug 05 - 02:16 PM (#1551669) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff 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 |
|
28 Aug 05 - 03:15 PM (#1551697) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow ...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. |
|
28 Aug 05 - 06:49 PM (#1551800) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST 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. |
|
28 Aug 05 - 09:51 PM (#1551913) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
28 Aug 05 - 10:19 PM (#1551920) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 08:34 AM (#1552127) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Whistle Stop 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 11:14 AM (#1552232) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
29 Aug 05 - 12:31 PM (#1552278) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Whistle Stop 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 12:54 PM (#1552294) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 01:07 PM (#1552297) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 01:12 PM (#1552300) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Whistle Stop 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 01:14 PM (#1552302) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
29 Aug 05 - 01:49 PM (#1552319) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce 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 |
|
29 Aug 05 - 01:53 PM (#1552321) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST CarolC, I can not remember the US not having "a one party Tyranny" no matter what group is in office. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 02:02 PM (#1552327) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 02:39 PM (#1552349) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Whistle Stop 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 03:13 PM (#1552368) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
29 Aug 05 - 03:22 PM (#1552373) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 03:26 PM (#1552379) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 03:36 PM (#1552387) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
29 Aug 05 - 04:08 PM (#1552402) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 04:28 PM (#1552413) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Larry K 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! |
|
29 Aug 05 - 04:29 PM (#1552414) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC Precisely so, Guest,29 Aug 05 - 01:53 PM. At least not within my lifetime, at any rate. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 04:34 PM (#1552420) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 04:37 PM (#1552424) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 04:45 PM (#1552431) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
29 Aug 05 - 07:51 PM (#1552541) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow 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... |
|
29 Aug 05 - 08:13 PM (#1552554) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,ABE 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 08:33 PM (#1552567) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC 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? |
|
29 Aug 05 - 08:43 PM (#1552575) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 09:08 PM (#1552591) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow How about cutting that sentence of Amos to "He has blood on his hands that need not have been shed"? |
|
29 Aug 05 - 09:26 PM (#1552602) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 09:29 PM (#1552603) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie "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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 09:34 PM (#1552606) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 10:05 PM (#1552628) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie Well, I guess... she says sulkily. |
|
29 Aug 05 - 10:27 PM (#1552640) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce 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". |
|
29 Aug 05 - 10:58 PM (#1552647) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos 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 |
|
29 Aug 05 - 11:37 PM (#1552650) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies BB-- For instance Bushite would certainly describe anybody who voted for Mr. Bush. Your own good self possibly? Osamite?--somehow it's doubtful that many of us voted for Osama. That doesn't stop Larry K (sorry, Kevin, it is the very person--his fingerprints are all over the posting) from trying to tar the opposition as unpatriotic, to say the least. But Larry, your attempt to do so is singularly inept, even for you--and you set a high standard in such matters. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 01:08 AM (#1552659) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies What's really intriguing is that Bush voters somehow take exception to being called Bushites. Those of us who voted for Kerry, I suspect, could easily live with being called Kerryites. It would be no problem to defend most of Kerry's policies. But Bushites seem to realize that it's really not that easy to defend the wonderful deeds of their boy. Fascinating. Amos is also right in his use of the term "uncritical" to describe Bushites' (non)-thinking---since indeed to be a Bushite requires suspension of critical faculties. That's fine with them, it seems, since they're perfectly happy to have the necessity of dealing with shades of gray removed--they respond primarily to appeals to hate and fear, in which the Bush team has proven its mastery. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 01:20 AM (#1552660) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,TIA Larry K has learned well the Rovian technique...morph a picture of triple-amputee-decorated-Vietnam-veteran Max Cleland into a picture of Osama. It is a barely evolved but digital-age version of simple playground name-calling. Morph all liberals and progressives into Osama acolytes. Well, you're a stinky-poohead. Now, as a liberal or progressive (but not Democrat), I invite you to take as long as you like, go read any and all of my posts, and please present me with my "point of agreement" with Osama. Note - editing or partial quoting out of context will be swiftly revealed. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 01:30 AM (#1552661) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC I've never called anyone a "Bushite", and I don't really intend to start doing so now. But it seems to me, in terms of strategic and tactical styles, as well as the big picture underlying agendas and family backgrounds, GW Bush has far more in common with Osama than any of the people here in the Mudcat and elsewhere who have criticized Bush have with Osama. Things in common... being from wealthy, powerful families with connections in the highest places, killing large numbers of innocent civilians to further agendas, terrorizing people to further agendas, ambitions of world domination, using extremist religious doctrine to shape and to further agendas and ambitions, hating democracy. There's probably more, but I think that's enough for a start. They're flip sides of the same coin. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 01:54 AM (#1552665) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Ebbie erm... bb, you may have noticed that I don't accuse you or anyone else of being a "Bushite". I prefer "Bushit" :) |
|
30 Aug 05 - 02:10 AM (#1552670) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies I'd have to disagree with you a bit, TIA, Larry may have learned the theory of the Rove approach, but his mastery of the technique, as I indicated, is less than perfect. OK Bushites, the next postings we should see from you should be from Iraq. Your cheap pious mouthings about democracy in Iraq should be backed up with action. We have now reached the stage where, as some posters have already indicated, the question is "who will be the last to die for a mistake?" Because that's what the Iraq war was, from start to (a long way from the) finish. A far better idea would have been to take Pat Robertson's "Christian?" approach and fund assassination squads on Saddam. Which is in fact what I was advocating at the time of the war. As we told you then, you Bushites were duped by a classic campaign of demagoguery into suppporting the war. Then you were again duped by a similar campaign--hate and fear being the Bush team's unquestioned strong suits---to vote for your boy in 2004. It's no wonder that if the US were to split on the basis of red and blue states, the red state US would be an immediate basket case. Guy who thinks-- why don't you try being a guy who reads? If you don't realize there's a huge difference between South Korea----- (with virtually no sectarian strife and powerful incentive to stay united--i.e. North Korea and China)-----and Iraq, you need to do a lot more reading. There's also no parallel between the 13 American colonies and Iraq. There would have had to be a period when the 13 colonies were ruled by a Catholic faction which burned a lot of Protestants at the stake. Please enlighten us, Bushites, as to when that was. And as far as civil war, if you don't think Iraq is headed for civil war, consider what happened when the US was forced to postpone consideration of the slavery issue (in order to have the southern states sign on to the Constitution at all.) These issues (in Iraq, federation, oil distribution, and the role of Islam) don't go away when they are not dealt with. A much more likely parallel to Iraq now, as others have pointed out, would be an attempt to put Yugoslavia together, post Tito. Remember what happened after Tito? "Why should America's sworn enemies not join forces?" Because, until Bush drove them together, Osama despised Saddam. Use your head and read something other than the NY Post and the Wall St Journal editorial page. Try reading the actual articles in the Journal. Whistle Stop---your list of reasons for invasion puts "establishing a democratic model for other Middle Eastern states to emulate" last on the list. With reason--it was an afterthought to the apocalyptic rhetoric the Bush regime used to manipulate public approval of an unnecessary war. Now, for some reason, it's the only thing we hear--this continues an unbroken pattern of Bushite duplicity. When the civil war starts, exactly why will US and "Coalition" forces not be in the crossfire?. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 10:00 AM (#1552749) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly "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." No. He is not mistaken whatsoever. The term "Bushite" is commonly used to refer to anyone with whom those here on the left (those who use the term) disagree with. It is shorthand for: I get my information from various well-informed sources, and I am correct in my analysis of the news and current events, but you.....YOU Bushite (said with spittle of disdain flying from the mouth as the word is expleted) ....you listen to limited news sources and do not have the intelligence to be able to analyze those sources and discern truth from lie. AND it is used as a "last word" arguement, thus: Here is my arguement. You are a Bushite, therefore, I need not even read your opinion to know that you are wrong. AND it is used time and time again to argue against those who don't even care for Bush, much less vote for him. This I know. I did not vote for Bush but I am CONSTANTLY being shouted down here as a "bushite". That someone might finally get SICK of it and strike back with equal venom is not laudable, but it is understandable. It is weak arguementation (weak point? shout "bushite!!!!!!!" even louder). It is poor logic -- an attempt to weaken an opponent's point by unfair and illogical linkage. And it is so god damned worn out. If it is meant as humor, get a new joke. As my mother always told me, "It's only funny the first time". If it's meant as derision, get civil for a change. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 10:17 AM (#1552755) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks My point regarding South Korea is simply that U.S. troops have been stationed there for decades with little opposition from the American public. In principle, if troops are required to help maintain security in Iraq, there is a precedent for keeping them there indefinitely. Whether they, in fact, can help maintain order is a matter of practicality rather than principle. If civil war does break out, the entire situation will have changed and new hard decisions will have to be made. I only hope that there are more and better contingency plans in Washington and London for that than there were for post-liberation Iraq. Naturally no two geopolitical situations are identical, but consider India, a stable democracy despite its large number of ethnic and cultural rivalries and even some anti-government terrorism. Closer to home, consider the factions in Ulster, which seem to have put aside violence at long last. There's more hope for Iraq with coalition troops there, now anyway, than if they were to be pulled out, or if some arbitrary date were set now for their removal. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 11:02 AM (#1552777) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce "First, the term Bushite is usually used to describe someone who uncritically parrots phrases and policies promulgated by Bush, or his clones." "What's really intriguing is that Bush voters somehow take exception to being called Bushites." There is a difference. Many of us who DID vote for Bush did so as the perceived lesser of two evils, and we do NOT agree with all or even most of what his administration supports. Just better than the other choices we were given. Amos, "Some people believe that violence and slaughter of humans is abhorrent" Unless of course they are Iraqis, being killed by Saddam. Then it is ok, by your standards. There are differences of opinion as to the best methods to save the most people- and I feel, IMO, you have chosen a path that leads to far more death and destruction than any that Bush has done. I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are to yours, and I resent your statement that those who disagree with you DO believe that violence and slaughter of humans is NOT abhorrent. I have stated my reasons why I feel those who encouraged Saddam NOT to comply with the UN and cease-fire terms have blood on their hands- yet none of you seem to even acknowledge that ohers have the right to disagree with your assessments. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 11:03 AM (#1552778) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos John: I apologize if you have been named Bushite erroneously by me. And I dislike resorting to labels and categories in place of intelligent discussion. You will, I hope, agree that this offense -- resorting to ad hominem labels and knee-jerk phrases -- is as much a fault of the vehement right as it is of the vehement left. Thanks to spittle-sprayers like Ann Coulter the very word "liberal" took on a sort of overtone of disgust and was made to sound vaguely fecal, as if it were a synonym for treason and leprosy combined, instead of its actual meaning. Sound-bites have been slung much more vigorously and viciously (in my observation) by right-wing Tory types than they have by the "liberal" contingent. Anyway these labels are useless, really. They were only slightly useful to begin with in describiong the classic political spectrum, and there has been so much PR by redefinition of terms and slanging and semantic chopping and glueing that it is not easy to see what they really mean. It is as if the map of the territory is not only not the territory but has itself been cut up and sewed and pasted together until it isn't even a map! I don't know how often I have used the word Bushite, but I don't intend to use it to mean other than I indicated. As for poor logic, I think there is more than that enough to go around without piling any further rhetoric on top. A |
|
30 Aug 05 - 11:35 AM (#1552806) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST Amos, some very good posting on your part and shows you have a good grasp with regard to reality. Seriously! Which, I might add, is exactly the opposite of Ron Davies grasp. Mr. Davies, why can't you attack the opposing issues put forth rather than attacking the posters. Here, allow me to align with you, okay? You are a Jerk! |
|
30 Aug 05 - 11:54 AM (#1552825) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos BB: Unless of course they are Iraqis, being killed by Saddam. Then it is ok, by your standards. There are differences of opinion as to the best methods to save the most people- and I feel, IMO, you have chosen a path that leads to far more death and destruction than any that Bush has done. I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are to yours, and I resent your statement that those who disagree with you DO believe that violence and slaughter of humans is NOT abhorrent. I have stated my reasons why I feel those who encouraged Saddam NOT to comply with the UN and cease-fire terms have blood on their hands- yet none of you seem to even acknowledge that ohers have the right to disagree with your assessments. Don't you presume to tell me what my standards are, sir. Your remarks are insulting. I have not chosen a path, and your assumptions about the amount of destruction my "chosen path" would lead to are speculative. I do not know who you mean as having encouraged Saddam in any course of action; if you imply that the exercise of open debate led him top believe the United States would not act, and therefore we should have suppressed open debate, than I am sorry for you. Hussein was a psycho; he deserved the destruction of his power base, and his imprisonment. If his own people had risen up and cast him off, he would have deserved the same treatment. That said, this does not mean that a large scale, unilaterally selected military invasion was a wise course of action. Nor does it mean that in fact freeing Iraq from his clutches was any part of Bush's rationale for invading. At least what he insisted at the time was that he was responding to a lethal threat. He orchestrated this line to be spouted from every orifice of his many-holed PR machine. Remember "the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud" (Condeleeza)?? You are correct that there are opinions; I have argued mine, and you have argued yours. It offends you in some way that I argue mine enegetically, because I believe what I believe, and you assert I am unreasonable in my rhetoric because I don't just throw up my hands and say. "Well, it's all opinion anyway." But I don't think it is all just opinion. Thousands of dead people are in the balance. Bush KNEW perfectly well there would be thousands of deaths and maimings if he chose as he did and proceeded in blatant disregard of that cost. For him it was nothing more than an unfortunate policy call, not to interfere with his vacation time. Taking catastrophic decisions on the basis of _speculative_ possible catastrophes without determining the facts is bullheaded and, in the present case, murderous. IF it was ACTUALLY the product of the coolheaded reasoning you like to imagine was involved, it woudl seem to me, a viable post-invasion plan would have been in place, and realistic troop assessments and adequate armory would have all been in place. In addition his repeated attempts to force the association of his miltary adventurism with 9-11 is just plain fraudulent, knee-jerk jingoism, and I think you know that. A |
|
30 Aug 05 - 02:03 PM (#1552894) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce Amos, "Don't you presume to tell me what my standards are, sir. Your remarks are insulting." I have found yours to presume far more, and be insulting as well. THAT is what you seem ioncapable of understanding. Those who stood up and said the US shoul NOT take action , without calling on Saddam to comply with his obligations, ARE GUILTY of encouraging him to not comply, and have the blood of innocents on their hands. I have never stated I have felt the EXECUTION of the war was well planned- But the reason for being there is valid, and worthwhile. Did you bother to even read the references I have posted, or is a look at how the anti-Bush people had stifled dissent and prevented ANY call for Saddam to comply, and avoid any bloodshed, beyond your world-view of being a superior being than all those who disagree with you? |
|
30 Aug 05 - 02:16 PM (#1552902) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC beardedbruce, which innocents do the people you are describing have the blood of on their hands? |
|
30 Aug 05 - 02:50 PM (#1552924) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Bruce: I do not feel superior with those I disagree with. But I sure as hell feel different. I am afraid I have not read all thelinks you have posted, no. I suppose I owe you an apology for that. Have you read the whole "Popular Views of the Bush Administration" thread? And I also feel I should apologize if I have made you feel insulted. I don't recall what I said that was a direct insult to you, but if so it was not meant personally, and I hope you will consider it withdrawn. My views on the issues have not yet been much changed, aside from agreeing that it is a good thing Hussein is out of power. A |
|
30 Aug 05 - 03:06 PM (#1552935) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Well, we're back to calling each other names now, are we? I will not do that to any of you, and I hope you will not do it to me. For the record, since I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, I don't think I meet anyone's definition of a "Bushite." Gore was not a player by the time we went to war in 2003; Kerry was, and he supported the decision. It is possible to have real objections to how Bush has done his job, and still believe that we needed to take military action in Iraq. That's where I am at, and I have a lot of company. War is an ugly business, Amos; there's no denying it. The only legitimate justification for war is to prevent something worse. The belief that a lot of us had when we supported going to war was that there was a worse outcome likely if we did not depose Saddam; and since deposing him through either assassination or promotion of an internal uprising was not feasible. Hence, military action was necessary. I wish our current President had been more artful in how he went about it, in working more closely with prospective allies to form a more broad-based coalition that would have had greater claims to legitimacy (probably outside of UN auspices, as the UN was and is clearly a dysfunctional agency), and in paying more attention to how one fights the type of war that we were obviously getting into, where the real test comes after the initial large-scale assault has captured territory. There is much to criticize about how this was handled, and I am not shy about doing so. But I continue to believe that the status quo before the war was unacceptable, and military action was necessary. That doesn't make me a "Bushite," an "Osamaite," or any kind of "ite," in fact. It just means that I am a thinking person who believes that war is neither always necessary, nor is it never necessary. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 04:01 PM (#1552955) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Thanks, WS, for a good exposition. I believe it is necessary under extreme duress when all imagination and all diplomacy have failed. I believe in the present case they were forced to failure prematurely by a collision between two psychos, one of whom was Saddam Hussein. On our side, a better man could have drawn on the resources of the nation to find new ways to deal with the old problem of the intrasigent dictator. Any mother who has to deal with bratty young and does so well could have contributed more than Wolfowitz and Rove with their ancient reptilian mindsets. Deeming other avenues as failed and unworkable, to me, just means they were not searched for seriosuly enough. That's my view. A |
|
30 Aug 05 - 04:50 PM (#1552988) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Donuel Amos, it is fortunate that your reasoning is now becoming the mainstream view by those who best informed in America. 3 cheers and respect for your perseverence and adherence to your admirable moral compass and imagination. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 05:22 PM (#1553008) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Donuel: I am genuinely touched by what you write. Thank you, sir. A |
|
30 Aug 05 - 05:23 PM (#1553009) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow Just a reminder, the time when Saddam was doing his main killing of Kurds, and involved in his main war of aggression, against Iran, was a time when his government was being given support and assistance by the USA. Including Donald Rumsfeld's notorious visit to Saddam. Of course it was possible to use that as an argument for war, on the grounds "We created this monster, it's our responsibility to get rid of him", and I remember Clinton making a well-received speech to a Labour Party annual conference making that point. But it's also worth remembering that that was not part of the actual reasons given for going to war by the White House, and that it would not have provided any legal justification for an invasion. (After all, how many other other "monsters" about which the same could be said are sitting in presidential palaces around the world?) |
|
30 Aug 05 - 06:30 PM (#1553062) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks It's always possible to claim that war could have been averted with just one more try at a peaceful settlement, just one more diplomatic mission, just one more appeal. Just when war must be resorted to is always a judgment call. No one can reasonably accuse the administration of a rush to war. The issue (Hussein's presumed WMDs and work on missiles and a nuclear weapon) had been debated for years. The U.N., paralyzed by what now appears to be corruption and lethargy, passed resolution after resolution demanding Hussein's compliance with earlier resolutions, but only the U.S. and a number of its allies had the determination and ability to enforce these measures. That was done militarily. Had Hussein opened up his military labs and warehouses earlier to the scomplete comprehensive inspections demanded by the U.N, over a period of years, this war would not have begun. Hussein would still be in charge, too, a situation few "innocent Iraqis," not to mention innocent Kuwaitis, Israelis, and, yes, Iranians, would seem to favor. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 06:59 PM (#1553074) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos No one can reasonably accuse the administration of a rush to war. I can, and I do, and reasonably as well. It was a rush to war because it was not necessary. It was a rush to war because the facts it was asserted on were false and deceptive. It was a rush to war because the planning was immature. It was a rush to war because the inspectors were beginning to succeed. It was a rush to war because Saddam was a lying braggart. It was a rush to war because the situation called not for war but for a better answer than war, one suited to a moral high ground that Bush had already sold out to commercial development, and an honor for the principles of law among nations that he could not understand. Amos |
|
30 Aug 05 - 07:05 PM (#1553078) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: beardedbruce Amos, WHere is your call to Saddam to comply? Have you looked at the postings I put in this thread yet, or are you still presuming your OPINION is better than anyone else's? You are entitled to your own opinion, as I am. If you state something as a FACT, please try to have some support for it- NOT just your own statement that it must be so. B |
|
30 Aug 05 - 07:22 PM (#1553087) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos Bruce: Like most people, I say what I see. I speak from my own point of view and do not expect anyone to receive it as anything other than what I have found. I don't demand that you accept what i say as fact. It is simply the description of what I find. If you have found otherwise I am open to hear about it, and have been. Amos |
|
30 Aug 05 - 07:36 PM (#1553101) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Cindy leaves Crawford Texas tomorrow on her tour of America. bush will not meet with Cindy because he is a little man afraid of some truth about his immoral war in Iraq. I learned today that Cindy will be here in Brunswick, Maine for the Navy Air Show with the Blue Angels. Brunswick Naval Air Station is one of the military bases in this country that will be closed to support the collosal fiscal and human disaster of the immoral war in Iraq. I hope she brings this point up on her visit to Brunswick, Maine. Peter |
|
30 Aug 05 - 07:57 PM (#1553120) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow "No one can reasonably accuse the administration of a rush to war." Outside the USA I think most people would have made that accusation, even at the time. Now the indications appear to be that there's probably a majority of people inside the USA who have come round to the same viewpoint. The invasion was rushed, and a number of members of the invading forces died because of the rush, thanks to inadequate equipment. The reasons for the rush to war? Fear that the arms inspectors were in the process of revealing that the excuses about WMDs and so forth were rubbish; and an election timetable in the USA. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 08:16 PM (#1553135) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST Good Grief, we have been closing bases for years. This has not to do with the Iraq war but with good fiscal thinking. Have you checked as to the real reason for the Pawn of the Decade (Ms. Sheehan) to be visiting Brunswick, Maine? I so hate to see people being used like this. I am sure the reason she left Texas was due to her finally realizing that more people were opposed to her than with her. Wonder who is financing her trip to Maine. And why? |
|
30 Aug 05 - 08:19 PM (#1553136) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: John Hardly "The reasons for the rush to war? Fear that the arms inspectors were in the process of revealing that the excuses about WMDs and so forth were rubbish; and an election timetable in the USA." That makes really nice copy for liberal and anti-american Blogs, but it just doesn't track logically. I can't follow this... The Bush administration (by your reconning) is afraid that weapons inspectors will prove no WMDs (and thereby remove the reason for war) -- so the Bush administration rushes to war with the full knowledge that there are no WMDs, but using that as the rationale for the action, and they are putting themselves in that position knowing that they will be PROVEN wrong? ...in front of the whole world? The ONLY way the WMD debacle makes sense is if Bush, and those in the Bush administration, actually believed that there were WMDs (as did most of the world at the time). |
|
30 Aug 05 - 09:14 PM (#1553168) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks Somebody's funding the anti-Cindy Mom too. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 10:05 PM (#1553191) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: dianavan "No one can reasonably accuse the administration of a rush to war." I guess you didn't hear France, Canada and Germany! I guess you don't think that when people protest, you should listen. I guess you think that the U.S. is the only power that matters. ...the Bush administration, actually believed that there were WMDs (as did most of the world at the time)." I would also to add that the United Nations did not believe there were WMDs in Iraq. Just who do you consider "...most of the world?" |
|
30 Aug 05 - 10:23 PM (#1553201) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC The Bush administration (by your reconning) is afraid that weapons inspectors will prove no WMDs (and thereby remove the reason for war) -- so the Bush administration rushes to war with the full knowledge that there are no WMDs, but using that as the rationale for the action, and they are putting themselves in that position knowing that they will be PROVEN wrong? ...in front of the whole world? It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. The weapons inspectors were already well on their way to proving there were no WMD (at least none that were not already sealed by the inspectors themselves). The Bush administration knew this. The fact that the administration's actions in Iraq caused the unsecuring of weapons materials that had already been secured by the inspectors proves that the administration didn't really give a poop about the weapons. All they cared about was control of oil, balance of power, and juicy contracts for their buddies at Haliburton and Kellogg, Brown, and Root. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 10:26 PM (#1553203) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks Even John Kerry voted to go to war. He thought there were WMDs too. And why do the opinions of France, Canada, and Germany automatically trump those of the U.S. Congress, the British Parliament, and the governments of Australia, Japan, Poland, the Phillipines, South Korea, etc., etc. They also thought there were WMDs, which is exactly what Hussein stupidly enough wanted them to think. Did they all "rush to war"? After more than a dozen U.N. ultimatums?Don't tell me, let me guess. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 10:41 PM (#1553208) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: katlaughing Could be the shrub is answering Cindy's question in yet another "reason" for his war-mongering: (emphasis is mine) CORONADO, Calif. (Aug. 30) - President Bush on Tuesday answered growing anti-war protests with a fresh reason for American troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields that he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists. |
|
30 Aug 05 - 11:51 PM (#1553234) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Ron Davies Whistle Stop-- I have very few questions for you. I would like to know why you accept Bush's sleight of hand in changing rationales for the Iraq invasion as often as he changes his socks, or perhaps, like a Top 10 radio station. This week, up from number 10 to number 3, it's "Bringing Democracy to Iraq". (Thunderous applause). I would also disagree that the UN is a dysfunctional agency. In some capacities, it functions quite well. As I've pointed out before, without the UN's willingness to act a honest broker between the various Iraqi factions, Allawi would not have been put in, and there would have been no January election. Therefore, to the extent any democratic progress has been made in Iraq, the UN deserves credit. Guy who thinks-- "Consider India". Fine. Now, which dictator, member of a minority, ruled India recently and tortured and killed many of its citizens? Also, do you have any idea how many people died in the early years of independence for India and Pakistan. when sectarian feeling similar to Iraq's ran high? As for Ulster, you ought to be able to figure out why the parallel with Iraq does not hold. So you "hope" better contingency plans are made in the event of civil war. I'm sure you do, since hope is all that's left after the chaos Bush has caused. (Sorry, contrary to the Bushite myth, it's not all foreign agitators.) I'm sorry to tell you that based on Bush's track record, the prognosis isn't good.. By the way, I've read a bit about the contingency plans--a possible idea, according to the Wall St Journal, is that if the Shiites and Sunnis take Iraq down the drain with them, the US would then go with the Kurdish north. So the US would have access to some Iraqi oil. No more Iraq, but oh well. Still we invaded them for their own good. John-- So "Bushite" bothers you. Perhaps Bushites should now realize how the word "liberal" has been demonized in US politics. You're free to call me a "Kerryite"--you can even sneer as you say it, if it makes you feel better. By the way, your arguments have in fact been addressed, ad nauseam. Yet again--the US did not have UN authority to invade Iraq. End of story. Also, what's the answer to my question of why the US and coalition troops will not be in the crossfire when the civil war starts.? And it was a nice long rant about "Bushite"--but why didn't you tell me I was wrong about no parallel between Iraq and the 13 colonies, or I was wrong about the parallel with Tito? Etc. If I was wrong. Ghost (you're no GUEST)-- Temper, temper. It breaks my heart that you didn't like my postings. You don't like heated rhetoric. I don't like people dying needlessly-- (and that is what Bush-- and by extension, his supporters-- has caused). I guess that makes us even. But you get the last word. I won't waste my time shadow-boxing ghosts. If you want to continue,, get a handle. Otherwise, congratulations, you win. |
|
31 Aug 05 - 07:26 AM (#1553422) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Carping Cybersnipe Still waiting for answers to my simple questions. Ron, you want to take a crack at 'em? Talking about planning, what do you expect to happen if the troops are removed right now. |
|
31 Aug 05 - 07:41 AM (#1553435) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST Ron, I don't like people dying needleesly either. I don't think you get it. I also don't like attacks on posters rather than debating reponses from the posters. Temper? Nope, and you win. I want to maintain a higher level and responding to you is causing me to drop down. I will make sure you get the trophy. Ps; Ghost? What is a Ron Davies? |
|
31 Aug 05 - 03:11 PM (#1553600) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Amos, thanks for discussing this in a mature and thoughtful manner. We don't agree on all things, but I respect you. Ron, I think I have answered your questions. I neither immediately accept everything Bush says, nor do I automatically reject what he says. As I stated previously, I believe there were valid reasons to go into Iraq; you are free to disagree (however, I rarely hear people talk about what they would have done to deal with Iraq as an alternative to military action). As for the UN, it is not completely broken. But with respect to Iraq, it showed that it was willing to issue resolutions, but not willing to enforce them. That speaks to a certain level of dysfunction, in my book. Perhaps Bush could have tried harder to lead the UN to be a more effective body, rather than just dismissing it for its failings. But the fact remains that the UN was ineffective when it came to Iraq. McGrath, you raise a very valid point. In recent decades much of American foreign policy has been based on a principle of "realpolitik": a Cold War-era philosophy that basically says we should create, promote and/or support repressive regimes when we deem that they contribute to our national/strategic interest. Based on this world view, we backed the Shah, the Taliban, Saddam, the Saudis, and others that brutally oppressed their own people. As Malcolm X said in a different (albeit related) context, "the chickens are coming home to roost." Oppressed people will rise up against their oppressors whenever and however they can, and when we are perceived to be aligned with the oppressors, we will suffer the consequences. I believe that this dynamic is central to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and other extremist ideologies, and I hope that our leaders (and the people who elect them) are beginning to recognize this and make some adjustments. |
|
31 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM (#1553617) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Carping Cybersnipe Reasons the radicals say Bush invaded: To seize oil fields and make himself, Cheney, and oil cronies even richer. To "finish the job" that his father couldn't. To "get" Hussein for trying to assassinate his father. To set up an American imperialist puppet regime. Because he is a "warmonger" who just likes war. Just because he's "evil." Just because he's a fundamentalist Christian. Because the Israelis and American Jews told him to. I think that's about all of 'em The last pair aren't getting much play fortunately. Now, my radical friends, please explain to the rest of us gullible dupes how Bush got both Houses of Congress, plus Tony Blair and Parliament, and the governments of etc., etc., to sign off on these motives. And why not even France, Germany, or Canada have voiced their belief in any of them. Could they all be PART OF THE KONSPIRACY? HMMMMMMMMM. |
|
31 Aug 05 - 03:56 PM (#1553648) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC Bush is the radical, Mr. Cybersnipe. You must be too if you support him and his policies. He and his administration got all of those people to sign off on his war by lying about WMD, using strong-arm bully tactics against anyone who didn't do his bidding. |
|
31 Aug 05 - 04:08 PM (#1553665) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: McGrath of Harlow "...I...I...I... I...I...I ... me...I..." That's an awful lot of "I"s in a brief post from someone restrictiong their identity to "GUEST Date: 31 Aug 05 - 07:41 AM" |
|
31 Aug 05 - 04:12 PM (#1553670) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Carping Cybersnipe Just for the sake of argument, CarolC, I grant that I'm the radical and not you. Can you please answer the question though? And answer the questions I asked earlier? |
|
01 Sep 05 - 10:13 AM (#1553694) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Carping Cybersnipe Sorry, CarolC, you did answer the question of how. What about why? Which of the selfish sordid motives drove Bush to invade Iraq? As far as how, Bush according to you is such a scary bully and great liar that all those people I mentioned just had to bow to him. Gee they're dumb! Wimpy too! Or maybe they're all PART OF THE KONSPIRACY! Hmmmmmmmmmm. |
|
01 Sep 05 - 10:13 AM (#1553695) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,G Carping Cybersnipe, they do not have any answers! All they do is attack and indulge in vague generalities. I will, however, give Mr. Amos some credit for trying to explain his erred thinking. |
|
01 Sep 05 - 10:16 AM (#1553699) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,G A little humor, Amos. |
|
01 Sep 05 - 10:28 AM (#1553719) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: Amos when we deem that they contribute to our national/strategic interest. If it is not obvious by now, it should be: we have been pretty weak in choosing what serves our national interests. National interest is a huge idea, but it can also be used without content to sound compelling, a granfaloon of the first order. MY national interests have not beens served, I can tell you that much. My nation has been reduced dramatically, thrown into overwhelming debt, portrayed as aggressive and violent, a gunslinging drunkard with bad credit among nations. I think we need a more specific and more concrete statement of values in maing international decisions, statements which genuinely support our long-term ideals. Unfortunately, Mister Bush's long-term ideals involve dying and going to a heaven where someone else has all the responsibility. A |
|
01 Sep 05 - 01:29 PM (#1553942) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: CarolC What about why? Which of the selfish sordid motives drove Bush to invade Iraq? I already answered this one in one of my earlier posts. Control of oil, balance of power (world domination), and juicy contracts for his buddies. As far as how, Bush according to you is such a scary bully and great liar that all those people I mentioned just had to bow to him. Gee they're dumb! Wimpy too! Britain and Australia helped because they have the same motives. They're not dumb or whimpy... just complicit. The other countries weren't dumb or whimpy... just not in a very good position to refuse. Or maybe they're all PART OF THE KONSPIRACY! Hmmmmmmmmmm. I assume you're being sarcastic. |
|
01 Sep 05 - 05:56 PM (#1554191) Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love From: GUEST,Carping Cybersnipe At least we understand each other, CarolC. But I don't buy your argument. |
