Cindy Sheehan's Tragic Critics

While debating conservative pundit David Horowitz on Ron Reagan's MSNBC show the other night, I was struck by the desperation with which supporters of the war have turned their fury on Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq who has been trying to get an audience with President Bush.

Horowitz, the former left-wing zealot who is now a right-wing zealot, described the woman who has camped out near Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch as "hateful," accused her of dishonoring the memory of her son and promised that if Sheehan and other anti-war activists succeed in bringing an end to the occupation of Iraq then "rivers of blood" will flow in the streets of America. It was a remarkable performance, so much so that even Horowitz admitted that he was "emotional" about the subject.

Of course, Horowitz is wrong, on every point. But it is difficult to get angry with him, or even to take his ranting seriously. When Reagan asked me if I wanted to "dignify" Horowitz's comments with a response, I declined, except to express a measure of sympathy for Horowitz and other true believers who have become so frenzied in their need to defend the Iraq imbroglio that they feel they must attack a grieving mother who wants to make sure that no more parents will have to bury their sons and daughters as a result of the Bush administration's arrogance.

The rapidly dwindling minority of Americans who continue to search for some rationale for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq has been driven to the brink of breakdown by the success of Sheehan's protest. Go to the website of William F. Buckley's National Review magazine and you will find Sheehan described in headlines as "nutty," dismissed by columnists as "the mouthpiece... of howling-at-the-moon, bile-spewing Bush haters" and accused of "sucking up intellectual air" that, presumably, would be better utilized by Condoleezza Rice explaining once more that it would be wrong to read too much into the August 6, 2001, briefing document that declared: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." Human Events, the conservative weekly newspaper, dismisses Sheehan as a "professional griever" who "can claim to be in perpetual mourning for her fallen son" -- as if there is some time limit on maternal sorrow over the death of a child.

Fox News Channel spinner-in-chief Bill O'Reilly accuses Sheehan of being "in bed with the radical left," including -- horrors! -- "9-11 families" that are still seeking answers about whether, in the first months of 2001, the Bush administration was more focused on finding excuses to attack Iraq than on protecting Americans from terrorism. And Rush Limbaugh was on the radio the other day ranting about how, "(Sheehan's) story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real..." (Just to clarify for Limbaugh listeners: Cindy Sheehan's 24-year-old son Casey really did die in Iraq, and his mother really would like to talk with President Bush about all those claims regarding WMDs and al-Qaida ties that the administration used to peddle the "case" for war.)

The pro-war pundits who continue to defend the occupation of Iraq are freaked out by the fact that a grieving mother is calling into question their claim that the only way to "support the troops" is by keeping them in the frontlines of George W. Bush's failed experiment. Bush backers are horrified that Sheehan's sincere and patriotic anti-war voice has captured the nation's attention.

What the pro-war crowd does not understand is that Cindy Sheehan is not inspiring opposition to the occupation. She is merely putting a face on the mainstream sentiments of a country that has stopped believing the president's promises with regard to Iraq. According to the latest Newsweek poll, 61 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's handing of the war, while just 26 percent support the president's argument that large numbers of U.S. military personnel should remain in Iraq for as long as it takes to achieve the administration's goals there.

The supporters of this war have run out of convincing lies and effective emotional appeals. Now, they are reduced to attacking the grieving mothers of dead soldiers. Samuel Johnson suggested that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. But, with their attacks on Cindy Sheehan, the apologists for George Bush's infamy have found a new and darker refuge.

Comments (475)

1. Thanks, John, for speaking the truth about this right-wing attempt to smear the reputation of a grieving mother. What a despicable new low they have sunk to...

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 2:28pm

2. Guys, her husband just divorced her because she is insane. Her children have been asking her to come home to be their mother. She also had her meeting with Bush and said he was kind and then she cahnged her story. If she already met with him and everything was ok then, why get into the discourse that may turn ugly? She is also all over the news spewing about world politics and what she is saying is not totally accurate. Just because she is grieving does not mean people cannot question her.

   THe left is using her to make their story. She is obviously not all there when she is not home for the rest of her family. Her own family is saying this is a political stint. You should also know that she was a previous "peace activist" before her son joined the military. Ever think her son rebelled against her and now she is guily for her son's death?

   She has all the right in the world to be doing what she is doing, but she is on the main stage now and she has to take the heat.

   It actually makes me sick to my stomach that the media and the left wing crazies are following her. You are all using her "grieving" to pursue your political gains. Again, she has all the right to do that, but there are lots of other protests going on, WHY IS IT THAT SHE IS GETTING SOOOO MUCH ATTENTION? WAKE THE EFF UP!!!

   Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 2:40pm

3. no one needed to smear her reputation, she did that all by herself. What about the other families that have expressed outrage at sheehan and who have had family members that died in Iraq? what about her wild rants about oil, israel and every other ridiculous conspiracy theory? What about ther family publicly separating themselves from her and accusing her of personal motives and a political agenda? what about the fact that she was already allowed to meet with Bush despite the fact that many other families haven't met with him once? what about the moral authority of families who think she is both disgracing her son and embarassing herself? what about the fact that she doesn't want to ask bush a question, she wants to tell him his answer? what about the fact that she has gone so far off the deep end as to accuse bush of killing her son? (that's like a republican accusing Clinton for a son/daughter that was lost in kosovo or somalia) what about the fact that she is being manipulated by left wing political groups that take great pleasure in her rants and try to use them for political gains?

   come on you cant be serious. Horowitz may have been a little tough with his criticism, but his feelings and outrage are shared by many americans and i doubt for one minute the vast majority of americans would support her publicly stated perceptions about why we went to war and that bush is responsible for killing her son.

   spinmeister, i love the hypocrisy. if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, i dont know what is.

   Posted by cmbennett23 at 08/17/2005 @ 2:44pm

4. BTW, anyone with common sense no matter what your politics are, knows we can't just pick up and leave. Why did you not mention that the terrorist today bombed a bus station and then 30 minutes later bombed the hospital where the victims where being taken to get treated. That is beyond one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That is just down right disturbing! Please think trough what that would mean around the world if we just picked up and left right now.

   Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 2:47pm

5. ILP

   I couldn't agree more. The neocons, who for years have bellowed about their morality and spirituality, and decried the loss of our family values, have decided that it's acceptable to savage a grieving mom. I want desperately to believe that this repulsive behavior is due to the fact that Cindy Sheehan frightens them to death, and that the lug nuts on the red machine are starting to loosen.

   Posted by drhammer at 08/17/2005 @ 2:50pm

6. DANCALL, Did it ever occur to you that, rather than "using her 'grieving' to pursue political gains" maybe people on the left want the president to answer the questions she has?

   That is the case for me, at least. I want to know what Dubya means when he says this war is for a noble cause. What noble cause? When Dubya says "freedom is on the march," what the hell does he mean? He is purposely using vague emotional appeals, and I want hard facts and specifics.

   And the old baloney won't wash, so please don't tell me that those questions have been answered. The stated purpose of the war, disarming Hussein of WMD, was demonstrated to be unnecessary before the war! The crap about bringing freedom and democracy was obviously a clumbsy attempt to cover the naked emperor when the WMD case was exposed as b.s.

   So Cindy Sheehan just wants Dubya to cut the crap and give an honest answer that would justify this war. Since there isn't one, it is no wonder she can't get her meeting.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 2:51pm

7. CMBENNETT, two wrongs don't make a right. I don't care how much you think she has smeared her own reputation, that does not make it OK for right wing media hacks to accuse her of treason, of aiding and abetting terrorists, etc. That is despicable, slimeball behaviour, even if Sheehan were to be diagnosed by a hundred shrinks as crazy.

   And who the hell are you to judge how she grieves her son????? You asked "what about the moral authority of families who think she is both disgracing her son and embarassing herself?" It is none of their damn business how she remembers and morns her son. That's right, none of their damn business!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If they don't like it, well they certainly don't have to go to Crawford and support her, now do they?? Or does the first ammendment only apply to people who support the war?

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 2:58pm

8. John says,

   "(Just to clarify for Limbaugh listeners: Cindy Sheehan's 24-year-old son Casey really did die in Iraq, and his mother really would like to talk with President Bush about all those claims regarding WMDs and al-Qaida ties that the administration used to peddle the "case" for war.)"

   Yes, well according to http://icasualties.org/oif/

   1,858 other American sons and daughters really did die in Iraq too, and based on the video of the number of protesters that "would like to talk with President Bush about all those claims regarding WMD's", I can verify that those roughly 1,857 mothers and fathers don't feel the need to talk to president Bush about all the claims. Perhaps they might actually support the war in Iraq?

   What is John's point?

   Cindy is mad that her son died, she has a right to be. The President did not, and does not need to get approval from all of the parents on whether the parents "feel" the war is justified or not before the President sends their sons and daughters to the front lines.

   I suggest Cindy and the rest of the lefties camping out with her get a reality check!

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 2:58pm

9. RIO BRAVO, Regarding your 2:51 PM post: Did you forget to take your Prozac today?

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 2:59pm

10. Todd, You better keep that latte all to yourself - you need to wake up! The right to peaceably assemble, to petition for redress of grievances, does any of that ring a bell for you, mister educated one?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 3:02pm

11. "You are all using her "grieving" to pursue your political gains."

    While BushCo will never answer Mrs. Sheehan's question, it's obvious that the "war president" sent our troops to Iraq for political reasons, as opposed to those of policy. Call her actions political if you wish, but I don't see how it detracts from her grief, her sincerity, or her courage to question the president's motives.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/17/2005 @ 3:08pm

12. I can't believe the nonsense these right-wingers are spewing, or that they're still looking for Commies under every bed, or that they think there's still a vast liberal media network brainwashing us. If it's death and destruction you're looking for, the neocons have served up a full helping in Iraq, where the quality of life for average citizens has fallen far below even what it was under Hussein. Preserve our nation? That's exactly what liberals are trying to do, repudiating Bush's disastrous preemptive wars and chickenhawk imperial ambitions that have only fueled historic new levels of anti-American hatred. I guess these right-wing views are what you can expect from people who get their quaint ideas from Rush Limbaugh, a lying, hypocritical drug abuser, and Bill O'Reilly, a lying sexual harrasser, and who depend for their news on Fox. As for liberals being an endangered species, the circulation of The Nation has almost doubled since W stole, I mean, took office in 2000. You're going to need many more gulags than Guantanamo to hold all of us, Rio Bravo!

    Posted by jpdanzig at 08/17/2005 @ 3:12pm

13. Dan,

    Guys, her husband just divorced her because she is insane.

    I'm confused. Can you provide a link where it's stated that she's actually been declared insane by a psychiatrist? I haven't read anything like this, so please prove that you're not blowing hot air here. Of course, abcking your stuff up has proved quite a huge problem for you in the past.

    Her children have been asking her to come home to be their mother.

    I'm sorry, isn't there a father at home? Or do you think only a woman has a place taking care of the kids.

    She also had her meeting with Bush and said he was kind and then she cahnged her story.

    You leave out that she said that when she asked some uncomfortable questions, Bush didn't answer and changed the subject.

    If she already met with him and everything was ok then, why get into the discourse that may turn ugly?

    See above. Also see that what set her off as of recent was Bush recently saying that the troops died of a "noble cause", and she wants to know just what this "noble cause" is. She also wants to ask him why, if it's a noble cause, why he hasn't encouraged his daughters to be sent over there -- which, I'm sure you'll agree, Bush wouldn't have answered if she'd asked it during their previous meeting.

    She is also all over the news spewing about world politics and what she is saying is not totally accurate.

    And please detail for us how what she's saying is "not totally accurate". Yeah, offer up specifics. Or are you doing the Limbaugh thing by spewing baseless generalities just to sling mud to see if it sticks?

    Just because she is grieving does not mean people cannot question her.

    Where has she said that she shouldn't be questioned? Has she told the pro-Bush supporters in Crawford to get out of her face and don't question her. I don't think so.

    THe left is using her to make their story.

    Well, being that her position is the same as these leftist groups supporting her, how is she being "used", exactly? This, of course, is in sharp contrast to the Terry Schiavo case, where Tom "I Took My Father Off Life Support" DeLay and George "I Passed a Texas Law That Allows Hospitals to Pull the Plug on Critically Ill Patients Despite Family Objections" Bush.

    She is obviously not all there when she is not home for the rest of her family.

    "Not all there", as in mentally not-all-there? Once again, you try to falsely trash this mother because she's criticizing your flip-flopping little boy king.

    You should also know that she was a previous "peace activist" before her son joined the military.

    Hmmm, so if a gung-ho armchair warmonger/chickenhawk mother with a dead son were waving pro-Iraq War signs in front of an anti-war facility, then you'd have a problem with this mother, too, in light of her gung-ho activist past, right?

    Ever think her son rebelled against her and now she is guily for her son's death?

    That's such a heinously immoral statement that it's beneath contempt and comment.

    She has all the right in the world to be doing what she is doing, but she is on the main stage now and she has to take the heat.

    And she doesn't have a whole lot to worry about getting very warm from your criticisms, since they're devoid of substance.

    It actually makes me sick to my stomach that the media and the left wing crazies are following her.

    Translation: The media's following a story that doesn't reflect well upon my little boy king, and that's, well, you know, wrong.

    You are all using her "grieving" to pursue your political gains.

    Another heinous comment. Calling into doubt whether this mother who lost her son in a war based on lies is actually grieving. Godo gracious, I wouldn't get within 100 yards of someone like you, because just over the 'Net you leave the most repugnant stink.

    Again, she has all the right to do that, but there are lots of other protests going on, WHY IS IT THAT SHE IS GETTING SOOOO MUCH ATTENTION?

    Probably because her story is resonating with folks, whether they agree or disagree with her. The media doesn't keep on stories if their readers or viewers don't give a damn about it.

    WAKE THE EFF UP!!!

    This coming from a toe-the-line/head-in-the-sand Bushie who doesn't give a damn about the Iraqi people yet willingly buys into Bush & Co. flip-flopping from WMD to "spreading freedom" with that deficit-contributing tax cut floating in his head? (stifles laughter)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 3:16pm

14. DR Hammer: ILP makes my point clear as DAY: "Did it ever occur to you that, rather than "using her 'grieving' to pursue political gains" maybe people on the left want the president to answer the questions she has?"

    Does that mean you are using her to get your questions answered? Seems to me that is exactly what you just outlined!!!

    You see, your elected officials and your own groups can't get a lick done to get your questions answered, so you swoop into a grieving mother's problem and make it your own to get what YOU want.

    Thank you for making my point loud and clear...all other postings should be moot!

    Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 3:17pm

15. "I can verify that those roughly 1,857 mothers and fathers don't feel the need to talk to president Bush about all the claims."

    Did you glean that from icasualties.org as well?

    Posted by drhammer at 08/17/2005 @ 3:17pm

16. She has also walked onto policial grounds by making political comments. You then are saying that it is ok to supress anyone who disagrees with her their First Ammendment right? SHE is a grieiving mother...bottom line...no issues. She is a political hack bring Isreal into the mix...BIG PROBLEM! She is a hack..>GET OVER IT!

    She was a protestor before the war and before her son joined the armed forces. SHe has issues that she is not dealing with and it is a crying shame that all you on the left are not recognizing this! She has other children at home...WHAT ABOUT THEM???

    Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 3:21pm

17. Have any of you right wing spewers picked up on the fact that the quotes attributated to Sheehan are mostly false. For instance, the "rant" attributeted to her about Israel...fabrication. Most of the "juice" the right wing hate mongers have is fabricated. Of course that is not exclusive to Sheehan, it goes for about any other arguement they try to make.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/17/2005 @ 3:21pm

18. DANCALL,

    I believe the rest of her children are all grown. I think the can take care of themselves.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/17/2005 @ 3:22pm

19. Have you all heard that she was mad at hell her son joined the military? Maybe her son thought his mom was a whack job so he "ran away" into the opposite direction. She should be on her back talking to a DR right now!!!

    Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 3:24pm

20. Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 3:24pm

21. Todd,

    1,858 other American sons and daughters really did die in Iraq too

    Yes, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqai civilians, too. Just don't ask for a precise number from General Tommy "We Don't Do Body Counts" Franks.

    and based on the video of the number of protesters that "would like to talk with President Bush about all those claims regarding WMD's", I can verify that those roughly 1,857 mothers and fathers don't feel the need to talk to president Bush about all the claims.

    Or perhaps a few or a good many do but have chosen not to go to the great lengths this mother has. So because they're not protesting equates into not wanting to talk to Bush? I'd love to talk to the serial flip-flopper about Iraq, but I'm not out at Bush's ranch. Does this mean I support the war?

    Perhaps they might actually support the war in Iraq?

    So if, say, Kerry had done a campaign speech in Crawford, and not every single solitary Bush supporter who lived in Crawford turned out at the speech to protest, would that mean the ones who didn't turn out make them Kerry supporters. Please, save your "logic" for George "Is Our Children Learning" Bush.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 3:25pm

22. Blue, actually her children have asked her to come home to be part of the family and share her grief with them. She is isolating her own family for her guilt ridden past relationship with her son.

    Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 3:25pm

23. I wish Nancy Reagan would sit down and shut up about Alzheimers (spelling?) research. It's obvious she is using the death of her late husband as a springboard to fame. Why can't she get a hold of herself and stop making a fool of herself! Can't she see that the President is standing his moral ground about limiting federal funds for stem cell research. What kind of womand does she think she is!

    See how ridiculous that sounds! That's what Sheehan haters sound like.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/17/2005 @ 3:26pm

24. DANCALL,

    Why don't her children go to Crawford and console her. She is the mother after all, she gave birth to all of them. Why should she go to them?

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/17/2005 @ 3:27pm

25. I do have to admit, it's somewhat entertaining to watch those in the anti-Sheehan camp lose their minds over one person.

    It must have been so easy before to just ignore the thousands of protestors and demonstrators, but now there's somebody out there with a real beef with the administration. It must have really struck a nerve.

    Posted by BSF at 08/17/2005 @ 3:27pm

26. She is isolating her own family for her guilt ridden past relationship with her son.

    Please provide a link that validates this, where they had a supposed "guilt-ridden" past. But I don't suspect hypocritical dope-addict Limbaugh has taught his disciples how to back up their statements.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 3:32pm

27. Blue, Nancy reagan is not blaming Jews and Oil for the death of her loved one. She already met with the president and made comments that are totally in contradicition to what she is saying now. She is being used for a policial movement and it is disturbing.

    I think they are pissed off because she has people entering a peaceful town that don't want to hear bitching all day long.

    Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 3:33pm

28. well dadgumitall if Sheehan doesn't force Bush to think about Iraq every day, ever day, even while he's on vacation!

    Posted by nathanhale at 08/17/2005 @ 3:34pm

29. Haven;t listened to limbaugh is months. Just reading her past history and read that she was a peace activist in her early years. It is a pyschological analysis, Kevin. My own opinion. She is going through the typical stages of Grieving.

    It is a classic case of rebellion against your parents. You know, the whole 60's movement, Kevin? Well the tables turned in her own family and she is pissed!!!

    Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 3:36pm

30. And please get over your ridiculous attempts to rebut a comment by bringing up Rush...blah blah blah!!!

    Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 3:38pm

31. She is being used for a policial movement and it is disturbing.

    Terry Schiavo...Terry Schiavo...Terry Schiavo...Terr....

    I think they are pissed off because she has people entering a peaceful town that don't want to hear bitching all day long.

    Last I checked, this is America, and any people can go into any damn town they want and bitch over any political matter they damn well please. If you disagree, I'll see about finding a time capsule so you can travel back to Nazi Germany.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 3:40pm

32. Not on private property, Kevin. And for your information, if there numbers of a protest that exceed a certain count, you actually have to get permits, Kevin. You also need to hire police, make sure their is public "facilities", make sure traffic is not stopped up (which is actually happening in Crawford, Kevin).

    Dude, get your facts down.

    Posted by dancall at 08/17/2005 @ 3:43pm

33. The comments I heard atttibuted to her regarding Jews and oil were outlandish, I had my doubts that she would say anything like that. Then I later heard an interview of her where she said those statements were not hers. Some right wing idot hack blogger made it up.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/17/2005 @ 3:43pm

34. DANCALL,

    Have you ever been to Crawford? Traffic to them is two or three cars on the road in a 100 yard stretch of road. Those central Texas good ole boys and girls just can't stand the attention. Most of them probably wished Bush would have put his "ranch" somewhere else.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/17/2005 @ 3:45pm

35. To John Nichols:

    Thank you for this piece.

    A number of posters here are helping you to make your point very nicely.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/17/2005 @ 3:50pm

36. Haven;t listened to limbaugh is months.

    (faints in surprise)

    Just reading her past history and read that she was a peace activist in her early years. It is a pyschological analysis, Kevin. My own opinion.

    She is going through the typical stages of Grieving.

    Well, no shit. Is this the depth to your psychological analysis. Good gracious.

    It is a classic case of rebellion against your parents.

    You have offered up nothing to show that her dead son enlisted in the service as a rebellion.

    You know, the whole 60's movement, Kevin?

    Yeah, a good many Democrats protesting a needless war started by a Democrat while the Republicans who supposedly hate government sat on their hands while our soldiers were being killed and maimed. Yeah, I know.

    Well the tables turned in her own family and she is pissed!!!

    She's pissed that her son was killed in a war based on lies and championed by a president who calls it a noble war yet who apparently didn't encourage his own daughters to go fight in it.

    And please get over your ridiculous attempts to rebut a comment by bringing up Rush...blah blah blah!!!

    The Limbaugh comment comes after a comment that exposes the emptiness and nonsensicalness of your claim, which you haven't yet been able to counter.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 3:50pm

37. DrHammer

    ""I can verify that those roughly 1,857 mothers and fathers don't feel the need to talk to president Bush about all the claims."

    Did you glean that from icasualties.org as well?"

    Yes, I put the website citation in the post.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 3:51pm

38. Freheit wrote:

    October, 2005: Who's Cindy Sheehan?

    August, 2005: Where are the WMDs?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 3:52pm

39. ILP,

    Re: your 2:51 post. You probably already know this, but you (nor anyone else) will get answers to those questions. "Freedom is on the march" & "the war is for a noble cause" are the types of vague statements that come with good propaganda. They are public relations slogans that have no meaning and are put out there to rally people behind the policy & the war effort. The real question is "Do you support our policy?". If not, prepare to be branded as an Un-American, communist, fascist, terrorist sympathizing liberal.

    Posted by thejman at 08/17/2005 @ 3:53pm

40. Not on private property, Kevin.

    If they're on private property without permission, then they can be arrested. And, trust me, the Crawford police have a very consistent history of enforcing this law. And you didn't write that people were griping because they were protesting on private property, only that they were bitching because they were in their town bitching about their little boy king.

    And for your information, if there numbers of a protest that exceed a certain count, you actually have to get permits, Kevin. You also need to hire police, make sure their is public "facilities", make sure traffic is not stopped up (which is actually happening in Crawford, Kevin).

    Again, I was responding to what you previously wrote: that the residents who are Bushies were griping about these people coming into their town and bitching about Bush. And if the protestors are breaking any kind of law, then I support them being cited or jailed for them; and, again, if they were all breaking numerous laws, they'd be sitting in the Crawford jail, I think you'll agree.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 4:00pm

41. Wow, DANCALL, I cannot figure out if you are really, really dense or if your politics are really that anti-democratic.

    You claim that my post made your point? Wrong! But, I reread your post before writing this one just to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your point was this: "the media and the left wing crazies are following her. You are all using her "grieving" to pursue your political gains."

    My reply was "people on the left want the president to answer the questions she has"

    How in the hell do you confuse wanting answers as to why we are in a war, with using her grieving for political gain? What political gain??? This is a representative democracy, not a nazi dictatorship, Einstein. Our elected officials OWE US answers to questions as important of this. It ISN'T A POLITICAL GAME, YOU TWIT, IT IS THEIR F***ING JOB!!! I guess you think your boy Dubya really is a king or a dictator who shouldn't have to answer to the citizens? Well but most people aren't this damn undemocratic.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 4:01pm

42. You know,

    I havent posted here in a few days just to read if you LIBS would change your "TONE" towards the conservatives in here. Here's a few examples of the current LIB HATE SPEW in this blog alone:

    " What a despicable new low they have sunk to..."

    "bringing freedom and democracy was obviously a clumbsy attempt to cover the naked emperor "

    "Did you forget to take your Prozac today"

    "these right-wing views are what you can expect from people who get their quaint ideas from Rush Limbaugh, a lying, hypocritical drug abuser, and Bill O'Reilly, a lying sexual harrasser"

    " The media's following a story that doesn't reflect well upon my little boy king"

    "I wouldn't get within 100 yards of someone like you, because just over the 'Net you leave the most repugnant stink"

    "from General Tommy "We Don't Do Body Counts" Franks"

    " But I don't suspect hypocritical dope-addict Limbaugh has taught his disciples how to back up their statements"

    And this is out of just 32 posts so far. I have read much worse in the short time I have read this miserable website. You see how DETESTABLE and FOUL MOUTHED you nutty LIBS are??? You absolutely have no intellectual standing to argue because all you can spew is hate and illogic rants. Anymore of you 'effin' assholes ever lecture me again about my tone....let me give you my answer in advance:

    SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS

    Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 4:02pm

43. Physics,

    "Todd, You better keep that latte all to yourself - you need to wake up! The right to peaceably assemble, to petition for redress of grievances, does any of that ring a bell for you, mister educated one? "

    Perhaps I didn't communicate my point very well. I'm not trying to say Cindy and her group of protestors don't have the right to assemble. God forbid! If that was the case, the government could turn around and next say that my church brethren and I can no longer assemble for church services! I wouldn't want that!

    Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism right?

    My point is this.. Cindy is in essence saying she wants a better explanation for why her son died. She doesn't feel the war was "justified". My point is that she is naïve if she thinks that the President is under any obligation to receive the blessings of the parents and the approval of whether the war that the president is about to send the parents' sons and daughters into is "just" or not. The president is under no obligation to justify the war to parents of soldiers, only congress which must authorize the use of forces or declare war.

    Todd

    p.s. I prefer mine T-bone on the rare side with sautéed onions and mushrooms, how about you?

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 4:03pm

44. no one's yet mentioned that it currently requires two people to conceive a child. i'm not understanding how 1,857 soldiers could have 1,857 parents.

    Posted by habiba at 08/17/2005 @ 4:05pm

45. wow.

    all i can say is wow.

    Mr. Nichols writes that the right wing is going (to paraphrase) bat-sh*t crazy and then I read these comments and what do I see...

    The wingnuts of these pages going bat-sh*t crazy! Oh it's fantastic. It even seems they don't realize they're proving your point.

    Posted by gearmonkey at 08/17/2005 @ 4:06pm

46. Bluetexan,

    "Have any of you right wing spewers "

    I'm just curious, is this the opposite of a "left wing spewer"?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 4:06pm

47. OK,

    The left doesn't spew hate. We spew love.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/17/2005 @ 4:10pm

48. BlueTexan,

    Re: Your 3:26pm post.

    That was a damn fine post, and the point you made in it should take the "parroting" out of the right-wing parrots.

    By the way, the second half of the above statement is probably just wishful thinking.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/17/2005 @ 4:11pm

49. Aludra,

    I'll more than gladly back up my the comments you listed:

    "The media's following a story that doesn't reflect well upon my little boy king"

    So "nutty libs" is kinder than "little boy king"? Keep telling yourself that. You've called Clinton much, much worse than what I've called Bush in these posts, you blatant hypocrite.

    "I wouldn't get within 100 yards of someone like you, because just over the 'Net you leave the most repugnant stink"

    This was in reponse to someone painting the grieving mother Sheehan as "insane" without anything to back it up. I would never ascribe such a thing to a pro-war mother backing up Bush who lost her son in Iraq. Never.

    "from General Tommy "We Don't Do Body Counts" Franks"

    That is an actual quote from Franks himself. If you have a problem with what he said, take it up with him. You won't, of course, because you, like your fellow Bushies, don't give a damn about the dead Iraqis -- or the ones who're still alive over there, for that matter.

    "But I don't suspect hypocritical dope-addict Limbaugh has taught his disciples how to back up their statements"

    Yes, the man is a blatant hypocrite. He advocated judges impose maximum punishments onto drug offenders, yet he himself was a drug offender and didn't advocate that the judge sentence him to a maximum sentence.

    As usual, Aludra, you dig yourself a hole with a golden shovel.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 4:14pm

50. Cindy Sheehan is a TRUE American patriot. As a political protestor, she stands in the proud tradition of MLK and Rosa Parks. When she damands honest answers from President Bush, she is asking the hard questions that ALL Americans should be asking. Cindy Sheehan speaks for ME, and, tonight, my family and I will stand in solidarity with her at a candle light vigil in Denver.

    Posted by Krashkopf at 08/17/2005 @ 4:15pm

51. Todd,

    My point is that she is naïve if she thinks that the President is under any obligation to receive the blessings of the parents and the approval of whether the war that the president is about to send the parents' sons and daughters into is "just" or not. The president is under no obligation to justify the war to parents of soldiers

    I agree. But I don't think she's saying he has a legal obligation but a moral one. And since Bush purports to be such a moral man (stifles laughter), she's trying to persuade him on this ground.

    only congress which must authorize the use of forces or declare war.

    Heh! Very crafty in your trying to protect the Bush administration here, but it doesn't wash: According to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, not the president. And before you think of going there, yes, Clinton didn't have congressional approval for Kosovo, thus making that unconstitutional, as well; and I'll openly aver that it was unconstitutional, which is something a toe-the-line Bushie will never do.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 4:23pm

52. ALUDRA, Yes, I asked RIO BRAVO if he took his Prozac today. I meant that as a humorous jest, because his post alluded to a "Marxist" conspiracy infiltrating all US institutions. I thought he had gone a bit off the deep end.

    If you have a constructive solution for an alternative reply, I would be glad to hear it!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 4:28pm

53. Can Cindy's stand be what she claims it is? A stand for questions with truthful answers? Questions that we all should be demanding answers to, even if it means questioning your own political party? If we don't ask questions how do we learn, how do we grow as a nation. Sometimes we may not like the answers to our questions but if they are answerd truthfully and from the heart we learn to walk. And as we learn to walk we learn to ask new questions that propell us foward. So instead of just critizizing Cindy or anyone else that goes against your beliefs, ask them questions in return, so you may start walking towards an understanding of oneself. Thank you, Ollin

    Posted by ollin at 08/17/2005 @ 4:28pm

54. I agree with Jack Rabbit that many of you are making Mr. Nichol's case through your postings.

    These flank attacks on Cindy Sheehan are ludicrous and un-American. She's being political? So what, she's entitled, as we all are.

    One charge I have to call out though (from DANCALL at 2:40 p.m.): "You are all using her "grieving" to pursue your political gains." That would be just about as bad as a candidate using images from 9/11 in re-election commericials, right? Give us a break. Bush envokes 9/11 at every turn.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2005 @ 4:29pm

55. I'm surprised W didn't do a victory lap around Ground Zero.

    Posted by NJDevil at 08/17/2005 @ 4:32pm

56. Todd,

    I think the chuck steak is about the best deal going, I like it better than those higher-priced selections. Grill mine with Montreal Steak seasoning on it, if you please. A side of steamed veggies and another side of mac and cheese, washed down with a Belgian style Ale, makes it the perfect dinner.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 4:32pm

57. Habiba, "no one's yet mentioned that it currently requires two people to conceive a child. i'm not understanding how 1,857 soldiers could have 1,857 parents."

    Touché, I should have worded it, "how the parents of the other 1857 soldiers that died…"

    The point doesn't change however…

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 4:39pm

58. The point doesn't change however…

    Well, it's certainly been called into valid question, as my post above more than adequately did and which you've chosen not to counter.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 4:42pm

59. Kevin,

    "Heh! Very crafty in your trying to protect the Bush administration here, but it doesn't wash: According to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, not the president. And before you think of going there, yes, Clinton didn't have congressional approval for Kosovo, thus making that unconstitutional, as well; and I'll openly aver that it was unconstitutional, which is something a toe-the-line Bushie will never do. "

    That was my point Kevin..

    If the president WANTS to go to war, he MUST get approval, and thus the ensuing declaration of war by Congress.

    The President can not lead us into war on his own.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 4:43pm

60. KC, They can't stand up to your withering onslaught, my man.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 4:43pm

61. I should have included with the above:

    Or at least the authorization to use force by Congress.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 4:45pm

62. So anyone with a liberal viewpoint is now labelled as crazy? I s this what this society is coming to? There is no thoughtful debate from the right wingers. Just the spewing of hateful propaganda and falsehoods. In case you wingers really think a personal protest is the sign of insanity, let me enlighten you: a dissenting voice is democratic. Will you only be happy until we become a fascist dictatorship? Please enlighten me!

    Posted by wjfalcone at 08/17/2005 @ 4:46pm

63. NJDEVIL

    I Love The Onion too.

    Posted by BSF at 08/17/2005 @ 4:47pm

64. MORE CRAP ON BUSH

    Yesterday, I read the Time Magazine article on Condi Rice. The article mentioned that everytime Condi came into a room in which Bush was present with others, Bush announced her presence as "MADAME SECRETARY". If that is not a condescending remark, I don't know what is. Time commented that the "MADAM SECRETARY" remark was an expression of endearment to someone Bush is fond of. What self-respecting intelligent person would accept that Bush CRAP. Can you imagine the wording of his comments regarding people he "dislikes" and/ does not "admire" ?

    Bush never grew out of the DKE frat house mentality. He has no respect for women, especially women who are mentally superior to him. She is busting her butt to try to make sense out of the "mess" created by Cheney, Rummy, et. al., and adopted by Bush as his "Path to Glory". The "mess" is so huge, that we are all overwhelmed by it. Let us "face the music" now, and pull out. How more lives should be sacrificed to this man's "folly" ?

    Bush is a "mean spirited" silver spooned drug head who had to find "intelligent creation" in order to explain that he did not descend from the "monkeys" he mentally and physically resembles. To like Bush is to like sipping "hemlock". One good dose of it, and we never hear from you again. I am quite surprised that he did not offer Cindy Sheehan that cup of "hemlock".

    As "Chester Nimitz" asked Admiral Halsey, "Where is Task Force 58, the world awaits". Halsey was "fried" by that demeaning comment, and never recovered from it. Bush has "crashed and burned" on the world to obscurity, unfortunately taking thousands of lives with him on his road to "hell".

    As Maureen Dowd mentioned in her column in the New York Times, "Bush is on a Bicycle to Nowhere". Why must we join him?

    Kerry did not have the "cajones" to face down Bush. When will that person arise to shove that spade full of earth in Bush's face?

    Martin S. Friedlander, Esq. www.typepad.freedompost.com

    Posted by msf31538 at 08/17/2005 @ 4:47pm

65. If the president WANTS to go to war, he MUST get approval, and thus the ensuing declaration of war by Congress.

    The President can not lead us into war on his own.

    Please save this for Limbaugh, man. Congress did not declare this war on Iraq -- Bush did. And since by the Constitution only Congress can decalre war, then the war in Iraq is unconstitutional. This isn't complicated, but you're trying to make it so because then you'd have to admit that the Bush-declared war is unconstitional. C'mon, just admit it! I admitted Clinton's Kosovo was. Your turn.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 4:48pm

66. Falcon,

    "Just the spewing of hateful propaganda and falsehoods."

    If you really think we only spew hate, why don't you enlighten yourself and read some of the exchanges between physics, kevin and myself.

    I don't make apologies for some of my conservative brethren who can come off a little…. Mean?

    Hell, sometimes… SHOCK… I might even come off as dogmatic.

    That doesn't mean we hate.

    By the way… I love you man = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 4:52pm

67. Or at least the authorization to use force by Congress.

    No, no, no, no. You're still trying to dance around this: Only Congress -- only Congress -- has the Constitutional authority to declare war. Congress did not declare war on Iraq; Bush did; thus it's an unconstitutional war. Period. It continues to amaze the illogical lengths people like you go to defend flip-flopping Bush.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 4:52pm

68. "Bush is a "mean spirited" silver spooned drug head who had to find "intelligent creation" in order to explain that he did not descend from the "monkeys" he mentally and physically resembles."

    NICE intellectual discourse

    Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 4:53pm

69. Aludra wrote:

    Anymore of you 'effin' assholes ever lecture me again about my tone....let me give you my answer in advance:

    SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS

    Doubly nice intellectual discourse.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 5:00pm

70. Cindy Sheehan has written that we are waging a Global War OF Terrorism, that the biggest terrorists in the world are George Bush and his administration, that our goverment are the bad guys. How do you think this type of propaganda helps the Iraqis, and the reconstruction of Iraq? The terrorists who are trying to prevent democracy in Iraq cannot defeat us militarily. The entire point of the terrorist campaign there is to defeat us at home. What Cindy Sheehan is doing and saying will only encourage them in that they see further evidence that their campaign to break our will is working, and sadly, American soldiers and Iraqis will die because of those words.

    Posted by RonS at 08/17/2005 @ 5:04pm

71. Kevin,

    The constitution does state that only congress can declare war. The constitution does not however specify that declaration of war is the only means by which the President can send in troops.

    See here for the official ok by Congress:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 5:14pm

72. So amazing....

    Bush invades Iraq, based on lies.. and now people say, "There are bombs going off in Baghdad, we can't leave."

    They weren't going off before we went there.

    Oh wait.. Saddam was there.. he was bad.. he killed people.. like say, the Shia's in 1991.. which.. oh wait.. we told to rise up, and then didn't support.

    And gee.. he gassed people and used chemicals weapons.. which.. oh who was in it 1983 that shook his hand and sold them to him.. Oh yeah.. RUMMY.

    And wait.. what is the Freedom of Infomration Act document you can go read for yourself.. it said.. oh WHAT WAS IT.. let me paraphase "Gee Saddam, we have to say in public not to use those nasty weapons.. you know.. PR and all.. but NEXT SHIPMENT IS ON ITS WAY."

    We create a monster, creates a monstrous situation.. and now.. we defend ourselves.. give me a break.

    Posted by Kaya at 08/17/2005 @ 5:15pm

73. OKSPORTSGUY, DANNCALL and the rest of those who hide behind excuses/

    Obviously the president can take us to war with or without the approval of Congress. Bush did by faking the reasons to go to war and still has not stood up to the American people and explained the reasons. To say it was for the oil is obvious otherwise we would have gone into Rwanda too. Its to much to assume that this was done for any other reason than profit and control of oil.

    Check http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/01surface.htm

    Mrs Sheehan has lost one of the most precious of gods gifts her child and to belittle her just to take the heat off the mistakes of the Bush administration is chickens--- , she has the same right as anyone else to stand on a soap box and ask questions. Why does this scare the right to the point of making excuses, lies, innuendos that challenge her constitutional rights instead of asking for clarification of the facts.

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/17/2005 @ 5:15pm

74. RONS

    Her criticisms were specific to Bush and his administration not some quasi anarchist nonsense opposing the entire government body. That distinction seems to be lost on many neocons.

    I doubt very much that she has any effect on the moral of the Iraqi people. I'm pretty sure what a woman in Texas has little effect on their lives thousands of miles away. I could be wrong though, they might be watching what she's doing on TV or listening to it on the radio on the rare occasion they have working electricity, but probably not.

    Encouraging terrorism? Like "bring it on" encouraging?

    Posted by BSF at 08/17/2005 @ 5:15pm

75. Kevin:

    Bro, I'm NOT flip flopping, the document is the same document Congress agreed to and signed in 2002

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

    I still love you man = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 5:15pm

76. Dycel8r,

    I need to respond since you named me in person in your post:

    "Its to much to assume that this was done for any other reason than profit and control of oil."

    Please find one of my posts where I once said that Oil NEVER factored into the reasoning behind the war in Iraq.

    I am a conservative, I did vote for Bush, but I do agree that natural resources, primarily oil could be and probably are factored into this war.

    I just don't particularly have a problem with it.

    Oh I know, now is when you will call me evil and vilify me for valuing resources over the lives of soldiers like Cindy's son…

    Trust me I've heard it before…

    One can examine any war in the history of man, and find that the control of natural resources or land factored heavily into the war.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 5:27pm

77. I find it so hysterical that all these loony Rightwingers are frothing at the mouth about Cindy Sheehan. They're so pathetic and desperate. Aludra is a scream! Such a pathetic little creature! Aludra, I'd tell you to take your posts and shove them up YOUR a## but there's so much stuff there already it wouldn't fit. ROTFLMAO!

    Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 5:28pm

78. "Such a pathetic little creature! Aludra, I'd tell you to take your posts and shove them up YOUR a## but there's so much stuff there already it wouldn't fit. ROTFLMAO!"

    What was that about progressives, higher intelligence, more substance to their posts as compared to us "right wingers", the progressives use of logic and reasoning instead of dogma.…?

    Ya…. Right…

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 5:32pm

79. Garbage in , garbage out.......

    Deludra complaines about the level of discourse, but then says ," shove it up your ass". What a class act!.......

    The rest of the right-wingers continue to dismiss Mrs. Sheehan because she has a political agenda. By that reasoning, any assertions that have a political origin are meaningless and thus there is nothing worth discussing here!

    In other words you can have an agenda if your a Rebublican but if your a grieving mother that wants to nail the Presidents feet to the floor, you're just another political hack to be attacked and belittled.....

    Is that about it......

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/17/2005 @ 5:34pm

80. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Todd. What's the matter? Did I hurt your widdle rightwing feewings? Poor widdle baby! Here, have an IED. It's just what Dr. Bush ordered! Oh, I forgot; you people only support the war from your armchairs. Chickenhawks morons.

    Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 5:35pm

81. Cindy Sheehan's expression of her viewpoints does not encorage terrorism. Instead of worrying about whether people in Iraq are looking at any images of Ms. Sheehan, or even know who the hell she is, the Bush administration should be concerned more with the pictures (or first-hand accounts) of the civilian deaths that our illegal invasion caused, or the instances of torture we undertook at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. I wager that these images and accounts (mostly hidden from our public's view) go farther in increasing anti-American sentiments than the knowledge of Ms. Sheehan's viewpoints.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2005 @ 5:37pm

82. I wouldn't insult pigs like that. They're much too intelligent and sensitive to behave like rightwingers.

    They are however, the stuff you scrape off your shoe at the dog run.

    Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 5:39pm

83. "Chickenhawks morons."

    SILLY LITTLE LEFTWING TWIT WHO DONT KNOW HER ASS FROM A HOLE IN THE GROUND LIKE ALL OF THE REST OF YOU NUTTY ASS DIMWITS...PATHETIC

    Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 5:39pm

84. Oh, Aludra, you are SO pathetic and funny! Better wipe your mouth. There's froth on it.

    Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 5:41pm

85. Frank,

    "Then I guess you don't have a problem with your President not mentioning it as one of his reasons for the invasion. Right? "

    I do have a problem if the president lied through omission of truth. That would not be the way I would have handled it.

    If it does factor in, then make a logical argument for the need to take out the dictator Saddam who was obviously hostile towards the U.S. and would more than likely not be very open to fair market trading with the U.S.

    Make an argument that by dethroning him based on the failure to comply with UN resolution 688 (which he certainly didn't comply with) and others as part of the cease fire agreement from Gulf War 1, that the timing could not be better to take out a dictator because he failed to comply, which at the same time would give the U.S. the ability to help establish a true democracy in Iraq which would theoretically be much more likely to do business in the free trade market with the U.S. and would establish better pricing for oil.

    Well…

    There you go, that would have been my reasoning presented to the people, and you know what? I would have absolutely supported the war without ANY mention of WMD's.

    But of course again, I'm the evil conservative that drives a Dodge Durango SUV and would like to see lower fuel prices.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 5:42pm

86. "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

    HOW THIS SAUCE ON YOUR LITTLE LEFTWING GANDER YOU SILLY LITTLE WITCH

    Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 5:45pm

87. Hey Aludra, I'm so sorry you don't understand the analogy. Of course, I know you're only semi-literate so I'll excuse you this time.

    Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 5:46pm

88. Frank....sure oil figgers into the equation. Like you noticed....wars always have some sort of resource involvement. With the world on the downside of the Hubbert peak and us (the US) - 5% of the world's population using 25% of its energy, it certainly stands to reason.

    Bush = old oil money, Cheney = Halliburton (world's largest oil outfitter and involved with the Afghan/Iran pipeline that is on hold right now). I do wonder if the pretense for war was not a part of Cheney's secret energy talks, info that he has refused to release to date.

    WMD = Dubya's Massive Deception!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/17/2005 @ 5:48pm

89. I think I figured it out...Aludra is the bastard offspring of Bill Clinton and Ann Coulter. Bill doesn't remember it and Ann won't admit it, leaving Aludra angry at the world at being thusly ostracized. Don't worry Aludra, you can always get the Fundamentalist Right-Wing-Nuts to pray for you and us Bleeding Heart Liberals will hold a bake sale and candle-light vigil to help ease your suffering!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/17/2005 @ 5:51pm

90. Yeah....Cheney thinks we need 100 new nuclear reactors and a Humvee or two in every driveway. He once said, "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/17/2005 @ 5:53pm

91. Ooops...my bad

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/17/2005 @ 5:53pm

92. A simple question...but infinitly difficult for a nutty LIB to answer... Just for the sake of arguement only:

    What if Iraq develops a working Democracy...More WMDS are found besides the 500 tons of uranium that were hauled off..And Osama was found or killed..

    Are any of you intellectually honest enough to say what we did in Iraq was right and made the world safer...

    I'm pretty sure I already know the answers you would give..You would not give him any credit and find something else to bitch about ...RIGHT??? C'mon LIBBY LIBBY LIBBY LIBBY..lets be honest here for a frickin change..

    Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 5:55pm

93. Leftofcenter, I applaud your sentiments about holding a candle-light vigil and bake sale for the chickenhawk traitors who call themselves rightwingers, but count me out. I'll give them what they give us. Mike Malloy speaks for me, not Al Franken. I hate them with every ounce of my being and I'll see them in hell.

    That means you too, Aludra, you silly get.

    Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 5:57pm

94. ALUDRA

    I for one would absolutely be happy if those things were to happen. But, those are things that will never happen.

    Posted by BSF at 08/17/2005 @ 5:58pm

95. saying it wont happen is not answering the question...its a dodge

    Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 5:59pm

96. Todd,

    The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Now, don't misunderstand me: I'm criticizing Congress as well as Bush on not following the Constitution on this.

    Freiheit,

    I've never defended Kerry's flip-flops nor defended that he wasn't a flip-flopper. I make it a point to point out that Bush was a flip-flopper, too, in light of the fact that Kerry didn't make nearly enough that Bush was, and that so many people are oblivious to Bush's obvious fli-flops. You, of course, definitely have a problem with my validly labeling Bush a flip-flopper and listing those flip-flops because you undoubtedly wish that readers of these blogs remain oblivious to this. But, oh well, I guess Bush's flip-flops were just "nuance", too? And Edwards a flop? Well, that would be way too kind a descriptive to lay on Cheney who did business with terrorist-supporting, sanctioned nations while at Halliburton, and we all know you could care less as long as Big Bidness is involved. Ah, the morality!

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 6:02pm

97. YOUR A CRAZIER THAN A LOON...HILLARY ROTTON CLINTON WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT PERIOD.BANK ON THAT LIBS

    Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 6:02pm

98. Well Frankgrits, since I only believe that there's a figurative hell, I'll gladly celebrate there with you. Is this BYOB?

    Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:02pm

99. Aludra... What if frogs had wings?....they'd probably be humping pigeons. MORE WMDs? That would be more in addition to the ones that weren't found then...? I'm confused by your hypotheticals.

    The world will be safer in 2008....unless Dubya tries to amend the Constitution to become Emperor or uses the Patriot Act to get rid of those silly elections....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/17/2005 @ 6:03pm

100. OKSG:

     A few questions:

     1. What were Saddam Hussein's hostile acts? 2. How is opening up a trading partner a justification for war? 3. How did Iraq fail to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 688?

     As for No. 3, you should read it first, because if your answer is based upon Iraq's violation of the no-fly zones, your reliance on Resolution 688 is misplaced. This resolution did not create no-fly zones, it addressed Hussein's repression of Krudish minorities in the north and Shi'ites in the south. Th U.S., Great Britain and France created the no-fly zones unilaterally in March 1991, supposedly to protect these minorities.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2005 @ 6:04pm

101. Ah... Aludra... I hate to burst your bubble AGAIN, but rotten is spelled R-O-T-T-E-N. You know, as in, "George Bush is a 'rotten' President."

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:05pm

102. Scully....Isn't it obvious. Dubya and Aludra had the same Eglish 101 instructor. Of course, I'm glad the CAPS LOCK is mainly unstuck now...all that virtual shouting was making my head hurt!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/17/2005 @ 6:07pm

103. Freiheit,

     Another thing. You wrote:

     I think that Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan. But she should be part of a diverse group representing multiple views and suffering multiple scars of the tragedy that was Saddam and is Islamic Fundamentalism.

     Power to it. And Sheehan can remind Bush that as much as he wants to push the Iraqis-have-suffered angle rationale that's not the rationale he presented to the U.S. and the world for invading Iraq -- WMDs was. And, again, please spare us: neither you nor your fellow Bushies give a damn about the Iraqis killed by Hussein and by our own forces.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 6:08pm

104. Ooops, English (Doh!) speaking of spellcheck error he says rather sheepishly

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/17/2005 @ 6:09pm

105. ALUDRA:

     I would admit if those things came true that would be good in general, and provide Bush with some belated justification for the war in some regards, but it would not make us any safer. We invaded and occupy a sovereign country, and killed thousands of civilians, destroyed their villiages and cities. The resentment this has caused has been inflicted already, and turning Iraq into a democracy, or finding a few bombs in country will not change that in the long run.

     As a side point, Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with with Iraq, as even the Bush Administration now admits, so I don't think you should have included it in your question.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2005 @ 6:13pm

106. In that case, Frank, count me in!

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:14pm

107. Whatsa matter Aludra? Don't want to play anymore?

     Aw, it picked up its marbles and went home.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:17pm

108. I care about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis that we've killed and mutilated. It's the rightwingers I don't give a damn about. They're the best argument for abortion I can think of.

     I'm not kidding.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:23pm

109. "As a side point, Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with with Iraq, as even the Bush Administration now admits"

     UTTERLY UNTRUE...PASTE EVIDENCE OF THAT STATEMENT

     Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 6:25pm

110. "It's the rightwingers I don't give a damn about. They're the best argument for abortion I can think of."

     WHAT A DISGUSTING FREAK SHOW OF A HUMAN BEING YOU ARE....I'M SURE YOUR THE PRIDE OF YOUR LOCAL SANITARIUM

     Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 6:27pm

111. Hey Aludra,

     "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the (sic) (or 'hic' in his case) September the 11th."

     George W. Bush

     How does your foot taste?

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:30pm

112. Aludra, If Osama bin Laden is captured in Iraq, I will be too shocked to speak for a while. Then, and only then, I would admit the war in Iraq was worth it. But since he is likely in Afghanistan or close to Afghanistan but on the Pakistani side, I think it would be worth it to put more effort into the Afghanistan campaign, rather than going ahead with an illegal and IRRELEVANT and needless war in Iraq. That was my viewpoint in 2002 and it hasn't changed.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 6:30pm

113. Yeah Aludra. They told me you'd be out in a few weeks if you behaved yourself.

     Kiss kiss.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:31pm

114. ALUDRA, To answer your 6:25 post, call Randi Rhodes on air america radio. Ask her to play the audio of the president saying that Iraq had no connection to the nine eleven. Then you can hear Bush say it in his own words.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 6:33pm

115. By the way, Aludra, you're is spelled, "Y-O-U-'-R-E." It's a contraction. It means "you are."

     Please make a note of it.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:34pm

116. Sure is a bad thought, Freiheit. My thoughts about you rightwing slimeballs are very, very dark and vindictive.

     I hate you all more than words can express.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:39pm

117. I meant "kiss-kiss" figuratively. I haven't had my shots yet.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:40pm

118. Frank,

     "You've got a better chance of seeing God. Time to scale down."

     I promise you this, I will be the first customer in line to purchase a hybrid SUV with enough horsepower to pull my boat AND fit my family of 6 comfortably inside.

     Todd = )

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 6:41pm

119. You don't understand, Frieheit, he just didn't want it to die of a homophobia-induced heart attack, you vile worm.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:41pm

120. My vision is just fine, Freiheit. I can see what you are from a hundred miles.

     You're just as ugly as you are close up.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:49pm

121. Wow, Aludra, after all your posts on the Nation website it is amazing how misinformed you are. Do you really think there were/are WMDs in Iraq? Do you think they were there and were smuggled out? Do you think that Saddam/Iraq and Bin Laden had any relation? Do you think that Bin Laden is in Iraq or that the war there will allow for his capture?

     There are official reports from this country, by the administration you seem to agree with, that contradict all of that.

     I have an idea for you Aludra. Instead of spending all day posting smart comments on this website why don't you calm down, review and really understand the facts and then try to make some logical conclusions. It would be a great exercise for you.

     Posted by maxxdogg at 08/17/2005 @ 6:54pm

122. Poor liddle Freiheit. Is that the best you can do?

     So sad.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 6:55pm

123. I think this article is well-written and accurately describes the unjustified hatred on the "right" for Cindy Sheehan.

     The basice right-wing, neo-dung response to any perceived threat is to personally attack the critic. They have no substance to their arguments. Bringing up her divorce is ludicrous.

     Let's talk about the divorces of Ronald Reagan (dumped Jane Wyman by cheating on her with several Hollywood starlets), Bob Dole (cheated on his first wife with his Elizabeth after his first wife helped him heal is WW II wounds), Newt Gingrich (married three times -- most recently to a congressional aide he had an affair with; he left one of his wives as she suffered with cancer), or the extra-marital affairs of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Henry Hyde (R-IL), Bob Livingston (R-LA, had to resign from House Speaker candidacy as Larry Flint revealed his affairs), Rush Limbaugh (not only a drug addict, but he cheated on two of his three wives), John Warner (R-VA, dumped his first wife for Elizabeth Taylor), Dan Burton (R-IN, Had at least six adulterous affairs, and fathered a son who today he ignores), Bob Barr (R-GA, cheated on all three of his wives - and coerced one into having an abortion - then lied about it)... and the list goes on.

     Those who live in hypocritical glass houses...

     Posted by charcoal at 08/17/2005 @ 6:55pm

124. Bravo, Charcoal. Bravo.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 6:56pm

125. Subject: The Coarse and Insensitive - We Have Seen This Type Before

     The coarse and insensitive critics of Cindy Sheehan, with their empty bleatings, seem to have the same mentality and attitude of the folks who used to call Rev. Martin Luther King a "traitor" and "agitator".

     When Rev. King was called these names, he was only trying to get America to live up to her creed of equality and fairness for all Americans.

     Now Cindy Sheehan, who is only trying to get answers to some serious questions about war and peace, is being subjected to the same callous hatred and venomous assassination of character to which Rev. King was treated.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/17/2005 @ 7:01pm

126. Do be a dear, Feiheit and run along.

     Your nappie needs changing.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:02pm

127. Aludra's like the drunk at the far end of the bar reading long paragraphs from rightwing tracts and shouting insults at everyone who disagrees. SSSSO THERE, YA LOUSY LIBSSSSS!!!!!

     Posted by proudlib at 08/17/2005 @ 7:02pm

128. YOU KNOW YOU OUT OF POWER CRY-BABIES CAN SLING ALL THE MUD 24/7 ON YOUR AIRHEAD AMERICA AND MOST OF THE MSM. FINE..JUST SILLY BACKGROUND NOISE OF BITTER CHILDREN WHO KNOW THEY WILL HAVE TO RIDE IN THE BACKSEAT FOR A LONG LONG TIME AND THEY ARE JUST TOO IMATURE TO DEAL WITH IT LIKE ADULTS....

     WHEN OUT OF POWER YOUR JUST LAUGHABLE

     WHE YOUR IN POWER YOUR DANGEROUS...

     VIVA LA BUSH AND GOD BLESS AMERICA

     Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 7:04pm

129. Nice to see that this thread has degenerated from something mildly resembling intellectual discourse to petty sniping (from both sides).

     Posted by usc1 at 08/17/2005 @ 7:07pm

130. I agree with those who say that Cindy is not insane, but a grieving mother. Now she is losing more of her familly with her husband filing for divorce. She needs to keep her private life to herself. She is saying that her son's death is one of the reasons for the divorce. Which in turn is our President's fault.

     Link: washingtontimes.com/upi/20050816-041022-9910r.htm [url]

     Posted by demy30 at 08/17/2005 @ 7:08pm

131. After John's mic got cut off, which was hopefully accidental, I sat there thinking, when will Ron point out who IS and who is obviously NOT acting hatefully! To say that Cindy Sheehan is hateful is, like John says, so desperate.

     Posted by ldwells1 at 08/17/2005 @ 7:10pm

132. "I hate you all more than words can express. Posted by SCULLYGRRRL 08/17/2005 @ 6:39pm "

     MOVE TO IRAN YOU SILLY ANTI-AMERICAN NITWIT

     Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 7:14pm

133. Aludra's like the drunk at the far end of the bar reading long paragraphs from rightwing tracts and shouting insults at everyone who disagrees. SSSSO THERE, YA LOUSY LIBSSSSS!!!!!

     Posted by PROUDLIB 08/17/2005 @ 7:02pm

     Proudlib - The right-wingers are worse than the drunk at the end of the bar. At least the drunk can blame his/her behavior on the alcohol, whereas right-wing conservatives only have their own obnoxious behavior to blame.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/17/2005 @ 7:15pm

134. ALUDRA, I am not referring to Randi Rhodes' mudslinging, which she does all too often. I am referring to the fact that she FREQUENTLY plays the recording of our president, George W Bush, admitting that Iraq had no connection to the September 11th. It is on tape for everyone to hear.

     Dubya admitted it, won't you also admit it?

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 7:17pm

135. Tsk, tsk, Freiheit. You and Aludra both will have to stay after school.

     Hypocrisy: H-I-P-P-0-C-R-I-C-Y

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:17pm

136. You people are such bullies and cowards. You started it, we're finishing it.

     Stop whining. It's extremely unbecoming.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:18pm

137. I stayed away all day from this posting because I was sure it would be full of the typical "put Cindy Sheehan on a pedestal" and threads full of vitriol towards anyone who is conservative.

     What a shock, I was right. This is getting to be a pathetic subject and as I have said before, she has a right to protest, she has for sure a right to grieve, but she has a political agenda for which she is using her son's death (a risk he willing made and thus died a hero).

     I like many other conservatives are not "worried, desparate" or any other negative or pejorative you liberals can conjure up. We just believe that she is not more deserving than any other parent or spouse in their right to be heard. She would not be getting any media attention except (and I give her and her lib handlers credit for this) she understood that the media hates and is bored being in Crawford Texas, and that furthermore, with the president and congress both out of DC, there is no news to drive headlines.

     Because of her sons volunteering spirit and his willingness to put his life on the line for his fellow soldiers, the people of Iraq, and our nation, he deserves to be honored, not have his service denigrated the way his mother is doing. Likewise by her words and actions, she denigrates all the parents, children, and spouses who believe differently than her and are honoring their family members sacrifice in Iraq.

     She is now, by reading her webblog and as posted on MichaelMoore.com trying to weasel out of her statement blaming Israel. Well, tough, she made the statement and unless she apologizes for it, we will continue to believe she believes what she said.

     http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460787/posts

     From: SCINDY...@aol.com To: ter...@mweb.co.th ; bullyard@googlegroups.com

     Cc: skee...@ksc.th.com ; jwa...@cox.net ; h...@bfranklin.edu ; steppenwo...@msn.com ; Kurn...@netscape.net ; m...@loxinfo.co.th ; TQMN...@aol.com ; zpbr...@cox.net ; sharinpa...@hotmail.com ; v...@netium.com.br Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:41 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Nightline Tonight Mon., March 14, 2005

     That was my son's unit. He was killed on that day 04/04/04.

     Here is a letter that I wrote to NightLine about the broadcast:

     Love

     Cindy Sheehan

     March 15, 2005

     To Whom it May Concern

     .... Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 7:20pm

138. There you go again, Aludra. You are SO boring and unoriginal. But then, rightwingers only know what they've been taught by their equally uninformed idealogues.

     You people really are stupid.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:21pm

139. she FREQUENTLY plays the recording of our president, George W Bush, admitting that Iraq had no connection to the September 11th."

     BUT SADDAM FUNDED AND FACILITATED TERRORISTS. REMEMBER BUSH SAID AFTER 9/11..IF YOUR HARBOR OR SUPPORT TERRORISTS..YOUR JUST AS GUILTY AS THE TERRORISTS...IT WAS A LONG TIME COMMING SADDAM NEEDED HIS ASS KICKED OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST ONCE & FOR ALL. YOUR ARGUEMENT IS MEANINGLESS

     Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 7:22pm

140. All Right-thinkers should cease from talking about Cindy Sheehan directly. You are walking into the Libs' trap. We cannot win this discussion simply because if we so much as think her name we automatically will be labeled hate-spewing, right-winging, head-in-the-sand wingnuts (did I paraphrase accurately?) It matters not how logical or appropriate our points are.

     We can try to assuage some of Mrs. Sheehan's anguish with the belief that he died for something in which WE believe was noble and, presumably, in which he truly believed. We can only empathize/sympathize with her unimaginable loss and point out to others how the Party of the Undermined War Cause and the MSM are turning her into a political monkey. All that's missing is the organ-grinder and red vest and hat.

     Posted by usc1 at 08/17/2005 @ 7:22pm

141. Horowitz acted hatefully, Sheehan has not. Who is SCULLYGRRL?????

     Posted by ldwells1 at 08/17/2005 @ 7:23pm

142. Hey Love Liberty! What will you do when the Religious Right rules this country? Want to be free? Be a liberal.

     But of course, that would presuppose that you could think.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:24pm

143. Are your bored SCULLYFACE??Maybe you didnt understand what I said...move your little ugly ass out of our country to IRAN where they know how to treat SHIT FOR BRAINS bitch scum like you...

     Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 7:25pm

144. LDWELLS1, who are YOU?

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:26pm

145. Ah, Aludra Aludra, what WILL we do with babies who have little tantrums, like you. I think you need a good spanking.

     Of course, only with rubber gloves. I truly HAVEN'T had my shots.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:28pm

146. No, ALUDRA, my argument is not meaningless. That's because it has nothing to dow with Saddam and if he supported terrorists or not. It has to do with Bush basically putting Afghanistan on the back burner, which in turn eased the pressure on bin Laden, in order to start a war in Iraq.

     Bin Laden is STILL at large. Bush made a mistake not putting more resources into getting him. His unnecessary war in Iraq made those resources that are were used in Iraq unavailable for getting bin Laden.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 7:28pm

147. I could give you the web address of a good high school, Aludra. You REALLY need a decent education.

     But then, on you it would be wasted.

     Spell check would be a lot easier.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:29pm

148. last sentence should have read "that are/were used in Iraq..."

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 7:30pm

149. Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:30pm

150. Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:31pm

151. " His unnecessary war in Iraq made those resources that are were used in Iraq unavailable for getting bin Laden"

     Where is the evidence for yet another canard.....you cant send 150,000 troops into the afgan mountains...Remember your commie bretheren tried to do that & they lost. We have plenty of assets in Afganistan.

     Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 7:31pm

152. ALUDRA, I am not referring to Randi Rhodes' mudslinging, which she does all too often. I am referring to the fact that she FREQUENTLY plays the recording of our president, George W Bush, admitting that Iraq had no connection to the September 11th. It is on tape for everyone to hear.

     Dubya admitted it, won't you also admit it?

     Oh, good gracious alive:

     "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks".

     -- George W. Bush, September 18, 2003

     Look. It. Up.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 7:32pm

153. If we have plenty of assets in Afghanistan, why don't they have bin Laden?

     It strikes me as odd to go to war in Iraq just because "you can't send 150,000 troops into the Afghan mountains...". The war in Iraq should be justified on its merits, not on the fact that the primary target is in difficult mountainous terrain.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 7:34pm

154. BTW, I don't have any commie bretheren - don't know what you're referring to there.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 7:34pm

155. "It strikes me as odd to go to war in Iraq just because "you can't send 150,000 troops into the Afghan mountains"

     I didnt say that. reread...I was responding to your point of inadquate resources because of Iraq war.

     Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 7:35pm

156. FREI - I missed the "no one cares about Iraqis" stage of the blogging - I was in a meeting. So don't give me any (dis)credit for that one...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 7:36pm

157. OK ALUDRA, point taken. I thought it was implied, but I take it that it wasn't.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 7:37pm

158. Hey Freiheit! Don't flatter yourself. I wouldn't touch you with ALUDRA'S hands.

     Better to be with liberals in hell than rightwingers in heaven. You people are SOOOOO boring.

     And inane.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:38pm

159. Aludra,

     If you'd like a link, then how about one from the right wing's best friend:

     http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 7:40pm

160. Hey Love Liberty! What will you do when the Religious Right rules this country? Want to be free? Be a liberal.

     But of course, that would presuppose that you could think.

     Posted by SCULLYGRRRL 08/17/2005 @ 7:24pm

     Scullygrrrl,

     I would engage in some intellectual debate with you, but after reading your posts today, I defer to following my father's advice:

     "Never asked an unarmed person to match you shot for shot"

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 7:42pm

161. Yeah Freiheit. I hear he's looking for you. Past your bedtime. Oh and your nappie is STILL full.

     I know, Love Liberty (how's THAT for an oxymoron?). I shouldn't fire on a defenseless little dork like you.

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:47pm

162. EXACTLY...AND DAMN PROUD OF IT

     Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 7:48pm

163. Yep, Frank. The prosecution rests.

     I'm having such a good time but I MUST run.

     Tah-tah, Lovely Liberals and Ridiculous Rightwingers! It's been a slice of whatever!

     Posted by scullygrrrl at 08/17/2005 @ 7:49pm

164. Hey Cindy, Keep an eye out for Osama , He's probably hiding behind a Bush!

     Posted by Billy H at 08/17/2005 @ 7:59pm

165. Oooooooooooh, Aludra, you did get that link, didn't you?

     http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

     I find it beyond pathetic that people would still make themselves so willingly ignorant as to who and who wasn't involved in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, even after their little boy king, who they're trying to blindly defend by believing a non-existent Hussein/9-11 to justify the Iraq war, goes on the record about it.

     Good. Gracious. Alive.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 8:00pm

166. ORAIBI1952, Re your post of 7:01. The right still feels that way about MLK.

     Frank, grow up! Sometimes you spout out stuff that is pure garbage. You denigrate the millions of conservatives who have never felt any racial hatred. You denigrate the millions of minorities who are conservative. And finally you denigrate multi-racial families like my own who are conservative.

     I expect more from you than low class slurs like that.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 8:04pm

167. ORAIBI1952, Re your post of 7:01. The right still feels that way about MLK.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/17/2005 @ 7:44pm

     Frankgrits - yes I know they do; the bigotry and gluttony of the right-wing conservatives are two of life's constants - like the earth revolving around the sun.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/17/2005 @ 8:05pm

168. She believes she is honoring her son and so do we who support her.

     Yet, you and most of the liberals who post here have no hesitancy to slam as invalid, the thousands of families with equal losses who do support the president.

     Why aren't their feelings and opinions just as valid as Cindy Sheehans? And they aren't demanding the president speak to them (again).

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 8:08pm

169. ditto to you Oraibi1952 on my posting to Frank re:MLK @8:04pm

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 8:10pm

170. Whether or not the war was justified in the first place, whether or not George Bush lied to the American people, the crucial question now is: are our current policies in Iraq making things better or worse? Is the presence (and conduct) of our troops fueling the insurgency (and increasing the chances of more terrorist attacks here at home)? Are we sending the right signals to the Iraqi people with our policies, or are we increasingly perceived as an oppressive occupying power with plans to stay indefinitely? Could we be doing more to get the Iraqi economy and infrastructure back on track, and to address the growing humanitarian crisis (malnutrition, lack of healthcare, etc)? How can it be made clear -- to Iraqis, America and the world -- that this war is NOT about furthering the agenda of US business interests?

     We all want peace and freedom for the Iraqi people, and we all want America to be more secure against terrorism. Very few of us want war, and it's a relatively small minority who believe in peace at any price. Instead of vilifying each other and trying to claim the moral high ground, shouldn't we be seeking the truth about the situation (which our media seem unable or unwilling to provide) and discussing the alternatives rationally?

     Even if our continued military presence in Iraq is necessary (there's no way we can leave tomorrow, in any case), and even if our current strategy is sound, there is one area in which there can be no doubt that we are failing badly, and that's on the P.R. front. For example, if the U.S. has no plans to stay in Iraq permanently, why are we building a number of what look like permanent bases? How can we be taken at our word when our knee-jerk response to any accusation of wrongdoing is to issue a categorical denial? And when Dick Cheney keeps making ludicrous statements about the insurgency being in its death throes, etc.?

     Posted by gnosys at 08/17/2005 @ 8:16pm

171. I have a son serving in Iraq currently and I am a Vietnam vet (honorably discharged, by the way) so this is not the first time my family has been caught up in the right wing bullshit. It is time this nation wakes up!!! and realizes we are on the WRONG path. We invaded a soverign country for reasons that still are not clear (and don't give me crap about a "war" on terrorism or "WMD's" or some such. Those lies did'nt work on intelligent people the first time, and they are getting even less believable as time goes on. I do not blame Ms. Sheehan. If I was in her shoes (which I pray to God I never am), I HOPE I would have the courage to do as she is doing. This "war" is just plain wrong, and poorly run by stupid people to boot. If we want to "fight terrorism", let's put enough troops over there to put a stop to it COLD. Anyone that's ever been in the military can tell you that what's going on there now is just plain damn foolish. It's the same quagmire that Vietnam became. We are not fighting to win, but for some unclear ideology of Bushs. And say what you will, but I don't think he, or anyone else in his administration has made that at all clear. I don't think they have a clue as to what the hell they are doing. The Muslims have been trying to kill Christians since the crusades, and for you that aren't "up" on your history, that's over 1000 years. What makes us think that lame ass "elections" are going to change that?? NOT LIKELY.

     Posted by JimmyJ at 08/17/2005 @ 8:20pm

172. Frank,

     "Ok, then I guess we can just assume that WMD's were not the reason then. The oil was. Is that what I'm hearing?"

     What I'm suggesting, is that IF Bush intensionally factored regime change in hopes for a democracy in control over Iraq and that this change would leverage our fair market trading with Iraq specifically in terms of oil, he just should have had the GONADS to make that argument when he was trying to get support, again I would have stood on my feet shouted Amen and supported the tanks moving right up through Baghdad. Please don't take this out of context, I'm not advocated war for resources only. I believe, based on reading the multiple U.N. resolutions dating back to Gulf War 1, that Saddam broke most of the resolutions and the ensuing resolutions that were cease fire agreements. Remember, Gulf War 1, never officially ended, we only declared a cease fire. A cease fire means the fire can begin reign down again for any failure to fulfill the cease fire agreements.

     Let's put this all together now..

     Call Saddam on the carpet for the failure to fulfill the cease fire agreements, but know the timing is right for regime change anyway. Through in the mix that ya Saddam was an evil man... torture chambers.. yada yada..

     AND on top of it all, if we remove him based on HIS failure (he did fail to fulfill the terms of the cease fire) we can establish a pro-America democracy which would give us access to a stable oil supply in the region.

     If Bush would have just had the BALLS to say that in the first place, I still believe he had enough people in his corner to get it passed through congress without having to go to the "immediate security threat/WMD/downing memo gate" that he is involved in now.

     Be honest with us, and we will still back you to blow the bastard away and take the oil, is all I'm saying.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 8:21pm

173. One more correction for Frankg and others regarding Cindy Sheehan as a Gold Star Mom. I will let the organization speak for themselves

     Cindy Sheehan is currently in the news. She and her organization have no connection whatever with American Gold Star Mothers, Inc. We are a 501 C(3) organization and, as such, do not engage in political activities. We do support our troops. After all, they are our children.

     http://www.goldstarmoms.com/agsm/Home/index.htm

     She formed a copycat organization which just speaks even more of how she besmirches and denigrates our American soldiers who have fallen in battle.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 8:28pm

174. LL,

     Yet, you and most of the liberals who post here have no hesitancy to slam as invalid, the thousands of families with equal losses who do support the president.

     I've never written that the families who support Bush as being invalid and have no right to have their voices heard, and I don't believe anyone else here has, either.

     Why aren't their feelings and opinions just as valid as Cindy Sheehans?

     No one here wrote that they weren't. I think you're trying to muddy the water a bit here.

     And they aren't demanding the president speak to them (again).

     Well, duh. They have no beef with Bush; why should they be taking this kind of stand to speak with him? Please, LL, Sheehan is demanding that he provide answers to two questions she feels are relevant, and she's going through a hell of a lot in attempt to do just that. She's not placing herself above any other family, that she's better than the pro-Bush parents of deceased soldiers; if anything, her stand is getting across something that the government doesn't like -- that people have the right to demand they answer for themselves when questioned (not that, mind you, legally, the government or Bush in particularly is obligated to do just that).

     If the parent of a soldier who was killed in Bosnia were set up near Clinton's residence demanding similar answers, I'd more than support her doing just that and wouldn't resort to falsely slandering her (the hard right-wing pundits, not you) because I disagreed with her.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 8:31pm

175. LL, you wrote: "she besmirches and denigrates our American soldiers who have fallen in battle."

     How in hell does Sheehan besmirch and denigrate our soldiers who have fallen in battle? How???????????????????

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 8:35pm

176. KC, your 8:35 post was right on target. I would have said it myself but you did a better job...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 8:37pm

177. FG:

     First, thanks for keeping it above the gutter.

     Secondly, I never said she didn't have the right to speak her mind or question her president. However, others have the same right to question her motives.

     Lastly, you prove my point, which is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that Righties can say about her (even if it is true) that would be considered appropriate given her situation and thus we should NOT question her motives. Instead, we (Righties) should focus our attention on other aspects of the story (how Dems and MSM are using her to advance their agenda. Think Wellstone memorial) and leave her alone. That is a battle we at least have a chance of winning.

     Posted by usc1 at 08/17/2005 @ 8:40pm

178. OOOOOH. So this is what it feels like to play Karl Rove. THE AWESOME COSMIC POWER!!!!!

     Posted by usc1 at 08/17/2005 @ 8:41pm

179. She formed a copycat organization which just speaks even more of how she besmirches and denigrates our American soldiers who have fallen in battle.

     Just because Sheehan opposes the Iraq war and is exercising her constitutional right to protest both it and the president responsible for it in no way constitutes "besmerches and denigrates" the troops. If anything, using the troops to try to silence critics of this administration is besmirching and denigrating. Reminds me of the hypocrisy of Sean Hannity: during Kosovo he was ripping on Clinton every evening, going so far as to falsely say we were running out of ammunition; yet, golly gee, during the Iraq war he flip-flops and says that criticizing the administration is putting our soldiers' lives in danger.

     Puuuuulease.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 8:43pm

180. LL, that's the difference between the left and the right. We on the left can respect those who made the sacrifice and still support Bush. But the same cannot be said for those of you on the right. You have no respect what-so-ever for anyone who opposes your President on anything

     I would be happy to stand corrected if that were true. Unfortunately, if the Nation website is any indicator, most on the left have labeled the families of fallen soldiers who continue to support the president as "kool aid idiots" and that is the polite descriptions I have seen.

     On you second point, I fail to see where many of us have shown no respect for opposing opinions (while admitting that some have). To engage in sharp debate and point out why you feel the anti-war position is wrong is not showing no respect. But Frank, I could point to numerous postings where you use inflammatory and denigrating language to describe anyone "foolish enough to still believe what Bush says"

     It's really pathetic that the right in this country so blindly follows whatever right wing talk and Christian fundamentalists reguritate on a daily basis. I've read this entire thread and I must say the left kicked ass again. your posting @5:21pm

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 8:43pm

181. Give Bush a break. He is just trying to do the best he can under the circumstances. Cheney is the person that deserves to be the target of the anger. Bush relied on Cheney's experience for foreign policy. But Cheney's advice has been a disaster for Bush. Completely out of touch with reality.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/17/2005 @ 8:43pm

182. The big question about Cheney is why? How can a person that has many years of experience so completely misunderstand that part of the world.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/17/2005 @ 8:47pm

183. Even the Bush family knew George had no experience to handle foreign policy. They Cheney was there to guide the ship. But how is it that Cheney turned out to be such a fool?

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/17/2005 @ 8:51pm

184. LL,

     I must say, where are all the soldiers' parents demanding Bush answer for not having our troops be given mandatory predeployment physical and psychological exxams before going to Iraq (these, by the way, were enacted by Clinton to avoid any denial of benefits should a soldier get inflicted from an ailment while overseas; there'd be records showing what someone did and did not have before deploying), for being sent to war without all of them having the proper equipment, for his V.P falsely saying the insurgency that's killing those troops is in its "last throes", for identical letters having been sent to parents that give favorable words to the war under the pretense that they're from their kids? These are non-partisan issues, and, hell, when you look at it, I'm shocked that there aren't more parents -- both Republican and Democrat -- who aren't in Crawford right now demanding these answers with the fervor of Sheehan.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 8:55pm

185. Is Cheney completely out of touch with reality. Or is he just trying hard to "keep in good with conservatives" even though his daughter is a Lesbian. Most folks around here think that a gay child means something wrong with a parent. Dick has to go overboard to keep his conservative credentials. The "personal setback" has distorted his judgement.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/17/2005 @ 8:56pm

186. KC: Surely you see a difference between criticizing a president for not having appropriate war plans/supplies/etc. in place and claiming he LIED about the war. And before you respond--yes, it is appropriate (wrong word, but you get my drift) to question Bush about his Iraq plans. However, IMO he simply is acting on the recommendations of his military commanders. (I do have an issue with the layman questioning how a war is run b/c, really, what do we know about how to run a war anyway?)

     And no I don't want to re-hash the Bush lied/No he didn't routine.

     And lastly, I believe it's spelled Puh-lease =)

     Posted by usc1 at 08/17/2005 @ 8:58pm

187. Love Liberty,

     Re: Your quote.

     ditto to you Oraibi1952 on my posting to Frank re:MLK @8:04pm

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 08/17/2005 @ 8:10pm

     Just so you adults know where your children are; this child is headed to the vigil for Cindy Sheehan and America's troops. May the troops be brought home now!

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/17/2005 @ 8:58pm

188. Bush should send Cheney to meet with Cindy Sheehan. Of course, Dick will drag along his wife because he can't seem to do much without her to hold him up.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/17/2005 @ 9:03pm

189. LL, are you ducking me now? Let me jog your memory:

     LL, you wrote: "she besmirches and denigrates our American soldiers who have fallen in battle."

     How in hell does Sheehan besmirch and denigrate our soldiers who have fallen in battle? How???????????????????

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/17/2005 @ 8:35pm

     Does it ring a bell?

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 9:05pm

190. FRANKGRITS, Have you ever watched Bush try to talk about a complex issue without a script to read? It is very painful to watch. It is clear that Cheney pushes him from behind. I feel sorry for Bush. He is way out of his league.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/17/2005 @ 9:07pm

191. USC1, "OOOOOH. So this is what it feels like to play Karl Rove. THE AWESOME COSMIC POWER!!!!!" Don't get it. Enlighten me please.

     Sorry. May have been a bit too esoteric. Just cracking on the Left's belief in Karl Rove as the Grand Puppeteer of this country.

     Never mind. Pappy always told me that if you have to explain it, then it ain't that funny.

     Posted by usc1 at 08/17/2005 @ 9:07pm

192. Hman,

     "1. What were Saddam Hussein's hostile acts? 2. How is opening up a trading partner a justification for war? 3. How did Iraq fail to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 688?"

     Well, let's first lay some ground rules before I respond.

     We must agree that Gulf War 1, never was ended. The U.S. called a cease fire which was based upon Saddam fulfilling ALL U.N. Sanctions placed on him AND the terms of the cease fire. See here:

     http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/910718-190820.htm

     or here:

     http://www.answers.com/topic/gulf-war

     or here:

     http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/iraq.13w.html

     Ok, they pretty much all say the same thing. We (the U.S.) never ENDED the war. We simply ceased firing, contingent upon Saddam abiding by each and every clause in the cease fire agreement which was UN resolution 687.

     If we agree on the above, I can make my argument, if not then we will be going in circles.

     I mentioned 688 in my original post, please forgive me, I was referring the cease fire agreement which was part of UN resolution 687.

     From http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

     UN resolution 687 states among other things:

     " (b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of suc h approval:

     (i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself; (ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragrap h 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission , of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;"

     Ok focus specifically on the part that says "immediate on site inspections". If you add the first 45 days for passage of the resolution, then the 45 days for development of the plan for weapons inspection you get 90 days. I can find no evidence that Saddam did abide by this provision and allow inpectors in; actually, I can find evidence to the contrary here:

     "As weapons inspectors return to Baghdad after a four-year absence, BBC News Online examines key moments in their chequered relationship with Iraq's leadership."

     from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

     So there is one clause that Saddam did not adhere too.

     Next, be familiar with clause 16, as I will reference it in just a moment:

     "16. Reaffirms that Iraq, without prejudice to the debts and obligations of Iraq arising prior to 2 August 1990, which will be addressed through the normal mechanisms, is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait;"

     And then clause 18 which states:

     "18. Decides also to create a fund to pay compensation for claims that fall within paragraph 16 above and to establish a Commission that will administer the fund;"

     I can find no evidence that Iraq EVER paid any compensation under clause 18 to cover clause 16.

     These are just a couple of examples, here are others and their research into Iraq's breach of UN 687:

     http://www.usembassy.lv/EN/Iraq/defiance

     http://www.state.gov/p/io/fs/2003/18850.htm

     This one by the UN itself that says he was in breach of 687:

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

     Now....

     Can we agree he breached 687?

     If we can, my argument is then LET THE BOMBS fly baby!

     he broke the agreement, that is all we need to open fire back up and put a stop to the cease fire.

     To answer your question number 2:

     "2. How is opening up a trading partner a justification for war?"

     It isn't, the justification for the war, is that Saddam failed to fulfill the obligations of the ceasefire. The cherry on the cake is that the resulting regime change, theoretically, may put in place a pro American democracy willing to trade oil with us on the fair market.

     My point then is..

     If Bush would have laid out what I just laid out, instead of having to go to the "eminent WMD threat" crap, which I do believe was hyped to "sell" the war to more progressive minded people he still would have gotten the go ahead for the restart of the war passed by congress.

     Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

     Have the balls to call it like you see it.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 9:10pm

193. I doubt the Bush administration has the courage or the brains to re-instate the draft. I doubt they'll have much choice once we go into Iran though. (That will be "dubya's" next case of "the dumb ass").

     Posted by JimmyJ at 08/17/2005 @ 9:10pm

194. ..........and as an aside to this whole conversation:Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rove should all be in jail IMO.

     Posted by JimmyJ at 08/17/2005 @ 9:12pm

195. Most of my friends are Bush supporters, but they recognize that he is inexperienced and has trouble with complex issues. They are comfortable with discussing the bad advice that Bush has received. But they are very uncomfortable with attacking Bush directly. Bush represents a "white male symbol" during a time when African-American sports stars, successful Asian businesses, and high tech superstars from India have chipped away at the self-esteem of many white males. It is counterproductive to attack Bush. Pin the failures on his advisors. In the long run Bush will be viewed with pity more than anything else.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/17/2005 @ 9:16pm

196. OKSG, Can't you use ellipses from time to time? My eyes glazed over at that 20-foot-long post of yours...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 9:18pm

197. Leftofcenter,

     "I think I figured it out...Aludra is the bastard offspring of Bill Clinton and Ann Coulter"

     My turn! My turn!

     Do me now!

     Who am I?

     This will be good = )

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 9:18pm

198. high-tech superstars from India? Now I've heard of everything...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 9:19pm

199. Freiheit,

     In the above post you in no way address the point made about Cheney. Rather, you do your typical nonsensical thing by distracting from it with your lastest favorite: Sheehan-wouldn't-be-protesting-if-insurgents-had-anything-to-do-with-it.

     USCi,

     KC: Surely you see a difference between criticizing a president for not having appropriate war plans/supplies/etc. in place and claiming he LIED about the war

     Why, yes, and I've written in these blogs substantiating both of these claims. You don't want to address the lies, fine; that's your right. But when you're ready to delve into a minor thing like a president lying his country into a war, please let me know. It might interrupt that episode of "The Simpsons" but might be well worth it.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 9:23pm

200. Frank,

     "Todd, wouldn't it be nice if we had an Administration that wasn't loaded with oilmen and put our efforts into finding alternative fuel sources and then producing them. Then we could tell the whole mideast to go take a flying f--- and live in relative peace."

     I fully agree with you, and I support the research into alternative fuel sources. The new hydrogen fuel cell system looks promising, but is in it's infancy stage.

     Again, I will be the first in line to buy a hydrogen fuel cell or combo gas/electric hybrid SUV as soon as one is engineered that has the horse power to pull my boat and room for all 6 of my family members = )

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 9:31pm

201. But don't count Bush out politically. If there is London-like attack in the United States there will be a panic and Bush will be able to rise to the occasion just as Blair did in England. Even if it is another dozen suicidal Saudis with box cutters, or something like that, it could be used to justify occupation of other countries. When there is great fear you can yank it around many ways. And Cheney will again play the noble 2nd-in-command hiding out in undisclosed locations.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/17/2005 @ 9:32pm

202. Reading this blog has been interesting to say the least. The one question I have is ANXIOUSSOUL, are you a white male who is insecure with his own sexuality? I'm trying to understand the following two posts:

     Is Cheney completely out of touch with reality. Or is he just trying hard to "keep in good with conservatives" even though his daughter is a Lesbian. Most folks around here think that a gay child means something wrong with a parent. Dick has to go overboard to keep his conservative credentials. The "personal setback" has distorted his judgement.

     Posted by ANXIOUSSOUL 08/17/2005 @ 8:56pm & Bush represents a "white male symbol" during a time when African-American sports stars, successful Asian businesses, and high tech superstars from India have chipped away at the self-esteem of many white males.

     As a gay white mail, that sounds like crap to me, IMO. You really meant to say 'most folks around here think that a gay child means something wrong with a parent?' You must be from SouthWest Ohio, where I'm from. And 'white men having their self esteem being chipped away?'

     Can anyone tell me what MSM stands for, what some of the righties have been using?

     Thanks!

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 9:39pm

203. physics,

     "OKSG, Can't you use ellipses from time to time? My eyes glazed over at that 20-foot-long post of yours..."

     ya ya I know it was long, but it's a technical point I'm making. Please read it, I appreciate your thoughts and feedback.

     Your one of the "cool" progressives = )

     actually you pretty much all are, only a couple that demean conservatives as "non" intelligent.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 9:39pm

204. ... excuse, a gay white MALE who can spell.

     Thanks!

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 9:40pm

205. OSUSKIP1, Those are very good questions. I live in the south and my friends and neighbors, mostly very conservative, are very honest about their anxieties with respect to gays, race, foreigners, sports, money, power, etc. Not sure how openly people discuss those anxieties in other parts of the country. Might be different underlying issues where you live.

     Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/17/2005 @ 9:46pm

206. So what about Cindy Sheehan?

     I was thinking about this some last evening.

     I had a friend, who lost her daughter due to an accident when she was 3 years old.

     And this poor woman, one of the things she did was to try and find some reason or purpose for that death.

     In a way, it was a form of denial, I think.

     It occurs to me, this is common, and I have heard of this in other cases where people have died.

     Peole start foundations and stuff, to memorialize the dead, as a way of justifying, or making sense out of it.

     I think the situation is, Mrs Sheehan has decided that the "purpose" she will create for her son's death is something like this:

     Because of his death, this war will be stopped. This president, who is responsible for his death, will be forced to pay for his crime.

     If his death were to accomplish that, then it would have some meaning.

     And that is her goal.

     Of course, others who share the opinion that these would be good accomplishments will pitch in with her.

     In fact, they might well have recruited her, as a sort of emotional "suicide bomber" (by that I refer to her being used by others to accomplish their ends, without regard to her welfare).

     This is the first phase of the grieving process. Denial.

     Pray for this poor woman.

     Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 9:47pm

207. Now, now, KC. No need to be rude.

     As I said, I have no desire to rehash the whole Bush Lied Discussion. I have "listened" to both sides of the debate, including your arguments, on this website. (Other places as well). I believe others have refuted your points quite nicely, and tend to believe them. So, let's just agree to disagree on this one. OK? HMMM?

     Oh, and aside from maybe about five episodes in the 90s, I have never watched the Simpsons.

     Posted by usc1 at 08/17/2005 @ 9:48pm

208. Unfortunately (or maybe not since I choose to stay here), in Cincinnati, the issues are the same. Thanks for responding respectfully!

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 9:48pm

209. OSUSKIP1:

     MSM = mainstream media

     JonB:

     Excellent analysis. You may have hit the nail on the head.

     Posted by usc1 at 08/17/2005 @ 9:53pm

210. Thanks Frank! To me, that would be the right slanted media. It's nice to have the web to get facts and truths from true media sources outside of the US.

     KC, you should have your own blog, a la David Sirota, Michaelangelo Signoreli, et all. Valid and truthful research.

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 9:54pm

211. KC, I didn't make my statements all inclusive about liberals.

     When you form an organization that is similar sounding to a historic organization (American Gold Star Mothers organized in 1928), you don't see where they might be offended? Visit their website or read the opinions of parents and spouses with a different view than Cindy Sheehan and see how they really feel about what she is doing and the similar sounding name use.

     Also, Cindy Sheehan has made it clear that she isn't there to get her questions answered. She doesn't really want the president to come out and talk with her as she indicated in her interview with Keith Olberman on MSNBC:

     Olbermann: "Last question, it's pure politics, the nature of the media coverage you're getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that. From the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn't it really better if President Bush doesn't meet with you?" Sheehan: "I would think so, yeah. I think it's great, and if he would come out right now, it would really diffuse the momentum, and I don't want to give them any hints, and I think that's something they probably already thought about. But, you know, but we're here, we're committed, we're staying the whole month of August, and then we're moving to Washington, D.C., and we're going to have a 24-hour vigil on his front lawn to keep the pressure on. The pressure is there, 62 percent of Americans want our troops home, and this is giving them a voice to stand up and be counted and say, you know, we want our country back and we want our troops home."

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 9:54pm

212. I agree Frank, Cindy Sheehan is not in denial, she's ticked at the unecessary death of her son and others! I listened to the Michaelangelo show today (Wednesday) and he had on the lady from Cleveland that her son just died two weeks ago. She is going to be joining Cindy Sheehan's cause.

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 10:00pm

213. Kevin Collins

     You have clearly established that a reasonable person could doubt that the president told the truth.

     You have not established beyond reasonable doubt that he lied.

     Meaning, you have explained reasonably well why you think he lied, and have presented enough evidence that your opinion does not seem unreasonable.

     But you have not established it as fact.

     I have read many of your posts.

     I do not know If you are correct.

     It seems to me that Frieheit is correct, in holding the position that you have not proven that the president has lied.

     You might note that in defending the President, he doesn't assert that he has been entirely truthful. He simply points out, and I think correctly so, that your case is not as persuasive as you think it is.

     And I think, out of respect for the man who is President, we ought to be slow to accept such accusations.

     I tend to give the benefit of the doubt, unless the evidence is incontrovertible. Your evidence does not rise to that level.

     As a general observation, all this accusing people of lying is not profitable.

     Just my opinion.

     Jon

     Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 10:02pm

214. Rosemary Palmer is the ladies name. Her son was referred to as Augie.

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 10:03pm

215. Frankg,

     Cindy Sheehan is not going to build a movement, she is not going to even move President Bush (thank God!), and a year or two from now, only liberals like yourself will remember she even existed.

     We will however remember her son and his heroic sacrifice.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 10:06pm

216. JonB,

     Which lie of Bush's are you discussing?

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 10:06pm

217. LL,

     You're right on both counts. I didn't consider that it was a similar-titled organization; not very cool at all. And her admitting that she actually hopes Bush doesn't come out so it doesn't spoil the "momentum", which completely flies in the face of her supposed original intent of just wanting her questions answered, isn't cool either.

     USC1,

     You must have read that blog with smudged glasses, because no one offered anything to validly counter my Bush-lied charge. But perhaps I should call these "Bush-administration" lies, because, as I think is painfully obvious, Bush is a mere puppet whose strings are pulled by those technically under him but intellectually over him.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 10:09pm

218. By the way, it is simply impossible to prove anything to anyone, if they don't want to believe it.

     I have challenged people at times with the following statement:

     "You can't prove to me that the person you think is your mother is a woman, if I don't want to believe it."

     So far, no takers.

     The problem is that belief, even in mundane things is an act of faith.

     We accept something as true, based on evidence and testimony. But that is a choice of faith.

     Man is designed to live by faith. (God knows, but we only believe).

     I "know" that I am sitting in front of my son's computer, because of the evidence my senses provide. (as an example)

     So enough of this "I proved it" nonsense.

     People will agree when they choose to.

     Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 10:10pm

219. Enough of this religion nonsense too.

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 10:12pm

220. JonB,

     When you'd care to counter each of the lies I've detailed, I'll be waiting. And Freiheit hasn't bothered to do this, either. Yes, he's made clear that he doesn't buy what I've written; but he hasn't attacked the substance of what I've written. If it's so refutable, then you'd think it would be a cinch to counter. And I haven't read anything from him or yourself doing that.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 10:15pm

221. good post Jonb:

     Repeatedly we have confronted Kevin with his accusations by stating facts, analyisis, and other supporting documentation that show there is no direct evidence of Bush deliberately lying to the American people (ok Kevin, the 1998 IAEA Report that Bush issued a clarification on and still doesn't count except in your own mind).

     I have invested approximately a month of reading and posting on this site and I have reached the same conclusion that others on both sides have come to; there just doesn't exist much room for agreement. The areas of agreement are seldom germaine to the central issue of debate.

     I believe this is reflective of our country as a whole when it comes to the hardcore believers on both sides of the spectrum. As has been amply demonstrated by political analysts on both sides, the battles will be won by convincing the the middle 20-30% that you have the better ideas and personnel to effect the changes the middle seeks.

     Both ends of the political arena will continue to measure truth and criticism from the viewpoints of their own narrow lenses.

     Frankg, Zero, Kevin, anything to add from the left perspective?

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 10:16pm

222. Thanks goodness someone would help with getting people out alive, Freiheit. If we left it up to Bush, he would tell everyone to stay in and burn with the building to protect our national security. Freiheit must stand for frightening?

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 10:17pm

223. Actually, Frank, my observation is that "W" is reasonably smart.

     I heard that based on his and John Kerry's scores on the tests they took when they signed up for military duty, "W" is a bit smarter than John.

     (When Kerry was asked about that, his response was "Those records haven't been released".)

     But intelligence doesn't count for that much.

     As a matter of fact, I score pretty high on those tests. Certainly higher than any recent occupant of the White House. But I don't think that would make me a good, or even an adequate President.

     And while people revile the president as "stupid", that is not the reason for their animosity.

     I have wondered why he is so hated. More than Clinton. Way more than Reagan. More than his father. More than Carter. (that's about as far back as I remember).

     My conclusion is that the hatred of President George Bush is spiritually rooted.

     Not why people disagree with him. Why they despise (or alternatively love) him.

     Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 10:18pm

224. You're right on both counts. I didn't consider that it was a similar-titled organization; not very cool at all. And her admitting that she actually hopes Bush doesn't come out so it doesn't spoil the "momentum", which completely flies in the face of her supposed original intent of just wanting her questions answered, isn't cool either.

     Kevin, thanks for seeing these facts which really disturbed me and led to some of my distrust of her motives.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 10:20pm

225. I'm always about letting people know the left cares for people, regardless of whether they agree with their opinion or not. Thanks for noticing Freiheit.

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 10:24pm

226. oh common now, I am not going to get slammed at ALL by anyone for my argument for the war from above?

     Come one now, are you guys starting to like me or something?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 10:24pm

227. OSUSKIP1

     If you are going to deal with reality, you need to deal with the reality that merely causal secular principles are inadequate descriptions of reality.

     If that makes you uncomfortable, you have my sympathy. However, I do not intend to restrict my comments because of your delicate sensibilities.

     Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 10:24pm

228. Do we all have to be ignorant and spiteful to please the right?

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 10:25pm

229. Primarily looking for your response Hman, regarding my 9:10 pm post.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 10:26pm

230. OSUSKIP1

     If you are going to deal with reality, you need to deal with the reality that merely causal secular principles are inadequate descriptions of reality.

     If that makes you uncomfortable, you have my sympathy. However, I do not intend to restrict my comments because of your delicate sensibilities.

     Posted by JONB 08/17/2005 @ 10:24pm

     Sorry I hit a nerve JonB. I guess we all have delicate sensibilities.

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 10:28pm

231. Oh, and it took five minutes for the left to use a sincere compliment against me...

     Posted by FREIHEIT 08/17/2005 @ 10:23pm

     See the above as to what I was refering to. Sorry if I'm going to fast.

     Posted by osuskip1 at 08/17/2005 @ 10:29pm

232. Frank and Kevin.

     I don't think I ever said I believed the president.

     (I might have, but I am pretty careful not to say that)

     Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 10:34pm

233. Yeah! Cheney is holding all the strings! Halliburton is evil. Happy? Karl Rove should be jailed! Cindy Sheehan is a saint.

     Wrong on all counts.

     Sandy Berger merely had an embarrassing incontinence issue that required his stuffing his pants full of top secret documents…

     I made clear in either this blog or another one that I'd more than support more looking into of this, and that so far I think he's been treated way too lightly. But I guess you chose to simply forget that I wrote that.

     You are unmoving in your belief and conviction, Kevin.

     Well, when people like yourself don't offer any substance to refute what I write, then I'm not given any reason to move, am I.

     I'm not arrogant to believe I'm going to change your mind. First, I can't. Second, I can't. It would require serious billable hours in copy and paste research starting with Slate.

     Translation: I can't bother to refute any of Kevin's statements with logic and reason and validity, so I'll just write this just to, well, write something.

     You haven't given the time of day to any inconvenient facts presented here from conservatives.

     Hmmmm, you better tell that to Love Liberty. He corrected my claim that the Reagan administration funded bin Laden during the Afghanistan/Russia conflict by citing something written by the highly-credible Peter Berger, and I admitted right after that he was indeed correct and I wasn't. I've also agreed with him below concerning the two things he brought to my attention about Sheehan. Are these examples of ignoring inconvenient facts?

     Oh, and there is still the possibility that you are right! History will record.

     Maybe.

     Conspiracies are non-partisan and have a rich history. Recall the battleship Maine? (I can't believe none of you on the left have cited that!)

     Slipped my mind.

     I think Islamic Fundamentalism is enough of a threat to think American hegemony isn't a bad thing.

     Certainly not when we're correctly focusing on Afghanistan and not incorrectly focusing on Iraq and thus turning Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists.

     Golly, Kevin, am I safe in assuming you disagree!

     (see above)

     I think it is interesting that you are so convinced you know the truth and you're so puffed up about it.

     I think it's interesting that you're not puffed up when your flip-flopping little boy king lies this country into an unnecessary war.

     This wouldn't have anything to do with that 72 virgins thing would it?

     I should ask you, considering you're someone who supports a war that's serving as a recruitment tool and a breeding ground for more Islamic terrorists.

     I believe none of us on this blog see more than a few of the cards.

     Don't be too hard on yourself.

     You included.

     Shame that you haven't been able to debunk any of my statements, huh?

     I hope I bug ya, dude.

     Not at all. I need to kill time till 9p. The Pabst Blue Ribbon pitchers don't go on sale for $3 until then.

     Keeping your political Weltanschauung out of business is a goal.

     Yeah, demanding your president and his administration be held accountable for their lies about a full-fledged war irks those who like their deficit-contributing tax cuts from that administration a whole lot more.

     I'll tell you this, though, we have not, nor will we ever meet, but I'm convinced that in a burning building you wouldn't leave until you knew everyone was out safely.

     Nah, I don't have that kind of bravery -- unlike George "The U.S. Will Not Enagage in Nation Building" Bush, who voiced gung-ho support for the Vietnam war yet had daddy get him out of fighting in it with a cushy spot in the Air National Guard.

     Thanks, Freheit. As usual you show everyone in these blogs that when you can't debate someone's points, you indulge in Jimmy Junior High rants like these. I hope coming off as a simpleton in your blind allegience to Bush is worth it.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 10:35pm

234. I am pretty careful about what I "believe".

     I'm more in the "it seems likely" category, than the "I believe" category.

     Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 10:36pm

235. (Just tryin to explain)

     Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 10:36pm

236. OKSG: Thanks for your detailed 9:10 post.

     It looks like all we are left with is my first point. I agree that a cease fire ended the war. I also agree that Hussein may not have complied with the UN Resolutions you cite. However, I disagree with your assumption that these breaches alone justified our invasion, and that if Bush had laid only this out, he would have received the necessary political and public support. If the UN breach argument would have been such an easy sell as you make it seem, why wouldn't Bush gone your route instead of taking the plitical risk of trumping the WMD/terrorist conncetion issues? No, he is not stupid and neither are his advisors and cabinet members. I think they knew what would sell and what would not.

     In addition, you never cited a hostile act from Hussein (a word I believe you used in your earlier post). If the hostile act is a breach of a UN resolution, then we have to agree to disagree. I find it ironic that you would justify a war that, according to the Secretary General, violated the UN Charter, with the notion that Iraq violated resolutions from that same body. But, I guess if they don't have to follow the rules, neither do we, right?

     Final point: I think your reliance on the fact that the end of the first Gulf War was a cease-fire is a technicality that may play well to lawyers and other political junkies like us, but I am not as confident as you that the public would really place much emphasis on the difference between a cease-fire and a formal end to a conflict twelve years before. To be honest with you, I wasn't even aware of it until you brought it up.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2005 @ 10:42pm

237. Frankg,

     I think you are incurable when it comes to Cindy Sheehan..She's already gotten far more of my time than it is worth..

     Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 10:44pm

238. BSF: My point is that the terrorists are watching.

     Posted by RonS at 08/17/2005 @ 10:52pm

239. Hman,

     "If the UN breach argument would have been such an easy sell as you make it seem, why wouldn't Bush gone your route instead of taking the plitical risk of trumping the WMD/terrorist conncetion issues?"

     Ya, well that's the big question then. Although I'm a conservative, and voted for Bush, I make no apologies for Bush if he has gotten himself caught in a lie with the faking of the WMD info to "form the facts around the policy" as it looks like might have happened with the downing street memo evidence.

     With the reasoning I layed out, I would be curious to know if he would have enough public support (certainly primarily from the conservative base) to go with the reasoning I put forth. You are probably right, he didn't because his advisors told him he wouldn't have enough support based on going back to war on the breach of 687 which technically ends the cease fire, with the ultimate goal of setting up a pro US democracy which ensures a new oil trading partner in the middle east.

     I certainly could be off base with my reasoning based on my research, but from the stuff I have read, I think it's fairly dead on.

     And don't feel bad about not knowing about the cease fire, most people don't.

     I use that same argument for those on the left that some how try to say that America "started" the war in Iraq which was an "illegal" war based on no U.N. support to go in. The reality is that the 1st gulf war never ended, we could go in any time as long as we could prove Saddam breached the cease fire.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 10:58pm

240. Supporting the Iraq War = Supporting Troops

     in the same way that:

     Supporting Arson = Supporting Firefighters

     Personally, I prefer the brave people who are willing to serve in either capacity be kept out of harm's way unless there is just cause to put them in harm's way. Both this war and arson are unjust, senseless, callous wastes of the lives and wellbeing of those who would serve.

     Posted by mataliandy at 08/17/2005 @ 11:03pm

241. "Supporting the Iraq War = Supporting Troops

     in the same way that:

     Supporting Arson = Supporting Firefighters"

     Wow, this is reminding me of those ethics questions on tests I took in College..

     Suppose Suzie's house was on fire, but it was Tuesday and the trash had to be taken out, Suzie's friend Bob could call the fire department but Suzie new she didn't pay her last insurance premium, now how many people ethically should we kill in Iraq?

     To each his own I guess Mataliandy, you keep believing the war is unjust and I'll keep believing it's just.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 11:12pm

242. OKSG:

     One minor (and technical) rebuttal:

     By saying "we could go in any time as long as we could prove Saddam breached the cease fire," I take it you mean "we" to mean the U.S. If so, and you want to be consistent with your reliance on the viability of UN resolutions, "we" never had the authority to rescind the cease-fire unilaterally. Such authority could have only come from the UN, which we never received. Thus, if the link between Gulf War I and Gulf War II derives from UN resolutions, I think our unilateral action in Gulf II broke that link. Accordingly, I think there is a good argument that Gulf War II, is technically a separate conflict and not merely a resumption fo the first.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2005 @ 11:14pm

243. Hman,

     "I think our unilateral action in Gulf II broke that link. Accordingly, I think there is a good argument that Gulf War II, is technically a separate conflict and not merely a resumption fo the first."

     Certainly a valid point, and probably is what also led the administration to conjure up some "other" reasoning, I would probably argue this way as well if I was on your side of the table.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 11:16pm

244. OKSG:

     Gotta go to bed, so we'll have to pick this up again another time. In the past, I have been accused of ducking a response because I did not stay up to all others on this blog. But, I think we are kind of done on this one anyway. Nice to have a reasoned and tempered debate with you, as always.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2005 @ 11:26pm

245. Why must the right contstanly and unfairly attack anyone who dares to question Bush about this insanity that we call Iraq? It seems to me that the utmost showing of patriotism would be to bring the troops home...now.

     Posted by wada209 at 08/17/2005 @ 11:31pm

246. LL, I think I am a bit older than most on this board so may I explain my take on the "gold star mother" title? As I understand it, during World War II, everyone who had a son in the service displayed a small banner in their window with a blue star on it.(More than one son,a star for each.) If their son had been killed, they displayed a banner with a gold star on it.There is,indeed, an organization of Gold Star Mothers. However, I think the phrase "gold star mother" (that is, with no caps) has entered the lexicon as a type of shorthand to designate ANY mother who has lost a child in war.No argument here, just perhaps, a clarification.

     Posted by kww355 at 08/17/2005 @ 11:32pm

247. I think it's really sad that Dubya won't take 5 minutes out of his vacation time to talk to her...I guess he's ran out of excuses to give her and to give us!!!!!!!

     Posted by Shygirl at 08/17/2005 @ 11:48pm

248. I'm not sure why I just punished myself in this way, but I spent the last 30 minutes scrolling through the posts in this thread. Finally, after the wastes of space provided by Aludra and her leftie complement Scullygrrrrl ended, a discussion has seemed to take shape. The bad thing about joining a post like this is that my mind is a wasteland (no comments, please--it's too easy) to add anything to the current topics. So, I'll take this opportunity to waste everyone's time with this response to something written about 10 feet of screen space ago:

     Dancall,

     If you return to this thread, I'd like you to try possibly to explain the logic of "Why did you not mention that the terrorist today bombed a bus station and then 30 minutes later bombed the hospital where the victims where being taken to get treated. That is beyond one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That is just down right disturbing! Please think trough what that would mean around the world if we just picked up and left right now."

     If these things are happening with our security forces in place, on what basis do you believe that things might get worse with our forces back on their carriers, copters, and planes, heading for the USA? Once some semblance of political stability is in place (within a week, it is hoped), we truly become nothing more than a police force for the Iraqis.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/17/2005 @ 11:51pm

249. TJBEHRENS1 ~ not a waste of space OR time. I ,too, read all 10 feet of posts ~ weeding through the personal invective ~ looking for rational discourse. There IS some here, ya just have to look really really hard for it ;-) Looks like you have raised valid points. I'm interested to hear his response.

     Posted by kww355 at 08/18/2005 @ 12:03am

250. Dancall makes a good point. The left should probably not be placing all of its anti-war 'eggs' in the basket of Sheehan. Of course the right is going to attack relentlessly. His statement that she is on the main stage now and has to 'take the heat' is probably true, and I'm sure the right-wing pundits will not hesitate to do so. Does everyone recall Karl Rove's statement that Valerie Plame is now 'fair game' because her husband dare speak out against the the Bush administration? Defending the indefensible is hard work. Increasing numbers of Americans are no longer buying the ever-shifting justification for this ridiculous venture. There are also many who feel that the invasion was perhaps justified, but that the planning for the invasion and the conduct of the war since the invasion has been nothing short of 'incompetent', to quote a prominent Republican. It has become a common tactic by the right to attack those who oppose or question this war, rather than openly discuss the issues and questions that are being raised. So the unbelievable rhetoric by individuals such as Horowitz and his 'rivers of blood' that Sheehan is going to unleash on this country are not surprising. What about the lies of this administration in leading us into this war? What about the arrogance of an administration that has ignored the advice and warnings of so many experts concerning their conduct of this war? What about the tactics engaged in by this adminstration, such as revealing CIA undercover agents? What about the shifting justification for this war? What about the fact that this war has enflamed world and Muslim opinion at a time when WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE WINNING THEM OVER TO OUR SIDE? And finally, what about the thousands of Iraqi lives and the nearly two thousand U.S. soldiers lives that have been lost, and that Sheehan rightly is trying to bring to the nation's attention? These questions have whittled away at the support for a ridiculous war. Bush had the support of this country when he went in to Iraq. Due to the lies, hubris and incompetence of this administration, he clearly no longer has that support. The right can be expected to become more shrill, and will attempt to beat the drum of fear that has served them so well until now. Defending the indefensible is hard work.

     Posted by mcinseattle at 08/18/2005 @ 12:04am

251. Hman and OKSG:

     Wouldn't the UN oil-for-food scandal represent a conflict of interests for the UN and explain its refusal to support the US? In this scenario, wouldn't it be unreasonable to expect their support and thereby, justify our "unilateral" action?

     Posted by usc1 at 08/18/2005 @ 12:06am

252. The two vigils for Cindy Sheehan and America's troops that I attended went very well. There were approximately 250 people at one vigil and I estimated about 700 people at the other vigil.

     Hundreds of cars passed by and tooted their car horns or flashed their lights. I was told that ten separate vigils were held; I don't know for certain.

     Go Cindy! Bring the troops home now!

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/18/2005 @ 12:07am

253. Sorry, It's late and can't tell if my question made sense. Got a mild case of sun-downing on this side of the blog. Hopefully, you get the gist, though.

     Posted by usc1 at 08/18/2005 @ 12:10am

254. JonB wrote:

     "I am pretty careful about what I "believe". I'm more in the "it seems likely" category, than the "I believe" category."

     Posted by JONB 08/17/2005 @ 10:36pm

     The following was also posted by JonB,

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/18/2005 @ 12:10am

255. LL, I think I am a bit older than most on this board so may I explain my take on the "gold star mother" title? As I understand it, during World War II, everyone who had a son in the service displayed a small banner in their window with a blue star on it.(More than one son,a star for each.) If their son had been killed, they displayed a banner with a gold star on it.There is,indeed, an organization of Gold Star Mothers. However, I think the phrase "gold star mother" (that is, with no caps) has entered the lexicon as a type of shorthand to designate ANY mother who has lost a child in war.No argument here, just perhaps, a clarification.

     I don't know KW, I was born in the '40's so it has put me right up there against most of this group.

     Anyway, I appreciate your input but if you investigate Cindy Sheehan's history and you look at the American Gold Star Mothers website and by the way they organized in 1928 to also honor WWI veterans. But it was from their website that I posted here there renounciation of any association with Cindy Sheehan and her "Gold Star Families for Peace" organization. Even a honest liberal like Kevin Collins (a real regular on this site) thought she was being "not cool". Not to mention when you couple it with her deceptive reasons for being in Crawford as noted in my posting of the transcript of her interview with Keith Olberman.

     It's a nice gesture and input KWW, but I don't think Ms. Sheehan merits your benefit of the doubt in this particular case.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/18/2005 @ 12:15am

256. ...on 8/11/05 @ 11:34pm, by JonB:

     "I don't intend to defend God for judging. I could. But God is God, and he has made clear how he deals with people and nations. I merely re state what he has made clear, as I understand it.

     You don't have to agree, obviously.

     He judges based on two things, primarily. The sexual conduct of persons. And americans are known the world around for their promiscuity. In particular, he judges nations whose citizens engage in acts of sodomy, bestiality, incest.

     He judges nations for shedding innocent blood. Specifically not the blood of victims of war. (there are two exceptions to that, but neither apply in our case) Most specifically, for killing their own children. This is abortion. He states "The shedding of innocent blood defiles the land".

     I'm not asking you to agree that he is right. That's between you and him. But that is how he judges."

     And JonB is trying to convince you he doesn't "believe" things, he just merely thinks "it seems likely". That's just one small representative sample, read all of JonB's posts from 8/11/05 and tell me if he writes like someone who simply observes the world and judges based on what "seems likely", or judges based on what he "believes".

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/18/2005 @ 12:16am

257. Zero,

     I always appreciate your intellectual honesty, but I have to disagree with one part of your responses tonight. We are hardly at the growing peace movement stage in this country. This is not mere "conservative Bush kool aid drinking believe anything BS". The anti-war left is overly optimistic about current events and the anti-war protest groups ending the Iraq war.

     First of all, I have never learned approximately how old you are, but unless you are over 50 and truly experienced the daily death reports in the 100's from 'Nam, the 10-20 per week we are experiencing in Iraq while always mourned, are just not significant when in war. It doesn't even rise to the level of the Korean War. What many don't realize is that we lose hundreds of military personnel every year in the course of normal training activities. Don't you think our planners take data like that into account. It just never gets in the media, so it is the media role that matters more. Fortunately Bush is doing a good job of handling the media.

     Secondly, and I know there are some on the left who are fearful of this; If the Iraqi Constitution gets delivered to the general population for approval in October as planned, and subsequent elections are held in January, your whole scenario will go down the drain. (I also know that few of you who are against the war believe that for a moment).

     I know all this could still blow up in Bush's face, but his advisors (civilian and military) have been around both the political and military environments long enough to know what it will take to win, and how to wait out the anti-war opposition. Bush is in the controlling position precisely because he doesn't have to worry about re-election and has 3 years to nail the victory down.

     I can't really say anything about some of my earlier activities involving military and intel (and I don't want anyone to think I make myself out to be more than I was), but I have some first hand experience in the gathering and decision process at very low levels. You do get some insight into how the information and subsequent decision processes are arrived at.

     It is based upon that experience and my political experience going back 45 years now that gives me greater confidence than you would think that the daily media reports should provide me.

     This doesn't even begin to touch the late 60's and early 70's protests. I remember how we were ordered in the military to avoid the demonstrations under penalty of court martial. I can remember having served under both Johnson and Nixon (the orders were basically the same), the strict controls over military personnel that you don't see now. There is a good reason for the difference. Both Johnson and Nixon feared the effect on troops then; Bush knows he has overwhelming support from the troops now.

     There is more, but I can't give away the store now can I?

     Posted by love liberty at 08/18/2005 @ 12:40am

258. Guys, her husband just divorced her because she is insane.

     - Actually he filed for divorce and gave the reason as "Irreconcilable Differences," just the same as 90 percent of all divorces in this country.

     Her children have been asking her to come home to be their mother.

     - She is 48 years old and has no young children, maybe she thinks they should take care of them selves for a while.

     She also had her meeting with Bush and said he was kind and then she changed her story.

     - She has not "changed her story" at all. She does not deny saying Bush was kind; but what does his being kind have to do with all this, except to try to get people talking about her instead of the issue?

     If she already met with him and everything was ok then, why get into the discourse that may turn ugly?

     - She is not asking to meet him on camera, so when you say ugly do you mean the President might have to listen to a citizen who does not agree with him?

     She is obviously not all there when she is not home for the rest of her family.

     - Not sure what you think you are saying here.

     Her own family is saying this is a political stint.

     - Everyone in your family always agrees with you? And of course it's a political stunt!, in exactally the same way not meeting with her is a political stunt.

     You should also know that she was a previous "peace activist" before her son joined the military.

     -Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.

     Ever think her son rebelled against her and now she is guily for her son's death?

     - If that were true wouldn't she now be for the war?

     It actually makes me sick to my stomach that the media and the left wing crazies are following her. You are all using her "grieving" to pursue your political gains.

     - How many times has the administration trumpeted Bush's 900 plus meeting with grieving relatives.

     WHY IS IT THAT SHE IS GETTING SOOOO MUCH ATTENTION?

     - BECAUSE HER SON WAS KILLED IN WHAT THE PRESIDENT KEEPS CALLING "A NOBLE CAUSE" BUT HE REFUSES TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE NOBLE CAUSE IS.

     WAKE THE EFF UP!!!

     - I SUGGEST YOU TAKE YOU OWN ADVICE.

     Posted by DANCALL 08/17/2005 @ 2:40pm

     Posted by studntbdyrt at 08/18/2005 @ 01:42am

259. "love Liberty" (I guess saying it makes it so)

     "Somehow those of us who fought and suffered and died in loyalty to our leaders and for the fight of freedom are the ones responsible for the loss in Nam?"

     You ignorent cuss. I wasn't knocking the sacrifice of red blooded American men and women in Vietnam, that other use of force started by a crazy texan with a retarded defense secratary. I was knocking you and the swift boat veterens, and every other government of the people hating evangelic conservative that is in despartate need of kleenex and a box of diapers. No wait, I take that back, you all are sensative types, let's substitute puffs.

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2005 @ 01:42am

260. This is a strictly personal post and will probably go unnoticed since there are 342 comments already as I write. I actually have "skin in the game," namely a brother in Afghanistan. Freiheit, Alludra, USAPride, Loves Liberty -- these comments are for you. I don't just hate you. I loathe you for your deliberate ignorance and the sense of supremacy toward the rest of the world that oozes through everything you write. These supremacies are multiple: racial, religious, economic, and moral. Your callousness seems to have no limit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not just immoral, they beggar the ability of language to describe obscenity. My brother is in danger because of the total carelessness with which Bush, Rove and Co. regard the lives of others. Yes, he "chose" his job: he believed when he went that he was defending the country he loved. But belief is not reality. You right-wing types mouth your appreciation for the sacrifices of the troops without for one second actually apprehending what those sacrifices entail. I exist in a state of perpetual anxiety for my brother's life, sanity, and moral capacities, and nausea that he is participating in a crime that had nothing more at its base than the desire for continuation by powers that are completely without concern for basic humanity and without a vision of a humane future. I have no doubt that this message is barely comprehensible. My rage and disgust make me inarticulate. I can barely walk down the street of my heavily Republican neighborhood without the urge to put a brick through every windshield. I will never read or post to this "discussion" again, because frankly the liberals disgust me, too. All of this is just theatre. No one changes anyone's mind. You're just masturbating in cyberspace.

     Posted by armybrat at 08/18/2005 @ 07:08am

261. Armybrat--- Sorry for your anxiety---of course you said that you were not going to read anymore messages so my sympathy/empathy will probably go unnoticed. The feelings that you have are the same ones that Mothers, Fathers, Brothers, Sisters, Girlfriends, and Boyfriends have had for centuries during war. Of course not all have dealt with this anxiety like you--but you are entitled to deal with your pain as you see fit. However, I find it somewhat troubling that you have this feeling with your brother in Afghanistan. I have always felt that many on the left oppose the use of any Ameican force in any situation. I remember the protest when we invaded Afghanistan. Today, many liberals try to temper their opinions by saying "I supported American attack on Afghanistan, but I do not support Iraq". --When in fact they oppose the use of American force in any situation. They seem to hate the fact that we are the world's only superpower. It seems to be a confusing psychological view that there should be hatred of ones self. Again, Sorry for your pain and anxiety, and I hope your brother comes back safe.--- Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/18/2005 @ 07:44am

262. Let's have some REAL disclosure on this subject - and that means ethnicity.

     I am a 3rd generation Latina Grandma from California [not illegal by the way]

     When I read the above posts, I think to myself - profiling sure is valuable when we are deciding the merits of anything "Middle Eastern"....

     Then profiling is a valuable tool when measuring the comments of hawks and doves on the war on Islam.

     Get where I'm going here?????

     American Jews are positively apoplectic that the US may 'abandon' Israel to the demographic time bomb that is Palestine.

     Israelis have been committing genocide - under American radar, with the help of AMerican media - for a half century now.

     Without our war machine and tax dollars, the Israelis are, um, toast. [sorry, poor metaphor]

     So - could we just interject a teeny bit of honesty about WHO wants WHAT for WHOM in the Middle East.

     I am a non Jew who thinks Israel is on par with Nazi Germany for exterminating a troublesome minority - soon to become majority.

     I think I have allies - but nobody is 'allowed' to hear or see them.

     Gosh, could some powerful minority be 'managing' public opinion?

     naaah - it's just my hateful pedigree, right?

     Posted by goyegos at 08/18/2005 @ 08:54am

263. I wish we could get away from "right" and "left", and have a conversation based on FACT, not labels. Seems like everyone has those two groups stereotyped: the "left" is crazy and the "right" is criminal and rich. Well, suprise all, but I fall right dead in the middle. I'm Christian, just as conservative as Ronald Reagan & I will support (and have, in combat) our troops and our country to my last breath. BUT, I have sense enough to see when I am being led down "the primrose path", as my grampa used to say. We have been LIED to (I know, some on this board have tried to dance around the word "lie"), but that's EXACTLY what you call an untruth. And in my eyes, any President that would take our country into a situation where we are wasting young lives on false pretenses is NOT FIT to hold the office. 'Nuff said, goodbye. JJ

     Posted by JimmyJ at 08/18/2005 @ 09:21am

264. P.S.- "ARMYBRAT" - I AGREE WITH EVERY WORD. Well spoken and well written.

     Posted by JimmyJ at 08/18/2005 @ 09:24am

265. I pity you ARMYBRAT, and any of you that jump on that bandwagon of hate and agree with that mental mess of a post.

     I ask you - who is the hate monger?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/18/2005 @ 09:37am

266. Armybrat has just shown us what the complete absence of hope looks like. It's hard not to empathize with his rage if you acknowledge the reality of the situation Bush has put us in. .......

     Although I have first hand evidense that is not encouraging - from friends that have been over there- I still hope that we can extract something good from this mess. If I had a brother over there I would be equally distraut. If I had a son killed , I would probably end up in Gitmo for doing something crazy.

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/18/2005 @ 09:58am

267. PRIDE COMETH.......

     The difference is that we hate stupidity and you hate queers , liberals and basically anyone that doesn't buy your archaic BS.

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/18/2005 @ 10:03am

268. What do I see on the news? On my local news anyway, they interview some woman who disagrees with Cindy Sheehan and this woman is a 'militay wife.' At the end of the interview they say... her husband is stateside!!!! How can any of us judge this woman when the majority of people don't know her loss. She is allowed to believe the war is wrong if she chooses to, THAT'S HER RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN. I may or may not agree with her, but that is beside the point. We have freedom of speech here in America, and there is no point in having it if the country is going to silently punish us for using it. I have stood by and watched my boyfriend make 2 trips to Iraq and he is getting ready to make a thrid one. I support him, that is his job, and he has no choice in the matter. But I do think that President Bush is a JOKE and he needs to get off of his power trip and stop trying to take away our freedoms in exchange for safety. I have yet to meet one person, not even one person, that can tell me WHY WE ARE THERE... In the beginning it was that they had something to do with 9-11, then our reason was because they had weapons of mass destruction, and when those two reasons went to shit, now we are liberating the people.. we'd be screwed if they were already liberated.. because then we wouldn't have a reason..haha.. this country is falling apart at the hands of the president and because I am only one individual, I am forced to stand by and idley watch. I love my boyfriend and I am so proud of him, but if something happened to him over there, I can't tell you how I would feel, I would be furious also. So I say we all leave Cindy alone to grieve and get her anger out, so long as she doesn't get violent.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:04am

269. My first post on thenation.com! Judging from the 8 miles of posts for this one article it looks like it might be a fun pastime. The first thing I see here as I write this, aside from all the posts is:

     Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff. Our goal is not to stifle debate but to keep it relevant.

     Bugger that, obviously. This looks like a good show.

     I'm a lefty, btw. And I wholeheartedly support Cindy Sheehan's effort. It may be purely political. But that's perfectly fine with me...everything the pro-war Right has been doing for the last 30-odd years has been political and that's just dandy with them, eh? The game is Politics, after all, and it ain't a game without two players, is it?

     My take is this: Cindy Sheehan's reaching out and touching Middle America's hearts in a very direct way, and galvanizing America against the war in a way that the Usual Gang of Loudmouthed Lefties couldn't. What's happening is that people who couldn't identify with the likes of Michael Moore are suddenly saying, you know, she's not some bogeywoman, she's like us...but she has the guts to do something about it. The reason she's so scary to the Right is that she isn't a professional straw-person, an abstraction, a caricature of Evil Godless Liberalism. I wouldn't say she's unimpeachable but you can't accuse her of playing loose with the facts, or being a multimillionaire celebrity with a cushy penthouse, or being an out-to-lunch elitist Ivy League professor who speaks in PC English, or having had an affair with Bill Clinton. What she does have on her side is a legitimate point of view--her son got killed and no one has been able to give her a satisfactory reason why--honesty, and the unusual (for average Americans) courage to call the president on his high-sounding words.

     Increasingly these right-wing gasbags who people were relying on to "speak for them" are sounding more and more shrill, as if they're not so much interested in "speaking for" anyone as in being belligerent for its own sake. When these guys start attacking Sheehan, people start perceiving them as attacking one of their own, and they're like, wait a minute, whose side are they on? Add that to GWB's insistent finger-in-ears, "I can't hear you, na na na" and and all the crap that's going on back in Washington, and I see the Right heading for an epic (or is that aipac?) train wreck.

     Sheehan's brilliance is in letting GWB and the pundits and so on do all the talking and reacting, thereby blowing their collective brains out one chunk at a time in the arena of public opinion. I don't think their bawling is going to help their cause at this point. It's about effin' time too.

     Posted by moogyboy at 08/18/2005 @ 10:08am

270. Well, Jesus Christ, W., what are we doing in Iraq?

     Let's say you made a little boo-boo about the WMD issue, and leave it at that.

     What are we doing in Iraq? Why weren't we down to only 30,000 troops two years ago? Why weren't we greeted as liberators? Why is the pricetag on this mess already five times what we were told it would be? Why isn't Ahmed Chalabi president of a stable, secure Iraq? Why are there less than 10 divisions of the Iraqi army that can stand on their own? Why aren't your children enlisted?

     Ya know, George, some people say you lied, some people say you're incompetent and some people say you're God's hand at the control of the government. I say, why don't you take a few minutes of vacation time and speak to Mrs. Sheehan, and, by extension, to the American people.

     Posted by nathanhale at 08/18/2005 @ 10:10am

271. That's just plain nonsense, NO-NONSENSE.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/18/2005 @ 10:10am

272. Since GOYEGOS brought up ethnicity, I'm Greek-American. Some people say that Greece is a haven for terrorists. Plus we have unpronounceable last names. Add that I'm virulently against this war...it's only a matter of time before I'm considered a "potential suspected terrorist sympathizer." Then again maybe I'm just endearingly paranoid. :-)

     Posted by moogyboy at 08/18/2005 @ 10:17am

273. Freiheit quote:

     ARMYBRAT, what an unfortunate post. To carry that kind of hatred is a horrible burden I wouldn't wish on anyone. I am truly sorry that rage is yours and hope your brother comes home safely.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 08/18/2005 @ 09:26am

     Freiheit's quote is pure condescension and callousness. Ditto for USAPRIDE.

     Armybrat - your comments are definitely on target. Only complete morons believe in the Iraq War and that includes the people who are our political leaders.

     Your loathing is understandable, and we have a president who is detestable. Armybrat, some of the right-wing zealots that post here are abominations to the human race; so don't let them get you down - that is their goal.

     The sitting president has put this nation in an Iraq-War pickle that will take a lot more national sacrifice to put right. However, I know it can be done with a virtual elimination of the loss of American troops in Iraq.

     The present president has no understanding or desire to understand how we can solve the Iraq quagmire with minimal casualties and injuries.

     The reason he doesn't understand is because we are not in Iraq for the lies he has told the American people, but we are there to control Iraq's oil, and to establish military bases to control and/or attack Iran.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:17am

274. People are claiming that Cindy is insane. I was just wondering if that diagnosis came from Bill Frist based on an video examination.

     Cindy is right and her son paid the ultimate price. She deserves a meeting with Bush.

     Posted by gkopacz at 08/18/2005 @ 10:24am

275. Like I said earlier - who are the hate mongers? That emotion seems to be coming from the left. None of you have ever met me, yet you say you hate me?

     That's logical thought.

     No USAPRIDE - we hate what you "stand for" and what you believe, blah, blah, blah... (touchy feely BS)

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/18/2005 @ 10:25am

276. Let's take stock for a moment: 300 billion or so spent on the war to date with no end in sight; 1800 or so American dead; 20,000 to 100,000 Iraqi dead (no one really knows and the US government sure as hell isn't counting); no WMD's found (you may remember the avowed original rationale for this glorious crusade); torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere; an emerging pro-iranian majority within the Iraqi parliment; and, finally, no real exit strategy from this sanguinary morass....Sorry, but this war is a fiasco by any remotely objective measure. The pro-Bush cheering section so amply represented on this forum in all their self-rightous ignorance are simply refusing to face the facts; but then, they've been doing this since this war began, accepting whatever they're told with a touching readiness. This war is lost. Face it. But take heart all you pro-war keyboard warriors: it won't be long unitl you can start blaming the "leftist msm" and all those "duped grieving moms" for our failure.

     Posted by na1066 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:27am

277. Sounds like you'd rather we just disappeared.

     Posted by moogyboy at 08/18/2005 @ 10:28am

278. "it won't be long unitl you can start blaming the "leftist msm" and all those "duped grieving moms" for our failure."

     Most of us already do.

     Go US forces, kick those terrorist collective asses!

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/18/2005 @ 10:29am

279. ORAIBI1952 - Finally, someone that has a good opinion, and obvious facts to back it up! I agree, we are only there for reasons that aren't being discussed.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:31am

280. The war is lost, and so is bushy.. so many people are dying there, for no apartent cause. 80% of people you ask don't even know why we are there. I got into a debate with a friend a few weeks ago, and she had no idea..haha, you can't really make a point or back up your opinion if you can't remember the lists and lists of reasons that we have 'claimed' to be in Iraq all this time.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:34am

281. Quote from Pete Beinart's Washington Post online article,"When the War Won't Stay at Bay".

     So a surrogate war has produced a surrogate antiwar movement. This time, mass protests would only cloud the issue. As the parent of a dead soldier, Sheehan has so much moral authority precisely because so few Americans (including so few of us who supported the war) risk sharing her plight.

     But if Sheehan's vigil says something important about Iraq, it also says something important about President Bush. Sheehan, after all, has only one demand: She wants to confront the president face to face. The demand is so provocative because one of George W. Bush's defining qualities is his aversion to exactly this sort of challenge. Former administration officials portray a president carefully shielded from unpleasant or dissonant information. According to former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman, "There is a palace guard, and they want to run interference for him." Former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill described Bush as "caught in an echo chamber of his own making, cut off from everyone other than a circle around him that's tiny and getting smaller and in concert on everything."

     Source: Washington Post online, 2005.8.18

     Beinart's article provides a description of a real poltroon; too cowardly to talk to a grieving mother. The failure of Bush to meet with Cindy Sheehan points out the sterile nature of his "conservative compassionism".

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:34am

282. And just one quick question for all you pro-war, Bush-till-death zealots...You are aware that Saddam Hussein was our protege throughout the Iran-Iraqi War? Back then he was viewed as a bastion against Islamic fundamentalism as embodied by the Teheran government. With this rationale we (the good old USA) supplied him with intelligence, diplomatic support and lots of general good will in his aggressive war on Iran. Oh, and our support was actually at its height after his forces used poison gas on the Kurds and others at Halubja in March of 1988. You may remember who was president at this time.

     Posted by na1066 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:36am

283. PRIDE COMETH.......

     I don't hate the fool , I merely find your self imposed limitations detestable!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/18/2005 @ 10:38am

284. Oh, I'm sorry mein herr, the war is going just wonderfully. Every day more Iraqi's are learning to love us! And soon the troops will return to a big ticker-tape parade (music by Souza, casting by Capra).

     Posted by na1066 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:40am

285. USC1:

     I just saw you post from last night regarding the UN's conflict of interest, and frankly, I do not see it. I certainly never heard it from anyone at the time. If you have any information that supports the notion that such reasoning was why we could not get UN approval, I would welcome it. Otherwise, it seems like a little bit of a creative hindsight, unless you are willing to expand further (I realize you said it was late).

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:40am

286. Oh, and Todd, the army is now accepting recruits up to the age of 42; so if you're under 42, this is your big chance to "kick some terrorist ass! Don't wait, enlist today!

     Posted by na1066 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:43am

287. "KICK THOSE TERRORIST COLLECTIVE ASSES" .........

     Interesting grammer! I'm glad you qualified your statment with "collective" - just in case nobody knows what you meant! GEEEESH!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/18/2005 @ 10:43am

288. I can see you need some help mein herr, so I'll do my best... [sarcasm alert, sarcasm just ahead] the war is going just wonderfully. Hope that helps. okaaaay

     Posted by na1066 at 08/18/2005 @ 10:46am

289. "...what would that mean if we were to just pack up and leave?" It would mean that we're not a nation of mindless butchers.

     Posted by Delmark.G at 08/18/2005 @ 10:47am

290. Na1066,

     "You are aware that Saddam Hussein was our protege throughout the Iran-Iraqi War?"

     Yes I am.

     "Back then he was viewed as a bastion against Islamic fundamentalism as embodied by the Teheran government. With this rationale we (the good old USA) supplied him with intelligence, diplomatic support and lots of general good will in his aggressive war on Iran. Oh, and our support was actually at its height after his forces used poison gas on the Kurds and others at Halubja in March of 1988. You may remember who was president at this time."

     Yes, I'm aware of all of this too.

     The difference however, is during Gulf War 1 Saddam became a liability and no longer served as a useful puppet for the U.S. Additionally with his removal and the placement of a pro U.S democracy as the government in Iraq, we increase of chances of having an economical trading partner in an oil rich part of the country, a government that will more than likely sell us oil at fair prices on the open market.

     Do you really think conservatives are all dumb? Some of us know exactly what's going on in Iraq, and fully support it.

     Todd, (The evil, nasty, bigoted, Gas Guzzling, Dodge Durango SUV driving, conservative)

     Love you man = )

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/18/2005 @ 10:54am

291. OKSPORTSGUY - if you know what is actually going on there and still support it, I feel sorry for you that you are so ignorant.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:00am

292. Todd, so it was okay back in 1988 because Hussein was useful to us? My apologies, you're not dumb; you're a cynic of the pragmatist variety.

     Posted by na1066 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:01am

293. HEY OKSPORTSGUY-I agree, you need to join the army.. or better yet, the marines, if you could handle it, and instead of talking all the shit that you talk, you can actually go and support the war first hand, since you seem to back it up so eagerly.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:02am

294. JONB, per your 10:10 pm post: cogito, ergo sum.

     That is all the philosophy we need for this blog (although not everyone here thinks). Please please please don't turn the thread philosophical. I came here for politics, and I think most people's philosophy is b.s., no offense intended.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 11:10am

295. JM2626,

     The definition of the word "ignorant" according to dictionary.com:

     1. Lacking education or knowledge. 2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake. 3. Unaware or uninformed.

     Well in your previous post, you asked questions in regards to whether the pro war supporters were familiar with the relationship between Saddam and the U.S.

     I answered that I was, therefore I had the knowledge and information you were inquiring about.

     I actually am educated on the issues surrounding the Iraq situation, and have a college education as well.

     Therefore since you applied the word "ignorant" to describe me without having full knowledge of the definition of the word, I am wondering if you can see the irony in the situation that I do?

     LOL

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/18/2005 @ 11:11am

296. Yea Todd! Go Ahmed Chalabi! That was the plan wasn't it?

     How is that pro-U.S. democracy movement going in Iraq?

     Posted by nathanhale at 08/18/2005 @ 11:12am

297. Mein herr, do you think the war is going well? Have we found WMD's? Is the insurgency a msm creation? Bob Dylan? You may need to check your meds.

     Posted by na1066 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:12am

298. "How is that pro-U.S. democracy movement going in Iraq? "

     Not as well as would have liked, but it still will be a better relationship than the one the U.S. had with Saddam.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/18/2005 @ 11:16am

299. NN writes: "I don't hate the fool, I merely find your self imposed limitations detestable!"

     Perfect example of the self-rightous, look down your nose, snotty, uppity, self-absorbed, know-it-all liberal.

     Makes my skin crawl.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/18/2005 @ 11:18am

300. Okay OKAYSPORTSGUY- First of all, I'm so glad that you took the time to actually look up the description I used of you..(ignorant) in the dictionary. And second of all, I am not the one who asked you if you knew about the previous relationships between the U.S. and Sadaam...so it actually does look like you are ignorant since you can't even tell who is posting what on here..LOL And lastly... why do you keep avoiding the repeated requests that you back up all of the shit that you talk, and go on and join the military and help in this "wonderful" war that you so blindly support. haha

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:19am

301. Liberating the women, yeah, it looks good to outsiders...but that isn't why we went there, and that's not why we're there now...get over it... admit it, we went there for reasons that aren't so readily discussed by the government.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:23am

302. hehehehehe Left vs Right, commie vs neocon, good vs bad, liberal vs conservative....... And your all at one anothers throats. The last laugh is actually on all of you. As Americans, your all in the same boat! Hitler was voted in by only 33% of the population yet at the end of WW2 (and still today) every German was labeled a nazi and paid the price. Outside of America, all Americans are viewed the same (ie loathed). Why? :) Thats your problem not mine so you find the answer yourself. For those conservatives hiding behind a belief in their countries supremacy.....I bet the nazi's and "average Joe blow nazi german" never dreamt that they would be held accountable for their jackbooting actions. For all the "liberals" hinding behind their "I didn't vote for Bush" defence.....your in a supposed democracy with a Government that supposedly represents all Americans. You are as equally responsible as the conservatives for the actions of your country. Besides which, there really is no difference between republican Americans and demoncrat Americans. You all madly wave a flag and call yourselves heros and patriots, living a fat polluted life at the expence of the rest of the world. Keep arguing people. Its fun to watch as your just wasting one anothers time while the rest of the world waits for your joint fall. Only ONE post of the last 300 odd really resonated intelligence and sincerety enough to perhaps mitigate being thrown in with the rest of the mob. Armybrat....I feel sorry for the likes of you being caught up in all this insanity.

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/18/2005 @ 11:25am

303. LL, In your last post you omitted the fact that many of the troops under Johnson and Nixon had been drafted, while today's military is all volunteer. That MOST CERTAINLY impacts the situation.

     BTW, I thought that was a good post. I was surprised it was written by you :-)

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 11:26am

304. GOTOBEABUNDY- don't you just know so much... I am supposed to take responsiblity for actions that I have never supportded? I am ONE individual, I'm sorry I can't change the country, or the world for that matter. We may be arguing to no end on here, but my point has been made, I donot, and will not agree with what is going on over there, and I have supported this point thus far. Just remember, "we are all responsible for the actions of our country" I guess that includes you too.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:30am

305. OKSG, To answer your question about the eye-glazing post: Length aside, I thought it was worthwhile to the discussion. I had to think a few minutes about it.

     My rebuttal would be to point out that, for a UN-sanctioned conflict, it is up to the UN to decide if fighting should be resumed. You may recall that W first told us that he would force the issue with the security council and all the members would have to take a stand. Or maybe you don't recall, but he did. Then he flip-flopped when it became clear that the US would lose the vote and likely incur at least two vetos. (Here's that vote-counting stuff that LL is so fond of pointing out!)

     In the end the argument doesn't wash, but nice try!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 11:31am

306. i dont think the point of volunteering is the issue, if our military is volunteer or not, it makes no difference, it's the illegitimacy of the war that is bothersome.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:33am

307. "How is that pro-U.S. democracy movement going in Iraq? "

     Not as well as would have liked, but it still will be a better relationship than the one the U.S. had with Saddam.

     Todd

     ....Hey Todd, would that be better than the relationship with Saddam 20 years ago or two years ago?

     What's the prescription for making the pro-U.S democracy movement in Iraq take root?

     Posted by nathanhale at 08/18/2005 @ 11:33am

308. GOTOBEABUNDY wrote Besides which, there really is no difference between republican Americans and demoncrat Americans. You all madly wave a flag and call yourselves heros and patriots, living a fat polluted life at the expence of the rest of the world.

     A statement like this demonstrates the ignorance typical of a person in one country who is trying to describe people of another country. 999 times out of 1000 it is not worth the paper it is written on.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 11:36am

309. ILOVEPHYSICS- agreed, that statement isn't worth much.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:38am

310. JM2626..... I'm fairly comfortable should there ever be an accounting.

     FREIHEIT... :) Keep fooling yourself! "Loathed" was a soft word.

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/18/2005 @ 11:38am

311. GOTOBEABUNDY:

     There is certainly a lot of pointless bickering and name-calling on this board, but many of us are talking about the larger issues you address. You just have to skip the hate posts. Your contention that all Americans are loathed outside of America may be personal to you, but attaching to it to the world in general is a joke. What perfect nation do you hail from by the way? Unless you have something to add to the conversation, other than condemn the lot of us, I suggest you take your hollow complaints elsewhere.

     As for attaching responsibility to every American citizen, you could not be farther off base. I wrote my congressman and senators to urge them to not grant Bush the authorization to go use force against Iraq. I voted for an anti-war candidate in the Democratic primary. What is my responsibility? That my view did not win out? Please . . .

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:40am

312. LL,

     Repeatedly we have confronted Kevin with his accusations by stating facts, analyisis, and other supporting documentation that show there is no direct evidence of Bush deliberately lying to the American people

     I guess you're counting on people who haven't read these blogs before are going to automatically assume this is correct. But, alas, it's not. You still haven't countered the following:

     Bush said that Hussein's acquisition of aluminum tubes was nuclear-related, when the IAEA and other expert agencies stated before the war that these were not thick enough to serve as nuclear centrifuges. And this wasn't some sort of secret order, either -- it was available over the Internet! (By the way, on an Internet-related note, Republican Curt Weldon was mighty pissed off a couple of years ago when his meeting with N. Korea's leader was called off during the negotiation process because Bush & Co. said he had shared a classified document when in fact not only was the document unclassified, but was available for view on -- you guessed it! -- the Internet.) So why did Bush cite it when it was rebuffed by experts?

     Bush said that Iraq had UAVs that could chemically attack the U.S., when the Air Force -- the leading experts in this field -- reported before the war that the compartments weren't big enough to hold the amount of necessary chemicals and the things had a maximum range of only 300 miles, so these UAVs couldn't reach the U.S., much less Qatar. But Bush cited it anyway in lieu of experts refuting it.

     (ok Kevin, the 1998 IAEA Report that Bush issued a clarification on and still doesn't count except in your own mind)

     The clarification was made only after the IAEA raised hell about it, and even then this "clarification" far from clarified. First, they said an IAEA report stated that Iraq could be 6 months away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but this '98 report stated no such thing. Then the administration said that Bush was citing from a '91 report instead. Problem: The IAEA never issued such a report in '91. What it was, the '98 report stated that Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in 6 to 24 months, not "6 months" as Bush lyingly said. Also, and this is the real kicker, this was pertaining to before the first Gulf war; Bush conveniently left this out, thus making it seem that Iraq was 6 months away from acquiring a nuclear weapon from the time Bush spoke these words, instead of correctly stating that Iraq could have been 6 to 24 months away from acquiring a nulcear weapon before the first Gulf war.

     These were not just golly-gee/I-mispoke errors. They were blatant and deliberate lies to overstate and exaggerate Iraq's supposed nuclear capabilities. And you, LL, have not provided any ample defense for these lies. There's still time, though.

     (By the way, you used the word "germane". Was re-watching "Smokey and the Bandit" the other day, and there's this part where a sheriff's talking to Jackie Gleason's sheriff over the CB, and the sheriff says, "Because you are a sheriff is not germane to the situation.", to which Gleason replies, "The goddamn Germans got nothing to do with it!" Funny stuff.)

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/18/2005 @ 11:41am

313. GOTOBEABUNDY- your opinion is noted, but I have to say that you cannot judge the population as a whole, based on a part. I have never viewed all germans to this day as "nazis" so why would people judge our whold country in a negative way based on your clouded view of who we are?

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:43am

314. The war was based and sold on lies. Nothing this administration has said has been accurate or truthful. A majority of the American people now believe this.

     Smearing a mother who lost her child for no valid reason won't change this.

     Posted by edkhouri at 08/18/2005 @ 11:44am

315. On the radio this morning, I heard a (too) brief reference to a quote from GHW Bush in which he was challenging Clinton to explain to the mothers of our troops why they would be dying in Kosovo. As of this posting, I have been unable to find such a quote. I would love to read it in its entirety, (should it actually exist), and judge the context for myself. Has anyone seen or heard of this?

     Posted by drhammer at 08/18/2005 @ 11:44am

316. ILOVEPHYSICS..... :) I'm just describing all the people and conversation I see around me each and every day of the year. Thats far from ignorance. Its simply observable facts.

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/18/2005 @ 11:45am

317. A Sign of the Times

     This morning I was reminiscing about last night's vigils for Cindy Sheehan and America's troops and the following salient point became evident.

     During the 2004 Presidential campaign, many of the Pro-Bush people were obnoxious, crude, and rude to protestors of Bush's Iraq policy and war. Well, during last night's vigils I didn't see one obnoxious, crude, and rude Pro-Bushie hawking their support for Bush's Iraq policy and war.

     To paraphrase a famous Country & Western singer (believe it was Johnny Cash); I can hear the train a coming - that's the anti-Iraq War train.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/18/2005 @ 11:56am

318. WHAT REALLY TROUBLES ME IS MORE VETERANS OF DESERT STROM, VEIT NAM ARE B NOT STEPPING UP TO DEFEND THIS WOMAN. I appologies for the capitalization, but I am amazed. Wetyher you agree with her or not ( I absolutely do) but she has given the greatest sacrafice a mother can do, her son! We all know that Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard so why even discuss it, but others have been silent. John McCain has forgoten what his parents went through? Where is he? John Kerry, Bob Kerry? Men who have served and have not come forth to defend her loadly. Yes we all know that the Fox News Network will vilify her, but where are her defenders to go on ther air and fight for her? I am embraced.

     Posted by bgoldberg at 08/18/2005 @ 12:00pm

319. Freiheit:

     "...why they WOULD BE dying in Kosovo."

     I think only one soldier died, and I will research that also. But it should be obvious that that's not the point of my post.

     Posted by drhammer at 08/18/2005 @ 12:01pm

320. BGOLDBERG: Yea, where's John Kerry when you need him.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/18/2005 @ 12:10pm

321. Dead soldier's mom makes admirable stand By Mary Geddry Published: Wednesday, August 17, 2005

     Earlier this year, in late March, my Marine son returned home from his second tour in Iraq. Seeing him for the first time upon his return I found myself surveying him carefully. Holding him close in my arms, I assessed him like a mother with a newborn - 10 fingers, yes, 10 toes.

     My relief and gratitude suffered no boundaries, and I poured forth my soul in reverence and appreciation to our ancestors for watching over him. I praised Buddha, Allah and God. I thanked my lucky stars, and I wept profuse tears of release.

     My joy was marred, of course, by the knowledge that other mothers had not been so fortunate. So I watch with awe and admiration the mission of the very purposeful Cindy Sheehan.

     Almost daily, the news contains testaments of the loved ones of fallen soldiers continuing to support the war in Iraq and the current administration. None want their sacrifice to have been in vain. For those of us who believe, as Cindy Sheehan does, that this war has been wrought of lies, then that has already happened: Their supreme sacrifice was for naught, and nothing will make it otherwise.

     Yet Sheehan has corralled her grief and anger and resolved to make her son's death stand for something real, something tangible, something not built on lies and bad intelligence. She wants Casey's death to mark the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq.

     The goal Sheehan has set is almost impossibly high, but the concept of converting tragedy into change is not. Our statute books are filled with such examples as Megan's Law, Amber Alerts and the Jessica Lunsford Law, all of which are reactions to the senseless, meaningless, vain deaths of our children at the hands of conscienceless souls.

     America was lied to without conscience, cajoled and terrified into compliance with words such as "smoking gun" and "mushroom clouds," so that we proudly pledged our greatest resource - our own children - to the cause. Was that conscienceless act any less insidious than luring a child into a car with candy? Do not our sons and daughters dying and risking their lives in Iraq deserve a Casey Sheehan's Law?

     My own son returned home, barely surviving seven improvised explosive devices, multiple mortar attacks, numerous firefights and the memories of picking up the body parts of some of his fellow warriors. During his tour he acquired that fatalistic manner of speech so typical of soldiers in constant combat: ``I guess it wasn't my day to die, Mom.''

     Those words still torture me today. It is certain that being deployed to Iraq is a sure death sentence for anyone who is there long enough. Our troops will not die from old age. Casey Sheehan only lived five days.

     If our president could take the time to dress up in a flight suit and travel to an aircraft carrier, an executive version of a Super Bowl touchdown dance, why can he not take the time to answer Cindy Sheehan?

     Posted by magix111 at 08/18/2005 @ 12:11pm

322. ORAIBI1952, I'm glad you had that moment and shared it with us.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 08/18/2005 @ 12:02am

     Freiheit - I'm glad you liked it. A little enlightening is very good for the soul. Stick around here long and you'll become hated by the radical right.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/18/2005 @ 12:17pm

323. ARMYBRAT - eloquently and beautifully done. All I can say in response is first, thanks, and second, please KNOW that you are NOT alone. There are many millions of us out here who feel exactly the same stultifying fury and loathing for these lying fascist criminals and so many of their wretched supporters. Did you view the endless thousands of photos on "we'resorryeverybody.com" (I think that was it, but I can't quite recall without checking). If you haven't, you should. It tells the whole story of just how many millions of us there are in this country who, many days, cannot bear to get out of bed and look on what this once-great nation has become at the hands of these miserable, amoral villains. I want nothing more than to leave this country permanently, and hope to do so if I can just get my spouse - another who shares our view of things - to leave a job he loves and go. In order to survive, America requires principled leaders and a populace who cares enough about the health of the republic to hold up their end of the bargain; sadly, we have neither

     Posted by mewsician at 08/18/2005 @ 12:19pm

324. GOTOBEABUNDY, What is your sample population size? Is it a random sample? (I'll answer the second question for you: No, it isn't). Go learn about statistical analysis. Then you will find that your conclusions are meaningless.

     I know Americans who are fanatical environmentalists, fanatical pacifists, fanatically health-conscience. I stand by my original post.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 12:19pm

325. It's time to use the following ribbons: SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! VACATION IN IRAQ!!! and SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! GO TO IRAQ!!!, ETC. Walter Plywaski (ex-inmate of Lodz ghetto, Auschwitz & Dachau) 751 Left Fork Road Boulder, CO 80302-9252 home:303-444-4912 cell: 720-270-2292 e-mail: plywaski@att.net

     Posted by Plywaski at 08/18/2005 @ 12:21pm

326. (hit 'submit' button accidentally)

     ...sadly, we have neither. And I don't see how it's possible now to turn the ship around. How can we return to a time when people understood the nature of true freedom and the role of each citizen in it? I don't think it's defeatist to survey the landscape and say it's too late. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. The Bush cabal will fail - they're crumbling now like the pathetic house of cards they've always been - but it's not really the Bush cabal that is the problem. It's these people, and there are just too many of them. The hatred, blind, willful ignorance and intellectual deadness of the sort they possess is just too easy; thus in numbers like these, almost certainly impossible to reverse in the conditions the nation exists in today.

     Just don't think you're alone. If that helps, anyway.

     Posted by mewsician at 08/18/2005 @ 12:23pm

327. Sorry, war lovers, your moment is over. Your president has killed 1800 of our people and no one will ever know how many Iraqis, for nothing. And all the Rush Limbaughs, all the Fox News in the world cannot hide this fact.

     It hurts, yeah, but you need to get over it and rejoin the human race. Attacking a grieving mother does your side no good, and believe me, a year from now you will be sorely ashamed to see your own words in print.

     Posted by SadieB at 08/18/2005 @ 12:28pm

328. For all of you that are so hung up on the heroic Ms. Sheehan, I recommend you check out todays opinion piece in the WSJ.

     It will give you a different perspective and maybe a greater understanding of why some of us don't agree with Ms. Sheehen.

     Go ahead, take a few minutes and read this piece.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/18/2005 @ 12:36pm

329. Freheit,

     Concerning U.S. Kosovo deaths, from what I remember reading, there were no combat fatalities whatsoever. The Repubs really lashed out at Clinton for not "putting boots on the ground", which seemed fueled more by machismo by them than tactical sense; Kosovo largely consisted of bombing, which was hugely successful, hence the zero-combat fatalities. Now, were there non-combat deaths (vehicle accidents and the like), I don't know.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/18/2005 @ 12:38pm

330. USAPride,

     Can you provide a link for that WSJ article? I can't find it.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/18/2005 @ 12:40pm

331. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122

     Wall Street Journal editorial

     Posted by RonS at 08/18/2005 @ 12:46pm

332. USAPRIDE- I read the article, so what. Ms. Sheehan never said she was representing any parent that lost a son or daughter in the war. She is just standing up for what she believes in herself. It was a state senator that made that comment and I agree with what she's doing. It's about time the people in this country start standing up against this crisis. It doesn't matter if the military is volunteer or not, its the fact that this is an illegitimate war that is so bothersome. Yes, all of these soldiers that have died did volunteered, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no real basis for the war in the first place, which is what Ms. Sheehan is protesting... I say, good for her, it's about time the people in this country stand up for themselves.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 12:48pm

333. Must sign off folks. I'm headed to lunch with some Blue-friends at a Blue restaurant where Bill Clinton once ate.

     Hasta la vista, au revoir, see you later.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/18/2005 @ 12:51pm

334. It's got to kill Mrs, Sheehan when she thinks about the fact that the basis for much of the intel that led to the war came from a guy named "curveball" that turned out to be the teenage nephew of Mr. Chalabi! ........

     Now that's quality work by the CIA ! Either they were duped by a kid or they used his BS to legitimize their deception of the American public. So, it was either criminal negligence or criminal deception. Take your choice.

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/18/2005 @ 12:52pm

335. This is an excerpt from "The Best of The Web" on the opiounjournal.com website:

     "Sheehan spoke at an April San Francisco State University rally in support of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in February of providing material aid to terrorists. Here's an excerpt:

     I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people . . . since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for." If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. . . .

     What they're saying, too, is like, it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It's okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It's okay for the countries that we say it's okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It's okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can't have them. It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it's--yeah--and it's okay for Iraq to occupy--I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon.

     Posted by RonS at 08/18/2005 @ 12:53pm

336. NO-NONSENSE.. Agreed, good post

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 12:53pm

337. correction: Sheehan quote from opinionjournal.com, August 15 Best of The Web

     Posted by RonS at 08/18/2005 @ 12:55pm

338. Kevin Collins, The germane/Germans joke was plagiarized. It was said before, by the Archie Bunker character in the sitcom "All in the Family." It's still funny though.

     OKSG, So you are fine with our cozy 1908's relationship with Saddam Hussein? What about all the Kurds he killed with the chemical weapons, made with technology he got from the USA? How do you think your god view that one?

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 1:10pm

339. Last post should have read "1980's", not 1908's

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 1:10pm

340. ILOVEPHYSICS... GOTOBEABUNDY, What is your sample population size? Is it a random sample? (I'll answer the second question for you: No, it isn't). Go learn about statistical analysis. Then you will find that your conclusions are meaningless.

     :) Are but your a beautiful piece of work. Re: learning statistical analysis. I've actually had the pleasure of lecturing stats at the tertiary level. I stand by my comments in generalising on the likes of you and your like. The grand differences that you believe exist between Liberals & conservatives are middling at best. As Americans, you essentially all come from the same "family" and as such share far more similarities to one another (attitudes and behaviour) than differences. For a start, you all believe that swearing allegance to a bit of rag means something. You articulate a belief in democracy and yet your whole electoral process is "corruption" personified. Words such as "freedom" and "democracy" have become sullied through your countries use and abuse. Sorry my friend (term used loosely), but your raised on that rubbish so even though you might believe that your an "enlightened" sort of fellow, your still a product of a lifetime of exposure to your particular culture. As for your "fanatical environmentalists etc", yes you might have a few people who have a few principles. But by their placing at +or- 2 x the standard deviation, they fall outside of the generalisation I made. :)

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/18/2005 @ 1:10pm

341. Posted by BGOLDBERG & I quote: "WHAT REALLY TROUBLES ME IS MORE VETERANS OF DESERT STROM, VEIT NAM ARE B NOT STEPPING UP TO DEFEND THIS WOMAN". "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" of which I am an active member is adamently opposed to Bush and his "war", and strongly supports Ms. Sheehan. We know what it's like to get killed to line the Republicans pockets.

     Posted by JimmyJ at 08/18/2005 @ 1:12pm

342. DRHAMMER and others:

     Regarding qutoes from Bush re: Kosovo. Because the issue came up and so many on the Right love to bring up what Clinton did or what Democrats said in the past, I figured turnabout is fair play. Let's roll the tape:

     "President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." -Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

     "No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it." -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

     "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

     "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

     "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

     "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." -Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

     "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years" -Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

     "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

     "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

     "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

     "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem." -Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

     "The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president." -Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

     "You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

     "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

     For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

     Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

     "Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started" -Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

     "These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton." -Michael Savage

     "This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals." -Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

     "It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation." -Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

     "By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia." -Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

     Pretty interesting considering how many on the Right now contend that any voiced opposition to the Iraq war (including Ms. Sheehan) is labeled political, unpatriotic or un-American.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:15pm

343. DANCALL, Have you lost anyone in a war or had a family member tragically taken from you? If not, Shut the F up. If you have, then you must have lost you ability to empathize with humans. It's time to move under a bridge and spend you days screaming at passers by. Have you considered why the media attention bothers you so much? Since I don't agree with you does that make me a left-wing crazy? If you are actually speaking your mind then it's a shame.

     Posted by CrazyForPeace at 08/18/2005 @ 1:16pm

344. GOTABEABUNDY:

     So, what country do you call home, by the way? You never answered my question before.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:17pm

345. JM2626: I thought this article would help you to understand the opposing point of view, from the inside. I was hoping it would show you why some of us don't appreciate the tactics of Sandy Sheehan.

     But alas, to no avail.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/18/2005 @ 1:17pm

346. LL, In your last post you omitted the fact that many of the troops under Johnson and Nixon had been drafted, while today's military is all volunteer. That MOST CERTAINLY impacts the situation.

     BTW, I thought that was a good post. I was surprised it was written by you :-)

     Thanks for your comments ILP!

     As to the draft comment, I guess it hadn't come up in my mind (even though it is a valid point) because most of my military buddies were volunteers like myself. Also, in re-reading my post, I don't think the fact that many were draftees is actually relevant to how Johnson and Nixon put a strict clamp down on any involvement by military personnel in anti-war activities. What I remember most about that was the legal warning we were given that engaging in protest while an active duty member of the military was cause for court martial. I don't think being either a volunteer or draftee would really affect someones decision in that regard. I don't think I ever met someone in the service who felt that the anti war protests were worth a court martial.

     Generational difference perhaps; but also maybe just more military discipline back then.

     We have some pointed commentary at times but overall I believe there has been some constructive dialogue. It is refreshing when compared to some of the "I hate all conservatives, let them go to hell" types that permeate this site. Thank you!

     Posted by love liberty at 08/18/2005 @ 1:21pm

347. Gottobeabundy,

     Are you actually throwing 290,000,000 people into the same dustbin? In what big-brained vacuum were you so fortunate to have been raised? Do you have any advice for those of us whose knuckles scrape the pavement without the mental ability to at least lift our arms to spare us the blood and pain?

     More specifically, when did God tell you that you, above almost all others, were granted with the insight to determine a lack of distinguishing features in such a large population?

     These blogs are full of all kinds of idiotic rambling, from the left and the right. But in terms of combining arrogance and bullshit, Gottobeabundy, you have absolutely outclassed us.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:22pm

348. GOTOBEABUNDY- Ignorance, although not an excuse, does appear to be the reason of your thoughtless, crude comments. For some reason, I highly doubt you have ever had the slightest opportunity to lecture on statistical analysis. Did you not see the results of the last presidential election? It's not like 90% of the population blindly followed Bush. And what about the anti-war protest. I am thoroughly disgusted with your assumptions about me, my country, and how I was raised. Although you were not speaking to me on your last post, I am apalled at your statements, and felt obligated to respond. Why don't you actually learn something about the American people before you judge us. It would be nice to know where exactly it is that you come from? I gurantee I have never judge your country in such a manner as to make it seem as if everyone is the same way because we were raised in the same country? Well, I hate to have to point this out to you, but we have the ABILITY to BE, THINK, and DO DIFFERENTLY than those around us. It's called freedom, and it makes us all different.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:24pm

349. LL, Maybe my post was a bit obtuse - let me be a bit more specific: The orders given by Johnson and Nixon are UNNECESSARY in no small part due to the fact that volunteers want to be in the military. At least, that was my experience when I was in the navy.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 1:24pm

350. GOTOBEABUNDY, It is better to keep quiet and be suspected of ignorance, than to type the last post you typed and remove all doubt.

     You have never met me, and everything you stated about me is wrong.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 1:26pm

351. Posted by ALUDRA 08/17/2005 @ 4:02pm

     And this is out of just 32 posts so far. I have read much worse in the short time I have read this miserable website. You see how DETESTABLE and FOUL MOUTHED you nutty LIBS are??? You absolutely have no intellectual standing to argue because all you can spew is hate and illogic rants. Anymore of you 'effin' assholes ever lecture me again about my tone....let me give you my answer in advance:

     SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS

     My, now isn't this a prime example of maturity?

     Those who claim not to have listened to Limbaugh in ages are probably telling the truth, but since GOP daily points are distributed to Congress & media outlets, including Fox and the talk-radio junkposts, it is not necessary to listen to one particular wing of the machine to hear something--it is widely distributed and rebroadcast again and again.

     Posted by demwoman at 08/18/2005 @ 1:26pm

352. USAPRIDE: I can always respect a different opinion. I just don't like it that people are angry at Sheehan. This is something she is doing for herself as far as I am concerned. I have never heard her, or heard OF her making any statements that she is representing anyone but herself. I just have to agree with her that her son did die for no aparent cause, which would of course be quite disturbing to any parent. I appreciate you pointing the article out to me though, it is nice to hear the other side of any issue.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:27pm

353. HMAN23..... what bearing does my country have on my opinions other than that I am not an American citizen? Perhaps I call "America" home but am an alien (as in human from a non-american country). Perhaps I am an Iraqi who's family has been blown away and my only fault is that I built a home under one or your countries bombs? Perhaps I am a Russian and have been force-fed the same sort of baloney (just a different color) all my life as you have. Perhaps I really am an American but now by living in enlightened Europe, I delude myself into thinking I am no longer an American? Then again, perhaps I am a relative nobody from the highlands of Papua New Guinea. Where I call home, what country I am a citizen of or who I identify with has no bearing on the "facts" or of my observations. However I will say that having an American wife and children gives me an appreciation of how it must have been for some-one to have a German wife back in 1933.

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/18/2005 @ 1:29pm

354. USAPRIDE- I just wanted to also say, my view is also from the inside, that's why I feel so passionate about sheehan's protest.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:30pm

355. hman23

     that was brilliant! Especially delay's quotes.

     Posted by indianabob at 08/18/2005 @ 1:31pm

356. USAPRIDE,

     Please correct me because I very well could be wrong, but has Sheehan attempted to speak for all parents in her situation? I was under the impression that the broad authority that she seems to have was more a matter of likeminded people bestowing it on her rather than her simply claiming it. The link you referenced is, of course, a perfectly legitimate response from someone in Sheehan's position. But in each case, it's just an opinion, even if it is an extremely moving and poignant one. One doesn't cancel the other.

     I think the reason she has gotten so much attention is in part due to the way that Bush has dealt with the public during his time in office. We recognize that his gatherings and "town hall meetings" are fakes. All we see are cheerleaders and other supporters. This has set up the Bushies for a huge fall, since one voice against the tremendous wave of support we usually see becomes as powerful as the lone student standing down the tank in Tiananmen Square. Especially when she has a (maybe not the only one) moral authority from which to launch her attack.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:31pm

357. GOTOBEABUNDY, to wit:

     As Americans, you essentially all come from the same "family" and as such share far more similarities to one another (attitudes and behaviour) than differences.

     America is more diverse than any other country. It is the great melting pot. For starters, I work with about 30 different nationalities of people.

     For a start, you all believe that swearing allegance to a bit of rag means something.

     I believe nothing of the sort. You are wrong again and can't get past your own arrogance long enough to admit you don't know everything. I've met hundreds of people like you.

     You articulate a belief in democracy and yet your whole electoral process is "corruption" personified.

     Please back up your rantings with a shred of evidence, keeping in mind that no electoral process anywhere at anytime has ever been perfect, simply because people are not perfect. Also, what would you propose in place of what we have? Do you even UNDERSTAND our electoral process?

     Sorry my friend (term used loosely), but your raised on that rubbish so even though you might believe that your an "enlightened" sort of fellow, your still a product of a lifetime of exposure to your particular culture.

     Your grammer is as poor as your reasoning ability. You meant "you're", not "your". You don't know the first thing about how I was raised. Do you have anything besides ad hominem attacks?

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 1:34pm

358. TJBEHRENS1- just saw your post,although not directed toward me. I don't think that she ever claimed to be speaking for any other families, but I could be wrong. I know a lot of families where I live are going to TX to meet with her this weekend. Of course, the state I live in is in 3rd place for the # of war casualties, so there is more anger here.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:35pm

359. USAPRIDE:

     I read the WSJ article, and understand the point, and I agree with the "absolute moral authority" point in particular. However, do you take issue with Ms. Sheehan's tactics or those like Marueen Dowd's and the like who try to paste Ms. Sheehan's views on all other families? If it is the latter, i tend to agree. Ms. Sheehan speaks only for herself and those who agree with her underlying opinions, not all families who have lost loved ones. But is your issue is specifically with Ms. Sheehan's "tactics," I disagree. Ms. Sheehan can voice her opinion and it is valid. The author of the WSJ can voice his and it is valid. The problem I have, as do others, is when many on the Right lash out flanking personal attacks against Ms. Sheehan (bringing up her families' views, her political leanings, marital issues, her sanity and so forth), argue that her voice is somehow fueling insurgents, or is otherwise harmful to the security of the country. These tactics are not a direct response to the issues she raises; they are efforts to stifle any opposition before it can even be uttered.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:35pm

360. should have read grammar, not grammar. Sorry for the typo

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 1:36pm

361. I think the reason she has gotten so much attention is in part due to the way that Bush has dealt with the public during his time in office. We recognize that his gatherings and "town hall meetings" are fakes. All we see are cheerleaders and other supporters. This has set up the Bushies for a huge fall, since one voice against the tremendous wave of support we usually see becomes as powerful as the lone student standing down the tank in Tiananmen Square. Especially when she has a (maybe not the only one) moral authority from which to launch her attack.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/18/2005 @ 1:31pm

     I think you are onto something here. Plus, the press has done nothing to alter anyone's perception that all Bush's gatherings are set up ones with those who disagree screened out and refused entry. So it looks like Cindy has mighty power when she is able to simply camp out and state what she wishes to ask the president and is given a venue on television to state this. I think the fact that Cindy Sheehan has been given airtime and exposure probably ticks off the right more than anything else. And, because she has been given legitimacy by being interviewed again and again, people who are accustomed to seeing only support for the war and administration are feeling just a bit uncomfortable seeing the questioning.

     I'm guessing this is why they feel the need to attack her so viciously--they want her to disappear--off their TV screens and out of their consciences.

     Posted by demwoman at 08/18/2005 @ 1:41pm

362. TJBEHRENS1 ..... JM2626..... :) I need now look after my children in my relative peace and quiet. Good luck with your venting. From a psychological viewpoint, one always feels a little better afterwards though it rarely leads to any change in the situation that caused one to vent in the first place....not unless the cause was trifling in the first place. I do look forward to observing your continued "agonising" with your relatively "ugly" family members (ie conservatives). Tchüss!

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/18/2005 @ 1:41pm

363. HMAN23,

     I just had a chance to scroll through your quote list. It was sickening, absolutely sickening. My favorite was the very simple, "You can support the troops but not the president" by Tom Delay. If I had the money I'd slap it up on every billboard in my little republican town.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:41pm

364. There is no reason that Ms. Sheehan shouldn't be able to use her freedom of speech. Some may disagree with her opinion and views about the war, but that's no reason to become angry and scrutinize her.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:41pm

365. GOTOBEABUNDY- It was a nice chat with you, just hope you don't pass that intolerable ignorance onto your poor, innocent children.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:44pm

366. GOTOBEABUNDY:

     Your nationality is relevant because it is you who contends that all citizens of a population are responsible and blameworthy for the actions of their government, even if they oppose those policies. As the saying goes, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." My point should be obvious. I assume by refusing to answer, you probably are a citizen of a country that we could use your own logic upon.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:49pm

367. JM2626.... :) You can be sure that my children will grow up with a very different sort of "enlightenment" or understanding of the world than you or yours have! "Ignorance"? hehehehe I guess your view of my "ignorance" may be your own presidents view of Freedom fighters being simply Terrorists. It all depends upon where your standing at the time. As for my children having "ignorance" passed on to them by me..... my wife might be American (for the time being) but our children sure as hell aren't, won't be nor ever will be. And it has nothing to do with jealosy. hehehehehe Good luck with your own respective life! One thing is for sure.... YOU AND ALL YOUR COUNTRY-MEN (IRRESPECTIVE OF YOUR RESPECTIVE POLITICAL SLANTS) WILL BE NEEDING IT IN THE COMING DECADE OR SO. Nazi Germany 1933 personified!

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/18/2005 @ 1:51pm

368. GOTOBEABUNDY- are you german? Or do you just speak it? It that where the german reference came from earlier? When, or even better, if you return, answer this question for me.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:52pm

369. I am still trying to catch up

     Posted by KEVIN COLLINS 08/17/2005 @ 3:16pm

     Fantastic post Kevin. You can really sense the desparation in these hypocrits. Things are starting to unravel, and that occured before this brave woman started her historic protest.

     The thing is, even given the right-wings bully pulpit, americans aren't buying it. The bile that they spew about Sheehan doesn't seem to be resonating. They did the same thing to Rosa Parks.

     Posted by indianabob at 08/18/2005 @ 1:53pm

370. Let's face it: this country has always needed an enemy to feed the vast military/industrial complex. The cold war was a godsend to push this industry to the heavens in unnecessary expenses. The Soviets were never the threat that we portrayed them as. We've demonized Quaddafi, Noriega, Castro, insurgent movements in Central America. Democratization means only creating fertile grounds for capitalism. The empire is hungry and will continue to arm ourselves and others willing to play along. There is plenty of money to go around for those who will come for the ride. The Democrats have played along as well(except for a truely couragious few such as Paul Wellstone and John Conyers)-Gotabeabundy is not entirely off base. I have never blogged or attended any protests in my 45 years. Bush has changed that forever and for that I am grateful. I hope September 24th in DC is the watershed for a new progressive left for this country. If the Dems in power are smart they will follow George's lead and listen to their base. There are many disgruntled/disenfranchised voters out there who are willing to vote. Give them something to vote for(or against)-Peace!

     Posted by wjfalcone at 08/18/2005 @ 1:54pm

371. LL, my post should have read "...unnecessary in this day and age..."

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 1:54pm

372. GOTOBEABUNDY- stated "You can be sure that my children will grow up with a very different sort of "enlightenment" or understanding of the world than you or yours have" go ahead, give me a nice laugh for the day, what sort of enlightenment..it's okay to judge a group based on an individual, or small group of individuals? What will you teach them? That Americans are bad people because at a point in time, they had a bad leader? I don't understand what you have against those of us in this country that despise Bush for doing what he has done, I already feel like I am living in a dictatorship, since 9-11 we have done nothing but trade freedoms for security, but it sounds to me like you are training the next generation of terrorist yourself. I feel sorry for your wife if you despise who she is this much.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:56pm

373. Wow, it seems like a whole new group of liberals have joined the fray with the same level of ignorance as Oraibi1952, mewsician, and their like (not citing the likes of Frankg, Ilovephysics, HMAN23,Zero, Kevin, or No Nonsense and all like them who at least come from a well formed opinion-even if I disagree with them).

     No, I am speaking about the "we hate conservatives because they exist" and "the war is illegal because I believe it must be" type of ignorant, emotionally driven left wing, "we can have world peace if we all just sit down and talk" mindlessness.

     I really don't find them worthy of response because no amount of fact nor reasoning would be of any consequence. I advise other conservatives that if you are here for sincere dialogue to concentrate on those who have shown a willingness to engage in real dialogue and not just name calling. And the same should apply to we conservatives. No one is well-served by the inane name calling and the "we're better than you" junk that creeps in at times here.

     We may never reach any kind of real agreement about the many serious issues that affect each and every person on the planet today, but we can learn at least to find a way to discuss and debate our differences without all the garbage.

     That in itself would make sites like this to have been a genuine contributor to real democracy.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/18/2005 @ 1:57pm

374. Here's something that's a nice diversion from all of this arguing with neocon chickenhawks who can't read what you say anyway (since their heads are up their asses). Go through all of the posts; pick out the ones submitted by chickenhawk war-mongers; now pick out the ones submitted by progressive free-thinkers; put them in separate piles. OK? Ready? Now go through and look for which posts have errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar. Got them all? 99% of them were in the Chickenhawk neocon MORON pile....Right? Wasn't that more fun than trying to get them to stop regurgitating Bush/Cheney/Condi/Rummy/Rove bile? You're welcome; have a great PROGRESSIVELY LIBERAL DAY!!

     Posted by CondiBlowz at 08/18/2005 @ 1:59pm

375. I am guessing our friend is German too from the send-off. If so, I guess he is right to condemn ALL Americans, even ones who dissent from current policy. We should all concede, because Germany after all, is a perfect nation.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:59pm

376. as far as I could tell, there is someone on here bashing ALL americans...conservative or liberal, and doing it all the while with a nasty grin. Wherever you are from GOTOBEABUNDY, I hope not everyone there is like you

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 2:00pm

377. love liberty- get off your high horse, you're not superior. no one here is throwing in name calling and garbage, simply standing up to the german and sticking up for ALL americans in general.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 2:03pm

378. Dear Cindy,

     This country's sympathy for your deceased son is now tainted by our collective revulsion at your quest to outdo P.T. Barnum.

     We're impressed that you can line up movie stars and lefty journalists to join the circus, but don't you realize that these mooks are not your friends?

     Your theatrics may have succeeded in the 60's -- and I'm sure the South Vietnamese and Cambodians appreciated being abandoned to legions of killers -- but you may have watched "Forrest Gump" too many times.

     If you're so convinced that Bush is a "terrorist" and that this whole war was the work of a "Jewish cabal", there's an exciting and dynamic organization you should check out -- it's called Al-Qaeda, and they meet frequently in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan's mountain region, Yemen, and Hollywood.

     Why don't you pack it up and get to work on that book deal before your (ex)husband beats you to it?

     All the best,

     Those Americans Who Actually Want to Win

     Posted by Beausoleil at 08/18/2005 @ 2:07pm

379. BEAUSOLEIL- a good laugh. she is allowed her own opinion and freedom of speech.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 2:08pm

380. Ok, it took me about twenty years to get to the end of this thread (God only knows how long it would have been had I not skipped over Aludra's bile). I'm Irish (liberal to the core and a Republican, go figure) and I can tell you: The majority of people here, at least, hold Bush and his neocon cabal in contempt but don't blame the Americans who can see coastline for him. Freiheit, American hegemony is not a good thing, nor would anyone with a grasp of history think it was. Supporting the troops should not equate to simply shutting up and letting them die. Supporting the troops should mean making sure they NEVER have to put themselves in harms way for profit, or for any reason other than the security of their nation.

     Posted by Dermor at 08/18/2005 @ 2:10pm

381. DERMOR- wonderfully said

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 2:15pm

382. Oh, and this may be off point somewhat, but if it were biologically possible, I would want to have Kevin Collin's babies.

     Posted by Dermor at 08/18/2005 @ 2:15pm

383. WJFALCONE -- you say that GOTOBEABUNDY is not far off base? I'm sorry, but I am forced to believe that you did not read all of his entries then?

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 2:17pm

384. HMAN23, Thanks for the great research on the hypocrisy of some right-wing politicians and pundits. Saved me a lot of time and effort.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 2:18pm

385. LL

     Reading your posts, I would gather that you and I are usually on opposite sides of the fence. Your post of 1:57, though, shows that the fence is not so high that we cannot extend our hands over it. As a human, I'm not immune to a little affirmation of my views now and again. But that's not why I come here. I want to hear other thoughtful viewpoints, in the hope that they will round out my own. The insults and Caps Locks produce nothing of value, and just identify their authors as small-minded individuals who migrated to cyberspace because they got too many beatings thrown on them at Happy Hour.

     I look forward to the times in which we may agree, and hope that when we don't, I'm well prepared.

     Posted by drhammer at 08/18/2005 @ 2:32pm

386. Hypocrisy is never limited to ideology. Senator Dick Durbin on December 17, 1988:

     I fully support President Clinton and our national security team's decision to take swift action against Saddam Hussein. . . .

     I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad.

     The men and women who are risking their lives in defense of our national and global security deserve nothing less.

     .

     Posted by RonS at 08/18/2005 @ 2:37pm

387. FREIHEIT, you wrote in the universe of hegemony, American is the safest for the future of the world.

     Why do you think this, when history shows that, external to the USA, our hegemony has been about protecting US economic and security interest, no matter the impact to other countries and peoples.

     Are you under the mistaken assumption that our government is working for the health and well-being of foreigners? Trying to export democracy? Sorry, our government does the same thing that ALL power structures do - it tries to grow its power, pure and simple. Any humanitarian benefit is incidental.

     Sorry to burst your bubble.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 2:37pm

388. DRHAMMER, Did you say happy hour? Happy hour!?!? mmmmm......

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 2:39pm

389. Yes, I agree that the world is a dangerous place. I also agree the world is a better, if not nessesarily safer place with Saddam behind bars. I do however think that sending American troops into Iraq to remove a leader that was toothless outside his own borders, however much he wanted to be threat, directly lead to the fostering of hatred and ignorance, a situation where terrorism blooms, making the world signifigantly less safe. The point is the majority of the world, rightly or wrongly, believes this was a war started for oil, not WMD, or liberation of an oppressed people. This image is not helped by Halliburton enjoying obscene profits while people die. Whilst life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are shining examples to the world, they cannot be brought about by force.

     Posted by Dermor at 08/18/2005 @ 2:50pm

390. And whether you agree with them or not, a guerilla insurgency will never be defeated by force of arms. Vietnam being the most relevant example, but even here, when the IRA's methods were abhorred by the majority (myself included), simply outmatching them never worked. Interrment, civil rights violations- nothing except dialogue brought about peace.

     Posted by Dermor at 08/18/2005 @ 2:55pm

391. I am guessing our friend is German too from the send-off. If so, I guess he is right to condemn ALL Americans, even ones who dissent from current policy. We should all concede, because Germany after all, is a perfect nation ...... sorry to disappoint you HMAN23 but not German. Then again, one could do far worse than aspire to gaining German citizenship. A very "enlightened" population if I can be so crude as to make another generalisation.

     as far as I could tell, there is someone on here bashing ALL americans...conservative or liberal, and doing it all the while with a nasty grin. Wherever you are from GOTOBEABUNDY, I hope not everyone there is like you ..... JM2626, all your talking and attempts to intellecutalise add to nothing in the big scheme of things. If one is ugly, then they are just downright ugly. You would be an even greater fool than I thought were you to think that the current woes in the US are the fault of Bush and his antics of the past 4 years. I do give you more credit than that though. The problem is, if one were to look at US foreign policy over the past 100 years objectively, it is just downright UGLY! Successive governments repeatedly being put into power by who?? Martians? Ugly is just that....Ugly. All empires fall at some time or other and when they do, the consequences for the Empires population are normally on a par with the damage they have done unto others. And there will be no innocents (or room for intellectualising).

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/18/2005 @ 2:57pm

392. This is better..........I am guessing our friend is German too from the send-off. If so, I guess he is right to condemn ALL Americans, even ones who dissent from current policy. We should all concede, because Germany after all, is a perfect nation ...... sorry to disappoint you HMAN23 but not German. Then again, one could do far worse than aspire to gaining German citizenship. A very "enlightened" population if I can be so crude as to make another generalisation.

     as far as I could tell, there is someone on here bashing ALL americans...conservative or liberal, and doing it all the while with a nasty grin. Wherever you are from GOTOBEABUNDY, I hope not everyone there is like you ..... JM2626, all your talking and attempts to intellecutalise add to nothing in the big scheme of things. If one is ugly, then they are just downright ugly. You would be an even greater fool than I thought were you to think that the current woes in the US are the fault of Bush and his antics of the past 4 years. I do give you more credit than that though. The problem is, if one were to look at US foreign policy over the past 100 years objectively, it is just downright UGLY! Successive governments repeatedly being put into power by who?? Martians? Ugly is just that....Ugly. All empires fall at some time or other and when they do, the consequences for the Empires population are normally on a par with the damage they have done unto others. And there will be no innocents (or room for intellectualising).

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/18/2005 @ 2:59pm

393. Regarding that WSJ article:

     I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.

     Well, duh. Sheehan has never said she's speaking for him or all parents of dead soldiers. Of course, people like Mr. Griffin know this -- no one can be this hopelessly obtuse (then again, maybe the one who said, "Is our children learning.") -- but they trot it out anyway without any regard whether it's valid or not. I mean, if a pro-Iraq-war someone were camped out near Bush's ranch with pro-war signs who'd lost a child, and I were a grieved parent who opposed the war, I wouldn't be seething with outrage yelling, "She doesn't speak for me!", because well, duh, being that we have opposing viewpoints and we're two different people, of course she doesn't speak for me. (rolls eyes) I swear, the illogical means people go to berate someone protesting against the little boy king still continues to amaze.

     However, I abhor all that she represents

     That's his right, and I'm sure Sheehan abhors all he represents.

     and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers.

     Hmmm, but I'm guessing he'd be OK if people were casting a pro-war grieved mother as a symbol of those fallen soldiers. Hypocrite. And why shouldn't people who oppose the war cast her as a symbol for fallen soldiers who they believe died in vain and in a war based on lies? Likewise, I wouldn't have a problem with a pro-war grieved parent being viewed as a symbol for the fallen soldiers by those who support the Iraq war. This writer would get torn to shreds in even a junior-high debating class.

     The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number.

     And this is a good thing?

     Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us.

     See, this is another eye-rolling, asinine statement. The writer's implying that Sheehan views herself as more important, more worthy than the other parents. Which, of course, she's not. She's seeking publicity to express her views where a lot of other parents aren't seeking publicity. So, yes, she's "above" the other parents in terms of media exposure, but only that.

     Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.

     So take this up with Nelson, not Sheehan. And also be prepared to Bible promise that if a Republican senator said a pro-Iraq-war parent were a symbol for all the "lost children", he wouldn't have a problem with an anti-Iraq-war parent saying, "Not for me."

     Ms. Dowd is so moved by Mrs. Sheehan's plight that she bestowed upon her and all grieving parents the title of "absolute moral authority." That characterization epitomizes the arrogance and condescension of anyone who would presume to understand and speak for all of us.

     Same thing: take this up with Dowd, not Sheehan.

     Over the past few days I have reached out to other parents and loved ones of fallen heroes in an attempt to find out their reactions to all the attention Mrs. Sheehan has attracted. What emerges from those conversations is an empathy for Mrs. Sheehan's suffering but a fundamental disagreement with her politics.

     Yet the writer doesn't bother to enlighten us as to whether he's talking to a mix of pro- and anti-Iraq-war parents, or just pro-Iraq-war ones. If it's the latter, of course they're going to disagree with her politics; and I've a feeling it is the latter, otherwise he'd have surely wrote that it was a mix to stregthen his side.

     This is from a parent:

     "My grief sometimes seems unbearable, but I cannot add the additional baggage of anger. Mrs. Sheehan has every right to protest . . . but I cannot do that. I would be protesting the very thing that Kimberly believed in and died for."

     So I'm assuming Kimberly believed in "spreading freedom and liberating the Iraqi people", and she specifically stated this to her father that it was worth dying for. Otherwise, if it were for protecting America or WMD or protecting our freedom or all of these, then this doesn't hold up, because she didn't die for any of these things because this war isn't about any of these things.

     Karen's view is that what Mrs. Sheehan is doing she has every right to do, but she is dishonoring all soldiers, including Karen's son, Zack.

     And this is backed up by....

     Karen cannot comprehend why Mrs. Sheehan cannot seem to come to grips with the idea that her own son, Casey, was a soldier like Zack who had a mission to complete.

     Sheehan has never said that he didn't have a mission to complete; she's saying that "mission" (you know, protecting America from "WMD" and then to "WMD programs" then to "WMD program intentions" then to "unconventional weapons" then to "speading freedom") was a lie and her and the other dead soldiers are no longer alive because of it.

     Karen will tell you over and over again that Zack is not here and no one, but no one will dishonor her son.

     So by her logic, an anti-Iraq-war parent could rightfully say that if Karen were doing a pro-Iraq publicity thing, that she were dishonoring their son.

     By all accounts Spc. Casey Sheehan, Mrs. Sheehan's son, was a soldier by choice and by the strength of his character. I did not have the honor of knowing him, but I have read that he attended community college for three years and then chose to join the Army. In August 2003, five months into Operation Iraqi Freedom and after three years of service, Casey Sheehan re-enlisted in the Army with the full knowledge there was a war going on, and with the high probability he would be assigned to a combat area

     Once again, people like this spew this irrelevant he-signed-up eye-roller. No one's disputing that he signed up; no one's claiming that the government kidnapped and forced him to join. This is about someone unnecessarily sent into hellish harm's way based on lies and flip-flops.

     How do you decry that which someone has chosen to do with his life?

     And if milionaire Roger Pumpernickel III's son decided to become a low-paid anti-war activist rather than following in the father's Big Bidness footsteps, this writer would be equally upset over the father decrying what the son chose to do with his life, right?

     How does a mother dishonor the sacrifice of her own son?

     See above.

     Mrs. Sheehan has become the poster child for all the negativity surrounding the war in Iraq

     Very good! I'd have never put two and two together as incisively as this.

     In a way it heartens me to have all this attention paid to her, because that means others in her position now have the chance to be heard. Give equal time to other loved ones of fallen heroes. Feel the intensity of their love, their pride and the sorrow.

     Hmmm, so above he abhors what she's doing but now writes that what she's doing can bring the opportunity to "give equal time to other loved ones of fallen heroes". Yeah, that's something to abhor, all right.

     We as a country made a collective decision.

     The majority of the politicians who voted for the war made the collective decision. Don't be bringing this "we" crap into the equation. His adding the word "collective" is a puerile ploy to justify the "we".

     We must now live up to our decision and not deviate until the mission is complete.

     Well, the mission is complete, isn't it? It was to disarm Hussein from WMD; there were no WMD; Hussein was disarmed of WMD before the war and is stil disarmed of WMD. Oh, that's right: Bush & Co. have turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists and fueled an insurgency consisting largely of Iraqis taking exception to an occupying force that's killed tens of thousands of innocent civilian Iraqis. Funny how the writer doesn't bother to mention this.

     To this day, I am still searching for that honor. Today, those who defend our freedom every day do so as volunteers with a clear and certain purpose.

     Eh, eh, eh! Don't be dragging this "defend our freedom" thing into it. Iraq was never a threat to our freedom and thus it wasn't being defended. Throwing this into the equation in my view is dishonoring the troops because it has nothing to do with why the troops are over there.

     Today, they have in their commander in chief someone who will not allow us to sink into self-pity

     Who lied and flip-flopped this country into the very same war that's getting them killed and maimed. But, oh well, he's such a brave man with his steely resolve that "we" will stay the course in Iraq while he cools his heels at his makeshift dude ranch with a security detail that makes Elvis' former security detail look like a pot-bellied, rent-a-cop one by comparison. Boy, how brave George "Bring 'Em On/I Air National Guarded My Way Out of Serving in Vietnam" Bush is!

     Those who lost their lives believed in the mission

     Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know this writer talked to every single solitary soldier who lost their lives. Hmmm, a bit hypocritical: the writer insists Sheehan doesn't speak for all parents yet he speaks for all the dead soldiers. Plus, even if they "all" did, if they believed in disarming Hussein of WMD but after finding out their mission was made-up bollocks, did they all believe in the flip-flop "spreading freedom" mission after? Inconveneint questions like this conveniently go unasked.

     that this is a better and safer world we now live in.

     Attacking a country that was no threat to us, possessed no WMD, yet has been turned into a breeding ground for terrorists and a recruitment tool for al Qaeda has made this a "better and safer world"? Uh, yeah.

     To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too.

     Three problems: One, the writer falsely wrote that "all" of the dead soldiers believed in the mission (and, mind you, he's not even clear on which of the missions he's referring to; he's using the singular "mission" instead of the plural "missions" to cover for Bush's flip-flopping, it seems to me), so he can't aver that we all need to believe in the mission same as them because he doesn't know they all believed in it; two, according to this "logic", if our troops are sent on a lie-filled mission that's getting them maimed and killed, we need to still blindly and obediently support it -- and, of course, give a free pass to people like Dick "I Had Other Priorities" Cheney's lying that the insurgency is in its "last throes". For a writer who purports to favor freedom, he's sure sounding very anti-freedom in his stance that Americans should support what they don't (the war) while heinously using the lives of our troops to stifle the voices of the ones who don't support it. How very American of him.

     We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us.

     (yawn)

     Honor their service.

     By saying you know all of them supported the mission (which one?, of course) when you don't know they all supported the mission is honoring them? Using them to try to silence critics of your flip-flopping little boy king? This is honoring them? I'd hate to see what the writer's idea of dishonoring them is.

     Never dishonor them by giving in.

     "Giving in"? Uh, giving in as demanding your government be held accountable for their lies about a full-fledged war, as supporting the troops by doing this rather than sticking your head in the sand and obediently toeing the Bushie line?

     They never did.

     The writer wants to imply that "giving in" is questioning the war, and yet, again, he hadn't spoken to all of the dead soldiers so he in no way knows that they all didn't "give in".

     And let me close with that timeless Theodore Roosevelt quote that definitely cuts across the grain of this writer's beliefs:

     "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public"

     Succinctly put, yes?

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/18/2005 @ 3:00pm

394. DERMOR- you are right. my husband has been to Iraq twice, the second time at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. While he was up all night guarding the place, many of the Haliburton contractors were having parties, enjoying themselves, while making twice as much money than my husband. He was furious while he was there, he said the contractors didn't respect the marines that were keeping them safe (my husband's a marine). It's a shame that they make so much more than the military.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 3:00pm

395. I think there difference there is that Germany and Japan were agressors, and the Allies we truly fighting for their way of life.

     Posted by Dermor at 08/18/2005 @ 3:02pm

396. were truly fighting, sorry.

     Posted by Dermor at 08/18/2005 @ 3:02pm

397. Dermor,

     Oh, and this may be off point somewhat, but if it were biologically possible, I would want to have Kevin Collin's babies.

     Ah, I should have looked you up three years ago when I spent two weeks in Dublin and Donegal! Wanted to permanently live over there; with the babies, hell, I could have easily been granted residence. Damn, the bad timing!

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/18/2005 @ 3:05pm

398. JM2626,

     Hope this makes you feel better, but when I found myself driving past a Halliburton office in Dallas last year I made sure to give it the big finger until I was past the property. Felt like a shower afterward in light of the immoral stink that plays gives off.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/18/2005 @ 3:07pm

399. FREIHEIT, First of all, after I stopped laughing, I tried to think of a situation where ANY two countries could "invade each other" as you put it. I think it would have to be prior to the 20th century (the century in which total war, national mobilization, was developed to an advanced degree.)

     If an army is pouring across your border, how do you jump your entire army over the invaders so that you may pour over their border? Maybe if the countries shared a really long border...

     But anyway, to answer your question, the US did in 1952 in Guatemala, deposing the popularly elected Jacobo Arbenz. Of course we used a proxy army from Honduras to do it, but the operation was the CIA's bailiwick.

     I don't know if that was the last time, though.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 3:08pm

400. Kevin, next time take a dozen eggs. I'll buy

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 3:10pm

401. Kevin Collins- YOU are a genius!- loved it Eh, eh, eh! Don't be dragging this "defend our freedom" thing into it. Iraq was never a threat to our freedom and thus it wasn't being defended. Throwing this into the equation in my view is dishonoring the troops because it has nothing to do with why the troops are over there

     Those who lost their lives believed in the mission

     Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know this writer talked to every single solitary soldier who lost their lives. Hmmm, a bit hypocritical: the writer insists Sheehan doesn't speak for all parents yet he speaks for all the dead soldiers. Plus, even if they "all" did, if they believed in disarming Hussein of WMD but after finding out their mission was made-up bollocks, did they all believe in the flip-flop "spreading freedom" mission after? Inconveneint questions like this conveniently go unasked.

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 3:11pm

402. the last post shows my fav parts of your Intriguing message

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 3:14pm

403. FREIHEIT, OK, after checking to see if the Sandinistas were elected in Nicaragua, I can give you another example. "The Sandinistas were victorious in the national election of November 4, 1984. The election was certified as free and fair by international observers allowed into the country by the Sandinistas, although certain groups, principally the Nicaraguan political opposition, and the Reagan administration disputed this..."

     Again the US invaded, again using a proxy army of Contras.

     I am certain the results of investigating Chile in '72, Iran in the '50's, etc. would reveal more examples. Please brush up on your history. Thanks.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 3:17pm

404. Oops, FREIHEIT, I had the date wrong for Chile. It was 1970:

     from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chile:

     "Allende received a plurality of the votes cast, getting 36% of the vote against Alessandri's 34% and Tomic's 27%. This was not the first time the leading candidate received less than half of the popular vote. Such had been the case in every post-war election, save that of 1968 -- Alessandri himself was elected president in 1958 with 31%. In the absence of an absolute majority, the Chilean constitution required the president-elect to be confirmed by the Chilean parliament. This procedure had previously been a near-formality, yet became quite fraught in 1970. After assurances of legality on Allende's part, and in spite of pressure from the U.S. government, Tomic's Christian Democrats voted together with Allende's supporters to confirm him as president. Allende received 153 votes to Alessandri's 35.

     Immediately after the election, the United States expressed its disapproval and raised a number of economic sanctions against Chile. In addition, the CIA's website reports that the agency aided three different Chilean opposition groups during that time period and "sought to instigate a coup to prevent Allende from taking office(.)" [1] (emphasis mine) (For years, the CIA denied having taken any active role in the events that unfolded after 1970. But a Chile Declassification Project during the Clinton Administration released tens of thousands of documents, including 700 controversial CIA documents that the Directorate of Operations had refused to release--records of U.S. covert operations between 1968 and 1975 to destabilize the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and, after the violent 1973 coup, to bolster the military regime of Augusto Pinochet.[2])"

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 3:22pm

405. JM2626, TJBEHRENSI, HMAN23: I agree that Ms. Sheehan has a right to speak out against the war and to ask the president to respond to her outcry.

     I was listening to Rush during lunch today. (what's that hissing sound?) A very articulate, calm and seemingly intelligent man who lives in Crawford called the show. He decided to go down and check out the protest. He said there was a small group of Bush supporters there. In this group was a young girl whose brother was killed in Irag. The Sheehan group had put a white cross up with her brother's name on it without the families consent. She was upset with this and she removed the cross. According to this caller a group encircled her and began shouting foul things such as her brother was a baby killer. The caller did not say if Ms. Sheehan was in the area, but one would have to conclude that she knows what happened. Will she publicly condemn these acts and will this group of people be told to leave?

     One has to question the motovation of the participants.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/18/2005 @ 3:23pm

406. USAPRIDE- I have seen no evidence of this on the news and I can't really take "A very articulate, calm and seemingly intelligent man who lives in Crawford"'s word for it. But I understand your concern

     Posted by jm2626 at 08/18/2005 @ 3:30pm

407. Wow. What a sucky comment forum this is. It makes you wonder what the point of reader comments is at The Nation.

     It's the same for all the columnists.

     It might be improved if there were at least threads (Kos) or better threads with a ranking system (slashdot).

     The New York Times forum has the same problem... unthreaded and incoherent...

     Threads would enable people who wanted to have mean angry rants to do that, and people who wanted to communicate to do that simultaneously.

     It would sort things out into semi-intelligent threads of thought.

     Every time I come to The Nation, a great magazine, I'm confronted with just the stupidest least intelligent comment list.... poisoned by a few right wing looneys, and the invitable counter response.

     The right wingers win every time in this shouting match, not because they are unresponded to, but because they degrade the value of the conversation to less than zero... who would read through this crap?

     I really think that the Nation does itself a disservice by being so low tech that it doesn't have threaded comments, comment ranking of some kind.

     Yes, it is complicated to do, but anything worth doing (a comment system) is worth doing well.

     The Nation's comment system is just not worth doing in its current form.

     Posted by humanbean at 08/18/2005 @ 3:36pm

408. "What's the prescription for making the pro-U.S democracy movement in Iraq take root? "

     Kill them all and put in people we want in place.

     Ooops! did I just say that?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/18/2005 @ 3:36pm

409. Everyone, I need your input. How many of the people who've lost loved ones in Iraq, yet continue to support the president and the war, do so just because they fear that ending the war now will leave them feeling like the sacrifice was in vain?

     I am afraid this is the case. It is a horrible hook in those families, keeping them locked into supporting the war because they see no meaningful alternative.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 3:36pm

410. OKSG, Your plan for installing democracy by "appointing" the people we want is self-contradictory.

     You can do better than that crap...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 3:39pm

411. BEAUSOLEIL wrote:

     it's called Al-Qaeda, and they meet frequently in Iran, Iraq, Syria

     What a coincidence! Those are the same three countries Dick Cheney did business with while at Halliburton through the company's foreign subsidiaries!

     Afghanistan's mountain region

     Like Tora Bora. This is where bin laden and some of his top people were cornered in, but instead of sending in loads of U.S. troops the commanders outsourced the job to corrupt Afghan warlords, and, alas, bin Laden escaped. Of course, when Kerry brought this up during the campaign, the administration claimed that it was never 100% that bin Laden was at Tora Bora, then eariler this year, it was confirmed that bin Laden was in fact at Tora Bora.

     and Hollywood.

     It's amusing. I read and hear all this anti-Hollywood stuff from Bushies, yet, golly gee, go to any fancy cineplex in a Republican-dominated neighborhood and you'll find vehicles in that parking lot every day of the week and the parking lot packed on the weekends; and of course go to your video stores and you'll see plenty of people there, too. So apparently Bushies hate Hollywood yet they give money for a non-necessity activity like movie-watching that lines Hollywood's pockets. Hmmmm, more than a little bit hypocritical, yes?

     Why don't you pack it up and get to work on that book deal before your (ex)husband beats you to it?

     It's good to know you're not berating the wife of a Marine who served in Iraq while you no doubt did your chickenhawk warmongering from the comfort of your yellow easy chair.

     All the best,

     Those Americans Who Actually Want to Win

     Should read:

     Those Americans Who Pom-Pom War As Long As We Don't Have to Fight In It

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/18/2005 @ 3:39pm

412. Typical right-winger: Cindy Sheehan is exploiting her sons death for her own selfish agenda.

     Christopher Reeve was exploiting his injury by advocating for cures for spinal injuries.

     MADD members are exploiting the deaths of their children by pushing for stronger punishments and deterrents of drunk drivers.

     The Susan G. Komen Foundation is exploiting a sister's death by raising money for breast cancer research through its highly successful Race for the Cure series.

     Hey, right-wingers, it isn't that hard. She went to Crawford BY HERSELF, not after some move-on.org fund drive. The movement found her. Of course she doesn't speak for all parents of dead soldiers. I don't remeber her ever making the comment: "And to all of those mothers who support Bush, you're a bunch of idiots..." Actually, to the contrary. She and a pro-Bush father of another dead soldier actually met, talked, the EMBRACED. He may not have left with a change of heart, but he left with a feeling that those who want peace are JUST AS HUMAN as he is.

     The story in the media now is not what SHE is saying as much as it is the illogical right-wing reaction to it. So keep wallowing around in the sewer, cons, YOU are the ones that are furthering the cause for peace by your despicable behaviour.

     Posted by indianabob at 08/18/2005 @ 3:43pm

413. Why is it that so many whacko right-wingers read your column, John? They must find what you say more interesting than the b.s. spewed by the frozen-hearted blow-hards all over the conservative media. Keep it up. Every hateful response from these fanatics is an indication that you're right on target.

     SJZ

     Posted by steve zeoli at 08/18/2005 @ 3:45pm

414. Posted by KEVIN COLLINS 08/18/2005 @ 3:39pm

     Another GREAT post. You are on a roll.

     Posted by indianabob at 08/18/2005 @ 3:45pm

415. TO JOHN NICHOLS: Your comments regarding the critics of Cindy Sheehan are nothing but criticisms of the critics -- they do not address the substance. I think you owe it to your readers to specifically address the controversial statements spoken by and written by Cindy Sheehan, specifically regarding the war on terror, the war against the Taliban, who the real terrorists are, what was behind 9/11, and whether Israel has a right to exist. (One's position on the war in Iraq is irrelevant to whether one regards Sheehan's statements as extreme or nutty. I remember from the days of the Vietnam war there were a number of anti-war extremists who did not represent the mainstream movement and who actually harmed the anti-war effort.)

     Posted by RonS at 08/18/2005 @ 3:48pm

416. Our Soldiers didn't enlist in the Service to be scrificial KAMIKAZI victims of IED's and any mother paying attention to current events must be feeling the same as Mrs. Sheehan. Warfare in Desert terrain is Armored Tank country. Forcing Infantry to be sitting ducks in Hummers, is warfare on the cheap. Where are all the ABRAMS Tanks? Does anyone remember Rommel and Patton and what they used in Africa in WW2?? Maybe Fuel for Tanks is more costly than the lives of mere-volunteers.

     Posted by dstff6 at 08/18/2005 @ 3:57pm

417. >

     Rio Bravo: is this any worse than Bush using the death of other people's children on 9/11 as a political soapbox? At least Cindy Sheehan is a citizen speaking from her own grief rather than a politician using the deaths of others for his own cynical political gain.

     >

     I'm not sure how you can deascribe a "bring the troops home now" stnace as being despotic. The "cheapening their memory" line is just bullshit from political hacks who want to advance their own agenda. If we take Ms Sheehan's position that the war is not beiong fought for good reasons and not being managed well then it does no honor to her sons memory to allow more soldiers to die over there. As far as Casey Sheehans commitment goes we don't know a thing about it. Sheehan could have enlisted for any number of reasons and held any number of political beliefs. The idea that a soldier, even a serving soldier, will always support the battles he is ordered to fight is absrud. See Smedley Butler, Ron Kovic, and John Kerry for examples of soldiers who turned against the wars they served in.

     Posted by prestorjon at 08/18/2005 @ 4:22pm

418. To All Concerned: It does my heart so good when the right(republicans) shows their true colors and moral values. Bush and his crew are not only liars, but they are disgusting as well. Cindy frightens President Bush. Remember, he needs a script to act. Cindy's courage is humbling. Her honesty is a shining light that can't be turned off. Bush and his cronies are shaking in their cowboy boots.

     Posted by spacecadet at 08/18/2005 @ 4:35pm

419. Home sick and catching up on the news the networks/cable don't bother to give us and found this blog.

     I HAVE A SPLITTING HEADACHE FROM READING MOST OF IT. BOY THAT WAS A DUMB THING TO DO.

     Just so I leave no one guessing, I am a liberal. (Pls. note spelling and punctuation.)

     Aside from the contents of this blog being pretty much off the subject (who cares?) and refraining from making personal attacks (can't help yourselves?), I am left terribly saddened by how far apart the poles are. But why is the notion of standing up to an elected (or crowned) leader WHO WORKS FOR US AND IS PAID BY US, ALL OF US, so repulsive to the more right-leaning bloggers in here? An incorrect bank statement, you question. Wrong charge on a credit statement, you question. Your kids' teachers you question. That is all seen has correct and honorable; in fact if you didn't do it, you'd been seen as defective or immature. And yet, standing up to this president is wrong? Insane? Political? Moronic? Unpatriotic?

     Really? I don't think so. No one is beyond accountability, as much as this president seems to think he is. If your auto mechanic or doctor pulled some of the same shenanigans (lying, over-billing, etc.), everyone of you would be incensed, not just the liberals.

     Cindy Sheehan should be applauded for her efforts; or at least politely tolerated by those who disagree with her. Or just for the sake of imagining... what if she is right? That is, what if he actually anwers the unanswerable and comes clean? Don't we have a right to know.. this man is acting in your name? Do you approve?

     And for the record, the "family members" for the most part who disagree with her are her in-laws. Anyone of you out there ever have in-law problems? Her husband and she agreed on the divorce months ago (although from what I have read, politically they are in agreement if that is required to validate her position). Anyone out there ever lose a child, or know of some family who did? How many couples are still together? And her meeting with Bush? Anyone out there ever change your mind about anything upon further reflection or knowledge? Ever? It's called GROWTH. Also keep in mind if you can, she met with the president less than two months after her son's death.. Just guessing here that her grief was still pretty raw and she was probably in an emotional haze. How incredibly unempathetic can some of you be?

     Just a few other things.

     Was that you Todd who is OK with the whole war for oil thing? Just curious, what are your plans for when it gets too expensive for you buy, or when it just plain is gone? Oil is a race to the bottom and if nothing else, this president's lack of vision can potentially destroy this country. I live in the NE and am installing a pellet furnace in September. I will end my dependence of heating oil at least and gladly say good riddance to the whole ME.

     To armybrat, you have my complete sympathies. I lost a dear friend in 9/11 and a penpal in Iraq after volunteering for booksforsoldiers. The constant fear and dreading and worrying has got to be near as awful as losing someone. I hope your brother comes home very, very soon.

     To all of you we're-there-for-the democracy crowd? Look again. It's not happening, especially for the women and religious minorities. Please, don't get me wrong. Hussein was no angel, but his vendettas were targeted primarily at political rivals. (Please, let's not have the Kurds brought into this again, or the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Hussein...) Women in Hussein's Iraq had tons of freedoms then they don't have now or won't have if the fundalmentalists their way. FYI it has been policy of this administration NOT to deal with any of the womens' groups. Thank you very much, Mr. Bush. So, I'll say it right now: if living under Hussein meant I could marry who I chose, own and bequeathe property, not be subjected to barbaric dress restrictions, have an education and employment I enjoyed, and not live in terror of being killed "honorably".... and I just had to tow the party line, guess what? I'd take THAT life over the non-life I have now (or will have).

     Oh, and while we're on the topic of Mr. Hussein.. You guys might want to read the recent article in the UK Independent by Robert Fisk, one of the few reporters who actually leaves the Green Zone and talks to people, THE people, and not the military PR people. The most recent article talks about the overflowing mortuaries and the tortured and ravaged conditions of the bodies that come in, when they can get them. (Dare I even mention lack of AC in the country without electricity?) Apparently, the morgues are a whole lot busier than when Hussein was in power. Hmmmmmm.. Can you add 2+2?

     And before one of you pipes up that Hussein did those things in secret so we don't know how many people really were murdered? Nope. No sale. Terror and fear works really well for dictators (and presidents)... no need to hide anything there. In fact, just the exact opposite.

     GOTOBEABUNDY... well, you're kind of right. I think we skidded by as a country with the 2000 election, but to elect him AGAIN (or not elect him as the case is well made), we would appear to be uninformed nuts. Unfortunately, there is a large element among us who does fit that description. I work with some of them and see how little time is spent reading or travelling or actively pursuing information other than the headlines or fox news. And when I dispute them in some discussion, and get "I didn't know that, wow. Hmmmmm" and then that's where it ends, it drives me crazy. One in 20 will actually be stirred enough to look further on a topic; I suppose that's something. But there are also plenty of people in this country who are trying to change things and know there are many things to be ashamed of. (To all of you right wingers out there, do not type one word on this blog to disagree with my statement unless you know about such people as Leo Strauss, the Carlyle Group, the Koch Brothers, Mohammed Mossadeq or Smedley Butler. OK?) And these are the people who really do care about the future and see, as we're heading, it doesn't look too good. FYI righties, if you think this person(gotobeabundy) is so off the wall, there was a very disturbing article in the Sydney Herald (that's Australia folks, one of our supporters in Iraq?) about the treatment of American students down under, and the harrasssment and threats that they have to put up with. Now, why would that happen?

     To Kevin and ILOVEPHYSICS.. (OK to be fair, I'll include FREIHEIT and Todd) you guys work so hard to be clear, but there will not likely be a common meeting ground. The best thing you can all do would be to support HR 550 or go to Rush Holt's Congressional website to find out about it. Surely if you're all convinced you're right, there really should be nothing to lose here, yes? Or are you afraid of democracy?

     Let me offer you a quote from Tom Delay: "You can support the troops but not the president." HHmmmmm check it out. Oh, never mind, I'll just paste the whole thing in; these are quotes from the right commenting of Clinton's plans to go into KOSOVO:

     "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

     "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

     "[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

     "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

     "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

     "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

     "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

     "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

     Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action.

     And my final point... thanks for hanging in for those of you who did.. This president will be damned by history as probably the worst (so far). Beside the arrogance and the dishonesty and the pathological greed, this is an administration that has no vision for the future, NONE. Now, if that lack of vision effected only us, that would be bad enough, but it doesn't. What we do effects the entire planet and its inhabitants. (Although China may finish us all off with some hideous disease brewing in their over-populated ever-increasingly-contaminated country.. Forget the terrorists already.) There is something out there called GLOBAL WARNING. Todd, is it OK with you if this administration continues to ignore science? Let me leave you with a little fact for you all to dwell upon. Back about 500 years ago in the Little Ice Age, it took only 4 YEARS, FOUR YEARS, F-O-U-R YEARS for the climate of England to chill to the climate of Greenland. Think that through, with all the implications and then tell me you're feeling all secure and prepared for it. And if you think it's nonsense, then GO READ AND LET SOME SUN LIGHT IN THE DARK SPACES OF YOUR BRAINS AND IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN YOU MIGHT REALLY CARE TO DO THIS. Just a suggestion.

     Oy, that's enough. At least the headache is gone.

     Good luck to you all.

     Posted by holliger at 08/18/2005 @ 4:36pm

420. Holliger,

     "I am left terribly saddened by how far apart the poles are. But why is the notion of standing up to an elected (or crowned) leader WHO WORKS FOR US AND IS PAID BY US, ALL OF US, so repulsive to the more right-leaning bloggers in here?"

     I don't have a problem at ALL with you standing up and asking tough questions! Dissent is the most important form of a true democracy right?

     I sure as hell was standing up and asking tough questions about Billy Boy's special under the oval office table favors he was receiving from Monica, and how and if that was affecting his job performance as President!

     I applaud you for your dissent, and would never expect you to shut up and be quiet.

     Sincerely,

     Todd (one of the evil conservatives on the blog)

     p.s. Physics and I are getting together for steaks and beer, want to join us?

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/18/2005 @ 4:47pm

421. Todd.. Not evil, I don't believe in evil.. but I would say misdirected. As to Billy Boy, I would hazard a guess that he probably performed better in the Oval Office (no pun intended, really) and probably looked forward to going to work. But do I dare say it? Ok, I will. Bush might spend more time in the Oval Office and less time on vacation if.....

     Glad you and Physics are getting together for beer and steaks. And thanks for the offer. You know there is a leftie plot to breed righties out of existence? Watch the wiles of those female lefties.

     Good luck.

     Posted by holliger at 08/18/2005 @ 4:54pm

422. KK's post of 5/18/05 3:00pm

     What unbelievable arrogance you display.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/18/2005 @ 4:55pm

423. FREIHEIT... You are too funny. Enjoy, but beware, it's bad science... but what a ride!!

     Posted by holliger at 08/18/2005 @ 4:56pm

424. KK's post of 5/18/05 3:00pm

     What unbelievable arrogance you display.

     Translation: I can't logically refute any of Kevin's points so I'll just do the Jimmy Junior High thing by calling him arrogant.

     You'll go far, amigo.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/18/2005 @ 5:09pm

425. Kevin,

     Are you so arrogant as to think you are "KK"? :-) You've done a great job in your counterpointing. I also wanted to concur with your love of Ireland. I also spent a couple weeks there in 2002. My wife and I feel more comfortable knowing there is an option if the string on the political pendulum breaks as it continues its movement neither to the left nor to the right, but to the bizarre.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/18/2005 @ 5:15pm

426. Are you so arrogant as to think you are "KK"?

     Arrogant me. Next thing you know, I'll be telling the murderous forces in Iraq to "Bring 'em on!".

     You've done a great job in your counterpointing.

     Thanks much.

     I also wanted to concur with your love of Ireland. I also spent a couple weeks there in 2002. My wife and I feel more comfortable knowing there is an option if the string on the political pendulum breaks as it continues its movement neither to the left nor to the right, but to the bizarre.

     I envy the heck out of you this is a viable option. For me, it's not being that I couldn't get a work visa over there.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/18/2005 @ 6:27pm

427. As I read some of the comments posted here, I'm saddened that much of the time we progressives try to use logical arguements to convince the radical, righteous republikan right of the justification and honor of a mother who seems to want to know what in hell we accomplished by sending her son to die in Iraq? I'm of the opinion that the answer to that question is obvious, even to a blind person.

     We are making a bunch of republikan owned amerikan companies richer, we are disproving a cherished NeoCon theory about forcing demokracy on the Middle East and we are expected to believe that leaving would 'dishonor' those who have already died there in the bargain. Is that statement an over simplification . . . of course it is, but you have to be aware of the comprehension level of your audience when many are impaired by the blinders they choose to wear these days.

     I believe the biggest mistake most of us to make is that we continue to think that somehow logical thinking and discussion would have any impact on the radical, righteous republikan right. It hasn't, and unfortunately never will.

     I believe that the only thing that can right the wrong that this 'war' represents and change the course of this country is to fight fire with fire . . . remove the radical, righteous republikan right from political office starting in our own hometown, our county, our state and eventually our country. Replace the 'business' of politics with government of, for and 'BY' the people.

     I personally will never vote for any radical, righteous republikan again for anything, including, but not limited to dogcatcher . . . next thing you know we'll be arguing over whether a mother dog grieves over the pups they may euthanize in the name of 'a better life'.

     Posted by Sleighboy at 08/18/2005 @ 6:29pm

428. HOLLIGER, Afraid of democracy? Where did you get that? Besides, you were a little late - those quotes you cut and pasted were cut and pasted before. Still, thanks for the input. Now I gotta run (to China, since I am so afraid of democracy...)

     One more thing before I leave, though: Your post started out mentioning something about posts being off topic, and ended with global warming. Does anyone else find that funny?

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 7:09pm

429. Everyone: If pulling out of Iraq today dishonors the troops who have been killed and injured, what does it do for the troops who will be killed or injured tomorrow?

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 7:13pm

430. Bush will simply (and bravely, I tell ya) reply: Death before dishonor!

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/18/2005 @ 8:14pm

431. Sleighboy--I live in a small southern town of 25,000--The overwhelming majority of these people are educated, fair, and loving people. The chance of a democrat getting elected to any office is slim. The people in this community think that you are: not in touch with reality, silly, ignorant (especially about the south),destructive, and wimpish. They see people like you as having a sick dislike of your own country. They don't want to be governed by the United Nations, they don't want to be heavily taxed, many like to hunt and want to keep their guns, most are Christians and want to be able to practice their religions where ever and when ever they want, they want their kids to grow up in a safe community with a good education (and by the way in this community they get both), they don't like war--but when we find ourselves in one they are all about winning, not apeasing or retreating. The challenge for the democrat party is how are they going to get these people's vote. The majority of the liberal views on this board are abhorant to them. So Sleighboy, how are you going to vote the "repubikans" out when the democrat party continues to drift to the radical left represented so clearly on this board? I am sure you can have success in places like San Francisco, but as the last few Congressional elections proved, that is not enough. Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/19/2005 @ 09:09am

432. Len,

     It appears we might live in neighboring towns, except those in mine do not get a great education. But you know, even here there is diversity within the apparent uniformity. I was in a sports bar two nights ago and began talking with another guy there. I was initially uncomfortable because he talked about how it was becoming increasingly difficult to find good hunting places, and he rattled off a list of four or five large mammals he is fond of shooting. As I let that slide past, we began to talk more about broader issues. We did not get down to the war itself, but he was quite well aware that our actions were causing the US harm. He was able to distinguish between international opinions that matter and others that might not matter (for instance, what people in Uruguay think of us is not quite as crucial at this time as what our more prominent allies might think), and realized that we might be harming our long-term goals for short-term gains.

     One of the keys for changing election results is convincing guys like this one that we're not going to take his rifles, but we are going to keep his family safe; we're not going to infringe on his religious beliefs, but we are going to make it safe for all to worship as they choose; etc. If the democrats can be happy about anything resulting from the Bush administration, it is that the Bushies have done more to open divides within the Republicans than any administration in memory. The libertarians and the economic conservatives who are social liberals, and the other groups might just be peeled away from the evangelicals and Neo-Cons.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/19/2005 @ 09:57am

433. The libertarians and the economic conservatives who are social liberals, and the other groups might just be peeled away from the evangelicals and Neo-Cons.

     This is an interesting idea, but don't hold your breath. Every political party is made up of idealogues and single-issue voters who otherwise have little in common. They're always compromising for the good of the party. The groups you cite have more in common than you may think.

     In my experience "social conservatives" aka "South Park Conservatives" tend to sympathize with the Wilsonian ideals espoused by so-called "Neoconservatives". You're correct that many libertarians are against the war, but they're tied to the Republican party through other issues, such as opposition to gun control.

     There is a tremendous amount of misinformation about "Neocons", a term which is often used simply as an anti-Semitic slur by the radical left. They believe that regime change can be a moral good when the end result is a constitutional democracy.

     In my opinion, the sheer hatred spewing out from the left only strengthens the bonds between various factions in the GOP. I know people are tired of jibes against Michael Moore and Moveon.org, but the truth is that they're some of the best recruiting tools Republicans ever had.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 08/19/2005 @ 10:41am

434. BEAUSOLEIL - "sheer hatred spewing out from the left" ? And how does it compare to the hatred spewing out from the right? Perhaps you've listened to Limbaugh and heard how he refers to the libs - and he's not even the most extreme. I'd guess that the assaults from the right are also galvinizing us libs, strengthening the bonds as it were.

     Posted by Fishbite at 08/19/2005 @ 11:06am

435. Why discuss the messenger? It's another Rovian technique. Many citizens want to know what Bush's "noble cause" in Iraq is. Many citizens want to know why Bush won't send his daughters to help in his "noble cause." Sheehan isn't getting answers from Bush, so I'll ask it here of the "conservatives". What is Bush's "noble cause" that he says so many have died for? Why don't YOU or your family enlist now and go fight for his undefined "noble cause"? Any other blather from your keyboards is nonsense and a waste of time for this nation. Answer the questions and stop the obfuscation!

     Posted by Everbody at 08/19/2005 @ 11:42am

436. So after making my way through all 538 posts, I have come to the conclusion that I am now officially over Cindy Sheehan for now. I don't disagree with what she's doing, I've just reached critical mass in my brain. Oh, and I love you, Kevin Collins!! I must confess that I did skim through a bit whilst searching for more of your posts. Keep up the good work, and sorry I missed out on those $3 pitchers!

     Posted by neko-chan at 08/19/2005 @ 11:48am

437. The tactics of Cindy Sheehan, the leftist media, and the anti-American, anti-war left, makes me sick. This story has gone from a grieving mother who lost a son to a freaking circus. What kind of grieving mother needs a PR Firm and political consultants to help her understand her lost? Cindy Sheehan doesn't need to see the President. She needs to see a shrink! If she wants to know why her son died maybe she should look to her supporters for answers. Maybe her son would be alive today if all you anti-American Bush haters supported her son while he was in harms way instead of hoping he fails. Maybe her son would be alive if the Iraqi people told us about the gunman in the area. Our troops don't get the intelligence they need because they are afraid we will cut and run. They know what you anti-war libs acheived for the people of Vietnam and Cambodia. They know what happened to them after Bush Senior left them high and dry after the first gulf war. They know they will be slaughtered like sheep for cooperating with the US if we leave. They know you anti-war, anti Zionist, anti-Bush, anti-military, unpatriotic libs give the killers of Casey Sheehan incentives to kill more of our son's and daughters. They know how the liberal press likes to expliot the war dead for political gain. They know that anti war dissent actually prolongs the war (as it did in Vietnam) and adds to their misery.

     All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. We are Americans first, liberal or a Conservative second. If you don't like the leadership in this country, fine! If you don't agree with policy, fine! As Americans, you should support those who were sent into harms way first and settle your political differences in the voter booth second. We can debate whether they should be there till the cows come home. Thats not my point. My point is that when our troops are sent into harms way we have an obligation to support them first even if we disagree on the mission. What really pisses me off! Is all you so called anti-American, anti-war, anti-Bush progressive libs, KNOW DAMN WELL of the slaughter to come if we cut and run. You know damn well that if we fail our credibility as a nation will be ruined forever and our lives will be at risk for generations to come. You all know this and yet you could care less.

     Posted by redstateman at 08/19/2005 @ 11:53am

438. REDSTATEMAN:

     Yes, we are all Americans, so long as we adhere to your point of view. We are only allowed to voice opinions on Election Day. I'll try to remember that; and also forget that we live in a reprentative democracy and our leaders get their authority from us.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/19/2005 @ 11:59am

439. "representative democracy"

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/19/2005 @ 11:59am

440. REDSTATEMAN.... I love you. I love your comments. I love your beliefs. I love your opinions on this site. Why? Because your just the sort of imbecile that typifies "Mr average American" and galvanises the rest of the world against your insane culture. Keep talking big fellow. Keep posting. Your beautiful!!!

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/19/2005 @ 12:12pm

441. That right. Our leaders do get their authority from us but, you failed to mention that our leaders get their authority from the "majority" of us. Your just bitter your side didn't win.

     Posted by redstateman at 08/19/2005 @ 12:12pm

442. I am so disappointed. I've been watching the posts closely since late yesterday, and have yet to read anyone blaming Cindy Sheehan for her mother's stroke.

     Posted by drhammer at 08/19/2005 @ 12:16pm

443. Hey gotobeinhell, If everyone hates us so much then why are they kicking the doors down just to get in. Go drink some more KoolAid! Jerk!

     I've got to go.....

     Posted by redstateman at 08/19/2005 @ 12:21pm

444. "I am so disappointed. I've been watching the posts closely since late yesterday, and have yet to read anyone blaming Cindy Sheehan for her mother's stroke. "

     On the other hand, I'm suprised to not read someone blaming Bush, by having one of his evil henchman cause her stroke to bring Cindy away from the media circus and thus help Bush.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/19/2005 @ 12:23pm

445. Says REDSTATEMAN... What really pisses me off! Is all you so called anti-American, anti-war, anti-Bush progressive libs, KNOW DAMN WELL of the slaughter to come if we cut and run. You know damn well that if we fail our credibility as a nation will be ruined forever and our lives will be at risk for generations to come. You all know this and yet you could care less. A little secret my friend...... it's because of people like you that your country long ago lost what little credibility it ever might have had. The US losing credibility? hehehehehe You've made my day with that joke. Your beautiful!!!

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/19/2005 @ 12:27pm

446. Being serious here. Does anybody know how bad of a stroke Ms. Sheehan's mother had? Is she okay?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/19/2005 @ 12:35pm

447. REDSTATEMAN suggests If everyone hates us so much then why are they kicking the doors down just to get in. Go drink some more KoolAid! Jerk! hehehehehe another good joke. You'd believe just about any tripe dished up to you. Maybe your understanding of the world is limited to the US and countries on its border (like Mexico). Yep....there sure are a lot of mexicans wanting to kick your door down to get in. Poor blighters. There's also a lot of Arabs wanting to do the same but their motivations once they get in might be a bit different! Keep deceiving yourself REDSTATEMAN. People like you will never wake up to the fact that you really are hated until some-one actually spits in your face. After wetting yourself, you might then whine ..... "but why did you do that?". hehehehehe "kicking the door down to get in". Your a laugh man!!! Keep it up! I love it!

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/19/2005 @ 12:35pm

448. Actually,

     I'm listening to Limbaugh right now. Stereotypes are there for a reason, I guess.

     I enjoy Air America too, though not as much NPR. Franken is at least entertaining, though Skanky Rhodes makes my stomach churn.

     Red State Man: You're correct. Americans endure insults from supposedly enlightened Europeans, the Chinese, South Americans, and the Arab world -- all the while asking themselves, "why do they keep coming here?" "Why do they devour our popular culture and imitate us?

     You're dead on, pal.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 08/19/2005 @ 12:45pm

449. I think you're right, Beausoleil, that many voters are single-issue people, sometimes even no-people if they have the right "feel" about the candidate. But I think what is happening is that (and I'm holding my breath again) the Republicans are creating a new single issue that can unite those groups I listed. I know several Libertarians who are as furious as I am about the war. I know Reagan Republicans who are angry about the huge waste of resources in Iraq with little hope of returns on our spending. I think that if liberal candidates have the courage to attack Republicans on the war issue, they might just be able to trump any of the other single issues.

     And from one red state man to REDSTATEMAN: "Maybe her son would be alive today if all you anti-American Bush haters supported her son while he was in harms way instead of hoping he fails." I know that hope can work miracles on an individual level, but I'm unaware that a collective hope has ever brought about death. I'd be interested in learning what anti-war people have done to kill our soldiers that in any way compares to what Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bush, etc. have done.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/19/2005 @ 12:55pm

450. Oops

     "I think you're right, Beausoleil, that many voters are single-issue people, sometimes even no-issue people if they have the right "feel" about the candidate."

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/19/2005 @ 12:56pm

451. Yawp,

     You're correct about the anger of many old-style or so-called "paleo-conservatives". John Derbyshire of the National Review is an excellent resource for anti-war libertarians. He's definitely a social conservative, but he's always good at scoring points against the war on terror.

     I recommend his writings highly for those who seek an understanding of this perspective.

     Posted by Beausoleil at 08/19/2005 @ 1:08pm

452. Redstateman,

     First of all, I know you probably left already but fer Chrissakes, it's "you're" not "your." I understand this is a rather informal setting, but YOU'RE about to give me a stroke, too!

     Secondly, how can you make the assumption that disagreeing with the war means we don't support the troops? I have an immense amount of respect for our soldiers, my beef is with the administration that sent them there. In fact, if you were to extend my argument out a little further, you could say that I support the troops so much that I don't want any more of them to die for this farce of a conflict. And please, enough about how the credibility of America is at stake here; we lost credibility in the eyes of the world when this administration decided to invade Iraq. Actually, U.S. credibility had taken quite a beating even prior to that (the 2000 election, the Monica Lewinsky thing, the involvement in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, American continuation of capital punishment, disregard of environmental issues, etc., etc.), but I'm sure our withdrawal from Iraq is really going to be the last straw. No, really.

     Posted by neko-chan at 08/19/2005 @ 1:12pm

453. it is worth noting that while samuel johnson did indeed say that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, ambrose bierce pointed out that johnson was wrong, it is the first. i think bierce has it right, and thus nails the entire bush administration and its apologists (including those who appear here). rs

     Posted by rkscher at 08/19/2005 @ 1:13pm

454. Just to add a current event to your list, NEKO-CHAN: today's story that the adminisration will not offer aid to countries who think they have a right to charge the US with crimes in international court. Where do these countries get the nerve to think that international laws apply to everyone ;-)?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/19/2005 @ 1:16pm

455. BEAUSOLEIL.... Red State Man: You're correct. Americans endure insults from supposedly enlightened Europeans, the Chinese, South Americans, and the Arab world -- all the while asking themselves, "why do they keep coming here?" "Why do they devour our popular culture and imitate us? One thing readily clear of late is that one cannot offer intelligent reasoning/debate/ repudiation to people of below average intelligence and hope they may gain insight. I gave up long ago. Instead its more fun to watch the games and insanity because one thing is for sure.... WHAT COMES AROUND, GOES AROUND! The US as a whole, led by dimwitted simplistic minded conservatives, is on a one way path to some significant hurt in the coming decades. So BEAUSOLEIL, keep deluding yourself until some-one spits in your face as well and after wetting your pants, you'll probably ask the same question as your friend REDSTATEMAN. But be careful of those group hugs. Some of your conservative friends may mistake your intentions (or perhaps get it right). :)

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/19/2005 @ 1:20pm

456. FREIHEIT, Where is your proof that Bush gave Cindy Sheehan's mother a stroke? You should be able to back up your statements with facts, dude... ;-)

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 1:27pm

457. Gotobeabundy,

     Your anger clouds your opinions. You're just proving my point about the hate on the left.

     Someone "spit in my face" already -- On 9/11 when I watched the towers go down.

     Calm down,

     Beau

     Posted by Beausoleil at 08/19/2005 @ 2:29pm

458. I thought liberals proclaimed we live in the age of enlightenment? You could not come to that conclusion by reading the threads of late:

     HOLLIGER wroteThere is something out there called GLOBAL WARNING. Todd, is it OK with you if this administration continues to ignore science? Let me leave you with a little fact for you all to dwell upon. Back about 500 years ago in the Little Ice Age, it took only 4 YEARS, FOUR YEARS, F-O-U-R YEARS for the climate of England to chill to the climate of Greenland. Think that through, with all the implications and then tell me you're feeling all secure and prepared for it. And if you think it's nonsense, then GO READ AND LET SOME SUN LIGHT IN THE DARK SPACES OF YOUR BRAINS

     Out of ignorance, truth can come forth; perhaps casting some light on the Little Ice Age might be transforming and enlightening for liberals.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

     The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling lasting approximately from the mid-14th to the mid-19th centuries. This cooling brought an end to an unusually warm era known as the Medieval climate optimum. There were three maxima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals [1].

     It was initially believed that the LIA was a global phenomenon; it is now less clear that this is true. See Medieval climate optimum for more on this.

     The IPCC, based on Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000 describes the LIA as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C, and says current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.

     Causes Scientists have identified two causes of the Little Ice Age from outside the ocean/atmosphere/land systems: decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. Research is ongoing on more ambiguous influences such as internal variability of the climate system, and anthropogenic influence (Ruddiman). Some have also speculated that depopulation of Europe during the Black Death, and the resulting decrease in agricultural output, may have prolonged the Little Ice Age.

     End of Little Ice Age Beginning around 1850, the world's climate began warming again and the Little Ice Age may be said to have come to an end at that time. Some scientists believe that the Earth's climate is still recovering from the Little Ice Age and that this situation contributes to concerns over human-caused climate change.

     Something wrong here; this seems to indicate that natural causes may have as much or more to do with "global warming than our environmental extremists like Robert Kennedy Jr. and the like would care to admit.

     Than there is the eloguence of language by a few of the "superior" liberals:

     Why is it that so many whacko right-wingers read your column, John? They must find what you say more interesting than the b.s. spewed by the frozen-hearted blow-hards all over the conservative media.

     REDSTATEMAN.... I love you. I love your comments. I love your beliefs. I love your opinions on this site. Why? Because your just the sort of imbecile that typifies "Mr average American" and galvanises the rest of the world against your insane culture. Keep talking big fellow. Keep posting. Your beautiful!!!

     People like you will never wake up to the fact that you really are hated until some-one actually spits in your face. After wetting yourself, you might then whine ..... "but why did you do that?". hehehehehe "kicking the door down to get in". Your a laugh man!!! Keep it up! I love it!

     One thing readily clear of late is that one cannot offer intelligent reasoning/debate/ repudiation to people of below average intelligence and hope they may gain insight. I gave up long ago. Instead its more fun to watch the games and insanity because one thing is for sure.... WHAT COMES AROUND, GOES AROUND! The US as a whole, led by dimwitted simplistic minded conservatives, is on a one way path to some significant hurt in the coming decades. So BEAUSOLEIL, keep deluding yourself until some-one spits in your face as well and after wetting your pants, you'll probably ask the same question as your friend REDSTATEMAN. But be careful of those group hugs. Some of your conservative friends may mistake your intentions (or perhaps get it right). :)

     Posted by GOTOBEABUNDY 08/19/2005 @ 1:20pm

     We also now know (unless this is more subterfuge by gotobeabundy) that he/she is an Aussie either from Queensland or having some affinity for Queensland. Blighter put some spin on it but could have been UK. The giveaway was Bundy in the Handle...

     So, now we are fairly certain this is one of the minority of hardcore leftists from Australia. I sure am glad my friends in Australia bear no resemblance to this person.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/19/2005 @ 2:31pm

459. LL:

     I am still waiting your response to my questions posted at yesterday at 6:16 p.m. on Rothberg's blog. Thanks.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/19/2005 @ 2:53pm

460. LOVE LIBERTY .....a nice place to holiday. One quick point though....does your brain hurt when trying to explain to your conservative Yankee friends that the Liberal party in Australia is the major conservative party? Afterall, you all seem so stuck on using the word "Liberal" as an expletive. "Liberal" has been sullied through your use and abuse in the same way as other words such as "Democracy" and "Freedom". But obviously reality and perception are directly at odds in your country. You actually believe your "Free" hehehehehehe Your in your own version of Nazi Germany 1933 and about as ignorant of it as the Germans were back then. Just swap "neo-con" for "nazi" and "democrat" for "limp wristed observer/participants" and Viola!!

     BEAUSOLEIL .... Left or Right makes no difference. Your all pretty well tarred with the same brush. Someone "spit in my face" already -- On 9/11 when I watched the towers go down. Like I said, after wetting yourself, you might then whine ..... "but why did you do that?" In the big scheme of things when one considers the damage the US has done over the past 100 years, the 11th of Sept attacks on the US were a mere pimple on the bum. The US has obviously made some significant progress in it's world relations since then hasn't it!!! (said tongue in cheek of course).

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/19/2005 @ 3:29pm

461. Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother and that's all. She is going through the stages of grief, the 1st being shock and disbelief,the 2nd anger. She's in stage two of the grieving process. She is not the face of the peace movement, her son An American Soldier is the face of the peace movement. She's not a hero. Her son Casey is a HERO, he's my HERO! She's a mother of a U.S Soldier and from all looks of it,she doesn't seem very proud of him. She must have thought he was pretty stupid too. He wasn't a child,even though he was her son. He was a grown man, who decided that FREEDOM is worth fighting for. Maybe she doesn't think so, and maybe many millions of others don't think FREEDOM is worth fighting for, but if everyone thought that way, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think Casey was one of the most noblelist of Men. I will be forever grateful to him. I will never let his death be in vain, not for as long as I live. I promise to never take my freedom and liberties for granted, but to always remember who purchased them for me, and it wasn't Cindy Sheehan. My son has been in the Army for 9 years. He made that chose himself.Oh I tried to talk him out of it, but he was determined he was going to do it. I didn't send him off to war. He FREELY served HIS country and was proud to do it. What makes anyone think that American's are the only ones who deserve to live in Freedom? You should go to the Blog Iraq the Model and read his open letter to Cindy, she should read it too. THANK YOU CASEY,DOYLE HUFFSTEDLER,SEAN SIMS,MATT MAUPIN, AND ALL THOSE THAT FIGHT FOR FREEDOM FOR FREEDOM LOVEING PEOPLE THANK YOU also to my Son SSGT. DARBY

     Posted by ladarmymom at 08/19/2005 @ 6:05pm

462. Ladarmymom, Thank you for raising such a fine man. Send him my thanks and gratitude. I appreciate everyone who serves our great country. I read that piece in "Iraq the Model". I posted earlier in this maze of blogs. It was a good letter. My thoughts and prayers are with you and I hope your son can come home safe soon. Take care and thanks for reminding us who the real hero's are.

     Posted by redstateman at 08/19/2005 @ 6:29pm

463. Gotobeinhell, Do you hate us because we wouldn't let a convict in or is it because your favorite lamb left you for another man.

     Posted by redstateman at 08/19/2005 @ 6:56pm

464. Thank you for your comments REDSTATESMAN. I will convey your appreciations to him. He is due home on Sept 19th. After serving 9 years with the Army he will be discharged due to medical reasons. If you haven't heard of the webite www.anysoldier.com I would beg of you to go there and send your support to soldier,marine or any member of the Armed Forces....Thank You again..

     Posted by ladarmymom at 08/19/2005 @ 8:18pm

465. Ladarmymom, I sure will. I have sent a few messages already through Sean Hannity's link from his web site. I don't know if this is the same but, I would be happy to do so again. It's the least I can do. I really like reading "Iraq the Model" and all the military blogger links from there. It's a great source to know what's REALLY going on over there. Which is a far cry from whats being said over here. Thanks again, Best Wishes, and God Bless!

     Posted by redstateman at 08/19/2005 @ 11:08pm

466. REDSTATEMAN ..... Gotobeinhell, Do you hate us because we wouldn't let a convict in or is it because your favorite lamb left you for another man. :) oh how shallow is your sence of right and wrong my friend. hehehehehe My wife is a currently serving US officer as I was (ex military officer but NOT US) until I decided to retire. Residence/citizenship would be a mere formality but like diving into a toilet, it's something I don't find an attractive option. And we have children so I'm glad my "favourite lamb" hasn't run off for another man yet. Our children by the way have not got dual citizenship despite the overt and covert pressures we continually face. Seems that your ilk (including immigration officers) can't understand why we would CHOOSE not to have US citizenship for our children.

     LADARMYMOM.... even Hitlers SS and Concentration camp guards had mothers who loved them and felt proud of their service to the Reich. I'm sure they, like you, rationalised their service upon distorted perceptions. Hyena's love their young too but it doesn't stop them ripping out the bowels of other young defenceless animals. A mothers blind love is accepted but not the consequences of that love.

     Posted by REDSTATEMAN

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/20/2005 @ 02:52am

467. it's pretty amazing, the use of labels and "cursing" and the tone of ranting and raving by so many who post, on both sides of the issue. i don't go to these blogs very often because of all the shouting back and forth. i read the article with interest, but within a half hour of reading the responses, i realized that a lot of what was being said had the feel of shouting, and did not carry much civility or respect or reason. not all of it, but a lot. one can be impassioned and still sound respectful. i think this is one of the reasons many of the people i speak with feel that real dialogue and discourse about issues -- well, it's hard to come by.

     i think cindy sheehan has a right to do what he is doing, and i don't really believe in this war. i don't agree with a lot that the adminstration has done. but when we are shouting at each other and using labels as facts, i think we do considerable damage to any logical, reasonable, and thoughtful discussion on any issue, whatever side you are on.

     so keep shouting, if you want, but it turns me off.

     Posted by drd at 08/20/2005 @ 08:30am

468. Best Wishes, and God Bless! Posted by REDSTATEMAN 08/19/2005 @ 11:08pm ....is that the same god that Hitler and all his fellow killers were deferring to with their "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles? How very appropriate.

     Posted by Gotobeabundy at 08/20/2005 @ 08:42am

469. Nice! I found this story on the front page of a Ba'athist website run by followers of Saddam Hussein. I guess that doesn't prove that you're a traitor and enemy of US by the standards of a court of law, but I think most reasonable people could deduct that you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I'll go a step further and say you are a traitor and you are despicable.

     Posted by RWC at 08/20/2005 @ 6:24pm

470. The right supports our military & their families - AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO CARRY THE PARTY LINE/TALKING POINTS/RHETORIC/SPIN/LIES - if not they have no mercy in their viscious, vitriolic smears. Cindy is right to want some answers. I want a war plan that consists of more than 3 words, "stay the course". Of course I always expected more, unlike the the bush voters who were satisfied, during a time of war with a war plan of 3 words. How can these people keep prattling on when that was acceptable to them? I don't know but in my opinion they have absolutly NO credibility. Hence their personal smears of Cindy Sheehan. They cannot defend their policies so they attack the perons. Please, some of you armchair warriors out there defend the policy. Come up with a war plan that is greater than 3 words. Develop a criteria for success. Develop an exit strategy. Tell us how & with whom you will implement it. Lowering expectations as the presidents & all the pundits are doing lately is NOT a strategy. Cute sayings like "freedom is on the march" or "stay the course", "they are evil, we are good", little yellow magnets on your cars will not do. Sitting in your lazy-boys, sipping lemonaide, watching FOX news & cheering on the troops are not good enough. What is your plan? That was your cause is what Cindy wants to know. What is you cause & what is your plan is what a lot of us want to know. Attacking Cindy is just another way to change the subject. Hold her responsible allows this administration to once again slither out of its responsibility. They are never held accountable by the bush lovers. THINK!

     Posted by lucy14 at 08/21/2005 @ 12:44pm

471. The right supports our military & their families - AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO CARRY THE PARTY LINE/TALKING POINTS/RHETORIC/SPIN/LIES - if not they have no mercy in their viscious, vitriolic smears. Cindy is right to want some answers. I want a war plan that consists of more than 3 words, "stay the course". Of course I always expected more, unlike the the bush voters who were satisfied, during a time of war with a war plan of 3 words. How can these people keep prattling on when that was acceptable to them? I don't know but in my opinion they have absolutly NO credibility. Hence their personal smears of Cindy Sheehan. They cannot defend their policies so they attack the perons. Please, some of you armchair warriors out there defend the policy. Come up with a war plan that is greater than 3 words. Develop a criteria for success. Develop an exit strategy. Tell us how & with whom you will implement it. Lowering expectations as the presidents & all the pundits are doing lately is NOT a strategy. Cute sayings like "freedom is on the march" or "stay the course", "they are evil, we are good", little yellow magnets on your cars will not do. Sitting in your lazy-boys, sipping lemonaide, watching FOX news & cheering on the troops are not good enough. What is your plan? That was your cause is what Cindy wants to know. What is you cause & what is your plan is what a lot of us want to know. Attacking Cindy is just another way to change the subject. Hold her responsible allows this administration to once again slither out of its responsibility. They are never held accountable by the bush lovers. THINK!

     Posted by lucy14 at 08/21/2005 @ 12:45pm

472. The right supports our military & their families - AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO CARRY THE PARTY LINE/TALKING POINTS/RHETORIC/SPIN/LIES - if not they have no mercy in their viscious, vitriolic smears. Cindy is right to want some answers. I want a war plan that consists of more than 3 words, "stay the course". Of course I always expected more, unlike the the bush voters who were satisfied, during a time of war with a war plan of 3 words. How can these people keep prattling on when that was acceptable to them? I don't know but in my opinion they have absolutly NO credibility. Hence their personal smears of Cindy Sheehan. They cannot defend their policies so they attack the perons. Please, some of you armchair warriors out there defend the policy. Come up with a war plan that is greater than 3 words. Develop a criteria for success. Develop an exit strategy. Tell us how & with whom you will implement it. Lowering expectations as the presidents & all the pundits are doing lately is NOT a strategy. Cute sayings like "freedom is on the march" or "stay the course", "they are evil, we are good", little yellow magnets on your cars will not do. Sitting in your lazy-boys, sipping lemonaide, watching FOX news & cheering on the troops are not good enough. What is your plan? That was your cause is what Cindy wants to know. What is you cause & what is your plan is what a lot of us want to know. Attacking Cindy is just another way to change the subject. Hold her responsible allows this administration to once again slither out of its responsibility. They are never held accountable by the bush lovers. THINK!

     Posted by lucy14 at 08/21/2005 @ 12:46pm

473. GOTOBEABUNDY - you have a warped mind and a sick,sick heart. I guess if I was a Mother Hyena, I would rip your guts out.

     Posted by ladarmymom at 08/21/2005 @ 12:57pm

474. Gotobeinhell,

     "Seems that your ilk (including immigration officers) can't understand why we would CHOOSE not to have US citizenship for our children."

     Personally, I could care less about understanding why and quite happy of your decision not to do so. Also, If you and your wife hate this country so much then why did she swear to protect and defend it? I'm sure there are some within the chain of command that would like to know about such subversions coming from a US officer. Also, coming from a country that was founded as a penal colony, I find it laughable (hehehehehehe) that you come here and lecture us about our culture. hehehehehehehe! You know Gotobeabunghole, we've been putting up with crap from the likes of you and the rest of the world's ilk since we became a nation. We give more (Federal tax dollars and private donation combined) than any other nation on the face of this planet. Yet, pukes like you can't stand us because we ask that you don't use it against us (which they do anyway)and that we might get a thanks every once in awhile. Instead, we put up with your insults, your whining, your hatred and all the other bull shit from people like you and all the rest of the ungrateful nations. But, thats okay. This is nothing new to us. We're use to it. In fact, its more like as you said, " a mere pimple on the bum". to us. You and the rest of the worlds pukes continually underestimate us as Americans. Even your beloved Furher thought he was just going to have a "quick little war with America". I also wonder how proud the SS moms were when they found out that their sons jobs during the war were to execute civilians and shove them into ovens? Great analogy moron! And you have the nerve to call me an "imbecile". Last but, not least. I'll only have a one more question for you. While you pray to God as LADARMYMOM rips your guts out, ....Would that be "the same god that Hitler and all his fellow killers were deferring to with their "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles? How very appropriate."

     Posted by redstateman at 08/21/2005 @ 4:40pm

475. TO DANCALL: Re your post of 8/17/2005; It never fails to amaze me how one person can be so verbose with completely erroneous info; but than again, there are still 39% of Americans out there, who are just like you, who after all this time, STILL DON'T GET IT! If you did a little more effective research 'Dan...', you'd know that Cindy and her husband are NOT divorcing because as YOU say, 'she's insane'; their 'divorce' is something that has come about because of what the 'loss of their son' did to their relationship and their whole family for over a year, now. If what YOU believe was true, than Cindy would have been 'shocked and stunned' by her husband's filing for the divorce, while she was down in Crawford; but SHE WASN'T AT ALL! She knew it was happening and 'WHY', long before she ever put 'one foot' in Texas! Also, you said that "...she has to take the heat..."; well you obviously aren't aware of the fact that SHE HAS! Cindy's not the one who's 'bitching' or 'up in arms' over all the right-wing pundit crap; she really doesn't even care aboutwhat they're saying about her because she's doing what SHE believes in her heart, not just 'jumping on some 'patriotic bandwagons' like the rest of you right-wing zealots,enforcing Bush's fictious war! Finally, you said, "...it turns your stomach that the 'left crazies'and the media are following her...". Well the only thing I can say is that, 'it turns my stomach', about how the few remaining of you,still can't 'see through the Bush lies' that got us into this 'illegal war'! What will it take for you to 'wake up and smell the coffee' about what the 'real agenda'is that got us into invading Iraq-a country that was not a threat to us, never was and never will be; the US suffering an attack by some other country that is our equivalent, militarially, like North Korea? I suggest that you just ask yourself one question and answer it 'logically'; why is it that we (the US) always invade countries that are both economically and militarily weaker than us; and 'why', if the Soviet Union was such a 'threat' to America, all through the 40 years of the 'Cold War' didn't we 'invade and conquer', them? And when we finally decided to do so, 'why' did we do so 'through the backdoor', not with our military, but instead by funding the very people who we are trying to conquer now, the 'freedom fighters' in Afganistan? I'll tell you 'why' because we KNEW that we would 'get our asses kicked'; it would be armageddon, leaving NO SURVIORS! Lastly, I suggest that you, Dancall, before you 'open your mouth' again, first make sure your 'brain is in gear', to put it simply! Thank You Very Much!

     Posted by Acid Queen at 08/22/2005 @ 04:40am