Severely Misplaced Animosity
[[ The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch shares the same grief as relatives mourning the deaths of Ohio Marines, yet their views about the war differ. ]] (Link to story)
This kind of story never fails to make my blood boil. I realize that this woman has suffered a terrible, horrific loss... I most definitely realize that. I am a retired United States Marine who served his country for two decades in a number of ways and places, including Desert Storm... and my son is currently on active duty in the Marine Corps and just recently returned from duty in Iraq.
First and foremost, this woman is spitting on the memory of her own son. He was in the service because he wanted to be- and I can assure you that he was proud of being a military man and proud of his mission. His death only becomes meaningless when we back home choose to NOT honor his mission and his sacrifice. If it mattered to him, then it damn well should matter to all of us back here in Protected Land.
Lashing out in grief is an understandable response for anyone who goes through something as awful as losing a child. It is almost to be expected. This woman's son, though, was killed almost a year and a half ago. I think the initial shock should have worn off by now. She is saying some very, very moonbatty things now... consider the question she wants to personally ask the President: "Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?"
Ma'am... you need to be straightened out on this. Right now. The President of the United States of America did NOT kill your son. Your son died at the hands of filthy islamo-fascist terrorists in a struggle for the very future of our world. The terrorists killed your son- who, by the way, will always be my brother in arms. I, for one, am very proud of him and his mission and his sacrifice. Furthermore, I know that it is the terrorist's fault that he is dead. Period.
Most people get this. The story also quotes a man supporting his country's actions- even though his son was also killed in the war.
[[ Boskovitch said his son, Jeff, "felt extremely, extremely strongly about the Iraqi people and our government deciding to go over there." "I firmly believe, and I would echo my son's feeling on this, it is very, very important for our country to remain steadfast and complete the mission that they set out to accomplish," Boskovitch told ABC on Sunday. ]]
As you can see, this man gets it. (Side note- any other source besides Fox News would most likely have not included this man's side of things... as is their usual practice, they would have applied the main focus only on the moonbat woman and her ranting- ignoring that the vast, overwhelming majority of families of deceased service members fully support their loved one's memory and mission.)
As long as we have people blaming America and our President for the evils that are attacking our world, we will not be able to defeat them. Victory begins with identifying the real enemy and then placing ALL of our national will and resources into the fight.
-
UPDATE
Welcome to all who are coming from Michelle Malkin's site. I appreciate all the thoughtful comments on this thread... please feel free to peruse the rest of my site and to visit again soon.
Kurt G.
-
posted by kmg at 14:17
349 Comments:
This all boils down to the central question of "why are we in Iraq"? Her son was a patriot who gave his life for his country, but the inherent question remains: was he placed in a situation that is truly defending the United States of America? Some, such as yourself and Fox News, believe that Saddam had WMD and was capable of attacking America and needed to be removed. Others believe that the WMD reasoning was concocted. Mrs. Sheehan obviously falls into the latter category.
And for what its worth, perhaps you can provide a suitable timeline as to how long a mother is allowed to grieve her dead son.
Mourning a dead son is one thing. Tarnishing his memory, and throwing away his death for propaganda is quite another.
The prolem I have with Mrs Sheehan controversey is that she seems to think that he son was dragged off in the middle of ther night under the cover of darkness to "serve" his country in the name of a unjust and immoral war. It does not help that Mrs Sheehan is being "Supported" by ANTI-American organizations who are diametrically opposed to what our country is and what it stands for.
When I heard that she stepped off a bus enblazened with am "Impeacment Tour" sign a red flag went up that she might have been taken advantage of by thoes who oppose the war and our traking part in it.
My condolences go out to Mrs Sheehan and her family on the loss of their son. I hope Mrs Sheenha will re consider her protest and her opposition on the war and do her best to find a way to honor her son.
"Why are we in Iraq?" Hello, McFly! Where have you been over the last four years?
Look, the whole argument can be hashed and rehased ad-infunitum. Different points of view arise from the same set of facts based on the persons world view. With that said, I can see where a new fact can change a persons viewpoint. For Mrs. Sheehan, her son's death was probably a catalist for seeing things completely differnt.
I see her as a mother who was not happy about the situation her son was being placed in, but was tempered by her son's insistance that he was doing what he wanted to do. Now that he is gone, she seeked comfort from others that shared her viewpoint. I agree that she was more than likely taken advantage of, and she is being used for her fifteen minutes by these groups who are adamantly against the war. My heart goes out to her because I do not see these people helping ease her pain, but profiting from it.
Her son understood. At least, I accept that he did because not only did he join the Army, he chose to re-enlist. If he didn’t agree with his President, he could have done something else. The central question is, “Why did her son, like many others in the military, choose to re-enlist?” I think he did it for his country, and his country liberated Iraq for the people of Iraq. He probably thought that even Iraqis don’t deserve to live under tyranny.
That’s a pretty noble effort. It is really sad that his own mom misses the greatness of her son’s deeds. I don’t blame her. I blame the fundraisers making a buck by parading this grieving mom in front of a cameraman.
First poster (anonymous):
You want a "suitable timeline" for a mother to grieve?
How about as long as she wants to without dragging his service and his sacrifice into her own twisted political agenda?
How about actually grieving, instead of using your son's death as a convenient platform for America bashing?
I don't give a flying fig what her own personal beliefs are... she should honor her son's memory, based upon HIS beliefs and HIS actions! He was a volunteer for his country... he obviously believed in his service- she should allow that to be his eulogy.
Per my earlier post (the one that started this discussion), I am curious as to your collective viewpoints on the following:
1. The mothers who saw their children die in Vietnam who then protested the war - did they tarnish, aka "spit on the grave" - of their dead children?
2. The reason for guys re-enlisting: how much of this is duty to country versus duty to one's brothers in battle? Most of my discussions and readings have found the latter to be the greater incentive, but of course this is a subjective answer and cannot be answered quantitatively. Nevertheless, I have yet to encouter anyone who flet the former. Also, how do you explain the significant increase in payments for soldiers who re-enlist?
3. Just as her son made his decisions, she makes her own. She is a grieving mom who just lost her son in his service to this country. And yet many of you feel compelled to place unsubstantiated motives in her actions. It is safe to say that her sacrifice is greater than any of your's to this country. Watching one's son die for a war that she feels is unjust gives her every right to speak her opinion. It is unfortunate that the binary dedication to a party has superseded one's affliction for a grieving mom.
Perhaps you missed the posting on Michelle Malkin's site... the one that displayed, graphically, the hypocrisy of this woman.
Now... exactly who is it that is showing "binary dedication" to a political cause? Give up? Okay, I'll tell you... Cindy Sheehan is.
Most of us here are saying exactly the opposite- we are saying that we all need to just SHUT UP and honor our brave dead for what and who they were... and warriors who served their country is what and who they were.
There is a special place in hell for anyone- on EITHER SIDE- who plays politics with the sacred memory of a fallen warrior.
So... you are sadly mistaken if you think that I am saying what I say because of "dedication" to a party. I am a Marine... my son is a Marine. The warrior mentality runs deep in my heart and soul. That, and that alone, is the source of my outrage at this woman's actions.
KMG: Appreciate your response, candor, and most of all you and your family's service to this country.
I understand your ire at Mrs. Sheehan, however, I find it difficult to restrict how someone grieves a loved-one. She is angry and has a vastly different perspective on this war than you. Her son died in service to this country. In my mind, she can do what she wants and she appears to be doing that.
Other factions have joined her and it appears some of the posters on this board feel that she has been manipulated by these factions. Those posters simply don't know the correspondence b/w the parties and can't opine on the relationship. It is pointless to assume she's been manipulated when we plainly don't know. Making conclusions from a biased assumption is a pointless exercise.
Nevertheless, while we agree that it is reprehensible to play politics with the loss of fallen soldier, we've reached an impasse as to how she's allowed to mourn that loss.
Unfortunately the woman lost a child. And no one feels anything less that utter sympathy for her loss.
However, if anyone need think she has an agenda, please read the attached letter dated November 4, 2004. If you read closely, she had a leftist agenda long before her son died. In fact her letter appears to have been written by Kos, or maybe Raw Story, or maybe even Mahablog, perhaps Moveon, maybe even Air America - what I'm getting at is her OBVIOUS Left Wing agenda according to the Moonbats at all of the above. It is almost word for word the platform of each and every one of the above.
Her son was a great man and she dishonors him utterly by her rantings, when in fact local scouts and military in his hometown of Vacaville, CA looked up to him as a leader, and NOT someone who died in vain.
She has lost touch with reality by way of moonbat ideology. She should be mortified that she has besmirched her son's reputation in her selfish disregard for reality.
Re: attached letter I forgot to attach.
http://www.angelfire.com/sk3/spkhntrca/Casey.html
To anonymous:
you said: "we've reached an impasse as to how she's allowed to mourn that loss."
There are many ways she can mourn. Less publicly would probably be better for her. But even if she wanted to publicly display her mourning, how about starting with not blaming the commander-in-chief for murder? She could picket the recruitment centers so other mothers do not have to go what she is going through. That would probably give her greater satisfaction, although probably less publicity. Coincidence?
The question was posed - "1. The mothers who saw their children die in Vietnam who then protested the war - did they tarnish, aka "spit on the grave" - of their dead children?"
As a Vietnam veteran, I can answer that question. Yes! Moreover they conspired in the death of other mothers' children.
My problem with Mrs. Sheehan is that she is obviously a longtime Left-Winger who had a decent son who gave his life to serve his country, and his death only gave her ammo to say "See? See! Look what horrible Bush did!" My condolences go out to her and her family for their loss, but she can grieve without spitting on her son's grave.
Thank you, kmg, for your eloquence and Service to our Country.
Though I grieve also for all our fallen, and realize her loss, she does her own son a betrayal.
She most certainly has right to opinion and understanding her pain, I won't comment on her choice of display.........except to note :
The soul of her son may one day forgive her. I won't.
Even sadder still - had Bush not STOLEN (her words)the election in 2004, Kerry would be in office, he would be in the same spot Bush is in now, yet it appears she would NOT have been calling HIM a murderer for not getting us out of Iraq before he son was killed.
So clearly enough she has put HERSELF and HER IDEOLOGY before the honor of her son.
It matters not who is at the helm at this moment. It matters only that she has a platform, publicity and the honor of a fallen soldier to use to further her agenda. Unbelievable.
Who cares about this goofy war?
All these clowns in uniform are there on their own free will. I they don't to be a part of it they can flee or blow somebody.
One seems to care about what is really wrong. Gas is almost 3 bucks a gallon.
We can always replace people, we can never replace cheap gas.
Anonymous (first poster)--
You said "...however, I find it difficult to restrict how someone grieves a loved-one."
Don't you see? She is NOT "grieving" at all. She is joining the disloyal opposition as one of their most "credible" poster children for raging Bush hatred.
I think her words and actions back in the time after her son's death - IN APRIL OF 2004 - were probably more indicative of honest human reaction to the death of a loved one. She obviously felt then that the President was a sincere man... and said as much,
"'I now know he's (President Bush) sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.' "
That was honest, human feeling.
"WHY DID BUSH KILL MY SON???"
That is rehearsed, coached, well-planned drama for the media. She has become a hack... someone who has sold not only her own soul, but the soul and memory of her hero son, to the seething far left seditionists.
I no longer feel anything but contempt for her. I will always hold her son in my heart as a true American hero- and maybe if enough of us do that, then his eternal soul will get some rest- in spite of his mother's disloyalty.
By the way, thanks to all of you who stopped by my little site today- and especially to those of you who commented on this thread.
Kurt G.
I second the earlier comment from the Vietnam vet.
The protestors from that era have blood on their hands. Lots and lots of blood - American, Vietnamese and Cambodian blood.
Interestingly, it was Democrats (Kennedy admin.) who got us involved in that conflict, Democrats who escalated it (Johnson admin.), and Democrats (the Dem. Congress in 72-73) who then abandoned our allies as they were being overrun by the Communists. These are the people who are now cheering on Mrs. Sheehan. Are we going to let the same sickening drama play out again ???
Sorry. Ma'am; it twern't George out there planting explosives to blow up whoever came by (now woman and kids more often than soldiers). By losing sight of that, you have gone over to helping those that actually did murder your son.
Mrs Sheehan's son volunteered for something he believed in and made the biggest sacrifice a human being can.
She should respect this and cherish the good character of her son, instead of tarnishing his memory with this media circus.
While her son made the ultimate sacrifice, she is commiting the ultimate betrayal by using her sons death to further a cause he did not believe in.
She should be truly ashamed of herself.
Given that she met President Bush last year and expressed gratitude at his gestures of concern then... and now has politicicized the death of her own son. I just have to wonder.... If she had the choice of making her anti Bush statements, or having her son magically turn up alive with a suitcase full of $100,000 cash.... which would she choose? I wonder...
To the 1st anonymous poster who stated that "Others believe that the WMD reasoning was concocted", how do you reconcile that statement with the fact that Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, John Kerry and other prominent democrats are all quoted, prior to the the Iraq War, that Iraq possessed WMDs? Where all of them in on the concoction too?
As the guy who started this little debate (1st Anon poster), I feel the urge to post one last comment: some of you people sicken me. To imply that Mrs. Sheehan is rejoicing in the death of her son to further a political cause is grotesque and despicable.
Further, you people represent the height of GOP philosophy: "attack the messenger - not the message". This woman lost her son to a war that she didn't believe in. And now she can't voice her grief? Are you guys serious? I can understand your displeasure with some of the anti-war groups, b/c really - what have they lost? But to attack a woman who lost her child? Mrs. Sheehan can spend the next decade smoking dope and attacking smurfs and I will not criticize her - she lost her son. Who are we to tell her how to mourn? The point is that you all have a problem with her message and consequently have resorted to attacking her. It is sickening. While Karl Rove, et al, have mastered the art of attack politics (I am still most bitter about his attacks on McCain), I find it saddening that so many others have adopted this philosophy and applied it to attacking a woman who lost her son.
Carrying her brand of “logic” to its extreme we can say SHE killed her son by giving birth to him in the first place, thus dooming him to die one way or another.
Look, you want a message to help you win elections:
Don't abuse suffering women to promote your own agenda.
Your tactics are obvious, and it sickens most people in American. I know many of you are clueless, but if you follow the election results, your so called "message" is uneffectual. It's not due to lack of drama put behind it, but rather because that drama is obviously coerced. The evidence is quite clear. This woman could have blamed Bush for her sons death "face to face" and instead she appreciated him. Then a year later, she stands outside his home and calls him a killer. Call me unconvinced that her message is authentic.
a reply to morning star...
Wow, are you a drama queen or what? Sheesh.
I thought I would respond to you because I am a mother...to 4 lovely little people. One of the proudest moments of my life was watching my son graduate from USMCRD San Diego. And of course I was worried about him when he went to Iraq, but more than that, I was proud of him for doing what so few have the courage to do...fight for freedom...freedom for the Iraqis...freedom for all Americans...and unfortunately, even freedom for moonbats such as yourself to spout your idiotic talking points.
So the point of your ramblings was what? To make the assumption that because her son fought in a war, he wasted the 25 years of her life that she spent raising him? Following this line of thinking then, are you one of those people who believes that if we just don't fight any wars, then peace will reign throughout the land? Don't you understand, sometimes there is just cause to fight...and this is most definitely one of those times. Truly, this is a fight of good verses evil...and we are the good side...just to straighten that out for you.
And since you made the assumption that KMG has a "nice" retirement for his years of service to his country, let me set you straight on that point too...it doesn't even pay for a month's rent...actually barely half of the rent. Yeah, real cushy. And you wonder if his Mama is proud of her son's service. Let me assure you that she is. She is actually quite proud of all of her sons...but very proud of the 4 sons who volunteered to join the Marine Corps. For parents without an agenda, pride in their children is more than enough compensation for a job well done.
--Morningstar...
"Warrior King" here (actually, I kinda like that name... reminds me of a movie or something).
I've read with great interest- and raised eyebrows- your diatribes against America and its military. I'm not even sure where to start with a response to such... logic.
One thing is sure, no one here has suggested that Cindy Sheehan- or any mother or father- should have to "fight for their sons' causes" or "live by their sons' choices". Those are your words... not mine.
All anyone has said is that she needs to just shut the hell up. If she has suddenly decided that she hates President Bush, then fine. Hate President Bush. But do not drag your son's memory into it. He did not hate President Bush... obviously.
So, is it not disingenuous to wear his death like a badge of honor and proclaim from the hillside that you are doing this in his name?
That is where the dishonor comes in. Let Casey rest in peace. Stop using him for your misguided cause. Honor him, not by agreeing with him, but by accepting that he lived a life of value and died the same way.
You are guilty of proclaiming that this soldier- or anyone who does not agree with you- is wrong. That is ordinarily a bad thing to do... but when you are doing it to the honored dead- it becomes unforgiveable.
As I said in my original post- I will honor that soldier's memory. I will hold him in my prayers (oops... sorry... I forgot that you were also a Christian hater). Mostly, I will try to live my life in such a way that he would be proud. By that, I mean as an American- free and proud of my country.
If you can't deal with that, it's okay... I won't call you names and attack you for being different (well, I might call you moonbat or something... but that's mostly a term of endearment). I'll just smile and carry on with my life- all the while trying to set the right example- one of sacrifice, honor, and hard work.
ah morning star,
Did you check your star charts this morning? Truly your intellect is dizzying.
You are not worth my time. At least my "ramblings" make sense.
Have a nice life you whack job.
Hypothetically speaking, say if W extends his war on terror to another country that had previously inhabited a terrorist organization: Ireland. Ireland has inhabited terrorists for the better part of the past few centuries and they despise our closest ally (england). Their northern brethern have an ugly history of working closely w/ Qadafi and may possess WMD that could attack england or worse - US.
So W declares war on Ireland. He proceeds to bomb the living daylights out of the Irish, resulting in the destruction of thousands of US soldiers lives and tens of thousands of civilian casualties. As an unfortunate byproduct of the war, the price of Guinness skyrockets.
If I were to speak out against this war, would I be helping the terrorists? Would it make me a pacifist?
While this example is obviously ridiculous, I think what many on the right fail to grasp is that anti-Iraq crowd (note, not the war in afghan'n, which the vast majority of us fully endorse) feels that the justifications for the war were shaky. And as Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and other administration officials have publicy stated, the war in Iraq was an administration goal from Day 1. The "case for war" was incorrect and in retrospect, full of lies.
Mrs. Sheehan obviously does not want to see more mothers lose their children. She is understandably angry and she is making her voice heard. Now lay-off her.
I never read anything as pathetic as Morning Star's responses. It is horrible that a mother has such an opinion of their own child. On one hand, she dismisses her own child for a making a decision that she disagrees with; but on the other hand, uses her child's death as if it is some good or service for which she is owed something.
I, for one, would not even attempt to compare Cindy Sheehan to Morning Star. It's one thing, IMHO, to blame a person for a murder that someone else committed. It's beyond imagination to think that one's dead child somehow owes them something.
That's just sick.
I am neither a dem or rep. but let me tell you this Americans. Bush went to war on the premise of WMD's and that turned about to be false. Now if I pick a fight with some random guy under the premise he might sleep with my girl then should'nt I be the one held accountable. I teach fifth grade and most of my kids don't like Bush and that's a scary thought for our future. Every president should be respected and adored however Bush limo was pelted by angry Americans on his way to be inaugurated. Never has this happened to any president. I respect this womans fight and to all you trying to politicize this. Let me ask you a final question? Was I raq a threat in the 90's and after 9-11 what threat did it pose to us? If you answered that he had wmds then you see this womans argument. Bottom line is that if walks like a duck then it probably is a duck. Do your research folks I have and on my own!!
morning star...
You wrote..."That’s nice that you appreciate your son’s graduation from USMCRD San Diego. Write to me when he’s dead! "
What kind of person would say something like that? And you are wondering if my God can forgive me for calling you a whack job. I'm pretty secure that he agrees with me. You are way out there and beyond the pale.
You are insignificant to me now.
Anonymous 5th grade teacher...
Hmmm... you said some pretty bad things about the President- including how your students don't like hime.
Well, I just can't for the life of me imagine why small children would feel that way. Maybe they're like animals and can sense evil... right?
Or... just maybe some unhinged far left purveyor of political filth (Just can't get over the WMD thing, can you? Even though it has been discussed and debunked for you a thousand times over) is poisoning them against their country and their President...
Nah... couldn't be that.
--Yeah, I'm sure that's it, Morningstar... I'm sure the little ones have just started to notice troubled adults for the first time in history.
Please spare us your Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). It grows a bit tiresome. We all know that you are seething with hatred for him... we know, we know... believe me... we know!!
Guess what, though? Lots and lots and lots (a majority, actually) of us do NOT hate him! We actually LIKE him! We also like the country we live in... as radical as that may sound.
This thread started as a discussion on letting a warrior's memory lie in peace. It should end there, as well.
Have your rallies and your meetings and your America hating parties all you want... it is your right- a right I spent two decades defending.
As for Casey Sheehan: The man died doing something he believed in. It is your right, and his mother's right, to disagree with him and his cause. Just leave him out of it, okay?
The condemnation, contempt and lack of compassion that most everybody here has for Cindy Sheehan is appalling. I remember the same rancid response to the widows of 9/11 who pressed for an investigation of that horrific event. "Get over it! Well, I felt sorry for them before but now they should just shut up and go away. Their husbands would be ashamed of them. Cindy Sheehan has a weak mind and weaker character because, obviously, she can't be evolving her thought process on her own. She was taken into Michael Moore's Satanic Hypnotic Home for the Feeble and made to watch Ghandi tapes for a month until she became a raging America hating Liberal Bund".
Protest is our Constitutional right and duty. When one is disgusted or morally opposed to a preemptive war then they must stand up for that right. I think riding around in a Humvee or lesser badass SUV (I am not speaking from an ecological point of view, but really, what mountain is everybody climbing every day?) when our soldiers are without adequate protection dishonors the bravery of our men and women a whole lot more than those who question the viability and stated purity of this war.
Cindy Sheehan and her personal mission, a mission that others have joined but not designed, trumps any of the absolutist posts that I have read here today. Whether her son agrees with her or not, I'll bet he's saying, "That's my Mom. She's a real pistol, isn't she?"
`
this is for KMG. Im a far left purveyor..I beg to differ I don't like either side I just know that when I sense a lie then it probably is a lie. Why did we actually go to war. Its not like you were offering your self to go to war. I actually have a friend who is a Marine and believes this was is wrong. Now he may be opposite the normal souldiers view of this War. But for this mother, she can say what ever she wants. She has that right. Just like I have the right to say that Clinton was not as good as this president but I want you to look something up that I did immediately after 9-11 its called the New American Century. I don't like Bush because he lies. Since we have many liars in Washington then thats not a surprise. I could give a damn about Iraq after the First Gulf War and all I care about is our souldiers coming back safely especially my buddy. Now don't say that Iraqis need us. You know who else needs us. Sudanese ...why not go there and get rid of there tyrant instead of Sadaam. I'd rather take out a leader who's killing millions than some one HAS killed millions. Do the math. And as far as my students are concerned a skill that teachers must have is knowing how to be unbiased towards most of the material either being discussed or taught. Why don't you teach and try not to tell the kids that when they grow up either this president will go down as the worst the world has seen. Much more worst that Truman, Lincoln or our for fathers. They had slaves if you want to know and Lincoln never freed the slaves its there in the text. Written by historians who have sugar coated the facts. And this is prcisely the dialogue coming from both sides. Either this woman is shaming her son's sacrifice or she's making this into a political debacle. Think about that the next time you watch Farenheit 9-11 or Bill Oreilly. I see the world as it is. America has as much dirt under nails as the next country . Its just that we hide it better like Bush's agenda to go war as he was un elected into office 5 years ago. Learn your history buddie and then come back at me. Scary that I teach fifth graders huh? Naaa I just let them know that they are the future and not to make mistakes like the present. They are the next generation right. From slavery to equal rights for everyone and now world peace. This leader is not leading.
Stinkeye (nice name) and all others with similar outlooks:
You care about the troops? You care about America? Yeah...??
Then do the right thing and shut up while our people are in harm's way. THAT is loyal opposition.
The rhetoric of the far left now is nothing short of sedition. It endangers the very troops that are supposedly "cared about".
If you can't do that, then at least have the guts to say the truth... that you don't really give a rat's ass about the troops... you just hate President Bush SO much that you will use any and every means at your disposal to try to lash out at him.
Quick tip to you, Morningstar: get the lithium dose checked... might need to be adjusted.
To anonymous teacher:
"Much more worst..."???
Ummmm... yeah, I'm a little worried that you're teaching the kiddies.
To Morningstar:
I never said I didn't want any divergent thought here. You assumed it since I did not agree with your ranting.
Seriously... check the lithium.
Before I am dismissed as a moonbat, I have a in nephew in the Air Force in Afghanistan, remember that country. The one that supported the people who actually committed 9/11. He tells me morale is really low, and it is because to the incompetence of this administration.
My own feelings about this Iraq war gets to the hart of why this administration had to discredit Valerie Wilson or Plame. They lied us into the war. I wonder if the Nazi solders my father fought, felt their leader was incapable of being wrong and in it for his own interest and greed.
As for your statement “this woman is spitting on the memory of her own son”, it was Bush that spat on him and she is trying to understand why.
I was a republican but no more, the leadership and it followers are clearly fascist. Most American have not stepped back far enough to see it, yet!
kmg
Your's seems a simplistic analysis of other people's values. There is no contradiction, none, for protesting this war and at the same time praying for safe passage for all our troops. Your assumption that we are motivated only by an animus towards Bush begs the question as to what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is the outrage we feel just because of who he is or is it that we are outraged that this man has wrought this endless calamity.
Do spare me the tired, it's those bad guys who started it and they're the ones you should be hatin' on and get a clue, you Commie bastards. It's old and it isn't true. You diminish yourself by such limited illogic. That is not a bitchslap. I say it about all who indulge in mindless, I hate you cuz you're stupid...am not, you're stupid...no, sir, you are, infinity.
Your assertion that by speaking out against the war we are somehow endangering and dishonoring the troops is facile. Nowhere in the history of war have the feelings, on whatever homefront, influenced the outcome. Don't tell me that Jane Fonda or college kids brought our military to its knees in Vietnam. It isn't true but it remains a useful mythology for those with no better tale to tell. John McCain will tell you that his years in that hellhole were not a result nor were they prolonged by dissension at home. The other side won because we did not understand who they were, how long they had been fighting any and all occupiers, and just how long they were willing to wait us out. The current madness in the Middle East is a mirror of those same motivators. Are they nuts? You bet! Will we change them? Not a chance. Secular forces, the intelligensia, the marketplace will determine any change there. We will not. We will win battles, we will not win the war. We can say we did but that will not be the consensus of those who live there.
If you really believe that it is the Left who are demoralizing the men and women over there then why do so many veterans come back and join the ranks of the peacemakers? How can you value their contribution and in the same breath devalue their condemnation of this administration's continued and failed policies?
I have also spent a great deal of time at Pearl and have listened to what the troops there say. Their opinions about the conflagration over there are as diverse as the society at large. Within the upper ranks, and I admit I know more of them, there is more than just a little apprehension about the course this administration has set.
Anyhoo, whadda I know? I don't care. I don't get it. I'm a seditious sabateur with a yellow streak a mile wide.
Now, let's shake. My name IS cool, huh?
The above was written by the terrible stinkeye. Never, ever been anonymous. Later.
My final word on this tired thread is that I stand by everything I have said... even though it has fallen upon deaf ears.
Vociferous, public, drama-laden protest of the type currently on display from the far left is, indeed, detrimental to our troops and to the war effort. It emboldens our enemy- without question. They see, displayed all over CNN, the disloyal opposition... and it gives them newfound strength to carry on their evil struggle.
If you support the troops, then shut up and let them finish the job... with a united homefront! Then, they will come home sooner... and you can argue about who was right and who was wrong.
P.S. You are either sadly, mistaken or a complete liar when you say that "so many" military personnel come home and join the seditious ranks. They most certainly do not. Unless you are talking about the military lawyer in Ohio who just lost the election- even though he pretended to be conservative.
Thanks for the lively debate, everyone. Sorry some of you are dangerously delusional. Please have a great evening and come back soon!
Kurt G. aka "Warrior King"
How about as long as she wants to without dragging his service and his sacrifice into her own twisted political agenda?
How about actually grieving, instead of using your son's death as a convenient platform for America bashing?
I'm beginning to think that conservatives have lost all functional sense of irony and self-criticism. Why is it vile when Cindy Sheehan talks about her son's death, but noble when Bush evokes the death of soldiers? Both are politically motivated.
If you believe that soldiers' deaths shouldn't be used for political grand-standing, then why are you using those deaths as an opportunity to do precisely what you're criticizing?
Anonymous:
To even the untrained observer, my original post was written to chastise Cindy Sheehan for using her son's death as a political platform.
I said, several times, that anyone on EITHER side should not do that. I think I have stated very clearly that it is my fondest wish that people will just leave the memory of fallen warriors alone.
If a warrior falls while performing a mission he believes in, then it is not human at all to vilify his sacred cause by using his death.
I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense to you. Like many of the protected, freedom does not have the same flavor as it does to those who have served and fought for it.
Can't be more clear than that.
king,
What a wimp declare victory and shut down the argument. This country would support this war if it was justified, I have no doubt of that. You are just a blind fool waving a flag like a good little boy, get a life and use your brain for once.
In the first place you seem to think that you are better than this woman by calling her moonbat.
Another thing is that just because someone disagrees with you about how America should deal with the world does not necessarily make them anti-american. You people worship W as if he was a God or something. Many people did not agree with Clinton. Does that make them anti-ameican?
By your logic, if I throw someone off of a cliff, I did not kill them, the fall did.
One last thing for you, Morningstar, on the President "redressing" the issue of her deceased son:
CINDY 2004
THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:
"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'
"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.
"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."
http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
---
Okay?
Funny you should bring up the cliff thing. That is exactly what your side does with the gun control thing. You think guns kill people... we say that PEOPLE kill people.
Well, it applies here, too. PEOPLE killed Casey. Filthy, terrorist PEOPLE.
Why don't you just admit it... nothing this President does will ever be good for you. You hate him with a blind, raging, irrational passion. We could talk all night about why that is so... about how Dubya is able to push your buttons so effectively... but the fact remains- you are completely unhinged when it comes to anything to do with him.
That renders all of your arguments ineffective. We can see the hate dripping from your words like bile... and, frankly, it is not a pleasant look.
As to your kind supporting a war... you couldn't even support one that was started and escalated by democrats. You are collectively incapable of supporting anything that is good for TRADITIONAL America... because you are too busy trying to "progress" it into something it was never intended to be.
5th Grade Teacher
Do you teach English also? Heve you ever heard of "paragraphs".
Try them. You may be surprised at how much clearer you rants are.
Love and kisses
Rudy
Where some on this blog see a problem in Ms. Sheehan invoking the loss of her son, Ms. Sheehan herself clearly was troubled that the President was the first to refer to dead soldiers as further justification of the "noble cause."
Ms. Sheehan's repeated statement, in every article I have seen, is that she decided to go to Crawford because the President used the death of soldiers to underscore the "noble" nature of the war itself, and as justification for continuing the War. When the President arrogated to himself the right to use dead soldiers to rhetorically JUSTIFY his War, didn't a grieving mother have every right to object, and strenuously?
First she lost her son, and now, as KMG would have it, she is supposed to meekly bow her head appreciatively when the President uses soldiers' deaths to justify this war...humph.
Consider the contrary hypothetical:
Do you think, had daughters Jenna and Barbara Bush both died in a train accident, that Mr. Bush would have happily conceded to their demise being cited by the Amtrak as further underscoring "the importance of rail travel and the need for another government subsidy this year?"
No. The President would have said, "my daughters died on your trains, but from here on, you keep your stinking hands off of them and don't you DARE use them when you go licking Congress's butt for handouts." He might have gone further and even said this, "you killed my daughters you idiots, so shut up."
It seems that many here, kmg most particularly, feel that the dead Casey Sheehan must remain a rhetorical tool for the President only, in perpetuity, even if that wounds Casey's mother deeply. Well, Casey's mother is alive and she doesn't have to consent to such nonsense, and neither would anyone but a fool masochist.
She felt moved to ask Mr. Bush to stop with justifying the War based on who was already dead. The President speaks as if those 1800 deaths should help move the skeptics to see things his way. Well, someone should take away the President's toy dead soldiers and insist that he continue to argue for the war based on the merits, as he sees them.
Why are some of you so willing to assume that Cindy Sheehan is being taken advantage of by leftist agitators, but you are unwilling to consider that Casey Sheehan was manipulated by right wing agitators--like all the president's neo-con buddies--into believing that serving in Iraq was the best way to protect the country he loved? Those who die for a lie are best honored by holding the liars accountable, as Cindy Sheehan is trying to do.
How DARE we question Ms. Sheehan's views? She is certainly entitled to these feelings, regardless of her past opinions. In light of the damaging "Downing Street" memos, I too would question the judgment of our leaders to go to war. Ms. Sheehan should certainly be extended this courtesy.
I find it asinine to criticize the woman's motives, when she is so clearly afforded the right to do so - as a citizen and as a mother of a fallen son. A mother should have this right at any point in time... period. It is this reason that she is asking Mr. Bush to step in front of the cameras. No one else has the possibility of eliciting a candid response from the President as a homefront mother.
Her sons heroism are memory are not at question, nor are they the issue. At best they are a knee-jerk diversion.
The issue at hand centers around the President's credibility and not Ms. Sheehan's. Do not be mistaken, the issue will be politicized - with attempts to switch the
roles. Lets not forget who has the power to forgive.
kmg,
I'm sorry for the grief that this lady's son's death is putting her through. But, he chose to enlist - yes, enlist. His choice; he wasn't made to do it - nobody twisted his arm.
My husband was sent his draft notice for the Army in 1964, but chose 4 years of Air Force over the Army. This was during the Vietnam war. He was drafted - didn't enlist. He had NO choice but to go - or go out of the country, like other draft dodgers. And, he went overseas twice, once to Vietnam, and served in Da Nang.
One of our neighbors lost their only son during the Vietnam War, and they grieved for him.But, I've never heard one comment out of their mouths on how terrible the war was, that the President killed him (as one said, Democrats were in charge), or anything derogatory about his serving in Vietnam. He came home in a glassed in coffin, and they never got to touch him!
My heart goes out to any parent who has lost a child, war or otherwise. But, we need to be careful of the tirades we get into over them. Brings to mind the movie 'Water Boy', in which his Mom kept him from the world to protect him from the 'devil' - everything and everybody was the devil. But, one day, he met a coach who thought he had potential, and he grabbed on to him. His Mother kept pulling at him, but couldn't rein him in, and faked dying. She had him right where she wanted him, or so she thought. He love his Mom so much he was about to give up his life for her. He was very smart in books (she tried to keep him from reading!) and was going to college and playing football. When she realized he loved her that much, she raised up out of the bed, and 'turned him loose' to claim life his way, not hers. It even made her a much happier woman.
I said that to say this - we need to let our children go, when they become of age. Doesn't mean we don't love them any less, just that we want them to have a life of their own, just like our parents let us go. Any parent will grieve for a child who dies before them. But, I would never want to put myself in front of a camera and tell the President of the US that me murdered my child, when some lunatic in a foreign country was the one who did it. Doesn't matter if it's a legitimate war or not!
Thank YOU and your son for your service to our country! My husband never got that, when he returned in 1967. But, he never once let it get him down - he's lived life to the fullest.
Barbara:
Your husband has my thanks... I try very hard to say that to every veteran I meet- especially those from the Vietnam era who were treated so shabbily by some in this country.
It seems you understand the only point I was trying to make here. Thanks for having clear thinking.
anonymous (good plan, staying anonymous... especially with some of those comments):
Do you suppose... I mean REALLY... that this woman's insane ranting in Crawford, Texas deserves the sort of media attention it is getting? Meanwhile, a REAL scandal goes virtually unnoticed by all of the old media (yes, I'm talking about the airhead America thing).
Yeah... an Amtrak crash is exactly the same thing as a war for the survival of our way of life. You sure do have everything in proper perspective.
Your reasoning powers leave me in awed silence...
Kmg-
2 points
1. you apparently support and endorse the President using the death of Ms. Sheehan's son in support of the war, but object when the mother objects to such rhetorical harvesting of her son by the President. I assume this because you simply didn't address this issue at all, even though it was my basic point.
2. you may very well object to an analogy that refers to a tragic mistake (e.g. a train crash), if you personally feel the war was justified. In the end, your essential argument seems to be that no one has any right to object to a war you support and most of your observations about one grieving mother in particular are really just window dressing for that.
There are countries where you can enforce the desire to stifle dissent, so why don't you just move to one of them?
KMG,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Like you, I also like to thank veterans, so thank you, your son, and Barbara's husband.
If I was disappointed at Mrs. Sheehan's tack, it is nothing compared to some of those supporting her in comments to your blog. They have convinced me even more that Mrs. Sheehan is being manipulated by people with a level of hatred that I hope to never know.
I love my children. I never would think they owe me anything. I labor for them to make their lives better. That labor enriches me, not some future time in which they will then pay me back. I have no desire to assert such a debt on them.
I'm glad to know, KMG, that you gave your son something wonderful, and for that alone you are proud. Not just of him, but for knowing you did right for your son. I understand why you would be ashamed of someone else not recognizing that they should be proud of themselves instead of acting a fool.
Thanks, leland... I truly appreciate your comments.
Anonymous: I agree that one of us should move to another country... but maybe it should be the one who hates this country and wants to change it... I'm sorry... "progress" it.
If the President, or anyone else, uses a man's memory in support of a cause that the man himself supported... then that is hardly a dishonor. Even your limited logical powers should be able to reason that one.
In fact, if- after I am dead- a complete stranger took up a cause that I believed strongly in, I would be proud of that. Make sense? ...nah... I didn't think it would.
1. SAfter reaching adulthood a child owes its parent "nothing" for being raised but respect and love. That child didn't ask to be born.
2. A parent owes their child only love and respect when they reach adulthood.
3. We do not own our children. They are a gift from God to raise the best we know how. Then they must live their life. Neither owes the other more than love and respect. [dysfunctional families may alter this]
4. It has been well established that Saddam and bin Laden "were" collaborating. Go to Chrenkoff and look it up and you will even see the necessary documentation. You will also find sbbstantiation by "MSM" from all over the world. Presently ratings don't allow thiat story to be printed, not enough money to be made
5. Any fool who thinks a vet is loaded with benefits and has the VFW on top of it never had to drive over a 100 miles to an emergencty with a severly ill child. Nor havew you seen the "poverty" they live in. We're it not for thar "large re-enlistment" bonus you mention here solmewhere, most would never stay in ebven if they wanted to because they can't pay the bills off.
6. I lost someone in this war. He believed in this cause. He was a cop and knows things the public doesn't. I wouldn't dishonor him as that woman is doing
7. Every radical newspaper in the "world" has tried to get me to let them "use" his death to promotre their cause. As a female veteran of Vietnam era even though grieving, they weren't successful.
8.That woman is dishonoring her son's memory, but due to her particular situation, she may not be able to grieve in a " timely" fashion if there is such a callous thing
9.Twicen my family sons have died young, one to war, one to cancer. One was born 3 months before the other died., thirty years apart. Both are being grieved now due to the uniqueness of the situation.
10. Where this is all leadng up to is the callous disregard for a womann's lost loved one by people who would and are using her grief to further her cause. When you lose a son or daughter, you arean easy victim for these predators. THEY ARE WHO WE SHOULD ALL BE ANGRY WITH!!
11. If you do your own research you will find out that the major networks which refuse to print anything positive about the war, our troops efforts, or anything else all have Arabic major stockholders with substantial influence. Most are themselves members of extreme Muslim views on ISLAM. Check this all out for yourselves. Don't rely on single sources. Checka all sides, not just your own. Then form your views.
For too long since 9/11 people at either extreme have been controled by emotion. Start making informed decisions. Frankly I support this war. But doesn't mean you have to. But whether or not you are for or against, stop be automotons. Do research, all sources, not just limited, and make sure yo really know why you for or against. Stay away from these extreme groups on both sides until you "are truly informed" so you are pushing your views,. Be leaders. not followers. Your sons and daughters died for that right for you.
To quote KMG
"Anonymous: I agree that one of us should move to another country... but maybe it should be the one who hates this country and wants to change it... I'm sorry... "progress" it.
KMG, you are stooping pretty low to infer "hate" for country when someone disagrees with you about whether a war was in fact, helpful to the country's security.
I don't hate my country at all, and indeed I have always been proud of it, proud of its military (I was a civilian employee), and I'm proud of the right to differ publicly with the expressed opinions of the President.
I favor military action when I see clear indications that it favors our security. My personal assessment has been that our national security was not well-served by what we have done in Iraq. I will be truly happy if future events prove me entirely wrong
If this sounds like "hatred" for country, then perhaps we have different definitions for the word "hatred". I would call it "a different assessment of where and how to assure U.S. security." Since a significant numbers among US Army leadership (off the record, I'm told, by people who are in a position to know), an Army War College Professor and other war scholars (including Professor Bacevich, who retired from the Army after 23 years, see: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_05_23/article1.html) share my concern, however, I don't think there is any reason to designate such opinions as hatred for country.
What I infer from many objections on this blog, and KMG so far doesn't deny, is that the dissent of a mother who lost her son seen as more objectionable than anyone else's dissent. All citizens have a right to dissent from public policy and those who have borne the costs of that policy may well have more right than the rest of us. So I don't get it
To quote KMG
"Anonymous: I agree that one of us should move to another country... but maybe it should be the one who hates this country and wants to change it... I'm sorry... "progress" it.
KMG, you are stooping pretty low to infer "hate" for country when someone disagrees with you about whether a war was in fact, helpful to the country's security.
I don't hate my country at all, and indeed I have always been proud of it, proud of its military (I was a civilian employee), and I'm proud of the right to differ publicly with the expressed opinions of the President.
I favor military action when I see clear indications that it favors our security. My personal assessment has been that our national security was not well-served by what we have done in Iraq. I will be truly happy if future events prove me entirely wrong
If this sounds like "hatred" for country, then perhaps we have different definitions for the word "hatred". I would call it "a different assessment of where and how to assure U.S. security." Since significant numbers among the US Army leadership (off the record, I'm told, by people who are in a position to know), an Army War College Professor (google Jeffrey Record) and other war scholars (including Professor Bacevich at BU, who retired from the Army after 23 years) share my concern, however, I don't think there is evidence that sharing their opinion denotes hatred for country. Accusing others of such hatred does not speak well of the accuser, however.
What I infer from many objections on this blog, and KMG so far doesn't deny, is that the dissent of a mother who lost her son seen as more objectionable than anyone else's dissent. All citizens have a right to dissent from public policy and those who have borne the costs of that policy may well have more right than the rest of us. So I don't get it
Chicken hawks squaking bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk
bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk
bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk baaawk bawk bawk bawk traitor
bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk baaawk bawk bawk cluck
bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk cluck peep cluck bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkb bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk cluck bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawkbawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk
From first anonymous---the non-Bawk poster--
Well morning star.
2 thoughts.
First, the angrier and more ornery "bawk bawk" kind of responses and the "you are a USA-hater" responses are discouraging, but the partly reflect the reality that the person making that kind of comment either has no intelligent response options in mind, or is lazy.
Second, I guess we should view it as a good thing that disagreements such as ours are out there on the blogs of people like kmg. I mean, if kmg was more censorious, he could go throug and eliminate comments I bet.
So...discouraging overall, but there are a few rays of sunshine.
Those of you who believe that Mrs. Sheehan has flip-flopped should read the original article that quoted her, so you can see for yourselves the comments that the Drudge Report and others have left out. It's available at http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921.
For example: "We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
I wonder why our president (a man who left the National Guard so he could serve fearlessly on a political campaign) can't be bothered to stroll down the driveway and speak honestly with her. He's on vacation, after all. He's spent 20 percent of his presidential career on vacation. He might learn something from actually talking with someone who disagrees with him. For once.
devildog6771:
Thanks for the voice of reason. With all of the wind in here, it was very nice to hear.
Obviously, one is painted as an "extremist" if they want people to leave the memory of a fallen warrior alone and not use it to further a cause that the warrior himself would have despised.
Go figure...
Whether or not her son may or may not have agreed with her current actions is irrelevant. Her arguments as a mother of a fallen soldier are still flush with the power of her loss. Even had her son not died, even were he still fighting in Iraq she is under no obligation in any context to agree with the war nor certainly in the way it is being mishandled by the Bush Administration. To argue otherwise misunderstands the basis of our free democracy.
The rigid lockstep of obedience wrapped in the flag of "supporting our troops" does not in fact support our troops. It allows this administration to continue unersupplying the men and women on the battlefield (think of the unprotected humvees), extend enlistments beyond discharge date (now with consequences in meeting recruitment goals) retain a meager military pay rate, continue the poor training that leaves so many soldiers unprepared for the duties they will find themselves having to fill (witness the prision scandals in both Iraq and Afganistan) and now the Administration wants to increase the scrutiny of returning soldiers who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. You are betraying our brothers and sisters in uniform by not asking questions and demanding answers in the handling of the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. Your willingness to remain silent and worse to attack ad hominem those demanding accountabilty undermines the foundation of democratic discourse. Your fetishizing of patriotism is killing our sons and daugeters not with car bombs but with your selfish need to be right and no real work to consider the merits of the other sides point of view.
spoken like true patriots
Morning Star seems to think Cindy Sheehan owned her son. She didn't. You can't lock your kids up in a basement to keep them safe. They're not souvenirs. They're not your property. They're people.
Sheehan didn't choose to make any sacrifice here. She's exploiting somebody else's sacrifice. She thinks it's all about her, and her loony hatreds, but it isn't.
Casey Sheehan died trying to make the world a better place, and that's a fact. This has nothing to do with the talking points the lefties are reciting with such charmingly robotic dedication here.
I think it was Hemingway who said that if nothing is worth more to you than your life, your life is worth nothing. He was right. If you had a million bucks, but were too neurotic ever to spend or invest a penny of it, exactly what good would it do you? Imagine further that you spent your whole life hiding with it in the basement, scared out of your wits that somebody might come and take it away.
Life isn't safe, guys, and going overboard trying to make it so just ruins whatever years you've got. Try living instead. Sometimes it's a pain in the ass, but it sure beats hiding in a basement.
But really, the obscenity of what Sheehan is doing is clear to anybody with any common sense or decency. Those of you without may as well go on agreeing with her; you'll never learn. Enough with logic. I have no formal logical proof that it's a good idea to love my mother, but I do anyway. It's called being a member of the human race. There's nothing "progressive" about that. In fact, it hasn't changed much at all these last fifty thousand years, but it suits me.
Thanks, JM...
Your words and your attitude are greatly appreciated.
Common sense with a touch of wisdom have been rather rare on this thread lately. Good to have a bit of it back.
Mrs. Sheehan should be commended for her courageous stand. This war is wrong, folks. Our leaders lied about the reasons and necessities in order to muster public support. This is treasonous.
Treason. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice should be jailed.
Treason.
Sincerely,
Zelig -- RVN Class of '68
zelig:
You should look up that word, "treason"... I don't think it means what you think it means...
Unless, of course, you are playing "Opposite Day".
kmg - thank you.
Zelig: "Courageous"? Is she expecting to run into any IEDs in that bus of hers? Or maybe you could clarify what's so terribly dangerous about sitting in an air-conditioned bus while the moonbats fawn on you and the media compassionately tilt their heads and gently lob softball questions into your lap.
Who's paying for the bus, by the way?
Morning Star: I don't own my family, and they don't own me. But I treat them decently and with respect because they are my family, and because I love them. I may think they believe in crazy things and devote their lives to foolishness, but I still respect them, and if they die doing something I consider stupid, I won't exploit their sacrifice as a weapon against what they held most dear. Whether or not I understand or approve of why they held it dear, if it mattered to them, that means something to me. To some of us, family really does mean a great deal. I guess you'll just have to take my word for that.
Grief, in any case, is not a blank check. If Sheehan chose to express her "grief" by buying a gun and shooting at cars on the highway, she would be out of line, would she not? Shooting random strangers is over the line, and we all have a perfect right to say so, even those of us who don't have dead sons handy to drag around in front of the TV cameras.
So then, you're wrong: There is a limit. There is a point, somewhere, beyond which a grieving mother's behavior (her actual grief is her own business) can become unreasonable, and the exact location of that point is a legitimate subject for discussion among civilized people — and you can join in too, if you like.
Incidentally, abortion is miles off topic. The pro-life view isn't a worship-of-motherhood thing, that I've particularly noticed. It's the belief that an unborn fetus is a human being, with rights. If I object to you shooting your neighbor, that's got nothing to do with worshipping his mother, and it's got everything to do with believing that your neighbor is a human being with a right not to be shot. Incidentally, I'm pro-choice.
jm:
Again, thanks for the eloquence. I should have warned you, though... you should stop "feeding" morningstar. She has absolutely no input... it's all output.
By the way, her bringing up abortion is not very surprising to me at all. The DFL (Deranged Far Left) hold nothing so dear as the right to kill babies. As Rush Limbaugh said, "To liberals, their party is their religion, and abortion is their sacrament."
All roads lead to the abortion clinic for them.
Anyway, don't waste too much breath blowing into that empty space.
KMG, Thanks for your kind words.
Morningstar said: "Dear Barbara: I suspect you will not accept my offer of gratitude for your husband’s service. I have never known one service person to accept itif I differ on opinion. But nonetheless, thank you."
Thank your, Morningstar. Just because we differ in opinion doesn't make me not appreciate that you appreciate that my husband did service for his country. I'm not callous, by any means.
I spoke of Water Boy and his relationship with his mother because I feel it does fit. Both mothers had a son - they both protected them through their childhood. Water Boy's Mother never wanted him to do anything. From what I'm reading, apparently Mrs. Sheehan wasn't too happy that her son went into this war. But, she let him go, and so did Water Boy's Mother. Only difference - Water Boy's Mother 'cut the apron strings' ...let him live his life. I know it has to be the worse thing to lose a child. But, that son was an adult, and went to the war on his own volition. And, there's nothing wrong with Mom being upset about it. But, I think she's doing her son's memory a dis-service for doing what she's doing. I just heard on the TV that she's blogging on Michael Moore's website. What person in their right mind would even want to be associated with that guy?
Morningstar said:" She is honoring her own 25-year, un-contracted lifework!"
I have a 37 year old son. When he left home in his 3rd year of college at the age of 20, he was an adult, on his own. I no longer had a hold on him; he did what he pleased.
I believe Mrs. Sheehan is grieving, and she has that right. But, what I can't understand is the way she's changed over the months, doing a complete turn around from what she originally said. She did have her time with the President then.
Morningstar said: "You said, it “doesn’t matter if it’s a legitimate war or not!” Apparently Barbara, it does matter to some people."
Let's not take what I said out of context. I was saying she shouldn't have accused the President for something he had no control over - in that a lunatic in IRAQ killed him - not the President. I'm sure she feels, in her heart, he did, but that's nonsense.
You said:"You said: “thank you.” I would think that Casey would appreciate that. But this is about Cindy’s sacrifice and she is not consoled by “thank you.” Cindy wants to know if Bush manipulated intelligence! "
I wasn't speaking to CINDY about Casey, although I'm well aware of his life he gave for HIS country. I was speaking to KMG and HIS SON, who is still in the service.
By the way, Morningstar, I don't think I ever attacked her, other than to say I felt she was doing wrong, blaming the President for the loss of her son. The President didn't draft him; he chose to go in, and to re-enlist. That was what he wanted. When he went in, he knew he could go anywhere, anytime, but, did it deter his WANT to sign up? No..that is what we should honor - HIS FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
JM.
You said "So then, you're wrong: There is a limit. There is a point, somewhere, beyond which a grieving mother's behavior (her actual grief is her own business) can become unreasonable, and the exact location of that point is a legitimate subject for discussion among civilized people — and you can join in too, if you like."
Thank you for saying what I've been trying to get out!
You're awesome, Barbara... thanks for bringing some civility and class to this discussion.
My Marine Corps blood gets too hot sometimes and I can tend to lash out when faced with a frustrating "opponent" like some of these fine people here... it does me good to read the even tones of your reasoning and the calmness you bring to the discussion.
Anyway... thanks for it. I appreciate your contributions.
I posted here yesterday when I was led to this site via links. It was my first visit and I thought it would be my last. However, today as I was cleaning out extraneous items from yesterday I was redirected here.
Curious to find out whether the level of discourse had remained the same I scrolled down. Imagine my surprise, or don't, when I saw it hadn't.
My few scribblings had been without invective. I presented my point of view and adorned it with personal experience.
Presumably the host of this site has one of those 'personal relationships with the Lord' that I know nothing about which emboldens him to judge when the Lord ain't around to do it. How else to explain his calling me a liar? What is the matter with you? I can only guess that having the narrowest and most rigid of world views motivates you to lash out at someone who was not discourteous but, rather, enjoyed knowing people of varied and, perhaps, surprising sentiments.
It is alarming that the urgency to disparage and namecall is more important than listening and respecting a person with ideas not consistent with your own. I would be more impressed with your strongly held beliefs if I wasn't so unimpressed with your need to vilify and distort.
You proudly strut that you are an oracle of truth, justice, traditional (whatever they are) values, and all that is good. My country, love it or leave it, is a weak and tired response to someone who has the temerity to exercise any intellectual curiousity. I am also umimpressed when I hear the harangue, 'we fought, bled, and died for you to have the right to be a traitorous Commie'. Most of the signatories of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were, let's see and correct me if I'm wrong, ALIVE when they set forth the principles by which we are guided. Please, and this is the salient point, do not presume to think that your blood is redder or more valuable than mine. That which I wrote yesterday never alluded to my own military service. My comments, and they were pretty innocuous, never questioned your integrity because I don't know you. But your calling me a liar gives me a better sense of who you are.
Where I write is usually determined by the depth of the conversational topic. Those blogs are kept lively by irony, wit, and and the certainty that none of us have all the answers. You seem way too certain about everything. Good luck with that but, most assuredly, you will eventually be disappointed.
When the Bush kids are driving trucks in Baghdad, I will put my cammies back on and lead the charge.
Hey KMG,
Glad you notice that PEOPLE killed Casey. Did those PEOPLE ask him to be in their country? Did those PEOPLE attack my America on 9/11/2001? Did those People have the balls to get rid of their own dictator? It wasn't our fight to fight, and my fallen buddies died for nothing that has anything to do with the freedom of Americans.
stinkeye:
I looked back and didn't see where I called you a liar. Unless you are talking about an "If the shoe fits, wear it" type of statement I made... in which case, I would say "methinks he doth protest too much".
While I certainly never once claimed to be an "oracle ot truth", I am, as you said quite certain of my beliefs. I am very sorry for you that you are not. It must be sad to go through life never knowing what you stand for... and never being sure in your beliefs and your values.
The original post and this thread started with my assertion that we must leave alone the memory of those fallen warriors... that using their deaths to further a cause that they themselves would hate is wrong.
As usual, those on the far left side of the aisle lash out emotionally at anyone who dares to defend America. As you put it, patriotism is a "weak and tired response". Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
The one thing that I am 100 percent certain of is that anyone who claims to truly support our troops MUST also support their mission and MUST stop giving the enemy propaganda victories. If you are too densely idealogical to see that, then we haven't much else to say to one another.
Look up the history of "loyal opposition" in our country's annals... then look up "sedition" and see which looks more like the far left's behavior today.
You are probably better off going elsewhere if you are looking for someone who lives in a gray world. Although mine has some shades of gray, it is largely black and white... that's the great thing about actually having values and beliefs- they mean something.
I am simply amazed at the publics' obtuseness and willingness to demonize the Bush Adminsitration for lying and fabricating reasons for the Iraq War. True, WMDs were one of the stated reasons, but there were a number of others as well. The reasons for the Iraq War a clearly enunciated in the Joint Resolution. Please read the Joint Resolution and note that John Kerry was among 29 Senate Democrats that voted in favor of the Resolution. Were all 29 Democrats in on the "lies" and/or "conspiracy" too?
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
Good grief! Do the fates conspire that I am once again here? I never heard of this blog before and perhaps with good reason. The words I wrote in the wee hours before the dawn were staring me in the face when I logged on this morning.
So, with as few words as possible (and for stinkeye, that means 'many') I will depart never to 'gray' up the virtual hallowed but hollow walls of this litle black box again.
1.) "you are either sadly mistaken or a COMPLETE LIAR" pretty much covers the "liar" part that you say you didn't say. No mention of my shoe size.
2.) I used the word 'strut' not 'said' not 'claimed' not 'uttered' for you see our vocabulary is a wonderful and bountiful thing. 'Strut' is a word that means 'the appearence' and is employed as a discriptive term. I shan't further bore the hall monitor with my 'elitist' knowledge as he is certain about everything.
3.) Nationalism does not = Patriotism.
4.)You say in last reply is that you started this thread with the self enobling and breast thumping certainty that those dead would tell the living to put a sock in it. Perhaps you neglected the scenario that I possited. I suggested that despite the Sheehans' sincere differences, wherever Casey was he would be saying, "That's my Mom. She's a real pistol, isn't she?" Do I know this to be true? Of course not but I choose to think it. But because you are completely 100% sure that their differing philosophies would have produced an emotional estrangement that goes beyond the grave there can be no doubt that he is spinning and spitting in his coffin at her audacity. How do we know that when Casey told her that he was enlisting that they didn't have a conversation where he told her, "Mom, I have to go. I believe in this mission." Mrs. Sheehan might have said, "Honey, I wish to God you didn't feel that way. I will pray every day for your safe return but I will continue to be active in opposing what I consider to be a horrible, horrible mistake." And Casey would say, "We both gotta do what we both gotta do."
So, chastened like a beaten cur, stinkeye slinks off. She is in awe of your clairvoyant powers but enriched by the loving gift of your pity.
Oh, one last thing, stinkeye no need no dictionary to look up big words like 'sedition'. She be smaht. stinkeye word warrior and she think kmg be needin some remedial classes.
See ya in the funny papers.
Funny papers, indeed, stinkeye... an apt destination for you.
Anonymous (last one): Thanks for posting the resolution for these people to read... but you needn't waste your time. Your puny facts are no match for their mighty emotions, which tell them "UGH- WORDS MEAN NOTHING- BUSH BAD... MICHAEL MOORE GOOD!"
You can tell them 100 times in a row that WMD's were a PART of the reason we went to war, and they will turn right around and say "So, like, Bush lied about the WMD's, right?"
Sad, really...
KMG,
No problem, I enjoy point out facts rather than dealing in the inane. For those of you who are interested please read John Kerry's stirring words on the Iraq War Resolution that are linked below. My sincere hope is that at least one Moonbat can grasp reality and come back from the precipice. Enjoy.
http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp
But to attack severely this citizen as an insane lunatic, as if it’s going to kill thousands of soldiers, is lunatic! It was lunatic to let the four Brooklyn hijackers go just because they had valid visas! They are the ones who took out 3,000 lives on Sept. 11! The administration dropped the ball! Why?
Morning Star FYI - I saw Rep Curt Weldon, who is the source of this information, interviewed on FOX News, and he said this incident that you are referring to happened on Clinton's watch NOT Bushes'.
To all of you lefties that think Bush is God, I happen to believe that his is NOT. That's why I don't think he is capable of manipulating the intelligence in a way that would allow him to concoct a reason to go to war. You can think that he is capable of manipulating American intelligence if you want, but do you really think that he is capable of manipulating Russian intelligence or British intelligence? Have you forgotten last summer when the New York Times reported on Russian President Putin admitting that his intelligence service warned President Bush that Saddam was planning a terrorist attack against the United States? Were Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright and President Clinton also manipulating intelligence when they screamed that Saddam had WMD? You don't have to like the war or agree with the reasons we went there, but to call the President a liar is beyond the pale. He made a mistake by trusting his intelligence services, the same mistake that Clinton made. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I was against going to war, but I don't think that the President is a liar or manipulated the evidence. I truly believe that he truly believes it was the right thing to do. I sometimes get the feeling that those on the left want us to lose this war so they can get some kind of sick satisfaction out of it because they hate the President so much.
My guess is that the grieving momma is being very well compensated by George Soros. Don't be surprised to see her getting a Paula Jonesesque makeover.
While I understand the mother's grief, I am perturbed that she demands to meet with the President even though she has met with him already. Is the President obligated to meet with every mother, father, wife, husband and/or significant other of killed service personnel? Is he obligated to meet with them at their request and time of choosing? Doesn't he have more important things to do that to micro-manage grief sessions?
this is an awkward topic I have stepped into, but the background seems to show Bush exhibited courtesy & patience toward Sheehan in 2004. Possibly grief has eaten away at her stability, but her feelings are understandable up to the point she claims Bush 'killed her son.' There were also people claiming the State of FL 'murdered' Terry Schaivo. People get carried away, & I'd be among the last supporters of Mr. Bush but there has to be some sense to people's claims.
Some of you neo-cons make me sick. When will you be able to admit that you've been played for fools by GW and his band of maniacs? When will you realize that they don't care about you, me or anyone but themselves? This woman is within her rights to demand an explanation, and if Bush had any courage he would speak to her. Maybe he can't remember the last excuse he used to invade a county that did not threaten us, had not invaded us and posed no threat to its neighbors. WMD? No, that one fell flat. Resuce Lt. Striker (remember that one?). Wrong again. Liberate Iraq? Spread freedom? Create a new democracy? Fight 'em there so we won't have to fight 'em here? Bring 'em on?
Next lie, please.
I'm appreciate reading Allen's comments. Really, that is my sentiment in its simplist form.
FYI, New York Sun has written an interesting piece on Mrs. Sheehan. I retract my comments that she has been manipulated. It seems that's totally unnecessary in her case.
I am so glad to make you sick. I am neither neo nor con, but I supported a war against Iraq before the president did. Saddam's sponsorship of Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal and (especically) Abu Sayaff was enough for me. I never did care about yellow cake in Niger.
Where is Mr. Sheehan, the father of the fallen marine, in all this? And how does Mrs. Sheehan have the money and leisure time to trapse around the country, harrassing the president? Who is paying her and how much? And for how long? And how close was she really to her son? She looks like a hardened Marxist to me, so it seems a bit odd that her son would enlist in the U.S. marine corps with her consent.
Some of you neo-cons make me sick. When will you be able to admit that you've been played for fools by GW and his band of maniacs? When will you realize that they don't care about you, me or anyone but themselves? This woman is within her rights to demand an explanation, and if Bush had any courage he would speak to her. Maybe he can't remember the last excuse he used to invade a county that did not threaten us, had not invaded us and posed no threat to its neighbors. WMD? No, that one fell flat. Resuce Lt. Striker (remember that one?). Wrong again. Liberate Iraq? Spread freedom? Create a new democracy? Fight 'em there so we won't have to fight 'em here? Bring 'em on?
Next lie, please.
-------------
MY GOD WHERE HAS THIS PERSON BEEN? HE HAS SPOKEN TO HER FACE TO FACE ALREADY!!!! Does anyone really believe that there is anything that he could ever say that would satisfy her? Let's get real here. The idiots on the left refuse to listen to facts. They ignore the evidence that Bush didn't lie. They ignore that the Clinton administration came to the same conclusions about WMD. They ignore the fact that their beloved libs, Kerry et al, saw the same evidence and came to the same conclusion. They are blinded by their hatred. It's really quite sad.
Here is my latest post...
http://rightequalsmight.blogspot.com/2005/08/cindy-michael-moores-apprentice.html
Most of you have probably already seen this "shocking" revelation.
Wow... you mean the family thinks she's gone fruit-loops?
Again... I'm shocked- shocked, I tell you.
Good grief...
I'm ex-Navy. Don't hold it against me. I was never a set of boots on the ground, but there is no doubt in my military mind that I caused the loss of many lives during Op DS. I love my brothers in arms. I’ll die for them today. Don't ever, Ever; EVER forget the impact of killing another human being. If you have experienced this, then you understand my point with respect to War. If you have not, and you are reading this, I hope you have the maturity to understand your level of indifference to War.
If you are content with the loss of life on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan from the desensitization that occurs from hearing of it day after day, seek help immediately. Your not supposed to get accustomed to death.
If I died in combat, and my Mother felt it necessary to grieve her loss, I would hope that she would poor her heart into the grieving process in any form or fashion she deemed necessary.
Whether you are a Pacifist or Aggressive, what she does in her process of grieving is her business. If those who oppose this administration and the war efforts are exploiting her, you are no better for exploiting her for your devices.
We all have our motives. And our Commander-in-Chief is a coward for not facing her as one human to another, at a minimum.
Suggesting that she is somehow dishonoring her sons’ service by exercising her freedom to express grief is tantamount to my claim that Barbara and Jenna serve to dishonor their Fathers cause by not serving. I feel that is a fair assessment of what I believe.
If you claim that your pro-military, pro-life, whatever…but you insist that summary death on both sides is somehow productive at this point; please clue me in as to what the plan is again. Long term. Short term. However, you want to parse it. I do not see a plan nor do I see a plan to plan by the Bush administration. If nothing else, look at the situation from a military standpoint and answer the question to your own satisfaction and for yourself. And if your still convinced that our military is being used in a manner that serves the World; yes World, not the U.S. specifically but the World, then I suggest you climb into a military uniform in some capacity, and run don’t walk to the frontlines to get some perspective, just so you are able to get a World view of the situation on the ground.
Constitutional democracy is more important and more worthy of preservation than Islam, so the opinions of the free world count for more than the opinions of the `Muslim world.' And QED the Zionist David is still holding his own against the Philistines.
Hey, Bosco: The Iraqi people, by and large, LOVE the United States. You really should start trying to get alternate news sources.
Hey, anonymous "ex-Navy" (yeah, okay): Exactly how many time does our Commander-In-Chief have to meet with this deranged woman in order to not be a "coward". Repeat after me: He. Already. Met. With. Her. (and she said that it was a wonderful and "healing" experience for her.)
Also, "ex-Navy" guy... I WAS a set of "boots on the ground" in Desert Storm. I also have no doubts about the results (the DIRECT results) of my actions.
Thanks for the input, though. Now go try daily kos or democrat underground- or someplace where they will listen to pablum like that without feeling sick to their stomach.
how many innocent iraqis deaths are equal to one u.s souldiers?....none are. So fight on Woman, I'm here. Bush lied to go to war and thats a fact. Why are we at war within a country that posed a threat to us and had ties to al qaeda? To bring democracy to the middle east? Why not save the Sudanese they seem more important than a country that the U.S marine corp. deemed to be harmless after a decade of sanctions ( report in 1998). Look it up people the truth is out there. Bush should be hanged like my ancestors in the south 40 years ago. America has done her dirt. We just cover it up well. Just like this pres. has. Im neither a lefty or rightwing so don't respond that i'm not a patriot. And i would never join the army who discriminated against my pople and historically has be a segregated part of our government. Look it up most of new recruits are targeted demographically as being poor or a minority. When black souldiers came back from WWII were they heroes no, they were spat on for being a darker shade. Has that changed? Perhaps but it doesn't negate the fact that this occured. So bring the troops home and stop the killing. The way to peace is not through violence. Dr. King remember him? Oh yeah he was spied on by the FBI. For what? I don't know. Maybe it was our beloved leaders at the time who wanted to know more about him and his cause. Do your thing Cindy and add fuel to the fire. This president will go down as the worst the great country has produced. I just know the truth. Do YOU?
latest anonymous:
"The way to peace is not through violence..."
ummm... except for lynching the President of the United States... right?
Idiot.
I am a Vietnam Era vet and met Cindy Sheehan when she was here in Providence. I know and she knows that her son died because Bush wanted this war! Maybe some of you Bush lovers will care to answer the question "What do you say to a family who has lost a son or daughter fighting to destroy WMDs that turned out to be non-existant?" Will you make excuses to the effect that it wasnt the Chimps fault? That he is only the President and cant be held accountbable? That everyone else thought there were WMDs? Or will you resort to your usual stupid ways and smear and attack and accuse of being unpatriotic anyone who tells it like it is? Rather than admit you were wrong you insist she is throwing away his memory for propaganda??!! Who the hell is guilty of propaganda if it not Bush and lying gaggle of chickenhawks?
And to the Marine whose "blood boils" ...rest assured mine boils too at the waste and carnage of it all but unlike you I am not about to blindly "follow orders" and I do hold the Liar in Chief accountable!
We cannot win this war. We have created more terrorists than we have eleminated but you dont get that do you? We are driving this nation to bankruptcy but you insist we "stay the course" and you support a war against a nation that never threatened up and never had any WMDs at the time of the invasion. Dont even tell me that you would not be screaming bloody murder if Clinton had done this.
Go ahead respond to me but when you do be sure to tell me where the WMDs are and how you would act if Clinton had done exactly the same thing.
thats funny KMG ...in Dr. Kings last semorn..look it up. He spoke on how America is going to hell. Every and I mean every civilization has rose and fell. I just wish this president did not send young men and women of my generation to fight for a cause we have no right to fight for. Like I said where's the aid to the Sudanese?
If they are to survive at all, relief for the black Christians of Sudan can come only with the abolition of Islam. Is that what you want? I post anonymously for convenience but my name is Charles Freeman of Portland, Oregon, and I denounce Cindy Sheehan as a traitor. Further, I demand that President Bush prosecute the war against jihad to the fullest extent necessary to secure the freedom and sovereignty of the United States. Anything less would be dereliction of duty.
So I guess we are traitor is we disagree with our government. Did not those white slave owners in 1773 beleive that as well? r you think your going to heaven for just being a Christian? They were christians to you know.
Its the simple things in life that turn the peasant into leaders. And Bush was never a peasant.
You are a traitor if you give aid and comfort to the enemy, and many, many, many of you do. Rest assured, however, you will never be prosecuted. Shame is your only sentence, and, if you lack the capacity to feel shame, then you are off the hook. For the patriots, stand by your country right or wrong, send the enemy to the afterlife, and let God sort them out.
Charles Freeman:
I agree with you one hundred percent in that we MUST prosecute this war to the fullest. If I have any beef with the way it is going, it would be that we are not taking it to the necessary limit. THAT is what all of my fellow military personnel want... they want a fair chance to win this thing as quickly as possible
I see no value in trying to run a politically correct war. These ignorant voices that think we are not at war with radical islam will always be there... we cannot be sidetracked by them. They are the specks in the history books... the ones who wanted to continue appeasing Hitler, etc. The real problem is the Conservatives who are not willing to get this thing done ASAFP.
But, I digress...
Cindy Sheehan is insane and needs professional help immediately. Her family agrees.
What else is funny about your comment Charles Freeman is how there are tribes and countries in Africa with no relegious affiliation but there are Christians and Muslims in that country as well. I wonder if those people are going to go to hell since they pray to the stars instead of Jesus for rain? Cindy has a right to speak and I hope this thing gets bigger and overblown so that way Greenday's "American Idiots" can understand that we have an idiot as a leader. A "C' average in college running our country? The baby boomoers are messing it up for us kids don't worry they'll be dead by 2020 and we'll have the power! Rock on Cindy!
Unfortunately, at least to some extent, we must have faith in the wisdom of the civilian leadership. WRT the pussy-footing, there may be some method to the madness of self-restraint. Tactically, we can not afford to let the Muslims know that we know what this conflict is about. Most of the world's Muslims would surely like to go back to forgetting that jihad is one of the pillars of Islam, as we all would. Anyway, as for the last 100 years, the true enemy of the U.S. is the political-insanity called Marxism and its support of all anti-American violence, from petty crime to genocide.
True... and marxism is behind this latest horror with Cindy Sheehan, as well. The groups involved with her are known associates of communists.
It is disgusting that our old media is doing this to our country... the debilitating effect this will have on our military effort is considerable.
I keep thinking about it... and it keeps coming up "sedition".
Anyway, the BIG showdown with radical islam is coming... sooner or later. Many of us realize it... a great many more of them realize it. Someday, even the deranged far left will realize it... and they might even get a clue that the crocodile is going to eat them first when it gets into our pond.
Do not rely on the self-preservation instinct of a mind afflicted with viral Marxism. And do not be dismayed that the traditional American media are anti-American. The media are a logical target of infiltration by an enemy, so it ought not be surprising to find entire news rooms staffed with doddering KGB stooges, fighting on like a Japanese soldier abandonded in Micronesia, unaware that what they fight for no longer exists. This is not at all a recent development, and with the abolition of the fairness doctrine, they no longer control what people think and know. The Cindy Sheehans and the New York Times may be appropriate targets for scorn and ridicule, but they no longer have the power to determine the outcome of a conflict, so they no longer merit fear.
Hey Charles,
Why don't we just nuke every Islamic country and get it over with huh? Well, that would be a final solution to this "terrorist" threat that is afflicting the world wouldn't it? Then all the Judeo-Christians would live long lives and go to heaven...hallelujia, amen. Wait, what world would they be living on? I guess that is what the Space Station is for. Seriously though, there is no easy answer to Ms. Sheehan's grief, nor to our Country's dilemma about how we are going to "finish" something that has dubious beginnings and was not based upon defensive actions, but a knee-jerk reaction and capitalization on the shock that we experienced by being attacked unprovoked. But those little Arab orphans are not going to grow up loving the U.S., and I pray that my children have the sense to say, "hey we made a mistake". When I came home still dusty, my 13 yr old daughter asked if all that sand was from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia where the terrorists came from, and I had to look her in the eye and tell her about the dust in Fallujah and why daddy had to kill those guys because they were trying to kill me. She looked me right back and asked why wasn't I in Pakistan in the first place. What could I say...it wasn't up to me. And why didn't I kill Osama bin Laden?...he was hiding.
i thought this was a War about WMDs? Now its about freeing the Iraqis and later said today to protect America? Please tell me which one it is so I can disregard 2 of the 3. Bush is a liar. Like I said both sides have dirt under their hands even the conservatives who claim they love their president. And the lefties who hate this president. I don't like this president because I can see it in his eyes. He's a liar. A very very evil man lurks in him. The just and right see that. As Allah, God, Jehovah as my whitness. So many Iraqis dead and many women and children. I can't believe this and over what? WMDs? Over a notion that they'll stike us before we strike them. Like I said innocent people are dying even our troops. Cindy, my hats off to ya.
- "Yeeehaaw now lets go kill us some Arabs"
The answer for Ms. Sheehan's grief is for Ms. Sheehan to get over it. Privately. She made herself a spectical by engaging in a particularly base form of Leninist political theatre, a spectical she is. The future of all nations is freedom. Marxism and Islam are not compatible with freedom, they are both therefore incompatible with the future. There is no need to nuke anyone (at the moment). All that need be done is to (again) demonstrate that free people have both the will and the way to preserve and promote freedom, and that Allah and Michael Moore are both powerless against the juggernaut of human freedom. Individual liberty is winning and will win the conflict or world-views. If you look up you can see it happening. It is only a matter of time before you will be unable to see otherwise.
I can tell you this much I'm young and I know the next generation will not enlist in the armed forces for the simple fact of the lies of this war. Watch out baby boomers we are not fighting your wars anymore. No More. "Hey teenager Uncle Sam lies to us don't sign that enlistment contract" Go right ahead and rip it up. Tear it up! We might be at war with IRAN next?
Simpleton! We have been at war with Iran since 1979! We have been at war with DRPK since 1949! To be at war does not require a conscious choice. It is the easiest thing. Winning a war, on the other hand, requires conscious effort and dedication.
Like I said we are not fighting your wars anynmore. You should be fighting for better health care since thats the future for you. For us is peace. War will not get you there either.
After seeing this women on TV for the past week, I feel the need to blog! It is evident that she is grieving her son, however she should be ashamed of herself and the way she is carrying on. It is very obvious that the LEFT is using her during her time of grief and depression. It is hard to do the right thing when you are not thinking clearly. President Bush has already met with her. She asks why his daughters are not going to Irag??? BECAUSE they did not enlist in the Military.... It is an ALL volunteer force. Of course I am sure the radical left would change that as long as they could keep their children and selfs out of harms way. At this point Sheehan is making a fool of herself. NORMAL thinking Americans are either feeling pity or irritation for her. I think they should throw her and her buddies from the left in Jail for awhile to think over their stupidity.
How noble, courageous and novel to shirk one's duty! What an outstanding example of our nation's youth, to be so independetly minded! Very impressive. Marijuana truly is a cerebral tonic.
I just gotta tell all you folks both cons and libs that it was a hard thing to kick down doors and drag out other humans who really had no idea that they were criminals, or that they deserved to be treated to such indignity. I will kill anyone who does such a thing to me or my family no matter what their rationale, and I for one have had my fill of the red dust of Tikrit. There is a time and place for such action and as someone who was there for 38 months, I still have nightmares and am praying for forgiveness for what I was forced to do. May God have mercy on my soul. May God bless America, but first forgive us for our sins. I am glad that I don't have to face Mrs. Sheehan myself, because I really don't have the answers she so desperately needs in order to accept the loss of her son and my comrade-in-arms.
20 more years folks, in 20 more years baby boomers will be gone and our generation has the reins to the carriage. Wish us luck mom and dad we are going to need it after what you guys left us behind with- A War on terroism thats never going to end, horrible school systems, paying off the deficit and the world hates us. Thanks alot!
Seriousviz... don't look for a call when the academy awards come along... your act is hollow, at best.
It is also a bit rude to taint the honor of the men who actually fought in the places you mention...
Ironic that a far left operative would pretend to be what he despises to gain some modicum of respect.
I'd laugh if it wasn't so damn pathetic.
...and for the record, seriousviz... the only "comrades in arms" you have are Cindy Sheehan, michael moore, and the rest of the deranged far left who are trying their level best to undermine our country's very survival.
Yes, my young friend, the baby boomers started the Islamic terrorism war that's-never-going-to-end by abusing their flower power, and by threatening oil Arab income with their proliferation of solar panels. It's up to you, the young people, to make amends and appease the Muslims by wrapping up your heads and stoning homosexuals to death. Get started! We're counting on you!
I don't have a duty to fight for my country if its not actually a worthy fight at all. If my buddy befroe he joined the marines had future glasses and new what we now before he enlisted I don't think he would of even after 9-11 he wants out now and most of the other marines do too. But he and most of his buddies re enlisted because they fight not for our country but for there comrades and brothers in arms and that to me is a duty. Not removing a dictator killing his own people. Or better why not get rid of all the dictactors then thats a policy my generation will serve for our country. Yes the "chronic" is good old man! Look at the numbers for emlistments very low 'old man" its going to get even lower now that Cindy is on t.v. Now go watch some MTV and learn about us.
kmg...very funny I didn't see you when I deployed from TSCI, CC and helped coordinate efforts Eager Tiger and Earnest Light along with OPE. Get over yourself. Let's put it out there and let the common folk know what's really going on and stop playing around. I got the scars to prove it, and am ashamed of it.
Go read the Declaration of Indpendence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Emancipation Proclamation and learn about us.
hey Mom of Marine, that's exactly what I am talking about. What you describe is something I can relate to and support. But I still don't understand why I was getting shot at in Iraq. I will defend my country with honor when my liberty is at risk, but those guys didn't threaten my home or my family back here at all. Hell, I still don't feel any safer today than I did in 1998. Do you?
seriousviz...
You're ashamed of your service? Yeah... that's believeable... doing a great job, man. These wacky Conservatives will buy this act- just keep it up! (38 months, though? That was probably a little bit over the top...)
Good grief... try this somewhere else... you are as lame as lame can be. Please stop dishonoring our military... please.
mom of Marine:
You have True Grit... and I salute you.
Stay motivated... and don't let the seditionists get you down!
I never do... :-)
-kmg
I don't know if I'll garner any respect from you in mentioning so, but I received a letter of commendation from a full bird Colonel for my support of the Marine Corps as a civilian during my tenure with the Fed. He was the Commanding Officer of EWTGLANT, amphib base Little Creek. Pretty rare for a civilian from what I understand.
Since you have elected yourself as the blog forum Marine Corps spokesperson, I'll answer your question if you answer mine.
Exactly how many time does our Commander-In-Chief have to meet with this deranged woman in order to not be a "coward"(?) I took the initiative to add the question mark on the end of the sentence because it appears to be a question.
My answer is: once again, right now. The President has nothing to lose. Maybe he is afraid that she'll attack him. She looks pretty intimidating in those pictures. But it really depends on the character of the Commander-In-Chief. If he can't sac-up and commit to a meeting with a constituent, I don't imagine he would do well to face an enemy. He is a poor representation of the head of the Armed Services. He lacks the character to represent any Marine in my opinion. But, soldiers are trained to do what they are told. So, I understand that you want to be a good soldier. But, even as a piece of government property, your rights, as an active service member allows you to question the mental capacity of your superiors, especially when they appear to be losing the capacity to command.
So, you have taken the initiative to degrade the grieving AMERICAN mother to a ‘deranged’ status. You may not be the best choice for Marine Corps representation. You must have been a conscript to NCO status because your conduct within this forum is unbecoming of an officer. I'm sure there are a number of our comrades who would want to you to quell your demeanor and act a bit more gentlemanly.
And my question to you is fundamental for service to the United States.
When you raised your right hand and swore an oath; were you aware of the ramifications with respect to the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of rights?
Ms. Sheehan and her friends have an obvious agenda, and they are using her son's death to facilitate it. Her son was a warrior for our nation. He reenlisted after 9/11 and fully understood the dangers when going to war. Ms. Sheehan is fast losing many folks sympathies by tarnishing her sons memory for her personal agenda. Her own family is speaking out against her and that's the first sign she has no support yet doesn't care. This clearly shows she is not a genuine mother grieving for her lost son, just a self-centered grandstander.
six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahedeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government."
Morning Star -
You seem to know more about Able Danger than the man who was the source, Rep Curt Weldon. He has said, and maybe you haven't heard him say it, that the CLINTON administration was responsible for ignoring the information on the hijackers before 9/11. Got that. Straight from Weldon's mouth!!!! He also said that CLINTON could have had Bin Laden handed to him on a silver plater, but CLINTON, got that, CLINTON said NO THANKS!!!!!!!!!!! 9/11 happened because CLINTON f'd up.
Even though I've taken to ignoring the wind-like noises coming from morningstar, I have to say that I was unaware that the Soviets had invaded Saudi Arabia... that is definitely news to me.
anonymous who got a letter of commendation or whatever: You'll pardon me if I don't dignify your slander with a response. As for the President- he made time to meet with her once and that is more than many-MOST- other Presidents would have and have done.
The most startling thing here is that many otherwise intelligent and rational sounding human beings (morningstar excepted, of course) are SO blinded by their seething hatred of this President. He really gets under your skin, doesn't he?
Well... as the proverb says... "he who angers me, controls me."
Dubya definitely has your number, guys... try to get some help with that- it's making you sound quite inane...
You could try Chrenkoff... you could try any one of the Iraqi blogs (like iraqthemodel) and you could try the horses mouth.
I know it's hard to get this, because the old media simply will NOT report the good. It's pathological with them (see my new posting today for details).
To the "person" who thinks it's not possible to be a Christian and support George Bush -
A real Christian understands what it is that makes a person a Christian. And since you have no idea what that is, I'll fill you in. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, who believes that we are all sinners and are only saved by the blood of Jesus and declares that to the world.
Are those that supported an adulterer president not Christians? I never considered Bill Clinton NOT to be a Christian while he was getting blow jobs in the White House. We all know what a beacon of morality Bill Clinton is for the world. If Bill Clinton and George Bush understand who Jesus is and confess their sins and humbly ask for forgiveness from God, they are Christians.
It isn't up to you to decide that someone is a Christian only if they have the same politics as you. I have liberal friends and family, I would NEVER consider them NOT to be Christians because of their politics. Ignorant statements like yours have no business in this discussion.
Morning Star your intelligence is mind boggling. Clinton was president in summer of 2000. Bushes first inauguration was in January 2001. SPIN THAT!
It is impossible to have a reasonable debate with unreasonable people.
It is unfortunate that so many humans must die, because one group of people are holding on to Ken Starrs inability to prosecute and impeach former President Bill Clinton.
They will attack you and I long before they attack the real enemies or face the fact that the infidel they replaced Clinton with, is equally as unable to prosecute a war.
They know not what they are fighting for, but they have a long line of troops to fight for them, so they remain indifferent.
Don't be surprised when you write a comment that hits home with them. It is most likely, so painful to admit that a dissenter is right, that they will just ignore your logic and deflect the argument into Red Herring territory. They have forgotten the principles upon which this country was founded and have commandeered the reigns of control to fulfill their own strategies into controlling the planet, not freeing it.
This argument is no longer about Cindy Sheehan, nor is it about prosecuting a war on terror, it is about Bill Clinton.
No, my sad little anonymous friend... this argument is about the same damn thing it is always about- the deranged far left's seething and irratinal hatred for President Bush.
See today's post for further details.
http://rightequalsmight.blogspot.com/2005/08/little-less-hate-please.html
By the way, thanks to the anonymous Christian for reminding us all the truth about Jesus Christ. I could not possibly agree with you more.
"irrational"
Sorry...
previewismyfriendpreviewismyfriendpreviewismyfriend
And to those who claim to be Christians while supporting War, or the politics of War, understand that according to my Bible and its' teachings, there is no caveat within Gods Law as inspired by the Hebrew writings of the Ten Commandments that makes exception to "Thou shalt not kill". Similar Decalogue writings’ appear in the teachings of the Quran and within Judaism, so maybe there is something to this notion of 'Not Killing". Ya think?
If you have a Bible and wish to read the context in which the Hebrews cited Gods Law during the Exodus, you may find a correlation with the events of those times and now.
Don't be afraid to question your own political beliefs when you are confronted with the Truth. Go talk to your Pastor, talk to other Pastors, and get third opinions if you must. But please understand that I personally have changed my views of how I interpret the events taking place around us over the past few years, because I sought guidance through the teachings of the Bible. And no fundie within any known religion will change that.
Debate within this forum will not change Gods Law. Stop worshiping Bush and Co. and seizing the Christian religion to advance, condone, or proceed with, senseless killing.
Our troops are doing exactly what they have been trained to do. It is, however, unfortunate that they have been used for purposes other than those for which they were intended.
-kmg
I did not use the word 'irrational'. Was that a response to a particular former post or to one of the voices inside your head?
I will not dignify your comments by visiting a website, unless of course you have the maturity to respond to my question to you earlier. After all, I had the sac's (ya know? those little round things that males are born with) to respond to your question.
You suffer from Rush-itis. You are unable to see beyond the blinders of your narrow views, so you defect direct analysis to a prescripted response as you have been trained to do. Good Boy!
Actually, grasshopper, I was correcting my own misspelling in my previous post. I realize that self-correction is an alien concept to someone blinded by hate and rage... but it is useful- you should look into it sometime.
For the... slightly confused person posting on the Bible: Nowhere does it prevent SELF-DEFENSE- which is what we are involved in right now. The islamo-fascists are very much dedicating to killing all of us and establishing their cult upon the entire earth.
Without trying to sound like a prophet- I would guess that our Lord and Saviour would not want that to happen...
It is a crying shame that you live in such fear.
I do not fear death. Why should I spend this beautiful life I have been given to fear another man?
You are not a purveyor of Truth, nor logic but only of hatred. What a waste of a Soul!
Self-defense?
Self-defense.
Hmmmm.
I don't understand that comment.
Your Comment:
Without trying to sound like a prophet- I would guess that our Lord and Saviour (sic) would not want that to happen....
My Response:
You won't sound like a prophet if you seek Biblical guidance. You don't have to guess what our Lord and Saviour (sic) would or would not want, you need only seek Biblical guidance.
If you espouse to a belief in Christianity, you would understand the point I am making.
The topic of the subject is whether Cindy Sheehan’s loss of her son, allows her the right to express remorse and grief, and to question the logic behind our presence in Iraq.
If you need to place blame, place the blame where it belongs. Cindy Sheehan did not solicit, that I am aware of the amount of National attention that is being given to this situation.
She has not forced these people to volunteer, nor drive to Crawford, nor blog, nor write letters, nor express their' right to question the motives behind these senseless killings, on both side, in Iraq.
I am still unclear about your reference to self-defense.
Unless you have some information or intelligence, that justifies predictive, not preemptive War with Saddam Hussein, the term self-defense does not factor in to the argument.
Insert your deflection here.
I'm not sure why we are still calling the information intelligence - that would be a reference to the root word intelligent, which connotes rational and wise decision-making.
Why is this administration still trying to sell so many people on the War in Iraq, three years and counting into the mission?
Anonymous Elitist:
"She has not forced these people to volunteer, nor drive to Crawford, nor blog, nor write letters, nor express their' (sic) right to question the motives behind these senseless killings, on both side (sic), in Iraq.
I am still unclear about your reference to self-defense."
Now you understand... no one "forced" her son to enlist, either.
You compare our military fighting the terrorists with their "senseless" killings... which tells us all that you are one who thinks we are as bad as they are.
Instant drainage of any credibility.
Self-defense: They attacked us first... MANY, MANY times... starting with Tehran 1979.
Self-defense: Fighting them there, rather than here.
Clueless: You.
I guess we'll see who stands where on this subject in the near future with respect to the situation with Iran. The War is coming home to the U.S.
If the Draft were invoked to conscript anyone, regardless of their belief system, into the military, there would be many more people suddenly against the idea.
When the conflict in Iran evolves (better not use that term - it's a no-no), ummm...progresses (nope, can't use that one either), uhh...decays into a War on?? (Insert unjustifiable neo-con flash in the pan terminology here), then maybe we'll understand the implications of pissing the wrong people off unnecessarily.
I don't expect there will be a 'Draft'. But, I do suspect that to fight three wars in linearity, we'll need more boots.
This administration has two options for predictive War with Iran:
1) Invoke the 'Draft'
2) Create such a bleak economic situation that the poor...pour-in, out of desperation to feed their' families, or get an education in the absence of the ability to afford an education, or to have access to medical care for themselves or their families, or because they haven't worked in their field of expertise and unemployment will run out soon, or they have just given up and would rather die a mock noble death.
If Iran is such a threat to us, is North Korea next?
Why isn’t Homeland Security training the public on how to protect themselves in the event of ‘Nukuler’ fallout?
Wouldn’t Homeland Security want to provide its’ constituency with the necessary tools and information to protect themselves? That seems logical, as our emergency services within the U.S. have their own limitations.
How will we contend with the emerging presence of homegrown terrorists? I’m not referring to someone who snuck in under our Radar, but those American citizens who will arise, as did those Iraqi citizens.
I apologize for bringing this up. But, in my opinion, this is a discussion we need to have, sooner rather than later. And there are only a few degrees of separation between Cindy Sheehan and the coming War with Iran.
Your Comment:
Now you understand... no one "forced" her son to enlist, either
My Response:
I anticipated a deflection and you delivered.
Your Comment:
Now you understand... no one "forced" her son to enlist, either.
My Response:
Point well taken, but again you are deflecting from the issue as to whether we, in this forum, should allow Cindy Sheehan, to grieve and to be supported by like-minded supporters; that, my friend is 'Elitist'.
Your Comment:
You compare our military fighting the terrorists with their "senseless" killings... which tells us all that you are one who thinks we are as bad as they are.
My Response:
No, sir! And I repeat, "Our troops are doing exactly what they have been trained to do. It is, however, unfortunate that they have been used for purposes other than those for which they were intended." The reference to senseless killings is a direct jab at a Commander-in-Chief, who refuses to admit the mistakes of his administration, having said he would bring moral clarity to the White House and the office of the Presidency, AT THE COST OF INNOCENT AMERICAN AND INNOCENT IRAQI LIVES. You may be under the impression that there is such a thing as a smart bomb.
So, are we still looking for WMD’s in Iraq?
I’ll answer that one for you. No. Now we’re there to free the Iraqi people and hopefully not kill them in the process. He road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
By the way, how about a little levity from the comforts and security of our homes or jobs, behind anonymous aliases and IP addresses?
Knock. Knock.
Who’s there?
Afghanistan.
Afghanistan who?
Get it? Afghanistan who? Funny, huh?
It is healthy to be content with your own death, but I don’t feel that it is healthy to be content with the deaths of others.
I support out troops, but I do not support this war. These issues are not one in the same. They are separate interpretations of:
a) Justification for fighting war based on a factual premise and
b) Justifying the loss of life as balanced with a supported goal.
What is our goal in Iraq?
Do you believe that there are WMD's somewhere in Iraq?
You distrust the IAEA's findings but you believe the information provided by a known forged document without wondering who forged the document.
Check before ya wreck, friend.
Your Comment:
Self-defense: They attacked us first... MANY, MANY times... starting with Tehran 1979.
Self-defense: Fighting them there, rather than here.
My Response:
Are you under the impression that Tehran is in Iraq?
Or, are you referring to Iran?
Have you already endorsed War with Iran?
Who exactly are ‘them’?
What part of 'Thou shalt not kill' justifies attacking a country un-provoked?
Why are we still referring to the information that led us to War in Iraq, as 'Intelligence'?
Again, the word connotes rational and wise decision-making.
It's fine to disagree with strategic decisions made by the civillian leadership. Privately. If you don't like the civillian leadership vote them out. I did not like all the pointless and dangerous deployments of the 1990`s, from Haiti, to Somalia, to Yugoslavia, and I made political choices accordingly (I still want our guys out of Yugoslavia). But I never second-guessed president Clinton in a public way that would give aid and comfot to an enemy and endanger the welfare of soldiers in the field. Anybody publically back-biting the president or the Army prior to American victory in any conflict is committing treason. Maybe, sometimes, you feel you must commit treason, but you should at least be honest about it.
-kmg
You are absolutely correct that in your comment about seeking alternative news.
I must say that our troops have done many wonderful things for the Iraqi people, and continue to do so, every day from their hearts, and against the odds.
Those men and women who have died and those who serve are noble and I would not hesitate to lose my life for them, even today. I love them. And that is my reason for fighting for them here at home.
While I understand that our views are non-linear, we seem to be taking the deaths of people on both sides for granted. Any one desiring to upset the process (insurgents, terrorists, anarchists, whatever?) deserve what they have coming to them.
Can we at least agree on that?
But unconventional Wars are fought by unconventional means. And the unjustifiable actions of those opposing the U.S. do not justify the actions of those who oppose real Peace.
And both sides are responsible for the fact that free Iraqis are prisoners in their own homes today, without security that they can depend on, without running water, without power, without sanitation, without a stockpile of daily subsistence. All at the behest of the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful country in the world.
You and I get to debate all day if we want. Pretty cool.
Any idea that is paying the price for our privilege to do so?
Are you really good with that?
While Staff Sergeant Cooper is eating an MRE between bomb blasts and sniper fire, the Commander-in-Chief is enjoying a seven-course meal in the comforts of a highly guarded refuge in Crawford.
Down the road, there is a grieving mother drenched in sweat with only one desire; to ask the President to answer questions of one of his constituents. And he refuses. And he refuses? I said "Down the road", not in another country, or State, or even another town.
What does he have to fear?
At this point, in our politics, the Secret Service could murder her in broad daylight without fear of retribution by the Laws that govern this land.
Wouldn't that be a lot easier?
Anonymous first line:
"It's fine to disagree with strategic decisions"
Where on Earth did you get the idea that questioning the motives of a President who sent us to war, is tantamount to offering aid and comfort to the enemy?
I do not understand where this phenomenon comes from.
If you and I are on a plane together or in a convenience store, or on the freeway and I see someone endangering your life or your family’s' lives, I have no compunction with intervening to help a fellow American despite how things might pan out in the eyes of the Law for me personally.
It is great that you support your President and Commander-in-Chief no matter what political persuasion is attached to the end of their names ("R" or "D" seem to be the only choices anymore), but you have a duty to this country as one of its' citizens to protect the foundation of the ideals of our fore fathers, with your life. And if you don't like dissent, don't live here. I mean, there is always an alternate point of view, but did we not flee English rule to get away from tyrants? Are our fore fathers therein by your logic, treasonous?
And so, Cindy Sheehan is treasonous, right? And freedom of expression is dead.
So, the elusive Osama Bin Forgotten Wins!
Osama Who?
six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahedeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government. They were known as the Taliban. Project for a New American Cnetury. Look up the Dates folks this administration wanted to go into Iraq well before they moved into the white house. Mis use of power. As far as Clinton? The only president to be inducted into the black hall of fame. Must have done something right.
"... The reference to senseless killings is a direct jab at a Commander-in-Chief..."
As are all of the left's references... either direct or indirect... always... all Bush hating... all the time.
Next point: If you can't see that all of this public ATTACKING of the President and our war effort is HELPING the enemy... then you are too far gone.
If you listen, you will hear- time and again- people on the Right say that it is your RIGHT to be against this war and this President... we are just asking that you act like the LOYAL OPPOSITION of the past and keep it down to a dull roar WHILE OUR TROOPS ARE IN HARM'S WAY.
Is that really too much to ask... or is the Bush Derangement Syndrome just too strong...
Don't bother answering... it was rhetorical... the answer is plain.
"...The only president to be inducted into the black hall of fame. Must have done something right. ..."
-It's so nice when you guys make our points for us.
Good Lord, you're all like living caricatures of far lefties...
At least PRETEND to be rational...?
Rational or not? Am I loyal to a President who lied to go to War? Is this Administration honest with American public? When they talk to reporters on C-Span do they tell the truth? Is Condaleeza a better Secretary of State than Colin Powell who used these words regarding Iraq " if you break it, you fix it." Who reluctanlty when to the U.N stating that Iraq poised an imminent and I mean a serious threat to America.
Bill Clinton was loved by all people. When folks found out about his sexapades in the White House they went ballistic. Why? He did not really hurt anyone. Does anyone have the official count for Iraqi civilians deaths? You Christians fail to realize that a loss of life is not tangible. 1800 souldiers now dead as a result of a Warmongering President and we dis regard the deaths of the innocent? Like I said does any one know the count on Iraqi deaths. Christians kill me with this notion that they are living life right and if they do good then they'll go to heaven. I guess those early Presidents did not get into heaven since they owned slaves?
For Clinton to get love from a group of Americans who usually distrust the Government for its past history towards that group is remarkable. I'll take Clinton getting a blow job over sending young troops over to oust a dicator that posed no threat except to avenge an assasination on his father as the President has said. Got get him yourself Dubya, you're a Cowboy! Yeehaaa.
Im a very rational person. I beleive in these things. Try to be a good person not only to my fellow Americans but to the world's citizens. Don't hate the enemy love the enemy as I have so learned from Ghandi and Dr. King.
All politiicians lie to an extent.
The american government has done there share of dirt. Which really doesn't represent me well Maxine Waters does. And work hard to attain the things in life for me.
Now Only have I saw violence as a means to an end is when I read Malcom X's autobiography. Some of those anti Civil Rights Americans are supporting Bush this very day. Oh our loving country! I hope more moms come out and speak on the deaths of there sons or daughters. The more press the higher the opinion polls are regarding this war. Maybe that'll persuade this President. As a result army enlistments are dramatically down. As a young collge graduate I know alot of my younger siblings are not going to sign up for fear of going to a war that's never going to end. No winner and no losers. Who knows what the next president might do. Democrat or Republican. Thanks babyboomers for leaving this world better than before, thanks!
"devildog" (okay)...
You obviously have NOT read this thread closely, or you would have seen that no one has spat upon any mother. The only spitting is Cindy Sheehan and her deranged far left handlers spitting upon the memory of her dead son.
All any of us has asked from this woman is to show some class and honor his memory. Grieve all you want, but stop using his sacrifice to further your insane far left causes.
She writes on michael moore's web site... who could possibly need more evidence than this.
As for bringing discredit upon this country- it is happening in a big way from the far left side... every single day that you and your ilk yell and scream like stupid children about how much you hate this President, you bring discredit upon us.
Again... keep your inane rambling protests down to a dull roar while our people are still in harm's way. Stop giving the terrorists all these propaganda victories.
If you had ever really been a Marine, you would already know this... and you never would have posted such nonsense.
(That, or you have completely lost your mind.)
Well certainly, Cindy Sheehan has every right to grieve, but why does she have to dishonor what her son did in order to push her political agenda? Her son obviously had pride in serving his country, and knew, upon re-enlisting, what to expect. My heart goes out to Cindy Sheehan, but she should think about how her son would have wanted to be remembered. As a Marine who gave his life to serve his country, I think it's safe to say that he most likely would have wanted to be honored and praised for his sacrifice, and would have wanted his parents to support that. There are certainly many parents in this country who have lost a child in battle, yet continue to support the president and the country's endeavors overseas inspite of their loss. Their behavior communicates that they are proud of their children and what they did for their country. What Cindy Sheehan is doing is dishonoring her son's memory and his sacrifice by calling it murder.
Of course, there are many in this country who oppose the war in Iraq, and they have every right to. But, it's time to stop assuming that the administration lied to the American public about its reasons for going to war. They had what they believed, to be compelling evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq. We have since found that there were not any WMDs in that country. But certainly, it does not mean that Saddam is not hiding them elsewhere, as he was a very smart and diabolical man. Also, it does not mean that we should assume that the Bush Administration was lying. It made a mistake. President Bush is just a man, and men are not perfect. But he has confronted the issue, and has said it would be a mistake to leave because that would be disasterous. We cannot leave Iraq when it is too vulnerable to stand by itself. We should stay until order and a strong democracy are established, so that the taliban cannot infiltrate and create an more corrupt regime than even Saddam could have concocted. It's also time for those who oppose the war and the president, no matter what, to put their differences to the side and concentrate on eliminating the terrorists. They see us divided, and they like that. They see the pictures from Abu Graib, and it fuels their anger. With increased anger come more attacks, as we have seen. They will continue to hate America no matter what we do, and by allowing ourselves to be divided, we are setting ourselves up for another attack. The president is not the enemy, they are. If America can build a united front, allow the government to go after these guys without demanding that they need to be afforded the rights established under the Geneva Conventions, we could conceivably win this war on terror within our lifetime. These terrorists are not entitled to those accords because they are not wearing a military uniform, therefore they do not represent their country. They are terrorists, not soldiers.
I would not say, however, that we should blindly support every move the administration makes. We should continue to monitor the government's actions and question their rationale. But we should not be so blinded by our own ideologies that we ignore the good that the government is accomplishing. I continue to support the president, but I also keep informed so I can make an informed conclusion free from my political views, even if that means disagreeing with him.
It's time for Cindy Sheehan and others on the left to see the big picture. Yes, the government made a mistake, no WMDs were found. But the safety and stability of the Iraqi government and its people are at stake. We made our bed, now we have to lie in it. We have to finish what we started. We have to try to make the world safer by building a free and democratic Iraq, and by eliminating the terrorists. These are big endeavors, but they both are meant to achieve a safer, more peaceful world. It's what Cindy Sheehan's son was trying to do, it's what thousands of military men and women are over there trying to do.
It's not just for the safety and freedom of the Iraqi people, it's for the safety and freedom of the America people, and we must remember that.
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-President Thomas Jefferson
Yes, Ms. Sheehan does deserve unmitigated scorn and derision, it is true. She is a puppet of the so-called unholly alliance of contemporary Marxism and good-old-fashioned jihad. Do not shed a single tear for her. All of us will lose family members throughout our lives, frequently to something as stupid as driving drunk, but few will have the distinction of having been related to a U.S. marine. That distinction can be marred by her that wears it. The conduct of political whores like Sheehan only embolden the enemy and prolong the conflict, so that other mothers will also lose sons. Perhaps that's what she wants, company for her misery. But I for one couldn't care less what she wants.
That was extremely well put.
I have felt the rhetorical temperature rise in here for days... and I even posted this morning on the hateful "discussions" that are all around nowadays...
It was very nice to see a calm and rational reminder to everyone of the truth of the matter.
Some will read what you just wrote and see the wisdom... some will not...
Either way... Thanks- I mean really, truly- for injecting that.
I was, of course, referring to Anonymous who ended that excellent post with a quote from President Jefferson.
Well said, husker met...!
Don't hold your breath, Mick.
kmg-
You're welcome.
-From anonymous Thomas Jefferson quoter
perhaps what some of you righty's dont realize is that that there is no "winning" a war on terrorism anymore than "winning" a war on drugs.
did britain win their war on terrorism? not until they sat down and negotiated. do you know why? terrorism is not like conventional warfare and using conventional forces to combat it is like using a handgun to kill a cockroach, you might get some but all you really did was put more holes in your house.
let me explain, in conventional warfare there is a way to win, you fight until one side surrenders, usually by signing a formal document to that effect. do you chickenhawks out there really believe you'll have a picture of bin laden signing an "i give up" framed next to your shrine to bushhole? probably.
terrorism is not about to go away, ever. once again, britain should be a good example, people from their own country blew up buses. why didn't anyone catch them in iraq? where all the terrorists are?
you see terrorists are who we are fighting and to fight them you have to act like one, namely by clandestine activity not by invading a whole damn country.
for kmg and husker met
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive."
Thomas Jefferson
you want to use other peoples words? childish, but it can be done both ways.
The IRA caved after the lost the sponsorship of the Soviet Union. Islamic jihad will cave once it has lot its state sponsors. Terrorists can not conduct large-scale operations without state sponsorship. If we go after the sponsoring governments, we can reduce Al Qaeda to the level of Earth Liberation Front, setting abandoned SUVs on fire and going on hunger strikes in Canada. Jihad should and I believe will go out with a whimper.
heres another for kmg and husker met, get off your high horses and come up with your own words, don't use dead presidents to fight your battles.
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson
sure, we'll just invade every country that has terrorists in it...
watch out world, here we come!
you're right, its such a short list of countries we should have invaded them already!
or maybe an embargo, yeah, thats it, that'll show those cubans a thing or two (just because castro's been around since, well, forever doesn't mean its not working, i'm sure there are plenty of starving people in cuba, much more than the ol usa, anyway, right?)
absolutely, north korea is almost done, except for that whole nuclear pile they have, gee, somebody ought to tell them that their friends in moscow gave up and that they're only fooling themselves...
gimme a break, nobody's buying the "state sponsored" thing. which state sponsored tim mcveigh? michigan? lets take 'em out!
actually it was probably new jersey, those guys are truly evil.
And to those who claim to be Christians while supporting War, or the politics of War, understand that according to my Bible and its' teachings, there is no caveat within Gods Law as inspired by the Hebrew writings of the Ten Commandments that makes exception to "Thou shalt not kill". Similar Decalogue writings’ appear in the teachings of the Quran and within Judaism, so maybe there is something to this notion of 'Not Killing". Ya think?
-------
Gee if this person was president during WWII, all European's would be speaking German and all of God's chosen, the Jews, WOULD BE DEAD!!! He/she would have just sat back and let the oven's pump out ashes because God knows we mustn't kill anyone FOR ANY REASON. Maybe even we would have let the Japanese take over the entire South Pacific. Under this person's ridiculous rationale, God would not have wanted to stop the complete annihilation of his chosen people because it would be breaking the commandment "thou shalt not kill." I think it's obvious to rational people that God allows for self defense. Maybe you need to go back and read bin Laden's jihadi declarations from the 90's. He and his minions want the complete annihilation of Christians and Jews, especially in the West. The idea of democracy spreading in the Middle East is making them crazy. They will do anything to stop that from happening. Curt Weldon's book should be required reading for every American.
"...gimme a break, nobody's buying the "state sponsored" thing. ..."
Nobody's buying it??
So... in your world, this terrorist menace that we face would exist just as fully without the wealth and support of its host nations...?
Like McVeigh... I get it. Just random guys, pissed at us for being so damn evil... just random guys blowing stuff up with their own resources and their own support. No support from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, et al...
Right back to the "terrorism isn't really a big problem... certainly not global... it is definitely for law enforcement to handle... draw up some search warrants and let's go ask for permission to question somebody..."
I love it when pacifists and tools of marxism and islamo-fascism try to think about complex things like how to battle evil.
By the way, if you really want to know where the WMD's are- we'll show them to you once we get to Syria... because they most surely and definitely are there- transported just before our forces entered Iraq.
It takes no faith to believe a fact... and you far lefties can't even do that.
Timothy McVeigh was probably sponsored by Iraq. You will remember that in his public statements, he praised Saddan Hussein, and denounced American sanctions, and he was known to keep the company of Iraqi asylum-seekers. And remember that counter-terror czar Dick Clarke opined that Terry Nichols studied bomb-making from Iraqi operatives in the Philippines.
As for Castro, starving communism is a slow process, but it is in many respects perferable to combat.
As for the pretended righteously indignant, we all know that the Left is not now and never was pacifist. As I (anonymous) made clear already, the Left supports all anti-American violence, from petty crime on up. The only violence they do oppose is violence that results in victory for the United States.
Leftists, be honest about what you believe, but recognize that the international socialism of your dreams never can, never will and never should happen. De-program yourselves and understand that, though history may be inevitable, the future is unknown to you. People like myself are your political enemies, but ultimately not your true enemy.
Hi again, morning freakshow... we missed you.
Apparently, you missed a dose of lithium. I have "banned" or "locked out" no one. Is that a new tactic...? Telling people that the evil Conservatives are trying to oppress your free speech?
Cute, but no cigar.
Anyway, I hope you are ready to rejoin with all the energy you brought here before!
I kind of like the "Stroke Me" site thing... but it wouldn't provide the hours of nonstop fun seeing what the DFL has to say.
I'm a Christian and I would have had no problem killing a Nazi running a concentration camp during WWII. I would have no problem killing a terrorist getting ready to cut off someone's head. I would have no problem killing a terrorist trying to force his sick radical form of Islam on my country.
I would like for one lefty, just one, to give me a reasonable explanation of how Bush lied about WMD and Clinton didn't when the Clinton administration came to the exact same conclusion about WMD that Bushes did. Because I am sick and tired of hearing the same tired old lefty talking points that have NO merit. Oh, and while your at it, address the Russian intelligence service telling Bush that Saddam was planning a terrorist act against the United States.
Please don't blame husker met and kmg for the Thomas Jefferson quote, because I was the one who used it, and there is nothing wrong with channeling someone else's wisdom when they said it better than you could have.
Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, let us not praise him too highly:
(1) the Barabary pirates were Tunisian Islamic Jihadis, who we ultimately appeased be (a) paying them off and (b) entering into the humiliating treaty of tripoli, wherein our govt disavowed Christianity (not a high point in out history);
(2)Jefferson, as Governor of VA, fled with his tail between his legs, when the British invaded his state;
(3) Either Jefferson or his close relation fathered children with a slave, and Jefferson kept thoses children, his own flesh and blood, as slaves, because he had squandered the funds necessary to free them; and
(4) Jefferson was a supporter of the murderous illuminati and Jacobins of France.
Hey KMG,
I was a Dem too until the last election when I listened to Kerry and realized that he was going to keep fighting terrorism the same way Clinton did and that scared the HELL out of me. I voted Republican for the first time in my life, and I don't regret one minute of it.
Peace will always over come violence. Look to Ghandi and Dr. King for examples. Even after being jailed, beaten, lied to and so forth. These are truly great LEADers. Not Bush.
God Bless Africa and the other poor nations. They need it most. And God Bless our troops for they never signed up to go to war with Iraq rather, to defend our nation. Iraq has not shown any aggression towards us in for a decade. Troops should have been sent to relief aid worldwide. Less deaths and better world view of this country. So Cindy bring more press to this issue and let true peace keepers persuade the rest of the nation that war is never an answer to any struggle.
as for the rest of you rightys, perhaps you don't want to understand but when you go to war the whole nation has to decide to go with you... like in ww2 for example. there was a good reason for that war, america was truly threatened by another entity that had the will and power to potentially destroy our country.
are you all so afraid of a "possible" terrorist attack that you will gladly hand over your brains and gonads to a president who obviously has neither.
i understand that the right wingers like to do things the hard way
"work hard and ye shall have your reward in heaven" and all that jazz but terrorists will continue to do what they have done already for many years which is slip through the cracks and strike when they find an opportunity.
israel has the best anti-terrorist teams in the world and quite a few more years of first hand experience stopping them than we do and they still get bombed, but you know what? they're not trying to dissillusion themselves that they can "win" they know what we will only discover through our own mistakes. a determined enemy will strike, you can slow him down, but it will happen.
so for those of you still wishing to live in rightyland where might makes insane, understand that all the technology and money we spend is only going toward vindicating the terrorists who claim we want to take over the world, because thats what it looks like when we invade a country on trumped up charges.
What about the 2300 documented cases of Saddam firing on US and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones (see above)? Were we all supposed to sit in uncomfortable positions and meditate in response to that? Man, I used to be a democrat, too, but I don't think I was ever that nuts.
Well, Bill Clinton has inspired a remarkable degree of personal loyalty for one presiding over the permanent marginalization of his own political party. You leftists really do seem nuts - and why all the vulgar sexual references? The president executes the laws. If you're unhappy with the Iraq war, blame the Congress, author of our laws. It is they who mandated regime change in Iraq and authorized the use of force to achieve it. Let the president be a lightening rod of criticism, but save some of your rancor for the Congressional represetnatives and us voters that put them there.
"What about the 2300 documented cases of Saddam firing on US and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones (see above)? Were we all supposed to sit in uncomfortable positions and meditate in response to that? Man, I used to be a democrat, too, but I don't think I was ever that nuts."
what about it? if you walk out in traffic people call you an idiot because you are in a dangerous place. if you fly near someones air defense system...wait for it...
omigod, (gasp!) they might fire at you!
you do realize admitting to having "been" a democrat only marks you out to be a traitor to the rightys. someone to keep an eye on since you might get switchy on them too.
I don't hate you. Because I don't understand you, doesn't mean that I hate you. The thing is - if we have a terrorist strike worse than 9/11, and we will, all of us who are berating each other will come together in unity because we are AMERICANS.
About Bush - you're wrong. He never made his faith an issue. It was the left that made an issue of his faith. What he did was speak openly about his faith and that was unforgivable from the left's point of view. He has spoken of respecting all faiths, but maybe you weren't listening.
"...terrorists can be supported by governments, same as the allies supported the french resistance,..."
--Ummmm... yeah, the terrorists are the moral equivalent of the people who were fighting Hitler. You know... I just can't for the life of me figure out why people think you far lefties are insane...
"...do you think the little kids in countries that we invade won't remember those uniforms with the red white and blue, ..."
--Having been to those countries that we "invaded" (Dear Lord, you people are sick)... and I can tell you first hand that most of those children will DEFINITELY remember us... they will remember us as the smiling, caring, loving people who helped them, gave them things, took care of them, and made their lives better.
You sick little America hating morons... "invaded"... geez...
Clinton is a tub-tumping baptist. Bush is a Methodist. Big difference. Baptists are way more evangelical. My son was baptized at Andy Card's United Methodist Church (Card wasn't there), a leftwing front-group if there every was one. The peacher got up and made some speech about how Bin Laden was like Jesus, and what a terrible guy President Bush was, and holy man or not, I wanted to strangle the bastard for co-opting my son's baptism for his America-hating agenda. Jerk.
Husker_Met: This is a new site- barely two weeks old... but when I get a hall of fame, you may just be in it if you keep up the awesome posts!
This Marine appreciates the history note.
hey kmg,
you're right, it wasn't an invasion, more like a homecoming with great fireworks, right?
they are, after all, so happy to see us that they've only killed less than 2000 troops. not too shabby.
keep rollin' with your dillusions old man, maybe you can share some of whatever it is you're taking with all the other war-mongers.
Im neither a democrat or republican. I believe both parties to be evil. I am a citizen of the world not just of America and Cindy is a great element to this growing debate. To bad Bush is so drunk with power he could care less of what his fellow Americans think. I don't read polls but everyone I speak with tell me that we should have never went to Iraq. Now that we are there we should have answers not sugarcoats of what actually is happening in the War zone. I predict this governments troops will be there for 4 more years. God Bless American....Indians
aka Morning Star - your excuses for Clinton ignoring the Able Danger report are pathetic!!! Interesting how you make excuses for Clinton but can't for Bush. It's okay that Clinton was preoccupied because he was defending his immoral behavior from the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY. Clinton's lies only added fuel to the scandal. He had very few intelligence briefings during his entire 8 years of presidency. He obviously didn't have time for national security issues.
maybe the scenes of iraqis dancing in the streets when we rolled into bhagdad were fabricated by... Karl Rove. Yeah, that's it.
Walter Cronkite
"...keep rollin' with your dillusions old man, ..."
--I assume you meant "delusions", 'youngster'...?
You must have missed the part where I said that I had personally been to such countries... and met such people as we were discussing.
Are you insinuating that I was not actually physically there- and am therefore delusional...? Or... did you just miss that part and assume that I had not been there and was therefore delusional...?
OR... are you (as I strongly suspect) just another vacuous seditionist moonbat?
P.S. There were some very cool fireworks when I was there! Wasn't too long ago, either- I'm "old" (41), but not "too old" to remember the rockets red glare over the desert... AWESOME STUFF!
So let Cindy do her job as well.
Blood for oil? That's why oil prices are at an all time low.
Post a Comment
<< MAIN PAGE