<< SCORES RECITED ~ MAIN ~ US SUPERSIZED >>
PRESIDENT PLEASES OPPONENT
Cindy Sheehan doesn’t want to meet George W. Bush:
KEITH OLBERMANN: The nature of the media coverage you’re getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that, from the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn’t it really better if President Bush doesn’t meet with you?
CINDY SHEEHAN: I would think so, yes. I think it’s great. And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don’t want to give them any hints.
Via Moonbat Central. According to Mike Carlton, Mother Sheehan has “stationed herself outside George Bush’s ranch in Texas and is refusing to leave until the President speaks to her”; evidently she’s quite happy with this arrangement (“I think it’s great”). No surprise that Sheehan is a fan of two-faced Scott Ritter:
I implore you to read some of Scott Ritter ... write the name down if you need to: Scott Ritter. R..I..T..T..E..R. I’m certain that many of you have already read his work. His work can be found in book stores, or go to Amazon.com. Read him and you will finally begin to understand ...
Yes, Mother Sheehan. Yes, we will.
The poor woman’s clearly stark raving mad, along with her supporters (Mother Sheehan, indeed!). We should stop being so harsh on them and give them the medical attention they require.
Posted by James Waterton on 2005 08 14 at 03:43 AM • permalinkUgggh, ‘Mother Sheehan’ is on Nine News now.
I’m feeling most unwell - Nicky! I need another martini!
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 14 at 04:13 AM • permalinkWhat she means is that if Bush showed up, all her imaginary friends would go home and her tea party would be over. Then she’d be lonely again.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 08 14 at 06:26 AM • permalinkI read the LGF post about this, and as a mother, I am beyond appalled.
The words that spring immediately to mind are patronising, condescending, insulting, demeaning. Quick! Break out the redundancy dictionary!
Who the F*ck do these lefty moonbats think they are that they have the right to twist this woman further around the bend?
I’ve yet to stoop to reading the Daily Kos, but I guess I’ll have to soon.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 14 at 06:33 AM • permalinkThis is a circus. A freak show and this deranged woman is center stage. The media war whores.
Scott Ritter quit his job with the Clinton administration because Bill would not fight Saddam and then he gets a bunch of money from an Iraqi businessman to do a documentary and voila he has changed his position.
I think that what people fail to grasp, perhaps it is too complicated..is that Saddam was supposed to comply. That way we did not have to wonder where the weapons or weapons programs were or if he had gotten rid of them or how he had gotten rid of them etc. That was the whole damn point. The very fact that we have to debate the issue tells you that Saddam screwed things up.
He could have done what Kaddafi did and the crazy bastard would be walking around like Al Capone today, smoking his cigars and beating people to death with a baseball bat.
But I think what I find the most outrageous is this woman’s nerve to believe that not only can she speak for her adult son, she is the self annointed mother of us all.
Take it from someone who has relatives in Iraq, she does not speak for my family. I disavow her and her anarchist and antisemite friends.
She doesn’t need much twisting.
I’m goin’ [to Crawford]. And I’m gonna tell them, “You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who’s blood is on his hands, has some questions for him.”
And I’m gonna say, “OK, listen here, George. #1, you quit, and I demand, every time you get out there and say you’re going to continue the killing in Iraq to honor the fallen heroes by continuing the mission; you say, except Casey Sheehan.’”
“And you say except for all the members of Goldstar Families for Peace’ cuz we think not one drop of blood should be spilled in our families’ names. You quit doing that. You don’t have my permission.”
And I’m gonna say, “And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for.” And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy’ I’m gonna say, bullshit.
You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don’t tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.’
Cuz, we’re not freer. You’re taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren’t freer, they’re much worse off than before you meddled in their country.
You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine
(massive round of applause)
And if you think I won’t say bullshit to the President, I say move on, cuz I’ll say what’s on my mind.
I’m a little shocked she didn’t say her son died for the “international Jew”.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 08 14 at 08:38 AM • permalinkI don’t know why you don’t like Scott Ritter. He must be a well respected journalist as he writes opinion pieces for Al Jazeera. Its not as if they would have anything to do with nutters or killers. Except maybe Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or any other psychopath who wants to take over/destroy the world.
While I wouldn’t dream of challenging the geopolitical expertise of Mother Cindy….
So, as many of you have heard, and I didn’t mean to cause any problems with the convention, but I was writing an email to everybody, and I was so mad, like I said, and I just had this brainstorm, I’m going to Dallas, I don’t know where Crawford is. I’ve been in Texas, Casey was stationed at Fort Hood. I drove from northern California to Fort Hood one time, it took like, 30 hours. And I thought, I could be driving for days to get from Dallas to Crawford!*
... I’ve got to wonder how the President is supposed to get Israel out of Palestine without being all, you know, imperialist in the Middle East and all.
(* Dallas to Crawford: 110 miles.)
Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2005 08 14 at 09:00 AM • permalinkMedia willingness to exploit the mentally disturbed (I take Mrs Sheehan to be so) should no longer surprise us. In Australia we saw the disgraceful spectacle of Cornelia Rau’s press conference’s, in which a woman who was clearly unbalanced and talking incoherently was paraded in public for our amusement.
This is another shameless tour of Bedlam.
People say that Bush has not done enough to defuse this, but how do you?
What do you say to the Cindy Sheehans of the world?
Believe it or not there were mothers who lost sons from WW2 to Korea to Somalia who had their doubts, but they were not represented by PR firms and political consultants.
Maybe from now on all soldiers should be required to get permission slips from their mothers before they can serve where the commander in chief sends them.
And I am sick to death of the Bush lied people died line of crap. The truth is if there is a lie here, it was Clinton’s and Bush made the mistake of believing that the man who wrote the Iraqi Liberation Act knew what he was talking about.
The ignorance of the socalled antiwar movement is almost as stunning as their malice.
I know I am sick of the whole damn thing. I just wish we could get the job done and move on so that the kind of people Cindy Sheehan hangs out with and who have used her shamelessly, could crawl back under their rock.
I know a man who was rescued in WW2 in that raid they made the movie about…and trust me there is nothing that anyone an say about Bush that even comes slose to the bitterness he feels for FDR. I don’t agree with him, but how do you argue with a man that spent years in a prison camp? The same is true with anyone who has suffered a personal loss or tragedy. Whether it is a veteran or a relative of a dead soldier or a family member of a dead civilian, it is impossible to doubt their trauma.
But a president can not make decisions based on individual trauma or experience.
I believe that confrontation with Saddam was inevitable. It is not a matter of good and bad, it was going to happen. Saddam would have it no other way.
#9 guinspen-
This stuff literally makes me physically ill.
Do you think one newscaster ever asks
-Why did your child serve?
Like when Chris Matthews was super excited by the father who’s son had only been dead for twenty four hours-who responded to Matthew’s question-
Why did your son die?
Answer: OIL
Please just one time why don’t they ask the parents -
-Hey, did you ever discuss this with your son?
-Didn’t you have a duty to talk him out of it while he as alive -if this is the way YOU feel?
-Did your son feel the same way?
-Did you argue about it?
-Is this the way he would want to be represented?
-Or do you want to portray him as mindless?
-Don’t you have ANY respect for your son’s values?
-Finally,- Why are you using your son’s corpse to stand on as YOUR soap box so that you can demoralize his friends and comrades still out in the theater-and demoralize their families who are worried about them and glued to their television sets?
-The day they bother to ask those questions will be a cold day in hell.
Posted by madawaskan on 2005 08 14 at 10:24 AM • permalinkMother Sheehan: Way to ensure more of our troops get killed in Iraq as your words encourage the enemy. Way to take a dump on your son’s grave.
Media: Way to support this circus.
Rest of the Family: Sarcasm off/ Way to stand up for what Casey Sheehan believed in.
Posted by Tommy Shanks on 2005 08 14 at 11:15 AM • permalinkThe more you patriots lash out at a Gold Star Mother who merely wants an honest accounting of why we are in Iraq, the more you prove to the world that there never was a good reason for this optional (and lost) war. If she is so crazy, just give a rational description of the noble causes her son died for. Repeating old lies about his evilness (e.g. shredders and tongue removals) only furthers your image as crazies. And I have to note that calling her “Mother Sheehan” is a laugh riot. Dorks.
Rather than calling Sheenan childish names, why not just answer her question? Killing tens of thousands to capture an unarmed, impotent old despot only can only seen as worthwhile by a lunatic. Since WMDs, Incipient Democracies, Freedoms, etc. have all been shown to be false rationals. Tell us why are we there or go stand with Sheehan and demand an honest accounting for this disaster.
You know the war is lost, so you attack anyone who points it out. We all react that way when our worldview is proven wrong. I just ask that you don’t attack a woman who has at least earned the right to some basic decency.
P.S. For Christsakes, stop attacking Scott Ritter for saying there were no WMDs in Iraq! Attacking a guy for being right makes you look a little moonbatty
jlgolden,
We should call her “Mother Sheehan”. We should never call her Cindy; I don’t know her. “Mother Sheehan” is her title, and expresses her ceremonial status as a bereaved mother, calling forth over the dead body of her son. She is not a person now, she is a mother, which is not an expression of her individuality, but rather the expression of her eternal character: the mother, the bringer of life who has been wronged by state power.
Fearless Leader Has Spoken !!!
jlgolden just signed up here. He obviously didn’t read the site before doing so. jlg, you may as well give up; your litany of tired moonbat talking points isn’t even worth refuting.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 14 at 12:46 PM • permalinkWe should call her “Mother Sheehan” ... expresses her ceremonial status as a bereaved mother… the expression of her eternal character: the mother, the bringer of life…
Oh, Jeebus H. Christ. Further proof that the extreme left is just another religion.
“Hear the words of our Mother! She speaks for Gaia! Praise the fecundity of her nesting-stuff! Hail, hail!”
Moonbattery with a capital M-O-O-N-B-A-T. Stark-barking-moonbattery.
jgolden:
Listen buddy I have relatives serving in Iraq. Their parents have enough to worry about whithout wondering if Mother Sheehan is going to help get those soldiers killed by giving aid and comfort, whether she means to or not..
Osama said that Americans are weak, make us bleed and we will run away. It seems Ms. Sheehan is making his point for him.
I don’t like Ritter because he changed his story after money changed hands. Myabe that does not bother you.
And as for an honest accounting on Iraq, how about we start with the eight years that lead up to this war when Bill Clinton and the UN Security Council were passing resolutions liberation acts and making demands and Saddam was getting caught in lie after lie? Why does the honest accounting only pertain to Bush?
The thing that needs to be remembered is that whether those weapon stockpiles were found or not Saddam still was in violation of the mandatory force resolutions as well as the cease fire. And to this day there is no real explanation as to what happened to the weapons or why Saddam chose to risk war rather than comply.
According to the Deufler Report not only did Saddam keep the programs active, he was still using people for tests. So they know what his intentions were.
What I have noticed about much of the anti war people aside from their disgusting use of dead soldiers and civilians for propaganda is their tenuous grasp on the reality of the situation. they do not know the facts, nor do they care to.
For instance there is not one ounce of evidence to back up this womans’s claim that Bush and Blair and Howard would take such a risky step for money. none.. nada.. zip.
There is not any eveidence at all that we would know today about the status of Saddam’s weapons programs if we had not invaded for the simple reason that Saddam refused to do what he was suppsoed to do. In fact in 1999 Clinton offered to try and get the sanctions lifted if Saddam would let inspectors back in. Saddam refused.
In other words you are saying that Bush deliberately lied and then did the one thing that would expose the lie.
That is stupid.
And I am sorry but I find this woman’s anti semitism to be offensive. And what is more I think it is ridiculous for her to call Bush a liar when she is constantly changing her own story.I am going to assume that in her grief she has allowed herself to be used by the wackier elements of the far left. That is as generous as I can be.
But if she wants to park her butt in front of the man’s home and call him names and insult anyone who disagrees with her and associate with some really creepy people then it is not fair to say “You can’t disagree with Mother Sheehan. She is a saint and untouchable.” This is turning into a freak show.
Casey Sheehan is the person that matters here. He was a volunteer who reinlisted and volunteered again for the mission he died on. He was not a child, he was a 24 year old man and a hero who died in the service of his country and Cindy Sheehan’s buddy and pal Michael Moore can keep his grubby paws of this young man’s memory.
Hey, Pal, your claim that Sheehan is risking your relatives serving in Iraq prooves my point. No sane person believes that the insurgents are motivated by Sheehan.
Similarly, only a lunatic would argue that Osama has anything to do with Iraq.
It takes a psychotic mind to argue that Ritter’s motives for telling the truth are more important than the truth itself.
Apparently your delusions include believing that Clinton invaded Iraq. Bush’s policies have resulted in thousands of deaths; Clinton’s did not. Wingnut.
Bush deserved credit for getting the inspectors back into Iraq. They told him there were probably no WMDs. Had he not rushed to war, they would have eventually proved it, and you would never have heard of Cindy Sheehan. Your arguments misquoting Deufler and pretending that Saddam was the only despot who didn’t follow UN resolutions are simply futile attempts to argue against reality. (Check out the number of UN resolutions that Israel has ignored. Oops! now I’m an anti semite!) Sane people don’t go to war because they believe that someone someday might be a threat. We moonbats are willing to die for justified wars, but wonder how you wingnuts ask the last man to die for a mistake.I’m not saying Bush lied, I just want to know why we went to war. If it was because of bad intelligence, no rational person would argue that your relatives should risk death for a mistake.
Accusing Sheehan of not knowing the facts is just another hateful smear if you can’t provide the facts.
Anti-Semite? Bullshit designed to smear her. Argue with her ideas, but don’t try to discredit her arguments by pretending she isn’t worthy of respect. Personal attacks are’nt crazy, just despicable.
I don’t know Casey Sheehan’s motives. Only a crackpot would presume to claim to know a stranger’s motives better than his mother.
Yes, Andrea, I just signed up here. I have read Blair’s blog many times before, but the dishonest smears against Sheehan motivated me to write for the first time, which required registration. Get out of the gutter and you will never hear from me again.
Bravo, terryelee.
I am constantly amazed by both implication and direct statements, such as that made by our moonbat friend, that “the war is lost”. The war is lost simply because fools are committing criminal acts on the streets of Iraq? I’ve yet to see headlines that Australian, American or English cities are giving up prosecuting criminals, homicidal or otherwise, because the criminals are winning. The insurgents are merely “organized” criminals, pure and simple, and will eventually run out of bodies to blow up.
I personally would rather see them offer themselves as a tasty meal to a polar bear, or crocodile in a local zoo then puree themselves on the streets but this seems to be all they’re good for.
Looks like “fools’golden” to me. Sheehan citing fellow neurotic, Scott Ritter, is just two moonbats cooing at each other in a kind of ideological mating ritual.
What’s Mutha Sheehan going to do when Bush heads back to Washington? Hang around on Pennsylvania Avenue with that other noted anti-war protestor I’ve seen from time to time during my lunch hour perambulations(the big guy with white dreadlocks who wears nothing but a loincloth, winter spring summer and fall)?
Get out of the gutter and you will never hear from me again.
I suppose that means he’d conceding that he speaks from the gutter? Well, he may be inutterably stupid, but at least he’s honest.
Posted by James Waterton on 2005 08 14 at 03:06 PM • permalinkGet out of the gutter and you will never hear from me again.
A bit soon to be making demands, don’t you think?
Anti-Semite? Bullshit designed to smear her.
See #25, above.
Apparently your delusions include believing that Clinton invaded Iraq.
Link, please.
For all your talk of insanity, and rationality, and crackpots, you’re the deluded one if you think anybody here gives a crap about what you say, especially when it’s the same tired old BS over and over again.P.S. We “wingnuts” don’t need to do anything to discredit Mother Sheehan—she’s more than capable of doing that all by herself.
golden:
Why do you think Saddam brought Zarqawi to Iraq? To teach preschool? Ever heard of Abu Nidal?
In fact Osama’s second in command was in touch with Saddam and got money from him, just like the Palestinian suicide bombers. This was all documented by our intelligence agencies while George Bush was still the Governor of Texas.
My reference to Osama was simply to point out that Islamic terrorists see Americans as weak. Now I know that it is a matter of faith to liberals that while Osamam would be more than willing to deal with the Islamic branch of the CIA [who needless to say turned this mild mannered civil engineer into the monster he is today] he would never ever under any circumstances have anything whatsover to do with a secular guy like Saddam. you betcha.
According to the Clinton adminstration as well as the Bush administration they were fellow travellers to say the least. Saddam even offered Osama sanctuary and according to the 1998 indictments the Clinton administration brought against Osama for th eemb assy bombings in Africa, there was a connection between Saddam and Osama via the Sudan and chemicals. This is according to Richard Clarke himself.
In fact the 1993 attack on the WTC has been tied to Saddam as well as an attempt to kill a president. Saddam is capable of anything.
This woman has called for the destruction of Israel, she has called Bush an evil maniac, wants him impeached and has lied about her first meeting with him. She has called America a cancer, she has said that the US created an enemy in the communists just so we could kill people. Typical lefty propaganda.
And yes it does inspire attacks on our troops. Let me make it simple:
Do not reward the enemy for killing our people.
Oh yes… and I remember quite clearly Bill Clinton on TV with Tom Daschle standing at his side saying that not only did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destuction, he guaranteed us he would use them. That is why [he said] the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was to be the official policy of the United States. I thought then and there, it is only a matter of time. That was 1998, the same year that Osama declared war on the US.
Then of course came the bombing campaign against what were thought to be weapons sites in Iraq. We did this along with the UK.
So keep up golden. learn your history. get some background.
and while you are at it, check out the human rights violations of Saddam’s regime.
If the war is lost, why is Saddam still in jail? And why would you want it to be lost? Why does the left hope democracy and self determination in Iraq will fail?
Be truthful, given the choice between success in Iraq with a decent future for those people and Bush getting some credit for it and abandoning the Iraqis to mass murder and Bush taking the blame for the mayhem, most lefties I know would prefer the latter.
Their hatred for this president and their refusal to accept the fact that they lost the freaking election is so intense they don’t give a dman about anything else.
I know old men who went through WW2 who hated FDR, but they did not want the Nazis to win.
And golden if you want to know why we went to war go read the resolution signed by the Congress giving Bush authority to use force. It is short, it will only take about ten minutes and guess what, it was not all about weapons stockpiles.
Why should I do your homework for you? The wilfull ignorance of the anti war movement is stunning, not to mention annoying.
Anti-Semite? Bullshit designed to smear her.
You mean, she’s smearing herself? Here’s what she said, from my post above:
“Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.”
Now, before you go with the typical, “She didn’t say “Jews”, she said “Israel”, let’s analyze:
Israel has no oil. Our support of Israel only has deleterious effects on us in the region. So why do we support them when it hurts our interests to no benefit? I say, because they are an admirable democracy surrounded by barbarians. Cindy would say, the Neo-Con agenda. Again, to what end? This is where Paul Wolfowitz and ohers usually comes up. So a Jewish state has influence on US policy due to Neo-Cons in the administration like Wolfowitz. Meaning that Cindy is criticizing Israel’s [Jewish] state ties to influential American Jews [International] to direct US foreign policy [Conspiracy].
Sorry, goldieboy, but put as sophisticated and nuanced a face on it as you like, it still reduces to the sad old “International Jewish Conspiracy.” When your friends start talking like that, time for new friends.
She also wants Israel out of the mythical place known as Palestine.
Now I have seen Israeli mothers cry over the flag draped coffins of their sons. It would seem to me that Mother Sheehan might feel some empathy for them.
But no, not only does she not show the slightest acknowledgment of their loss, she wishes their country did not exist. What then does she wish their fate to be? Are they to simply vanish?
Israel did this woman no harm. The people who shot her son were not Israelis. If she does not want to be called an antisemite, then she should leave them the hell alone.
If she is so crazy, just give a rational description of the noble causes her son died for.
Oh my god. How many times do we have to explain what the War in Iraq is about? I’ve have explained this on Tim Dunlop’s blog till I’m blue in the face. And yet the left liberals go back to saying it was a result of Bush’s lies about WMD.
No. Saddam had WMD in the 1980’s and we didn’t invade. They had them after the ceasefire in 1991 and we didn’t go any further. And even if they had them in 2003 but everything else in the world was just hunky dory, we probably would not have invaded in 2003.
No. This is about terrorists and their now apparent willingness to DO ANYTHING INCLUDING DETONATING A WMD in a highly populated city in the US, Western Europe, India, or any other infidel land.
This is about avoiding a nuclear explosion, the release of biological or chemical weapons, that could cause catastrophic death and destruction.
Idiots. By this time, you SHOULD KNOW THIS.
One other thing. I want Sheehan to explain how she intends to prevent any of this from happening. But based on the lack of ANY PROPOSED SOLUTION by any left liberal thinker I know of, I imagine she will just strut around claiming moral superiority.
Idiots.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 08 14 at 04:28 PM • permalinkjgolden wrote:
Personal attacks are’nt crazy, just despicable.
Hence your referring to the people who don’t agree with you as “crazy”, “lunatic”, etc.
Oh, and don’t bother asking questions when it’s obvious you aren’t interested in hearing the answers and have already decided for yourself.
Oh, and do keep directing imperious demands towards our lovely admin. I’m sure she’ll give them the exact kind of respect they deserve.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 08 14 at 04:48 PM • permalinkAs wronwright pointed out, it gets tiresome to continually have to repeat the reasoning for the Iraq Campaign to leftists who never seem to comprehend or even read one’s explanations, but I shall try to make a succinct explanation for golden’s benefit.
The terrorism that struck us has its origin in the dysfunctional Arab political culture, even as Naziism had its origin in the dysfunctional German political culture.
To stop the terrorist jihadis, especially before they get a nuke from somebody, this political culture must be reformed.
From the character of its people Iraq is the best and most promising place in the Middle East to start the reform of Arab political culture. Students of Arab culture have agreed, since the 1920s, that of all the Arabs the people of Iraq have the best chance of modernization, save for the Lebanese.
To start this process Saddam and his Ba’athist thugocracy had to be overthrown and a reasonably decent, consensual government instituted in Iraq.
The above summarizes the overriding reason for the Iraq Campaign and its interAction with the War on Terror. There were other reasons for taking out Saddam as well. The WMD issue is one, and you should note that making use of flawed intel information is not the same thing as a lie. To hold that it is is itself a lie. The Duelfer Report shows that Saddam was prepared to restart his WMD programs as soon as the heat was off. Saddam is so reckless, so greedy for power and wealth, that he started two wars to seize other peoples’ oil even without possessing nuclear arms. What would he, or his psychotic spawn, have done once he got some nukes? Now, we do not need to worry about that.
The Iraqis seem to be progressing towards a form of consensual government. It is a long process, and ideas developed in the Anglo-American law and liberty tradition will have to be adapted to the Muslim culture of the Middle East, but I do not think this is impossible. The gleefulness with which moonbats conclude that this project must fail is evidence that they think the Iraqis are just a bunch of wogs incapable of governing themselves, who need a dictator like Saddam cracking the whip on them.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 08 14 at 05:20 PM • permalinkPeople can think this will make things more difficult for Bush, but gas prices are going to hurt him more than this sad woman.
The truth is when Democrats like Joe Biden are calling for more troops in Iraq not less this kind of thing can hurt them more. hoisted on their own petard. They need to get their base in line.
I know lefties who are happy when there is news that the Army is off on recruitment. Well, if some one like Joe Biden actually won the White House where would he get recruits from? Would the base of his own party have so demoralized the troops and scared possible replacements and their families to the point he could not find them?
Maybe the Democrats ought to have a talk with their wild side.
You know the war is lost, so you attack anyone who points it out. We all react that way when our worldview is proven wrong. I just ask that you don’t attack a woman who has at least earned the right to some basic decency.
I think it’s fair to point out that all you’re relly trying to do is use Ms. Sheehan as an emotional bludgeon because you have no interest or ability to engage in rational discussion.
I mean, great logic there, buddy. “I’m right and you know I’m right! So stop being wrong because… CINDY SHEEHAN!”
I say it a lot to people like you, but here’s hoping the shame catches up to you soon. Cheers.
Cindy-“Mother” Sheehan-
Ya use your son up…..get your extended fifteen minutes of fame-
She knows that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam?
Mother…Sheehan why don’t you ask the 300,000 corpses of little children found in Saddam’s mass graves?
Why don’t you ask the Kurdish babies that were gassed in their mother’s arms?
Why don’t you ask the children-some as young as ten years old that were used to sweep the mine fields during the Iraq-Iran war?
Oh ya she should ask she knows how dead children feel…./sarc.
Wow! The Left is s-i-c-k-e-n-i-n-g.
Posted by madawaskan on 2005 08 14 at 07:05 PM • permalinkWell today Joe Biden is calling for more troops and not less troops in Iraq so I guess he does not think the war is lost and last time I looked he was a Democrat. This might create a problem downt he road for them.
And David Duke has come out in support of Mother Shehann. If she is not anti semitic, someone should tell Mr. KKK.
#43 paco-
I’m voting for “Madonna of the Ditch”.
Take that road show to Fallujah and how long before a mullah whips her for showing off her mouth?
Posted by madawaskan on 2005 08 14 at 07:10 PM • permalinkTerrye
Biden “Smokin’ Joe”..?
That guy must be drinking and thinking he can run for President -again...
Hey-here’s hoping the Liberals keep going with losers…
Wow can they pick ‘em.
Posted by madawaskan on 2005 08 14 at 07:13 PM • permalinkAnd David Duke has come out in support of Mother Shehann. If she is not anti semitic, someone should tell Mr. KKK.
Yikes. Nice bedfellows there, guys. Reaaaaal nice. Forget Biden, madawaskan, his loserdom cannot compare to Duke.
I should be more comforted that the worst of the far right wing have found new homes, but the welcome guys like Pat Buchanan and David Duke get from the left is nauseating.
I should be more comforted that the worst of the far right wing have found new homes, but the welcome guys like Pat Buchanan and David Duke get from the left is nauseating.
The political spectrum is really a circle. And where do the extreme wings of Left and Right meet? Where is their eternal common ground?
The Jooooooooooooooooooos.
Oh Dave,
What an interesting observation. Scary really, isn’t it. Wow.—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 14 at 07:57 PM • permalinkI think of it as more of a pyramid, with the fascists, communists, and fundamentalists at the bottom, and us liberty-minded types up at the top.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 08 14 at 08:05 PM • permalinkIs golden gone? I was so hoping he could explain to us how and when we lost the war. I mean he seems to have such insight.
I think this struggle could take a long time and the only way we will really lose it is if the left and their terrorist friends manage to defeat our will.
Today Sheehan…soon will be the remaining AbuGhraib pics.
If Clinton had been president when something like that happened he would probably have bought those people off, traded their freedom for their silence…but not Bush, no he just had to court martial them.
Myers is saying to expect riots and the possible weakening of the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope he is wrong.
Nice of the ACLU to take a break from harassing boy scouts, defending child molestors and terrorists long enough to put more lives at risk.
They say we have a right to know what is being done in our names. Whatever was happening on the night shift in that unit at that prison was not happening in my name.
There are tens of thosands of soldiers in that coutnry who had nothing to do with that and the ACLU does not seem to think what they are doing is worth making a big deal about. I guess the only times soldiers do something in our name, is when they do something wrong. Otherwise, they don’t matter.
In fairness to Kos, it was one of the “diarists” who dubbed her Mother Sheehan. But it does seem like a fitting moniker. If she ever decides to visit Iraq herself, apparently she could walk there across the ocean.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2005 08 14 at 09:07 PM • permalinkI think of it as more of a pyramid, with the fascists, communists, and fundamentalists at the bottom, and us liberty-minded types up at the top.
I’d say it’s exactly the other way around; we’re the majority after all, so we’re the wide bottom part of the pyramid that gives stability to all the rest. The extremists are the ones who feel the need to climb to the narrow top and scream their lungs out, oblivious to the fact that one wrong step can be their downfall (literally or figuratively, take your pick).
First, for all the accusations about my stupidity, you guys really can’t believe that being opposed to Israel’s policies is equivalent to anti-semitism.
Dorian: Army Gen. George W. Casey and Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines certainly don’t think we are winning the war or simply dealing with a few criminals.
Paco: Scott Ritter was correct, which you argue makes him a moonbat. huh?
Guns&Pens;: sure it’s fair to call her rhetoric despicable; it isn’t fair to smear her personally.
James Waterton: No, I say argue facts and ideas, and stop smearing a Gold Star Mom.
David: See paragraph one.
I can’t provide a link to something that didn’t happen.
It certainly seems you gave a crap about what I had to say.
Finally, as far as Sheehan discrediting herself, fine. Don’t stoop to sliming her.Terryelee: Saddam never “brought” Zarqawi to Iraq! Zarqawi fled to Iraq after we blew up his Afghan base (and his leg). US intelligence located him in Northern Iraq.We could have killed him then, but chose not to. Abu Nidal was killed in 2002; according to the Navy, his last attack on the West was in the late 1980’s. Have you been listening to Ollie?
I really did try to decypher the remainder of your response, but I honestly can’t. All I can say is that Richard Clark never said anything of the sort, and Hussein’s connection with the 1993 attack on the WTC was debunked years ago. I’m afraid you’ve been conned by The Freepers again.
As far as the nonsense about wanting the US to fail, there you go again. Your logic fails, so you blame your opponent’s motives. There is a difference between wanting something to fail and realizing that it is going to fail. I hope I am wrong, but I see only one way to minimize this disaster: get our troops out as soon as possible. Yes, there will be a civil war, the country will end up being an Islamic theocracy, they will sell oil in Euros and use their oil to pressure us to stop supporting Israel. And, yes they will hate us, but the longer we stay, the worse this disaster will be, with the added cost of 50 dead soldiers and $20 billion per every month we stay. If Bush pulls the troops, you will all agree that that was always the plan, and I will accept it as the best we could hope for. I don’t hate America, I live in reality. If you have a better idea, please tell your Army, because it sounds like the Generals agree with me.
Pretending that the War was not about WMDs is lame. Half of the joint resolution was about WMDs, the rest dealt with terms of the resolution, history, the attack on Dad, and liberating Iraq. Remember Bush saying it was a vote for Peace?RebeccaH: The problem is that the reasons given for the war keep changing.
DavidS: So, any criticism of Israel is anti semitism. I thought so. You really need to look at the situation. For every dead Israeli, there are five dead Palestinians, yet any concern for them is racial hatred.
TerryELee: see above
wronwright. TerryELee brought up Richard Clark. He wrote that he was stunned the new Administration wanted to attack Iraq in January 2001. You keep insisting it had nothing to do with WMDs, then write that it was about terrorists DETONATING A WMD. The right conservative thinkers should have had a plan for finishing it. The left liberal thinkers, like W’s father, knew it was a tragic mistake.
Patrick Chester: I apologize for appearing imperious. I was just appalled by the nasty smear campaign on a woman who has earned the right and has the courage to stand up to power. I thought you guys were for liberty.
Michael Lonie: Thank you. All I originally asked for was that you present your case as to why Sheehan was wrong rather than smearing her, and you did it. Your explanation converts arabs into cartoon figures, and ignores the fact that Saddam was the enemy of fundamental Islamists, but at least you didn’t call Sheehan a moonbat. We could actually discuss this rationally, but I am certainly not popular here, and this is already too long for anyone to read.
Last two things: First, you’ll get no support for Biden’s crazy war ideas from me. We could have won this war in 2003, but that opportunity is long gone. Additional troops are just a waste of lives. Finally, David Duke is one of your bad apples, not ours, but if he or Pat “the pig” Buchannon agree with us on this war, I welcome their support. This is important. People are really dying, parent’s never recover from the loss of a child. This isn’t about some triviality like the Constitution, or our Economy, or Social Security. It is important. That is why I am so insulted by your smearing of Sheehan.
jlgolden-
Listen here you thumb sucking wimp-
Saddam lied children died.
Posted by madawaskan on 2005 08 14 at 10:43 PM • permalinkgolden:
Your post makes no sense. You are out of your league my friend.
Richard Clarke was the guy who gave Clinton the information that lead to the bombing of the aspirin factory in the Sudan. He told Clinton that the signature of the chemicals was the same as the VX used by Saddam.
I am not making this stuff up. Read some Stephen Hayes.
Remember before the invasion when everyone, including Bill Clinton said there were weapon stockpiles in Iraq? Back then all the anti war people were screaming about the Bush Doctrine. Now they seem to have forgotten all about it.
I remember quite clearly Bush saying that not only should we address threats before the fully materialize, he also said that the only long term answer to terrorism was to deal with the root cause, oppression.
I have no intention of reliving the run up to the war, but to say that the only reason was the wepaons is not true.
What else were we going to do? Keep flying the no fly zones until the end of time? Ignore the human rights violations, the thievery, the complete refusal to comply? Look the other way while the UN was turned into an international whore house? What was the exit strategy?
To leave Iraq now would be immoral, irrepsonsible and suicidal. To say we lost this war when we have lost no territory and have lost fewer men in more than two years of fighting than my father saw die in one battle in WW2 is ridiculous.
The amazing thing to me is that Saddam could have wiped half his population of the face of the earth and most you people would not have even cared. We liberate 25 million people and get called war criminals. And have to listen to all manner of hysterical, mean spirited, peronal and vicous attacks on anyone who disgrees with the sainted anti war people.
Well I am sick of it.
Cindy Sheehan has been part of the anti war movement for some time. She has prostituted her grief and used her son, a bronze star winner, in a way he most certainly would not have approved of.
She says this country is not worth fighting for and it never was. She called America a cancer. She has a big mouth and she likes to talk so there is more and more informaiton out there about her views, and trust me she is not main stream. In fact that might be why her family has made a point of publicly disgarreing with her and so far her children and estranged husband have shown no interest in being there while Mother Sheehan performs.
And you can say she is not an antisemite but the grand dragon of the KKK does not agree with you. But why even bring up Israel? Once again what did they do to her? She is not just questioning policy, she is making baseless accusations. She is also getting very ugly and personal with Bush.
What if some mother of a dead Ranger in Somalia had called Clinton a murderer and a war criminal for sending her son off to die, would that be acceptable?
And as for Zarqawi, Saddam gave him money and allowed him to seek medical care. Saddam had a long history of supporting international terrorism and this was also one of the reasons for the Iraqi Liberation act. There is no doubt that he had contact with Zarqawi before and after he came to Iraq. What do you think Saddam’s agents did when they went to Afghanistan? I suppose you will say they did not go. not true. Saddam was covering his bases, using anything and anyone he could.
I do not think we have lost the war as much as it would pain you to see us succeed. I do think it will take a long time to bring Iraq back from decades of tyranny and neglect but it would be a war crime to abandon those people.
Lydia:
Yes the foreign policy and military experts in the Michael Moore part of the Democratic party believe we should send in more troops and brings the troops home. Makes perfect sense to them.
But then they see soldiers as victims, morons, mass murderers, sadists, cannon fodder, fascists and children all at the same time.I bet that when the Abu Ghraib videos come out they all make popcorn and set down to enjoy.
Every time one of these antiwarbats comes mooching onto the blog I am struck by how stupid they are. I mean, “people are really dying here”? No shit, Sherlock, you just noticed that?
And of course, when you ask them to let on the great secret of how to depose the world’s tyrants, free the oppressed, destroy terrorist networks, and so on, without people getting killed, they just change the subject.
So what do I do with this latest cripplebrain? Ban or keep? I’ll let you guys decide.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 14 at 11:38 PM • permalinkARGH, Andrea! I just posted a huge ass fisking of our golden boy here but it was twice as long as allowed. And now it’s lost.
:(
Oh well. To sum up, golden? Your post makes no sense. You have given no logical arguments in support of any of your positions. NONE. All you’ve done is hide behind Cindy Sheehan, and that is dispicable. Claiming you are right because “you’re right” is just not. an. argument.By the way? “Israel out of Palestine” requires the destruction of the Jewish state. How is that not anti-semitism?
I mean, that’s like saying, you know, Jews out of Germany or something.
But then they see soldiers as victims, morons, mass murderers, sadists, cannon fodder, fascists and children all at the same time.
This is what pisses me off the most. As a GWI vet, I certainly didn’t appreciate hearing about those protests, and I know that our soldiers, who are finishing the job now, certainly don’t. I was hesitant about this war, knowing what our soldiers faced, but I’ll be godamned if I’ll let people like Cindy off the hook, who acts as moonbattery as they come.
Casey CHOSE to enlist, and then re-enlist. Bush isn’t responsible for his death, the terrorits are. I’d never forgive my parents if they did what Sheehan is doing had I died. Because it was ME, not THEM, that chose that path in life. They don’t speak for me in life anymore than in death.
Cindy Sheehan has lost all respect - her son deserves all HONOR.
JLGolden,
You keep asking the commenters here to justify their support of US policy and they’ve been kind enough to do it.I’d like you to justify your position:
1. What proof do you have that the war in Iraq is lost?
2. Why would you deny the opportunity for the people of Iraq (and any other country that wants it) have a free, fair and democratic society?
3. How do you think the war should have been won in 2003 and which war do you mean? The war in Iraq or the war on terror?You appear, sir, to make the mistake of all left-leaning people in believing that all you need to do is say that same words over again in order for them to be true.
You are mistaken.
—Nora
3.Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 15 at 12:01 AM • permalinkI hear some old farmer tried to run off the Sheehan tribe.
I farmed for years and one night I spied lights in a field. I went to check and low and behold a boy and a girl were .....you know…anyhow I told them to get going, they were on private property.
The town kid said “Sorry I didn’t know anyone owned this land”.
sheesh
I told him somebody owns everything.
My guess is the folks failed to realize some old fart owned that place.
It would be funny if he had them kicked off his land.
Of course they would blame Bush.
goldie-
Re-read Mother Sheehan’s quote. Then re-read this:
“So a Jewish state has influence on US policy due to Neo-Cons in the administration like Wolfowitz. Meaning that Cindy is criticizing Israel’s [Jewish] state ties to influential American Jews [International] to direct US foreign policy [Conspiracy].”
Cindy’s going a bit farther than just “criticism of Israel.” Sorry, goldie, you can put as much make-up as you want on a pig, at the end of the day you still danced with a pig. And you’ll have the stink on you.
For every dead Israeli, there are five dead Palestinians
Ah, I see. Morality is determined by who has the higher number of dead. Doesn’t matter who’s setting off the bombs, who’s chucking the rocks, who’s murdering women and children in their sleep, who’s starting intifadas, who’s screaming “Death to the Jews.” If your opponent is as suicidally stupid as he is barbaric, that makes you the bad guy. Interesting. Thomas Aquinas has nothing on you, goldie.
You really need to look at the situation.
Oh, I think the ball’s in your court there, fella.
BTW, how many Iraqis were dying under Saddam? How many children’s prisons are operating today? Or does “brown-on-brown” not count?
Pretending that the War was not about WMDs is lame. Half of the joint resolution was about WMDs, the rest dealt with terms of the resolution, history, the attack on Dad, and liberating Iraq
Forgot about the violation of the ‘91 cease fire, didja? Remember, when he kicked out the weapons inspectors because he apparently didn’t want them finding the WMD’s he didn’t have? You know what automatically happens when you violate a cease-fire agreement, yes?
Your ilk keeps saying the reasons for the war change. No, they don’t. You retroactively emphasize which ones suit you best. Had the WMD’s been discovered - or if they are, eventually - you will quickly suffer amnesia about their importance.
The goalposts are always there. You just move them.
“For every dead Israeli, there are five dead Palestinians”
And a good proportion of the dead Palestinians are ‘work accidents’ and killing each other. The rest are terrorists killed in combat with the IDF. Most of the dead Israelis are civilians. A pathetic tag line that has long been refuted. One could argue that the ratio is not high enough.
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 08 15 at 12:55 AM • permalinkI’m a bit confussed. According to the lefties Dubya started the war in Iraq to steal all the oil. The price of oil is going up, so does that mean that he’s keeping it all for himself and Rummie and Dr Rice? Bastards!
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 08 15 at 01:01 AM • permalinkHeh, I missed the charming conversation with jlgolden!
jlgolden—trust me, you aren’t being taken seriously here. You’ve done nothing but quote Kos and DU talking points. You’ve offered no facts, only your opinions (which are not facts unless you can them up with, well, y’know, facts.) Moving the goalposts? Old hat, me bucko.
In short, you’re a typical moonbat, fluttering around the blogosphere screeching, “But I’m right! I have to be! I said so!”
Except that your moronisms simply don’t match up with reality, a warning signal that you are an extreme leftie. Reality is what exists, not what you think it should be.
Even worse, you’ve shown yourself to be an ignorant bigot. Huh? How so? You are supporting an ignorant bigot, Cindy Sheehan. The fact that she doesn’t like Isreal, and ignores “brown-on-brown” oppression, is not a positive thing.
Andrea—if jlgolden makes one more DU/Kos talking point laden post, ban the cretin. If, on the other hand, he offers a clear, open, unemotional, non-hostile discussion of why he thinks the war is lost, or why Cindy Sheehan should viewed as a “Mother” instead of a mentally ill person egged on by unscrupulous people, please, let him stay. He’ll be on probation though, until he proves that he actually can say something intelligent.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 15 at 01:25 AM • permalinkAs wronwright pointed out, it gets tiresome to continually have to repeat the reasoning for the Iraq Campaign to leftists who never seem to comprehend or even read one’s explanations, but I shall try to make a succinct explanation for golden’s benefit.
That’s because they don’t WANT your answers. They want you to read a confession THEY prepared with what they’ve already decided the real answers are. Just look at Sheehan’s tirade. She doesn’t want Bush to answer her questions. She wants him to say what she and her “friends” want him to say so their little fantasy world becomes true. Sorry, not going to happen.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 08 15 at 01:59 AM • permalinkReading back over this thread, I often feel like I’ve been hit with the stupid stick. I fead all of the arguments put forward by lefties, but I just can’t get my head around them
5 Palestinians to 1 Israeli. Surely that would be because the Israelis are getting suicide bombers before detonation?
Why is it that the only action approved is turning the other cheek? Very biblical for a lot of people who profess to be anti-religion, too.
I won’t apologise, but if I hold out my hand to someone who then craps in it, I won’t be take it quietly.
I don’t suffer from guilt for being white. I certainly don’t have a problem with the idea of stamping out dictators.
For those moonbats who think life is all ‘happy happy joy joy’ get back in the playground and let the adults deal with the crap.
And shut the f*ck up unless you are prepared to do more than talk.
Roadside “vigils” are talk.
Seminars are talk.
Prayers are talk.
Protesting and demonstrating against the war are talk and as such of no practical value.Put your money where your mouth is and either go over and offer sacrificial self up to the bulldozers and bullets, or take my $5 and buy yourself a clue.
Words have not won this was in centuries. Why would they now?
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 15 at 02:09 AM • permalinkbum. I really nead to use the preview. I meant war, not was. :)
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 15 at 02:40 AM • permalinkHeres the lefts big chance for redemption! Outline a plan in which Zimbabwe becomes a fully functioning democracy, with rule of law, and a functioning economy. Without any more human rights abuses occouring in the meantime, use of force, or waiting for Mugabe to die ( with the country facing civil war afterwards).
We will then put on our magic tin foil hats and zoom back and give the blueprint to B. Clinton and all go home for mung beans and garlic lemonade. Super!Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2005 08 15 at 02:58 AM • permalinkAndrea,
Please don’t ban golden unless he becomes repetitively obnoxious.We’re the ones who believe in free speech while for all their posturing, it’s the looney left that doesn’t.
Cretin or not, to ban him just feeds his paranoia. Let him stay. The fact that we can listen to all points of view makes us better than they are.
—Nick
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 15 at 03:48 AM • permalinkNick: Unfortunately, that sometimes encourages the trolls to become repetively obnoxious so they do get banned… so they can brag at how oppressed they are.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 08 15 at 05:24 AM • permalink1.“Killing tens of thousands to capture an unarmed, impotent old despot only can only seen as worthwhile by a lunatic.”
Who’s delusional here? Was there some other way to get rid of this armed and, at the time still in charge despot - age is irrelevant, except as a term of belittlement, and is only being used here to thin out the straw man. And as asked above by the Mole, what is your game plan for Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia ...?
2. “Since WMDs, Incipient Democracies, Freedoms, etc. have all been shown to be false rationals.”
Oh, really? Next time you are apprehended by some genuinely tough cops (Note: Not The UN) try telling them to prove you have no Weapons, and then refuse to cooperate. Don’t come complaining when you get kicked around for being “sassy”. Go on giving comfort of this sort to the forces arranged against the West in the Middle East, and you are really crapping in your own nest. We don’t appreciate it, and we will continue to ask for viable alternative plans, not just bitching.
My vote is for banning in the event of one more spray of the sort seen from Goldie above. In the event that a viable plan of action emerges, continued reading might be justified. Note to Goldie - Advocating more Talkfests, and stressing the need for us in the West to be “more sensitive” will not qualify.Hey Whitey, come on over here and I’ll kick your ass.
- where did I hear that?
I dunno, orang, where did you hear that? I left my Moriarity Mind Reading Repeaterscope™ back in my room.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 15 at 07:50 AM • permalink“Your explanation converts arabs into cartoon figures, and ignores the fact that Saddam was the enemy of fundamental Islamists, but at least you didn’t call Sheehan a moonbat.”
Sorry golden, it’s not I who convert Arabs into cartoon figures, it is those who see them as incapable of self-government and thus in need of a strongman to crack the whip over them who do that. Bush and the dreaded neo-cons are practically the only people in the world who see Arabs as full fledged human beings, fit to live under a consensual government that does not terrorize them and murder them by the thousands. Certainly the opponents of the Iraq Campaign do not share Bush’s view of the Arabs as capable of self-government.
The only rational opposition to the Iraq Campaign I ever heard came from a friend of mine who said that as the war got tougher the American people would tire of it and repudiate Bush for getting involved with it. He thought that would come in 2004, but it did not. This assessment of the staying power of the American people, we should note, is exactly the same as Osama’s, whose “strategy” is based on the idea that Americans are weak-willed cowards with no stomach for a long struggle. Osama came to that conclusion because he saw that we ran out on the South Vietnamese, we ran from Somalia after a few casualties, and we failed to finish off Saddam for fear of casualties. Now we have lots of people in the media and our chattering classes advocating that we run out on the Iraqis. Was Osama correct in his assessment of the American character?
You have given us no rational reasons for concluding the war in Iraq is lost or that we should not have begun the campaign there in the first place. Cindy Sheehan has provided none such either, only a howl based on her personal pain. FDR could not consider the personal pain of soldiers’ mothers in evaluating the necessity of WWII in Europe, their feelings overriding considerations of strategy and the need to protect US security in the face of the Nazi attempt to conquer Europe. Neither should Bush if he thinks, based on the best information available to him, that use of force is needed to win the War on Terror. For a President, responsible for the safety of the USA and its citizens, to do otherwise would be irresponsible and a violation of his oath of office.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 08 15 at 09:27 PM • permalinkignores the fact that Saddam was the enemy of fundamental Islamists
Yeah, that’s why he had a Koran made using his blood as ink.
BTW, Communist Russia was an enemy of the capitalist Western democracies. Didn’t prevent an alliance against the Nazis, did it? You remember the Nazis, right? The white supremacists who had an alliance with the Japanese?
Michael Lonie, jgolden was too chicken to post his reply to you here; alas, he used the one of the “email” functions here without making sure it went to the correct person, so I got his message. Here it is:
Look, I paid you a compliment as the only one of the dozens of babblers who
presented an argument rather than a disgusting Ad Hominem attack on Sheehan.I could care less why you believe that Bush didn’t tell us we had to go to
war to get Saddam’s WMDs. Go read Bush’s 2003 State of the Union for his
stated reasons for the war, and then try to put yourself in the shoes of a
mother of a son who believed his President knew what he was talking about
and wouldn’t lie about national security. I just wish someone at spleenville
would acknowledge that and pay Sheehan the respect she deserves.I told him as I wasn’t his mommy I’d be posting this here, and he could very well learn to fight his battles on his own.
Anyway, I do think we have paid Sheehan the “respect” she “deserves.” So I am not sure what his problem is. Unless he is using that new, postmodern definition of “respect” which is “slavishly worships.” How sad, reality is not postmodern.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 15 at 10:46 PM • permalinktry to put yourself in the shoes of a mother of a son who believed his President knew what he was talking about
Easy enough to do, since that’s the belief of the vast majority of military parents who have lost sons and daughters in the liberation of Iraq (and it has the added benefit of being true). Those fathers and mothers just have the maturity and dignity not to allow themselves to be turned into tools capering and screeching on behalf of a political agenda. And the right has shown the honor and decency of not asking them to.
But, you know, the heart and soul of the matter is it isn’t about her. The one deserving of respect is Casey Sheehan. Remember him? The young man who volunteered to serve. The young man who, having seen far more truth over there than you and I ever will in our comfy chairs, volunteered to serve again. The young man who made the ultimate sacrifice for both the security of this country and the freedom of the Iraqi people, for those two things walk hand in hand. The young man she demeans every time she opens her mouth and tries to twist the sacrifice he made to serve the very purposes he gave his life fighting.
She didn’t send him.
He chose to go.It isn’t. About. Her.
Andrea,
Evidently golden thinks I should swoon with delight over his “compliment”. No, I don’t think so.He still has given us no rational arguments. He simply demands that we agree with him: “I just wish someone at spleenville would acknowledge that and pay Sheehan the respect she deserves.” I must agree with you that we here have paid Sheehan the respect she actually deserves. She believes that her personal feelings must take precedence over military and political strategy, over national security, over the considered judgement of the constitutional authorities, including the Commander-in-Chief, based on the best information they can get, and indeed over all other considerations. This is narcissism of a truly astonishing size, but I guess golden not only sees nothing unusual or untoward in this gigantic narcissism, but also he shares it.
As for ad hominems, both his own posts and Sheehan’s statements are simply long ad hominem diatribes. In fact, we get little else from the people who are against prosecuting the War on Terror.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 08 16 at 09:50 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
R.I.T.T.E.R - ah yes, the P.A.E.D.O.P.H.I.L.E.
Wonder if Mother Sheehan has a daughter - preferably under the age of 16? Soctty might like to invite her out for a burger…
—Nora
I’d like to invite him out for a punch on the nose.
—Nick