TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Surprised by the lack of Cindy Sheehan Threads...
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Surprised by the lack of Cindy Sheehan Threads...

So I shall start one! As much as I feel for this woman, it is a shame that she has become little more than a tool for the anti-war left. And it only seems to get worse with each passing day. Thank you Michael Moore. Thank you Moveon.org. Thank you Maureen Dowd.

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB112433043838416329,00.html

quote:

'Cindy Sheehan Does Not Speak For Me' By RONALD R. GRIFFIN August 18, 2005; Page A10 I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me. I grieve with Mrs. Sheehan, for all too well I know the full measure of the agony she is forever going to endure. I honor her son for his service and sacrifice. However, I abhor all that she represents and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers. The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times portrays Mrs. Sheehan as a distraught mom standing heroically outside the guarded gates of the most powerful and inhumane man on earth, President Bush. Ms. Dowd is so moved by Mrs. Sheehan's plight that she bestowed upon her and all grieving parents the title of "absolute moral authority." That characterization epitomizes the arrogance and condescension of anyone who would presume to understand and speak for all of us. How can we all possess "absolute moral authority" when we hold so many different perspectives? I don't want that title. I haven't earned that title. * * * Although we all walk the same sad road of sorrow and agony, we walk it as individuals with all the refreshing uniqueness of our own thoughts shaped in large measure by the life and death of our own fallen hero. Over the past few days I have reached out to other parents and loved ones of fallen heroes in an attempt to find out their reactions to all the attention Mrs. Sheehan has attracted. What emerges from those conversations is an empathy for Mrs. Sheehan's suffering but a fundamental disagreement with her politics. ['I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.'] Ann and Dale Hampton lost their only child, Capt. Kimberly Hampton, on Jan. 2, 2004, while she was flying her Kiowa helicopter. She was a member of the 82nd Airborne and the company commander. She had already served in Afghanistan before being deployed to Iraq. Ann Hampton wrote, "My grief sometimes seems unbearable, but I cannot add the additional baggage of anger. Mrs. Sheehan has every right to protest . . . but I cannot do that. I would be protesting the very thing that Kimberly believed in and died for." Marine Capt. Benjamin Sammis was Stacey Sammis's husband. Ben died on April 4, 2003, while flying his Super Cobra helicopter. Listen to Stacey and she will tell you that she is just beginning to understand the enormousness of the character of soldiers who knowingly put their lives at risk to defend our country. She will tell you that one of her deepest regrets is that the world did not have the honor of experiencing for a much longer time this outstanding Marine she so deeply loved. Speak to Joan Curtin, whose son, Cpl. Michael Curtin, was an infantryman with the 2-7th 3rd ID, and her words are passionately ambivalent. She says she has no room for bitterness. She has a life to lead and a family to nurture. She spoke of that part of her that never heals, for that is where Michael resides. She can go on, always knowing there will be that pain. Karen Long is the mother of Spc. Zachariah Long, who died with my son Kyle on May 30, 2003. Zack and Kyle were inseparable friends as only soldiers can be, and Karen and I have become inseparable friends since their deaths. Karen's view is that what Mrs. Sheehan is doing she has every right to do, but she is dishonoring all soldiers, including Karen's son, Zack. Karen cannot comprehend why Mrs. Sheehan cannot seem to come to grips with the idea that her own son, Casey, was a soldier like Zack who had a mission to complete. Karen will tell you over and over again that Zack is not here and no one, but no one will dishonor her son. My wife, Robin, has a different take on Mrs. Sheehan. She told me, "I don't care what she says or does. She is no more important than any other mother." * * * By all accounts Spc. Casey Sheehan, Mrs. Sheehan's son, was a soldier by choice and by the strength of his character. I did not have the honor of knowing him, but I have read that he attended community college for three years and then chose to join the Army. In August 2003, five months into Operation Iraqi Freedom and after three years of service, Casey Sheehan re-enlisted in the Army with the full knowledge there was a war going on, and with the high probability he would be assigned to a combat area. Mrs. Sheehan frequently speaks of her son in religious terms, even saying that she thought that some day Casey would be a priest. Like so many of the individuals who have given their lives in service to our country, Casey was a very special young man. How do you decry that which someone has chosen to do with his life? How does a mother dishonor the sacrifice of her own son? Mrs. Sheehan has become the poster child for all the negativity surrounding the war in Iraq. In a way it heartens me to have all this attention paid to her, because that means others in her position now have the chance to be heard. Give equal time to other loved ones of fallen heroes. Feel the intensity of their love, their pride and the sorrow. To many loved ones, there are few if any "what ifs." They, like their fallen heroes before them, live in the world as it is and not what it was or could have been. Think of the sacrifices that have brought us to this day. We as a country made a collective decision. We must now live up to our decision and not deviate until the mission is complete. Thirty-five years ago, a president faced a similar dilemma in Vietnam. He gave in and we got "peace with honor." To this day, I am still searching for that honor. Today, those who defend our freedom every day do so as volunteers with a clear and certain purpose. Today, they have in their commander in chief someone who will not allow us to sink into self-pity. I will not allow him to. The amazing part about talking to the people left behind is that I did not want them to stop. After speaking to so many I have come away with the certainty of their conviction that in a large measure it's because of the deeds and sacrifices of their fallen heroes that this is a better and safer world we now live in. Those who lost their lives believed in the mission. To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too. We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us. Instead, we ask you to learn the individual stories. They are glorious. Honor their memories. Honor their service. Never dishonor them by giving in. They never did. Mr. Griffin is the father of Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin, a recipient of the Army Commendation Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal and the Bronze Star, who was killed in a truck accident on a road between Mosul and Tikrit on May 30, 2003.

I think we don't have too much to say about her because she is obviously insane. We'd all feel guilty mocking a mentally unstable person. I hope she gets the help she needs. And the attention she is so desperately seeking. Maybe a book deal or Lifetime Original Movie will get her back on the track to sanity.

I feel bad for her too she must have lost her sanity when her son died so now she wants somone to blame and along the way get a lot of attention because that is what she wants.

Eh, honestly I don't have too much feelings on the matter. Well, okay maybe a few feelings, but it doesn't stir my blood up near as much as some other stuff occurring. So here's a few random thoughts, followed by a column in my local paper:

1. Cindy's actual message is a good one - why did my son die in Iraq? What was he fighting for? Was he really fighting for a change of regime to one of fundamentalist Shia Muslim, one that completely pisses on women's rights, one that continues to have total chaos around it on the brink of civil war? Oh sure, I'm fucking happy as a fucking clam that a school here and there is being built, but what exactly was our fucking purpose there, why were we there in the first place, and how close are we really to our actual goals? It's the ultimate question that our darn "liberal" media refuses to ask, but what is truly on many folks' minds. She has every right to ask it and it does not in any way "dishonor" her son for asking it. How could a grieving parent who lost their son in a war be dishonoring her son when she feels that the rationale for sending him in the first place was grossly distorted to begin with?

The true dishonor comes from fucks in the WSJ editorials who jack off every time Grover Norquist speaks while sucking long and hard on Bush's cock. It's both funny and disgusting. The true dishonor is the blatant handwave of the WSJ ed. board and the rest of the mainstream media for not putting this Administration's supposed original "rationale" for going to war in the spotlight. Slap the fucking word "bitch" on every fucking reporter's forehead and throw their pansy asses in Bush's whorehouse. Having access to the Pimp is always more important than actually getting off your limp dick asses and trying to do a little investigative journalism on your own.

I've said it before and it continues to ring true - investigative journalism is long dead.

2. With all that being said, I don't necessarily agree with other leftist/antiwar groups coming down to promote their own ideas along with Cindy's. This cheapens her original message, IMO. Sure they have a right to protest just like she does, but the focus goes away from her message of a grieving mother looking for answers to the interests of these other groups. Unavoidable, perhaps.

3. Anyone else find it a bit strange just how much vacation time Bush has taken? Anyone else find it strange just how long his current vacation is during a war? How serious is he about this war? Yeah I know, he's got his cabinet members flying down there, and he's got himself a fancy fax machine and email, I guess.

But how much time has he really spent in the White House? His vacation time doesn't even cover the time he spent going to Camp David, or those long months he spent on his re-election campaign, or the recent months campaigning his bogus SS privatization scheme, or his 2hr./day working out. Christ, I'm busy as fuck and I could never possibly fit in 2hr./day working out. What the fuck is the most powerful man on earth doing with his fucking time?


4. Anyone remember Karl Rove? Damnit Cindy!

Okay, that's all for my random thoughts. Here's an article that I put emphasis in pertaining to Cindy:

quote:

Issues none dare to debate By Robert Steinback - Knight Ridder Newspapers Friday, August 19, 2005 For more than two years, many Americans have wondered what noble cause our soldiers are fighting for in Iraq. But to dare to ask the question brought certain denunciation from the neo-conservative political power grid: Only a traitorous, subversive, unpatriotic, flag-burning, communist America-hater would question the virtue of a U.S. military venture. The intimidated media shied away from asking the question. A decorated Vietnam veteran presidential candidate waffled over posing it. The opposition party caved in rather than mount a challenge about it. And so it went largely unasked, except by a few harmless pundits on the Left. Meanwhile, the stinking morass of Iraq deepened, claiming military and civilian lives, depleting the U.S. treasury and eviscerating U.S. global prestige. It took the mother of an American soldier slain in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan, camping outside President Bush�s Texas ranch, to ask for an explanation of the noble cause her son died for � and thereby expose the president�s utter lack of a persuasive answer. Sheehan embodies the power grid�s worst nightmare: A citizen whose authority to pose the question is close to unassailable (though they�ve tried) � and whose personal loss makes her impervious to intimidation. Sheehan�s stand got me thinking about what other legitimate debates have been turned into sacred but dubious axioms. I came up with what I�m calling the Seven Blasphemies None Dare Debate � concepts neo-conservative Bush loyalists feel must not, should not and cannot be questioned. Political blasphemies aren�t synonymous with conventional wisdom, which are ideas no one bothered to question for so long that they gradually became broadly accepted � even if inaccurate. Rather, political blasphemies are highly debatable, complex issues that have been deliberately reduced to simplistic maxims specifically to squelch debate � which then work to the clear advantage of one side in that debate. Partisans need only express shock that anyone would dare question what everyone knows to be true, and voila! Debate closed. Herewith, my nominations for the Seven Political Blasphemies of contemporary America, starting with the one Sheehan has challenged. � Not every deployment of U.S. troops is, by definition, a noble exercise. Premise: Commanders in chief make mistakes (and, sometimes, mislead). �Support the troops� is not, as clever neo-con partisans imply, the equivalent of �don�t question the president.� � It is overly simplistic to dismiss all those who resist the American presence in Iraq as �terrorists.� Premise: As long as the militants targeting U.S. troops and allied Iraqis are lumped together as �terrorists� � a step or two below �roaches� � there is nothing to debate; they must be crushed. But doing so closes off discussion of their true motivations (which would help us understand what we�re up against), as well as the possibility that the U.S. presence in Iraq is provoking the resistance. � It can be argued that the world is not better off without Saddam Hussein. Premise: Nobody likes a dictator, but sometimes, there is a short-term geopolitical benefit in the presence of a tyrant who keeps rival factions from colliding � Tito in the old Yugoslavia, for example. This doesn�t have to undermine the long-run goal of eliminating all despots. � Not every society is ready for American-style capitalism and democracy. Premise: Such transitions need time, planning and patience to work. Moving too quickly can create a politically volatile mess, such as in the old Soviet Union. � The word of God is what one chooses to believe, not a universal truth that unerringly applies to all people. Premise: Your belief in your particular version of God is not sufficient justification for you to impose your will on others. � The American social model may not be every reasonable person�s idea of a perfect society. Premise: Other cultures are not necessarily inferior to ours simply because they are different. We, as Americans, should proudly promote our values, but our aim should be to persuade, not compel, others to embrace them. � Criticizing the U.S. government is not synonymous with criticizing America. Premise: Nonviolent dissent can be both patriotic and healthy for the nation. I�m only a harmless pundit on the Left. Still, I find myself hoping more Cindy Sheehans will acquire the courage to demand answers to the questions none dare ask. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/a...ate/?syndicated

One last thing - Cindy's mother just had a stroke. Despite what side you are on, let's all hope she's okay. Certainly either woman has had quite a lot to deal with.

quote:

Dear Mrs. Sheehan, You are in a firestorm of grief and what must be a disorienting swirl of world attention. For that reason, I will be as brief in my remarks as I hope to be compassionate. I will not insult you by presuming to know your sorrow. The loss of a son in armed conflict abroad must be among the most soul-wrenching experiences possible. You are surely right to rage against the horrors of war, right to demand answers and right to reach for those of like mind. I fear, though, that what began as a mourning mother�s righteous cry for meaning is becoming something that threatens to dishonor Casey�s heroism. Though I mean no disrespect, it is clear you are becoming swept up in a cynical drama that is far afield from the meaning of the war and your son�s sacrifice. From your daily blogging on Michael Moore�s web site to the pronouncements you feel obligated to make on Israel�s pullout from the Gaza Strip, you risk abandoning the moral high ground of a grieving mother and are in danger of becoming just another fleeting voice on the American pop culture landscape. The central issue here is not whether George W. Bush meets with you for a second time or whether your self-styled �peaceful occupation� of Crawford, Texas ever wins the explanations you seek. The central issue is that when your son volunteered for military service, he placed himself upon an altar of sacrifice. Sadly, the ultimate sacrifice was indeed required. Yet he gave himself willingly, as all our soldiers do in this generation, and his death is therefore the noble death of a hero and not the needlessly tragic death of one accidentally or foolishly taken. What we must understand is that a pledge to military service is a surrender of rights, a surrender of comforts and, potentially, a surrender of life if the nation calls. What leaves us so stunned at the death of a soldier, beyond our grief for a life snuffed out and our personal loss, is often our failure to understand the noble calling of the profession of arms and the warrior code that gives this calling meaning. When your son, and the thousands like him serving today, pledged himself to military service, he did not just �join the army.� He offered himself to his God and his nation in an act of devotion that has been repeated for centuries. He entered the fellowship of those who offer their lives willingly in service to others. His death, though a horror, was a horror with meaning, willingly engaged. I cannot know your sorrow. I can urge you, though, not to taint your son�s offering on what Lincoln called �the altar of freedom� by tethering it to the passing parade of trendy causes. I can also urge you to live now in the knowledge that your son�s passing ennobles our nation, just as I trust it will now ennoble you. With deepest sympathies for your loss, Stephen Mansfield

Well if her son was drafted in the military, I would be completely on her side. But he knew what he was getting into and went there voluntarily, so there's no reason to blaim Bush or the government.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well if her son was drafted in the military, I would be completely on her side. But he knew what he was getting into and went there voluntarily, so there's no reason to blaim Bush or the government.

But, for her, it's not so much about apportioning blame as it is about uncovering the rationale behind the Bush government's decision to lead her son (and all the other American troops) into harms way. It's fairly obvious that she's solely motivated by her own sense of grief and this is severely affecting her judgement and her ability to make a cogent argument, but, ultimately, I think the question "What, exactly, are American troops dying for in Iraq?" is a valid one.

This aside, the arguments being made to discredit her seem to miss the point and border on being little more than blinkered, manipulative drivel.

For instance, from those articles:

quote:

Those who lost their lives believed in the mission. To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too.

It is not the role of the soldier to "believe in" the missions they are assigned, it is merely their duty to carry them out. In any case, the nature of the mission these soldiers "believe" they are carrying out is precisely the subject of Sheehan's inquiry to begin with. If it is taken as gospel that soldiers need to "believe" in the mission that they are performing, then what is the harm in questioning the nature of the mission and the rationale behind it? Surely this sort of critical inquiry will only serve to assist the soldiers, by defining more precisely the scope of mission they are supposed to "believe" in and what those in charge of the mission hope it will eventually acheive? How can a soldier possibly accept the legitimacy of a mission if he's not even sure what the mission is?

Secondly, the assertion that we must blindly accept the stated nature of the mission (whatever it is) in order to "honour the memory" of the soldiers carrying it out is complete hogwash. If someone close to me died in combat, I would consider it my right (if not my duty) to clarify what, exactly, they were supposed to have died in the name of protecting. Claiming that we have no right to question the rationale behind the decision to send our own countrymen to war is only going to increase the chances of the military being misused again in the future. If the mothers of those who die in senseless wars won't stand up and question the rationale behind those in charge, who will?

These men were sent over there, in the words of the administration, to protect freedom and democracy. I can think of no better way to honour the fallen than to exercise the same rights and liberties that their deaths have supposedly granted to us, by openly and democratically questioning the motives of the Bush government.

quote:

We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us. Instead, we ask you to learn the individual stories. They are glorious. Honor their memories.

There was a great opinion piece that I read in one of the Melbourne newspapers a couple of months ago, dealing with the manner in which governments everywhere deal with the deaths of members of their own military. The argument was that it is in the government's best interests to portray every military death as glorious and heroic, as though there could be no higher honour than to die in the name of ones own country. Now, I will admit, there is an undeniable - if obscenely tragic - glory in the image of an individual dying, gun in hand, protecting his own country from an invading force. There is also a moral glory in sacrificing ones own life - say, by casting oneself onto an exploding grenade - to ensure the survival and wellbeing of others. If there is a glory to be found in warfare, then this is where it is to be found. I am, however, struggling to see anything glorious in being killed in the name of a questionable, unnecessary, illdefined cause, the aims of which are slipping further and further from our grasp as each day passes.

This, I think, may form part of the basis for Sheehan's outrage. Where is the glory, she may quite rightly ask, in dying for such a meaningless cause? What, exactly, is this cause that her son gave his life for for? The implication that a soldier's death is necessarily glorious only denies them their humanity. Every solider who dies is, afterall, a human being first and a soldier second, so to suggest that there is something inherently "glorious" about being killed in the fields of combat only defiles the nature of the human lives cut short by the misguided decisions of the American, British and Australian governments. The intimation that it is necessarily "glorious" to die in the name of the ambitions of these governments belies a seriously misguided perspective on the conflict and a clear instance of the dangers of blind patriotism. If we truly support those fighting, we will question what they are fighting for. To do otherwise is to dance on the graves of those "gloriously" forsaken.

quote:

Honor their service. Never dishonor them by giving in. They never did.

"Giving in" to what exactly? For all her grief-stricken insanity, I would argue that it is Sheehan's unwillingness to "give in" to this contrary pressure in her search for an explanation for her son's death that makes her actions, in the words of this author, "honourable". I'm not arguing the fact that she's probably been going about it in the wrong way or that she may be doing her cause more harm than good by propogating it in the manner that she has, but, ultimately, her relentless push for an official justification of this conflict does more service to the memories of the fallen than a thousand of these unquestioning counter-editorials ever will.

As for the other article:

quote:

Though I mean no disrespect, it is clear you are becoming swept up in a cynical drama that is far afield from the meaning of the war and your son�s sacrifice.

But it is the very "meaning of the war and [her] son�s sacrifice" that she is questioning. Far from being "far afield" from these concepts, it is these very concepts that form the central basis of her crusade.

quote:

The central issue is that when your son volunteered for military service, he placed himself upon an altar of sacrifice. Sadly, the ultimate sacrifice was indeed required.

Did he really place "himself upon an altar of sacrifice" by joining up for the military, though? Surely, in joining up for the military, you do so under the assumption that those in command will not, unnecessarily, put you in harms way? Can we suggest that all the troops in Iraq right now have been granted this "luxury" by the administration in their idealistic zealotry for warfare? And this "sacrifice" was "required" for what ends exactly?

These are precisely the questions that Sheehan is asking. Why was her son's life "sacrificed" and why was it deemed to be "required"?

quote:

his death is therefore the noble death of a hero and not the needlessly tragic death of one accidentally or foolishly taken.

Bullshit. It was the very fact that his death was "needlessly tragic" and "foolishly taken" that makes the questions asked by Sheehan necessary and worth pursuing.

quote:

I cannot know your sorrow. I can urge you, though, not to taint your son�s offering on what Lincoln called �the altar of freedom� by tethering it to the passing parade of trendy causes. I can also urge you to live now in the knowledge that your son�s passing ennobles our nation, just as I trust it will now ennoble you.

Again, condescending bullshit. Questioning the motives of those who led her son to his death is the exact opposite of "tainting" his "offering". To ascertain what cause this "offering" was made in the name of is precisely what makes the "offering" meaningful in the first place. If the "offering" had a worthwhile meaning, then she has the right to seek out its nature. If she is being given no adequate explanation as to what this "offering" is meant to mean, then that is the fault of the administration for rushing so hastily towards an unnecessary war, it is not her own.

I agree that lot of the opponents of the woman are right-wing conservatives whose arguments don't really hold water. But fact of the matter is that he agreed with serving in the military, and by that indirectly agreed with the government policy. Regarldess of whether the cause was just or not, if he wasn't willing to sacrifice for whatever reasons the government deemed necessarry, he did not have to join.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I agree that lot of the opponents of the woman are right-wing conservatives whose arguments don't really hold water. But fact of the matter is that he agreed with serving in the military, and by that indirectly agreed with the government policy. Regarldess of whether the cause was just or not, if he wasn't willing to sacrifice for whatever reasons the government deemed necessarry, he did not have to join.

Yeah, but the issue isn't whether or not the government has the right to send willing troops into harms way for whatever cause it deems necessary (because, ostensibly, it does) it's whether or not the government is using that right responsibly. As I said, when he joined the miltary, he undoubtedly did so willingly, but also under the presumption that those at the top would do what they could to ensure that he wouldn't be unnecessarily sacrificed. Do you believe that the US government fulfilled its own set of military obligations in sending Sheehan's son and 150,000 others into combat for a questionable cause in Iraq? In other words, do you believe he was "sacrificed" on the basis of pragmatic necessity or on the basis of unjustifiable, ideological idiocy?

For those who are saying that the anti-war Left is exploiting the death of Sheehan's son for political gain, I got 2 words for you (and they dont start with a F and a Y):

Pat Tillman.

The right side of the blogsphere are following this quite closely actually...

Here's a little snipit from one...

quote:

Does suffering make us exploitable? Filed under: Why can't weeee be friends UPDATE: I�ve written more on this troubling story here. Drudge has a story up that I find terribly distressing. I�m a little slow to come to the story. Apparently this woman, Cindy Sheehan, who quite tragically lost a son in Iraq, has been garnering some media attention (and I am certain it has been positive media attention) for keeping vigil in Crawford, Texas while President Bush vacations there. Her stated purpose is to make President Bush come out and talk to her - apparently before cameras and a jeering crowd - about her son�s death. A vacationing president being called-out by a grieving mother, while operatives from Code Pink and other leftist organizations surround her with signs detailing their agendas. It is a Bush-Haters wet dream. The Fourth Estate�s, too...

>>Source<<

and another from an ex-Marine

quote:

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?"

>>Source<<

I tend to agree with what they're saying about Cindy however.
It's been a 1.5yrs since her son died and all of a sudden she's done a complete 180 and has become a moonbat's beacon.
What (or more likely 'who') changed her attitude is the big question...there's big bucks behind her too apparently...

What Cindy Sheehan Really Wants

There are rumours that she didn't even raise her son, his dad did...

The more I read about her, the more discredited she becomes...

quote:

What Cindy Sheehan Really Wants Now imagine if she gets it. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Friday, Aug. 19, 2005, at 1:44 PM PT Caught in a lie? Caught in a lie? When are the bureau chiefs of our newspapers and networks going to snap out of their own vacation-induced trances and send some grown-up correspondents down to Crawford, Texas? For weeks now, Cindy Sheehan has not been asked a single question that is any tougher than "How does it feel?" The media have been acting as her megaphone. After Slate published her real opinions on politics (a weird confection of pacifism with paranoid anti-Zionism) last Monday, she was eventually asked about her statement that her son Casey had been killed in a war for Israel, and she denied ever having made it. So, we must now say that, as well as being a vulgar producer of her own spectacle, and an embarrassment to her family, Cindy Sheehan is at best a shifty fantasist. After Slate published an extract from a letter that she wrote last March to ABC Nightline, Anderson Cooper of CNN asked her about the anti-Israel remarks the letter contained. She denied making them and proceeded in her blog to assert that someone had gotten hold of her original letter and somehow doctored it. This dark and murky allegation�evincing further paranoia on her part�has been easily and convincingly refuted, as can be seen in this sidebar. Cindy Sheehan, not content with echoing the Bin-Ladenist line that the president is the real "terrorist" and that he is the tool of a Jewish cabal, has dug a pit of falsehood around her own wild story. This week, before family matters called her away from Crawford, she mutated her demand�that the president lower himself into that pit and join her down there�into the shameless request that he join her for Friday prayers. The nerve! We all know how much the MoveOn.org forces believe in the power of prayer, and in the president's sincere religious convictions (their contempt for this is the only thing on which I agree with them). But, hey, try anything once for a tear-jerker or a bit of moral blackmail�what Maureen Dowd has so laughably called "absolute moral authority." What do these people imagine that they are demanding? Would they like a referendum to be held, among the relatives of the fallen in Iraq, to determine the future conduct of the war? I think I can promise them that they would heavily lose such a vote. But what if the right wing were also to demand such a vote and the "absolute moral authority" that supposedly goes with it? One of three things could then happen. The ultra-right anti-Zionist forces of David Duke and Patrick J. Buchanan, both of whom approvingly speak of Ms. Sheehan's popular groundswell, would still lose the vote. So would the media fools who semi-automatically identify Sheehan and her LaRouche-like drivel with the "left" or "progressive" forces. This would leave us with a random pseudo-majority, made up of veterans and their relatives. Who wants this to be the group that decides? One might as well live in a populist, jingoist banana republic. Never mind the Constitution, or even the War Powers Act. Only victims and martyrs can decide! Get ready to gather under the balcony of a leader who speaks rotundly of such glory. Then there is the question of humanitarian or pacifist emotion. Some have perhaps been drawn to "Camp Casey" out of reverence for life. Their demand, however, is an immediate coalition withdrawal from Iraq. Have they seriously asked themselves how humane the consequences of that would be? The news of a pullout would put a wolfish grin on the faces of the "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia" brigade, as Mr. Zarqawi's force has named itself in order to resolve all doubt. Every effort would be made to detonate every available car-bomb and mine, so as to claim the withdrawal of coalition forces as a military victory for jihad. I can quite understand Ms. Sheehan's misery at the thought of her son being killed on some desolate road. But will she be on hand to console the parents whose sons are shot in the back while being ordered to surrender and withdraw? I hope I don't insult the intelligent readers of this magazine if I point out what the consequences of such a capitulation would be for the people of Iraq. Paint your own mental picture of a country that was already almost beyond rescue in 2003, as it is handed back to an alliance of homicidal Baathists and Bin-Ladenists. Comfort yourself, if that's the way you think, with the idea that such people are only nasty because Bush made them so. Intone the Sheehan mantra�repeated this very week�that terrorism is no problem because after all Bush is the leading terrorist in the world. See if that cheers you up. Try it on your friends. Live with it, if you are ready to live with the consequences of what you desire. This is an argument, about a real war, that deserves moral seriousness on all sides. Flippancy and light-mindedness have no place. Cindy Sheehan's cheerleader Michael Moore has compared the "insurgents" in Iraq to the American minutemen and Founding Fathers. Do I taunt him for not volunteering to fight himself in such a noble cause? Of course I do not. That would be a low and sly blow. Do I say that he is spouting fascistic nonsense? Of course I do. Is Cindy Sheehan exempt from any verdict on her wacko opinions because of her bereavement? I would say that she is not. Has she been led into a false position by eager cynics who have sacrificed nothing and who would happily surrender unconditionally to the worst enemy that currently faces civilization? That's for her to clarify. While she ponders, she should forgo prayer, stay in California, and end her protest. Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. �Additional reporting by Blake Wilson Photograph of Cindy Sheehan by Mandel Ngan/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images.

God damn, Cindy--you ain't got shit on Tammy Pruett!

quote:

NAMPA, Idaho -- President Bush today took direct aim at Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protester who has set up camp near the Bushes Texas ranch and purports to speak for military moms who, like her, have lost a son in the Iraq war. Speaking to hundreds of Idaho National Guardsmen, the president singled out military mom Tammy Pruett of Pocatello, Idaho, whose husband and five sons have all served in Iraq. "Tammy has four sons serving in Iraq right now with the Idaho National Guard: Eric, Evan, Greg and Jeff. Last year her husband, Leon, and another son, Aaron, returned from Iraq, where they helped train Iraqi firefighters in Mosul. "Tammy says this -- and I want you to hear this -- 'I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country.' "And I guess you couldn't ask for a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in. America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts." The crowd, made up mostly of military family members, broke into cheers and chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka God damn, Cindy--you ain't got shit on Tammy Pruett!

What the fuck, Shakka? You and the rest of the Conservative wingers are comparing Cindy's LOSS of her fucking son to a family who lost NO FUCKING members yet? Who gives a flying fart if everyone and their damn dog serves in the military - what the fuck kind of comparison is this to a grieving mother who lost her son and is looking for answers as to why the hell we went there in the first place, and the cause her son had to die for?

Seriously, what did her son die for?

To have a pro-Shia religious Muslim government installed?

To have a civil war between Muslim religious factions incur?

To have women's rights in that country essentially pissed all over?

It really is quite a pickle we have over there - and I do have to say how damn funny it is to have one little lady cause such a stir for you Conservatives and our President. Hell, I don't think Kerry even got such a rise out of you guys. So please tell me the ultimate reason why her son died, why our friends and our loved ones died - what is our primary goal now? WMD? Go after Al-Qaeda? Get Osama? What the fuck is it, dear Conservatives?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Seriously, what did her son die for?

I don't understand why this question gets so much attention. He was a soldier that died doing his job. When he enlisted, there was no checkbox that gave him the ability to decide what he would "die for." As a freely enlisted volunteer, it was his job to go where he was told, to fight for what he was told to fight for, and as a consequence, he knew he may die doing what he signed up to do.

Cindy's son died doing what he knew he was suppossed to do, which was fight where his commander in chief told him to. This was not something that either he or is mother should have been shocked to realize. Everyday we have firefighters and policemen who die in the line of duty, but do we question the validity of the fire they were fighting or the crime they were attempting to stop?

Cindy has every right to grieve at the loss of her son, however this public stunt of questioning the motive behind her son's death is pointless and fruitless. Her son died the same way every soldier throughout history has died; following orders. That's the only motive behind his death there needs to be.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What the fuck, Shakka? You and the rest of the Conservative wingers are comparing Cindy's LOSS of her fucking son to a family who lost NO FUCKING members yet? Who gives a flying fart if everyone and their damn dog serves in the military - what the fuck kind of comparison is this to a grieving mother who lost her son and is looking for answers as to why the hell we went there in the first place, and the cause her son had to die for? Seriously, what did her son die for? To have a pro-Shia religious Muslim government installed? To have a civil war between Muslim religious factions incur? To have women's rights in that country essentially pissed all over? It really is quite a pickle we have over there - and I do have to say how damn funny it is to have one little lady cause such a stir for you Conservatives and our President. Hell, I don't think Kerry even got such a rise out of you guys. So please tell me the ultimate reason why her son died, why our friends and our loved ones died - what is our primary goal now? WMD? Go after Al-Qaeda? Get Osama? What the fuck is it, dear Conservatives?

sounds like something someone poised for extreme embarassment in lack of faith and vision would say. heres what Peter Galbraith has said. you know him, right Opus?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25brooks.html

quote:

President Bush doesn't lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia. Yesterday, after reading gloomy press accounts about the proposed Iraqi constitution, I thought it might be interesting to hear what Galbraith himself had to say. I finally tracked him down in Baghdad (at God knows what hour there) and found that far from lambasting Bush, Galbraith was more complimentary about what the administration has just achieved than anybody else I spoke to all day. "The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country." Galbraith's argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve. There is, he says, no meaningful Iraqi identity. In the north, you've got a pro-Western Kurdish population. In the south, you've got a Shiite majority that wants a "pale version of an Iranian state." And in the center you've got a Sunni population that is nervous about being trapped in a system in which it would be overrun. In the last election each group expressed its authentic identity, the Kurds by voting for autonomy-minded leaders, the Shiites for clerical parties and the Sunnis by not voting. This constitution gives each group what it wants. It will create a very loose federation in which only things like fiscal and foreign policy are controlled in the center (even tax policy is decentralized). Oil revenues are supposed to be distributed on a per capita basis, and no group will feel inordinately oppressed by the others. The Kurds and Shiites understand what a good deal this is. The Sunni leaders selected to attend the convention are howling because they are former Baathists who dream of a return to centralized power. But ordinary Sunnis, Galbraith says, will come to realize this deal protects them, too. Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil war. "It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently," Galbraith says. "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill." One of my other calls yesterday went to another smart Iraq analyst, Reuel Marc Gerecht, formerly of the C.I.A. and now at the American Enterprise Institute. Gerecht's conclusions are often miles apart from Galbraith's, but they have one trait in common. Both of them begin their analysis by taking a hard look at the reality of Iraqi society. Neither tries to imagine what sort of constitution might be pretty to our eyes or might be good in some abstract sense. They try to envision which system comports with reality. Gerecht is also upbeat about this constitution. It's crazy, he says, to think that you could have an Iraqi constitution in which clerical authorities are not assigned a significant role. Voters supported clerical parties because they are, right now, the natural leaders of society and serve important social functions. But this doesn't mean we have to start screaming about a 13th-century theocratic state. Understanding the clerics, Gerecht has argued, means understanding two things. First, the Shiite clerical establishment has made a substantial intellectual leap. It now firmly believes in one person one vote, and rejects the Iranian model. On the other hand, these folks don't think like us. What's important, Gerecht has emphasized, is the democratic process: setting up a system in which the different groups, secular and clerical, will have to bargain with one another, campaign and deal with the real-world consequences of their ideas. This is what's going to moderate them and lead to progress. This constitution does that. Shutting them out would lead to war. The constitution also exposes the canard that America is some imperial power trying to impose its values on the world. There are many parts of this constitution any American would love. There are other parts that are strange to us. But when you get Galbraith and Gerecht in the same mood, you know something important has happened. The U.S. has orchestrated a document that is organically Iraqi. It's their country, after all.

CBSFOX: STFU or Proof

Boise, Idaho affiliates CBS and FOX have refused to air a television ad in which Cindy Sheehan asks President Bush questions about the Iraq war.

Sheehan �claims the President lied about, among other things, the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,� said Jeff Anderson the Vice President of sales at Fisher Broadcasting Inc., which owns KBCI (CBS). �There is no proof that we are aware of regarding the truthfulness of her claim. We require proof of claims such as this. Until that is provided, our station will not carry this ad.�

The same ad began airing in Salt Lake City on Monday on NBC CBS and FOX affiliates.

The timing of the ads coincides with the President�s visit to nearby Donnelly, Idaho where the President will be staying through Wednesday.

To view the ad, go to www.gsfp.org and click on �Watch Cindy�s Message.�
CBS Affiliate Will Not Air Sheehan Ad Because There Is �No Proof� Of Absence Of WMD In Iraq...

Proof:
Official: U.S. calls off search for Iraqi WMDs(Jan 2005)
CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq(Apr 2005)
Iraq WMD Hunt 'Has Been Exhausted'(Apr 2005)
U.S. study: Iraq likely didn't ship WMD to Syria(Apr 2005)
US closes book on Iraq WMD hunt(Apr 2005)

TO CBSFOX:
STFU and air the TV ad.

Re: CBSFOX: STFU or Proof

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 STFU and air the TV ad.

no. prove that he lied. stop deceitfully shortsiding the real argument that he lied with the official reports.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo sounds like something someone poised for extreme embarassment in lack of faith and vision would say. heres what Peter Galbraith has said. you know him, right Opus? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25brooks.html

Actually no, never heard of him 'till I googled just now. Pretty interesting little tidbit from our good neocon buddy, Bobo Brooks in that darn liberal NYTimes. From Brooks:

quote:

President Bush doesn't lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia ... "The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability ... I do believe it might save the country."

Now flip over to the LATimes and you see this from Galbraith:

quote:

"The problem is that there are no agreements on these questions," said Peter W. Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who advised Kurdish politicians on the constitution. "It allows any cleric to make his own interpretation of the law and opens the door to a whole range of abuses." Galbraith said the draft fell well short of the sort of democratic government the Bush administration hoped to install in Iraq. "The U.S. now has to recognize that they overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state," he said. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

Pretty interesting little contradiction, huh? Or is it a contradiction? I mean, it's not like Bobo Brooks has EVER distorted or taken someone's words out of context before:

http://mediamatters.org/archives/se...opic=&go=Search

http://mediamatters.org/archives/se...=Search&p=1&t=0

Right?

And let's also consider what Galbraith states in his book last year:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150

Pretty much stating that it is NOT the insurgency that we need to worry about, but the upcoming quarrel between the Islamic factions (which he's dead on the mark for fortune-telling). Let's also not forget that Galbraith mentions that the Bush Administration failed to seek the UN endorsement for the Iraqi constitution, despite the pleas from the Iraqi democratic members. And in a direct slap in the face of democracy, Bush instead turned to Ayatollah Ali Sistani for Constitutional advice, the same Sistani who "objected to provisions in (the interim constitution) that would make it difficult to create an Islamic state and would require a permanent constitution acceptable not just to the majority Shiites but also to the Kurds and Sunni Arabs."

So I really tend to wonder what exactly Bobo is quoting from here, don't you?


And about that Constitution - seems the good ol' Islamic boys have a good deal going there to pass their draft - they just fucking pretend to put it to a vote:

quote:

Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the drafting committee, said lawmakers were supposed to meet later to ratify it. But Shiite representative Khaled al-Attiyah said there was no need to vote because "the job was done" when the draft was handed to parliament on Monday. Another Shiite, Nadim al-Jabiri, said there would be no vote on Thursday because the draft will be approved or rejected in a popular referendum on Oct. 15. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...-home-headlines

Boy, sure seems to include the Sunnis, right? There haven't been any negotiations since Monday, and sure as shit it ain't lookin' like there will be. We've got civil war just around the corner, and our men and women are stuck right in the middle fighting for an Islamic fundamentalist government.

How's that for your fucking patriotism, Q5?

And how 'bout those "last throes", sir Dick?:

quote:

In Najaf, which had been one of Iraq's safest cities and was high on the list of places to where US forces could withdraw next year, as many as 24 people died in street fighting between al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia and a mixture of government forces and the Badr Organisation Shi'ite militia, which is closely allied with the Iraqi Interior Ministry.The Iraqi Government struggled late into the night to restore order, dispatching an elite force of police commandos to help overwhelmed local authorities, and banning outsiders from entering the city.Witnesses saw US armoured vehicles entering Najaf after midnight. http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/s...storyid=3672904

quote:

Armed attacks against offices of al-Sadr's movement and SCIRI then spread across the Shiite heartland of central and southern Iraq . . .Al-Sadr supporters in Diwaniyah, 105 miles south of Baghdad, occupied parts of the city, setting up checkpoints and firing on police and rival groups, police Capt. Hussein Hakim said.Some residents were fleeing to nearby villages, he said.SCIRI members torched a building belonging to the al-Sadr's movement in the Baghdad suburb Nahrawan, police Lt. Ayad Othman. In retaliation, al-Sadr's followers set fire to an office of SCIRI's Badr Brigade militia in Baghdad's heavily Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlate...5232502,00.html

As for the Constitution itself, it's really quite the "democratic" piece of journalism:

quote:

In both the temporary constitution and the new draft, Islam is cited as one source of legislation, and they prohibit laws that conflict with Islamic principles, democratic standards or a bill of rights that includes freedom of religion. That's comparable to the new Afghan constitution and more liberal than the charters of most Muslim states, including such U.S. allies as Egypt and Jordan. However, complicated provisions for family law cited in some drafts could restrict rights for women in parts of Iraq; and much could depend on the interpretation of the competing clauses on Islam and human rights by a court that reportedly could be made up at least in part by clerics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5082301374.html

So again, we're fighting for an Islamic fundamentalist government on the brink of civil war, in which we will be fighting their dissenters (Sunnis), as well as fighting for NO FUCKING RIGHTS TO THE WOMEN OF THAT COUNTRY.

Isn't that swell? I sure think it is.

Okay, to Neo:

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I don't understand why this question gets so much attention. He was a soldier that died doing his job. When he enlisted, there was no checkbox that gave him the ability to decide what he would "die for." As a freely enlisted volunteer, it was his job to go where he was told, to fight for what he was told to fight for, and as a consequence, he knew he may die doing what he signed up to do. Cindy's son died doing what he knew he was suppossed to do, which was fight where his commander in chief told him to. This was not something that either he or is mother should have been shocked to realize. Everyday we have firefighters and policemen who die in the line of duty, but do we question the validity of the fire they were fighting or the crime they were attempting to stop?

Absolutely we should question how a fire got started - haven't you ever seen Backdraft?

quote:

Cindy has every right to grieve at the loss of her son, however this public stunt of questioning the motive behind her son's death is pointless and fruitless. Her son died the same way every soldier throughout history has died; following orders. That's the only motive behind his death there needs to be.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly think Cindy could be handling this situation a wee bit better than she is. But the answer that he was merely following orders is a moot and uncontested point that neither Cindy nor I am asking. The larger question of why not just her son but all sons and daughters were sent to Iraq is the question that needs answered. Was it to find and eliminate WMD's? Go after Al Qaeda? Bring them Democracy?

Which answer is it now? And given what we know about "intelligence being fixed around the policy", it is a worthy AND patriotic question that needs asked. Why exactly did we send our men and women in harm's way?

And the additional question that Cindy and I myself am wondering is - what exactly are we fighting for now? Does it resemble anything from our so-called original purpose, whatever the hell that was? And is fighting for an Islamic fundamentalist government that fucks women's rights completely and on the brink of civil war, a war in which we'll be caught in the middle fighting for one side - is this really what we're fighting for now?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now flip over to the LATimes and you see this from Galbraith: Pretty interesting little contradiction, huh?

no. you're reaching again.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no. you're reaching again.

Explain. Be specific. Brooks quoted him as stating just how rosy things are with the writing of the Constitution. The LATimes, however, quotes him as essentially saying how the writing of the Constitution was corrupt and open to future abuses of the law in Iraq.

No contradiction, huh? Interesting.

Re: Re: CBSFOX: STFU or Proof

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no. prove that he lied. stop deceitfully shortsiding the real argument that he lied with the official reports.

REMIND US AGAIN WHY WE INVADED IRAQ?

quote:

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. [quote]It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited. Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties. George W. Bush

quote:

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002

quote:

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly Sept 12th,2002

quote:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney August 26, 2002 Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons George W. Bush, Sep. 12, 2002 Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002 The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002 And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. George W. Bush Oct 10, 2002 Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney Dec 1, 2002 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents... George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush January 28, 2003 We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell February 5, 2003 We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. George Bush February 8, 2003 Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. Ari Fleischer, Mar. 21, 2003 So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell March 8, 2003 Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George Bush March 18, 2003 We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd. Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003 There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003 We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad. Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003 We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George Bush April 24, 2003 Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit. Tony Blair 28 April, 2003 There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003 We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. George Bush May 3, 2003 I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell May 4, 2003 I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush May 6, 2003

Stop wishing that your boy is not a liar.

BTW, you can still hunt for those WMD's by enlisting.

Re: Re: Re: CBSFOX: STFU or Proof

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited. Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties. G.W. Bush Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002 From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly Sept 12th,2002 Stop wishing that your boy is not a liar. BTW, you can still hunt for those WMD's by enlisting.

I think what has Dems so riled up is that Dubya did what Clinton never had the sack to do and now they're fighting an uphill battle to get back the power and control they're so obsessed with.

Clinton tells you to get a life

quote:

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ADDRESS December 16, 1998 PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. President Clinton: I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN. When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars. Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. President Clinton: At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it. Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

Aw fuck, I should've just posted the whole damn thing in bold. Call me a neo-con if you want, but there are people in this country who haven't lost their will. But clearly there are others who have. Gut check time.

So Clinton lied too, and of course all of the Dems(John Kerry in particular) who proclaimed that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs before the war were all liars too, but the only one that really lied was Dubya, right? Because he actually did something about it instead of having a talkathon. I guess your boys are liars too, eh? Oh wait, I forgot, Dubya only wants oil.

Unless of course you still maintain that all of the WMD capabilities were destroyed in the early 90's or that they never even existed in the first place!

The hardest decisions to make are often times the least popular.






And Opus, my point was that the clearly biased media would like to elevate Cindy to sainthood and put her on some untouchable pedestal when she's no different than any other war mother that has a son or daughter in the line of fire (which they VOLUN-FUCKING-TARILY put themselves in). Service to one's country is one of the most honorable and selfless acts that a person can undertake. Tammy Pruett has a lot more on the line compared to Cindy Sheehan if you want to have a pissing contest over this whole thing. Oooh--Cindy lost more than Tammy, therefore, Tammy just needs to shut the fuck up because she hasn't lost enough yet. Give me a fucking break. Cindy's never had it so good. She's even got her own catering service now. She's become one of the biggest puppets of the left since this war began. Excuse me moveon.org, would you pull your hand out of my ass? It's unfortunate because I truly feel sorry for her loss, but she's making a complete ass of herself.

quote:

When I arrived at Camp Casey II this afternoon I was amazed at what has changed since I was gone. Now, we have a huge tent to get out of the sun; caterers; an orientation tent; a medic tent (with medics); a chapel, etc.

.

She may just set up shop and move to Crawfod permanently.

Hell, from the mouth of Cindy:

quote:

He was a gentle and kind soul who only wanted to help others.

Is that not what he was trying to do when he died? My sympathy is waning.

Now we have anti-war protestors making noise outside of a veterans hospital. I'm sure they "support our troops" even though their very presence is probably killing those critically wounded troops who they claim to "support".

Re: Re: Re: Re: CBSFOX: STFU or Proof

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I think what has Dems so riled up is that Dubya did what Clinton never had the sack to do and now they're fighting an uphill battle to get back the power and control they're so obsessed with. Clinton tells you to get a life

Horseshit. You honestly trying to trek down this road of it's all Clinton's fault too here? You honestly gonna try and pull that one out? Have we not gone down that road a million times before? To recap quickly:

*Clinton most certainly could have done some things better, no doubt. But as the 9/11 Intelligence Report had claimed, the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 were primarily WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. The transition from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism did not go smoothly, to say the least. But it sure as hell didn't help when Bush the elder began the move to slash funding for both the military AND intelligence gathering. As a consequence, instead of relying on a worthy spy network, our intelligence gathering relied more on global satellites and second-hand resources (all in the 9/11 Report). Can some of the blame be laid on the Clinton Administration for this? Certainly. But the case against Iraq was not a strong one, and the need to go after Al Qaeda became instead became more important- and rightly so. This was why Clinton turned down the offer from PNAC to invade Iraq, and told them the fight should be focused against Al Qaeda.

*Who said this?:
"By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him....Clinton correctly focused on Bin Laden."

Answer: Paul Bremer

*Who was the president that decided to invade Iraq, Clinton or Bush? Who's burden was it to weigh ALL evidence for and against the case of Saddam having WMD prior to invasion? Hindsight is always fun to hold, but when weighing supposed evidence of Saddam's WMD arsenal with counterevidence such as this:

quote:

OCTOBER 8, 1997 � IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: "As reported in detail in the progress report dated 8 October 1997�and based on all credible information available to date, the IAEA's verification activities in Iraq, have resulted in the evolution of a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme. These verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its programme objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for t he production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." [Source: IAEA Report, 10/8/98] FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 � COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States." [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01] SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 � CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" � a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001] SEPTEMBER 2001 � WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans "in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States�The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community." The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence." [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03] 2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored. JANUARY, 2002 � TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03] FEBRUARY 6, 2002 � CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials." [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02] APRIL 15, 2002 � WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz �hit the ceiling� because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program." [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02] SUMMER, 2002 � CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03] SEPTEMBER, 2002 � DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is �no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.�" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002] SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 � DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes �are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs� a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02] OCTOBER 2002 � CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03] OCTOBER 2002 � STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department�s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq�s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003] OCTOBER 2002 � AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" � a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03] 2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House�s claims were not well-grounded. LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 � CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was �unremitting,� said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03] JANUARY, 2003 � STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03] FEBRUARY 14, 2003 � UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03] FEBRUARY 15, 2003 � IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03] FEBURARY 24, 2003 � CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE �NO DIRECT EVIDENCE� OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no �direct evidence� that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. �We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,� said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03] MARCH 7, 2003 � IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush�s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03] MAY 30, 2003 � INTEL PROFESSIONALS ADMIT THEY WERE PRESSURED: "A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq . A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups. This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, 'cherry-picked the intelligence stream' in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a official at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. Greg Thielmann, an intelligence official in the State Department, said it appeared to him that intelligence had been shaped 'from the top down.'" [Reuters, 5/30/03 ]

*I must admit I chuckle every time this "Clinton believed it too" argument by Conservatives. I mean, this was the guy you folks absolutely LOATHED with every ounce of hatred in your hearts, yet you waste no time attempting to tie the failures of this Administration's actions onto Clinton every single time. Are we supposed to deduce that this Administration, who did everything they could to pretty much undo every single one of Clinton's policies in both the foreign and domestic front, SUDDENLY found it oh so prudent that Clinton felt Saddam was a threat and a regime change was mandated too?

Again I ask, are you being serious?

*And finally, I and any other logically thinkin' lefty wouldn't deny that Clinton felt Saddam was a menance and that a regime change was needed in the near future.

Does this in any way negate the absolutely fucking IDIOTIC and head-up-your-fucking-ass way this Administration went about fulfilling the dream of regime change? You think Clinton sits back, looks at the fucking mess YOU CONSERVATIVES put us in over there in your attempts to pursue disarmament of WMD, pursue Al Qaeda, pursue something that's remotely plausible anymore, and say,

"Wow, what a brilliant plan, Mr. President. You sure handled this EXACTLY the way I had wanted it to happen."??????

Would any sane man look at this fucking debacle and believe for one moment that this was all some grand ingenious scheme?

Or maybe, just maybe Clinton and any other sane individual might have considered having a regime change by some other means? Maybe, just maybe Clinton might have not worried so much about the WELL CONTAINED Iraqi dictator and would have continued pursuing that motherf$cker who actually bombed us, and would have chased his ass down and killed him in Tora Bora, rather than hand over the chase to well-paid off Afghan Warlords, in order to divert troops over to an area that had absofuckinglutely nothing to do with 9/11?

Or maybe that's just too fucking crazy for neocons to wrap their brains around?

*What part of "intelligence being fixed around the policy" from the Downing Street Memo is confusing to the Bush apologists?

quote:

Aw fuck, I should've just posted the whole damn thing in bold. Call me a neo-con if you want, but there are people in this country who haven't lost their will. But clearly there are others who have. Gut check time.

Shakka, this isn't about people who lost their will. It's about wondering why the fuck we are there, what truly led us there in the first place (my fucking Senator Roberts is too much of a hack to actually investigate this himself), and what our sole purpose is there now. It's no mystery here - the public is becoming more educated (finally) on what's going on in Iraq. People just can't swallow the numerous rationales that continue to be thrown at us by this Administration for why we went, nor can they swallow the current rationale for why we are there now.

It's clear that all we are doing is protecting an Islamic fundamentalist government, fighting for that fundamentalist government against a minority Islamic group that has started a civil war because they no longer have any power or say in the matter, and that government doesn't even remotely resemble anything of what we consider a democracy - pissing on women's rights is a shining example.

How else do you expect the public to feel about their friends and loved ones fighting for such an unbelievably silly cause?

quote:

So Clinton lied too, and of course all of the Dems(John Kerry in particular) who proclaimed that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs before the war were all liars too, but the only one that really lied was Dubya, right?

We already covered Clinton.

Kerry's a tool. It was known, however, that not all info. pertaining to counterevidence against the claims of Saddam having WMD was presented to Congress. Regardless, it would have been political suicide for any Congressman/Senator to speak out against going to war at that time after 9/11.

I'm sure you're well aware of that point.

quote:

Because he actually did something about it instead of having a talkathon. I guess your boys are liars too, eh? Oh wait, I forgot, Dubya only wants oil.

I never personally bought into the "all about oil" argument. However, it clearly is one of the underlying motives.

Similar to why we are trying to have a regime change in Venenzuela - their leader wants to reduce oil exports to America and have other partners involved. Leaves us in quite a pickle, as we continue relying so damn heavily on foreign oil, but I digress.

quote:

Unless of course you still maintain that all of the WMD capabilities were destroyed in the early 90's or that they never even existed in the first place!

Huh? You did read the Duelfer Report, right? Is that not exactly what it said?

quote:

The hardest decisions to make are often times the least popular.

Right, counterevidence and switching rationales be damned, huh?

quote:

And Opus, my point was that the clearly biased media would like to elevate Cindy to sainthood and put her on some untouchable pedestal when she's no different than any other war mother that has a son or daughter in the line of fire (which they VOLUN-FUCKING-TARILY put themselves in).

Is this the same "biased" media that went in lockstep with Bush every fucking step into Iraq, and didn't question one damn thing about it until it was too late?

Judy Miller/Ahmed Chalabi anyone?

Besides, I think the media and the rest of the public are surprised at the lack of anti-war protests. I really can't blame them for latching onto this one.

Especially since our president has this darn propensity to take a "few" vacation days here and there. What was that record he broke again on vacation days?

Aren't we at war too?

quote:

Service to one's country is one of the most honorable and selfless acts that a person can undertake. Tammy Pruett has a lot more on the line compared to Cindy Sheehan if you want to have a pissing contest over this whole thing. Oooh--Cindy lost more than Tammy, therefore, Tammy just needs to shut the fuck up because she hasn't lost enough yet. Give me a fucking break.

What the fuck, Shakka? One parent lost her fucking son, the other parent didn't. Where do you get off with your sanctimonious bullshit on such an asinine comparison?

And let's see what the Pruett's have to say about Cindy, shall we?:

quote:

CAPT. LEON PRUETT: You know, Paula, I guess Cindy and the other folks that have lost loved ones over there, you know, we grieve with them and we�re sorry for their losses and empathize with them and their families and what they�re going through. We don�t have anything against anybody that wants to protest or do anything like that. That�s wonderful. Isn�t it right � isn�t it wonderful that we have that right in this country to be able to do that? ZAHN: Tammy, do you think Cindy is dishonoring the service of those that are currently in Iraq fighting? T. PRUETT: You know, that�s a really tricky question. Personally, as a mother, I feel her pain. Obviously, I can�t feel it to the extent that she does. But I totally empathize with her feelings. It wouldn�t be the way that I would choose to honor one of my sons if it happened to our family. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI.../24/pzn.01.html

Which is certainly fine of Tammy to say, but let's see how she feels if God forbid she does lose one of her sons or her husband. Nevertheless, she doesn't seem to have too much of a problem with Cindy, why the fuck would you?

quote:

Cindy's never had it so good. She's even got her own catering service now.

Ahh yes, a fucking catering service really substitutes well for the loss of a son.

We may have our differences most of the time, Shakka, and I think we can both agree that I tend to be a bit more spirited with my replies, nevertheless I still feel a bit of respect for your voice here. However, I must say this is a borderline asshole statement by you.

quote:

She's become one of the biggest puppets of the left since this war began. Excuse me moveon.org, would you pull your hand out of my ass? It's unfortunate because I truly feel sorry for her loss, but she's making a complete ass of herself.

Well like I said, I do think she could have done things a bit differently. But sheesh, she's not a politician here, and we can't sit here and believe she thinks about all the myriad of strategies to approach this issue like a politician.

Nevertheless, her question of why we went to Iraq, and what exactly are we doing there remains a difficult question for this Administration to answer.

quote:

Hell, from the mouth of Cindy: Is that not what he was trying to do when he died? My sympathy is waning.

I tend to wonder if you had much sympathy in the first place. Once the Right Wing Noise Machine realized how much damage one little woman started causing this president, they pulled out the Rove machine to do everything they could to destroy and discredit her.

And again, just because her son was in the Army to "help others" does not negate the problem of the rationale for why he and other men and women were sent there in the first place, why they are still there, and what kind of precedent this sets for our foreign policy.

quote:

Now we have anti-war protestors making noise outside of a veterans hospital. I'm sure they "support our troops" even though their very presence is probably killing those critically wounded troops who they claim to "support".

I know nothing about this, but I get the feeling that you're once again attempting to paint all anti-war folks with the same brush by grouping them in with idiots like these. If so, you just grouped the majority of the American people, according to the latest AP poll:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5580679.html

Some of my favorites:

quote:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq? (IF APPROVE/DISAPPROVE, ASK Is that strongly or somewhat?(Results from June 2005 in parentheses) TOTAL APPROVE -- 37 percent (41) TOTAL DISAPPROVE -- 58 percent (56) -------------- 2. All in all, thinking about how things have gone in Iraq since the United States went to war there in March 2003, do you think the United States ... (Results from June 2005 in parentheses) --Made the right decision in going to war in Iraq, 43 percent (42) --Made a mistake in going to war in Iraq, 53 percent (53) --Not sure, 4 percent (5) ------------------- 4. Has the military action in Iraq ... (Results from April 2004 in parentheses) --Increased the threat of terrorism in the world, 50 percent (47) --Decreased the threat of terrorism in the world, 20 percent (25 percent) --Had no effect on the threat of terrorism, 28 percent (25 percent) --Not sure, 3 percent (3 percent) ---------------------------------- 6. Do you think it is OK for people who oppose the war in Iraq to express their opposition publicly, or not? --Yes, 87 percent --No, 12 percent --Not sure, 1 percent

So I think us, the majority of the public, has some validity to our sentiments, including Cindy Sheehan.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.