Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan


By FRANK RICH
The New York Times
Published: August 21, 2005

CINDY SHEEHAN couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.

When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.

The most prominent smear victims have been Bush political opponents with heroic Vietnam r?sum?s: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry. But the list of past targets stretches from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke to Specialist Thomas Wilson, the grunt who publicly challenged Donald Rumsfeld about inadequately armored vehicles last December. The assault on the whistle-blower Joseph Wilson - the diplomat described by the first President Bush as "courageous" and "a true American hero" for confronting Saddam to save American hostages in 1991 - was so toxic it may yet send its perpetrators to jail.

True to form, the attack on Cindy Sheehan surfaced early on Fox News, where she was immediately labeled a "crackpot" by Fred Barnes. The right-wing blogosphere quickly spread tales of her divorce, her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops, her incendiary sloganeering and her association with known ticket-stub-carrying attendees of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Rush Limbaugh went so far as to declare that Ms. Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents - there's nothing about it that's real."

But this time the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war.

When the Bush mob attacks critics like Ms. Sheehan, its highest priority is to change the subject. If we talk about Richard Clarke's character, then we stop talking about the administration's pre-9/11 inattentiveness to terrorism. If Thomas Wilson is trashed as an insubordinate plant of the "liberal media," we forget the Pentagon's abysmal failure to give our troops adequate armor (a failure that persists today, eight months after he spoke up). If we focus on Joseph Wilson's wife, we lose the big picture of how the administration twisted intelligence to gin up the threat of Saddam's nonexistent W.M.D.'s.

The hope this time was that we'd change the subject to Cindy Sheehan's "wacko" rhetoric and the opportunistic left-wing groups that have attached themselves to her like barnacles. That way we would forget about her dead son. But if much of the 24/7 media has taken the bait, much of the public has not.

The backdrops against which Ms. Sheehan stands - both that of Mr. Bush's what-me-worry vacation and that of Iraq itself - are perfectly synergistic with her message of unequal sacrifice and fruitless carnage. Her point would endure even if the messenger were shot by a gun-waving Crawford hothead or she never returned to Texas from her ailing mother's bedside or the president folded the media circus by actually meeting with her.

The public knows that what matters this time is Casey Sheehan's story, not the mother who symbolizes it. Cindy Sheehan's bashers, you'll notice, almost never tell her son's story. They are afraid to go there because this young man's life and death encapsulate not just the noble intentions of those who went to fight this war but also the hubris, incompetence and recklessness of those who gave the marching orders.

Specialist Sheehan was both literally and figuratively an Eagle Scout: a church group leader and honor student whose desire to serve his country drove him to enlist before 9/11, in 2000. He died with six other soldiers on a rescue mission in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, at the age of 24, the week after four American security workers had been mutilated in Falluja and two weeks after he arrived in Iraq. This was almost a year after the president had declared the end of "major combat operations" from the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln.

According to the account of the battle by John F. Burns in The Times, the insurgents who slaughtered Specialist Sheehan and his cohort were militiamen loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric. The Americans probably didn't stand a chance. As Mr. Burns reported, members of "the new Iraqi-trained police and civil defense force" abandoned their posts at checkpoints and police stations "almost as soon as the militiamen appeared with their weapons, leaving the militiamen in unchallenged control."

Yet in the month before Casey Sheehan's death, Mr. Rumsfeld typically went out of his way to inflate the size and prowess of these Iraqi security forces, claiming in successive interviews that there were "over 200,000 Iraqis that have been trained and equipped" and that they were "out on the front line taking the brunt of the violence." We'll have to wait for historians to tell us whether this and all the other Rumsfeld propaganda came about because he was lied to by subordinates or lying to himself or lying to us or some combination thereof.

As The Times reported last month, even now, more than a year later, a declassified Pentagon assessment puts the total count of Iraqi troops and police officers at 171,500, with only "a small number" able to fight insurgents without American assistance. As for Moktada al-Sadr, he remains as much a player as ever in the new "democratic" Iraq. He controls one of the larger blocs in the National Assembly. His loyalists may have been responsible for last month's apparently vengeful murder of Steven Vincent, the American freelance journalist who wrote in The Times that Mr. Sadr's followers had infiltrated Basra's politics and police force.

Casey Sheehan's death in Iraq could not be more representative of the war's mismanagement and failure, but it is hardly singular. Another mother who has journeyed to Crawford, Celeste Zappala, wrote last Sunday in New York's Daily News of how her son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, was also killed in April 2004 - in Baghdad, where he was providing security for the Iraq Survey Group, which was charged with looking for W.M.D.'s "well beyond the admission by David Kay that they didn't exist."

As Ms. Zappala noted with rage, her son's death came only a few weeks after Mr. Bush regaled the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association banquet in Washington with a scripted comedy routine featuring photos of him pretending to look for W.M.D.'s in the Oval Office. "We'd like to know if he still finds humor in the fabrications that justified the war that killed my son," Ms. Zappala wrote. (Perhaps so: surely it was a joke that one of the emissaries Mr. Bush sent to Cindy Sheehan in Crawford was Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser who took responsibility for allowing the 16 errant words about doomsday uranium into the president's prewar State of the Union speech.)

Mr. Bush's stand-up shtick for the Beltway press corps wasn't some aberration; it was part of the White House's political plan for keeping the home front cool. America was to yuk it up, party on and spend its tax cuts heedlessly while the sacrifice of an inadequately manned all-volunteer army in Iraq was kept out of most Americans' sight and minds. This is why the Pentagon issued a directive at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom forbidding news coverage of "deceased military personnel returning to or departing from" air bases. It's why Mr. Bush, unlike Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, has not attended funeral services for the military dead. It's why January's presidential inauguration, though nominally dedicated to the troops, was a gilded $40 million jamboree at which the word Iraq was banished from the Inaugural Address.

THIS summer in Crawford, the White House went to this playbook once too often. When Mr. Bush's motorcade left a grieving mother in the dust to speed on to a fund-raiser, that was one fat-cat party too far. The strategy of fighting a war without shared national sacrifice has at last backfired, just as the strategy of Swift Boating the war's critics has reached its Waterloo before Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury in Washington. The 24/7 cable and Web attack dogs can keep on sliming Cindy Sheehan. The president can keep trying to ration the photos of flag-draped caskets. But this White House no longer has any more control over the insurgency at home than it does over the one in Iraq.

i can only sympathise with how families feel through his shit !

They know the truth, they received letters from their boys, from irak. They know their boys discovered their presence had no sense at all, how they wanted to come home, how they felt abandonned by the country.

It's very very sad... :crying:

When you join the millitary you know that there is a possibility of going to war, it isn`t summer camp. That is what the millitary does. Soldiers put their life on the line in the call of duty. It is a voluntary choice to join the millitary. I feel sorry for all the parents who have lost sons and daughters, but Cindy Sheehan is more of a political figure with an agenda than a grieving mother.

Can someone please explain to me why the fuck Bush is on vacation again?  His numbers are so low, support for the war is so low, and he decides to go ranching.

I agree with the previous post on Sheehan though.  She was always against the war, and her son joined the military despite his mother's disapproval because he thought the war was right.  Following his death Bush met with her, and she decided not to go after him because it is what her son would have wanted.  Now, looks like she went the other way, contrary to what her son would have wanted.  She has had a political agenda from the start, starting with her disagreement with her son when he decided to join the military in the first place.  Of course, I do not blame her for greiving, certainly any parent would.

I think that people who lived through the post vietnam period would have problems seeing their kids go to a war that's not justified ( we now know it isn't and everyone BUT the usa had said so beforehand)

Lets be fair, it wasn't just the US, but also the UK and . . .

Troops
Albania - 71 non-combat troops to help with peacekeeping, based in northern Iraq.
Azerbaijan - 150-man unit to take part in patrols, law enforcement and protection of religious and historic monuments in Iraq.
Bulgaria - 485-member infantry battalion patrolling Karbala, south of Baghdad. An additional 289 will be sent.
Central America and the Caribbean - Dominican Republic (with 300 troops), El Salvador (360), Honduras (360) and Nicaragua (120) are assisting a Spanish-led brigade in south-central Iraq.
Czech Republic - 271 military personnel and three civilians running a field hospital in Basra; 25 military police in Iraq.
Denmark - 406 troops, consisting of light infantry units, medics and military police. An additional 90 soldiers are being sent.
Georgia - 69, including 34 special troops, 15 sappers and 20 medics.
Estonia - 55 soldiers, including mine divers and cargo handlers.
Hungary - 300-member transportation contingent in Iraq.
Italy - 3,000 troops in southern Iraq.
Moldova - Dozens of de-mining specialists and medics.
Netherlands - 1,106, including a core of 650 marines, three Chinook transport helicopters, a logistics team, a field hospital, a commando contingent, military police and a unit of 230 military engineers.
New Zealand - 61 army engineers assigned for reconstruction work in southern Iraq.
Norway - 156-member force includes engineers and mine clearers.
Philippines - 177 soldiers, police and medics.
Poland - 2,400 troops command one of three military sectors in Iraq.
Portugal - 120 police officers.
Romania - 800 military personnel, including 405 infantry, 149 de-mining specialists and 100 military police, along with a 56-member special intelligence detachment.
Slovakia - 82 military engineers.
South Korea - 675 non-combat troops with more forces on the way.
Spain - 1,300 troops, mostly assigned to police duties in south-central Iraq.
Thailand - 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.
Ukraine - 1,640 soldiers from a mechanized unit.
United Kingdom - 7,400, 1,200 more planned.
Other countries making troop contributions are Kazakhstan (27), Latvia (106), Lithuania (90) Macedonia (28). Details on these deployments were not available.
The United States is in discussions with 14 other countries about providing troops.

___

Economic reconstruction pledges for Iraq made prior to or during the Madrid conference:
Belgium - $5 million-$6 million for 2004.
European Union- $230 million for 2004.
Iran - Offered to provide electricity and gas.
Japan - $1.5 billion the first year and is considering a medium-term package for presentation at Madrid.
Philippines - $1 million.
South Korea - $200 million over four years in addition to $60 million committed this year.
Spain - $300 million for 2004-07.
Sweden - $32.7 million for 2004-05.
United Kingdom - $900 million for three years, including money contributed since April.
World Bank - $3 billion-$5 billion over five years.

All this is JUST talk

I have visited Al Jazeera's site numerous times ( because at least, arabs together show things AS THEY ARE) and the only things that have been constructed are new oil plants.

No schools, no hospitals, no infrastructures, no nothing and Irakis are yet to see any of that money .........

As for troops, what a loss of money when you think 10 trained armed men from special forces could have killed Sadam overnight if they had wanted.

Fair enough, but at the start of the war there were others that were in support of it.  I am not saying the support hasn't dwindled.  Of course it has, the main reason for the war proved not to exist.  However, it is inaccurate to state that the US was the only one willing to send troops.

The idea that we would send our children into war, even to die to protect America is not the beef. While the Mrs. Sheehan might have been aprehensive about having her son volunteer for military service, it is clear she did a great job raising the kid, and had come to terms with the idea that if and when America was attacked he might go into harm's way.

The problem (she has) is, her son was originally sent to war under the guise of protecting America from Saddam's WMD stash. More than a year after that turned out to be a LIE by the President, we still had kids there dying. One of them was her son. Only at that point her son was there for the reason of the day, namely, to bring the Iraqi people freedom.

 The President never got the Congress to authorize that as a reason to be there. And, had it been put to a vote, I doubt anybody would have voted for it. We had been attacked by Al Qaeda, and it wasn'tt very likely a humanitarian mission to Iraq costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives would have made much progress through Congress. But since we are there in the first place for false reasons, that is a crappy reason to have your child killed.

Too see the right wing media label this lady as unpatriotic, or "crackpot" or whatever is about as low as you can go. People are fed up with this. It is one thing to throw mud on a political rivial, but to sling mud on a woman whose child died for this country under false pretenses.....is fuckin cold hearted.

Bush remains on vacation.

this is true... but look at the numbers... of the lsit you provided the only credable military listed was teh UK.... @7400...... thtas what 5% of the number of US service personal in theater........ so who is the only one really willing to put in troops?


lets look at it this way.... the brits are almost 10x teh man power of the canadian army.... for the ghan we deployed 2500 give or take a few hundred.... and that put us in second place for deployment there witht eh US @ 5k (no counting naval assests thisis pure ground numbers) we had 50% of the US numbers.... if the UK supported the US as much as they say.... they should be feilding @ lest 30k as a 50% of us numbers would be approx. 66-70% of Brit strength not realistic....

those numbers are realistic... granted more would die... but it would be easier to stop teh security problmes that are occuring today....

We went to Iraq on bad intelligence. We now have a bigger threat from Iran than we ever had from Saddam`s Iraq. I agree it would have been better if we never went in there.

But.....we are there now. ?And we have to clean up the mess we started. The situation is improving, but very slowly. If we pull this off, things will be better for everyone with a stable democratic Iraq. If we left now, radical muslim insurgents would overrun the country and we`d have another brutal dictatirship in power that would be a much bigger threat than Saddam ever was. We need to change our game plan so we can achieve our mission ( at this point in time, our original mission was about WMD`s) of getting Iraqis to be a free nation and deal with their own problems themselves so our soldiers can get the hell out of there. Bush needs to take another course of action since all the progress we are making is kinda creeping along. Rumsfeld should be replaced with someone with fresh ideas to get the job done because it seems like we are in a holding pattern. I think the guy is exhausted after 5 years and fresh out of ideas. ?I think we need more troops to get the job done so we can get the hell out of Iraq that much faster.

Cindy Sheehan is completely unrealistic in wanting the troops home immediately. All those who have died would have died in vain if we fail. I don`t agree or support ?her stance on the war, but this is America and she has every right to do what she is doing.

U.S. soldier ratio compared to other countries...I mean, c'mon, lets be honest here.

Are you kidding?  Taking a vacation is the only thing he can do right.

What our country really needs is for him to take a permanent vacation.

Are you so sure about Iran? ?It's the same "intelligence" by the same community that led us into Iraq...and once again, there's the same rumblings that the intel is suspect. ?At this point, the governement has mismanaged, misinterpreted, or misused so much of the intel, and "abused" the constituency so completely, that I can't trust or believe a damn thing they say when it comes to this type of stuff. ?They've been wrong (or lied, outright) too many times to be taken seriously now. ?It's like the boy who cried wolf. ?Iran may very well be the wolf, but it's tough to take the warning cries very seriously at this point.

Ms. Sheehan's demands of immediate withdrawal ARE unrealistic. ?Logistically, it would be impossible, if nothing else. ?BUT, given the reports that this administration NEVER had (and still doesn't have) a viable exit strategy, I think her point is well taken. ?We never had a reason to go there. ?That's no longer debateable. ?And all the conservative supporters for all the reasons this administration gave to go there even know it now. That argument is over and Bush's presidency is going to be defined by it, whether he likes it or not. ?It's time to present a clear and concise exit strategy and get the hell out of Dodge...not with our tails between our legs, but because it's the right time to do it. ?Iraq has an elected govt of it's own, now....the timing is beyond right.

Bush should turn the rest of the Iraqi electoral process over to the UN (who are far better equipped to handle it) and turn our troops from "US Occupation" to "UN peacekeepers"...and give generously to the UN so they can clean up our mess. ?In the process, bring as many of our men and women home as the UN will allow. ?The thing is...he won't do it. ?Firstly, because it might give the impression of him being wrong (which he was). ?And Second, because it won't fill the coffers of US businesses (and mostly his buddies at Haliburton), because the UN will insist that the rebuilding contracts go global, rather than being kept within the US and UK. ?He'll insist, of course, it's because leaving would make us look weak to the terrorists (which he still buzzwords in whenever talking about Iraq...regardless of the evidence that they had no ties to any terrorist organization that had attacked us). ?But even he can't make that claim much longer. ?We've done what we set out to do (the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th reason, that is) and "rescued" the Iraqi people from Saddam and given them "freedom". ?We do NOT need to provide stability in the region. ?It's not our job (not that invading a countries soveriegnty and replacing it's government was, either, but....). ?

Careful now....the FBI trolls message boards looking for just this type of post.

You can, according the Patriot Act, be considered a terrorist now.  You just dropped a thinly veiled hint that you'd like to send Mr. Bush on that permanent vacation in the sky.

Of course you meant down in Texas.....


To me, this is an overlooked point by many Americans.

What about a REAL THREAT next time? How would anybody take us seriously now? So many people will say "I don't care what other people think about us". Well we should because next time, when we really do have a threat to our country, and we call for the help of others around the world....what do you think will happen?

Yup.? And I think until Bush Jr leaves the White House, credibility is going to be a problem. Which is a pretty scary thought because, should a global crisis REALLY arise, I wonder who will jump to our aid.? ?I actually think that's why Powell resigned.? He didn't want to sacrifice any MORE of his global credibility to the Bush Juggernaut.

I'm really hoping McCain runs in '08.? Because, if the two candidates are McCain and Clinton...I think, no matter who wins, we have a decent shot at having a good president back in the House again.? That election would actually give me pause when trying to decide who to vote for....

I long for the days of the old fashioned, bow tie wearing (Remember Paul Simon?), stodgy, stiff, fiscally conservative Republican Party.  Shorter on fighting the battle on morality, and longer on fighting the injustices of unbridled Democratic spending....  All that went straight to hell the day the Dems balanced the budget.  Suddently, the Repubs needed a new platform to differentiate themselves from the Dems......    ::)

Thing is, the bush family don't need us for that, they have ennemies at the FBi and CIA, insiders; why would anyone breech the act when their own services dream about it ? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh, and why would anyone be scared of Iran and nuclear plants and military programs when the ONLY country that's EVER killed with the atomic bomb is :


USA

See, a country doesn't need anyone to badmouth them ebcause leaders write history.

We learn history in books.

Therefore, we only criticize what we are told to learn.

Most of history doesn't write itself, people take decisions, so they should take responsability for it.

Japan bombed us first at Pearl Harbor. We used the bomb so we wouldn`t have to invade Japan, posibly losing tens of thousands of american soldiers. We just diddn`t kill people because we diddn`t like them or what they believed in. Osama Bin LAden did that on 9/11.

That's EXACTLY what i mean !

I9nstead of having a " clean" " normal" war, you push a button and kill one generation, making sure the two or three that follows is abnormal.

GREAT, and yar proud ?

You felt it was necssary to bomb a TINY island so you wouldnt lose men the NORMAL way ?

When they didn't menace your territory directly ? ( yeah, all of japan wouldn't even have invaded New York area!!)  When the USA is how many times bigger than their island ?

Nutters!

As did we, in Iraq, in a less horrible way? ?Isn't that how we're not justifying our occupation of Iraq? ?We didn't like their government so we decided to bring them "freedom". ?Granted, not the same thing by a long shot...but, looking purely at motivation...not too far off.

I agree, the bombing or Hiroshima was an unfortunate, but necessary, way to end a very long bloody war without risking a huge number of US casualties. ?Some historians say NOT using the bomb would have extended the war by 3 to 5 YEARS (not changing the outcome, just the duration). ?The Japanese, after all, committed an unprecedented act of war with the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Still, the US led the way in showing the rest of the world how to mass massacre , and this, 60 years ago.

Nutters is your logic, Jessica. ?Your arguement is foolish at best downright stupid at worst. ?I don't think that GnRFL had anything to do with the bombing of Japan, which was the right thing to do. ?That "tiny"sland had managed to overtake most of the Pacific and was very brutal in their tactics. ?There are no clean wars thats a pipedream.

A conventional attack on Japan in WWII would have meant the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops.? It would have been the most costly part of the war for us in terms of lives lost.? The war needed to come to an end, and te US did what we had to do.

Not exactly an accurate historical portrait.

The Japanese DID invade US soil...Hawaii. ?As such, their goverment committed an act of war. ?And they WERE a threat to us, made obvious by Pearl Harbor's aftermath.

I also know the use of the Bomb was an agonizing decision that was made, ultimately, by Truman. ?It came down to approximate casualty estimates, and the "cost" of not using the bomb was deemed to far outweigh the "cost" of using the bomb. ?A callous way to evaluate the situation? Perhaps. ?But the explanation I've always heard used by Truman is that he couldn't justify NOT using the bomb..couldn't fathom the loss of hundreds of thousands of his troops by NOT using the bomb when he had it. ?In addition, he had intel saying that Germany and Japan were both working on similar weapons, and they would NOT hesitate to use them vs the US. ?So, he was left with a tough decision...one I'm very glad I wouldn't have to make.

On one hand, killing tens of thousands of "innocent" people, but potentially ending a war and saving hundreds of thousands of soldiers AND taking the country you're responsible for out of danger OR not using the bomb, thereby saving those tens of thousands, but putting hundreds of thousands more at risk, and risking the safety of the people of your country. ?No matter which decision Truman makes, the results are not pretty.

So, it's not quite as cut and dry as you portray it....

which war are YOu talking about ?

"The United States, which had important political and economic interests in East Asia, was alarmed by these Japanese moves. The U.S. increased military and financial aid to China, embarked on a program of strengthening its military power in the Pacific, and cut off the shipment of oil and other raw materials to Japan."

(http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm)

I quote : POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS

Why does that remind me of NOW ?

maybe you should read the paragraph before that one:

In 1931 Japan conquered Manchuria, which until then had been part of China. In 1937 Japan began a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to conquer the rest of China. In 1940, the Japanese government allied their country with Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance, and, in the following year, occupied all of Indochina.

I don`t think the Chinese appreciated being conquered by Japan.

And we all know how "fair" the Nazis were.

I see no similarity between WW2 and the events leading up to it and Iraq.

From your own link:

"The road to war between Japan and the United States began in the 1930s when differences over China drove the two nations apart. In 1931 Japan conquered Manchuria, which until then had been part of China. In 1937 Japan began a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to conquer the rest of China. In 1940, the Japanese government allied their country with Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance, and, in the following year, occupied all of Indochina."

And an embargo (ie: refusing to do business with a country based on their actions) is not an attack.? ?Any actions we took against Japan were "peaceful" right up until they flew onto our doorstep and dropped bombs.

As for having political and economic interests in other parts of the world...so what?  Should be detail French colonozation, too?  It has as much bearing on the subject at hand....

That is over simplifying it, to say the least.

 i guess i totally missed that part where they actualy invaded "Hawaii" i do recall the attack on the state.... though if the Japs had to have invaded it would have put the west coast of teh US under long range bomber threat from japan...... not to mention that a huge aamount of the US fleet was left crippled and destroyed. Such a move would have forced ship construction to be limited to the US and Canadian east coast leaving he westren coast a virtural fortress of air and naval guns to prevent a full invasion of main land NA. that would ahve resulted in a rather lower amount of resources going toward the european theater until such time as the US was able to drive Japan from hawaii and regan control ove r the eastren Pacific. Meaning a protracted war in Europe and most likely the bomb being used there before hand.

However the actual invasion of US soil was within the Aleutian Island chain off of alaska that was the NA foot hold that Japan had, complete with airbase. it was meant to stifle movment of supplies from the US into east asia through a northren route and into russia via the pacific. it was one of the most unknown battles ever fought, high losses on both sides, with both fighting hand to hand after all ammo had been lost. soilders were give 2 bullets 1 for the rifle an one for the pistol.

hang on... how are we back to this WW2 arguement? with nukes and japan?.....i though that it was clearly argued in another thread

I have one question


Did she give a fuck when other people's kids were getting blown to hell?    NOOOOOOOOOOO



So why is her kid so special that only after he gets killed she protests.


Just goes back to the old "I dont give a fuck till it happens to me syndrome"

I think this woman is disgracing and dishonoring her son by doing this but hey she has the right to do whatever she wants.


I just guarantee that before her son got killed, she was proud and a flag waving american, but now due to this she changes her tune.

I dont really agree with what she is doing, I find her quite ridiculous to be honest but hey that is her right!

Uhh... why can't she be a proud American now?  Because she wants to know why her son died?  Are you saying that if you don't agree with the troops being in Iraq, you are "Un-american"?

Considering the number of people opposed to the war, I think the "I don't give a fuck till it happens to me" syndrome is a crock of shit.

WE HATE AMERICA! AMERICA IS THE DEVIL! Thread #427

Her son joined the millitary. No one forced him, I`m sure he knew the risks.  She talkes about her son like he was a 5 year old little boy.

no now Eazy dont get ahead of yourself, this is what Im saying


Lets say for example I have a son serving in the military and I am one of these proud parents who supports my son being brave and defending his country, I rave about it to all my friends and support what he is doing etc etc etc


now he gets killed and I all of a sudden camp out and bitch and moan about it and do a total 360 just because my son gets killed.

I mean it was cool and I was proud before and didnt blink twice when someone else's son or daughter was killed but now since my son, whose life is worth more than those other soldiers lives is dead, Im gonna only now make a fuss over how bad the war is.

its not unamerican or what have you, its her right but I just find her ridiculous and feel she is desecrating not only her son but all soliders who have been killed over there.


Great Point GNRFL, Thank You!

I think what she's doing is courageous. Many people today in the U.S. are reluctant to speak openly and publicly against the war for fear of being branded anti-American. She seems to be speaking for all families affected by the war, not just her own. And there's nothing wrong with that.

there would be nothing wrong with it if she protested before her son got killed.To do so only after he gets killed just makes it seem disingenious and kind of pathetic.

ok i thought it was stated here that she was agint it from teh start... out of respect for her son she never spoke out....... now she is being true to herself and is doing what she can to show shes agnist it..... a spade is a spade is a spade.... no matter how you look at it... she is now going to what was in her personal thought s on the subject...

She is not speaking for all families affected by the war, that is a big problem people have with her. Not all families who lost someone close to them feel the same way she does. And she talks about her son like he was an innocent victim. Yes it is sad and unfortunate, but when you join the millitary you know there is always a chance of going to war and being in dangerous situations, especially if you request a job such as infantry or other positions in the millitary that put you on the front line.

Attacked, then, our soverign soil.  However, if you wish to play "games of semantics", I can apply the same sorts of interpretation to  your posts.

I think it was obvious what I meant.

GNFRL dude, I wish everyone could see that point

thats exactly right!!!!!

I agree with u 100 percent.

My problem is the way she goes about it, like her son was kidnapped, drugged, thrown into a van, put in a plane and dropped off in an Iraqi hotzone with no weapon or training.


He requested infantry at that.

Her son was a soldier doing his job and unfortunately got killed, he isnt the first or last

get counseling, deal with it, move forward with your life.

You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. That was her baby, and now he's gone forever. And I guess this is her way of healing. Whether or not people agree with it, it's her battle.

lol....... but its HER point of view..... is it not?......... christ here ye all going wanting to suspend her right to her own point of view on this.... protest away...

there is one thing on this board assume nothing...... and that advice is free..... and take that as you may

Darn skippy.

And once again, people miss the point: Her son was an exceptional kid, and did very well for himself. She is against the fact that he was sent to Iraq on false information and died in vain.

You raise a child for 20 yrs and then watch him get sent off to die for NOTHING and see how you act.

Anybody who says "he knew what he was signing up for" is missing the point entirely as the right wing, pro war group, wants you to.

These are some quotes from her latest letter to Bush and I think they make things VERY CLEAR. Enough to set aside the spin that has been placed on this poor woman.
"
I want one answer: What is the "noble cause" MY son died for. There are also dozens, if not hundreds of families from all over the country who want to know the same thing. "

"A Democratic Constitution? Is anyone else insulted that he thinks we are stupid and think that the Constitution they will form in Iraq will be democratic and ensure equal rights to all citizens? Does anyone else know what "democratic" means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one. Up to 62% of Americans think our troops should be coming home soon. That is a majority, so why don't we force our employee, the president, to do what we want him to do? "

"I didn't ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for. I am still waiting for one member of the press corps to ask him that. I am still waiting for that answer. First, we were told WMD: false. Then we were told Saddam=Osama: false. Then we were told Saddam was a bad man to his own people and we had to get rid of him: he's gone. Then we were told the Iraqi people had to have elections: they did. Now we are spreading "freedom and democracy" but we are building 14 permanent bases, some the size of Sacramento, Ca. To me that indicates that we are spreading the cancer of imperialism and usurping THEIR natural resources. "

That is a great point, if that is what we were talking about.....

her son wasn't drafted.

he signed up for it....twice.

i feel bad for this woman and what's she's going through but she is disrespecting her son and what he believed in.

Why do you cling to something that is not the point?

Answer: Because the real point you can not argue against.

Also, how in the hell do you know that she is dishonoring her son?

1. She knows her son more then we'll ever know him.

2. It would be a dishonor not to question the true reason for this war. His death is in vain now, is that not dishonor enough? If anybody dishonored her son (and all the troops), it was the President.

If her son signd on for another tour of duty during Iraq, do you think he thought what we were doing was wrong?

Again, Cindy Sheehan is selfish in all this. She is disrespecting her son.  I think she is a crackpot.

Allow me to point out that someone who holds a differing opinion than you is not "a crackpot"...no matter how much you'd like to portray them as such.

She's a grieving mother.  She wants to know for what "cause" her son died.  It's not such a radical request, after all.  It's a simple question, and one that still hasn't been adequately answered by this administration. 

What I wonder is why the right wing is so "scared" of that question, and has gone on such a rampage to portray her in a negative light because she's asking it?  It sure looks, more and more, like the reason they're doing it is because there IS no answer to her question....or at least not a good one.   And since they can't provide an answer, they have to discredit the person asking the question.  A sad statement, really....

Actually, proper sentence structure and grammer would be:

There is one rule on this board:? Assume nothing.

That advice is free.

You can take it as you will.

Aren't semantic games fun?

How about we talk about the points of discussion and leave the "English Teacher" mentality at home.? If it's obvious what the person's point is, I think we can all further the discussion much more without resorting to arguing word usage, spelling, and sentence structure.? It adds nothing to the conversations at hand.

Her son died for a cause. To provide security to the new democratic government of Iraq so they can have time to progress to a point where they won`t need us there anymore. To leave now would be disasterous. Terrorists would take over the country and use Iraq as a base of operations to really fuck with us. The whole WMD thing was a result of a breakdown of our intellegence and in hindsight we screwed up on that one, I`ll give ya that.

 yop cause your going to have a great time tring to keep up with me on this one... glad you got alot of work to do.....hahahaa oh and as for english.... you should really think about what i meant in saying not to assume..... its not that i didnt understand... it was that if it can be so easily seen... then chances are some will beleive that Hawaii was actualyinvaded.. not attacked...... and for all intents and purposes ya can attempt to allow the lower knowledged person that are here what is fact... not assumeing that you can follow that....

Then why not meet with her and explain just that rather than assasinate her character?  Could it be that the answer you just gave, all things considered, isn't considered a compelling reason (by most of the country) to risk American lives?   Since, quite frankly, the way another country runs itself isnt, unto itself, a real good reason to invade their soverignty.

What you just said, above, is proof that American lives were risked needlessly.  And that's precisely her point.  Lives are being risked to clean up a mess that the current Administration created, top to bottom.  And, for her money, it's not a real good reason.  I'd venture, given Bush's approval rating and the current countries feelings about the war, many people agree.

Man, does the song Civil War seem to be playing in anyone else's head?

Bush has admitted we had bad intelligence. When the CIA, France & Russia, England and the UN believed Saddam had WMD`s,  and Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors, what do you do? Leave them be? Hindsight is always 20/20.

Bush has already met with Sheehan last year. She is an opportunist, her bank account looks a lot better now due to all the left wing political groups contributing to her, and did you notice it really isn`t all about her son?

We leave Iraq now, Islamic extremists take over creating a terrorist state. Expect 9/11 to happen again. Do we want that? Hell no!

Who was in office during the 9/11 attacks: Bush.

Who started a war based on bad intelligence: Bush.

That should tell people something. Yet he is blindly defended. I don't get it.

Give Slick Willie some credit. Under Clinton`s watch, he had a chance to get Bin Laden, but diddn`t.? It was also found in 2000 that Atta ( the main 9/11 hijacker) was labeled a security threat. Clinton did nothing. The whole Sheehan thing (getting back to the topic) has attracted all the left wing groups who are using her, and she is allowing it. Shes making out pretty good from the money they are giving her. Talk about selling out!

Hmmm...in 1991 (oh man, imagine the things we would have avoided if the "President" did something right at the time...)...George Bush Sr. had a chance to get Hussein in his palace and kick the shit outta him. The insurrection (back in the day, it was the guys who were against Hussein and wanted a revolution there) was behind the US (and coalition) army. But nope, they decided: "ha, what the hell, let's just go home". So the "Under Clinton's watch" ten years later is not really relevant. Why? Because Bush Sr. had a chance ten freakin years earlier and did not take it. Hussein should have been gone in 1991 when we all had the chance the first time. Plain and simple. No buts.

Journey, not only Bush is being defended by many people on this board, but more than 50% of Americans voted for the guy. First time? Ha, vote counts mistakes or mishaps or whatever. Second time? No excuse. Only the blue states ruled (hello, US coasts, open to the outside world! great job, boat people - Daily Show reference for the fans lol). There's one good thing about this: he can't be elected a third time.

Heck yeah. :)

We did miss an opportunity in 1991. Getting into the whole Libs vs cons thing is pointless. I was just making a point to that it is not all Bush`s fault. And of course it turns into this.

I am not supporting Bush but if the guy signed up to GO BACK, then obviously he supported the war and the cause.

I dont think he'd want his mom embarrassing his memory by doing the shit she is doing. Its not like he signed up for Afghanistan and got shipped to Iraq instead, he was out, a free man but felt so strong about the cause and the war that he signed up to go back.

She has the right to grieve and do whatever but I will continue to feel she is a dumbass.


I have posted this 4 times and have been conveniently ignored each time to no surprise


People say we are fighting for oil

1. we cannot control their oil, The UN would never allow us to solely own another country's oil

2.We messed up but after removing Saddam  its either fix their country once and for all instead of fucking up like in Desert Storm or allow those people to be mass slaughtered and allow the insurgents to rule the land, then what will countries do for oil, it would be a civil war like many of the  African Countries.

It takes time but the democratic process will slowly grow over there, they will become efficient and strong enough to function alone, we can then take the life support off and let them do their own thing, they will be able t prosper with their oil and export abilities and in 50 years they will be the NEW JAPAN.


The United States is over 200 years old and our country is far from perfect, so how can u expect Iraq to get this shit done over night?

If we listened to people like Sheehan we'd all be probably speaking German right now.

Great point D.

I completely agree with you, he diddn`t sign up again because he disagreed with us being over there. His mom completely misses that.

It does take a while to take a dictatorship and turn it into a democracy. They`ll be a lot better off than they were under Saddam.

Not true.

During Clintons administration we had the attacks on the world trade center and Oklahoma city, and guess what?

Those people are sitting In jail cells today!

Bush also had a memo that said "terrorists want to fly planes into buildings" which was disregarded and he went on vacation.

1. we cannot control their oil, The UN would never allow us to solely own another country's oil

The UN wasn't going to allow us to invade Iraq either. Do a search on Peak Oil...we are running out of oil in this world. Wonder why the price of oil is going up? Speculation of the supply and demand vs the worlds demand.

2.We messed up but after removing Saddam  its either fix their country once and for all instead of fucking up like in Desert Storm or allow those people to be mass slaughtered and allow the insurgents to rule the land, then what will countries do for oil, it would be a civil war like many of the  African Countries.

The still can't get a Constitution done. They just asked for more troops because so many of ours have been slaughtered.

The United States is over 200 years old and our country is far from perfect, so how can u expect Iraq to get this shit done over night?

We went there to get WMD destruction...not nation build! That is not our fuckin' job!

Doesn't anybody get that???

If we listened to people like Sheehan we'd all be probably speaking German right now.


For Christ's sake..........

Why do you REFUSE to see her point?

She wants to know why her son died? For what?

You keep with your angle because you don't have an answer for hers.

You are labeling her a new cause and then trying to tear it down.

We are not a nation builder! This was not supposed to be a "nation building" project!

Journey, not only Bush is being defended by many people on this board, but more than 50% of Americans voted for the guy.

Yea, I wonder how stupid they feel filling up their gas tanks now? Gee whiz....the price has doubled sine Bush has been in office....imagine that!!!

But she wants to know what her child for.

If my kid died defending this country, then I would not ask this question. But considering that almost 68 percent are now against Bush's war in Iraq...may people are starting to ask "What did my child die for?"

Sheehan's value is that she points up the fact that Bush is essentially a liar who has no conscience. Sheehan's crusade does a great job of pointing these things out, but even more, it is doing major damage to the Right Wing Propaganda Machine. People are getting fed up with this war and they are watching as the Right wing watchdogs create a smear campaign against this citizen.

 It is every parents fear that their child may die before them. The cold nature of these right wing talk shows and the President himself DO NOT help his war. People want to be treated with respect, especially when their family members don't come back from Iraq. These jerk offs on FOX who bad mouth this normal everyday woman wouldn't know the first thing about sacrifice for their country. She obviously gave up a lot more then any of those dicks ever will.

we cannot control their oil, The UN would never allow us to solely own another country's oil

The Neocons supported the war because it gives the US a strong presence in the Middle East and easy access to Central Asia. This is precisely what they want to secure energy resources in that part of the world. Did the British withdraw from India once they 'liberated' it?

Hey SLCPLUNK. How many times are you gonna post to reply to yourself? 

She isn`t the only mother in the world who has lost a son in a war. She acts like it though. Lets face it, you`re not going to see my point. And I think you are buying into what the  media tells you, which is not reality.

How many times are you going to ignore the point posted (even out of her own mouth).

You are STILL ignoring it!!! amazing.... :o

Your "point" I get, but it neither her point, or the point of this thread. It is the only option you have, is to build her up as a crybaby, kook or whatever and try and take that down.

The media doesn't tell me anything, just what she asks, which I have posted on this thread. The media have not been very friendly towards her.

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

All of the above were talking about Clinton and his Bosnian deployment. I've been told that our military pulled out of Bosnia without a single Killed In Action. Talk about flip flop!!!!

1) We've had this discussion, before.? The intel was always suspect.? Even as Bush acted on it.? The administration had conflicting intel on the subject.? The UN inspectors who were ON THE GROUND said they didn't think there were WMD's.? The best we could say was "We think there might be WMD's in Iraq, maybe, possibly".? But that's not what we said, is it?? And it's not how we acted, certainly.? This administration maintained we had, even in the face of reams of evidence that conflicted the statement, PROOF POSITIVE that Iraq had restarted it's weapons program and created WMD's.? But, of course, all that has absolutely nothing to do with what Ms. Sheehan is asking for.? Or rather it does, but not in the way you insinuate...

And now we return to the discussion at hand:? So what you're saying is that her son died because Bush, and the intel community, fucked up.? I think she pretty much knows that aready.? She'd just like to hear this administration actually admit it.? They won't (and will, instead, continue on a public "smear campaign" instead).? But...well, you just did admit it.? And I'm sure a good portion of the rest of the US population is getting the message loud and clear, based on the current poll numbers.

Oh, and France and Russia did not believe Saddam had WMD's.? They actually argued, in the UN, that the "intel" they had was not categorical enough to act on. Of course, you're going to alledge they made the argument because they had business dealings with Iraq...but, obviously, that's not entirely true because..well..they were right.

2) Again, character assasination rather than addressing her questions and concerns.? If I were to do the same to you, and, rather than address the points of discussion, I just called you a "big dumb poopy head" (and I'm not, in any way, insinuating you are one) over and over again, every time you made a point....well..I don't think that would really accomplish much in the way of refuting your arguments.? That's what this administration is doing:? Calling Ms. Sheehan a "crackpot", and calling into question her character.?

3) Ms. Sheehan, again (and read her statements, she says it specifically), has not called for the removal of troops in Iraq.? Yet, the supporters of this Administration try to claim, again and again, that she is, setting up yet another straw man to try to discredit her character.? She's asked for a reason why her son died.? An explanation.? Yet no one actually seems to be able to give her one that won't paint this Administration in an EXTREMELY negative light...and, in truth, THAT'S why the supporters of this administration feel it necessary to engage in a "smear campaign" to assasinate her character.? A tactic typical of this administration and the way it operates.? To draw attention away from the fact that her very legitimate questions have answers that aren't so flattering to this administration.

And, of course, you know this cause you've seen her bank statement, right?  And you KNOW her motivations are mercenary because you can read her mind, right?

Again, let's assasinate her character rather than address her point, right?

Pot. Kettle. Black

It's strange...it sounds more like YOU'RE regurgitating the "Fox News" line to me.? SLC has mades some points I haven't seen in any media outlet, so far.? You, on the issue, however, seem to be spouting, almost verbatim, the words from the Fox News panelists on the subject:? Assasinate her character so we can ignore her question.

The polls say that tactic's not working so well.? ?:)

You say that I am assasinating her character in your last 3 consecutive posts. I`m just trying to prove a point, I personally have nothing against her, or anyone who doesn`t see things the way I do.? Obviously the only thing we can agree on is that we disagree.

A lot of the things SLCPUNK has said I have seen coming from moveon.org, The Washington post, New York Times, in my opinion all biased media outlets with an agenda other than informing the public on what is really going on.


I am just having a debate here. It is supposed to be fun. I sense anger in you young Skywalker.  :hihi:

"She expressed her opinion; I disagree with it. I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake."

George W. Bush 2005

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

- George W. Bush, discussing Kosovo, Houston Chronicle, 04-09-99

"My biggest fear is going to be going to the funeral of some young Iowa man or woman who dies in this conflict and having their mother or father come up to me and ask whether or not their son or daughter died for America, or died to save Bill Clinton's presidency. I don't know what I would say to those grieving parents. For that reason I believe the President must resign immediately."

- Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA), Congressional Record, H11963, 12-18-98, on the US invasion of Bosnia, a conflict where no American has ever been listed as Killed In Action.

Eh hem...you called her a crackpot.  Your words.  How is that not character assasination? You more or less stated she was lodging her protest not out of moral outrage, but because of the cash infusion she was recieving because of it.  How is that not character assasination?  So far, the only point you've made is you can't answer her question without "coming down" on this administration. So, rather than address her concerns, you minimize them by attacking the person raising them.  If you have any OTHER point....well, I haven't seen it yet.  If you'd like to clarify it, I'd be more than happy to address it.

Yes, LOTS of what SLC says has been printed on legitimate media outlets (whatever you think of them).  But not all of it.  Your posts, on the other hand, haven't introduced a thing that isn't spouted from The Fox News panelists.  Not a thing.  Therefore, I think it's amusing that you accuse SLC of doing the same, but on the opposite side.  As an "independant" (that's what I'm registered as, and, historically, have voted for both parties, plus the Green Party on occasion), I find stuff like that sorta funny.  Just a little ironic, dontcha think?

And I'm hardly angry.  Not even a bit. 

Bush supporters and war protestors plan debate ? (08/25/2005)
Supporters of President Bush and war protestors have agreed to a face-off.

More Bush supporters are expected to be in Crawford this weekend, just in time for a debate between the opposing camps.

During a press conference earlier today, Cindy Sheehan agreed to debate supporters of President Bush.

A group from San Diego called "You Don't Speak for Me Cindy" spent Thursday night in Amarillo. They are expected to be in Crawford for the debate Saturday.

The group already made a stop in Sheehan's hometown of Vacaville, California. They want to show that not all Gold Star Families feel the same way Sheehan does.

Gary Qually is the father of a soldier who was killed in Iraq, and he has headed up the Bush supporters camp in Crawford.

Sheehan agreed to the debate under one condition, she does not want the media to attend and she has not given a reason as to why yet.

Gary Qualls says he will still debate Sheehan even if the media is not there.

A time and a place for the debate has not been determined yet.

Sheehan is expected to remain in Crawford until the end of the month, when President Bush leaves his ranch. She is planning a bus caravan to follow the President back to Washington where she will continue her protest.

Here is something I found at the wall street journal. It comes from a parent who lost his son in Iraq:

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.

from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122


The media gives Sheehan all the attention. Isn`t the mainstream media a little biased? She is not the only one who has lost someone.

FIGHT IGNORANCE: READ BUZZFLASH


 
 
Cindy Sheehan Is Working To Bring Our Troops Home: "Mr. President. You have daughters. How would you feel if one of them was killed?"

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

Casey Sheehan re-enlisted with the Army in August of 2003, knowing that his unit would eventually be deployed in Iraq. Casey, a Humvee mechanic with the 1st Calvary, was killed in Sadr City on April 4th of this year. He was only 24 years old. He is and forever will remain an American hero.

Casey?s mom, Cindy Sheehan, is a hero too. Angered that her son was sent to fight and die in an unjust war for reasons that have proven to be lies, Cindy is speaking out about the Iraq invasion. Cindy has joined other moms and families who have lost loved ones in the conflict to tell Americans about the true costs of the war. Their group, Real Voices (http://realvoices.org/rv/index.html), is running television ads featuring the voices of Americans like Cindy speaking directly to President Bush about the impact of his failed policies and lies.

We are honored to bring you our interview with Cindy Sheehan about her son Casey and why she decided to speak out about the Iraq war.

* * *

BuzzFlash: Your son Casey died April 4 in Iraq. Whom do you hold responsible for your loss?

Cindy Sheehan: George W. Bush.

BuzzFlash: Why?

Cindy Sheehan: I think he rushed into this war -?this invasion ?- without having proper intelligence. And the reasons he went are so clearly wrong -?from his false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to there being no connection between Iraq and Saddam and Osama bin Laden. He diverted attention and troops and resources from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda to Iraq.

I don?t think Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror, except now terrorists are crossing the borders to go and kill innocent Iraqis and our troops. So he went almost unilaterally, with very little international support, to invade a country. They didn?t have a plan for the peace or for the occupation of Iraq.

My son was killed by Shiite insurgents. I believe George Bush created the insurgency by his failed policies and that?s why my son was killed.

BuzzFlash: Tell us a little bit about Casey. What kind of a young man was he? I know he was only 24 years old when he died.

Cindy Sheehan: He was an amazing person. He has been an altar server for 10 years. He finally quit when he graduated from high school and asked me, "You know, Mom, can I quit altar serving? Can I be an usher or something now at Mass?"I was the coordinator of our youth Mass at our parish. And he was an Eagle Scout. He was a Eucharistic Minister, and he had trained to be a Eucharistic Minister in the field when they went to Iraq, to help the priest. But he was only there for two weeks before he was killed on Palm Sunday. He never missed Mass.

He had joined the Army because they promised him he could finish his college degree. He had already been going to college for three years before he joined the Army. My husband and I just went to Ft. Hood a couple weeks ago because the Catholic chapel he always went to was starting a new Knights of Columbus Council, and they decided to name it after Casey. It?s the Specialist Casey Austin Sheehan Knights of Columbus Council because they say that his love for his God, his church, his country and his family embodied what they want to stand for.

He was amazing. He was just the most calm and peaceful and gentle person that anybody would ever know. He was so quiet, but he had such an impact on everybody?s lives. And he was so brave. He saved American lives, but our question is, what are any of them doing there?

BuzzFlash: Casey, as I understand it, technically did not have to go to Iraq since he was a field mechanic. Is that correct?

Cindy Sheehan: He was a Humvee mechanic. He re-enlisted in August of 2003 because he didn?t want his buddies to do the job by themselves. It?s all about what they?re doing now -- our soldiers are trying to keep themselves alive and trying to keep each other alive at this point right now.

BuzzFlash: When did Casey receive news that his unit was being sent to Iraq?

Cindy Sheehan: I think it was probably around last October, 2003, because they went to the National Training Center (NTC) at Ft. Irwin in the California desert in November. So we knew before he went to Ft. Irwin that they were going to be deployed sometime in March. Casey knew the First Cavalry was going to end up going to Iraq when he re-enlisted.

BuzzFlash: Did you have any correspondence with Casey while he was in Iraq before he was killed? Did he say or did you hear about what the situation was like on the ground?

Cindy Sheehan: He called me one time from Kuwait. They still hadn?t gone to Iraq. And he never complained. He said that it was hot and he was really busy because he had to get their vehicles ready to go on the convoy from Kuwait to Baghdad. He was on his way to Mass, and we talked about when he stopped in Ireland to refuel. We?re Irish, so he found an airport employee that was telling him about the history of our name, the Sheehan name.

He started writing us a letter on March 31st, because we didn?t know where we could send him mail or presents or supplies or anything yet. They didn?t tell them until they got to Saudi City where we could send them things. But he started writing us letters. And he said the convoy from Kuwait to Baghdad was real peaceful, and it looked like it was going to be an easy year of deployment. He wrote that on March 31st, and he was killed April 4th.

We never got the letter. It was in his things that we got from Baghdad. He didn?t even finish it.

BuzzFlash: President Bush told you, Casey, and every American, that we needed to invade Iraq to remove weapons of mass destruction -- an assertion that, as you said, has proven to be a lie -- and to fight terrorism, which is also untrue. When Casey left to go to Iraq, did the two of you talk about why you both felt that the United States was in Iraq, and what the United States was fighting for?

Cindy Sheehan: We didn?t understand why the United States was there. We never thought that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. But Casey told me, "Mom, this is what we trained for. I?m ready. It?s my job. Because the sooner I get there, the sooner I?ll come home."And he came home three weeks later in a flag-draped coffin.

BuzzFlash: Right now you, along with many other families who have lost loved ones in Iraq, are speaking out in various ways, part of which is a television ad criticizing Bush?s decision to mislead our country into a war. What made you decide to speak out, knowing the toll that it would take on you?

Cindy Sheehan: I have to. I can?t bring my son back. I can?t go back to April 3rd and bring Casey home. I can?t stand on the side while other mothers and families will have to go through what we?re going through. I have to speak out, and I have to help try to bring the troops home.

No matter who wins November 2 -?I hope it?s Kerry -?but no matter who wins, we have to hold them accountable. We have to start putting pressure on our elected officials to bring our troops home from the most unjust and mess of a war that our selected president has got us into.

BuzzFlash: Every month, there have been higher and higher American casualties.

Cindy Sheehan: Except for April, that was the highest. That?s the month my son was killed.

BuzzFlash: Right now, the situation is clearly deteriorating into a civil war. As a mom who?s lost a son in this war, how do you respond when you hear the president say that we need to stay the course in Iraq?

Cindy Sheehan: I respond: How can you stay a course that is so obviously not working? You?re going the wrong way. If you?re on a wrong course, you turn around and go the other way. He has betrayed us. He?s still betraying us, by telling us that everything is going well there. It?s shameful.

BuzzFlash: What would you say to President Bush if you could sit down in the same room and speak to him directly?

Cindy Sheehan: I actually got to meet face to face with the president. He called me "Mom"because he didn?t know my name, and he didn?t know my son?s name -- he just knows that he?s meeting with these families that have lost loved ones. He said, "Mom, I can?t imagine the pain you?re going through."

I said, "I think you can imagine it a little bit, Mr. President. You have daughters. How would you feel if one of them was killed?"

I told him, "Trust me, Mr. President ?- you don?t want to go there."

He said, "You?re right. I don?t."

BuzzFlash: Cindy, thank you so much for speaking with us.

Cindy Sheehan: Thank you.

 

No, it is just the story du jour....that's all.

Besides Fox has a bullseye on this woman...you call that biased?

cindy sheehan has no credibility. just like some other life-long liberals, she likes to flip flop.

this is from an article in JUNE 2004....

["Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."


and this is from an article from JULY 2005...

Instead of a kind gesture or a warm handshake, Sheehan said she immediately got a taste of Bush arrogance when he entered the room and "in a condescending tone and with a disgusting loud Texas accent," said: "Who we?all honorin? here today?"

"His mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all. This is a human being totally disconnected from humanity and reality. His eyes were empty, hollow shells and he was acting like I should be proud to just be in his presence when it was my son who died for his illegal war! It was one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it," said Sheehan in a telephone conversation from Washington D.C. where she was attending a July 4th anti-war rally."

So...you make my point.

Thanks.

i'm not "beating her up" as  you call it.

i just think it's a scary day when people are able to say whatever they want without being challenged. so call it beating her up all you want, but the fact is everyone has a right to investigate what she's saying, question it, and identify her true motives. is that so wrong???

and i thought you were all for being open minded, questioning everything, and speaking your mind. you're not going back on all that are you?

You're doing exactly what the conservatives are "programming" their constituency to do:? Attack her character and her credibility rather than addressing her questions/points.

Because the answers to her questions, no matter what you think of her character and credibility, paint the administration in an unfavorable light. Period.? End of story.

And I also get a kick out of the conservative element who are now parading around, to the press, the grieving parents who DON'T AGREE with her.? Now there's a shock:? There might be people who disagree with other people in this country.? I'm floored, shocked, completely dumbfounded.? I mean..the contentious 2004 elections were, what..less than a year ago? Just another way to try to "minimize" her, rather than deal with her.  And that's what the Repubs "strategy" (and make no mistake about it...it is a STRATEGY you're seeing employed, not any type of honest reaction) has been in regards to Ms. Sheehan since she became prominent in the press.

But notice they don't mention the recent polls which actually show the people supporting this administrations actions in Iraq are in the minority....

Of course not.

But if you are calling her a flip flopper then you are missing the point of the thread....

Call her what you want, but you are still trying to mud her character up, so her opinion somehow means less.

It's in poor taste, and to treat a citizen like that who lost a child.....is pretty low.

aah, the typical left wing response accusing conservatives of not being able to think for themselves. how original.  :rofl:

why is it so hard to understand that many military families are offended by her actions?

is it really major news that a woman living in the US is against the war??? more than half the country is agains the war!!

i think it's normal to disagree with someone, and i think it's fair to point out their contradicting statements. that does not mean i'm trying to mud up her character. lighten up people. 

She doesn`t speak for all military families who have lost a child in Iraq. That is what many do not understand.

Casey Sheehan re-enlisted with the Army in August of 2003, knowing that his unit would eventually be deployed in Iraq. Casey, a Humvee mechanic with the 1st Calvary, was killed in Sadr City on April 4th of this year. He was only 24 years old. He is and forever will remain an American hero.

Casey?s mom, Cindy Sheehan, is a hero too. Angered that her son was sent to fight and die in an unjust war for reasons that have proven to be lies


read the bold print, kind of a contradiction wouldnt you say?

Truth is Casey was free, he served his time he was out but yet he RE Enlisted knowing he was going to Iraq, he wasnt ambushed or surprised and he obviously SUPPORTED the war or he wouldnt have re enlisted.

Cindy Sheehan needs to realize that her son was a grown man and he made a choice out of his own free will. no one held a gun to his head and made him.

Right, and what you both fail to forget is that when somebody signs up for the military, they sign up to defend this country. They also sign up their trust in our government by doing so. They believe that Uncle Sam would never take them into a conflict unless it was 100% needed. This woman feels that her son (and the country) was lied to. Her son re-enlisted based on what he was told by the government. Which in fact turned out NOT TO BE TRUE.

Simple as that.

The rest is strawman.

Yeah but he already served one tour over in Iraq so he already knew the war was "bullshit" but it obviously wasnt bullshit to him cause he volunteered to go back.

I could see if he got killed during his first tour of duty but to go back makes it less a tragedy because he already knew what was goin on, he wasnt ambushed or surprised.

that is the point. He believed what they told him to be true. He put his faith in the government...

It was not.

All Im saying is, u make it sound like he was brainwashed.

I can see if he signed up for Afghanistan and the war on terror but then got sent to Iraq and died

but that wasnt the case

he served a full tour in Iraq and was a free man

He knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, Im sure he watched TV and read newspapers but he must have believed in the cause of liberating Iraq, he had to feel he was doing something special because he volunteered to go back

U dont volunteer to do something u dont believe in or have strong feelings for.

there were hundreds of people where I lived who signed up voluntarily to go to Iraq.? I think they are idiots to do so but hey its their right the blame should be on them and not anyone else if they die.

Again, she feels her son was lied to. Which, he was.

How can we argue what info he understood fully or did not? We can only speculate.

True its only speculation, no one knows exactly but I think the fact he went back voluntarily for a second term proves he believed in the war.  I mean why else would u re enlist?

If he was against the war, when he got out he would've stayed out but the fact he went back makes it appear like he supported the war.

there are two view points here. neither is right. they are opinions. and the fact is that many military personel and many military families still believe in this war. proactively fighting foreign regimes that are supporters of terrorism is reason enough to fight (similar to us sticking our nose in bosnia in the 90's).

a guy i grew up with just died in iraq about 3 weeks ago. friends of mine are hurtin big time. and i know first hand that his closest friends and his immediate family members strongly disagree with this woman, and they are offended by her comments.

it's easy to argue that soldiers and their families are brain-washed. but it's also insulting and it's an unfair cheap shot to that about others.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.  I'm simply stating that what you're saying is exactly what the conservative "party line" is. Verbatim.  And that the higher ups in the party are actively "programming" the sentiment into their constituency.  Both are undeniable facts.  I wouldn't presume to say how you formed your opinion on the matter...

No, it's not hard to understand why some military families are "offended" by her actions...just as it's not hard to understand why some military families support her whole heartedly.  It's just irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  Again, for some odd reason, the fact that SOME people might be offended by her questions somehow means they shouldn't be answered?  That's hogwash.  The fact is...the questions aren't being answered because the answers don't paint the administration in a very flattering light.  Everything else is a straw man.

You're right! More than 1/2 the country IS against the war.  And the questions SHE is asking are precisely the ones they'd like answered. You show exactly WHY her character is irrelevant and WHY answers are justified.  Thanks for making the point so elequently.

It's normal to disagree, yes.  However, "smearing" someone to minimalize their opinion is an old fashioned Repub "Dirty Trix" tactic from days of Nixon.  When you choose to point out "contradicting statements" (which, FYI, are not contradictions, at all), simply to "minimize" someone, or their opinion, you are engaging in character assasination, by definition.  You can call it what you like, but, quite frankly, it's not much of an argument to make, given the topic at hand.

On the contrary, I think everyone understands that.  It's just irrelevant.

Sandman, you think it's bad when a person says something that goes unchalleged?  What about all the Bushites and the lies they were spewing before the war?  Where's the accountibilty?  Where's your challenge to that?

I just think calling her a hero in the same sentence as calling her son a hero is ridiculous

She isnt a hero, she is a grieving mother on a camping trip who wouldnt be protesting had her son not got killed.

thats my problem with this woman

its ok for other people's kids to get massacred but just because her precious son got killed its now a horrible tragedy.

Her son Casey is a hero. She is not.

How come we never heard from her last year in the weeks after her son`s death? ( That is when she met with President Bush)

In the bigger picture, I think a lot of the protestors have an ideal that is not based on reality. No one likes war, but pulling out of Iraq now would be disasterous to that country and show the rest of the world we don`t follow through with what we say.

keep taking cheap shots, pilferk. and thanks for the "official" definition of character assasination.  :rofl:

and maybe you're right....smearing people is only a Republican tactic. i mean those all those politicians on the left are such good natured people. they would never stoop so low.   :rofl:

and the right is the side that's "programmed"????    :rofl:
 

It always amuses me when people  talk about countries as if they were real living persons. :D


The former leader of the Unesco weapon inspectors, Scot Ritter is and was the highest authortity in the "WMDs or not"- matter I think.
His team spend years in Iraq searching for WMDs and investigating Iraq's ability to re establish the ability to produce them.Digging up destroyed chem labs, snooping in general.Unlike his follower, Hans Blix, he actually had balls to open his mouth about what Bush was trying to pull off BEFORE the The Gulf War 2 - Imperialism Strikes Back.

Ritter was/is quaranteed that Iraq has been unable to produce WMDs in over 10 years now.He  did his best to get his voice heard  before war.
Since what he was saying suggested that the war isn't necessarry team Bush refused to listen at all and somehow he was completely blocked out from mainstream media. Normal people in Europe knew more about him and his views than people living under influence of U.S media machine. Which is just sick.
Just before Gulf War 2 No one listened the former LEADER of the WEAPON INSPECTORS regarding matter of WEAPONS Of Mass Destruction. Ritter spend alot more time in Iraq in the charge of the WMD hunt than any other U.S official and his voice doesn't get heard. Doesn't it sound kinda kinky?

No one really knows about the quality of intelligence CIA and such  have/had about the matter and it isn't even really relevant here.
Team Bush politicians simply  decided that "okhay, Iraq has WMDs now!" and began negleting anyone who says otherwise while anything that supports the claim, no matter how shady the source, began getting the  red magic marker treatment, so to speak.

And also. I don't recall seeing anything that wouls sugget anyone in U.N bought Bush's bullshit statements about WMD in Iraq.


Weapon Inspectors never got kicked out of Iraq.
Ritter's team got pulled back by CIA (entire team was kinda puzzled why. They thought things were starting to go as  smoothly as anyone dares to hope, co-op wise)and few years later, Blix's team kinda had to get the fuck out of there because Bush felt like starting his bullshit war and bombs began to drop.

I'm hardly taking "cheap shots". If you feel I am, I ask that you point them out.? I'm just not going to let you "wiggle" out of your position.? You made the statements.? Defend them.? Or abandon them.

Once again, I didn't say it was "only a Republican tactic".? I said it was a Republican tactic that hailed from the Nixon "Dirty Trix" days.? It's a matter of history that the Nixon White House perfected the tactic.? Nowadays it's commonly use by both the Repubs and the Dems.? I was simply crediting the tactic to it's "source".? You're "reading into" what I said, rather than just reading it.  And as for your point that the Dem politico machine is no better than the Repub politico machine....Well, on that we certainly agree.  I would never imply otherwise.    But, of course, that has nothing to do with the point, at hand, either.

As I've said ad nauseum, I'm hardly a shill for either party.? I'm a registered independant.? I vote both sides of the ticket.? I disagree with THIS administration on almost every issue (not every issue, but close).? However, with the Republican Party, in general, I tend to agree with them on fiscal conservativism (and those issues) but disagree on most social issues. Foreign policy is often a toss up. That's, fundamentally, why I'm an independant: I don't agree with either party enough to actually want to become a member.? It just so happens that, in this forum, the matters with which I agree with the Repubs tend to NOT be the matters discussed.

And, again, I didn't say the Dems don't "program" their constituency too.? Both political parties do it.? ?But the Dems "programming", in this discussion, is irrelevant.? And once again, I've not accused YOU, specifically, of being programmed.? ? I simply said, when you spouted the party line, verbatim, that what you were saying is exactly what the Repubs are "programming" into their constituency.? That's a fact.? You can see the tactic every day, from almost every member of the Repub party who talks on this subject.? Once again, how YOU arrived at YOUR opinion wasn't the point....and once again, you're "reading into" what I said, rather than just reading it.

I'll say it one more time, for clarity:? You are engaging in character assasination simply to minimize Ms. Sheehan's opinion/questions/points.? That position, for my money, is a very weak (but sensational) argument to make, since, in this case, her character is really irrelevant.

We didn't hear from her for 2 reasons:

1) She was still under the impression, given the information at hand, that the war was justified.  It's only AFTER the fact that Ms. Sheehan was "briefed" on the fact that the reasons given, at it's inception, were not valid

2) When she DID find out, she didn't go screaming from the mountain tops to the press.  Just as, when we discuss issues here, you don't read about them on CNN or MSNBC or FOX News.  We heard about it when she made her position VERY public.

I think protestors realize that we can't pull out, willy nilly, of Iraq.  I think, of course, that it's easier for the right to portray them as a bunch of irrational kooks and crackpots, however, in order to minimize their protest, than it is to actually listen to their voices.  We've discussed (I think ad nauseum) the uses of that tactic.  The truth, of course, is somewhere closer to center.

What most of the protestors (including Ms. Sheehan) have ACTUALLY SAID (in the press) is that they DON'T want us to pull out immediately.  What they'd like is an exit strategy to be created and a time line for evac to be laid out.   I think, largely, none of the protestors expect all our troops to be home tomorrow, or next week, or even next month.

U protestors are so brain washed it is hilarious.

The woman didnt protest cause she didnt have the information

that is hilarious

U people act like The Sheehan's lived under a rock or something without TV or newspapers.

Bottom line is, she supported the war until her son got killed and had to place the  blame on someone.

Her son RE ENLISTED TO FIGHT, what part of that cant some of u understand

he wasnt brainwashed, he wasnt kidnapped, he wasnt forced

HE CHOSE TO FUCKING FIGHT

therefore he supported the war and its cause.

His mother is just bitter cause she lost a child

I mean its as simple as 1-2-3

U all are just too die hard bleeding heart liberal to see the truth when its in clear black and white.

Maybe she felt like her son was slightly brainwashed by the whole thing. However, he chose to defend his country. It's possible that he believed in it, and felt like he was making a difference.

There already is an exit strategy.  As soon as the Iraqis can take over the main security role then the US will begin to withdraw the troops.  I'm not really sure what Ms. Sheehan doesn't understand about this.  I honestly think she doesn't care, her own words have shown her to be an extreme left wing kook who is pissing all over everthing her son fought and died for.  She has also made some comments that have an anti semitic tone typical of the extreme left.

If she wants to get the troops home soon then she would be better off not giving encoragement to the enemy, which is all her activities have done so far.

You people claiming that any of these brave men and women fighting for our country are doing it because they have somehow been "brainwashed" are fucking idiots.  That's total disrespect to their loyalty and bravery.  You're saying if they knew any better they wouldn't be doing what they're doing.

The left think they know better than everyone.  So it fits that if you disagree with them then you are either dishonest or brainwashed.

Ive been watching some Hurricane Katrina footage today and I am a hard hearted person but that shit damn near brought me to tears


THAT is a tragedy and i think Cindy Sheehan should shut the fuck up. A guy volunteering to fight for his country and dying is somewhat tragic I give u that but those victims of Hurricane Katrina are true tragedies and I feel horrible for them cause they had no choice.  Cindy Sheehan had her 15 minutes of fame now I want her to go away, live with it, move on, get over it.

cold hearted or not I really dont give a shit, she didnt care when other people's kids were being killed so why should I give a fuck cause her son who went twice got killed?

You don't have to give a shit.

And she doesn't have to shut up.

Get it?

Nobody gives a rats ass until it's their kid who died in Iraq, or their kid who is gay, or their kid who needs an abortion, or their grandparent who could benefit from stem cell research, or their kid who was shot in school with a gun.....whatever. Nobody gives a shit in this country until the shoe is on the other foot....shameful.

You wanna beat up on this womans character and avoid the true meaning of this thread? Then you are only lying to yourselves and I hope that makes you happy. But that is not the kind of man I want or ever will be.

They are pulling ou? Yea...and how many times has the deadline been pushed back?

You don't think troops are staying behind? Of course they are.

There is no exit strategy. You guys will say anything...it's amazing. At what point can you believe your hot air anymore? It's a joke.

She has also made some comments that have an anti semitic tone typical of the extreme left.


Such as?

f she wants to get the troops home soon then she would be better off not giving encoragement to the enemy,

How is she giving encouragement to the enemy?

No,I am  saying they were lied to.

You forgot stupid....

The thing is, not everyone thinks the war is stupid

Many many soldiers dont feel that way and just because some of you think its stupid doesnt make it stupid.

I dont agree with her, she has her right to piss and moan, I have my right to say whatever I want to about her.

In my eyes she is wrong and disrespecting her son's memory.

And I'm sure you know more about her son's life then she does....enough to know that she is disrespecting it.....

As for thinking the war is stupid: Bush's most recent polls give him a 40 percent approval rating for the war.

Guess what the rest thought?

I wonder if Sheehan will have anything to say about Hurricane Katrina?

We do have an exit strategy. When Iraq can provide their own security, we will leave.

Interesting....

Of course, it contradicts the actual words that have come out of her mouth, but...hey...whatever you wanna make up to support your view of the world, eh?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9137815/

You forget, some people are not capable of counting to 3. Or putting 2 and 2 together. Or seeing reality past the politics. Or using their own brain. Or seeing the obvious.

There is no exit strategy. ?Even the members of the administration have admitted it. ?There is no exit timeline. ?Even the members of this administration have admitted it. ?It's been well publicized.

Once again, I point out that, rather than address the issues, you're assasinating her character. ?She is not a "kook". ?She is hardly pissing all over what her son fought and died for (which, FYI, includes FREEDOM to speak your mind in this country, in case you've forgotten).

And anti-semetic comments? ?Where the fuck do you get that from? ?And ascribing them to extreme leftists? ?Are you insane? ?You do know what a liberal is, right?

Again, way to spout the party line....

Nobody has said the TROOPS are brainwashed.? Military personell follow orders.? That's their job, regardless of their personal feelings.? They do it very well, and I thank them for protecting our country.? But, disagreeing with the commander in chief does not mean (no matter HOW much the right wants it to) that you don't support the troops.

Look up what constituency means.? When I'm talking about "programming" (which, FYI, is not "brainwashing".? It's a common political tactic used by every political party...it involves repeating the same thing, ad nauseum, until it's internalized and regurgitated as fact....it's rote memory.), I'm speaking of the voters, themselves.



Once again, people "reading into", instead of reading.

57% of the country disagrees with Bush's handling of Iraq....according to his approval ratings released just the other day.

So lets not start with the "not everyone" arguments or the "some of you" comments. 

You have a right to not agree with her, and to form your own opinion based on whatever you want to base it on, as do we all.

In my eyes, she's exercising precisely the freedoms our men and women in the military fight to protect.

That's not an exit strategy.  And you know it.

And so does this administration.

 ::)

Back to the mud slinging again.? Of course, if you disagree with GnRFL...you must not be able to count, add, see reality or use your brain!

 ::)

And, of course, it has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.  But it's a nice, sensational straw man we can all gather around and burn, eh?

I am being sarcastic, not literal. I did not mean to personally offend anyone.

I just don`t get how you can not see another point of view that is very logical even if you don`t agree with it.  Hey, we agree we disagree.

I think D's point is that there is a 43% that still agrees with the war despite all of the things you guys have stated.  Ironically, a great percentage of these people are the ones that are actually there.  To presume to know more than these people, or to claim that they were brainwashed is a bit offensive.  Is that 43% stupid and ignorant?  Or do they just have a difference of opinion?  Maybe they think that removing an evil dictator and trying to bring democracy to a region that has never seen it before is enough to risk their own lives for.  Who are we to question what they want to live their lives for?  I believe Casey reinlisted after no WMD's were found?  I am not saying I necessarily agree with the pro-war postion, but reading the posts on this thread looks like the common we know more than you montra from the left.

Just my thoughts :peace:

Great point  : ok:

The only ones who really know what is going on there are the soldiers in Iraq. Media coverage doesn`t portray an accurate picture.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

And yes, I guess we do agree to disagree.

I hate to beat the dead horse, but people seem to be "reading into" what I write, rather than "reading it".? Perhaps it's my fault for not being clear or, perhaps, it's the heat of the discussion.

My point to D was that his characterizations painted a picture that would imply the majority are behind the war.? That's not an accurate picture, so it's best if he leaves those particular comments be, or, in fact, turn them around so they rightly paint the picture of being in the minority.

In addition, no one, anywhere on this thread, has said the troops have been brainwashed.? No one.? I assume you're ascribing the comments to me...but, read again what I've written. I'm not commenting on their support of the war, just the comments they make when talking about Ms. Sheehan (and other, high profile, issues). And even then, I do not say they are "brainwashed".? They are simply "programmed" with a stock response by this administrations supporters,. by taking advantage of rote memory.? Nor do I think the troops, nor the people who support this war, are ignorant or stupid. I just disagree with them.? Heartily and fundamentally.? But again, that's not what this thread is about.? This thread is about Ms. Sheehan, and the questions she's asked.? Everything else thrown up is a smokescreen...a straw man...sent up because, when it comes down to brass tacks, no one can answer the woman's questions without the answers shedding poor light on this administration.  Instead, you see things like "she's a kook" and "she's a crackpot" and "She's pissing all over Casey's memory" and, the best so far, accusations that she's an anti-semite.  ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to avoid having to actually answer the questions and address her points.  Telling, eh?

Casey re-enlisted (documented in the press) AFTER WDM's were not found, but BEFORE it was made obvious that the intelligence upon which we based the assumption that they were there was proven not only to be incorrect, but shaky from the start. Not that it really matters.

Personally, I don't think it mattered to Casey.? Just as I don't think it matters to many of the troops.? They have volunteered to defend our country, one of the most noble undertakings you could dedicate your life to.? They do it with the understanding that their lives are not their own, and are subject to the direction of the Commander in Chief.? They, like any good soldiers, support their Commander through thick and thin, personal feelings be damned.? That's what soldiers do.? It's about honor. It's about nobility. It's about providing safety for your countrymen.? But that's just what I think.? Without Casey sitting here to tell us what his feelings are, it's all just speculation and, depending on your opinion, your speculation is just going to support that opinion...because the truth is, there is no truth.? Again, not that any of that matters.

Cindy Sheehan is not a soldier.? I'm not a soldier.? It's not my job to follow, without question, the current administration.? And I will disagree with it.? Heartily and fundamentally.? And I will continue to use the freedoms Casey, and those like him, have fought so hard to ensure I have.

I think the problem is that there are two arguments that are being made in this thread.  First, the comments by yourself that there are fundamental questions about the war that aren't being satisfactorily answered by the administration.  There is no doubt that this is true.  Of course there was bad intelligence, and many of the reasons for the war were proven not to exist.  However, this is beating a dead horse.  You are going to get those on the right say that Bush could only make a decision based on the knowledge that he had, which was based on many thigns.  You are going to get those on the left say that Bush lied and went to war for alterior motives.  The fact is, answering the questions returns us to the same debate that took place before the war, and during the elections.

What do you expect Bush to say?  The war was a bunch of BS.  We never should have went in?  Your son died for nothing?  First, I don't necessarily believe that he thinks her son died for nothing, and he told her that.  Second, what good would it do for Bush to undermine the war and ruin the morale of the troops?  You guys are asking him to do something that neither he nor any President in his position would do.  The fact is we are there, and if the administration determines that the best course now is to stay in Iraq, then undermining the cause and telling a mother that her son died for nothing would do nothing but hurt our efforts.  Seriously, I am not sure what you expect from him. 

The second line of discussion that is being debated in this thread is whether Ms. Sheehan should be doing what she is doing.  NO question she has the right to, but is she honoring her son's memoory by doing what she is doing.  Ms. Sheehan and her son disagreed over the merits of the war, and he enlisted despite her disagreement.  The fact is many people differ in their opinions about the war.  Ms. Sheehan and her son were two of those people.  By using her sons death for the political agenda that her son specifically disagreed with his mother on, I do not think you can characterize her efforts but as something that her son would not have approved of.

Well this changes all of the time, and only in the last six months or so has support for the war dipped below majority approval.  His point wasn't that there is majority approval, but that there is almost a dead split over approval of the war.

Programmed or brainwashed, I think you are guilty of playing the same game of semantics that you accused others of playing in a different thread.

No, but there are quite a few posts that assume that anyone that agrees with the war does so because they did not know the truth and were lied to. 

You seem to have built the same strawman that you accuse others of building.  The title of the thread is "right wing beats up on greiving mother."  Certainly, such a thread would include a debate of whether she is right, and whether she is doing something that her son would fundamentally disagree with, wouldn't it?  In fact, by reading the title this is what I would presume the discussion was about.  By focusing on the questions instead of focusing on whether the right wing should be beating her up, you have created your own strawman.

I will be the first to agree that her questions cannot be answered in a satisfactory way.  The anti-semite comment was laughable.  However, I did hear her refer to the insurgents as freedom fighters.


Just my thoughts :peace:

What do I expect Bush to say?  I EXPECT him to say exactly what he has said: Nothing.  Because it's obvious where his answers would lead to.  But then, that's the whole point of her questions, aren't they?  So, what you've essentially said in the first part of the response is...well...just go with the status quo?  Ignore what you think is a huge mistake for our country because...what? It might make the administration look bad?  Don't seek answers to the questinons because it might "rock the boat"?  Thank GOD our forefathers didn't feel that way!


Me thinks you should read his wording again, and how he applies the smaller "some of you" when referring to those that don't support the war.  If he chose the words lightly, and that was not his intent, he should clarify (which is why I suggested he just leave statements of that nature from his posts).  But if he was purposefully insinuating that those that disapprove of Bush's actions in Iraq were in the minority...he was wrong.


On the contrary, I used the word VERY carefully.  It's not a game of semantics, actually. It's saying what I mean. "Programming" responses to your constituency is a pretty widely known and used political tactic.  It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "brainwashing".  That's why I used the word I did.


By taking my quote completely out of context, and applying it to something it was not meant to be applied to, YOU are building the straw man.  Nice job on it too. 

My original quote, of course, referred to the comments about "brainwashed troops" and the left thinking anyone who supports the war is ignorant and stupid.  Straw men, both.

And the discussion IS about her questions and all aspects thereof (and the fact she's been beaten up over asking them relays directly to that).

As for how Casey might have felt by his mother's action...again, we return to the shadow of speculation.  You prefer to think he would have disapproved, because it supports your existing opinion.  I prefer to think otherwise, for like reasons.  The truth is...neither of us knew Casey, or have any idea how he might have felt.   And the one person who DID know him well, and might be able to predict how he would react...is doing exactly what you find so distasteful.

Ok So I dont know her son enough to know but yet YOU know her son enough to know that he was brainwashed and lied to.

Great Contradiction!


43 percent support the war

that is still a pretty large fucking number, U have to take into account that there are probably more democrats than republicans in the United States and of course most of them would be against Bush if he donated a billion dollars to the Hurricane relief *they'd find some angle*

Im an independent, I dont take either side just out of habit, I like Bill O Reilly, but I also love Bill Maher, I though Bill Clinton was the greatest president ever.

I do feel however that If we are gonna stay in Iraq we need to finish the job, so either fight or get out.

My point is this

here is how Cindy Sheehan is desecrating her son's legacy.

He obviously war his uniform with pride and dignity,he was obviously in the 43 percent who supported the war, he was the one fighting over there voluntarily for the 2nd time.

He believed in what he was doing, took pride in what he was doing, was willing to RISK his life for the cause.

For his mom to say he died for a bullshit thing just pisses all over what he believed in


Dont tell me I dont know what he believed in because for someone to RE ENLIST after no WMD's were found proves that he supported liberating Iraq.

The Left acts like he lived under a rock and was a 5 year old retard who had access to zero information

that is insulting Casey Sheehan's intelligence and I think that makes the left look like jackasses who will do anything to criticize Bush.

I actually leaned more to the left before all this but the left's atttitudes are making me lean the other way.

No, I am simply saying the same things have been debated endlessly.  Her questions are nothing but round 6 to the same debate.  Yet, some still would rather rehash that debate of whether we should have went to war, instead of debating what to do now that we are there.

I am not going to go back and look, but I am pretty sure you claimed quite a few times that debating whether she should be saying what she is saying is a strawman. 

That is not exactly what D was saying though.  He was arguing that she shouldn't be saying what she is saying.  Your constant response: strawman.

Of course the one person was the one that initially disagreed over his decision to join the military in the first place.  I am not preferring to think that he supported the war because it supports my position, I am simply stating it because I believe that was the case.  I am pretty neutral about her arguments, and I stated that they couldn't be answered adequately by the adminstration.  I do know that Casey enlisted and asked to go into Iraq.  He then reinlisted after the war started.  Considering that most military people I have talked to still support the war, I would have to think that he would probably still support the war.  Your view to the contrary is supported by your own view that the war was wrong, which you previously admitted was contrary to the views of most servicemen.  Furthermore, your argument is supported by what Cindy Sheehan says, the person who he disagreed with over the war, and chose enlist twice despite her feelings over the war.  To me it seems that you prefer to think that he would have disagreed with the war because it supports your position.  I just have to look at his previous support for the war, I do not see any evidence that he ever changed his mind before his death.

Maybe you should go back and read it again.? I said debating her character is a straw man.? Her "character" (or the right's perception of it) has no bearing on whether she should say what she's saying.? Calling her a kook and a crackpot, specifically.


Incorrect.? I used the straw man comment? ONLY on the assertions that I mentioned in that piece of my post. I addressed his specific concern that she shouldn't say what she's saying later in the post.? Again, "reading into" instead of just reading it.

For posterity, here's the quote:
"In addition, no one, anywhere on this thread, has said the troops have been brainwashed.? No one.? I assume you're ascribing the comments to me...but, read again what I've written. I'm not commenting on their support of the war, just the comments they make when talking about Ms. Sheehan (and other, high profile, issues). And even then, I do not say they are "brainwashed".? They are simply "programmed" with a stock response by this administrations supporters,. by taking advantage of rote memory.? Nor do I think the troops, nor the people who support this war, are ignorant or stupid. I just disagree with them.? Heartily and fundamentally.? But again, that's not what this thread is about.? This thread is about Ms. Sheehan, and the questions she's asked.? Everything else thrown up is a smokescreen...a straw man..."
Plain as day and in black and white.? I even reiterate the thread is ABOUT MS. SHEEHAN, AND THE QUESTIONS SHE'S ASKED.?


Again, speculation.? And no better founded than those that feel otherwise.? You're basing your speculation on actions he took without full knowledge.? You have no earthly idea what his actions would have been, or how he would have felt, if given the whole story. Neither do I. That's one of Ms. Sheehan's points, actually.? And given the way public opinion has swayed, now that the "truth" has come to light, I don't think it remotely unreasonable to think he MAY have changed his mind. Or he may not have.? Given the uncertainty...the argument is relatively pointless.? You're going to believe what supports your position, no matter if you deny the reasoning behind it or not.? If you disagree with Ms. Sheehan, you're probably going to think she's "pissing" on Casey's memory.? If you agree with her...probably not so much.

Fundamentally, since this argument is one of opinion only, on this point we're all going to have to agree to disagree.

FYI, just so you all don't think I'm abandoning you, I'm going to be "unavailable" for the next few days...possibly a week or so.? I've volunteered to help out with some efforts at my place of business to help out the refugees down along the Gulf Coast.? While I won't actually be travelling down there, I won't exactly have easy access to a "for fun" PC, either.  I'll probably have limited net access going forward for a bit, though I anticipate I'll be back online by the middle of next week.

Be safe, you all.? And realize how lucky you are to have families, friends, food, water, etc (even if the gas prices are outrageous) near you.

 :peace:

I just think its hilarious

The soldiers arent mindless idiots

Extremist Left Wingers feel that if they believe a way it becomes fact and no other opinions matter.

That is a very bad way to look at things.

I don't have my feet stuck in concrete on one side or the other.

U all act like you were in the recruitment rooms with the soldiers or something, u act like u are in the briefing rooms

u have no proof the soldiers are being lied to, im very sure they know the score, they have more access to the info than any of us.


I say it would be a huge thrill to have Iraqi people come up to u and thank u for freeing them, thats doing something right there.

If u dont support it, dont sign up and fight but dont question the intelligence or insult the integrity of those who do support it and choose to fight.

No, it's no accident. It is what people do, when they are wrong, and have to find a way to win an argument.

They create a new one.

Ok So I dont know her son enough to know but yet YOU know her son enough to know that he was brainwashed and lied to.

I didn't say I knew her son. I said she did.... ::)

The reason given was false: WMD, we were lied to from day one. Enough evidence has been given to write numerous books, and have right wing cabinet members come forward to give interviews.

Great Contradiction!

Wrong analogy!


43 percent support the war

I'm sure they are very proud. Kinda like an old woman with a cane denying help when crossing the street.


that is still a pretty large fucking number, U have to take into account that there are probably more democrats than republicans in the United States and of course most of them would be against Bush if he donated a billion dollars to the Hurricane relief *they'd find some angle*

HUH?

For his mom to say he died for a bullshit thing just pisses all over what he believed in

Says you. You= Not his Momma.

And she would know, better than you if that "pissed on what he belived in" or if he believed in it as you portray to begin with.

The Left acts like he lived under a rock and was a 5 year old retard who had access to zero information


The left acts like this woman has a right to speak and not have her character assisinated.

I think that makes the left look like jackasses who will do anything to criticize Bush.

This is part of the argument I never understood. That we'll do "anything" to criticize the president. Yea, we just want to find a reason to hate the man..... ::)

This is a blanket, basic statement, with no merit. People then follow and repeat this statement. It is another form of slinging mud and strawman. Claiming the left just "hates" the president. Dumb.

Dont tell me I dont know what he believed in because for someone to RE ENLIST after no WMD's were found proves that he supported liberating Iraq.

Mom feels otherwise. You can only speculate.

And really reading this you have won..... You have won because you have taken the original argument and turned it into a comletely different topic. You guys have all pressed on long enough, to spin this around into something that you created. The strawman has come alive and here I am defending this woman...unreal.  Congrats, you are ready to register republican.

I actually leaned more to the left before all this but the left's atttitudes are making me lean the other way.

Go listen to O'reilly then, he should lull you right to sleep.

See what Im saying, U dont listen to any points cause your mind is made up.

Im gonna say this one more time

Everyone knew before the last election that there were no WMD's.  After that the war mantra was to liberate Iraq

The fact Casey Sheehan got out of the war and then volunteered to go back proves he supported the war.

If U think something is bullshit and is wrong guess what? U dont volunteer for it.


It would like being on a trial for murder and the jury listening to the prosecution and standing up and saying u are guilty without even giving your Defense a chance.

Thats what is goin on here.

She can speak her mind but I think she is wrong. I think her son loved what he was doing, he was willing to and made the ultimate sacrifice not because he had to but because he believed in something strong enough to want to.

There is more evidence that says he supported the war than says he didnt. Thats just the facts

a bunch of local boys where I live volunteered to go back and when asked why do u know what they said?

They said Having the Iraqi people come up to them and thank them for freeing them was one of the greatest feelings u could imagine and risking their lives to do it was worth it.

Yes, again the arguement wasn't if you feel what she is saying is right or wrong. Or if she has the right to say it. Or even if her son wanted to go back, or was lied to, or whatever.....

The point was that attacking somebody's character to muddy the argument is fucked up.

If people want to know what the situation is in Iraq, just ask the soldiers. A valuable news resource the media overlooks because you can`t sensationalize it.