American Right Wing beats up on grieving war mother

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[Jessica]

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...

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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.

[Surfrider]

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.

[Jessica]

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)

[Surfrider]

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.

[Jessica]

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.

[Surfrider]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[Prometheus]

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.

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....

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

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?

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

[Tied-Up]

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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....). ?

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

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.

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

We went to Iraq on bad intelligence. We now have a bigger threat from Iran than we ever had from Saddam`s Iraq.

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.

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?

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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

We went to Iraq on bad intelligence. We now have a bigger threat from Iran than we ever had from Saddam`s Iraq.

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.

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......   

[Jessica]

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

[Jessica]

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

[Jessica]

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.