American Right Wing beats up on grieving war mother

[Will]

Give Slick Willie some credit. Under Clinton`s watch, he had a chance to get Bin Laden, but diddn`t.

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.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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.

[D]

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.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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..........

[SLCPUNK]

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.

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!

[SLCPUNK]

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!!!

[SLCPUNK]

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.

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?"

[SLCPUNK]

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?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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....

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.

[SLCPUNK]

"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!!!!

[pilferk]

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!

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.

[pilferk]

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!

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?

[pilferk]

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.

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.? ?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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. 

[SLCPUNK]

"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.

[pilferk]

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.?

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. 

[SLCPUNK]

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.