Hillary Clinton attacked by Cindy Sheehan

[SLCPUNK]

I love how Richard twists shit around.

Did I say people who didnt support the war were Heartless?  NO


I said people who think we can just pull out and have no regard for the Iraqi people there are heartless.

In the US we have this imaginary belief that our lives are more valuable and important than everyone else's lives.  I hear people all the time say "Fuck Iraq" 2,000 US soldiers are killed, 2,000 more will be killed, so fuck 1 million Iraqi's etc etc. I just dont understand how anyone can support Cindy Sheehan, I have no problem with LIberals hating Bush cause I dont like Bush either, but when it gets to the point that your hatred for Bush is so much, u start siding with nutjobs like Sheehan and then u have people believing Bush attacked his own country, it starts getting scary and out of hand.

There is a poster on my 2ksportsforum that has a thread saying he has video proof that Bush committed 9/11. Is our country so fucked that this possibility could exist? I mean its ludicrous to believe that.

SLC if u have given an exit strategy, I sure as fuck have missed it, cause I see a whole lot of bitching but no possible solutions.

Anyone can say, Impeach Bush, Kick him out of office but realisitically that wont happen.

i hear Democrats yellin to pull out, but how can we?


I dont wanna read 45 paragraphs, I want a post dedicated to a plausible, Possible exit strategy, nothing more or less.

That is the problem, you don't want to READ. Go read already dude. There is endless information about all of this, beyond the headlines, beyond the hyper inflated fake patriotism, behind the pseudo-villians, behind it all are facts. Facts which require reading and lots of it.

The first domino has been pushed down: Libby. Bush probably won't be impeached, but you never know. Certainly what is going on now is much worse than what Nixon was involved with, and certainly worse than Clinton lying about a blow job (which I know everybody loves to bring up when it gets tough for them.)

I think people who don't hold the president accountable for his lies which caused the deaths of thousands of human beings HEARTLESS. That is what I think. And if you also consider that "bitching" then I would call that heartless as well.

The argument is pure mud anyway. Person 1 points out Bush's lies and wrong doings, while Person 2 (avoiding the initial point) puts the person on the defense asking "what do we do now?" What an absolute crock of shit that is, yet typical. When push comes to shove, the pro-war crowd ALWAYS turns the point away and goes into attack mode. Worked for Rove for years.........but not much longer.

My point has been made. Dig it up, unless reading is too much for you.

[Surfrider]

That is the problem, you don't want to READ. Go read already dude.

Yah, check out moveon.org, mediamatters.com, or http://www.thetinfoilhatlinux.tk/.

There is endless information about all of this, beyond the headlines, beyond the hyper inflated fake patriotism, behind the pseudo-villians, behind it all are facts. Facts which require reading and lots of it.

Facts based on inferences and conspiracy theories.  Basically you keep reading until you find what you want to hear.

The first domino has been pushed down: Libby. Bush probably won't be impeached, but you never know. Certainly what is going on now is much worse than what Nixon was involved with, and certainly worse than Clinton lying about a blow job (which I know everybody loves to bring up when it gets tough for them.)

Bush had nothing to do with this, and noone has even come close to suggesting that he did.? Are you suggesting he had a role in this?? Nixon was being impeached for authorizing the breaking and entering of the watergate hotel.? He would have been charged with the conspiracy.? Here, Libby is not charged with the actual offense, but with obstruction of justice and perjury, which ironically all of the sudden have become actual crimes in the eyes of the left.

I think people who don't hold the president accountable for his lies which caused the deaths of thousands of human beings HEARTLESS. That is what I think. And if you also consider that "bitching" then I would call that heartless as well.

What lies?? Oh... the ones based on the facts that you previously mentioned.? Misjudgment and incompetence, yes.? But lies, no.

The argument is pure mud anyway. Person 1 points out Bush's lies and wrong doings, while Person 2 (avoiding the initial point) puts the person on the defense asking "what do we do now?" What an absolute crock of shit that is, yet typical. When push comes to shove, the pro-war crowd ALWAYS turns the point away and goes into attack mode. Worked for Rove for years.........but not much longer.

Actually its not a crock of shit.? We got into this war, it was discussed during the last election and Bush won.? Now the argument should be not over whether we should have went to war, but what should we do next.? Since many don't have any idea of how to do anything better than the administration, they tend to dodge this question and resort to discussing the merits of the war.

[D]

Very Nice Berkeley.

When In doubt, go back to the "We shouldnt have went to Iraq" argument.

We are there, like I said, right or wrong, we are there, Bush didnt lie, he had info that didnt pan out, Some act like Bush is so evil that he has this plan to kill americans just to get oil.

I mean think of how ridiculous that is, there have only been a handful of leaders in the history of the world that evil, Bush is a bad president, not very intelligent, but he isnt evil, he is just in a mess he that he cant win either way.

2,000 American troops, or Genocide? U decide, the troops will make u look bad in the US, the Genocide will ruin u worldwide.

Why does Bush get all the blame? arent there almost 30 other countries believing in this as well?

Why doesnt Tony Blair get any of this?

Oh yeah I forgot, I guess Bush has him brainwashed as well.

Why is it so hard to believe that not everyone shares the opinion of the Left?  SLC your problem is, u think u know it all and that your opinion is somehow greater and mightier than anyone elses and that is bullshit. there is plenty of room for more than just one opinion.

U talk and talk and talk about bias in the media but u yourself advertised moveon.org and that is a die hard left wing site, so how can u bitch about biased medias when u yourself believe everything hook,line, and sinker that those extreme left wing sites advertise.

I am not reading through 100 posts to find your idea of exit strategy, so Ill assume since u refuse to re-post it, that u in fact dont have one, or are waiting for moveon.org or someplace like that to post one for u to copy.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I am not reading through 100 posts to find your idea of exit strategy, so Ill assume since u refuse to re-post it, that u in fact dont have one, or are waiting for moveon.org or someplace like that to post one for u to copy.

OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH  BURN!!!!

[POPmetal]

Somebody makes an excuse as to why Bush should get the blame:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23320.msg408352#msg408352

It gets shot down:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23320.msg408954#msg408954

So you guys go and contrive a new one:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23320.msg410086#msg410086

I don't know if it's funny or sad at this point, but it appears like you guys are DESPERATE to find excuses to vilify Bush and rip on him. It's as if your entire universe will collapse if Bush is not the evil greedy oil war monger you paint him to be.

[POPmetal]

That is the problem, you don't want to READ. Go read already dude. There is endless information about all of this, beyond the headlines, beyond the hyper inflated fake patriotism, behind the pseudo-villians, behind it all are facts. Facts which require reading and lots of it.

You talking about "facts"? LOL! You have no shame SLC 

Let's look at this here:

Wilson said the evidence was not there.

And guess what they did? The outed his undercover CIA wife, that is what they did.

So........

Who is the traitor to the American people, and military here? The Bush run White house, that is who. These guys lied through their teeth to go into Iraq, dismissing all reports showing a lack of sufficient evidence.

What is so funny, is how you guys still defend it, even though we all know the truth now.

So the Bush run White House outed his wife. Can you back this up with "facts"?
If the White House outed his wife, why was nobody in the White House even charged for outing her name, Mr Conspiracy Theory?

[jarmo]

Why doesnt Tony Blair get any of this?

Oh yeah I forgot, I guess Bush has him brainwashed as well.

He probably doesn't get "attacked" here because the invasion wasn't a British idea from the start.




/jarmo

[pilferk]

I think he was dead serious.

He basically said Sadaam wasnt a dangerous man, I dont understand how anyone could believe he wasnt. Ask the kurds if he is dangerous or not.

No, he said he wasn't a threat. As in, a threat to us. There are LOTS of dangerous people in the world.? Dangerous does not equal threat.

After 9/11 u had to start asking the question What If.

IF Sadaam had nothing to hide, why was he being so deceitful?? He brought it upon himself.

He complied with the resolutions, in the end.? He provided the list he was required to provide.? There WERE issues with the list, but, as the UN inspectors said, those inconsistencies were well withing their means to investigate.? We said the list was garbage because it didn't list a current WMD program, or any material from it.? How do you prove you don't have what you don't have?

You do know, as well, that Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any country since the UN came into existance.? They also have WMD's.? Maybe we should bomb them?

All I hear is Left Wing anti War mumbo Jumbo all day long but I havent heard anybody give a strategy of how exactly to pull out of Iraq and avoid the mass slaughter of innocent people.

Monday Morning Quarterbacks can sit behind a screen and say, "Fuck Iraq, pull out, Fuck em"

But these are real lives here, Human beings who value life as much as u and I and everyone else, So how is it U Left Wingers are heartless and have absolutely no sympathy for what consequences pulling out of Iraq would bring?


I dont wanna hear about Rove or Bush, i dont wanna hear about Sheehan, I dont wanna hear about Mier

I wanna hear some kind of logical strategy.



Until then, U have no right to criticize and crucify someone with your hindsight.

The intelligence was wrong, Bush and the US fucked up, that is 100 percent correct, We know that already, but they tried to right a wrong and do something that shouldve been done a decade earlier.

Now we are in a war right or wrong, what can be done about it besides the ever so popular and intelligent; Pull out!

I gave what I think is a pretty logical strategy for exit not long ago.? I'm not going to go hunting for it and repost it, though.? ?You can search my posts to find it.? Not that it matters.? We're not in charge.....

(Edit: In this thread: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg396578#msg396578)

And I think many of those against the war would actually be pretty happy if this administration simply communicated a viable and comprehensive exit strategy with actual measurable goals and outcomes.? But, as Sr. Members (current and former) of this administration have admitted: There never has been an exit strategy.

[pilferk]

we can agree to disagree.

IMO, anyone who has several UN Resolutions passed to try to control them, must be somewhat of a threat.

Wow.? Israel must be the biggest threat to the world since the UN's inception, then.

the guy is on trial for genocide and he had unlimited financial means.

clinton demanded a regime change. i think in part because he was a threat.

Clinton demanded a regime change because the guy was a proven loose cannon, and he was loony.? Those 2 things, in and of themselves, are not great qualities to have but when they manifest in a world leader...well, they're not great for geopolitical stability, either.? ?So, you express the opinion that the world might be better off without Saddam in power.? That's not any indication that Saddam was a direct threat to the US (to his own people, maybe...)

[pilferk]

I am not reading through 100 posts to find your idea of exit strategy, so Ill assume since u refuse to re-post it, that u in fact dont have one, or are waiting for moveon.org or someplace like that to post one for u to copy.

D, you gotta understand...you're sort of a "johnny come lately" to these discussions.  There are some things (and I'm not saying SLC's strategy is one of them...) that have been posted 2,3,4,5 times in varying threads.  At some point, it gets tiring saying the same things or posting the same links over and over again.  It's just easier to refer you to our post hisory if you REALLY care to find out the answer to your question....and if you're going to level accusations at people, and they tell you they're unfounded, why, and where to find the info....the onus is really on you, at that point.  You either put in the effort required or you walk away from the discussion.

[Surfrider]

Why doesnt Tony Blair get any of this?

Oh yeah I forgot, I guess Bush has him brainwashed as well.

He probably doesn't get "attacked" here because the invasion wasn't a British idea from the start.




/jarmo

Its not that Bush shouldn't get any blame, but many chose to give others free rides.  People that openly supported the war have pulled a 180 on their stance.  Some of these people actually call Bush a liar etc.

[Surfrider]

I think he was dead serious.

He basically said Sadaam wasnt a dangerous man, I dont understand how anyone could believe he wasnt. Ask the kurds if he is dangerous or not.

No, he said he wasn't a threat. As in, a threat to us. There are LOTS of dangerous people in the world.? Dangerous does not equal threat.

After 9/11 u had to start asking the question What If.

IF Sadaam had nothing to hide, why was he being so deceitful?? He brought it upon himself.

He complied with the resolutions, in the end.? He provided the list he was required to provide.? There WERE issues with the list, but, as the UN inspectors said, those inconsistencies were well withing their means to investigate.? We said the list was garbage because it didn't list a current WMD program, or any material from it.? How do you prove you don't have what you don't have?

He complied with the resolutions?  I don't think so.  He refused to let us interview certain scientists; he would not let us into all of the facilities; and he would not provide evidence that he destroyed certain things. 

Of course the inspectors thought they could figure everything out.  However, the US got tired of playing the games after 10 years.  No one thought he was complying at the time, the only question was whether we should continue to play the game and give him more time to comply.

[pilferk]

He complied with the resolutions?? I don't think so.? He refused to let us interview certain scientists; he would not let us into all of the facilities; and he would not provide evidence that he destroyed certain things.?

Not true.? Weeks before the "invasion" he WAS giving us access to all the facilities inspectors requested access to, including the presidential palaces.? There is a LOT of news coverage on the subject.? He also allowed us to interview all the people we wanted to...what he DIDN'T allow was one on one interviews, without representation from his government present.? I can see what his objections would be, considering he saw the UN as a puppet of the US.? On his side (and I'm certainly not supporting the view), he would say it was in his best interest to ensure that "proper" interviewing was taking place and no one was being strong armed by the UN investigators into making a false statement OR even just ensuring that what UN inspectors SAY the scientists were saying was what they were saying.? On our side, we insisted that having ANY representative of Iraq present was, in itself, a strong arm tactic by that govt to ensure that the scientists weren't talking.

They also DID provide proof of destruction of material.? That was much of what "the list" concerned.? SOME of that information inspectors knew to be incorrect, but not a majority of it (according to the UN inspectors, themselves).? What discrepancies there WERE, the inspectors said they could easily track down in a relatively short period of time.?

What they couldn't provide was proof of destruction of material that didn't exist, had never existed, but that we insisted DID exist.

So, yes, he was in the process of complying with the resolutions in question.

Of course the inspectors thought they could figure everything out.? However, the US got tired of playing the games after 10 years.? No one thought he was complying at the time, the only question was whether we should continue to play the game and give him more time to comply.

True enough.? Of course, the REST of the UN was saying he should have more time, given the level or cooperation he had begun to display.? ? Turns out, they were right.? And we were basing our "being tired of playing games" on faulty intel that we had good reason to suspect was faulty.  We insisted that giving the inspectors more time would be dangrous as it would give Saddam more time to construct more weapons.?We insisted Saddam was an IMMINENT threat, and that he could attack at any minute. So, we chose, rather than to use a bit of discretion given the information at hand, to rush to action. 

[sandman]

we can agree to disagree.

IMO, anyone who has several UN Resolutions passed to try to control them, must be somewhat of a threat.

Wow.? Israel must be the biggest threat to the world since the UN's inception, then.

the guy is on trial for genocide and he had unlimited financial means.

clinton demanded a regime change. i think in part because he was a threat.

Clinton demanded a regime change because the guy was a proven loose cannon, and he was loony.? Those 2 things, in and of themselves, are not great qualities to have but when they manifest in a world leader...well, they're not great for geopolitical stability, either.? ?So, you express the opinion that the world might be better off without Saddam in power.? That's not any indication that Saddam was a direct threat to the US (to his own people, maybe...)

now you're spinning things. there's plenty of loose cannon leaders out there. clinton talked frequently about "containing" saddam. he did an ok job at that. but clinton would not have tried to contain him if he was not a threat to U.S. interests.

[pilferk]

now you're spinning things. there's plenty of loose cannon leaders out there. clinton talked frequently about "containing" saddam. he did an ok job at that. but clinton would not have tried to contain him if he was not a threat to U.S. interests.

I'm not spinning anything.  You gave your opinion on what you think Clinton meant.  I gave mine.  Were he an actual, imminenent threat, more appropriate action would have been taken, I think, rather than words and political/economic maneuvering.

Here's a recap of what actually happened in January of '99:

"In an interview with Kuwait Television, Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk says the Clinton Administration has developed a new approach to Iraq which is, "containment plus regime change." This policy, he says, has two basic principles: the change must come from the Iraqi people themselves and from inside Iraq, and the U.S. will maintain its commitment to the territorial integrity of Iraq. "

That's pretty telling.  Clinton's policy was that Saddam was Iraqs problem and that we would prevent him from becoming ANYONE elses by "maintianing the commitment to the territorial integrity of Iraq" (in other words, not letting them invade other countries along his borders).  To me, that says Saddam was only a threat to his own people, and, perhaps, his direct neighbors.

You think he was a threat to this country. Not dangerous, not a POTENTIAL threat, or a PERCIEVED threat, but an actual threat to the US.

So, then prove it.

I've given you definitive fact that he was not a direct threat, all verifiable.  He had not the means to be a threat to this country.  He just didn't. 

You're giving me opinion on what Clinton "meant".

[sandman]

you give a quote from 1999. hilarous. cause clinton had been dealing with saddam and taken several actions against him for the previous 6 years. just more spin by you.

[SLCPUNK]

I am not reading through 100 posts to find your idea of exit strategy, so Ill assume since u refuse to re-post it, that u in fact dont have one, or are waiting for moveon.org or someplace like that to post one for u to copy.

So you put words in my mouth, don't take it back when I point it out to you, talk about something you really have no idea about, then are too lazy to look up my post (that I have made and am not looking up for you) and then have the nerve to come on here and tell me I'm waiting to clip and paste an opinion from somebody else as my own?

Pardon my French, but you are an asshole.

[POPmetal]

Since it's too much trouble for SLC to post it himself, apparently he's too busy calling people assholes ,I'll help him out
Here's what SLC thinks we should do in Iraq:

I don't even know how GW Bush can think of an exit plan with the Shiits and the Sunnits not getting along.

Don't even get started on that...half these guys wouldn't even know what you were talking about.

But don't you advocate withdrawal SLC?? Just curious.

No, I never advocated going in....

You have made that clear, and I think you were obviously correct in your position prior to the war.? However, circumstances have changed.? We are no longer debating whether the war was justified, but whether we should withdrawal.? Hence the "withdrawal wager thread."

I am curious as to your position, and others that opposed the war prior to the invasion.? Should we withdraw?? I know its a difficult question, but I am interested in your thoughts.

Oh Christ. (Not being sarcastic)

Either option equals failure.

How many more American lives do you want to sacrifice to continue to nation build in Iraq? Right now we need thousands and thousand of troops in New Orleans(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050901/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_katrina_43). Right now...total anarchy. Car jackings on dry land, rape, beatings, lootings. It is out of control. How many of OUR PEOPLE need protection, food, shelter, government, law and order only 14 hours away from me?

It has been three days and no command center has been set up, and people are dying in the street like dogs, and the mayor has literaly sent out an SOS to the government.

But we don't have enough troops (yet), and money (that has already been cut, and Bush also proposed to cut another 42 million? by next year prior to this tragedy) is becoming a reality in America (deficit rears it's ugly head).

Knowing what we know now...that there are no WMD, completely squelches the moronic "We will send the wrong message to the terrorists if we leave Iraq." Iraq never was a terrorist threat, nor had weapons. There is no message "to send" if it wasn't a terrorist state to begin with. Our original claim for invasion was never "we need to nation build", never. No message will be "sent"; this is propaganda. The terrorists want us to stay.... as no harm will come to them, only dead USA soldiers, and begining of a economic tailspin here.

 Look at what has happened since we invaded. 2000 thousand DEAD, thousands more WOUNDED. One hundred thousand dead in Iraq. Gas prices steady increase from oil speculation (obviously middle east war related). HUGE BILLION DOLLAR deficit, each American owes 145k for this debt on paper. Complete failure of trust in the international community now equaling the boy who cried wolf syndrome(if there was a real problem later).

All of these equal success for the terrorists. Our economy is on the edge, gas prices are about to hit 4 dollars per gallon by the end of the week. Americans are being slaughtered everyday in Iraq, and insurgents are bombing away in London and other parts of the world STILL. By us being in Iraq....the terrorists are winning on many different scales. Right now, they are about to attack us economically, and we are all going to feel it. Leaving troops in Iraq was always the plan I'm afraid. We have permanent military bases set up there. This was ALWAYS the plan. It is a strategic setting in the middle east (an area we've had our eye on and loved since post WWII) and untapped oil. Sure, troops will eventually "come home", but there will always be our presence there. This will only continue to piss of the middle east.

If you don't think the terrorists are winning, just go fill your gas tank up this week and listen to Bush's speech where he asked Americans to "save on gas" and warns looters in his out of control frenzied city that was once New Orleans.

We should, pull out.

That being said, I never started this thread to say if we should or should not. I started because a poster LIED and claimed the exit strategy (which W is always critiqued for, since he never offers one to Joe Public) was so apparent and Sheehan should just understand this and go away.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22340.msg386616#msg386616

[sandman]

again, someone on the left uses an obsenity towards a poster.

Will - wasn't you that recently said if those on the right could stop insulting the left, you'd begin to take us seriously. you should really look at who typically insults who in these threads.

SLC - instead of calling people "ASSHOLES", wouldn't just be easier to state your position for those of us who do not read every thread in on these boards. afterall, it's a pretty basic, simple and straight forward strategy you have...."we should, pull out."

[D]

I am not reading through 100 posts to find your idea of exit strategy, so Ill assume since u refuse to re-post it, that u in fact dont have one, or are waiting for moveon.org or someplace like that to post one for u to copy.

So you put words in my mouth, don't take it back when I point it out to you, talk about something you really have no idea about, then are too lazy to look up my post (that I have made and am not looking up for you) and then have the nerve to come on here and tell me I'm waiting to clip and paste an opinion from somebody else as my own?

Pardon my French, but you are an asshole.

Thing about u is, U use to be a real cool guy, but somewhere in your crusade to save the universe u became a condescending prick.

U feel that everyone should bow down to the almighty SLC and believe what u believe, and if not u actually take it personally and let it affect relationships.

U need to realize that everyone has their own opinions.

U arent right, I am not right, when it comes to things such as politics and religion, there are no definitive right or wrong answers, only various opinions.

U need to get over yourself and thinking u have everything figured out and that u have all the answers and start realizing that the entire world doesnt reflect your opinions and those people are no less or no more intelligent or right than u are.


The War sucks, it is horrible, it never shouldve happened. I agree 100 percent, but now we are there.

Exit strategy is very very simple.

Iraq is trying to pass their constitution.

Our country has to babysit them until their government is in place and strong and their military is in place and strong.

Once this happens, The US will slowly start withdrawing from Iraq.

In about 20 years, Iraq will be one of the biggest exporters in Oil and in turn will become a very rich,very prosperous country and down the road, Bush may be looked upon as one of the better presidents in american history, if this does come to fruition.