| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
A word or two for the Sheehan hangers-on
(Note: This is NOT directed towards my friends on the left who civilly disagree about going into Iraq and/or how the war has been conducted and who argue in a thoughtful, respectful manner about your feelings on the issue. I respect your opinions even though I don’t agree with them. This is directed towards the groupies/hangers-on of Cindy Sheehan and her quest to ‘talk’ to President Bush.)
Sheehan hangers-on, you’re disgusting.
Not only have you used one woman’s grief over losing her son in Iraq to advance your pathetic little anti-war agendas, you’re also doing your level best to dishonor the memory of this woman’s son – Casey Sheehan – and the other nearly 2000 men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. Why? Because your bitter hatred for the President blinds your decency towards 1) honoring the fallen as well as those who are still serving, and 2) expressing honest thoughtful dissent about the war.
How dare you!
Have you no shame? You’ve hijacked Cindy Sheehan’s ‘campaign’ (and yes, I know she’s become a willing participant) and used it as a springboard to denigrate the mission that men like Casey Sheehan died for. You rabid anti-war folks are a dream to the enemy. Don’t think for one second that they aren’t watching and laughing (while planning their next series of attacks) as you preen before the cameras to express your righteous indignation and make your silly statements about "Bush lied" and "war for oil" and "sign up Jenna and Barbara to serve."
You look stupid.
But what’s worse than that is that you are hurting the very troops you claim you want to protect. By spewing your venom and latching on to Cindy Sheehan’s grief like parasites, you do a great disservice to your country. Honest, thoughtful, and respectful dissent is one thing, but when you take it to the next level – and it’s not a "higher level" mind you, but a lower level of discourse, you give aid and comfort to the enemy. And I’m not afraid to say that. If you want to think I’m questioning your patriotism, go right ahead because I won’t deny it: I AM questioning your patriotism.
I don’t question the patriotism of honest anti-war people like Robert L. Jamieson, Jr. – who could hardly be considered a Republican shill. He writes:
Sheehan’s Texas tantrum wittingly or unwittingly abets left-leaning forces that are happy to use her to get at the president. If the anemic antiwar movement needs a mourning mom to lead the charge against this unjust war, then the movement is in dire straits.
Protest marches and demonstrations, which powered public sentiment against the war in Vietnam, have been reduced to this — a mom with a mic.
Pathetic.
My thoughts drift to grieving parents of slain troops who have not even had a chance to meet with Bush.
There are hundreds of soldiers’ families — several in the Seattle area — in as much grief as Sheehan is over the death of her son, Casey, last year in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
They haven’t found the need to shack up near the president’s vacation pad to shame him into a confrontation under the guise of seeking sincere dialogue.
Some of these families believe the war is wrong, too.
They just choose to deal with their feelings in a way that doesn’t cheapen the memory of their loved ones or turn a grave matter into a media circus standoff that generates more heat than light.
I can respect that – and his opinion on this war (even though I don’t agree with his stance on the war). I know many other anti-war folks who feel the same and count them amongst my friends. But are you listening to Mr. Jamieson, Code Pink? Are you listening Gold Star Families for Peace? Are you listening, John Conyers, who wrote a letter to President Bush that apparently has 18 or so signatures from other nitwit members of Congress, urging the President to meet with Sheehan? You guys are pathetic, and you do a great disservice to this country, and you do your level best to dishonor the fallen heros of the Iraq war was well as those still in combat today.
I don’t believe for one second the vast majority of you give a damn about our troops – fallen or not. This is about one thing: your unabashed hatred and disgust with President Bush. Cindy Sheehan’s campaign is just one rung on the ladder you use to openly express that hatred and disgust, and your use of it as a tool to advance your hateful diatribes against the President and the war in Iraq in a way that is so dishonorable, that makes me ashamed that you are an American.
Vietnam war protestors claimed to "support the troops but not the mission" – they were liars. We all know what happened to those troops upon their return home from service. They were spat on, sneered at, laughed at, made fun of, told they were mentality unstable. There’s a parallel to be drawn here between what those protestors did then, and you Sheehan’s hangers-on are doing now: what you are doing is spitting on the honor of these women and men, and creating an atmosphere of dishonest dissent that will serve only to embolden our enemies against those troops you claim to "support." Is that what you really want to do? I’d have to think you do, because no person with even a 10th of a brain could possibly be so stupid as to do something that would deliberately create a situation that would, on down the line, put our troops in harms way even more than they already are.
My suggestion for you is this: if you are truly interested in honest, thoughtful dissent about this war, stop expressing it in a way that works to cheapen the memories of the Iraq war heroes who have fallen and that doesn’t denigrate the mission of the troops who are still serving who you *claim* to support.
And when people disagree with you, express it in a way that is respectable, and not in a way that is reprehensible – such as the case here (in the comments section), here (see comments section there as well), and here (scroll down to see some of the hate mail Michelle rec’d for her stance on the Cindy Sheehan issue).
Until you start doing that, you’ll CONTINUE to earn the contempt and feel the verbal wrath of others like me in the blogosphere and elsewhere who are sickened by your slimy contemptable tactics. Casey Sheehan deserves to be remembered for his honorable service to our country - not for the hate-filled rhetoric coming from the leeches who have glommed on to his mother’s grief and not for his mother’s misguided attempts at creating a ‘dialogue’ with the President – and saying ‘dialogue’ is really not even the right word to use as I know she doesn’t want to have one with the President, but rather tell him what a "liar" and "murderer" he is. Which is exactly what those who claim to "support" Cindy Sheehan and the troops want her to do. They’re attempting to live their anti-war fantasies vicariously through her and by doing so poison the atmosphere of honest dissent and worst of all, dishonoring the memory of those still serving and those who’ve fallen.
We won’t let you grief and hate mongers get away with it.
BTW, don’t muck up my comments section here with your hateful messages. Any such messages will be deleted without warning. Some bloggers have the patience to deal with such nonsense. I’m not one of them – although I may decide to leave them up long enough for others to see here at this blog how idiotic some of you have become.
Update: I’m going to be out for a good bit of the afternoon enjoying the day. I’ll deal with nasty comments, should there be any, when I return this evening.
—More:
Read Michelle Malkin for all the latest.
Varifrank has a powerful and thoughtful post on this that I can’t disagree with.
Mohammed writes a must-read message to Cindy Sheehan (hat tip: Mudville Gazette).
Kevin Aylward slams the lefty blogosphere for their hateful, hypocritical posts about not only this issue but how those lefty bloggers are blogging the righty blogosphere’s commentary on it.
Evening update: Chrenkoff posts a must read about this issue with lots of interesting links.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
88 Responses to “A word or two for the Sheehan hangers-on”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Ok, Elderta – take care in that storm. You guys must be getting what passed through here earlier in the day. Hope it passes soon! Take care.
ST: “If both sides lied about the Iraqi regime, what would you think about it?”
I think its wrong when either side lies. If Bill Clinton did exactly what Bush did, I would be saying the same thing.
I guess we arent going to change each others mind
Web: No you haven’t been banned – the spam thingie is catching all kinds of comments today, including some from yours truly! LOL So please don’t post comments twice – I can usually catch them in time before the ‘auto-spam dump’ that occurs every few hours. Re: your Cheney quote, what exactly was it he said that was untrue?
Pokerdad: Yeah it does seem that we’ve reached an impasse
And BTW, the question you attributed to me was actually asked by Elderta. I was responding to it 
Is this the non-public thread?
Anyhow, Saddam was giving access to the inspectors. They were about 2 weeks away from finishing, if I remember correctly. I don’t know what would have come of it, but if action was necessary, I would have rather they completed UN proceedings.
RE: #45 – There are a lot of evil people in this world that could supply terrorists with WMDs. We can’t bomb them all. And I do believe containment was working.
Web, all threads here are ‘public’
Re: 2 weeks away from finishing – where did you get that information?
Re: lots of evil people in the world, you’re right. Different threats call for different responses. There is no cookie-cutter answer for how to deal with every one of them.
Bravo. Plain talking doesn’t get much plainer than this. I like the Jamieson quote very much, too.
“# 9 Eric: Re: people speaking for Casey, again you’re right – which is one of the reasons why what anti war groups like Code Pink are doing is so repugnant.”
But what you miss out is that they say what people who knew casey say. They say what mom says. Its the people who contradict eric’s mom that are the real problems. Who are they to do that?
“And BTW, the President never claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11.”
Someone in the admin claimed that it was a base of the people who attacked us on 9/11.
Mona: Thanks for stopping by! Just checked out your blog and love the quote you have at the top of the page
Eric: I haven’t missed anything. Groups like Code Pink, etc, have hijacked this woman’s grief and are doing things in Casey’s name like declaring the Iraq war “illegal” etc … we don’t know if he thought the war was illegal or not but I think a pretty good guess would be to say he didn’t, otherwise he wouldn’t have reenlisted. Furthermore, no one on ‘my side’ (at least not here) is putting words into Casey’s mouth by contradicting what his mother has said. What we’ve done is contradict what she’s said, which was a contradiction of what she said around the time she met the President. Casey Sheehan *volunteered to reenlist in the military, knowing he’d likely have to go into Iraq. That’s a fact. If Casey Sheehan thought this war was illegal, or was against it, he would never have reenlisted. So no one here is speaking out of turn when they say that he wanted to serve because that’s exactly how it was: he *wanted* to serve. He wouldn’t have reenlisted in the first place. Now, if you want to go on believing something different, that’s fine, but it’s contrary to the facts at hand.
And who in the admin claimed Iraq was the base for the 9-11 hijackers?
Web_geek and Elderta: I just thought I should inform you that your friend “Red Tory” from the Air America blog (the one who called me a “nitwit”) has been banned from this blog. See my comments under the “Justice Sunday” thread to him for further comment on his banning.
I should add that I read what both of you had to say at that blog about me (I saw the link via my Sitemeter, which lists referring URLs). You both were thisclose to being banned as well until I saw web_geek’s ammended comments later in the thread. I still haven’t seen a retraction from you Elderta on that board but you seemed to view me in a different light here once you started posting here so I’ll take that as a retraction (you didn’t really insult me but you did seem to go along with some of web_geek’s thoughts on the issue of my post here). I don’t really like finding out that while I’m trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone, that they’re insulting me behind my back. I don’t think you or anyone else would feel any different on that score. You both are still posting here for now as long as I don’t visit the Air America blog again to see that I’m the topic du jour. It’d be very disappointing.
Eric: Re Casey reenlisting – the facts are already on the table. He CHOSE to re-enlist. If he was anti-Iraq war, he wouldn’t have, would he? His mother is trying to paint a different picture of Casey now than the one that was painted then. Her revisionism doesn’t pass the smell test.
Re: That quote from Cheney does not prove that the administration made a strong case that Iraq was behind 9-11. In fact, W was asked that frequently by the press and repeatedly denied any suggestions that Iraq was behind/planned 9-11.
At some point we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this. I have no intention of changing my mind on either point you’re trying to make and I don’t think you’ll be willing to change yours either, no matter how convincing an argument I make.
“Eric: Re Casey reenlisting – the facts are already on the table. He CHOSE to re-enlist. If he was anti-Iraq war, he wouldn’t have, would he?”
He could have renlisted because he felt an affinity for the men left behind, or he liked the job, or lots of other reasons. I don’t claim to make a big point of 1 action by him, in order to make some point against the words of those who know him.
“Re: That quote from Cheney does not prove that the administration made a strong case that Iraq was behind 9-11.”
It’s just an example of them getting it rather ‘innocently’ mixed up. “base of the people who attacked us?” It clearly is not.
ST – I don’t think Elderta or I said anything nasty here or on AAR. I was just posting about my interactions here.
I don’t remember why “2 weeks until the inspectors were done” is stuck in my head. I’ll see if I can find documentation better than my memory.
-WG
I will never understand how other politicians lying/being wrong justifies the Bush administration’s lying/being wrong.
Of course, the Bush administration should be held to a higher standard since they invaded and occupied the country.
Sister Toljah,
*sigh*
I’m having a hard time understanding what right you have to tell me how to feel about my family serving and possibly dying in Iraq or how Cindy Sheehan should feel or act after she lost her son there.
What gives you the right to tell her, or possibly me, how to feel, how to act, and what we should think politically before or after such a loss?
I did come from the AF blog, you can check that and check my comments, not_over_it, and see that I wasn’t disrespectful toward you (except for the chickenhawk comment when elderta thought she was banned, which she retracted), so I can only hope that you’ll treat me the same way.
I’m at a loss what to say to you right now, to be honest. I’m at a loss what to say to the people who consider you, “just a girl”, after all, as some kind of sage, but I’ll try.
What give you the right? What gives you and others who disagree with those who disagree with the Iraq war the right to criticize Cindy Sheehan?
You can’t possibly know what it feels like to bear a son let alone lose one, so how dare you? You don’t even know what it’s like to send him off to school fearing that there are bullies lurking about let alone when the principal or one of the teachers is a bully! (or the worst kind of bully personified!)
Now imagine that your son, cousin, sister, aunt, uncle, ect, could DIE just by showing up to the school that they picked! Did he ask to make that “sacrifice” for GW? Of course not!
I’m trying, I’m trying so damn hard to keep my argument civil because I know that you don’t have “skin in the game” and have no idea what that feels like, but you can’t imagine, and neither can so many of the people who are so damn quick to bash and trash Cindy Sheehan.
George Bush owed us a good reason for taking us into war in Iraq when he took us there, not the lies he gave us or the excuses after.
George Bush owes the Iraqi people real peace, not the huge chunk of change he’s putting in his friends/contractors pockets with no accountablility.
Where is the missing money? 8.8 Billion last I heard!
It’s infuriating! Especially when “our” guys, MY guys are lacking adequate equipment to fight the war that George Bush has told them to.
*sob*
“I’m having a hard time understanding what right you have to tell me how to feel about my family serving and possibly dying in Iraq or how Cindy Sheehan should feel or act after she lost her son there.”
I’m having a hard time figuring out where I tried to *tell* *anyone* how to feel about family members serving and possibly dying in Iraq or *told* Cindy Sheehan should feel or act after she lost her son there. I’ve said I think what she’s doing is wrong, but I haven’t tried to “tell” her how to feel anymore than I’ve tried to tell you.
“What gives you the right to tell her, or possibly me, how to feel, how to act, and what we should think politically before or after such a loss?”
I haven’t done any of the above. My contempt has been for the hangers on of Cindy Sheehan – the likes of Code Pink, etc, which I will not apologize for. I think Cindy Sheehan is on the wrong track with what she’s doing, but she certainly has the right to do it. But then again, this has never been about “rights” but instead about “what’s right.” If you want to talk about “rights” well I can tell you I have just as much of a “right” to comment on ths as you had over at the AA board to call me a “chickenshit chickenhawk.” Don’t think I’m going to forget that.
“I did come from the AF blog, you can check that and check my comments, not_over_it, and see that I wasn’t disrespectful toward you (except for the chickenhawk comment when elderta thought she was banned, which she retracted), so I can only hope that you’ll treat me the same way.”
I will, as long as you respect me in return. From the rest of your comments, I can see where I’m not so sure you are.
“I’m at a loss what to say to you right now, to be honest. I’m at a loss what to say to the people who consider you, “just a girl”, after all, as some kind of sage, but I’ll try.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that. “Just a girl”? I’m just an average citizen commenting on an issue that I feel passionate about – no different from anyone else on either ’side’ in that regard. Are you attempting to insult me by telling me that just because I’m just an average Joe commenting about this issue that my opinion counts for nothing? I certainly hope not. Because I have no doubt there have been any number of issues you’ve commented on where you don’t have the “inside scoop” yet I’ve no doubt that didn’t stop you from commenting on them, did you?
“What give you the right? What gives you and others who disagree with those who disagree with the Iraq war the right to criticize Cindy Sheehan?”
I’ve criticized Sheehan’s comments, not her. I’ve made it clear who I hold contempt for. I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan and have said in so many that I wish she’d chosen a different route. OTOH, I feel nothing but utter contempt for the hardcore anti-war types surrounding her right now. And again, I have the same right to comment on this issue as you do to comment on any issue you see fit to as well as any person you choose to insult on the AA board, as you did me.
“You can’t possibly know what it feels like to bear a son let alone lose one, so how dare you? You don’t even know what it’s like to send him off to school fearing that there are bullies lurking about let alone when the principal or one of the teachers is a bully! (or the worst kind of bully personified!)”
You just wait a minute. Don’t you DARE come to this blog and tell me that I can’t possibly know what it feels like to lose someone! No, I don’t have a son or daughter (yet) but I’ve had relatives and friends that I’ve lost prematurely, so your comment to me about loss is HIGHLY off base and I resent it. Please don’t act like you’re the only one who has felt the worry of losing someone you love, because sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews, etc, feel loss too! So please, spare me the sanctimonious bit, ok? Because you’re not the only one discussing this issue who has relatives and/or friends you worry about losing prematurely – whether it be at school, or overseas, etc. On a related note, it irks me to no end how some people can think that people who advocate a war don’t put serious consideration into what they are advocating – which is sending men and women into harms way. I can tell you on a personal note that I would *not* advocate *any* war unless I felt it was justified. Someone implying otherwise suggests a cruel indifference to human sacrifice that neither I, nor most other people I know who advocated this war, possess.
“Now imagine that your son, cousin, sister, aunt, uncle, ect, could DIE just by showing up to the school that they picked! Did he ask to make that “sacrifice” for GW? Of course not!”
I have no idea what parallel you’re trying to draw there.
“I’m trying, I’m trying so damn hard to keep my argument civil because I know that you don’t have “skin in the game” and have no idea what that feels like, but you can’t imagine, and neither can so many of the people who are so damn quick to bash and trash Cindy Sheehan.”
Again, I’m not “trashing and bashing” Cindy Sheehan. I’m highly critical of her hangers on though and again I will NOT apologize for it. No, I don’t have “skin in the game” but what exactly is that supposed to mean? That I should just keep my trap shut and not say anything? I don’t have any “skin in the police force” (I used to – my grandfather) – should that mean I should have no say in issues related to them too? No, it doesn’t. So stop acting like because I don’t have “skin in the game” I can’t comment. Because I can, I will, and I will continue whether you or your pals at the AA blog like it or not.
“George Bush owed us a good reason for taking us into war in Iraq when he took us there, not the lies he gave us or the excuses after.”
He’s given the reasons. Repeatedly. You choose to believe they are lies. That’s your problem, not mine.
“George Bush owes the Iraqi people real peace, not the huge chunk of change he’s putting in his friends/contractors pockets with no accountablility.”
Oh, so this war was about MONEY, right? You really do hate him that much, don’t you?
“Where is the missing money? 8.8 Billion last I heard!”
? What does that have to do with whether or not we should be in Iraq? Nothing. I’m sure you’ll manage to find a way to blame Halliburton, though, the hard left’s convienient scapegoat, for the missing cash. Or Karl Rove.
“It’s infuriating! Especially when “our” guys, MY guys are lacking adequate equipment to fight the war that George Bush has told them to.”
I’m not happy about that either. It’s my understanding that this has happened in wars past, and it likely won’t change in future wars. It’s not an excuse nor is it a rationalization, just my understanding.
Lastly, I didn’t find the second half of your argument particularly respectful to me, especially the part about losing a family member, but I’m letting it stand for now. Perhaps in the light of day you’ll see how off base your comments to me were. I’m going to say it again: I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan and I sympathize with her loss. But grief sometimes makes people say/do things they may regret later. I know, I’ve said and done some things I regretted after a loss myself but it took me a while to realize it. But as far as the Code Pinks, the George Soros’, the Mike Moore’s, etc from her “support group” go, they make me sick. And I’ll continue to blog about how much they do as I see fit. In the same manner you see fit to talk about how much you hate W at the AA blog.
Sister,
I could tear your comment apart sentence by sentence, but decided to let what you said stand based on what you know and what you chose to believe. If the people who hang on your every word cheer at what you did, so be it.
I really wish you could have left the talking points out of it after I took the time to give you, somone who’s on the so-called “other side of the fence”, an honest and heartfelt description of what I’m feeling and going through, but, well, whatever. I tried.
Take care.
One more thing…where in the heck did you get “hate” anywhere from anything I said? Did you say that because my political leanings are to the left while I have family serving in Iraq, because I don’t agree with George Bush lying and then changing the reasons for “us” going into Iraq? I’m confused because I didn’t say “hate” and “George Bush” anywhere.
I hope you don’t mind if I come back again and address the way you picked apart what I shared with you in further detail “in the light of day”, so to speak. I’m, again, doing my best to be respectful, and if I were to address some of the things you said right now I’m afraid that I might not be.
Have you read anything that Cindy Sheehan has written? If you did I don’t believe that you’d be so offended at my comment about “skin in the game.”
Here’s to you!
Good luck with the blog!
NOI
“I could tear your comment apart sentence by sentence, but decided to let what you said stand based on what you know and what you chose to believe.”
Why thank you so much! I was trembling with worry at the thought you’d do just that tonight. The fact is you can attempt to “tear apart” anything I say and I’ll just come right back at ya again. It’s pointless to go round and round at this rate, because I’m not backing down any more than you will.
“If the people who hang on your every word cheer at what you did, so be it.”
People here don’t ‘hang on to my every word’ – they have brains and ideas of their own. Just because they happen to agree with me most of the time really shouldn’t be a big deal because most of the people who come here are conservative, so of course we agree. You should know the feeling, as I’m sure the AA blog is much the same on the left hand side.
“I really wish you could have left the talking points out of it”
Talking points? There you go again. Do you just assume because I’m a conservative that I can’t make an argument on my own without having to go to the RNC website or something? Let me tell you something: I don’t consult with any party or person before I make the statements I do. What I say is my own opinion, not a canned opinion from another website.
“after I took the time to give you, somone who’s on the so-called “other side of the fence”, an honest and heartfelt description of what I’m feeling and going through, but, well, whatever. I tried.”
Yeah, I could tell it was an honest and heartfelt description of what you’re feeling and going through because you apparently took out your frustration with righties in general on me, and accused me of saying/doing things I never did. It might be helpful in the future if you actually READ what I’ve said instead of attempting to “read into” what I’ve said something that isn’t there.
“One more thing…where in the heck did you get “hate” anywhere from anything I said? Did you say that because my political leanings are to the left while I have family serving in Iraq, because I don’t agree with George Bush lying and then changing the reasons for “us” going into Iraq? I’m confused because I didn’t say “hate” and “George Bush” anywhere.”
You didn’t have to – your tone to me said it all. Not only that, but when I visited the AA blog after seeing on my Sitemeter that someone from there visited, I checked it out and sure enough were your comments about Bush that could only be described as hatred. And it has nothing to do mere disagreement w/ the President on your part. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me you don’t hate him after you’ve shared your belief that you think he lied about the reasons going into war, which has apparently put family members and/or friends of yours in harms way? A war you apparently think he started in order to “line his friends” pockets as per this statement:
—George Bush owes the Iraqi people real peace, not the huge chunk of change he’s putting in his friends/contractors pockets with no accountablility.—?
If it’s *not* hatred you feel, pray tell, what is it?
“I hope you don’t mind if I come back again and address the way you picked apart what I shared with you in further detail “in the light of day”, so to speak. I’m, again, doing my best to be respectful, and if I were to address some of the things you said right now I’m afraid that I might not be.”
If this is your idea of respectful, I shudder to think what “disrespectful” would be coming from you. I don’t mind if you come back, but I suggest you start treating me as an intellectual equal, and not a dumb conservative who uses talking points to address issues. I’ve debated many a liberal in my day, and I know the difference between disrespectful and respectful. And when I’m debating one, unless they talk down to me I treat them as an intellectual equal, and one of the reasons I do that is because I understand the liberal persepective on many issues because I used to be one.
“Have you read anything that Cindy Sheehan has written? If you did I don’t believe that you’d be so offended at my comment about “skin in the game.”"
Yes, I have. This particular piece was especially interesting. And eye opening.
I don’t pretend to know all the emotions a military family goes through, and my heart truly goes out to them. I think often (and pray) of the fact that I advocated a war that other people’s family members are fighting. But I maintain that your statements to me about loss were off base.
Sister
I am impressed with your comments. It is amazing the difference between a conservative blog and a liberal blog, and yours’ emphasizes the point. Well done!
I was wondering if all the men and women serving in the military with families that are “left leaning” were drafted. I had thought that we had an all volunteer military. If the family members of these fine young patriots are suffering anguish because of a decision made by their family member, perhaps they might first check with that service member for his opinion, and might even grant him the respect to honor his service and wishes.
My son has served a tour in Iraq. It was his decision. I am proud of his courage and his patriotism. I add this tidbit to head off any questions.
And, yes I served in Vietnam, and my dad in World War II. I had a grandfather that served in WWI. There were others, but may be this will hold down the flak.
When people join the military, they are paying the price for all of us and for our freedoms. Always, it is the few who bear that burden. Thank God, this nation still has such as these that are serving.
I worry that one of our heros’ service and honor may end up impuned over this sorry spectacle.
I have added you blog to my daily list. Sorry that I missed you before now.
Dick
Thank you for yours and your family’s service to our country. I share your worry on our soldiers honor and the possibility that it could be impugned by what’s happening with the anti-war crowd in Crawford. I understand a counter-protest has been organized by other military families and will be underway soon there, and I can’t wait. More power to them.
And thanks for making this blog a daily read
“George Bush owed us a good reason for taking us into war in Iraq when he took us there, not the lies he gave us or the excuses after.”
He’s given the reasons. Repeatedly. You choose to believe they are lies. That’s your problem, not mine
ST – I have a question. What are the reasons we went to war? WMDs? 9/11? The War on Terror? Iraqi liberation? or our freedom?
Thanks,
-WG
Please read this link. All of it. Thoroughly.
Although you know the reasons already, don’t you? I suspect your question was rhetorical in nature, right, perhaps because you believe those reasons to be “lies”?
Did you ever find that “two weeks away from completing inspections” quote/link, BTW?
I read it. Good stuff. That still doesn’t answer my question though. I’m assuming you believe all GW’s reasons for invading Iraq?
I’m still looking for a link on the two weeks thing. I don’t remember if Scott Ritter said something to that effect or what. Maybe I’m wrong about the timeline of inspection completion. I still think war should be the last resort. And I think this administration rushed to war.
“I read it. Good stuff. That still doesn’t answer my question though.”
Yes it did – in particular, page 2. It might not have answered the question to your satisfaction, but it did answer it.
“I’m assuming you believe all GW’s reasons for invading Iraq?”
Yes. So is that an admission that you really did know the reasons and that your question to me was rhetorical in nature?
“I’m still looking for a link on the two weeks thing. I don’t remember if Scott Ritter said something to that effect or what. Maybe I’m wrong about the timeline of inspection completion.”
I think you are. Had there been a timeline given, we’d still be hearing about it.
” I still think war should be the last resort.”
So do I. It should never be the first resort.
” And I think this administration rushed to war”
Really? Now that surprises me
Oops. I scrolled right past the pagination. I missed 2 & 3. I’ll go check it out. I don’t think I was being rhetorical. I really wanted to know what you think. I’ve just skimmed page 2 and it seems that you’ve lumped two years of different, individual reasons in to one concise argument. When this all started, the Bush administration was not talking about liberating Iraq. They were talking about a nation that was a threat to the world. A threat that turned out to be false.
I don’t know where I picked up the bit that the inspectors were almost done. I’ll keep looking…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
” I still think war should be the last resort.”
So do I. It should never be the first resort.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Well, at least we agree on something. I don’t think Bush thinks so.
“When this all started, the Bush administration was not talking about liberating Iraq.”
Oh yes they were. See page 2 of my link for the Bush speech to the UN.
“They were talking about a nation that was a threat to the world. A threat that turned out to be false.”
‘False’ as in a lie? Please explain.
“I don’t know where I picked up the bit that the inspectors were almost done. I’ll keep looking…”
I’ll save you some time. Stop looking
You won’t find such info because it doesn’t exist.
“Well, at least we agree on something. I don’t think Bush thinks so.”
And you think this because …?
PG2. The emphasis was clearly on terror. They were trying to scare the crap out of everyone.
No WMDs = No Threat
I don’t think Bush believes war should be a last resort because he did not exhaust all other options.
“Now watch this drive.”
Oh there most certainly was an emphasis on terror – I agree. But that wasn’t what you asserted initially. You said the administration was “not talking about liberating Iraq.” But they were. Among other thigns.
As far as “rushing to war” – I’m still curious as to why you believe this. Would you expand on that some for me?
Ok. ok. I didn’t say “never” talked about liberating Iraq. I guess I should have been more clear. But they’ve thrown so many reasons for this war out there it gets confusing. WMDs and fear were the big reasons early on.
I think he rushed the process. He couldn’t wait one more day, not one week…. We could have had better information from the inspectors. We could have larger worldwide approval and a better coalition. We also could have avoided war altogether.
web_geek wrote, “I think he rushed the process.
That was an 18 month long rush..
web_geek wrote, “not one week
Nope. 18 months.
web_geek wrote, “We also could have avoided war altogether.
That’s opinion (not fact). Others disagree with you. In fact, since Saddam used the weapons on his own people, it’s highly probable that he had TOO much time…..
Saddam used the weapons on his own people about a decade ago; that has no place in a discussion about what threat he posed two years ago.
And if I remember correctly, Hussein ended up opening the country back up and inviting inspectors in a couple weeks before we invaded…but we were in some sort of hurry, I guess.
Why not 19 months? Why not 20? Wasn’t Saddam contained by sanctions for 10 or 12 years? What’s another month when it could have meant not going to war? Or even having a real coalition? (I’m not forgetting Poland.)
Bush couldn’t wait to start this war.
Yes, all of my previous post is opinion. Using weapons on his own people is lame excuse for us invade. We ignored it in Iraq before and we’ve let it go on all over the world without invading.
Besides, Bush himself said we shouldn’t use the military for nation building.
WG: “Ok. ok. I didn’t say “never” talked about liberating Iraq. I guess I should have been more clear. But they’ve thrown so many reasons for this war out there it gets confusing. WMDs and fear were the big reasons early on.”
Why does it get confusing? You guys on the left are the ones who keeps saying he’s “shifted” the rationale for the war when the “rationale” was laid out quite clearly at the UN and he’s never backed away from that. I don’t see anything confusing about it.
“I think he rushed the process. He couldn’t wait one more day, not one week….”
That’s not so. He didn’t just decide to have a war and wage it. How long did we wait? 18 months? Hardly rushing.
“We could have had better information from the inspectors.”
Right. Considering how SH was cooperating in every way possible with them.
“We could have larger worldwide approval and a better coalition.”
I’m sure we could have – if only France would have given us their blessing.
“We also could have avoided war altogether.”
Don’t think so. In a post 9-11 world, the President had to act on the information he had at hand – and it wasn’t just information compiled from this administration, if you’ll recall.
Commenter Me: “Saddam used the weapons on his own people about a decade ago; that has no place in a discussion about what threat he posed two years ago.”
That’s quite a double standard. The left in general gives not a second thought to bringing up the gassing of the Kurds in order to claim “this is what happened thanks to Reagan and Rummy’s friendship with Saddam” so I hardly think discussing it in the overall context of what he did to his own people throughout the years is off limits.
WG: “Besides, Bush himself said we shouldn’t use the military for nation building.”
Yeah he did – before 9-11.
Of course he said that, but none of the Republicans would dare try hanging the flip-flopper label on their man…
I’ve never heard anyone say that, but I’ve heard it said that Hussein probably wouldn’t have been in power at all were it not for Reagan/Rumsfeld.
But that’s not parallel, anyway. Supporting a dictator at convenience can obviously lead to that dictator doing some dictator-like things a few years later; murdering people in his own country with bio/chemical weapons, horrible as that may be, does not constitute a threat to another country over a decade later (especially since most of those weapons would have been unusable by that point).
Why does it get confusing? You guys on the left are the ones who keeps saying he’s “shifted” the rationale for the war when the “rationale” was laid out quite clearly at the UN and he’s never backed away from that. I don’t see anything confusing about it.
How many reasons for war can we count? WMDs, 9/11, Saddam is bad an hurts his own people, liberate Iraq, spread Democracy. That’s a “shift.”
“I think he rushed the process. He couldn’t wait one more day, not one week….”
That’s not so.
Why couldn’t Bush wait until the inspections were done? Even if it was a remote chance of avoiding all this human and financial cost, why not wait?
Right. Considering how SH was cooperating in every way possible with them.
He was.
Iraq Largely Cooperating With Inspectors, UN Security Council Hears
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012903B.irq.jan27.htm
I’m sure we could have – if only France would have given us their blessing.
Don’t forget Germany, Spain, Italy, and last but not least Poland.
“We also could have avoided war altogether.”
Don’t think so. In a post 9-11 world, the President had to act on the information he had at hand….
You’re right. He had to act. And his first choice was invasion.
WG: “Besides, Bush himself said we shouldn’t use the military for nation building.”
Yeah he did – before 9-11.
I know. An attack on NY warrents regime change in Iraq. I get the connection. Everything changed after 9/11. At least for Americans. So our civil liberties are restricted and I have to take off my shoes at the airport. I feel so much more secure now. It’s too bad were not doing anything real to protect our homeland but harass US citizens.
Commenter Me: “Of course he said that, but none of the Republicans would dare try hanging the flip-flopper label on their man… ”
Do you not understand the difference between changing your mind once you get into office as a part of adapting to situations that occur once you hold it versus changing your mind back and forth from week to week? Also,do you think we should have just gone into Afghanistand, bombed the hell out of the AQ hideouts, and then left THEM to rebuild? No doubt some on the left woulda criticized that, too. There’s no pleasing some people.
“I’ve never heard anyone say that,”
I have. More times than I care to.
“but I’ve heard it said that Hussein probably wouldn’t have been in power at all were it not for Reagan/Rumsfeld.”
America’s “support” of SH actually started before RR.
“murdering people in his own country with bio/chemical weapons, horrible as that may be, does not constitute a threat to another country over a decade later (especially since most of those weapons would have been unusable by that point).”
Why do you guys always shift the argument? His gassing of the Kurds were just one of many reasons used to remind people of the kind of person he was and what he was capable of if not dealt with. And the admin didn’t argue that Iraq would attack us. It argued that they harbored and helped terrorists that would – and they did.
WG: “Why couldn’t Bush wait until the inspections were done?”
Where do you keep coming up with this “wait until inspections were done” stuff? What makes you think they would have been?
“Even if it was a remote chance of avoiding all this human and financial cost, why not wait?”
You see, this is where I was hoping you’d go with the argument. “Waiting” was what brought us 9-11. I can just imagine it now, same scenario as the President presented with respect to Iraq, except he makes it several months before 9-11, and not long after he becomes President. The crowing and carping from the usual suspects would ensue. “We need more time!” “That’s not proof enough!” “We need the UNs approval or we shouldn’t go to war!” etc etc. What’s ironic about this is after the August memo that came out that so many liberals touted as being the “smoking gun” of the admin’s supposed negligence when it came to the OBL threat, I can’t tell you how many comments I read from the same bunch who said we should have waited on Iraq saying “we should have done something about AQ both here and in Afghanistan. If Bush would have been doing his job, 9-11 would have never happened. BUSH KNEW!”
Do you see where I’m going with this? You have to think about it with a pre-9-11 mindset. I strongly doubt the President would have been able to sell the war with AQ in Afghanistan before 9-11. The usual suspects would have proclaimed loudly that he was a ‘warmonger’ trying to pump up his ratings, show he was an effective leader, jumpstart the economy with a war,etc. The President has made it perfectly clear since 9-11 that threats have to be handled before they strike. Playing the waiting game led to the loss of 3000 innocents. After 9-11, he wasn’t prepared to take the chance that a rogue regime like Iraq – with known ties to terrorists and WMD- were going to aid those who wanted to destroy America.
“He was.
Iraq Largely Cooperating With Inspectors, UN Security Council Hears
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012903B.irq.jan27.htm”
You cannot possibly expect me to take that seriously. Saddam never had any intentions of giving unfettered access to suspected WMD sites. Never. Is that not obvious from the way he stalled the UN for years?
“Don’t forget Germany, Spain, Italy, and last but not least Poland.”
Yes, most of whom were countries who knew it was pointless to vote yes on a resolution that France guaranteed to veto. I also note that 3 of the four you mentioned are helping us in Iraq, remember? No thanks to France, of course.
“You’re right. He had to act. And his first choice was invasion.”
If his “first choice” was invasion he wouldn’t have waited as long as he did, would he? I really don’t understand where people get the idea, that this was “rushed.” When did 18 months become “rushing”? Let’s also not forgetthat the US had a policy of regime change in Iraq since the administration of he-who-walks-on-water.
“I know. An attack on NY warrents regime change in Iraq.”
No,it warranted a regime change in Afghanistan first. Then on to the next terrorist aider and harborer: Iraq.
“I get the connection. Everything changed after 9/11. At least for Americans. So our civil liberties are restricted and I have to take off my shoes at the airport.”
You poor thing! You have to take your shoes off now at the airport for security purposes — what a horrible violation of your rights!
“I feel so much more secure now. It’s too bad were not doing anything real to protect our homeland”
Really? You might want to tell that to law enforcement in NY, Oregon, and Florida (for starters) who busted up terror cells/captured terrorist financiers thanks to the much demagogued Patriot Act. Interesting how you forgot that.
“but harass US citizens. ”
What US citizens are “being harasssed”?
And BTW, if you don’t believe any of the President’s reasons for going into Iraq, why *do* you think he chose to invade?
Note: some legit comments this evening are getting stuck in the “recent spam” file. If they are not released within a few minutes, that probably means I’ve logged off for the evening and I will get to them in the morning. If I somehow am not able to rescue them from the recent spam filter, I still get email notification of them and I will repost them verbatim in the a.m. Keep in mind that I keep copies of any comments I have to repost, so the commenter(s) can’t come back later to claim I changed something. I have gone in to make a few changes to the filter so hopefully that will resolve the issues I’m having with legit comments getting caught in the” recent spam” file. Please be patient as I am still trying to get the hang of my spam filter. –ST
So waiting to act on known terrorists cells in the US is ok, but not waiting to invade a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 is not ok? Why 18 months instead of 19? I feel that Bush had not exhausted all other possibilites. That’s what I mean. Maybe “rush” was a poor choice of words. But lets not mince words, shall we?
ST- You poor thing! You have to take your shoes off now at the airport for security purposes — what a horrible violation of your rights!
It’s not that! It’s a stupid, knee-jerk reaction to one guy who couldn’t set his shoes on fire. Do you really think this is an effective way to combat terrorism? Do you really even think they would try and hijack a plane again?
I didn’t forget anything. Our ports are wide open. So are nuclear reactors and water supplies.
Iraq Largely Cooperating With Inspectors, UN Security Council Hears
ST-You cannot possibly expect me to take that seriously.
I guess not. No facts left ignored. Like this one.
9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
WG: “Why couldn’t Bush wait until the inspections were done?”
ST: Where do you keep coming up with this “wait until inspections were done” stuff? What makes you think they would have been?
Marco: What makes you think they wouldn’t have ?? Honestly…when I heard President Bush threaten Iraq, I thought, “Bush is really smart – bluffing Saddam like that. Bush is gonna’ win this without firing a shot.” I really believed it to be masterful brinksmanship on the President’s part. How mistaken I was.
WG: “Even if it was a remote chance of avoiding all this human and financial cost, why not wait?”
ST: You see, this is where I was hoping you’d go with the argument. “Waiting” was what brought us 9-11.
Marco: Incorrect. 9-11 was brought about by two things.
1 – Iraq had invaded kuwait, in part because Kuwait was stealing oil beneath Iraqi fields by “sideways drilling”. The US establishes bases in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield/Storm, kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. Osama bin Laden objected to these bases as an “Infidel invasion of holy lands”. OBL had the support of many Saudis because while the Saudi government wanted us there, most of the citizens did not. That’s why 3/4 of the 9-11 highjackers were Saudi.
2 – In the 1980s, the US gave weapons and support to the Mujahadeen in thier effort to overthrow Soviet occupation. After the Soviets left in the ’90s, Afganistan turned on itself. The former Mujahadeen took over as the Taliban, using some of the weapons we supplied. Osama bin Laden was offered safe haven in Afganistan by the Taliban years later. This is where he plotted 9-11.
Had the US not meddled in Afganistan or Kuwait, 9-11 would not have happened. In fact, pre-emptive US action is what caused 9-11.
WG: “He was…
Iraq Largely Cooperating With Inspectors, UN Security Council Hears
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012903B.irq.jan27.htm”
ST: You cannot possibly expect me to take that seriously. Saddam never had any intentions of giving unfettered access to suspected WMD sites. Never. Is that not obvious from the way he stalled the UN for years?
Marco: When the UN – and later the US – entered Iraq, no WMD had been found. Any weapons had been destroyed years before.
So why did he stall the UN? It was a face-saving gesture. He had nothing, yet didn’t want the world to know that. If you hear barking behind a fence with a Doberman’s picture on it, you’re gonna’ think there IS a Doberman there. When push came to shove, Iraq finally opened the gate, only to reveal a mini Dachshund. I don’t think 1800+ soldiers’ lives was worth uncovering the bluff.
Other countries have big dogs barking behind a fence, as well. For example, Israel’s is called “Nuclear Amgiguity”. They neither admit, nor deny, a nuclear weapons program. Although openly admitting nukes would violate international law, I don’t think the US will invade Israel.
ST: No,it warranted a regime change in Afghanistan first. Then on to the next terrorist aider and harborer: Iraq.
Marco: Outright wrong. The 9-11 comission concluded that Saddam neither aided nor offered safe harbour to terrorists. Even President Bush finally admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.
The fact is Saddam was a terrorist’s worst enemy. He was so good at going after Islamic extremists that Reagan and Bush senior sold Iraq weapons to fight them in the Iran/Iraq war. Too bad he used some of those weapons on his own people.
No doubt that Saddam was a bad person. Yet he was a secularist, and therefore an enemy to Islamic extremists. The fact is, many of the people we now fight in Iraq wanted Saddam dead more then we did.
If we claim the right to pre-emptively strike a sovereign nation if it “might” be a threat, that means other countries would have the same right. That is a Pandora’s box that should never be opened.
Peace.
Marco
Marco and WG: I’m going to answer your both your posts together. Both of you have demonstrated the obvious disconnect between what you believe to be true and the available information out there that contradicts what you say. Marco, I was especially disturbed to see you use the standard “blame America” line that I’ve heard more often than I care to from people who on one hand claim we need to “go after the people who attacked us” (presumably rather than attacking Iraq) yet at the same time manage to say “if only we didn’t do this, this wouldn’t have occurred.” That’s almost like saying “she wouldn’t have been raped had she not worn that sexy dress.” Why don’t you put the blame where it’s supposed to go, rather than blame this country for 19 hijackers killing 3000 people here on 9-11? It’s sick to put the blame on anyone else but them, yet many on your side of the fence continue to do that.
I want to focus primarily on something the both of you mentioned and that’s the 9-11 report. Predictably, you both think the 9-11 report was the end of the discussion on the assertion that Iraq and Al Qaeda were connected. It’s not. But let’s go off that report alone for just a second and note what it DID say about the ties between the two:
Not only does that address your incorrect belief that there were “no ties” between Iraq and Al Qaeda” but it also addresses your incorrect belief that the President rushed to war with Iraq. Wolfie was pushing for war with Iraq and the President “took it off the table” for the time being.
Did either of you even READ the 9-11 report outside of what parts you thought would hurt the administration?
As I stated earlier, the publication of the report did not close the issue. In fact, it left more questions than answers. In typical fashion, though, the media misrepresented the findings and some of those on the left hand side of the aisle swallowed them whole without doing a whole lot of digging themselves. In fact, I don’t entirely blame you for not knowing all of this becaue the media sure has done it’s level best to only hightlight the info that they believe damages the admin’s credibility. And even though I’m extremely disappointed in the administration for not talking about and driving the point home about the ties between AQ and Iraq more, when it comes to people who were against the Iraq war in the first place, the admin’s not talking up the links really doesn’t matter because the few times they have done so, the yell from liberals is “Bush is lying!” so no matter how much the point is driven home, you won’t believe it anyway. Your minds are already made up, which is why discussions about this between liberals and conservatives is almost completely pointless.
I’ve linked up to some Weekly Standard pieces here and here that discuss the ties between Iraq and AQ. Feel free to peruse.
I’m closing the comments section on this now, as I don’t have the time to continue to rehash this issue time and time again with people who’ve made up their minds. Just as soon as one ‘lie’ is debunked, you guys will move the goalposts even further – hoping eventually that you’ll bring up something that can’t be refuted. I’m not playing that game. Don’t worry, though. This won’t be the last time I discuss this here so there will be plenty of other threads in which both of you can given us your opinion on it, should you so desire.
And BTW, I visited the AA blog again today seeing as another link from the AA blog appeared on my Sitemeter this morning, which is another reason I’m closing this thread. I’m hoping that doing so will spur you guys to move on to other topics there besides me and the posts there about how you want to do your level best to “counter” my “rhetoric” with “the truth.” I suspect now there will be a post there discussing how I “cut off” your “right to respond” to this? Also to you both: I’ll repeat what I’ve already said here before: I don’t ban people for disagreeing with me. It has a little something to do with not being keen on people insulting me at my own blog. That type of behavior is best reserved for the playground – not my blog. Neither one of you have done that, and that’s why you’re still here.
Thanks for your opinions.