in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Campbell Brown | 0 | |
| JS Online | WI Recall: Editorial board recommends Walker; his removal isn’t justified |
0 |
| The Hill | Err …: Pelosi: Boehner ‘wants to go over the edge’ in debt-limit debate |
0 |
| Alan Dershowitz | 0 | |
| Power Line | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
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.
Comment deleted. I meant what I said, Actus. — ST
Goodbye, Actus. And good riddance. –ST
It ain’t the Left that’s expoiting poor Cindy, it’s Cindy that’s exploiting her Left Wing pals. She is a long time ultra-leftist. I posted here, and Front Page has also posted. When you read her past and what she said before her son bought it, you may wonder if her son joined the army just to spite his mom. She and her husband (ex) are long time Leftys.
I don’t know who is more arrogant, self-absorbed activist Cindy Sheehan, or the reporters and editorial writers who are trying to make her out to be a just an average grieving mom with no agenda and no ties to the far-left anti-war crowd. She’s dishonoring the memory of her brave son who not only volunteered for the Army, but volunteered to go to Iraq.
Far from “mourning the death of her son,” she is exploiting it to promote the anti-Bush/anti-war/anti-America agenda. She doesn’t really even want to meet with Bush, as she admitted when asked on MSNBC, “isn’t it really better if President Bush doesn’t meet with you?” She said, “I would think so, yes. I think it’s great. And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum,” (Countdown 8/12/05).
And why should Bush talk to her? “If he gave the real answer…that it was to make his buddies rich, that it was about oil…” (LA Times 8/11/05) “George and Dick, you are both shameful cowards who are sending our brave young people to die to make yourselves and your buddies unbelievably and fabulously wealthy,” (LewRockwell.com 4/11/05). “…it seems like the invasion of Iraq and the deaths of so many innocent people were preordained. It appears that my boy Casey was given a death sentence even before he joined the Army…” (U.S. House hearing, 6/17/05).
She blames Congress too: “every member of Congress who voted to give George the authority to invade Iraq have innocent blood on their hands.” (LewRockwell.com 3/23/05). And the military: “They were all lied to by their recruiters who will tell young people anything to get them to enlist, then deliver nothing…I have some speculative evidence that he was actually killed by friendly fire. The military lied to us…” (DemocracyRising.Us 5/30/05)
As for the conservative media: “Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Matt Drudge…They are despicable human beings…” (MichaelMoore.com 8/10/05). She must like the mainstream media who’s giving her so much airtime, right? “The mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government…” (JoeTrippi.com 8/10/05).
And what of her innocent sounding organization with the copycat name–Gold Star Families for Peace? “We are lobbying Congress to have an inquiry into the lies that caused Iraq. We are trying to meet with the Sec of Defense to hold him accountable for the lies. We campaigned against George Bush during the elections. We are working on Counter-recruitment.” (DemocracyRising.Us 5/30/05)
Last fall she appeared on ads exploiting her son’s death to help John Kerry, and this summer she made ads for the radical Marxists at Code Pink calling for Bush’s impeachment. Now she’s doing wall-to-wall interviews, blogging for Michael Moore, and will soon be on tour with the communist-infested and rabidly anti-American United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalition.
People who would trade on the sympathy of an entire nation to promote a political agenda don’t deserve that sympathy. And for the record, my younger brother is serving in Iraq, and people like Cindy Sheehan only give encouragement to the maniacs who would love to kill him. If he gets killed I won’t blame Bush. But I will blame people like Cindy Sheehan.
“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.”
People who don’t know Casey shouldn’t speak for him.
Sister T; you done said a huge mouthful of truth.
I find all of the foul minded verbiage coming from the liberal critics terribly curious, though. What really strikes me is how is it that so much vitriolic, malicious, verbiage comes from the side of American society that preaches they are the party of tolerance and diversity.
And how come so many MIS-read and MIS-interpret so many conservative blogs. Aren’t there enough coherent liberal blogs around where they can spew their messages of hate and division?
Casey Sheehan died a hero! He was fighting for the noble cause of freedom in Iraq. Iraq was dominated and controlled and used and abused by one of the worlds most vicious genocidal killers since Pol Pot or Idi Amin. Casey Sheehan died sticking up for the little guy against the amoral bully who was constantly stealing the little guys lunch money. Cindy Sheehan lost a son. America lost a role model for courage and patriotism.
Howard: WOW – thanks for the links. There’s definitely more to this story than meets the eye …. but don’t expect the anti war MSM to concern themselves with it.
Mr. DeRobio: Thanks for your comments – and the Sheehan quotes. God bless your brother and all who serve along side him. I think Ms. Sheehan and her “supporters” are doing a great disservice to our country and to our men and women fighting overseas in harms way as well
Eric: Exactly, which is why Code Pink and co. should be ashamed of themselves.
cbank: Excellent points!
Speaking of Casey, I doubt he be asking “Should we Support the Iraqi resistance?” like his mom
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17915
Oh what do I know? Casey loved his mom so much that he talked to her and asked for her guidance before making one of the biggest decisions of his life (joining the Army)
Casey, if you can hear me up there, I’m sorry we couldn’t stop your mom from going psycho.
“Speaking of Casey, I doubt he be asking “Should we Support the Iraqi resistance?” like his mom”
People who don’t know Casey shouldn’t speak for him.
Eric, people who DO know Casey shouldn’t speak for him either, if 1) They disregard his actions while he was alive, and 2) Change their stories to the point where it’s impossible to believe much of what they say.
And you better be leveling that snark at Michael Moore, the cast of Huffington’s Post, and all the other fools who are utterly misrepresenting the facts.
I suppose then, those on the Left should have been given a voice at the beginning of the war and the opportunity to share their misgivings about what they believed to have been lies. (On the part of both parties at the beginning of Iraq, remember a great majority of those on the left were for going into Afghanistan.” But alas, they weren’t listened to at all. The President said he heard them, but many on the left felt that that was just lip service. The bottom-line gist is when one feels lied to about the reason for going to war, one can’t easily get over it. Believe what you will (and I’m sure you will), but that is where the heart of this dispute in American lays. If you want dialog, fine, but I’ll bet you $1 that the replies to ths comment won’t be dialogue-civil. Cheers.
“Eric, people who DO know Casey shouldn’t speak for him either, if 1) They disregard his actions while he was alive, and 2) Change their stories to the point where it’s impossible to believe much of what they say.”
This whole business reminds me of schiavo again, where a whole nation is second guessing and telling family members how they should feel about their lost loved ones.
She’s the ‘John Kerry’ of the Iraq War. Her dead son is analagous to Kerry’s medals; a claim to legitimacy. She’s just using her son for her loony left cause. A useful idiot.
Pathetic and disgusting how liberals have no respect nor any shame, not even for their own dead children!
Elderta, I’m not sure who those people on the left you’re refering to ARE. The President had the support of Congress, and I’m pretty sure roughly 45% or so of Congress is left. Ms. Sheehan HERSELF says that she didn’t become anti-war until after her son’s death (which turned out to be another untruth on her part, but oh well). Congress based their decision on the intellgience and reports of countries around the world, which the left now calls a lie. OK, that makes John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton liars too. Please call them liars responsible for the war now. I’ll wait.
Eric: Yeah, Terri’s husband should have listened to her parents, true. Too bad he changed his story as well.
A Person: Yikes – I hadn’t seen that link. I read it and it made my skin crawl.
# 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.
Exactly – the ire of these people should be directed towards the grief exploiters.
Elderta: I’m not sure what you mean. The left has always had a voice in this war, as evidenced by ArizonaTeach’s comments in post 14.
#12 Eric: When family members start involving public officials in their campaigns, then the public has every right to comment on them. Sheehan invited comments about this “private family matter” when she took up residence outside of Bush’s home.
Shooter: I disagree on your last comment about liberals and their children. I think Cindy Sheehan in her own way thinks she’s honoring her son’s death. But her hangers-on are the truly disgusting part of this whole thing. I don’t think many of them have much respect for the war dead – if they did, they wouldn’t exploit them in order to advance their anti-US agendas.
#14 AT: Didn’t you know it’s only the conservative supporters of the war who were ‘liars’?
I was impressed by your note about being respectful…
(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 was more impressed when you go and use respectful words like, “silly”, “stupid”, “nitwit”
“pathetic”, “hateful”, “leeches”, and “hate-monger” after you lecture about being respectful.
By The Way, do you honestly and sincerly believe, that Bush hasnt lied to us about Iraq?
Pokerdad: “I was impressed by your note about being respectful…
(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 was more impressed when you go and use respectful words like, “silly”, “stupid”, “nitwit” “pathetic”, “hateful”, “leeches”, and “hate-monger” after you lecture about being respectful.”
ST: I’m glad I’ve been able to impress you, although why you were “more” impressed by the words I used in my “lecture” I’m not sure – oh, you were being sarcastic, weren’t you? My note at the top of the page where I discussed respect didn’t include those I don’t respect, like Code Pink, etc – and they *won’t* get it. The distinction between the two should have been quite clear when reading my “lecture.” In case some have forgotten, let me repost my opening note in full with emphasis added (since you cut that part of my statement off when you quoted me):
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.)
On the “Bush lied” bit, no I don’t believe “Bush lied.” Because if I were to believe that, I’d have to believe that a whole bunch of politicians, Republican and Democrat past and present, lied as well.
Sister…read your comments on the hangers-on (the second part I was standing as it was easier to cheer standing up.)
It is the first time I have seen the patriotism of these lefty scoundrels questioned in print. I completely agree that they are anti American.
Legitimate debate has a context of honesty and civility with emphasis on facts. The lefty’s tactics smack of emotionalism and invective against those who dare question any of their assertions, therefore cutting off discussion.
What they are doing in the Sheehan case is disgusting…but typical.
The fact that women fought for many years to be taken seriously in the areas of government and public policy, makes attacks on successful women based purely on their looks reveal a deep double standard – not always of men against women, but often of women against their own gender.
While healthy civic discourse involves disagreement on issues of policy, too often these women are prone to bully and harass their opponents with attacks on physical appearances, when they are unable to articulate a valid and logical opposing argument.
"Has our culture become so shallow, and our sensibilities so numb, that we will accept from adults the sort of vicious behavior that we would never accept from our children?"
"Aparently so. (Read on)"
I understand now that you can be disrespectful to who you want, but we on the left have to be respectful, I get it now…
Ok if you dont believe Bush lied, then why did Colin Powell and Condi Rice say that Saddam wasnt a threat.
If you dont believe me, then see them with your own eyes here
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/
powell-rice-wmd.wmv
They were telling the truth either before 911, or after 911, you decide…
Pokerdad: “I understand now that you can be disrespectful to who you want, but we on the left have to be respectful, I get it now…”
ST: Apparently you don’t get it. I won’t explain it again.
Pokerdad: “Ok if you dont believe Bush lied, then why did Colin Powell and Condi Rice say that Saddam wasnt a threat.
If you dont believe me, then see them with your own eyes here http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv
They were telling the truth either before 911, or after 911, you decide…”
ST: (SIGH) They said he was contained but after 9-11 mere ‘containment’ wasn’t enough as there was also the (correct) belief that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. Do you have a point you are trying to make here? Perhaps you’re getting around to telling me this was “all about oil” or something? I’m getting really tired of arguing the “Bush lied” argument. I’ve already laid out the case for how he didn’t lie and that if he did, members of the Democratic party as well as the Republican party have been lying for years. Do you not have a response to that? Do you think the Democrats, like Clinton, were lying too?
Richard: I’m afraid civility in debate is a concept fast fading into the sunset
Alexandra: Hi! Great looking blog you have there. I’ll check it out in depth in just a bit.
Comment by ArizonaTeach — 8/14/2005 1:10 pm
If you’d actually read the comment (even with my typo), you’d see that I acknowledged that lies were told by both parties. Many on the left supported going into Afghanistan. But I do remember the mass protests by folks on the left against the Iraqi war. These are people I am talking about, not politicians. It’s not the first time that politicians have not listened to the populace, and it certainly won’t be the last. The intelligence reports of which you speak were manipulated to reflect the viewpoint of those who wanted the war. You’ll say that the inspectors were kicked out, but we did the kicking out, not the Hussein regime. Folks conveniently forget that the UN resolution said that war was only an option after ALL inspection failed. Inspections failed because we made them leave. I don’t expect you believe it because you are convinced of your position as I am convinced of mine. And that’s were the bottom line lays… I, and many others, cannot support a war based on what I have seen to be lies. You can tell me all you want that my position is untenable, but then again, I can say the same of you. Why Dems went along with this… well, after 9/11, no one was thinking rationally. As a Brooklynite, I still break down when I walk past the WTC or read about that day that I remember so well. It’s gotten to the point where I start to cry when I hear that another soldier has died or another bomb went off. And deep in my heart, I fear that we have been lied to about the whole thing.
But here’s the kicker: if the President had said to me, “We need to go in, disrupt the Hussein regime, establish a solid prescence,” then maybe, just maybe, I would have been behind it. But the manufactured and forgone conclusion that we were invading Iraq, and the rationale after rationale, “WMD, no, Freedom, no, al-Qaeda” has just been too much.
Anyway, have at it and cheers.
Elderta, do you believe the decision as to whether or not we have to go to war with someone should be decided by a vote of the populace?
Comment by Sister Toldjah — 8/14/2005 6:14 pm
I never said that, sister. And you well know that that would never happen.
Then what was this about?
“But I do remember the mass protests by folks on the left against the Iraqi war. These are people I am talking about, not politicians. It’s not the first time that politicians have not listened to the populace, and it certainly won’t be the last.”
Maybe this would have been a better way to ask it: do you think our President should only order our troops into battle if a war is ‘popular’ with, say, 95% of the American people? At the time the Iraq war was being advocated, there was about a 65% approval to go by the American people, IIRC. What if Afghanistan had been an unpopular war from the start with the American people?
That comment had nothing to do about a popular vote for war. You are right, the second question was much better put. As I said, after 9/11, we were all much shaken up. If the government was consistently putting out reports of WMD and claiming complete and utter Hussein support of OBL and keeping the panic level heigtened and telling us that Iraq was behind 9/11, then my dear sister, what would one expect of 65% of the American population toward invading Iraq?
As to Afghanistan, well, that’s were the original and hateful attack on New York and the U.S. originated from. That’s where OBL was, that’s where the mujahudeen (sp) gathered and planned the attacks of 9/11. That was clear and present danger. No need to manipulate, no need to make afraid. You’re asking a hypothetical question of which the facts of what happened are clear and simple.
Outstanding rant, Sister!
I’d like to think that those you are chastizing would feel some shame
oops
, but I sincerely doubt it is possible.
God Bless CS in her grief, but can’t those not directly affected show the same compassion they seem to demand?
Rant on Sister Toldjah!
I thought I had made my point clearly that if they had Saddam “contained”, then he wasnt an immiment threat, to which there was no basis to invade, until Bush swithed to a “spreading democracy” theme.
They were either lying or incompetant.
I then read you say that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda, which has never been proven, so theres no need to keep this discussion going, since you obviously believe things that arent factual.
I wont say this war was about oil but, I’ll end with, anyone that voted for the Iraq invasion, whether Dem or GOP, have oil barrels full of blood on their hands…
So Sister, I tried to post a response but got this message:
Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.
You may want to contact the blog admin via e-mail to notify him.
Chick: Hey you! Good to see ya posting here
Hope you are doing well.
Pokerdad: But then Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat, did he? And the ties between AQ and Iraq have been proven, even if the administration has done a poor job of communicating it (see any number of articles I’ve linked to here from Weekly Standard for more. The evidence is pretty substantial).
Furthermore, I didn’t/don’t base my belief that we go to war (or continue fighting one) on things that aren’t “factual” and I resent your implying that I do/did. I wouldn’t advocate sending our troops into harms way PERIOD if I didn’t believe with all my heart in the reasons why they were sent to do that battle in the first place.
Hi Elderta – your comment was just approved. I’ve fixed it so that shouldn’t happen again. The spam filter I have can be finicky sometimes. Sorry about that.
On to my question, you didn’t answer it: should the President (whether it be this one or another one) base his decisions on going to war on the popularity of the idea with the American people or not?
And BTW, the President never claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11.
I understand that I have come to your “blog”, and this is almost akin to coming to your “house” and starting an argument, or being a “troll”.
I appreciate you not just deleting my posts.
ST: “But then Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat, did he?”
Since you put that out there, I will respond by pasting what I would say, is the Bush admistration arguing exactly that.
Rumsfeld: Immediate threat
Sep. 10, 2002 Donald Rumsfeld
“But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
“Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
Oct. 5, 2002 George W. Bush
“The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing.”
Mar. 14, 2004 Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser
“I believe to this day that it (Iraq) was an urgent threat. This could not go on and we are safer as a result because today Iraq is no longer going to be a state of weapons of mass destruction concern.”
No problem about the spam filter, totally understandable.
As to your question about a war of popular vote, you withdrew the question as it was either irrelevant, or you asked a better one. I have answered the better one. Though I think the sentence in comment #25 answers your query. Sorry, i’ll not be trapped into answering a question is damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I’ll say this: I am not anti-war. I am anti-being lied to about the reasons why one goes to war. Cheers.
Comment by PokerDad — 8/14/2005 6:55 pm
Thanks, PokerDad. You said it well. I missed the question first time around, sorry sister.
Pokerdad: The bottomline is that prior to the war the man we all listen to more than anyone else (the President) did not claim Iraq was an imminent threat. He specifically said he had to be dealt with before he became one. BTW, your last post got caught in the spam filter but I rescued it. The spam program I have is being extra sensitive today for some reason. Oh – and FWIW, I don’t delete posts for mere disagreement and I don’t think you’re a troll. I’ve been battling people on the ‘other side’ of the fence for years now, and know the difference
Elderta: The question wasn’t a trick question. I’ll post it again. I’ve been upfront and answered your posts with the statements you’ve made so I think it shouldn’t be a problem for you to answer the question. Here is your statement I was questioning:
“But I do remember the mass protests by folks on the left against the Iraqi war. These are people I am talking about, not politicians. It’s not the first time that politicians have not listened to the populace, and it certainly won’t be the last.”
Me again: After posting a question to that comment that was poorly worded, I rephrased it in a manner that you seemed to agree was better. Here it is:
“Maybe this would have been a better way to ask it: do you think our President should only order our troops into battle if a war is ‘popular’ with, say, 95% of the American people? At the time the Iraq war was being advocated, there was about a 65% approval to go by the American people, IIRC. What if Afghanistan had been an unpopular war from the start with the American people?”
Simply put: Should the President only order our troops into combat if it’s a popular idea (via polls) with the American people?
Sister, I believe that comment #25 answered your second question. I said to the first question that your scenario would never happen in the first place. You asked me the second question and I said:
“As to Afghanistan, well, that’s were the original and hateful attack on New York and the U.S. originated from. That’s where OBL was, that’s where the mujahudeen (sp) gathered and planned the attacks of 9/11. That was clear and present danger. No need to manipulate, no need to make afraid. You’re asking a hypothetical question of which the facts of what happened are clear and simple.”
There is no reason to hyposthesize about Afghanistan. Why do ask me the question?
Just forget, for a moment, about our current battle engagements. If you do that, maybe it’ll be easier to consider an answer to the question:
Should the President (any US president) only order our troops into combat if it’s a popular idea (via polls) with the American people?
Let’s not mince words. The Bush administration most definitely implied Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks. If nothing else, the Bush administration sure as hell tried to put the fear of God in the American people about the danger of Iraq and Saddam.
“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
• President Bush, 7/2/03
“Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
• President Bush 4/24/03
“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
• President Bush, 3/19/03
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
• President Bush, 3/16/03
“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
“Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
“Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
“Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. … Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”
• President Bush, 1/3/03
“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.”
• President Bush, 11/23/02
“I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
“Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.”
• President Bush, 11/3/02
“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”
• President Bush, 11/1/02
“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
• President Bush, 10/28/02
“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”
• President Bush, 10/16/02
“There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
• President Bush, 10/7/02
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
• President Bush, 9/26/02
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
“Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
“Let’s not mince words. The Bush administration most definitely implied Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks”
No they didn’t, and thank you for providing those quotes that don’t back up your claim at all. I only wish most arguments were as easy to refute as the ones where people provide evidence that backs up their opponent’s claims. Means the opposing side doesn’t have to do all the legwork. Here’s some more quotes for you to add to your stack o’ stuff, “web-geek.” Make sure to include them next time you go around posting quotes about the administration’s claims about Iraq, ok?
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
—-
Here’s more if you’re curious.
Any questions?
I’ve already said that that is a scenario that would not happen, so why do you insist on a yes or no answer for such a complicated and sticky question? Why does this question hinge upon anything that I have said here today? I think it’s got nothing to do with what I’ve said here today. Arizona Tech brought up the initial statistics regarding the approval of Congress and that the war was”voted” on in the first place. I have only pointed out that some people did not approve of the war, and were not listened to in regards to Iraq. I have never said that war should be fought on consensus; I said that people were not listened to and felt lied to. You want a yes or no answer to a tough moral question where there is no yes or no. Because a poll would never happen in the first place.
Comment by Sister Toldjah — 8/14/2005 7:23 pm
I have one. If both sides lied about the Iraqi regime, what would you think about it? (And I have already acknowledge that both sides played the game of Iraq behind an imminient threat.)
Elderta, there were several polls taken prior to the Iraq war, asking people if they supported the President’s case against Iraq. That’s the kind of poll I’m talking about. Some politicians pay more attention to polls than they should and I was curious if you think that they should decide on our war policy based on polling. If you don’t think that it should be (which I think is what you said in your last post) then that’s great – I agree with you.
As to your question, why would “both sides” lie about the Iraqi regime? Our Congress is not a bunch of warmongers, and there was substantial debate about this in Congress, at the UN, etc before this war was waged.
I said: “If nothing else, the Bush administration sure as hell tried to put the fear of God in the American people about the danger of Iraq and Saddam.” My quotes were to show this. I acknowledge your quotes and I’m not happy with my representatives for jumping on the band wagon of fear. (I don’t think the quotes from ’98 are quite as relevant.) We could have put the whole to rest once and for all if the UN inspectors were allowed to finish their job.
“The Bush administration most definitely implied Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks” – I’ll include my quotes next time. Sorry for the confusion about the point I was trying to make.
Here’s one:
In his State of the Union address shortly before the war began, Bush said “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda,” and suggested that Saddam might provide terrorists with nuclear or biological weapons:
Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Web, do you really think the inspectors would have ever gotten to “complete their jobs”? I hear that argument a lot, and I have a hard time believing Saddam would have given them unfettered access to all of his facilities.
#45 web: Amen. He was absolutely right.
Yes there was substantial debate. But the first UN resolution said that the inspections had to go through; John Kerry said in his speech regarding the Congressional resolution that he was voting yes, but that he was only doing so because he trusted that the President would let the inspection process reach its conclusion. When Britain asked for a second resolution, and the U.S. realized that even a little country like Ghana (on the security council) wasn’t going to vote yes on the second resolution, then it became, “the inspectors were kicked out.”
Dear sister, there’s a nasty thunderstorm here in NYC right now, so I’m going to shut down. I kinda don’t like electricity. Thanks for the civil nature of this conversation. I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. We’ve gone way off-topic of your original post. sorry about that. If the thunder and lighting stops, i’ll log back on. Cheers.
Here’s another from Meet the Press with Cheney; September 14, 2003:
“[...]We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. [...]”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/default.htm
Have I been banned? I’m getting an error?