Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Hi All:

First Off Carla, I agree with your statement.

Except for the parts about obeying the orders of those of those that out rank you, if you believe the order to be unlawfull, illegal or immoral. If you have any questions whatsoever asking if this is the exact way your superior wants these orders carried out. If you have any questions, misgivings or what have you. You have a duty to question them and make a choice for yourself and only yourself if you plan to follow them or not. You need to be ready to face the consequences: But you have an obligation to examine all orders and decide what your actions will be. If you ask others to join you, you have incited a mutiny, Punishable in times of war by death.

Just passing gas,
As Always,
Wayne

Carla,

Nice post. This is still a sore subject here in West Virginia as well. I have been called everything but patriotic for saying that our soldiers are dieing un-necessarily, because of a big lie. Personally, I am tired of all the vehicles with the yellow ribbon magnets proclaiming to support our troops (that are paying 2.50 + for gas I might add). My take on it is, I support our troops and so does everyone else who has protested this war. Sure, every single soldier is a volunteer. They volunteered to lay their lives on the line to protect all of us here, and to protect our freedoms. Our government has treated them just like they did with our budget surplus (Put a big fat minus sign in front of it) and not like they are human beings whose lives are as valuable as any of those occupying the white house, in fact even more important!

I support our Military! If they must fight and die, then it better be for our protection and our freedom! sassyliberal

GO CINDY SHEEHAN!!!!!!
I really wish I could go to Crawford, no money, no time.
I am really glad this is getting coverage, I had an experience with the Bush SS last year and there wasn’t anything I could do except complain about my free speech being trampled on.

“Cindy Sheehan whose son needlessly left his blood on the sands of Iraq.”

It’s gotta make the vast majority of troops, who believe in what they are doing, feel better when they hear people back home saying their fallen have died needlessly.
That everything they have done and continue to do is without merit.

Its been well debated on here and proven that there ARE a few liberals who have the courage to join the military.
There is a little bit of all of us in there.

But I have one question if I may:
—-What makes Ms. Sheehan’s anti-Bush and anti-war stance, more important than the views of the troops who are actually there and know what is really going on?—-

Funny how Ms. Sheehan gets all of your attention but yet you choose to ignore all the families and troops who believe in what they are doing and do not think their fallen peers, sons, daughters or whatever, have died “needlessly.”

Sorry - I am not familiar with this story. Can someone give me a link to follow up and check it out?

Great post, Carla!

As president of the USA, Bush should not consider whether Sheehan is for his policies or against his policies. As a citizen, not just any citizen, but one who has lost her son in a war Bush declared, she DESERVES his attention.

Contrast Bush with Bill Clinton. In a similar situation, I cannot imagine Clinton not talking to Sheehan. He got a lot of kibbitzing about his role as “consoler-and-chief.” Yes, despite all his other faults, Bill Clinton was a mensch.

A president must show a little humility, a little compassion, a little interest in what ordinary citizens are experiencing. Too bad that Bush is so obnoxious.

kctim,

What makes Ms. Sheehan’s anti-Bush and anti-war stance, more important than the views of the troops who are actually there and know what is really going on?

What ACTUALLY is going on there is a war that was supported by congress and others like you who truly believed the information they were given by this administration, but as some of us knew from the beginning, it was ACTUALLY A BIG FAT LIE!! Sorry, but the truth is the truth!

Funny how Ms. Sheehan gets all of your attention but yet you choose to ignore all the families and troops who believe in what they are doing and do not think their fallen peers, sons, daughters or whatever, have died “needlessly.”

Ignore them? No No No, I am fighting for them! I know they believe in what they are doing…we, as a nation, count on it. They go where their orders tell them, they fight as they are trained and their allegience is NOT QUESTIONED! An all voluntary military would not work otherwise. The families of fallen troops and their comrades can all THANK George W. Bush for assuring all their deaths were “needless”.

…ignore all the families and troops who believe in what they are doing and do not think their fallen peers, sons, daughters or whatever, have died “needlessly.”

Again, Ignore? Anything but! Why is it that you seem to have no trouble remembering all those who have died needlessly and forget there are even more who are about to die needlessly. Why aren’t you angry? Why don’t you demand answers? “Why are you still supporting the decision to go to war when you now KNOW it was a lie! Why aren’t you arguing for those responsible to be held accountable? I don’t want their deaths to be needless, I want them to count! I hope they will expose this corrupt administration for what it is…bring back our troops! sassyliberal

I agree w/ kctim!

“Funny how Ms. Sheehan gets all of your attention but yet you choose to ignore all the families and troops who believe in what they are doing and do not think their fallen peers, sons, daughters or whatever, have died “needlessly”.”

From all I have seen from Mrs.Sheehan she is emotional and irrational (rightly so) right now and in the interview I saw, she was fired up and wanted to “fire off” at the president. What will this accomplish?? No one in the world(even the president) wants to go running into that situation, maybe when she cools her head and wants to discuss rationally this can take place.

But IMO, do we base the entire war on Mrs. Sheehan? Many mothers have lost their child and personally I would have put more stock into her if she was fighting to speak “for all the mothers” before her child got killed. It leaves me to wonder if the war would have been o.k. or at least ignored if her child returned safely!

Kctim- I am a very liberal person and thought many times about joining the military something that my family has been in for a long time.. However I am thankful that I didn’t for I may have been sent over seas to fight in a war that I do not believe in. I would join the military to protect our or anything negative that happens to our country due to another country/terrorists o even in our own country. I admit that sounds very selfish but our military is one of the lowest paid in the US and yet they are brave enough to serve our country which I feel Bush is taking that for granted for sending them over to a country to fight a war for what? Just so he can get him some oil.. If he was man enough he would have gone after the man that made 9/11 happen and sent our troops to capture him.. Unforutnally we have a jackass for a president who only cares about his religion, rich people, and oil. Why couldn’t he be spending those billions of dollars to help Americans out? Thank God Presidents are only aloud to serve a max 2, 4 yr terms. It’s going to take a lot of work for the future Pres to get our own Country back together again.
I support the troops cause they are doing their job, but I do not support the war. However now we must finish what we started or it’s going to make things a lot worse for our country thanks to the genius in the oval office.

It is, of course, an emotional issue. No matter the cause, it must be difficult to lose one’s child. In the case of the Iraq war, where it was unclear whether we should be spending lives, it must be unbearable. Her son, and many other troops, likely felt they were doing right, if only because they were following the orders of their country; perhaps, however, they’re beginning to see the latest cause of our intervention: freedom for a freedom-starved people.

However the war turns out, however ANY war turns out, there will be grief. The purpose of the war is what determines whether the grief is mixed with pride, or rage. As the Iraq war slowly tilts towards noble causes, people may begin to accept the deaths. People who decided the cause was worth dying for.

All that being said, the media and what is released continues to wreak havoc with my brain so I can honestly not say, without being an Iraqi who has been lifted up myself, what the hell is going on over there.

—-
But IMO, do we base the entire war on Mrs. Sheehan? Many mothers have lost their child and personally I would have put more stock into her if she was fighting to speak “for all the mothers” before her child got killed. It leaves me to wonder if the war would have been o.k. or at least ignored if her child returned safely!
—-

Why do you want so badly to discredit her? Why can she not speak for herself? I think it would be awfully presumptive to speak for others. Also - I am just learning about this story, so maybe I am missing something, but do you know for a fact that she supported the war? Is loosing your child so trivial to warrant dismissing her concerns about this war?

You seem to be very willing to attack the messenger rather than the message… how very Republican of you.

Wayne’s post is right on in his description of acting on orders.

Relatives of fallen soldiers will greive and it is indeed unfortunate that it has to happen at all. Our hearts go out to those who have lost loved ones as a result of military conflict.

That said, the stories about the loved ones who are extremely proud that their sons and daughters are serving and, moreover believe that what they are doing is a justified action seem to remain in the shadows.

This, of course is not considered news and many, including myself, do not believe that it does justice to the proud soldiers who, knew the risk, enlisted and now proudly serve or, in the unfortunate end have served.

All I am suggesting is that while there are two sides to every story, sadly only the bad ones get broadcast and exploited.

My post has nothing to do with politics. Please don’t come back with the war being wrong, we were lied to, Bush and Cheney are getting rich and so on.

Next time you post a war issue, relate something positive. Pay some tribute to the many who are fighting for your right to the freedoms you enjoy.

Just to put all this support our troops, all our troops, in perspective. Heli’s Heaven and Hell reports 5,500 American troops have gone AWOL since 2003. As a percentage of troops in Iraq, that is a pretty high.

So, no, not all our troops are gung ho get insurgent types in Iraq. A significant number chose to risk prison rather than fight Bush’s war, and a much larger number than the 5500 it can be safely extrapolated don’t agree with how this President is conducting the Iraq war.

Something to remember when saying one supports our troops. I support all our troops. I suspect in light of the information here, there are some on the right who don’t really support all our troops, not really!

—-
As the Iraq war slowly tilts towards noble causes
—-

Sorry? What? Iraq tilts toward noble causes… are you serious? Sorry to sound harsh, but the Iraqi war was build on lies and deception - an emergency military action for the safety of America that turned out to be trumped up. Now that the Bush Admin. has tried to white wash it with ‘freedom’ and ‘lifting the people up’ - is that noble?

There are hundreds places in the world where we could use positive means to bring freedom and lift people up. Why should Iraq now occupy our sole focus? Bin Laden is still out there - as well as a swelling number of others - and we should congratulate ourselves on being ‘the nice guys?’

How many Iraqis volunteered to die so that they could make their country a better place to live?

“What ACTUALLY is going on there is a war that was supported by congress and others like you who truly believed the information they were given by this administration”

Actually sassylib, I am not a fan of this war, I do not believe any American should die for another country or for the UN.

“Why is it that you seem to have no trouble remembering all those who have died needlessly and forget there are even more who are about to die needlessly.”

Because I support them and their decisions. I do not let politics dictate what I know is right and I do not throw around words such as “needlessly” in order to get votes.
I respect their right to think for themselves and do not think ill of them if they disagree with me.
I would never trivialize their beliefs, actions or death by saying they are “needlessly” dying for what THEY believe in.

But why ignore:) my question: Why are you all so willing to believe her, support her and jump on her coat-tails but yet totally disregard and yes, ignore, the beliefs of those who are actually there or have family there?
Why not anything about Cpl Smith/Jones, who was proud to be there and who’s family believes he/she died as a hero, with honor, for what they believed in and NOT “needlessly” because they did not share your views?

—-
That said, the stories about the loved ones who are extremely proud that their sons and daughters are serving and, moreover believe that what they are doing is a justified action seem to remain in the shadows.
—-

Do you know of stories where people have made public statements about their pride in their children’s sacrifice and gone unheard? Or are you just assuming that there have to be people out there that love the war effort - but because of the evil media, they are ignored? It’s the protest at his ranch that is the news - not solely her opinion of the war.

Sorry to say - I can not find a single thing positive to say about lies that lead to death. God help you if you can.

Steve I agree with the most of what you however I don’t agree with this
“Pay some tribute to the many who are fighting for your right to the freedoms you enjoy.”

They aren’t fighting for our freedom! They are fighting for another countries freedom.

I feel sorry for the family of Mary Jo Kapechne, the lovely girl who died as a result of Ted Kennedy’s lies and she didn’t volunteer. I’ve lost two family members to war both of whom I miss terribly but am extremely proud of. I would much rather have lost them to war rather than to a car-jacking, a random shooting, drugs, aids, etc. Did I ever feel the need to ask the leaders of our country why they had to die, no because that would be just selfish and self serving. Do I feel sorry for Cindy, no, IMO she’s getting her fifteen minutes of fame which in truth is what she’s after. My family members died in Vietnam helping to stave off communism, her son died helping to free the oppressed, she should be proud it’s a pity she doesn’t see that.

Tony~

To be honest w/ you I was giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was trying to be the voice of other mothers because it would be very assinine for her to be acting as if she was the only one affected by this war!

Discredit her??????Not my intention at all, but I can see where this type of wording will rally others behind you to scream at me.

I never said she supported the war(re-read my post) I simply stated that I never heard from her previously, and we haven’t heard from all the grieving parents out there, so she must have what it takes to get her voice heard so why not until now?

Attacking the messenger is something you seem to have the market on, so there is no need for me to go any further w/ you!

I am assuming nothing at all. I am merely suggesting that there are people who have lost sons and daughters who are just as grief stricken yet, very proud that their loved one perished while defending a cause that they don’t qualify as being unnecessary.

Lies that lead to death… there is a story in the Bible that is quite to your point. All of us are beneficiaries of that brave SON of GOD’s sacrifice/service.

—-
Do I feel sorry for Cindy, no, IMO she’s getting her fifteen minutes of fame which in truth is what she’s after.
—-

How do you know that? Have you talked to her? Seen her say that? or are you belittling her because she has a different view?

She feels her son died for lies… and yes I do support her view on that, but she has every right to say what she feels.

Also - are you aware that the Gulf of Tonkin - the attacks on our US ships that started the full scale military action in Vietnam - is suspected to be a lie as well. No matter what you think of a President or the results of a war - if the war begins as a lie, how much faith can you put in the people behind those lies?

—-
I never said she supported the war(re-read my post) I simply stated that I never heard from her previously, and we haven’t heard from all the grieving parents out there, so she must have what it takes to get her voice heard so why not until now?
—-
Why should you have heard from her until now? She just started her protests at Crawford Tx - after a trip to Dallas (I think that’s where she was originally.) Your post makes her actions suspect because you did not hear her positions before now. What meaning should I take from your posts?

I am not attacking you - I am attacking what you wrote. I said nothing about you or anything regarding you as a person. I assume you are a smart person with a different belief. That is not attacking the messenger. However -

——
Attacking the messenger is something you seem to have the market on, so there is no need for me to go any further w/ you!
——

That seems to be an insult. Am I right or did you mean something else?

To those who say that the proud and war-supportive parents are never heard:

Last night there was a memorial service in Brook Park for the Marines who recently died in Irag. All 3 local stations carried the entire service. It was reported on all the late news reports, as well as on CNN, MSNBC and Fox, including interviews with the supportive parents. In fact, the parents have been on the local stations over and over again expressing their pride and support. Many radio stations also carried short interviews with the parents. There were also protestors at the service which was mentioned by one radio station and one tv station in passing, nothing about the protests, simply that a few were there. Seems to me all sides are being reported.

First, let me state that the reports of the threat of arrest that started yesterday have been stated to be not confirmed. It was Cindy’s own statement when she first started her journey to protest that she was going to get answers or arrested and she was betting on the arrest. The suggestion of the Thursday arrest came from a Texas rep, not the White House or Secret Service. A later report of an arrest threat came from one of the local law enforcement members. Last I heard this was not confirmed either.

Secondly, while she as an American citizen has the right to protest legally, trespassing laws, permit requirements, etc etc have to be followed by all of us.

Third, she is not going to get the answer she wants from President Bush. Even if he spoke to her as his two advisors did just the other day, she has made it very clear she doesn’t agree. So what is the point to this if it is not to create media attention. If you already know in advance you are not going to accept the answer, to pretend it is a demand for that answer is rather counterproductive.

Adding to it by claiming you are not going to pay income tax for 2004 or making it be about the Bush twins enlistment is what causes some of the attempts to discredit her. Realistically her goal is to stop the war and get soliders sent home immediately. While this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, pretending it is about getting answers is not the way to make that happen.

Ya Jackie I agree all sides are being reported.. Even on 60 minutes ect.. they have people on their for support of the war to non support of the war even soliders themselves and what they go through.. All sides are being shared.

Tony~

Give me a break..

“You seem to be very willing to attack the messenger rather than the message… how very Republican of you.”

Sheepishly attacking my political stance as a guise to get to me(I was born at night not last night) is a personal attack!

Discussing Mrs. Sheehan is what this topic is about, and I was expressing my view! I did not come out of no where and say, “did ya’ll hear about that Sheehan woman etc.”!!! So the only thing I can take away from this discussion is that the only people who should post here(according to you) are those that agree w/ her(or you)!?!Seems like a rather boring discussion to me!
Something along the lines of:

POST
YEAH WE AGREE
END OF POST

It’s gotta make the vast majority of troops, who believe in what they are doing, feel better when they hear people back home saying their fallen have died needlessly.
That everything they have done and continue to do is without merit.

I would imagine the many that don’t believe in what they’re doing, which I believe is a much greater number than we’re led to believe, feel gratified and proud that people in their country will stand up and fight what Bush has done. They know we have their back..they know we support them. They know that we know the truth.

Its been well debated on here and proven that there ARE a few liberals who have the courage to join the military.
There is a little bit of all of us in there.

Having the courage to join the military isn’t the issue. There are many liberals in the military. The issue is the President of the United States sending soldiers to die in a war that absolutely didn’t need to happen. And not taking responsibility for that.

Funny how Ms. Sheehan gets all of your attention but yet you choose to ignore all the families and troops who believe in what they are doing and do not think their fallen peers, sons, daughters or whatever, have died “needlessly.”

Those folks get lots of press already. I live in Oregon, where our National Guard has been over in Iraq since the initial invasion. We get daily to weekly news reports of the proud parents and spouses whose loved one died in Iraq.

Sheehan’s courage to stand up to a man who made the decision to needlessly kill her son is not only laudable, it’s heroic.

Jay,

“I feel sorry for the family of Mary Jo Kapechne, the lovely girl who died as a result of Ted Kennedy’s lies and she didn’t volunteer.”

Huh?

” Do I feel sorry for Cindy, no, IMO she’s getting her fifteen minutes of fame which in truth is what she’s after.”

When did you develope this power to read a complete strangers motives?

“My family members died in Vietnam helping to stave off communism, her son died helping to free the oppressed,”

I was not aware that oil could be oppressed?
Viet Nam did fall to communism approximately 5 minutes after we left, in case you were wondering.

We were not told that we were freeing the oppressed in Iraq. Remember WMD’s?
Our military is being taxed to the limit.(Multiple tours,poor equipment,cuts in benefits,lost jobs at home)
We are there to set up a pro-U.S. government to supply the U.S. with OIL.
The soldiers and the media have had to shame this administration into supplying armor for their safety and personnally signing death certificates out of respect for the soldiers families.
I could see why she would be upset.
I don’t like Kennedy either.

Tony, IMO means opinion, so no I don’t know her true intentions and I am not belittling her and I don’t feel sorry for her. I strongly disagree with your assertion that “lies” led us into war so please stop with the incessant wallering of “lies”, we are all well aware of your opinion regarding that. Re: Gulf of Tonkin; I think there might be a “conspiracy theorist” problem at work not that I am dismissing it knowing that world politics are not the Mr. Rogers show. Removing murderous dictators, freeing an extremely oppressed people and chasing down serial killers is the right thing to do, the problem of the left is that they are not convinced we are doing the right thing. Tell me why the soldiers that are dying “needlessly” are more important than the millions of Muslims that died “needlessly” at the hands of Saddam. I don’t recall the outcry of those lives from those who are so concerned now. Many of these soldiers (I know some personally) are proud of what their doing, the cause of mankind is far greater than the cause of any one man.

Andre, again IMO means OPINION, I know that is something the left doesn’t like to acknowledge as every good democrat walks in lockstep. South Vietnam is still a free country. We were told many reasons for the war, not just WMD’s (again that lockstep thing). I am paying $2.75 for gas, where’s my cheap oil? Al-Sadr pro-USA? You might want to re-read his positions. I have freinds there that disgree with you on the equipment and being over “taxed” but hey when all of you keep repeating it over and over you might convince someone and I guess that helps build your power base (again that lockstep thing).

Traci, critiquing someone’s politics, sheepishly or otherwise, IS NOT a violation of WB’s policy. Please cease trying to use our policy against those whose comments you like. WatchBlog management will determine if the policy was breached. If you would like us to review another’s comment to see if it has breached our policy, email Editor@WatchBlog.com. We will be happy to review it. We DO NOT want this kind of “you did so, no I didn’t” bickering in the comments sections of WB articles.

Sarah
I don’t think its selfish at all. I threw away 10 years of military service because I didn’t want to die for clinton under the UN flag.
I understand your position and every US soldier is free to come to their own. They are not mindless drones that have been brainwashed, no matter how bad the left wishes to believe they are.

“However I am thankful that I didn’t for I may have been sent over seas to fight in a war that I do not believe in”

YOU do not believe in, that is obvious throughout the rest of your post with all the lefts talking points in there.
But that is how YOU believe and it does not mean one dies “needlessly,” especially for believing in what they are doing.

Let me make an analogy for all those who are losing sleep at night because this war is a lie…

Lets say my “evil” employer sends me down the street to get him a “coffee”! Just as I step out on the street I just miss getting hit by a bus(that he knew was coming), but to the right I spot a violent crime(maybe a mugging)…do I:
1.ignore it because I wasn’t “suppose” to be at that spot anyways
2.scream for help, or take action myself

This analogy may be a little silly…but seriously, I care more for the world at large(citizens not leaders with agendas) than the reason things took place!

All the oil stuff seriously cracks me up….have you been to the pumps? I don’t feel we’ve stole a thing!!Bush went way out of his way IMO to show good faith in the fact that we would not be stealing oil, because the position we are in right now, we could just take it if we wanted to!!!
Ya see in reality what you all are proposing is much more detrimental to Iraqi civilization….cut off our demand for oil and they will die in a desert w/ their camels! I guess that’s more humane though heh??

Kind of like what Columbia says..”we have a “weed” problem, you have a drug problem! Without our “weed” all we have left is bananas!

Jackie and Sarah
Never heard from was not the question.
The question was why is Ms Sheehan worthy of your time but those with opposing views are not?

We all know its Bush’s war, its about oil, evil Republicans, Christians etc… and that you are gleeful of the AWOL’s, afterall, there is an election coming up. We understand where your priorities are.
What I want to know is how you can totally support and listen to one set of views while discounting those that are different.

Jay,

Is it your position that WMD’s was not the focal point of this administrations rush to war?

You do not think that a pro-U.S. government in Iraq would not provide another source of oil for the U.S. in the very near future?

We democrats who walk in lockstep remember the spin in the beginning that led us to war.While we were lockstepping we, over the noise of our boots hitting the ground in unison, kept hearing the “why are we there” spin changing every month.
If this is a just and noble cause, why not tell us about it, you know the just and noble cause?
All I heard was WMD’s,threat to us all,poised to attack,uranium,no mention of noble causes. Alot of lies but not alot of noble anything.
You continually use your friends over there as a source of information for you comments. How do we even know you know anybody over there?
I don’t trust information given to me by someone who believes there were WMD’s even after Bush and Cheney denied there existance.43% of Bush supporters still believe we found them. Thats sad.

You can never win an argument with a grieving mother, but using that as an argument is a logical fallacy, an appeal to emotion, not logic. The fact that she is grieving proves absolutely nothing beyond the obvious fact of grief. It is a powerful picture – a Rosarch pattern - that lets others fill in the context.

The wisdom of the Iraq war will be judged some time in the future and we may never agree. We know all the troubles that resulted from the invasion, but we don’t know what would have happened if we had backed down. Saddam was in the process of defeating sanctions. His psycho sons were poised to make his dynasty last a long time. If he just continued to behave as he had in the past, it is likely he would have provoked another war by now and we don’t know how many casualties that would have entailed. There was no zero option. There was no scenario where we could expect Saddam to live in peace.

The decision to invade Iraq was based partly on mistaken intelligence (which was generally accepted, BTW, and not only by the Bush Administration) but there were many other reasons given at the time that remain valid. Saddam was a dangerous man. He did attack four of his neighbors. He did gas his own people. He did support terrorism. He did harm the environment. He did try to kill an ex-president. He did say that he was at war with the U.S. He was constantly trying to shoot down British and American airplanes. He did not comply with 17 UN resolutions about disarming – and that was his deception that got him in the most trouble. This was not a simple bookkeeping error. Saddam was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world. We will judge the war by what follows, but it would be hard to come up with a worse result than we had going in.

—-
Discussing Mrs. Sheehan is what this topic is about, and I was expressing my view! I did not come out of no where and say, “did ya’ll hear about that Sheehan woman etc.”!!! So the only thing I can take away from this discussion is that the only people who should post here(according to you) are those that agree w/ her(or you)!?!Seems like a rather boring discussion to me!
—-
OK - and my taking issue with what you post is what this blog is all about. You seem to be quite indignant about what I am taking issue with. What you posted seemed to degrade Sheehan: “But IMO, do we base the entire war on Mrs. Sheehan? Many mothers have lost their child and personally I would have put more stock into her if she was fighting to speak “for all the mothers” before her child got killed. It leaves me to wonder if the war would have been o.k. or at least ignored if her child returned safely!”

I completely disagree with you that she would have to have her position known to all before being in the news now to make her points valid.

I am taking issue with your points. I am not upset with you, but I would appreciate the discussion on the original post. Is Sheehan wrong in asking for a meeting with Bush so that she can try to find an answer to the loss of her son.?

“What I want to know is how you can totally support and listen to one set of views while discounting those that are different.” - kctim

There are “views” and then there are “facts”. Fact is we were led into a war under false pretenses. A view might be how you feel about your country’s leader because of that, and I fully respect, if not understand, if people still feel good about him.

My view is that he needs to accept responsibility for starting the Iraq war, causing the deaths he’s caused. We need to make it clear that this kind of leadership is not what Americans want, and to prevent it from happening again we need to keep harping on it, lest the truth be forgotten or misplaced.

Andre and Thomas_R, the reasons for going to war with Iraq were:
1. Enacting the policy of regime change in Iraq first adopted under the Clinton administration.
2. The possibility of WMD’s.
3. 17 UN cease-fire resolution violations stemming from the Gulf War.
4. Saddam’s failure to become transparent on all of his weapons programs. Violation of resolution #1441.
Had I been President, we would have invaded Iraq years ago.
Andre, you hear only what you want to hear and 43% of Americans think what? Thomas_R, this is exactly the leadership I want and voted for and I am an American.

Watchblog Managing Editor~

I took your advice and e-mailed you with my view….no response. It takes two to tango and now I can plainly see that this is a biased site, not up for discussion.

Jack said:

Saddam was a dangerous man. He did attack four of his neighbors. He did gas his own people. He did support terrorism. He did harm the environment. He did try to kill an ex-president. He did say that he was at war with the U.S. He was constantly trying to shoot down British and American airplanes. He did not comply with 17 UN resolutions about disarming ? and that was his deception that got him in the most trouble. This was not a simple bookkeeping error. Saddam was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world. We will judge the war by what follows, but it would be hard to come up with a worse result than we had going in.

So, Jack, does that justify some other country pre-emptively attacking us?

Political theater at its finest; a grieving mother who has lost her son in Iraq, a political no one, standing in a drainage ditch miles from anything, asking to meet with the president; meanwhile, the limos of rich campaign contributors drive by her on their way to meet the president for a BBQ.

Can’t wait to see the pictures.

Polical symbolism at its best.

All the oil stuff seriously cracks me up….have you been to the pumps? I don’t feel we’ve stole a thing!!Bush went way out of his way IMO to show good faith in the fact that we would not be stealing oil, because the position we are in right now, we could just take it if we wanted to!!!

No, actually we can’t. The insurgency keeps blowing up the oil facilities.

The fact that the only building guarded by the US during the invasion was Iraq’s Ministry of Oil building.

And FYI…the prices at the pump are HELPING the oil and gas industry. They’re making massive profits. So I’d say the invasion of Iraq has gone a long way to improve the financial outlook of Bush’s oil cronies.

Andre and Thomas_R, the reasons for going to war with Iraq were:
1. Enacting the policy of regime change in Iraq first adopted under the Clinton administration.
2. The possibility of WMD’s.
3. 17 UN cease-fire resolution violations stemming from the Gulf War.
4. Saddam’s failure to become transparent on all of his weapons programs. Violation of resolution #1441.
Had I been President, we would have invaded Iraq years ago.
Andre, you hear only what you want to hear and 43% of Americans think what? Thomas_R, this is exactly the leadership I want and voted for and I am an American.

1. Clinton never needed to invade Iraq to enact policy. Saddam was fully in check under Clinton. The idea that somehow Bush was just extending Clinton’s own policy is laughable. Bush and his people purged everything that ever resembled Clinton when they took office. They were by no means extending his policies. They loathed the guy.

2.There were no WMDs. Had the weapons inspectors been allowed to stay in Iraq and finish the job…we would have found that out without invasion. Blix said that they were receiving full cooperation from Iraq in the weeks leading up to the invasion.

3.whoop-ee. If we invaded Israel every time they violated a cease fire or a UN resolution we’d be running them right now.

4.Saddam WAS transparent when he made his report to the UN on WMD. Reports on Iraq’s weapons status in the leadup to our invasion show that Saddam’s scientists and weapons specialists were essentially looting the programs and not keeping documentation about what was destroyed and what they were doing. It’s apparent that he in fact did give a full and complete accounting of his programs to the best of their ability.

Had you invaded Iraq years ago..we’d be that many more years into this quagmire.

This kind of testosteronie laced rhetorical bovine feces not only makes things worse..it puts our nation in further danger from suicide terrorism.

I’m still amazed at how easy people with dismiss critic of Bush. This is a woman who lost her son to a war she felt was started by lies. She wants the President to prove her wrong or at least explain why things seem the based on lies.

So - the Republican smear campaign gears up to prove that all she wants is her 15 minutes of fame.

IMO - pathetic and un-American.

Carla -

My Grandfather had many bovines, and I find offense in your comments. What could these bovine have done to deserve such comparison (besides at least you can use the real thing to help your garden.)

Carla,
1. Iraq Liberation Act 10/31/1998 (HR4655) signed by William Jefferson Clinton. Read it.
2. Hindsight is 20/20. Every respectable intelligence agency in the world suspected WMD’s including John Kerry’s.
3. No other country in the history of the world has violated a resolution even close to the seriousness of resolution #1441.
4. So it’s the scientists fault?
That kind of selfish, ignorant, head-in-the-sand attitude towards the seriousness of this conflict will allow the terrorists to continue to shoot school children in the back in Breslan, blow up trains in London and Madrid, bomb nightclubs in Jakarta (btw, what has Indonesia ever done to the jihadists?), and oh yeah 9/11.

Tony,

Your comment “…how very Republican of you.”

while not a clear violation of our policy, comes very close. Please refrain from characterizing the people who leave comments or write here, and stick to critiquing the content of their message.

David,
When you were in Vietnam how much respect and support did you have for GIs that went AWOL insted of going? If you were like the rest of us none.
Why should those going AWOL now have any respect or support?
They are breaking their oath they took when they entered the military.
BTW who is Heli’s Heaven and Hell?

Jay,
Do I feel sorry for Cindy, no, IMO she’s getting her fifteen minutes of fame which in truth is what she’s after.

After see what my Momma went through when my brother was killed in Vietnam I feel very sorry for Cindy and every other mother that’s lost a child in war. I don’t approve of her actions though.

I am paying $2.75 for gas, where’s my cheap oil?

I want mine too!

Jay,
“…bomb nightclubs in Jakarta (btw, what has Indonesia ever done to the jihadists?)…”

The Indonesian government has been fighting an ongoing revolt against separatist Muslims in Aceh Province. Aceh suffered the worst damage from the tsunami, and initially the Indonesian government expressed concern over US troops showing up in the middle of an ongoing conflict.

However, the motives for the Bali bombings did not involve Aceh, as far as I know. While Muslims, non-Muslims, & jihadists alike object to the gross corruption of the Indonesian government, the Bali bombings were terrorism, pure & simple, aimed at Australian & US citizens.

Jay,
Your attack of liberal positions uses a straw man argument. Can you find liberals who think Saddam should be the leader of Iraq? Probably, but most of us, and a lot of moderates and conservatives too, think that attacking Iraq in the way that BushCo did was foolish, counterproductive, immoral, and unjustified. I think this world needs desperately to find mechanisms to depose tyrants, preferably before they are able to build protective layers of people whose well-being is dependent on the status quo, but that doesn’t mean military invasions ad infinitum.

Is Cindy Sheehan using her status as the mother of a soldier killed in action to bring attention to her cause? Absolutely, and I applaud her for courage in doing so. You should read about her first meeting with Bush and his behavior in that meeting. You can make a stink about her being “disingenuous” about really just wanting Bush to explain himself, when she knows she won’t personally change his mind, and he met with her once anyway. You bet, it’s political theater, theater which is designed to embarrass the president, an embarrassment he richly deserves.

The right is trying to dissect words which Cindy said in past encounters to prove something - I’m not sure what. Here is what Cindy just wrote today about that:
“The VERY LAST THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS IS: Why do the right wing media so assiduously scrutinize the words of a grief filled mother and ignore the words of a lying president?”
Go Cindy!

Here is an article with a bunch of links

Watchblog Managing Editor

No prob. :)

Traci…
I could have told you that, had you bothered to ask. Somedays they like you, others they don’t. Don’t let them get to you….Smile It does a body good.

Take Care,
Wayne

Why is there an issue with questioning what our soldiers are asked to do? Where is it written that the President should never be questioned when at war?

The military goes through training to help them deal with what might be said at home when they are in a war on foreign soil. They professional soldiers - trained to do their job when and where they are told to do it. If our military can so easily broken by criticism of our President, then they need to seek counseling or find another profession.

Why do people find issue with questioning our President to the Nth degree when lives are on the line? Should we so easily trust a man who has been so wrong in the past?

Tax money - part of it mine - is being used to fund this war I do not agree with and soldiers are being asked to die in a war I do not support. It’s my job as American to be a complete pain in the ass until something changes to my way of things.

I am responding to the post that refers to the Clinton administration. Is everyone aware of Clintons administrations -accomplishments- and what his administration did to disarm the WMD? He approved a group of well trained Navy Seals that went in and successfully destroyed WMD. It is documented in a movie called, “The Finest Hour” and is a true story. He found a way to keep the mission secret, and almost everyone made it back alive and the WMD was destroyed.(I have it on tape) From the posts I read I don’t think many ever saw this true documented movie.
Clinton was brilliant. We were safer when he was in office. That’s a fact.
If Hilliary runs I’ll be first in line to vote for her. They are both very intelligent. Annie

Ellitotbay

I don’t really think you can compare the U.S. with Saddam. But let’s take the (false) analogy. Saddam was making preemptive attacks against the U.S. He tried to kill Americans and was working hard to shoot down our planes. He told us that he was at war with us. The terrorist have also attacked the U.S.

jack -

Maybe you can help explain it to me:

How does attacking Iraq minimize or reduce our threats from terrorism?

Many people have claimed that they are at war with the U.S. - how does that justify the invasion?

Please explain the preemptive attacks against the U.S. from Iraq?

Saddam was a tinpot dictator who enjoyed rattling sabers. All bluster
and no muscle. His armies in shambles, his equipment vintage WW2, no
air force at all, and restricted to only a third of his own nation, he
was powerless to harm anyone outside his borders and posed a threat to
no one. Al Qaeda loathed him and the only terrorists that he supported
were palestinian against israili - and they just used him for his cash.
Sure he gassed his own people - 12 years before we invaded,
during a war, while he was on the US dole, and with weapons supplied by
the Reagan admin. He had no weapons to account for since 1992 when he
destroyed them so what exatly could he give the UN inspecters? He gave
them what he was asked for - access to verify there were no WMDs and
this they did, until Mr. Bush put a stop to it when no WMDs were
turning up, which didn’t suit Mr. Bush at all.

WMDs were the only rationale given for the war, until we couldn’t find
any and we found out what little intell we had on them had been
doctored - then the rationale changed each time the new reason for it
was debunked, finally settling on an amorphous slogan of ‘liberation of an oppressed people’ which doesn’t rely on anything more than spin for support. Ask the Iraqis how much they are enjoying their new ‘freedom’.

The brave men and women in our armed forces are putting their lives on
the line for one reason and one reason only - George Bush’s ego (obscene oil profits are just the icing). They
are not fighting for our freedom, regardless of what they believe
because Saddam posed no threat at all to american freedom. Neither he
nor his sons could ever have hoped to have the power to invade and
overthrow the US and its constitution - which is the only way our freedoms could be under
direct threat (as they were in WW2, but never since).

If the Iraqi people desire freedom they should stand up and take it
like every other free nation on this planet has done. Power is in the
hands of the people, not governments, and no one was every handed
freedom on a silver platter - fought and won by someone else for them.
It will not be valued or appreciated.

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” - B. Franklin

Mike -

ABSOLUTELY!

A story similar to Saddam trying to prove that he destroyed his WMDs…

A friend of mine switched cell phone providers, and did it all online. She picked out her phone, the service… and ordered it online.

She waited a month, and no cell phone. The bill, yes… phone, no. When she called the company to complain, they said it was company policy that she show prove that she never received the phone before she could be refunded the amount paid.

Prove to me you don’t have it. ??? Logic of the idiots.

Archibald Macleish:
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.

Barbara Ehrenreich:
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.

Edward R. Murrow:
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

Edward R. Murrow:
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.

One more - and it’s bed time…

Harry S Truman:
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

1. Iraq Liberation Act 10/31/1998 (HR4655) signed by William Jefferson Clinton. Read it.

I’m familiar with it. I also know what Clinton actually did..and how it was a policy that effectively kept Saddam in check. Once again..please don’t bother trying to tell me that Bush was attempting to extend Clinton’s policy. He wasn’t. That administration loathed Clinton and did everything it could to purge Clinton from the Presidency when they took over. Your defense is an excuse. Not an accurate representation of Bush’s policy.

2. Hindsight is 20/20. Every respectable intelligence agency in the world suspected WMD’s including John Kerry’s.

Suspecting them and having proof that they existed via intelligence are two very different things. And there was no respectable intelligence agency claiming that Iraq had to be invaded immediately. That was just the Bush team. Which is why not allowing the weapons inspectors to finish is such a travesy.

3. No other country in the history of the world has violated a resolution even close to the seriousness of resolution #1441.

Oh please. That’s so much tripe. We know now that Saddam gave every bit of documentation he had on his programs. Are you going to tell me that the resolutions against Bosnia were actually violated to a lesser extent than Saddam? Revisionist history, much?

4. So it’s the scientists fault?

To a great degree..yes. Saddam’s scientists and weapons people were fleecing him..and he had no idea.

That kind of selfish, ignorant, head-in-the-sand attitude towards the seriousness of this conflict will allow the terrorists to continue to shoot school children in the back in Breslan, blow up trains in London and Madrid, bomb nightclubs in Jakarta (btw, what has Indonesia ever done to the jihadists?), and oh yeah 9/11.

What keeps suicide terrorists in business are foreign troops on soil considered sacred to the terrorist organizations. Watch out for references to heads in sand..the head you’re seeing there is actually your own.

I would believe more of the Right Column’s position if more Republicans outside of Military Families would volunteer to Serve. The fact that 61,000,000 war lovers can’t pony up a measly 50,000 bodies to fight for Bush says a lot about the stay at home Republicans.

BTW. The single Republican who gave me his email and name was over 50 and ineligible. Why am I not surprised?

Mike

I have to repeat again that neither the Reagan nor any other American administration armed Saddam. He was a Soviet client. You may recall that Reagan was not a friend of the Soviet Union. You don’t have to believe just because I say so. Just ask yourself what weapons Saddam possessed during the Gulf War. He had French weapons and Russian weapons. He even had significant amounts of weapons from places like Czechoslovakia and Brazil. But he didn’t have American weapons. Where did they all go if we supplied them?

Be logical. Don’t let hatred of the U.S. cloud your judgment. Stop. Enough with this. The connection doesn’t exist.

Aldous

Your argument is also a logical fallacy. Even if everything you say is true, it doesn’t argue for or against going to war in Iraq. You can feel morally superior if it makes you feel happier. But each time you use this tired old fallacy it gives us a better idea of who you are. You may have noticed that I am one of the few old guys who still bothers to argue with you about it and it is only out of a vague sense of curiosity.

Cindy is doing the most important fight we can have to expose this President for the liar he is. She is not just standing there as a mother of a fallen soldier, but also as the truest of patriots. If she does end up getting arrested for exercising her rights and freedoms that our constitution gaurantee then we must all join in the fight. I hope planning starts for this so we can mobilize quickly and take to the streets in protest. I would like to see if she gets arrested on Thursday, then people acting by Friday. Either go to your local jail and tell them to arrest you as you are with Cindy or take to the streets on Friday and protest. If we get 20-30 thousand who miss work in order to protest, that will send a message to Bush in the way of an economic hit. This may be the only way to get him to listen!

Jamie
Intoxination

Cindy Sheehan has taken up a permanent post near Bush’s Crawford ranch during George’s five-week “working” vacation (NYT, CNN). Showing true patriotism, Cindy is seeking a conversation with Bush — “I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son? He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is.”
Now, to be fair, Cindy isn’t exactly outside Bush’s ranch; her and a group of protesters were stopped about five miles from the ranch. In fact, the secret service have been trying to force them off the road by speeding their vehicles dangerously close to the protesters.

She was set off by Bush’s speech in Grapevine, TX on Wednesday where the man with only about one-third of the country’s support in Iraq stated that, “Our men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and in this war on terror have died in a noble cause, in a selfless cause.”
Cindy is exercising a great deal of patriotism in her display against Bush and his rhetoric — we’re sick of hearing how “sorry” Bush is when men and women die for his selfish cause.

These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed
The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable. The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate.

Please try the following:
Click the Regime change button, or try again later.
If you are George Bush and typed the country’s name in the address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. (IRAQ).
To check your weapons inspector settings, click the UN menu, and then click Weapons Inspector Options. On the Security Council tab, click Consensus. The settings should match those provided by your government or NATO.
If the Security Council has enabled it, The United States of America can examine your country and automatically discover Weapons of Mass Destruction.
If you would like to use the CIA to try and discover them,
click Detect weapons
Some countries require 128 thousand troops to liberate them. Click the Panic menu and then click About US foreign policy to determine what regime they will install.
If you are an Old European Country trying to protect your interests, make sure your options are left wide open as long as possible. Click the Tools menu, and then click on League of Nations. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Head in the Sand section and check settings for your exports to Iraq.
Click the Bomb button if you are Donald Rumsfeld

Annie:

I am getting a bit tired of the hypocrisy of the left.

The left is not superior in anyway to the ethics of George Bush. It is using Iraq to further it’s agenda exactly as much as what it is claiming Bush did.

For instance.

1. The Iraqi people by overwelming margins voted for the current process.

2. The Iraqi people again by overwelming margins believe in the current process.

3. They also believe by almost 2-1 that their country is moving in the right direction.

What the Iraqi people think is the lefts WMD. Just as the right thought something was there, and it wasn’t, so the left is in denial about something that is in Iraq but will not admit.

We hear over and over again the polling numbers for George Bush. That is sort of irrelevant. Tell us what the Iraqi People think!! They are the ones getting blown up!! The left will not do that because they cannot undermine George Bush with that data.

What the left is doing is censoring out all news
that does not meet with their predermined agenda.

I challenge all of you form the left here to google what the Iraqi people think about their country, the process and their future. Make the Iraqi people AND WHAT THEY THINK AND WISH FOR, the center of this debate instead of your hatred of Bush.

If you quit being so negative you might just win a few more elections!!

Craig

P.S. In case you didn’t notice, your polling numbers are down as far or further than Bush’s. You are very articulate about why Bush is so unpopular. How about discussing why YOU are so unpopular.

I love reading these things. It’s clear that nobody will move from there positions once they’re firmly entrenched and yet, it DOES pass the time and create an opportunity to vent.

Let the poor lady camp out…let her demonstrate…she’s grieving for pete’s sake…if she gets attention and creates a dialogue on the war, er…”struggle against various extremist elements which are generally believed to be non-christian and also happen to be sitting on a quadrillion btu’s of fuel” then i think we as country of supporters and dissenters are better for the debate…and now, back to our regularly scheduled blogalogue…

I spelled there instead of their in my previous post…

Craig, the Iraqi people think their country is moving in the right direction…

That’s a pretty destitute group over there…I’m not sure they have very many choices…I mean, we invaded their country. Did we ever offer them a whole host of options, or did we tell them what they were going to do, set up the timetable by which they were going to do it and install friends of the administration to make sure it went in a direction we were comfortable with? I mean, you can base your argument on a poll, but I’m not sure they have a great many options over there. They and now we, are sort of stuck. It seems a bit disingenuous to proclaim that because they voted “for” the current process, it supports an argument for anything. They’ve got NO OTHER PROCESS. We went in, told them the process and directed them through it.
Find me the poll on google that says Iraqis want mayhem and destruction in their country and I’ll shut up

Annie, BTW, loved your post…!! And I think you’re very popular…

—-
Be logical. Don’t let hatred of the U.S. cloud your judgment. Stop. Enough with this. The connection doesn’t exist.
—-
Saddam was armed by the U.S. when he opposed Iran. We gave him weapons - technical skills, anything he needed to go up against Iran. Iran was Soviet. Iraq was American + a bit of French.

Thomas R.
Thank you for a rational answer to my question. While I disagree with some of it, it was a valid attempt at an answer without all the ridiculous talking points.
Have to remember though, their facts are their truths and your facts are your views. It works from both points of view.

Kctim

“We all know its Bush’s war, its about oil, evil Republicans, Christians etc… and that you are gleeful of the AWOL’s, afterall, there is an election coming up. We understand where your priorities are.
What I want to know is how you can totally support and listen to one set of views while discounting those that are different.”

It’s not that I am discounting them. I understand that everyone is going to have their own views and I take everyone’s views in consideration but it doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them. I understand that there are plenty of proud people/ parents out there supporting our soliders which is fine. I am sure that the majority of them support them b/c they are proud of them for being very courageous and putting their life on the line to hopefully provide peace in another country. I support them b/c they are doing their job. What I don’t support is this nonsense war. If it was something that was better planned then maybe I might feel different but I think we have enough problems in our own country to get taken care of before going into another country. Now if this war was about going after OBL then I 100% would support the war but it’s not. So please don’t think that I don’t see both sides cause I do but it doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them or believe in them.

kctim,

(sorry, just got back on this am had a final to study for)

Why are you all so willing to believe her, support her and jump on her coat-tails but yet totally disregard and yes, ignore, the beliefs of those who are actually there or have family there?

Jump on her coat tails? I have seen your posts here before, therefore I KNOW you have heard us speak of this same thing time and again….There is no jumping on anyone’s coattails…I feel all the lives lost for this lie, were needless deaths. THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO DIE!!!!! Their deaths were needless, not their lives. Their loyalty, or their courage is certainly Not being questioned. They are ALL heros in my book. But for our Government to deem their lives as expendable and to LIE to everyone of us to get our support to expend these noble lives is needless.

Why not anything about Cpl Smith/Jones, who was proud to be there and who’s family believes he/she died as a hero, with honor, for what they believed in and NOT “needlessly” because they did not share your views?

The families of these men and women need NOT share my view! I RESPECT and Honor their right to disagree with me. Not supporting my view has NOTHING to do with their DEATHS being needless. They, themselves and their parents SHOULD be proud. So am I! It doesn’t make their lives any less valuable and certainly does not make their deaths NEEDED. Hear what we are saying…you can’t claim to support your troops when you find it honorable to simply toss their lives away when you KNOW you were lied to.

kctim, I am certainly not saying that you were wrong, on the wrong side, un-patriotic or anything else (Like I have been called)for your support of your president or support of this war. But, C’mon…now that you know you were lied to, why would you still insist on declaring your support? Why would you not shout it from the roof tops that we want it ended…we want to save the lives of our brave, brothers, sisters, husbands and wives, and our daughters and sons?

I guess I just don’t understand your logic. Thanks for listening kctim, I do appreciate being able to blog with you. sassyliberal

Sarah
“So please don’t think that I don’t see both sides cause I do but it doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them or believe in them.”

I’m not saying you have to agree with them.
I want to know why when Ms. Sheehan says our troops are dying needlessly, her words are taken as gospel by the left but yet when thousands of voices say our troops believe in what they are doing and dying for, it is considered brainwashed propaganda.
I want to know why leftist stories refuse to mention ANY good whatsoever and only highlight the negatives.
I want to know why the left refuses to acknowledge the words of our troops when it sheds a positive light on the situation.

Sassylib
“Hear what we are saying…you can’t claim to support your troops when you find it honorable to simply toss their lives away when you KNOW you were lied to.”

No, YOU know YOU were lied to.
It all boils down to one thing: YOU know YOU were lied to. THEY know THEY were not.
Needless to you. Patriotic to them.
Politics as usual.

And politics as usual is why nobody can tell me why Ms Sheehan’s words and insight are more reliable and believable than those who know first hand.

I appreciate your time also and I hope your final goes well.

—-
I want to know why the left refuses to acknowledge the words of our troops when it sheds a positive light on the situation.
—-

You make it seem as though ALL of the troops think positively about Iraq. I’ve heard as many, if not more that think Iraq was started by lies and that they’re being used for an unknown, questionable motive/agenda.

There are troops on both sides of this issue - and there are citizens on both sides of this issue. Why do you insist that there is a positive message being missed by anyone. We see things that are going OK… but in light of the entire situation in Iraq, the bad far, far outweighs the bad. And talking about the good does not, can not dismiss what is wrong.

OK - was that a slip or what…

the bad far, far outweighs the good. (sorry for the slip)

“Why do you insist that there is a positive message being missed by anyone. We see things that are going OK…”

Like what?

“talking about the good does not, can not dismiss what is wrong”

No it can’t, but apparently ONLY talking about the bad negates any good that is happening and we all know how much better that would sound come election time.

Still no answers, just more ways to avoid the question.

kctim.

No, YOU know YOU were lied to. It all boils down to one thing: YOU know YOU were lied to. THEY know THEY were not. Needless to you. Patriotic to them.

They know they were not? How can you begin to imply that “THEY know THEY were not” is even a valid statement? With EVERYTHING we now know concerning the plethora of lies this administration told about the reasons for this war, saying “THEY know THEY were not” is a betrayal of our entire military and their families. Y’know I WISH our government was honorable…We as citizens NEED to be able to trust that when we are given information of this magnitude, that it can be believed! (since I am not a democrat, I know it is not just this administration we can’t trust) We OWE it to our troops to insure that when they are sent to risk their lives for us, It is FOR THE REAL REASONS and not for some wannabe cowboy’s own interests. We MUST REFUSE TO ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS!

And politics as usual is why nobody can tell me why Ms Sheehan’s words and insight are more reliable and believable than those who know first hand.

…and who might that be? The troops that are in Iraq? How would any one of them know first-hand the motives of a mad man? Because that is exactly what we have in the Whitehouse. I also do not believe anyone here is basing their views on anything Ms. Sheehan has said, but instead on the ever-mounting evidence that our administration deliberately lied about Iraq.

Just because our beloved military are in Iraq, fighting (for what they believe to be)for you and me does NOT make the lies that sent them there suddenly turn into truths! To ask that even more soldiers die for this LIE is indeed NEEDLESS.
To hide our heads in the sand and pretend we don’t know the truth is further risking the life of every American soldier in Iraq.

Thanks kc, always enjoy reading your posts, they do provoke emotion. :)

sassyliberal

“To hide our heads in the sand and pretend we don’t know the truth is further risking the life of every American soldier in Iraq”

OK then. What “truth” do the people not know and what evidence is there of it?
Not the hypotheticals, assumptions or opinions, the “truth.”
There was alot more reasons than WMD’s so you can’t say that was THE reason.
Misinformation to one side is a lie to the other.
Body armor? exaggerated for votes! They took guys looking for ADDITIONAL armor and turned into them not having any at all.
What actual proof is there that you could show people as absolute fact?

Kctim-
“I want to know why when Ms. Sheehan says our troops are dying needlessly, her words are taken as gospel by the left but yet when thousands of voices say our troops believe in what they are doing and dying for, it is considered brainwashed propaganda.”

Well for one I feel that Ms. Sheehan had every right to voice her opinion just like all of us. I don’t see it as some type of gospel. She is hurt she is grieving she lost her son to a war that shouldn’t even be. She has every right to be upset and she wants to be heard just like the people who feel this war is neccasary wants to be heard. The reason why I choose to take in the so called negative side of peoples stories regarding this war is b/c I feel this war shouldn’t be. I agree with those people that are hurting b/c they lost love ones to a war they they themselves do not believe in. I certainly don’t here the ones that are supporting this war what type of benefit they are getting out of it. Now our country is extremely in debt, we have no idea how long our troops are going to be over there, other countries want their troops out, How are we going to exit the war? Heck Bush can’t even supply our troops with proper gear to protect themselves, am I suppose to be supportive of that. I am certainly not supportive over a president who got our troops into this mess.
Why are you in support of this war?

“I want to know why leftist stories refuse to mention ANY good whatsoever and only highlight the negatives.”

B/c we don’t agree with the war.

“I want to know why the left refuses to acknowledge the words of our troops when it sheds a positive light on the situation.”

And why doesn’t the righty’s acknowledge that words of our troops when it shows the negative parts of the situation?

Jay,
1. Enacting the policy of regime change in Iraq first adopted under the Clinton administration.
I don’t recall Clinton sending troops to Iraq for the purpose of regime change.

2. The possibility of WMD’s.
I don’t remember him saying maybe, he was quite adamant that their would be “The smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud” “Saddam was poised to attack the U.S.”He seemed pretty convinced based on “Credible Intelligence”(I love that one)

3. 17 UN cease-fire resolution violations stemming from the Gulf War.
Isreal does 100 times worth over a single weekend.

4. Saddam’s failure to become transparent on all of his weapons programs. Violation of resolution #1441.
Do they have news papers where you live? Bush pulled weapons inspectors, who by the way did not find anything,early to invade before their findings, like Wilson’s and the diplomat from Chile(I think)could expose Bush and his war machine as incorrect or worse misleading the world.
You have to look at facts not what ultra-conservative talk radio tells you are facts.

Thank you Sarah.
Your honesty is very much appreciated.
Aside from the lack of gear lie, I totally respect what you said.

“Why are you in support of this war?”

I’m not. I do not believe any American life is worth losing for another country. kosovo, rwanda or iraq, they are all the same game being played and politics have decided which side a person chooses to support.
I see the negatives and do my part in hoping they will get better.
But this is where we differ. I also see and am willing to acknowledge the good things that are occurring.

“And why doesn’t the righty’s acknowledge that words of our troops when it shows the negative parts of the situation?”

I wish I knew.

BTW. The single Republican who gave me his email and name was over 50 and ineligible. Why am I not surprised?

Aldous,
Check again, there were a least three that gave you their name and e-mail. I’m sue not all were over 50.

Thank you also Kctim

I never said I never seen the good that is occuring as we speak.. I am sure there are tons of Iraq’s thrilled with what we are doing, in fact i know they are due to news reports covering postive stories involving this war. It has to make any human feel good knowing that our troops are doing what they can to provide innocent life the chance at freedom.

Didn’t understand this can you please explain, Thanks
“Aside from the lack of gear lie”

Andre, no point in you and I carryiing on a conversation, I fervently disagree with you but acknowledge your right to your own opinion. I would also submit to you that you look at the facts and not what the ultra-liberal media feeds you. Think for yourself and btw, a recent BBC poll found that 70% of Iraqi’s say their lives have improved and are optimistic about their future, or do their opinions matter to you? Simply google “Iraqi opinion polls”.

Tony

If the U.S. armed Saddam, why didn’t he have any U.S. weapons? And if he was not favored by the Soviets, why were most of his weapons Soviet block (plus a little French)? The facts just go against the idea that the U.S. armed Saddam. There is absolutely no reason to believe it. You can’t arm someone with invisible weapons that don’t do anything to anybody.

The U.S. did not arm Saddam. Anyone who bothers to check the record or even think about it knows this. You can repeat it all you want and it still won’t be true.

Saddam just did not have American arms, but he did have plenty from other places. Alot from the French, Russians and Chinese, which may explain thier opposition to the war.

I find it difficult to believe that you anyone would buy the arguement that just because there are Russian guns in Iraq the US was never a military supporter of Saddam and his regime. Saddam had bought weapons all over the planet, just as most lttle tinpot dictators do. What the US did was supply money, materiels and technology for WMDs:

“According to two Senate Committee Reports that will be completed in 1994, one on May 25 and another on October 7, dual-use chemical and biological agents exported to Iraq from the US significantly contributed to the country’s weapons arsenal. The initial May report will say the agents “were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction†and the October report will reveal that the “microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program.†The 1994 investigation also determines that other exports such as plans and equipment also contributed significantly to Iraq’s military capabilities.”

link

Saddam was only a danger when he had US tech behind him. He threatened the entire mid-east region with it, but once Bush the first betrayed him and the support left he was for all intents and purposees castrated. Left to play games with oil contracts and money markets.

Next you’ll be trying to tell me that Reagan didn’t create Bin Laden as a weapon against the Soviets, unintentionally fathering the Islamic Jihad that we are now facing. Perhaps you’re not old enough to remember the 80’s, but I am.

—-
The U.S. did not arm Saddam. Anyone who bothers to check the record or even think about it knows this. You can repeat it all you want and it still won’t be true.
—-
Before you start talking about what is and what is not: go read up on your Middle East history, starting in 1978 up until the early 1990s. The US and Saddam/Iraq were extremely close allies. We armed him to fight Iran.

The Chemical weapons we used against the Kurds (‘his own people’) and the Iranians - we designed and supplied by the US.

Same as the Taliban and Bin Laden were trained and armed by the US to fight the Soviets.

It’s history. Nothing more or less.

Mike, you may not remember the 70’s but I do. 11 dead Israeli Olympic Athletes at the hands of Islamic Jihadists well before Reagan. Though I suppose in your little mind that was the fault of the Israeli’s.

Tony and Mike

I know the history of the period. You guys should read the sources of the time and notice the CRITICISM of Reagan for not helping Saddam.

So you admit that we sold or gave no conventional weapons to Saddam, so you have to fall back on the fuzzies. Okay, let’s go there. As for the bio weapons, Saddam never used any. They were a potential threat only if he continued to develop them. But let’s talk chemical weapons. Dual use chemicals are DUAL use. The pesticides and herbicides farmers use on their fields is dual use. Why are chemical weapons dangerous? They are of little military value against prepared troops (like ours). They are dangerous as weapons of terror AND they are very easy to make. The technologies and materials are easily obtainable by anyone with the money and the will. There is no need for anyone to supply Saddam with such things clandestinely, since he could buy them openly throughout the 1980s.

Reagan did not create Osama bin Laden. The U.S. supported the Afghans fighting the Soviets. This policy helped lead to the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which in the final analysis was a much greater threat than what we face today. The Arabs, such as Osama had their own funding and the CIA had no more contact with them than Saddam had with Osama re 9/11. They were working toward the same goal at that time and it was a valid goal.

You got conspiracy theories. I have can point to the concrete evidence that Saddam neither had nor used any significant U.S. weapons anytime during his regime. The chemical weapons he used could be produced cheaply from off the shelve technology. There is no reason to believe he got the materials from the U.S. and no advantage to him if he did.

You must understand that your whole point of view is ethnocentric. You evidently believe that these poor suckers can do nothing unless manipulated, supported and managed by a small group of Americans. These Americans are so smart that they can carry out their manipulations in nearly complete secrecy. Americans and probably Republicans cause all the world’s troubles. I only wish we were so omnipotent.

You know, I am actually beginning to feel flattered.

Jack

You said “Saddam was making preemptive attacks against the U.S.” Two points here. (1) What pre-emptive attacks? (2)If preemptive attacks by Saddam were wrong, why are pre-emptive strikes by the US right?

You said “He tried to kill Americans and was working hard to shoot down our planes.” How many Americans did he kill before the invasion? face facts, dude. Saddam was bottled up. The UN sanctions were working. Iraq had no WMD, no program to make WMD, and didn’t pose a direct threat to the US or its allies. Most of our allies opposed the invasion.

You said “The terrorist have also attacked the U.S.” I presume you’re implying that Saddam had something to do with 9-11? Read this link. If your own President said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, don’t you believe him?

Craig,
Can you please answer a couple of questions?
1. Is it hypocritical to run as a candidate and say that you’re against nation-building, and then try to rebuild two nations simultaneously?
2. Is it hypocritical to criticise a sitting president when US troops are in harm’s way, and then less than ten years later claim that criticism of a president in time of war is unpatriotic?
3. Is it hypocritical to promise to conduct your foreign policy “with humility” but to tell your enemies to “bring it on”?
4. Is it hypocritical to claim that the media is biased against you when in fact your opinions completely dominate the media and the other side can only occasionally get a word in edgewise?
5. Is it hypcritical of a country to claim that it has the right to ignore the UN and invade another country - because that other country ignored the UN? Jay can help you with this one.
6. Is it hypcritical to tell UN weapons inspectors that they have to quit looking for WMD and leave Iraq immediately because the WMD that they can’t find pose such a dire threat that we can’t wait for them to be found and we have to invade right away, and then claim later that WMD weren’t the reason we invaded in the first place?

For the record, I remember as a kid in the 70’s and 80’s watching the news of the Iran/Iraq war. The US was SO afraid of Iran that we did ally with Iraq, I thought these were the good guys, thinking as a child does - that one side had to be good and the other bad. Little did I know - BOTH were bad.

I also remember, and have subsequently seen footage of, Oliver North stating during the Iran-Contra hearings that the #1 threat in the world was Osama Bin Laden. WOW, for whatever other crimes the man may have been responsible for - he was right on target, too bad no one listened. My question is………why did our supposedly outraged President go after Iraq instead of the real culprit? While the controversy rages endlessly over this ill-planned war, there seems to be precious little on calling him out on this. The silence is deafening.

jack -

“Although Saddam was still a junior figure, it is a matter of record that the CIA station in Baghdad aided the coup which first brought the Ba’athists to power in 1963. But it was Reagan who, two decades later, turned US-Iraqi relations into a decisive wartime alliance. He sent a personal letter to Saddam Hussein in December 1983 offering help against Iran. The letter was hand-carried to Baghdad by Reagan’s special envoy, Donald Rumsfeld.”

“Reagan armed and trained Osama bin Laden and his followers in their Afghan jihad, and authorized the CIA to help to pay for the construction of the very tunnels in Tora Bora in which his one-time ally later successfully hid from US planes. “

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20911FA38590C7B8DDDA10894DA404482

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
(nice picture of Rumsfeild and Saddam together on this one)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

“The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq’s main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war — stirred by Iran’s Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)”

jack -

As to Bin Laden supported/trained/funded by Reagan…

http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=library.Collection&class=New%20Evidence%20on%20the%20Soviet%20Intervention%20in%20Afghanistan

It’s a very long list of recently declassified documents.

Sarah
“Didn’t understand this can you please explain”

Our troops are issued flak vests that are dated. Due to budget cuts and the dismantling of the military, this was one of the items that was “good enough” as is. Didn’t want to spend money to get better ones I guess.
I myself wanted better body armor, did what I could to improve what I had and eventually purchased a better one with my own money.
Some troops were trying to get added protection. The next thing you know, the story says that our troops don’t have any body armor whatsoever.
Something blown completely out of proportion for political gain.

Tony

The U.S. is a big and important country. It is involved with everything in the world. We were the leading supplier of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan during the Taliban time, which saved thousands of Afghan lives. Our industries and influence is ubiquitous. You can find links on all sides of every issue. This is not the same as being responsible or having the key effect.

Were there ties with Saddam? Yes, he was the lesser of the two evils at the time of the Iraq-Iran War. The Reagan Administration understood this and tilted toward him with the hopes that nobody would actually win the war and nobody did. So you have a U.S. connection. You can also find a U.S. connection in Iran because of the famous arms for hostages deal.

You are saying that the U.S. was the most important player. This is wrong. The major suppliers of arms to Iraq were the Soviet Union, China and France. And once again you fall into the ethnocentric trap of assuming that Saddam had to be created by outsiders.

The U.S. supplied 0.46% of Saddam’s arms according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. This is behind not only the big three, but also places like Brazil, Romania Libya, and even Denmark.

Only a real hater of the U.S. could inflate a number like 0.46% into decisive support.

But, you win. I said that the U.S. didn’t support Saddam, but I now know that we supplied 0.46% of his arsenal. Isn’t America great? 0.46% from the U.S. is evidently better than 99.54% from everyone else.

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

Thanks for clarifying that.. No I understand that they have certain gear such as helments vest ect… My main concern is the armor on the vechiles most have just wood under them and the majority that are killed by roadside bombs and without that correct armor it just blows them up to pieces, basically so that is basically what I was referring to as far as armor, ect..

Very true Sarah.
One thing to remember though, Humvee’s operate on tires, not traks. If the hummer is too heavy, it quickly sinks in the sand. (makes a really long day even longer when you got to shovel one of them things out to. My back still aches just thinking about it)
I’m sure some vehicles may need more armor and I’m sure some where stripped for speed and deployment capibilities.
But this is something the military is very familiar with, adapt and overcome you know.
To blow it out of proportion for political reasons was wrong.

—— initial post ——
The facts just go against the idea that the U.S. armed Saddam. There is absolutely no reason to believe it. You can’t arm someone with invisible weapons that don’t do anything to anybody.
—-
But, you win. I said that the U.S. didn’t support Saddam, but I now know that we supplied 0.46% of his arsenal. Isn’t America great? 0.46% from the U.S. is evidently better than 99.54% from everyone else.
——
But my point is not his conventional weapons - it was our involvement with his government and our supply of weapons technology (most Chem and Bio.) One major source of ‘intelligence’ that lead people to believe that Saddam had Chem & Bio was the equipment he purchased from the US. (I also have strong issues with the financial dealing that Haliburton had with Iraq between 1990 and 2001.

Jack, I sense frustration with your posts to me - that is not my intent.

- just a side note I found while exporing the source you quoted above: this sums up my frustration with Iraq:

“The SIPRI Yearbook whose Chinese version we are launching today was first published in 2004 and was written under the influence of events up to that Spring. The analytical lessons that we brought forward then were about the way Iraq had demonstrated the limitations of US power, at least at four levels:
military power could overthrow Saddam but not keep the peace or guarantee the building of a stable and democratic Iraq afterwards;
the USA, having gone into Iraq against the will of most international organizations, rather quickly had to call in their help to provide a legal framework and contribute practical expertise for re-building;
the concerns which the Iraq episode stirred up among other countries regarding the excessive or wrongly directed use of American power led to a number of counter-measures or at least balancing measures, notably the attempt to strengthen the strategic role and unity of the European Union and other regional cooperation groups;
the USA’s own resources have become badly overstretched in terms both of military manpower, and of finance, resulting in abnormally large US budget and trade deficits which in their own way, again, make the US more dependent on the behaviour and cooperation of other world players.”

well I understand to blow it out of proportion b.c of political reason. I wasn’t even aware of this going on until I watc