Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Blame Mr. Bush for the press coverage. This whole story should have lasted one day, if that, if Bush had come out and talked with the woman right away for 5 minutes. He blew the chance to make himself look really compassionate, and nip the whole thing in the bud. But then again, Mr. Bush was never much for making good decisions.

Why do they not interview parents of soldiers, who have died in Iraq, who support the president and the war effort. I believe that they do not because the number of people who support the president and his policies greatly outweighs the number who are opposed to the war.

Of course, you’d be wrong, but when has that ever stopped the red column?

Burt,

Facts get in the way of your argument. Bush DID meet with Cindy and her husband last year just after their son died. Do yourself a favor, don’t allow the media to “think” for you, it just makes you come across as elementary.

Excuse me? I’m well aware of their earlier meeting. My point still stands. Bush would have looked like a hero, and this story would have gone away if he would have taken 5 minutes to meet with her in Crawford.

I guess I must be elementary seeing as how well Bush’s strategy for dealing with this has worked out.

Margeaux-
Yes, he met with her. No, she didn’t think much different than she does now. She was just too polite and shell-shocked to make much of a thing of it, but contemporary accounts record her opposition to Bush even then.

Get your glass house repaired.

Nathan-
The job of the press is not to seek balance, but the truth, which very often benefits some and not others. The truth cost Bill Clinton. Now it costs George W. Bush.

It’s not the Press’s job to propagandize for a war. The press should give us the truth. Otherwise, how do we change course when we’re wrong? Those in power, afraid of losing that power, or intent on getting that they want, won’t always tell us the truth. We need a viable press out there to let us know when our government is not being honest with us.

Certainly you wouldn’t disagree that her family knows her best. The media, Michael Moore, and Moveon.org have pushed her off the deep end. Again, the facts are out there, but you must make the concerted effort to search them out for yourself instead of allowing the media to feed you.

Margeaux,

Apparently I am being too elementary for you. Let’s get this straight. I am not passing judgement on Cindy Sheehan’s actions - right or wrong. I am answering the question of this initial post which was “Why is the media still focusing so much attention on this story?”

The answer is because the White House screwed up (once again) and failed to nip it in the bud when they had the chance.

Nathan, give me a break.

How can you cry foul about the press coverage of Cindy Sheehan right on the heels of the Karl Rove/Plamegate story?

The Right Wing media conveniently decided to cover Natalee Holloway rather than give any airtime whatsoever to what might turn out to be the biggest political scandal since Watergate.

When that story was peaking, Fox News, O’Reilly Scarborough and everyone else on the Right suddenly decided they didn’t care about politics and that a missing persons case was much more important than a huge scandal? Really? Or could it be that their viewership would just rather watch a fluff story rather than face the heat of Plamegate?

Let’s be real here. The media covers what sells to its viewers. Period. The Cindy Sheehan story is very compelling to a large chunk of the population, which therefore means a large chunk of change to anyone that covers it, and that’s the bottom line.

I have heard about enough of Cindy Sheehan.

Why hasn’t someone here made the only proper suggestion or observation?

Cindy Sheehan is complaining to the wrong person.

She has said that Bush said her son died for a noble cause…and she has said that she wanted to ask Bush, “What noble cause has my son died for”?

WRONG PERSON!!!

Go ask the Iraqi with the purple finger.

Do not look Bush in the eye and say that your son died for nothing.

Look that Iraqi with the purple finger in the eye and say that your son died for nothing.

Then spit in his face for good measure.

It always amazes me when people start talking about the “Right Wing media” and at the same time deny that there is a left wing media.

I agree that we need to have a balanced media. Since it is impossible for a person to be totally unbiased, I think this means having media that lets their bias be known from the beginning. If we know the bias from the beginning, we can at least take their comments with a grain of salt. (For example, if we know that a person is a strong conservative, we can know that negative comments toward liberals might be somewhat skewed and vice versa).

So, I say, let ABC, CNN, NBC, Fox, etc give us a truthful depiction of what they believe and who (in the political world) they support.

Hi All:

I am Sorry, To date how many different reasons have we been fed for LAUNCHING our Well Led, (AT LEAST ON THE PART OF SERVICEMEMBERS),(However faulty the Intelegence) But Poorly managed, misguided venture into Iraq. Let’s face it, we’ve been fed a pack of lies. Now we (the service members)are faced with the daunting task, of trying to leave Iraq with their minds, bodies, & souls Intact. My heart goes out to you guys, Just returning is a Lifetime Achievement. To the Politicians who run this thing, Look out there’s shitbirds on that power line above you ooops too late.

As Always,
Wayne

Jim T.-
Go find that purple finger among the other body parts of folks we failed to protect. What good is it that we give them these brief moments of democratic bliss, if their country tears itself apart in civil war and strife? It is a stab in the back to the people whose hopes we raised (in the case of the Shia, raised twice) to leave behind anything less than a secure country.

What do we have now? Bush says we’re working towards some kind of climax, but we’ve been working on that for almost two years now. When do the fireworks start?

But of course, we have to be moral degenerates in your eyes for opposing Bush, so we can’t possibly be interested in seeing that man live the rest of his life in a Democracy, and not just this brief period. That would just be counter to your oh-so reinforced picture of us peaceniks and saboteurs.

danny-
The whole assertion with the “liberal” media is that everything works behind the scenes, that the agenda is pushed by story choices and all that. Compare this to the Right Wing media, which openly features opinionated commentators, whose features and opinions are barely disguised if at all. The difference is night and day. That’s how we can make that claim.

Trouble is, the right rationalizes the bias, and makes a virtually unproveable claim about Liberal bias, saying that it’s hard to notice because the liberal reporters hide their biases so well. If we fail to notice it, it’s because our political eyes are not clear. You have to be Republican to see whether there is a bias, and by that time, of course, you have to be convinced if you’re loyal to the party, right?

No such affiliation is required to recognize the bias of the Right-Wing Media. In fact, they openly admit it. That’s how we can speak to one without admitting to the other.

I agree that we need to have a balanced media

.

The reason the media is giving Sheehan so much attention is even more elementary. Advertising dollars. Headlines that increase purchases of magazines, and viewer/listenership in the media justifies more ad sales. That is the reason the media is covering it.

Now, the question is, why is the American public buying the media carrying the story? Until the polls come out, one can only guess.

But, I suspect it is because the American public regardless of what side of the political spectrum they sit on, love to see, hear, read about the little guy speaking up to power, when it appears they have a legitimate reason or message. Sheehan’s message may or may not be legitimate, but, her reason certainly is: her son’s death.

I find it interesting that the Right is attacking Sheehan’s Character instead of arguing the facts against her. Very few in Fox News or Talk Radio are crying “Spreading Freedom” when they talk about dead soldiers.

I have a son in the military who just got back from the middle east. I thank God he’s back safe, and my heart goes out to the parents who’s sons and daughters will not be coming home to them.
If my son had been killed over there it would be nice, but not manditory, if the president took some time from his busy schulde to see me and my wife. But would I insist on him doing it? No! Even if I didn’t agree with him on the war, and I don’t agree with him 100%, and I sure wouldn’t insist on another meeting after the first one.
Again I don’t agree with what Mrs Sheehan is doing. She does however have her right to do it, and I’ll defend that right against anyone who tries to tale it away from her.
Just one question though for those who think she’s doing the right thing.
How come my momma didn’t have the right to see LBJ when my brother was killed in Vietnam?

Stephen,
The moral degenerate in this case are those that make the same mistake twice. The mistake was abandoning the Shia. Shall we now do it twice all for the sake of “let’s pull out NOW”?

I don’t consider anyone a moral degenerate for opposing Bush’s policies in Iraq. I consider those who look at Iraqis and say “you don’t DESERVE freedom” as moral degenerates. I consider those who blow up innocent men, women and children as moral degenerates. I consider countries who allow free passage for those very terrorist who would blow up babies as moral degenerates. I consider those that refer to terrorists as “insurgents” as moral degenerates.

I suppose I should have expected a hate mongering message for my response to this subject. I seems that’s all the lunatic fringe leftists know how to do.

My opinion here is that Ms. Sheehan has the right to voice her opinions, just like the rest of us AMERICANS. But why is she giving a national podium? I of course blame this entirely on the news media. The propaganda they tend to spead is very damaging and has lead to my personal boycott of any news coming from ABC, NBC and CBS.
Personally, I would rather hear coverage from the families of Iraqis, who have had their lives changed to the better since being helped by our honorable men and women of the U.S. Armed Services. This is simply uplifting and makes me feel proud to be an AMERICAN.

Jim,
Insurgents & terrorists are two different types of enemies. Both are aymmetrical forms of warfare; but when insurgents attack the US military, that is not terrorism.

Terrorists target civilians with the intention of creating terror. They seek to publicize their cause, and to polarize; to force the moderate, compromising majority to choose sides.

In Iraq, insurgents typically use IED’s & small arms. Terrorists typically use suicide bombers.

Both terrorists and insurgents share a common goal, namely, to force the US to withdraw from Iraq. However, their motivations differ; terrorists are motivated by religion, while insurgents are motivated by nationalism, dislike of foreigners, ethnic loyalties, and so on.

Insurgents are typically native to Iraq. Terrorists in Iraq usually are foreign jihadists, with the majority coming from Saudi Arabia.

Unfortunately, the terrorists have established themselves in Iraq now that Saddam Hussein is gone, through the organization of Zarqawi. Many of his followers are Iraqi.

Pardon the descent into moral degeneracy.

Burt & David,
Ditto on Sheehan. It’s a story for the dog days of August. This is political theater. Bush could have derailed it long ago, but it’s too late; Sheehan has struck a chord with many people. As long as her story elicits interest, the media will push the story, both left and right.

Surely the Iraqis will come up with a constitution next week. I’m amazed at the delay until 8/22. Failure to meet that date will be catastrophic for the Bush administration’s plans, such as they are.

Those purple thumbs were a terrible mistake. I said it then, and I’ll say it again. We should have conducted a vote on whether the Kurds, Sunnis, & Shias wanted to participate in a united Iraq in the first place.

I think that Cidny Sheehan has the right to express what she thinks but she should respect our government and I don’t think that she should be getting so much coverage.Sons in Iraq die nearly everyday and they died for one of the most important reasons on Earth a free world

I think Cindy Sheehan has dishonored her son more than anyone else ever could have. His volunteering for service to his country and for the very mission he was killed on were useless, according to her.

She may have the right to speak, but it is sad that her voice desecrates the blood her own son shed to make the world a better place. I wish she would just go away, she makes me ashamed.

But I am proud of what her son did, it was the right thing to do and what he believed in. He was an honorable man, and if aware, I imagine he is ashamed of his mother for allowing herself to be used this way in her grief.

Beverly:

“Sons in Iraq die nearly everyday and they died for one of the most important reasons on Earth a free world”

Oh, so are the Neocon’s going to be freeing the entire world now? That’s going to take a whole lot of troops.
I think it’s definitely time to start a Republican draft…
Aldous, perhaps you should be put in charge of that! ;^)

A old friend sent me this interesting list of quotes in an e-mail today:

Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

“You can support the troops but not the president.”

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”

— Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
—Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“[The] President … is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
—Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
—Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
—Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
—Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of Gov. George W. Bush

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
—Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Amazing how quickly opinions change, isn’t it?

Look that Iraqi with the purple finger in the eye and say that your son died for nothing.

Then spit in his face for good measure.

This is a pretty funny comment. I assume you are referring to the shameful incidents of people spitting on returning Vietnam veterans. In this case, we are talking about the mother of a dead US soldier doing the (imaginary) spitting. So morally it is a quite the opposite situation.

For the losers who cannot tell what kind of shit they are hearing on America’s MSM, I feel sorry for you. And one loser commented, Fox news says this and that, and dont bother to disguise it. Why are you even watching it? What is wrong with you besides basically being just plain stupid?
Idea: change the channel dumbass

Michael, change your own channel to another website. Your name calling comments are not welcome here. — WatchBlog Managing Editor

Michael Morgan-
There’s no need to get insulting. Read my comment again and see if I’m saying anything pleasant about the Right Wing or conceding anything about there being a “liberal” media.

Jim T-
I agree with her sentiments about how this war has been run, but not with her sentiments about ending it right out. I think she doesn’t believe we can win this war, so staying longer won’t make things better in her eyes.

Can you understand that the people who oppose this war, even to the point of pull-out, are not immoral people? Neither are the people who want us to stick to this.

The people who say false and degrading things about this woman, though, are guilty of a sin against God, and I’m not kidding.

They are also guilty of another sin, this one a sin of PR- The last thing you do with a sympathetic figure like a woman who has lost a son is toss this kind of bullshit her way. You console her, even as you disagree with her. Hell, agree to meet her at the White House, or at your ranch. Get a bunch of other people who think badly of the war, whose opinions are spread out, then get the same for your side. Have a nice, moderated discussion, and show people that you are listening, and that you care what Americans think. Wrap this woman up in love, attention, and a public debate, and do it on your terms. There are ways to turn public opinion that do not rely on vicious mudslinging of this type, and it’s unfortunate that this Administration is so bereft of these other, more positive methods.

I’m not hatemongering here. I’m sick of all that shit. This is not hate you’re getting from me, it’s anger and frustration. It’s sadness. I remember a Republican party that wasn’t beholden to the politics of personal destruction. I use to be part of that party. What drove me away was this constant insistence on disrespect to those who don’t agree with them.

I hate the insurgents. I hate that they’re tearing this poor country apart just for the sake of religious and ethnic differences we wouldn’t bat an eye at here. But I hate that my president did not plan for the contingency of our country doing the bulk of the work for the occupation. If we could have quickly gotten more soldiers in, before handing off sovereignty, before the insurgents took over cities, and used those bases to expand- well shit, this is about taking the opportunities you’re presented with when they’re there, not waiting for things to happen on their own.

My issue isn’t with who you call enemies, my issue has always been with the plans used against them. I think Bush’s current plans are too damn ineffective. The flypaper strategy is a mockery of the truth of the situation: That Bush has failed to secure the battlefield. Failed. That means I want him to do it, but he’s not willing to take the political risks necessary to finish this damn war off!

It is that which has lost him America’s respect, that and the unwillingness at the beginning to play fair with the American people and justify this war right, or not at all.

Everett-
The “propaganda” here is only as damaging as the weakness of the opposing case. The weakness of the opposing case is that the president has been unable to stem the violence at the source. No “balancing” stories of people on the other side of this debate will change the reality of the war, if it is not in your favor. The violence has been escalating. If we were really in control of the situation, beating these people back, the attacks would be going down.

Think for a moment: What kind of strategy is it to make our soldiers targets for terrorists until they get tired or discouraged about continuing things? Isn’t that just one more bad assumption to pile on all the others? The insurgents, the terrorists, whatever you call them will feel embolden as long as they have control of when and where the fights occur. Our media is a distant influence.

Try their media. Their media is picturing the blood and the gore in all its glory. Our media is sanitized for public consumption. We really have no idea of how bad it is over there.

Beverly-
The strategy they die executing is important. If it’s not being done right, more will die than necessary, if our efforts are even successful. You shouldn’t envy Cindy Sheehan her attention, especially given what’s come with it.

As for respect of the government, it matters whether the government respects us enough to do things right, and be honest with us when it ask to take our sons and daughters to war.

Richard-
I think her son’s honor is hardly your concern. You didn’t have to see him go to war. You got no dog in this fight besides your party.

He shed his blood on behalf of all he loved, defending them and the Iraqis, not this president’s decision to go to war, not this president’s policies.

I think he would be deeply offended at somebody using his sacrifice as bludgeon against this mother. Were are your damned family values? Where’s your morals? I don’t agree with everything this woman says, but I can disagree with her without destroying her as a person. Why can’t you?

“Why is the media still focusing so much on this story”?

Better yet, why do we continue to discuss it in this forum. My home page for Watchblog has most of the current articles on it, I click to the one I want to participate in. Yesterday, at one point I decided to review each of the articles, regardless of topic or column.

Of the articles with dates that indicate they were authored after the Cindy Sheehan issue began, 60% included discussion about this issue.

It is so bad now that the same points and/or positions are being repeated.

Cindy Sheehan and her supporters are in Crawford waiting to talk to the President. It was obvious that this was not going to happen from the very first day. Given this fact, it suggests that the entire demonstration is a facade for ulterior motives.

Otherwise, Cindy and her supporters are too naive to realize that they are beating a dead horse. What are they proving, that they can live in a ditch longer than he can live in a house and go riding, fishing, etc.

I respect her cause and tenacity but, common sense of point making and getting the most for your buck is to use your resources where they can do the most good. The Crawford encampment is very close, if not already, starting to result in negative reaction.

Well the entire situation is tragic especially Mrs Sheehan’s contempt for her son’s military service. The one question everyone should ask themselves is simply, ” Would her son who vol. for military service and had served in Iraq twice, want his mother to disgrace his military service and his name”? If Mrs. Sheehan had any respect for her son she wouldn’t be dragging his name through the mud. She would be honoring his memory! I’m a vet and the last thing I would want would be my family members protesting what I believed in if I had been killed in battle. It seems the Bush Bashers have no respect for anyone except their perverted agenda and they do not care what or whom is hurt in the process of trying to regain power. I question the motives of Mrs Sheehan just as I question those peoples motives that support her. We all know what moveon.org stands for, the weak of mind.
It’s no wonder Sheehan’s husband is divorcing her, that her mother had a stroke, and friends and family have abandoned her. Not everyone in this country is a jew hating, anti american sign carrying liberal. I would like for someone to tell me what freedom has been won, or preserved by a sign carrying big mouthed liberal?

Heh, heh, heh.

It didn’t take long for the Right to attack the Character and Morals of Cindy Sheehan. Can’t say I blame them. If I had to justify the non-stop incompetence of this Administration, I would call all my enemies Al Quada Lovers too.

Ken,

My sentiments exactly.

Stephen,

Now THAT’S more like the Stephen I know.

I agree with your frustration. I agree that the way that this war is being run incorrectly.

But on the other hand, let us look at another war that I think has relevence. Viet Nam.

When we went to Viet Nam, America was geared to fight one type of war. A head-on, toe-to-toe confrontation. We had prepared all those years for confronting the U.S.S.R., not some guerilla type war (which the N.V.A. and Viet Cong were waging). The very same frustration you’re feeling was pervasive in the U.S. Our boys were being killed and there was no enemy to smash. They simply melted away and wouldn’t confront us.

It was a new type of war and we simply did not know how to wage it.

The only time we were allowed the luxury of a full scale army-to-army confrontation was Tet. And we kicked their ever lovin’ asses. But they learned by that and we didn’t. They never confronted us again. They went back to the guerilla war that they were winning.

The U.S.S.R. faced the very same frustration in Afghanistan. This was a type of war they were not prepared to wage. They were fully prepared to ram 3 or 4 “shock armies” in Germany’s face in a massive full scale war. That didn’t happen and the Russians got their asses handed to them on a plate.

Now we come to this war.

You saw what happened when we took on Saddam’s army. It was like a bunch of Little Leaguers against the New York Yankees. We pasted their collective ass.

But now, here we are. We are still in the “face-to-face” mode of military operations, and we are fighting an enemy who absolutely refuses to face us. They saw what happens when you confront us “face-to-face”.

They learned. We have not. And that’s very, very frustrating.

How do we learn? When you were a child, you put your hand on the hot “eye” of the stove and burned your hand. You learned. You didn’t put your hand there ever again.

We still have our hands on the hot “eye” of the stove and are acting like it’s not burning the crap out of us.

That’s wrong.

We need to admit that we are not prepared to fight a protracted guerilla war against a determined enemy. The president needs to admit this…and being the Commander-in-Chief, he needs to do something about it. Pronto.

I understand your emotions as well. You feel emasculated…powerless. I too remember a Republican party that was “right of center”…not “just to the left of Ghengis Khan”. A party that was fiscally responsible.

I also remember a Democratic party that was “left of center”…not “just to the right of Karl Marx”. A party that was socially responsible.

But those days are gone. Extremists in both parties have the voice now and it is the moderates that must remain in the background.

The only thing you and I can hope for is that the Democrats keep going further to the left and the Republicans keep going further to the right. Perhaps then the Moderates of both parties will break off and we’ll have a party that I can wholeheartedly support.

But as for our current frustrations and anger? We’ll just have to live with it.

After all, that’s the price we pay for living in a Dictatorial Triumvirate with Absolute Powers instead of a Democracy.

Ken,

Allow me to revise my statement about your post. I agree with the first part of your post about the distinct lack of respect shown for her dead child, his wishes and/or beliefs.

I do not agree with the rest of the post, as I do not consider liberals to be “Jew hating” or “anti-American” sign carriers. I mostly consider their viewpoints misguided or just plain wrong in some instances (I even AGREE with them sometimes), but I believe liberals care about and love this country as much as anyone else.

And isn’t that what this is blog is all about? Showing that we care about our country? After all, if we hated this country…or just simply didn’t care, there wouldn’t be any posts here, would there?

Steve Smith-
I may just decide to post something on Rove just to get some variety! No, seriously.

A facade for what ulterior motives? Anti-semitism, a left-run media, more unsavory and sinister causes meant to destroy America? Please. That crap is wearing thin, and you guys can’t continue to justify your leadership in this country on unsubstantiated fear of the other side. As for negative reactions, my side doesn’t include people mowing down crosses and wrapping the American flag around their axle because they’re afraid of what a little old lady’s pain will do to a war they never rightly justified to the American people.

They are sacrificing their ability to go do all the recreation that Bush is doing, but you know, Bush should be the one sacrificing, given the fact that that he is running a war at the moment. You do not establish moral leadership in a war by acting like there’s nothing more important than your R+R.

Ken-
Contempt for her son’s military service? Is she demonstrating against a bunch of soldiers, or a politician who’s sent them to war?

After all, you can’t call them Soldier Bashers, because nobody here is blaming the soldiers for anything. Nobody’s calling veterans baby-killers. Nobody’s spitting on them when they come home. This isn’t about them, this about Bush. This is about the leader who got us into this mess, and who seems to be unable to get us out. He keeps promising improvements, events coming to a head- have they yet? Or will you have to tell me, like him, that no, events haven’t come to a head, and we’re still waiting for our enemy to get tired, or bored, or discouraged by people voting for them to stop killing our soldiers and our Iraqi allies?

Have you even considered how stupid of a way of waging a war that is? You cripple, destroy, and outright deny your enemy’s capability to fight. With an insurgency, you don’t wait around in small numbers to fight, trying to win by thinning out their numbers or waiting out their resolve to fight. You show up in force, sitting on the country as a whole and denying them any place of sanctuary to return to. Maybe you believe in pointless chasing around, and retaking positions we’ve won after having to chase off after somebody else, but I don’t.

I believe in effective military policy. That’s why I originally opposed going to war in Iraq. That’s why Colin Powell’s evidence made me pause and consider that it might be right after all, and that’s why I cheered our fairly easy victory over Saddam’s regime. It is also why I am livid about the poor planning, supplying, and justification for this war. If Iraq did not have WMDs, or terrorists there in any great presence, we were better off picking some other country to roll tanks into. If you’re worried about freeing people, how about freeing folks in Somalia, or making sure the people in Afghanistan had a real government instead of a glorified mayorship of Kabul. We didn’t need to be getting into unnecessary battles in this war against terrorism. We need to be targeting those places which were actually supporting those efforts, and then wiping the fuckers off the map. But no, we had to go into Iraq. Now we’re there, there are consequences for leaving that could erase all the good stomping the Taliban did. One step forward, two steps back. Does that strike you as a way to wage a war?

This isn’t a game, where just playing is what counts. This is real life, and more sons and daughters are going to die for Bush’s mistake if he doesn’t stop playing scapegoat with us liberals, and start attending to winning the real war overseas with overwhelming strength and power. More soldiers are going get dumped in there after this current

But go ahead. pick on some old lady. Years from now, you can grouse about how your country was betrayed from within, and you can say with pride that you cussed out the mother of a dead soldier. Meanwhile, you’re going to let the failure to properly equip and lead our soldiers slide. You’re going to let the failure to find a real target slide. Why? Because the people complaining about this aren’t in your political party, and they’re opposing your dear old leaders, and the popularity of his plan is all everybody has to hope for, right?

Jim T.-
To put it frankly, I think the left is mostly where you see myself to be, left of center, rather than just right of Karl Marx. If there’s been any shift, I think the political climate is responsible. What good is it to take more rightward positions with a war like this, when the people involved will just reject your recommendations and continue on the path this tragic war has followed for too long.

In the end, if we are to win this thing, our president must appeal to both sides, to all side, and reconcile America, rather than continuing to silently let the right tear into the left, and let both sides radicalize in their anger. I’m no big fan of radicalism. I think radicals too often indulge their beliefs at the costs of their perceptions. Problem is, Bush is surround by radicals himself, people who take their intellectual cues from the ethos of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, who take their moral cuse from a philosopher who condones lying to people. It’s ironic, but in this most Republican of administrations, we see a virtual politburo, where the decisions are all made more according to political considerations than practical ones.

They’re not communists, I know, but they inherited those weakness of the disregard of practical dissenting opinions. My fear is that nothing’s going to break through to these people until they’re out of office, out of this White House bubble.

I think this is what makes the attacks on Sheehan and all the others such a crucial issue to people. We’re knocking our heads against this wall of secrecy and political stonewalling, hoping, wishing something would get through, and knowing that if it doesn’t, things could get very bad for this country. We’re desperate, not to unseat Bush, but just get him to listen, and understand what the folks outside his bubble need.

The media is pretty easy to manipulate. If Bush wants to end the coverage of Sheehan, all he has to do is find some plausible reason to cut his month long vacation short and get back to the White House. He leaves, the press leaves, Sheehan leaves. End of story, literally and figuratively.

Hell, maybe he could “invite” the constitution writers in Iraq to Washington for a head banging session (or even go there himself). That way he wouldn’t appear to be a modern day version of Nero, fiddling around in Crawford while Baghdad burns.

Nothing this woman, or a woman who supports the
war, can change the fact that this is George W.
Bush’s personal war. He brought it to the
presidency in 2000 with his “Axis of Evil”
declaration. You may have thought he was going
to play patty cake with these people but i and
many others knew better.

Old James-
The Axis of Evil declaration occured two years later. As for believing he was going to play pattycake, no I never assumed that. I did assume that he would not lead us to war unless we had the best support for doing so, in men, materials and international terms. I never though our soldiers would have to settle for warm wishes from home in lieu of armor and manpower.

—Stephen Daugherty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The term axis of evil was used by United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002 to describe “regimes that sponsor terror”. The states Bush gave in his speech were Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

I wonder why no one puts the partisan crap away and just argues the facts.

The over-all point that needs to be made is that while Sheehan’s desire to remove ALL US troops is a polar extreme she does have some central points that deserve honest, intellectual debate. No party-aligned support babble. Blind party support is a disservice to our troops and to our nation. Pulling out now would be an enormous mistake, but continuing current policy isn’t doing much better either…August ’05 is shaping up to be a pretty bad month over there…even worse than a year ago.

Red or Blue it does not matter…as an American I am seriously concerned about the state of our union. We are in a war that was started based on faulty information…intentional or not. ALL of you have to admit that if a CEO of a Fortune 500 company had a track record similar to this President’s he would have long since been fired. Period. If your boss had been this wrong about any single project under his/her direct control you know in your heart that they would have been fired or at least severely reprimanded.

Just the facts folks…just the facts. Forget your party affiliation…make a list of assertions made before the war and then next to those entries write down the now known realities. It’s startling how many of the facts given at the time and assertions made (some even to this day) were and are COMPLETELY wrong…maybe not intentionally but nonetheless wrong.

I don’t hate Bush, I’d actually love to have a brew with the guy, but boy he has mangled this war pretty bad. I don’t want him out of office or impeached either. I just want him to acknowledge his errors publicly, regain public good will and support, and then reach out for help from where ever it is offered. A good, God fearing man is not concerned with saving face…he is concerned with the safety and well being of ALL men, women, and children (regardless of color, religion, or nationality), especially those he placed in harms way. Humility is the grace of God living in man.

Come on people…please just examine the facts and maybe, just maybe, we can save our troops, the Iraqis, and ultimately us all. God bless America and may he give sight to the party aligned blind.

McCain ’08! We need an actual soldier to lead our troops…no more pretend warriors, Bill or George.

Not everyone in this country is a jew hating, anti american sign carrying liberal.

Ken, is that what it says on your yellow ribbon magnet?

It seems the Bush Bashers have no respect for anyone except their perverted agenda and they do not care what or whom is hurt in the process of trying to regain power. I question the motives of Mrs Sheehan just as I question those peoples motives that support her. We all know what moveon.org stands for, the weak of mind.
It’s no wonder Sheehan’s husband is divorcing her, that her mother had a stroke, and friends and family have abandoned her. Not everyone in this country is a jew hating, anti american sign carrying liberal. I would like for someone to tell me what freedom has been won, or preserved by a sign carrying big mouthed liberal?
_______________________________________________

Ken,
You are a very cruel man. To put Mrs. Sheehan’s divorce and the stoke of her Mother on the line is simply going to far. Do you have any idea the number of mariages that break-up after the death of a child? And to use her Mother’s health in your Sheehan bashing is just plain wrong. Prehaps we need to walk a mile in the other guys’ shoes before we start pointing figures, purple or not. Also since you chose to use the words “Not everyone in this country is a jew hating, anti american sign carrying liberal”,you make me wonder at least, what you truly believe freedom is… As Shakespeare said, “Me thinks thou protests to much.” Sounds to me like you might be the very bigot you critize. Also, unless I am teribly mis-informed, I think this is a forum that does not condone bigoty, name calling or just plain old hatred. On this side of the blog, or the other.

Oh, and by the way , the freedom you are referring to is the one you and I are both using now - the right to speak ones’ mind, (you see, the Americans were considered the Liberals back when England was in charge)
Linda H.

Just thought you guys should knowthat Cindy Sheehan has her opponent now.

The part I thought most telling was this:

Qualls’ frustration with the anti-war demonstrators erupted last week when he removed a cross bearing his son’s name that was among hundreds the group had put up along the road to Bush’s ranch.

Qualls called the protesters’ views disrespectful to soldiers, and said he had to yank out two more crosses after protesters kept replacing them.

Cindy Sheehan has demanded Bush not use her son’s name, that he doesn’t have permission, yet her fellow protesters are quite willing to use the names of other soldiers without permission.

Well I think that Sheehan has got a lot of publicity because that is what makes money for the news channels. Anything sensational gets a lot of coverage because Americans like sensational showes. If we don’t watch the channel that has the most coverage, or stop watching all together. Eventually the news industry will get the idea to change subjects.

As far as I can see, Sheehan should not be blaming Mr. Bush for her son going to Iraq and dying. Her son volunteered, he served, and sadly he died.

i don’t know what sheehan smoked, but she definitely got the attention she needed, and she should stop taking advantage of the president.

Heaven forbid Sheehan should expect competence from her Government.

The NYT has an interesting article on this:

__________________________________________________
“The public knows that what matters this time is Casey Sheehan’s story, not the mother who symbolizes it. Cindy Sheehan’s bashers, you’ll notice, almost never tell her son’s story. They are afraid to go there because this young man’s life and death encapsulate not just the noble intentions of those who went to fight this war but also the hubris, incompetence and recklessness of those who gave the marching orders.

Specialist Sheehan was both literally and figuratively an Eagle Scout: a church group leader and honor student whose desire to serve his country drove him to enlist before 9/11, in 2000. He died with six other soldiers on a rescue mission in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, at the age of 24, the week after four American security workers had been mutilated in Falluja and two weeks after he arrived in Iraq. This was almost a year after the president had declared the end of “major combat operations” from the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln.

According to the account of the battle by John F. Burns in The Times, the insurgents who slaughtered Specialist Sheehan and his cohort were militiamen loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric. The Americans probably didn’t stand a chance. As Mr. Burns reported, members of “the new Iraqi-trained police and civil defense force” abandoned their posts at checkpoints and police stations “almost as soon as the militiamen appeared with their weapons, leaving the militiamen in unchallenged control.”

Yet in the month before Casey Sheehan’s death, Mr. Rumsfeld typically went out of his way to inflate the size and prowess of these Iraqi security forces, claiming in successive interviews that there were “over 200,000 Iraqis that have been trained and equipped” and that they were “out on the front line taking the brunt of the violence.” We’ll have to wait for historians to tell us whether this and all the other Rumsfeld propaganda came about because he was lied to by subordinates or lying to himself or lying to us or some combination thereof.

As The Times reported last month, even now, more than a year later, a declassified Pentagon assessment puts the total count of Iraqi troops and police officers at 171,500, with only “a small number” able to fight insurgents without American assistance. As for Moktada al-Sadr, he remains as much a player as ever in the new “democratic” Iraq. He controls one of the larger blocs in the National Assembly. His loyalists may have been responsible for last month’s apparently vengeful murder of Steven Vincent, the American freelance journalist who wrote in The Times that Mr. Sadr’s followers had infiltrated Basra’s politics and police force.”

So tell me, whatever happened to Al Sadr? He WAS responsible for many US and Iraqi deaths.

Let Cindy Sheehan meet the President

I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.

Let her meet with the President.

That’s right. I’ve finally changed my tune.

Let her meet with the President who thwarted the United Nations Security Council and made the case for war.

Let her meet with the President who hindered the progress of United Nations weapons inspectors.

Let her meet with the President who lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction that they’d use on Americans.

Let her meet with the President who killed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Let her meet with the President who came to office in a rigged election, and maintained his grip on power through rigged voting and militaristic patriotism.

Let her meet with the President who turned his country’s media into a mouthpiece for his fascist and discriminatory policies.

Let her meet with the President who transformed his country into a single-party dictatorship, sowing fear and resentment against any who dared to oppose his iron-fisted rule.

Let her meet with the President who proved himself a coward by fleeing when his country was attacked.

Let her meet with the President who should be brought up on war crimes charges for his dastardly misdeeds.

Let her meet with the President who spent billions of dollars on weapons while social welfare programs went unfunded and the poor continue to suffer for it to this day.

Let her meet with the President who has a track record of invading Arab Muslim countries for oil.

Let her meet with the President who knew full well about the bloodthirsty torture and murderous horrors at Abu Ghraib.

That’s right. Let her meet with Saddam Hussein.

http://isfullofcrap.com/oldcrap/2005/08/let_cindy_sheeh.html

KEN—-

Freedom of Speech

Wow, it is indeed amazing at the similarities between Mr. Bush and Mr. Hussein.

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush’s focus on the long term rather than the immediate is “part of what to his supporters is steadfastness, and to his critics is stubbornness.”

“If you allow those who are the most vocal and most antagonistic to get a meeting with the president for fear that publicity will hurt you if you don’t, you’re creating incentives for your critics to become even more antagonistic and more vocal,” Fleischer said. “Then, you’re forever stuck in: Will you or won’t you meet? You’ll no longer lead. You’ll just wrestle with meetings.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002447400_mom21.html

—-
Wow, it is indeed amazing at the similarities between Mr. Bush and Mr. Hussein.
—-

Naw - Bush has WMDs.

Did Ms Sheehan go to he sons commander and ask why?
Did she demand to see her sons army recruiter? Did she demand to see the terrorist who killed her son?

Of course not, that wouldn’t give her publicity and support from Michael Moore, et.al.

As a soldier, don’t dishonor what I volunteered for, don’t dishoner what I fought for, and don’t dishoner (if so beit) what I died for.

Go and mourn your son Ms Sheehan, don’t make your sons death a political statement.

Mr. Aintsocommon-
Saddam made himself an easy tyrant to hate, but he’s not the one we trusted to exercise good judgment in leading our country. Saddam’s history made it easy for those without Bush’s security clearance to believe that he might really be the threat described, but the fact is, even before we went to war, this government new they were not sending us into conflict on a tight case. That might not seem important to you, but since this war was justified to our people and to the international community on the basis of a definitive case, it is of grave concern why the evidence prepared collapsed on so many fronts. A few mess-ups are understandable. But just about everything? That takes an extraordinary amount of either apathy or dishonesty, and those demand accountability.

So far, the intelligence failures that have taken place during Bush’s time in office have killed around 5,000 Americans. Most of 9/11 wasn’t anybody’s fault in particular, but with Iraq, it’s quite obvious they wanted this war.

With our kind of goverment, part of the point is that the wishes of those in power is moderated by the facts of the real world. The offense of the Bush administration wasn’t wanting this war.

Many of us, myself included, would have liked to see Saddam fall. But we knew in this day and age that the War against terrorism took priority. Only by convincing Americans that Saddam was more than just some residual headache in the Middle East, could the war be justified. That’s what made WMDs and Terrorists important justifications. Without them, the popular support for going to war could never have been attained.

Saddam, knowing he would lose any war with us, did not directly provoke us. He goaded us, hoping to make us either give up in frustration, or have us do something stupid like attacking him without justification, a position from which he could play victim, and had done so many times. He never counted on being run over so quickly. Unfortunately, our military leaders did not count on being stuck in place, insufficiently supported by the populace.

That is how we got into this mess, and the Bush administration’s inability to deal patiently with problems that were minor in character played the biggest role in the current debacle.

Mike-
If your son’s life can’t be included in a political statement, how do you address your grievance when a president’s policy gets him killed? Are we to stifle our protests when the most important matters come to bear?

You can only shut her up by making her objections moot- Either fighting this war to win it, or withdrawing it. I think you’d rather do the first, but the fact is, you’re not. Your advocacy has been restrict to enabling Bush’s stonewalling, and all that’s getting you is a plan persisted in from pride, and not practicality.

Stephen, did Sheehan protest the president when her son was alive? No
Did Bush meet with Sheehan? Yes
Did Sheehan speak positive about the Bush meeting? Yes

Did Sheehan meet with Moore, and the anti-bush dems later and change her tune for politics, Yes

A plan persisted from pracicality, that is not a soldiers choice. We expect our leaders to make those choices, and our fellow Americans to back us up.

I was not or am not in favor of the war, but our soldiers, airmen, sailors & marines are volunteers. If thrown into battle, we will serve and fight with honor.

Stephen, don’t let your hatred for the president blind you from seeing Sheehan manipulated as a political token.

There are plenty of gold-star mothers who honor their sons & daughters, but you won’t see right-wing political cronnies usng them for politics. Only left-wingers would stoop this low. Who would have guessed Michael Moore, the “historian” was behind this.

—-
Did Sheehan meet with Moore, and the anti-bush dems later and change her tune for politics, Yes
—-
Wow - that’s a pretty crazy twist… she met with Moore when she had her current state of mind.

Also - Bush has used the military as ‘political tokens’ from the start, as a shield from political accusations and responsibility. Also - using the death of soldiers to show the horrible cost of war seems honorable to me… Also - volunteers don’t get paid. Our soldiers are professionals. And how do you explain the reservists who were pulled out of retirement and shipped to Iraq without them ‘volunteering’?

Daugherty,

I only despise Sheehan’s decision to use and to allow others to use her son’s sacrifice for his country as liberal political capital (interpret BS).

He died for his country, right or wrong. That was an honorable thing to do. Its too bad his sacrifice is being turned upside down and made to look stupid, senseless, and useless.

I am proud of our men and women in uniform, who are willing to give their own blood for Iraq’s freedom. I am NOT prouid of a mother who does not honor the choices her son made.

Hey Tony…

Reservists volunteered. Get over the idea they did not choose to be reservists with full knowledge of what that means.

Reservists get paid for reserve and for active duty. What are you thinking about? By the way, we ARE professional!

Pulled out of retirement? Come on, “inactive” does NOT mean retired. Been there, done that. It means you don’t go to meetings, but you are STILL obligated to keep the oath you took in the beginning until “discharged”.

I said…
“Also - volunteers don’t get paid. Our soldiers are professionals.” (personally, I feel it demeans our soldiers my calling them volunteers… they are extremely skilled specialists… professionals. That’s my point.)

And you counter…
“Reservists get paid for reserve and for active duty. What are you thinking about? By the way, we ARE professional!”

Wow. You took the words right out of my mouth. Sorry, but no idea what tossing my words back me is suppose to me.

btw- my parents neighbor (just turned 64 - RETIRED) was sent to Iraq at the beginning of the war in Iraq to help build bridges and install electrical gear. He didn’t want to go - but he did. However you want to explain it, it’s not exactly volunteering like I volunteer. I was simply pointing out a difference.

RIGHT ON THE MARK KEN

Did anyone notice how hard it is for some people in this forum to stay on topic? If I said it was raining outside some bush basher would say yeah it’s raining but Bush lied about it. Sheehan has voiced her anti jew crap, said that the United States wasn’t worth dieing for,etc…. I guess she knows more than the rest of the country just how her freedom to spew such hatred was won? Many brave men and women both military and civ. have died so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have today. I’ll just bet that all the Bush bashing libs who post in this forum and others think that there has never been a war worth fighting. War is a terrible thing. I have fought and the memory is with me everyday, but sometimes it’s a necessary evil if one’s way of life is to be protected. There is evil in this world, and I consider those who would murder our citizens, wherever they are to be evil. It is sad that all that you ever hear from the left is hate. I haven’t heard one dem, or one dem lib present a solution to any problems. I guess it’s not unexpected from a group of people who run from personal responsibility. The silent majority has finally spoken in this country and the “progressive, lib dems” are losing their minds. For the first time in several yrs they have realized their sick and sometimes perverted agendas have been rejected by main stream America. After reading the posts in this forum I would suggest those defending Sheehan do a little research. Yes sheehan has bashed jews, yes she said American wasn’t worth dieing for, and now she has spoken at a meeting supporting a terrorist per se. Ken was right in his previous post and I find it humourous that some people that post in this fourm are so ill imformed.

Is this what you mean by bashing Jews?
—-
Radio host and former Nixon administration official G. Gordon Liddy called Sheehan “anti-Semitic,” claiming that Sheehan’s use of the term “neocons” is a code word for “the Jews in the Pentagon.”

From the August 17 edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes:

LIDDY: Well, I think that it’s true that there are Americans who feel the way Cindy Sheehan does. Unfortunately, they are Americans who are very anti-Israel and, in some ways, anti-Semitic. She uses the term how the “neocons” are doing this thing — that’s code word for “the Jews in the Pentagon.” She has made statements such as —

ALAN COLMES (co-host): Are you calling her anti-Semitic?

LIDDY: Yes. If she gets Israel out of Palestine, then we can get out of Iraq. I mean, check out her statements, she’s way out there.

COLMES: Cindy Sheehan’s anti-Semitic?

LIDDY: Yes.

COLMES: That’s outrageous.
—-

By using the word ‘neocon’? Grab a dictionary and check out the meaning of the word. (Neocon: a conservative who subscribes to neoconservativism.) I hope you have more facts to back up your attacks on Sheehan.

As far as the rest of your statement:
“Yes sheehan has bashed jews, yes she said American wasn’t worth dieing for, and now she has spoken at a meeting supporting a terrorist per se.”

What!?!? Excuse me? Are you suggesting that merre act of questioning Bush is attacking America itself? And this whole ‘supporting a terrorists’ claim. Please support your claims. (Or do you need to take a break from your talking-point sheet and see the real world?)

Tony
What!?!? Excuse me? Are you suggesting that merre act of questioning Bush is attacking America itself? And this whole ‘supporting a terrorists’ claim. Please support your claims. (Or do you need to take a break from your talking-point sheet and see the real world?)

See what I mean? The forum was about sheehan and her anti semitic comments, her leftist propaganda all the while dragging her son’s good name through the mud and here we have a lib who cannont defend her so must resort to the ole “if you bash bush you’re unamerican” lib crap. I wonder if they actually believe that crap or they just think everyone else is dumb enough that if they hear it enough they will believe it? Tony as far as supporting claims, all you you have to do is try watching the news sometime. You must be the only one in the US who hasn’t seen sheehan on TV at the meeting supporting a gentleman who was convicted of helping terrorists. I suggest you either buy yourself another TV or get cable! That antenna stuck up on the roof isn’t doing it for you. Mrs. Sheehan has disgraced the memory of her son and made statements that only aid the terrorist. I’m sorry that simple minds cannot understand that fact. I think US History needs to be taught a little better in our schools. If we had the people we have now in the 30’s-40’s we would be speaking German on the East Coast and Japanese on the West. Oh how soon we forget. It is evident to anyone who has watched the news and not Hannity and Colmes is that you are very ill informed individual. I suggest you read and watch instead of catching the headlines and adding your own “this is the way news” ideas to everything. Prove me Wrong! You Can’t! Personally I don’t care if you Bash BUsh or anyone or anything else in this country! If you don’t like it leave it! The measure of a country is not how many people want out but how many want in!

James -

Thanks for your thoroughly confusing rant. Please - explain to me the anti-Semitic thing? The supporting terrorist thing? I have a TV, but I know better than to trust what is presented there. Link to proof? Something?

Prove it or get over it.

Well Tony here it is since you are incapable of doing the research yourself. Nothing I like better than education a liberal. http://www.nysun.com/article/18436 There is your link. Now if you care to look there are more. I’m sure that the link I furnished will not be satisfactory for you. This is the never ending story of which certain people try to justify their hate for country and a certain president by supporting anything and anyone whom they can. Bye now.

… an editorial from The Sun. Wow. Fact in it’s finest form: conservative opinion.

Wow… shucks… golly geee…. I’ll go hide my face now.

:)

Yes, what Ms. Sheehan is doing is disgraceful to her son’s memory.
I was unaware that the draft was reinstated! Last time I checked her son signed up for the military. Not “ok i’ll go if I agree with the war” but no matter what. This woman is only doing it for attention. Why bother the president a second time? He cares, but he doesn’t have the time to go to each family individually. Though I’m sure he’d like to. We can’t say “Why didn’t the president have the decency to speak with this woman again?” Well, then she would get exactly what she wants, to be in the paper, to be on the news more. Then families all over the country who have had loved ones die will sit in front of their television sets and say “I guess we have to make a mockery of our child’s life in order to get attention.” No, I don’t think so.
America is full of a bunch of selfish whiners!
What makes this woman think she’s so damn special! That her son is any more special than any of the other men who’ve died.
And people, let’s not forget about the war that is still going on in Afghanistan. My husband just returned from over there for a year.
Everyone thinks that things are calm in Afghanistan and you know why? Because the media hardly ever covers that country! Why? Because our country is making progress in Afghanistan. And our LEFT WINGED FRIENDS do not want the president to look good on any account now do they?
BUT! My husband saw a lot of awful things, the boys and girls in Iraq are not the only ones. It’s no worse there, it’s just as bad in Afghanistan, we just have more control over Afghanistan right now.

I’ll speak my mind.
I love Bush!
I’m all for this war!
And miss Cindy sheehan can march her ass on back to her house for all i’m concerned!

—-
I’ll speak my mind.
I love Bush!
I’m all for this war!
—-

I’ll speak my mind.
I hate Bush!
I’m all against this war!

Well, now that that’s all settle…

Richard-
I think Casey Sheehan would understand his mother’s grief and would comfort her pain. He was a compassionate man, by all accounts. It mystifies me that folks on the right miss that. But they want an avenging ghost haunting this mother, chiding her for not keeping faith with the war effort.

He died for his country, for those he loved, for the soldiers beside him, and for the Iraqis he was trying to help.

He did not die because he loved a war, or a strategy. His sacrifice was not made to this war, and therefore criticizing, even calling an end to this war is not a betrayal of that sacrifice. You want to make this into another test of loyalty, then you’ve lost perspective.

Our Soldiers do not swear themselves to a president, or to a general with a plan. They swear themselves to the rest of us, to the law under which all their fellow citizens live.

Most importantly, once they have volunteered, they give up their freedom to do as they please with their lives. They put their lives in the hands of our President. And that President answers to us.

You may consider him our national savior, but others think otherwise. This woman, in light of all that has happened, deserves to get some kind of answer from this president. You may call what she’s doing exploiting her son’s memory, but her son’s memory doesn’t belong to you, and you make your picture of him do in death what he would never do in life.

I too am proud of our soldiers, not only for fighting this war with all their hearts, for risking their lives, but also for doing so even in the face of the failures of their leaders to do their jobs. We don’t think our soldiers or our fellow citizens are the problem, and they should know that most Americans would see them return with honor.

The only leftist propaganda here is the bullshit you’re pushing about the leftists. You guys are fond of pointing out this isn’t Vietnam, and in this case, you’re damn right it isn’t. This country has had a chance to learn it’s lessons about that last war. Some of those lessons failed to sink in. Respect for our soldiers is one that I am proud to say is not a lesson unlearned.

Do we really mean it? Maybe in your paranoia, you assume we don’t. But as I’ve always said, Paranoia is waste of good suspicion. Most people can be taken at their word on something like that.

We remember WWII. We remember we didn’t need a faulty case for war to send us against the real Axis of Evil. We knew who our enemy was, our government came together to foster nationwide support, instead of turning one part of the country against the other to win a mid-term election. And most importantly, when the difficulties arose, our armies could improvise with the support of their commanders to put men and equipment where they needed to be. If Bush had been in charge of Normandy, we would have never gotten farther than the hedgerows, and most of Europe would have gone communist. Why? Because when faced with difficulty, he would have gotten stuck in his old strategy, and excused a lack of progress and an excess of micromanagement by appealing to patriotism and attacking anybody who said he wasn’t getting where he needed to go fast enough.

I’m personally tired of president who attacks his critics, rather than silencing them by his progress. I want a president who can make me shut up by making my concerns and complaints moot points. You just want everybody you disagree with to shut up and take your point of view.

Jessica McPeak-
As I mentioned before, a soldier, once he’s volunteered has no choice as to which war he fights, or even which part. He is bound to follow all legal orders given to him.

Not everybody who signs up again loves this president, this war, and this strategy. People might return because their fellow soldiers are still there. Or they want to do their best to help the Iraqis. Or maybe they just feel it’s a point of honor to serve their country in a time of need.

Our concern for the soldiers is genuine. Those who actually had to fight this last war have been among the greatest critics of how this one has been waged. And it’s greatest supporters never once risked their lives in combat. They dreamed of a glorious war to change the middle east, to spread freedom. At this point we’ll be lucky to break even, to prevent Iraq from becoming the terrorist hellhole we began this war to destroy.

As this war was originally justified, we never really had the chance to fight it. There was no WMD threat from terrorists cooperating with Saddam Hussein. What we got instead was a dishonestly sold sequel to the Gulf War that many of the key administration figures had been itching for since that last conflict ended.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with Afghanistan as a battlefield. In fact I would have had Bush concentrate on getting that country permanently out of the dark ages before going on an elective jaunt into Iraq.

What can I say? I’m royally pissed off that we haven’t properly fought Iraq, nor captured the one man in all the world who was really responsible for the pain and suffering for 9/11. We’ve had Saddam in custody for almost a couple years now. four years down the line, and we’re still looking for the bastard who brought down the buildings. What kind of crap is that?

We could have fought a real war on terror and send the unmixed message about what happens to those who draw innocent American blood. Instead, we had to invade a country and then failing to keep the targets off our soldier’s backs. I want those terrorists defeated, but it seems like this adminstration is happy with trying to wait until these fanatics stop caring enough to kill us.

Nathan, I think this is the first time I’ve agreed with one of your articles. The media - looking for controversy, as usual - is blowing this WAY out of proportion. The whole story involves a few hundred anti-war protesters, and even fewer counter-protesters. Get back to me when Sheehan has a million signatures on a petition.

Amen Nathan and Jim T.. Mr. Bush does not have time to personally address every person in this nation that would like to talk to him, much as he would probably like to. The only way Mrs. Sheehan son will have died for nothing is if we pull out of Iraq like she wants.

William Morris - I agree. Thank you for those words.

I think that this war is bull crap.I had a friend that died in that war Sunday and my heart is broken and broken for the families that have lost a loved one.All you people that support Bush,have you had anyone to die or have you served?If you still support him after the deaths of your loved one or the other families lost loved ones,you apparently don’t look at the facts of this war or why we are there.This world runs on money and that is why our soldiers are there and that is what they are dieing for.If Bush puts us in any more debt,we will never stay out of war and do you think Bush sitting there in the white house getting his hard earned money by the civilians working is worried about the broken hearts of the american people,I think not.Did we go to war so Bush could finish what his father started or money or pride?

To Sari - my husband just got back from Afghanistan so yes, him and I both support this war. Seems to me like you’re the one who doesn’t know the facts about this war.What this war is all about - Religion. Whether people want to admitt it or not, it’s always about religion with these people especially. That’s what makes the war go around and eventually, what will destroy it. It’s people like you that my husband, a real soldier, cannot stand.
If you do not support Bush, you don’t support this country and you do not support our troops. Since people like you can’t understand what this war is really about.

—-
If you do not support Bush, you don’t support this country and you do not support our troops. Since people like you can’t understand what this war is really about.
—-

Wow. Glad to see people here can be so sensitive. This has to be one of the most callous responses I’ve read in a while. Sari states that she has just lost a friend in this war, and you state that you and your husband can not stand her. Brilliant!

Please explain how you own ‘support for our country and our troops’ vs those of use who oppose the war? Support = sending soldiers into battle without proper armor? Support = reduction in health benefits for military families? Support = lack of planning getting us into this war + improper planning for ‘winning the peace.’ Support = justifying a pro-Iranian government in Iraq as successful expenditure of 1900 American lives and $300B.

If that’s support to you, then you don’t ‘understand what this war is really about.’

Sari -

I am sorry for your loss… and I’ve felt the way you do for a while. No - I have not served in the military. I’ve provided a good bit of training for the military, but never served. I think we all have the deepest respect for those who serve. I also think many of us feel a deep sense remorse for those who have died, and for the ever-changing reasons for them being put into harms way.

I do think it absolutely the responsibility of everyone not serving to stay engaged and demand from our leaders clear and honest answers to why the war was started and when our soldiers will be coming home.

I can understand that taking a stance against the war might anger some, but pretending things are true or not - or lying to make others feel comfort belongs to discussing Santa Clause with children. Adults in life or death situations deserve to know the truth, and to know both sides of the issue.