September 16, 2005
Get our troops out...
…of New Orleans? The spokesman for the anti-war movement has spoken. Our soldiers are not welcome in Iraq or New Orleans! Cindy Sheehan has been the darling of the media and the left for several months now, such that they pronounced that she is sparking an anti-war movement just like that of the Vietnam era (when we had protestors spitting on soldiers). Unfortunately that seems to be the history they want to repeat.
George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power. The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they don't fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest. michaelmoore.com
Cindy's surreal mistrust of soldiers is exhibited when she says that she is 'troubled by the military presence in Louisiana'. She also says Bush has done nothing to help the people of Louisiana, so I'm not sure if she equates the two beyond the fact that soldiers are bad, bad, bad people and should be stopped before they kill again.
Which is funny because she does not seem to consider that they are the sons of Americans just like her son or she would have a slightly different feeling about them. When I see a soldier today my instinct is to thank them not heap scorn upon them. But then I don't have to carry around the cognitive dissonance of opposing the war but not the soldiers.
One thing that truly troubled me about my visit to Louisiana was the level of the military presence there. I imagined before that if the military had to be used in a CONUS (Continental US) operations that they would be there to help the citizens: Clothe them, feed them, shelter them, and protect them. But what I saw was a city that is occupied. I saw soldiers walking around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. I wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me. Sand bags were removed from private property to make machine gun nests.
Charitably speaking, if one weren't bent on believing the worst of young men who happen to be soldiers just like her son, one might consider that they are in fact there to, "protect," and not just there to oppress the people of New Orleans.
But this is the mentality and outlook of the anti-war movement. It is driven primarily by those who do not see the American military as good. Instead they hail terrorists killing Iraqi civilians as freedom fighters and they actively try to, "choke off the Army’s stream of recruits" in order to cause us to withdraw from Iraq. Just who are they rooting for? I guess no right left thinking liberal would voluntarily join the military knowing that they will be killing babies and innocent people. Which doesn't explain their support for a draft at all.
It's sad that the media stopped propping up Cindy Sheehan only when a bigger news story came along. What's sadder is that rather than reporting the whole truth about these left wing anti-warriors, they instead actively cover up what their true views are. When Cindy Sheehan said her son was not a hero but a, "war victim," and that terrorists in Iraq were freedom fighters, those portions were conveniently left out of the CBS audio interview.
Posted by Eric Simonson at September 16, 2005 06:07 PMWhat has me in stitches is I parodied Cindy Sheehan in my blog last week calling for the withdrawal of troops from New Orleans. Now she really has gone and done it. Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are Parodies of themselves!
Posted by: Ken Bingham at September 16, 2005 06:28 PMIt’s sad that the media stopped propping up Cindy Sheehan only when a bigger news story came along.
No, it’s sad that you continue to complain about the attention this woman is getting, while you and the rest of the right are the only ones giving her any attention.
Posted by: Burt at September 16, 2005 06:48 PMEric,
“Cindy Sheehan has been the darling of the media and the left for several months now, such that they pronounced that she is sparking an anti-war movement just like that of the Vietnam era (when we had protestors spitting on soldiers).”
Evrey time there is an hint of an anti-war movement, this one abhorent incident comes up. It happened once Eric, just once, but to further your agenda, you repeat it.
“Sand bags were removed from private property to make machine gun nests.”
“Charitably speaking, if one weren’t bent on believing the worst of young men who happen to be soldiers just like her son, one might consider that they are in fact there to, “protect,” and not just there to oppress the people of New Orleans.
Machine gun nests?
Just exactly who are they “protecting” the folks of New Orleans from?
Typical right wing tactic. Find something outrageous that ONE person said and use it to discredit EVERYONE.
Using that tactic, I can say this:
Ann Coulter is a conservative. She called for the assassination of President Clinton (“the only question is whether to impeach or to assassinate”). She also said that “the only way to talk to a liberal is with a baseball bat”. This proves that all conservatives advocate violence and murder. See how evil they are?
What a crock.
Rocky
Evrey time there is an hint of an anti-war movement, this one abhorent incident comes up. It happened once Eric, just once, but to further your agenda, you repeat it.
I happened a lot more than once! I happened to me twice. And how many other GIs?
Machine gun nests?
Just exactly who are they “protecting” the folks of New Orleans from?
Try the gangs that are raping, killing, and looting. I’d sure use a machine gun on those low lifes.
Once again Cindy Sheenan is showing her haterd for the military. She has that right. And the military will continue to defend her right.
Ron,
Other than in “The Incident” in Detroit, where else did it happen?
Posted by: Rocky at September 16, 2005 07:33 PM2006 won’t be won or lost by those who buy into this sensationalistic drivel. It is just another sign of desperation by those losing their grip on their losing team. As if it was some kind of sport.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 16, 2005 07:33 PMAre people still paying any attention to Cindy Sheehan? Man, that’s kind of sad when you think about it. Her son died in Iraq. Yeah, ok, it’s sad and must be very hard for her. But that puts her in the news how?
But on to other things… The only reason the left has a problem with the situation in Louisiana is because they didn’t vote for Bush and just want to hang him. (Figuratively speaking I’m sure.) The right would be having the same problem with Kerry were he in office right now. We would be complaining about how he failed to respond properly to the situation in LA. Then we would comlpain agian because he did respond. But, oh, of cousre he didn’t respond the way we would have done. My goodness, put soldiers in a civilian area to help keep the peace, help out where needed, and minimize vandalism? Who would have thunk it!?
Posted by: Cherish at September 16, 2005 07:34 PMCongratulations, Eric. You hit your misinterpretation quota for the month.
Reading what she wrote, her concern was that instead of being part of the relief effort in terms of helping out on the ground the only purpose of the soldiers she saw, apparently, was to enforce martial law. She also wrote about the unfair and arbitrary policies applied to the effort, a judgment few Americans could entirely disagree with.
Regarding the “freedom fighter” quote, it’s a poor choice of words, but one that bears contextualizing. She said:
No, because it’s not true,” Sheehan replied. “You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they’re not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country.”
Nothing radical, just the current line from counterterrorism experts about why Iraq was such a bad idea. As for what’s in the brackets, that’s typically what a news organization does to replace a pronoun as quoted with a subject, and these people likely got it wrong. I’ve heard of no argument by Cindy Sheehan directed towards the troops themselves, so I rather doubt they put the right words in her mouth.
Additionally, calling them freedom fighters may have been an unfortunate choice of words more than an approval of what they did. After all, if she liked what they were doing so much, why would she be calling for an end to the war? That would just prevent more of those soldiers you would say she so hates from getting killed.
You jump on these little details so quick you rarely have time to read the rest of the articles, or notice little things about what you’re commenting on. The article that says its a good thing that an American jet is shot down is itself almost immediately shot down by a reader in its first comment, criticizing the author for his glee at soldier’s deaths. As for the recruiter story, the people are well within their rights, and their goal is a logical one considering their anti-war view.
You yourself deserve to be shot down for your factual inaccuracy, shot down with the facts, that is. about forty percent of your armed forces are liberals and lefties. Perhaps since you measure loyalty to this country by loyalty to your party, they don’t count, but any truly objective source will tell you that not all Democrats oppose the successful conclusion of the Iraq war. Hell, I’ll tell you that right out. Unfortunately, your party has successfully made the main argument about staying versus going, and argument that would have never come to pass had you made disagreement with Bush’s policy disagreement and not complete opposition to success.
You’re too normative in your thinking, too apt to think people are illogical or full of evil intentions because they don’t follow your logic, or agree with your definition of evil in the details. As a result, you and your party fail to form a coalition with the non-pacifist left, a move that might have done your party good in the future. But you guys are more interested in defending the idea of the war than the reality of what its operations mean on the ground level, and what it means to American lives back home.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 16, 2005 07:51 PMCherish-
The criticism of the Federal effort was near universal. It’s difficult to rationalize people starving and thirsting, baking in the midst of their own filth.
Democrats have a simple way of dealing with that difficult. We don’t even try. If Bush had stepped up to the plate, we wouldn’t have had any universally acceptable grounds to criticize his effort on. People like David Brooks and Tom Friedman wouldn’t have written op-eds bound to get them kicked off the White House Christmas Card list. Hell, where Democrats have screwed up, they’ve taken the heat, too. Did you ever see Mary Landrieu get raked over the coals by Anderson Cooper? Good god, you haven’t lived until you’ve seen a CNN report harangue a politician about corpse being chewed on by rats.
I know in these days of image driven politics, people like yourself are only looking at the value or liability an issue has for the politician in question. People like me, though, are looking at the results, and by the measure of results, what can you reall justify?
Sheehan isn’t necessarily right, but she has a point: New Orleans is a city in need of aid, not an occupied country. It’s all well and good to have folks patrolling, but to outfit the place like it’s mogadishu, like there are going to be armed mobs chasing the soldiers around is going overboard. That said, I don’t disagree with their presence.
In The Hunt for Red October, an officer observes that the Russian fleet is using a lot of active sonar, but that they’re moving so fast “That they could run over my daughter’s stereo and not hear it”. Many of you on the right bang away with your conclusions about us, but you’re leaping to them too fast to truly listen to what we say.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 16, 2005 08:13 PMI often hear about soldiers being spit on. I was never spit on, my friends never admitted to being spit on. No one I knew ever admitted to being spit on. How do you think all this spitting took place? You think we went outside the gate with our ponchos on and said OK start spitting? Those that were discharged got on a bus or plane and went home. Did we get spit on on the bus or plane? I rode buses and planes, went through bus stations and terminals. Nope no spitting. Do you really think we went outside the gate and walked home? Yes, anit-war vets claimed they were spit on. They claimed alot of things, some of it true. Ever hear the word “war stories”. Did it ever happen? Possibly it did but GIs weren’t normally hanging out with the anti-movement. They were trying to process out and get home as quick as possible. When I went home I did not hang out in my Dress Greens. I did put on my fatigues (later on my BDUs) when I worked on a car but that is about it. 27 years and never once did I hear someone admit being spit on. This spitting story has taken on the guise of an urban legend.
Do you think that the military won’t lock, load and fire on a US citizen? Ever hear of a place called Kent State?
The General down in NO kept saying point your weapon down. Assuming they had ammo, which I did not see their magazines in their weapons in the first place, how long do you think that it would take me to lift it up instead of lowering it down? Would we be sent out without ammo? Yes we would.
I could always figure out the difference between the soldier and the Army. Why can’t you? Why is this woman such a threat to you? I am proud of my service but I don’t talk about it often. The reason is there are so many legends I spend most of my time saying no that is not how it works, I just usually keep quiet.
Ron,
Other than in ?The Incident? in Detroit, where else did it happen?
Posted by: Rocky at September 16, 2005 07:33 PM
Try anyplace where there were war protester that came in contact with GIs.
Posted by: Ron Brown at September 16, 2005 08:38 PMNow for a comment on what it looks like with “Machine Gun Nest” I am not explaining terminology here. There are different ways to set up a defensive perimeter including a hasty defensive position. A hasty defensive position is used when you are under fire and ergo the “hasty” of the hasty defensive position. When you are not underfire you build a defensive position period. That Sgt better be coming around and telling you how to make it stronger and better i.e. camo. You are not told to go hang around on the corner and watch the traffic. Those that are not familiar with the military would probably say it is excessive. Those soldiers lifting those sandbags in that heat might think it is excessive. Those leading those soldiers do not.
Posted by: C.L.O. at September 16, 2005 08:43 PMRon,
How about the ‘72 Republican National Convention, where four Vets against the war were spit on by the delegates in the hall?
I have done research and can’t find a credible article that documents the returning soldiers being spat upon, other than by the delegates and in Detroit.
This was a myth propagated by the Nixon administration, to derail the anti-war movement.
David and I discussed this months ago and could only find the incident in Detroit to be verifiable.
Posted by: Rocky at September 16, 2005 08:47 PMI think this is the problem of the modern conservative movement: The Cold War and finally the Watergate Scandal solidified a sense that their ideology was under assault, so they decided that they would win the fight to save America’s soul by any means necessary. Well, the problem is, that means you do a lot of questionable stuff and get called on it.
Well, then you tell people it’s not so questionable, and you rationalize it. Pretty soon, you’re rationalizing the most unacceptable of behavior from a non-partisan standpoint, and you’ve set your approach to other people in such a way that you’re not going to let them talk you down. In fact, it’s all going to reinforce itself until you find yourself supporting weak, incompetent, blowhards like Bush, who say all the right things like you expect them to, and then don’t follow through. Since you’ve convinced yourself that they are failing and/or getting criticized for it because of the politics of the other side, it doesn’t occur to you to sharply reprimand your candidate, or make him fear for his job.
It can happen with any political party or faction where people allow their candidates to use partisanship to dodge responsibility.
Both parties need to outgrow the need to ceaselessly defend their own simply for party principle. If Americans don’t have principles of their own, independent of and in control over their party loyalties, then partisan paranoia will remain the last refuge of scoundrels.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 16, 2005 09:03 PMEric,
I always look forward to your articles, they always affirm my belief that humanity will inevitably blow itself off the face of the planet before it’s all over.
Posted by: Taylor at September 16, 2005 09:07 PMStephen:
“You yourself deserve to be shot down for your factual inaccuracy, shot down with the facts, that is.”
Uh, Stephen? I think you just did! ;^)
Posted by: Adrienne at September 16, 2005 09:19 PMVets at a political convention. If you set yourself up you shouldn’t be surprised when you get hit. “The incident in Detroit” what every that is. I did not say it didn’t happen. I am saing if it did it was a rare occurance. BTW my sister was with the anti-war movement during that time. I did not consider her a traitor althought it made for lively dinner conversation until my father put an end to it. She figured out how to support me but not the cause. What is wrong with asking the hard questions?
Posted by: C.L.O. at September 16, 2005 09:19 PM“Just exactly who are they “protecting” the folks of New Orleans from”
Looters… Have you not been watching the news?
Posted by: Doug at September 16, 2005 09:21 PMHas anyone seen Cindy Sheehan abnd Joe Camel at the same time?
Posted by: Donna at September 16, 2005 10:17 PMDid any of you hear about the shooting happenning at night in N.O. Well this shooting was from organized gangs of thugs who came from out of town with there own boats and commincations better organized than most people thought they where fighting for territory (places to Loot). Just wait till you start to hear about the looting losses.
Who really cares what Cindy Sheehan says anyway. The Democratic party is in meltdown because those in the beltway don’t want to seen as those in the far left. This is happenning because of Campaign finance reform you can no longer contribute huge amounts to either party so the power or the money has switched to 527 groups and the 527 groups will now own the Democratic party because of money. (michael moore) and the like will continue to more and more power in the party why did Howard Dean end up where he is now. Money! The fracture is evident!So let the so called mainstrean media promote Cindy Sheehan because, in the end she was used? By the people who say thay own all the compassion and empathy for the down trodden in our society. So how many media outlets(major TV outlets) have endorsed and given air time to Cindy Sheehans comments, not many that I can see. OOPS! then the cat would be out of the bag they don’t own all the compassion and empathy because it was those very soldiers who where helping rescue those people have you forgotten that the National Guard is part of the military they have guns too. It is so easy to see beyond the so-called main stream presses attempts to swerve from the truth, to presenting the outcome they want to be a reality!
Posted by: CAD at September 16, 2005 10:19 PMDoug,
I think that machine gun nests are a little over the top for mere looting.
CAD,
“Just wait till you start to hear about the looting losses.”
They will be dwarfed by the losses due to the flooding.
Posted by: Rocky at September 16, 2005 10:48 PMDoug-
Yes, looters. But are they all required for that? I don’t think so. I think folks are thinking with their adrenal glands instead of the frontal lobes sometimes.
Donna-
Such a dignified comment. I’d argue with it, but if you’re at the point where you feel it necessary to attack somebody in such a superficial way, then there are probably more than enough people shaking their head, reading your comment, and I only have to let you, and folks like you, continue to shoot yourself in the foot.
I know some Democrats are trying to play catch up, unfortunately, but Republicans have made a cottage industry of being incredibly nasty towards their political opponents. I think that’s going to contribute greatly to the Democrat’s political victories as time goes on, as soon of some of our folks higher up recognize that such vitriol provides the perfect platform from which to critique Republican sensibilities.
Of course, they don’t have to necessarily. Within the decade you’re going to have many Democrats out there who didn’t come from the establishment strain of Democrats, but instead from the online community, and these are going to be folks who have no problem in matching the famous conservative pundit’s preparedness.
CAD-
Dean is riding the wave, finding the really committed Democrats. Sheehan is one of those accidents, which Bush made worse by not doing what he did in NOLA. You see, what made her media presence stronger was the President’s lack of imagination in co-opting her. He made her a martyr for the cause, instead of an illustration about how the administration’s critics are wrong.
Ultimately, the lesson Republicans should take from the Bush presidency, is that you can shape news coverage in a Democracy, but trying to utterly control it is an exercise in futility, especially if you don’t have the substance necessary in your defense to refute your rivals and vindicate your decisions.
Y’all might thing you can politic your way out of having to concede losses to political opponents, but what people see will always triumph over what people hear.
The Democrats don’t even really have to try for a consensus. They are willing to sacrifice a few locals who didn’t do their jobs to go after the feds, because for them, this not merely a political cause, but a moral one as well, and one its difficult to argue about.
Even Bush had to admit defeat, if you’ve notice, leaving the walls of some places spatter with people detonated heads. His numbers are heading south not because the Democrat managed some terribly organized crusade against Bush, but because the consense of the nation is that he blew the chance to get the first few days of this crisis under control, and it is obvious people died for the delays. Once again, a Bush decision leads to an increase in the body count of a crisis. That’s not so easy to spin as a war effort, because people understand a war creates casualties in encounters with the enemy, but know instinctively that rescue efforts are meant to reduce casualties, even prevent them where possible. Excessive deaths here stick out more.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 16, 2005 11:41 PMEric,
While i am with the rest when it comes to not wanting to hear these negative attack type posts…
it often uncovers the progressive party puppets posting false accusations
Typical right wing tactic. Find something outrageous that ONE person said and use it to discredit EVERYONE.
Are Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore ONE person?
i don’t think i want this type of diversionary accounting anywhere near capitol hill.
Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 12:18 AMHow typical.
Cindy “(George Bush murdered my son”) Sheehan was the topic of many posts in the blue column, a celebrity of the left whose every word and action was toasted by Bush haters and broadcast for WEEKS precisely because of the negativity she generated.
What utter HYPOCRICY to now shake heads with mock disapproval at “going negative.” But sorry, you don’t just get to collect your marbles and go home when it’s pointed out how this erstwhile hero of the left is a raging pathological hater.
Posted by: sanger at September 17, 2005 01:26 AMWhat utter HYPOCRICY to now shake heads with mock disapproval at ?going negative.? But sorry, you don?t just get to collect your marbles and go home when it?s pointed out how this erstwhile hero of the left is a raging pathological hater.
The ‘disapproval’ expressed here sanger, is the Right (again) distorting and manipulating, bankrupt of any plausible defense of Bush’s incompetence. I saw three Right blog posts on this same quote before arriving here. Suggesting, nothing more substantive can be expected anytime soon.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 17, 2005 06:42 AMIf you (REPs) and BUSH put as much effort into hunting down Bin Laden as you have put into hating Sheehan, something good might actually get done.
Also, I you had ignored her and been so publicly rattled, this story might never have received the attention it did. One of my favorite moves from Sen. Helms was when he would go public with another one of his outraged-at-an-artist spiels. The artist in focus would make millions, and another swath of the American public would see him for the bugger-eating-moron he was.
Please, tell me more about how you truly feel about Sheehan.
Posted by: tony at September 17, 2005 09:59 AM—-
I you had
—-
should be ‘if you had’ … damn these fingers!
Jo,
Are Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore ONE person?
Jo, did you actually follow the link posted by Eric?
It leads to a story hosted on michaelmoore.com web site, a story signed by Cindy Sheedan. Not by Moore, nor both of them.
Cindy write this story. That’s ONE person saying something, not two.
Michael Moore web site act only as a media here. A partisan one, indeed, but it’s still Cindy’s story…
Philippe,
You are right. i skimmed right over the byline.
Michael Moore is not at all responsible nor agreeable to her statement as is evidenced by his placing it in the section titled, “Mike’s Must Reads”. Yep. One person. Unfair of course to infer this reflects at all any other democrat’s view.
Thanks Eric. If it wasn’t for you, no one would have any idea what the one hundred member strong Peacenik Army was up to. I’m glad someone is keeping an eye on ‘em.
BTW, I think I saw a couple aging hippies smokin’ a doobie in their paisley painted van. Maybe you should also report on whatever heinous conspiracy they’re cooking up.
tony,
One of my favorite moves from Sen. Helms was when he would go public with another one of his outraged-at-an-artist spiels. The artist in focus would make millions, …This signature Democrat behavior has been observed for quite some time and is well known in America. Democrats are defined by Republicans. There is no need to read any DNC platform— just read the Republican platform inside out, upside down and backward.
If you are looking for new ideas or paths, look to the Independant or Reform Parties. You will not find anything more than anti-Republicanism in the Democratic Party.
Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 10:55 AMAny Republican who isn’t obese and over 35, please post their name and email below. Thanks. Not that I expect it to happen as Republicans only like to cheer war from their sofas. But hey, miracles can happen.
Posted by: Aldous at September 17, 2005 11:00 AM—-
If you are looking for new ideas or paths, look to the Independant or Reform Parties. You will not find anything more than anti-Republicanism in the Democratic Party.
—-
Wow. Such sweeping generalizations. I agree. I give up. (boo hoo.)
… if I give up and change ships everytime something needs to be repaired, I’d never get where I’m going.
Posted by: tony at September 17, 2005 11:17 AMjo-
It’s a common tactic. If I ask the average liberal whether they believed what Ward Churchill said about the 9/11 victims, they would have said no. Republicans might debate what they’re really thinking, but that’s just partisan crap whichever way its pointing. You demonstrate what people think by what they volunteer in words and carry out in action.
Most Liberals do not take folks Ward Churchill as their intellectual role model, and that’s an inconvenient fact to those who want to stigmatize liberalism, who see anything to the left of Attila the Hun as softheaded anyways, and probably in it together.
We’re not afraid of the Ward Churchill’s of the world, who shoot themselves in the foot by being needlessly strident or insensitive. The most common Liberal tactic for dealing with those we disagree with them is airing their ideas, so people can see how lacking in virtued they are.
There is nothing so effective at demonstrating what fools some people are, than just relating the lovely stuff that comes out of their mouths.
Sanger-
You obsess about negativity, as if negativity in and of itself is a bad things. I just recently took some testing, and there was this video quiz they had me take where different driving situations were illustrated.
On one particular question, the narrator said there were a number of right answers, but the best one was that which assumed the worst could happen (not necessarily would, mind you).
The human species did not survive ages by always looking on the bright side of life. Situational awareness includes awareness of potential hazards and pitfalls.
By stigmatizing negative thinking, rather than taking a more practical course of action, the GOP has ensured greater negativity will be turned in their direction.
Your rivals will always be predisposed to questioning your efforts. That Republicans forget that, with their emphasis on competition, is kind of silly. It’s useless to whine and pout about not having a nation of Yes-folks at your disposal. In this country, we take advantage of such rivalries by having elections, with each side competing to govern better than the other. Sometimes, folks will make political hay out of nothing in order to criticize otherwise successful rivals. I won’t say Democrats don’t do that. You shouldn’t be naive enough to believe the Republicans don’t engage in that kind of quibbling either. But not everything is so purely a matter of partisan “hating”.
Hundreds of soldiers have died in Iraq in a war that even Conservatives are beginning to have doubts about. That’s not some partisan quibble, that is a real issue, and Americans have legitimate concerns and self interest at stake.
Same thing with Katrina. As I wrote in my latest post, there’s some enlightened self interest involved in my being critical about insufficient disaster response. After all, four years ago, it was my city’s turn to be submerged by tropical weather. Rhinehold, typically a critic of my position on Iraq, essentially asked my universal question of this administration- How long do we have to wait for them to get their act together?
All this focus on negativity and hating is meant to distract folks from the fact that much of this dislike of Bush and negativity about his efforts is well earned. You know, If I shoot your brother or one of your parents, I could argue that you shouldn’t be such a negative person, or that being hateful towards me doesn’t reflect well on you, but then, I’d be neglecting an important point: You have justification to feel badly about me. Moreover, you have even more justification to feel badly when I fail to show remorse for what I did wrong.
Bush has gotten soldiers needlessly killed in a war he chose to fight, and has bungled the kind of disaster response that he has implied for so long that he could expertly handle. Worse, on any number of issues, he’s ignored the obvious signs of failure in this policy, and taken your approach to criticizing them for having the temerity to imply that he’s wrong.
But he doesn’t have to admit he’s wrong to convince people that he is, and more and more people are doubting his leadership, based on the results of his governance.
This whole thing isn’t merely going negative, on your part, it’s going negative to distract people from failures that threaten million of American lives, our national security, the protection of our homeland.
And our disapproval? Sorry to inform you, but we mean it. Open your eyes, and see what your party is neck deep in.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2005 11:19 AMtony,
Maybe the airlines would be solvent if they use your business plan and sell tickets that have no defined destination but promise to take you somewhere.. else.
Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 11:23 AMSTephen,
The most common Liberal tactic for dealing with those we disagree with them is airing their ideas, so people can see how lacking in virtued they are.Do you then propose that, as Democrats have been so silent and have not engaged in this ‘airing’ concerning Sheehan’s statements, that Democrats fully support and find her positions chock full of virtue? Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 11:36 AM
Age: 32
5’8”
140 lbs
Army Vet-no armchair war quarterback here.
Pro military and to the killing of those posing a threat to the saftey and security of the U.S. and those that kill Americans. Including Afghanistan (a justifiable war), Iran, North Korea and Seria. I do not support what or why we’re in Iraq. I say bring them all home and protect our own borders and kick out all the illegals. The U.S. is not any safer since 9/11/01 anyone who does is nieve. Let the Iraq’s fend for themselves. Let’s protect our own…for once.
Registered Independent-Massachusetts
Vote on individual person and policy rather than political party. Now there’s a refreshing statement.
1992-Voted for Clinton
1996-Voted for Clinton
2000-Voted for Bush
2004-Voted for Bush, the lessor of two evils
2008-Will vote for neither donkey or elephant, although most politicians are donkeys anyway. lol
You need to get more conservative friends to back you up in here. All you people are so embarrassed by Cindy Sheehan. That’s why we love bringing it up. I find it amusing, that first, she was the darling of the news media. For weeks, she was all the networks were talking about. Her name was on the tip of every liberal activist’s tongue. Now you liberals, obviously used to denying reality, are trying to claim, “The only people giving her attention are right-wingers like you.” Sorry. The debate isn’t over. Since the liberal establishment has given Cindy “absolute moral authority” on the issue of the war, then she must be the new titular head of your burgeoning anti-war movement, and we will treat her as such. The thing you hate the most? The fact that Cindy Sheehan the fried moonbat is not the exception in the antiwar movement, rather she is the rule. You just don’t like us bringing attention to this fact.
Posted by: madmatt7g at September 17, 2005 12:09 PMOh, and 32 year old Lisa from the military. Just because you were in the military, doesn’t mean you know anything about strategy. And I find it amusing, that you give your little “I’m no armchair quarterback” disclaimer, right before making an armchair quarterback comment. Okay, so what you’re proposing is that we should have waited until Saddam was more of a threat. Do you anticipate that Saddam would have become more of a threat? I mean, certainly we didn’t have those weapons inspectors in there for no reason! I suppose you’re right. We should always wait until they arleady have stockpiles of nukes and VX gas, ready to deploy. That way, they can use them on our invading military, since having these weapons is apparently the requirement for a US invasion. Excellent analysis, Joe Montana. You really should get a job as a military consultant on msnbc!
Posted by: madmatt7g at September 17, 2005 12:16 PMJo,
You will not find anything more than anti-Republicanism in the Democratic Party. Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 10:55 AMThe Republican party’s platform for the last 25 years or so has consisted solely of undoing the accomplishments of the Democrats. Thanks for such a good laugh.
sanger, roach, jo, ron brown,
Liberals are villified as “Bush haters”, when conservatives spent 1992-2000 as “Clinton haters” - but somehow being a “Bush hater” is bad but hating Clinton was OK. Isn’t that a double standard?
If you look at the comments from liberals in all three columns, you’ll find that most of them (not all) are directed at the Bush administration, and are targeting its policies. But if you look at the conservative comments in all three columns, you’ll find that many of them (perhaps even most of them) are directed at liberals in general, and are targeting their speech. I’m convinced that many conservatives - perhaps even most of you - hate liberals more than anyone else. More than Osama bin Laden, more than Saddam Hussein. Why is that? Why has conservatism become the “hate Americans first” crowd?
I’m serious here. Why do you spend so much energy hating liberals and trying to blame them for everything that’s wrong in the world instead of trying to fix what’s wrong? Conservatives control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and most, if not all, of the court system. Yet you continue to expend vast amounts of time, money, and nergy at attacking all liberals. Why? Is it that you’re secretly worried that the liberals are right? Is it that the hatemongers on radio have become your role models for appropriate behavior?
My grandfather was a Methodist minister. One day when I was about six or seven years old, I was in an argument with my sister about something, and I called her a shit-head. My grandfather heard this and called me over to him. “calling your sister that,” he told me, “is an admission that you can’t win an argument based on logic or on the facts.”
So are conservatives admitting that they can’t win a political argument based on logic or the facts? Is that why they spend so much time and energy trying to villify liberals instead of addressing the issues?
Posted by: ElliottBay at September 17, 2005 12:20 PMElliott,
i do not hate liberals. i am one. i just totally disagree with the DNC agenda and strategies.
My biggest problem? i try to be Christian.. and therefore am antithetical to the Democrats of today.
It is the Democrats that have drawn the line. A line separating Christians not of their brand from participating in the rights and freedoms they claim to protect. Yeah.. protect only for themselves.
The Democratic response to a marriage amendment is not a different path but the exact opposite of the right wing of the GOP. The GOP would ostracize the gays and the DEMS would ostracize traditional christians.
The difference is that most in the GOP are open to reasonable compromise. The DEMS however are inflexible and adamantly proclaim only THEY know what is right and THEY are going to make EVERYONE follow THEIR rules.
Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 12:35 PMRocky
How about the ‘72 Republican National Convention, where four Vets against the war were spit on by the delegates in the hall?
And those delegates should have been arrested.
I have done research and can’t find a credible article that documents the returning soldiers being spat upon, other than by the delegates and in Detroit.
This was a myth propagated by the Nixon administration, to derail the anti-war movement.
I was never in Detroit in 72 or any other time during Vietam, But I was spat on in Seattle at the airport in 72 while on my way home from Vietnam. Maybe it make the news but it DID happen, and more than once.
Posted by: Ron Brown at September 17, 2005 12:47 PMI don’t know what other GIs did but I knocked the Commie Pinko Hippies on their asses.
Posted by: Ron Brown at September 17, 2005 12:48 PMTo Madmaxmatt7 beyond thunderdome, listen, I hear your point. I understand where you’re coming from as far as WMD. I can hear your fustration and smell your sarcasm, please shower. lol However,I honestly don’t believe Iraq is or was justifiable. Iraq or Iraq’s did not physically attack the U.S. but maybe you’re right in stating that in the future they could have. Key word being could. N. Korea could send a nuclear weapon our way. Hillary Clinton could become the next president, scarey thought, I know. I simply stated that it makes more sense to protect the home front. Keep an eye (with all those “inspections”) and make decisions based on findings. Which at the time nothing was found. Let’s get Bin Ladin, where ever he is. We’re wasting money, resources and oh ya, soldiers on something that just isn’t there. I wouldn’t be so upset if you compared me to Tom Brady. He’s cuter. By the way, are you or were you military? Not that it matters, just curious.
Posted by: Lisa at September 17, 2005 01:05 PMMy biggest problem? i try to be Christian.. and therefore am antithetical to the Democrats of today.
That’s a load of crap, jo. I’m a Christian (a Catholic) and a Democrat, and I don’t see anything antithetical to my Christianity in Democratic values or actions.
On the contrary, by fighting for pluralism, Democrats are on the front lines protecting my Catholic faith from being persecuted by other strains of Christianity.
Ron, given your kick ass response, I would say you deserved the treatment you got. Violence as the preferred method of resolution is what hippies like me who were in the military at the time as well as civie hippies were opposed to. I went back to Detroit and walked around in San Antonio back in 1972 in uniform and the hippies who knew me accepted me amongst them in my uniform. It wasn’t the uniform, it was the mentality of so many who wore it that many of us objected to, and still do today.
The uniform can be worn with and stand for honor, justice, and the highest of moral codes, or it can be worn with and stand for the basest of human nature, hate, and raw aggression which refuses to see people as human beings. You and I may have worn the same uniform, but, it is obvious we wore it very differently.
I knew an E-8, a captain and a major and many others of my own E-4, E-5 rank, who were opposed to our policy in Viet Nam. The military was very divided then, just as the country was. And being enlisted, I am proof the division was not down the enlisted/drafted line.
One of the safeguards against military coup in this country is the fact that our military reflects the psychology of the people at large. It was hoped that would not be the result by some in moving to an all volunteer force. But, they were/are disappointed. Each soldier knows for themselves whether they do honor to the uniform or not. And for some, that knowledge is the greatest burden of all.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 17, 2005 01:09 PMDemocrats are on the front lines protecting my Catholic faith from being persecuted by other strains of Christianity.
It is nice to hear one finally admit the DNC goal of subjugating other ‘strains’ of faith. i understand how you must feel threatened by different voices what with the Catholic Church being the largest church world wide. It is a scarey place, is it not?
Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 01:23 PMI would just like to say the world will go just the way God’s word said it would go, and no Democratic or Republician will change it. Everyone will have to stand before the Lord Jesus Christ and give an account whether they beleived or not, so just get ready!
Posted by: Daniel Younger at September 17, 2005 01:47 PMFortunately for the world, Jo, there are magnitudes more pacifist Buddhists in the world than war trumpeting, crusading Catholics. Amen!
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 17, 2005 02:02 PMThe problem with the troop presence in the South right now is that they are mismanaged. Which is the problem in Iraq.
The national guard guys are uniformly good and honorable people. However, they don’t do as well responding to looters as the police do. The police are more suited to the task, honestly. Or perhaps they are organized for the task better. In addition, the troops are consistently getting in the way of the reconstruction effort. Our sheriff stole ice trucks at gunpoint from them, because while infants were passing out from heat exhaustion, the guard was waiting to recieve authorization to release the trucks. The sheriff might be fired. But we defend the guard.
We defend the guard b/c we all recognize the men and women who serve deserve honor for their willingness to be first responders. But that doesn’t mean the people in charge of them put their efforts to good use. And they don’t.
Occupied south? Yes. It is. It’s almost like taxation without represnatation. These are our boys. Many of them were born here, but they are badly organized, and many times do more harm than good.
It’s time for everyone to understand that management and organization is important. That goes for local politicians as well as national politicians.
It’s a sad day when Cuba has a faster response to an American disaster than America does.
Posted by: Julia at September 17, 2005 02:07 PMjo,
“It is nice to hear one finally admit the DNC goal of subjugating other ‘strains’ of faith. i understand how you must feel threatened by different voices what with the Catholic Church being the largest church world wide. It is a scarey place, is it not?”
Given the statement you quoted your response doesn’t make any sense at all. If your attempt was as flame bait, you missed the mark.
Posted by: Rocky at September 17, 2005 02:09 PMjo,
“i understand how you must feel threatened by different voices what with the Catholic Church being the largest church world wide.”
With each at about 1.2 billion Catholics and Islam are pretty much tied.
Posted by: Rocky at September 17, 2005 02:35 PMDavid,
The Catholics have long since given up ‘crusading’ and that is one point where i CAN actually hear their voice in the DNC (as well as Buddhists and orthodox)
Yet like the unions, people of faith are leaving the DNC in droves due to their new definition of ‘representation’.
Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 03:07 PMJulia,
All military personnel are trained in when to disobey orders.. such as would be the case of allowing people to pass out from dehydration/heat when they have means to prevent it. Those actions cannot be passed up the coc.
Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 03:09 PM—-
Maybe the airlines would be solvent if they use your business plan and sell tickets that have no defined destination but promise to take you somewhere.. else.
—-
??? no idea what you’re talking about…???
We’ve seen what happens when you ‘stay the course.’
Posted by: tony at September 17, 2005 03:32 PMDavid,
I wasn’t paying them hippies no mind until they spat on me. So I would say they got what they deserved.
American Pundit
On the contrary, by fighting for pluralism, Democrats are on the front lines protecting my Catholic faith from being persecuted by other strains of Christianity.
Hate to brake your bubble, but NOONE is persecuting Catholics. It seems to me they’re the one that had the ‘Holy Office of the Inquistion’.
In case you’ve forgotten history, it was that office that persecuted anyone that wasn’t Catholic.
Jo-
Look, my last post about Cindy Sheehan, Insularity and Authority was about a month ago. This was back when we didn’t have the biggest natural disaster of all times on our hands. This was back when the big story was that the most powerful man in the world was afraid to be confronted by a greiving liberal mother of a dead soldier, a grieving mother that my post detailed some of the horrible slander of.
Christians are called upon not to be revilers, gossips, people with forked tongues, heaping abuse on others. In that article, I describe the Republican party doing exactly that.
This is what you support. I don’t agree with Sheehan’s position on the war, but I do understanad where she’s coming from, and I do believe the Republican party should be ashamed of its treatment of her.
You’ve bought into the fearmongering there, and bought into the fearmongering about Democrats and Christians. As a result, you’re willing to take side with those leaders in Washington who set the poorest example for Christians while they push your buttons on minor morals issues.
It’s so easy to defend the faith. It’s a lot more difficult to live it, and that is a distinction modern politics in America have clouded.
madmatt7g-
Embarrassed? Check the archives, read the comments. You’ll have plenty to choose from. One of ours has 245 comments on it. Go ahead. Take a look. Not all of us agree with her, myself included. But all of us stand with her against those who would slime her character simply to win a political fight.
I myself expressed the opinion, consistent with other posts of mine in August, that Sheehan’s alternative would become the only humane choice if Bush was not willing to fully prosecute the war, and do all it took to win.
You folks, unfortunately, have made it very difficult to offer any military alternative to the president’s plan. You’re not just failing to think outside the box on this, you’re stuff everybody elses ideas in and nailing the damn thing shut.
You can get all flustered about a little old woman, and claim that all the liberals take each and every word of hers as gospel, but the reality is, she’s speaking to a very real frustration with the president’s policy that he has never fully acknowledge, and then, only to give them the kind of disrespect you give them. Once upon a time, her views were the exception. Unfortunately, Bush’s refusal to alter course or improve his plans has left very little hope in people’s heart of success in this war.
It’s amazing how easy it is for the right to attack soldiers and their relatives when they don’t toe the line. A Soldier comments on my thread, I square my shoulder, and treat them with respect, even if I’m disagreeing with them.
This was supposed to be a pre-emptive war, one to take on a clear and present danger to our country. Not a clear and five years down the road danger, not some vague shadow of a threat in mordor, but an actual pontential threat on the verge of becoming a very lethal reality. Because there were neither weapons nor terrorists to use them, the Iraq war cannot qualify and this is a fact.
The president did not do his job in leading us to war, that job being to choose wisely where he sent our troops, to choose wisely how he used our troops, and to unite the American people even if it meant sacrificing his own prestige and reelectability.
In their perpetual quest to win elections, the Republicans have lost sight of their values and become cheerleaders for an unworthy leader.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2005 05:18 PMI have a question? Why is it that in the last 40 years that no modern nation has individually decided to go to war with another country with the one exception of England and the Falklands? Yes, they go with other countries in support of the UN. What are we seeing that they don’t or what are they seeing that we don’t? It always seem that it is called a US lead invasion. I know other countries have joined us in our call to war. Why is it our call to war not them calling us?
Posted by: C.L.O. at September 17, 2005 06:08 PMJo,
I agree with you that they should disobey orders, but they didn’t. Although honestly, the big problem is they don’t know what the right thing is to do, b/c there isn’t a clear line of organization. You want to make sure the supplies go to the right place, but you don’t know where that is. So instead, nothing gets done.
The locals know where the need is, so the locals (even though they have the same lack of organization) are more effective, b/c they are the first to recognize that the system is failing, and the best thing to do is just make a decision and commit the resources as quickly as possible. Those who don’t know the area get stymied in the paralysis by analysis scenario.
The guard isn’t trained to handle the violent situations, and they respond inappropriately. In addition, the organization is so poor, that they are responding ineffectively to the rescue and reconstruction needs of the area.
It doesn’t change the fact that they are good people. It doesn’t change the fact that when they respond to an individual in need they do a good job (which they do). The problem is they may be saving a healthy 30 year old man while 45 ladies in a nursing home are drowning. Or they may route an ice truck to the wealthy neighborhood with power, while a poor neighborhood with children passing out gets nothing.
This happens at the local level too, of course, but it isn’t as pervasive, b/c the locals know better. (B/c they’re from there).
So what you end up with is a local sheriff, who knows better, waiting outside the national guard for hours while they make phone calls to figure out what to do with supplies. The sheriff cuts through the B.S. by cursing out the officials, stealing the trucks, and routing them to the area in need.
And the response is that the officials call for him to be fired.
That’s what’s ACTUALLY happening.
And of course that’s what’s actually happening. You can’t fix organizational problems of this magnitude this quickly. The guard and FEMA will continue to have problems allocating resources. The locals will continue to know what should be done far sooner than anyone else.
It’s a mess.
Posted by: Julia at September 17, 2005 09:04 PMElliotBay,
Why has conservatism become the “hate Americans first” crowd?
Conservitives Aren’t the hate America first crowd.
I don’t think you’ll find a more patriotic crowd anywhere.
If anyone is hate America first it the libeiral with their always finding fault with the US.
BTW, I have never put anyone down for bashing Bush so I don’t know why your lumping me in with that crowd.
It happened only once???? It happened to me and I didn’t say anything about it for years, so it must have happened at least twice. Get your facts straight.
Posted by: John A. Wilson at September 17, 2005 10:01 PMStephen,
Christians are called upon not to be revilers, gossips, people with forked tongues, heaping abuse on others. In that article, I describe the Republican party doing exactly that. This is what you support. I don’t agree with Sheehan’s position on the war, but I do understanad where she’s coming from, and I do believe the Republican party should be ashamed of its treatment of her.
i have stated repeatedly that i do not support the GOP. In fact i entered this thread addressing…
Eric,
While i am with the rest when it comes to not wanting to hear these negative attack type posts…
Your trying to distract from fair criticism is as insulating as you rightly judge the Bush administration to be. If anything is said negative about liberals you close your hearing to anything else and strike out defensively.
You’ve bought into the fearmongering there, and bought into the fearmongering about Democrats and Christians. As a result, you’re willing to take side with those leaders in Washington who set the poorest example for Christians while they push your buttons on minor morals issues.
As i am neither republican or democrat i do not have any reason to be listening to the far fringe hystrionics of either party. i do not need to either be stroked or to look for ammunition against some perceived enemy. i get my news from NPR, PBS, the BBC, Rueters, AP, AFP, the Drudge Report.
i base my difference with progressives on science, rejecting their ‘literal’ interpretation of the constitution after the manner of right wing Bible interpretation. If science says we are mammals and that every other mammal’s life cycle begins with conception/zygote .. well, gotta give science her due. Facts is facts. That said, we do have self-defense and justifiable homocide laws on the books.
i base my evolution/intelligent design difference likewise in science as it is not good scientific methodology to dismiss out of hand because of philosophical prejudice and there is no scientific prove against the existence of God.
i base my opposition of a marriage amendment (either defined by progressives or right wingers) in the constitution’s separation of church and state and freedom of religious expression clauses.
i base my support for civil unions and benefits on both my faith and the constitution that all male and female are created in the image and likeness of God and should so be honored and that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights.
i base my qualified opposition to war on my faith.. created in the image and likeness of God, think the best of a person not the worst. As USA is a state i cannot in good conscience be strictly pacifist (as are the greens) but; based on both faith and constitution, governments are charged with defending justice and protecting its citizens.
i base my vehement opposition to the progressive DNC on their own words and actions which clearly reveal an agenda to silence religious voices and expression they find objectionable. (btw, why isn’t your church a member of the progressive approved National Council of Churches?) Their refusal to compromise or consider legitimate the freedoms of disdained faiths is merely a mirror of the radical right’s refusal to allow gay freedoms. The misuse, abuse and illegal actions of progressive democratic judicial, legislative and others (JPs) in civil service to the unanimous support and applause of Democrats is the basis of my protest against the DNC. They are undermining the representative republic foundation of our government. They label democracy merely a fallacious ad populum argument (Gore v Bush etc proves hypocricy) and call for an oligarchal aristocracy of the progressive elitists.
It’s so easy to defend the faith. It’s a lot more difficult to live it, and that is a distinction modern politics in America have clouded.Seems some have difficulty living the faith when they are not in control of the entire culture. i guess imperialsim does have its upside, eh? temporarily anyhoo. Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 10:23 PM
Ron Brown-
We could use the same argument to nullify your argument against us. You seem to find it easy to find fault with us.
The difference here is our objections to Bush are not entirely a matter of our emotional tenor towards him. As for always going after the U.S., that is an argument that can only be made by those not paying attention to our arguments. After all, would we be so concerned about the faults of a nation we were planning to abandon in its time of need?
Jo-
I’m not certain exactly what you believe. You need to lay it our clearer, because I’m reading different contradicting positions on either side of the issue.
As for your feelings on the DNC, I’m not sure what precisely motivates them.
If you could clear that up, sorting out the issues would be easier.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2005 11:18 PMStephen,
I?m not certain exactly what you believe. You need to lay it our clearer, because I?m reading different contradicting positions on either side of the issue.
- neither republican nor democratic: i am independant.
- life: biology does not change to our convenience.
- evolution: the scientific method does not discriminate between progressive or evangelical; its rules apply to all equally.
- gays: civil union is not synonomous with marriage.
- war: is evil, sometimes necessary, but imo, never ‘just’.
As for your feelings on the DNC, I’m not sure what precisely motivates them.
- The words and actions of Democrats.
Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 11:48 PM
Ron Brown,
I didn’t say “hate America first”. I said “hate AMERICANS first”. Conservatives profess to love America, but it seems to me that they hate a large percentage of her population.
Posted by: ElliottBay at September 18, 2005 01:42 AMJo,
You said that “the DNC goal [is] subjugating other ‘strains’ of faith.”
What real-world evidence can you offer to support such a ridiculous claim? It seems to me that you’ve fallen for right-wing propaganda, because you’re spouting the Republican party line.
Posted by: ElliottBay at September 18, 2005 11:43 AMAs a resident of Covington, LA who stayed while trees came down on my home and stayed to clear trees and downed power lines from my community without any outside help for more than a week I would like to suggest that you come here and experience life today without phones or power or freedom to leave our homes from 11pm to 7am. What Cindy is saying for my community is that we want the machine guns put away. We, as a community were not asked if we wanted or required protection from anyone, only for assistance in regaining our dignity and a way of life that we as Americans have become use to. Having our own soldiers holding itchy fingers over the triggers of AK47s while we wait to get drinking water and ice and food stamps (most for the first time in our lives because we have lost our homes and jobs) does not make us safer. We are grateful for any help that we get but we are not grateful for jackasses with guns ordering us to pick up trash while we wait in line at social services. We also don’t like the fact that our President chooses to refer to this part of the United States of America as only a part of the world. We are Americans, most of us middle class who pay the bulk of the taxes imposed on all Americans and are now under the gun of our own miltary. This is not acceptable to us and should not be acceptable to any American. I do not mean to imply that the troops sent here are not needed but that if they freed their hands of the guns they would be able to use them to help us fix the state that has sent more soldiers to Iraq (in both wars) than any other in the country.
Posted by: John at September 18, 2005 12:13 PMHate to brake your bubble, but NOONE is persecuting Catholics.
…Because we’ve built up a strong pluralist society. That wasn’t always the case in America, and it’s not a sure thing now.
Posted by: American Pundit at September 19, 2005 01:43 AMLook everyone,there can be many points of view, liberal and conservative, but when are the liberals going to speak up and stop the press from exploiting Cindy Sheehan. She is distraught over her sons death and much of what she says makes no sense. She needs help, not headlines!
Posted by: Duaneg7872 at September 19, 2005 03:24 AMWhat a vivid example of the template today’s liberals lay over every event: America is evil, they use their power unjustly (except if ordered by a democrat), American business is subjugating the third world poor of the nation.
As liberals like Moore seek to turn democracy on its head, they find that “democracy is indispensable not because it renders superfluous the conquest of political power by the proletariat but because it renders this conquest of power both necessary and possible.”
Mark,
Did you even listen to what John said?
Posted by: Julia at September 19, 2005 01:35 PMI just loved that “beyond thunderdome” thing. Anyway, I’ll get back to you, Lisa, in a minute. People! You accuse conservatives of going on the attack. You can pretend to take the moral higher ground, but the garbage and vitriol your side spews is not the exception, but the rule. It’s pretty hypocritical of you to criticize us when we go on the attack, when OUR elected officials do refrain from name-calling and ad hominem attack, while YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS spew out hate-speech, like the garbage that regularly pours out of the mouths of Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and their ilk. But it doesn’t bother me. I think ad-hominem attack is part of the fun! Sometimes it’s good to be polite, and to exchange ideas with consideration and respect. But with some people, subtlety is wasted, and the equivalent of a sledge hammer against the head is required. People like Ms. Sheehan, for instance. You can’t debate policy with an antisemititic conspiracy theory nut. The best you can hope to do is piss them off so much, that they’ll go ape-shit and demonstrate how unreasonable they are, so hopefully other people won’t be persuaded to agree with them. As for you, military lisa, I have this to say. Osama Bin Laden would be great to catch, but he’s just one guy. If you think we’re not looking, you’re wrong. If you think he’s the only one we’re looking for, you’re wrong. If you think the problem will go away once he’s caught, you’re wrong. Focusing entirely on Osama Bin Laden is foolish, since he is only one of several major funders of terrorism, that included Saddam, by the way. Your perspective on global politics appears to border on childish. “Iraq didn’t attack us, so why did we attack Iraq?” It almost requires willful ignorance, since there has been so much evidence to prove that Saddam provided major funding for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. Also, we were already deployed in Iraq. You think it was a waste of money to invade and topple his regime, and suggest indefinite UN inspections as an alternative? That doesn’t make sense. You suggest that solving the problem is a waste of money, and suggest perpetual containment of that problem as a solution? You want us to pull back, circle the wagons and allow our influence do dwindle? You realize that’s the terrorists’ main objective? Liberals claim that we created terrorism, by trading with and strengthening despotic arab regimes. This is of course false. But the irony is that when we choose not to do business with despotic regimes (like the sanctions against Iraq), we are accused of starving the people. The reason why we go on the attack is because we perceive your side as being inconsistent, irrational, and indefensible.
Posted by: madmatt7g at September 19, 2005 02:14 PMsteve
ron, your a lost cause
If your trying to convert me to liberialism YES.
Posted by: Ron Brown at September 19, 2005 05:28 PMMaddMatt7g,
You wanna talk about hate? Let’s talk about hate.
