« Battlestar Galactica - The Farm | Main | Monday musings »
August 13, 2005
The Dance of the Marionette - Photoshop alert
Click for larger image
August has always been a "slow news" month -- usually filled with shark attacks, camping accidents or missing people like the sad, but overplayed, Natalee Holloway story. So poor Cindy Sheehan is being followed, photographed and feted like the next sob-sister story right out of a scene from Chicago.
Michelle Malkin notes that the Washington Post finally gets to the crux of the story, down about paragraph #18.
but there it is--an acknowledgement that Cindy Sheehan has changed her account of her first meeting with President Bush, which occurred two months after her son's death in April 2004Kevin at Wizbang runs a picture that Cindy has removed from her website of her meeting with the President.
This woman is clearly suffering. Even her personal life is crumbling around her, increasingly because her of zealousness encouraged by the cult groups using her. As Angry in the T.O. points out, Cindy cannot help being deluded in how she protrays the participation of her own immediate family. [I wonder if the flying monkeys in my previous post will continue the illusion that her estranged husband and out-of-country children are "100%" with Cindy]
Another telling sign that the cults surrounding Cindy are beyond even the Democrat pale is the conspicuous absence of the usual anti-military Dem politicos at Cindy's side. Boxer? Kennedy? Pelosi? Nope. Not there. Just the freak sideshow participants of Code Pink or Crawford "Peace" House
Even the very liberal newspaper, Seattle PI realizes the undignified and indecent circus surrounding Cindy:
Trouble is Sheehan is not sincerely interested in meeting Bush for a private, heartfelt chat about her understandable anguish and lingering questions.That's what Cindy has been reduced to. Just another paper mache puppet, a marionette on strings, a dancing spectacle to fill column inches next to shark attacks and lightening strikes.She wants to make a public splash by allowing critics of the unjustified war in Iraq to use her as a human bazooka against Bush, who got us into this war mess. ...
Sheehan's Texas tantrum wittingly or unwittingly abets left-leaning forces that are happy to use her to get at the president.(sic)
Posted by Darleen at August 13, 2005 10:22 AM
Comments
"Trouble is Sheehan is not sincerely interested in meeting Bush for a private, heartfelt chat about her understandable anguish and lingering questions."
Oh, I see. The Post Intelligencer editors must have borrowed Michelle Malkin's psychic powers to divine what Cindy Sheehan REALLY thinks.
Dipshits.
Posted by: Lo Ping Wong at August 13, 2005 11:58 AM
I notice you can't afford to send your daughter to college...you should encourage her to enlist in the armed forces and take advantage of their generous education benefits.
Posted by: Delphine at August 13, 2005 12:06 PM
you were right to delete your comment:
"Oh that poor Mrs. Sheehan down the street. She lost her son, bless his soul, and now she's gone bull-goose, bat-shit loonier than a shit house rat, bless her heart."
when will your daughter be meeting with a recruiter?
Posted by: jami at August 13, 2005 12:29 PM
Robert L. Jamieson Jr. is a columnist. He doesn't speak for the PI.
Based on your (il)logic, Safire and now Tierney spoke for the NYTimes, meaning it must have been a conservative paper.
You are either ignorant, or a liar. Which is it?
Posted by: jerry at August 13, 2005 12:43 PM
Instead of begging for money for your daughter's education, why doesn't she take advantage of the oppurtunities the armed forces provides for college. Not afriad of the side trip to Iraq is she? What is more precious than securing freedom for Iraqi's?
Posted by: whynot at August 13, 2005 01:01 PM
You are either ignorant, or a liar. Which is it?
I vote for both.
Posted by: Vladi G at August 13, 2005 01:10 PM
oh pass the popcorn Darlene, this is priceless. But the teethnashing is a bit loud when combined with the barking of the moonbats and the screech of the tires as they all veer further left.
Posted by: jane at August 13, 2005 01:35 PM
fantastic stuff darlene! clearly ms sheehan is crazy - as your delightful graphic illustrates - i mean, what is she getting so upset about? she can have more kids (let's face it, one's like another). now getting upset is one (unpatriotic) thing - but doing something about it? when she could be watching fox news?
Posted by: Lars Kefauver at August 13, 2005 01:50 PM
oh i get it now....moonbats= flying rodents too ugly to come out during the day
Posted by: jane at August 13, 2005 02:37 PM
I notice the silence from the weblog author or her acolytes as to why her daughter is not serving in Iraq; it's such a noble cause, after all.
And why aren't there any links to military recruiting sites or any exhortations next to the blogroll for about young people to sign up to be infantry to serve this noble cause?
Because they don't believe that they or anyone they care about should die in Iraq. Is there any greater proof that they don't believe this is war is absolutely necessary to prevent the destruction of our country?
Posted by: BV at August 13, 2005 02:42 PM
I'm guessing Darleen's daughter isn't joining the military BECAUSE SHE CHOSE NOT TO. I know that it is a favorite talking point of the left to go around asking about whether children are going into the military, but it just makes you sound like a bunch of sheep. I am sure if Darleen's daughter did decide to join the military, Darleen would be as proud as I would be and support her 100% But here is the thing...It's her daughter's choice, not Darleens.
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at August 13, 2005 02:55 PM
its watcha call a BS arguement not worth responding to, thats why pea brain.
Posted by: jane at August 13, 2005 03:15 PM
Why is it that lefties support every choice by the choice to join the military? Hmmmmm.....Must be that that all that camoflague doesn't work with Birkenstocks.
Posted by: E.M. at August 13, 2005 03:36 PM
You are right to expose the Sheehan Moonbat. Another example of how the L3 Idiotarians are the Splodeydopes of the future (think she wouldn't do it?) A lot of us at LGF are getting ready for direct action against the Lefty Traitors. Good to know you're with us, Darleen.
They asked for it. Now they'll get it.
Posted by: Lizaroid Minion at August 13, 2005 03:43 PM
WARNING to LEFTY SCUMBAGS.
Darleen has told us on LGF that you have been threatening her children.
Bad Idea. We have ways of tracking you people down. You will not like what happens next.
A lot of us are Mil or Ex Mil. Think about it.
Posted by: Lizardoid Minion at August 13, 2005 03:46 PM
You know, if her children joined the military, they could track us down themselves and cut out the middle man.
Posted by: Gunther at August 13, 2005 04:45 PM
dweeb!
Posted by: jane at August 13, 2005 05:40 PM
Mom of dead soldier wants answers, gets slimed.
Mom of aspiring college student gets asked why said aspiring college student doesn't join military, askers get threatened.
Oh, I see.
Posted by: mobux at August 13, 2005 06:34 PM
To be consistent, you really must now insist that your daughter serve in a location where she's likely to catch one. Please, for your daughter's sake, just continue to sacrifice logic and ethics, and let your daughter escape you safely.
Posted by: jeff at August 13, 2005 06:56 PM
Let's play Michelle Malkin, and channel thoughts.
Which question would Ms. Sheehan ask Little Boots, and which ones would the puppy press ask?
1. Mr. President, do you find comfort in prayer?
2. Does the support of the American people comfort you, Mr. Preident?
3. Why did you send my son to his death?
Posted by: roadpizza at August 13, 2005 07:20 PM
Darleen, I highly recommend the following commentary to you, from someone who isn't a member of Democratic Underground.
Posted by: Brad at August 13, 2005 07:39 PM
Is there some kind of contest going on to see which of you rightwinger bloggers can be the biggest dipshit? Because if there is, you have a very good chance of winning, 'leeny.
Posted by: ron say at August 13, 2005 08:07 PM
Changed her account...This woman is clearly suffering...personal life is crumbling around her...cult groups using her...the participation of her own immediate family...estranged husband...freak sideshow participants...undignified and indecent circus...Just another paper mache puppet, a marionette on strings...psychic powers to divine what ______ REALLY thinks.
Sigh, I thought we were finished with the Terri Schiavo story.
Posted by: fracas_futile at August 13, 2005 09:07 PM
"Why is it that lefties support every choice by the choice to join the military? Hmmmmm.....Must be that that all that camoflague"
Is English your first language? I applaud your stumbling efforts to communicate. You remind me of an autistic chimpanzee who's learned some sign language. It's cute.
Posted by: Lo Ping Wong at August 13, 2005 09:28 PM
Sigh, I thought we were finished with the Terri Schiavo story.
Wait, I thought mothers had no rights?
Oh, sorry, I forgot...only the ones YOU agree with.
Just a question for the trolls: Why do Mother Theresa-Cindy's words carry so much more weight than those of the other grieving mothers--like those who SUPPORT the war and respect what their dead sons or daughters died for?
Or do you actually think they don't exist--since they're not all out running around screaming for attention?
What if those other mothers DID go out and demand "nuke 'em"? Would THEIR demands be honored as are Mother Theresa-Cindy's?
I didn't think so.
Here's another question for you. WTF do you actually think a second meeting would accomplish? Do you actually think Bush DOESN'T KNOW her opinion and her wish to end the war? Do you ACTUALLY think that if he meets with her, he'll suddenly decide that it's time to pull the troops out of Iraq--just because SHE wants it? Are you guys f'n nuts?
Hell, I'll drive over there and give the woman a damn hug if that's all she wants--what else would she gain?
Oh, I forgot, it's all about her battle to meet with the President. If he does, she wins. Wins what, is the question. You people are pathetic. How does it feel to always be on the wrong side of the issues, trivial ones like this included?
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
Matthew 12:30
Posted by: Beth at August 13, 2005 09:43 PM
Here's another question for you. WTF do you actually think a second meeting would accomplish?
I would hope it would bring Cindy Sheehan some peace.
Instead, President Bush confirms her belief that he has nothing more than spin to dish out to the nation while he drives right by the pleading mother of a fallen soldier.
It really doesn't look good - and it surely doesn't look good to have you mocking the mother of a fallen soldier.
Do you think it's only the left who are calling you out on this? Are you that blindly partisan?
As an American soldier said the other day, "I am SHOCKED and ASHAMED at what I am hearing here, What the HELL is wrong with you people? I can respect a difference of opinion if presented in a respectful manner, however when people bring this bullsh*t partisan hackery into the mix, are we all AMERICANS here or not, dammit? I will NOT Tolerate ONE MORE WORD of disrespect for this fallen hero or his poor mother. Your tax dollars have trained me to be a dangerous man, you have made enemies of EVERYONE else in the world you don't want disrespect my fellows or my family and turn your very last friend on you...."
I'd like to know when we're going to be one America again and stop hating each other long enough to realize something's wrong.
Supporting the troops doesn't end at their death.
I'd guess many soldiers would hope you wouldn't treat their mothers this way if they should die - and don't you think our troops are beginning to wonder who truly supports them?
Posted by: Jude at August 13, 2005 10:03 PM
Why is Sheehan's opinion more important or more valid than anyone else's simply because she lost a son? Nonsensical.
When she met with President Bush **the first time** she said the meeting brought her peace. What seems to have changed is the company she keeps -- MMoore, Code Pink, ANSWER, et al, as opposed to her family. This poor woman deep in her grief is being used in the most heartless and crass way by unprincipled partisan ghouls. Only those who cannot see past their own partisan preconceptions are unable to notice that obvious fact. Sickening.
And, D -- you got quite an infestation of Moonbats here. Time to spray again...
Posted by: Claire at August 13, 2005 10:53 PM
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
Matthew 12:30
Posted by: Beth
So now you're Jesus? Or Bush is? Or maybe this is Jesus' war & Bush is acting as his emissary in executing it? Just trying to figure out why you'd quote that passage in a political argument.
Exactly the kind of ignorant hubris that got us into this mess in the first place. You should see yourselves, reduced to making fun of the mother of a dead soldier because Bush hasn't been able to give anyone a satisfactory explanation of why he wanted to go there in the first place.
BTW - Who *would* Jesus bomb?
Posted by: natasha at August 14, 2005 01:18 AM
You have kids? Poor things.
Posted by: merlallen at August 14, 2005 04:22 AM
Again, complete silence on why there are no links to military recruitment sites or any encouragement of young conservatives to join the military or a call for a draft. If conservatives are not willing to call for enlistment by all young men and woman (including the author's college-bound daughter) or for a draft, why should we believe that you believe in this war?
If you're not willing to encourage or call for your friends or family to die for this cause, than why is it a cause worth sacrificing other people's sons/daughters for?
Posted by: BV at August 14, 2005 10:57 AM
Great post, Darleen ... and I saved the photo.
You know, I'm always amused at the very witty repartee that starts with: "Soo, why don't you get YOUR kid to enist!"
I do not know what kind of kids liberals think they're raising. Adults that depend on Mommy and Daddy's opinions for everythig ... ? Kids that will sign up for the army to make a political point for their PARENTS?
Like .. "oooh, Mommy! You want me to elist? Sure, thing, right after I'm done washing the dishes and cleaning my room. BTW, I hope my jeans aren't too tight?... "
Riiight. I do think that any parent of teenagers in this day and age who has not discussed the possibility of enlisting with their kids is a fool .. because these kids are not unaware of what is going on in the world. Depending on your kids' high school, a recruiter has probably already contacted them.
Now, for a decision this serious, the kid needs to make up his or her own mind, and any parent that tries to push his or her child into -- or away from -- that serious a committment is out of their raving, lunatic minds.
Posted by: FrauBudgie at August 14, 2005 11:58 AM
I would really like to know the % of Republicans serving in Iraq. Since the vast majority of military votes went to George Bush in the last election, I am thinking there are plenty of Republican families who have sons and daughters in the military. If the milblogs are any indication, the soldiers feel strongly that we are in Iraq fighting the good fight. So this implication that Republicans are not supporting the war effort by going to Iraq is ridiculous.
For every Cindy Sheehan there are dozens and dozens of Moms who feel their sons and daughters died fighting for freedoms. I think everyone sympathizes with Mrs. Sheehan, just not the political hacks who are using her.
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at August 14, 2005 01:03 PM
You right wingers are all class - attack a grieving mother for asking why her son died...
It really is saddening to see people so willing to viciously trash anyone who doesn't agree with their ridiculous opinions. Note that the more absurd your views are the more vehemently you have to defend them, which explains why you sink so incredibly low.
Posted by: SomeRandomGuy at August 14, 2005 01:56 PM
rightwingtwinkle,
Riiiiight, all of the troops think everything is just hunky-dory and swell, and they almost all think that being sent into an unjustified war is the best thing ever...
FWIW, I have a brither serving, and a few buddies in the Army. They all hate Bush (more than Clinton, who used to be their embodiment of evil), all hate serving in Iraq since they feel like they are accomplishing nothing. They also are defensive as hell about voicing their actual views, as they know they will get knocked hard if they say what they honestly think.
Here's another military mom who is proud her son died for "freedom":
http://www.catch.com/comments/40766_0_17_0_C/
Posted by: SomeRandomGuy at August 14, 2005 02:13 PM
SomeRandomGuy,
I never said all the troops think everything is hunky dory. Of course they don't all think alike. I am sure there are many who hate Bush. But it has been my experience that most support this President. We can counter each other all day with pros and cons from military families, but my point was that there are plenty of sons and daughters of Republican families in the military and to pretend otherwise is foolish.
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at August 14, 2005 02:41 PM
This has to be the most enlightening episode yet in the red state/blue state civil war that dear leader Bush has gifted this nation with.
Let me try and explain this to the rightwingers. People like sparkle, who ban everyone but the 4 or 5 clones who agree with her. Do you remember you recent post about how sad it is sending your baby boy off to college? College where he will grow intellectually, sociall and personally, to prepare himself for a fulfilling career? Now imagine sending that same beloved boy to IRAQ - to kili, to face death, to suffer, to see death and mayhem and maiming all around him. You can't imagine it,because like most wealthy Republicans it is not an option you ever considered for your pride and joy. He is safe and will be kept safe, by his pampering parents, until he is rich in his own right. Your moral hypocrisy has no better witness than your own boy.
Now, let us move on to Cindy Sheehan - whose son DID answer the call your boy is too good to answer. How DARE you rightwing hypocrites criticize this woman! Is this not America? The America of Rosa Parks? When did we become such a soulless nation that the very same sycophants who do everything but PRAY to Bush would stoop to sliming the mother of a fallen soldier? Have you no decency? Can't you at least hold your tongues, if nothing else, out of respect for the dead? Out of respect for a mother? No instead we have monstrosities like this coming from the right, demeaning not only the mother, but the dead American soldier. Or we have that chippy Malkin, telling us SHE knows what the dead man would feel, as if this insipid sycophant knows more than the man's own mom.
Please remember this, in your shameless race to lick Bush's butt and demean our military and their sacrifices - Bush could have stopped all this with the simple act of inviting this woman in for a private iced tea. And indeed he would have, if he had a soul. He is unique amongst all of our Presidents. Even Nixon, even Reagon, even the first Bush, even Clinton had a soul. This man, this little rich boy pampered from his cradle and immunized from any criticism and any normal consequences, has no soul.
Cindy Sheehan is a genius. She met him and she knew he had no soul and she knew there was a way to show this to the world on a level we all can understand. She did what every numb butted blogger can not do. She acted. She did what Christ asked all of us to do - she did what she could.
And Darleen did what she could - she ridiculed her.
And sparkle did what she could - she whined because her own pampered baby is going off to the life enhancing experience of college.
The conservative reign will end in America because it has become so morally bankrupt, weak and sycophantic that these are the kind of people who speak for it. Look around you. Only 34% of your countrymen still support your soulless leader. Cindy Sheehan, like Rosa Parks, is on the right side of history. And cowards who are only looking to kiss the butts of the powerful are, as always, on the wrong side.
Posted by: Hrubec at August 14, 2005 03:06 PM
I need to add, before sparkly comes back in her righteousness, that it is not her coddling her Republican son I comment on. That is only to be expected. That's what rich Republicans do. It's that she can't even see the irony.
Cindy Sheehan isn't there to make intelligent policy with respect to Iraq. She is there to make the statement that this little blueblooded elitist prince of a president never did understand - that war is about REAL people. Real American people like this very ordinary, very brave mother and her very ordinary, very brave son. He grew up thinking of Vietnam in abstract terms - as a patriotic cause that he, like Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfy, Perle, and all the rest of the nasty neocon herd, managed to neatly avoid. A war to be fought by other people - preferably faceless, nameless nobodies whose coffins should be hidden, whose funerals should be ignored.
Whatever must be done in Iraq, this soulless mediocrity we have in our highest office must be brought face to face with the consequences of his incompetence and his lies. It will be a long purgatory for this incompetent to have to endure these next long years as he must clean up the mess he created to such ego gratifying fanfare, and face the dire consequences.
Our children were sent to die so that Iraq could become an Islamic state with stronger ties to Iran. That is the noble cause Casey Sheehan died for. That is why his mother is acting like the kind of American our forefathers hoped would be strong enough to keep our republic.
But the question remains: Where is the decency in the sycophantic rightwing extremists? Common human decency?
Posted by: Hrubec at August 14, 2005 03:39 PM
Did I attack Ms. Sheehan?
Or have I maintained, supported by the evidence of her own statements that she is a victim of the Leftist cults that are exploiting her for their own ends?
Indeed, I'm actually giving her the benefit of a doubt with my portrayal.
She has parroted the anti-Semitic statements that come directly from Crawford "Peace" House, yet I blame them not her.
Her words are no more authentic than any other American with family in the military. And her becoming a fetish of the Left says more about the Left then it does any supporter OF the military.
Posted by: Darleen at August 14, 2005 08:09 PM
Wow...this post is the single most offensive thing that I've seen written about Cindy Sheehan, and that is truly saying something given all of the hate-filled screeds I've read this weekend.
I especially like the Photoshop bon-bon you chose to attach to it.
Karma, Darleen. Embrace it, because you now own it.
Posted by: Rashaverak at August 14, 2005 08:42 PM
Darleen,
Did you know that you and your daughter could probably both join the military. Recruiting is so tough these days that the military is contemplating raising the age when people can join. Hey, you could both go to Iraq. Then, if you make it back alive and don't have your limbs shorn off, you could get yourselves a degree at a two-year college with all that money they'll give you.
Put your money where your mouth is!
I think it highly unlikely. My guess is you're a chickenhawk just like your friends in the White House.
Posted by: Schroeder at August 14, 2005 09:28 PM
Did you ATTACK Mrs. Sheehan? My god, your sensibilities really have been dulled by the years of hate radio rhetoric, haven't they, Darleen?
You only portrayed her as a puppet and made disparaging remarks about her PRIVATE life (private meaning "none of your business", a privilege I understand the right wing now believes belongs only to those of the correct poltical "faith"). We are so lost now in this country, so distanced from the principles of Jefferson and Washington and Adams, that we have forgotten it was the activism of the brave INDIVIDUAL that bought us our freedom in the first place.
Believe it or not, Darleen, but it is possible for people to have political ideals oppositional to those of our current one party rulers. They can hold these principles as individuals and even - gasp! act on them - without being puppets of any organized political group. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp for those on the right. They take their attitudes from the dregs of humanity like Rush - the hate radio king who recently disparaged an Iraqi vet running for Congress in Ohio as a "staff puke"...what was the staff puke's crime, that he earned the disparagement of the fat drug addicted chickenhawk? He dared to run against a Republican. Now Darleen would not dare to bring this outrage to anyone's attention, let alone mention that the Republican in question was far more the puppet of the corrupt Ohio Republican party than Cindy Sheehan is of anyone.
This is where your side is rapidly losing its moral authority to speak on any issue. The blatant hypocrisy, partisanship and amoral slandering of any and all opposition - It's not the American way, and unless the American people have completely lost their way, this will soon become clear to you. Look at the polls. Laugh at them all you like. But always remember that pride comes before the fall, and ask yourself honestly how much pride went into your despicable little cartoon.
Posted by: Hrubec at August 15, 2005 02:09 AM
Hrubec is wrong from start to finish, of course. Anyone here can run over to my blog right now and check out the latest commenters. Let's see...Jandrew, Jay, Andy, and Mcswain regularly comment and they disagree with me on EVERYTHING. Wonderduck may be nice, but he is a Democrat .So I do not ban anyone who disagrees with me. I ban those who are over the top rude.
For the past 6 yrs I have practically raised 2 more boys that were my son's friends who both had a terrible homelife. They lived at our house and I grew to love them like sons. They are both in boot camp now. One in the Navy and the other the Army. I am very proud of them and this war is very real to me. I just believe that some things are worth fighting for and although Hrubec in his fake indignation can't see it, this war is changing the middle east and sowing the seeds of democracy and freedom. This is world changing stuff. Our children's children may acutally grow up in a world where women aren't treated like cattle over there. Where boys are raised to kill the infidels. THIS is what our boys are fighting. This is a noble cause and I feel sorry for people like Hrubec who can't and won't see that.
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at August 15, 2005 06:24 AM
"I feel sorry for people like Hrubec who can't and won't see that."
Well, RWS, in order to feel sorry for someone you must first feel superior. So, in the future, have the honesty to just say it out loud - namely that you feel superior to anyone who doesn't see things your way, OK?
BTW - nice job regurgitating the ridiculous assertions about changing the Middle East, etc. Keep that index card handy.
BTW2 - If you actually read the proposed Iraqi constitution, you'll get a clue as to their ideas about how women will be treated.
What a maroon.
Posted by: MuyDisgusto at August 15, 2005 07:25 AM
BTW, Hrubec:
Your comments are on the mark but, really, making them here is like pissing upwind in a hurricane.
Posted by: MuyDisgusto at August 15, 2005 07:27 AM
Wow. I'm a maroon. How...jr high.
I don't feel superior to anyone. and I know exactly what they are dealing with the Iraqi constitution and I know that women need to fight for their rights, WHICH they are actually able to do NOW.
I may be wrong about the middle east changing. But don't you HOPE I am right?
At least give me that. Or is your hatred for Bush so strong that you would rather see failure over there than have Bush be given any credit?
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at August 15, 2005 08:09 AM
RWS
Muy obviously doesn't own a dictionary or hasn't ever had occassion to find out what the word "sorrow" means.
Pity.
;-)
Posted by: Darleen at August 15, 2005 08:12 AM
Nice image. You're all class, Darlene.
Posted by: jim at August 15, 2005 09:05 AM
I just believe that some things are worth fighting for and although Hrubec in his fake indignation can't see it, this war is changing the middle east and sowing the seeds of democracy and freedom.
You see, I can find agreement in your words.
I regret coming here and being referred to in deragotary words such as "moonbat" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Some things are, indeed, worth fighting for. Who can doubt that any one of those military families wants to believe their loved one died for a successful cause?
The problem is, this war, at least the way we've approached it to date, may have changed the Middle East for the worse. Iraq is a breeding pit for violence and terrorism today - and is already suffering the consequences of civil war, whether or not we citizens choose to see it as such.
The U.S. is resorting to 'Iraqification' - using Shi'ites and Kurds to fight Sunnis - and it's a sign that we know we have lost the original vision we may have had about "winning" the Iraq war.
What "Iraqification" actually means is sectarian fever translated into civil war. "Operation Lightning" - the highly publicized counter-insurgency fought with 40,000 mostly Shi'ite troops rounding up Sunni Arabs - can be read as an early salvo of civil war in Iraq. (see: El Salvador, 1980s)
It has been an unwinnable war all along, and President Bush was not up-front with the American public about that fact. (Just as he was not up-front while leading the American masses toward war).
If we can realize our mistakes and come up with a better, successful plan for the fragile burgeoning democracy in Iraq, I'd love to see it.
I don't want to think any of those men and women died in vain - and their families don't, either. We need to stop attacking the military families - and one another - and ask our leaders for a real plan for success which does not include employing Kurds and Shi'ites against their Iraqi brethren. Otherwise, Iraq will fall apart - and we don't want that, believe me.
If any of these sentiments and opinions are once again called Moonbat ravings, I'll consider this blog a non-productive partisan venue and will remove it from my list of blogs to check.
We deserve to give one another far more respect, and we should use more care in how we talk to one another about such serious issues.
This isn't grade school. People are dying.
Posted by: Jude at August 15, 2005 10:09 AM
This isn't grade school. People are dying.
Obviously.
What is it about this you have forgotten?
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.What would have been gained without deposing Saddam? We know that he had Kofi and much of the UN in his back pocket, that sanctions were close to being lifted, that his WMD program was sleeping, not dead, that he feted and allowed for operation and training of Islamist terrorists, that he stockpiled millions of $$$ of US cash, that he supported Arab-Palestinian terrorists, that his sons'sadistic predations (murder/rape) on the populace went unchecked, that Saddam filled mass graves with civilians of all kinds, that he had businessmen's hands amputated as a "message" to anyone that disagreed with him...
But all of that is just by-the-by if Saddam maintained a "stable" society???
Keywords: Mussolini, trains
Believe it or not, post WWII in Europe was NOT all flowers and candy either. There was talk of failure and mistakes and all sorts of handwringing and sob-sister stories. There was even an "insurgency" in Germany that assassinated Americans and "American collaborators". But the passage of time and the ultimate success in societies rebuilding themselves has allowed the histrionics to fade like cheap pulp newsprint.
The Sunnis and Shi'ites just cooperated in driving thugs out of Fallujah. And the more the Syrian, Pakistani, other-foreign-terrorists make common terrorist cause with Saddamites in murdering 20 Iraqi civilians for each 1 American, the more the population will rise to crush them. A mass grave, only 2-3 weeks old, was just uncovered south of Baghdad after IRAQI forces captured terrorists who then pointed out the grave.
The majority of military families respect the choices of their military members and honor that choice with dignity. Ms. Sheehan disagreed with the President when she first met with him, but didn't doubt his sincerity or sympathy with her. Her current public spectacle, at odds with her past statements, is not beyond analysis OR criticism; especially when she wades into very suspect anti-Israel sentiments.
The groups surrounding her have put her front and center. They are the ones to be held accountable for any "circus" the media portrays.
Posted by: Darleen at August 15, 2005 10:50 AM
I'm sorry but I don't see this war as unwinnable. Bush had always said that we would go in, take out this brutal dictator (and remember there were two madmen (his sons) waiting in the wings) and then we would train the Iraqi forces to protect themselves against terrorists. That is exactly what we are doing.
The middle east has long been the breeding ground for terrorists. That is what we ignored for far too long and why 9-11 happened. We never saw it coming. Do you honestly believe that the terrorists would never have made it to our shores again???
We didn't start this fight, but we are damn well going to end it.
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at August 15, 2005 02:44 PM
sparkle, I'm not sure which is more humorous - your self absorption or your naivete.
I'm guessing you missed yesterday's Washington Post article entitled U.S. Lowers Sights on What Can Be Achieved in Iraq . I will bold a little bit of it for you.
The U.S. no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
The administration in which you place your blind faith, like a little child, has "shedded the unreality". When will you?
And please, try and let go of your public declarations of charity. Almost everyone I know has a kid in the armed forces, including my sister's stepson who is serving in Iraq right now. He's there because his girlfriend got pregnant, he panicked and found the quickest way he could to pay some bills. Like most youngsters over there, he had few other options. That doesn't - and won't ever - give his country an excuse to lie to him and use him as a disposable pawn in some arrogant geopolitical crapshoot.
Posted by: Hrubec at August 15, 2005 03:30 PM
Wait a minute, Hrubec
You mean you don't have an immediate family member in the military or Iraq?
INAUTHENTIC VOICE!! YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK!! CUZ OF THE HYPOCRISY!
meshugga
Posted by: Darleen at August 15, 2005 03:41 PM
Oh well, since a unnamed source in the Washington Post said it, I guess it must be true.
Nice Try.
Try again.
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at August 15, 2005 03:45 PM
Guess Hrubec isn't going to answer my question.
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at August 15, 2005 03:48 PM
You know, sparkly, I was going to make a crack about how you would surely spill your kool aid because it was the Washington Post that I linked to. I know your handlers there at Republican brainwashing central have succeeded in convincing you to ignore any news outlets that they don't personally control. But really, girl, try a little harder. Read the whole thing. If it were the Moonies' Washington Times, I'm sure it would have more credibility for you.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you sleepwalked right into it. Lay off the kool aid. It's killing your brain cells.
Posted by: Hrubec at August 15, 2005 04:14 PM
Don't spill your Kool-Aid on your way to next month's Freedom March in Washington DC. Put together by the Pentagon and sponsored by the Washington Post. You know, Pravda on the Potomac. And for a supporter of this administration to sneer at "unnamed sources" is just too rich.
Posted by: Hoyt Pollard at August 15, 2005 07:55 PM
Typically we see "Bush Supporters" NOT defending Bush but instead ATTACKING the person asking the questions.
Your collective displays of "Guilty Conscience" is Truly Pathetic.
The ONLY reason I see for the Attacks is that Cindy has ASKED A QUESTION none of you so-called "BUSH SUPPORTERS" can answer...
WHY WAS HER SON ORDERED TO HIS DEATH?
Posted by: owlbear1 at August 15, 2005 08:22 PM
KIA 1848
WMD 0
Any questions?
Posted by: Steve J. at August 15, 2005 09:31 PM
I have ceased to be amazed at the amorality of Republicans. For me, the wakeup call was 9/11. I could not concieve that any American could possibly use that tragedy for partisan political gain, but the Republicans all but made a church out of it - a church to themselves and their "permanent majority". It is truly the most depraved act of political opportunism in this country 's history.
That they now stoop to demean Cindy Sheehan is also disgusting, but speaks to their other quality - extreme moral cowardice. What exactly are they so afraid of? The spectacle of an American mother openly asking the presidend of her country to explain in simple human terms what makes her son's death noble. She has exposed his inhumanity and elitist mediocrity. But the Republicans themselves have exposed their own cowardice, fear of accountabiity, fear of facing consequences. You can see a tiny sample of it here on this blog, where they never address the substance of the argument and run and hide once they find the discussion too taxing.
It is very good the world is getting to see this.
Posted by: Hrubec at August 16, 2005 03:53 AM
Hrubac -- you and your kind have found the perfect Madonna of leftist intolerance in Cindy Sheehan.
She represents everything you long for in a spokesperson. She gets to spew all kinds of outrageous, truly anti-American bilge ("Pax Americana is a cancer" or "This country is not worth dying for"), yet when such notions are objected to, vehemently as they should be, it's supposed to be out of bounds to do so, because she is a "grieving mother."
In other words, a one-sided discussion is all you want, in which one side gets to speak and the other side does not. That's anti-American also, by the way.
Her grief was perverted into non-grief when she and her handlers twisted it into a public, political agenda. Now indeed, we get to object to it, and vociferously, despite you and your cohorts fervently wishing otherwise and wishing to preclude our right to speak.
Cindy Sheehan's efforts, which damage morale of those who are making progress in a difficult mission, must be responded to.
Posted by: Mohammad at August 16, 2005 10:56 AM
"Your kind"? Oh my. Do you know I once used that term to refer to ... um, your kind....and got run over like a truck by someone telling me only Nazis said such things. Do you know who that person was? Darleen!....Oh, well, I'm sure she'll tell you the same thing any minute now....Or, y'know, not.
Cindy Sheehan is a perfect kind of hero, you're right about that, but not because no one can speak back to her or because anyone wants a one way dialogue. She's perfect because she represents an American archetype we all thought had died - an original folk hero. She does not, much to the consternation of the right wing (so conditioned to sychophancy and following the bullhorns of their ideologues), have any handlers. She has supporters, some a little fringe, some not, and she sometimes speaks a little foolishly. But you know why? Because she's just an average mom, a youth leader, a soccer mom, an average American four-kids-and-a-station-wagon mom who decided to break away from the American hypnosis of American Idol and Nascar and football and People magazine and actually take a STAND. Deal with it.
Now if you want to talk about those who want one way dialogues, maybe you mean Larry Northern, the yahoo who drove his pickup truck over crosses and flags last night in his rage over another American speaking her mind. Is that what you mean by quashing freedom of speech?
What she should be protected from are the smears of those like Darleen who make nasty cartoons of her and accuse her of being a puppet, accuse her of mental illness, pry into her personal life and so forth. She should be, but the party of Rove has bred a new kind of ethics in American politics. Basically, if you cross a Republican, your entire life, your sexuality, your military service, your marriage and family and children all become "fair game". He has given America the gift of debasement in its public discourse, and for that he is much loved by his party.
I have wondered why the right wing attack machine has come out so hard against this woman, who after all is fighting the president only with words. She isn't threatening him. Why the foulness and the slime? I can only chalk it up to Republican fear. Fear that the American people are waking up to Republican abuses of power, Republican lies, Republican theft, Republican corruption. There really isn't any other logical explanation.
As for diminishing morale, I doubt that they need Cindy Sheehan for that. You will notice that of the four Iraqi vets who have run or are planning to run for office so far, ALL are Democrats. We always hear how the Army is Republican, but no one can or will offer any proof of that. I know when I was in the service, I found most of us to be completely apolitical. I presume it is much the same. No one questions the personal nobiility of the brave kids who fight this disgusting war. It is only the nobility of the cause itself that is being questioned. And not only do we have the RIGHT to question that as Americans, it is our RESPONSIBILITY. For some reason, "your kind" wants to worship and follow an infallible king, but that is heresy to American principles.
Posted by: Hrubec at August 16, 2005 03:18 PM
Uhhh I just realized that somehow, in the comments, my comment got posted under BV's name ... and his/her comment got posted under my name!
I'm only saying this because I blogged on this thread, and my comment ...
Posted by: FrauBudgie at August 16, 2005 05:36 PM
Hrubec, ultimately you are a troll. You are so full of hot air that you could fill a fleet of dirigibles.
And you are disingenuous. I wrote that Cindy Sheehan made a perfect intolerant mouthpiece for your leftist side because her "grieving mother status" precluded talkback -- so you could have the one-sided, shut-the-other-side-up and blast-'em-when-they-don't monologue that you, and others of your persuasion, clearly long for.
In your latest post you apparently deny that supporting Sheehan is about wanting one-way talk because of her grieving mother status.
However, in an earlier post, you wrote, "Have you no decency? Can't you at least hold your tongues, if nothing else, out of respect for the dead?"
I mean, there it is!
In other words, "Shut up. Only we get to talk."
Or, "Shut up. She says this country is not worth dying for. She is a grieving mother; her comments are unopposable. Hold your tongues out of respect for the dead."
I call BS on this whole bloviating, speak-out-of-both-sides-of-your-mouth approach of yours, this use-a-grieving-mother-to-excoriate-non-leftists-merely-for-exercising-their-right-to-respond approach, as well as the wholly uncivil tone you have brought to this thread very first first words of your first post, Hrubec.
For yes, it is truly you and "your kind" that are *using* Cindy Sheehan to advance a clearly extreme-leftist agenda. The Code Pinks, the International A.N.S.W.E.Rs, and the Crawford Houses are more than eager to shove their fringe, crackpot, extreme left ideas in America's faces with Cindy Sheehan's aid. You are taking up with them, finding common cause with them in finding common cause with the extremity of Cindy Sheehan's comments.
Oh, and it's fascinating to see how the term "your kind" got you of all people riled up, considering how your own views about non-leftists throughout all of your posts here are as stereotypical, haughty, and sneering as anyone's in this entire comments section -- and then you can't resist using the term for your own purposes yourself at the end of your latest post!
A Sheehanism like "Pax America is a cancer" and other outrageous slanders of hers against this country are undoubtedly Cindy Sheehan's perfect right to spew. And those who beg to differ also have the perfect right to call a brazen insult such as this one what it is and reject such a nauseating calumny utterly and unequivocally. So no, you won't get the one-sided bludgeon-the-non-left-with-a-grieving-mother effect you are so desperately seeking.
BTW, this is no "attack machine" speaking to you -- not unless you yourself want to admit that you are a mere mouther of a party line. This is a single person talking to you, and telling you that I well know, and well can see, a fascistically one-sided, opposition-not-allowable, slanderous monologue when one rears its ugly head. "Have you no shame," indeed.
Finally, you'd better HOPE Cindy Sheehan is a puppet of the Code Pinks and the Crawford Houses, and that her actual ideas are actually more reasonable and perspicacious than the crackpot ideologies espoused by those extreme-fringe groups she's surrounding herself with and than the outrages she's currently mouthing. I have no problem whatsoever with her right to disagree with the war and to oppose George Bush, as long as she is circumspect about it. But you'd better sit back and truly take a look at Cindy Sheehan's ACTUAL words. Your "perfect kind of hero" is not going to get you very far with the large majority of Americans as the leader of your movement, with the literal things she's saying.
Posted by: Mohammad at August 17, 2005 08:49 AM
Looks like most everything has been covered, but a few things still remain:
Bush has yet to attend a SINGLE funeral of someone killed in the war on terror.
Bush could've ended this by spending 5 minutes talking to Sheehan. He does that, and none of this happens.
For anyone on the right to type about "crackpot ideologies espoused by those extreme-fringe groups" is laughable. Focus on the Family and other hate groups are strongly supported by the right.
As far as the left asking those on the right when they are going to serve, seems to me that is a perfectly honest question. If there was a still a draft, then it'd actually be moot since anyone between the ages of 18 and 42 could be called up (well, unless you've got connections and can either get deferrment after deferrment like Cheney, have your daddy get you a cushy Air National Guard assignment, or even travel Europe like Clinton).
But since it's now a volunteer Army, one would think that those who are so supportive of the war would encourage their kids to serve, or sign up themselves.
One would think that, but they'd be wrong.
What makes me so sick about this whole thing is the right's insistence to blast the woman, rather than the message. And I think that was Hrbuec's point -- if you want to go off on the anti-war movement, fine. But to use the Rovian strategy of smearing the person is exactly what has made this country split apart.
Posted by: Mark at August 17, 2005 11:58 AM
Mohammed, I hate to break this to you, but you are on a extreme, fringe, rightwing agenda driven site right now.
Yes, Mark is exactly right. The rightwing no longer knows how to criticize someone's position on the merits. Like Darleen, and her execrable cartoon, they only know how to slander and ridicule. It would seem that these tactics have become a losing proposition, as Bush now enjoys the lowest approval ratings of any second term president ever. And it's just getting started. It will be interesting indeed to watch this lazy, easily bored little mediocrity endure the next long years of unpopularity and failure.
I like to ask questions of conservatives, though I rarely get answers:
1. If Iraq turns into an Islamic state will Bush still be your hero? Will our 2000 dead still have died for a noble cause?
2. If we pull out of Iraq just before the mdterm elections, just so Bush's repub buddies can get reelected, and that country devolves into civil war, will our kids still have died to spread democracy and will Bush still be right about everything?
It is time for Repubs to stop putting party before country. It is also time for them to remember our Constitution was carefully crafted to prevent exactly the kind of leader worship that you guys want to indulge in. The founding fathers knew humanity had this tendency - to follow, to be weak, to worship kings - and they tried very hard to prevent it happening. Stop displaying such servile weakness. It's really embarrassing to have this mob rule of cowards. It's the worst possible outcome of democracy, the one thing they tried to innoculate us against. Don't prove them wrong.
Posted by: Hrubec at August 17, 2005 06:02 PM
- I'm loving it. The braindead moonbat gaggle is setting the Dems up for another chrushing defeat in 2006 and 2008. We don't want to discourage them too much. OCS is treatable, so we have to encourage the "elite blockheads" they have a clue. To many defeats and they might all pack up and move to France to live with their communist brothers.
Updates:
- Cindy's hubby filed for divorce last friday.
- Cindy's family have condemned her hate filled anti-American comments and actions.
- Her family has said her son would "no doubt feel betrayed and ashamed of his mothers public displays and misguided idea's...[sic]"
Cindy might be a sympathetic figure, in spite of her marxist ideologies, if she didn't have the help and support of M. Moore, Code pinkies and moveon.morons.....
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at August 17, 2005 08:56 PM
It's fun to hear the dumbest Americans in history disparage those on the left. These are the people who willingly submit to brainwashing every day from Rush, Sean, Fox etc...you can tell by how they repeat everything they're told.
The only family member who has said anything against Cindy Sheehan is her (soon to be ex) sister in law. Put that through the right wing media grinder and you get "her family"...which makes propagandists like Darleen all too happy, since she can find a new angle to personally attack the woman and still consider herself a moral saint.
I'd love to have even one rightwing nutjob define marxism and/or communism and explain why their fellow Americans fit those descriptions...when all they have done is embrace a different perspective on the events in their OWN country. It will never happen, because even though these yahoos have been flattered by Rush that their bigotry is actually a form of genius, one of the overwhelming assets the rightwing enjoys these days is the sheeplike stupidity of most of its most ardent followers. You've been programmed like Pavlovian dogs to the extent that just saying "moveon.org" can spring your mindless armies into action slandering their fellow countrymen.
The TEXAN who lives closest to Bush's ranch AGREES with Sheehan's crusade and has donated her the use of his acre of land on both sides of the road, where a concert will be held this weekend. What insult do you have for him - moonbat, commie, Marxist? And what of the 9/11 famillies and Iraq vets that have gone down there, and the Ohio parents that have expressed support? It is truly shameful that the land of Jefferson and Adams now festers with so many who believe the proper response to political pluralism is slander. Even - or lately, especialy - of military personnel and families who speak truth to power.
Posted by: Hrubec at August 18, 2005 03:49 AM
- Once again the Liberals have opened another can of worms I doubt they will be pleased with.
But having done so, they can’t turn around now and accuse Conservatives of trying to brand them unfairly. I now can say, without that reservation, that the vast vast majority of the men I served with in the military were of a Conservative bent. The few Liberals that popped up here and there, generally either stayed to themselves, or got into one sort of trouble or another for shooting off their mouths in some untimely or intemperate manner.
Now what am I to make of all of this. Obviously one could ask some pretty embarrissing questions about the anemic representation of Liberals in our military. But that would be too easy.
Its amusing when the “elitists” put on their bent thinking caps and manage to shot themselves in the foot. The transparent way they move the goal posts constantly, as each of their rhetorical “non-issue” issues fades away.
Lexiconal gymnastics, such as labeling anyone who is willing to fight for home and hearth as “pro-war”, is a prime example. Thats like labeling surgeons as bondage/pain lovers because they cut and operate on ailing patients. Its just stupid.
If Conservatives, whom already outnumber those on the left 50:1 in the miltary but may not be able to serve for a wide range of honest reasons, are to be called “Chickenhawks”, then it would follow that Liberals who refuse to serve via a long list of questionable "evasions" should be called “Chickens**ts”…...
Maybe if we just stipulate that all anti-American "collaboraters" who give support and comfort to our enemies will be given a lifetime "no-draft", get out of service to their country pass, the cowardly among us will sit down, shut the f*k up, and stop shaking....
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at August 18, 2005 09:31 AM
Big Bang--
Please show me any statistical evidence of your statement that "Conservatives ... outnumber those on the left 50:1."
Also, please tell me, exactly, how those against the war are giving "support and comfort to our enemies." Last I checked, dissent is a right (and even a duty) in a free society. But once again, those who speak out against the government are labled as traitors.
IMHO, following the governmnent blindly is the worst form of patriotism.
And talk about moving the "goal posts constantly" is hypocritical from someone on the right. Bush has moved them in Iraq at least three times (from WMDs, to Saddam was evil, to spreading democracy) and on Rove twice (from firing anyone involved in the leak, to only firing anyone convicted of a crime).
Posted by: Mark at August 18, 2005 01:59 PM
- Mark .... either you are naive to a fault or you're dissembling.....I have no way of telling which, so I'll assume for now you have really bought into the lies and propaganda fostered by the gaggle of unhinged leftist groups in our midst.
- First off you need to really ask yourself if its factual to aver that people that are willing to fight for hearth and home are "prowar", "warmongers", or in any way actually think that war is a good thing and want it wage it. If you can't see the "jackass fallacy" in that single leftwing premise right from the start, debating any other issue with you would be pointless. Its not only rediculous its downright stupid. Yet this is the corner post of the yammering left so called "peace movement". the latest gambit in this direction is the "Chickenhawk" cannard. No one in their right mind wants war. Get it. Its just that some of us, (you should kiss your lucky ass and their brave asses for doing it) are willing to standup and be counted in the most brave minded and patriotic way, and put their lives on the line, so that you and everyone in this country can drink your lotte's and argue the "theory's", safely ensconched in your Starbucks, campuses, and living rooms.
- If you don't see the embicility of that intellectually dishonest idea, then theres just no point.
- Heres your problem.... The Republican Administration takes action, sometimes it makes gains, sometimes it gets into trouble. But the Dems are not cashing in on it. They are standing still, refusing to put forth any viable answers to some of these sociatal issues, for fear of making a mistake and looking bad. they are playing the "let the Repubs do the heavy lifting and lay low". Thats short term politics, and it will come back to haunt them in the next elections, because again the only message they will be able to field is ChimpyBush bad mouthing. They will still lack any clear agenda or answers, and fail for the same reason Kerry did because everytime He had a chance to put forth comprehensive ideas and workable plans He thought it was a good idea to publicly patronize Chaneys gay daughter. Bubblegum wrapper politics is just not going to cut it. When the Republicans came back from the wilderness, they did it with a well thought out clear approach to mainstream issues titled "The contract with America". Whether all of the ideas were good or bad is immiterial. They had a plan they could put before the Electorate and talk to and garner support. Basing your entire platform on Bush-bashing is not giving people something they can judge and vote too. Even if they agree with some of your extreme ideas, it occurs to them that you aren't offering anything. You're not bringing anything to the table. Its nice and all that you're whistle blowing but theres no "there" there in terms of leadership or ideas.
Heres some examples:
- Social security:
Bush: "Our SS system needs to be revamped, and soon, before the damage is irreversable. People have a right to decide on the use of their own money through increased SS "ownership" and private accounts....
Left: "Bush is attacking the institution of SS, and trying to reduce our benefits"....(no counter plan, and everyone over the age of 7 knows what the left is really worried about is the loss of access to the SS pork barrel used for all manner of social programs it was never intended for. The core idea to "fair economics" with the tinfoil hat crowd is centered in the very Communistic idea of "redistribution of wealth". )
"The Iraqi War":
Bush: "We have a choice. We can either fight the Jahidist murderers where they live and train in the countries that harbor them, or fight them here after they've delt us more disasterous blows. Iraq's future as a Democratic country could well change the whole face of the struggle in the middle east, and change the direction of world peace, and the lives of millions of people, for generations to come. People who have never known liberty, or the most basic of human rights. When we win there, we woun't have to watch our sons and daughters being slautered in the streets of our cities......"
Left: "Its all about ChimpyBushitler and oil contracts for halliburton. We support our troops when they shoot their officers. The majority of Americans are against this war".... (No ideas on what we would do if we were to turn our backs on the threat of Al'Qeada, and become isolationist, as the left wants America to do. No counter plan. No practical ideas on just how to go about countering the intents of those that would kill us. Just more mindless Bush bashing, while implying anyone willing to defend the country is a war loving, kill happy Rambo)
"The Border fiasco"
Bush: "America has always been a land of opportunity for the oppressed. We need a comprehensive workers program to give people who want to come here that opportunity"...
The Left: "People have the right to immigrate without fear of reprisals simply because they seek a better life. American citizens have no right to assemble as "minutemen" and "vigalante's", denying them those rights."
.... (No answers to the issue of over immigration, rising crime in border states, and finacial problems of those same states. Just lectures on the idea that we aren't supposed to defend ourselves and worse, ignoring our constitutional right to do exactly that, pretending that illegal immigrents have "constitutional rights" and the second amendment doesn't exist.)
It goies on and on. In every area of difficult social questions, the Left are content to sit back and obstruct or take pot shots at the Republicans, but careful never to voice a trully productive counter idea. And so they have no gains to show for it when Bush and His administration do make mistakes or hit a wall in solving things.
If you think this sort of water treading is going to improve the lot of your party in 2006 and 2008, you're in for some more dissapointments.... better rethink that strategy.....
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at August 19, 2005 04:38 PM
- You know ..... One thing the Dems and Repubs have in common.... they're all politicians over everything else.... I no sooner write that previous post, part of which disscussed the border mess and I watch Dennis Deconcini, forner Arizona Governor, and a Repub Senator on Fox tonight make the following statements:
1) Well yes they think the border problem is an emergency, but its not a chronic problem....( aparently 45+ years is not long enough to rate as chronic)
2) They have no idea....none....not a clue as to why Congress as a group, and the Administration from Bush on down, as well as all previous Administrations going back many years just never seem to move on this issue.....(yep....its a real mystery *cough*)
And then we ask why they all run like scalded dogs from the immigration problems of this country. Governor Richardson is finally moving on it, having evidently decided that riding in freedom parades to welcome illegals is not all its cracked up to be, or in his own words: ...."We simply have to recognize that, over and above the drugs, people smuggling, border lawlessness, kidnapping, and murder, the drain on public services and finances, we sre super vulnerable to terrorist activities with this current border policy, and we need to change things and fast...."
- Well Duuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhh..... you think?
- I have to give him a lot of credit though. He and one other Gov. have at least stepped up to the plate, and very possibly Cal will be next. As an aside it doesn't hurt that declaring an emergency qualifies the respective state for homeland defense funding......Hmmm ... maybe thats the "PC" distinction between a chronic problem and a state of emergency.... funding...
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at August 19, 2005 07:05 PM
Hey Lizardoid Minion, bring it on you braindead motherfucker, you sorry piece of shit. Lmao I love these online tough guys who say they can track us down. Oooooo scary, bring it on, motherfucker.
Posted by: Liberal Fag at August 19, 2005 07:40 PM
“In a nut shell, ABC now says it talked to Sheehan and she said she did in fact write the letter in question after all and she did receive an e-mail from ABC confirming that ABC had received it. But she thinks the version on the web has been tampered with.” So let me get this straight, Cindy Sheehan first said a “former friend ” doctored the email and even said this persons gender by saying “he”.
Here is what Cindy sheehan originally stated and I quote ” A former friend who is anti-Israel and wants to use the spotlight on me to push his anti-Semitism is telling everyone who is listening that I believe that Casey died for Israel and has gone so far as to apparently doctor an email from me. People have to know that he doesn’t speak for me. ABC Nightline can’t confirm his email is real and therefore any reporting on it is irresponsible.”
Now that it has been confirmed that she herself sent the email she totally changes her story once again. Now instead of asserting that ABC can’t confirm this mystery persons email and therefore its irresponsible to even report on this particular email, she now says she did send it, but she “thinks” it was tampered with. Im just curious how she could have written it and not really know if its been tampered with , she says now she thinks the web version was tampered with. There is absolutely no evidence what-so- ever that anyone tampered with her email, sent to ABC Nightline in the first place, and how would anyone even know she was sending it? And what is meant by she thinks the web version was tampered with , she doesnt know what she herself wrote and sent? She did the same type of distortion once before when she stated that there was evidence that her son was killed by friendly fire. Later she said and I quote “I have some speculative evidence that he was actually killed by friendly fire.” I just wonder what she means by speculative evidence? I would bet there is no evidence at all that her son died by friendly fire, but it does create that distrust for the military and government that she sets out to accomplish, that is if your very gullible. I dont understand why reporters don’t challenge her on these off the wall statements she makes.
Posted by: Sharlene Morgan at August 20, 2005 04:15 PM
http://conscont.blogspot.com/2005/08/you-read-it-right-complete-blog.html Please read these rules for civil blogging and debate - they're priceless! I hope I didn't break a rule by posting a link but this discussion is crying out for some structure.
Posted by: nan at August 23, 2005 07:35 AM