The moment someone throws in with a "person" like Michael Moore, they lose all credibility.

Sorry, Ms. Sheehan, but you already met with the President. If you had something on your mind, you should have mentioned it back then. If you want to relay some info to him, try writing a letter.

But, of course, the media wouldn't be covering you 24/7 if all you did was write a letter...

Here is what she had to say about her one-and-only meeting with Bush:

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

Here is what Ms. Sheehan's family thinks about her current "protest":

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

Thanks, Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Any questions?

The moment RJ takes a side of an issue, it loses all credibility.

Bush should listen to somebody.

Either way, he would love an opportunity to get out of Vietn...uh, I mean Iraq.

Iraq is still a FUCKING DISASTER... and will be known as one of the biggest blunders in American history.

Limp 'satires' won't change that.

=======

Now back to your earlier scheduled tag-team wrestling match.

"...This is horrible! President Bush is an evil no good bastard for turning dogs loose on this poor woman. That's just wrong.

Worse yet... They haven't reported a thing about the dogs. What kind of dogs has he got attacking her? Dobermans, Rottweillers? Enquiring minds want to know!"


PS: Big Al, this piece (especially the section quoted above) is way below your usual lax standards for writing quality.

~Doh!

SHE'S A COMMUNIST! You complain about losing your freedoms. "Waaah, the government wants to look through my backpack." But then you support this communist woman and the terrible groups that she's supporting.
Do you know anything about these groups? Do some research and take the time to learn something!

Oh, well. You post some serious cited and sourced info, and all the Left has to offer are snarky personal attacks.

Am I surprised? Not at all.

Enjoy your 39 Senate seats in 2007! :)

Actually, the part about the dogs was fairly funny, but the rest just lapsed into sarcasm. I wish he'd gone on with the dogs and other goofy hyperbole along the same lines.

BTW, thanks to RJ for the link to the statement from the Sheehan family. It does put the situation in perspective a lot better than a bunch of talking heads making the same claims that this is all basically just an opportunistic partisan smear campaign.

Dave

And we know that R.J. (Bobby) Elliott's parents will never have to worry about experiencing the same loss as Cindy Sheehan's sacrifice.

I don't know about her being a commie, but she's pretty chummy with Michael Moore, who has openly spoken (while in Europe) about his complete distaste for his fellow Americans, and who supports policies that are, at the very least, socialist.

This is akin to a pro-war supporter camping outside of Teddy Kennedy's mansion and blogging on Hal Turner's site.

(Of course, if that were to happen, we wouldn't have to hear from the MSM about how Senator "killer" Kennedy should meet with this protestor. Instead, all we would hear about is how this hypothetical protestor is a fringe wing-nut with an axe to grind.)

Dave: "...the part about the dogs was fairly funny..."

No.

It was so fucking obvious -- it was junior high shit.

And "enquiring minds want to know" is about as original and creative as "Where's The Beef?!"

If Al has any pride, he should delete the whole thing.

When thinking about Ms. Sheehan, apply the old Native American saying:

May I not judge someone until I walk in his (in this case her) mocassins.

Anyone who has lost a child in Iraq/Afghanistan has the right to speak about this; otherwise, let's give Ms. Sheehan a right to her opinions. This is America and not Nazi Germany (or the old Iraq for that matter) afterall.

RJ: "You post some serious cited and sourced info, and all the Left has to offer are snarky personal attacks."

And I post my opinion that IRAQ IS A FUCKING DISASTER regardless of how many mourning and/or opportunistic "commie" moms protest against it, AND I HEAR FUCKING CRICKETS FROM THE SAME CROWD THAT USED TO ARGUE WHAT A WONDERFUL THING THE INVASION WAS.

feh.

[chirp-chirp]

Let's not talk about Iraq; let's talk about some poor women camped outside of Bush's Vacation Land.

Typical sleight-of-hand/framing the debate.

No one is saying she doesn't have the right to say whatever she wants to say.

And no one should tell her critics that they don't have the right to freedom of speech either.

Let her give interviews from her tent, and let her blog on MM's site. She's welcome to do so.

And the rest of us are welcome to point out her flip-flopping, and the views of the rest of her family.

Shark:

Fewer Americans have died in roughly 2.5 years in that "FUCKING DISASTER" Iraq than die in one month on US highways in automobile accidents.

BAN CARS! GENERAL MOTORS IS HITLER!

oh RJ..that stat ios soOOOOOooOOOooo fucked

percentage of 300 million versus percentage of 125 thousand?

i sure as hell don't know the exact numbers..but i bet someone has them

i'm fairly certain you know my position on this one...we have to fix what we broke, but no matter how you try and polish it, the situation in Iraq is still a steaming turd

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Re comment #15;

Look Elliott (RJ), you just pissed on the graves of those 1,800 brave soldiers who lost there lives in Iraq.

For you to compare volunteering, training and being killed in action in combat to accidental highway fatalities is just more confirmation of how far out-of-touch with the horrors of war you really are.

Of course, what else should we expect from someone who refuses to even TRY to enlist?

Don't go there, Gonzo. I've got the actual numbers. I posted them on a previous thread.

The percentage rate of death among soldiers in Iraq is actually lower than it is among people of the same ages in the general population if you take all causes into account. The higher risk of being in a war zone is apparently countered by the availability of rapid medical care and the much lower chance of being in a car accident - remember we're dealing with people in the prime bad driving age.

Dave

R.J. and Dave Nalle comparing driving to combat.

And this from the so-called "Support the troops" group...

i understand..but the trick here is you said "all causes"

that adds a lot of variables

my only point is that the bullshit of this bogus "statistic" is NOT framed properly...but is used for propaganda purposes

remember, i have stated my position on Iraq plenty of times...never once have i said "unconditional pull out"

but nobody can tell me it's a "good thing" the way it's going

double the number of boots on the ground, and seal off the fucking borders, spend the Resources required to do it right

meanwhile...those that are trying to tear at this woman, are doing the real injustice...just leave her be and the frenzy dies next news cycle....talking shit about a grieving soldier's Mom is not only stupid politically, wrong ethically...but totally repugnant...about on par with the whole Schiavo thing

but who listens to me, eh?

Excelsior!

Uh, Dave? I think that was gonzo's point, but I could be wrong.

So you guys agree that RJ is a bit, how shall I say, a tad, you know, it's like, well, kinda, totally wrong.

Right?

>>i understand..but the trick here is you said "all causes"

that adds a lot of variables<<

Yes, but keep in mind that casualty stats from Iraq include all causes too.

>>my only point is that the bullshit of this bogus "statistic" is NOT framed properly...but is used for propaganda purposes<<

Actually, I haven't seen it used for propaganda at all, except maybe one brief reference from Jim Dunnigan who's not exactly a partisan.

>>remember, i have stated my position on Iraq plenty of times...never once have i said "unconditional pull out"

but nobody can tell me it's a "good thing" the way it's going<<

I didn't say anything to this subject. That's RJ's department. I think there's good and bad happening there, and agree we need to stick it out.

>>double the number of boots on the ground, and seal off the fucking borders, spend the Resources required to do it right<<

Of course the problem with doing this - and you're entirely right that we should - is that it's politically unmarketable in the current environment, and would lead to more casualties which would create more outrage. The short sighted partisan obstructionism of the left has made this solution to the war almost impossible to implement.

Dave

clarification: it was RJ's comment..and other statements like it from various sources that i was referring to as propaganda

nuff said?

Excelsior!

RE comment 1 and 7

Check comment 11 here

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/09/113022.php

for the full story; unless you're just too content with drudges cherry picked blurbette that fits so nicely into your neat, little, simplistic world view.

Monsieur Nalle, thank you for critiquing my actual writing. I think I made my point about the issue and had hopefully a half decent yuck or two, though the artistic angle of the original post may be a bit short. I will try to do better.

Again, the "satire" tag is something of a misnomer, but I'm just trying to make good and sure that this post does not somehow get taken literally at Google news, or some such.

Comment 20
"double the number of boots on the ground, and seal off the fucking borders, spend the Resources required to do it right"

In the Vice Presidential debates, Edwards tried to go right on Cheney by suggesting just that. I'll have to paraphrase slightly, I don't have the quote (not yet), but Cheney said:
To even suggest this shows a lack of understanding of the reality on the ground in Iraq. Sending more American troops into Iraq will result in an increase in the number of insurgents, and make our job there harder.
Unfortunately I think your right on not being able to just cut and run, to many explosives (mostly Sadam's)and jihadis in the same place to just leave.

"Of course the problem with doing this - and you're entirely right that we should - is that it's politically unmarketable in the current environment, and would lead to more casualties which would create more outrage. The short sighted partisan obstructionism of the left has made this solution to the war almost impossible to implement"

I know you'd love to blame the left for this Dave, enemy of the neocons that you are, but according to Cheney it wouldn't work.

I'll find the exact quote and post it soon.

As for smearing Ms. Sheehan to protect your President, what exactly have you have sacrificed, other than your time on this blog, to support his policy in Iraq?

I re-iterate, in case I wasn't clear enough in my original intent, that my point here isn't support or opposition to the war either way. That's a completely separate question.

What I find objectionable is how the emotional whims of one woman have been whipped up into some big challenge to our whole goddam national defense policy. She's not a pundit or scholar or weapons inspector or someone with a persuasive argument of any kind whatsoever. It's purely that we should all presume to let her stop the whole program for no reason but pure emotional foolishness.

1st- Everything after
"Unfortunately, I think your..." was me not Cheney. And the following quote "Of course the problem..." is comment 22
Sorry bout that
Don't Drink and Type

The Cheney quote follows below:

"But the key here is not to try to solve the problems in Iraq by putting in more American troops. The key is to get the Iraqis to take on the responsibility for their own security. That's exactly what we're doing.

If you put American troops in there in larger number and don't get the Iraqis into the fight, you'll postpone the day when you can in fact bring our boys home. It's vital that we deal with any need for additional troops by putting Iraqis into the effort."

The extra jihadis, I guess that was my opinion not Cheney's. But the idea that there's an easy solution to Iraq if that damn Left would just quite bugging us with dead soldiers' mothers
STANDS REFUTED!

I know, Iknow
Of course we're aren't debating the war itself here, just the protest against, but I'm gonna go ahead and post that Cheney quote one more time.

"But the key here is not to try to solve the problems in Iraq by putting in more American troops. The key is to get the Iraqis to take on the responsibility for their own security. That's exactly what we're doing.

If you put American troops in there in larger number and don't get the Iraqis into the fight, you'll postpone the day when you can in fact bring our boys home. It's vital that we deal with any need for additional troops by putting Iraqis into the effort."

Anyone with an easy answer for ending the war AND getting the result we say we want there, please contact the Vice President.

SS, I don't know that anyone's arguing that "there's an easy solution to Iraq if that damn Left would just quit bugging us with dead soldiers' mothers." I'll just say that the dead soldier's mother ploy is pulling in the wrong direction.

Also though, the fact that there's cost and no easy, quick solution doesn't mean that we don't have to do it.

>>I know you'd love to blame the left for this Dave, enemy of the neocons that you are, but according to Cheney it wouldn't work.<<

Did you know that I can be the enemy of both extremists on the right AND the left at the same time and still sleep at night. Cheney may be right and he may not be. I do think that if we're going to have troops there we ought to make sure they're enough of them and more than enough up until the point where the Iraqis can really take over.

>>As for smearing Ms. Sheehan to protect your President, what exactly have you have sacrificed, other than your time on this blog, to support his policy in Iraq?<<

I wasn't aware the average citizen was being called on to 'sacrifice' anything in this war. I've donated money to charitable organizations that support the troops and got my daughter to send a bunch of her beanie babies to Iraqi kids. I wouldn't object to being asked to do more, but right now I don't see what more the citizens in general can do to impact the situation.

And BTW, I haven't smeared Cindy Sheehan, and I support the Iraqi people first and Bush's overall plan only reluctantly.

Dave

BEARS REPEATING:

"...talking shit about a grieving soldier's Mom is not only stupid politically, wrong ethically...but totally repugnant." --The Great Gonzo

Al: "...let her stop the whole program for no reason but pure emotional foolishness."

HER SON IS DEAD, AL.

You think you could find a new way to give Bush a political blow-job in public?

=========

Al: "What I find objectionable is how the emotional whims of one woman have been whipped up into some big challenge to our whole goddam national defense policy..."

Get used to it -- 'cause IT'S JUST BEGINNIING. Wait until a the war vets start returning home and talkin' trash about Vietna... um, Iraq.

BTW: This isn't about "statistics" of dead American GIs versus # of Americans killed in car accidents (which is quite an insult, btw).

It's about continuing to invest lives and $$ resources in an UNWINNABLE SITUATION.

AND FUCK THIS "we can't leave because we broke it" SHIT.

IRAQ will not recover in years, maybe decades, maybe never. It's total anarchy headed for civil war. AT BEST, we'll end up with an Islamic TOTALITARIAN theocracy cozy with Iran.

And I also predict that no matter what kind of "constitution" the Iraqis (whoops, make that nationalistic, xenophobic Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis) come up with, Iraq is going to be a lawless human rights disaster for years and years -- since these folks prefer to "vote" with guns, bombs, and assassinations.

As for solutions, I already offered mine -- and it's hard to believe it was in April of 2004 and we're still over there fucking the dog and still sitting here arguing with patriotic right-wingers who'd rather take pot-shots at greiving mothers than take real shots at Iraqi insurgents.

SHARK'S SOLUTION:

"...We do what American CEOs do when their companies start sliding toward an economic implosion: We simply resign. Leave it for somebody else to clean up. ...Isn't that sort of the entire political and philosophical attitude of the Bush Administration anyway?

Fuck the 'employees.' Fuck the 'stockholders.'

Fuck everybody; let's go home. I resign.

And it's real simple: Here's how you do it;

You say:

"This wasn't what I expected."

"I don't see that this position has any real opportunities for me in the future."

"I want to spend more time with my family."

"I no longer share a common vision with the Board of Directors."

"I feel this is best for me and the organization at this time."

"I have health issues I need to address."

See how easy that is?"

Al only recognizes the following when it comes to opinions on Iraq:

AL Barger: "...She's not a pundit or scholar or weapons inspector or someone with a persuasive argument of any kind whatsoever."

TWO WORDS for the fucking memory-impaired right-wing war supporters:

SCOTT

RITTER


--- you didn't listen to him, and as I recall -- to you guys, he was just an overly-emotional opportunistic liberal with a propoganda effort against Bush.

feh.

Keep moving the goalposts. It reminds me of the constantly changing "justifications" for going to war in the first place.

Here's an idea (and don't forget; I was a marketing professional for 30 some years):

1) Al and RJ enlist.

2) Go to Iraq and jump on a hand-grenade.

3) Then your grieving moms can camp outside Bush's Brush Clearing Farm and show their explicit support for the war.

4) They'll get plenty of publicity -- and according to some religions -- you guys will end up fucking 70 versions of Ann Coulter in Paradise.

Yer welcome!

Dave:
We could argue about whether this will benefit the Iraqi people, and whether everything that's happened to them from '91 to present wasn't the U.S practicing some pretty medieval medicine. I understand that Sadam was a very bad guy, and you believe we are helping the Iraqis, and I respect that motivation.

That said, things haven't gone that well in that direction so far, and you weren't blaming extremists on both ends when you said:

"Of course the problem with doing this - and you're entirely right that we should - is that it's politically unmarketable in the current environment, and would lead to more casualties which would create more outrage. The short sighted partisan obstructionism of the left has made this solution to the war almost impossible to implement" (comment 22)

If this all works and ALL Iraqis get a FREE and democratic society IN PRACTICE, not just on paper, than those who supported the war were right.
If it doesn't...
OWN YOUR MISTAKE, SIR!
Don't weave revisionist fantasies about the 'obstructionist left'. We're not the ones in power.

RE: Ms. Sheehan and the President, I said some pretty cynical things about the way GW might try to handle this situation, based largely on the way he handles political opponents. His statement the other day showed some dignity and restraint.

AL, you know full well this is about Bush refusing to meet the women, not about National Security.

Bush is coming off like a coward and or an asshole in this matter.

If he had just met with her during the first few days, and taken her abuse, and even defended his war, he would have teh moral high ground here.

But he is evidently incapable of facing a mother's wrath.

This could be an excellent moment for Bush from a PR standpoint if he played it right.

BTW, people are flying from as far away as Japan to stand in solidarity with her...

So this isn't going to go away till Bush leaves his vacation (which taking one at this time cost him a lot of whuffie already)

Everyone interested in the Sheehan situation should read this open letter to Cindy Sheehan from an Iraqi. It really puts things in perspective.

Dave

Well, if there's one good thing to come out of this its the return of respectability to stalking.

And I urge others to READ THE REST OF THE BLOG; it sounds like Iraq is lawless, anarchic, headed for civil war, what with the death squads, the bad guys infiltrating the new "police" that we're "training"... and... dare I say it...




IT SOUNDS LIKE IRAQ IS A FUCKING DISASTER.



Thanks for the link, Dave.

Hmm.

Iraq held its first legitimate election in several decades earlier this year. Iraq is probably just a few days away from a new Constitution. Iraq is just a couple months away from new democratic elections.

But the surrender brigade thinks that if they keep repeating "IRAQ IS A FUCKING DISASTER!!!" enough times, their hopes and wishes will become reality.

Sorry. It ain't so.

Oh, and did I mention that Saddam is in a prison cell, and his monstrous sons are dead?

And that Lebanon is bereft of the Syrian military occupation for the first time in decades? And that sources in Lebanon partially credit the liberation of Iraq for this dramatic turn of events?

And that Libya dropped its WMD program almost immediately after the liberation of Iraq?

And that both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia recently held relatively free local elections for the first time in ages?

And that Egypt has suddenly decided to allow opposition parties and free elections?

And the countless other recent positive developments in the Muslim World?

But, hey. Just repeat "IRAQ IS A FUCKING DISASTER!!!" and "Bush Is Hitler!!!" enough times, and it becomes true, right?

No Todd, President Bush most definitely absolutely should NOT meet this woman. Pity should not be a grant of power. Regardless of the pros or cons of the war, it is very bad for our interest to allow such empty emotionalism to cloud our judgement. This isn't the way to set policy.

Bad

Bad

Bad

It's wrong and stupid that this woman has been stirred up into this big story. Makes us look weak, thus making us more vulnerable to attack.

Look, Team America is crumbling. One more good hit, and they'll turn and run with their tails between their American running dog legs. You know that this is exactly how the story plays to our enemies.

No matter the issue, no matter the potential for PR one way or the other, there is NO way the POTUS gets "forced" to meet with anyone.

It just isn't done.

Many of you know how I feel about the issues swirling around this particular situation, and the Iraq debacle, but my respect for the Office Of The President makes me come out on the side of No Meeting.

Sorry.

Since you mentioned me, you get a "zero" on your reading comprehension test.

You said:

This is horrible! President Bush is an evil no good bastard for turning dogs loose on this poor woman. That's just wrong.

BZZZZT! Wrong, Bozo the Clown. Your face should be as red as your big red nose.

I made it quite clear, in my Blogcritics political column, that President Bush has the power to DENOUNCE the smearing of the mother of a fallen soldier.

I have never said that the President smeared her. Anyone interested in the truth can read my column again instead of getting the wrong analysis from Mr. Comedian here.

As for comment #1 with the Drudge-enabled airing of Cindy Sheehan's in-laws pain, I have no question, but comments - oh yes, I have comments. I would have expected Drudge (bastion of non-partisanship - chortle) to revel in this sort of behavior.

It's really desperate for a right-wing cyber-rag to take a desperate family's pain and recycle it for their smear campaign against the mom of a fallen soldier.

From the AP on 8/12 entitled
"War Mothers, Bush Are Worlds Apart"
By Nedra Pickler

"My position has been clear, and therefore, the position of this government is clear," Bush said. "Obviously, the conditions on the ground depend upon our capacity to bring troops home."


I just had to share this jewel from our leader.

Yup, crystal clear.

Yes, the POTUS bumbled his syntax in an extemporaneous remark, therefore he must be a window licking retard. Plus, he's a Republican, so there's that.

i dunno, big Al..sometimes behavior speaks of a person's character..

since we are picking on the Shrub here, i will share a prime example...

this one is on the video record from one of his rare news confrences...

he was corrected about his mispronunciation of the word nuclear as "nukyular" by a reporter...he then said it the same way again...when the reporter asked why...he said "because that's the way I say it"

what struck me here was that here was a specific Issue where he was clearly shown to be wrong, and politely corrected...and still doggedly stuck to being wrong, because that's the way he did it...

one...you know he didn't pronounce that word that way in Connecticutt, or Kennebunkport , or Harvard or Yale

two...what does it say about a person's Character to be shown he is wrong, especially about a little thing like that..and yet do nothing to correct himself?

if he can't be bothered to fix a mispronunciation..what shoudl we expect him to fix ..oh, i dunno...policy mistakes?

this is the kind of shit that keeps me awake sometimes...

Excelsior!

You worry too much, Gonzo. It's a lot harder than you seem to think it is to correct bad speech habits. Once you've been saying nukular and Bidness and axing questions for 20 years it's damned hard to go back to talking like a Yalie.

Dave

but Mr Nalle, my point is, isn't it quite telling as to the character of an Individual that he doesn't even try to correct an obvious mistake he is quite aware of?

and if he won't do it about something simple...why shoudl i ever think that he will work to correct major mistakes?

yeah..i worry about shit like that, especially about the guy that has the "button"

i'm just sayin'

Excelsior!

>>but Mr Nalle, my point is, isn't it quite telling as to the character of an Individual that he doesn't even try to correct an obvious mistake he is quite aware of?<<

It shows a certain sense of self. People understand the words pronounced that way even if it's not technically correct. Why should he change the way he talks to something unnatural to him just to please someone else? English is a great language, but it evolves and it has idioms and peculiarities from region to region.

If something like this is the cornerstone of your critique of his character that's kind of sad.

Dave

>Yes, the POTUS bumbled his syntax in an extemporaneous remark, therefore he must be a window licking retard. Plus, he's a Republican, so there's that.<

Come on Mr. Barger. Even those of you "on his side" have to chuckle at this particular bumble as it came directly on the heels of professed clarity. I'm assuming you get the irony here. You can't make this stuff up.

In the words of Robert Plant, "Does anyone remember laughter?"

no Mr Nalle...not the "cornerstone"..merely a symptom

you try and make it a small thing, it is NOT about how he speaks

it's abotu his knowing he is "wrong" and blithely continuing to go ahead and do it anyway....over and over and over

THAT is the miniscule point i was making, and i still think it is very telling about character

learning from one's mistakes, changing to correct something within yourself, and constantly seeking to expand understanding are all tenets of Wisdom in the human condition

something, silly me, that i would hope our elected leaders have

especially that guy with the button

but hell, you don't care...as long as you get your tax cuts and your portfolio goes up..you will justify most anything..

siding with neocons and fundies gladly...all the while deluding yourself that your so-called "liberty wing" will ever have more influence than the "log cabin" types...

bah...too bitter, need...more...coffee...

Excelsior!

The number of casualties from 'George's War' includes those maimed, amputees and others with less immediately visible injuries; i.e., mental anguish from the nature of this war.[Does "Hey, hey LBJ..." resonate? Maybe we need some Israeli Army advisors on how to *really* deal with civilians in an occupied zone.]

It's gotta be a complete embarrassment about equipment that still isn't right, including body armor. Thanks for the post-invasion planning, neo-cons.

Gonzo, and I agree that as you said it's a 'minuscule point' in more ways than one.

Dorj - no one expected the inadequacy of the body armor in use in Iraq. Are you aware that everyone there HAS body armor which was considered state of the art in our last war. The problem is that there's now new fiber technology and it takes a long time to produce the replacement vests which take advantage of it - and we didn't know we needed it or could get it until the war started.

Dave

Gonzo, I absolutely support the president on the nukyular issue. Do you have a URL for any story of this presidential nukyular exchange?

HINT: El Presidente is obviously going with nukyular quite purposely and purposefully.

Bill B, it is of course good to mock a president up and down the street. It's part of our basic constitutional checks and balances. Bastard's on OUR payroll, and being the butt of jokes is part of the job description.

Just don't mistakenly actually think from a few bits of flubbed syntax that he's any kind of stupid.

"what struck me here was that here was a specific Issue where he was clearly shown to be wrong, and politely corrected...and still doggedly stuck to being wrong, because that's the way he did it..."

No. This was a reporter trying to make an ass out of the President because the President (gasp!) mispronounced a word the same way that probably half the fucking country also mispronounces the word. And Bush was not about to correct himself and apologize for the benefit of some anti-Bush journalist.

Good for him.

If that "anti-Bush" journalist thought he was going to make an ass out of GW Bush, he totally "misunderstimated" the determination of our Commander in Chief.

What he should've asked ol' GW was what exactly did he mean by his "I know how hard it is to put food on your family" statement...

re. The "War in Iraq"

A reporter asked Bush if -- like Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore in Apocalpyse Now -- he loved "the smell of victory", Bush answered that he "never inhaled."

=======

Today's Essay Assignment for Superpatriots RJ Elliot and Big Al Barger:

SUBJECT:

Body Armor vs Rumsfeld's Effectiveness

Discuss.

Thanks

reading the comments i just realized that te entire Press corps could catch the Shrub naked in a room with a dead woman, a live boy, a very scared sheep while he was wearing velcro mittens, while giving bin Laden a reach around...

and still Mr Nalle and RJ would rush to his defense...

i'm just sayin'...

Excelsior!

Gonzo, I support the right of George W. Bush or anyone else to have sex with a dead woman, a live boy or a sheep so long as they are all of legal age and freely consenting. I say this in advance, but have said the same in defense of Bill Clinton, so bring on the photos of Bush and his gay/dead/fleecy orgy.

Dave

fair enough Mr Nalle...and duly noted

yer Honor...the Persecution rests..

heh

Excelsior!

>>Dorj - no one expected the inadequacy of the body armor in use in Iraq. Are you aware that everyone there HAS body armor which was considered state of the art in our last war. The problem is that there's now new fiber technology and it takes a long time to produce the replacement vests which take advantage of it - and we didn't know we needed it or could get it until the war started.



What a load of shill-shit rom top to, rm, bottom. One, that's a planning mistake. Two, it's been three years. I think we could have mastered the vest production by now.


Useless. Completely useless. And did I mention, useless?

Iraq War:

Today's Essay Subject:

"The Pentagon's use of Mercenaries, "Private Security Companies" etc -- to supplement an inadequate US military force in Iraq."

======

Bonus essay: How is it helpful when a Special Ops Captain (w/ American taxpayer-financed training) who is making $30 a year leaves the Army, walks across the street, signs up with "Triple Canopy" (et al) for $180k a year -- and goes back to virtually the same job in Iraq?

Explain.

=======

Special Quiz Question:

How much you wanna bet that investors in these companies are also big-wigs in the Pentagon, the GOP, the Neo-Con movement, and the Bush Administration?

=======

Libertarians:

PENCILS READY...

Go!

I thought this was about Cindy Sheehan, not Bush. But it seems everything is about Bush. Too hot? Blame Bush. Not enough rain? Blame Bush.

Bush has no need to talk to Sheehan. Nothing he says will change her mind and nothing she says will change his mind.

I'm sure he has other things to do.

Miriam: "...Too hot? Blame Bush. Not enough rain? Blame Bush."

Shut the fuck up with the Blame Bush stuff, will ya?!

"other things to do"

i've said it before, the Shrub is under NO obligation to meet with this woman..and she has EVERY right to protest...

but "other things to do"...oh yes...that's right, i forgot

this week he breaks the record for most Presidential vacation days...formerly held by Reagan, over 8 years...

not like there's 2 wars going on or anything...

Excelsior!

"Too hot? Blame Bush."

Nothing a Brazilian wouldn't fix.

>>Bonus essay: How is it helpful when a Special Ops Captain (w/ American taxpayer-financed training) who is making $30 a year leaves the Army, walks across the street, signs up with "Triple Canopy" (et al) for $180k a year -- and goes back to virtually the same job in Iraq?

Explain.<<

Let's see, it means my friend who more or less did just that can pay his way through medical school with ease?

And it means that for once our veterans are paid what they're worth? Is that a bad thing? These guys aren't hiring green recruits, they're hiring folks who've already paid their dues and done their time for the military and really deserve some reward for it.

Dave

oh..you mean folks that kill, not for their country..but for money.

and you are ok with that...

nothing can bridge that gap in ethics

/rolls eyes and pukes

Excelsior!

Gonzo, that's got to be the dumbest damned thing you've ever said. We're not talking about signing up as a mafia hitman, or just for the highest bidder. If the killing is righteous, then being paid for it is fine. If it's not, then doing it for free doesn't make it any better.

>>oh..you mean folks that kill, not for their country..but for money.

and you are ok with that...<<

Give me a break, Gonzo. They aren't hitmen or assassins or death squads. They're hired to provide security and protection. They're guards. They only fire when fired on, and they cooperate with the military and their policies.

Dave

do either of you seriously want to try and tell me the history of KBR, and mercenaries in general is just "security guards"

now who is being fucking naive..

check south africa's history?..then cross wiht KBR

try Venezuela

either way, that you would condone killers for hire, and especially condone that we, the American people fucking PAY them is just far beyond driven

move down one peg on the evolutionary scale...do not pass "civilized" do not collect a conscience

maybe it's because i AM a vet...i can't believe you, Mr Nalle are unaware of the history of mercenaries in the course of human events

imagine what the Founders would say about it?

bah..why do i fucking bother...you two woudl have to have Jiminy fucking Cricket in your shorts to even begin to understand

Excelsior!

I've known two mercenaries, Gonzo. Neither of them was involved in any kind of atrocities and both are and were pretty fine upstanding guys. Most of their work was indirectly for the CIA or the DEA, and it really was for the most part guard and escort work. Neither of them was in Venezuela, but one was in Columbia if that counts for anything.

We're not talking about the Free Companies of Renaissance Italy here or the Mercs working for the Rhodesian government in the 1970s here.

>>imagine what the Founders would say about it?<<

Jefferson hired 105 Greek Mercenaries to augment his small force of Marines when he invaded Tripoli in 1804.

Dave

and that 2 make a fine statistical sampling of what soldiers for hire are?

the point is fucking lost on you..

an "army" fights for it's Country

"mercenaries" fight for their pay

one sacrifices for his "group" because he believes in it..the other is not prone to "sacrifice" for anything, and is known for going to the highest bidder

you fucking figure it out

Excelsior!

They're just people doing a job and using the skills they have. They went through years in the military paid almost nothing. Now they have a chance to actually get paid for what they do. In that sense we're all mercenaries. We all use our skills for a paycheck. If they commit crimes they should be prosecuted, but there's no indication this is happening in the current situation.

The truth is that pipeline workers and engineers and technology wonks need protection when they go to dangerous places, and guys who do this work are needed and in fact, take a lot of unnecessary burden off of the US military.

Dave

My feeling is that Mrs. Sheehan lost most, but not all, of her sympathy capital when she threw in with the anti-war Bush hatin' kooks. It's vile tawdriness to make political hay out of her son's sacrifice. She cheapens his honor and deserves the scorn that comes her way.

The remaining remnant of sympathy comes from witnessing the exploitation of her grief by the political opportunists who act as the shameful puppeteers of an obviously mentally unstable woman.

As regrettable as the spectacle is, it does illuminate for the American public the lack of integrity her anti-Bush handlers have, so on balance, it's probably a good thing.

Dave: "They're just people doing a job..."

...First quoted by defendents at Nuremberg.


BTW: Aside from the ethics issues, the who is gonna 'control' them issues, the potential for abuse, and the fact that they're a 'hidden' supplement to an inadequate military force in Iraq - what do you think this could do to our military? Our special ops staff? The budget?

Oh c'mon, Al and Dave, don't play dumb and naive on this one; this mercenary thing just ain't supportable from a patriotic right-wing angle. It just don't look Right... [sic]

Oh, and Big Al, thought I'd give you, Drudge, and FOX NEWS a heads up:

Here's another grieving family member you can mock in public.

And it's just beginning, boyz.

>>Dave: "They're just people doing a job..."

...First quoted by defendents at Nuremberg.<<

Give me a break, Shark. Their job is keeping civilian employees from getting killed. That's a hell of a lot different from being a death camp guard. In fact, making that comparison is pretty damned vile.

Dave

oh..and how many "civilian contractors" are involved in niterrogations and spec ops?

put the blinders down and step away...

it bloggles my mind that you are this naive

yes, many of the mercenaries are just what you say..security guards...the DoD is using many of them as "interrogators" ( see the testimony relating to Abu Grahib as well as GITMO)...what else are these completely INACCOUNTABLE forces doing?

nice way to bypass the Geneva Conventions as well as the UCMJ

fucking spare me

Excelsior!

Gonzo, I haven't said one word about civilian contractors working for the CIA. Many of those aren't Americans and don't have a military background. They aren't what I'd call proper mercenaries at all. Don't lump hired torturers in with decent ex-military guys who are working for KMG or other companies and doing nothing wrong.

Dave

OMG..still trying to hide behind innocent naivete?

who the fuck do you think they are?

civilian contractor = mercenary

you know what defines them?..having a fucking firearm

clue for ya..if they are NOT military, are getting paid from an ourside source, and have firearms...THEY ARE MERCENARIES!!

"civilian contractor" is a euphemism, trying to hide what they are..

that truckdriver, or pipeline worker ...those are "contractors"....doing jobs that should be done by SeaBees and the Army Corps of Engineers...

i agree, that many of the mercs do guard duty

and i'm NOT talking abotu individuals working for the "Agency"..those are covered in another category...

the corporate, gun toting, not accountable to US authority, "civilian contractors", ARE FUCKING MERCS!!!

may JuJu defend you from your naive ignorance...

Excelsior!

Fuck this [edited]

This bitch is nothing more than a puppet of the media and that fat fuck Moore! Go home you media whore!

Image

Yo, fascisthater, make an actual comment, please.

BHW, that link was certainly a comment, and a reasonably good one.

Thanks, Fascisthater.

Exactly what dogs were let loose on Sheehan??? Are you saying this because polls show the the majority of Americans disagree with Sheehan??? That is not Bush's fault my freind, that is her fault.

Or are the Bush's dogs the anti Sheehan protestors who are also camped out on the ranch??? I am sorry to inform you but not everyone hates Bush and the war, that is probabally why he got reelected.

It annoys me pretty much that this woman goes to Crawford to spaz out for the cameras, and then people get all indignant over HER being "attacked" when, surprise, she faces criticism for her ridiculous shenanigans.

Dubya didn't ask her to come protest, nor did he call in the critics.

Dude -- Her son sacrificed his life in Iraq. I think she's entitled to do whatever she likes within the confines of the law.

DUDE, yeah she has the right to do anything inside the law, just like we have the right to critsize what she does inside the law. This IS America, is it not?

Of course it is -- therefore I have a right to point out others' rights in the face of silly criticism.

Just like you, bro. And round and round we go.

Eric, I would say Sheehan is silly, not the critism she gets. But of course you have the right to say I am wrong, I am not trying to take that right away from you.

Nor am I taking rights away from anyone -- I don't know how this got into rights.

My point is that it is unkind at the least and downright unpatriotic at the most to chastise a mother of a fallen soldier for doing anything within the confines of the law.

The character assasination by the conservative media machine on this one is unprecedented. Limbaugh writing her off by saying, "We've all lost things." What is he, jealous?

No, Sheehan is unpatriotic and insane. Her son came home from Iraq and then reenlisted to go back and fight. He is patriotic. She is unpatriotic.

Eric let me tell you something about life: When you go out in public and critisize a president that your son fight for there will be people who will critisize you.

Sheehan didn't even raise her son, his stepmom did. She only showed up in his life when she saw a chance to be famous.

Quite a patriotic women, isn't Eric.

I'm not going to tell a mother how to grieve for her son.

If you and other conservatives are, that's your business.

But I don't think it's right, and I'm going to say so.

Monsieur Berlin, now that "not going to tell a mother how to grieve" stuff is some bullcrap. In the classic words of Ann Coulter, "Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show."

The Sheehan shenanigans are WAY past having anything to do with a poor mommy grieving her son. If she wanted to quietly and privately grieve, then more power to her. But when she takes it up as a political cause and goes media whoring, then she can expect to be judged critically like any other activist.

Well said, Al Barger

Coulter shouldn't have a PR flack either then!

Nothing wrong with having a PR flack for professional purposes. It's that Ms Sheehan continues to play on our emotions, and her flacks are morally offended that she should be held to account like any other citizen expressing their opinion.

Ann Coulter puts out her opinions and analysis, and invites open criticism. She's not playing on public sympathy to try to get a pass from criticism. You can say she's full of crap, or she's got a good point, or that she's satanic- and no one is going to come down on you for being a big meanie.

Ms Sheehan should expect exactly the same.

I disagree -- Sheehan gets far more respect and sympathy than (especially a hate-spewing) Coulter.

Now, I don't agree with everything Sheehan esouses. But I respect that she's using her grief to spur her to ask the President important Life & Death questions that have never really been answered.

We live in a Spin Country, and the Case of Sheehan is cutting through that in a way that is very uncomfortable to this President and administration.

And that's a good thing.

To me, it's cutting through to show US all the depths of demagoguery, the lengths that some parts of the left will go to win support. Besides Sheehan herself, there's absolutely no excuse for the ugly SOBs who are exploiting public sympathy for a dead soldier's mom. This is an exceedingly ugly and disreputable display.

I entirely disagree. REAL people are dying over in Iraq, sons and daughters getting blown to bits and losing limbs and eyes every day.

If we can't ask hard questions now -- particularly when there's very little in the way of a plan to win this thing and get the hell out of there -- when can we?

If the mother of a fallen soldier can't ask hard questions, who can?

If you want to blame someone, blame Bush. He's been hiding under cover of "stay the course" and unrealistic optimism for far too many months.

And most of the public is finally starting to catch on.

>>If we can't ask hard questions now -- particularly when there's very little in the way of a plan to win this thing and get the hell out of there -- when can we? <<

When could we not ask hard questions? And why is now any more special than any other time since the war started?

Frankly, I already know the answers to the questions people want to ask Bush. I'd like those people to answer some questions of their own, particularly what they're trying to achieve by undermining the war, and whether they have a plan for dealing with terrorism if we fail in Iraq because of their efforts.

Dave

Okay, we're allowed to ask hard questions. Then we're also allowed to assemble and protest and demand that our voices be heard.

And that's all that Sheehan's doing, with the rage and pain of losing a son.

Dave - If you know all of the answers, why don't you run for office so you can go ahead and solve all of our problems for us?

>>Okay, we're allowed to ask hard questions. Then we're also allowed to assemble and protest and demand that our voices be heard. <<

Of couse. I believe you'll find that I've supported that right throughout this discussion.

>>And that's all that Sheehan's doing, with the rage and pain of losing a son.<<

And the money and logistical support of political operatives who want to build a power base on her son's grave.

>>Dave - If you know all of the answers, why don't you run for office so you can go ahead and solve all of our problems for us?<<

I have some answers, but that just leads to more questions. And I have run for office and will likely do it again, but not on a national level any time soon.

Dave

Sheehan is more than happy to be part of a vibrant anti-war movement.

You and others want to have it both ways: you say she's being manipulated and that she's exploiting her son's death.

And then when in doubt... character assasinate. It's text book Bush Doctrine.

"vibrant anti-war movement"

That's like calling the Emperor in Star Wars a 'handsome young fellow'.

Dave

I'm saying that Ms Sheehan is readily co-operating with her eyes wide open, conspiring with schmuck anti-American political groups to milk public sympathy for attention and undeserved emotional leverage in the political process. Demagoguery, in other words, from her and them.

I respect their constitutional rights to engage in this highly disreputable activity, and also those of good patriots who wish to denounce them as they deserve.

It's not ME assassinating Ms Sheehan's character. I certainly didn't force her to become a media whore and throw in with openly anti-American groups. She did that her self. It was character suicide, not assassination.

Give it a rest, Nalle. The Bush gang has built a power base in Iraq on 1,864 dead US soldiers, so far.

Don't waste time running for office again. Do what your hero in the White House didn't have the guts to do: join the grunts on the front lines.

I love how it's "anti-American" to take a view that's opposed to that of the current administration.

Damn those free-speechers! Damn those that wish for a more honest foreign policy!

To the hanging post with the lot of 'em!

Who's got the copy of Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery"?

(Oh, was that too literary?)

For starters Mr Berlin, you can definitely give the "free speech" stuff a frickin' rest. It's a straw man. No one here has ever for a second implied that Ms Sheehan should not be allowed to say any damned stupid thing she wants to say.

Nor is it that no one is allowed to disagree with the administration. I do it all the time. But she has joined up with groups directly rooting for the insurgency- the bastards who killed her son, ultimately. But she's right there with them, spouting their anti-US and anti-Israel pinko slogans.

Her behavior is shameful. Shame on her for throwing in with such people.

valery d:"Give it a rest, Nalle. The Bush gang has built a power base in Iraq on 1,864 dead US soldiers, so far."

No, those deaths have hurt their power base, if anything.

valery d: "Don't waste time running for office again. Do what your hero in the White House didn't have the guts to do: join the grunts on the front lines."

I know you'd rather not have any more honest voices in politics, but at my age they aren't going to let me anywhere near the front lines, so the best way I can serve is politically.

Eric B: "I love how it's "anti-American" to take a view that's opposed to that of the current administration."

Although you keep saying it, I really don't see a lot of people except for a couple of obvious nitwits calling well meaning individuals opposing the administration anti-American. It's not anti-American to oppose an administration. It might be anti-American to want to tear down the constitution and institutions and to destroy our nation and its values, but that's a different issue.

Dave

"...at my age, they're not going to let me anywhere near the front lines..."
- Dave (I had other priorities during Desert Storm) Nalle, age 45

Nalle, tell that to the families of the 40 brave soldiers, close to your age (or older), listed below, who were killed in action in Iraq:

1. Army Sgt. Roger D. Rowe, 54, was killed July 9, 2003, in an enemy sniper attack in Iraq;

2. Army Sgt. Frank T. Carvill, 51, killed June 4, 2004, when his convoy was attacked by improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades in Baghdad;

3. Army Sgt. 1st Class John W. Marshall, 50, was killed April 8, 2003, when he was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade during an ambush in Baghdad;

4. Army Chief Warrant Officer 3 Patrick W. Cordsmeier, 49, killed April 24, 2004, when mortar rounds hit his camp in Taji;

5. Army Sgt. Russell L. Collier, 48, killed Oct. 3, 2004, when his unit was attacked by small arms fire in Taji;

6. Army Sgt. Major Michael B. Stack, 48, killed April 11, 2004, by hostile fire in Anbar province;

7. Army Staff Sgt. Thomas A. Little, 47, died of injuries May 2, 2005, of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee in Iskandariyah;

8. Army Sgt. Lynn R. Poulin, Sr., 47, killed Dec. 21, 2004, when his base dining facility was attacked in Mosul;

9. Army Sgt. 1st Class Pedro Munoz, 47, was killed January 2, 2005, when his patrol encountered fire in Shindand;

10. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Keith E. Taylor, 47, was killed January 29, 2005, during a rocket attack of the U.S. Embassy;

11. Army Staff Sgt. Julio S. Melo, 47, killed Dec. 21, 2004, when his base dining facility was attacked in Mosul;

12. National Guard Spc. Michael L. Williams, 46, killed Oct. 17, 2003, when his vehicle ran over an improvised explosive device near Baghdad;

13. Army Sgt. Larry R. Arnold, Sr., 46, was killed June 11, 2005, when his armored personnel carrier was hit by an improvised explosive device in Owesat Village;

14. Army Master Sgt. William L. Payne, 46, was killed May 16, 2003, in an accidental ordance explosion in Haswa;

15. Army Staff Sgt. Frank Tiani, 45, killed July 17, 2005, when an improvised expolsive device detonated near his position in Baghdad;

16. Army Command Sgt. Major Jerry L. Wilson, 45, killed Nov. 23, 2003, when hostile forces attacked his vehicle in Mosul;

17. Army Staff Sgt. David R. Jones, Sr., 45, was killed July 30, 2005, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee while he was on patrol in Baghdad;

18. Army Command Sgt. Major Steven W. Faulkenburg, 45, killed Nov. 9, 2004, by small arms fire while conducting combat operations in Fallujah;

19. Army Staff St. Michael C. Ottolini, 45, killed Nov. 10, 2004, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee in Balad;

20. Army Sgt. Major Cornwell W. Gilmore, 45, was killed Nov. 7, 2003, riding in a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter that was shot down in Tikrit;

21. National Guard Sgt. 1st Class William W. Labadie, 45, killed April 7, 2004, when his camp was attacked by rockets and small arms fire in Baghdad;

22. Army Sgt. 1st Class Henry A. Bacon, 45, was killed Feb. 20 when he was struck by a recovery vehicle while assisting a disabled vehicle in Dujayl;

23. Army Lt. Col. Terrence K. Crowe, 44, was killed June 7, 2005, when his unit was attacked by enemy forces using rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire in Tal Afar;

24. National Guard Sgt. Ivory L. Phipps, 44, died March 17, 2004, of injuries received from a mortar attack Baghdad;

25. Army Lt. Col. Mark P. Phelan, 44, killed Oct. 13, 2004, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his convoy vehicle in Mosul;

26. Army Sgt. James W. Harlan, 44, killed May 14, 2004, when a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb next to his vehicle in Baghdad;

27. Army Staff Sgt. Carl R. Fuller, 44, killed July 24, 2005, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee when he was on patrol in Baghdad;

28. Army Sgt. 1st Class Troy Miranda, 44, killed May 20, 2004, when a grenade exploded near his foot patrol in Baghdad;

29. Navy Culinary Spec. 1st Class Regina R. Clark, 43, was killed June 23, 2005, when a vehicle-born improvised explosive device detonated near her convoy vehicle in Fallujah;

30. Army Spec. Kurt Kraut, 43, was killed Aug 8, 2005, when an improvised explosive device detonated near hi humvee as he was conductiong convoy operations near Balad;

31. Army Staff Sgt. Christopher N. Piper, 43, was died of June 16, 2005, from injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle in Orgun-E;

32. Army Lt. Col. Kim S. Orlando, 43, was killed Oct. 16, 2003, attempting to negotiate with aremed men near a mosque in Karbala;

33. Army Staff Sgt. Saburant Parker, 43, was killed May 23, 2005, when his military vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in Haswa;

34. Army Chief Warrant Officer Sharon T. Swartworth, 43, killed Nov. 7, 2003, when the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter she was in was shot down in Tikrit;

35. Army Spec. Jimmy D. Buie, 43, was killed January 4, 2005, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle in Taji;

36. Army Command Sgt. Major Eric F. Cooke, 43, killed Dec. 24, 2003, while in a vehicle struck by an improvised explosive device in Baghdad;

37. Army Major Christopher J. Splinter, 43, killed Dec. 24, 2003, while in a vehicle struck by an improvised explosive device in Samarra;

38. Army Staff Sgt. Stephen Hattamer, 43, killed on Dec. 25, 2003 (where were you that Christmas Day, Nalle and Barger?), during a mortar attack in Baguba;

39. Army Chief Warrant Officer Kyran E. Kennedy, 43, killed Nov. 7, 2003, when his UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter was shot down in Tikrit;

40. Army PFC Charles E. Bush, Jr., killed Dec. 19, 2003, when his vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device in Balad.

MCH, it is highly disreputable for you to be waving the bloody shirt with the list of dead soldiers above. You're using their bloody sacrifices to justify your fascistic chickenhawk argument, which I highly doubt most of these soldiers would support. Leave them out of it.

Dave -- The anti-American stuff is going on all the time, actual and implied. It's going on on this very post.

It smacks of fascism when that sort of thing is bandied about -- that it's only "patriotic" to tow the line.

Isn't it patriotic to espouse the views (within the limits of present laws and institutions, etc.) one feels will best serve the country?

Mr Berlin, there's plenty of room for patriotic dissent, but this stuff ain't it. There are pretty many people who simply oppose the US and W first and foremost. America, bad. Bush, bad. The anti-Semitic nonsense from Sheehan ain't patriotic. It has nothing to do with defending the country. I find it difficult or impossible to believe that many of these people have US defense as their motivation.

You want to impress me with your patriotic dissent? Try presenting at least a half reasonable alternative to the current strategies in Iraq and the rest of the war on terror. I'll be anxious to hear them. I hope you have a more reasonable idea than US coming home with our tails between our legs and a presumption that this would cause our enemies to back off rather than redouble their evil.

What "anti-Semitic nonsense"?

I don't personally subscribe to a cut-and-run strategy. But then again, I don't need to come up with a plan to win the war because I never supported it as planned and voted for the other guy in '04.

That said, it's a bloody mess and I'm sympathetic to those who do want to pull the troops out and have done with it.

Especially those that have lost children over there.

Monsieur Berlin asks, "What "anti-Semitic nonsense"?"

Cindy Sheehan: "Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11."

Okay, I disagree with her there but I wouldn't call it anti-Semitic.

So she doesn't blindly support Israel. Where does she say anything about Semitic people, or even Jews?

Oh yes, and while we're talking about the patriotic dissent of the patriotic Cindy Sheehan and her patriotic supporters- who wish for nothing but the patriotic good of America like the good patriots that they are- consider this bit of reporting from Bob Novak:

At Cindy Sheehan's side since Aug. 6 when she began her antiwar protest outside President Bush's Texas ranch have been three groups that openly support the Iraqi insurgency against U.S. troops: Code Pink-Women For Peace, United for Peace & Justice, and Veterans For Peace.

Those organizations were represented at a mock "war crimes" trial in Istanbul that on June 27 produced a joint declaration backing the insurgency. Based on the United Nations Charter, it said "the popular national resistance to the occupation is legitimate and justified. It deserves the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom."

The Istanbul statement also rejected U.S. efforts to leave behind a democratic government in Iraq, asserting: "Any law or institution created under the aegis of occupation is devoid of both legal and moral authority."

Bullshit right there, JR. Presenting our involvement in Iraq as an Israeli conspiracy is a lot more than just "not blindly supporting Israel." If you don't see how that kind of talk smells very strongly like rancid, rabid anti-Semitism, then I have to suspect willful ignorance.

Barger;

Nalle tried to justify his reason for having others fight his battles for him by falsely claiming that those in their mid-40s would never get close to the front lines, thereby pissing on the graves of those brave 38 men and two women of 43 years and older who've died for our country in Iraq.

I submit that is actually you, Barger, who is in disrepute for trying to shutdown the acknowledgement of the sacrifices these elderly soldiers - most of them parents, and some of them even grandparents.

MCH-
Were you for or against Vietnam?
If yes, then why did you opt to serve out your tour in Hawaii and let others fight your battles for you?
If no, why didn't you have the 'nads to be a conscientious objector or go to Canada preserving the courage of your convictions.
Applying the airtight logic of your chickenhawk argument, these are the only conclusions I can arrive at.
It's a retarded argument and I think everyone would welcome some original thought from you.

Joe,

Curious that you never question the motives of the non-combat veterans here on BC who support the invasion. I've also noticed a pattern to how selective your opposition to name-calling is.

By the way, thanx for ridiculing my service. Peculiar that you're so concerned with why I didn't volunteer for combat, and yet you look the other way regarding GW Bush's desertion.

Check out the Veterans Against the Iraq War web site sometime, Joe. I've never pretended my service was anything but mediocre, but there are plenty of vets at the www.vaiw.org/vet whose sacrifices you might not to be so eager to compare yours with.

That's because I don't see them trying to shutdown the conversation with particular argument which I think is riduculous. Is that the pattern you recognized.

You bring ridicule upon yourself by your own argument. And as soon as I see charges brough about by one of his commander's I'll join you in denouncing him.

I've got enough confidence in my own service that I don't feel need to compare to it anyone else's. You might consider trying it.

I see someone in here is regurgitating that Israel comment that Cindy Sheehan supposedly made. They must get their info from Right Wing websites, certainly not Cindy Sheehan. No one has provided any sort of proof she ever made that comment, and she states that she did not.

So, clearly we have a poster who is perfectly willing to be a conduit to further slime Cindy Sheehan with more Right Wing website "inventions."

Up to you. However, if you'd just like to invent you own fake Sheehan quotes, please do so. I imagine it would be much more fun. And don't worry, I'm sure we'll all make an allowance for the reduced level of creativity, right gang?

I thought her comments about Israel were well documented. Weren't they in a letter she wrote to Nightline in March of this year?

Dave

John, I will assume for the sake of argument that you are honest in your ignorance of Sheehan's comments. Yes, she absolutely sent those comments to Nightline, and to others directly from her own email. Now when she's getting her comments run back up in her, she's simply lying to try to deny them.

CLICK HERE for the whole story.

That Slate article certainly seems pretty damned definitive on the subject.

Dave

Ms Sheehan seems to think the dead son gives her some kind of wild card license to say anything whatsoever without being called out or questioned. Something she said turns out to be inconvenient later, then she never said it- even if it's documented in multiple directions.

Oh, what's wrong with me? Her son was killed, so how can I demand that she be truthful?

I read the info link you provided and accept its validity. I see I have fallen into a trap I'd hoped to avoid. That of allowing the Bushites to form the nature of the debate and to narrow discussion of an insane war, how it started and why, down into a discussion of the specific words in one sentence in a single email, then using it to slime everything their target has said or written. I call it Bushwhacking. The Bushites are very, very good at doing this. I'll try not to allow them to suck me into it again.

Barger wrote:

>>I hope you have a more reasonable idea than US coming home with our tails between our legs and a presumption that this would cause our enemies to back off rather than redouble their evil.<<

Riiight! We wouldn't want a repeat of the Vietnam debacle which resulted in the VC invasion and occupation of Alaska.

John, if you just stuck to the verifiable truth rather than what DailyKos or your preferred leftist talking points source TELLS you the truth is, then you'd never run into this sort of problem. The fact is that no one on the right is trying to 'narrow the debate' - they've got their hands full enough shooting down the lies flying out of the left wing disinformation machine.

Dave

Valery, Iraq is a very different situation than Vietnam. Even Vietnam wasn't really Vietnam, but that's another story.

We were not being attacked by Buddhist terrorists to be in Vietnam is the short point on that.

John, clearing up that specific factual issue does give us at least the beginning point of trying to have a rational discussion.

As to being a "Bushite" however, I am proud to state categorically that I have never, ever voted for anyone named Bush- father or son.

Of course I'd run into this problem, Dave. There is no perfection in this world. That's why I go as close to the source of info as I can. The info I read came from Cindy Sheehan's online diary, written in the evenings after very long days of 100 degree heat. It was quite sly for the Bushites to dig around until they found a disparity. Perhaps I should see if you can remember each sentence of one of your posts from several months ago. We can see if you turn out to be as "honest" as Cindy Sheehan. You do remember everything you've said, I presume.

I figure the dishonesty inherrent in the string of ever changing statements about Mr Bush's reasons for the war should be something you would understand in all its imperfection in your search for truth, but apparently not. So, would you like to stick with the assault on Cindy Sheehan, an assault on the next Gold Star Mother, or the next one, or should we perhaps begin to parse the statements of, say, Dick Cheney? Perhaps a new thread is in order.

But I do see more clearly how desperate a Bushite smear campaign can be. I'll keep it in mind.

>>Of course I'd run into this problem, Dave. There is no perfection in this world. That's why I go as close to the source of info as I can. The info I read came from Cindy Sheehan's online diary, written in the evenings after very long days of 100 degree heat. It was quite sly for the Bushites to dig around until they found a disparity.<<

The disparity isn't the issue, though it might raise questions. The original statement has always been the issue of concern. No one likes anti-semitism much, so it stood out.

>> Perhaps I should see if you can remember each sentence of one of your posts from several months ago. We can see if you turn out to be as "honest" as Cindy Sheehan. You do remember everything you've said, I presume.<<

Hell no, but I do tend to be consistent. If I'd said something anti-semitic it would be so out of character that I'd remember it.

>>I figure the dishonesty inherrent in the string of ever changing statements about Mr Bush's reasons for the war should be something you would understand in all its imperfection in your search for truth, but apparently not.<<

As far as I can tell the reasons are always what I've believed them to be. I was writing about why the Iraq was was a strategic move against the entire region back in 2004.

>>But I do see more clearly how desperate a Bushite smear campaign can be. I'll keep it in mind.<<

When someone makes anti-semitic comments publicly it's not a smear campaign to express concern.

Dave

John, your hostile and adverserial pose is not necessary here, nor productive, nor pleasant for any of us.

For starters, the automatic denunciation of Dave (and me?) as "desperate Bushites" just doesn't reflect reality. Dave is an Elitist Pig, but certainly no knee jerk supporter of the president, nor am I.

We may have honest disagreements, but simply trying to be honest and show basic goodwill goes a long way. If I can praise him without discrediting him among his pinko friends, Eric Berlin stands out here at Blogcritics as a reasonable leftie.

As you may notice from his comments in this thread for example, he tends to take a liberal interpretation of things, and definitely is not a supporter of the Iraq war. Yet he gets along about 99% great with Dave and I and other rightish types here.

I credit that to his honesty and goodwill. He will defend his position, but he recognizes facts and actually incorporates them into his opinions. Plus, he generally avoids calling us all right wing doo doo heads, even when maybe we sometimes are.

Part of that commitment to reality means that he will sometimes recognize that a hawk has a legitimate good point- even if he's got perhaps a better one with which to counter.

Which would make Dave or me either one more likely open to persuasion on some points.

XOX Eric

"Which would make Dave or me either one more likely open to persuasion on some points."

And when has that ever happened on this site?

Al seems pretty reasonable to me, and I know I've been persuaded to a new postion more than once by those who make good, reasoned arguments - which admittedly doesn't include most of those on the left who just rant and repeat what they're told.

But I publicly admit to having been persuaded by arguments made by both Gonzo and Steve S, among others.

Dave

Awww Al... what can I say? I'm just trying to keep it sane and keep it real in a world gone bonkersville.

What's a guy to do when he's trying to wind down and go to sleep, and then sees that Pat Robertson has called for the assassination of Venezuela's President?

If I can bring some level of balance to the blogosphorce, than I can rest easy...

By the way: I don't think I went along with anyone right-ish on this post...

You (Al) and Dave and I were tiffing it up pretty smartly a couple of dozen comments back.

But oh well -- it's only words and only politics.

Nice to know we can still count on Pat Robertson for pure, undiluted insanity. Makes me feel all warm and cozy.

Dave

>>We were not being attacked by Buddhist terrorists to be in Vietnam is the short point on that.<<

Who was attacking us "to be in Vietnam"? Remind us again of the Gulf of Tonkin hoax, Mr. Barger.

"And as soon as I see charges brought against him (GW Bush) by one of his commanders (for desertion), I'll join you in denouncing him."
- Joe

"To my knowledge, he (George W. Bush) nev