George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan - Comments Page 3

Blogcritic Jude Nagurney Camwell, speaking truth to power, has reported bravely on how that big meanie President George W Bush is mistreating Cindy Sheehan, mother of a dead soldier.…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 76 - gonzo marx

    Aug 16, 2005 at 6:08 pm

    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!

  • 77 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 16, 2005 at 6:13 pm

    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

  • 78 - Dan

    Aug 16, 2005 at 8:40 pm

    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.



  • 79 - Shark

    Aug 17, 2005 at 6:01 am

    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]


  • 80 - Shark

    Aug 17, 2005 at 6:03 am

    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.


  • 81 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 17, 2005 at 7:19 am

    >>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

  • 82 - gonzo marx

    Aug 17, 2005 at 7:46 am

    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!

  • 83 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 17, 2005 at 7:50 am

    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

  • 84 - gonzo marx

    Aug 17, 2005 at 7:57 am

    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!

  • 85 - Give War A Chance

    Aug 19, 2005 at 11:54 am

    Fuck this [edited]

  • 86 - GWAR

    Aug 19, 2005 at 11:56 am

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


  • 87 - fascisthater

    Aug 19, 2005 at 12:10 pm

    Image


  • 88 - bhw

    Aug 19, 2005 at 12:13 pm

    Yo, fascisthater, make an actual comment, please.

  • 89 - Al Barger

    Aug 19, 2005 at 12:49 pm

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

    Thanks, Fascisthater.

  • 90 - Anthony Grande

    Aug 21, 2005 at 6:16 pm

    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.

  • 91 - Al Barger

    Aug 21, 2005 at 6:21 pm

    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.

  • 92 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 21, 2005 at 6:50 pm

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

  • 93 - Anthony Grande

    Aug 21, 2005 at 6:56 pm

    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?

  • 94 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 21, 2005 at 6:57 pm

    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.

  • 95 - Anthony Grande

    Aug 21, 2005 at 7:11 pm

    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.

  • 96 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 21, 2005 at 7:17 pm

    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?

  • 97 - Anthony Grande

    Aug 21, 2005 at 7:37 pm

    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.

  • 98 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 21, 2005 at 7:40 pm

    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.

  • 99 - Al Barger

    Aug 21, 2005 at 9:52 pm

    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.

  • 100 - Anthony Grande

    Aug 21, 2005 at 10:07 pm

    Well said, Al Barger

  • 101 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 21, 2005 at 10:11 pm

    Coulter shouldn't have a PR flack either then!

  • 102 - Al Barger

    Aug 21, 2005 at 10:34 pm

    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.

  • 103 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 21, 2005 at 10:46 pm

    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.

  • 104 - Al Barger

    Aug 21, 2005 at 11:08 pm

    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.

  • 105 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 21, 2005 at 11:11 pm

    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.

  • 106 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 21, 2005 at 11:25 pm

    >>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

  • 107 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 21, 2005 at 11:56 pm

    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?

  • 108 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 22, 2005 at 12:34 am

    >>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

  • 109 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 22, 2005 at 12:56 am

    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.

  • 110 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 22, 2005 at 1:28 am

    "vibrant anti-war movement"

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

    Dave

  • 111 - Al Barger

    Aug 22, 2005 at 1:48 am

    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.

  • 112 - valery dawe

    Aug 22, 2005 at 2:16 am

    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.

  • 113 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 22, 2005 at 2:47 am

    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?)

  • 114 - Al Barger

    Aug 22, 2005 at 3:01 am

    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.

  • 115 - Dave Nalle

    Aug 22, 2005 at 3:12 am

    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

  • 116 - MCH

    Aug 22, 2005 at 9:03 am

    "...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.

  • 117 - Al Barger

    Aug 22, 2005 at 2:51 pm

    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.

  • 118 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 22, 2005 at 2:56 pm

    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?

  • 119 - Al Barger

    Aug 22, 2005 at 3:05 pm

    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.

  • 120 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 22, 2005 at 3:11 pm

    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.

  • 121 - Al Barger

    Aug 22, 2005 at 3:18 pm

    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."

  • 122 - Eric Berlin

    Aug 22, 2005 at 3:20 pm

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

  • 123 - JR

    Aug 22, 2005 at 3:24 pm

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

  • 124 - Al Barger

    Aug 22, 2005 at 3:27 pm

    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."

  • 125 - Al Barger

    Aug 22, 2005 at 3:33 pm

    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.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 27, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs