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.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
George "Monty Burns" Bush Sics Dogs On Cindy Sheehan - Comments Page 4
Article comments
126 - MCH
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.
127 - Joe
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.
128 - MCH
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.
129 - Joe
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.
130 - John
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?
131 - Dave Nalle
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
132 - Al Barger
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.
133 - Dave Nalle
That Slate article certainly seems pretty damned definitive on the subject.
Dave
134 - Al Barger
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?
135 - John
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.
136 - valery dawe
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.
137 - Dave Nalle
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
138 - Al Barger
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.
139 - John
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.
140 - Dave Nalle
>>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
141 - Al Barger
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
142 - RogerMDillion
"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?
143 - Dave Nalle
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
144 - Eric Berlin
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...
145 - Eric Berlin
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.
146 - Dave Nalle
Nice to know we can still count on Pat Robertson for pure, undiluted insanity. Makes me feel all warm and cozy.
Dave
147 - valery dawe
>>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.
148 - MCH
"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) never showed up. Had he reported in, I would have some recall, and I do not. If we had a first luietenant from Texas, I would remember."
- Lt. Col. William Turnispeed, Ret. (Boston Globe, May 23, 2000)
Lt. Col. Turnispeed was the commanding officer at Dannelly Air National Guard Base to whom GW was ordered to report in May, 1972.
source...www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/
"Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report."
- Lt. Col. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, May 22, 1973, signing a report on why they could not complete his annual evaluation.
Harris and Killian were GW's superior officers at Ellingson AFB, where he was ordered to report back in Nov., 1972.
www.archive.democrats.com/display
(see #2)
"His (GW Bush's) unit continued to fly the F-102 until 1974. If he had come back to Houston (Ellingson AFB), I would've had him flying the 102 until he got out. But I don't remember him coming back at all."
- Major Bobby W. Hodges, ret. (Boston Globe, 5/23/2000)
www.archive.democrats.com/display
(see #3)
149 - Nancy
Smirk's days are numbered: his approval rating is down to 38%, except among the die-hard rightist non-sentients.
150 - Dave Nalle
All he has to do is catch Bin Laden and he'll be #1 with a bullet again.
Dave
151 - Nancy
I don't think so, but it's possible. Most Americans have the attention span & intelligence of gnats, & are incredibly fickle to boot, as we've seen: hero today, bum tomorrow. Would that they WOULD pick up bin Laden, AND Zarqawi (sp?); I think that would go a long way to helping cut off the hydra's head, & is much to be wished for even if it does re-elevate Smirk when he doesn't deserve it.
152 - Joe
MCH- Do any of those statements constitute being brought up on charges or are you unfamiliar with the concept?
153 - Dave Nalle
I say we put Bush in an F-102 and see if he can take off and land the thing and if he can we leave it at that.
Dave
154 - Al Barger
Mr Berlin, I wasn't accusing you of agreeing with me or Dave on any opinion at all. I wouldn't do that to you.
I'm just saying that you're a reasonable, friendly person of good will who generally tries to deal with reality in an honest manner- as opposed to being belligerant and condescending (Smirk) or determinedly willfully refusing to deal with reality. (Air America is eating Rush Limbaugh's lunch!)
I like Alan Colmes, too.
Besides being more pleasant and collegial to exchange words with you, your basic commitment to reality and civility gives us a resonable place to start talking seriously about civic affairs.
155 - Nancy
Dave - LOL! I would settle for that, as long as he wasn't allowed any coaching or cheating. I think I could accept that.
156 - Eric Berlin
Ah but Al, if only you could join me in Reality World!
(joke... thanks for the words -- it's not always fucking easy, my friend)
157 - Al Barger
Ah Eric, but we'd best stop with the lovey-dovey. People with say we're in love. [I'm having an image of Hannibal saying this to Clarice, of course.]
We have somewhat different maps of reality (Belief Systems). It's good to be able to compare notes in a friendly manner, and try to figure out where both of our maps jibe or don't with the actual road in front of us.
158 - Eric Berlin
Well, I try to follow that model, certainly. And it's my hope and pleasant surprise when others of different Belief Systems do the same.
As you said, then we can do business.
But lovey-dovey? Nosir..