President Bush - Call Off the dogs on Cindy Sheehan - Comments Page 17

Cindy Sheehan's mourning has turned to questions. It was good of the President to have consoled her in mourning. It is wrong of the President to ignore her very public concerns and her very simple request.

Raw Story is talking about the article from 2004 which Matt Drudge is employing, with a Right attack-dog-wind beneath his wings [he got the report archive from Freepers]. The mission to attack is on - the objective is to discredit the mother of a fallen Iraqi soldier.…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

  • 776 - Anthony Grande

    Aug 27, 2005 at 8:17 pm

    "It is the President who is ultimately responsible for the WWF-like dueling rallies in Crawford today. He has obviously failed to rally this nation, in a united purpose. It doesn't get much worse than when it comes to something like this." BY JUDE

    Oh I get it now: You want Sheehan and her crew to have a peaceful anti-Bush rally with no one from the otherside. What a terrible country this is for having a two sided argument.


    Jude, that is a free society for you. It is a good thing we are having protests from both sides. Look at the liberal hippie protests from the Vietnam era: The liberals protested without no opposition from the right and they got out of hand and we lost the war.

    But you would probabally be happy to see us pull out of Iraq and watch the Islamic Fascists take over. Then you would have another reason to blame Bush.

  • 777 - RogerMDillion

    Aug 27, 2005 at 8:33 pm

    "The liberals protested without no opposition from the right and they got out of hand and we lost the war."

    Does that mean the liberals had opposition?

    AG, do you go to a public or private school? You are either making or breaking the case for school vouchers. You should spend more time focusing on your homework and less time on the Internet.

  • 778 - Jude

    Aug 27, 2005 at 8:41 pm

    Aaaaaagggh2-

    Obviously, "you don't get it now".
    If you thought I was saying there should only be one side able to rally, you were dead wrong. You find me one comment I've made that leads you to be able to make this charge.

    I'm saying exactly what I said: It doesn't get much worse than when it comes to something like this. Families of dead soldiers having a face-off. Why? Because the President has failed to rally and unite the nation around this Iraq war. The buck stops with him. PERIOD.

    Anthony - I won't allow you to sit there and make things up about what I think. You're the expert on what YOU think, and I'm the authority of my own thoughts, thank you.

    Your assumption and misjudgement about what I want to see happen in the Middle East is baseless.

    Debate fairly - or I'll only come back and remind you again.

    I need Bush to get things right - just like you do. He's the President, for Pete's sake.

  • 779 - Anthony Grande

    Aug 27, 2005 at 8:49 pm

    "Because the President has failed to rally and unite the nation around this Iraq war." by Jude

    O.K. I think I get it now: One mother comes out against the war and that means we are not united.

    Jude, those other mothers are in Crawford defending the cause their sons fought for.

  • 780 - Jude

    Aug 27, 2005 at 8:53 pm

    I think I get it now: One mother comes out against the war and that means we are not united.

    Aah - You're starting to get it. She certainly has become a symbol of the division between those who support the war and those who do not.

    those other mothers are in Crawford defending the cause their sons fought for

    Well, of COURSE they are, Anthony.

    You clearly have missed the point.

  • 781 - Mark the Sane and Sensible

    Aug 27, 2005 at 8:57 pm

    "I don't believe you're willing to or capable of tapping into what is common to all Americans,"

    If being a libbie puke is common to a lot of Americans then count me out. I don't need them or you.

    "Because the President has failed to rally and unite the nation around this Iraq war."

    It's not his job to be a fucking cheerleader. I want him to stay out of my face and run the country like a executive should ... quietly and without fanfare.

  • 782 - Jude

    Aug 27, 2005 at 9:04 pm

    i>It's not his job to be a fucking cheerleader.

    Well - yes, actually - it is.

    If you don't want the fanfare and rallies, you should hope he finds a way to lead the nation such that people aren't at each other's throats about this war.

    This division in America relates directly to the (poor) job he's doing as Commander in Chief on the Iraq war. Right now he has the lowest approval rating on record for all post WWII presidents.

    You can wish it would go away, and you can call me "puke" or any uncivil name you like, but I don't write the rules of the game.

  • 783 - Anthony Grande

    Aug 27, 2005 at 9:04 pm

    "She certainly has become a symbol of the division between those who support the war and those who do not." by Jude

    So you are changing your words now. Before you said we are not united because the "mother" is battling with the mothers.



  • 784 - Jude

    Aug 27, 2005 at 9:10 pm

    you said we are not united because the "mother" is battling with the mothers.

    Whoa - you should talk about "changing words", son.
    Those were never my words.
    These were:
    "It doesn't get much worse than when it comes to something like this. Families of dead soldiers having a face-off. Why? Because the President has failed to rally and unite the nation around this Iraq war. The buck stops with him. PERIOD."

    In other words, I'm saying we're not united on the war because the President has not convinced most Americans that this war in Iraq has been worth the cost.

  • 785 - Jude

    Aug 27, 2005 at 9:26 pm

    "For me, the tragedy of Vietnam was the divisions that occurred in the United States that made it, in the end, impossible to achieve an outcome that was compatible with the sacrifices that had been made......we cannot begin with an exit without having first defined what the objective is."

  • 786 - Mark the Sane and Sensible

    Aug 27, 2005 at 9:40 pm

    Reading all this sickening mewling about Bush and the ME foreign policy reminds me why I despise libbies so much. You're all so emotionally needy. You look to these politicians like they're your bloody parents that have to wipe your asses and feed your every need down to the last detail. Whatever happened to taking care of your own needs or figuring things out on your own without the help of government? Rebuilding America's Defenses by the DoD has been published for years and still some of you don't know why we're in Iraq. It's embarassing how inept many of you are at figuring things out on your own. You expect Bush and Cheyney and Rummy to spell it out for you.

    I know that if 20 soldiers die tomorrow that you'll still read your sunday edition with coffee and a bagel. If 50 soldiers die on Monday you'll still wake up and go to work. Unless one of those 70 soldiers is of your own blood, you won't be affected one iota. It will just give you an excuse to piss and moan about Bush because that's your ticket to "going along to get along."

    Al Barger, if you're reading this, I am in the midst of a bunch of Ellsworth Touheys!

    We vote for our politicians to do a job, not to be our benefactors. So let them do their job. If you don't like what they do, vote them out. But please, spare us all the pissing and moaning about how they do their job. You sound exactly like those hippie freaks from the 60s, you really do. Cindy Sheehan is a perfect example of a immature spoiled ingrate who doesn't know how to count her blessings and be thankful that she lives in the USA and not some rat infested third world shithole. Her fellow retro-adolescents prop her up like she's some great hero. She's not. She's a stupid bitch that deserves to be locked up for a while until she stops embarassing herself and this nation. We're sorry that she lost her son but OK, we get it now, Cindy, just STFU and go home and grieve with some private dignity. Stop bothering the rest of us with your grief. I don't want to grieve with you! DO YOU HEAR THAT, CINDY? If I lost any of my children I wouldn't ask you to grieve with me. I don't know you and I don't want to know you. Some things should be kept private and within your own family, for God's sake. This is another thing you libbie pukes do, you look to the world, to strangers, to share your desires, your needs, your wishes, your dreams ... BLEEECCCH! Again, it's this emotional neediness that oozes from your pores. It's a disgusting and embarassing display you put on when you post this anti-Bush drivel. Spoiled children many of you are. Just because you may wear grown-up clothes and put on airs of civility and sophistication doesn't mean a thing to me. I see right through your pretense.

  • 787 - Mark the Sane and Sensible

    Aug 27, 2005 at 9:48 pm

    "we cannot begin with an exit without having first defined what the objective is."

    Have you read the PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses? Of course you haven't, because you are an uninformed Michael Moore acolyte that only knows what leftist America haters feed you. All of our intentions for the ME are right in that document. Got that? Now get to reading! The document is on-line, here, I'll be a real mensch and post the link for you:
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    And I don't want to hear from you until you have read it.

  • 788 - Jude

    Aug 27, 2005 at 9:59 pm

    #786/787 -

    You bathering ideologue - those weren't MY words in 785.

    They were the words of a "hippie libbie puke" by the name of Henry Kissinger.

    Google them if you don't believe me.

    And I don't want to hear from you until you have found 'em.

  • 789 - Mark the Sane and Sensible

    Aug 27, 2005 at 10:10 pm

    "You bathering ideologue - those weren't MY words in 785."

    Did I say they were, you blithering moron?

  • 790 - Anthony Grande

    Aug 28, 2005 at 9:27 am

    "For me, the tragedy of Vietnam was the divisions that occurred in the United States that made it, in the end, impossible to achieve an outcome that was compatible with the sacrifices that had been made......we cannot begin with an exit without having first defined what the objective is." by Jude

    How many times does Bush need to clarify the objective. The objective is training a strong Iraqi army and government that can stand on its own feet and take care of its own terrorist problem, so the Iraqis can live with freedom and without fear.

    Now what is your problem with that. Your own son doesn't have to sacrifice himself, this isn't a draft. The soldiers in Iraq are volunteers, mostly reenlistments(like Casey), who support the cause and put their life on the line for the cause. I plan to join them after I graduate.

  • 791 - Mark the Sane and Sensible

    Aug 28, 2005 at 9:34 am

    Anthony: henry kissinger said those things, but like other leaders who looked back on vietnam with regret, he devalued the whole effort with that dismissive and wrongheaded remark. The object of that war was to protect S. Vietnam from the Viet Cong and prevent them from consuming all of Indochina (the domino theory). It was also to protect natural resources from getting into commie hands (i.e. China and Russia). The problems were multi-fold. Now kissinger is not a stupid man, so why he forgot those reasons a mystery.

    I still say reading "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is the best blueprint for our present purpose in the ME.

  • 792 - Anthony Grande

    Aug 28, 2005 at 9:42 am

    The domino theory did work, look at free democratic Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. They probabally read what we did for them in their history books, but we don't read what we did for them in ours.

  • 793 - Chris

    Nov 30, 2005 at 2:25 pm

    First of all, Cindy Sheehan's son voluntarily joined the military, and knew the risk. What did she think the military done? Make quilts? Her son served with honor. But She is dishonoring her son, and all the other soldiers who have died, and those still serving. I think she's trying to obtain as much publicity as she can, for a "book deal," or "movie Deal" in the future. It's been rumored that Michael Moore, (I'll refrain from calling him what I think he is)has taken an interest in this.

  • 794 - G Walker

    Feb 18, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    Sadam was never public enemy #1. There are a lot worse tryants out there. Is it up to America to babysit the whole world? Hasen't the reputation of America suffered enough? How many countrys are looking for the demise of America now? I was in Viet Nam for one year. What did it accomplish? Do you think our troops are happy being away from their families? Do you think they all behind this cause? America is now so far in debt that bankrupsy is now inevitable. We are living on a borrowed economy at the tune of trillions of dollars a year. The interest alone is staggering. We own this debt in our pension plans, bonds, as well as people who live in other countrys. What do you think will happen when the goverment can no longer afford to pay?????

Add your comment, speak your mind

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

blogcritics lists for Nov 30, 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