NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: As I have been saying for months now, the dishorable Ms. Sheehan not only dishonors the memory of her own son by her actions, she dishonors the deaths of others who were killed in Iraq.


Families of troops counter Sheehan (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 23, 2005

As Congress this week honored parents whose sons or daughters have been killed in Iraq, some families said Cindy Sheehan and her anti-war group do not represent them and are disrespecting the fallen soldiers.
"You can't call into question the integrity of the commander in chief without having it call into question the integrity of those under his command," said Diane Ibbotson, whose son Army Cpl. Forest Jostes, 21, died in April 2004 outside Baghdad.
"Let's talk about the things they've accomplished," she said, listing the end of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Iraq's first free elections, and the building of schools and hospitals.
Mrs. Sheehan lost her son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, 24, in the same battle as Mrs. Ibbotson's son, and both women became part of American Gold Star Mothers, a nonprofit, apolitical group of families whose children have died fighting in wars.
On Wednesday, the House passed a resolution, 416-0, honoring the goals and ideals of the American Gold Star Mothers, which began in 1928. House lawmakers held a bipartisan news event yesterday to honor them.
American Gold Star Mothers President Judith Young stressed that the group does not comment on political issues.
Mrs. Ibbotson said it "angered" her that Mrs. Sheehan seemed to be speaking for all of the families who lost children, so she decided to speak out.
Others had stronger words.
"What has she done, rather than bitch, gripe and complain?" said Gary Qualls, whose 20-year-old son, Marine Reserve Lance Cpl. Louis Qualls, was killed in Fallujah, Iraq, last fall.
"There should be nothing but full honor and full respect. Coming from Cindy Sheehan's camp, there's has been nothing but dishonor and disrespect," said Mr. Qualls, who created "Fort Qualls" in Crawford, Texas, to counter Mrs. Sheehan.
Mrs. Sheehan gained national attention and a following of hundreds as she camped outside of President Bush's ranch in August. She is in Washington with members of her group, Gold Star Families for Peace, to lobby lawmakers and participate this weekend in anti-war events, including a massive rally tomorrow.
Mrs. Sheehan and two other mothers also teamed up with Win Without War for a million-dollar ad campaign.

"Sheehan is dishonoring her son!"

"How is she doing that?"

"Becuase she's protesting the war!"

"So? What if the war is wrong?"

"But she's dishonoring her son!"

"How?"

"By dishonoring him!"

"How exactly is she doing that?"

"Because she's dishonorable!"

:rolleyes:

"You can't call into question the integrity of the commander in chief without having it call into question the integrity of those under his command," said Diane Ibbotson, whose son Army Cpl. Forest Jostes, 21, died in April 2004 outside Baghdad.

What a load of crap. You damn well can. You damn well should.

"Sheehan is dishonoring her son!"

"How is she doing that?"

"Becuase she's protesting the war!"

"So? What if the war is wrong?"

"But she's dishonoring her son!"

"How?"

"By dishonoring him!"

"How exactly is she doing that?"

"Because she's dishonorable!"

:rolleyes:

... It's like he's inside my head... :eek:

Oh, and I suppose that you'll be saying that the whistleblower in this article is dishonoring his fellow soldiers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9457014/

Also, Eut, couln't one say, with equal weight, that a parent who lost their child to Iraq but continues to support Bush's incompetence is dishonoring their child? I'm not saying they are...because I'm not full of myself enough to judge a grieving parent.

What a load of crap. You damn well can. You damn well should.

I guess all the Republicans in Congress, Hannity and Rush should hang their heads for criticizing Clinton during Kosovo then. F-ing unAmerican bastards who hate our troops.

How many threads have you dedicated to bitching about Sheehan? This I'm sure is at least five... and I haven't been on in weeks.

Oh, and I suppose that you'll be saying that the whistleblower in this article is dishonoring his fellow soldiers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9457014/

Also, Eut, couln't one say, with equal weight, that a parent who lost their child to Iraq but continues to support Bush's incompetence is dishonoring their child? I'm not saying they are...because I'm not full of myself enough to judge a grieving parent.

I believe you just won this thread.

I'm with him BTW. This article shows/proves nothing. And protesting != dishonoring. It just isn't - please dear Eutrusca, realize that. There is a large difference between the guy who protests Vietnam because he disagrees with the policy/reason/cost/whatever and the guy who goes out and spits on homecoming veterans.

Oh, and I suppose that you'll be saying that the whistleblower in this article is dishonoring his fellow soldiers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9457014/

Also, Eut, couln't one say, with equal weight, that a parent who lost their child to Iraq but continues to support Bush's incompetence is dishonoring their child? I'm not saying they are...because I'm not full of myself enough to judge a grieving parent.
I'm not judging a "grieving parent." I'm calling a publicity hound on using her son's voluntary service, and his honorable death, as a media event.

That's the way to take away attention from Cindy Sheehan: make another anti-Sheehan protest group.

Advise and Dissent
How anti-war protest movements have made the U.S. stronger.
By David Greenberg
Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 12:32 PM PT

Since the bombs began falling last week, critics of the invasion, from Sen. Tom Daschle to Michael Moore, have drawn brickbats for not stifling their sentiments. War has begun, it was said, so dissent must end. It's not simply hawks who are telling war opponents to shut up. On the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, the normally estimable Walter Russell Mead said, "Unless you are a pacifist and opposed to all war, I think once the shooting starts, you need to … give it a rest." His interlocutor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, agreed.

If dissenters were to follow this advice, it would be not only a mistake, but a historic first. Protesting war isn't some Vietnam-era relic, like love beads or Country Joe McDonald, but an American democratic tradition.Last month, hundreds of peace groups the world over staged Aristophanes' Lysistrata*—a play that reminds us that anti-war movements are as old as war itself. In American history in particular, wartime dissent has a venerable lineage. Even during that most mythic of causes, the Revolution, fully one third of Americans opposed independence, in John Adams' famous estimate, while an equal third favored it. Only in retrospect did the Revolution become an unambiguously glorious endeavor.

Dissenters spoke out against virtually every subsequent conflict. The humiliating defeats of the War of 1812 made that fight so unpopular that the states of New England considered seceding from the Union. A generation later, many Americans viewed the Mexican-American War (not unreasonably) as an act of naked U.S. aggression. In 1848, shortly after the war's conclusion, Congress censured President James Polk for "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally" commencing hostilities. Supporting the rebuke was Illinois Rep. Abraham Lincoln, who attacked Polk as "a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man."

Popular support for the Spanish-American War waned as the relatively easy fight for a free (i.e., pro-American) Cuba gave way to a more controversial program of wresting away Spain's other colonies, particularly the Philippines. When President William McKinley opted to annex the Philippines—he wanted, he said, "to educate the Filipinos and uplift and Christianize them"—a motley array of critics from Andrew Carnegie to Mark Twain objected. William Jennings Bryan used his dissenting stance as the centerpiece of his (losing) 1900 presidential campaign.

During World War I, critics excoriated Woodrow Wilson—who had run for re-election in 1916 on the slogan "He kept us out of war"—for entangling America in a bloody European conflict. Political leaders from Wisconsin Sen. Robert LaFollette to Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs spoke out. ("I had supposed until recently that it was the duty of senators … to vote and act according to their convictions," LaFollette sardonically told the Senate. "Quite another doctrine has recently been promulgated by certain newspapers … and that is the doctrine of 'standing back of the president' without inquiring whether the president is right or wrong.") The majority of Congress, however, passed a series of repressive laws that let the government imprison or deport thousands of critics of the president, including Debs. Vigilante groups ostracized, assaulted, and even lynched countless more.

In fact, the only major war that lacked an organized bloc of dissenters was World War II: Pearl Harbor had made an isolationist stance untenable, and as Americans learned more and more about Nazi Germany, most anti-war activists decided the defeat of fascism was worth fighting for. (Some rejoined peace movements, such as the nascent anti-nuclear effort, at the war's end.) Still, even during the "Good War," critics persisted. On the left, pacifists served prison time for refusing to fight or perform compulsory alternative service. On the right, congressional Republicans launched an investigation of Pearl Harbor, with some implying that Franklin Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the attack.

The case for dissent rests on more than its lineage. Critics of war—even when they've been wrong, or their comments distasteful—have done far more good than harm. Although enemy leaders may take heart from knowing that Americans are divided, the mere expression of opposition has never materially hurt any U.S. military campaign. Except perhaps for the Revolution's Loyalists, no dissenters have aided America's adversaries in large numbers. When, as in Vietnam, conditions like flagging troop morale have undermined battlefield success, it was the soldiers' awareness of the war's futility—not the protests back home—that created those conditions. The sense that the war was unwinnable fueled the peace movement, not the other way around.

In short, the claim that by protesting dissenters are showing insufficient "support" for the troops is specious. Does anyone really believe that doves wish ill upon American fighting men and women? Sometimes hawks cite stories that Vietnam anti-war activists vilified or even spit on returning veterans—stories, as Jack Shafer wrote in May 2000, that range from the overstated to the bogus. In fact, like almost all anti-war movements, anti-Vietnam demonstrators argued for peace in the name of the grunts being sent to die. Remember Vietnam Veterans Against the War?

Not only have anti-war movements caused the nation little direct injury; they've made positive contributions. Dissent has produced important works of American political and social thought. Henry David Thoreau wrote his classic Civil Disobedience as a cri de coeur against the Mexican-American War ("the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool"). Randolph Bourne wrote his greatest essays protesting World War I.

Anti-war efforts have given rise, too, to valuable institutions and movements. From the War of 1812 emerged the first full-fledged peace organizations, a key part of the ensuing reform wave that brought penal reform, new opportunities for women, public education, and, in some states, the abolition of slavery. The aftermath of World War I saw the formation of the American Civil Liberties Union (headed by Roger Baldwin, who had been jailed for his dissent) and increasing protections for free speech.

Most important, peace activists have sometimes actually helped end or prevent wars. Wayne State University historian Melvin Small has shown that the Vietnam anti-war movement helped marshal a majority of Americans (and especially influential players in Congress, the press, and the intelligentsia) against the war. If it didn't end the war as speedily as it had hoped, its activities did, indirectly, lead Johnson to forgo a second term and persuade Nixon to reduce American troop levels and to scrap plans to intensify the war. And while it's hard to prove conclusively why things don't happen, historian Lawrence Wittner contends in The Struggle Against the Bomb that the post-World War II anti-nuclear campaign played a key role in curbing the nuclear arms race and preventing nuclear war. On a smaller scale, he suggests, public antiwar pressure may have deterred the Reagan administration from undertaking a full-blown war in Central America.

If the doves were give in to their critics and shut up, then we would all have to trust the Bush administration completely to decide whether to continue, escalate, or end the war. The government would have a free hand to do as it likes. Far from showing their patriotism, critics who muzzle themselves in wartime are abdicating a democratic responsibility.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080735/

I believe you just won this thread.

I'm with him BTW. This article shows/proves nothing. And protesting != dishonoring. It just doesn't, please dear Eutrusca, realize that. There is a large difference between the guy who protests Vietnam because he disagrees with the policy/reason/cost/whatever and the guy who goes out and spits on homecoming veterans.
uh oh! rationalization in a Eutrusca thread! bad idea. Here come the flames...

uh oh! rationalization in a Eutrusca thread! bad idea. Here come the flames...
Most of us are excellent at rationalizing virtually anything we want to. :p

COMMENTARY: As I have been saying for months now, the dishorable Ms. Sheehan not only dishonors the memory of her own son by her actions, she dishonors the deaths of others who were killed in Iraq.

Not only that, her actions give the enemy hope that if they continue the US will get discouraged and pull out. Sheehan is no better than Hanoi Jane. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.

uh oh! rationalization in a Eutrusca thread! bad idea. Here come the flames...

As much as I always love support, that was probably unneccisary and slightly flamebaitish. In my not a mod capacity of course.

I'm not judging a "grieving parent." I'm calling a publicity hound on using her son's voluntary service, and his honorable death, as a media event.

And the media was at the service at Congress honoring the fallen soldiers and getting quotes from the parents there why? The parents of those fallen soldiers made their opinions clear to the media why? Other parents started a counter-protest why?

Ooooooooooh, I see. It's only a dishonorable media event if you personally disagree with it, is that right Eut?

It's nice to see that like a good little Bushevik someone here has to cry wolf about Cindy Sheehan on any and every pretense. Go ahead, keep whining about how she's a dishonorable publicity hound. You're just giving her more of it Forrest.

:D

America doesn't need Cindy Sheehan. Michael Moore is enough for them to handle.

Not only that, her actions give the enemy hope that if they continue the US will get discouraged and pull out. Sheehan is no better than Hanoi Jane. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.
Bullshit. Free speech.

Not only that, her actions give the enemy hope that if they continue the US will get discouraged and pull out. Sheehan is no better than Hanoi Jane. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.
If I recall, I believe "Hanoi Jane" visited North Korea museums and troops in POW camps. Cindy Sheehan is protesting a war. If protesting is treason, we never had enough jails to hold the people.

Also, how would the enemy know? Let us assume they all have satellite and/or they watch news from the US. They see Sheehan. Why is she on television? Because people keep putting her there. Why? Because it is controversial. The more protest groups created to protest Sheehan the more controversial she becomes and the more air time she receives. Anti-protest protestors are aiding and comforting the enemy - arrest them.

Not only that, her actions give the enemy hope that if they continue the US will get discouraged and pull out. Sheehan is no better than Hanoi Jane. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.

Which means anyone who is not a hawk... or at least a chickenhawk... is an automatic traitor. Anyone who advocates peace and reconciliation is betraying his country.

I see absolutely no problems in that logic. None at all. [/sarcastisizer]

As much as I always love support, that was probably unneccisary and slightly flamebaitish. In my not a mod capacity of course.
Yeah well, he got himself banned after flaming me a while back, and if I get banned I probably won't even be back here to find out for quite a while.

Sheehan is extremely (thinks of a few mean adjectives that would fill this spot). She thinks that she is the all knowing god of politics, and that she is always right.

Not only that, her actions give the enemy hope that if they continue the US will get discouraged and pull out. Sheehan is no better than Hanoi Jane. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.

Damn, I guess Rush and Hannity and the Republicans in Congress should be put to death then.

Oh, wait. I forgot. It's only treason of you criticize a Republican.

Dude, the "terrorists" don't give a shit what Sheehan says. Do you honestly think that most of them have TV's or time to watch them if they did?

Let's try it a different way. Can you quote anything an Iraqi mother has said without looking it up? Hmmm. Can you name any peaceful Iraqi protestors? Do you even give a shit? Nope? Didn't think so.

Not only that, her actions give the enemy hope that if they continue the US will get discouraged and pull out. Sheehan is no better than Hanoi Jane. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.

Yes, lets outlaw protest, crush demonstrators with tanks and make free speech carefully regulated to "politically acceptable" statements only. :rollseyes:

Stalin would be laughing in his grave.

Sheehan is extremely (thinks of a few mean adjectives that would fill this spot). She thinks that she is the all knowing god of politics, and that she is always right.
kinda reminds me of the guy who's acting as president right now and his conservative posse...

Yes, lets outlaw protest, crush demonstrators with tanks and make free speech carefully regulated to "politically acceptable" statements only. :rollseyes:

Stalin would be laughing in his grave.
The White House Press Secretary has jsut released a statement that all online speech will now be required to be clean and accepted speech as outlined in Section 4.2 of the Accepted Private Speech Act. All corporations will be aiding the government by filtering words not consistent with the act. "Communism," "anarchism," "liberal," and "Fidel Castro" are among the words that populate this list.

America was founded on dissent as much as I abhor what she is saying I would die to protect her right to say it . By defending her I defend myself .
Its that simple. She may be a misguided bitter asshole of a women but thats her problem . My problem is her right to speak her mind . The constitution doesnt say speach is only free for those that aggree . Its either free or its not . really why is this asshole even in the news ? She had her 15 minutes . Every time I hear about her it seems New Orleans get flooded . Let her fade into her bitter oblivion . Its far past time .

Bullshit. Free speech.

Yes sir, free speech. And when that free speech gives hope to the enemy to continue, American troops die. To bad the troops that died because Hanoi Jane gave hope to the enemy can't speak, and to bad any troops that died because Sheehan gave hope to the enemy can't speak.

Troops die every day to protect the freedom of speech. It is a shame that those who use that right don't give a damn that their speech is killing the troops. :(

Yes sir, free speech. And when that free speech gives hope to the enemy to continue, American troops die. To bad the troops that died because Hanoi Jane gave hope to the enemy can't speak, and to bad any troops that died because Sheehan gave hope to the enemy can't speak.

Troops die every day to protect the freedom of speech. It is a shame that those who use that right don't give a damn that their speech is killing the troops. :(
Who put the troops in harm's way and why? Think about that before you go around insulting people, okay?

Yes sir, free speech. And when that free speech gives hope to the enemy to continue, American troops die. To bad the troops that died because Hanoi Jane gave hope to the enemy can't speak, and to bad any troops that died because Sheehan gave hope to the enemy can't speak.

Troops die every day to protect the freedom of speech. It is a shame that those who use that right don't give a damn that their speech is killing the troops. :(

Try looking up something called The Alien and Sedition Act. Then write to Bush to get it passed in Congress. You'll love it.

kinda reminds me of the guy who's acting as president right now and his conservative posse...
I totaly agree with this. Of course this could just be me being sour and disrespecting my now-dead uncle. Who, of course, died for a VERY good cause. Im sorry, but to who ever started this little chat, what do you know about loosing someone you love, with no chance to say good bye? And for our grief, our country give us a flag to "honor" him. how can you think thats fucking fair?!

Yes sir, free speech. And when that free speech gives hope to the enemy to continue, American troops die. To bad the troops that died because Hanoi Jane gave hope to the enemy can't speak, and to bad any troops that died because Sheehan gave hope to the enemy can't speak.

Troops die every day to protect the freedom of speech. It is a shame that those who use that right don't give a damn that their speech is killing the troops. :(

Too bad if you kill free speech, soon there won't be a country worth fighting for left.


Give hope? Please. Take your pathetic attempt to garner pity elsewhere. If sticking by our constitution means giving "hope" to the enemy, so be it. Your pathetic definition would have jailed Abraham Lincoln and the entirety of congress after the Mexican War.

Also, how would the enemy know? Let us assume they all have satellite and/or they watch news from the US. They see Sheehan. Why is she on television?

She is on TV because: She supports us. The Americans will see she supports us. We must keep up the struggle and kill the American troops so all of the Americans and their politicians will think the cost of the war is to high. They will then do what they did in Vietnam and pull out.

I totaly agree with this. Of course this could just be me being sour and disrespecting my now-dead uncle. Who, of course, died for a VERY good cause. Im sorry, but to who ever started this little chat, what do you know about loosing someone you love, with no chance to say good bye? And for our grief, our country give us a flag to "honor" him. how can you think thats fucking fair?!
Hmm, this is sort of confusing and I'm not sure which side of the fence you're on, but by "who ever started this little chat" you mean Eutrusca, I think he does know what it's like to lose friends and maybe even family in war.

Which means anyone who is not a hawk... or at least a chickenhawk... is an automatic traitor. Anyone who advocates peace and reconciliation is betraying his country.

I see absolutely no problems in that logic. None at all. [/sarcastisizer]

Please explain what you mean by "reconcilation."

She is on TV because: She supports us. The Americans will see she supports us. We must keep up the struggle and kill the American troops so all of the Americans and their politicians will think the cost of the war is to high. They will then do what they did in Vietnam and pull out.
Specious argument. By that definition of treason, you should be shot for bringing attention to her.

She is on TV because: She supports us. The Americans will see she supports us. We must keep up the struggle and kill the American troops so all of the Americans and their politicians will think the cost of the war is to high. They will then do what they did in Vietnam and pull out.
You are carrying on alot for some one who isn't serious.

She is on TV because: She supports us. The Americans will see she supports us. We must keep up the struggle and kill the American troops so all of the Americans and their politicians will think the cost of the war is to high. They will then do what they did in Vietnam and pull out.

And if that bullshit was true, then Bush should put a blackout on all news coverage on Iraq because every time there's a story about more troop casualties that'll embolden the enemy and demoralize our troops.

:rolleyes:

Like I said, write to Bush to get the Alien and Sedition Act passed again. Then you'll get everything you want out of America.

Please explain what you mean by "reconcilation."

I will not insult your intelligence by posting the dictionary definition of reconciliation. You know what it means, you're just trying to call me on it and then hit me by saying reconciliation with [insertcurrenthatedgrouphere] is impossible.

Yes sir, free speech. And when that free speech gives hope to the enemy to continue, American troops die. To bad the troops that died because Hanoi Jane gave hope to the enemy can't speak, and to bad any troops that died because Sheehan gave hope to the enemy can't speak.

Troops die every day to protect the freedom of speech. It is a shame that those who use that right don't give a damn that their speech is killing the troops. :(

Hows that kimosabe ? How exactly does a washed out bitter left wing loonytoon cause troops to get killed ? Does she send them pictures of herself that she took waking up ? Do you think all 150 protesters that all but the loonytoons of the press , with nothing but extra air time , due to 24 hour news cycles give attention to , have really made a big impression in Iraq ? :D :D The big crowds of knuckleheads clogging up the mini mall protesting ...ummm have you noticed there are bigger crowds protesting SUVs and global warming than these idiots ? That coma lady had a bigger crowd . Not for nothing the looney left wingers have not exactly impressed anyone lately ..they couldnt even beat Satan Bush in an election ... :D get real You give them way too much credit .

Hows that kimosabe ? How exactly does a washed out bitter left wing loonytoon cause troops to get killed ? Does she send them pictures of herself that she took waking up ? Do you think all 150 protesters that all but the loonytoons of the press , with nothing but extra air time , due to 24 hour news cycles give attention to , have really made a big impression in Iraq ? :D :D The big crowds of knuckleheads clogging up the mini mall protesting ...ummm have you noticed there are bigger crowds protesting SUVs and global warming than these idiots ? That coma lady had a bigger crowd . Not for nothing the looney left wingers have not exactly impressed anyone lately ..they couldnt even beat Satan Bush in an election ... :D get real You give them way too much credit .
well in bizarro world where America is here to save the world from terrorists and various other exaggerated threats, it's rather easy for a "bitter left wing loonytoon [to] cause troops to get killed."

I totaly agree with this. Of course this could just be me being sour and disrespecting my now-dead uncle. Who, of course, died for a VERY good cause. Im sorry, but to who ever started this little chat, what do you know about loosing someone you love, with no chance to say good bye? And for our grief, our country give us a flag to "honor" him. how can you think thats fucking fair?!

I’m sure that the person who started this "little chat" knows all about loosing someone you love with no chance to say good-bye. I'm sure he knows all about giving the flag of honor. I am sure he has attended many military funerals. I know I have.

Is it fair? Ask those who would destroy our freedom, enslave people, and destroy our way of life if it is fair. Ask those who died, were wounded, or simply served if protecting our freedom and preserving our way of life, and brining freedom and democracy to the oppressed is worth it. I think all of them would answer a resounding YES!

I’m sure that the person who started this "little chat" knows all about loosing someone you love with no chance to say good-bye. I'm sure he knows all about giving the flag of honor. I am sure he has attended many military funerals. I know I have.

Is it fair? Ask those who would destroy our freedom, enslave people, and destroy our way of life if it is fair. Ask those who died, were wounded, or simply served if protecting our freedom and preserving our way of life, and brining freedom and democracy to the oppressed is worth it. I think all of them would answer a resounding YES!
I think we should start to bring freedom to the oppressed in our own country before we do so elsewhere.

Specious argument. By that definition of treason, you should be shot for bringing attention to her.

Not an argumet. The reasoning of the enemy.

I think we should start to bring freedom to the oppressed in our own country before we do so elsewhere.
Oh? And just who in "our own Country" is so "oppressed," pray tell?

Oh? And just who in "our own Country" is so "oppressed," pray tell?

Darn it Eut, you asked the question first. :D I will be interested in his/her response.

Oh, and I suppose that you'll be saying that the whistleblower in this article is dishonoring his fellow soldiers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9457014/

Also, Eut, couln't one say, with equal weight, that a parent who lost their child to Iraq but continues to support Bush's incompetence is dishonoring their child? I'm not saying they are...because I'm not full of myself enough to judge a grieving parent.
Well said, sir. Well said.

Oh? And just who in "our own Country" is so "oppressed," pray tell?

The looney liberals are you didnt know that ? They cant win an election so they are feeling all oppressed about it . Thats why they say our system of government is not working after all these years . They cant win so it must be the systems fault . The Party of entitlement and and the elite liberal intelligenistas cant be so fucked up its pitifull , it must be someone elses fault after all personal responsibility doesnt exist in their world of the Devil " he who brings hurricanes and floods and unjust wars on those who would destroy us " Bush .

The looney libs must be feeling soooooooooooo oppressed that the supreme court is getting stacked by " gasp" REPUBLICANS ! The evil race of rich white guys who keep kicking their sorry liberal ass's in every election and stacking congress with more RICH WHITE GUYS .. :D Bwaahahahahaha the poor oppressed bastards cant figure it out yet ...pick a moderate candidate that doesnt hate America and all all it stands for..you know just like the people who fucking live here ...its a representative DEMOCRACY ..it means you cant be an elitist stuck up dickhead who is sorry America exist . You have to actually show some pride in your country and a willingness to protect it from the ACTUAL evil bastards out there that really do not like us and want to kill us or just make us go away..to like hell or someplace . I dont mean the French either . You also need to recognise that transfering wealth from those who work hard to make it to those who do not work at all is not a good thing .
People should " gasp " actually work for their cash they are NOT entitled to it . You know workfare not welfare ? When you recognise that the United States stands for whats good in the world and your candidates reflect this then maybe if they are not total assholes that can at least remember what they stand for today and stay consistant they will have a shot at Congress or even one day they might grow up to be president .

You keep plugging though tiger sooner or later hell may actually freeze over .
And I'll bet you say its all Bush's fault . Just like global warming .

Bush is a traitor. He was the main force behind the Iraq war. The Iraq war, both ideologically and recruitment-wise, has emboldened the terrorists. Bush himself has said we are at war with the terrorists, and that the terrorists are our enemies.

Bush had given aid and comfort to the enemy. Aided their recruitment levels, and comforted them ideologically, emboldening their idea that america is evil. Bush should be tried as a traitor.

How many threads have you dedicated to bitching about Sheehan? This I'm sure is at least five... and I haven't been on in weeks.
Maybe it has something to do with being in the spotlight (http://www.guru4u.co.uk/Tones/Midi's/REM%20-%20Losing%20My%20Religion.mid)?

Perhaps it pertains to stifling democracy (http://www.moviesoundclips.net/movies/u571/democracy.wav)?

Maybe it is about fear, hate, and anger (http://www.yodajeff.com/multimedia/sounds/episode1/leads_to.wav)?

I know that this is a subject Eutrusca and I will disagree upon to both of our dieing breaths, but I cannot imagine just how she is dishonoring her son or anyone else for that matter.

Eutrusca has kids and so do I. Our job as parents is not to honor our children. By most standards, even Biblically, it is the child's job to honor the parent.

Our job is to stand up to our kids and for our kids when they do what we decide is wrong. I would no more honor my child's decision to go off and fight for some jack-ass's ideaology of more oil or lay my child on the alter of someone else's ideaology than I would honor my kid's decision to stick a fork in a power outlet.

I genuinely feel for the men and women who are serving this President's greedy desires for a global America, but I do not and will not honor them. They have the choice. They can lay down their guns now and go home.

Cindy Sheehan is doing her job as a parent and I applaud her for doing so. She is not falling prey to the blind nationalism that is thrust upon her every waking moment. She is doing what she believes is right and is thus a hero to all parents everywhere.

I know that this is a subject Eutrusca and I will disagree upon to both of our dieing breaths, but I cannot imagine just how she is dishonoring her son or anyone else for that matter.

Eutrusca has kids and so do I. Our job as parents is not to honor our children. By most standards, even Biblically, it is the child's job to honor the parent.

Our job is to stand up to our kids and for our kids when they do what we decide is wrong. I would no more honor my child's decision to go off and fight for some jack-ass's ideaology of more oil or lay my child on the alter of someone else's ideaology than I would honor my kid's decision to stick a fork in a power outlet.

I genuinely feel for the men and women who are serving this President's greedy desires for a global America, but I do not and will not honor them. They have the choice. They can lay down their guns now and go home.

Cindy Sheehan is doing her job as a parent and I applaud her for doing so. She is not falling prey to the blind nationalism that is thrust upon her every waking moment. She is doing what she believes is right and is thus a hero to all parents everywhere.
Well said as well, sir.

I know that this is a subject Eutrusca and I will disagree upon to both of our dieing breaths, but I cannot imagine just how she is dishonoring her son or anyone else for that matter.

Eutrusca has kids and so do I. Our job as parents is not to honor our children. By most standards, even Biblically, it is the child's job to honor the parent.

Our job is to stand up to our kids and for our kids when they do what we decide is wrong. I would no more honor my child's decision to go off and fight for some jack-ass's ideaology of more oil or lay my child on the alter of someone else's ideaology than I would honor my kid's decision to stick a fork in a power outlet.

I genuinely feel for the men and women who are serving this President's greedy desires for a global America, but I do not and will not honor them. They have the choice. They can lay down their guns now and go home.

Cindy Sheehan is doing her job as a parent and I applaud her for doing so. She is not falling prey to the blind nationalism that is thrust upon her every waking moment. She is doing what she believes is right and is thus a hero to all parents everywhere.
Yup. I think you hit all the right keys for this post. :)

Cindy Sheehan is an idiot, she proved that with the following statement alone (there are others, but this is the most idiotic).

We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.
source (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)

Yes sir, free speech. And when that free speech gives hope to the enemy to continue, American troops die. To bad the troops that died because Hanoi Jane gave hope to the enemy can't speak, and to bad any troops that died because Sheehan gave hope to the enemy can't speak.

Troops die every day to protect the freedom of speech. :(

So wouldn't it be honoring those troops to use that freedom of speech?

Which, by the way, means freedom to say things you might find quite despicable. It's a simple idea really - freedom of speech means no restrictions on speech. If we don't use our right to free speech to say what we believe, then it's not really freedom, is it?

Oh, by the way, do you really think that the Viet Cong got hope just because Jane Fonda visited Hanoi? Really? I think they found here irrelevant to what they were fighting for, which was in their minds freedom from yet another opressive foriegn regime that was trying to rule their lives.

Cindy Sheehan is an idiot, she proved that with the following statement alone (there are others, but this is the most idiotic).

Again--assuming that Horowitz hasn't faked that comment as he has faked quotes from others in the past (see Michael Berube)--metaphorically speaking, she's right. We have, for all intents and purposes, nuked that area as far as our influence is concerned. No one in Iraq who has lost a family member as a result of our invasion will trust us again--and why should they?

Cindy Sheehan is an idiot

Probably ... but most parents are when it comes to their kids.

It does not discredit them as a parent.

You have to understand what she is. She is a private citizen who has stood up and said, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" (Nobody under 25 will get that referrence)

It doesn't make her God. It doesn't make her the "voice of the Left" or the "voice of the Right" or the "voice of a Generation".

She is just a mom who has a dead son. She wants to know why. Are you a parent? Have you outlived one of your children? Do you know what it's like? Have you walked a mile in her shoes? Have you cleansed the mote from your eye before inspecting the speck in hers? Have you, who are without sin, cast a stone?

Go be a mother to a dead son ... then we'll talk.

Cindy Sheehan is an idiot, she proved that with the following statement alone (there are others, but this is the most idiotic).


source (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)

A. Nice source. Could you get more biased?

B. If you really think that she meant that literally, I am very, very sad. It should have been clear that half of what she was saying wasn't to be taken literally. She knows that iraq wasn't nuked. She knows Oakland isn't occupied. Jesus, when someone told you "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire", did you seriously wonder where the fire was?

Yes sir, free speech. And when that free speech gives hope to the enemy to continue, American troops die.

Celt ... I love and respect you ... but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say.

You're basically saying, in those two sentences, that the American people should straighten up and fly right when it comes to the whim of the President. Would you have said the same if Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean were elected in 2004? Would you have said the same if Al Gore were now President?

Come on, Celt. Dissent is an essential part of the American experience.

Cindy Sheehan is an idiot, she proved that with the following statement alone (there are others, but this is the most idiotic).

We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.

source (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)
How does that make her an idiot? She is correct in her statement:

War on Iraq is a Nuclear War (http://www.awakenedwoman.com/moret_nuclear.htm)

The Monitor finds high levels of radiation left by US armor-piercing shells. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0515-01.htm)

America was founded on dissent as much as I abhor what she is saying I would die to protect her right to say it . By defending her I defend myself .
Its that simple. She may be a misguided bitter asshole of a women but thats her problem . My problem is her right to speak her mind . The constitution doesnt say speach is only free for those that aggree . Its either free or its not . really why is this asshole even in the news ? She had her 15 minutes . Every time I hear about her it seems New Orleans get flooded . Let her fade into her bitter oblivion . Its far past time .

wow...could not agree more...thanks.

i support our troops but i despise bush....should i be a traitor and hung? :confused:

A. Nice source. Could you get more biased?

B. If you really think that she meant that literally, I am very, very sad. It should have been clear that half of what she was saying wasn't to be taken literally. She knows that iraq wasn't nuked. She knows Oakland isn't occupied. Jesus, when someone told you "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire", did you seriously wonder where the fire was?

I will, how about:
A. San Diego Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050821/news_mz1e21cald.html)

B. That's just plain idiotic - She clearly and plainly stated the U.S. was using nuclear weapons in Iraq - nothing more or less, no attempt at allegory or alliteration - you're just trying to excuse her away her idiocy. I don't disagree with the idea we should not be in Iraq, but I sure as hell don't want this idiot as my spokesman and front person.

I will, how about:
A. San Diego Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050821/news_mz1e21cald.html)

B. That's just plain idiotic - She clearly and plainly stated the U.S. was using nuclear weapons in Iraq - nothing more or less, no attempt at allegory or alliteration - you're just trying to excuse her away her idiocy. I don't disagree with the idea we should not be in Iraq, but I sure as hell don't want this idiot as my spokesman and front person.

Where did she say the US used nuclear weapons in iraq? I never saw the word used. She said we are fighting a nuclear war. There's a difference.

Every time I hear about her it seems New Orleans get flooded.

Now *that's* comedy.

I will, how about:
A. San Diego Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050821/news_mz1e21cald.html)

B. That's just plain idiotic - She clearly and plainly stated the U.S. was using nuclear weapons in Iraq - nothing more or less, no attempt at allegory or alliteration - you're just trying to excuse her away her idiocy. I don't disagree with the idea we should not be in Iraq, but I sure as hell don't want this idiot as my spokesman and front person.
You know, if you're going to claim that your source is unbiased, you might actually want to read the article you're linking to--the source the editorial writer is using is the very same one that was first linked to, an uncorroborated transcript from a group that has every reason to manufacture quotes and take statements out of context. But thanks for trying all the same.

But thanks for trying all the same.

They don't try ... they've merely become experts at grasping at straws.

They don't try ... they've merely become experts at grasping at straws.
Yeah, but it's cute to watch them try. This one was easy--Horowitz is a joke and he's got the only available transcript of the speeches at this meeting, so in short, he's got nada, and anyone who looks at his track record honestly knows it. He's out there with Lyndon LaRouche as far as credibility is concerned.

Ive said it before, and I'll say it again.

Of all the people who should be supporting her right to speak out, as she has been doing, it should be Eut.
Sadly, he does not.

Free speech seems to mean so little.
Even to those who once fought for it.

Free speech seems to mean so little.
Even to those who once fought for it.

Sucks, don't it?

But you have to remember, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall not abridge Free Speech unless we disagree with it or the method by which is is conveyed."

:p

Look at the war in Iraq like this:
For Iraq's people:
Someone is attacking us because of what?
Why doesn't anybody attack the USA too?
They are agianst war.

For Neutral people:
If they got Nuclear weapons, USA is right, and if the doesn't, USA is wrong, before the war they'll vote for the war, but after it if the USA was wrong they'll say that they didn't ment it to be so brutal.

The USA People: (THE NEUTRAL PEOLE THERE)
Same as Neutral People but they'll do a lot of problem to the USA goverment.

I say that this war is a war because of a nuclear threat, ATTACK with all you got, but when you find out your'e wrong, Conquer them and give them a country with REAL voting.

So that woman had some interesting ideas.
Let her speak, free speech is the real freedom, listen, you don't has to agree, but listen to all. Everyone can say imporatant things. Oh, and please, Israel has worse things then a woman who speaks, she has Shahids that explodes on children and old people just because they lost in a war! I understand they want homes, but why to kill people?

COMMENTARY: As I have been saying for months now, the dishorable Ms. Sheehan not only dishonors the memory of her own son by her actions, she dishonors the deaths of others who were killed in Iraq.

yeah, but you say lots of crazy shit. just because some other people are wrong with you, that doesn't make you any less wrong.

The only people who have questionable honor in this affair are those who would toss away our cherished right of dissent for political expedience. Shame on you, Eutrusca.

Eutrusca, what is your obsession with this woman? We got it last time, you hate her for using the freedom of speech her son supposedly died for, leading one to wonder why you care he died in the first place if freedom of speech is so blasted horrible.

To paraphrase the Bard (and with a bit of irony), "Methinks thou dost protest too much." It's easier to latch onto one woman and demonize her, and the rest of the anti-war movement through association, than it is to discuss what we're really doing over there, isn't it? As long as we're talking about her, we're not really thinking about Iraq, and that suits you just fine. Because when you peel back the layers, it's a war in vain. Saddam is already in custody; the WMDs turned out to be mythological anyways; we're not making the world safer, or the regoin safer, or our nation safer; we're not cleaning up our messes as fast as we're making new ones; we're not protecting our own interests -- as the Republicans themselves have told us we're not there for oil or for corporate benefit; no one can really come up with a valid reason for being there other than to save face.

Not an argumet. The reasoning of the enemy.
Since when have you cared what the "enemy" thinks?

And by extension, by bringing attention to her, you have committed treason. Please turn yourself in to the DHS for execution.

Not only that, her actions give the enemy hope that if they continue the US will get discouraged and pull out. Sheehan is no better than Hanoi Jane. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.

Well if you feel so strongly about it, shoot her. If she's a traitor you'll never be convicted.

And I'll bet you say its all Bush's fault . Just like global warming .
Not really: I do find it pretty funny that New Orleans got wiped off the map on his watch, though. Given that he's spent the last five years denying that there's any climate change happening and ignoring the Kyoto treaty, it's an albatross he deserves to have hung around his neck.

I'm not judging a "grieving parent." I'm calling a publicity hound on using her son's voluntary service, and his honorable death, as a media event.

Those that say what you want to hear to the media at press events are "grieving parents".

Those that don't are publicity hounds and dishonorable.

Hypocrite.

You people sould be silenced, or at least shut up, traitors!

No, you people should be silenced, or ar least shut up You are the traitors for trying to silence us!

Ah, the blessed marketplace of ideas.

Both sides would be well served to put sheehan aside and actually discuss the substance. There is far to much appeal to the emotions in all this.

Ah, the blessed marketplace of ideas.

Both sides would be well served to put sheehan aside and actually discuss the substance. There is far to much appeal to the emotions in all this.

Curious isn't it that in what is close to a literal marketplace of ideas the true exchange of ideas is so rarely evident?

Instead, we get insults, conspiracy theories, emotional appeals, etc.

Not really: I do find it pretty funny that New Orleans got wiped off the map on his watch, though. Given that he's spent the last five years denying that there's any climate change happening and ignoring the Kyoto treaty, it's an albatross he deserves to have hung around his neck.
Global warning does not affect hurricane formation.

Those that say what you want to hear to the media at press events are "grieving parents".

Those that don't are publicity hounds and dishonorable.

Hypocrite.
Nice way to make the conversation degenerate into name-calling. :rolleyes:

Global warning does not affect hurricane formation.
The evidence doesn't seem to bear that one out, I'm afraid.

Nice way to make the conversation degenerate into name-calling. :rolleyes:

Yeah! Eutrusca would never resort to that!

Nice way to make the conversation degenerate into name-calling. :rolleyes:

So says the "centerist" who's made a cottage industry on NationStates out of calling Cindy Sheehan a dishonorable publicity hound.

:rolleyes:

Global warning does not affect hurricane formation.

Not only does Global Warming contribute to hurricane formation, but it also contribute to higher hurricane intensity, whether Global Warming is man-made or not.

Curious isn't it that in what is close to a literal marketplace of ideas the true exchange of ideas is so rarely evident?

Instead, we get insults, conspiracy theories, emotional appeals, etc.

It really is a shame, because I know personally that I am not particularly happy with the conduct of operations in Iraq, and I think at this point it is becoming increasingly obvious that there have been major screw-ups and there should be accountablity for them. On the other hand, I am not against the notion on democracy building in the Middle East, and in any case I don't really see premature disengagement from the region as a viable option.

In other words, there are plenty of real issues that people on both sides can discuss.

Unfortunately on both sides, the zealots seem to get the most attention, and increasingly polarize the issue, forcing people like me to be associated with positions I am not necessarily comfortable with. For example, at this point, I would be quite happy to jetison Bush et al. and bring fresh eyes to the problem, but only if I thought I could get someone who would not abandon the Iraqis.

Global warning does not affect hurricane formation.
Wrong.

OH WAIT!

Right.

But still sort of wrong.

Why is there this notion that terrorists want us to leave the war, anyway?

I thought their objective was to kill as many Americans as possible. They probably want Cindy to shut up just as much as the rest of the War Mongers in the US do. The longer we're there, the more American's they can kill without having to deal with pesky airline security.

Not saying that I think we should leave Iraq at this point. That would make the entire past of this war completely pointless. I'm hoping for at least 2 or 3 good things to come out of this incredible mess that Asshole Bush and Co. got us into.

I suppose the best way to view all this is a sort of "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" but with a lot more death.

The evidence doesn't seem to bear that one out, I'm afraid.
Au contraire, mon fraire: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446018

Yeah! Eutrusca would never resort to that!
You are correct. Every time *I* do it, I get banned. :headbang:

Must be because I'm not a flamming leftist, eh?

So says the "centerist" who's made a cottage industry on NationStates out of calling Cindy Sheehan a dishonorable publicity hound.
The truth sometimes hurts.

Not only does Global Warming contribute to hurricane formation, but it also contribute to higher hurricane intensity, whether Global Warming is man-made or not.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446018

I suppose the best way to view all this is a sort of "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" but with a lot more death.
An explanation would be appreciated.

I agree with Bush on one thing in principle: It would suck if we had all those troops die and end up having to pull out. However, it would suck worse( especially for military families) for us to stay and for civil war result in Iraq anyway.

For I do think that will be the outcome, whether or not we stay,

I think it's asking A LOT for the people of Iraq to form a democracy when they had never had one, and it seems the people can't seem to agree on anything.(e.g. they've missed the line for the final draft of the constitution, what, two or three times now?)

And to add salt to an open wound, we will be no closer to destroying al Qaeda; if anything, this war has helped them. The Islamic law of Jihad states, that armed conflict is justified if someone attacks you out of the blue. Which we did.

At this point, I can see why Sheehan wants to pull out; it's all going downhill. :(

An explanation would be appreciated.

Have you seen the movie?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446018

The hurricane glut is happening at the same time sea levels continue to rise—the result of global warming that most scientists blame in part on human activity. A recent study using the latest computer climate models predicts warming of the tropical sea surface will strengthen hurricane winds and rainfall by the end of the 21st century. However, some experts, including Gray, argue that climate change due to human activity will not significantly affect hurricanes.

That debate will continue, but many scientists agree that the present hurricane surge is likely part of a 60-to-70-year cycle that changes the strength of ocean currents distributing heat around the globe. Researchers have used tree rings and ice cores to track this variability back hundreds of years. We're now in a fast-flowing mode of this up-and-down cycle, named the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), during which Atlantic sea-surface temperatures and wind conditions favor hurricane generation. Ten years from now, or perhaps thirty (the timetable is difficult to predict), the cycle should reverse, tending to suppress major hurricanes.

and
As the conveyor belt speeds up, tropical surface water is drawn north more quickly, and temperatures in the North Atlantic are as much as 2°F warmer. That's good for hurricanes. "A hurricane is essentially an engine that runs on heat," says Chris Landsea, a meteorologist at NOAA's Hurricane Research Division in Miami. "The warmer the sea-surface temperature [it must be at least 80°F for a hurricane to start] and the more warm, moist air that's available, the stronger a hurricane can become."

So, while there is definitely a hurricane cycle, global warming, as either a natural or a man-influenced event, definitely DOES contribute to hurricane activity. Just because the hurricane cycle is the primary cause does not exclude Global Warming as exacerbating factor.

Eutrusca I dont suppose you have any kids or nephew or Neices who are in this war you favor so much do you?

COMMENTARY:

"You can't call into question the integrity of the commander in chief without having it call into question the integrity of those under his command," said Diane Ibbotson, whose son Army Cpl. Forest Jostes, 21, died in April 2004 outside Baghdad.


Yeah he is right. There is no integrity to question.

The truth sometimes hurts.

Its not name calling if I believe it!

By the way, what is global warning, and who is your fraire?

I went this morning to a local national guard to see a unit of engineers shipped out to Iraq. Some of the soldiers began to point out how Pentagon officials would not listen to experienced soldiers. My congressman was present. He, a Dem, stated " If you want to question the competence of the civilians in the Pentagon, you'll get no damn argument from me."

This morning, as I looked around to see children crying and hugging their fathers in uniform, I realized how truly terrible the Iraq war is .

I think the em song Moshpit sums my opinion up best. "No more blood for oil!"

In a way I almost pity the President. I would to have those lives on my conscience.

Nice way to make the conversation degenerate into name-calling. :rolleyes:

1. Nice way to dodge the substance of my comment.

2. More hypocrisy. Your name-calling against Sheehan and anyone who supports her is OK. Pointing out the double standard you are applying "degenerate[s]" the conversation. :rolleyes:

You are correct. Every time *I* do it, I get banned. :headbang:

Must be because I'm not a flamming leftist, eh?

Come on down from the cross before someone hands you nails.

If I flamed you, report me. But I doubt anyone will see pointing out hypocrisy counts as a flame.

1. Nice way to dodge the substance of my comment.

2. More hypocrisy. Your name-calling against Sheehan and anyone who supports her is OK. Pointing out the double standard you are applying "degenerate[s]" the conversation. :rolleyes:

He just needs someone to support him so he can stop calling himself a Centrist and admit he's a hardcore Bushevik. And maybe some hugs too.

:p

Cat-Tribe:

The John Prine quote in your sig is friggin' awesome. I salute you. :)

You are correct. Every time *I* do it, I get banned. :headbang:

Must be because I'm not a flamming leftist, eh?
Flattery will get you banned.