Too bad it doesn't change the fact that your boys are dying everyday, including 8 more today. I wonder when the new record will be set for one month.

regardless of the partisan posturing, when it's all said & done remember...

...Casey was killed in honorable service to our country.

that's how I choose to remember the Sheehan name.

sheehan wrote:

"Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives."

this is because we don't have the draft to spread the agony inflicted by any conflict. no exemptions or deferrments except for a single parent w no other support for the kids.

we gotta be sure our blood n treasure is spent in righteous causes, no matter what the paritsan spin doctors say on any "side".

Like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Saxby Chambliss, etc., etc., Matt Margolis is showing us how tough he is....by not joining the armed forces in the time of a war he whole-heartedly supports.

Yes, god forbid a woman like Cindy Sheehan stand up to the people who sent her son to die to help a foriegn country that stood as no threat to the US. God forbid she do something crazy like try to gain closure on her son's death.

Oh, and how is she exploiting her sons death? She wasn't the one who went up to the cameras and said "Tape me!" she hasn't been paid for marching, there are no TV movies, no book deals. She hasn't gotten a dime out of this, and if she were to take money for this how would it be exploiting her sons death? So then I take it you're fully against anyone ever writing a book about someone killed(say, JFK or MLK) because that would be exploiting their death as well? Please. Try and be less hypocritical.

Oh and god forbid a woman who lost her son for no reason at all decides to spend time at home and try to recover from the loss of her son and being criticized by every right wing pundit on Earth for daring to speak against a man who lied in order to send her son to a battle zone.

What an evil evil woman!

Do you have anything nice to say about Democrats, Mainline Christians and Liberals?

Leave it to Ms. Margolis to post something like that. I wonder how he would feel if they sent him over to Iraq once they institute a draft.

“Like The Democrats, Sheehan Surrenders”
Matt, you disgust me. What do you see when you close your eyes at night?

Why is she quitting?

I think she said it best:

"However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used,"

In otherwords she finally realized that she was being used by hypocrits on the left.

Soooprise soooprise.

Exploiting her son's death?

Lets see - since taking up the cause against this idiotic war in Iraq that cost her son's life, Ms Sheehan has lost her marriage, her health, and most of her financial resources. And what did she get in return? - nothing but a constant savage stream of hate and derision from the wingnut attack machine.

Yep, she really "exploited" her son's death alright.

Way to kick a woman she's down, Mark. I guess this is an example of your "courage", as opposed to the "cowardice" of the families of soldiers who have fallen in a war of choice that you support but don't fight - eh Mark?

sorry - I meant Matt. I get my rabid B4B commentators confused. Well, they're all united in unconditional Bush Love.

Maybe now she'll actually honor her son's death, cause, and sacrifice, instead of humiliating him, and dumping on his grave.

Also, Colin..Where do you think she's gotten the money to travel around the globe to spew lies about her own country? It ain't from book sells. And it aint from her own "hard-earned" money. I say good riddance. She's quoted as saying that America is a "Fascist nation" Yeah, economic sanctions on countries that oppress their own people for political and religious purposes sure sounds like a fascist nation. Maybe she should just move to a nice country that isnt ran by a fascist..umm...oh oh, I know maybe Venezulia, (sorry about spelling). Lets get a petition to pay for the cost to move her sorry ass out of this country!
-Zach

Yes, god forbid a woman like Cindy Sheehan stand up to the people who sent her son to die to help a foriegn country - Colin

um.........Casey VOLUNTEERED! Because he was a much better human being and bigger person than anyone of us here.

Although not a big fan at all, I do feel bad for Cindy. She obviously was very distraught for her son and then was USED very badly by the left to further their agenda and because of that she received undue scorn from the right.

Matt:

In not volunteering to fight in the struggle for the very survival of America, you already surrendered.

So when are you going to fight in the greatest struggle of all time, eh?

It’s her fault this war has dragged on. Hannity and Limbaugh said her talk of peace embolden our enemies.

Matt,
I am guessing you consider yourself a Christian. If so, then how do you reconcile judging a mother who lost her only son to a war SHE believes was based on lies with the very unkind words written in this post? Yes, the young man did volunteer - although at the time he signed up, I have serious doubts that he had any idea of what he was getting himself into. How about a little compassion for those grieving parents of these soldiers? The greatest loss a person can suffer must be the loss of a child. As a mother of two sons, I cannot even imagine . . . Those of you who are so quick to judge, I just ask myself, if you truly believe so strongly in this cause, why haven't you signed up to go and fight? Seriously, why haven't you?

"It’s her fault this war has dragged on. Hannity and Limbaugh said her talk of peace embolden our enemies."

You're an Idiot. Talks of peace? How about spreading lies about her own nation? How about calling Buch a fascist, a tyrant, an oil baron hellbent uopn the destruction of Iraq for his own greedy pleasures. You're an idiot. If you dont think that calling for the premature withdrawl from Iraq doesnt only hurt the troops on the ground but will hurt the US in the long run. Then you obviously do not care about the troops fighting right now. And therefore, IMO you dont deserve the title of "american citizen". Poeple like you are putting this nation at risk. You're a plague that needs to be removed.

NEXT!

Colin, Casey finished his VOLUNTARY enlistment and reenlisted VOLUNTARILY. In Iraq, in a non-combat role, he again VOLUNTEERED for a combat mission where he sacrificed his life.

He is not a VICTIM by any means, but the purest embodiment of what a HERO is made of.

Many have gone through the military, both draftees in the past and enlistees, past and present. Few displayed the heroism of Casey Sheehan.

If someone comes into your house and break a $11,000 vase, should you go out and spend close to $500,000 in a war against them? The World Trade Center cost close to $10 Billion, and yet so far we have already spent more than $480 Billion on this war. What are we getting back as a nation in this war?

Amazing all the publicity she got when exhibiting Bush Derangement. More than OJ got, or Foley. Yet virtualy zero MSM coverage when denouncing the libs. MEDIA BIAS 91. And now she "resigns".

Cindy, say bad things about the libs if you don't want coverage. Or good things about Bush or Iraq. Guaranteed no coverage.

Right, but why did he enlist? I'd like to hear that story. Further more, does that change the fact when he entered voluntarily that he would be in Iraq as a direct cause of Mr. Bush's war in Iraq? He's the one who sent troops there.

Cindy Sheehan was simply standing up to the people who sent her son there---becase do not be mistaken, he was sent there. Whether it be from a draft or from voluntarily signing up into the military, it doesn't change the fact that if it wasn't for this irrational war, her son would in all likelihood still be alive today.

I still don't understand how Sheehan is the face of the left anyways---anti-war now means left? When did that happen? Because their are plenty of real conservatives and Republicans that oppose this foolishness. Besides, are you forgetting all the times Ms. Sheehan was protesting in front of DEMOCRATS offices? Not exactly the savior of "liberals" everywhere.

ROFLMAO at the loony lefties here who defend this attention whore. hahahahahahahahaha!!!

OhioOrrin, what's happened to you? You used to be on our side--now you sound like a freakin' moderate, or worse. This isn't like the OO I used to know--whazzup?

Cindys, an embarrassment to her son.

OhioOrrin, what's happened to you? You used to be on our side--now you sound like a freakin' moderate, or worse. This isn't like the OO I used to know--whazzup?

Posted by: keefer at May 29, 2007 04:23 PM

Sometimes, keefer, a person just gets tired of trying to support and justify all the lies, deceit and wrongness of a war that was foisted upon the population by a group of sinister manipulators. And then, sometimes a person will just come to their senses.

"um.........Casey VOLUNTEERED! Because he was a much better human being and bigger person than anyone of us here."
- neoconned

"Colin, Casey finished his VOLUNTARY enlistment and reenlisted VOLUNTARILY. In Iraq, in a non-combat role, he again VOLUNTEERED for a combat mission where he sacrificed his life."
- Lew

Yes, he volunteered. But Casey and many others were, as some around here still are, under the impression, instilled in them by their president, that somehow Iraq represented a threat to the US, and that their president was sending them into a mission with clearly defined objectives, and that their Sec Def was handling the post-war planning with something approaching a modicum of competence.

To my mind, volunteering to fight for your country and for your commander-in-chief represents a two-way contract. Casey and nearly 3,500 others fullfilled their side of the contract, laying down their lives in defense of the USA. But Bush and his bumbling, cronie-packed administration of incompetent loyalists did not hold up their end of the bargain. The idea of invading Iraq was an extraordinarily bad one to begin with, they rushed to war and mislead everyone about the threat level simply because they had tanks revving in the desert and Bush wanted to look "Commander-guy"-like, they failed to listen to key military leaders regarding necessary troop levels, and completely mismanaged the post-war administration of the country (see again: "cronies"). In short, this was a war of choice, it was the wrong choice, and a poorly carried out choice at that.

This represents a breach of contract. No, there is not an actual, written contract between the CC and the troops which spells out the CC's obligations. But there is an unwritten trust between the CC and the troops that when you go to war, it's for the right reasons, and it's led by people who have some idea of what they're doing. Bush failed to live up to his commitments in this regard - and now he is asking more soldiers to die for the sole reason that he desperately doesn't want to face just how badly he has failed them.

And then, sometimes a person will just come to their senses.

Well then, give me a call when you come to yours, a$$hole. I wasn't asking for your response; I'd prefer to hear from OO.

Sometimes, keefer, a person just gets tired of trying to support and justify all the lies, deceit and wrongness of a war that was foisted upon the population by a group of sinister manipulators. And then, sometimes a person will just come to their senses. - CO

I know, trying to defend Soros and moveon.org must be exhausting. So what's taking you so long CO?

But Casey and many others were, as some around here still are, under the impression, instilled in them by their president, that somehow Iraq represented a threat to the US, and that their president was sending them into a mission with clearly defined objectives,... - aarontime

So now you're calling them stupid. How nice. I love how liberals support the troop, it's heart warming.

But there is an unwritten trust between the CC and the troops that when you go to war, it's for the right reasons, and it's led by people who have some idea of what they're doing. - aarontime

Really? By what standards? The International Communities?

But there is an unwritten trust between the CC and the troops that when you go to war, it's for the right reasons, and it's led by people who have some idea of what they're doing. - aarontime

can you explain:
how soldiers are reenlisting more than expected?

or how about the vast majority of soldiers who feel that the u.s. is doing the right thing?

or how about the vast majority of soldiers who feel betrayed by the likes of you, aaron, and the dems in congress and in the media?

you know what aaron, you keep saying how iraq posed no threat to us, but had we not taken out saddam and another attack would have happen, you same monday morning quarterbacking, 20/20 hindsight having, blame bush for all the ills of the world libs would be shouting: WE KNEW IRAQ WAS A MESS. CLINTON'S INTEL AND BUSH'S INTEL PROVED IT AND BUSH DID NOTHING!

for libs, a mind is a terrible thing to use!

Cindy had to go home. You can only foam at the mouth so much before you get dehydrated.

But the subject is Cindy Sheehan, it's true that she didn't make a dime out of this, but its not for want of trying.

If she "lost it all" she deserves the nothing she's left with; she dishonored the memory of her son for personal glory. She should hide in Venezuala with her friend Hugo; at least they won't be showing up on competitive TV channels there.

Hear, hear, Rathaven--she made her bed, so she can sleep in it. Pleasant dreams, Cindy...

Aaron, when did Saddam quit being a threat to America? Clinton maintained just that position throughout most of his administration, as did his co-horts and several prominent Democrats.

Did he all of a sudden straighten up just before 2001?

Or, was he only a threat when Democrats were in the White House?

Or, was he only a threat when Democrats were in the White House?

Bingo, Lew--threats when Republicans are in the WH are "made-up threats..."

sorry - I meant Matt. I get my rabid B4B commentators confused. Well, they're all united in unconditional Bush Love.

Nice excuse, dumba$$. Of course, you're united with your fellow lefties in unconditional stupidity. hahaha!!!

I think its kind of interesting how all of the libs here have decided to take this opportunity to speak out against the war, yet somehow they dont want to address the fact that Cindy S has been shut out by the "anti-war" democratic party.

My question - What happened to your mandate against the war? This would seem to suggest that even the dems dont believe that BS anymore.

The MoveOn, Code Pink and other Soros-funded groups got what they wanted in Sheehan...Someone with 'Absolute moral authority'. Her anti-Israel rants were hidden by the MSM, while she was jetted around the world to campaign against Bush and the GOP. The Dems embraced her and even Feinstein was afraid that Sheehan would ride the moonbat wave and challenge her in the primary.

Now that the Dems have taken the Senate and House, they no longer need Lil Cindy. Her trips to her boyfriend Hugo were of no real immediate value to Hillary, Reid and Pelosi, so it's 'Bye Bye and don't let the door hit you in the rear when you leave.'

There is no war. Democrats ran on the war last year and won. There can be no war. They won.

There is no war. Democrats ran on the war last year and won. There can be no war. They won. by: Kahn

Kahn, ssh! Don't tell the Democrats about this!
Report Confirms Terror Dry Run Washington Times, by Audrey Hudson

A newly released inspector general report backs eyewitness accounts of suspicious behavior by 13 Middle Eastern men on a Northwest Airlines flight in 2004 and reveals several missteps by government officials, including failure to file an incident report until a month after the matter became public. /snip/ The report also says that a background check in the FBI's National Crime Information Center database, which was performed June 18 as part of a visa-extension application, produced ''positive hits'' for past criminal records or suspicious behavior for eight of the 12 Syrians...

Oh boy, I see the usual wingbat Bushbots are all in a tizzy.

"So now you're calling them stupid. How nice. I love how liberals support the troop, it's heart warming."
-neoconned

Still fighting those strawmen, eh neo? Look pal, it's not the troops who are stupid, and I never said that... rather, it's their "Commander-guy" who is proving mentally deficient. It's no wonder, neo, that you identify so strongly with Mr Bush.

"can you explain:
how soldiers are reenlisting more than expected?"
-falgore

That was true earlier in the conflict. In 2003, 2004, and 2005, reenlistment rates met or exceeded retention goals, defying the expectations of many pundits (granted, with substantially increased reenlistment incentives). But as the war has dragged on, and with the Bushies' misleadership of it becoming more and more apparent, reenlistment is beginning to falter, especially among the more experienced mid-level enlisted personnel who are rather crucial.

For example, read this May 2007 article in the Christian Science Monitor entitled "Key US Army ranks begin to thin": www.csmonitor.com/2007/0502/p01s01-usmi.html

A couple excerpts:

Fewer mid-grade sergeants are opting to stay in the Army as many face yet another deployment to Iraq – and, more important, Army officials say, less time at home.

While a reenlistment shortfall in any Army group is cause for concern, many consider the declining rate among mid-grade sergeants to be a sign of potential bigger reenlistment problems for the Army down the line. In addition, the fact that more mid-level soldiers are leaving could have a long-term impact on the Army's ability to grow future leaders.

The Army has seen the reenlistment rate of mid-grade enlisted soldiers drop 12 percentage points, from 96 percent during the first quarter of 2005 to a low of 84 percent for the first quarter of 2007, according to Pentagon data. As of March, the Army is as much as 10 percentage points behind where it was in retaining mid-grade soldiers at that time in 2005 and 2006.

Another wingnut talking point bites the dust.

"Aaron, when did Saddam quit being a threat to America? Clinton maintained just that position throughout most of his administration, as did his co-horts and several prominent Democrats.

Did he all of a sudden straighten up just before 2001"?
-Lew

There are smart ways to deal with threats, Lew, and then there are dumb ones. Invading and occupying Iraq as a means of dealing with that loser Saddam was firmly in the latter camp.

Saddam Hussein in 2003 was laughably weak and well-contained. The long-standing policy towards Iraq was one of containment, and it was working well - full-scale invasion was neither warranted, nor was it particularly bright. I'll let Gen Colin Powell do the talking on this one:

...the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

- Colin Powell, Feb, 2001

Of course, this was before Powell was forced to tow the Bushie line and forever ruin his credibility with that laughably lame presentation before the UN.

Yep, Mr Powell was one Bush soldier who declined to reenlist. His once promising political career will now be limited to waxing his Volvo - and that's his reward for taking one for the Commander-guy.

Oh boy, I see the usual wingbat Bushbots are all in a tizzy.

"So now you're calling them stupid. How nice. I love how liberals support the troop, it's heart warming."
-neoconned

Still fighting those strawmen, eh neo? Look pal, it's not the troops who are stupid, and I never said that... rather, it's their "Commander-guy" who is proving mentally deficient. It's no wonder, neo, that you identify so strongly with Mr Bush.

"can you explain:
how soldiers are reenlisting more than expected?"
-falgore

That was true earlier in the conflict. In 2003, 2004, and 2005, reenlistment rates met or exceeded retention goals, defying the expectations of many pundits (granted, with substantially increased reenlistment incentives). But as the war has dragged on, and with the Bushies' misleadership of it becoming more and more apparent, reenlistment is beginning to falter, especially among the more experienced mid-level enlisted personnel who are rather crucial.

For example, read this May 2007 article in the Christian Science Monitor entitled "Key US Army ranks begin to thin": www.csmonitor.com/2007/0502/p01s01-usmi.html

A couple excerpts:

Fewer mid-grade sergeants are opting to stay in the Army as many face yet another deployment to Iraq – and, more important, Army officials say, less time at home.

While a reenlistment shortfall in any Army group is cause for concern, many consider the declining rate among mid-grade sergeants to be a sign of potential bigger reenlistment problems for the Army down the line. In addition, the fact that more mid-level soldiers are leaving could have a long-term impact on the Army's ability to grow future leaders.

The Army has seen the reenlistment rate of mid-grade enlisted soldiers drop 12 percentage points, from 96 percent during the first quarter of 2005 to a low of 84 percent for the first quarter of 2007, according to Pentagon data. As of March, the Army is as much as 10 percentage points behind where it was in retaining mid-grade soldiers at that time in 2005 and 2006.

Another wingnut talking point bites the dust.

"Aaron, when did Saddam quit being a threat to America? Clinton maintained just that position throughout most of his administration, as did his co-horts and several prominent Democrats.

Did he all of a sudden straighten up just before 2001"?
-Lew

There are smart ways to deal with threats, Lew, and then there are dumb ones. Invading and occupying Iraq as a means of dealing with that loser Saddam was firmly in the latter camp.

Saddam Hussein in 2003 was laughably weak and well-contained. The long-standing policy towards Iraq was one of containment, and it was working well - full-scale invasion was neither warranted, nor was it particularly bright. I'll let Gen Colin Powell do the talking on this one:

...the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

- Colin Powell, Feb, 2001

Of course, this was before Powell was forced to tow the Bushie line and forever ruin his credibility with that laughably lame presentation before the UN.

Yep, Mr Powell was one Bush soldier who declined to reenlist. His once promising political career will now be limited to waxing his Volvo - and that's his reward for taking one for the Commander-guy.

Whoever said Iraq was a threat to the US, under Clinton, or Bush, is a moron. What threat did they pose? They had no long range missles, no nukes, no chemical weapons, nothing. Anyone else catch the video leaked to the press awhile ago that showed the Iraqi military under Saddam training with BOW AND ARROWS. Wow, what advanced warfare! Nevermind the fact that we've been bombing the shit out of them all through out the 90s---seriously, what delusional world do you live in where Saddam is a threat? He didn't have any means to harm America---so how was he a threat? Pre-emptive war is one thing only: A WAR CRIME. Wasn't that what it was considered when Iraq invaded Kuwait and Germany invaded Poland? Wasn't the excuse then about those countries posing a "threat to national security"? How is that not exactly the same thing that we've done?

And you're wrong actually, because according to the last poll from the Military Times, one of your favorite prints Mark, 54% of troops support Bush and his handling of the war. That is HARDLY an overwhelming majority.

Look pal, it's not the troops who are stupid, and I never said that... rather, it's their "Commander-guy" who is proving mentally deficient. - aarontime

First of all, I am not your pal! I know you get confused about things like that. I don't fight "strawmen" (except you maybe), I just use your words against you and you don't like it. This excerpt was from your original post:

Yes, he volunteered. But Casey and many others were, as some around here still are, under the impression, instilled in them by their president, that somehow Iraq represented a threat to the US, - aarontime

So, airhead, what you're implying is that Casey and "many others" (vague stereotype), can not discern the difference as to what the actual threat they face without being told. You, on the other hand can determine the difference without backing away from your computer.

So in effect, yes, you called our troops stupid. And that is how the left supports our troops. Heart warming isn't it?

Of course, this was before Powell was forced to tow the Bushie line and forever ruin his credibility with that laughably lame presentation before the UN. - airheadtime

So airhead, I had no idea that Gore was also a Bushbot and was "forced to tow the Bushie line". Even before Bush was President. WOW.

26 June 2000

Text: Gore, Iraqi National Congress Joint Statement Following Meeting

Vice President and INC reaffirm joint desire to see a united Iraq)

Vice President Al Gore met with senior leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) June 26 to review the agenda of work between the United States Government and the Iraqi National Congress.

In a joint statement issued after their meeting, the INC and the Vice President "reaffirmed their joint desire to see a united Iraq served by a representative and democratic government responsive to the needs of its people and willing to live in peace with its neighbors."

"The Vice President reaffirmed the Administration's strong commitment to the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and to bringing him and his inner circle to justice for their war crimes and crimes against humanity," the statement said.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
June 26, 2000

How do you suppose he was going to attempt to remove Saddam from power? Targeted global warming?

Aaron, Colin, I invite you to view this video from a 1999 ABC Documentary on the "threat" of Saddam Hussein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg

Last I heard, Clinton was still in office then.

"So, airhead, what you're implying is that Casey and "many others" (vague stereotype), can not discern the difference as to what the actual threat they face without being told."
-neoconned

Look, bungholio (since you don't like to be addressed as "pal"), members of the armed service generally operate under the assumption that their CC isn't a vainglorious nitwit.

Casey died in 2004. Back then, the Bush propaganda machine hadn't yet suffered a complete collapse induced by devastating realities. Had Casey lived to 2007, he, like increasing numbers of his comrades in arms, probably would not have re-upped and in fact would have been disgusted by this war.

"Aaron, Colin, I invite you to view this video from a 1999 ABC Documentary on the "threat" of Saddam Hussein..."

"Last I heard, Clinton was still in office then."
-Lew

Last I heard, Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

Look, bungholio (since you don't like to be addressed as "pal"), members of the armed service generally operate under the assumption that their CC isn't a vainglorious nitwit. - airhead

bungholio works. Soldiers don't operate "under the assumption". Soldiers operate under conviction. I know that's hard for you to understand.

Now, that being said, I wonder if many of these soldiers were convinced by Clinton and Gore as to how much of a threat Saddam was?

Please explain to me how Gore was "forced to tow the Bush line"?

"like increasing numbers of his comrades in arms, probably would not have re-upped," Your lies are becoming tiresome.

Maybe try a little more research, or at least read the entire CS article; “Army officials say they will make their overall retention goals by the end of the fiscal year – in September ”

As of 2006, for the last full year completed, the Army reserves continue to meet and exceed re-enlistment goals. The Marine Corps has “boatspace" which limits re-enlistment; however as of last year boatspace was lifted allowing qualified Marines to re-enlist. The Marines met their re-enlistment goals in August. Navy and Air Force have also met or exceeded their goals.

Another liberal talking point proven to be a lie.

neocon, didn't Clinton bomb Iraq effectivly starting a war? Why would he do such a thing if they were "no threat"?

Guess he was under Bush's spell.

Great link rathaven.

Airhead, please explain. Why in the world would Clinton think Saddam had WMD's? Why in the world would he strike Iraq to protect the national security of the US?

Was he forced to "tow the Bushie line"?

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world

So let me get this straight Neocon, soldiers don't assume that their chief commander would have a good reason for starting a war? Are you serious? That is by far the most ludicrous statement you've made yet. You're saying that soldier's don't assume that those in higher command who send them to war have even a vaguely good reason for putting them in harms way? Wow, you sir, are a moron.

Why does Clinton need to always be brought into this? Did Clinton invade Iraq? No. I despise Clinton and I still do---does that change the fact that George W. Bush brought our country into a war with a county that posed NO THREAT WHATSOEVER?(I REPEAT FOR YOU THICKHEADED ONES, NO THREAT WHATSOEVER)

How again was Saddam going to harm America in any shape way or form? Let's run over the list again---no wmds, no way to get wmds, no long range missles, a military that was hopelessly behind in terms of weapon technology and still using the weapons we gave them in the 80s...where's the threat? Maybe he posed a threat to a neighboring country, but the USA? No chance in HELL.

Is that really the best you have neocon? You and your cronies have to bring up Al Gore now and global warming, as if that has ANY relation to this at all? Wow, Al Gore signed onto it---awesome, that changes what now? Gore, just like the rest of the Senate & the American people, WERE LIED TO. THEY HAD ZERO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF WMDS. You do NOT invade a country based on speculation---that is irrational and foolish at best. I'm not blaming Republicans or Democrats for saying Saddam was a threat, but I am blaming a certain Republican President who didn't do his JOB and LOOK INTO THESE CLAIMS before invading a country and sticking our soldiers into a quagmire and civil war that could've been prevented had we not intervened.

And incase you try and reply with "Oh but Clinton thought he was a threat and had weapons", just stop right there, because Clinton DESTROYED all of their weapons when he was bombing the shit out of them in the 90s. We're talking present day, in 2003, Iraq posed ZERO threat to our National security, they posed about as much of a threat as Iceland.

Rathaven:

Yes, Clinton bombed Iraq. But the War didn't start then, remember? Bush chose to depose Saddam, Clinton didn't, so now Bush deals with the mess he caused.

As for what the soldiers think, what difference does it make to the left or the right? They follow orders. Besides, there are gag rules to keep them from posting to blogs, etc. upsetting Michelle Malkin and other reasoned observers. This can probably be taken as a hint that some in uniform were saying things that the regime didn't appreciate, but I tend to side with the right-wing nutjobs that when our soldiers are really upset, we'll hear about it without a doubt, not just vague murmurs and polls. But generally speaking, I think time spent wondering what our troops think about politics is time wasted. They have a job to do and they're trying to do it.

" Bush chose to depose Saddam, Clinton didn't,

Wrong again, H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President Clinton))

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

So let me get this straight Neocon, soldiers don't assume that their chief commander would have a good reason for starting a war? Are you serious? That is by far the most ludicrous statement you've made yet. - colin

No Colin. Try and hang with me here. Soldiers are convinced that there is good reason and most of them don't depend on the CIC to convince of them of that. In fact, most of the our armed services personel are at a minimum high school educated and many of them hold advanced degrees. Contrary to what John Kerry will have you believe.

Will you please quit denigrating my family and our military personel.

I despise Clinton and I still do---does that change the fact that George W. Bush brought our country into a war with a county that posed NO THREAT WHATSOEVER?(I REPEAT FOR YOU THICKHEADED ONES, NO THREAT WHATSOEVER) - colin

Well first of all I believe you're a liar. Secondly, have you not read the statements by Gore and Clinton that directly oppose your statement?

Gore, just like the rest of the Senate & the American people, WERE LIED TO. THEY HAD ZERO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF WMDS. - colin

So now we're all victims right? Victims of a mass worldwide conspiracy that lied us all into believing that Saddam possessed something that he actually used against the Kurds.

Your the only liar here colin. And I sense from your heated rhetoric, you are realizing that your losing the debate.

Not particuliarly true there Yeno2, did you see a massive uproar from the troops during Vietnam? And most of them were DRAFTED for god's sake. They are over there and doing their job, one that requires no second thought be given to politics or whether what they're doing is right or wrong. Thats why I'd never blame the troops for this war---only Bush. His administration is a joke at best.

If you loved America and it's principles, you'd agree with that---3/4ths of Americans do.

Once again you completely misinterpret everything I say Neocon.

OBVIOUSLY Saddam HAD chemical weapons---we SOLD them to him! But they DID NOT have any in 2003---what don't you understand here? Try actually reading my comments before replying and making yourself look like a fool.

I already said that Clinton had already bombed the hell out of Iraq, destroying all of their weapons. We're talking about 2003---thats when the war started, not in the 80s chief. Or does your selective memory mistake that as well?

Good job at not addressing a single point in my response correctly.

"And most of them were DRAFTED"

Wrong, most of us were there as a result of enlistment, after 1969 draftees wern't sent to Vietnam.

"whether what they're doing is right or wrong."

You're obviously not military!

" destroying all of their weapons"

There's no proof that any weapons were destroyed in Operation Red Raspberry Beret.

"we SOLD them to him!"

You're obviously not a historian! But, you are a liar.

But, try for a moment to stick to the subject; Casey Sheehan honored himself and his country, he served with distinction, re-enlisted and served again. Haviong been in the zone, he fully understood what was at stake. Cindy Sheehan was a tool, and she finally realized that the liberals will use any one or anything to get power; they never cared about her or Casey.

But they DID NOT have any in 2003---what don't you understand here? - colin

Wow. Colin the liar obviously has undeniable proof that Saddam did not possess any WMD's in 2003 despite the emboldened pleas from Sen. Rockefeller on the Senate floor in October of 2002 which again contradicts your assertion. OH that's right, he was LIED to. See I forget.

This of course is not the ONLY reason for deposing as the left and colin the liar will have us to believe. In fact Al Gore summed it up best:

"The Vice President reaffirmed the Administration's strong commitment to the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and to bringing him and his inner circle to justice for their war crimes and crimes against humanity," the statement said.

Atrocious crime against humanity there CHIEF. You do care about other people don't you?

Also, there were those rascally violations of the UN cease-fire resolutions. You do care about the UN don't you?

Oh why go on, you're obviously on a planet far far away. Right chief?

Colin -

"How again was Saddam going to harm America in any shape way or form?"

Well, Colin, Saddam was clearly going to use those balsa wood planes to fly 12,000 miles and strafe New York. Even Clinton said so! Sheesh, you liberalz just don't get it!

In all seriousness, what neoconned and Lew and the rest don't quite grasp is that whatever threat Clinton said Saddam may have posed, it was clearly not enough of one to warrant the obvious risks of a disasterous full-scale invasion of Iraq - a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. There were other strategies to keep Saddam contained and defanged, and they were working well, as Colin Powell attested.

Meanwhile, throwing away our blood, treasure, honor, respect and credibility to invade and occupy an oil-rich Arab nation ruled by a much weakened, tin-pot dictator that posed no credible threat to the US, has done more to harm US interests than anything al-qaeda could possibly dream up.

Not only has the invasion and occupation diverted forces away from confronting real threats to the US, but it has proved an excellent recruiting tool for extremist fundamentalists in the region. At the very least, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed (and perhaps as many as hundreds of thousands), and 4 million Iraqi refugees have fled their homes. These victims count millions more in their surviving extended families who now absolutely hate the US. How many of those millions of surviving family members - the vast majority of whom were most likely moderates - will now want to join the ranks of the rabidly anti-American militants throughout the region?

The blowback from this tragically idiotic and totally useless war is going to be staggering. We are still paying a heavy price for overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran back in 1953! Can you imagine the price to succeding genrations of Americans caused by the open wound of the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

In every case, the potential costs and risks of a military intervention need to be carefully weighed against the threat posed. That is what separated Clinton from Bush. In the case of Iraq, the Bushies were not at all interested in thinking about the costs and risks, even though most of those were predictable and predicted. And they also were totally uninterested in properly assesing the potential threat level posed by Saddam. They were unwilling to let the UN inspectors complete their mission, to be finished in July of 2003, just 3 months after the Bushies pre-empted their work by invading the country.

No, Bush utterly failed in this most important task of any president: properly weighing potential costs and risks of military action against the potential threat level. Indeed, they didn't even try! In fact, their only interest in the threat level was solely to find ways to exaggerate it to justify an invasion decision they obviously had already made a priori.

Bush's failure to even attempt to weigh costs against benefits is what distinguishes him from Clinton's approach to dealing with Iraq - and it is also why I say Mr Bush failed in his most sacred contract with Casey and all the other killed and wounded in this poorly conceived war.

Not only has the invasion and occupation diverted forces away from confronting real threats to the US,...- airhead

Oh really? Let's see what other "real threats" are there? Finland? Cambodia? Or I know, how about China? Should we invade China?

Oh wait, the real threat is AGW! In fact we'll all be dead in ten years, right? Isn't that what Goreacle said? We have just ten years?

These victims count millions more in their surviving extended families who now absolutely hate the US. - airhead

Oh my lord, you're kidding me. They use to love us so much. And then the insurgents and AQ started blowing up IED's all around them and that made them hate us? I feel so bad.

the vast majority of whom were most likely moderates - will now want to join the ranks of the rabidly anti-American militants throughout the region? - airhead

Is that why they're starting to provide intel to the Iraqi security and US forces?

We are still paying a heavy price for overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran back in 1953! - airhead

Oh you mean the Pahlavi family that ruled Iran since 1919, and who we helped depose of Mossadegh, the prime minister who attempted to nationalize the oil industry without support from the Pahlavi ruling family? Don't make me slap you around with those facts AGAIN!

The rest of you drivel is just more inane cowardly hindsight rooted in fear and lack of self confidence.

Cheers.

WOW- 8 paragraphs and not an original thought in the bunch. Losing an argument? Change the subject. Good logic Aaron. But, despite your rhetoric facts remain pesky.

Clinton was ineffectual at “containing” Saddam; everyone agrees that the sanctions were falling apart. Everyone involved agreed that Iraq wasn’t directly involved with 9/11, yet you and your fellow travelers are the only one’s to keep bringing this up, sad that you can’t learn a new tune. The inspectors clearly stated that Saddam was obfuscating and that in the words of David Kay, the inspections were a “sham”.

1953? You’re either kidding or you’re insane! We are paying A HEAVY PRICE FOR THE INEPTATUDE OF Jimmy Carter; who single-handedly created Islamofascism, and that sure as hell wasn’t in 1953!

Casey Sheehan believed in the mission; he was there, twice! Thousands of military and their families believe in the mission; they’re not the stupid tools you characterize them as. You should be ashamed of the way you speak of those that put their lives in harms way to protect your right to be an airhead.

BDS! That’s all you have to offer, take it back to DailyKos.

Thank you Aaron, atleast someone has intelligence.

Do you even read my posts Neocon, or just make up things that you think I say and construe them in whatever way you like?

If Iraq had WMDs....WHERE WERE THEY? Hmmm? What EVIDENCE did Rockefeller have? Not SPECULATION, cold hard EVIDENCE. The answer: none. You do not invade a country because of speculation. Why do you keep bringing Gore and Clinton into this? They have NOTHING to do with this---the Iraqi Liberation Act, if you've read it, does not say ANYWHERE that it would be the policy of the US to INVADE Iraq---despose of Saddam, yes, but invade? No. Two very different things.

All of this talk of UN sanctions this, Iraqi Freedom Act that, while fun for you mull over, does not change the fact that the PROCESS in which this war was conducted is ILLEGAL. When you LIE about your reasons for going to war---that is illegal. Or is not acceptable and perfectly legal for the President to lie to the entire world?

Were you not paying attention Neocon when Colin Powell say quite clearly that the information he recieved about the mobile weapon facilities was WRONG. Do you not remember that part? Did you forget about David Kay, one of the UN inspectors to actually go into Iraq, coming forward and saying that Iraq had no WMDs? Did you forget about Gabon Joseph Wilson's ambassador telling Bush that Iraq had not tried to purchase uranium before the invasion? Did you forget about your neocon darling Paul Wolfowitz telling Vanity Fair in an interview that the WMDs claim was only false justification for physically removing Saddam? Did you forget that GEORGE BUSH'S OWN SENIOR ADVISORS TOLD THE MEDIA THAT WMD CLAIMS WERE MOST LIKELY FALSE?

Maybe you're forgetting the fact that Clinton bombed with pinpoint accuracy Iraq's weapon infrastructures, and destroyed 95% of his weapons, leaving only another measly 5% that was mostly destroyed when UN inspectors started upping their searches.

Face it neocon: Iraq posed absolutely zero threat to AMERICA. Maybe it posed a threat to Saudi Arabia, our biggest ally in the Middle East besides Israel (coincidentally George Bush has been in business with the Saudi royal family since the 70s...all easily verifiable facts that you can look up with a simple google search) and perhaps thats why Clinton and Bush decided to invade. But the bottom line is that Iraq posed no threat to the national security of AMERICA. Forget Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, and the rest of the Middle East: IT POSED NO THREAT TO US.

And don't come back with that bullshit line about how we were liberating the Iraqis, because if we gave a damn about governments killing their people we would've done something in Rwanda and we would have(or still could) do something about Darfur.

You honestly don't think there are other more dangerous enemies to the US right now Neocon? Are you HONESTLY that stupid? Iran ring any bells? We're on the brink of war with them already. Pakistan ring any bells? Musharaff is desperately close to being overthrown, and that would put REAL NUKES into the hands of Islamic terrorists(and that is where Osama is supposedly hiding as well). Did you forget about that crazy place called the Middle East? You know, the hotbed of terrorism, of which Iraq is only ONE area of?

Oh and Rathaven, theres a reason why we keep bringing up the fact that Iraq had no connection to 9/11---THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS AS TO WHY WE WERE INVADING IRAQ, atleast told by Bush.

Did you forget that lie too?

keefer - the only "side" I was ever on was the peoples' "side".

I remain "old school"; I don't trust govt nor politicans from BOTH parties who substitute sound bites, pandering, & posturing for effective policy.

Party politics is destroying our democracy & is the direct cause of voter apathy, indifference, & cynicism. It also hinders reasonable compromise in the peoples' interest...ALL our people...not just the 45% that belong to "your" party!

Face it, the current GOP would NOT nominate Reagan nor would the Dems nominate JFK. Yet these are the icons they hold up to deceive us. Both parities are nothing more than big govt, deficit
whores who sell fear & subvert the same civil liberities that hundreds of thousands of veterans died to protect.

For me, the most important guiding principle in state & federal govt is that which our founding fathers endorsed in our constitution - checks n balance. I'll most likely vote GOP for President only because Congress, along w most of the state govts, are likely to remain Dem.

At least, thru the lies & pandering, each "side" will rat each other out & cancel the extremes.

You honestly don't think there are other more dangerous enemies to the US right now Neocon? Are you HONESTLY that stupid? Iran ring any bells? We're on the brink of war with them already. Pakistan ring any bells?......Did you forget about that crazy place called the Middle East? You know, the hotbed of terrorism, of which Iraq is only ONE area of? - colin

um............Colin. WE'RE ALREADY THERE!!!!!!!

Airhead said that we we're DIVERTING OUR FORCES FROM FACING THE REAL THREAT!!!

Are you advocating the invasion of Iran and Pakistan? Keep in mind Iran does not yet possess WMD's.

So don't PLAY UPON MY FEARS!!!!

You honestly don't think there are other more dangerous enemies to the US right now Neocon? Are you HONESTLY that stupid? Iran ring any bells? We're on the brink of war with them already. Pakistan ring any bells?......Did you forget about that crazy place called the Middle East? You know, the hotbed of terrorism, of which Iraq is only ONE area of? - colin

um............Colin. WE'RE ALREADY THERE!!!!!!!

Airhead said that we we're DIVERTING OUR FORCES FROM FACING THE REAL THREAT!!! So you want to divert our forces back to the middle east and invade Iran? Wow, you are hawkish!

Oh and Rathaven, theres a reason why we keep bringing up the fact that Iraq had no connection to 9/11---THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS AS TO WHY WE WERE INVADING IRAQ, atleast told by Bush. - colin

b, b, b, but wasn't it WMD's, as earlier asserted by the you loons? Now it's his connection to 9/11?

And it had nothing to do with the fact that Saddam violated every UN cease-fire agreement stemming from the Gulf War?

Now here's a little pesky fact, when Saddam signed that agreement, the allies reserved the right to continue hostilities if Saddam violated even one resolution. He violated all 17.

colin, give it up. you're starting to embarrass yourself.

Rathaven: It doesn't matter what Clinton thought was the right thing to do -- BUSH INVADED IRAQ and now must take responsibility. Did 9/11 change everything or didn't it? Gues swhat? Clinton isn't to blame for Iraq, you moron.

Colin: I stick to my guns -- we don't want a political or politicized army. That's for banana republics and brain dead B4B bots. It doesn't matter what the troops think, unless they refuse to fight, and they haven't done that yet.

Okay, Colon, please supply the quote where Bush said Iraq was involved with 9/11.

Pinpoint accuracy? How about some proof? According to the UN the bombing in December 1998, the only time Clinton ordered bombing of Iraq that was carried out, was “posturing” and “saber rattling” on the part of the US. According to David Kay, the areas bombed were “known by inspectors and contained no ‘hard targets’”.

Wilson’s report confirmed that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from Niger, you should really get your news from reliable sources, this liberal mental-inbreeding program is turning you into an intellectual pygmy.

Now, how about getting to the subject? Are you only capable of spewing neo-communist talking points? Have you had an original thought in your entire life? Let’s hear your defense of Cindy Sheehan.

neo, starting?????

yeno,
You mind-numbed dipshit, did Clinton sign the Iraqi Liberation Act, making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US Government? Isn’t President Bush required to pursue every opportunity to fulfill his oath of office to carry out his duties and obey the law of the land? Are you stupid or just don't care about the truth?

Why aren’t you troll-robots discussing Sheehan? Didn’t get the talking points on that one yet? Better check with your masters over at Soros' websites before commenting.

....this liberal mental-inbreeding program is turning you into an intellectual pygmy. - rathaven

That's hysterical. Can I use this?

Feel free, neo. That's my version of "mental midget". Don't you think it describes them perfectly?

a very apt descript indeed!

Did you notice how Colon brought up the Bush-Saud punch-line? The “we sold weapons to Iraq” meme, and then Darfur? This loon really needs to be dragged into the 21st Century. He’s at least 4 years behind on his Soros’ talking points.

I’m tellin’ ya’, these left-wing frothing-at-the-mouth, neo-communist, useful idiot, puppets of the Blame America First crowd will live miserable, hate filled lives until they die clutching their autographed copy of Fahrenheit 9-11. Sad, scary little robots; they won’t even learn from their icons; Mother Sheehan should be a lesson to all of them; you’re a useful idiot as long as you toe the party line.

I think it's a sign of right-wing desperation that you are now looking for someone to pin the IRaq debacle on. If we were winning, you wouldn't bring up Clinton's involvement and would say he deserved no credit. But since we are in desperate strait, out comes the pointing finger. Iraq is a Republican war and the whole world knows it. Own it.

Instead we will see the Right blame the Left for 1) 9/11, 2) the Iraq War starting, and 3) losing the Iraq War. Whatever.

Re: Cindy Sheehan,the woman wants out of the public sphere. She is a grieving mother who acted as her conscience dictated. What is there to talk about?

because Clinton DESTROYED all of their weapons when he was bombing the shit out of them in the 90s.

That was in '98 he bombed Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 (Well after the bombing)

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999

"Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm." Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002

"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons." Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999

"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one." Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

No one disputes that Clinton, while President and still afterward, talked about Saddam being a bad dude and recommended regime change.

But do you understand the difference between speech and action? Are you saying Slick Willy was a far-sighted visionary and that the Bush administration has just been following his lead all this time?

And imagine the reaction of the Republican Congress if Clinton had tried to launch an invasion of Iraq in the 90s! "Wagging the dog" and similar sentiments would come out from Congresmen and all these neocon chickenhawks who strenuously avoided serving their country in Vietnam (Cheney, for one) then launched an ill-considered war of their own that had nothing to do with the "GWOT" or 9/11, which happened on Bush's watch. So remind me what your point is about Clinton.

Oh jeez you got me, I can't seem to find a case where Bush outright says "Iraq was behind 9/11", however Dick Cheney has said it in public many times---and we all know who pulls the strings there. Cheney said, on Meet the Press, that this ADMINISTRATION had information about an Al Qaeda operative working and meeting with the Iraqi government 5 monthes before 9/11. He said there was no doubt in his mind they were linked. Is that explicit enough for you?

Neocon, neocon...what a sad life you must life to be pulling such gems out of your ass as "We're already there!" in response to Iran and Pakistan---newsflash....WE AREN'T. We may have ships lined up around the countries, but we are quite obviously not occupying either of them are we? Once again, what fantasy world are you living in? Spreading all of our military and national guard thin in Iraq has done nothing but leave those soldiers wide open for attack by the REAL Al-Qaeda muslim extremists. Pakistani president Musharaff is close to being either overthrown or voted out, by muslim extremists, who will then have power of REAL WMDs, considering Pakistan is nuclear. Then you have Iran which is becoming nuclear in the next 5-10 years. I'm not advocating any invasion of either country, which was the conclusion you irrationally jumped to neocon. I'm just saying there are other, larger problems in the world---and if we got the hell out of Iraq, we wouldn't be making ourselves weaker and weaker and weaker for GOD FORBID one day when we really DO need to go to war to protect this country, we'll actually stand a chance.

Lew, congrats on not even reading what I write anymore---did you not see the part about how ALL of congress and ALL of the world was lied to about the threat of Iraq? How does the fact that Democrats voted and were in favor for this war change any of this? It doesn't, it's simple diversion tactics. Last time I checked the Democrats weren't the ones to propose the war---that was Bush.

As for Cindy Sheehan, I've already posted about her several times at the beginning of this page. She's just a normal women trying to get some closure on her son's death---why do you have a problem with that? Don't give me this exploiting bullshit, because she hasn't made a dime off this, she's lost her job, went through a divorce, and is on the brink of bankruptcy---how again is she exploiting him? Now you're going to reply with "Because her son served honorably and she disgraced that service by doing what she did!"....HOW? By asking for some accountability as to why her son had to die in vain for absolutely no good reason whatsoever? I understand he enlisted, that doesn't change the fact that he woudn't of even been in Iraq during his duty if it wasn't for Bush's idiotic, horribly planned and even worsely executed invasion of Iraq. God forbid someone ask for a reason as to why their son lay their soul down on the alter of freedom.

And then, of course, comes the usual "Anti-American" slogans from you GOPers. I love America, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else on the planet, America IS the best nation on this planet. I however hate this ADMINISTRATION. There is a VAST difference between the two, and you people just can't seem to comprehend that fact. Administrations are voted in to serve YOU and YOUR interests, NOT the other way around. That's how a democracy is supposed to work. When someone that is working FOR YOU lies to you time and time again, to your face, you're going to keep trusting him? Even if he hasn't done a single good thing while working for YOU?

Dissent is always needed; otherwise we are just drones, eating up everything that is told to us as pure fact, making us so gullible and so in need of confirmation of yourself that you're willing to accept everything you hear, even if it's ludicrous. You obviously just don't care at all about anything like ethics or morals do you?

"Like The Democrats, Sheehan Surrenders

I guess all that time exploiting her son's death for an extended 15 minutes of fame got old."
-Matt Margolis
_________________________________________________

"Maybe now she'll actually honor her son's death, cause, and sacrifice, instead of humiliating him, and dumping on his grave."
-zachster
_________________________________________________

ROFLMAO at the loony lefties here who defend this attention whore. hahahahahahahahaha!!!
-keefer
_________________________________________________

Cindys, an embarrassment to her son.
-Mark
_________________________________________________

The MoveOn, Code Pink and other Soros-funded groups got what they wanted in Sheehan...Someone with 'Absolute moral authority'. Her anti-Israel rants were hidden by the MSM, while she was jetted around the world to campaign against Bush and the GOP. The Dems embraced her and even Feinstein was afraid that Sheehan would ride the moonbat wave and challenge her in the primary.

Now that the Dems have taken the Senate and House, they no longer need Lil Cindy. Her trips to her boyfriend Hugo were of no real immediate value to Hillary, Reid and Pelosi, so it's 'Bye Bye and don't let the door hit you in the rear when you leave.'
-Hermie
_________________________________________________

You all should be ashamed of yourselves........kicking her while she's down like that......

Just flat out disgusting.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves........kicking her while she's down like that......

hahahahahahaha!!!

We're not, tl--she hates America; she hates Jews/Israel; she cozies up to thugs and dictators. We're not ashamed at all. In fact, at least one of us completely despises the attention whore...

Hey Colon, stop being such an a$$hole...

Re: Cindy Sheehan,the woman wants out of the public sphere. She is a grieving mother who acted as her conscience dictated. What is there to talk about?

Let's see, Cindy is a grieving mother. Casey Sheehan died when? How long can we ride this grieving thing, Yenta? Get a clue, jerk...

"[] ALL of congress and ALL of the world was lied to about the threat of Iraq?"

If everyone was being lied to, then who was doing the lying?

"we are just drones, eating up everything that is told to us as pure fact, making us so gullible~Colon

At least you and Cindy Sheehan finally realize that you're useful idiots. That's the first step in your anger management.

keefer,
colon ~ a$$hole; that's clever.

Colin -

Nice work.

"How does the fact that Democrats voted and were in favor for this war change any of this? It doesn't, it's simple diversion tactics."

Precisely. It is kind of pathetic that the best argument the neocon wannabe Bushbots can come up with these days in support of this Iraq fiasco is "well, lots of Dems voted for the Iraq War Resolution too". Sounds like an excuse an 8 year old would say.

That's the best these toads can come up with? "The Dems supported it"? Well golly gee, if the Dems supported it, it must be OK!

Not to mention the fact that the Iraq War Resolution that many Dems sadly voted for in Oct, 2002, only authorized Bush to use force to defend the national security of the US from any threat posed by Iraq. That bill did NOT say it was OK to exaggerate the threat, distort and cherry-pick the intel, rush to war, fail to secure a truly broad international coalition, fail to plan for the invasion aftermath, disregard advice of military commanders, totally mismanage the administration of Iraq, and stay there for years on an open-ended occupation without a clear mission. Nope, I'm pretty sure none of that was in the Iraq War Resolution.

Right on Aaron, someone here has a brain. But hey, we could say that the sky was blue and these fools would come back trying to argue it and belittle us. Thats their only real argument tactic--- insult your opponent, attack the messanger and don't address the message at all.

Notice the only replies these GOPers had was "Colin's an asshole"...wow you sure showed me, man that totally negates every fact I just shoved down your throat that you didn't happen to like because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion of how the world works.

Are you serious Rathaven? You haven't figured it out by now? Even though its brought up in almost every single comment on every post? I don't know----maybe it was BUSH WHO LIED? How many times do we need to say this---this administration LIED to congress and LIED to the American people---what isn't their to understand here? When Bill Clinton lied about getting a blowjob suddenly the world was ending and he was impeached for lying in court---and deserved it---however this president can lie and as a direct result of that lie kill thousands of people indirectly? And he's off scott-free?

And Keefer, if you're supposed to represent the moral right, you're doing a terrible job at it by insulting a grieving mother of a vet. How the hell is she exploiting her sons death? You ask rhetorically "How long ago was it when Casey died?"...WHY SHOULD THAT BE A FACTOR? What is their now a time limit as to how long you can talk about and grieve the death of a loved one? I lost my father more then fifteen years ago and I still grieve about it and talk about the man---what am I supposed to do, forget? Jesus you have no idea about what this woman has gone through, and you insult her simply because she's been manipulated by greedy news corporations. She hasn't been paid a dime for doing what she has---she's done nothing but lose thing after thing in her life---and she's exploiting her sons death? Please explain how so---because by your logic, you should be pointing fingers at people like Bush and his cronies who feel the need to bring up 9/11 and the mass murder of 3000 Americans every time he needs a speech to get himself some sympathy. That isn't exploitation? What about Pat Tillman? Lying about how a man is killed to his family and using him as a recruiting tool? That's not exploitation as well?

Why is it that you are so very blind to any wrongdoing on your side of the aisle? You act as though it doesn't exist---I constantly criticize members of my own party; I have this utterly insane thing called rationality and neutrality. I listen to the ideas from ALL political ideologies in order to learn from them, instead of just block them out as foriegn and insane.

Please, grow up and reacquaint yourself with reality.

Lew, congrats on not even reading what I write anymore---did you not see the part about how ALL of congress and ALL of the world was lied to about the threat of Iraq?

Colin, thanks for showing us you cannot reason or think for yourself. About "they were all lied too," Some of those "statements" were made before Bush was in office and after the bombings.

You also have Saint Hillary, on the Larry King Show, April 2004, saying in regards the lack of WMDs, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."

Please explain how Bush was lying to the Clinton administration before he was even in office.

She also said to Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard in late 2003, that she had done her own “due diligence,” including consulting national security officials from her husband’s administration whom she trusted.

You also have former Senator, Bob Kerrey, fellow Democrat to ya'll, saying just this month, "The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes." " No, that does not mean Saddam had a hand in 9/11.

I'll also ask you, if, as ya'll believe, Bush is so dumb, naive, ignorant, stupid and what have you, do you really want others in power that he could so easily mislead, given they claim superior intelligence?

I refer you back too, "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one." Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

Congrats on once again not even reading what I say Lew. Did you not read the part about how Clinton bombed the shit out of Iraq in 98 and destroyed most of their weapons? And that a senior inspector from the UN, who went into Iraq, said that Iraq had no WMDs? Or the fact that NONE WERE FOUND AFTER WE INVADED. I don't know about you, but that seems to be the best evidence that they weren't there.

You can continue with your faulty claims of "Oh but this is the intelligence Bush got from Clinton!" well newsflash: A: Clinton didn't invade Iraq did he? and B: If the intelligence community thought Iraq had WMDs, why were they not able to produce a single shred of evidence supporting that claim? No maps, no satellites, no reports, absolutely nothing at all. Rumsfeld says "We know where the WMDs are, they are North, South, East & West of Baghdad"...and you don't see something wrong with that picture? You'd think you might have even a slight idea of where these "WMDS" were if you planned on INVADING A COUNTRY. But no, forget that they said, lets just jump right into it without even a second thought as to what the reaction could be to our invasion!

Let me put it like this: Your friend tells you that your neighbor is a Nazi. He's got no evidence to support that. You then go around saying that your neighbor is a Nazi. It turns out to be false. Did you not tell a lie? You said he was a Nazi---he isn't. It's pretty easy here, try to follow me.

Bush said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Did you not read the part about how Clinton bombed the shit out of Iraq in 98 and destroyed most of their weapons?

Colin, if you pulled your head back out into the sunshine, you would see that I quoted, twice now, Senator Joe Biden, defintely a Democrat, saying, "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one." Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

Bush said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Hillary Clinton said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

John Kerry said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Bill Clinton said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Ted Kennedy said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Nancy Pelosi said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Dick Durbin said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Al Gore said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

John Edwards said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Charles Schumer said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Jay Rockefeller said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Chris Dodd said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Madeline Albright said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Barbara Boxer said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

Jaques Chirac said Iraq had WMDs...they didn't. Where is that not a lie?

The question that needs answered is, "where did they go, in the six months 'rush to war.'"

Spreading all of our military and national guard thin in Iraq has done nothing but leave those soldiers wide open for attack by the REAL Al-Qaeda muslim extremists - colin

As opposed to the fake ones in Iraq? ROTFLOL

That's a good one, thanks colin.

I'm not advocating any invasion of either country, which was the conclusion you irrationally jumped to neocon - colin

No. I just asked you the question. I know how that makes liberals nervous though.

and if we got the hell out of Iraq, we wouldn't be making ourselves weaker and weaker and weaker for GOD FORBID one day when we really DO need to go to war to protect this country, we'll actually stand a chance. - colin