It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Grieving Mother's Campaign Against Bush's War

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
The math doesn't add up to the reported totals from the report itself.


You are giving the statement from another site where someone else makes an "average assumption" on how many people died in a regular basis in Iraq. The numbers are closer to the ones given in that site than the numbers given from many other reports which are "guesstimates" and not based on real data. This was covered here some time ago also.


Originally posted by slank
Other sources: Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad put the civilian death toll at up to 100,000 since the invasion.


Here is how the survey you mentioned came up with this 100k figure.




To conduct the survey, investigators visited 33 neighborhoods spread evenly across the country in September, randomly selecting clusters of 30 households to sample. Of the 988 households visited, 808, consisting of 7,868 people, agreed to participate in the survey. At each one they asked how many people lived in the home and how many births and deaths there had been since January 2002.


Excerpted from.
knoxville.wate.com...

The Iraqbodycount site makes it's reports from the bodies that have been found in Iraq.



Originally posted by slank
Saddam did send money to families of palestinian suicide bombers in Israel,
But i have never heard a single credible account of training terrorists on Iraqi soil.
..........
Can you say 'Credibility Gap'?

I am really tired of going over all of this over and over, please do a search in the forums if you want to be up to date....

Just to show you one example on how wrong you are.


WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.


Excerpted from.
www.usatoday.com...



Originally posted by slank
Saddam wanted WMDs.
Point of fact he, due to UN inspectors had NONE.
CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Are you saying the CIA is in the pocket of the so-called liberal media?


Just like the media claimed that the 9/11 commission claimed that Iraq had no ties with Al Qaeda when in fact the one thing they said was that there was no definite proof that Saddam was involved with the attacks of 9/11, but there are ties between Iraq/Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Many times media outlets edit stories to fit an agenda, or to make the story "more profitable."

Likewise there is a lot of evidence that points to the contrary of what you are saying. First off, Iraq was supposed to destroy all wmd and related materials including documents, and they did not. I don't even understand how the AIEA would think that Saddam would be stopped by some seals placed in wmd related materials. Even the AIEA reported that many bunkers where wmd material was stored could be breached without removing the tags. Who is forgetting the discrepancies of HMX explosives and other material which dissapeared from "sealed bunkers."

You forget the 4-6 scuds and Al Samaud which Iraq fired upon the coalition in Kuwait at the begining of the war. The 11 new empty chemical warheads found in Iraq, which of course they were not supposed to have, etc, etc.



Originally posted by slank
What alternate reality are you living in?


I am not living in any "alternate reality", I reach my conclusions from the research I have done not by what the media tells me.


Originally posted by slank
9 billion dollars is UNACCOUNTED for. That by definition means it has gone into unknown hands. The term used is Embezzled...


That is your opinion which you obviously have no way to back up or you would have shown this evidence already.

Neither I nor anyone else around here can tell for certain what happened with that money. You could be right, but how exactly is that the US government's fault?

I am not responding to the rest of your post because it is merely more rethoric against those who have a different opinion from your own.


[edit on 8-8-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   
.
Maybe the US government is responsible because,

they invaded the country and by default assumed responsibility for monitoring everything that goes on there? aka. pottery barn rule.

they were in fantasy land when they decided they knew exactly how Iraqis were going to fall down on their knees in praise and did ZERO contingincy planning?

they couldn't even adapt when anyone who wasn't blind could see their scenario was totally faulty?

they lied about aluminum rocket tubes magically being used in centrifuges?

they were more concerned about funnelling money to Haliburton than in having a genuine dialogue with actual Iraqis that might have given them some useful and productive insights?

If you support the war in Iraq you support terrorism.

Stable nation turned to chaos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+ for terrorism
New ungoverned territory opened up for terrorist training grounds + for terrorism
Abu Graib as recruiting poster for terrorists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+ for terrorism
9 billion Dollars completely unaccounted for in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . + for terrorism
Fracturing Western alliances and embolding Iran nuke ambitions . . + for terrorism
Creating an openning for civilwar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + for terrorism

If you are genuinely against terrorism you see it clearly for the intentional or unintentional fiasco it IS.

Some of you war supporters can't even be honest allowing for 20/20 hindsight.
I can only conclude that you like having terrorists around. Maybe without them you would lose much of your purpose in living.

Admit it you like having terrorists around.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by slank]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
Maybe the US government is responsible because,

they invaded the country and by default assumed responsibility for monitoring everything that goes on there? aka. pottery barn rule.


Humm...and here I thought that most of those people, if not all, who were against the war were complaining that the US government wanted to take total control and were against it.... Now when there are discrepancies in the Iraqi government's findings, it is the fault of the US too?.... You can't have it both ways... either you don't want the US government to take over Iraq, or you do....you can't change your mind anytime it fits your political agenda.....unless you are a relative of Kerry....



Originally posted by slank
they were in fantasy land when they decided they knew exactly how Iraqis were going to fall down on their knees in praise and did ZERO contingincy planning?


I don't remember anyone saying things would be easy. In war things can turn one way or another and since the beginning it was said that this would be a long conflict...


Originally posted by slank
they couldn't even adapt when anyone who wasn't blind could see their scenario was totally faulty?


You can't predict with 100% certainty what happens in a country at war. Every scenario would be faulty. In war there is a 50%, it could be better depending of the circumstances, chance things would go as planned, there are many variables and anyone thinking that things should have been known with 100% certainty is surely living in a "fantasy world."

Only after a war, or conflict has ended can anyone say with certainty where things went wrong and what could have been done to make things easier. Anything done while a war\conflict is happening are estimates and possibilities, there is no guarantee it will go as planned.


Originally posted by slank
they lied about aluminum rocket tubes magically being used in centrifuges?


My guess is that you were "trying" to make this a statement and somehow made it a question.

Anyways, this is another example on how some news media edited what really happened to support their own political agenda.

Let's actually see some information about the alumminum tubes.


On the nuclear issue, Judis and Ackerman write that Powell "rehashed" the "much-disputed" report that Iraq tried to purchase aluminum tubes that could be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. The authors cite experts who call the tubes evidence "unpersuasive" and who "made quick work" of discrediting the claim. Judis and Ackerman do this to argue that the administration, which clearly knew there was a dispute about the tubes' purpose, lied to the American people by claiming definitively that the tubes were intended for use in a nuclear-weapons program.

But in fact Powell was quite cautious in his U.N. speech. He acknowledged that there was a controversy about the tubes and considered the argument that they were in fact intended for another use, as artillery rockets. Here is the portion of Powell's speech dealing with the issue:

Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed.

These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for.

Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?


Excerpted from.
www.nationalreview.com...



Originally posted by slank
they were more concerned about funnelling money to Haliburton than in having a genuine dialogue with actual Iraqis that might have given them some useful and productive insights?


Another faulty statement, turned into a question....

First of, how do you know that the coalition and the Iraqi government haven't asked civilians for their input?... Are you in Iraq now? And even with civilian input things will most likely not go the way they are planned. War is chaos, and there is a war going on in Iraq. The input civilians can give in a war is limited, most of the decisions have to be done by the military...since it is a war.....


Originally posted by slank
If you support the war in Iraq you support terrorism.


I am just trying to figure out how you came to this conclusion... So you are saying that by actually going after the root of the problem we are supporting terrorism?...... Now, that's a faulty opinion, to say the least....



Originally posted by slank
Stable nation turned to chaos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+ for terrorism


Iraq was not so stable before the war at all. There have been clashes between the different factions for quite a while. The only difference is that insurgents\terrorists liked the way Saddam was controlling Iraq and how he killed those who opposed them. Now that Saddam is not in power those same terrorists\insurgents are making a mess in Iraq.

Saddam's regime also posed a threat to the US as some of our friends, and not so friendly partners told us since at least 9/11. *Refer to Putin's statement in the news, which only made it to the public since last year for some reason, that Russian intelligence agencies knew for a fact and they had evidence that Saddam was planning on making terrorist attacks in US soil. Putin himself and their intelligence services told the US government and provided this evidence since 9/11 up to the war in Iraq.


According to Mr. Putin, after September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, “Russian special services received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the US military and other interests."


Excerpted from.
www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2004/06/19/MNGFV78VPP1.DTL

There is actually a lot of evidence which gives credence to the case of war against Iraq, Saddam's regime and the terrorists which have been there even before the war started.



Originally posted by slank
Admit it you like having terrorists around.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by slank]


I do not like having "terrorists around"...... Are you now using your mind powers trying to read my mind?...... It seems that your mind powers do not work....

You are making a lot of assumptions which are wrong and naive. Anyways, this thread is about this woman using her son's death for her own political reasons.

If this is the same woman I have heard about that changed her stories a few times, first talking agaisnt the president, then saing that she knew the president cared, and now once more proclaiming he doesn't care, she has obviously lost her mind. I know of a former neighbor of mine whom she lost her daughter to a car accident, and she lost her mind because of it. Now she blames the Hialeah police department for her daughters death.

People, and it happens more so to women, lose their minds when they have lost their children. People tend to deal with grief in such manner. Perhaps this woman isn't insane, but she is obviously going against the wishes of her son, and she is desecrating his memory..


[edit on 10-8-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I think the whole point here is being misplaced...It isn't a matter of those of us who objected to bushes spendid little war to begin with, dispite all the venemous retoric from the right, we love our country too but we also uderstand that we do not live in a vacumn, how our government and the corporations for which it stands interacts, uses or abuses other peoples for our own gain, directly affects how the rest of the world views us. I have known quite a few people from the middle-east and asia and to a person they say that they love America, it is our government and policies that they object to. Of course this is not a scientific poll, just conversations with people I have met, but I have also heard the same reported repeatedily.

The fact that this woman's son not only enlisted but re-upped and volenteered for Iraq before he was killed is illrevelant...since our media has caputlated and is not doing it's job holding all (not just democratic or republican but all) adminstrations accountable and the congress has essentially become a rubber stamp body, who better to demand answers from this arrogant, self-righteous president and to hold him accountable than the parent of a slain soldier who fought and died in an absolutely unneccessary war?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I think the whole point here is being misplaced...It isn't a matter of those of us who objected to bushes spendid little war to begin with, dispite all the venemous retoric from the right,


There seems to be only one person here who seems to be spewing "venemous rethoric."
What exactly was your point except to bash the right and feel better about it it appears?....


Originally posted by grover
The fact that this woman's son not only enlisted but re-upped and volenteered for Iraq before he was killed is illrevelant...


Irrelevant?..... So it does not matter, according to you, how this man felt and that he thought he was doing something honorable?......humm....


Originally posted by grover
since our media has caputlated and is not doing it's job holding all (not just democratic or republican but all) adminstrations accountable and the congress has essentially become a rubber stamp body, who better to demand answers from this arrogant, self-righteous president and to hold him accountable than the parent of a slain soldier who fought and died in an absolutely unneccessary war?


Hold the president accountable for what exactly?.... This soldier VOLUNTARILY joined the military. I still know it is a voluntary service because I was also in the military.

BTW, the president already met with both women. I guess they want to keep meeting him instead of him doing his job, and yes, he is doing his job. The president should be using all his time to respond to these women right?......

Anyways, you are only stating "your opinion" and at the same time bashing the president and all Republicans.... That was the point of your post..... Do you feel better now?.....

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I stood in protest against bushes splendid little war and those of us who had the courage to do so were called cowards (I served my country honorably thank you :flame
, traitors and worse...we had obsenities shouted at us and eggs and in a couple cases rocks thrown at us as people who disagreed with us drove by...I think I know something about the venom of the hard right. I read the hateful letters to the editors calling us the worst names in the book and demanding we leave so don't give me the left abuses the poor little right crap...it stinks to holy heaven!!!

That a man felt he was doing something honorable is fine, that is his heart and his concious...that he dies uselessly in a war based on known lies is a beast of an entirely different color...and regardless of how he felt, how his mother feels is based on her heart and concious and is not predicated on her sons...it is hers and hers alone, as it is yours and mine.

As for holding that phony son of a --- accountable
, if Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying about a blowjob, bush deserves the same at the very least. He lied through his crooked little teeth to get us into a completely unneccessary war (I will grant the bastard Afghanistan after 9/11 and am on record saying so) in Iraq and 1,800 fine men and women have died because of it, 10's of thousands maimed and that is not counting the death toll in Iraq, even discounting the insurgent attacks, it is in the 100,000 range. bush and his whole cabinet deserves to be impeached, removed from office and then prosocuted, convicted and thrown into jail for their crime of drumming up, promoting and excuting an absoultely unneccessary, unprovoked war, then they should be turned over to the international courts of law. They are criminal and no amount of crap from right wing apologists will change it.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by asala]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
This is the News Forum folks, decorum please.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I stood in protest against bushes splendid little war and those of us who had the courage to do so were called cowards (I served my country honorably thank you :flame
, traitors and worse...we had obsenities shouted at us and eggs and in a couple cases rocks thrown at us as people who disagreed with us drove by...I think I know something about the venom of the hard right. I read the hateful letters to the editors calling us the worst names in the book and demanding we leave so don't give me the left abuses the poor little right crap...it stinks to holy heaven!!!


The far left does exactly the same thing to people that disagree with them and live in democrat/liberal states. I have seen young liberals attack old people because an old man, who happened to be Republican and was at president Bush inauguration, being attacked by these young liberals because he had an American flag as a tie and is in favour of president Bush.

Even in these forums we see quite a few far left individuals spew their hatred against anyone that thinks differently from them and a need to label them as evil warmongers, and other insults too. If i had ever resorted to responding to these people is because it gets tiresome coming here and having to read almost daily some in the far left's hatred for anyone that does not think like them.

Anyone that thinks differently and see the evidence for what it is is called a "sheep", warmonger, etc,etc. Does that give me the reason to resont to insuls with every far left individual in these forums? no, and neither does it give you the right to spew your hatred.


Originally posted by grover
...............
As for holding that phony son of a bitch accountable
, if Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying about a blowjob, bush deserves the same at the very least. He lied through his crooked little teeth to get us into a completely unneccessary war (I will grant the bastard Afghanistan after 9/11 and am on record saying so) in Iraq and 1,800 fine men and women have died because of it, 10's of thousands maimed and that is not counting the death toll in Iraq, even discounting the insurgent attacks, it is in the 100,000 range. bush and his whole cabinet deserves to be impeached, removed from office and then prosocuted, convicted and thrown into jail for their crime of drumming up, promoting and excuting an absoultely unneccessary, unprovoked war, then they should be turned over to the international courts of law. They are criminal and no amount of bull# from right wing apologists will change it.


Who is actually lying is people like yourself who keep exagerating and using every excuse you can find to bash at the current administration and anyone who happens to see why we ever went to war with Iraq. I could also tell you that no amount of bull# from the left is going to convince me any differently when i have seen the data and I have seen how many news media, even conservative news media don't report the whole issue in several topics and don't give all the evidence for the people to see.

There are people out there, that believe that the 9/11 commission said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, when in fact that is not what they said.... But the liberal media and the radical left win nothing by giving the truth to the people. They have to distort the truth to sell their political agenda and bash the present administration. Has the Bush administration made mistakes? of course, no one is freaking perfect.

Was Saddam in possession of WMD before the war started? YES HE WAS.

Not only have Iraqi scientists come forward presenting evidence of this but even Russian military defectors who held high ranks and knew of the different plans the Russians had to help Saddam and others get rid or hide the wmd while keeping documents necessary to restart these programs, have come forward and told their stories and presented evidence...

Before the war started several Russian military were given medals by Saddam himself...what the heck do you think those medals were given for?..... Because the Russians were freaking helping Saddam's regime. That's also the reason why the Russians didn't want a war with Iraq. Iraq owed billions to the Russians and others (China, France and Germany) for their deals which included weapons and yes....wmd material.

But the far left people can't accept these facts or anything else because you keep complaining it is all made up evidence, even thou you don't freaking have one piece of evidence to back your claims, so you resort to insults and derogatory comments.


[edit on 11-8-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Muaddib, the most fervent partisan I see on these boards is yourself. If you honestly do not like seeing partisan behaviour you are going the wrong way about ending it. Its a cycle and one that you are very much a part of.

I'll stick up for conservatives when ever I see unjustified rhetoric. I'll do the very same for liberals.

Do yourself a big favour and spend your time debating the issues at hand, rather than fixating on the old partisan dog and bone show



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Well it's gaining in momentum. Whether this woman is setup or an unlikely accidental hero, she is the new poster woman for the anti war campaign.
Wrong or right, it has bought people out in the thousands to have their say on the war in Iraq.


here was much speculation about "other moms" and parents of troops serving in the war coming to join Sheehan, although no one seemed to know for certain. "A busload is coming from Seattle," one woman called out.

Stephanie Frizzell, 30, said she drove from Dallas with her son, Julian, 4, "to provide support for Cindy." They met last weekend at a Dallas convention of veterans for peace.



In a few weeks at this rate we may see more and more large protests as the snowball gains momentum.



CRAWFORD, Texas — For more than a year, a modest bungalow known as "Peace House," located a few miles from
President Bush's ranch, has served as a headquarters for antiwar activists. It is lonely work, with little more than a skeleton crew on hand much of the time.
ADVERTISEMENT

But then Cindy Sheehan hit town.

The 48-year-old mother of Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in an ambush in Baghdad last year, is consumed by the kind of grief that turns into a furious determination to do something — in her case, to confront the president and force him to explain why her son died.


Yahoo news

She is the top search result for bloggers at present and has become a household name.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
How is Bush really ultimatley responsible for following the same gameplan that was developed by a collection of geniuses in some thinktank LONG before Bush even was?

Blaming Bush after the fact is B.S..

Especially when she was so supportive of her son joining, and so proud of him afterwards. Hasn't she been paying attention to politics her entire life? And now, it is one man's fault?

She has some re-evaluating to accomplish.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Especially when she was so supportive of her son joining, and so proud of him afterwards. Hasn't she been paying attention to politics her entire life?


Well maybe she wasn't! It's one heck of a wake up call to lose a child, to re-examine the situation.

How many people you see in the street have any deep knowledge about politics and strategy of the US and of what's really going on in Iraq? I bet not too many. And that's bad. Because most people are shortchanged on relevant facts by the media.

The more people wake up and start paying attention, the better. Kudos to this lady -- she works on something we all need.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I think that, at this particular time, until shown to be otherwise by the lady, or the people who back her, that we ought to disengage from political rhetoric. I don't really see her making political statements.

She lost a loved one to a war that she feels is not right, doesn't matter if she's right, left, or totally over the hill form everyone else in a political sense.

I would think that it would be enlightening to each of us if we sat down, picked a loved one, sister, brother, mother, father, husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend. Then attempt to picture or hear or sense how great the loss would be if that loved one were suddenly taken from you, cast into a war, not of their making and ultimately, killed. Never to return to you or communicate with you.

This is not a scenario where the director yells cut and everyone gets up, dusts off and goes out for a drink at the local pub together.

Dead is forever, no more sunrises, n more sunsets, no loving, laughing, or crying ... Only gone.

The lady has a right to feel the way she does, and she wants questions answered. Regardless of my political afiliation, I think someone should talk to the lady. The President, unfortunately, is only making himself look even more uncaring. And like it or not, he does have a tendency to look that way on occasion.

And, before anyone jumps me, I have ridden the tiger we call war, and on more than one occasion, found myself hanging on the tail for dear life.

I have no political dog in this hunt. I just know what I think is the humanitarian, American thing to do. I'm not sure any other politician could do any better in the office of President... It's a naty tough place to be, and I kind of question the sanity of whomsoever wants to be in it, but I don't think Dub is doing himself any favors, right or wrong his stance may be.

Peace! Out!



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
That a man felt he was doing something honorable is fine, that is his heart and his concious...that he dies uselessly in a war based on known lies is a beast of an entirely different color...


How is your moral judgement of the war "a beast of a different color" from his moral judgement on the war?


and regardless of how he felt, how his mother feels is based on her heart and concious and is not predicated on her sons...it is hers and hers alone, as it is yours and mine.


To invoke the name of someone who volunteered to take the risk because he believed in the cause for the purpose of opposing the cause is, in my opinion, is extremely disrespectful to that person. I believe that this woman is disgracing the memory of her son by invoking his name in opposition of a cause which he was willing to fight for. I find it analogous to somebody saying "Civil rights was not a cause worthy of Martin Luther King's martyrdom, and we should abandon it before anyone else dies". Would that not be a tremendous insult to MLK and all he stood for?


if Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying about a blowjob, bush deserves the same at the very least.


Clinton DIDN'T deserve to be impeached for lying about a blowjob. It was a partisan witch hunt which had nothing to do with the offense.
Perhaps of even greater relevance, Clinton didn't deserve to be impeached (and wasn't impeached) for overstating the death toll in Kosovo 500 fold, and leading us into military action there in which American forces killed more Kosovar Albanians than the Serbs did. Clinton lied and people died, but it wasnt impeachable (well, technically it was, but morally it was not in my opinion and apparently also in Congress' opinion). So what were you saying about parity between Clinton and Bush, please continue.



They are criminal and no amount of crap from right wing apologists will change it.


Of course they are criminals. They are politicians. Just like Clinton, Bush 41, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, FDR, Hoover, Harding, and even Jackson. There is more at stake here than selectively enforcing the law because somebody is unpopular. The real issue is the viability of American government. Actions which are ultimately good for the United States and have gotten us where we are today have often been illegal. FDR kept America in the dark, badgered Japan into war, and arguably LET the attack on Pearl Harbor succeed, but it was necessary in order to take America down the right path- the path that made us what we are today.

For all I care you can give Bush a witch's trial once he's out of office. If they put it on Pay Per View I'll tune in. While he's in that office though, there are stakes much greater than partisan rancor and even law.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
Well it's gaining in momentum. Whether this woman is setup or an unlikely accidental hero, she is the new poster woman for the anti war campaign.
Wrong or right, it has bought people out in the thousands to have their say on the war in Iraq.


Too bad her family isn't thinking the same thing..


Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks Ð Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Source



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

How many people you see in the street have any deep knowledge about politics and strategy of the US and of what's really going on in Iraq? I bet not too many. And that's bad. Because most people are shortchanged on relevant facts by the media.


I agree, wholeheartedly!

Media?

How can people believe the media?

Case and point:
NBC is owned by GE.
GE is a government contractor.
How can a company dependant upon government contracts be trusted to report truly on the government when the government pays them $$$$$?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Does anyone have any comments on the post that
Quietsoul made, a few posts up from mine.

Cindy Sheehan is ticking-off her own family.
It's political.. you guys..
She already met with Bush once..Does she have more to say this time?

OR

Does she now have HANDLERS, and she is the pawn? Of course she does, and is.

It's obvious that this whole thing is a setup to put Bush in a No-Win situation.
The real losers are, the rest of her family, the memory of her son, the parents of other lost soldiers, and the soldiers who are currently there, fighting.
She is bellittleing them all.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
...............
Regardless of my political afiliation, I think someone should talk to the lady. The President, unfortunately, is only making himself look even more uncaring. And like it or not, he does have a tendency to look that way on occasion.


She already talked to the president and what she said after talking to the president was that president Bush gave her a sense of peace and she knew that he cared. Now she has changed her statements once more and wants to talk again with the president. I think people like Michael Moore brainwashed her into changing her mind. This is probably why she changed her mind. People like her are being used by the radicals in the far left.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Muaddib, the most fervent partisan I see on these boards is yourself. If you honestly do not like seeing partisan behaviour you are going the wrong way about ending it. Its a cycle and one that you are very much a part of.

I'll stick up for conservatives when ever I see unjustified rhetoric. I'll do the very same for liberals.

Do yourself a big favour and spend your time debating the issues at hand, rather than fixating on the old partisan dog and bone show


I am not more a "fervent partisan" than you are subz. What i keep noticing is that when those in the left make derogatory insults towards the right/Republicans nothing is done, everything is fine and dandy. But when a Republican responds to those derogatory insults and the rethoric all hell breaks loose, and it is suddenly all the fault of the Republican/s. It is really getting tiresome. I have never seen you sticking up for any conservatives subz, you actually do the contrary. If you want to continue talking about this let's do it off forum, that's what u2us are for.


Anyways, back to the topic, it is true everyone is entitled to their opinions. Even this lady is entitled to her opinion, but she is going against everything her son was, and what he was fighting for. Even if she didn't agree with his decision, she should be respecting that decision. She is letting people like Michael Moore control her for political reasons.


[edit on 12-8-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   
I am so sick and tired of listening to ll these republician colabrators, partisians and apologists whining about attacks against poor defenseless conservatives as if we are picking on a sweet innocent litttle child....BULLHOOEY!!! The left aren't innocent either BUT the right has practiced and taken the politics of character assissiantion to new lows. Mrs. Sheehen is a prime example...it is already been shown how Matt dredge (talk about a bottomfeeder) took a series of quotes from Mrs. Sheehen and cut and pasted them to make it sound as if she approved of Bush and then changed her mind. Go to media matters, click on the link and read the report and orginal articles from the hometown newspaper yourselves. Then there was bill o'really's trashing of her with Michelle Milkin on radio and when confronted with it claimed he'd always been respectful. I actually heard that broadcast and he was per usual a rude son-of-a-bitch. And what about the above claim that she is a pawn of Micheal Moore? You apologists always osund off when one of us on the left disagree with you by claiming we are being manuilipated or are pawns and the like as if we don't have the sense of mind to form our own opinions What a joke
it is you guys who are called dittoheads....never heard a bunch of no nothing, self righteous, arrogant parrots in my life. I don't need mush loosebowels or bill o'really or micheal savage (what an appro name) or ann coulter to tell me what to think. I read everything from the extreme right to the extreme left and much inbetween and come up with my own opinions thank you very much...and obviously Mrs. Sheehen has too and you idiots just can't stand it.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join