Yeah Cindy, who are you to protest where and when you think its appropriate? I mean, it's not like you lost your son or anything. Get a grip and listen to those of us who have made real sacrifices.
Posted by huggybear at January 4, 2007 09:46 AMHappy fascism to all who want to keep the war on Iraq going, one way or another. Bush should be impeached for High Treason on 9-11. Bush should be impeached for violating his sworn Oath of Office. Bush should be impeached for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush should be impeached for one thousand counts of negligent homicide in his flooding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit in the summer of 2005. Bush should be impeached for receiving GOP-stolen elections in 2000 and 2004...
Bush should be impeached for allowing billions of US taxpayer dollars to be stolen with war profiteering by Halliburton and other US corporations under the cover of the War on Iraq.
Have a Bright New Year.
Posted by james k. sayre at January 4, 2007 10:00 AMWhat huggybear?
Because her son sacrificed his life she can do no wrong?
Because her son sacrificed his life her opinion is somehow more important than everyone elses?
Because her son sacrificed his life her solution is the the correct one?
Hogwash!
Of course she has a right to "protest". She has every right to be a fool and undermine those attempting to block the Bushco authoritarian rightists.
Cindy apparently can't tell the difference between allies and enemies. A real asset.
Posted by euzoius at January 4, 2007 10:09 AMThank goodness I'm not the only one not worshipping the ground she walks upon. I was behind her when she camped out next to Bush's home in Crawford, but this stuff ranks right up there with the papier-mache puppets and free Mfume (or whatever the hell it is) crap that always shows up during protests to dilute the message. Could we just let the dems get to work before our own side starts fucking with them?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 4, 2007 10:20 AMsnark: I supposed the quickest way to get you to STFU is to just say Yes.
But quickest is not best (as your lovers may have told you), so I will apologize in advance for exceeding the relaxation time of your attention span.
Sheehan's agenda isn't to try and help the Democrats govern. What does she owe the Democratic party anyway? What have they done to render her son's sacrifice meaningful?
Her agenda is to protest this war, for which the Democratic Party is culpable (but is simply not AS culpable as their Republican counterparts). So why the fuck should she listen to any warning from some second tier blog about how she's not helping the Democrats. That's NOT what she's out for.
Now that I've answered your question, you can go back to watching your Three Spooges videos. Sorry for the interruption. And apologize to your wank hand for me.
Posted by huggybear at January 4, 2007 10:20 AMGo Cindy. You've done a lot more than people like us. You may be one of the reasons the Dimwits are back in control.
Posted by JohnT at January 4, 2007 10:21 AMPersonal insults!
I'm so unimpressed.
Cindy Sheehan's 'demands' carry no more weight then the opinions expressed by those who comment here.
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 10:27 AMHopefully she's put the Democrats on notice, and now she will show some restraint or strategic vision or something and see if they come through to her satisfaction.
And hopefully she might consider that attacking a would be ally, as opposed to an entrenched enemy who will never acede to her demands, calls for different tactics.
Just demanding things from someone inclined to give you what you want is a sure fire approach to irrelevence.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 4, 2007 10:39 AMI haven't liked Cindy since she visited Chavez. I won't demonize Chavez, but he's not a friend to this country. Nor are we to him, obviously, and I don't approve of our covert actions against him, either. Despite my opinion of Cindy, I think she's right. This Congress needs to move, NOW.
You've got the votes in the House. Reach out to the sane ones on the other side of the aisle in the Senate, and there are some -- Hagel, Lugar, Snowe, probably a lot more besides -- and stop this war and future wars right NOW.
A second Marine carrier group (smaller than a Nimitz-class carrier, not the usual F/A-18s and what not, and supporting amphibious landing operations) just left for the Mideast today to join the current Marine carrier group near the Persian Gulf. There are reports that the USS Stennis, a Nimitz-class super-carrier, could deploy for the Gulf by the end of the week, weeks ahead of schedule.
This would bring the grand total of U.S. naval/air power in the region to two Marine carrier groups and two Nimitz-class carrier groups. The reasons given for this are to deter Iran and Syria, whatever that means.
The last time we had four groups together in the Gulf was briefly in December. Before that, the last time was just before the start of the war in Iraq, although that did involve two larger carrier groups than the Marine carrier groups. Still, not much different.
Cindy's right. They need to get to work, like yesterday.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 4, 2007 10:43 AMHow soon you guys forget. Why should Cindy and like minded people trust the Democrats? Remember majority of them voted for Iraq war. For last 3 years these Democrats have been spineless and have not supported Cindy when she singlehandedly raised the Iraq war issue by protesting at Crawford. These Democrats did not want to be criticized (By Rove Spin Machine)that they do not support the troops if they associate with Cindy. People like Cindy were instrumental in getting these Deocrats the Congress in 2006 election. Why should'nt she and others who oppose this illegal war remind Democrats about who put them in charge?
Posted by suresh at January 4, 2007 10:44 AMJust demanding things from someone inclined to give you what you want is a sure fire approach to irrelevence.
Exactly. I had no problem with her before she started making 'demands' of the Democrats because she 'put them back in power'. And I'm sure she didn't garner any additional support amongst the Congressional Democrats via this stunt either.
She's made some ill advised moves in the past and she didn't help her cause here.
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 10:47 AMThe Oil War is doomed and we will flee the place in our socks just like the Brits did in the 1920's.
Yes there should be no easing of effort here on the home front to accelerate the inevitable but it is high time to look beyond that mess and to far more compelling problems of putting the Oil Century behind us and moving with all due haste toward sustainability.
I'm not too concerned that poor Ms Sheehans inept outburst will leave many ripples in the broader news cycle. It is a straw grasped by an ugly corporate MSM on par with premature glee with Tim Johnson's medical problem.
I see the decline of Neo Con as inexorable and there will be a corresponding decline of corporate oligarchy. We have the most urgent national purpose imaginable ahead of us, reining in our sloppy planet killing habits and the wild messes of the Oil War pale in comparison.
Since the opposition is completely worthless at running with this ball, we should grab it and actually lead.
Posted by Chris Rich at January 4, 2007 10:55 AM40% of the Democratic caucus voted for the war, not a majority. Take it as you will, it's the fact of the matter.
At this point in this horror show I feel the need just to sit back and shut up. There are perfectly good reasons to support either side in this.
A someone who screamed bloody murder not to ever start this total disaster I will say that there's always a reason why the war can't be stopped. Always something, you know. Always. This war has been longer than WWII, but hey, it's gotta go on.
It fucks people's heads up. I don't know if Cindy has done the right thing, but I do know if this is the worst that we're going to see in the form of protest we should feel lucky.
I could easily see a mob of 500 really pissed anti-war people storming a barricade and us watching on the news this evening as the cops bust their heads open like watermelons. I'm surprised, in fact, we haven't had to go through that lovely experience yet.
At any rate, I am not making excuses for Sheehan. If she's pissed off Nancy I don't see how it could help. It's probably going to get worse.
Posted by paradox at January 4, 2007 11:07 AMI've been against the war from the minute they first started to talk about the possibility, but I have to say that there is something about Sheehan that grates on me like fingernails scraping on a chalk board or a child with an ear-piercing toy whistle. I very much doubt that she has changed any minds, only has appeal for those who already agree with her. As a matter of fact, I'm betting that her impact is the opposite of what she wants. It would be interesting to see a poll done on her.
Posted by Julie at January 4, 2007 11:11 AMThe word "pompous" comes to mind with regards to this spectacle.
Posted by Julie at January 4, 2007 11:15 AMAs I am not much of a computer person, can someone please tell me if "some second tier blog" is a compliment, or a nasty remark by someone who appears far too supercillious to be gracing Steve's humble bandwidth with their all-knowing posts.
If the latter is the case, may I suggest an alternate forum more befitting their social significance: Rate My Poo.com.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 4, 2007 11:19 AMI've also been ambivalent with the continuing saga of Cindy. While speaking to power is admirable and her vigils on the road to the All Hat & No Cattle Ranch was good to highlight opposition to the war, her behavior, ever since she got a taste of notariety has seemed, at least to me, to border on compulsive.
It certainly seems premature, to be gentle, to be castigating the Democrats, WHO HADN'T EVEN BEEN SWORN IT YET with her own brand of self-important impatience. What will advance our cause most effectively is Investigations, Investigations, Investigations and, did I mention INVESTIGATIONS? Shrill posturing and street theater are no longer productive.
Because of the work of thousands of brave activists, whether they sacrificed a family member or not, we have won the power to FINALLY, attempt to govern in the people's name. Huggybear, you need a hug. Whether you like it or not, the Democrats are the only game in that town. I don't know why you feel the urge to visit "second tier blogs" and insult those who are trying to be far more reasonable than yourself. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a rat's ass. Just chill!
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 4, 2007 11:47 AMCindy inspired me to attend my first bu$h protest, the day Katrina came ashore, in El Mirage, AZ.
I can give her credit with inspiring thousands of others to join in the protest of bu$h and his war.
However, what I did find disturbing were the protesters dressed in clown outfits and chicken suits.
Protesting is a serious issue under this administration just for the legal ramifications.
Unfortunately, Cindy has lowered herself to the comical category. Now, her protests will hardly be taken seriously by anyone, except the local police force.
I still say she deserves credit for the start of the protest movement in America. From here on out, it is up to the rest of Americans to show where they stand.
I'm all for Cindy protesting and keeping the pressure on the Dems, very few of whom are saying we need an immediate pullout from Iraq. Her protests will not hinder the Dems from doing their jobs either, but I hope will keep them honest.
Re Chavez not being an ally, depends on who you talk to. Many of us admire him for putting pressure on the Bush administration and for having the balls to call Bush on his bullshit and more importantly for providing cheap oil to people in poor neighborhoods like the Bronx and up in Boston.
Posted by kevin O'Donovan at January 4, 2007 11:54 AMDang, I kinda like the papier-mache puppets, coyote!
Again, how about we give 'em a week in power before we declare them utter, abject, pro-occupation failures? Call it a plan?
Posted by euzoius at January 4, 2007 11:58 AMoh lordy, clutch the pearls, Cindy disrupted the party! please! keep up the pressure
Posted by Gay Veteran at January 4, 2007 12:10 PMThat damned Cindy Sheehan, exercizing her First Amendment rights of free speech, the very rights her son and thousands of other sons died for, in the course of this country's history.
Who does she think she is?
Jeez, this thread is what I would expect to smell the stech from at Little Green Footballs or InstaPundit.
Get a grip, Soto. You be sounding like a GOPer.
Posted by Christopher at January 4, 2007 01:10 PMeuzoius, you gotta be joking about the puppets! Heh. 'course, I was channelling Jon Stewart with the mocking, anyhow. Or was it Tbogg? Who knows.
I wonder though, if Cindy realizes what a vulgarian her li'l huggybear is.
BTW, Cindy's supposedly going to be on Hannity's show today or tomorrow - she was on AAR this morning talking about it.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 4, 2007 01:17 PMThat damned Steve Soto, exercizing his First Amendment rights of free speech, the very rights Cindy's son and thousands of other sons died for, in the course of this country's history.
Who does he think he is?
Jeez, this comment is what I would expect to smell the stech from at Little Green Footballs or InstaPundit.
Get a grip, Princess. You be sounding like a dipshit.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 4, 2007 01:28 PMThat damned Cindy Sheehan, exercizing her First Amendment rights of free speech, the very rights her son and thousands of other sons died for, in the course of this country's history.
So if her son died defending all of our right to free speech what's her beef?
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 01:33 PMWith all due respect to her immense loss, I agree with Steve. Please Cindy, shut up! You have served a great purpose, you gave a prominent voice to those of us who opposed this war when we were still being labeled traitors simply for having an opinion. But your crusade has become more self indulgent than useful and I fear it'll do more harm than good in our fight to reclaim our country and bring it back from the brink. Please take a break!!!
Posted by Rob at January 4, 2007 01:51 PMHey, I don't care if she protests, it's her right.
However, show some class. Get advisers. Her point could be hammered home much more effectively.
Just don't come off like a bad clown act. That's what's wearing thin!
BTW, give the Dems a chance before we crucify them.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 4, 2007 01:55 PMSo if her son died defending all of our right to free speech what's her beef?
Ask her.
Posted by Christopher at January 4, 2007 02:16 PM"Whaaaa! Cindy, Please Stop The Circus, cuz you really spoil our little party when you remind us about Americans and Iraqis dying needlessly in that pesky illegal occupation in eee-rock!"
Go, Cindy, Go!!! You're an American patriot.
Get a clue, Steve.
Posted by fafnir at January 4, 2007 02:29 PMAsk her.
You seemed to have some insight into her motivations. What with all the theatrics. Or was all the talk about her son dying in defense of the First Amendment just so much wind from your posterior? You did speak of a stench before.
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 02:31 PMSaid it elsewhere. Cindy is doing no harm. She is reminding the Dems that they represent a broader swath of disgruntled voters than those who climbed on the anti-war/anti-Bush wagon later rather than sooner. Recall that not everybody was up for re-election and Beltway habits are hard to break. You may not want to follow her prescriptions, and you may not want to raise the spectre of 60's like demonstrations so early int he Democratic tenure, but I do not see any real damage being done.
Posted by Gtash at January 4, 2007 02:32 PMFrom InstaPundit:
The Sheehanoids managed to cow Rep. Rahm Emanuel into shutting down his press conference. And from the Angry Left bloggers who once cheered her on: silence. Browsing the homepages of the Daily Kos, Atrios, Talking Points Memo and the Puffington Host, we can't find a single mention of the erstwhile moonbat heartthrob.
It comes as a relief to realize that many of those who once treated Sheehan as a heroine did so merely out of partisanship, not hatred of country.
Indeed.
Hmmmmm. I'm sure Glenn would be pleased to know not all lefty bloggers failed to diss Sheehan.
Posted by Christopher at January 4, 2007 02:45 PMYou seemed to have some insight into her motivations.
snark,
I'm sure with a little effort you can figure out how to use a search engine and find an anti-Cindy Sheehan group in your area to join.
They're really fine people. You would fit right in.
Posted by Christopher at January 4, 2007 02:48 PMIt's her protest method, not her protest message.
It stops being effective if people are laughing at you.
Sheehan should just keep on doing what she does best....openly support the ending of this war.
Why should she keep quiet? Oh yeah, she needs to get some advisors so she can navigate the sordid corridors of government is a pleasant and polite manner. Yeah just the American way, write your congressman, donate a few bucks to the Democratic Party and step to the back...let real politicos do the magic over a glass of wine or maybe a round of golf.
Sometimes one needs a hammer instead of a gloved hand. As a liberal, I don’t hold much hope for any substantive change....Soto needs a good dose of pessimism.
SoS, you're right, but that's not what Christopher wants to hear. He's taking advice from instyasshole nowadays. But maybe this is a good thing; Sheehan can hardly be identified with the Dems anymore now that she's made clear she's against everyone but her own rabid fans. As if anyone has forgotten that Iraq is job one.
And I disagree that she's done no harm. She's helped the warmongers paint the anti-war movement as crazy-ass, classless, dirty old hippies trying to get on tv. Just as we finally have the majority of Americans turned against the war. She is harming the anti-war movement by her ill-advised disruptions.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 4, 2007 03:21 PMWell...to let Joe Biden and Carl Levin carry the ball is just ludicrous. These guys and many more huddled in a fetal position for the past three years waiting until it was safe to come out.
Didn't Reid just say he would go along with the surge/escalation.
I have seen the Dems in charge. They are much like the Republicans in that they are controlled by the corporations. Levin has been in Congress forever, just what has he accomplished beyond supporting the auto industry and the oil economy? In this rush to celebrate just remember we are unlikely to see a dramatic transformation of the Democratic Party.
I'm so glad she's your problem now. Enjoy her, enjoy her protest, enjoy her ministrations. She's your worry now. Whoever can silence good old Rahm, a former volunteer working for the Israeli Army, can't be all that bad. Can she? Keep it up Cindy, rock the Democrat's boat for a while. Take them off message, give them a taste of your medicine. We'll enjoy the break, make some popcorn and watch her from the sidelines make you squirm.
We'll let y'all have her arrested for speaking out. Power's a bitch isn't it.
Posted by peter at January 4, 2007 03:29 PMNO STEVE WRONG AGAIN YOU LIBERAL ASS. STOP THIS WAR. THE COWARDLY DEMS NEED TO BE PUSHED OR THEY WILL COWER AS THEY HAVE FOR SIX YEARS!
Posted by jj at January 4, 2007 03:54 PMI am amazed to see such thin skin amongst most of you Dems supporters. Cindy was just an average American who showed tremendous courage to stand up to this President and protest this illegal war. None of the Democrats in Congress had the guts to hold rallies around the country to oppose this war. Actually they had the resources and accecibility to media to protest the war. But they played safe and kept going along with the administration policy saying they are in minority and cannot do much. Cindy showed all of us that a single American can standup to this corrupt regime and galvanize an opposition to a wrong war. She asked Bush to explain to her why are we fighting this war? Why did not the Dems confront Bush and ask him the same?
You guys should be admiring that she is also protesting against Dems as she did against Repubs because her cause is the right one. If you criticize her because she is holding Dems' feet to fire then you guys are hypocrites.
Posted by suresh at January 4, 2007 04:02 PMpeter confuses Democrats with Republicans, since I notice Cindy wasn't arrested. That said, I think she needs to use her head here.
We all need to remember that the Democrats have had no say in the Iraq policies that Bush has fomented on us, and even when they voted along with Bush, their votes were irrelevent to the outcome.
And I'll say this too, when Cindy Sheehan was confronting the cowardice of George W Bush she was the voice for many on the left against the Republicans. Now, she's making demands on my party, she is no longer speaking for me.
Which is not to say that I don't disagree with her goal, at all. But she's demanding from the wrong people, and it isn't a very smart strategy to do so.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 4, 2007 04:12 PMBut I'm not anti-Sheehan Christopher. You with your need to label people again. Is that a gay thing?
I happen to think she is not helping her cause. That's all.
But back to your earlier comment I rather think that if you asked her if her son died defending the First Amendment she'd laugh in your face.
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 04:55 PMIn trying to assess what it is that irritates me about Sheehan, it's the yappy, worshipping, poodle cult that bothers me more than anything else. She's MOST effective when she is present--just present, by herself, not saying anything except by the heavy silence. If I were advising her, that's what I would advise her to do, for the weight of her opinion to be felt with her simple, mute, grieving presence.
Posted by Julie at January 4, 2007 05:24 PMwe may disagree with her timing, but she has cojones the rest of us do not
Posted by oldtree at January 4, 2007 05:48 PM"And already Cindy Sheehan threatens to derail the Democrats before any of this can get started."
It was not so long ago that Mother Sheehan was a Sainted Figure here at TLC.
LOL!
Oh, the next couple of years are going to be very entertaining.
Posted by Bagley at January 4, 2007 05:59 PMIt was not so long ago that Mother Sheehan was a Sainted Figure here at TLC.
Life's a lot easier when you just make shit up I guess.
I think it is great that Sheehan calls the Dems on their two faced bullshit. Let'a face it. Americans are given a list of false choices. Republican vs Democrat, Conservatives vs Liberals, Religious vs Secular, Blue State vs Red State, Christian vs Muslem, Straight vs Gay, and on it goes.
Those with their hands on the levers of power use division to rule in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Free Speech Zones indeed.
If we weren't so preoccupied with being pitted against one another, we would throw all of these whoring professional politicians out on their asses. Stealing our hard earned money for earmarked pork projects and corporate paybacks in return for campaign contributions continues to sicken me.
If the pressure is not kept on the new Dems in CONgress, it will remain business as usual at all of our expense. The lobbyists will just bring their suitcases full of cash to different addresses.
Let's see some real lobby reform. Public financing for elections with all other contributions considered bribes. Ban all political television ads, as an argument can be made that these ads are a form of brain washing, not free speech. Imagine how the political landscape would change and imagine how nice it would be not to have to cringe at all the bullshit negative TV ads which permeate the airwaves in the weeks leading up to every election.
Have at it Pelosi et al.
Posted by brisa at January 4, 2007 06:36 PM"It was not so long ago that Mother Sheehan was a Sainted Figure here at TLC.
Life's a lot easier when you just make shit up I guess."
I am not making it up, Snark. (But like a good Leftie, you fail to consider anything that happened beyond yesterday or may happen beyond tommorow.)
How many laudatory post appeared here at TLC regarding Mother S an her "absolute moral authority?"
Lots.
But I do suppose that Mother S, as a useful idiot, has outlived even her 15 minutes of fame with the Leftist contingent.
Posted by Bagley at January 4, 2007 06:46 PMLots.
Hardly.
She was covered as anywhere when she was making news. Whoopdeedo!
A "Sainted Figure"?
Come on Bagley.
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 07:07 PM
Well, Snark, this is an improvement: at least you are willing to admit that Mother S was the subject of postings here at TLC.
Now, go back and read those posts -- such praise for [the] "absolute moral authority" of the Sainted Mother S.
(I suppose that this particular subject was not covered in your....One. History. Class.)
Posted by Bagley at January 4, 2007 07:18 PMThink butterfly effect. Think Cindy.
Posted by ken melvin at January 4, 2007 07:37 PMAgain, you just need to make things up. I never said she was not covered here. You claimed she was a "Sainted Figure here at TLC". The archive doesn't back you up on that. Particularly the posts by Steve Soto. Paradox, who has written in praise of her in the past offered a neutral comment about her actions at the press conference on this very thread.
How many laudatory post appeared here at TLC regarding Mother S an her "absolute moral authority?"
Lots.
Do a search of the archives for "Cindy Sheeham absolute moral authority". No results.
Search "Cindy Sheehan moral authority" and one post turns up. A post by Steve about how the coverage of Sheehan's protests can be used by the Democrats to reframe the debate on the war.
So please find me "lots" of posts at TLC that are lauditory of "the absolute moral authority" of "the Sainted Mother S."
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 07:38 PM
i think that sheehan recognizes the real issue...the control that the israeli intell services have achieved over the congress of the united states of amerika.
and i think it to be a level of control founded on bribery, blackmail. think the rabbi jack abramoff.
and rabbi feith. rabbi chertoff. rabbi bodansky. rabbi perle. and how many others?
as long as the israeli intell services are controlling the congress, the perpetual war for perpetual peace will continue. never forget, it is just not the invasion of iraq that is ongoing. the israeli agitprop agents have done a very slick job as painting the enemy as muslims. re-creaating the crusade. so we are still engaged in an almost abortive invasion of afghanistan. we financed the recent israeli invasion of lebanon. we finance the israeli invasions of palestinian territories. and we are probably preparing to finance some kind of unwarranted military actions against iran, syria.
these homicidal activities are not in the interest of the united states of amerika. why must it be that the united states must function as the financier, the armorer, the protector of israel?
carl levin, i think, has today revealed that he will not oppose the addition of more amerikans as targets. why? there is no chance of the united states of amerika mastering all these invasions/occupations without the usa going to a total war footing. universal conscription. massive armaments manufacturing. rationing. etc.
is carl levin jewish? i think so. is he a zionist?
does he, like many others, hold an israeli passport?
must be, because any senator advocating the sacrifice of more amerikan soldiers is not acting in the interests of the usa.
and, of course it is not just the sacrificing of amerikan soldiers, it is the "collateral" damage, the murdering of the noncombatants in those countries that we, and our surrogates, have invaded. the total destruction of countries that never attacked the usa, never allied themselves with anyone who attacked the usa. in fact, the usa has never been attacked since the war of 1812.
i could say so much more about the long-term reluctance of the democratic party to spurn the warmongering of this evil empire. and cindy sheehan knows that history, i think.
she knows that the democratic party was more than willing to allow the reaganauts to conduct war throughout central america and the southern cone. and she knows that the democratic party was more than willing to ignore the falsehoods of ghwbushit's invasion of iraq in 1991. and she knows that the democratic party was quite comfortable with bj bill's and ak tony's invasion of the balkans, and aerial domination of iraq...the sanctions' regime that destroyed that country and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of iraqi non-combatants[by this date, probably more than a million].
no, cindy sheehan understands the democratic party all too well. as do i. as should you. by now.
the final question...why haven't we been out in the streets? protesting the war. opposing the fascist bastids, demtillians and reptillians, who prolong this bout of mass murder?
it is because we have allowed the israeli intell services to paint the conflict as godly christians versus "terrorist muslims".
cindy sheehan sees it accurately, until masses of usa citizens get out into the streets demanding the end of the war, the congress of the usa will continue to do the bidding of the mossad, the shin bet, the munitions manufacturers, the war profiteers. only by massive anti-war protesting will the demtillian shills become scared enough about the likelihood of preserving their incumbencies that they will end these illegal invasions, occupations.
and that is the way it really is.and will always be.
Posted by albertchampion at January 4, 2007 07:44 PMWhat is the Shakespeare line...
"Me thinks you do protest too much...."
LOL!
Posted by Bagley at January 4, 2007 07:47 PM"...the control that the israeli intell services have achieved over the congress of the united states of amerika."
I was waiting for this to show up: it is the evil Jewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwws!
And the Left displays its true side once more. So do tell, albertchampion, how was that conference in Tehran? How many of the regular denizens of TLC were in attendance?
Posted by Bagley at January 4, 2007 07:51 PM"Me thinks you do protest too much...."
Yes, you do.
What, couldn't find any references to Cindy Sheehan's "absolute moral authority" in the archives?
LOL indeed.
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 07:58 PMThese acts of civil disobedience are hardly a "circus." The Democrats in Congress are refusing to deal with important issues, choosing instead to nibble at the margins. The first responsibilities of the House are stopping funding for the war and the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
A majority of voters support impeachment. The voters made clear their desire to stop the war, yet Pelosi has said that cutting off funding for the war is "off the table."
Besides, civil disobedience is one of the most noble and respectable forms of opposition to oppression and violence. Sadly, since the election, the Democratic Party leadership has become a party to the most heinous of the Bush regime's oppressive and unAmerican policies, the illegal and unAmerican war in Iraq.
Pelosi is showing the same contempt for the American people in Iraq that Bush is. If the Democrats don't clean up their acts immediately, the biggest winners will be the Greens.
I will cut off campaign contributions to any member of the House or Senate that does not vote to cut off funding for the war. I'm tired of being treated like garbage by politicians just because I'm not one of the super-rich elite.
Posted by libhomo at January 4, 2007 07:59 PMA posting by paradox that displays -- so perfectly -- the feeling that TLC had for Mother S at one time.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/008365.php
Snark, when you are in a hole, stop digging.
P.S.If you want to know more regarding the high praise for Mother S from the folks here at TLC....just read the thread!
"LOL indeed."
Yes, I am.
Posted by Bagley at January 4, 2007 08:09 PM""Me thinks you do protest too much...."
Yes, you do."
Snark, you do not even understand the reference, do you.
As I posted: Snark, when you are in a hole, stop digging.
Posted by Bagley at January 4, 2007 08:18 PMI don't know if Cindy has done the right thing, but I do know if this is the worst that we're going to see in the form of protest we should feel lucky.
Absolutely.
Much more of this sort of whining about Sheehan and her alleged lack of taste will be conclusive proof that the Democrats took back Congress by accident and don't deserve their victory. What a case of the vapors!
Or is it jealousy that someone else got attention and you guys didn't? Well, low moaning from a fetal position doesn't usually get much attention. Nor does it deserve it.
And for all those calling on Sheehan to show more "composure," well, violent death has a way of staying front and center with your mind. Obviously you don't have any experience with that, in your sheltered little computer world that seems sometimes to differ from LGF only by the absence of Cheetoes, so just STFU, k?
Posted by at January 4, 2007 08:20 PMA posting by paradox that displays -- so perfectly -- the feeling that TLC had for Mother S at one time.
Yes, a posting that paradox wrote for Kos and cross posted here at TLC. I made reference to it previously. And paradox still feels that way about her I believe. So your point is irrelevant regardless.
One post in praise of Cindy Sheehan. Wow! Who knew one post equals lots? Better get ready to rename the site In Praise of Saint Mother Cindy Sheehan.
Very weak Bagley.
P.S.If you want to know more regarding the high praise for Mother S from the folks here at TLC....just read the thread!
So you've abandoned your argument that the people at TLC have...abandoned... Sheehan?
Come Bagley. Which way do you want to argue it? Like I said, it's easy when you're making it up. You can always just change your argument.
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 08:22 PM"Posted by at January 4, 2007 08:20 PM"
And the mystery poster shows up once again.
Quick, quick. Go look in a mirror. You might remember your name. (Perhaps not how to spell it, though....we have been through this before, I think.)
"... so just STFU, k?"
Ha, ha! So cute...so know nothing.
Posted by Bagley at January 4, 2007 08:25 PM"So you've abandoned your argument that the people at TLC have...abandoned... Sheehan?"
Not at all, Snark, but you have put forward no counter-argument that TLC was once in high praise of Cindy Sheehan.
Now, it is spelled C-i-n-d-y-S-h-e-e-h-a-n. The archives (such as they are) are available for you to search.
"Yes, a posting that paradox wrote for Kos and cross posted here at TLC."
Yes, one. There are others. Go off and play. I have other TLCers to torment -- you are boring.
By the way, how is that...One. History. Course.
Posted by Bagley at January 4, 2007 08:29 PMSnark, you do not even understand the reference, do you.
Now that truly is funny.
You referenced a line (not terribly accurately) from a play spoken by a character who does not realize when speaking it that she is, in fact, complaining about herself!
Perfect.
I have other TLCers to torment...
With continued inanities no doubt.
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 08:42 PMNot up on your Shakespeare, Snark. A little advice: Wikipedia is not a legitimate reference.
In any event. Thanks to TLC for the bandwidth....boy, this end of the blogosphere is shalloe these days.
It is late. Good-night all.
Posted by Bagley at January 4, 2007 08:43 PMRunning away as usual.
Posted by snark at January 4, 2007 08:45 PMIt still is amazing to me that no one is getting the big picture that Steve is asking for.
Cindy needs to stop attacking the Dems long enough for them to do their job. Shit, they hadn't even taken office yet. And if the Dems do accomplish their job, it will only help with future elections. They are the only party we can rely on, for now.
If the Dems fail to do their job, then I'll be out there protesting. I just won't be acting like a clown so I end up getting arrested. I have family obligations I can't turn my back on.
And for all those calling on Sheehan to show more "composure," well, violent death has a way of staying front and center with your mind. Obviously you don't have any experience with that, in your sheltered little computer world that seems sometimes to differ from LGF only by the absence of Cheetoes, so just STFU, k?
I have, so please STFU, k!
Posted by Seven of Six at January 4, 2007 09:24 PM
so, here the whale rises again. discuss the role of the israeli intell services and the pejorative of anti-semite, anti-jew is invoked.
that card must be squelched asap.
if perle, wolfowitz, feith, bodansky, abrams, kristol, et alia were catholics, i would be denouncing the catholic church and its orgs - opus dei and the jesuits.
but these warmongerers are not catholics. they are jews. and zionist jews who have discovered how easily the amerikan populace can be cowed.
the illusion that has been created over the years is that israel just wants to live in peace. total hogwash. zionist israel has always been an erstwhile imperialist. and best of all, for them, they have seduced the usa to finance their imperialism.
i sometimes think about gangsters. odd isn't how the image has been created by the media that the mob are italians[sicilians]. think on the sopranos.
but, the history of the mob in amerika is much larger. meyer lansky. ben siegel. arnold rothstein. the purple gang. et alia.
why don't we get a sitcom identifed as the SIEGELS, THE LANSKYS? instead of watching catholic, christian italians[sicilians]being mobsters, ordering whack jobs while they eat their pastas, why aren't we seeing families with yarmulkes, eating matzo and gefilte, ordering whack jobs?
the oddest disinfo agent is yossef bodansky. the creator of the legend of osama bin laden. a rabbi and a dual-passporter. before the book, bin laden: the man who declared war on amerika, appeared, bodansky wrote a few anti-muslim books that were printed under the imprimatur of the rabbi friedman foundation in houston, tx.
bodansky is a character that has gone unexamined for some reason. who has very thin skin. and refuses to be interviewed, except for one very strange occasion shortly after 11/09/01..on cspan's washington journal.
in 1993, bodansky had a book published by shapolsky entitled TARGET AMERICA:TERRORISM IN THE US TODAY. at the time, bodansky was the director of the republican task force on terrorism and unconventional warfare.
now, shapolsky is a proprietary publisher.
other interesting aspects of this book. within hours of the events of 11/09/01 agents of the usg removed all copies of it extant within the usa.
my favorite story concerning bodansky was his only appearance on television. it was on cspan's washington journal. he was being interviewed about the evil muslim, the saudi[cia asset] usama bin laden and his novel.
a caller asked him about target america and his role as a republican agent in the us conngress. he became quite agitated. refused to answer, saying that he was on cspan only to discuss his book on bin laden.
the caller wouldn't take that answer and tried to push that issue. bodansky walked off the set.
no mention of this occurred anywhere in the legit press.
bodansky is a foreign agent.
and the rabbi friedman foundation members are those responsible for keeping george walker bush out of jail. when he was busted for cocaine, it was this group of zionists that interceded with the harris county court and got this bushit released to some months of community service.
that is part of the hook the zionists have over the bushies. but mossad and shin bet have so much more.
and by the way, the crimes of the israel fascist state are routinely discussed in the israeli media. it is so odd that in the usa, what is discussed in haaretz, is not allowed to be discussed here. and in fact, if one does try to discuss these truths in the usa, one is denounced as an anti-semite.
even more to the point about how perceptions in the usa are manipulated, travel outside of the usa. and tune in cnn. or other news orgs. you will see carnage that is excised from the view of the amerikan audience.
who dictated that censorship? catholics? protestants?
reality intrudes once again. jews.
Posted by albertchampion at January 4, 2007 09:38 PMThis is the greatest thread ever. Thanks, Steve!
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 4, 2007 09:47 PMBTW, Albert Champion is Jimmy Carter.
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 4, 2007 09:48 PMI agree with Steve. I used to respect her, but no longer. Ever since her meeting with Chavez (what good would that ever do?), she's just been trying to get attention. Attacking Democrats before they take power? Just utter and complete cluelessness.
Posted by PsiFighter37 at January 4, 2007 10:32 PMso many are so ignorant.
jimmy carter is seen so inaccurately.
let us muse on him a bit.
a graduate of annapolis. a career naval officer. an acolyte of adm. rickover. a zionist of the highest rank in the us military.
a creature of another rockefeller entity: the trilateralist commission. purportedly a competitor to that other rockefeller entity, the council on foreign fellations. excuse me, relations.
his national security advisor, zbig, was a long time employee of the rockefellers. and in that relationship, he was the successor to henry kissinger.
zbig and his owners energized the great game in the carter era.
the illusion is that jimmy was so obtuse that he allowed the russians to invade afghanistan. sorry, jimmy knew what was up and allowed that invasion to happen.
if you subscribed to aviation week and space tech you would have seen the satphots of the marshalling of russian troops on the afghan frontier.
jimmy could have prevented that invasion. but he didn't. why? because the rockefeller game was to have the islamic areas of the ussr inflamed.
how deep did this game go? pretty deep. for instance, the ayatollah khomeineh was our agent. and a false ayatollah.
it is remarkable how so few pay attention. oriana fallaci interviewed the ayatollah upon his exile to france. she noted his missing finger.
when she interviewed this imposter's return to iran, after the defenestration of the shah, she noted that the finger had been restored. hmmmmmm.
succinctly, most of this game was created to bring down the soviet union. in a very real sense, jimmy carter fell on his sword so as to effect this mission.
most of what you think you know is falsehood.
never forget the power of the rockefellers. not only was jimmy their puppet, but the bush family was their creation. i have written about this many times, but the rockefellers, and later the harrimans, elevated the bushits.
you who think that you understand the past, you know nothing.
and that is why you are going to discover once again that the demtillians are no different than the reptillians.
who owns them all?
that is the issue.
Posted by albertchampion at January 4, 2007 11:18 PMWhat a thread!
Slappy & Bagley have finally found one another and they have discovered they have more incommon than anyone ever knew! :-)
Posted by Christopher at January 5, 2007 02:14 AMFor years we've carped about the center being moved to the right. Cindy's moving it back to the left.
It ALWAYS takes some annoyingly radical, embarrassing folks who won't shut up and won't go away.
Some here say that she doesn't recognize her allies. But if you attack her, can't the same be said of you?
One doesn't have to agree with her, nor judge her effectiveness. But she's as necessary as every war foe. If the Dems come through, she may look foolish. If they don't, she'll continue to be essential.
How does she hurt elected Dems by doing things like this? If the elected Dems get our troops home, they get the credit. Her actions don't undermine that in any way that I can see.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at January 5, 2007 03:32 AMI started by thinking that Cindy should "put a sock in it" for a few weeks and give the dems a chance to lead, but then a day later I am remembering that she is still a desperately grieving mother and I realize that the dems made the mistake.
They should expect her, they should just say when she appears:
Cindy, please come up here with me. There are some things that I want to say directly to you. (then when she is standing next to them) I want to say thank you to you and the mothers like you, the Gold Star Families for Peace that we are truly sorry for the loss you have incurred. We thank you for helping turn this country in a new direction. blah, blah, blah
(Then) And now I need to ask you to allow us to do our work. To end the wars, to bring the troops home, to make ethics a part of the fabric of the elected government, to raise the minimum wage, blah, blah, blah.
I ask you, I plead with you to give us the days and space that we need to start turning this ship of state around. blah, blah, blah
(then) Now I ask everyone here, regardless of party, to join me in saying thank you to Cindy Sheehan for her dedication and work these past few years, then I have some remarks prepared that I need to make as my part in turning the nation in a new direction.
And finally before, my remarks, I want to ask Cindy and all of you to join me in a moment of silence while we remember Casey Sheehan and the thousands like him, American, Iraqi, Afghani, who have died in these awful wars.
I don't know if that kind of approach could work. I am not sure if Cindy has become so politicized in her grief that she could step back from the microphone, but I think the dems should be ready with that kind of response and should try it at least once.
Posted by angel at January 5, 2007 07:08 AMAngel, A very common sense approach. So good in fact, that I doubt anyone will follow it.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 5, 2007 07:36 AMI believe I remember a Mo. Rep. handing Gingrich the gavel.
Hell, do what Bushco does. Arrest her. Freedom of speech should always take second place to expediency. We could maybe get the NSA to investigate these people and give Democrats a heads-up when they're going to be around. That's the easy way of doing things. That's the way republi-cons do it now. Besides, it looks prettier when there is no conflict or dissension. After all, that's what were after. It's better to look good than to govern good.
Go get em, Cindy! Don't you back down one fucking inch.
Posted by phidipides at January 5, 2007 07:53 AMWhat the hell?! My CTRL C didn't copy. Oh well, should have been.
Not at all, Snark, but you have put forward no counter-argument that TLC was once in high praise of Cindy Sheehan.
Hell, do what Bushco does. Arrest her. Freedom of speech should always take second place to expediency. We could maybe get the NSA to investigate these people and give Democrats a heads-up when they're going to be around. That's the easy way of doing things. That's the way republi-cons do it now. Besides, it looks prettier when there is no conflict or dissension. After all, that's what were after. It's better to look good than to govern good.
Go get em, Cindy! Don't you back down one fucking inch.
Damn, I gotta preview more often.
Steve,
Congratulations! This thread made the "Best of the Web" feature at the Wall Street Journal.
I suppose that Bu$hCo's evil minions will now shut TLC down in their continuing attempt to muzzle free speech as part of the greater effort to turn the USoA into a reactionary-right-wing-theocratic-facist-entity-of-some-sort-or-another....
...or is the reactionary-right-wing-theocratic-facist-entity-of-some-sort-or-another meme played out?
Posted by Bagley at January 5, 2007 05:50 PMI hope our elected Democrats will get our troops home soon. And I agree 100 percent with what Kevin Hayden said. Her actions do not undermine the work we are trying to do.
So far so good for our elected majority; they are standing against the troop surge that Bush is backing. And Cindy wasn't arrested for her demonstration (as she was, not so many days ago, in Crawford). And we all need to be reminded of the anguish suffered by parents who have lost a child in this stupid war.
Posted by Copeland at January 6, 2007 06:06 PM
I thought you were for FREE SPEACH ... How come the instruction " "your comment will not appear until it has been approved. .... Sound to me it's abit like Gobels Directions ... Tom Davis
These are the people that said the war was wrong.
Listen to these same people before Pres. Bush was even elected.....A little true history helps use all .. Don't you think ????
Call them what they are -- TRAITORS...
The Left is at it again.
Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.
Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, much has been written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly -- treasonous.
Here are their accusations:
Reid: "We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq ... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)
Durbin: "I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)
Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)
Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.
Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.
The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition. Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:
President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. 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. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.
Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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 security threat we face."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Dick Durbin: "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...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
Nancy Pelosi: "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."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
After the 2000 election:
When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."
In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.
So, Ted, Dick and Harry € what's your real agenda?
Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.
Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.
For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.
In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?
Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.
(Editor's Note: This essay is based on a Patriot Alert (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=340) that was circulated 11 November. If you are interested in exact quote sources, start by entering the words "Clinton Iraq 1998" into your Internet search engine.)
One of only a few sane Democrat voices:
"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there." --Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)
UPDATE: December 2005 -- The Demos surrender, retreat and defeat plan:
"The idea that we're going to win this war ... is just plain wrong." --DNC chairman Howard Dean
"There is no reason that young american soldiers need to be going into Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, women...." --John Kerry
More sanity from Mr. Lieberman: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
Don't you mean Operation Iraqi Liberation, Tom?
Treason is as treason does. And Tom, before you turn off the light at the end of the tunnel, be sure to remember to pay off all the contractors. Thank you very much.
Posted by Copeland at January 8, 2007 04:07 PMI agree with everyone above saying that Cyndi should keep up her excellent work, which surely is helping the anti-war Left as a whole gain credibility, while enhancing its reputation among the intelligentsia. Plus, I haven't seen anything this funny since Teddy the K "took the Fifth" after he couldn't remember whether Obama was Osama or not. Guerrilla theatre is not only fun, it's free!
Posted by ConServoBot at January 9, 2007 09:02 PM