Anti-War Puppet?

[Bravus]

It's pretty clear that she has *not* changed her tune - unless you listen to Rush. Read the original article that Ed D posted above in this thread. She had concerns about the war then, she still has concerns about the war now. She chose to be civil and to respect the other families then and that's a decision I respect. She's now calling the president to account, but she herself has always been civil in her language and approach toward the president. She wants to hold the president accountable for the decisions that have been made and have led to the death of over 1850 American soldiers - over 2000 soldiers if you include those from other nations in the coalition. The Democrats and the press have fundamentally failed to hold the president accountable on these issues, and someone has to. How does that count as evil?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The Democrats and the press have fundamentally failed to hold the president accountable on these issues, and someone has to. How does that count as evil?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

In her opinion yet that would be a hard charge to prove. The press has daily reported the death tolls. The press has reported every military scandel and suspected scandel. The press has reported Department of Defense memos. The press has been quite through at reporting all negative news about this war as it relates to the President.

Reports we don't hear too much of are of heroism. Did you hear of the Army officer that was shot with a number of his men? As they were waiting for the medics he was telling jokes to his guys to keep their morale up. The next day he died. Stories like these could be told in the dozens. The press could fill the headlines with stories of heroism if it wanted to.

What about the 3,800 new or remodeled schools that have opened in Iraq? What about the 38 forgien embassies that have opened in Iraq? What about the majority of Iraqis that have welcomed the American soldiers as liberators and treat them as such? While some special news reports have reported these things, they do not make the headlines.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It is not genuine love that would lead you to side with someone whom you know is in the wrong

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Yes we do disagree. While one may not defend their child when they are wrong, they will often defend their spouse. I guess it comes down to how much one values their marriage.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

she herself has always been civil in her language and approach toward the president.

---

A sample of Sheehan's civility can be found here:

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/convention05/sheehan_transcript.htm

"somebody's gotta stop those lying b*st*rds."

"And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, b*llsh*t. "

" And if you think I won't say b*llsh*t to the President, I say move on, "

" I got an email the other day and it said, "Cindy, if you didn't use so much profanity there's people on the fence' that get offended"

And you know what I said? "You know what? You know what, g*d-d*mn-*t? How, in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence'?"

And to the United Methodist Church, in Venice, California, she said:

"As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country whose skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks?"

I would have thought that, even coming from someone on the left, some of her words might have been deemed inflammatory. At least to me, they don't sound at all "civil."

I'd like to discuss your questions about casualties, etc., but when you describe Sheehan as being "civil," I'm not certain how we would be able to communicate.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

A sample of Sheehan's civility can be found here:

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/convention05/sheehan_transcript.htm

---

Here is a case where, when taken out of context, the words look pretty bad....But when you read them in context, you get the sense that she is not mouthing off so much as mouthing pain. And in her pain, she is calling a spade, truely a spade.

So, Ed, why are you making her out to be something that she is not? ie, uncivil?

[there buster]

I'm not "trying" to do anything. I'm just reporting.

I'm interested in the notion that some contexts can make such language civil.

[there buster]

In what context would you find--for example-- someone calling you a lying b*st*rd to be considered civil?

Or "murdering liar?"

"Oh, I called him a 'murdering liar,' but I meant it in the nicest way. And then I smiled and said, 'Oh, you lying b*st*rd, you' All in all, it was a most civil conversation."

I have often wondered at the liberties you and others on the left grant yourselves in discussion. Now I see that you were just being--by your definition--civil.

I prefer to be spared such 'civility.'

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

I'm not "trying" to do anything. I'm just reporting.

---

Hahahahahahah

"I'm not doing anything...I am just sitting here"- child to teacher who got caught talking again after being told not to talk.

"I'm just holding this gun. It doesn't mean that I am going to shoot you".

Ok Ed. Right..you are "just reporting". But we both know that you are using those "queen bee" techniques that currently are labled as abusive interaction.

Quote:

---

I'm interested in the notion that some contexts can make such language civil.

---

In context, the article is a comparison of which is worse, a goverment who lies and manipulates it's own people for the benefit of a few within it's society, or a goverment whose purpose is to serve the people who elected them to office.

[:"blue"] I never heard about Veterans for until, I can tell you the exact day I heard about VFP, it was May 4th, 2004, and my son had been dead exactly a month, and I was watching CNN, and something came on, it was a report on Arlington West in Santa Barbara, and we lived about 6 hours north of Santa Barbara, and it was the May 4th before Mother's Day, which was May 8th, and VFP was going to put it up on Sunday, every Sunday, so I called my husband and I said, "There's only one place I want to be on Mother's Day this year, I want to be at Santa Barbara. I want to go and see Arlington West."

When we went, the first time we went, there was a little over 700 crosses, now there's over 1,800 crosses.

And I'm glad to hear everybody else's words, because somebody's gotta stop those lying bastards. Somebody has to stop them. [/]

[Bravus]

Ed, I have to admit I hadn't heard those when I made the comment. I could weasel around and say that I said 'civil toward the President', but I'd rather just leave it aside. I'm happy to withdraw the whole 'civility' statement that I made. Let's continue the dialogue.

The casualties of any war are a tragedy, but sometimes perhaps a necessary sacrifice for a nation to make. Ron has raised the old 'if you oppose the war, you support Saddam and think he should still be in power' defense, but there are three problems with that:

1. It is illegal under international law for a nation to conduct regime change by force in another country. Yes, he's a bad guy, but there are lots of other bad guys around the world. It's up to the people of those countries to find a way to change the regime, unless and until the country attacks another.

2. The toppling of Saddam (on behalf of the people of Iraq) was never the reason given to Congress or to the American people to justify the war. It was raised only after the WMD charge was shown to be false.

3. It has yet to be shown that the people of Iraq will be better off in the long run. Administration officials this week conceded that a democratic Iraq is an unlikely outcome and it may be necessary to settle for 'some form of Islamic republic'.

In addition to this:

A war fought by America, costing American lives, should serve American interests. It is demonstrable that this war has created a new terrorist breeding ground: and the recent London attacks put the lie to the 'we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here' claim.

Cindy Sheehan's point, shorn of rhetoric, is not specifically about Casey's death. That's just something that perhaps gives her a certain credibility - she and her son cannot be accused of cowardice and of not supporting the troops or the country. That family made the ultimate sacrifice for its country. Her point is that the justifications that have been given for that sacrifice don't hold water.

I've aimed to be as uninflammatory and as clear as I can. We know we disagree, but I have to keep believing we can continue a dialogue, and I'm willing to be corrected by the facts (as in the 'civility' issue) when they're presented.

[Neil D]

As an addendum to my post... [:"blue"] And I'm glad to hear everybody else's words, because somebody's gotta stop those lying bastards. Somebody has to stop them. [/]

I suspect that the above statement contains an emotional outburst, rather than a statement of fact...However, in context, that emotional outburst is a justifiable one. While these words may be concidered offensive in SDA circles, Ed, they do contain the emotional response toward a decieving goverment. While you and I could have used a different way to express the same thing, it may not have contained the emotional feelings that "lying bastards" have.

Bravus,

Nicely worded post...Wish I could have done the same....

[Dr. Shane]

There is a lot of spin about Iraq and that is all it is - SPIN. It is too early to know if the war will serve America's interests of those of the entire non-extreame-muslem world.

The invasation was not illegal because Saddam invaded Kuwait and at the end of that conflict signed a cease-fire agreement. He continually violated the cease-fire agreement which gave the US the right to resume armed conflict. The idea that is floated around of this being an "illegal war" is just SPIN.

Getting rid of Saddam for the sake of freeing the Iraqi people was one of the reasons given for the war before the invation. See my thread on Reason for the Iraq War. Here is the quote from Tony Blair, "Before we take the decision to go to war, the morality of that should weigh heavily on our conscience because innocent people, as well as the guilty, die in a war.

But the alternative is to carry on with a sanctions regime which, because of the way Saddam Hussein implements it, leads to thousands of people dying needlessly in Iraq every year." It was not the primary reason but was mentioned nonetheless.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

you are using those "queen bee" techniques that currently are labled as abusive interaction

---

Curiouser and curiouser. Calling someone a b*st*rd is "civil," and pointing it out is abusive. Moral inversion again.

And now we're treated to the interesting notion that the question of "civil" is a matter of "which is worse." Amazing. Only when one goes "through the looking glass" can this make any sense at all.

[there buster]

The point, Neil, was "civility." I didn't make the claim. All I did was provide actual evidence. It's too bad it contradicts your position, but that's not my fault.

[there buster]

Since your points are

1) counter-factual, as the record indicates and as Shane has partially documented

and/or

2) contain speculation which is then used as justification

it boils down to your suppositions. These are not subject to debate, since the exist in your mind.

The left was calling Afghanistan a "quagmire" in the first week. Then they said there would be "5,000 body bags before we take Baghdad."

Sadaam not only had WMD's he used them on his own people.

Bush hasn't been correct in all his expectations. Well, we didn't (we Americans) have an election for a prophet.

Nobody knows the future, but the Left has been much further off in their predictions, going back at least half a century, and they've been consistently wrong about terrorism, and about Iraq.

And they're wrong because their foundational assumptions are wrong. And they produce the moral inversion demonstrated by Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and some on CA.

[Bravus]

As Shane has said, and as I accept, it's too early to make a final judgement on the consequences of the war. I'm happy to wait on that, and honestly I'd like nothing better than a happy, safe, peaceful, democratic Iraq with human rights for all its citizens. I'm definitely *not* cheering for quagmire or problems just to make Bush look bad.

It's a clear matter of fact and public record, no speculation required, that the justifications for the Iraq war have kept on shifting, from being about terrorism to being about WMD to being about liberating the Iraqi people. My sole point, and Cindy Sheehan's (and I did get drawn into throwing in lots more, which was a distraction) is this: those who are dying for a cause deserve to be told clearly and unequivocally what that cause is.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Curiouser and curiouser. Calling someone a b*st*rd is "civil," and pointing it out is abusive. Moral inversion again.

---

Hahahahahahahhahahahahahhaha

Ed, ...please,...let me explain this to you...You are confusing two points and merging them as one...Go bad and reread them...It will become clearer to you if you realize that they are 2 differing points...one clarifys the other...

Oh, and Ed, you need to reread Bravius points also...Your replys were obvious knee-jerking reactions to his post....

Ok?

Ok, I am done.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Cindy Sheehan is overwhelmingly supported by the people of this country.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Cindy Sheehan: 35% Favorable 38% Unfavorable

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Sheehan is viewed favorably by 34% of men and 35% of women. Forty-two percent (42%) of men and 34% of women have an unfavorable view.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Neil D]

[:"blue"]Hypocrites and Liars

by CindySheehan

Sat Aug 20th, 2005 at 08:55:38 PDT

The media are wrong. The people who have come out to Camp Casey to help coordinate the press and events with me are not putting words in my mouth, they are taking words out of my mouth. I have been known for sometime as a person who speaks the truth and speaks it strongly. I have always called a liar a liar and a hypocrite a hypocrite. Now I am urged to use softer language to appeal to a wider audience. Why do my friends at Camp Casey think they are there? Why did such a big movement occur from such a small action on August 6, 2005?

* CindySheehan's diary :: ::

*

I haven't had much time to analyze the Camp Casey phenomena. I just read that I gave 250 interviews in less than a week's time. I believe it. I would go to bed with a raw throat every night. I got pretty tired of answering some questions, like: "What do you want to say to the President?" and "Do you really think he will meet with you?" However, since my mom has been sick I have had a chance to step back and ponder what I started in Crawford, Tx.

I just read an article posted today on LewRockwell.com by artist Robert Shetterly who painted my portrait. The article reminded me of something I said at the Veteran's for Peace Convention the night before I set out to Bush's ranch in my probable futile quest for the truth. This is what I said:

"I got an email the other day and it said, `Cindy if you didn't use so much profanity .... there's people on the fence that get offended.'

"And you know what I said? `You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?'

"If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."

This is what the Camp Casey miracle is all about. American citizens who oppose the war but never had a conduit for their disgust and dismay are dropping everything and traveling to Crawford to stand in solidarity with us who have made a commitment to sit outside of George's ranch for the duration of the miserable Texan August. If they can't come to Texas, they are attending vigils, writing letters to their elected officials and to their local newspapers; they are setting up Camp Casey branches in their hometowns; they are sending flowers, cards, letters, gifts, and donations here to us at Camp Casey. We are so grateful for all of the support, but I think pro-peace Americans are grateful for something to do, finally.

One thing I haven't noticed or become aware of though is an increased number of pro-war, pro-Bush people on the other side of the fence enlisting to go and fight George Bush's war for imperialism and insatiable greed. The pro-peace side has gotten off their apathetic butts to be warriors for peace and justice. Where are the pro-war people? Everyday at Camp Casey we have a couple of anti-peace people on the other side of the road holding up signs that remind me that "Freedom isn't Free" but I don't see them putting their money where their mouths are. I don't think they are willing to pay even a small down payment for freedom by sacrificing their own blood or the flesh of their children. I still challenge them to go to Iraq and let another soldier come home. Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game.

Contrary to what the main stream media thinks, I did not just fall off a pumpkin truck in Crawford, Tx. on that scorchingly hot day two weeks ago. I have been writing, speaking, testifying in front of Congressional committees, lobbying Congress, and doing interviews for over a year now. I have been pretty well known in the progressive, peace community and I had many, many supporters before I even left California. The people who supported me did so because they know that I uncompromisingly tell the truth about this war. I have stood up and said: "My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it." I have never said "pretty please" or "thank you." I have never said anything wishy-washy like he uses "Patriotic Rhetoric." I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING. The Downing Street Memos dated 23 July, 2002 prove that he knew that Saddam didn't have WMD's or any ties to Al Qaeda. I believe that George lied and he knew he was lying. He didn't use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made us afraid of ghosts that weren't there. Now he is using patriotic rhetoric to keep the U.S. military presence in Iraq: Patriotic rhetoric that is based on greed and nothing else.

Now I am being vilified and dragged through the mud by the righties and so-called "fair and balanced" main stream media who are afraid of the truth and can't face someone who tells it by telling any truth of their own. Now they have to twist, distort, lie, and scrutinize anything I have ever said when they never scrutinize anything that George Bush said or is saying. Instead of asking George or Scotty McClellan if he will meet with me, why aren't they asking the questions they should have been asking all along: "Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for? What do you hope to accomplish there? Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't? Why did you lie to us? Why did you lie to the American people? Why did you lie to the world? Why are our nation's children still in harm's way and dying everyday when we all know you lied? Why do you continually say we have to `complete the mission' when you know damn well you have no idea what that mission is and you can change it at will like you change your cowboy shirts?"

Camp Casey has grown and prospered and survived all attacks and challenges because America is sick and tired of liars and hypocrites and we want the answers to the tough questions that I was the first to dare ask. THIS is George Bush's accountability moment and he is failing...miserably. George Bush and his advisers seriously "misunderestimated" me when they thought they could intimidate me into leaving before I had the answers, or before the end of August. I can take anything they throw at me, or Camp Casey. If it shortens the war by a minute or saves one life, it is worth it. I think they seriously "misunderestimated" all mothers. I wonder if any of them had authentic mother-child relationships and if they are surprised that there are so many mothers in this country who are bear-like when it comes to wanting the truth and who want to make meaning of their child's needless and seemingly meaningless deaths?

The Camp Casey movement will not die until we have a genuine accounting of the truth and until our troops are brought home. Get used to it George, we are not going away. [/]

[Neil D]

With whom do you sympathize most?

Protester mom Cindy Sheehan 45%

Gun-toting neighbor Larry Mattlage 36%

President Bush 19%

Total Votes: 328,641

AOL poll

[Dr. Shane]

The poll I quoted was from Rasmussen. It is not an internet poll.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports August 17-18, 2005. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. 37% of survey respondents were Republican, 37% Democrat, and 26% unaffiliated

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Ron Lambert]

CoAspen, just a note on something theological you raised. Jesus did not join us in sin or support us in sin. He condemned sin in the flesh: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3).

In other words, Jesus crucified our old man (see Romans 6:6), so He could save us from our sin.

Shane, siding with your spouse when she is standing on the side of evil would be the most unloving and outright hateful thing you could ever do, for you would be contributing to her eternal destruction.

If Adam had not sided with Eve when she ate the forbidden fruit, our race would not have been plunged into sin and death. And look at how Adam's behavior changed. He may have thought he was being noble, siding with his wife, hoping that he would be forcing God to spare her or kill them both. But then after he had joined her in sin, he tried to put the blame on her (and on God) when he said: "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:12)

[there buster]

Actually, if you look at the record, a number of reasons were given in the SOTU address and other venues. The left is determined to be confused about this, and not have a serious discussion.

Example: Illegal war.

Well, if you ignore treaty violations and thirteen years of continuing violations. Under the terms of the treaty, we were entitled to take action at any point.

Example: If we get this bad guy, we have to get them all. Infantile. We always have limited resources, and must choose where they will be employed. In WWII, we took out Hitler and Tojo, and left a lot of lesser evils alone.

In WWII, we had the same sort of silliness, people insisting we shouldn't send our boys to Europe, as Hitler had never done anything to us. Even as he almost defeated Britain, which would have made D-Day impossible, or at least more costly.

If you ask the men who are over there why they are there, they know. My soon-to-be son-in-law is one of them. He's been in Afghanistan once, and Iraq twice (just left the second time).

Mrs. Sheehan is acting disgracefully, and without regard to the cost to the rest of her family. It's a pity.

[there buster]

Neil, your posts demonstrate that either you know very lilttle about grammar and syntax, or you are intentionally distorting them.

Grammar and syntax are my business. As Bravus attested, the record is clear on this issue. I'll continue to interact with Bravus, because he's willing to recognize basic facts.

Don't tell me what I need to do. I don't take instructions from those who refuse to accept basic facts.

What I don't need to do is waste time with people who refuse to recognize demonstrable things. When you figure out that b*st*rd is uncivil, perhaps.

[Ron Lambert]

Technically, every military conflict our nation has been involved in since World War II has been illegal. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf I, Iraq, all were fought without any declaration of war by Congress.

[Dr. Shane]

The declaration of war is interesting. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The Constitution doesn't tell them what they have to do in order to declare war. Section 5 of Article 1 simply says, "To declare War," Historically Congress has passed a formal "Declaration of War". However the Constitution does not say the only way to declare war is by a formal declaration. When Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973 it basically gave itself an informal way to declare war.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted [to Congress from the President] or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Since this law was passed Congress has authorized the use of force three times. Once for the first Gulf War. Once shortly after the 9/11 attacks (for Afghanistan) and once again before the invation of Iraq.