Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan arrested outside White House [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan arrested outside White House

Pages : [1] 2

gldstwmn

09-26-2005, 12:59 PM

Breaking on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

DavidMn

09-26-2005, 01:01 PM

I wonder what she did? I cant get to the story yet,

Mari

09-26-2005, 01:12 PM

found a couple of mentions on news.google.com, like this one..

Cindy Sheehan arrested during protest in front of White House

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Police arrested Cindy Sheehan during an anti-war protest in front of the White House.

Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.

Sheehan was the first taken into custody. She stood up and was led to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

Sheehan is an anti-Iraq War activist who attracted international attention in August for her extended demonstration outside President George W. Bush's Texas ranch. Her public activism began as a reaction to the death of her son, US Army Specialist Casey Sheehan, in Iraq, according to the community encyclopedia Web site Wikipedia.

http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050926/NEWS/50926014

gldstwmn

09-26-2005, 01:15 PM

Thanks Mari!

DavidMn

09-26-2005, 01:16 PM

seeker007nmss

09-26-2005, 01:17 PM

She got what she wanted...publicity.

Mari

09-26-2005, 01:17 PM

Intimidating protesters is very important, I guess.

DavidMn

09-26-2005, 01:19 PM

She got what she wanted...publicity.
That may be true, but I just don't see her as being a threat to anyone. WHat do I know though?

mylittledemon

09-26-2005, 01:22 PM

I wonder if her dead son would be proud of what she is doing.

DavidMn

09-26-2005, 01:23 PM

I wonder if her dead son would be proud of what she is doing.
That's a hot pic there. LOVE IT!!!! :thumbsup:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 01:23 PM

Intimidating protesters is very important, I guess.

Well, that is not what they were doing. I assume it is illegal to squat on a public sidewalk, esp. in front of the WH. So, she was correctly cited for failing to move on - as anyone would have been.

I also suggest her arrest was her intent. Otherwise why would she be there knowing that they were going to tell her to move on. Also, it is not like this poor woman is in control of this. She is being used - albeit willingly - by the far far left, who I can assure you has organized a huge campaing for her that involves about a dozen lawyers all earning $250 + per hour.

In the end, I fell sorry for her loss. But, I also feel sorry that she has let these creeps use her like this to get their message out. But, maybe it is her message now as well. In the end, it does not matter because public perception of her, which is all the powers controlling her really care about, is unfavorable.

Interestingly, if she meets with W, what is she going to do, yell at him. If she does, what does that solve? I suggest nothing because she will continue her crusade even after that.

Note - W is an a$$ in general and also for not meeting with her in the beginning of this.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 01:25 PM

I wonder if her dead son would be proud of what she is doing.

Did you know her son? I did not. She did. Thus, I think she is a better judge of knowing what her son would have wanted than you are :shrug:

dissention

09-26-2005, 01:26 PM

I wonder if her dead son would be proud of what she is doing.

How droll.

mylittledemon

09-26-2005, 01:27 PM

Did you know her son? I did not. She did. Thus, I think she is a better judge of knowing what her son would have wanted than you are :shrug:

I didn't make any judgements for him. I specifically said "I WONDER what her son would think"

Besides....the boy signed up to be in the service, if he was expecting to never SERVE then he was in the wrong line of work. I'm sorry that he died, it's a shame, but I think when parents do what she is doing it dishonors their memory.

DavidMn

09-26-2005, 01:28 PM

Oh well, I guess the D.C cops have found their "Terrorist."

mylittledemon

09-26-2005, 01:31 PM

How droll.

I hope you didn't find what I said to be humorous.

dissention

09-26-2005, 01:32 PM

Besides....the boy signed up to be in the service, if he was expecting to never SERVE then he was in the wrong line of work.

It's kind of a given that when you sign up for service, you have faith that your life is only going to be jeopardized when it's necessary and won't be sent to die based on lies and misinformation, or for political reasons.

I'm sorry that he died, it's a shame, but I think when parents do what she is doing it dishonors their memory.

Yeah, it's such a dishonorable thing to protest the needless deaths of innocent people.

mylittledemon

09-26-2005, 01:34 PM

It's kind of a given that when you sign up for service, you have faith that your life is only going to be jeopardized when it's necessary and won't be sent to die based on lies and misinformation, or for political reasons.

If he found his service to be truly unecessary, I believe he would have left the service and been discharged. You're looking at it from a one-sided perspective.

mylittledemon

09-26-2005, 01:35 PM

It's kind of a given that when you sign up for service, you have faith that your life is only going to be jeopardized when it's necessary and won't be sent to die based on lies and misinformation, or for political reasons.

Yeah, it's such a dishonorable thing to protest the needless deaths of innocent people.

Now you're dishonoring the dead boy by saying his death was needless! You should remove the foot from your mouth and quit while you're ahead, and I'm bowing out of this one.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 01:38 PM

I didn't make any judgements for him. I specifically said "I WONDER what her son would think"

Besides....the boy signed up to be in the service, if he was expecting to never SERVE then he was in the wrong line of work. I'm sorry that he died, it's a shame, but I think when parents do what she is doing it dishonors their memory.

But, that begs the question of what war was he fighting? Was it to remove the WMD W and his cronies not only told us were there but that they knew where to find them, to fight the lied about threat of a possible nuclear bomb, etc. That is this woman's point. She is not complaining about going to war for those specific reasons (WMD, nuclear bombs, etc. ) - which is what the Bush Administration told us and most people had no problem fighting for those reasons if they had been true :shrug:

This woman is pissed because after the fact, we learned that not only were those reasons bogus, but the Bush Admin. knew they were bogus and went to war anyway and they now rely solely on the reason that SH was an all around bad guy - which is not really part of the war on terror or the immediate threat that justifies a war, etc. So, it is not that her son enlisted or died thinking he was serving his country - those are honorable things. The dishonor is not on him, but on W and his cronies for sending us to a war we never had to fight.

But, you do not accept that we never had to invade Iraq or that W lied about the reasons for doing so. Moreover, you indicated all dissent in a time of war is wrong. So, I think this point is lost on you :cool:

DavidMn

09-26-2005, 01:40 PM

I just dont get why it's a big deal if she goes there to express her feelings. I mean, she's not threatning anyone the last time I checked. WHether I agree with her or not, this is a free country.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 01:43 PM

If he found his service to be truly unecessary, I believe he would have left the service and been discharged. You're looking at it from a one-sided perspective.

Well, with respect, so are you.

Don't you think it is possible this poor young guy thought he was going to war for the reasons W told us and that he was protecting his country from the immediate threat W told us SH posed, which we now know was a lie. He was not there for that reason. W put him there to face his death based on lies and manipulation. But and again and with repsect, I do not think you acknowledge that W lied about the war in Iraq, which makes a discussion of the facts somewhat difficult.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 01:45 PM

I just dont get why it's a big deal if she goes there to express her feelings. I mean, she's not threatning anyone the last time I checked. WHether I agree with her or not, this is a free country.

You cannot camp out on the sidewalk of the WH, just like you cannot camp out on the sidewalk in front of any public building. The police will arrest you for failure to move on.

Again, this woman did this with the sole intent of getting arrested as there is no way the powers controlling her thought the police would say "Oh - hey - its Cindy S. - let's let her stay and protest."

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 01:47 PM

Now you're dishonoring the dead boy by saying his death was needless! You should remove the foot from your mouth and quit while you're ahead, and I'm bowing out of this one.

His death was needless. All facts demonstrate we never needed to invade Iraq despite W's lies to the contrary.

GateandGarden

09-26-2005, 01:47 PM

Well, with respect, so are you.

Don't you think it is possible this poor young guy thought he was going to war for the reasons W told us and that he was protecting his country from the immediate threat W told us SH posed, which we now know was a lie. He was not there for that reason. W put him there to face his death based on lies and manipulation. But and again and with repsect, I do not think you acknowledge that W lied about the war in Iraq, which makes a discussion of the facts somewhat difficult.I have to agree with this.

Also, I can't help but agree with Josh when he says that those deaths (including Sheehan's son's) were needless. I mean no disrespect to the soldiers when I make that assertion; I mean disrepect to the administration.

DavidMn

09-26-2005, 01:48 PM

You cannot camp out on the sidewalk of the WH, just like you cannot camp out on the sidewalk in front of any public building. The police will arrest you for failure to move on.

Again, this woman did this with the sole intent of getting arrested as there is no way the powers controlling her thought the police would say "Oh - hey - its Cindy S. - let's let her stay and protest."
Yeah, you're probably right. I know security concerns are a lot higher now. So maybe it was a publicity stunt on her part. I probably need to be more cynical? :sorry:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 01:49 PM

Yeah, you're probably right. I know security concerns are a lot higher now. So maybe it was a publicity stunt on her part. I probably need to be more cynical? :sorry:

You are fine the way you are :wavey:

GateandGarden

09-26-2005, 01:51 PM

You are fine the way you are :wavey:I agree. There's probably too much cynicism in this world, David. :xoxo:

DavidMn

09-26-2005, 01:51 PM

You are fine the way you are :wavey:
Hey I jsut try to keep an open mind I guess. I know my kind are sort of a dying breed. :wavey:

DavidMn

09-26-2005, 01:53 PM

I have to agree with this.

Also, I can't help but agree with Josh when he says that those deaths (including Sheehan's son's) were needless. I mean no disrespect to the soldiers when I make that assertion; I mean disrepect to the administration.
Now that's what I'm talking about. I like how you can differentiate between the soldiers and the administration. Very well said.

SuzeQuze

09-26-2005, 01:54 PM

Well, that is not what they were doing. I assume it is illegal to squat on a public sidewalk, esp. in front of the WH. So, she was correctly cited for failing to move on - as anyone would have been.

I also suggest her arrest was her intent. Otherwise why would she be there knowing that they were going to tell her to move on. Also, it is not like this poor woman is in control of this. She is being used - albeit willingly - by the far far left, who I can assure you has organized a huge campaing for her that involves about a dozen lawyers all earning $250 + per hour.

In the end, I fell sorry for her loss. But, I also feel sorry that she has let these creeps use her like this to get their message out. But, maybe it is her message now as well. In the end, it does not matter because public perception of her, which is all the powers controlling her really care about, is unfavorable.

Interestingly, if she meets with W, what is she going to do, yell at him. If she does, what does that solve? I suggest nothing because she will continue her crusade even after that.

Note - W is an a$$ in general and also for not meeting with her in the beginning of this.

I didn't think that people had a negative view of Sheehan, at least not the majority, I know that some do, but I thought it was just conservatives.

It is illegal for anyone to stop outside of the White House since that idiot was out there with a rifle a few years back. I believe that is what made it illegal - memory is fuzzy.

GateandGarden

09-26-2005, 01:59 PM

Now that's what I'm talking about. I like how you can differentiate between the soldiers and the administration. Very well said.Yeah, it seems that we must specify, because I often find that when I make a comment like that, someone is very quick to say that I'm disrespecting all of those members of the military who were doing their (difficult and admirable) jobs. The last thing I want to do is put this on them, and yet so many people take such comments that way.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 02:01 PM

I didn't think that people had a negative view of Sheehan, at least not the majority, I know that some do, but I thought it was just conservatives.

I seem to remember reading a poll somewhere that said that.

I think people are sorry she lost her son, but see her as doing antics to get publicity for a larger cause and that this has gone way beyond her asking for reasons for why she post her son. I many ways that is correct because, again, let's say W meets with her today and tells her Iraq is part of the big war on terror and then she calls him a no good lying SOB - then the meeting ends. What has that accompolished other that she told him off. He never answered her questions with the answers she wants to hear no matter how right those anwers are. So, what is she going to do, request a second meeting?

SuzeQuze

09-26-2005, 02:11 PM

I seem to remember reading a poll somewhere that said that.

I think people are sorry she lost her son, but see her as doing antics to get publicity for a larger cause and that this has gone way beyond her asking for reasons for why she post her son. I many ways that is correct because, again, let's say W meets with her today and tells her Iraq is part of the big war on terror and then she calls him a no good lying SOB - then the meeting ends. What has that accompolished other that she told him off. He never answered her questions with the answers she wants to hear no matter how right those anwers are. So, what is she going to do, request a second meeting?

She's become a spokesperson for the anti-war movement. People can get behind her, it finally has a voice. She created the momentum. This past weekend's protest was huge, about 300,000 estimated protesters in Washington and more in other cities accross the country.

She wanted the president to tell her what the noble cause was for the war -specifically. If he says "terrorism" it isn't an answer since she knows that isn't true. So she would continue to speak to that. I think her objective has expanded beyond just that now though. She doesn't just want to have that question answered, she wants all other American's sons and daughters in Iraq to come home.

I did find an opion poll on her but it is really close http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Cindy%20Sheehan.htm

Cindy Sheehan: 35% Favorable 38% Unfavorable
Survey of 1,000 Adults

August 17-18, 2005

August 19, 2005--Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who maintained an anti-War protest outside of President Bush's ranch, is viewed favorably by 35% of Americans and unfavorably by 38%.

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.

RasmussenReports.com

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 02:14 PM

^^^^^^

Exactly, and I agree the anti-war camp. found a voice in her - but by accepting that part and by also speaking out on many issues other than her son's betrayal, she lost some of the sympathy many had for her. They see her now as more than just a grieving mother who the Pres. refuses to meet with. And they are correct. She has become more than that. I am not saying that is a bad thing, it just is.

dissention

09-26-2005, 02:14 PM

Forty-two percent (42%) of men and 34% of women have an unfavorable view.

Shocking. :lol:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 02:17 PM

Yeah, it seems that we must specify, because I often find that when I make a comment like that, someone is very quick to say that I'm disrespecting all of those members of the military who were doing their (difficult and admirable) jobs. The last thing I want to do is put this on them, and yet so many people take such comments that way.

I think they are brainwashed by the likes of Fox News and also have the inherent feeling of trust and pride that we all have or want to be able to have.

I also think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. I mean if that whole "we cannot speak out in dissent in a time of war" were to taken to an extreme, then why not have a dictator. Dissent is a solidly American ideal to be treasured - just ask the Founding Fathers :cool:

SuzeQuze

09-26-2005, 02:22 PM

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 02:22 PM

Here is the pic.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/strandinthewind/story.jpg

Personally, they should have been arrested for wearind pink elephant suits :laugh:

Sheehan arrested in front of White House

Civil disobedience meant to protest Iraq war

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has used her son's death in Iraq to spur the anti-war movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.

Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.

Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She stood up and was handcuffed, then led to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

Others who were arrested also cooperated with police. Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor.

Park Police Sgt. L.J. McNally said Sheehan and the others would be taken to a processing center where they would be fingerprinted and photographed, then given a ticket and released. The process would take several hours, he said.

Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in an ambush in Sadr City, Iraq, last year. She attracted worldwide attention last month with her 26-day vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

Sheehan was among several hundred demonstrators who marched around the White House on Monday and then stopped in front and began singing and chanting "Stop the war now!" Organizers had said some planned to be arrested.

The demonstration is part of a broader anti-war effort on Capitol Hill organized by United for Peace and Justice, an umbrella group. Representatives from anti-war groups were meeting Monday with members of Congress to urge them to work to end the war and bring home the troops.

The protest following a massive demonstration Saturday on the National Mall that drew a crowd of 100,000 or more, the largest such gathering in the capital since the war began in March 2003.

On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq.

"I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan and her supporters don't be a group of unthinking lemmings. It's not pretty," said Mitzy Kenny of Ridgeley, West Virginia, whose husband died in Iraq last year. The anti-war demonstrations "can affect the war in a really negative way. It gives the enemy hope."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/wardemonstrations.ap/index.html

SuzeQuze

09-26-2005, 02:23 PM

Shocking. :lol:

:lol: I thought the same. Still, its only 3% different, I don't know what the margin of error was but it may even be within that.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 02:25 PM

Perhaps she lost some ground, I'm not sure, but I have a feeling support for her will grow.

I wish support for the anti-war movement would grow - I do not really care about her.

SuzeQuze

09-26-2005, 02:32 PM

I wish support for the anti-war movement would grow - I do not really care about her.

If there were 100,000 anti-war protestors, and 500 at the rally in support of the war, that may be indicative of more joining the effort. The pro folks only had 5% of the numbers the anti-war folks had.

SuzeQuze

09-26-2005, 02:48 PM

"Oddly" trains heading south from NY and Boston over on Sat were haulted due to an "electrical problem". Conspiracy? :shrug:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 02:52 PM

"Oddly" trains heading south from NY and Boston over on Sat were haulted due to an "electrical problem". Conspiracy? :shrug:

I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up - also, I think they halted the metro in D.C. :eek:

Personally, I think stories like this are BS, but I would put nothing past W and his cronies as lying to go to war pretty much takes the cake and everything else is just downhill from there.

BTFLCHLD

09-26-2005, 02:55 PM

well...at one time they allowed people to camp outside the whitehouse...i understand for security purposes it cant be done now...but if anything i thought it was a good morning eye-opener for any person in office to have his morning brew with the sight of homeless america housed in cardboard :wavey:

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 02:58 PM

Note - W is an a$$ in general and also for not meeting with her in the beginning of this.

Ms. Cindy Sheehan said during an interview sometime last month I believe that she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." Hmmm...It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her. :shrug:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 03:15 PM

Cindy Sheehan:

It's so great to be here.

Last year when you guys had your convention in Boston, my son had only been dead a few months, and we were really honored because the Santa Barbara chapter took my daughter's poem A Nation Rocked to Sleep, (and they did it again this year), and I remember Michael Cervantes, he brought the booklet over to our house and showed it to us, and I never dreamed in a year I'd be standing here in front of you as one of the speakers at your convention, I never dreamed I'd be doing this at all, but isn't it weird what life hands you.

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.

I got an email yesterday - - If you guys heard I just had a story published that talks about - - it's called Where Do I Live?, it talks about an Iranian-American who got the shaft because a recruiter liked him, and the recruiter falsified his paperwork, so he ended up in prison.

He's been in prison since November without due process.

Another mother whose son was found dead in Iraq, they told her that he died from a drug overdose. Three months later, they got the toxicology report; no drugs. She was devastated, she said, "I know my son, he did not do drugs." She was told that her son's wife and his battle buddies said in a report that yes, her son abused drugs in Iraq. But when she got that report it said categorically that no, he did not abuse drugs. So how did her son die?

And then there's Kevin and Monica Benderman. Kevin did exactly the right thing and got 15 months in prison. Whereas like Dahr said, the war criminals in Washington, D.C., they don't even lose a night's sleep.

Then we have this lying bastard, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war. You know what? I'm never going to get to enjoy another vacation, because of him.

My vacation probably - -this is really sad because I have a really cute dress I was going to wear to the banquet tomorrow night, but I'm either gonna be in jail or in a tent in Crawford, waiting until that jerk comes out and tells me why my son died.

Anyway, I got an email, I kinda got off track, a man emailed me yesterday, I get contacted by all kinds of people with their stories, and he said Cindy, I read everything you write, I read it on LewRockwell.com, he said, "I get tears in my eyes, but today I cried real tears, and I screamed, because my dear sweet nineteen ear-old cousin was killed in Iraq."

And he said, "Cindy, why didn't I save him? Why didn't I knock him out, why didn't I take him to Canada?" and I wrote him back and I said, "You know what? We all think that."

I said to my son not to go. I said, you know it's wrong, you know you're going over there. You know your unit might have to kill innocent people, you know you might die. And he says, "My buddies are going, I have to go." He said, "If I don't go someone's going to have to do my job, and my buddies will be in danger."

So what really gets me is these chickenhawks, who sent our kids to die, without ever serving in a war themselves. They don't know what it's all about.

30 of our bravest young men have already died this month, and it's only the 5th of August. And the tragedy of the marines in Ohio is awful.

But do you guys remember back in March when we were having our 2nd year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq which was pre-empted by Terry Schiavo, so that's all that was on the news, not 5,000 of us in Fayetteville, Wolf Blitzer said it was insignificant, but they put Terry Schiavo on, and I wrote something then called The Amazing Hypocrites and I asked why does she deserve life more than my son, and the Iraqi people? And more than the other people that this war has killed.

But do you think George Bush will interrupt his vacation and go visit the families of those 20 marines that have died in Ohio this week? No, because he doesn't care, he doesn't have a heart. That's not enough to stop his little playing cowboy' game in Crawford for 5 weeks.

So, as you can imagine, the grieving parents who lost - - lost, I don't like to use that word, whose child was murdered, it's extremely difficult, you can't even get a small scab on our wound, because every day it rips open. Every day, I don't know why I do it because I already know that war is ugly, I already know that war is hard. But I open up the DOD site to see, who became an angel, while I was sleeping.

And that rips my heart open, because I know there is another mother whose life is going to be ruined that day. So we can't even begin to heal.

So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, he said a couple things that outraged me.

Seriously outraged me.

And I know I don't look like I'm outraged, I'm always so calm and everything, that's because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop til it was dead. So I can't even start, cause I know how dangerous that would be, but George Bush was talking, and he never mentioned the terrible incident of those marines, but he did say, that the families of the ones who have been killed can rest assured that their loved ones died for a noble cause.

And, he also said, he says this often, and this really drives me crazy, he said that we have to stay in Iraq and complete the mission, to honor the sacrifices of the ones who have fallen.

And I say, why should I want one more mother to go through what I've gone through, because my son is dead. You know what, the only way he can honor my son's sacrifice is to bring the rest of the troops home. To make my son's death count for peace and love, and not war and hatred like he stands for.

I don't want him using my son's death or my family's sacrifice to continue the killing. I don't want him to exploit the honor of my son and others to continue the killing. They sent these honorable people to die, and are so dishonorable themselves.

So, as many of you have heard, and I didn't mean to cause any problems with the convention, but I was writing an email to everybody, and I was so mad, like I said, and I just had this brainstorm, I'm going to Dallas, I don't know where Crawford is. I've been in Texas, Casey was stationed at Fort Hood. I drove from northern California to Fort Hood one time, it took like, 30 hours. And I thought, I could be driving for days to get from Dallas to Crawford!

But I don't care, I'm goin'. And I'm gonna tell them, "You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who's blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."

And I'm gonna say, "OK, listen here, George. #1, you quit, and I demand, every time you get out there and say you're going to continue the killing in Iraq to honor the fallen heroes by continuing the mission; you say, except Casey Sheehan.'"

"And you say except for all the members of Goldstar Families for Peace' cuz we think not one drop of blood should be spilled in our families' names. You quit doing that. You don't have my permission."

And I'm gonna say, "And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for." And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, bull****.

You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.'

Cuz, we're not freer. You're taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren't freer, they're much worse off than before you meddled in their country.

You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine

(massive round of applause)

And if you think I won't say bull**** to the President, I say move on, cuz I'll say what's on my mind.

So, what's gonna happen? I started this, I thought it was gonna be just me and my sister driving to Crawford, but it kind of mushroomed and people from as far away as Dayton, Ohio are coming, to help us, to stand behind us, because I travel all over the country, I speak, I write, I get feedback on my writing, and just in the little over a year that I've been doing this, I've seen a major turnaround in this country.

People don't just want to hear it, they want to know, what can we do?

What can we do to get him out of power? And I'm gonna say the I' word. Impeach. And we have to have everybody impeached that lied to the American public, and that's the executive branch, and any people in congress, and we gotta go all the way down and we might have to go all the way down to the person who picks up the dog**** in Washington because

We can't let somebody rise to the top who will pardon these war criminals. Because they need to go to prison for what they've done in this world. We can't have a pardon. They need to pay for what they've done.

So anyway, I'm gonna go to Crawford tomorrow, and I'm gonna say I want to talk to him, and they say, he's not coming out, I'm gonna set up my tent there until he comes out to talk to me.

And I have the whole month of August off, just like him. It's just the way it worked out, I was supposed to go to England tomorrow to do some Downing Street things, but Conyers cancelled, so hey, I have a lot of free time on my hands, and I'm gonna stay until he comes out and talks to me. And if he quits his vacation and goes to D.C., I'll pull my tent up, I'll go to D.C., and put it on the White House lawn, and I'll be waiting for you guys when you get there September 24th.

Another thing that I'm doing is - - my son was killed in 2004, so I'm not paying my taxes for 2004. If I get a letter from the IRS, I'm gonna say, you know what, this war is illegal; this is why this war is illegal. This war is immoral; this is why this war is immoral. You killed my son for this. I don't owe you anything. And if I live to be a million, I won't owe you a penny.

And I want them to come after me, because unlike what you've been doing with the war resistance, I want to put this frickin' war on trial. And I want to say, "You give me my son, and I'll pay your taxes."

I live in Vacaville, come and get me if you can find me there and put me on trial, because like Camilo (Mejia), Camilo knew what was right. And he went to prison for that. And Henry David Thoreau he went to prison, he refused to pay his poll tax, and Emerson, I call them HT and RW, and RW came to visit HT and said what are you doing here, buddy? And HT said, why aren't you here? This is the only place for a moral person in an immoral world.

It's up to us, the people, to break immoral laws, and resist. As soon as the leaders of a country lie to you, they have no authority over you. These maniacs have no authority over us. And they might be able to put our bodies in prison, but they can't put our spirits in prison. And I know that Camilo came out a much stronger person, he's one of my heroes, it's great a row of heroes in front of me here.

And everyone gave such great testimony this evening, I have to wonder, why do we keep doing this to each other? Why do we let this continue time and time again, why do let it happen? And it's because our country, is so good at demonizing people, I still have relatives from WWII that still call Japanese people Japs'. And we demonize the Iraqi people, where, most of this country doesn't even think we're killing innocent people.

Because, "Oh Cindy, don't you remember what happened on September 11th?"

"Yeah, but, were any of those people in Iraq? And the people who flew those planes into the Trade Center, where they from Iraq?"

When I was growing up, it was Communists'. Now it's Terrorists'. So you always have to have somebody to fight and be afraid of, so the war machine can build more bombs, guns, and bullets and everything.

But I do see hope. I see hope in this country. 58% of the American public are with us. We're preaching to the choir, but the choir's not singing, if all of the 58% started singing, this war would end.

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."

But whatever side you fall on, quit being on the fence.

The opposite of good is not evil, it's apathy. And we have to get this country off their butts, and we have to get the choir singing.

We need to say, bring our troops home now.

We can't depend on the people in charge bringing our troops home.

Because you don't plan on bringing the troops home when you drop so much of the reconstruction money into building permanent bases.

I was hoping to come to the banquet tomorrow night, but unless George comes out and talks to me, I'll be camping at Crawford.

Thank you.

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

SuzeQuze

09-26-2005, 04:24 PM

I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up - also, I think they halted the metro in D.C. :eek:

Personally, I think stories like this are BS, but I would put nothing past W and his cronies as lying to go to war pretty much takes the cake and everything else is just downhill from there.

I know, you just can't verify something like this but it makes you wonder. There was a time I wouldn't have believed a company would create a blackout on purpose.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 04:25 PM

I know, you just can't verify something like this but it makes you wonder. There was a time I wouldn't have believed a company would create a blackout on purpose.

I agree - cuz ya know I am soooo the conspiracy theorist at heart :nod: -- but I have to keep it in check as I am prone to look nuts about it :laugh:

SuzeQuze

09-26-2005, 04:25 PM

Ms. Cindy Sheehan said during an interview sometime last month I believe that she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." Hmmm...It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her. :shrug:

Do you have proof?

SuzeQuze

09-26-2005, 04:27 PM

I agree - cuz ya know I am soooo the conspiracy theorist at heart :nod: -- but I have to keep it in check as I am prone to look nuts about it :laugh:

You're a conspiracy theorist? :eek: Well you mask it well with your seemingly level-headed writing. I know that I am and I have to reel it in too. :lol:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 04:29 PM

You're a conspiracy theorist? :eek: Well you mask it well with your seemingly level-headed writing. I know that I am and I have to reel it in too. :lol:

LOL - I have to force myself to look at the facts. For example, I actually have a few with a fellow CT the other night and we discussed the possibility of creating a Hurricane to leeen the D presence in NOLA :eek: At the time, it seemed like a coherent and rational discussion - in the light of day, however . . . :eek:

SuzeQuze

09-26-2005, 04:33 PM

LOL - I have to force myself to look at the facts. For example, I actually have a few with a fellow CT the other night and we discussed the possibility of creating a Hurricane to leeen the D presence in NOLA :eek: At the time, it seemed like a coherent and rational discussion - in the light of day, however . . . :eek:

Pulling numbers out of my butt - 10-25% of theorized conspiracies are probably true. :eek: :lol: But not the hurricane one! If we could control a hurricane then I think it would be steered AWAY from cities. It can't be controlled. Ah but you know that, that was the vodka talking. ;)

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 04:53 PM

Pulling numbers out of my butt - 10-25% of theorized conspiracies are probably true. :eek: :lol: But not the hurricane one! If we could control a hurricane then I think it would be steered AWAY from cities. It can't be controlled. Ah but you know that, that was the vodka talking. ;)

Well, it was mixed with like five margaritas :laugh: WEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 05:13 PM

Do you have proof?

I'm trying to find it. I believe it was in one of her posts or an interview. I found the quote but not the source...

edit:

So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, he said a couple things that outraged me. Seriously outraged me. And I know I don’t look like I’m outraged, I’m always so calm and everything, that’s because if I started hitting something, I wouldn’t stop ‘til it was dead. So I can’t even start, cause I know how dangerous that would be, but George Bush was talking, and he never mentioned the terrible incident of those marines, but he did say, that the families of the ones who have been killed can rest assured that their loved ones died for a noble cause.

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

She makes statements about how this country "isn't worth dying for", yet obviously there are some things she'd be willing to kill for.

gldstwmn

09-26-2005, 05:24 PM

Here is the pic.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/strandinthewind/story.jpg

Personally, they should have been arrested for wearind pink elephant suits :laugh:

The name of their organization is "Code Pink." :rolleyes:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 07:31 PM

The name of their organization is "Code Pink." :rolleyes:

Well, that is even more unfortunate for them :laugh:

Seriously, I get that they are doing a good thing - but "think pink" - really :laugh:

dissention

09-26-2005, 07:39 PM

She makes statements about how this country "isn't worth dying for",

It isn't. :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 08:12 PM

It isn't. :laugh:

Well that really wasn't my point. She makes statements like that and preaches on and on about peace...but then talks about how she would beat someone to death? I think Mr. Bush is rather smart in not wanting to meet with her. :nod:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:13 PM

It isn't. :laugh:

Alrighty - please comment in those pink outfits :laugh:

dissention

09-26-2005, 08:18 PM

Well that really wasn't my point. She makes statements like that and preaches on and on about peace...but then talks about how she would beat someone to death? I think Mr. Bush is rather smart in not wanting to meet with her. :nod:

He's an idiot for not meeting with her, considering his numbers are in the toilet regarding Iraq and the majority of the country wants those kids back home.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:22 PM

He's an idiot for not meeting with her, considering his numbers are in the toilet regarding Iraq and the majority of the country wants those kids back home.

I have to say I agree. In the beginning, if he had met with her and she told him off, he could have played that to his advantage. Even if not, then he could at least say he met with her and tried to explain, but her grief is in the way. Who can say for sure what the result would have been, but we know the result of not meeting with her along with the current events has been disasterous for W. But, he made that bed - so let him lie in it.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 08:24 PM

He's an idiot for not meeting with her, considering his numbers are in the toilet regarding Iraq and the majority of the country wants those kids back home.

An idiot who values his ears (all the screeching) and face (all the "beating-to-death)...so therefore a smart guy in my books!

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 08:25 PM

I have to say I agree. In the beginning, if he had met with her and she told him off, he could have played that to his advantage. Even if not, then he could at least say he met with her and tried to explain, but her grief is in the way. Who can say for sure what the result would have been, but we know the result of not meeting with her along with the current events has been disasterous for W. But, he made that bed - so let him lie in it.

But now Ms. Clinton said she would like to meet with her...

good luck sweet!

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 08:27 PM

In the end, it does not matter because public perception of her, which is all the powers controlling her really care about, is unfavorable.
you think so? how many HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people joined with her in her march this past weekend and only 500 or so mustered in support of the war? and you think public perception of her is unfavorable? And I suppose you think Monkey Boy is actually well liked too? :shrug:

macfanken

09-26-2005, 08:30 PM

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:30 PM

you think so? how many HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people joined with her in her march this past weekend and only 500 or so mustered in support of the war? and you think public perception of her is unfavorable? And I suppose you think Monkey Boy is actually well liked too? :shrug:

Well, I am just going by the polls, which reflect a cross section of America. The hundreds of thousands (actually, I think it was right at 100,000) are not diverse - they all have the same purpose. But, I agree the anti-war effort is building steam - I just question how much this woman has to do with it as opposed to Americans tiring of the incompetency of W in Iraq and in general. The two thoughts are not necessarily related - though they could be. In other words, if Cindy S. did not exist, would there be this tiring of the war. I think there would be. Thus, I question her relevancy or at least her replaceability.

Interestingly, the D's must trread very carefully here as the majority of them who voted for the war and outright advocated for it have the same blood on their hands - though you may excuse them by casting some form of alleged ingnorance by them of W's eventual plans.

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 08:31 PM

but the Bush Admin. knew they were bogus and went to war anyway

HAH! I knew it! out of your own mouth too! what I was saying all along and now we have this golden admission *doing the "Jason just admitted it dance*

dissention

09-26-2005, 08:33 PM

But now Ms. Clinton said she would like to meet with her...

good luck sweet!

She already did meet with her, sweets.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:33 PM

HAH! I knew it! out of your own mouth too! what I was saying all along and now we have this golden admission *doing the "Jason just admitted it dance*

I have always maintained that since it was known.

Where you and I differ is you are willing to excuse Clinton for bombing these people based on essentially the same evidence - I am not, esp. considering he still advocates Iraq had WMD. You always get this confused.

dissention

09-26-2005, 08:34 PM

Interestingly, the D's must trread very carefully here as the majority of them who voted for the war and outright advocated for it have the same blood on their hands

Bingo.

Republicans, Democrats, blah blah. There's no real difference that I can spot.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:35 PM

She already did meet with her, sweets.

Interestingly, did she level her same disgust at Hillary - whose husband also killed in the name of the WMD claim and I believe she voted for the war :shrug: If you do not know - I can look it up.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:36 PM

Bingo.

Republicans, Democrats, blah blah. There's no real difference that I can spot.

I think Mary is going to provide her same - they didn't know - retort for us :laugh:

dissention

09-26-2005, 08:37 PM

Interestingly, did she level her same disgust at Hillary - whose husband also killed in the name of the WMD claim and I believe she voted for the war :shrug: If you do not know - I can look it up.

Oh, I know all about it. Sheehan was very tough on her and DLC Hillary did her usual scripted routine. Same old ****, different day. Hillary Clinton makes me physically ill.

dissention

09-26-2005, 08:39 PM

I think Mary is going to provide her same - they didn't know - retort for us :laugh:

They didn't know? :laugh:

Yeah, and Clinton didn't willingly stick his appendage in Lewinsky's mouth, a giant gust of air knocked him over on top of her and it just ended up in there.

macfanken

09-26-2005, 08:41 PM

Well, I am just going by the polls, which reflect a cross section of America. The hundreds of thousands (actually, I think it was right at 100,000) are not diverse - they all have the same purpose. But, I agree the anti-war effort is building steam - I just question how much this woman has to do with it as opposed to Americans tiring of the incompetency of W in Iraq and in general. The two thoughts are not necessarily related - though they could be. In other words, if Cindy S. did not exist, would there be this tiring of the war. I think there would be. Thus, I question her relevancy or at least her replaceability.

I agree... I don't think Cindy S. has a lot to do with the current feeling in this country. I think average Americans are FINALLY waking up to the fact that they were lied to and that thousands are dying because of the lies. I think this would have happened eventually, with or without Cindy S.

BTW... there was a large anti-war protest here in Seattle over the weekend. :thumbsup:

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 08:41 PM

She already did meet with her, sweets.

Did I miss that? When did that happen...

oh boy I feel out of the loop!

macfanken

09-26-2005, 08:43 PM

I have always maintained that since it was known.

Where you and I differ is you are willing to excuse Clinton for bombing these people based on essentially the same evidence - I am not, esp. considering he still advocates Iraq had WMD. You always get this confused.

Oh f***, we're not going there again... are we? :eek: :laugh:

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 08:44 PM

There was a time I wouldn't have believed a company would create a blackout on purpose.
I knew it when it was happening, believe me it wasnt pretty. There's evil afoot...

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:46 PM

Oh f***, we're not going there again... are we? :eek: :laugh:

No - we are not - we are instead in a hot air ballon on the way to Dublin for Edinburgh and I am having a cosmo, smoking a fag, and signing O' Danny Boy and I am sproting an antler horn for Mary and Tower is playing with it :cool:

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 08:47 PM

Well, I am just going by the polls, which reflect a cross section of America. The hundreds of thousands (actually, I think it was right at 100,000) are not diverse - they all have the same purpose. But, I agree the anti-war effort is building steam - I just question how much this woman has to do with it as opposed to Americans tiring of the incompetency of W in Iraq and in general. The two thoughts are not necessarily related - though they could be. In other words, if Cindy S. did not exist, would there be this tiring of the war. I think there would be. Thus, I question her relevancy or at least her replaceability.

Interestingly, the D's must trread very carefully here as the majority of them who voted for the war and outright advocated for it have the same blood on their hands - though you may excuse them by casting some form of alleged ingnorance by them of W's eventual plans.

personally, I think people need a figurehead to rally around. You and I dont like the war but we werent getting media attention and drawing people to our cause were we? the cause needed a leader and she fit the bill. I see no problem with that.

dissention

09-26-2005, 08:48 PM

No - we are not - we are instead in a hot air ballon on the way to Dublin for Edinburgh and I am having a cosmo, smoking a fag, and signing O' Danny Boy and I am sproting an antler horn for Mary and Tower is playing with it :cool:

I'd rather go to the other place again, then. :cool:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:48 PM

personally, I think people need a figurehead to rally around. You and I dont like the war but we werent getting media attention and drawing people to our cause were we? the cause needed a leader and she fit the bill. I see no problem with that.

Me either - and I am not disputing she was one. I just think she is somewhat marginalized by her attempt for broader appeal. But, time will tell :cool:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:49 PM

I'd rather go to the other place again, then. :cool:

Listen Butt In Betty - you are not invited to our soiree - though Sparky is :p

Of course, if you wear a harlequin outfit and carry a diamond patch ball, we may reconsider :cool:

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 08:51 PM

No - we are not - we are instead in a hot air ballon on the way to Dublin for Edinburgh and I am having a cosmo, smoking a fag, and signing O' Danny Boy and I am sproting an antler horn for Mary and Tower is playing with it :cool:

ooooh you are SO lucky I saw this post before I answered the other one (otherwise we would be headed for MARS my friend!) but, I like your idea better :woohoo:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:52 PM

ooooh you are SO lucky I saw this post before I answered the other one (otherwise we would be headed for MARS my friend!) but, I like your idea better :woohoo:

O Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen and down the mountainside
The summer's gone and all the roses falling
'Tis you, 'tis you must go and I must bide.
But come ye back when summer's in the meadow
Or when the valley's hushed and white with snow
'Tis I'll be here in sunshine or in shadow
O Danny boy, O Danny boy, I love you so.

But if ye come and all the flowers are dying
If I am dead, as dead I well may be,
You'll come and find the place where I am lying
And kneel and say an Ave there for me.

And I shall hear, though soft, your tread above me
And all my grave shall warmer, sweeter be
For you will bend and tell me that you love me
And I will sleep in peace until you come to me.

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 08:53 PM

O Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen and down the mountainside
The summer's gone and all the roses falling
'Tis you, 'tis you must go and I must bide.

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Thanks you gave me wonderful memories of Courtney Love singing that to David Letterman while standing on his desk flashing her boobs...priceless

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:55 PM

Thanks you gave me wonderful memories of Courtney Love singing that to David Letterman while standing on his desk flashing her boobs...priceless

LMAO -Bless her Heart - palpitating from Tina as is was :laugh:

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 08:55 PM

O Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen and down the mountainside
The summer's gone and all the roses falling
'Tis you, 'tis you must go and I must bide.
But come ye back when summer's in the meadow
Or when the valley's hushed and white with snow
'Tis I'll be here in sunshine or in shadow
O Danny boy, O Danny boy, I love you so.

But if ye come and all the flowers are dying
If I am dead, as dead I well may be,
You'll come and find the place where I am lying
And kneel and say an Ave there for me.

And I shall hear, though soft, your tread above me
And all my grave shall warmer, sweeter be
For you will bend and tell me that you love me
And I will sleep in peace until you come to me.

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

I swear, I got goosebumps just from hearing the song in my head....very nice :xoxo:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:56 PM

I swear, I got goosebumps just from hearing the song in my head....very nice :xoxo:

Did I mention my two black Scottie bitches will be accompanying me :cool:

Dreammms

09-26-2005, 08:58 PM

Thanks you gave me wonderful memories of Courtney Love singing that to David Letterman while standing on his desk flashing her boobs...priceless

:laugh: :laugh: too funny

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 08:58 PM

Did I mention my two black Scottie bitches will be accompanying me :cool:
Can I bring my cat O'Brien? (Seamus O'Brien is his full name :) )

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 08:59 PM

Can I bring my cat O'Brien? (Seamus O'Brien is his full name :) )

Yes, but the Scotties will take an agressive interest in you pussy and may try to bite it.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 09:00 PM

Another thing that bugs me...

"I wonder if the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up today to protest this war and George’s failed policies know that they don’t exist." - Cindy Sheehan

<img src="http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20050924/i/r1123866861.jpg?x=380&y=253&sig=CtjK9scPLBEKlJOGdoKj4A--">

No, Cindy, none of these people beyond say 10-15,000 actually exist.

<img src="http://www.lacoliseum.com/content/1/home/coliseumtitle.jpg">

As a point of reference, this is what a crowd of 100,000 people looks like. (The Los Angeles Coliseum, whose seating capacity is actually only 93,000.)

<img src="http://www.now.org/images/nnt/200405/march.jpg">

In fact yesterday’s rally was about the same size or probably even less than the other rallies ANSWER has staged over the last few years.

Compare the photos from ANSWER’s rally to a march that most agree reached into the hundreds of thousands, March for Women’s Lives rally, held in April 2004.

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 09:00 PM

Yes, but the Scotties will take an agressive interest in you pussy and may try to bite it.

Not to worry, he fights pit bulls....he's one of the fightin' Irish :thumbsup:

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:00 PM

:laugh: :laugh: too funny

She does have nice boobs too..lol..although they are fake...and she claims she got them done on West Paces Ferry Rd. in Atlanta...u know where that is dont u Strand?

Chris

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 09:02 PM

She does have nice boobs too..lol..although they are fake...and she claims she got them done on West Paces Ferry Rd. in Atlanta...u know where that is dont u Strand?

Chris

I am pretty sure I know that doctor - but I have never had any work done - though I would like to have my entire stomach removed :laugh:

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 09:03 PM

brwn_eyes, what is your point?

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:04 PM

I am pretty sure I know that doctor - but I have never had any work done - though I would like to have my entire stomach removed :laugh:

I knew u were familiar with Paces Ferry atleast

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 09:06 PM

brwn_eyes, what is your point?

My point is that I'm not really seeing the "epic" demonstration that everyone keeps talking about? A lot showed up...true...but it is being discussed like it was the largest turn out for a protest...ever.

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:08 PM

My point is that I'm not really seeing the "epic" demonstration that everyone keeps talking about? A lot showed up...true...but it is being discussed like it was the largest turn out for a protest...ever.

No but it was the largest anti war protest here since the begin of the war...

Chris

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 09:10 PM

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 09:12 PM

I knew u were familiar with Paces Ferry atleast

Chris

LOL - I used to live a block off of it on Slaton :cool:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 09:13 PM

by the way: Jason? just so you know you didnt dodge any bullets, two things

1) you believed Bush about the WMD to start with and only changed your tune when the inspectors didnt find any BUT, you had the grace to admit it :)

2) All I ever said about the WMD evidence and Clinton's reliance on it was that Clinton didnt know it was faulty whereas Bush did but started a war anyway. In my book that is two completely different scenarios.

Now, I am perfectly happy to let you serenade all the way to Dublin (via Stonehenge OK?) ar ar the scenic route dontcha know...

O Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen and down the mountainside
The summer's gone and all the roses falling
'Tis you, 'tis you must go and I must bide.
But come ye back when summer's in the meadow
Or when the valley's hushed and white with snow
'Tis I'll be here in sunshine or in shadow
O Danny boy, O Danny boy, I love you so.

But if ye come and all the flowers are dying
If I am dead, as dead I well may be,
You'll come and find the place where I am lying
And kneel and say an Ave there for me.

And I shall hear, though soft, your tread above me
And all my grave shall warmer, sweeter be
For you will bend and tell me that you love me
And I will sleep in peace until you come to me.

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 09:13 PM

My point is that I'm not really seeing the "epic" demonstration that everyone keeps talking about? A lot showed up...true...but it is being discussed like it was the largest turn out for a protest...ever.

I think you misunderstood, but you also underrepresented the numbers, I heard it was several hundred thousand, in DC alone. Thats pretty impressive by anyone's count... :shrug:

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:13 PM

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 09:15 PM

O Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen and down the mountainside
The summer's gone and all the roses falling
'Tis you, 'tis you must go and I must bide.
But come ye back when summer's in the meadow
Or when the valley's hushed and white with snow
'Tis I'll be here in sunshine or in shadow
O Danny boy, O Danny boy, I love you so.

But if ye come and all the flowers are dying
If I am dead, as dead I well may be,
You'll come and find the place where I am lying
And kneel and say an Ave there for me.

And I shall hear, though soft, your tread above me
And all my grave shall warmer, sweeter be
For you will bend and tell me that you love me
And I will sleep in peace until you come to me.
Bless yer pointy head, I can think of no better way to visit the Emerald Isle than to float over the countryside and see the majesty from the air...I wish I knew how to play a tin whistle or uillean pipe or even a lap harp...

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 09:20 PM

Bless yer pointy head, I can think of no better way to visit the Emerald Isle than to float over the countryside and see the majesty from the air...I wish I knew how to play a tin whistle or uillean pipe or even a lap harp...

Considering how long it will take us to be able to afford that trip - you have time to learn :laugh:

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 09:25 PM

Considering how long it will take us to be able to afford that trip - you have time to learn :laugh:
maybe I better go with the tin whistle, I think I can afford that! :D

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:33 PM

Check out this bulletin I got on myspace just now :

"I am SO TIRED of this liberal mindset that President Bush is a racist redneck. I'm also tired of liberals BLAMING President Bush for HURRICANES. I'm sick of hearing about what we've "done wrong in Iraq"...etc.

The only reason liberals say that is because that's the only flaw they can make up.
1.) they're jealous because he's a Texan
2.) they know he's going to go down in history as being one of America's greatest presidents
3.) they know he's had the toughest presidency in history and there isn't a liberal in the democratic party that could handle it.

So Kanye West and all the other ignorant people out there... just sit down and try to think of a real reason to hate President Bush... and the good thing for all you ignorant people is...

YOU HAVE FOUR MORE YEARS TO THINK ABOUT REASONS TO HATE HIM!

great feeling huh?

GOD BLESS THE BUSH FAMILY AND AMERICA! wahoooo! :)"

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 09:34 PM

I heard it was several hundred thousand, in DC alone.

The photos prove otherwise. There is no flippin' way that there were that many there in DC!

By some accounts the MFWL was the largest rally ever to be held in Washington, or at least since the Vietnam War.

The Ellipse, where ANSWER held its Support The Terrorists rally, is a relatively small space, especially compared to the rest of <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=washington,DC&ll=38.889724,-77.031358&spn=0.035478,0.053653&hl=en">The National Mall.</a>

You will note that the MFWL crowd completely overflowed the entire Mall, an area many times larger than the Ellipse.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 09:36 PM

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:37 PM

And it's people that use this approach who give conservatives a 'stupid' name!

Well atleast we agree there..I in fact do respect some moderate conservatives believe it or not..it's the right wing neoconservatives like President Bush that I cannot tolerate.

Chris

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 09:39 PM

Well atleast we agree there..I in fact do respect some moderate conservatives believe it or not..it's the right wing neoconservatives like President Bush that I cannot tolerate.

Chris

It is because they are not true conservatives.

No rue conservative would go this deep into debt and use the Const. to control our autonomy and freedom, both of which W does with glee.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 09:39 PM

Well atleast we agree there..I in fact do respect some moderate conservatives believe it or not..it's the right wing neoconservatives like President Bush that I cannot tolerate.

Chris

oy! You have a lot to learn about right-wingers my friend, because if you feel that Mr. Bush is one of them...you are mistaken!

ontheEdgeof17

09-26-2005, 09:39 PM

The only reason liberals say that is because that's the only flaw they can make up.
1.) they're jealous because he's a Texan
2.) they know he's going to go down in history as being one of America's greatest presidents
3.) they know he's had the toughest presidency in history and there isn't a liberal in the democratic party that could handle it.

1.) :laugh:
2.) :lol: :lol: :lol:
3.) hmmm...I think being President during the Civil War would have been tough, too? The Great Depression? Vietnam War?

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:39 PM

And even Fox News is reporting the same thing, so man are you saying Fox News has a liberal bias too ? lol

fox news :

"The demonstration is part of a broader anti-war effort on Capitol Hill organized by United for Peace and Justice, an umbrella group. Representatives from anti-war groups were meeting Monday with members of Congress to urge them to work to end the war and bring home the troops.

The protest following a massive demonstration Saturday on the National Mall that drew a crowd of 100,000 or more, the largest such gathering in the capital since the war began in March 2003.

On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq."

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:41 PM

oy! You have a lot to learn about right-wingers my friend, because if you feel that Mr. Bush is one of them...you are mistaken!

Just because Mr. Bush campaigned in 2000 as a moderate and promoted "compassionate conservatism" does not mean anything. President Bush is pretty far to the right. If you think he's a moderate, what does that make John McCain?

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 09:41 PM

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:42 PM

Hey, FOX news is in NO WAY perfect! I just don't see how there could have been hundreds of thousands of people there! NO WAY! It just doesn't add up.

You just don't want to believe it, that's it. But in fact the number doesn't really matter. A few hundred thousand protestors is nothing to the amounts that are now saying in this country that they don't support the war, or the President...MILLIONS

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 09:46 PM

You just don't want to believe it, that's it.

Chris

No it's just faulty, and I'm not the only one who thinks that it is.

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:47 PM

No it's just faulty, and I'm not the only one who thinks that it is.

You would have to do a head count to believe it. The fact is, you and I weren't there and we don't know. But I think it's a safe estimate looking at the helicopter pics on tv.

Chris

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 09:50 PM

It's kind of a given that when you sign up for service, you have faith that your life is only going to be jeopardized when it's necessary and won't be sent to die based on lies and misinformation, or for political reasons.

Yeah, it's such a dishonorable thing to protest the needless deaths of innocent people.

On this diss, I have to disagree. When you sign up for service your life is in jeopardy starting with basic training on. Jumping out of airplanes, playing with bombs and live grenades...it's not kindergarden, it's not play-like...it's for real. But for you second comment.....I respect your opinion of what you believe is happening.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 09:55 PM

You would have to do a head count to believe it. The fact is, you and I weren't there and we don't know. But I think it's a safe estimate looking at the helicopter pics on tv.

Chris

No actually, it's not! If you will go back and look at the photos that I posted...the math just don't add up!

macfanken

09-26-2005, 09:59 PM

The Ellipse, where ANSWER held its Support The Terrorists rally, is a relatively small space, especially compared to the rest of <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=washington,DC&ll=38.889724,-77.031358&spn=0.035478,0.053653&hl=en">The National Mall.</a>

So... anyone who protests this war is "supporting the terrorists"? :shocked:

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 09:59 PM

No actually, it's not! If you will go back and look at the photos that I posted...the math just don't add up!

First off the comparison pics you posted are not good comparisons..The football field pic is much more zoomed than the demonstration pic. The demonstration pic also does not show all the people. There were people crammed in the streets running along the side, you can kind of see them in the far right of the pic..they are actually not all in that confined area.

Chris

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:02 PM

On this diss, I have to disagree. When you sign up for service your life is in jeopardy starting with basic training on. Jumping out of airplanes, playing with bombs and live grenades...it's not kindergarden, it's not play-like...it's for real. But for you second comment.....I respect your opinion of what you believe is happening.

But, the larger point is this guy, like all Americans, was told America would not invade Iraq unless it was in immediate danger. Then he told us about the nuclear stuff and the bio labs that his administration said they knew where they were in an attempt to scare an already scared people. So, from that point of view, it stands to reason that many people enlisted thinking they were going based on those grounds, which IMO would have been valid. Only later was it made public that both of those alleged incidences (and others)were blatant lies as was the conclusion that America was in immediate danger - again, the self touted only justification for this preemptive invasion. So, W and his cronies then say what the hell SH was a bad guy (immediate danger to us :shrug: ) so we did the Iraqi's a favor by destroying their country and having no plan to fix it.

We and this poor young man were hoodwinked - pure and simple. If it were my kid, I'd feel cheated and lied to as well - how could I not feel that way when faced with the facts.

Sadly, many Americans still believe SH was directly responsible for 9/11, when all facts show he was not and that he nothing whatsoever to do with it. Thus, they cannot believe those facts. That and the fact that most Americans think all Muslims want to kill Americans - Sad - very true.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:03 PM

So... anyone who protests this war is "supporting the terrorists"? :shocked:

No not everyone. Not Pat Buchanan and such, because someone like him actually disagrees with the war based on logical reasoning.

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:05 PM

No not everyone. Not Pat Buchanan and such, because someone like him actually disagrees with the war based on logical reasoning.

I've heard Pat Buchanan speak about his reasoning for disagreeing for the war. His reasoning doesnt sound much different to me than most protestors, and regular voters like me who don't. Just because Pat Buchanan and others put it differently, and don't approach it the same...doesnt mean they are any different

Chris

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:08 PM

Well, here is what ole Pat has/had to say:

Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers ... that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.

Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)

David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”

Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London ... one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.”

Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine “has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’”

Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that “members of the Bush team have been doing Israel’s bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’” Kaplan thunders:

The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.

What is going on here? Slate’s Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: “Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card.”

What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.

Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.

And this time the boys have cried “wolf” once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan’s own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:

And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.

“If Stanley Hoffman can say this,” asks Kaus, “why can’t Chris Matthews?” Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.

In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)

Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a “special closeness” to the Bu****es, Kaiser writes, “For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies.” And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon’s interest, is it in America’s interest?

This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.”

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.

They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.

The Neoconservatives

Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.

Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).

All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.

Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.

Beating the War Drums

When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic “rogue states” that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.

The War Party’s plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.

Before introducing the script-writers of America’s future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.

On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama’s terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?

The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett’s six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.

On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan.” Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while “attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain … Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.”

On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”

Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.

President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”

Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States?

The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq. “Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. … [T]he larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over,” he wrote.

Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: “The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.”

Goldberg endorsed “the Ledeen Doctrine” of ex-Pentagon official Michael Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.” (When the French ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should risk World War III over some “****ty little country”—meaning Israel—Goldberg’s magazine was not amused.)

Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror Masters, he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:

First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.

Rejecting stability as “an unworthy American mission,” Ledeen goes on to define America’s authentic “historic mission”:

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.

To the Weekly Standard, Ledeen’s enemies list was too restrictive. We must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on “any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future.”

Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Armageddon. The coming war “is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. … It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. … [I]t is possible that the demise of some ‘moderate’ Arab regimes may be just round the corner.”

Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol’s Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush’s mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘“friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the “timorous counsels” of the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell,” wrote Podhoretz, and “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world. As the war against al-Qaeda required that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz wrote,

We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced … to topple five or six or seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor of terrorism, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority). I can even [imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. … I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.

Podhoretz credits Eliot Cohen with the phrase “World War IV.” Bush was shortly thereafter seen carrying about a gift copy of Cohen’s book that celebrates civilian mastery of the military in times of war, as exhibited by such leaders as Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion.

A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and “militant Islam.”

Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America. In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after Saddam’s regime is destroyed, it is of “vital importance” that the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.

“We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after” the war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations. After U.S. troops enter Baghdad, the United States must generate “political, economic, diplomatic pressure” on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews.

Are the neoconservatives concerned about a war on Iraq bringing down friendly Arab governments? Not at all. They would welcome it.

“Mubarak is no great shakes,” says Richard Perle of the President of Egypt. “Surely we can do better than Mubarak.” Asked about the possibility that a war on Iraq—which he predicted would be a “cakewalk”—might upend governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, former UN ambassador Ken Adelman told Joshua Micah Marshall of Washington Monthly, “All the better if you ask me.”

On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing that startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” of the United States.

Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis “prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the Saudi intelligence services,” and end all propaganda against Israel, or we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca.

In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a “Grand Strategy for the Middle East.” “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.” Leaked reports of Murawiec’s briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds of the Great Mosque.

What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.

Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the “Bush-Sharon Doctrine.” “Washington’s ‘Likudniks,’” he writes, “have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office.”

The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.

“Securing the Realm”

The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.

In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.

In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.

In his own 1997 paper, “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith pressed Israel to re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,” though “the price in blood would be high.”

Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel and the United States “to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should … broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”

He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote, “Crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.

About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:

The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.

Right down the smokestack.

Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz, in late February,

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials … that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine

In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called it a “classified blueprint intended to help ‘set the nation’s direction for the next century.’” The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to “establish and protect a new order.”

Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter Tim Reich describes it as a “watershed in U.S. foreign policy” that “reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence.”

Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, writes of the NSS that he marvels at “its fusion of breathtaking utopianism with barely disguised machtpolitik. It reads as if it were the product not of sober, ostensibly conservative Republicans but of an unlikely collaboration between Woodrow Wilson and the elder Field Marshal von Moltke.”

In confronting America’s adversaries, the paper declares, “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively.” It warns any nation that seeks to acquire power to rival the United States that it will be courting war with the United States:

[T]he president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States.

America must reconcile herself to an era of “nation-building on a grand scale, and with no exit strategy,” Robert Kagan instructs. But this Pax Americana the neocons envision bids fair to usher us into a time of what Harry Elmer Barnes called “permanent war for permanent peace.”

The Munich Card

As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be indicted for “a decisive surrender” in the war on terror should he fail to attack Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is forbidden. For as the neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic card, they will not hesitate to play the Munich card as well. A year ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain had done to the Czechs. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy immediately backed up Ariel Sharon:

With each passing day, Washington appears to view its principal Middle Eastern ally’s conduct as inconvenient—in much the same way London and Paris came to see Czechoslovakia’s resistance to Hitler’s offers of peace in exchange for Czech lands.

When former U.S. NATO commander Gen. George Jouwlan said the United States may have to impose a peace on Israel and the Palestinians, he, too, faced the charge of appeasement. Wrote Gaffney,

They would, presumably, go beyond Britain and France’s sell-out of an ally at Munich in 1938. The “impose a peace” school is apparently prepared to have us play the role of Hitler’s Wehrmacht as well, seizing and turning over to Yasser Arafat the contemporary Sudetenland: the West Bank and Gaza Strip and perhaps part of Jerusalem as well.

Podhoretz agreed Sharon was right in the substance of what he said but called it politically unwise to use the Munich analogy.

President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives allies inside his own Big Tent.

Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there is no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, ever—for there will be no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist who travels to the region will relate, America’s failure to be even-handed, our failure to rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn Israel’s excesses, and our moral complicity in Israel’s looting of Palestinian lands and denial of their right to self-determination sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world in which terrorists and terrorism breed.

Let us conclude. The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.

But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as “America’s best friend.”

Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.

Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush’s requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel’s sale of our AWACS system.

Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero.

Do the Brits, our closest allies, behave like this?

Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 10:09 PM

Hey, FOX news is in NO WAY perfect! I just don't see how there could have been hundreds of thousands of people there! NO WAY! It just doesn't add up.
give it up~ there were at LEAST 100k there. comparing pictures is iffy at best.

in any event the REAL point, to me at least is that the Anti-war crowd outnumbered the pro-war crowd 100 to 1.

macfanken

09-26-2005, 10:11 PM

No not everyone. Not Pat Buchanan and such, because someone like him actually disagrees with the war based on logical reasoning.

Hmmm... sooo... I'm not sure I understand your point.

If a right winger disagrees with the war, it's ok... if I disagree, I'm supporting terrorists?

Or maybe I should ask what, in your opinion, is a logical reason for opposing the war?

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:11 PM

give it up~ there were at LEAST 100k there. comparing pictures is iffy at best.

in any event the REAL point, to me at least is that the Anti-war crowd outnumbered the pro-war crowd 100 to 1.

And some guy on the new yesterday said "We are the silent majority" in reference to the pro war movement...what are these people still living in a fantasy world? DO they think 30-something percent of the country is a majority?

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:13 PM

give it up~ there were at LEAST 100k there. comparing pictures is iffy at best.

in any event the REAL point, to me at least is that the Anti-war crowd outnumbered the pro-war crowd 100 to 1.

That is only because most of the pro-war people have better things to do! It doesn't mean that there now so many more people in America who don't support the war compared to those who do. It just means that there was no "pro-war" rally; it was more of a "counter" to Cindy and her fanatics...nothing organized.

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:14 PM

That is only because most of the pro-war people have better things to do! It doesn't mean that there now so many more people in America who don't support the war compared to those who do. It just means that there was no "pro-war" rally; it was more of a "counter" to Cindy and her fanatics...nothing organized.

Well first of all, there ARE now so many more who don't support the war in America than those who do...that's a fact. And the pro war rally WAS organized...

Chris

macfanken

09-26-2005, 10:15 PM

I've heard Pat Buchanan speak about his reasoning for disagreeing for the war. His reasoning doesnt sound much different to me than most protestors, and regular voters like me who don't. Just because Pat Buchanan and others put it differently, and don't approach it the same...doesnt mean they are any different

Chris

That's what I was thinking... I think everyone is against the war for pretty much the same reasons.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:16 PM

For anyone intereseted, here is a rather objective site regarding the Iraqi War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:19 PM

Well first of all, there ARE now so many more who don't support the war in America than those who do...that's a fact. And the pro war rally WAS organized...

Chris

Yes, you are correct - the polls for quite awhile now have indicated that. I think most Americans were willing to forgive the mistake in justifications for the exigency of the invasion because SH was indeed a bad guy - but I think they cannot forgive the bumbe it has become with no end in sight.

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 10:21 PM

But, the larger point is this guy, like all Americans, was told America would not invade Iraq unless it was in immediate danger. Then he told us about the nuclear stuff and the bio labs that his administration said they knew where they were in an attempt to scare an already scared people. So, from that point of view, it stands to reason that many people enlisted thinking they were going based on those grounds, which IMO would have been valid. Only later was it made public that both of those alleged incidences (and others)were blatant lies as was the conclusion that America was in immediate danger - again, the self touted only justification for this preemptive invasion. So, W and his cronies then say what the hell SH was a bad guy (immediate danger to us :shrug: ) so we did the Iraqi's a favor by destroying their country and having no plan to fix it.

We and this poor young man were hoodwinked - pure and simple. If it were my kid, I'd feel cheated and lied to as well - how could I not feel that way when faced with the facts.

Sadly, many Americans still believe SH was directly responsible for 9/11, when all facts show he was not and that he nothing whatsoever to do with it. Thus, they cannot believe those facts. That and the fact that most Americans think all Muslims want to kill Americans - Sad - very true.

I do feel bad for Cindy losing her son...I would be angry if I'd lost my brother, or my son, or my son-in-law (who will be going to Iraq after he finishes with Explosive Ordinance Disposal school in 7 mos.). But, to quote my son-in-law..."This is the job I signed on for...I knew why and what I was getting into when I signed on the dotted line. I'm proud to serve my country and protect it from real or perceived threats." Perceived threats...that really got my attention. I do not think that SH was directly responsible for 9/11, but you cannot convince me that there was not a connection. We only know what facts they choose for us to here, and what they don't know, they can make up. I, for one, do not think that all Muslims want to kill Americans...I work with doctors that are muslim...that do not agree with what is going on and dispise the ones that kill in the name of religion. (These are the doctors you know NOT to page during their known prayer time!!) I think Cindy could lend a lot more credibility to her cause if she'd keep her followers from trying to climb the fence on the White House. Is she married? Was that her only child? I was just curious...because I do not know. And the only way I could afford to go on with this kind of crusade was if my son that was in the military had named me benficiary to his estate.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:21 PM

And some guy on the new yesterday said "We are the silent majority" in reference to the pro war movement...what are these people still living in a fantasy world? DO they think 30-something percent of the country is a majority?

Chris

I don't know, lets ask the dismal number of republicans who were actually polled during that "oh so fair" approval rating for Mr. Bush.

Btw...I wasn't polled, nor were any of my family or friends; or anyone I have even met for that matter. :shrug:

For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,009 adults aged 18 and older on Sept. 8-9, 2005. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. This poll is part of the September 19 issue of Newsweek, on newsstands Monday, September 12
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Newsweek_flash_Bush_approval_38_57_have_lost_confidence_in_U.S._to_deal_with__0910.html

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:24 PM

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:24 PM

I don't know, lets ask the dismal number of republicans who were actually polled during that "oh so fair" approval rating for Mr. Bush.

Btw...I wasn't polled, nor were any of my family or friends; or anyone I have even met for that matter. :shrug:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Newsweek_flash_Bush_approval_38_57_have_lost_confidence_in_U.S._to_deal_with__0910.html

I havent been polled either...I think out of the number of Americans there are, it is likely you will not ever be polled...Thousands have been polled however, and polls seem to be a pretty accurate measure of public opinion.
However anyone can sign up to participate in Zogby political polls, even you. And I think even with all the varying different polls, all of them having near the same number, is not a coincidence.

Chris

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 10:27 PM

No one's polled me or anyone that I know...

P.S. Love ya'll....but if you see me out somewhere wearing my "You don't speak for me Cindy T-shirt"....don't shoot me

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:27 PM

I don't know, lets ask the dismal number of republicans who were actually polled during that "oh so fair" approval rating for Mr. Bush.

Your panties are showing.

When Bush's numbers are up, I don't hear you complaining about the polls being unfair.

Btw...I wasn't polled, nor were any of my family or friends; or anyone I have even met for that matter. :shrug:

Yeah, because out of millions of US citizens and with only a very limited number of poll slots open, you and the people you know stand a great chance of being polled. :laugh:

irishgrl

09-26-2005, 10:27 PM

That is only because most of the pro-war people have better things to do!
Like watching NASCAR maybe?????

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:29 PM

I havent been polled either...I think out of the number of Americans there are, it is likely you will not ever be polled...Thousands have been polled however, and polls seem to be a pretty accurate measure of public opinion.
However anyone can sign up to participate in Zogby political polls, even you. And I think even with all the varying different polls, all of them having near the same number, is not a coincidence.

Chris

Well, to be called would be a needle in a haystack. They only poll a thousand or so people and like 300 million live in the US :shrug:

Also, Newsweek site above indicates:

Newsweek flash: Bush approval 38%, 57% have lost confidence in U.S. to deal with disaster
09/10/2005 @ 1:06 pm
From a poll running in Monday's editions of Newsweek, acquired by RAW STORY.

#
FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT OF AMERICANS HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH ANOTHER NATURAL DISASTER; 52% DO NOT TRUST PRESIDENT TO MAKE RIGHT DECISIONS IN A CRISIS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUSH'S JOB APPROVAL AT RECORD LOW: 38 PERCENT

SIXTY-SIX PERCENT DISSATISFIED WITH DIRECTION OF COUNTRY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT OF MINORITIES BELIEVE RACE WAS THE REASON FOR SLOW RESPONSE: 47 PERCENT SAY 'MAJOR REASON;'

64 PERCENT OF WHITES SAY IT WAS NOT A REASON AT ALL

New York-President George W. Bush's approval ratings have fallen across the board in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and a seemingly flawed government response to the disaster, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. Bush's job-approval rating dropped to 38 percent, the lowest ever in the Newsweek Poll. Sixty-six percent of those polled say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time; just 28 percent are satisfied, another record low in the poll.

A 52-percent majority of Americans say they do not trust President Bush to make the right decisions during a domestic crisis, 45 percent do. The same number-52 percent-do not trust him to make the right decisions during an international crisis, again, 45 percent do. In addition, 57 percent of Americans say the slow response in New Orleans has caused them to lose confidence in the government to deal with another major natural disaster, 41 percent say it has not; 47 percent say it has made them lose confidence in government to prevent another 9/11-type attack; half (50%) say it has not, the poll shows.

The president's ratings on issues having little if anything to do with domestic disasters also declined. Bush's approval on handling terrorism and homeland security is 46 percent, a five-point drop from the August 2-4, 2005 Newsweek Poll. For the first time in the Newsweek Poll, more Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of terrorism and homeland security (48%). And almost half (49%) of all those polled say taking military action against Iraq two years ago was not the right thing to do; 46 percent say it was. This is the first time ever in the Newsweek Poll that more Americans have said going to war was not the right thing to do than said it was.

A plurality of Americans also rates the federal government's response to the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina as poor (40%). Thirty-two percent say the Feds' response was "only fair;" and 21 percent believe the response has been "good," the poll shows. State and local governments did not fare better: 35 percent say they did a poor job and 34 percent say they did a fair job.

However, views are starkly different when examined by political party. Fifty-three percent of Democrats polled say the federal government did a poor job vs. just 19 percent of Republicans. Thirty-seven percent of Republicans believe the federal government did a good job and 11 percent believe it did an excellent job. The Democrats are more forgiving of local and state governments, though not as forgiving as the Republicans are of the Feds. Twenty-four percent of Democrats believe the state and local governments did a good job and four percent say an excellent job. Thirty percent of Democrats believe the local and state governments did a poor job, vs. 43 percent of Republicans; 35 percent of Dems and 29 percent of Republicans say they did a fair job.

While 66 percent of all those polled say a "major reason" for the government's slow response to the disaster was because of poor communication between federal, state and local government officials, 57 percent say a major reason was that the amount of destruction was unexpected and overwhelming. Fifty-five percent believe that incompetence of federal officials whose job is to prepare and deal with natural disasters is to blame and 57 percent believe state and local officials incompetence is to blame.

Whites' and non-whites' opinions also differ sharply. Twenty-two percent of all those polled say a "major reason" the response was slow was that it was not a priority because the people affected were mostly African-American. However, 47 percent of non-whites believe race was a major reason, while only 13 percent of whites believe it. And 29 percent of all those polled and 53 percent of non-whites say a major reason was that the people affected were mostly poor. (Only 20 percent of whites feel that way.)

In general, 35 percent say that the heads of federal agencies such as FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security are most to blame for not getting help quickly enough to the people in New Orleans; just 17 percent say that President Bush himself is to blame and 48 percent do not feel that someone in the administration should be held accountable and fired.

On the topic of rising gasoline prices, 36 percent of those polled say major oil companies are to blame for the rise and 22 percent say the federal government, the poll shows. Seventy-one percent say they have cut back on driving in some way in response to the increase in gas prices and 57 percent say they have given serious thought to buying or leasing a car with that gets better gas mileage. Just 31 percent have actually started car-pooling, ride sharing or using mass transit more often. And 65 percent of Americans say they have taken special steps to conserve energy at home because of rising costs of other fuels like oil and natural gas

On the topic of President Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court, 44 percent say that John Roberts should be confirmed to succeed William Rehnquist as the new Chief Justice. Sixty-six percent say Bush should strongly consider naming another woman to serve and 60 percent say he should strongly consider naming another black or Hispanic, the poll shows.

For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,009 adults aged 18 and older on Sept. 8-9, 2005. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. This poll is part of the September 19 issue of Newsweek, on newsstands Monday, September 12.
________________________________________________________

which is hardly favorable to W or the war in Iraq.

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:29 PM

No one's polled me or anyone that I know...

I was pushpolled by Bush's campaign during the last election. Who the hell knows why, but I was. They asked me if I thought that Kerry would be up to the job considering that he once had cancer.

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:30 PM

Like watching NASCAR maybe?????

No, silly. Praising the war and the God that is Bush fromt heir armchairs, but not enlisting or having their children enlist. :p

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 10:31 PM

^^^^

Here campaign is being financed by people on the far left.

That comment about being a beneficiary to her dead son't estate was a little uncalled for if you meant it in a "how dare she use his blood money" way :shrug:

On edit - I have the utmost respect for your family member going to Iraq. Please do not take my statements against W as statements against them or any other soldier there.

No offense taken....what I meant was the average American woman, if unmarried, could not afford to take on this crusade without some kind of funds. If it truly WAS from his death beneficiary funds, I would fully understand!!!! Not, "how dare she", but how else could she? I know nothing about this woman like I said.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:31 PM

No one's polled me or anyone that I know...

P.S. Love ya'll....but if you see me out somewhere wearing my "You don't speak for me Cindy T-shirt"....don't shoot me

It is you right to wear anything you want and I will bitch anyone out who says differently :cool:

Just don't shoot me when you see me weaing my

"Frodo Failed - Bush has The Ring" shirt :laugh:

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:32 PM

The latest Associated Press/Ispos poll had Bush's approval ratings as follows :

Dissaprove : 57% Approve : 40% Mixed Feelings : 2% Unsure : 1%

Recent GALLUP POLL :

Disapprove : 58% Approve : 40% Unsure : 2%

Recent FOX NEWS/OPINION DYNAMICS POLL :

Disapprove : 51% Approve : 41 % Unsure : 8%

Recent CBS NEWS/NY TIMES POLL :

Disapprove : 53% Approve : 41% Unsure : 6%

Recent NBC NEWS/WALL STREET JOURNAL POLL :

Disapprove : 55% Approve : 40% Unsure : 5%

Recent ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL :

Disapprove : 57% Approve : 42% Unsure : 1 %

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:32 PM

No offense taken....what I meant was the average American woman, if unmarried, could not afford to take on this crusade without some kind of funds. If it truly WAS from his death beneficiary funds, I would fully understand!!!! Not, "how dare she", but how else could she? I know nothing about this woman like I said.

:cool:

I was just checking.

In political conv. - sometimes people say things that is read one way but meant another :cool:

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:33 PM

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 10:34 PM

It is you right to wear anything you want and I will bitch anyone out who says differently :cool:

Just don't shoot me when you see me weaing my

"Frodo Failed - Bush has The Ring" shirt :laugh:

Agreed!! :laugh:

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:34 PM

Stop squawking, you twit. They're all biased polls.

:xoxo:

I know every damn one of them..even those liberals at Fox News.. :laugh:

macfanken

09-26-2005, 10:34 PM

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:35 PM

Stop squawking, you twit. They're all biased polls.

:xoxo:

OMG - I read that as "Stop squawking, you TIT . . . . " :eek: :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:35 PM

^^^^

Here campaign is being financed by people on the far left.

<img src="http://www.mattfoto.com/blog/images/war.jpg">

Exactly! She has become a "mouth" for the insane, such as Michael Moore. They tell her the garbage to spit out, and she does so willingly! People are more prone to listen to a "grieving mother" than they are a "college-drop-out radical."

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 10:36 PM

:cool:

I was just checking.

In political conv. - sometimes people say things that is read one way but meant another :cool:

That's o.k.......just wipe that smirk off your face :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:36 PM

Stop squawking, you twit. They're all biased polls.

:xoxo:

But you know -

GOP White House
GOP Senate
GOP House
GOP Majority in the Supreme Court

I'll take whatever stats the pollsters want to provide
so long as the we can keep the above stats.

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:36 PM

They tell her the garbage to spit out, and she does so willingly!

How do you know?

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:37 PM

<img src="http://www.mattfoto.com/blog/images/war.jpg">

Exactly! She has become a "mouth" for the insane, such as Michael Moore. They tell her the garbage to spit out, and she does so willingly! People are more prone to listen to a "grieving mother" than they are a "college-drop-out radical."

So you know her , and know that the stuff she is saying is being fed to her? Well why would she be saying it, if she didn't atleast believe it. Just because she has become an "icon" for the anti war movement...doesnt mean what she is saying is something she doesnt believe in

Chris

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:37 PM

That's o.k.......just wipe that smirk off your face :laugh:

Hey - my web cam is off :laugh:

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:37 PM

But you know -

GOP White House
GOP Senate
GOP House
GOP Majority in the Supreme Court

I'll take whatever stats the pollsters want to provide
so long as the we can keep the above stats.

It won't last for long. Wait until the elections next year. The Dems are already leading in the polls.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:38 PM

It won't last for long. Wait until the elections next year. The Dems are already leading in the polls.

Hillary baby...I'm counting on you.

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:39 PM

But you know -

GOP White House
GOP Senate
GOP House
GOP Majority in the Supreme Court

I'll take whatever stats the pollsters want to provide
so long as the we can keep the above stats.

Good luck in 06!! You will likely not be riding on your high horse much longer. I guess you are under the impression that this is something you guys will keep forever. As John Mccain said "we know we wont always be the majority." If you think these low approval ratings wont have any affect on people's minds when they vote, you are dillusional.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:40 PM

How do you know?

The insane things that this woman has spit out of her mouth...please only someone like Michael Moore could have "spoon-fed" it to her!

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:40 PM

Hillary baby...I'm counting on you.

They won't be stupid enough to give her the nomination. She'll run, but she'll be slaughtered in the primaries, therefore losing her shot at the Democratic nomination. Too bad for you. :xoxo:

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:40 PM

Hillary baby...I'm counting on you.

Well yeah you can count on her to keep her Senate seat in 06.....

Chris

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 10:40 PM

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]Hey - my web cam is off :laugh:

Gypsies who live in the zone can still SEE YOU!!

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:41 PM

The insane things that this woman has spit out of her mouth...please only someone like Michael Moore could have "spoon-fed" it to her!

Your panties are showing again.

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:41 PM

So you know her , and know that the stuff she is saying is being fed to her? Well why would she be saying it, if she didn't atleast believe it. Just because she has become an "icon" for the anti war movement...doesnt mean what she is saying is something she doesnt believe in

Chris

I agree.

Also, M. Moore may be insane, but he spoke the truth in F. 9/11 -In fact, he has a website that presents facts to counter all efforts to prove he lied when presenting facts, to the chagrain of his detractors - to wit:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

That, though, does not mean I want to see him eat a cheeseburger :laugh: :rolleyes:

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:41 PM

The insane things that this woman has spit out of her mouth...please only someone like Michael Moore could have "spoon-fed" it to her!

And who spoon fed you the insane things you type on this message board daily? Ann?

Chris

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:42 PM

And who spoon fed you the insane things you type on this message board daily? Ann?

Chris

She's too busy stuffing her bra and concealing her testicles to be doing that.

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:43 PM

She's too busy stuffing her bra and concealing her testicles to be doing that.

how true that is!! :laugh:

macfanken

09-26-2005, 10:44 PM

She's too busy stuffing her bra and concealing her testicles to be doing that.

Yeah, but the adam's apple gives her away! :lol:

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:44 PM

She's too busy stuffing her bra and concealing her testicles to be doing that.

Actually, that sow carries around live mosquitos and has one or two bite each man nipple - thus creating the bumps the she-male calls breasts. Sadly, the bugs die instantaneously :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:44 PM

Good luck in 06!! You will likely not be riding on your high horse much longer. I guess you are under the impression that this is something you guys will keep forever. As John Mccain said "we know we wont always be the majority." If you think these low approval ratings wont have any affect on people's minds when they vote, you are dillusional.

Well you know the low approval ratings are for BUSH not the Republican Party! Where as the Democratic Party has pretty much dug themselves into a hole by having the likes of Howard Dean be their "majority"...I mean where has the Democratic Party gone? Where are the REAL blue dogs? I think people realize that, and I feel like it will take another major loss at the elections to cause a much-needed wake up call to democrats.

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 10:45 PM

I agree.

Also, M. Moore may be insane, but he spoke the truth in F. 9/11 -In fact, he has a website that presents facts to counter all efforts to prove he lied when presenting facts, to the chagrain of his detractors - to wit:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

That, though, does not mean I want to see him eat a cheeseburger :laugh: :rolleyes:

Facts are only facts when YOU personally see or experience them first hand....you don't know WHAT you don't know......

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:46 PM

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:46 PM

She's too busy stuffing her bra and concealing her testicles to be doing that.

I can always count on you for the "repeat-o-vision" Ann jokes. :nod: :)

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:48 PM

Well you know the low approval ratings are for BUSH not the Republican Party! Where as the Democratic Party has pretty much dug themselves into a hole by having the likes of Howard Dean be their "majority"...I mean where has the Democratic Party gone? Where are the REAL blue dogs? I think people realize that, and I feel like it will take another major loss at the elections to cause a much-needed wake up call to democrats.

Well the President is considered to be the leader of his party when in office. Those approval ratings do in fact affect the party as a whole. Not to mention the ethics scandals you guys are involved in right now.

Where has the democratic party gone? Nowhere. The fact that President Bush so narrowly won in 2004 should show the Democrats that they are doing everything fine. Had they gotten a couple of more million out to vote, things would have been totally different. I know you guys like to believe that winning by a few million is a huge mandate, but in reality it's not.

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:49 PM

Facts are only facts when YOU personally see or experience them first hand....you don't know WHAT you don't know......

A fact is a fact... you don't have to experience and feel and hold an atom in your hand, to know it's a fact that they exist

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:49 PM

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

Fifty-Nine Deceits of Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:50 PM

Facts are only facts when YOU personally see or experience them first hand....you don't know WHAT you don't know......

Well, true to an extent, though millions of facts certainly exist that I did not personally witness - but a lot of the stuff he quotes is from footage - you can see the person saying it.

But, yes, sadly all levels of the press take privileges with editing. I hate that.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:51 PM

Where has the democratic party gone? Nowhere. The fact that President Bush so narrowly won in 2004 should show the Democrats that they are doing everything fine. Had they gotten a couple of more million out to vote, things would have been totally different. I know you guys like to believe that winning by a few million is a huge mandate, but in reality it's not.

Yea it is such a small number isn't it. As a matter of fact I believe I had a few million at my house this weekend...small party...nothing to big! :laugh:

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:53 PM

Facts are only facts when YOU personally see or experience them first hand....you don't know WHAT you don't know......

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't gone into space to actually witness the fact that the Earth is round, you've seen it secondhand through pictures.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:53 PM

Actually, that sow carries around live mosquitos and has one or two bite each man nipple - thus creating the bumps the she-male calls breasts. Sadly, the bugs die instantaneously :laugh:

Ok that was a lousy joke! I mean really. :confused:

I can laugh at a joke, regardless of whom it is making fun of...but that one was just...not funny! sorry. :distress:

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:54 PM

Yea it is such a small number isn't it. As a matter of fact I believe I had a few million at my house this weekend...small party...nothing to big! :laugh:

Well in terms of a national election it is not a very big number. Losing by 3,000,000 votes out of a total of nearly 118 million cast is not that big of a loss.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:54 PM

Yeah, that's why the Dems are leading in the polls for the '06 elections.

And you are trusting these polls...why?

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 10:55 PM

Well in terms of a national election it is not a very big number. Losing by 3,000,000 votes out of a total of nearly 118 million cast is not that big of a loss.

It was about 3%

Interestingly, if you consider the factual evidence of many D precincts being tampered with, that number reduces quickly.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 10:55 PM

A fact is a fact... you don't have to experience and feel and hold an atom in your hand, to know it's a fact that they exist

Chris

I'm going to agree with you here. A fact is a fact...you don't have to have experienced something to make the point of an argument any more valid than it already is.

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:55 PM

And you are trusting these polls...why?

You do really live in a fantasy world don't you? I don't think you really believe all the polls are biased...even the conservative ones?

Chris

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 10:57 PM

It was about 3%

Interestingly, if you consider the factual evidence of many D precincts being tampered with, that number reduces quickly.

And if you consider the actual electoral process, which the 3% overall means nothing...he actually only lost by about 300,000 votes (which is all he needed to win Ohio)

Chris

dissention

09-26-2005, 10:58 PM

You do really live in a fantasy world don't you? I don't think you really believe all the polls are biased...even the conservative ones?

Chris

Hon, he only believes the polls when the results are favorable towards to the Resmuglicans.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 11:01 PM

Well in terms of a national election it is not a very big number. Losing by 3,000,000 votes out of a total of nearly 118 million cast is not that big of a loss.

But yet it still is a loss.

I don't think that people should vote just because they feel they have a duty to do so. There is nothing wrong with being politically ignorant, there is no shame in it...but you shouldn't vote if you are! Like the "vote or die" crap..."Vote for Kerry/Edwards because Madonna says so" :confused:

So I feel, that the voter turn out should actually be less than what it is. I just think that some of the people who vote have no idea what they are doing or who they are voting for.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-26-2005, 11:02 PM

You do really live in a fantasy world don't you? I don't think you really believe all the polls are biased...even the conservative ones?

Chris

For the most part polls do really NO good. You only know the result after the election. I think it has been proven time and time again that these polls can rarely be relied on.

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 11:03 PM

But yet it still is a loss.

I don't think that people should vote just because they feel they have a duty to do so. There is nothing wrong with being politically ignorant, there is no shame in it...but you shouldn't vote if you are! Like the "vote or die" crap..."Vote for Kerry/Edwards because Madonna says so" :confused:

So I feel, that the voter turn out should actually be less than what it is. I just think that some of the people who vote have no idea what they are doing or who they are voting for.

I agree to an extent. Although there a lot of people who are not politically ignorant who don't vote, because they feel that whoever wins will not really represent them.

Vote or DIE is not a bad concept..But I agree that voting, if you are politically ignorant defeats the purpose. However, educating people and making them less ignorant is a great idea..People should WANT to be involved.

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 11:04 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't gone into space to actually witness the fact that the Earth is round, you've seen it secondhand through pictures.

To understand what I'm saying you must read between my lines. I'm only saying that you don't KNOW WHAT you don't know. What you are referring to are scientific facts....proved, without a doubt....anything that comes from someone's mouth is subject to embellishment, distortion, etc. That's all....no sassy ass, please. :p

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 11:04 PM

For the most part polls do really NO good. You only know the result after the election. I think it has been proven time and time again that these polls can rarely be relied on.

When a poll is close, they cant be relied on. But when you're talking 20% difference in some cases, it is quite reliable.

Chris

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 11:05 PM

I agree to an extent. Although there a lot of people who are not politically ignorant who don't vote, because they feel that whoever wins will not really represent them.

Vote or DIE is not a bad concept..But I agree that voting, if you are politically ignorant defeats the purpose. However, educating people and making them less ignorant is a great idea..People should WANT to be involved.

Interestingly, if the percentage of the ignorant voting public is accepted as true, then the concept that 3% is actual specifically mandated political clout is incorrect as that mandate was undoubtably due to luck of the draw rather than consciously selected voting for an issue.

ShangriLaTroubl

09-26-2005, 11:05 PM

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 11:08 PM

To understand what I'm saying you must read between my lines. I'm only saying that you don't KNOW WHAT you don't know. What you are referring to are scientific facts....proved, without a doubt....anything that comes from someone's mouth is subject to embellishment, distortion, etc. That's all....no sassy ass, please. :p

I understood what you were saying, esp. when applied to the media's presentation. But, I think in that there are facts as well. Just like no WMD were found. It stands to reason that W would have loved to have been able to demonstrate they were there as his legacy depends on it and he almost lost the last election because of his "error." So, I think it is safe to rely on the reports that no WMD were found.

dissention

09-26-2005, 11:10 PM

To understand what I'm saying you must read between my lines. I'm only saying that you don't KNOW WHAT you don't know. What you are referring to are scientific facts....proved, without a doubt....anything that comes from someone's mouth is subject to embellishment, distortion, etc. That's all....no sassy ass, please. :p

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

gldstwmn

09-26-2005, 11:11 PM

I know nothing about this woman like I said.

Then how can you say she doesn't speak for you?

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 11:13 PM

Is it impossible to hide the things that you don't want found? Especially if you have warning that they are going to be looking? I agree that facts are also spoken, but I also believe that facts spoken are one's perception of the facts, subject to misinterpretation/distortion. Does that make sense? Sorry, ya'll...I'm trying to keep up AND make sense after being up for a VERY LONG time!!

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 11:14 PM

Then how can you say she doesn't speak for you?

Because I'm the only one who can speak for me!

strandinthewind

09-26-2005, 11:15 PM

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 11:17 PM

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

I can't help it....I just like you!!! Seriously

gldstwmn

09-26-2005, 11:21 PM

dissention

09-26-2005, 11:26 PM

I can't help it....I just like you!!! Seriously

I like you, too, I hope you didn't think otherwise. :laugh:

dissention

09-26-2005, 11:27 PM

Ah, Rumsfeld. :laugh: Did you see the "just say no-to driving" speech this morning? We are ****ed. :laugh:

I wasn't privy to that one yet, fortunately. :laugh: What the hell did that dink say now?

gldstwmn

09-26-2005, 11:32 PM

I wasn't privy to that one yet, fortunately. :laugh: What the hell did that dink say now?

George is asking us not to drive. Sort of like he told us to go shopping after 9/11. I saw a video clip of it on CNN. I'm paraphrasing but it went something like "We need to conser...conserve...because it's good...to conserve." :shocked:
I suggest the carpooling start with him. :p

dissention

09-26-2005, 11:35 PM

George is asking us not to drive. Sort of like he told us to go shopping after 9/11. I saw a video clip of it on CNN. I'm paraphrasing but it went something like "We need to conser...conserve...because it's good...to conserve." :shocked:
I suggest the carpooling start with him. :p

I saw that on Anderson tonight! He said to be "good conservers." :lol:

gldstwmn

09-26-2005, 11:37 PM

I saw that on Anderson tonight! He said to be "good conservers." :lol:
:nod: At which point I left the room... :laugh:

dissention

09-26-2005, 11:39 PM

:nod: At which point I left the room... :laugh:

It was almost as good as:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

And:

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

I feel the need to post the "Make the Pie Higher!" poem again to celebrate this new Bushism.

lbelle1214

09-26-2005, 11:46 PM

George is asking us not to drive. Sort of like he told us to go shopping after 9/11. I saw a video clip of it on CNN. I'm paraphrasing but it went something like "We need to conser...conserve...because it's good...to conserve." :shocked:
I suggest the carpooling start with him. :p

Please, ya'll save some gas for us....we don't have ANY!!!!! :laugh: :laugh:

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 06:40 AM

But, to quote my son-in-law..."This is the job I signed on for...I knew why and what I was getting into when I signed on the dotted line. I'm proud to serve my country and protect it from real or perceived threats." Perceived threats...that really got my attention.

It gets Georges' attention too. That is why he created the "preemptive strike" doctrine which gives him the ability to go around and wage war whenever his delusions about other countries intentions (or his hankerin for their oil) gets to be too much to bear.

Give me a break--perceived threats :shrug: Your son-in-law is brave and Im sure he has good intentions but pardon me, he's already bought into that whole cowboy mentality (lets get them before they get us) Utter CRAP. Im sure other nations could use that same logic on US. Then where would this world be? :distress:

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 06:45 AM

I agree.

Also, M. Moore may be insane, but he spoke the truth in F. 9/11 -In fact, he has a website that presents facts to counter all efforts to prove he lied when presenting facts, to the chagrain of his detractors - to wit:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

That, though, does not mean I want to see him eat a cheeseburger :laugh: :rolleyes:
As much abuse as that man has had to take, Im glad to hear someone say something positive about him (aside from the cheeseburger comment that is!)

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 06:48 AM

Ok that was a lousy joke! I mean really. :confused:

I can laugh at a joke, regardless of whom it is making fun of...but that one was just...not funny! sorry. :distress:

I thought it was funny :shrug:

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 06:52 AM

It was about 3%

Interestingly, if you consider the factual evidence of many D precincts being tampered with, that number reduces quickly.

I consider that evidence most minutely, and believe me, it not only reduces the margin, it eliminates it. I firmly believe there were many thousands of voters that were unable to vote due to lack of machines, machines tampered with and on and on. This agenda is so important to the GOP they will stop at nothing and scruple at nothing to accomplish their goals (which in my opinion are: secure an Oil source for the future, eliminate or vastly reduce womens rights and widen the race gap)

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 06:57 AM

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 07:03 AM

well well well.....Mary's been a busy girl responding to 3 pages of stuff :lol:
that'll larn ya all for not waiting for me :)
ok. Im done. (I think)

strandinthewind

09-27-2005, 07:12 AM

As much abuse as that man has had to take, Im glad to hear someone say something positive about him (aside from the cheeseburger comment that is!)

Well, my beef with Moore is in his presentation, which I think obscures the message. I think the subjects usually call for a more serious tone. Moreover, he can present things in a distorted manner. A good example in F-9/11 was when W gave the soundbyte about getting terrorists and then, when done, said watch this drive and then swung the golf club. Anyone who has ever done a bunch of soundbytes (esp. the same one over and over), commericals, etc., knows that when the camera is off that is the end and you can go on with whatever you were doing. Yet, that clip made it look like W did something wrong by playing golf after recording a sound byte, which I think there is nothing per se wrong with. I mean if I go and get breakfast after this post and laugh and joke with my coworkers and then come back and be serious again, my seriousness is not diluted by my actions at the intervening breakfast. So, that is my only issue with Moore. Other than that, his presentation of facts in F-9/11 was pretty much dead on.

Sadly, people cannot get past the far rights portrayal of Moore as a fat pig and a traitor whose work is beneath comment despite it being accurate.

Here are some of the facts people have disputed and he has responded to:

THE FOLLOWING IS THE LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.

“With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well.” By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/
cnn.report/cnn.pdf

Ten minutes after the top of the hour, network excitement was again beginning to build. At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush's first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida -- and the presidency -- for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit. "George Bush, Governor of Texas will become the 43rd President of the United States," CNN's Bernard Shaw announced atop a graphic montage of a smiling Bush. "At 18 minutes past two o'clock Eastern time, CNN declares that George Walker Bush has won Florida's 25 electoral votes and this should put him over the top."PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/election2000/
election_night.html

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: The man who was in charge of the decision desk at FOX on election night was Bush’s first cousin, John Ellis.

“John Ellis, a first cousin of George W. Bush, ran the network's ‘decision desk’ during the 2000 election, and Fox was the first to name Bush the winner. Earlier, Ellis had made six phone calls to Cousin Bush during the vote-counting.” William O’Rourke, “Talk Radio Key to GOP Victory,” Chicago Sun-Times, December 3, 2002.

A Fox News consultant, John Ellis, who made judgments about presidential ‘calls’ on Election Night admits he was in touch with George W. Bush and FL Gov. Jeb Bush by telephone several times during the night, but denies breaking any rules. CNN, November 14, 2000; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/
11/14/politics/main249357.shtml.

John Ellis, the Fox consultant who called Florida early for George Bush, had to stop writing about the campaign for the Boston Globe because of family ‘loyalty’ to Bush. CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/
11/14/politics/main249357.shtml, November 14, 2000.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin’ woman and that her state has hired a company that’s gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren’t likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin.”

“The vote total was certified by Florida's secretary of state, Katherine Harris, head of the Bush campaign in Florida, on behalf of Gov. Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother.” Mark Zoller Seitz, “Bush Team Conveyed an Air of Legitimacy,” San Diego Union-Tribune, December 16, 2000.

The Florida Department of State awarded a $4 million contract to the Boca Raton-based Database Technologies Inc. (subsidiary of ChoicePoint). They were tasked with finding improperly registered voters in the state’s database, but mistakes were rampant. “At one point, the list included as felons 8,000 former Texas residents who had been convicted of misdemeanors.” St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 21, 2003.

Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, “was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida’s voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election. Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lost in Florida. Oliver Burkeman, Jo Tuckman, “Firm in Florida Election Fiasco Earns Millions from Files on Foreigners,” The Guardian, May 5, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,949709,00.html. See also, Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001.

In 1997, Rick Rozar, the late head of the company bought by ChoicePoint, donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. Melanie Eversley, “Atlanta-Based Company Says Errors in Felon Purge Not Its Fault,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001. Frank Borman of Database Technologies Inc. has donated extensively to New Mexico Republicans, as well as to the Presidential campaign of George W. Bush. Opensecrets.org, “Frank Borman.”

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Gore got the most votes in 2000.

[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

“The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.” Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001. See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post journalists who ran the consortium recount. The relevant point is made in Table I of the article. http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Congressional Black Caucus members tried to object to the election outcome on the floor of the House; no Senator would sign the objections.

“While Vice President Al Gore appeared to have accepted his fate contained in two wooden ballot boxes, Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus tried repeatedly to challenge the assignment of Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush…. More than a dozen Democrats followed suit, seeking to force a debate on the validity of Florida's vote on the grounds that all votes may not have been counted and that some voters were wrongly denied the right to vote.” Susan Milligan, “It’s Really Over: Gore Bows Out Gracefully,” Boston Globe, January 7, 2001.

The Congressional Black Caucus effort failed for “lack of the necessary signature by any senator.” Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) had previously advised Democratic senators not to cooperate. ‘They did not.’” Robert Novak, “Sweeney Link Won't Help Chao,” Chicago Sun-Times, January 14, 2001.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “On the day George W. Bush was inaugurated, tens of thousands of Americans poured into the streets of D.C. They pelted Bush’s limo with eggs.”

“Shouting slogans like ‘Hail to the Thief’ and ‘Selected, Not Elected,’ tens of thousands of protesters descended on George W. Bush's inaugural parade route yesterday to proclaim that he and Vice President Dick Cheney had ‘stolen’ the election.” Michael Kranish and Sue Kirchhoff, “Thousands Protest ‘Stolen’ Election,” Boston Globe, January 21, 2001.

“Scuffles erupted between radicals and riot police while an egg struck the bullet-proof presidential limousine as it carried Mr. Bush and wife Laura to the White House.” Damon Johnston, “Bush Pledges Justice as Critics Throw Eggs,” The Advertisers, January 22, 2001.
See also film footage.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “The inauguration parade was brought to a halt and the traditional walk to the White House was scrapped.”

Bush made one concession to the weather -- or to security concerns: He stayed in his limousine nearly the entire length of the mile-long inaugural parade, waving through a slightly foggy window. He got out to walk only for a brief distance when his motorcade reached the VIP grandstands in front of the Treasury Department and the White House. Doyle McManus, et al., “Bush Vows to Bring Nation Together,” Los Angeles Times, January, 21, 2001.

Bush's limo, which traveled most of the route at a slow walking pace, stopped dead just before it reached the corner of 14th St. and Pennsylvania Ave., where most of the protesters had congregated. Then it sped up dramatically, and Secret Service agents protecting the car on foot had to follow at a full run. When they reached a section of the parade route where the sidewalks were restricted to official ticketholders, Bush and his wife, Laura, who wore a flattering electric turquoise suit, got out of the limo to walk and greet supporters. Helen Kennedy, “Bush Pledges a United US,” New York Daily News, January 21, 2001.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “For the next eight months, it didn’t get any better for George W. Bush.”

In a poll conducted September 5 to September 9, 2001, Investor’s Business Daily and the Christian Science Monitor showed President Bush’s approval rating at 45%, down from 52% in May ( Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Poll, conducted by TIPP, 9/5 to 9/9, 2001). Zogby’s polling had Bush at 47% in late July 2001, down from 57% in February (Zogby, 7/26 to 7/29, 2001).

In June 2001, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed President Bush's approval rating at 50 percent, which was the lowest presidential approval rating in five years. Richard L. Berke, “G.O.P. Defends Bush in Face of Dip in Poll Ratings,” The New York Times, June 29 2001

On July 26, 2001, in an article entitled “Bush Lacks the Ability To Force Action on Hill,” Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote, “ It may be premature to conclude that Bush has lost control of his agenda, but lawmakers and strategists in both parties said that Bush's next year is much more likely to look like the fractious month of July than like the orderly march toward Bush's tax cut this spring.… The troubles began, of course, with Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords' departure from the GOP, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats. But the problems are nearly as bad in the House, where moderates who supported Bush's tax cut are proving recalcitrant on other issues. They rebelled against GOP leaders on campaign finance reform and held up Bush's "faith-based" legislation over concerns about discrimination. Next week, they're likely to oppose Bush's proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
California energy crisis also took a toll on Bush’s approval ratings. Due to rolling blackouts and rising utility bills Bush’s ratings took a toll among Californians. The poll showed that almost as many Californians disapproved of the President’s job as approved of it with an approve/disapprove of 42/40. “Calif. Governor Says He'll Sue to Force Government Action,” The Houston Chronicle, May 30, 2001.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.”

“News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’” Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Bush relaxes at Camp David, Kennebunkport and his ranch in Crawford Texas.

As of April 2004, President Bush had made 33 trips to Crawford during his presidency, bringing his total to more than 230 days at the ranch in just over three years. “Add his 78 trips to Camp David and five to his family’s compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has spent all or part of 500 days – or about 40 percent of his presidency – at one of these his three retreats.” “Bush Retreats to a Favorite Getaway: Crawford ranch,” Houston Chronicle, April 11, 2004.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: On Sept. 10, 2001 , Bush joined his brother in Florida where he slept the night in “a bed made of fine French linens.”

Bush has not been bashful about visiting Florida, ground zero in the vote-recount battle that followed last year's election. On this trip, he was spending a good deal of time with his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush. " President to Push Congress on Education in Fourth Florida Visit,” Associated Press, September 10, 2001; See also, CNN Inside Politics, September 10, 2001.
Two individuals prepared the president’s room “and made the bed with some of the family's fine French linens.” Tom Bayles, “The Day Before Everything Changed, President Bush Touched Locals' Lives,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune, September 10, 2002.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “As the attack took place, Mr. Bush was on his way to an elementary school in Florida . When informed of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, where terrorists had struck just eight years prior, Bush just decided to go ahead with his photo opportunity.”

NOTE: It should be emphasized that at the time Bush was notified of the first plane attack, he (unlike the rest of America) was already aware that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes, per the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB). He was also aware, of course, that the World Trade Center had been historically a target for terrorist attacks. He nonetheless went ahead with this photo opportunity in a school full of children.

“Mr. Bush arrived at the school, just before 9 am, expecting to be met by its motherly principal, Gwen Rigell. Instead he was pulled sharply aside by the familiar, bulky figure of 51-year-old Karl Rove, a veteran political fixer and trusted aide of both Mr. Bush and his father, George Sr. Mr. Rove, a fellow Texan with an expansive manner and a colorful turn of phrase, told the President that a large commercial airliner (American Flight 11) had crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre . Mr. Bush clenched his teeth, lowered his bottom lip and said something inaudible. Then he went into the school.” William Langley, “Revealed: What Really Went on During Bush’s ‘Missing Hours,’” The Telegraph, December 16, 2001.

“The airborne attack on the World Trade Center was at least the second terrorist attempt to topple the landmarks. In 1993, terrorists sought to bomb one building so that it would explode and fall into the other. The plot did not succeed, but six people were killed and more than 1,000 injured.” Cragg Hines, “Terrorists Strike from Air; Jetliners Slam into Pentagon, Trade Center” The Houston Chronicle, September 11, 2001.

August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US”: “Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks… FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” August 6, 2001, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US, http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “When the second plane hit the tower, his chief of staff entered the classroom and told Mr. Bush the nation is under attack.”

“At 9:05 a.m., the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., stepped into the classroom and whispered into the president's right ear, ‘A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack.’” David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., “After The Attacks: The Events; In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency,” The New York Times, September 16, 2001.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read My Pet Goat.”

“It was while attending a second-grade reading class at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla., to promote his education reforms that President Bush learned America was under attack. In the presence of her VIP guest, teacher Sandra Kay Daniels, 45, conducted the day's lesson, which centered on a story about a pet goat.” “9/11: A Year After,” Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2002.

President Bush listened to 18 Booker Elementary School second-graders read a story about a girl's pet goat Tuesday before he spoke briefly and somberly about the terrorist attacks. “Bush hears of attack while visiting Booker,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune, September 12, 2001.
See also film footage.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Nearly seven minutes passed with nobody doing anything.”

“[H]e lingered in the room for another six minutes [after being informed of the second plane]… [At] 9:12, he abruptly retreated, speaking to Mr. Cheney and New York officials.” David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., “After The Attacks: The Events;In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency,” The New York Times, September 16, 2001 .

“Mr. Bush remained in the elementary school for nearly a half an hour after Andy Card whispered in his ear.” Michael Kranish, “Bush: US To Hunt Down Attackers,” Boston Globe, September 11, 2001.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Should he have held at least one meeting since taking office to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism?”

“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’” Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

"Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a ‘first order threat’ and not a routine problem being exaggerated by ‘chicken little’ alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing8/staff_statement_8.pdf
See Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004:
MR. ROEMER: Okay. Let's move into, with my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration. On January the 25th, we've seen a memo that you had written to Dr. Rice, urgently asking for a principals review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda --

MR. CLARKE: Uh-huh.

MR. ROEMER: -- and response to the U.S.S. Cole. You attached to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000. Did you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these, and how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

MR. CLARKE: I did geta response. The response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, the counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-cabinet level committee, and not to the principals, and that therefore it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

MR. ROEMER: So, does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group, as you had previously done?

MR. CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then, when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the problems, the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and, launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those interrelated issues. That process probably ended, I think, in July of 2001, so we were readying for a principals meeting in July, but the principals' calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Maybe Mr. Bush was wondering why he had cut terrorism funding from the FBI.”

“This question of resources will also come up in the commission's questioning of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was brand-new on the job in the fall of 2001 and on September 10th cut the FBI's request for new counterterrorism money by 12 percent.” John Dimsdale, “Former FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General John Ashcroft to appear before 9/11 commission tomorrow,” NPR Radio: Marketplace, April 12, 2004. See also, 2001 budget documents including Attorney General John Ashcroft FY 2003 budget request to Office of Management and Budget, September 10, 2001, showing $65 million offset in the FBI budget for counter-terrorism equipment grants: http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/
cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D
/FY03ASHCROFT.PDF

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: The security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001, said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.

August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB): “Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘Blind Shaykh’ 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” August 6, 2001, Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US, http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/
04/10/whitehouse.pdf

“The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al-Qaida supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.” Clarke J. Scott, “Clarke Gave Warning on Sept. 4, 2001; Testimony Includes Apology to Families of Sept. 11 Victims, Associated Press, March 25, 2004.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: On August 6 th, 2001, George W. Bush went fishing.

“President Bush swung into vacation mode Monday, fishing for bass in his pond, strolling the canyons on his 1,600-acre ranch, taking an early-morning run. Associated Press, “President Bush Vacationing in Texas,” August 6, 2001.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Was it the guy my daddy’s friends delivered a lot of weapons to?”

In 1995, a member of Reagan's National Security Council and co-author of his National Security Directives, Howard Teicher, signed a sworn affidavit stating: “From early 1982 to 1987, I served as a Staff Member to the United States National Security Council.… In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. Pursuant to the secret NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. Under CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S. manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq. In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq. I specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq was a case in point. The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq." Affidavit of former Howard Teicher, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CARLOS CARDOEN et al, January 31, 1995. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
article1413.htm

“Questions have been raised about whether the United States not only ignored foreign arms shipments to Iraq, but actually encouraged or even arranged them. A former National Security Council official, Howard Teicher, said in a 1995 court affidavit that the CIA made sure Iraq received weapons from non-U.S. manufacturers.” Ken Guggenheim, “War Crimes Trial for Saddam Could Reveal Details of Past U.S. Help,” Associated Press, January 24, 2004.

“There is ample documentation demonstrating that the Reagan and Bush administrations supplied critical military technologies that were put directly to use in the construction of the Iraqi war machine. There is also strong evidence indicating that the executive branch's failure to crack down on illegal weapons traffickers or keep track of third party transfers of U.S. weaponry allowed a substantial flow of U.S.-origin military equipment and military components to make their way to Iraq.” William D. Hartung, Weapons at War; A World Policy Institute Issue Brief, May 1995. See also, Alan Friedman, Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq, (Bantam Books, 1993); Kenneth R. Timmerman, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, (Houghton, Mifflin, 1991).

“Rep. Dante Fascell, D-Fla., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said … that the United States could not ‘make a claim for purity’ on arms sales, since the U.S. government has sold weapons to Iran, Iraq ‘and everybody else in the world.’” Robert Shepard, “Congress Approves Aid for Former Soviet Republics,” United Press International, October 3, 1992.
“A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program. Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for "regime change" in Iraq. The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.” Patrick E. Tyler, “Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,” The New York Times, August 18, 2002.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Was it that group of religious fundamentalists who visited my state when I was governor?”

“A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.” “Taleban in Texas for talks on Gas Pipeline,” BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.)

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Or was it the Saudis? Damn, it was them.”

“The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document. One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes ‘very direct, very specific links’ between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators ‘that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental.’” Of all the hijackers, 15 of the 19 were Saudi. Josh Meyer, “Report Links Saudi Government to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say,” Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2003.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “In the days following September 11th , all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded.”

“On the morning of September 11th, there were 4,873 instrument flight rule (IFR) flights operating in U.S. airspace. As soon as Secretary Mineta was aware of the nature and scale of the terrorist attack on New York and Washington -- that we were faced with, not one, but four possible hijackings, and several other rumors of missing or unidentified aircraft -- the Secretary ordered the air traffic system shut down for all civil operations. Jane F. Garvey on Aviation Security Following the Terrorist Attack on September 11th, September 21, 2001; http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/testimony/
2001/testimony_010921.htm; see also, “Airports to Remain Closed, Mineta Says,” Department of Transportation Press Release, September 12, 2001

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.”

Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf

“Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.

“I was making or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 and the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know.” Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.”

NOTE: It should be noted that even though the film does not make the allegation, strong evidence has recently come to light that at least one private plane flew to pick up Saudi nationals while private flights were still grounded. Moreover, for nearly three years, the White House has denied that this flight existed. This was reported in the June 9, 2004 St. Petersburg Times article cited below.

After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people,mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf

It should be noted that the US Customs and Border Protection document released by the Department of Homeland Security under the FOIA, Feb 24, 2004 lists 162 Saudi Nationals who flew out of the country between 9/11/2001 and 9/15/2001, departing from New York’s Kennedy airport, Washington’s Dulles, and Dallas Fort Worth. http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/
2004/homelandsecurity.pdf.

For an official list of Saudi Passport holders (names redacted) who flew out of the country between 9.11.2001 – 9.15.2001, see US Customs and Border Protection document released by the Department of Homeland Security under the FOIA, Feb 24, 2004; http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/
2004/homelandsecurity.pdf.

The St. Petersburg Times reported on Jun 9, 2004:
o "Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left. The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky. The Saudis then took another flight out of the country.”

o Moreover: “For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose… The terrorism panel, better known as the 9/11 Commission, said in April that it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001. But it has said nothing about the Tampa flight… The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight.

o "Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights.” Jean Heller, “TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.” St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004

___________________________________________________________

There are many more of these at http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=17 - and these are facts - not fiction.

SuzeQuze

09-27-2005, 07:30 AM

The insane things that this woman has spit out of her mouth...please only someone like Michael Moore could have "spoon-fed" it to her!

Replace "this woman" with yourself and "Michael Moore" with Coulter.

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 07:30 AM

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Gore got the most votes in 2000.

[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

“The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.” Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001. See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post journalists who ran the consortium recount. The relevant point is made in Table I of the article. http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

Which is what I have been saying all along, although I remember you Jason, saying all newspapers agreed Bush won. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

What I dont understand is why the title of these articles says one thing while the content says something completely different??????

strandinthewind

09-27-2005, 07:35 AM

Which is what I have been saying all along, although I remember you Jason, saying all newspapers agreed Bush won. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Well, initially I did, but I had not read all of the info., some of which I think came out later.

In any event, my main point was and is that Gore tried to be sneaky and only bothered to contest the counties he thought were favorable to him. Other counties traditionally less favorable to D's demonstrated some discrepancies and Gore could have used that to contest those counties as well, but he did not. Only after that and likely after some due dilligence, did Gore say - hey W let's recount the whole state, which W, after his due dilligence saw his lead dwindling and fast - refused. So, Gore has IMO egg of his face as well.

In the end, the Court made its decision and that is that as there can be no arguing with the finality of it - though I think the decision was incorrect mostly from a procedural perspective.

Interestingly, Florida law specifically allowed the vote to be valid if the intent of the voter was discernable, which is what opened the can of worms.

strandinthewind

09-27-2005, 07:39 AM

Replace "this woman" with yourself and "Michael Moore" with Coulter.

Hey now - if she were praising W and attacking the D's as traitors - she would be considered a genius :laugh: :rolleyes:

In the end, I think this poor woman speaks her mind and from her heart. I just also think she is broadening her message so that the personal loss of her son is no longer the sole focus, which is sad to me because that was her charm.

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 07:40 AM

Well, initially I did, but I had not read all of the info., some of which I think came out later.
ok...I can see how that might have made a difference, but you sure were stubborn about it :)

In any event, my main point was and is that Gore tried to be sneaky and only bothered to contest the counties he thought were favorable to him. Im not so sure it unfolded the way you say, but we will never know. MM article says different?? :shrug:

In the end, the Court made its decision and that is that as there can be no arguing with the finality of it - though I think the decision was incorrect mostly from a procedural perspective.
Well, I argue with it!! I'll NEVER EVER get past that travesty...

Interestingly, Florida law specifically allowed the vote to be valid if the intent of the voter was discernable, which is what opened the can of worms. Well, what about the intent of the voters who were turned away? or falsely accused of being felons? based on color?
In the end, we either look at hanging chads or deal with tampered machines...what is this country coming to???

strandinthewind

09-27-2005, 07:46 AM

. . . Im not so sure it unfolded the way you say, but we will never know. MM article says different?? :shrug:

No. Gore was the first person to dispute the results and he did so only in certain counties that were favorable to him. Florida law allowed him to dispute all counties if a discrepancy could be proved and it could in other counties less favorable to him. But, he did not really look there.

Here is a timeline
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

Well, I argue with it!! I'll NEVER EVER get past that travesty...

You cannot argue with the finality of it, which was and is my point. In other words, they cannot reverse it :shrug: Thus, you can only argue with the reasoning, etc. Well, actually, you can argue with anything you like, but arguing against the finality of it is a waste of time because it cannot be changed :laugh:

Well, what about the intent of the voters who were turned away? or falsely accused of being felons? based on color?
In the end, we either look at hanging chads or deal with tampered machines...what is this country coming to???

I am talking about intent manifested on the voting card - the law as I understand it allows no other intent to be considered. As for the people blocked - that was tragic though many if not all of the people refused access could have remedied that prior to then by making sure they were properly registered, which I do before every election :wavey:

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 07:51 AM

Gore was the first person to dispute the results and he did so only in certain counties that were favorable to him. Florida law allowed him to dispute all counties if a discrepancy could be proved and it could in other counties less favorable to him. But, he did not really look there.
According to the article, that was the only recourse he had open to him according to Florida Law. When he requested an entire state recount, Bush refused and there was no mechanism in place to do otherwise. What else do you want him to do?

You cannot argue with the finality of it, which was and is my point. In other words, they cannot reverse it :shrug: Thus, you can only argue with the reasoning, etc. Well, actually, you can argue with anything you like, but arguing against the finality of it is a waste of time because it cannot be changed :laugh:
Honey, I can argue with a corpse!!! I'll just say "HE AINT MY PRESIDENT".

I am talking about intent manifested on the voting card - the law as I understand it allows no other intent to be considered. As for the people blocked - that was tragic though many if not all of the people refused access could have remedied that prior to then by making sure they were properly registered, which I do before every election :wavey:

yes, Im sure you do! In each of the States where you reside! Way to go!

btw: Jason my dear, I think you're Mellowing! :nod: Possibly its the thot of our impending air journey, but whatever, it suits you :)

strandinthewind

09-27-2005, 07:57 AM

According to the article, that was the only recourse he had open to him according to Florida Law. When he requested an entire state recount, Bush refused and there was no mechanism in place to do otherwise. What else do you want him to do?

I know that. I am talking about Gore's first request, which was for, I think, only four counties. He could have requested recounts in other counties if he had looked to see if there were errors there (which there were) - but he did not because they were less favorable to him.

Here is the timeline cited above (emphasis supplied) :

November 7: Election Day, as designated by Congress in Title 3, U.S. Code, Section 1.
November 8: About 3 a.m. EST, Vice President and Democratic Party candidate Al Gore telephones Texas Gov. and Republican Party candidate George W. Bush to concede. About an hour later, Gore retracts the concession because Bush's margin of victory in Florida is slim enough to trigger an automatic recount under 102.141(4) of the Florida Election Code (the Florida Division of Elections reported that the Republican Party presidential ticket received 2,909,135 (48.8%) votes and the Democratic Party presidential ticket received 2,907,351 (48.8%) votes; other candidates on the presidential ballot in Florida received a total of 139,616 votes). The automatic recount further reduces the vote margin. The first lawsuit is filed challenging Palm Beach's "butterfly ballot."

November 9: Manual recounts are requested by or on behalf of the Gore campaign under 102.166 in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Volusia counties. JURIST begins expanded coverage of the Florida recount.

November 11: Bush and several voters commence federal lawsuit (Siegel v. LePore) to halt manual recounts because of alleged equal protection and other constitutional violations.

November 12: Palm Beach County manual recount begins.

November 13: U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks rejects Bush's plea in Siegel for an order barring hand recounts of ballots. Volusia County sues to complete manual recount notwithstanding the November 14 "deadline" for county Canvassing Boards to file election returns (one week after general election) set in 102.112(1).

Honey, I can argue with a corpse!!! I'll just say "HE AINT MY PRESIDENT".

No SHIITTE :laugh:

strandinthewind

09-27-2005, 07:58 AM

. . . btw: Jason my dear, I think you're Mellowing! :nod: Possibly its the thot of our impending air journey, but whatever, it suits you :)

Perhaps :laugh:

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 08:09 AM

I know that. I am talking about Gore's first request, which was for, I think, only four counties. He could have requested recounts in other counties if he had looked to see if there were errors there (which there were) - but he did not because they were less favorable to him.
Personally, I think it makes perfect sense to suspect foul play in counties where you KNOW you have clear winners that are somehow NOT coming up clear winners. I cant fault Gore for that and Im surprised you do.

That whole thing was a fiasco from beginning to end. My mom's best friend had parents in Florida and she happened to be there during the vote/recount and she saw first hand what was going on. That state was hijacked the same way Ohio was. MM got it right. I think I will buy my own copy of F 9/11, pop some popcorn and sit down and have a "validation night" . after that, a stirring rendition of Danny Boy. :woohoo:

strandinthewind

09-27-2005, 08:12 AM

Personally, I think it makes perfect sense to suspect foul play in counties where you KNOW you have clear winners that are somehow NOT coming up clear winners. I cant fault Gore for that and Im surprised you do.

Well, I fault him because only later did he care enough about the voters in the other counties to request a recall - and then it was not really about protecting the rights of the voters, it was about him winning. I think people think Gore was trying to champion the rights of the disenfranchised. I am too cynical for that :laugh:

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 08:18 AM

Well, I fault him because only later did he care enough about the voters in the other counties to request a recall - and then it was not really about protecting the rights of the voters, it was about him winning. I think people think Gore was trying to champion the rights of the disenfranchised. I am too cynical for that :laugh:
Im just guessing here, but I betcha he saw the pattern of foul play the deeper he dug, and thats when he asked for the other recounts. I dont know about you but I can imagine him being flabbergasted as to the extent of the manipulation of the process....I imagine its pretty overwhelming when you see the extent to which the other side is willing to hijack the results. If you yourself act with personal dignity and play by the rules, its a little hard to swallow when you discover the other side will stop at nothing to win....Again, I cant fault the man.

I dont recall Gore making any comments as to the rights of the disenfranchised, I thought that was more a Jesse Jackson mantra? I could be wrong.....

lbelle1214

09-27-2005, 09:09 AM

It gets Georges' attention too. That is why he created the "preemptive strike" doctrine which gives him the ability to go around and wage war whenever his delusions about other countries intentions (or his hankerin for their oil) gets to be too much to bear.

Give me a break--perceived threats :shrug: Your son-in-law is brave and Im sure he has good intentions but pardon me, he's already bought into that whole cowboy mentality (lets get them before they get us) Utter CRAP. Im sure other nations could use that same logic on US. Then where would this world be? :distress:

Well, I just simply disagree....there's nothing to convince me otherwise. Do you lock your door for comfort?....or maybe it's your perception that someone could break in? Do you buy a big dog solely for companionship?....or do you buy that dog to help watch you watch over your home for possible perceived threats? Cowboy mentality? No need to get snitty....it's a survival mentality. Protect your own. My son-in-law bought into the reality that this country (can't speak for all) takes pride in freedom and democracy....otherwise we would not be here, speaking our minds, criticizing those officials we disagree with, complaining about the gov., etc. This world is going to be in worse shape, day by day, year by year, not by "getting them before they get us"....it'll be because people like us will disagree to the point where action without logic is taken that will turn "brother against brother", family against family....right in our own country. We'll get to watch it implode while the rest of the world watches....all because we become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Maybe you can call it "cowboy mentality" and others will not take offense....it just ruffled my feathers. I respect your opinion, however, maybe it's because I was raised to "serve and protect". My dad served in the Korean war, my brother Vietnam, my son-in-law Kuwait, my family (most) carry guns (licensed, of course). My grandfather was in law enforcement...I'm a nurse. The mentality is based on survival and love of your family, your friends, your church, your country. I'm feeling pretty emotional now because of all that I've been through the past couple of days...I survived....my family survived....my whole community survived....because we took action to protect ourselves There were no looters....we took care of each other, of strangers and neighbors. But watch to see if any of that was caught on CNN. While it is true that we were protecting ourselves from an actual threat, I will also protect myself and others of "perceived threats" if necessary. I do not feel that it is wrong to do so....I think it is foolish not to. JMO, worth nothing to some, everything to me. So....now that I prepare to go back to the HELL of destruction with additional supplies in tow....I'm saying goodbye, again, for now....don't know when I'll get to come back. But, unless the Lord decides it's my time to go, by heat stroke or by exhaustion.....I'll be back to bug ya'll with my lame "perceived" opinions. Take care....love each other....protect one another....and in the words of someone I truly respect...'be the first to shake a helping hand'. Peace and love. Laura

SuzeQuze

09-27-2005, 10:15 AM

Well, I just simply disagree....there's nothing to convince me otherwise. Do you lock your door for comfort?....or maybe it's your perception that someone could break in? Do you buy a big dog solely for companionship?....or do you buy that dog to help watch you watch over your home for possible perceived threats? Cowboy mentality? No need to get snitty....it's a survival mentality. Protect your own. My son-in-law bought into the reality that this country (can't speak for all) takes pride in freedom and democracy....otherwise we would not be here, speaking our minds, criticizing those officials we disagree with, complaining about the gov., etc. This world is going to be in worse shape, day by day, year by year, not by "getting them before they get us"....it'll be because people like us will disagree to the point where action without logic is taken that will turn "brother against brother", family against family....right in our own country. We'll get to watch it implode while the rest of the world watches....all because we become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Maybe you can call it "cowboy mentality" and others will not take offense....it just ruffled my feathers. I respect your opinion, however, maybe it's because I was raised to "serve and protect". My dad served in the Korean war, my brother Vietnam, my son-in-law Kuwait, my family (most) carry guns (licensed, of course). My grandfather was in law enforcement...I'm a nurse. The mentality is based on survival and love of your family, your friends, your church, your country. I'm feeling pretty emotional now because of all that I've been through the past couple of days...I survived....my family survived....my whole community survived....because we took action to protect ourselves There were no looters....we took care of each other, of strangers and neighbors. But watch to see if any of that was caught on CNN. While it is true that we were protecting ourselves from an actual threat, I will also protect myself and others of "perceived threats" if necessary. I do not feel that it is wrong to do so....I think it is foolish not to. JMO, worth nothing to some, everything to me. So....now that I prepare to go back to the HELL of destruction with additional supplies in tow....I'm saying goodbye, again, for now....don't know when I'll get to come back. But, unless the Lord decides it's my time to go, by heat stroke or by exhaustion.....I'll be back to bug ya'll with my lame "perceived" opinions. Take care....love each other....protect one another....and in the words of someone I truly respect...'be the first to shake a helping hand'. Peace and love. Laura

Take care Laura. I hope the destruction isn't too severe. :distress:

First, I want to mention, that the war in Iraq was not about the terrorists when it began. The terrorists have been able to infiltrate and accumulate in Iraq due to the lawlessness there. If it were a direct retaliation against terrorists we would be behind it. We supported the invasion of Afganistan to get Osama bin Laden, which was abandoned for still unknown reasons.

Second, we are no less democratic or freedome-loving than you are. How are the Iraqis free when a foreign government has come in to force its will on them? How is our system a true democracy when there was such fraud in the elections?

Third, I disagree with your opinion that our leanings will lead to "brother against brother". I suggest the opposite is true. The dividers are on the right. They leave the poor out of their decision making because they don't matter to them. They don't want to deal with racial or any type of social injustice because it isn't important to them. They are allowing the middle class to go more and more broke. The differences in class and race have become more vivid since this administration took office.

With that said, I do respect your right to your opinion and the respectful way in which you delivered it. Again, I hope that the destruction at your home is not that bad and you remain safe.

dissention

09-27-2005, 10:30 AM

But watch to see if any of that was caught on CNN.

I'm a CNN junkie and I can assure you that stuff like that was caught on CNN. Just last night they had a story about a man from New Orleans named Geraldo Montgomery who lost everything and has depended on the kindness of strangers to help him afterwards, and once again after he had to evacuate from Texas due to Rita. There have been countless stories and coverage of people who have opened their homes to help those in need and countless stories about the sacrifices being made by first responders, police, firefighters, doctors, and the like to help others. The line that CNN and cable news (though I can't speak for Faux News because I don't watch the garbage) doesn't cover the decent acts of humanity being taken by strangers to help one another doesn't fly.

While it is true that we were protecting ourselves from an actual threat, I will also protect myself and others of "perceived threats" if necessary. I do not feel that it is wrong to do so....I think it is foolish not to.

What's the standard that establishes a "perceived threat"? Iraq certainly wasn't one, especially considering they got 99% of their intel about the "threat" Iraq posed from Curve Ball, and he was about as reliable as Bush ten minutes after placing a bottle of Southern Comfort in front of him. I'm sorry to be so contrary, but logic has to play some part in all of this and I'm not hearing any.

JMO, worth nothing to some, everything to me. So....now that I prepare to go back to the HELL of destruction with additional supplies in tow....I'm saying goodbye, again, for now....don't know when I'll get to come back. But, unless the Lord decides it's my time to go, by heat stroke or by exhaustion.....I'll be back to bug ya'll with my lame "perceived" opinions. Take care....love each other....protect one another....and in the words of someone I truly respect...'be the first to shake a helping hand'. Peace and love. Laura

My thoughts are with you and your family, and I hope all is well. No one should have to deal with something like that.

gldstwmn

09-27-2005, 12:46 PM

Please, ya'll save some gas for us....we don't have ANY!!!!! :laugh: :laugh:

Well, I work at home so... :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

09-27-2005, 01:30 PM

Replace "this woman" with yourself and "Michael Moore" with Coulter.

Well there is a difference there.

1. Ann Coulter tells the truth.

2. She does not give me everything that I say. I admire her and read her columns weekly, but do have a mind of my own!

chiliD

09-27-2005, 01:47 PM

....what is this country coming to???

"coming to"? Too late..."IS". A Facist state. :shocked:

With Republicans holding a majority in the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and filling vacancies in the Judicial Branch with idealogical puppets, where's the "Balance of Power" granted by our Founding Fathers?? That is now long gone.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-27-2005, 01:51 PM

With Republicans holding a majority in the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and filling vacancies in the Judicial Branch with idealogical puppets, where's the "Balance of Power" granted by our Founding Fathers?? That is now long gone.

We the people man....we the people!!!

ShangriLaTroubl

09-27-2005, 02:25 PM

"coming to"? Too late..."IS". A Facist state. :shocked:

With Republicans holding a majority in the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and filling vacancies in the Judicial Branch with idealogical puppets, where's the "Balance of Power" granted by our Founding Fathers?? That is now long gone.

Well I dont think there's anything wrong with one party holding all the power (even though the party I align with is not in the position right now). The people voted these loons into power, and I know when the Democrats gain power in all branches in the future I wont be complaining...

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 02:28 PM

Well there is a difference there.

1. Ann Coulter tells the truth.

2. She does not give me everything that I say. I admire her and read her columns weekly, but do have a mind of my own!
get the hip boots cuz its gettin deep in here :eek:

SuzeQuze

09-27-2005, 02:34 PM

Well there is a difference there.

1. Ann Coulter tells the truth.

2. She does not give me everything that I say. I admire her and read her columns weekly, but do have a mind of my own!

Re: #1 :laugh:

Re: #2 Liberals don't have minds of their own? :laugh:

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 02:36 PM

Well, I just simply disagree....there's nothing to convince me otherwise. Do you lock your door for comfort?....or maybe it's your perception that someone could break in? Do you buy a big dog solely for companionship?....or do you buy that dog to help watch you watch over your home for possible perceived threats? Cowboy mentality? No need to get snitty....it's a survival mentality. Protect your own. My son-in-law bought into the reality that this country (can't speak for all) takes pride in freedom and democracy....otherwise we would not be here, speaking our minds, criticizing those officials we disagree with, complaining about the gov., etc. This world is going to be in worse shape, day by day, year by year, not by "getting them before they get us"....it'll be because people like us will disagree to the point where action without logic is taken that will turn "brother against brother", family against family....right in our own country. We'll get to watch it implode while the rest of the world watches....all because we become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Maybe you can call it "cowboy mentality" and others will not take offense....it just ruffled my feathers. I respect your opinion, however, maybe it's because I was raised to "serve and protect". My dad served in the Korean war, my brother Vietnam, my son-in-law Kuwait, my family (most) carry guns (licensed, of course). My grandfather was in law enforcement...I'm a nurse. The mentality is based on survival and love of your family, your friends, your church, your country. I'm feeling pretty emotional now because of all that I've been through the past couple of days...I survived....my family survived....my whole community survived....because we took action to protect ourselves There were no looters....we took care of each other, of strangers and neighbors. But watch to see if any of that was caught on CNN. While it is true that we were protecting ourselves from an actual threat, I will also protect myself and others of "perceived threats" if necessary. I do not feel that it is wrong to do so....I think it is foolish not to. JMO, worth nothing to some, everything to me. So....now that I prepare to go back to the HELL of destruction with additional supplies in tow....I'm saying goodbye, again, for now....don't know when I'll get to come back. But, unless the Lord decides it's my time to go, by heat stroke or by exhaustion.....I'll be back to bug ya'll with my lame "perceived" opinions. Take care....love each other....protect one another....and in the words of someone I truly respect...'be the first to shake a helping hand'. Peace and love. Laura
Do you remember Pearl Harbor or WWII? Those were REAL threats and a perfectly good reason for the US to respond.
Feeding the country a boatload of lies to further a greedy appetite for other countries oil isnt a perceived threat its a FULL OUT LIE and an ABUSE OF POWER and demeans the mission of our military who are bound to fulfil the orders of the Commander in Chief. A perceived threat has to be supported by FACTS not by lies. Nobody is saying the US doesnt have a right to protect itself, but Iraq was never a threat to US.

In the end, It sets a bad precedent to go rushing around using militry force "anticipating trouble" before it even materializes.

by the way: I love this country as much as you do, Im every bit as proud to be an American as you are. My family have also served, in each generation.
I have been involved in service to this country through careers in law, the court, social services. I raised my children with good values and they are tax paying citizens. I have nothing to be ashamed of and I resent the implication that my disgust with Monkey Boy or this bogus war somehow means Im part of the problem. Im not the one putting our young people in harms way. I want them home where they belong. I have no problem with Americans fighting for a just cause. But the attitude of "my President right or wrong" is assinine. :sorry:

stargazer99

09-27-2005, 04:24 PM

But yet it still is a loss.

I don't think that people should vote just because they feel they have a duty to do so. There is nothing wrong with being politically ignorant, there is no shame in it...but you shouldn't vote if you are! Like the "vote or die" crap..."Vote for Kerry/Edwards because Madonna says so" :confused:

Or like the "Vote for Bush/Cheney because Jesus says so" crap that many churches nationwide doled out. Or the "Vote for Bush/Cheney or Osama will come get ya" crap as well. BTW, one of the exit polls showed that something like 61% of those who voted for Bush believe there was a link between 9/11 and SH. And that WMD's had been found. :rolleyes:

Oh, sorry, I forgot... all polls are biased.

strandinthewind

09-27-2005, 07:46 PM

Or like the "Vote for Bush/Cheney because Jesus says so" crap that many churches nationwide doled out. Or the "Vote for Bush/Cheney or Osama will come get ya" crap as well. BTW, one of the exit polls showed that something like 61% of those who voted for Bush believe there was a link between 9/11 and SH. And that WMD's had been found. :rolleyes:

Oh, sorry, I forgot... all polls are biased.

You forgot that God hates fags and the D want fags to get your children, which is what all fags want in the end :wavey:

Interestingly, W wants to send children once they grow up to their deaths in an unnecessary wqar he lied about the reasons for starting. But, better dead for a lied for reason than a fag. After all, Jesus hates fags and wrought AIDS on them as a punishment :rolleyes: So - vote R for Jesus - otherwise burn in hell :rolleyes: They make me sick :mad:

irishgrl

09-27-2005, 10:40 PM

and the D want fags to get your children

whats this? whats this? I never heard anything like THIS before......is this some new propaganda BS??