Cindy Sheehan Needs to Go Home

[TIES2]

So here's this lady outside the ranch in Crawford protesting the death of her son in Iraq. I understand her pain and her grief. If standing outside the ranch helps her through the grieving process...

But I just can't understand why so many people are of the opinion that joining the army means never having to put one's self in harm's way. Did she try to dissuade her son from joining the army? I would certainly try to dissuade my child, peace time or war time. He was a young man and I have no idea if he joined before or after 9/11. Or perhaps he's one of the ones who used the army to pay for college or for some other personal gain and never ever dreamed that active combat would be required of him (but the possibility, however remote it may have seemed at the time, should have been factored into the decision making process).

While Ms. Sheehan says the only thing President Bush can do to honor her son is bring all the troops home, she will get her wish, eventually. Just not tomorrow. Or the next day. Or the day after that. In the meantime, other young men and woman will die in the line of duty and leave parents, wives, husbands, children, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles to grieve. Some will join Ms. Sheehan; thinking their loved one paid the ultimate price for.... well I can only imagine that Ms. Sheehan probably sees it as being "all for nothing." Others will see the sacrifice differently, perhaps as something noble and honorable, right or just.

Personally, I don't really know how I feel about the war in Iraq anymore. I do know that it is larger and more complicated than Ms. Sheehan and her son. I think she should go home because her little tirade will not change what is happening at the moment. It may feed into the hands of all of those opposed to this administration and the war. It may serve to drive the wedge dividing this country even deeper. It may serve to gladden the hearts of the world's undesirables...whom I tend to think watch all of this with amusement and glee. But it does nothing to solve the problem.

I keep thinking about the staement from Anyman al-Zawahri boradcast on al-Jeezera August 4....

He basically says Britain will suffer more terror attacks and he renews threats to other countries with troops in Iraq. He then goes on to asy....


"What you have seen in New York and Washington, you Americans, and the losses you see in Afghanistan and Iraq — despite all the media blackout — are merely the losses from the initial clashes," he said.

"If you go on with the same policy of aggression against Muslims, you will see, God willing, what will make you forget the horrible things in Vietnam," he said.

"There is no exit from Iraq except in immediate withdrawal. Any delay in taking that decision means nothing but more dead, more losses," he said. "If you don't leave today, certainly you will leave tomorrow, but after tens of thousands of dead and double the number of disabled and wounded."

Al-Zawahri threatened other nations who have sent troops alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying they "will harvest the fruits of their cooperation soon, God willing."

He also called for Arab militaries, intellectuals and businessmen to start working to get rid of "corrupt" regimes in the Middle East and "start prepare for change, starting now, whatever it takes of time or effort."


First question I have deals with the last paragrapgh -- what is the specific nature of the change he is talking about? Who are the corrupt regimes he references?

Finally, I wonder if this is not a fundamental strategy shift. Post 9/11, the world had our sympathy...since then, anti-American sentiment has increased across the board in Europe and elsewhere. I was trying to find some poll results to show whether anti-American sentiments had abated or increased as a result of the July 7/21 bombings. I know in Marid, anti-American sentiment shot upward after the train bombing.

Think about it...direct terror against us in the vain of 9/11 may actually soften attitudes towards Americans where as terrorist attacks against our allies could actually net increased anti-American sentiment -- and that might just be what Al-Quada wants. Maybe they are saving their best shot for us at that point when the majority of the world could care less (or sees such an attack as justifiable).

I'm going out on one of those limbs again here, but I think that Al-Quada has the strategic advantage in some ways...I think they understand the Western pyshe more than the West understands the Islamic psyche. Afterall, many of the leaders in Al-Quada are western educated or lived in the West and are more familair with Western ways and cultures.

I think when they issue these videos or statements everyone needs to read them carefully...I don't think they are that obtuse or contain lots of hidden messages. They're actually pretty straightforward, we just refuse to believe that they're true or we simply don't understand what they are saying.

So Cindy, please go home and think about all of this. Think about what is ultimately at stake, not just in Iraq or the other Arab nations or Europe but perhaps in your own backyard...and maybe not today, maybe not even tomorrow, but someplace in the future...try to see the forest through the trees...

It's been said many times, many ways, that American policy is the problem....but in the absence of American policy where does that truly leave America?????

[On Highway 29]

Cindy Sheehan Needs to Go Home

Why? She's a citizen who pays taxes and she's on public property.

But I just can't understand why so many people are of the opinion that joining the army means never having to put one's self in harm's way.

Because right the army isn't an equal opportunity employer. Yes, every so often you hear of a kid from Princeton joining the army. But let's be real...by and large, the kids in the army are from rural communities with poor economic conditions. They join the army because it's there one ticket out...if they don't get killed in Iraq first.

This month's issue of Vanity Fair has an article about what recruiters are doing to entice high school kids to join. You won't find these recruiters at schools located in affluent white neighborhoods.

America only loves soldiers, our veterans, when they return from combat with all their limbs and are able to adjust seemlessly back into life. The rest of 'em, we could care less about. Why else has GWB cut benefits for veterans.

People in this country care more about the rising price of gas than they do about the soldiers getting killed and seriously maimed in Iraq. So in this sense Cindy S's son may have died for nothing.

[TIES2]

How do you know what the people in this country really care about???? I don't disagree with your assessment about recruitment tactics by the way. At least at the moment one still has the option of saying no. I guess Kerry was one of those princeton-like exceptions!

I only think Cindy should go home because standing their is not bringing her son back, it's not bringing anyone else home, it's not changing anyone's mind about how they feel about the war, it's not changing the recruitment strategy, it's basically not doing anything...

[myhometown]

Maybe it's making her feel better. Having lost her son, who are you to take that away from her?

[TIES2]

I acknowledged that if it was helping her with the grieving process...

[HeldUp]

My friend's father is from Iraq. His uncle was murdered for suspicion he was part of a plot to overthrow Saddam (he wasn't). His family was told if they grieved openly, they would find a similar fate.

Thank God we live in a land where we can express our opposition to our leaders and the loss of our loved ones without fear of retribution. Go get 'em, Cindy. We'll never understand the pain you are experiencing, but hopefully this will help with your grieving.

From God we arrive and to Him we shall all return.

[Mr.Outside]

I think the key is that her son died in Iraq and not in a country that had something to do with 9-11.

[On Highway 29]

How do you know what the people in this country really care about???? I don't disagree with your assessment about recruitment tactics by the way. At least at the moment one still has the option of saying no. I guess Kerry was one of those princeton-like exceptions!

Ties 2--
I only know what people in this country care about through my interactions with friends, coworkers, people I meet as well as what I read, see on TV and hear on the radio. Considering our politicians -- both Dems and Repubs -- are constantly telling us what we care about in order to get re-elected, my opinion is as good as theirs.

And I do hear people complaining over and over about the price of gas, moreso than I hear people complaining that American soldiers are being killed.

Am I reading you wrong when I sense you're knocking Kerry because he's "one of those princeton-like exceptions?" He was a rich white kid who enlisted so maybe he was one of those exceptions. So was Kennedy, Dole, the first Bush.

I only think Cindy should go home because standing their is not bringing her son back, it's not bringing anyone else home, it's not changing anyone's mind about how they feel about the war, it's not changing the recruitment strategy, it's basically not doing anything...

No, nothing can return her son. A parent losing a child is one of the most painful things to deal with. I've never lost a child but if this is what will help her deal with her loss, let her be. She's part of what war is--death, loss, grief, etc. Our government doesn't want us to see this side of war, though.

Let's face it...there aren't enough troops in Iraq. Military officials have said this repeatedly. But Bush and Rumsfield are in denial about it because if they weren't in denial they would know they'd have to bring the draft back. And they know that once they do that, rather than 60 percent of Americans saying Iraq was a mistake, it would be closer to 100 percent.

I have no way of proving this but I think if Bush said during the pre-war build-up that he'd be reinstating the draft, very few people would have supported the war.

[TIES2]

That's naive....real naive....but, hey, let's bury our head in the sands for another 10-30 years and see what the world looks like when we emerge from our slumber....

[BruceNut]

So here's this lady outside the ranch in Crawford protesting the death of her son in Iraq. I understand her pain and her grief.

I stopped reading right after you said that. Unless you`ve lost a child in a war you cant fathom her loss. So you understand nothing.


if standing outside the ranch helps her grieving process.....


what? thats not a sentence. You`re leaving the reader,us, to believe what exactly? If its that she has the right to grieve there on public property, then why tell her to go home?
This ladies son just gave his life for you and the things you enjoy here. The very least you could do is let the lady grieve where ever she wants and say THANK YOU !

[TIES2]

I stopped reading right after you said that. Unless you`ve lost a child in a war you cant fathom her loss. So you understand nothing.

I do understand premature loss -- in my case, both parents, in my early teen years...so I can probably empathize with her more than most on this board....but that's not my reson for starting the thread....

what? thats not a sentence. You`re leaving the reader,us, to believe what exactly? If its that she has the right to grieve there on public property, then why tell her to go home? This ladies son just gave his life for you and the things you enjoy here. The very least you could do is let the lady grieve where ever she wants and say THANK YOU![/

I didn't say she does not have the right to grieve...I just disagree with her method...she's demanding an audience with the president of the United States....and she's not going to get it...the crowd in Crawford is growing...I do not see anything positive happening here...nothing...she's just polarizing an already polarized nation...this all has the potential to get ugly...

The president has issued a statement and I support his position (and at a point when I no longer support the war). We cannot leave now...leaving now would definitely result in Ms. Sheehan losing her son for naught....but's that not the reason we can't leave...

[Flory Days]

That's naive....real naive....but, hey, let's bury our head in the sands for another 10-30 years and see what the world looks like when we emerge from our slumber....What's naive? The whole post? I happen to think there is nothing naive about this but I can't argue a point when you make no specific point.

[QUOTE=TIES2] The president has issued a statement and I support his position (and at a point when I no longer support the war). We cannot leave now...leaving now would definitely result in Ms. Sheehan losing her son for naught....but's that not the reason we can't leave...[QUOTE=TIES2]Again, what are you saying? What IS the reason we can't leave?

When I go back and read your original post......you make a perfect case FOR leaving in everything you say except your conclusion! Which I guess, like Bush, is because your mind is already made up and no amount of logic will change it.

If I understand correctly you originally supported the war, and now maybe you are against it, but also against withdrawal. Yet you would try to dissuade your child from serving......I'm guessing that you would have tried to dissuade him from the beginning..........who do you expect to fight this war?

And if you now think the war was a mistake, to paraphrase what Kerry said in his anti-Vietnam testimony, how do you tell Cindy Sheehan or whoever the next parent may be, that their child died for a big mistake? How many more parents are you willing to put through this loss?

[On Highway 29]

That's naive....real naive....but, hey, let's bury our head in the sands for another 10-30 years and see what the world looks like when we emerge from our slumber....

Hey Ties2,
I agree that we've had our heads in the sands for some time now. And we just keep digging ourselves in deeper. I’m feeling pretty hopeless about the U.S. right now.

I have no idea how the Iraq situation will be resolved.
The extreme right wing scares the sh*t out of me.

While we go back and forth on these wedge issue – abortion, gays, patriotism -- China is becoming the next superpower and the Saudis continue to spread their extreme version of Islam.

Oh, I almost forgot….we can’t find this Osama guy who is hiding in the mountains and (supposedly) uses a dialysis machine.

[TIES2]

Hey Ties2,
I agree that we've had our heads in the sands for some time now. And we just keep digging ourselves in deeper. I’m feeling pretty hopeless about the U.S. right now.

I have no idea how the Iraq situation will be resolved.
The extreme right wing scares the sh*t out of me.

While we go back and forth on these wedge issue – abortion, gays, patriotism -- China is becoming the next superpower and the Saudis continue to spread their extreme version of Islam.

Oh, I almost forgot….we can’t find this Osama guy who is hiding in the mountains and (supposedly) uses a dialysis machine.

It was the response before yours that I was referring to as naive...

[TIES2]

What's naive? The whole post? I happen to think there is nothing naive about this but I can't argue a point when you make no specific point.

[QUOTE=TIES2] The president has issued a statement and I support his position (and at a point when I no longer support the war). We cannot leave now...leaving now would definitely result in Ms. Sheehan losing her son for naught....but's that not the reason we can't leave...[QUOTE=TIES2]Again, what are you saying? What IS the reason we can't leave?

When I go back and read your original post......you make a perfect case FOR leaving in everything you say except your conclusion! Which I guess, like Bush, is because your mind is already made up and no amount of logic will change it.

If I understand correctly you originally supported the war, and now maybe you are against it, but also against withdrawal. Yet you would try to dissuade your child from serving......I'm guessing that you would have tried to dissuade him from the beginning..........who do you expect to fight this war?

And if you now think the war was a mistake, to paraphrase what Kerry said in his anti-Vietnam testimony, how do you tell Cindy Sheehan or whoever the next parent may be, that their child died for a big mistake? How many more parents are you willing to put through this loss?

I knew it would not take long for us to find the clause worth "fighting" for!

I don't understand how I make a "perfect" case for leaving in everything I say except the conclusion...leaving what? Cindy leaving Crawford? The US leaving Iraq? Perhaps I'm having trouble following your train of thought because it's late...

I am not opposed to the war in the same way that many others are opposed to the war...Saddam needed to go. He's gone. That's a plus. That there were no WMDs should probably summon a huge sigh of relief rather than a finger-pointing free-for-all. My doubts about the war stem from concerns about our ability to actually win since I've become more and more convinced that we don't have a whole lot of understanding about the foe we're really fighting. We do not even really know if the insurgents are internal, external (to Iraq) or a combination of all. Hence the reason I introduced the verbiage from the recent Al-Quaida rant... the 11th hour posturing of the shi'ites for a more independent more fundamentalist Islamic governance in the south (complete with Sharia law) versus the desires of the Kurds for a more independent region to the North leaving the former Sunni regime dangling in the middle and one can easily see that this is way beyond what was anticipated. Aside from all this, there does appear to be a strong desire on the part of the Iraqi people to grow a democracy...which part, I'm not sure.

I do not believe the efforts are of soldieras have been in vain. I do not believe Mrs. Sheehan's son died for nothing. I am against withdrawal because to leave now would surely usher in the worse sort of internal carnage in Iraq...secondly, it's exactly whatthe extremeists want. They want us not only to leave Iraq, but to leave all Arab and muslim countries and not look back. Now, I suppose you would argue that there's nothing wrong with that. That we should have never meddled in the affairs of those countries to begin with. But we cannot turn our backs. The world cannot turn its back. We cannot let the roots of Islamic fundamentalism grow and spread. I suppose if all they wanted was a small corner of the world to go about stoning people to death, the world could safely look the other way...

As David pointed out in another post some time ago, they are serious about this eye for an eye stuff. Even if we left Iraq, left all their lands, there'd still be a debt that was owed on which they will continue to try and collect.

Do I support all US policy? No. But nor do I think US policy can or will ever shift to the degree desired by the Islamic fundamentalists. And I know there are those reading here who don't see the problem, after all, it's just a few misguided individuals...but that's where I think we're wrong ... dead wrong. Islamic fundamentalism is flourishing and growing...And while American policy may be fanning the flames, in the minds of our detractors nothing short of complete and total annihilation will squelch the blaze.

[dukestreetking]

Her son reenlisted. He wanted to be there to help defend America and help the freedom loving Iraqi people. He was killed by radicals who would cut the heads off any of us if we walked into their neighborhood or blow up your neighborhood if they had the chance.

It's real easy for all of us to Monday morning quarterback. Fact is we are coming on 4 years without a terror attack on US soil. NO ONE I know would have expected that on 9/12/01. Everyone I know would have given just about anything on 9/12/01 to insure the last 4 years of prosperity and saftey we have enjoyed. How quick we all are to forget the horror.

Shame on all of you with short memories and shame on Ms. Sheehan for giving support to our enemies.

DSK

[mhafinancial]

Her son reenlisted. He wanted to be there to help defend America and help the freedom loving Iraqi people. He was killed by radicals who would cut the heads off any of us if we walked into their neighborhood or blow up your neighborhood if they had the chance.

It's real easy for all of us to Monday morning quarterback. Fact is we are coming on 4 years without a terror attack on US soil. NO ONE I know would have expected that on 9/12/01. Everyone I know would have given just about anything on 9/12/01 to insure the last 4 years of prosperity and saftey we have enjoyed. How quick we all are to forget the horror.

Shame on all of you with short memories and shame on Ms. Sheehan for giving support to our enemies.

DSK


You're a Jew. There are plenty of skinheads and Aryan Supremacists right here in the good ol' USA who would love to blow up your neighborhood if given the chance....so your point is....?

Before 9/11 we enjoyed 225 years of no terrorist attacks on US soil (the British notwithstanding), and yes, we have enjoyed 4 years since. And we mighthave enjoyed 230 years of uninterrupted years of no foreign terrorist attacks on US soil if Condi and Bushy had paid a little more attention to all the signals while Bush was on his oh-so-well deserved month long vacation in August 2001, but as you said, no need to Monday morning quarterback.

The only ones giving support to our enemies are the likes of you, because they have you running scared, ready to give up that which makes this country great as you search for terrorists behind every corner. Shame on all of you 'fraidy cats for letting them try to change our way of life.

[pinky]

DSK, according to his mother's statement (and I think you'd have to agree that she knew him and his intentions better than any of us do), Casey Sheehan thought this war was wrong, but that, since his fellow soldiers were going, it was his duty to go as well. That's quite different from going because he believed in the cause.

[pinky]

With all due respect, David, we did have the first attack on the WTC during the Clinton years. Other than that, which did some damage but had minimal cost in lives, we've had no terrorist attacks.

Oh, and sorry, DSK, for not letting YOU point that out as a starting point for another senseless argument.

[mhafinancial]

With all due respect, David, we did have the first attack on the WTC during the Clinton years. Other than that, which did some damage but had minimal cost in lives, we've had no terrorist attacks.

Oh, and sorry, DSK, for not letting YOU point that out as a starting point for another senseless argument.
Good point on the first WTC attack... let's not forget that McVeigh doesn't count because he is home grown, and those that Roberts was happy to support who attacked abortion clinics don't count because they're...well...Republicans and so their brand of terrorism is ok. My bad.

[Flory Days]

I knew it would not take long for us to find the clause worth "fighting" for!

I don't understand how I make a "perfect" case for leaving in everything I say except the conclusion...leaving what? Cindy leaving Crawford? The US leaving Iraq? Perhaps I'm having trouble following your train of thought because it's late...

I am not opposed to the war in the same way that many others are opposed to the war...Saddam needed to go. He's gone. That's a plus. That there were no WMDs should probably summon a huge sigh of relief rather than a finger-pointing free-for-all. My doubts about the war stem from concerns about our ability to actually win since I've become more and more convinced that we don't have a whole lot of understanding about the foe we're really fighting. We do not even really know if the insurgents are internal, external (to Iraq) or a combination of all. Hence the reason I introduced the verbiage from the recent Al-Quaida rant... the 11th hour posturing of the shi'ites for a more independent more fundamentalist Islamic governance in the south (complete with Sharia law) versus the desires of the Kurds for a more independent region to the North leaving the former Sunni regime dangling in the middle and one can easily see that this is way beyond what was anticipated. Aside from all this, there does appear to be a strong desire on the part of the Iraqi people to grow a democracy...which part, I'm not sure.

I do not believe the efforts are of soldieras have been in vain. I do not believe Mrs. Sheehan's son died for nothing. I am against withdrawal because to leave now would surely usher in the worse sort of internal carnage in Iraq...secondly, it's exactly whatthe extremeists want. They want us not only to leave Iraq, but to leave all Arab and muslim countries and not look back. Now, I suppose you would argue that there's nothing wrong with that. That we should have never meddled in the affairs of those countries to begin with. But we cannot turn our backs. The world cannot turn its back. We cannot let the roots of Islamic fundamentalism grow and spread. I suppose if all they wanted was a small corner of the world to go about stoning people to death, the world could safely look the other way...

As David pointed out in another post some time ago, they are serious about this eye for an eye stuff. Even if we left Iraq, left all their lands, there'd still be a debt that was owed on which they will continue to try and collect.

Do I support all US policy? No. But nor do I think US policy can or will ever shift to the degree desired by the Islamic fundamentalists. And I know there are those reading here who don't see the problem, after all, it's just a few misguided individuals...but that's where I think we're wrong ... dead wrong. Islamic fundamentalism is flourishing and growing...And while American policy may be fanning the flames, in the minds of our detractors nothing short of complete and total annihilation will squelch the blaze.Yes Ties2, I thought your original post made a case for the US leaving Iraq. I do not understand how you can say you supported the war to take Saddam out, but now might oppose it because it may be unwinnable and we may not understand the enemy. What do you want, half a war? It doesn't work that way. We should never start a war. But if we are going to, we certainly should have an exit strategy and we better understand our enemy. Would you sky-dive into the ocean without understanding the wind and water conditions and without having a plan to reach land?

Regarding WMD's no finger pointing free for all is necessary. There is only one way to point and that is at the president. Many people closer to this situation than you or I doubted the existence of WMD all along.

As to the Iraqi "democracy" and constitutional attempts being "way beyond what was anticipated"???? Anticipated by whom? Those in the Bush administration who said we would be greeted as liberators? Who was being naive? The sectarian posturing and power grabbing is par for the course throughout history in this region of the world. Hardly unexpected.

And if you can say American policy is "fanning the flames" doesn't it make sense to come up with a better policy?

If Cindy wants to stay in Crawford she should....its a free country, right? She is entitled to express her opinion....free speech is still the law of the land. And if President Bush doesn't think her son died in vain, he should try explaining that to her. That is the least he can do for families that have sacrificed the lives of their loved ones. Maybe its harder not being truthful in a one-on-one conversation.

[Flory Days]

Shame on all of you with short memories and shame on Ms. Sheehan for giving support to our enemies.

DSKHow cold........her son gave his life........she should not be accused of "supporting our enemies". Families of those who have lost their lives DESERVE to know whether or not their child died for a just cause, or maybe a big mistake?

And if the answer is a big mistake, maybe they want to see that this doesn't continue to happen to more families.

[bobby18]

People in this country care more about the rising price of gas than they do about the soldiers getting killed and seriously maimed in Iraq. So in this sense Cindy S's son may have died for nothing.

I haven't posted here for a while (to the relief of many here), but this statement is speculative at best. First, you claim to know what everyone in this country cares about - you don't. Second, relating the price of gas to the death of Cindy's sun has no relation. In what sense are you saying that he died for nothing? Serving his country? :scratch:

[bobby18]

Good point on the first WTC attack... let's not forget that McVeigh doesn't count because he is home grown, and those that Roberts was happy to support who attacked abortion clinics don't count because they're...well...Republicans and so their brand of terrorism is ok. My bad.

Get your facts straight. I, and millions of other registered Republicans do not support any form of terrorism. Another fabrication to support weak positions from the left. :zzz:

[TIES2]

DSK, according to his mother's statement (and I think you'd have to agree that she knew him and his intentions better than any of us do), Casey Sheehan thought this war was wrong, but that, since his fellow soldiers were going, it was his duty to go as well. That's quite different from going because he believed in the cause.

And also quite different because the military does not offer it's rank an opportunity to opt out....nor has it ever. Certainly with Vietnam as the precedent that not all US military engagements are universally accepted as right (as many posting here are all to quick to point out), the "chance," therefore, must exist that not all future engagements will be deemed "right." Again, it should have gone into the initial decision making process in the "join the military; don't join the military" debate.

[TIES2]

What do you want, half a war? It doesn't work that way. We should never start a war. But if we are going to, we certainly should have an exit strategy and we better understand our enemy. Would you sky-dive into the ocean without understanding the wind and water conditions and without having a plan to reach land?


Here's our problem....you believe war is never the answer while I believe that, unfortunately, sometimes it is inevitable (history would be on my side, bythe way. I see no historical precedent for Utopia). You toss out your sky-diving analogy. So let me toss out my Army Corp of Engineers rebuttal... there are many examples where the amry corp of engineers, applying their best knowledge of the moment, have implemented a solution only to have it fail because they did not fully understand the problem. One example here is controlling beach erosion, from sand replacement to artificial barrier reefs, they have come up short of the intended goal time and time again.

Does it mean their initial thinking was flawed? No, their thinking was sound, just not complete.



Regarding WMD's no finger pointing free for all is necessary. There is only one way to point and that is at the president. Many people closer to this situation than you or I doubted the existence of WMD all along.

Then they should have had the "ba##s" to say so. We've agreed on this in the past. If indeed, the Presidint was given misinformation because those around the President were delivering what they thought the President wanted to hear or were afraid to take a stand to the contrary, for whatever reason, then we've got major problems. I simply refuse to believe that the President was 100% certain there were no WMDs (or worse fabricated it to begin with) simply because he wanted Saddam gone. Now, I have read and would give credence to the idea that there are those surrounding the President who may have felt that way and thus be the real problem...I just do not believe the President would go down that road.



As to the Iraqi "democracy" and constitutional attempts being "way beyond what was anticipated"???? Anticipated by whom? Those in the Bush administration who said we would be greeted as liberators? Who was being naive? The sectarian posturing and power grabbing is par for the course throughout history in this region of the world. Hardly unexpected. And if you can say American policy is "fanning the flames" doesn't it make sense to come up with a better policy?

Yes, and a better one than the current apologist approach that is so in vogue. America has nothing to apologize for. But if we do agree to go home, not only from Iraq, but from all of the Arab nations in the Middle East, as it seems this would be the only way to call off the Fatwa, I suggest we do so only after we dismantle all the oil refinery equipment we financed and built, collect on all the debt we have relieved or is still outstanding from the millions and millions and millions of dollars we have invested in the region.


If Cindy wants to stay in Crawford she should....its a free country, right? She is entitled to express her opinion....free speech is still the law of the land. And if President Bush doesn't think her son died in vain, he should try explaining that to her. That is the least he can do for families that have sacrificed the lives of their loved ones. Maybe its harder not being truthful in a one-on-one conversation.

You know this is interesting...perhaps I will go camp outside Bruce's house to protest his political comments during his concerts...do you think he'll come out and talk to me? And if he did, just how long do you think it would take before there were 100s and 100s of people camped outside his house demanding a personal audience with him?????

Sure, it would be warm and fuzzy and make us all feel good all over if the President would only stop and listen and just talk to her. But there's a lot more to it than that. I just don't see it happening.

Yes free speech is still the law of the land, but barely...the ACLU and others are trying to preempt any free speech it finds objectionable. Too bad it's sooo one sided.

[TIES2]

You're a Jew. There are plenty of skinheads and Aryan Supremacists right here in the good ol' USA who would love to blow up your neighborhood if given the chance....so your point is....?

Before 9/11 we enjoyed 225 years of no terrorist attacks on US soil (the British notwithstanding), and yes, we have enjoyed 4 years since. And we mighthave enjoyed 230 years of uninterrupted years of no foreign terrorist attacks on US soil if Condi and Bushy had paid a little more attention to all the signals while Bush was on his oh-so-well deserved month long vacation in August 2001, but as you said, no need to Monday morning quarterback.

Perhaps Clinton should have been paying a bit more attention too rather than checking his reflection in the mirror so often (i.e., popularity polls)

The only ones giving support to our enemies are the likes of you, because they have you running scared, ready to give up that which makes this country great as you search for terrorists behind every corner. Shame on all of you 'fraidy cats for letting them try to change our way of life.

You know, you're right, we should not be afraid of the terrorists changing our way of life...that's going to happen on its own, terrorists or not. Worldwide population trends, apologist politics, a less than "United" States...we can expect our way of life to head south, if not in our lifetime perhaps that of our children or grandchildren, but head south it will...

But let's get back to the terrorists ....they want us out of Muslim countries...okay, let's leave. End of story. Or is it just the beginning?

Do you think at some point they may want to take back former Muslim countries? Greece? Spain? Parts of Italy? Among others? I suppose we will just step aside and let them to do it. Perhaps we'll give America back to the Indians? California and Texas back to Mexico. We'll send home all the descendants of the individuals taken from Africa against their will. In fact, we may as well all pack up our bags and go home to whatever country our ancestors hailed from (For me, I'm just not sure which parts I would send to which country, but I'm sure I could figure it out).

But David, out of all of what you said, I'd like you to explain the part about "ready to give up that which makes this country great" because I was of the opinion that prevailing liberal views
see this country as a disgrace since day one, beginning with Columbus...

[mhafinancial]

Iraq war: tragedy of errors

Honorable Marine died in dishonorable war

By Missy Comley Beattie (aunt of Marine Lance Cpl. Chase J. Comley of Lexington who was killed in Iraq last weekend.)

He is number 1,828, 1,829 or 1,830. We don't know for sure, because so many died last week.

Marine Lance Cpl. Chase Johnson Comley died when his vehicle was hit head on by a suicide bomber. His death admits his family to a club no one wants to join: the grieving, questioning families who have heard the dreaded ring of the doorbell followed by a messenger's words, "We regretfully inform you that your son ..."

You realize that nothing you've thought, done or felt has prepared you for this reality. The feeling is so much worse than a broken heart. It is an evisceration.

As I write, Chase is being flown to Dover Air Force Base. His 6-foot-4 body is in a coffin draped with the American flag. He loved his family, his country, his Sayre classmates and his life, but we don't think he loved his mission in Iraq.

When he was recruited, he told us he would be deployed to Japan. He called every week when he wasn't in the field to tell us he was counting the days until his return. He tried to sound upbeat, probably for our benefit, but his father could detect in Chase's voice more than a hint of futility and will never say, "my son died doing what he loved."

For those of you who still trust the Bush administration -- and your percentage diminishes every day -- let me tell you that my nephew Chase Johnson Comley did not die to preserve your freedoms. He was not presented flowers by grateful Iraqis, welcoming him as their liberator.

He died fighting a senseless war for oil and contracts, ensuring the increased wealth of President Bush and his administration's friends.

He died long after Bush, in his testosterone-charged, theatrical, soldier-for-a-day role, announced on an aircraft carrier beneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner that major combat was over.

He died in a country erupting into civil war and turned into a hellhole by Bush, a place where democracy has no chance of prevailing, a country that will become a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

Have we won the hearts and the minds of the Iraqi people? Apparently not.

Have we spent more than half a trillion dollars -- an amount that continues to rise -- in a war that King Abdullah advised Bush against because it would disrupt the Middle East? Apparently so.

Consider what the money spent on this could have done for health care, our children's education or a true humanitarian intervention in Sudan. And then think about Bush's inauguration. Picture the lavish parties, the couture gown worn by Laura Bush. And imagine the cost of the security for the event.

And then think about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when he visits our troops. Picture his heavily armored vehicle, a machine impregnable to almost anything the insurgents toss in its path, while our troops are not provided sufficient armor to survive an improvised explosive device.

Think of the mismanagement of this entire war effort. Consider what we've lost. Too much. Think of what we've gained. Nothing.

And think of someone who says, "We will not cut and run," but who did just that years ago when he was called.

Think about a man who speaks about a culture of life when the words fit a wedge issue such as abortion or the right to die when medical effort has failed.

Then think about this war, Bush's not-so-intelligently designed culture of death.

Think, too, about naming a campaign "Shock and Awe" as if it's a movie and, therefore, unreal. And then think that this, perhaps. is one of the problems.

For many Americans, the war is an abstraction. But it is not an abstraction for the innocent Iraqis whose lives have been devastated by our smart bombs. And it certainly is not an abstraction for those of us who have heard the words that change lives forever.

So think of my family's grief -- grief that will never end. Think of all the families. Think of the wounded, the maimed, the psychologically scarred.

And then consider: The preservation of our freedom rests not on U.S. imperialism but on actively changing foreign policies that are conquest-oriented and that dehumanize our own young who become fodder for endless war as well as people in other countries who are so geographically distant that they become abstract.

The answer is not Bush's mantra: "They're jealous of our freedoms."

And, finally, think about flowers: The flowers for Chase Comley will be presented not by grateful Iraqis but by loved ones honoring him as he's lowered to his grave and buried in our hearts.

[TIES2]

Iraq war: tragedy of errors

Honorable Marine died in dishonorable war

By Missy Comley Beattie (aunt of Marine Lance Cpl. Chase J. Comley of Lexington who was killed in Iraq last weekend.)

He is number 1,828, 1,829 or 1,830. We don't know for sure, because so many died last week.

Marine Lance Cpl. Chase Johnson Comley died when his vehicle was hit head on by a suicide bomber. His death admits his family to a club no one wants to join: the grieving, questioning families who have heard the dreaded ring of the doorbell followed by a messenger's words, "We regretfully inform you that your son ..."

You realize that nothing you've thought, done or felt has prepared you for this reality. The feeling is so much worse than a broken heart. It is an evisceration.

As I write, Chase is being flown to Dover Air Force Base. His 6-foot-4 body is in a coffin draped with the American flag. He loved his family, his country, his Sayre classmates and his life, but we don't think he loved his mission in Iraq.

When he was recruited, he told us he would be deployed to Japan. He called every week when he wasn't in the field to tell us he was counting the days until his return. He tried to sound upbeat, probably for our benefit, but his father could detect in Chase's voice more than a hint of futility and will never say, "my son died doing what he loved."

For those of you who still trust the Bush administration -- and your percentage diminishes every day -- let me tell you that my nephew Chase Johnson Comley did not die to preserve your freedoms. He was not presented flowers by grateful Iraqis, welcoming him as their liberator.

He died fighting a senseless war for oil and contracts, ensuring the increased wealth of President Bush and his administration's friends.

He died long after Bush, in his testosterone-charged, theatrical, soldier-for-a-day role, announced on an aircraft carrier beneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner that major combat was over.

He died in a country erupting into civil war and turned into a hellhole by Bush, a place where democracy has no chance of prevailing, a country that will become a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

Have we won the hearts and the minds of the Iraqi people? Apparently not.

Have we spent more than half a trillion dollars -- an amount that continues to rise -- in a war that King Abdullah advised Bush against because it would disrupt the Middle East? Apparently so.

Consider what the money spent on this could have done for health care, our children's education or a true humanitarian intervention in Sudan. And then think about Bush's inauguration. Picture the lavish parties, the couture gown worn by Laura Bush. And imagine the cost of the security for the event.

And then think about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when he visits our troops. Picture his heavily armored vehicle, a machine impregnable to almost anything the insurgents toss in its path, while our troops are not provided sufficient armor to survive an improvised explosive device.

Think of the mismanagement of this entire war effort. Consider what we've lost. Too much. Think of what we've gained. Nothing.

And think of someone who says, "We will not cut and run," but who did just that years ago when he was called.

Think about a man who speaks about a culture of life when the words fit a wedge issue such as abortion or the right to die when medical effort has failed.

Then think about this war, Bush's not-so-intelligently designed culture of death.

Think, too, about naming a campaign "Shock and Awe" as if it's a movie and, therefore, unreal. And then think that this, perhaps. is one of the problems.

For many Americans, the war is an abstraction. But it is not an abstraction for the innocent Iraqis whose lives have been devastated by our smart bombs. And it certainly is not an abstraction for those of us who have heard the words that change lives forever.

So think of my family's grief -- grief that will never end. Think of all the families. Think of the wounded, the maimed, the psychologically scarred.

And then consider: The preservation of our freedom rests not on U.S. imperialism but on actively changing foreign policies that are conquest-oriented and that dehumanize our own young who become fodder for endless war as well as people in other countries who are so geographically distant that they become abstract.

The answer is not Bush's mantra: "They're jealous of our freedoms."

And, finally, think about flowers: The flowers for Chase Comley will be presented not by grateful Iraqis but by loved ones honoring him as he's lowered to his grave and buried in our hearts.

David, death is tragic, reagrdless of circumstance or reason, whether the death comes as the natural part of living or is a life cut short, whether it's due to war, or a senseless and tragic accident, etc.

But this piece you just posted reads like a press release from Moveon.org. If this lady is not employed she may want to see if she can become a liberal speech writer. She has included every catch-phrase in the lib's arsenal...

This particular phrase...

"He died fighting a senseless war for oil and contracts, ensuring the increased wealth of President Bush and his administration's friends."

...I have seen before.

[mhafinancial]

David, death is tragic, reagrdless of circumstance or reason, whether the death comes as the natural part of living or is a life cut short, whether it's due to war, or a senseless and tragic accident, etc.

But this piece you just posted reads like a press release from Moveon.org. If this lady is not employed she may want to see if she can become a liberal speech writer. She has included every catch-phrase in the lib's arsenal...

This particular phrase...

"He died fighting a senseless war for oil and contracts, ensuring the increased wealth of President Bush and his administration's friends."

...I have seen before.
Hell, of course you have. I've probably written it a thousand times myself. It pretty well sums things up.

[pinky]

Yes free speech is still the law of the land, but barely...the ACLU and others are trying to preempt any free speech it finds objectionable. Too bad it's sooo one sided.
As often as the ACLU has fought for the rights of neo-Nazis and the Klan to hold parades, I would think that statement would be obviously ridiculous to any rational person.

[bushmanj]

The poor lady has lost her grip on reality. I can't say that she doesn't have a good reason but that doesn't change the fact she's not quite all there.

[pinky]

A stronger case could be made that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have lost their collective grip on the reality of the situation in Iraq.

[TIES2]

Dear Cindy,

The loss of a child, regardless if the child is a toddler of 2, a teenager of 15, a young man or woman of 25 or a middle-aged man or woman of 45 is never easy for those who are left behind. Your grief is understandable and no one wants to take that away from you.

And while I understand your pain, please do not count me among those who will send you flowers, or a picnic lunch, or a cold bottle of water as you maintain your vigil outside the President’s ranch.

It’s not because I want to deny you your grief (because I don’t), it’s because I do not support the means you chose to employ. I think there are many admirable and honorable ways you could have honored your son. You could have created a fund in his name to help ease the suffering or support other families who have lost a loved one in this war. Had you done so, you could have sent me a letter, asked me to contribute, and I would have generously donated to your cause.

Instead, you chose to disgrace yourself, discredit your son and dishonor your country.

You have stated that you would go home if only the President would talk to you. Yet, you had the following to say in a recent exchange with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Last question. It's pure politics. The nature of the media coverage you're getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that, from the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn't it really better if President Bush doesn't meet with you?

SHEEHAN: I would think so, yes. I think it's great. And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don't want to give them any hints. And I think that's something they've probably already thought about.
Which one is true, Cindy? What do you really want? What are you really fighting for?

So while you continue with your campaign to debase and divide your country, please remember this: Millions are watching. Not all are cheering you on. For every “high-five” and “way to go” you receive, an equal number remain baffled and dismayed. No Cindy, your current charade is ignoble. It lacks courage. It lacks strength. It lacks dignity. And it lacks grace. These admirable traits to which most American’s once aspired seem to have fallen out of fashion in this great country of ours. I can only imagine that when your son chose to don the uniform of the United States, he did so with honor and integrity. And when he went off to Iraq, he did so with valor. And these are the things, Cindy, for which we all should remember him.

[Redrocks]

I simply refuse to believe that the President was 100% certain there were no WMDs (or worse fabricated it to begin with) simply because he wanted Saddam gone. Now, I have read and would give credence to the idea that there are those surrounding the President who may have felt that way and thus be the real problem...I just do not believe the President would go down that road.

TIES2, I actually agree with many of your recent statements, analyses and conclusions, and it is interesting to see some of the shifting in your positions. The statement above is, I believe, the final one that will fall, at some point in the future. It will fall because you are thoughtful and considerate of the problems being faced in Iraq and because this administration and our president has shown in the past that he will go down equally troubling and disengenous roads in pursuit of his policy initiatives. As I have stated previously, before this war, I told my wife the exact same thing -- Bush would NEVER do this to us (yea it was the lies about the WMD, but it's the same concept). I trust my president to tell me and my fellow americans the truth about HIS and his Administration's policies and plans and the impact that those plans will have on me and my countrymen and women in the future. My trust in him and the office he was elected to have been completely destroyed at this point. I no longer know what to believe, or more importantly why to believe it. I predict that eventually, and sadly, you too will arrive at that point because you strike me as being a pretty level headed, thoughtful, and logical person. You just have to recognize and accept that he has, and he will again.

For me, the tipping point was reading a bunch of the neocon policy papers and positions on the middle east that were created during the Clinton years and seeing how closing they track with the run up to this war and this administration's convenient use of the fear created by 9/11 to justify the implementation of those policies instead of actual debate in our congress and within our country about the soundness of those policies.

In the end, I want there to be an answer, any answer, even an hard answer about how this country can extricate itself from the mess that we have created in Iraq by implementing the long stated neocon platforms. I am not certain that there is an answer at this particular point in time, and I am certain that I do not trust this administration to figure it out. But, I am relatively sure that the creative and brillant minds in our country will find it, if only someone in the Bush administration would actually invite and listen to alternative views. I only hope that an answer is not a reactionary answer that involves bombing Islamic holy sites as has been suggested by one of my own state's representatives. I believe that this president has shown a complete lack of humility and restraint when confronted with crisis, so the risk of such an overreaction is certainly there.

[Flory Days]

Here's our problem....you believe war is never the answer while I believe that, unfortunately, sometimes it is inevitable (history would be on my side, bythe way. I see no historical precedent for Utopia). You toss out your sky-diving analogy. So let me toss out my Army Corp of Engineers rebuttal... there are many examples where the amry corp of engineers, applying their best knowledge of the moment, have implemented a solution only to have it fail because they did not fully understand the problem. One example here is controlling beach erosion, from sand replacement to artificial barrier reefs, they have come up short of the intended goal time and time again.

Does it mean their initial thinking was flawed? No, their thinking was sound, just not complete.





Then they should have had the "ba##s" to say so. We've agreed on this in the past. If indeed, the Presidint was given misinformation because those around the President were delivering what they thought the President wanted to hear or were afraid to take a stand to the contrary, for whatever reason, then we've got major problems. I simply refuse to believe that the President was 100% certain there were no WMDs (or worse fabricated it to begin with) simply because he wanted Saddam gone. Now, I have read and would give credence to the idea that there are those surrounding the President who may have felt that way and thus be the real problem...I just do not believe the President would go down that road.





You know this is interesting...perhaps I will go camp outside Bruce's house to protest his political comments during his concerts...do you think he'll come out and talk to me? And if he did, just how long do you think it would take before there were 100s and 100s of people camped outside his house demanding a personal audience with him?????

Sure, it would be warm and fuzzy and make us all feel good all over if the President would only stop and listen and just talk to her. But there's a lot more to it than that. I just don't see it happening.

Yes free speech is still the law of the land, but barely...the ACLU and others are trying to preempt any free speech it finds objectionable. Too bad it's sooo one sided.I did not say war is never the answer.....I said we should never start a war. History is actually on my side, not yours....as the US had never started a war before invading Iraq.

I don't accept your Army Corps analogy, you are talking about intelligent people trying to predict scientific progression. In that case you have to decide something, and take action. In a case for war, you are talking about risking human lives, which I consider more critical than beach erosion.

There were enough incidences of people who were initially skeptical of WMD who did have the ba##s to say it. Those views were dismissed if from inside the administration and largely ignored outside the administration. You may have missed it because if our "liberal press" printed these stories they put them on page 16.

As to your continued belief that Bush relied on the best work of our intelligence agencies, Redrocks gave a very eloquent dissertation about that issue and I hope you can see his point.

Camp outside Bruce's house? C'mon you might as well camp outside my house. The huge difference here is Bruce is a guy with a mic and an opinion. He doesn't work for us (we may choose to support him with our $$) and doesn't really owe us anything. President Bush works for us, the taxpayers, and he does owe us answers and accountability.

You can complain all you want about the media coverage.....but the smart thing for him to have done was to take an hour of his time to meet with her. He could have diffused the whole situation. Of course.....that would have also meant finding something meaningful to say.

[Flory Days]

Dear Cindy,

The loss of a child, regardless if the child is a toddler of 2, a teenager of 15, a young man or woman of 25 or a middle-aged man or woman of 45 is never easy for those who are left behind. Your grief is understandable and no one wants to take that away from you.

And while I understand your pain, please do not count me among those who will send you flowers, or a picnic lunch, or a cold bottle of water as you maintain your vigil outside the President’s ranch.

It’s not because I want to deny you your grief (because I don’t), it’s because I do not support the means you chose to employ. I think there are many admirable and honorable ways you could have honored your son. You could have created a fund in his name to help ease the suffering or support other families who have lost a loved one in this war. Had you done so, you could have sent me a letter, asked me to contribute, and I would have generously donated to your cause.

Instead, you chose to disgrace yourself, discredit your son and dishonor your country.

You have stated that you would go home if only the President would talk to you. Yet, you had the following to say in a recent exchange with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Last question. It's pure politics. The nature of the media coverage you're getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that, from the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn't it really better if President Bush doesn't meet with you?

SHEEHAN: I would think so, yes. I think it's great. And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don't want to give them any hints. And I think that's something they've probably already thought about.
Which one is true, Cindy? What do you really want? What are you really fighting for?

So while you continue with your campaign to debase and divide your country, please remember this: Millions are watching. Not all are cheering you on. For every “high-five” and “way to go” you receive, an equal number remain baffled and dismayed. No Cindy, your current charade is ignoble. It lacks courage. It lacks strength. It lacks dignity. And it lacks grace. These admirable traits to which most American’s once aspired seem to have fallen out of fashion in this great country of ours. I can only imagine that when your son chose to don the uniform of the United States, he did so with honor and integrity. And when he went off to Iraq, he did so with valor. And these are the things, Cindy, for which we all should remember him.
You don't understand her pain or you would not write such a letter. People die at all ages for a variety of reasons, or for no reason. Often it is a mystery and each loss is unique. For you to lump in unspecified samples in the same sentence with her specific loss seems unsympathetic, or at best the words on a feeble Hallmark card. To tell someone who has gone through a loss that they are disgracing themselves, their child and their country is cold and heartless. That might be your opinion but it doesn't make it fact. Look at the case of a mother who loses a child to suicide, and then honors her child by working on suicide prevention. Maybe Cindy is doing the same thing, honoring her child by protesting this war so that maybe fewer of our soldiers will die. So she admitted to Olbermann that she has a political interest.....big deal. I would submit she has every right to use political means to make her point. Its up to Bush, he can either meet with her or let her stay in the news. She is not dividing the country she is merely having her say. If you want to look for someone who does know how to divide the country look no further than GWB (well maybe Rove). And I think the number of high-fives she gets is growing compared to those who may be baffled and dismayed. It is becoming apparent now that more people are baffled and dismayed by this administration, at least with regard to Iraq.

[TIES2]

You don't understand her pain or you would not write such a letter. People die at all ages for a variety of reasons, or for no reason. Often it is a mystery and each loss is unique. For you to lump in unspecified samples in the same sentence with her specific loss seems unsympathetic, or at best the words on a feeble Hallmark card. To tell someone who has gone through a loss that they are disgracing themselves, their child and their country is cold and heartless. That might be your opinion but it doesn't make it fact. Look at the case of a mother who loses a child to suicide, and then honors her child by working on suicide prevention. Maybe Cindy is doing the same thing, honoring her child by protesting this war so that maybe fewer of our soldiers will die. So she admitted to Olbermann that she has a political interest.....big deal. I would submit she has every right to use political means to make her point. Its up to Bush, he can either meet with her or let her stay in the news. She is not dividing the country she is merely having her say. If you want to look for someone who does know how to divide the country look no further than GWB (well maybe Rove). And I think the number of high-fives she gets is growing compared to those who may be baffled and dismayed. It is becoming apparent now that more people are baffled and dismayed by this administration, at least with regard to Iraq.

She is nothing more than the poster child for the peace march in Washington in September...a little prepublicity to help turn out the masses. Apparently while wailing down there in Crawford she has time to listen to a talk show host on right radio, draft her response and ship it off to Matthews to be discussed on National T.V. -- her comments are right of the Lib's bible (a little like the Al-Quada operating manual, just in reverse). She's the front piece...they're using her son's death so people like you can call those who oppose her efforst as cold and heartless. Allof those falling for it are being used just like her.

Frankly, I think the only thing missing from her charade is a lapel pin sporting the smiling face of Osama Bin Laden.

BYW -- I read in today's USA Today that Mr. Sheehan has filed for divorce -- apparently he can't even stand her antics...

[TIES2]

As to your continued belief that Bush relied on the best work of our intelligence agencies, Redrocks gave a very eloquent dissertation about that issue and I hope you can see his point.

From a 2003 Speech Sen. Clinton delivered at those oh-so-important Washington Breakfasts...

"The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.

The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD.

Let's see what some of the other heroes of the Left weighed in with on the topic...this from Howard Dean (from one of the debates..)


It turned out they did not have the weapons of mass destruction that people thought they did, myself included. I believe that Saddam Hussein's removal from power is good. But I also believe that the way to have done it was to do it through the UN, which is why I opposed the president's war in Iraq from the beginning.

Yes, you're right....it could not have been the best work of the Intelligence agencies...it appears to have come straight from the Libs :D

[dukestreetking]

How cold........her son gave his life........she should not be accused of "supporting our enemies". Families of those who have lost their lives DESERVE to know whether or not their child died for a just cause, or maybe a big mistake?

And if the answer is a big mistake, maybe they want to see that this doesn't continue to happen to more families.

How are we to know today if Iraq was a just cause or a big mistake? That kind of thinking is purely political. I have, since the very beginning of our going into Iraq supported this action with the caveat that it will be years before we know if this was the right decision. The problem I have with the Dems is that they seem to know for certain every day for the past two years (let's not forget they supported the idea in the beginning) that it is a mistake. That is 100% political. History should be our guide. Most of this nation's wars did not start out so well the first few years but in the end after history was written all was worth the cost. Are you forgetting the 10 years it took to get Germany moving forward AFTER WWII?

History will be Ms. Sheehans judge. Not Bush, not the Dems. And the judgement can not be made for probably another decade. To posture otherwise is simply just that, posturing.

DSK

[Highway 9 Revisited]

The War in Iraq is a Clusterfuk with no purpose or exit strategy. Sorry I ruined the ending for you.

[Highway 9 Revisited]

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Zero

Iraq’s Role in September 11th attacks – None

Chance Democracy will spread across the Middle East – Keep dreaming.

The Terrorist can’t strike because they are busy blowing up US soldiers in Iraq

-- Didn’t stop them Bali, Madrid or London.

[Theedge555]

You forgot to mention that GAS PRICES are at an ALL TIME HIGH - Forgot about ever seeing them @ 1.50......

[Redrocks]

I don't know much about this paper (Philly Inquirer) or the author (Trudy Rubin), but her opinions echo mine.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2005/08/14/news/editorial/12376862.htm



Worldview | Truth be told, President can't afford to face soldier's mother

By Trudy Rubin

Cindy Sheehan is right to be furious.

Camped out in Crawford, Texas, with several other mothers who lost sons in Iraq, Sheehan wants to meet President Bush. She says: "Our sons made the ultimate sacrifice, and we want answers."

I understand why Bush doesn't want to meet Sheehan. She wants him to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. But the President can't pull the troops out. He can't even make the substantial reductions that some of his top brass are predicting for early next year. If he does, he risks disaster for Iraqis while boosting the cause of jihadi terrorists.

And Bush can't afford to tell the mothers why he's caught in this trap.

If Bush met Sheehan, platitudes would not suffice. She would want to know why 140,000 U.S. soldiers are stuck in Iraq more than two years after the fall of Baghdad. She would demand answers that go beyond "Freedom is on the march."

The President is not willing to give those frank answers. If he were, here's what he would have to say (translated from Bush-ese):

"Mrs. Sheehan, our troops are mired in Iraq because of errors made by my team. The Pentagon made no plans for the postwar. We sent too few troops to secure Iraq after Saddam fell, despite prewar warnings by top U.S. generals. This created a power vacuum, into which rushed former Baathists who want to restore the old order, along with Iraqi criminals and Arab jihadis.

"I admit we failed to recognize the danger of this power vacuum. We disbanded Iraq's army, rather than let Iraqis revamp it. This required us to build new Iraqi security forces from scratch, a mammoth task that only got going in June 2004.

"Those new Iraqi forces are far, far from ready to fight alone.

"The real truth is we were wrong to think we could build a new Iraqi army like kids build with Legos. Building an army takes more than sending equipment and trainers. We forgot that we were dealing with human beings in a country very different from ours.

"One of our fine retired U.S. generals, Barry McCaffrey, who visited Iraq in May, summed it up just right: 'Here's the real shortcoming of the Iraqi forces: Do they collectively believe it's worth fighting and dying for Iraq?' Iraq is so split by religious and ethnic conflicts that many Iraqi soldiers don't know what they're fighting for.

"So we are caught in an awful bind, Mrs. Sheehan. Our military has concluded we can't defeat this insurgency by force. We don't have the manpower or the intelligence resources. We've badly overstretched our National Guard, along with our Army and Marines.

"But if we leave now, Iraq will disintegrate, maybe into full-scale civil war. The Kurds will take the north. The Shiite majority, who were our tacit allies, will take the south and most of the oil and ally with Iran. Worst of all, the Sunni chunk of the country will become a nightmare zone, where Arab terrorists train for attacks against our Arab allies, their oil wells, and Israel.

"The Iraqi terrorist threat that didn't exist before we invaded will truly haunt the region. We will have created a monster.

"And, once more, we will have betrayed the Iraqis. Reagan let Saddam gas the Kurds; my father let Saddam slaughter the Shiites after urging them to rebel. Now I'll be responsible for taking out Iraq's institutions and leaving chaos behind.

"So when can our troops come home, you ask?

"It's up to the Iraqis.

"No, no, I'm not trying to brush you off, Mrs. Sheehan.

"You see, the Iraqis are drafting a constitution that's supposed to be finished by tomorrow. If Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can only agree on a federal formula for sharing power, they can move forward to elections in December. If key Sunni leaders can be brought into the political process, that will undercut the insurgency, which is largely made up of disgruntled Sunnis.

"Then maybe we can draw down the troops.

"Yes, I know this is expecting a lot. Yes, I know Iraq is on the brink of civil war. I agree I overplayed the chance of democracy in a country with no experience of political give-and-take.

"Gen. McCaffrey had it right when he told columnist Trudy Rubin that 'if the [Iraqi] political process doesn't work, we're screwed.'

"We're damned if we leave, and we may be damned if we stay, but we have to stick it out in force until next summer. By then, we'll know if the Iraqis can get their act together. If not, we'll be in big, big trouble.

"Who's to blame, you ask? Why haven't I fired Don Rumsfeld? Why haven't Paul Wolfowitz or Douglas Feith taken any heat for their gross mismanagement of the postwar?

"There's a limit to frankness, Mrs. Sheehan. I sympathize with your loss, but I really have to get back to my vacation..."



Another thing you miss, DSK, is that this is no longer (and perhaps has never been) a Dems vs Republican issue. You continually use these threads to bash Dems, but that is not the point. It's an American issue. Given Bush's current approval ratings, it seems to me, at least, that there are plenty of Republicans (and Independents) who are questioning both the run up to the war and the soundness and implementation of the neocons' middle east strategy. What may sound grand on paper when dreamed up by the apparently sound and rationale minds in the neocon think tanks may have absolutely no connection to reality when countered by the irrationality of the human condition as lived in other countries and cultures. Histroy is replete with instances where grand strategies have failed because of the often irrational response of mankind.

I (and many others like me) would have preferred if we were not required to have "history decide" the outcome of whether the current criticism of Bush and the administration is justified. In our democracy, it is incumbent upon our leadership to disclose and discuss the policy initiatives they seek to implement and to not simply use "politics" and "fear" created by unrelated and disconnected atrocities to implement those initiatives.

On some level, this debate today is about methods of leadership, not the failed results that result from the rushed implementation of bad policies. You seem to think, and continue to support this administration's methods, as well as its policies. What some see and view as "rock solid, strong leadership", many view as a "head in the sand, arrogant, know it all" who really knows very little and refuses to discuss or consider alternative views and ideas. You've made your choice of where you stand on this, and I've made mine.

I would prefer if my elected leaders did not react to and manipulate my and my fellow american's fears and uncertainties about our world and our safety caused by the acts and atrocities of terrorists, because we are counting on our leaders not to do so. Their decisions and leadership must be more thoughtful, reasoned, and planned because I believe that reactionary responses and manipulations lead to unforseen, unpredicted and unplanned for results -- like we are experiencing now. Similarly, might does not always make right, and America cannot spread democracy and freedoms out of the barrel of a gun. If it is to occur at all in the middle east, Democracy requires that government be conducted relatively transparently and free of religious tenants and requirments. I believe that unless and until the vast numbers of people in the middle east are willing and able to accept that reality and look to their governmental leaders rather than their religous leaders for governmental action and participation in and over their lives. democracy can not and will not exist there. We can, and perhaps should seek to spread democracy by education and diplomacy, not by violence and war. We cannot compel it, no matter how much you or our current administration and their neocon think tanks wish that we could.

[TIES2]

For those of you who think Cindy Sheehan is just another grieving mother...

From the Wall Street Journal...


"Sheehan spoke at an April San Francisco State University rally in support of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in February of providing material aid to terrorists. Here's an excerpt:

I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people . . . since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bull to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for." If we're attacked, we would all go out. We'd all take whatever we had. I'd take my rolling pin and I'd beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. . . .

What they're saying, too, is like, it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It's okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It's okay for the countries that we say it's okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It's okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can't have them. It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it's--yeah--and it's okay for Iraq to occupy--I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon.

Earlier in April, at a speech before the United Methodist Church in Venice, Calif., Sheehan likened Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to "Hitler and Stalin" and was particularly lurid in describing her hatred of Rumsfeld's then-deputy:

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

She concluded: "In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants."


WOW! This is why I think Cindy Sheehan has moved to the top of Osama's "The-10-Americans-I-Admire-Most" list. Pictures of her must adorn the walls of caves and hovels from Kabul to Islamabad.

[Travelling Slim]

On some level, this debate today is about methods of leadership, not the failed results that result from the rushed implementation of bad policies.

Excellent post Redrocks, and your quote above jumped out at me. I am still very conflicted about the war. I lean against, but fully recognize that freedom isn't free and try to keep open to the fact that military engagement is necessary from time to time. But I can't get out from under the fact that it was sold under false pretenses by a bunch who've had a long standing agenda that finally found something to leverage (post-911 fear) to move that agenda forward in astoundingly wasteful and heartbreaking way.

[Flory Days]

From a 2003 Speech Sen. Clinton delivered at those oh-so-important Washington Breakfasts...

"The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.

The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD.

Let's see what some of the other heroes of the Left weighed in with on the topic...this from Howard Dean (from one of the debates..)


It turned out they did not have the weapons of mass destruction that people thought they did, myself included. I believe that Saddam Hussein's removal from power is good. But I also believe that the way to have done it was to do it through the UN, which is why I opposed the president's war in Iraq from the beginning.

Yes, you're right....it could not have been the best work of the Intelligence agencies...it appears to have come straight from the Libs :D
There are many things that can be dug up to show Dems as complicit in allowing the war to happen. I have never absolved them from their role and their failures. I was not referring to the statements by politicians.......I was talking about reports from those who worked hands-on in the field and questioned those findings. Joe Wilson's questioning the declaration of Iraq's attempt to buy uranium was just one. There were several others but I am not going to track them down. I'm not sure why you are quoting Dean because he did say he was against the war from the beginning.

[Flory Days]

She is nothing more than the poster child for the peace march in Washington in September...a little prepublicity to help turn out the masses. Apparently while wailing down there in Crawford she has time to listen to a talk show host on right radio, draft her response and ship it off to Matthews to be discussed on National T.V. -- her comments are right of the Lib's bible (a little like the Al-Quada operating manual, just in reverse). She's the front piece...they're using her son's death so people like you can call those who oppose her efforst as cold and heartless. Allof those falling for it are being used just like her.

Frankly, I think the only thing missing from her charade is a lapel pin sporting the smiling face of Osama Bin Laden.

BYW -- I read in today's USA Today that Mr. Sheehan has filed for divorce -- apparently he can't even stand her antics...
The links you make to Al-Quada and OBL are dubious and wildly speculative at best. You may not like her political posturing, but she is still a mom who lost a son in a war.

[Flory Days]

How are we to know today if Iraq was a just cause or a big mistake? That kind of thinking is purely political. I have, since the very beginning of our going into Iraq supported this action with the caveat that it will be years before we know if this was the right decision. The problem I have with the Dems is that they seem to know for certain every day for the past two years (let's not forget they supported the idea in the beginning) that it is a mistake. That is 100% political. History should be our guide. Most of this nation's wars did not start out so well the first few years but in the end after history was written all was worth the cost. Are you forgetting the 10 years it took to get Germany moving forward AFTER WWII?

History will be Ms. Sheehans judge. Not Bush, not the Dems. And the judgement can not be made for probably another decade. To posture otherwise is simply just that, posturing.

DSKYou are correct in that history is ultimately the judge........although Redrocks makes some excellent points in his counter to your argument. For the record, it never has been about politics for me. I always said the Dems were wrong to give Bush a blank check and I was opposed to Iraq from the very beginning. Every time I think about history and its relevence to Iraq I am reminded that this is the first time the United States was responsible for starting a war.

[TIES2]

The links you make to Al-Quada and OBL are dubious and wildly speculative at best. You may not like her political posturing, but she is still a mom who lost a son in a war.

You are absolutely right...she is a Mom who lost a son in war...that I can understand...

And you're right again...I do not like her political posturing...

And my reference to Al-Quada and OBL may be speculative, but hardly dubious...I would think the enemy loves this stuff...

[TIES2]

There are many things that can be dug up to show Dems as complicit in allowing the war to happen. I have never absolved them from their role and their failures. I was not referring to the statements by politicians.......I was talking about reports from those who worked hands-on in the field and questioned those findings. Joe Wilson's questioning the declaration of Iraq's attempt to buy uranium was just one. There were several others but I am not going to track them down. I'm not sure why you are quoting Dean because he did say he was against the war from the beginning.


Not all those posting here have such good memories, which is why I feel it necessary to drag this stuff out every once in awhile. I know we will never get an accurate count, but it seems to me that more people were in the WMDs exist line versus the line refuting the existence of WMDs. I will acknowledge there were opinions on both sides. However, once no WMDS were forthcoming, memories were erased...in sort of a collective national alzheimer moment.

I quoted Dean because apparently he even believed the WMDs were real. I quoted him because his option for dealing with it was more of the same...which was the inertia that may have led to 9/11 in the first place, who knows. I'm not a fan of the United Nations.

And yes, while pretty much every reason given to us as justification for the war in Iraq has resulted in proof to the contrary to some degree (meaning to say, is it really possible to conclude that every reason cited was 100% false from the start or was there reason to believe it was true?), one has to ask whether we were out and out lied to, or whether there was sufficient justification to support what it was we thought we knew and understood to be true.

I realize my "beach erosion" example was not an apples to apples comparison. I used that example as the approach to the problem was based on the best scientific evidence available at the time. Science is very precise and exacting; yet the engineers were wrong. I can only imagine the planning for Iraq included a great deal more hypothesis. Clearly assumptions had to be made. We now know that many of those assumptions were not true.

I do not think we can conclusively say that we would be safer or better off if we had never gone to Iraq. Someone alluded to the statement made by the Administration that the terrorists would be too busy fighting us in Iraq to strike elsewhere. Okay, so they have struck elsewhere...does that mean the first statement was an outright lie? Who knows, if we weren't in Iraq perhaps the number and extent of terrorist strikes either here or elsewhere in the world would have grown exponentially. But to say the administration just said that when they knew it was not true, is in itself an untrue statement. Yes, it could be true. But it also could be that they really thought that would be the case. If the latter is true, then they didn't lie.

Let's suppose for a moment that those responsible for setting the strategy for Iraq put forth their best thinking, making their decisions based on a set of reasonable assumptions. Rather than accuse of them outright lying (which may or may not be true) wouldn't it be better to try and figure out why they missed the mark?

Too much energy is spent on should haves when the energy needs to be focused on the steps necessary to get out of Iraq while leaving it in the best possible position to succeed as an independent country free of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

[Redrocks]

Not all those posting here have such good memories, which is why I feel it necessary to drag this stuff out every once in awhile. I know we will never get an accurate count, but it seems to me that more people were in the WMDs exist line versus the line refuting the existence of WMDs. I will acknowledge there were opinions on both sides. However, once no WMDS were forthcoming, memories were erased...in sort of a collective national alzheimer moment.

. . . .

And yes, while pretty much every reason given to us as justification for the war in Iraq has resulted in proof to the contrary to some degree (meaning to say, is it really possible to conclude that every reason cited was 100% false from the start or was there reason to believe it was true?), one has to ask whether we were out and out lied to, or whether there was sufficient justification to support what it was we thought we knew and understood to be true.

. . . .

Let's suppose for a moment that those responsible for setting the strategy for Iraq put forth their best thinking, making their decisions based on a set of reasonable assumptions. Rather than accuse of them outright lying (which may or may not be true) wouldn't it be better to try and figure out why they missed the mark?

Too much energy is spent on should haves when the energy needs to be focused on the steps necessary to get out of Iraq while leaving it in the best possible position to succeed as an independent country free of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

TIES2, I try to make my points not because I derive personal pleasure from bashing the Bush Administration but because they continue in their stiff upper lip refusal to even admit that there are problems and that perhaps additional ideas and solutions might be helpful -- is that strengh as some here would argue, or a terrible and ultimately destructive form of leadership as I would argue? Reasonable minds differ, I guess.

I do think that this administration will be required to change its practices and procedures (and yes policies) if enough strong willed and creative conservatives and independents join in the call that something must be done differently. This group of leaders is about the most political that I can remember -- it's a take no prisoners approach to politics and policy that has to change in order for real solutions to be reached both here at home and in the middle east. It should be clear by now that the "shock and awe" mentality does not work in that region because we don't have enough shock or awe, even though we do have the best military and weaponry in the world. We cannot simply impose our will on people (be they in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Denver, Colorado) simply because we think we are more powerful than they are or have more, bigger or better guns than they do. The power of this country has been, and will always be in the free flow of information, the exchange of ideas and ideology (without retribution), and the fostering of creative dreams, goals, and collective wisdom. It's time to reassess and reopen that power not continually flex our muscles.

History is not my strongest suit (and some will take me to task on that), but I seem to recall that our country and form of government was created and won, not by the shear strength and brute force of the revolutionary army, but on the creative minds and collective commitment of a relatively small group of americans. What makes us think that if our forefathers and mothers could do such a thing that those in other countries could not as well. Our job is to foster and empower those folks to create their own freedoms not impose ours upon them. Naive? Probably. Passionate? Yep.

At this stage of everything, my fears are significantly greater and quite different than they were after 9/11. While it seems that DSK and others on this board are concerned about additional terrorist attacks happening on our soil, my fears are now much deeper and involve larger scale wars and instability on foreign soil that could and likely would spill over on to our lands in significantly grander ways than a terrorist bombing, or even ten. For the sake of my country, and my children and grandchildren's (as yet unborn) country, I truly hope that more pressure can be brought to bear on this administration to at least consider that their plans and ideas are not 100% certain and that alternatives must be considered (even if in private and in secret). That you are even posing the questions at this point indicates to me that you are considerate in your thoughts and open to the possiblity that something different than the neocons' version of stiff upper lip, politics as usual is needed here.

[dukestreetking]

You are correct in that history is ultimately the judge........although Redrocks makes some excellent points in his counter to your argument. For the record, it never has been about politics for me. I always said the Dems were wrong to give Bush a blank check and I was opposed to Iraq from the very beginning. Every time I think about history and its relevence to Iraq I am reminded that this is the first time the United States was responsible for starting a war.

Here is the disconnect your "side" has with mine.

I (we) don't feel the US started any war.

I (we) believe the War started 9/11/01

This is a gap in logic that will never be bridged.

DSK

[mhafinancial]

Here is the disconnect your "side" has with mine.

I (we) don't feel the US started any war.

When Iraqi tanks cruise down 5th Avenue, let's talk about who started the war. Until that point, it's real clear who started the aggression.

I (we) believe the War started 9/11/01

Maybe, but Bush would not dare to attack the Saudis, who had more to do with 9/11 and the funding of terrorism than Iraq could ever hope to.

This is a gap in logic that will never be bridged.
DSK
Or a gap in illogic.

[TIES2]

When Iraqi tanks cruise down 5th Avenue, let's talk about who started the war. Until that point, it's real clear who started the aggression.



Maybe, but Bush would not dare to attack the Saudis, who had more to do with 9/11 and the funding of terrorism than Iraq could ever hope to.


Or a gap in illogic.

Here's one for you...a little out there (and completely of my own fabrication) but I've read some things that would lend it some credence...

I'm sure you have read that the real reason behind the war with Iraq was to remove Saddam in order to provide us with additional oil resources? Let's say that was true but that it wasn't the whole story. Let's say the whole story was about securing a stable oil source, then getting down to business dealing with Saudia Arabia....

[TIES2]

TIES2, I try to make my points not because I derive personal pleasure from bashing the Bush Administration but because they continue in their stiff upper lip refusal to even admit that there are problems and that perhaps additional ideas and solutions might be helpful -- is that strengh as some here would argue, or a terrible and ultimately destructive form of leadership as I would argue? Reasonable minds differ, I guess.

I do think that this administration will be required to change its practices and procedures (and yes policies) if enough strong willed and creative conservatives and independents join in the call that something must be done differently. This group of leaders is about the most political that I can remember -- it's a take no prisoners approach to politics and policy that has to change in order for real solutions to be reached both here at home and in the middle east. It should be clear by now that the "shock and awe" mentality does not work in that region because we don't have enough shock or awe, even though we do have the best military and weaponry in the world. We cannot simply impose our will on people (be they in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Denver, Colorado) simply because we think we are more powerful than they are or have more, bigger or better guns than they do. The power of this country has been, and will always be in the free flow of information, the exchange of ideas and ideology (without retribution), and the fostering of creative dreams, goals, and collective wisdom. It's time to reassess and reopen that power not continually flex our muscles.

History is not my strongest suit (and some will take me to task on that), but I seem to recall that our country and form of government was created and won, not by the shear strength and brute force of the revolutionary army, but on the creative minds and collective commitment of a relatively small group of americans. What makes us think that if our forefathers and mothers could do such a thing that those in other countries could not as well. Our job is to foster and empower those folks to create their own freedoms not impose ours upon them. Naive? Probably. Passionate? Yep.

At this stage of everything, my fears are significantly greater and quite different than they were after 9/11. While it seems that DSK and others on this board are concerned about additional terrorist attacks happening on our soil, my fears are now much deeper and involve larger scale wars and instability on foreign soil that could and likely would spill over on to our lands in significantly grander ways than a terrorist bombing, or even ten. For the sake of my country, and my children and grandchildren's (as yet unborn) country, I truly hope that more pressure can be brought to bear on this administration to at least consider that their plans and ideas are not 100% certain and that alternatives must be considered (even if in private and in secret). That you are even posing the questions at this point indicates to me that you are considerate in your thoughts and open to the possiblity that something different than the neocons' version of stiff upper lip, politics as usual is needed here.

Redrocks....my rebuttal was not intended for you...I did not disagree with your post, though I did not necessarily agree with everything you said (but hey, that's okay).

I find myself sometimes frustrated by the core group of Bush bashers who post here and really haven't contributed as to what they think needs to be done or even what the problem is. It's one thing to say, "see I was right, we should have never gone to Iraq,", versus, "see, we should have never gone but here's what I think we should do now." They tend to be on the attack more than the insurgents in Iraq. Besides, any one can cut and paste news articles...and most of the one's that get posted here are old news (though I am clearly guilty of the cut and paste thing myself!).

I enjoy reading your posts, at least they're representative of how you, personally feel and think. And, well, that's refreshing and encouraging!

[Redrocks]

Here's one for you...a little out there (and completely of my own fabrication) but I've read some things that would lend it some credence...

I'm sure you have read that the real reason behind the war with Iraq was to remove Saddam in order to provide us with additional oil resources? Let's say that was true but that it wasn't the whole story. Let's say the whole story was about securing a stable oil source, then getting down to business dealing with Saudia Arabia....

Getting down to business in what way? With the threat of miltary action from our new bases in Iraq? Or diplomatically without the Saudi threat of oil hanging over our head? If either were the case, do you really think the middle east would stand for additional threats (or reality) of aggressive action against the Saudi? Or that they would "allow" us to stay in the middle of the middle east without combining forces (both economically and militarily) against us? What about the massive amounts of investment the Suadi (and other) oil money already have in our own economy, at least some of which is being used by our government to fund our operations in Iraq? If they pulled that money out (or simply refused to put additional money in), I would think we would not be able to create enough replacement money to buy or build the necessary armor to defend ourselves against our "neighbors" in Iraq. After all our growing economy and tax cut (read no further investment money for the defense machine) mentality would go only so far.

No, I think the Saudi's carry a big enough stick (economically, religiously, historically, etc) with their neighbors in the middle east without the threat of us having a so called "stable supply of oil" being of much significance in our attempt to get down to business with them. Frankly, I am not sure that I fully understand what leverage we really have against them at this point in our history. I agree that taking steps to prevent their leverage from growing even more makes great sense, but do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified to do that. Shame on our government if they thought so and were unwilling to tell us the truth.

If, in fact, that is the plan, then I go back to my earlier statement about great minds (although arguable not so great now) in think tanks not fully capable of comprehending the outcome in the field or even capable of understanding the different types of leverage the Saudi's or others have when all we have is our big military might. I would think that scenario would be a disaster of the first order, and likely creating or fostering the eventual WW III. But, that's just my humble and often ill informed opinion on an interesting thought.

[Redrocks]

Redrocks....my rebuttal was not intended for you...I did not disagree with your post, though I did not necessarily agree with everything you said (but hey, that's okay).

I find myself sometimes frustrated by the core group of Bush bashers who post here and really haven't contributed as to what they think needs to be done or even what the problem is. It's one thing to say, "see I was right, we should have never gone to Iraq,", versus, "see, we should have never gone but here's what I think we should do now." They tend to be on the attack more than the insurgents in Iraq. Besides, any one can cut and paste news articles...and most of the one's that get posted here are old news (though I am clearly guilty of the cut and paste thing myself!).

I enjoy reading your posts, at least they're representative of how you, personally feel and think. And, well, that's refreshing and encouraging!

Thanks for your comments. I do not seek to inflame or incite animosity here on my favorite board, but I do feel some of the same frustrations as you only in reverse. I think that both sides get frustrated at their inability to change minds and win hearts and converts to their political, moral, and ethical points view. In the end, however, this country (and many others like it) are truly great because we can engage each other in these debates and exchanges without fear of significant loss or repurcussion from our government, our places of worship, our spouses, (okay well maybe not that one), friends, or others.

At the end of the day while enjoying our favorite musician (but not necessarily his politics), I believe that with only minor exceptions, we all can still toss back a few cold ones, shots of tequila, or other beverages sing with joy to the rafters, and get on with our lives. I agree that we occupy a very special place on this planet and that it is only natural to want to spread that joy and defend what we have and what we aspire to. But, I ask again, was, and is, this course of action the best or only way to do that? In my naivete, I say no, we as a nation are better than that, and I wish we would start acting as such. It starts at the top and flows down. Bush and his cronies have failed to lead our great nation and it's time we called him and them to the carpet on it.

It's late, I'm rambling and I'm getting too tired to keep my own anger and emotions in check, so, I bid you good night.

[Flory Days]

At the end of the day while enjoying our favorite musician (but not necessarily his politics), I believe that with only minor exceptions, we all can still toss back a few cold ones, shots of tequila, or other beverages sing with joy to the rafters, and get on with our lives. I agree that we occupy a very special place on this planet and that it is only natural to want to spread that joy and defend what we have and what we aspire to. But, I ask again, was, and is, this course of action the best or only way to do that? In my naivete, I say no, we as a nation are better than that, and I wish we would start acting as such. It starts at the top and flows down. Bush and his cronies have failed to lead our great nation and it's time we called him and them to the carpet on it.

TIES2, in an earlier post you said that you appreciated Redrocks comments because they were expressive of his own feelings, intimating that you do not similiarly respect others who disagree with you because we are spouting some political agenda? I also enjoy Redrocks take on things, and I happen to agree with everything he has said. Just because his writing and expression are more eloquent than mine, does not mean my comments are not a genuine expression of my personal feelings. If you read between the lines, Redrocks and I have been saying much the same things, only my writing does not go as much in-depth or "behind the thoughts". I suspect you may be more receptive to his thinking because he does not come into the conversation as a pre-identified liberal (horrors!) :blueeek:

Back to the quote......do I read this correctly? You agree to the possibility (probability.....you are not naive) that it is time to call Bush and his cronies on the carpet. Hallelujah!

I may believe Bush has lied to us all along, but in reality it doesn't matter if he lied or if (others lied to him) he is incredibly incompetent......neither is acceptable.

[Flory Days]

When Iraqi tanks cruise down 5th Avenue, let's talk about who started the war. Until that point, it's real clear who started the aggression.



Maybe, but Bush would not dare to attack the Saudis, who had more to do with 9/11 and the funding of terrorism than Iraq could ever hope to.


Or a gap in illogic.Thanks David! :)

[Redrocks]

TIES2, in an earlier post you said that you appreciated Redrocks comments because they were expressive of his own feelings, intimating that you do not similiarly respect others who disagree with you because we are spouting some political agenda? I also enjoy Redrocks take on things, and I happen to agree with everything he has said. Just because his writing and expression are more eloquent than mine, does not mean my comments are not a genuine expression of my personal feelings. If you read between the lines, Redrocks and I have been saying much the same things, only my writing does not go as much in-depth or "behind the thoughts". I suspect you may be more receptive to his thinking because he does not come into the conversation as a pre-identified liberal (horrors!) :blueeek:

Back to the quote......do I read this correctly? You agree to the possibility (probability.....you are not naive) that it is time to call Bush and his cronies on the carpet. Hallelujah!

I may believe Bush has lied to us all along, but in reality it doesn't matter if he lied or if (others lied to him) he is incredibly incompetent......neither is acceptable.

Flory, you are correct, that I am considered in my neck of the woods to be a liberal, although I prefer the title of progressive because I am not always or overly liberal in the way that some members of this board toss that term around. I am, however, very liberal when contrasted with the neocon view of the world, and am quite proud of that. To answer your question, I have never been on the fence on this one (at least on these boards or in the past 5 years) -- yes, I believe that Bush should be thrown out. I have stated that repeadedly, though perhaps not so boldly as that. If our congress could vote to impeach Clinton for lieing about sex, then certainly, I believe that the actions of this administrations and the lies and half-truths imparted on me and my fellow citizens are significantly worse and should carry some consequence. Politically, I do not see it happening unless the Dems take back the congress in the next election cycle and then force the issue. I guess I could always hope.

I do not think that TIES2 was speaking about anyone in particular, but rather about the often gratuitous comments from both sides of this debate that add little real value to the conversation except to push people away that otherwise might have an open mind. I do not think that you fall in to that category, nor, David most of the time. Although his humor and sarcasim may be lost on some who are not otherwise receptive to it.

With regard to the eloquence you perceive in my writing, I am grateful, but writing is what I do for a living. It is what I have been trained to do and have spent a great deal of time accomplishing on behalf of my business clients. I communicate via the written, rather than spoken word, often in this form of free flow of ideas, thoughts, ramblings, and personal beliefs and convictions. Perhaps, I am a better framer than you, but I agree that we seem to be pretty consistent in our thoughts and beliefs and if I am subsequently berated and called to task for that by members of this board, then so be it. I am glad that I have this outlet to release my frustrations with politics and my naive and idealistic views of my country, my fellow citizens, the world in which we live, and my fellow humans.

I tend to think that most independent moderates in this country are finally waking up and smelling the coffee and realizing that this administration is really selling them a bunch of goods that only a smaller minority actually agree with. Had they been honest from the beginning about many of their policies and their intentions (both internationally and domestically) they would never have been elected. It's all about stealth and framing of issues to appeal to the visceral reactions (think instant gratification) of the masses who do not have the time, inclination, training, or at times intelect to see behind the frame.

The neocons (and let's be honest, that what Bush really is, notwithstanding his grandstanding and election rhetoric) have been working on the framing issues for decades and they (not just Rove, but all of them) have become very adept at it. It has led to catch phrases like "compassionate conservative" -- yea, we are compassionate so long as to don't cross us or disagree with our position, to "tax relief" rather than the statement of what it really is, a refusal to invest in our future generations, be it education, infrastructure, highways, etc. They are enjoying their time in the limelight, but in the end, the policies themselves must sustain and add real economic and moral value to this country, not act to tear us apart and it down. As a nation (and I am speaking broadly here about the majority of people in our nation not defined by political ideology but by emotional thinking and logical thought) we are not reflective of the neocon view of ourselves, our fellow American citizens, and more importantly, the inhabitants of this planet.

If you have not already done so, I would encourage you to see the article written by George Lakoff at

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/New_School.pdf/view

Neocons hate Lackoff because he has exposed them for what they really are -- a minority view that attempts to obtain political power and impose their own world view on the rest of us by using language (creative, thoughtful, and disengenous language) to shape public opinion and create support for their minority views. It's a fascinating theory that I personally think is correct. It has been a brillant, long term strategy for them that has paid off in that this administration is now sadly in power. The problem with the strategy, however, is that it does not reflect the majority view and is ultimately doomed to failure as the disengenousness and hatred of those who disagree with them is exposed and the backlash occurs.

There can be, and has been, similar backlash against liberals in the past when the minority extreme liberal view has been imposed through administrative or legislative fiat. What goes around, comes around, and in the end, as a country of moderately liberal/conservative but exceptionally proud and defiant people, there is this constant flipping action as the disengenous liars (on both sides) are thrown out. In my view, the challenge for this country and its leadership is to embrace and communicate these moderate views with the truth and transparency I have talked about previously. Whether a country of our size and complexity will ever be able to actually do that on a grand scale that successfully and regularly elects leaders who truly "walk the walk" and not just "talk the talk" is open to debate and question with in the immortal words of DSK) "history deciding."

[pinky]

This is a gap in logic that will never be bridged.At least not until you recognize that Iraq, for all its failings and problems, had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Then, perhaps, your gap can be bridged.

[TIES2]

TIES2, in an earlier post you said that you appreciated Redrocks comments because they were expressive of his own feelings, intimating that you do not similiarly respect others who disagree with you because we are spouting some political agenda? I also enjoy Redrocks take on things, and I happen to agree with everything he has said. Just because his writing and expression are more eloquent than mine, does not mean my comments are not a genuine expression of my personal feelings. If you read between the lines, Redrocks and I have been saying much the same things, only my writing does not go as much in-depth or "behind the thoughts". I suspect you may be more receptive to his thinking because he does not come into the conversation as a pre-identified liberal (horrors!) :blueeek:

Back to the quote......do I read this correctly? You agree to the possibility (probability.....you are not naive) that it is time to call Bush and his cronies on the carpet. Hallelujah!

I may believe Bush has lied to us all along, but in reality it doesn't matter if he lied or if (others lied to him) he is incredibly incompetent......neither is acceptable.
'

Flory, I'm sorry, I enjoy your posts, too -- It's just I don't agree with a da$& thing you say :)

And I have not gone public with my evolving sentiments on the war for fear I would hear a chorous of "Hallelujah" from the left, who would somehow mistakenly conclude (mush like the Afghan rebels who thought Russia went home because they beat them), that I changed my mind because of them, or worse, crossed over to their side. It's not happening!!!!!

But that does not mean I cannot change my mind about things.

On a more serious note, I read somewhere recently that Wolfowitz (not sure it was him) delighted in Bush's apparent lack of knowledge concerning all things foreign when he first met him (the notion being that his delight stemmed from his joy at having found a blank state into which he could feed his brand of foreign policy). Anyway, as I pondered that I recalled that GWBs lack of Foreign Policy experience was often levied as a criticism against his candidacy in 2000. So maybe it was a match made in heaven. Scary even if you just think it could happen; scarier still if you think it did happen.

To continue on this train of thought, I have read in various books, articles, etc., that say to enable receptivity to new ways, you first have to change the old ways. You have to undergo a sort of cultural/values enema...then you can start filling the void with the new crap (no pun intended). Anyway, I think that effort is underway in this country. I think it's at the heart of why someone like Cindy Sheehan can stand up, and with the deepest of convictions and venom, say that this country has a history of killing, a history that extends all the way back to the explorers and continues to this day. I think that's tragic thinking, but increasingly popular thinking among the left, and I don't ever want to be a part of it -- ever.

As for redrocks, he initially supported Bush, you never did. But, he reaches deep to state his position. I'm not saying you don't. You provide depth as well in most of your responses (except when I drive you crazy and I'm quite sure you can't see straight!). But there are plenty on this board who defend the left with howls of protest yet never seem to add any depth to their arguments. I'm interested to hear what people think and feel, it doesn't matter if I agree or not, all I want to know is that there's some depth -- measurable depth.

[TIES2]

Getting down to business in what way? With the threat of miltary action from our new bases in Iraq? Or diplomatically without the Saudi threat of oil hanging over our head? If either were the case, do you really think the middle east would stand for additional threats (or reality) of aggressive action against the Saudi? Or that they would "allow" us to stay in the middle of the middle east without combining forces (both economically and militarily) against us? What about the massive amounts of investment the Suadi (and other) oil money already have in our own economy, at least some of which is being used by our government to fund our operations in Iraq? If they pulled that money out (or simply refused to put additional money in), I would think we would not be able to create enough replacement money to buy or build the necessary armor to defend ourselves against our "neighbors" in Iraq. After all our growing economy and tax cut (read no further investment money for the defense machine) mentality would go only so far.

No, I think the Saudi's carry a big enough stick (economically, religiously, historically, etc) with their neighbors in the middle east without the threat of us having a so called "stable supply of oil" being of much significance in our attempt to get down to business with them. Frankly, I am not sure that I fully understand what leverage we really have against them at this point in our history. I agree that taking steps to prevent their leverage from growing even more makes great sense, but do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified to do that. Shame on our government if they thought so and were unwilling to tell us the truth.

If, in fact, that is the plan, then I go back to my earlier statement about great minds (although arguable not so great now) in think tanks not fully capable of comprehending the outcome in the field or even capable of understanding the different types of leverage the Saudi's or others have when all we have is our big military might. I would think that scenario would be a disaster of the first order, and likely creating or fostering the eventual WW III. But, that's just my humble and often ill informed opinion on an interesting thought.

I have always been of the opinion that what we are told by the government as to reasons (or agenda) is often at odds with reality. And for the most part, I'm okay with that. But before you go crazy on me, let me explain. First, I think the "governed" are a little more emotional about most things (though in observation of waht's going on in Washington these days you would never guess it). I have also held to the belief that while I, as a lay person, may think something might be beneficial, I cling to this notion that there are those better positioned to evaluate or make a determination as to what's the best thing to do. Finally, I guess I'm still naive enough, despite my advancing age, to believe most people have a high degree of personal integrity and do not take their responsibilities lightly.

I suppose this is all to say that there is plenty going on we don't even know about nor do we necessarily need to know.

But, getting back to my inital email. I have read that one of our purposes for Iraq was to secure additional oil resources. As for us actually dealing with the Saudi's, who knows...but given the recent passing of the King, and the advanced age of the current ruler, and the ultimate passing of the kingship to the next generation, who may or may not share the moderate views of their elders that, for good or bad, the US has been able to deal with since, well, since forever...(or so it seems). Maybe, just maybe, there is more fact than fiction in my thoughts. Besides, Suadi Arabia need not sell its oil to us. China and India are increasingly hungry purveyors of the liquid gold. The combined GNPs of both these up and coming behemouths will surpass that of the US in a few years, and not much beyond that, the GNP of China alone will surpass that of the US and maybe even a few other countries thrown in. Perhaps there are a lot of people who post here that just don't understand that former world powers don't hold much political clout (I suppose one can simply look at Europe to see where it's all headed). However, I doubt Europe will invite us to join the EU any time soon. Shack up with our Southern and Northern neighbors? When I really stop and think about it, and look at all the things going on in the world ,the notion of a single world government does not seem nearly as far fetched as it once did.

[Redrocks]

I have always been of the opinion that what we are told by the government as to reasons (or agenda) is often at odds with reality. And for the most part, I'm okay with that. But before you go crazy on me, let me explain. First, I think the "governed" are a little more emotional about most things (though in observation of waht's going on in Washington these days you would never guess it). I have also held to the belief that while I, as a lay person, may think something might be beneficial, I cling to this notion that there are those better positioned to evaluate or make a determination as to what's the best thing to do. Finally, I guess I'm still naive enough, despite my advancing age, to believe most people have a high degree of personal integrity and do not take their responsibilities lightly.

You crack me up. That's the way I used to feel . . . at least until this administration blew away that pipe dream and created this level of fear and concern that I am currently experiencing with regard to their intentions, competency, and practices. I currently reside in a weird state where I am not sure what part of my government I trust to do much of anything right, moral, ethical, or successful for the good of this country, let alone the greater world. I include in my assessment the current crop of democratic leaders. I can assure you it is not pleasant. I wonder how long it is before a thoughtful person such as yourself gets drug into my abyss. :laugh:

When I really stop and think about it, and look at all the things going on in the world ,the notion of a single world government does not seem nearly as far fetched as it once did.

Now you are starting to sound like one of those weird far left world view liberals. What's up with that? I don't know how I feel about a single world govenment given how we are having such difficulty in piecing together anything resembling a democracy from the multitude of cultural, philosophical, religious, etc divides existing in such a small little corner of the world called Iraq. But your issuance of such a thought is certainly an interesting turn of events on this board. :) It's also a bit more overwhelming of a thought than I can possibly contemplate given my current level of concern with my own freely elected (or is that selected?) leadership. Phew.

[TIES2]

Now you are starting to sound like one of those weird far left world view liberals. What's up with that? I don't know how I feel about a single world govenment given how we are having such difficulty in piecing together anything resembling a democracy from the multitude of cultural, philosophical, religious, etc divides existing in such a small little corner of the world called Iraq. But your issuance of such a thought is certainly an interesting turn of events on this board. :) It's also a bit more overwhelming of a thought than I can possibly contemplate given my current level of concern with my own freely elected (or is that selected?) leadership. Phew

I did not say I supported it, I'm just saying I can sort of see ourselves heading in that direction. Problem is, I don't even think the majority will realize it until we're there and that's what scares me. There just seems to be quite a bit going on that points in that direction.

[dukestreetking]

You liberals are grappling at straws.

Saudis? Would that have made more sense? Moronic idea for world stability.

Saddam: Muderous tyrant, used wmd on citizens of his own country. State supporter of Palestian suicide bombers. Attempted to kill a President of the United States.

All of sudden now Iraq was not the right plan of action? This country has been targeting Saddam since the Gulf War. In fact it was Clinton that built him into a villian more than anyone and talked a big game.

Face it, this country will forever in our lifetimes be in miltary battles against terror.

It is a war that has no end because it is not a war of countries. It is a war of ideology and religion that was taken to another level entirely on 9/11. Now we are coming to your homeland and killing you where you live.

In fact, if we stopped footing around and just blew the place to shreds like this country used to fight before we ever lost wars, we'd have saved a bunch more American lives.

DSK

[pinky]

Hardly "all of a sudden now Iraq was not the right plan of action."

More like since March of 2003.

[pinky]

Oh, and, for the record, Cindy Sheehan has left Crawford. It seems her mother has suffered a stroke, and she needed to be with her.

Fortunately, others will stay and carry on her cause in her absence.

[dukestreetking]

Hardly "all of a sudden now Iraq was not the right plan of action."

More like since March of 2003.

Funny how every Democrat including Kerry and Clinton(s) thought it was right back then.

DSK

[pinky]

That's odd that you would say that.......I'm a Democrat, and I always thought it was a bad idea!

[PalestinianPride]

You liberals are grappling at straws.
I am no liberal by any means,but the U.S. clearly exercises shady business and the way it practices its foreign policies in international relations is quite appaling to say the least.

Saudis? Would that have made more sense? Moronic idea for world stability.
They are one of the most oppressive and brutal regimes out there and Bush is all lovey dovy with them. We are pointing out the hypocrisy because Bush is making himself a leader of "democracy" and the "free world".

Saddam: Muderous tyrant, used wmd on citizens of his own country. State supporter of Palestian suicide bombers. Attempted to kill a President of the United States.
Well,when Saddam was murdering his own people, did the U.S. care?Oh yeah,they were his best ally. You trying to say that Saddam supports Palestinian suicide bombers is forgetting how Bush does underground deals with the most oppressive and brutal regimes out there who murder their own people. The Kurds have it the worst in Turkey where they have been slaughtered for decades and are not even allowed to speak their own language where their own identity is being stripped of them.Well,the U.S. does not care how the Turks massacres the Kurds in which Turkey is one of the U.S. allies in this "War on Terror".Oh,and remember how Reagan supported the Contra rebels to kill their own brothers and sisters in Nicaragua? What you are implying other tyrants of is what your government administration is guilty of.

All of sudden now Iraq was not the right plan of action? This country has been targeting Saddam since the Gulf War. In fact it was Clinton that built him into a villian more than anyone and talked a big game.
Not Clinton...Bush Sr. What the heck does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?Oh yes, it is all about black oil.And also, they had to bring down Saddam since he was a threat to the U.S. government and stood in the way of the U.S. imperialist quest to dominate and control the Middle East.They are using Iraq now as their base to spread their ideology to the rest of the regions in the Middle East. If Saddam sucked up to them like he did in the 80s, and like the Saudis do to the U.S. now,he'd still be ruling Iraq today with an iron fist.

It is a war that has no end because it is not a war of countries. It is a war of ideology and religion that was taken to another level entirely on 9/11. Now we are coming to your homeland and killing you where you live.

In fact, if we stopped footing around and just blew the place to shreds like this country used to fight before we ever lost wars, we'd have saved a bunch more American lives.

DSK
A war with no end?This is just a war that the U.S. has put in place as a means to spread their ideology and power in the post-cold war era. That is how superpower nations win their power. They make enemies and put into place wars to identity themselves against external entities to create an "Us" vs. "Them" ideology so they can also control the masses by placing fear into them.

Infact,you as an American,are more likely to get killed and shot by another American or terrorist actions from within than an external threat or terrorist attack by foreigners. I don't see you parading to save the U.S. from more dangerous threats from within as in poverty,diseases, shootings,etc...which kill hunfreds of thousands every year.

Terrorism happens more often on the other side of the hemisphere where it is an everyday occurance. India leads the scale where it has 40% of the world's terrorist actions happening on its own ground with Iraq being a close second with 30%. And you are calling to create more wars and havoc and blow others to pieces to save more American lives? Go live in the Congo where 3-4 million have been killed in a genocide because of a civil war over there. Go to Chechnya,go to Iraq, go to Sudan. You'll see that compared to others you have it pretty lucky in the good ol' U.S. of A. Count your blessings that there aren't missiles dropping in your backyard. And YOU are talking about blowing others to pieces to save more American lives?

[myhometown]

Funny how not so long ago, the "know it alls" were on here telling how our president didn't care about polls or public opinion and now he making speeches defending the war. So much for that theory.

[On Highway 29]

I'm sure you have read that the real reason behind the war with Iraq was to remove Saddam in order to provide us with additional oil resources? Let's say that was true but that it wasn't the whole story. Let's say the whole story was about securing a stable oil source, then getting down to business dealing with Saudia Arabia....

Okay, let’s say the reason for the war in Iraq was to secure a stable oil base. That doesn’t give us a right to invade a country and fight a war. It’s Iraq’s oil, not ours. We have no more right to it than do the people in Canada. That’s the way it goes.

How would we feel if another country invaded us because we have so much food over here compared to other countries? The U.S. lucked out in that we have land that favors agriculture, etc, whereas Rwanda, etc. are barren areas. I don’t sense the U.S. feels it has a moral or national responsibility to solve world hunger or distribute more food to help other countries.

What makes us think that because Iraq has tons of oil, we should get it?

Saudi Arabia...now there's a power keg. The U.S. is sleeping with the devil on this one. The Saudis spend so much $$ teaching and perpetuating fundamentalist Islam. We don't know who are enemies are.

[On Highway 29]

Fact is we are coming on 4 years without a terror attack on US soil. NO ONE I know would have expected that on 9/12/01. Everyone I know would have given just about anything on 9/12/01 to insure the last 4 years of prosperity and saftey we have enjoyed. How quick we all are to forget the horror.

It doesn’t mean a hill of beans that because there hasn’t been an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, the Bush Administration (and the rest of the Republicans and Democrats) is doing anything right.

The first WTC attack was in 1993. Eight years later in 2001, we had 9/11. So if the terrorists follow that pattern, the next attack won’t be until 2009.

[TIES2]

Okay, let’s say the reason for the war in Iraq was to secure a stable oil base. That doesn’t give us a right to invade a country and fight a war. It’s Iraq’s oil, not ours. We have no more right to it than do the people in Canada. That’s the way it goes.

How would we feel if another country invaded us because we have so much food over here compared to other countries? The U.S. lucked out in that we have land that favors agriculture, etc, whereas Rwanda, etc. are barren areas. I don’t sense the U.S. feels it has a moral or national responsibility to solve world hunger or distribute more food to help other countries.

What makes us think that because Iraq has tons of oil, we should get it?

Saudi Arabia...now there's a power keg. The U.S. is sleeping with the devil on this one. The Saudis spend so much $$ teaching and perpetuating fundamentalist Islam. We don't know who are enemies are.

Okay. Many of the libs on this board like to point the finger at the neo-cons. So who are the neo-cons. Redrocks posted a list in this or some other post...but it's largely unimportant. What is important is who close to the president is labeled as a neo-con. On that short list is Wolfowitz, Perleman, Feitz, and Rumsfeld. Three of these four are Jewish. I have read that the neo-cons are zealous in their support of Isreal (again, I'm not saying that it is right or wrong -- I make absolutely no judgement here). But if that is the case, then the US invasion of Iraq takes on a whole new perspective. Saddam never kept secret his desire to blow Isreal off the face of the earth! During Desert storm he lobbed as many missles Isreal's way as he could manage. If he had WMDs, or even if had the potential to obtain WMDs (think for a moment how he was flouting the UN sanctions and IAEA guidelines), the future security of Isreal could clearly have been at stake. Couple that with an administration that might have stronger than normal ideological connections with and support for Isreal (based soley on the neo-con label) and voila...Iraq does not seem such a far-fetched folly.

[Redrocks]

Okay. Many of the libs on this board like to point the finger at the neo-cons. So who are the neo-cons. Redrocks posted a list in this or some other post...but it's largely unimportant. What is important is who close to the president is labeled as a neo-con. On that short list is Wolfowitz, Perleman, Feitz, and Rumsfeld. Three of these four are Jewish. I have read that the neo-cons are zealous in their support of Isreal (again, I'm not saying that it is right or wrong -- I make absolutely no judgement here). But if that is the case, then the US invasion of Iraq takes on a whole new perspective. Saddam never kept secret his desire to blow Isreal off the face of the earth! During Desert storm he lobbed as many missles Isreal's way as he could manage. If he had WMDs, or even if had the potential to obtain WMDs (think for a moment how he was flouting the UN sanctions and IAEA guidelines), the future security of Isreal could clearly have been at stake. Couple that with an administration that might have stronger than normal ideological connections with and support for Isreal (based soley on the neo-con label) and voila...Iraq does not seem such a far-fetched folly.

TIES2 -- I do not perceive the current protest movement as labeling this war a folly -- I think what they are saying, or at least what I am saying is that they (and the rest of the nation) deserve to know what the REAL reason for our invasion of Iraq. We deserve this because it is now clear to them and to me that the reasons foisted upon us were not real and that our citizens and brave soldiers are being killed because of it. IF the real reason for taking out Saddam was IMMINENT and SUBSTANTIAL threat to the security of an important ally in the middle east (whether that ally is Israel or another nation), then that is a SIGNIFICANT and perhaps important distinction between an IMMINENT and SUBSTANTIAL threat to our own security at the hands of terrorists. If our soldiers are in Iraq being blown up for that reason, then, hell yes, Cindy Sheehan and all of our nations citizens DESERVE to know it. I do not understand how you can continue to deny that basic tenant of what I believe to be a core underpinning of OUR democracy.

IF you are right in your theory (and I have absolutely NO basis to dispute, support, deny, or give any credence to it -- although it is an interesting one), then you have actually made my case for me. I believe that such an action was and is terribly wrong, and if you disagree with me on the difference in morality evidenced by such duplicity, then you and I are likely never to agree on any of these core issues.

Even if I were to agree with you that there are times, threats, conditions, and other considerations that REQUIRE our commander in chief to act decisively regardless of how it plays in Peoria, this is certainly not such an occasion. IF you are right, then it makes me sick to my stomach to think that we have such people leading our nation. It is this level of gumption, arrogance, testosterone, (name your adjective) that is simply beyond anything I could have possibly envisioned when these guys (with apologies to Condoleeza Rice) were swept into power as the leaders of the best nation in the world. WOW.

[Redrocks]

From my local newspaper, the Denver Post.

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_2970205

Tend to unfinished work in Afghanistan
The international coalition that supports the new government needs to have adequate resources if it is to extinguish the remnants of the Taliban.

As America struggles to nourish an infant democracy in Iraq to the point where the U.S. can withdraw its military force, we can't lose sight of the unfinished business in Afghanistan.

A recent surge in violence in Afghanistan has killed about 1,000 people - including 60 American soldiers. Fighters loyal to the ousted Taliban regime are trying to disrupt national and provincial elections planned for Sept. 18.

We're confident those elections will proceed, but it also seems clear that the international coalition in Afghanistan doesn't have adequate resources to extinguish the remnants of the brutish Taliban regime. If only a fraction of the U.S. and British forces now deployed in Iraq were deployed to Afghanistan, its future would be much more secure.

During the Civil War, Secretary of State William Seward tried to provoke a war with England, on the lame-brained theory that an external enemy would reunite north and south. Abraham Lincoln quashed the idea, telling Seward he had to fight "one war at a time." Surely in private moments, even George W. Bush must wish he'd followed that advice.

In retrospect, invading Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan was obviously a mistake. There was no real urgency - no weapons of mass destruction, no link with al-Qaeda terrorism. In contrast, al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and the Taliban were genuinely providing essential support for its anti-America attacks.

Despite the unfinished business - Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden come to mind - the intervention in Afghanistan does offer some useful guidelines for future U.S. actions in Iraq and in the looming confrontation with Iran.

The liberation of Afghanistan was supported by an international force, with even French and German units providing assistance. Besides the firepower and logistical support provided by U.S. allies, the effort has had overwhelming support in the United Nations and other world forums. The U.S. needs broad support for reconstruction in Iraq. The French and Germans, despite their opposition to the 2003 invasion, have signaled their willingness to help. Bush should seize it as quickly as he can say "danke" and "merci."

Finally, Bush should heed the warning from German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who dismissed Bush's suggestion that the U.S. might take military action if Iran continues with its nuclear program. Any effective pressure against Iran must be carefully coordinated between the U.S. and Europe. The prospects dim immeasurably if the U.S. tries to go off on its own.

Ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan provide a cautionary tale against undertaking new interventions before the old ones are finished. The successful efforts to meld world opinion against the Taliban points the way to curbing similar tyrannies in Iran and North Korea.

I find this interesting because it highlights a point I made several days ago. When there is legitmacy (and transparency of motive and expected outcome) behind our military actions as a nation, we have significantly greater chance of enlisting the support of both our citizens and our allies on the world stage. I am not attempting to open debate on which nations are helping in Afghanistan, how much they are helping (vis a vis the US) or whether they are pansies for not helping in Iraq. The fact is that the international coalition and support for Afghanistan is more significant that Iraq and that I believe the reasons for that are that the actions stem from a more "pure" and "legitimate" motivation -- chasing down OBL and those who actually did, and do support him. Will that suport be enough to create a successful government in Afghanistan, or are we destined for failure there as well?

Certainly one lesson from Iraq is that we really cannot go it alone in the Middle East, notwithstanding the apparent view of this administration (and certain participants in this discussion) that we can. The problems, costs, risks, and potential rewards are simply too great to think that our views are "right" and they simply MUST be pursued regardless of whether we will have to "go it alone" to prove it.

[TIES2]

TIES2 -- I do not perceive the current protest movement as labeling this war a folly -- I think what they are saying, or at least what I am saying is that they (and the rest of the nation) deserve to know what the REAL reason for our invasion of Iraq. We deserve this because it is now clear to them and to me that the reasons foisted upon us were not real and that our citizens and brave soldiers are being killed because of it. IF the real reason for taking out Saddam was IMMINENT and SUBSTANTIAL threat to the security of an important ally in the middle east (whether that ally is Israel or another nation), then that is a SIGNIFICANT and perhaps important distinction between an IMMINENT and SUBSTANTIAL threat to our own security at the hands of terrorists. If our soldiers are in Iraq being blown up for that reason, then, hell yes, Cindy Sheehan and all of our nations citizens DESERVE to know it. I do not understand how you can continue to deny that basic tenant of what I believe to be a core underpinning of OUR democracy.

IF you are right in your theory (and I have absolutely NO basis to dispute, support, deny, or give any credence to it -- although it is an interesting one), then you have actually made my case for me. I believe that such an action was and is terribly wrong, and if you disagree with me on the difference in morality evidenced by such duplicity, then you and I are likely never to agree on any of these core issues.

Even if I were to agree with you that there are times, threats, conditions, and other considerations that REQUIRE our commander in chief to act decisively regardless of how it plays in Peoria, this is certainly not such an occasion. IF you are right, then it makes me sick to my stomach to think that we have such people leading our nation. It is this level of gumption, arrogance, testosterone, (name your adjective) that is simply beyond anything I could have possibly envisioned when these guys (with apologies to Condoleeza Rice) were swept into power as the leaders of the best nation in the world. WOW.

How is Isreal an important ally? Are they standing shoulder to shoulder with us in Iraq? How about in Afghanistan? Were they present in Bosnia? I'm sure Isreal has a strategic importance, I just don't know what it is.

You know, I was an ardent McCain fan (still am). I ended up voting for Bush in 2000 because I could not stand Al Gore (a little too much of a tree hugger, for me). I really thought GWBs four years would be lackluster at best. I wasn't really expecting anything, just thnakful that whatever it was it was not going to be delivered at the hands of Gore. Then came 9/11. The man that stood in front of the joint session of congress soon thereafter was not the same man I voted for a year ealier. And I have to tell you it was the impression of that man at that moment that caused me to vote for him again in 2004. I don't think GWB gets nearly the credit he deserves for the leadership he displayed in the days and months that followed 9/11. In those days, it was pure GWB. It was not Karl Rove. It was not Paul Wolfowitz or Donald Rumsfeld, it was pure, genuine GWB. We needed a leader and he rose to the occassion. I know there are those who will post the bull about his "confused" reaction when first told of what was going on. I don't buy it for a minute. If he was having any difficulty processing what was going on, he wasn't alone -- most of America was right there with him. Even the people in New York who had a first hand experience with the horror, were not able to fully synthesize everything that was going on.

I still think he has the capacity to be a great President, I just don't know if we will really see it at this juncture. As to our foray into Iraq, who knows if we will ever know the reason why we are really there. And, more importantly, will knowing really chane anything? Maybe we just need to move forward. How can anyone get anything done with all this bickering going on?

And whether he has told us the truth or those around him have even told him the truth, Cindy Sheehan still has no right, not to mention basis, to compare the President to Hitler. I don't care if you want the truth or not, that's an outrageous claim. And other's that have made it have retracted their statements or issued some sort of an apology -- it's the decent thing to do -- yet I do not think one will be forthcoming from Cindy Sheehan.

I'm not sure how much you know about the Peace march in Washington scheduled for late September. One would think it would largely be an anti-war rally against Iraq. But apparently, regardless of your grievance, there's room for you at the table. Aside from Iraq, they will be calling for an end of US involvement in Puerto Rico and Guam, an end of US Support for Isreal. I read that a US Muslim Group will be Marching in support of creation of a Palestinian state....and while these issues may in and of themselves be important, to lump them together with a rally to end involvement in Iraq is insane. Why not just call it National Grievance Day???? Whatever your rant,come join us in Washington for a moment of national cleansing. It's bull.

It's late and I'm just rambling.

[Redrocks]

How is Isreal an important ally? Are they standing shoulder to shoulder with us in Iraq? How about in Afghanistan? Were they present in Bosnia? I'm sure Isreal has a strategic importance, I just don't know what it is.

I did not say they were an ally. I am assuming your statement as true and presuming that if that is the reason for Iraq, then the administration believes them to be an ally. I am not qualified or competent to wade into the Israel debate, and frankly am so uninformed as to be incapable to render an opinion as strong as yours. But, you are right, based on your criteria, they are not. I will leave it at that.

Then came 9/11. The man that stood in front of the joint session of congress soon thereafter was not the same man I voted for a year ealier. And I have to tell you it was the impression of that man at that moment that caused me to vote for him again in 2004. I don't think GWB gets nearly the credit he deserves for the leadership he displayed in the days and months that followed 9/11.

I agree with you on this. I too listened to him be an effective leader and healer in those terrible days, which is why I told my wife a year later that I trusted him to NOT lead us astray in Iraq, that there MUST be good reasons to go in there, even if they could not tell us all of them at the time. He got that credit from me and the vast majority of americans -- look at the numbers then versus now. I actually had hope -- which is why I am so hurt today and leading this bickering charge. He took the trust that he earned in those early days and spent it on this mess called Iraq. It was then, and remains today a terrible use of the political and human capital he earned in those dark days after 9/11. As a result, I can't forgive and forget -- I expected more and I am mad as hell that he chose this path rather than the one that would lead us through the ensuing years of dealing with these terrorists.

I still think he has the capacity to be a great President, I just don't know if we will really see it at this juncture. As to our foray into Iraq, who knows if we will ever know the reason why we are really there. And, more importantly, will knowing really chane anything? Maybe we just need to move forward. How can anyone get anything done with all this bickering going on?

This is the critical point where you and I part ways. See the rant above. I don't believe it is bickering. I equate it to dealing with my son. I trusted him to tell me the truth about something once -- no questions asked. He lied to me, and I caught him. Now, I spend a bit more time questioning him about stuff that I suspect he MIGHT have a desire to lie to me about, and I check out his story occasionally to keep him honest. It works and I have not caught him in lies recently (although I am certain they have happened, and will continue to happen -- it's human nature, after all). Obviously, your capacity to forgive and forget is much greater than mine -- at least when we are talking about the leader of our nation, and not my 7 year old son. I expect more from him, and he has proven worthy of less.

And whether he has told us the truth or those around him have even told him the truth, Cindy Sheehan still has no right, not to mention basis, to compare the President to Hitler. I don't care if you want the truth or not, that's an outrageous claim. And other's that have made it have retracted their statements or issued some sort of an apology -- it's the decent thing to do -- yet I do not think one will be forthcoming from Cindy Sheehan.

I agree that the statement is reprehensible, and I am not going to defend the specific statement. Nor, have I necessarily defended all of the tactics. I think you will notice that I am sufficiently ill informed about a lot of specifics because I simply don't have the time to monitor all of this crap that is flying from both sides. My focus has been, and will likely remain on the bigger ideological issues involved -- truth, morality (i.e. whether the ends justify the means kind of thing), justice, and my perception of how the messages and actions reflect on MY views of those things. I speak for myself, no one else.

I'm not sure how much you know about the Peace march in Washington scheduled for late September. One would think it would largely be an anti-war rally against Iraq. But apparently, regardless of your grievance, there's room for you at the table. Aside from Iraq, they will be calling for an end of US involvement in Puerto Rico and Guam, an end of US Support for Isreal. I read that a US Muslim Group will be Marching in support of creation of a Palestinian state....and while these issues may in and of themselves be important, to lump them together with a rally to end involvement in Iraq is insane. Why not just call it National Grievance Day???? Whatever your rant,come join us in Washington for a moment of national cleansing. It's bull.

I agree. I won't be attending. In fact, I have trouble with various marches and rallies that lump the ultra factions on both sides of the equation into what I consider to be questions that are legitimate issues and concerns for the majority of americans -- call it the Peoria crowd. Give me a march that continues to question this administration's policies and motives with regard to Iraq and I would likely try and attend. Again, I am not necessarily anti-war. Nor do I advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I simply want a more ideological open and honest assessment and dialogue about where we are, how we got here, and how we are ultimately going to get our selves out of this morass. You have raised important questions in your posts that I can't answer because I'm not qualified, experienced, or educated enough to help. But, I am certain there are many people on my side of the debate who are, who can, and who actually do want to help. This problem transcends politics -- its more important than that, I want all competent parties included in the solution, I want more minds, not less, and I want this administration to admit their failures and to open their minds to alternative input. In the end, I really want a cohesive, uniting set of answers about where we've been, why we went there, where we are going, why we are going there, the expected outcome when we arrive, and the costs to get there. I am not satisfied with the pat on the head "trust us" speeches because I don't trust them -- not any more.

[flap]

Putting it all down to lyrics and then making music to the words
brings it full circle. Nice song, nice video.

Trace Adkins

Arlington

I never thought that this is where I'd settle down.
I thought I'd die an old man back in my hometown.
They gave me this plot of land,
Me and some other men, for a job well done.

There's a big White House sits on a hill just up the road.
The man inside, he cried the day they brought me home.
They folded up a flag and told my Mom and Dad:
"We're proud of your son."

And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
I'm thankful for those thankful for the things I've done.
I can rest in peace;
I'm one of the chosen ones:
I made it to Arlington.

I remember Daddy brought me here when I was eight.
We searched all day to find out where my grand-dad lay.
And when we finally found that cross,
He said: "Son, this is what it cost to keep us free."

Now here I am, a thousand stones away from him.
He recognized me on the first day I came in.
And it gave me a chill when he clicked his heels,
And saluted me.

And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
I'm thankful for those thankful for the things I've done.
I can rest in peace;
I'm one of the chosen ones:
I made it to Arlington.

And everytime I hear twenty-one guns,
I know they brought another hero home to us.

And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
We're thankful for those thankful for the things we've done.
We can rest in peace;
'Cause we are the chosen ones:
We made it to Arlington.

Yeah, dust to dust,
Don't cry for us:
We made it to Arlington.

[admiralkosmos]

Putting it all down to lyrics and then making music to the words
brings it full circle. Nice song, nice video.

Trace Adkins

Arlington

I never thought that this is where I'd settle down.
I thought I'd die an old man back in my hometown.
They gave me this plot of land,
Me and some other men, for a job well done.

There's a big White House sits on a hill just up the road.
The man inside, he cried the day they brought me home.
They folded up a flag and told my Mom and Dad:
"We're proud of your son."

And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
I'm thankful for those thankful for the things I've done.
I can rest in peace;
I'm one of the chosen ones:
I made it to Arlington.

I remember Daddy brought me here when I was eight.
We searched all day to find out where my grand-dad lay.
And when we finally found that cross,
He said: "Son, this is what it cost to keep us free."

Now here I am, a thousand stones away from him.
He recognized me on the first day I came in.
And it gave me a chill when he clicked his heels,
And saluted me.

And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
I'm thankful for those thankful for the things I've done.
I can rest in peace;
I'm one of the chosen ones:
I made it to Arlington.

And everytime I hear twenty-one guns,
I know they brought another hero home to us.

And I'm proud to be on this peaceful piece of property.
I'm on sacred ground and I'm in the best of company.
We're thankful for those thankful for the things we've done.
We can rest in peace;
'Cause we are the chosen ones:
We made it to Arlington.

Yeah, dust to dust,
Don't cry for us:
We made it to Arlington.

Nice song. My father's a vet and we got a free tombstone and a free flag when he died of a massive heart attack in 1987 at 66. He was an Army veteran. Stationed in Hawaii during WWII. WWII, the war where my father was one of many proud American soldiers who freed Europe and some say, the world, from Tyranny - from Germany - from death camps - from racial hatred and brutal evil. My mother survived WWII and made it from Denmark to here and met my father and here I am - the product of two lucky people that survived a mutually hated war.

And the Vietnam memorial has my cousin's name on it when he was shot to death in Vietnam before he was 21. I've always felt torn between being proud of his being a Marine - which many say is the finest branch of the armed forces - to being bitter that his young life was taken for a cause that ultimately was a lost cause.

But now Iraq. Now we invade. Now we go in because 9/11 whereas many of the masterminds behind 9/11, aside from those that did it, are alive and hidden and uncaptured and most likely not in Iraq.

To fight a war for your country is an honor, a danger, a privilege, a horror, a destiny and a Fate and much more. But we need to respect those men and women putting their lives on the line and Bush and this administration is not. There is no respect in sending them to a country that should not have been invaded in the first place. There is no respect in denying them the equipment they need to do the job. There is no respect in forcing them to stay in the line of fire for nothing.

That's right: nothing.

There is no respect in having those that come home denied benefits and forgotten. There is no respect for our international reputation and place in the world by leading through lies and deceit. This is a dangerous President and we are on a dangerous path. He is insuring that we will become a World Class Suicide Bomber field of play in years to come.

Bush's dispicable treatment of Ms. Sheehan, no matter what you think of the legitimacy of her position, is representative of his dispicable treatment of the lives of our men and women who are protecting us: he could care less. He is King. He has spent his whole life taking advantage of people, of situations, accumulating illegitimate power and then squandering it. He's right on track. Wait until Greenspan's gone. Read "Grapes of Wrath".

It's tough knowing that while what I feel and say might find sympathetic ears, it might also incite others to disagree. But what's disturbing in this land of the Free is that we are no longer Free. We are not Free to express our opinions without being personally accosted, insulted, or berated. Well, so be it.
I feel quite strongly about this country's dark path now and Bush needs to change direction now or let those that know how to quickly, intellgently, do so. That means out of Iraq NOW.

Military blood is precious blood and Bush is wasting it. I knew the day he cheated his way into office he would get us into a war or three and he has. Something has to break.

Oh, I'm a big Bruce fan. Don't think for a minute his brave support of Kerry was not a committed effort to support this notion.