August 09, 2005

Go to Hell, Cindy Sheehan

Let me make this perfectly clear: I loath Cindy Sheehan.

I despise everything she stands for, and love the ideals she stands against. I hate how she dishonors her brave son's memory. I cringe when she utters stupid talking points—“why did the president kill my son?”—and I cannot stand the fact that she egotistically thinks she is more important than the tens of millions of people she would undermine in her quest for vengeance. Clearly, her arrogance knows no limits.

The most important mother in the world.
Cindy Sheehan thinks she is the most important mother in the world.

She is holding a vigil to speak to the president—again—even though she has made it abundantly clear in her comments to the news media that she has nothing new to offer other than clichés. She wants the troops to pull out of Iraq now, no matter the future costs or the wasted sacrifices. She wants Bush to personally account for her son's death. She wants Bush to personally tell her why her son died. She, she, she. Well guess what Cindy?

You are not the only mother who has sent a son off to war. You are one mother of the more than 1,800 troops who died serving their country in a military they volunteered to join, knowing that they could be sent off to war. There are thousands of other mothers who have had their sons and daughters wounded in combat. There are mothers for each and every one of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, from more than a dozen nations, that have served in Iraq in an effort to bring democracy and hope to that region.

Nor are you more important than the mothers of the 25 million Iraqis that your son Casey was trying to bring freedom. You didn't understand his courage or commitment, and you can't understand why someone who lay down their life for a stranger. That is your problem Cindy Sheehan, and you dishonor your own son's memory every time you open your mouth to fight against everything he gave his life for.

Nor are you more important, Cindy Sheehan than the mothers of the tens of millions in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other nations tasting freedom for the first time because of brave men like your late son.

Despite what you think, Cindy Sheehan, you are not more important than any of these millions of other mothers, though you would make all their sacrifices in vain to bring down a President.

Vengeance, not Justice. Hatred, not Hope.
Your son died trying to bring freedom to an oppressed people. I can think of no more noble sacrifice. But you, Cindy Sheehan, you want revenge for your heartache, and you don't care who gets hurt in the process.

That is why you, Cindy Sheehan, can go to hell.

You decided, in a mind warped by your association with head cases like Code Pink and Veterans for Peace, that George W. Bush made your son patriotic and gave him the heart to serve his country, and that George W. Bush made him volunteer for military service, and that George W. Bush forced him to want to make the military his career, and it was George W. Bush that made him re-enlist. And of course, George W. Bush pulled the trigger on the RPG in the Sadr City slum that took his life.

Cindy Sheehan doesn't give a damn about the millions of Iraqis her son was trying to bring freedom. Cindy Sheehan doesn't give a damn about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that have rotated in and out of Iraq in that same quest. Cindy Sheehan doesn't give a damn if Iraqis are ruled by themselves or if they are tortured by tyrants. She is petty. She is vengeful. She wants revenge, and she doesn't care who gets hurt or who dies in the process.

I am ashamed for Casey Sheehan. He understood that there are things in this world worth giving up your life to create, and he made that sacrifice. His mother Cindy, full of hate, seeks only seeks to destroy.

I can understand her grief, but I cannot forgive the fact that she is willing to threaten the lives of others and give our enemies hope to satisfy her need for revenge.

A terrorist RPG killed the body of Casey Sheehan. It took his mother to try to kill his legacy.

Update: I made few minor tweaks, mostly grammatical.

Another Update: Retired Marine and radio talk show host "Gunny Bob" Newman is apparently on the same wavelength.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at August 9, 2005 09:38 AM | TrackBack

give your own life up for a bunch of lies then ... bush, and more accurately those behind him, have killed her son and they have also killed your mind. wake up brother...

Posted by: at August 9, 2005 10:04 AM

My name is Bob Owens. I tried to get an age waiver to join the New York Army National Guard in Middletown, New York so that I could go to war for my ideals.

You snipe from the anonymous safety of the internet without faith in your convictions to even leave an alias, much less your real name.

Anything else, anonymous coward?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 9, 2005 10:12 AM

^^^ gotta love the nameless comment!

I would like to see him call me a ChickenHawk!

Posted by: Mustang 23 at August 9, 2005 10:16 AM

Mustang23, I think if they tried to call you any sort of chicken, it would have to be (Iraqi) sun-baked! ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 9, 2005 10:18 AM


You beat me to it!

Posted by: Mustang 23 at August 9, 2005 10:18 AM

You're despicable. You're a hateful human being. You're the lowest form of life. Those types of hateful words...and you think you're patriotic and moral? Guy, the only person going to straight to hell is you. You actually probably already live in a hell of your hatred and anger.

What an amoral jackass.

  • Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America
  • Get a life.

    Posted by: remg at August 9, 2005 10:19 AM

    my name is darren mortenson, if you care. why the hell do you want to fight for the same rich bastards that fully intend to erode all of our freedoms while trying to convince us that "we" need to spread "freedom" abroad?

    Posted by: at August 9, 2005 10:22 AM

    Can you give me specific examples of our eroding freedoms? And I mean something more than a "Patriot act" call, give me something specific within it that has personally eroded your rights.

    You've got rhetoric, but I've yet to find anyone who has personally been affected.

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 9, 2005 10:26 AM


    I cannot improve on Christ's words, "Greater love hath no man, than to give his life for another." Cindy would do well to hold those words close to her heart and cherrish the thought that her son was willing to give his life for others.

    Posted by: John Yetter at August 9, 2005 10:27 AM

    we don't have to look any further than the patriot act to see the erosion of rights. there is plenty in there that fits the bill. but if you want you can go way beyond that. the point is if the laws are on paper isn't that enough to be concerned about? do we really have to wait before someone we know is personally affected? isn't that way too late?

    Posted by: at August 9, 2005 10:51 AM

    In other words, you say "patriot act" and just assume that just becuase your compatriots tell you that it is eroding your rights, that it really is. Liberals have been saying this for years, and yet, tehy have not be able to provide a single documented example of this actually happening in several years.

    At which point do you start to wonder if your "conventional wisdom" is neither conventional, nor wise?

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 9, 2005 10:58 AM

    hey yankee coward. How come you haven't responded to our comment about your despicable post?

    We're tempted to taunt you're cowardly, dorky a-s.(the only way to talk to jerk-offs like you).

    But the truth is that we're talking about a mother who lost her son. So let's see if you're capable of feeling and expressing shame for your shameful post.


  • Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America
  • Posted by: rmg at August 9, 2005 11:08 AM

    ok here's a surprise. i agree with you. liberals are also part of the problem. many more iraqis died under sanctions during the clinton regime than those that died during both of the bush regimes combined. it doesn't matter if it's a so-called "liberal" or a so-called "conservative" government that's doing the killing. it amounts to the same thing and it serves the same elite. when the rights of those overseas are stripped from them (by killing them for one) eventually the rights of all suffer. why are we there?

    Posted by: at August 9, 2005 11:12 AM

    rmg seems to think the only way to argue with someone is to call them names, and as he/she says, taunt them. Oooh, better watch out, this one's got some smarts.

    Posted by: brian e. at August 9, 2005 11:30 AM

    I swear, that's textbook, Bob:

    "Can you give me specific examples of our eroding freedoms? And I mean something more than a "Patriot act" call"

    "we don't have to look any further than the patriot act"

    Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at August 9, 2005 11:57 AM

    What Cindy just cannot seem to grasp is that if not for the sacrifices of men just like her son, she might well not even be allowed to say such things about her government. A point her son probably knew, and may have even learned from her.

    I do feel for the woman though.

    Posted by: Defense Guy at August 9, 2005 12:20 PM

    If you are too old to enlist, but so adamantly support the war in Iraq- why don't you try some of the private contractors?
    Custer Battles is one of them, there are others like Blackwater.
    Do you have any kids? Send them to this war you so support.
    When one gets killed in the war, then, and only then, do you have the right, to talk about Cindy Sheehan.

    Posted by: at August 9, 2005 12:25 PM

    Tuesday, August 9th, 2005
    "Security Threat"

    -- a Message From Cindy Sheehan, Crawford, TX

    Where do I begin?

    Today was a highly eventful day. This entry won’t be artful, but utilitarian.

    I conservatively got 3 to 5 phone calls a minute. I did about 25 phone interviews and several TV interviews. I did several right-wing radio interviews. I was supposed to do: The Today Show, MSNBC live interview, Connected Coast to Coast (MSNBC) and Hardball (MSNBC). The Today Show just never showed up and the other 3 MSNBC shows cancelled for no reason.

    Another big story that was going on today was about my first meeting with Bush in June of 2004. For you all I would like to clarify a few things. First of all, I did meet with George, and that is not a secret. I have written about it and been interviewed about it. I will stand by my recounting of the meeting. His behavior was rude and inappropriate. My behavior in June of 2004 is irrelevant to what is going on in 2005. I was in deep shock and deep grief. The grief is still there, but the shock has worn off and the deep anger has set in. And to remind everybody, a few things have happened since June of 2004: The 9/11 commission report; the Senate Intelligence report; the Duelfer WMD report; and most damaging and criminal: the Downing Street Memos. The VERY LAST THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS IS: Why do the right wing media so assiduously scrutinize the words of a grief filled mother and ignore the words of a lying president?

    In the early afternoon, we got word that if we were still there by Thursday, we were going to be deemed a "security threat" to the president. Condi and Rummy are coming in on Thursday for a "policy" meeting. I just don’t understand why we will be a security threat on Thursday when we aren’t now? If we don’t leave on Thursday, we could be arrested. Well, I am not leaving. There are only three things that would make me leave: if George comes out and talks to me; if August comes to an end, or if I am arrested.

    People are heading here from all over the country. I have some more Gold Star Families for Peace members coming tomorrow. We are amazed by the outpouring of love and support we are getting. 62% of the American public are against this war and want our troops home. We need to show the media that we are in the majority. We need to show George Bush and his cabal of neocons that when we say "bring the troops home, now" we mean "bring the troops home, now!!!"

    In the late afternoon, many of us left to go back to the peace house in Crawford because there was going to be a major lightning storm. While most of us were gone, the Sheriff came and told us that what we were told was county property really was private property and we would have to remove our stuff to a tiny place, or get it confiscated. I find it interesting that the county sheriff did not know that roads in his county that lead up to the presidential vacation home are private roads. I find it very hard to believe. They think that they are pushing us off, but we will not leave there voluntarily or without handcuffs on. My only hope is, there will be tons of media there when they carry me to the squad car.

    Today was so bizarre for me. I got phone calls from famous people pledging their support, and phone calls from mothers with sons in Iraq who are overcome with emotion when they talk to me. And it is so brave for them to call me, because I am their worst fear. We had a young man who is in the US Army at Ft. Hood come this morning and spend hours with us. He has been there [Iraq] and his unit is scheduled to go back in October. How much courage did that take for him to come within earshot of his commander in chief’s home and spend time with some old hippy protestors???

    We have a lawyer working on getting us closer to the ranch and working on magically turning the private property back into county property again. I have some awesome young ladies from CodePink answering my phone and taking phone calls. We have Veterans for Peace out there putting up banners (our tiny campsite looks real nice). We have concerned citizens from all over America starting to come in. IT IS FREAKIN AMAZING, FOLKS!!!

    Come and join us and let your voices be joined with ours.


    Posted by: Cindy Sheehan at August 9, 2005 12:29 PM

    LOL The fake DSM? HAHAHAHAHA. Go away woman. We don't care.

    Posted by: efuseakay at August 9, 2005 12:45 PM

    I can deal without the spammed press releases, folks. As for Mr. Anonymous coward, I have "right" to criticize people like Cindy Sheehan's undermining of the United States military, because people in our military, like her son, ensure that right with their lives.

    Cindy Sheehan would deny that very same freedom to 25 million Iraqis by unilaterally withdrawing our soldiers and plunging that nation into civil war.

    As I have stated before, she is motivated by a misguided desire for vengeance, and arrogantly makes statements which undermines our military. She threatens the same people she claims to represent.

    My daughter, who is five, is a little too young for military service, but if she makes the decision to join when she is older, she carries with her my blessings, even knowing the risks that service entails. There are worse things than death.

    Betraying the legacy of a fallen hero would be one of those things.

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 9, 2005 12:53 PM

    We have a lawyer working on getting us closer to the ranch and working on magically turning the private property back into county property again.

    Nice to see where Mrs. Sheehan' stance is on Kelo. Why am I not surprised?

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 9, 2005 01:07 PM

    What Cindy and her leftist feminist friends don't realize is that except for the efforts of her son and the other brave soldiers she would be wearing a burka and wouldn't have even the alleged 'eroded' freedoms referenced by darren mortenson, our leftist friend who doesn't know how to use the caps key. darren, I can't see you ever doing anything heroic and I don't think I would want you covering my back in a tight situation. You don't like this countries ideas of freedom, find another.

    Posted by: docdave at August 9, 2005 01:26 PM

    Anonymous coward, who the hell are you to tell me and others when we have the right to 'talk about Cindy Sheehan'. Christ, the stupid womans son died for her AND THE REST OF US, you narrow minded newt!! That in itself gives us the right to speak. What do you think the son would say if he could speak? Do you think he would be proud of his mothers antics, or deeply embarassed by them? I'm sure that you have not given any thought to that. Wake up!! Our brave troops are fighting a war in a foreign land so they don't have to fight one here.

    Posted by: docdave at August 9, 2005 01:44 PM

    I have come to the conclusion that when a person resorts to the 'you have no right to talk about x, becaue you don't y' then you have won the argument and the only reason that the person will post something like that is because the wish to continue to believe that they have a point. You see if I take away your ability to have an opinion, then I can ignore your opinion when it is correct and goes against what I am arguing.

    Posted by: Defense Guy at August 9, 2005 02:43 PM

    I think that the media's coverage of her is irresponsible and repugnant. The woman needs help. She's mentally ill and can't come to terms with the loss of her son. Their exploitation of her is reprehensible.

    And darren said "...many more iraqis died under sanctions during the clinton regime..."

    Technically, sir, they died under the UN's supervision of the oil-for-food scam. (How many times will I have to say that before everyone finally knows and no longer has that to use as an excuse? How many will I have to say it to twice? Three times?)

    Posted by: Oyster at August 9, 2005 02:53 PM

    I feel for Cindy Sheehan, however what she is doing is wrong. She is making a mockery of herself and everything her son stood for in joining the military to defend our nation.

    I find it laughable how the left has decided to stand up, puff out their chests, demean conservatives and declare THEY love America and THEY support the troops.

    They say that conservatives don't support the troops because we didn't vote for, and had the audacity to criticize Hackett (Democrat, Ohio special election). Because they supported a Democrat war veteran in an election, they support the troops.

    Now they are using Cindy and this media circus to say we don't support the troops. If we did we would be supporting Cindy.

    What a twisted way of defining supporting the troops.

    Posted by: Lynn at August 9, 2005 08:56 PM

    Well Said!

    Posted by: Sinner at August 9, 2005 09:26 PM

    i gave you my name. but it takes more than having a name to not be a coward. it takes being able to wake up from old convictions and face the obvious truth.

    we are being lied to continuously by our government and the elites behind it. the whole left-right, conservative-liberal spectrum is also a lie used by those in power to divide and conquer.

    wake up bob! you neo-cons (or should i say the neo-conned?) are being squeezed out by both sides. the so-called "left", "liberals"
    and anarchists are already against the bushies. they just have to realize that their own leaders also represent the globalist elites as well.

    and on the "right", traditional conservative Republicans are more and more starting to realize that it is not in our interests to help extend an empire (which the neo-cons openly brag about) that only benefits the super-rich and their allies. join the ranks of rep. ron paul, patrick buchanan, paul craig roberts and more and more others.

    we are not fighting for freedom in iraq (for us or anybody else). in the past that might have been true but now are soldiers unwittingly fight, kill and die for oil and "full spectrum dominance".

    is this the america are forefathers fought for? you all know in your guts that things are wrong and we do not have to wait until it becomes a total police state before we do something about it.

    bush could give a damn about america and her freedoms. he just rammed cafta through congress, he encourages cheap immigrant labour by leaving the borders open and thus
    bringing down wages for americans, he outsources jobs to china and india where they are paid dirt-cheap wages, he is expanding our trade deficit and national debt by the day, and he is allowing the dollar to slide in value which represents real inflation.

    why is he (and by "he", of course, i mean the people behind him) doing all of this? he is doing this because the global elites realize (here we can also include the democrats and yes the u.n.) that the only way that we can compete with china, and other emerging nations like india, where there is near slavery, is to bring our own country to third-world conditions.

    obviously americans will not stand for this
    so they are bit by bit implementing a police state to make sure that we are controlled. you know what i mean, we can see it everywhere -- more cops on the street, confiscation of prvate property, more security cameras, the militarization of the police, more checkpoints, retinal scans, promotion of sub-dermal chips, promotion of
    a "cashless society", thumb scans at disneyland, etc.

    all of this is coming down the tubes rapidly now and more, even in the military, are starting to question things. it is not a matter of left and right or liberal and conservative, these are smokescreens, it is a matter of freedom. wake up please!

    Posted by: dm at August 9, 2005 09:58 PM

    Go ahead and say it DM: "Illuminati."

    You know you want to, and your whole "new world order" thesis is a hoot. Yep, we've turning into the third world right as we speak, with the economy growing steadily for what, 37 straight months?

    So, we're making not progress in Iraq, and we want to be imperialists? I guess that election we saw in January was a smoke screen, as is the Iraqi Constitution that is creeping ever closer to completion. You keep saying that we are losing, and yet, Iraqi civilains are bravely joining the military and police every day to fight the terrorists, even though they know they place their lives in danger.

    "What on earth would they do that for?" you may ask.

    Certainly not for George Bush, or for the United States. They do it for patriotism. Iraqi Patriotism. They do it out of love of their country. The love of country of the many will outweigh the hatred of the few.. both there, as well as here.

    Becuase of this, Iraqi military and police units continue to attract more recruits than they can train, and more than the terrorists can kill. It's 1.1 steps forward, and one step back, but the turning point is near, if we haven't passed it already.

    I think your greatest fear, DM, is the fear of all liberals; that the Iraqis might soon prove imminently capable of beating the terrorists, and establishing capable of establishing a represenative democracy if you don't find a way to lose the war quickly.

    If Iraq becomes a success story, it calls everything--EVERYTHING--liberals have ever said about the Middle East into question dating back 60 years. Also, if Iraq succeeds, Bush would be proven right, and that would be the end of liberals and progressives as a credible movement. After years of so much blatant hatred, you would be firmly exposed for what you are, and destroyed like a vampire in the sun.

    Sadly, people like you want Iraq to fail, and want Bush and the Unisted States to fail, because you've placed yourselves on the wrong side of history. That is sad, DM.

    Sad beyond beleif.

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 9, 2005 10:37 PM

    wrong again bob. i'm not a "liberal" for one and for another i would love to see real democracy and freedom spread across the middle east. but can i ask you why does are government support repressive non-democratic regimes in saudi arabia and the gulf states? why does our government provide more aid to the repressive mubarak government of egypt than any other country except isreal? who's preventing democracy here?

    and no i did not say "illuminati" or "new world order" (actually bush sr. first said it back in 1991). i said globalists, elites and super-rich. to me it doesn't matter what you call them. they may or may not be all working together. who knows? the point is that they a far different way of looking at the world than you or i do bob. they have different interests and different agendas.

    they do not care about our freedom they care
    only about expanding their wealth and power.

    oh yeah, the economy has been expanding for months while personal debt is exploding, government debt is exploding and our personal savings level is the lowest level ever. CREDIT is growing not the real economy.

    Posted by: dm at August 9, 2005 11:03 PM

    I'm a broken down retired LieutenantColonel. But, I'd go to Iraq in a minute if the Army would still have me. They are doing important work for which the entire world will benefit.

    Cindy Sheehan will never understand someone like me, like her son. The shame is, that she didn't understand her son, and never will.

    Tim Law

    Posted by: Tim Law at August 9, 2005 11:06 PM

    Whenever a conservative opines in favor of a robust military posture, Leftists respond with challenges like, "oh yeah, why don't you wear a uniform and serve, you hypocrite!?"

    That is one of the most dangerous and anti-democratic arguments ever. It implies that only military men and women, only veterans should have input on military and national defense matters. Fact: Most of our Commanders in Chief have never served or serve briefly and inconsequentially in the military.

    Some of our greatest Presidents never saw combat or served in the military.

    Also, imagine if the standard was applied to our criminal justice system. Then only police, ex-criminals, crime victims, and lawyers could serve on juries since they are the only ones with an intimate knowledge of crime.

    Lastly, what if you were a wheelchair-bound conservative like Charles Krauthammer? Does the all-inclusive Left wish to ban those that cannot physically serve from waxing on military matters, especially from a pro-military point of view?

    Posted by: Michael Lopez-Calderon at August 10, 2005 10:21 AM

    Who is this old cold warrior confederate yankee. Just been reading some of his comments and I'm amazed by the ignorance of the man!

    Maybe you should read up on Illuminati some Yankeepooh, how many Americans have died since the end of the war? What was the reason Bush wanted to invade Iraq in the first place? But let Freud and Co figure out if he wanted either to prove to his pappie that he was better or simply wanted to take revenge? Oh yes, that's right, there were weapons of mass destruction present. Right? Wrong, even Bush had to admit there weren't any. Sure, Sadam was a bad guy, one of the worst around. But give me choice between getting rid of Saddam or that lunitune from Korea, KIM Jong Il . Now if I were soooo afraid of mass weapons of destruction than it might have been more usefull to get rid of him? Maybe you got a better explanation other than that Bush didn't want to tangle with someone who he migh not be able to beat?

    Also illimunating (no pun intended) is the utter failure of the Iraqi armed forces. Sure they want to join, that gives people in a country with 100% unemployment steady income. Imagine it, Iraqis working for the US because of PATRIOTISME! Hahaha... and it shows whenever you read about them deserting their units! No wonder they sent Rumpie over there a couple of weeks ago pressing the flesh, imploring his Iragi minions to make haste with the constitution and building up their army.

    Sure Yankeedoodle, given time and money you can do anything, go to Mars, build the longest bridge or the highest skycraper in the world, or give every child in the word vacine shots or even subdue a country like Iraq. It's only a question of time and money, and CHOISES. Maybe the US should throw another 200B USD at it, or howbout 400 Billion, that's right, BILLION DOLLARS. But I'd think that may not be the best place to put hard-earned taxpayer money. Let the Iraqi solve their own problems, including toppling Sadam. He wasn't a threat to the US, leave ém to stew in their own juices. Again, if we hadn't gone in there in the first place, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today!

    Now you'll see what happens in the next year or so; Bush's popularity is going down, real bad. He'll wanna do something about it and the best thing will be a hasty retreat, leaving the Iraqis to sort out the mess HE created in the first place! He's already busy salvaging his leagacy; what else was Rumpie doing there a month ago? Telling the Iraqie a delay will not be tolerated which comes down to a not so subtle threat that the will get cut of if this money machine keeps on hemorraging money the way it does.

    What is sad here is people like you, ignorant of the facts and wanting to spew out your hate and intollarance.

    Posted by: RV at August 10, 2005 11:13 AM

    Interesting. RV wants to bail out on 25 million Iraqis because American lives are far more important to the Jetta-driving latte-sipping set, and we're the intolerant ones?


    Time to go press your hood, isn't it?

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 10, 2005 11:22 AM

    Where in what I write does it say I want to bail out on 25 m Iraqis? Hmmm, I reread but can't find that written anywhere? Or did you read that last paragraph about Bush making a hasty retreat to fast?

    Maybe you might have written that sentence about those 25 m Iraqis because you couln't find any arguments against what I wrote about all those patriotic Iraqis? Just maybe it dawned on you that all those Iraqis don't give a flying hoot about patriotism but find the convenience of a monthly pay cheque so compelling they would do anything. Or just maybe a lot of them came to the idea that if they joined, they would not only be getting paid, but they could snitch and inform what's going on to their buddy Al-Zawahri?

    By being silent one can say a lot as wel, there might stil be some hope for you yet Confederate Yankee.

    Posted by: RV at August 10, 2005 01:36 PM

    Can someone please explain how liberals can have such consistently bad spelling, grammer, and punctuation, faulty arguments, poor sentence construction and cohesion and still expect someone to bother reading them?

    Tell you what, RV:

    Make small, logical arguments that can be understood by others, and I'll try to answer them tonight.

    Fair enough?

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 10, 2005 03:51 PM

    Here's a logical argument: It's called the first Amendment. Cindy Sheehan can say whatever she likes, and so can you. Doesn't mean you're not going to hell, though.

    Bush is not the King of America, appointed by God, however much he may wish it were so. Sheehan is an American citizen, and as such, has a right to question the person currently at the head of her government, especially when said person has started a bloody drawn out war for no particular reason. What in God's name about that has inspired you to such mindless frothing vitriol? I really would like to know.

    P.S. I see you've been posting at Pandagon. Continue if you must, but they are way out of your league.


    Posted by: Norah at August 10, 2005 07:34 PM

    bob i've made plenty of grammatically sound, logically consistent arguments here and i have received in return little more than name-calling and regurgitated cliches about how the military, by serving the interests of the rich, is somehow protecting our freedoms.

    how is rv, who bit more emotional and justifiably so, to expect any different regardless of your promises?

    Posted by: dm at August 10, 2005 07:39 PM

    Norah, DM,, RV, etc:

    I made my case against Cindy Sheehan in my original post, and quite clearly at that.

    She is a vengeful woman who wants her "revenge" against President Bush for her son's death. She does not care that she is a rallying point for terrorists. She does not care that she undermines our soldiers, including men just like her son.

    As I said in another post, Cindy Sheehan is like the second prostitute in I Kings 3:16-27. Look it up. You'll recognize the story, and the role that she plays.

    Once her child was dead, Cindy Sheehan didn't care about the deaths of other mother’s sons. Her child was dead, and damn all others that would stand between her and her revenge.

    Rabid dogs don't mean to be rabid.

    It doesn't make them any less dangerous.

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 10, 2005 08:46 PM

    I feel sorry for you.

    Our brave soldiers dying for vague reasons with no plan and no end in sight is something we should not tolerate.

    All Americans and Iraqi's deserve better than what we are getting now.

    Cindy Sheehan should be applauded. More dead Americans and Iraqi's -- in this current situation -- with people in charge who don't make a conscious effort to do what's right -- well, more dead Americans and Iraqi's are not going to change anything.

    Stop pulling for "your team" -- and pull for "America."

    Posted by: blue girl at August 10, 2005 09:52 PM

    "My team?"

    Sweetheart, my team supports the troops. We want them to win. We do not undermine them, or call them torturers, or murderers, like your side does. We do not say that we'll support the troops when they shoot their officers.

    These are distinctly progressive "values."

    Be honest. You don't give a damn about the Iraqi people. You never did. You don't give a damn about the troops. You never did. For you this all a game of gotcha! where you are grasping at any straw to attack President Bush.

    When you are done sucking Cindy Sheehan's minor celebrity dry, you'll discard her as you have done other useful idiots. But we'll still be here. We'll still support our soldiers and the democracy they are trying establish in Iraq.

    We aren't going to let you lose another war.

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 10, 2005 11:13 PM

    you are all lame asses. never question ol georgie. never. he does no wrong.

    you are all a bunch redneck motherfuckers. pro-whatever the hell you think at the time. you have no forsight, no concept of society, working together. it's to your downfall.

    Posted by: patriot america at August 11, 2005 12:23 AM

    Senator Byrd, you really aren't welcome here.

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 11, 2005 12:33 AM

    Some of you speak of Jesus. Would Jesus support the killing of anyone, despite what they have done. Did Jesus not speak of peace? Love thy enemy as you love yourself. if someone strikes you, turn the other cheek. If we only would truly listen. Are we a nation founded on the words of Christ? What would he say?

    I meditate and pray for peace for those living in war. And peace of mind for those of us living in safety who choose to support violence of any kind.

    Posted by: justin at August 11, 2005 01:27 AM

    That is a beautiful sentiment, justin. Thank you.

    That said, "turning the other cheek" when someone's life is in danger is also a sin. Thankfully, brave men stand guard, though some they guard are hardly thankful.

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 11, 2005 01:45 AM

    I support Freedom.
    That said, let me explain. I served 20 years in the Military and I was in the Gulf, Saudia Arabia, and UAE. I wasn't on the front lines but did many supporting roles and supporting Freedom to me means that I support Freedom around the World, not just for those of us in the U.S.

    Iraq was warned many times, then Saddam invaded Kuwait and we had to intervene. We could have let it go but then Iraq would now be bigger and Kuwait would be history (that was over Oil). We pushed back Saddam and would have kept going but the detractors of the world told us not to, Saddam had enough so we acquesced and let it go to allow the U.N. to apply 'Sanctions' on them. During that time Saddam murdered an untold number of his people (tens of thousands), violated the No-Fly zone on a weekly,if not daily, basis (a military violation) violated the U.N. Sanctions close to twenty times (and was told by the U.N. to quit it), postulated that they had weapons of mass destruction after kicking out the teams searching for them and not allowing them back in. To say that Iraq was not a threat (to the world, not just us) at that time is, to say the least, irresponsible. Once we went in we found mass graves, burried aircraft, missiles that violated the U.N. allowed maximum range, missile cannisters with trace elements of illegal chemicals, (no sign of what they did with the chemicals), diagrams for advanced chemicals, missiles, bombs and more.

    Again I say, Freedom is not only for us, but should be universal to all. To get it for everyone, we all need to Sacrifice. Cindy Sheehan sacrificed by losing her son. His Deeds (in my eyes) overpower what she is doing now. I just hope she can understand some day that giving all for the hopes and dreams of freedom for others is a right and just cause, it doesn't make it any easier when you lose a loved one, but maybe someday it will bring piece of mind.

    Posted by: Tim at August 11, 2005 12:51 PM

    Is this "Darren Mortenson" person the reporter for the North County Times in San Diego? See:

    for some stuff about his time in Iraq. A search of the North County Times turned up 3 articles by Mortenson in the past two years, all dealing with the Marines.

    Posted by: badgerw at August 11, 2005 02:37 PM

    You loathe a mother for demanding an explanation for her son's death.
    You sit and anonymously deride a woman for demanding truth. You defend a president who lies and then lies about lying.
    Have you no shame?

    Posted by: Jeff at August 11, 2005 04:19 PM

    "You loathe a mother for demanding an explanation for her son's death."

    She's not demanding an explanation. She knows the explanation. Let me explain it to you, Jeff, since your head's up you nether region.

    1. Casey Sheehan, AN ADULT, joins the service, knowing full well what the consequences could be.

    2. He's shipped to Iraq.

    3. He gets killed in battle.

    Simple enough?

    Bob - it looks like someone left the asylum's main gate open...

    TV (Harry)

    Posted by: Inspector Callahan at August 11, 2005 04:23 PM

    Armchair pussy.

    Posted by: at August 11, 2005 04:40 PM

    All one asks when their child goes off to war is that those who insist that it is necessary know what they are doing so the public can trust in their reasons. I think it is amply clear that that trust for many grieving parents was sadly misplaced. That is this woman's only point. And for that you hate her? HATE? The greatest evil you are able to find in this world is a woman asking questions about why her son died in a seemingly pointless and endless war? Please open your eyes. Or don't what do I care.

    Posted by: Gil at August 11, 2005 05:06 PM

    Wow, I find your attempts to make a logical argument quaintly humorous. It must feel positively wonderful wrapping yourself in an American flag while you mentally masturbate. But, do allow me some freedom to educate you on a few things.

    First, a point of agreement: it is a volunteer army. Join at your peril. I detest soldiers who claim "I only joined so I could go to college" or "I only joined so I could travel the world," and then belly-ache over having to actually fight. The U.S. military ain't a damned travel agency, it ain't a frigging welfare office, and it ain't the Peace Corps. You want to travel the world? You want a college education handed to you? Look elsewhere.

    However, facts are facts. The whole premise for the U.S. being in Iraq has been derided for over two years now. It was dubious before the invasion and is even moreso now. WMDs? Ring a bell? Where are those (and I HOPE you come with more than a couple of 15 year old hollow-point mortar shells)? Links to Al-Qaeda prior to the invasion? It's positively laughable. You'd think, in the two years we've been there we would have come across one credible, tiny, single shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein's government sponsored Al-Qaeda. You know why we haven't? Because for as much of a tyrant as he was, Saddam was a largely secular tyrant.

    Hell, Al-Qaeda hated him too, just not as much as the supposedly imperialist U.S. At least we could count on Saddam Hussein to use force to keep Iraq from becoming another Islamist state (Lord knows, we've done so well with Iran, we probably don't want to deal with two such states side-by-side). But, with him gone, it's a veritable free-for-all now.

    Yeah, Casey died for something he believed in. But why did he believe it? Maybe because idiots in DC were claiming Saddam was trying to get yellowcake uranium and use it against the U.S., or idiots in DC were making claims in State of the Union addresses that Iraq was sponsoring Al-Qaeda. Sounds like young impressionable minds misled by stupid government officials.

    Unlike some bleeding heart liberals, I'll give the U.S. leadership the benefit of the doubt: let's assume they haven't purposely misled the people. So, what does that mean? Looks like we have a pretty incompetent set of politicos in DC then. The country goes to war on evidence that proves to be so wildly, positively inaccurate? That's supposed to be a just and moral war? Guess what, Confederate Dunce: the ends don't justify the means. The largest economy in the world, the so-called Bastion of Democracy, the most powerful military, the standard bearer in the world of intelligence and technology - and, how could we be so wrong so many times? Ah, maybe because our leadership was more concerned with going to war on flimsy premises rather than insuring that lives were lost in the name of truth. That, mon frere, is why Cindy is out there.

    See, the insurgents in Iraq are dying every day for something they believe in too. I suppose an intellectual like yourself would realize that the U.S. actually has alot in common with the insurgents, in reality. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Gage, Crispus Attucks, Henry Knox - ever heard of them? They were the ones hiding in bushes, attacking the perfect organized lines of Red Coats, shooting from cover and running through the woods. What were they fighting for? The removal of the British from North America and the automony to design their own fates. Hmmmmm, sounds familiar, no? Trust me, the U.S. isn't bringing freedom to oppressed peoples; we are the tyrants that everyone wants to leave them the hell alone! Hence why our troops die every day. Not because we're beloved, and not because we're feared. It's because they want their own rights, their own dignity, their own freedom to pursue life as THEY see fit. They don't want alien ideals spoon-fed to them by Halliburton.

    Nice attempt to be a GOP apologist, but it comes across as actually pretty pedestrian. What's even more amusing is that I happen to be a Republican, once who actually laments the death of the real GOP.

    So, who should we invade next then, since you are all about bringing freedom to oppressed people? Also, how do you define "freedom" and "oppressed" anyway? Who is next?

    And, unlike you "Yankee," I'm not afraid to put my name down.

    Posted by: John Hamilton at August 11, 2005 05:25 PM

    Man, the freaks really came out on this one.

    I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan, and not just because her son was KIA. Mostly I feel bad because she's being used by antiwar Americans to further their cause, while desecrating her son's memory.
    I also feel sorry for the halfwits that post here, who talk of Bush personally outsourcing jobs, allowing the dollar's value to fall, etc. An 8th grade education should have given people like RV and DM a better understanding of government, but I will acknowledge that a basic understanding of economics is much more hard to find.

    Perhaps all of us whose jobs were outsourced can find work as policemen (since there are so many more of them now), or maybe we can be retinal scanner technicians, or subdermal chip implanters, or maybe we can work at Disneyland scanning thumbs! But will these jobs be in the REAL economy, or the CREDIT economy? Please explain. My Freemason's handbook has none of this.

    Posted by: Rob at August 11, 2005 05:28 PM

    John, if you truly believe that the head chopping, women oppressing, stuck-in-the-12th-century shitbags in Iraq want 'their own rights, freedom, dignity', like our founding fathers, then you have told us everything we need to know about how your noggin works. Thanks for sharing.

    Posted by: Rob at August 11, 2005 05:34 PM

    To judge by the comments, Bob, five'll get you ten that you've been linked from DU, Kos, Pandagon, or some other source of incandescent idiocy.

    For what it's worth: testify. This woman is prostituting herself and her grief to the Bush-haters and the blame-America-firsters, and pissing on her son's grave in the process. She, and they, are despicable.

    Posted by: Sinbad at August 11, 2005 05:41 PM

    John Hamilton,

    Listen up junior, because school is in session:

    At the end of the 1991 gulf War, Saddan Hussein claimed in a manifest that he was in possession of various kinds of WMDs. As part of our ceasefire agreement not to kick his ass (further), he was to account for all the WMDs he said he had. Not accounting for them, or for violating other terms of the ceasefire, were grounds for the hostilitites to start again. you got that? Good.

    Saddam didn't do that, for over a decade. This violated the ceasefire. In addition, he targeted U.S. aircraft thousands of times in no-fly zones, and each and every incident legally justified a resumption of hostilities.

    Saddam didn't harbor al Qaeda, and Bush never said he did before the invasion. Bush said Saddam harbored terrorists, and he did in droves: Abu Nidal Organization (Fatah), Ansar al-Islam (allied with al Qaeda), Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, were just three of the terrorist groups within Iraq, and Saddam also paid bounties to the families of (Hamas or Hezbollah, I can't remember which) suicide bombers who killed Israelies. Top terrorists Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and Abdul Ramin Yasin (The 1993 World Trade Center Bomb builder) all lived in or near Baghdad, and were on Saddam's payroll.

    As far as the uranium, we've confiscated 1.8 tons of the low-grade and have brought it back to the States. I guess you didn't read about that on D.U.

    You also manage to blindly overlook the fact that Saddam didn't fool just the United States, he fooled everybody: the UK, the French, the Israelis, the Russians, and even his own general officers: they all thought he had WMDs.

    When you started channeling Michael Moore/Halliburton angles, I must confess I quit paying attention. Any shred of credibilty you may have had as a rational person who merely disagreed on policy went down the hopper right there, but I did skip to the end, and you know what, dingleberry lips?

    My name is in a link on the main page, and on the second post on this thread.

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 11, 2005 06:37 PM

    Mr. John Hamilton,

    I'll put my name here, and then I will ask--exactly who is it that you are familiar with that thinks of the U.S. as a tyrant? Fidel Castro? Hugo Chavez? Kim Jong-Il? Robert Mugabe? Osama his own bad self?

    I suppose this is why the Central Americans were so keen to see CAFTA put in place. But of course you will explain that away as some sort of center/periphery phenomenon. I suppose this is why the new democracies of Eastern Europe flock to our our banner when the call comes--they remember what real tyranny is. But of course you will explain this away with some sort of insult to the Poles or the Ukrainians. I suppose this is why when disaster strikes or famine lurks, America is never called for help. But of course you will explain this away as a cynical ploy by the ghostly "elites" that you mention even though apparently some 50 million Americans were part of those elites when the tsunami struck.

    I suppose that you will claim that some legacy of our tyranny can be found in Israeli policies foisted on a small state, surrounded by enemies--enemies that started a war against a U.N. mandate (a little consistency from the left regarding U.N. pronouncements please) and then spent fifty years claiming that they had been wronged. Sorry, I have been around the world. I know what tyranny looks like.

    Tyranny is not in the Patriot Act, it does not reside at 1600 Pennsylvania or in Crawford, Texas. And any suggestion that it does only distances you from people who do know the difference.

    Tyranny (the real kind) does reside in the hearts and minds of those small number of Iraqis (and yes, that number is exceedingly small) who want to return to the good old days of Saddam's regime backed by a number of Osama's caliphate true believers.

    My question when presented with your claims of American tyranny is simple--what happened to your moral compass?

    Posted by: Chris Hanson at August 11, 2005 07:15 PM

    I'm 39, and I did a 3 year hitch 20 years ago in the army. I'm doing all I can (lost 60 pounds since March, about 30 to go) to get into the US Army Reserves, specifically to deploy with a unit in Iraq. I sure as *&^% beleive in the mission. What the left is doing in this country is atrocious, and Ms. Shehan betrays her son's noble memory.

    It is becoming increasingly impossible to deal with these people in a classy way.

    Anonymous post because I need to wait to tell the employer my military plans. Should be OK, but you know how it can be with The Man.

    Posted by: GI Geezer at August 11, 2005 11:23 PM


    "...what happened to your moral compass?"

    Well said! This is becoming very depressing for me. It was fine, for awhile, just to be on the "right side of history," but as these events have progressed and the original issues about the war have receded, and the stakes in Iraq have become more clear and obvious, the manner in which the Left has chosen to destroy itself for what a friend of mine appropriately calls a "lust for peace" has surpassed any conception of foolishness that I might have thought possible. The spectacle of this mother placing her grief at the feet of this self-destructive movement isn't really mediated by any sort of anger I can manage to whip up against her. It's just plain sad, and sad in a way that transcends the sadness anyone must feel about the death of any individual (including a loved one). It's the sadness at finding that good intentions not only don't equate to good judgment, but can easily transform into very very bad, even vicious, intentions.

    I read the other day about some fellow complaining that people like Roger L. Simon have "betrayed the Left" in their support of the war, but to me it seems precisely the opposite. For whatever moral legitimacy I had once ceded to the Left in terms of its intention to support the misfortunate, or to serve as a brake on unfairness and selfishness, I've had to reclaim. How could any movement that claims to take such ideals seriously, so seriously betray them? How could anyone willing not just to argue for, but to insist on, the moral equivalence between Camp X-Ray and Auschwitz, ever again be trusted with the public good?

    And just to put the topping on it, it seems to me that George Bush's response to this crowd surging to press Mrs. Sheehan's grief in his face like a cream pie has simply and unambiguously canceled a wave of hatred with clear-headed tolerance and understanding.

    Posted by: Demosophist at August 12, 2005 12:05 AM

    You piece of shit liberals should know that your day of reckoning is coming, and the only choice you will be given is hemp or nylon.

    Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 12, 2005 12:05 AM

    Most of the anti-war arguments would have applied equally to the Civil War. Lincoln never fought in a war. Was he a chicken hawk?

    Did not the northern industrial interests profit greatly, certainly more than any common soldier? What about the poor northern mothers who found out too late that the war was to free the slaves? Did they camp out in Washington and demand an explanation from Lincoln?

    The argument the anti-war moonbats are making here is that the Iraqis are a class of people who either don't deserve or wouldn't appreciate freedom. I imagine the same argument was made by slavery's apologists during and after the Civil War.

    A mother's pain. Imagine the pain felt by the mothers who watched Saddam's men should their children, then push their bodies (some still clutching their dolls) into mass graves. Of course, their pain was short-lived because they were then killed as well.

    The anti-war argument is at its heart a racist argument, "those people" aren't worth even one American life.


    Posted by: OCBill at August 12, 2005 12:38 AM

    "the head chopping, women oppressing, stuck-in-the-12th-century shitbags in Iraq "

    Uh...then why are you so hot to bring them Freedom!(tm)?

    Talking about your loathing for a mother who wants an explanation for her son's death? Calling her a prostitute? Implying that everyone who thinks she's absolutely right will be hanged?

    Burn in hell, fuckers.

    Posted by: Norah at August 12, 2005 01:30 AM

    I looked up that "Darren Mortenson" link in the
    North County Times that badgerw checked out and he's absosulutely right! That "DM" jerk is a reporter that's been to Iraq, he's totally against the troops, and he probably likes al Queada! Now I know why he wrote all that stuff about the Police State. He wants to make it happen! He's in it with the government!

    I dare you to come on here again New World Order traiter liberal scum!

    We patriots won't let you Al Qaida Illuminati liberals to win! Back in your cave, scum. Go back to Iraq and stay there and keep your Police State over there!


    Posted by: Jed at August 12, 2005 01:42 AM

    The fellow who wrote this

    See, the insurgents in Iraq are dying every day for something they believe in too. I suppose an intellectual like yourself would realize that the U.S. actually has alot in common with the insurgents, in reality. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Gage, Crispus Attucks, Henry Knox - ever heard of them? They were the ones hiding in bushes, attacking the perfect organized lines of Red Coats, shooting from cover and running through the woods. What were they fighting for? The removal of the British from North America and the automony to design their own fates. Hmmmmm, sounds familiar, no?

    has to be kidding. Or eight years old.

    But sadly, he's probably neither. The "autonomy" to "design" their own fates. And, the fates of the Marsh Arabs (what few there are left of them), and the fates of the next Kurdish Halabjah. Not to mention the very George Washington-like atmospherics of the slaughterhouses in Fallujah, entirely "scalable" if there just weren't so many darned American redcoats around.

    Posted by: Demosophist at August 12, 2005 01:54 AM

    Hey Norah, try to pay attention. It might help if you actually read all the comments. Start at the top, then continue downward- this will allow you to see the comments and how they interconnect.

    Of course all Iraqis aren't head-chopping colostomy bags; I was referring to John Hamilton/Michael Moore's precious "Minutemen". This is a great indicator of someone's intellect, by the way- as soon as you hear "freedom fighters" substituted for terrorists, you know they are two taters short of a bushel. I've read a lot about history, including American history, and I don't recall a single instance where American Revolutionaries killed or maimed American women and children to advance their cause; and I don't recall Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, et al imposing sharia on the 13 original colonies after the British quit.

    Posted by: Rob at August 12, 2005 08:24 AM

    Presently i am in Iraq, Mosul to be exact, FOB: Marez. I am disgusted not just by this whore who wd dig up her dead son and use his corpse as a prop if she thought she cd get away with it, but these sheep who spew their venom all the while demanding that we "don't question their patriotism".

    Fuck you Cindy and fuck all of your latte drinking, useful idiot, terror supporting friends.

    Posted by: doit at August 12, 2005 08:54 AM

    Well said. And as for the dimwits that can't stand up and provide their correct name, email, etc, they are an example of why the democratic party is going down.

    Posted by: Jo at August 12, 2005 11:37 AM

    Confederate Yankee, et. al. -

    Sorry this is long; have a few brilliant arguments to which to respond ...

    Thanks for opening school. Unfortunately, I don't need another General Education class. I'm looking for something more sophisticated, so let me take a turn teaching you a thing or two, kid.

    First off, actually Saddam did comply with regulations imposed on him after the Gulf War. Why do you think the U.N. didn't authorize an invasion earlier? The question was whether he was in full compliance or not. I think that point is debatable amongst your audience. However, the fact remains that there were U.N. Weapons Inspectors (and later the UNMOVIC team) in Iraq for 7 years (and then allowed back in after 1999). What WMDs did they find? None. In fact, all I recall them finding were some modified missiles. Oh, right, and a few shells with 15 year old Sarin, no?

    Now there were sanctions in place, right? Oh, but wait ... those were U.N. SANCTIONS! See, the U.S. has never had the authority to "go it alone." We do belong to this pesky world community called the United Nations (as did Iraq), and it just so happens that the U.S. is in violation of the U.N. Charter, a charter which we even helped to create (General Secretary has even said as much).

    All those years, and all those resolutions to have Saddam destroy what? Something that has turned out to be bombast and bluff? If anything, now we look even more stupid for wasting 16 years pushing for the end of a chimera (your reads can check for a definition).

    Mind you, we could find weapons still; maybe Saddam did order their burial. However, I find it so inconceivable that the promise of reward from the U.S. wouldn't compel some poor, unappreciated Iraqi soldier to come forward with tales of working with hundreds of others in the deep of the night to bury secret stashes of WMDs.

    Dang that pesky U.N. for requiring that member nations reach some kind of consensus to prevent mindless violence as opposed to just invading one another.

    Well, beyond that, where else would we derive the authority to depose Saddam Hussein? The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? But, that didn't authorize the forced removal of Saddam Hussein. It merely said we'd support opposition groups in their efforts to bring about change. Perhaps we should have spent less time backing that liar Ahmed Chalabi and more time actually researching what Iraq did and did not have, no? Then we would have realized the tissue-paper thin nature of the claims we were making.

    "NO! NO! But Saddam spent years saying he has WMDs and fooled everyone in the world." So, now America - the world's last great superpower - is no better than anyone else? You don't think our position in the world carries with it an obligation to be smarter and more level in our approach than anyone else? Personally, I happen to think it does; with great power comes great responsibility, as we all learned from "Lord of the Rings." In fact, the government of America thinks the same thing, hence why we won't join the International Criminal Court (ICC). We think that, as the sole superpower, we have a greater obligation than to be held accountable by anyone else. Hmmmmmm. And, in enjoying that freedom, you don't think we have a greater obligation than to wage war on baseless claims.

    Saddam and terrorists. You raise some valid points, really. In fact, the only argument I'd contend is that it would seem the U.S. should first be concerned with terrorists who directly impact us, don't you think? It seems Israel should be capable of taking care of it's own problems. So, we have the

    You cannot act just because someone says they have WMDs. Christ, look at North Korea. Why aren't we beating our chest over them? Maybe because we realized we've totally blown it in Iraq. And North Korea is a much more credible candidate for entry to the nuclear club than Iraq has been since 1981.

    Oh, and the targeting of American aircraft in the no-fly zones? Actually, it wasn't an automatic trigger to resume hostilities since no-fly zones were not contained in the original Resolution 688 which ended hostilities. See, the U.S., U.K., and France created them. Well, if they are not part of the U.N. brokered ceasefire, then how can their violation invalidate the ceasefire?

    The funny thing is we haven't even hit rock bottom. I find it amusing that you, Confederate Yankee, can't even respond to the claim about Saddam being a largely secular ruler. I think it's because in your heart-of-red-white-and-blue-hearts you know I'm right. Iraq will become an Islamic Fundamentalist Nation just like Iran. All we did was remove the only barrier.

    So, which would you choose: having a secular tyrant subjugate and wage war on his own people in order to maintain absolute control, or having a tyrannical, Islamist regime wage war on the Western World? Luckily, you don't have to tax your brain into choosing either; your government (with the support of your vote) has already decided for you. So much for the GOP plank of smaller, less intrusive government.

    See, ideally, we could make Iraq an imperial possession and impose democracy, hope that a after a few generations the sense of freedom takes root. Alas, we don't have that authority; this isn't the Pax Americana.

    1.8m tons of uranium? Wow - you don't say? And, how much of it was refined and/or weapons grade? Surely you do realize that uranium is a naturally occurring element (symbol U, atomic number 92). I'd have thought that if we found weapons grade uranium, it would have made the press, or President Bush would have showed up on TV touting the discovery of WMDs, no?

    Oh, and to Demosophists' points (well, from what I could understand), the tactics are different but the purpose was the same. Why do you (or anyone really) think that George Washington and the colonials lead their own uprising? Every heard of the "Swamp Fox?" How about the Sons of Liberty? What were they fighting for if not the right to decide their own destiny and removal of a foreign superpower? How does that differ from what is going on in Iraq? I'm not saying the colonials used the same tactics; that'd be anachronistic. I'm just talking only about their sense of purpose and mission? (BTW, using the terms "atmospherics" and "scalable" doesn't make you sound intelligent). Don't worry: you'll get your caliphate in Iraq soon enough, and you won't even have to blame Osama Bin Laden for that one.

    To my friend Chris Hanson. Where is my "moral compass?" My moral compass is pointed at finding that bastard Osama Bin Laden and stringing him up. My moral compass is aimed at taking care of protecting U.S. interests first and foremost. The blood of 3,000+ Americans on his hands, and we go after a two-bit regional tyrant? I support having American priorities first. Oh, and I have a passport filled with plenty of stamps too; doesn't qualify you for anything.

    I'm not about to defend the Palestinians; I can't challenge you on the case of Ukraine or Poland (part Ukranian anyway), so perhaps you should stop claiming to know my arguments. Seen those public opinion polls indicating that broad numbers of average folks in the Middle East - fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, laborers, the educated, the ignorant - all despise America now for decades of failed and meddling policies? Hell, there are similar poll numbers of folks in Western European, Eastern European, and Asian countries as well. Why would I point to Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-Il when it's so much easier to point to so many common folks around the world? Face it: you, me, any American travelling abroad is now a target for anger, resentment, hatred, and death, and all because of a flimsy war fought on flimsy evidence.

    Oh, and to all you Fox News-watching, NASCAR assholes out there that think I am some kind of Michael Moore fan, rest assured. I've never even seen "Fahrenheit 9/11," never plan on seeing it, douchebags. Guess you've never met a Republican who actually went to college huh? All the more reason to get outside more.

    I do admire your style of argument though. Can't put together a coherent thought? Just call someone a lily-livered Democrat because you're too damned stupid to think for yourself. It's convenient to say that I somehow channel Michael Moore and his Halliburton, whatever those are. At the end of the day though, I still haven't seen the movie and you're still ignorant, and that makes me not a little sad for you.

    That's why I find this blog and your readers' remarks so amusing and downright bust-a-gut laughable. I get a kick out of the simple things.

    Also, to the soldier posted in Mosul. Don't take out on us the fact you can't get a latte in Iraq. Chances are Starbucks will still be here when you make it home. That is, if the Pentagon ceases their Stop-Loss Orders since thinking folks (Republicans and Democrats alike) refuse to join you over there.

    Posted by: John Hamilton at August 12, 2005 06:08 PM

    Brilliant John, but completely wrong: Your and your ilk's "go it alone" lie falls flat on its face when i see everyday UK, Aussie, Albanian, Polish, Ukrainian, etc soldiers. Further, 1441 was all the trigger required to resume hostilities due to Saddam's unwillingness to comply with ALL of the resolutions.

    But just for shits and giggles a timeline for you:

    661, 687,707, 715, 986, 1154, 1284, 1409, i missing any?

    You see John we had the legal and moral imperative to do whatever the fuck we wanted to do with Saddam.

    Your points about Israel and NK just indicate that you have no understanding of the dangers posed by regimes such as Iraqs.

    Like i said, go hang out with your Pink Code buddies, suck down a Mocha latte for me and when your snug in your bed tonite remember: Whether you deserve it or not, there will always be Americans like me protecting scum like you.

    Posted by: doit at August 12, 2005 09:01 PM

    John Hamilton, with all due respect - as little or as much as it might be - your little rant epotomizes everything that is repulsive about the Left.

    Your weak arguments and painfully unjustified pseudo-intellectual snootiness are pathetic.

    On the up side for the Right, enough jerkies like you believing that anyone is interested in your self-aggrandizing nonsense are sure to bring about another Right-dominated election.

    >plink, plink

    Posted by: Aaron Nafthali at August 12, 2005 09:02 PM

    i'm not darren mortenson the reporter, ok? he's no relation and i've never met the guy nor do i share his views.

    that's enough of me on this post. you guys are as hopeless as the democrats. enjoy your coming police state and your imploding economy of debt....

    Posted by: dm at August 12, 2005 11:41 PM

    Wow, I didin't even have time to burn off that Golden Corral Buffet calorie Coma before you guys gutted John. In the future, please keep in mind that as site owner, I've got "dibs," okay?

    doit cooked John's argument with the mee mention of 1441, but on top of that, John is obviously sold on theidea that the United Nations is both the final arbitor of moral behavior, and competent.

    Iraq is not a Islamic Fundementalist state and with three major ethnic groups having different religious sensibilities, the odds of any one of these groups forcing such a government is unlikely. Also John, your left wing buddies Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, just like Saddam were secular rulers.

    The fact that you defend even one of them is horrendous.

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 13, 2005 12:32 AM

    The Bush administration has failed to tackle the real reasons of "terrorism" in order to put an end to it. It failed to acknowledge that the U.S. foreign policy was the foremost cause of such phenomenon. Unfortunately most Americans are unaware—or choose to ignore—their government’s meddling in the affairs of other countries after World War II.

    In several Islamic nations, which the U.S. always point finger at whenever any attack takes place, poll after poll showed that most of the Arabs and the Muslims admire U.S. freedoms—both political and economic—wealth, technology, and even culture. They harbor no ill feelings or enmity to the American people; they just hate the U.S. foreign policy and double standards toward their nations.

    The Bush administration should have realized that the end of the Cold War would have allowed the United States to follow a “more humble” and less interventionist foreign policy.

    Posted by: Rob Miller at August 13, 2005 10:24 PM

    The real reason of terrorism is U.S. foreign policy?

    Tell that to the British, and the Australians, and the Indians,and more importantly, to Muslims in various countries around the world who are the most frequent recipient of terrorism.

    Get a grip, Rob. Islamic fundementalism was be the consistant cause of terrorism for more than a millenia before we even became a country.

    Try selling it somewhere else, Chomsky.

    Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 13, 2005 11:09 PM

    I have to laugh and applaud at the same time. My blog as mostly my commentary and the left has made a game of going after pretty much anything I type either directly in the comments or in hate mail. You do a good job of protecting your thoughts with cogent rebuttal. Good Show. Damn The Detractors! Tally Ho!

    Posted by: patd95 at August 14, 2005 01:27 AM

    Right the US is responsible for terrorism. Explain then to me the murder of Buddist Thais in Southern Thailand by Muslims. Oh i know: American foreign policy and the Thais occupation of Arab land, right?

    Piss off.

    Posted by: doit at August 14, 2005 11:44 PM

    Confederate Yankee,

    Many people like you that believe to their last breath that the words that come from a President's mouth are tantamount to gospel make me both sick and sad. Just because W said the war was to liberate Iraq does not make it so. He has also said, alternately, as we all know, that the war was to rid Iraq of WMD, or to crush Al Qaeda, or to punish the supporters of the evil doers of 9/11, or to stabilize the Middle East, or to get rid of Saddam...but nothing, zero, nada, of other, equally clear and plausible, but far less noble, ulterior motives. You must know that the Republicans are expert, wickedly crafty but cynical marketers. W steered clear of military service (to build his political hack resume in Alabama), while Kerry got shot at in combat (it's documented, can't be denied) -- but Kerry was turned into the slacker and shirker while Bush said nothing while a veteran was vilified. Ha! They offer sly concepts like 'plausible deniability' and 'Clear Skies' and 'tax reform' -- these and many other policies have a secondary or alternative or hidden definition. So if they can't talk straight, if their every utterance is loaded with equivocation and code words, why do y'all right wingers praise and worship the official line that we're giving Iraqis their freedom? While many of our soldiers believe they are doing just that, MANY DO NOT. How do you account for the discrepancy, the chasm of interpretation? If the pro-freedom soldiers are all right, then those who disagree are all wrong? Right? But believes of both have been there, and in uniform, and been killed or maimed in an abjectly hostile place. Yet you choose the side that supports your contention and arrogantly dismiss the other as baseless. But part of the other side are Iraqi veterans -- some back stateside, after tours there, now, speaking out about the mess. Some of them would say that Cindy Sheehan is NOT baseless. And she is joined by millions of Americans, and they are all asking the same thing. What, and who, is this war truly for? Mr. Bush needs to answer that question. He has not. You think he has, with at least five different, pat, spoon-fed quasi-erudite sound bites. To root out the evildoers. To liberate Iraq. To collect WMD. To kill Al Qaeda. Regime change. But spouting official dogma over and over does not make it so. And you who so readily buy that 'truth' makes it that much easier for them to avoid being honest. People of your mindset had the same rigid doctrine when it came to discussions of Vietnam. Yeah, that adventure turned out well.

    God bless the military and the U.S.A. But now the U.S. government is the one that needs a regime change. Quagmire accomplished.

    Posted by: Kingart at August 17, 2005 11:09 AM

    Cindy Sheehan can say what she wants. She has been granted this right by death. But, would she dishonor those who have given her this right? If this was the American Revolutionary war, and she lost her son, would she berate the President of the Continental Congress? She would, because she does not understand the reason for the Sacrifice. She does not FEEL her freedom nor does she FEEL for humanity.

    I have read what she has to say. I read the excitement she feels for getting media attention, and why does she want to have a “meeting” with the President of the United States, again? Would this give her a status she desires? She is one in over 1800 who have lost a son in Iraq. Mrs. Sheehan needs to pray about what she is doing. She needs to stop being selfish, self-centered and egotistical. She wrote, and I quote, “IT IS FREAKIN AMAZING, FOLKS!!!” Someone please explain this statement to me when the media shows her sobbing.

    I wish I had known her son for I am certain he was a fine person. His powerful deed to sacrifice for a country to have freedom, freedom which I cherish, freedom which he and his mother love will be rewarded.

    Cindy Sheehan offends so many people by her actions: Daughters of the American Revolution, Veterans of all wars, Soldiers, Families of KIA, Young Americans wanting to go to war. It brings me to tears when I think of the many that have died for me. I hope some day I will meet these brave soldiers. Every soldier deserves acknowledgement and to be held at high esteem.

    Aunt of an 18 year old boy working hard to be a soldier,
    Donna Gedcke in Tyler, TX

    Posted by: Donna Gedcke at August 19, 2005 12:44 PM

    Cindy is a whack job.

    HO ASS B1TCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Fucking commie slut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: Cindy Peehan at August 22, 2005 02:19 AM

    Hmmm. Hanoi Jane.... Baghdad Cindy....... Catchy,ain't it???

    Posted by: RS at August 25, 2005 11:38 PM

    God Bless the world. Cindy is doing what she thinks is right just as much as any of you who disagree with her. Please attempt to get your news from different sources--if you like FOX new, cool, but try something different every now and then. Read different news papers and remember what our Administration says--we as Americans seem to have a short attetnion span and we forget things easily. I'd love to believe that we are in Iraq for democracy and freedom; however, I cant fully accept that right now. How free am I? Depends on who you ask. You got cash, you may feel a little more freedom. You don't got cash, your freedom seems a bit more questionable: Cant spend more time with the kids, family, and with friends because you have to work work work to get by. can't pay for gas to get to work, work 3 jobs to get by. Whatever! America is wonderful...she can be better.

    Posted by: Anthony at August 26, 2005 01:21 PM

    By the way read Today's New York Times--

    "One Hundred Thousand Shi'ites Protest Iraq Charter"

    Thanks fellow Americans

    Posted by: Anthony at August 26, 2005 01:38 PM

    Cindy is just one example of those who think their right to freedom came about because someone wrote a letter to the editor or protested.

    Posted by: rs at August 27, 2005 10:43 AM

    Hey Yankee:

    Sounds like there are alot of socialist bastards out there. probably payed for all these negative posts against your "right on" post!

    Posted by: CFH at August 27, 2005 07:40 PM

    Cindy reminds Me of Ron Kovic(Born on the 4th of July). Everything was fine up until They suffered personal loss. Then it was time to protest.
    I understand "Reverend" Sharpton is joining Baghdad Cindy. What church is He a "Reverend" of anyway????

    Posted by: RS at August 29, 2005 05:00 PM

    Hi everyone,

    My thoughts to those who were affected by Katrina--

    I think Ron Kovic was also upset with the way he was treated by the VA hospital when he got back from Vietnam.

    Posted by: Anthony at August 30, 2005 09:28 AM

    Not to mention people calling Him and others baby killers and war criminals. Sounds like what's happening with Cindy and a few others.

    Posted by: RS at August 30, 2005 11:18 AM

    Yeah, a lot of the viet nam veterans had a tough time when they got back to the states, and many still suffer today as a result of that war.

    Posted by: Anthony at August 30, 2005 12:29 PM

    Yankee Jerk Off - We're truly moved by all your altruism. Oh, we see, you're in favor of the Iraq war because of all it will do for Iraqis. And when people criticize your views they are bad because they don't care about the Iraqis. And you know what Casey Sheehan would feel and care more about him than his mother (whether one likes her or not).

    And we're glad you're familiar with the Illumanati Conspiracy which pretty much peaked and disappeared in the late 1700's.

    Very effective arguments if you're talking to morons.

    We'll ignore that those statements are completely inconsistent with other views stated on your blog. You're all over the map and your blog indicates you can't think straight. You're very confused.

    Or a flat out hypocritical liar. Trust us, we're not really serious that you could be confused.

    You're about you. You're blog is a waste of breath and a waste of time. Hope you have time to redirect your energies before you meet your Maker and see what a waste you've made of your time/life.

    Have a good day Yankee jerk off.

    Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America

    Posted by: reliant at August 30, 2005 01:08 PM

    Tell Me about it, Anthony. I'm one of Them.
    I don't want to see a homecoming like that for the troops fighting now. I'm not for the war, I'm for the troops.
    If The USA was invaded I wonder,would Sharpton or FOnda be the first to run up to kiss their ass?

    Posted by: at August 30, 2005 01:52 PM

    To the Viet Nam vet -- Our troops are--for the most part--well respected by Americans, and will receive warm welcomes when they come home. I can't really speak for them, because I'm not, nor was I, ever enlisted, but I'll bet most want to do the right thing. I just hope that our government is not screwing around with them???

    Thanks for your service, and what you believed in.

    Posted by: Anthony at August 30, 2005 03:50 PM

    Sorry Anthony. Forgot to sign My letter.

    Posted by: RS at August 30, 2005 05:07 PM

    I have one question for Cindy.
    Where were you BEFORE your son was killed?
    Your actions are blatant narcisism. "My only hope is that there are tons of media there when they carry me to the squad car."
    Bet you were pissed when the hurricanes hit and stole your media thunder!
    A "lying" president? Do you remember the pictures of the covered trucks mass exiting pre-war? Could that possibly have been the WMDs? Duh! The only problem with the war is that we gave them TOO MUCH NOTICE! Your disrespect of "George" "Condie" and all the others reeks of Michael Moron. Why don't the two of you ride off into the sunset? Oh yeah, there's no media there.
    Love to hear from you babe.
    Kelly Harris
    Everett, WA

    Posted by: Kelly Harris at October 1, 2005 11:45 AM