I remembered you using a smilie. I was wrong about that. Funny how that's the only thing you choose to respond to. But not surprising.
Here's my point, basso. Edited to remove the smilie business (as if you were sincerely baffled as my point in the first place).
I think a little Ann Coulter can fix this (www.AnnCoulter.com): CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF August 17, 2005 To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn. Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show. We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt! Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral. The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war? Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks. Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast. These arguments didn't persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn't persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn't persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush's tenure as the nation's commander in chief last November. But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief. On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check. Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her. COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER
so its not only Lauran Ingram you love quoting.. first character assasination.. then invoke 911.. typical..
Why the mockery? Can't it just reside somewhere in the realm of sometime having something legitimate to say? Is that really impossible in your eyes?
I agree, it's not funny, but it is distinctly odd- I like you J (I hope you don't mind my adoption of the familiar for a moment), i really do- you seem like a decent guy, interesting, intelligent, impassioned, all things i admire and aspire to. i thought we had a good time that night in EV...then however, came your excreble "we deserve it" post, followed by the **** you smack down, and quite frankly i'm baffled. how can you profess to support the troops, and at the same time suggest they, and we, deserve to get blown up? how can you say you support the war in afghanistan, yet your "we deserve it" tirade was directed at troops serving at bahgram AFB? how can you decry the abuses at abu grahib, and say nothing about the tactics of those we're fighting? deep down, i believe it's because you hate george bush more than you respect our troops, forgetting in the process that the troops are fighting for you, and your safety, and forgetting also that these are volunteers, brave (far braver than I), selfless men and women who are risking, and sometimes paying with, their lives, so you and people like frank ****ing rich can sit smuggly by and demean their sacrifice, all in the name of some transitory partisan advantage. if you truly support the troops, then show it. honor their efforts and their achievements. post about their good works, their courage, their sacrifice. feel free to toss in the obligatory bush/cheney/rumsfeld/haliburton harangue- i won't begrudge you that, but demonstrate with the frequency and tone of your writing and citations, that you understand that the best, and yes the swiftest way to get the troops home, is to support them in their mission.
well didn't she not only mock but also assasinate the character of Cindy Sheehan in her first two paragraphs? have you even read the whole article? I didn't find any thing in there that made sense. Looks like just tried to attack the woman and then invoke 911.
<B>vlaurelio have you even read the whole article?</b> Yes <B>I didn't find any thing in there that made sense.</b> That's patently ridiculous. <B> Looks like just tried to attack the woman and then invoke 911.</b> She put the woman in her unexalted place along with all the other mothers of dead soldiers--
Great another inaccurate article from a racist. Nice find. First she says that she is engaged in STalinist agitprop. What she is engaged in is her first amendment right. If Coulter calls our constitution Stalinist agitprop she is even more demented that I had previously believed. The rest of the article is Coulter crying because Dowd used the words, "absolute moral authority." It doesn't say much about anything.
Can you tell me which specific parts of the article makes most sense/best argument? do you deny that she needlessly invoked 911?
D@m I'm running out of "Crikey!'s" here because I've been hearing them so much. Can we quit demanding that the other side of a debate make posts supporting the other's positions? This is like the pro-ID proponents asking the pro-Evolution proponents to select which intelligent designer (aliens or angels) they think is most plausible. You're free to make posts and threads about how much good the troops are doing but from looking at most of the posts and threads you've made are about bashing the anti-war side.
In my annoyance at the pettiness on this thread I almost forgot the comment I intended to make. While I sympathize for Cindy Sheehan's loss and agree with her that the war was mistake if I could talk to her I would tell her that her son didn't die in vain for no reason. He died on a rescue mission fulfilling his duty to save the lives of others. So while what had brought him to Iraq might've been wrong the mission that he lost his life on wasn't.
