Isn't that the same cartoon that tried to claim that Clinton's staff created the wall preventing intel from being shared?
vlaurelio:Can you tell me which specific parts of the article makes most sense/best argument? 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. <B>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!</b> Fortunately, <B>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</B>. 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. <B>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? </b> 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. <B>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. </b> 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
That's funny. It took you almost four months to get outraged about the "If this is true then we deserve it" thread. In that thread I referenced a story about American troops kidnapping a cab driver off the streets of Afghanistan -- one that apparently had no ties to terror, AQ or anything (one of the premises of the "If this is true" qualifier), one that the troops that kidnapped and tortured him suspected was innocent (another qualifier to my statement) -- and torturing him to death over the course of a year. Here's what I said in response to that incident, for which (as in torture cases at Abu Ghraib) no high ranking officer has been punished or reprimanded and for which chief architects and high profile defenders of the torture policy have been promoted: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=96656& This was your response in the same thread: Curiously, no mention at the time of my post having been "excreble" [sic]. In a completely unrelated thread, here's what you did to earn the **** you "smackdown": You accused me of being for baby killing, said I fought against freedom, liberty, democracy and the rights of oppressed people and said I made common cause with Saddam, Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez. You further said I was anti-Christian and anti-American. I responded with "**** you, you're an ******* for saying those things." AND YOU PLAYED THE VICTIM!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And any request to back up your outrageous charges was met with, "You said '**** you.' I'm being outrageous?" Yes, basso. You were. The things you said and the things you continue to say are unconscionable. You crossed about five major lines with that post. Profanity was nothing compared to that. For the millionth time, there is a difference between the president, who sets the policy, and the troops, who are called on to carry it out. More than half the country currently opposes the president's Iraq policy and continues to support the troops. Not incidentally, in your quest to marry support for the troops to support for Bush, you wind up supporting only those troops and their families that support Bush, betraying the fact that you never supported the ones who make the sacrifice in the first place but only the person who put them in the position of making that sacrifice. The troops and families that oppose Bush and his policies lose your support and earn your scorn the minute they open their mouths. You support Bush, not the troops. I did say I understood why people would want to kill people who tortured innocents to death over the course of a year. Isn't that your justification for being in the Iraq war in the first place? The difference is that in Iraq, the populace had no choice about the evil things its leadership did. We, by virtue of the fact that we live in a democratic republic, are to some degree complicit in the actions of our leaders. I'm not talking about the troops here, I'm talking about the voters. If we have become a country that supports torture of innocents, we have abandoned our moral authority. That statement has nothing to do with being anti-American and everything to do with being pro-American principles. And that statement certainly has nothing to do with making common cause with terrorists or dictators. Rather it registers outrage that we are behaving too much like our enemy. Stop saying I am smugly demeaning the troops' sacrifice. Now. I didn't put them in a bogus, unnecessary war built on lies. Bush did. And when you argued in support of him and voted for his re-election, you became complicit in that. Not only that, but you endorsed the policy of rewarding torturers and murderers by voting for a guy that promoted the ones responsible for policies leading to the torture and murder of innocents. Your moral authority is shot to hell. You have a lot of damn nerve preaching to me and you have a lot of damn nerve saying you "like" me after telling me -- repeatedly -- I want the troops to die and I support terrorists. And I will say it again. You're an ******* for saying it.
Macjones, just admit there is a short term cost, but long term benefit in what we are doing, and you will say a lot more with reason that a temper-tantrum post...
That is a seperate issue. One issue is the practical benefits and costs of Bush Policy regarding Iraq. I think the issue that is being addressed here is one of disingenous accusations. Since the beginning people who have opposed the war haven't done so because they want the U.S. to fail. They don't want to coddle terrorists. They want to fight terrorists and not countries where terrorists weren't. They don't want our troops to die and aren't happy when the troops die. If that was the case they wouldn't have opposed the war to begin with. They have as much love for the U.S. as anyone, and yet one side and Basso in particular run out of arguments that reasoned or based on facts and so try to insinuate that those with a different opinion on issues love to kill babies, want the troops to die, love Saddam, support the terrorists, etc. That is a load of BS. It is a childish attempt to make one side look like they are for America while the other side is against it. Those kinds of repeated attacks with no basis in reality are shameful, and devisive. Batman was merely addressing those issues. Good for Batman.
I dont blame BJ for being pissed....that is the biggest load of bullcrap I have EVER read here....and I have read dang near every post TJ has made. Sad to say, but I have come to expect that kind of rhetoric from the conservatives...but even with that expectation...I was still shocked at those accusations. Maybe Bob Vila can put this in perspective for basso.
Actually, i found it pretty outrageous at the time, and my outrage has only grown in the days since, as you continually try to defend the original: reading it again, i fail to see how you can spin this as anything other than a complete moral capitualtion to those against whom we are fighting. how can you suggest you support the troops, and in the same breath suggest they deserve to be blown up? how can you say you're ashamed of being an american, and then give voice to disingenous print-versions of michael moore and try and claim to be fighting for america ideals? the troops in the field are fighting for those ideals everyday, and your post does them and their families the worst kind of disservice, both those who support the president and those who do not. yes, i did, and aside from a bit of hyperbole regarding abortion, which was directed at your party, not you, i stand by that post, although i was wrong in one instance. there is another animating principle for the democrats- hatred of GWB. this trumps all other concerns, including love of country, support of troops, or victory on the battlefields of arms and ideals. **** me? no, **** you, and the pathetic moral equivalence horse you rode in on. one other thing i'll "cheerfully retract:" i really don't think you're such a good guy after all.
So these are are the most sensible arguments you can fine? not a lot, less that 25% of the whole article.. so is 911 the primary reason we are in Iraq and why 1800 soldiers died and more will by dying? why do extreme republicans keep on blaming 911 on Iraq? even if the fact say the oppsite and even if majority of the nation disagree.. Was Iraq involved in 911? Were there any terrorists in Iraq pre 911? Has Iraq hurt any americans pre 911?
There are terrorists all over the Middel East, pre and post 9-11. Does that justify invading every country where there might be a terrorist? If this war was strictly a fight against terrorism, then we would be concentrating on Osama and would have finished the job in Afghanastan before going off on George's crusdade in Iraq.
Oh, peace is a dirty word She used to be a painted bird, yeah And war, she's a w**** Don't you know we love her more and more? B52 baby, way up in the sky Come droppin' your lovin' on me, child B52 baby, way up in the sky Drop your love on me tonight, yeah PEACE... MOM PEACE... MOM PEACE... MOM Poor man, sad man, you should be a glad man Stand up for your rights, peace, talkin' about peace Good mom, bad mom, roll over and play dead Do it again, baby, peace, PEACE MOM, yeah Babe, baby, baby, Baby, way up in the sky Come droppin' your lovin' on me child A B52 baby Drop your love on me PEACE MOM PEACE MOM PEACE MOM PEACE MOM Ahhhhh yeeeahhhh _________________ And the award for worst interpretive song of the year goes to...
<B>vlaurelio So these are are the most sensible arguments you can fine? not a lot, less that 25% of the whole article..</b> You asked for "most" not "all." <B>so is 911 the primary reason we are in Iraq and why 1800 soldiers died and more will by dying?</b> Without 9/11, we probably would not be in Iraq today. Do you disagree?! <B>why do extreme republicans keep on blaming 911 on Iraq? even if the fact say the oppsite and even if majority of the nation disagree.. Was Iraq involved in 911? </b> Who are these extreme Republicans that you are talking about? Name them. Can you cite these claims that you are making on their behalf? <B>Were there any terrorists in Iraq pre 911?</b> Yes. There were several from the Hussein family... Did you forget about the plane fuselage that was set up for terrorist training? <b>Has Iraq hurt any americans pre 911?</b> I'm not sure but to help you get to your point... I'll say no. After the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, do you know what our immediate response was? To attack the German forces in North Africa. Had the German's hurt any Americans prior to 12/7/1941? Your turn.
Thats correct. But that does not mean we are in Iraq becasue of 911. It just turns out that way because this adminsitration is using 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq. But that was not my question, was 911 the primary reason, I thought it was WMD's right? When the case for the Iraq war was presented to congress and american people, di the administration say it was becasue of 911? you haven't answered this question don't say no just to "help me get to my point" if you think the answer is yes.. no pressure here.. so if Iraq has not hurt americans pre 911, no connection to 911, why are american soldiers dying in Iraq? because of 911 when we needed someone to attack eventhough they had nothing to do with it? wasn't germans and japanese allies? do you think we will attack germany if they were not allied with japan?
What took you so long? You've been saying far, far, FAR worse to and about me and every other war opponent on this board for well over a year. It's about damn time you stopped smirking about it. And let's be clear. You're not just talking to me here. You're talking to FranchiseBlade, R2K, Deckard, Sisir Chang and every other war opponent on this board. And when you equate support for the troops with support for the president, you're talking to 64% of the country according to today's ARG poll. According to any poll though, you're talking to the majority of the country wrt Bush's handling of Iraq. When more than half the country is 'anti-American' according to your terms, it might be time to redefine them. Anyway, while it's a drag you refuse to ever respond substantively to any of the arguments posed by the anti-war crowd, opting instead to accuse us of sympathizing with terrorists and wanting Americans to die, it's a real relief for you to finally express your utter contempt for me and us. It's been a long time coming.
<B>vlaurelio Thats correct. But that does not mean we are in Iraq becasue of 911. It just turns out that way because this adminsitration is using 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq.</b> So you are saying that being in Iraq right now in history has nothing to do with 9/11? I don't think so... <B>But that was not my question, was 911 the primary reason, I thought it was WMD's right? When the case for the Iraq war was presented to congress and american people, di the administration say it was becasue of 911?</b> When it got down to making a case for going into Iraq, the administration relied too heavily on the WMD issue, but all along I knew it was a more complex argument than that. Going into Iraq was the second move meant to stabilize the Middle East (routing the Taliban being the first). <B>you haven't answered this question</b> I never thought that Iraq was behind 9/11 in any particular way other than sympathetically. <B>don't say no just to "help me get to my point" if you think the answer is yes.. no pressure here..</b> I can't say for sure but I would say that over the 30 years of Saddam's rule of Iraq, some American somewhere died at "his hands." <B>so if Iraq has not hurt americans pre 911, no connection to 911, why are american soldiers dying in Iraq? because of 911 when we needed someone to attack eventhough they had nothing to do with it? wasn't germans and japanese allies? do you think we will attack germany if they were not allied with japan?</B> For the same reasons that American GIs died in North Africa. This is a different kind of war-- no uniforms, no team meetings, collateral damage is king. Didn't you get the memo? A question (I don't know the answer): did the Germans and the Japanese both "hate" the Americans for the same or for different reasons? It really doesn't matter though, does it? An enemy is an enemy...
so is that the magical link you republicans are talking about? sympathetically? can you prove that there was an alliance between Iraq and Al Queda like the alliance/pact between Japan and Germans? and simply "sympathizing" is not a pact or alliance.. well its not simply because they hated us for whatever reason.. but they were allies with a pact.. "whoever your enemy is my enemy, whoever attacks you attacks us, and whoever we attack you attack".. they did not simply sympathize with each other and hate americans..
you've expressed the canard multiple times in this thread. please detail exactly where i have ever made this connection, at any time, in any thread, in any post. thanks in advance.
