Cindy Sheehan Thinks 'Empire' Faked Osama Takedown: Will Chris Matthews Recant Urging Her to Run for Congress?
Remember back in 2005, when the major media turned Cindy Sheehan into their anti-Bush heroine of the moment? They never seemed to notice her statements made her sound like a very anti-American radical fruitcake. On August 15, 2005 (video here), Sheehan went on Hardball and told Chris Matthews the U.S. was using Iraq "as a base for spreading imperialism." An impressed Matthews suggested: "You sound more informed than most U.S. Congresspeople, so maybe you should run."
So perhaps Matthews will retract his statement and debate her on air, because Cindy Sheehan is now a "deather," insisting that the "Empire" faked their Sunday victory over Osama bin Laden. This is not a leg-thrill moment for Matthews. The Washington Post noticed at the very bottom of a Tuesday story by Emily Wax on page C7 this note from Sheehan’s Facebook page:
I am sorry, but if you believe the newest death of OBL, you're stupid. Just think to yourself--they paraded Saddam's dead sons around to prove they were dead--why do you suppose they hastily buried this version of OBL at sea? This lying, murderous Empire can only exist with your brainwashed consent -- just put your flags away and THINK!
Will Matthews agree she’s better informed than most members of Congress now? But the whole Facebook page is a festival of wackiness. For example:
– "I am going to go take a walk in the wonderful sunshine--now that OBL is dead, I feel safe and the birds are singing and the nuclear disaster is over; our oceans are clean and wars have ended. This is the Dawning of The Age of Aquarius. Let the Sunshine! (We can use our plastic sheeting and duct tape now for painting our kitchens). I know! LET'S GO SHOPPING!!!"
– "I guess I am a deather--and now the "news" is getting their "news" items from Facebook, because this is the only place I have ever said anything about this newest fraud perpetrated on the gullible Duh-merican sheeple."
– Over a picture of Obama as the star of the Jim Carrey movie Liar Liar: "The Empire lies, as by necessity, does the Emperor."
– "Well, the silver lining around the dark cloud is that this is obviously the last time Osama can be killed. The Empire shot its wad, if not Osama. I am out now, for the day. What a day. Sigh."
– "One more I couldn't resist from friend Tom Foil): Osama gets killed more than Kenny. They killed Osama! you bastards! lol. They should make a cartoon called Middle East Park and have Osama get killed every episode...(really good night, this time)."
Sheehan also linked to her blog, the one with the Obama-as-grim-reaper image, that has more bizarre copy, like this:
The Bush/Obama freak show didn’t invent using "convenient" enemies, nor did it invent killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people exploiting these enemies. It’s not that I don’t believe Obama about Osama because he’s Obama, I don’t believe him because he is just one in along line of butt-naked Emperors.
....It was widely reported and ridiculed today that I don’t believe that Osama bin Laden is dead and that makes me a "Deather." I guess this slur is a riff on the "Birther" movement that claims that the current POTUS was not born in the US and therefore is not qualified to be in office—I think the Birther movement is a ruse and distraction from the real issues, as is OBL’s latest death.
First of all, I find it cute that the Lamestream media is reading my Facebook wall and reporting it as "news." That’s almost as ridiculous as reporting what Obama said on Sunday evening as "news." The only proof of Osama being dead again that we were offered was Obama telling us that there was a DNA match between the man killed by the Navy SEALS and OBL. Even if it is possible to get DNA done so quickly, and the regime did have bin Laden DNA lying around a lab somewhere--where is the empirical proof? I read one analysis where a wagging tongue said we know because "people who know" have told us. Now we don't actually have to see proof? So we just accept the words as proof? Here’s some more food for thought—one doesn’t have to be dead to have a DNA test done. They don’t kill deadbeat dads to prove paternity, do they?
....Secondly (from my "first of all" above), I never said anywhere, not even on my Facebook Wall, that I don’t think Osama bin Laden is dead—this is just another smokescreen. I said that I don’t believe the story that protruded from the evil collusion of the Empire and its toady Lamestream media like a cancerous mole that has metastasized to the size of a grapefruit. Like I told Anderson Cooper in August of 2005, "reporting" is not regurgitating the spiel of the Emperor or his spokesliar.
How exploitative does the anti-Bush media look now? This woman will not be the toast of the news media now -- and shouldn't have been the toast back in 2005. Sheehan later attacked Cooper for having the audacity to put on Sheehan critics after her on August 17, 2005.
Networks highlight Sheehan ad insisting "I love my country." [???]
# # #
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
The worm turns!
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:34am.
Now the left will have to ignore/attack Sheehan as she has become the enemy.
Very slight exception
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:49pm.
DFTT,
I understand what you are saying here, but I'm going to take a very slight exception to your statement. The left doesn't "have" to do anything with regards to Ms. Sheehan. They will choose to ignore her, or attack her, but they don't have to do either. The reason the right "had" to address the Sheehan issue during the Bush administration was because the Sheehan story was ramped up by a complicit press in order to embarrass the Bush administration.
The history of the United States is full of incidents where Mothers of dead soldiers held the President responsible for the death of their son. Everyone is going to react in different ways to this unfortunate event, and I can understand all of the reactions, including Ms. Sheehan's. The Iraq war of 2003 was no exception. But the national press chose to recognize this particular mother, and elevate her story to one of national proportions, for their own nefarious purposes.
It's a shame, too. I believe that because of that elevation, the natural grieving process of Ms. Sheehan was forever distorted, and it helped turn her into the basket case that she is today.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Repost that pliz.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:46am.
I missed it. I was out raising my American flag and watching the Saddam's Sons parade, and getting ready for my brainwashing from the lying murderous Empire.
Lamestream Media?
Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:46am.
It sounds to me as though Sweet Cindy Loo is listening to Mark Levine!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
all hail the Ditch Witch!
Submitted by wizardjr on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:47am.
Why isn't the Ditch Witch and Code Stink all getting up on Teh Won for his illegal war on Libya and the torture at Gitmo and the murder and rape of innocent women and children in Afgoofystan, eh??
Where's the "No blood for oil!!" rent-a-mob, eh??
I tire of the blatant hypocracy of these assclowns.
As deplorable as she is, she
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:57am.
As deplorable as she is, she is correct in regards to the imperialism comment. Of course, lost (or ignored, to be accurate) in all the reactionary outrage are the legitimate discussions of American policy in regards to the Constitution. At some point, enough people will wake up and realize that non-intervention will cost far less in lives and money.
Ironically her last passage is described as being wacky, yet her argument and words are the same ones used by critics of Obama and the media, including the bloggers here.
Satchmo,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:48am.
While I don't agree with Cindy I don't find her deplorable - what was deplorable was the way she was used and discarded by the media at times convenient for their message.
Your comment about non-intervention being less costly in lives and money is only a statement that can be made after the fact and while I want to agree with you because I would love to see less intervention on the part of the US history does show that tyrannical groups and people will only grow in power and influence when not challenged. Eventually they grow in power and influence enough to cause incredible losses of lives and capital. Of course this doesn't always happen but often enough that your blanket statement is shown not to apply except to those judging history from the comfort of their own assumptions (we all do this).
Yes, we don't want the media regurgitating the message from the WH and calling it news. Funny that the only time the media does this en masse is either when there is a Democrat in the WH or a sympathetic event occurs that causes the media to bury the hatchet with Republicans/Conservatives. Cindy wasn't calling out the media when her mug was being plastered everywhere in order to attempt to smear President Bush. However, she did say they were complicit with "Bush's war crimes" when they were quiet after 9/11 - before she became their darling in the ditch. I don't want the media we had after 9/11 and I don't want the media we have now. I want the media we had during the Bush administration regardless of who is in the WH - confrontational, advancing alternative ideas and investigating the status quo - hopefully without making 'news' stories out of rumor or false/faked facts. This story is a great story for Obama and his administration but the media is making the story about Obama and the administration and that is not right but it is what you can expect now that there is Democrat in the WH - regurgitation and embellishment of the government message.
The idea that the US is an imperialist nation is difficult to prove one way or another because it depends upon your personal view of the the influence of US military, money and political 'guidance'.
"Your comment about
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 1:17pm.
"Your comment about non-intervention being less costly in lives and money is only a statement that can be made after the fact and while I want to agree with you because I would love to see less intervention on the part of the US history does show that tyrannical groups and people will only grow in power and influence when not challenged. Eventually they grow in power and influence enough to cause incredible losses of lives and capital. Of course this doesn't always happen but often enough that your blanket statement is shown not to apply except to those judging history from the comfort of their own assumptions (we all do this)."
There is no doubt that non-intervention would have resulted in fewer lives lost and fewer taxpayer dollars spent. The error in your thinking is that it is predicated upon the belief that nothing can be learned from history. So no, the statement can not only be made after the fact. From our involvement in WWI up to our involvement in Libya, intervention (except in the Constitutionally justified war against Japan) has been an unnecessary drain on the lives and money of Americans. It is not the job or role of the United States to topple dictators or tyrants, no matter how Cogress and presidents distort the Constitutioon.
Germany - WW2
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 2:12pm.
So, the Congressionally Declared War against Germany, on December 11th, 1941, after Germany declared war on the United States, was not also an exception? Or did you just forget that one?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
No, it is not an exception.
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:12pm.
No, it is not an exception. Germany hadn't attacked us. And it is not an exception because the Nazis would most likely have never risen to power if America had not inserted itself into WWI.
Germany hadn't attacked us? BS.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:22pm.
So the Nazi U-boats were just delivering flowers to US shipping in the Atlantic before Dec. 7?
Which would never have
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:32pm.
Which would never have happened had Roosevelt not gotten actively involved in aiding the British. Another example of interventionism.
Another example of notadmittingwrongism.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:51pm.
You stated Germany hadn't attacked us.
They did.
But.....BUT!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:02pm.
If only the James K. Polk Administration had improved relations with King Frederick William IV, then all of this conflict with Germany could have been avoided!
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
They hadn't, yet we
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:09pm.
They hadn't, yet we intervened. What do you think was going to happen? This is kind of the whole point of the discussion, you know.
ATTENTION INCESTMO:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:44pm.
Sinking another country's ships IS attacking.
I have no desire to enter into a debate with you on the run-up to WWII.
The only point of my post was to call BS on your ludicrous claim that Germany did not attack us prior to Dec. 7.
Events do not occur in a
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:42am.
Events do not occur in a vaccum. You have no desire to discuss it because without having context you would be unable to defend yourself.
At least be consistent in your folly, Satch...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 9:00am.
Why carve out an exception for "the Constituionally justifified war against Japan"? Basing such justification on the Pearl Harbor sneak attack violates your maxim about events not occurring in a vacuum and ignores the antecedent "provocations" by FDR in the summer of 1941 such as imposing an oil embargo and freezing Japanese assets.
Jer
While true, this is an
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 9:05am.
While true, this is an example of a country deciding not to trade with another. Hardly an example of interventionism and hardly a provocation for war.
Well, inasmuch as you also
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 4:13pm.
Well, inasmuch as you also view a declaration of war by one of the most formidable and aggressive military dictatorships in the history of the world to be insufficiently provocative, I trust you'll understand the difficulty I'm having in following your logic.
And I know you are not so naive as to reduce the implications of the oil embargo to a mere "no-trade" decision. It meant the engine for Japanese expansionism would literally run out of gas unless the US lifted the embargo or sources in the southern Pacific could be exploited. To the miltarists in Tokyo, it could have hardly been any more provocative.
Jer
Jer, welcome to the circlejerk.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 4:31pm.
I would advise popping two Advils before proceeding.
Good luck.
Since when does another
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 4:46pm.
Since when does another country have any right to our resources or a right to trade with us?
You're sidestepping Jer's
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 5:00pm.
You're sidestepping Jer's points. Typical.
Also, as I stated we were
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 5:10pm.
Also, as I stated we were already intervening despite our supposed neutrality when Germany declared war.
To Recap
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:37pm.
Trading with Britain while they are at war with Germany, which caused German U-boats to sink American merchant ships, was intervention. This led to Germany declaring war on us and led us to declare an unconstitutional war.
Setting up an oil embargo against Japan was an acceptable "no-trade" decision that led to a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and us declaring a constitutional war.
Oh yeah....that totally makes sense.
Your recap is incorrect and
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:44pm.
Your recap is incorrect and deliberately misleading. Military involvement and support of Britain was not simple trade as you deliberately mischaracterize it to be. I also have never said that war against Germany was unconstitutional.
Your history revisionism is
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:47pm.
Your history revisionism is what is misleading.
Polly want a cracker?
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:43pm.
Polly want a cracker?
Red herring. Your history
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:58pm.
Red herring. Your history revisionism is what continues to be misleading.
You didn't say the war against Germany was unconstitutional?
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:57pm.
Maybe not, but when you draw an explicit distinction regarding the conflict with Japan by labeling it "the Constitutionally justified war" I think most would agree the inference was reasonable.
Jer
Correct, I did not say the
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:32pm.
Correct, I did not say the war with Germany was unconstitutional. I know you're aware there have been numerous wars since WWI, most of which are/were unconstitutional
I know there have been
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:51pm.
I know there have been numerous wars, interventions, conflicts, incursions, police actions, military engagements etc., but I am not prepared to say any were clearly unconstitutional. And, I think a discussion of the parameters of presidential war powers authority, requirements for congressional approval or a declaration, and analyses of the respective roles of the executive and legislative branches of government in this area should be left for another thread on another day.
Now, is it fair to say that you believe our waging war against Hitler's Germany was constitutional but ill-advised?
Jer
Given that the Constitution
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 3:05pm.
Given that the Constitution authorizes only Congress to declare war and that the president does not have that authority (except to act in defense), all of these - from Korea to Viet Nam to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are all unconstitutional. As for another thread another day, here's a little reading material for when that day comes: http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/ http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/mark-levin-wrong-on-war-powers/
No, I don't think our waging war against Hitler's Germany was ill-advised. I do think Roosevelt engaged in provocative actions that led us to war, and that Hitler was not a direct threat to the United States - not in 1941 at any rate. The entire point is that had we not intervened in WWI, which Wilson led us to do, then it is likely that WWII would not have happened because there would not have been the conditions in place that fomented the rise of the Nazis.
I've been reading that stuff
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 3:31pm.
I've been reading that stuff for the past fifty years, Satch. I already have more than enough material to afford me a reasonable understanding of the arguments, pro and con.
To address your remaining points will require moving the discussion elsewhere due to thread skinniness.
Jer
Satchmo the Damn Liar
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:57pm.
Satchmo: "(except in the Constitutionally justified war against Japan)"
Kingfish: "war against Germany...was not also an exception?"
Satchmo: "No...Germany hadn't attacked us"
That conversation is above you idiot. Also, is an oil embargo simple trade as you deliberately mischaracterize it to be? In Satchmoland, constitutionally UNjustified does not infer unconstitutional?
Not an exception in that we
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:38pm.
Not an exception in that we were already intervening militarily despite an alleged neutral stance (you might want to start at the beginning of the discussion). Yes, an embargo is a trade decision; that is not a mischaracterization. Deciding not to trade with a country is the sovereign right of any nation. Not supporting a country's policies by suspending trade is certainly not intervening, and is certainly not provacative unless you believe that country has a right to our resources and products.
Yes, Yes
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:27pm.
But supporting a coutry's policies by actively trading with them is intervening and provacative. Still making no sense Satchmo....as usual.
And once again we witness you
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:41pm.
And once again we witness you trying to engage in history revisionism. You know not of what you write.
Pervmo makes it clear.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:42pm.
This is exactly why Ron Paul and his band of idiot libertarians and basically all isolationist libertarians are the laughingstock of this country.
Non-interventionism is not
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:40am.
Non-interventionism is not the same thing as isolationism.
Mollycoddle is Satchmo.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:05am.
Satchmo is mollycoddle.
Same Same.
Such history revisionism!
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:25pm.
Such history revisionism!
A good piece for you to
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:32pm.
A good piece for you to read:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/28/00029/
Still does not change the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:53pm.
Still does not change the fact that you engage in history revisionism.
I haven't revised a thing.
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:08pm.
I haven't revised a thing.
You try to engage in history
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:42pm.
You try to engage in history revisionism. Fortunately you fail miserably. But your history of dishonesty is well documented.
You've said that about five
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:39am.
You've said that about five times now, yet you haven't explained yourself.
What part of "history
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 10:06am.
What part of "history revisionism" confuses you?
Your failure to explain
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 2:46pm.
Your failure to explain yourself.
I have been quite clear.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 3:49pm.
I have been quite clear. Apparently you are the only one who is confused.
No, you haven't. All you've
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 3:59pm.
No, you haven't. All you've done is level a charge. You haven't even pointed out what you consider to be revisionism. Obviously you don't intend to. I wonder if it's because you will be unable to back up your claim?
Once again since you remain
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 5:03pm.
Once again since you remain confused. Read it again slowly this time and with great concentration (at least as much concentration as you can muster): I have been quite clear. Apparently you are the only one who is confused.
Just because I don't jump through your hoops doesn't mean my claims are invalid. Others have pointed out your errors regarding history as well yet you continue to cleave to those errors. Hence, attempts at history revisionism on your part.
Your dishonesty and intentional obtusiveness are pathetic.
Huh. Asking someone to back
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 5:11pm.
Huh. Asking someone to back up their claim or to explain themselves is trying to make them jump through hoops. What a debate tactic!
LOL. Your favorite tactic is ignore it when you're proven wrong.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 5:50pm.
So for the 5th time, tell everyone how Germany hadn't attacked us prior to Dec. 7. As in Nazi U-boats pounding our shipping.
Just answer that ONE simple effing question without your atmospheric effects and theories on the run-up to WWII.
You can't. You're wrong. But as you've proven 1,000 times here, you'd rather engage in a 12-day circle jerk than just admit you screwed up.
Have fun with this retard, everyone. But just remember, in the end, you're going to be "ignorant, evasive, or a liar."
Let me reiterate (and stop
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:49pm.
Let me reiterate (and stop misrepresenting what I wrote):
Just because I don't jump through your hoops doesn't mean my claims are invalid. Others have pointed out your errors regarding history as well yet you continue to cleave to those errors. Hence, attempts at history revisionism on your part.
Your dishonesty and intentional obtusiveness remain absolutely pathetic.
Shut up Satchmo the mollycoddle.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:30am.
We have had just about enough of your stupidity. Go away now.
Stupid Satchmo the mollycoddle.
Germany declared WAR on the United States
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:45pm.
"Germany hadn't attacked us."
So you're saying that, even after Germany declared war on us, the United States shouldn't have done a thing to Germany?
Let's not go back to 1918 to try and come up with some spin. I'm talking about what happened on December 11th, 1941. You're sounding like a German Nazi sympathizer.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I'm saying that if the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:12pm.
I'm saying that if the U.S./Wilson had not taunted Germany into attacking us then there likely wouldn't have been a Nazi Party or WWII. I am also saying that if Roosevelt had not intervened, then there would have been no basis for a declaration of war by Germany. But so what if they did declare war? No, we should not have done anything until we were attacked or that it was known we were going to be attacked.
So you want to go to Dec. 11, 1941, but you want to avoid all acts of interventionism by Roosevelt prior to that. Do you think those acts may have had anything to do with the attacks? Do you think we would have been attacked if we actually maintained our position of neutrality?
There is no point in this.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:39pm.
I actually believe that it's too bad that the United States wasn't prepared to intervene militarily when Hitler occupied the Rhineland. Dictators and megalomaniacs like Hitler need to be stopped as soon as possible. It would have been well worth listening to people like you, bellyaching about American interventionism, to have prevented that war.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
It is not our job or role,
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 6:18pm.
It is not our job or role, nor is it just or moral to seize taxpayer's money to carry out your desires for stoppin every dictator or megalomaniac. That's a great plan to deplete our treasury and to ensure more conflict and more seized and spent treasure.
Because we wuz goin' so broke doin' it.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 11:29pm.
Thank heavens for the sissy Satchmo. We was goin' broke tryin' to stop every dictator or megalomaniac. Oh wait... Wait a tic. It is our entitlement programs that are breaking the bank.
And the sissy Satchmo is fine with those. He is more worried about having a military and spending money ensuring we can conduct trade with the rest of the planet. That, oh no, can't do that. Let's just give half of our money to the Barbary Pirates as we were doing until we had enough of that.
Friggin's sissies never get their priorities right.
First of all, we dont
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:00am.
for stoppin every dictator or megalomaniac.
Second, you and the neo-confederate Mike Church are dead wrong about supporting the allies in WW1. Either one of you guys ever think about what would of happened if the Kaiser had won? Or if a weaken Europe was left at the mercy of the USSR? Or do you guys think, at all?
I for one am sick of this backhanded revisionism.
First, I don't know who Mike
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:34am.
First, I don't know who Mike Church is, but what does he have to do with this discussion?
Second, you are ignoring the topic at hand.
Third, there is no revisionism taking place here. What, exactly, is being revised?
I dont beleive you
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:56am.
Your practically quoting him verbatim.
Well that was a heckuva
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 9:09am.
Well that was a heckuva dodge.
The man does not believe you.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:26am.
No one here believes you. You are a lying twaddling mollycoddle. Act like you have communicated with honest human beings before. Stupid Satchmo the Mollycoddle is not to be believed. How is that dodging? Idiot. You act like a man, people might believe you and you won't have to worry about dredging, dodging and diddling. Idiot.
Thank you
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:00pm.
I could not had said it any better
"War is an ugly thing, but
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:22am.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill
You see that part about the miserable creature, Satchmo? He's referring to people like you.
You don't understand the
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:47am.
You don't understand the difference between non-interventionism and defense. Not everyone's fight is our fight. It's a shame you aren't aligned with the Founders.
Yes, I do understand the
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:49am.
Yes, I do understand the difference. It's a shame all your arguments consist of nothing more than declaring that nobody understands the topic but you. Pretty ignorant, but expected.
Since you claim to understand
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 9:07am.
Since you claim to understand the difference, why did you quote Mill? If you understand the difference, then you also understand how his quote is not applicable.
It's completely applicable.
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 9:18am.
It's completely applicable. Whether you admit it or not, whether you realize it or not, you ARE talking about isolationism. You want to stay tucked into your nice quiet world and don't want to be bothered with anything that might threaten that until it's on your front doorstep. Which is EXACTLY what we did in WW II.
Your previous post to me talked about DEFENSE, which indicates you only want to get involved in something that is a direct threat to us. The world doesn't work that way. In the real world a conflict that seems insignificant, a conflict that does not directly threaten our people or borders can be something that evolves into a national security threat. Need an example? Somalia.
It doesn't mean that we get involved in every single thing going on in the world, but you can sit behind your wall and wait until the enemy is at your gates before you declare it's time to do something.
Isolationism is not
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 9:26am.
Isolationism is not synonymous with non-interventionism; they are not interchangeable words. There is a crucial difference between the two, and if you don't understand the meaning of the words and if you refuse to understand, then there is no point in trying to have a discussion.
And Somalia? Seriously???
Mollycoddle is synonymous with Satchmo.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:27am.
Satchmo is synonymous with mollycoddle. If you don't understand the meaning of the words and if you refuse to understand, then there is no point in trying to have a discussion.
So once again, you declare
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:37am.
So once again, you declare that I don't understand the topic and therefore debate is useless. How typical.
As I recall your question to me was :"You don't understand the difference between non-interventionism and defense."
So we've gone from defense and non-interventionism to Isolationism and non-interventionism. Please make up your mind. If you can't your own talking points in line, it's going to be hard for you to understand the topic.
But please, professor, tell us all what the difference is. Dazzle us.
And YES, Somalia. It has become the center of Islamic Jihad since we pulled out and allowed it to collapse. You might actually know facts like this if you would get of DailyKos for your marching orders and actually watch the news.
First, I didn't claim that
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 2:45pm.
First, I didn't claim that you don't understand the topic. I said you don't understand the difference between non-interventionism and defense, and you don't understand the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. That you said they are the same thing is proof. That you refuse to understand the meanings of these words renders discussion useless.
Second, saying you don't understand the difference is not asking you a question.
Third, since you have brought up Somalia I can now say that you do not understand the topic. I suggest you go back to the beginning. "Since we pulled out..." What would the case be had we never been there in the first place? What the world look like today if Ike didn't direct the CIA to remove Iran's constitutional monarch and install a dictator who oppressed his people, ultimately giving rise to the Islamic Revolution? As I said above, at some point enough people are going to wake up and realize that interventionism costs us far more lives and money than non-intervention would. Clearly, you won't be one of them as long as you continue to equate non-interventionism with isolationism, and as long as you think non-interventionism means one doesn't think there is anything worth fighting for.
First, you did claim I didn't
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 2:20pm.
First, you did claim I didn't understand the topic.
"There is a crucial difference between the two, and if you don't understand the meaning of the words and if you refuse to understand, then there is no point in trying to have a discussion."
Just because you used the words "meaning of the words" instead of "topic" doesn't change the fact that you claim I didn't understand what we were talking about. This is a typical post of yours as you are specifically vague in you statements so you can always say "I didn't say that!". Your act is getting old, get a new one.
Second, "saying you don't understand the difference is not asking you a question."
You're right it's not a question, its a challenge. Like everything else you claim people who dont agree with you don't understand the question. Pathetic.
Third, "Third, since you have brought up Somalia I can now say that you do not understand the topic." Thanks for proving my point, Satchmo!!! You're the gift that keeps on giving!!!
"What would the case be had we never been there in the first place?"
I can imagine the collapse of Somallia would have occured sooner since that was what we were there to try and reverse. But please, wizard, tell us all what REALLY would have happened with your magic revisionism. As I have stated it is now the center of the Islamic Jihad, but I guess it would have been peachy keen had we never been there, right?
"As I said above, at some point enough people are going to wake up and realize that interventionism costs us far more lives and money than non-intervention would."
Something tells me you and Neville Chamberlain would have gotten along well. I wonder why that is?
"Clearly, you won't be one of them as long as you continue to equate non-interventionism with isolationism, and as long as you think non-interventionism means one doesn't think there is anything worth fighting for."
You're such a liar, Satchmo, you lie so much you cant keep them all straight. Let me quote you:
"I just don't think we should intervene militarily unless there is a direct threat to America - not to our vague and cloudy "interests," but to the sovereign nation of America."
So please, Satchmo, tell me how this statement is not isolationism and then tell me how it's different from non-interventionism.
Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight. WW2 was
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:46pm.
Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight. WW2 was the fault of the USA. The Civil War was about states rights, it's not incest if it' "consentual", up is down, war is peace, ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery. Thanks for clearing that all up for us nutcase.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I never said WWII was our
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 6:15pm.
I never said WWII was our fault. Why are you lying?
That's rich. You calling someone else a liar?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 6:23pm.
"Germany hadn't attacked us."
And your dishonesty
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:43pm.
And your dishonesty continues.
Yes. Yes you did Stupid Sissy Satchmo Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 11:34pm.
Stupid Sissy Satchmo Troll: I'm saying that if the U.S./Wilson had not taunted Germany into attacking us then there likely wouldn't have been a Nazi Party...
Without a NAZI party, there would have been no WWII.
PS: You sure you are not steve05? He did not understand acronyms either. NAZI is an acronym. You capitalize all the letters in an acronym stupid sissy.
This is nwahs
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 8:12am.
Because this is right out of local Mike Church's mouth. Mike also believes Lincoln baited the South to attack the North. Never mind the South was building a standing Army&Navy, never mind they were electing a confederate Gov, and then whipping the folks up into a bloody war. Never mind they carried the war for about 3/4's of it, and the North had little stomach for it till DC was at risk.
Mike Church is a buffoon who makes fun of his audience, and makes it up as he goes along. He and Obama have several things in common, they both hate Repubs, and they both want to take us backwards a hundred years or so.
Why no doubt, Satchmo?
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:13am.
The path not taken is as much a mystery to me as to you and we can only speculate what would have happened.
I understand the points of your argument and in some ways agree that FDR was too active in provoking reaction but some of what he did that was provocative was also in the US best interest.
Closer to the point however would be Korea. Most would agree that is was a mismanaged war with little resolution considering the cost. However, we don't know the path history would have taken without it. Would China become the power people feared, taken over or simply engage Japan and received the benefits of their military technology and squelched everything that Japan has given to the world economy since the 50's? That would have changed the world instantly and nothing would have been the same since. Do I believe this would have happened? Possibly but not with conviction. But it is a real possibility among thousands of others - some better than what happened / some worse.
Not to get too philosophical about what didn't happen and how so many things are related to one another but there is just no way to say things would have been better. You can further and further back in time but all you are going to do is create more possibilities and find less answers. It may be comforting to be able to judge the alternatives leaders had in history but the fact is we don't even know all the facts let alone all consequences to alternatives that may or may not have existed.
Well, let's take Libya as a
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 7:33am.
Well, let's take Libya as a recent example. Libya is no threat to us, yet here we are with a president launching an unconstitutional offensive. You can't deny this is costing money. Heck, we lost a fighter jet already, and while I'm unaware of any American lives lost (not counting journalists who may have covered the story regardless of our intervention), we've already killed a number of people we are supposedly supporting. So here we are, the Americans invading another Muslim country and killing Muslims. Now that may not be how we view it, but that is exactly how it's viewed over there. And for what purpose? No legitimate one, unless you think it is the duty of our military and the just burden of the taxpayers to or protect France's oil interests.
Good luck with this
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 7:53am.
Good luck with your "reasonable" positions. Frankly, I can't take you seriously when you also hold positions like: "The United States shouldn't have declared war on Germany in December of 1941, even though they declared war on the United States first. The United States should have waited UNTIL Germany actually attacked, before declaring war!"
But somehow, I think that's your goal. You post a reasonable, thought out position ever 1 in 20 posts or so, just so you can cling on to some sort of credibility. Then you yank everyone's chain in the vast bulk of your posts, just to get a response. It's grown tiresome.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
And why should you be taken
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 9:01am.
And why should you be taken seriously when you enclose something I've never said in quotation marks? You think that's honest?
Totally Honest
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:34am.
You know I paraphrasing you, Satchmo. Again with the obfuscation and misdirection.
Satchmo: "There is no way I'm going to answer something when I'm proved absolutely wrong and shown I've contradicted myself. I'll just point out something entirely off subject, do some tap dancing and a little more obfuscation and misdirection and link some long a$$ threads that nobody will ever read."
There I quoted you again.
BTW, you never did get back to me about that book I linked.
You said it. Live with it.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
More dishonesty. If you were
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 11:52am.
More dishonesty. If you were paraphrasing then you wouldn't use quotes, and here you do it again. That's not honest, so quit trying to claim any moral high ground here. Despite its declaration, Germany had neither the sea nor air capability to wage war on the United States.
Like I said, good luck.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 12:20pm.
I can't be more honest then to tell you.....I'm paraphrasing.
There is no moral high ground, and I don't claim it.
I've tried to engage in constructive debate with you, and have even found myself in agreement with you at times. But I don't think that's your desire. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but it's evidently not that.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
You didn't say it until after
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:13pm.
You didn't say it until after the fact, and if you're going to paraphrase, you don't use quotation marks. So, yes, you could be honest. And here you are again playing victim.
You weren't trying to engage in constructive debate or discussion. I replied to your original post, and you failed to reply directly to me. Instead you replied to someone else with a mocking post. Later when I replied to another of your posts, you responded saying that it was pointless because my positions are unreasonable. If that is your idea of your trying to engage in constructive debate, then you have a very, very low standard.
Low Standards of Debate
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 5:29pm.
This is one point where I agree with you. After all, I am engaging in a debate with you.
And if I said or implied that your positions are unreasonable, (which I don't necessarily agree with, but I don't want to go back and parse all my comments), let me rephrase that. I don't really care what your positions are, and anyone is entitled to any position they so desire. My whole point is that you do not engage in serious debate. You pick up on trivial matters and obfuscate and misdirect.
Jer is a good example of serious debate, (among others), who engage in well thought out and precise counter-arguments regarding my beliefs and positions. I enjoy that debate, no matter their position I have tried to engage you in this manner for quite some time, but to no avail, and the conversation has devolved. I can live with that, but it's a shame. I like well thought out, diverse opinion.
There comes a time where my efforts become counter-productive to the time involved in posting these replies, and as you have indicated, I am tired of lowering my standards.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
You make entirely too many statements that are---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:02am.
nothing more than your opinion, SatchelMouth, with no attribution indicating same.
"Now that may not be how we view it, but that is exactly how it's viewed over there."
Sounds to me like once again your view is, to coin a new phrase, rectal-linear.
MD
Oh, yeah. This
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 11:49am.
Oh, yeah. This unconstitutional action is being celebrated all throughout the Muslim world. Have you been asleep for the past few decades? As for being only my opinion... http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/31/former-cia-agent...
A link--an actual link from SatcheMouth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:25pm.
which proves one other person had a thought close to his.
I am underwhelmed.
MD
Satchmo in Libya,
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:15pm.
Any example will do but this is very difficult because I don't believe we should have gone into Libya for various reasons.
Yes, we can say that America should never have gotten involved and 20-30 years from now when (if) the ME has not changed in any fundamental way then many will declare that this effort was for nothing. However, there will always be too many variables and 'what ifs' to make a definitive case for non-intervention. The test may be how 'fantastic' the characteristic are of the alternative scenarios. In this case the only alternative scenario that is somewhat realistic I can think of is that intervention so destabilizes the area that the aggressive aspects of radical Islam go elsewhere due to convenience and the potential for funding (Libya would have little capital for terrorist funding once the US cut off the 'aid').
Once again I would like to remind you that I too believe we interfere more than we need to as a nation for various and often political reasons (Libya). It is not that I disagree with your concept but I do disagree with the application because the idea of intervention is too broad of an idea. Even defining military intervention would vary with the point of view of the offended. The simple of act of buying/selling raw materials to nation 'A' will be considered military intervention to a nation 'B' who is attempting to deplete the resources of Nation 'A' in on going dispute/battle/war. Also, there is no way to judge what would have happened if there was no intervention because you can no longer use the sequence of events that followed. Great debate potential but no definitive answers.
I just don't think we should
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:54pm.
I just don't think we should intervene militarily unless there is a direct threat to America - not to our vague and cloudy "interests," but to the sovereign nation of America. I don't agree, though, that simple trade between nations could be viewed as military intervention.
You say there's no way to judge what would have happened, but how about we give it a shot? Clearly what we've been doing for at least the past 60 years is not working.
One way to get Obama re-elected.
Submitted by MightyMouth on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:49pm.
I know you guys are going to cream your pants at this suggestion.. Sieze all the oil in all the oil producing countries we have troops in or give aid to. Force them to sell to the USA and only the USA!! I for one, want .99 gas again! You can't prove to me that in the last 5 or 6 years oil has become 5x sparce. Someone is doing this... OPEC or our own gooberment, don't matter either way we are screwed! Somebody "unscrew" us please!
60 yrs of failed foriegn policy
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:30am.
Not sure I completely agree with that but there is a judgment you could base military action on unilaterally and probably get a lot of agreement on from the right: Don't go to war if you need ROE outside of the UCMJ.
Cindy, much like our climate
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:11am.
Cindy, much like our climate monger Gore, has just smoked one to many joints. They are brain dead and we just need to bury them and be done with it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Sheehan is a kook
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:21am.
Having said that, as a libertarian, I trust government about as far as I could throw it, and there are a lot of questions being raised about all this that are still unanswered.
What I find not a little distressing is how many otherwise intelligent people seem so willing, indeed eager, to buy the government's version of events lock, stock, and barrel.
This is government we are talking about, after all, and government lies every day about a whole lot of things. And when it comes to lying profusely, this particular administration appears to be going for the gold medal.
And just because this supposedly involved the US military and the intelligence community, don't think there aren't people within those entities that wouldn't do this anti-American administration's bidding in a heartbeat.
The name Robert Gates springs to mind. But he is far from the only one.
There are questions about this that need to be answered, and the government's stonewalling and changing it's version of events isn't helping to answer those questions. If anything, it is raising more.
There are more than a few people out there far more knowledgable than me in these matters who have raised some very interesting points, as well.
It has gotten to the point in this country where if you question anything the government says, somebody is going to jump up and accuse you of being a conspiracy kook.
It appears this is becoming a tactic that is now being used by both sides to quell any debate on a whole range of controversial topics, and the truth be damned.
There are more and more people in America today who seem to be more concerned with what the other side is thinking and saying about them than they are about ferreting out the facts.
Healthy skepticism was once woven deeply into the American fabric. I don't know what happened to it, but I do know there is a point when blind sheeple wind up living under tyranny.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Mencken comes to mind...
Submitted by Hog_Flambe on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:31pm.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
Que the tee-vee ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEA6oRPSmUA
Bill Hicks on bullies, politics and the elite... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuvTwibVXCw
I don't know if this woman became a lunatic as a result of
Submitted by no tingly legs on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:23am.
the death of her son in Iraq or she was a looney tune all along. But it's clear her elevator doesn't run all the way to the top. Yet the MSM continue to report on her brain farts. Go figure.
MIght have been all along
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:56am.
I had a relative that was this way. She was a little goofy in the beginning, but then she lost a child at a young age(11 years old) and that pushed her over the edge. She had been on the edge for a long time, and no one could have seen it coming as hard as she fell over. That's what happened with Sheehan. I have nothing but pity for her.
The mind's a complex thing, but it can also be easily damaged too.
-Jon
I pity Cindy Sheehan
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:43am.
She is a woman who lost her son, and went off the deep end. I hope she finds some peace eventually.
Media vultures like Chris Matthews exploited her for their own ends, and probably intensified her dissolution. They are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves. But they are shameless, and will never own up to their sin.
NOW they will treat her like a kook, since her rantings are against their messiah.
So Sad, MB.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:23am.
I also pity Ms Sheehan in her pain over the loss of her son. There is only one who can relieve her pain, but I don't think she'll find Him.
I agree mb
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:55am.
I rather suspect she wasn't all there prior to losing her son, but I'm sure the devastation of that loss helped put her on a path to crazytown. It is a shame, she surely needs help. But the ever-tolerant left found another useful idiot, advanced her to the masses, and perpetuated her personal demons.
I hope she finds her peace, and her Marine son has been able to rest in His.
Charlie Sheen's new opening act
Submitted by zenman1661 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:32am.
This stuff is great. I think Charlie Sheen should take her on the road as his opening act.
Liberal Dems threw Sheehan
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:01am.
Liberal Dems threw Sheehan under the bus long ago and she is now just another liberal roadkill on their highway of exploitation. They won't acknowledge her. Sheehan is no longer a useful kook for them. They now acknowledge her as a kook just as conservatives recognized for a long time.
She looks stressed.
Submitted by Slyrr on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:31am.
She looks stressed. Seriously, she has the overall appearance of a famine victim. I guess living on a diet of hate, bigotry and conspiracy theories doesn't make one very robust.
Poor, unfortunate woman.
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:33am.
I truly think that her son's death pushed her over the edge in to the Valley of the Crazy. I used to be irritated by her when I thought she was just wrong and wanted to see America fail. I now believe that she is clinically mentally unstable. Wouldn't surprise me if she has eighty-five starving cats in her home amongst every piece of trash that she has generated over the last ten years, unable to throw anything away.
On the other hand, I hope the left parades her around again. But of course they won't, not with the Obamasiah being the target of her disaffections.
I think you are
Submitted by misterbee241 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:14pm.
absolutely right. We should be praying for that poor woman. Her grief has really devastated her.
She would spit in your face
Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:21pm.
She would spit in your face if you offered to pray for her. Thousands of other mothers have lost a son. Yet they don't turn on the beliefs of their sons nor try to disrupt their mission. Cindy Sheehan is a media whore and anti Bush... plain and simple. She is the epitome of a bad mother.
What a loon. At least I
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:38am.
What a loon. At least I finally know where my cousin gets her political insight.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Whatever, Ms. Sheehan did make a valid point.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:53am.
And I was wondering about the same thing. Earlier Sunday I was thinking about the way Saddam Hussein's sons were killed when I heard that one of Quaddafi's sons and some of his grandchidren were killed in a bombing and I thought about them again when I heard Bin Laden was killed.
So as MS. Sheehan asks, " Just think to yourself--they paraded Saddam's dead sons around to prove they were dead--why do you suppose they hastily buried this version of OBL at sea?"
I must admit I have wondered about that too.
I hope they preserved a lot of DNA and took a lot of photo's before they dumped OBL in the water. I wonder if they had a fitting religious service. Wonder if they videotaped it.
Supposedly
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:26am.
Supposedly they are going to release some photos and more video, but I gotta tell you, given the amount of mistrust this bogus potus and his crew has created, I can't really trust anything he or his people says.
And I even wonder if the so-called burial at sea was intended as an incitement rather than a reverence.
-Jon
Yes, that sea burial was puzzling.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:56am.
First I had heard of Muslims wanting to be buried at sea.
So I just Googled "muslim sea burial". Interesting.
"Muslim clerics said Monday that Osama bin Laden's burial at sea was a violation of Islamic tradition that may further provoke militant calls for revenge attacks against American targets" http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1587659
No sea predators: "If a person dies on a ship and if there is no fear of the decay of the dead body and if there is no problem in retaining it for sometime on the ship, it should be kept on it and buried in the ground after reaching the land. Otherwise, after giving Ghusl, Hunut, Kafan and Namaz-e-Mayyit it should be lowered into the sea in a vessel of clay or with a weight tied to its feet. And as far as possible it should not be lowered at a point where it is eaten up immediately by the sea predators." http://www.seaservices.com/Muslim.htm
"Osama bin Laden's burial at sea was quickly criticised by Muslim scholars who claimed it had breached sharia law and warned that it may provoke calls for revenge attacks against US targets.
Others used the sea burial question to question whether he was dead at all, with doubts fuelled by the absence of authentic photographs of his corpse." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/sea-burial-osama-bin-laden
I think I would have preserved the body and invited world leaders to view it, and sent out alot of photographs to various terrorists with a note, "We know where you are."
My guess is
Submitted by misterbee241 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:11pm.
he was buried at sea so his grave would not become a rallying point or a terrorist mecca or some sort of holy spot that would encourage hadjj. Of course, cremation and scattered at sea would have been better.
Sea burial? Why not bring him
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:21pm.
Sea burial? Why not bring him here, to the US, bury him and arrest every Muslim that comes to visit?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
I have connections at Little Creek in VA from my time
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:32pm.
in the Silent Service...one detail that was left out to the report of his burial at sea was that the Navy SEALs had him tightly wrapped...in BACON!!!!
Take THAT, you twisted excuse for a human being. Sharia Law, my ass. I hope his 72 virgins were of the burly, been-in-prison-since-my-daddy-left-my-momma type, who will stick their tallywhacker in any cavity that holds still long enough.
Or was it 72 Viginians? Either way, it makes me smile.
JohnGalt, would not surprise
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:39pm.
JohnGalt, would not surprise me a bit, lol.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
HAHA! Awesome!
Submitted by ghidorah15 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:11pm.
I truly hope they did that - and better yet, that it becomes public knowledge. If that doesn't send a message to the terrorists, I'm not sure what will.
If we didn't bury him at sea...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:36pm.
...how else would he greet his "72 Sturgeons"???
Obama is all about politics...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:33pm.
nothing else. That's why it took him 16 hours do decided to go. Bush would have said "duh..yes go go go!" as soon as he knew. You can bet Obama also laid out the restrictions for the aftermath in an attempt to make the "USA! USA!"... look like an appeaser to the muslims (wonder why?). Bush on the otherhand, as Cindy pointed out, showed the bodies of Saddam's sons.
Prissy is right!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:49am.
"You sound more informed than most U.S. Congresspeople"
She still is! I dare say she is more mentally stable than half of the liberals in Washington.
She's the poster child for
Submitted by rbosque on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:38am.
She's the poster child for the mindless and hysterical left. She was a useful tool when Bush was in the WH, when she is of no further use the media darling becomes a liability and is discarded. How is this surprising? This is what Communists have been doing from the very beginning, exploiting useful idiots for their purposes then cast them aside, erase them from a picture or throw them into a gulag.
Deleted by misterbee241
Submitted by misterbee241 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:15pm.
Deleted.
Keith Olbiedog and Cindy Sheehan..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:06pm.
I'd expect Olbermann will be reaching out - upon his reading of her like-mind - and will be bringing her on as a regular on his FOK News show.
(;`> gary
Keith?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:26pm.
I can't tell you how much I haven't missed not hearing about Keith.
Will Cindy now start her own....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 12:35pm.
..."Deather Movement"???
She might be crazy ...
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 1:10pm.
and I do think Bin Laden is in fact truly dead, but doesn't anyone else think that the glorious story the media is feeding us is just somewhat off? I don't trust the media anymore than I trust politicians and the story about Bin Laden's death is just too convenient?
Is there an "-er" word for people like this?
Submitted by Phryj1 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:54pm.
You know, people like Sheehan and Allan Nairn with paranoid imperialist fantasies and anti-American and anti-military views?
May I suggest "Pinkers"?
Just a thought.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
steadfast/not a hypocrite
Submitted by right of way on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 6:01pm.
don't like the woman but i will say this about her, she has conviction and has stayed true to herself. unlike most on the left, she has stayed the course and cannot be called a hypocrite. but in the end, she's a moron. it's funny how we don't see anymore anti-war protestors on tv like we did when bush was in office. code pink and the now gang have really cooled off since jan. 2009.
NB is being mindless, yet again.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:30pm.
While I suspect that OBL is dead, I want to see proof. I don't trust the spooks. I don't trust Obama. I don't trust the press. It's not crazy or paranoid to want to see proof, and NewsBusters is being as stupid as Daily Kos.
Visions and Principles blog
What' Proof Was There?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:50pm.
Just for argument sake, what actual proof was there that man ever landed on the moon? What's your threshold where you accept proof? The pictures could have been faked. The moon rocks could have been collected from anywhere. If you accept that we landed on the moon, you are taking a leap of faith somewhere, be it large, or small.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Defend that...
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:56pm.
I doubt you can or will but a statement like that is BS. The story you are posting on has to do with the glorification of Sheehan during Bush vs. her being ignored during Obama. What the hell are you talking about?
Tenebrous, nwahs' brother, is on a roll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 2:06am.
Tenebrous: Markos is on the same page as NB Staff Both display stunning ignorance...
Tenebrous here: NewsBusters is being as stupid as Daily Kos.
You go girl. Keep insulting the website you post on. Duh. Winner!
---- Velocity and Propulsion blog
I suspect no proof would be
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:39am.
I suspect no proof would be satisfactory for you. You'd just come up with some pathetic excuse to dismiss it. I think you are just being stupid and insipid. Period.
It appears....
Submitted by saintknowitall on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:49pm.
..... that since Bush is out of office, Cindy isn't getting any funding from the DNC or Soros, so she is a little peeved right now at Obama. Nothing a few hundred thousand dollars wouldn't fix.
PS -
Submitted by saintknowitall on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:50pm.
I wonder when Code Stink will issue a statement?
Sheehan is beyond reproach . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:01pm.
. . . When she was the Left's new Joan of Arc, Maureen Dowd declared that being a gold star mother, Sheehan spoke with morale certitude. In other words, she's the final word. -- we have no morale standing to question her.
So, let the Democrats attack her for slamming Obama. Have at it.
Gal,
Submitted by Hog_Flambe on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:21pm.
At the least, like it or not, Sheehan has been consistent. Dowd, not so much ;-D
She should've stayed on the comics page...
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:22pm.
Oh, just great. Peppermint Patty is back among us...