Thursday was a bad day for anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.
First, she got booted from the ultra-liberal website Daily Kos (h/t Ace) due to her decision to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California).
Then, during a visit to Montgomery, Alabama, as part of her “Summer of Love 2007” tour, Cindy was confronted by a Bush supporter who actually asked a rather cogent question that frankly few on the left or in the media care to address: “What happens to Iraq after we leave?”
This prompted a somewhat predictable exchange wherein Sheehan answered questions with questions rather than address the likely horrific genocide that will follow a capricious American troop withdrawal (video available here with relevant section beginning at minute 3:50, partial transcript follows):
Sheehan: "If you'll be quiet, I will answer."
Vucovich: "Alright, say your piece, go ahead."
Sheehan: "How many Iraqi people in Iraq have you talked to? Zero! The people in Iraq want us out."
Vucovich: "So Saddam Hussein would be better?"
Sheehan: "The people in Iraq want us out."
Vucovich: "What happens in Iraq after we leave?"
(inaudible)
Sheehan: "I'm going to answer you if you'll be quiet. George Bush has killed 700,000 Iraqis."
Vucovich: "George Bush doesn't have anything to do with this."
From what I can tell, outside of Alabama and the blogosphere, few media reported this. Neither did they care about Sheehan’s announcement at Daily Kos earlier in the morning that she was being banned due to her intention to run against Pelosi:
I can't post here anymore because my potential run for Congress
is not on the Democratic ticket.I have been deeply grateful for all of your support over the years.
Your love and kindness helped me through lots of sleepless nights
at Camp Casey '05.If Speaker Pelosi does her constitutionally mandated duty and I don't run,
then I can come back and post.I know a lot of you are hostile towards my candidacy. Please
understand that I am doing it for your children and grandchildren
(and my surviving ones.)Love always,
Cindy
Potentially more interesting was the comments section wherein some Kossacks referred to Sheehan as a troll, and defended “management’s” warnings to Cindy as a result of DKos being a Democrat site created to support Democrats.
This seems somewhat laughable given Kossack efforts in 2006 to defeat Joe Lieberman, a longtime Democrat.
As Robert Stacy McCain pointed out at in the Washington Times’ Fishwrap blog Thursday:
Mrs. Sheehan is banned, but Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton is welcome at Daily Kos -- or, to be more precise, YearlyKos, the second annual "netroots" convention, which will be held this year in Chicago.
And, Allah at Hot Air accurately noted:
She failed the litmus test. And now, my friends, she must pay. Exit question: What happened to the dream of people-powered politics driving complacent establishment Democrats from office?
Good point. After all, Markos Moulitsas’ concept in “Crashing the Gate” was the following:
This book lays bare, with passion and precision, how ineffective, incompetent, and antiquated the Democratic Party establishment has become, and how it has failed to adapt and respond to new realities and challenges.
Right now, it seems that Pelosi and Clinton are the leaders of the ineffective, incompetent, and antiquated Democrat Party. Shouldn’t the netroots be welcoming challengers to these pathetic icons rather than banning them?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
If you follow the thread to t
July 13, 2007 - 09:45 ET by Ruths husband BenIf you follow the thread to the DailyKos it becomes apparent that Cindy was booted from that forum because she has announced as an independent. Kos is devoted to electing and supporting Democrats. That is the problem when you support an agenda not an idea. Once someone steps out of the agenda, they are demonized, often for the very same things they were lionized while in the fold. Follow the Ace link and see how vicious these folks can be when feeding on one of their own.
"Shouldn’t the netroot
July 13, 2007 - 09:48 ET by contrary"Shouldn’t the netroots be welcoming challengers to these pathetic icons rather than banning them?"
No, as the netroot organizations are more interested in furthering their own agenda anyway they can, and that means sucking up to whoever looks popular. If Sheehan were actually popular, with high voter attraction and not some crazed loon, they would dump Pelosi, et al. It is easy to do when the netroots have no principles
"What happens to Iraq af
July 13, 2007 - 09:50 ET by dscott"What happens to Iraq after we leave?” This question should be followed up with: "Do you really give a crap if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die if we pull out?
Never mind the other obvious questions since all we seem to do is ask emotional questions leaving long term GWOT strategy in the swamp of minutia. Noel, as I suggested on Brent's thread, we need to put it to Reid and the rest of the Dem leadership, over and over again, the central question until they answer it to the country's satisfaction: "What happens to Iraq after we leave?”
We need to challenge the MSM until they do their J-O-B to ask the questions like "What happens to Iraq after we leave?” and let the public decide for themselves if the answer is satisfactory.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
"Do you really give a cr
July 13, 2007 - 10:09 ET by Prester John"Do you really give a crap if hundreds of thousand of Iraqis die if we pull out?"
Of course Cindy and the Left don't give a crap. They don't care when thousands of people of color are killed by other people of color; they only care when it is Americans who kill terrorists of color, because then it is somehow a great crime against humanity.
To take your point a bit fu
July 13, 2007 - 10:25 ET by ArcherBTo take your point a bit further:
No cost is too great to defeat George Bush and those like him. This means that they would rather see America fail than GWB succeed. This is what BDS is all about. The lives of Iraqis and even Americans are a pittance when compared to this agenda.
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
I agree 100%. The kooks have
July 13, 2007 - 11:31 ET by ThisnThatI agree 100%. The kooks have openly declared Bush as public enemy #1. It's really, really hard for me to fathom this, other than coming to the conclusion that these people are truly anti- and un-American in all aspects of their delusional and limited mentality. They truly are the enemy within, and need to be marginalized as soon as possible.
"What happens to Iraq af
July 13, 2007 - 10:12 ET by drillanwr"What happens to Iraq after we leave?”
The Golden Egg the lib/leftist/socialist/antiwar/antiAmerican bunch are craving ... Mass slaughter to use as a political tool. "Look what Bush and the Republicans did!! Never trust them again! ONLY trust us!"
The Libs don't care- look at
July 13, 2007 - 22:05 ET by kathleenirishThe Libs don't care- look at what happened when they defunded the War effort in Viet Nam. 5,000,000 dead in southeast Asia, the rise of Pol Pot. Whatever. Didn't Carter say something about an "irrational' fear of communism? so, Iran and al-Queda are the new face of despots the Left can really get behind...and besides, Bush is the threat to peace, or didn't you hear the proclamations of the sainted Left? as long as they get political capital out of it, it's good for Dems when America goes down. "Screw the USA!": new DNC campaign slogan for 2008.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
The question is, especially o
July 13, 2007 - 10:35 ET by BinxlyThe question is, especially one the vietnam vets that support her will know all too well, 'is 2 million dead in a matter of months better than 700,000 in a matter of 4 years? (700,000 dead being a grossly disputed figure among even the crazed left as erring a bit much on the overexaggerating.)
My point is that if she cares only about casualty numbers, did she forget about the 2+ million South Vietnamese (and many overlooked Vietcong dissenters) that were MURDERED, yes MURDERED after we pulled out? So Bush is a dictator of the worst authoritarian nation in the world (the US) but North Vietnam and our new terrorist enemies, which BTW make GW look as liberal as Hil in comparison, are just our 'misunderstood friends?'
That's what I hate about Vietnam, people overlook WHY we lost. Political hinderances and 'PC pussy-footing' caused us to be restricted, no, banned even from bombing the fringe, unpopulated areas of Cambodia in which the Vietcong were routing their forces through in order to flank our men from behind. Cambodia knowingly allowed them to use their bordering territory to funnel forces through, but we, America, were not allowed to attack, set foot, hell, even THINK of doing anything to the vietcong if they were in Cambodian territory. We played a war where the odds were against us due to politics, much like the same 'hand tying' that Reid and Peluosi want to do to us now.
The only shame is, while this man's heart was in the right place, he makes many mistakes (Ill sign up today! Well, if hes gonna say that, he should, we do need more soldiers and sadly we are, if only slightly under recent recruitment goals.) However, the good thing is this proves, as you can see by the vets getting in his way of just trying to *talk* to Sheehan, that liberals are the ones to fear. They are the ones who want to make civil discourse and debate illegal. A conservative may shrug off a question or give a stereotypical agenda driven answer, but never have I seen the aggression that the left exudes when someone disagrees at all on the right.
Lord help us, if people watch this and STILL think Cyndi isn't crazy, and that her cause isn't just a selfish one anymore, a crusade to be 'the right one' then we're done for. This is no longer a fight of politics for her. Its not even one of principle. She disagrees and is convinced SHE has the end all be all answer. She is going to campaign and bug us all to death until she croaks or until we submit. I for one will still disagree on the day of her funeral. So I guess in this case, she better get busy moving on and shutting up, or get busy dying. (and no I'm not advocating her death, anyone's death, no matter how crazy they are, is a tragedy.)
Well, Binxly, you capture in
July 13, 2007 - 14:29 ET by Space CowboyWell, Binxly, you capture in a few paragraphs the essence of the dilemma that the U.S. faces in Iraq. Your frustration, as well as the frustration of most Americans, is palpable. And you, like many on this thread, want to put the target on Sheehan as the cause of all this.
As I look at the tragedy of the quagmire that we're stuck in, all I can say is Osama ben Forgotten is a strategic genius. He, as well as many in this country on both sides of the aisle, saw the dangers to America of getting caught in an insurgency in Iraq. Certainly all of Bush the Elder’s advisors warned against it, especially Colin Powell.
And OBF understood well the PR victory an American invasion (I’m sorry, did I forget the “coalition”?) and occupation of Iraq would be. Ben Forgotten was even given credit for aiding in the election of George Bush in ’04 by the CIA as detailed in Ron Suskind’s book, “The One Percent Doctrine”. They saw exactly what he was doing when he released that video days before the election.
You don’t have to look further than this thread or today’s headlines to see why this has worked out so well for Al Qaeda. They understood then that Bush was a gift that would keep on giving. The report released yesterday that claims Al Qaeda is stronger than ever supports OBF’s genius. They had almost no presence in Iraq until we invaded and, simultaneously, our invasion took resources that were being used to shut down Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and transfered them to Iraq allowing OBF to escape and the Taliban to regroup. Both Al Qaeda and the Taliban our on the offense and Afghanistan is another disaster slowly unfolding. America is caught in a trap in Iraq wher we’re damned if we leave and damned if we stay.
The question asked of Sheehan – “What will happen to the Iraqi people?” – is a good one for which no one knows the answer. Are they worse off with us Her assertion that the Iraqi people want us out is accurate. Polls have shown overwhelming support for that idea in Iraq. And our presence there will always fuel an insurgency – as any occupation does – so we will be as much a problem as a solution. The chance that Iraq will devolve into anarchy and become a haven for terrorists is very real. Those arguing for leaving have as many strong arguments as those that argue we should stay.
I come down reluctantly in the "leave" camp and I’ll leave you with part of the transcript from an interview with some American soldiers from yesterday’s Democracy Now! that decides it for me. This is a follow up to the recent piece in The Nation that interviewed 50 soldiers on the record about their experience in Iraq and it supports, in my mind, why we should get out of Iraq ASAP:
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Sergeant Westphal, we only have about thirty seconds left. I’d like to ask you: you went in in February 2004. Did you ever expect that we’d be in this situation now, more than three years later?
STAFF SGT. TIMOTHY JOHN WESTPHAL: I never imagined that America would ever get to this point. I never imagined that the American public would be so apathetic as they have been, in my estimation. A lot of them don’t listen to the stories we tell. There’s a reason that all these guys got together for this article, because they have a commitment to the truth, and we definitely want the truth to be out there, that America has brought terror to the country of Iraq, and that’s something that we have to deal with.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the US soldiers should be brought home now?
STAFF SGT. TIMOTHY JOHN WESTPHAL: Absolutely. You know, I support the United States military. I’m a soldier. I always will be. I’m tremendously proud of the men I served with. However, yes, I do believe that we need to bring our troops home right now, because all we’re doing is making more terrorists and more people who hate America.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/12/1335208
Reading these stories in the Democracy Now! transcript or The Nation article will break you heart. These poor guys have done their best and been caught in an impossible situation.
Look, I'll admit, part of me
July 13, 2007 - 15:12 ET by BinxlyLook, I'll admit, part of me is saying stay because I care about the people there, yet admittedly, part of me wants to stay as well because each day we don't have an attack here, is one day its worth the crap I have to defend against. I'd love if it was as simple as pulling out, but the problem is America is being flooded by foreign refugees and immigrants because they are the minority in their nation that WANTS democracy, liberty, and freedom. The reason I still believe our cause is a valiant one is in America you are free. Free to love, free to hate, free to apathy. America, however, cannot sustain every freedom loving human on Earth that has the heart and soul to understand that no man is ever born into privledge of deciding another man's fate. Iraq and much of the islamic world stands for everything against that principle. Islamofacism is the new enemy to liberty just how Communism and even before, authoritarianism was in our past.
Again, I would love to pull out and take all those unhappy and wishing for freedom with us, but we simply cannot sustain all these people ourselves. Our best bet is to expand the concept of freedom and help those without a voice, without power, to push forward and let it be known that NO nation has the right to full control of its people. That freedom is not just an American Principle, but a *human* principle, regardless of gender, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, or whether you think Coke or Pepsi is better.
That is why I will always support our efforts in Iraq. Freedom and democracy *will* succeed, but it is a long, and sadly, bloody road ahead for both sides.
Also, while there are some of our own troops like the ones noted who are against the war (and their argument holds a hell of alot more than mine since I've never served) but there are many more who think the war, right or wrong, what we are doing *now* over there (bringing and establishing a free, democratic Iraq) is the right thing to do. People were not created to be ruled over, they were created to work together. I think when the smoke clears decades from now, if we do what we can to support the idea of democracy, not necessarily war (and yes I believe at some point 'pulling out' is still support of democracy in Iraq) we will find it was all for the greater good.
Perhaps you disagree, and that is fine, but remember, its because of our freedom and democracy we wish to spread that we can disagree without one of us ending up dead or 'missing.'
Democracy Now-that is your heartbreaking source?
July 13, 2007 - 15:20 ET by terrigLook SpaceCowboy, have you ever seen their "television" show. We were treated to it three or four times a day on Oleo in Hawaii (the local yackity yack) station. If you have seen them, they really have nothing nice to say about the troops unless it's someone they find who feel like these guys. I don't consider them my brother's in arms because what I see them as doing is making things worse. Now, I've been out for awhile but I can tell you my active duty husband deplores these types too.
We are there, we need to finish the job so we're not back in 12 years. I don't know. We're still in Japan & Germany and how long has that war been over???????
Sheehan, didn't have an answe
July 13, 2007 - 09:53 ET by ForeverOnTheRightSheehan, didn't have an answer for Vucovich, so she answered the question with a question. So has she thought through every angle of what she believes, why she believes in it and the what the end result will be? Probably not.
Yep, and when ultra-liberals
July 13, 2007 - 09:59 ET by CapitalismRulesYep, and when ultra-liberals like Sheehan get stuck, what do they do? Just say George Bush, just say George Bush as if just by saying his name, they don't have to explain themselves or their policies. Why do you want to hurt American troops, their families and the Iraqi people Ms. Sheehan? Answer: George Bush, George Bush.
Some other questions I would
July 13, 2007 - 09:56 ET by BDSome other questions I would like to ask Mother Sheehan.
1.) Was your son living with you when he decided to enlist?
a.) If no, why not?
2.) Were you against your sons enlistment?
3.) Why did your son Re-enlist?
4.) Did you ever visit your son on a military post?
5.) Did you ever meet any of his friends while he was stationed at Fort Hood?
6.) Why do you think your son volunteered for the mission to rescue the stranded patrol when he was killed?
7.) How would you characterize the Mahdi Army extremists who lined up women and children and marched them into the line of fire for protection from US fire during the battle that claimed your sons life. Evil? Freedom firghters?
Cindy:1) the George Bush kill
July 13, 2007 - 10:04 ET by drillanwrCindy:
1) the George Bush killed 700, 000 innocent Iraqis is complete and total BS, in addition to being a bald-faced lie ... and you and the enemy in this war continue to spin it http://patdollard.com/2007/07/13/enemy-forcing-civilians-to-make-false-casualty-claims/
2) Have YOU ever talked to an Iraqi? Ever been to Iraq? Ever talked to our troops over there?
3) Time to share with the public those letters home from your son so we all can see what HE thought and felt about the war in Iraq he so bravely served and fought in. (I'm betting he is totally opposite from you)
4) Got yourself a pushy, black-shirted posse now, eh?
700,000
July 13, 2007 - 10:24 ET by OldSailor88The thing that really ticks me off about this B.S. 700,000 casualty business is the sheer numbers of it. Why don't people put a calculator to it.
War started on March, 20, 2003. That is 1210 days ago. So you take
Casualties: 700,000 DIVIDED BY DAYS 1210= 518.5 Civilian Casualties a day for three and a half years. A catastrophic number like this in reality would be plastered all over the news. Do we see this? Nope. Why doesn't someone put a stop to this madness?
Exactly! Even the cowardly ne
July 13, 2007 - 10:27 ET by drillanwrExactly! Even the cowardly news services hunkered down in their posh hotel rooms in the Green Zone would be able to see the piles of bodies from their windows.
SHOW ME THE BODIES!
700,000 casualties2 BILLION l
July 13, 2007 - 10:31 ET by Jerry700,000 casualties
2 BILLION live earth viewers
scientific concensus
Sheesh..
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Laughable isn't it? You ju
July 13, 2007 - 10:34 ET by MightyMouthLaughable isn't it? You just can't make this stuff up... wait, I guess you can!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
So in other words, Cindy, our
July 13, 2007 - 10:51 ET by Hero SquadSo in other words, Cindy, our 9/11 would've actually been a pretty good week in Iraq?
*****
"I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for a clown that gives a damn!" - Sticky the Clown
www.brookings.edu/iraqindex
July 13, 2007 - 11:38 ET by Right2thePointwww.brookings.edu/ir...
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED BY MONTH SINCE NOVEMBER 2006
November 2006 3,500
December 3,000
January 2007 3,000
February 2,500
March 2,750
April 2,890
May 3,000
June 2,600
...and how many of those were
July 13, 2007 - 12:33 ET by Hero Squad...and how many of those were actually killed due to American actions vs. insurgent actions?
*****
"I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for a clown that gives a damn!" - Sticky the Clown
I get estimates from icasualt
July 13, 2007 - 13:24 ET by FastEdI get estimates from icasualties.org -
November '06 - 1846
December '06 - 1752
January '07 - 1802
February '07 - 3014
March '07 - 2977
April '07 - 1821
May '07 - 1980
June '07 - 1255
The numbers include the Iraqi Security Forces and civilians - so I guess it depends where you get the info.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Look how Sheehan uses the lib
July 13, 2007 - 10:16 ET by GothampcLook how Sheehan uses the liberal's debate tactic of making wild assumptions.
Sheehan: "How many Iraqi people in Iraq have you talked to? Zero! The people in Iraq want us out."
How does Sheehan know what this man has or has not done?
And why is it necessary to talk to the people of Iraq? During WW2, did we talk to the Germans to ask them if they wanted Hitler removed?
And the Kurds have already made a big deal about how glad they are that we are there.
"Look how Sheehan uses t
July 13, 2007 - 10:29 ET by ForeverOnTheRight"Look how Sheehan uses the liberal's debate tactic of making wild assumptions." In my opinion, what your talking about, is just an imature emotional response, when you don't have a calm thought out response.
Yes, you are right. I'm jus
July 13, 2007 - 10:35 ET by GothampcYes, you are right.
I'm just used to watching people like Ann Coulter who never seem to make wild assumptions, but always back up what they say with a well thought out response.
I think I could at least resp
July 13, 2007 - 10:55 ET by ForeverOnTheRightI think I could at least respectfully disagree with a liberal if they didn't make wild assumptions like this, but had an intelligent response. I've seen local politicians discuss issues on a local PBS station. Typically the Democrat will not let the Republican finish their thought, but cut in and talk over the Republican. It’s immature, and rude. It’s another sign that they are loosing the “debate.”
"George Bush doesn't hav
July 13, 2007 - 10:19 ET by fendertele"George Bush doesn't have anything to do with this."
Yeah, right.
I think he was talking spec
July 13, 2007 - 10:23 ET by MightyMouthI think he was talking specifically about the question: "What happens to Iraq after we leave?".
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Well in the avenue of the arg
July 13, 2007 - 10:24 ET by CapitalismRulesWell in the avenue of the argument this guy was making, G.W. doesn't have anything to with what he was saying. Sure, W got us into the war, sure he went after the threat, but what happens when we leave? It does not matter who is office at the time. So if Nancy Pelosi becomes president, when she is asked point blank about what she is going to do on the war in Iraq, she'll just hide under her desk, put both fingers in her ears, rock back and forth and keep repeating George Bush, George Bush, George Bush........
"George Bush doesn't hav
July 13, 2007 - 10:31 ET by drillanwr"George Bush doesn't have anything to do with this."
Yeah, right.
He doesn't. He isn't the one calling for us to cut and run. Why? Because he knows exactly what would happen if we did. The question MUST be answered by those who are demanding cut and run from Iraq. They keep chanting Vietnam, Vietnam ... civilian slaughter is what they want ... they crave Iraqi blood.
Well, if Bush really wanted t
July 13, 2007 - 10:53 ET by fenderteleWell, if Bush really wanted to win this war he'd reinstitute the draft and make every eligible 18 year old available to fight it. We obviously have a shortage of troops there and recruitment numbers are steadily down. Let every 18 year old, both men and women get trained and be battle ready so we can finish this thing off.
And your news comes from??
July 13, 2007 - 10:55 ET by PawpawNAnd your news and thoughts on this come from where? This Army is better than any drafted army. You read and listen to too much propoganda from the MSM!!
Newsflash-federtele the professional military doesn't want you
July 13, 2007 - 11:00 ET by terrigWell, fendertele here is a bit of news for you. The professional military doesn't want losers in their ranks. They only want the winners who want to be there. It was that way when I was in and my husband and everyone else feels that way.
Your comment is an insult to
July 13, 2007 - 11:26 ET by fenderteleYour comment is an insult to veterans everywhere from every era who fought for our freedom.
Well Fender, you're the one w
July 13, 2007 - 11:30 ET by terrigWell Fender, you're the one who wants to bring back the draft, now, today. I said nothing about those who were drafted in previous wars did I? No, like the tool you are you misconstrued it. I was speaking of the professional military of today and how those who don't want to be there are not wanted there. People like you like to say there are other opportunities out there for kids. Well that's correct and if you don't want to serve don't, you're not needed or wanted. Okay, that's all I was saying. But you then again I was a volunteer and perhaps you weren't. I can respect that you went, my brother went and didn't come back. I was speaking in the present tense so get your panties or boxers our of a wad and quit with the false pretensions.
What Fender wants is Vietnam.
July 13, 2007 - 12:05 ET by dscottWhat Fender wants is Vietnam. Fender is frustrated with the average American not protesting a policy where they had agreed in principal was the best course of action at the time. Since people have a choice to go into the military, young people who are the principle targets of the draft, don't feel they are being sucked into someone else's (an older generation's) fight like in Vietnam.
So Fender and people like Rangel are trying to force young people into a situation (via the draft) not of their choosing in the hopes of getting them to back their position. Typical libs, forcing disinterested people minding their own business into something they don't want to be involved in. Sounds like Socialism to me. Only control freaks and creeps force people to do things in which they don't want to be involved. It's a very selfish thing to do. And btw- many draftees in Vietnam didn't want to be there and so they weren't about to perform on the level of competence required to win a war, much less slog it out with the VC.
On the other hand WWII was a totally different story, no opposition press or elected official would have had the audacity to behave as they do now, much less young people of the time who knew what happened at Pearl Harbor.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
fender, how would you know if
July 13, 2007 - 11:41 ET by bassndudefender, how would you know if a comment was an insult to veterans?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Just plain goofy
July 14, 2007 - 00:30 ET by Sua Sponte 75It's plain to see you don't have much of a clue concerning the military otherwise you would know the overwelming changes that occured with VOLAR and we went away from the draft. True, many draftees served, served proudly, however it's a different story when you have volunteers, people who not only want to be here, but constantly re-enlist, this was not the case with draftees. Look at any conflict and directly following a war the military ranks were decimated. So if you can't decern the differences, might be best just o move along.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
While your frustration is und
July 13, 2007 - 11:12 ET by CapitalismRulesWhile your frustration is understandable, your proposed solution is misplaced and more than likely it is because of what the TV folks want you to believe. We have a bunch of Iraqi militants and foreign fighters trying to push us out of Iraq to create an Islamic state, the barrier to this is our troops being there. Our guys believe in their mission, they believe in eachother and they are being harassed by cowards in civilian clothes, even if the draft came back and we sent a million troops over there, we'd still be bound by the same rules and regulations about targeting civilians that we as a noble nation have operated under in situations like these. So really the only thing that keeps this insurgency going are the PR victories won by killing innocent people- and who is handing out the trophies?.....the MSM!!!!
Well, if Bush really wanted t
July 13, 2007 - 11:50 ET by drillanwrWell, if Bush really wanted to win this war he'd reinstitute the draft and make every eligible 18 year old available to fight it. We obviously have a shortage of troops there and recruitment numbers are steadily down. Let every 18 year old, both men and women get trained and be battle ready so we can finish this thing off.
Ah, yes! There it is ... The Draft card ... It's the friggin' Joker in the Liberal deck.
You're wrong on the recruitment. Explain WHY troops are re-signing ... even while in Iraq.
And no thanks ... I'd rather have volunteers who know and understand and accept what they are signing on for, than say someone like you being forced into it ... And I believe if you ASK the military members they would all agree they wouldn't want to have someone (wearing a Che T-shirt) who was drafted and peeing their pants covering their asses in battle ...
"Explain WHY troops ar
July 13, 2007 - 11:57 ET by MightyMouth"Explain WHY troops are re-signing"
They may come back with "it's the bonuses" (which are pretty good btw). But I think its much more than that. There seems to be a genuine desire by many of our troops to finish the job they started. The money may be part of the decision, but I think there are a great number of troops that share the same vision as the president.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Fender has no replies just
July 13, 2007 - 12:02 ET by terrigFender has no replies just insults. That's the way though. As for bonuses, Officers don't get them unless special forces ones do. My husband didn't get out when he had the chance because he wanted to finish the job like most of the other people across the board do no matter what their rank.
Froma GAO report, January '07
July 13, 2007 - 13:37 ET by FastEdFroma GAO report, January '07 - " . . For example, the Army is experiencing a shortfall of mid-level officers, such as majors, because it commissioned fewer officers 10 years ago due to a post-Cold War force reduction. It projects a shortage of 3,000 or more officers annually through FY 2013. While the Army is implementing and considering initiatives to improve officer retention, the initiatives are not integrated and will not affect officer retention until at least 2009 or are unfunded." - seems the only shortage of personnel is in the officers corp - and that won't matter, since the demolibs will probably get rid of the military before then anyhow.
terrig - just think, you'll have your other half at home, and won't have to deal with these trolls anymore.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
As a current member of the US
July 13, 2007 - 17:12 ET by BDAs a current member of the US military, I must say I do not wish to have any sullen draftees standing in the ranks beside me.
"Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us. "
I think it's interesting that
July 13, 2007 - 10:24 ET by BruzillaI think it's interesting that I've visited or posted on a bunch of conservative, republican, libertarian, etc., forums, and I've never seen one of them ban someone for their beliefs. Granted, libs will get challenged and heckled, but it seems most "Right" forums actually want Lefties to post so it's not so boring always preaching to the choir. But sites like Daily Kos and DU will ban any non-believer in a second just for being there. I guess they never heard that screeching Hillary clip that Hannity always plays, where she rants about being able to debate.
Bruz
July 13, 2007 - 10:29 ET by Noel SheppardBruz,
Exactly. And, we actually do everything possible to keep our liberal posters. This includes sending them PMs and EMs to try to get them to tone down the hateful rhetoric so that they can remain members. Only when this fails is anyone banned here.
Think DK, DU, and HP can make such a claim? ns
You are correct Noel - we abs
July 13, 2007 - 10:38 ET by TruthMongerYou are correct Noel - we absolutely rock here:)!
Trick question: what is the opposite of Love? What is the opposite of Hate?
Gay haters unite!
I answered this already. The
July 13, 2007 - 15:42 ET by RESTLESS 1I answered this already. The answer to both is apathy.
I joined DU a couple of years
July 13, 2007 - 10:51 ET by BruzillaI joined DU a couple of years ago, and made one post. It said "Hi. I'm a Republican in Maryland and I think you all have some interesting views, and I look forward to discussing them with you."
That was my first and only post. The next day when I went to comment on something I read... ACCESS DENIED. So much for open and honest debate.
Oh why must they continue to
July 13, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Hero SquadOh why must they continue to hate people from Maryland? :-)
*****
"I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for a clown that gives a damn!" - Sticky the Clown
Well, Noel, you may feel that
July 13, 2007 - 14:47 ET by Space CowboyWell, Noel, you may feel that way but I guarantee you not everyone does. I get accused of being a "troll" constantly for nothing more than posting something that disagrees with the groupthink of NewsBusters. Makes me feel like they don't want you here unless you agree.
I'll make you feel wanted, C'
July 13, 2007 - 15:44 ET by RESTLESS 1I'll make you feel wanted, C'mon, gimme a hug. C'mon. ;>)
We Are Family.......Make it a
July 13, 2007 - 15:50 ET by bigtimerWe Are Family....
...Make it a huge group hug...
LOL...
Feel better SC?
I get accused of being a &q
July 13, 2007 - 15:50 ET by MightyMouthI get accused of being a "troll"
Hell, accusing you of being a troll is absurdly unfair to trolls.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
SC
July 13, 2007 - 19:26 ET by Noel SheppardSC,
There's a difference between members of a website not wanting you there and the people that run it feeling that way. After all, this is indeed a conservative site, yes? As such, liberal views are not going to be welcomed by most members, correct?
All I can do as someone that wants liberal members is try to make it as comfortable here for them as possible. However, I can't prevent liberals from being badgered as long as it doesn't include vulgarity or threats. Similarly, I don't stop libs from badgering cons unless it's over the top.
Politics unfortunately brings out the worst in people. Yet, what we do here different than most sites is at least we allow those with conflicting views to stay members as long as they don't get abusive. Can you name a liberal site that does that? ns
P.S. In this thread, I saw you engage Binxley and terrig without anybody calling you a troll. Is this a rarity?
Observations:The required Vie
July 13, 2007 - 10:26 ET by QueenMumObservations re: the video:
The required Vietnam vets.
The whiny whimps who question whether others have served and then boast that they haven't served because they don't believe in the Iraq war. How conveeeeeenient.
The standard "Why don't we go into Saudi Arabia, blah blah blah?" If they're anti-war, then this question shouldn't even be asked.
Sheehan speaks of receiving support for her congressional run from people all over the country. Does she understand that she's supposedly challenging Nancy Pelosi's seat and that this means she would be representing the people from a certain portion of California? Does she think that if she unseats Pelosi, she also automatically takes the position of Speaker? What a dope.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Ms. Sheehan,Our troops are la
July 13, 2007 - 10:26 ET by JerryMs. Sheehan,
Our troops are laying down their lives to PROTECT Iraqi citizens and you have the audacity to blame US for Iraqi deaths? How dare you.
Islamic terrorists are targeting Iraqi women and children and our soldiers are sacrificing their lives to prevent it and you have the unmittigating gall to say we are killing Iraqis?
The only Iraqis we are killing are TERRORISTS and SADAAM loyalists. Ms. Sheehan, you are a disgrace to the memory of your son and you are a disgrace to this nation and the principles in which it was founded.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
And the Banned Play On
July 13, 2007 - 10:30 ET by Lame CherryFrom the start of this I have advocated that Cindy Sheehan be pitied and have psychological Christian counselling instead of being used as a publicity whore by various sadistic interests. In noting that, there should be something included about what little dictators run some sites having such thin skin they ban people.
I was what I believe banned from Jihad Watch for daring to challenge Robert Spencer with the facts. He and Hugh Fitzgerald were "get of Iraq" with Fitzgerald calling President Bush demented and using the typical leftist diatribes.
Asking the question which Jake Tapper and others are now about what happens when one leaves Iraq along with pointing out the same problems in Israel that Aarron Klein is on World Net Daily had my blogs daily, "put up for review".
Websites are not interested in the Truth, but many times it comes down to selling books to keeping the salivating attack dogs rebbed up so they come back for the hit ads which make money.
I honestly do not see a whole lot of difference in many sites which make money off of specific driven issues as banning people of different opinions is banning people no matter who the webmasters claim to be. Vulgarity is one thing to ban people on, but banning people because they are out debating you is always a loosing proposition as all the intelligent bloggers soon leave.
Frankly KOS would do democrats a huge favor in exposing just what Nance has been up to. (Yes I know her name is Nancy, but in world of Perky, Babs, Di and other Affirmative Action placements she deserves a girls club name as she earned nothing.)
Pelosi in 6 months has driven Congressional support to record lows. Her biggest achievements are a failed coup against Hoyer, screwing up the Syrian Israeli dialogue, flying around so much they are thinking of limiting her provided jet and empowering terrorists.
I have stated from the beginning of this democratic debacle that they have grabbed defeat from their lying jaws of victory. There will be a terrorist hit on America sooner or later and when that happens democrats screwing around meeting with terrorists, electing junior Ellison to the House now calling Bush "Hitler" and all of that adds up to the American public will blame them as they have caused another hit.
If they would have just shut up and let things lay, handled some blue dog measures to improve people's lives and the oil flow problem, Iraq would have remained a Republican problem these democrats created.....now the Republicans are asking the question I started getting banned for 6 months ago and democrats have no response.
In the end, KOS should have kept the in need of help Sheehan on their site to hone Nance into a better leader of the House as she would have had to done more than jet around America blaming Bush. Now Nance and KOS have a growing problem in the Rosie factor of many who have blind love for Sheehan which will transfer to votes.
What I have not looked up but would be interested in seeing, just what are the voting stats in Pelosi's district, because with the kook fringe Sheehan might drain off, Madame Speaker might be back to Madame Housefrau in 2008 with a Republican picking up the win.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
My husband found these somewh
July 13, 2007 - 10:32 ET by HelenSMy husband found these somewhere. I wish I had a link! Maybe they're bogus but I love them. Anyway, these are so cool and if anyone knows if they're legit and where any might be had, I am definitely in the market for several!
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
LOL! Those are great!When a
July 13, 2007 - 10:34 ET by JerryLOL! Those are great!
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
And the libs say there is no
July 13, 2007 - 14:05 ET by FastEdAnd the libs say there is no humor among conservatives. (Wonder what happened to "I'd walk a mile to smoke a camel"
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
What happened when we left Vi
July 13, 2007 - 10:39 ET by fenderteleWhat happened when we left Vietnam? Like Chertoff, my gut feeling is this war will end the same way. We'll leave under fire, pulling soldiers off of rooftops and ultimately, our country will be flooded with Iraqi refugees. Leaving a minimum number of soldiers there to "keep the peace" would be the worst thing we can do.
She lost her son in a war tha
July 13, 2007 - 10:49 ET by USnotU.S.She lost her son in a war that no one can actually come out and justify. Now she's treated as a "rag head". I understand even a Scotsman can be called a raghead in the US nowadays.
Give her a break!
Stop asking questions aboiut what will happen when the US pulls out. It wasn't important before. Most of you can't even agree why you/we went there in the first place.
1 Where are the WMDs?
2 Saddam's dead
3 Osama isn't there.
4 Too many soldiers are dying, and many people seem too happy to send cannon fodder.
5 Let's keep pretending it's not about oil.
Newsflash USnotUS-Casey Sheehan isn't the only one who died
July 13, 2007 - 10:54 ET by terrigHere's a newsflash for you, there are a number of Gold Star families that would like to smack Cindy in the face but they are not heard from are they? Case re-enlisted and volunteered to go back so she should respect his decision as should you but I can tell you're an enlightened liberal toad so you know it all right?
Well, since you have all the answers in your little diatribe let me answer some of your faux questions.
1) WMD's are most likely in Syria as there were satellite images of trucks heading in that direction shortly before the war. Also, guess you forgot the late 80's when the Kurds were gassed by maybe you were still in diapers then.
2) So what if he's dead, you forgot Uday & Qusay are however they spelled their names.
3) Who said Osama was there?
4) Guess you'd call my husband "cannon fodder"? What an arrogant arse you are.
5) Where's the cheap gas if it's about oil?
So nice to be lectured to by a liberal goon who doesn't like the direction the US is going in. I didn't like it in the 90's either. So put that in your bong and smoke it.
I think this particular hate
July 13, 2007 - 11:02 ET by USnotU.S.I think this particular hate site needs a bit more focus!
Outside the US, we can all see it's another Vietnam. Inside the US, you see it differently. Pull out, and save your kids.
Don't you love your kids?
USnotUS the world traveler and authority on foreign affairs
July 13, 2007 - 11:04 ET by terrigHey Knucklehead, I love my children and my husband who serves in the US Army and has been there three times. He loves his children so much he doesn't want his son to have to go there 16 years from now.
I have traveled outside the US and really as long as you try to speak their language I don't run into the hatred you do. Seems you're the one with the hateful chip on your liberal toadie shoulder.
We care about our kids more t
July 13, 2007 - 11:08 ET by drillanwrWe care about our kids more than you can even imagine. We ... *gasp* ... TRUST and RESPECT their decisions as adults to sign up for the military and dedicate themselves to loyalty, honor, and duty.
Outside the US?? 10 Of course you would see another Vietnam. But your ideas about Vietnam are completely wrong to begin with. Vietnam? That is exactly what the left has been trying desperately to turn this into.
FYI: THIS is not a hate site. Simply because you make a remark and others debate or counter your opinion, especially with facts. I am so frakkin' sick and tired of your side labeling an oppos