Redstate

awful because he called the poor grieving mother a media whore" meme?

I always wondered how people could afford to be 24/7 war protestors, guess this explains it.

. . .to all of this.  I've experienced no guilt about opening up with both rhetorical barrels on Mother Sheehan because of the company she willingly keeps--starting with Michael "Ex-Baathist Scum Are Just Like The Minutemen" Moore and moving on down the line--and at this point, given the incredible filth that has come from her own mouth and keyboard, I have no particular hesitation about similarly opening up on the allegedly more "moderate" antiwar activists who choose to lend aid and comfort to her whole sick sideshow.  It's appropriate that they're all congregating at an ANSWER-organized event:  they've become one big group of cheerleaders for the enemies of the human race.  I find it impossible to feel quite the degree of contempt that they all deserve for their words and actions, and it's probably just as well, as it would undoubtedly be toxic to human beings.

How is this use of costly PR/marketing consultants by the left any different from what the right does (whether is W's administration or the Army (which I wouldn't consider part of the right, just in general mind you), etc.)?

Appreciate it.

I'm still not convinced that her motivation to protest is fame. The media has latched on to her for their gain. Unfortunately for her, the media has dampened her message. Although I don't think she speaks for the entire left or even anti-war Americans, I do think she is within her rights to express what she believes is right or wrong. I was skeptical about her at first, but she has been resilient despite criticism from the right. I don't blame anyone for being skeptical of her. I guess the point of my comment is that redstate, these days, is covering her agenda moreso than even dailykos. I can't help but wonder if such coverage will help her cause.

She is definitely a significant voice against the war. She is clearly out to make Bush and his war look bad. The war in Iraq, in my opinion, isn't going very well. All the successes we have had there (Iraqi Constitution, Iraq Army training, etc) doesn't mean anything if our boys continue to get killed daily. If we look back several years, we can see that Henry Hyde and Ken Starr were both actively seeking to impeach Clinton and make his entire family look bad. If we compare both offensives, I think Sheehan has a nobler cause.

have some documented evidence of similar tactics used by right-wing to prop-up lunatics who have gone well past their allotted 15-mintes, right?

After all, to suggest otherwise would open you up to the impolite charge of trolling - something that we would hate to see after someone's first post here.

We'll await your evidence.  Take your time.

Oh and BTW, equating this particular Administration with "the right" on this particular web site will get you laughed at - often.

Costly PR efforts by the left become major media events. Costly PR efforts by the right are tossed onto the cutting room floor by the Democratic Party activists who pose as our "journalists."

Thank you for asking.

It is always nobler to work against the interests of your country and Western Civilization than to go after a mere perjurer.

I was skeptical about her at first, but she has been resilient despite criticism from the right. I don't blame anyone for being skeptical of her.

...

She is definitely a significant voice against the war.

...

She is clearly out to make Bush and his war look bad. The war in Iraq, in my opinion, isn't going very well. All the successes we have had there (Iraqi Constitution, Iraq Army training, etc) doesn't mean anything if our boys continue to get killed daily. If we look back several years, we can see that Henry Hyde and Ken Starr were both actively seeking to impeach Clinton and make his entire family look bad. If we compare both offensives, I think Sheehan has a nobler cause.

(Emphasis added.)

Hi. When you came here, you clearly missed a few things. One was that this is not, in fact, a general discussion board; it is a Republican web site. If you're going to stick around and disagree, might I suggest -- indeed, demand -- that you keep your audience in mind? As you're clearly a dKurser, think of this as, snicker, framing: Word this silliness one way, we'll ignore you or engage you. Word it another, and the door swings wide open, then closes with a final slam once you're on the other side.

Your choice.

Can't it be argued that only half the country thinks the war is in the country's interests? The polls show declining support for the war. While her protest may hurt us somehow (can't quite see how), I defend her right to speak. If we don't protect her right, then how can we tell other countries to embrace democracy and freedom?

I don't see her right to speak as being under attack.

In the second, if we do have a war then what she is doing is working against the successful prosecution of that war. There is a techical term for that, but I wouldn't want to bother you with it as it might be seen as not "defending" her rights. To heck with the rights of the 130,000 troops whose lives are made a bit more dangerous by her activities.

or the most inept moby ever to grace our board.

This is still America and Cindy Sheehan can protest a war she considers illegal, the problem I have with redstate and other conservative criticisms is it is not about what she says it is rather a narrow interpretation of her motives. I think no one really know what motivates any of us so stick to the reasons for war if you want to remain relevant.

But is it also the kettle calling....

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/04
927120.asp

"Hi. When you came here, you clearly missed a few things. One was that this is not, in fact, a general discussion board; it is a Republican web site. If you're going to stick around and disagree, might I suggest -- indeed, demand -- that you keep your audience in mind? As you're clearly a dKurser, think of this as, snicker, framing: Word this silliness one way, we'll ignore you or engage you. Word it another, and the door swings wide open, then closes with a final slam once you're on the other side."

With all due respect Thomas, I don't think I sound like a troll at all. Perhaps my choice of words make you feel uneasy, and I apologize if they do so. I understand that I'm a guest here, and I will surely try to be more "politically correct" for you. But honestly, this isn't an attempt to troll or to spew out liberal talking points. This is just my opinion. Ignore it if you must. If it isn't possible to overlook these comments, then I will gladly leave this community. Just don't start calling me a troll.

(1) Try to stay logically connected to the topic at hand.

(2) Tone is important (liberal).

(3) This threadjack ends here and now. Bad enough you can't make a logical argument, but sudden, rampaging non-sequiturs mark a quick downhill run.

how her protest endangers our troops. If anything, the WAR has endangered our troops. Questionable planning has endangerd our troops. But I'll just shut up there for the purpose of being politically correct.

I'm sure it doesn't seem like trolling to you. It seems like trolling to us. Note the bolded phrases; if you can't see why that makes you seem like a liberal Talking Points machine ("Bush's war," indeed), then I suspect your tenure here will be limited at any rate.

I was skeptical about her at first, but she has been resilient despite criticism from the right. I don't blame anyone for being skeptical of her. I guess the point of my comment is that redstate, these days, is covering her agenda moreso than even dailykos. I can't help but wonder if such coverage will help her cause

Resilient?  On the rare occasion when a non-lib journalist asks her a tough question (e.g. about her positive comments following the first meeting with President Bush), she blows them off without answering and ends the interview.  Of course, she answers all the tough questions from the MSM, such as....

OTH we haven't heard much about her since her call for the President to end his occupation of New Orleans -- and that's too bad.  As someone else said, CNN should give her a show of her own; I'll bet the RNC would chip in for a share of the expenses.

Got it! I apologize for using "Bush and his war". I always thought one could say that because he initiated it. But I don't want to be disrespectful, so I'll watch my mouth.

Just one question, why is such a phrase frowned upon here?

The Sierra Club (on the Left); the NRA (on the Right) are genuine grassroots organizations. They depend on their members support, both financial and political, to achieve their well articulated political aims. They have millions of middle class members who care passionately about their concerns and support them in the voting booth and checkbook.

By contrast, the "astro-turfing" agenda of wealthy contributors ginning up the Media to present this "movement" as a genuine grassroots article instead of merely a gussied up "ordinary person" presented by big money and media as the voice of the ordinary American.

What enrages the Left is that they cannot find a Howard Jarvis or other grassroots person, their activists tend to be Rob Reiner or Warren Beatty or Sean Penn, who hardly connect with the average person. Hence "Mother Sheehan." Yeesh.

Should tell you something.

Sheehan has called New Orleans "occupied" and wants the National Guard out of New Orleans. She's calling for Bush to be tried for War Crimes. She has no animosity towards the Sadrist militiamen who killed her son and has come very close to calling the murder of Casey Sheehan justified. She's said she hates George Bush with a burning passion. She's raved on and on about how Israel manipulated the US into the Iraq War to make them safer. She's said "the jews" Control US politics. She's accused the US of waging "nuclear war" in Iraq (a reference I believe to depleted uranium munitions in the First Gulf War 1991). Cindy Sheehan has called America an "imperialist" nation that is a "cancer upon the world." Cindy Sheehan believes that the proper response to terrorism is peace, not even law enforcment. Cindy Sheehan opposes the existence of the military and military recruiting. Cindy Sheehan has praised convicted terrorist aider Lynne Stewart as her "Atticus Finch."

These views when published and brought to the attention of the mainstream American repel them. They make Sheehan's comments look lunatic and make the Democratic Party look like a bunch of crazy, anti-American, military loathing, lunatics.

This is why Republican Sites love her and post her every word. And why the Media and Dems have tried their best to erase her memory.

ever come up with an argument about anything that you do not compare back to Clinton? Is every part of your life just one moral equivalent comparison after another. Have you ever considered establishing some core values against which to test a concept for right or wrong? Reading your comments is like staring at oatmeal.

haha i love that the image's filename is media_whore.jpg

"Got it! I apologize for using "Bush and his war". I always thought one could say that because he initiated it. "

You just don't know when to quit, do you?

"What enrages the Left is that they cannot find a Howard Jarvis or other grassroots person, their activists tend to be Rob Reiner or Warren Beatty or Sean Penn, who hardly connect with the average person. Hence "Mother Sheehan." Yeesh."

"This is why Republican Sites love her and post her every word. And why the Media and Dems have tried their best to erase her memory."

Seems like you want it both ways. Are the Dems and MSM trying to erase her memory or are they backing her because of her grass roots apeal? If the Media was trying to wash their hands of her it seems unlikely that you would have new ammo (her comments about New O.) to use against her and the anit-war movement.

 

In that Sheehan has said, over and over again:

• America deserved 9/11 for it's "sins" mainly supporting Israel and thus justified the attack




• Immediate withdrawal from Iraq AND Afghanistan is the only solution




• If we apologize in some form (usually termed "engaging") Osama he will be nice to us and not kill us any more




• Iraq was better off with Saddam, and Afghanistan better off with the Taliban




• Any use of force by the US is illegal and immoral, and deserves to be treated as a war crime, while anything Osama or his minions do is a "war of liberation" and thus good.

This program is basically what Moveon, Kos, ANSWER, Hollywood, and most of the Democratic Party have said about the War in general. They don't offer any realistic alternatives to Bush's policy. What to do about bin Laden? What to do about Al Qaeda? What to do about Iran and their nukes? What to do about the global jihadist movement which wants a world-wide Islamic Caliphate ruling EVERYONE and intends to kill enough Westerners AND Muslims to get it?

I personally would LOVE an alternative to endless attrition warfare, even though the death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan, tragic as it is, does not compare to Normandy (50,000 plus dead from D-Day to the German collapse); or the Bulge (another 55,000); or Okinawa (22,000 dead plus 110,000 civilians dead and about the same Japanese troops dead). But I see NOTHING on offer from the anti-War movement and Sheehan other than "America is evil and it's all America's fault."

What does the Peace Movement have to offer? Basically therapeutic participation where various aging 1968 boomers offload their "sins" onto some GWB scapegoat (and the "sheeple" etc aka the Average American whom they being "special" loathe). They assume that all the badness in the world is the fault of rich white men and refuse to deal with the world as it is. Bin Laden ultimately doesn't care much about us. He wants us dead of course as a barrier to his goals but other than that we are totally irrelevant to his dreams of World Wide Conquest. The idea that he can be appeased or cozened is ludicrous to anyone who's actually spent even five minutes reading the man's own words in his 1996 Declaration of War or his 1998 Fatwa. Google is your friend here. I suggest you actually read his stuff. It's like Mein Kampf filtered through Islam. Read his own words. Seriously.

Over and over again the current ANSWER/Moveon/Sheehan folks are like a bad acid flashback to 1968. Vietnam was an optional proxy war set against the Cold War struggle. Ultimately it did not matter as the struggle was maintained by a balance of nuclear power. Anyone who thinks history will blindly repeat itself is frankly, not very serious. Ho Chi Minh may have been a nasty dicator, but he had no ambitions to "destroy America" on the road to world wide conquest as religious duty, seeing himself as Mohammed's Successor as "God's Shadow on Earth" aka the Caliph. Ho didn't go on and on about the "catastrophe" of 1924 or the abolishing of the Caliphate by Kemal Ataturk. Ho Chi Minh did not obsess about "recovering al Andulus" aka Moorish Spain. Once Ho and his successors conquered South Vietnam and conducted their purges, turning the country into one giant Gulag, they contented themselves with fighting the Chinese and Pol Pot (even did a modicum of good by getting rid of Pot from power and stopping the genocide).

Repeating Iraq=Vietnam is like saying Vietnam was WWII. Neither is very accuarate, and no history does not repeat itself. The Peace Movement advocates essentially surrender to bin Laden and turning two nations (Iraq, Afghanistan) over to him as his own personal fiefdom. I suggest that is a non-starter with the American People and hopefully will forever remain so.

The comparisons to the German-American Bund or Father Coughlin in 1942 are IMHO quite accurate. Objectively counseling surrender to an enemy sworn to destroy us is IMHO the definition of treason. It is also no accident that Stormfront, David Duke, and the Klan have enthusiastically supported Sheehan.

Just one question, why is such a phrase frowned upon here?

Welcome to the devil's den. You've gotta learn to pick your words and your battles if you want to hang around here. It's much easier to be a "contrarian with a twist" at left wing pages since for the most part they'll either just ignore you or humor your points (and for the sake of the RS'ers, yes, sometimes respond with incredibly stupid and poorly thought out reactions).

Here, they just kill you. Well your account at least. ;)

I gotta admit, I don't feel nearly as challenged holding the liberals accountable nearly as much since generally they get more into the idea of debating with opposite minded people, no matter how  much they get annoyed by them. Around here they would prefer it if those that don't support the general cause simply didn't exist, or exist out of sight and out of mind.

To this group's credit, I think the left hurts itself sometimes by trying to be too open minded and let stupid ideas spread in the name of "fairness". But I think the right hurts itself by being too rigid. Whatt'ya gonna do? :)

Being a conservative at heart, I feel very strongly that the current administration has strayed extremely far from true conservative ideals and it frightens me that I find myself siding more often with the opponents of conservatives than the supporters recently. Not in ideals, but in their assessment of where we are right now as a nation. I don't agree with what is likely to be their desired course of action, but I agree with their sentiment that what we're doing right now is very bad for all of us in the long run. I've always felt you must hold all political leadership with an eye of skepticism, which is why these days I find myself on the other end of the discussion with the Red Stater's. I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but I think a great deal of delusion and mania has perpetuated both parties and it has me saddened. So I do my best to point out when I think either side has gone signficantly too far if I feel I have a solid piece of ground to stand on.

But that's a long way from answering your question. The people here feel the war is America's war... and they are right because most of America supported it going in. Just because sentiment has shifted dramatically doesn't mean people can now act like it's not their responsibility.

Those of us who were against it from the start may not feel it's "our" war... but it is America's war and so to call it "Bush and his war" is to be dishonest with how we got there in the first place. It doesn't matter if anyone believes we got there on mis-information... both sides of the fence still voted to allow it to progress and so now we all have to live with it and figure out the best course of action to take next.

values, what the right did to Clinton was wrong (make him look bad), and what the left is trying to do to Bush (make him look bad) is also wrong.  I find both sides of the aisle distasteful.  I'm not sure if comparisons to Clinton should be avoided.  He was the most recent Democratic president, and examples drawn from his terms are within the living memories of many people.  What's good for the goose really is good for the gander.  I agree that both sides should be held to one standard, and I think that standard should be rather strict.

Well then, you'll also enjoy media_whore2.jpg.

on himself by his personal behavior as opposed to his policy decisions. If you run with crooks as a governor, be accused groping/seducing/raping women, have an affair, as the POTUS with a 20 yearold intern in the Oval Office, look in the camera and lie and then lie to a GJ, I think you have made yourself "look bad". On the otherhand, the left doesn't like GWB policies so they attack him personally.

...doesn't repeat itself... but it often rhymes."

came forward and proved what the left has been saying, that Bush lied to get us into a war, it would seem to a far worse lie by any standard than Clinton lying about his personal, albeit immoral, activities.

that it can only be classified as Kos Krap. "Bush lied to get us into a war"

It's because when we go to war, we go to war as a nation. Unless, of course, Korea was Truman's War, Vietnam Johnson's War, World War I Wilson's War, and the Civil War Lincoln's War.

The idea that this is "Bush's War" ignores the fact that he sent men to war with Congressional authorization; in other words, both elected branches concurred in the war. Agree or disagree, it's "our war." Were it merely "his war," and were he actively waging war against Congress's wishes, there would be remedies for that.

As for this:

I gotta admit, I don't feel nearly as challenged holding the liberals accountable nearly as much since generally they get more into the idea of debating with opposite minded people, no matter how  much they get annoyed by them. Around here they would prefer it if those that don't support the general cause simply didn't exist, or exist out of sight and out of mind.

Well, more like "we get tired of hearing the same nonsense day after day, and we have day jobs, and we'd at least prefer that the nonsense be offered politely in our house." But whatever floats your boat.

I'm a whacky left wing liberal Democrat, and so far haven't been erased or even asked to tone down my viewpoint.

I can respect the moderator's desire to have the liberal viewpoint advanced in a respectful manner.  Overall, the quality of dialogue is a lot better here than on most of the blogs of the left.  I don't agree with a lot of it, and think there's a bit of a double standard with regards to obnoxious comments being made about the left (e.g. calling Ted Kennedy a drunk or a wino) versus banning people for making similar comments about those on the right, but that's a minor quibble in the context of a site created for Republicans.

IF what the left is saying turns out to be true...I already stipulated it came from the left.  The right may not like to hear certain things, but as an independent I listen to everybody.  The left's favorite point right now is the "intelligence was fixed around policy." They take that statement as tantamount to an admission of lying.  I will only say that intelligence has been fixed around polcy forever, under presidents of any party.  And if it's not directly fixed around policy, then it's fixed around assumptions, one of the most famous being the assumption that Japanese planes did not have the capacity to fly to Hawaii so those blips on the radar could not possibly have been Japanese.  Another one that I am very very familiar with is the assumption (belief) that the Chinese would not dare enter Vietnam, thus the military intelligence denial that Chinese tanks were in fact entering Vietnam in 1979.  The tank rolled through Vietnam for 8 hours before the American brass was willing to admit it.

Does it matter?  Is it relevant to the discussion of the John Roberts hearings?

I don't intend to discuss this anymore, because it's not an area where I think I'm likely to make any headway, because the pointlessness of ad hominem attacks can be found many other places on the Internet and in basic logic classes, and because a discussion defending the use of such labels is almost as degrading as the labels themselves.

....perhaps you should report to the Pentagon and offer your services.  Don't believe the hype, my friend.  

If you really wanted to know the truth, its easy enough to access.  But something tells me that won't work for you because, after all, that would take effort.

I could buy an expresso at Starbucks for twice what your 'expertise' is worth.

Please hush and let the grown-ups conduct their business.

RE: Bush's War

You just repeated my point to the original poster almost exactly. You just switched up the words.

Well, more like "we get tired of hearing the same nonsense day after day, and we have day jobs, and we'd at least prefer that the nonsense be offered politely in our house." But whatever floats your boat.

I think you guys are quite rude sometimes. But I understand where you are coming from.

This next comment is entirely coming from my perspective... I know you won't agree and I understand... but this is simply my perspective as a "contrarian conservative" if you will.

I personally think you guys are just as rude, if not moreso, to people that you don't agree with around here than they are to you. I understand this is a Republican page, but the name calling and condecending tones I see tossed around are shocking sometimes. It's done without colorful language, but to me it's still exceptionally rude.

I fully understand your desire to keep the conversation within a certain degree of civility as well as focused on the direction you want to see things go. That's entirely your perogative and I support it. Which is why I work hard to make sure when I do get involved I understand who is going to be reading it.

Overall, the quality of dialogue is a lot better here than on most of the blogs of the left.

I agree 100%. You have to sift through a lot more noise on the lefty blogs to get to debates of substance.

If it turns out to be true, you will be made a Hero Of The People. In the meantime, if you keep pounding away, reiterating, revisiting, or otherwise operating a keyboard in such manner as to make the same basic idea appear even one more time in this thread, you will be dispatched to The Pile™.

It is not that we don't wish to "hear" or "debate" your fine talking point. It is that we tired of this particular talking point months ago. Now we want to talk about who or what is putting up the money to hype and stage what promises to be an extremely large antiwar demonstration that looks, smells, and quacks like something out of the 1970's.

...of the point of the upcoming protest.

I've even seen some of the lefty bloggers asking the same question and say they have no intention of supporting it.

I can't seem to find a consistent answer (haha, ahh... I kill me) as to what it is other than... well... to be a really really big protest.

I think Cindy could help herself a lot if she would just outright say "I'm working with <insert list of groups here> to help coordinate, fund, and promote <insert agenda here>... and this is what we believe should be happening" instead of trying to stick 100% with the "I'm just a single person making a stand".

Dunno, this should prove to be an interesting week, though thankfully I will be blissfully busy and will be able to miss the deluge of screaching I'm expecting to see pouring out of both sides of the fence.

The Left is wrong, or, perhaps it is a bother to be trivialized with such things as national security.  

Wherever the chips may fall, let the patriot side toward the betterment of his fellow countryman, and let the traitorous be hanged.

Time to choose sides.

Her statements have showed up on various anti-American websites, which encourage people to shoot American soldiers. Two specific publications which you can link to are al Basrah and JihadUnspun. If you don't google, you can link to them here: http://cuppapolitics.blogspot.com/2005/08/mother-sheehans-very-special.html

So, does she have the right to speak out? You bet. Do we have the right to point out that she is FUBAR. Yup. And ... should somebody consider the notion that her words are likely to hand Al Quada a propaganda line? Absolutely.

Heck, I hope she keeps talking and chattering away ... she's asking Bush to pull the troops out of occupied New Orleans now. THAT'LL help the anti war moonbats loads.

I mean, really.  

I don't agree all the time with the guys who own this site either.  

But when folks start throwing out crap like "Bush's war", even my 2nd grader could see they are here to regurgitate liberal talking points, not honestly debate.

"Seems like you want it both ways. Are the Dems and MSM trying to erase her memory or are they backing her because of her grass roots apeal? If the Media was trying to wash their hands of her it seems unlikely that you would have new ammo (her comments about New O.) to use against her and the anit-war movement."

The Dems/MSM have pulled the plug on Cindy because she's a raving lunatic, as shown by her remarks on new Orleans.  Said remarks appeared on Michael Moore's website from whence they were picked up by Drudge & disseminated thru the blogosphere, talk radio etc.  So, we did not find out about Cindy's remarks from the MSM (NYTimes etc) but from alternative media.  

As someone else here pointed out, we love Cindy and think her remarks should be widely disseminated.  The MSM and the Dems have the opposite agenda, since they have figured out that association with her 'grassroots apeal" will damage them.  Therefore they have dropped her (no mention on the Sunday shows for example). Luckily we're not dependent on the MSM for information or we would be as clueless as, well, you are.

Hope that clears it up for you!  

Did you take the time to read my response where I pointed out the person was wrong for saying "Bush's war" and giving an explanation for why it was wrong? I haven't agreed with the war from the start, but I understand it's not "Bush's war".

Or where I made the effort to explain even further than Thomas had how if a person is going to participate here they have to take into account the people that are going to read their posts?

I do my best to fully read and absorb what a person is saying in their posts. I only ask that the same be done in return.

Sometimes I think being rude is completely justified and the only tool capable of getting a point across effectively. So when I say that sometimes I think the people here are even ruder, I'm not even offering my opinion on if I think it's the right thing to do or not. :)

Dems have always tried to gin up the Dem equivalent of Howard Jarvis. This always fails because there is no there there. Jarvis had a single issue he cared about (property taxes) and created an organization to push that agenda. An agenda which resonated and connected with average people in California, hence Prop 13. Dems "populist" figures by contrast are totally created by big money liberals.

Hence the backing of Sheehan, and promotion of the Circus at Crawford, until too many things popped up about her. With the information about her various lunatic statements that are incontrovertable and if publicized, would decisively turn people away from the Dems and the anti-War movement, the Media has largely dropped her. There is only so much Media filtering that can be done until someone breaks from the pack to get the scoop ("Sheehan blames Jews! Sheehan Calls America a Cancer on the World!").

WHY is "Mother Sheehan" not on the front pages anymore? Because she has changed into a net liability. No matter how many times her handlers try to keep her on message she does the equivalent of couch jumping and declaring her love for Katie Holmes.

Mother Sheehan's New Orleans comments were put on Michael Moore's blog by Mother Sheehan herself. That this has co-incided with the Media dropping Mother Sheehan should tell you something.

You know, Clinton and Bush's CIA Director who said the case for WMDs was a "slam dunk?" Or Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, and other world leaders who also believed Saddam had WMDs?

We still have ZERO reasons WHY Saddam did not let the inspectors in if he was just a kite-flying innocent. I mean, if there was nothing to hide, why not let the inspectors in? Why kick them out? Why provoke that War Mongerer Bill Clinton into a bombing campaign Desert Fox 1998-99 over kicking the Inspectors out (and never letting them return?)

We definitely want to keep publicizing this poor woman's incoherent ramblings since they dramatize the weirdness of the Far Left. To the Democrats and the press, she's radioactive- everyone here who made that point is dead on. After Katrina, the Dems are looking for things that make them look smart, not bizarre (ergo the Brazile thing).

Still, I'm intrigued by the amount of trolling this has attracted on our board. Maybe it's Sunday night and there's nothing good on television (not that there ever is), but the Lefties are really heated up about Cindy in the Ditch.

I have some first-hand reports of her appearances on this bus trip (from attendees, which tells you they are lefties). It's pretty pathetic stuff. She is not a dynamic or compelling individual. Our friends on the Left are drinking some powerful Kool-Aid.

Follow your opponent's passion: it's the key to both his strength and his weakness.

The MSM went back to Christopher Hitchens' charges of anti-Semitic piffle (his words) and found them to be true.

Sheehan has used the Jewish Banking Conspiracy charge, or the modern version of it, again and again. THEN she lied about it. This is of a piece with the anti-Semitic Jew-baiting of International ANSWER and the European Left. I strongly suspect that Sheehan picked this up tabula rasa from her lefty friends at Code Pink.

Jew hatred is becoming the Socialism of Fools on the Left once again, and it is making those who are both liberal and Jewish in the MSM extremely uncomfortable. They understand where coddling this David Duke in Birkenstocks leads. It was left to Susan Estrich to sound the alarm that others in the Democratic Party would not sound.

Yes, that's right. Democrats deliberately ignored or downplayed her poisonous anti-Semitism and her hatred of Israel.

Indeed, one of the things that led to the MSM taking a second look at Sheehan's motives was the endorsement by Duke. But what really killed Sheehan was not any pang of conscience by Donks. It was Katrina. Let's call a spade a spade here, folks. The MSM was actively covering up her anti-Semitism until Hitchens blew it wide open. In addition, they made no attempt to question her sympathies with Islamic fascists. Finally, no responsible Democratic politician came out and took her to task for calling the President a terrorist and a killer, proving once again the moral cowardice of the Democratic party. If Democrats aren't willing to call some mind addled Jew-baiter to task, then when are they willing to take a stand?

Never, I suspect.

When Cindy Sheehan opens her mouth and makes "off the wall" statements like these, her credibility as a grieving mother goes away.

Look at how it all started. She was a grieving mother wanting to talk to the president about the death of her son. That was her story and she stuck to it.

Then, the redical lefties got a hold of her, and all of sudden we start hearing about Israel pushing the U.S. into war with Iraq and her other conspiracy theories. Now, she wants the military that is "occupying" New Orleans to get out. She doesn't know when to quit and the American people see right through her now, past the grieving mother and to the lefty nutcase she really is.

She has lost all credibility, but as long as the media continues to give her attention, she will continue to thrive.

How does her protest endanger the troops? By all the rhetoric she spouts about this "war for Israel", the joooooooos, and all the other recycled DU talking points. You don't think this stuff isn't getting a lot of exposure in the Arab press? Go check out the Al Jazeera site.

No one reasonably questions her right to protest. The whole Mother Cindy Media Movement is beyond protesting the war. It is just pure Bushate. How else do you explain her comments about "occupied New Orleans", and  BTW I don't see her outrageous comments repeated on CNN. If they were, the really "true majority" of Americans would witness firsthand just what a bunch of nutballs these people are.

"If anything, the WAR is endangering our troops"? Why do we have a military? Do you think military's mission should be simply to repel an invasion of U.S. soil? How would you characterize the September 11 attacks; equivalent to Pearl Harbor, or just a law enforcement problem? At what point do you consider an invasion to be "repelled"? I'm not asking these questions rhetorically, I really want to know what you think about it.

What's your military experience? Do you think the Army is like one big movie, "Platoon", "Full Metal Jacket", "Apocalypse Now", etc. Or maybe it's more like that Monty Python skit where the drill sergeant talks about "marchin' up 'n' down th' square"?

What about the people of Iraq? At least a million people perished under Saddam. Did you get a chance to watch the History Channel show about Saddam's personal physician? He talked about how he made his move to escape during the invasion. One thing he said was that "every family in Iraq had a 'disappeared' person, every family lost someone to Saddam". Not just men, but women and children were jailed, tortured, and executed by his regime. One journalist said being in Iraq (before the war) was like "walking on cadavers". The dead, the executed, were buried everywhere.

I guess the anti-war crowd believes Iraqis, or any severely oppressed society, is not worth freeing. "Democracy won't work in Iraq." "The middle east has always been run by dictators." Etc. Maybe it boils down to plain old racism. You don't think "those people" are worth fighting for.

guess what, the big, big money been's trolled out there for your "Iraq" deep throat.

Closest you could get? Joe Wilson and "My wife is 99 and loves yellow cake".

The "Bush lied" brigade is about 15% of the electorate, the same % that have always been there they are just better financed than before and have some bigger spokespeople.

They are vapid of true ideas other than America is bad and always has been whenever they are in war and should lay down their arms to make everything equal.

They are the crazy aunts and uncles that the Democratic Party is having a more and more difficult time keeping stuffed in the attic, they keep breaking the windows and running up to the roof naked to scream their Bush tirades.

the US went to war on a pretext.  Remember the Maine.  The possibility has not really been thoroughly discussed by conservatives except to discount it as an unpleasant left talking point.  Throughout US history there have been plenty of examples of intelligence being fixed around policy.  Some are in the public domain; many more are not.

I have never maintained that Saddam is innocent.  We could speculate forever on his motives.  Maybe he thought he could embarrass the US when we found nothing, just as he said.  Maybe he didn't foresee how the incursion would go.  Who knows.  Maybe he'll tell us when he goes to trial.  

We may have had to go in anyway, but we were in to big a hurry to get there by March 2003.  I have a very good friend whose son just came back from Iraq and he is giving us an earful.  I listen to him, and the right, and the left.  I try no to have preconceived ideas like a certain politician couln't have possibly lied since politicians have been lying since the dawn of history.  I try not to think of any idea as unthinkable.  That mistake has been made many, many times.

One reason I can be neither a conservative nore a liberal is because both sides want to tell me what my opinion should be.  It seems like the best, most productive  discussions occur when an issue is so new that neither side has settled on a party line yet.  But once those lines have been drawn, neither side wants to be confused by facts.  I have already been threatened with banning here.  The left doesn't like me any better.  They accuse of parroting the right's talking points.  I would like to see both sides refrain fron an easy dismissal ("Those are just talking points.") and seriously, civily and without emotional baggage try to figure this stuff out.  As fraubudgie found out, there is a solid foundation of agreement to start from.

I don't want to take this thread off-track or revist the Clinton impeachment but is there any truth to the claim that Juanita Broaderick (formerly Juanita Hickey) later recanted her claim that she had been raped by Bill Clinton?  

The reason I ask (and I'd rather we didn't go down that road at all) is if she did recant and someone has a source for that, we may need to police our own and make sure that we're not sucked into repeating something that while many of us believed her when she was interviewed on Dateline, later turned out to be a lie.

"Well, more like "we get tired of hearing the same nonsense day after day, and we have day jobs, and we'd at least prefer that the nonsense be offered politely in our house." But whatever floats your boat."

The idea, that what the left has to say is nonsense, is purely subjective. It is your opinion. Funny how I don't agree with you, yet I don't go on making personal attacks (lack reading comprehension, looney liberal, wacky left, etc). Perhaps many people on here need to grow up. I understand why some of my comments aren't welcome. I believe it has a lot to do with your insecurities. In my opinion, the Bush administration is crumbling in the eyes of many Americans (of course not the partisan people like you). I notice how people on here discredit dailykos for allowing profanity and "bad dialogue" (purely subjective), but at least they let people talk (unless they're being too disruptive).

I know redstate is a private forum for Republicans. When I signed up to participate here, I had a feeling similar to a friend inviting you to his home for dinner one night. You feel good meeting everyone in the household. You have a pleasant evening. But once you say or do something (even if you don't think what you're saying is bad)the family doesn't agree with, they kick your butt out of the door. That is the feeling I'm getting here, and I understand your position. For all the talk against political correctness by the right, you guys are sure sensitive to little words and phrases.

I'll be on my way out of redstate now. I thank you guys for the opportunity to participate. Sorry if I refuse to kiss Bush's butt. Sorry if I'm brainwashed by the "liberal media" according to you. Sorry if I don't see reality (according to you) and truth. What I do see is partisan hackery. I never thought people would put their political party ahead of the public good. I think you guys are phenomenally intelligent, but have a lot of humility to learn. Sorry for the long statement and if I was "impolite". Good luck defending the Bush administration and Republicans. I think '06 will be hard on them.

Goodbye

applicable.

   

Blonde ? Ditch ? the media creates her? In America anyone can be famous ? one looks like  a chicken? What you don't see is ...  I'm missing it but if there is logic or politeness or even truth to the original post maybe I missed it in the picture of Victor and his razor, usually during the Christmas holidays, and that is relevant, why?

Libal,

Your words were sincere and honest, that is often not appreciated by the intolerant. Stay and post on occasion, a little truth may help someone see that life is more than old dusty ideas and mean slogans.

"I admire a country which welcomes people to express their opinion. I'm proud of Great Britain's tradition of free speech."   President George W Bush

During an interview for the British Newspaper 'The Daily Telegraph', prior to his state visit to Britain

Whatis Libal?

Bush didn't necessarily lie about the Iraq war. I mean, he gave us so many reasons for it that ONE of them has to be right on.