Redstate

by the reporters are just sad.. I don't know anything else to say about them...

NPR's Morning Edition offered a gushing tribute to Saint Cindy this morning. Not a bit of balance. Which fits the subject, I suppose.

Meanwhile, spotted at 11th and L Street at 9:10 a.m.: A moving billboard -- the expensive, professional kind you rent -- with a large quotation from Grover Norquist: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Norquist is identified as "Field Marshal of the Bush Plan."

The quotation -- from a Nation article in 2001 -- is accompanied by a striking Coast Guard aerial photo of submerged New Orleans.

Not bad as propaganda goes, but how many people know who Grover Norquist is?

As an aside, that corner is becoming a favorite of mine. In a small bit of park space stands a fine statue of Edmund Burke.

I just saw a TV commercial by Gold Star Mothers for Peace. It paraded one grieving mother after another, saying the President lied about the war, Soldiers are being killed for his mistakes, get troops out of Iraq now, one after the other. One woman was even holding her baby and asked how she was going to explain to her child how her father died.

I am truly sorry for the loss these woman have suffered through. It's something my family goes through every time I deploy into harm's way. It's a sad reality of the life of a military family. But, and my wife will attest to this, they knew what they were getting into when they married a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine. They cannot claim ignorance. Part of the job descrition of anyone in the military is putting your life on the line for your country. I've done it for 22 years and will continue to do it if necessary.

I truly feel these women, though angry and upset over the deaths of their loved ones, would not be up there as the faces of the anti-war movement without the pushing and prodding of the liberal anti-war nutcases still left over from Vietnam and the Cold War. They are being used, they are letting themselves be used, whether for money, for their own personal fame (ala Cindy Sheehan) or for some insane belief that they can make a difference.

They (the anti-war activists) are not getting the support they want because, though people may disagree with the war in Iraq, they understand that the anti-war protests (a) doesn't help the morale of the troops and (b) gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

No matter what people say, you cannot be anti-war and support the troops. All the anti-war movement is doing is giving fuel to the Islamic insurgents to continue to recruit others to their cause by using the words of our own people against us. You give reason and purpose to their fight by saying "the war was unjustified" and "the President lied" and they will continue to send more and more young men with bombs strapped to their bodies to kill Americans as long as the anti-war movement continues to spread hate and lies about the war in Iraq.

it might help.  It also might help if she realizes she can't go off script and bash the First Lady[?] of the Ages, Hillary of the Hips.  I think a previous commentator may have had it right when he guessed that support for the Mother of Peace was drying up there being certain targets you just don't shoot at.  She will probably wind up selling Avon door to door.

It is probably safe to assume that some of Cindy's fellow travellers will be homeless people paid in cash to show up by left wing activists. Of course these "outsourced" jobs do not come with any benefits.

I think they have a drug plan.

that I'm a big fan of your work?

I have the funny feeling I was a big fan in a previous incarnation too, but maybe that's just me.  

they can get some of those paid WalMart picketers.

The MSM started losing interest in Cindy once Katrina hit. So I don't understand why Republicans would want to keep her story alive by making her a bete noire.

Even though I originally believed that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, there are a lot of great reasons why we should see it through. But this constant Cindy-bashing lately makes it look like there is no strong case for that.

so concerned about us wasting our time.

The fact that you are probably the twenty-leventh person to make this same statement leads me to believe that we need to keep on this.

need to be extended to 15 months of fame.  I am hoping for major coverage from the MSM, people pressing their Democratic Senators and Congressmen to stand with Mother Sheehan.  

This woman is a raving moonbat.  The more time she spends in front of a camera or on the front page of the NYT, the better for Republican candidates in marginal districts.  I really think that with enough publicity, Cindy Sheehan could deliver a veto proof Senate to W.

I love Cindy Sheehan.  Yes, it does turn my stomach to think of her brave son's memory becoming the slogan of politics that he categorically rejected, but the silver lining is that his mother is doing more damage to her own cause than anyone who supports our troops and believes in hunting down terrorists could ever do.  

She's great because she is honest and completely unpolished.  She says what she feels and verbalizes her opinions without regard for politics.  She is has the authenticity that every liberal orgasms over.  She truly speaks to the people who oppose this war, and they believe that she is unassailable because of her loss.  When she goes off on a rant she clearly expresses the emotion and politics of the anti-American left.  You may find her litany of quotes detestable, but I will take these people out in the open and speaking their minds any day over the politicians who are afraid to voice the same emotions they are feeling, and the same beliefs they know would sink them should their broad constituencies find out what they really believe.  

Just as liberals delight in Pat Roberts' rhetorical screw ups, Cindy Sheehan is the gift that keeps on giving.  Whenever a microphone is shoved in her face she never fails to deliver the goods.  For those who support this war, there is no greater ally than one who exposes these people for what they are.

Code Pink spits on our injured soldiers with leftist rhetoric, and is a tenth of a degree from spitting on our injured soldiers, literally.  I hope that the teetering scales tip, and these people really let loose.  They are their own worst enemies.        

Even if 100 million people show up to counter protest, it won't make so much as a blip in any major news source.

The news this week/weekend: "Cindy Sheehan goes to Washington". Doesn't matter if she has 100,000 people or 2 people behind her. That's all any major news outlet will talk about. Not even if the counter protest is 10 times what Sheehan coughs up.

And I'm sure the left will still call it "fair" reporting.

about you wasting your time. I believe Cindy Sheehan is wrong to advocate an immediate pullout from Iraq. I think we need to see it through. There are a lot of compelling reasons for that.

What I am saying is, why not focus on those reasons instead of this juvenile Cindy-bashing? It is as unconvincing as a Kos rant. Redstate is better than this.

to several others who seem to know what RedState is better than.

No one has a gun pointed at your head and is making you read or post here. We, not you, decide what we post. If you don't like it, leave. There is plenty of cyber-frontier out there for you to start a political website that is up to your very high standards.

The very fact that so many of you, whatever you want to call yourselves, seem to think that this is beneath us makes many of us more convinced than ever that we're on to something.

I apologize. That wasn't my intention. But here is my concern:

Support for the war is slipping, and has been quickly ever since Cindy started her crusade. So apparently she is not the liability to the anti-war movement that some people here seem to believe she is. In fact her bail-now message seems to be connecting with a heck of a lot of people, not just moonbats.

If support keeps slipping, Congress will eventually have to start pushing for a pullout. People at this site, unlike Cindy and her followers, know what a catastrophe that would be for the Iraqis, the Middle East in general, and for US security. Why not make that case?

I don't share your view on this subject in the least.

First and foremost, combating cretins like Sheehan and supporting our actions in Iraq is not an either/or proposition. It is both/and. Exposing Sheehan as a self-aggrandizing fraud does not divert our efforts.

I believe she is a liability to the anti-war movement, only her full potential has not been realized. The time we spend exposing her nonsense is time well spent. If you are right, and she is "connecting" with people, all the more reason to spend a lot of quality time taking whacks at her.

no sweat!!!

We can still rely on Fox News to cover the counter-protest. But not the actual Cindy protest.

Balance out their "fair" reporting with ours.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (General or United States, President of teh United States, Member of Republican party)

"Intern them."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President, Democrat.

We can do this all day.

Matthew 26:52

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Matthew 10:34

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Matthew 18:6.

I'm always fond of thinking of that whenever Kate Michelman comes up.

Mathew 10:34

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

For I have come to turn

" 'a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--

a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

Scary eh?

Can use that saying to justify genocide and civil war. Now I do not know if I should trust the bible.

Back to the presidents:

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.

 - Ronald Reagan

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

-John F. Kennedy

up the misunderstanding:

34"Don't think I've come to make life cozy. I've come to cut-- 35make a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law--cut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. 36Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. 37If you prefer father or mother over me, you don't deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don't deserve me.

That does not help. It makes me think its saying not to trust my family.

Moving on...

I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another.

 - Thomas Jefferson

Yes, but some who never lived by the sword still died by the sword like..... oh I don't know.... Jesus.

Living a perfectly moral life does not guarantee a peaceful existence. When you are on top, regardless how much you do or don't "live by the sword" you absolutely will be a target. The USA is the world's sole superpower and therefore the ankle biters, both external AND internal, will inevitably try to tear us down. To deny that is to beg for destruction.

"If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."

Some guy named Washington.

cannot be trusted.  It means that your family may be at the forefront of working to prevent you from knowing and following Jesus.  In many countries of the world, this is true.  Parents have been known to disown children who became Christians, while the rest of the family and community shunned them.  Paul was a Jew who started his career persecuting Jews who chose to follow Jesus.  American Christianity, by comparison, is pretty easy.  The Bible is supposed to speak to all, not just to Americans.  Most people of whatever culture filter the Bible through their own experiences.  I spent many years in countries hostile to Christianity so my experience filter is a little different.

Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.

 - Abraham Lincoln

It still a bit to complicated.

It should not take so many words and such twisted sentences to say a simple truth.

I am just going to follow: Though shall not kill.

"Isolationism is the road to war.  Worse than that, isolationism is the road to defeat in war."

Harry Truman.

But back on yours:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Lincoln.

Do you have a point? I'm sure we can play this game all day long. I suspect, however, that you're merely trolling, and not cleverly, either.

Well my friend recently had her husband badly maimed in Iraq.

That just affirms my belief that this war is unjustified and horrid. So I can understand Cindy Sheehan, and support her actions.

I figured a quote should help illustrate my point. And then it snowballed.

My point has been made.

But, whatever makes you happy.

Oh yeah, we can always depend on Brian Williams to be fair and report both sides.  Or Dan Rather?  Maybe Dan can gin up another "real" memo or two.  That's right, he "retired."  I have to agree, Cindy and her crowd are now more responsible for car bombs, suicide bombs and shootings than anyone.  Maybe she should wear a headband with "jihad" in arabic on it.  

being injured constitute proof that the war is unjustified?  I fail to see the logical connection, unless you would argue that all wars are unjustified because of the injuries and deaths sustained while fighting them... and I doubt you would be arguing that - because if there ever were "just" wars then the Civil War, WWI and WWII would certainly qualify in my book, and they were some of the bloodiest events in US history.. In a war, soldiers get killed and injured.  These are some of the things that happen in war that makes it a war...

Your logic is flawed here.

Reasons the war would be unjustified would be more along the lines of "The Iraqi people were very happy how they were, the Iraqi state had no connections to terrorism, and the Iraqi leader was a well respected leader who cared deeply for his people and worked hard to improve their lives."  If these things were true, and we still just went in and deposed the leader, against the will of the people, and the country posed no threat to anyone at all, and the leader was a kind and benevolent leader, then the war would be unjustified.  An invasion of Great Britain would be unjustified.  An invasion of France would be unjustified.  An invasion of Iceland would be unjustified.  The Iraq war does not fit this pattern however.

that English is not the language the bible was originally written in.  Translations make things tricky and complex in one language that are simple and straightforward in the original language.  Sometimes this is due to poor translation, but sometimes it is necessary to keep the message the same.

All this passage really means is that Jesus should come before your family and all else, and that if your family tries to prevent you from following him, then you must separate yourself from them and follow him, just as you should separate yourself from anyone who tries to prevent you from following Jesus.

sure enough. In fact, you proved a couple of them. I just don't think they're the points you think you proved.

I believe she is a liability to the anti-war movement, only her full potential has not been realized.

Well, I personally can't wait to see whatever rabbits are pulled out of various hats.

I think it would be a mistake to come out on the pro-war ticket, since most people are tired of the war.  So... the anti-Sheehan people will have to choose their position carefully.

If you don't want to look pro-war or anti-mom, and she's an anti-war mom, it's going to be tough.  Part of me actually hopes that's the stance the counter-protest takes because I'm dying to know how the public would react to such a thing.

The trick is, of course, to alienate her from the public by pointing out her differences.  This is a tried-and-true political tactic.  It could be anything weird or out of the ordinary that Sheehan does.  You don't even have to attack her stance on the war, which is good, because like I've already said, that's a tough sell.

But she has been fairly careful to stick to the "Why are we doing this?" line, which is one that resonates with the populace.  At the end of the day, she can retreat to, "Well, if people think I'm crazy for wondering why my son died, then I guess I'm crazy."  And that doesn't leave much attack room for her opposition.

Should be interesting.  I've got my money on the anti-Sheehan people having little or no press coverage or effect.

she has been fairly careful to stick to the "Why are we doing this?" line...

Like, the Jewish cabal (PNAC) that got us into Iraq and her son didn't go to Iraq to "defend Israel"?

Like the US Army should get out of...wait for it...NEW ORLEANS!?!?

Oh, yean, Mama Sheehan's on message!  And it certainly resonated with her husband (Casey's father) who's left her, and her family who does not support her.

It's a line, alright, a very meandering one that only a moonbat could, or would want to, follow.

--furious

she hasn't been careful to stick to the  "Why are we doing this?" line, which as you point out is the one that resonates with the general public.

The media has been very careful with what statements they broadcast and spread, and which end up on the editing room floor...  There has been a very careful effort by many to make her appear to stick to that line, but other statements have gotten out, although they aren't covered by the mass market media.

to each its own

Affirms as in: I believed it was wrong before and see this just affirms it.

I did not state I based my belief on that argument.

How is she responsible? Did she set those bombs? Or did she send soldiers there to die?

I hated asparagus before, and now my back hurts, and see this just affirms it.

I could do this all day.

Should have died in vain. Since they and Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King and James Meredith were all murdered by white supremacists racists during the Civil Rights struggle.

Given the first deaths, we should have just backed off and let the Klan have their way.

Dr. King knew he would pay with his life, but chose to follow his crusade (no other word for it) to save his country from the evils of racism.

Some things are worth fighting for, and dying for.

Cindy Sheehan says "this country is not worth fighting for, this country is not worth dying for."

Draw your own conclusions.

Given her many, many, many anti-Semitic statements (she has said repeatedly that the "jews" started the Iraq War to make Israel safe), her well documented statements against America, her inability to express anger against the people who murdered her son, her view that Osama bin Laden may not have been responsible for 9/11, her views that "peace" is the answer to bin Laden, and demand for immediate pullout from Afghanstan as well as Iraq, and her views that Iraq AND Afghanistan were "war crimes" or that we are fighting "a nuclear war in Iraq."

Well ... that's just a horrible trap for Democrats. It makes all Dems who cozy up to her, and her ANSWER backers, frankly anti-American. It's a walking campaign commercial, given that Sheehan doesn't just have one statement but about 40-50 of these.

It's political suicide for Dems, so naturally Redstaters want to encourage Dems to embrace her.

In the 2006 midterm elections even marginal Reps in Red districts can run against Sheehan and the Dems.

Sheehan has been very consistent, that no military force at any time is EVER justified by the US; while the "insurgents" and Osama are justified by whatever they do. Because we are evil. And "started it."

Sheehan has advocated "peace" as a response to 9/11 and has demanded immediate withdrawal from AFGHANISTAN.

Merely on these policy issues she parts company from the American people. No one wants her policy of "peace" and unilateral and total military disarmament to bin Laden.

Sheehan wants unconditional surrender, for us, to bin Laden. That's a policy choice most Reps would love to debate.

And has said that people shooting at our troops are justified.

Puzzling, since she justifies the murder of her son. Oh well, I forgot. She doesn't feel any animosity to his killer.

Who is your source? Quotes? Articles? Audio recordings?

as leon pointed out so well..

however, here is a walkthrough of why your assertion is logically flawed

www.dictionary.com

af·firm Audio pronunciation of "affirm" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-fûrm)*
v. af·firmed, af·firm·ing, af·firms
v. tr.

1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.
2. To support or uphold the validity of; confirm.

see definition 2? validity is a logic term. definition 1 is the one you want to use, but it doesn't apply because things can't affirm other things to be true, people do the affirmation.

www.dictionary.com

val·id Audio pronunciation of "validity" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vld)*
adj.

1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.

2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
4. Logic.
1. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
2. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
5. Archaic. Of sound health; robust.

Definitions 1,2,and 3 all derive from definition 4. (and the archaic definition is something no one uses today..)

Logic

Originally, logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which concerns what follows universally from given premises. However it is important to note that inductive reasoning--the study of deriving a reliable generalization from observations--has sometimes been included in the study of logic. Correspondingly, we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity. An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false. The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for systems of formal logic in terms well-understood notions of semantics. Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations. The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways, some less formal than others; some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability.

You can affirm that you believe the war to be unjust. The logical form you are trying to use in your argument however is seriously flawed, the failure is called begging the question

Definition:

The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is
a consequence of the conclusion.

Examples:

(i) Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.

(ii) We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.
What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and
God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order
to believe that God wrote the Bible.)

Proof:

Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we
must already agree that the conclusion is true.

References:

Barker: 159, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 144, Copi and Cohen: 102, Davis: 33

using an appeal to emotion  (called an appeal to motive in the link - most specificly an appeal to pity is the one you are using)

I could also find a few other fallacies which your "affirmation" might fit into, but I think Leon and I have proved the point sufficiently...

The media has been very careful with what statements they broadcast and spread, and which end up on the editing room floor...

I'll agree with this, but assert that the practical effect of something not being reported is the same as if she hadn't said it.

So maybe I'm mistaken, and the proper attack would not be against her, but against how the press reports her.  Or both.

Why isn't Bill O'reilly more effective, I wonder?  No one has been against Sheehan more than he has, and he has a megaphone to go with it.  What about the class of people who don't like Sheehan, but don't like the war?  What will resonate to them in the protest?

I think you're right about the press--for them to paint Sheehan as a nutcase would lessen the value of the news.

And where is Rove?  He's good with this sort of thing.

Slipping polls, increasingly unpopular war, press circling the wagons around an anti-war supporter... Danger, Will Robinson!  Danger!

It's a line, alright, a very meandering one that only a moonbat could, or would want to, follow.

You'll convince people the wrong direction like that.

Anne: I am tired of the war, and wonder why Bush wouldn't talk to Sheehan, and think it's sad she lost her son, and think the country isn't on the right track.  So I wonder if she might be onto something.

Bob: You're a moonbat, Anne.

So a second ago, Anne was wondering where she stood, but now she knows she doesn't stand with Bob.

A very meandering line that only a moonbat would follow...  People don't follow logical lines; they follow their emotions.  If something Sheehan is saying or doing is resonating (and it is, otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about it here), it doesn't matter how she arrived there logically.  (Watch Rove operate like this--it's really quite impressive how masterful he is.)

She's justified the killing of American troops, because the killers are "freedom fighters".  Of course, getting the troops out of everywhere, including N.O. is just the beginning.  Then she'll go to work disarming the U.S. and  sitting down to tea with OBL, explaining that it wasn't his fault he had to attack us, it was the fault of W.

"If you want to get to DC, here is how you can. Remember, there will be actual communists in Washington this weekend marching against Evil America."

Oh my!  There will be ACTUAL COMMUNISTS in Washington!  You mean...no...that there will be COMMUNISTS - ACTUAL COMMUNISTS! - in Washington DC this weekend?  Where is our military to defend us?  Why isn't GWB hitting this head-on?  Why is he bothering watching water being stockpiled in Texas when there is another war to fight?  Who can we attack to prevent or pre-empt ACTUAL COMMUNISTS from coming to power?

I just want to say that after 9/11 I began to watch the 24 hour cable news stations and I became a huge Bill O'riely fan.  I never missed the O'reily factor read all of Bill's Books and became annoyed with all of the "left wing nuts" I mean after all 3 thousand people were killed by Osama bin Laudin and his followers.  And Bill is an avid fact checker, because everyone in the "left wing press" is on a hunt to slander and call him a liar if he mispronounces a word, ya know. I even began watching Hanity and combs, and agreed with Sean because he is an avid fact checker also and isn't given any room for inaccuracies because of the constant "left wing" scrutiny. On a Sunny morning this past May during commercial time on Fox I channel surfed to MSNBC one of the largest "left wing" news channel just for a few laughs. They were having a segment where they monitor the blogs on the internet. They were talking about the "Downing Street Memos" and how the story had gone from a London Times article to over 50,000 websites and counting in a matter of months.  Huh. I thought probably another Dan Rather esq. forged document.  I'm sure Bill and Sean will get the truth out tonight about this latest "left-wing" attempt to attack the President.  The O'reily Factor and Hanity and Combs came and went with no mention of "The Downing Street Memos" I figured they must still be doing some research to disproved this new attempt by the democrats and other "left wing" nut jobs to discredit the President who was doing the best job he could.  On June 16th during a newsbreak on Fox you know the ones just before the show you were watching comes back on or just before the commercials begin. Well during this news break the woman spoke about a march that had taken place up to the White House gates with congressmen john Conyers and congresswoman Maxine Waters leading the charge they waited for the president to come down and take the petition which was signed by 105 members of congress and 540,000 signatures of American citizens asking for an inquiry to the VALIDITY of "The Downing Street Memos". Well because the president is the president and is therefore in charge of the country he couldn't leave his meetings with the heads of state and other countries to pick up some signatures. I mean it's not a question of him snubbing them the man is busy he's literally got a country to run. Well the secret service took them to the president witch they didn't like but oh well. At this point I didn't really know what to think but I knew one thing for sure and that was that Bill would get to the bottom of it and so would Sean.  Well that night Bill didn't say a thing and neither did Sean.  I thought that maybe they were just covering their bases so they didn't get slammed by the "left wingers".  I thought for sure by the next day they'd have something to say.  But they never did, in fact I was hard pressed to find any news station say more than there was a protest about "The Downing Street Memos" and a petition was signed by 105 members of congress and 500,000 citizens. Even in my local news and local paper the story was literal on the page before the back of the newspaper. This was strange I mean the "Left Wing Media" hadn't made a big deal about it and neither had the conservative news.  Well I decided to check out the associated press because they have all of the news.  After I found an article I learned there was not only a protest but before that an informal hearing was held in a basement storage room of the capitol because no rooms were available.  I downloaded the video of the informal hearing and watched witness testimony from former ambassador Joe Wilson, CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Cindy Sheehan, and constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz. Keep in mind this was June 16th. Don't believe me watch the video your selves it's still at cspan.com.  After watching the hearing I became angry because this was news I mean there's a memo that has been admitted to be authentic by Tony Blair.  The memos are actually minutes of a meeting at Downing Street witch is some British Government office building in July 2002 in attendance were the British Foreign Secretary, Defense Secretary, Attorney General, Chief of Secret Intelligence, Joint Intelligence committee chief, Head of Brittan's armed forces, Foreign Policy Advisor who has since become the ambassador to the united states and were recorded by a Downing Street Policy Aide verbatim. Other Memos include a March 8, 2002 Iraq Options Paper, a March 8, 2002 legal Background paper, a letter by David Manning on March 14th, 2002, a letter by Christopher Meyer on March 19, 20002, A letter by Peter Ricketts on March 22,2002, I didn't just want to take the witnesses word for it because in a lot of instances they were giving their own interpretations, impressions, and conclusions.  So I decided to find the actual memos and letters and read them my self. Well after reading them my conclusions were that the British and American Administrations decided in secret to go to war a year before the war started. It was clear that there was no evidence that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction and that there was no Iraq Al-Qaeda connection. That both administrations decided to deceive and mislead the congress by fixing intelligence facts around the policy. The Bush yes Bush administration diverted $700 million from the war in Afghanistan and started bombing Iraq to provoke a war. Now am I a "LEFT WING NUT"? Because I have always been a conservative Republican southern Baptist red blooded patriotic American Citizen.  So because I read the downing street documents my self instead of listening to left wing or right wing opinions and made my own opinion based upon what I read does that make me a "LEFT Wing Nut? I'd really like to know. I encourage every one on this web site to PLEASE read the Downing Street Memos YOURSELF and make your own mind up. An old saying where I'm from is where there is smoke there is fire.  What I encourage every one to do is to READ the associated Press news articles and come to your own conclusions because talk radio and news "analysis" show are just that talk and analysis. Meaning they pick and choose what they want to talk about and analyze. That's great and all but that's not all that's going on.  This whole blue state red state, democrat republican, left-wing right wing, conservative liberal, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong is ridiculous.  When was the truth ever black and white? What I mean is by only listening to the left or only listening to the right you don't get to see the clear picture of what is happening. To follow one side blindly is ridiculous, that's why we all have brains and our own minds so that we can think for our selves. I'm not saying don't listen to Bill O'reilly or don't listen to AL Franken what I am saying is that before you do, read up YOUR SELF on Current events from an unbiased news source like the associated press and make up your own mind before you listen to someone else's and it becomes yours.  I just want to say though, for the record according to an associated press article there were over 300,000 protesters yesterday (Saturday) and the only mention of it in my town was a 2 paragraph article on page A10 the second to the last page. Also, what ever you think about Cindy Sheehan she did loose a son in the war she is allowed to change her mind (it is America after all) and she supports the troops just like every other protester that was there on Saturday. I watched the protest on C-Span to see for my self what was going on and speaker after speaker all said "we love the Troops" "we support the troops" "we want America back" "We love our Country" "bring the troops home" From what I gathered from the speakers these people truly believe that the administration has lied to the congress and the American people. They honestly don't want to see any more civilians or troops get killed.  They are angry with the PRESIDENT and his Administration's POLICY"S. They don't hate America they do support the troops and they want to bring them home. What's wrong with that? These people don't believe that war is never necessary they believe that preemptive war on a country that has presented NO threat to the United States is unnessicary.  Even the 9/11 commission report said that there was NO Al Qaeda Iraq connection. Now a lot of people might disagree however, they would be wrong.  All I can say is read the 9/11 report don't blindly believe someone else's "analysis", check it out your self or at least read the conclusions. In closing I just want to say don't believe the hype on either side it's not a basketball or football game so try and get rid of the blue vs. red mentality.  Finally, don't blindly follow a political party, do your own research and check out the facts objectively and with an open mind.