The Priorities of Crisp Decisions
by Jason at 7:00 am on August 17th, 2005 in Bush Man DateConsidering that we are only about two weeks into President Bush’s monster five week vacation, there’s a good chance that we are going to be hearing stories about Cindy Sheehan until after Labor Day or so. Sheehan’s attempts to get an audience with the President have long passed the point where they have become national news, and with hundreds of like-minded protesters joining her (at a larger, closer protest area, courtesy of a sympathetic Bush neighbor) the story doesn’t seem to be fading out anytime soon. Of course, Bush could take the air right out of this particular balloon by giving Sheehan a few minutes of his time and sending her on her way. But it seems as if Compassionate Conservative Numero Uno has other priorities:
“But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there’s somebody who has got something to say to the president, that’s part of the job,” Bush said on the ranch. “And I think it’s important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say.”
“But,” he added, “I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life.”
The comments came prior to a bike ride on the ranch with journalists and aides. It also came as the crowd of protesters grew in support of Sheehan, the California mother who came here Aug. 6 demanding to talk to Bush about the death of her son Casey.
[...]
“I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy,” he said when asked about bike riding while a grieving mom wanted to speak with him. “And part of my being is to be outside exercising.”
He needs to go on with his life. Good for him. Tell that to the 49 soldiers who have died in Iraq in the two weeks since Bush left Washington DC for his “me time”. Tell that to any of those soldiers’ families who, like Cindy Sheehan, want their losses to be justified with more than empty slogans of “noble causes”. Somehow Bush has been able to make time in his busy exercise schedule to go to Republican fundraisers and a little league game, but finding a half hour to meet with the mother of a dead U.S. soldier is beyond his capabilities.
It’s not beyond his capabilities, of course. Bush says that part of the job is talking to those with “something to say”, and it’s great that he wants to be thoughtful and sensitive to such people. But all the thoughtfulness and sensitivity in the world are worthless when Bush won’t even allow the conversation to happen. It’s yet another part of a disturbing pattern where the President is isolated from anyone who vocally disagrees with his policies. Other than the current situation with Cindy Sheehan, the examples are numerous: Protesters that were separated from Bush with buses or were herded into “free speech zones” miles away from him. Social Security “town meetings” and campaign speeches where only hand-picked supporters were allowed to attend. The continuing refusal to speak with to the NAACP.
In comparison, I refer back to this photograph that Matt shot twelve years ago of then-President Bill Clinton:
I took this photo in 1993 at Greater Pittsburgh International Airport. It was Bill Clinton’s first visit to to my hometown since taking office, and protesters were out in significant numbers to be heard about a chemical incinerator in the area. Not in a different terminal, not in a free speech zone in the parking lot, but front and center. The woman bending Clinton’s ear in the photo was closer to him than I was.
The two photos are a microcosm of the last two presidencies. Clinton wasn’t persuaded by the woman’s arguments, and allowed the incinerator to move forward, but she was allowed to speak with the then-President in person.
As Matt recalled, Clinton’s stop in Pittsburgh was only supposed to consist of a quick speech before moving on to the next appearance. But he wound up staying later than the planned hour in order to talk with people along the rope line, and the woman protesting in the photo got a full five minutes of his attention. In stark comparison, Bush can’t be bothered to interrupt a two-hour bike ride or his fishing time to talk to a war mother who is almost-literally outside his door. The only way it seems that Cindy Sheehan will get her audience is for her to start contributing money to the Republican party.
Bush is right about one thing, though—the public does indeed want the president to be in a position to make good decisions, though we’re still trying to figure out what a “crisp decision” is…maybe he was contemplating potato chip flavors or something. But if Bush believes that riding his bike is the key to all the great decisions he’s made so far in Iraq, than maybe someone should take it away from him. It doesn’t seem to be working all that well.
Richard Moody wrote:
I just wish you would take a monster vacation along with Sheehan and give us and the Internet a break from your dribble.
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 10:25 am ¶
JUDY WHITE wrote:
YOU KNOW,THAT WAS CLINTONS MAJOR PROBLEM HE HAD WAY TO MANY (PRIVATE MOMENTS) WITH WAY TO MANY WOMEN. CLINTON EXCERSIED TOO, HE JUST DID HIS IN THE OVAL OFFICE WITH INTERNS OR WHEREVER ELSE HE HAD THE URGE.
WHAT A SHAME FOR YOU THAT WE NOW HAVE A MORALE PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND NOT SOMEONE WHO HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE, OR EVEN WOMEN FOR THAT MATTER.
IT MIGHT BE TIME TO PUT YOU ENERGY INTO SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE USEFUL.
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 10:51 am ¶
Jason wrote:
What exactly makes Bush such a moral (“morale”?) president? That he identifies himself as being religious? If you are satisfied with the “words not deeds” approach, then I guess that would make sense. But I dare you, I double-dare you, to explain the morality of Bush keeping himself isolated from anyone who disagrees with him. Where’s the morality of sending the country off to war and then taking the longest Presidential vacations on record?
I know that people like you freak out whenever Bill Clinton’s name is brought up, so go ahead and make all the blowjob jokes you want. But that doesn’t explain away the the point of the photo form Pittsburgh airport: that Clinton made a point of listening to a protester and giving her time to make her case. Bush takes his vacation and pretends the protester doesn’t exist, even as his motorcade drives directly past Cindy Sheehan on the way to a fundraiser.
Is that respect for the office?
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 11:40 am ¶
roger fulton wrote:
well,now,everybody’s got their own take on this – you have yours, well honed, and fully augured with anger. So be it, we shall agree to disagree, no one is going change anyone’s mind here.
What strikes me about Viet Nam dissent, and now what is growing out of Crawford is the visciousness of dissent. Utter anger growing almost daily that reminds me of the savagery from the left – a sort of pull-the-government-down-at-all-costs mentality that we saw during the Jane Fonda days.
Speaking of which, where is the Witch? Or Michaelf Moore? Betcha they are behind the scenes, meeting in private, pulling the strings. If they show their faces, the American right and middle, politcally will explode – and the old crowd of Fonda/Peter Boyle and Donald Sutherland will dive for cover.
Where IS MICHAEL MOORE? I’ll bet he’s under a bed sheet in Texas someplace? I’ll bet YOU know.
Roger Fulton
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 11:49 am ¶
Jason wrote:
I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up Michael Moore’s name. He’s convenient, isn’t he? Everyone needs a boogeyman to blame when the actual situation is harder to tear down.
Listen. It’s agreed that everyone has their own take about this. And it’s further agreed that no one’s mind is likely to be changed. But I’m not advocating that the government be pulled down at all costs like you suggest. What I am advocating is that the President of the United States has a larger responsibility than to just ignore those who disagree with him…especially if those happen to be the parents of dead soldiers he sent off to war. As someone has already said in another post, the President is more than a man. He’s a symbol. And, as a symbol, what kind of example is he setting when he chooses to take five-week vacations during wartime, a war that a majority of Americans are starting to have doubts about?
As far as the “viciousness of dissent” from “the savagery of the left” is concerned, it seems like small potatoes compared to the bigger microphones of the right: Wasn’t it Bill O’Reilly who recently said that Cindy Sheehan’s actions bordered on treasonous? Didn’t Rush Limbaugh just say that Sheehan’s story was “nothing more than forged documents”? And didn’t this exchange happen on Fox News back during the Presidential campaign?
Viciousness indeed.
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 12:11 pm ¶
Gayle wrote:
Bush has met with this woman before. She is not the only mother with a lost child. Iraq isn’t the only war with casualties. The soldier in question made more than one trip to Iraq. He signed a contract with his country knowing the danger. Now what must Bush do to shut this woman up. AND what about the neighbors who can’t get to town, to work or to medical attention? This mother cheapens her son and the other defenders of America.
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 12:35 pm ¶
Mark wrote:
Wow … didn’t take long for the right to speak up once Clinton was mentioned, did it?
For those who can’t understand the problem, here’s the easy version (I’ll type it in all caps if that helps, Judy):
All the President has to do is spend 5 minutes with Cindy.
That’s it. Simple, easy, and could’ve diffused the situation before it became the spectacle it has become.
Instead, Bush has ignored her, the far right as insulted her, and the issue has further divided the country. All of which could’ve been avoided with one simple, 5-minute talk.
Not sure anyone expected him to do so, however, since he hasn’t even gone to a SINGLE funeral for anyone who’s died fighting his war.
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 1:04 pm ¶
linda wrote:
Gayle.
I feel very sorry for you and your lack of empathy. I guess you do not have children. I cannot begin to imagine the pain this woman is going through. She has a right to express her grieve and get answers to her questions. My heart aches for her and all the mothers who lost their children. she is a peaceful woman who want to have a converstion with her dead son’s boss. I wish her only the best. and who knows the result of her peaceful acts–look at Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. It is possible for one person to change the world. GO, CINDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 1:06 pm ¶
linda wrote:
HI JASON!!!
OH YEAH, THOSE GREAT AMERICANS–LIMBAUGH THE DRUGGIE AND O’REILLY THE SEX MANIAC.. I REALLY VALUE THEIR OPINIONS!!!! THEIR SMALL POTATOES COMPARED TO BUSH, WHO THINKS HE’S GOD!!!!
THANKS
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 1:10 pm ¶
linda wrote:
ROGER, GET A GRIP!!!!
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 1:12 pm ¶
Trish wrote:
Hey Richard and Judy,
AT LEAST CLINTON DID NOT SEND OUR KIDS TO DIE FOR A WAR BASED ON HUMONGOUS LIES. THANKS TO THIS ADMINISTRATION IRAQ MAY BE AN ISLAMIC STATE WITH LITTLE RIGHTS FOR WOMEN. IS THAT WHAT THESE KIDS DIED FOR? IS THAT THE NOBLE CAUSE? THIS IS NOT ABOUT BUSH OR CLINTON, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. THIS IS ABOUT EXPENDING INNOCENT LIVES FOR PERSONAL GAINS. I THINK THAT IS A SIN FAR WORSE THAN WHAT CLINTON DID IN PRIVATE. BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR THERE WERE EVEN CHRISTIANS IN THE CABINET AND CHURCHES ALL OVER BAGDAD. TODAY BAGDAD IS A SCARY PLACE FOR CHRISTIANS. THANKS TO BUSH. I HOPE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY BOTH GO AND ENLIST TOMORROW FOR THS “NOBLE CAUSE.”
CLINTON COMMITTED A PRIVATE ACT WITH AN ADULT BUT BECAUSE YOU ALL ARE SO FILTHY AND LOW MINDED YOU HAD TO DRAG IT OUT OF THE OPEN BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WALLOW IN FILTH. CLINTON NEVER CLAIMED TO BE PERFECT. BUSH DID. DIDN’T BUSH PROMISE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE WHITE HOUSE? DO YOU CALL THE LIES THIS ADMINISTRATION IS TELLING TO THE INNOCENT AMERICAN PEOPLE INTEGRITY. YOU NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND. IF THE REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE COULD SET UP AN INQUIRY FOR A PRIVATE ACT BETWEEN TWO ADULTS WHY NOT SET UP ONE FOR LIES THAT ARE KILLING OUR KIDS. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF – THE TRUTH – CHRISTIANS LOVE THE TRUTH SO LET US STAND FOR THE TRUTH.
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 2:09 pm ¶
Debbie wrote:
Well, Jason, and you wonderful liberals, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as we all are. However, where has Moveon.org and our liberal media been when other parents are mourning for the loss of their child or children because they chose to go to this war. The soldier that has died because of their heroism, courage and patriotism. I think she shames her son by her behavior. And, surely our President should take time to speak with her…..Of course, you forget (I guess) that the President met Mrs. Sheehan before. I guess she thinks she is the only mother that has lost a child in this war.
The liberal agenda is clearly at play and are now ‘using’ Cindy Sheehan for their goals, and that is not caring about her loss. They want to promote their message, we are against the war (majority supported and voted for it at the time, based on the information after the attack in AMERICA, but when things change… whoa… out come the liberals… no, no, no, we don’t support this now) Mrs. Sheehan will be out of mind as soon as she is of no more use. The ‘compassionate’ democrats at their best. Manipulation and achieving their goal against anything republican. Period. I am sick of the liberal agenda and ashamed at how they behave. So quick to argue and attack President Bush without any research and thought. So many times Clinton, Kerry, Billary (the other Clinton), Biden, Kennedy, Leahy…. I can go on and on, change their theology, moral code (or lack thereof), voting record and opinions from day to day.
And, as you criticize and support Mrs. Sheehan and her anti-Iraq war position, well, it seems that we may have been able to avoid this war had Clinton not taken so much ‘private time’ with his ‘friends’ and paid attention to what his advisors were saying. He had the information of an attack IN America generated by Atta and bin Laden. But, even if that proves to be true, you liberal will support Clinton, as you did when he was being IMPEACHED. Do you know that our ex-president has now made the statement that he WASN’T impeached. Does he know reality? (It depends on your definition of sex)
I realize that I have wandered off the topic but this is the same ole song and dance from the same ole liberal party.
Why not try reading several magazines, widen your variety of internet searches and learn the truth. But, I do enjoy reading blogs and/or opinions from the obviously uneducated.
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 2:57 pm ¶
Gayle wrote:
Linda:
I had a boy and a girl. Both dead. Bush has met with this woman, I understand. If he hasn’t and he does, will all MOM’s come to Crawford?
And Trish: Bill sent troops to Bosnia to stop the Serbs from killing the hell out of muslims and now the muses are hot on everyone who does not drool over the koran.
I know bush is sorry as are all the bastards in Wa. DC. But the Mom needs to go on.
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 7:03 pm ¶
Eugene Hernandez wrote:
I support Cindy Sheehan’s efforts to meet with president Bush and her right to ask him why her son died. I also support our troops fighting in Iraq although I believe this was an unnecessary
war. To be honest, I support any war our government chooses to fight as long as our governement is honest and responsible enough to level with the American people.
My biggest source of frustration is that we never seem to fight to win. In Vietnam we were not allowed to take the fight to the enemy for fear that Russia or China or both would enter the fight. We fought the war with one hand tie behind our back and after losing 56,000 men, we simply cut and ran home. In iraq, we were stupid enough to believe that all our highly sophisticated and technologically superior Army could defeat Iraq in a matter of days and that would be the end of it. Our president was so convinced that he declared victory as soon as bagdad fell. Then the war started, we had too few troops on the ground
and we lost control of the country. Now we’re losing 1 marine here, 4 marines there and its Vietnam all over again.
I believe that when our government decides that we need to go to war, we should fight all out to win with no other consideration to anything else until we have won. That means we should have sent 500,000 troops to iraq, defeat saddam’s army quickly and then disarmed the entire country. We should have never returned the country to the Iraqi’s until it was totally secure. I believe that if we don’t have the stomach to fight a war to win, we should stick to diplomacy.
What do we gain by getting ourselves into a war and then have to cut and run when things go wrong and the American people get tried of losing soldiers one by one with no end in sight.
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 9:08 pm ¶
Renee knipe wrote:
Why do men become soldiers? THEY KNOW SOLDIERS GO TO WAR Soldiers get killed in wars. I don’t think this is the first nor the last war in which SOLDIERS are killed.Far worse are terrorist who attack innocent people in planes and offices….Get them…with whatever it takes….
Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 9:20 pm ¶
Joseph McCabe wrote:
Whether the war in Iraq lasts another 90 days or 90 years, the US presence in the middle east will always be resented and the Jihadists will continue to kill our troops. The thousand year old struggle between the Sunnis and Shiites will also continue, and as soon as US troops are pulled out, civil war will begin. This war is a huge waste of American lives and taxes. We need to use our troops to seal our own border – 11 million people are now in the U.S. illegally, and at least some of them are Jihaddist terrorists. It’s time to deal with our real problems.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 2:10 am ¶
Judy Kaye wrote:
How dare these people criticize a woman who only wants answers about her sons death? They call us liberals because we dont agree with lies and a war built on lies. They berate women mourning their dead children. These are the poeple that put this man in office. They do not care about people only that BUSH is right. They only care about the party and human lives mean nothing to them.
They have to bring M. Moor and B. Clinton into their fight. They say Clinton was immoral ? Well here in that office is a man that had premartial sex, did drugs, is an alcoholic and is trying to overturn Roe VS Wade and is committing legalized murder !!!! This is what they put in office to Ruin the USA.The man has no compassion for anyone other than himself. He lies at the drop of a feather and continues to lie and beat around the bush about this war. Is the price of our kids now 68.oo a barrell? It seems so. As the war continues the prices of oil keep rising and the money is flowing into the pockets of Bush and his friends.
WAKE UP AMERICA and start impeachment proceedings for BUSH. Give me a president anyday that just has sex with someone othernthan his spouse and is not killing our kids.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 4:17 am ¶
Jill Lubas wrote:
I would like to state just a true simple fact for those who HONESTLY want to hear the truth. President Bush did meet already with Cindy. The lady needs help. Not more political organizations using her. I also would like to remind people that we should stop aiding the enemy with the rants and start supporting the men and women who serve our nation. No one drafted them they all enlisted and you think you are supporting them when you bad mouth our nation and our president for the likes of terrorist. Yeah like I said just simple truth that none of you will admit. Shame on all of you and shame on Cindy for using her son in this manner.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 4:55 am ¶
Charlie wrote:
My only trouble with Cindy is that she is barking up the wrong tree. Unless
you own a corporation capable of buying a $200,000 table at the next
GOP fundraiser, President Buffoon has no use for you. We dont need this
situation to grasp the picture that regular Americans do not matter to this
president. His tax plans and his buget cuts over the past 5 years are more
than enough evidence that his view of this country is “No buck, no yucks”
Cindy, I support your efforts. I feel for your loss. I just think you are wasting your time. The immorality of the Iraq was has been spun 9 ways to Sunday. The Cindy Sheehan situation is merely one more brick in our
presidents road tword indifference. Suddenly the 22nd Ammendment has become the most important to alot of Americans.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 6:02 am ¶
Randy wrote:
What people are forgetting is that her son volunteered for the military, no one forced him to enter a dangerous vocation. Soldiers are employed for war. War sometimes results in death and destruction. The overwrought, emotional hysteria of this women camped out in Crawford could have been avoided if she would persuaded her son to be an accountant or truck driver instead of a soldier. The liberals don’t care a hoot about this woman. It is a chance to smear the President.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 6:51 am ¶
Irritated Spectator wrote:
Ms. Sheehan has every right to seek as many personal audiences with the President as she wishes, so long as she violates no laws regarding trespassing or harrassment.
Pres. Bush, however, has every right to refuse. In this case, it makes sense to. After all, who is Ms. Sheehan? Is she an plenipotentiary or even an emissary from some nation or other entity of interest? Is she a foreign policy specialist with unusually deep insight and experience? Or is she merely yet another random individual, seeking to impose her personal objectives on the policies of an entire state — and to do so through actions of the highest possible profile instead of through the ordinary machinery of a representative republic? Spend a few minutes with her, and one sets a precedent that suggests invitations to /anybody/ who wishes to harrass the President that day. Should we see daily throngs of people wishing to expend his time?
She, and all those like her who attempt to use strictly personal, non-rational arguments that ignore the realities of statecraft deserve the scorn they receive. If she’d started by publishing cogent analyses comparing the long-term consequences of the requested withdrawal from Iraq, including the possible impacts on American interests in other parts of the world — as there would be, for breaking a state and then abandoning it can only suggest a certain lack of follow-through, reminiscent of how we left Afghanistan to fall apart once the Soviets withdrew — I might be more impressed. Perhaps she actually started on that path, but if she did, it’s news to me.
Her “I’m a mother who lost a child” ploy, however heart-rending that may be, does not imply any expertise or insights in the policies at hand. Ergo, there is no rational reason that she should receive any more input into policy than any other random citizen. If she seeks therapy, rather than input into policy or a role in negotiations on behalf of a foreign power or other major interest, she should seek a therapist. Brains, not hearts…
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 7:03 am ¶
isabelle wrote:
Ms. sheehan has the right to do what she is doing. No problem here. What I really object to is all the media attention: cameras, constant reporting, big newspapers headline. Surely there are other news to cover. It is a true reflection of a general bias against President Bush.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 7:06 am ¶
Jerry C. wrote:
Here’s a quote from someone who witnessed a recent interaction between
an elderly woman and an antiwar protester in a Metro station in DC:
There were protesters on the train platform handing out pamphlets
on the evils of America. I politely declined to take one. An elderly
woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a young (20ish)
female protester offered her a pamphlet, which she politely declined.
The young protester put her hand on the old woman’s shoulder as a
gesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, “Ma’am, don’t you
care about the children of Iraq?”
The old woman looked up at her and said, “Honey, my first husband died
in France during World War II, my second husband died in Korea, one of
my sons died in Vietnam, a Grandson died in Desert Storm, all so you
could have the right to stand here and bad mouth our country. If you
touch me again.
I’ll stick this umbrella up your ass and open it.”
You do not talk to traidors.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 8:08 am ¶
Shawn wrote:
“You do not talk to traidors.”
“A MORALE PRESIDENT”
Why is it that so many of people posting the knee-jerk “how dare you question Dubya?!?” responses seem to have such difficulty with the written English language? Maybe their schools were teaching that spelling was just a theory and were giving equal time to ‘alternate explanations’ of grammar?
There are a few well thought out responses here, but for the most part it’s the same old stuff: if you can’t argue against the facts, blame it on the ‘liberal media’, Michael Moore, or the lack of patriotism of those with whom you disagree. I’m sorry, where are those WMDs again?
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 8:34 am ¶
Mark wrote:
Debbie—
Wow … you got so many things wrong, I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s look at your argument point-by-point.
“Well, Jason, and you wonderful liberals, you are certainly entitled to your opinion,â€
No according to the Republican talking heads, like Rush Limbaugh—according to him, anyone who dares question our leaders should be deported:
http://agitprop.typepad.com/agitprop_version_20/2005/08/rush_limbaugh_h.html
“However, where has Moveon.org and our liberal media been when other parents are mourning for the loss of their child or children because they chose to go to this war.â€
If any of those parents decided to actually take action, I’m sure they’d be there.
“The soldier that has died because of their heroism, courage and patriotism. I think she shames her son by her behavior.â€
So you’re now psychic? How would you know what her son thought? Besides, all she’s asking for is an explanation, something EVERY parent of a fallen service member deserves.
Oh, and just an FYI: Soldier is an Army term. While applicable in this case, please remember that there are also Marines, Airmen and Sailors involved as well.
“And, surely our President should take time to speak with her…..Of course, you forget (I guess) that the President met Mrs. Sheehan before.â€
But since then new facts have arisen, facts that out into question the reasons for the war.
“I guess she thinks she is the only mother that has lost a child in this war.â€
Again with the psychic abilities. Any chance of sharing the winning Powerball numbers with me? Just send me an e-mail.
“The liberal agenda is clearly at play …â€
And what agenda would that be, holding our leaders accountable for the lies, lack of planning, lack of appropriate armor, et al? Seems like a better agenda than telling others what they can do in their own bedrooms (you know, the conservative agenda).
“and are now ‘using’ Cindy Sheehan for their goals, and that is not caring about her loss.â€
Seems to me us on the left care much, much more about her loss than the leader of our country does. After all, if he cared about anyone’s loss he’d bother to show up at a funeral. He hasn’t.
“They want to promote their message, we are against the war (majority supported and voted for it at the time, based on the information after the attack in AMERICA, but when things change… whoa… out come the liberals… no, no, no, we don’t support this now).â€
Two points: 1.) Most liberals I know were always against the war in Iraq. Tthe Dems in Congress walked lock-step with the Bushies, but only because, much like the American people, they were lied to. 2.) The attack on America had NOTHING to do with Iraq.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
“Mrs. Sheehan will be out of mind as soon as she is of no more use.â€
Actually, she has become a symbol of the anti-Iraq War movement, and will probably go down in history as an important figure.
“The ‘compassionate’ democrats at their best. Manipulation and achieving their goal against anything republican. Period.â€
Holy crap … I almost spit coffee all over my monitor after reading that. Anyone on the right who talks (or types) about “manipulation†better look in the mirror first—the Republicans have made smear tactic and art form. Just ask Valerie Plame.
“I am sick of the liberal agenda and ashamed at how they behave.â€
And I am sick of the conservative agenda and ashamed of how they behave. See, we have something in common!
“So quick to argue and attack President Bush without any research and thought.â€
Um … you mean like this research:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326
Sorry, but liberals have done more research and have more facts to back up their attacks than Republicans could even dream about. Conservatives, on the other hand, play to fear and emotion.
“So many times Clinton, Kerry, Billary (the other Clinton), Biden, Kennedy, Leahy…. I can go on and on, change their theology, moral code (or lack thereof), voting record and opinions from day to day.â€
So they’re just like Bush?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071800689.html
“And, as you criticize and support Mrs. Sheehan and her anti-Iraq war position, well, it seems that we may have been able to avoid this war had Clinton not taken so much ‘private time’ with his ‘friends’ and paid attention to what his advisors were saying.â€
Do you have any proof of that? I mean, you’re so big into “research and thought,†so let’s see it. Show me how Clinton is to blame for an attack on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
“He had the information of an attack IN America generated by Atta and bin Laden.â€
Um … so did Bush:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/18203/
“But, even if that proves to be true, you liberal will support Clinton, …â€
And even in the face of facts, you Conservatives will support Bush.
“as you did when he was being IMPEACHED. Do you know that our ex-president has now made the statement that he WASN’T impeached. Does he know reality?â€
Technically, he was impeached, but not in the same sense that most people think. What happened was more of a formal reprimand than an actually impeachment (removal from office). And he should’ve been—he lied under oath. But don’t you think Bush should be, as well? He lied to the American people, leading to nearly 2,000 American deaths and over 25,000 dead Iraqis. Or do you think Soldiers sign up to die, and an Iraqi’s life isn’t worth as much as an Americans? He has also helped cover up the outing of a CIA agent. Seems like impeachable offenses to me.
“I realize that I have wandered off the topic but this is the same ole song and dance from the same ole liberal party.â€
And your comments are the same old propaganda from the newest fascist regime.
“Why not try reading several magazines, widen your variety of internet searches and learn the truth.â€
Why not try watching something other than Fox News? I’d suggest you add variety to your Internet searches, but you don’t seem to even bother with that. And you obviously wouldn’t know truth if killed your kids.
“But, I do enjoy reading blogs and/or opinions from the obviously uneducated.â€
My guess is that Matt, Jason, and I have more education than your entire family put together.
Anyway, thanks for once again showing a STUNNING lack of knowledge on the issues, for not backing up a single claim with any sort of fact, and just generally showing the typical conservative lemming like attitude toward everything.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 8:34 am ¶
Mark wrote:
Jerry–
Ahhh … the typical wingnut “You dare to dissent? YOU’RE A TRAITOR!” message from the right.
First ammendment, shmirst ammendment.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 8:36 am ¶
Terry Johnson wrote:
Why is it that if you disagree with Bush, you’re either angry at him, a liberal, or both? I am a Vietnam era vet who was awarded the Bronze Star for actions on the battlefield during the 1991 Gulf War.
I am neither Republican nor Democrat but I am conservative. I support the death penalty to the ultra-point that I believe all rapists and child molesters should be put to death before murderers.
I do not support abortion but do support a woman’s right to choose. Why? Because no two women are alike and no man or woman can ever tell what an individual woman is going through, either physically or emotionally, during pregnancy.
All issues are about choice, hopefully, rational. I applauded the President’s decision to lead us in armed conflict against the Taliban and Bin Laden network because the terrorist link was obvious and provable. The same can’t be said about Iraq.
To that end, I agree with Cindy Sheehan. Although, as a soldier, her son may well have one day died on foreign land, he did not deserve to die in Iraq because we had no right being there. Instead of battling terrorism (yes, I know they sponsored terrorists as does Iran, Syria, and Lebanon via Syria – do we attack them next as a part of GWOT (Global War On Terrorism)), we did what only three Nations could do and that was to depose a sovereign ruler because . . . actually, I don’t no why. I know Bush had a reason, I just don’t know what it was. Cindy Sheehan doesn’t know, either!
And, that’s the point. The United States, Russia, and China are the only three Nations that could have Heads-Of-State dictate removing another sovereign ruler without being concerned about being charged with war crimes. All three of the Nations are too big to take on including by each other.
American Presidents use scare tactics to garner the support of the people for getting involved in other countries affairs. With Vietnam, it was the domino theory to prevent the spread of Communism. With Iraq, the excuse was WMD. But, as similar as the two actions are, there is a stark difference. The Vietnamese were a people of one country fighting to get rid of the French, Americans, and keeping the Chinese out. Vietnam was not supposed to be split into two parts (anyone who goes to Korea will see the same sentiment there) and they took action to unite their country.
Iraq, like Saudi Arabia, isn’t so much a country as it is a sum of it’s parts and that is a forced coalition of Tribes. In reality, there is no such thing as an Iraqi. They are Sunni, Shite, and Kurd with many sects within each. Attempting to instill a National Iraqi pride in these people and call it democracy is a joke. Left to there own devices, each Tribe has it’s preferred Tribal freedom and Tribal pride. I seriously doubt that collective pride is something they will ever embrace.
I neither like nor respect President Bush but I’m too conservative to ever attempt what Cindy Sheehan is doing. I don’t believe in the armed conflict in Iraq but I do believe in the soldiers engaged in that conflict and if I was recalled to Active Duty and ordered to Iraq, I would go in support of the soldiers but not in support of the President.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 9:25 am ¶
Mark wrote:
Terry–
I think you nailed it, and explained exquisitely what many liberal believe — we suppor the troops who are just doing their jobs, but are against the war and those who started it.
Outstanding job!
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 9:36 am ¶
tom wrote:
i think george bush should take 5 weeks vacation fighting in iraq instead of pulling his cock down in texas.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 9:47 am ¶
RON THOMPSON FROM NEBRASKA, USA wrote:
I AM GOING TO TYPE VERY LOUDLY TO FURTHER EMPHASIZE HOW OBNOXIOUS I AM. I AM GOING TO REINFORCE THE FACT THAT I AM TALKING LOUD, YET SAYING NOTHING BY PRESSING DOWN THE ‘CAPS LOCK’ BUTTON. FOR ADDED MEAISURE I WILL MISPELT THINGS, REINFORCING THE NOTIUN THAT TEH EDUCKATION SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY IS WERLD CLASS. I AM GOING TO RANT ON ABOUT A SEXUAL AFFAIR THAT HAPPENED NEARLY A DECADE AGO IN WHICH NO ONE GOT HURT, NO ONE DIED AND NO BLOOD WAS SHED, AND THEN I’M GOING TO COMPARE IT TO A WAR IN WHICH LIVES WERE TAKEN FOR A CAUSE THAT IS AT BEST CLEARLY UNDEFINED AND AT WORST AN OUT AND OUT LIE DESTINED TO BECOME THE LARGEST BLOOPER IN AMERICAN HISTORY, SHORT OF THE 2000 ELECTION.
I WILL SPIN QUOTES AND CHALK UP JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY AS ‘LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS’ THOUGH TWO MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS ARE OWNED BY COMPANIES UNDER THE THUMB OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.
I WILL IGNORE THE FOLLOWING QUOTES, WHICH WILL BE PLACED IN LOWER CAPS BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS IMPORTANT THAN MINE:
“You can support the troops but not the president.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
–Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
–Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
–Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
–Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
–Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
(TAKEN FROM A LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS BLOG THAT DON’T KNOW NUTHIN)
AND LASTLY I WILL IGNORE YOUR BLOG FROM NOW ON BECAUSE Y’ALL ARE FROM SAN FRANCISCO, AND WE ALL KNOW NOTHING BUT QUEERS AND RICE A RONI COME FROM SAN FRANSISCO.
MAY GOD BLESS ‘MERICA. FUCK YEAH.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 9:47 am ¶
BushLuver#666 wrote:
YOO STOOPID LIBRUL GUY. YOO SUCK. CINDY SHEEHAN IS A LIER. SHE MADE UP THE ENTIRE STORY. HER SON DIDN’T DIE HE IS STILL ALIVE! SHE LIED. YOU ARE A STOOPID LIER!
BUSH IS LORD!
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 9:53 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
The critical error Jason made was to mention Clinton. I understand the comparison and I completely agree with his point. But whenever conservatives see that name they completely lose their marbles. It is a Pavlovian response and I would find it amusing if it did not obfuscate matters so much. The Clinton supporters then fall into the trap of apologizing for him.
What Clinton did – cheating on his wife and lying about it – was wrong, morally and legally. There is no defending it. But let’s get some perspective here. His mistakes did not kill anyone and the only people it hurt were his immediate family. That makes him a bad husband, not necessarily a bad president.
But the debate here is not really about Clinton. He is just a point of reference. It is about Bush. It is about the well documented accounts of how he refuses to acknowledge viewpoints other than his own. It is about his own admission of ignoring news that he does not want to hear. It is about his disregard for roughly 50% of Americans. On some issues the figure is much higher. He does not listen and he does not care.
If you can put down the party pompoms for a minute, remember that supporting a political party is not like supporting a football team. When your “team†is wrong you have to be honest and call them on it. You should be disgusted that the President thinks there are free speech “Zonesâ€. You should be disturbed the President only hears what he wants to hear. You should be outraged at the grotesque waste in dollars and human life associated with the war in Iraq.
I am an American before I am anything else. I don’t care who is in the White House – republican, democrat or other – as long as they are doing a good job. The fact is Bush is doing a very bad job.
If Bush had eradicated the Taliban, captured Bin Laden, marshaled the kind of support we had for going into Iraq the first time, turned on the water and power in Iraq and kept the economy booming, I would not have such a problem with him. But he didn’t do any of that. He did the exact opposite.
If he showed a little flexibility or respect for Democrats or compromised once in a while, I would not have such a problem. But he doesn’t do any of that. He does the exact opposite.
The fact that he won’t talk to the mother of a dead soldier because she disagrees with is policy underscores his contempt for his opposition. This whole ridiculous side show could have been avoided if he had just given the woman ten minutes.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 9:56 am ¶
David wrote:
Thanks for the fantastic descussion. Frankly, I just get genuinely naseous thinking about Bush driving past Sheehan and her supporters day in and out, utterly ignoring them even while he wines and dines his big-ticket donors.
It’s teh same disgust I had when, before the war, in response to the millions of protestors world-wide, he said “I don’t make policy in response to focus groups.”
here comes the nausea again…
Anyway, unable to talk about it without difficulty, I made this cartoon:
http://www.clarkschpiell.com/home/gwbcartoon081605.shtml
–David
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 10:56 am ¶
Mark wrote:
I’m glad I didn’t mock anyone for their typos — I found at least three in my comments.
:-)
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 11:54 am ¶
marc wrote:
Eugene,
I believe that when our government decides that we need to go to war, we should fight all out to win with no other consideration to anything else until we have won. That means we should have sent 500,000 troops to iraq, defeat saddam’s army quickly and then disarmed the entire country. We should have never returned the country to the Iraqi’s until it was totally secure. I believe that if we don’t have the stomach to fight a war to win, we should stick to diplomacy.
The enemy isn’t stupid, no matter what those guys in the Pentagon think. Obviously they realized that they could not beat the Americans in a traditional nation-state war, so they chose their current guerilla style methods. The idea that Iraq would be an easy war was pushed by those who believe that the strength of the American army should be used to fight limited wars to achieve political aims (i.e., the neocons). The problem with that strategy is that we are so overwhelmingly superior militarily that no enemy will stand and fight in the traditional sense, but instead will rely on stealth and guerilla tactics to neutralize our technological advantages. From Vietnam the neocons know that Americans will not support protracted wars of ideology or choice, and therefore amassing a huge army of the type that you mention would have been much more politically difficult, perhaps impossible. The other major problem is that we have no clear definition of what victory means. The bar that the government set, of a democratic Iraq, is quite high indeed.
The real problem is that American polticians have come to see the American army and violence as a useful tool in acheiving political objectives. They have forgotten the lessons of warfare.
Posted 18 Aug 2005 at 12:11 pm ¶
BVB wrote:
The “Christian Right” is neither. The war is wrong, fought only for the good of the profit makers in D.C.. The Old Wise Man in Afghanistan knows the score.
OIL OIL OIL. DEATH DEATH DEATH. Stay glued to the tube – stay dumb, go to church and pray to your false Jesus; your Christian god and your petty idolotry. We are the natives of this land – the inheritors of all that was once good in this land. The government has us enslaved in this tit for tat. Pay no mind. Drive your mini-van, your gas guzzling SUV or Hummer and wait for breaking news that is not news but an isidiuos propaganda weilded by the government that OWNS YOUR SOUL.
Posted 20 Aug 2005 at 4:00 pm ¶
retired blogger wrote:
someone needs to stop listening to kmfdm records, stop reading moby liner notes and get some original thought.
Posted 21 Aug 2005 at 7:56 am ¶