Cindy's own words

[Mark]

Sure. And I have no problem with regarding some points of view as being simply wrong. If you aren't willing to make that call, then you sink into a tar pit of moral relativism:

I'd like to believe that, but what to make of Tony saying:
"It's no more cliché to call Bush a terrorist than it is to call Bin Laden and his ilk terrorists."

The world, sadly is not a black and white place.

Do I consider Bush a terrorist? No.

I do consider him an amoral and incompetent leader. I probably would stop short of calling him a war criminal, but I can easily understand why some people would call him that. He invaded a sovereign nation on false pretences...if that isn't at least skirting the edge of being a war criminal, I sure don't know what is.

To ignore that simply because it is us doing it, surely is an example of moral relativism.

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Yeah, he was no threat. Unlike Al Quaeda and the Taliban, with their high-tech "box cutter" WMD's which killed thousands and did hundreds of billions of dollars in economic damage. No, Saddam would NEVER be capable of mounting such an attack with his limited arsenal.

Sigh. We've been over this before, Zigg. Even though I hate repeating myself, I'll do it. Saddam was not a fundamentalist muslim. He didn't care about killing Americans for Allah. He may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid enough to launch a major attack against the US. What would he have gained? He knew we would come after him and overthrow him. He was only interested in keeping his own power. Did you see the interview he did right before the war? He almost pissed his pants, he was so scared of us. If he wanted to pose a threat to us, then he would have kept his WMD and sold them to terrorists.

What does Saddam not having WMD's in 2003 tell us about what he'd have in 2010?

Intent matters.

What, so you want to invade Iraq because Saddam might develop WMD in 2010?

Really? Let's take a look at this claim. Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people, putting many of them in mass graves. So if Saudi Arabia is 100 times worse, then there's got to be millions of Saudis that Bandar killed. That's quite an extraordinary claim. Do you honestly believe it? I doubt it. So either you're ignorant enough of reality that you'll make wild and unsupported claims, or you're just a liar.

I never said that Saddam was a saint. Yeah, he did some bad ◊◊◊◊, but for the most part, people had more freedoms in Saddam's Iraq than in Saudi Arabia. Let me ask you a question: If you were a woman, would you rather live in Saddam's Iraq, or in Bandar Bush's Saudi Arabia? I've already answered the question. Under Saddam, women did not have to cover themselves from head to toe, they were allowed to work outside the home, drive, and become educated in colleges. Saudi Arabia allows none of these freedoms, and considering that women make up half of the population, it's clear Saudi Arabia was more oppressive than Saddam. Does Saddam f*ck up political dissentors? Yes, but then again, so does Saudi Arabia.

And here's a question for tofu, Rik, and anyone else who thinks that Bush went into Iraq to combat terrorism, and that it's a good thing that terrorists are attacking us there, because it means they can't attack us here: If Bush went into Iraq to combat terrorists, then why the hell did he fly onto an aircraft carrier in 2003 and stand under a sign that says "Mission Accomplished" and then declare that major combat operations were over? Maybe he's just a nice guy, and he wanted to give something to the Democrats to attack him for the 2004 election. Is that it?
And why did Wolfowitz say that we would not need more than 100,000 troops in Iraq? Why did Rumsfeld originally plan on scaling back troop levels to 40,000 by Fall 2003? We all know the truth: Bush was completely caught off guard by the insurgency. Please do not insult the intelligence of the posters here by insinuating that 'terrorists killing Americans in Iraq is good because that means they aren't attacking us here', as if Bush knew this would happen all along.
Oh yeah, and Bush lied about WMD. End of story.

 

[MarksSock]

Nice change of subject. But there's no need to guess, it's quite well known: Saddam's primary weapons suppliers were the USSR and China (with France in third place). Which would make the political party in question the Communist Party, the greatest force for evil in the second half of the 20th century.

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but if you want to talk weapons suppliers, a little perspective helps.

I have to respond with my MarksSock account again...the site is (yet again) rejecting my password.---Mark

Let's stop pretending the the U.S. has the moral high ground here, shall we? Or is your defense really that "Everyone was doing it?"

On August 18, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, “Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas”. Quoting anonymous US “senior military officers”, the NYT “revealed” that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided “critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war”. The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died."

"[The] Iraqi bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records that are getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, saying it needed them for legitimate medical research.

The CDC and a biological-sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States backed Iraq in its war against Iran."

"Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme, a German newspaper said yesterday.

"From about 1975 onwards, these companies are shown to have supplied entire complexes, building elements, basic materials and technical know-how for Saddam Hussein's programme to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction," the newspaper said. "They also supplied rockets and complete conventional weapons systems," it added.

The five permanent members of the Security Council – the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China – have repeatedly opposed revealing the extent of foreign companies' involvement, although a mass of relevant information was collected by UN weapons inspectors who visited the country between 1991 and 1998. The UN claims that publishing the extent of the companies' involvement in Iraq would jeopardise necessary co-operation with such firms. http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=569 http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htmhttp://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

 

[Tony]

Why do you keep bringing up the idea of US troops raping children? This is at least twice in the last week or so.

Recognizing atrocities is one thing. Inventing them out of whole cloth is another. I'm not sure you're able to tell the difference.

Yes, I am able to tell the difference. Read and weep:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000990590

“U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed Friday that videos and ‘a lot more pictures’ exist of the abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.

"’If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse,’ Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.’

“The embattled defense secretary fielded sharp and skeptical questions from lawmakers as he testified about the growing prisoner abuse scandal. A military report about that abuse describes detainees being threatened, sodomized with a chemical light and forced into sexually humiliating poses.

“Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/20220/6952

Signaling the worst revelations are yet to come, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the additional photos show "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman." [...]

The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the scandal is "going to get worse" and warned that the most "disturbing" revelations haven't yet been made public.

"The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here," he said. "We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience; we're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/07/iraq.abuse.main/

"If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe."

Gee. We wouldn't want to be held accountable for our crimes would we?

In another incident, Taguba found that "I am a rapest" [sic] was written on the "leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year-old fellow detainee." The older detainee was then photographed naked.

Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman."

 

[Tony]

I'm trying very hard to come to a conclusion other than "all or substantially all 'anti-war' activists are in fact terrorist supporters whose reflexively anti-American opinions should be given no weight whatsoever in the national conversation and who in fact should be shunned by all civilized people and deported if they are not citizens,"

Go ahead, delude yourself if it makes you feel better (a hallmark of your ideology), I'm not going to stop you.

 

[Jocko]

Yes, I am able to tell the difference. Read and weep:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000990590





http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/20220/6952



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/07/iraq.abuse.main/



Gee. We wouldn't want to be held accountable for our crimes would we?

Quite a delicate house of cards you've built there, Tony. An editorial and a blog describing specific alleged atrocities and Rumsfeld's reaction, then a CNN story with Rumsfeld reaction but without the colorful descriptions of the atrocities. Therefore, on planet Tony, CNN has confirmed rape. QED. Better yet, child rape, which, er... doesn't actually appear anyplace here, except in an uncnfirmed allegation against a FELLOW DETAINEE.

Another creative embellishment? An Olympic-sized leap of logic? Or just a lie?

 

[MarksSock]

Quite a delicate house of cards you've built there, Tony. An editorial and a blog describing specific alleged atrocities and Rumsfeld's reaction, then a CNN story with Rumsfeld reaction but no specifics on the atrocities. Therefore, on planet Tony, CNN has confirmed rape. QED. Better yet, child rape, which, er... doesn't actually appear anyplace here, except in an uncnfirmed allegation against a FELLOW DETAINEE.

Another creative embellishment? An Olympic-sized leap of logic? Or just a lie?

So, if you reject CNN as a news source, who will you accept? Besides the RNC, I mean.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Sigh. We've been over this before, Zigg. Even though I hate repeating myself, I'll do it. Saddam was not a fundamentalist muslim. He didn't care about killing Americans for Allah.[/B]

No, he wanted to kill Americans for revenge.

He may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid enough to launch a major attack against the US.

Only if he thought his fingerprints would be obvious. If he thought he could do it through a proxy without detection (such as, I don't know, a secretive terrorist group that everyone insists the secular Saddam would never work with), then why WOULDN'T he?

And you've actually got it backwards. Saddam was NOT crazy, but he WAS prone to drastic miscalculations (aka, being stupid). I have little confidence that he could not have made such a miscalculation regarding supporting terrorism. He was getting away with it for free on a smaller scale already.

What, so you want to invade Iraq because Saddam might develop WMD in 2010?

No, because he WOULD develop them unless we constantly interfered through sanctions and inspections. That was proving costly for us (as well as for Iraqis), and had increasing opposition from the international community, so it was hardly guaranteed that they could have been maintained indefinitely. They were not even intended to last indefinitely, and yet the problem would have existed as long as Saddam remained in power. Inspections and sanctions were a stop-gap measure, they were never capable of solving the problem of ensuring Saddam never got hold of WMD's again. I wanted to invade Iraq to settle the matter definitively and permanently, in no small part because that is the only way it COULD have been settled permanently.

 

[Jocko]

So, if you reject CNN as a news source, who will you accept? Besides the RNC, I mean.

Sorry, Mark, could you quote the bit out of that CNN article that actually even suggests troops rape children, in Iraq or elsewhere? See, unlike you, I don't put NYT editorials on par with AP articles, and I don't give blogs the same weight as proper journalism. You have already demonstrated a real problem telling the difference. My only question is whether it's a source of your irrational, hysterical hatred, or merely a symptom.

Seriously. You have the link, you have your "proof." Show it to me.

Hope you remember your password soon, btw.

Edited to add: I think I smell another convenient redefintion of one of the following words: troops, rape, children. That's Mark's usual MO.

 

[MarksSock]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own w

No, he wanted to kill Americans for revenge.



Only if he thought his fingerprints would be obvious. If he thought he could do it through a proxy without detection (such as, I don't know, a secretive terrorist group that everyone insists the secular Saddam would never work with), then why WOULDN'T he?

And you've actually got it backwards. Saddam was NOT crazy, but he WAS prone to drastic miscalculations (aka, being stupid). I have little confidence that he could not have made such a miscalculation regarding supporting terrorism. He was getting away with it for free on a smaller scale already.



No, because he WOULD develop them unless we constantly interfered through sanctions and inspections. That was proving costly for us (as well as for Iraqis), and had increasing opposition from the international community, so it was hardly guaranteed that they could have been maintained indefinitely. They were not even intended to last indefinitely, and yet the problem would have existed as long as Saddam remained in power. Inspections and sanctions were a stop-gap measure, they were never capable of solving the problem of ensuring Saddam never got hold of WMD's again. I wanted to invade Iraq to settle the matter definitively and permanently, in no small part because that is the only way it COULD have been settled permanently.

Which Americans was he planning to kill, I wonder? Near as I could tell, he was after Iran and the Kurds in the 1980s, and Kuwait in the 1990s.

Are you seriously suggesting we invade every country who might someday have the potential to build WMDs? Wow...were going to be some busy little beavers.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own w

Which Americans was he planning to kill, I wonder? Near as I could tell, he was after Iran and the Kurds in the 1980s, and Kuwait in the 1990s.

Are you seriously suggesting we invade every country who might someday have the potential to build WMDs? Wow...were going to be some busy little beavers.

Are you seriously suggesting that every detail of an avowed enemy of the US be known and publicized before any action can be taken? Would a copy of Saddam's last colonoscopy really help put your mind at ease?

"Which Americans was he planning to kill?" How about the US pilots he took regular potshots at during the sanctions?

Cue the mobile goalposts....

 

[Manny]

I have to respond with my MarksSock account again...the site is (yet again) rejecting my password.

Maybe I'll have better luck with the sock puppet?

Afternoon, MarksSock.

Any word on how much weight I'm supposed to assign to a terrorist supporter or to a movement which so eagerly lines up behind one? I kind of hope for an answer since this thread is about Ms. Sheehan and not the Iraq war generally but somehow the questions keep slipping through the cracks.

 

[Tony]

Quite a delicate house of cards you've built there, Tony. An editorial and a blog describing specific alleged atrocities and Rumsfeld's reaction

Nope. An editorial, with quotes from Rumsfield, a blog citing the Boston Herald, with quotes from government officials including Republicans, and CNN, with quotes from government officials including Republicans.

Therefore, on planet Tony, CNN has confirmed rape. QED. Better yet, child rape, which, er...

In other words, you reject any news that doesn't confirm your pre-conceived beliefs. Can't say I'm surprised.

Since you demand to be spoon fed information, here's more:

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Rue...feld_050704.htm

.....Signaling the worst revelations are yet to come, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the additional photos show "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.''

"There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist,'' Rumsfeld testified before Congress.

"If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact.''
The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News."

Here is a whole thread on the subject.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60091&highlight=ghraib+photos

That the government is suppressing these photos is telling.

 

[MarksSock]

Sorry, Mark, could you quote the bit out of that CNN article that actually even suggests troops rape children, in Iraq or elsewhere?

Seriously. Show it to me.

Hope you remember your password soon, btw.

I didn't forget my password. Sorry about your difficulty with reading comprehension. I said the sytem was rejecting my password; last time this happened, Upchurch fixed the problem on their end, not mine.

I didn't see anything in Tony's post that indicated our soldiers were raping children. I think you may have mis-read it. Or I missed it. If you would, please show me where Tony said that.

I have just seen several CNN articles detailing the abuses at Abu Ghraib...and certainly if they were inlicted on me I would consider them rape.

"In Cruz's military court hearing, Spc. Israel Rivera testified that detainees "were put together in a big bundle of bodies, and they were handcuffed together. They were made to look like they were having sex."

Rivera said Cruz and some prison guards used their feet to press down on the buttocks of the men to simulate the appearance they were having homosexual sex."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/26/cruz.abu.ghraib/

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own w

Only if he thought his fingerprints would be obvious. If he thought he could do it through a proxy without detection (such as, I don't know, a secretive terrorist group that everyone insists the secular Saddam would never work with), then why WOULDN'T he?

See, this is exactly my point. The worst thing Saddam could have done is give money to Al Qaida. So should we invade Iraq because Saddam might give money to Al Qaida? And even that was unlikely given the following:
-Saddam wasn't a fundie Muslim
-Bin Laden hated Saddam

What would he have gained by giving money to Al Qaida? Not much. But he would have risked everything. If Bush had found out that Saddam funded an attack on the US, then Iraq would have gone down, and Saddam knew this. He was not stupid, but he was greedy. He wasn't going to risk his entire empire just so he could kill a handful of Americans.

And you've actually got it backwards. Saddam was NOT crazy, but he WAS prone to drastic miscalculations (aka, being stupid).

He was not prone to making the same miscalculation twice, though. Saddam was naive and arrogant before Gulf War I. He thought he would be able to kidnap American troops and tie them to Iraqi tanks. Boy, was he wrong. He learned to fear the U.S. after that. Like I said, Saddam wasn't stupid, and he learned from his mistakes. He hated Kuwait, but he didn't dare try to invade again after Gulf War I, because he knew we would smack him down again.

No, because he WOULD develop them unless we constantly interfered through sanctions and inspections. That was proving costly for us (as well as for Iraqis), and had increasing opposition from the international community, so it was hardly guaranteed that they could have been maintained indefinitely.

We could have had permanent inspections in Iraq for less than 1/100 of the cost of the Iraq war.

They were not even intended to last indefinitely, and yet the problem would have existed as long as Saddam remained in power. Inspections and sanctions were a stop-gap measure, they were never capable of solving the problem of ensuring Saddam never got hold of WMD's again. I wanted to invade Iraq to settle the matter definitively and permanently, in no small part because that is the only way it COULD have been settled permanently.

If you know that Saddam doesn't have any weapons in 2003, then all you have to do is put a ◊◊◊◊ load of inspectors in Iraq, and keep them there. Maybe even put a couple of satellites in the air to keep an eye on Iraq. Under those conditions, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Saddam to develop a large scale WMD program without detection.

 

[MarksSock]

Maybe I'll have better luck with the sock puppet?

Afternoon, MarksSock.

Any word on how much weight I'm supposed to assign to a terrorist supporter or to a movement which so eagerly lines up behind one? I kind of hope for an answer since this thread is about Ms. Sheehan and not the Iraq war generally but somehow the questions keep slipping through the cracks.

Calling Cindy Sheehan a "Terrorist Supporter" is no different from calling Bush a Terrorist.

One can be against this stupid, counterproductive war and not be a terrorist supporter. That is a childish Republican game that, fortunately, more and more Americans seem to be waking up to.

If you would like to ask me an intelligent question, I will be happy to answer.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own w

Which Americans was he planning to kill, I wonder? Near as I could tell, he was after Iran and the Kurds in the 1980s, and Kuwait in the 1990s.

Nobody you ever heard of...

 

[Tony]

Any word on how much weight I'm supposed to assign to a terrorist supporter or to a movement which so eagerly lines up behind one?

None really. But that doesn't really matter, does it? You'll find any excuse, latch on to any propaganda, to goose-step behind Bush.

 

[Jocko]

Tony and Mark, you're peas in a pod.

Troops are child rapists.
Bush is a terrorist.
Etc. etc. etc.

Either of you, please tell me which part of America does NOT completely disgust you, since you both obviously hate (a word used with precision) the president, the government, the majority of your fellow citizens that elected them, the military and their families (except Cindy Sheehan).

So, what part of America do either of you love? What is good and important to either of you? I am desperate to find a reason to give a flying flip what either of you think.

 

[Manny]

One can be against this stupid, counterproductive war and not be a terrorist supporter.

So people keep telling me. But as I demonstrated in this very thread, Ms. Sheehan is in fact a terrorist supporter. That Ms. Sheehan is a terrorist supporter is not in dispute -- it is a truism based on her own words. It's not based on one understanding or another of what she might have implied or someone else might have inferred. Ms. Sheehan stood up at San Francisco State University, in front of a convicted terrorist, and gave a speech supporting her.

That's why I ask my question. How much weight am I supposed to give to the words of a terrorist supporter? And if, as you say, one can be against the war but not be a terrorist supporter, why has the anti-war movement failed to find a leader who fits that description?