Cindy's own words

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? Yo

manny,
Thanks for answering my questions.
My retort:

He didn't. He erred. His CIA director, a man of such high integrity that he was trusted with the CIA under both a Democrat and a Republican, told him it was a "slam dunk."

Oh yes, he did lie. I proved it earlier in the thread. In February 2003, Bush knew his intelligence was garbage, that the weapons inspectors had found nothing, and that there was a good chance that Saddam no longer possessed WMD. Yet, in March 2003, he claims:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
-Bush March 03

He knew damn well that there were some very serious doubts about whether Saddam had WMD. Yet, he continued to tell the American people otherwise. How is this anything but a lie?

Both the President and the Defense Secretary underestimated the number of people who are terrorists. Basically, they made the error of believing themselves when they spit out the party line about terrorists being a "tiny minority of extremists" when in fact terrorists and would-be terrorists are much more numerous than conservatives admit. Simple, dumb math error -- a "tiny minority" of a billion people is still a lot of people.

This 'simple error' has resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and has costed billions of dollars. It wasn't a simple error, it was a catastrophic error that has changed the course of the war.

Indeed they did. And do. That's a big part of why we're still there. The errant estimate of the actual number of terrorists does not reduce the need to capture or kill them; indeed it increases the urgency.

I completely disagree. I don't think Bush and Co. had any idea of what would happen in Iraq. They were completely unprepared for the insurgency. All evidence suggests this- Rumsfeld planned on a very quick troop pull out. Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators.
If Bush did know that terrorists would start flooding into Iraq to fight us, why didn't he tell the American people before hand, so that they would know what to expect?

In Cindy Sheehan's own words, she is a terrorist supporter. What weight am I supposed to assign to the arguments of a terrorist supporter? What am I supposed to think about an alleged "anti-war" movement which so eagerly rallies around a terrorist supporter.

1. If she is in fact a terrorist supporter, then no weight.
2. You are assuming that the anti-war crowd agrees that she is a terrorist supporter. I doubt they do.
As Orwell asked, does Bush holding hands with the Saudi Prince make him a supporter of a fundamentalist muslim tyranical regime? If so, then what weight should I assign the arguments of Bush backers?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

Oooooh, Wah! You think the Iraqi election is a sham, without a shred of evidence. You think the US election is a sham, without a shred of reliable evidence. That's enough for me to conclude that you are an election wooist.

Back that accusation up with evidence, retract it and apologise, or tell it to the moderators. I'm through tolerating baseless personal attacks.

 

[Daylight]

I think you're refusing to recognize what those words really mean. They're hardly ambiguous.



Translation: couldn't we just accept my opinion about events and not debate them?

No, we cannot just do that. I do not agree with that assessment at all.

And the only equivalency between that and whether or not we excuse Sheehan's support for terrorists is if you want to argue that those terrorists really are freedom fighters. Is that honestly the position you want to take?

And why is it so hard for you to acknowlege that Cindy is a terrorist supporter? Hell, it's not like I'm going to conclude that you therefore support Bush, I'm fully aware of the possibility of opposing both Bush and terrorism. But why is everyone on the anti-war side so reluctant to label her for the lunatic she has so clearly become? Where are her critics on the anti-war side who disavow her support for terrorists? Do they not exist? And if not, how am I to take that as anything other than an indication that the anti-war crowd is also largely sympathetic to terrorists? Hell, it's not like there aren't Bush critics in the pro-war crowd - if you need help finding them, I can even point you in the right direction.

You’re missing my point. You formed your opinion before you read it. Kind of like what Bush with the intelligence before the invasion.

Translation, you refuse to look at all points of view. It appears you equate the Public speaking skills of Cindy and Bush. Maybe you are right. Both definitely need to spend time with a group like ToastMasters.

Don’t you find it odd that when anyone disagrees with Bush and friends a smear campaign takes place? Is this acceptable? What’s next, the swiftboat vets go on the attack? And to counter I’m sure we’ll see MoveHome.org

The bottom line is this gross incompetence by Bush and his generals needs to stop. We either need to get someone who will fight or we need to bring all the troops home. This wishy-washy war of attrition is disgusting. All Americans should be very angry.

 

[RandFan]

The bottom line is this gross incompetence by Bush and his generals needs to stop. We either need to get someone who will fight or we need to bring all the troops home. This wishy-washy war of attrition is disgusting. All Americans should be very angry.

I'm concerned. I'm not angry. "Gross incompetence"? What is your basis for such an assesment?

 

[Daylight]

Some reading for you. I'm certainly not qualified to comment on why a mother who lost her son in Iraq would speak at an event where the flyer below was handed out, but she did.

[

Do you have another source other than an ultra conservative site?

 

[Daylight]

I'm concerned. I'm not angry. "Gross incompetence"? What is your basis for such an assesment?

If the main 9/11 bad guy was an Islamic Fundamentalist, why did we attack the only secular Islamic Nation?

Did we catch the main bad guy from 9/11? Why not? Was he hiding in Iraq?

Did they look at past history and draw from it what worked and what didn’t past?

In the wargames preceding the invasion why did the US side have to cheat to win? Did the generals in charge even care about the results?

What’s the name of the Iraqi version of the Marshal plan? How is it working?

How do you lose 8 point whatever BILLION with a B Dollars of the US tax payers money earmarked for Iraq? This is US controlled dollars, not UN controlled dollars.

Name one place inside Iraq, and outside the greenzone, that is safe today for a non Iraqi to walk down the street.

Will Bush fire the incompetent generals commanding the troops? Or will Bush protect them? Do you really think Bush would even contemplate this?

Do the troops have the right equipment?

Why did it take so long to make the Iraqi oil pipeline safe?

Do the Iraqi civilians have full water and power?

Is the new Iraqi constitution worth 1900+ American lives?

Under the new constitution, will Iraqi women have more or less rights than before?

Is any of the above worse that the blow job that got the last President impeached?

Do you need more?

 

[Mycroft]

Back that accusation up with evidence, retract it and apologise, or tell it to the moderators. I'm through tolerating baseless personal attacks.

Oh c'mon! This is school-yard stuff. If you don't think the elections were a sham, just say so. If you do think they were a sham, then Manny's claim has weight, doesn't it?

 

[RandFan]

Do you need more?

So far you have some questions and assumptions. More? Yeah, how about something other than straw men and presupositions? Hey, you're entitled to an opinion but why should anyone agree with you?

I don't remember Bush ever saying that we went to Iraq to catch Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. We did go to Afghanastan and depose the Taliban and Al Qaeda. How is not catching Bin Laden proof of something? No one claimed it was going to be easy. On the contrary, at the outset Bush was warned by his advisors that such a task is very difficult.

In any event, yeah, I would like something substantive.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh c'mon! This is school-yard stuff. If you don't think the elections were a sham, just say so. If you do think they were a sham, then Manny's claim has weight, doesn't it?

If Manny has evidence or argument to contribute to any of the relevant threads about elections, Manny should do so.

If not she/he/it has no business making false claims about those threads elsewhere. Lying to discredit me is, minimally, a violation of the rule against personal attacks and a violation of the rule against being a jerk.

I have never reported a rule violator yet, but Manny may well be the first.

 

[RandFan]

Is any of the above worse that the blow job that got the last President impeached?

FIW I think Clinton was an idiot for putting himself in that position. However I don't think there should have been an investigation and I don't at all think he should have been impeached. That being said, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. You and I can agree that he shouldn't have been impeached but can you get the facts straight?

 

[Mycroft]

If Manny has evidence or argument to contribute to any of the relevant threads about elections, Manny should do so.

If not she/he/it has no business making false claims about those threads elsewhere. Lying to discredit me is, minimally, a violation of the rule against personal attacks and a violation of the rule against being a jerk.

I have never reported a rule violator yet, but Manny may well be the first.

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig, you have labeled Sheehan a "terrorist supporter" and now a "lunatic" both of which seem extreme to me. Then you suggest that people who are against the war are "largely sympathetic to terrorists."

I don't approve all of what Sheehan is doing. But I don't think that implies that I (or any of her supporters) need to call her a "lunatic." And your characterization of the anti-war movement is extreme to a fault. For a middle-of-the-roader like me, your language leaves you with little or no credibility.

No, you do not need to call her a lunatic. But if you want any respect from me for your position, you do need to do a little better than "I don't approve all of what Sheehan is doing." You need to demonstrate to me that you actually have some moral clarity, that you can recognize that calling terrorists "freedom fighters" is taking their side and excusing their crimes. Can you do that? It's really not that hard, and it's really not that much to ask. And yet, somehow, asking for this simple bit of moral clarity has become like pulling teeth. Actually, I do not think the anti-war crowd is really "largely sympathetic to terrorists." But I am becoming more and more convinced that it is deeply lacking moral clarity. Can you show me that clarity, or will I have to look elsewhere?

When Bush went for his hand-in-hand stroll with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia - the country which supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers - would that have been justification for calling Bush and the right wing, "largely sympathetic to terrorists"? Why not?

No, it would not. First off, let's separate "right wing" from Bush. Plenty of people on the right wing weren't happy about that. Second, yes, 15 of them came from Saudi Arabia. But many of them were radicalized while living in Germany (that's actually a common trait in Al Quaeda: beco. Would that then make Schroder a terrorist or terrorist supporter? You've got to do better than that if you want to tie the Crown Price to terrorism - not that Saudi Arabia isn't a problem, but you seem to be making an assumption that it's just him in charge. And third, like it or not, we have to try and work with Saudi Arabia, because we are not in a position to make progress by confrontation alone. That's the ugly reality of international politics. Sometimes you have to work with people who are, quite frankly, still your enemies (witness Roosevelt and Stalin, for example). Walking hand-in-hand with a head of state may be distasteful, but there are practical necessities for working together. This does not make him immune from criticism, but it does mean that calling him "largely sympathetic to terrorists" because of it doesn't make much sense. But there is no practical necessity, no reason, and NO excuse for calling terrorists "freedom fighters".

 

[MarksSock]

Jocko has a history of intellectual dishonesty, so don't be surprised or offended.

Good advice.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don’t you find it odd that when anyone disagrees with Bush and friends a smear campaign takes place?

I don't see that happening at all. What I do see is that critics of Bush keep doing a piss-poor job at picking their spokesmen, and keep on backing people who really ARE problematic. Don't you find THAT odd?

I'm tired of the self-pitying whining about smears from the anti-war crowd. If you had any spokesmen of character, they could take the heat. And I certainly don't see the anti-war crowd jump to Bush's defense when he's been genuinely smeared, like when a forged memo was used to try to bring him down before the election. THAT is a smear, my friend. What's happening to Cindy is just criticism, and if she can't take it, she's got no business putting herself at the center of the public debate. Grow the hell up.

 

[Manny]

I have never reported a rule violator yet, but Manny may well be the first.

 

[MarksSock]

I don't see that happening at all. What I do see is that critics of Bush keep doing a piss-poor job at picking their spokesmen, and keep on backing people who really ARE problematic. Don't you find THAT odd?

I'm tired of the self-pitying whining about smears from the anti-war crowd. If you had any spokesmen of character, they could take the heat. And I certainly don't see the anti-war crowd jump to Bush's defense when he's been genuinely smeared, like when a forged memo was used to try to bring hig herself at the center of the public debate. Grow the hell up. m down before the election. THAT is a smear, my friend. What's happening to Cindy is just criticism, and if she can't take it, she's got no business puttin

Don't you hold Bush responsible for anything?

 

[Ziggurat]

If the main 9/11 bad guy was an Islamic Fundamentalist, why did we attack the only secular Islamic Nation?

Dude, get a clue. Iraq wasn't the only secular Islamic nation. Hell, it wasn't even the only secular ARAB nation. Get your facts straight, you obviously don't know what you're talking about so I don't know why you expect anyone to take you seriously.

In the wargames preceding the invasion why did the US side have to cheat to win? Did the generals in charge even care about the results?

Oh, yeah, that was terrible. Must have been why we lost all those navy ships during the invasion, or why we lost battalions of infantry.

The invasion itself worked incredibly well: whatever the hell happened during the war gaming certainly didn't prevent that from happening, so it's a rather pointless criticism to say the least, as I ALREADY pointed out. Why are you still harping about it, then? Are you really THAT desperate for an argument against Bush?

Name one place inside Iraq, and outside the greenzone, that is safe today for a non Iraqi to walk down the street.

Easy. Much of the Kurdish regions are completely safe for foreigners. Didn't you know this?

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't you hold Bush responsible for anything?

Sure I do. If you want, I can even tell you what. Just ask nicely.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, yeah, that was terrible. Must have been why we lost all those navy ships during the invasion, or why we lost battalions of infantry.

I know, I really would have been embarassed to make this argument. Assuming the very worst about the incident it has zero importance. But hey, one has to build a list from something even if it is all crap.

 

[MarksSock]

Sure I do. If you want, I can even tell you what. Just ask nicely.

I thought I did.

But I really am curious.