An Hour with Cindy Sheehan
Matt Drudge ran a newsflash today on Cindy Sheehan, the military mom whose 24-year-old son's death in Iraq spurred her to protest the war.Sheehan made international news last week when she visited Crawford, Texas with members of Gold Star Families for Peace. She wanted to ask him "why did my son die?"
In June, Alan Colmes interviewed Sheehan on his syndicated radio show, which I've enclosed as a 50-minute podcast. She takes several calls from irate members of the public, including an incredible exchange with a mother who supports the war.
This morning, Drudge ran excerpts of a 2004 interview she gave her local newspaper, cherry-picking quotes that made her sound effusive in praise for the president after her son's April 2004 death.
The full story, which was brought back online today, contains a quote omitted by Drudge that makes her feelings more clear:
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
Radio · Politics · 2005/08/08 · 41 COMMENTS · LinkComments
Of course, I understand why a mother would wonder if her son died in vain, for the wrong reasons. However, this woman is making her son's death into a political event; an attempt to defame and misdirect for political expediency.
When President Clinton said, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
Were those reasons "Lies?" Was any death on either side futile and in vain, if for those stated reason?
Fortunately, Clinton's war was relatively short, if executed twice, and it was of course an actual *futility* because nothing changed and nothing was gained. However, in Bush's war, and for the same stated reasons used and universally supported by the Democrats at the time of Clinton's attacks, there has been success: Saddam is no longer the bloody dictator and supporter of terrorism, the threat of WMD from Iraq is over, democracy has been given a chance after nearly 50 years of brutal dictatorship, and the entire region is relieved of the threat Saddam posed.
Still, you and this woman are actually Democrat aparatchiks, and will slavishly continue to pander and promote the ignorance of the public -- for your own selfish political goals...
You, personally, are anything but a patriot...
It's awfully convenient to view everyone who disagrees with you as part of an opposition party apparatus.
The closest I've come to the Democratic Party is a contribution to Howard Dean in 2000.
The truth is that I'm just an ordinary citizen with grave doubts about this war, and from what I know of Cindy Sheehan, she appears to be the same. Two years in, and President Bush won't tell us what has to happen for our troops to come home. That's a repudiation of the Powell Doctrine for successfully waging war -- overwhelming force, well-defined goal, and a quick exit.
Good article!
The death of a son in a war based on lies is political. Parents should wake up to the tragic fact this administration has little regard for their children. The actions of the adminsitration since the war began proves that point.
The lack of body armor, the lack of reinforced transports, the no bid contracts, the haste to secure the oil fields above all other objectives, the talk of supporting the troops while cutting benefits, pay cuts for active duty troops upon return, lack of medical insurance for the National Guard troops et.al. alll demonstrate the administration's attitude toward the men and women in harm's way.
This President has yet to attend a funeral of one soldier as a symbolic act of grief. The wounded and dead returning to the nation they served come back in the dark of night to avoid the public seeing them.
The list of egregious acts toward the welfare of troops in the two war zones and those returning is innumerable.
Bush, Cheney, Rove and all the crew who felt themselves above putting their lives on the line have no idea of the horror of combat.
They still think this a game of using little toy soldiers to conquer the world.
Cindy Sheehan is calling them out for their behaviors like a loving mother should.
As a combat vet, I stand in solidarity with Cindy.
I feel most sorry for her poor son's memory. He fought and died with honor and now she's dragging his good name through the mud for her own personnal agenda. Didn't she know that the military life is risky like the police or fire fighters. Looks like she doesn't want to deal with the real matter that her son chose the military life, died from his decision, and now she wants him back. You can either accept his fate and honor his actions and memory or you can damn the world and nurse bitterness in your heart. Bottom line, no matter what Cindy does or says, her son will never be in this world again.
It is a great honor to defend one's country. Our freedoms have been built on the lives of our brave men and women who died for this country. But there must be purpose for their deaths. Of course we can disagree all day long as to the legitimacy of this war. But let's take a look at what we have today. We have never discovered the WMD's which were the initial reason for entering this dictatorship. We have people who just don't want us there. If they did... we would have been welcomed in a very different manner and not with people throwing their lives away on us to destroy our children. Yes, our children are dying for what reason. Nobody seems to really want to define it. If I hear 'Stay the course'one more time I will be genuinely revolted. What course??? What plan??? No exit strategy. Is there a magic number of deaths that must occur and then we will leave??? We all know that as soon as the troops are gone there will be a religious civil war. Can we cure the hate in a few years that has raged for hundreds and hundreds? Of course not. This president is a foolish man who will be found by the historians years from today as the most incompetent leader we have ever had.
Bush, Cheney, Rove and all the crew who felt themselves above putting their lives on the line have no idea of the horror of combat.
They still think this a game of using little toy soldiers to conquer the world.
Cindy Sheehan is calling them out for their behaviors like a loving mother should.
As a combat vet, I stand in solidarity with Cindy.
VietCombatVet | 2005-08-09 02:35 PM | link
Pricisely this, why on earth have we the AmericanPeople allowed this group of people to decide the fate of our children when not any of them have served in combat. Not any of them know what it is to be in combat. never should we ever place a person as president who has never truely served thier country via the Military. This is extremely naive of us Americans. Then we ask why we are so hated by so many in this world.
I FEEL SORRY FOR A WOMAN WHO IS BEING USED BY THE BIGGEST LIARS OF THE CENTURY. THEY ARE KNOWN AS DEMOCRATS AND THERE HATRED IS BEYOND BELIEF. ITS NO WONDER WE CANT WIN THIS WAR WHEN ARE WORST ENEMIES ARE OUR SO CALLED ELITE GIRLY BOYS ACTING IN OUR BEHALF, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO SHOULD BE AT THE FRONT LINES INSTEAD OF PICKING OUR POCKETS TO GIVE TO MALCONTENTS FOR A VOTE.
I have a son in Iraq and I want him home. I am strictly on Cindy Sheehan's side whether this is a political issue or not. I've already lost one son by an accidental death, I don't want to lose another who's fighting for a cause no one knows about other than the Bush group. Right now I think President Bush should go and fight beside all of these wonderful military people and find out what they're going through. It would be nice if Bush got chewed on by a "camel spider" and then was told not to let it get infected in a 135 degrees weather. THEN, maybe Bush can come up with the truth as to why my son and 1,000's of others are over there giving their lives while he takes vacation after vacation. My son and your children are over there fighting for what? him?
Funny, I rarely if ever hear lefties call right-voting citizens names. Lefties call the NeoCon leaders names, and attribute many evils to them, but do not attack average americans of the right-stripe. Lefties do show some perplexity at WHY the right-voters believe what they do, but they usually do not revile them or call them sub-human names.
However, rank and file Right Wing Nobodys come from every point of the compass, to jump on average americans who dispute bush....and call them UNPATRIOTS, GirlyMen, crybabies, godhaters, babyhaters, jesushaters, americahaters, and anything else they can think of. They (righties) also say that these same lefty-citizens are out for: their own cause, to get air-time, for political expediency, and to pad their own political war-chest.
Tell me, what is this woman gaining? What political hatchet is she sharpening? What cause is she riding to fame and fortune? Is she really trying to win favor with Satan? Is she really trying to destroy the morale of america? Is she really just trying to pad her own political capital, until she can ride into washington and take over and make us all think like her? Is she really just interested in killing unborn babes and trashing jesus and letting hollywood decide for us?
I say no. It is the commonest trick now of the right, to claim anyone with a logical question is a hater, and stuffing their political warchest, and is trying to forward the devil's business.
Before any righty says we are girlymen, or unpatriots....they must prove that they were underfire, that they signed up immed. to go to war. They must prove what someone has done to deserve such charges, and they should also be standing in front of said girlyman when they call him UNPATRIOT or Girly. Safe and cozy at home, it is easy to call people such. They cannot punch your pimply face in. Bravo. Bravo to you.
I lived through the Vietnam era and the one element that is lacking in today's war(s) - Iraq and Afghanistan, is the Draft. There's no conscription. It was the "draft" that created the mass protestation that went on in the 1960's and 1970's during Vietnam. Thousands of men were sent over to 'nam that really didn't want to be there and that may have contributed to our losing the war. The Bush Administration is going to argue that everyone that went to Iraq either volunteered to go or put there own selves in harm's way. When you're only 19 years old you're as innocent of horror as you are of sex.
WHY SHOULD BUSH GO ON VACATION WHEN WE HAVE A WAR GOING ON. THIS IS NOT FAIR. NOT WHEN HE KEEPS OUR MILITARY IN IRAQ FOR OVER 18 MONTHS. WHAT THE HELL IS BUSH THINKING. BUSH CAN SEND OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO WARM BUT HE COULD NOT FIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY. BUSH IS A COWARD. YOU GO CINDY I'M BEHIDE YOU 100%
BRING OUR MILITARY HOME NOW!!!!!
WHAT GOES AROUND.....COMES AROUND.
Oh! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would, today, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it
is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled;
the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.
~Frederick Douglass
Conservatives criticize Cindy Sheehan for politicizing her son's death. I say, what does she have to gain politically? Will she become a California state senator? A Vice-Presidential candidate? No. She is expressing an opinion, which was once thought to be okay in America until the neo-cons took over. IF you want to criticize anyone for politicing Casey Sheehan's death, criticize Geo. Bush. He's the one who continually trundles out the partriotic sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform in the War on Terror. The Iraqi war is not a war on terror; it is not a war to free Iraqis; it is a war for oil. Always was, always will be. A grab for control of the oil rich Middle East. Politicing? Rove, Cheney, Bush and his lot wrote the book on dirty politics. Cindy Sheehan is a breath of fresh air in the stale, fetid, pig sty of the Bush presidency. God speed, Cindy - hope your efforts shame the president and turn into a national movement to end this ridiculous war that is costing us billions - and which cost you your beloved son. For what? President Bush remains mute at her simple question.
She wanted to ask him "why did my son die?"
For shame Rogers, why do you do exactly what you accuse Matt Drudge of doing? Misquoting?
Cindy Sheehan actually wants to ask President Bush, "Why did you kill my son?"
The woman is clearly out of her mind for insinuating that President Bush murdered her son when he was killed by Islamofascists.
The full story, which was brought back online today, contains a quote omitted by Drudge that makes her feelings more clear:
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
Quoting out of context? Here you go utilizing her supposedly clear feelings when these are feelings she expressed before meeting with the President. Afterwards she is singing the Drudge Report tune that has now gone sour.
Stop being a cBS/Newsweek leftist when you are better than that.
Frankencense is an idiot though.
Bush does indeed bear the responsibility for the death of Casey Shehan and about 9,000 other American soldiers (the Pentagon doesn't count the ones who die of wounds recieved in Iraq when they are en route to military hospital in Germany and those who later die of these wounds in Germany). The Iraqis who killed him would never have the occasion to do so without Bush's war for corporate profits and oil. Furthermore, Bush is unfortunately putting our sildiers on the wrong side of international law, wheras the insurgents are actually doing what they have the right under international law, which is to resist foriegn occupation. As much as I deplore all the killing in Iraq, the Iraqi insurgents are actually acting within their rights when they attack our troops, not of course, when they attack noncombattants.
For shame Rogers, why do you do exactly what you accuse Matt Drudge of doing? Misquoting? Cindy Sheehan actually wants to ask President Bush, "Why did you kill my son?"
A quote from Sheehan in The Guardian:
All of the attacks on Sheehan are giving her exactly what she wants -- a platform to express her views that her son died for no good cause and the troops should be sent home.I want to ask him why did my son die? What was this noble cause you talk about? And if the cause is so noble, when are you going to send your daughters over there and let somebody else's son come home?"
By the time the right wing spin machine is done with her, Sheehan might look like the second coming of John Kerry. (Did you hear he fought for the North Vietnamese alongside Jane Fonda? That his wife donated the proceeds of Heinz Ketchup to Al Qaeda? That he believes in a -- gasp -- living wage?)
None of this will change the fact that the president has to answer those questions. Why did people like Casey Sheehan die? What are the conditions of victory so we can send our troops home?
The Iraqis who killed him would never have the occasion to do so without Bush's war for corporate profits and oil.
Why did people like Casey Sheehan die?
I guess that whole volunteer military thing must really screw with your fantasy worlds, huh?
Furthermore, Bush is unfortunately putting our sildiers on the wrong side of international law,
Oh yes, international law. Never mind that we are upholding approximately 11 if not more United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Which international laws are we breaking again?
wheras the insurgents are actually doing what they have the right under international law, which is to resist foriegn occupation.
Syrian and other foreign born fighters have no claim to resisting so called occupations in Iraq. Let Iraqis fight if they want to be ruled by a despot again.
And War For Oil? Seriously? Did you seriously just say that? Where is my abundant national energy reserve? Where the hell is it? Please, explain how we have all this oil now that we have fought a war for it and yet we have no increase in our national supply nor a reduction in gasoline prices. Do you really think the government could maintain the current gasoline prices if we were being inundated with barrel upon barrel of oil that we got in our war?
You leftists have to stop getting your gnews from Gary Gnu.
Why is it that those who castigate Ms. Sheehan as "unpatriotic" for not toeing the administrations line, are not in Iraq fighting in this war they so vehemently and ethusiasticly endorse?
Amazing that none in the top of this administration have never even been in the military, except bush who was AWOL.
This war was built on lies/falsified intelligence and has got this country nowhere yet the uninformed still cling to this nonense.
this country was born of protest about wrongs that the government committed in the name of its' citezens.
>Saddam is no longer the bloody
>dictator and supporter of terrorism
It was established long ago that Sadaam Hussein was not in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden. Osama would never work with Sadaam, because Iraq wasn't an Islamic theocracy. STRIKE ONE!
>the threat of WMD from Iraq is over
You mean the WMDs that NEVER EXISTED? STRIKE TWO!
>democracy has been given a chance
>after nearly 50 years of brutal
>dictatorship, and the entire region is
>relieved of the threat Saddam posed.
You mean the threat we supported back during the 80's, right? STRIKE THREE! YER OUT!
>Saddam is no longer the bloody
>dictator and supporter of terrorism
It was established long ago that Sadaam Hussein was not in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden. Osama would never work with Sadaam, because Iraq wasn't an Islamic theocracy. STRIKE ONE!
>the threat of WMD from Iraq is over
You mean the WMDs that NEVER EXISTED? STRIKE TWO!
>democracy has been given a chance
>after nearly 50 years of brutal
>dictatorship, and the entire region is
>relieved of the threat Saddam posed.
You mean the threat we supported back during the 80's, right? STRIKE THREE! YER OUT!
WATCH WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY!!!!
It was a famous charge during Nixons Presidency and it is still relevent today since many of his acolites are now runing this country.
Why is it that all of you so called "patriots" are unable to educate yourselves to the facts and make intelligent comments based on facts but spew out the vitriolic hate of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who by the way never served in the military?
If any of you really care about this country, who should try reading books by Richard Clarke, Gerald Posner or any of the intelligent people who are on no ones' side but deal with "facts".
Most of the information about the lead up to this war is on public record for all to se and read.
This is what a Democracy is about.
You all like to think of yourselves as living in a Democracy but then act and speak out when someone else has something to say that does not fit into your small minded views.
I guess that whole volunteer military thing must really screw with your fantasy worlds, huh?
Only if you think that a soldier who volunteers for military duty has less right to expect his sacrifice to be meaningful.
This war was built on lies/falsified intelligence and has got this country nowhere yet the uninformed still cling to this nonense.
Most of the information about the lead up to this war is on public record for all to se and read.
Sure, and keep telling yourself that until you decide to actually read the 9/11 Commission report.
Only if you think that a soldier who volunteers for military duty has less right to expect his sacrifice to be meaningful.
I am not sure what you are getting at here Rogers, I find equal meaning in any death in a deployment zone.
I want to know what motivations Cindy Sheehan has in her about face over the past year. Is she so all consumed with her grief that she has to accuse the President of murdering her son? Her grief is understandable, the shameless pimping of her son's memory is not.
Cindy Sheehan. My heart is with you. I wish I could be as brave.
Cindy is a brave woman and mother.
I support her all the way.
I feel sorry for Cindy and I support her 100%. You Go Girl! I am 10 years old.
What's the point of all this for the mother? To express her dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. Why? Because her son is dead and she wishes he weren't. She could not be expected to feel otherwise. Other parents feel the same way but choose not to express it as she has. That is their right as much as it is hers to speak her mind.
But don't pretend there is not the potential for political gain in her act. She knows very well the presence of troops in Iraq depends somewhat on the weight of US public opinion, and she is attempting to sway that opinion. You'll forgive me if I don't think she's considering all of the factors equally in her decision to come out against the war.
You can pretend we're in Iraq for oil, or WMD, or whatever, but anyone who is being honest about it will remember that everyone, that's every political figure worth mentioning throughout the political spectrum, spoke in very certain terms about removing Saddam Hussein from power as late as mid-2003. They gave many reasons, but the call for action never changed. Later, the debate became just about WMD for some, but in essence removing Saddam is something Clinton and every other Dem would have done if they thought it were actually and politically possible, and to say they would only have done so for stability and not to improve the lot of the average Iraqi is inaccurate. Google their own words if you doubt it. And while WMD were never much of a reason for me, don't close the book on them yet. The bulk of what we were looking for would fit in an average 2-car garage. It's not that hard to hide or move something of that size, given many months to do so before the coalition finally showed up.
My main problem with anti-Iraq war sentiment is that I don't understand what it is in aid of other than beating up on the Bush administration. It's certainly not an interest in Iraqis having a better life than they did under Saddam. I think Christopher Hitchens has said it best recently:
How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?
Yea, brother. (cue Star Trek lyre music)
Scotty, you're kidding, right? You're trying to say that the war isn't about oil? You buy the ever-shifting WMD/9-11/democracy rationales hook, line and sinker? If that's so, then Karl has you right where he wants you.
I've heard some defenses of the war that acknowledge that it's about oil; that defending our access to Iraq's oil supply is worth the price we're paying in lives and cash. I don't agree with these arguments, but I might if they were paired with some serious energy conservation efforts and development of alternatives. If nothing else, I find the honesty refreshing.
You buy the ever-shifting WMD/9-11/democracy rationales hook, line and sinker?
Well, when the 9/11 Commission charged with determining links says there were links and when WMD have been found in Iraq and the area is already seeing deomcratic reform and the beginnings of stabilization in neighboring areas it isn't a matter of buying something hook, line and sinker. It is a matter of seeing the truth play out.
Is oil, and a "friend" in the region with lots of it, a secondary reason for us being there? No doubt at all. But that oil interest should be focused on us taking what oil will cover our costs for liberation and rebuilding. That oil should be given freely from the Iraqis as well, we shouldn't have to ask for it.
British intellligence never backed down off its claim to yellowcake purchases, Wilson said Iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake. There is credible satellite evidence of shipping lanes running full time along the border with Syria in the run up to the war. Are we enforcing international resolutions lawfully?
Oil is a secondary benefit without a doubt. This War for Oil tripe is just that.
As I read the comments I am saddened by how much of the "party" line and sound bites I hear being regurgitated. Does anyone think for themselves anymore? Have we been so brainwashed by the Government Fear Machine that we cannot see the horror of what our government is doing in our name around the world?
Yes, if Bush loses the war we all lose the war...but, we lost the war the day the Bush "Doctrine" of prememptive attack was accepted as our new policy.
Scotty I fear you need to be beamed up so you can speak to your computer. Perhaps it can teach you a thing or two. Stop listening to ABC CBS and Fox and Rush Limbaugh and do some real research on what our government has been doing around the world for decades.
How is it a volunteer army when we have a "stop loss" policy that does not allow you to leave when your tour is up? Why are these troops being kept over there way past the normal 6 month rotation period? Have you ever served? When was the last time the National Guard was used to fight a war?
There is no War on Terror ( the cold war is over we need a new enemy!)... there is no War on Drugs (watch tv and see all the drug commercials)! For crying out loud can't you see that? It is only a means to control you and your thoughts and your actions...get in line and be a good little soldier and think the way I want you to think... that way (we) the rich get richer and you pay our taxes!
And the poor get poorer... or die.
And for God's sake get yer head out yer Butt and realize our President can kill with the stroke of a pen. And even though he doesn't pull the trigger he is just as guilty as the one who does... and he has the power to stop it. It is still murder no matter how you phrase it. Yes, he killed her son and thousands of others by making the decision he made. I fear he will kill many more before we are able to reverse this tragic course we are on.
And for you Jesus Freaks... think about it... what would Jesus do?
How many Armies would he send overseas?
Can you honestly say Bush did not lie about this war so he could have his little moment of glory? He intended to go to war all along. Google up the Downing Street Memo.. I suppose that was a lie made by "liberals". Do you really believe for one second our national security was threatened? Do you really believe Sadam had anything to do with 9/11?
Please do not let the media and the political elite control your thoughts. Take a little effort and think for yourself... and try using logic and reason!
If you would think for a moment ... how many people were killed in 9/11? How many die in car accidents a year or from malaria or from the flu or aids or hunger? Do the research and you'll see the truth.
We live in an insane world because our memories are short and we do not learn from our mistakes and we don't hold our leaders accountable for theirs...
Is it really true that anyone who questions the actions of their government is a liberal or a lefty or unpatriotic? Really? Go to the back of the class.... study the Revolutionary War and work your way up to today...
You missed something!
And let us pray for America and the world...
Donnerboy
Scotty, a challenge for you: show me some evidence of WMDs found after the invasion. And show me where the 9/11 commission states that there were links to Saddam? As they stated in their report, there was "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
You have to admit that oil was the primary reason for us giving a damn about what was going on in Iraq. If it was about getting rid of a despot, why start with Saddam and not any of the many other, arguably worse, despots? If it was about WMDs why not start with North Korea? Kim Jong-Il is both a murderous despot and he has WMDs.
I hope that you're right about a flourishing democracy in Iraq. But unless you're looking at the news with Rumsfeld's glasses, it looks less and less likely that that is going to happen. And I think that Rummy & Co. will be happy with any kind of government there--despotism, kleptocracy, theocracy, whatever--as long as the don't rock the boat and keep the oil flowing, so I'm not holding my breath.
Rogers says, "The truth is that I'm just an ordinary citizen with grave doubts about this war, and from what I know of Cindy Sheehan, she appears to be the same."
You are acting as an ideological stooge for the Left/Democrats. Your 'grave doubts' were not apparent when the Democrat administration went to war in Bosnia, bombed Serbia, conducted two air wars in Iraq, attempted to assassinate or kidnap Somalian political leaders and, or invaded Haiti to depose a dictator, there. Where were those 'doubts' then?
"Two years in, and President Bush won't tell us what has to happen for our troops to come home."
That's because you won't listen! The administration planned for elections in Iraq to be held a year from the time Saddam was deposed. Plan accomplished. The administration informed the public that there would be a withdrawel of troops from Iraq as their own security forces were trained and capable of taking over. That is happening now!
But, what does the Left/Democrat 'machine' do when force reductions start? They whine and moan that there aren't enough troops in Iraq! You've got them puling about that over on your rip-off site!
Your 'doubts' are manufactured to suit your ideology and not any indication of your real concern, and which is purely political. To verify that, all you have to do is review the content of this site and your Drudge copycat -- it is what you present, and all of it one-sided...
"That's a repudiation of the Powell Doctrine for successfully waging war -- overwhelming force, well-defined goal, and a quick exit."
What a crock! You were posting articles declaring any force in Iraq as being wrong, illegal and fascist, from the very start! Now, of course, the spin comes down for supporting 'overwhelming force' (which wasn't needed to depose Saddam and occupy Iraq,) defined goal (only if it fits your idea of 'definition,' and quick exit (which I don't believe you will find him having said, at all!)
Save your excuses...
Rogers maunders, "Only if you think that a soldier who volunteers for military duty has less right to expect his sacrifice to be meaningful."
Wait, Rogers! Were the sacrifices of those soldiers who died in Somalia attempting to kidnap a Somali leader 'meaningful?'
Is it without meaning to depose a vicious, genocidal dictator from power? Is it a futile death to help the people of Iraq towards democracy. Is it without meaning to assure that Iraq will not be endangering their neighbors or the rest of the world with WMD (found or not?)
Perhaps you just can't 'see' through the fog of your own partisan brainwashing...? Is that it...bunky?
I wasn't posting anything at the Retort when the Iraq War began, aside from the occasional parody article. We didn't begin linking news stories until last spring.
As I understand it, the Powell Doctrine isn't to use overwhelming force when it's needed, but to use it always to minimize the risk to our troops.
I haven't moved much in my opinion of this war. From the beginning I thought it was too much money, too much risk, too little benefit, and had nothing to do with 9/11. I would have loved to be proven wrong, simply to get the troops home faster, but we're more than two years in now, and things seem to be getting steadily worse.
I supported the Afghanistan War and as I recall was an opponent of the first Iraq War. Over time I'm becoming more enamored of Pat Buchanan's isolationism. I don't want the U.S. to be the world's policeman.
My big fear is that Bush has created a situation so unstable that we'll still be overextended in military actions when my children are of draftable age in 10-15 years. Cindy Sheehan told President Bush he didn't want to know what it would be like to lose a child in war. I don't want to know that either.
Rogers says, "I wasn't posting anything at the Retort when the Iraq War began..."
Not germane to anything I have said, and therefor either an excuse or rhetorical misdirection.
"As I understand it, the Powell Doctrine isn't to use overwhelming force when it's needed, but to use it always to minimize the risk to our troops."
Ergo, overwhelming force would be 'needed' at every military adventure. However, and as I'm positive you know already, Sun Tsu proposed the same policy in "The Art of War," 1st edition circa 400 BPE (BC,) and by every other military philospher since that time. It is an utopian ideal of the military. On top of that, Congressional appropriations determine strength levels which can realistically be used to conduct operations, in general.
"I haven't moved much in my opinion of this war. From the beginning I thought it was too much money, too much risk, too little benefit, and had nothing to do with 9/11."
The refusal to recognize that Islamic terrorism is at the root of the problem(s) in the ME defies understanding. I suppose that it isn't so much a result of any ability to understand, but a partisanly driven inability to cooperate in any effort by Republicans, and which might result in a positive outcome for democracy and the freedom of the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations there; as well as the rest of the world: Spain, Britain, the US, Indonesia, Ceylon and threats to Italy, France, among others. That could mean that your 'party' might not 'win' and gain control of the government...and you see yourself as a 'peace patriot,' I also suppose...
"I would have loved to be proven wrong, simply to get the troops home faster, but we're more than two years in now, and things seem to be getting steadily worse."
Ms. Cindy wants them home, now, Rogers -- not when the job is done -- right now! You support that ideal by emphasizing whatever embarrassment her use of her son's death can cause this administration and the fight against the use of terrorism in politics. The aim of the terrorist is also to have the US withdraw, immediately. Therefor, you tacitly support the terrorist goal in abandoning Iraq to terrorism, and in supporting Cindy's ghoulish cause. Of course, the Democrat leadership all, everyone of them, say that Iraq should not be abandoned, but that the job of securing Iraq should be completed -- they even sponsor 'massive force' out of one side of their mouth, while they too provide moral support to Cindy's desire to have our troops home, instanter! The term 'whited sepulcher' comes to mind...
"I supported the Afghanistan War and as I recall was an opponent of the first Iraq War. Over time I'm becoming more enamored of Pat Buchanan's isolationism. I don't want the U.S. to be the world's policeman."
Then of course, you were outspoken against the military adventurism displayed by the Clinton administration and their involvement in invading Bosnia, bombing Serbia, bombing Iraq for WMD, attempting to kidnap or murder Somalian leaders/warlords, and invading and deposing in Haiti under a Democrat, and apparently fascist administration...isn't that right?
"My big fear is that Bush has created a situation so unstable that we'll still be overextended in military actions when my children are of draftable age in 10-15 years. Cindy Sheehan told President Bush he didn't want to know what it would be like to lose a child in war. I don't want to know that either."
Yeah, you can't be supporting a draft and endangering your children to it, in the future. No safety in the National Guard, either, it seems. I understand, but doesn't it give you the chills with the constant and never-ending complaints about Bush and the Guard on your news blog? Then, of course cringe when someone mentions Gephardt and his fortuitous chance to enter the Guard...?
Never mind. Of course your children's lives are worth more than any millions of Iraqis freed from tyranny, given the chance for democracy, relieved pressure on Afghanistan for its millions given a chance for freedom and democracy. That would be futile and a sacrifice without honor -- requiring a swift pull-out and an abandonment of those millions to their fate at the hands of unconscionable terrorists...
Not germane to anything I have said, and therefor either an excuse or rhetorical misdirection.
You accused me of "posting articles declaring any force in Iraq as being wrong, illegal and fascist, from the very start!"
Your arguments would be stronger if you didn't build them on straw men. If you want to find someone who was calling the Iraq War "fascist" from day one, I'm sure you can find one blogging somewhere. But I'm not that person. My feelings on the war have shifted as evidence grew that the Bush administration has no idea what it's doing.
Reservist deaths hit their monthly high in the first 10 days of August, according to a story I just read. Yet Condi Rice just said the insurgents are "losing steam."
If you believe this is a struggle so important we should be sending our children to fight it, you should be the first to criticize delusional statements like that.
Tadowe, where do you come down on dog cloning?
Add a Comment
All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).
Social Media
Subscriptions
Blogroll
Projects
Statistics
This blog has been published since Nov. 7, 1999 (a span of 9,148 days).
Thank you for visiting Workbench.
