Another Sheehan remark

[butch50]

From Lak:

Butch50, You simply underscore what I have stated. Anyone bombing their own citizens isn't going to fit neatly into the pigeonhole of "freedom fighter" - but what about those strictly hitting military targets? For that matter, in every major war people seen as collaborators with an occupying army were often targets too.

I agree with your analogy of attacking collaborators, but would we do it in such a fashion that we would indiscriminately kill people walking down the sidewalk? Wouldn't we be targeting collaborators only?

The Iraqi people themselves have to know where the terrorists and so called freedom fighters are at. If a group of them moved into your neighborhood you would know it. Why aren't the Iraqi people doing something about them? That is what I am curious about. Why are they allowing them to operate with impunity if not outright support?

 

[Al Norris]

telewinz wrote: I don't believe for one instant that Cindy is NOT supporting our troops.

I have wondered if she has really given this any thought? I ask, because if one judges her words alone, then there is doubt as to the above statement.

But she IS pointing out that innocent people are being killed in this war AS HAS HAPPENED IN EVERY WAR!

It's the nature of the beast, no? Yet in doing this, she also points out that it is OUR troops that are doing all the killing. Completely ignoring that the "freedom fighters" are killing civilians left and right. Not just those that support the US, but anyone/everyone that would make for an easy target. She doesn't address this, only what our troops are doing.

This war could have been fought and won IF we had a competent commander-in-chief and leader, we don't, instead we have a "faith-based" dreamer.

Not quite. This war is being prosecuted like any other war. All wars are political. In fact, it's the ultimate political statement. But, like some other wars, this one is being mismanaged from the top. By that, I mean the top should let the wardogs carry out the war, and not use them as contract construction workers.

The militaries job is to destroy the enemy as ruthlessly and completely and as quickly as possible. It is not the job of the military to reconstruct a country. Of course, this is just my opinion, and afterall, what would I know?

At any rate, you just keep saying that last line. Let's hope it doesn't turn out to be false.

 

[Wildcard]

Just heard an interview with Ted Nugents wife, down in Crawford, that some of Sheehan's protesters are finding and following latch key kids home, harassing them to use the bath room and showers.


This is unacceptable, on all levels. I will fight for the right to protest, but this is not right.

 

[Al Norris]

It appears to me, and should be obvious to those who have been long on the board, that Cindy Sheehan is playing two roles.

1. Grieving Mother
2. Political Activist

One of these roles may be legitimately criticized (i.e., that of activist) while the other is very difficult to criticize without severe consequences to the critic. However, with the help of many in the media, she has successfully melded the two roles into one.

By doing this, she has somewhat successfully inoculated herself against any and all criticism. But some of us have seen through this ploy. Because once she has conflated the two roles into one, she in fact leaves the high ground of the Superior Moral Authority of a Grieving Mother for that of the political pundit. Thus, she is open to attack on many levels, just like any other public figure. A figure, may I remind everyone, that she has made of herself.

Such activism comes at a price, of course. She has alienated herself from her family, both on her side and that of her ex-husband. She has alienated herself from her husband and her other children. Such is the price of extreme activism.

Unfortunately for her, when she makes outrageous statements, it becomes harder and harder for her to hide behind her Superior Moral Authority as a Grieving Mother. She becomes more and more open to attacks from all sides. The Media will eventually recognize this, and will drop her from their daily agenda. Most likely shortly after Labor Day when Congress reconvenes and there is other "news" to report.

It will be a sad spectical, as when she is abandoned by the media, all she will have left will be her anger, depression and grief. She is a prime candidate for suicide. If that happens, the Media will, post mortem, blast all the critics for their insensitivity, that "drove" this poor women to such desperate measures. Not much if anything will be said of the Medias' own complicity with the death of this woman.

 

[LAK]

LAK

"The "elected" government in Iraq is a sham, another client State."

David Nancarrow

Please elaborate, LAK [etc]

Need I? What would you suggest "might happen" if the "new democratically elected government of we-are-really-not-a-client-state Iraq" suddenly decides it doesn't want to ship oil to anyone but say India ..... or Cuba? And bypassing the standard conduit for pricing and payment?
------------------------------------------

http://www.ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[LAK]

Butch50

I agree with your analogy of attacking collaborators, but would we do it in such a fashion that we would indiscriminately kill people walking down the sidewalk? Wouldn't we be targeting collaborators only?

Well, historically in europe during WW2 for example, sometimes whole families, streets, businesses or even towns were seen as "collaborators" by various armies, partisans, etc. I would be more than surprized if this wasn't often the case during our own War between the States.

Not that I personally support the impromtu execution or slaughter of anyone, but merely being matter of fact.

The Iraqi people themselves have to know where the terrorists and so called freedom fighters are at. If a group of them moved into your neighborhood you would know it. Why aren't the Iraqi people doing something about them? That is what I am curious about. Why are they allowing them to operate with impunity if not outright support?

Fear and intimidation. This amongst a general population of people caught between rival factions, many of whom no doubt easily capable of wiping out a man's whole family for a mere suspected act of defiance.

And what security can we offer them? How much of Iraq is actually completely under our control? Who is going to trust any Iraqi security force made up of a hodgepodge of rival factions?

And who knows who is telling the truth when someone is fingered as a "terrorist" where so many people have many scores to settle?
-------------------------------------------

http://www.ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[telewinz]

12 months and counting

That's how long we can maintain our current effort in Iraq. I wonder if the insurgents, the Iranians, and the North Koreans can count? But then again, things couldn't get worse in the meantime, could they?

 

[telewinz]

Cindy Sheehan

Such activism comes at a price, of course. She has alienated herself from her family, both on her side and that of her ex-husband. She has alienated herself from her husband and her other children. Such is the price of extreme activism

Maybe she is just tired of the lies and the misguided leadership. You have be be alive to be alienated, wounds heal...death is forever whether for a wasted cause or not.

 

[denfoote]

Ignoring is our best offensive move.

No!!
Cindy Sheehan now meets the Constitutional definition of treason,
She should be arrested and put on trial.

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

EMPHASIS ADDED


I'm sure there are more than two prople who heard her call the enemies of America freedom fighters. If that is not adhering to their enemies, What is??

Furthermore, by her actions , she continues to give aid and comfort to the enemies of these United States!

Perhaps, a look into who she gives her money to would be in order!!

 

[blackmind]

Does that mean that she feels the "freedom fighters" that killed her son were justified in doing so? After all, if the terrorists are "freedom fighters", then her son must have been in Iraq to subjugate and repress the Iraqi people.

This woman is worthy of nothing but pity. She has lost one son, she impugns the honor of her dead heroic son, her husband has filed for divorce, she refuses to speak to her inlaws, her children are begging her to come home, her mother strokes out (perhaps from stress!) and she gets fired from her job.

All she is left with is hate and a bunch of strangers that hate their country and are simply using her for as long as they think she will benefit them.

Sad!

Agreed.

Am I the only person who is reminded of that Clinton-friend lady who started the "Million Mom March"? Remember how she tried to palm herself off as a "soccer mom" but it got exposed that she was some sort of PR person, and had very close ties with the Clintons? She was not an "everywoman." I don't think Sheehan is, either. I wouldn't be surprised if her every comment and move are being orchestrated from behind the scenes by political haymakers.

-blackmind

 

[DAVID NANCARROW]

LAK-by your own description of a "client state", its all about the oil

I'm no dictionary expert, nor pol-sci whiz, but I would assume "client-state" is about setting up a government which bows to the US. Kind of like what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. All the maybe's and might's are way down the road in this situation. At least for right now.

The insurgency in Iraq is not a monolith and it is a big mistake to think it is. The soldiers are dealing with political terrorism, criminals, and a whole bunch of people who were taught to be very wary lest they be taken away in the middle of the night.

This war is going to take a long time to sort out-I see a lot of people burning brain cells as to why it won't work and why we shouldn't be there. Lots of accusations as to what might happen and the what ifs.

We are there, regardless of how distasteful it is. And just like any other job we do not like, but need to finish, I think this one can be. The bad guys are not 10 feet tall. If we are going to put our military in harms way, we owe it to them to put every possible resource into finding out what works and what does not.

I think the President is wrong in not actively enlisting all American's in this fight. This half-assing the problem is going to backfire if it is not nipped in the bud. We cannot continue to commit to this in the way we have, IMO. The troops on the ground, who have the best view of this are in a high majority of wanting to see it through. We owe them that.

The idea that democracies do not normally attack one another I think is a sound one-we have talked to, parlayed with, treatied with, threatened, cajoled and even launched limited attacks in the middle east for decades, but nothing has been very lasting. The only people who have not been really able to put their two cents in are the folks living behind the dictatorships.

Walking away from a cancer does not cure it.

 

[LAK]

denfoote

No!!
Cindy Sheehan now meets the Constitutional definition of treason,
She should be arrested and put on trial.

I agree; a trial for treason. However, before she goes there is a big crowd at the head of the line in front of her.

At the front of the line are every surviving member of the Lyndon B Johnson administration, the United States Navy, and any other agency or organization who were directly involved or complicit during, or after the fact, in the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on the 8th of June, 1967. The murder of 34 and maiming or wounding of 172 United States Navy servicemen. Knowingly withholding and preventing aid to a United States Naval vessel and crew under attack.

We could add the dishonor and shame heaped on the surviving ship's commander and crew for thirty-eight years in the administrative proceedings by those complicit after the fact. Shared by the currently "Commander in Chief" - who apparently is going to wait until the last surviving crew member of the USS Liberty conveniently and quietly goes to his grave.

Hyprocites and dishonorable men.

-----------------------------------

"Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers." - Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired)

http://ussliberty.org

 

[LAK]

NAN CARROW

LAK-by your own description of a "client state", its all about the oil

It really would not matter if it was anything else that defied the current status quo in this context. But as it happens, there really isn't much else they have ever exported of significance except natural gas, and some fertilizer and foods.

I'm no dictionary expert, nor pol-sci whiz, but I would assume "client-state" is about setting up a government which bows to the US. Kind of like what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. All the maybe's and might's are way down the road in this situation. At least for right now.

Not necessarily to the United States, but bows all the same.

The insurgency in Iraq is not a monolith and it is a big mistake to think it is. The soldiers are dealing with political terrorism, criminals, and a whole bunch of people who were taught to be very wary lest they be taken away in the middle of the night.

Funny, I have been making this point to a number of people for a year or two now. This we agree on. And it may appear to be a potential "stalling of progress" for a long time.

On the otherhand, we news service consumers in the west only need the appearance of "agreement" among the factions there for an "independent" government - freeing us from involvement. That would leave the new goverment free from attention - and able get down to the rough and tough business of keeping troublemakers under control, and if necessary beating a few with the big stick. Sort of like what the Hussein government was doing.

Meanwhile.... down in Iran (CNN reports) a new threat!

All eyes right!

We are there, regardless of how distasteful it is. [etc]

This is unacceptable. That is; to engage in an endeavor which was fraudulent to begin with, not feasible as presented at the time, and then using a "Well we're in it now! We have to see it through!" in order to maintain support for what was doomed from the beginning.

And let's be clear; not doomed from a military point of view, rather the presented objective end. Which itself was never actually defined. And instead of definitions and clear objective ends, it was tabloidspeak and the bandied terms "freedom!" and "democracy!" with a backdrop offering the continuing three-minute hate of Saddam Hussein and all the visual props. So people should be asking; what was the actual objective end?

Now the cherade has progressed to where in order to keep it afloat, the honor of our military is being used as a shield for the political deceptions and crimes of the current administration.

Walking away from a cancer does not cure it

You're absolutely right. And chasing other cancers around the globe only enlarges our own in Washington DC.
--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org