home

Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:29:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Yesterday's Cindy Sheehan open thread is full. Time for another, I'll start with this letter to the editor of the Cape Cod Times [hat tip Terry Kindlon]:

Cindy Sheehan is the Rosa Parks of military mothers - one determined voice from one extraordinary, ordinary person. I was fortunate to serve on a panel of speakers with Cindy on July 28 when she appeared at Cape Cod Community College. (I represented Military Families Speak Out). I am the mother of a U.S. Marine who is being deployed to Iraq within a few weeks. He is coming to visit me to say goodbye and enjoy one more Red Sox game this weekend. On Tuesday I am getting on a plane and going to sit with Cindy outside the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas.

I hope all military mothers around the country are paying attention to Cindy's vigil. As mothers, we might be the ones who can finally get the country's attention and stop this ridiculous excuse for a ''noble cause.''

If it's so noble, why aren't any of the 17 Bush grandchildren in the military?

Mimi Evans,West Barnstable

< Sneddon Sued For Civil Rights Violations | NYT Profiles Marc Emery, 'Prince of Pot' >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II | 81 comments (81 topical)
    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    And as Hunter at the daily kos points, out why aren't Mike Gallager's four sons, all of prime military age, also not in the Military. He lead a bus trip to Crawford last night, called the "Pro-America Bus Trip", to protest against the "anti-american" Sheenan. Check out his uniform.... btw, he never served in the armed forces.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    Where can I buy some gold stars?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#3)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    SD writes:
    Such crap, it was crap during the Viet Nam war and remains so today.
    "Hanoi was perfectly aware of the growing US peace movement and of the deep divisions the war was causing in American society...." Link
    Then, as now, the enemy understood that a political win was possible if they could bring enough pressure to bear on such worthless politicans as Johnson. GregZ - Here are some quotes I picked them up off Google in less than two minutes.
    North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin, who served under Gen. Giap on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, Col. Tin explicitly credited leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, saying they were "essential to our strategy." Wall Street Journal article, Thursday August 3, 1995 (A8). Bui Tin's book."
    [Edited by TL for length of quote] GregZ - Now, go to Amazon, get and read Giaps books. et al - Try a little common sense. You are angry with your neighbors and are trying to get the to leave. You know that they are fighting each other, and may divorce. Think that might cheer you up?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    PPJ-I thought these comments were about Sheenan. Are you trying to be bandwidth subversive here?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    Then as now, the justification of the war cannot be made. There is no doubt that the country would back the president in a war against a country guilty of direct aggression on us. What the country will not support is a war poorly planned and executed, brought about by lies, where the direct benefit to us is unclear. This is the bottom line. All the complaining about giving support to the enemy is just so much whinning by the right who can't justify this mess and lied to get us into it. If it had truly been about WMDs the people would still be backing the war. But now that its clear we were lied to they won't support it. So the question today is the same as the question in the 70's."why are we there" the inability to present a clear and honest answer to this question that makes sense to people is the real reason this will lose its support. The right has to blame someone and they never take responsibility for their actions. So they will continue to blme the left etc, rather than their own arrogance and incompetence.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#6)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    "If it's so noble, why aren't any of the 17 Bush grandchildren in the military?" Mimi Evans,West Barnstable
    From Shakespeare's Sister:
    "The constant cries that, even if Cindy disagrees with the war, she should shut her yap because her son wouldn’t approve, suggest that she must defer indefinitely to her child’s wishes, that she’s being a bad mother simply by virtue of expressing her own independent thoughts and feelings. Women’s lives as autonomous creatures don’t end because they give birth, but that is the suggestion when the Right conflates Cindy’s wishes (including her personal search for justice) with her son’s (which, by all accounts, aren’t as the Right claims anyhow).
    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    The War is Finished You can mark your calendars boys and girls. This war is finished. Not over yet, but finished. Sorry, we lost. Get over it. The intelligentsia wasn't able to end it. Too bad, Michael Moore. There are more Bubbas than intellectuals. The mothers will end it.It really is that simple. They won't go away. From now on, wherever Bush goes he will be trailed by MOTHERS. The American people will be happy to give money to democratize Iraq, or weapons, or other forms of support. They will not give their children. Fact. From now on, its all downhill. You can start marking the days until the US withdraws from Iraq a la Saigon in 1973. I suppose there will even be a helicopter on the roof of the old US embassy in Baghadad. The situation will be worse? Yes, and that's why a country shouldn't make mistakes like that. Perhaps Mr. Bush can learn to spell "catastrophe"...

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    If not for the incredible tenacity of the four "9/11 widows" we would never had a 9/11 commission, bogus as it was.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    Please don't use long quotes from the works of others. Just link to them and make your point. Bandwidth is expensive.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    you just gotta love ppj, he shoots himself in the foot daily. using one poorly planned and executed war to try and justify another, equally, poorly planned and executed war. it is a marvel to behold. as i noted in a prior post, i think ms. sheehan has well made her point. she's rendered g.w. speechless. i don't see what else can be accomplished by her continuing her vigil in crawford. she could, however, use that as a stepping stone to get the movement going. unfortunately, absent a draft, 99% of americans have no direct, personal stake in this war, so they don't care. you mean jenna and what's her name aren't g.i. janing it as we speak? i'm shocked!

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    "The mothers will end it..." I wish I had your confidence. But as Rob Cordry noted persuasively last week on the Daily Show, public opinion might make a difference if Bush gave a f*k--which he doesn't. Bottom line, he's not running for election again, so he can basically "bring it on", and most likely will--ie, the nuclear winter--with impunity. Haven't you heard? We're going after Iran now.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#13)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    Squeaky - Sheehan doesn't exist in a sterile bubble. She represents the anti-war groups, and they go all they way back to the Vietnam war. What the comment was doing was proving my point that actions such as this are greeted with great happiness by the enemy. Since I have made the point about three times I would think you would have caught on by now. Graphicus writes:
    This war is finished. Not over yet, but finished.
    So you are declaring victory and leaving? Goodbye and thanks. But this isn't the early 70's and the MSM media doesn't have the final say as they did at that time. John Mann writes:
    Of course I don't "attack the son's sacrifice" - why would I? He was some poor kid who believed the crap you continually spout in here.
    By the above comment you dishonor him with your claim that he was just some poor kid… I would say he was a man who understood more than you ever will. Shame on you for your condescending attitude towards those willing to fight for their country, and especially this man who died for it.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    PPJ- You are right, Sheehan is very fertile. Any sterile bubble she may have been in popped last week. You tired arguments are, on the other hand, quite sterile and a bit out of touch with the pulse of mainstream America.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    I have a post on this subject from a pro-war perspective here. I invite you all to comment.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    proving my point that actions such as this are greeted with great happiness by the enemy.
    Nothing is greeted with more happiness by the enemy than seeing an American who supports the war, yet is unwilling to fight it in it. This tells them in no uncertain terms that they are facing a paper tiger. They know that their enemy has no conviction to back up their words. Every time you post one of your messages saying "I did my share" or "I'm too old" or whatever lame excuse du jour you have for avoiding combat, you are admitting that you are a blowhard that isn't willing to fight for your beliefs. This also demoralizes our troops. They see that there is only lip service support for them from those who sent them there and want to keep them there. You PPJ...along with your chickenhawk cohorts...are the reason why we will lose. (Plus the fact that the Neocons are hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.)

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#18)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    John Mann - And spare me your attitude that you are the moral authority around here. Especially when you write what you just did re the Iranian hangings. BTW - Never spent anytime in Gander, how was it? I do, however, know a couple of people who have been dead a long, long time from duty in that easy North Atlantic area.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Hey speaking of chickenhawks...Jeff G...why don't you take your tax cuts, buy some body armor and head for Baghdad on the next flight out? PPJ will be behind you 100 percent...from back here of course.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#20)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Ernesto writes:
    Nothing is greeted with more happiness by the enemy than seeing an American who supports the war, yet is unwilling to fight it in it.
    Ernesto, that is so old and wore out, I question why you bring it up. Surely you have something better. And no, that doesn't demorlaize our troops. Please, I am LOL at such nonsense. And I am glad to see that you believe that we will lose. That pretty well defines who you are and where your head is.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#21)
    by John Mann on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    BTW - Never spent anytime in Gander, how was it? I do, however, know a couple of people who have been dead a long, long time from duty in that easy North Atlantic area.
    You've stated previously in this blog that you did air force service time in Canada. If I was wrong in assuming it was Gander, mea culpa. It's not like I catalog your ravings to refer to later.
    And spare me your attitude that you are the moral authority around here. Especially when you write what you just did re the Iranian hangings.
    Unlike you, Jim, I don't pretend to be a moral authority. Your government and the Iranians are six of one, a half dozen of the other when it comes to murdering your own citizens.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    PPJ- it is only worn out because it takes the hot air out of your chicken hawk fiesta. Great point Ernesto. PPJ, Jimcee, BB, Jeff G, Jonah G, and Jeff G/G, I will donate $ for your body armour. One week offer only. As Bush said we do not want to give the wrong messages to the insurgents. Here is your chance...get going.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    PPJ...if you think that is tired then go back and read your "aiding and abetting" tirades. As long as you post that crap I will respond in kind. Hey I just found 30 cents under my sofa cushions for the "Chickenhawk Body Armor Fund".

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#24)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    PPJ You still haven't given up on trying to prove that American protestors and/or the media were major reasons for losing the Vietnam war. As I pointed out before, there is no truth to this claim. I'm especially surprised that you have the audacity to tell people to read Giap's book. (see the TL link here for my previous discussion with PPJ on this matter). You tell people to read Giap's book. I would like to read Giap's book but only the pages where he made these claims. How about giving me the name of the book and the page or pages that I should be reading. After all, you read Giap's book, didn't you?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Squeakster, Hold the body armor order as I have already served and I am alas to old to join. If it makes you feel any better I still do civilian reserves but its really just paperwork mostly. I am not pro-war nor am I a big fan of Bush but I really would rather have him as president right now then either Senators Gore or Kerry. I do realize the necessity to fight a total war not dick around worrying if the Birkenstock crowd is going to whine. Because they are going to whine either way. So you go in kill people and break things (War is hell y,know) and get it over quickly and Bush has failed on that account. War is a street-fight not Queensbury Rules and it is a horrible thing to anyone who has experienced it. You can use your tired left-over talking points from the last three wars all you want but there is no choice now but to try to put Iraq back together and if you would get your head out of the Left's echo chamber long enough you see that Iraq is a mess but there is hope and the US needs to commit itself whole-heartedly to cleaning up after it's War on Saddam. If you are calling for a full pull-out of US troops immediately then you are condemning the Iraqis to the return of either Sharia or Totalitarianism. That decision would be worse than Bush's decision to invade Iraq in the first place. To Ms Sheehan, I feel sorry for the loss of your son and bless you. You have every right to protest, so please do. Losing a child is a terrible thing whether by terrorist or car-crash so mourn anyway that you can. Squeaky, The war protesters that are fanning the flames of this woman's sorrows so that they, themselves can bask in the shadows of her son's metaphysical funeral pyre should be ashamed of themselves. But honestly there isn't must shame left on the Left these days. Spec. K.C. Sheehan, RIP.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#26)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Like I said before, the only way to "Win This War" is to kill about a third of the Iraqui population. Only then will the rest of the people capitulate to our invasion and occupation. But that pretty much negates the second set of reasons given for our invasion, que no?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    jimcee- Do you think Iraq is like Humpty Dumpty through a neocon .looking glass
    `What tremendously easy riddles you ask!' Humpty Dumpty growled out. `Of course I don't think so! Why, if ever I did fall off -- which there's no chance of -- but if I did --' Here he pursed up his lips, and looked so solemn and grand that Alice could hardly help laughing. `If I did fall,' he went on, `the King has promised me -- ah, you may turn pale, if you like! You didn't think I was going to say that, did you? The King has promised me -- with his very own mouth -- to -- to --'
    We need to leave the country NOW and prepare to lower our standard of living (no SUVs) for several years so that we can pay Iraq back the money we owe them (1 trillion for starters) for destroying their country.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    right on jimcee! god knows, we wouldn't want to have a president who actually served in a war, and personally went toe-to-toe with the enemy, as our leader during wartime! one pales at the thought of having such a person, someone who actually knows personally what the true cost of war is, in a position of power during one. do you actually read what you write, before you hit the post button? that just looks completely nonsensical. talk about your bassackwards logic: better to have someone in charge, who diligently worked, through family connections, to avoid military service during wartime, in charge during a war, than someone who might actually have a clue. i am humbled.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    The simple fact is that the war of aggression that is the Iraq invasion is ILLEGAL, an obvious violation of the UN charter. Lying the country into that war is a clear act of TREASON. Jimcee: "The war protesters that are fanning the flames of this woman's sorrows" They can hardly do that. She's lost a son to an IDIOT with such a clear lack of concern for him and for the others he has killed that he is a DROOLING MONSTER, rather than an actual human being. All those people giving up the days and years of their lives to oppose ILLEGAL, IMMORAL WAR are not the problem. The problem is that Butcher Bush SAID he would supply the PROOF of Hussein's threat to America, and then never did, and never will. BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY, AND NEVER WAS. Jim: "such worthless politicans as Johnson" O'Reilly. LBJ is well-known to have been possibly the greatest politician of the 20th century, after FDR. This is another truly ignorant comment from you, Jim. I gather you don't know much history.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#31)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Paul in LA, Your defense of LBJ confounds me. He created thousands upon thousands of Cindy Sheehans by escalating a war that was about as necessary to American security as an NBA title hanging in the Clippers' trophy case. Actually, Dubya and LBJ are mirror images of one another in terms of foreign policy. Cavalier as hell, safe and snug and condescending to the core as they created leagues of mourning mothers. I'll give you one thing, though, LBJ was no enemy of civil liberties the way this President is.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    John Mann writes:

    Of course I don't "attack the son's sacrifice" - why would I? He was some poor kid who believed the crap you continually spout in here.
    Actually he didn't believe the lies ppj or gwb tells. PPJ writes
    By the above comment you dishonor him with your claim that he was just some poor kid… I would say he was a man who understood more than you ever will.
    Right PPJ, he was against the war but went anyway. And died. And now his mother wants to know why. You dishonor him. You dishonor his mother. Bush lied, and lied and lied and as a result her son is dead; and she deserves an answer. You can't provide it. The Pentagon can't provide it. Bush can't string to coherent sentences together, and refuses to answer any questions from anyone if it isn't a vetted audience. You know what encourages terrorists? "Bring it on!", 'My god is more powerful than yours', ' this is a crusade'! OBL is winning, he got what he wanted. America with fewer freedoms. Record recruitment in AQ. He played bush like a violin and bush fell in the f-hole. And the fault isn't patriots of this democracy, but enemies of democracy and freedom. Let's start with gw 'wanted dead or alive' bush; attacking a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or AQ. gonzales, torture is OK if we consider you subhuman. cheney, we know where the WMDs are. condi, mushroom rice ... etc.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#33)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Well said, sailor. That sums up this mess we're in quite nicely. Iraq isn't America's war. It's the Republican's war in which Americans and Iraqis alike must die.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#34)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    jimcee So you advocate "total war" in Iraq? Just so we are clear about what this means, the only model we have for quelling an insurgency in Iraq is Saddam's use of force against the Kurds and Shiites. If it is necessary to bomb insurgent villages in order to win the war, you bomb. And lets not be "Birkenstock" worryworts about the use of gas or any of the other weapons in our arsenal. This is what total war is all about. For example, we also need to start arresting and torturing suspected Iraqi insurgents. No correct that, we already do that. We need to continue and accelerate the arbitrary arrest and torture of Iraqi insurgents. If the abuse at Abu Ghraib is necessary for us to win the war, then we need two, three, many Abu Ghraibs. As Colonel Matthieu said in the film The Battle of Algiers in response to reporters questions about the use of torture by the French military against Algerian insurgents "I’ll ask you a question myself: Should France stay in Algeria? If the answer is still yes, you’ll have to accept all the necessary consequences." The one thing that we agree with is that Iraq is a mess. One problem I have with your arguement is that I see no indication that Bush is pursuing the total war strategy that you advocate. If what we are doing in Iraq is not working and if Bush doesn't do the one thing you believe will work, then what is the point of staying in Iraq?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Posted by glanton: "Your defense of LBJ confounds me. He created thousands upon thousands of Cindy Sheehans" The topic isn't whether LBJ crashed and burned in his Vietnam policy (which was a project of the Pentagon, the CIA, and military contractor interests -- not just LBJ's fault). Jim said he was a worthless politician. I don't know what he means by that ambiguous statement, but LBJ was clearly a GREAT politician. (He was also 'worth' several million, one of the richest presidents in US history). While there are a lot of parallels between GWB and LBJ, or TR, the fact is that a clown like GWB will NEVER match either LBJ or TR or Jackson. He simply is TOO LAZY to do what all those presidents did, every day: Bring his case and actually argue it. Bush promises, promises, but he does so little work he is really a dependent of the corrupt, complicit media to pay his bills at the Heartbreak Hotel that once was America.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#36)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Sheehan's son most clearly did NOT agree with the war in Iraq. Sshe is representing her son the best way she can. by trying to stop the crime that took her son's life. Is she being supported by the anti war movement? You bet your ass she is. And when Our Pet Chimp drove by Sheehan yesterday, he was on his way to collect 2 MILLION dollars in "support" from his pro war base. Hypocrites.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#37)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    PIL writes:
    O'Reilly. LBJ is well-known to have been possibly the greatest politician of the 20th century, after FDR. This is another truly ignorant comment from you, Jim. I gather you don't know much history.
    PIL, when you start calling LBJ great, well, I need to add nothing. Your vast knowledge and understanding is displayed very well. Squeaky - Like jimcee I have done my time, 10 years in Naval Aviation, and the military doesn't want citizens so senior they are well into the Medicare role. But it isn't too late for you Squeaky. You too claim to support the troops. Let us see you join. After all, doesn't politics end at the water's edge? How about you, Ernesto? I think you said you did some time in the Army. And we need grunts. You can be the replacement for Mrs. Sheehan's son. What's a matter, don't want to fight with the troops. Actually help them out? Show some support? No? I thought so. But hey, gives us your excuse. Oh, I know, you are against the war. Heck, how many military people do you think are for war? Catch a clue, Ernie. No one wants war. No one wants to be shot at. And sailor. How about you? I'm not certain about your age, but I think you are young enough to serve. Sometimes PIL, Sqeaky, Ernesto, sailor, you have to do what you don't want to do. Now that is a mostly an unknown concept in the last 20 years or so among the Left, and many Libertarians who hide in a political philosophy that says they aren't responsible for anything except themselves, as they use everything provided by others. Being a Social Liberal and a real Democrat, I believe in defending the country and helping each other. All I can see from the likes of you guys is no defense and helping yourselves.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#38)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    John Mann writes:
    You've stated previously in this blog that you did air force service time in Canada.
    I have never stated I did air force time in Gander, or any other place. I did spend 10 years in Naval Aviation, and I have landed in Gander, but never spent anytime there. (Touch and goes are typically under 30 seconds.) Now. What other bases were there in Newfoundland??? BTW - With most people I would have let the air force thing slide, but you would have been back in 6 months claiming I had said I was in the Air Force, and using your unchallenged statement as proof.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#39)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    "Catch a clue, Ernie. No one wants war. No one wants to be shot at." What a stupid thing for anyone to write at this point in human history, but just stratospherically stupid for someone like PPJ who still continues to pimp the justification for going into Vietnam, not to mention his lockstep echoing of all things Dubya. I'll correct your post for you, Jim: Many, many people throughout history, who have been safely out of range, have indeed greedily desired war. War makes money and consolidates power for those occupying the throne. This war has the American media industry booming like never before (a hint as to why they sold it so enthusiastically for Bush in the first place. This war was manufactured by a bunch of chickenhawks strutting with the bravery of being out of range. Sheehan's son was just another brick in the wall, and no loss at all for club Rethug.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#40)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Being a Social Liberal and a real Democrat,
    now this is good comedy

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    PPJ-My support of the troops is to bring them home ASAP. You on the other hand are not as washed up as you imagne. Geriatric or not, Uncle Sam could surely use you. My one week offer still stands, I will buy your body armour if you go.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#42)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    glanton - My comment should have said "military." I thought it was obvious, given the subject. I should have known someone would be lurking, just itching to misunderstand. ;-) Squeaky - Quit dodging. You can't support the troops by wanting them home. That's like saying I support the troops by wishing them a merry Christmas. It is meaningless. It is worthless. It tell us exactly that you do not support them because you do nothing but complain about what they are doing. Do something real. Go join up. Hey, four years will go by in a flash. And I promise to demonstrate for Bush to meet with your parents in the event you are killed.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    PPJ:
    What's a matter, don't want to fight with the troops. Actually help them out? Show some support? No? I thought so. But hey, gives us your excuse.
    As I said many times, the best way to show support is to get them out of there right now. Not next year...next month or next week...but immediately. We lost 58,000 so LBJ and Nixon could save face...we need not fully repeat that disaster. But it looks like you want to watch the kids keep dying. Why? What kind of thrill do you get out of it?
    Oh, I know, you are against the war. Heck, how many military people do you think are for war? Catch a clue, Ernie. No one wants war. No one wants to be shot at.
    Amen brother, especially when the war is a fiasco run by very corrupt, incompetent cowards. Jimcee:
    Hold the body armor order as I have already served and I am alas to old to join.
    Jesus, another one. What's with the epidemic of old men wanting to watch young men die? This place is literally crawling with vouyeristic necropheliacs these days.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Once again, the thread deteriorates into a PPJ aka Jim slugfest. Ran across this a bit ago. "The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system. Other parents & families need to take up the cry of Cindy Sheehan in relation to our troops. I would hope her example to give impetus to others.
    "If it's so noble, why aren't any of the 17 Bush grandchildren in the military?" Mimi Evans,West Barnstable
    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#46)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Funny, when some folks on this thread can't come up with an argument of why folks are dying in iraq they challenge the service of others. Calling others' patriotism into question is a troll move. Even tho I am too old to serve again by even the adjusted Pgon standards, I will join right after jenna and not-jenna. I swear on my mother's grave, I would be willing to reup and go to iraq if the president sends his daughters there as soldiers or marines (I'm just assuming squids and flyboys won't be on the frontlines, no disrespect intended.)

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#47)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Ernie - You won't fight. That's the bottom line. You think you get to do only what you want to do. Okay. But please don't tell us again about your support for the troops by wanting them home. You don't and haven't supported them. What you mean is you want to cut and run. Can you tell us when you would be willing to fight? Before or after we have a aubway attack such as London? How about a suitcase nuke in downtown NYC? DA - Are you still posting that same comment? What is it, 70 years old? Think the world has changed a bit? And I would question your use of the word, "honorable." Kitt - I don't know. Why don't you and Mimi Evans join up and show them how? As for military procurement, it has been a problem for years and years. Senator Harry Truman made a name for himself investigating problems during WWII. That was likely the reason why FDR selected him for VP. So let's don't hang our hats on this problem as if it is unique, or new. It isn't. Gosh. Aint it awful that Bush didn't invent original sin?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#48)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    sailor - It was Ernesto who first brought up the service issue at 3:29PM. John H - Here is a quote for you: former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975
    Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses
    Now go Google.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Can you tell us when you would be willing to fight? Before or after we have a aubway attack such as London? How about a suitcase nuke in downtown NYC?
    Our continued policy of threatening and attacking is going to make such an attack more likely. Why that fails to register in your head no one knows. Again, you are the one who supports this war but won't fight in it. After looking at the weasels behind it, I don't think it's legit and therefore I will not fight in it. You believe in it, you go. Since you won't go, then I come to the inescapable conclusion that you are just a blowhard. Some tough guy...no wonder the terrorists are emboldened.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    I didn't say LBJ was 'great,' I said he was renowned to be one of the greatest politicians of the 20th century. But you lie, convert my adjective to your noun, and pat yourself on the back some more -- the most insecure person on the planet, apparently. If you don't agree, check out the book "Master of the Senate," which details the rather incredible legislative history of this VERY able politician. But that would involve facts, and those are your weak suit. You believe in original sin because you haven't figured out WHO invented it (hint: there never was an Adam and an Eve). Regardless how this shakes out in Waco, I salute Cindy Sheehan for her efforts to gain redress for her son's death, from the idiot who killed him so he could bathe in his blood. Or lie on a bed covered in the money he made off it, which is more or less the same thing.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    PPJ-If you are looking to lynch some traitors, look up, they happen to be running our country. and they are your pals not mine. They are for torture They are for flaunting National and International Civil Rights Laws They are for arrogtantly prosecuting a host of wars rather than for solving problems They are for eviscerating the Constitution and the BIll of Rights They are for rigged voting machines with paperless ballots They are elimination the Seperation of Powers They are for destroying the America, 'America' believes in. On and on.....

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Our hostess left it up to us to remark about Cindy Sheehan on this thread. I think Sheehan is a patriot, I know she is a Gold Star mother, and as such she has the right to question the president on why her son died. I also think people who question her patriotism or ability to think for herself are denigrating her and her son's memory. She has every right to demand of the president why her son died. bush has every right to not meet with her. But if he has time to glad hand contributors, he certainly has time to meet with a woman who lost her son to his policies.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#55)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Our hostess left it up to us to remark about Cindy Sheehan on this thread. I think Sheehan is a patriot, I know she is a Gold Star mother, and as such she has the right to question the president on why her son died. I also think people who question her patriotism or ability to think for herself are denigrating her and her son's memory. She has every right to demand of the president why her son died. bush has every right to not meet with her. But if he has time to glad hand contributors, he certainly has time to meet with a woman who lost her son to his policies.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#56)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    jeff g, i went and read the link you posted to. very interesting. why, they even had a post from this here thread on it! actually, i was quite surprised at the number of commenters on it, i figured all those supporters of g.w. would have scurried right down to their local military recruiting offices, so they could hurry and sign up to fight in "god's own war"! it was the classic strawman approach, much like ppj uses, and just as poorly done. i won't bother copying it here, it's too long and would be a horrible waste of good bandwidth. i would, however, encourage all of you to go read it yourselves.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Noble cause....Candy, er.... I mean Mindy, now I am not able to discuss that because...well you know we are at war, and besides it's super double top secret any way ....you would put our troops at risk and what kinda message would that give to the insurgents. How 'bout a pretzel?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Jim, quoting: "Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses" John Bolton, ambassador to the UN: "The Vietnam war was LOST by 1970" (when otherwise he would have had to serve or admit his cowardice). Jane Fonda went in 1972, two years after Bolton, an expert on foreign affairs and especially on illegal wars of aggression and genocide like Vietnam and Iraq, says explicitly the war was LOST. Meanwhile, we now know that when Fonda went, Henry F* Kissinger, genocidist, was slaughtering Cambodians and Laotians in total disdain for war crimes laws and the Constitution. Reagan signed the Genocide Convention; what Kissinger did or caused to have done in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos is now SPECIFICALLY illegal since that time. That's why, post-Reagan's action, it is clear that Vietnam was an insane, genocidal, nightmare with no legitimate purpose and a false geopoltical strategy doomed to failure for its absurd assurance of might making right. Since you didn't, Jim, learn the lesson of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, you don't recognize the lesson of Iraq. That makes you both a genocide condoner, and someone horribly incapable of LEARNING.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#59)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Paul in LA and PPJ Lets talk about what passes for the truth among my friends on the Right. We'll use PPJ's Bui Tin quote as an example. This is not the first time that those on the Right said this, only the last time it was General Giap who was being cited. For example here is what PPJ wrote in November 2004.
    Read some history, especially some books by Gen Giap, North Vietnam's military commander. he clearly states that the demonstrations by the Left, and the miscall of the Tet battle by the MSM, Walter Cronkite and others, convinced them they could win by just hanging on. Giap says that they started listening to the news everyday to see what the political climate was.
    Note that what he has Giap saying is almost word for word what Bui Tin is (supposedly) now saying. When I read this, I thought that this didn't sound like something Giap would write so I tried to look up the source. What I found was alot of Rightwing websites who claimed that this is what Giap wrote in a book, but none of them provided the specific book and page numbers for this claim. Now I started to suspect that this was all a fabrication like those urban myths about spiders on toilet seats that people pass on in emails. This was confirmed by an article in History News Network (Did General Giap Say The Vietnam War Was Won On the Streets of America by Jonathan Winkler). As a result, I asked PPJ to provide the specific book and page numbers from Giap. I'm still waiting. This brings us to Bin Tui. One thing that I noticed is that it is almost word for word what they claimed Giap had said. For example, Bin Tui says "Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement." These Rightwing website claimed that Giap listened to the news everyday to see what the political climate was. Again, I tried to track down this claim by Giap but it was nowhere to be found. Bin Tui's makes these claims in a Wall Street Week interview but I could not find the interview. The second website that PPJ links to mentions that Bin Tui says these things in a book he wrote called Following Ho Chi Minh: Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel. However, when I tried to look the book up in yahoo and google, guess what I found. Thats right, nada. Finally, it should be pointed out that Bin Tui is a defector. Defectors will say what people want to hear (remember Curveball in Iraq?). What I suspect is that what we are seeing is the Right's hit and run tactics. You have someone who sounds credible making these claims. For an added bonus, you have them saying these things in what sounds like a credible source: a book, magazine article, newspaper interview. However, when the fraud is discovered, you merely move on and have someone else make the same spurious claims.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#60)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    John H writes:
    what Bui Tin is (supposedly) now saying. When I read this, I thought that this didn't sound like
    The quote came from the Wall Street Journal article, Thursday August 3, 1995. Go argue with them. BTW - Bin was a General, and on Giap's staff. He also was the one who accepted South Vietnam's surrender. Now, go read some books. Let your common sense come into play. PIL - Glad to know you think Bolton is right. I am sure you will support his efforts to reform the UN. sailor writes:
    I think
    But that makes nothing true. Ernie - Okay, we know your opinion about US policies and politics. Tell us. When would you fight? I think the answer is I wouldn't. Am I wrong? And understand. When I say fight, I mean as a member of the US military. What would make you join? If drafted, would you serve, or would you run? Squeaky - You can't argue national health care with me, I've been saying we need it for years. Too bad your Demo heroes tried to shoot down the Rx insurance plan for the elderly and disabled. Do the soldiers there want to leave? Does a bear poop in the woods? Of course they do. That is a rational position that anyone would have. The question is; are the troops performing? And that answer is yes. BTW – Why do you assume that someone who disagrees with you wants to lynch someone? I mean there are many dishonorable things that have nothing to do with “traitor.” You have your rights; no one is going to take them away. My question is, how about your responsibilities to your fellow citizens. Do you agree that, in a constitutional republic, after the vote is taken the citizen owes some support to the adopted position, or law? DA – If googling was good enough for me, surely it is for you and John H. Especially when a quote and source is provided.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    When would you fight?
    I will quote two time Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley Butler: "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket." If Iraq was invading the United States I would fight them. Now what would you fight for, PPJ? Obviously not this war at this time. You have other priorities, right?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Butler was indeed a patriot. He stood against the 1930's version of the neo-con cabal, the "Liberty League". I can only imagine his condemnations of the current band reprising the same bad idea, especailly as this time they do control the RNC.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Jim, as for your nonsense that one cannot support the troops unless they support the war, how does that jibe with these quotes from your preferred politicos during Clinton's deployment of troops to Bosnia. Oh, IOKIYAR. "You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL) "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 "[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#65)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Ernie - So the answer is, I will fight when I want to fight? Sorry dude, you can't have a valid national defense based on crap like that. You can’t have a constitutional republic based on, “me me me me me me.” Ernie - As you know, I am past the age in which any structured military organization would accept my services. And the conversation isn't about street fighting. So knock of the BS about me joining, etc. That is such a silly straw man even the wheat fields are laughing. I did ten years in Naval Aviation. Nothing heroic, I just did my job. But I do have an understanding of the military, and when someone asks if I would serve, the answer is simple. I did. I would again if God would grant me 30 years or so. During Vietnam there was a great outcry over the war, the draft. I have often wonder what portion of the protestors were actually against the war versus just not wanting to be in the military, and all that might entail. DA - Google it or don't. Your option. Why are you still crying about it?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#66)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Adept - They were full of shi*. Remember, I am not a Repub. But at least they weren't discussing a war in which we had been attacked. I was dead set against Kosovo, just as I am against going to Sudan. We are not the world's beat cop. And neither was/is in our national interest. But.... When the troops went in, I shut up and supported them. Not many around here can make that claim, can they?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#67)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    adept - BTW - Can you group those comments into "Before we went in" and "After we went in?" It would be interesting. And I don't remember protestors trying to block supplies for the troops at the shipyard. And of all people, Delay is right. You can support the troops, but not the President. It is the Left who has made Bush the issue.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#68)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Remember, I am not a Repub.
    Bulls**t You just play one here and don't give me that social liberal crap that you've been feeding us. Your words here make it very clear what you are despite what you might cal yourself. Bush is ithe issue because he's the clown responsible for this diaster. He made himself the issue by his arrogance and incompetence.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    PPJ:
    So the answer is, I will fight when I want to fight?
    I gave you two very specific conditions on when I would fight.
    As you know, I am past the age in which any structured military organization would accept my services.
    Nothing is stopping you from becoming a freelance merc, except your own lack of belief in this war.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Adept - They were full of shi*.
    And of all people, Delay is right.
    Gee Jim, contradicting yourself in back-to-back posts? Are the full of shi*, or are they right? Can't have it both ways unless your saying they are (politically of the) Right, and hence, full of shi*. As for the timeline of comments, as you've told so many earlier in this thread...google it. You won't find much to support your "before the Kosovo deployment" idea.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#72)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    While this thread is about Cindy Sheehan there were several comments mentioning the Vietnam war. I do not agree with virtually all those comments. It is remarkable that "left" commenters oppose the position (put forward by supporters of the Bush-administration) that the changing mood within broad layers of the population in the US played a role in the defeat of US imperialism. In spite of the political limitations of the Vietnamese leadership and the organisations in the US which were leading the protests the reaction of the working class to the war was important to defeat US imperialism. The same is true today. The defeat of US imperialism in the current war first of all is the task of the American people. Thirtieth anniversary of US imperialism’s defeat in Vietnam By Bill Van Auken, 2 May 2005

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Dark Avenger- Thanks for turning us on to Log King a Bierce Fable you linked to at the "Prescription Monitoring " thread. Here is an apt one for this thread. The wonderful Bierce Fable Two in Trouble: :
    MEETING a fat and patriotic Statesman on his way to Washington to beseech the President for an office, an idle Tramp accosted him and begged twenty-five cents with which to buy a suit of clothes. "Melancholy wreck," said the Statesman, "what brought you to this state of degradation? Liquor, I suppose." "I am temperate to the verge of absurdity," replied the Tramp. "My foible was patriotism; I was ruined by the baneful habit of trying to serve my country. What ruined you?" "Indolence.
    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#74)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Andreas writes:
    In spite of the political limitations of the Vietnamese leadership and the organisations in the US which were leading the protests the reaction of the working class to the war was important to defeat US imperialism.
    The reason is simple. Once they do they have acknowledged they are at least partly responsible for the deaths of thousands of US servicemen. DA - To Google or not to Google. That is the question. Suit yourself. Adept - Game playing, are we? You understand exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I will, prhaps I won't. My comment still stands. They were full of it, and when the troops went in I shut and supported them. Care to join me, or do you still want to live in a pretend world? SD - You just don't get it, do you. It is possible to be for national defense, and a social liberal at the same time. Millions have left the Demo party, it has scant hope for the future, and yet you rant on. Be my guest. Enjoy getting what you deserve.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#75)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Jim, I'm curious to know if you can name a contemporary politician of either party who you consider to be both "for national defense" and a "social liberal." It would be easy for me to name such politicians, but that is because I'm not so indoctrinated by the Media so as to stupidly consider the Democratic Party to be against "national defense." But wait. I forgot. In the bizarro world of Rightist Talking Points that is your political mind at this point, George W. Bush and Rick Santorum are "social liberals." Blech.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#76)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    glanton - The disagreement will be over the definition of "national defense." I regard the WOT as extremely important. You and many Demos do not. As for our snarky remark re Bush and Santorum, I have to chuckle. Never able to form alliances, the Left continues to act as if they have the keys to heaven. Alas, they become more marginalized every day.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#77)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    "I regard the WOT as extremely important. You and many Demos do not." That too is a blockheaded statement. The "WOT," as you people keep calling it, also begs definition. Did Cindy Sheehan's son die for our national security or didn't he? I and what seems to be most Americans at this point understand that he did not. And the comment about Bush and Santorum wasn't snarky, it was practically echoing comments you've made about both of them and most other Republicans as well. You're always yammering about how the "liberal media" paints a distorted picture of these poor decent Republicans, how they're actually quite moderate when you really look at it, at least from a dittohead perspective. Call yourself a social liberal, call yourself a martian. In the end you're always there to speak on behalf of the Republicans. That's what counts here.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#78)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    And BTW, you can't name one, can you? Not one politician who can reasonably be considered a "social liberal" who you admire or agree with.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#80)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    It is possible to be for national defense, and a social liberal at the same time.
    I get it, you are not.
    Millions have left the Demo party, it has scant hope for the future,
    Now that the scum have left maybe we can do something. We'll see. i wouldn't count on your forever theocratic rule just yet.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#81)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    DA writes:
    PPJ, I've been consistent over at least an 8 day period on this issue, you have not.
    Wow. A new record has been set. SD - You wouldn't know a true Democrat if one tapped you on the shoulder. glanton - The "snarky" comment was based on your comment about my state of mind regarding Bush, etc. BTW - Anybody note that Sheehan has now decided to not pay her income tax, impeach Bush and says that if Israel leaves Palestine and US Iraq, "you'll stop the terrorism" Uh huh, sure. From main stream to far Left in what, seven days?

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#82)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Oh, Jim, well that clears a lot up. You know, I sincerely hope you don't consider what you're doing to be dialogue. For some reason I still respond to your assertions with fedback and questions; rarely, very rarely, do you respond in kind with much more than what this thread indicates.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#84)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    glanton - Well, I don't know what to say. You wrote:
    In the bizarro world of Rightist Talking Points that is your political mind at this point, George W. Bush and Rick Santorum are "social liberals." Blech.
    I mean, did you really expect me to take that seriously? I have noted on more than several occasions that I have no love for this administration, and have noted numerous times my support for things such as gay rights, national health care, a rational drug policy, pro choice, etc. The problem is, the Democratic Party is consumed with a desire to take power, and they have used the war to try and do so. That is damnable poor taste at best, despicable at the worst. And no, I can’t name but one Demo on a national level – Lieberman – who I would trust with the defense of this country. DA – Look, if I provide a link, use it. If I don’t, then google it. IF YOU WANT TO. Free will and all that stuff. BTW - Never, never, never again accuse me of bandwidth wasting.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#85)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    "I have noted on more than several occasions that I have no love for this administration, [blah, blah, blah, blah, blah]" Yes, you have "noted" your "social liberalism" many times, in between shot after shot at Democrats and steady streams of justifications and attenuations regarding the GOP. You have defended Bush countless times, and have posited him as a moderate who the "Left" caricatures. You actively support his 'creationsim on the public dime' argument. You have defended blights of skin like Janny (love me even though I'm a nutbag I was a sharecropper's daughter) Brown, Prissy (Zarquawi is kinda sexy if you think about it) Owen, and now, Roberts. Not to mention your constant readiness to defend scum like Dobson and Falwell. And then of course you vote GOP down the line. But thanks for your liberalism.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Just to clear things up. Desertwine......Not to take sides here, but I'd guess that he received his draft notice from the army, but before his report date, enlisted in the air force. .... The army, during VN, was the last place you wanted to go. Very true....and very perceptive. Quaker... You were drafted and in the Air Force? See comment above aw .... BB: As an enlistee, you were flying bombing missions? What was your job on these missions? Yes, I was a B-52 gunner. The only enlisted man on the crew. Kitt.......Right, desertswine - that's the only he could have done it which was actually a smart move. Thanks... I thought so at the time. However shortly thereafter the Army pulled out and it was just us (& the Navy) still going. Sailor....As to BB's service quals, they don't matter. The fact that he has stated that other human beings are less human than him does. You must be talking about me saying that people that blow themselves up & take as many innocents with them as possible are not humane? So you disagree? Paul in LA La.....BB disappeared off the thread at approximately the same moment that his military service claim appeared to fly out the window. Sorry, but I do have a life and can't be here every day. By the time I got back, the original thread was closed. So I'll answer you here. I have nothing to hide.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Dark: ""the words of the prophets on written on the subway walls and tenament halls" I think you'll find that the correct lyric is "...are written on the studio walls (and) concert halls."' Jim's posted personal narcissism accomplishes NOTHING, once again. Mission Accomplished.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#88)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    glanton wrote:
    In the bizarro world of Rightist Talking Points that is your political mind at this point, George W. Bush and Rick Santorum are "social liberals." Blech.
    Again. Why should I take such nonsense seriously? I try and you come back with BS. You've become as bad as PIL. I call'em as I see'em. And right now I see the Democratic Party firmly in the control of the Left. And the Left, dear glanton, is not Liberal. One small point:
    You actively support his 'creationsim on the public dime' argument.
    That is incorrect. I said that I don't see proof from either side. But, claim what you like. You have become one of the master's of attack and whine when someone comes back. DA - Just be sure and have another personal best!

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#90)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Ernesto.... Again, you are the one who supports this war but won't fight in it. Dude...not sure where you are from...America.... Mexico...Canada... wherever...? But I gotta tell you, I do beleive you have trouble comprehending the language. Look...in this country.... the military won't take you if you are over a certain age...OK... got that? Now read it again. There are a few of us on here that have already served.. and unfortunately, are past our prime. Now, having said that.. I would have loved (let me repeat...LOVED) flying a B-52 mission over Iraq/Afghanistan, but alas, they didn't want me. So please... get off this lame old tired argument. Please? Paul in La LA.. I think you'll find that the correct lyric is "...are written on the studio walls (and) concert halls." Wrong as usual!

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Look...in this country.... the military won't take you if you are over a certain age
    Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned that you could go as a freelance merc no matter what age you are. I would loooove to see you hump a rucksack on the ground and go toe to toe with the Iraqis/Iranians rather than remain thousands of feet above the fray, as it were. But alas, you are another blowhard chickenhawk.

    Re: Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II (none / 0) (#93)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    PPJ: I apologize for claiming you view Santorum as a social liberal. It was hyperbolic. That being said, do you think anyone doubts if you lived in Pennsylvania you would vote for him? Your tacit support for civil liberties means nothing when you vote and shill for those eroding them. You recently asserted that biologists shouldn't teach evolution. That is throwing in with the creationists. Now, et al, Re Cindy Sheehan: Who caught Six Feet Under Last night? Marvellous treatment of the SUV Mom with her "Support the Troops" bumper sticker, don't you think?

    Cindy Sheehan Open Thread II | 81 comments (81 topical)