| September 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | ||||
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
Supporters of U.S. Involvement in Iraq Plan Caravans to Texas
The anti-war protest by a Vacaville mother outside the president's Texas ranch is galvanizing some who support the country's continued involvement in Iraq. One of those is a serviceman's mother who feels now more than ever the country must stand strong behind the troops.
Roseville resident Deborah Johns' son William is a Marine stationed in Iraq. She sympathizes with Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protester who lost her son to enemy fire 16 months ago. However, Johns believes a pull-out now would negate what troops are fighting for in Iraq. She takes exception to Sheehan's protest and plans to do something about it.
"It absolutely mushroomed, but that's our liberal media," said Johns. "They continue to like to hear the negative and not the positive that's going on." Johns is organizing what could be hundreds of others to participate in a caravan leaving San Francisco on Monday. The caravan is destined for Crawford, Texas, in a gesture of support for President George W. Bush.
Go Deborah! This could be great.
(Hat tip: Joe Wierzbicki.)
#1
#2Todd, thanks for this great post.
#3I do have family in Iraq and I support our country. My fiance’ has also enlisted and I am proud to have him fight for our freedom and security. Of course I hope he is safe but he is volunteering, as has every other serviceman or woman. I’m sure Mr.Sheehan was aware of the risks and that’s what makes him a hero because he chose to join up and fight anyway. I’m tired of the argument “would you send your loved ones to die?” Well I can’t make any adult do anything, but I do support my loved ones choices and if they do die I will honor their memory not use it as a political platform. Great post Todd!
#4Thanks very much for posting this, Heather. I’ve just quoted it in a new article.
#5The whole point is not that democrats don’t support the troops. We do.
Its more about looking at the reasons why we went to war in the first place? For WMDs. And now we know that that was a complete and utter lie. So the Republicans, and the republican media..yes republican..spun it around to this: liberating Iraqis. Why the hell are we spending so much money on saving these people when our economy is suffering at home, and some many children have no health insurance, and the education system is falling apart because of lack of funding. There is always a hidden agenda with you Republicans. We are there for the Oil..which is greedy, and a discrace to the troops.
#6This document proves that many Democrats, including John Kerry, believed Iraq had WMDs, and wrote to Clinton about it in 1998.
...we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destructions programs.
This speech by Bill Clinton shows that he believed the same thing:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
A lie is something you don’t believe at the time you’re saying it. As these quotes show, even the Democrats believed Hussein had WMDs.
Your statements indicate that you are misinformed on this subject.
#7This document proves that many Democrats, including John Kerry, believed Iraq had WMDs, and wrote to Clinton about it in 1998.
Whether Saddam had WMDs in 1998 is an entirely separate issue from whether he had them in 2003. You may also notice that the letter refers to Iraq having WMD programs, which is not the same thing as Iraq having WMDs.
A lie is something you don’t believe at the time you’re saying it.
I don’t particularly care whether Bush believed his WMD argument or not. Whether he’s a liar or merely incompetent is unimportant. Either way it’s just another reflection of the miserable failure that is his presidency.
#8I don’t particularly care whether Bush believed his WMD argument or not.
I see you’re unwilling to support the “Bush lied” argument, given the evidence I presented. Let’s see if Robert is as well.
#9Great evidence Vik. But what is so interesting here is that this started as a tribute to Ms Johns and to Casey Sheehan (the hero), yet it has devolved into WMDs and lies; a consistent and ignorant argument by the left.
Robert, the “brainwashed fool”, wants to believe that the “Republicans” “always [have] a hidden agenda.” He claims that “The whole point is not that democrats don’t support the troops. We do.” No you don’t. You can’t support the troops if you don’t support the mission, period. Another lie by the left. Further, Leftists state and Robert states herein: “We are there for the Oil..which is greedy, and a discrace to the troops.” Another lie. But really Robert you ought to let to the troops speak for themselves. Why don’t you go up to a few military men and vomit this garbage to them? First, I bet you don’t have the guts. Second, I guarantee that you will get your ass-kicked. Frankly, these “troops” do alot better fighting for themselves and for us then you could ever hope to.
I mean look everyone is entitled to their opinion (all the blogs let people from every political persuasion post). However, what is quite sinister and quite “sickening” is the flat out lying by the left. Apparantly, even Tom wants to distort reality and history for the sake of some leftist agenda and hatred for Bush. If it was a mistake to go to Iraq, because the left can’t stomach the process, that is fine, acceptable, entirely different than the Commander in Chief (CIC) lying about the reason to go to war; not too mention all the lefty “Bush is Hitler” arguments, posts, placards, and rants.
The reality and history shows very plainly that in Sept 2002, the world, the UN and the UN Security Council voted (15-0) (in Resolution 1441) to have Saddam disarm or face “serious consequences.” If Bush was soooo eager to go to war, why did he not just bypass the UN altogether? This CIC actually gave Saddam the opportunity to avoid war and leave in exile; for which the very proud Saddam said no thanks. I guess the leftys forgot about that simple little (trying to avoid war) tidbit. But, the best of all evidence that even my Republican colleagues can’t seem to cough up (often enough) about the Iraq war is that: We had every right to War with Iraq not matter what the UN or the world said. See remembering history is important. Bush Senior back in 1991 was forced into a “Cease-Fire Agreement” with Saddam, if the US would not march into Baghdad and other conditions like giving up WMD programs. Hummm, 16 UN resolutions, $21 Billion in UN Oil-for-Food scandal, and 12 years later this guy was still playing games with the world. We had every right legally and morally to march into Iraq and Baghdad. And, march we did!
Why can’t the left see the obvious? If you hate Bush fine, but don’t ruin your credibility by making crap up. The left chooses to believe that the American people elected an evil liar, that the US is an imperialistic superpower, and that it’s military conquer other countries and die for oil (a dishonest and “disgraceful” purpose). We on the right choose to believe that this country is a great force for good, that our military proceeds in a noble way. If they perish they do so for great causes and as great heros. The only land the US ever took after a great war was the small part of land in France for which to bury our dead heros of WWII.
#10Cindy Sheehan has responded to President Bush’s comments concerning meeting her and has posted her response in The huffington Post. The first statement Cindy Sheehan makes that comes off as anti-democratic is this one and I quote Cindy Sheehan- “ Does anyone else know what “democratic” means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one.” Cindy Sheehen in that particular statement actually attacks 51 % majority rule as a bad form of government and if you can read anything else into that, defending that statement, please make your comment at the end of this post. I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan that 50 plus one is much better then Saddam’s 1 % plus brutal totalitarian rule in which the 1% Saddam, rules 99 % of the entire population. Maybe Sheehan has met with some socialist organizations that oppose democratic forms of government. I did notice that a socialist website called ‘Socialist Worker Online’ is running a rather large article advocating Sheehans position. Cindy Sheehan actually gave an interview to the Socialist Worker Online, she spoke to Socialist Worker’s ERIC RUDER which is mentioned at the beginning of the article. In her interview with the Socialist Worker Online she says and I quote “ Some people may think that we’re fighting terrorism over there. But when is that job ever going to be complete? Terrorism is just a new “ism.” It was “communism” when I was growing up.” Here Cindy Sheehan is discounting the validity of the threat of communism in the past as just a made up “ ism.” I believe history taught us that communism brutally oppressed and killed millions of innocent people and is still somewhat of a threat today in places like North Korea where millions have died from starvation due to KimYong II, brutal rule. Cindy Sheehan later went on to say and I quote “ I DEFINITELY think that we should support war resisters in the military”. I will leave that statement up to the readers interpretation, but it sounds to me to border on subversion and treason. Here is Cindy Sheehan’s interview with the Socialist Workers Online in its entirety http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/549/549_06_CindySheehan.shtml .
The next statement Cindy Sheehan makes is both inaccurate and untruthful and I quote
“This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn’t ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for.” Actually Cindy Sheehen didn’t ask Bush, she demanded that he “bring the troops home now”, here is a quote from her statement made on August 18 2005 and carried by ABC News “"If George Bush comes out here today or if we leave here at the end of August, this is only the beginning, and we’re not going to stop until our troops are brought home”, I would suggest that means a withdrawal what would you think it means? Also in this ABC article written by Eric Noe it is stated “ In addition to requesting a meeting with Bush, Sheehan is now calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. She promised to send a similar message if the president agrees to meet with her.” Here is the complete article you be the judge http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1045556&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 . Is ABC lying, did they just make that up? I have myself watched Cindy Sheehan on national television say time and time again “bring our troops home now” but she has stated that she has never intended to ask Bush that question. I smell another lie. Whats really strange is in Cindys own article she just released today she says this and I quote “ Then bring our troops home. The status quo in Iraq is awful”, if you ask me she cant even get through one article without contradicting herself. She goes on to imply that America is spreading “imperialism “ by what she says is 14 permanent bases being set up in Iraq the size of Sacramento, California. I dont know if there is any United States military bases on the entire planet Earth the size of a large U.S. city,if there is please let me know ok. By the way the interview Cindy Sheehan gave to the Socialist Worker is the same Socialist worker who ran this article entitled “ The Meaning of Marxism” in which they praise Marxism to no end. Here is the link to that garbage http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml
#11Cindy Sheehan needs to stop claiming to represent all of us military families. She doesn’t. I would never support any of my family as war-resisters because they volunteered and that means they follow OUR Commander and Chief’s orders. That doesn’t mean I love the idea of war but I trust that OUR President would not take such drastic action unless it was nesessary.
#12Cindy Sheehan needs to stop claiming to represent all of us military families.
When did she claim to represent all military families?
#13Sorry it took so long to answer your question. Ciny Sheehan has repeatly claimed to represent military families. Here are just a couple of examples…
“I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another.” She is speaking of Gold Star Mothers who support Bush on http://www.worldnetdaily.com
At a news conference in Texas Sheehan is quoted saying “I am not alone. There’s the people behind me here, but there’s thousands of military families who want the same answers to the same questions."- The Racine Report http://www.journaltimes.com
In the first example she not only insults the intelligence of these mothers but also says they wish their pain on other families. Speaking for them in the capacity that they either share her view or they must want other military families feel the pain of loss of a loved one.
The second example is even more clear. If I want questions answered I will ask.
#14Neither example supports your claim that Sheehan has claimed to represent all military families.
#15It seems to me heather’s examples support her claims quite well. Are you looking for a distinction betweeen “thousands of military families” and “all military families?”
#16"All of us military families” is what Heather said. “Thousands of military families” is not the same thing.
In fact, if you bother to look up Sheehan’s quote in context, you’ll notice that she states quite explicitly that she does not claim to speak for all military families:
I’m not the only one that wants the answers to these questions. There’s the people standing behind me here, but there’s thousands of military families, hundreds of Gold Star families who want the same answers to the questions. You know, and I never, ever got up here and said, “I speak for every single Gold Star family, I speak for every single military family.” I’ve never said that.
#17I would like to know how many thousands of military families? Where does she get those numbers? When someone claims to speak for thousands of people they do misrepresent the group as a whole and that is not her place. She has the right to speak for herself.
#18If you bothered to look up how often Cindy Sheehan contradicts herself you would realise that she often envokes whole groups of military families when she herself has acknowleged that thay don’t all agree with her. Here is an example…
“We Gold Star Families for Peace are not giving up the fight to hold someone in this administation accountable for the quamire in Iraq and the more important struggle to bring the rest of our children home from this devastating occupation now.” from an article written by Sheehan http://www.commondreams.org
Now compare this to the quote I previously posted. Clearly all of the Gold Star moms do not agree with her by her own statement therefore beginning her statement with “We Gold Star Families fo Peace...” is misrepresenting the whole organization. All of whom are military families.
#19I was just wondering if you would have the answer to a couple of questions I have pondered regarding this woman. i live in Australia and so our coverage of her isn’t as broad as in the USA and i can’t find my answers on the web
1./ was she ever an anti war activist prior to her sons death ??
2./ has she ever said or shown proof that her deceased son was against going to iraq therefore against the war in iraq?
as a mother my heart breaks for her loss but i also wonder if she is serving his memory truthfully considering he enlisted voluntarily into a combat unit.
essentially is her pain his pain and if it isn’t then what is her right? As I believe her actions imply portrayal of his beliefs that he was sent to serve a war he didnt believe in.
It has always stuck with me that during Desert Storm a mother wrote in to an opinions page here in Aust and said “ that her son joined the navy (doctor i think) to get an education not to go war” my thought was that the military aspect of the army wasn’t exactly hidden fine print on his contract. Cindy sheehans position rings similar to me.
#20G’day!
You might want to consult the Wikipedia as well as some other sources.
But the fact remains that her son Casey enlisted in 2000 and reenlisted in 2003.
Loss of life is a tragedy for all, but Cindy Sheehan is using her son’s death as a political football amd engaging in conduct unbecoming to his memory.
People have a right to protest and question, but her actions have been a bit over-the-top.
She probably would be the first to offer the meritricious remark, “I oppose the war in Iraq, but I support our troops’, while actively undermining them.
My new Virginia Senator-elect, Jim Webb, is using his son, who is currently serving in the U.S, Marine Corps, as a political football as well. His behavior has been appalling towards the Commander-in-Chief (President Bush) One wonders how his son feels about this .
And one wonders how Specialist Casey Sheenhans would feel about his mother’s antics.
#21Check it out
#22Okay now, stop being so petty about the whole Thousands of Families and All families thing..Thats so dumb. Trying to pick on someone for adjective only shows desperation. Get back on subject. The fact is that Cindy has been associated with Anti-American movements (Hugo Chavez) for years now. Now to stand up and dissent against the war is one thing guaranteed by our freedom of speech, but to align yourself with enemies of the United States is senseless and to me personally, falls under Treason. Like some of you have said above, Cindy has only used her son’s death as a springboard for her own propaganda, when in fact her son’s deployment was voluntary and his death honorable. Read the details on her son’s burial sometime.
"In May 2006, his mother provided a tombstone at his grave following criticism that Casey, who died in 2004, lacked a gravestone. Cindy Sheehan paid for the tombstone herself, stating "It is important for the rest of Casey’s family to have one… I guess the pain of seeing it etched in marble that he is dead is another pain I will have to deal with." Cindy Sheehan maintains that the U.S. "government should have paid for it because of its responsibility for his death." The Department of Veterans Affairs does provide such monuments upon request.[5]"
Wait a second…WHAT? Okay so this “concerned” mother waited TWO YEARS to provide a GRAVESTONE for her SON?!?!?!? And notice it wasn’t until after criticism that she even bothered to give the guy a decent stone. She actually thought that her case was BETTER than every other and therefore the government should have PROVIDED a gravestone because it was at FAULT? Okay im sorry but if I SIGN UP to go to war, and I get shot, what is the sense that the government is RESPONSIBLE for the fact that some raghead decided to unload a clip of AK-47 on me? Casey, bless the mans soul, RE signed up for the unit when he KNEW they would be deployed to Iraq. He did this knowing FULL WELL that he could be killed, and yet he did it anyways. Now that’s courage. And this monster of a mother actually sat idle for 2 years while he lay six feet under expecting the government to come and save the day. WHAT KIND OF A MOTHER LETS HER DEAD SON LAY UNRECOGNIZED FOR TWO YEARS BECAUSE SHE THINKS THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ANSWER HER EVERY BECKON AND CALL?
It is terrible that Ms Sheehan lost her son (and terrible when anyone loses their child in any manner), but what this country sorely needs is a major dose of reality and perspective. The Vietnam War ended over 20 yrs ago and the Party of Roosevelt died along with Kennedy in 1963. It is a crying shame that the pathetic left is using her son’s death as a trampoline for their spineless agenda. How in the world could the President of the US make policy because some ragtag camps out in front of his residence and demands he consult with her? Sorry folks, but it is time to grow up and become mature productive members of this great society we call American.
I mean this whole whiny leftist mindset has to die along with global terrorism. Why is the moral idiot so confined to the left? It is just not appropriate if we are going to win the war on terror and subsequently prosper. For example, the common question: “Well, would you send your child to Iraq (or any place we are engaged in conflict)?” First of all, was Ms. Sheehan so duped by the evil Repubs that she sent her mature adult son to die in Iraq. What a crock! Who sends their children into combat. What a preposterous statement. Only a statement like this could come from the brainless left. What we do know for certain (like death and taxes) is that any loving parent would never send their child to “die.” Therefore, no one serving in Iraq was sent by their parent(s).
The vast majority of our fantastic military want to do this. Just ask them! They blog all the time. Some re-up to return to Iraq. Sure, there will always be some disgruntled people. Nobody likes their job 100% all of the time. Look at how many rock stars commit suicide or how many celebrities have mental problems. Why isn’t anyone moaning and groaning over: (1) the 45,000 people killed every year in the US as a result of auto accidents (of which several thousand are alcohol related), (2) the 400-500 police and firemen killed in the line of duty, (3) the 100,000 + people killed as a result of obesity, (4) the 300,000 + people killed as a result of smoking cigarettes, (5) the thousands murdered every year in the course of some crime or otherwise (in LA County alone - where close to 10 million people live - there are some 2,000 plus murders every year).
Bottomline: I would much rather die for this country and for the liberation of another than to meet my maker at the end of someone’s car hood in the middle of some hot SoCal intersection. Ms. Sheehan, whether you want to believe it or not, your son is a HERO and this country loves him for that and appreciates his sacrifice; I am confident that 90% of the surviving family members of those 3, 000 murdered on 9/11/01 feel the same way.