Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[Lebjwb]

I'll come to TM defense. She is using her son's death to support her political case. She has changed her story quite a few times from Bush being sincere and sympathetic to Bush acting like he was at a party. I also just heard an interview with her where she says that if Bush met with her now...it would slow her momentum. Well which is it??? She wants him to meet with her or not?? IMO she is using her son's coffin as a soap box. I'm sorry...but when I hear her say things like - “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.” Not only is she dishonoring her sons death - but she is dishonoring all that have fought for our freedoms including quite a few of my own family members. I don't care if you tell me I'm trashing or sliming this women - because that last statement of her's that I quoted - she herself is trashing and sliming our brave men and women...her son included.

She is using her son's death to support her political case

.

So please tell us your position on how the Bu$h administration used Pat Tillman.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I'll come to TM defense. She is using her son's death to support her political case. She has changed her story quite a few times from Bush being sincere and sympathetic to Bush acting like he was at a party. I also just heard an interview with her where she says that if Bush met with her now...it would slow her momentum. Well which is it??? She wants him to meet with her or not?? IMO she is using her son's coffin as a soap box. I'm sorry...but when I hear her say things like - “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.” Not only is she dishonoring her sons death - but she is dishonoring all that have fought for our freedoms including quite a few of my own family members. I don't care if you tell me I'm trashing or sliming this women - because that last statement of her's that I quoted - she herself is trashing and sliming our brave men and women...her son included.

The dead can't speak. If a mother doesn't have a right to speak for her dead son, then your opinion must be more valid then hers?

The self-righteous is always 'right.'

Everyone who has died in battle must have thought the same way. They are all clones.

Anyone who has ever fought for our freedom never wondered years later if they did the right thing.

An activist never could have loved her son?

 

[ThAnswr]

I'll take a stab at it, because I think I know the motivations. I think the Iraq was justified at three levels as threats to our freedoms. As Paul Wolfowitz confessed in his famous interview, a lot bounced around, but WMDs was the consensus justification and the only one that could see it to the public (which is why the claims were so cooked), but it wasn't the only one.

One is what you mention - a show of intimidating force. Not sure that's a valid justification of war given that we had just made an impressive display in Afghanistan and could have saber rattled and even taken some small slices elsewhere, but even assuming it was, it has backfired and had the opposite effect. Though we deposed Sadaam and destroyed his military in impressively short order, the post war has demonstrated to other dictators that the cost in unacceptably high to presume we would repeat the exercise for anything less than a direct threat to us. The tactics we faced here have no doubt been studied - never face US firepower militarily, but cache arms and melt in and use IEDs, mortars, etc. No doubt that our generals are learning countermeasures as we go and will also be better prepared to face these tactics, but it will still be a challenge. With a new Administration, we may get some competent leaders that are actually open to facts not consistent with their ideology. Therefore, though we could continue with Revolution in Military Affairs retooling, we could also resuscitate the peacekeeping training and armor many more transports, understanding that there is no longer any such thing as "behind the lines", especially if we are bypassing the enemy.

The second justification was the looney claim that Iraq and Sadaam was truly the locus of all things evil in the world. There are those that believed it (and still believe it) in positions of power, which is scary. They think Iraq was the behind WTC 1993, 9/11, and almost all global terrorism. What caused Sadaam to assume the shape of a white whale to this group can't really be understood now, other than some form of demented mass hysteria, but they exerted a surprisingly strong influence of US policy for years through AEI and PNAC. Thus, there was no greater threat to US Freedom than the one man that was causing every anti-American sentiment in the world. They truly believed that. Rumsfeld and Bush wanted to attack Iraq before Afghanistan, the nation that really harbored the attackers. They were/are that looney.

The third is the neo claim (pipe dream) that Iraq would trigger more openness in Arab society and thus serve as catalyst for structural long term change that would cause Arab society to integrate into the dominant Western motif and no longer be hostile to US interests. The shining beacon. There is some internal logic to this, and the perfect is the enemy of the good, but it is hard to think this has much traction when Iraq itself cannot solve sectarian differences and we cannot get out. Plus, having another Shiite dominated power may literally result in a starker Sunni/Shiite - East/West spilt in the Islamic world. Plus, it's such a long term strategy, and one that would require the risky abrogation of the Carter Doctrine as to the defense of oil lanes, thereby risking economic failure and upheaval. Plus, even if you think it's a great idea, and I admit I find aspects of it appealing, you can't trust this incompetent crew to run it - they've screwed up everything so far, trusting the Chalabis of the world as Arab liberal democrats. They have shown no instinct or judgment for such leadership - every presumption to date has proven wildly wrong, and they are incapable of learning from mistakes.

Very well said.

Bottom line: nothing will change as long as Bush is in office. If anyone wants change, you've got to get rid of Bush first.

 

[What the Heck]

You think it's unreasonable that the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, be asked to come up with a decent exit strategy? If you'd like for him to step aside and let someone else take over his job I'm sure that would suit many of us just fine. Until then, it's his job and he should have had a plan for leaving before he went in.

Howard Dean is not the leader of the United States, Bu$h is. It's a nice trick if you can pull it off...Conservatives were high behind to get to war and now that we're there they want the responsibility of figuring how the hell to get out of the mess Bu$h put us in to go to the liberals....won't work.

As the man who lost a brother in this war stated in a letter I posted on the liberal thread.....

Ahhhhh, first ThAnswer and now you. So, it is unreasonable that everyone shouting "what is your plan" that they should not have the thought processes to come up with their own, to offer an alternative plan. Didn't Kerry have a plan? That's what we were told for 18 months. Didn't Dean have a plan? He said he did when he was a candidate, but now he doesn't? Wasn't it supposed to be a better plan and Bush only won because we of the right were brain washed? Or is it because we saw through the bull the left was putting out and knew they not only didn't they have a plan, but anything they could come up with was so many times more scary than what we have. For the record, that was why (and his stance on North Korea) Kerry did not get my vote, and would not get my vote for dog catcher.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Btw, Mrs. Sheehan first met Bush right after her son died and she was more than likely still in shock. Once that shock wore off, she may've been able to see things a bit clearer.

Well, that's certainly a convenient explanation for the extreme change in her account of the meeting she had with the President. I'd just like to know: which account accurately represents her meeting with the President and what prompted the abrupt change in the way she characterizes that meeting?

But as one columnist put it (Eric Zorn in the Chicago Tribune, who I don't believe could remotely be characterized as a "conservative"),

When it comes to principle, President Bush is exactly right in not meeting with Sheehan. He knows what she wants to say and she knows what he has to say in response.

Their positions are clear in the public record, and no one-- let alone a President of the United States -- is under any obligation to give those who disagree with him a face-to-face confrontation.

No matter where you come down on the war in Iraq, you have to acknowledge that it would set a terrible precedent if Bush sent the signal that he'll meet with those among his critics who stage the biggest, longest protests.

He'd be making the same mistake that parents make when, after laying down the family law, they give in to tantrums. All that does is guarantee more tantrums down the line.

Of course, that blog entry yesterday set off a firestorm leading to this entry today...

No anti-war person with an ounce of political common sense really wants Bush to grant Sheehan an audience now, though tactically they must continue to insist on it.

And, when you look beyond whatever passions you have about the war or George Bush, you certainly recognize that it would imperil our democratic republic for leaders to bend to the will of the noisiest and most insistent among his constituents or even to slavishly follow the polls.

Because next time, maybe it will be grieving family members who strongly support the war (and there are a lot of them) camping out demanding that this president or the next one increase troop levels in Iraq and institute a military draft to honor and protect the memory of their fallen loved ones.

Or maybe it will be a zealous band of abortion protesters keeping vigil outside the home of a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court until he or she emerges to discuss and defend Roe v. Wade. Or a crew of veterans on a round-the-clock protest to demand an audience with Barack Obama to force him to explain why he won't vote to criminalize burning of the American flag.

Or gay bashers or immigrant bashers taking dramatic action to try to sway public officials.

Will you still be saying the same things?

I will be. Though I'll try to use less inflammatory analogies.

 

[peachgirl]

So, it is unreasonable that everyone shouting "what is your plan" that they should not have the thought processes to come up with their own, to offer an alternative plan.

We had a plan...don't attack Iraq. Bu$h chose not to follow that plan, don't expect us to do his job for him. Don't you think the President should know what his exit strategy is without having to have his opponents figure it for him?

 

[DisDuck]

Bet, would you like to take a stab at my question because in my view 'soda' was playing devil's advocate. Coming up with what the neo-cons considered to be the threat. No Saddam is/was no 'toody good-shoes' but also not threat to America in any shape or form that I have seen, historically. Also, no real threat to the region what with the no-fly zones and constant survallience(sic) that went on (ex. any time Saddam troops turned targeting radar onto our planes we dropped a bomb or two on the radar). Besides, Israel, no slouch, in protecting itself never did anything against Saddam.

As to the democracy issue being number one (or two). Let's get history straight folks. Iraq did not exist until 1917. It was created out of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. You have 2 distinct ethnic groups in 'Iraq' with 3 different religious groupings. The ethnic groups are Kurds and Arabs. The religious groupins are: whatever the Kurds are (not Sunni or Shiite); Sunni & Shiite. Since Mesopotamia there has never been a 'democratic' state or philosophy in that region. What makes anyone think that all of a sudden there will be one now. Someone is eating those middle eastern mushrooms.

 

[bsnyder]

.

So please tell us your position on how the Bu$h administration used Pat Tillman.

From all the available evidence, she and her son had completely opposite political views. That's what I have a problem with.

 

[Lebjwb]

A pretty reasonable analysis. Not that I agree with every point made and I'd certainly reverse the order you listed the reasons in, with the last one being the most important, and the one that ties directly into the "spreading democracy" theme that so many liberals love to deride.

I'd also take exception to the second justification being "looney". Wrong, perhaps, but by making it sound like Saddam was just a mild-mannered ole' dictator that everyone (except the neos) thought was completely harmless is just plain history-rewritten fantasy. The major players in the debate (including Blix) thought Saddam was dangerous. The disagreement was over what to do about him and how to do it.

As for the "incomepentence" of this Administration, you'll have a hard time making that charge stick if the results turn out positive. And I think you could make the case that any Democrat administration would have an even tougher time with the execution.

As for the "incomepentence" of this Administration, you'll have a hard time making that charge stick if the results turn out positive.

What do you consider "as positive"? What's the tipping point?

And I think you could make the case that any Democrat administration would have an even tougher time with the execution

Cite some examples/arguments to back your opinion please.

 

[What the Heck]

The dead can't speak. If a mother doesn't have a right to speak for her dead son, then your opinion must be more valid then hers?

An activist never could have loved her son?

To answer the last one first, yes she can. Personally, I feel sorry for her, to first lose her son and now to lose everything to be a public personality for a short time.

This goes to your first point. Why is her opinion more valid than her other children? Why is it more valid than her husbands? Her husband is divorcing her over this. Something is wrong there, very wrong. Her husband is another of the charter members of their group, but he thinks her behaviour is so out there he is divorcing her because of it.

She is entitled to her own opinion, she is entitled to take any action (short of hurting someone else or destroying property) she wants - she is also entitled to the consequences of those actions. May God help her in the years to come.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Ahhhhh, first ThAnswer and now you. So, it is unreasonable that everyone shouting "what is your plan" that they should not have the thought processes to come up with their own, to offer an alternative plan. Didn't Kerry have a plan? That's what we were told for 18 months. Didn't Dean have a plan? He said he did when he was a candidate, but now he doesn't? Wasn't it supposed to be a better plan and Bush only won because we of the right were brain washed? Or is it because we saw through the bull the left was putting out and knew they not only didn't they have a plan, but anything they could come up with was so many times more scary than what we have. For the record, that was why (and his stance on North Korea) Kerry did not get my vote, and would not get my vote for dog catcher.

Hey I have a question for you:

When you were in the service did you ever want to question what was going on, or not agree 100%, but followed orders anyway? Do you have any stories that might apply to the Sheehan saga?

 

[peachgirl]

In regards to the right winger who voiced his objections to Ms.Sheehan's protests by knocking over the crosses and flags erected outside Bu$h's vacation retreat...

A Message to the Crawford Memorial Vandal

Mr. Northern:

I am a Veteran of the Iraq war, having served with the 4th Infantry Division on the initial invasion with Force Package One.

While I was in Iraq,a very good friend of mine, Christopher Cutchall,was killed in an unarmoredHMMWV outside of Baghdad. He was a cavalry scout serving with the 3d ID.Once he had declined the award of a medal because Soldiers assigned to him did not receive similar awards that he had recommended. He left two sons and awonderful wife. On Monday night, August 16, you ran down the memorial cross erected for him by Arlington West.

One of my Soldiers in Iraq was Roger Turner. We gave him a hard time because he always wore all of his protective equipment, including three pairs of glasses or goggles. He did this because he wanted to make sure that he returned home to his family. He rode a bicycle to work every day to make sure that he was able to save enough money on his Army salary to send his son to college. At Camp Anaconda, where the squadron briefly stayed, a rocket landed inside a tent, sending a piece of debris or fragment into him and killed him. On Monday night, August 16, you ran down the memorial cross erected for him by Arlington West.

One of my Soldiers was Henry Bacon. He was one of the finest men I ever met. He was in perfect shape for a man over forty, working hard at night. He told me that he did that because he didn't have much money to buy nice things for his wife, who he loved so much, so he had to be in good shape for her. He was like a father to many young men in his section of maintenance mechanics. They fixed our vehicles with almost no support and fabricated parts and made repairs that kept our squadron rolling on the longest, fastest armor advance ever made under fire. He was so very proud of his son-in-law that married the beautiful daughter so well raised by Henry. His son-in-law was a helicopter pilot with the 1st Cavalry Division, who died last year. Henry stopped to rescue a vehicle belonging to another unit on what was to be his last day in Iraq. He could have kept rolling - he was headed to Kuwait after a year's tour. But he stopped. He could have sent others to do the work, but he was on the ground, leading by example, when he was killed. On Monday night, August 16, you took it upon yourself to go out in the country, where a peaceful group was exercising their constitutional rights, and harming no one, and you ran down the memorial cross erected for Henry and for his son-in-law by Arlington West.

Mr. Northern - I know little about Cindy Sheehan except that she is a grieving mother, a gentle soul, and wants to bring harm to no one. I know little about you except that you found your way to Crawford on Monday night in August with chains and a pipe attached to your truck for the sole purpose of dishonoring a memorial erected for my friends and lost Soldiers and hundreds of others that served this nation when they were called. I find it disheartening that good men like these have died so that people like you can threaten a mother who lost a child with your actions. I hope that you are ashamed of yourself.

Perry Jefferies, First Sergeant, USA (retired)http://www2.operationtruth.com/dia/organizations/OpTruth/blog/comments.jsp?blog_entry_KEY=19954

http://www2.operationtruth.com/dia/organizations/OpTruth/blog/comments.jsp?blog_entry_KEY=19954

 

[Lebjwb]

From all the available evidence, she and her son had completely opposite political views. That's what I have a problem with.

So you'd agree that the Bu$h administration's propaganda regarding Tillman's death was wrong? Is that correct?

 

[bsnyder]

Bet, would you like to take a stab at my question because in my view 'soda' was playing devil's advocate. Coming up with what the neo-cons considered to be the threat. No Saddam is/was no 'toody good-shoes' but also not threat to America in any shape or form that I have seen, historically. Also, no real threat to the region what with the no-fly zones and constant survallience(sic) that went on (ex. any time Saddam troops turned targeting radar onto our planes we dropped a bomb or two on the radar). Besides, Israel, no slouch, in protecting itself never did anything against Saddam.

As to the democracy issue being number one (or two). Let's get history straight folks. Iraq did not exist until 1917. It was created out of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. You have 2 distinct ethnic groups in 'Iraq' with 3 different religious groupings. The ethnic groups are Kurds and Arabs. The religious groupins are: whatever the Kurds are (not Sunni or Shiite); Sunni & Shiite. Since Mesopotamia there has never been a 'democratic' state or philosophy in that region. What makes anyone think that all of a sudden there will be one now. Someone is eating those middle eastern mushrooms.

I'll take a stab at it. The Bush Admin. decided (rightly or wrongly, we don't know yet, time will tell, though) that after 9/11 we could no longer just rely on the status quo. I don't think anyone every thought, or thinks now that "all of a sudden" you'll have a democratic state.

*edited to fix blatant typos!*

 

[minniepumpernickel]

To answer the last one first, yes she can. Personally, I feel sorry for her, to first lose her son and now to lose everything to be a public personality for a short time.

This goes to your first point. Why is her opinion more valid than her other children? Why is it more valid than her husbands? Her husband is divorcing her over this. Something is wrong there, very wrong. Her husband is another of the charter members of their group, but he thinks her behaviour is so out there he is divorcing her because of it.

She is entitled to her own opinion, she is entitled to take any action (short of hurting someone else or destroying property) she wants - she is also entitled to the consequences of those actions. May God help her in the years to come.

Would he really divorce her over one issue? I wonder if more stuff really went wrong in their relationship that we don't know about? I think that they can all have their own opinions. If they are fighting about it, thats sad but how does it mean that she only cares about the liberal agenda?

 

[What the Heck]

We had a plan...don't attack Iraq. Bu$h chose not to follow that plan, don't expect us to do his job for him. Don't you think the President should know what his exit strategy is without having to have his opponents figure it for him?

That was the plan in 2004 after we were already there? Wow, now thats a good plan. After they were beating on the President through all the primaries, saying they knew better, that was their plan? Amazing. As another famous Dis'er says "You can't make this up".

 

[What the Heck]

Would he really divorce her over one issue? I wonder if more stuff really went wrong in their relationship that we don't know about? I think that they can all have their own opinions. If they are fighting about it, thats sad but how does it mean that she only cares about the liberal agenda?

I agree, there is probably more to it. What I find sad is that she and her child disagreed on the liberal agenda, yet what her son thought no longer means anything to her. I don't blame her for this, I think it's natural to go with what we think someone would believe, I think she took it further than most would.

 

[peachgirl]

After they were beating on the President through all the primaries, saying they knew better, that was their plan?

Nice try, but what the party that lost planned has nothing to do with it. Your guy, the one in charge, doesn't have one and that's what matters now.

You're right, you can't make this stuff up. The conservatives want to ***** because the party they defeated, the ones who they don't agree with, don't provide a plan for them that they wouldn't go along with no matter what it was.....

 

[DisDuck]

So 1800+ Americans have died so as to not maintain the Status Quo as regards Iraq and only Iraq. Which for the umpteenth time, Iraq/Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. To continue.. So our freedoms were in jeapordy by the status quo in 2003 but were not in jeapordy with the status quo between 1991 and 2003.

I still get no answer to the fundamental question regarding Freedoms in America. That is my question, many supporters of the war keep talking about fighting for our freedoms yet cannot or will not define exactly what freedoms we lost or would have lost if Saddam was still in charge.

Iraq is nothing more than neo-con saber-rattling, trying to become the 'British Empire' of the 21st century.

 

[bsnyder]

I agree, there is probably more to it. What I find sad is that she and her child disagreed on the liberal agenda, yet what her son thought no longer means anything to her. I don't blame her for this, I think it's natural to go with what we think someone would believe, I think she took it further than most would.

I don't think you can say it no longer means anything to her. We don't know that, and hopefully it does still mean something to her. But clearly, it doesn't mean as much as her own agenda does.

I really do feel sorry for her. I think she's going to have terrible regrets some day.