Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[bsnyder]

The trouble Bet is that reasoning can be used to invade Iran, N.Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Libya several years ago, Viet Nam(oops we tried that once before), Syria. Your listing is an after the fact excuse for the war. I have requested and keep requesting the 'threat' to America that Iraq presented. If one can be demonstrated then actual I would change my mind. I have done so in the past. From 1965 to 1969 I supported the Viet Nam war and that was with my brother over there also. Once I read the Pentagon Papers and other materials, did some historical seaching (my college major/degree) I discovered that Viet Nam was a sham and switched sides. What I never did; however, was blame the troops just the policy makers for putting them there. Just like Iraq I do not blame the troops just the policy makers on both sides.

So come on every war supporter here is an opportunity to change a mind. Show me the imminent and direct threat that Saddam posed to America. Show me the direct support of AQ and The Taliban. Come-on convince me and not by hearsay and bluffing/blustering because that is all that I see so far. Saddam played poker with the UN & US but instead of calling his bluff/bluster we tipped over the table and drew our gun on him. However, when his sleeves were exposed no 'cards' were found. Show me the cards.

It doesn't trouble me in the least that the same reasoning could be used with respect to Iran, N. Korea, etc.

My list isn't an after the fact one. Your logic,about Saddam's bluff is the only thing that's "after the fact".

 

[peachgirl]

Really? Would you believe Cindy's words?

I have no reason not to and her words don't disprove my statement. In fact, that article proves it...they were already separated before she began her protests in Crawford.

That said, I'm not going to rebut every slimy attack against her. I'm going to just let the right continue to do themselves damage by attacking the mother of a dead soldier. Carry on, you're helping us more than you can possibly imagine.

 

[LoraJ]

On my way to work I was listening to Rhandi Rhodes and she read an email that a US Army Sereant wrote to the guy who mowed down 500 of the crosses. I was in tears. I'll have to post it once I can find it on the net.

 

[peachgirl]

Is this the one you're talking about? I had posted it earlier because I found it to be very moving as well....

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)

 

[bsnyder]

On my way to work I was listening to Rhandi Rhodes and she read an email that a US Army Sereant wrote to the guy who mowed down 500 of the crosses. I was in tears. I'll have to post it once I can find it on the net.

Randi Rhodes = pondscum

 

[bsnyder]

Larry Northern = pondscum

 

[What the Heck]

I have no reason not to and her words don't disprove my statement. In fact, that article proves it...they were already separated before she began her protests in Crawford.

That said, I'm not going to rebut every slimy attack against her. I'm going to just let the right continue to do themselves damage by attacking the mother of a dead soldier. Carry on, you're helping us more than you can possibly imagine.

Interesting. So by quoting Cindy, we are sliming her. Wow, the logic there is blinding.

And how about this?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45786
My husband and I are separated, because he doesn't support my activities.


Hmmm, seems like they were seperated because of her activities. Or is she sliming herself again?

 

[DisDuck]

Blix in his intial report to the UN found no WMD's just bad documentation, refusal to hand over some documentation and refusal to allow scientists to be interviewed alone. I just wonder what would have happened if Blix was given 6 more months. Would anything have changed? Would Saddam have attacked America in that 6 months? The original reasons for war were mushroom clouds over US cities not Saddam and his sons torture and kill fellow Iraqi's. That reason came about after no mushrooms were found.

So still waiting to be convinced that nation-building is a responsibility of the US as that is all that we are doing. Iraq was never a direct, immediate threat in the past or future to the US.

 

[What the Heck]

Larry Northern = pondscum

I wouldn't disrespect the pondscum. I hope Mr. Northern gets tried and convicted for every possible offense they can find.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I wouldn't disrespect the pondscum. I hope Mr. Northern gets tried and convicted for every possible offense they can find.

If it is possible to disrespect the sacrifice and memory of those who died in Iraq any more, then Larry Northern found it. What he did literally dug a new low in dishonoring those who served and died.

 

[ThAnswr]

Easy answer: it goes to motive. It goes to finding out what the truth is. It goes to exposing the charade that the extreme left has concocted to justify this "tantrum." One doesn't need to be a psychic to accurately predict how a 2nd meeting with Ms. Sheehan would have been spun. Since both sides have made their positions perfectly clear and neither side is about to change its mind, what would be the point, except to provide the media & talking heads with more cannon fodder. I've noticed how silent the left has been throughout all this... no blogs, no interviews, no talking heads, no appearances, no editorials... just the purest model of composure and restraint. Your own rhetoric through all this has certainly been tame.

Motive? Who are you, Perry Mason?

Yes, you would have to be a psychic to predict exactly what would take place during the meeting. So now you're the Amazing Kreskin?

And the difference between the rhetoric of the right and rhetoric of the left is that the left has never gone after the grieving mother of a dead soldier because they disagreed with her politics. That is what this is all about. That is what you still don't get.

 

[bsnyder]

Blix in his intial report to the UN found no WMD's just bad documentation, refusal to hand over some documentation and refusal to allow scientists to be interviewed alone. I just wonder what would have happened if Blix was given 6 more months. Would anything have changed? Would Saddam have attacked America in that 6 months? The original reasons for war were mushroom clouds over US cities not Saddam and his sons torture and kill fellow Iraqi's. That reason came about after no mushrooms were found.

So still waiting to be convinced that nation-building is a responsibility of the US as that is all that we are doing. Iraq was never a direct, immediate threat in the past or future to the US.

I'd implore you to go back and read some of Blix's statements. He was a caraciture of the typical timid bureaucrat, talking out of both sides of his mouth. Every statement he made "in support" of Saddam he equivocated on the bottom line.

As to your last paragraph, while I'd agree, in hindsight, that Iraq was not a direct, immediate threat to us (as in your 6 months timetable), there's no possibly way you can include "future" in that assessment. It can't be verified.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Motive? Who are you, Perry Mason?

Nope, just someone who is interested in knowing the truth about this charade.

Yes, you would have to be a psychic to predict exactly what would take place during the meeting. So now you're the Amazing Kreskin?

I didn't talk about what would take place during the meeting. Try reading my post. I said one does not have to be psychic to know how the meeting would be spun by both sides after it was held.

 

[What the Heck]

Blix in his intial report to the UN found no WMD's just bad documentation, refusal to hand over some documentation and refusal to allow scientists to be interviewed alone. I just wonder what would have happened if Blix was given 6 more months. Would anything have changed? Would Saddam have attacked America in that 6 months? The original reasons for war were mushroom clouds over US cities not Saddam and his sons torture and kill fellow Iraqi's. That reason came about after no mushrooms were found.

So still waiting to be convinced that nation-building is a responsibility of the US as that is all that we are doing. Iraq was never a direct, immediate threat in the past or future to the US.

I think you could be right about a lot of things on this war, but it doesn't change that we are there. I think that if we pull out, then Iraq (and what Iraq will mean to our opponents) will become a very serious threat to the US, and within our borders.

I was thinking the other day about how American's react to their honor being attacked. Now that we are "civilized", we usually don't react nearly as strong as we used to. In the 1800's, it would often involve a nice trip into the country with 2 of your closest friends, with the individual who showed you offense with 2 of his closest friends and a referree. We don't do that anymore.

The problem is, to our opponents, this is a concept they can understand. They wouldn't have a problem with it. This leads to the problem of the arguments that I see in those who would have us leave now. If we were in a war with people who are just like us, it would be a possible solution. However we are not fighting people just like us. We have to put ourselves into their mindset when we look at our options. If we pull out, they will look at it as weakness, just as they looked at the Clinton Administration as weak because he always went looking for judicial responses when we were attacked previously.

And, I'm not necessarily blaming him. After all, prior to 9/11 the thought of going to war with terrorists wasn't an idea who's time had come. However, we are now at war with terrorists, and they are going to Iraq. Could we prosecute the war better? Probably. I think there are some things we could do to tighten up the security of the borders. I think we need more troops to do that, and it should be done.

Just my thoughts.

 

[What the Heck]

Nope, just someone who is interested in knowing the truth about this charade. I didn't talk about what would take place during the meeting. Try reading my post. I said one does not have to be psychic to know how the meeting would be spun by both sides after it was held.

You can't handle the truth!

 

[bsnyder]

COMMENTARY

The Exploits and Exploitation of Cindy Sheehan

BY JAMES LILEKS
c.2005 Newhouse News Service

Might as well get it out of the way: This is a cruel, false, chicken-hearted attempt to smear Cindy Sheehan, the protesting mother who lost a son in Iraq.

That's not the intent, but that's how some will respond. Some people think that any time you argue back, you're Stifling Dissent. For them, merely discussing Ms. Sheehan's views is the rhetorical equivalent of sending her to Abu Ghraib.

Just for the record, then: She has the right to her opinions, she certainly has the right to her grief, and she has the right to say provocative things. She even has the right to ask for a second conference with the president in order to accuse him of killing her son. This is not about that. No one is suggesting she be stripped of the First Amendment and forced to sing patriotic Irving Berlin tunes.

Now that the preambles are done, a question: Is anything she says subject to criticism at all?

Your first response might be a wince and a shrug: Who are we to judge, the woman's clearly in pain, best to leave it be, please change the channel. But if she wants to be a spokesman for the anti-war cause, is it beyond the pale to examine her remarks? If she blames the war on, say, Zionist fiends, ought not one wonder why the anti-war crowd seems deaf or indifferent to the loathsome underpinnings of her remarks? Perhaps they agree with her when she says this is a war for Israel. David Duke certainly does.

If asking those questions is too cruel, you'd best stop reading. Recently Democratic strategist Joe Trippi set up a conference call with anti-war bloggers, and Sheehan rolled out sheet after sheet of thin-hammered boilerplate.

See Byron York's National Review account, at http://nationalreview.com/york/york200508111811.asp: "Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state," Sheehan said. "Our government is run by one party, every level, and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government."

It seems churlish to point out that the mainstream media -- you know, the papers and networks that relentlessly hype Iraqi progress and downplay casualties -- have helped make her a celebrity. It would be obvious to note that we went to war to depose an actual fascist state.

But she is right about one thing: The Internet is helpful. Thanks to the Web, we know that Sheehan spoke at a rally at San Francisco State University in April. It wasn't a Mothers Against Pre-emptive War With Ambivalent U.N. Approval meeting. It was a rally for a lawyer convicted of aiding Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist connected with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. There's a transcript at http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm.

"The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush," Sheehan began. After calling for Bush's impeachment and making a demand that Bush send his "two little party-animal girls" to war, she makes this nuanced assessment:

"What they're saying, too, is like, it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. ... It's OK for Israel to occupy Palestine, ... for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. They're a bunch of (expletive) hypocrites."

The hard left in America needs to realize a bald, cruel fact: Anyone who sees no moral distinction between Israel and the mullahs of Iran, or sees the U.S. attempt to set up a constitutional republic in Iraq as equivalent to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, suffers from incurable moral cretinism. The more the fervent anti-war base embraces these ideas, the more they ensure that no one will trust the left with national security. Ever.

Will they learn the lesson? Even money says Sheehan will be sitting in the Michael Moore seat next to Jimmy Carter at the '08 Democratic convention.

Aug. 17, 2005

 

[Lebjwb]

The more the fervent anti-war base embraces these ideas, the more they ensure that no one will trust the left with national security. Ever.

Because Bu$h has so clearly done an outstanding job!

 

[What the Heck]

Because Bu$h has so clearly done an outstanding job!

Yes, but - as "bad" as he is doing, he still won in 2004. He should have been defeated. I'm not saying that sarcastically, I really believe he should have been defeated. He wasn't because the left is not trusted with our national security by the moderates. And, I don't think they will be for a long time based onwhat their leaders are saying.

 

[bsnyder]

Because Bu$h has so clearly done an outstanding job!

That "argument" isn't going to win you any elections.

 

[Tiziminchac]

I have requested and keep requesting the 'threat' to America that Iraq presented. If one can be demonstrated then actual I would change my mind.

From the Washington Post...

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 19, 2004; Page A11


Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

Putin, who opposed Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, did not go into detail about the information that was forwarded, and said Russia had no evidence that Hussein was involved in any attacks.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said, according to RIA Novosti, the Russian news agency. "American President George Bush had an opportunity to personally thank the head of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he regarded as very important," the Russian president told an interviewer while in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan.

A senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that Russia has provided helpful information in the war on terrorism, but that he was "not aware of any specific threat information we were told" about Iraqi activities before the March 2003 invasion.

Putin's statement came as Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials are defending their statements -- made before the war and as recently as this week -- that Hussein's government had a relationship with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization. Earlier this week, the staff of the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks said there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

The question of Hussein's role in terrorism beyond Iraq's borders has become a sensitive issue for the Bush administration. The allegation that Hussein's Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, and the concern that it would give them to al Qaeda, were among the chief justifications cited by the administration for attacking Iraq. At the White House yesterday, National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said he would not comment on Putin's statement because it involves intelligence matters.

In January and February 2003, as U.S. and coalition forces massed in Kuwait and the Persian Gulf area, the Bush administration asked countries including Russia to keep close surveillance on Iraq intelligence officers in their countries to make certain they were not preparing terrorist attacks against U.S. facilities. The warning was based on what had occurred in 1991, when Iraqi intelligence attempted attacks on U.S. embassies in Indonesia and elsewhere as the Persian Gulf War began.

Administration officials last year said their requests resulted in intelligence from countries across the Middle East and Europe, as well as in parts of Asia and Africa where Iraqis or anti-Western terrorist groups were believed to be active. The intelligence-gathering operation was not in response to specific threats but was based on U.S. estimates that Hussein might respond to a U.S. invasion by ordering attacks against U.S. targets in the United States or in other countries.

Also immediately before the war, the FBI searched for several thousand illegal Iraqi immigrants who had disappeared while visiting the United States, officials said. Although most Iraqi immigrants were viewed as being sympathetic to the United States, authorities feared some could have been Iraqi agents or allies of terrorist groups.

After the March 19, 2003, invasion, authorities in Yemen and Jordan broke up plots by Iraqis who were preparing to bomb Western targets in those nations, and U.S. intelligence warned 10 other countries that small groups of Iraqi intelligence agents were readying similar attacks against Americans and other Westerners, according to U.S. government officials.

In his interview yesterday, Putin said: "It is one thing to have information that Hussein's regime was preparing acts of terrorism -- we did have this information, and we handed it over. . . . But we did not have information that they were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things."

Two years ago, in an interview with British documentary makers after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Putin said he had personally warned Bush a day or two before the assaults that some kind of terrorist operation seemed to be in the works.

In that interview, as in his latest one, Putin did not specify where or when an attack was to have taken place. U.S. officials have said that the information provided by the Russians was not detailed enough for action to be taken.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html