Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[ThAnswr]

Yes, but you could. You are a citizen; she is a citizen. She's not breaking the law; she's playing by the "rules" as they've been established by the current political and media climate.

Bush is the one that continues to make her newsworthy by refusing to see her or answer her questions. She turned the tables on the leader of the free world and that's what has everybody's "panties in a wad," to quote our resident sage ThAnswr

There was a way for Bush & Co to diffuse the situation...and that time has now passed. My guess is because it is giving them amunition for something down the road. Or it could be another Schiavo disaster. Time will tell.

Resident sage.....thank you.

What Cindy Sheehan has accomplished in less than a week is nothing short of phenomenal. She's got Bush on the defensive. She's focused the country on the war dead. And she has the righties throwing all their "compassionate conservatism" out the window and she's showing the world what the righties lack of decency and just what kind of morally bankrupt automatons they really are.

Good for her.

 

[ThAnswr]

The problem isn't that she has "leftist" groups supporting her, the problem is she is a founding member of one of those "leftist" groups - long before she decided to go to Texas.

When did that become a problem in this country?

 

[ThAnswr]

I don't have a problem with her being a political activist. I respect her being a grieving mother. I see no reason why she can't be both. I do have a problem when she drapes herself in the flag of the one claiming that is all she wants. She "just wants to meet with the President". Then it comes out, she already met with him. She is only there as a grieving mother. Then she has T-shirts showing her website. Please. If her cause is so noble, why does she have to give the truth out in spurts?

Is she selling those t-shirts? If she is, good for her. Activism costs money. Just ask Bush..........he went to another fundraiser today.

 

[ThAnswr]

I'm truly surprised, ThAnswr. I really thought you were more open minded than that.

Girl, what the hell are you smoking?

This has nothing to do with being open minded. The level of the rhetoric against this woman has been steadily increasing and, frankly, it's all the same. She has an agenda. She using her son. She wants to get rid of Bush. (sidebar: smart girl) And on and on and on.

Why is Cindy Sheehan so threatening that she deserves this level of vehemence? Bush, as president of the US is **** scared of this woman. He should've put an end to this and sat and talked to her the first day she was there. She's got questions and as an American citizen, she entitled to answers. But, Bush can't sit with her and explain to her the noble cause. He cannot articulate just what that cause is.

Cindy Sheehan is like the little girl in the story who points out the Emperor is not wearing any clothes. And that is why Cindy Sheehan is such a threat.

 

[Teejay32]

Nah, we just discuss everyone's agendas here, it's nothing personal. Her supporters hope she's a threat - that's what is so sad.

 

[ThAnswr]

Nah, we just discuss everyone's agendas here, it's nothing personal. Her supporters hope she's a threat - that's what is so sad.

Why is it sad that Cindy Sheehan may just open up a few people's eyes?

Why is it sad that Cindy Sheehan may encourage some people to focus on the human cost of this war?

Less than 5% of the American people are directly affected by this war. So what is so sad about making some of the rest of the 95% sit up and take notice?

 

[Teejay32]

"This war"...in Iraq, where Bush insulted people's notions that all was right with the world and peace reigned there until March of 2003? Americans - 66% of them (allegedly) don't see the Arab supremacism at (war) work in Iraq and elsewhere, they don't see how Saddam was fomenting (war) terrorism in Israel, or how in relation to this many different factions in the Middle East have to converged to form one big (war) Association of Exploding Transit that has infected just about every country by now...and I guess they plumb forgot about my friends going off to war in '91 in Iraq without being under threat of WMDs or Osama then too. They only want to see things through the prism of Americans being killed directly by al-Qaida, and this obviously does not include citizens overseas unless they were sent there in uniform by Bush himself. If they didn't, they might actually consider and weigh the opinions of the other 34% which sees something noble in what we're doing in Iraq, myself included, on behalf of others and ourselves, and discuss the war in more practical terms than "Bush lied."

Now, if Sheehan is completely in her right mind and we can believe what she says, she simply doesn't care what the effects, the "human cost" would be in Iraq if we pulled out now, and she's campaigning hard for that. I blame her grief for it. What's everyone else's reasoning?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Why do you think you're entitled to a pass? Did your son or daughter die in Iraq? That's how you get the pass.

Until that happens,you're just one more rightie mouthpiece.

Thank you.

I direct your attention to page 42, post #620 (which was a reply to my post #547 on page 37). The exchange was:

Sometimes God's grace doesn't extend quite far enough to cover everyone. There are probably people posting or reading here who know full well the sting of war's impact on their family. So, do they get a free pass, too?

From me, absolutely.

I said there are people posting here who know full well the sting of war on their family. I didn't specify any stipulations; just having experienced the sting of war's impact on their family. Do they get a free pass, too? Your answer:

From me, absolutely.

Now you want to add special conditions? What's up with that? This must be one of those times when "absolutely" really means "relatively... based on whether you agree with my pov." I don't see any stipulations in your post #620. But that's OK... because I know how you like to change your "tune" to suit your agenda.

I shy away from revealing much about myself on Internet forums like this. But for your edification, ThAnswr, know this: my mother knows full well what Ms. Sheehan experienced having "been there, done that." Nuff said about that.

So where's my pass? Or are we to be treated to another verse of "As the Tune Changes" because I don't agree with your pov. What other stipulations do you want to add to "From me, absolutely."

 

[auntpolly]

Have you guys quit your jobs? Or have you taken a little vacation to debate this?

Just kidding! Wish I had your stamina! Carry on!

 

[peachgirl]

I'd rather her just be left alone myself. She's a victim of sorts of those policies she opposes, so she's earned her right to do this.

Had the conservatives been smart, aside from giving her a quiet meeting with Bush, that would have been the thing to do....ignore her.

Instead, they come up guns blaring trying to rip this woman to shreds. As I've said before, this time it's going to very hard for them to do it without causing themselves a lot of damage.

This time it isn't a President from the opposing side, a candidate or even the husband of a CIA agent they want to destroy. They're going after a mother whose son has died. It's pretty hard to portray yourself as compassionate when you're trashing a grieving mother.

 

[momof2inPA]

Apparently the pro-War Republicans have fabricated some letter from an imaginary guy named "Mohammed (probably Mohammed Rove) from Iraq" about all the reasons Mrs. Shehan's son died legitimately. It was a War about WMD's not to save the Iraqis from an evil dictator. No WMD's, no legitimate War. Transparant posted it on the Conservative thread if anyone wants to take a look- and they make fun of Dan Rather's sources.

Plus, to even pretend that the Iraqi's are sitting over there grateful that we have bombed their country to smithereens, destroyed their way of life, and decimated their infrastructure is preposterous. My husband met an Iraqi man a few months ago who was in the U.S. to raise awareness of the jobless situation in Iraq describe how his dad suffered a heart attack in the evening and had no access to an ambulance and no ability to reach a hospital because of strict curfews. He watched his own father suffer for hours and die, whereas before we destroyed Iraq, he would have been treated in minutes.

Don't get me wrong, it's good that Saddam is no longer in power, but the vast majority of Iraqi's probably don't believe the price they have paid is worth getting rid of the guy, and Mrs. Shehan doesn't believe the price she and her son paid justifies the war for oil. I agree with her. Would you give up your kids to bring democracy to a country that had not attacked or threatened the U.S.? I wouldn't.

 

[ThAnswr]

Thank you.

I direct your attention to page 42, post #620 (which was a reply to my post #547 on page 37). The exchange was:

I said there are people posting here who know full well the sting of war on their family. I didn't specify any stipulations; just having experienced the sting of war's impact on their family. Do they get a free pass, too? Your answer:

Now you want to add special conditions? What's up with that? This must be one of those times when "absolutely" really means "relatively... based on whether you agree with my pov." I don't see any stipulations in your post #620. But that's OK... because I know how you like to change your "tune" to suit your agenda.

I shy away from revealing much about myself on Internet forums like this. But for your edification, ThAnswr, know this: my mother knows full well what Ms. Sheehan experienced having "been there, done that." Nuff said about that.

So where's my pass? Or are we to be treated to another verse of "As the Tune Changes" because I don't agree with your pov. What other stipulations do you want to add to "From me, absolutely."

My condolences to you and your family. This conversation is over.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Brenda

Your liar of a president is up to his old tricks. Radio Address by President Bush to the Nation

The recent violence in Iraq is a grim reminder of the brutal nature of the enemy we face in the war on terror. Our mission in Iraq is tough because the enemy understands the stakes. The terrorists know that a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a crippling blow to their hateful ideology. And that is why our work in Iraq is a vital part of the war on terror we're waging around the world

This war on terror arrived on our shores on September the 11th, 2001.

Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. Bush keeps trying to link the two. It works with Faux News viewers but a majority of Americans now realize that Bush lied to justified the war in Iraq. Bush fixed the facts and the intelligence to justify the war.

Again, Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. The invasion of Iraq has made the world less safe because Bush has created a far better training ground for terrorists. The war in Iraq is not a nobel cause.

 

[BuckNaked]

Brenda

Your liar of a president is up to his old tricks. Radio Address by President Bush to the Nation Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. Bush keeps trying to link the two. It works with Faux News viewers but a majority of Americans now realize that Bush lied to justified the war in Iraq. Bush fixed the facts and the intelligence to justify the war.

Again, Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. The invasion of Iraq has made the world less safe because Bush has created a far better training ground for terrorists. The war in Iraq is not a nobel cause.

The war on terror did begin on 9/11/01. Were you not aware of that?

 

[DisDuck]

Back on page 55 I gave what I thought was a resaoned case for setting a time table for withdrawal. I also responded to the 'noble cause' reason for war debunking it. It seems that no one wishes to address these issues. Bush continues to spout the line of not 'cutting and running' or setting a time table yet has nothing to back up his words. If setting a time table would give the insurgents aid which Bush and his cronies mean that they can wait until we leave. Does that then not mean that the insurgents would back off from their attacks until we leave? Which would give us one to two years of security in which to train the Iraqi's and rebuild the country. That is a positive and what we want so why not set a time table. If the attacks are not going to stop with a time table, that is the insurgents continue to kill then why not set a time table to get out and reduce casualties. Either way we WIN. If the attacks stop and security is increased. If the attacks continue our troops are being reduced and there are fewer targets.

Now some one seemed to equate being anti-war with being a left-wing extremist. Is that accurate? Are only leftists against the war? So where then do I as a Libertarian fit in. I am against the war.

Having been in High School then College during the Viet Nam War and being a student of History (my degree), I do see many parallells between this war and Viet Nam including the rhetoric. The war of words are so similar as to be freaky.

I would like to see someone justify this war based on the current knowledge supported by several congressional hearings and the 9/11 commission and the WMD search reports. There was NO CONNECTION TO AQ; THERE WAS NO WMD; THERE WAS NO INIMENT THREAT TO AMERICA (Saddam had no missiles with a range longer than 600 miles; Saddam had no weapons that could kill thousands at a time; Saddam's only connection to terrorism was the $25,000 supposedly given to families of palestanian suicide bombers and Israel did not think this connection was important). What are you left with as a justification then? Please explain with FACTS.

 

[What the Heck]

I would like to see someone justify this war based on the current knowledge supported by several congressional hearings and the 9/11 commission and the WMD search reports. There was NO CONNECTION TO AQ; THERE WAS NO WMD; THERE WAS NO INIMENT THREAT TO AMERICA (Saddam had no missiles with a range longer than 600 miles; Saddam had no weapons that could kill thousands at a time; Saddam's only connection to terrorism was the $25,000 supposedly given to families of palestanian suicide bombers and Israel did not think this connection was important). What are you left with as a justification then? Please explain with FACTS.

Whether or not the war was justified in 2003 does not change the fact that the war did happen. As for the facts that led to the war, what I point to is not that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction but that the entire world believed he did. And, we believed that he was going to use them at some point, possibily by giving them to terrorists. No one, not even Hussein himself said otherwise. The weapons inspectors didn't say he didn't have any, only that they hadn't found any at that point. Everyone believed that if the inspectors had more time, they would find them (wasn't that a major part of the argument for those who opposed the war? Give them more time? If there were people saying there weren't any Weapons why the need to give them more time?). The claim that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction (say that instead of WMD and you realize how scary it was that he had them) now does not take away the fact that we believed he did have them. The question isn't should we have gone in as much as what do we do now.

 

[DisDuck]

I grant the 20/20 hindsight on WMD but I did give what I consider a reasonable 'what do we do now' scenerio. Is no one willing to comment on my scenerio? Is it too rational and would undercut the Bush War?

By the way why was Saddam trying to give the impression that he had WMD when he did not. They have not been found after how many years of looking. It seems Bush is not a good poker player and fell for the bluff. Saddam miscalculated and just did not think that Bush would be so rash as to invade. Just give this some thought, if Saddam was/would give WMD to terrorists how come the Palestanians didn't get any. How come after 9/11 and before 3/2003 no other terrorist group got WMD's? Certainly, if the Japanese terror group that gassed the Tokyo subway got a hold of Serin gas then Saddam could have given his 'buddies' what he had. Right?

Let's call the insurgents 'bluff' and set a time-table. I bet they will not go into hiding until we leave because there goal is not Iraq but to kill Americans. Without us there then the Iraq's would turn on them because they do not want instability.

 

[ThAnswr]

Whether or not the war was justified in 2003 does not change the fact that the war did happen. As for the facts that led to the war, what I point to is not that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction but that the entire world believed he did. And, we believed that he was going to use them at some point, possibily by giving them to terrorists. No one, not even Hussein himself said otherwise. The weapons inspectors didn't say he didn't have any, only that they hadn't found any at that point. Everyone believed that if the inspectors had more time, they would find them (wasn't that a major part of the argument for those who opposed the war? Give them more time? If there were people saying there weren't any Weapons why the need to give them more time?). The claim that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction (say that instead of WMD and you realize how scary it was that he had them) now does not take away the fact that we believed he did have them. The question isn't should we have gone in as much as what do we do now.

It is very nice to think that we can just wipe the slate clean, pretend the past never happened, and just start looking to for "what do we do now"?

Here's your problem: to solve a problem, you have admit there was a problem. And no one in this administration is going to admit there is problem, there was a problem, and there's going to be a future problem.

There must be a half-dozen solutions of what we can do now that will go nowhere because this administration cannot admit a failure.

To reiterate, here's what I would do:

1) give the Iraqis 1 year to get their act together. Yes, the insurgency will use that one year, but so should the Iraqis. The Iraqis have to be made to understand that they have been given an opportunity few in Middle East ever get. Their fate is in their hand and if they squander that opportunity, they squandered themselves.

2) start airlifting Iraqis out of Iraq for basic training. It's obvious this "on-the-job-training" isn't working.

3) Indentify just who this insurgency is. Please, the idea that these are just "foreign fighters" is a crock. This is too well organized to be a group of Pakistani goat herders. It should be clear to anyone the insurgency is being fueled by the old Republican guard.

4) Secure the borders with Syria and Iran and that's going to require more troops.

I think that's good for a start. What do you think?

 

[What the Heck]

Her message is becoming political because political groups are rallying around her. That does not follow that she is only political or pushing a political agenda is all she is out for. Obviously, if she is telling the President she wants him to withdraw the troops, then that it is a message with political ramifications. The point you slimers are making is that all she is out for is politics and she is using her son's death for political gain. That is vile.

Well, perhaps if she wasn't a charter member for a far, far left political group (not just a member, but a charter member, someone who helped estabilish it) you might be right; or if she hadn't already met with the President about it you might be right; or if she hadn't met with some of his staff members you might be right. However, all of what I have just said did happen. She already met with him, she is a charter member of a far left wing group who's purpose it so have him impeached, she has met with members of his staff.

Instead of asking "what would Jesus do" how about asking what would her son really want. I know that when I was in, most troops abhored the type of group she started. We would defend her right to protest, but would be sickened when she would claim she was protesting for us. Our response would be that we already had a mother, thank you, we don't need another. To us, what she is doing, that is vile.

 

[DisDuck]

TA.. You are the only one besides me who has attempted to give a 'what do we do now' answer. My difference with you is that I think the idea that the insurgency would take advantage of the time-table, ie. sit back and wait for us to leave IS ACTUALLY A POSITIVE thing. Why? Because this would bring a measure of security and stability to the country allowing for training and rebuild. In reality, I think the insurgents will continue to attack; therefore, giving LIE to the claim that a time-table is a detriment. If the attacks are going to take place whether we stay or go then why not reduce our casualties by going.